Talk:Romania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.111.48.57 (talk) at 21:53, 17 May 2019 (→‎Image spam?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 28, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 14, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 15, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 22, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 26, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
October 9, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
August 12, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
October 14, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
March 20, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 9, 2011, May 9, 2012, May 9, 2013, May 9, 2014, May 10, 2015, and May 10, 2016.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Errors in Romania site

I suggest the following two changes, which are in accordance with cited resources and information on other pages of wikipedia. Thank you for editing it!

'Romania is the 12th largest country' → 'Romania is the 12th largest country' OR 'and also the 7th most populous member state of the European Union' → 'and also the 10th most populous member state of Europe' 'forming the Danube Delta, which is the second-largest and best-preserved delta in Europe' → 'forming the Danube Delta, which is the largest and best-preserved delta in Europe'

Image spam?

We seem to have a little WP:GALLERY problem causing some WP:UNDUE bringing attention to one section or another and full of 'unsourced stamtments with some images not even metioned in the pros text. Perhaps best to talk about what images to keep so we can follow our Mos on images and policy of verifiability. Though it best to bring up here as there seems to be a lots of editwaring in this article as of late.-Moxy 🍁 (original post 16:14, 13 February 2019)

First of all, hello! Secondly there is no editwaring, we made a mistake regarding some stats of economics. Regarding your edits, you are not welcomed on the page of Romania since you are bringing up justice on Wikipedia like you are the only user on Wikipedia! REALLY SPAM? When other "countries" have several these kind of galleries. This part of the Romanian ethnogenesis was established by me, Borsoka and Rosenborg Fan. First came the Hungarians who removed parts of our history in order not to be offensive to anyone, secondly you are coming and you are deleting everything. I will probably choose the most important images, because you know nothing about Romania since you are a Canadian trapper. I am just hoping you don't have other users on this page. In rest, you will get respect if you are offering one! Could have discussed first here. Christina (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WOW that was one of the most ignorant replies I've ever seen. So let's see what others have to say... what would be the best images to keep guys,--Moxy (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest that the skull or the remains of the Dacian sanctuaries should be preserved. The first picture is relevant for all Europe, the second picture depicts the remnant of a peculiar ancient culture. Borsoka (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good ....anyother one that is representative of the culture of the time?--Moxy (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already kept what it was the most notable. The Romanian ethnogenesis is Dacian-Roman, plus Skull of the oldest homo sapiens. The Cucuteni culture is mentioned by the next. This part is about our ethnogenesis, that's why Burebista, Decebalus and Trajan rulers should have also be included. All were important but most important are the sancturies of Dacia, of Roman Dacia, the map and the Skull. Christina (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC) NOTE-User:Cristina neagu permanently blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]
The article is not dedicated to the Romanians' ethnogenesis, but to the country. The Daco-Roman continuity hypothesis is only one of the scholarly views about the origin of the Romanians. According to The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages (2013), the "historical, archaeological and linguistic data available do not seem adequate to give a definitive answer" in the debate about the origin of the Romanians. Likewise, The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages (2016) writes that "the location and extent of the territory" where Romanian originated is uncertain. All the same, the picture about the amphitheatre in Ulpia Traiana or the Biertan Donarium could represent the Roman culture (and the latter also play a preeminent role in the Romanians' national myths, because they traditionally regard it as an important evidence for the presence of a Christian Latin-speaking population in the former Dacia province). Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see gallery spam is back ...how can we deal with this?? --Moxy (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, gallery spam is not back. A gallery was placed in the section and it contains six pictures that are closely connected to the text of the same section. The gallery secures that the pictures are not separeted from the section. Borsoka (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lets copy this here...*WP:GALLERY "Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." ...."Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article"....that links to WP:DUE that says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery"....that links to MOS:ACCIM that says "Avoid indiscriminate gallery sections because screen size and browser formatting may affect accessibility for some readers due to fragmented image display".-- Moxy (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for copying the text of the relevant policies. There is no space for images in each view in the article, consequently the gallery is fully in line with the quoted policy. The six pictures are closely connected to the well-sourced text of the section, consequently they help the reader to understand the text and the gallery cannot be described as "indiscriminate". Without the gallery form, the pictures are displayed near to other sections (namely to sections which are not connected to them) in several views which prevent readers from realizing the connection between a certain picture and the relevant text. Borsoka (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Text should be able to standalone without images. You are correct that the history section of this page has far too many images even without the gallery, with plenty of MOS:SANDWICHING. The solution to that is not to add a gallery, but to be more selective in what is a very high-level article for which WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is an important consideration. The consideration is not whether a picture is closely connected with a specific part of the text, but how the picture helps inform the reader about the topic at hand, which in this case is Romania. CMD (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the text should be able to stand alone without images (and, actually, the text stands alone without images). Gallery form helps to avoid sandwiching. Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The gallery does avoid sandwiching, but it also unbalances the article in preference for a specific section. I don't see how pictures of artefacts justifies such unbalancing. CMD (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If all sections are followed by a proper gallery, the issue of unbalance is also solved. Those artefacts and ruins are directpy connected to the text. How can you select a sole picture to represent hundreds of years of history? Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With some thought, I assume. It's been done elsewhere. Clearly if the text stands alone, it doesn't need any at all, so we are free to pick genuinely useful ones. Keep in mind that this article isn't about hundreds of years of history. And even then, History of Romania manages to not use a single one of those pictures. CMD (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that article is a good comparison? Is it a FA or GA, or is it mentioned as an good example of the use of pictures? Borsoka (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I see things are going backwards here with even more images added. So not sure what to do here. Perhaps reopen the RfC get more experienced editors to voice their opinion. Was just about to clean up the page by removing the images not mentioned in the article and noticed even more added. Ask for an RfC again or move forward with cleaning up the kids picture book?--Moxy 🍁 23:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are established guidelines on the matter, an RfC wouldn't change that. Looking at the "History" section, given the current length of text, "Middle Ages" has space for another picture, and with none of the images in the gallery being particularly enlightening, I would use either the Battle of Posada or the Vlad III picture. In "Independence and monarchy" I'd keep the timeseries map, as that is clearly informative, and drop the large Domnitor. In "World Wars and Greater Romania" I'd drop the map of lost territories as that's covered in the previous timeseries. In "Communism" I'd drop Michael I in favour of the other two currently there. In "NATO and EU integration", as it stands, I'd drop the NATO meeting image, which shows not much at all. CMD (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep the pictures in the galleries and add more galleries. I think you should decide what is your problem: sandwiching, unbalancing or kids picture books. Borsoka (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGALLERY ....have reopened the RfC.....as 2 of us our referencing policies and our Mos vs 2 who juat like lots of pics with one of them now banned and the other suggesting galleries in every section.--Moxy 🍁 02:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to summarize the issue properly: there is a third editor who is not banned, but wants to place pictures in the article ([1]). Please also try to remember that I stated above that your references to WP:NOTGALLERY are not convincing. Thank you for reopening the RfC. Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy:, I see you was again unable to open the RfC. Can I help you or do you want assistance from a more experienced editor? Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's @Rosenborg BK Fan: to have a say... they did not add a gallery but they should be aware their edit caused an accessibility concern by sandwiching the text and should be avoided.--Moxy 🍁 05:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy:, is it you? Please try to always sign your comments. If my understandig is correct, you abandoned the idea to open an RfC. Why did you change your mind? You can always seek assistance from more experienced editors if you are unable to properly initiate a process, because we are a community. My technical skills are also awful, so I can understand your situation. Believe me, seeking and providing assistance is part of our culture, it is not a big issue. Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy:, do you think that the above request is neutral (and brief) in accordance with Wikipedia:RFCBRIEF? Please try to reword it, otherwise we could hardly accept the results. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks all good to me..... describes the problem of galleries causing undue weight and mentions the unsourced statements all linked to our policies while proposing a solution. --Moxy 🍁 20:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a neutral summary. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Prior RfC question discussion

Should the article contain two galleries in two sections? Should images be cuddled by being placed beside relevant text if that exists or should more galleries be added to different sections to help with an unbalance of images.

Relevant policies and guidelines:

--Moxy 🍁 05:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above request does not properly summarize the debate, because there is no one who wants to place a gallery only in two section. Borsoka (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we understand you want galleries in every section....but as of now there is 2....thus we are talking about if those should be retained in their current state or more should be added as per your wish.--Moxy 🍁 04:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

There is a dispute on how many images should be included in this article, and how they should be placed. A prominent question within this is whether it is appropriate to use image galleries in the various sections/subsections of this article, which was an initial attempt to solve the formatting issues caused by the large number of pictures without removing any pictures, and to which more pictures have subsequently been added. At the time of this comment, such galleries are included in the Prehistory and antiquity and Middle Ages subsections. CMD (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • One gallery in each section (each containing about 6 relevant pictures, closely connected to the text of the section). To place only one single picture in each section to represent thousands or hundreds of years could hardly be in line with WP:NPOV. The gallery form also helps us to avoid sandwiching. Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cuddle galleries -keep a few images related to prose per section like every other section. This is an encyclopedia thus articles should be formed of prose rather than being an indiscriminate collection of out of place small images containing unsourced statements bring undue weight to said section. Image placement and selection should be based on enhancing prose by being adjacent to said prose so there relevance is clear.....as per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image content - .WP:GALLERY- WP:NOTGALLERY -WP:DUE - MOS:ACCIM - WP:SUMMARYSTYLE......should look professional and follow related topic FA examples like Canada, Australia, Bulgaria --Moxy 🍁 05:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't seem excessive The galleries are small and appropriate to the sections, containing relevant images that are clearly not out-of-place. I don't see any reason to remove the galleries in question. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC), summoned by robot.[reply]
  • Keep it as it is - I agree that the article contains more pictures than other similar articles, but they are mostly well chosen to work alongside the prose in giving a better picture of the country. Many of the maps depicted, for example, do a better job at explaining the territorial changes of Romania or the ethnic makeup of the region better than the prose does. Additionally, the page functions better as a gateway to more specialized articles by having so many pictures, with readers having an easier time jumping to a different page by following the hyperlink in the image caption. Some adjustments could be made (there are currently two pictures of the CEC Palace in Bucharest one next to the other, one of which is miscaptioned, there are two images of Romanian military troops etc), but as a whole I think the article would suffer if we were to remove more than half of the images in it. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove galleries and generally cut down. This is because of Wikipedia guidelines/policy, and past precedent in similar articles. On galleries, a WP:GALLERY is meant to illustrate the subject of an article, to provide information on the subject that is difficult to express in text. Many images within this article do not do that, let alone the galleries. The article as a whole should be written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and in addition to breaking the spirit of summarystyle in terms of the level of detail, these galleries exacerbate and highlight the existing imbalance of this article to history. WP:MOSIMAGES has a number of guidelines on the size and placement of images, which provide natural limits for the number of images, and given there are probably literally thousands of good images showing some aspect relating to Romania, these limits help craft a good article. MOS:IMAGES is considered for both Good Article and Featured Article status. India is always a useful example, being one of the more continuously maintained FAs, and having faced a similar challenge of deciding which images to include from a large number of possibilities. Last but not least, there is accessibility to consider. Galleries work best on computer screens, but on mobile they create significant break in the text. (I do not know how they are handled by screen readers and similar.) Repeated images do similar, but to a lesser degree. This article should aim to be a concise informative summary of Romania, not aim to hold as much information as it can. CMD (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree- Remove galleries I agree with CMD. The galleries are unnecessary and do not add anything to the article. Tchouppy (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Present approach perfectly reasonable in term of both format and scope. Main articles covering nation states are, by their very nature, lengthy and multifaceted, and a healthy assortment of images augmenting the textual descriptions is typically not just considered permissible, but is indeed the default expectation. In the present case, looking through the images, there are a few here that, in my own idiosyncratic view, could be dispensed with as not adding very much context, but the overall number of images is fairly par for the course for an article of this size and complexity. Needless to say, for the sake of accessibility to our mobile readers and certain other classes of user, the use of galleries sequestering a majority of images together can be helpful and can be of additional use in keeping the article well formatted for conventional displays as well. That said, the galleries needn't be used in every section where the balance of factors argues for preserving more images in the main body. All in all, there's just no way to serve all interests concerned in an article that has, by necessity, such a large number of subsections and for which there are bound to be a high number of iconic and significant images, and I think the present approach and number of images is a perfectly reasonable balance of the implicit concerns. Snow let's rap 05:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
one of the reasons galleries of this nature are discouraged is that on mobile devices the images are fragmented over a few lines and text are so small that they are not accessible to many readers... ..so not a good thing for mobile devices. We should be encouraging full-sized images with legible text that adds to the reader's knowledge because it's visible and distinguishable.--Moxy 🍁 11:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry, I do not understand the relevance of your above remark. Do you suggest there are editors who cannot read the captions on mobile devices? I have been wearing glasses for more than three decades, but I can read the captions without difficulty on mobile devices. Furthermore, there is no difference between a single image and a gallery in this respect. Borsoka (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An example from another article...Note how the gallery produces smaller images then a normal thumb image.
The galleries in question on this oage produces fragmented smaller images MOS:ACCIM and text that is bellow our threshold for accessibility MOS:SMALLTEXT. This is one of the reasons why this is discussed during GA and FA article reviews. We have all thsee policies and guidelines for a reason. If this article was about an art gallery or famous painter or museum I can see why so many images and galleries full of mini images would be relevant.-Moxy 🍁 16:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all reasonable points, and for the record, my response above should be seen as more of an endorsement for the number of images being reasonable than for any one format over another. That said, it's clear that many articles do include galleries and that the MoS sections previously cited expressly contemplate that fact. And an article having them does not disqualify and article for GA or FA status. Clearly a handful of technical hiccups and even some legitimate accessibility concerns do not rob galleries of their perceived utility in many articles, as far as the editorial community is concerned. So the question becomes much sharper, and the question becomes what particular circumstances argue for and against it. I wonder if you can elucidate further on why you think this is a pronounced case where galleries should be avoided in their entirety, despite the predictably high number of images? The only indication of any particular factors you have explicitly mentioned is that if this were an art-based article, it would make more sense to use a gallery, and I'm just not sure why that factor should make any difference as a matter of page formatting. "Gallery" is used in an idiomatic fashion here; there's no particular reason that I can see why the feature should be used only for articles pertaining to literal galleries and museums. Anyway, I just don't think there's ever likely to be a consensus resolved to policy that says that nation-state articles should avoid galleries in the entirety. But that doesn't mean I can't be convinced that they should be reduced or eliminated here; I just still haven't seen the argument. Snow let's rap 01:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Snow, can you provide examples of some of the other articles that help set the par you mentioned? It'd be helpful to see how they lay things out. CMD (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think any main article pertaining to a nation stands as a decent example, but just to be lazy about the matter and choose a random smattering of other central and southeastern European states, here's the approaches adopted by Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, North Macedonia, and Poland. They all use a roughly similar level of overall image saturation, relative to text, but they vary with regard to the use if galleries. A couple do not use them whatsoever, but must utilize them in a small handful of subsections, similar to the present format of this article. Snow let's rap 01:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should follow FA examples from around the world like Canada, Australia, Bulgaria, Japan , Rwanda..as for Croatia for a GA article its need some attention related to WP:SANDWICH..but most GA's follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:GALLERY related to WP:UNDUE like Hong Kong, Jordan , Malaysia. --Moxy 🍁 04:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sections of the article should contain only a few photos, as other articles do. The remainder of the photos should all be in a Gallery section at the end of the article. Peter K Burian (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine the way it is. It's okay. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Communism Section

I think this section is the poorest and most biased of the whole article. It is obvious that it is written here by an anticommunist hipster and partial copied from anticommunist authors. To summarize the entire period with lack of consumer goods and revolution, with 3 photographs of the subject, clearly shows the 'good intention' of the person who wrote it.--Kunok Kipcsak (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a useful article that could be used to improve the Communism section https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2019/01/romania-land-no-return
Sample quote: Communism had rescued Romania from illiteracy. "Education was the great achievement,” says historian and broadcaster Tessa Dunlop. “You weren’t going to find freewheeling historians. But getting you through the 3 Rs, Communism did that." And while the rest of the East Bloc tottered towards oblivion, Ceausescu kept having new ideas. Unfortunately, they were increasingly insane.
Someone with more experience with Romania should do the edit, however.Peter K Burian (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gesta Hungarorum

@Rgvis:, the reliability of the Gesta Hungarorum is debated by almost all specialists outside Romania. If we do not mention this fact, we contradict WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand that you have a desire to express your personal (debatable) opinions, but we have to make edits accordingly to WP:COPO. (Rgvis (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
No, the reliability of the Gesta Hungarorum is questioned by most specialists outside Romania. Please read the following studies: (1) Deletant, Dennis (1992). "Ethnos and Mythos in the History of Transylvania: the case of the chronicler Anonymus". In Péter, László (ed.). Historians and the History of Transylvania. Boulder. pp. 67–85. ISBN 0-88033-229-8.; (2) Macartney, C. A. (1968). The Magyars in the Ninth Century. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-08070-5.. You can also read a Romanian historians' thoughts about the reliability of the Gesta here: Curta, Florin (2001). "Transylvania around A.D. 1000". In Urbańczyk, Przemysław (ed.). Europe around the year 1000. Wydawn. DiG. pp. 141–165. ISBN 978-837-1-8121-18.. If we do not mention that the reliability of the Gesta is at least dubious, we hide an important fact, which contradicts WP:NPOV: we cannot presents theories as facts. Borsoka (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place to debate all kind of historical opinions (anyway, in any matter, the opinions of the Romanian historians are as valid as those of the Hungarian historians). (Rgvis (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
You are right, we are not here to debate all kinds of historical opinions. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to Hungarian historians. I have not referred to a single Hungarian historian. We are here to fairly present facts and scholarly PoVs: we cannot present a theory as a fact. The existence of Gelou and his principality is highly debated by many historians, including the ones I mentioned above. Borsoka (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In history, almost any subject is debatable. (Rgvis (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
If there is a debate, it should be mentioned or present the events in a neutral way. This is our task as editors. Borsoka (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that, in practice, many times, your "neutral way" does not coincide with Wikipedia rules. (Rgvis (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
If you think my edits do not coincide with Wikipedia rules, you should report me on the relevant notice board. Please remember that baseless accusations of misconduct can be interpreted as uncivility: so report me, or stop accusing me as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Borsoka (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an accusation, it is a constatation (and it's not only mine). Unfortunetely, in the last years, Wikipedia steadily lost quality objective editors, and therefore misrepresentations, manipulations, misinformations, and half-truth statements have become more and more part of the articles' content, especially those articles prone to such actions (such as historical ones). However, there is always hope that things will be resolved, at some point (Time solves everything). (Rgvis (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
OK. I understand you are unable to prove that my edits are not in line with Wikipedia rules. Sorry, I do not have time to discuss your personal impressions. Borsoka (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many of your editings speak for it. Anyway, we are not in a court, but anyone with common sense will notice it. (Rgvis (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I already informed you above that I understood that you are unable to prove your accusations. You do not need to repeat it. Borsoka (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Gesta Hungarorum is a PRIMARY source, and only Reliable, Scholarly secondary sources should be referenced as interpreting it anyway in this article. 104.169.29.171 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Romanian, but yes, I am afraid that Borsoka is correct: at the international level (worldwide academia) GH has not been established as reliable. So all facts derived from it are dubious, and I don't speak of the kind of doubt as in doubting that we're having this discussion here. It is true that Wikipedia only trusts modern scholarship, but we may agree that the case of the modern scholars who think that GH would be reliable has not convinced a majority of their peers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu:, not really, things are more complex, than adepts of the Hungarian historiography tends to suggest: [2] + [3] + [4] (as simple examples).
On the other hand, in these cases, one of the main roles of Wikipedia is not to favor any of the sustained theories (as, unfortunately, it now happens, in many such historical articles). (Rgvis (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Rgvis, please try to understand what other editors write. Nobody says that Romanian historians (for instance, Salagean and Tiplic) deny the reliability of the Gesta. We only say, that outside Romania, the reliability of the Gesta is questioned by many specialists. Do you really think that Dennis Deletant and Carlile Aylmer Macartney are Hungarian historians?? Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is very well known that C. A. Macartney served the Hungarian (and Austrian) interests and he is for the Hungarian historiography what R.W. Seton-Watson is for the Romanian, Slovak, Czech, Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian historiographies.
Thanks to a well-organized group, English Wikipedia project has come to reflect, in the case of many historical articles that involves specifical subjects, only the position of the Hungarian historiography. This is certainly not a singular case, but the lack of objectivity in these situations is one of the most serious problems the Wikipedia project may have at present.
As for the chronicle in discussion:

Many Hungarian studies about the work of the Anonymous Notary denote a high scientific level, but sometimes it seems they were written with a clear purpose: to prove a foregone conclusion, namely that Romanians did not live in Transylvania before Hungarians. Denying the credibility of GH is commonplace in the propaganda carried out by professional and amateur Hungarian historians. They might not be aware that this disapproval excludes from the Hungarian heritage a valuable work of which 18th and 19th centuries Hungarian scholars were proud (and they were certainly right to think so).

In their turn, the Romanian historians invoked GH in order to prove the presence of the Romanians in Transylvania before the Hungarian conquest, but, surprisingly, they produced few studies focused on the credibility of this source, which in most cases is not questioned, but postulated as a definitive and obvious truth.

Historical science cannot operate with such generalized judgments. A historical source is by definition subject to criticism. GH should be studied according to the usual internal and external source criticism methods.

The total rejection and the absence of any criticism are both erroneous.

— Alexandru Madgearu, The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum. Truth and Fiction, [5]
(Rgvis (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I do not want to discuss your views about British historians allegedly serving "Hungarian propaganda", because WP is not the proper venue to start such a discussion. If you think there is a well-organized group working against WP:NPOV or other basic WP rules, please report it on the relevant notice board. If you think that a specific article is not in line with basic WP policies, please discuss this issue on its Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reference was to C. A. Macartney, not to "British historians", as you try to insinuate (anyway, in these cases, nationality does not matter). As for the other problems, let the honest stakeholders to find the way to solve them. (Rgvis (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I referred to at least two British historians and you were still writing about Hungarian propaganda. I always let the honest stakeholders to solve all problems. Sorry, I think we should not continue this strange discussion. Borsoka (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gesta Hungarorum is not contemporary Chronicle, it was written 300 years after the Hungarian conquest.. The genre of Gesta is not even chronicle, just a Gesta. Gesta meaning "deeds" or "acts", which is a medieval entertaining literature. In our modern era, the Gestas were often medieval equivalent of modern comics books.--Draguler (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Rgvis does not understand it that we apply WP:DUE to international scholarship: no consensus means no consensus, no majority view means no majority view and so on. Some facts are agreed, others are not. Also, there is the obsession that historical studies could change the borders of 21st century Romania: that's a phantasm. E.g. Ze'ev Herzog wrote Any attempt to question the reliability of the biblical descriptions is perceived as an attempt to undermine "our historic right to the land" and as shattering the myth of the nation that is renewing the ancient Kingdom of Israel. But Herzog, Israel Finkelstein and others have debunked the myths of Biblical archaeology and are not seen as the enemies of their own country (Finkelstein is politically a Zionist, but for him archaeology is not the servant of Zionism). In this respect, the Israeli academia is wiser than the Romanian academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"that historical studies could change the borders of 21st century Romania: that's a phantasm." No, it means just a long-lasting nation-wide (laughable) paranoia in Romania until this day, which is nothing more than a fantasy in the 21th century.--Draguler (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Herzog and Finkelstein think that historical truth trumps the nationalistic ideology of their own country. And, yes, many Romanians have the paranoia that Transylvania could be lost if historians do not toe the line. To the extent that for a Romanian historian is has become impossible to rationally discuss Ancient or Medieval Romanian history without being called a traitor to the country. Even for debunking the most far-fetched historic myths (e.g. that the Pelasgians conquered Japan) there will be someone to say that the historian is an agent of a foreign power. Many Romanians have the conception that Ancient and Medieval historians are propaganda warriors defending the territorial integrity of the country. To most Western academics that seems as an utterly ridiculous POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: I would recommend this study to better understand the concept of myth in the European history - [6] (full text: [7]) - and who promotes them, further (as a fact, there is even a reference to Gesta Hungarorum).

The problem is that on Wikipedia, some myths have come to be promoted as absolute truths (in various forms), while others are completely rejected (in various forms), only because some serve and the others do not serve certain interest groups. Well, this is the present-day reality: "Fake News" (aka manipulation), promoted in various forms, wherever possible. (Rgvis (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Nope, scientists and scholars debunk all myths. I mean: no myth ever is safe from the modern academia. The purpose of post-Enlightenment science/scholarship is the euthanasia of all myths. Our allegiance is to WP:DUE of worldwide scholarship. We are not a WP:BATTLEGROUND between Hungarian propaganda and Romanian propaganda. Here we serve academic learning in its purest form (see WP:CHOPSY). What is taught at the best 100 US research universities about the history of Eastern Europe is by default WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not want to get involved in ethnic quarrels and those who push a nationalist POV are either taught to keep their POV to themselves or banned from it. See why at User:Moreschi/The Plague. We are indeed biased for WP:MAINSTREAM academia, this is no secret, see WP:GOODBIAS. So, Wikipedia does not debunk only Romanian myths, but myths in general. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, theoretically, everything is fine, but in practice, many articles become, more or less subtly, politicized. It is increasingly evident that, for a while, the Wikipedia project has basically no effective methods to counteract web brigades/social bot type editings. This is a big problem, for the stated purposes of Wikipedia. (Rgvis (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

You can help WP to fight against illegitim methods. Anytime you suspect that a group of editors abuse their privileges, you can report them. Furthermore, if you think that the content of a specific article contradicts a specific WP policy, you can fix the problem in accordance with well-established WP standards. According to my experiences, our community is experienced enough to deal with such problems: editors with extremist views or behavior are sooner or later banned. Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All these problems - related to content manipulation of Wikipedia articles by web brigades - are meant to be solved by the Wikimedia board, not by ordinary contributors. Wikipedia is the subject of the same manipulation experimented by all social media, and it is the responsability/interest of the Wikimedia Foundation to find solutions, if they want to keep the project viable. In the meantime, the good thing is that the civil society is becoming more and more aware of all these intoxication practices. (Rgvis (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Do you think members of the board read this Talk page? If you think that this is a serious problem, you should inform them. If my understanding is correct, you have detected the activities of a dangerous web brigade, but you do not want to fix this issue. Sorry, this is a strange approach. Outsiders may conclude that you are only making baseless declarations, or you are one of the few editors who are convinced that our world is directed by secret societies/powers. Borsoka (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Wikimedia Foundation is aware of all these hoaxes and practices of manipulation, disinformation, or astroturfing. And, (what you guys name) the "outsiders", too. :-) (Rgvis (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

That's a weird POV. WMF does not WP:CENSOR Wikipedia, basically because of safe harbor (law). It rarely intervenes, generally only to redress violations of US laws. Also, accusing others of WP:PROPAGANDA without providing clear-cut evidence (i.e. diffs) means Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. ARBCOM is the board which analyses such issues, so you might want to start an arbitration case. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. So, either you start such case or desist forever from accusing others at this talk page. We don't admit that you eat your cake and still have it. What you do is the same as bickering at Talk:Julian Assange that the article has an un-British or un-American POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is very clear stated above. I do still believe that, in this article, the statement A legendary late-9th-century Transylvanian duke, Gelou, is solely mentioned in the late-12th-century Gesta Hungarorum (the reliability of which is debated); a contemporaneous source mentions the first Romanian polities (in Muntenia and Oltenia) in 1247 is pure WP:OR (in order to reflect only the Hungarian historiographical position). But, faced with many other articles written in a similar way, this seems a minor problem, indeed.
On the other hand, the problems Wikipedia face are not a secret (it is very simple to look for on the internet for all sort of opinions: [8], [9], and many others).
By the way, you may also reflect on your childish threats. It does not bother me, but it may seem that you also have forgotten the Wikipedia:Five pillars. (Rgvis (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Have you realised that nobody has referred to a single Hungarian historian? Two British historians were mentioned. Do yo still think that they serve Hungarian propaganda? Can you refer historians who say that contemporaneous sources mention Romanian polities in the territory of Romania before 1247? Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rgvis: Per WP:RGW, Wikipedia isn't the venue to undo the lack of international WP:RS/AC for the Romanian nationalist agenda. WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia does not pander to the national interest of any country, including Hungary and Romania. Tell any Western scholar that your agenda is to defend "our historic right to the land", and that will be a reason to mistrust everything you say. Too much patriotic agenda makes the scholarship suspect. What nationalists usually don't get about Wikipedia is that too much pro domo WP:ADVOCACY means shooting yourself in the foot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka The term Historiography has a different meaning than the Historian term (see [10] versus [11]). So, when we talk about historiography, it does not matter the nationality/ethnicity (or race, religion, etc.) of a scholar who is (totally / partially) affiliated to a specific historiography, or one who is not necessarily affiliated, but occasionally shares common ideas with that historiography. (Rgvis (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@Tgeorgescu Beyond the personal prejudices you may have on certain subjects, you can not deny that, in the last decades, the Romanian historiography has constantly evolved and developed in several directions than other historiographies have done (which rather, have continued to emphasize their ideological character, in the same period of time). For example, in a recent interview, the historian Florin Curta expressed his opinion that:

... the re-evaluation of the Hungarian archaeological research on Slavs remains an unfulfilled desiderate to this day, because Hungary (Hungarian historiography) has no (equivalent of) Lucian Boia.

— About Transylvania, Bucharest, Bessarabia, medieval Slavs and many more ..., [12]

(Rgvis (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

If my understanding is correct, your above remarks imply that you do not think that the cited two British historians serve Hungarian propaganda and you cannot refer to historians who say that contemporaneous sources mention Romanian polities in the territory of Romania before 1247. If this is the case, we should not continue this debate, because we can conclude that the sentence in the article is neutral and does not contain original research. If I misunderstood your above sentence about historians and historiography, please try to refer to reliable sources which prove that the two British historians serve Hungarian propaganda. Please also refer to historians who say that contemporaneous sources mention Romanian polities in the territory of Romania before 1247. Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try :) but all your argumentation has a standard name: straw man. And, by the way, the expression "two British historians serve Hungarian propaganda" is yours entirely; you really like to put words in someone's mouth and then insinuate all sorts of things. (Rgvis (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Two British historians have so far been mentioned, but you have been writing of Hungarian propaganda. Do we agree that the two cited British historians do not serve Hungarian propaganda? If yes, we can conclude that the first part of the sentence - "A legendary late-9th-century Transylvanian duke, Gelou, is solely mentioned in the late-12th-century Gesta Hungarorum (the reliability of which is debated)" - is neutral. You should now only refer to historians who write of contemporaneous sources mentioning Romanian polities in the territory of Romania before 1247. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, you basically selected certain words from their context, and then combined them into a fabricated statement, in order to produce a certain meaning. OK.

Regarding the subject of this topic, I remain at the opinion that, as long as, in what it should be a regular country infobox, there is an affirmation formulated in such a way as to induce (through multiple repetition) the idea that something is false, while something else must be true, it can not be said that the minimum editing rules are respected (WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:MNA, and so on). (Rgvis (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, if you are repeatedly writing of Hungarian propaganda although only British historians were referred to I do not need to make efforts to conclude that you are accusing them of being agents of Hungarian propaganda. What is the text you propose? Borsoka (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How to fix pictures to make like other pages?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania&oldid=897565176"