Talk:Origin of the Romanians

DNA analysis

According to my DNA analysis, I'm 70.3% of Balkan ethnicity (Serb, Croat, Bosnian, Macedonian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Romanian, etc., much less Hungarian and not Ukrainian, Polish or Russian), 21% of Greek ethnicity (Greek, Cypriot, Cretan) and I come for 8.7% from the Middle East (which could mean Arab, Persian or Iranian, Jew, Egyptian, Coptic, Turk, Syrian, Yemeni, Kurdish, Iraqi, etc. — but not Ashkenazim, Mizrachi, Yemenite Jew or Sephardi). The gist is: the geneticists of MyHeritage cannot distinguish between geographically close countries. So all DNA research is fuzzy and cannot distinguish between Serb, Croat, Albanian and Romanian. That's why DNA studies are of limited use in respect to the origin of Romanians. E.g. most Romanians tested by MyHeritage show as preponderantly of Balkan ethnicity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, not a long ago I saw a video where such were promoted, i.e. many people around the world who were proud of their nationality and origin and were confident of it was put on a voluntary gerentic test and some very-very interesting results came out that shocked them or changed their mind - i.e. Englishman had German ancestry who don't really like Germans, or Kurdish lady who eventually had identical DNA with the common of Turks, etc.). I appreciate you did that, such would be very interesting for every people. I also agree that we have to be very careful regarding the DNA studies, however mostly by their interpretations, since regarding R1A1, both opposing sides evaluate the results as the reinforcement of their views, although scientifically/statistically the causation i sproblematic regarding who is thereal borrower or inheritor.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC))Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you just compare one individual genetic profile with a scientific study and infer that "So all DNA research is fuzzy and cannot distinguish between Serb, Croat, Albanian and Romanian. That's why DNA studies are of limited use in respect to the origin of Romanians."? Do you mean to tell us that based on your personal (individual) experience, you somehow draw the conclusion that generally speaking genetic studies of "Balkan" populations (not Hungarian, of course) are inconclusive?

Do you know how statistics work (serious question)?Cealicuca (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not about my experience, it is about the knowledge of the geneticists working for MyHeritage. I thought that was already clear from what I have written above. You may Google it for yourself, they have nice maps about it: it is really hard for geneticists to distinguish between the ethnicities from geographically close countries. They base their conclusions on many peer-reviewed studies. If you need more info use Google Translate with https://radar.avrotros.nl/uitzendingen/reacties/item/online-dna-testen-reactie-myheritage/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No. I do not dispute the genetic results. I dispute your interpretation of it (which is quite clear). Your interpretation, based on your individual genetic test result is:"According to my DNA analysis [...] The gist is: the geneticists of MyHeritage cannot distinguish between geographically close countries. So all DNA research is fuzzy and cannot distinguish between Serb, Croat, Albanian and Romanian. That's why DNA studies are of limited use in respect to the origin of Romanians. E.g. most Romanians tested by MyHeritage show as preponderantly of Balkan ethnicity.".

So again, based on YOUR genetic results, you infer that scientific studies are "fuzzy" or of "limited use" for Romanians or whatever.Cealicuca (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Your reading ability is somewhat disappointing. As Prof. Yaniv Erlich says at that link, if one would travel from London to Moscow and analyze the DNA of the people he/she meets, about 3% of variation in DNA would be explained by the particular country wherein that person lives/was born. For Eastern Europe MyHeritage has just two ethnicities: Balkan and East European. They don't have a Dutch ethnicity since that's too close to other countries. With a high percentage Balkan and a somewhat lower percentage Greek, I'm typical for most Romanians who have been tested by this company. My Middle Eastern roots are atypical for Romanians, but that's only 8.7%. The test goes back for 10 generations. The company would love to distinguish between Bosnian and Bulgarian, between Serb and Romanian, etc., but there is simply not enough variation in DNA. With the passing of time, its knowledge may advance, so this picture could change, but we have to abide by WP:BALL. Or, to put it otherwise, between Serb and Romanian there could be a difference in the DNA, but the overlap is much greater than the difference. E.g. something like this: [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This subject has already been exhausted on these talk pages (see archives or check your short-term memory banks since you were one of the participants just a few months ago), and yet here you are opening up the subject again with inane comments showing that you still know nothing about DNA research. I've already provided all the answers (with corresponding links) in my previous comments so I won't bother again since it's obvious that you're not here to learn but rather to push an agenda, which might/should have serious consequences for you on Wiki. Rather than waste other editors' time with your personal "issues/opinions" please state your point clearly and then provide WP:RS to back it up. Anything else is a waste of time. P.S. all those companies currently doing "DNA analysis" are more of less a sham, not because their results are not "correct", but because their methodologies are such that the results are (purposely?) fuzzy and unreliable (just google it and you'll find plenty of articles saying things like this "A spokesperson for 23andMe says their results are based on a sliding confidence scale, ranging from 50-90 percent"). That's because what they do is compare autosomal DNA between modern populations, so they have their reference DNA of, say, Balkan or Greek or Middle Eastern populations and the results come up something like you're X%Balkan, Y%Greek and Z%Middle-Eastern, since you (a human, I assume) should have something in common with most of those populations (as would anyone to a certain degree). Of course, if they decide to have Romanian as a reference population, then people from all over the world would be getting results saying they're 15% or 20% Romanian, etc. Which, of course, is ridiculous. What these companies DO NOT test for is your mtDNA/Y-DNA against ancient mtDNA from the country of your origin. Both mtDNA and Y-DNA are passed down unchanged from generation to generation and the only way to determine your "ethnicity" (for what it's worth) is by comparing your mtDNA (more accurate than Y-DNA since it's passed down unchanged from mother to child, regardless of gender) to mtDNA extracted from ancient populations (Romanian, in this case). That's what those DNA studies (done by academics) quoted in this article have done, and that's the only way to do it correctly and do it accurately. Otherwise, feel free to take comfort in the fact that we share 90%+ in common with pigs and chimps (which explains, I guess, the level of some of the debates on these talk pages).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You have already been given the example with mtDNA and Y-DNA 100% Swede, yet the man is 50% black. Or something like this: his mother's mother's mother is 100% Swede, his father's father's father is 100% Swede, and the rest of that generation are all black. See also So you’re related to Charlemagne? You and every other living European… Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about and it's pretty clear neither do you. You already brought up that example in our previous discussion and I showed you why it has no bearing on the mtDNA studies done by the academics (the kind mentioned in this article), so I won't comment on this any further. Again, what's your point and what are the WP:RS supporting it? You produce that, or else this discussion is over (as far as I'm concerned).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: This has nothing to do with my reading ability. You still don't seem to understand that there is a difference between one's genetic profile (as an individual) and a whole population genetic profile. The point is that the company/Yavin Elrich recognizes that:

• The DNA results with respect to ethnicity may vary between providers, due to a number of factors: difference in algorithms that are used; difference in the reference populations used; the number of ethnicities with which the DNA is compared and which are these.
• There are usually small differences in the genetic characteristics between different population groups. These differences can be very small.
• By integrating patterns of differences in various parts of your genome, the algorithm estimates your likely genetic composition. It compares your DNA with 42 ethnic groups from around the world. We intend to add more in the future, with the help of our Founder Population project, a comprehensive study on this. [Important: The project's genetic "database" contains "[...] thousands of MyHeritage users from all around the world [...]"]
• A DNA test goes back several hundred years, about 10 generations. As a result, it can generally give a different picture than 3 or 4 generations in a family tree. In some cases it is the other way around: the family tree does not go far enough back to match with a DNA trace from the past.
• Is yout MyHeritage DNA test reliable? [...] it is always estimates - a series of hypotheses generated from individual DNA. Some ethnicities are genetically very similar, and therefore difficult to distinguish from other ethnicities, which can lead to errors. So we are certainly in favor of looking at ethnicity outcomes with a critical eye. We continue to work hard on improving accuracy and adding more ethnicities that are not yet identified.

So basically the problems are the following: You have no idea what they are looking for (nor do they explain). You also don't have any idea about the algorithm(s) involved - thus cannot determine if the algorithm(s) used are just as good for determining an ethnicity genetic profile as they are for determining an individual genetic profile. Another huge problem is that you don't know how the "ethnic" profile has been obtained. What we know is they have a low statistical base (some thousands of individuals OVERALL) - which affects the accuracy of their tests. They admit as much, as improving the accuracy is a "work in progress". Do they use genetic data extracted from individuals living today (only) with self-declared genealogy tree (and how far that goes) etc.?

There simply are too many variables in this and not enough of a controlled study. Yes, it might be good for establishing if you and I are related, and to what degree, but that's about it. This is not a comprehensive study of an entire population (statistically significant number of individuals from that population).

And one more thing: They do not say anything close to what you're saying - you base your conclusion on what here would be considered weasel words (may vary, is generally hard etc etc). But as a side-note, it's interesting that their ethnic Balkan genetic profile yields the following numbers: Slovenia - 88.4, Romania - 86.1, Croatia - 86.1, Bulgaria - 85, Slovakia - 79.7%, Hungary - 74.8%. Should we start interpreting those numbers? 'Cause we could get some very interesting interpretations... Or should we assume that this "Balkan" genetic profile is simply not that comprehensive and accurate? Does your "source" state that your genetic results reflect an academic/scientific study on the genetic profile of Romanians? No. Do they say that your genetic profile may be inaccurate? Yep. So what should we assume? I say we assume nothing.

Look, i'm not trying to pick a "fight" here. I don't even realize why you opened the discussion - what is your goal. But I genuinely believe that you do not take into consideration all the aspects and jump to rushed conclusions.Cealicuca (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:RS, we do not like WP:PRIMARY DNA research. See WP:MEDRS, WP:HISTRS, WP:SCIRS. It's simply not our tasks to write reviews of primary scientific literature. Our interpretations of primary literature could be true, could be false, but they are certainly not reliable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We were actually speaking of how you inferred that your individual genetic profile is relevant to an ethnicity's genetic profile. In any case, I am looking at this section and no, it doesn't seem to rely at all (mainly) in primary sources. Moreover, your conclusion about primary sources, that "they are certainly not reliable", is not quite reflecting the Wikipedia policies. Some are reliable, some maybe aren't. Actually, what is certain is that they are not all unreliable. It's not the reliability of the primary source that is concerning, it's the use of it.Cealicuca (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It means "Our interpretations of primary sources certainly aren't reliable". See Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

1) "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." DNA studies study material thousands of years old, so by Wiki definition they're NOT "primary sources". 2) "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." ALL DNA studies mentioned in this article match those specifications point-by-point, as they review DNA data, are published in reputable journals and were conducted by reputable academics; 3) "Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge." ALL DNA studies mentioned in the article are based on reliable published sources reflecting the current state of knowledge. So, your suggestions fail on all counts, which is why your tag will be removed. The Wiki pages of most countries/ethnicities contain a DNA section for the simple reason that it conforms with Wiki standards. If you somehow wish to have this particular page be the exception, then I'll be happy to take it to arbitration.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstand what WP:PRIMARY means. See Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Origin of the Romanians. Tgeorgescu (talk)

Map

@Iovaniorgovan:, why do you think that a map which presents one of the main theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis violates WP:NPOV? Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Because, clearly, if there's a map for IT, there should be a map for DRCT and one for AT. Anything else violates due weight, so I suggest you refrain from posting such things until we come to a conclusion on the NPOV board debate (this is the reason we got into that debate in the first place). Again, feel free to post that map when we separate the sections.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a separate section dedicated to the immigrationist theory. Please feel free to place a map which presents any other theory in the article. WP:NPOV does not say that a map presenting one of the concurring theories cannot be placed without placing other maps. Accoring to this policy (Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete), "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content." Furthermore, the caption of the map clearly shows that it present a scholary POV, so it is fully in line with Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV. As it is presented here:

The Romanians' homeland and their medieval migrations (a map presenting views proposed by scholars who accept the "immigrationist theory")

Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

My point is we're in the middle of a debate concerning this very thing, so it behooves you to wait until we reach a consensus over there before making this kind of edit. Unless you accept the proposals made there and we create separate sections as we should (and will, eventually).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The debate has been sleeping for days and no external input has been achieved. The repetition of personal POVs is not a debate. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I sought comments on the above issue on the relevant noticeboard. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hasdeu

Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu died more than a hundred years ago. Is his theory describing the Albanians as migrating Carpians is still accepted by any experts of the subject? If not, we should delete the map presenting it. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this a joke?Cealicuca (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you name experts of the Albanians' ethnogenesis who accept this theory and published their view in peer reviewed books or periodicals, as per WP:Fringe and WP:Due? Borsoka (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we should stop here. Just because it is related to Albanians (and I would like to point out that there are several statements here, not just Hasdeu's, that are related to Albania and Albanians and Albanian language) is not grounds for removal. Although I am glad and I appreciate that you begin to understand why this article would benefit of a thorough review/reorganizing...Cealicuca (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not want to remove it because it is related to Albanians, but because it presents a fringe theory. Can you name experts of the Albanians' ethnogenesis who accept this theory and published their view in peer reviewed books or periodicals, as per WP:Fringe and WP:Due? Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It does not present a fringe theory. It is an argument brought up in the development of one theory which, coincidentally, in the article is presented as a mainstream theory.Cealicuca (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If other scholars do not accept it, we can only describe it as a fringe theory. I requested a third opinion on the issue ([2]). Borsoka (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hasdeu's statement is not a theory on the Origin of Romanians, as you try to present it, but an argument used by him in order to support a theory. Good that you did. Please post the correct link to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Cealicuca (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have not tried to present it as a theory on the Origin of the Romanians. If you follow the permalink above, you will find my request listed where it should be listed. Borsoka (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"If other scholars do not accept it, we can only describe it as a fringe theory." - did anyone else said that? I thought you said that... As for your permalink - it shows a difference in revisions. The Active disagreements section contains this point: Discussion about a map in the Origin of the Romanians article. Please correct it as it's not about the map per say, but rather Hasdeu. Thank you :)Cealicuca (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read my first sentence above. Borsoka (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I removed this from the Third Opinion requests since an RfC was called (below). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:, please restore it, because the map presenting Hasdeu's theory is not subject to the RfC below. Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The map referred above is the following:

@Borsoka: Restored 3O request. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: @Borsoka:@Cealicuca:@Ryanaxp: I'm not an expert so please correct me if I've got anything wrong. As far as I can tell the map is relevant because it's part of a theory which suggests that supposed similarities found solely in Romanian and Albanian reflect a shared origin from Dacian, with the Romanian variety being later supplanted by Latin, and this would help justify the theory of continuity. There definitely seem to be a number of supporters of this idea (I. I. Russu most prominently) so I would be hesitant to exclude it entirely, even if it isn't the most mainstream view. Although most of the sources I've looked at think the theory's wrong, all of them consider it worthy of at least some kind of mention or consideration, and not just ‘outdated’ or ‘historical’. The most definitive statement comes from Lloshi (1999) who says "Among Albanian language scholars there is practically no dispute over the thesis that Alabnian is related to Illyrian" but Madgearu & Gordon (2008) disagree with this and regarding the Carpi hypothesis are willing to say things like "if Russu was right", so I don't think we can treat the hypothesis as obsolete. On the other hand, the map serves little purpose at the moment because the link between the caption ("Albanians as descendants of migrating Carpians") and the text is unclear. My non-binding opinion is that it doesn't harm anyone, even if it's probably wrong, but would only be useful if the description were expanded to explain that placing the Albanians and the Romanians in the same area is desirable because, like a number of theories, it would establish a common Dacian substrate that explain supposed similarities between the languages (and therefore support the continuity hypothesis), and that the specific theory shown doesn't currently have widespread acceptance. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

References

I lent towards keeping this because I think images make a page more colourful and approachable, but thinking it over, it would be better to take it out. The main reason is that it doesn’t really illustrate anything in the text, other than suggesting that the similarities which prompted the theory are important. The other reasons are a) neither Madgearu nor Gordon are experts in Albanian as far as I can tell, and so Lloshi’s judgement is more important than theirs, b) I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence, and c) in such a contentious article these points amount to at least a minor issue with WP:Due, so it would be better to err on the side of caution. Ultimately the map was never meant for this page, and it has its home elsewhere. Sorry for the flip-flopping. Better late than never. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I suggest that we should regard your first "vote" as the final vote in order to avoid an edit war. Yes, the theory is clearly fringe. It claims that the Dacians who were under Roman rule in Dacia Traiana for 170 years ("Daco-Romans") adopted the Latin language, but those who were under Roman rule in the Balkans for more than 300 years ("Carpo-Albanians") did not. However, Madgearu mentions it in the context of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, so it could also be mentioned here. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent: May I ask what is your opinion about the fact that the article "I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence". Is that ok?Cealicuca (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

To editors that keep going back to their old habbits

I thought the administrator was clear enough - please discuss if you want to add/modify something. It seems that for some people this wasn't clear.

Maps

@Cealicuca:, you deleted two maps from the article, saying "The editor added maps from a cartographer without putting the work of a cartographer in the context of any of the historical mainstream theory." Please note, that the article's subject is the Romanians' ethnogenesis, and the two maps nicely shows aspects of the process mentioned in the article based on reliable sources.

Based on a reliable source, the article says, "The territories south of the Danube were subject to the Romanization process for about 800 years, while Dacia province to the north of the river was only for 165 years under Roman rule, which caused "a certain disaccord between the effective process of Roman expansion and Romanization and the present ethnic configuration of Southeastern Europe", according to Lucian Boia." The maps presents this "dissaccord". Why do you think the article does not provide enough context?

Length of the Roman rule and the Romance Languages

Based on reliable sources, the article says that "A royal charter of 1223 confirming a former grant of land is the earliest official document of Romanians in Transylvania. It refers to the transfer of land previously held by them to the monastery of Cârța, which proves that this territory had been inhabited by Vlachs before the monastery was founded. ... [In 1224] the Transylvanian Saxons were entitled to use certain forests together with the Vlachs and Pechenegs. ... References to Vlachs living in the lands of secular lords and prelates in the Kingdom of Hungary appeared in the 1270s. First the canons of the cathedral chapter in Alba Iulia received a royal authorization to settle Romanians to their domains in 1276. Thereafter, royal charters attest the presence of Romanians in more counties, for instance in Zărand from 1318, in Bihor and in Maramureș from 1326, and in Turda from 1342. The first independent Romanian state, the Principality of Wallachia, was known as Oungrovlachia ("Vlachia near Hungary") in Byzantine sources, while Moldavia received the Greek denominations Maurovlachia ("Black Vlachia") or Russovlachia ("Vlachia near Russia")." The map shows the Vlachs' territory near Cârța, the Vlachs and Pechenegs' forests and the earliest attested references to Vlachs. Why do you think the article does not provide enough context?

Spread of the Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary between around 1200 and 1400

Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. We don't get to find stuff and just put it here. This is WP:SYNTH. Has any scholar (WP:RS) that is specifically mentioning one of the theories also uses this map? Because otherwise what a cartographer does is what a cartographer does, it's quite different than a historian. And good luck trying to use the misleading and already skewed statements from this article as supportive arguments. This is not how you add context, you add context by properly citing sources (with the context that the source intended). Again, is any scholar that has a book, article - whatever about any of the mainstream theories using those maps? Post them here.Cealicuca (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, if it's related to the IT or another theory, then it should be under the proper section.Cealicuca (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Moreover (moreover) although I can find the map with the neo-latin languages, I can't find the second map...Cealicuca (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The source verifying these maps uses it in the context of the Romanians' ethogenesis which is the subject of the article. Why do you think they are related to only one of the theories? Do you think, Boia whose statement is quoted above accepts the immigrationist theory like Bereznay (who designed the map)? Bereznay is a historian, who worked as cartographer for the Historical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and conceived and compiled the entire map content of The Times Atlas of European History ([3]) Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said - first of all you should cite the work that interprets that map and gives it context. A historian's work (not a History graduate who is a great cartographer... and has no - as far as I can see on his - work published on this subject - how the ethnogenesis of the Romanians happend).

I published several critical treatises on atlases in The Times (of London) and in Hungarian language academic or other learned journals in Hungary and in the US. I published a thesis titled Civilizations towards a World Civilization that reviews the current of World History from the angle of Political Geography in Földrajzi Értesítö, and later again in'2000' (in Hungarian). I published a thesis titled Central Europe - a Western Landscape that contributes to the debate on the meaning of Central Europe and offers a coherent definition of its extent in Regio (in Hungarian).

But if I am wrong you will promptly be able to produce his work (or some other historian, not cartographer preferably) that deals with the maps you added. AND (if the maps do prove to be more than just a cartographer's self published work) those maps should be put in the proper section. If they refer to IT, then so be it - IT section it is.Cealicuca (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The map is not self-published, becuse it is based on the following book: Bereznay, András (2011). Erdély történetének atlasza [Atlas of the History of Transylvania]. Méry Ratio. ISBN 978-80-89286-45-4. We do not need to refer to other works which cite these specific maps, because we are not here to duplicate existing works, but to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. I sought a 3rd opinion ([4]), because our debate emerges from the different interpretations of WP policies. Borsoka (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia misses professionally designed maps. Bereznay's maps are excellent works. We would have to appreciate that he is willing to contribute to Wikipedia. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice that there's a discussion going on before reverting the edit? A cartographer is not a WP:RS when it comes to the History of the Romanians. Which WP:RS used that exact map? Cite work title and page number.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I withdrew the request for third opinion, because there are more than 2 editors involved in the debate. I initiated an RfC below. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: two maps

Can the two maps discussed above be placed in the article? Borsoka (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Yes, they can. They are designed by a professional cartographer, properly sourced. We would need more maps like these. I do not even understand why it is an issue. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support I think two editors display a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, importing ethnic conflicts into Wikipedia, as explained at User:Moreschi/The Plague. So I would say that the maps can be placed in the article. Of course, maps supporting the other theories could be placed as well, if they comply with WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Against Just to be clear, I'm not against maps as long as they're taken out of a WP:RS and placed within their proper theoretical context. This one is not, as it's only "verified" by Borsoka, a Wiki editor, hence amounting to WP:OR. Furthermore, that cartographer is NOT a WP:RS when it comes to the ORIGIN OF THE ROMANIANS, or else you should be able to produce some of the cartographer's academic work on the subject. Finally, if the maps in Schramm's work "verify" this cartographer's map, as Borsoka claims, why not just post a map from Schramm's book (with the proper citations and context)?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)— Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • The map is verified by a reliable source (Bereznay) not by me. We are not here to duplicate maps from existing scholarly works, especially as per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I have never claimed that these maps are verified by Schramm's work. Borsoka (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you have, right here ("Furthermore, the maps in Schramm's work verify Bereznay's map.") You either have a very short memory, seeing as you just posted that, or you are deliberately obfuscating.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• There are 3 maps. 1 of them is verified also by a map in Schramm's work. The 2 other maps are subject to this RfC. Borsoka (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support I support - as always - any properly sourced maps, as such are present in plenty of other articles; i.e. in some Romania related articles there are only present maps based on i.e. Hasdeu's origin theory, but nothing else, but nobody struggled to remove them. The more maps, the more viewpoint, the more to NPOV.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC))

• Against ...in the current form. There are several problems here.

• 1. The source is a freelance map cartographer, he does that for a living, under contract. As such, he doesn't need any historical analysis, just money and someone to pay him to compile given historical sources.
• 2. Does this cartographer offer any context (historical analysis) to this map? Is his work (in this case) simply descriptive?
• 3. Would any of you be OK with another editor randomly posting content from otherwise WP:RS that are not historians and do not have any supporting historical analysis for their maps? We're not here to build a theory on the Romanian ethnogenesis.
• 4. (!!!) Even in case the maps were to be accepted, considering the map represents a theory (graphical descriptor of the arguments that the theory presents) it cannot and should not be placed in an "Evidence" section. It is a descriptor of a theory - a theory which interprets said evidence, therefore a map that describes part of that theory is not evidence in and of itself. It should be placed in the corresponding (theory) section.
• I would also like to remind some people of WP:MEAT. As for other editors, please stop provoking and don't push the discussion to a certain direction. So far it has been civil and nobody (but you) has brought up the subject of ethnic conflicts.Cealicuca (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)— Cealicuca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(1) Bereznay's map was published by a publishing house, independent of him. Bereznay worked for the Hungarian Academy of Science and other renowned institutions. Do you think historians do not work for a salary? (2) His work is simply descriptive, based on reliable sources dedicated to the subject of the map. For instance, works written by László Makkai and Gyula Kristó (two renowned Hungarian historians) are among his sources. Any WP editor is entitled to prepare a map based on reliable sources. Why do you think a cartographer is forbidden to complete a map? (3) If it is based on reliable sources, yes. (4) The map should be put where it is connected to the article's text. (Would you please delete your bold sentence because it is disturbing. Furthermore it is baseless.) Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) Bereznay's map was indeed published by a publishing house. But is the map his research? Or was he paid (as in commercial contract - which is far from academic research) to compile/create a map on someone else's research? Is the published piece an academic research article/book? Janitors also work for a salary. Shout they also be considered reliable sources because historians also get paid for their work? (2) So if his work is simply descriptive then it should be presented as such, not as having a role in the development of any of the theories or as evidence supporting a theory. The article has a section dedicated to that. (3) The fact that it is based on WP:RS (uses WP:RS to compile data) does not make it a WP:RS. And thank you for letting us know what you consider a well sourced content. (4) The map should be placed in the section describing the theory which the map itself supposedly describes. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Again, why do you insist on placing it otherwise, and thus mislead the readers, when we already have a (small) section dedicated to this? (4) I am sorry it disturbed you, I have removed it.Cealicuca (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) I am pretty sure that Bereznay received a salary for his book. Few scholars publish their work without a proper renumeration. (2) and (4) The maps should be placed where they assist readers to understand certain aspects of the article as it is explained above. (3) Bereznay's work is a reliable source in itself: it was written by an expert and it was not self-published. Nevertheless, he refers, among others, to the following works: Erdély története ("History of Transylvania", edited by László Makkai and other historians, written by dozens of historians, its English translation can be read here [5]), Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9-14. század) ("Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th–14th centuries)", edited by Gyula Kristó and other historians, written by dozens of historians, [6]). Sorry, I do not want to force uninvolved editors to read lengthy and boring discussion, so I stop commenting this RfC. Borsoka (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) Yes. Point being - it's a freelance cartographer's work. Nothing more. It does not constitute an analysis on the Romanian ethnogenesys but, at best, it's a non-historian, non-academic graphical description of one of the theories adressing the issue. (2) Why so cryptic? Is the map presenting IT arguments? Yes. Does the article have a section dedicating to describing/summarizing IT? Yes. Does the map have anything to do with the development of the IT theory? No. Is any description of a theory a supportive argument for that theory? No. So why should it be placed in any other place than the section dedicated to that theory? (4) Sorry, I think i missed the academic peer review on this WP:RS. Could you please link it? Not any piece of work that uses WP:RS is a WP:RS. Oh, how thoughtful of you... "Sorry, I do not want to force uninvolved [...]". I actually expected you to say "Sorry, I do not understand your statement [...]".Cealicuca (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I can easily design a map, which has to be based on a reliable source and has to comply with other Wikimedia Commons' rules (e.g copyvio), and this map can be used freely on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who the author is. Even if the author was a mechanic it would not matter. Bereznay's maps are based on academic researches and his maps help to understand certain academic viewpoints.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir: While you're at it you may want to actually read why I said I oppose.Cealicuca (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support I see no reason whatsoever not to include these maps as they are relevant to the topic and are properly sourced. These maps in my opinion help illustrate the points and theories of the origins of the Romanians. I don't see how this could be a NPOV issue at all. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I can't see any valid objection to the use of these maps. As mentioned above, it really doesn't matter who made them, as long as they accurately illustrate the points made in the article. If there's some dispute as to their accuracy, that can be addressed through their placement in context, and captioning. But that doesn't seem to be at issue in this dispute. P Aculeius (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: Actually at least this map is a little bit incorrect. The legend depicts Romanian language and "other Neo-Latin" spread, c. 20. It includes areas where Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian are/were spoken - (added for clarity: but the map labels it as "Romanian") - while at the same time the article states that "Common Romanian split into four variants (Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) during the 10th-12th centuries.". So both cannot be correct at the same time. Moreover, the legend contains "Other Neo-Latin speaking in mid-C20, with language" which I suppose is an auto-translation - nevertheless should be rectified.

The last thing is that this map being a description it should not be put in the Evidence or Historiography section. Since it's not considered a WP:RS it cannot constitute "evidence" nor has it had any role in the development of any of the three theories. Would you agree to this? Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca:, please revert your message to P Aculeius, because (1) the map does not state that either Romanian or other Neo-Latin languages spread in the 20th century (so it does not contradict the article, either); (2) the legend describes the map correctly (Portuguese, Spanish, Gallego and other Neo-Latin languages are mentioned); (3) please note that the "disaccord between the effective process of Roman expansion and Romanization and the present ethnic configuration of Southeastern Europe" (Lucian Boia) is a generally accepted background of any theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. I kindly ask you to respect other editors' time and abandon this "bludgeoing" type of discussion. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Oh, bludgeoning it is. Right :). Why revert it? If I am wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll admit it gladly. Its not that hard to check either (look at the map, read at the article). (1) The map legend states "Other Neo-Latin speaking in mid-C20, with language". Could you explain what that does refer to? (3) Thank you for sharing your "generally accepted background" research with us. Could you possibly quote the specific statement in the IT section? Furthermore, how does that solve the two conflicting pieces of information? I gave a direct quote from the article, as well as a direct quote from the map.Cealicuca (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You cannot make distinction between the words "speaking" and "spreading" and you cannot understand basic sentences in English. Sorry, I do not have time to play your game. Borsoka (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh... you mean this sentence? The legend depicts Romanian language and "other Neo-Latin" spread? As in noun, not verb. The extent, width, or area covered by something. (ETA to make it clearer: In this context, the area covered by Neo-Latin language speaking populations). I am sorry you were not able to understand this.Cealicuca (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca:I believe "mid-C20" means "mid-20th Century", not "circa 20 AD", and "neo-Latin" here refers to the modern Romance languages, the distribution of which is relatively uncontroversial. As far as I can tell the map doesn't claim to directly describe the spread of Latin, only the length of Roman rule, which is much easier to obtain data on. Obviously these two things are juxtaposed to explain the basis for a theory, but as far as I can tell the map itself doesn't make any questionable claims (unless you have reason to believe that the given lengths of Roman rule are inaccurate). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent: I am a bit confused - I did not say "circa 20 AD". I was referring to the following: It includes areas where Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian are/were spoken - (added for clarity: but the map labels it as "Romanian") - while at the same time the article states that "Common Romanian split into four variants (Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) during the 10th-12th centuries.". So both cannot be correct at the same time. - so basically the map says that mid 20th century Romanian is spoken in several areas which comes into conflict with what the article says (those areas being the ones where actually Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian are spoken.Cealicuca (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the map describes all mid-20th-century Romanian variants (Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) as Romanian. Please, do not play this game. It is boring. Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support including informative maps.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualitist (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Both maps represent information within the realm of recorded history as far as I can tell, so as long as they're accurate (which they very much seem to be), the circumstances of their creation are irrelevant. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent The first map (re Neo-Latin languages) is fine as far as I can tell. The second one, however, bears the contentious and tendentious caption at the bottom that reads "Settling Romanians" but neither the article itself (nor the map info) offers any further explanation as to what that means: how do we know that those settlements were not already settled before the Hungarians (or whoever) recorded them? Actually, even the Hungarian editor above states this "It refers to the transfer of land previously held by them to the monastery of Cârța, which proves that this territory had been inhabited by Vlachs before the monastery was founded." So, it's Settled Romanians, not Settling Romanians (a subtle but important distinction). Shouldn't the caption then read "Romanian settlements"? If the caption is changed/cropped then I'd be in favor of including it, with the mention that it represents the Romanian settlements as recorded in those times by the Hungarians, etc (also important). Finally, where in the article should the maps be placed? I don't know if you're aware of it, but there's been a discussion about the restructuring of this article (you may want to take a look), which would go a long way towards clarifying the context of each map (or future inclusions).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

There is not any "contentious and tendentious" caption, you just combinate to much, it is obvious that "Settling Romanians" means a continous activity between 1200-1400. The further info is on the upright of the image, accurate as possible without any contradiction you try to insist, neutrally where is presence and when and what is mentioned in the documents. Moreover other Hungarian Royal documents clearly express when and where villages were founded and if Romanians were settled or allowed to be settled (and also in case where from). Regarding Kerc (Cârța), preceding to it is documented that Romanians were settled to Szeben and Fogaras Counties, and it is not far away, including not having a complete sedentary life still. So it cannot be "settled", since the map represent a continous activity - and to crop the original work based on any OR should be avoided - anyway it was written beneath explanation like "Spread of the Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary between around 1200 and 1400" that is totally correct.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC))

The map is an illustration of the last 8-10 sentences under the title "Sources on present-day Romania". Borsoka (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I found a source which seems to back up the idea of a spread suggested by the title:

The spread of Romanians in Transylvania and the neighbouring counties can be followed with relative certainty. They are first mentioned in the region of Flăgăraş (Fogaras) in the early thirteenth century, then later in the counties of Hunyad and Fehér in 1292 and 1293 respectively. From here they spread westwards and eastwards through the counties of Zaránd (1318), Krassó (1319), Bihar (1326), Arad (1337), Kraszna (1341) and Temes (1333), and within Transylvania itself. Their arrival in great numbers was the outcome of a deliberate settlement policy on the part of the monarch and the local landowners.

However, I think it would still be prudent to have a caption which makes clear that the map only directly represents the earliest written records of these settlements, especially given the blue areas, which are most likely to have been around earlier. It would also be useful if someone could find a source which deals with the more detailed information that KIENGIR suggests is given in Hungarian royal documents. It seems @Andras Bereznay: is active, so possibly they could help us with this issue. Otherwise, if there's a good academic source seriously disputing the idea of a spread into Transylvania during this time (/one that claims most of these settlements were there already) then I'd be fine with the title being changed to "Romanian Settlements (1200–1400)" or something like that. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 23:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In a way I don't understand what would be the problem with the caption, in the map, upper left and upper right is written "first mention", "first reference" (=earliest written record), so it is already included. As well I don't see why the "Spread of the Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary between around 1200 and 1400" title would be changed, it is perfect, regardless of any claims of any origin theory it is a fact the the settlements spread on and on as they are documented and dated, moreover the King soon from the beginning of the period gave the right also to the landlords and cnezes to improve and render the settling policy. Regarding the Royal Charters, there is no problem, i.e. this work is dealing with them.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC))

I think the caption could be changed to "Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary (c. 1200–c. 1400)". We can also add the following sentence: "The map presents the Romanians as a mobile pastoralist population, with permanent settlements first appearing in the late 13th century." Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent First off, the only place in the article for this map is in the IT section, with the specific mention that this represents IT. Again, I have to refer to that NPOV discussion, as it becomes clearer by the day that (at the very least) an expansion of those sections (DRCT/IT/AT) at the top of the article is needed for clarity and fair NPOV presentation of the theories (which is why, for instance, even the debate above regarding the Carps to Albania "theory" resulted in the added DRCT mention). As for the continuous presence of a Romanian population in Transylvania (covering the area and time frame in the map), the academic sources are plenty so I'll just mention a couple: Ioan-Aurel Pop (current president of the Romanian Academy) in his work "Romanian Identity" (2017) ("Places, People and Communities" p. 159-176), or the oldie but goldie by academician Nicolae Draganu "Romanians in the IX-XIV Cen. on the basis of Toponomy & Onomastics" (from which a "Romanian settlements" map will be included in the article shortly, as it's in public domain). In any event, we're not here to argue over which WP:RS is correct or not, our job is simply to present the WP:RS as clearly and neutrally as possible. Point is, the map in question here does not describe a "settling" population, but rather a combination of already established communities with some that, surely, were founded during that time period. So, I agree with @Borsoka here in that the main title/caption should read "Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary (c. 1200–c. 1400)", but without that additional explanation because I fail to see how the map "presents the Romanians as a mobile pastoralist population, etc"-- should we draw some sheep on the map to make it more informative (one map sheep = 1000 real sheep)? Something more neutral, such as "The map presents Romanian settlements as recorded by Hungarian officials between the 13th-14th Centuries" might work better. And, needless to say, this is purely IT so it only belongs in that section.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) We cannot say that the map represents the "immigration theory" unless we assume that a map presenting the first contemporaneous records of the Romanians' presence in Transylvania is by nature an "immigrationist" map. Consequently, it should be placed where it illustrates the text. (2) The shorter caption is OK. (3) Of course, Romanian historians' maps about the continuous presence of Romanians in Transylvania from the 3rd century could also be placed in the article. Yes, I remember Pop's maps showing Romanian districts first mentioned in the 12th-16th centuries as an illustration of this view. Borsoka (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with additional sentence Borsoka proposed. Yes, the map has not any connection to any theories, it just simply presenting a factal situation. "as recorded by Hungarian officials" is totally needless, since who else would "record" them in Hungary, on the contrary is not just a "record", since the villages were continously created and founded, is not that something "Hungarian officials" would know much later some events in their own country after more hundred years where administration and tax paying is applied, and yes the map represents a settling population, since in this period point by point after the initial settlemets the villages were created on and on (with the grant and permittance of the officials), it is a process with a natural by-product that if a settlement was already created it became already established comparing to that was founded later.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC))

Earliest mentions of Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary. Some see this as evidence for Romanians first spreading throughout the region around the 13th century, while others argue that their earlier presence had just gone unrecorded. It is agreed some settlements were new, as founding dates were sometimes recorded in Hungarian documents.

I agree with Borsoka’s point (1) that the best place for the map is in the “Historic background” section. Even if the map did represent a theory, the debate is the main topic of the article so it wouldn’t follow that mention of any disputed ideas should be limited to one section. However, either the caption or the article should reflect that the interpretation of the information shown is the subject to debate. For example:

As for the title (on the image itself), unless it is agreed that at least half the settlements were probably the result of recent migration, it ought to be changed. However, without the change I wouldn’t consider this serious enough to disqualify it from being displayed on the article as long as we have a balanced caption. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your suggestion. I would avoid referring to books published before 1945. The subject is over-politcised and it was even more politicised in the 1930s and 1940s. Therefore, I would not refer to Tamás Lajos and Nicolae Drăganu's books mentioned above. What about the following caption? "Earliest mentions of Romanian settlements in official documents in the Kingdom of Hungary. Some see this as evidence for the northward spread of Romanian settlements in the 13th and 14th centuries; others say that the earlier existence of Romanian settlements had just gone unrecorded." Borsoka (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

More than fair. With that said and done I don't think there's much point changing the title since a) it's a hassle, b) clearly there was some settling, c) the legend is already very clear about its sources, and any remaining ambiguity is prevented by the caption. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear ReconditeRodent. Thank you for your kind invitation to contribute to this to my mind unbelievably annoying, fruitless, phony debate. I resent extremely what I find being Wikimedia's value system, approach. All about side issues, formalities, authoritarian considerations as if all that would be what decides about merit, and never about substance. People seem to engaged in the main to coerce each other under one pretext and another. Meanwhile the tangible seething hatred felt by some is enwarapped into a pseudo polite, bogus academic wording. It is not my intention to be part of any such things. I regret my having contributed to Wikimedia which I hope not needing to open ever again. In all honesty, the disgust and resentment I feel is far too strong. Sorry. Andras Bereznay (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As for the image title, I still see no problem since regardless of any origin or migration theory the "settling" was an open practice and policy, i.e., as well for the Saxons earlier, I have to emphasize the third time that initially the King's approval allowed any settling and later this right was given other "officials" or noble in the behalf of the King. Regarding the caption proposed by ReconditeRodent, I think it is too long and the various interperations of the evidence of the emerging settlements should be restricted on that section where the map would be placed. Borsoka's suggestion is much shorter, however I think as just mentioned before, whe should not make such interpretation in the caption, thus the initial "Romanian settlements between 1200 and 1400 in the Kingdom of Hungary" I would consider enough (and noone could debate it, since it is independent from any theory or approach, totally neutral). Regarding the Pop source - I don't know it's content, I can just draw what was presented here - the so-called "unrecorded" interpretation is the traditional base of support a weird theory that rides through the missing evidence in support of the continuity theory that Romanians were there just they were not recorded suprisingly until in the Hungarian documents they appeared, suggesting Transylvania was not conquered for 300 years, that is highly fringe and also contradicting other various evidence. As well, it would be surprising that why the unrecorded Romanian villages would chose Hungarian names, because only in the 14th the first Romanian toponyms appeared. As well, many villages were not originally Romanian villages, but so-called twin-villages were set as Romnians were settled next to any existing Hungarian village copying it's name to Romanian, and finally the village were united - even the name - and by some time some villages became entirely Romanian (like Gurusada, first it was mentioned as "Zad" = Szád = "mouth", while Gura was added that in Romanian means the same). Of course, late on some villages like Râușor, immediately was founded with a Romanian name etc. So we have to be very careful what we write down, the shorter and most neutral is the easiest and less controversial.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC))

@ReconditeRodent a) I don't see how changing the title is a "hassle" (it takes 2 min in Photoshop and Borsoka already offered to change it) and, besides, why is "being a hassle" even an excuse to populate the article with misleading information? (if you disagree on this then let's ask for another opinion). b) clearly there was some settling, BUT in order for the map to bear the title "Settlling Romanians" you'd need to show that 100% of those locations match that description (which is not the case here), else it's "Romanian settlements"; you may also be under the impression that these were the result of some systematic census but that can't be further from the truth, these are mostly records for various administrative purposes (taxes, etc); all formal censuses ever conducted (and even anecdotal evidence) show the Romanians being in the majority in those areas at all times (but I'll let the WP:RS speak for themselves in the article). c) the caption is fine (though, again, the title ought to be changed to the more neutral "Romanian settlements"). d) I can see why you'd think this belongs in the "Historic Background" section but wait until 4-5 more maps are added (to reflect DRCT and AT spread, settlements, etc) and we'll end up with a hot mess, with the article already being plagued by confusion (every neutral arbitrator ever to comment on our disputes agreed on this); so, again, I suggest expanding the sections at the top of the article and inserting the maps there for clarity and NPOV.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(a) and (c) I did not offer to change it. The caption shows that no universally accepted interpretation of the data presented in the map is available. (b) The Hasdeu map is much more controversial, depicting a marginal theory, but it is placed under the "Development of Romanian" section. Nothing implies that the Romanians formed the majority of the population before the 17th century, but this RfC section is not the proper place to discuss this issue. (d) The map does not present a theory, but a fact. Consequently, it can be placed in the proper context within the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making edits while the discussion is ongoing.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka "I think the caption could be changed to "Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary (c. 1200–c. 1400)"" Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)" (see above) That's what I was referring to.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you realized that I reverted an edit which was made during an ongoing discussion? Have you realized that you reverted my edit that provided the caption which is "fine", according to your own words above? However, I can accept this caption as well. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I made a slight mistake there, sorry, your caption was fine, just crop the bottom of that map or change the wording and we're good. Re. Hasdeu, you may notice that the map is properly contextualized within the DRCT.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think right now the map and the caption is fine. What you wanted regarding the wording has been completed. As well Borsoka's remarks are holding. Regarding your point b), as well we don't wish to crop those Hungarian, Slavic, ancient or other etc. other names that Drăganu identified as Romanian (Alcsút, Felcsút, Tata, Temesvár, Toplica, Vad, Sziget, Feketerdő, Brassó, Bihar and many others), beucase it part of the author's work and interpretation (considering here really we could judge much broadly and easily what would not match the description.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC))

@Borsoka You have yet to change the title of that map and if you don't then I will. Currently it reads "SETTLING ROMANIANS; AUTONOMY", which is strange to say the least. We've already discussed the "Settling" issue but even more egregious here is the word "AUTONOMY"-- whose "autonomy" and from whom? Where's "autonomy" discussed in the article? What does that have to do with anything? So that title needs to go. p.s. I realize that there's a small "autonomous" Romanian enclave on the map, but why does the word "autonomy" need to be in bold capital letters in the title? Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not have to change the title, because the author of the map can only decide what is the title of a map. I could not change the title of a book either, even if I do not like its title or regard it as a POV. However, I expanded the caption in order to explain what autonomy means to those who do not know this word. Borsoka (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan:, you cannot change the map without the author's permission. Please refrain from copyvio because it may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong, the author of the map gave specific licensing rights, which you can read here, which includes "share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.", which is what I've done already. Perfectly legal.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Please, seek advice on this issue at the relevant notice board. Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't done anything wrong but you seem very confused so please seek advice. In the meantime I'm putting the cropped image back in.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

But you did, since without consensus you intitiated a change, although the addition of the map as it is is supported by this RFC. Moreover, there is nothing "egregious", neither with settling, nor with autonomy, since settling represent the open and official settling policy, while autonomy refers to the lands granted to the Romanian landlords in return for their allegiance to the King (i.e. Máramaros, etc.)(KIENGIR (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC))

@KIENGIR Please refrain from making any further changes to that map and read the thread above for clarification. You seem a bit confused, feel free to ask questions.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You are clarly harming WP rules and accuse others about confusion? Sorry, I have to refuse such as well, if you are not aware what you are doing, you have to ask questions. I read all the discussion, your self-casted POV cropped map (you name it clarification or not) did not gain any consensus and goes against the RFC, thus you have no right to remove the current map and put another one (that you did at least three times and because of this it is really the time you should refrain from making any further changes)(KIENGIR (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

Listen, I don't have time to waste, we've already been over this (see Borsoka's comment above: "I think the caption could be changed to "Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary (c. 1200–c. 1400)"" Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)" The caption wasn't changed so I cropped it. Legally, as per Wiki rules, which I linked to above. So, everything was done on the up and up, as per talk page and Wiki rules. If you have any issues please kick this up to arbitration or take whatever recourse you think might be necessary.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Borsoka spoke about the caption that was as it was recommended, why you wish to mislead the community and identify it in support of something that does not hold? No way, you were just explained two times why your are against wiki rules and why you changes in the page is not legal, as per talk page. Also in the edit logs you mislead the community, since not I am the "abusive" editor two fo us, moreover I referred to the talk page also earlier, and RFC is also a reference to the talk page. I am sorry you inititated an edit warring...(KIENGIR (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

New Source

Hello,

I'd like to introduce a new source. In order to make this as smooth as possible and prevent the seemingly endless talks about WP:RS I thought best to establish first the reliability of the source. Together - group therapy :)

So, it seems to me that this source is as reliable as it gets, waiting for your input/objections.

A Concise History of Romania, by Keith Hitchins, Cambridge Concise Histories - Cambridge University Press

ISBN 978-0-521-87238-6 Hardback

ISBN 978-0-521-69413-1 Paperback

Thank you. (ETA: forgot to sign)Cealicuca (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read it yet, but it sure looks legit WP:RS. Also, you may wanna sign your comments.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that the following sections be split into the following separate articles:

• 4.1 Written sources > Origin of the Romanians (written sources)
• 4.2 Archaeological data > Origin of the Romanians (archaeological data)
• 4.3 Linguistic approach > Origin of the Romanians (linguistic approach)

The article is too large, thus these sections could provide a short summary of the historical, archaeological and linguistic approaches. The verifiability of the "4.4 DNA / Paleogenetics" section is still debated, but later it could also be splitted into a separate article. I do not ping all users who regularly visit this page, but I inform the relevant Wikiprojects about this proposal. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the use of splitting the article, we're not exactly running out of space. The aim should be to split the theories within the article for clarity and NPOV (as already suggested here), not to blow up those sections into the Wikisphere.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• The theories are already separately discussed in the article under the subtitle "1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis", but we should reduce the size of this article instead of blowing it up. Borsoka (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It is 126k bytes. That is not very big. I am not sure if these suggested titles really meet naming conventions. Qualitist (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Neutral (as per new argument) Right now, mainly just for the reason the seeing the current tendencies there are already much debates even in this article, splitting them into three we would just export and multiply the argues, however, seeing all related material in one compact article is preferred.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC))

Agreed. This is not the correct time. Qualitist (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The prose size is 120 kb. According to the relevant rule, articles above 100 kb "[a]lmost certainly should be divided", and even articles between 60 and 100 kb "[p]robably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)" (I refer to Wikipedia:SIZERULE). The splitting of the article would probably diminish the reasons for debates, because each editor could add his/her favorite pieces of information. If the article is not splitted, almost third of it should be deleted, according to the cited WP rule. I think this would cause much more debate. Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is not long at all. 40% of the page is Notes, References, Sources, Further Reading, and External Links. It's fine the way it is for now. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• The article is getting large, but the proposed division does not seem ideal. In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruse as it is. There is a section on archaeological data "to the north of the Lower Danube". The term "Romanian" does not appear in the section. The term "Vlach" shows up (twice) in the last of 11 paragraphs. How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? Srnec (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Srnec:, thank you for your comment. What is your proposal to improve the article? Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Trim it. Present no evidence without explaining its relevance. The entire section "Historiography: origin of the theories" could go. Make it a separate article if you like, but the reader of this article wants to learn about the origin of Romanians not the origin of theories about the origin of Romanians. The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.
  Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think your suggestion to explain the relevance of evidence is absolutely logical and it should be accepted. What concerns me is the deletion of the "Historiography: origin of the theories". Most reliable sources dedicated to the subject explain the development of the theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Why should we (how could we) deviate from their approach? Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• We (perhaps) should deviate from their approach because our readership is different from theirs. The sections "Historical background" and "Historiography" are tangential to the purpose of the article. The first is partially redundant to the "Evidence" section and arguably POV unless it stops with the end of the Roman period. The second is fine but could perhaps work better as a separate article with summary section here.
  I am inclined to the position that, insofar as actual historians are divided, we should stick to presenting the theories more than the evidence. This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. Srnec (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Srnec Every independent Wiki editor who ever moderated any of the many disputes here has arrived at the same conclusion as yours: the article is a mess and is in dire need of restructuring. In fact, we've been having a discussion on the NPOV notice board about this very subject (you might want to take a quick look).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Partially Oppose Very interesting timing this proposal has :) Anyway, the list of editors not invested in this article that start to realize that the "evidence" is presented without the corresponding relevance such "evidence" has to the subject of the article (that is what the sources say it is relevant for) is getting larger and larger. While at some point it would probably make sense to split the article (but not in the categories mentioned but rather maybe an article dedicated to each theory) right now it's probably best to rather clarify and restructure it.Cealicuca (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca:. OK. Let's try it. Please choose one sentence from the Evidence section, copy it to the Talk page and explain here to where would you like to move it/them and why.

@Borsoka: aaah, nope. Not going into this game again. The conclusion underlined by several moderating editors is that the article "intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence", or that "the article is extremely abstruse as it is". Especially the "evidence" section. What I find extremely surprising is your reaction ("I think your suggestion to explain the relevance of evidence is absolutely logical and it should be accepted"), given the fact that the same observations about the article were made by several editors during the better part of an year and that you rejected (or "Sorry, I don't understand your statement") such arguments at every turn. Nevertheless, I am glad you seem to finally see what the problem is.Cealicuca (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the article presents the theories separately from the evidence. Have anybody denied this? I have several times suggested that the concurring scholarly interpretations of the same facts could be presented under the Evidence section. I still maintain that the sentences from the Evidence sections cannot be divided among the theories without seriously breaching WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You have not been able to prove that you could move a simple sentence from the Evidence section to one of the theories in accordance with WP rules. So, let's try again: please choose one sentence from the Evidence section, copy it to the Talk page and explain here to where would you like to move it and why. This is an excellent occasion to demonstrate how your proposal would work. Or if you want to choose another way to demonstrate your proposal, please do it. I only kindly ask you try to avoid writing lengthy messages. Borsoka (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope. You don't get to spin this. Several problems were mentioned, by several editors. Let me repeat one of them (since you seem to somehow respect it more as long as it's not me saying it...): "It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.". But you can argue further with your perceived breach of WP:NPOV or "neutral fact" or whatever other original term you want come up with to deflect from the core of the problem. Which is that this article has intentionally obscured sourced statements (by not mentioning the relevance of those statements according to the sources) or otherwise presents irrelevant data to seemingly support one point of view or another.Cealicuca (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

And I have several times suggested that we should mentioned the relevant scholarly interpetations of these facts. Sorry, if you do not want to demonstrate your proposal I stop discussing it. Borsoka (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't try to make this as me needing to demonstrate my proposal. Please read more carefully. This is about your proposal, this is about you not getting the point that has been made both editors interested in the subject as well as editors acting in a moderator capacity - otherwise not specifically interested in the subject. I can only thank @Srnec: for underlying the problems in such a blunt manner.Cealicuca (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that your proposal is a secret, so I do not have to take it into account when editing the article. I enjoy editing this article, so I am really grateful to you. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Nicolae Drăganu

@Iovaniorgovan:, first of all, thank you for your contribution. I reverted one of your edits ([7]) and I am asking you to reconsider it. Talk page discussion shows that the use of books published before 1945 is highly debatable, according to more than one editors ([8]), because the Romanians' ethnogenesis was even more over-politcised in the 1930s and 1940s than now. I am pretty sure that Romanian historians dedicated books, articles to the origin of their nation during the last decades as well, and we do not need to cite more than 80 year old books to improve this article. If you do not agree with my revert, please seek community support. Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

So that means we should not take the Bible into account as a historical source, since it is so old, right ? Borsoka... I can't find the words to qualify you (btw my name is Mircea, not Iorgovan or Cealicuca or TGeorgescu or any other, so don't accuse them of not signing their comments and trying to offend you). I have been following this talk page for years, and I can see how you are striving towards a Hungary which should include Transilvania as its historical right, but what do you know, it is actually not your right. The bitter truth for you, my friend, is that you found us here, in these territories, and as much as you tried to "magyarize" us, you did not succeed. We are still Orthodox Christians, we still speak a language close of that of our ancestors' . These territories belong to us by our historical right, and there is Nothing you can do about it, magyar, even with your overnight pseudo-theories created by your semidoct so-called "scholars". We will die and take you with us before letting you rip even the smallest piece from our Country again, be sure of that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.130.176 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That's true, by our WP:RULES the Bible is not a reliable source for historical claims. Nor is it RS for theological claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The above anonymous comment is an exellent example of the political (or rather religious) approach of this subject. Similar fury has driven many scholars, especially in the 1930s. That is why we should ignore them. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

We have no need of editors who are extremists, radicals, nationalist propagandists or true believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka Your edits are becoming more and more disruptive but if that's how it's gonna be then so be it. The issue here is whether Draganu is still relevant today, and the answer is a clear yes. Ioan-Aurel Pop, current President of the Romanian Academy, mentions Draganu several times in his books (including a couple times in the book I quoted from above; "Romanian Identity" (2017) p. 53), but more importantly a cursory check through diacronia.ro (a contemporary peer-reviewed academic journal of linguistics) shows that Draganu's book (the one that includes the map in question) has been cited 76 times (!!) in their last 8 issues. If that's not "relevant", I don't know what is. Also probably worth mentioning the more recent (2003) bi-lingual edition of Draganu's other book "Istoria literaturii române din Transilvania de la origini până la sfârşitul secolului al xviii-lea – Histoire de la littérature roumaine de Transylvanie dčs origines ŕ la fin du xviii-e sičcle", showing again that Draganu's work is still very much relevant today. Please don't try to change the subject and cast unfounded aspersions on someone you don't know anything about. Draganu's map clearly reflects the views of DRCT scientists and will stay in the article. There's not much discussion here so I'll put the map back in. If you have any issues, feel free to escalate this debate to the proper forum.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan:, as I demonstrated above, the inclusion of this book is not consensual ([9]). Please refrain from making unilateral changes. If you think that a more than 80-year-book should be cited instead of modern scholarly work, please ask for a community opinion about this issue. Borsoka (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka I already showed that the map is still relevant today and represents current views of DRCT theorists, hence it belongs in the article. If you think otherwise, it's on you to prove that Draganu's work is not relevant anymore before deleting the map.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you have not demonstrated that the more than 80-year-old map does not present a fringe theory. The Bible is cited several times in modern scholarly works, but there are few scholars who think that God created the entire world in 6 days. Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I gave you plenty of references, feel free to check them out. I'm not interested in syllogisms so I can't help you there.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you refer to the peer-reviewed publications published during the last decades which use this more than 80-year-old map to demonstrate the presence of Romanians everywhere in the Carpathian Basin? Borsoka (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I just did, all those references in the peer-reviewed academic journal I mentioned above reference Draganu's book: the map is at the back of his book and represents an illustrated summary of the book, so a reference to the book is a reference to the map and vice-versa.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this map. You are right. We should preserve it as an excellent demonstration of DRC theory. Thank you for your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you're being facetious now. Okay, no worries. Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with the map but if I come across something better in the future I may change it. At least we have some balance now, what with your map being an excellent demonstration of IT theory. Cheers.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I love this map. I will be grateful for you till the end of my life. It is an excellent demonstration of the scholarly level of historians who accept the DRC theory. The other (modern) map also demonstrates that the theory of large Romanian communities in the entire Carpathian Basin is a well established theory among Romanian historians. I will add further material on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, just make sure to add it to the enlarged IT section (upcoming)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's be serious, I said I am not against any map, but a short reaction to some things stated here:

- "I don't think there's anything wrong with the map" -> well pretty much non-Romanian toponyms are considered by the map Romanian, however since it is indicated that who are the proponents of it, I can live with it

- "with your map being an excellent demonstration of IT theory" -> no way, medieval Hungarian documents or official records does not demonstrate any theory, it is a "snaphot" of the situation between 1200 and 1400.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC))

Well, it might be a "fact" that those are official records (no one is disputing that) but when you get into the question of "what does those records mean" then you're in the realm of theory. Why, for instance, would those be considered a record of the only Romanians living in those lands in those times? You see what I mean? Anyway, my/your opinion is irrelevant here, that's why we rely on WP:RS. Still, this "fact" is used to construct a "theory" (IT in this case). That's why every moderator has been trying to explain the same thing here, most recently @Srnec (see above): "Present no evidence without explaining its relevance."Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

What you mean is just an artificial flipbustering you suprisingly don't apply regarding other maps that you like. The map is about the Romanian settlements an territories granted to the Romanian landlords or where they are mentioned, and these are supported by official documents, there is not gap in the interpretation, the title is not "he only Romanians living in those lands in those times", or whatsoever. Such way you could accuse any other party using anything to construct a theory, what it is not relevant here, since it has not any connection to any theory. Your last sentence is just a trial to push anything to be conected a theory.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

So wait, the map "has not any connection to any theory"? If so - what is the relevance of it? Or is this another piece of "evidence", "neutral fact" etc. etc.?Cealicuca (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It is in the written sources section. It seems you ignored earlier discussions.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

It is a visual presentation of a fact mentioned in the article, in accordance with most books dedicated to the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I don't recall saying that the map doesn't reflect info in the article. I asked what is the relevance of it (is any one of you able to articulate such relevance) to the subject of the article, considering that [User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR] states that the map "has not any connection to any theory". It's a simple question - if, according to [User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR], the map has no connection to any of the theory (that explain how the ethnogenesis happen) then what is the relevance of this map?Cealicuca (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That it visually presents a fact mentioned in books dedicated to the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

ah... Please, if you would be so kind, what "books"? Can you name the sources or cite the paragraph in the article?Cealicuca (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Above, you still can find the citation from the article in a message to you: [10]. Borsoka (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Transylvanian river names

@Iovaniorgovan:, would you refer to scholars who challenge significant part of the etymologies provided in the table? Please, also take into account that deleting a table is not the best solution to challenge it. I think you should also take into account that the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to the Balkans, including this article. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, in that case if I were you I'd be more careful with disruptive edits, given your long history of doing just that. Anyway, nothing less than I expected and don't take it personally. To answer your question, of course: Marius Sala, "From Latin to Romanian" (Editura Pro Universitaria, 2012), an academic work, page 27, where he argues for a Daco-Thracian origin of the following river names, Mureş, Olt, Timiş, Criş, Someş, Ampoi, Argeş, Motru, Buzău, Şiret. So, if you want that table in the article you need to clearly label it as being part of IT. I don't have a problem with it otherwise.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The table does not say that the name of those river is not of Daco-Thracian origin, so does not contradict to Sala's work. If you think I have a "long history of" disruptive edits, please do not refrain from reporting me. Otherwise, stop accusing me of disruptive editing. Borsoka (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to accuse you, you're doing a pretty good job yourself. That's some argument, I had to laugh at that. But that's not what Sala says, here's a direct quote "From whom did the Slavs settled in Dacia, and later the Hungarians, learn the names of these rivers? We can only assume they borrowed them from a sedentary indigenous population, that is, the old Romanized Daco-Thracians which by the 8th Century had become the Romanians." (p 27) So, clearly, his thesis is that those name "borrowings" weren't somehow intermediated by Slavs/Germans/Hungarians, etc (as your table represents as "fact", which is just plain wrong). In light of this please amend the table or it will be taken down.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you refer to any text in the table which contradicts the above statement? Only the Ampoi's name is presented as a borrowing from German in Romanian, but we can deal with this contradiction without deleting the table. Borsoka (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all main river names (I listed them above) and some of the tributaries are borrowed (passed down) from the Daco-Thracians directly to the Romanians (according to Sala, and also Gr. Brancus, and others), so the only way this table would work in the article is to add the IT caveat to the title. Is that really so difficult?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you name other river names from the table which are deemed not to be borrowed from German, Hungarian or Slavic, according to linguists? Borsoka (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Between Sala and Draganu (p.416-570), for instance, it's pretty much all tributaries (and I haven't even looked at Brancus yet)...Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you name other river names from the table which are deemed not to be borrowed from German, Hungarian or Slavic, according to linguists?

Didn't realize Wiki had an echo function.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. So we can conclude that the table properly summarizes the scholarly consensus about the origin of those Romanian river names. We should only mention in the table that there are scholars who think that the Romanian name of the Ampoi river was directly inherited from Latin instead of mediated by the Saxons to the Romanians (as it is presented in the table). Borsoka (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

?!! Did you read what I wrote? NONE of those tributaries' names are deemed to have been borrowed from the Slavs/Germans/Hungarians by either of those academics I mentioned.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. What is the origin of the river names Nadăș and Târnava, according to the above cited sources? (The first name refers to a river with a bank covered by reef in Hungarian, the second name describes a river with a bank where blackthorne grows in Slavic languages.) Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to prove to you that ALL those names are deemed non-derivative according to WP:RS (a couple of them might be) but I've already mentioned several (Somes, Mures, Olt, Ampoi) to which we can add Barsau, Aries, Bistrita, etc, which should suffice (I'm sure I can find more in Draganu but the burden of proof is not on me anymore)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Marius Sala does not mention the river names which are described as of German, Slavic or Hungarian origin in the table, with the sole exception of Ampoi/Ompoly (I refer to the English translation of his work: Sala, Marius (2005). From Latin to Romanian: The Historical Development of Romanian in a Comparative Romance Context. University, Mississipi. p. 17. ISBN 1-889441-12-0..) Please, do not edit WP based on your assumptions and do not try to abuse scholar's name to substantiate your assumptions. Borsoka (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You are again throwing wild accusations. My quote is directly from his Romanian edition (p 27) and I didn't add anything to it. The other river names are, as I said, from Draganu ("Between Sala and Draganu (p.416-570)..."; see above). And there are more, I just gave you enough so you understand that the general academic position of DRCT theorists is that the names of the rivers were NOT borrowed from the Slavs/Germans/Hungarians. Change the title of that table or ask for 3O or whatever.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly the theory of the supporters of the continuitiy theory, on the other hand there is no proof for their statements, the vowel shifts as well do not support these, to say nothing of, Bistrita is of Slavic origin.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

Are you serious? You obviously don't speak Romanian, else it'd be pretty obvious that those are and have always been Romanian (or Romanian-origin) names. Maybe not all of them (Bistrita is possibly/probably of Slavic origin and it's okay to mention that in the article though not in a table containing mostly names of Daco-Thracian origin according to DRCT), but clearly most of them. Anyway, as I said before our opinion doesn't matter here, it's the WP:RS that matter and they don't agree on those names being derived from the Slavs/Germans/Hungarians, hence a mention of IT needs to be made in the title.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course I am serious as always. You just reinforced that "according to DRCT", and the deriving of Slavs/Germans/Hungarians has again no connection to "IT", is has connection to linguistics mainly (as Romanian speakers in acedemic level may also notice some problems with the vowel shifts and other origin theories as others did and claiming ancient names to "have always been Romanian or Romanian origin" is again very unscientific).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

Further problems with the table: 1) the names of the main rivers (Somes, Mures, Olt) are listed, implying there's a scholarly consensus on the origin of their names-- as I've shown above, that's not the case. 2) there are, by my count, nine question marks next to some of those river names (is this done just to fatten up the list? why list those at all?); 3) in addition to some of the river names I already mentioned as being considered of Romanian-origin by DRCT scholars, there are others that DRCT scholars assign a different origin than the one listed on the table. For instance, Draganu has Lapus as being of Slavic origin not Hungarian; same with Crasna, Ilisua and Lechinta, while he has Zalau as possibly Celtic/Illyric/Roman/German but definitely not Hungarian, and Homorod as German not Hungarian, etc, etc. So you can see, there's too much debate about these names for them to be listed as a "statement of fact". So for the table to stay in the article it would need to first mention IT in the title and then also reduce (or entirely purge) all the names with the question mark since there's just too many of them proportionately speaking. All in all there are issues with at least a third of those names, and I've only consulted a couple books. Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I uphold my opinion. Reffering to Draganu is not the best, with his "etymology map" he has shown how fringe he is (Lápos and Homoród are clearly Hungarian). Crasna is rooted also by the table as Slavic, the same goes to Ilisua and Lechinta, while Zalau has really many theories but Hungarian cannot be excluded more than any other.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC))

I've already shown above that Draganu is quite relevant today (see previous thread). Crasna is represented on the table as S>H>R, rather than S>R. Again, there are too many problems with this table and I haven't even checked every name there or every WP:RS and I don't need to. I've given enough info to show that the inclusion of the table (in this state) is untenable. Perhaps at this point you should ask for arbitration of some sort, or I will amend the title to reflect IT caveat.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) The table does not say that the names of the main rivers (Someș, Mureș, Olt) are of Slavic/Hungarian/German origin. (2) Earlier you said that none of the river names in the table are said to be of Slavic/Hungarian/German origin in your books. Now you are listing some of them as such. What is the truth? (3) The table describes the names of the rivers Crasna, Ilisua and Lechinta as of Slavic origin. Nobody denies that they are of Slavic origin. The Romanian form of the Ilisua and Lechinta show that the Romanians' ancestors did not directly borrowed them from the Slavs. (4) The table lists the name of the river Zalău as of uncertain origin. The "ău" ending of the Romanian version is a typical ending in Romanian loawords of Hungarian origin. (4) Draganu's book published in the 1930s should not be cited here. What is the Slavic world from which the name of Lapus allegedly developed? (The Hungarian version of its name, Lápos, clearly refers to a muddy river.) What is the German world from which the name of the Homorod allegedly developed? (The Hungarian version of its name, Homoród, refers to a shallow river.) (5) If you find modern books substantiating that the name of Lapos is of Slavic, the name of Homorod is of German origin, we can add these pieces of information to the table which is destined to list the major river names of Slavic, Hungarian and German origin. Borsoka (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)