Talk:Timeline of Romanian history

Traian Vuia

Quite a few others flew self-built aircraft which took off under their own power before this, Man with one red shoe, try checking Ader, Jatho, Kress, and Whitehead for starters. And I'd still like to know why you're tagging my edits as vandalism as well.Romaniantruths (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

yes it is true, but neither of them did it with a heavier than air aricraft. or do you consider gliders to be heavier than air? considering that all you posts are 100% anti-romanian and that your old nickname was also highly offensive to romanians i can pretty much concur that your edits are vandalism because you only seek to denigrate romanians 79.113.4.97 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't want to get into discussion with User:Romaniantruths (for different reasons that I don't want to enumerate here, mostly because I would be accused of incivility), but I want to point out something, Wikipedia is a large project, choosing a name like "Romanianlies" (which was clearly offensive) or "Romaniantruths" (which he chose to bend the rule and prove a point) implies some obsession, why doesn't he enlarge his horizons beyond Romanian lies or truths? man with one red shoe 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Traian Vuia

ALL the names I mentioned did it with heavier than air aircraft. The truth isn't vandalism.Romaniantruths (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I might also point out, man with one red shoe, that everyone considers gliders heavier than air. You might want to mention this to your EXTRA SPECIAL FREIND 79.113.4.97. While you're at it let him know that in English 'neither' refers to two people who flew before Vuia. The grammatically proper word when you're refering to four of the many men who flew autonomous take-off-without-the-help-of-a-catapult-or-rails-heavier-than-air-flying machines before Vuia made his brief hop would be 'all'. Romaniantruths (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC

Gliders are obviously heavier than air, nothing to debate there. I don't have any friend 79.113.4.97, nor I'm passing messages between Wikipedia users, feel free to talk directly to whomever you want without implicating me. man with one red shoe 20:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Vuia did not "sucessfully the first self-propelling heavier-than-air-aircraft, which was self-build;" see others listed above.Romaniantruths (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sculca

Anon, would you quote the text of the 1898 Encyclopædia Britannica which proves that its authors claim that the word "sculca" was used during the same military expedition as the expression "torna, torna, fratre"? Would you also refer to other sources, especially those written during the last decades, which contain a reference to the importance of the expression "sculca" in connection with the history of Romania/Romanian? Borsoka (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not asserting that the word was used during that event. You could have transformed that information into an other entry. It was just an additional bit of information that I happened to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:95FD:D613:D79F:3876 (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

As per WP:Due, would you clarify why is the expression "sculca" is relevant in connection with the history of Romania according to modern historians? Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It is obviously important, as, ANY INFORMATION ABOUT ROMANIA'S HISTORY IS IMPORTANT AND THERE ARE FEW WRITTEN HISTORICAL RECORDS THAT STILL SURVIVE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE LANGUAGE AT HAND. ARE YOU DUMB OR WHAT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.111.10 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bezerenbam

"Radu St. Vergatti ... believes that the king of Vlachs who defeated the Mongols was no other than Bezerenbam mentioned in the history of Fazlallah Rashid ad-Din. Hasdeu first identified that character with a member of the (future) Basarab dynasty. Hasdeu's idea was accepted by some, but in 1973, Aurel Decei demonstrated that Bezerenbam was a Polish lord." (Madgearu, Alexandru (2017). The Asanids: The Political and Military History of the Second Bulgarian Empire, 1185–1280. BRILL. p. 233. ISBN 978-9-004-32501-2.) We should not present old scholars' Romantic theories as facts in WP. Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? Aurel Decei "demonstrated"? So why not post both ideas? In the absence of definitive fact, everything is worth weighing you little racist.

Five territorial units

The map does not show "statal unions", but the Pechenegs tribes, including Charaboi. (For further details about the Pechenegs tribes I refer to Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250. Cambridge University Press. pp. 182–183. ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4.) Please try to use reliable sources when editing WP instead of self-published websites. Please name the books that you are trying to cite. Could you name and quote the "professor" whom you referred to in this edit summary: [1]? I doubt that scholars are willing to refer to maps published in 1826 when writing about the history of the 9th-10th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the professor from Moldova. Just read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.111.10 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bogus sources

I have removed several bogus sources (unreliable sources). They are basically self-published sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

E.g. Agero Stuttgart pretends to be a journal, but it is the home of all kinds of crackpot ideas, you name it, it is probably there (like Jesus died at the age of 77 in Dacia). Others are extremist nationalistic websites with little or no editorial control. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That was just a tertiary source. Regardless of what other material is out there, if they have anything that is worth mentioning, I will use it. www.adevaruldespredaci.ro posts crazy stuff at times, but other times posts good stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.111.10 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Agero Stuttgart claims that Jesus died in 77 AD, when he was 80 years old. About adevaruldespredaci: you're in deep need of reading WP:RS thoroughly (and do take notes while doing it). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Blachernos

No, I am not racist. Ilie Gherghel published the cited book in 1921. The other scholar cited, Gheorghe Popa-Lisseanu, died in 1945, so he could hardly published his work in 2014. As per WP:DUE and WP:Fringe, would you please refer to academic works which verify that the story of Blachernos from Dobrogea is widely accepted by modern historians? The existence of the Yeti is often mentioned in TV shows and popular newspapers. However, we cannot refer to these TV shows and newspapers to verify the claim that the Yeti is an actual animal/humanoid. Similarly, we cannot refer to popular media to verify that the existence of Blachernos is a well-established fact. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That was a TV show from the rather respected state-run television TVR which is the equivalent of the BBC in England. I doubt you would have reacted the same way had it been the BBC I was quoting.

You're just a racist moron. Go write the Timeline of Hungarian history and finally acknowledge the fact that you are not European and that you came from Asia.

Primary sources

No, I am not moron (idiote). WP:Primary says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Would you refer to a secondary or tertiary source which verifies that Iamblichus's work about Zalmoxis is notable in connection with the 4th-century history of Romania? Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC) Would you also refer to a secondary or tertiary source which verifies that the report from Maurice's Strategikon and the Miracles of Saint Demetrius is relevant when describing the history of Romania? Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Go find the primary source yourself. If I know of something that is worth putting up, I will do so. People are supposed to contribute to things on Wikipedia, not delete them because they are incomplete. Any by the way, your English is rubbish.

And for the love of God, the pagan deity Zalmoxis is BY FAR one of the most notable things about Romania's history as pertains to the Dacian empire. EVERYTHING is important to the history of modern Romania. ALL of its history, not just the parts that don't inconvenience you because you're hungarian.

Menyel valahol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.111.10 (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources

Anon, before editing WP please read WP:NOR. We are not here to present our own interpretation about primary sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not presenting my own interpretation of a primary source but the source itself as and when available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.111.10 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of your sources are WP:PRIMARY (which falls under WP:OR), others are severely dated, and other sources are unreliable (e.g. written by a graduate student). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

And? De ce nu ajuti fraiere daca stii mai bine? A, I know, because you don't actually know better.

Severely dated? Since when is that a problem? What a moron.

WP:PLAGUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Who deleted the 5th century BC link?

Why is it that I have to keep on looking after this article?

Which one of you deleted the 5th century BC button so that it wouldn't work when pressed?

I would not be surprised if it were the hungarian that did that...

Pseudohistory

The claim that Dacians/Getae had a writing (alphabet) is pseudohistory. If you need more details see WP:RANDY.

About "not discovered yet" is the same argument as for Searches for Noah's Ark and The Exodus. (I know that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.) Besides, Goths were totally unrelated to Getae (except for the African origin of all humans). Iordanes, who conflated them, was full of craps. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Menumorout

Anon, first of all, please refrain from making uncivil remarks in edit summeries. Secondly, could you quote the text of the Gesta Hungarorum which says that Menumorut was a Vlach? Please remember, that according to the Gesta, his realm was inhabited by Khazars and Székelys (for further details I refer to the well-sourced article dedicated to Menumorut). Borsoka (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you even read his Wikipedia page?

"In Romanian historiography, he is considered to be one of the Vlach, or Romanian, dukes whose role in the Gesta proves the existence of Romanian polities in the Carpathian Basin at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries.[73]"

Yes, he is considered to be a Vlach prince by Romanian historians. However, we cannot refer to the Gesta Hungarorum when stating that he was a Vlach prince or that Romanian historiography claims that he was a Vlach prince, first of all because the Gesta Hungarorum is a primary source, furthermore it does not refer to the nationality of Menumorut and contains no information on Romanian historiography. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Original research?

So what exactly is derived from original research in this article?

Everything that was suspected as being original research has been removed.

Why is the tag still there then??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a good question you should ask yourself. Also, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, see WP:CIRCULAR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Really, wow, what an intelligent response. As if you haven't learned about Jupan Dimitrie and Gheorghe in school. Actually, maybe you haven't. Proves how much you know.

And again, if you were well-intended, if you see that a source is missing, find it and add it, what's your problem? Jealous that someone else knows more than you do? Probably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.186.84 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Listen very well: editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. If you want to continue editing here, you have to obey our rules: we don't like original research, we don't like nationalist propaganda, we don't like fringe stuff presented as objective knowledge in the voice of Wikipedia, we don't like personal attacks. As a serial abuser, you are likely to get banned from editing Wikipedia. No amount of whining or sneering will help you against that. So your choice is either behave as we wish or leave. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Original research

Again, which of the entries in this article consist of original research?

The only mention of that is at the very top of the article.

Everything that you guys disliked has been removed except the tag. Why the tag then? Because you could care less to actually find sources?

Very nice to have deleted Wulfila as if he has had nothing to do with the territory of modern-day Romania at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There are dozens of non-referenced sentences and other dozens of sentences based exclusively on primary sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That's Primary sources, not original research. They appear in other Wikipedia articles as well. It's not something I invented. An other user tried to add links to the Dacicus Maximus entries but I don't think his links worked very well.

Regardless, that falls under a separate tab which is that for relying too much on primary sources. The content is not original research. I hope you understand the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.186.84 (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Borsoka is right, we do not usually quote some guys from the 16th century, we quote mainstream scholars from the 20th and 21st centuries. If we quote primary sources at all is for illustrating the points already made by modern secondary sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Troesmis

For the attention of the jealous hungarian user Borsoka.

Troesmis was a Dacian city as per the article's page in English. The Romanian version has way more information. It is located on the present territory of Romania and the ancient territory of Dacia and is thus part of its history. As for references for other towns/cities, yes, by all means, be my guest, add them.

Ovid mentioned it in his Epistulae ex Ponto. Dacia was conquered by the Romans more than a hundred years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Who was the Legio V Macedonica "visiting" in 107 then? Hungarians??? Go acquaint yourself with history.

Here's Ovid's quote:

And the Bow bearing Getes did terrifie,

By speedy valour he did Tr•••es take

And D•nub•ed with salvage blood did make:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A08628.0001.001/1:4.4.9?rgn=div3;view=fulltext http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Ov.+Pont.+4.9.75&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0493 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Jealous for what? Yes, Dobruja was subjected to the Dacian king, Burebista for some year. Could we describe Moldavia and Wallachia as "ancient Hungarian lands" because the rulers of both territories were subjected to the kings of Hungary for decades in the 13th-14th centuries? Please read WP:Source and find reliable sources, written by modern historians and published by academic institutions, which state that Troesmis could be described as a "Dacian town". Why do you think that each coin finds from Troesmis should be mentioned in this timeline, dedicated to the history of Romania? Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not original research, http://www.turcoaia.ro/istoric.html which is the official page for the locality near it says it's geto-dacian! Maybe you should learn to read Romanian.

Troesmis WAS conquered from the Getae and given to the Rhecuporis, did you not read the link about Ovid??? It was also part of Roman Dacia, as per http://www.turcoaia.ro/istoric.html, READ!

Coins should be mentioned because they are archaeology and they are important and it's part of the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.186.84 (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you really suggest that a town's homepage is a peer reviewed academic source? Do you really suggest that all coins found at the hundreds of towns of Romania should be mentioned in this timeline? Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Here: http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=turcoaia-turcoaia-tulcea-situl-arheologic-de-la-turcoaia-troesmis-iglita-cod-sit-ran-161473.01 The Archaeological Repertoire of the Romanian Ministry of Culture. Clearly says "cetate geto-dacică".

Categorie/ Tip Epoca (Datare) Cultura/ Faza culturală Descriere/ Observații Cod LMI tezaur A fost descoperit un tezaur monetar în cursul unei periegheze cetate La Tène geto-dacică Cetate traco-getică, ulterior oraş roman şi important castru de legiune pe malul drept al Dunării, aici fiind cantonată o perioadă de timp Legiunea V Macedonica TL-I-m-A-05952.02 cetate Epoca romană târzie neprecizată TL-I-m-A-05952.03 cetate Epoca medievală timpurie (sec. VIII-XII) neprecizată TL-I-m-A-05952.01 Necropolă plană şi tumulară Epoca romană (sec. I-VII) neprecizată TL-I-m-A-05952.04

And yes, official town hall webpages are trustworthy because historians write the historical parts. https://www.historia.ro/sectiune/travel/articol/top-10-cetati-din-dobrogea and http://adevarul.ro/locale/constanta/cetatile-nestiute-dobrogei-misterele-dinogetia-stratonis-parthenopolis-troesmis-1_58d91f675ab6550cb8b935e8/index.html are also trusted sources as one is a respected History magazine and the other a respected newspaper.

As for coins, yes, the more, the better. All coin hoards should be mentioned in this article actually, because there are many of them. it's all history.

Now go and undo your stupid changes!