Talk:Romanians

Romanians are a nationality not a ethnic group.
Any race can be Romanian. There is black Romanians, Chinese Romanians, Jewish Romanians and many Gypsy Romani Romanians. Most Romanians are of Roma (Gypsy) ethnicity born in Romania. Roma Gypsies are the fastest growing ethnic group in Romania. Jews are historically from Romania too. Please remove or change Romanians the first sentence stating that Romanian is a ethnic group. Romanian is a nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.145.4.233 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Whoever unsigned coward wrote this should take his pill. Romanian is a term which denotes both the nationality and the ethnicity. And no, most Romanians are not of Rromani (or Gypsy) ethnicity. This is clearly proven by many genetic tests for larger population cohorts/groups. For your reference, there are also Hungarian Romanians and German Romanians. We are all more or less intermixed, if you ever had the slightest interest on delving into genetics a bit, so there is no such thing as a pure race. Welcome to the real world (a brief introduction coupled with scientific facts as well). Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you @Rosenborg BK Fan. When I read "Most Romanians are of Roma (Gypsy) ethnicity born in Romania" I couldn't believe my eyes. How about Gypsies from Spain? Gitanos (estimated 720,000-1,500,000)
 * Or Romani Americans (est. 1,000,000)? The Romani or Roma are a nomadic ethnic group, commonly known as Gypsies, who have been in the Americas since the first Romani people reportedly arrived on Christopher Columbus’ third voyage in 1498.
 * This user @45.145.4.233 is cunning. Trying to sound "leftist" to seem that what he just said is in good faith but it's actually only masked as such, but it's actually written in bad faith aka vandalism on wikipedia, in order to insult Romanians (taunting, baiting and lying as per Civility). Genetically and linguistically Roma people originated in the Indian subcontinent; in particular, the region of Rajasthan.   The Roma began to leave India about 1,000 years ago. They most likely left to escape the invasion of Afghan general Mahmud of Ghazni early in the 11th century. Mahmud's troops probably pushed the Roma out of northern India and into the area that is now Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran. The Roma people arrived in Europe around the 14th century.
 * According to a triple analysis – autosomal, mitochondrial and paternal — of available data from large-scale studies, the whole genome SNP data situates Romanians are most closely related to Bulgarians, Macedonians, followed by other European populations, which form a coherent cluster among worldwide populations. "Most South Slavs are separated from the rest of the Balto-Slavic populations and form a sparse group of populations with internal differentiation into western (Slovenians, Croatians and Bosnians) and eastern (Macedonians and Bulgarians) regions of the Balkan Peninsula with Serbians placed in-between... Furthermore, Slovenians lie close to the non-Slavic-speaking Hungarians, whereas eastern South Slavs group is located together with non-Slavic-speaking but geographically neighboring Romanians and, to some extent, with Greeks."
 * Most West Slavs, Hungarians, and Austrians were found to share as many identical by-descent DNA segments with South Slavs as with Romanians, Torbeshi and Gagauzes.
 * In 2021, the largest genetic genealogy company in the world, Ancestry.com, contradicted the 2017 study based on more recent genetic findings, placing Romania (including Transylvania), Hungary and Slovakia (in Central Europe) in the Balkan DNA region: "Formally Romania and Hungary were not considered part of the region but they now are considered Balkan in terms of their DNA." Slovakia was also included in the Balkan DNA region.
 * So no, genetically most ethnic Romanians are not Roma/Gypsies. Like you said: " Romanian is a term which denotes both the nationality and the ethnicity." The ethnicity of Romanians is not Roma (old term: Gypsy). Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comment! I will get back to you with a more detailed response later today. And also, that is not to say that we have something against the Romani people (I on the contrary). At the same time, the respective edit was done by someone who did not even register as a user on Wikipedia, and therefore should all the more not be taken that much seriously (at least by some like you and me). All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, very thorough and well-organised comment! Much respect for it! As for the genetics, it is as you mentioned as per my understanding and documentation as well. Also, I think that it would be counterproductive to focus more on that comment on that thread. I think a wise and intelligent decision would be to leave the discussion as it is at this point because we are both scientifically and encyclopaedically correct. Best regards! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, what I wrote was in good faith and I see positive things in all ethnicities, including the Roma/Gypsies. I only brought genetic and historic facts without insulting the Roma in anyway. My sister's highschool English teacher was a teacher of Roma descent and she was/is very admired by her students. The facts say that in all regards: genetically, geographically, linguistically, historically and culturally the Roma/Gypsies are different from Romanians and that's not a good or a bad thing. It's a netural fact of life like breathing air is a neutral fact of life. Ninhursag3 (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct, neutrally and encyclopaedically. All the best here on Wikipedia and in general! I wish you happy editing and plenty of positive experiences and edits here! Much respect once again! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, hope you'll reply to my new comment on the German versions of Romanians wikipedia page. Best regards ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I certainly will! All the best and keep up the good work! You can see the threads that I started there as well. For example, I previously added the fact that Romanians and Italians are related (genetically as well, as a fun/trivia fact I'm mostly Italian per my recent genetic test), but it was deleted... I will add references next time... Hopefully, that information won't be deleted, but even with reliable references it can be (from my personal experience). It's sad but it's true as well... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Genetically, Romanians are closest to Bulgarians and Macedonians. I'm sure you know that the Dacians were a sub-group of the Thracians (the region where Thracians lived is now Bulgaria) so it makes sense. Romanian is a Latin/Romance language but trying to prove we're very close to Italians genetically when genetically we're the closest to Bulgarians and Macedonians seems superfluous to me. In antiquity Thracians and Dacians were known for having red and light hair. Bulgarians aren't less white than other Europeans, even if the rulers were ethnic Turkic people/Bulgars, the majority of the population was Slavic (formerly Scythian) and Balkan (formerly Thracian). Also I was very suprised when I read you wrote "my country and home region (i.e. Bukovina)". Bukovina is indeed a region but not a country, even if you did a DNA test and have some Italian blood the truth is that your home country is Romania, not Bukovina and you're Romanian from the region of Bukovina. You should be proud of being Romanian ^^ My grandfather was Hungarian/Székely from Harghita but you don't see me jumping up and down of how special and non-Romanian I am. Best regards <3 Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant Romania and Bukovina, respectively, I apologise if I let myself be misunderstood. It was meant in that order. Genetically, I am mostly Italian. And yes, of course I know about the Dacians. And yes, you are right about the genetic similarities between Romanians and South Slavs, that is also factually correct. But, historically, since the Roman conquest, Romanians are also related to the Italians (also per larger genetic studies). In this regard, please see: https://www.romania-insider.com/new-genetic-map-of-the-world-shows-romanians-ties-to-lithuanian-finnish-south-italian (this article seems interesting because it sort of explains why I am a bit Finnish as well, according to my genetic test). All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I am not a nationalist, but I respect my home country as best as I can, in as many contexts as I can, here as well (while adhering and striving to respect the rules of neutrality and factual accuracy of Wikipedia, at the same time). Truth was it was a bit peculiar for me to discover an overwhelming Italian ancestry, but it was a very positive surprise I must admit. And a significant German one as well... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not so strange hearing about your DNA. Romania in the 19th century especially after the Unification of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859 and the first half of the 20th century had many immigrants looking for better work conditions and better pay. And as a new kingdom, the Kingom of Romania was an ideal place to set up shop and start businesses. Case and point, the famous painter Romanian Nicolae Grigorescu (1838-1907) was an apprentice at the workshop of the Czech painter Anton Chladek (who migrated to Romania). The case of Anton Chladek is not an isolated one. Best regards, we will continue this discussion on your page. Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I know the history of the Kingdom of Romania very well! Thank you for mentioning more on the early history of the Romanian kingdom. It is best however to continue to continue this topic, if you wish, that is, on my discussion page! Regardless of those trivia facts regarding my ancestry (genetically speaking), the genetics' section of this article can and must be improved (I previously did that as well) and I am willing and intend to do that in the future as well. I hope I will be able to improve it. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope you will be let by those German admins to improve the German page as well but is seem unlikely since they just don't respond and refuse to improve the article. You should show them these messages and let them known how we Romanians are disappointed at their lack of quality in their wikipedia articles and their admins. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This feels repetitive, but please read WP:NOTFORUM. This conversation should not be on an article talk page. From the policy page: bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article and indeed are not there for discussing other pages in other wikiprojects. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right, I agree! If @Ninhursag3 want to discuss this subject more in-depth she should feel free to do so on my discussion page, wholeheartedly. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't influence their turn of mind anyhow, unfortunately. They don't seem so sensitive at how other users or readers feel... that's life. But, on the brighter side of things, more and more of my edits are approved there, so that's quite a new beginning. We'll see what happens in the future... Hopefully for good. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Only if this is done for every other ethnic group in Europe on Wikipedia where ethnicity and mationality match.
 * So this is the list
 * Albanians
 * Belarus
 * Bulgarians
 * Croats
 * Czechs
 * Danes
 * Dutch
 * Estonians
 * Finns
 * Germans
 * Greeks
 * Hungarians
 * Italians
 * Icelanders
 * Irish
 * Latvians
 * Lithuanians
 * Macedonians
 * Maltese
 * Montenegrins
 * Norwegians
 * Poles
 * Portuguese
 * Romanians
 * Slovaks
 * Slovenians
 * Serbians
 * Spaniards
 * Swedes
 * Turks
 * You can start with letter A Albanians 178.221.76.14 (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Historiography section
In all fairness, what is that, for real? Should it even be there? The impression I get from reading it is that it was on purpose placed there and that is biased. Any thoughts?

Any thoughts please on this? Thank you very much in advance!

The German version of the "Romanians" wikipedia page is one of the most unprofessional articles on wikipedia in any language
Maybe I'm asking too much but has anyone read the Romanians wikipedia page but the German version?https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum%C3%A4nen

10% represents a few words about Romanians like "there 23,8 million Romanians around the world" and 90% is about the "Ethnogenesis of the Romanians" ("Die rumänische Ethnogenese"). There should be a separate page for the "Origins/Ethnogenesis of the Romanians" just like there is in English: Origin of the Romanians

This page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum%C3%A4nen must be the most unprofessional article I've ever read on wikipedia. It's nothing like the superior English version with many references and topics regarding Romanians. Nothing about the Culture of Romania, List of Romanian inventors and discoverers, Romanian literature, Romanian architecture, Science and technology in Romania, Vlachs, Great Vlachia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Danubian Principalities, Unification of Moldavia and Wallachia, United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, Greater Romania, Romanian language, Romanian Orthodox Church, Romanian Greek Catholic Church. I asked in German using google translate on the German wikipedia version of "Romanians" but nobody helped *sigh*. Can anyone please help?

Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Good day! Thank you very much for your comment! I totally agree with you! I have contributed in the past on the German Wikipedia and did so with success there (despite constant bad will stemming from several admins there). However, before discussing the quality of the corresponding article (i.e. this one regarding Romanians) on the German Wikipedia, I will have to mention the fact that the German Wikipedia has a different editing mechanism than the English Wikipedia (which makes it quite peculiar in my humble opinion, at least when compared to the English Wikipedia or other Wikipedias).
 * First of all, as a normal, registered user, your edits are pending to a review by an admin (admins there are both willing to approve good faith and accurate edits and not; sadly, it's also a matter of luck sometimes, from my personal experience, which is noteworthy there as well). Secondly, as any Wikipedia project in a different language, the German Wikipedia has its own rules and regulations (including those related to content) and it's absolutely normal to be as such. But, from your comment, and my opinion as well, there is a tremendous difference in terms of quality and content in general between the two versions and this is crystal clear to other readers, users, and possibly admins as well (and I am underlying this in a balanced and neutral manner, without saying that is good or bad). Thirdly, if you take a look even at the corresponding article of the Bukovina Germans there (i.e. Bukowinadeutsche), which I also helped considerably improve and expand over the course of at least several months this year, you will sadly notice the fact that content was subsequently deleted (by some admins). On which grounds, frankly speaking I have no idea, but it was accurate and even well-sourced (some sources still remained there). Fourthly, infoboxes, for some odd way of reason, are frowned upon there and the addition of them (just like here on the English Wikipedia, which is absolutely normal) for ethnic groups is even deemed 'wild' (stemming from my personal experience). Once again, why, I have no idea.
 * Lastly, the German Wikipedia also has a series of factual errors which I helped improve as I understand the German language (to a certain extent at least) and can even write well in it to the extent of approved good faith and good quality edits. I tried to update the article regarding Vlachs there (please see Walachen in this regard when you have time), adding just the Romanian names in the introduction and a map highlighting the transhumance process later on, but, as you noticed, I noticed the same things regarding that article and many more articles. And, as for the discussion pages, I haven't sadly received any (positive) responses in some threads and when I did, only cynical and even rude ones on behalf of a certain user (fortunately other admins approved my edits which were accurate in the meantime). Well, such is the German Wikipedia and even the behaviour of some (definitely not all) German persons in real-life. Signed someone with genetic German ancestry as well (according to a myHeritage DNA recent test as well). All the best and much respect! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S.: As another opinion on the matter, for me it seems that the German Wikipedia is not as well integrated and organised with respect to overall content as its English counterpart, sadly... Best regards! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, as they say "the silence is deafening". The fact that the users on pages about Romania/Romanians are mostly of Hungarian ethnicity and they didn't write back to me and didn't try to help improve the article in the German version is saying a lot. It's saying that they're happy with the situation regarding the German version of the wikipedia article. If you look at the Early Middle Ages from the 6th century until the 13th century all the historical references, the Arab, Jewish, Byzantine, Hungarian etc chroniclers were added by me. It was in response to @RF354 trying to add the incorrect assertion by Encyclopaedia Britannica: "According to Encyclopædia Britannica from the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history." (never mind Great Vlachia from the 12th to the 14th century or Second Bulgarian Empire also called Bulgarian–Wallachian Empire from 1185 until 1422). RF354 tried to use Encyclopædia Britannica's reputation as the best academic source in the English language as a shield, as infallible to correction, as always right even though all historical texts contradict that. You can read more of our epic battle here:User talk:RF354
 * The user @Borsoka, a Hungarian user herself was the knight in shining armour that saved the day, the whole thing was Lord of the Rings levels of epic.
 * As a Romanian, I say this in the most Neutral point of view, I feel very lonely here on wikipedia, especially when there is a topic to be voted on, like Talk:Origin of the Romanians and there is no Romanian except me, 4 are Hungarian (2 admitted it, is is RF354 from his comments most likely a Hungarian and the other possible Hungarian as well) one (@Johnbod) said he's neither Romanian or Hungarian but the rest of Romanians... crickets. Where are Romanian users like@Biruitorul or @Super Dromaeosaurus? Of course, talking in a cordial, respectful, Neutral point of view but nevertheless talking.
 * As a Romanian, I was in the situation to be saved by a Hungarian ( @Borsoka) and not a fellow Romanian user. I think we as Romanians can do better and still be respectful and not get banned on wikipedia...And do something about this poorly written German wikipedia page about Romanians: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum%C3%A4nen
 * Can't the Germans get banned for their hostile and rude behaviour, changing back the paragraphs you have written? I don't know if you're Romanian but my point still stands. Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the Encyclopaedia Britannica page: https://www.britannica.com/place/Romania
 * And the quote: "From the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Walachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history." Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not the page to discuss this. This talk page is for this article. Please discuss this on the German Wikipedia talk page. See also WP:NOTFORUM. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I already added a topic in German, if you would have bothered to read my comment where I said: " I asked in German using google translate on the German wikipedia version of "Romanians" but nobody helped *sigh*."
 * Here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Rum%C3%A4nen "Unprofessionelle rumänische Wikipedia-Seite, bitte machen Sie sie professionell wie die englische Version"
 * Nobody replied, like I said "the silence is deafening". The Germans refuse to improve the page. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is still the wrong forum. You flagged it up for editors on your first line, but the discussion goes on the German page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If the Germans don't want to engage on the German discussion page, what to do then? Something must be done, that page's quality is execrable. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, not only Germans but any German-language speaker. Paradoxically or not, German speakers from Switzerland are the ones who can treat you better, neutrally and even on a personal level while approving your edits and even improving them accordingly, if need be. As per my experience, sometimes it's better to get silence than rude comments or even worse, inaction and constant deletions when what you write there is factually correct. Best regards! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sirfurboy🏄 and Ninhursag3: With all due respect, I think the discussion thread on this topic here might be productive because, for some odd way of reason based on my personal experience, when I added threads on the discussion pages there both in German and English either some did not reply at all for months, others behaved very rude, and others were so-so. That matters less and can be even superfluous and irrelevant. What still matters is the fact that the culture of dialogue there seems not be very well in place so to put it, as elegantly as possible, please believe me. There was such an admin there who did not even know what 'ad interim' means (and deleted a good faith and accurate edit of mine on no logical grounds) and others who delete visual content, well-written and good-formatted text, sources as well, without any justification... It has also become sort of personal because I wanted to improve the articles concerning the history and communities of my country and home region (i.e. Bukovina) and I was treated as rude as possible there (with a few exceptions). Admins can behave very rude to you (and even lie in front of other admins regarding your edits) and get away with it. Instead, when you claim that one is liar there, with arguments and sources, you are even humiliated once more, instead of the tone of discussion being neutral and see that you are in fact right. Such was my experience. But, regardless of the bad will towards me, the vast majority of my edits were approved...
 * P.S.: There is also the very peculiar case in which an admin reverts or deletes the encyclopaedic content by another user or even admin, to the point where reliable data gets permanently lost in the current version of the page. With all due respect, that is absolutely abnormal to me (and not only, of course). That's one more reason why I hope and politely ask here for this thread to be maintained as a form of discussion on the matter because if we would do the same thing on the German Wikipedia on either German or English we will be banned and our discussion threads deleted even if we are right, with plenty of arguments on our side while we are at it. To conclude, for me, the behaviour that I received on the German Wikipedia is unjustifiable, stemming from certain users at least. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Genetics and ethnogenesis
The ethnogenesis part of this section is written in prose, but the genetics discussion is just a list of studies and haplogroup numbers, meaningless to a reader and reliant on a slew of primary sources. This needs rewriting. Does anyone have a secondary source about genetics relating to Romanian ethogenesis? Or should I just remove all that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I haved added the data from Ancestry.com, if you delete the ethnogenesis part, the Hungarians will be very angry and will undo your action. I recommend you leave it there. The theories be they "written in prose" as you say or not is irrelevant, scholars have 3 theories about the ethnogenesis of Romanians, like it or not and should stay there. Best regards ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * More accurately the AncestryDNA genetics section inside the bigger Ancestry.com. Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ANCESTRY, ancestry.com is not a reliable secondary source. Please note I am not proposing deleting ethogenesis prose, the part that is meaningless to readers is this:
 * This is supported by 8 primary sources, no secondary sources and no appreciable prose placing this in context. It needs a complete rewrite. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That part you quoted is not written by me. As for Ancestry.com: it is the largest for-profit genealogy company in the world, it operates a network of genealogical, historical records, and related genetic genealogy websites. I has a lot of value in the study of genetics since it has the biggest human genetic data, it should count for something. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It has a lot of value* sorry autocorrect >.< Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you follow the link? Ancestry.com contains information that constitutes reliable primary sources but content is user generated so it is not reliable as a secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, so if https://namecensus.com/ notes that AncestryDNA inside Ancestry.com changed what constitues the Balkan DNA in 2021 (now includes Hungary and Romania in the Balkan DNA region as well) is this not good? Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not very good, no. What information are you trying to present to the reader? Are you talking about this reference?. This supports the text: In 2021, the largest genetic genealogy company in the world, Ancestry.com, contradicted the 2017 study based on more recent genetic findings. That text raises alarm bells. The article is user generated by one Neil Edwards. Who is he? we are told a "Genealogist and family-tree research specialist" (which both appear to be the same thing, and is how much of Ancestry.com's user base might self describe. We have no qualifications, and no publications I can find (his name is a common one, so hard to be certain on this point, but restricting publications to the field of genealogy, his purported specialism, brings up nothing). There is no peer review of this piece, so claiming, in Wikivoice, that this contradicts earlier research is definitely not OK. And again, per WP:ANCESTRY, the Wikipedia community has decided that Ancestry.com is generally unreliable for this kind of thing. If the concusion is sound, there will be better sources available. If no better secondary sources exist, it is unsound. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will find other souces just namecensus/Neil Edwards. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I rephrased the paragraph to remove " contradicted the 2017 study" since you didn't like how it sounded. I will ask you why you didn't have the same rigour when RF354 added the incorrect and shameful Encyclopaedia Britannica quote: "From the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Walachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history." when Byzantine, Arab, Jewish and Hungarian chroniclers from the 6th to the 13th century wrote about Vlachs/Romanians (never mind Great Vlachia from the 12th to the 14th century or Second Bulgarian Empire also called Bulgarian–Wallachian Empire from 1185 until 1422). RF354 tried to use Encyclopædia Britannica's reputation and fame as the best academic source in the English language as a shield, as infallible to correction, as always right even though all historical texts contradict that quote. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because my concern is with the the meaningless genetics section. Please don't try to introduce a different subject from a different section with this talk section about the genetics information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the entire page can be edited in any chaotic manner as long as it doesn't happen to the genetics section since you only care about that section. Got it. Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sirfurboy: With all due respect, the genetics section is not meaningless, not all. Not in my eyes, certainly! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ninhursag3 Encyclopaedia Britannica has its flows here and there. It's not the best English-language source at all times. But it's still a very good and reputable source, overall. However, not in this particular case, I wholeheartedly agree! All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Eupedia (it's quite an interesting website, in my humble opinion) might be good and if not then please try searching for various scientific journals regarding genetic studies on Romanians via e.g. ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley, RefWorks or the like. Plenty of success! I'll try to see if I can help as well in the near future! Best regards! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please keep this talk section focused on the genetics section, or there will be an almighty mess, Britannica is discussed in the section below. Rosenborg BK Fan, you say the information I have quoted above is not meaningless. Would you care to explain what it means then? in plain English prose. Such a summary could replace that material. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad mentioning Britannica there, I presume. As for your question, certainly, I can, but that is not quite an attitude to reply to, when you mention 'in plain English prose'. For one, genetics is not a topic that can be easily discussed 'in plain English prose'. It requires more in-depth understanding and research, therefore it is not 'meaningless'. Genetics and science are not meaningless, at least for me. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But this is not a paper to a genetics conference, it is an encylopaedia article, which should be written in plain English prose. The manual of style is quite clear that prose is preferred, and a list of haplogroups tells the reader nothing. This is a matter of audience. In any case, I see that we also have a similarly problematic section at Origin of the Romanians. That is where detail in this section belongs. This section is duplicating that article, and is largely superfluous. It should just summarise that article. I have removed the worst of the offending data now. There remain significant issues. for instance, having had the discussion above about Ancestry not being reliable, the paragraph has been allowed to stand, just citing namecensus.com. The citation is to a blog, and blogs are not normally WP:RS as they are self published. However I took a look to see if namecensus has any editorial authority, and found nothing. Whois tells me it is hosted by namecheap, by a private registrant who has availed themself of the privacy afforded private registrants. It is thus clearly also self published and not a WP:RS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit: added text copied from Origin of the Romanians. Per WP:COPYWITHIN you should attribute the source page when copying between pages. The amount is small though, but the real problem here is that it copied in several sfn references wothout checking or adapting them to this page. Now I have found the source, I expect I can fix this, but please take care when copying between pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I already fixed it, I put the bibliography in the references. Thanks anyway. Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not so much. I will start a new section as referencing is a whole new topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit is more of the same regarding primary sources. Any paragraph that starts like "A 2017 paper says..." is going to be primary. Genetics sections become a mish-mash of contradictory information and do not provide a coherent narrative. So again, we need secondary sources. Also, why do we need this section at all when we have the Origin of the Romanians page? All that is needed here is a brief summary of that page and a signpost. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit is more of the same regarding primary sources. Any paragraph that starts like "A 2017 paper says..." is going to be primary. Genetics sections become a mish-mash of contradictory information and do not provide a coherent narrative. So again, we need secondary sources. Also, why do we need this section at all when we have the Origin of the Romanians page? All that is needed here is a brief summary of that page and a signpost. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The article should begin with Origin of the Romanians
The article should begin (not end) with the Origin of the Romanians. This way the article Origin of the Romanians will be linked only once. Any encyclopedia reader would want the history of the Romanian people to actually start with their origin. RF354 (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No, it should begin with what historical documents write about, hence the History section. The theories about the ethnogenesis of the Romanians are in the right place in "Genetics and ethnogenesis" and the link to Origin of the Romanians is there, people can access it any time. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The history section is a history of the Romanian people. It should start with the theories regarding their origin. This is still an encyclopedia. We don't want to hide the origin section, we want to start the article with it. I probably also wouldn't bury the Genetics sources at the very end of the article, but the Origins are definitely where we (and any reader) would start. RF354 (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Any encyclopedia reader would want the history of the Romanian people to actually start with their origin." Unfortunately it wouldn't start with their origin but theories about their origin which would take a lot of space, bombarding the reader with theories instead of reading about what ancient and medieval chroniclers write about the Vlachs/Romanians. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON. Don't mislead the readers because of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. That's it. RF354 (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I will say the same: WP:BLUDGEON. Don't mislead the readers because of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. That's it. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The link to Origin of the Romanians is on the page, people can access it any time, you're just stubborn and want to put it in front because: WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.
 * Just like you did with adding the incorrect and shameful Encyclopaedia Britannica quote: "From the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Walachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history."
 * Since you did that, I will assume bad faith from you. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT: you are trying to hide info from the readers, not me.
 * I do stand by the "shameful" Encyclopaedia Britannica quote, I was just editing against two editors. RF354 (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you deny Byzantine, Arab, Jewish and Hungarian chroniclers from the 6th to the 13th century. You are indeed a bad faith actor and constitute Vandalism. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica didn't find the few questionable sources convincing enough, that's why they wrote "the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history". I do stand by that.
 * I wouldn't throw around unfounded vandalism charges now that you are actively damaging the project simply because of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.
 * I also wouldn't attack another editor in the edit summaries as you just did. RF354 (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't "attack" you. I didn't attack your ethnicity, your religion, your skin color, your sexual orientation, I didn't insult, denigrate or belittle you in any way, shape or form. Your actions made you a possible perpetrator of Vandalism. Just because you wanted to shield yourself from criticism by using Encyclopædia Britannica's reputation and fame as the best academic source in the English language as infallible to correction, as always right even though all historical texts contradict that quote. Those historical texts aren't just "few questionable sources" they are contemporary or near contemporary sources from different ethnicities and parts of the world, religion etc (Byzantine, Arab, Jewish and Hungarian). Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Shall we better cite from Latin from Gesta Hungarorum and Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum instead? These are even more reliable than Encyclopædia Britannica in this context. Or perhaps the works of Transylvanian Saxon scholar Johannes Honterus? I do see that as a bad faith edit as well and historically inaccurate. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not accurate at all to mention that the 'Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history' when there are many Medieval Latin-language chronicles (also penned by Hungarian writers of the High Middle Ages) stating otherwise. Please reconsider that source in a historically-accurate context. Also, I love Encyclopædia Britannica and do consider it a very reliable source, but it does have its flaws here and there as well, in this particular context all the more. Best regards! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Referencing
This page has inconsistent referencing. There are 30 sfn references but about 150 inline references. It appears information is being copied from pages with sfn without adapting the references (a problem not unique to this page). I was going to just fix these until I saw there were 30 of them. Instead, I will create a bibliography so the references work at least. We then could do with a discussion as to what the best referencing style actually is. Although there are more of the inline style, the origins page uses sfn, and sfn does make a page easier to edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The three sfn references in the genetics section now work with a bibliography. I cannot immediately find the other sfn sources, and no more time now. There are still therefore a lot of broken sfn references in this article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)