Talk:Vlachs

word or people

It is hard to tell if this article is about a word or a people. I'm assuming it was meant to be about the people and I'll make some edits accordingly. Bhny (talk)

Original research

Hi @Aristeus01, I see you worry about the original researchers, but you yourself push all the time many WP:ORIGINAL (like [1] Romanian language was spoken in Pannonia (east Austria, west Hungary) 2000 years long without interruption until today, or [2][3] hundred of settlements in today west Hungary, Oberpullendorf in Austria was a Romanian settlement between 800-1400, or [4] you wanted depict the 9th century Hungarians in Hungary as 19th century 3000km far Bashkirs or with 19th century Hungarian puszta betyar outlaws with pistol and dogs)

I suppose this article is about the Vlachs in general not about the Romanian dialects, I see you made arbitrary categories to list the old descriptions of Vlachs. This stage [5] Which is your personal WP:ORIGINAL. The marked academic sources cleary speak about Vlachs in general whitout any categorization which was made by you. Morover mostly those sources mention clealry the Vlachs as Romanians and not by your categorization.

For example Kekaumenos story about the Vlachs used by both of their arguments the followers of the Daco-Roman theory and followers of the Migratory theory, and they are talking about Vlachs/Romanians in their studies and not about Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians, but you moved Kekaumenos' Vlachs in the Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians section.

I also not aware that the Vlachs in the Alexiad would be Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians. Morover even in the text, the Alexiad write about general about the common usage of the "Vlach word".

Basically you arbitrary decided that the documented Vlach stories in the Balcan cannot be the Romanians, just the Romanians can be only who are mentioned around Transylvania, which is clearly condtadict the main theories of the Origin of the Romanians which described by many scholars.

You moved Vlach stories in Bulgaria (and Cuman stories) in the Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians section, however the marked sources clearly talk about Vlach/Romanians. Also there were many historical Bulgarian-Vlach(Romanian) events. You moved arbitrary Cuman-Bulgarian-Vlach(Romanian) things deep in Greece under the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians section.

There are no mainstream academic scholar view or consensus to make those categorization.

OrionNimrod (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"There are no mainstream academic scholar view or consensus to make those categorization." yes there are:

• Maiden, Martin (2016). "Romanian, Istro–Romanian, Megleno–Romanian, and Arumanian". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 91–125. ISBN 978-0-19-967710-8.
• The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages
• Romance in Contact with Slavic in Southern and South-Eastern Europe

It's basic knowledge of the subject by now. If a particular entry is not ok I am willing to discuss, but claiming parts like the almost 12th century Kekaumenos entry as speaking of Romanians is between OR and fringe. The language authorities are quite clear on the separation of dialects of Common Romanian.

As a clear sign this is not arbitrary I left 8th and 9th century entries as they were. Any proof the people in Transylvania were Aromanians by the way? No? Then what are we talking about is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT

"The marked sourced clearly talk about Vlachs/Romanians" no they do not "clearly" say that - do you or the other history enthusiast even know the difference between Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians, and Romanians? On what grounds are we having this conversation? That there are some historians claiming exactly what? Because if the claim is that Vlachs in 13th century Macedonia are Romanians that is fringe, and I don't care if it is coming from a Immigrationist theorist or a nationalist trying to claim all Vlachs south of Danube are Romanians. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So you think based only 1 source, which is a language dialect source (and I do not know what is there) you have right to overwrite all other scholar opinions?

Do that source say that Kekaumenos write about Megleno-Romanians? Do that source say Alexiad write about Megleno-Romanians? Do that source say the Bulgarian-Cuman-Vlachs are about the Megleno-Romanians? The marked sources mention simple Vlachs or many of them talk about Romanians, so it is incorrect that you overrides those sources = WP:ORIGINAL OrionNimrod (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"I don't care if it is coming from a Immigrationist theorist or a nationalist trying to claim all Vlachs south of Danube are Romanians"

So you admit you does not care with academic sources if those are not your personal POV (btw I did not talk about any 13th century specific one).

For you was not a problem to claim that the full Kingdom of Hungary (today west Hungary+east Asutria, Slovakia) + Croatia + Serbia are full of Romanian settlements between 800-1400. Talk:Vlachs/Archive 2#Fringe map, Talk:Pannonian Latin#Deleting sourced content OrionNimrod (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It's 3 sources, not one, and it's only the most recent and authoritative sources.

Btw, which of those sources talk about Romanians in places where Morlachs or Aromanians were found past 12-13th century? Just so I can take time out of WP:FRINGE Aristeus01 (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Do that source say that Kekaumenos write about Megleno-Romanians? Do that source say Alexiad write about Megleno-Romanians? Do that source say the Bulgarian-Cuman-Vlachs are about the Megleno-Romanians?

If not what are you talking about? = only your personal POV

It would be no debate if leaving categorization, they are all Vlach things. Max you can mention if some certain sources say "this is Aromanian".

OrionNimrod (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Other example, the academic source clearly talk about Romanians but you moved this entry under the Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians which is your personal POV that the academic source talk about not the Romanians.

Article:

"In 1094, the Cuman army crossing the mountains of southern Bulgaria was led through the mountains by the Vlachs."

"In 1099, crusading armies were attacked by Vlachs, in the mountains along the road from Braničevo to Niš."

Source:

"The Romanians sometimes appear as loyal subjects capable of war, and sometimes as hostile elements. In 1095, for example, a certain Poudilosz (Budilă), a prominent Romanian, warned the emperor that the Cumans had crossed the Danube and to prepare for an attack, then Romanians also led the Cumans through the passes of the Balkan Mountains. In 1099, the passing crusaders were pinched. In 1105, the monks of Mount Athos were tempted by Romanian women selling milk and wool products dressed as men."[6]page98 OrionNimrod (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod I already gave you 3 sources that explicitly say that Aromanians and Romanians are not in the same location past the 10th-11th century. I'm not going to verify if each source added here specifies that just to appease you. As I said before if there is a particular entry you have doubts about I am willing to discuss, else the categorization is perfectly in line with research on the topic. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"I'm not going to verify if each source added here specifies that just to appease you"

So you admit you push your personal POV.

If the sources clearly talk about Romanians, it is incorrect to add them as Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians.

I ask again: Do your source say that Kekaumenos write about Megleno-Romanians? Do your source say Alexiad write about Megleno-Romanians? Do your source say the Bulgarian-Cuman-Vlachs are about the Megleno-Romanians?OrionNimrod (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You are pushing POV and fringe by using sources that claim Romanians lived in Macedonia/Greece in the 13th century were Aromanians are documented. Again, the language authorities are clear about that: Aromanians and Romanians did not live in the same location beyond 10th century. Not my fault that your source is WP:Deprecated. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

sorry, not deprecated, just inaccurate in using endonyms. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I did not claim anything, (please do not put words in my mouth, I did not say Romanians lived in Greece in 13th century) I just would like to restore the article what it was before which cannot be fringe :) the article about the Vlachs in general, why would be fringe leaving arbitrary categorization what is your POV idea which was not used many years long since the article exists?

Actually you use just your own POV theories to make arbitrary categorizations overriding the language of the marked sources. Many sources does not talk about Aromanians or Megleno Romanians but cleary about Romanians despite you move them under the Megleno Romanians section.

You also miss to answer to my questions (as usual). OrionNimrod (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Did Byzantine sources called Hungarians Magyars? Should we move the entries from them about Hungarians to the history of the Turks or Turkic people? Aristeus01 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I see you keep talking about off topic instead of the subject. We are using modern academic works by modern historians not 1000 years old works (max for quoation and reference if modern sources are refering to that). Only those sources should put under Megleno Romanians chapter which clearly talk about Megleno Romanians in the marked source. Everything else is your original research WP:ORIGINAL You also miss to answer to my questions (as usual), finally could you answer those? OrionNimrod (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I see you keep adding pointless replies and making baseless accusations, and so far have not brought RS to dismiss my sources. The sources talk about Vlachs which is an umbrella term for Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, Romanians, and Istro-Romanians as well as other groups, each individualized by language and geographic distribution as described in the sources I cited. Are you asking to remove Megleno-Romanians from the chapter header? Because I really do not understand what your are exactly saying. So far all seems WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:DRAMA. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes Vlach is a general term, but you think you can arbitrary organize all entries in the article about Vlachs by your personal WP:ORIGINAL POV which are contradict the sourced academic contents. Even you admited that you do not want to make it correct which show us the bad faith purpose: "I'm not going to verify if each source added here specifies that just to appease you"

I ask this question already many times:

Do your source say that Kekaumenos write about Megleno-Romanians? Do your source say Alexiad write about Megleno-Romanians? Do your source say the Bulgarian-Cuman-Vlachs are about the Megleno-Romanians?

You did not answer, because the answer is NO. Which means it would be incorrect to add Kekaumenos, Alexias, Bulgarian-Valch-Cuman stories under Megleno-Romanians. It should be under the general Vlach category as it was before your POV edit many years long.

Falsifying the sources also part of your personal POV:

In the article, you put these entries under the Megleno-Romanians:

"In 1020, the Archdiocese of Ohrid was founded, which was responsible for "the spiritual care of all the Vlachs".

"In 1094, the Cuman army crossing the mountains of southern Bulgaria was led through the mountains by the Vlachs."

"In 1099, crusading armies were attacked by Vlachs, in the mountains along the road from Braničevo to Niš."

Source. https://mek.oszk.hu/22600/22639/22639.pdf

page96

"In 1020, he subordinated all Romanians in Bulgaria to the archbishop of Ohrid."

page 98

"The Romanians sometimes appear as loyal subjects capable of war, and sometimes as hostile elements. In 1095, for example, a certain Poudilosz (Budilă), a prominent Romanian, warned the emperor that the Cumans had crossed the Danube and to prepare for an attack, then Romanians also led the Cumans through the passes of the Balkan Mountains. In 1099, the passing crusaders were pinched. In 1105, the monks of Mount Athos were tempted by Romanian women selling milk and wool products dressed as men."

The source clearly talk about Romanians and not about Megleno-Romanians, it is a pure source falsification that you move a sourced entries under the wrong category. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"Did Byzantine sources called Hungarians Magyars? Should we move the entries from them about Hungarians to the history of the Turks or Turkic people?"

No, because the two are not the same, indeed Byzantine sources often referred to the Hungarians as "Turks", but the books written by historians that are marked as sources clearly state that they are Hungarians, not Turks, so the source marked on Wikipedia is talking about Hungarians, and not about the Turks!

In your case, however, this is not the case, on the one hand, in most cases, the original source does not mention Megleno-Romanians at all, nor does the book written by the historian cited here as a source mention them! So neither the original nor the modern book talks about Megleno-Romanians! That is all your individual opinion and research!

Also, I'd like to point out that you didn't make a single mention in the talk page that you're going to reorder the whole article in this way!

What you did, without any discussion, was to take the whole thing and reorganise it according to your own opinion, ignoring the many sources cited in the article.

Let's look at an example:

You put this part in the Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians section: "In 1013, a Byzantine document mentions the settlement of "Kimbalongu" in the mountains near Ohrid, which was a Vlach settlement."

The text says:

Hungarian: "Az első vlak nevű helység »Kimbalongu« (Campus longus), egy hosszú szurdékon az achridai hegyek közt, legelőször 1013-ban emlittetik meg."

English: "The first settlement with a Vlach name, "Kimbalongu" (Campus longus), on a long gorge in the Achrida mountains, is first mentioned in 1013."

Another important thing to mention is the subtitle of the book! Which reads: "Insights into Romanian historiography"

So the book clearly states that it is about the Romanians and nothing else! Also, it is important to note that the Aromanians/Megleno-Romanians are not even mentioned in the book! Yet you, for your own opinion, thought to put it in this section, contrary to the source. And this is not the only case, because you did it with 99% of the sources! This is WP:ORIGINAL! CriticKende (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Megleno-Romanian and Aromanian are Vlachs! It is in the beginning of the article, a full section dedicated to explaining this. Why are you asking me to explain it again? It is not my personal opinion, the article clearly states it. That a source or two from Hungary (wrongfully) mingle the two it is not mainstream. It can at best be added as minor view. Here is The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages:

"The Aromanians – or Macedo-Romanians or ‘Vlachs’ – live in small communities scattered over much of the Balkan Peninsula, especially southern Albania, central and northern Greece and south-western Macedonia." Aristeus01 (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01,

"Megleno-Romanian and Aromanian are Vlachs!" Yes nobody debate this. Despite you claimed that it is fringe to restore that the Vlachs are Vlachs in general :) as it was many years long before your POV edit.

The marked Hungarian source clearly talk about the Romanians and not about Megleno-Romanians regarding that Vlach contents, but you deliberately overrides the academic sources.

"That a source or two from Hungary (wrongfully) mingle the two it is not mainstream." That is exactly your personal POV and original research that you think that a modern academic Hungarian source is not enough good for you, because it does not match with the Daco-Roman theory what you are following, this is not true that the Hungarian theory is not a mainstream. That Hungarian historians universally maintain the Romanian immigration from the Balkan, so the Hungarian source talk about Romanians not about Megleno-Romanians in those mentioned contents. We all know the origin of Romanians is a debated topic, there are 2 mainstream theories, there are the followers of the Daco-Roman theory (mainstream in Romania) and followers of the immigration theory (100% mainstream in Hungary + and mainstream in Croatia, Poland, Austria, Germany, etc and I know many historians form USA, UK, etc). Which means you are deliberately overrides the mainstream Hungarian scholar view with your view which is a bad faith edit and source falsification. You started the debate that you think, you have right to arrange the Vlach things based on exclusively the Daco-Roman theory even falsifying the sources of the other theory.

I also think it is wrong that you want override the academic sources by broad language categorization and language speculations (many "probably") what was 1000 years ago, that you think one source above all, morover that source does not mention exactly those things at all what are in the Hungarian sources, which means it is your personal POV and speculation again, breaking this rule also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material

I always show concrete text from sources, you just link big long books, and do not show concrete texts, really hard to know and check what are you talking about.

This situation remember me when you removed Hungarian academic sources from Hungarian related topics, he stated that all Hungarian national library are not reliable and he basically suggested that Hungarian sources for their own Hungarian history is not allowed:

Talk:Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711)#History of Transylvania modern academic source

Talk:Vlach law#Academic sources

Talk:History of Transylvania#Vlach Law

I checked the source what you provided as "evidence" https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.449

I did not find any that contradict the Hungarian sources, and anyway the Hungarian sources clearly claim things which cannot overwriteable with other source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material it says if we have reliable source A, B, C, then you have no right to say only reliable source C is the ultimate truth (which would be your POV) and you ignore reliable source A, B.

In contrast, Eastern Balkan Romance developed into “Proto-Romanian,” due to the influence of the sub- and superstrate of the eastern varieties of South Slavic, also termed “Balkan Slavic,”8 which developed into the Bulgarian–Macedonian language continuum. In the 10th century, Proto-Romanian divided into (common) Daco-Romanian and south-Danubian Aromanian, whereas the other south-Danubian varieties, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian, separated only later on from common Romanian, perhaps in the 12th or 13th century.

There are three basic hypotheses for the formation of Romanian (and the Romanian people): the autochthony thesis (Proto-Romanian developed in left-Danube Dacia only), the discontinuation thesis (all Latin-speaking people left Dacia), and the “as-well-as” thesis, with Proto-Romanian developing on both sides of the Danube.

Many "perhaps" and 13th century, I remember we talked about 11th century contents about the Vlachs. Checking that source I do not see any Transylvanian things, your source claims the Romanians developed in the Balkan as Hungarian view claim. Even that source mention as lists the basic hypotheses, among the autochthony Daco-Roman view, the Hungarian view also lsited as mainstream and you said that is not mainstream :D It is also interesting that all Hungarian historians held in a whole country it is enough "not mainstream" for you.

Becoming a people is a multidimensional process, like all nations the Romanians also mixed with many people during history and nobody know the exact language what they spoke in a certain old time and location to make an arbitrary categorization by personal POV if we have a source like this: "Vlachs did thing in 1095" and if that academic source does not claim they were Megleno-Romanians. Perhaps it was an umbrella term for many kind of Vlach groups like the Alexiad mention all Vlachs as common name as umbrella term but you arbitrary decided they can be only Megleno-Romanians in the Alexiad.

You admitted that the academic Hungarian source is "wrong and not good for you" that is why you overwrote it with your POV WP:ORIGINAL and defending it with edit war. This is interesting that you keen to report users as WP:ORIGINAL but you have no problem when you yourself do the same to push many WP:ORIGINAl like this topic and I listed others in the beginning of this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#Consistent_breaking_of_NOR_rule

This is also interesting that you reported me as edit war however you did much more edit wars in the article than I did ever and you started that edit war period https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1175808383. It means you are keen to report users who has different views than you in the hope to disappear them, I remember when you was blocked earlier when you reported an another user you said "Wikipedia is a bad place that you need live in fear of the reports" but actually I see you are the only who are reporting everybody else.

OrionNimrod (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Orion, you are a Hungarian nationalist, against Romanian theories about Vlachs. 79.118.86.31 (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I know everybody will be automatically labeled as "Hungarian nationalist" who do not accept every single Romanian nationalist propaganda or every single anti-Hungarian Romanian propaganda, like "Burgenland in Austria was an ancient Romanian land" Talk:Vlachs/Archive 2#Fringe map :D:D:D OrionNimrod (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod says the man who deleted the names Decebal and Burebista from an article about the TV show 100 Greatest Romanians Aristeus01 (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aristeus01, first I was not aware that was a comedy TV show. But I bet ancient Dacians kings did not know that they were Romanians. However this event tells a lot how strong the Dacopathy in the post national communist Romania. In 1980, the national-communist Romanian government already celebrated the 2050th anniversary of the “founding of the unitary and centralised state of Romania” in North Korea style. The Romanian national-communist dictator, Ceausescu also identified himself with Burebista the ancient Dacian king :) https://imgpile.com/images/xv6IHh.png OrionNimrod (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod just like today some not very in touch with reality people parade their 0,0001 percent Avar ancestry and claim indigeneity in the land. Should we delete them as well? Aristeus01 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

? OrionNimrod (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

How is this allowed?

I'm sorry but how is the first paragraph from "History" allowed and even restored multiple times? Did nobody read it? Not only is it poorly written, it also looks and sounds as biased as possible, written by the least obvious agenda having Hungarian. Like, what even is this?

On the other hand, most non-Romanian historian believe that Romanians, Moldovans, Aromanians and other Eastern Romance groups originated in the southern Balkans, what is now North-Macedonia, Kosovo, and Thessaly and migrated north from there from the 11th-12th centuries onwards.

Then he links some dodgy sources to somehow "prove" that "most" non-Romanian "historian" believe that?

The funniest one of them all is "a critical and analytical guide" on Medieval Hungarian historians, from Carlile Aylmer Macartney, which was also a supporter of Hungarian interests and causes in the United Kingdom. Least possible biased "source" on the origins of Romanians.

There's absolutely no way anyone unbiased read that paragraph and genuinely thought it was a legitimately good way to "expand" the page. The fact that stuff like this gets restored and even protected is worrying to say the least. 86.122.76.212 (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not "allowed", it is cultivated: Wikipedians pretend there is nothing wrong with Hungarian users writing Romanian history. When highlighted they will claim they don't know enough about the topic or that they don't care about the content only about how users interact. As if writing stuff on purpose to damage and harm ethnic sensitivities is not interaction...

Do yourself a favour and forget about this whole business. You can see already that the only outcome is protecting the article - ie silencing the protesters. Nothing else will come out of it. Wikipedia is, in this topic at least, a biased and toxic source of propaganda. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aristeus01 I agree with you, we are now working to make this article less one-sided like it is right now ZZARZY223 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@ZZARZY223 thank you! Aristeus01 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent disagreements

YoursTrulyKor, and also @CriticKende and OrionNimrod, please engage in the discussion regarding the dueness of the material here. I'm specifying YoursTrulyKor because their candor in their edit summaries is uncivil at best, they are not assuming good faith like is expected on Wikipedia.

Specifically, I would also refer those involved who haven't read to WP:NPOV, because

a single, non-viable source and even then its an "opinion", very clearly stated there

isn't the type of criteria that are important for establishing whether sources are reliable or due in an article.

It serves no further use being added into the article other than serving a bias.

[...] A random polish historian isn't gonna cut it, [...] We can all see where you are trying to go with...

is especially unacceptable rhetoric that doesn't align with site policy.

As is the norm, no one should continue editing the material in question until a consensus based on site policies and guidelines is reached. Cheers! Remsense诉 03:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I am also willing to arbitrate points, as someone who a) knows enough about the relevant ethnic and political history to hold a decent conversation, but hopefully b) doesn't have particularly strong biases as regards this region of the world. Mea culpa, I do remember having some arguments with OrionNimrod a few months ago regarding material related to the Revolutions of 1848, but I hope can they trust that I'm acting in good faith here regardless. Remsense诉 04:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! I apologize for my actions beforehand since this is quite a sensitive subject.

I have good reasons to believe that @CriticKende, @OrionNimrod and @Borsoka are acting in bad faith on this article by removing multiple important pieces of information and replacing them with other that serve their own narrative. I will take each one apart

1. CriticKende

I will highlight only edits which i consider important and, until now, this editor has:

Removed information regarding Vlachs travelling to Mount Athos in the 8th Century

Removed information regarding Volohoveni, a population thought to have been Romanian which lived in Modern Day Ukraine

Added unsupported claims that Vlachs mentioned to live in Ukraine are actually turks

Removed information about Proto-Romanian being spoken in the 6th Century

Added unsupported information that Vlachs come from Macedonia

Twice.

At the same time, adding unrelated, unsupported information stating that

Vlachs are a barbarian population

That the Hungarians ACTUALLY asked the Vlachs to come and colonize territories

All the while ousting his real intentions by:

Changing "some" to "most"

What are we witnessing here is a very dangerous practice which might just compromise the integrity of this article, if it hasn't already been compromised as seen by past discussions which point out the same things. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with some of yours remarks. For instance, Volohoveni and the first possible reference to Proto-Romanian should be mentioned in the article. However, I do not fully understand your aversion to references to the Vlachs immigration to the lands to the north of the Lower Danube. The earliest Moldavian and Wallachian chronicles makes clear references to it. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I will allow some time if CriticKende wants to respond before I weigh in, but it's possible everything is fine and I'm not needed. Remsense诉 04:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Borsoka@OrionNimrod@Remsense@YoursTrulyKor, sorry for the late response but I just opened wikipedia. Please let me respond briefly to the accusations against me.

The first link, it shows as I deleted a post. The source is a random page, which is not a historian's opinion, but an online article (which no longer exists) which says: "In this century is when the Vlahorinchians and the Sagudits are mentioned coming from Bulgaria, passing through Macedonia to reach Mount Athos during the iconoclastic crisis.". I picked this out because it is not true, I can cite several historiographical sources for this, this statement is made about the Rhynchinoi Slavic tribe, who would only much later be called "Vlahorinchians" because they were mixed up with the Vlachs in Macedonia. The original text mentions only the Rinhini Slavic tribe. So I took it out because I thought it didn't fit in the Vlach article, as this source is about the Slavic tribes, not the Vlachs.

The second link, shows that I took out the part about Bolokhoveni, but this was followed in the article by "It is important to note, however, that among historians the Bolokhoveni are clearly considered Slavic people, since their name and archaeological finds clearly position them as Slavs, and all written sources refer to them as Slavs". So I didn't quite understand why it was necessary to mention an area in the article that is historically agreed to be Slavic and not Vlach? I apologize if I offended anyone with that. I just didn't understand why it was necessary to mention something that the article itself refutes in the next sentence.

In the third link, it claims to have "Added unsubstantiated claims that the Vlachs living in Ukraine are actually Turks". I've posted the text of the chronicle there alongside the source, but I'll share it here as well: "Remarks about the Turks and Those Related to Them. The Turks, the Bulgars, the Blagha, the Burghaz, the Khazar, the Llan, and the types with small eyes and extreme blondness have no script, except that the Bulgarians and the Tibetans write with Chinese and Manichean, whereas the Khazars write Hebrew. My information about the Turks is what Abu al-Hasan Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ashnas related to me."

In this case, the reference itself claims to be about a Turkic people, the original text of the chronicle calls this people Turkic, not I. So again, I don't see why this should be left in the Vlach article, but I didn't delete it, as it was sourced by a historian's opinion, so I just added the source text, so that it can be seen that the text is clearly talking about a Turkic people.

The fourth link, when I took it out, I added a comment "feel free to put it back, but I think it would be more appropriate to put it in an article about Romance languages, not in the Vlach article". There is no mention of the word Vlach in the original text, I can always send you the chronicle if you want, it simply contains a Latin quote, which as I said before "I think it might have something to do with the Vlachs" but this article is not about the language, it is about the population itself, and the text does not mention them. I still think it would be more appropriate to put it in an article about the eastern romance languageses and not in this one. e.g.: just like the German people, and the German language is covered in a separate wikipedia article as well.

The fifth link, is a chronicle text, I can send you the chronicle, but the text says: "Further north is Bulgaria, which was a very good land, but now the Turks have destroyed it. They are from the Romans, because when a certain Roman emperor conquered those lands, that is Macedonia, certain Romans, seeing the good land, took wives and stayed there. Hence they are called in common Roman language 'Vulgarians' ".

I honestly believe that what I've taken out here doesn't belong here, and what I've put in here does, and I've done nothing wrong with that, if you have any other questions I'm happy to answer them, and I'm sorry if I've inconvenienced you, but I thought that we should just put in here what's about the article, and not put in Slavic tribes. CriticKende (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CriticKende, about the "The Turks, the Bulgars, the Blagha, the Burghaz, the Khazar, the Llan" part, I noticed that Spinei claims at page 83 [7] that "B. Dodge (the editor and the translator of the scholar of Baghdad) intuited, the ethnonym Blaghā could refer to Wallachians/Romanians". Spinei thus uses the interpretation made by the translator of Ibn al-Nadim's work.

About the fifth link, you claim that the texts says that "Further north is Bulgaria, which was a very good land, but now the Turks have destroyed it. They are from the Romans, because when a certain Roman emperor conquered those lands, that is Macedonia, certain Romans, seeing the good land, took wives and stayed there. Hence they are called in common Roman language 'Vulgarians'", but what has anything of this text to do with Vlachs, or where does the author claim that "Vlachs come from Macedonia"? Furthermore about this edit, where did you find the claim that the term "Magna Vlachia" appears in Byzantine documents, which means the ancestral homeland of the Vlachs? At what pages of Schramm's and Blagojević's works is it mentioned? ZZARZY223 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

2. OrionNimrod

Same logic as CriticKende, i will only add edits which i consider are important:

Removed references to Vlachs living to the North of the Danube, said that Vlachs is actually a deragotary term (when we know very well it isn't and its still un use by the the Romanians living in the Timok Valley)

Removed references to Vlachs existing in the 11th Century

Removed an entire section about Vlachs existing in the 9th Century

Made a small edit, changing "on the banks of the Danube" to the "South of the Danube" which changes the ENTIRE history of the VLACH population

But at the same time he is more than happy to add unsupported information which states:

Vlachs immigrated to Romania in the 12th Century and did not know how to write

At the same time, avoided removing a pharagraph talking about the two theories of how the Romanians came to be, but made it in such a way that it seems that the Immigration Theory is the correct one

And there are a whole lot more which i cannot be bothered because it could take weeks. I want to conclude by sayingt that, in short, their main goal is to rewrite history to conform to the theory that the Romanians are nomadic immigrants who came from the southern Balkans around the 12th century after the Hungarians were already established, and that they did not exist north of the Danube before this moment. This theory is called the immigration theory.

If there is any mention of Romanians before the 12th century on the territory of Romania, they delete it or rewrite it so as not to indicate this. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As for

3. Borsoka

I want to make it quick and just link this here He is well known for deleting and rewritting entire articles regarding Romanian history

This practice is not only dangerous, but also compromises the integrity of multiple wiki pages which in exchange can lead to more disinformation. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Im of the opinion a neutral, third party must act on this and prefferably not Borsoka since he also has a history of defending other, similar accounts when they are reported. Again, thank you and thanks for givinge a chance to be listened to! I consider this situation to genuinelu be extremely dangerous. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

A few points:

1. The ANI link does not poison the well for me, I have yet to see a pattern of improper behavior from Borsoka. Let's try to comment on content, not editors. Please assume good faith, and do not claim that certain edits "show true intentions", etc. If you believe that certain editors are the problem, we're not going to come to an agreement. Work with me and focus on the content first.
2. Editors of any ethnicity are allowed to write or edit articles about any ethnicity. I'm an American mostly sourced from Ireland and Great Britain, and I spend all day trying to rewrite articles about China. Moreover: the ethnicity of anyone is not in itself going to be persuasive to me, save for those that are actually the subject of the prose in the article. I understand these are fraught issues, and I understand that these issues can sometimes have actual gravity that doesn't always get completely expressed. But we're going to have to do better, and like I said, I know enough about the history here to get by.
3. That said, I do not get the impressions you do from any of the diffs you have linked: I understand why they may touch nerves in a vacuum, but each comes with an explanation in the edit summary, which you have not mentioned in your summary of their behavior. I have no reason to believe they are making these edits for any reason other than the ones they are plainly stating, and I don't think you do either. Let's assume good faith, again. I do not know the history of these articles in detail, but I sense this discussion should have come here faster than it did.

Do you have any specific responses to the reasons the other editors have given, case by case? We will not be working from the assumption that anyone has any sort of ulterior motive. Remsense诉 04:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not have anything else to add. I am more than happy to work with fellow editors, regardless of ethnicity, background etc. whatever, but at the same time i believe my fears are somewhat justified.

Regardless, im still not happy with the page of the Vlachs but im tired and not willing to argue or go through every revision, edit case by case to debate them or justify them, it is insanity and feels futile. The current article, at least for me, feels biased towards one theory, and alot of information is unreliable.

Thanks for willing to deal with this whole circus, but regardless if i see this situation repeating i am more than willing to complain again. I hope it wasn't too much of a hassle and i apologize in advance for any issues this might've created. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

YoursTrulyKor, no, I have not deleted a single article about Romanian history. Yes, I have rewritten some of the existing articles, and as a consequence at least three of them (Romania in the Early Middle Ages, Founding of Wallachia, and Romania in the Middle Ages) were listed as good articles. These have been stable for more than a decade except for periods when sockpuppets of banned editors attack them. Similarly, the article Origin of the Romanians have been stable for years although it is more frequently attacked by sockpuppets. These suckpuppets always try to delete any reference to the northward migration of the Romanians' ancestors. Congretulations for you for being able to find a nearly five-year-old report against me by an other editor at administrators' noticeboard within minutes. You must be an exceptionally talented new editor. Or? Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

exceptionally talented, no. I mostly just grammar check and add information to politicians. Nevertheless it ain't so hard to find information on people, so let's "assume good faith"! YoursTrulyKor (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

also, i just want to make a small parenthesis. If anything, until now i've seen a constant effort to remove mentions of the Romanians/Vlachs being present in the Carpatho-Danubian-Pontic area before 12th Century by "sockpuppets" (or people who seemingly act like that), not vice versa. I saw you are a talented and experienced editor, but i still feel as if alot of things on this page are skewed towards the Immigrant Theory which lacks proof as much as Continuation Theory YoursTrulyKor (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exceptionally talented new editors can find a report within minutes. If you think OrionNimrod, CriticKende and myself are cooperating in any illegal way please report us at the relevant notice board, providing your evidence. I agree possible references to Romanians to the lands north to the Lower Danube should not be deleted from the article, but this article should be dedicated to the Vlachs, not to the debates over the Origin of the Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that is fair enough. No harsh feelings! YoursTrulyKor (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I must also mention that the Vlachs are also directly tied to the origins of the Romanians, so a change to this page is also indirectly a change to the other. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

They are directly tied, but they are not one and the same. Remsense诉 06:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, they are not one and the same. Debates about the Vlachs' ethnogenesis should be summarized here in a short section, thus the long lists about references to Vlachs here and there could be deleted from this article. Those references all are listed in the Origin of the Romanians, along with their various interpretations by scholars. We should avoid unnecessary repetitions. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Remsense! Thanks for interesting in the subject! I remember you did some comments in an another topic, but we did not debate each other directly :) Of course I can explain all of my edits in this article, however it is strange for me that a brand new user making an edit war and he has a strong knowledge of ANI what happened there many years ago, and monitoring and accusing users like Borsoka who is a respected Wiki veteran, and clearly not a "bad faith editor".

BACKGROUND

Sorry, if it is too long, I think you are interested that is why you started this topic, I think I need to explain the backround, that this is a hot political debate. The Hungarian historiography universally maintain that we have no sources about Vlachs (ancestor of Romanians) in the territory of Kingdom of Hungary (including Transylvania) before the 1200s. It is not surprising, that every single Hungarian editor have this view.

I quote a British historian, Martyn Rady [8] page 90: "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."

British-Romanian historian Dennis Deletant [9]: "explanation of the Romanian presence in Transylvania is known as the theory of Daco-Roman continuity. The use of the word theory can be justified in the absence of convincing archaeological and historical evidence to support the case and it is precisely because of this that it is open to question. Hungarian historians discount the continuity theory"

Romanian historian Ioan Marian Tiplic [10] page 61: "The history of the Romanian territories between the end of the 9th century to the beginning of the 12th is still a debated subject. Due to the lack of archaeological data that could prove the existence of the Romanian population in Transylvania, starting with the 19th century, the Romanian historiography transformed the stages of the formation of Romanian people into a political issue related to that time’s status-quo. The archaeological researches of the early medieval period of the Transylvanian territories are a necessity since the historiography has little resources to call on the written evidences of the events of 9th to 12th centuries. Identifying archaeological artefacts belonging to the Hungarian population within the Carpathian Basin is only a routine exercise for today’s archeologists."

Hungary introduced the Vlach law taxation in the 14th century, which was favorable for the immigration. Hungary had about 300+ years long continous Hungarian-Ottoman-Habsburgs devastation wars which highly decimated the Hungarian population who lived mostly on the lowland, river valleys, then it was also more immigration. You can see many info here about this, and ethnic changes map: Ottoman Hungary. Finally the Romanians became majority in Transylvania in the end of 18th century. After the Russian successes at Brusilov offense, In 1916 Romania attacked Hungary to get lands until the Tisza river which was on the center of Hungary [11] Romania’s entry into World War 1, 27 August 1916. Detail from Proclamation of King Ferdinand of Romania: “In our moral energy and our valour lie the means of giving him back his birthright of a great and free Romania from the Tisza to the Black Sea" But Romania lost WW1, after the Romanian attack, within 3 month the Central Powers was in the capital of Romania, and when Russia signed the casefire, Romania also. Austria-Hungary lost WW1, it capitulated, its army was disarmed but Germany capitulated 1 week later. Then Romania re-entered to the war 1 day before the German capitulation and attacked again the already capitulated Hungary who had anarchy and no army at that time. In 1920 by the Treaty of Trianon Romania got by the Allied Powers a huge 1000 years Hungarian lands, many areas, cities (even 10km from today borders) had full Hungarian population, because the new borders did not follow the ethnic borders, that is why after 100 years it is many ethnic conflicts in Romania. It was about 50-50 Romanians and non-Romanians on that Hungarian land which Romania got in 1920. However Romania demanded much more Hungarian lands until the Tisza river, in the 1910 ethnic map the Tisza is in the center of Hungary and still part of Hungary and that region had (red) many million full Hungarian population [12]. Romania developed a political ideology, the Daco-Roman theory (which is rather a myth and a fanatic religion with strong anti-Hungarian sentiment) to justify why Romania occupied those huge Hungarian lands, why Romania need to occupy lands from the Tisza, claiming "always majority" Romanians were in Transylvania before the Hungarians. The dacopathy also developed claiming Romanians (the Vlachs) are Dacians, the "super ancient always majority local. I have plenty of academic historical sources, that I know outside Romania the Daco-Roman theory is not really accepted (for example the historiography of neighbouring countries, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Poland, Croatia, Bulgaria clearly refuse it).

Example fake map from 1920 based on the above descriped political atmosphere: Dacia in the 9-13th century [11] Does anybody know that huge Dacia country between 800-1300?

But the Daco-Roman myth was very fanatic in the national-communist Romania, in 1980, the national communist Romanian state celebrated its 2050th!!! anniversary in north Korea style and the communist dictator Ceausescu claimed he is the incarnation of the ancient Dacian king Burebista...

Example fake map from 1980s from the national-communist Romania: Romania 9-13th century: [10]

If we see international Europe maps, we will not find this "Dacia/Romania" country in the historical maps of Europe: [11][12][13] Those maps which made by the national-communist Romanian historiography is clearly a falsifications and abuse of the international and Hungarian historiography, because in the reality that "Romania country" did not exist, which allegedly occupied the half territory of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 9-13th century in those maps. National communist historiography claim that it was "always majority Romanians" in that huge 300,000 km² area between the Tisza and Dneister river between 300-1200, as we can see the Tisza border on those fake maps. National communist historiography also claim the Hungarians occupied Transylvania only in 1300, and Transylvania was always a Romanian country. King Saint Stephen of Hungary was "Romanian"...etc. The below quoted. Romanian archeologist says that identifying Hungarians remains in 10th century Transylvania is super easy, however Daco-Roman theory says Hungarians "occupied Transylvania only about 1200-1300" from the defender Romanians (but I never see naming any battle or events about this). For me it is very hard to understand, how possible that identifying remains from Hungarian people who were allegedly not there is super easy, but no archaeological data betwenn 800-1200 about the allegedly "always majority Romanians"? Where is the logic?

Unfortunately, many users who are followers of the Daco-Roman political ideology try all the time to falsify Wikipedia. An user here detached Transylvania from Hungary and photoshopped a big Romania country there: File:Europe Moyen-âge.jpg in 1300, later I replaced to the original map. This was a deleted falsified map from Wiki Commons, exacty the same pattern, detaching Transylvania from Hungary and populate the region with Vlachs: https://imgpile.com/images/xv3Slk.jpg

There is a Austro-Hungarian military cemetery in Transylvania which attacked several times by Romanian ultranationalists [2], for example this was in 21 October 2023, even Switzerland, Greece and Ukraine is an "ancient Romanian land": [3] the tilte: “Barbarian Hungarians came from Mongolia and robbed our lands in 1290. After that, the Mongol-Hungarians also brought their families here.” That map in the cemetery is based on the above mentioned Romanian national-communist history teaching that "the Hungarians who were Mongols and came from Mongolia arrived in Transylvania only about 1300", that is why Transylvania was detached from the Kingdom of Hungary in 1100 from an international (non Hungarian made) maps. Just a bonus that if we Google "Hungarians" they look exactly like their other European neighbours and not like the people in Mongolia. This is also quite common ethnic slur based on that ideology: 4

Sfântu Gheorghe, 1 December 2023: [13] Followers of this Daco-Roman religion moved in the heart of the Szekely land in Transylvania where the majority of the population is Hungarian. They are shouted the usually slogan: "Hungarians, get out of the country!" "Szekely land is Romanian land".

That is the ideology reason, that certain Romanian users do not like contents on Wikipedia which does not support the claims of the Daco-Roman theory. Of course followers of Daco-Roman theory accuse Hungarians with irredentism (however Romania attacked Hungary 2x to take lands and not inverse), just because they do not accept the myth of the "always majority Romanians" in that huge area.

YoursTrulyKor above accused 3 Hungarian editors with this "their main goal is to rewrite history to conform to the theory that the Romanians are nomadic immigrants who came from the southern Balkans around the 12th century after the Hungarians were already established, and that they did not exist north of the Danube before this moment."

If we see the falsified history maps, I think it is clear who want to rewrite the history...

CONTENT

1.

Here [14] as I said "rv" I made a revert regarding the earlier content removal probably combining with more edit of this user: [15]

2.

[16] Jan Długosz lived in 1415-80, the source refer a book from 1711, which is againts Wiki rule: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I do not think a book from 1711 can be a modern reliable academic source, morover I highly doubt that Dlugosz would say Romanians are "Geto-Dacians" I assume this is the personal opinion by the IP edit [17]

3.

[18] I clearly stated that was "duplicated content", you can see that content is still in the page: Vlachs#13th century I did not remove it.

4.

[19] That is the original text in the Strategikon written in 1075-78 "They lived formerly near to the Danube river, and the Saos, the river which we now call the Sava, where Serbs live now, in secure and inaccessible places."

That is simple geography, the Sava river is south from the Danube. And the Serbs lived south from the Danube in that time https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg (Belgrade was a Hungarian city for a long time, and Serbs were moved to south Hungary from the Ottomans, for example about 80,000 Serbs were settled there by Pál Kinizsi but in the late 15th century)

5.

[20] Well, that content was originally added by an another user [21] refering to a modern Polish historian, because I know very well the old Hungarian chronicles and the Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, I just polished to make it precise, and in addition I added the analisys from the same Polish historian from the same source regarding of the old text. I also added a modern academic Hungarian scholar opinion regarding the subject from here [22].

YoursTrulyKor called these edits as "bad faith"...OrionNimrod (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Remsense! You can see the article is under attack by several "brand new" editors. I suggest the page should be protected, I agree with your suggestion, no change until the debate is over.

[23] the edit is same when YoursTrulyKor accused me as bad faith, I explained above my edit. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I do see the rising smoke of edit warfare. Remsense诉 12:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Im sorry but i can't help but just feel as if you're trying to accuse me of "masterminding" this whole thing. I will make a response, with time, since theres alot of stuff to read through + burnout from other historical debates which are pages long which already feel futile.

Thanks! YoursTrulyKor (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Remsense! For me it is really strange that this article was almost untouched for many months, then many many brand new users are doing edit war at the same time... and accusing 3 Hungarian editors as bad faith who had long Wiki history. It seems, it is organized. That is why I dediced a long answer for the background that you can understand why this topic is hot. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It seems counterproductive, which is why I think it's a worthwhile approach to try keeping all hands off the article and deliberate on each change together. Remsense诉 14:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I can smell this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry + Wikipedia:Canvassing, maybe it is a one person or many mobilized in a group chat. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod @Remsense

This article remained untouched because you and fellow editor bullied me out of it. And that Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry + Wikipedia:Canvassing smell you are smelling most probably comes from somewhere closer to you, as for many months you have applying this tactic of associating with other like-minded users to re-edit articles according to a particular scholarly-political view. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

jesus christ YoursTrulyKor (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello OrionNimrod, it passed some time since we already had a discussion about this topic, however it looks that some of the claims you've made are, unfortunately, of bad faith.

Fist of all, claiming that there were no Vlachs in Transylvania before the 1200s just because there are no documents about them is quite inaccurate, since there are no documents about Transylvania at all before the year 1075, and like Hungarian historian Makkai claims: "Of the known Hungarian documents drafted before 1200, only twenty-seven bear some reference to Transylvania; two date from the 11th, the rest from the 12th century. Of the latter, sixteen reveal only the name of some Transylvanian, religious or lay dignitary, such as a bishop, a dean, a voivode, or a count. In the 13th century, and particularly after 1250, the number of documents touching on Transylvania grows rapidly and reaches over four hundred."[24]

Thus going on citing a large number of documents randomly mentioning Vlachs in Transylvania from the 13th century onwards without this premise is disingenuous at least.

Also claiming that Romanians became the majority in Transylvania in the 19th century, when there works like the Das Alt- und Neu-Teutsche Dacia of Johannes Tröster from 1666, which claims that Romanians in Transylvania "are so numerous that almost outnumber Hungarians and Germans living there, is also not correct, and likely Hungarian historians also know this fact, hence the fact that Romanians became the majority in Transylvania only in the 19th century is your own personal point of view. Nevermind that when ACTUAL censues were made about the ethnic composition of Transylvania, from 1850 to 1910, the % of ethnic Hungarians increased, meanwhile the one of Romanians decreased, the Magyarization policies contributing a lot to this.

The political explanation of the intent of your edits is quite indicative that you don't want to keep a neutral point of view which is required in Wikipedia articles.[25] ZZARZY223 (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZZARZY223!

"claiming that there were no Vlachs in Transylvania before the 1200s just because there are no documents about them is quite inaccurate"

That is a speculation, you cannot blame why Hungarian historians does not accept a nationalist speculation which only political goal to claim "Romanians were Transylvania before the Hungarians"

The whole Hungarian historiography claim that Vlachs appearead first in the 1200s in Hungary (Transylvania). In this Vlach article we can see many mentions of Vlachs deep in the Balkan in the previous ages before 1200, which clearly show us their migration to north. Morover checking genetic website like MyTrueAncestry the average Romanian genetic is close to Turkish, Greek, Macedonian. Morover the Daco-Roman theory claim the Vlachs (Romanians) were always majority between Tisza and Dneister river in that huge 300,000km2 land for almost 1000 years long between 300-1200 (and before as Dacians), and it is really strange for my why no sources about "alway majority people", however we have a lot of sources of many other people in the region during that time (Sarmatians, Gepids, Goths, Huns, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans...) + many archeology. I see you emphasized 1000-1200, what about the previous 800 years? Why no sources about "always majority people"?

Sorry, it was my mistake, true, Romanians became majority in Transylvania at the end of the 18th century, and not in the 19th century. Well Hungary introduced the first ethnic law in Europe in 1849 which favored to the minorities Magyarization#Notable dates. Hungarian money from 1848 with inscriptions in the language of the nationalities on it File:Kossuth bankó.jpg, I think this is very uniqe. In 1850 it was heavy Habsburg suppress on Hungary after the defeat of the 1848-49 revolution war. The Austrian-Hungarian compromise was in 1867, again it was introduced a very liberal ethnic laws (Act Number XLIV of 1868). It is hard to imagine in a short period how possible to hungarianize everybody... the Lex Aponnyi in 1907 asked that ethnic people should know the language of the country as second language, like in Romania today, Hungarians can speak Romanian, like in England people who move there need to speak in English, but it does not mean their mother language is changed, it is quite normal. Of course Romanians say that was a "cruel hungarianization" that in the schools Romanians needed learn Hungarian for some years as second language, like everybody else learn English now as second langugae from 1907...Btw In 1918, there were 2,043 Romanian schools for the approximately 2.8 million Romanians in Hungary. More than that the 7 million Romanians had in the Kingdom of Romania at that time. You could talk about also how decreased the number of Hungarians in Transylvania since 1920, and how changed the ethnic population in the former full Hungarian populated cities. But unfortunatelly Romanian users do not like to talk about the present situation just what was in 1800 and only about the "bad deeds" of Hungarians keep silent about the things which was favor for the Romanians.

I showed a background to the American user to understand why it is a hot topic. However I think this is total off topic to continue this, we can focus on the Vlach content. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Sorry, it was my mistake, true, Romanians became majority in Transylvania at the end of the 18th century, and not in the 19th century." Again, the work of Tröster is from 1666, Miron Costin and Grigore Ureche (they also lived in the 1600s) also claim that Romanians were the most numerous ethnicity and just 1 century before Antun Vrančić claims: "Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number ..." So it is clear that the Romanians were the majority at least from the 1500s/1600s

"In this Vlach article we can see many mentions of Vlachs deep in the Balkan in the previous ages before 1200, which clearly show us their migration to north." It does not show their migration to the north, Romanians/Vlachs could have lived both South of the Danube and North of it, but we don't have much documents about those territories before the 1200s, like said before even about Transylvania we have very scarce documents before the 1200s, nevermind that Byzanthine scholars had a very rich and productive literature (even more than Western Europe) during the High Middle Ages, thus even the documentation about Vlachs is very exstensive, but this does not exclude that Vlachs lived in Transylvania during that time either.

Genetics is also a very doubtful way of basing historical facts, since it depends much on the different haplogroups, thus claiming that "Romanians are genetically closer to Macedonians, Greeks, Turks" is not very accurate (for example if considering the haplogroup r1b is, it very present in Romanians, almost non-existend in Albanians and South Slavs - also many similarities between Romanians and the ethnicities you mentioned can be attribuated to the fact Dacians were related to Thracians, but like said before, genetics is very obscure when considering history)

Nevermind that even considering that a migratory population like Vlachs could have became the majority in such a large mountainous area which is more or less is Romania today in just a few centuries, or even in Transylvania where according to Hungarians they overnumbered ethnic Hungarians and Germans in just the years from the 1200s to 1600s, is such a short time, is also debatable. Also the Kingdom of Hungary was a very heterogeneous state since its foundation, and even in other mountainous regions like Slovakia and Ruthenia ethnic Hungarians were remarkably a minority, not just in Transylvania.

With this discussion I've just wanted to highlight the other point of view to @Remsense in the context of your comment, and that it is important to mantain a neutral point of view in Wikipedia articles, and in this article about Vlachs the neutrality can be questioned considerably ZZARZY223 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay. i'm responding here since i noticed you mentioned Act Number XLIII of 1868 (I believe you are referring to this one) and described it as "liberal", even though the Romanian population in Transylvania denounced it (alongside the Nationalities Law of 1868[26]https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nationalities-Law) for, in their opinion, failing to offer the needed protection for non-magyar populations.

They demanded equal rights, justifying these demands by citing passages from the Gesta Hungarorum and the diploma awarded by King Andrew II to the Teutonic Knights in 1211 and 1222. They also explained that, due to new political and social relations and realities alongside religious conflicts from the XVth and XVIth centuries, the Romanians were excluded from the political scene. They also stated that this situation was imposed by the Diploma Leopoldinum from 1691, through which the Habsburgs recognized the existence of the Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867) and the priviligies of the Hungarians, Szeklers, and Saxons. Through this, they stated that the Union of the Principality of Transylvania with the Crown of Saint Stephen was illegal because the Romanians were never present in the decision-making proccess of the Kingdom.

Nevertheless, the Romanians of Transylvania hoped to be able to co-exist with the Hungarians since, in their opinion, they shared a destiny and a responsibility for the wellbeing of the principality. These hopes were dashed in 1879 when the Hungarian Parliament adopted a law making hungarian mandatory for Romanian and orthodox schools. This was followed in 1883 by a similar law that targeted medical schools, and in 1891 by a law that enforced hungarian in non-hungarian kindergartens. These laws also included certain passages affecting the autonomy of the United Orthodox Church by increasing the control of the Hungarian Government over the wages and salaries of Romanian teachers and priests, finally culminating with the Lex Apponyi in 1907 which prescribed the teaching of Hungarian in all schools without Hungarian education, whether the pupils' mother tongue was Hungarian or not, ignoring parents' claims that Hungarian education could be provided privately. The teachers got a grace period – 3–4 years – in order to learn the language. Schools that could not provide teachers able to deal with the Hungarian-language had to be closed. Approximately 600 Romanian villages were left without education as a result of the law.

Besides this, the Hungarian Government used its considerable administrative powers to suppress Romanian political activities, a good example being in 1894 when they brought to the Tribunal the Executive Committee of the National Romanian Party, accusing them of public agitation for spreading and publishing copies of the Memorandum which was a protest against the policies of the Hungarian Government against nationalities.

Sources

1. "Cestiunea româna în Transilvania și Ungaria", Sibiu, 1892

2. "Cartea de aur, sau luptele politice-naționale ale Românilor", Teodor V. Păcățian, 1906

3. "România 1866-1947", Keith Hitchins, 2013

Your attempt at whitewashing Hungarian suppression under a veil of innocence is quite something, and trying to downplay everything. Also, tying unrelated discussions about modern-day politics doesn't make much sense and really doesn't change history. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZZARZY223!

I think this is out of the topic now what was in 1600. I also know many sources which clearly say the Romanians were not majority in 1500, 1600, beginning of 1700 and there are many sources about immigration of that period because the better life standard in Transylvania than Wallachia and Moldavia. Also this is very usual that Romanian and Hungarian historians translate or understand different the old text, like Antun Vrancic, Romanians translate it "Romanians are equal like Hungarians+Saxons+Szekely together = 1/2" and Hungarians as "Romanians are same as the others by each = 1/4".

"Romanians/Vlachs could have lived both South of the Danube and North of it," but we don't have much documents about those territories before the 1200s

I exactly talk about this: everything is just "possible" "could" speculations and speculations³, but still we have many documents about (Sarmatians, Gepids, Goths, Huns, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans...) + lot of archeology, but nothing about the "always majority people", that is really strange. You cannot blame that other have different view. However I have no problem to show more views if those are academic not fringe like the flat earth or saying Austria was ancient Romanian land too, like some users did.

Genetic is more complex than refering to a main haplogroups which formed 30,000 years ago, at that time it was no modern nations, and those haplogroups are everywhere.

Population could change very fast, just you can see the Western European cities (check out demographic of Vienna (30% are not Austrians)), they have big population change just over some dacedes due of the immigrantion from third world. Or the cities which had full Hungarian population like Oradea#Demographics just 10km from today's border. Do not forget the vast amount wars Hungarian-Ottoman-Habsburg wars, Hungarian populated areas destroyed (depopulated areas here) and for example Vlachs who were safe in the forested areas, later occupied their extinct villages in the river valleys.

Could we focus on the article and the contents? OrionNimrod (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

i mean, ngl, you were the one that started talking about communist romania and modern-day politics and now you are calling "wolf". Seems unfair. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@YoursTrulyKor You accused me that I deleted a complete section by bad faith [20] I clearly stated that was "duplicated content", you can see that content is still in the page: Vlachs#13th century I did not remove it.

"they stated that the Union of the Principality of Transylvania with the Crown of Saint Stephen was illegal because the Romanians were never present in the decision-making proccess of the Kingdom."

Illegal? I know well that is part of the national communist myth, that "Transylvania was not part of Hungary it was not a Hungarian land but a Romanian land".

Well Transylvania even if it was not reattached to the main Kingdom of Hungary after the liberation from the Ottomans, Transylvania still was Hungarian crown land all the time, and Habsburgs became king of Hungary, Habsburg ruled Transylvania through the Hungarian crown Treaty of Speyer (1570) "the Treaty of Speyer stressed in a highly significant way that John Sigismund's possessions belonged to the Holy Crown of Hungary and he was not permitted to alienate them" Also we can see many old history maps which clearly show that situation: Map from 1700 [27] from 1751 [28] from 1759 [29] from 1787 [30] Please consult to the non-Hungarian authors of these old maps, that they did not know that Transylvania was not Hungarian land.,

"These hopes were dashed in 1879 when the Hungarian Parliament adopted a law making hungarian mandatory for Romanian and orthodox schools."

And? Today Romania knowing the Romanian language for the Transylvanian Hungarians are mandatory as second language, and they learn it in the school. What is this so suprising and bad? I would be really curious when Romanian users will talk about how they treated with the Hungarians since 1920, and the massacres against Hungarians which made by Romanian national heroes. England, France was harsh with their minorities in the 19th century, strong assimilation, Austria-Hungary was very liberal state in that time, but the minority rights in Romania was the same level as in Russia in that time. But I never see when Romanian users compare the rights in Hungary in 1910 to the rights in Romania where even in 1907 was a very bloody peasant rebellion, while in Hungary it was 400 years earlier in medieval times similar.

I talked about the background, because non-Romanian non Hungarian users do not understand why it is a hot topic.

Now could we focus about the Vlach contents? OrionNimrod (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Illegal? I know well that is part of the national communist myth I'm not referring to any communist myth; I did not even bring up any communist myths; I brought up the general opinion of the Romanian intelligentsia from 19th-century Transylvania. They felt unrepresented and were treated as second-class citizens, so they condemned the status quo and called it illegal. Again, there was a lot of hope among the intelligentsia, headed by Vincențiu Babeș for reapproachment with Hungary on the condition that they were treated as equals.

And of course, as I said, that hope was dashed by the forced magyarization of the Romanian population. And? Today Romania knowing the Romanian language for the Transylvanian Hungarians are mandatory as second language, and they learn it in the school.; The issue is that they weren't encouraged to continue learning Romanian; they were encouraged to learn just hungarian and punkt. According to Hanák Péter in "Ungarn in der Donaumonarchie" (1984), these laws that were implemented represented a sweeping success. Between 1880 and 1910, approximately 700,000 Jews, 600,000 Germans, 400,000 Slovaks, and 100,00 Romanians, among others declared themselves to be hungarian. This is visible in multiple statistics, most importantly in German majority cities like Temeschwar or Hermannstadt, where the Hungarian population seemingly quadruples while the ethnic Germans, Romanians, Serbs, etcs. either stagnate or have incremental growth.

And how exactly is the Peasant Revolt even related? What help does it bring you to make such comparisons? It serves the discussion no purpose and is a cheap attempt at changing the subject through the use of Whataboutism, i did not or do not intend to deviate to such subjects.

I am more than glad to return to the Vlach Conversation, but I felt that a paranthesis on magyarization and Transylvanian politics in the 19th century was needed since they were brought up. Again, to conclude, don't try to downplay these things because it ain't doing anyone a favour.

And by the way, I apologize for that accusation- I'm not used to Wikipedia Mobile. No harsh feelings! YoursTrulyKor (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Comparing modern-day mass immigration to the supposed migration of Vlachs during the Middle Ages is nonsese, an idea similar to the theories made by Dacopaths. Like really. If you claim that Romanians were not the majority during that time, that means you consider that Hungarians were, but Hungarians were not the majority in Transylvania in the 1600s, not in the 1700s and there are no sources claiming that a mass migration of Vlachs happened during that time in order for them to overtake the number of Hungarians living there, even considering the wars, in such a large mountainous territory like Transylvania, during that historical period. Even Hungarian historians that say that Vlachs migrated there claim that they became the majority of Transylvania during the Ottoman rule, surely not in the late 1700s.

Nevermind there was more migration from Transylvania towards Wallachia and Moldova than viceversa, and especially towards Moldova even ethnic Hungarians and Saxon migrated there from Transylvania. And even about those populations you mentioned, we don't have "many documents" about them, we have a very vague ideas about to what extent each of those population controlled those regions, for example we don't know to what extent Avars and Bulgarians controlled of Transylvania at each time. The few sources that mention those areas only specify which people ruled it, not the ethnic composition of it. About archeological data, Romanian historians claim there's proof of continuity, Hungarian historians says there's none.

We can continue to discuss about Vlachs, but like I said before, I also wanted to give the other point of view of the background you've given in the first comment. ZZARZY223 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Borsoka

Those articles have been stable because you took ownership of them and did not let other users change the essential of what you added, arguing with other editors as it was the case between us many, many times. But to be fair I did notice an much more well informed and neutral string of edits in the past year or so from yourself on these topics, except perhaps on some older language edits that really, really need to be revised. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Ownership" could hardly secure stability for more than a decade. Could you refer to cases when I hindered changes because of my ownership mentality not because of your attempts to present PoVs as facts? Borsoka (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course I can: this article was revisited only because more than one user flagged the issues with it. Even so, you have made no major contribution to updating it post that discussion, confirming that although other editors view it as in need of improvement you still prefer your old version. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes with weak justification

Some users are undo-ing or creating changes with weak justifications. A few examples:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1211210156
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1211213306

Changes that are justified should not be reverted only on the basis that an IP or a user with few changes has made it. AndooBundoo (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Remsense! That is the same edit war, again sarted by a brand new user. By above explained political ideology, they want to change the "majority" of historian opinion to "some" to pretend their theory is the universally accepted. Referencing just some source, does not mean only 3 historians say the same. For example all Hungarian historians refuse the Daco-Roman theory. At the conference held in Freiburg in 2001, eight German, two Hungarian and one Romanian historians and linguists debated the issue of Daco-Romanian continuity and took a 10:1 position against it. [31] Romanian historian Florin Curta, in a 2020 study, complains that the Daco-Roman theory is not accepted in Polish histography [32] And I know much much more (should I list all of them?), they cannot be "some". OrionNimrod (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

OrionNimrod, from what I understand, our new pal has a point here. WP:SUBSTANTIATE does say that we should avoid speaking of the views of "most scholars" when there is not an explicit survey or tertiary source that says as such. I don't see "some scholars", or simply naming scholars, as being problematic like you describe. Remsense诉 14:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense maybe we could rephrase whitout numbers,(because nobody counted them, however checking the historiography in the subject I can clearly say outside Romania the Daco-Roman theory is not really accepted, even many Romanian scholars refuse it). "According to the followers of Daco-Roman theory" and "Opponents of this theory" What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I personally think "Opponents of this theory" is fair and unbiased. AndooBundoo (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I don't agree with @OrionNimrod, the Daco-Roman theory is as well accepted by non-Romanian historians, we can just rephrase it by saying "according to the historians that support the migration theory" and "according to historians that support the Daco-Roman continuity theory" ZZARZY223 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@ZZARZY223 I think I suggested the similar :) Btw could you tell me by which non Romanian scholars is accepted the Daco-Roman theory? Btw I think it tells a lot about the situation, that I know many Romanians scholars who refuse the Daco-Roman theory, while I do not know any Hungarian scholar who accept it, all of them refuse the sourceless speculations. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Baruch Wachtel[33], Carlo Tagliavini (Le origini delle lingue neolatine, 1962), Giuseppe Stabile (Valacchi e valacchie nella letteratura francese medievale, 2010), Gerhard Ernst (Romanische Sprachgeschichte, 2009) are just some examples.

The Daco-Roman theory has a long history as it exists since the XV century, when Poggio Braccioloni and Flavio Biondo were the first to assume that Romanians descended from Romanized Dacians, and all foreign scholars and voyagers there afterwards that meet Romanians described them like that as well. ZZARZY223 (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Romanians lived where was the ancient Dacia, it is not secret, in the humanist times around 1500 some humanists authors wrote, because the language of the Romanians has Latin things they assumed there are the remain of the Romans in their former Dacia province. That is the big story. They wrote it 1500 years later, whitout any historical continuity, could you imagine that 1000 years it a really huge gap in history? And later that info from humanist time was good for the making the Daco-Roman theory. It is a big silence about when Byzantine authors in 11th century called the Hungarians as Dacians for the same geographically reason.

It would be good to see what exactly your authors wrote. I can show an another British historian in the subject, Emily Hanscam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v_aktmJclk OrionNimrod (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

What I was trying to explain is that the Daco-Roman continuity theory was not invented out of nothing by Romanian nationalists, but it existed for centuries, and what the first Romanian historians did was also to use those writings of Humanists scholars. ZZARZY223 (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod! This might be a language barrier and interpretation issue. When "most" is used in this context, a literature study that investigates a large proportion of scientific and published work in the domain is warranted for the use of this word. The citations in the article do not meet this standard, which then warrants the use of the word "some". Furthermore, if a source is provided that objectively shows that all Hungarian historians agree on this, the text can be changed to reflect that. Until those citations can be found and added, the use of the word "most" is unscientific and unjustified. If you add more sources, you can also maybe use the word "many", however whether this contributes to the discussion or not is a matter of personal interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndooBundoo (talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. We have decided that the present version is what stays up until we reach a better consensus on the talk page. Nice to meet you! Remsense诉 13:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello! No issue, this is the best course of action. I think this page needs a thorough re-examination of all text and sources, and I'll try to contribute to the best of my abilities. Thank you for mediating this. AndooBundoo (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The article's text should be decimated. Information on the Vlachs' ethnogenesis and early and high medieval references to them can be read in Origin of the Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka, do you have a rough idea of what relevant material should be kept in this article? I agree that the dedicated article should probably contain most of this material, but it also seems that some of it should stay, perhaps summary style. Remsense诉 14:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say that the early history of the Vlachs is uncertain because it is poorly documented. I would mention the earliest references to Proto-Romanian, to the Balkan Vlachs, and to Vlachs living north of the Lower Danube. I would also mention that certain ethnonyms (Blakumen, Bolokhoveni, Blagha) may have referred to Vlachs but this is also uncertain. I would also mention the first Vlach polities (Gelou's legendary state, the Second Bulgarian Empire, Wallachia, Moldavia). Borsoka (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

To me, it seems much of the issue is that an attempt

to prune prose on "one side" results in distrust that the "other side" will now have room for their own material. Of course, I don't think anyone here actually really wants to go on the offensive, and everyone involved could be happy with the scope Borsoka describes for both this article and Origin of the Romanians, given that the result is as described, and not biased towards a Romanian, Hungarian, Slavic, or any other perspective. Is this fair, everyone? Remsense诉 14:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I agree with @Borsoka. We can also summarize that the first Hungarian document about Vlachs in Transylvania is from 1223 which is related to the foundation of the Cistercian abbey at Cârța, and after that year documentation about Vlachs in Transylvania abounds, and that South of the Danube documentations about Vlachs appeared around the 10th century.ZZARZY223 (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Remsense I see the sock or meatpuppets are started personal harrasment campaign [34] honestly I do not know what are those things, I edited only some content in the article but I do not remember for those. It is also blurry what would be "xenophobic". OrionNimrod (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod can you disclose whether you are associated in any way with hu:Nemzeti_Együttműködés_Rendszere? Byte-ul (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I've just started reading the discussion in this and the above thread. I'll let everyone know once Ifinish. Remsense诉 02:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I know this page has seen protection before, but would everyone agree to requesting it again while we sort out the article? The lack of clear voices is difficult to work with. Remsense诉 08:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Im for protection YoursTrulyKor (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes I also agree ZZARZY223 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I've requested it. Remsense诉 21:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

what is this?

what is biased political denial of Romanian history by hungarians how is Wikipedia allowing this? 2A02:2F04:5001:A900:78BE:D4D:2367:6E6D (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

WP would not allow it. So if you think biased Hungarian editors deny Romanian history for political reasons, you can seek assistance at many wikiprojects. For instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality is intended to promote the neutral point of view and remove bias from articles. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Borsoka can you disclose whether you are associated in any way with hu:Nemzeti_Együttműködés_Rendszere? Byte-ul (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Your question is absolutely irrelevant. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it absolutely relevant since one of the main purposes of NER is to create the "Uj Magyarorszag" and attacking Romanian heritage and history is a main step towards that.

Anyway, your non-answer speaks for itself. Byte-ul (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. Your question speaks for itself. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Stable version

@OrionNimrod

This is what wikipedia says about stable version:

"Inappropriate usage

It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war. Stable versions are not superior or preferred to disputed edits in any way, boldly making changes to articles is encouraged as a matter of policy, and obstructing good faith edits for the sake of preserving "stable" content is a form of disruptive editing. Editors involved in content disputes or edit wars should focus on resolving the dispute, rather than preserving the stable version, and the decision to temporarily preserve the stable version for the purposes of deescalating a dispute may only be made by an uninvolved administrator."

The edits made afterwards the 26th version also made by users not part or involved in the discussion on the talk page so I cannot agree with your reasoning, even less with what is stable and what is not, since we are not admins. Reverting to your preferred version only serves to escalate edit warring. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Also whats the deal with calling everyone a "sockpuppet"? Why just throw accusations left and right without any truths to it, at least mine were justified.... YoursTrulyKor (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Aristeus01,

Edit war started on 1 March by many brand new users. Then conversation started: [35][36] "As is the norm, no one should continue editing the material in question until a consensus based on site policies and guidelines is reached."

I rephrase: "pre-edit war version" which is before 1 March. Please respect the request and agreement.

After: IP sockpuppet with personal attack [37][38] made big changes (however I did not edit this article a long time ago, I did some IP reverts), the IP changed edits of many users, I do not know exactly those things, I just restored the pre-war version, that is.

You cannot say seriously that the IP edit is the "pre-edit war version" [39] Or do you think an newcomer personal attacker (the personal attack reveals that IP knows about that discussion) IP user has right to supervise everything during the discussion? OrionNimrod (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @YoursTrulyKor, you asked questions from 3 users, I answered your question above one by one, are you satisfied? OrionNimrod (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Remsense, @Borsoka

Brand new IP with personal attack [40][41] made big changes (personal attack show us, he knows about the current debate), however more user requested and agreed do not change until end of the discussion, I see Aristeus01 pretend [42] the brand new personal attacker IP edit is the correct version. But "pre-edit war version" wass before 1 March. How possible this?

That is why I explained the background why this is a hot topic. The Daco-Roman myth formed by irredentism purpose, it has many anti-Hungarian elements, it has many contents which distort the Hungarian history, that is why Hungarian users involved in these things. And of course those Hungarians will labeled "xenophobic" "nationalist" by the fanatic followers of this Daco-Roman faith and the Romanian national-communist dogmas if those Hungarians do not accept the distortion of Hungarian history.

Aristeus01 worry about the "bias". Earlier he added a Daco-Roman map where the land from the Tisza-Dneister river is Romanian country between 800-1300 [43] that map is based on the national-communist maps, which clearly a history falsification if we see the international history maps from that period [11][12][13]. It is abuse on the Hungarian history claiming half of Hungary until the Tisza was Romanian country between 800-1300.

Then he added a more absurd map in this Vlach article (but he worry about the bias in this article) where even Austria (Burgenland) is ancient Romanian land with Romanian settlements between 800-1400: [6] in this fake map full Hungary+Croatia+Serbia is ancient Romanian land, it is again a strong history distortion againts more country, in this case Aristeus01 claims that full Hungary was a Romanian country in that period. Morover it is funny that we have no sources 1000 years long about Vlachs but they suddenly had hundred of settlement in Central Europe for 600 years long according to that map.

Comparing to the deed of pushing of fake maps, Aristeus01 wanted in any case remove from Wikipedia the modern Hungarian maps which made by Hungarian Academy of Science, finally with copyright report: [44] But the Hungarian Academy allowed the usage. Probably he did not like that Hungary had Hungarian and not full Romanian population in 1495 as he pretended by his fake maps. These deeds are cleary a bad faith behavior. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

First off, the Daco-Roman Theory is not a "myth", as you state multiple times; it's a theory and should be referred to as such. Calling it a "myth" really adds a degree of doubt to your statements, as it implies a bias towards one theory over the other. It should also be mentioned that you are interpreting the the map you linked (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/FormatiuniPoliticeRomanestiSecolele_IX_XIII.jpg) extremely wrong, for it doesn't show a Romanian country but rather different states, tribes and influences which existed there, (In the south, where it's supposed to be Wallachia, it very clearly states "KINGDOM OF BULGARIA", In the north of the area where it's supposed to be Moldavia, it very clearly states "Principality of Halych and "LANDS OF THE Iazyges" and in Transylvania it's pretty self-explanatory, showcasing the Voivodeship of Transylvania, which is using the borders of the Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) which, by the way, aren't even reaching the Tisza River) seemingly based off of information from Gesta Hungarorum. So no, in no way does it show a romanian state that existed during that time period, nor does it lay claim to such territories. You are overreacting, or didn't bother translating it, this is also not the first time i ee you do this. As for the second map, i agree that its quality is doubtful.

It also reminded me of an earlier claim you made where you stated that the Romanians immigrated only during or after the 12th century, let's say they reached Maramureș by the 13th century, yet you omitted to explain how the romanians became so numerous by the 1350s to cross the Carphatians in large enough numbers to completely seize the territories that would form the Principality of Moldavia. Of course, it wouldn't be such a big issue if it weren't for the fact that this theory was also extremely bound to the idea that the Bolokhovians weren't related to the Vlachs, because that would mean that Dragoș the Founder wouldn't require as many men to take over the area. Another argument you brought up was that there were no Latin descendants left north of the Danube due to a lack of sources, but to my knowledge, there are also no sources detailing a seemingly massive migration that should've taken place some time in the 12th to 13th centuries.

Again, to me, it seems you are cherrypicking information and are now trying to discredit other users by making accusations. Not only that, in the original argument you also make heavy use of Whataboutism while also seemingly avoiding key information, like in the case of the Austro-Hungarian Cemetery you brought up, where you very carefully avoided mentioning that it were members of a Facebook Group named "Úzvölgyi Civil Akciócsoport" who desecrated the crosses of Romanian Soldiers by covering them in trashbags. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but even the name of the map is “Romanian political formation 8-13th century” = Romaian states. Many pages, mostly Romanian wiki use this map and there are many variation of this map which also used on many mostly Romanian pages. Is this a real history map? A photoshopped map based on the national communist maps? Is this a scientific map?

Even Romanian user Zarzy said "if no sources about Romanians 1000 years long in Transylvania it does not mean they did not existed there" what is this if not a myth and speculation? According to my knowledge even the Romanian authorities said there are no Romanian soldiers on that cemetery (or max 1-2), that giant cement Celtic cross (seems Romanians are Celts now :)) was erected illegal above the Hungarian graves, also there are images how ultranationalist Romanians remove the Hungarian wooden crosses or they erect many another cement crosses above the Hungarian graves just some cm distance from the Hungarian graves with this name “unnamed Roman soldier” (Roman, not Romanian, no comment), it is obvious who started the desacrification of the cemetery so Hungarians covered the illegal erected cross. Romanian anti-Hungarian action and Hungarian reaction, then Romanian claim “see how bad the Hungarians again”. Usual game. Btw my purpose to show this, that to show the fake map in the cemetery where fanatic followers of DacoRoman religion claim that Switzerland was Romanian land and Mongol Hungarians came Mongolia in 1290 and robbed the land of them… seeing the progress probably some users want to publish this map also to Wiki as “real history”. Btw these absurd claims just clearly show us the political purpose and the reliability of the Daco Roman theory. OrionNimrod (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

What I said is that given the fact that there is extremely scarce documentation about those lands before the 1200s it should not be excluded that a particular ethnic group lived in the mentioned area during that time (and for instance, there are literally no documents about Transylvania at all before the year 1075, we know that Hungarians occupied the region in the first half of X century ONLY because of archeological evidence - and even there, the stages of Hungarian expansion in Transylvania are debated among historians) thus by your logic also the fact that Hungarians occupied Transylvania in the X century should be "a myth and speculation" since there are no documents about it.

Speaking about maps, it is interesting that you oppose adding this map which @Aristeus01 wanted to add, map that is backed by the Romanian Academy (which was published in 1995 and uses the information starting from the Gesta Hungarorum), meanwhile there's no problem about adding this map of the ethnic groups in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1495 to the article History of Transylvania which is backed only by Hungarian historians of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, based on speculations created by cherrypicked data of a mix of supposed toponyms of Hungarian origin + other documents, despite the origin of different toponyms is debated among linguists and historians (there's no general consensus even about the origin of the name Cluj/Kolosz, let alone about hundreds of villages) and the fact that in the discussed map settlements like Cluj/Kolloswar and Aiud/Naghenyed which had a Saxon-majority during that time are indicated as "Hungarian-majority", Fagaras/Fogorass is also indicated as Hungarian-majority despite it had a mixed Saxon-Romanian population, Hunedoara/Hwnyad and Hateg/Hatzak which were definetely Romanian-majority settlements during that time are also indicated as Hungarian-majority. ZZARZY223 (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ZZARZY223,

Leaving the sources, talking about archeology evidence: Romanian archeologist, Marian Tiplic [45] page 61:

"The history of the Romanian territories between the end of the 9th century to the beginning of the 12th is still a debated subject. Due to the lack of archaeological data that could prove the existence of the Romanian population in Transylvania, starting with the 19th century, the Romanian historiography transformed the stages of the formation of Romanian people into a political issue related to that time’s status-quo. The archaeological researches of the early medieval period of the Transylvanian territories are a necessity since the historiography has little resources to call on the written evidences of the events of 9th to 12th centuries. Identifying archaeological artefacts belonging to the Hungarian population within the Carpathian Basin is only a routine exercise for today’s archeologists."

Fanatic followers of Daco-Roman theory are creating fake maps for Wikipedia to claim Transylvania did not belong to Hungary until 1300: [46] [47] I can say average Hungarian users will be not nationalist just because do not like the falsified maps which created by nationalists from other country wich abuse the Hungarian history.

Romanian archeologist says that identifying Hungarians remains in 10th century Transylvania is super easy, however Daco-Roman theory says Hungarians "occupied Transylvania only about 1200-1300" from the defender Romanians (but I never see naming any battle or events about this). For me it is very hard to understand, how possible that identifying remains from Hungarian people who were allegedly not there is super easy, but no archaeological data between 800-1200 (and before) about the allegedly "always majority Romanians"? Where is the logic?

Morover we have many archeology and sources about many other folks in the region after the Roman withdrawal (Sarmatians, Gepids, Goths, Huns, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans...) just nothing about the "always majority Romanians". This is also strange.

It is not true that we have not sources about Hungarians in Transylvania in the 10th century, many Byzantine documents, baptization, Gyula II, Gyula III Hungarian rulers of Transylvania, their capital in the center of Transylvania, first byzantine style Transylvanian church from 950 which founded by them not by the "very ancient centuries long christian always majority population".

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romanian_states_in_the_9th-13th_centuries.svg That fake map clearly state "Romanian states 800-1300" it is clearly Photoshopped not made by academy, it is based the national-communist maps like this from 1980s [48] or from earlier [49]. We can see Kingdom of Hungary is start from the western side of the Tisza, Principality of Transylvania establishet in 1570, so the map has time travel also.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Popoare_Migratoare_In_Romania_Secolele_IX_-XIII.svg Migration "in Romania" between 800-1300 many Wiki pages uses that fake map.

Those maps were created based on Gesta Hungarorum, but "according to the Gesta Hungarorum" they are not real history maps, but they look different than the Romanian one above:

File:Tomka Szászk.jpg

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fájl:Gesta_hungarorum_map.jpg

Btw I found the big double standard so ironic, Romanians say that Gesta Hungarorum is the evidence of "3 Romanian kings" in Transylvania because only 1 "king" Gelou named as "blasij, blacorum" which uncertain blurry words means only Romanian according to Daco-Roman supporters. While Romanians refuse the full book outside this thing, however the Gesta say the Szekelys are the Hun remnants in Transylvania, and Gesta clearly say many times that Hungarian are descendant of Huns and Scythians.

The Dacians built fortified cities, the Romans were famous great city builders. What explains why the "allegedly Dacian and Roman ancestors" established no cities in Transylvania, nor before or after the Hungarian conquest? What's more: even the Romanian word "oraş" (city) came from the Hungarian word "város" (city). The allegedly "super ancient" Romanians forgot every Dacian and Latin city names, the Romanians took and use the Hungarian names of the Transylvanian cities. For example "Cluj" from the Hungarian "Kolozsvár", instead of the Latin "Napoca", "Turda" from the Hungarian "Torda", instead of Latin "Potaissa", "Alba Iulia" from the Hungarian "Gyulafehérvár" (Gyula + white city) instead of Latin "Apulum", "Orsova" from the Slavic name "Orsova" instead of Latin "Dierna"... It is interesting that for example, the Germans did not forget the name of the Roman city "Colonia Claudia", naming the city today "Köln" (Cologne), capital of Austria became "Wien" (Vienna) from the Latin "Vindobona", the Germanic English did not forget the name of the ancient Roman city of Londinium (London)... etc, but the allegedly "descendants of the Romans" forgot the names of the Roman towns, which they claim to be built by themselves.

You do not know the method how Hungarian Academy worked on the Hungarian ethnic maps. The Hungarian map in 1495 are published in many books like this: https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/3_en.html That is work of 30 years research, the author said they drawed the map for favor of the Romanians, even they colored aeas to Romania if the sources mention them there, but maybe they were there only just 2 weeks because of the transhumance way of life. 1495 is not the dark age, Kingdom of Hungary was one of the strongest kingdom, the Hungarian library of King Matthias was the second biggest after the Vatican, Hungarian historian have tons of historical sources (of course many things destroyed during Ottoman times) regarding the population, not only toponyms.

Based on the 1330 papal tax document of Hungary, the nationalcommunist Romanian historiography claimed that 2/3 of the population was Romanian in Transylvania because they populated with Romanians every settlements which had no churches. Howeven even western Hungary in many counties 2/3 of settlements had no churches. Hungarian historians claimed, following this logic, we could say 2/3 of Poland or Germany was Romanian populated at that time, that is the speculation. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, about the fact that proponents of the Daco-Roman continuity theory supposedly claim that Hungarians occupied Transylvania only about in the years 1200-1300, I struggle to find any actual historian who claims that. Nevertheless, post-communist historians claim that, during the X century, there can be an identification of Hungarian relics of the Bjelo-Brdo culture that are distinct from the South Danubian influences in Transylvania, which might have been connected to the Vlach and Slavs living there.

Documentation about Vlachs is non-existed before the 9th century even in South of Danube, for which reason attributing archeological findings only to Vlachs even there is complex, given the fact that they surely co-existed with Slavic peoples, and even the migrations of Vlachs during that time are not easy to understand, from which direction they went.

Still, about the fact that we know about the events in Transylvania in the X century, about Gyula II and Gyula III, the founding of the Byzanthine Church in Alba Iulia and so on, it's because historians can rely on documents from the XI to XIII centuries, such as the work of John Skylitzes, the Annales Hildesheimenses, and the 2 Gesta of Anonymous and Simon of Keza (which for example Kristó Gyula uses a lot in the A korai Erdély (895-1324) for these personalities), but none of them are from the X century. And like just said, a very large part of that century in Transylvania is known through the 2 Gesta that also mention the Vlachs living there alongside Slavs there.

The whole point I was trying to make before was that, either with the Daco-Roman continuity theory or the migration theory, it cannot be excluded that Vlachs might have lived there before the 1200s, since the number of documents about them in Transylvania grew in correlation to the fact that documents about Transylvania grew a lot in the 1200s, and there are many documents about Saxons settling in the Fagaras area where Vlachs already lived there.

Talking about towns, many of them remained inhabited for a while after the Aurelian retreat from Dacia, including Apulum, Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, Porolissum, Drobeta and Sucidava, the last 2 of them being abandoned by the Byzanthines only in the 590s. In the following centuries the towns were destroyed by the invading peoples, and much like in the other parts of the Balkans (for example with Sirmium), the population turned mostly rural, hence losing also their Latin name (just like what happened with Serdica/Sofia, Durostorum/Silistra, Trimontium/Plovdiv, etc) those cities being reinstablished later with other names. The situation in South-Eastern Europe was not comparable to the one in Western Europe where cities continued to be inhabited even after the collapse of the Roman Empire.

In the case of Transylvania, Cluj was reestablished by Saxons, hence is obvious that it doesn't have a Latin name, new settlements enstablished during the Hungarian Kingdom, like Timișoara/Temesvar, Sighișoara/Segesvár, obviously had their names come from Hungarian, but other settlements like the old Romanian name of Alba Iulia, Bălgrad, comes from Slavic (Alba-Iulia from Gyula-Fehervar was adopted only after), same with Târnava instead of Küküllő, meaning that Vlachs had to live there before Hungarians, otherwise they wouldn't have known the Slavic name.

Also the name used for "town/fortification" in Romanian was cetate which does come from Latin civitatem, and was used before oraş from város.

And interestingly, Buda was indeed one of the richest cultural centers in Europe, the second in Europe just after the Vatican, but how was it possible that in the 1400s-1500s literally nobody at the Court of Buda wrote that Vlachs just migrated to Transylvania 2-3 centuries earlier? Not only that, but ALL Italian humanists during that time claimed that Romanians there did descend from the Latinized Dacians, same did claim the Transylvanian Saxon scholars, and even Antonio Bonfini which literally was at the Court of Buda wrote also that Vlachs descended from Romanized Dacians: E legionibus enim et coloniis a ise Traiano ac ceteris Romanorum imperatoribus in Daciam deductis Valacchi promanarunt.[50]. How did he, being able to access so many Hungarian documents, not mention they migrated there, in a pretty recent period for him?

Nevermind that the map of the supposed ethnic groups in 1495 in Hungary is still based on pure speculation, since no ethnic censuses were made before 1850. Like said before, many settlements marked there as Hungarian-majority were not during that time (even Buda was mostly German during that time) and besides the examples I mentioned in the comment before other towns like Gilău/Gylaw, Șiria/Wylagoswar, Ineu/Jenew, despite there's no indication that Hungarians were ever the majority there (also it's beyond me how you can claim that in 1495 most Vlachs in Tr. still had a transhumance way of life when in Wallachia and Moldova the vast majority of the population was employed in agriculture - just like the vast majority of Europe - and there were already many urban centers)

And besides considering all of those things, it still remains interesting how not only Transylvania, but all over the Carpathians, except for Szekelyland (where Szekelys benefited from many autonomies thanks to their position), non-Hungarians were the majority, as those non-Hungarian ethnic groups lived in the mountainous areas and were not assimilated by the conquering Hungarians like the populations in the Pannonian Plains did, and where Hungarians remained the majority to this day. In Carpathian Ruthenia - what a coincidence - Rusyns are the majority in the mountains and Hungarians in the plains. Not surprisingly Hungarian historians also claim Rusyns immigrated there after the Hungarian conquest, but there's plenty of evidence that Eastern Slavs settled there centuries before[51]. Same story with Slovaks, they also were not assimilated because they were isolated by the mountains. In conclusion is easy to assume Hungarians politically did rule the Carpathians, but ethnically they were never the majority there (except for Szekelyland). ZZARZY223 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

ZZARZY223,

Well, nobody say "mass immigrations", it was no passport in medieval times. Why do you think that transhumance related movements was matter to write a lot about it in medieval times? Unfortunatelly lot of document destroyed by the Mongol invasion and Ottoman wars. By Vlach law, people were settled where the natural conditions were not favorable for farming. Its essential elements were the unique taxation methods. As the law had a more freedom of degree of taxation, it was favoring the immigration of foreigners. The kenez was not only chieftain, but also a settlement contractor, who receives some uninhabited land from the king in order to settle it and then he and his descendants judge over the settlers in non-principal matters. These areas are smaller or larger in proportion to the size of the donated land. There were kenezes with 300 families, but also ones with barely four or five families. As a result, there was a big difference in authority and rank between the individual kenezes. Initially, they settled in the vicinity of existing villages, but from the middle of the 14th century, they also founded independent settlements. In a certificate of King Louis the Great of Hungary dated 1350: "hoping that under their diligent care our Vlach villages will gain many inhabitants, we give the keneziatus". A document dated in 1352, in which the lord-lieutenants of Krassó County writes the following: "They asked me for the uninhabited land of the Mutnok stream with the same freedom as the kenezes living in the Sebes district rule their villages in order to populate it." In the beginning the Romanians settled only on the royal estates, later the king allowed the Bishop of Transylvania and the chapter to settle Romanians on their estates. In the time of King Louis the Great, cities and even private landlords could settle immigrant Romanians.

Before 1300, in districts of Eastern Hungary, the contemporary sources mention around a 1000 Hungarian and Saxon villages, but only 6 clearly Romanian villages, but 5 of these (Enyed, Fenes, Fülesd, Illye, Szád) had Hungarian derived names, the name of Oláhtelek reveals that it was established in a Hungarian environment. At that time, the royal power declined at the expense of the aristocracy and the Church and more Romanians were unlawfully placed on private properties. In 1293, according to the provision of King Andrew III of Hungary, all Vlachs staying on the estates of nobles and others except 60 Vlach families needed to relocate even by force to the royal estate called Székes where they enjoyed a full tax exemption. Thus those Romanian families could grow and multiply without any burden, both financially and numerically. According to the area of Székes estate and the amount of the donated lands for each family, according to the Hungarian estimation, this corresponded 3600 families which meant 16,000–18,000 Romanians, and at that time, all Transylvanian Romanians could be settled on only one royal estate. Which corresponds the naming of the first settlement with the "oláh" word in the Kingdom of Hungary: Oláhtelek (meaning Vlach-site in Hungarian) in Bihar county from 1238.

Romanians lived where was the ancient Dacia, it is not secret, in the humanist times around 1500 some humanists authors wrote, because the language of the Romanians has Latin things they assumed there are the remain of the Romans in their former Dacia province. That is the big story. They wrote it 1500 years later, whitout any historical continouty, could you imagine that 1000 years it a really huge gap in history?

"Regestrum Hungarorum de Ciuitate Cluswar" This document lists the names of the inhabitants of Kolozsvár. The people were listed on 1st August 1453 for the purpose of tax collection. Two Romanian names appear on the list, it is mentioned for both that they are migrants. One came from Moldavia, the other from Wallachia. According to the document the population of the city could be around 5-6000, 50-50% Hungarians and Saxons.

It was also many various circumstances, wars, Hungarian population decline, how Vlach population grew, it was many immigrations centuries long, even many recorded in 1600s. Turkish Evliya Çelebi writes this in his book: The Romanian serfs move en masse to Transylvania because of the extreme ruthlessness of the rulers of Romanian lands. The Romanians say there is justice, legal order, and low taxes in Transylvania. Voivode Ghica, Prince of Wallachia write to Mihály Apafi, Prince of Transylvania in 1663 that full Vlach settlements moved to Transylvania. Vasile Lupu, Voivode of Moldavia wrote a letter to his Turkish overlord in 1653. In this letter, he says the Vlach population is 1/3 in Transylvania.

Sebastian Münster in 1558 did not mention Romanians in Transylvania, why not if they were majority? "Transylvania, a province of the Kingdom of Hungary. This area is surrounded from all sides, as if by walls, by huge mountains, like bastions protecting a city, for which reason it is almost impossible to win a victory over it in war. His soldiers are also determined and very strong. Beyond the mountains to the east, south and north live Vlachs. The part of Wallachia that falls towards the north is called Moldavia, and its inhabitants are wild and stubborn people, hard whips of the people of Transylvania. Moldavia is home to warlike people who are always ready for war. The capital of the area is called Suceava, commonly called Sotzschen. They say it is impossible to occupy this land. Székely land is a special region of Transylvania, whose inhabitants speak a different language than the people of Transylvania. Transylvanians mostly speak German, while Székelys speak Hungarian."

Georg von Reicherstorffer: Transylvaniae Chorographia Moldaviae, 1550: [52] “Also Vlachs dwell in this land, but sparsely, without a fixed home.” “Morover, Moesians [from Bulgaria] were once those, who are now Valachians, is more accepted today than anyone dares to deny” “But to get a little further to a clearer knowledge of this province of Transylvania through the description of the Chorographia: this province is divided between three nations, who differ from each other in religion, morals, custom and law and who inhabit the region itself in different lands: such as Saxons, Szeklers and Hungarians. Among them live the Vlachs themselves, the inhabitants of the same province, in some abandoned villages and estates" OrionNimrod (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding: "mass migration" seems a fairly well-used term in scholarship I've read at least. Remsense诉 19:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean Hungarian historiograhgy does not say "mass migration of Vlachs", it describe it a centuries long event, and also those local already settled Vlachs grew inside the Hungarian kingdom. While Romanian historiography claim, we have no description that million of Vlachs migrated to north, and Hungarians neither say that. For example during Ottoman times the Wallachian rulers got refugee in Hungary many times with their full household, and when Ottomans went they moved home, just many of the household remained in Hungarian Transylvania. And this happened many times during Ottoman times. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

how did the Vlachs keep their religion and language while being perpetually surrounded by different groups of people if the migration was a centuries long event? how comes they were not assimilated? Byte-ul (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, of course. That's a dimension to how this is tricky, right? From what I understand, Romanian is the "most like Latin" Romance language in some ways, and in those ways more dissimilar from English, and of course Hungarian is from a totally different family, so there's tons of room for subtle misunderstandings in any case. :) Remsense诉 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Byte-ul, For the first time in history, the Diet of Torda in 1568 declared freedom of religion. There was no state religion, while in other parts of Europe and the world religious wars were fought. I think in the Origin of Romanians article there are explanations, for example Roman Dacia province was the most short lived Roman province only 165 years long, hostile province at the edge of the empire, Romans needed abandon that province because of the bad situation of many enemy attack, scholars claim that is not enough time to latinize people. For example Pannonia was 400 years long stable Roman province, and still it was no Latins when Hungary was founded. But the Balkan was also a long time latinitzed province, where the immigration theory assume the origin of Vlachs. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was supposed to be an answer to my question or just random stuff?

How did the Vlachs keep their religion and language while being perpetually surrounded by different groups of people if the migration was a centuries long event? how comes they were not assimilated? Byte-ul (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Dont forget this Romanian language#French, Italian, and English loanwords, Re-latinization of Romanian OrionNimrod (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This just reinforces the daco-roman continuity theory. 30% of words inherited by latin after being surrounded by non-latin groups during the so-called "slow migration that happened over hundreds of years"

Something's not quite right, maybe they were there all along? Byte-ul (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hungary was also surronded by different language speakers, and Hungarian language preserved. 30% of English is also Latin: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Origins_of_English_Words.svg + Latin influence in English I do not see ever British people would say they are Romans because of that... Brazilians are speak Latin based language also, are they Romans too? For example an Afro-American person in Los Angeles speak English, but his origin is not from England. Roman Empire was big, Balkan was latinized, and Romanians came from there accoding immigration theory. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

do you compare the hungarian migration with the alleged vlachs migration? it makes no sense and your arguments are contradicting each other.

The hungarian language is only 21% uralic and 30% unknown, so how exactly was it preserved? Even with such a huge migration you kept only 21% of uralic influence, while romanian is still 30% latin after this so-called "slow migration over hundreds of years". Byte-ul (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What is that "unknown"? Hungarian very different than any other language in Europe. Even Finnish is more far from Hungarian than English to Russian. Which means Hungarian preserved much more unique thing, wile Romanians is similar to other Romance languages. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course not, and language is the best proof of this. The Romanian is a Romance language, no question about it, but let's not forget that Romance groups existed all over the Balkans, think of the Dalmatians. What's interesting is that Romanian is full of Latin innovations that only developed in the 8th century. These could not have been introduced into the Romanian if it had been isolated from the other Romance languages all along in Dacia.

Secondly, Dacia was ruled by eastern Germanic tribes for 450 years, so how is it that the ancestors of the Romanians, who according to the Daco-Roman theory, adopted the Latin language in about 170 years (which is completely unique in Roman history) but not a single eastern Germanic word? Not a single one? Not even a single little word? That's more than a little suspicious, isn't it?

On the contrary, in some mysterious way, Albanian words do exist in Romanian... isn't that suspicious?

So Romanian hasn't been influenced by any of the languages that have existed in present-day Romania for nearly 1000 years, but the ones in the Balkans have. Honestly, don't you find that suspicious? CriticKende (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Byte-ul Romanian linguists, Dan Alexe: [53][54] The vocabulary of the language of the Romanians in Maramaros, who moved to Moldava, have many Balkan Slavisms, but not influenced by their neighboaring Ruthenian language (relative to Ukrainian language). The massive Slavic layer of the Romanian vocabulary does not show any meaningful northern effect, no relationship with Ruthenian, Ukrainian or Russian. The Romanian Church has been slavized in Bulgaria with Byzantine culture in the Balkan, not outside. The territory of Moldavia and Wallachia was dominated by the Goths for centuries, and then by the Cumans and the Pechenegs, but the languages of these peoples had no effect on Romanian. This clearly shows that the ancestor of Romanians did not live with them. That is, the Romanians only appeared sometime after the Mongol invasion in the region between the Carpathians and the Danube.

Emil Petrovici, a Romanian linguist said, there are no Romanian place names before the 14th century:

"The first to present his ideas was the linguist Emil Petrovici. From his researches it results that the Romanian toponyms are of the recipe date, as such neither to the south nor to the north of the Danube there is an old Romanian toponymy. It is only from the 14th century that Romanian toponyms can be mentioned. Hydronomy doesn't help much either. According to Petrovici, there is no water name that presents Romanian phonetics, but only a Slavic one." OrionNimrod (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

1. There are multiple history sources showing Cumans, Pechenegs and Romanians raiding together or fighting against each other. Svyatopolk recruited both Vlachs and Pechenegs for his fight against Yaroslav .

2. Mongols even fought the Vlachs when they arrived, so the Vlachs didn't "appear sometime later

3. The absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

So anyway this is getting ridiculous and you keep recycling NER baseless arguments. Daco-Roman continuity has sources from the Byzantines (Priscus, Maurice, Kekaumenos, Kinnamos), Hungarians (Anonymous, Simon de Keza, etc.), Russians (Nestor), Cuman turks (Oghuz-name), Vikings (Saga of Eymund, Snorri Sturlusson's Heimskringla, the Sjonhem Runestone), Arabs (Ibn al-Nadim, Mutahhar al-Maqdisi), etc.

What proof is there on migration theory? Literally 0, expect made-up stuff from recent hungarians. Byte-ul (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

1.) Sure, hundreds of years after the 9th century, but before that somehow no source mentions the Romanians, I'm very very very very curious why?

Procopius of Caesarea

The River Ister [Danube] flows down from the mountains in the country of the Celts, who are now called Gauls; and it passes through a great extent of country which for the most part is altogether barren, though in some places it is inhabited by barbarians who live a kind of brutish life and have no dealings with other men. When it gets close to Dacia, for the first time it clearly forms the boundary between the barbarians, who hold its left bank, and the territory of the Romans, which is on the right. - Procopius of Caesarea

Unfortunately he doesn't mention the left over Romans either...

The History of Count Zosimus

“The Scythians were by this time so elated by their former success, that they appointed a place of meeting with the Heruli, Peucae, and Gothi, near the river Tyra, which empties itself into the Pontus…”

“Meanwhile the Borani, the Gothi, the Carpi, and the Urugundi, nations that dwell on the Ister, left no part of Italy or Illyricum unpillaged, but devasted all without any opposition.”

Unfortunately he doesn't mention the Vlachs either...

Royal Frankish Annals:

After arriving at Aachen and celebrating Christmas there, he was informed, that the envoys of the king of the Bulgars were in Bavaria. He contacted them and made them wait there until the right moment. The emperor also received the envoys of the Obodrites who are commonly called Praedenecenti and live in Dacia on the Danube as neighbors of the Bulgars, of whose arrival he had been informed. In 822: "He himself... in a place called Frankfurt... holding a great assembly... received the envoys of the Slavs from the East who came to him with gifts, namely the Abodrites, the Serbs, the Veleti, the Bohemians, the Moravians, the Praedenecentes [Balkan Slavs] and the Avars who were in Pannonia." "After arriving at Aachen and celebrating Christmas there, he was informed that the envoys of the king of the Bulgars were in Bavaria. He contacted them and made them wait there until the right moment. The emperor also received the envoys of the Obodrites who are commonly called Praedenecenti and live in Dacia on the Danube as neighbors of the Bulgars, of whose arrival he had been informed."

Unfortunately there is no mention of the Vlachs either...

Annales Regni Francorum:

"After a little while the kagan, ruler of the Huns, came to the emperor to compel his people, asking him to give him a place to settle between Sabaria and Karnut, because he could not live in his old abode because of the hatred of the Slavs."

"The emperor listened to their pleas, and ordered that, according to their ancient customs, the kagan should have the supreme power in his own kingdom. In the same year he sent his army with Charles' son to the land of the Slavs."

Unfortunately there is no mention of the Vlachs either...

Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum:

"Now will be added how the Slavs, who are called the Carantanians, and their neighbors, were instructed in the holy faith and made Christians, as well as how the Huns drove the Romans, and Goths, along with the Gepids, from Lower Pannonia and took possession of that land, until the Franks and Bavarians overcame them by casting them down in repeated wars. Those who submitted to the faith and sought to be baptized, they made tributaries of their kings, and the land, which the remaining [people] possess, they hold from the king in return for tribute up to the present day."

and in another part

"Now a brief recapitulation concerning the Avars. In ancient times, the Romans possessed Lower Pannonia and the surrounding regions south of the Danube, and established cities and fortresses there to defend it, as well as many other buildings which can still be seen to this day. They [the Romans] also subjected the Goths and Gepids to their authority. However, beginning in the Year of the Lord 377, the Huns, who dwelled in the waste lands north of the Danube, emerged from their abodes and crossed the Danube, expelling the Romans, along with the Goths and Gepids. A few of the Gepids still live there today, however. After the Huns were expelled, then came the Slavs, who began to settle throughout those areas along the Danube."

Why don't It mention the Romans, they were no longer living there like the Gepids?

Rogosk Chronicler:

"In the year 6405 [897] there were Slavs living along the Danube, as well as the Ugrics, Muromas and the Danubian Bulgars."

The Anonymus Ravenna Geographer:

"Then towards the almost southern part, one might say a very wide country, there are very wide countries, Dacia prima and secunda, also called Gipidia, where the Huns, who are Avars, now dwell. These two Dacia have been described by quite a number of scholars, among whom I have read the Gothic [Greek] Menelakhos and Aristarkhos."

“…and to the front of the same Albis (Alps) is called the smaller Datia, and beyond it from the side it is called the large and spacious Datia: which are simply written as Gapidia; in which now the race of the Huns is known to dwell.”

Interesting that the Ravenna Geographer doesn't mention the Vlachs either...

Jordanes:

"I mean ancient Dacia, which the race of the Gepids now possess. This Gothia, which our ancestors called Dacia and now, as I have said, is called Gepidia, was then bounded on the east by the Roxolani, on the west by the Yazyg, on the north by the Sarmatians and Basternae and on the south by the river Danube. The Yazyg are separated from the Roxolani by the Aluta river only."

He also wrote that the Slavenes occupied the region "from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus" to the river Dniester, and that the Antes dwelled "in the curve of the sea of Pontus"

and again

"Beyond these (lands) is inward Dacia, protected in a ring by the steep alps, whose northward left flank, from the origin of the Vistulavast (Vistula river) areas settled by a populous nation of the Wends. These, though their names vary according to the different tribes and habitations, are called chiefly 'sclavans' and 'ants'. The Sclavans camp from the town of Novietunum and the lake called Mursiai all the way to Danaster and north to Viscla. They live in swamps and forests instead of villages. And the Antes, who are the fairest of them, (settle) where the Pontus Sea curves, extend from the Danaster as far as the Danaper, which rivers are separated by many days' walk from each other."

Unfortunately there is no mention of the Vlachs either...

Anania Shirakatsi:

"On the south side is Thrace proper and on the north side the large country of Dacia, where dwell the Slavs [who form] twenty-five tribes, in whose place invaded the Goths, who came from the island of Scandia which is called Emios by the Germans." - Ananias of Shirak

The Bavarian Geographer and The 9th-century Catalogue of Fortresses and Regions to the North of the Danube:

"Next to them are those called Talaminzi, who have 14 cities. The Bohemians (Becheimare) have 15 cities. The Marharii have 11 cities. The country of the Bulgars (Uulgarii) is immeasurably large and has 5 cities, because for the vast majority of them it is not the custom to have cities. There is a people called Moravians (Merehani) who have 30 cities. … The Khazars (Caziri) have 100 cities. The Rus (Ruzzi). The Forsderen. The Liudi. The Fresiti. The Seravici. The Lucolane. The Hungarians (Ungare). The Vistulans (Uuislane)." The Sleenzane have 15 cities.

Unsurprisingly, the chronicle also do not mention Valchs or any romance speaking population/settlemen.

De Administrando Imperio:

The most important historical work of the time!!

"At that time the Goths and many very large nations were settled in the regions of the far north down as far as the Danube. Of these the most notable are the Goths, Visigoths, Gepedes and Vandals, who differ from one another in name only and in nothing else, and speak one and the same tongue; and all are of the misbelief of Arius… The Gepedes, from whom were later divided off the Lombards and Avars, lived in the territories about Singidunum and Sirmium."

"From Thessalonica to the river Danube where stands the city called Belgrade, is a journey of eight days, if one is not travelling in haste but by easy stages. The Turks live beyond the Danube river, in the land of Moravia, but also on this side of it, between the Danube and the Save river. From the lower reaches of the Danube river, opposite to Distra, Patzinacia stretches along, and its inhabitants control the territory as far as Sarkel, the city of the Chazars, in which garrisons of 300 men are posted and annually relieved. Sarkel among them means ‘white house’,"

"Such are the landmarks and names along the Danube river; but the regions above these, which comprehend the whole settlement of Turkey, they now call after the names of the rivers that flow there. The rivers are these: the first river is the Timisis, the second river the Toutis, the third river the Morisis, the fourth river the Krisos, and again another river, the Titza. Neighbours of the Turks are, on the eastern side the Bulgarians, where the river Istros, also called Danube, runs between them; on the northern, the Pechenegs; on the western, the Franks; and on the southern, the Croats."

"These nations are adjacent to the Turks: on their western side Francia; on their northern the Pechenegs; and on the south side great Moravia, the country of Sphendoplokos, which has now been totally devastated by these Turks, and occupied by them. On the side of the mountains the Croats are adjacent to the Turks. The Pechenegs too can attack the Turks, and plunder and harm them greatly, as has been said above in the chapter on the Pechenegs."

"For the Avars had their haunts on the far side of the river Danube, where now are the Turks, and led a nomad life."

"Originally, the Pechenegs had their dwelling on the river Atil, and likewise on the river Geich, having common frontiers with the Chazars and the so-called Uzes. But fifty years ago the so-called Uzes made common cause with the Chazars and joined battle with the Pechenegs and prevailed over them and expelled them from their country, which the so-called Uzes have occupied till this day. The Pechenegs fled and wandered round, casting about for a place for their settlement; and when they reached the land which they now possess and found the Turks living in it, they defeated them in battle and expelled and cast them out, and settled in it, and have been masters of this country, as has been said, for fifty-five years to this day."

The most accurate account of the area in contemporary history, it mentions every single people who lived in the area during the period, leaving out only the Vlachs, " as if they had not been there". How is it possible? And we are not over!

Ibrahim ibn Yaqub (Abraham ben Jacob):

“Al-Qustantiniyyah [Constantinople] is situated to the south of the Bulgars. In the East and in the North, the Bulgars border with the Pechenegs. To the west of them is situated the Venetian Lake. It is a gulf which comes from the Syrian Sea, passes between the Great Land and Al-Qustantiniyyah washes the coasts of Rumah and Lanqubardiyah, which belong to the Great Land, and interrupts at Aqulayah. All these places form a unique island washed by the Syrian Sea in the south and by the Venetian gulf in the east and the west. Only the western side is not limited by the sea. The Slavs live on both coasts of this gulf, beginning from the place where it comes out of the Syrian Sea in the west. To the east of them live the Bulgars, and to the west— other Slavs. The Slavs who live in the west are more powerful and courageous. The people living in that region ask them for grace and are afraid of their force. Their country consists of mountains with bumpy ways. Generally speaking, the Slavs are very powerful, and were they not divided, no people could compete with them in force. Of all the countries, they live in the most prosperous and richest one. They are engaged in agriculture and business and excel in these all the peoples of the North. Their trade is carried on by land and by sea to the Russians and Al-Qustantiniyyah. Many Northern tribes speak the Slavic language, for they are mixed with the Slavs. Among them are the Germans, the Magyars, the Pechenegs, the Russians, and the Chazars.”

Unfortunately there is no mention of the Vlachs either...

Ibn Rusta:

He writes about the Hungarians at a time when they were living in the Atelkouzou region next to Transylvania.

"Their [The Hungarians'] territory is vast, extending to the Black Sea, into which two rivers flow, one larger than the Oxus. Their campsites are located between these two rivers.[Atelkouzou] During the winter, everyone camps by the nearest river. They stay there, living by fishing, because this is the best place to spend the winter. The Magyar country is rich in wood and water. The land is well watered and harvests abundant. They lord over all the Slavs who neighbour them and impose a heavy tribute on them. These Slavs are completely at their mercy, like prisoners. The Magyars are pagans, worshipping fire. They make piratical raids on the Slavs and follow the coast [of the Black Sea] with their captives to a port in Byzantine territory named Karkh (Kerch)."

Unfortunately there is no mention of the Vlachs either...

Abu Zayd al-Balkhi:

"About the Basdzsirs [Hungarians]. There are two kinds, one of them lives on the edge of the land of the Oghuz, behind the Bulgars. They say they number about two thousand people. They live in the shelter of their forests, no one can overpower them. They are subjects of the Bulgars. The other Basdzsirs [Hungarians] border on the Pechenegs. Both they and the Pechenegs are Turks, and border the Eastern Romans."

Unfortunately there is no mention of the Vlachs either...

John Skylitzes:

He is one of the first to mention the Vlachs in his chronicle:

"Romanos made his way safely (to Bidine) and eventually returned to the capital - as will be reported in the appropriate place. Of these four brothers, David died right away, killed between Kastoria and Prespa, at a place called Kalasdrys, by some vagabond Vlachs."

However, when he mentions the peoples north of the Danube... unfortunately, he somehow doesn't mention the Vlachs... he must have "accidentally" not written about them.

"Deeply ashamed by this disaster and by his humiliation at Symeon’s hands, the emperor sent the patrician Niketas Skleros across the Danube to persuade the Turks and Hungarians (as they are called) to cross the river and to devastate Bulgaria as best they could."

It is interesting that he had already written about the Vlachs, and knew who they were, but he does not say that the emperor sent the envoy to the Vlachs north of the Danube, but to the Hungarians. Interesting, as if he knew that there were no Vlachs living there...

Theophanes the Confessor:

“As for Sarbaros, he dispatched him with his remaining army against Constantinople with a view to establishing an alliance between the western Huns (who are called Avars) and the Bulgars, Slavs, and Gepids, and so advancing on the City and laying siege to it. When the emperor learnt of this, he divided his army into three contingents: the first he sent to protect the City; the second he entrusted to his own brother Theodore, whom he ordered to fight Sain; the third part he took himself and advanced to Lazica. During his stay there he invited the eastern Turks, who are called Chazars, to become his allies.”

Every people living north of the Danube is mentioned in the chronicle, even the Khazars from far away, only one people is left out, who are they? The Valchs...

and later

“As for the emperor, he pushed on to the land of the Huns, through the rough and inaccessible places of their difficult country, while the barbarians followed him from behind.“

Theophanes mentions another very interesting detail when speaking of the Byzantine-Avar wars, mentions that a general named Priscus repeatedly defeated Bajan near the Danube and:

“The Romans captured alive 3000 Avars, 800 Sklavini, and 3200 Gepids, and 2000 other barbarians.”

Not a single Vlach captured... interesting isnt it?

And at the end, the first ever romanian chronicle The Letopisețul Cantacuzinesc:

"But first let's talk about the Romanians, who broke away from the Romans (=Byzantines) and migrated north. So they moved towards the waters of the Danube, they crossed at Turnul Severinului (=Szörényvár); some to Hungary to the waters of the Olt, the waters of the Maros, the waters of the Tisza, reaching as far as Máramaros. And those who crossed at Turnul Severinului (=Szörényvár) reached the foot of the mountains at the Olt water. Some went down along the Danube and thus filled the whole place with themselves and came to the border of Necopoi."

... and its not all the chrinicle CriticKende (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. I already gave you tens of sources throughout the whole world, affirming the presence of Vlachs. Are they all lying because NER says so? Byte-ul (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the NER is not part of this debate, and they have repeatedly asked you not to accuse people of this... it's getting boring and I'm not insulting you either, as you can see. But if we're going to argue with quotes: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Of course, this is why we can agree that 1.5 billion Japanese lived in Transylvania during this period, and also 5 million Iroquois, right?

After all "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.", right? CriticKende (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Are there tens of sources that attest the existence of Japanese in Transylvania?

Are all sources affirming the presence of Vlachs lies? Byte-ul (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

List the sources before the 11th century, please. :) I'm waiting for that source from before the 11th century, which claims that there are Vlachs in Transylvania. CriticKende (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

"NER baseless arguments" I'm not sure you even know what NER is, but you keep calling us that, even though others have already mentioned that it's not part of this discussion. :D CriticKende (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@CriticKende Latin innovations in the 8th century? Aristeus01 (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Romanian has many germanic and turkic words from those times. They represent something like 5% of the language today even after the vocabulary was expanded greatly to include words from French and English.

Is it suspicious that 0.5% vocabulary from albanian? no, it's not, it just shows you are being disingenuous in this debate.

Albanians descended from either thracians or illyrians, so both countries had the same ancestors or relatives.

The romanian language has slavic, german, greek, hungarian and turkish influences, once again showing the disingenuous nature of your arguments. I won't even talk about "latin innovations", wtf is that even supposed to mean? Byte-ul (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It1s not true at all, that's why the famous Romanian historian Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu put the Romanian ancestral home in Oltenia, because he assumed that there were no Goths living there, and thus explained the lack of Germanic words. But then it is good to know that in the 20th century it jumped to 5% :D. (Source: Hasdeu 1937. Bogdan Petriceicu-Hasdeu: Scrieri literare, morale și politice. II. București, 1937.) CriticKende (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is true and you saying otherwise without any proof doesn't make it any less true. There are tons of examples in the wiki articles about romanian language. Byte-ul (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I gave one of the most famous Romanian historians as a source. :D But by the way, here is the wikipedia article about it, which, as far as I can see, was not even edited by baaad baaad Hungarians. "Less numerous, German loanwords first entered the language with the contact with Saxons colonists." CriticKende (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

so you went from "but not a single eastern Germanic word" to "less numerous"? You didn't give me the most famous Romanian historian as a source, you just affirmed he said something without any proof. Share the page number from Scrieri literare, morale și politice. II. where he said that. Byte-ul (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No, the article derives the words from the Saxons, who were called to Transylvania around 1150. However, according to the Daco-Romanian (wrong) theory, the Vlachs lived in Transylvania since 275. For those 450 years they lived with Goths and Gepids, who spoke the East Germanic languages, and "somehow" during those 450 years they had absolutely no influence on the Romanian language , not even a word was taken. CriticKende (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I am still waiting the page number so I can verify the claim myself. Unless it is a lie and you know it? Byte-ul (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, do you have the page number where he said that? Byte-ul (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

What I am asking is not to escalate edit warring, as per the logic provided in the Wiki text: " focus on resolving the dispute, rather than preserving the stable version". Your actions on the page do the opposite and I kindly remind you Wiki has the versions saved and when a consensus is reached the agreed version can always be reinstated. By reverting to your preferred version you have only created a new issue of disagreement.

As for your opinion on the content I added, me, or your political view about Romania and Romanians, I genuinely could not care less, and it has no relevance to the topic. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit war started 1 March, it was asked by more editors no change until discussion end, then later IP with personal attack changed dramatically the article and you say it is a good version and not the Pre edit war version as base until the discussion end? Perhaps that IP is the supervisor and we should ignore the pre edit war version? I do not know I do not say it is perfect, I said as base because edit war started from that point.

I think now we can focus on the content and talk about what should change. I answered already why I did my selected changes, like removing duplicate was accused as bad faith edit :). I suggested not using numbers (most/some) I remember you wanted change this also. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not about "good version" and "bad version", it is about refraining to escalate. Anyway, it is not me you need to debate with on what should change. I am involved here as part of the discussion, not part of the rising edit war. I suggest crossing that bridge first. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

i did not ask questions from 3 users, this is the first question i put here, the rest were statememts like "Jesus Christ". Or are you reffering to the initial debate? Your wording is too vague to tell. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@YoursTrulyKor, you asked these from me, or not you? [55] I answered here one by one at the end [56] are you ok with that? OrionNimrod (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, these weren't so much as questions as they were statements but thanks for clarifying! YoursTrulyKor (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you happy now? Did you recognize that I just deleted a duplicated content and the content is still on the article? OrionNimrod (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod can you disclose whether you are associated in any way with hu:Nemzeti_Együttműködés_Rendszere? Byte-ul (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Aristeus01:, after "King Alexander IV" and similar others (you inserted a lot of data into the article without any context or interpretation), I do not think you are an expert on the subject, namely the entire medieval Hungarian and Romanian history in general, so maybe you should avoid further editing, e.g. in the case of this article. If this ever-disputing article ever had a "stable version", it was maybe in early 2023, before you started breaking the article's structure with your amateur and unscientific contributions. @Byte-ul:, read WP:PA before editing. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Norden1990 can you disclose whether you are associated in any way with hu:Nemzeti_Együttműködés_Rendszere?

Also, please encourage your colleagues to read the same topic. This talk page is full of ad hominems on their side and calling people sock/meatpuppets while not debating any argument made against their point of view. read WP:MEAT before editing. Byte-ul (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Kindly consider the juxtaposition of your first and second paragraphs here. Remsense诉 21:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Byte-ul:, Figure it out yourself :). Yes, it's very interesting when new editors navigate the maze of wikipedia bureaucracy as if they've been editing for many years. I've been here since 2006, nothing surprises me. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Norden1990 @Remsense

As I was saying, the stable version if there was ever one was most likely this as it can also be seen from the string of edits following, my edits, months after, were short additions in line with the structure already established, so I really cannot agree with you. Else, while I might not be an expert on Hungarian history, I would gladly converse about Early Middle Ages Romanian history and perhaps you might chance your opinion of me in that matter. In fact, I will return the favour and question your expertise on this subject and implicitly the basis for your statement. Aristeus01 (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

To me, the primary point of having a stable version is not the version itself, it was rather arbitrary. We can reference that version as much we like when deciding what changes should be made, but further changes need to be made with consensus. Unfortunately, it was going to be the wrong version one way or the other, but there's not much I can logically do about that. Remsense诉 22:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense

That is my understanding as well, and that the discussion on what is should come second to what do we agree on. I am not terribly concerned with what version we freeze, besides the reply on principle to the two users above, so you'll have no complaints from me. Aristeus01 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

I'm not going to get into this edit war, but I would like to point out that once the non-Romanian sources were counted and who thought what on this topic, Polish, German, British, Swedish, American, Dutch, and Russian historians were listed. Of the 30 or so historians, all 30 believed in the theory of immigration. Not one of them thought otherwise! They were listed, but one user deleted it because "wikipedia don't need as many sources" and then it all started. Tomorrow I will list all 30+ historians on this talk page. And just to be fair, I will not list any Hungarians, only German, Austrian, Dutch, Swedish, Polish, British Russian and American historians. CriticKende (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the point you are making, but frankly we should be focusing on the ethnicity of historians as little as possible: that is bad scholarship. Remsense诉 00:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Really? Not as if it wasn't pointed out that alot of this page is filled with bad scholarship by multiple users. :P YoursTrulyKor (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Aristeus01 basically I said the same, freeze preeditwar version then change after discussion end.

Byte-ul please read above, one by one 1-5 I answered every accusations. OrionNimrod (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Remsense, I do not think the ethnicity of historians is important, I think it rather means “German historiography” “British historiography” about the subject. What is sure the full Hungarian historiography with all scholars refuse the Daco-Roman theory, and majority of Romanian historigraphy accept the Daco-Roman theory but many Romanian scholars not. Polish historiography also refuse it (I have source when a leading Romanian historian said this), the German historiography refuse (It was a German conference about the subject with lot of German historians, I have the source), Croatian historiography is very similar to Hungarian, Bulgarian and Turkish also refuse it, I also know many other historians from other countries. Of course I do not know what is the opinion of Chinese, Irish, Norwegian etc historians regarding the subject if they deal with this. What is sure saying “some non Romanian historians” is clearly not correct because there are hundred of historians if we consider a whole country who universally follow the mainstream in that country like Hungarians universally meantaine the same view regarding this. OrionNimrod (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, that is a good distinction to make. I am aware of the various national historiographies, that's part of the reason I felt comfortable getting involved in this discussion. Remsense诉 01:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, that is the wrong way of approaching the issue. Not only that the nationality of the historians or any other scholar in not important, but the assumed number of those leaning towards one or the other has little, if any, relevance. We edit, or should edit anyway, with a pro-academic bias in mind, and I cite here WP:ABIAS and WP:CHOPSY. As it is been pointed in other articles the top academic view is that:

"historical, archaeological and linguistic data available do not seem adequate to give a definitive answer" - The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages Aristeus01 (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

as I said, unless you present definitive proof of this, the correct word to use is "some". "I have a source" about x doing y while not even presenting it is not definitive proof that 51% to 99% of non-Romanian historians agree on this. Byte-ul (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we drop this point for now and just name specific historians. If there is a survey work that says "a majority" or "most", that is also the term we will use. Remsense诉 09:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CriticKende

I think you refer to the big historian list here in: Talk:Vlachs/Archive 2#Neutrality broken OrionNimrod (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to completely reconstruct the article. The current version is nothing more than packing bunch of data one after the other without any logical chain or interpretation. This is not an article, just a list. We need some organizing principle, early records, organized settlements within the Kingdom of Hungary, historiographical standpoints, explanation that Vlach is not necessarily the same as Romanian etc. Of course, this article was already in a catastrophic state at the beginning of 2023. That is why a wider collaboration is needed so that a quality article can finally be created on this very important Eastern European historical topic. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

So, we've agreed on this path because it will be the easiest way to make sure everyone agrees on what steps to take. I sympathize with this kind of frustration, but I would appreciate if we try a few round of iterative suggestions to the article, discussing each individually, at least at first. Can everyone sign off on this approach? Remsense诉 08:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I would, if we can agree on one thing: the main use of the exonym, and by extension the topic of the article, is nowadays employed for the Eastern Romance speaking communities south of the Danube, and even there not completely, as endonyms are also used. We need to be careful on who we call Vlachs. Focusing on "organized settlements within the Kingdom of Hungary" is adding to the contentious nature of the article, and prioritising the Romanian part of history that overlaps with the topic, with its disputed nature, is incorrect.

We need to define or agree first what are we talking about, who were and who are the Vlachs? All Eastern Romance speakers? Aromanians in particular? Megleno-Romanians? Istro-Romanians? Romanians? And do we have a clear understanding, past 12th century, of what Vlach means? In my opinion, we don't, since from around that time the word was used also for a social layer, mainly those involved in shepherding in the Balkans, including non-Romance speaking people. Such issues further complicate the task here, and, don't get me wrong, I want to help, but we need to start with a well defined scope, and at the moment we do not have one. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree about all the complexities you describe, but I think it's important to remain flexible and understand that we don't have consensus right now. If we spend the next month perambulating over the sum total of the article's scope, then I fear nothing will be done. Let's hash out things we do agree on, and maybe they will build to a larger picture everyone can be happy with. Remsense诉 09:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

As I suggested we can leave the numbers, just saying “supporters of the theory say this…” and “opponents of this theory claim this…” however it would be worth to mention also if we have sure info what is the main view of the historiography of more countries regarding the subject. For example as I said it is sure that whole Hungarian historiography universally refuse it, I also have sources from USA, British...historians for this statement what Hungarian historians held. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I am more inclined to agree with @Borsoka on the approach: "The article's text should be decimated. Information on the Vlachs' ethnogenesis and early and high medieval references to them can be read in Origin of the Romanians". I would go even further as to keep in the article only the earliest and least ambiguous/disputed references to the use of the word Vlach, probably the ones made by the Byzantine authors. Anything else can be moved (or is already) at specific pages dealing with the meaning of the word (History of the Aromanians, Romania in the Middle Ages, Origin of Romanians, Vlachs of Serbia, Vlachs (social class) etc. - there are numerous dedicated pages) perhaps leaving a mention on this article that further information can be found at the specific article. Aristeus01 (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, if everyone agrees that that is what we should do, then I am all for it. My concern was only that it would be seen as too big a jump for some to take. Remsense诉 10:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, I absolutely disagree with deleting the historical sources section. I think the whole situation is funny, some users have a problem with historical sources being in the article... I don't get it. Why is there no such discussion for example for the German, French, Polish, Serbian, Bulgarian or Swedish articles? How are we even at the point where we have to remove historical sources from an article because some users don't like it. These are historical sources, they have been written about this people over the long centuries. If tomorrow I decide to give credence to those 12th century chronicles that the French are descended from the Trojans (there were a lot of them in the 12th century), and I find some French historians who support this, can I ask to remove the historical sources from the article about the Franks/French etc. because I don't like it? Is it really the case that historical sources should be deleted because they don't fit some users' narrative, even if they are in line with the consensus of historians? I apologise if I'm being harsh, but as a history student of myself, I can't imagine what would happen if I came up with a theory and, because it didn't match the historical sources, I simply tried to erase them... CriticKende (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Does it make sense for us to make this the first real formal content question of this revision? I think it would make sense to try to engage this in a loosely DRN-inspired format, where threaded conversation is avoided when possible. I think it will help for both sides to clearly make their points. I'm hardly one to insist on anything particularly formal, but the spirit of taking turns should be more than enough. Remsense诉 12:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Very good point, indeed! We must define our scope because otherwise we create a mishmas of different subject without any coherent narrative. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I really do want to stress I think we should start simple and work our way up. To be clear, I understand from all that I've read that the article in the state I've arbitrarily helped fix it too is considered to be slanted "away from the Romanian perspective" and "towards the Hungarian perspective", though I want to talk in those terms as little as possible. I do understand that intentionally starting from that state can be a real concern, but I want to emphasize I'm just as invested in making sure changes that need to be done, are done, and that I don't really have any particular preference for what the article currently is just because that's where I found it. Remsense诉 09:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Remsense, the reddit report claims "network of nationalist Hungarian users", that is why I described the background why it is a hot political topic, and what is the view universally of the Hungarian historiography. The Daco-Roman theory is a Romanian nationalist theory, and all Hungarians have a different view. So it does not mean "network of nationalist Hungarians" if Hungarian editors add contents to Wikipedia which is not the Romanian nationalist view. They will be not became automatically "nationalist" if the have different view than the nationalist Romanian theory.

This is also interesting: List_of_Capitoline_Wolf_statues#Romania, Romania has total 26 wolf statues which symbolize that "Vlachs, i.e Romanians are Romans", old Romanian countries Wallachia, Moldavia has only 1-1 wolf statue, Dobruja has 1 state, and Transylvania which was part of Hungary 1000 years long, there the Romanian government installed 23! wolf statues. I think this is also show the political and nationalist purpose of the Daco-Roman theory.

OrionNimrod (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

how come only Hungarian editors are adding content falsely supporting the migration theory while being something totally not nationalistic? I believe you are all projecting on this and your effort is part of NER propaganda. Byte-ul (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

There are clear mentions of Vlachs in both Gesta Unganorum and The Tale of Bygone Years, yet you keep denying them without any good reason because they don't fit your and the NER's agenda. Just because the daco-roman theory is not supported by strong archaeological evidence, it does not mean the migration theory backed by NER and your fellow hungarian colleagues is automatically true. It doesn't have ANY kind of data backing it up, just random suppositions and lots of mental gymnastics. Byte-ul (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

NER is from 2010, opposing theory againts the Daco-Roman theory did not established after 2010, but at the same when Daco-Roman theory was created in the 19th century. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read reliable sources before sharing your own strange impressions of our world. Apart from Romanian historians, almost no specialists think that the anachronistic chronicle written around 1200 by Anonymous contains reliable information about events occuring 300 years before, and most scholars agree that the Volokhi of the Russian Primary Chonicle could hardly be identified as Vlachs. Borsoka (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

exactly what I was talking about, you keep denying real evidence randomly just because it doesn't fit your agenda. Yet you support the slow and small migration of Vlachs that somehow kept their religion and language while being perpetually surrounded by different groups of people that is backed by absolutely no record. Byte-ul (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Byte-ul

Well Gesta was written in 1200s, it also mention Cumans during the Hungarian conquest however they arrived 200 years later, that was a medieval custom to project back the people of its time. Also majority of scholars say that Gelou was a fantasy enemy, morover many historians say "blackis" are the Bulaqs and not Vlachs. For example Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum from 1282 write "blackis" in Transylvania using old Hungarian script and some sentences below it writes "et Vlahis advenis" = "and Vlach newcomers". [57]

British historian Carlile Aylmer Macartney has a clear opinion about this the their ciritical book regarding Gesta: [58] "All Rumanian medievalists refer to Anon, but none of them is worth reading on the subject" and "this is not evidence that he introduced the whole person of Gelou or the presence of Vlachs in Transylvania"

British-Romanian historian Dennis Deletant [59]: "To conclude, then, the cases for and againts the existence of Gelou and the Vlachs simply cannot be proven" + "More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant-General Dr Ilie Ceausescu, brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Gelou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who "succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities" population on the border, mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory. Such abberations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Gelou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of the mythos."

You know, if somebody not adore the nationalist Daco-Roman faith and blindly accept every statement of this, it does not mean those users will be automaticall "Hungarian nationalist" OrionNimrod (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

1. So are you cherry-picking the Gesta as well by listing only the parts you agree on? Did it stop being fake just because you agree with 2 words from it or are those two words the only real part of the chronicle?

2. Carlile was a pro-hungarian propagandist so I won't take into consideration anything he wrote.

3. Do you agree with Dennis Deletant only when it fits your agenda or do you agree with his views on continuity as well?

4. In Histoire générale des Hongrois, Édouard Sayous confirmed the accuracy of the facts described in the chronicle and was awarded the Thiers Prize for it by the French Academy.

It's funny you're talking about blindly accepting a theory when you are doing exactly the same with the migration theory. Byte-ul (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod Interesting that about Dennis Deletant you leave out that he also wrote about the Gesta that it is too naive to claim it is an immaculate source, just as it is foolhardy to totally discredit its reliability + the "Bulaqs" theory is supported only by few Hungarian historians and it is generally considered unreliable even by Hungarain historian László Makkai. ZZARZY223 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Borsoka @Byte-ul,

I like the illogical twist in the Daco-Roman theory, supporters are refering to the Nestor always: the Russian Primary Chonicle/Nestor chronicle clearly discredits the Daco-Romanian theory.

This is what Nestor wrote about Volokhi:

„Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. (...) The Volokhi attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence... The Magyars passed by Kiev over the hill now called Hungarian and on arriving at the Dnieper, they pitched camp. They were nomads like the Polovians. Coming out of the east, they struggled across the Great Mountains and began to fight against the neighboring Volokhi and Slavs. For the Slavs had settled there first, but the Volokhi had seized the territory of the Slavs. The Magyars subsequently expelled the Volokhi, took their land and settled among the Slavs, whom they reduced to submission. From that time the territory was called Hungarian.”

FIRST the SLAVS. Do we know Slavs during Dacia and the Roman times? No. We know the Slavs came after the Germans and Huns in the region. So if you think the Romanians are Volokhi it means the Romanians arrived AFTER the Slavs = they are not Dacians

One folk is mentioned in three different places, in all three cases marked with the name Voloch. According to the text, this Voloch people lived between the Spanish and the Romans, close to the English, where the Vikings also settled, then this Voloch people attacked the Slavs, but were finally driven away by the Hungarians. They are obviously Franks, everything suits them. From the Danube, where the Hungarians settled, there were East Frankish territories, where the Viscounts ruled over the Slavic population. Archbishop Hinkmar of Reims in 862, while the Swabian annals in the Annales Alemannici recorded that the Hungarians attacked the East Franks. So the quote that the Romanians keep referring to tells that the Eastern Franks subjugated the Slavs living in Transdanubia (Pannonia), and they were later driven out by the Hungarians.

Like many other historians, British-Romanian historian Dennis Deletant states that in the Nestor the Volochi are the Franks and not the Vlachs: [60] OrionNimrod (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Remsense, that is also a good example just happened now in other article [61] followers of this Daco-Roman nationalist theory based on speculations cannot stand if they were not "always majority" on that land which was detached Hungary and attached Romania in 1920. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

making it again about politics, are we? Long live the Trianon. Byte-ul (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Treaty of Trianon in 1920 moved 1000 year bigger Hungarian land (with 50% non Romanian population) to Romania for 2,8 million Romanians as lands which remained for Hungary for 8 million Hungarians. The Hungarian diplomats were not allowed to participate on the peace talk and was guarded and forced to sign the treaty which called dictate in Hungary because of that. "Long live the Trianon." thanks to reveal us all the time your political motived stand for the Daco-Roman theory! OrionNimrod (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks to reveal us all the time your political motivated stand against the Daco-Roman theory and pro migration theory! you are great at projecting, but I think it's time to stop it since everyone already understood that you and your colleagues are following NER's agenda. Byte-ul (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, Romania attacked Hungary twice and got 1000 years Hungarian land and not inverse and as we can see repeating all the time “we was always majority there” to justify this, it shows us clearly the nationalistic political motivation of Daco-Roman theory. I also emphasized several times that full Hungarian (+other countries) historiography refuse that nationalistic theory, and long before NER. Also my quoted academic sources were non Hungarian and written before NER. I always show sources to back my statements, while I see you think that repeating DacoRoman theory slogans then those thing became true just because of repeating them. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

calm down YoursTrulyKor (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I will also reply here since this is the second time WW1 and Interwar are brought up in discussion, and hey, why not? Firstly, I must bring up your initial statement that Romania was defeated 3 months after joining the war, which is outright false. To recap, Romania declared war to the Central Powers on the 27th of August, launching it's offensive (alongside a Raid on Ruse) where they met light resistance, capturing Brașov on the 30th, and on the 2nd of September, seized full control of the Carphatian Passes. In the following days, Romanian troops would quickly capture Făgăraș, Miercurea Ciuc, and Ordohei, only to unexpectedly stop their offensive on the 8th due to the Battle of Turtucaia. From there, we know how the rest of events go: Romania would retreat beyond the Danube, out of Transylvania, and in December, Bucharest would be captured by advancing German troops. But the thing is, the war on the Romanian Front did not stop there, they weren't "defeated" and would continue well into 1917.

By June 1917, the Romanian Army would be reorganized with support from General Henri Berthelot, and on the 22nd of July, the Romanian Army, under the command of Averescu, would go on the counter-offensive which ended in a Romanian victory and forced von Mackensen to postpone his planned offensive towards Odessa. Later, on the 6th of August, the said offensive would be launched, which would also end in a Romanian victory. This was followed by one last offensive by the German Armies at the Oituz on the 8th of August (forgot to mention that both Mărășești and Oituz overlap), which, too, would end in a Romanian victory. From here, the front stabilized, and neither side would go on the offensive anymore. Romania didn't capitulate nor surrender during the fighting; it only signed an armistice after Russia was defeated and Romania became surrounded by hostile nations on all fronts (and even then, no Peace Treaty was ratified because the Romanian Government would constantly delay by finding all kinds of excuses). We didn't lose World War I; you cannot oversimplify such a complex subject to: Romania joins War, gets obliterated, and loses. Anyway, after an Entente offensive forced Bulgaria to capitulate, we mobilized our army and re-joined the war on the 10th of November, which was also coincidentally one day before the German capitulation.

You also stated that Hungary had "anarchy and no army" at that time, which is false. At that moment, Hungary was led by the Karolyi government, which quit and was succeeded by the Soviet Republic (proclaimed 21st of March) led by Bela Kun. Initially, there were some negotiations held (led by General Jan Christian Smuts out of all people), which broke down on the 12th of April. And then, learning of a future Romanian attack, Kun ordered a pre-emptive attack on the Romanians on the night of August 15th to August 16th, which led to the start of the Hungarian-Romanian War. We also know that Hungary had a standing army of some nine divisions (so they weren't totally "without an army", as initially stated). As for your last statistic, where you said "50% non-Romanian population", it should be mentioned, for the record, that it was 45% non-Romanian population, of which 34% were Hungarian, 8% were German, and the rest were other ethnicities like Jews, Slovaks, Ruthenians, etc. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

man chill YoursTrulyKor (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

YoursTrulyKor, Hungarian army was disarmed after the capitulation, 1,4 million troops were sent home who were outside the Hungarian border, so the Entente did not occupy any Hungarian land during WW1. Soviet Hungary established 5 month later when the Romanians attacked Hungary, and the Hungarians attacked the invading Romanian forces at the Tisza river deep in Hungary. Similar like Ukraine would attack Russia at Kiev... OrionNimrod (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Actual objective translations call them Vlakhs[[62]], not Volokhi. You just used the propaganda translation from the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin article, which is again disingenuous on your side.

From the same source, since you cherry-picked once again.

This mention of the Slavs settled among the Vlakhs points to the presence of at least isolated groups of Slavs on the Danube as early as the first and second centuries A.D., and is a reflex of Trajan's Dacian campaigns of 101-102 and 105- 106; Byte-ul (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Byte-ul You can check the original old Slavonic text, but it does not matter how your translate, because those "Vlakhs" are also near England in the Nestor chronicle. But I would be not a surprising if France or England would be "ancient Romanian land" like Dacoromanian empire is bigger and bigger in every year in the nacionalist Daco-Roman maps: [63][64] You can consult also the historians why they think those Vlakhs are the Franks, you can say "I know it better than you", but if those Vlakhs are the Romanians, the text say they arrived after the Slavs, in this case how they can be Dacians and Roman? Time travel? OrionNimrod (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

"Coming out of the east, they struggled across the Great Mountains and began to fight against the neighboring Volokhi and Slavs"

What mountains did they cross? Aristeus01 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Aristeus01, if Nestor says the Slav settled before the Volochi then how that Volochi can be Dacians or Romans? With Time machine? Whats your opinion? OrionNimrod (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that is a lot of text, a lot of arguments and counterarguments, a lot of allegations, suppositions, and exaggerations, over a subject that academicians have not agreed on and which is not even central to the topic here, and that is exactly what I do not want to see in the article. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Aristeus01, true, but I see in internet in every similar debates those are the jolly joker arguments by the follower of Daco-Roman theory (Gesta, Nestor...) Here also Romanians users started to talk about these as "evidence". This is also boring [65] and not the Austrian, Croatian, Slovak, Serbian, Ukrainian editors do similar things all the time in the Hungarian articles, just one dear neighboar who are worry always about "bias" and "nationalistic network attack". OrionNimrod (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod There are also random edits by nationalistic Hungarian users as well for instance [66] ZZARZY223 (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

1. That is false.

2. Did you just agree with the fact that Vlachs were there before the Hungarians?

3. It is explained in the translated material I presented. (But I doubt you'd read something that is not NER propaganda): The mention of the Slavs settled among the Vlakhs points to the presence of at least isolated groups of Slavs on the Danube as early as the first and second centuries A.D., and is a reflex of Trajan's Dacian campaigns of 101-102 and 105- 106 Byte-ul (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the above discussion is endless and pointless. As @Borsoka: pointed out we have already an article Origin of the Romanians, which explains the different theories regarding the Vlach and Romanian connection in a rather high-quality way. it's meaningless to open this debate again, the case of NER and Trianon in particular are outside the scope of the topic. Regarding the current article, I think sections "Etymology" and "History" are relatively usable texts, but of course it can be expanded with different historical interpretations. However, the matter of the origin of the Romanians does not belong here at all, there is a separate article for that. I think the Medieval usage section should be completely rewritten, or perhaps the entire text should be deleted. Instead of an itemized listing of data with poor sources, we should include a systematized text with historiographical interpretations, analyses etc. We also should use secondary sources instead of primary sources (chronicle texts, royal charters), therefore, it is necessary to interpret the sources. However, this is not our business as Wikipedia editors. We have one job: to summarize and communicate the existing secondary sources (historical theses). A well-sourced, balanced article is much less likely to fall prey to various nationalisms, in my experience. Furthermore, the section "Toponymy" is also poorly sourced. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Remsense!

Again a good example, a brand new user with edit war remove every other narrative than the Daco-Roman one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gelou&diff=prev&oldid=1212130911

Romanian user tgeorgescu (in Wikipedia since 2002) said in that ANI report from 2021:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#User:Borsoka and User:Fakirbakir

"I am a Romanian, but not a nationalist. The gist of this dispute: the Romanian nationalists want 100% wiki-victory, while the Hungarian nationalists made peace with the idea that the wiki-match will end in a draw. Well, the POV of the Romanian nationalists is this: if they do not engage in full-blown nationalist propaganda, Romania will lose Transylvania any time soon."

Hungarian user Borsoka (in Wikipedia since 2008) said that those radical Romanian nationalist editors always want to remove everything what is not the Daco-Roman theory from balanced articles (where the Daco-Roman theory also peresented among other theories):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1211163875 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians&diff=prev&oldid=1211361721

I deliberately showed that they are veteran editors from both side, which means they cannot be "bad faith" editors such a long time.

Based my experience, the radical followers of the Daco-Roman theory not tolerate if other historian views presented in English Wikipedia than their narrative. And this thing cause the conflicts and edit war in these articles. That is why they are complaining that "Hungarian nationalist network rewriting wiki" if not exclusively their narrative presented there as ultimate truth. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's funny you talk about others while you made your job (or NER did?) to deny every shred of daco-roman continuity source without any proof.

As I said, Daco-Roman continuity has sources from the Byzantines (Priscus, Maurice, Kekaumenos, Kinnamos), Hungarians (Anonymous, Simon de Keza, etc.), Russians (Nestor), Cuman turks (Oghuz-name), Vikings (Saga of Eymund, Snorri Sturlusson's Heimskringla, the Sjonhem Runestone), Arabs (Ibn al-Nadim, Mutahhar al-Maqdisi), etc.

Migration theory has absolutely no source. There is not one single source saying that the Vlachs migrated. You can cry about new accounts going against NER propaganda all you want. Byte-ul (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Even itself in the Vlach article if you read yourself there are many conterarguments againts of these "evidences". In the talk page above I provided some also. Simon de Keza is my favorite, he wrote in 1282: "et Vlahis advenis" = "and Vlach newcomers". [60] of course Daco-Roman followers are very silent about this content. Nestor also very funny, because it clearly say "Slavs settled before those Vlachs" therefore they can be Daco-Romans by time machine only. What Priscus say about "Daco-Romans"? I really do not know anything, could you tell me? Actually there are many sources and evidences for migration as I showed some examples above, but I know well there are many slogans what the Daco-Roman followers always repeat like "Hungarians say Carpathian Basin was empty when they arrives" however nobody say this in Hungary just the Daco-Roman followers repeat this. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

And now please compare these blurry uncertain debated sources for the history of the other nations of Europe from that time, we have tons of documents, events, persons, battles, cities, archeology, items, etc from others but nothing from these "always majority people" in the Carpathian Basin 1000 years long OrionNimrod (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem to keep in articles both Romanian and Hungarian view to make balance as I did many times. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

NER will go crazy on you, you are getting so desperate that you just said Vlachs were there before the Hungarians multiple times by mistake.

You are being disingenuous once again and you are taking words out of context and even modifying them. Read the whole translation of that phrase.

You showed exactly 0 sources of Vlach migration. Your entire migration theory is based on denying the daco-roman continuity theory, it has absolutely 0 proof by itself. Byte-ul (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Byte-ul "The absence of proof is not the proof of absence." Thanks to repeating this, it show us clearly that the Daco-Roman theory is rather a faith, than a fact. Need a strong belief. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself, the entire migration theory is based on denying the daco-roman continuity theory, it has absolutely 0 proof by itself. Byte-ul (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I say that given that one theory is amply supported by linguistics, archaeology, written sources, etc (Immigration theory) and 99.99999% supported by non-biased (non-Romanian and non-Hungarian historians/linguists), it should be posted here. The Dacian-Romanian theory can be mentioned, like the Iberian origin of the Albanians in the article on the origin of the Albanians, "there is that too, but it has been disproved".

The wiki is not about inserting all the theories in question ,it is about communicating the scientific consensus. And that is the immigration theory. If nothing else, it must be baffling that 100% of Hungarian historians support the immigration theory, almost 100% of non-Romanian/Hungarian historians support the immigration theory, while on the Romanian side there is no consensus, just a few weeks ago a book was published by a Romanian linguist who refutes the Dacian origin of Romanians.(this) Isn't it interesting that there is complete agreement on one theory and not the other?

And while we are on the subject, there is no archaeological or contemporary written source evidence for the Dacian-Romanian theory for 800 years, while linguistics outright refutes it.

And this is how, the first Romanian chronicle starts:

"But first let's talk about the Romanians, who broke away from the Romans (=Byzantines) and migrated north. So they moved towards the waters of the Danube, they crossed at Turnul Severinului (=Szörényvár); some to Hungary to the waters of the Olt, the waters of the Maros, the waters of the Tisza, reaching as far as Máramaros. And those who crossed at Turnul Severinului (=Szörényvár) reached the foot of the mountains at the Olt waters. Some went down along the Danube and thus filled the whole place with themselves and came to the border of Necopoi."

So, if we are going to put the Dacian-Romanian theory, this fable (because it is a scientifically disproved fable), why mention the Dacians, let's spice it up, not Dacians, but ancient gods or some other cool thing, e.g. Romanians could be the first people on earth! what do you think? Facts and absolute consensus of historians don't matter, so let's be creative then! ( of course I'm joking ) CriticKende (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Empty words and lies, again and again. The migration theory is not amply supported by anyone (let alone 100%) except hungarian propagandists. It's not supported by linguistics, archaeology or written sources.

I'll repeat myself, the entire migration theory is based on denying the daco-roman continuity theory, it has absolutely 0 proof by itself.

Also, you still have to tell me the page number from Convorbiri Literare, so we can decide if you're intentionally lying or not. (well if it wasn't obvious already) Byte-ul (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Byte-ul, Daco-Roman theory developed in the 19th century based by speculation and nationalism "Daco-Romans won the longest seek-and-hide game in the history, we were hidden 1000 years long, but now in the 19th century we are the majority so this is now our land", why do you think that other countries should accept a nationalist theory which aim to distort the another countries' history if they have no historical evidences of that theory? if you mentioned Priscus, please tell me how he prove the Daco-Roman theory. I am really curious. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The daco-roman theory did not develop in the 19th century, this is just another lie. It's not even a theory, it's the truth which is clearly backed up by historical sources.

Priscus mentions Latin speakers among Atilla's subjects, he also mentions that Latin is spoken north of Danube.

Procopius of Cesarea also talks about a slav who learned latin from people on the north of danube and posed as a roman general.

Maurice warns his generals about romans living in Dacia who speak Latin but side with slavs.

etc.

Most sources supporting the daco-roman continuity are consistent and reinforce each other, while there are exactly 0 sources on migration theory, just anecdotal evidence from hungarian nationalists.

to quote you, the migration theory developed in the 19th century based on speculation and nationalism. Byte-ul (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

"The daco-roman theory did not develop in the 19th century"

So why don't the early chroniclers remember the Dacians as your ancestors, why do they talk about some mysterious migration?

Letopisețu Cantacuzinesc:

The first Romanian chronicle!

"But first let's talk about the Romanians, who broke away from the Romans (=Byzantines) and migrated north. So they moved towards the waters of the Danube, they crossed at Turnul Severinului (=Szörényvár); some to Hungary to the waters of the Olt, the waters of the Maros, the waters of the Tisza, reaching as far as Máramaros. And those who crossed at Turnul Severinului (=Szörényvár) reached the foot of the mountains at the Olt waters. Some went down along the Danube and thus filled the whole place with themselves and came to the border of Necopoi."

Grigore Ureche

, a Moldavian chronicler Letopisețul țărâi Moldovei 1640:

“Rumânii, câți să află lăcuitori la Țara Ungurească și la Ardeal și la Maramoroșu, de la un loc suntu cu moldovénii și toți de la Râm să trag.”

"The Romanians, as many as live in Hungary and Transylvania and Máramaros, come from the same place as the Moldovans and they all spread out from “Râm” [Byzantine Empire].”

Miron Costin who continued Ureche's work from the voivode Aron, where Ureche had left it, until 1661. He also wrote a chronicle of the lands of Moldavia and the Wallachian Lowlands, in Polish in 1677, commissioned by the Polish envoy Marcusz Matczynski. In this work, Costin describes the Dacians as a Tartar (read "Scythian") people, and regarded the Saxons as their descendants.

If you were the Dacians, why are these early chronicles not mentioning this? Why do they mention Macedonia and a certain migration? CriticKende (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ureche does not mean there "Byzantine Empire", but "Rome". I am sure you can find the quote yourself but if you don't I'll be back. 2A00:23EE:13A0:1614:A747:EC5:4C27:FA44 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong, the chronicle repeatedly describes the Hungarian king sending envoys to the emperor of this “Râm” country. Or do you think that there were Hungarians living in Pannonia during the ancient Roman Empire? :O Well, I don't think so...

"Scrie letopiseţul cel ungurescu că oarecându pre aceste locuri au fostu lăcuind tătarii. Mai plodindu-să şi înmulţindu-să şi lăţindu-să, s-au tinsu de au trecut şi preste munte, la Ardeal. Şi împingăndu pe unguri din ocinile sale, n-au mai putut suferi, ce singur Laslău craiul ungurescu, cari-i zic filosof, s-au sculat de s-au dus la Împăratul Râmului, de ş-au cerşut oaste întru ajutoriu împrotiva vrăjmaşilor săi. Ce împăratul Râmului alt ajutoriu nu i-au făgăduit, ce i-au dat răspunsu într-acesta chip, de i-au zis: “Eu suntu jurat, cândi am stătut la împărăție, om de sabiia mea şi de judeţul mieu să nu moară. Pentru acâia oameni răi s-au făcut în ţara mea şi câte temnițe am, toate suntu pline de dânşii şi nu mai am ce le face, ci ţi-i voi da ţie, să faci izbândă cu dânşii şi eu să-mi curăţescu ţara de dânşii. Iară în ţara mea să nu-i mai aduci, că ţi-iu dăruiescu ţie.” CriticKende (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Râm was used for both Roman and Byzantine (Eastern roman) empires. Byte-ul (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, and? Was there a Hungarian kingdom in the time of the ancient Roman Empire? No. Case closed :D CriticKende (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@CriticKende

You are being let down by your knowledge of foreign languages. In (old) Romanian Râm was an alternative of Roma. Râmului simply means "of Rome, belonging to Rome" just like frânc could mean a German or a French, or in general someone from the West. Aristeus01 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

"The daco-roman theory did not develop in the 19th century, this is just another lie. It's not even a theory, it's the truth

which is clearly backed up by historical sources.

"

As you can see, I don't skimp on historical sources, so please don't either, send me some 5/6/7/8/9/10/11th century sources that clearly describe the Vlachs as living in Transylvania.

CriticKende (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll tell you what he's going to write now, he's going to write that Priscus notes that in Attila the Hun's court some people speaks Latin. Only the does not add the other half of the quote.

Priscus of Panium:

“For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or--as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans--Latin; but none of them easily speak Greek, except captives from the Thracian or Illyrian sea-coast”

Priscus directly points out that only merchants trading in the Western Empire spoke Latin, not commoners. So actually even that disproves that there were any Romans left, not just all the Roman sources that we have.

Speaking of which, let's look at the Roman sources:

How could the Romans be the heirs of the Dacians if the Dacians were exterminated by the Romans?

Criton:

Criton, physician at the Emperor's court, participated in the Dacian campaign and recorded its history,said that the Romans had captured 500,000 Dacians, and, in the end, Trajan spared the life of only forty of them.

Eutropius:

"...Trajan, after he had subdued Dacia, had transplanted thither an infinite number of men from the whole Roman world, to people the country and the cities; as the land had been exhausted of inhabitants in the long war maintained by Decebalus."

Lucian of Samosata:

"The Getae, a barbarian and vigorous people who rising against the Romans and humiliating them such as to compel them to pay a tribute, were later, at the time of king Decebal, destroyed by Trajan in such a way that their entire people was reduced to forty men as Criton tells in the Getica."

Julian the Apostate:

"I [Trajan] alone ventured to attack the tribes beyond the Danube, and I subdued the Getae, the most warlike race that ever existed, which is due partly to their physical courage, partly to the doctrines that they have adopted from their admired Zalmolxis. For they believe that they do not die but only change their place of abode, and they meet death more readily than other men undertake a journey. Yet I accomplished that task in a matter of five years or so."

But suppose that all (yes, all) Roman sources lie, and there are plenty of Dacians left. Then these "Romanising Dacians" would have had to disappear anyway, because the Roman Empire would have given up and displaced the province.

Let's see what the Roman sources say about whether there were any Romans left in Dacia.

Eutropius:

"The province of Dacia, which Trajan had formed beyond the Danube, he gave up, despairing, after all Illyricum and Moesia had been depopulated, of being able to retain it. The Roman citizens, removed from the town and lands of Dacia, he settled in the interior of Moesia, calling that Dacia which now divides the two Moesiae, and which is on the right hand of the Danube as it runs to the sea, whereas Dacia was previously on the left." — Eutropius: Abridgement of Roman History

Eutropius also mentions the peoples of his time who inhabited the territory of the former Dacia:

"He rebuilt some cities in Germany; he subdued Dacia by the overthrow of Decebalus, and formed a province beyond the Danube, in that territory which the Thaiphali, Victoali, and Theruingi now occupy."

Amazingly, he doesn't know about the remaining Romans either... I wonder why…

Sextus Rufus’s Breviarium:

“The Marcomanni and Quadi were driven from the environs of Valeria, which are between the Danube and Drave, and a frontier between Romans and barbarians was established from Augusta Vindelicum through Noricum, Pannonia, and Moesia. Trajan conquered the Dacians, under King Decibalus, and made Dacia, across the Danube in the soil of barbary, a province which in circumference had 1,000 miles; but it was lost under imperator Gallienus, and, after Romans had been transferred from there by Aurelian, two Dacias were made in the regions of Moesia and Dardania. “ - Sextus Rufus Breviarium

De Caesaribus:

"Even the territories across the Danube, which Trajan had secured, were lost."

Paulus Orosius

:

"The Germans made their way through the Alps, Raetia, and the whole of Italy as far west as Ravenna. The Alemanni roamed through the Gallic provinces and even crossed into Italy. An invasion of the Goths ruined Greece, Pontus, and Asia; Dacia beyond the Danube was lost forever. The Quadi and the Sarmatians ravaged the Pannonian provinces. The remote Germans stripped Spain and took possession of it. The Parthians seized Mesopotamia and completely devastated Syria."- Paulus Orosius: Histories against the Pagans

But suppose all the Roman sources here are lying again, and there really were Romans left in the area (of course there weren't). There could not have been many who escaped the mandatory imperial deportation, and there could not have been many.

Paulus Orosius

:

"The race of Huns, long shut off by inaccessible mountains, broke out in sudden rage against the Goths and drove them in widespread confusion from their old homes. The Goths fled across the Danube and were received by Valens without negotiating any treaty."- Paulus Orosius: Histories against the Pagans

Oh, I see, the Goths, one of the most powerful people of the time, couldn't stay because they were under so much pressure, but a few "leftover" Roman families would have stayed... come on :D

And after that, comes my list of medieval sources, written yesterday, none of whom know anything about these "remaining" Romans. Yeah, right...

CriticKende (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Byte-ul check yourself, Priscus: https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/priscus.html Priscus say the language was spoken Hun (Scythian) and German in the land of the Hun and Latin was just international communication like the English here between us, but no Latin speaking population. This is also the feature of the Daco-Roman faith, the followers always talk about “evidences” and list sources ad you did, but if we check those sources we can read different things there…

I was surprised at a Scythian speaking Greek. For the subjects of the Huns, swept together from various lands, speak, besides their own barbarous tongues, either Hunnic or Gothic, or--as many as have commercial dealings with the western Romans--Latin; but none of them easily speak Greek,

The same method, for example Menumorut the fantasy character in very old Hungarian chronicle (btw where are the Romanian chronicles? Why such and “ancient and always majority people” do not have?) so this Menmarot because he ruled the area which is now part of Romania therefore he became a “Romanian king” in the DacoRoman theory however the Hungarian chronicle cleary claims he was Bulgarian.

Romanian historian Dennis about this [62]: "More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant-General Dr Ilie Ceausescu, brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Gelou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who "succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities" population on the border, mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory. Such abberations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Gelou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of the mythos."

And are you wondering why Hungarian scholars do not accept a theory which have this kind of “evidences”? OrionNimrod (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know where to start, but I will go with languages. Firstly, it's known that Romanian kept a whole lot of words regarding faith and Christianity that are of Latin origin: Dumnezeu, înger, cuminecare, Sân, etc., and there's a noticeable lack of Greek loanwords, which, for example, are present in Aromanian. As for Romanian words with an Albanian equivalent, these can be explained either by the common inheritance of some remnants from the Daco-Moesic lexicon (in fact, some Romanian lexemes in the substrate do not even have an Albanian equivalent), or by the migration from the north-east to the south-west of the "Free Dacians" (namely the Carpi), who were expelled from Dacia by Huns, Slavs, and Avars, or by the cultural-linguistic influence of the Authochthonous Aromanians on the Albanians.

Sources that do not mention a romanesque population north of the Danube also fail to mention a romanesque population in the Balkan Peninsula and no chronicle mentions a migration of romanesque people in the Balkans to territories North of the Danube; the only migrations attested by sources mention a displacement of romanesque populations from the north-west of the Balkans (Southern Pannonia) towards the east, at the orders of an Avar Khan, along a population exchange in 976 between the Byzantines and Great Moravia (as per Ioannes Skylitzes): the Vlachs were banished by Basil II, settled in Moravian Wallachia, and in their place White Serbs were settled.

The lack of sources mentioning a proto-romanian population north of the Danube between the III and X centuries can also be explained by the fact that Greek chroniclers were more interested in recording the names of invading and warring rulers of regions than reporting on the native populations. The Greco-Roman world was absolutely terrified of migratory invasions in the Roman, later Byzantine, Empires, and it was only natural for migrants to be the subject of news and chronicles by historians, the latter being interested in seeing how things pan out but overall being uninterested in the native and Authochtonous population of Dacia. Even then, there are some historical works that mention the presence of proto-romanian populations north of the Danube:

1. Strategikon, by Emperor Maurice (VI Century), which attests the presence of a proto-romanian population under the name of "romans';

2. "History", by Theophylact Simocatta (V-VI Century), which mentions a proto-romanian battle cry, "Torna, Torna, Fratre!", said by a Byzantine soldier in a campaign against the Avars, close to the Haemus Mountains in the year 587. This subject will also be written about by Theophanes the Confessor in his work "Chronicle".

3. The German epic Nibelungenlied (V Century) mentions a Vlach Duke (Herzog) by the name of Ramunc (explained by A.D Xenopol as being a german interpretation of the name "Roman"; like Petre Roman) who comes from "far away Wallachia" (Wallachenland)

Of course, about Strategykon, it could be argued that it's referring to Hellenic populations, which, according to a Greek thesis publicized in 2005, were romanized but this theory isn't widely accepted nor do we have much proof of the romanization process of greeks during that time period. Contrary to this, we actually know that the Romanized population was being Hellenized, and the Eastern Roman Empire was in a full-blown re-hellenization process ever since Justinian I.

As for Nibelungenlied, the poem presents Wallachia as a faraway country in the "Hunnish" realm and puts it next to Poland, which is east and north of the Danube, meaning exactly where modern Romania stands.

On the subject of names, many small rivers (<100km) and streams hold original Romanian names, and the majority of these streams are in mountainous regions. Based on the name "Repedea" for the upper course of the Bistrița River (both names meaning "Rapid" in Romanian and, respectively, Slavonic), Grigore Nandris writes that translations from Romanian into Slavonic could also create Romanian hydronyms. Alexandru Madgearu also noted that the name "Bistrița" is "most likely a translation" of the Romanian form "Repedea". In his opinion, the distribution of Romanian river names "coincides with that of a series of arhaic features in the area of the Apuseni Mountains", which proves the early existence of a population speaking Romanian in the mountainous regions of Transylvania. The adoption by Romanians of Slavic names in cases where a settlement bears parallel Hungarian or German and Slavic names proves that Romanians and Slavs had lived together in the same settlements, already before the arrival of the Hungarians at the end of the IX century. Linguists Oliviu and Nicolae Felecan stated that "preserving the names of rivers from antiquity until today is one of the strongest arguments" in favor of the Continuity Theory, because these names must've been "transmitted uninterruptedly" from Dacians to the Romans and then the Daco-Romans. Marius Sala (linguist) also states that Romanian forms of ancient river names "are a conclusive argument" for the Continuity Theory.

Because the Dacians are attested to not only have lived in Dacia, but also in the provinces of Dacia Ripensis, Dacia Mediterranea, Moesia, Dardania and Scythia Minor, some even having military careers, it's pretty safe to assume that the Dacians didn't die out in their entirety, without even having to mention the "Free Dacians" (Carpi and Costoboci), of which a part migrated to the Empire when the Huns arrived. I must also mention that we know of at least 15 auxiliary army corps formed by Dacians during the time of Emperor Trajan and his successors. Some notable ones are: Cohors I Ulpia Dacorum, ala I Ulpia Dacorum, Cohors VI Nova Cumidavensium Alexandriana, etc.

As for religion, the spread of Christianity north of the Danube, without a political factor, is attested by numerous Christian objects discovered, such as those from Biertan among others.

I must also mention discovered treasures, such as the funeral stele dating from the III century found at Tomis of Skirtos on which it's written "I, Skirtos, a Free Dacian..." and the Vases of Romula (III Century), which show at least some continuity of the Daco-Romans.

And, of course, an early mention of the ethonym Vlachs, in various forms, appears in the Gesta Hungarorum, the chronicle of Anonymus. Of course, there's a lot to debate about this, but I will jump straight to the expression "Sclavi, Bulgari, Blachi ac pastores Romanorum". First of all, in Gesta, the expression "pastores Romanorum" has, regardless of the meaning of the particle "ac" (which Brezeanu and Madgearu correctly pointed out that on a mere lexical ground, both meanings of the Latin "ac" are acceptable: copulative or explanation. Therefore, the meaning can be revealed only "in the light of the ethnic realities in Pannonia at the beginning of the Middle Ages"), an ethnical meaning and not socio-professional, because the first three terms of the passage are clearly invested with ethnical content.

Secondly, Brezeanu and Madgearu outlined other equivalent occurences, as in the chronicles of Simon of Keza, between Wallachians and the "shepherds and the colonists of the Romans", and in Descriptio Europae Orientalis, by the Dominican Anonymous, between the Pannoni and pastpres Romanorum. Thus, Brezeanu concludes that "By this, the meaning of the article ac in the excerpt "Sclavi, Bulgari et Blachi ac pastores Romanorum" is also explained, and it can only be explanative ("meaning", "or"), underlining the identity between "Blachi" and "pastroes Romanorum". YoursTrulyKor (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@YoursTrulyKor I know all of these "evidences", itself in this Vlach article there are presented a different view also regarding many of these. As I said even here many times my favorite is the Simon of Keza: he wrote in 1282: "et Vlahis advenis" = "and Vlach newcomers". [60] of course Daco-Roman followers are very silent about this content. Just some sentences above [67] Kezai write "Blackis" and the Hungarian Székelys learn their script from this "Blackis" in his story, of course Daco-Roman supporters translate this "Blackis" to "Vlach". It is also strange why Kezai would use 2 different word for the same people morover the difference is just some sentence between them. Another Hungarian chronicle the Chronica Hungarorum wrote regarding exactly the same story that the Szekelys are using Scythian letters. And we know well the Szekelys are used and still using the old Hungarian script. Allegedly the Romanians were proud Latins 1000 years later after the romanization of them, supposing using Latin script (but Romanians used Cyrillic until the 20th century), so it is strange that those "Blackis" how can be the Vlachs if they teach to the Hungarians the old Hungarian script? Do you think Romanians used the old Hungarian script and this script came from them?

I think the Nibelunglied is more funny "evidence" How can be a dragon tale from 1250 as evidence? Its story happen 800 years ago at the time of Attila. Nibelunglied mention a country name Wallachia at the time of Attila. Nibelunglied also mention Russia, Austria, Poland, Hungary at the time of Attila, what does it mean? = The 13th century author just projected back his contemporary time as a standard custom of his time.

Comparing of these blurry "evidences" other nations in the region have tons of sources, own documents, documents each other, history events, battles, cities, rulers, archeology, coins, items.... OrionNimrod (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The Continuation Theory has its origins in the XVth Century: Poggio Braccioloni and Flavio Biondo. In the XIXth Century it only really entered public attention and conscience. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

YoursTrulyKor, that is not itself the Daco-Roman theory, that some humanists recognized the Vlach language was similar to Latin and they assumed connection between their current location which was Dacia province in the past and they write some sentences about this. 11th century Byzantine authors also claimed Hungarians are Dacians, but that is not a Daco-Hungarian theory. The Daco-Roman theory was ellaborated in the 19th century when nationalism was rising everywhere, and it was more hardcore during the national-communist times. Catalin N Popa, Romanian historian about this: [68] Another Romanian historian, Andrei Gandila: Cultural Encounters on Byzantium’s Northern Frontier, c. AD 500-700 Coins, Artifacts and History, Cambridge 2018: [69] "Although to some extent the manipulation of archaeological material was true of most Eastern European schools between 1945 and 1989, the Romanian case became the most conspicuous in its attempt to distort the past in order to serve the communist regime’s quest for legitimacy in the 1970s and 1980s." + "Such theories developed in the 1970s and 1980s in the context of national-communism remain firmly entrenched in historiography to this day." OrionNimrod (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I did not state that that is the Continuity Theory, I said that's just the origin point of this theory that I'm aware of. Also, we can't really compare Poggio and Flavio with the Byzantines; these are two different era's (400 years apart) in which knowledge, experience, etc. changed a lot. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

So why do the early chronicles write about your migration? I'm just asking because you didn't answer that. CriticKende (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM: the talk page converted into a forum to discuss the theories about the origin of the Romanians. I think changes in the article should be discussed here. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Archive?

By the way, now that we're heading in some direction, I assume no one minds if I archive the talk page at least until the thread I started or even totally, while keeping some notion of what we're trying to do. But I don't want to come off like I'm hiding certain points, I think it would be nice to declutter and start fresh, reaching back for what we want. But I wanted to make sure everyone was cool with that first. Remsense诉 09:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. ZZARZY223 (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

aye aye captain YoursTrulyKor (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not want to do this if there are still disagreements over metatextual history, like between @OrionNimrod and @Byte-ul above. I know it's unfair, but can Byte, who I am looking at right now but of course this is everyone, please refrain from extended comments on events and circumstances only glancingly or abstractly related to the subject of this page for the time being? I hate asking this, because the context that has been provided for me is very interesting and useful, but it is also enough such that it's also having a deleterious effect. Once we accomplish something, I imagine we'll all be a bit less on edge. Remsense诉 20:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The whole thing started with the outside incite, I think we all answered those questions. Then it was provided many suggestions by experienced editors how move on. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I may not be an admin, but I will be removing any comments making accusations of conspiracy or sockpuppetry from here on out. If there's further sockpuppetry, we should report it to WP:SPI instead. Remsense诉 23:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

CTOP 0RR or 1RR request

This situation has been going on for a while, and is being kept comparatively stymied by perennial interference. Recently, we requested to have this page semi-protected per WP:CT/EE. It seems we need a little more help. I tire of thinking in terms of sockpuppetry or brigading, since I have concrete evidence of neither, but it should be clear that an admin needs to put an explicit revert rule on the article page for a while, so we can have some peace and quiet. I assume this is the consensus of everyone chatting above. Remsense诉 18:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. ZZARZY223 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and also I we already suggested things about this debated "some/most" words to satisfy everybody. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The absolute majority of non-Romanian historians do not agree with the theory of the Dacian-Romanian cotinuation, as the above list shows. I think the word "most" is the right word, simply to make it clear that we are not talking about equal theories, but about an internationally accepted one(immigration), and one that is not accepted by all historians even in Romania, although it is a fact that in Romania the majority do(dacian). CriticKende (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@CriticKende, could I ask you to keep specific discussions in one place? I feel once I clear this page, we should have headers for each major theme of disagreement, but I feel bad for the admin about to tiptoe into this! :) Remsense诉 19:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You are right, sorry CriticKende (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with the protection of the article, however, I still do not support the idea that the historical sources should be removed, because what will be done instead? The opinion of modern historians? What would be less biased than the writings of people who lived many hundreds of years ago? Or then no Hungarian/Romanian historians, just foreigners? Or am I the only one who hasn't yet seen how this article will look like? What do you think about this? CriticKende (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved admin, I've add the "enforced BRD restriction" to this article. This means:

  an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.

  Please speak up if you have any questions about this restriction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging people who have recently edit this talk page: @OrionNimrod, Byte-ul, Remsense, ZZARZY223, YoursTrulyKor, Aristeus01, CriticKende, Borsoka, AndooBundoo, and Norden1990. Pinging non-duplicate people who have recently edit the article: @Andrei.alex22, Lexutz, and Arjayay. Please be aware of the enforced BRD restriction mentioned just above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• I see no evidence to suggest that "most" non-Romanian scholars support the immigrationist theory. The three sources cited at the end of that sentence definitively are not enough to verify it. Unless very heavy sourcing is provided to support this wording or we change it. I suggest and recommend for the sake of neutrality and good faith to use "other" instead of "most" or "some" as it does not express any quantity. This is anyway not the article to discuss the origin of the Romanians. For that we have origin of the Romanians. We should avoid absolute and resolute statements like "most say that..." because I doubt the article for this topic, which is detailed and well-written, makes such statements. Super Ψ Dro 18:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  we've already decided this language isn't necessary. we're currently trying to hash things out. Speaking of. @Byte-ul @OrionNimrod et al., I'm really antsy to start directly deliberating on the page, but I don't want to archive and start DRN-style non-threaded discussion until things are totally good. If I do this, could everybody please refrain specifically from extended discussions of other periods of history, except when pertaining directly to people being cited for the article? Remsense诉 18:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the ethnicity of the historians important either, I fully agree with that, I just put this list here because the controversial part is about "non-romanian historians". CriticKende (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Here is a quick, far not complete list.(this list was deleted from this talk page before, but you can find it here)

  Noel Malcolm (british): Kosovo A Short History

  Gottfried Schramm (german): many works

  Herbert John Izzo (canadian/american): also not just one work

  Stefan Schumacher: “The Romanian language developed somewhere south of the Danube, but Romanians don’t want to admit that because the Hungarians can claim that they have been there before,”- Stefan Schumacher (Austrian Linguists, professor of the University of Vienna)

  Willem Vermeer (dutch): He argues that the ancestral homeland of Albanians and Romanians must have been around Kosovo.

  Michiel Arnoud Cor de Vaan (dutch): He argues that the ancestral homeland of Albanians and Romanians must have been around Kosovo.

  Professor Dr Joachim von Puttkamer (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

  Joachim C. Fest (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

  Meinolf Arens (austrian): in the debate which has already been mentioned

  Daniel Bein (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

  Thede Kahl (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

  Hansgerd Göckenjan (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

  Wolfgang Dahmen (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

  Hans-Martin Gauger (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

  Johannes Kramer (austrian): in the debate which has already been mentioned

  prof. dr hab. Ilona Czamańska (polish): the link before

  Joan E. Durrant (american) & Anne B. Smith (american): Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights

  Dr. Norman Berdichevsky (american): Nations, Language and Citizenship

  Prof. Dr. Frank Hadler (german): Disputed territories and shared pasts: overlapping national histories in modern Europe

  and all Hungarian historians

  --- pre world war historians----

  Johann Erich Thunmann (swedish): linguistic results

  Jernej Bartol Kopitar (slovenian): linguistic results

  Mandell Creighton (british): The English Historical Review

  Samuel Rawson Gardiner (british): The English Historical Review

  Justin Winsor (american):The English Historical Review

  Robert William Seton-Watson (Scottish) : A history of the Roumanians

  CriticKende (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  as a note, the "debate" was organized by the Hungarian Institute in Munich and the historians were paid for participating. None of them have any related works on this conclusion and the debate was clearly in bad faith, all the predetermined topics (by the hungarian institute) being against the continuity theory.

  This already invalidates half of your list so I won't even go through the rest of it. Byte-ul (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Byte-ul, do you see yourself able to work with the other people here contribute to this article? I've been begging you over and over to please try and assume good faith in other people, and you have not let up in even one post. Remsense诉 21:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  yes, I can work with people, but not with people that obviously act in bad faith with every chance they get. I assumed good faith in everyone so far, but their arguments keep proving the opposite.

  It is not the first time in this discussion when @CriticKende used fake or distorted information. (intentionally or not) Byte-ul (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  List the fake/distorted informations that i wrote! Because you haven't done that so far, apart from saying that everyone is lying. CriticKende (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Byte-ul Please check out an another modern British historian in the subject, Emily Hanscam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v_aktmJclk OrionNimrod (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  The historian whose book Catalin Nicolae Popa, a Romanian historian, helped to write? CriticKende (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Emily Hanscam simply explains the mystified history during the communist era (that Romanians descended directly just from Dacians and/or Romans - and did not mix with other populations - and the whole focus being just Dacia - dubious scientific methods used in archeology during that time, etc) but doesn't support the migration theory either ZZARZY223 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is interesting that one would take time to make a list like that.

  Nevertheless, Wikipedia has some clear rules and adding "some" or "most" based on such lists constitutes WP:OR. And even if there were RS we can cite for such a statistic, given the contentious nature of the statement more than a few would be needed from each part. Therefore I strongly agree that we should use "others" to introduce the viewpoints and I would appreciate if we could all agree on this and move on. Aristeus01 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  @CriticKende, Romanian historian, Catalin Nicolae Popa - Late Iron Age Archaeology in Romania and the Politics of the Past: [70] OrionNimrod (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Some non-Romanian historians, archeologists and linguists in favour of contuinity:

  • Dennis Deletant (British - naturalized Romanian)
  • Thede Kahl (German) - several works
  • P. Haynes and W. S. Hanson (both Americans) - “An introduction to Roman Dacia”
  • Georgy B Fyodorov (Russian) - "Ethnogenesis of the Vlachs, Moldovans' Ancestors, According to the Archaeological Data (Historiographical Aspect)"
  • Carlo Tagliavini (Italian) - Le origini delle lingue neolatine
  • Bruno Migliorini (Italian) - Storia della lingua italiana
  • Moreno Morani (Italian) - Introduzione alla linguistica latina
  • Lorenzo Renzi (Italian)
  • Klaus-Henning Schroeder (German) in Die einzelnen romanischen Sprachen und Sprachgebiete von der Renaissance bis zur Gegenwart: Rumänisch, Dalmatisch / Istroromanisch, Friaulisch, Ladinisch, Bündnerromanisch
  • Hans Goebl(Austrian) Wolfgang Dahmen (German) in Romanische Sprachgeschichte
  • Lucien Musset (French) - Les invasions. Le second assaut contre l'Europe chrétienne
  • Roumen Daskalov, Alexander Vezenkov (both Bulgarians) in « Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies - claim that both Bulgarian and Serb historiography generally view the ethnogenesis of Vlachs North of the Danube
  • Pat Southern (British) - The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine
  • Birgül Demirtaş-Coşkun (Turkish) Vlachs: A Forgotten Minority in the Balkans
  • Robert William Seton-Watson which unlike in your comment, in "A history of the Roumanians" he DOES accept the continuity theory
  • Johann Erich Thunmann - again, what you said is not true. He claimed Vlachs were descendads of Dacians, see

  Prichard, James Cowles (1841). Ethnography of Europe. 3d ed. 1841. Houlston & Stoneman. p. 476.

  • Mandell Creighton - once again, not true, he literally claims " The actual inhabitants of Roumania are, however, descended from a mixture of the Roman colonists settled here by Trajan, and the original populalation with whom they intermarried. The latter adopted, as we have said, the language of their conquerors, and called themselves Vlachs or Romans. "[71]

  So no, it's completely false that "only" Romanian scholars accept the continuity theory, there's no consesus even outside the debate between Romanian and Hungarian historians. The authors of The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages and The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages conclude that the exact origin of the Romanian language is uncertain and still debated. The Encyclopedia Britannica is also ambiguous, it claims "Thereafter the Romanized Dacian inhabitants either moved into the mountains and preserved their culture or migrated southward. The area then was repopulated by peoples from the Romanized lands south of the Danube River or from the Balkans. The Magyars (Hungarians) conquered the area at the end of the 9th century and firmly established their control over it in 1003 when their king Stephen I, according to legend, defeated the native prince Gyula." (also it doesn't claim Vlachs moved there after the Hungarian conquest)

  Also about "Joan E. Durrant (american) & Anne B. Smith (american): Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights" where is there even written anything about Vlachs/Romanians?? ZZARZY223 (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  I will also complete the list a bit more with

  1. Eqrem Çabej (albanian)

  2. Eric Hamp (american)

  3. Jernej Kopitar (slovene)

  4. Walter Porzig (german) YoursTrulyKor (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  And lastly, I will mention the Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vlach), which states, "Nationalist historians deploy one or the other scenario to justify modern territorial claims or claims to indigeneity. Thus, Hungarian (Magyar) claims to Transylvania assume a complete Roman exodus from Dacia, while Romanian claims assume that Romance continued to be spoken by Romanized Dacians. Most scholars who are not nationally affiliated assume the second scenario."

  So here's your solution to an earlier debate, if most historians agree. Yes, they agree. They agree with the Continuation Theory. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi ZZARZY223, YoursTrulyKor

  you listed many pre WW2 scholars, even people from 1700s. I think we need deal with modern academic scholars. Also it would be good to check that is true or not true, sadly that is my experience that followers of the Daco-Roman theory usually show "evidences" but if I check that "evidences" it usually see different thing in that sources. For example you listed an Austrian linguist, not a historian, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Goebl it would be good to know how do you know that he is supporter of Daco-Roman theory. Regarding Dennis Deletant, he was on blacklist during nationalcommunist time is Romania, probably the state did not like his theories, just I a showed a document from him above, where he refuse many Daco-Roman "evidence" things. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Btw as I suggested and more people agreed in this topic we do not need say numbers just "supporters of theory think" + "others think" OrionNimrod (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly, that's what should be done. I just wanted to reply to @CriticKende. ZZARZY223 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @OrionNimrod, I mentioned those pre ww2 and 1700s scholars, like Mandell Creighton and Johann Erich Thunmann, because @CriticKende did in his comment, claiming they supported the migration theory, which did not at all + I wrote "historians, archeologists and linguists in favour of contuinity", since linguists' opinion is also important because for example Gottfried Schramm bases the vast majority of his claimings about Vlach migration from Macedonia on linguistic evidence. About Hans Goebl, I mistaken him with Wolfgang Dahmen [72], where in Romanische Sprachgeschichte he does explain the evolution of Romanian language in such manner.

  Dennis Deletant has criticized some claims made by Romanian historians, but did not claim that Romanians migrated there, he also has worked with Keith Hitchins, Mihai Barbulescu, Pompiliu Teodor, Serban Papacostea to write Istoria României (2012) and was even awarded by the Romanian Academy (which obviously does not support the migration theory) ZZARZY223 (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  ZZARZY223 thanks to inform me! So Deledant is more professional and refuse the "wild elements" of this theory. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  It surely does. For example the Russian Primary Chronicle case, which is already cited in this article (which personally neither I think that is undoubtedly referincig Vlachs) ZZARZY223 (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I could ask what the Romanian chronicles wrote about you then, but I've already written that above, and we've been asked to discuss the things not here, but in the "Stable Version" section, for the sake of transparency. So please continue the discussion there. CriticKende (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do you think the Nestor Chronicle is talking about the Vlachs? So you think the Vlachs lived in Normandy too? xd CriticKende (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  the autor of that chronicle also points the vlachs in the carpathian basin, and there the franks didn't arrive.So the autor refers to franks and (probably) romanians. CarpathianEnjoyer (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  This Britannic article was written by an American/Romanian historian. It is worth adding this. :) CriticKende (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I thought that the nationality of an author does not matter in regards to the reliability of the said source. Rumburak level 3 wizard (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus, I see you wanted compromise and use "some" + "some" for both theories. I agree with you, I would like also compromise and close the debate. However since then the numbers again changed. I suggested many times and others also agreed that we can total leave the numbers. This is an endless debate, I think we do not need to say any numbers like "most/some", it is impossible to determine how many supporters have theory A and B.

  Change this:

  According to one origin theory, modern Romanians, Moldovans and Aromanians originated from Dacians. According to most linguists and scholars, the Eastern Romance languages prove the survival of the Thraco-Romans in the lower Danube basin during the Migration Period. On the other hand, some other historians believe that Romanians, Moldovans, Aromanians and other Eastern Romance groups originated in the southern Balkans and migrated north from there from the 11th-12th centuries onwards.

  To this: naming the theory

  According to one origin theory, the Daco-Roman continuity theory modern Romanians, Moldovans and Aromanians originated from Dacians. According to supporters of this theory, the Eastern Romance languages prove the survival of the Thraco-Romans in the lower Danube basin during the Migration Period. On the other hand, opponents of this theory believe that Romanians, Moldovans, Aromanians and other Eastern Romance groups originated in the southern Balkans and migrated north from there from the 11th-12th centuries onwards.

  Full Hungarian historiography beleive in the oppent theory, full Bulgarian also, German historiography also: At the conference held in Freiburg in 2001, eight German, two Hungarian and one Romanian historians and linguists debated the issue of Daco-Romanian continuity and took a 10:1 position against it. [34] Polish historiography also: Florin Curta, in a 2020 study, complains that the Daco-Roman theory is not accepted in Polish histography [35] + many other historians were listed earlier and now. This cannot be "some". Like the Daco-Roman theory has many supporters, so this also cannot be "some".

  I think, in this way it would be no more endless debate about "most/some". I also think we do not need emphasize the nationalities of historians here. Just presenting shortly theory A and theory B. The existence of them is fact. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  the "conference" organized by the Hungarian Institute in Munich where the historians were paid for participating and none of them have any related works on this conclusion, the debate being clearly in bad faith, all the predetermined topics (by the hungarian institute) being against the continuity theory?

  You need to stop recycling lies and flawed arguments. According to Encyclopedia Britannica most scholars agree with the continuity theory. Since we have a source confirming this, we'll go with it. Byte-ul (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

One side assures their vision is the predominant and the other does too. The problem is obvious, the dispute becomes a petty back-and-forth. Specially considering neither of the two have been able to reliably and appropriately cite their claims. Byte-ul, a single source is not enough, and again I insist we leave this because this is not an article dealing with the origin of the Romanians. Let's just keep the equal "some"/"some other" version and move on. Super Ψ Dro 11:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus, I agree with you, "equal and move on", so everybody is satisfied. But if we keep numbers "some+some" you can see users could feel to rewrite them in the future to start the same boring debate again and again. That is why I suggested to remove the "some" and use "supporters of theory" + "opponents of theory", I think these words will end this number debate. What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not opposed. Feel free to rewrite it that way. It's a good idea. Super Ψ Dro 15:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Byte-ul how do you know who organized? How do you know that they were paid? Did you see the bank account of those historians? :D And that Britannica article was written by a Romanian historian, which means the neutrality also can be a question. That is why I suggested to stop using numbers to end this debate. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's not make this about ethnicities, shall we? I also didn't go out of my way to point out that I don't know what historian is of X origin, and as such, their opinions should be discredited.

Also, I forgot to respond to a comment made a while ago, where you mockingly joked, "I guess Romanians are celtics now" in regards to the Celtic Cross- just so you know, the Celtic Cross is actually a pretty common Christian symbol and represents the christianity of Saint Patrick. It is also rather common in countries like France, Germany, etc. Does that mean they are Celtic too or..? YoursTrulyKor (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The author of the article, Victor Friedman, was born on October 18, 1949 in Chicago, Illinois, U.S. He is not a romanian historian and the article was also fact-checked by the editors of Encyclopædia Britannica Byte-ul (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)