This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Romania was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 26 March 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DaciaWikipedia:WikiProject DaciaTemplate:WikiProject DaciaDacia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
According to the sources given, Romania is a developed economy. By far, all the sources support the fact that the country is developed, including the GDP Per capita (nominal). It is time to accept it (for whoever keeps editing it).
Also, Transylvania is part of Central Europe, so the previous version of the page was more accurate.
There is a difference between "high human development" (e.g. Romania) and "very high human development" (countries traditionally considered "first world" countries). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I know that, but Romania's HDI is classified as “very high”, with only Bulgaria having “high human development” from all the EU countries. 92.83.153.46 (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Romania is not recognized as being very high income, or an advanced economy. Romania isn't even part of the OECD. HetmanWL (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I inquire, @HetmanWL, why did you remove two references that I added, with the curt comment "Unreliable sources cited for Romania being in Central Europe removed"? The first reference ("Romania – a Central-European country") is from a scholarly journal article published by Radu Săgeată, a researcher at the Institute of Geography of the Romanian Academy, thus presumably a real expert on this matter, while the second ("Romania as a Case Study for a Dynamic Central Europe") is a report from the well-known strategic intelligence publishing company Stratfor. On what basis did you dismiss these two sources as being "unreliable"? Turgidson (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Researchgate is not a reliable source, it's a hub pretty much anyone can publish in. Stratfor is a company for hire and not listed as a reliable source AFAIK, furthermore, the article doesn't state that Romania is Central Europe, it's about the Three Seas Initiative, the Bucharest Nine etc.
Consider Ukraine. Would you also say that it's at the crossroads of Central, Southeastern and Eastern Europe? It has Lviv (formerly Lwów), "culturally in Central Europe" which makes Ukraine a partly Central European country, right? No. Consider Bulgaria. It's plainly stated - Southeastern Europe. Consider Spain. It's plainly stated - Southwestern Europe.
Also User:Shqian made an interesting observation: "The source you provided puts Romania in southeastern Europe, not in the southeastern part of central Europe:" "From it’s creation up until 18:14, 8 April 2018, this article placed Romania solely in southeastern Europe." "At 01:04, 11 April 2018, the user made another edit described as: a minor linking edit in the beginning of the article. This edit put Romania in central Europe, as well as southeastern and eastern Europe." HetmanWL (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Researchgate is not a reliable sourceHetmanWL, you don't get it at all. ResearchGate is not a source in the first place, it's a paper-sharing website. The Romanian Academy is the most prestigious and authoritative academic institution in Romania. Someone working at its Institute of Geography is definitively reliable. By the way, your examples like Ukraine are WP:OTHERSTUFF which shouldn't be affecting the discussion regarding Romania. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the majority of countries being "high" or "very high"... I thought they were more selective. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Imageddddd.pngMany cities in Romania is quite in Central Europe @HetmanWL, why do you remove Central Europe? Not whole Romania is part of Central Europe, but some regions part of it. Like Turkey and Russia has European and Asian parts. Oradea, Arad = Great Hungarian Plain, + Transylvania is Central Europe. Why would be sources for this? And if users provide sources why do you remove them anyway? OrionNimrod (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Ukraine in Central Europe because it has Lviv/Lwów/Lemberg? HetmanWL (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that region of Ukraine is historically and geographically part of Central Europe. It's not about putting it in one SINGLE box, and in these cases one can mention 2 or 3 regions if needed. The leading paragraph allows one to say that Ukraine is a the "crossroads of Eastern and Central Europe". Razvan Valentin Marinescu 05:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet Ukraine is described simply as a country in Eastern Europe. HetmanWL (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what has oecd to do with it? the sources for being categorized as developed point to an UN study which states the the country is Developed. Can someone who isn't completely illiterate read that study? 85.221.16.108 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sources after the paragraph. There is a disparity between the sources (mentioning Romania as being "developed") and the paragraph (mentioning it is "developing"). We need to agree with the sources we state in the article itself. This has nothing to do with Hdi, but with the mentioned source. 85.221.16.108 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly still being discussed and not ready for an admin to implement. * Pppery *it has begun... 15:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The user that keeps changing seems to be obsessed with Croatia not being in South-Eastern Europe as well, instead using "Mediterranean"
To me what happens seems more like pushing an agenda. Andymxm (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally never edited anything related to Croatia. But it has to be noted that Croatia is included into Central Europe much more often (sometimes/rarely) than Romania (which is pretty much never). I think I'd use "Balkan" for Croatia still. The latest EU summit this month, concerning that region was called the EU-Western Balkans summit. Romania could be thought of as Eastern Balkans. But I digress. A look at the map is enough. HetmanWL (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Croatia belongs to Central Europe as much as Romania does.
Transylvania and Bukowina sum up to be 50% of the country territory, just like Slavonia in Croatia, most governmental sources regard Romania as a country in the SouthEastern part of CENTRAL Europe, so denying both East and South-Eastern.
I think it's fair to hold an obiective approach because both geographically and culturally Romania has ties in Central Europe, whole or partially. Andymxm (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is just your personal opinion. Wikipedia operates on consensus, what the majority of sources hold. Check out Central EuropeHetmanWL (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a personal opinion, it is a fact, a fact that most people agree to before countless times. Romania is not an omogenous country and each region belongs to a different cultural and Geographic group, therefore we shall classify it as such Andymxm (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you're lying. You can see how most people view the matter on Central Europe. Cheers, and a happy new year! HetmanWL (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with @HetmanWL and agre with @Andymxm. I think the previous formulation that Romania is at "the crossroads of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe" is the most representative and balanced towards all regions of Romania. Razvan Valentin Marinescu 05:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to hold that opinion, dear Razvan Valentin Marinescu, unfortunately no institution puts Romania as a Central European country. Here on Wikipedia we're based on facts, not opinions or feelings. But we can all dream! HetmanWL (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this thread is to reach consensus, we're not going anywhere that way because it feels like it's one person versus everyone else, there are sources and maps placing Romania is Central Europe as well, at least culturally speaking, even the Romanian official touristic site places Romania in Central Europe.
I think we should leave aside agendas and biases and just accept things as they are. Andymxm (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey folks, I see there is a lot of talk regarding the region and much less about the developed/developing part. This has led to statements in the article which are simply not reflective of the sources used (references 20, 21, 22) of the currently protected version, so I would like to separate the two in order to more easily build a path forward.
For the developing/developed statement, my suggestion would be to go forward with a text that strictly reflects the sources, such as: The UN considers Romania as a developed country,[20][21][22] while the IMF is still including it in the developing and emerging group.<ref>https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2023/April/groups-and-aggregates</ref> The country is emerging to be a middle power in international affairs[...] (of course, better sources are welcome).--Strainu (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the regions, I support the "crossroads" version. We definitively don't need "institutions" saying whether Romania is in a certain region or not, institutions like the UN have zero say over abstract topics like the regional subdivision of Europe. No instituion has any authority over this, and as long as we can find reliable sources attributing a region to a certain country I think we're fine.
Regarding the developing/developed I am pretty sure Romania is right now in the transition between the two, having recently been declared a World Bank high-income economy and being in the process of joining the OECD. I find it normal that some sources say Romania is still a developing country and others saying it is already a developed one, I think a good solution would be to mention both to reflect that currently there is no consensus or just use one of the two because it doesn't matter anyway as Romania will be universally considered developed in some years. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with @Super Dromaeosaurus. Regarding the developing part, in my opinion Romania has domains that are already very developed, such as the internet network system(one of the best in the whole Europe), while other economy areas require more concern and development. I believe that the statement that says that Romania is in transition between the developing/developed part is the most correct. RaduGiurca12 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I suggest removing the developed/developing country distinction from the last paragraph wholesale. HDI doesn't distinguish between developed and developing countries anyway. The IMF kind of does, and according to it Romania is an *emerging market*. I propose the last paragraph of the lede simply start with "Romania is a parliamentary republic" and continue as the lede currently stands: "and is emerging to be a middle power," or, in addition, it could be highlighted that Romania is classified as an emerging market. HetmanWL (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to hold that opinion, dear Razvan Valentin Marinescu, unfortunately no institution puts Romania as a developed country and the sources referenced do not correspond to what is written. Here on Wikipedia we're based on facts, not opinions or feelings. I'd also like to note that according to the IMF, Slovakia has a larger GDP (PPP) per capita than Romania, while all (Greece, Slovakia, Latvia) have a larger GDP (nominal) per capita. HetmanWL (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the same sources, Bulgaria is a developed country, while Romania appears as developing. Stop pushing an agenda. 188.26.10.215 (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then the Bulgaria page is wrong. Thanks for pointing out, already corrected it.
Nowhere in the references cited does it state that either Romania or Bulgaria are developed countries. HetmanWL (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to hold that opinion, dear Razvan Valentin Marinescu, unfortunately no institution puts Romania as a developed country and the sources referenced do not correspond to what is written. Here on Wikipedia we're based on facts, not opinions or feelings. I'd also like to note that according to the IMF, Slovakia has a larger GDP (PPP) per capita than Romania, while all (Greece, Slovakia, Latvia) have a larger GDP (nominal) per capita. HetmanWL (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get it from that high-income economy according to the World Bank stratification of the economies of the world = developed nation? HetmanWL (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HetmanWL here on Wikipedia we're based on sources. In the first source, Romania is declared as developed in the tables on pages 125, 135, 142 etc. Same in the other two. If you dispute the source, perhaps we should move towards a more specific statement, such as "The UN considers Romania as a developed country". Happy new year! Strainu (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources listed (world economic situation prospects from UN) all list Romania as developed. I think people here have a problem reading the tables. 85.221.16.108 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mrazvan22 promotes a subjective POV of Romania[edit]
The mentioned user is encouraging Reddit user to contribute to Romania's talk page in order to promote a positive narrative of Romania: as a Central European country and as a developed country.
As such, any countributions of Mrazvan22 are not made in good faith. GaiusWild (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's far from the truth assuming that the changes made by the given user are not in good faith. Reddit itself is not the place where you invite people to push agendas because nobody else outside the wiki bubble cares. Regarding the matter, both statements are correct, but it depends on which basis we refer to, because on a geopolitical and economical level Romania is a developed country, but it still lacks the IMF grade along with other Central European countries.
Regarding its position, the page indicated not a single region for many years because the country itself is not omogenous, with traits belonging to different cultural and geopolitical areas. It is not a country that you can put in a single region, most official classifications put countries in single regions for simplicity, both Croatia and Serbia use the same methodology, both countries belong officialy in Southeastern Europe, but they are commonly associated with Central Europe for historical and cultural reasons, moreover The territory of present day Romania is 50% belonging geographically and culturally to Central Europe ( see Carpathian Basin ).
In my opinion, I think it's bad behaviour to criticize and analyse the move of each individual user. Andymxm (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is very weird whitewashing of a totally explicit example of agenda-pushing. The user literally says that pushing a positive agenda will bring investors to the country. That is so brash and outrageous. 2A00:F41:1C6A:14BD:1CB7:F28A:4C40:FB8A (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agenda for what exactly? I was in favor of keeping the “exact same formulations” we’ve had in a stable manner for 1+ years, and which I didn’t introduce in the first place. If you look at the page history, I was not the one who introduced them, and neither who started disrupting this in December. I do however get upset when I see others trying to disrupt something that was good all along. Razvan Valentin Marinescu 00:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discussion. Outrageous behavior. You're literally calling for brigading Wikipedia. You must be banned. 2A00:F41:482C:A7AE:D557:B614:639D:2B19 (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making changes in bad faith. I posted on Reddit mostly to talk about narratives and other things, and indeed I mentioned the talk page here as an example of the argument I was trying to make there. As I wrote above, I didn’t start this edit war, and only reverted that’ll Romania page once (if I remember correctly) over the last month. I was in favor of keeping the same formulations we’ve had for more than 1 year (both for geographical position and for the developed/developing status). And I didn’t introduce any of those in the first place. I apologize if I mentioned the wiki edit war, I was initially trying to bring more voices here and there is nothing wrong with that. Yet I can see how it can be seen as whatever X or Y, so I will remove the mentioning about wiki from the Reddit post. Most of that dialogue wasn’t about this anyway. Hope this clarifies. Razvan Valentin Marinescu 00:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also support to keep the stable version which was many years ago. I listed above arguments why parts of Romania is part of Central Europe. OrionNimrod (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stable version is the one which stood from the page's creation decades ago, describing Romania as Southeast Europe (as does Britannica and every other source), up until mid-2018 when it was changed baselessly and without a citation by a single user. Are you a sockpuppet of Razvan Valentin Marinescu/Mrazvan22? Or are you partaking in brigading from Reddit? 2A00:F41:482C:A7AE:D557:B614:639D:2B19 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand, if people don't agree with you they must be "partaking"? I think you are clearly getting offensive on other users with more "history" on wikipedia. None of the people here use reddit in the first place. I think you are the one who should be put down for the behaviour expressed. I rest my take Andymxm (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If 1 million users say “the sky is blue” probably they are the sockpuppets of 1 user :):):) geography is a very general and easy thing. I do not like that behavior, when anonym ip users with obvious good wikipedia knowledge attack articles and real users. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure this is a heavy violation of WP:CANVASS which would normally be worth a big fat sanction. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus not achieved yet User Turgidson pushes changes to the lede[edit]
As above. There is no consensus. Wikipedia operates on consensus. Try for an RfC in this situation or stand by. This edit pushing is in line with Mrazvan's confirmed case of brigading/canvassing of Wikipedia 79.191.151.137 (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant topic, consensus was already reached, banned and hidden users are not welcome. Andymxm (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mrazvan22 is banned, see WP:CANVASS. What you say is irrelevant, as there is no such rule. There is no consensus and of the 3 references for Romania being in Central Europe, one is unencyclopedic/not reliable and the two other do not refer to Romania as being Central European at all and are false citations. 79.191.151.137 (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@79.191.151.137 I don't know if things have changed in the meantime, but now the sources for Central Europe and the idea of crossroads between regions are:
A research paper published in the Romanian Review on Political Geography (scientific journal from the University of Oradea), written by a professor at the Institute of Geography of the Romanian Academy in Bucharest. It opens with: "Romania – a Central-European country. The mathematical coordinates of Romania’s geographical position, the distances separating it from the extreme points of the Continent and the big natural domains individualising it, place this country in the south-eastern part of Central Europe. This reality is confirmed by the geographical works published during the inter-war period..."
The website of the Romanian Embassy in the US. It says: "Geographic position: in the south-east of Central Europe."
An older article published by Stratfor, which is an american organization for strategic and geopolitical intelligence advisory. They write: "Romania, an important Central European country, can serve as a case study..."
Supporting this issue there are now additional sources I've added:
A general NATO introductory report, from Romania's accession in 2004. Their 'Geographical Location' section mentions: "Romania is located in South-East Central Europe, north of the Balkan Peninsula, on the Lower Danube, [...] at the contact of Central Europe with Eastern Europe and the Balkan Peninsula, at the junction of major west-east and north-south European routes. [...] its territory constituting a bridge between Central and Southeastern Europe and the Near East." (with added explanations)
The website of the Presidential Administration of Romania which states: "Geographical Facts. Romania lies in the northern hemisphere, in the south-eastern Central Europe at the junction with Eastern Europe and the Balkan Peninsula..."
Also, the United Nations geoscheme places Romania in Eastern Europe, while the CIA Factbook and Britannica consider it Southeast... In contrast, the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies in France (and European institutions in general) square it in the "Central and Eastern Europe" category. I would say that all this is sufficient to showcase the statement: "Romania is a country at the crossroads of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe.". There are very specific arguments as to why because of the main regions that formed Romania (Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia + Dobruja in the South), with their respective history plus geographic position – added source briefly touching on that.
I don't understand this pedantic never-ending argument that has started. I don't see the pages of Serbia, Croatia, or Moldova (which is classed as both Eastern or Southeastern Europe depending on the source) having the same issue. Or Italy. -- Dhyana b (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an oversimplification & misconception. Romania is included in all 3 Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe Wikipedia articles, either in part or in whole, by various definitions. Even a source like Encyclopædia Britannica who places Romania in Southeast Europe, describes the kingdom of Dacia as: "Ancient country, central Europe. Roughly equivalent to modern Romania".
So it's clear the current classification has modern political reasoning behind it (they even classify Moldova as Southeastern Europe even though most sources would place it in Eastern Europe). Nevertheless, historically, geographically and culturally Romania's territory is tied to all 3 European regions. Dhyana b (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why Romania is at low importance in WikiProject Europe? I think that it should be high or top importance, but not low-importance. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
