Talk:Vlachs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fake Redirects

I can not understand, why all the "Vlach", "Wallach", and "Oláh", but also "Blaks" redirect here? It seems as if somebody wants to erase these pages from Wikipedia, and overestimate the importance of the so called Vlachs. Blak people, for example, should not be confused with Vlachs under any circumstances. There are several theories and scientific research as regards their origin (The blacus people of Anonymus could not be just and without any further research identical with the vlachЪ, but it could also be the derivate of the Turkish word bal 'to cut, beat', and blachus could evenly be Danubian or Volga Bulgarian [Pais 1935; Rásonyi 1979, 1981; Bodor 1988; Moravcsik 1984; Györffy 1987, 1996; Makkay 1997; Gáll 2006]; in the Byzantine sources Βλάχων; Βλάχοι are people south of the Danube [Moravcsik 1984]; or they also may originate from present day Northern Italy, the so called Welschland, of Celtic vlachЪ (voloh) ethnicity [Boba, Vajda 2007], so the volohs of Anonymus and the old Russians annals are identical [Gyóni 1989], supported also by archaeological evidence [Nägler 1969, Nägler-Rill 1981; Horedt 1949; Pinter 1998, Kovács 1971]). For this reason, the redirection of the page Blaks should be ceased, and the original page of Blaks should be restored. Blending Blaks together with Vlachs is not in concordance of the modern historiography, which makes this page of very poor level.Szegedi László (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The page per definition does not say the term would be valid only to the ancestors of the Romanians. Already there is a page (Bulaqs) which cares about this question. In the medieval usage section where appropriate it could be referred.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Map of medieval Vlach families in Herzegovina.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Explanation

The first information: "During the early history of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, there was a social class of Vlachs in Serbia and Ottoman Macedonia, made up of Christians who served as auxiliary forces and had the same rights as Muslims." In the source information "there was a social class of Vlachs" and "made up of Christian" does not exist. The source speaks about the Military class. From source: "In addition to these Muslim auxiliary forces there were some zimmi who performed regular military duties and had the same rights as the musellems. They were known under various names Uskok, Valachs, and Martolos among others and were counted as members of the military class because of their occupation. Their origin is not quite clear. They might have been the descendants of Christians.. and so are the Vlachs, people living in Serbia and Macedonia,"(page 39). The second information: "In Croatia, the term became derogatory, and Vlasi was used for the ethnic Serb community who, despite being Slavic, were given the term due to the Orthodox faith which they shared with the Vlachs." The source is publicly available. [1] [2] The source does not mention Croatia but Croats, and source does not mention this: "despite being Slavic, were given the term due to the Orthodox faith which they shared with the Vlachs" the source mentions that term Vlachs(Vlasi) "can be used in the whole Balkan area in derogatory way because nomads are traditionally considered "dirty" and "aggressive". I edit article according to the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Still we should keep all improvements and coherence with the mother article as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC))

You put information about Croatia and calling Serbs in derogatory way and in the source is mentioned that this "derogatory way" can be used in the whole Balkan area. Croatia is not the only country in the Balkans. Therefore all relevant information from the source must be presented in the article, WP:NPOV, (All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.) Everything is explained and everything is clean, we must not enter informations which not exist in the sources, we must respect the sources.Mikola22 (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If you listened carefully, I did not remove any of your improvements but merged with the previous extended info.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

"originally due to the Orthodox faith which they shared with the Vlachs", this quote has been removed because it does not exist in the source, see p. 203-204. Vlachs are also Catholics in Croatia so this term (derogatory way) refers to Vlachs regardless of their religious affiliation and in this source this term has nothing to do with Orthodoxy nor is it specifically stated, in this source this term has to do with perception of the Vlachs which are "nomads are traditionally considered "dirty" and "aggressive"". We must respect RS and not to add some personal conclusions. Mikola22 (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Then also find a source about it and add there so the reader will have clue of deeper historic background of the term.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

You want me to find source and information about Croats ie claim "originally due to the Orthodox faith which they shared with the Vlachs"? Derogatory term according to the source is used throughout the Balkans, why would we put this information from some other source( if it exists) which only concerns Croatia and Serbs ie Vlachs in Croatia? Whether in the article must write only about how Vlachs or Serbs are derogatory called in Croatia? Mikola22 (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

KIENGIR is obviously making good points and his/her latest edit is an imrpovement. Stop bludgeoning every discussion. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There's no bludgeoning here, I nicely explained. This information does not exist in RS, the proof is on the page p. 203-204, everything outside the source is OR and personal opinion which is not allowed in the article. We must respect RS. Mikola22 (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not, that is a cold fact which provides nice context. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Cold fact which does not exist in the source, therefore everything I say is correct. Mikola22 (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not say you should limit the information, hence I asked you to use other sources, since generally outside this specific source nothing is OR or personal opinion if another source found about it. However, I see you went forward, I am satisfied.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC))

@OyMosby:, restoring a page to an earlier content is never pov-pushing in a current frame.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

Firstly not true it can be when being reinstated again and again without RS. It came across that way as despite another editor explaining the removed content was not in the source cited it was being returned regardless. I understand that you simply felt you were doing the right thing but please check the cited source next time. OyMosby (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

True if current frame holds.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

old, discarded theory

" According to one origin theory, modern Romanians, Moldovans and Aromanians originated from Dacians.[6] " - that's old as the hills - no historian believes that anymore and it should be marked as out-dated today.50.111.1.232 (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Super Ψ Dro 10:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Source

Trbovich (2008) writes that: While all Orthodox settlers were indeed called Vlachs by the Habsburg authorities, and some truly were Vlachs and different from the Serbs, the majority were Serbian and even the Vlachs assimilated into Serbs by the nineteenth century. That may be useful in other articles, but I don't see how it fits in this one when used to support the half sentence While the Hapsburgs called all Orthodox settlers Vlachs.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor Sadko does not understand that source speak in the context of Croatia and the Vlachs which coming to Croatia. Not all Orthodox are called Vlachs and this is fringe information(100%) (Orthodox Rascinas etc also coming to that area). For the wider Austro-Hungarian area it is fringe information but may not be fringe for Croatian area, but that context must be in information, even though the Orthodox Rascinas came here as well, so in this case as well is fringe information. In any case it is not information for this article. Mikola22 (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RS's are sources for the article. That's what Wiki is based on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.31.99 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bolohoveni land from A.V. Boldur description.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No move. No agreement that the proposed name is to be preferred. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Vlachs → Vlach – "Vlach" is nothing but a term, not a distinct people. This article is WP:WORDISSUBJECT, and it should be titled as other similar articles, such as Shqiptar, Afghan (ethnonym), Mestiço, Șchei, etc.. Super Ψ Dro 14:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 14:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Unconvinced The article talks about peoples. If they are distinct, then perhaps some splitting or merging into other articles is needed. Of it’s a matter of historically changing identity, then maybe some rewriting is in order. —Michael Z. 02:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The term Vlach has several meanings. There is another a page on Vlachs (social class), it is also a synonym for Wallachians, as well as a general term referring to East Slavs in parts of Central Europe. If you want to move, rename, merge the article(s) I think you need to make a case based on how the term is used academically. Admittedly, this is all a matter of semantics… KaerbaqianRen^💬 19:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)~
• Oppose per article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment this really boils down to whether this article is about an WP:ETHNICGROUP or a historic term, it's kinda both at the moment—blindlynx 17:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Ethnic groups has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 14:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Romania has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 14:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose based on the above comments. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The term is widely used as exonym for certain population groups in various Balkan countries as seen from references. I don't see any reason to rename it. Othon I (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The opinion of Historians

We can talk here. CriticKende (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I have no problem with the content that you added, provided that:

- You mention the page numbers from the references you pushed, which are mandatory.

- You don't remove previously sourced content.

- You don't insert your personal opinion.

Just follow this basic WP rules and everything will be fine. Krisitor (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not delete anything. Every other link on the page does not have a page number because it is not required, check the wikipedia rules, you make it up, the author and title are required. I don't write my own opinion because I add sources (multiple, from reputable historians, in many cases unbiased foreign sources). You are the one who deletes half a page that I have provided sources for. CriticKende (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Page numbers are mandatory for books, so that the information can be easily verified. Furthermore, you have removed sourced content such as a reference to Winnifrith's book which is a major work about the Vlachs, and this is not the only content you have removed. Finally, you also inserted your personal opinion by adding "According to a theory of origins that is not widely accepted and has been repeatedly disproved" before Fine's statement. You need to correct all this to make your changes acceptable. I'm being patient there, but if you don't understand such basic rules, I'll have to report you. Krisitor (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

John and Farcaș

Hi @OrionNimrod

Did you know that when you tag something with "... - discuss" you actually have to discuss?

I'm aware there's no explicit reference to the two's ethnicity, but Romanian historiography unanimously claims them as Vlach/Romanian. Is there a different opinion in Hungary? Aristeus01 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the name "Farkas" is used in the text, and no other, which was a common Hungarian name at the time. And in the text, the person's name is spelled in the Hungarian way. The word Farkas means Wolf in Hungarian.

I think he was Hungarian because he had a Hungarian name, and it was spelled in the Hungarian way. The other persons, however, are Vlachs.

It is also the position of Hungarian historiography that he is Hungarian but the others Vlachs. CriticKende (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Venetian Chronicle

Can anyone provide another source for this statement or indicate where in Venetian Chronicles it is said? Aristeus01 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Krisitor, yes, even a Romanian historian gives it as an example, he considers the word "black" interesting because of Negru Vodă.

Originea Gherga – 192. Românii din Balcani I, 42.page CriticKende (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That gentleman is not a reliable source as per WP:REPUTABLE, and the site you gave in support is a textbook example of WP:FRINGE. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Two historians mention this independently, and my source is a reliable historian with several books on the history of the area. CriticKende (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Originea Gherga is not a historian, @CriticKende. His work is fringe. As for Madgearu ”În zona dintre Timoc și Morava...prima lor atestare datează din 1189, când au intrat în contact cu participanții la Cruciada a III-a, care străbăteau drumul de la Branicevo la Criș”. Can you tell me what it says at page 57-58 in your version? Aristeus01 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

He first quotes from him, then adds his own opinion, that the Venetian Chronicle mentions the area as a colony of the Vlachs. My source is a historian, and reliable. Yours is not (although I think the only problem is that it does not support the DR theory)

So I don't think he can be considered unreliable just because you disagree with him. It's like saying that e.g. Iorga is FRINGE because I disagree with him on certain things. That's not how it works. CriticKende (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This is simple question: Can you or can you not cite what it says at pages 57 and 58 in that book? Aristeus01 (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Already, I wrote it down. But I think that this change has solved the text, it seems to me to be correct. CriticKende (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Fringe?

"In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field."

I would like to point out to you that more historians supports this theory than to the theory of the Dacian-Roman continuity, just read the discussions above. A theory supported by every historian in a country, (Hungary) as well as professors of linguistics, and archaeology from the best universities in Europe and America, is not  FRINGE? CriticKende (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Spare me the propaganda, @CriticKende. My criticism is to this Gherga weirdo and the POV in the quoted text, not the entire country of Hungary. Your opinion and the opinion of Sándor Timaru-Kast are not facts, therefore they cannot be quoted as such on wikipedia. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Fringe map

Hi Aristeus01! You posted a fringe map where the area of full Kingdom of Hungary + Croatia + Serbia from 9th-14th century (800-1300) are full of "Romanian settlements" (as you desrcibed), could you explain that? (interestingly nothing in the Wallachian in the old Romanian area, and according to the map Romanian settlements were only in the exact territory of the Kingom of Hungary) (Btw most settlement names on the map are pure Hungarian words...I did not know that the Hungarian language also came from Romanian...) It seems the full Kingdom of Hungary + Croatia + Serbia was Romanian in medieval times according to that map...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1152091631

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1152091631#/media/File:Romanian_settlements,_9th-14th_Century.jpg

Are you the follower of the style of the national-communist Romania (which celebrated the birthday of the 2050 years of Romania in 1980) which spirit produced this kind of fake historical maps: Romania 8-13th century:[10][9][11] Which maps are cleary history falsifications, because if we see international Europe maps, we will not find this "mystic Romania or Dacia" country in the map of Europe..[1][11][12][13]. Are you intend to spread fake maps fringe theories in the English wikipedia? OrionNimrod (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod

"Romonya", "Csulla","Karacsony", "Keczel" are pure Hungarian although they have perfect meaning in Romanian? Who is spreading fringe theories now?

Only one of us is a follower of outdated nationalist views, and it's not me. Turanism and whatever pseudo-scientific theories meant to embellish Hungarian history were in use in the past decades in "mainstream" historiography need to be exposed as such.

Here's more for you to dwell on: this map, recoloured version of the red map, by your "neutral" Scientific Academy (yeah, sure!) is purposedly ignoring population density gradients and leaving wide blank spaces were it's convenient. So much for academic work. before you accuse others perhaps look in your garden. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01! I see instead of talking and explaining the map you start personal harrasments and off topic contents. "Only one of us is a follower of outdated nationalist views, and it's not me." :D Actually you put a 100 years old map where the full Hungarian kingdom+Croatia+Serbia is claimed by you that full of them with "Romanian settlements" even from 800 AD!

Karacsony means Christmas in Hungarian, and I see nothing in the Romanian dictionary...

Please tell me more about that Romonya in West Hungary when was a Romanian settlement? https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romonya

I do not think that I would be turanist or any pesudo-sience if I recognize that you put fake map (not me) and you claim there that full of Hungarian kingdom+Croatia+Serbia was full of Romanian settlements from 800!, what is the historical source of Romanian settlements or Romanian people there, even near to German lands, near to Czech and Polish land? And how interesting that map target almost only the Kingdom of Hungary and no more "Romanian settlements" in Austria, Poland, or nothing in old Romania: in Wallachia and Moldavia.

Ok, I have "outdated Hungarian nationalistic view" that I cannot accept your 100 year old map which claim full Hungarian kingdom together with Croatia was in the reality Romanian. :D What next? King Saint Stephen of Hungary was Romanian king? I know many Romanians say also this.

Let me quote a British historian, Martyn Rady: "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."

Sorry but this is not my problem that you do not like the work of the Hungarian Academy of Science regarding the population of medieval Hungary, this is not my problem that it hurts you that the Hungarian academy dares to show Hungarian population in Hungary... I remember, when you removed modern academic Hungarian source, morover, you basically stated that the full Hungarian national library, all Hungarian sources and authors are unreliable and basically you suggested that only nationalist Romanian sources allowed for Hungarian history. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

It is a problem because we are bound by the rules of Wikipedia which is ”biased” towards academic sources. So if your Hungarian academic sources are good enough then so are my Romanian sources, either we like it or not.

Also, are suggesting Romonya is a coincidence? Do you have an etymology for the toponym? Here one for Crăciun. Here is the article for karacsony. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01, sorry but there are many origin theory of the Hungarian "karácsony" word, but none of them say it came from Romanian (even in the linked Hungarian wiki article). Please tell the Hungarian linguists that you want to supervise them too. Perhaps the Romulans came also from the Romanians (who were called Vlach by everybody before 20th century). You wrote to the fringe map "Romanian settlements" from 800. I think Wikipedia is not your place if you like to present fringe theories and do not like academic sources, for example Wikipedia is not the place to present the flat earth worship. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

I wouldn't be surprised if the current Hungarian academicians would postulate a Romulan etymologies for those toponyms, anything but the Vlachs!

As a serious editor do you agree that Hungarian language took the word from Latin and changed exactly like Romanian does? or from where since "in no surrounding Slavic language is the word 'krachun' used to designate Christmas."

What about the others? Any explanations? Aristeus01 (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01, "current Hungarian academicians" + all previous one

Sorry that all Hungarians are so nasty and they do not want to admit all of your theory and that all Hungarian things are actually Romanian things. Actually there are a list of Hungarian words with Romanian origin but "karácsony" is not among them. Please consult to Hungarian linguists about that word, or check the Hungarian etimology of that word. I bet you have no Hungarian language knowledge, but you can tell them that you know better the Hungarian language than native speaker linguists.

All languages adapted words from Latin (For example English has many (probably all of them came from Romanian too :))), Hungarian also, which does not mean Hungarian needed Romanian language to adapt Latin, because Latin was the internatinal language in medieval Europe, Hungary used Latin scripts from 1000 AD, even Latin was the official in Hungary until 1844 and in Poland also. And Hungary has Latin Church liturgy, while Romanian has Orthodox Slavic and used Cyrillic.

This is total off topic, you wrote in the map "Romanian settlements" from 800 and exclusively almost only and everwhere in Hungarian Kingdom, this was the topic. In your map there are more "Romanian settlements" even in west and north hungary than Transylvania. For example, in west Hungary hundred of settlements marked as "Romanian settlement" by you, I am really curious what is the historical evidence that those settlements were "Romanian settlements", I think if you stated you should have explanation and evidence. If you are unable to provide evidence it means you think Wiki is the place to spread fringe personal POVs which falsify the Hungarian history. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

I am sorry too that there is so much POV in the Hungarian quoted sources. However, this is easily remedied by editing the article with other sources to achieve a neutral point of view. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01, I see you like lingustic, and you say: it is "outdated pseudo science" not to accept that 100 years old map:[3] You also blamed and named all Hungarian historians as armchair historians do not accept that map. You added this caption: "Romanian settlements 800-1400" however the original title say "Romanians by toponyms" so you created instantly "settlements" which is a falsification. So lets we talk in details about this map where you imagine hundred of Romanian settlements in the full Kingdom of Hungary between 800-1400.

You said all of them are "Romanian toponyms", because you are interested in lingustic I hope you can talk about these examples one by one, lets see some from the map: (I also see many Slavic toponyms)

1.

"Békés": This is a standard Hungarian everyday word, it means "peacful" and "béke" means "peace" in Hungarian (and lot of Hungarian word with this with connected meaning).

Could you explain me "békés" how can be Romanian toponym?

2.

"Csaba", this is a very common Hungarian male name, coming from Hungarian mythologie: Prince Csaba, son of Attila the Hun in medieval Hungarian sources.

Could you explain me "Csaba" how can be Romanian toponym?

3.

"Fekete-erdő"

"Fekete" this is base Hungarian word means "black".

"Erdő" (Ardő in the map) is a base Hungarian words means "forest"

Erdély, the Hungarian name of Transylvania came also from the "erdő" word, and the Latin name means the same as the Hungarian "land beyond forest"

Also "er" is a very base Hungarian wordroot (usually Hungarian words like a tree and branches, the base words has similar meanings with the subwords)

"fekete erdő" = "black forest"

Could you explain me "fekete" and "erdő" how can be Romanian toponyms?

4.

"Gyula", it a very common male name among Hungarians and it was Hungarian conqueror chieftain (+his son) and Hungarian military leader title. Also in the Kingdom of Hungary many settlements used "gyula" name.

And "Gyula-fa" in the forested Transylvania, "fa" means "tree/wood" in Hungarian

Could you explain me "gyula" and "fa" how can be Romanian toponym?

5.

"Alba Iulia" "Balgrad" the Hungarian name is "Gyula-fehér-vár" = "white city of Gyula", this was the capital of Gyula. The Romanian "Iulia" came from "Gyula", Romanian "alba" means "white" like Latin "alba" means white. Slavic "Balgrad" also means "white city, like Belgrade, capital of Serbia means "white city", the Hungarian name of Belgrade also "white city". Because medieval documents in Hungary was written in Latin, it is not surprising that many Hungarian names were translated to Latin, like Székesfehérvár "royal white castle" in Hungarian, also "Alba Regia" in Latin documents, which means the same, however I do not see this city on the map just "Alba Iulia".

You referred several times "Aqua Striga" name from 1231 near today's Austria, this is a brook name, so again not surprising that a brook named "aqua" in a Latin document, which is a very standard Latin word means "water". But you imagined instantly "Romanian settlement" there naming a small river as "aqua" (water) in a document written in Latin. In medieval Europe Latin was the church and official languages almost everywhere, Latin names in Hungary came direct from Latin not from Romanian.

6.

"Korond" is a famous place when people are making ceramics (rotate, using disk to form), there are about 100 Hungarian words in the K-R root with the "circle" meaning, Hungarian "kör" means "circle" and Hungarian "korong" means "disk", (like many languages use the K-R root for "circle", including English with sound shift, German "Kreis", Croatian "krug", Latin "circulus", French "cercle", Slovak "kruh", Swedish "cirkel", etc) which means the K-R root for "circle" is a very ancient word which used in many languages including Romanian "cerc".

There are about 100 Hungarian words, all mean something "circle", examples: "kör" (circle), "korong" (disk), "korsó" (jug), "körül" (around), "körölvesz" (surround), "körzet" (district), "korona" (crown), "kerek" (round), "kerék" (wheel), "kering" (to orbit), "kert" (garden), "keret" (frame), "körforgás" (circulation), "körülmény" (circumstances), "körző" (compasses), "karika" (ring), "karol" (to embrace)...

"Cris" "Körős" river, Hungarian, German and Romanian name similar, again K-R

This river is famous that is has many circles, the Hungarian "kör" is "circle", "köröz" is "circling" in Hungarian, while in Romanian "miscare de rotatie" the "circling"

Could you explain me "korond" and "körös" how can be Romanian toponyms? Above examples show K-R is a very ancient word like almost all langauges has this with the same "circle" meaning including Latin.

7.

"Thurzo-völgy", this name came from the Thurzó family, and "völgy" means "valley in Hungarian.

Could you explain me "thurzo" and "völgy" how can be Romanian toponyms?

8.

"Karácsony" means "christmas" in Hungarian, and "craciun" in Romanian. Hungarian linguists have many theories, but the Romanian origin is not among them, as you wish to supervise the native Hungarian linguists regarding their own language. For example the Latin origin say it could came from the "incarnatio, carnatio" word, because Christmas is the feast of the appearance of God in the human body. While the Romanian word came from "creatio" which is different meaning. Anyway if the origin is Latin, Hungary was a christian country and Latin was used in medieval Europe, it did not need any Romanian support to adapt Latin words, like German and English vocabulary has huge amoung word with Latin origin whitout any Romanian support. There are other theories which say it came from "kerecsen", which is a Hungarian falcon kind, relating to the falcon flight, old Hungarian custom held at the same time as Christmas, the people of the steppe believed that the Turul sits on top of the tree of life or the tree of the world, and from there it brings the souls of newborns to the earth. Or in Turkish: "kara tüm" meand "black all" and "qara tün" means "black night" in Kazah, this meaning refers to the Winter Solstice (longest night), which is happening every year on 21st of December in Eurasia, and in old sources Hungarians also were called as Turks. There are also Slavic theory as well, came from "korcun". Sorry but I do not see any Romanian theory in Hungarian sources.

9.

"Hajdu" was a Hungarian infantry in 16-19th century (out of your map timeline 800-1400), they were originally cattle drovers, and Hungarian "hajtó" means "drive (the cattle)".

Could you explain me "hajduk" how can be old Romanian toponym when they existed only from 16th century?

10.

"Aranyos" very common everday Hungarian word means "cute", and also "arany" means "gold"

Could you explain me "aranyos" how can be Romanian toponym?

11.

"Sziget" (sighet) in the map, again standard Hungarian word means "island" also the city is almost on an island because rivers sourround it, the Romanians just used the Hungarian name "sziget" and converted it to "sighet" whitout any meaning.

Could you explain me "sziget" how can be Romanian toponym?

12.

"Szőllős-ardó", again standard Hungarian word means "grapevine field" and "szőlő" means "grape", also that region is famous for vinery, famous Tokaj wine originates from the near Szőllősardó, the first mention was from 1270 as "hordo" which means "barrel" in Hungarian, and usually the wine was stored at barrels.

Could you explain me "szőllős" and "ardó" how can be Romanian toponyms?

13.

"Oradea" "Timisoara" "Hunedoara" are the Romanian name of Hungarian cities.

Várad-Oradea

Temesvár-Timisoara

Hunyadvár-Hunadeoara

Segesvár-Sighisoara

Hungarian "vár" means "castle", "város" means "city", even the Romanian dictionary say Romanian "oras" (city) cames from the Hungarian word.

"hunyad" also a Hungarian word, means " the flame goes out, close eyes, sleep, die", and there is no Romanian meaning for "hunadeoara"

How can be these word Romanian toponyms?

14.

"Érsek-Újvár", "érsek" means "archbishop" in Hungarian and "új-vár" means "new castle", "vár" explained above that the Romanian dictionary say Romanian "oras" (city) cames from the Hungarian "város" (city) word.

German name of the city "Neuhäus" (new house), Latin name "Novum Castrum" (new castle), Turkish "Uyvar" (Hungarian adaptation)

Could you explain me "érsek" and "új" and "vár" how can be Romanian toponyms?

15.

"vad" means "wild" in Hungarian, "vadon" means "wilderness", etc

Could you explain me "vad" how can be Romanian toponym?

16.

"Porcs-alma", "alma" meand "apple" in Hungarian and "elma" is "apple" in Turkish

Could you explain me "alma" how can be Romanian toponym?

17.

"Kupa", is "cup" in Hungarian, "koponya" = “skull” in Hungarian, "kupánvág" = "hit/beat on head" in Hungarian, many times the Huns made drinking cups from the head/skull of the enemy.

18.

"Arad", Israel has also Arad city like we can see many names similar to Hungarian in the middle east: Arpad city (Hungarian Arpad), Emese city (Hungarian Emese) etc, could you explain me "Arad" how can be Romanian toponym?

19.

"Turda" / "Torda", it is a old Hungarian name, recorded in old Hungarian chronicles as Hun and Hungarian chieftain, recorded in Hungarian medieval documents as person and family name.

Could you explain me "Turda" how can be Romanian toponym? OrionNimrod (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01! I see you edited many topics releated to Romanian language, so you could have great knowledge in this topic. Morover you stated that those are Romanian settlements on that map, where Draganu showed "Romanian toponyms", and everybody is outdated pseudo scientist who is not accept that 100 years old map.

Could you answer me how "Csaba, Gyula, Torda, székely, hajdú, sziget, békés, alma, vad, újvár, fekete, erdő" can be Romanian words? Please enlighten me! I am still waiting your answer! Do not forget you wanted to put the map and made those statements. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

In the legend it says:

”Italics: toponyms of Romanian origin.

Straight: foreign words found also in Romanian, not precisely located, or interesting for the research.”

So:

Bekes-Csaba,Turda, Gyula are discussed in Drăganu's book as places with Romanian population, but their names are written with "straight" letters = not Romanian word.

Sighet in italics is certainly an editing error as neither Drăganu nor other Romanian source claims it is anything else but a Hungarian word (just like Zalău).

As for the others, I'm not sure where they are on the map, but if they are in italics please let me know and I look trough the source and find out. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01, thanks for the feedback!

I see in the map: italic font means "name with Romanian origin", straight font means "names of foreign origin in which Romanians were found". However you wrote the caption of the image "Romanian settlements", which is not true if we see the legend of the map. Why did you wrote that?

I see the vast amount of settlements in west and north Hungary and everywhere are italic. I showed you position, so you can find them easy on your map.

Italic words:

• "Érsek-Újvár"[4] (it was called Oláh-Újvár because from 1500, the second phase of the caste development was under the reign of the Hungarian-Romanian archbishop Nicolaus Olahus, it named "érsek"="archbishop", so Hungarians named it after 1 significant person, but it does not mean that this name is a Romanian toponym) (above described)
• "Thurzo-völgy" (north of the Drava in west) (above described)
• "Vajda-homok"[5] ("vajda" means voivode which is Slavic, "homok" means "sand" in Hungarian)
• "Kupa" 2 locations: [6] other one slightly north of Arad (above described)
• "Vad" next and east to Sighet (above described)
• "Fekete-ardő" next and west to Sighet (above described)
• "Porcs-alma" south of FeketeArdő (above described)
• "Aranyos" west from Porcsalma (above described)
• "Szőllős-ardó" [7] (above described)
• "Hajdú-böszörmény"[8]
• "Vajda-halom" next, west from Hajdúböszörmény
• "Alba Iulia" (above described)
• "Gyula-fa" east from Brassó (above described)
• "Bessenyő" east from Brassó, "besenyő" means pecheneg in Hungarian
• "Csoma-körös" east from Brassó, it was called originally "körös" (above described) and it was renamed in 1898 after Sándor Kőrösi Csoma who born there
• "Kurta-keszi" [9]
• "Ajka" [10]
• "Karácsony" 2 locations: [11] and [12] (above described)

OrionNimrod (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"Thurzo-völgy" - from sturz=trush from latin turdis

"Vajda-homok", "Vajda-halom" - vajda from Rom. voivodă= voivode

"Kupa" - from Romanian cupă = cup, archaic meaning lowered area

"Vad" - from vad = ford

"Fekete-ardő", "Szőllős-ardó" - Drăganu gives this ardo as a slavo-romanian from of organisation, custos silvarum, or ordău in Romanian.

"Porcs-alma" - porcs from porc, purcel - pig

Aranyos - actually Bacs Aranyos from baci = head of the shepherds

Hajdú-böszörmény - Drăganu quotes a certain Takacs as the source. According to Takacs, the original name was Hojto which a settled Romanian community changed to Hajdu

Alba - the original name in Hungarian documents, Romanian word taken by Slavic people as Bălgrad

"Gyula-fa" - Drăganu considered names like Gyula derived from toponyms (Gelău. Gilău from Gelu), unlike modern historiography

"Bessenyő" - not very clear, Drăganu seems to point at a possible Cuman-Romanian society/group

"Csoma-körös" - Criș is a Romanian toponym, not even going to look up that

"Kurta-keszi" - from (s)curt= short

"Ajka" - Alb aik, Arom. aică = sour cream

"Karácsony" - from Rom. crăciun

Oláh-Újvár - it does not necessarily mean it was named after the inhabitants, but it could be

It is important to note these are Drăganu's explanations, not mine, taken from:

Românii în veacurile IX-XIV pe baza toponimiei şi a onomasticei (diacronia.ro). Therefore I am not here to argue if his or other linguists interpretation is the correct one, yet I will argue he is a reliable source. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01

After several comment it is clear that the legend of the map is different what the caption of the image "Romanian settlements" what you wrote. Why did you wrote a falsified caption to pretend that hundred of settlement from 800-1400 were Romanian settlements?

I do not doubt that there are Hungarian words with Romanian origin, like there are Romanian words with Hungarian origin, due to the mutual contact, however those words are not among the Hungarian words with Romanian origin, I think the native Hungarian lingusts know better the Hungarian language, what do you think?

• "thurzo" came from Thurzó family, not from Latin, btw Latin origin does not mean it came from Romanian to Hungarian, like English/German/Polish... languages has many Latin origin words.
• "vajda" means voivode from Slavic in the Hungarian, even Romanian voivode word, the Romanian wikipedia say it is Slavic
• "kupa", means "cup" in Hungarian, which is same like English meaning, perhaps the English word came from the Romanian because it is similar?
• "vad" is a very base Hungarian word according to the Hungarian etimology dictionary, it has a complete word bush: "vad"=wild or animal, "vadon"=wilderness, "vadas"=many animals (in the lake), "vadász"=hunter", "vadászik" =to hunt... etc (I think it is not complicated to find similar words with 3 alphabets in every languages)
• "Szőllős-ardó", "szőllős" means "grapevine field", also that region is famous for vinery, famous Tokaj wine originates from the near Szőllősardó, the first mention was from 1270 as "hordo" which means "barrel" in Hungarian, and usually the wine was stored at barrels.
• "ardő" is "erdő" means forest, see name of Transylvania (beyond the forest) Erdő-elve (Erdély) in Hungarian, "fekete-erdő" means black-forest, this name is common in other languages. According to Hungarian etimology, it cames from "ered"="arise/originates/sprout, "eredő"=resulting, "erdő" (forest) came from the "sprout" meaning of "ered". Complete word bush: "erdős"=forested, "erdőség"=woodland, "erdei"=slyvan, "erdész"=forester...etc This is new for me that the Hungarians forest word (which should be ancient base word) and every derivative would be Romanian.
• Gyula, this Hungarian military title was recorded by Byzantine emperor and others, so it not originate from local place name. Also in the Hungarian Kingdom is many place with Gyula, fast search and they are everywhere: [13][14][15][16][17] and this is Gelou [18]. Hungarian etimology say that Gelou (Gyalu in Hungarian) came from toponym from Gyalu/Gilau Mountains in Transylvania, but not Gyula. There are many settlements that were named after old Hungarian persons or leaders. Even if this would came from place name, why would be Romanian toponym?
• "porcs", perhaps English "pork"(pig) came from Romanian too? btw "porcs" means "body" in old Hungarian dictionary fom 19th century, today "porc" means "cartilage=hard, flexible tissue in the body of animals" in Hungarian
• "alba", medieval Hungarian documents were written in Latin as official office languge, many words were translated like Transylvania, and Alba-Regia (White Royal) etc
• "kurta" came from Latin (curtus, curta, curtum) accoring Hungarian dictionary, it means "short" in Hungarian, this way you can find million of Romanian toponym everywhere in Europe where Latin words were adapted
• "hajdu" according to Hungarian etimology came from "hajt"=drive, "hajtó" which means driving animals, "hajcsár"="person who urges, chases", German version also does not know about any Romanian origin
• "cris" is a Romanian toponym, but "körös" is a Hungarian toponym, there are about 100 Hungarian words in the K-R root with the "circle" meaning, Hungarian "kör" means "circle" in Hungarian, (like many languages use the K-R root for "circle", including English with sound shift, German "Kreis", Croatian "krug", Latin "circulus", French "cercle", Slovak "kruh", Swedish "cirkel", etc) which means the K-R root for "circle" is a very ancient word which used in many languages including Romanian "cerc". There are about 100 Hungarian words, all mean something "circle", examples: "kör" (circle), "korong" (disk), "korsó" (jug), "körül" (around), "körölvesz" (surround), "körzet" (district), "korona" (crown), "kerek" (round), "kerék" (wheel), "kering" (to orbit), "kert" (garden), "keret" (frame), "körforgás" (circulation), "körülmény" (circumstances), "körző" (compasses), "karika" (ring), "karol" (to embrace)... The river is "Cris" in Romanian, "Körős" in Hungarian, "Kreisch" in German, all names are similar, again K-R, This river is famous that is has many circles, the Hungarian "kör" is "circle", "köröz" is "circling" in Hungarian. It was known in antiquity as the "Chrysus", Crisus, Crisia, Grisia, or Gerasus. Above examples show K-R is a very ancient word like almost all langauges has this with the same "circle" meaning including Latin, do you think all ancient river names are only Romanian origins?
• "Karácsony" means "christmas" in Hungarian, and "craciun" in Romanian. Hungarian linguists have many theories, but the Romanian origin is not among them, as you wish to supervise the native Hungarian linguists regarding their own language. For example the Latin origin say it could came from the "incarnatio, carnatio" word, because Christmas is the feast of the appearance of God in the human body. While the Romanian word came from "creatio" which is different meaning. Anyway if the origin is Latin, Hungary was a christian country and Latin was used in medieval Europe, it did not need any Romanian support to adapt Latin words, like German and English vocabulary has huge amoung word with Latin origin whitout any Romanian support. There are other theories which say it came from "kerecsen", which is a Hungarian falcon kind, relating to the falcon flight, old Hungarian custom held at the same time as Christmas, the people of the steppe believed that the Turul sits on top of the tree of life or the tree of the world, and from there it brings the souls of newborns to the earth. Or in Turkish: "kara tüm" meand "black all" and "qara tün" means "black night" in Kazah, this meaning refers to the Winter Solstice (longest night), which is happening every year on 21st of December in Eurasia, and in old sources Hungarians also were called as Turks. There are also Slavic theory as well, came from "korcun". Sorry but I do not see any Romanian theory in Hungarian sources and all above examples are closer to Hungarian "karácsony" than the Romanian "craciun". Or do you want supervise native Hungarian lingusts regarding Hungarian languge?

OrionNimrod (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

I've explained to you how the etymology of the words is given by Drăganu. I am not arguing that you should agree with them. I have had enough experience with your argumentation to understand that nothing but nationalist Hungarian "logic" makes sense to you and everything else is just "fantasy". We strongly disagree on this.

As for "settlements ..." this is what the map says: "Romanians between 9th and 14th century based on toponymy and onomastic research of Nicolae Drăganu" Aristeus01 (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01, I know the title that is why I do not understand why you falsified. Perhaps by nationalist Romanian purpose? I think I provided you very detailed arguments, and explanation, links, in a conversation. I really do not know what is nationalist what I wrote above. Rather I think the nationalist Romanians want to supervise the Hungarian language, and you false imagined hundred of Romanian settlements between 800-1400 in west and north Hungary only based on these strange lingustic game, whitout any historical evidences. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

On the contrary, the false information is constantly pushed by Hungarian side, including feeble etymologies and tendentious opinions, and you have been presenting it as facts. This is nothing but POV pushing, the paragraph about discussion is most relevant to your behaviour here. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01 the full fringe map section above is a good example who are making and how the false informations, in that map your target was the Hungarian settlemenst and languge, not inverse... according to you even Gyula the Hungarian military leader name came from Romanians. It is funny that your nationalist Romanian behavior claim Hungarian things as Romanian and if Hungarians say "no" then they automatically became Hungarian nationalist if they not accept every insane Romanian nationalist statement by you :) Facts based on real historical sources not by fictions about "always majority people everywhere all the time 1000 years long" whitout any contemporary sources. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting that you think it's funny. I guess the Theory of Evolution makes you roll on the floor.

And so far only one of us has displayed single purpose account behaviour, limited to the topic of his ethnicity and how great it is: you. So I do not find it funny, nor do I accept tendentious and biased criticism as lack of evidence from contemporary sources.

I now have enough evidence to conclude that you neither read nor care about the discussion. In a previous answer I wrote:

"Therefore I am not here to argue if his or other linguists interpretation is the correct one"

yet you claim it is my interpretation.

With this being said I will not answer your provocations anymore. You can claim whatever you like, clearly there is no other intention in your words and arguments but to say whatever in order to try and win arguments.

And I am not here to argue. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality broken

Multiple sources sustaining immigrationist theory have been added in wiki voice. Aristeus01 (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

These were recently pushed by @CriticKende, whith an obvious POV in mind. He has made several edits in a few days, so his contributions are hard to review, but I've started doing so. Krisitor (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The recently added texts should be copy-edited, reorganized and fact-checked but wiki voice isn't wrong just because an immigrationist scholar's work is cited. Gyalu22 (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gyalu22 of course, but the immigrationist theory is only one of the two admitted theories in scholarship, so the article content has to remain neutral about this. Krisitor (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree, but I don't see any sentence in the article stating the correctness of one of the theories. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gyalu22 you once asked me "to stop flooding" a page with opposed theory and discuss changes beforehand. It's the same principle here.

@CriticKende@Krisitor please use talk page before making changes to published text. There is no need to escalate this into some edit war or have this mess on edit history page. We need to discuss this. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the edits. I think some basic rules should be accepted: 1. no sources written before WWII can be cited; 2. no primary sources can be cited without a reference to a secondary source as per WP:SOURCE; 3. fringe theories (like the association of Vlachs with the Blachi) could only be mentioned fully in accordance to WP:DUE; 4. only works written by historians, linguists, etc can be cited. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aristeus01 Please read the change history more carefully before making such accusations against me. I didn't go into edit war, I reformulated recently added sentences per WP:NPOV, and deleted one passage added by CriticKende per WP:OLDSOURCES, nothing more. I don't disagree with @CriticKende, it's only that they don't seem to be aware of some basic rules regarding edits on Wikpedia. By the way, thanks @Borsoka. Krisitor (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, @Krisitor, but I did not say you are edit waring, I said that changes to another user edits are better discussed on the talk page, not in the edit history comment section. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I already explained some basic Wikipedia rules to @CriticKende several weeks ago, on the talk page, just above the current discussion, because he was disrupting the page by deleting sourced content and not following other required rules. At a certain point, there is nothing more I can do... Krisitor (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I found a modern Polish historian works regarding the Vlachs, Ilona Czamanska: She pointed out the problem: “The problem of ethno genesis and Vlachian migration is even more complicated. In historical records, the Vlachs appear relatively late (10th century) and the old-est sources give rise to many possible interpretations. Unfortunately, for several recent centuries the investigation of the Vlachian ethno genesis was so much dominated by political issues that any progress in this respect was incredibly difficult.”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286480237_The_Vlachs_-_several_research_problemOrionNimrod (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod: the article was back to a stable and neutral state until @CriticKende, again, enforced his POV. That's why I reverted him, again. The sentence he modified is referenced by three non-Romanian scholars: Schramm, Izzo and Malcolm. So, that's not most, that's not even many, that's some. If you have more sources, feel free to add them and then we may change that to many or even most. What is important here is that this article does not become the battleground of the respective historiographies of Hungary and Romania. Krisitor (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vlach):

Nationalist historians deploy one or the other scenario to justify modern territorial claims or claims to indigeneity. Thus, Hungarian (Magyar) claims to Transylvania assume a complete Roman exodus from Dacia, while Romanian claims assume that Romance continued to be spoken by Romanized Dacians. Most scholars who are not nationally affiliated assume the second scenario.

So we have a very respectable third party source which states that most non-Romanian and non-Hungarian scholars agree with Romanian historiography on this issue. Krisitor (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Krisitor!

The full Hungarian historiography say the Balcan origin, which include clearly not "some" historians, but all. The Polish historiography same, the Austrian and German is same, and we did not talk about other countries. For example among UK/USA historians both views have followers. Example:

Romanian historian Florin Curta, in a 2020 study, complains that the Daco-Roman theory is not accepted in Polish histography, the most significant representative of the Polish historical approach to medieval Romanians is the historian and professor of Balkan studies Ilona Czamańska.

Florin Curta. The Romanian Ethnogenesis in Polish Historiography [2020] „The article attempts to explain the conspicuous lack of familiarity with the Romanian historiographic and archaeological literature and suggests that Czamańska’s views are largely based on a migrationist approach to early medieval ethnogeneses. That approach still dominates the Polish historiography of the Slavic ethnogenesis (and the presence of the early Slavs in Poland). It is that approach that inspired Czamańska’s views on Vlachs and the alleged migration of the Romanians into the land of their ancestors.”

https://www.academia.edu/45184764/The_Romanian_ethnogenesis_in_Polish_historiography

German example:

In German:[19] English, page 343: [20]

"In 2001, an international meeting was held in Freiburg about the origins of the Romanians... All researchers agreed that the Romanians originated south of the Danube and later migrated north."

So there are clearly not "some" OrionNimrod (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod. I would be much more nuanced about the debate on the origin of Vlachs and Romanians. Indeed, according to Curta, Polish historiography in general shares more or less the same opinion as Hungarian historiography. But this is about the only case of such a categorical position and, according to Curta himself, who is a very well-known and respectable scholar, Polish historiography suffers from several flaws concerning Romanian and Vlach ethnogenesis. Other European and American scholars (Fine, Winnifrith, among others) are much more cautious in this respect. Of course, one can find a German or English historian or archaeologist who supports this or that opinion, but there is no general consensus. The international meeting you mention is referenced by a Hungarian source, and should therefore not be taken as the general opinion of all scholars on the Vlach question. Other meetings on this issue have taken place and they are not so categorical. We should therefore remain neutral, unless you or someone else adds a large number of modern and respectable Western sources supporting the Hungarian view. Krisitor (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Krisitor! Thanks for the feedback! I linked the German source by German authors as well. I think (even if they have different opinions in many cases) basically the local Hungarian and local Romanian historians know better the history of their own countries, own historical regions, and the history of the Carpathian Basin because both nations part of it. They have more local knowledge, access to vast amount of local sources, local archeology, etc. Next the historiography of the surronding countries should know better the history of the neighboaring regions because the history of surronding countries had historical many interactions each other. Comparing them with very far Chinese or USA historians I think the local/surronding states' historians should have better knowledge and much stronger focus regarding the history of the local region. Of course there are many specialist with high knowledge among historians in the UK, USA regarding the Hungarian and Romanian history. So I think we can present the Hungarian and Romanian views, and of course there are many historians from everywhere which support each view. But I have an idea: we can ignore the numbers, just rephrase the sentence like: (fast example) "according to the followers of the opposite theory" OrionNimrod (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to list many (not all) non-Hungarian historians who do not agree with the Vlachs' Dacian origins and believe that they originated in the Balkans and migrated north from there.:

Noel Malcolm (british): Kosovo A Short History

Gottfried Schramm (german): many works

Herbert John Izzo (canadian/american): also not just one work

Stefan Schumacher: “The Romanian language developed somewhere south of the Danube, but Romanians don’t want to admit that because the Hungarians can claim that they have been there before,”- Stefan Schumacher (Austrian Linguists, professor of the University of Vienna)

Willem Vermeer (dutch): He argues that the ancestral homeland of Albanians and Romanians must have been around Kosovo.

Michiel Arnoud Cor de Vaan (dutch): He argues that the ancestral homeland of Albanians and Romanians must have been around Kosovo.

I. C. Brătianu (romanian): "It is wrong and historically unfounded that our Romanian scholars, for political reasons, have invented a theory of origin that we are indigenous to the land of Transylvania. We have only been living on this land for about six centuries, and we are proud that, together with the Hungarians and Germans who lived here before us, we have adopted Western culture and have become members of the community of European peoples"

Professor Dr Joachim von Puttkamer (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

Joachim C. Fest (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

Meinolf Arens (austrian): in the debate which has already been mentioned

Daniel Bein (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

Thede Kahl (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

Hansgerd Göckenjan (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

Wolfgang Dahmen (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

Hans-Martin Gauger (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned

Johannes Kramer (austrian): in the debate which has already been mentioned

prof. dr hab. Ilona Czamańska (polish): the link before

Joan E. Durrant (american) & Anne B. Smith (american): Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights

Dr. Norman Berdichevsky (american): Nations, Language and Citizenship

Prof. Dr. Frank Hadler (german): Disputed territories and shared pasts: overlapping national histories in modern Europe

and all Hungarian historians

--- pre world war historians----

Johann Erich Thunmann (swedish): linguistic results

Jernej Bartol Kopitar (slovenian): linguistic results

Mandell Creighton (british): The English Historical Review

Samuel Rawson Gardiner (british): The English Historical Review

Justin Winsor (american):The English Historical Review

Robert William Seton-Watson (Scottish) : A history of the Roumanians CriticKende (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi CriticKende, There are much more, probably we are unable to collect here all of them, but it is clear "not some historians".

Andrei Gandila, Romanian historian: (Andrei Gandila: Cultural encounters on Byzantine’s northern frontier. c. 500-700; Cambridge 2018)

"Although to some extent the manipulation of archaeological material was true of most Eastern European schools between 1945 and 1989, the Romanian case became the most conspicuous in its attempt to distort the past in order to serve the communist regime’s quest for legitimacy in the 1970s and 1980s......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...... such theories developed in the 1970s and 1980s in the context of national-communism remain firmly entrenched in historiography to this day.”

Emily Hanscam, British, Durham University:

Youtube: The Romanian myths of origin and the postnational critique: challenging reactionary populism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v_aktmJclk

"Archaeologists have long recognized the deep connection between archaeology and nationalism, but it demands renewed attention as reactionary populism and far-right nationalism resurge globally. By exploring the history of Roman archaeology in Romania, this paper highlights how the three Romanian myths of origin—based on the classical past—are linked to wider trends in archaeological theory and politics. It argues that methodological nationalism continues to be highly influential on archaeological research, presenting the postnational critique as a way to understand how the study of the past intersects with national narratives and articulating new ways of acting against it. The postnational critique identifies and questions the use of material and textual evidence from the past in support of methodological nationalism, arguing against the perpetuation of exclusive categories of identity and dualities such as ‘civilisation versus barbarism’. It likewise recognises the need for narratives about the past, and reimagines the past of the region of modern Romania through the postnational lens. Romania is an ideal case-study for the potential of the postnational critique, as the landscape has a lengthy history of diversity and migration which is currently absent from the national narratives, based on the myths of origin which originated in the Enlightenment but remain powerful today. As historian Jill Lepore recently wrote, “When scholars stop trying to write a common history for a people, nationalism doesn’t die. Instead, it eats liberalism.” Archaeologists must be political actors, promoting critical narratives about the past and challenging those who would use it to support reactionary populism or far-right nationalism."

Ilona Czamanska, Polish (Vlachs and Slavs in the Middle Ages and Modern Era): "On the one hand, the relations between the Vlachs and Slavs were the result of the expansion of the Southern Slavs in the Balkans and, on the other hand, they resulted from the expansion of Vlachs in a northerly direction, to the northern slopes of the Carpathians, and further, to the lowland areas of southern Poland and Ukraine of today." ". According to the testimony of Byzantine writer Georgios Kedrenos, David, the brother of the Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, reigning in the late 10th and 11th century, was killed by “wandering Vlachs” travelling between Kastoria and Prespa1. Byzantine princess Anna Commena, who writes in the 12th century, mentions numerous Vlachs, nomads living in Bulgaria2. It should be noted that nna Comnena wrote it at a time when the Bulgarian state did not exist or over a hundred years. Thus, it is necessary to ask, which territory in her hronicle could be called Bulgaria? It could only be Byzantine themata ofBulgaria, which was located in the western part of Macedonia." "The presence of numerous Vlachs in this area is confirmed during the onstruction of the second Bulgarian state after the great anti-Byzantin prising of 1185." "n the light of these chroniclers Vlachia ust be placed in the Byzantine themata of Bulgaria, which was located in modern Macedonia."

Martyn Rady, British: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before he thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs ither here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania."

Carlile Aylmer Macartney, was a British academic specialising in the history and politics of East-Central Europe and in particular the history of Austria and Hungary.

HUNGARY A Short History C. A. MACARTNEY D. LITT.

"The Turkish advance through the Balkans had already driven many Serbs, Vlachs and Bosnian Croats to take refuge in Hungary. Then had come the Turkish invasion and occupation of Hungary itself, the brunt of which had fallen on its most purely Magyar areas, while the national homes of the Slovaks, Ruthenes and Roumanians in north Hungary and Transylvania had escaped relatively lightly. It is true that many Magyars had escaped into these parts, but those saving themselves by flight were outnumbered many times by those slaughtered or carried off into slavery, and while the non-Magyars, too, had their losses, these were much less heavy and were partially offset, in the case of some of them, by further immigration: substantial numbers of Serbs and Vlachs followed the Turks into the Alföld, other Roumanians slipped unobtrusively into Transylvania; and there was a big immigration of Croats, not only into the old Slavonia, (now officially known as ‘Croatia’), but northward into the Muraköz, and more sporadically, all up the Austro-Hungarian frontier." OrionNimrod (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Krisitor

However, it is important to check with Encyclopedia Britannica to see who edits the article. That article was edited by only one historian, Victor A. Friedman, who is of Romanian origin but lives in the USA.

Therefore I would not consider it an independent source. CriticKende (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @CriticKende, between you and Encyclopaedia Britannica I believe the latter has a better idea what an independent source is. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Krisitor

After that sentence, however, an article written by one person cannot be considered independent, unlike the many many many truly independent (German, British, American etc.) historians who refute that, if an article simply disparages the whole profession, it is not independent, even in wiki you cannot do that. Therefore that article cannot be considered independent. CriticKende (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

By that logic none of the Hungarian authors can be considered independent. Aristeus01 (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That's why it is also worthwhile to back up what you put with foreign sources, not just Hungarian/Romanian, which I usually do, with Polish, German, British, or American professors. CriticKende (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Magna Vlachia

Magna simply means great or big, like in Magna Graecia or Magna Carta, the secondary meaning of "ancestral" is not necessary the correct translation. Aristeus01 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Krisitor, but in many cases it also meant ancestral homeland, e.g. Magna Bulgaria, Magna Hungaria, Magna Germania, Magna Blakia (turkic tribe) etc. CriticKende (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @CriticKende

Can you provide an example and a dictionary sustaining this translation? Aristeus01 (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I have listed 3 modern academic sources, which I think is more than enough. CriticKende (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. The interpretation of the words needs to be sustained by their primary meaning. Secondary or figurative interpretations are scholar POV. Aristeus01 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the peoples, the Byzantine writers primarily referred to the ancestral homeland as "Magna". CriticKende (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@CriticKende

In Greek "magna" primarily means big, great. I don't know any Byzantine writer that specified "ancestral" for the word. Do you have an example? Aristeus01 (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Citing sources

@CriticKende, I have asked you repeatedly to provide page and proof for your recent edits. Out of the 3 sources: "Transylvania and the Hungarian-Romanian problem: does not seem to be written by Brătianu, and the Madgearu and Curta do not say what you said they say. Remember it's your responsibility as the editor to provide evidence as per WP:BURDEN Aristeus01 (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01

1. I have deliberately written that there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of the rulers, as the only castles that have been attributed to Gelou so far are the ones that the sources mentioned above state were not Gelou's castles. Thus there is no archaeological evidence for the rulers. Since the castles cannot be dated to that period. I did not write Vlachs directly, but the rulers, because they believed that Vlachs were already present at that time. Only the monarchs, as they have been tried to prove it with castles, but failed, this can be found in the books.

2. Sorry I made a mistake here, it wasn't on purpose I correct it now, the book really wasn't written by him, but only quoted him in the book, I got this wrong because I read an article saying the book was his but no it was actually put in wrongly, sorry. So the book is not his, he's just quoted in it. CriticKende (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@CriticKende

Well, it's nice to see you reassessed and corrected. Thank you. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Place names

Hi ZZARZY223!

I have question regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1159109805

This is the linked source: [21] in the marked page (118-119) I do not find your claim. Could you show me where is your content in the sourced text? Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1159110921 Could you show me where Madgearu says what your wrote? https://books.google.hu/books?id=zFzXDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

OrionNimrod (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've miswritten the pages of Expansiunea Maghiara in Transilvania [22] the pages which refer to the placenames are 42 and 43, where Madgearu writes that: "The Slavic-Bulgarian toponym Bălgrad is a clear and indisputable proof not only of the Bulgarian domination, but also of the presence of the Romanians in the respective region in the 9th-10th centuries. Even if the Hungarians could have taken directly

the name Bălgrad from the Slavs, the fact that the Romanians did not take the new official Hungarian name, later translated as Alba lulia, shows that they lived in the area. If they had come in the 12th century, as the opponents claim continuity, they could no longer have known the old Slavic name of the city". He also cites the placenames "Preslav" and "Ohaba".

About the archeological part, also in Expansiunea Maghiara claims at page 78: "According to the account of the Anonymous Notary, the center of Menumorout's duchy is located in Biharea (Byhar), where archaeological research started since 1900 have confirmed the existence of a fortification with a wave of earth."

At pages 150-151 "Adrian Andrei Rusu drew attention to the difficulties that were greeted by the dating of the fortification from Dăbâca, which has become a kind of apple of discord between Romanian and Hungarian archaeologists. There are no objects with sufficiently precise dating, "each of the historians of the two parties

(Romanians and Hungarians) can therefore invoke the segment of time that suits him for the "patriotic" dating of the respective fortresses" ZZARZY223 (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@ZZARZY223 Thanks for the answer! OrionNimrod (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)