Talk:Historical regions of Romania

[Untitled]
there is an error about Transilvania historical Region. Transilvania does not comprise Banat Crisana and Maramures. Transilvania stands alongside Crisana Banat and Maramures as historical regions of Romania. If Banat Crisana and Maramures make up the Transylvania historical region, if u take them away, then a huge area of this "Transylvania" doesnt reamains unnamed. Criztu 07:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know about that. I think Transylvania is more commonly referred to as spanning Crişana, Banat and Maramureş too, which are subregions of Transylvania. I come from Oradea, for example, and I would consider myself Transylvanian, as would most people here ("ardeleni"). We are also from Crişana. I suppose the situation is similar in Banat and Maramureş... I know people from both of those regions who see themselves as Transylvanian when talking to people from Bucharest or Moldavia, for example, since there does seem to be a pan-Transylvanian regional identity, at least in things like language/accent, gastronomy, etc. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 08:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Huge mistakes
The article contains major errors in maps and in the article. I started with the map and i will continue with the article. First, Bucovina is not a romanian region. We should focus on romanian regions as geographic regions, with traditional ties. Politic borders many times don't respect traditional borders. For example today Orşova is in Mehedinţi county. Also Bucovina and Basarabia people call themself Moldoveni. So partition of Moldova in Moldova,Basarabia, Bucovina is arbitrary and not Romanian. This names are a result of political partition of Moldova not a Romanian partition. Historians from Romania never cleared this matter but that not means that those are different provinces. Also Maramureş was not part of Ardeal, Maramureş and other Marmaţia small voievodships wore transformed in Hungarian county's and wore given to Transylvania(hungarian state) în administration as Partium, but that don't means that romanians from Maramureş, Bârjava, and Ardeal wore given some choice or there wore in the same region. After 1918 the confusion between Ardeal/ Transylvania and the rest of the regions growed, also some parts of Crişana wore artificial included in Maramureş as a compensation for the loss of many parts of real Maramureş. But in this article we must expose the historical, traditional and geographical truth. If some change i will make don't make you happy please post in talk your view and we will discuss it. Also the title is rong, we should change it in Romanian Regions, Romania had only Ţinuturi, and wore made regardless of any tradition of history background of the land. Vasile iuga (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , first of all, you should respect your ban and study basic WP policies, including WP:NOR, in the following six months. Secondly, the map depicts territories which have never been inhabited by Romanians as "Romanian historical regions". Please also remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ban? First of all what regions wore not inhabited by Romanians? My map is not named Romanian Historical Regions, is named Romanian Regions, and all the region depicted there wore lived by Romanians and are still lived by them. First of all tell me the problem and then you can edit. Second i don't know about any ban for me, you clearly don't know what you are talking in both cases. Please don't disturb the page without a previos talk. There are many similar maps, and it's a view of what Romanians think about. Hungary or other country's involve in those regions clearly had their own names and view about them. Vasile iuga (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So you state that you are not identical with banned . What is the source of your map? Are there reliable sources depicting, for instance, the whole Banat and Debrecen as Romanian historical regions? By the way, what the term "Romanian historical region" means, according to scholarly works? Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't state, is clear even for a donkey with glasses. :) As for the regions, you are not in a position to question me or to decide what Romanians claims as regions. Banat was a region with a Romanian majority. A region of the Romanian people is a region inhabited by them, in a minority or majority . Crişana has it's borders on Mureş and Tisa, Oaş, Gutâi,Meseş, Apuseni Mountains . So yes Debrecen/Debreţin is in that region. THe city was of less importance before 1848 revolution, and all the Tisa grasslands wore full of heards of the Romanians or Hungarians. You have a map with the same province, a France map. :)) Vasile iuga (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I do not have a French map. You should study basic WP policies, especially WP:NOR and WP:Civility. You will be surprised, because all editors are in the position to question any edits which are not based on academic works, according to WP:NOR. If I understand your logic, whole Romania is a Hungarian historical region: Romania has its own borders, there are Hungarians living in Romania and there are no sub-regions in Romania which were not dominated by the Hungarians for a longer or shorter period. Or we could state that whole Southeastern Europe is a Bulgarian historical region, because there are Bulgarians living in Southestern Europe and large territories in Southeastern Europe were under Bulgarian rule for longer or shorter periods. Or we could say that whole Eurasia is a Spainsh historical region, because Eurasia can be easily identified on the map as large region and Spain is in Eurasia. I think this is a quite strange approach, similarly to the approach that territories which were never inhabited by Romanians and were never part of Romania could be depicted as parts of "Romanian historical regions". Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Look at the second map in the site, if you cannot understand that Romanians consider Crişana west border on the river Tisa, that explain why you consider Trianon a good deal for Romania. Yes the province is not lived 100% by Romanians, but still is a province of them, as it is a province for the Hungarians. And if was or not in a Romanian state is not a argument, Kurd people never had a state, but that don't means that their provinces don't exist. Vasile iuga (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you misunderstand something. We need a reliable source based on which this map could be presented. Borsoka (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok my sources are in the map description. My map is not a copy of any previous map, it's an exact map of what romanians consider their regions. FO example Ardeal political border was Almaş river, but in some periods was another border, and the romanians consider that Border, Meseş Mountains, as border of the region, not Almaş. This is a map about Romanians view, i hope you understand. I will not go and say Hungarians cannot make their own map, they have Partium in that area, we have other regions. The area was a multicultural one.

Vasile iuga (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may not know, but WP is not a forum where editors can publish their own views of history or geography. Please read WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes.
A little history of each region, and other stuff. More regions, Partium was not a Romanian region, but a Hungarian one, this is a article about Romania. If you don't like what i have done, post it hear and we can change it or we can discuss it. Vasile iuga (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you should discuss your proposed edits on the Talk page of WikiProject Romania before making them. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest to cry less and say what is your problem with my changes, on topic, point by point, you revert changes, so tell me your arguments point by point.

And what is your problem with my map. Make a list, you have no right to change without any argument. All data are known facts, you have similar maps. So you can go on that talk page, because this page have a talk page and you are the king, the Hungarian King of Wiki. So tell us from your wisdom, what is rong ? Debrecen nem Debreţin? Vasile iuga (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstand the case. Please read WP:NOR: the publication of maps which are not based on academic works is forbidden. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Borsova
I think user Borsova vandalize the page, he can't bring an argument, but he reverts all changes. Just let's write Greater Hungary on the maps and for him it will be ok. This site has no rules at all. I am done with this page, i will note lose my time with hungarians angry on 1918. According to this chap is illegal to write history of the province, for him History starts in 1918. And the regions of Romanians are in Wallachia, there is Erdely and Partium. I made my map in 2 years, gatering data about medieval, period. Similar maps are on site, just mine is more exact, more data. The others who had time could battle with this chap. I am done, i will make a map with Greater Hungary to be less angry, from Volga to Alps. You know, this boy thinks maghiars and huns the same people and he can revert changes in history pages. Vasile iuga (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, again. I suggested above you should seek assistance from members of WikiProject:Romania. They can assist you in your native language. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh come on ,Hungarians are funny chaps . All the maps are the same, You took mine because Debrecen nem Debreţin. So let's erase the page, because the maps are made by users so are their own research and where are the sources who states Crişana was partitioned between Hungary and Romania, because you say that Crişana is only in Romania :)). So is wrong with you ? Is Crişana only in Romania or in Hungary too? because ,Crișana (Hungarian: Körösvidék; German: Kreischgebiet) is a geographical and historical region divided today between Romania and Hungary.

I have a better idea, just go on your Hungarian pages, because is an article about Romania, you know nothing about Romanians, my map has all the sources in description. End of talks. Vasile iuga (talk)
 * Please read WP:NOR, WP:Source, WP:Own. You may not know but propagandistic maps of far-rightist political movements from the 1930s and 1940s do not qualify as reliable sources for WP purposes: they are primary sources. Borsoka (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh give me a break, all the maps have the same borders, don't try to be smart with me. All the pages have the same information, first map of Romania has Tisa as border. You can't read or are you blind, read the article. I will report you if you reply me again with those links, it's boring to read those autistic reply over and over again. You are beyound stupidity or faking brain slowness just to make me angry, what is rong with you? I hope is the second one and you are just angry on 1918. Well that's why most of you are angry, because you are not learned in school that Romania wanted more, and was a good treaty for a losing side and was a bad treaty for a wining side, very bad. That was not propaganda, that was the view of Romanians side, to be probaganda it will need to be on Romanian agenda, but Romania never wanted all Crişana, but was view as a Romanian province. http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/img/transterk-map31-j.jpg

Romanians lived all across it, on Crasna River, on Criş river, scars in modern era but live there. Crişana plain was a pasture region before modern era, for hungarians and romanians too. Even in 1890 Romanians lived in most of it.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Walachians_%28Romanians%29_in_Hungary%2C_census_1890.jpg

This is propaganda too ? Before Romanian state, before even nationalist movements, we had propaganda right ?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rumunia.JPG Far right propaganda in 1816? :)))

Let's see, this is propaganda too http://euclid.psych.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/images/martonne1919.jpg ? Romanian claims in 1919 with all Crişana included, but not claimed.

Why do they bother to draw till Tisa, if they don't claim it? Because that's the region.http://verdenfata.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Harta-Romania-Mare-1919.jpg

I don't want to argue with you anymore, post on subject or not post at all.

Just remeber

1 My map don't present Crişana as a purely romanian region. 2 Is a Romanian region, as a hungarian region too. 3 Debreţin was in Bihor county, county with a strong romanian population. 4 All Crişana was never on romanian agenda, but that don't means that romanians who lived the hills don't pasture the lowlands. 5 Even in GH is presented as a distinct region, of some moravian prince. 6 Even now the region is view by hungarians and romanians as a common region. So i wish you a good day, and just end this conversation for good.

Vasile iuga (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOR and seek assistance from the relevant wikiproject (WikiProject:Romania). Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you should seek assistance in Teahouse or on the Talk page of WikiProject Romania, because you do not understand the basic principles of Wikipedia. For instance, you do not understand what a reliable source is and you have not realized that our community emphasizes the ban on original research. Maps which do not state that a region is a historical region of Romania, books written in 1900 can hardly be used to edit this article. If you do not stop destroying this article, our community will conclude that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will report you for vandalism, you revert the page with no reasons, you and other nationalists. That's was the history of the region, Crişana was partitioned, you are to stupid to continue argue with you.

What are the „sources”, the hungarian ones ? That book is in latin and hungarian, with original diplomas of the Kingdom, you are a Hungarian vandal with Trianon malaria. I will not talk with idiots, you can report me. So reference based on direct sources are bad ? :) You are to hateful and to stupid to continue arguing with you. And you can report me, because i will not retract my words, i have been kind to you, but you are to idiot to be that way. You say i am not trying to improve the page? Oh yes, i write history of the regions, give refences and you delete all. Go read your rules you idiot(yes you can report me, you have nowa  reason). Good bye. Vasile iuga (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Subject of the article
The article about the historical regions of Romania. Why do we think that regions which are not included in the country could be listed under this title? Why do we think that regions which were never included in the state named Romania should be linked here? Are there reliable sources listing these territories as historical regions of Romania? Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * First of all, please stop reverting without discussing the issue and reaching a consensus. Historical regions of Romania, as I see it, designates the core lands that belonged to Moldavia and Wallachia until they united to form Romania, and also Transylvania, Dobrogea, and Banat. I don't think it should include Pocutia, for instance, because it was held for a short period of time and it wasn't recognized by Poland as being part of Moldavia. As for drawing a parallel with Hungary: no, Moldavia and Wallachia should not count as a historical regions of Hungary merely because Hungary occupied the lands for some time -- or because there are Hungarians living there -- for the simple reason that that's not the definition of the term historical region. A historical region is a region that was a core land of an entity, or, was claimed by an entity for a substantial part of time. Transylvania and Banat are Hungarian historical regions, as they are Romanian. Moldavia is not a Hungarian historical province, even though the early Moldavian mark could be seen as an extension of Hungary, but because it only lasted for a few years before rebelling against Hungary, it has no relation to being part of the Hungarian statehood.


 * Ive looked around a bit and I see similar articles that list historical regions of a country (ex. Ukrainian historical regions). What do you find so controversial about it? --Cei Trei (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , if you look at the article history, you will find that it was not me who started to add information without providing proper references to reliable sources . Would you please verify your above statements about historical regions and historical regions of Romania by referring to reliable sources as per WP:NOR? Please refrain from reverting information which is not based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , instead of making personal attacks you should provide references to reliable sources to verify the content of this article as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * , the thing is that you are removing them just because you hate Romania. Your hate becomes clear from the Moldavia is a Hungarian region thing. Every region included in that list is a historical region of Romania OR of the 3 Romanian countries (Transylvania, Wallachia, Moldova) (and also of Dobruja). This is not what maintaining neutrality is. The reason why you are so worried about Romanian pages is just the fact that you are Hungarian. The countries that you hate are appearently too important for you, so you need to change their history. I made that new category for historical regions that are not, but were in Romania so that you stop it, but you won't stop, not even with that category. It doesn't matter that, for example, Pokuttya was only part of Moldavia for a short time. It was part of a Romanian country, so it's a historical region of Romania. Just like the thing you said about Moldavia. If you want to consider it a historical region of Hungary, go ahead, but also allow US to consider our regions historical regions of our country. As I've already said, the page's title says HISTORICAL REGIONS OF ROMANIA, not Regions that are today part of Romania. That means regions that HAVE TO DO with Romania. And every included region has to do with Romania. Stop changing our history, as I said. I'm going to undo your edits every time you do a wrong edit to the page. I've never edited Hungarian pages because I of course let YOU think whatever you want. So leave OUR pages alone. Everyone on his own side.

Also: As Cei Trei said, countries like Ukraine do also have pages about regions that are not part of them today. But you haven't edited these pages. You ONLY edit the Romanian page, which shows your hate towards us. You do it because of hate, not because you want to maintain neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueMapper (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you refer to reliable sources instead of personal attack? Please remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please remember that WP is not a reliable source for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The only source of the article (Treptow, Popa) presents the regions of Greater Romania as the "historical provinces of Romania" on a map on page lxix. It lists the following regions within the borders of Greater Romania: (1) Bessarabia, (2) Moldavia, (3) Bucovina, (4) Dobruja, (5) Muntenia, (6) Oltenia, (7) Banat, (8) Crișana, (9) Maramureș, and (10) Transylvania. Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If I understand this article correctly, it is to cover the regions that were at one time or another linked to Romania with a strong Romanian presence. Is it really necessary to source the fact that the region of Bessarabia (now Moldova) was part of Moldavia and, for a brief time, of Romania? (Yes, what was part of Moldavia can be claimed by Romania.) This can be done by simply going to the article Union_of_Bessarabia_with_Romania, but I'm asking if it really is necessary for an article that is meant to be more of a summary. --Cei Trei (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As a side note, you were right to remove Romania's claims to Pocutia, Timok Valley and other similar examples. Moldavia had a claim to Pocutia that pretty much ended at Obertyn in the early 16th century and Romania refused the idea of occupying the territory when Poland asked us to in the 20th century. --Cei Trei (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is necessary to verify all information. We cannot edit articles based on our understanding of facts as per WP:NOR. Please also remember that WP is not a reliable source for WP purposes as per WP:CIRC. If you look at my previous edit on this Talk page, Bessarabia can be described as a historical region of Romania. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to possible claims by Romania. WP is rarely edited based on irredentist claims. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that you have recycled some sources on the article of Stephen the Great from other articles that pertained to him -- perhaps these ought to be removed. Ok, so we need to have a good source for Bessarabia having been part of Romania. --Cei Trei (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your reference to "recycled" sources. Each sentence in the article about Stephen the Great is verified by references to peer reviewed books and articles. If you had read my previous message here, you would have realized that I found a "good source" for the inclusion of Bessarabia. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you say so; but for the record, there are two sentences listed with "citation needed". --Cei Trei (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And those sentences were not written by me. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I figured that you meant any sentence in the article, but I guess you don't mind keeping unsourced material in an article that you spent hours on improving and that you nominated for GA, and instead take issue with a small article that, among other things, listed Bessarabia (for which Stephen fought for) as a historical Romanian region. I find that a bit ironic. --Cei Trei (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Yes, I added a "citation needed" tag, because I hoped (and still hope) that those two sentences about the nature of Stephen's illnes and his feast day would be sooner or later verified. However, it is quite obvious that regions which were never part of Romania could hardly be described as historical regions of Romania. Please read the above discussion and you will understand the huge difference between the two cases. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You could've simply removed the regions of Timok Valley and the like, and allow Bessarabia to remain. Although it's not the case here, a country that is a continuity of another (or several) political entities can inherit the claim that those entities had. So, for example, if Moldavia would have had a decent claim to Pocutia in the early 19th century, that claim would've been inherited by Romania. --Cei Trei (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above WP is rarely edited based on irredentist claims instead of reliable sources. Please remember that it was me who found a reliable source supporting the inclusion of Bessarabia in the article, because both you and TheBlueMapper had been repeating your own thoughts about the subject instead of searching for proper references. Sorry, I think there is no point in continuing this discussion. All information which can be verified can be presented in a WP article, but all sentences which are not verified can be deleted any time, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, unverified content can be deleted at any time (at least officially, because I remember someone doing that in the past and was blocked), but you don't need to remove something that you know is correct--which you do--and it's also for that reason that you didn't delete Bessarabia. It's only when a certain persona visited this article and deleted it, that you went along with his take instead of raising the issue. No matter, though, everything is good. --Cei Trei (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This article îs named Historical regions of Romania, not Historical regions of Greater Romania, so I don't see how that source could apply (I also have doubts about using a book by a convicted pedophile, I'm sure we could find an alternate if we ever decide to create that article). The article should only list historical regions currently under Romanian administration or currently claimed by Romania (AFAIK there are no official claims). Otherwise there'll be a slippery slope regarding what regions gets to be called historical of which state (if we go by time previously within state or predecessor, Dobruja is more of a historical region of Turkey; if we go by any past Romanian administration, eastern Hungary will fit as well, as would probably Pokuttya). Consequently I think this page can only respect the NPOV if only regions within current Romania are included (in case Romania would have active claims, such as Ukraine over Crimea or India over territories controlled by China, for NPOV reasons they should also be included). 13:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The pedophile part is irrelevant and historical regions of Romania doesn't need to mean regions that are currently part of Romania. It could be any historical region that is linked to Romania. Yes, Dobrogea can be counted as a historical region of the Ottoman Empire and its successor state, Turkey. You're right about Romania not having any 'official' claims on the territories in question. --Cei Trei (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I also think Anonimu's proposal is fully in line with WP policies and it is a neutral approach. Borsoka (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't say! --Cei Trei (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)