Talk:Romanians/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Atheism

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

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

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

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

Picture replacement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popor

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

Related ethnic groups

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

• "modern Bulgarians are more closely related to other Balkan populations (Macedonians, Greeks, Romanians) than to the rest of the Europeans."

>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12542743?dopt=Abstract … —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.61 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Surnames

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

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

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

78.151.173.120 (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)It's Baltic by its origin and you are much more Balts (means white people) than any other group (except Moldavians), the same is true and with Belorussians-Gudai (means white/Baltic russians, but in Lithuania they are called Gudai or herd hunters), Ukrainians (means living on the edge of the areal - it's slavic form, but comes from Baltic-Lithuanian language Pa-krastenai), Latvians (means people with boats 'Luotai'), Bulgars (comes from 'buliu varovai'=bulls' drivers, previously Bulvarai or Avarai meaning 'aviu varovai'=sheeps' drivers or sheperds) and Moldavians (means 'Maldauviai'=prayers). We together were Huns (means herd hunters) and Vandals (means water)!!! Do not forget that!!! All these names (together with Attila ('Eitila' running the office, similarly we have 'Vaidila'=a chief priest), Rugila (a rye), Uptaris (mentor/adviser), Celts (to ferry/migrate/ressetle), Goths-Gudai (herd hunters), Trakai(a cut place in the middle of the forest), Gauls-Galiai (powerful people)) are Lithuanian names/words and still in use TODAY...You CAN even check your family names I added in the main article..........Aryans=AREJAI=Ploughmen 78.151.173.120 (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Care to cite any sources? BalkanFever 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Romanians in Italy

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

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

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

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

Map of Regions Inhabited by Romanians

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

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

• [3]

• [4] - a more modern map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

here is another map i found

[6].

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first map (at http://www.halgal.com/graphics/PUR/Eurethnic.jpg) looks like Magosci's work, his historical atlas of central eastern Europe is regarded as a seminal work and reflects the latest and best scholarship on the region.—PētersV (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Too old. Things have changed significatively. E.g., there are no Germans left in Romania. Dpotop (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a question for Dahn: If you care so much for census data, why do you agree to leave Targu Mures in a Hungarian majority (blue) zone in the envsec map? My impression is that the last census clearly places Targu Mures in Romanian majority zone. Are you really interested in presenting census data, or in demolishing "Romanian national myths"? Dpotop (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The map [10] seems OK to me. It's not even WP:OR, nor WP:RS, because it's census data (which we can provide here regardless of the reliability of the one who made the graphical presentation). And there's even a shade on "Moldovans" to satisfy Dahn. Dpotop (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, take care what you put as map name. There are Romanians in Harghita and Covasna, so if you use one of the first 4 maps, the name cannot be the one you propose (map of regions inhabited by Romanians). Dpotop (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Romanians in Italy (Again)

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

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

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

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

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

Dahn, you obviously know a lot more about this subject than I and, no, I did not see previous threads (this is a long talk page!). However, this reference[7]] clearly states 550k "officially registered as living in Italy", i.e. "Residents". The BBC article, unfortunately, is about the deportation of some 1000 "criminal" Romanians and refers to the 500k only in passing. I point to it only because it corroborates the numbers... The first article clarifies this comment, and as official residents they DO live in Italy permanently. Yes, you are correct in that many or most were not subtracted from the census, but that issue applies to most western european and overseas countries listed. If you are going to take this approach with the Italian figures, you must also take it accross the board (For example, the Spanish reference takes "residents" from Romania, NOT Spanish- Romanian citizens). Mariokempes (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

disclaimer

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

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

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

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

Better distinction between peoples having similar etnonims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected (tenth time)

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

Confusion between ethnonyms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But AdrianTM, as Bogdangiusca pointed out in a discussion above [8], Bulgars is ambiguous, since they are ethnically related to the Bulgarians and are (for this reason) sometimes known as "proto-Bulgarians." But Romanies and Romanians are not ethnically related, and in fact, there is no evidence for any confusion between the two. The only "evidence" the other Adrian has presented is (1) an Italian article where a Romanian soccer/football player was called a "gypsy," (2) an editorial in an Italian newspaper in which a "confusion" was mentioned between (ethnic?) Romanians and Romanian citizens of Romani origin, and (3) a Romanian article about an Italian diplomat who called an Italian Rom "Romanian."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, you the Romanians that are so concerned about confusions between Rrom and Romanian, why don't you use the double "r" form of the name? When Rromani politicians from Romania asked for the adoption of the term Rrom instead of "ţigan (gypsy)", they specifically asked that the double "r" form to be used for avoiding confusions. But it seems that while the Romanians are very concerned about possible confusions nobody uses the double "r" form! AKoan (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, cultural and geopolitical awareness is so poor particularly in America, where you have to explain that the Balkans are not the Baltics and vice versa, that it makes sense to make the distinction since "gypsy" has fallen out of favor and it's no leap at all for an uninformed person to think "Roma" and "Romanian" and variants are all related. —PētersV (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Gedankenexperiment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

look: [9] [10] articles in New York Times, in which the Bulgarians are called "Bulgars". bogdan (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spelling mistakes

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

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

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

Please, enough!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

adding image

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

Territories inhabited by Romanians before WWI

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

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

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

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

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

Români and Rumâni both forms used by romanian people

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

See also Wallachians, Walloons, Welschen etc.

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

cognatus => cumnat

cogitare => cugeta

ntro => intru

scribo => scriu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I note that shorter oxford english dictionary [11] lists both spellings. I'm pretty sure the OED counts as a "scholarly qualified source" for english spellings.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have to repeat what I previously said:

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

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

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

My compromise proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dictionary says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear 84.153.54.19, please quote the whole text:

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

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

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

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

I would like to present you also this page, but unfortunately, the romanian version is not available (but it will surely be soon available again). There you can read : "Federaţia rumânilor din Sârbie". Hear also some songs: [12] and [13]. --Olahus (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Read here: "Noi suntem rumani"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's deprecated form, as far as I know it's never used in official English documents, the "Romanian" form is preferred. According to google "Roumanian" is used about 1 in 1000 cases (and that includes old documents and references to old writings and languages where Roumanian form is preferred, e.g., French) if I were to search only new items and only English the result with be even more clear. And of course you'll have linguists that will tell you that there is no such thing as "wrong" form of a word, only less common used form, which is the case here. "Rumanian" scores better than "Roumanian", but it's still 1 in 100 or so if you compare with "Romanian". -- AdrianTM (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is in English and the use of the word Romani does not apply to Romanians / Rumanians within the English language. Romani is a word surviving for hundreds of years that applies to an ethnic group of people living in Europe who originate from India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.254.123 (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)