Talk:Vlachs

word or people

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

Dacians and Bessi

Hi @CriticKende

Could you please explain your addition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi All,

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

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

1.

Miskolczy Ambrus [1]

page 95-96

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

-------

page 98-99

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

2.

Elekes Lajos [2]

page 310-12

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

-------

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

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

3.

Mócsy András [15] [3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original research

Hi @Aristeus01, I see you worry about the original researchers, but you yourself push all the time many WP:ORIGINAL (like [4] Romanian language was spoken in Pannonia (east Austria, west Hungary) 2000 years long without interruption until today, or [5][6] hundred of settlements in today west Hungary, Oberpullendorf in Austria was a Romanian settlement between 800-1400, or [7] you wanted depict the 9th century Hungarians in Hungary as 19th century 3000km far Bashkirs or with 19th century Hungarian puszta betyar outlaws with pistol and dogs)

I suppose this article is about the Vlachs in general not about the Romanian dialects, I see you made arbitrary categories to list the old descriptions of Vlachs. This stage [8] Which is your personal WP:ORIGINAL. The marked academic sources cleary speak about Vlachs in general whitout any categorization which was made by you. Morover mostly those sources mention clealry the Vlachs as Romanians and not by your categorization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article:

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

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

Source:

"The Romanians sometimes appear as loyal subjects capable of war, and sometimes as hostile elements. In 1095, for example, a certain Poudilosz (Budilă), a prominent Romanian, warned the emperor that the Cumans had crossed the Danube and to prepare for an attack, then Romanians also led the Cumans through the passes of the Balkan Mountains. In 1099, the passing crusaders were pinched. In 1105, the monks of Mount Athos were tempted by Romanian women selling milk and wool products dressed as men."[9]page98 OrionNimrod (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

So you admit you push your personal POV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I ask this question already many times:

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

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

Falsifying the sources also part of your personal POV:

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

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

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

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

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

page96

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

page 98

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's look at an example:

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

The text says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Aristeus01,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Vlach law#Academic sources

Talk:History of Transylvania#Vlach Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geto Dacians (Romanians) mentioned by Dlugosz

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

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

History Section Neutrality

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

How is this allowed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magna Vlachia

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

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

Here is a link with a photo that says I said it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vlachia#/media/File:ShepherdByzempire1265.jpg 2A0C:5A84:5406:2900:10B2:DE0F:DD9:1FFC (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent disagreements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. CriticKende

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

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

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

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

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

Added unsupported information that Vlachs come from Macedonia

Twice.

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

Vlachs are a barbarian population

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

All the while ousting his real intentions by:

Changing "some" to "most"

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

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

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

2. OrionNimrod

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

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

Removed references to Vlachs existing in the 11th Century

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for

3. Borsoka

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

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

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

A few points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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