Talk:Romania

Examples of bias in the article
I do not have time, there are countless untrue facts here. Just a clear example: "Women without a threshold number of children who repeatedly failed to conceive were required to pay a steep "celibacy tax".". I have no idea where on earth did you find such information, but most surely you never though how reliable it was; what's this mysterious threshold? It is untrue, I do not have time to give you reliable sources, but I know how things worked because I did live there (although I was 8 years old at the revolution). I had an aunt with no children and she never had any problem. I know countless women with one children and no problem either, about one fifth of the families in the city could have one children and that was not a problem. You may still say that abortion was eventually legalized in Romania some 30 years earlier than in Ireland.

An important detail you forgot: Ceausescu hired aliens from a different galaxy to have sex with Romanian women so they can have many children
There are as many proofs for this as for the "celibacy tax" you mentioned, they are both surely true. I tried to insert this addition, but the page is blocked. Where does this violence come from?

I added text on the historical perspective on democratic elections and it was undemocratically erased even from the page history
Why such violence? Tell me what is logically wrong with the text that is now even deleted from history? I have to paste a modified version below, hoping you won't violently delete everything you don't like. People can not even talk, you are to weak to give rational arguments.

The first democratic elections took place in Romania in the 1860. But the goal of this section is neither to provide a historical perspective nor to discuss the present-day democracy (like the losers from conservapedia). Why should we do such a discussion? Let us look mainly on what happens in the 1980s, not because the 1980s are more relevant than the 1920s or the 2010s, but because the goal of this section is to stain the reputation as much as possible. And the 1980s are the best years for this purpose. Exactly as those criticised below because they seek to glorify their nation by whatever means possible., the goal of this section is to discredit the same nation by whatever means possible.


 * That's a very conveniently edited version of the content that I just removed. That wasn't the problem. It was your commentary on this article being a mean-spirited attempt to discredit Romania by any means possible that was the problem. Spud (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You missed the point. When the article qualifies some people as "cranks" because they seek [[Nationalist pseudohistory|glorify their nation by

whatever means possible.]], how comes this is perfectly fine? It's the exactly the same thing that you seem to say you don't accept.
 * Three points. One, stop spamming the talkpage. Two, stop putting new topics at the top of the talkpage. Three,  12:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. Your translation program isn't very good. 12:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I commented on why using a heading section "Woo". Why not change the whole title to "Woo Romania"?
I was deleted in less than 3 seconds. It seems that GrammarCommie has nothing useful to say. Pay attention to Matthieu 7:15. The fact that GrammarConnie says is anti-communist does not not mean he/she does not like a violent totalitarian rule. On this rationalwiki page, he/she is the great comrade, paying attention to preserving his/her doctrine for future generations. He/she says nothing that can be scientifically verified, but he is the RULER, no better than Ceausescu (of course, he/she does not realize it).
 * Or I don't give a shit and deleted your comment because it was in the article instead of on the talkpage. Just a thought. 13:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. " Doesn't apply since A) I never claimed to be a prophet. B) fully admit to being a bad person. and C) It applies to every prophet ever, including those in the Bible, and especially the one who was the supposed origin of the quote. Thus D) making that advice almost worthless. 14:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The thing is maybe not only a story about prophets, I think it may apply to other social/moral activists as well, but who knows? Then, really, why not change the title of the page to "Woo Romania"? I will accept my condition, no worries, most people on this planet don't like Romanians and consequently don't like me -- although I hate to the guts many Romanians and their thinking; I do not propose some Romanian better thinking to anybody. The most important thing is to change the title to "Woo Romania", this would spare many people the effort of reading all that, everything is seen in the title. Still, you like it or not, in Romania or Cuba women could vote earlier than in France. In Cuba everything has been broken over time. In Romania, women voting could last over several decades, both before the 1940s and after the 1990s. Democracy now works significantly better than in Poland, Russia, Turkey, Hungary, not to think of far away countries Vietnam, Algeria, China, Venezuela. After the famous Arab Spring, things really changed only in Tunisia. Tunisia got a Noble prize for peace for some party/group, but Tunisia's dictator is 10000 richer than Ceausescu and he was completely unpunished (now he should enjoy some beach in Saudi Arabia). Never say such a think, just "Woo Romania".
 * I don't hate Romania or Romanians. Maybe it's whatever translation program you're using but that just doesn't make sense on my end. Secondly, Matthew 7:15 is specifically a "prophet" trying to con people into using only his "prophecies", and his "prophecies" alone. Further most of the Bible means exactly what it says and has little to no applicability outside of the book's narrative. Finally, as to your claims concerning Romanian politics and policies, if you cite some reputable sources it's possible that they will be reconsidered, or at least re-examined. 15:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The authors of such article will never reconsider or reexamine anything for the following reasons.
 * The article is written by people like you of limited intellectual power (attention: I did not say brain damaged) who do not see that they simply behave as repeaters/amplifiers of some politically-correct state dogmas everybody has already heard over and over again. In fact, by amplifying the ideas, you exaggerate to the point of even losing the good sides of political correctness.
 * You said yourself that you are a bad person
 * The article contains many untrue facts and such rubbish is perfectly fine to you. Just one more example of plain bullshit: the article says how Romanians pretend to be some master race if I remember correctly. This kind of superiority/inferiority complex arises only in former imperial nations, Romania could never dominate any other country since 100AD. Anyway, I am sure you do not really believe such bullshit, because your brain is not damaged but only limited. Conclusion: you do not target the truth, but only some wishful thinking, jokes, lies and rubbish.


 * To summarize: (1) limited brain, (2) bad person, (3) rubbish-lover. Conclusion: Your rubbish on your head, I'm innocent.


 * ps. 1. I do not use any translator. Looking over my text briefly, I noticed I wrote "of course" instead of "off course", a translator would never do this. Such language issues are not the concern of people engaged in any elevated intellectual pursuit, which matches perfectly with my point 1 above.


 * ps. 2.2. Maybe read 1 Corinthians 9:9 to see how it gives an example of a statement that should not be only interpreted in the literal/direct/physical meaning.
 * If there are factual errors on the page, just correct them. Preferably citing reliable sources that are preferably in English. Do not add any more comments to the article about the article being bad. Comments like that belong here on the talk page, not on the article itself. Do not complain about the use of the word "woo". That's a word we use a lot here on RW. We even have a page called Woo. But, no, this article should not be called "Woo Romania". For one thing, that's ungrammatical. For another thing, that's not what the entire article is about. You're not going to impress anyone here by quoting the Bible at them. And the fact is your English isn't very good. You have made plenty of mistakes in your comments here and the vandalism you added to my user page made no sense at all. Spud (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)