Super Dromaeosaurus

Welcome. In case you want to leave me a message, click here, and don't forget to sign up adding ~~~~.

Romania article

Hi, I see a debate and edit war about the geography and gdp in the Romania page, could you check it? OrionNimrod (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus, I see a sockpuppet is blocked in the Romania talk page, so can I restore that "Romania crossroad Central Europe..." etc? Is there a consensus? What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I believe there is consensus for this change. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Your statement against me

I believe it's ridiculous for you to accuse me of being inexperience just because I made few editing mistakes. I also think it's ridiculous that you get yourself involved in the arbitration request case I filed against two other editors especially since I was considering adding you as well as you also have been showing questionable biasness even going as far as to admit you are Pro-Ukraine which means you will mostly likely have a biasness for Ukraine when editing any article related to the war in Ukraine. I don't mind you making your case against me so long as is logical and has common sense. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I believe it's ridiculous for you to accuse me of being inexperience just because I made few editing mistakes. as in skipping completely Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes and going to the last resort option over an issue that isn't a violation of any policy in the first place? even going as far as to admit you are Pro-Ukraine which means you will mostly likely have a biasness for Ukraine when editing any article related to the war in Ukraine. if you have any evidence rather than a "likely" supposition as you say that I am not editing neutrally you are free to take any measures you deem necessary. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Gagauz referendum

Thank you Super Dromaeosaurus, I am writing this article: 1995 March Gagauzian referendum. On the aftermath section I used a Moldovan/Romanian article using Machine Translation. As I understand, Basarabeasca District and Burlăceni communes decided to have a referendum to join UTAG, which was rejected. Pdf: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/md/Brosura_CICDE-Open-Talks.pdf page 51. But I couldnt find any more information. If you get any information why it was rejected, I would appreciate it. Also, if you are familiar with the subject, any addition would be great. Thanks! Joseph (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joseph, the source says that inhabitants of the city (not district) of Basarabeasca (which at the time was 31% ethnically Romanian, 22% Russian, 17% Gagauz and others) and the commune of Burlăceni (45% Gagauz as of 2004, I think the Gagauz population of a location had to be of at least 50% for the referendums to be held but I am not sure) requested referendums to join the Gagauz autonomy, but the Central Electoral Commission of Moldova rejected this. But this happened on November and December 1998, not in 1995, thus I think it should be made a passing mention in something like an "Aftermath" section. You mostly got it correct.

By the way, I think the title of the purported article should be different. It is not necessary to mention the month as no other referendums related to the Gagauz took place in 1995 as far as I know. It was also not a single referendum but individual referendums held in each Gagauz village. Lastly "Gagauzian" would refer to "of Gagauzia" rather than "of the Gagauz people" like "Gagauz" (think of it like the difference between "Kazakhstani" and "Kazakh", you can be an ethnic Kazakh in China but not a Kazakhstani is you're not from Kazakhstan). However Gagauzia did not exist yet as a legitimate entity, it is these referendums that did exactly that, so we shouldn't be talking about any Gagauzia in the title, legally these settlements were just regular parts of Moldova at the time. I would propose something like "1995 Gagauz autonomy referendums" or "1995 southern Moldova referendums". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't read the article before replying, you already did the aftermath section thing, yeah it all looks fine, just that I would rewrite the sentence we're dealing with like this: In November 1998, the local councils of the town of Basarabeasca and the commune of Burlăceni requested referendums to join the Gagauz autonomy, however this was rejected by Central Electoral Commission. (no date for when did the CEC reject it as according to the source two separate decisions were adopted and we don't know if the November one or the December one was the first to reject these requests). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will update the article accordingly and change the title when moving to the main space. Joseph (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hungarian withdrawal from the European Union

A tag has been placed on Hungarian withdrawal from the European Union requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

A7-no importance. Most of the sources are either baseless speculation or in Hungarian.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. D4R1U5 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

new player

Hi, just I would like let you know that a brand new user highly obsessed with Ottoman battles (many Wallachian one) and fast rewrite all of them with the usually boring pattern: "Ottoman army was small and lost always few men and always won" Special:Contributions/Nabukednezar03 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Svetigrad&diff=prev&oldid=1198694566 OrionNimrod (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a user who we've already met in the past. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

How annoying. I don't know how that Târgoviște page keeps attracting the most irritating people ever. This time it should be easier to get rid of them though. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

He added Turkish sources to all his edits. Look at his talk page, he commented with extreme anger. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I am writing a WP:ANI report right now. I will ping you all there. I ask you all for your help, to end this dispute as soon as possible. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, he attacks more battle articles not just the Targoviste one. Perhaps he violated 3 reverts rule as well OrionNimrod (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod He says very harsh words to you. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

My best examples:

I am aware the medieval Ottoman sources: all writes only the victorious battles and keep silent about the lost one. The sultan is the God then enemy like

Hunyadi

is the Devil. For example they write Hungarian army was 200,000 at the

battle of Mohacs

and the victorious Ottoman just 100,000. It is quite unrealistic, considering Hungarian economy, avaliable troops, population etc.. Modern Hungarian historians say it was about 25,000 and not 200,000 as medieval Ottoman sources say to boost the sultan's victory more.

Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456)#"Turks won the field battle"? I see a joke here that the Ottomans won 1456 Belgrade... Ottoman empire had many great victories, I really do not know why for some users need to change even the lost battles to victory... OrionNimrod (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for this, I'm a Turk like them, the reason why this happened is because Turks are a very nationalistic people. And when they see such things on the internet, they are used to getting angry very quickly and intervening immediately. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I find your apology very noble and I thank you for it but no need to apologize, as far as I know everyone in this thread is from the Balkans or its surroundings, I am sure all of us have seen fellow countrymen acting improperly on this site, explosive nationalism is common in this area. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Former populated places in Cheyenne County, Kansas

A tag has been placed on Category:Former populated places in Cheyenne County, Kansas indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zirka (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Zirka (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Your Wisecracks On Israel-Hamar War Templates

Hi

Your input is demanded on the Israel-Hamas War Template:Talk

You removed the following under the guise of calling it "spam," some nerve!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACampaignbox_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=1202351347&oldid=1202108956

You then removed them again, claiming these genocide and collective punishment related articles were "unrelated."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Campaignbox_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&action=history

You did the same on the big template, stating I was cluttering the template with "random" pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&action=history&offset=&limit=500

You then removed them again, stating, "sigh. stop cluttering the template," in a sarcastic manner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AIsrael%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=1210491652&oldid=1210472658

Regards Lau737 (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Finding consensus at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza

Hey, thanks for pitching in at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. More attention on the subject helps the community come to a reasonable decision. But I noticed the input you provided is harsh in tone, which makes it difficult for the community to have a proper discussion and makes the entire subject less approachable. Make sure you're complying with all content policies when interacting with editors you disagree with, especially in contentious topics where infractions lead to sanctions much more quickly. It's understandable that emotions can run high in this area, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to moralize, and care should be taken not to make accusations about fellow editors' motives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, I do not agree. In some cases I've crossed the line and apologized. This was not such a case. All my comments were cool-headed and normal, even my reply to a reply to my original !vote calling it sickeningly apathetic. The worst thing I could see me having said is The overly emotional and victimising Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area strikes again., maybe a bit crudely written but an accurate description of this topic area. Also I have not moralized nor made acussations about other editors' motives. Please refrain from messages like these in the future unless appropriate because I do not appreciate it at all. Super Ψ Dro 22:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I had assumed I had been singled out from a bunch of like three editors but apparently you decided to send this to, like, basically everyone who participated in that discussion. This case [1] stood out to me while looking through your recent contributions because I perfectly remembered that user had only written one comment which is perfectly neutral [2]. This is frankly disruptive. Super Ψ Dro 22:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your initial comment significantly raised the temperature of the discussion, not only including that statement, but others like What a ridiculous claim and I cannot believe it is actually being supported and To do something as inflammatory as referring to something as a "genocide" with appeals to emotion rather than objective arguments about what do reliable sources say is unbelievable. I'm sure this wasn't intentional, but it's something you need to be aware of all the same. Regarding the comment you linked to, its entire premise is based on original research, using their own interpretation of an unresolved court case instead of secondary sources that interpret it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I stand by everything I said on the second comment. It is indeed inflammatory and indeed the OP's original comment was based on appeals to emotion rather than sources. Regarding the first you might be right on my choice of words but I very much disagree, both on a personal level and from the perspective of what do I think the sources say, that Israel has attempted since the start a genocide as if they had all the plans laid out and were only waiting for a chance to apply them. But then that other user's comment was perfectly okay. If you consider them to have based their comment on OR there's not much you can do about it if they haven't breached civility policies. Though really this is a waste of time so let's not continue this. Super Ψ Dro 23:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Gaguzia conflict

I gave some proper citations for involvement of Budzhak battalion in gaguzia conflict (non Russian sources) so I guess there won't be any need to revert, Waleed Ukranian (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Waleed Ukranian, yes thanks, just one source was enough. I will remove the others because they aren't necessary. Super Ψ Dro 23:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay:) Waleed Ukranian (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Great work with Omission of New Zealand from maps. Very bizarre! Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 12:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes that was my motivation for writing the article :) Super Ψ Dro 15:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"Institute for Macedonian language "Krste Misirkov"" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Institute for Macedonian language "Krste Misirkov" has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 30 § Institute for Macedonian language "Krste Misirkov" until a consensus is reached. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Wallachia article

Why did you remove Greek: Βλαχία from the article? Since it was a long time there, at least in the native name section on the right before I added it to the intro description as well. If we can't reach a Consensus, then we should pursue a Dispute resolution.

Assyrian Flag Reverted

@Super DromaeosaurusYou reverted the flag on the Assyrian People page. This is incorrect. The Assyrian Flag colors and correct flag was created by the Assyrian Universal Alliance and this can be corroborated on their website.why was this changed? A younadam (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Pretty sure I did no such thing. Can you send me the link of my edit? Super Ψ Dro 14:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Dahn and his continued attacks on me

Hi, Super Dromaeosaurus. Thank you for closing the discussion at ANI on User:Dahn. Unfortunately, it appears that they have decided to go with a path of full-on sarcasm, snark, and/or condescension with their last few edits on the talk page of the article that spawned their initial attack. I do not feel comfortable engaging with them, for reasons that will be obvious if you read their latest comments, and am hoping that an admin can look at that behavior and facilitate a situation where I can edit that article without fear of seeing the same kind of thing from Dahn again. Thanks. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fred Zepelin, thanks for coming to my talk page. I was going to start here a discussing inviting Dahn too regarding the other pages but the thread has been reopened. Let's not keep commenting here on my talk page and have the central discussion split into two. But Dahn should read your concerns expressed here. This is a largely solved issue. Fred did wrong in content and Dahn in behaviour. The only thing left is to leave the grudges behind (and discussing a single edit at Talk:Luceafărul (poem) from what I see, as the second one was proven to have been a mistake). Super Ψ Dro 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted this close as premature. Grandpallama (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I found your (Super Dromaeosaurus's) input (and your close) by far the most de-escalating edits in that depressing thread. Thanks for trying, and best wishes. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. Best wishes as well. Super Ψ Dro 09:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dovhenke (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dovhenke (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"Mestecănești" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mestecănești has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 2 § Mestecănești until a consensus is reached. Anonimu (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Council of Europe Action Plan for the Republic of Moldova (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Council of Europe Action Plan for the Republic of Moldova (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Quick TL;DR comment from split discussion

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hey Super Dromaeosaurus, I wanted to drop one other TL;DR comment related to that split discussion. To me, every “bold”/edit war merge back seemed pointless. Every time it was re-created, it grew. In fact, from the merge back on 22 May 2024, when it was recreated on 31 May 2024, it was recreated with 5,000 additional bytes. Basically, I believe both editors edit-warred over it (deletion/creation), but procedural errors were done (by both editors). However, given you are an experienced editor with over 50,000 edits and the other person had less than 200, you might seem like you were right, but you really failed to do some basic procedural stuff. I wanted to drop this here rather than on the split discussion, since that discussion should focus on the content and not the editor.

I just more or less wanted you to be aware that I more or less believe you did mess up by doing the recent “bold”/edit war merge. It should have been a true “Merge” discussion (like Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers) or a AFD to merge it. Either way, you know better than the edit war over an article’s creation and you know better than to edit war while saying you don’t want formal processes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

My actions were based on the belief most editors would agree. I am in favor of skipping bureaucratic processes whenever it seems unnecessary to me because the outcome would be obvious. If this belief was mistaken we will see in the discussion.

By the way, most of the content was either unsourced or taken directly from the target article. With such a background section the article was virtually a duplicate of the target. Super Ψ Dro 15:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Hungarian map

Hi Super,

[3] I see you removed the academic modern Hungarian demography map from Hungarian history topics, I do not understand how possible to remove the academic mainstream Hungarian viewpoint from Wikipedia from the Hungarian history topics? Follow this logic you can remove every single mainstream Hungarian historian view, because you dont like it.

I think that is not a secret that the centuries long Ottoman devastation changed the ethnic composition, there are hundreds of academic historian works about this [4][5] follow this logic you can remove these academic sources also because you are not agree, or you can say the Ottomans army did not kill anybody.

If you do not like this or you know a different academic opinon please provide those views also, but you cannot remove a mainstream academic Hungarian view regarding Hungarian history, morover you can see it was emphasized: "Ethnic maps of the Kingdom of Hungary by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences" it was provided that is the view from Hungary.

That map is from the National Atlas of Hungary, that maps developed over 30 years research by the Hungarian Academy of Science and published by Geographical Institute, Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [6]

National Atlas of Hungary https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/en/home.html

[7] Those maps are in every Hungarian atlas: [8]

I took this photo in a book shop, that book is everywhere: [9] OrionNimrod (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello OrionNimrod, I seriously doubt a village-by-village ethnic map can be done about the year 1495. I generally like to stay away from topics that tend to make Hungarians and Romanians clash and there's anyway some stability and compromises between users from both sides so nothing is too bad. These maps however seem to follow the uncompromising Hungarian POV that Romanians (Rusyns too) are immigrants. I don't think it is very relevant that it is by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences because I've seen bias from works related to the Romanian Academy (not specifically about Transylvania though). Because this is not my topic of interest and I am not well-informed nor know what sources should I look into I ask you two things: what is the methodology used for this map and what do international (non-Hungarian and non-Romanian) authors say about it? Is it accepted among them? Super Ψ Dro 17:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super,

That map does not say who is immigrant or not, just show the demographic research regarding Hungary by many Hungarian scholars. (You know the demographic could change by various circumstances even in short period, just check Vienna, London, or even Oradea#Demographics how changed the composition even just in previous short decades. Some places could have higher birthrate, some places could have war devastations...) That maps are in relevant articles "demographic research, Ottoman devastation impacts, demographic of Hungary..." That is not a clash, but this is the standard Hungarian historiography, based on many kind of researches and old sources, while "the always majority Romanians" viewpoint is using only by nationalist Romanians and rather a romantic speculation which not based by contemporary sources. I quote now a modern British historian about this: page 90 [10] "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania."

Follow this logic you can remove the full Hungarian historiography from Wikipedia because it does not match with the Romanian historiography, that map is part of all atlas like this: https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/storage/pdf/OH-TOR912ATL__teljes.pdf and those Hungarian history maps are same as international maps, not like the older fake Romanian history maps where between 800-1400 between Tisza-Dneister we can see a big Romania country: [11] [12] In Hungary related articles already provided the Hungarian and Romanian viewpoints, an academic map is just one source among the sources. You should know that 100% full Hungarian historiography does not accept the Daco-Roman theory (this is just a theory not a fact), so I do not understand how can be compromise if this is the mainstream Hungarian view, you can just provide the other academic views. However outside Romania (and even I know many Romanian scholars who do not accept Daco-Roman theory) the Daco-Roman theory is not really accepted, full Polish, German, Austrian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Croatian historiography dont accept it. Fast examples: Romanian historian Florin Curta, in a 2020 study, complains that the Daco-Roman theory is not accepted in Polish histography [13] and another Polish regarding Hungarian chronicles [14] "they appeared in Transylvania very late, probably in the 12th century, when the Hungarians just created their own Central-European state" German example:[15] At the conference held in Freiburg in 2001, eight German, two Hungarian and one Romanian historians and linguists debated the issue of Daco-Romanian continuity and took a 10:1 position against it.

I think Hungarian articles should show the academic Hungarian view regarding Hungarian history and not censoring the academic Hungarian historiograpgy in the Hungarian articles. I have not a problem if you present another academic view beside the Hungarian academic view. You cannot expect that foreign authors have deep knowledged (expect some experts) or will deal very detailed with Romanian and Hungarian history as local scholars who do that full time. And I emphasize again the caption of the map in the article is "this is the view from Hungarian Academy" so it is provided who is the source of that view.

Btw I contacted with the academy, they said that map is 30 years of research, many scholars involved and even they favored to Romanians, because the colored areas as Romanian where sources about Romanian presence was reported even for just a short period, even it was not a permanent. Also Hungary had ten thousands of medieval documents, 1495 is not the dark ages, even we have name list of all the citizens of Kolozsvar (Cluj) from 1450 which made by tax purpose, the population was about 6000 and 50-50% Hungarians and Saxons and 2 Romanians in the list. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I found this, Babeș–Bolyai University among many institutions were also participants (page 3) to made that atlas (1495 map is part of that atlas): https://atlas.icaci.org/wp-content/uploads/2021_icc_gercsak_national_atlas_of_hungary_ppt.pdf That National Atlas of Hungary is a really academic source, introduced in Italy in an international cartography conference.

The English version of that atlas won the most prestigious professional prize in the biennial International Cartographic Conference (ICC) was held in Tokyo between 15 and 20 July 2019 by the International Cartographic Association (ICA). I think this tell a lot what was the international feedback regarding this Hungarian atlas.

https://mta.hu/english/english-edition-of-the-national-atlas-of-hungary-voted-world-number-one-109950

In Florence it was also the best atlas: https://www.demografia.hu/en/teszthirek/231-the-national-atlas-of-hungary-received-prestigious-recognition OrionNimrod (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of what you said is either about the theories or about the book, though it's good to know the book has been awarded. Such a method for Cluj does seem good, I imagine it's based on people's names, is this how it is done for small villages too? Is that information really available? All for or around 1495? Super Ψ Dro 20:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to know, that old document regarding Cluj is the "Regestrum Hungarorum de Ciuitate Cluswar". Of course I do not know all methods, but they said they used many methods and 30 years research to make those maps, the director shared me that info.

I think there is no map regarding 1300s situation, but there is list Transylvanian settlements and the origin of their names [16] until 1300: 511 settlements in Transylvania (84% Hungarian name, 0.6% Romanian name (others Slavic or German)) new settlements 1300-1350: 820 (78% Hungarian, 4.4% Romanian name) new settlements 1350-1400: 426 (67% Hungarian, 8.7% Romanian name), these indicate the grow of Romanian population. In list of Papal Tithes from 1332–1337 there is only one settlement mentioned in the source as Romanian: Căprioara (Nationalcommunist Pascu estimated 2/3 Romanians in Transylvania based on that 1332 list, Hungarian historian Györffy, Kristó... also criticized Pascu’s estimation, they said that with such a method, it could be determined that 60% of Poland’s villages were inhabited by Orthodox population, because Pascu populated every settlements with Romanians which had no Catholic churches, however the absence of Catholic church was also true 60-70% of the villages in many western Hungarian counties)

Before 1300, in districts of Eastern Hungary, the contemporary sources mention around a 1000 Hungarian and Saxon villages, but only 6 clearly Romanian villages, but 5 of these (Enyed, Fenes, Fülesd, Illye, Szád) had Hungarian derived names, the name of Oláhtelek reveals that it was established in a Hungarian environment.[17] Oláhtelek (meaning Vlach-site in Hungarian) in Bihar county from 1238

That is why the Hungarian historiography dont accept the Daco-Roman theory, for the simply reason, because we have no sources (remember the British historian above) which would prove this but just speculations. Why do non-Romanian historians would accept a nationalistic Romanian theory which based on only by speculations like "always majority Romanians"? Hidden majority 1000 years long? Surviving (clothes, settlements) and feeding a majority population? We have many sources and archeology about many others in the region, but nothing about this allegedly always majority population, that is really strange.

Btw I can see the Rusyns in the 1495 map in the same place, just I can see more Rusyns in 1784, so it is no immigration, but local births, which is logically, that region was not affected too much by wars and everywhere in Europe was a high population grow since 1500 to 1800. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There are also many academic maps which show the devastated areas during the Ottoman wars (+immigrations, Swabians, etc), some examples:

http://mek.niif.hu/07100/07139/html/pic/05-001.jpg

https://m.blog.hu/di/digitori/image/01a_1.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

this is not Oxford level scholarship and @Super Dromaeosaurus is right to question the accuracy and ultimately the usefulness of such maps. Just because they have a nicer aspect than older maps that we both agreed should be deleted, similar to this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Regiuni_Rom%C3%A2ne%C5%9Fti.png

does not mean they should be in the article. Aristeus01 (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of what you say is not true. It is not like all scholarship outside of Romania rejects the Daco-Roman continuity theory. In fact I believe it is more predominant, specially in popular culture, when foreign media talk about us and our origins they almost never mention the immigration theory. From memory right now I can tell Dennis Deletant and Keith Hitchins as non-Romanian authors supporting the theory. I am also aware of archeological proof that can at the very least be supported for the Daco-Roman continuity, such as Roman coins and Christian sites in Transylvania in the 6th century or so. There is also the nice detail that there are no sources attesting the migration of a group twice as large as the Magyars who did get much attestation, which is curious considering it would've happened either in the Byzantine Empire or close to it which was a hub of historiography.

If I was better informed I'd better argue my point against these maps. Even if I know editors here act in good faith this is a very blatant one-sided POV and I don't know why should Romanian editors be refrained from acting with such similar little care for NPOV following this case. Super Ψ Dro 09:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super,

Still that is the mainstream academic Hungarian historiography, that map is in the international award winning modern National Atlas developed decades by lot of scholars and academic institutions (which tell a lot about the international reputation and quality), you cannot cenzor the Hungarian historiography regarding Hungarian history articles just because you dont like the Hungarian academic view.

Disputed by who? Do you have a different academic demography map regarding medieval Hungary? If yes you can post it. It also clearly written: “this is Hungarian academy view” = Hungarian point of view. Why it is so surprising that that is the Hungarian view if this is emphasized in the caption? It is well known the Hungarian view is different than the Romanian view. And the Daco-Roman theory and Romanian historian views also well presented in articles, should we also remove them or mark as disputed every single sentences because other view is different? You can see both views are presented in articles. I have never had problem to present both mainstream academic views in articles.

I dont know any academic sources from anywhere which dispute that the population of Hungary did not change over the centuries long devastative wars, three ways Hungarian-Habsburg-Ottoman, and the Ottoman controlled areas, battle, raid areas were more affected. Also nobody deny that Germans settlers was settled after the Ottoman wars. Do you know academic sources which deny these things? Then post them to the articles.

Btw nobody talk about medieval mass migration of Romanians, but many complicated events, that was a centuries long process and local population growth, why the number of them increased, it was also many migration waves in 1600s. (Of course it was emigrations also) Also nobody talk about “empty land”, I never ever heard this nonsense in Hungary, just many Daco-Roman theory followers put this in the mouth of Hungarians. Even my personal DNA shows vast amount and very close local Carpathian Basin archeogenetic sample matches from all ages from all previous folks because the newcomers always mixed with locals. And we have many archeology of previous cultures, even just 100,000 Avar graves just in today Hungary area.

All of those Daco-Roman theory “evidences” have counterarguments by scholars with different view, like archeologists found ten thousands Roman coins in Sweden which is far and was never part of the Roman Empire [18] [19], even in 1500 years old Chinese tomb [20] . I think you think to the Biertan Donarium, even Romanian scholars say that is Gothic looting item and no Christian things around the site [21] [22]: Romanian Madgearu wrote that item made in Italy: page 346 [23]. Regarding Christianity, why Germans and Byzantines baptized the Hungarians and not the allegedly “always majority local Christian Romanians”? Transylvanian Gyula (and Bulcsu) was baptized around 950 in Constantinope and building church in Alba Iulia. Later why the Pope asked the Hungarian king to baptize the Cumans and not the “always majority local Christian Romanians”? Cumania was the same land which became Wallachia.

What do you mean “popular culture”? That many Romanian users post all the time Daco-Roman things in internet? I supposed Wikipedia is based on academic sources.

I can quote a Romanian historian regarding the subject: Andrei Gandila, [24] page 101-103"The nationalistic discourse dominating the last communist decades in Eastern Europe distorted not only the interpretation of the archaeological evidence discussed in the previous chapter, but also views on the development of Christianity. Most studies shared a common agenda: to demonstrate the cultural continuity of the Daco-Roman population across centuries of vicissitude when the descendants of the Roman colonists had to deal with numerous barbarian invasions, while struggling to maintain their connection to the Roman world and assimilate the newcomers into their superior culture." ......"The end result of the entwined processes of Romanization and Christianization was the Romanian ethnogenesis, the formation of a Christian and Neo-Latin-speaking nation which managed to preserve its Roman identity against all odds. Despite some criticism, such theories developed in the 1970s and 1980s in the context of national-communism remain firmly entrenched in historiography to this day."

You can find scholars who support Daco-Roman theory, however I know lot of foreign scholars even Romanian scholars who not. You can see the articles, already many scholars opinions are provided.

Dennis Deletant is a Romanian-British, he has harsh ciritic about that nationalcommunist understanding regarding Gesta Hungarorum. [25] "More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant-General Dr Ilie Ceausescu, brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Gelou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who "succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities" population on the border, mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory. Such abberations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Gelou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of the mythos."

Deletant also present both viewpoints: "explanation of the Romanian presence in Transylvania is known as the theory of Daco-Roman continuity. The use of the word theory can be justified in the absence of convincing archaeological and historical evidence to support the case and it is precisely because of this that it is open to question. Hungarian historians discount the continuity theory"

[26] Here you posted a photoshopped map which based on the old nationalcommunist 1980 map [27], it is the modern academy view in Romania? It is obviously a fake map as we can see the border of Kingdom of Hungary at the Tisza river, in all international and Hungarian history maps, the medieval borders of Hungary was never the Tisza river. International the historical maps of Europe: [12][11] I do not see that border of Hungary would be at the Tisza river between between 900-1400. Why do you post a map where the borders of Hungary is clearly not true?

The Gesta Hungarorum is debated by historians, making a history map from this is cleary a not accurate. Menmarot is cleary written as Bulgarian in Gesta, so hard to understand how he became a "Romanian king" as many Daco-Romanian followers say. There are many modern academic views regarding Gesta Hungarorum, but making a state of Menmarot is rather a romantic fantasy than the reality as I quoted the Romanian-British Deletant in the subject.

I dont think that map which you posted with fake Hungarian Tisza borders and romantic Menmarot state is part of any modern atlas which got international award and recognization like that atlas where is that 1495 demographic Hungarian map.

International Cartographic Conference website, that Hungarian National Atlas won the 1st award: https://icaci.org/icc2019/ OrionNimrod (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Norden1990, I've rewritten the captions in two of the four articles. In one it was pretty neutral. Here [28] it becomes more difficult. I am opposed to leaving the maps without textual attribution. In any case they are quite awkwardly placed within a table and they are also small and hard to see there. Maybe we could make a gallery section? Super Ψ Dro 20:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation, I think this is a satisfactory solution for everyone. I don't think the maps are needed in the table, their inclusion there is negligible. Their inclusion into a gallery would be a good idea. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Artsakh–Transnistria relations

A tag has been placed on Category:Artsakh–Transnistria relations indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)