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)

Dacians and Bessi

Hi @CriticKende

Could you please explain your addition:

He called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia.

The bolded part I could not find in the cited texts. Aristeus01 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I will put the text here, the page number is wrongly marked. Sorry

Hungarian: "A vlachok és dákok, illetőleg bessusok azonosítására azonban mégis olvasmányai bírták. Gy. hajszálpontos érveléssel mutatja ki, hogy azt, amit a dákokról tudott, Cassius Diónak, helyesebben valamelyik folytatójának, hihetőleg Xiphilinosnak művéből vette. Dacia Traiana-t azonban összetévesztette Dacia Aureliana-val"

English: "However, his readings still allowed him to identify the Vlachs and Dacians, as well as the Bessus. Gy. shows with precise reasoning that he took what he knew about the Dacians from the works of Cassius Dio, or rather one of his successors, probably Xiphilinos. However, he confused Dacia Traiana with Dacia Aureliana" (page 312)

I gave two sources directly, my first source talks about Macedonia.

The previous and following pages are also about this, in my second source. CriticKende (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in that text says anything what you added in the edit. I anxiously await to see if the second source is as good as this one. Aristeus01 (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

As you can see the text says what I edited, so my editing is good. CriticKende (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

How can you possibly say it is good when you diverge from the source, add info from your research, and fail to provide example from the second source? Aristeus01 (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The two sources say that, the first one says they are in Macedonia, the second one says that the two dacias are confused, that's what I wrote. CriticKende (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Your explanations simply do not have enough sourced material behind them to convince me it is not OR. Reported to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I wrote this: He called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, (end of 1. part) and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia.(end of 2. part)

Explanation of the first part: (Source: Miskolczy, Ambrus (2021). A román középkor időszerű kérdései Page:97 + 98)

1: "then the Romanians were dispersed in Macedonia, Epirus and Hellas" + "he only acted in accordance with the archaizing fashion of the time, i.e. to name contemporary peoples with the names of their "ancestors""

Explanation of the second part: (Source: Századok Page:312)

2: "However, he confused Dacia Traiana with Dacia Aureliana, and, again as a result of his reading, placed it further west than it was, hence the reference to the Serbian territory as the ancestral homeland."

As you can see, the ones I wrote are included in my source. So I don't see where I'm breaking the rules. If I can help with anything else, feel free to write. Have a nice day :) CriticKende (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi All,

I checking the sources (fast Google translates) (I bet we could find more sources, even Romanian one)

If needed I suggest to rephrase the discussed content to follow the language of the academic sources, to avoid the original research and personal POV.

1.

Miskolczy Ambrus [1]

page 95-96

Most of the Romanians formed a typical ethno-occupational group, they were shepherds. Most of them transhumed, i.e. they grazed their flocks in the plains in the winter and in the mountains in the summer. "It is their characteristic custom - Kekaumenos wrote towards the end of the 11th century - that their flocks and families are in the high mountains and in very cool places from April to September", namely "in the mountains of Bulgaria". looking for new pastures. Everywhere in the area defined by Sofia, Skopje, Pristina, Sarajevo, Dubrovnik, place names preserve the memory of the pastoral activity of the Romanians. Their permanent residences were located in the mountains, while in the valleys the Slavic communities lived their lives in the so-called Sclavinia. To a significant extent, Romanian sheep farming ensured the supply of dairy products to the Balkans. "Vlach cheese" was also in demand in Ragusa. Although sometimes the shepherds' wives also shepherded, they mostly spun and wove; their textiles were also put on the market. In Byzantium, Romanian textiles were worn by the poorer people, which were dyed colorful even in the shepherds' lodgings.257 Two typical figures of the Balkan Romanians were the soldier voinic (valiant) and the charioteer (călător), who also lived from long-distance trade.

-------

page 98-99

Not even a decade had passed, and Kekaumenos, the grandson of the elder Nikulitzas - himself a general - wrote at length in his cited work containing his advice to the emperor that the Romanians were treacherous, untrustworthy, and breaking their word. (By the way, from the way Kekaumenos describes the relationship between Nikulitzas and the imperial leadership, it appears that the emperor and his entourage were even more treacherous and unreliable, only more sophisticated.) These Romanians, that is, "the people of the Romanians" (Βλαχου γένος) - according to Kekaumenos – originally Dacians and Bessus, who lived on the banks of the Danube and the Sava, where the Serbs are "now". They feigned loyalty to the Romans while they were constantly attacked and pillaged. Therefore, Trajan launched a war, their leader, Decebalus, was also killed, and then the Romanians were scattered in Macedonia, Epirus and Hellas.261 Kekaumenos, by the way, made the Dacians the ancestors of the Romanians because he read about the deceitfulness of the Dacians in a Roman writer, and because the Romanians were also deceitful. he held - so much so that in his opinion they should not be believed even if they take an oath - he only acted in accordance with the archaizing fashion of the time, that is to say to name contemporary peoples with the names of their "ancestors".262

2.

Elekes Lajos [2]

page 310-12

In a peculiar way, the believers of both Daco-Romanian continuity and the formation of Romanianness in the Balkans forged a weapon out of it for their own theory. The source claims that the Vlachs of Hellas are the descendants of the Dacians and Bessus, who came to their place of residence after the victorious campaigns of Trajan and the defeat of King Decebal. On the other hand, however, he knows that their ancient land was south of the Danube and the Sava, in the Serblak region, so very close to the landscape where modern researchers are looking for the cradle of the Romanian people. The author of the book, Kekaumenos himself, says that what he describes, he drew not from books, but from his own experience.

-------

The equally common assumption that Nikulitzas himself was of Vlach origin does not stand either; all that we know of him, and the hateful contempt with which his kinsman and admirer, Kekaumenos, speaks of the Vlachs, speak strongly against him. There is no doubt that everything that Kekaumenos writes about the Vlach conditions of the time is based on his own or his family's direct experience and thus has a first-rate source value for the history of the Romanians. The situation is different with regard to the question of origin. Our author was not an uneducated person, although he consciously opposed the direction of the writers of his time. However, his readings still allowed him to identify the Vlachs and Dacians, as well as the Bessus. Gyóni shows with precise reasoning that he took what he knew about the Dacians from the works of Cassius Dio, or rather one of his successors, probably Xiphilinos. However, he confused Dacia Traiana with Dacia Aureliana, and even — also under the influence of his readings — placed it further west than it actually was; hence the mention of the Serbian territory as the homeland. The tendency to archaize — to refer to later peoples with classical names — was common in Byzantium at the time of Kekaumenos. No wonder he fell victim too. For identification he gave the two peoples, the Vlachs and the Dacians, just enough reason to - according to him - their perfectly matching nature, treachery, and political unreliability. It is a pure coincidence that with this he connected two peoples that the writers of later times, for a completely different reason, also connected with each other. According to Gy.'s impeccable argument, Kekaumenos' narrative about the origin of the Romanians is not based on popular tradition, but on semi-scientific reasoning. It has no scientific value, and cannot be used as an argument for continuity. Also against him only because the author could not even imagine that their ancestors did not come from the Balkan peninsula, as is typical of the Balkan national identity of Romania. On the other hand, the parts of the narrative that talk about the Vlach relations of the author's time are the primary sources of Romanian prehistory.

OrionNimrod (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

3.

Mócsy András [15] [3]

These mountain shepherd Vlachs are considered an invisible population in the following centuries, because, like the shepherds of the Balkan mountains, they do not appear in the history of events that can be traced in the sources. The first mention is a 9-11. we read it in a Byzantine source from the 19th century, Kekaumenos, who had dealings with the Vlachs in Greece (!), in connection with which he provides important details about the origin and way of life of the Vlachs. Here we quote the part that interests us word for word (translated by Mátyás Gyóni):

"After being fought by the emperor Trajan, and entirely wiped out, they were captured, and their king, the so-called Dekabalos, was killed and his head was fastened on a spear in the middle of the city of the Romans. These are the so-called Dacians and Bessi. 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. Being confident in these [places], they pretended friendship and service to the earlier emperors of the Romans, and used to go out of their strongholds and plunder the lands of the Romans; as a result they were angered with them, and, as has been said, destroyed them. They left those parts, and were scattered throughout all Epirus and Macedonia, but most of them inhabited Hellas."

In the description, the elements of historical reality are assembled into a distorted origin-tradition, both chronologically and ethnically. However, the text itself is too specific to avoid the interpretation of this distorted reflection of reality. Mátyás Gyóni, with his excellent knowledge of the Byzantine sources, came to the conclusion that Kekaumenos actually arbitrarily identified the Vlachs with the Dacians in accordance with his archaizing efforts of his time, and his data on the Dacians was thoroughly misunderstood, of course he drew it from Cassius Dio's great historical work in Greek. This work was known in Byzantium, and Kekaumenos was also in contact with one of its extracts, Xiphilinos. Of course, all probability points to the fact that Kekaumenos does not, or only, reproduces his own tradition of origin of the Vlachs: his narrative contains elements that are unimaginable without knowledge of the written historical tradition. But starting on this track, we have to doubt that the use of Cassius Dio's work would have been the decisive moment in the Dacian-Vlach identification, because the part of this work left us unmutilated, in which the Dacians could have been talked about the most, viz. the period up to the middle of the first century AD; and the narrative of the next half-century in ample and faithful extracts, such as e.g. Xiphilinose also has it. Let's take the facts of Kekaumenos' description one by one and reconcile them with the written tradition of the Dacians:

- Trajan really defeated the Dacians, crushed them, Decebalus' head was really taken to Rome. But this later custom, foreign to the Romans, was not impaled on a spear

- but, according to reliable information, it was put on public view on the scalae Gemoniae;

- the identification of the Dacians and Bessus is an obvious idea based on the identity or kinship of the Dacian and Thracian languages (albeit disputed today), but only for us; it could not have come from a misunderstanding of ancient sources;

- the Dacians in the region of the Danube and the Sava, where the Serbs now live, really set foot, but this could not have come directly from Cassius Dío in relation to the Sava;

- Dacians living in fortified and inaccessible places: a well-known element, even a cliché (toposa) of the description of the Dacians, which, however, is not found in such a wording in Cassius Dio;

- they feigned friendship and surrender: it is especially valid for the period starting with the death of Caesar and Burebista, when the Dacians were discussed as potential allies of Octavian and Antony. The alliance with certain kings of the Dacians was a recurring issue even later, but we hardly find anything about it in Cassius Dío; - they plundered the Roman provinces: also topos, which can also be found in Dio;

- the Romans destroyed them. This generalization is also commonplace in the literature of the imperial period, but it contradicts the fact that:

- they left their homes and scattered in the southern parts of the Balkans: this could not be possible in any ancient tradition, if only because the Dacians were mentioned in relation to these regions as those who sometimes threatened and attacked the province of Macedonia, which was already under Roman rule . Burebista and his immediate successors could be mentioned in this regard, but Cassius Dio is less so as a source;

- and neither Cassius Dio nor any other imperial era plagiarism could serve as the basis for the chronological error.

So if Kekaumenos could rely on the increasingly blurred knowledge of his time about the imperial era, he did not only draw this knowledge from Cassius Dio. In particular, he could not get the idea that the Vlachs of Greece were descended from the Dacians, either from Cassius Dio or from another source. The question now is whether this folk identification cannot be classified among the arbitrary archaizing folk names of Byzantine literature, as Mátyás Gyóni thought? The examples listed by Gyóni convincingly show that the names of the people known from classical antiquity were used with great freedom, but not without any rules, by the Byzantine writers to name the peoples of their own time. There had to be some kind of match: such is the people living in the same place, or appearing in the same place and fighting there, the way of life (ethnography), or perhaps the match of origin, to which we can add the exchange of similar-sounding folk names for the sake of a "better" sound. So Hungarians or Serbs could be called Dacians, but e.g. the Franks, Lombards, Arabs, etc. not anymore. Kekaumenos could have called the Vlachs Dacians with such an archaizing rechristening only if these Vlachs did not live in Epirus, Macedonia and Hellas, but much further north. It may be for such reasons that the Bessus were included in the place cited in his work, since the Bessus tribe was a neighbor of the Roman province of Macedonia, but this was still not a sufficient reason for Kekaumenoe to call the Vlachs Dacians for the first time, but not the last time, in Byzantine literature ( they rightfully became "Dacians" after becoming residents of Transylvania). The identification would be completely justified if the Vlachs called Dacians did not live in Greece, but between the Danube and the Balkan mountains, or in the northern part of Serbia. This would not only be a name parallel to the identification of Serbs-Dacians, but could also be traced back to the memory of the new Dacia established by Aurelian. Although Kekaumenos did not know about this Dacia, behind the departure and dispersal of the Dacians from Dacia, the possibility of a related obscure tradition can be considered. But only if either the Vlachs themselves or Kekaumenos had recognized this tradition as valid for the Dacians of Greece, i.e. if he had also known about the Vlachs living in the northern part of the Balkans. There is no trace of this in his work, from which it follows that either the Vlachs of Greece kept the memory of their Dacian origin, or that the Vlachs generally had such an origin in the public mind, which Kekaumenos applied to the Vlachs of Greece he knew. The dispersion of the Vlachs ("Dacians") mentioned by Kekaumenos is also a historical fact because there were no stronger Latin-speaking islands in Greece (Epirus, Macedonia, Hellas) from which the Vlachs could have formed locally. These southern Vlachs must have immigrated from further north, as in another part of Kekaumenos' account, it is really about alternating winter and summer accommodation: “where are your flocks and your women? . . . In the mountains of Bulgaria."

Bulgaria, of course, refers to the Bulgarian thema of the time, the mountains of the Central Balkans, where we know good evidence of transhumance herding long before the Vlachs from the Greek and Roman reports about the Dardanian people. In the period before the Slavic immigration, the inhabitants of the Roman cities of the Central Balkans were already forced to adopt the lifestyle of transhumance shepherding (Dardán) by retreating to the mountains. A branch of Romanian ethnogenesis grew out of this lifestyle change. We have to assume the other branch on the basis of the distorted tradition preserved by Kekaumenos. For this tradition, we have to admit that after the establishment of the province of Dacia, the name "Dacus" (Dacus) no longer meant the actual Dacians, the former inhabitants of Dacia, just as "Pannon" (Pannonius) did not mean the Pannonian tribal group in the imperial era, or the "gall" (Gallus) was not simply the name of the Celts. "Dacian" was the name of the province of Dacia, "Pannon" was the province of Pannonia, and "Gall" was the name of any inhabitant of a province called Gaul. This can also make Kekaumenos' chronological error understandable to us, and what's more: his confusing narrative can also become somewhat of a source value in that we see in the migrated and scattered Dacians not the former subjects of Decebalus, but the inhabitants of the abandoned province of Dacia. This also resolves the contradiction that the destroyed Dacians later migrated and dispersed. That is: one part of Kekaumenos' description, which is not wrong in itself, refers to the free Dacians, while the second part, which is again correct in itself, refers to the fate of the inhabitants of the evacuated Dacia. The connection between the two, correct in itself, led to the chronologically absurd origin, according to which the Vlachs came from the Dacians who fled from the Romans to the Roman Empire.

As far as emigration and dispersion are concerned, the historicity of this is beyond any doubt, at most with the limitation that "scattering" obviously condenses the movements of several centuries after the age of Aurelian; this is the period when the Romanized people scattered from Dacia and the Latin-speaking inhabitants of the Central Balkans who converted to transhumance merged into a new unity in language, lifestyle and culture under the Vlach people name. The consciousness of the Dacian origin in this new ethnic group could have survived in such a way that the new Dacia on the right bank of the Danube was the heir of the evacuated Dacia not only in name but also in its inhabitants. If we only take the tens of thousands of people from whom the two legions of the former Dacia consisted of family members, and whom Aurelian settled on the banks of the Danube, in Ratiaria and Oescus, we already have every reason to assume that the evacuees retained the consciousness of their origin from Trajan's Dacia. But the same thing follows from at least two seemingly trivial data. At the end of the 4th century, the imaginative author of the Historia Augusta informs us that the anti-emperor, Regalianus, who was proclaimed in Moesia in 260, was "of Dacian descent, and even, as they say, a relative of Decebalus". It is needless to emphasize that this tale lacks any foundation. However, its starting point could only be that the author knew: the old Moesia is the same as the Dacia of his own time. After that, the royal origin is a cheap, even rather humorous continuation of the playful idea that connected the name Regalianus with the kingdom through the conjugation of rex, regis. Although the origin of Regalianus is unknown, as a high-ranking commander, possibly a governor, he was a member of the senatorial order (his wife or mother, Dryantilla, must have been of senatorial descent), and as such he could hardly have come from the province where he happened to be proclaimed emperor. But the place of the proclamation, associated with the interpretation of its name, could have led the playful imagination of the author to Decebalus, without this game falling outside the permissible range of antique derivations and ethnographic associations. We have already talked about Diocletian's son-in-law and co-emperor: Galerius was born in the new Dacia, but certainly when the original Dacia still existed. His mother, Romula, left Dacia during a flight caused by a Carp invasion and settled in Moesia. As is rightly suspected, the escape and emigration from Dacia began early. In the case of Galerius, the interesting thing is that the refugees found a new home where Aurelian later created the new Dacia. The withdrawal of the army, which was also not the work of Aurelian! it was only the culmination of the process that began sometime in the middle of the 3rd century, and of which Aurelian drew only the final consequence with the creation of the new Dacia. We know very well how the Romanized inhabitants of Dacia were made up of immigrants of mixed origin, but their collective name was "Dacus", and when they had to start a new life on the south bank of the Danube, their name "Dacian" survived only because the province in which they settled it was named Dacia. The fleeing and resettled "Dacians" were the bearers of Dacian Romanization: soldiers and their families, landowners, tenants, the urban aristocracy. Those whose basis of existence was belonging to the Empire, and for whom complete declassification would have awaited in the province left to itself, without administration or protection. However, settling in the new Dacia or another province, they did not break away from the Roman society of which they were the beneficiaries. It is likely that most of them, the tens of thousands of families of the two legions, must have settled in the new Dacia, which resulted in the concentration of Romanized elements and the survival of the Dacian self-consciousness. These Romanized Dacians would of course have met the same fate in the storms of the population migration that had begun, as if they had stayed in the old Dacia. Having lost their social position and the support of the central power, the only thing that saved them from absorption was that they could merge with the Balkan branch of the Vlachs, with which they were connected by language, lifestyle and a common alienation towards the changing ethnic environment. The amalgamation was probably already in an advanced stage when they received the collective name Vlach from the Slavic immigrants. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/CecaumeniStrategiconEtIncertiScriptorisDeOfficiisRegiisLibellus1896/page/73/mode/2up

here you have a link where its written how kekaumenos name vlachs dacians and bessoi(so they populate that places, dacia aureliana or dacia trajana, doesnt really matters), then he sais they migrate between the danube and sava and then they go to south. 2A0C:5A84:520F:BC00:F9FA:DC02:B70:17F9 (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Original research

Hi @Aristeus01, I see you worry about the original researchers, but you yourself push all the time many WP:ORIGINAL (like [4] Romanian language was spoken in Pannonia (east Austria, west Hungary) 2000 years long without interruption until today, or [5][6] hundred of settlements in today west Hungary, Oberpullendorf in Austria was a Romanian settlement between 800-1400, or [7] 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 [8] 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."[9]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)

Geto Dacians (Romanians) mentioned by Dlugosz

The Romanians (Geto Dacians) and the Ruthenians under the command of the Pechenegs were called in 1070 by the princes of Volânia against King Boleslav of Krakow. I. Dlugosz, Historiae Polonicae, vol. I, Leipzig, 1711, col. 265. Mestter (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC) There is an older mention (1068) about an incursion of Pechenegs and Romanians/Vlachs in Transylvania, ended with the battle of Chiraleș. Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, pag. 241. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mestter (talk • contribs) 13:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The mention of Geto Dacians in the 11th century does not means that these people were living in that century. Simply it shows that the chronicler didn't know how to name the people. There were a lot of chroniclers who named Romanians with the name of Dacians even in the 13th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.86.31 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

History Section Neutrality

The neutrality of this section has been debated and the text changed and reverted more than a few times in the last few months. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2023 (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)

Magna Vlachia

"During the Middle Ages, the term "Magna Vlachia" appears in Byzantine documents, which means the ancestral homeland of the Vlachs. This name was used for Thessaly and present-day North Macedonia."

The great Vlachia, as I have searched, is not located in Macedonia, but where Romania is located today, the area of Macedonia was called Wallachia Thessaly, if I see that there are no problems and that no one shows me otherwise, I suppose I can edit that fragment of the article.

Here is a link with a photo that says I said it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vlachia#/media/File:ShepherdByzempire1265.jpg 2A0C:5A84:5406:2900:10B2:DE0F:DD9:1FFC (talk) 10:36, 27 January 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 the 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 in 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.

Again, it's 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' ".

In this part of the article, we put in the mentions of the Vlachs, and it mentioned the Vlachs, whereas the "torna torna fadre" part doesn't, it's just a Latin phrase, but taking that out is still problematic, whereas this chronicle that actually talks about the Vlachs, it's still a problem to have it in the article.

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)

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 [10] 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 [11]: "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 [12] 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 [13] 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 [14]. 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: [15] 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 [16] as I said "rv" I made a revert regarding the earlier content removal probably combining with more edit of this user: [17]

2.

[18] 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 [19]

3.

[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.

4.

[21] 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.

[22] Well, that content was originally added by an another user [23] 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 [24].

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.

[25] 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)

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."[26]

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.[27] 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[28]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 [29] from 1751 [30] from 1759 [31] from 1787 [32] 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)

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. [33] Romanian historian Florin Curta, in a 2020 study, complains that the Daco-Roman theory is not accepted in Polish histography [34] 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)

@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[35], Carlo Tagliavini (Le origini delle lingue neolatine, 1962), Giuseppe Stabile (Valacchi e valacchie nella letteratura francese medievale, 2010), Roumen Daskalov (Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Three, 2013), 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)

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 [36] 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)