Talk:Founding of Moldavia

Sandbox
Reverted material to original status of the article prior to reworking, so that material can be easily "mined" from it, as needed. User:HopsonRoad 14:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Which are the Moldavian chronicles that refer to this King Vladislaus of Hungary?
According to the Moldavian chronicles, the Vlachs of Maramureș came to the region during the reign of one "King Vladislaus of Hungary" to fight against the Mongols.

I can't find them in the article. 46.239.48.95 (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The text was modified. Borsoka (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions prior to GA review
I am confused by the title of this article. If, as the lead suggests, it's really about the events surrounding the "Dismounting" by Dragoș, then the word I would prefer would be "founding" not "foundation". The scope of the article really appears to be a history of the region, its peoples and its governance from 750 through the 14th Century. There is a lot of detail, but it's hard for me to follow the central theme, as a reader of an encyclopedia might expect, as opposed to a scholar on the subject. I look forward to some guidance, since I have chosen it as the one longest in queue to receive a GA review. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your above message. I am not a native speaker of English, so I cannot decide what is the proper wording (founding or foundation), but the twin article (Foundation of Wallachia) uses the same term. Do you suggest that the first section should be shortened? Borsoka (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Borsoka, your command of English is excellent, as I can see by your many other contributions and GA articles, which I note are more concise than the present state of this one.


 * How I would choose between "foundation" and "founding" might be illustrated with, the foundation of the United States is the principle of having three co-equal branches of government, supported by a system of representative democracy, with individual civil rights; whereas, the founding has to do with the American revolution, the continental congress, the constitutional convention, etc. In my mind, a founding is ephemeral, whereas a foundation persists. The emphasis on the "Dismounting" and the events following, points toward "Founding". The main part of the story appears to start at the "'Dismounting' by Dragoș" section. Those are my thoughts on the title.


 * I do have some concerns about the GA criterion of whether the article is "broad in its coverage": it does address the main aspects of the topic; however it doesn't seem to stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". I would suggest first either trimming non-essential details or moving them into a set of notes. Having done that, have the lead reflect the structure of the article. I also feel that there may be too much antecedent material to the "'Dismounting' by Dragoș" section. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. Based on your above remarks, I think that "foundation" is the proper term, because the article describes the process of the creation of the Principality of Moldavia. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In my description, I would have come to the opposite conclusion! I would have said that the process of establishing a new occupancy was transitory, the remaining culture enduring. So, if we're describing what remained in terms of customs and ethnicity, then I'd go for foundation, but we're talking about events, which point me towards founding. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 03:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been asked to comment on the best word– foundation or founding– to use in the title of this article. I could have given a quick answer, but I decided to read the entire article first in order to understand the issues raised by HopsonRoad above. You will have seen that in the process I made a few minor copy-edits. First, the easy part: the best word is "founding". In the phrase, "the foundation of X", "X" would normally be a building, so the word "foundation" would mean the part of the building that is normally below street level and holds up the rest of the building. Thus, it is clear that it is the wrong word for a country. "A foundation" can also be a non-profit organization, usually one that raises, or gives, money for education, science, or health research and awareness. A country is founded by its founders, or original citizens and leader or leaders. So "Founding of Moldavia" is much better than "Foundation of Moldavia". But I wonder what is wrong with "History of Moldavia"?


 * The other issues that HopsonRoad raised are valid ones, and I agree with them. I feel that the whole first part of the article is too chock full of details so that one loses sight of what the article is about. The actual history of Moldavia, to me, starts with the Dismounting by Dragos. Perhaps all this material could be split into two articles, one for the really early history of the area and one for the History of Moldavia, with the second one having just a few of the details of what happened before Dragos, that is, from what is now the first part of this article. If the article is not split, I recommend, as HopsonRoad does, trimming some of the details, maybe about a third of the material before Dragos, and then revising the lead so it reflects the order of material in the main part of the article. I think it would help the reader, instead of having just a few very long sections, to select an organizing principle for the material before the Dismounting of Dragos, and make sub-sections: either by time – with sub-section headings being logical date ranges – or by significant events or notable periods in the history, such as waves of immigration, or conflicts, or efforts by various men for control of territory (also organized chronologically). The mass of details without any organizing principle (or theme, as HopsonRoad suggested), will not keep most readers' attention long enough to get to the section about Dragos. Corinne (talk) 03:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your above message. Based on your above remarks, "Founding of Moldavia" would be fine, but in this case the corresponding article (Foundation of Wallachia) should also be renamed. The proposed "History of Moldavia" title would be misleading, because the focus of the article is on the establishment of the polity, not of the whole history of the region. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What does "the polity" mean? Is this a small part of another broader article "History of Moldavia"? Corinne (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Principality of Moldavia existed from around 1352 till 1859, consequently its establishment can only be regarded as a part (important part) of its history. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the reason for separating the founding of Moldavia from the history of Moldavia. The information that precedes the founding of Moldavia is really the history of the region. Corinne (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that there is already a Moldavia article that is begging for content in its Prehistory and Early Middle Ages sections. This would be an appropriate repository for some of the material that is extraneous to a taut narrative in this article. Also, please note my suggestions of tightening up the article, below. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The founding of Moldavia is an important period of the history of that principality. I think we should dedicate a separate article to it, in accordance with the practise adopted by scholarly works of the history of Romania. Borsoka (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Per the discussion, above, this article should be renamed "Founding of Moldavia" with a redirect from its current title. I don't have the technical skill to perform this conversion. User:HopsonRoad 14:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , doing ... Face-smile.svg samtar { t } 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Face-smile.svg samtar { t } 14:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@User:Samtar are you sure you have read the article more carefully before making it a good article? There is a phrase that has no predicate: "With the disintegration of the Golden Horde after the death of Öz Beg Khan in 1341.[43][44]" 86.126.53.100 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, I'm a little ashamed to admit that was an oversight. I hope someone will quickly rectify that phrase Face-smile.svg samtar { t } 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

✅Taken care of with ". Both" => ", both". Thanks for pointing out this copyedit problem. User:HopsonRoad 15:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions in sandbox
I see that another editor has commenced the GA review. In the article's current state I would suggest that it fails, primarily because of lack of conciseness. I have made some suggestions about how to trim the article and make it more concise in the sandbox. That effort was for illustrative purposes only and may represent trimming of essential facts and inclusion of superfluous facts. Good luck on this article. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your work on the article. I am sure that your version will be the basis for the improvement of the article. Have a nice week! :) Borsoka (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, I'll work in the sandbox some more. Then I'll bring material across. I'll leave commented-out material from the original article in the sandbox, but delete it where I bring it across. That way, you can "mine" the sandbox for material that you worked hard to create for placement in other contexts. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Which Peter/Petru?
In the Aftermath section, the article refers to Peter I Mușat, which links to Petru II of Moldavia, not Petru I of Moldavia, which Peter are we supposed to see? User:HopsonRoad 11:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Petru II of Moldavia (actually, I think Petru "I" never existed). Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

✅ Changed to Petru II of Moldavia. User:HopsonRoad 22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The arrival of Vlachs to Maramureș - balance between views
In the lead we have the following statement: The Vlachs came to Maramureș during the reign of one "King Vladislaus of Hungary" to fight against the Mongols, according to the Moldo-Russian Chronicle.

I think there is not a balance between all the views regarding this aspect. Let's keep in mind that we have two theories for the origin of the Romanians, which are very different, and we include at this moment only the immigrationist theory. According to the other theory, namely the Theory of Daco-Roman continuity, "the process of Romanization expanded to Maramureş, Moldavia and other neighboring regions due to the free movement of people across the former imperial borders" and afterwards Romanians (Vlachs) continuously inhabited Maramureș through the Middle Ages.

For instance in a work of the Alexandru Ioan Cuza University we are informed that [https://books.google.ro/books?id=9vHaAAAAMAAJ&q=%22the+ancient+land+of+Maramures+was+avoided+by+the+migratory+waves.+The+Romanian+native+demographic+element+was+thus+kept+intact+till+the+arrival+of+the+Hungarians%22&dq=%22the+ancient+land+of+Maramures+was+avoided+by+the+migratory+waves.+The+Romanian+native+demographic+element+was+thus+kept+intact+till+the+arrival+of+the+Hungarians%22&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAGoVChMI0JeNkbmKyQIVx7oaCh3AJQDh the ancient land of Maramures was avoided by the migratory waves. The Romanian native demographic element was thus kept intact till the arrival of the Hungarians]

On this map on a Romanian historical atlas made by Ştefan Pascu Maramureş appears as a Romanian political entity before 1200.

Even the Hungarian historian Tivadar Lehoczky supported the fact that Romanians lived in Maramureş when the Hungarian state was formed: "in the north-eastern part of our country, in the counties of Maramures, Ugocsa and Bereg, even at the time of our coming to this land, there lived Romanians of unknown origin" 79.117.158.51 (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So would you include sources that link to out-of-context quotes of books plus a link to a YouTube video of someone flipping through a Historical Atlas of the World? TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Anon, sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Do you say that there is no such Romanian legend about the Romanians' migration to Maramures? Interestingly, the reference to this legend is supported by citation to a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit - My intention was to show you which is the atlas that I am talking about, not to ask for the inclusion of this source in the article.
 * @User:Borsoka - Excuse me, but where did you read that in my text? I am saying that we should write in the article that there are also historians that assert that (proto)-Romanians lived in Maramures at the arrival of the Hungarians and they did not come to the region at the invitation of a certain Hungarian king. 79.117.179.234 (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If this (quite extreme) version of the continuity theory exist, we can, of course, say that "X, Y and other Romanian historians say that the Romanians did not migrate to Maramures ...". Are there really historians who say that a Romanized population survived in a region which had never been part of the Roman Empire? Interesting. Nevertheless, I think this strange view should be verified. Borsoka (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I already posted above a map from an atlas coordinated by Ştefan Pascu, where Maramureş appears as a Romanian political entity before 1200. As I wrote above, the Hungarian historian Tivadar Lehoczky supported the fact that Romanians lived in Maramureş when the Hungarian state was formed: "in the north-eastern part of our country, in the counties of Maramures, Ugocsa and Bereg, even at the time of our coming to this land, there lived Romanians of unknown origin"
 * Copy-paste from above: in a work of the Alexandru Ioan Cuza University we are informed that the ancient land of Maramures was avoided by the migratory waves. The Romanian native demographic element was thus kept intact till the arrival of the Hungarians
 * I did not make an exhaustive research, but I am sure that we can find more valid sources that support this view. 79.117.179.234 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When were those books written? During the 1980s, a highly extremist official theory existed in Romania which claimed Romanization even in territories where Romans never existed. Does this theory still exist? Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the official theory hasn't been changed very much ever since. When I will find relevant passages in reliable sources, I will post them here. 79.117.179.234 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Text from Origin_of_the_Romanians: "The process of Romanization expanded to Maramureş, Moldavia and other neighboring regions due to the free movement of people across the former imperial borders." 79.117.179.234 (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Text from a work of the Romanian Academy (2001): "Anterior comitatului a existat aici un voievodat al Maramureşului, ca străveche organizaţie românească. Organizând comitatul, regalitatea maghiară căuta să desfiinţeze voievodatul, forma de organizare a populaţiei autohtone".
 * As a matter of fact (because wikipedia is not a source), there is an article on ro.wp called Voievodatul Maramureşului, which is said to have existed between cca. 900 and 1402. 79.117.179.234 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I think there should mention that there are some historians who assert that Vlachs were indigenous to Maramures and that Dragos was a voievod of an ancient Vlach organization who was permitted by the Hungarian king to settle and establish another principality allegedly pre-settled by Vlachs. Although I have to question the assertion that the Vlach principality of Maramures was established in the 10th century because its list voievods who ruled there go back no earlier than the 14th century.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As per Origin_of_the_Romanians, it seems Maramureş, alongside other regions, is mentioned at page 29 from Pop, Ioan-Aurel (1999). Romanians and Romania: A Brief History.. It would be great to check that source, because I can't find online a free version of the book. 79.117.202.244 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 79.117.202.244, what text would you like placed where in the article to achieve the balance that you seek? Why not propose it here?
 * BTW it would be great, if you opted to acquire a username! Doing so, allows easier communication and discussion. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 23:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion, I will consider it. 79.117.202.244 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

✅I have inserted a new section on geographic extent and addressed the three theories of origin, relying on related articles. I hope that satisfies 79.117.202.244. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 12:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the source of the English translation of the Moldo-Russian chronicle? 86.127.14.122 (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅It's Spinei, 1986, P. 197. I couldn't put a reference within a note, so the ref follows the note.
 * Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:HopsonRoad, please read the text carefully:

''Vladislav, the Hungarian king rejoiced over the divine assistance. He highly appreciated and rewarded the Old-Romans for their courage. … [T]hey asked King Vladislav not to force them to adopt the Latin faith, but to let them keep their own Christian faith according to the Greek rite and to grant them a place to stay. King Vladislav … granted them lands in Maramureș between the Mureș and Tisa at a place called Crij. The Old-Romans gathered and settled there. They married Hungarian women and led them into their own Christian religion. … There was a smart and courageous man, Dragoș, among them.''

So Vladislav granted land only to "Old-Romans", not also to "Romanians". By the way, who were the "Old-Romans"? From the phrase "the Old-Romans and the Romanians", I understand that Old-Romans were not Romanians. 86.126.63.254 (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a historian, but I interpret "Old Romans" as those from the Eastern Roman Empire since it was always called "Rome" and its citizens were called "Romans". It was called the "Byzantine" Empire or "Eastern Roman" Empire after it fell to the Turks in 1453. The official religion of the empire was Eastern Orthodox Christianity after 1054. It may explain why they (the Old Romans) did not want to adopt the Latin (Roman Catholic) faith but instead keep their own Christian (Eastern Orthodox) faith according to the Greek rite.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message, 86.126.63.254|86.126.63.254. It would be easier to converse and to thank you for your work, if you were to create an account. Your question is a good one. Since I'm an engineer and not a historian, and just here to help an article achieve GA status, your question is better directed to Borsoka, who hopefully receive it with this post. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, Constantinople was historically known as the New Rome (Nova Roma), not as the Old Rome
 * I was refering to the whole eastern empire (Old Rome) and not just it's capital (New Rome).TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The chronicle is very confusing. During the fights against the "Tartars", Old-Romans allegedly said: "our fortress, the old Rome, has been torn down and the women and children have been converted by the new romans to their latin faith". What historical event could this be? 79.116.92.4 (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you provide the entire page or chapter to the passage that you're citing? It's difficult to determine the context of the passage without the surrounding text.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The original Slavonic text and the Romanian translation are here. The English translation of the requested paragraph is something like this: ''He (Vladislav) highly appreciated the Old-Romans and rewarded them for their courage. [Vladislav] showed to the Old-Romans the letter of the New-Romans, ... and called to them to serve him instead of returning to the Old-Rome to perish because of the New-Romans. [The Old-Romans] asked the king to give them permission to send scouts to explore the Old-Rome... The scouts came back and said: "Our fortress, the Old-Rome, has been torn down and the women and children have been converted by the New-Romans to their latin faith.". [T]hey asked King Vladislav not to force them to adopt the Latin faith, but to let them keep their own Christian faith according to the Greek rite and to grant them a place to stay''

I wonder which was the Old-Rome, that was taken over by the New-Romans. 86.126.61.103 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It was the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. The Vlachs who lived in the (Eastern) Roman Empire and called themselves rumin obviously thought that their homeland was the real Rome. Similarly, the Turks called the same empire Rûm. Borsoka (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome back :) This was the first conflict that I had I mind, too. But then I thought it happened too early, because historians identify Vladislav with Ladislaus IV of Hungary who reigned between 1270 and 1290 (Pavel Parasca and Şerban Papacostea) and refer to the battle against the Cumans at Hód Lake (1280) as being the battle against the "Tartars" (Ionel Cândea and Dumitru Țeicu). Hahun (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * However, medieval chronicles were not good at chronology. For instance, Simon of Kéza thought that parts of the Carpathian Basin was occupied by the Bulgars soon after the colapse of the Huns, even if there were at least four centuries between the two events. The 80 years between the fall of Constantinople and Ladislaus's fight against the Cumans in 1285 was not so long for a chronicler working 200 years later. Borsoka (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question
Sorry, I do not understand why the article describes the competing theories about the origin of the Romanians. Are these theories connected to the subject of the article? As far as I can remember I have never read a study dedicated to the establishment of the Principality of Moldavia which describes those theories. Could you refer to some publications? Why is Dacia Traiana mentioned in the article? The Roman province has nothing to do with Moldavia or Maramures. It is like mentioning the Spanish conquest of Florida in connection with the establishment of Massachusetts. Do reliable sources dedicated to the establishment of Moldavia mention the Roman conquest of Banat, Transylvania and Oltenia? Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason is that Romanian historigraphy generally supports the continuity of a Romanized population in Maramures.This text informs us that Ioan-Aurel Pop (in his work Diplome maramureşene din secolele XVI-XVIII, provenite din colecţia lui Ioan Mihalyi de Apşa. Ediţia a II-a, revizuită, coord. Ioan-Aurel Pop) analyzed historical diplomas and the supports this thesis. Hahun (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still do not understand. There is no reference to Moldavia and Maramures in the first four sentences of the article, because it only writes of the history of Oltenia, Banat, Transylvania. If we want to write of the Romans in connection with Moldavia and Maramures, we can only write that they never occupied those two regions. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the the Theory of Daco-Roman continuity, "the process of Romanization expanded to Maramureş, Moldavia and other neighboring regions due to the free movement of people across the former imperial borders". I guess this is the connection between Romans and Maramureş. Hahun (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but the article does not describe the history of Moldavia, but write long sentences about the conquest of other regions. Borsoka (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question 2
There is a quite surprising identification of the Ulichians and Tivercians with the Vlachs. Who are the scholars who identified them? Is this a majority view in any country? Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Question 3
Sorry, I do not understand why the oldest Romanian chronicles' reference to the arrival of Vlachs to Maramures was deleted. Do we really think that Iorga's early 20th-century views should be emphasized in 2015? Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not deleted. The idea is still referred in this section: Founding of_Moldavia. 79.116.94.228 (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Question 4
,, after reading the article I concluded that it does not meet the criteria of a GA. First of all, there are long sections which are not verified. Secondly, the article presents minority (scholarly?) views as facts (I refer to my above questions about the identification of two Slavic tribes with the Vlachs). The article does not fairly present the legend of Dragos's dismounting. Sorry, I think that the article needs significant modification if we want to preserve its present status as a GA. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , the article clearly failed in its previous state, based on lack of a clear narrative—it was a rambling collection of thoughts. I tried to fix that issue with existing text. I didn't add new "facts", just used what was available in an earlier rendition. Another editor added material during the rewrite period. I have no interest in this topic, beyond improving the quality of Wikipedia. I suggest that you be bold and either fix what needs fixing, if it's clearly incorrect, or provide a balancing perspective, if the matter is subject to dispute. I plan to "un-watch" this page, having done as much as I can. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , yes, the article clearly failed in its previous state, and I highly appreciate your work to improve it. However, in it present-state, the article contains many pieces of incorrect information (because pieces of information from several sentences were merged into a single sentence), emphasizes early-20th-century historians' view, etc. I am sure that the article should be modified, and I would be grateful if you had time to watch the article. Borsoka (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I'm back at your request. You'll find the material that was present prior to my involvement in the sandbox, linked at the top of the page, if you want to mine it for material that should be restored. I'll look in on this article to help with clarity of thought and usage, although I have no background knowledge of the subject matter, beyond what I've read here. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 15:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Question 5 "The Blakumen Runestone"
What does the mention and picture of the Blakumen Runestone have anything to do with the founding of Moldavia? The runestone mentioned is a grave memorial monument in cemetery in Sweden to a Hróðfúss, who was killed by "Blakumen" while traveling abroad. Where this murder took place and the identity of this/these Blakumen are themselves a matter of speculation. How is the Blakumen Runestone relevant?TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

For example this sentence: "Victor Spinei wrote that a runestone which was set up around 1050 contains the earliest reference to Romanians living east of the Carpathians" is contradicted by the very next sentence: "It refers to Blakumen who killed a Varangian merchant at an unspecified place."TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the rune stone does not specify where the Blakumen ("Vlachs", "Black Cumans" or "Black men") killed the Viking merchant, but Spinei suggests that they were Vlachs who lived somewhere in Moldavia (Spinei is convinced and wants to demonstrate that the Vlachs formed the "authochtonous" population of Moldavia). Nevertheless, this is an important POV, shared by almost all Romanian historians. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Spinei is welcome to subscribe to the theory of the Vlachs being indigenous to Moldavia, but using the Blakumen Runestone as evidence of his theory is unjustified due to the fact that the runestone doesn't mention where Hróðfúss was killed by these "Blakumen". It is known that medieval Scandinavians (vikings) had extensive trade contacts throughout Europe (the Byzantine domain, the Arab world, and southern Russia for examples) and their presence was represented throughout Europe. Where Hróðfúss was when he was killed could be anywhere :East of the Carpathians, West of the Carpatians, Banat, Central Transylvania, South of the Danube, Greece, Constantinople, Southern Russia etc. For Spinei to use the Blakumen Runestone dedicated to a man who was murdered by "Blakumen" traveling abroad (abroad = anywhere) as evidence of Vlachs living east of the Carpathians in Moldavia is a clear case to me that Spinei is leading the evidence instead of the evidence leading him. This is not good scholarship. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Spinei is driven by a dogma which says that the Vlachs are indigenous to Moldavia. However, his work is a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Borsoka. Regardless of Spinei's reference to the runestone in support of his theory - his work is valid as a reliable source. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)