Talk:History of Transylvania

Content

Hi Aristeus01

I removed this unrelated content from the Hungarian conquest chapter [1]

But could you explain what is this? Why did you readded? I really do not understand. I suppose the" history of Transylvania" article is about the key history events not a deailed archeology book. Why should we list "Blandina A, B, C, D, E, F..." "Pemilor X2, X3, X5..." archeolgy sites? Are these info important regarding the historical events in Transylvania? Why should we only emphasize 4 sites 400 years long between 800-1200? Should I add more hundred additonal sites in the list? Should we list every single Dacian, Roman, Gepid, Goth, Avar, Hungarian... cemetery? Should we list every single pottery and findings on those sites? It would easier just put a image where the archeology sites are marked as dots. Did you see in other Wiki articles to list archeology sites one by one? I did not see ever. Or it should be a separate article "archeology sites in Transylvania". What is the connection listing site with the Christianity chapter? The chapter clearly say it was Christianity in Transylvania in the period of 9-13th century. What is the connection with the "the culture of the Transylvanian highland" in 1000m with the Christianity? Too much "possible", instead of real key events? Btw we know well Transylvania was never empty, locals did not evaporated, just mixed always with newcomers. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod

Yes, of course we should add more information pertaining to Archaeology branch of history and you are most welcomed, at least from my point of view, to do so. After all, the page is called History of Transylvania. As for how much in detail we should go, we can always discuss on concrete cases. The addition of this type of data is already accepted in the article:

"The earliest Hungarian artifacts found in Transylvania date to the first half of the 10th century. The very typical feature of the Asian Hun and European Hun cemeteries is the partial horse burials, almost in all Hun graves there are only remain of horses. Outside the Huns, only the Hungarians used partial horse burials. This ancient tradition that went through centuries, it is easily identifiable in the Huns and Hungarians graves. Archeologists also found this kind of horse burial in Transylvania. During joint research, archaeologists from the University of Sibiu (Romania) and the University of Tübingen (Germany) excavated one of the most important Hungarian cemeteries from the time of the Hungarian conquest near Orăștie (Szászváros in Hungarian) in 2005. According to Romanian archeologist Marian Tiplic, the excavated graves refer to the second generation of Hungarian conquerors, the skeletons found here are the remains of the Gyula tribe. It was a permanent settlement, the location of which, on top of a hill, suggests that the goal of the Hungarian was to control the valley of the Mureș. Hungarian cemeteries from the 9th and 10th centuries were also unearthed at Cluj-Napoca (Kolozsvár in Hungarian), Gâmbaș (Marosgombás in Hungarian), and other Transylvanian sites. A coin minted under Berthold, Duke of Bavaria (reign 938–947) found near Turda indicates that Transylvanian Magyars participated in western military campaigns. Although their defeat in the 955 Battle of Lechfeld ended Magyar raids against western Europe, raids on the Balkan Peninsula continued until 970. Linguistic evidence suggests that after their conquest, the Magyars inherited the local social structures of the conquered Pannonian Slavs; in Transylvania, there was intermarriage between the Magyar ruling class and the Slavic élite."

so I do not understand why the discussed information should be treated differently. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Aristeus01 Those Hungarian content are sentences (btw those were there a long time ago before my first edit) not a list with arcehological codenames and "possible influence" speculation. It is quite out of the style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Information_style_and_tone. I checked the source, somewhere it use "?" "Ciumbrud (south Danubian influence Christian?)", it is important to list speculations with "?" ? Do we have space for those things in a long wiki history page? The Hungarian related content shows an uique type of burial and the time of the apperance of the first conqueros there, tribe names, settlements, related history story. Morover the deleted list shows only 4 sites in a wide timeline between 9-12th century, it does not clear the exact period of each, while the Hungarian story match to the content, focusing to the conquest period. Btw how fit that list to the Christianity chapter? What about the "possible" highlanders 1000m? Along these groups, Gh Baltag introduced the concept of Table land culture that defines a local population of the 8th to 10th centuries, living on the high altitude areas (600-800m). His argument is represented by the unusual ceramic discovered on the site of Albeşti, Mureş County. Speculation based on 1 ceramic item? Is this a Christianity history event? Is this really important in a such a long article with many important history events? OrionNimrod (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

Certainly that taken out of context, the rescued text might appear questionable. I would kindly remind you that it was added there as a continuation of the paragraph:

"According to supporters of the Daco-Roman continuity theory, Transylvania was populated by Romanians at the time of the Hungarian conquest. Opponents of this theory assert that Transylvania was sparsely inhabited by peoples of Slavic origin and Turkic people. The presence of Slavs is confirmed by archaeology, but no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest."

With or without the logical connection or the overall debate, I do think it is important to have these scientific results in the article. I am still quite perplexed on why we did not add them previously, considering the claim of knowledge on the topic. I mean, actual, physical evidence from a period of 3-400 years from the history of the area when we have little written evidence must at least be mentioned.

If the issue is the connection of the text with the rest of the paragraph, I propose the following: moving the " funerary rite and rituals" at the beginning of the sentence, since this is a religious-connected practice:

"Based on the funerary rite and rituals, Transylvania was multi-ethnic in the period of 9th to 12th centuries, being inhabited by several cultural groups according to Romanian-German archaeologist Kurt Horedt:

(list)

"and removing the paragraph:

"In addition, Romanian archeologist Gheorghe Baltag, based on his research at Albești site, Mureș County, defined "the culture of the Transylvanian highland", referring to a possible indigenous culture in higher areas (over 600m and up to 900-1000m) between 8th and 10th centuries."

which to me is just a speculation (but again, I am obviously not an expert on Transylvanian archaeology). Aristeus01 (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01, btw I read the full chapter [2] the deleted content is from the very end in the source. And the majority of archeology part in the very detailed sections talk about mostly the Hungarian remains (and before Avars, Slavs), but somehow the summarize at the end just mention Kurdt Horedt from 1950s which was used here.

So I see, you like that source, becuuse mentions "Romanians" based by speculation. In this case I think, this could be add to the demographic section. I also find interesting things in the source regarding archeology:

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.Warrior inhumations, particularities of their outfit and weaponry were related to the Hungarian Conquest Period since, in 1834, when western coins dated the 10th century were first found. On the next decays, Romanian Ethno genesis as well as the formation of the Romanian Medieval states captured the interests of scholars. Not always those informations were also pertinent, so as a consequence various critical analysis were elaborated. One of these critical reviews materialized in 1990 on an article by Radu Popa256 Given the circumstances of the medieval archaeology, regarded as a branch of the Romanian historical researches, it is not a surprise that a big part of the results are corrupted and unreal. The new wave of young archaeologists which emerged after 1990 has a difficult task: to get rid of the lumber from previous archaeological researches , the one who, in the early ‘90s established a new direction on the medieval Romanian archaeological researches. He is the one that critically analyzed all the thesis of the Romanian historiography related to the emergence of Romanian states and their relations to the Arpadian royalty and the Transylvanian population.

I also find similar by other Romanian authors:

Andrei Gandila: Cultural Encounters on Byzantium’s Northern Frontier, c. AD 500-700 Coins, Artifacts and History, Cambridge 2018

"Although to some extent the manipulation of archaeological material was true of most Eastern European schools between 1945 and 1989, the Romanian case became the most conspicuous in its attempt to distort the past in order to serve the communist regime’s quest for legitimacy in the 1970s and 1980s."

"The nationalistic discourse dominating the last communist decades in Eastern Europe distorted not only the interpretation of the archaeological evidence discussed in the previous chapter, but also views on the development of Christianity. Most studies shared a common agenda: to demonstrate the cultural continuity of the Daco-Roman population across centuries of vicissitude when the descendants of the Roman colonists had to deal with numerous barbarian invasions, while struggling to maintain their connection to the Roman world and assimilate the newcomers into their superior culture."

"Such theories developed in the 1970s and 1980s in the context of national-communism remain firmly entrenched in historiography to this day."

Florin Curta [3] “A leading Romanian medievalist, Radu Popa in a devastating critique published first in Romanian, then in German, Popa accused Romanian archaeologists of having paid lip service to Ceaucescu’s regime and of having manipulated the archaeological evidence to meet the demands of his nationalist policies in Transylvania. One of Popa’s targets was the group of archaeologists excavating the early medieval hillfort at Dabaca, near Cluj-Napoca. During the late 1960s through 1989, the site was repeatedly identified with the capital city of Gelou, a Romanian duke mentioned in Gesta Hungarorum as having opposed the conquest of Transylvania by Tuhutum. Romanian archaeologists made every possible effort to turn Dabaca into a Transylvanian Troy and to prove that the Gesta was a reliable source for the medieval history of (Romanian) Transylvania. Popa criticized not only this historicist stance, but also the manipulation of the archaeological evidence in order to match the historical record. Moreover, despite extensive excavations designed to produce substantial evidence of a Romanian occupation of the site prior to the Magyar conquest, to this day no results have been published.” OrionNimrod (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod

I'm not going to lie, I am slightly disappointed that we resort to the same antiques of "you like" and "theories developed in the 1970s and 1980s". It is 2024 after all, although some act like its the 1930s, and, regardless of editor, sources created by Romanians cannot be excluded from the history of an area... in Romania.

But if we are to be objective and follow Curta's thinking the we should also take this into account:

"Bona's perversely Kossinist approach has its roots in a long tradition established by the "Budapest school" of archaeology. His obstinate focus on ethnic interpretation and political interpretation did not go unnoticed and were promptly denounced."

so the following parts of the article should also come under question:

"By 376 a new wave of migratory people, the Huns, led by Uldin defeated and expelled the Visigoths, setting up their own headquarters in what was Dacia Inferior. Hoping to find refuge from the Huns, Fritigern (a Visigothic leader) appealed to the Roman emperor Valens in 376 to be allowed to settle with his people on the south bank of the Danube. However, a famine broke out and Rome was unable to supply them with food or land. As a result, the Goths rebelled against the Romans for several years. The Huns fought the Alans, Vandals, and Quadi, forcing them toward the Roman Empire. Pannonia became the centre during the peak of Attila's reign (435–453).

The race of Huns, long shut off by inaccessible mountains, broke out in sudden rage against the Goths and drove them in widespread confusion from their old homes. The Goths fled across the Danube and were received by Valens without negotiating any treaty.- Paulus Orosius: Histories against the Pagans

Dating from 425 to 455, the Transylvanian traces of the Huns lie in the lowlands of the Mureș valley. The most important testimonies of the Hun rule are the two separate sets of coins discovered at Sebeș. Between the 420s and 455, Hun princes and lords established summer residences in Transylvania. The newest discoveries strengthens the theory that there was a more serious Hun military presence in Transylvania."

and

"The earliest Hungarian artifacts found in Transylvania date to the first half of the 10th century. The very typical feature of the Asian Hun and European Hun cemeteries is the partial horse burials, almost in all Hun graves there are only remain of horses. Outside the Huns, only the Hungarians used partial horse burials. This ancient tradition that went through centuries, it is easily identifiable in the Huns and Hungarians graves. Archeologists also found this kind of horse burial in Transylvania. During joint research, archaeologists from the University of Sibiu (Romania) and the University of Tübingen (Germany) excavated one of the most important Hungarian cemeteries from the time of the Hungarian conquest near Orăștie (Szászváros in Hungarian) in 2005. According to Romanian archeologist Marian Tiplic, the excavated graves refer to the second generation of Hungarian conquerors, the skeletons found here are the remains of the Gyula tribe. It was a permanent settlement, the location of which, on top of a hill, suggests that the goal of the Hungarian was to control the valley of the Mureș. Hungarian cemeteries from the 9th and 10th centuries were also unearthed at Cluj-Napoca (Kolozsvár in Hungarian), Gâmbaș (Marosgombás in Hungarian), and other Transylvanian sites. A coin minted under Berthold, Duke of Bavaria (reign 938–947) found near Turda indicates that Transylvanian Magyars participated in western military campaigns. Although their defeat in the 955 Battle of Lechfeld ended Magyar raids against western Europe, raids on the Balkan Peninsula continued until 970. Linguistic evidence suggests that after their conquest, the Magyars inherited the local social structures of the conquered Pannonian Slavs; in Transylvania, there was intermarriage between the Magyar ruling class and the Slavic élite."

for example, pardon my repetition.

But our disagreement is not on some 1990 theories, it is, from my point of view, on the relevance of the data in the rescued text. And to complement the sources you mentioned and strengthen the importance of those archaeological finds here are a few more:

"When do similar assemblages with handmade pottery appear inside the Carpathian Arc? It is not easy to answer that question, primarily because handmade pottery (including shapes that are directly comparable to the so-called Prague type)are known from assemblages that can be dated to the 6th century and have been attributed to the Gepids. For example, at Rákoczifalva (near Szolnok, on the Middle Tisza river), handmade pottery appears together with wheel-made potterywith burnished or stamped decoration. Handmade pottery appears together with wheel-made pottery with burnished or stamped decoration in three assemblages of the 6th-century settlement excavated in Moreşti, near Târgu Mureş, in the heart of Transylvania."

An ironic smile: the Carpathian Mountains and the migration of the Slavs - Florin Curta

"Transylvania entered the Hungarians’ sphere of interest from the beginning, but the actual situation of the region before the conquest is difficult to reconstruct due to the extremely poor written sources and a rather rudimentary archaeological knowledge. Although there has been some progress over the past century, no one has yet outlined a credible picture of what Transylvania might have looked like around the year 1000, a picture that could be equally accepted by any historiographical approach.

The archaeological remains show that Transylvania was inhabited by a heterogeneous population"

Church Archaeology in Transylvania (ca. 950 to ca. 1450) - Daniela Marcu-Istrate

"Transylvanian archaeology as such at present is experiencing a revival as well. The heritage and the school of Béla Pósta were newly established in Cluj by the Béla Pósta Association and the Transylvanian Museum Society, who for many years has been organizing annual archaeological conferences and also created a by now well-established archaeological school for Hungarian students focusing mostly on local sites. Important schools and excavations were organized emphasizing the medieval history of Transylvania and establishing a first generation of medieval archaeologists in the region."

Archaeology in Transylvania - Csaba Szabó

As for the locations themselves:

Necropola medieval timpurie de la Alba Iulia-Str. Brânduşei. Cercetările arheologice din anii 1997-2008

The early medieval necropolis from Alba Iulia - Izvorul Împăratului. Archaeological researches in 2014

Byzantine influences in the Carpathian Basin around the turn of the millennium. The pillared church of Alba Iulia

The Military Suite from Alba Iulia-Emperor’s Spring’s Necropolis

So we have numerous sources dealing with the content we discuss. And just like in the case of questioning the relevance of early Christianity in Transylvania, I just do not understand why we side-line the topic. Unless, of course, as Curta said, we mean to follow an "obstinate focus on ethnic interpretation and political interpretation", presenting only information that can be associate with an ethnicity or the other. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01. The text recently added by this Romanian user is clearly intended to create bias. It is actually a mention of irrelevant opinions from certain Romanian archaeologists. The insertion of a list of random archaeological sites there is also abnormal and inapposite. The whole addition diverges from the style of the article and summary style the article has to take. And probably no one will agree with your solution to also oppositely expand Hungarian views. We should return to the non-speculative and non-theorizing, instead factual-in-nature explanation of the two standpoints and the telling of established history. You can get rid of this if you can argue what's wrong with it. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Gyalu22

"The text recently added by this Romanian user is clearly intended to create bias"

the bias was already created by claiming in Wikivoice the following:

" The presence of Slavs is confirmed by archaeology, but no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest."

the user was correct in correcting that statement to achieve neutrality.

And speaking of bias, twice in your reply you dismiss opinions as "biased" and "irrelevant" because they are Romanian, hence your further claim of "factual-in-nature explanation of the two standpoints and the telling of established history" drops in objective value. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I also dismiss writing down Hungarian opinions (while you embraced the idea of expanding further this way) because they aren't appropriate here. Again, why should we drop the required summary style to explain theories of random scholars? To my understanding, it's correct that no definite evidence of Romanian presence in Transylvania during that time is known, and this is why concurrent standpoints have emerged. Certain scholars may consider certain things to be such (and develop their own hypotheses of them), but that's no cause to start describing each of their researches.

The concurrent standpoints are introduced briefly, and elsewhere the article unfolds its topic regional history (not so much archaeology, especially not so much to discuss specific sites BTW) using data everyone agrees upon. This is in accordance with the editing guidelines, while the novel text isn't. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Precisely, and we should keep these concurrent standpoints to a briefness that does not trigger users to expand with counter-arguments in one direction or another. So from my point of view neither

" but no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest."

and

"Romanian archeologist Marian Tiplic considers that the graves dated in the end of the 9th century and beginning of 10th century, that belong to the Blandiana A and the Ciumbrud cultural groups, represent the last stage in the Romanian people ethnogenesis.

In addition, Romanian archeologist Gheorghe Baltag, based on his research at Albești site, Mureș County, defined "the culture of the Transylvanian highland", referring to a possible indigenous culture in higher areas (over 600m and up to 900-1000m) between 8th and 10th centuries."

are needed, since we already said and established that:

"Conflicting theories exist concerning whether or not the Romanians are a Romanized Dacian population that, surviving the Migration Period remained in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans."

and this should be enough. Whoever wants to know more can check the linked article which far better explains the situation than a few contradicting paragraphs on this page.

For my interest the only part needed from the rescued text is the Kurt Horedt research which is on funerary rites and rituals and strongly connected to the history of Christianity in the area. That we express it as a list or a contiguous text is a matter of style and I do not object either way. But I am not willing to part with the rest of text just because @OrionNimrod wanted it deleted. The article must be written from a neutral point of view. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

My problem was the style and relevance. I have no problem to present more scholar viewpoints. I think what Tiplic says (“we beleive”) should be fit to the demography research section. OrionNimrod (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

So far we've determined that the recently added text is not good in the article. But can we not remove irrelevant speculations in exchange for suitable factual information that is written in accordance to the encyclopedia instructions? That wouldn't be an improvement. Please see the lead of Origin of the Romanians, which also doesn't omit saying the conclusion that no definite evidence exists (and this is the reason that large opposing scholarly theories emerged).

Again, I don't uphold getting rid of appropriate information (whose correctness nor relevance is doubtful), but I'm happy we've reached the starting point that attempting to decrease its weight with subjective archaeology lessons is inappropriate. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't noticed you want to keep Horedt's theory. To that, the same applies as to the other theories. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not see where we determined that the added text is irrelevant speculation and no good for the article. I'm no expert on archaeology, but looking at the sources, and in particular at Curta's study linked a bit earlier, I am not convinced we established facts, not from an archaeological point of view, and what you call subjective archaeology expands to more than one entry.

"The presence of Slavs is confirmed by archaeology, but no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest."

Is not a factual information. Who established this? The sources do not seem as authoritative as one would expect, it is a line cited from a single author. But as a scholarly opinion I understand if you want it kept in the text, or even expanded - as I understand @OrionNimrod leans towards. However, then the same would apply to the other ones. I mean, it's basic logic that expanding means adding more, hence the rescued text should stay and we should add more in the same vein. That is exactly the same principle the article on the Origin of Romanians works.

For the opposite option, towards which you and I seem more favorable, I need to make a clarification, and perhaps I wasn't explicit enough previously: the archaeological sites presented by Horedt and by extension the objects within are real, non-subject to interpretation. So when we say factual, it cannot get more factual than that. Why would we remove facts from the article? And why not remove the duplicate regarding the theories on Origin of Romanians? Aristeus01 (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

If that's not a problem for you, let's get to a point on this first and discuss Horedt separately.

If you hold onto these two lines (Tiplic and Balthag) to balance in your opinion bias created by that other sentence elsewhere, but you otherwise don't consider them an improvement in the article they must be irrelevant. On the other hand, they are also problematic for multiple reasons I already talked about. Basically, they are descriptions of what theories two random scholars set up from their own researches—in the wrong context, where history is and is required to be told in summary style, and not through explaining unique speculations on very specific and abstract archaeology. I can be a reference point to an average reader: despite my greater proficiency on the history of Transylvania, these names don't ring a bell to me—not even to Google Search.

In contrast, I find the study of reputed historian Curta good to be there because whether Hungarians settled Transylvania immediately isn't accepted. It can possibly improve the statement "no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest" you criticize to quote Cambridge, also confirmed by Oxford: "historical, archaeological and linguistic data available [on the presence of Romanians in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest] do not seem adequate to give a definitive answer" (see Origin of the Romanians). I don't accept removing this information altogether, because it is relevant and correct. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes on the first part, and since you agree I will remove them shortly. I mean not to be stubborn, I simply said the text was relevant where it was initially placed as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Out of context, not so much. On the second part, please do not get me wrong, I do not contest the WP:RS, I am saying there is a repetition in regards to the theories and because of its placement it leads to WP:CFORK. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Can you specify which unacceptable case of content fork applies to the text in your opinion? If the case is clear, I will make a second edit, resolving this problem too. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean these two entries:

"Conflicting theories exist concerning whether or not the Romanians are a Romanized Dacian population that, surviving the Migration Period remained in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans."

"According to supporters of the Daco-Roman continuity theory, Transylvania was populated by Romanians at the time of the Hungarian conquest. Opponents of this theory assert that Transylvania was sparsely inhabited by peoples of Slavic origin and Turkic people. The presence of Slavs is confirmed by archaeology, but no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest."

They are both dealing with the same topic. While the first one is a "closed brief", the second one adds more content on the subject. I think they should be conflated. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I think those are not details about the theories just mentioning that we have 2 scholar views, the existence of 2 main theories is fact, that is why we are debating always :) The first one is related to Roman Dacia about 300, I think is relevant. The second one is related to Hungarian conquest about 900 (600 years later event), we know well it is a key debate whether or not the Romanians were Transylvania at the time of conquest, it is relevant, so the first sentence shows 2 scholar views. We can see, those are not details about theories just key views regarding the relevant chapter.

But I think the second part should move to demography/research section, because it shows the archeology but only from one view.

After this: According to Romanian historiography, the uninterrupted presence of a Romanized population in Transylvania is proven by archaeological evidence, including artefacts bearing Christian symbolism, hoards of bronze Roman coins and Roman-style pottery...

It is relevant this to show both views regarding archeology: According to Hungarian historiography, the presence of Slavs is confirmed by archaeology, but no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest

I think all 3 contents now show both views together. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I can understand your thinking here. There is however a repetition through the article of these summaries of the debate and I am not convince we are not allowing WP:CFORK with them or in some way just bloat the article with repeated information. Anyway, if you think its important then we should probably keep them. Aristeus01 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, (Origin of a people is a big topic) I do not think that would be repetation because this 3 things are different, first mention the theory that Romanians are (or not) Romanized Dacians mentioning there are 2 main scholar views (linking origin of romanians page), regarding Roman Dacia chapter. Second mention, Romanians (Vlachs) present (or not) much later at the time of Hungarian conquest (that is not the question that Vlachs are Dacians or not like before just the possible ot not possible relation with hungarian conqueros) again 2 views presented. The third one is just archeology, and no mention any origin theory just what is the view in Hungarian and Romanian historiography. I think this is balanced in this way. You was right that archeology section was out of the context above that is why somebody put that additional content there as you mentioned as reason. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

And on Horedt: I believe inserting his enigmatic opinion on Blandiana A and Dridu sites in the summary explanation of early Christian religion in Transylvania breaks style and relevance—and thus guidelines. Maybe in the demography section. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If scientific information "breaks style and relevance" of the article then we have a problem with the article. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Rather the style and relevance of that text is problematic. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

2021 Census

The source used is the 2021 census

The following counties are considered to be entirely in the region of Transylvania: Alba, Arad, Bihor, Bistrita-Nasaud, Brasov, Caras-Severin, Cluj, Covasna, Harghita, Hunedoara, Maramures, Mures, Satu Mare, Salaj, Sibiu, Timis.

In Bacau county, the commune considered is Ghimeș-Făget, in Neamt county are Bicazu Ardelean, Bicaz-Chei and Dămuc, in Mehedinti are Orșova, Eșelnița, Dubova and Svinița.

The ethnic composition by county is, considering Romanians, Hungarians, Germans and Not Available:

Alba - Romanians 268,753 - Hungarians 11,494 - Germans 544 - N/A 31,780 - Total 325,941

Arad - Romanians 317,713 - Hungarians 25,731 - Germans 2,000 - N/A 41,301 - Total 410,143

Bihor - Romanians 347,148 - Hungarians 112,387 - Germans 529 - N/A 48,428 - Total 551,297

Bistrita-Nasaud - Romanians 247,935 - Hungarians 11,049 - Germans 261 - N/A 25,398 - Total 295,988

Brasov - Romanians 416,664 - Hungarians 28,221 - Germans 1,853 - N/A 74,884 - Total 546,615

Caras-Severin - Romanians 195,703 - Hungarians 1,424 - Germans 1,364 - N/A 32,114 - Total 246,588

Cluj - Romanians 488,212 - Hungarians 78,455 - Germans 567 - N/A 91,719 - Total 679,141

Covasna - Romanians 42,752 - Hungarians 133,444 - Germans 73 - N/A 14,101 - Total 200,042

Harghita- Romanians 33,634 - Hungarians 232,157 - Germans 62 - N/A 20,949 - Total 291,950

Hunedoara - Romanians 300,972 - Hungarians 9,180 - Germans 500 - N/A 44,870 - Total 361,657

Maramures - Romanians 342,052 - Hungarians 23,153 - Germans 548 - N/A 48,380 - Total 452,475

Mures - Romanians 252,400 - Hungarians 165,014 - Germans 904 - N/A 54,378 - Total 518,193

Satu Mare - Romanians 182,750 - Hungarians 93,491 - Germans 3,722 - N/A 32,698 - Total 330,668

Salaj - Romanians 136,552 - Hungarians 40,554 - Germans 40 - N/A 17,416 - Total 212,224

Sibiu - Romanians 313,119 - Hungarians 6,112 - Germans 2,716 - N/A 52,930 - Total 388,326

Timis - Romanians 484,243 - Hungarians 21,285 - Germans 4,684 - N/A 110,879 - Total 650,533

Bacau (Ghimeș-Făget) - Romanians 2,098 - Hungarians 2,637 - N/A 122 - Total 4,928

Neamt (Bicazu Ardelean, Bicaz-Chei, Dămuc) - Romanians 8,896 - Hungarians 51 - Total 9,878

Mehedinti (Orșova, Eșelnița, Dubova, Svinița) - Romanians 8,770 - Hungarians 17 - Germans 31 - N/A 1460 - Total 12,602

TOTAL: Romanians 4,390,366 (67.7%) - Hungarians 995,856 (15.3%) - Germans 20,398 (0.3%) - Data not available 743,807 (11.5%) - Total 6,489,189 ZZARZY223 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Arad is not Transylvania but in the Great Hungarian Plain. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Temes also not OrionNimrod (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

But those were counted in the previous censuses mentioned in the list, and even Varga E. Árpád includes them [4] ZZARZY223 (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZZARZY223 Then it needs revisit the numbers. Only the green is Transylvania, it would be improper to add different areas: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romania_Counties_1930-2008.svg

Transylvania is not start in Oradea.

In your link, it says "that calculate those lands total which moved to Romania from Hungary" (including Oradea)

You know well these Romanian regions:

Historical regions of Romania#/media/File:Greater Romania.svg

Banat, Crisana, Maramaros is not Transylvania. But this is Transylvania article. I can say it needs to be expert to know the exact borders, which settlements belongs exactly to Transylvania and calculte only those settlements regarding all census. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

POV map

I am yet to be explained how can anyone make an accurate ethnic map of 1495, why does it happen to follow Hungarian POV and why is the good old technique of leaving non-Hungarian areas white applied. The POV template will be kept for a while. Super Ψ Dro 10:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I cannot find non-Hungarian scholarship talking about these maps, not even Romanian one. Are they used outside of Hungarian scholarship? Super Ψ Dro 10:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super,

[5] I see you removed the academic modern Hungarian demography map from Hungarian history topics, I do not understand how possible to remove the academic mainstream Hungarian viewpoint from Wikipedia from the Hungarian history topics? Follow this logic you can remove every single mainstream Hungarian historian view, because you dont like it.

I think that is not a secret that the centuries long Ottoman devastation changed the ethnic composition, there are hundreds of academic historian works about this [6][7] follow this logic you can remove these academic sources also because you are not agree, or you can say the Ottomans army did not kill anybody.

If you do not like this or you know a different academic opinon please provide those views also, but you cannot remove a mainstream academic Hungarian view regarding Hungarian history, morover you can see it was emphasized: "Ethnic maps of the Kingdom of Hungary by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences" it was provided that is the view from Hungary.

That map is from the National Atlas of Hungary, that maps developed over 30 years research by the Hungarian Academy of Science and published by Geographical Institute, Research Centre for Astronomy and Earth Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [8]

National Atlas of Hungary https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/en/home.html

[9] Those maps are in every Hungarian atlas: [10]

I took this photo in a book shop, that book is everywhere: [11] OrionNimrod (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello OrionNimrod, I seriously doubt a village-by-village ethnic map can be done about the year 1495. I generally like to stay away from topics that tend to make Hungarians and Romanians clash and there's anyway some stability and compromises between users from both sides so nothing is too bad. These maps however seem to follow the uncompromising Hungarian POV that Romanians (Rusyns too) are immigrants. I don't think it is very relevant that it is by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences because I've seen bias from works related to the Romanian Academy (not specifically about Transylvania though). Because this is not my topic of interest and I am not well-informed nor know what sources should I look into I ask you two things: what is the methodology used for this map and what do international (non-Hungarian and non-Romanian) authors say about it? Is it accepted among them? Super Ψ Dro 17:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super,

That map does not say who is immigrant or not, just show the demographic research regarding Hungary by many Hungarian scholars. (You know the demographic could change by various circumstances even in short period, just check Vienna, London, or even Oradea#Demographics how changed the composition even just in previous short decades. Some places could have higher birthrate, some places could have war devastations...) That maps are in relevant articles "demographic research, Ottoman devastation impacts, demographic of Hungary..." That is not a clash, but this is the standard Hungarian historiography, based on many kind of researches and old sources, while "the always majority Romanians" viewpoint is using only by nationalist Romanians and rather a romantic speculation which not based by contemporary sources. I quote now a modern British historian about this: page 90 [12] "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."

Follow this logic you can remove the full Hungarian historiography from Wikipedia because it does not match with the Romanian historiography, that map is part of all atlas like this: https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/storage/pdf/OH-TOR912ATL__teljes.pdf and those Hungarian history maps are same as international maps, not like the older fake Romanian history maps where between 800-1400 between Tisza-Dneister we can see a big Romania country: [13] [14] In Hungary related articles already provided the Hungarian and Romanian viewpoints, an academic map is just one source among the sources. You should know that 100% full Hungarian historiography does not accept the Daco-Roman theory (this is just a theory not a fact), so I do not understand how can be compromise if this is the mainstream Hungarian view, you can just provide the other academic views. However outside Romania (and even I know many Romanian scholars who do not accept Daco-Roman theory) the Daco-Roman theory is not really accepted, full Polish, German, Austrian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Croatian historiography dont accept it. Fast examples: Romanian historian Florin Curta, in a 2020 study, complains that the Daco-Roman theory is not accepted in Polish histography [15] and another Polish regarding Hungarian chronicles [16] "they appeared in Transylvania very late, probably in the 12th century, when the Hungarians just created their own Central-European state" German example:[17] 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.

I think Hungarian articles should show the academic Hungarian view regarding Hungarian history and not censoring the academic Hungarian historiograpgy in the Hungarian articles. I have not a problem if you present another academic view beside the Hungarian academic view. You cannot expect that foreign authors have deep knowledged (expect some experts) or will deal very detailed with Romanian and Hungarian history as local scholars who do that full time. And I emphasize again the caption of the map in the article is "this is the view from Hungarian Academy" so it is provided who is the source of that view.

Btw I contacted with the academy, they said that map is 30 years of research, many scholars involved and even they favored to Romanians, because the colored areas as Romanian where sources about Romanian presence was reported even for just a short period, even it was not a permanent. Also Hungary had ten thousands of medieval documents, 1495 is not the dark ages, even we have name list of all the citizens of Kolozsvar (Cluj) from 1450 which made by tax purpose, the population was about 6000 and 50-50% Hungarians and Saxons and 2 Romanians in the list. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I found this, Babeș–Bolyai University among many institutions were also participants (page 3) to made that atlas (1495 map is part of that atlas): https://atlas.icaci.org/wp-content/uploads/2021_icc_gercsak_national_atlas_of_hungary_ppt.pdf That National Atlas of Hungary is a really academic source, introduced in Italy in an international cartography conference.

The English version of that atlas won the most prestigious professional prize in the biennial International Cartographic Conference (ICC) was held in Tokyo between 15 and 20 July 2019 by the International Cartographic Association (ICA). I think this tell a lot what was the international feedback regarding this Hungarian atlas.

https://mta.hu/english/english-edition-of-the-national-atlas-of-hungary-voted-world-number-one-109950

In Florence it was also the best atlas: https://www.demografia.hu/en/teszthirek/231-the-national-atlas-of-hungary-received-prestigious-recognition OrionNimrod (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of what you said is either about the theories or about the book, though it's good to know the book has been awarded. Such a method for Cluj does seem good, I imagine it's based on people's names, is this how it is done for small villages too? Is that information really available? All for or around 1495? Super Ψ Dro 20:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

If you would like to know, that old document regarding Cluj is the "Regestrum Hungarorum de Ciuitate Cluswar". Of course I do not know all methods, but they said they used many methods and 30 years research to make those maps, the director shared me that info.

I think there is no map regarding 1300s situation, but there is list Transylvanian settlements and the origin of their names [18] until 1300: 511 settlements in Transylvania (84% Hungarian name, 0.6% Romanian name (others Slavic or German)) new settlements 1300-1350: 820 (78% Hungarian, 4.4% Romanian name) new settlements 1350-1400: 426 (67% Hungarian, 8.7% Romanian name), these indicate the grow of Romanian population. In list of Papal Tithes from 1332–1337 there is only one settlement mentioned in the source as Romanian: Căprioara (Nationalcommunist Pascu estimated 2/3 Romanians in Transylvania based on that 1332 list, Hungarian historian Györffy, Kristó... also criticized Pascu’s estimation, they said that with such a method, it could be determined that 60% of Poland’s villages were inhabited by Orthodox population, because Pascu populated every settlements with Romanians which had no Catholic churches, however the absence of Catholic church was also true 60-70% of the villages in many western Hungarian counties)

Before 1300, in districts of Eastern Hungary, the contemporary sources mention around a 1000 Hungarian and Saxon villages, but only 6 clearly Romanian villages, but 5 of these (Enyed, Fenes, Fülesd, Illye, Szád) had Hungarian derived names, the name of Oláhtelek reveals that it was established in a Hungarian environment.[19] Oláhtelek (meaning Vlach-site in Hungarian) in Bihar county from 1238

That is why the Hungarian historiography dont accept the Daco-Roman theory, for the simply reason, because we have no sources (remember the British historian above) which would prove this but just speculations. Why do non-Romanian historians would accept a nationalistic Romanian theory which based on only by speculations like "always majority Romanians"? Hidden majority 1000 years long? Surviving (clothes, settlements) and feeding a majority population? We have many sources and archeology about many others in the region, but nothing about this allegedly always majority population, that is really strange.

Btw I can see the Rusyns in the 1495 map in the same place, just I can see more Rusyns in 1784, so it is no immigration, but local births, which is logically, that region was not affected too much by wars and everywhere in Europe was a high population grow since 1500 to 1800. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There are also many academic maps which show the devastated areas during the Ottoman wars (+immigrations, Swabians, etc), some examples:

http://mek.niif.hu/07100/07139/html/pic/05-001.jpg

https://m.blog.hu/di/digitori/image/01a_1.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

this is not Oxford level scholarship and @Super Dromaeosaurus is right to question the accuracy and ultimately the usefulness of such maps. Just because they have a nicer aspect than older maps that we both agreed should be deleted, similar to this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Regiuni_Rom%C3%A2ne%C5%9Fti.png

does not mean they should be in the article. Aristeus01 (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of what you say is not true. It is not like all scholarship outside of Romania rejects the Daco-Roman continuity theory. In fact I believe it is more predominant, specially in popular culture, when foreign media talk about us and our origins they almost never mention the immigration theory. From memory right now I can tell Dennis Deletant and Keith Hitchins as non-Romanian authors supporting the theory. I am also aware of archeological proof that can at the very least be supported for the Daco-Roman continuity, such as Roman coins and Christian sites in Transylvania in the 6th century or so. There is also the nice detail that there are no sources attesting the migration of a group twice as large as the Magyars who did get much attestation, which is curious considering it would've happened either in the Byzantine Empire or close to it which was a hub of historiography.

If I was better informed I'd better argue my point against these maps. Even if I know editors here act in good faith this is a very blatant one-sided POV and I don't know why should Romanian editors be refrained from acting with such similar little care for NPOV following this case. Super Ψ Dro 09:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super,

Still that is the mainstream academic Hungarian historiography, that map is in the international award winning modern National Atlas developed decades by lot of scholars and academic institutions (which tell a lot about the international reputation and quality), you cannot cenzor the Hungarian historiography regarding Hungarian history articles just because you dont like the Hungarian academic view.

Disputed by who? Do you have a different academic demography map regarding medieval Hungary? If yes you can post it. It also clearly written: “this is Hungarian academy view” = Hungarian point of view. Why it is so surprising that that is the Hungarian view if this is emphasized in the caption? It is well known the Hungarian view is different than the Romanian view. And the Daco-Roman theory and Romanian historian views also well presented in articles, should we also remove them or mark as disputed every single sentences because other view is different? You can see both views are presented in articles. I have never had problem to present both mainstream academic views in articles.

I dont know any academic sources from anywhere which dispute that the population of Hungary did not change over the centuries long devastative wars, three ways Hungarian-Habsburg-Ottoman, and the Ottoman controlled areas, battle, raid areas were more affected. Also nobody deny that Germans settlers was settled after the Ottoman wars. Do you know academic sources which deny these things? Then post them to the articles.

Btw nobody talk about medieval mass migration of Romanians, but many complicated events, that was a centuries long process and local population growth, why the number of them increased, it was also many migration waves in 1600s. (Of course it was emigrations also) Also nobody talk about “empty land”, I never ever heard this nonsense in Hungary, just many Daco-Roman theory followers put this in the mouth of Hungarians. Even my personal DNA shows vast amount and very close local Carpathian Basin archeogenetic sample matches from all ages from all previous folks because the newcomers always mixed with locals. And we have many archeology of previous cultures, even just 100,000 Avar graves just in today Hungary area.

All of those Daco-Roman theory “evidences” have counterarguments by scholars with different view, like archeologists found ten thousands Roman coins in Sweden which is far and was never part of the Roman Empire [20] [21], even in 1500 years old Chinese tomb [22] . I think you think to the Biertan Donarium, even Romanian scholars say that is Gothic looting item and no Christian things around the site [23] [24]: Romanian Madgearu wrote that item made in Italy: page 346 [25]. Regarding Christianity, why Germans and Byzantines baptized the Hungarians and not the allegedly “always majority local Christian Romanians”? Transylvanian Gyula (and Bulcsu) was baptized around 950 in Constantinope and building church in Alba Iulia. Later why the Pope asked the Hungarian king to baptize the Cumans and not the “always majority local Christian Romanians”? Cumania was the same land which became Wallachia.

What do you mean “popular culture”? That many Romanian users post all the time Daco-Roman things in internet? I supposed Wikipedia is based on academic sources.

I can quote a Romanian historian regarding the subject: Andrei Gandila, [26] page 101-103"The nationalistic discourse dominating the last communist decades in Eastern Europe distorted not only the interpretation of the archaeological evidence discussed in the previous chapter, but also views on the development of Christianity. Most studies shared a common agenda: to demonstrate the cultural continuity of the Daco-Roman population across centuries of vicissitude when the descendants of the Roman colonists had to deal with numerous barbarian invasions, while struggling to maintain their connection to the Roman world and assimilate the newcomers into their superior culture." ......"The end result of the entwined processes of Romanization and Christianization was the Romanian ethnogenesis, the formation of a Christian and Neo-Latin-speaking nation which managed to preserve its Roman identity against all odds. Despite some criticism, such theories developed in the 1970s and 1980s in the context of national-communism remain firmly entrenched in historiography to this day."

You can find scholars who support Daco-Roman theory, however I know lot of foreign scholars even Romanian scholars who not. You can see the articles, already many scholars opinions are provided.

Dennis Deletant is a Romanian-British, he has harsh ciritic about that nationalcommunist understanding regarding Gesta Hungarorum. [27] "More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant-General Dr Ilie Ceausescu, brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Gelou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who "succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities" population on the border, mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory. Such abberations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Gelou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of the mythos."

Deletant also present both viewpoints: "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"

[28] Here you posted a photoshopped map which based on the old nationalcommunist 1980 map [29], it is the modern academy view in Romania? It is obviously a fake map as we can see the border of Kingdom of Hungary at the Tisza river, in all international and Hungarian history maps, the medieval borders of Hungary was never the Tisza river. International the historical maps of Europe: [12][11] I do not see that border of Hungary would be at the Tisza river between between 900-1400. Why do you post a map where the borders of Hungary is clearly not true?

The Gesta Hungarorum is debated by historians, making a history map from this is cleary a not accurate. Menmarot is cleary written as Bulgarian in Gesta, so hard to understand how he became a "Romanian king" as many Daco-Romanian followers say. There are many modern academic views regarding Gesta Hungarorum, but making a state of Menmarot is rather a romantic fantasy than the reality as I quoted the Romanian-British Deletant in the subject.

I dont think that map which you posted with fake Hungarian Tisza borders and romantic Menmarot state is part of any modern atlas which got international award and recognization like that atlas where is that 1495 demographic Hungarian map.

International Cartographic Conference website, that Hungarian National Atlas won the 1st award: https://icaci.org/icc2019/ OrionNimrod (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I deliberately show an another Romanian historian, Catalin Nicolae Popa, another ciritcs about Daco things:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/archaeological-dialogues/article/significant-past-and-insignificant-archaeologists-who-informs-the-public-about-their-national-past-the-case-of-romania/7786EFCCD90209606CE18602A785E71F

https://www.academia.edu/34705821/Late_Iron_Age_archaeology_in_Romania_and_the_politics_of_the_past

Romanian-British Deletant: "The use of the word theory can be justified in the absence of convincing archaeological and historical evidence to support the case"

British Martyn Rady: "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."

Many Romanian historians have harsh critics regarding Daco-Roman theory, while 100% Hungarian historiography dont accept the Daco-Roman theory. To making the 1495 Hungarian map the scholars used many tax inventory estates documents to determine the population, 1500 is not the blurry dark medieval times. If nationalcommunist Romanian historians claimed "alway majority Romanians" in Transylvania 500 years ago, why do you think Hungarian historiography should accept this mandatory if they have no sources for that? Just because a nationalistic speculation? OrionNimrod (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

An ethnic map, of the year 1495, that goes village by village, is EXTREMELY WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and I request a concise explanation on how have these authors determined for example that Vețel (Vecel, the commune to the west of Deva) was Hungarian-populated, and also why are there big white areas in Transylvania, Transcarpathia, Vojvodina and Slovakia. Were villages only with a certain density of population chosen? It kind of just looks quite convenient, because if this was taken from the names and surnames of people at tax inventories, they could have applied the same technique even if it there was only 10 people there. Magyarized names are also not taken into account, Hunyadi János looks like a Hungarian name (I don't know the etymology of "Hunyadi") despite having a Romanian father, Voyk, whose name was, if I recall correctly, of Cuman origin. Romanians also have Slavic names. Were all people with Slavic and Cuman names in Transylvania counted as Romanians? Only in Kunság were people with Cuman names counted as Cumans? This is what I am asking for. There must surely be an explanation of the employed methodology. Also, this should happen at Talk:History of Transylvania#POV map, not here. Super Ψ Dro 18:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super, I think you could contact the academy and ask how they made the researches, I know they used many kind of methods and old documents. That map is not by village by village, this is far from that precisity. But I can ask the same how do you know that Vețel was not Hungarian area in 1495? Because it is your preconception that it should be not Hungarian populated 500 years ago?

White areas means uninhabited regions, if you see geography maps, you can see those white regions are matching with mountain, marsh, big forest regions. In the 1910 map those regions are also white (Regions with population density below 20 persons/km² ): [30] I think those modern census maps also not so accurate where the big uninhabited mountains where 10 people lived carefully colored Romanian while the cities with 50,000 Hungarians colored just a small dot, but for example this map was made by the 1910 census, and this is more precise because zoomable and show the population density https://atlo.team/anyanyelviterkep/

That map in that big National Atlas is still the very mainstream academic Hungarian historiography made by the most prestigious Hungarian academy with collaboration many universities and institutions, which cannot be cenzored regarding the Hungarian history. And the caption clearly say "this is Hungarian made map and this is the Hungarian academic viewpoint". I also dont know how can I supervise scholars. But if you have different modern academic view, you can present it. I can say again the Romanian viewpoint is already presented in the articles, honestly in the previous years it was almost exclusively the Romanian viewopoint presented in many articles, and still if you see French or many other Wikipedia, there are many unsourced contents with the nationalcommunist story telling like Hungary did not conquer Transylvania until 1300. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Vețel is shown as Romanian (together with Deva and the rest of villages surrounding it) in 1784. It is now overwhelmingly Romanian. That is why I put it as an example. If it turns out the methodology for making the map was not disclosed by the Hungarian academic institutions that created it I will start a formal process to get them removed as it will show an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim without open-access backing for verification. But I really doubt that's the case, I am not expecting it, that would be extremely unprofessional. I am imagining the explanation is located here [31]. Of course it is in Hungarian so I cannot read it. Can you find this information? Super Ψ Dro 20:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes in that document they are providing some explanations, in English also.

I do not know why the main Hungarian academy with collaboration many universities and institutions is not enough good verification, morover the international response was very success of that atlas as you can see regarding the awards, perhaps the Chinese academy will know it better than the local Hungarian one about Hungary?

The full Hungarian historiography held that view which cannot be exceptional. Follow this logic we can say the Daco-Roman theory is exceptional because no scholars in Hungary accept that. But both views presented in the articles emphasizing who is the source. Dont forget the caption clearly say "that is the Hungarian view", and it is not possible to deny the existence of the Hungarian academic view. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Deva, I suppose they had sources and research that Deva had Hungarian population that is why they marked as Hungarian in 1495 and they have sources that 300 years later Deva was Romanian populated so that is why they marked as Romanian. In the explanation document, they say and held that view, what is the 100% Hungarian academic view that the centuries long wars devastated the Hungarian population. Btw I do not know any view which say the Ottoman wars had no impact on the Hungarian population. A separate chapter about the population changes, this is also the mainstream academic view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Hungary#Ethnic_changes_under_Ottoman_rule

If you compare the 1495 and 1784 maps, you can see the Croatian population also decreased where the war zone was. It is also not a secret that Serbs, Slovaks, Croatians, Germans were settled to the depopulated areas by Habsburgs, but even before Pal Kinizsi settled about 60,000 Serbs in the southern area. Szentendre city north from Budapest (very far from WW1 Serbia) was called the "Serb city" because many Serbs moved there after Turkish wars Great Migrations of the Serbs, (Serb restaurant, Serb chatedral... [32] [33], I think is hard to image but north from Budapest there ae Orthodox Serbs Cyrillic texts, [34] [35]). That village is about still 40% Croatian next to Sopron https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kópháza close to Vienna very far from Croatia. This Szarvas city in the center of Great Hungarian Plain far from Slovak area became a big Slovak city after the Ottoman wars. Even Buda was repopulated by Germans after the Turkish wars. Or this region also: Swabian Turkey Who deny these facts? And we can also see all those things in the map. 16-1700s is not the dark ages, I suppose the authors of the map know well by data which regions where repopulated or where the population changed by devastation, replacement or by birthrate or any various factors. That map is based an academic researches by many scholars, I suppose after 30 years research they know better than me these things of certain areas. You know well even just since 1920 many Hungarian majority cities have Romanian majority now, that is not a big surprise that populations are changing by circumstances and constant. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of the migration of Serbs, likely it did have influence in the ethnic composition of the area, but mapping this change in a village-by-village detail will also need heavy explanation. It is also curious by the way that we know of migration of Serbs (and also Germans, Cumans and Ossetians) but not of Romanians in historical documents.

I am reading on page 20 of the document. It kind of has a logic as if I was talking to someone on the street. It is implying Romanians in Transylvania became majoritary because they lived in mountainous sheltered areas and were not affected by wars in the plains were Hungarians lived. I've heard something similar from the Romanian side too, that Romanians survived Slavic migrations because they hided in the Carpathians and the Apuseni mountains. It sounds logical, but is history and the history of demographics really this simple?

I see several figures. It is said 6,785 settlements had a Hungarian majority in 1495 and that 4,418 did in 1784. It is said that migration of Romanians split the Hungarians into two ethnic blocs (smaller being Székelys). It's the first time I hear this. It is said there were 340,000 Slavs, 200,000 Germans and 180,000 Romanians in 1495. Super Ψ Dro 22:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

On page 18 it is said the 1784 map is based on a census by Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor. After a quick search I couldn't find if the census included language and/or ethnicity. The 1495 map is based on a tax summary. Per Royal treasurer (Kingdom of Hungary) it must have been that of Sigismund Ernuszt under Vladislaus II. The following is said about the methodology: The authors applied indirect methods (e.g. linguistic analysis of tax-payers’ names, geographic names at the end of the Middle Ages) and studied settlement gazetteers and monographs from the late 18th century in order to identify the majority ethnic group by settlements. That looks more solid. I still find concerning that there is no village-by-village data. Super Ψ Dro 22:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super, and OrionNimrod!

I think if there is a map that is internationally recognized and even awarded by historians, that should be sufficient to remain. However, if we truly believe that we are above scientific academies and only maps with publicly accessible research processes should be on Wikipedia, then so be it, but then I think 99.9% of the maps on Wikipedia should be removed.

Again, I believe a map issued by a scientific academy, which is also award-winning and accepted by the international historical community, should be allowed to stay. I'm sure academics and those who awarded it know what they are doing. If it meets the standards of experts, then I think it should be usable on Wikipedia in my opinion. CriticKende (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, it's not the map but the atlas in which it was first included that was awarded. The map itself hasn't been discussed a lot (or at all?) outside of Hungary and Hungarian-language academia from what I see. Super Ψ Dro 21:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

But if the atlas won an award, then obviously what’s in it must be good too, right? :D CriticKende (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That award of the atlas is just an extra merit, but the key thing that is the modern Hungarian academic view by their researches (the map made by sources not by origin theories), so it cannot be cenzored. And if academic Romanian historians talk about different things about population history it also cannot be cenzored. Both opinions should be presented with right attribution. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Norden1990, I've rewritten the captions in two of the four articles. In one it was pretty neutral. Here [36] it becomes more difficult. I am opposed to leaving the maps without textual attribution. In any case they are quite awkwardly placed within a table and they are also small and hard to see there. Maybe we could make a gallery section? Super Ψ Dro 20:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation, I think this is a satisfactory solution for everyone. I don't think the maps are needed in the table, their inclusion there is negligible. Their inclusion into a gallery would be a good idea. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment (RfC)

Should the following map be considered reliable? Super Ψ Dro 23:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• The dispute above is regarding this map [37]. It is a village-by-village ethnic map of the Kingdom of Hungary in 1495. In historiography of the area there are two leading opposing theories on the origin of the Romanians: that they are native (descendants of Romanized Dacians) and that they are immigrants (from the south, in the Balkans). This map completely accepts the second theory, suggesting that the Hungarians were a majority in Transylvania in this time. It is a map by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. In my opinion this does not mean they are necessarily impartial. Here at page it is said the map is based on toponomy and on the names of tax-payers based on an account by Sigismund Ernuszt.

In my opinion it is very speculative to create an ethnic map with such detail on the year 1495. The map also includes big white areas predominantely on non-Hungarian ethnic areas. The case of the "Red Map" is famous, it is an ethnic map both produced in and about the 20th century if I am not mistaken which was produced so as to visually show the Hungarians as a more predominant ethnic group and minorities as less predominant (read more here [38]). This doesn't seem too different to me. I don't see why couldn't the two methods be applied on sparsely populated settlements (I am assuming the areas are white because they had low population density). There is apparently no disclosed data on the ethnic composition of the individual villages. We only have the initial methodology and the final result of the interpretation of the sources. I can think of situations in which the methodology could contradict itself. What if the toponomy of one place indicated Hungarian origin but the tax-payers' names indicated another? We are not told what would happen, and since we are dealing with thousands of settlements it is reasonable to think this situation could be possible. What should we do? I am willing to remove the neutrality tags I added if consensus is found that the map is reliable. Super Ψ Dro 00:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I can only agree with you when you say "In my opinion it is very speculative to create an ethnic map with such detail on the year 1495."

I don't think the map should be included even with caveats about it's reliability.

That said - if there is a consensus to include it would need to be clearly described as speculative. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No, there are numerous problems with it:

First, as @Super Dromaeosaurus mentioned, it follows the style of the discredited Red Map, leaving entire areas in the disputed territories completely blank while colouring areas that should be blank in the Pannonian Plain at lower opacity - hence a double standard is applied regarding Hungarian-non Hungarian ethnicity.

Second, at no given time were the ethnicities of the Kingdom of Hungary separated in such clear lines - an unbiased map should show or mention this. Neither was ethnicity as steeply divided as it is today, with numerous cases of nobles and their subjects declaring themselves descendants of some conquering Hungarian hero when in reality they spoke and were Slovak, for example.

Connected to the second point, the map is created based on the taxing methods. Taxes in the 15th century Kingdom of Hungary were not "ethnic", they were a complex and complicated system which represented more often the status of the one who collected the tax rather than the nature of the population taxed. Therefore, a Romanian community taxed by Hungarian noble might appear (might, because we are not really sure how the map authors dealt with such details) as Hungarian. Case in hand:

" In the fifteenth century, however, the communitas Wolacorum in Máramaros was absorbed into the county organization through the merger of the offices of voevode and ispán after which it lost its separate identity. For its part, the Romanian community in Bereg found it hard to resist the authority of the local castellans of Munkács (Munkačevo), who, by the end of the fifteenth century, had succeeded in reducing the voevode’s jurisdiction to no more than a handful of villages" - Nobility, land and service in medieval Hungary by Martin Rady.

In my opinion the map depicting 15th century demography has some major red flags. Aristeus01 (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, in my opinion the maps should be removed, as it suffers from serious reliability issues.

Alternatively, the 1495, 1784 and the Red Maps could remain only if they are described in the style of "A speculative ethnic map (...) by the Hungarian (...)" with all their accuracy issues mentioned.

For example, the Red Map has the following description at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Hungary#History:

The Red Map.[95][96] Ethnic map of the Hungary proper publicized by the Hungarian delegation. Regions with population density below 20 persons/km2[97] are left blank and the corresponding population is represented in the nearest region with population density above that limit. The vibrant, dominant red color was deliberately chosen to mark Hungarians while the light purple color of the Romanians, who were already the majority in the whole of Transylvania back then, is shadow-like.[98]

It should have the same description at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Transylvania#Demographics_and_historical_research

Similary the 1495 and 1784 should mention the issue of "leaving entire areas in the disputed territories completely blank while colouring areas that should be blank in the Pannonian Plain at lower opacity".

A biased map could be shown as long as all the inherent bias is properly explained to the reader. TheThorLat (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the Romanian users would like to remove the Hungarian viewpoint. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the Hungarian users would like to not have the accuracy issues of the Hungarian viewpoint mentioned. TheThorLat (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It was by default mentioned that is by Hungarian academy, that is Wikipedia:No original research to supervise academic sources by own thought. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Attribution is not a shield for allowing any kind of material on pages. We are allowed to question sources and WP:DEPRECATE them. I don't see why would it be any different with maps. Super Ψ Dro 20:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Aristeus01, regarding the white areas, it is much proper to show the uninhabited regions, big forests, mountains, marshes as blank. In the Romanian maps, they color carefully as Romanian every uninhabited areas with 10 people but 50,000 Hungarians in a city just presented in a small dot like in this map: [39] which method is obviously biased as visual aspect. So this is more proper: [40] And this is much better where we can see the density: [41]from this modern interactive map, which based on that 1910 census https://atlo.team/anyanyelviterkep/ That is your personal opinion that you think every Hungarian made maps is "discredited" and you think you can supervise the Hungarian academy and all Hungarian scholars because you have different viewpoint. Could you tell me which academic degree or professional experience you have in the topic to discredit Hungarian scholars? That is not a problem that you have a different view, but you have no right to censor the other academic viewpoints. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super, there are also many contemporary sources for Romanian migration in 1600s and contemporary sources which say that certain settlements had before Hungarian or Saxon population and now it has Romanian population. The Hungarian viewpoint well explained in that huge academic History of Transylvania book: https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/index.html I think the question is not the Daco-Roman or the immigration theory, it is well known that Hungarian and Romanian viewponts are different, so I think not need to debate about this.

It is impossible to remove the mainstream Hungarian academy view (which is published by the top end Hungarian academy, many decades works, many scholars and institutions participated, and finally got international award the atlas). Follow this logic can wen remove all Hungarian views and exclusively present just the Romanian view? Or follow this logic can we remove all Romanian views because this is total disputed by the full Hungarian view?

I think it is good to clearly present in the caption "that is the Hungarian view, and ethnic research according to the Hungarian Academy", it is impossible to censor the mainstream Hungarian academic vew regarding of own Hungarian history, just because the view of an another country is different or people from that country dont like the view of the Hungarian historiography, you can just present the other academic view also. And we can see in articles both views are presented.

And still that is the mainstream Hungarian view that the Ottoman wars changed the population of Hungary and depopulated many areas, I think many foreign sources also say that. https://countrystudies.us/hungary/13.htm (Stephen R. Burant, ed. Hungary: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989.)

It is explained what does mean the white area: https://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/karpat-pannon2015/terkepek/1495_1.html What is disputed with this? That in the top of the mountains was not settlements? That map made by scholars... do we want know it better? That is simple geography, see the mountain and forest areas same which areas marked as blank: [42] In 2011 maps, still there are many uninhabited areas: [43] Dont forget the population in the Carpathian Basin was about 4 million in 1500 and now it is more than 20 million. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"it is much proper to show the uninhabited regions, big forests, mountains, marshes as blank." - it could be if the method is applied to all ethnicities and areas equally. In this case we can see a large part of Bács-Kiskun County shaded, probably meaning sparsely populated by Hungarians, but the area of Apuseni is blank. Therefore the method is applied with a bias and it defeats the claim of scientific objectivity. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Aristeus01 That is the 1910 census, computer generated modern map made by those old data, the cartographers know the method how generate the result like this https://atlo.team/anyanyelviterkep/ because it is zoomable, you can see the sparsely populated regions had not much settlements, or if you check them manually by name, those minor settlements are have just some houses. But I think you like those maps where the uninhabted mountains are carefully colored as Romanian and the big Hungarian populated cities are just a very small patches [44] For example this city (Nagyvárad) is carefully colored as Romanian with almost 100% Hungarian population Oradea#Demographics, so you can worry about these 150 years old maps too which are in Wikipedia articles if you worry about scientific objectivity. You "scientific biasless" obession also amazing regarding Hungarian history after you claimed the non existed "King Alexander IV" as Hungarian king (we have no any Alexander) or when you claimed that Croatia+East Austria had full of Romanian settlements between 800-1400... OrionNimrod (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I see a lot of PA here but no clear explanation of how the "science" behind this map works. Could you kindly ask the Academy to explain for example why below Zilah there is a large white spot although that is the border between the city and the village of Buciumi, attested in documents 4 years before the date on the map?

Close up on Zylah

Aristeus01 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

In any case, sources or related material should be verifiable by users. That users would need to send private emails to an institution each time an issue arises with a certain material is completely impractical. The institution should disclose all its methods and results for each village. We are talking about thousands of villages throughout hundreds of years. The research presumably took 30 years. How can all of that be compressed into a few pages? Super Ψ Dro 20:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Aristeus01. I found the science behind this map works in the link provided by OrionNimrod. They used indirect methods such as linguistic analysis of tax-payers' names and geographic names at the end of the Middle Ages for the 1495 map. And indirect methods such as linguistic analysis of tax-payers' names for the 1784 maps. This is described by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences itself.

I believe the most reliable thing we can do, given the map's questionable reliability. Is simply state that this map is a "speculation" and aptly have the researching method described. Simply offering both the Hungarian histography and Romanian histography versions, with specific mention that they are speculation (as opposed to universally agreed theories) and have the methodology described for both of them. TheThorLat (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The 1784 map uses the census of Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor, which doesn't seem to have included ethnicity or language. Super Ψ Dro 12:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Participants!

Of course, academics of neighbouring countries of Hungary would likely prefer to mark more space as ethnic. (It would be good to know if they actually have results on the ethnography of the Kingdom of Hungary that are different and would create a dispute worth debating.)

But this is a map made based on evidence by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Wikipedia users can dislike it due to its methods, but this is not ground for removing it. It is not sinful to distinguish almost unpopulated areas as such; this is common in Hungarian cartography.

Nor is the map irrelevant or unhelpful. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And if other sources disagree with it, it's not authoritative enough to counter other claims, so we put it as an attributed opinion (assuming id does not get left out as wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was always emphasized in the image caption that is the Hungarian view and map made by the Hungarian Academy of Science, like many things in the article "according to Romanian historiography" or "according to Hungarian historiography" or "according to XY", that is why I dont understand the problem, because following this logic we could remove every other academic things from the article, because we can find always things what users dont like. It is strange that some Romanian users want to censor the own academic research and view of a full country, and remove the existence of the mainstream Hungarian historiography regarding their own Hungarian history, just because they dont like the Hungarian historiography which uniformly dont accept the romantic nationalistic Daco-Roman Romanian theory which based on speculations than sources. To make that National Atlas, many scholars worked decades long, many researches, many academic institutions participated and also won international awards in international conference, despite they think the Hungarian scholars are not enough good scholars, I would be curious which academic degree or professional experience in the field have those Wikipedia users. Wikipedia should based on modern academic sources not by own researches. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

An editor's qualifications are irrelevant, what they should be using is third-party RS, not their own expertise, nor should a lack of it be any reason to reject the edits or opinions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We can use it, as a claim, not as a fact. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven

What is your opinion about this recently added map? [45] File:FormatiuniPoliticeRomanestiSecolele IX XIII.jpg That is the given source [46] it looks like not an RS modern academic work. That is a Photoshopped user made map based on this nationalcommunist map from 1980 [47] where we can see a Romania country between 800-1400, if we see international Europe maps, you will not find this "Romania" country in the historical maps of Europe: [11][12][13] That 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 between the 800-1400 century. Nationalcommunist histography also claimed Transylvania was not part of Hungary until 1300. However international maps show different things.

The nationalcommunist dictator Caecescu also celebrated in 1980 the anniversary of Romania in North Korea style and claimed himself of the incarnation of Dacian king Burebista.[48]

Morover in that Photoshopped map we can see country of Menumorut and other fantasy characters as Romanian countries, those fantasy characters are from Gesta Hungarorum, (btw Menumorut is Bulgarian in the story but he became a Romanian king by the nationalcommunist historiograpy), of course we cannot see these fantasy countries in international history maps.

Dennis Deletant is a Romanian-British historian has harsh ciritic about this nationalcommunist understanding regarding Gesta Hungarorum. [29] "More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant-General Dr Ilie Ceausescu, brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Gelou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who "succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities" population on the border, mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory. Such abberations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Gelou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of the mythos."

I beleive we are living in the 21st century, not in the nationalcommunist times with obvious history falsifications. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe we do not take sides, and put both sides claims (as attributed claims) in the article. As to maps, as there is some dispute maybe leave all of them out and let the text speak for them. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Making maps out of each other's most extreme claims is not useful as many readers will just look at the maps and take their information with them. Super Ψ Dro 20:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• This is what an old ethnic map should look like [49] [50]. Simple and vague. It doesn't claim accuracy to the smallest detail. The sloppiness of the borders and lack of details also lets it open for interpretation to the observer to assume there might have been small ethnic enclaves or other kind of small details while still giving the observer a general idea. Of course though, nobody disputes Armenians were a dominant population in eastern Anatolia and Cilicia in the past, so those maps are also devoid of the controversy factor present here. Super Ψ Dro 20:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  That map is a modern Hungarian academic map, represent the Hungarian historiography regarding Hungary which is the standard academic mainstream Hungarian view and not extreme, it is also marked that this is the Hungarian view. That map is RS, and that is the original research that you would like to cenzor and supervise scholarship from other country because you dont like it. It is clearly marked that is the Hungarian claim. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

A village-by-village ethnic map of 1495 is excessively speculative. That it represents the Hungarian POV does not fix this issue. Explanation on the making of the map is short and users here are raising potential contradictions to what the map says. I think you should try and look to see if there is a longer explanation somewhere. Because I am still half-skeptic of the fact that they made this map and put two pages as the explanation. Maybe this is why the map has not been discussed outside Hungarian academic circles. Super Ψ Dro 21:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That is far from that presicion, that is not village by village maps, however much detailed than other maps. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The 1495 map we're discussing is exactly village-by-village. One can even see different colors within each municipality/commune, as it addresses the smallest possible unit. Super Ψ Dro 21:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The authors are well respected scholars, with more academic memberships, many decades experience in the field in deep knowledge in the settlements, I dont think how can they explain you the long and deep and various researches how they got the result. I think we need to get similar level scholar experince to supervise and feedback them.

Even I showed you some fast examples regarding the 1784 map, where everyting was matching where the Serbs, Germans, Croats, Slovaks lived at that time.

And still this is the RS mainstream Hungarian historiography in every works that the Hungarian population changed due to the long wars and internal migration, you cannot deny the existence of this historiography regarding their own country. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

So what are those units marked by continuous line? They do not seem to be villages or properties as many of them are left white. Aristeus01 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super, [51] You cannot deny that is the Hungarian claim, there are hundred of Hungarian and foreign sources which know that the Hungarian population devastated during Ottoman wars, do you deny this devastation and destruction of Hungarian settlements by Ottomans? The destruction of many Hungarian settlements by Ottomans is fact, or do you deny this? Also it is fact that Serbs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans was settled on certain regions, which I showed above, do you deny this fact? What is these things if not the ethnic pattern change? OrionNimrod (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Clearly in the marked source, the ethnic pattern changed because of the wars and migrations: https://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/karpat-pannon2015/pdf/Changing_Ethnic_Pattern_Carpatho_Pannonian_Area_2015.pdf How can be "allegedly" if this info in the marked source? OrionNimrod (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is common practice in Wikipedia for cases that might be controversial. The word is simply continuing the atributtion. The caption states who made the author but it must also explain their rationale and not present it as a fact. It can be worded differently if necessary but there's not a whole lot different to do. The map doesn't only show alterations in the distribution of Germans and Serbs. The caption was also claiming Transylvania stopped having a Hungarian ethnic majority from 1495 to 1784 due to wars. Contemporary sources do not give us clear proof of this. Super Ψ Dro 21:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super, if you interested I reccomend this big Transylvania book to understand the Hungarian view https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/index.html and we have many sources about Transylvanian populaton change, like many wars in Transylvania, and migrations in 1600s, 1700s, also there are many sources which say how former Hungarian populated settlemend populated now by Romanians. But it does not matter if we make a talk about it, it is well known Hungarian and Romanian view is different. So we need present both academic views. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Btw why do you suppose that if they know how Serbs, Slovaks, Germans settled on certain areas, that they have no researches of the Transylvanian area? OrionNimrod (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus, can you explain how is the map excessively speculative? Don't the methods used by the academy (e.g. inhabitants' names) allow village-by-village reconstruction of the country's ethnography? Gyalu22 (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Aristeus01 had noted the possible problems with the use of tax-payer names. The names and the ethnicity they have been attributed are not disclosed. Out of thousands or possibly millions of names there must surely be cases in which other scholars or institutions could disagree arguing their point but that is not possible because data is not disclosed. We are not told what could happen in case data is contradictory, e.g. what if a toponym indicates a certain origin but tax-payers indicate another, or are evenly split in half. There are many white areas in minority-populated places, and Aristeus01 noted one case in which a village that had already been mentioned for the first time four years prior is marked as white. The map attempts to reconstruct the ethnic composition of an entire kingdom to the smallest detail for a time period over 500 years ago without any actual sources confirming without a doubt ethnic and/or linguistic affiliation. Other scholars and institutions have not attempted to reconstruct village-by-village maps for periods of time long ago nor has this map received much attention outside Hungarian academic circles. It makes an exceptional claim with weak, undisclosed sources and methods which have not been repeated by others. I again note that the use of white areas seems pretty much done in bad faith and to prove the POV pushed by the authors. Super Ψ Dro 12:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's good that all maps got removed. Better this than using speculative information. Alternatively, if speculative information should be used, it should be clearly mentioned that it is speculative and the method used for the said speculation. TheThorLat (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Aristeus01 Please contact with the academy for explanation https://mta.hu/english OrionNimrod (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

So you don't know either. Never mind, @OrionNimrod, thanks for the link. I'll keep searching perhaps I can find an explanation in the sources. Btw, did you know that of those source all but one were written during and before the Communist period? Aristeus01 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Why should I know? I am not 40 years experience in the field and deep knowledge on the settlement structure. In Wiki we just publish the academic works, but not we create them. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Btw I see a long mountain in the satelit map next to Zilah which is marked white in the map which you showed [52] OrionNimrod (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

not quite a mountain properly, but a high range called Meseș (Meszes). The top of it is quite steep and indeed not prime real estate, but it is only 3-5 km wide so my question is if such minuscule areas are marked as uninhabited what about the field outside the average village? Why is that marked as inhabited? Aristeus01 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you can contact with the authors for these questions, their name provided along the map. That map is not my work. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Participants!

I believe this this discussion could go on forever, which each user questioning the authenticity of the other map into eternity.

And this is for good reason, because there is in fact no historical consensus. And all maps are in fact speculations, different methods were used (that we should mention) but the fact of the matter is we do not know what happened. Historians disagree on what happened, we are not going to solve the long question here on Wikipedia. Nor is it our job to.

Our job as Wikipedians is simply to provide accurate information for the reader. Given that we have a subject with no academic consensus, I believe the most fair thing to do to our readers is:

(a) Reach a compromise, the maps with with caveats about their reliability remain, but at the same time they are clearly described as speculative, at the end of the day none of those maps are based on a census, so at the end of the day it is objectively a speculation. It is a field without academic consensus, thus the word "speculation" is necessary to make it clear it's not fact but theory. It's a speculative map.

(b) One my argue "but this map's research is objectively better", "no, this map's research is more accurate/reliable", and the discussion keeps going. Which is why the 2nd condition should be - the method/basis used for the making of the given maps is mentioned in a specific not general manner. The method itself should be stated, rather than simply saying "research". Of course there are going to be people arguing "this method is biased", "no, this method is biased", but again, this is already what historians do as there is no academic consensus. If we play the "which method is more biased" or "which map is more reliable" we can talk here for years.

Thus, the reader is offered the information that the given map is speculative and the method in making the given speculative map. And I believe that is fair in a field where there is no academic consensus.

If you're looking for a factual map of Transylvania that is based on undeniable/uninterpretable evidence before the 1850s census and that all historians, both but not limited to Hungarians and Romanians, agree upon, it doesn't exist.

In my humble opinion, we should keep a neutral point of view and treat the maps like the rest of the article, both versions are mentioned, stated as "speculative" since that is what they are and the reader should know that for both of them, and with the method for the making of each map described. This way neither the Hungarian viewpoint or the Romanian viewpoint is removed, but no viewpoint is mentioned as an "objective fact" but rather as a speculation based on this ___ method. [53] (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You cannot compare those maps in term of quality, the Romanian map is just a romantic nationalistic fantasy map which claim the slogan that "2000+ years old" Romania should be between Tisza-Dneister, that map claim that Gelou, Glad and Bulgarian Menmarot had a Romanian kingdom, those are fiction characters in centuries later written medieval Gesta Hungarorum. Those characters and states are unknown by archeology and any other sources. Morover an blatant history falsification on many similar map Romanian nationalistic maps where the border of Hungary is the Tisza river until 1400. Morover I dont see that mystic big Romania between 800-1400 in international history maps. Perhaps is this the modern academic Romanian view today as it was in the nationalcommunist times that Hungary border was the Tisza until 1400? I dont think so. That is why king Saint Ladislaus of Hungary founded and buried in this city far from Tisza in 1090 because until 1400 it was not part of Hungary: Oradea? :D

The Hungarian demographic map made by many academic experts, many institutions, decades long researches, deep knowledge of settlement structure, (morover not in the dark ages) it is derogatory to label that map as “simple speculation”, they used many method of researches, estimations also. And this was always and still this is the academic mainstream unified Hungarian historiography that the wars changed the ethnic composition of Hungary, which cannot be denied that this is the Hungarian academic view. Also it is fact that vast amount Hungarian settlement destroyed and many population settled in some regions like above I showed examples, Serbs, Croats, Germans, Slovaks, this is also fact and cannot be denied, those are no speculations. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about that we can debate this into eternity. The Romanian map is based on primary sources mentioning Romanians in those regions such as Gesta Hungarorum, Diploma of the Knights of St. John, Primary Chronicle, Long Life of Saint Gerard, and the Alexiad.

The reliability of Gesta Hungarorum is pretty much like everything about Transylvania, debate. The fact that you, naturally being a Hungarian, consider it a work of fiction does not change the fact. As you yourself said previously "You cannot cenzor the Hungarian historiography regarding Hungarian history articles just because you dont like the Hungarian academic view", I raise you: "You cannot cenzor the Romanian historiography regarding Romanian history articles just because you dont like the Romanian academic view".

"I dont think so", think again. The map had a source to the current Romanian school curriculum mentioning the primary sources used for the local autonomies on the map. Once again, just because you dont like the Romanian academic view...

Regarding "that mystic big Romania between 800-1400" either you exaggerate for dramatic effect or genuinely misunderstood the map. Either way, doesn't matter. Look at the map again as you misunderstood the map.

The Hungarian demographic map was made by Hungarian historians who had an interest in making Hungary look good. The Romanian autonomies map was made by a Romanian historian who had an interested in making Romania look good.

At least while I personally believe the Romanian version to be correct don't go around thinking "the Hungarian map is a blatant history falsification" while "the Romanian map was made by experts who knew what they were doing". I like to believe I'm better than that and understand that both have their point of view and used different methods.

The fact that you personally believe the Romanian map is unreliable because "just a romantic nationalistic fantasy" but the Hungarian map is reliable because "many academic experts, many institutions, decades long researches" says more about you than it says about the maps.

The Hungarian map, just like the Romanian one, whether you like it or not, are simple speculations. And the reason for that is simple - at the end of the day none of those maps are based on a census, so at the end of the day it is objectively a speculation. The fact that you consider it derogatory to label it as “simple speculation” is simply not impressive, you can consider it however you would like, doesn't change what it is.

Obviously, you consider the Hungarian method "made by many academic experts, many institutions" based on indirect methods such as linguistic analysis of tax-payers' names and geographic names at the end of the Middle Ages, more reliable than the Romanian method "a romantic nationalistic fantasy map" based on primary sources such as Gesta Hungarorum, Diploma of the Knights of St. John, Primary Chronicle, Long Life of Saint Gerard, and the Alexiad. (Or do you? If you were are proud of the Hungarian method, as you claim to be, why were you in favor of removing the mentioning of the method from the article and simply saying "research" instead? are you ashamed by it? anyway, that's beside the point). To which I go back to what I said in the post you replied to "Historians disagree on what happened, we are not going to solve the long question here on Wikipedia. Nor is it our job to". Our jobs is simply to provide both versions to the reader, you should not get your personal feelings get into the way of making an objective article.

Regarding this: "And this was always and still this is the academic mainstream unified Hungarian historiography that the wars changed the ethnic composition of Hungary, which cannot be denied that this is the Hungarian academic view. Also it is fact that vast amount Hungarian settlement destroyed and many population settled in some regions like above I showed examples, Serbs, Croats, Germans, Slovaks, this is also fact and cannot be denied, those are no speculations". Well it is in fact denied, and it is in fact speculation. I understand that this is not denied by Hungarian histography. And that's the key thing, by Hungarian histography. This doesn't mean that there is an academic consensus for it outside Hungary.

Using your own logic, one could equally point out that: "And this was always and still this is the academic mainstream unified Romanian historiography that the Romanians were conquered by the Hungarians and gradually lost their status, which cannot be denied that this is the Romanian academic view. Also it is fact that vast amount Romanian settlements were seized by the Hungarians and given as land to the Catholic Church like Carta, Turda, Zarand, Bihor, Maramures, this is also fact and cannot be denied, those are no speculations".

Oh, and if you bring the "not all Romanian historians believe in the Daco-Romanian Continuity Theory" neither do all Hungarian Historians believe in the Immigration Theory, except they are not very popular in Hungary for obvious reasons, Andras Magyari for example.

You see what I mean that we could argue forever? this was my point to begin with.

I am not going to continue the discussion as I find it rather useless, as I said in the original point, if professional historians couldn't get to a consensus, neither can we.

My vote is on either:

- Leave all maps but clearly described as speculative with the method/basis used for the making of the given maps is mentioned in a specific not general manner. As described in the previous post. In other to present both sides' point of view fairly.

- Remove the maps. TheThorLat (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Just a side remark, the Long Life of St Gerard does not mention Vlachs/Romanians. It mentions Aitun, a quite obviously nomadic chieftain who had recently converted to Chistianity. The interpretation of the Volochi of the Russian Primary Chronicle as a reference to Vlach is highly cobtroversial, and is rejected by most specialists outside of Romania. Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Continuing the side remark, not related to the discussion about the maps.

I am not familiar with Long Life of St Gerard so I will not pronounce on it, the source says the following: "Continuity in the formation of Gelu through Gyla (refuses Christianity in the Catholic rite) and that of Glad through Ahtum (which customs the salt of the Hungarian royalty, which descends on Mureş; defeated by the Hungarians, its territory is occupied) is affirmed by the source Life of Saint Gerard, for the 11th century."

With the Russian Primary Chronicle I am more familiar. Naturally the source says that the Volochi are Vlachs as this is the view of Romanian histography. But I remember reading non-Romanians who also supported the idea that the Volochi are Vlachs such as Demetrius Dvoichenko-Markov, Ivelin A. Ivanov and Aleksander Paron. Demetrius says the following: "The first chronicle in Europe to place the Vlachs in Eastern Europe, according to most of the historians, is considered to be the ancient Russian chronicle of Kiev known also as The Chronicle of Nestor or The Russian Primary Chronicle". According to most of the historians. TheThorLat (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi TheThorLat,

Your map is not an academic map at all, but an user made photoshopped map. Please show me modern academic Romanian map (not a nationalcommunist one)! While the Hungarian map is a modern, published by Hungarian Academy of Science, based decades long researches by many scholars and institutions. You cannot compare the two maps in term of quality.

Also your map has not based on researches, just nationalistic Romanians claims that Gelou, Glad, Menmarot were Romanian kings so their land was a Romanian country...then they painted everything as Romanian country from Tisza-Dnester. Still I do not know how Menmarot became Romanian if the Gesta clearly say he was Bulgarian... so it seams the Romanians are deny Gesta who arbitrary make a Romanian king from a Bulgarian character. Also Gesta says Szekelys are remaining Huns in Transylvania, again Romanians deny this. They basically deny everything in the Gesta, just they claim that some blurry words "blasij" (in the original text) means only Romanian, so Gelou became instantly Romanian... Btw I like Gesta Hungarorum, and I dont deny, historians analize the text, for example Arpad and Saint Stephen is a real person in the text, but Menmarot considered a fiction enemy. Cumans also in the story however they appeared 200 years later after the conquest.

Carlile Aylmer Macartney, British historian: The medieval Hungarian historians: a critical and analytical guide: [54] "All Rumanian medievalists refer to Anon, but none of them is worth reading on the subject" + "this is not evidence that he introduced the whole person of Gelou or the presence of Vlachs in Transylvania"

Dennis Deletant is a Romanian-British historian, he has harsh ciritic about that nationalcommunist understanding regarding Gesta Hungarorum. [29] "More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant-General Dr Ilie Ceausescu, brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Gelou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who "succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities" population on the border, mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory. Such abberations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Gelou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of the mythos."

The Nestor chronicle clearly discredits the Daco-Romanian theory. It say "first the Slavs" settled, then the Volochi attacked the Slavs, so how can be these Volochi ancient Daco-Romans if the Slavs settled first who arrived after the Huns? Morover it talks about Danubian Slavs, and not about Transylvania, morover Volochi also mentioned next to England, that is why majority of historians claim Volochi means Franks. In the text the Hungarians expelled the Volochi and settled among the Slavs, so not among the Volochi, and we know the Hungarians attacked the East Franks and expelled them from Pannonia.

"Also it is fact that vast amount Romanian settlements were seized by the Hungarians and given as land to the Catholic Church like Carta, Turda, Zarand, Bihor, Maramures"

Really? Despite nobody know about them or about their settlements...

British historian, Martyn Rady: [55]"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."

"neither do all Hungarian Historians believe in the Immigration Theory"

Sorry but I dont know any Hungarian scholars who accept the nationalistic Daco-Roman theory. Martyn Rady (same book) again: "Hungarian historians universally maintain, that the sudden entry of the Vlachs into the Hungarian historical record around 1200 was a consequence of Romanian immigration from the Balkan interior"

"Well it is in fact denied, and it is in fact speculation. I understand that this is not denied by Hungarian histography. And that's the key thing, by Hungarian histography. This doesn't mean that there is an academic consensus for it outside Hungary."

Examples:

Do you deny that Székesfehérvár (Basilica of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary) was destroyed by Ottomans? Show me that any academic scholar deny this!

Do you deny that Buda was destroyed by Ottoman wars and lost their Hungarian population and Germans were settled there after the reconquest and in the 19th century Hungarians slowly became the majority? It is presented in the 1784 map that Buda had German population: [56] Show me that any academic scholar deny this!

Do you deny that Szentendre city north from Budapest (very far from WW1 Serbia) was called the "Serb city" because many Serbs moved there after Turkish wars Great Migrations of the Serbs, (Serb restaurant, Serb chatedral... [34] [35], I think is hard to image but north from Budapest there ae Orthodox Serbs Cyrillic texts, [36] [37]). Show me that any academic scholar deny this!

Do you deny that village is about still 40% Croatian close to Vienna next to Austrian border and far from Croatia to https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kópháza It is presented in the 1784 map that area had Croatian population: [57] Show me that any academic scholar deny this!

Do you deny that Szarvas in the center of Great Hungarian Plain far from Slovak area became a big Slovak city after the Ottoman wars. It is presented in the 1784 map that area had Slovak population: [58] Show me that any academic scholar deny this!

Do you deny that Baranya region was settled by Germans after the Ottoman wars Swabian Turkey? It is presented in the 1784 map that area had German population: [59] Show me that any academic scholar deny this!

Which degree of academic experience, certification and level do you have in the field of the settlement structure in the Carpathian Basin to decide that the Hungarian academic has not knowledge/date/researches of the Hungarian settlements (or former Hungarian settlements)? OrionNimrod (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not here to debate, as I am the opinion this debate will go nowhere. As I was telling you previously, I'm done with the discussion as I consider it rather useless, if professional historians couldn't get to a consensus, neither can we.

And as a side note, you do not seem to know what the Romanian histography's position is, yet you call it "national communist stance", how can you be certain it is a national communist stance if you do not know what the Romanian histography's position is? The claim that Gelou, Glad, Menmarot were Romanian kings so their land was a Romanian country is the Romanian histography's position. You cannot cenzor the Romanian historiography regarding Romanian history articles just because you dont like the Romanian academic view. This is not to start a debate on the subject but simply pointing out to you that you do not seem to know what the Romanian histography's position is.

"Sorry but I dont know any Hungarian scholars who accept the nationalistic Daco-Roman theory". Your lack of knowledge is irrelevant, I don't know Korean either, doesn't mean Korean doesn't exist. What is curious is that you do not know any especially after I named you one in the comment you just replied to "neither do all Hungarian Historians believe in the Immigration Theory, except they are not very popular in Hungary for obvious reasons, Andras Magyari for example". It seems you just ignored it. Which reinforces the idea that this is not a discussion worth having.

Moreover, regarding your claim that the Daco-Roman theory is a "nationalistic" one, most scholarship outside of Romania accepts the Daco-Roman continuity theory. In fact it is more predominant, when foreign historians talk about Romanians and their origins they almost never mention the immigration theory. From memory right now I can tell Dennis Deletant (Which you quoted, so you know he accepts the Daco-Roman theory, but didn't mention it. And instead said the opposite. You contradicted in another passage the very historian you quoted in other passage. Combine this with you being so proud of the Hungarian method, as you claim to be, yet being in favor of removing the mentioning of the method from the article and simply saying "research" instead, as if you are ashamed of it or don't really believe in the method as much as you claim. These inconsistent behaviors don't add up unless there is an intellectual dishonesty for nationalistic reasons involved) and Keith Hitchins as non-Romanian authors supporting the theory. All evidence seems to point out you are the nationalistic one. Which once again, likely more reason this discussion won't go anywhere even if the discussion wouldn't be useless in the first place.

My vote is on either:

- Leave all maps but clearly described as speculative with the method/basis used for the making of the given maps is mentioned in a specific not general manner. As described in the previous post. In other to present both sides' point of view fairly.

- Remove the maps

My reply to Borsoka was purely based on the two sources side remark unrelated to the maps. TheThorLat (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If you keep repeating “Romanian academic view” then show modern (not from communist times) academic maps. Your map is still an user made map while the Hungarian one was published by Hungarian academy made by several scholars.

Also that is the demographic research section as you can see.

I showed above also examples that is not true that DacoRoman theory would the dominant outside Romania in the academic circles.

I think not need to debate more about this, the key point the Hungarian map is modern, made by academy and relevant to demographic section to show Hungarian historiography about their own country. So please show modern academic Romanian map, not an user made photoshopped map. OrionNimrod (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi guys! I found an another interactive edition, here less areas are blank (probably they used different ranges), the base map are the today settlements.

1495 https://emna.hu/en/map/Km_nyelvi_terszerk_1495/@46.5874817,20.5689702,7.00z

1784 https://emna.hu/en/map/Km_nyelvi_terszerk_1784/@46.9210067,22.2978826,7.00z OrionNimrod (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment. I think the map could be used in the article provided it's put in proper context. I agree with @Aristeus's points and I also agree that the Hungarian Academy of Sciences may have biases. However a map is not the territory and any map would omit some aspects of the reality and emphasise others.

The real question is whether this map provides value to the reader, and I believe that it does. It doesn't seem that there are many inaccuracies and we can correct the bias by describing the methodology (e.g., attempted reconstruction of the ethnic patterns based on linguistic analysis of tax-payers’ names and geographic names at the end of the Middle Ages) and attributing the map to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

I'd be willing to change my opinion if someone showed that the map is substantially inaccurate using scholarly sources or if another map was available. Alaexis_¿question? 10:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Alaexis, you should know, that according to Daco-Roman theory follower Romanian users, all Hungarian things are "biased" because Hungarians + full Hungarian historiography does not accept that nationalistic Romanian myth. So they want remove the Hungarian view because that nationalist Romanian myth claims "the native Romanians were in a superior majority at all times in Transylvania against the Hungarians who occupied it only 1300", so because of this preconception they cannot stand anything which does not show Romanian majority everywhere always in the past. But the Hungarian scholars working from sources and not from expected nationalistic preconception, I quote a British historian, Martyn Rady: [57] 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 (Romanians) either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania." So no sources about "always majority people"... but the Daco-Roman theory followers have just speculations why "always majority people" were hidden 1000 years long...

That is why Aristeus wanted to remove the map, first by copyright reason [60] (just the Hungarian Academy of Science allowed to use) File:Kingdom of Hungary - Ethnic Map - 1495.jpg as this map is present in all modern national atlas:

https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/National-Atlas-of-Hungary_Vol3_Ch2.pdf

https://emna.hu/en/map/Km_nyelvi_terszerk_1495/@46.6812151,21.2342624,7.00z

Regarding the "bias", Aristeus put a 100 years old map (one person opinion) and claimed the absurd statement that full Kingdom of Hungary + even Croatia + East Austria had full of Romanian settlements between 800-1400...[61] but he is really worrying about the reliability of the modern Hungarian academy map which made by many scholars for 30 years and published in a national atlas which won international award...[62]

Aristeus also was happy to put an article this nationalcommunist Romanian map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FormatiuniPoliticeRomanestiSecolele_IX_XIII.svg which claims the border of Kingdom of Hungary was at the Tisza river between 800-1400, which is cleary a fake as we see every international history maps. The Tisza river is the line on the center of Hungary in this international history map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_mediterranean_1190_cropped.jpg

More info here about, why fake that communist map: User talk:OrionNimrod#Map

That Romanian map is based on these maps: this is from 1920, it says Dacia!? between 800-1400 [63] and this nationalcommunist one from 1980s [64]. (the nationalcommunist dictator Ceascescu celebrated 2050th anniversary of Romania in 1980 [65]... and if you see international history maps, you will not see Romania there in the past) It is easy to see the nationalistic purpose of these fake maps, to make a country of Daco-Romans from Tisza-Dnesiter, that is why in 1916 and in 1918 Romania attacked Hungary. Romania’s entry into World War 1, 27 August 1916. Detail from Proclamation of King Ferdinand of Romania: [66] “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, and to prosper in peace in accordance with our customs and our hopes and dreams.”

That is also very common to falsify existing maps for this purpose: [67] [68]

Good to know that the Hungarian academic map is "biased" by Aristeus but he like those 2 maps as he put them to articles. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If I were you I'd focus on this map rather than on other maps that no one is suggesting to use in the article, or on grand theories.

The map can be useful even if it has biases and some inaccuracies.

If there are maps showing the "Romanian perspective" produced by scholarly sources, we can add them too. Alaexis_¿question? 12:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Ottoman war devastations

Hi Slatersteven, could you tell me what is wrong with this source? [2]

That made by Hungarian Academy of Science + Geographical Institute – Eötvös University, modern academic sources, an international award winning source [3]. It also attributed properly "according Hungarian historiography" + in relevant demographic research section

https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/en/home.html

https://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/karpat-pannon2015/en/accompanying_text.html

In Hungarian related articles vast amount of Hungarian sources are provided, in Transylvania article the majority of sources are Hungarian and Romanian sources with attribution if needed. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"According to Hungarian historiogy" this should be at the start, because this is all according to that. Also it is badly written, what (for example) are "spatial structure"'s buildings, towns, monasteries?). It also seems to be conflating things, the Ottoman's were not the Habsburg–Wallachian's so this seems to be joining up seperate things to create a whole (is these synthases or do the sources make this link?) Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, that Hungary became battlefield by the Ottoman wars and conquest is fact (like we have several battles, sieges, campaing article about this), this is not "according to Hungarian historians". And Hungary was devastated and suffered a big population loss during that long war period. Do you know that anybody debate the devastation and population loss during Ottoman wars + other wars in the same period? This is not "according to Hungarian historians", it is fact the hundred of settlements were destroyed. (In England there are many beautiful medieval castles and churches. But in area of Kingdom of Hungary not much because first Ottoman wars destroyed them (even the burial of kings in many cities) + Habsburgs also exploded many castles to prevent them to be base of Hungarian resistance.)

Immigration also fact, Germans of Hungary, for example Habsburgs settled many German settlers to the devastated areas when the wartime was over. Or Serbs north from Budapest Szentendre: [69] Do you know anybody who debate the German settlers in Hungary?

The debate is the Romanian and Hungarian population in Transylvania between Hungarians and Romanians, that is why I wrote only this attribution in the relevant sentence "according to Hungarian historiography Romanians became majority after this period"

That was a long wartime and it was many wars in Transylvania. It not said that this is exclusively Ottoman wars, but the Ottoman wars caused that Hungary became battlefield, also the anti Habsburg Rákóczi's War of Independence 1703-11 caused lot of devastations and epidemics, that is why I mentioned that war time together. Many kind of wars during that period: Hungarian-Ottoman, Ottoman-Habsburg-Hungarian, Hungarian-Habsburg, and Wallachian means the war of Michael the Brave in Transylvania. Yes, the demographic source summarize the war events during this period as reason of the ethnic changes :https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/National-Atlas-of-Hungary_Vol3_Ch2.pdf

Sorry if my English is not the best. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

So synthases then. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus, [70]

Could I ask you, why do you add the "would" word? In the sentence, it is clearly mentioned "according to Hungarian historiography" so that is not "would" but they clearly state those things, they dont use "would", but this is fact according to them, so in this case the wikitext is different than the statement in the academic source. The attribution in the beginning clearly show that they state those things and not the Romanian historiography state those things. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, it continues the attribution throughout the whole paragraph. It doesn't weaken or strengthen the value of the information. Without this continued attribution for example The Hungarian settlements connecting the Hungarian ethnic blocks of the Partium and Székely Land suffered the most extensive destruction. would appear as factual information. You added According to Hungarian historiography only in the middle of the paragraph. My continuation of the attribution is proper English usage and you may use it in paragraphs showing the Romanian POV too. so in this case the wikitext is different than the statement in the academic source it's supposed to be like that yes, we don't copy but WP:PARAPHRASE from academic sources. Super Ψ Dro 11:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that the conditional mood is added if Romanian historians claim something in an attributed sentence, which also wouldn't be correct according to Wikipedia:No original research because it would be our personal opinion.

As you can see that is a different chapter and starting "according to Hungarians", like there are many separate chapters starting "according to Romanians" or "according to Hungarians" and they are all clear, and we can see the marked source at the end of sentence.

I added in the middle the Hungarian attribution because nobody deny the fact that Germans, Serbs, etc settled by Habsburgs after the Ottoman times which means the etthnic pattern changed. I dont know why it is a big thing that after centuries wars, Ottoman occupation, after many settlement destruction, that Hungarian historians know which settlements were affected. (Perhaps you have sources, that Hungarian settlements, population was not destroyed during that period?) The debate is about the Romanian population thing, that is why I started the attribution only there.

I know the copyright thing, so the wikitext is already different than the original one, but the statements are same, but with this additonal "would" word the academic statement changed because those things are base facts in the Hungarian historiography, and not "reportedly" not "allegedly" and not "would become".

But for me ok if you moved "according to Hungarians" text earlier and added the "significant" word, but after this the other conditional additions are not matching with Hungarian academic statements. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding attribution. Adding attribution does not make the text into the user's own opinion. This is simply not true. WP:OR is not breached here. It also doesn't alter what the original sources say. Attribution does not mean the text is false or to be doubted. It only links the information to who is saying it, just to be safe and to aspire for maximum neutrality. Frankly I see no problem here. Reportedly, Hungarian settlements connecting the Hungarian ethnic blocks of the Partium and Székely Land suffered the most extensive destruction. the text implies Székelys and the rest of Hungarians were once connected. This is not universally uncontroversial information. It needs attribution. With the previous version it seemed that this is factual and uncontroversial. This is done everywhere in Wikipedia all the time. Super Ψ Dro 12:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution: Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Ethnic connection between Hungarians and Székelys falls within this. Also that the ethnic composition of the Kingdom of Hungary changed because in this article and context, it would seem to refer to Transylvania and Romanians as well, which also falls within this. I insist, there is no issue here. Super Ψ Dro 12:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont see any example of your way nowhere. I dont see the logic, follow this way we could add in every sentence in full Wikipedia, "allegedly", "would" in every single historiography sentences where we have 2 different views. The first attribution "according to Hungarian historiograhy" and the marked sources at the end of the chapter is enough.

Nobody claim that is universally uncontroversial information, that is why the chapter clearly starts: "according to Hungarian historiograhy", I think it is quite understandable that chapter is the Hungarian scholar view.

Wikipedia:Attribution The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.

Your conditional attributions show that those things in the Hungarian historiography would be deabted things, but not, those are fact statements. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

[71] This is exactly the same I did but with more and repeated words. But sure. Wish you a good day. Super Ψ Dro 13:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super, yes I can see this is strangely overattributed, like a Kindergarten style. I think everybody can see and understand that is 1 separate chapter (space between chapters), starting "according to Hungarians" and ending with the marked sources from "Hungarians" (morover more sources visually emphasize the separation). Why it is not clear?

(Can we put too the "according to Romanian historians" and "would", "alleged"... words, in every single other sentences where the Romanian historian views presented? And not just in the beginning of that chapter?) OrionNimrod (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we can. We're not discussing the temperature at what water boils which is a definite fact. Attributed tone for theories is expected. I disagree with your use of attribution only at the start of the paragraph. It makes it seem like it doesn't apply for the whole of the paragraph. And almost no readers bother checking the nationality of the cited sources (nor should they). There are 283 citations in this article, how would they do that? I am pretty sure my use of English was appropriate. Super Ψ Dro 13:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite. I think it looks good now. Super Ψ Dro 14:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we use the book citations of these excellent articles too?

https://daco-roman.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-problems-of-daco-roman-theory.html

and this: https://daco-roman.blogspot.com/2021/02/romanians-latest-nomadic-ethnic-group.html Mandliners (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest reading WP:Reliability. As a rule of thumb, look for sources that would be quoted by Oxford or Cambridge academies. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

These citations are from famous Western universities. So what is the problem with them? Mandliners (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Read my previous answer again. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Mandliners Wiki is not based on personal blogs OrionNimrod (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

So do you consider the tons of books of academic historians (professors and associate professors) are personal blogs?

Are you serious? Or are you kidding? Mandliners (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Mandliners, that is still a personal blog. You need use content from reliable academic books. If something if reliable content there I am sure it is possible to find that thing in an academic source, then you need use that content through that source. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't understand or intepret your reaction. Why do you call the cited dozens of books of Western academic historians (university professors) as "blog"? Mandliners (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Because that books presented in a blog website not in an academic book. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution

If a content is reliable from that blog then you need use the base academic source and not the blog as source. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, it is not a blog (despite it is published on a blog) but it is collection/list of books of academic historians with URLs and quotes. Mandliners (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Nibelung

Hi TheThorLat,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&oldid=prev&diff=1243267754

Could you tell me what is the business with "history of Transylvania" article with the 13th century written Nibelunglied, and in this heroic legend: Attila's wedding? Or with the Black Sea? OrionNimrod (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Mongol invasion

Hi Slatersteven,

could you tell me what wrong with that Hungarian academic source, which is the mainstream Hungarian historiography about Hungarian kingdom? https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/76.html I attributed, that is the "Hungarian historiography"

[72] + https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/1.html Hungarian Academy of Science, Distributed by Columbia University

OrionNimrod (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It is one source, and thus can't be used in a way that implies what is it saying is a fact. Also why is it better than the source you replaced with it?. Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not change the source, I just updated the "ref name", as that source was also used before, you can check the source is exactly the same OrionNimrod (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Err, OK so you " updated the "ref name"" to "The Mongol Invasion and Its Consequences" when the ref is in fact already named "title=History of Transylvania Volume I. From the Beginnings to 1606 – III. Transylvania in the Medieval Hungarian Kingdom (896–1526) – 3. From the Mongol Invasion to the Battle of Mohács ", so you gave it an incorrect name. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Also 252 does not seem to support the text you added. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven,

did you see the link? That is a really long book:

3. FROM THE MONGOL INVASION TO THE BATTLE OF MOHÁCS

https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/75.html

Subchapter: The Mongol Invasion and Its Consequences

https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/76.html

And the subchapter was the marked source, so I added this "ref name" to easier use sources than "ref:1" "ref:2" Why it is incorrect if I name "The Mongol Invasion and Its Consequences" link as "The Mongol Invasion and Its Consequences"? But this is just a ref name, I can add "Makkay 2022" or any other ref name OrionNimrod (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As you can see in your revert, the chapter URL is 76html: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=prev&oldid=1245669143

The 76html is the "The Mongol Invasion and Its Consequences" http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/76.html OrionNimrod (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Then there is a major problem here as this [[73]] is what 252 cites too, it does not look like nothin you are linking to.

Example, the first line (yours) "The conflict between Hungary and the Bulgarian-Romanian state was rudely interrupted by the invasion of Mongols and their Tartar allies. In 1235, after having conquered northern China, the Mongol hordes turned westward. In quick succession, they defeated the Volga Bulgars, the Hungarians of Bashkiria, and the North Russian principalities, and, in 1239, the forces of Kötöny, king of the Eastern Cumanians. Hungary's king, Béla IV, gave shelter to the fleeing Cumanians, but he could not prevent the Mongols from following up their capture of Kiev in 1240 with a direct attack on his land." (the cites) "One of the most crucial events of European significance in Hungarian history was the battle at Mohacs on 29th August 1526 when the army of Siileyman I (1520-1566) won a decisive victory over Louis Jagello II's (1516-1526) troops". thus the source we are using is not the source you are trying to link to. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod! As @Slatersteven pointed, the paragraph you wanted to add seems like an opinion, hence, as per WP:NPOV, you will need to add all the different views on the subject adequately reflecting their proeminence. Anyway, I'm opposed to the entry in general as it can only contain speculations, from one side or the other, at the current level of research, which is not very encyclopedic. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we may need others to look a this as this is a major wp:v issue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do you link an Ottoman pdf? I used this source: https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/75.html we can see this is in your revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=prev&oldid=1245669143 OrionNimrod (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I also dont understand where do you get that quoted text, I did not add those content, also I do not see those contents. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Because that is what source 252 is and was before your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This is why I am saying there is a major issue here, the name of the cite does not seem to be related to the site the cite links to. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That is an automatically name, if you add sources in a page, Wiki automatically reorder and rename them, so 250 can became 260 after an edit. And ref name is not the same as numbered sources below the page, as we can see ref name can be a text, while numbered sources are a different thing below. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, the mistake may have been Mine as it was named 252, so I took it to be source 252 (as clear from my comments here) when in fact it is source 161. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This is one of your previous edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=prev&oldid=1217734818 you can see 252 is "Pop Aurel" here

Before my edit today https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=prev&oldid=1243981882 252 is "Peter"

Only after my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=next&oldid=1245061815 252 became "Ottoman rule"

That is total automatically numbered, The "ref name" is a total different thing OrionNimrod (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That is why I started to add names to the references like "Jefferson 2012" or "Hungary economy" etc to easier use them than randomly generated numbers by Wiki if we duplicate a source.

See England article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=England&action=edit

ref name="2021 Nomis"

ref name="Fordham"

ref name="Bartlett p124" OrionNimrod (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In the beginning also I needed learn how use Wiki, as not so user friendly, we are like a programmers. Thanks to understanding! OrionNimrod (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

POV again

Adding this topic for discussions on how we can improve the article and achieve a neutral point of view. The immediate issue is the last entry regarding Hungarian POV on the demography of the region following the Mongol Invasion. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see both Hungarian and Romanian sources are presented. Entire Hungarians historiography says "Romanians immigrated", most (not all) Romanian historiography says "always majority Romanians". OrionNimrod (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be the issue is trying to present a given side's POV neutrally and without undue emphasis We need to stop using lopsided "histiography" and use third-party sources. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Some years ago the article was in a strange situation, only Romanian nationalcommunist historygraphy was presented here, like "Hungarian dont occupied Transylvania until 1300", "huge Romania country between 800-1400 until Tisza on fake maps" etc and almost was 0 mention about 1000 years Hungarian history and events there, just some negative things about Hungarians "poor Hungarian governor Romanian Hunyadi how was force hungarianized". Of course the "always majority Romanians" were presented exclusively. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the local historiography of the region and local people has the most advanced knowledge and historical studies in the subject. Perhaps do you know modern English academic works? OrionNimrod (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Neither the Romanian POV, nor the Hungarian POV are supported by data. They're just guessiology. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Precisely. Thank you! Aristeus01 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

We already have plenty present just drowned out now by all the local ones as each side tries to push its POV. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Romanian archaeology claims it has shown a continuity of population. Let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it did that. But, as Lucian Boia pointed out, if scholars cannot show that such population spoke Daco-Latin, they weren't in any sense Romanian. So, archaeology is powerless to solve the riddle. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu And linguistics proved to be incapable of giving precise dates that can be used to clarify the issue. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven should we remove the "in X historiography" paragraphs, then? Aristeus01 (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes I think so. Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Aristeus01 dont stand that I removed his map where he claimed even Austria as "ancient Romanian land" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1152091631#/media/File:Romanian_settlements,_9th-14th_Century.jpg he just want remove all Hungarian historiography. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In another situation, archaeologists no longer speak of Judahite and Israelite ethnicity, but simply of Yahwists vs. non-Yahwists. Because their ethnic identity cannot be sorted out. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not possible to remove the entire Hungarian and Romanian historiography viewpoint of his own area. That is fact of the existence of their main historiography. The attributions was added exactly for that reason, because Aritesus had problem earlier with presenting Hungarian views. When both Hungarian and Romanian views presented, which means it cannot be "neutrally disputed" because both view presented. First he attributed, then now we can see his aim to remove all Hungarian historiography, as he does not like if those are presented. For me it is not a problem to present the Romanian views, it would be really unbalance to remove the Hungarian views regarding the land where still Hungarians lives and was part of Hungary 1000 years long with important Hungarian history. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This takes up a third of the article, we need two are three pragmas. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In the most polite and non-contentious way possible, I couldn't care less about that map. When I started editing wiki I did think expanding an article with any available source is a good idea, but now, having spent some time on the subject, I cringe at the speculations many of the sources promote. Using them is what gets us in situations like this where one POV must be counter-argued with another POV. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The chapter title "demograqphic research" I think this is the biggest problem for Aristeus. Because if this is a research the different views are normal. We can split the article and make a different article for that section. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Aristeus many times removed Hungarian academic sources from Hungarian related topics, he stated that entire Hungarian national library are not reliable and he basically suggested that Hungarian sources for their own Hungarian history is not allowed. [74] If we see the edits of Aristeus he is using mostly Romanian sources, in this case as double standard, it is a not problem for him. His goal to remove from everywhere the mainstream academic Hungarian historiography viewpoint, as this is not match with his view, that is. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod!

I can't seem to find this (the article has way too manu changes over the years). Could you kindly point to a revision where this "Hungarian dont occupied Transylvania until 1300", "huge Romania country between 800-1400 until Tisza on fake maps" etc and almost was 0 mention about 1000 years Hungarian history and events there, just some negative things about Hungarians "poor Hungarian governor Romanian Hunyadi how was force hungarianized". Of course the "always majority Romanians" were presented exclusively. is? Aristeus01 (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01, I am unable to roll back many years here, but even you added classic fake map to another article, where we can see a big Romania country 800-1300: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlach_law&diff=prev&oldid=1152869701 at least, we can see the borders of Hungary, which is slightly a lighter version of this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romanian_states_in_the_9th-13th_centuries.svg which based on the nationalcommunist fake map from 1980, where borders of Hungary is at only Tisza river: https://tortenelemportal.hu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/roman-9-13-sz.jpg. The wished Tisza river match that fact, that In WW1 Romania attacked Hungary twice and wanted occupy Hungary until the Tisza border in the name of the Daco-Roman livingspace theory. Compare this map with international history maps: File:Europe 814.jpg + File:Europe mediterranean 1097.jpg + File:Europe mediterranean 1190.jpg, I cannot see nowhere that huge mystic country. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

In contrast, you did everything to remove the modern academic map from the National Atlas https://www.nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/3_en.html: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Kingdom_of_Hungary_-_Ethnic_Map_-_1495.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=757885360 and you though the "copyright" can be good reason to remove, but the Hungarian Academy of Science allowed to use it. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the famous map that presents entire regions blank after the article (I think it is your entry too) said:

"The Romanian immigrants in the Kingdom of Hungary are invariably characterized in Hungarian sources as mountain shepherds"

Then ... boom... the mountains are empty. Must be some Schroedinger's Romanians: both living in the mountains and not living in the mountains at the same time. Aristeus01 (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The inhabited regions are match with the satelit map where are big forests, mountains, marshes https://nimbus.elte.hu/kutatas/sat/sajatkepek/modis_kepek_600_800/47_19_TER_xxxxx_20180421_100000.xxxxx_true_250m_S.JPG Hungarian scholars know well where were the Hungarian settlments in the kingdom in 1495, why it is a problem that the marshes are not populated by people?

This is the same map with different threshold: https://emna.hu/en/map/Km_nyelvi_terszerk_1495/@46.5000183,21.2946872,7.00z you can see that is less blank as the density threshold different.

Computer generated map using 1910 census data, this is better as we can see the population density, and we can see the mountain areas was not really populated compare with other regions: https://atlo.team/anyanyelviterkep/

I think you like those "non blank" Romanian ethnic maps, where the Hungarian cities with 50,000 people are just a very small dots, but the big mountain areas where 100 Romanians lived are carefully colored as Romanian. Which cause a really unbalanced view.

Like this Romanian map from 1920 where at that time the full Hungarian populated Oradea, Cluj, Satu Mare, etc carefully colored as Romanian: https://stefanteris.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/atlas-istoric-geografic-al-neamului-romc3a2nesc_26.jpg

Or like this Romanian map from 1919 where even Debrecen is full Romanian :D https://collections.lib.uwm.edu/digital/api/singleitem/image/agdm/4553/default.jpg

Then blame the Hungarian map from 1919 based on census data 1910 that they dont colored the peak of the mountains and the trees in the forest as Romanian: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Ethnographic_map_of_hungary_1910_by_teleki_carte_rouge.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

So Hungarian historiography does not see Romanians as mountains dwellers, is that correct? Then why did you added this:

"The Romanian immigrants in the Kingdom of Hungary are invariably characterized in Hungarian sources as mountain shepherds."

I still can't see the link to those revisions where "Hungarian dont occupied Transylvania until 1300", "huge Romania country between 800-1400 until Tisza on fake maps" etc and almost was 0 mention about 1000 years Hungarian history and events there, just some negative things about Hungarians "poor Hungarian governor Romanian Hunyadi how was force hungarianized". Of course the "always majority Romanians" were presented exclusively." Instead, it seems the fake maps you are talking about are from other sites and blogs (and they are amateurish, I agree) and the idea here is to create a section, or a new page, or add maps like the one you keep mentioning, on Wikipedia to fight the entries on other sites?

@OrionNimrod, two simple closed questions:

• were Romanians mountain dwellers in Hungarian historiography?
• is there actually a revision of this page where "Some years ago the article was in a strange situation, only Romanian nationalcommunist historygraphy was presented here, like "Hungarian dont occupied Transylvania until 1300", "huge Romania country between 800-1400 until Tisza on fake maps" etc and almost was 0 mention about 1000 years Hungarian history and events there, just some negative things about Hungarians "poor Hungarian governor Romanian Hunyadi how was force hungarianized". Of course the "always majority Romanians" were presented exclusively."?

Yes or no? Aristeus01 (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Aristeus01@OrionNimrod, I think the two of you are talking past each other. Indeed, the Romanians are often depicted as mountain shepherds in written sources, but these sources don't refer to the mountains of Transylvania. For example, here's a letter that also discusses this, and also Benjamin of Tudela writes the same:

"King Béla III attacked and defeated the Byzantine emperor Andronicus. He captured and destroyed Belgrád and Barancs. In 1183, he renewed his attack, and together with the Serbs, destroyed Nis (Niš) and Szofia (Sofia) to the point that not a stone was left standing. The area around Nis (Niš) and Sofia was then full of Vlach shepherds and soldiers. The victorious Béla III seized the opportunity and brought a group of these brave mountain soldiers and settled them in Szeben (Sibiu)." - Written in the 12th century

"From there it is a day's journey to Sinon Potamo, where there are about fifty Jews, at their head being R. Solomon and R. Jacob. The city is situated at the foot of the hills of Wallachia [Thessaly, it is clear from the text]. The nation called Wallachians live in those mountains. They are as swift as hinds, and they sweep down from the mountains to despoil and ravage the land of Greece. No man can go up and do battle against them, and no king can rule over them. They do not hold fast to the faith of the Nazarenes, but give themselves Jewish names. Some people say that they are Jews, and, in fact, they call the Jews their brethren, and when they meet with them, though they rob them, they refrain from killing them as they kill the Greeks. They are altogether lawless." - Benjamin of Tudela (12th century)

So the answer to the question is yes, because many contemporary sources mention them this way, but these are not the mountains of Transylvania. CriticKende (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @CriticKende and thank you for these examples. Just so I get this straight: the Hungarian documents do not refer to Vlachs in the Kingdom of Hungary as mountain dwellers? Aristeus01 (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Aristeus01, Transylvanian landscape: [75][76][77][78][79][80] we can see there are many uninhabited mountain and forest area still today. Why do you want see population in the big forest and in the rocks? But there are many settlements in mountainous regions, as full Transylvania is a mountainous region. Google earth is your friend. Settlements are mostly in valleys. Also Vlach shepherds could not use big sheep herds in big forest, it is logical.

I can see Romanians in 1495 map: https://hungarian-geography.hu/konyvtar/karpat-pannon2015/terkepek/1495.html and I can see more Romanians 300 years later https://hungarian-geography.hu/konyvtar/karpat-pannon2015/terkepek/1784.html

Explanation of population change: https://hungarian-geography.hu/konyvtar/karpat-pannon2015/en/accompanying_text.html First Vlach settlements established in the vicinity of existent Hungarian settlements, and the centuries long wartime mostly destroyed the Hungarian settlements and population, while Romanians were in safer area, after the wartime they occupied the abandoned villages.

I think your problem, that you want see "always majority Romanians", but old sources dont know about this, thus Hungarian historiography will not follow the dacoroman dogmas just to follow the command of the Romanian nationalists. As we can see in the Romanian maps even "Debrecen was full Romanian city in 1920" however it was full Hungarian, but because Romania wanted occupy this city also after WW1, so they tried to make an "ancient Romanian city with always majority Romanians" from that city also. Like in your favorite map, entire Hungary+Croatia+Serbia is Romanian between 800-1400 :D https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romanian_settlements,_9th-14th_Century.jpg

"characterized in Hungarian sources as mountain shepherds" = transhumance folk, that is why they moved from Balkan until Czech land using that way of life.

Your questioned content is from here (as you can find the marked source) http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/76.html

Now lets see what a local Tansylvanian Saxon contempoary eyewitness said in his book about Transylvania:

Georg von Reicherstorffer – Transylvaniae Chorographia Moldaviae, 1550:

According to Reicherstorffer the Romanians came from Moesia [Bulgaria] into Transylvania. [81]

“Morover, Moesians were once those, who are now Valachians, is more accepted today than anyone dares to deny” [82]

“Also Vlachs dwell in this land, but sparsely, without a fixed home.” [83]

“But to get a little further to a clearer knowledge of this province of Transylvania through the description of the Chorographia: this province is divided between three nations, who differ from each other in religion, morals, custom and law and who inhabit the region itself in different lands: such as Saxons, Szeklers and Hungarians. Among them live the Vlachs themselves, the inhabitants of the same province, in some abandoned villages and estates, the toughest humankind, and they support themselves not only from [their]) cattle and flocks but from stealing other flocks and horses. According to their custom, they dress in hairy and shaggy clothes woven from goat wool, made by their own hands, and they do not obey any human laws.”

Sorry I cannot roll back 5-10 years in this article as it had many edits. The romanian wiki article is is a good example what I mentioned, typical nationalcommunist fantasy stories: https://ro-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Istoria_Transilvaniei?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=hu&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp

"duchy in Transylvania led by a Romanian named Gelu"

"Stephen (István) the Holy (1001), the conquest of Transylvania lasts for two centuries"

"The Chronicle of Anonimus does not contain this information, it only contains the 200-year struggle for the conquest of Transylvania." I know well Anonymus, and I know Anonymus does not write that :D

https://ro-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Transilvania?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=hu&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp Of course we can see the classic fake map, medieval Romania from Tisza-Dneister river

"The process of the full occupation of Transylvania was completed only at the end of the 12th century lea" OrionNimrod (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Right, so basically there is no revision on this page where "Hungarian dont occupied Transylvania until 1300", "huge Romania country between 800-1400 until Tisza on fake maps" etc and almost was 0 mention about 1000 years Hungarian history and events there, just some negative things about Hungarians "poor Hungarian governor Romanian Hunyadi how was force hungarianized". Of course the "always majority Romanians" were presented exclusively.", since you cannot present any evidence of it.

In other words you made it up.

Instead what you presented are pages on wiki in other languages and pages on other sites that show information which you do not agree with and this made you decide that this page is the place to correct this great wrong and fight "Romanian nationalcommunist historygraphy".

@OrionNimrod, they were/are simple closed-ended, yes or no, questions yet you just try to say as many words as possible, which just raises more questions. What do you mean "mountain shepherds" = transhumance folk". Do you also believe in the existence of "land fish"? Either they were mountain folk or they where transhumant, which in the climate of Transylvania could only be summer on the mountains and winter on the plains. Or are you suggesting they moved from one mountain to the other in winter?

Look, I'll try one more time. Simple, yes or no, questions:

• were Romanians mountain dwellers in Hungarian historiography?
• is there actually a revision of this page where "Some years ago the article was in a strange situation, only Romanian nationalcommunist historygraphy was presented here, like "Hungarian dont occupied Transylvania until 1300", "huge Romania country between 800-1400 until Tisza on fake maps" etc and almost was 0 mention about 1000 years Hungarian history and events there, just some negative things about Hungarians "poor Hungarian governor Romanian Hunyadi how was force hungarianized". Of course the "always majority Romanians" were presented exclusively."?

Aristeus01 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, mostly, but those are only later documents from the 12th century or afterward. Before that, they are not called that, although the truth is that they are not called anything at all because there are no records of them in Hungary before the 12th century. So yeah, there are Hungarian documents that refer to them this way. CriticKende (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod What do you mean "unable to roll back many years here"? Is there a technical issue? Please, I would really like to see the state of the article before you made so many improvements. Or is it possible that it was not as you said? Aristeus01 (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

discuss content, not users. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Well Aristeus started this, according Aristeus the article is "not neutral" if both Hungarian and Romanian view presented, earlier we started to attribute things as deal "according to Romanian, accoring to Hungarian" and we can see now he wants remove the Hungarian historiography, as he cant stand those contents Wikipedia:I just don't like it.

I suggested to split the article, split the demographic research, and because it is "research" it is normal to present more views which means balance. But keep silent and cenzor Hungarian or Romanian historiography that is not balance. Morover we discuss about land where Romanians and Hungarians live, and not about Italy or England. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

They seem to have agreed to the removal of all of the local histiography I suggest. You are in fact the only one objecting to that as far as I can see. and rather choosing to make this about a user. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a long article that a few people would decide a massive content removal. We need talk about exactly the questioned contents. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This is an argument for more eyes, do we need an RFC? Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Split the article and "research section" will be research with more viewpoints. Then the article will be focus more on the history. You can see the template at top "Part of a series on the History of Romania" + "Part of a series on the History of Hungary", which means local historiography is relevant as no one researches the topic more.

Then should we remove all Romanian and Hungarian sources from Romania and Hungary article itself? Or English sources from England and using only for example Russian historians? I dont see that logic. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

So no then you do not want more eyes? Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Aristeus01@OrionNimrod@Slatersteven@Tgeorgescu, I think it would be worth keeping both sides' opinions, as this is a highly disputed part of history, and the two sides claim completely different things. If we delete just one, it would upset the balance of the article. I think it would be better to avoid this deletion and keep both perspectives. CriticKende (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I now no one had suggested deleting just one side. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, well the neutrality was disputed only by Aristeus (however presenting both sides = neutrality), he has problem with all sources which is not the nationalistic Romanian POV, in this case he removed a British historians which does not fit his view: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=prev&oldid=1158577316 (of course he never removed any sources what support his views) That is why I talk about an user, as he played this game several times in this article. So, his goal to remove all Hungarian views, as that Biritsh historian view was same as the Hungarian view he removed this as well, which proves his intentions. But the existence of mainstream Hungarian historiography is fact, it cannot be cenzored what held the official historiography of a full country. The existence of Romanian historiography also fact, the Romanian historiography also cannot be cenzored, morover it cannot be cenzored as it is about his own country. The important thing, that sources should be academic sources Wikipedia:Attribution. I also dont see any Wiki rules, that not allow to use Italian historians for Italy, or German historians for German articles, that would be quite "racist" to ignore non-English historian sources from English wiki. Or only Chinese or Russian sources allowed for Hungarian/Romanian history? I doubt that non local sources has detailed knowledge on the subject. And what next? Follow this logic, should we remove 80% of Hungarian/Romanian/Italian... articles because they sourced local historians? That is inevitable that in many subjects there are many scholar views, we need just present them from academic sources. Also that demographic section called "research". OrionNimrod (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

users need to stop raking over old coals or sugsting that an edit supported by two users is only supported by one. I think this needs aN rfc. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I just explained that is a long story OrionNimrod (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

More like you just told a bunch of lies about it: in the very example you gave it says clearly in the edit comment "improper synthesis", not "unreliable source", because that is what you did, so your "he removed a British historians which does not fit his view" is a falsification. And while I agree with Tgeorgescu about the state of the Romanian reasearch, it needs to be said loud and clear that there isn't "a Romanian POV", there is no agreement between Romanian researchers on this topic, and in general academic discussion is within the lines of the possible, not by jumping to definitive conclusions from incomplete data. The only ones promoting a so called "Romanian view" are the amateur internauts, mostly in situations like this, where they are trying to promote their own personal view on a topic like this. Adding a "Romanian view" in this case is a mistake, one that I commited too, but one that can and should be corrected. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC Demographics and historical research

Should the section on Demographics and historical research be

1. Deleted outright, with a new paragraph describing the dispute
2. Delete and the content moved to a new page
3. Keep

Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

A

It does not matter what other pages do, other pages are not POV-pushing messes of competing nationalist claims, this tells us nothing about the history of the country. NOte as well it does not seem to discuse the current demographics, but rather dubious historical trends. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The subject has enough coverage outside Hungarian or Romanian sources that it can be presented in enough detail and in a neutral manner for readers of all backgrounds. Adding one side's POV (or the other's, or both) has the opposite effect: it muddles the coherence, neutrality, and readability of the article. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

B

Move to new page, as this is impossible to cenzor the entire local, entire Hungarian and Romanian historiography regarding his own country. As it would be inevitable that future users would spread similar contents, in this case it would be a separate page for "researches" where we can present more academic scholar opinions as this is a hot topic. Also every countries has demographic section, that would be strange to cenzoring this. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

So, I absolutely support option B CriticKende (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. The length of the article is a problem. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a very sensitive and much-discussed topic, which is why all academic aspects must be presented. Dear Slatersteven, you stirred up a typical Eastern European hornet's nest :), a confrontation of narratives, where there is no single truth, only parallel historical narratives living side by side. I cannot support an alternative (namely, the deletion of the section) that completely neglects the research of Hungarian mainstream historiography. The history of Transylvania belongs to the history of the Hungarians, as well as the history of the Romanians, which is why the presentation of the demography of the area from a historical perspective and the discussion of the controversial issues are essential to the understanding of the article. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Move to demographics or historiography of Transylvania. Leave a summary in the current section. Senorangel (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Discusion

I dont think it is a proper way, that in a big content removal of academic sources, only some users could decide who are right now are active in Wiki in these days. Because it is a really important topic (probably more important for the Romanian users, as I can see this in the internet), it is just matter of time but this demographic subject will exist. Most important is to present more scholar views and not be one sided.OrionNimrod (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That is why we have an RFC, to attract more eyes, so please let them read the arguments above (in other threads) and make up their minds. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be a big mistake to delete this part because:

1.) Foreign sources do not report on the events in as much detail as local historians, who often dedicate their entire lives to researching this area. I believe the scientific value of the article would greatly diminish if we excluded them.

2.) This section is a crucial part of the article, with an important role in understanding the history of the region, so deleting it would be a mistake.

3.) I am specifically against deleting only one side, as the article (which is currently quite well-balanced) would tip in one direction, which is particularly undesirable on the wiki. Neutrality should be the primary consideration.

Therefore, I specifically recommend keeping the current state, perhaps with a few minor adjustments, but deletion would definitely not be a good solution. CriticKende (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I would merge B and C, because both option is "keep" and A is "delete", it would be not fair to split the "keep" option. I think it does not matter much keep here the content or make a new article as links will do that. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep means keep in this article unchanged. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the topic again, it seems to be another Origin of the Romanians debate that found its way outside that page. I don't think anything of importance will be lost by removing it, and if there is anything relevant that wasn't already said in the mentioned page then it can be added there. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That is "demographic of Transylvania", not about "origin of Romanians". OrionNimrod (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

What's the difference? Aristeus01 (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

From the article about Transylvania "According to the results of the 2011 census, the total population of Transylvania was 6,789,250 inhabitants and the ethnic groups were: Romanians – 70.62%, Hungarians – 17.92%, Roma – 3.99%, Ukrainians – 0.63%, Germans (mostly Transylvanian Saxons and Banat Swabians, but also Zipsers, Sathmar Swabians, or Landlers) – 0.49%, other – 0.77%. Some 378,298 inhabitants (5.58%) have not declared their ethnicity.[82] The ethnic Hungarian population of Transylvania forms a majority in the counties of Covasna (73.6%) and Harghita (84.8%). The Hungarians are also numerous in the following counties: Mureș (37.8%), Satu Mare (34.5%), Bihor (25.2%), and Sălaj (23.2%)." that is the only demographic information we need. Asaw said, anything else is just nationalisitc puffery. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Then "history of demographic of Transylvania" + "research" as the article is "history of" and not just "Transylvania", that is why I suggested, that make a new article for that as this is a hot topic. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what we are discussing. So let's allow others the chance to chip in and have their say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That is the only demographic information we need’ – with all due respect, I strongly disagree with this. Yes, if this were an article about modern Transylvania, then only current data would be sufficient. However, this is about the history of Transylvania, and the region has undergone significant ethnic changes. So, I believe it would be a major mistake to include only modern statistics. These ethnic changes must be mentioned when discussing the history of a region. CriticKende (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven I agree in this form this article excessed the size balance, as the demographic research section is too long, however it is still part of the history of Transylvania, so easier to make from this section a separate article. Because this section is very long with many academic sources, it proves that is an important topic. I understand that you not interested in this topic, as I am also not interested thousands of articles, but it does not mean those topics should not exist, as Wiki is an encyclopedia, I just dont care with those topics. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod, I actually think it would be worth leaving this part in the article, as this issue is an integral part of the region's history. CriticKende (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

CriticKende, yes it is part of history, but as history of Hungary and history of Romania and other articles had many subarticles and wiki article size have limits. That is why I suggested the split. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't account for the length of the Wikipedia article. If it really exceeds the limit, I also support the creation of a new article. CriticKende (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Uninvovled Comment: The source of dispute seems to be that the sources themselves are POV/Nationalistic, but on a glance at the article the content in question is represented as part of a dispute as well as attributed to various scholars. Per WP:BIASEDSOURCES reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. That said, the current section seems unreasonably long. The section is in dire need of editing and trimming down. There are nearly 4,000 words in the section, comparatively, the early modern section has about 2,000 words to it. The Middle Ages has betwen 8,000-9,000 words, and the Late Modern Period has around 3,000 words, and the contemporary history section only has around 2,500 words. So yeah, the section is given entirely too much article space.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 20:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  And if the sources are not POV/Nationalistic? Aristeus01 (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Then they're just sources. My comment was strictly to addressing the concerns that were being raised in the discussion that some of the sources were biased, so they should be discounted, but a source isn't considered unreliable simply because it is biased. Other than that, the section is entirely too long. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  That is why we started in the past (agree with Aristeus) to attribute properly the sources,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution presenting more mainstream viewpoints. That is not surprising that not the Chinese/Australian/Spanish… historians will research this topic but the local Hungarian/Romanian historians. This is the nature of most other articles too, mostly they using local historian knowledge. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  The agreement was on a different and much more obscure topic, where, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't much disagreement between Romanian scholars and, perhaps just as important, the one that wrote more about it is the president of the Academy. The topic here is a different story where I can see multiple scholarly POVs from the Romanian authors, so it would be improper to say "Romanian historiography" when there is no consensus. Aristeus01 (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think it is not a big thing to properly attribute contents. Like majority historiography or minority views in a certain subject, or individual POVs and name the author. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)