Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 19

Editing habbits
Dear editor Borsoka,

I have noticed a pattern in your editing. It may be an unintended one, in which case please take steps to correct it. It may also be a intended one, to obfuscate changes in the article by simply hiding them under a "sea" of changes.

The problem is that although you seem to make minor edits, you keep shifting around chunks of the whole article. Your edit comments also do NOT reflect what you edited. I shall revert your latest changes as I have noticed that the sections that were shifted around contained sometimes small other times larger (but consequential) changes.

Point in case: You shifted around an entire paragraph but also changed

"Primarily the use of different words distinguishes the subdialects from each other, but their phonology is quite uniform.The shepherds seasonal movements between the mountains and the lowlands may have contributed to the preservation of the unity of the language,but the leveling effect of migrations could also gave rise to the development of a uniform language (similarly to the case of the Western coast of the USA which had been colonized in the recent past)."

into

"Primarily the use of different words distinguishes them from each other, because their phonology is quite uniform. Whether the shepherds seasonal movements between the mountains and the lowlands secured the presevation of the language unity,or the leveling effect of migrations  gave rise to the development of a uniform language, cannot be decided."

The problem is that you just changed the logic of the sentence, in the sense that the original sentence did not presume that the two possible causes need to be exclusive, while your second sentence implies exactly that.Cealicuca (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read the cited source (Wexler) and you will understand it. Borsoka (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I will, in the meantime please mark your changes accordingly and correct the problem (or the habit) of shifting around entire paragraphs while at the same time changing key words in them (that change the whole meaning of entire phrases). Or, you may try to get a consensus before that. Also, nice of you to disagree with me on the Talk page (about the written source categories) but then going ahead and modifying them according to your whim. I would have hoped you not ignoring the subject and maybe changing it after a consensus is reached.Cealicuca (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) You claimed that the present structure of the article is not good, especially referring to the Written sources section. (2) There is a consensus that the pro and con approach should not be applied. (3) The new structure follows a consequent geographical division (without mentioning all events that are irrelevant in connection with the two theories) and it also clarifies where the place where the event occurred is uncertain. If you want to propose other structure, please do it, but do not revert other editors' edits because it can easily contradict to WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) ...and you conveniently said that there's nothing wrong with it (the current section titles), ended the discussion, and went on to modify according to your whim. That is a little bit hypocritical, the least you could have done is, just as you asked me, proposed the changes and try to reach a consensus. (2) The article IS right now a confusing jumble of pros/cons in each paragraph, each section. Because of this we have endless "discussions" about even one sentence. The point is to have the article unchanged (no new content added for a while as it would complicate things greatly) while restructuring it. If we all cooperate it should be done in a timely fashion. Yes, there is a consensus on to PRO/CON approach (that it should not be done like that). So the article, because at this point is a pro/con even at the level of one paragraph, should be restructured. Thank you for supporting it. My suggestion is to fold the narrative in a clear way, each section (DRC, IT etc.) should have it's own sections, paragraphs. (3) I am reverting your edits because of what I said above. You are moving entire paragraphs, sections whatever. They appear as new, while they actually contain "some" of the same content. You make small modifications to said paragraphs/phrases, often consequential to the whole phrase, that cannot be analysed properly (so without any consensus) which I start to believe you do on purpose, trying to mask said small (but consequential changes). Your edits are not tagged accordingly (a short description of the changes) so it makes any attempt of actually trying to see what you changed next to impossible. In my OP I posted a link to the diff that clearly shows how you do it. Make smaller increment changes and that should be enough.Cealicuca (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have several times stated, we cannot establish our personal rules. All editors can edit this article in accordance with WP policies and none of us is entitled to revert edits just for the fun of it. My edits qualify for as copyedit and my edit summaries reflected it. Please do not push a pro and con approach, (1) because there is no clear cut difference; and (2) because it is not supported by the majority of the editors. Borsoka (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have also stated many times - your edits contain "stealth" modifications of the already agreed content. Should you take a more balanced approach (smaller increments, give time for debate and acceptance of the modifications you want to add, consult sources etc.) sure. But until then, since you seem to have a poor understanding of the basic CE policy, I will revert to the latest version. It is not my personal rules, you are the one marking your edits as CE while they certainly are not.Cealicuca (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As for your your statements about the pro/con type of content - I find it amazing that you seem to believe that by simply repeating on and on the same line you will convince anyone. The current content, as observed even by other editors (Bradv) is a mess, is confusing, and it IS actualy, at this point, a PRO/CON at the level of each paragraph. If your honest intention is to NOT have such a structure than you would actually try to cooperate with the other (less biased) editors into bringing quality to the article.Cealicuca (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well after carefully checking the edits, I don't agree of their revert, I have no problem with the changes. You should a bit stop with the continuous accusation of other editors, as well teaching them some WP rules you don't even apply or take in consideration and please also don't accuse other editors with "poor-understanding" as long i. e. you did not tell your native English-speaking person that the official, native name was Zemli Ungrovlahiskoi. Endless discussions are rendered mostly because of you recently, like you would be eager always to confront someone. This type of editing habit is not a proper approach.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC))
 * I am again truly sorry. What the native official name was or wasn't it actually makes no difference on your actual sentence. You also seem not to understand what official native name means (hardly such a thing), confuse Slavic "administration" with the use of the Slavic language in administration. Simply because official documents may have been written in Slavic (at the time) does not make one country Slavic, just like, for example, most Western Europe and Central Europe at the time were writing the official documents in Latin. That does not make the the Roman empire, nor does it make them Romans, does it? If the German administration send a document in English, what do you think they will use. Deutshland or Germany? Still confused? And stop projecting modern standard (when yes, a country DOES indeed have an official native name, like Magyarország and NOT Hungary) to medieval times. Glad you are OK with the edits, nobody's surprised. I am OK with additions, that are transparent. I am not OK with calling CE a stealth edit that changes the meaning of a paragraph. Otherwise, in principle, of course I do not oppose adding quality (WP:RS) content. I have to wonder why didn't Borsoka just made the changes transparent (leave the paragraph in place and edit it, save, make change to another paragraph, save, and so on.Cealicuca (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you are inventing new things just to lenghten the discussion, we should close this issue, so listen very carefully:


 * - I did not confuse "Slavic administration" with "Slavic language administration", since regarding Wallachia that was one and the same.
 * - Since I never stated that the "country would be Slavic", your question is again ignored along with the comparison.
 * - Only you are confused, nobody else. Germany, but it has not any connection what wish to conclude because you anyway confuse things.
 * - I did not project any modern standard, on the contrary, I explained there are different practises regarding any era or time, also their specialities are also taken into consideration, i.e. we separate the modern era's alleged/legal official languages with the medieval era's case and we don't confuse it with the language of administration. This does not change the fact that I state, simply just you don't wish to understand the definition, what I already told about what means "official, native" = officially used in the country's own legal administration to designate itself. I hope we finally closed this issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC))
 * Oh boy... Yes, we can close the issue. You said more than enough :)Cealicuca (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Before deciding to again do what you did, please read this. Again, I am not opposed to adding well sourced material. Take it slow, especially with big changes. Otherwise, and I feel the need to repeat myself to make sure you get it, I do NOT oppose incremental changes as long as they are properly marked (for new content) or discussed beforehand (for modifications done to the existing content). I do however believe you know precisely what I mean. In any case, this behavior (that you engaged quite a lot of times in the past, so far without any checks) stops now. This is a sensitive article, we need to cooperate to make it better. The way forward is not to make massive or stealthy changes without discussing them first.Cealicuca (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is NOT your personal Wiki page. Borsoka or any other editors don't have to "run things by you" before we makes any edits. I notice that you've never objected to the content of Borsoka's edits, only that they were made in a way that you personally didn't like and thus reverted them. It is not up to you to decide who can make edits and how those edits are made. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should really refresh your knowledge about the editing policy and also THIS. Try to read the whole thing, not selectively. I say this because you seem to "notice" only selectively. I can promise you that you won't need Notepad++ to check for all the changes, nor that whole paragraphs shift from one place to another on a daily basis while at the same time their content is modified, nor does new content appear as well as existing content gets modified without proper markings. Alternatively I could quote you some of the things that might shed light on the problem. But you're right on one thing, that's for sure. Nobody, neither ME nor YOU... nobody else has (or should have) a monopoly on this (or any) article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "You should really refresh your knowledge about the editing policy and also THIS. Try to read the whole thing, not selectively. I say this because you seem to "notice" only selectively." I suggest you heed your own advice first before informing other editors on Wiki policies that you yourself seem reluctant to abide by. What you are doing is projecting. And by your actions and behavior it seems to be clear that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So did you read it? :) Anyway, good luck and god speed!Cealicuca (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand there are editors who cannot compare two texts that contain about 15 sentences. I will repeat the changes step by step. Nobody owns the article and nobody is entitled to exclusively edit it. I will not comment this issue any more. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Disintegration of the "common" Romanian
Hello,

The following " The disintegration of the four Eastern Romance variants occurred in the 10th-12th centuries." is not the same as the original " Common Slavic and Old Church Slavonic loanwords adopted by all Eastern Romance variants prove that the start of the disintegration of Common Romanian into its four dialects (the north-Danubian Daco-Romanian and the three south-Danubian dialects of Aromanian/Macedo-Romanian, Megleno Romanian and Istro-Romanian) began in the 10th century." since it is not the four Eastern Romance variants that disintegrated, but the common Romanian that disintegrated INTO the four Eastern Romance variants. Reverted (manual) the edit since it completely changed the meaning.Cealicuca (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. Sorry, I made a mistake whwn shortening the text. I fixed the problem and restored the important piece of information you deleted by chance, namely that the disintegration lasted for centuries.Borsoka (talk)
 * Borsoka, I think we should change to the word "disintegrate" to either "splintered" or "split", like Old East Slavic splintered or split into Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Rusyn languages. To my ears as a native English speaker, the word "disintegrate" implies "degradation". TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea. So KUDOS for bringing it up - I would gladly agree on split (since even though splintered might sound good to your native English speaking ear, it really is a bit overwhelming to a non-native English speaker's ear).Cealicuca (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just about to say thank you when I saw that you really can't help yourself... "To adopt your style: Cealicuca wants to hide that the disintegration was completed centuries ago." -> I had to edit it manually because of your habit of editing (couldn't automatically undo). Moreover, the sentence I put back in was "Common Slavic and Old Church Slavonic loanwords adopted by all Eastern Romance variants prove that the start of the disintegration of Common Romanian into its four dialects (the north-Danubian Daco-Romanian and the three south-Danubian dialects of Aromanian/Macedo-Romanian, Megleno Romanian and Istro-Romanian) began in the 10th century." Notice the "began in the 10th century". Anyway, good that you finally agreed but you always seem to take one step forward and 2 steps back. ROFLCealicuca (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I adopted the uncivil style of your edit summaries to demonsrate it. Please also try to make a distinction between the start and the end of a process. You deleted a piece of information about the end of the process. Nevertheless, you drew my attention to a mistake, so I grateful for it. I will not comment this subsection again. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am glad we agree on something... better than nothing. Nevertheless your disruptive editing methods have nothing to do with me, I just noticed them and pointed them out. :)Cealicuca (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI: I reported myself for "disruptive edits" to enable you to provide evidence. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, I did not remove anything. Even if I would have, my problem was that it was impossible to undo automatically so I had to add the information manually. So what happened is I copied sentence that YOU deleted: "Common Slavic and Old Church Slavonic loanwords adopted by all Eastern Romance variants prove that the start of the disintegration of Common Romanian into its four dialects (the north-Danubian Daco-Romanian and the three south-Danubian dialects of Aromanian/Macedo-Romanian, Megleno Romanian and Istro-Romanian) began in the 10th century. Notice the "began in the 10th century.", as it was in the original source. See the change log. The fact that you (or anyone else) added "-12" afterwards (or before deleting the sentence) is irrelevant, I just added what you deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 20:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

"Pan-Romanian" hydronyms
A sentence in article states that "On the other hand, with the same or close/derived name, many rivers are found throughout all areas where Romanians live." The note to the same sentence refers to a Slavic river name (Bistra - "swift") and a river name of uncertain etymology (Nistru). What is the connection of the sentence and the river names to the Romanians' ethnogenesis? For instance, the Hungarians also borrowed the Bistra/Bistrita river names from the Slavic population in many regions of Slovakia, Transylvania and Moldavia, because before their immigration the Slavs had inhabited those territories. Do we want to emphasize that the presence of a Slavic-speaking population before the immigration of the Romanians' ancestors can be proved everywhere in Romania? Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that sentence either, in context of the paragraph. Especially with the previous sentence, "Many of the smallest rivers and streams bear names of Romanian origin." "Bistrita" isn't one of them. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Borsoka, interesting question, would suggest it was common to use in some places already known names rather them renaming them. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, the previous sentence refer to another rivers, if you check the note, this sentence was already discussed, the catch is that usually only the smallest rivers and streams have names of Romanian origin.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC))
 * @Borsoka Regarding Do we want to emphasize that the presence of a Slavic-speaking population before the immigration of the Romanians' ancestors can be proved everywhere in Romania? Please refrain from provoking other editors into yet another flame war. Please try and use proper logic (example: If A is unknown, even if B is true -> A & B != TRUE, because if A is FALSE then A & B = FALSE). Please try to preserve at least the semblance of a neutral, unbiased editor. Please be civil and considerate and your efforts will be returned a thousand fold. Should you chose to reiterate your argument without the inherent bias maybe we can agree on something. Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Do you say that the fact that the Romanians (and Hungarians) adopted Slavic river names everywhere where they live is a provocation? And I still do not understand what is the connection between the sentence and the subject of the article. Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether we should emphasize that the presence of a Slavic-speaking population before the immigration of the Romanians' ancestors can be proved everywhere in Romania. Both the Continuity and the Migrationist theories account for Slavic-speaking peoples of the area. Off course, under the Continuity theory, the Romanian-speaking populations preceded the Slavs while under the Migrationist theory it's the other way around. Yet it's a fact that Hungarians names of rivers in the area are mostly of Slavic and Turkic origin and the Romanians names are mostly of Slavic and Hungarian origin (with the smallest rivers being of Romanian origin). Under the Migrationist theory, this fact is explained that the Hungarians encountered a Slavic and Turkic speaking populations in the area and thus adopted the names of the rivers from them, and Romanian-speaking populations migrating into the area adopted the names of the rivers from the remainder of the Slavic population not yet assimilated and from the Hungarians. Under the Continuity theory, I'm not sure how a Romanian-speaking population indigenous to the area would name most of their rivers from Slavs and Hungarians would be explained. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, but I still do not understand why is the sentence relevant in the article's content. All people use similar words when mentioning the streams in the lands where they live. For instance, several small streams which run through rocky lands in Burgenland, Transdanubia, Transylvania and Moldavia are called Köves(d) ("with stones") in Hungarian - is this fact connected to the Hungarians' ethnogenesis? The fact that the Romanians adopted Slavic river names everywhere in Romania is mentioned in the article. I think we should not overemphasize it as per WP:DUE. That is why I think the sentence should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no objection with that. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Borsoka, TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit I am again respectfully asking you to stop hijacking discussions or creating fake "debates" for the sole purpose of creating the false impression of a so-called consensus. This example is pertinent, the subject is Romanian Hydronimy but the OP itself focuses on something else. Stop advocating for a certain political PoV (as if it were fact). You are not here to prove one way or the other. The fact is that this whole line of "argumentation" here is not to decide on a sentence that may or may not be clear. As it is clear after reading all your posts you are focusing on (once again) trying to push a certain POV, emphasizing as much as possible "before the immigration of the Romanians' ancestors" in sentences like "Do we want to emphasize that the presence of a Slavic-speaking population before the immigration of the Romanians' ancestors can be proved everywhere in Romania?" which implies that "the immigration of the Romanians' ancestors" would be a fact ( and "the presence of a Slavic-speaking population before" is the "provable" one). And no, the sentence is not to be deleted, I don't agree. It should be analysed in context, maybe reworded.Cealicuca (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not explain what is the connection between the sentence and the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Neither have you explained why we should overemphasize that the Romanians borrowed Slavic hydronyms (such as Bistra) everywhere in Romania. Sorry, I will not comment on your remarks which are not connected to these two issues. Borsoka (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of emphasizing that rivers named Bistrița exist in different Romanian provinces. A river with the same name also exists in Western Bosnia. I see no inference. 123Steller (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you. You understand my second concern. Cealicuca is either a secret follower of the immigrationist theory, or he did not know that Bistra is a river name of Slavic origin and try to refer to it to prove the continuous presence of a non-Slavic population in Romania. :) Borsoka (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is funny when I think that you will not believe me, but nevertheless... I am actually. I believe that the Immigration Theory should be compulsory in Romanians schools, as it holds so much educational value. Certainly more educational value than a lot of the stupid things they teach those kids in school.
 * , @Borsoka: Actually, the problem was that some editors tried to direct the conversation. The problem was that other editors use a small and otherwise inconsequential detail to provoke yet another flame war. Please read again how the problem was posed and keep in mind the topic of this article. As for the sentence itself - I will say my opinion after consulting the source. I have to wonder how long it has been there and who actually added it / edited it.
 * , @Borsoka: Mistery solved. P266. This is about the fact that the river Bistrita (Moldavian) has the name Repedea (lat>rapidus) upstream, while Bistrita (Nasaud) is named Limpedea (lat>limpidus) . So there you go, the note is not that straightforward.

'''De pildă Bistrița (moldoveană) are, în zona superioară, denumirea de Repedea, din apelativul repede (< lat. rapidus), iar Bistrița (năsăudeană) are, în același areal, numele de Limpedea, din apelativul limpede (< lat. limpidus). Situația nu e singulară; și Sebeșul, situat în partea de sud-est a Transilvaniei, este un nume unguresc (< sebes “repede”), în timp ce un afluent al acestui râu poartă numele de Bistra, care în slavă înseamnă același lucru, “repede”, iar în partea superioară a cursului, Sebeșul se numește Frumoasa, nume românesc. Schematic, situația arată astfel: Repedea (rom.) – Bistrița (sl.) – Șieu (magh.) – Someș (autohton); Frumoasa (rom.) – Bistra (sl.) – Sebeș (magh.) – Mureș (autohton).'''Cealicuca (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The mistery is not solved. What is the connection between the sentence and the subject of the article? I deleted the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Borsoka Really? Of course it's relevant. You have a rivers that bear Slavic names (or Hungarian) but the same rivers, their upstream parts, bear Romanian (latin roots to be more exact) names.Cealicuca (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the sentence that I deleted, then my question, your answer and the source that you cited above, and try to fix the problem. The allegedly cited source refers to two streamlets, the deleted sentence is a general statement. The deleted sentence's relevance to the article's subject has not been verified, especially because its alleged source also mentions Slavic and Hungarian hydronyms, not only Romanians as it is suggested by the deleted sentence. If you continue to revert edits you will be reported as per WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'll give you a "partly right". The sentence is 1) positioned badly, and 2) kind of badly written. Nevertheless, no need for deletion. First let's make sure we are all on the same page:

1. You have the following statement: "The longer tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania which run through the most populated areas had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin, which were also adopted by the Romanians." Which basically says that the larger rivers (like Sebes for example) bear German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic names (or their name's origin is that).

2. But then a WP:RS states that for Bistrita (or Sebes), for example, the "young" river (part of the river closer to the source) bear Romanian (ie: couldn't be Slavic or Hungarian 'cause they're Latin basically) name.

3. Which means that there are examples (like Bistrita, or Sebes) or larger rivers that although have a Slavic, German or Hungarian name, they (or at least part of them... usually quite telling if it's the "young" river) have Romanian names.

So I propose that this goes in right after "The longer tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania which run through the most populated areas had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin, which were also adopted by the Romanians." with the following summary of the source. "However, there are examples of larger rivers that also bear Romanians names on the part of the river closest to the source (Bistrita -> Repedea (Lat->rapidus), Sebes -> Frumoasa (Lat->formōsus)). You can check the etymology here if you want.Cealicuca (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If we specify that we are referring to two cases, we can mention it or something similar. Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is with the above argumentation that we have to separate "Romanian names" from "Romanian origin names", since everything has a Romanian name - even it stems from another language. I.e. the term "Repedea" is a commonly used name for tributaries (immediately found five), at it has not any connection to if the word "Repedea" has a connection to "rapidus" since it is irrelevant, nobody said that "Repedea" would not be a Romanian name or would have a foreign origin. Regarding "Frumoasa", all the same - common naming in many locations, it means "beautiful" -, regarding Sebes, "Frumoasa" is not even an offical Romanian name, since the upper reach of the river is also reffered with that name, but officially the river is called "Sebeș". To say nothing of it is only relevant in this context, if also non-Romanians adopted these etymologies. We cannot confuse these with those cases, i.e. when some tributaries are called differently by Hungarians, Saxons or Romanians but it has no connection to the subject, namely who adopted from whom, since every river "bear Romanian name" in Romania, officially.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC))
 * Of course it's relevant. The first sentence is "The longer tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania which run through the most populated areas had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin, which were also adopted by the Romanians." which leaves no room for interpretation - that the Romanians adopted German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic names. Your "findings" are just that - your findings. This - "since every river "bear Romanian name" in Romania" doesn't even make sense (you just contradicted yourself) considering your previous sentence "regarding Sebes, "Frumoasa" is not even an offical Romanian name, since the upper reach of the river is also reffered with that name" and that Sebes is of Hungarian origin...
 * As a side-note it's not at all surprising that there are plenty of (separate) rivers (or parts of them) that bear the same name. On the contrary, since there are so many of them it should show a pattern. Meaning that the Romanians have adopted the SAME names for rivers (or part of them) regardless of the area (Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania) they lived. But anyway, what is though relevant is that there is a WP:RS that is in contradiction with the above sentence. Romanian did not always adopt the modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin, as parts of the river (as you yourself admit) have Romanian names. The problem of "Romanian names" vs "Romanian origin names" is a false problem - at best you could say that Romanians adopted "Latin origin" names (as per the source).Cealicuca (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we can expand the piece of information (which is already mentioned in the article) that most small streams have a name of Romanian origin everywhere in Romania. Why is surprising/relevant that the Romanians used the same words when naming rivers? Which reliable source verifies that this fact is connected to their ethnogenesis? For instance, there are 45 streams named "Willow Creek" in Montana - is this fact connected to the Americans' ethnogenesis? Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cealicuca, I did not contradict myself with anything, you just again don't understand something or miss the important details. This is what I wrote: "...since every river "bear Romanian name" in Romania, officially..." It is evident to understand the distinction, i.e. the (official) Romanian name is Sebeș, however this name is of Hungarian origin, what's original form is Sebes. I did not say that anything would be surprising, also i.e. the name Dumbrava is used very often by Romanians as a placename, but it has not any connection necessarily to any historical usage or adoption, it is just a simple mass-naming for locations also where more little villages were united into one administrative unit in the modern era. So this practice has not necessarily any historical relevance, if the same name is preferably used different locations, since it is not an adoption, the name was not adopted from anyone, just given. The section we discuss is about adoption, and releavant if also non-Romanians adopted the Romanian names. The referred source is not in contradiction with anything, since - again - noone debated that those names used by Romanians would not be of Romanian origin, it is not a "Latin adoption" as it could be misunderstood in this context = (not adopted the name by local Latin peoples or whatsoever), it is just about the word's etymology. As I also don't have to prove that Hungarian words orignated from old-Hungarian words, since it is evident.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC))
 * @Borsoka, @KIENGIR: I think any sane person would be surprised of what we >>all<< think is relevant or not :) Anyway, from that point of view (Romanians naming rivers the same all over the place) it is indeed unsurprising. The relevance of it is only in the context, meaning that (and I'm stating only the gist of it here... trying to keep it short) sources mention that larger rivers in one part of the present day territory have non-Latin origin/non-Romanian names, while other sources show that smaller tributaries of those large rivers, or parts of those large rivers (the young rivers) bear Latin origin/Romanian names.
 * Now - that those names are common throughout Romania shouldn't be surprising but it underlines the idea that they are indeed Romanian (since they are used also in areas that are not "contested"). I do however consider the "official" argument irrelevant because: officially, in Romanian, some rivers are (officially) named (exactly like the article says) using Hungarian / German / Turkic (whatever non-Latin) origin names, while others have Latin origin names. The argument that the official name has "not any connection necessarily to any historical usage or adoption" cannot be used only for Latin-origin names, but for any (Hungarian origin, German origin, Turkic origin) name, if we are to accept the validity of such argument. Otherwise why should Latin origin place-name used by Romanians be rationalized as being irrelevant (and as such discarded) while Hungarian / German / Turkic (whatever non-Latin) are relevant?
 * As for the "adoption" vs "given"... this is really extreme. "[...] if the same name is preferably used different locations, since it is not an adoption, the name was not adopted from anyone, just given" is just an assumption, especially when applied so generally - as a rule. The distinction about "adoption" and "given" is quite... too fine lined, subjective and definitely not mutually exclusive (somebody, at some point, named a place, so all place names are "given"). And not complete, since if we take all the views (referring to the article here) into consideration there's (at least) one view that would assume there is no need for "adoption", nor "given", but rather "inherited". Or otherwise, if "adoption" would have the same meaning as "inherited" why wouldn't "adoption" be applied to Latin-origin names too? Why would a Latin origin name, used by Romanians, be automatically "given"? In the end it's just that - what people are (were) calling a place.
 * And since for you it doesn't matter anyway what I said above, let's just stick to the source. The source establishes Latin-origin names for parts or smaller tributaries of those large rivers bearing Hungarian/German/Turkic origin names. So let's just stick to the source, shall we? I stick to the original proposal: "However, there are examples of larger rivers that also bear Romanians names on the part of the river closest to the source (Bistrita -> Repedea (Lat->rapidus), Sebes -> Frumoasa (Lat->formōsus))." or similar, awaiting proposal.Cealicuca (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We could say something like that if the cited source substantiated it. However, the cited source only repeats the piece of information that is already mentioned in the article: most of the smallest tributaries (the ones in the mountains) had a name of Romanian origin. Of course, we can mention the two lists - Repedea (rom.) – Bistrița (sl.) – Șieu (magh.) – Someș (autohton); Frumoasa (rom.) – Bistra (sl.) – Sebeș (magh.) – Mureș (autohton) -, but we cannot say that Repedea is the name of the uppermost course of the Somes river, or Frumoasa is the name of the uppermost course of the Mures river, because the source does not state this. Borsoka (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @Borsoka: Of course, as the source states (so if there are example of tributaries of larger fivers, we'll mention them as such. If there are examples of parts (upstream part, or young river) of larger rivers we'll mention them as such). Is that an acceptable compromise? Will be back with a final formulation for this.
 * If the statements can be verified by reliable source we can of course mention it, but we should avoid duplications. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cealicuca, you again did not understand that "relevance" mentioned above is correlating with "adoption", since the current section is speaking about those names that were adopted (= having foreign origin). Next to this, relevant is also in this context if the Romanian names (i.e. Repedea) were adopted by non-Romanians as well (= it is not relevant in this context if i.e. Hungarians, Saxons or Romanians would use three different names to desginate something, since then there is no adoption).


 * Adoption = foreign inheritance, given = the name given by the subject by it's own.


 * Your proposal insists that your allegation would hold for larger rivers, although it might hold for a few tributaries, and again, it has relevance if also non-Romanians adopted the Romanian naming, as per context. However, there is no need to show detailed the grammatical inheritance, as it is not shown also by other names. Again, Frumoasa is not official.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC))
 * @KIENGIR: Ok, so at least we established what adoption and given are. The problem with your definition of "relevance" are this: (1) There is no assignation of "relevance" to that particular section. So it should clearly state something that would suggest "here we're talking about adopted names". (2) Which exactly are the rules (I mean WP:RULES) by which such relevance that you propose (so relevance correlated to the adoption vs given status of a place name) is ok, since it seems to me quite arbitrary? (3) If we, by default, assume (key word: assume) that something is relevant only when it mentions "adoption" then it means that, by default, we assume that IT is true (since it is the only context where adoption, by your definition, can happen). If, on the other hand, we assume that "given" is the "default" relevance then, by default, we assume that DRC/AM is true (since it is the only context where given, by your definition, can happen). In either case, we would not be respecting any semblance of WP:NPOV.
 * So... as I understand it (please confirm, genuinely asking):
 * (A) you are not against this particular piece of content (presented as per what Borsoka and I were talking) but rather...
 * (B) you have a problem with the positioning, based on it's relevance towards a section/subsection that supposedly (because it's not clearly marked as such) is somehow meant to talk only about "adoption" (so automatically supporting IT).
 * What I don't understand is, if (B) is correct then
 * (C) Why would you oppose the restructuring of the article in the sense that such sections, with relevance towards only a specific theory (as logically, "adoption" by Romanians in this case, is equivalent to IT) should be marked as such and appended to an IT-dedicated section itself (keep the name and split the content into "relevance" towards each theory. In effect having each theory, each with it's own "Place names" section of something along the lines).Cealicuca (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) If a section clearly is about the origin of the names, it is evident what is relevant there. Reference point may be the official Romanian names, excluding artificial renaming in the near past.
 * (2) It is again evident in the context, but we have to be careful what we put into a clear Romanian origin, since that means that also non-Romanians adopted the naming (not equal with that if Romanians call exclusively something in their language, since this may be true to all official names, since also Romanians decided to use that names that are of foreign origin, despite of using i.e. Romanian ortography)
 * (3) I am not sure what "DRC/AM" means...?
 * (A) I am against mainly on that wording that you presented, Borsoka said of possible mentioning in some form, but raised a problem about what is not stated in the source.
 * (B) I.e., in case also non-Romanians adopted the Romanian name or they don't have a name, it may be mentioned that next to small rivers and streams some tributaries bear name of Romanian origin.
 * (C) I don't support that restructuring that was referred, argued more times as per the argumentation I made earlier. Also in the current form different views may be fairly expressed.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC))
 * (1) (2) Your whole argument is flawed. As a side note, all of those consideration... just crack me up. "excluding artificial renaming in the near past"? Why would we exclude "artificial" renaming (what is artificial anyway) in the "near" past? Why so arbitrarily? Why not exclude artificial renaming say... 300 years ago? In any case - it is not up to me, nor you, to decide what is relevant. If a WP:RS states X, in the context of the Romanian origin (that would be one of the 3 theories) then it IS relevant.
 * (3) IT - immigration theory, DRC - Daco-Roman continuity, AM - admigration theory. Any acronym will do if you don't like those.
 * (A) I will respect the wording of the WP:RS
 * (B) same as (1)
 * (C) Of course, because restructuring the article the way I said, and the way independent editors have already suggested, would bring context to all the statements. The article right now is a huge WP:OR, this is what it is. Why? Because statements ("evidences") are taken out of context and their "relevance" is attributed by editors on God knows what criteria... criteria that "makes sense" (or doesn't). The structure of the article should be according to WP:NPOV, more precisely WP:STRUCTURE -> Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. So we should instead stick to the sources - which means that what is or what isn't relevant is not up to us. See (1).Cealicuca (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is quite obvious that you do not understand the policy that you referred to above. We should avoid a "back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents", especially if there is no clean cut difference, as I summarized below in more details . Borsoka (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is obvious to me that you do understand the policy but engineer it to fir your views. You create a false, presumptive, dissimulated equivalence between the views by simply diluting all the supporting WP:RS throughout artificially created sections. The same thing that you did right now, with your statement (that is pick a part of the whole structure phrase and use it to fit your own purpose). Conveniently you left out, for example Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, or folding debates into the narrative. This is exactly what this article is structured. Everything is taken out of context. Feel free to again state that you are against the PRO/CON approach. I am against it myself. Incidentally my proposal has nothing to do with a PRO/CON approach. My proposal is to simply have (at least) 3 main sections, each theory with the WP:RS that mention it. Each theory with it's own narrative. It is not up to us to assign relevance to what a WP:RS source states, in the context of one theory or another.
 * This talk topic is about something else entirely. Will not comment on your interpretation of the WP:RULES here anymore unless directly related to the topic at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree we should not hold this debate here - especially since we did reach a sort of agreement. You may argue (i will respond to your points) in the Talk section regarding the restructuring. Ok?
 * Just for the record. (1) You have been trying to segregate the text into different subsection based solely on apparent POVs. (2) I already referred to reliable sources to verify the present structure of the article.  And I could refer to other scholars' work as well. (3) You have so far failed to refer to a single reliable source to verify your proposal. (4) I already demonstrated that there is no "uniform" continuity or immigrationist approach . Scholars who do not accept the migrationist theory often reject significant elements of the argumentation of the continuity theory or confirm important elements of the migrationist theory. (5) I already proposed an alternative: we could quote scholarly views in each subsection. (6) Instead of commenting on the subject of this subsection ("Pan-Romanian" hydronyms) you are expanding a debate from an other subsection (Restructuring of the Written sources section). Borsoka (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1), (2), (B), No, my argumentation is not flawed. Artifical renaming means an administrative change in the near past that has not any connection to the historical usage, shall it be Hungarian, Romanian or Saxon, or anything. It's relevance comes obviously from the subject. Could you present me any artifical renaming 300 years ago that would have any relevant connection to the topic?
 * (3), then, I did not define such that "adoption=IT". Also your other contemplation with "given" is just your imagination, no such assumption I've made.
 * (C) It is just your opinion, and don't know about which editors you refer, as well I don't agree why it is suggested this form would be lack of context, since the context is the origin of the Romanians, not two theories. Relevance cannot be just judged by their coherence to some theories; relevance is/should be standalone thing.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC))
 * (1), (2), (B): - Administrative changes of the names have been made by all administrations, for which we do or do not have records. But the point is that it doesn't matter what your view is (or mine) of this "artificial name change". What matters is that if there are sources which say something is relevant we cannot dismiss that based on whatever argument, or criteria we come up with (eg: artificial renaming, given vs adopted, official name etc.). Basicly, if a source says something is relevant, in a specific context, our job is to mention that (along with the context). Or do you disagree with that?
 * (3) Irrelevant - see previous comment.
 * (C) Yes, the context is Origin of the Romanians. As such there are 3 mainstream scholarly explanations (theories) about this - so we must stick to those 3 theories. Don't you agree? Which means anything unrelated specifically (as per WP:RS, not our opinion of views) to one of the three main theories is either fringe, or at least should be mentioned in a separate subsection according to WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT. We should not infer any relevance to any of the theories unless specifically stated by the WP:RS. In case we do that - it's WP:OR. Don't you agree? Basically, if there is a WP:RS that states X, specifically in the context of any of the 3 theories - it goes specifically related to the theory/theories it references (as per the WP:RS). So we have two cases: (1) A WP:RS] states that X is relevant in the context of one (or multiple) of the theories - we, as neutral editors, should mention that [[WP:RS states X in the context of one (or multiple) of the theories. If the editors "disconnect" the statement form the context - it's WP:OR. (2) Is a source mentions X, but the WP:RS does NOT say that it's relevant (specifically, or clearly implied) in the context of one of the 3 mainstream theories, then it is either fringe (according to WP:RULES) or otherwise should not be forcefully connected to a specific theory (since that is WP:OR). This kind of sources (WP:RS that is) may be mentioned in a specific section that is clearly marked as not specific to any theory.Cealicuca (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1), (2), (3), (B): If you say all administration made name changes, you should prove this statement. In the current context, historical usage is relevant, not artificial changes committed in the near past.
 * (C), I don't think anything should be limited to i.e. "three theories", as I said relevance is standalone. Just because something is not included in the main theories does not automatically mean it would be fringe.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC))
 * No, I don't need to prove anything because: 1 - it was YOU who used as argument the "artificial administration name change" or whatever, so basically the burden of proof is on you. And 2 - I don't need to bring any proof simply because it doesn't matter. Unless a WP:RS says that something has been artificially renamed, in the context of the representative mainstream theories about the Origin of the Romanians - it (this artificial administrative renaming argument) should not be in the article. Simple as that. Again, we do not get to assign relevance or context, the relevance and context are determined by the WP:RS. We're not here to build our own theories, but to accurately and from a WP:NPOV present the current research that scholars have undertaken on the topic.
 * (C) Just because something is not included in the theories is, as I said (but you mistakenly left out) either fringe (remember your own arguments about the Dacian-only heritage theory) OR, according to WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT it should have it's own dedicated subsection, somewhere near the end of the article, without many details (subsequently reflecting the fact that such WP:RS statements are not part of the mainstream theories). Our own consideration about the relevance of such (non-related to any of the three well supported mainstream theories) statements on any of the theories is WP:OR.Cealicuca (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - "Administrative changes of the names have been made by all administrations" -> This was your statement not mine. I.e. Cluj->Cluj-Napoca, Gradiște->Sarmizegetusa, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC))
 * Before expanding the debate over subjects that have not been mentioned under this subtitle, could you propose a text relating the subject of the discussion under this subtitle? Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Snorri Sturluson
Borsoka changed the following:

The Icelandic author Snorri Sturluson wrote of a Blokumannaland in his early 13th-century text Heimskringla.

to

The Icelandic author Snorri Sturluson mentioned the Balkan Vlachs' territory as Blokumannaland in his early 13th-century text Heimskringla.

This is incorrect as:

"Blakumen or Blökumenn were a people mentioned in Scandinavian sources dating from the 11th through 13th centuries. The name of their land, Blokumannaland, has also been preserved. Victor Spinei, Florin Curta, Florin Pintescu and other historians identify them as Romanians (variation of the exonym Vlach), while Omeljan Pritsak argues that they were Cumans. Judith Jesch adds the possibility that the terms meant "black men", the meaning of which is unclear. Modern historians identify Blokumannaland as the lands south of the Lower Danube which were inhabited by Vlachs in the Middle Ages, adding that the term may refer to either Wallachia (to the north of the Danube) or Africa in the modern Icelandic language."

So, at best is still debated (africa or Wallachia or south of the lower danube) but certainly the new phrasing is not in accordance with modern scholar's views. Reverting to the old version.Cealicuca (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * What is the reliable source that you cite? The source cited in the article identifies Blokumannaland as the Balkan Vlachs' territory. Borsoka (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Madgearu, Alexandru (2013). Byzantine Military Organization on the Danube, 10th–12th Centuries. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-21243-5. P. 162. Connection to the Second Bulgarian Empire, which practically included Wallachia and Moldavia (both north of the danube).Cealicuca (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Madgearu writes the following: "The region in Thrace in which the Byzantine-Pecheneg war of 1091 took place is called Blökumannaland ("the land of the Vlachs") which is evidently an anachronism, but reflects the situation at the time Snorri wrote Heimskringla." So we can conclude, that not only Victor Spinei, but also Alexandru Madgearu identifies Blökummanaland as a territory to the south of the Danube. Please try to read the sources to which you refer in order to save our time. Borsoka (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, key word anachronism. What the source says is this (include one more sentence which is revealing): "A particular interesting testimony about the ethnic character of the state establishes by Peter and Asan brothers" so the Second Bulgarian Empire " is that of the Heimskringla written by Snori Sturlusson in Iceland around 1230". Then we have "The region in Thrace in which the Byzantine-Pecheneg war of 1091 took place is called Blökumannaland ("the land of the Vlachs") which is evidently an anachronism, but reflects the situation at the time Snorri wrote Heimskringla." and then, one more sentence "Those testimonies thus represent a body of uncontrovertible evidence about the participation of Vlachs in the rise of what is now commonly refereed to as the "Second Bulgarian Kingdom"."Cealicuca (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you quote Madgearu's words about a Blökumannaland located to the north of the Lower Danube? Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't need to, as acc. to Madgearu it (actually) references the Second Bulgarian Empire (Kingdom)...Cealicuca (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And as per the discussion below, at least a part of the scholars argue that the Second Bulgarian Empire ruled over the lands of Oltenia and Wallachia (so NORTH of the danube).Cealicuca (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the location of Blökummanaland. Could you quote Madgearu's text about a Blökumannaland located to the north of the Lower Danube? Borsoka (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it is you who should provide the quote for the addition you added - "Balkan Vlachs.". In any case, the point is that according to the source cited in this debate, Blokumannaland is referring to the 2nd Bulgarian Empire. Now as per the discussion below, we have a WP:SECONDARY that summarizes 3 views, that the 2nd Bulgarian Empire rules over Oltenia and Wallachia (2 sources) or it did not (1 source) which, and going full circle here, means precisely what I said: So, at best is still debated. You added the Balkan Vlachs (which you identify as south of the danube) so the burden of proof is on you to add sources. But since there is (at least) one WP:RS according to whom Blökumannaland can be identified as the 2nd Bulgarian Empire, and another source that (summarizing) relates to the possibility of the 2nd Bulgarian Empire ruling over Oltenia and Wallachia (so north of the danube) it means that we shouldn't be the one to decide - there are conflicting sources so that's that. Cealicuca (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) "Both terms recall the Blökumennaland (which designated the land of the Balkan Vlachs) mentioned in St Olaf's Saga and Heimskringla ... written by ... Snorri Sturluson". (2) You have not quoted a single text form a single reliable source that proves that Blökumennaland was located (partly or fully) to the north of the Danube. Borsoka (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's take it step by step: I quoted a book that establishes that Blökumennaland is actually the Second Bulgarian Empire, right? So now let's see what that means (link).Cealicuca (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you have not referred to a single reliable source that states that Blokumannaland was located to the north of the Danube. On the other hand, one of the reliable source (Spinei) identifies it as the land of the Balkan Vlachs, and the other (Madgearu) places it to Thrace (to the south of the Danube). Please, do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources: if both reliable sources so far cited states that Snorri's Blökumannaland was located to the south of the Danube, we cannot conclude that it was (partially or fully?) located to the north of the same river. Sorry, I do not have time to discuss the results of your own research about this issue. Borsoka (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there is a source equating Blokumannaland which designates the land of the Balkan Vlachs (Spinei) but also designates the land of the Vlachs (see, no Balkan here), an anachronism for the Second Bulgarian Empire. One mentions Balkan Vlachs, one mentions Vlachs. I at least did not insist to put it in the "north" category, I resonably asked, based on the diverging sources, to leave it in the Uncertain category. You on the other hand said: "So we can conclude, that not only Victor Spinei, but also Alexandru Madgearu identifies Blökummanaland as a territory to the south of the Danube." which is false. Alexandru Madgearu mentiones simply "Vlachs". So it is not ME who does do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources:.Cealicuca (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand you above remarks. Do you say that Blokumannaland should stay in the "Balkan Vlachs" section (because it is identified as the Balkan Vlachs' land by Spinei, and associated with Thrace by Madgearu), or you still insist on moving it without referring to a single reliable source? Borsoka (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Why Blakan Vlachs?
The paragraph about the Second Bulgarian Empire was moved to the Balkan section. The Second Bulgarian Empire span across both banks of the Lower Danube (south and north) so it doesn't make sense. Reverted (manually, cannot do it automatically).Cealicuca (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the source of your above statement? Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a look for yourself.Cealicuca (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should take a look at basic Wikipedia policies before reverting edits: "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". You should also read basic books about the 12th-13th-century history of the Balkans and its wider regions before stating anything about the geographical extent of the Bulgarian Empire (I suggest you should especially read the following books:
 * Borsoka (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you
 * As it happens here is the WP:RS: Madgearu, Alexandru (2017). The Asanids: The Political and Military History of the Second Bulgarian Empire, 1185–1280. BRILL. ISBN 978-9-004-32501-2. Chapter 2, p16. Summary: There are 2 ways this goes: Wallachia and Oltenia a part of the Second Bulgarian Empire: "[...] Oltenia and Wallachia (the southern parts of present-day Romania) belonged at that time to the Second Bulgarian Empire [...]" and then "By contrast, Onciul not only embraced the idea that the Asanids ruled over the lands north of the Danube [...]". So that's that :)Cealicuca (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * An by the way, this is the Talk page, I just wanted to get this over with... Seriously didn't think you'd fight it. But ok, won't reference WIKI anymore, not even on the Talk page.Cealicuca (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On page 16, Madgearu does not present his own views, but the views of older historians. Could you refer to books which state that (1) the Asens were not Balkan Vlachs, but Vlachs from the lands to the north of the Danube, that (2) the terms Vlachia/Blacia referred to lands to the north of the Danube in the late 12th century and the early 13th century? Borsoka (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? Are WP:SECONDARY out of fashion suddenly? Since when does a source need to respond to your questions? It's quite clear. Madgearu mentiones Sulzer's view that Oltenia and Wallachia were part of the 2nd Bulgarian Empire, Xenopol argues that while the 2nd Bulgarian Empire was of Romanian origin (the Asanids) but didn't rule over Oltenia and Wallachia, while Onciul not only sees Oltenia and Wallachia as part of the 2nd Bulgarian Empire but states that the latter was the catalyst of the Wallachian and Oltenian early state formation.Cealicuca (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you refer to books which state that (1) the Asens were not Balkan Vlachs, but Vlachs from the lands to the north of the Danube, that (2) the terms Vlachia/Blacia referred to lands to the north of the Danube in the late 12th century and the early 13th century? [The text that you moved mentioned these facts: (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=849380491&oldid=849341854)] Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't move anything, you moved it from Uncertain to Balkan Vlachs, and I reverted it. - according to this book there are several views on the Second Bulgarian empire (that I iterated before). Which means that puting this in the sub-section Balkan Vlachs makes no sense since it's not a unanimous conclusion. And where in this article is (was) it established exactly what Balkan Vlachs means? It seems to me that this term is used, so far, only in naming a sub-category - and you simply adapt the definition. So I really see no relevance to your (1) and (2) - since it is relevant enough that the Oltenia and Wallachia is disputed as being ruled or a part of the Second Bulgarian empire - which coincidently is relevant for the debate above.
 * The sentences that you wanted to move from the "Balkan Vlachs" section to the "Uncertain references" section are the following :
 * "The Vlachs' pre-eminent role in the Second Bulgarian Empire is demonstrated by Blacia, and other similar denominations under which the new state was mentioned in contemporary sources."
 * "The Annales Florolivienses, the first such source, mentions the route of Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa "through Hungary, Russia, Cumania, Vlakhia, Durazzo, Byzantium and Turkey" during his crusade of 1189."
 * One of the cited authors (Vásáry) says, "Vlakhia must have lain between the Danube and the Balkan Mountains, and Cumania was north of it, the frontier between the two lands being the Danube. One must be careful not to confuse this Vlakhia with the historical Wallachia..." An other author (Madgearu) also says, "Robert de Clari makes it clear that Blakia and Cumania had a common border, which means that Vlachia was a region with the Danube as its northern border; the Haemus Mountains (Stara Planina) constituted the southern limit".
 * Could you refer to reliable sources that state that "Blacia"/"Vlakhia" were not located to the south of the Danube in the late 12th and early 13th century? Borsoka (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you need to re-read my OP. "The paragraph about the Second Bulgarian Empire was moved to the Balkan section. The Second Bulgarian Empire span across both banks of the Lower Danube (south and north) so it doesn't make sense.".
 * As such, relevant for the Second Bulgarian Empire is the source which you actually provided, which shows the possibility that Oltenia and Wallachia were ruled by, or as a part of, the Second Bulgarian Empire. Oltenia and Wallachia are to be found north of the Danube.
 * Let's put it another way: the paragraph in question states "The Vlachs' pre-eminent role in the Second Bulgarian Empire[...]", it doesn't state "The Balkan Vlachs' pre-eminent role in the Second Bulgarian Empire[...]". As such, It has no relevance (in this matter) that there are sources mentioning "Blacia"/"Vlakhia" as being south of the Danube, as the text refers to Vlachs in general and their contribution to the Second Bulgarian Empire - and you actually provided a source that presents several view where the Second Bulgarian Empire contained Vlach inhabited lands north of the Danube (for example on of the views is Sulzer's that, according to Madgearu, makes the connection with Vlachs by considering Oltenia and Wallachia as part of the Second Bulgarian Empire - so implicitly considering Oltenia and Wallachia as Vlach inhabited lands).
 * Your own citation refers to Cumania (so that would be in part Wallachia, right?), not to be confused with Vlakhia (not Wallachia) so there isn't much of a relevance there. There is no confusion between Cumania and Vlakhia (understanding here the term Vlakhia as per the source you cited). Moreover, according to "The Vlachs' pre-eminent role in the Second Bulgarian Empire is demonstrated by Blacia, and other similar denominations under which the new state was mentioned in contemporary sources." Blacia (or Vlakhia) is a synonym for the Second Bulgarian Empire. which is not to be confused with Wallachia. But still, according to sources, would include Wallachia. Point is that as long as we're talking about the Vlach population and it's contribution to the second Bulgarian Empire there are sources (again: Madgearu - you provided it) that establish a Vlach population in Oltenia and Wallachia, as part of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Your question: "Could you refer to reliable sources that state that "Blacia"/"Vlakhia" were not located to the south of the Danube in the late 12th and early 13th century?" is irrelevant, since I didn't dispute that there were also Vlachs south of the Danube. considering the last two (Vlachs north of the Danube, Vlachs south of the Danube) the point is that one cannot categorise this into any of the two (thus the "Uncertain" category would be best).Cealicuca (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You moved sentences about Blacia/Vlakhia from the "Balkan Vlachs" section, but you have no quoted a single text which proves that the two sentences referred to territories to the north of the Danube. Sorry, why should I discuss your views about the borders of the Second Bulgarian Empire (which were not stable anyway), if we are talking about the geographic concepts of Blacia/Vlakhia (which are clearly located to the south of the Danube by two specialists, Vásáry and Madgearu)? You should not write long paragraphs, you should only quote some short sentences from reliable sources to substantiate the movement of the two sentences. Borsoka (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should re-read, again, my OP. The paragraph about the Second Bulgarian Empire was moved to the Balkan section. It has just as much connection to the Second Bulgarian Empire as it has to Blacia/Vlakhia, as it has to Vlachs (in general, since it doesn't say Balkan Vlachs). So I see no reason why the Blacia reference should have more importance than the Second Bulgarian Empire reference or more than the Vlachs (again, in general) reference.
 * I already quoted once, but will do so again. Even mark some pointers from you to make it easier. Here is the WP:RS: Madgearu, Alexandru (2017). The Asanids: The Political and Military History of the Second Bulgarian Empire, 1185–1280. BRILL. ISBN 978-9-004-32501-2.
 * Your own citation refers to Cumania (so that would be in part Wallachia, right?), not to be confused with Vlakhia (not Wallachia) so there isn't much of a relevance there. There is no confusion between Cumania and Vlakhia (understanding here the term Vlakhia as per the source you cited). Moreover, according to "The Vlachs' pre-eminent role in the Second Bulgarian Empire is demonstrated by Blacia, and other similar denominations under which the new state was mentioned in contemporary sources." Blacia (or Vlakhia) is a synonym for the Second Bulgarian Empire. which is not to be confused with Wallachia. But still, according to sources, would include Wallachia. Point is that as long as we're talking about the Vlach population and it's contribution to the second Bulgarian Empire there are sources (again: Madgearu - you provided it) that establish a Vlach population in Oltenia and Wallachia, as part of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Your question: "Could you refer to reliable sources that state that "Blacia"/"Vlakhia" were not located to the south of the Danube in the late 12th and early 13th century?" is irrelevant, since I didn't dispute that there were also Vlachs south of the Danube. considering the last two (Vlachs north of the Danube, Vlachs south of the Danube) the point is that one cannot categorise this into any of the two (thus the "Uncertain" category would be best).Cealicuca (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You moved sentences about Blacia/Vlakhia from the "Balkan Vlachs" section, but you have no quoted a single text which proves that the two sentences referred to territories to the north of the Danube. Sorry, why should I discuss your views about the borders of the Second Bulgarian Empire (which were not stable anyway), if we are talking about the geographic concepts of Blacia/Vlakhia (which are clearly located to the south of the Danube by two specialists, Vásáry and Madgearu)? You should not write long paragraphs, you should only quote some short sentences from reliable sources to substantiate the movement of the two sentences. Borsoka (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You should re-read, again, my OP. The paragraph about the Second Bulgarian Empire was moved to the Balkan section. It has just as much connection to the Second Bulgarian Empire as it has to Blacia/Vlakhia, as it has to Vlachs (in general, since it doesn't say Balkan Vlachs). So I see no reason why the Blacia reference should have more importance than the Second Bulgarian Empire reference or more than the Vlachs (again, in general) reference.
 * I already quoted once, but will do so again. Even mark some pointers from you to make it easier. Here is the WP:RS: Madgearu, Alexandru (2017). The Asanids: The Political and Military History of the Second Bulgarian Empire, 1185–1280. BRILL. ISBN 978-9-004-32501-2.


 * chapter 1, p12. "[...] one of the merits of Hronicul is the fact that it dealt, for he first time in Romanian historiography, with the Vlachs in the Balkans. Cantemir believed that the Asanid state ruled over the lands north of the Danube [...]"
 * chapter 1, p12. "Edward Gibbon's monumental work from 1776 is (in)famously responsible for the depiction (of the) Byzantine history as one of continuous decline. Regarding the Asanid state he wrote: The honour of the monarchy and the safety of the capital were deeply wounded by the revolt of the Bulgars and Wallachians [...]"
 * chapter 1, p12. "[...] having a good knowledge of Byzantine sources, Peyssonnel achieved a work of great erudition, in which he presented the history of the Byzantine Empire and of the barbarian populations that attacked it. The final two chapters are dedicated to the Romanians living north, and to the Vlachs living south of the Danube [...]"
 * chapter 2, p16. Summary: There are 2 ways this goes: Wallachia and Oltenia a part of the Second Bulgarian Empire: "[...] Oltenia and Wallachia (the southern parts of present-day Romania) belonged at that time to the Second Bulgarian Empire [...]" and then "By contrast, Onciul not only embraced the idea that the Asanids ruled over the lands north of the Danube [...]".
 * So I can really go on, there's pages and pages about that. Anyway, the point is that the Second Bulgarian Empire contained Vlachs from both South and North of the Danube. So if you have a statement about the Vlach contribution to the second Bulgarian Empire it either goes both ways or no way (Uncertain).
 * I really don't care about your views about the borders of the Second Bulgarian Empire, nor should you care about my views. As per the source above, it is enough that the Second Bulgarian Empire included Vlachs from the north and shouth of the Danube. The subject of the paragraph is about the contribution of the Vlachs (not of Blacia) to the Bulgarian Empire, wherever they may be (north or south of the Danube).
 * And yes, of course, I can write a lot less. Maybe take a cue from you? Like for example ignoring everything the other party says and just going on and on and on and on and on with irrelevant questions?Cealicuca (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are again referring to sources (many of them written in the 18th century) which state that the Second Bulgarian Empire included lands to the north of the Danube. You assume that these lands were called "Vlakhia/Blacia/Wallachia" already around 1200. However, you have not referred to a single reliable source that substantiates your assumption (namely, that those lands to the north of the Danube were called Vlakhia/Blacia/Wallachia around 1200). Please note that I cited two modern historians (Vásáry and Madgearu) above who say that those lands to the north of the Danube were called "Cumania". The same historians also state that the Vlakhia/Blacia in the two sentences (that you want to move) were located to the south of the Danube. I again (and for the last time) ask you to prove that there are historians (preferably ones who still live in order to secure the application WP:DUE) who say that "Vlakhia/Blacia" mentioned in the text of the two sentences (that you want to move) was located to the north of the Danube. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, we can mention (for instance in the 2. Historic background section) that the Second Bulgarian Empire may have included lands over the Lower Danube. We can also mention (for instance in the 4.1.1. Sources on present-day Romania or 4.1.3. Uncertain references section) Choniates' (certain or possible, I cannot remember) reference to the participation of Vlachs from the lands to the north of the Lower Danube in the Asens' campaign against the Byzantine Empire. Borsoka (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Borsoka, I believe this a reasonable decision to take. Keep the Second Bulgarian Empire in the Balkans section while also mentioning in that some of the Bulgarian Empire's territory spanned north of the Danube. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Any further comments on my last proposal? Borsoka (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you mean quoting scholarly views on each subsection, then I have no objection with that. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I meant my last proposal here in this subsection (about the expansion of the Second Bulgarian Empire to lands to the north of the Danube and the participation of the Vlachs from the lands to the north of the Dnaube in the Asens' campaigns. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no further comments. And it seems, neither does Cealicuca. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, the subject is about the contribution of Vlachs to the second Bulgarian Empire. I don't need to bring any sources about Blacia being south of the Danube, because I do not say that I don't agree with that. Simply because the subject of the statement is NOT about Blacia, it's irrelevant where Blacia was located. Again, this is not about Blacia, but about the contribution of Vlachs to the Second Bulgarian Empire. As stated (as per sources) the Second Bulgarian Empire, according to scholars (that is WP:RS) may have included Vlach lands north of the Danube. Ergo - the statement (whose subject is the contribution of Vlachs to the Second Bulgarian Empire) should not be arbitrarily moved to a section that refers to lands south of the Danube simply because it references Blacia (which is NOT the subject, thus holds a lot less relevance to the whole statement itself). The statement equally (or more so) references the Second Bulgarian Empire and the subject is the Vlachs. So either it's reformulated to clearly say that it's the Balkan Vlachs (not Vlachs), if the source allows, and then the statement can be put in this section, or if the source doesn't allow that (specifically mentions, or clearly implies) I don't see how this is more relevant to the Balkan Vlachs (considering again the subject of the statement) than to the other sections.


 * So, I do agree with your proposal "we can mention (for instance in the 2. Historic background section) that the Second Bulgarian Empire may have included lands over the Lower Danube. We can also mention (for instance in the 4.1.1. Sources on present-day Romania or 4.1.3. Uncertain references section) Choniates' (certain or possible, I cannot remember) reference to the participation of Vlachs from the lands to the north of the Lower Danube in the Asens' campaign against the Byzantine Empire." and as for this specific statement, I also agree to have it in this section if it is reformulated - the subject changed from Vlachs to Balkan Vlachs) - that is if the source text allows such change.Cealicuca (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you agreeing with my proposal. The cited source makes it clear that it refers to Vlachs who lived in the Byzantine Empire before the uprising. We should not repeat the expression "Balkan Vlach" in the subsection because the subtitle displays that it is dedicated to the Balkan Vlachs. Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Restructuring of the Written sources section
The present structure of the 4.1 Written sources section is szeparated into 3 subsections: 4.1.1 Sources on present-day Romania, 4.1.2 Sources on Balkan Vlachs and 4.1.3 Sources on Medieval Vlach lands. I suggest the following restructuring:
 * 4.1.1 Romania in the Middle Ages (we do not need to emphasize that a subsection of the section dedicated to the written sources is also contains sources, but we should emphasize the timeframe)
 * 4.1.2 Balkan Vlachs in the Middle Ages (for the supposed venue of the Romanians' ethnogenesis distinguishes the principal scholarly theories, we also have to separate the written sources along geographical lines, but we should not write of the written sources relating exclusively to other peoples of the Balkans)
 * 4.1.3 Uncertain references (dedicated to sources with geographically or ethnically uncertain references)

I think the present approach (a clear distinction between facts and scholarly POVs) should be preserved. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with renaming the subsections, and I am glad you agree too. Still, 2 things are confusing (since we're talking about written sources). 1 - what is FACT vs Scholary PoV? 2 - Romania in the Middle Ages vs Balkan Vlachs in the Middle Ages is still weird. The 1st is a Geographical term? a State? Romania, as is, didn't exists in the middle ages. The 2nd is an ethnic group, right?

So I would propose:


 * 4.1.1 Referencing Vlachs north of the Danube in the Middle Ages (self explanatory)
 * 4.1.2 Referencing Vlachs south of the Danube in the Middle Ages (self explanatory)
 * 4.1.3 Uncertain references (dedicated to sources with geographically or ethnically uncertain references)Cealicuca (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Scholars who write about the Romanians' history in Romania mention the sources pertaining to the territory of the lands that now form Romania. I refer to Madgearu, Georgescu and Spineiu who wrote about the history of Romanians - as their cited books' titles show it - and they refer to the sources. Why do you think we should adopt an original approach?
 * We should apply short titles. Borsoka (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The ability of making a distinction between facts and PoVs is a basic skill. Without it one can hardly edit WP. Borsoka (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Borsoka "The ability of making a distinction between facts and PoVs is a basic skill. Without it one can hardly edit WP." - Of course. Need to state the obvious? Between me and you - the problem with written sources, especially like medieval written source, is that they are generally PoVs :) Anyway, I just wanted to know what you consider FACT when it comes to written sources. Agree on shorter titles, but I'd underline that a geographical (only) classification simply does not make sense especially in the context of the three competing theories. So how about:


 * 4.1.1 Referencing Vlachs North of the Danube
 * 4.1.2 Referencing Vlachs South of the Danube
 * 4.1.3 Uncertain referencesCealicuca (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Scholars who write about the Romanians' history in Romania mention the sources pertaining to the territory of the lands that now form Romania" - Now that would be North of the Danube. Only Dobrogea is south of the Danube bot i think you'd agree it wouldn't pose that much of a problem to "include" Dobrogea as North of the Danube too (just to be strict).Cealicuca (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) That a source states something is a fact. The interpretation of the fact can be a PoV. (2) You have not answered my question. Why should we adopt an original approach? Scholars who write about the Romanians' history mention all sources that relevant for the ancient and medieval history of the lands tha¿t now form Romania. Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) That doesn't actually makes sense because the sources we use of course state something. Most are Scholary sources, which leaves no room for your "Scholary PoV" since a Scholary PoV is a sources (by your admission FACT). Note that you mentioned Scholary PoV, not PoV as in our interpretation on what the sources mean - which I would agree that it would constitute as PoV (our interpretation....). (2) Interesting... The way the whole article is structured now is "original" since the sources are arbitrarily taken out of context and categorized, not by their relevance to one of the three theories presented at the start of the article, but to whatever category, section or subsection editor(s) chose to create over the years. Not blaming you, this is a collective "blame" so to speak. This is why I say that we should not adopt ANY original approach. If anyone reads a book about the DRC, IT or AT - the sources are presented in the context. Not dispersed and obfuscated. Nevertheless, until such time that we finally move from this huge list of CONS/PROS that the article is right now, we can at least make the original sections of the Written sources more ineligible and connected to the subject of the article by actually giving them relevant names. Like North of the Danube, South of the Danube, Uncertain/Both (or along those lines).Cealicuca (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the article is not structured "originally" it is structured logically, according to the types of evidence. A similar approach is followed, for instance, by Alexandru Madgearu who first writes of the written sources and then of the results of archaeological research (I refer to ). Could you specify the books about the DRC, IT or AT that you referred to above? Borsoka (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about sections (written sources, archaeological evidence, linguistic etc.) here, but sub-sections (balkan vlach lands? present day romania? medieval vlachs?). Glad you brought it up though. I don't have a problem with "it is structured logically, according to the types of evidence". Sure... but the problem is that each section has the following structure: "According to source A [...], on the other hand source B says [...], while source C states that [...]". Which is precisely a PRO/CON approach. Any reader would scratch his head. I mean we start the article with enumeration 3 "well supported" theories and then... Blank! Why? Because the editors saw fit to just throw all the "evidence" (that is supporting WP:RS into the same paragraphs.... So yes, from that point of view it IS an original approach. I mean yes, I agree to have sections like "written sources", "archaeological evidence" and whatnot, but for each theory! Because ALL the written sources are thrown into the same Written sources" section there is NO logical way those sources can be subdivided, except for having them into 3 (or 4) categories: one supporting the DRT, one supporting the IT, one supporting the AT and undecided. Although probably the latter 2 would simply be morphed into one. Cealicuca (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Madgearu follows a similar pattern: he writes of written primary sources, then he presents their multiple interpretations, later he presents archaeological evidence and its interpreatations. Could you specify the books about the DRC, IT or AT that you referred to above? Sorry, I will not comment on your thoughts. Could you give examples to the PRO/CON approach (that is a division along theories)? Borsoka (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Madgearu (and other historians) follow a certain pattern (or not) because the books (or articles) are targetted towards a specific audience. Did you read Stephen Hawking's "layman" books (Universe in a nutshell, A brief history of time etc.)? It's Stephen Hawking. Now try "reading" some of his scientific articles. It's still Stephen Hawking. But unless you're the targeted audience, you won't make heads or tails out of it. This is Wikipedia, not Madgearu's book. We simply need to adopt a clear structure - and from this point of view, certainly the fact that there's already one "independent" editor that has stated (twice) that this article is confusing (for exactly the same reasons I am saying it needs restructuring) should put things into perspective for you. And I really don't need your comments on my thoughts, don't worry about it. Thanks for keeping it to yourself.Cealicuca (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I (and other editors) have expressed that the PRO/CON approach should be avoided. You try to push it. Sorry, I will not comment on your thoughts until you have not proposed an other approach. Borsoka (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you are using a stonewalling technique, repeatedly - which is counterproductive. Namely attributing me things I did not say. Do you really believe that stating them repeatedly (you or anyone else) makes them true? In any case, I am trying to reach a consensus here, and I would expect you working towards that too, not stone-walling. Thank you.
 * For the last time - I am NOT proposing a list of PRO/CON list. The article IS right now a PRO/CON list. Having it not explicitly stated is irrelevant on what this article really is (a huge PRO/CON list) - and anyone reading it notices it immediately, like some independent (not involved in the editing of this article) editors here on Wiki already did. Let's talk examples:

More than a dozen of the tributaries of the large rivers had a name with probable Indo-European roots, suggesting a Dacian etymology. (pro-DRC(?) / con-IT(?))

The Slavic mediation during the transmission of the names of some of them is obvious.(con-DRC(?) / pro-IT (?))

The longer tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania which run through the most populated areas had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin, which were also adopted by the Romanians.(con-DRC/pro-IT)

For instance, the tributaries of the Someșul Mic River bear Hungarian or Slavic names, while other tributaries bear local Dacian names.(undecided(?))

Many of the smallest rivers and streams bear names of Romanian origin.(pro-DRC / con-IT)

(?) - somewhat


 * How does that NOT constitute a (admittedly, not explicitly marked) PRO/CON list?
 * On the other hand, not having the content appended to each theory it supports, confuses the hell out of people reading the article (remember, people who may be totally unfamiliar with the subject... and we should at least admit that even if for us, this subject is important (at least for Romanians it's natural, since it's about their history... I have no idea how Hungarians would justify such keen interest but that's not the point here) for most of the world this is an obscure and otherwise "oh... that's interesting" kind of subject.


 * Basically what I am proposing is to (1) move all content that is indisputably supporting one theory or another and append it to the theory itself (create sections with each name for each theory). Of course, some of that content would get a bit of rewording, in order to provide a clear statement. (2) Any content that is undecided (may support one theory or another) be kept in a separate section with the same name as the sections for the other theories. Although, considering the AT, we should rarely find such cases.
 * So considering your statement "I (and other editors) have expressed that the PRO/CON approach should be avoided" I am really glad we all agree on the restructuring of the article. I would also like to thank you for not commenting on my thoughts (keep it up!). And again I politely ask you (and everyone else) to try to work together, not stonewalling each other. I do actually take the time to read your arguments and genuinely try to see if, for me at least, they make sense of not (that is agree with them or not). I would expect the same level of courtesy - a normal expectation if we are to cooperate.Cealicuca (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We have different views about courtesy. For instance, respecting other editors time is a basic element of courtesy for me: if something is only accepteble for me, I do not push it for weeks. For instance, (1) Your above list proves that you yourself cannot determine for sure whether a statement supports one of the theories or contradicts it. (2) You assumes that the last sentence that you quoted above - "Many of the smallest rivers and streams bear names of Romanian origin" - supports the continuity theory. I think it is a neutral fact which does not contradict or support either of the theories. (The smallest streams had a Hungarian name in Hungary as well. Could we spoke about a Pannon/Sarmato/Daco-Hungarian continuity?) In order to save time, I repeat one of my above remarks which has never been rejected:
 * "My principal concern about a "pro and con" approach is that in most cases, there is no clear-cut difference. Just a few examples:
 * *Romanian historians who accept the "continuity theory" associate the Vlachs/Romanians and the Volokhi who were defeated by the Magyars/Hungarians in the late 9th century, according to the Russian Primary Chronicle. The same historians regard the Russian Primary Chronicle as an undeniable proof for the Transylvanian presence of Vlachs/Romanians in the late 9th century. [For instance, ; ] A British specialist of the Romanian history, Dennis Deletant, writes that "Of one thing we can be reasonably certain: that the Russian Primary Chronicle is an unreliable source for a Vlach presence in Transylvania at the time of the Magyar invasion", although Deletant does not accept the "immigrationist theory". [] Consequently, we could not write that "Historians who accept the continuity theory associates the Volokhi of the Russian Primary Chronicle with the Vlachs, and only historians who reject the continuity theory refute the identification of the two peoples."
 * *A German historian who dedicated several of his works to the history of the Balkans, Gottfried Schramm, says that the Romanian names of the major rivers of the one-time Roman province of Dacia exclude any form of continuity there, because the Romanians borrowed the river names from the Slavs and Hungarians instead of directly inheriting them from Antiquity. [] The Romanian linguist, Domnița Tomescu, also says that the same river names were transmitted through Slavic mediation from Antiquity, but she seemingly does not accept the "migrationist theory". [] Consequently, we could not write that "Only scholars who accept the migrationist theory say that the Romanians borrowed the names of the major rivers of their country from the Slavs".
 * Summarizing my views, we cannot follow a "PRO and CON" approach without seriously breaching WP:NOR, because we should decide on our own whether a fact supports a theory or contradicts it. Sorry, I will not comment on your future proposals for a PRO/CON approach, but in this case my silence cannot be regarded as an acceptance.
 * What I am thinking, we could quote representative scholarly argumentations relating to the subject of each subsection. For instance, in the 4.1.1 Sources on present-day Romania section we could quote two Romanian historians, Stelian Brezeanu and Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu:

(By the way, the above example also proves, that we cannot make a clear distinction between PRO and CON arguments: Opreanu does not accept the migrationist theory, although he flatly rejects one of the main arguments of scholars who accept the continuity theory.) Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not up to you, nor me, to interpret the relevance of X or Z. "because we should decide on our own whether a fact supports a theory or contradicts it. " - Wrong. We do not get to decide the relevance, that is WP:OR. If a WP:RS states that X is relevant to the Origin of the Romanians, in a certain context, the it IS relevant, in the context. And not presenting it in the context (because we think it's not relevant or whatever) constitutes again WP:OR. You have a bizarre interpretation of the WP:NPOV - WP:NPOV doesn't mean we should prove any of the theories, doesn't mean we should just separate facts (meaning what a WP:RS states in a certain context) from the context just because we feel (or even other WP:RS feel) it doesn't make sense. Again, those two quotes you mentioned are irrelevant. They are WP:RS? Ok then, we may present them as is in a separate section (if the context does not correspond to any of the 3 theories presented). Because this is what you do with conflicting sources. But removing statements from context so that afterwards some editors cast doubt on the constitutes a blatant breach of WP:NPOV.Cealicuca (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree: it is not up to us. Could you name the context that you refer to above (I mean, could you mention a single reliable source)? Could you refer to examples of statements in the article which were removed from the context? Borsoka (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * So glad you agree - so let's take this step by step.
 * Do you agree that the context is Origin of the Romanians? Do you agree that relevant to this context are not our views or opinions but the three mainstream theories presented at the start of the article? I'd take a wild guess and say that yes, you agree.
 * This is about the fact that this article disconnects sources from the context of their statements (that is one of the three theories) or otherwise implies a connection without having the source specifically saying that. In any case, the mere fact that we have statements all over the place, that were made by WP:RS in a specific context (that is one of the three theories) but this is not reflected in the article (specified which of the three theories is the statement relevant to, according to the WP:RS) constitutes a breach of WP:NPOV, or, if those statements were put in a section that implies something else entirely, it's WP:OR.
 * The title of the article is Origin of the Romanians. Are we scholars on that subject? Did we (any of the editors here) published something that would make us (or our presumably published work) a WP:RS relevant to this subject? No. As such there are 3 mainstream scholarly explanations (theories) about this - so we must stick to those 3 theories. Our opinions, views, debates, arguments are irrelevant when it comes to the relevance of what a WP:RS says related to any of the 3 theories. Don't you agree?
 * Which means anything unrelated specifically (as per WP:RS, not our opinion of views) to one of the three main theories is either fringe, or at least should be mentioned in a separate subsection according to WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT. We should not infer any relevance to any of the theories unless specifically stated by the WP:RS. In case we do that - it's WP:OR. Don't you agree?
 * Basically, if there is a WP:RS that states X, specifically in the context of any of the 3 theories - it goes specifically related to the theory/theories it references (as per the WP:RS). So we have two cases: (1) A WP:RS] states that X is relevant in the context of one (or multiple) of the theories - we, as neutral editors, should mention that [[WP:RS states X in the context of one (or multiple) of the theories. If the editors "disconnect" the statement form the context - it's WP:OR. (2) Is a source mentions X, but the WP:RS does NOT say that it's relevant (specifically, or clearly implied) in the context of one of the 3 mainstream theories, then it is either fringe (according to WP:RULES) or otherwise should not be forcefully connected to a specific theory (since that is WP:OR). This kind of sources (WP:RS that is) may be mentioned in a specific section that is clearly marked as not specific to any theory.
 * So this is my proposal about reorganizing the article. ALL sources (WP:RS]] statements are to be:
 * (A) connected to one/several of the three theories if the WP:RS clearly implies or specifically states so. The article, right now, does NOT reflect that - which means that the relevance of what the WP:RS say is obscured by the editors (simply by not making the explicit connection to any of the three theories), as opposed to what the WP:RS states. The removal of those statements from the context constitutes WP:OR - and is a breach of WP:NPOV as you agreed above.
 * (B) removed (as per WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT) or designated to a specific section that is clearly marked as not related to any of the theories if the WP:RS does NOT state the relevance of the statement in relation to any of the theories. The article, right now, does NOT reflect that - which means that the relevance of what the WP:RS say is implied by the editors (simply because it's not explicitly mentioned that the statements are NOT relevant to any of the three theories). That assignment of any relevance those statements, by the editors, that is not according to what the WP:OR states is WP:OR - and is a breach of WP:NPOV as you agreed above.Cealicuca (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Yes, the context of the article is the origin of the Romanians. (2) Yes, we should present the three main theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis and our debates are not relevant because we are not experts. (3) No, any statement whose relevance to the Romanians' ethnogenesis cannot be verified based on reliable source should be deleted from the article. (4) You suggest that the facts mentioned in the article are not related to all theories. However, all facts mentioned in the article are connected to the Romanians' ethnogenesis (thus they are to be mentioned under each theories). For instance, scholars who accept the continuity theory should explain why the Roman authors wrote unanimously about the withdrawal of the Roman population from Dacia, why adopted the Romanians Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic and German hydronyms everywhere where the presence of early medieval villages can be demonstrated, why wrote the first Romanian chronicles about their ancestors' migration to Hungary. Similarly, scholars who accept the migrationist theory should explain the Latin inscription of the Biertan donarium and the 4th-6th-century Christian artefacts. We could not provide a neutral picture if we did not present the different scholarly interpretations of the same facts on the same place. (5) You obviously assume that there is one "continuity approach" and one "migrationist approach", each with their almost uniform own argumentation. However, as I have demonstrated several times, such uniform approaches and argumentations do not exist. Scholars who accept the continuity theory frequently refute certain arguments which are to meant to be a strong support of the theory. (5) Finally, you have not referred to a single statement in the article which was removed "from the context", although you claimed that such statements exist. Neither have you referred to a single reliable source to support your proposal, although I have demonstrated that the present structure of the article can be verified. I think it is time to close this debate. Borsoka (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * (1) Yes, the context of the article is the origin of the Romanians. - Ok, glad we agree on this
 * (2) Yes, we should present the three main theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis and our debates are not relevant because we are not experts. - Again, glad we agree.
 * (3) No, any statement whose relevance to the Romanians' ethnogenesis cannot be verified based on reliable source should be deleted from the article. - This is quite ambiguous. The relevance of a statement is set by a source. We should not define that a statement is relevant to the Romanian's ethnogenesis but rather establish if there is a WP:RS who says that something is relevant. As usual we may end up with multiple sources disagreeing on on thing being relevant or not, or attributing different interpretations, in which case, and if all those sources are WP:RS, we should present their views according to WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT / WP:NPOV.
 * (4) You suggest that the facts mentioned in the article are not related to all theories. However, all facts mentioned in the article are connected to the Romanians' ethnogenesis (thus they are to be mentioned under each theories). For instance, scholars who accept the continuity theory should explain why the Roman authors wrote unanimously about the withdrawal of the Roman population from Dacia, why adopted the Romanians Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic and German hydronyms everywhere where the presence of early medieval villages can be demonstrated, why wrote the first Romanian chronicles about their ancestors' migration to Hungary. Similarly, scholars who accept the migrationist theory should explain the Latin inscription of the Biertan donarium and the 4th-6th-century Christian artefacts. We could not provide a neutral picture if we did not present the different scholarly interpretations of the same facts on the same place. - No, neither you nor I get to decide what scholars should or should not explain since at (2) you agreed you (and I) are not an expert. The article does NOT present the statements in their context, because of this problem (some editors believe some scholars should explain statements, this is no longer adhering to WP:NPOV).
 * (5) Finally, you have not referred to a single statement in the article which was removed "from the context", although you claimed that such statements exist. Neither have you referred to a single reliable source to support your proposal, although I have demonstrated that the present structure of the article can be verified. I think it is time to close this debate. - ALL the statements except the opening part of the article (where the three theories are presented) are taken out of context (because they are not linked with any of the three mainstream theories) or should not be at all according to WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT / WP:FRINGE is those statements are not made in the context of any of the three mainstream theories. Here is an example:

"In the 5th century BC, Herodotus was the first author to write a detailed account of the natives of south-eastern Europe.[155][156] In connection with a Persian campaign in 514 BC, he mentions the Getae, which he called "the most courageous and upright Thracian tribe".[157][158] Strabo wrote that the language of the Dacians was "the same as that of the Getae".[159][160]

Literary tradition on the conquest of Dacia was preserved by 3-4 Roman scholars.[161] Cassius Dio wrote that "numerous Dacians kept transferring their allegiance"[162] to Emperor Trajan before he commenced his war against Decebal.[163] Lucian of Samosata, Eutropius, and Julian the Apostate unanimously attest the memory of a "deliberate ethnic cleansing" that followed the fall of the Dacian state.[164] For instance, Lucian of Samosata who cites Emperor Trajan's physician Criton of Heraclea states that the entire Dacian "people was reduced to forty men".[165] In fact, Thracian or possibly Dacian names represent about 2% of the approximately 3,000 proper names known from "Dacia Traiana".[166] Bitus, Dezibalos and other characteristic Dacian names were only recorded in the empire's other territories, including Egypt and Italy.[166][167] Constantin Daicoviciu, Dumitru Protase, Dan Ruscu and other historians have debated the validity of the tradition of the Dacians' extermination. They state that it only refers to the men's fate or comes from Eutropius's writings to provide an acceptable explanation for the massive colonisation that followed the conquest.[168] Indeed, Eutropius also reported that Emperor Trajan transferred to the new province "vast numbers of people from all over the Roman world".[168][169] Onosmatic evidence substantiates his words: about 2,000 Latin, 420 Greek, 120 Illyrian, and 70 Celtic names are known from the Roman period.[166][170]

Barbarian attacks against "Dacia Traiana" were also recorded.[171] For instance, "an inroad of the Carpi"[172] forced Emperor Galerius's mother to flee from the province in the 240s.[173] Aurelius Victor, Eutropius and Festus stated that Dacia "was lost"[174][175][176] under Emperor Gallienus (r. 253–268).[177][178] The Augustan History and Jordanes refer to the Roman withdrawal from the province in the early 270s.[179] The Augustan History says that Emperor Aurelian "led away both soldiers and provincials"[180] from Dacia in order to repopulate Illyricum and Moesia.[179][181]"


 * None of the statements above are explicitly linked to any of the three theories. Care to point out any which explicitly refers any of the three mainstream theories? As for sources who would back up my argument, you are confused. My argument rests on WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT / NPOV and not least the fact that the editors took liberties with the content of this article - which constitutes WP:OR. I don't need any WP:RS to argument that the article should respect what a WP:RS states - it's quite obvious. We have 3 mainstream theories that attempt to explain the Romanian ethnogenesis, but the main body of content is not linked explicitly because this is what the editors decided (which constitutes WP:OR and is also a breach of WP:NPOV since taking statements out of their context means that the relevance attributed to them by the WP:RS is obscured).Cealicuca (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As an aside: this book is pretty clear that the Romans were pretty thorough in exterminating rebellious conquered populations, e.g. cites Julius Caesar that the Gauls deserved their extermination. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's pretty clear, especially since they dealt so thoroughly with... say... Jewish people after so many rebellions.Cealicuca (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it might be a hasty generalization from "the Romans perceived themselves as overtly genocidal and proud to be genocidal" to "the Romans were overtly genocidal and proud to be genocidal". That happens when one over-relies upon primary Ancient sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That I can agree with. Any thoughts on the topic at hand?Cealicuca (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (3) We agree. If a reliable source verifies that a statement is relevant in the context of the article we cannot delete it, unless it contradicts relevant WP policies (such as WP:DUE). (4) You misunderstand my statement. I do not say that we should force each scholar to explain all facts that are relevant to the Romanians' ethnogenesis, but each theory should explain all relevant facts or explain that a fact is not relevant. (5) All statements are relevant in the context of the article, because they are mentioned in works dedicated to the ethnogenesis of the Romanians written both by scholars who accept the continuity theory and by scholars who refute it. If we want to give a full and neutral picture, we should not artificially separate scholarly comments on the same facts. As I demonstrated above, there are no uniform scholarly approaches within the theories, so we cannot set up "continuity" and "immigrationist" sections without seriously breaching WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I still maintain my above suggestion, but I will not comment on this issue any more. Borsoka (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cealicuca on this, as per my comments I made here before I went on vacation. I wonder if it would help to set up separate Wiki pages for these theories (with the respective caveat mentioned at the top of the page and corresponding links to the competing theories) and present them in a more organic way. This way one (the more casual reader, which accounts for most Wiki readers) could read a more unified & comprehensible view of a certain theory without getting their brains twisted into a pretzel. Of course, we could do that in addition to bringing more clarity to this article as it is. Just an idea...Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, interesting...Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Borsoka: Look, you're contradicting yourself. You admitted that neither you, nor I, nor any other editor are experts on the subject (at least not the kind of experts that would constitute WP:RS). Therefore, neither yours, nor mine, nor any other editor's opinion on what any of the theories should or should not state, what is or is not relevant to any of the theories could possibly constitute a legitimate reason based upon which the content should be presented in a specific way (different than how scholars present it). Neither yours, nor mine, nor any other's editor "judgement" on how valid a theory is or is not is legitimate. So your statement that "[..] but each theory should explain all relevant facts or explain that a fact is not relevant." is irrelevant. It is your opinion, nothing less nothing more. The artificial separation of the scholarly comments is already done - as this article stands, simply because every statement is taken out of context as shown above. That is not neutral, far from it. That is imposing how the editors view the subject itself, which is WP:OR. In this case the article is just theory crafting - not by adding/using unverified content but by organizing otherwise legitimate content in such a fashion that is NO longer in accordance with scholarly views but with editor's opinions. If we are to observe WP:NPOV we should clearly present the three mainstream theories together with their relevant (relevant according to WP:RS not some editor's opinion) content, and if there are WP:RS that contradict each other on specific opints they should be treated in the standard wiki way (source X states A, while source Y state B). If we are to observe WP:NPOV we cannot impose our own judgement on what is or is not relevant to any of the theories - this is what scholars (WP:RS) are for, nor should we decide to simply strip of content any/all of the theories. Just to make sure you understand, WP:NPOV, or "neutrality" as you say, doesn't mean at all that competing theories should be present as fuzzy and as unclear as possible as to somehow "equalize" them. Why? Because our view/judgement on the merits of each theory is irrelevant. It simply means that we should present sourced content as unbiased as possible.Cealicuca (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No one wants to equalize these theories... Borsoka spent years to make this article clear, readable. His editing style is a quite good example how Wiki editors should apply neutral point of view. You state that Borsoka is biased, but your argument is rather emotional, not factual (I just don't like it).Fakirbakir (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone with minimal knowledge of the subject can clearly see the tendentious and biased editing the Hungarian editors (and others) have inflicted on this article over the years. In fact, just take a look at the recent editing conflicts and you'll figure it out for yourself (if you are indeed as unbiased and factual as you expect others to be). The article is far from being clear, and it's barely readable (this after some recent improvements, over the Hungarian editors' objections). So if you have something concrete to say here in order to further improve this article please enlighten us.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You should rise above the prejudice that a Romanian education would be the only way to know WP:THETRUTH. On the international market of ideas, the arguments of the Romanian school are not really that convincing. There is some amount of archaeological work showing continuity of population, but it is just begging the question that it was a continuity of Daco-Roman population, as opposed to a melting pot of Goths, Cumans and Pechenegs, among others. Besides, most of that archaeological work was done under a national-communist regime which had a vested interest in affirming the continuity thesis, so it might be biased. So all we can do according to WP:NPOV is present the main theories without taking sides. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Fakirbakir: I am sure Borsoka's work is appreciated. Nice one with trying to stamp my arguments as subjective and whatnot. Fortunately for me, and unfortunately for you, there are two inescapable facts: 1. There are independent editors (that is editors who have never had any contact with this article previous to them expressing their opinion on this) who share the same concerns I do, and who find the article just as misleading and incomprehensible as I do. 2. Borsoka has admitted that the content was structured according to his (and other editors who share his views on the matter) judgement on what is or is not relevant.
 * ( Just for the record: no, I never admitted anything similar to this statement. Borsoka (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC) )
 * Thus - the article reflects what the editors believe is relevant in the context of any one of the three mainstream theories. This is theory-crafting, nothing less. WP:OR. Respecting WP:NPOV would mean that the article should reflect whatever WP:RS believe is relevant to the subject, and that relevance is within a context. Removing the context is not something neutral, it inserts bias. That's it. And lastly, I would respectfully remind you that such tactics may work on The Apricity or other forums of that kind, but they shouldn't be employed here.Cealicuca (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I did not admit anything similar to what you put in my mouth under point 2. Borsoka (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: For a self-declared non-expert on the matter you seem to hold and push very strong opinions. On the other hand, I'm glad you started to appreciate archaeology. Not that long ago such things would have been relegated to the trash bin of wikipedia, according to you. Also, you may want to educate yourself about this, just for balance. Or not (since you seem to have already made up your mind, unfortunately).Cealicuca (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're putting your own words in my mouth and I guess in Borsoka's mouth, too. See WP:TIGER why that does not belong here. According to WP:BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedians should harmoniously cultivate objective knowledge and even write for the WP:ENEMY to achieve such goal. They should not fight sectary fights or import ethnic conflicts into Wikipedia. All POV-pushers are by default unfit to edit Wikipedia, see WP:CIR. All those who put a political or religious ideal above the interests of Wikipedia de facto ban themselves from Wikipedia (sooner or later they receive topic bans or even site bans), see WP:ACTIVIST. If you ever had a valid point about this article, it got lost in the inflammatory language you're using. If you don't keep a cool head and if you're all big mouth, all your edits will be wasted. On the origin of Romanians it does not take an expert to realize that there is no smoking gun. In order to establish what is mainstream scholarship, I have advanced the WP:CHOPSY test. If you can show that all these six universities teach exactly what you preach, you have won this dispute. As simply as that. Hungarian Academy and Romanian Academy are not part of the jury. About the political problems of the Hungarian academics: the President of the Romanian Academy has been accused of being a Protochronist. I don't know if this is true, but if it were true then a pseudoscientist pur sang has got in charge of the Romanian science, so Romania would be ahead of Hungary at bullcrap production. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what exactly is that you're trying to achieve? What inflammatory language did I use? What words did I put into your / Borsoka's mouth? I'm asking, because I can provide plenty of quotes that support the idea that content was removed from the context in order to satisfy a so-called "neutrality" view (which is nowhere near what WP:NPOV is about). The article, as it stands, uses well sourced (WP:RS) material to weave a narrative that fits this "neutrality" view you and others are pushing. And this goes against the WP:RULES.
 * See this article - this is how competing theories should be treated. Are there any statements removed from their respective context? No, there aren't. And there's no less than 18 (!!!) competing theories. Not 3, but 18. If the content would have been managed like it was in this article it would all be a mess.
 * As for the accusation of bringing politics - I did not bring the subject up. You did. Repeatedly you stated that the Romanian academia has been, in the past, subject to political interference. Which I agree with, by the way. Nationalism tends to do that. In any case, since you want to play "white-hat" I gave you a WP:RS (the link was wrong, my bad. I corrected it) that shows that there are other academias plagued by political interference (again based on a nationalist platform), and not some 30 years ago but today - that I thought you would actually appreciate, given the "all things equal" and "every side has it's problems" stance you apparently hold dear. Again, I would like to underline the fact that it was YOU who brought up this subject.
 * As for the WP:CHOPSY - first of all you fail to take into consideration one point. The subject itself might be too obscure to be taught at such prestigious universities. But maybe I am missing something... Is there any of the three theories presented in the article that pass this test? Moreover, on the same page we get this little gem: "According to WP:NOT#OR, Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing original research, even if it is aimed at redressing some real or imaginary harm produced by academia.". This should be enough to settle the point of Academia bias (both sides).
 * Again, I will underline the fact that editors not invested in this subject have made statements that support my point of view. WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT also support my statement. That is: it's up to WP:RS that decide what is relevant or not not editors. Neither me, nor you, nor Borsoka, nor any other editor get to decide that. Neither me, nor you, nor Borsoka, nor any other editors get to remove statements from their original context (as per WP:RS) or to add statements, even WP:RS statements based on our own judgement about the relevance of such statements to the subject. We are NOT WP:RS. So we should not be altering the content, either by omitting the context or otherwise adding content (be it WP:RS) that was not originally relevant to one of the three mainstream theories, as stated by the WP:RS.
 * Of course you have contradicting WP:RS. All three (competing/conflicting) theories are like that, and it's natural because it all depends on the context. Thee scholars give different interpretations to the same "facts", taking into consideration a whole slew of other factors. Historical theories tent to be like that. Any one "fact" may be interpreted differently depending on the supporting evidence (that is context). Removing the statements from the context constitutes WP:OR since, by doing that, obviously the theories/statements no longer make sense. And this is what has been done here, under the guise of a so-called neutrality. All theories have been dumbed down, stripped down of their context, so that they all seem equally valid or invalid. Anyone can build a narrative that would fit their views (in your case a forced so-called "neutrality") by using well-sourced material taken out of context. Again, WP:OR.
 * In the end, you may cry "fault" all you like. The facts are:
 * 1. The editors who tended (for years it seems) to this subject admitted (see above an example of Borsoka's own comments) to organizing the content based on their judgement of what is (or is not) relevant, arguing that neutrality couldn't be achieved otherwise, removing said content from the original context (constituting WP:OR, a blatant break from WP:NPOV) or otherwise adding seemingly relevant content (relevant by their own judgement), in relation to the subject, but not necessarily to any of the 3 mainstream theories - against any notion of WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT.
 * ( Just for the record: no, I never admitted anything similar to this statement. Borsoka (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC) )
 * 2. I gave you a very good example of a WP:NPOV article that deals not with 3, but with 18 competing theories. This is exactly what I am talking about here - that each theory should have a clear and well defined section (or, in case of too much content, a separate page linked to the main article, which should present a summary of that theory(ies). Use the Interpretations of quantum mechanics article as an example.
 * 3. Editors who have are not invested in this subject (what I would call independent editors) have pointed out the fact that the article is unclear, the content is all over the place, removed from it's context. That flies straight into the face of allegations made by invested editors (that is editors who have contributed, one way or another, to what and how the article looks like today - editors whom of course would "defend" their contribution...), that state this article is clear and organized properly.--Cealicuca (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ad1. No, I did not admit anything similar to that you claim. Ad2. You claim, without referring to a single reliable source, that you could create a text which presents the argumentation of the continuity theory. I have several times demonstrated that there is no uniform argumentation: the principal (actually, almost all) arguments of certain scholars who accept the continuity theory are sharply refuted and criticized by other scholars who accept the same theory . Consequently, we could not create a "clear" text without ignoring a series of WP rules, including WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Ad3. It is not a surprise that readers do not understand what statement was made by scholars who accept the continuity theory and what statements by those who reject it: most argumentation of the continuity theory are rejected by other scholars who otherwis accept it. Fingally, I strongly suggest this debate should be closed: there are no new arguments and you are putting your own words to other editors' mouth. Borsoka (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As a last note, I have no idea why you put tags next to my statements, but I removed them. If it's a standard practice or whatever, let me know, but those tags usually represent deletion.Cealicuca (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Yes, the article is about the origin of the Romanians: all facts that are mentioned in connection of this subject in reliable sources should be mentioned in the article, unless WP:DUE is to be applied. (2) I repeat for the last time: one cannot write an article "demonstrating" the argumentation of one of the theories, because there is no uniform approach. (3) We agree. We have to show the concurring scholarly views in connection with all aspects of the Romanians' ethnogenesis. (4) I repeat for the last time: there is no "original context", because there is no uniform "continuity context". We cannot create a "continuity context", because it does not exist, but we have to present the scholarly debates as per WP:NPOV. And a last note, please avoid putting words in my mouth in the future. Borsoka (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As per my previous comments, I think it might be useful to create separate pages for each theory and link to those "main" pages from this "general" article in the manner done in the example Cealicuca brought up, or even the way it's done in some sections of this very article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See my comments above (Ad2 and Ad3: we could not create such an article without ignoring WP:NPOV and WP:DUE). Borsoka (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Borsoka:
 * Ad11. quoting from you:
 * "[...] each theory should explain all relevant facts or explain that a fact is not relevant. [...]".
 * "[...] we should decide on our own whether a fact supports a theory or contradicts it. [...]"
 * ( '''Full quote: "My principal concern about a "pro and con" approach is that in most cases, there is no clear-cut difference. Just a few examples: Romanian historians who accept the "continuity theory" associate the Vlachs/Romanians and the Volokhi who were defeated by the Magyars/Hungarians in the late 9th century, according to the Russian Primary Chronicle. The same historians regard the Russian Primary Chronicle as an undeniable proof for the Transylvanian presence of Vlachs/Romanians in the late 9th century. [For instance, Georgescu, Vlad (1991). The Romanians: A History. Ohio State University Press. p. 14. ISBN 0-8142-0511-9.; Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. Koninklijke Brill NV. pp. 73–77. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5.] A British specialist of the Romanian history, Dennis Deletant, writes that "Of one thing we can be reasonably certain: that the Russian Primary Chronicle is an unreliable source for a Vlach presence in Transylvania at the time of the Magyar invasion", although Deletant does not accept the "immigrationist theory". [Deletant, Dennis (1992). "Ethnos and Mythos in the History of Transylvania: the case of the chronicler Anonymus". In Péter, László. Historians and the History of Transylvania. Boulder. p. 85. ISBN 0-88033-229-8.] Consequently, we could not write that "Historians who accept the continuity theory associates the Volokhi of the Russian Primary Chronicle with the Vlachs, and only historians who reject the continuity theory refute the identification of the two peoples." [2] A German historian who dedicated several of his works to the history of the Balkans, Gottfried Schramm, says that the Romanian names of the major rivers of the one-time Roman province of Dacia exclude any form of continuity there, because the Romanians borrowed the river names from the Slavs and Hungarians instead of directly inheriting them from Antiquity. [Schramm, Gottfried (1997). Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5-7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter [=A Dam Breaks: The Roman Danube frontier and the Invasions of the 5th-7th Centuries in the Light of Names and Words] (in German). R. Oldenbourg Verlag. pp. 294–295. ISBN 3-486-56262-2.] The Romanian linguist, Domnița Tomescu, also says that the same river names were transmitted through Slavic mediation from Antiquity, but she seemingly does not accept the "migrationist theory". [Tomescu, Domnița (7 April 2009). Romanische Sprachgeschichte / Histoire linguistique de la Romania. 3. Teilband. Walter de Gruyter. p. 2728. ISBN 978-3-11-021141-2.] Consequently, we could not write that "Only scholars who accept the migrationist theory say that the Romanians borrowed the names of the major rivers of their country from the Slavs". Summarizing my views, we cannot follow a "PRO and CON" approach without seriously breaching WP:NOR, because we should decide on our own whether a fact supports a theory or contradicts it."''' Borsoka (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC) )
 * "[...] - supports the continuity theory. I think it is a neutral fact which does not contradict or support either of the theories. [...]"
 * ( '''Full quote: " You assumes that the last sentence that you quoted above - "Many of the smallest rivers and streams bear names of Romanian origin" - supports the continuity theory. I think it is a neutral fact which does not contradict or support either of the theories. (The smallest streams had a Hungarian name in Hungary as well. Could we spoke about a Pannon/Sarmato/Daco-Hungarian continuity?)" Borsoka (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC) )
 * It is not the editor's job to determine what each theory should or should not explain. This is your own view of what is or is not relevant, and this is your own view an what each theory should or should not explain. We shouldn't decide anything, it's up to WP:RS to do that, and it's up to us to present that in an unbiased way no matter if what the WP:RS states makes no sense to us, since we are not in a position to judge it. If it doesn't make sense to us it's because we are NO experts on the subject. Are you an expert?
 * Ad21. I hope that it is just a misunderstanding from your part, not a way to try to mislead. I did not "claim" that I could "create" anything related to the text. As per the article I gave as an example, I merely said that each theory should be presented as it is originally presented by the WP:RS cited, that is respecting the context - one of the three theories.
 * ( You have not cited a single reliable source based on which you want to present the continuity theory. If you choose one scholar, you will contradict WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, if you chose more than one scholars, you will have to adopt a structure very similar to the present structure, because there is sharp contradiction between followers of the continuity theory about the interpretation of the same facts. Borsoka (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC) )
 * You seem to be lost. First of all, despite of what you're trying to insinuate, this is not about the "continuity" theory, but about all 3 theories, and the fact that WP:NPOV refers to both content an style.Cealicuca (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ad22. "the principal (actually, almost all) arguments of certain scholars who accept the continuity theory are sharply refuted and criticized by other scholars who accept the same theory" - so what? Is it your job (as an editor) to somehow make any of the three theories "better"? No, it's not. There are clear WP:RULES regarding the situation when one source states X and another states Y, and it's definitely NOT editor's intervention (removing the statements from the context as to make them seem less conflicting).
 * ( And the present structure of the article is fully in line with these rules: all relevant interpretations are presented. Borsoka (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC) )
 * Again, you're confusing things. It's not about the individual statements, which I agree, they are in the article as stated by the sources. The problem is with the style, the problem is that the WP:RS make statements under a certain context (one of the three mainstream theories) but the article doesn't reflect that. since we're not experts on the subject, we cannot, by ourselves, determine the relevance of one statement or another.Cealicuca (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ad31. The article is not clear, as other independent editors have already stated, because there are WP:RS statements all over the place the are not explicitly linked to their original context. Again, it's a false problem, and you're reaching. The fact that scholars contradict each other means only that there is scholarly debate. It is not your job, as an editor, to clear that scholarly debate.Cealicuca (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ( Comment: Yes, Bradv stated that "If there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained. It is not clear which theory is being discussed in the paragraph in question, and adding a single sentence about the other theory only makes things more confusing, rather than adding balance. Is it possible to frame this in a separate subsection or paragraph that is both neutral and provides clarity to the reader? Is it necessary to do so in order to adequately explain this topic?" As I explained under pont Ad11 there is no uniform "continuity" interpretation, we cannot present it without ignoring WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If we want to give a full and neutral picture, we should not artificially separate scholarly comments on the same facts. As I demonstrated above, there are no uniform scholarly approaches within the theories, so we cannot set up "continuity" and "immigrationist" sections without seriously breaching WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Your own attempt to link certain facts/interpretations with one of the theories proves that it is impossible . Borsoka (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC) )
 * Again, you continue with the PRO/CON list. I won't play this game any more, feel free to repeat that as much as you can. I gave you an example, this is how an article with multiple competing/conflicting theories should be treated. If you insist on calling that a PRO/CON approach - so be it. Stonewalling will not help your case. And since you insist on full quotes, here's some other for you, coming from the same editor, even addressing your false "pro/con" concern:
 * "I'm not suggesting a pro-and-con list, as I don't think this can be simplified that far. What I'm wondering is if it's necessary to mention the Daco-Roman theory in this section at all? If it is, it should probably be done either in a separate paragraph or under a separate subheading so it's clear which theory is being referenced."
 * "If there is a need to cover the continuity theory in that context, could it be done in a separate paragraph? If there is enough written about it in that specific context it could possibly be its own subsection. I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two. Now it's possible that consensus is that only one theory is worth mentioning and that the other theory has been thoroughly debunked, but if that's the case the article should be very clear about that, and right now I don't think it is."Cealicuca (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Iovaniorgovan: I agree with your proposal, it's just that in the article given as an example it was necessary to create separate pages because of the sheer volume of the content. Here, with only 3 theories, providing it's just a reorganization of the current content (so the volume of content should remain pretty much the same), we might simply reorganize it in the proper way (3 sections, with sub-sections as necessary).Cealicuca (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you don't plan to add any relevant information, you just want to reshuffle the article in order to push the POV that the continuity theory is more proven than all other competing theories. Well, hereupon there is no agreement among experts, so obviously your proposal fails WP:DUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all I am sure you are aware that WP:NPOV refers to both content and style. Unlike you I am not concerned with proving anything. The problem here is with the style, and I will not repeat my arguments. As for the tone, the conclusion, and the intent of your post - I will not comment to that. It's quite surprising to see it coming from a dogfighter for WP:RULES.Cealicuca (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And it would create a "pro and con" list. Borsoka (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I again suggest that this debate should be closed. No new arguments have been raised for more than three weeks. Returning to the original question what are your thoughts about the renaming of the two subtitles in the 4.1 Written sources section: 4.1.1 Sources on present-day Romania > 4.1.1 Romania in the Middle Ages and 4.1.2 Sources on the Balkan Vlachs > 4.1.2 Balkan Vlachs in the Middle Ages Borsoka (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there is no consensus. As such the debate will not be closed, and seeing as there is no progress I will move this to the appropriate board.Cealicuca (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Cealicuca, yes, that's the idea, to create a separate "main" page for DRCT (and the other theories) and add a bunch of stuff to it, while at the same time re-structuring this article. Those separate "main pages" could easily be done without violating WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, seeing as the Wiki requirement is to present "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"-- the topic in this case being DRCT and not the more general topic of "Origin of the Romanians". That said, this might require a bit of work so I suggest at this time we focus on improving this article. My suggestion is you go ahead pick a section and revise it as you see fit. You don't need anyone's permission to do this. Then we'll all take a look and debate, if need be.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Borsoka: I see you keep on going with your PRO/CON list. That's... unfortunate and totally irrelevant. Please go on, you can fill whole pages with "I don't like a PRO/CON list" all you like. The fact of the matter is that I gave a good example of how this article should look like, and that is precisely what I mean by restructuring it. Your "explanations" about any of the theory somehow not having a uniform approach in the academia is mute, since neither you nor me are here to "fix" that. I do not try to forcefully link anything, I simply state that if we have a WP:RS that states something in the context of any of the three theories then that something (no matter if it's in support, or partial criticism, or full blown rebuttal) should be specifically linked to that theory. that is respecting the context that the WP:RS meant. Moreover, if we have WP:RS that state something in a context different than any of the three theories then it's presence in the article needs to respect WP:DUE - that is, not being linked specifically to any of the 3 mainstream theories, it should be catalogued as such or removed completely.
 * On short, unlike you, I believe we should respect the context in which a WP:RS made a statement and present it as such. So this should also address your concern about me trying to present the continuity theory. To be clear, I do not say, nor do I intend for me or any editor to present the continuity theory. It's would be the WP:RS that do that, our job is to summarize what WP:RS say. And if we have conflicting sources, no problem. We deal with them according to WP:RULES which are quite clear on the matter. But it will still be within the context that was originally mentioned by the WP:RS.Cealicuca (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Iovaniorgovan: I could do that, but that would mean for me to do it without consensus. So before doing that though I will address for the last time some of the things, and them move this to the appropriate board.Cealicuca (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Iovaniorgovan: I could do that, but that would mean for me to do it without consensus. So before doing that though I will address for the last time some of the things, and them move this to the appropriate board.Cealicuca (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard at Origin of the Romanians Article. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

DNA analysis
According to my DNA analysis, I'm 70.3% of Balkan ethnicity (Serb, Croat, Bosnian, Macedonian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Romanian, etc., much less Hungarian and not Ukrainian, Polish or Russian), 21% of Greek ethnicity (Greek, Cypriot, Cretan) and I come for 8.7% from the Middle East (which could mean Arab, Persian or Iranian, Jew, Egyptian, Coptic, Turk, Syrian, Yemeni, Kurdish, Iraqi, etc. — but not Ashkenazim, Mizrachi, Yemenite Jew or Sephardi). The gist is: the geneticists of MyHeritage cannot distinguish between geographically close countries. So all DNA research is fuzzy and cannot distinguish between Serb, Croat, Albanian and Romanian. That's why DNA studies are of limited use in respect to the origin of Romanians. E.g. most Romanians tested by MyHeritage show as preponderantly of Balkan ethnicity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, not a long ago I saw a video where such were promoted, i.e. many people around the world who were proud of their nationality and origin and were confident of it was put on a voluntary gerentic test and some very-very interesting results came out that shocked them or changed their mind - i.e. Englishman had German ancestry who don't really like Germans, or Kurdish lady who eventually had identical DNA with the common of Turks, etc.). I appreciate you did that, such would be very interesting for every people. I also agree that we have to be very careful regarding the DNA studies, however mostly by their interpretations, since regarding R1A1, both opposing sides evaluate the results as the reinforcement of their views, although scientifically/statistically the causation i sproblematic regarding who is thereal borrower or inheritor.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC))Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, did you just compare one individual genetic profile with a scientific study and infer that "So all DNA research is fuzzy and cannot distinguish between Serb, Croat, Albanian and Romanian. That's why DNA studies are of limited use in respect to the origin of Romanians."? Do you mean to tell us that based on your personal (individual) experience, you somehow draw the conclusion that generally speaking genetic studies of "Balkan" populations (not Hungarian, of course) are inconclusive?
 * Do you know how statistics work (serious question)?Cealicuca (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about my experience, it is about the knowledge of the geneticists working for MyHeritage. I thought that was already clear from what I have written above. You may Google it for yourself, they have nice maps about it: it is really hard for geneticists to distinguish between the ethnicities from geographically close countries. They base their conclusions on many peer-reviewed studies. If you need more info use Google Translate with https://radar.avrotros.nl/uitzendingen/reacties/item/online-dna-testen-reactie-myheritage/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. I do not dispute the genetic results. I dispute your interpretation of it (which is quite clear). Your interpretation, based on your individual genetic test result is:"According to my DNA analysis [...] The gist is: the geneticists of MyHeritage cannot distinguish between geographically close countries. So all DNA research is fuzzy and cannot distinguish between Serb, Croat, Albanian and Romanian. That's why DNA studies are of limited use in respect to the origin of Romanians. E.g. most Romanians tested by MyHeritage show as preponderantly of Balkan ethnicity.".
 * So again, based on YOUR genetic results, you infer that scientific studies are "fuzzy" or of "limited use" for Romanians or whatever.Cealicuca (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your reading ability is somewhat disappointing. As Prof. Yaniv Erlich says at that link, if one would travel from London to Moscow and analyze the DNA of the people he/she meets, about 3% of variation in DNA would be explained by the particular country wherein that person lives/was born. For Eastern Europe MyHeritage has just two ethnicities: Balkan and East European. They don't have a Dutch ethnicity since that's too close to other countries. With a high percentage Balkan and a somewhat lower percentage Greek, I'm typical for most Romanians who have been tested by this company. My Middle Eastern roots are atypical for Romanians, but that's only 8.7%. The test goes back for 10 generations. The company would love to distinguish between Bosnian and Bulgarian, between Serb and Romanian, etc., but there is simply not enough variation in DNA. With the passing of time, its knowledge may advance, so this picture could change, but we have to abide by WP:BALL. Or, to put it otherwise, between Serb and Romanian there could be a difference in the DNA, but the overlap is much greater than the difference. E.g. something like this: . Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This subject has already been exhausted on these talk pages (see archives or check your short-term memory banks since you were one of the participants just a few months ago), and yet here you are opening up the subject again with inane comments showing that you still know nothing about DNA research. I've already provided all the answers (with corresponding links) in my previous comments so I won't bother again since it's obvious that you're not here to learn but rather to push an agenda, which might/should have serious consequences for you on Wiki. Rather than waste other editors' time with your personal "issues/opinions" please state your point clearly and then provide WP:RS to back it up. Anything else is a waste of time. P.S. all those companies currently doing "DNA analysis" are more of less a sham, not because their results are not "correct", but because their methodologies are such that the results are (purposely?) fuzzy and unreliable (just google it and you'll find plenty of articles saying things like this "A spokesperson for 23andMe says their results are based on a sliding confidence scale, ranging from 50-90 percent"). That's because what they do is compare autosomal DNA between modern populations, so they have their reference DNA of, say, Balkan or Greek or Middle Eastern populations and the results come up something like you're X%Balkan, Y%Greek and Z%Middle-Eastern, since you (a human, I assume) should have something in common with most of those populations (as would anyone to a certain degree). Of course, if they decide to have Romanian as a reference population, then people from all over the world would be getting results saying they're 15% or 20% Romanian, etc. Which, of course, is ridiculous. What these companies DO NOT test for is your mtDNA/Y-DNA against ancient mtDNA from the country of your origin. Both mtDNA and Y-DNA are passed down unchanged from generation to generation and the only way to determine your "ethnicity" (for what it's worth) is by comparing your mtDNA (more accurate than Y-DNA since it's passed down unchanged from mother to child, regardless of gender) to mtDNA extracted from ancient populations (Romanian, in this case). That's what those DNA studies (done by academics) quoted in this article have done, and that's the only way to do it correctly and do it accurately. Otherwise, feel free to take comfort in the fact that we share 90%+ in common with pigs and chimps (which explains, I guess, the level of some of the debates on these talk pages).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have already been given the example with mtDNA and Y-DNA 100% Swede, yet the man is 50% black. Or something like this: his mother's mother's mother is 100% Swede, his father's father's father is 100% Swede, and the rest of that generation are all black. See also So you’re related to Charlemagne? You and every other living European… Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what you're talking about and it's pretty clear neither do you. You already brought up that example in our previous discussion and I showed you why it has no bearing on the mtDNA studies done by the academics (the kind mentioned in this article), so I won't comment on this any further. Again, what's your point and what are the WP:RS supporting it? You produce that, or else this discussion is over (as far as I'm concerned).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Tgeorgescu: This has nothing to do with my reading ability. You still don't seem to understand that there is a difference between one's genetic profile (as an individual) and a whole population genetic profile. The point is that the company/Yavin Elrich recognizes that:
 * The DNA results with respect to ethnicity may vary between providers, due to a number of factors: difference in algorithms that are used; difference in the reference populations used; the number of ethnicities with which the DNA is compared and which are these.
 * There are usually small differences in the genetic characteristics between different population groups. These differences can be very small.
 * By integrating patterns of differences in various parts of your genome, the algorithm estimates your likely genetic composition. It compares your DNA with 42 ethnic groups from around the world. We intend to add more in the future, with the help of our Founder Population project, a comprehensive study on this. [Important: The project's genetic "database" contains "[...] thousands of MyHeritage users from all around the world [...]"]
 * A DNA test goes back several hundred years, about 10 generations. As a result, it can generally give a different picture than 3 or 4 generations in a family tree. In some cases it is the other way around: the family tree does not go far enough back to match with a DNA trace from the past.
 * Is yout MyHeritage DNA test reliable? [...] it is always estimates - a series of hypotheses generated from individual DNA. Some ethnicities are genetically very similar, and therefore difficult to distinguish from other ethnicities, which can lead to errors. So we are certainly in favor of looking at ethnicity outcomes with a critical eye. We continue to work hard on improving accuracy and adding more ethnicities that are not yet identified.


 * So basically the problems are the following: You have no idea what they are looking for (nor do they explain). You also don't have any idea about the algorithm(s) involved - thus cannot determine if the algorithm(s) used are just as good for determining an ethnicity genetic profile as they are for determining an individual genetic profile. Another huge problem is that you don't know how the "ethnic" profile has been obtained. What we know is they have a low statistical base (some thousands of individuals OVERALL) - which affects the accuracy of their tests. They admit as much, as improving the accuracy is a "work in progress". Do they use genetic data extracted from individuals living today (only) with self-declared genealogy tree (and how far that goes) etc.?


 * There simply are too many variables in this and not enough of a controlled study. Yes, it might be good for establishing if you and I are related, and to what degree, but that's about it. This is not a comprehensive study of an entire population (statistically significant number of individuals from that population).


 * And one more thing: They do not say anything close to what you're saying - you base your conclusion on what here would be considered weasel words (may vary, is generally hard etc etc). But as a side-note, it's interesting that their ethnic Balkan genetic profile yields the following numbers: Slovenia - 88.4, Romania - 86.1, Croatia - 86.1, Bulgaria - 85, Slovakia - 79.7%, Hungary - 74.8%. Should we start interpreting those numbers? 'Cause we could get some very interesting interpretations... Or should we assume that this "Balkan" genetic profile is simply not that comprehensive and accurate? Does your "source" state that your genetic results reflect an academic/scientific study on the genetic profile of Romanians? No. Do they say that your genetic profile may be inaccurate? Yep. So what should we assume? I say we assume nothing.


 * Look, i'm not trying to pick a "fight" here. I don't even realize why you opened the discussion - what is your goal. But I genuinely believe that you do not take into consideration all the aspects and jump to rushed conclusions.Cealicuca (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking of WP:RS, we do not like WP:PRIMARY DNA research. See WP:MEDRS, WP:HISTRS, WP:SCIRS. It's simply not our tasks to write reviews of primary scientific literature. Our interpretations of primary literature could be true, could be false, but they are certainly not reliable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We were actually speaking of how you inferred that your individual genetic profile is relevant to an ethnicity's genetic profile. In any case, I am looking at this section and no, it doesn't seem to rely at all (mainly) in primary sources. Moreover, your conclusion about primary sources, that "they are certainly not reliable", is not quite reflecting the Wikipedia policies. Some are reliable, some maybe aren't. Actually, what is certain is that they are not all unreliable. It's not the reliability of the primary source that is concerning, it's the use of it.Cealicuca (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It means "Our interpretations of primary sources certainly aren't reliable". See Why MEDRS?. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." DNA studies study material thousands of years old, so by Wiki definition they're NOT "primary sources". 2) "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." ALL DNA studies mentioned in this article match those specifications point-by-point, as they review DNA data, are published in reputable journals and were conducted by reputable academics; 3) "Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge ." ALL DNA studies mentioned in the article are based on reliable published sources reflecting the current state of knowledge. So, your suggestions fail on all counts, which is why your tag will be removed. The Wiki pages of most countries/ethnicities contain a DNA section for the simple reason that it conforms with Wiki standards. If you somehow wish to have this particular page be the exception, then I'll be happy to take it to arbitration.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand what WP:PRIMARY means. See No original research/Noticeboard. Tgeorgescu (talk)