Talk:Bucharest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bucharest is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Bucharest has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is part of the WikiProject on Cities which aims to improve and standardize articles on cities, towns, and other municipalities of the world. Make suggestions for improving multiple articles on these subjects at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities.

Contents 1 Archived 2 Transit Updates 3 International Mathematics Olympiad 4 "quite a large number" of beggars and homeless people 5 POV language 6 Let me remind you of what you are 7 Bucharest has more than 3.5 million people 8 Propaganda 9 an example of Propaganda 10 Missing referent? 11 Long list of links cut from infobox 12 km 0 13 Night life 14 Huh? 15 Gerund leads to ambiguity 16 Museum of Art Collections

[edit] Archived

• Archive 1: Old comments, Portrayal in film and fiction, Economy, Transportation, Mayor, Bucharest Plaza, The weak status of the Romanian leu... + This has surfaced again, GDP/budget statement, Population 2.3 mil?, City of Joy ?!?, Recently added city guide, Photos, Romany name, To reach featured status, Media/Architecture, To do, Religion, About the Roadnetwork, largest city between Berlin and Istanbul, Historical culture section?, Architecture, Climate, Districts Characteristics, Peer review, Justice, crime and police, Dâmboviţă vs. Argeş and the Danube, Summer, For the record, Architecture, Climate (again), Bucharest and orphans, NYTimes article about Bucharest, Obor

[edit] Transit Updates

There are numerous references to a proposed unification of the metro and surface transit services in "early 2006", which has obviously since passed. Can anyone provide updated information? 208.190.179.2 14:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Mathematics Olympiad

Bucharest hosted (with Brasov) the first International Math Olympiad. Overall, up to now, it hosted 4 olympiads out of 46, the latest one in 1999. Maybe this info could get in one of the sections (though I don't know where) AdamSmithee 18:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "quite a large number" of beggars and homeless people

The allegation "The city has quite a large number of beggars and homeless people" deserves careful examination.

If no evidence for the specification "quite a large number" can be produced within a reasonable frame of time, than it should be removed. --Vintila Barbu 10:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

All large cities have "many" homeless people. Médecins sans Frontières estimates that Bucharest has 5,000 homeless people. [1] But let's put this into perspective: Los Angeles has about 90,000 homeless people [2], Moscow 60,000, Budapest 10,000. [3] bogdan 13:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent arguments ! I tried to find out qualified statistics on homelessness on FEANTSA site [4] - unfortunalely real statistics are for members only.

Nevertheless, estimations which you delivered are plausible. Here are two in addition: Prague - 4-5000 Sweden - 17800

And here are simple proportions of homeless persons to hundred inhabitants (cities population according to [5])

Los Angeles 2,35%

Moscow 0,59%

Budapest 0,58%

Prague 0,3%

Bucharest 0,26%

Sweden 0,19%

However you consider it, asserting that beggars and homeless are in "quite a large number" is semantically vague and confusing and statistically not sustainable.

A more appropriate phrase could eventually be: compared to other capitals, B. has a relatively moderate proportion of homeless people. Beggars are either moderately visible . ....or somewhat alike

Regards, --Vintila Barbu 17:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume that the 5,000 identified by MsF would be homeless in the narrowest sense: lacking anywhere indoors to sleep from night to night. It would not include squatters, "couch-surfers" (to use an American term), etc. Do I understand correctly?

BTW, my own impression in 2001-2002: more beggars than a comparably Western European city, about the same number as a comparable American city, but far more child beggars than I had seen in either the U.S. or Western Europe. - Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Since begging is quite a volatile (urban) phenomen, there are no reliable estimations on this. Referring to the visibility of a phenomen or behaviour - as I previously suggested - is not a very good idea either.

What certainly can be said about homelessness in B. is:

it is by no means higher than in other European capitals

hits especialy minors

B. also has a relatively large social category of poor and very poor, who are not homeless

--Vintila Barbu 13:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV language

As the most important city in Romania, Bucharest has a broad range of educational facilities.

This to me sounds like POV language. If it said that the city is, by economic standards, the most important city, then perhaps it would've been okay; but otherwise, I don't agree with the wording. --Candide, or Optimism 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Bucuresti is Romania's capital, it is by far the biggest city in country and as you yourself admitted, certainly the most important by economic standards. Thus I don't see the statement as reflecting a POV, merely a (to me pretty obvious) fact. - Anclation 17:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say by economical standards. --Candide, or Optimism 17:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, it says that it is the most important city of Romania, period. Indeed, I just explained to you why I considered this to be accurate. If you don't agree, please provide arguements, and remember that by "most important" one doesn't automatically say it is the best, most beautiful or the worthy capital of Romania. - Anclation 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree because when it says that it's the most important city of Ro, it make it to sound as if it's the most important city when it comes to everything: economy, culture, education, tourism, research, and industry. I don't know if it is, but take Galati for instance: it's the most important city that produces steel. See, Bucharest is not the most important city in everything. --Candide, or Optimism 19:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

But Bucharest actually is the most important city in economy, culture, education, tourism, research and industry. Maybe in the 19th century, Iaşi had more influence on Romanian culture, but those days are long gone.

Anyway, you're interpreting both NPOV and the meaning of the word "important". Let me remind you the meaning of the word:

im·por·tant - adj. Strongly affecting the course of events or the nature of things. (dictionary.com) bogdan 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll think you'll have a hard time arguing that Bucharest is not Romania's most important city overall. Of course, certain cities are more important in certain domains - one can argue that Constanţa is the most important port, Galaţi is the most important steelmaking town, etc, but Bucharest is the most important city overall. This is not only by economic standards, but also culturally, educationally, demographically, etc. Nearly 10% of the Romanian population lives in Bucharest, and the next largest city has a population nearly seven times smaller. Ronline ✉ 10:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let me remind you of what you are

The city of Bucharest was just a chain of villages. These villages got some significance under Vlad III Dracula, as he upgrated the fortress that was to protect these villages. He prefered to stay in Bucharest, at times, as it was closer to the Ottoman Empire. He also fortified the Snagov island and the monastary, where he committed horrible acts of evil. In his third reign, he moved his headquorters from Targoviste to Bucharest. He died in late December 1476 and 513 years later, another evil Wallachian would die by the hands of his own people. What I'm getting at is that your city was born of evil, fed by evil, and is now evil. I think the city and its people are cursed. You are, however, master thieves. I'm not talking about the thieves that rob tourists and other hardworking citizens, nor am I talking about your politicians that have robbed the country and denied a reunification with Republic of Moldova. I'm talking about you stealing by legal ways. When the Two Principalities united, both regions were meant to develop at an equal pace. You, however, stole the de-facto capital of Iasi to Bucharest. Afterwards, you sent Cuza into exile and everything since then has gone wrong. You shameful beasts! You developed your own backyard while letting an entire historical region fall in decay. That historical region would've developed more on its own than under your corrupted leadership. But this is not what bothers me most. What bothers me most is that you, Tatars or whatever you are, think too highly of your selves. And why? Look in the mirror from time to time. You brag about your kids winning mathematic olympiads, as if you're saving the world from starvation. You're a people with no virtue. Your accent is ridiculous and you think that you are more Romanian than others. Your snobbery disgusts me! Anyway, I hope Steaua will win over Middlesbrough. Some Bucharestneans are okay, but most of you are idiots. Thanks for your precious time! --Candide, or Optimism 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese people say that same thing about Shanghai. Many provincial French say the same thing about Paris. Antagonism for people of the capital city is a trend in most countries of the world, particularly those where the capital is by far the largest and most important city. I'm not from Bucharest, so I don't have a personal interest here, but I think, as I said before, that what's good for Bucharest is good for Romania, and that hence any internal conflict just makes the entire country weaker and doesn't reflect well on any of us. Ronline ✉ 10:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bucharest has more than 3.5 million people

Unofficially, sociologists say that in its 228 square kilometres (88 sq mi), Bucharest has more than 3.5 million people, coming from every corner of the country.--Preacher, or Princelet 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Bucharest has less than 2 million people. The city that is. Who the hell taught you how to count, Bonaparte? --Candide, or Optimism 21:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting observation. I also recall that a few years ago there was a story in the media about how Bucharest was the most crowded city in Europe and that indeed it had more than 3 million people. However, I haven't found any sources for this in any other place, and it is very unbelievable that only a bit more than half of the population were counted in the census. From the trends, Bucharest's population is actually declining than growing, though this may have changed a bit after 2002. But I think the population of the Municipality is no more than 2.1-2.2 million at most. Ronline ✉ 00:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda

i just removed A poor city, where street dogs, beggars, and uncollected rubbish can make life difficult, it does have its charms. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, this is its weekness. Anti-Romanian Propagandists trying to build a false image about anything Romanian to the english reader, using Wikipedia as Propaganda channel, will have to understand that Romanians access to internet increases, and there will be more Romanian editors on Wikipedia in the future. Criztu 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. Statements like that actually make me very angry, particularly this idea of "poor". What is "poor" meant to mean anyway? You hear a lot of people arbitrarily saying "that's a poor country" or a "poor city". But "poor" without any further explanation basically refers to low-income countries and perhaps to some lower-middle income countries. Romania is an upper-middle income, and thus cannot be objectively classified as poor on an international scale. In fact, "rich" would probably be a more accurate description if we're really into seeing the world in a rich-poor binary system. With a GDP per capita more than double that of Romania, Bucharest is hardly "poor". We can say that the city is "relatively poor by European Union standards", but that's about it. Conversely, we could say that the city is "relatively wealthy by regional standards". I fail to see the point of such a comparison. Finally, though, I don't think that statement was intentional propaganda or an "Anti-Romanian" attempt. It's just that people have some stereotypes about the city dating from the 1990s which they can't get rid of. But it's proven statistically that the number of beggars is less in Bucharest than in other cities, and uncollected rubbish is more of a problem than in other European capitals, but far less of a problem than in the rest of the world. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

if u consider all articles about Romania, u will notice that, in the article about Dacia, these propaganda(or victims of propaganda) editors wrote "Trajan resolved to crush dacians once and for all", in the Roma people article they put an image with people wearing what i identified as romanian national costumes, and entitled "Roma in Transylvania", the Vlad Tepes article bears the title "Vlad Dracula" and anecdotes about him were presented as facts and he is referd to throughout the article as Dracula, in WW 1 Romania attacked the Central Powers from the back, and as soon as Romania was cornered cowardly signed a Peace Treaty that soon as situation changed and Central Powers weakened again, broke it, Transylvania is evidenced allover romanian articles as "Region Transylvania" and localities are situated "in Transylvania Region" instead of "Counties of Romania", when Transylvania has no actual administrative regional status, and there is more i cant remembere everything, but the overall image is a distortion of information about anything romanian as a result of Propaganda (may be it from other media channels) or with the intent of Propaganda Criztu 08:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that POV articles should all be corrected to conform to NPOV, but that this should also be done not in a pro-Romanian nationalistic way, as is too often the norm here. The Trasylvania issue is a bit different, and is actually used by a lot of Romanians, even though I don't particularly favour it. If you look over at the Romanian Wikipedia, you'll see that the articles on all localities start with "XYZ este o localitate în judeţul X, Transilvania, România". So it's not really any "external anti-Romanian propaganda". Plus, I really don't see how using Transylvania as a regional division is anti-Romanian. Sure, it has no administrative status, but it still is a cultural-historical (and geographic) region, and it's very much used by Romanians. In fact, regions are often used much more than counties in a cultural sense, since counties are quite arbitrary divisions. Most people I know describe a certain city as being in "Moldavia" or "Oltenia", and a person as being "oltean" or "moldovean" or "dobrogean" rather than "from Tulcea County" or "from Prahova County". So, these historical, informal regions are still somewhat important. I haven't seen any articles which say "Transylvania Region", with Region in capital letters, most of them just say stuff like "Oradea is a city in Bihor County, Transylvania, Romania", and I think that's OK, because it gives the reader much more information than just saying "Bihor County, Romania". Finally, I don't think there is a particular anti-Romanian bias in Wikipedia, since some articles are actually POV towards Romania, and articles about other countries are also affected by POV against them. We should seek to correct this, but also take into consideration the fact that the Romanian POV is usually not NPOV either. Ronline ✉ 08:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

well that form "locality X lies in county X, Transylvania, Romania" i regard as an achievement of Propaganda, and well, u see a form "Oradea is a city in Bihor County, Transylvania, Romania, cuz i edit all the articles that had the form "Oradea is a city in Transylvania region, Romania" Criztu 08:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's all over the Romanian Wikipedia, written by Romanians, and I don't see how it's in any way propaganda or anti-Romanian. Would you have anything against saying that "locality X lies in county X, Moldavia, Romania" or "--, Dobrogea, Romania". Do you deny the existence of these regions in Romania? Counties are administrative and official, but regions remain an important informal division. Or why not? Ronline ✉ 08:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if Academia Romana (or whoever edits an encyclopedia about geography of Romania) has "localitatea X, in judetul X, Transilvania, Romania" Criztu 09:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But what's the relevance of that? Perhaps an administrative almanac would not list localities with their historical regions, but how is including these regions negative or anti-Romanian? Ronline ✉ 09:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

well, i aint expert in propaganda, i dont know if my supposition that "by constantly associating places, persons, events, etc. with a Transylvania region, a consequent advancing of the ideea of a legal entity Transylvania separated from Romania would be regarded as a natural implementation of a status-quo by the public opinnion" would hold. Public opinnion i believe has to be informed about the true nature of Transylvania, that of a "former principality and autonomous province", and not "a province of Romania with special status" Criztu 10:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

here an effect of Propaganda in case of Transylvania - while no one bothers to mention name of Wallachia when it comes to locations in Romania, they all keep mentioning the name Transylvania when it comes to locations of Romania Criztu 13:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you do raise a valid point, but Transylvania is also probably the most different of the Romanian regions, having the strongest regional identity. But most city articles do not include any historical region, while most county articles, Transylvanian or not, do. (See the articles on the Wallachian, Dobrogean and Moldavian counties... they nearly all mention what region they're part of, as well). Ronline ✉ 13:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

i think the persons who listed Wallachia or Moldavia as a location for a place in Romania tried to balance the excessive use of Transylvania as a location for places in Romania. i think that an adviced editor of an encyclopedia (say an editor of Britannica) would not have any hesitation in ordering the information according to an encyclopedic behaviour. one that does not mix ancestral Dacia or Roman Empire provinces with a modern location. since wikipedia lacks expert (or at least advanced) contributors, such erroneus/anarchic behaviour (that i considered to be a responce to propaganda vis-a-vis to Transylvania) keep lingering on wikipedia Criztu 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the case in depth, but I've been here for quite a long time, and I remember that when the county and city articles were first created, the regions were there first. I don't think they were added later to counterbalance the Transylvanian issue. And the regions of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia aren't only historical regions, they're also in contemporary use for cultural reasons. I'm not a particularly big fan of them myself, but you have to acknowledge that they're still there, and still used by Romanians as regional divisions, and hence can't just be removed and forgotten about totally. Ronline ✉ 14:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

as far as I know there is no regional division of Romania named Wallachia or Transylvania. An encyclopedia does not forget that there was a Principality of Wallachia or Transylvania; mentioning of Transylvania or Wallachia will be made in the History/Other informations paragraph about that location anyhow. there is no official document mentioning Wallahia (Tara Romaneasca) or Transylvania (Ardeal) as locations for any place in Romania. That the Romanian Weather TV Programs present the weather on a map with historical regions of Romania that doesnt make Britannica or Romanian Official documents state that "Bucharest is a city in Wallachia region, in Romania" (that would be laughable) Criztu 16:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] an example of Propaganda

in line with the discussion above, everybody just take a look at the formulation in this ROmanian related article in Harghita article - "84.6% (276,106) of its population is Hungarian, making it the county with the highest proportion of Hungarians in Transylvania". for the editor who formulated this proposition, Harghita is a county of Transylvania inhabited by Hungarians who are majoritary, they are not hungarian ethnic minority and they dont live in Romania. if this isnt an irredentist POV/weasel words formulation, then i am not a dacian :)) Criztu 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think you're seeing things that aren't there. The sentence you cited is perfectly factual and is not written in any particular POV. I suppose it would be better to add "ethnic Hungarian" instead of "Hungarian", and I suppose that it would be more relevant to add that Harghita has the highest proportion of Hungarians in Romania, not just Transylvania, but these are really very minor edits that to most readers wouldn't affect the meaning in the slightest. I don't see how it implies that Transylvania is majority-Hungarian (is this what you mean?). Ronline ✉ 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

as i see Propaganda, "using true information, but selected information, incomplete information, can manipulate the image that one builts based on those informations." saying "Harghita has highest proportion of Hungarians in Transylvania" leaving "ethnic minority" and "Romania" unmentioned, the image that is built is "there is a country Transylvania that has a Hungarian population" Criztu 13:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing referent?

In the article: "Its eclectic architecture - which is a mix of historical, Communist-era and modern - is not the least of them." I cannot see what "them" refers back to. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long list of links cut from infobox

An infobox is for a quick summary of the most important facts. Accordingly, I've cut this long list of external links from the infobox. By the standards of WP:EL, I don't think some of them belong in the article at all—most of this would be more appropriate to WikiTravel; the link about the airport certainly belongs, if anywhere, in the article on the airport—so I have brought them here rather than add them to the External links section. If someone thinks a few belong in the External links section, fine, but do remember that Wikipedia is not a web directory.

• [6] RomaniaTourism.com
• [7] Bucharest-Online.com
• [8] Yahoo.com
• [9] Msn.com
• [10] HotelsRomania.com
• [11] Booking.com
• [12] Otp-Airport.ro
• [13] Bucharest-Guide.com
• [14] InYourPocket.com
• [15] VirtualTourist.com

- Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] km 0

This article says that "University Square" is km 0. I thought the official km 0 was in front of Biserica Sf. Gheorge. - Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed this accordingly; User:Mastermindsro reverted. What's going on? Same user also reverted many other recent changes, none of which look to me to have been in error; even restored some non-English words. - Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Night life

Do we really need two very similar photos of Space Club rather than two contrasting venues? They are lovely photos, but putting two such similar pictures side by side is not usually Wikipedia's visual style. It's more for artistic effect than information. - Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

I tried to make it look nice by changing it to {{Infobox city in Romania}}, which is smaller. The other version looks sloppy. FYI, you might also want to see this... —Khoikhoi 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Mastermindsro made numerous reversions without edit summaries. They all seemed wrong to me. I have re-reverted them one by one, with comments. - Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerund leads to ambiguity

"prefect…acting as a liaison and facilitating the implementation of National Development Plans and governing programmes at local level." So, does the prefect govern programmes at a local level? Or does the prefect facilitate governing pogrammes at a local level? - Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

== Misleading Example ==

In [16] the allegation "Since the fall of Communism in 1989, several Communist-era buildings have been refurbished, modernised and used for other purposes." which is true, is served by a false example: "Perhaps the best example of this is the conversion of several agro-alimentary complexes into shopping malls and commercial centres."

Bucharest has currently some 4 to 5 shopping centers, of which none is housing in a former agro-alimentary complex (hunger circus).

--Vintila Barbu 17:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Unirea Shopping Center --Vintila Barbu 18:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Cross checking revealed that three present shopping malls have been indeed built on pre-existent structures of former hunger circuses: Bucharest Mall (Vitan), Plaza Romania (Drumul Taberei-Militari) and City Mall (Rahovei). Sorry ! --Vintila Barbu 13:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Museum of Art Collections

"The Museum of Art Collections contains the collections of a number of well-known Romanian art aficionados, including Krikor Zambaccian and Theodor Pallady." Is any significant portion of the Zambaccian collection still in the Museum of Art Collections? I thought his family had essentially settled with the Romanian government about it being separately displayed in the Zambaccian Museum. - Jmabel | Talk 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)