Talk:Vlachs/Archive 4

Recent disagreements
YoursTrulyKor, and also @CriticKende and OrionNimrod, please engage in the discussion regarding the dueness of the material here. I'm specifying YoursTrulyKor because their candor in their edit summaries is uncivil at best, they are not assuming good faith like is expected on Wikipedia.

Specifically, I would also refer those involved who haven't read to WP:NPOV, because

isn't the type of criteria that are important for establishing whether sources are reliable or due in an article.

is especially unacceptable rhetoric that doesn't align with site policy.

As is the norm, no one should continue editing the material in question until a consensus based on site policies and guidelines is reached. Cheers! Remsense 诉  03:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I am also willing to arbitrate points, as someone who a) knows enough about the relevant ethnic and political history to hold a decent conversation, but hopefully b) doesn't have particularly strong biases as regards this region of the world. Mea culpa, I do remember having some arguments with OrionNimrod a few months ago regarding material related to the Revolutions of 1848, but I hope can they trust that I'm acting in good faith here regardless. Remsense  诉  04:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cheers! I apologize for my actions beforehand since this is quite a sensitive subject.
 * I have good reasons to believe that @CriticKende, @OrionNimrod and @Borsoka are acting in bad faith on this article by removing multiple important pieces of information and replacing them with other that serve their own narrative. I will take each one apart
 * 1. CriticKende
 * I will highlight only edits which i consider important and, until now, this editor has:
 * Removed information regarding Vlachs travelling to Mount Athos in the 8th Century
 * Removed information regarding Volohoveni, a population thought to have been Romanian which lived in Modern Day Ukraine
 * Added unsupported claims that Vlachs mentioned to live in Ukraine are actually turks
 * Removed information about Proto-Romanian being spoken in the 6th Century
 * Added unsupported information that Vlachs come from Macedonia
 * Twice.
 * At the same time, adding unrelated, unsupported information stating that
 * Vlachs are a barbarian population
 * That the Hungarians ACTUALLY asked the Vlachs to come and colonize territories
 * All the while ousting his real intentions by:
 * Changing "some" to "most"
 * What are we witnessing here is a very dangerous practice which might just compromise the integrity of this article, if it hasn't already been compromised as seen by past discussions which point out the same things. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of yours remarks. For instance, Volohoveni and the first possible reference to Proto-Romanian should be mentioned in the article. However, I do not fully understand your aversion to references to the Vlachs immigration to the lands to the north of the Lower Danube. The earliest Moldavian and Wallachian chronicles makes clear references to it. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will allow some time if CriticKende wants to respond before I weigh in, but it's possible everything is fine and I'm not needed. Remsense  诉  04:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Borsoka@OrionNimrod@Remsense@YoursTrulyKor, sorry for the late response but I just opened wikipedia. Please let me respond briefly to the accusations against me.
 * The first link, it shows as I deleted a post. The source is a random page, which is not a historian's opinion, but an online article (which no longer exists) which says: "In this century is when the Vlahorinchians and the Sagudits are mentioned coming from Bulgaria, passing through Macedonia to reach Mount Athos during the iconoclastic crisis.". I picked this out because it is not true, I can cite several historiographical sources for this, this statement is made about the Rhynchinoi Slavic tribe, who would only much later be called "Vlahorinchians" because they were mixed up with the Vlachs in Macedonia. The original text mentions only the Rinhini Slavic tribe. So I took it out because I thought it didn't fit in the Vlach article, as this source is about the Slavic tribes, not the Vlachs.
 * The second link, shows that I took out the part about Bolokhoveni, but this was followed in the article by "It is important to note, however, that among historians the Bolokhoveni are clearly considered Slavic people, since their name and archaeological finds clearly position them as Slavs, and all written sources refer to them as Slavs". So I didn't quite understand why it was necessary to mention an area in the article that is historically agreed to be Slavic and not Vlach? I apologize if I offended anyone with that. I just didn't understand why it was necessary to mention something that the article itself refutes in the next sentence.
 * In the third link, it claims to have "Added unsubstantiated claims that the Vlachs living in Ukraine are actually Turks". I've posted the text of the chronicle there alongside the source, but I'll share it here as well: "Remarks about the Turks and Those Related to Them. The Turks, the Bulgars, the Blagha, the Burghaz, the Khazar, the Llan, and the types with small eyes and extreme blondness have no script, except that the Bulgarians and the Tibetans write with Chinese and Manichean, whereas the Khazars write Hebrew. My information about the Turks is what Abu al-Hasan Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ashnas related to me."
 * In this case, the reference itself claims to be about a Turkic people, the original text of the chronicle calls this people Turkic, not I. So again, I don't see why this should be left in the Vlach article, but I didn't delete it, as it was sourced by a historian's opinion, so I just added the source text, so that it can be seen that the text is clearly talking about a Turkic people.


 * The fourth link, when I took it out, I added a comment "feel free to put it back, but I think it would be more appropriate to put it in an article about Romance languages, not in the Vlach article". There is no mention of the word Vlach in the original text, I can always send you the chronicle if you want, it simply contains a Latin quote, which as I said before "I think it might have something to do with the Vlachs" but this article is not about the language, it is about the population itself, and the text does not mention them. I still think it would be more appropriate to put it in an article about the eastern romance languageses and not in this one. e.g.: just like the German people, and the German language is covered in a separate wikipedia article as well.


 * The fifth link, is a chronicle text, I can send you the chronicle, but the text says: "Further north is Bulgaria, which was a very good land, but now the Turks have destroyed it. They are from the Romans, because when a certain Roman emperor conquered those lands, that is Macedonia, certain Romans, seeing the good land, took wives and stayed there. Hence they are called in common Roman language 'Vulgarians' ".


 * I honestly believe that what I've taken out here doesn't belong here, and what I've put in here does, and I've done nothing wrong with that, if you have any other questions I'm happy to answer them, and I'm sorry if I've inconvenienced you, but I thought that we should just put in here what's about the article, and not put in Slavic tribes. CriticKende (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @CriticKende, about the "The Turks, the Bulgars, the Blagha, the Burghaz, the Khazar, the Llan" part, I noticed that Spinei claims at page 83 that "B. Dodge (the editor and the translator of the scholar of Baghdad) intuited, the ethnonym Blaghā could refer to Wallachians/Romanians". Spinei thus uses the interpretation made by the translator of Ibn al-Nadim's work.
 * About the fifth link, you claim that the texts says that "Further north is Bulgaria, which was a very good land, but now the Turks have destroyed it. They are from the Romans, because when a certain Roman emperor conquered those lands, that is Macedonia, certain Romans, seeing the good land, took wives and stayed there. Hence they are called in common Roman language 'Vulgarians'", but what has anything of this text to do with Vlachs, or where does the author claim that "Vlachs come from Macedonia"? Furthermore about this edit, where did you find the claim that the term "Magna Vlachia" appears in Byzantine documents, which means the ancestral homeland of the Vlachs? At what pages of Schramm's and Blagojević's works is it mentioned? ZZARZY223 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2. OrionNimrod
 * Same logic as CriticKende, i will only add edits which i consider are important:
 * Removed references to Vlachs living to the North of the Danube, said that Vlachs is actually a deragotary term (when we know very well it isn't and its still un use by the the Romanians living in the Timok Valley)
 * Removed references to Vlachs existing in the 11th Century
 * Removed an entire section about Vlachs existing in the 9th Century
 * Made a small edit, changing "on the banks of the Danube" to the "South of the Danube" which changes the ENTIRE history of the VLACH population
 * But at the same time he is more than happy to add unsupported information which states:
 * Vlachs immigrated to Romania in the 12th Century and did not know how to write
 * At the same time, avoided removing a pharagraph talking about the two theories of how the Romanians came to be, but made it in such a way that it seems that the Immigration Theory is the correct one
 * And there are a whole lot more which i cannot be bothered because it could take weeks. I want to conclude by sayingt that, in short, their main goal is to rewrite history to conform to the theory that the Romanians are nomadic immigrants who came from the southern Balkans around the 12th century after the Hungarians were already established, and that they did not exist north of the Danube before this moment. This theory is called the immigration theory.
 * If there is any mention of Romanians before the 12th century on the territory of Romania, they delete it or rewrite it so as not to indicate this. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As for
 * 3. Borsoka
 * I want to make it quick and just link this here He is well known for deleting and rewritting entire articles regarding Romanian history
 * This practice is not only dangerous, but also compromises the integrity of multiple wiki pages which in exchange can lead to more disinformation. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Im of the opinion a neutral, third party must act on this and prefferably not Borsoka since he also has a history of defending other, similar accounts when they are reported. Again, thank you and thanks for givinge a chance to be listened to! I consider this situation to genuinelu be extremely dangerous. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A few points:
 * The ANI link does not poison the well for me, I have yet to see a pattern of improper behavior from Borsoka. Let's try to comment on content, not editors. Please assume good faith, and do not claim that certain edits "show true intentions", etc. If you believe that certain editors are the problem, we're not going to come to an agreement. Work with me and focus on the content first.
 * Editors of any ethnicity are allowed to write or edit articles about any ethnicity. I'm an American mostly sourced from Ireland and Great Britain, and I spend all day trying to rewrite articles about China. Moreover: the ethnicity of anyone is not in itself going to be persuasive to me, save for those that are actually the subject of the prose in the article. I understand these are fraught issues, and I understand that these issues can sometimes have actual gravity that doesn't always get completely expressed. But we're going to have to do better, and like I said, I know enough about the history here to get by.
 * That said, I do not get the impressions you do from any of the diffs you have linked: I understand why they may touch nerves in a vacuum, but each comes with an explanation in the edit summary, which you have not mentioned in your summary of their behavior. I have no reason to believe they are making these edits for any reason other than the ones they are plainly stating, and I don't think you do either. Let's assume good faith, again. I do not know the history of these articles in detail, but I sense this discussion should have come here faster than it did.
 * Do you have any specific responses to the reasons the other editors have given, case by case? We will not be working from the assumption that anyone has any sort of ulterior motive. Remsense  诉  04:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not have anything else to add. I am more than happy to work with fellow editors, regardless of ethnicity, background etc. whatever, but at the same time i believe my fears are somewhat justified.
 * Regardless, im still not happy with the page of the Vlachs but im tired and not willing to argue or go through every revision, edit case by case to debate them or justify them, it is insanity and feels futile. The current article, at least for me, feels biased towards one theory, and alot of information is unreliable.
 * Thanks for willing to deal with this whole circus, but regardless if i see this situation repeating i am more than willing to complain again. I hope it wasn't too much of a hassle and i apologize in advance for any issues this might've created. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

, no, I have not deleted a single article about Romanian history. Yes, I have rewritten some of the existing articles, and as a consequence at least three of them (Romania in the Early Middle Ages, Founding of Wallachia, and Romania in the Middle Ages) were listed as good articles. These have been stable for more than a decade except for periods when sockpuppets of banned editors attack them. Similarly, the article Origin of the Romanians have been stable for years although it is more frequently attacked by sockpuppets. These suckpuppets always try to delete any reference to the northward migration of the Romanians' ancestors. Congretulations for you for being able to find a nearly five-year-old report against me by an other editor at administrators' noticeboard within minutes. You must be an exceptionally talented new editor. Or? Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * exceptionally talented, no. I mostly just grammar check and add information to politicians. Nevertheless it ain't so hard to find information on people, so let's "assume good faith"! YoursTrulyKor (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * also, i just want to make a small parenthesis. If anything, until now i've seen a constant effort to remove mentions of the Romanians/Vlachs being present in the Carpatho-Danubian-Pontic area before 12th Century by "sockpuppets" (or people who seemingly act like that), not vice versa. I saw you are a talented and experienced editor, but i still feel as if alot of things on this page are skewed towards the Immigrant Theory which lacks proof as much as Continuation Theory YoursTrulyKor (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, exceptionally talented new editors can find a report within minutes. If you think OrionNimrod, CriticKende and myself are cooperating in any illegal way please report us at the relevant notice board, providing your evidence. I agree possible references to Romanians to the lands north to the Lower Danube should not be deleted from the article, but this article should be dedicated to the Vlachs, not to the debates over the Origin of the Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose that is fair enough. No harsh feelings! YoursTrulyKor (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I must also mention that the Vlachs are also directly tied to the origins of the Romanians, so a change to this page is also indirectly a change to the other. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They are directly tied, but they are not one and the same. Remsense  诉  06:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, they are not one and the same. Debates about the Vlachs' ethnogenesis should be summarized here in a short section, thus the long lists about references to Vlachs here and there could be deleted from this article. Those references all are listed in the Origin of the Romanians, along with their various interpretations by scholars. We should avoid unnecessary repetitions. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @ Remsense ! Thanks for interesting in the subject! I remember you did some comments in an another topic, but we did not debate each other directly :) Of course I can explain all of my edits in this article, however it is strange for me that a brand new user making an edit war and he has a strong knowledge of ANI what happened there many years ago, and monitoring and accusing users like Borsoka who is a respected Wiki veteran, and clearly not a "bad faith editor".
 * BACKGROUND
 * Sorry, if it is too long, I think you are interested that is why you started this topic, I think I need to explain the backround, that this is a hot political debate. The Hungarian historiography universally maintain that we have no sources about Vlachs (ancestor of Romanians) in the territory of Kingdom of Hungary (including Transylvania) before the 1200s. It is not surprising, that every single Hungarian editor have this view.
 * I quote a British historian, Martyn Rady page 90: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania."
 * British-Romanian historian Dennis Deletant : "explanation of the Romanian presence in Transylvania is known as the theory of Daco-Roman continuity. The use of the word theory can be justified in the absence of convincing archaeological and historical evidence to support the case and it is precisely because of this that it is open to question. Hungarian historians discount the continuity theory"
 * Romanian historian Ioan Marian Tiplic page 61: "The history of the Romanian territories between the end of the 9th century to the beginning of the 12th is still a debated subject. Due to the lack of archaeological data that could prove the existence of the Romanian population in Transylvania, starting with the 19th century, the Romanian historiography transformed the stages of the formation of Romanian people into a political issue related to that time’s status-quo. The archaeological researches of the early medieval period of the Transylvanian territories are a necessity since the historiography has little resources to call on the written evidences of the events of 9th to 12th centuries. Identifying archaeological artefacts belonging to the Hungarian population within the Carpathian Basin is only a routine exercise for today’s archeologists."
 * Hungary introduced the Vlach law taxation in the 14th century, which was favorable for the immigration. Hungary had about 300+ years long continous Hungarian-Ottoman-Habsburgs devastation wars which highly decimated the Hungarian population who lived mostly on the lowland, river valleys, then it was also more immigration. You can see many info here about this, and ethnic changes map: Ottoman Hungary. Finally the Romanians became majority in Transylvania in the end of 18th century. After the Russian successes at Brusilov offense, In 1916 Romania attacked Hungary to get lands until the Tisza river which was on the center of Hungary Romania’s entry into World War 1, 27 August 1916. Detail from Proclamation of King Ferdinand of Romania: “In our moral energy and our valour lie the means of giving him back his birthright of a great and free Romania from the Tisza to the Black Sea" But Romania lost WW1, after the Romanian attack, within 3 month the Central Powers was in the capital of Romania, and when Russia signed the casefire, Romania also. Austria-Hungary lost WW1, it capitulated, its army was disarmed but Germany capitulated 1 week later. Then Romania re-entered to the war 1 day before the German capitulation and attacked again the already capitulated Hungary who had anarchy and no army at that time. In 1920 by the Treaty of Trianon Romania got by the Allied Powers a huge 1000 years Hungarian lands, many areas, cities (even 10km from today borders) had full Hungarian population, because the new borders did not follow the ethnic borders, that is why after 100 years it is many ethnic conflicts in Romania. It was about 50-50 Romanians and non-Romanians on that Hungarian land which Romania got in 1920. However Romania demanded much more Hungarian lands until the Tisza river, in the 1910 ethnic map the Tisza is in the center of Hungary and still part of Hungary and that region had (red) many million full Hungarian population . Romania developed a political ideology, the Daco-Roman theory (which is rather a myth and a fanatic religion with strong anti-Hungarian sentiment) to justify why Romania occupied those huge Hungarian lands, why Romania need to occupy lands from the Tisza, claiming "always majority" Romanians were in Transylvania before the Hungarians. The dacopathy also developed claiming Romanians (the Vlachs) are Dacians, the "super ancient always majority local. I have plenty of academic historical sources, that I know outside Romania the Daco-Roman theory is not really accepted (for example the historiography of neighbouring countries, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Poland, Croatia, Bulgaria clearly refuse it).
 * Example fake map from 1920 based on the above descriped political atmosphere: Dacia in the 9-13th century [11 ] Does anybody know that huge Dacia country between 800-1300?
 * But the Daco-Roman myth was very fanatic in the national-communist Romania, in 1980, the national communist Romanian state celebrated its 2050th!!! anniversary in north Korea style and the communist dictator Ceausescu claimed he is the incarnation of the ancient Dacian king Burebista...
 * Example fake map from 1980s from the national-communist Romania: Romania 9-13th century: [10 ]
 * If we see international Europe maps, we will not find this "Dacia/Romania" country in the historical maps of Europe: [11][12][13] Those maps which made by the national-communist Romanian historiography is clearly a falsifications and abuse of the international and Hungarian historiography, because in the reality that "Romania country" did not exist, which allegedly occupied the half territory of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 9-13th century in those maps. National communist historiography claim that it was "always majority Romanians" in that huge 300,000 km² area between the Tisza and Dneister river between 300-1200, as we can see the Tisza border on those fake maps. National communist historiography also claim the Hungarians occupied Transylvania only in 1300, and Transylvania was always a Romanian country. King Saint Stephen of Hungary was "Romanian"...etc. The below quoted. Romanian archeologist says that identifying Hungarians remains in 10th century Transylvania is super easy, however Daco-Roman theory says Hungarians "occupied Transylvania only about 1200-1300" from the defender Romanians (but I never see naming any battle or events about this). For me it is very hard to understand, how possible that identifying remains from Hungarian people who were allegedly not there is super easy, but no archaeological data betwenn 800-1200 about the allegedly "always majority Romanians"? Where is the logic?
 * Unfortunately, many users who are followers of the Daco-Roman political ideology try all the time to falsify Wikipedia. An user here detached Transylvania from Hungary and photoshopped a big Romania country there: File:Europe Moyen-âge.jpg in 1300, later I replaced to the original map. This was a deleted falsified map from Wiki Commons, exacty the same pattern, detaching Transylvania from Hungary and populate the region with Vlachs: https://imgpile.com/images/xv3Slk.jpg
 * There is a Austro-Hungarian military cemetery in Transylvania which attacked several times by Romanian ultranationalists [2 ], for example this was in 21 October 2023, even Switzerland, Greece and Ukraine is an "ancient Romanian land": [3 ] the tilte: “Barbarian Hungarians came from Mongolia and robbed our lands in 1290. After that, the Mongol-Hungarians also brought their families here.” That map in the cemetery is based on the above mentioned Romanian national-communist history teaching that "the Hungarians who were Mongols and came from Mongolia arrived in Transylvania only about 1300", that is why Transylvania was detached from the Kingdom of Hungary in 1100 from an international (non Hungarian made) maps. Just a bonus that if we Google "Hungarians" they look exactly like their other European neighbours and not like the people in Mongolia. This is also quite common ethnic slur based on that ideology: 4
 * Sfântu Gheorghe, 1 December 2023: Followers of this Daco-Roman religion moved in the heart of the Szekely land in Transylvania where the majority of the population is Hungarian. They are shouted the usually slogan: "Hungarians, get out of the country!" "Szekely land is Romanian land".
 * That is the ideology reason, that certain Romanian users do not like contents on Wikipedia which does not support the claims of the Daco-Roman theory. Of course followers of Daco-Roman theory accuse Hungarians with irredentism (however Romania attacked Hungary 2x to take lands and not inverse), just because they do not accept the myth of the "always majority Romanians" in that huge area.
 * YoursTrulyKor above accused 3 Hungarian editors with this "their main goal is to rewrite history to conform to the theory that the Romanians are nomadic immigrants who came from the southern Balkans around the 12th century after the Hungarians were already established, and that they did not exist north of the Danube before this moment."
 * If we see the falsified history maps, I think it is clear who want to rewrite the history...
 * CONTENT
 * 1.
 * Here as I said "rv" I made a revert regarding the earlier content removal probably combining with more edit of this user:
 * 2.
 * Jan Długosz lived in 1415-80, the source refer a book from 1711, which is againts Wiki rule: Reliable sources. I do not think a book from 1711 can be a modern reliable academic source, morover I highly doubt that Dlugosz would say Romanians are "Geto-Dacians" I assume this is the personal opinion by the IP edit
 * 3.
 * I clearly stated that was "duplicated content", you can see that content is still in the page: Vlachs I did not remove it.
 * 4.
 * That is the original text in the Strategikon written in 1075-78 "They lived formerly near to the Danube river, and the Saos, the river which we now call the Sava, where Serbs live now, in secure and inaccessible places."
 * That is simple geography, the Sava river is south from the Danube. And the Serbs lived south from the Danube in that time https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg (Belgrade was a Hungarian city for a long time, and Serbs were moved to south Hungary from the Ottomans, for example about 80,000 Serbs were settled there by Pál Kinizsi but in the late 15th century)
 * 5.
 * Well, that content was originally added by an another user refering to a modern Polish historian, because I know very well the old Hungarian chronicles and the Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, I just polished to make it precise, and in addition I added the analisys from the same Polish historian from the same source regarding of the old text. I also added a modern academic Hungarian scholar opinion regarding the subject from here.
 * YoursTrulyKor called these edits as "bad faith"...OrionNimrod (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @ Remsense ! You can see the article is under attack by several "brand new" editors. I suggest the page should be protected, I agree with your suggestion, no change until the debate is over.
 * the edit is same when YoursTrulyKor accused me as bad faith, I explained above my edit. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do see the rising smoke of edit warfare. Remsense  诉  12:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Im sorry but i can't help but just feel as if you're trying to accuse me of "masterminding" this whole thing. I will make a response, with time, since theres alot of stuff to read through + burnout from other historical debates which are pages long which already feel futile.
 * Thanks! YoursTrulyKor (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @ Remsense ! For me it is really strange that this article was almost untouched for many months, then many many brand new users are doing edit war at the same time... and accusing 3 Hungarian editors as bad faith who had long Wiki history. It seems, it is organized. That is why I dediced a long answer for the background that you can understand why this topic is hot. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. It seems counterproductive, which is why I think it's a worthwhile approach to try keeping all hands off the article and deliberate on each change together. Remsense  诉  14:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ Remsense I can smell this: Sockpuppetry + Canvassing, maybe it is a one person or many mobilized in a group chat. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @OrionNimrod @Remsense
 * This article remained untouched because you and fellow editor bullied me out of it. And that  Sockpuppetry + Canvassing smell you are smelling most probably comes from somewhere closer to you, as for many months you have applying this tactic of associating with other like-minded users to re-edit articles according to a particular scholarly-political view. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * jesus christ YoursTrulyKor (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello OrionNimrod, it passed some time since we already had a discussion about this topic, however it looks that some of the claims you've made are, unfortunately, of bad faith.
 * Fist of all, claiming that there were no Vlachs in Transylvania before the 1200s just because there are no documents about them is quite inaccurate, since there are no documents about Transylvania at all before the year 1075, and like Hungarian historian Makkai claims: "Of the known Hungarian documents drafted before 1200, only twenty-seven bear some reference to Transylvania; two date from the 11th, the rest from the 12th century. Of the latter, sixteen reveal only the name of some Transylvanian, religious or lay dignitary, such as a bishop, a dean, a voivode, or a count. In the 13th century, and particularly after 1250, the number of documents touching on Transylvania grows rapidly and reaches over four hundred."
 * Thus going on citing a large number of documents randomly mentioning Vlachs in Transylvania from the 13th century onwards without this premise is disingenuous at least.
 * Also claiming that Romanians became the majority in Transylvania in the 19th century, when there works like the Das Alt- und Neu-Teutsche Dacia  of Johannes Tröster from 1666, which claims that Romanians in Transylvania "are so numerous that almost outnumber Hungarians and Germans living there, is also not correct, and likely Hungarian historians also know this fact, hence the fact that Romanians became the majority in Transylvania only in the 19th century is your own personal point of view. Nevermind that when ACTUAL censues were made about the ethnic composition of Transylvania, from 1850 to 1910, the % of ethnic Hungarians increased, meanwhile the one of Romanians decreased, the Magyarization policies contributing a lot to this.
 * The political explanation of the intent of your edits is quite indicative that you don't want to keep a neutral point of view which is required in Wikipedia articles. ZZARZY223 (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi ZZARZY223!
 * "claiming that there were no Vlachs in Transylvania before the 1200s just because there are no documents about them is quite inaccurate"
 * That is a speculation, you cannot blame why Hungarian historians does not accept a nationalist speculation which only political goal to claim "Romanians were Transylvania before the Hungarians"
 * The whole Hungarian historiography claim that Vlachs appearead first in the 1200s in Hungary (Transylvania). In this Vlach article we can see many mentions of Vlachs deep in the Balkan in the previous ages before 1200, which clearly show us their migration to north. Morover checking genetic website like MyTrueAncestry the average Romanian genetic is close to Turkish, Greek, Macedonian. Morover the Daco-Roman theory claim the Vlachs (Romanians) were always majority between Tisza and Dneister river in that huge 300,000km2 land for almost 1000 years long between 300-1200 (and before as Dacians), and it is really strange for my why no sources about "alway majority people", however we have a lot of sources of many other people in the region during that time (Sarmatians, Gepids, Goths, Huns, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans...) + many archeology. I see you emphasized 1000-1200, what about the previous 800 years? Why no sources about "always majority people"?
 * Sorry, it was my mistake, true, Romanians became majority in Transylvania at the end of the 18th century, and not in the 19th century. Well Hungary introduced the first ethnic law in Europe in 1849 which favored to the minorities Magyarization. Hungarian money from 1848 with inscriptions in the language of the nationalities on it File:Kossuth bankó.jpg, I think this is very uniqe. In 1850 it was heavy Habsburg suppress on Hungary after the defeat of the 1848-49 revolution war. The Austrian-Hungarian compromise was in 1867, again it was introduced a very liberal ethnic laws (Act Number XLIV of 1868). It is hard to imagine in a short period how possible to hungarianize everybody... the Lex Aponnyi in 1907 asked that ethnic people should know the language of the country as second language, like in Romania today, Hungarians can speak Romanian, like in England people who move there need to speak in English, but it does not mean their mother language is changed, it is quite normal. Of course Romanians say that was a "cruel hungarianization" that in the schools Romanians needed learn Hungarian for some years as second language, like everybody else learn English now as second langugae from 1907...Btw In 1918, there were 2,043 Romanian schools for the approximately 2.8 million Romanians in Hungary. More than that the 7 million Romanians had in the Kingdom of Romania at that time. You could talk about also how decreased the number of Hungarians in Transylvania since 1920, and how changed the ethnic population in the former full Hungarian populated cities. But unfortunatelly Romanian users do not like to talk about the present situation just what was in 1800 and only about the "bad deeds" of Hungarians keep silent about the things which was favor for the Romanians.
 * I showed a background to the American user to understand why it is a hot topic. However I think this is total off topic to continue this, we can focus on the Vlach content. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Sorry, it was my mistake, true, Romanians became majority in Transylvania at the end of the 18th century, and not in the 19th century." Again, the work of Tröster is from 1666, Miron Costin and Grigore Ureche (they also lived in the 1600s) also claim that Romanians were the most numerous ethnicity and just 1 century before Antun Vrančić claims: "Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number ..." So it is clear that the Romanians were the majority at least from the 1500s/1600s
 * "In this Vlach article we can see many mentions of Vlachs deep in the Balkan in the previous ages before 1200, which clearly show us their migration to north." It does not show their migration to the north, Romanians/Vlachs could have lived both South of the Danube and North of it, but we don't have much documents about those territories before the 1200s, like said before even about Transylvania we have very scarce documents before the 1200s, nevermind that Byzanthine scholars had a very rich and productive literature (even more than Western Europe) during the High Middle Ages, thus even the documentation about Vlachs is very exstensive, but this does not exclude that Vlachs lived in Transylvania during that time either.
 * Genetics is also a very doubtful way of basing historical facts, since it depends much on the different haplogroups, thus claiming that "Romanians are genetically closer to Macedonians, Greeks, Turks" is not very accurate (for example if considering the haplogroup r1b is, it very present in Romanians, almost non-existend in Albanians and South Slavs - also many similarities between Romanians and the ethnicities you mentioned can be attribuated to the fact Dacians were related to Thracians, but like said before, genetics is very obscure when considering history)
 * Nevermind that even considering that a migratory population like Vlachs could have became the majority in such a large mountainous area which is more or less is Romania today in just a few centuries, or even in Transylvania where according to Hungarians they overnumbered ethnic Hungarians and Germans in just the years from the 1200s to 1600s, is such a short time, is also debatable. Also the Kingdom of Hungary was a very heterogeneous state since its foundation, and even in other mountainous regions like Slovakia and Ruthenia ethnic Hungarians were remarkably a minority, not just in Transylvania.
 * With this discussion I've just wanted to highlight the other point of view to @Remsense in the context of your comment, and that it is important to mantain a neutral point of view in Wikipedia articles, and in this article about Vlachs the neutrality can be questioned considerably ZZARZY223 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. i'm responding here since i noticed you mentioned Act Number XLIII of 1868 (I believe you are referring to this one) and described it as "liberal", even though the Romanian population in Transylvania denounced it (alongside the Nationalities Law of 1868https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nationalities-Law) for, in their opinion, failing to offer the needed protection for non-magyar populations.
 * They demanded equal rights, justifying these demands by citing passages from the Gesta Hungarorum and the diploma awarded by King Andrew II to the Teutonic Knights in 1211 and 1222. They also explained that, due to new political and social relations and realities alongside religious conflicts from the XVth and XVIth centuries, the Romanians were excluded from the political scene. They also stated that this situation was imposed by the Diploma Leopoldinum from 1691, through which the Habsburgs recognized the existence of the Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867) and the priviligies of the Hungarians, Szeklers, and Saxons. Through this, they stated that the Union of the Principality of Transylvania with the Crown of Saint Stephen was illegal because the Romanians were never present in the decision-making proccess of the Kingdom.
 * Nevertheless, the Romanians of Transylvania hoped to be able to co-exist with the Hungarians since, in their opinion, they shared a destiny and a responsibility for the wellbeing of the principality. These hopes were dashed in 1879 when the Hungarian Parliament adopted a law making hungarian mandatory for Romanian and orthodox schools. This was followed in 1883 by a similar law that targeted medical schools, and in 1891 by a law that enforced hungarian in non-hungarian kindergartens. These laws also included certain passages affecting the autonomy of the United Orthodox Church by increasing the control of the Hungarian Government over the wages and salaries of Romanian teachers and priests, finally culminating with the Lex Apponyi in 1907 which prescribed the teaching of Hungarian in all schools without Hungarian education, whether the pupils' mother tongue was Hungarian or not, ignoring parents' claims that Hungarian education could be provided privately. The teachers got a grace period – 3–4 years – in order to learn the language. Schools that could not provide teachers able to deal with the Hungarian-language had to be closed. Approximately 600 Romanian villages were left without education as a result of the law.
 * Besides this, the Hungarian Government used its considerable administrative powers to suppress Romanian political activities, a good example being in 1894 when they brought to the Tribunal the Executive Committee of the National Romanian Party, accusing them of public agitation for spreading and publishing copies of the Memorandum which was a protest against the policies of the Hungarian Government against nationalities.
 * Sources
 * 1. "Cestiunea româna în Transilvania și Ungaria", Sibiu, 1892
 * 2. "Cartea de aur, sau luptele politice-naționale ale Românilor", Teodor V. Păcățian, 1906
 * 3. "România 1866-1947", Keith Hitchins, 2013
 * Your attempt at whitewashing Hungarian suppression under a veil of innocence is quite something, and trying to downplay everything. Also, tying unrelated discussions about modern-day politics doesn't make much sense and really doesn't change history. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi ZZARZY223!
 * I think this is out of the topic now what was in 1600. I also know many sources which clearly say the Romanians were not majority in 1500, 1600, beginning of 1700 and there are many sources about immigration of that period because the better life standard in Transylvania than Wallachia and Moldavia. Also this is very usual that Romanian and Hungarian historians translate or understand different the old text, like Antun Vrancic, Romanians translate it "Romanians are equal like Hungarians+Saxons+Szekely together = 1/2" and Hungarians as "Romanians are same as the others by each = 1/4".
 * "Romanians/Vlachs could have lived both South of the Danube and North of it," but we don't have much documents about those territories before the 1200s
 * I exactly talk about this: everything is just "possible" "could" speculations and speculations3, but still we have many documents about (Sarmatians, Gepids, Goths, Huns, Avars, Slavs, Bulgars, Hungarians, Pechenegs, Cumans...) + lot of archeology, but nothing about the "always majority people", that is really strange. You cannot blame that other have different view. However I have no problem to show more views if those are academic not fringe like the flat earth or saying Austria was ancient Romanian land too, like some users did.
 * Genetic is more complex than refering to a main haplogroups which formed 30,000 years ago, at that time it was no modern nations, and those haplogroups are everywhere.
 * Population could change very fast, just you can see the Western European cities (check out demographic of Vienna (30% are not Austrians)), they have big population change just over some dacedes due of the immigrantion from third world. Or the cities which had full Hungarian population like Oradea just 10km from today's border. Do not forget the vast amount wars Hungarian-Ottoman-Habsburg wars, Hungarian populated areas destroyed (depopulated areas here) and for example Vlachs who were safe in the forested areas, later occupied their extinct villages in the river valleys.
 * Could we focus on the article and the contents? OrionNimrod (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * i mean, ngl, you were the one that started talking about communist romania and modern-day politics and now you are calling "wolf". Seems unfair. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @YoursTrulyKor You accused me that I deleted a complete section by bad faith [20 ] I clearly stated that was "duplicated content", you can see that content is still in the page: Vlachs I did not remove it.
 * "they stated that the Union of the Principality of Transylvania with the Crown of Saint Stephen was illegal because the Romanians were never present in the decision-making proccess of the Kingdom."
 * Illegal? I know well that is part of the national communist myth, that "Transylvania was not part of Hungary it was not a Hungarian land but a Romanian land".
 * Well Transylvania even if it was not reattached to the main Kingdom of Hungary after the liberation from the Ottomans, Transylvania still was Hungarian crown land all the time, and Habsburgs became king of Hungary, Habsburg ruled Transylvania through the Hungarian crown Treaty of Speyer (1570) "the Treaty of Speyer stressed in a highly significant way that John Sigismund's possessions belonged to the Holy Crown of Hungary and he was not permitted to alienate them" Also we can see many old history maps which clearly show that situation: Map from 1700 from 1751  from 1759  from 1787  Please consult to the non-Hungarian authors of these old maps, that they did not know that Transylvania was not Hungarian land.,
 * "These hopes were dashed in 1879 when the Hungarian Parliament adopted a law making hungarian mandatory for Romanian and orthodox schools."
 * And? Today Romania knowing the Romanian language for the Transylvanian Hungarians are mandatory as second language, and they learn it in the school. What is this so suprising and bad? I would be really curious when Romanian users will talk about how they treated with the Hungarians since 1920, and the massacres against Hungarians which made by Romanian national heroes. England, France was harsh with their minorities in the 19th century, strong assimilation, Austria-Hungary was very liberal state in that time, but the minority rights in Romania was the same level as in Russia in that time. But I never see when Romanian users compare the rights in Hungary in 1910 to the rights in Romania where even in 1907 was a very bloody peasant rebellion, while in Hungary it was 400 years earlier in medieval times similar.
 * I talked about the background, because non-Romanian non Hungarian users do not understand why it is a hot topic.
 * Now could we focus about the Vlach contents? OrionNimrod (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Illegal? I know well that is part of the national communist myth I'm not referring to any communist myth; I did not even bring up any communist myths; I brought up the general opinion of the Romanian intelligentsia from 19th-century Transylvania. They felt unrepresented and were treated as second-class citizens, so they condemned the status quo and called it illegal. Again, there was a lot of hope among the intelligentsia, headed by Vincențiu Babeș for reapproachment with Hungary on the condition that they were treated as equals.
 * And of course, as I said, that hope was dashed by the forced magyarization of the Romanian population. And? Today Romania knowing the Romanian language for the Transylvanian Hungarians are mandatory as second language, and they learn it in the school.; The issue is that they weren't encouraged to continue learning Romanian; they were encouraged to learn just hungarian and punkt. According to Hanák Péter in "Ungarn in der Donaumonarchie" (1984), these laws that were implemented represented a sweeping success. Between 1880 and 1910, approximately 700,000 Jews, 600,000 Germans, 400,000 Slovaks, and 100,00 Romanians, among others declared themselves to be hungarian. This is visible in multiple statistics, most importantly in German majority cities like Temeschwar or Hermannstadt, where the Hungarian population seemingly quadruples while the ethnic Germans, Romanians, Serbs, etcs. either stagnate or have incremental growth.
 * And how exactly is the Peasant Revolt even related? What help does it bring you to make such comparisons? It serves the discussion no purpose and is a cheap attempt at changing the subject through the use of Whataboutism, i did not or do not intend to deviate to such subjects.
 * I am more than glad to return to the Vlach Conversation, but I felt that a paranthesis on magyarization and Transylvanian politics in the 19th century was needed since they were brought up. Again, to conclude, don't try to downplay these things because it ain't doing anyone a favour.
 * And by the way, I apologize for that accusation- I'm not used to Wikipedia Mobile. No harsh feelings! YoursTrulyKor (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comparing modern-day mass immigration to the supposed migration of Vlachs during the Middle Ages is nonsese, an idea similar to the theories made by Dacopaths. Like really. If you claim that Romanians were not the majority during that time, that means you consider that Hungarians were, but Hungarians were not the majority in Transylvania in the 1600s, not in the 1700s and there are no sources claiming that a mass migration of Vlachs happened during that time in order for them to overtake the number of Hungarians living there, even considering the wars, in such a large mountainous territory like Transylvania, during that historical period. Even Hungarian historians that say that Vlachs migrated there claim that they became the majority of Transylvania during the Ottoman rule, surely not in the late 1700s.
 * Nevermind there was more migration from Transylvania towards Wallachia and Moldova than viceversa, and especially towards Moldova even ethnic Hungarians and Saxon migrated there from Transylvania. And even about those populations you mentioned, we don't have "many documents" about them, we have a very vague ideas about to what extent each of those population controlled those regions, for example we don't know to what extent Avars and Bulgarians controlled of Transylvania at each time. The few sources that mention those areas only specify which people ruled it, not the ethnic composition of it. About archeological data, Romanian historians claim there's proof of continuity, Hungarian historians says there's none.
 * We can continue to discuss about Vlachs, but like I said before, I also wanted to give the other point of view of the background you've given in the first comment. ZZARZY223 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Borsoka
 * Those articles have been stable because you took ownership of them and did not let other users change the essential of what you added, arguing with other editors as it was the case between us many, many times. But to be fair I did notice an much more well informed and neutral string of edits in the past year or so from yourself on these topics, except perhaps on some older language edits that really, really need to be revised. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Ownership" could hardly secure stability for more than a decade. Could you refer to cases when I hindered changes because of my ownership mentality not because of your attempts to present PoVs as facts? Borsoka (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I can: this article was revisited only because more than one user flagged the issues with it. Even so, you have made no major contribution to updating it post that discussion, confirming that although other editors view it as in need of improvement you still prefer your old version. Aristeus01 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Changes with weak justification
Some users are undo-ing or creating changes with weak justifications. A few examples:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1211210156
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1211213306

Changes that are justified should not be reverted only on the basis that an IP or a user with few changes has made it. AndooBundoo (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @ Remsense ! That is the same edit war, again sarted by a brand new user. By above explained political ideology, they want to change the "majority" of historian opinion to "some" to pretend their theory is the universally accepted. Referencing just some source, does not mean only 3 historians say the same. For example all Hungarian historians refuse the Daco-Roman theory. At the conference held in Freiburg in 2001, eight German, two Hungarian and one Romanian historians and linguists debated the issue of Daco-Romanian continuity and took a 10:1 position against it. Romanian historian Florin Curta, in a 2020 study, complains that the Daco-Roman theory is not accepted in Polish histography  And I know much much more (should I list all of them?), they cannot be "some". OrionNimrod (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OrionNimrod, from what I understand, our new pal has a point here. WP:SUBSTANTIATE does say that we should avoid speaking of the views of "most scholars" when there is not an explicit survey or tertiary source that says as such. I don't see "some scholars", or simply naming scholars, as being problematic like you describe. Remsense  诉  14:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ Remsense maybe we could rephrase whitout numbers,(because nobody counted them, however checking the historiography in the subject I can clearly say outside Romania the Daco-Roman theory is not really accepted, even many Romanian scholars refuse it). "According to the followers of Daco-Roman theory" and "Opponents of this theory" What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally think "Opponents of this theory" is fair and unbiased. AndooBundoo (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense I don't agree with @OrionNimrod, the Daco-Roman theory is as well accepted by non-Romanian historians, we can just rephrase it by saying "according to the historians that support the migration theory" and "according to historians that support the Daco-Roman continuity theory" ZZARZY223 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ZZARZY223 I think I suggested the similar :) Btw could you tell me by which non Romanian scholars is accepted the Daco-Roman theory? Btw I think it tells a lot about the situation, that I know many Romanians scholars who refuse the Daco-Roman theory, while I do not know any Hungarian scholar who accept it, all of them refuse the sourceless speculations. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Andrew Baruch Wachtel, Carlo Tagliavini (Le origini delle lingue neolatine, 1962), Giuseppe Stabile (Valacchi e valacchie nella letteratura francese medievale, 2010), Gerhard Ernst (Romanische Sprachgeschichte, 2009) are just some examples.
 * The Daco-Roman theory has a long history as it exists since the XV century, when Poggio Braccioloni and Flavio Biondo were the first to assume that Romanians descended from Romanized Dacians, and all foreign scholars and voyagers there afterwards that meet Romanians described them like that as well. ZZARZY223 (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Romanians lived where was the ancient Dacia, it is not secret, in the humanist times around 1500 some humanists authors wrote, because the language of the Romanians has Latin things they assumed there are the remain of the Romans in their former Dacia province. That is the big story. They wrote it 1500 years later, whitout any historical continuity, could you imagine that 1000 years it a really huge gap in history? And later that info from humanist time was good for the making the Daco-Roman theory. It is a big silence about when Byzantine authors in 11th century called the Hungarians as Dacians for the same geographically reason.
 * It would be good to see what exactly your authors wrote. I can show an another British historian in the subject, Emily Hanscam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v_aktmJclk OrionNimrod (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to explain is that the Daco-Roman continuity theory was not invented out of nothing by Romanian nationalists, but it existed for centuries, and what the first Romanian historians did was also to use those writings of Humanists scholars. ZZARZY223 (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @ OrionNimrod ! This might be a language barrier and interpretation issue. When "most" is used in this context, a literature study that investigates a large proportion of scientific and published work in the domain is warranted for the use of this word. The citations in the article do not meet this standard, which then warrants the use of the word "some". Furthermore, if a source is provided that objectively shows that all Hungarian historians agree on this, the text can be changed to reflect that. Until those citations can be found and added, the use of the word "most" is unscientific and unjustified. If you add more sources, you can also maybe use the word "many", however whether this contributes to the discussion or not is a matter of personal interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndooBundoo (talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello. We have decided that the present version is what stays up until we reach a better consensus on the talk page. Nice to meet you! Remsense  诉  13:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello! No issue, this is the best course of action. I think this page needs a thorough re-examination of all text and sources, and I'll try to contribute to the best of my abilities. Thank you for mediating this. AndooBundoo (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article's text should be decimated. Information on the Vlachs' ethnogenesis and early and high medieval references to them can be read in Origin of the Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Borsoka, do you have a rough idea of what relevant material should be kept in this article? I agree that the dedicated article should probably contain most of this material, but it also seems that some of it should stay, perhaps summary style. Remsense  诉  14:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that the early history of the Vlachs is uncertain because it is poorly documented. I would mention the earliest references to Proto-Romanian, to the Balkan Vlachs, and to Vlachs living north of the Lower Danube. I would also mention that certain ethnonyms (Blakumen, Bolokhoveni, Blagha) may have referred to Vlachs but this is also uncertain. I would also mention the first Vlach polities (Gelou's legendary state, the Second Bulgarian Empire, Wallachia, Moldavia). Borsoka (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To me, it seems much of the issue is that an attempt
 * to prune prose on "one side" results in distrust that the "other side" will now have room for their own material. Of course, I don't think anyone here actually really wants to go on the offensive, and everyone involved could be happy with the scope Borsoka describes for both this article and Origin of the Romanians, given that the result is as described, and not biased towards a Romanian, Hungarian, Slavic, or any other perspective. Is this fair, everyone?  Remsense  诉  14:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Remsense I agree with @Borsoka. We can also summarize that the first Hungarian document about Vlachs in Transylvania is from 1223 which is related to the foundation of the Cistercian abbey at Cârța, and after that year documentation about Vlachs in Transylvania abounds, and that South of the Danube documentations about Vlachs appeared around the 10th century.ZZARZY223 (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Remsense I see the sock or meatpuppets are started personal harrasment campaign honestly I do not know what are those things, I edited only some content in the article but I do not remember for those. It is also blurry what would be "xenophobic". OrionNimrod (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @OrionNimrod can you disclose whether you are associated in any way with hu:Nemzeti_Együttműködés_Rendszere? Byte-ul (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone, I've just started reading the discussion in this and the above thread. I'll let everyone know once Ifinish. Remsense  诉  02:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I know this page has seen protection before, but would everyone agree to requesting it again while we sort out the article? The lack of clear voices is difficult to work with. Remsense  诉  08:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Im for protection YoursTrulyKor (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I also agree ZZARZY223 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've requested it. Remsense  诉  21:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

what is this?
what is biased political denial of Romanian history by hungarians how is Wikipedia allowing this? 2A02:2F04:5001:A900:78BE:D4D:2367:6E6D (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP would not allow it. So if you think biased Hungarian editors deny Romanian history for political reasons, you can seek assistance at many wikiprojects. For instance, WikiProject Neutrality is intended to promote the neutral point of view and remove bias from articles. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Borsoka can you disclose whether you are associated in any way with hu:Nemzeti_Együttműködés_Rendszere? Byte-ul (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your question is absolutely irrelevant. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it absolutely relevant since one of the main purposes of NER is to create the "Uj Magyarorszag" and attacking Romanian heritage and history is a main step towards that.
 * Anyway, your non-answer speaks for itself. Byte-ul (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Your question speaks for itself. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

word or people
It is hard to tell if this article is about a word or a people. I'm assuming it was meant to be about the people and I'll make some edits accordingly. Bhny (talk) 08:10, 04 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive?
By the way, now that we're heading in some direction, I assume no one minds if I archive the talk page at least until the thread I started or even totally, while keeping some notion of what we're trying to do. But I don't want to come off like I'm hiding certain points, I think it would be nice to declutter and start fresh, reaching back for what we want. But I wanted to make sure everyone was cool with that first. Remsense 诉  09:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with that. ZZARZY223 (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * aye aye captain YoursTrulyKor (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not want to do this if there are still disagreements over metatextual history, like between @OrionNimrod and @Byte-ul above. I know it's unfair, but can Byte, who I am looking at right now but of course this is everyone, please refrain from extended comments on events and circumstances only glancingly or abstractly related to the subject of this page for the time being? I hate asking this, because the context that has been provided for me is very interesting and useful, but it is also enough such that it's also having a deleterious effect. Once we accomplish something, I imagine we'll all be a bit less on edge. Remsense  诉  20:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The whole thing started with the outside incite, I think we all answered those questions. Then it was provided many suggestions by experienced editors how move on. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. I may not be an admin, but I will be removing any comments making accusations of conspiracy or sockpuppetry from here on out. If there's further sockpuppetry, we should report it to WP:SPI instead. Remsense  诉  23:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)