Talk:Romania

Establishment history

Hi Ninhursag3, that is the proper talk page to talk about your edit. You changed the stable version of the article, then started an edit war when I restored the classic Vlad image and the earlier establishment history as I commented in the edit logs [1]

Personal union does not mean union of states, before Michael the Brave, little earlier Sigismund Bathory also had the title together Prince of Transylvania+Moldavia+Wallachia (this can be also an establishment history by your logic?). Principality of Transylvania was not part of Principality Wallachia just because Michael the Brave was the prince of both state in a short 1 year period during a wartime, morover Michael was under the suzerainty of Emperor Habsburg Rudolf II as Principality of Trasylvania belonged to the land of the Hungarian crown. Many kings were crowned kings of many countries together, it does not mean union of those states. I dont see any country articles where if a ruler ruled A and B countries that would establishment event of A and B country. Like King Louis I of Hungary was king of Poland too, and I dont see that it would be establishment event in Hungary or in Poland. Habsburgs king also ruled many countries, like Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor ruled Netherlands and Spain, why would be this the establishment history of Spain and Netherlands? And there are many more examples.

I also I dont understand why you claimed 2x that unification of Wallachia, Moldavia in 1859 and 1918... OrionNimrod (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"Habsburgs king also ruled many countries, like Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor ruled Netherlands and Spain, why would be this the establishment history of Spain and Netherlands?" It's considered important in Romanian history since Michael the Brave was a Romanian ruler and Tranyslvania was ruled for a long time by non-Romanians/Vlachs, the majority ethnicity in Transylvania (not in the cities, but a majority in the towns and villages and became a majority in cities as well). So a Romanian/Vlach ruler having ruled over Transylvania way back in 1600 shows an IMPORTANT precedent in history, taking into account that Transylvania has been part of Romania since 1918. Since the present day country of Romania INCLUDES Transylvania, I would say it's important in Romania's history.

Have a good day. Ninhursag3 (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There are many important rulers in all countries, and I dont see them as establishment event in any countries in the articles. And the Hungarian Stephen Bathory was prince of Transylvania and later king of Poland, I dont see nowhere that event would be establishment history of Poland or Hungary.

Michael the Brave is a Romanian nationalists symbol since 19th century from the time of national awakening, but not before. If a Habsburg-Hungarian war story Michael ruled for some months Transylvania by name of Emperor Rudolf, because Hungarian nobles had conflict with their Hungarian prince and elected Michael, if this is important for you, ok. But this is still not a state establishment history. The countries were not united.

Transylvania is part of Romania since 1920, Treaty of Trianon legally. If WW1 loser Romania re-entered the war 1 day before the German armistice and attacked again Hungary when Hungary was 1 week already capitulated and then made the one sided 1918 assembly in December where Romanians claimed all Hungarian lands until the Tisza river, that does not mean any legal thing, Hungarian assembly in Kolozsvár in 1918 also claimed the same. Also the Trianon border got less land to Romania which they claimed in that 1918 assembly. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

To clarify: Michael the Brave's rule over Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania wouldn't be an establishment date if Transylvania was still part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it would be a historical event during a certain reign of a certain ruler. However, since Transylvania has been part of Romania since 1918 and Michael the Brave was a Romanian ruler it sets a historical precedent and can be considered an important historical event in Romania's establishment history. As a comparison, it's similar to the Spanish Reconquista, where the Spanish (them being the majority ethnicity in Spain) finally ruled again after almost 800 years (711-1492) of Umayyad and Emirate of Granada Muslim Arab & Berber rule, Spain at that time being called Al-Andalus. Of course, the comparison is best if we take the 1918 union into account but the rule of Michael the Brave would be a historical precedent to the 1918 union.

781 years of muslim rule over Spain is close to the Hungarian rule over Transylvania and Romanians (Kingdom of Hungary 1000-1541 AD, 1541–1699 Ottoman Hungary, Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) vassal state of the Ottoman Empire; Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867) under Austrian Habsburg rule, Transylvania under the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867-1918) ). Without the Ottoman and Austrian Habsburg rule, the sole Hungarian rule is 500+ years. I think you should make comparisons with other countries' histories as well and have a more global view of history instead of just focusing on Hungary or Transylvania.

Have a good day. Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It was not any state union in 1600, but only a personal union (like Stephen Bathory ruled Transylvania+Poland), so I dont know what are you talking about. Morover the population in 1600 is a historical debate, Romanian historians vision "always majority Romanian" while Hungarian historians not. British historian, Martyn Rady - Nobility, land and service in medieval Hungary: page 90 [2] "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania." OrionNimrod (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Georgraphy and climate

In this section Romania is considered largest country in South Eastern Europe but this is false Turkey is the largest country in South Eastern Europe. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of Turkey is Asian, geographically and culturally. Stop the BS. 2A02:2F04:FA17:4500:780B:FE20:BD1D:5A4D (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive sock

14.8% irreligion is made up of whole cloth by User:Herplas, who is indeffed as WP:SOCK.

While a big chunk of those 9.01% are probably irreligious, all bets are off for the 4.94%, since they weren't even asked that question. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

There is an outdated source in the source list. I would like to provide a new link. DonutEducate (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

No source says that

@Vellutis: Which WP:RS says 14.3% irreligion?

You wrote When evaluating religious beliefs based on the tablets used by recensors in 2021, unanswered or missing data was not considered indicative of any specific religious belief. ... and "any specific religious belief" includes irreligion.

Let me tell it as it is: for about 4% there is absolutely no data about their religious beliefs, so we can never claim they are irreligious. The rest of about 9% refused to answer. We may guess they are (most of them) irreligious, however no WP:RS says that. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)