Talk:Voivodeship of Maramureș

When was a voivodeship first mentioned?
The first mention of Maramureș indicates that it was a royal forest in 1199. In this year, King Emeric of Hungary ((r. 1196 – 1204)) refers to a period "cum in Maramorisio tempore venationis venatum ivissemus" ("When we went for a hunt in Maramureș in the hunting season"). The first Romanian voivode of Maramureș was mentioned in 1343. According to the earliest Romanian chronicles, the Romanians had been settled in Maramureș during the reign of King Ladislaus IV of Hungary ((r. 1272 – 1290)). That the Romanian colonization of Maramureș occurred in the 14th and 15th centuries is mentioned in specialized literature about the history of the region. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. I am definitively not an expert in medieval history, it's not my main focus of interest in Wikipedia, and I exclusively used Romanian sources, which may have not been impartial. I know you're knowledgable in this history epoch, so I'd appreciate any help from you to improve this article. It honestly did seem strange to me that there would be such a Romanian polity, independent even, simply ignored from this website. However, if you add that colonization thing, please do so with attribution. I saw in those Romanian sources claims about how Romanians were the first in Maramureș and that Rusyns were later brought following a depopulation of the region because of the migration of Bogdan and Dragoș to Moldavia, so it'd be a controversial claim. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * According to my knowledge: Louis I of Hungary dispatched Andrew Lackfi to invade the lands of the Golden Horde in retaliation for the Tatars' earlier plundering raids against Transylvania and the Szepesség. Lackfi and his army of mainly Szekely warriors crossed the Carpathian Mountains and imposed a decisive defeat upon a large Tatar army on 2 February 1345. The Hungarian warriors were victorious in their campaign, decapitating the local Tatar leader, the brother-in-law of the Khan, Atlamïş, and making the Tatars flee toward the coastal area. The Golden Horde was pushed back behind the Dniester River, thereafter the Golden Horde's control of the lands between the Eastern Carpathians and the Black Sea weakened. We can see this event leads the establishment of Moldavia in 1346 as a Hungarian vassal state. Dragos the Founder was the first Voivode of Moldavia, who reigned in the middle of the 14th century. Dragos came from the Kingdom of Hungary, from Maramaros county. Dragos was a landowner in the Kingdom of Hungary. Dragos was sent by King Louis I of Hungary to establish a line of defense against the Golden Horde forces of Mongols on the Siret River. This expedition resulted in a polity vassal to Hungary, in the Baia (Moldvabánya) region. Dragos became the head of a march of the Kingdom of Hungary, which emerged after a Hungarian army inflicted a crushing defeat on a large army of the Golden Horde in 1345.
 * The area has been an integral part of the Hungary at least since 1000, please check out international history maps. I think the formation of the royal counties in the 14th century cannot be confused with an area belonging to the country. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't trust the average maps of the medieval era in the Internet, as there's blatant errors such as Bulgaria somehow controlling Wallachia and Moldavia in the 1200s. I actually found out about this from Borsoka. But thanks for the info. I've read about those Hungarian wars against the Tatars before and I've thought more than once, is there not a page for any of those battles or for the conflict in general? Super   Ψ   Dro  16:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can check international (English, German, Spanish, French, Hungarian... etc) medieval Europe maps between 1000-1300 in internet, in books, scanned maps from books, history maps from 19th century, maps from 20th century before the internet era.The border of the Hungarian Kingdom in that time was the full shape of the Carpathian arch in all of these maps. (I never saw maps where Maramaros areas was not part of the Kingdom) All of these maps the Maramaros area was part of Hungary. Please google those maps yourself, and please check the maps what was created before the time of the internet! If all of them show the same, why we cannot trust them? Do you think all maps are wrong?
 * Probably this is the most detailed Hungarian military history, but this is Hungarian, but you can translate by Google. There are marked sources on the pages.
 * https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/tartalomjegyzek.html
 * https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0008/568.html
 * This is a contemporary chronicle about the time of Louis I
 * https://mek.oszk.hu/05500/05564/05564.htm#9 OrionNimrod (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

, I took the part of the article you've tagged from page 199 of the fourth source in this article,. It says "The most powerful Romanian territorial organization of the 14th century in Transylvania (on its broader meaning) was the Voivodeship of Maramureș". I also cited the attestation in 1199 from there, although it called Maramureș as "ținut" (region), but I translated it as referring to the voivodeship (it could have also meant that) so that it made sense with the Romanian and Russian Wikipedias, which I guess are wrong too. So that it made sense with the supposed attestation from 1199, I said that the voivodeship was the most poweful Romanian entity in the area in the whole Middle Ages rather than the 14th century. I also welcome you to make improvements in this page that you deem necessary. Although the voivodeship for sure did exist. Super  Ψ   Dro  14:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What is clear that the voivodeship was not mentioned for the first time in 1199. Furthermore, it is highly dubious that any independent entity existed between Hungary and Halych in a period when Halych was controlled many times by Hungary. No voivode in Maramures was mentioned before 1343. Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source so that I can cite it in the article? Super   Ψ   Dro  13:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I cited some of them above in my first comment. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've cited Györffy. Do you possibly also know when was the voivodeship disestablished? Romanian and Russian Wikipedias give the year 1402. Does Györffy also mention this in his book? Super   Ψ   Dro  14:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , sorry to ping you over this again, but I think you can help in adding a date for the disestablishment of this entity. If I am not wrong, the last voivode of Maramureș died in 1402. Maybe that could be added. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For the time being, I do not know when was a voivode in Maramures mentioned for the last time. Borsoka (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Diplome Maramureșene din secolele XIV și XV the last mentions of contemporaneous voivodes in Maramureș are Balk and Dragh (=Balc and Drag) in 1402. Afterwards, there are references to them as former voivodes. After 1410, there are voivodes of/from Janosvajdafalva and Dolha. Also, the first mention of a voivode in Maramureș,on October 21st 1343("Boghdan quondam woyvoda de Maramorisio") implies that Bogdan’s time as voivode was elapsed, thus an establishment in 1343 is unlikely, the next mentions are of an Erdew(=Codrea/Silvestru) in 1345 and a John, nephew of Bogdan in 1349. The family tie between John and Bogdan causes Erdew/Codrea to be shifted backwards to a position before Bogdan, hence his appearance as early as 1320 on the Romanian Wikipedia. Glaßman (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose this map should be credible, because this is English international Wiki page about the middle ages, where authors from all country writing, so this is not about only Hungary or about only Romania, but about full Europe, so I suppose this is more independent:
 * High Middle Ages
 * map 1190
 * High Middle Ages
 * Another international map, 1096:
 * People's Crusade
 * Hungarian map from about 1170 (Bela III), and Halych
 * https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Hungary%2C_Croatia%2C_Bosnia_and_Galicia_in_the_12th_century.jpg
 * Very detailed Hungarian military history:
 * https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/tartalomjegyzek.html
 * This page is not perfect and not full, but there also you can see many conflict between Hungary and Ruthenia (Halych) and Maramaros is on way to the Ruthenia.
 * List of wars involving Hungary OrionNimrod (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality
Hello. I appreciate you're expanding the article but I don't think the contentious nature of the origin of the Romanians is being appropriately handled. So far it is stated that the Romanians arrived to the zone, apparently very late, in the 14th century. As we both know I imagine, that the Romanians immigrated into Maramureș and the broader region of Transylvania (or Romania at all) is just one of the theories on the origin of the Romanians, universal only in Hungarian sources, which are the only ones discussing the topic currently. I am also quite curious as to how could the language of Maramureș Romanians have been Aromanian, because surely I haven't been able to find this in either English or Romanian sources. It looks like a very questionable claim to me, though I understand its purpose is to state that the Romanians emigrated from the southern Balkans to modern-day Transylvania.

This article would ideally have a nice balance between Hungarian, Romanian and third-party sources but since that is going to be harder than the other alternative I think it could be easier not to try to talk about the origin of the Romanian here, for the sake of simplicity. What do you think? Super  Ψ   Dro  13:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. I don't have access to the referenced Romanian books, but I think Romanian sources don't make an "origin of the Romanians question" about the subject. The Romanians of Bogdan who formed the voivodeship in Maramureș were recorded at the time to immigrate and settle down in Northeastern Transylvania. The others, that they could speak Aromanian and could be from the vicinity of Lake Ohrid are 21st century speculations from Hungarian experts (e.g. albanologist and balkanist István Shütz). The pre-1343 demography of the region doesn't have much to do with the establishers, who, at least according to contemporary records and the sources I read, weren't autochthonous. We can't write that Bogdan's just appeared there for the sake of "neutrality". If there are other modern speculations from Romanian experts that many of the founder Vlachs were indigenous or something like that, of course it can be included in the article. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. I still find the claim of Aromanian origin extremely speculative. I think it should be removed. There are no linguistic features of Aromanian in the Maramureș dialect of Romanian today. If they originally spoke Aromanian, surely some kind of trace should have been kept. I find it very hard that Romanian linguists would not have noticed it before a Hungarian researcher (who seems not to even be specialised in linguistics). Super   Ψ   Dro  15:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://hu-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Schütz_István?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp
 * I cited three works that find it notable. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One is Shütz (apparently he is indeed a linguist, so I take it back) and the other two cite him. I just read page 10 of Shütz's work, and it says nothing about Aromanian. He suggest a migration by Romanians from Tetovo and Lake Ohrid to Moldavia (not even Maramureș), and doesn't really elaborate on this. POV. The other two cite Shütz and say something about Aromanian, but Shütz did not even talk about them. It is literally made up information. Also not backed by non-Hungarian sources. I've removed it. Super   Ψ   Dro  17:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Frivaldszky 2005, p. 451 backs the statement that they could be from around Lake Ohrid. His referring to Schütz is probably a straightforward statement based on Schütz's collection of connections between the Albanian Tosk and the Romanian Moldavian dialects.
 * Gulyás 2014, p. 50 and Frivaldszky 2005, p. 455-7 (see his conclusion at the end of the IIIrd chapter, p. 457 last sentence) back the statement that they could speak Aromanian. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Frivaldszky appears to be the first in making the claim about Aromanian. He cites Schütz who does not mention any of that. Frivaldszky does not give any evidence to back his statements. Gulyás then cites Frivaldszky. I see no lingustic evidence for this claim. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you see no evidence in the paper, he only proceeds to say this... (you can use Google Translate)
 * "Ezekből, s a felsorakoztatott nyelvi adatokból úgy tűnik, hogy mind a mócok, mind a felvidéki — ruszinokkal egyesült, bennük felolvadt — vlachok román magja a 14. század végén települt be nagyobb tömegben Magyarországra, s az aromán dialektust beszélte."
 * ...after two pages of listing evidence. He cites Schütz previously in the "Ohrid part", not in the "Aromanian part". The latter starts four pages away. Fehér foltok contains information about the "Ohrid part", you can Ctrl+F that in the PDF.
 * Gulyás cites Frivaldszky, saying that these settlers in the 14th century may be of Aromanian origin, according to a recent suggestion.
 * Századok, where Frivaldszky's work was published is a very famous (maybe the most) Hungarian historical journal. I'm sure it is reliable. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the pages. He only lists some words in Aromanian. This does not prove that Romanians at Maramureș spoke Aromanian. It is simply absurd. This claim may be present in high-ranking Hungarian sources, but it is only in Hungary were it circulates. If there is nothing about this in Romanian or third-party sources, I do not believe we can consider it reliable. We all know the biases scholars in Hungary and Romania have. We have to be careful and not to suggest that Romanians from a region of Romania actually speak and are something else than Romanian. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 
 * I don't know any reliable academic English books featuring data about the establishment of the Voivodeship of Maramureș. Do you?
 * Frivaldszky 2005 is a reliable source anyways, you can't call the work bias because of the writer's nationality. It indeed doesn't list many Aromanian words, but I think two pages of richly sourced (with Romanian and Slavic sources) discussion about the language of Northwestern Transylvanian Vlachs is enough for his last statement just to be mentioned in the article. It is fund relevant by other works too. We can't expect him to write more about this.
 * The sources suggest that the groups of Bodgan could speak Aromanian, not that modern Maramureș inhabitants are Aromanians.
 * 
 * Again I would ask for those universal sources are you talking about. The cited source says that Rusyns also moved into the relatively uninhabited Maramureș region and intermingled with the Romanians. We can't write original research.
 * You are also stupidizing this statement when it doesn't say "everyone migrated to Hungary". Gyalu22 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be works talking about the voivodeship, just any saying that the Romanians in Maramureș spoke Aromanian. I have been unable to find English- or Romanian-language sources talking about this. I find it very strange that only Hungarian scholars would make this claim. We know that Hungarian academia tends to present Romanians as migrants to the modern-day country. This is not a neutral or universal stance among international authors, thus any such claim needs a fair balance with sources stating otherwise and also third-party sources (say that we are discussing the origin of the Romanians, non-Hungarian and non-Romanian sources would be ideal). There are no other sources stating that Bogdan I, a famous historical figure in Romania, obviously the target of much research in Romanian academia, spoke Aromanian. The same happens to his subjects. It simply makes no sense. This claim was made to imply that the Romanians in Maramureș migrated from the south of the Danube. See WP:NPOV.
 * The cited source says that Rusyns also moved into the relatively uninhabited Maramureș region and intermingled with the Romanians. all of this is POV. Romanian authors will oppose this and so will Rusyn and Ukrainian authors. Why listen only to Hungarian ones? Ethnogenesis is a very contentious topic. There is no point in discussing the origin of the Rusyns here. Super   Ψ   Dro  17:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Super,
 * Just I have a remark. Maramaros was part of Hungary until 1920, for a long time, and the first cites were built under this period, which means the local historians always know better the history of the local region than historians from far countries, except if they are specialist of the region. I do not think a Chinese or Spanish or American historian source would be more reliable. Which means that a Hungarian academic source should be reliable for the history of the region. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That could have some strength if they were contemporaneous sources, but they're from some years ago. Not that what you said matters much anyway, that Maramureș belonged to Hungary for a long time (not until 1920 uninterruptedly) cannot possibly justify Hungarian authors to write whatever they want. Turkey had Armenian territory for centuries, but we definitely don't listen to Turkish sources denying the Armenian genocide. Super   Ψ   Dro  10:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think that we could compare the Armenian genocide with the history of Maramaros county. What do you mean "not until 1920 uninterruptedly"? When I see Hungarian and international history maps as I talked earlier here, that region was part of Hungary from the foundation of Hungary. Or do you think that for a while the area belonged to the Principality of Transylvania? Due to the Ottoman wars the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom became Principality of Transylvania in 1570, and the Eastern Hungarian king became the first prince and 99% of the time it was ruled by local Hungarian nobles, and the land still belonged under the Hungarian crown. That state was a second Hungary, like Moldavia and Wallachia was 2 Romanian states in the past. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I really am not interested in this "who was first" and "who was here for longer" typical debate that Hungarians and Romanians tend to have. Super   Ψ   Dro  12:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not want too to talk about this, my point was only one thing: that a Hungarian academic source should be reliable regarding the history of a region which was part of Hungary for 1000 years. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite you haven't fund other language sources talking about this
 * it remains relevant, at least according to reliable Hungarian sources and a simple look
 * and based with two pages of analysis, and no more is needed or could be performed in the framework of this issue. That is enough to say that it is not an attempt to prove the "immigration theory". Of course source critics is needed but in this case stating that the whole thing is propaganda because non-Hungarian sources don't analyze the question is not right.
 * Ergo, it deserves a short mention (if not more) saying "Recently it has been discussed that their language could be Aromanian".
 * Rusyns haven't lived in the region previously, nor they live there in the present. It is an obvious immigration from more northern territories. The same process happened vice versa when Romanian migrated into Eastern Slovakia—obviously they were not there before. If you could show me any Rusyn, Ukrainian or Romanian experts that indeed deny that this intermigration took place, I accept that.
 * Currently the article contains original research, as the cited source doesn't say what it is meant to verify. Gyalu22 (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no analysis to make this strange claim, other than a few coincidences in words. That's definitively not enough. This claim is not made by any other author except Shütz and those who cited him.
 * Rusyns haven't lived in the region previously, nor they live there in the present. It is an obvious immigration from more northern territories. POV. That's what Hungarian authors might say. Is this the international stance? I am pretty sure not. Again, it is known that Hungarian authors tend to have this stance that everyone migrated into a purely Hungarian state. Ethnogenesis is a very contentious topic. I would like extravagant claims such as that a group was actually not from there to be made by both sides. If this isn't possible, it most likely isn't reliable. And I again make a call to ignore the origins of the Rusyns here because it is not relevant.
 * And Shütz literally says the Romanians of Maramureș might have spoken Aromanian from Lake Ohrid. That implies migration. It is a promotion of the immigrationist theory, accompanied with an absurd claim. Super   Ψ   Dro  12:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For me, it looks like there are no strong arguments for deleting that part. You are saying that linguistic evidences for a theory are coincidences, reliable sources are promoting ideologies, and that the demographic evolution of the state the article is about is irrelevant. I reported the dispute on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is indeed no linguistic evidence. The source is indeed promoting ideologies. And the demographic evolution you're describing is not the universal stance. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As you're willing to escalate, I will escalate too. Currently, the Romanians are presented as migrants to Maramureș, and only Hungarian sources back this claim. This ignores the other of the two main theories about the origin of the Romanians. POV. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already answered this in my first answer in this section. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , may I ask why did you change Ioan Mihalyi's name into some Hungarian version ? Super   Ψ   Dro  15:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course. Just look at the PDF in the bibliography section. It says Joan Mihályi not Ioan Mihalyi. There's no name "Joan" in Hungarian so this accusation is false. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well. He is listed as "Ioan Mihalyi" in some Romanian digital libraries so I was confused about this.  Super   Ψ   Dro  16:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well. He is listed as "Ioan Mihalyi" in some Romanian digital libraries so I was confused about this.  Super   Ψ   Dro  16:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality 2
Hi Super Dromaeosaurus!

Can I ask why did you flag the section with disputed neutrality? You've said that you only object the parts you've already deleted, so I don't understand what you think is not surely neutral. If the debate's section in the Dispute resolution noticeboard won't be opened, I'll relinquish from a consensus (that means I'll cease to resist the complete exclusion of the discussed information) and soon after resume expanding the article with you. We can hardly reach a balance between scholarly opinions without the use of both Romanian and Hungarian sources in the same statements. Gyalu22 (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. As I said, currently the article presents the Romanians as migrants to the zone. Note that only your edits did this, so you're responsible for it. I am not opposed to keeping that information here (though I am 100% opposed to keeping the Aromanian part) but there should be a balance as in academia there's another prevalent view on the origin of the Romanians, that is, that they're autochthonous. If some sources supporting this stance are added and the article is a bit rewritten, I will be happy with the article. Note that I do not have much intention on working on the article. This is why I suggested to just omit the debate on discussion on the origin of the Romanians, it will save time for the both of us. Since you first added information about this contentious topic, it would fall under you to make sure this is discussed in a neutral and balanced manner. Or, we can keep it as is and keep that tag there. Super   Ψ   Dro  18:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Understand your stance, however I have to repeat that I'm not sure if Romanian sources even question that Bogdan's Vlachs entered through the Carpathians and weren't autochthonous. I've just read the English translation of the referenced work by Ioan-Aurel Pop, (I've found it some days ago) and it ignores the establishment of the autonomy. It doesn't say Bogdan was a migrant nor that he was born there. The same with Istoria Maramureșului (which I didn't read fully) by Alexandru Filipașcu, although it makes a lot of mentions to the Daco-Romans and that they are the only natives to the land, it doesn't say anything about the establishment. It literally mentions Bogdan after his department, saying that Stephen, the son of Sas also left (for Poland) afterwards. (I note that Filipașcu says the Rusyns were immigrants.) Gyalu22 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well. If this is the mainstream view, maybe attribution is enough. We could say "author considers/writes/says whatever". This is another potential solution as it makes it sound not so factual and objective. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be strange to add this to sentences that aren't disputed. Also because these authors often cite each other for further reading, and there is an overlap in most places between their content. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They would only be applied on disputed sentences, those talking about the origin of the Romanians. From what I see some of the authors trace their statements to a first author, we could write a sentence like "According to X, whatever;[citation] X[citation] and X support this statement too.[citation]" Super   Ψ   Dro  17:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I propose to finally end this that we attribute these contentious claims from Hungarian authors and then add some reference very briefly letting the reader know that there is another stance according to which Romanians were autochthonous to the region they lived in. Super   Ψ   Dro  17:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing is in the article saying Romanians weren't autochthonous. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Though still, In 1334, threatened by the Serbian expansion, an important Vlach group from the Balkans entered into Hungary under 9 months led by their voivode Bogdan. still implies that some years prior, there were no Romanians to the north of the Danube and that the only way Romanians could have reached from Maramureș was from the Balkans. That's way different that saying Maramureș Romanians migrated from nearby lands. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because there are no sources saying they migrated from nearby lands. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Istoria Maramureșului (which I didn't read fully) by Alexandru Filipașcu, although it makes a lot of mentions to the Daco-Romans and that they are the only natives to the land, it doesn't say anything about the establishment." may I urge you to read the book, though? Filipascu clearly states the Romanians were in control of Ung and Bârjava at the invasion of the Magyars and then retreated towards the mountains of Maramures (page 31). He then mentions the knezat of Cosau as one of the fragmented Romanian polities in the early 13th century (page 34) resulted from the retreating population.
 * Until the inclusion of more sources from more diverse backgrounds the section of the article is strongly written from a non-neutral point of view. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we know in what sources is based this information of the book? CarpathianEnjoyer (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)