Talk:Romania in the Early Middle Ages/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A strange map

The map added to the article under the title "Migration routes of Hungarians, Bulgarians, Pechenegians, Cumanians and the great Tartar invasion on Romania's territory" is totally misleading, because:

1. The map’s title refers to “Romania’s territory”, but the Tisa never was a border river of Romania, and the territory between the Prut and the Dniester rivers is now an independent republic.

2. The map describes a situation which never existed at the same time: e.g., between c. 610 and c. 1002, and after 1187 the Danube was the northern frontier of the Bulgarian Empire and not the Byzantine Empire, while the supposed "voivodates" (if ever) existed in the 9th century or in the 13th century.

See, for example, John V. A. Fine, Jr.: The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelth Century (ISBN 978-0-472-08149-3) pp. 33-37., 187-188., 197-199.

3. The “Voivodeship of Gelou” and the “Voivodeship of Menumorut” (if ever existed) had been occupied by the Hungarians by 910s even according to the only source which refers to their existence (Gesta Ungarorum); therefore, the reference in the map to the 9th-11th centuries is misleading.

4. Although in the 13th century the Gesta Ungarorum refers to the three voivodates of Gelou, Menumorut and Glad (and only the Gesta Ungarorum refers to them), earlier sources refer to other polities in the territory, for example:

• The Bavarian Geographer in the 9th century listed the Bulgars and some Slavic tribes (e.g., Meheranos) living in the territory presented by the map.

• Around 950, Constantinos Porphirogennetos wrote that the territory on the rivers Tisa, Cris, Mures and Timis had been part of Great Moravia before the Hungarian conquest (around 896), but he also mentioned that at his time the same territory was part of “Turkia” (=Hungary). Moreover, he added that 4 Pecheneg tribes lived around 950 on the territories between the rivers Danube and Dnieper east of the Carpathian Mountains, and the Pecheneg’s territories bordered “Turkia” (=Hungary). Similar descriptions can be found in contemporary or nearly contemporary Muslim writers’ works.

See, for example, Kristó Gyula: Kristó: Early Transylvania, 895-1324 (ISBN 963-9465-12-7) pp. 63-65.

5. The Bolohoveni never lived in the territory where the map locates them.

See, for example, Victor Spinei: The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century (ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5) pp. 93-97., 161-162.

6. The “Principality of Transylvania” was formed around 1570 as a consequence of the Peace of Speyer.

Consequently, I think that the map should be radically changed or deleted.Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. The rivers (Tisza and Dniester) as borders of Romania suggests that this "map" was made by a person who is under the influence of romantic pro-romanian nationalism.--B@xter⁹ 18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment:The source is a Romanian book wrote in 1987 (!) Ceauşescu era.--B@xter⁹ 19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • I think that the fact that the book was written in Ceauşescu's reign, in itself, does not matter. If you read the book written by Ion Grumeza ("whose family name is Dacian" :)) in 2009, you can find more "cifra" statements (sorry, I cannot translate a Hungarian expression which means something what is very surprising and a little bit funny). I think the problems are the followings (i) the map contradicts to several reliable sources written even by neutral or Romanian authors; (ii) the map tries to concentrate the history of 400 years (the period from the 9th to the 13th century) which results in an illustration which cannot demonstrate the political situation in the territory of Romania at any time (let's try to concentrate the last 400 years of the history of Central Europe, Austria, Poland, Serbia or any of the countries of our region to one single map, no one could understand anything based on it); (iii) the map does not represent all the early written sources which described the territory of modern Romania (e.g., Ananias of Sirak, the "Bavarian Geographer", Emperor Constantin VII) although they are earlier sources than the major one (the Gesta Ungarorum) used by the designer of the map. Borsoka (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that the map is badly designed. It has all signs of Romanian 20th century nationalism: The green patch is supposed to be the "ideal Romania", which likely was never simultaneously populated or ruled by Romanians. Also, some mixed populations, such as the Brodniks, are presented as Romanian, and their territory is restricted to this "ideal Romania", even if sources put them in all the north-western Pontic steppe, well into Ukraine. Important and powerful non-Romanian populations are ignored, such as Cumans, Petchenegs, or, when they're not, they are presented as Romanians (see the princes in Dobruja). Another indicative of nationalism is the fact that the southern neighbour is presented as "Byzantine Empire", even if during the covered period the southern state was actually mostly the Bulgarian Empire. Not to mention that Danube is presented as a border, even if it only became such a thing in the 14th century. I have no opinion on the way Transylvania is represented, since I've always disliked that part of Romania history.Anonimu (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't delete this file because it is published in the book presented as a source by a romanian author. You can present reasons why the author was wrong in its analysis in the article text or image explanation, you can display another map that appeared in another publication that is another point of view. Of course whatever you write must be accompanied by sources and publications. Asybaris01 (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, not my map, it was an encyclopedia published in Romanian, I have reproduced the map and I made a point of view of a romanian author. You do original research on Wikipedia prohibited. Bring points of view published by other authors Hungarian, English, etc.. and specify the publications have appeared in such statements. Wikipedia must present all points of view on this issue. I understand very well that you mentions, but no you can not erase what one historian famous in Romania has made. I have not done anything in my own analysis. Please understand this. Asybaris01 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Asybaris01, would you please comment the above remarks on the maps - you can also find there many references to scholarly works written by American and Romanian authors. The issue is that the map is unreliable - it does not present a situation which whenever existed or which was whenever suppesed to have existed. (1) When the Romanian (?) polities presented by the maps are supposed to have existed (in the 9th century or in the 13th century) the Danube was not the border of the Byzantine Empire (I refer to the books mentioned above - they are written by internationally acknowledged historians, experts of the early medieval history of SE Europe). (2) Most of the polities which are presented in the map did not exist in the same period (Ménmarot's state, if ever existed and it was not the creation of the author of the Gesta Ungarorum) was occupied by the Magyars by 907, while the "Land of Fogaras" had not been formed before the 13th century) - they cannot be presented on the same map (I refer to the academic sources mentioned above). (3) The map presents some polities which are supposed to have existed in the 9th century, but these polities are exclusively mentioned in a source (the Gesta Ungarorum) written in the 13 century, and the map fails to refer to the polities whose existence in the 9th-10th centuries was mentioned by contemporary sources - e.g., Constantine VII clearly refers to the Pecheneg tribes living in the territory of modern Romania when his book was written (I refer to the scholarly books mentioned above). Therefore, even if the map is based on a book written by a Romanian author in the 1980s, but (1) it sharply contradicts to all other reliable sources (which suggests that it represents a fringe theory); (2) it fails to refer to many important sources (which suggests that it is highly biased towards the fringe theory it represents). Therefore, the map should significantly be improved, or it has to be deleted, according to Wikipedia's policies. Borsoka (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Original map

I agree with what you say, but in Romania 50 years of communism and left their mark on an entire generation of people who have heard of Menumorut, Glad & co. The fact that a lot of authors have written about the Romanian political entities can not be removed anyway and so this map must be explained in historical-political context. Do not forget that hundreds of thousands of Romanians have in their homes this encyclopedia of Ovidiu Drimba and it is a verifiable source. I propose the correct execution of a map by other sources that I do not have at hand, can you give me this information for its creation? If you can create another map you can do, but this map should stay. I do not know if you understand my point of view for correct information to readers.Asybaris01 (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Asybaris01, I think the fact that 50 years of Communism left its mark on entire generations cannot explain the presentation of an unreable and highly biased map in the article. For example, the more than 10,000 year of Earth-centered cosmology which had left its mark on entire generations before Copernic does not create any title to use it when describing the universe in Wikipedia in the 2010s. Therefore, the map could be presented in an article describing the history of Romanian historiography, but not in an article whose subject is the early medieval history of Romania. I think the issue is not the existence of Glad, Ménmarót and the other heroes of the Gesta Ungarorum - there are many scholars who believe that they were real personalities and their polities existed. I think the issue is that the map, as I have already mentioned, does not present a historical situation which, according to any theory followed by historians, existed at the same time: princiaplities which are supposed to have existed in the 9th century cannot be presented together with polities ("lands") which came into existence only in the 13th century; moreover, if a territory was not under Byzantine rule from the 7th until the 11th century, and after the 1180s, it cannot be presented as a Byzantine territory which exited together with the above mentioned principalities, lands. Therefore, the map should be deleted - for further reasoning I refer to my above remarks. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

GA1 review

Please see below:

Well-written

• Lead section - "The Early Middle Ages in Romania could be said..." - Who stated this?

 Done

• Background: Dacia Traina section - On "...Dacia-speaking^[5] Carpians...", move ^[5] after Carpians to clear up.

 Done (^[5] was moved after the sentence)

• • In the third paragraph, add against between "...were competing..." and "...each other,..."

 Done

• • In the last sentence of the last paragraph, change "...and landed proprieotrs: the poorer..." to "...landed propreitors which the poorer...". Also define "landed propreitors". How soon did the Dacian province revert to its pre-Roman ways?

 Done (alternative solution: landed proprietors > landowners; the last sentence has been deleted)

• Late Antiquity: Roman withdrawl section - Where is modern Dobrogea located now? Please list in the the first sentence of the third paragraph.

 Done

• • In the last sentence of the third paragraph, add s after "epidemic" and change "rapacious" to "plunderous".

 Done

• Background:Late Antiquity: Guthiuda section - change "..the "land of the Goths" (Guthiuda)." to "...the "land of the Goths" or Guthiuda." in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

 Done

• • In the second sentence of the second paragraph, Define we (WP:WEASEL).

 Done (the sentence was deleted because the next sentence actually repeats its information)

• • In the first sentence of the third paragraph, change "...the Thervingi ("forest people")..." to "...the Thervingi or the "forest people"..." and list the current location of the river Dniester.
  • In the second sentence of the fourth paragraph, change "are" to "were".

 Done

• • In the second sentence of the sixth paragraph, add "a" between "...was ordained..." and "...bishop to...", change "...territories (many..." to "...territories with many...", remove "were" between "...these were descended...", and remove ) after prisoner.

 Done (a new sentence was constructed instead of the modification suggested above)

• • In the second sentence of the seventh paragraph, add "that" between "...army..." and "...contributed to..."

 Undone – “that” cannot be added to the sentence

• • In the first sentence of the eighth paragraph, change "...Greuthungi (the Goths living..." to **"...Greuthungi where the Goths lived..." and remove ) after Dniester.

 Done (alternative solution – the Greuthingi were the Goths who lived east of the river, the Greuthingi expression does not refer to a territory)

• • Who are the contemporaries mentioned in the second paragraph?
  • In the last sentence of this paragraph, change "...population group: men, women, and children,..." to "...population groups with men, women, and children..."

 Done

• • In the second sentence of the ninth paragraph, change "...clearly reveals this process of disintegration." to "...clearly revealed this disintegration process." For the third sentence, change "...fates: some delayed conquest, or perhaps avoided it altogehter,..." and "..., but, however, long it took, most (if not all) of the Goths..." to "...fates with some delaying conquest of avoiding it altogether,..." and "..., but, however long it took, most if not all of the Goths...". In the last sentence, change "...of 50,000; this group..." to "...of 50,000. This group...".

 Done (alternative solution)

• • For the second sentence of the tenth paragraph, change "...also in forests (over 70%..." and "...forests during that time). ..." to "...also in forest since over 70%..." and "...forest then. ..." In the finals sentence of this paragraph, change "...phenomenon of the natives: although...", "...difficult, it has thus provided...", "...the unity of the Romanian language, the Romanian identity, religion, and habits." to "...phenomenon of the natives. Although...", "...difficult, it provided...", and "the unity of Romania's language, identity, religion, and habits."

 Done (alternative solution – “Romania’s language” would be strange in the context, as Romania was only established in the 19th century)

• Background The Hun Empire (c. 376/420 - 469) section
  • Define "We" in the first sentence of the first paragraph. For the second sentence "It seems reasonable to suppose...", can this suppose be verified (WP:WEASEL)?

 Done (the first and the second sentences are deleted, because 395 is the first certain date)

• • In the last sentence, change "...that 420, and quite probably by 410, the Huns..." to "...that between 410 and 420, the Huns..."

 Done

• • For the first sentence of the second paragraph, change pastorialism to raising livestock.

 Done

• • In the fourth sentence of the third paragraph, change "...Singidunum (today Belgrade in Serbia) to Novæ (now Svishtov in Bulgaria),..." to "...Singidumnum (now Belgrade, Serbia) to Novæ (now Svishtov, Bulgaria),..." Also use {{Convert}} on the distances shown in this sentence.

 Done

• • For the second sentence of the third paragraph, change "..Hun army in the Battle..." to "...Hun army at the Battle...". In the fourth sentnece, change "...not disappeared suddenly from the Carpathian region; in the..." to "...not disappear suddenly from the Carpathian region. In the...".

 Done

• Background: Gepidia (454-567) section
  • For the word "convulsions" in the first sentence of the first paragraph, would "seizure" be a better word?

 Done (convulsions > barbarian invasions against the Roman Empire)

• • On the second sentence, change "...Dacia: afterwards,..." to "...Dacia. Afterwards,...". In the final sentence, change "...widespread: in the..." to "...widespread. In the..."

 Done

• • In the first sentence of the final paragraph, change "...Sirmium (today in Serbia),..." to "...Sirmium (now in Serbia),...". For the final sentence validate "seem" in the sentence (WP:WEASEL).

 Done (archaeological researches suggest the conclusion presented in the article)

• The Dark Ages: The early Slavs (5th-7th centuries) section
  • Where "likely" is in the first sentence of the first paragraph, please validate. Ditto for "may be" in the second paragraph.

 Done

• • Specify "The written sources" mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

 Done (the sentence is deleted, because Barford does not refer to the sources of his statement)

• • Change "...elements: local..." to "...elements. Local..." in the second sentence of the second paragraph.

 Done

• • In the third sentence of the second paragraph, specify how long Romanian site have been excavated and when did those brief periods took place? Rewrite that second sentence of the third paragraph because it makes no sense whatsoever.

 Done

• • In the first sentence of the final paragraph, change sentence to "The Slavs were the third element, including the Dacians or other tribes, and the Romans, that played a certain part in the configuraions of the Romanians' personality. In relating wiht Romanians, the Slavs played the same role as the one played by the Germanic elements in the case of other Romanian peoples."

 Done

• The Dark Ages:The Avar Khaganate (567-797/803) section
  • Who is the ruler listed in the first sentence of the first paragraph.

 Undone (the reference to the ruler is deleted – but otherwise, the sentence referred to the fact that the Avars were lead by one ruler, and not by many leaders)

• • For the second paragraph, change "...Europe: a vast...", "...peoples (various...", and "...Huns) was...." to "...Europe. This includes a vast...", "...peoples such as various...", and "Huns was below..."

 Done

• • Change "...units, in the..." to "...units in the..." in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

 Done

• • Confirm the second sentence of the third paragraph, the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, the first sentence of the fifth paragraph, the last sentence of the fifth paragraph, and the sixth paragraph. They all seem vague.

 Done (the first sentence of the fourth paragraph was deleted, because no further argumentation can be found in the cited book; the speculations in the second sentence of the fifth paragraph and in the last sentence of the fifth paragraph were deleted; additional information is added which hopefully clarifies the sixth paragraph)

• • For the last sentence of the fifth paragraph, change the sentence in pararenthese into a sentence unto itself.

 Done

• • In the sixth paragraph, change "...periods: there..." to "...periods. There..."

 Undone (alternative solution)

• The Dark Ages: Bulgaria before Baptism (632-864) section
  • For the first sentence of the first paragraph, change "...Bulgars (a nomadic Turkic-speaking people)..." to "...Bulgars, a Turkic-speaking people,...". In the second sentence, add "in Moldava" after Bessarabia.

 Done

• • Confirm the last sentence of the second paragraph because it sound vague.

 Done (the sentence was deleted)

• • On the second sentence of the third paragraph, when did the archaelogical surveys take place and when did the mixed settlements of Slavs and Bulgars actually occur?

? (I do not understand the above reference to the archaeological surveys)

• • Use {{Convert}} for the third sentence of the third paragraph on the 12 miles listed.

 Done

• • Confirm "This suggest" in the final sentence of the third paragraph.

 Done  Undone? (based on archaeological researches mentioned in the previous sentence the author of the source concluded this – and it seems to be a logical conclusion)

• • For the second sentence of the fourth paragraph, change "...Dridu culture (8th to 11th centuries) the..." to "...Dridu culture which ranged from the 8th to 11th centuries,..."

 Done

• • Confirm "may have" in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph.

 Done (the speculation was deleted, the last two sentences of the paragraph refer to the contemporary sources)

• • Specify sources in the "Contemporary sources" of the first sentence of the final paragraph. WP:WEASEL

 Done

• The Dark Ages: Thie first political structures (8th-9th centuries)
  • Spell out 8th and 9th in the first sentence of the first paragraph.

 Done

• • For the second paragraph, when in the 1110s did The Russian Primary Chronicle was published?

 Undone (nobody knows exactly)

• • Who delivered the view in the "One view.." of the last sentence of the third paragraph? In that same sentence, change "...(Vlachs); on..." to "...(Vlachs). On...".

 Done (hopefully)

• • On the second sentence of the fourth paragraph, an opinion was stated in "...it would be a mistake to treat the Gesta...". Can this be clarified into fact?

? (there are two sharply opposing academic views - how can they be clarified into fact?)

• • For the first bullet point of the fifth paragraph, remove "...(actually, on "the people that are called Cozar" are mentioned in the Gesta)... in the first sentence.

 Done (restructuring the sentences)

• • For the second bullet of the fifth paragraph, change "..Banat; it was.." to "...Banat, which was..." in the first sentence.

 Done (restructuring the sentences)

• • For the third bullet of the fifth paragraph, there is a lot of speculation. Please specify on this bullet point. Change "...and Slavs; Gleou..." to "...and Slavs. Gelou..." in the second sentence.

 Done (restructuring the sentences)

• The Dark Ages: The Magyars (c.839 - c. 1028) section
  • In the second sentence of the first paragraph is Moslem "Muslim"?

 Done

• • In the last sentence of the third paragraph, change "...inhabited: people (mostly of Slavic tongue)..." to "...inhabited. People mostly of Slavic tongue..."

 Done

• • Specify acutal distance in tens or hundreds of kilometers using {{Convert}} and when did the Magyars settle specifically?

 Undone (it was a general description of the customs of nomadic peoples; therefore the exact distances cannot be specified – nevertheless, the sentence has been deleted, since it has no major relevance)

• • For the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, change "..leaders (the gyula) visited..." to "..leaders, the gyula, visited...". Who was the gyula that visited Constantinople in the second sentence? Change "is" to "was" in the final sentence.

 Done

• • Change "...West: their..." to "...West. Their..." in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph. For the second paragraph, change "...Basin: therefore..." to "...Basin though..." Specify who "We" is in the third sentence.

 Done (alternative modification for the second paragraph)

• • Change "...Vidin (today in Bulgaria)." to "...Vidin, now in Bulgaria." in the first sentence of the final paragraph. In the second sentence of the final paragraph, change "...Morisena (today Cenad in Romania) where he established..." to "...Morisena (now Cenad Romania) where Ahtum established..."

 Done

• The Dark Ages: First Bulgarian Empire after Baptism (864-1018) section - no issues found.

• The Dark Ages: Patzinakia (c.895 - 1121) section
  • Change "concluded" to "formed" in the first sentence of the first paragraph.

 Done

• • In the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph, change "...is Vlach (that is Romanian)." to "...is Vlach in Romanian." For the last sentence in that same paragraph, specify the Russian sources listed in the "Black Hats".

 Done (the Vlach is the alternative name of Romanians, therefore the ‘(that is Romanian)’ has been deleted instead of its modification suggested above)

• • In the fifth paragraph, it looks as if this was speculation. Please confirm this.

 Done (an additional sentence has been added – nevertheless, dating of archaeological sites is often pure speculation, therefore speculation cannot be avoided)

• • For the final paragraph, change "...at Mount Levunion; it was the decimation..." in the first sentence to "...at Mount Levunion, specifically in the decimation...".

 Done

• • For the final sentence, add "with" between "..in 1121.." and "...an attempt...".

 Done (alternative modification)

• State Formation and the Last waves of the Migrations: Banat, Crişana, Maramureş, and Transylvania (c. 1000-1241) section
  • Clarify the first sentence of the first paragraph because it is confusing. For the second sentence, change "..in the battle; his corps..." to "...in the battle. His corps...". In the final sentence, clarify this sentence because it is vague.

 Done (?)

• • Change "he" to "Stephen" in the second sentence of the second paragraph.

 Done

• • Confirm the number of castle districts listed in Transylvania in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. Is it five or six?

 Done

• • In the first sentence of the fifth paragraph, change "...against foreign incusrions; in 1068 and 1085, the Pechengs and the Oghuz invaded the country, and in 1091, its..." to "...against foreign incursions three times, in 1068 first against the Pechengs, then in 1085 against the Oghuz, and finally in 1091, its eastern..."

 Done (alternative solution – the Kingdom of Hungary faced invasions many times in the 11th century, the three invasions of the nomadic tribes are listed only as examples)

• • For the second sentence of the sixth paragraph, change "The archaeological..." to "Archaeological..." and state when this evidence was discovered.

 Done (alternative solution – the archaeological evidence was not discovered at some point of time, but it has been collected for decades and it is still being collected)

• • In the opening sentence of the seventh paragraph, reword. How can Romanians suddenly occur after 1210? What caused them to do this? For the third sentence, add "as" between "...Middle Ages..." and "...a separate...".

 Done

• • For the first sentence of the eighth paragraph, change "...in Transylvania; after..." to "...in Transylvania. After..." For the third sentence, change "...of his favor; during the 89..." to "...of his favor. During the 89...". For the last sentence, "suggest" is a weasel word (WP:WEASEL). Please confirm this.

 Done (the sentence containing weasel words has been deleted)

• • In the last sentence of the ninth paragraph, WP:WEASEL. Please confirm this.

 Done (the sentence containing weasel words has been deleted)

• State Formation and the Last waves of the Migrations: Cumania (1065-1241) section
  • Change "...Balkan Peninsula (1065 and succeeding year)." to "...Balkan Peninsula in 1065 and succeeding years." in the second sentence of the lead paragraph.

 Done

• • For the opening sentence of the second paragraph, change "meddling" to "meddled". For the second sentence of the second paragraph, how many different sources were used and what are the names of those sources? In the final sentence of this paragraph, what are the differences between the "Black Cumans" and the "White Cumans"? Please specify.

 Done (a new opening sentence was inserted; sources are added, but the exact number of sources cannot be listed; the last paragraph was deleted, because no explanation has been found on the difference between the two groups)

• • In the opening sentence of the third paragraph, add ", located in present day Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine." after "...the river Prut". For the second sentence, change "...agriculturists, not..." to "...agriculturists and not..." In the final paragraph, when did this archaeological evidence occur? Also, change "...Moldova diminished in size or altogehter disappeared." to "...Moldova either diminshed in size or disappeared altogether."

 Done

• • For the fourth paragraph, it lists "may have been" in both the second and third sentence. This WP:WEASEL. Please confirm both of this.

 Done

• • In the second sentence of the sixth paragraph, what mde the Cuman chiefs unceratin of the Mongol attack after the battle?

 Done (whether has been deleted)

• • For the third sentence of the seventh paragraph, when was the next result of the existing evidence? In the final paragraph, "sometimes intrepreted" is WP:WEASEL. Clarify this.

 Done (weasel sentences have been deleted)

• • In the eighth paragraph's opening sentence, what made the Tartar campaign so great? In the second paragraph, how many waves of Cuman exodus to Bulgaria take place? Please specify number and time period the Cuman exoduses took place.

 Done (alternative solution – the sentence has been modified, there were several waves of Cuman migration from their territories after the Tatar invasion, there were Cumans who moved to Bulgaria, others to Hungary – I hope that the new version clarifies this)

• State Formation and the Last waves of the Migrations: Second Bulgarian Empire section
  • In the second sentence, change "...personal character: two..." to "...personal character. Two..." Also confirm is Peter and Asen were really Vlachs (WP:WEASEL). Additionally, define pronoia in that same sentence.

 Done

• State Formation and the Last waves of the Migrations: The Mongol invasion (1241-1242) section
  • In the second sentence of the second paragraph, change "...Batu (a grandson of Genghis Khan)." to "...Baku, a grandson of Genghis Khan."

 Done

• • For the first sentence of the third paragraph, change "...Vlachs"); Böček..." to "...Vlachs"). Böček...". In the second sentence, add commas (,) between "...on April 11, 1241..."

 Done

• • Confirm the first sentence of the final paragraph. WP:WEASEL.

 Done (as it has no relevance on the subject, it has been deleted)

• After the Migrations section.
  • In the first sentence of the first paragraph, how short at time did The Kingdom of Hungary recovered its strength and what year(s) did it take place? Confirm the information on the second paragraph with more valid information.

 Done (the first sentence, as it has no relevance, has been deleted)

• • In the final sentence of the final paragraph, list when The Battle of Posada took place.

 Done

Factually accurate and verifiable

• See comments in the Well-written section.
• Sourcing is accurate though it is a lot of non-web sourcing used so it makes verifying off-site sources difficult.

Broad in its coverage

• Does address main aspects of topic though there is a lot of speculation.
• Stays focused though it covers a long time period which can allow for easy distraction.

Neutral

• Stays neutral though there is a lot of vagueness and speculation listed in the 'Well-written section.

Stable

• Last edit was done on 4 March 2010.

Images

• All images shown are valid. - no issues.

Overall

• Hold. It needs a lot of work, but it can be done.

Reviewer: Chris (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I wish to note that a large part of the sources invoked in the notes do not feature exact citation - most lack page numbers and virtually all other publication data, making them unretrievable and the info unverifiable. Allow me to note, therefore, that "It needs a lot of work, but it can be done" looks like an over-optimistic assessment. Dahn (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dahn, would you please list the sources which lack any of the publication data required by WP? Would you please also add the exact sentences where you think that page number should be added? Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right about publication data - I had failed to notice that the works cited in the notes where listed in the "Sources" section (though I find it strange that you provided the full titles in both notes and "Sources", which looks a bit impractical). However, my other (and main) objection still stands: where are the page numbers for all those citations from paper sources? See for example: Curta, Florin. Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages - 500-1250, Watson, Alaric. Aurelian and the Third Century, Madgearu, Alexandru. Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania, Costiescu Ghyka, Fernand Gabriel; Cliff, Anne. A Documented Chronology of Roumanian History. etc etc etc. These are all mistakes, and they are unsolvable unless you either redo all the citation with specific page numbers or hope that someone else picks up the exact same sources and verifies your entire research. For just this reason, the article cannot unfortunately be a GA: many articles which used to be GAs have been downgraded for less.

Dear Dahn, thank you for your remarks. I am trying to do my best to provide the relevant pages, and I hope that other editors would also join to me. Borsoka (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I can't help but note that the citation format is quite chaotic (at least so in the "Sources" section): plenty of titles are italicized while others are not, commas alternate with colons etc. This latter objection is not a valid reason to hold against GA recognition, but it is a pet peeve of mine. Dahn (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done (hopefuly - I do not understand your reference to 'commas alternate with colons')

About commas and colons: I misread one of the entries, so never mind that. And while this is purely a detail, let me note that the section is far from copyedited: look over it again, and you'll note that the various elements that go into each entry follow no consistent order. In some refs, you gave the location (Ann Arbor et al.), in others you did not - even where the publisher is one and the same. Year follows city in some entries, in some others it does not, and in some it even comes in first. My suggestion is to settle on whichever order you think suits you best (really, your call), and what publication details you think are essential, and then apply it consistently to all titles. As long as it gives us year, publisher and perhaps ISBN, it can include other details in whatever order - just as long as it's one format, one order. Dahn (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Issue addressed. There is still the question of page numbers which needs to be addressed for this article to really be a sustainable GA. Dahn (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done (Dear Dahn, I really appreciate your contribution.)Borsoka (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me add: Borsoka, you have improved this article immensely, and we all, of all nationalities, ought to recognize your excellent contribution. But the article is greatly handicapped by the inexact citations. It should not have been a GA at the moment, and, if you leave it like that, it cannot seriously expect to move on on the recognize content ladder. Please consider this the expression of my wish to have this article stay a GA in the long run, and even become an FA in time. Dahn (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good. Passes GA. Chris (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bring this article down - it looks like a good text overall, but that's not the issue; it is a failure of basic GA standards that this article passed GA without exact referencing and other similar basic issues. In fact, I find it astonishing that this article passed GA without even a reviewers' answer to my comments above! Dahn (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Update All my concerns have been addressed in record time by Borsoka's recent edits, something which must have been exhausting. For this reason in particular, and in general for writing what is by any standard an outstanding article, I extend my thanks to Borsoka, and ask her/him to accept my apologies for the inconvenience. This is now truly a GA, and, as far as I can tell, one of the best history GAs we've had in a while. Dahn (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Welldone! Congratulations! It will be a 'hard day's night' (or a hard night's day) for you. :) Borsoka (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but it really was a pleasure: the fixes were all in format, not content, and your text is otherwise exquisite. These are not empty, polite, words of praise: you have done a great job out of complicated and often thankless subject, and I grew more and more convinced of the excellency of your contribution as I was going through the text. Such articles tend to get bogged down in the "he said, she said" of nationalist rhetoric (whether "ours" or "theirs"). Yours is not just a competent text, it is also a lesson into how to maintain a neutral, professional and imposing tone when dealing with controversial subject, not to mention its sound review of scholarly sources (as opposed to the propaganda battles we still get on so many similar topics).

Incidentally, it was a "hard day's afternoon" where I'm at :). Dahn (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dahn, thank your above remarks. However, I think the article is actually the outcome of a true community experience. Anybody who reads its previous versions will realize that it have been developed by more than one or two editors in the last year. Even its March version differs significantly from its present form. Without the contribution, for example, of Dc76, Chris, Nergaal and yourself, the article could not have been developed and improved. Thank you all. Borsoka (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Goths

Sorry, I do not fully understand the following sentence: "However, one interpretation of archeological finds suggests that the old Roman fortifications were being used by the Goths, as permanent settlements."

• Why is 'however'? Does it refer to an assumption that the hamlets etc mentioned in the preceding sentences were not permanent settlements?
• Why is 'one interpretation'? Do other interpretations exist as well?
• Why "being used"?

Moreover, the text of the footenote was copied from the article Goths. Is there any point in repeating long text in different articles?

My suggestion: "In some cases (for example at ....), the old Roman fortifications were also used by the Goths, as permanent settlements." We could refer to Madgearu's work, but there is no need to repeat the text of the footnote which can be read in the article Goths. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I merely tried to rephrase the sentence for legibility, and tried to adhere to what I could discern it meant to say. The "one interpretation" is my best guess per WP:ATTR: not that other interpretations exist, but that this is still one researcher's conclusion. The other problem in the current text is not with "being used" (it is one of several equally appropriate tenses), but in "being used" with the comma after, which is my fault - I forgot to remove it when rephrasing. I agree that the text in the note is excessive, but this looked less excessive than a block quote - I'm all for removing it, as overdetailed, but I thought it was best to discuss it than basically revert most of a user's main edit to this page. I was not even aware that we have this in another article. Incidentally, if it's of any use there, you might consider correcting the grammar and improving the ref format - it's an approximate first-hand translation, and there are several clear-cut errors, some of which have to do with trying to render idiomatic Romanian into English (I tried my best to correct that here, but I'm not yet prepared to go copyediting an article such as Goths). Dahn (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)