This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dacia B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DaciaWikipedia:WikiProject DaciaTemplate:WikiProject DaciaDacia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. European history Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Unassessed Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Ethnic groups Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Middle Ages B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Romania B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Wikipedia Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Wikipedia Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks Human Genetic History B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Anthropology Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

According to my DNA analysis, I'm 70.3% of Balkan ethnicity (Serb, Croat, Bosnian, Macedonian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Romanian, etc., much less Hungarian and not Ukrainian, Polish or Russian), 21% of Greek ethnicity (Greek, Cypriot, Cretan) and I come for 8.7% from the Middle East (which could mean Arab, Persian or Iranian, Jew, Egyptian, Coptic, Turk, Syrian, Yemeni, Kurdish, Iraqi, etc. — but not Ashkenazim, Mizrachi, Yemenite Jew or Sephardi). The gist is: the geneticists of MyHeritage cannot distinguish between geographically close countries. So all DNA research is fuzzy and cannot distinguish between Serb, Croat, Albanian and Romanian. That's why DNA studies are of limited use in respect to the origin of Romanians. E.g. most Romanians tested by MyHeritage show as preponderantly of Balkan ethnicity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not a long ago I saw a video where such were promoted, i.e. many people around the world who were proud of their nationality and origin and were confident of it was put on a voluntary gerentic test and some very-very interesting results came out that shocked them or changed their mind - i.e. Englishman had German ancestry who don't really like Germans, or Kurdish lady who eventually had identical DNA with the common of Turks, etc.). I appreciate you did that, such would be very interesting for every people. I also agree that we have to be very careful regarding the DNA studies, however mostly by their interpretations, since regarding R1A1, both opposing sides evaluate the results as the reinforcement of their views, although scientifically/statistically the causation i sproblematic regarding who is thereal borrower or inheritor.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC))Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, did you just compare one individual genetic profile with a scientific study and infer that "So all DNA research is fuzzy and cannot distinguish between Serb, Croat, Albanian and Romanian. That's why DNA studies are of limited use in respect to the origin of Romanians."? Do you mean to tell us that based on your personal (individual) experience, you somehow draw the conclusion that generally speaking genetic studies of "Balkan" populations (not Hungarian, of course) are inconclusive?

Do you know how statistics work (serious question)?Cealicuca (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about my experience, it is about the knowledge of the geneticists working for MyHeritage. I thought that was already clear from what I have written above. You may Google it for yourself, they have nice maps about it: it is really hard for geneticists to distinguish between the ethnicities from geographically close countries. They base their conclusions on many peer-reviewed studies. If you need more info use Google Translate with https://radar.avrotros.nl/uitzendingen/reacties/item/online-dna-testen-reactie-myheritage/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do not dispute the genetic results. I dispute your interpretation of it (which is quite clear). Your interpretation, based on your individual genetic test result is:"According to my DNA analysis [...] The gist is: the geneticists of MyHeritage cannot distinguish between geographically close countries. So all DNA research is fuzzy and cannot distinguish between Serb, Croat, Albanian and Romanian. That's why DNA studies are of limited use in respect to the origin of Romanians. E.g. most Romanians tested by MyHeritage show as preponderantly of Balkan ethnicity.".

So again, based on YOUR genetic results, you infer that scientific studies are "fuzzy" or of "limited use" for Romanians or whatever.Cealicuca (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading ability is somewhat disappointing. As Prof. Yaniv Erlich says at that link, if one would travel from London to Moscow and analyze the DNA of the people he/she meets, about 3% of variation in DNA would be explained by the particular country wherein that person lives/was born. For Eastern Europe MyHeritage has just two ethnicities: Balkan and East European. They don't have a Dutch ethnicity since that's too close to other countries. With a high percentage Balkan and a somewhat lower percentage Greek, I'm typical for most Romanians who have been tested by this company. My Middle Eastern roots are atypical for Romanians, but that's only 8.7%. The test goes back for 10 generations. The company would love to distinguish between Bosnian and Bulgarian, between Serb and Romanian, etc., but there is simply not enough variation in DNA. With the passing of time, its knowledge may advance, so this picture could change, but we have to abide by WP:BALL. Or, to put it otherwise, between Serb and Romanian there could be a difference in the DNA, but the overlap is much greater than the difference. E.g. something like this: [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This subject has already been exhausted on these talk pages (see archives or check your short-term memory banks since you were one of the participants just a few months ago), and yet here you are opening up the subject again with inane comments showing that you still know nothing about DNA research. I've already provided all the answers (with corresponding links) in my previous comments so I won't bother again since it's obvious that you're not here to learn but rather to push an agenda, which might/should have serious consequences for you on Wiki. Rather than waste other editors' time with your personal "issues/opinions" please state your point clearly and then provide WP:RS to back it up. Anything else is a waste of time. P.S. all those companies currently doing "DNA analysis" are more of less a sham, not because their results are not "correct", but because their methodologies are such that the results are (purposely?) fuzzy and unreliable (just google it and you'll find plenty of articles saying things like this "A spokesperson for 23andMe says their results are based on a sliding confidence scale, ranging from 50-90 percent"). That's because what they do is compare autosomal DNA between modern populations, so they have their reference DNA of, say, Balkan or Greek or Middle Eastern populations and the results come up something like you're X%Balkan, Y%Greek and Z%Middle-Eastern, since you (a human, I assume) should have something in common with most of those populations (as would anyone to a certain degree). Of course, if they decide to have Romanian as a reference population, then people from all over the world would be getting results saying they're 15% or 20% Romanian, etc. Which, of course, is ridiculous. What these companies DO NOT test for is your mtDNA/Y-DNA against ancient mtDNA from the country of your origin. Both mtDNA and Y-DNA are passed down unchanged from generation to generation and the only way to determine your "ethnicity" (for what it's worth) is by comparing your mtDNA (more accurate than Y-DNA since it's passed down unchanged from mother to child, regardless of gender) to mtDNA extracted from ancient populations (Romanian, in this case). That's what those DNA studies (done by academics) quoted in this article have done, and that's the only way to do it correctly and do it accurately. Otherwise, feel free to take comfort in the fact that we share 90%+ in common with pigs and chimps (which explains, I guess, the level of some of the debates on these talk pages).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been given the example with mtDNA and Y-DNA 100% Swede, yet the man is 50% black. Or something like this: his mother's mother's mother is 100% Swede, his father's father's father is 100% Swede, and the rest of that generation are all black. See also So you’re related to Charlemagne? You and every other living European… Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what you're talking about and it's pretty clear neither do you. You already brought up that example in our previous discussion and I showed you why it has no bearing on the mtDNA studies done by the academics (the kind mentioned in this article), so I won't comment on this any further. Again, what's your point and what are the WP:RS supporting it? You produce that, or else this discussion is over (as far as I'm concerned).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: This has nothing to do with my reading ability. You still don't seem to understand that there is a difference between one's genetic profile (as an individual) and a whole population genetic profile. The point is that the company/Yavin Elrich recognizes that:

• The DNA results with respect to ethnicity may vary between providers, due to a number of factors: difference in algorithms that are used; difference in the reference populations used; the number of ethnicities with which the DNA is compared and which are these.
• There are usually small differences in the genetic characteristics between different population groups. These differences can be very small.
• By integrating patterns of differences in various parts of your genome, the algorithm estimates your likely genetic composition. It compares your DNA with 42 ethnic groups from around the world. We intend to add more in the future, with the help of our Founder Population project, a comprehensive study on this. [Important: The project's genetic "database" contains "[...] thousands of MyHeritage users from all around the world [...]"]
• A DNA test goes back several hundred years, about 10 generations. As a result, it can generally give a different picture than 3 or 4 generations in a family tree. In some cases it is the other way around: the family tree does not go far enough back to match with a DNA trace from the past.
• Is yout MyHeritage DNA test reliable? [...] it is always estimates - a series of hypotheses generated from individual DNA. Some ethnicities are genetically very similar, and therefore difficult to distinguish from other ethnicities, which can lead to errors. So we are certainly in favor of looking at ethnicity outcomes with a critical eye. We continue to work hard on improving accuracy and adding more ethnicities that are not yet identified.

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

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

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

Look, i'm not trying to pick a "fight" here. I don't even realize why you opened the discussion - what is your goal. But I genuinely believe that you do not take into consideration all the aspects and jump to rushed conclusions.Cealicuca (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of WP:RS, we do not like WP:PRIMARY DNA research. See WP:MEDRS, WP:HISTRS, WP:SCIRS. It's simply not our tasks to write reviews of primary scientific literature. Our interpretations of primary literature could be true, could be false, but they are certainly not reliable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We were actually speaking of how you inferred that your individual genetic profile is relevant to an ethnicity's genetic profile. In any case, I am looking at this section and no, it doesn't seem to rely at all (mainly) in primary sources. Moreover, your conclusion about primary sources, that "they are certainly not reliable", is not quite reflecting the Wikipedia policies. Some are reliable, some maybe aren't. Actually, what is certain is that they are not all unreliable. It's not the reliability of the primary source that is concerning, it's the use of it.Cealicuca (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It means "Our interpretations of primary sources certainly aren't reliable". See Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

You misunderstand what WP:PRIMARY means. See Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Origin of the Romanians. Tgeorgescu (talk)

@Iovaniorgovan:, why do you think that a map which presents one of the main theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis violates WP:NPOV? Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because, clearly, if there's a map for IT, there should be a map for DRCT and one for AT. Anything else violates due weight, so I suggest you refrain from posting such things until we come to a conclusion on the NPOV board debate (this is the reason we got into that debate in the first place). Again, feel free to post that map when we separate the sections.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate section dedicated to the immigrationist theory. Please feel free to place a map which presents any other theory in the article. WP:NPOV does not say that a map presenting one of the concurring theories cannot be placed without placing other maps. Accoring to this policy (Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete), "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content." Furthermore, the caption of the map clearly shows that it present a scholary POV, so it is fully in line with Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV. As it is presented here:

Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is we're in the middle of a debate concerning this very thing, so it behooves you to wait until we reach a consensus over there before making this kind of edit. Unless you accept the proposals made there and we create separate sections as we should (and will, eventually).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The debate has been sleeping for days and no external input has been achieved. The repetition of personal POVs is not a debate. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sought comments on the above issue on the relevant noticeboard. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu died more than a hundred years ago. Is his theory describing the Albanians as migrating Carpians is still accepted by any experts of the subject? If not, we should delete the map presenting it. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke?Cealicuca (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name experts of the Albanians' ethnogenesis who accept this theory and published their view in peer reviewed books or periodicals, as per WP:Fringe and WP:Due? Borsoka (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stop here. Just because it is related to Albanians (and I would like to point out that there are several statements here, not just Hasdeu's, that are related to Albania and Albanians and Albanian language) is not grounds for removal. Although I am glad and I appreciate that you begin to understand why this article would benefit of a thorough review/reorganizing...Cealicuca (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to remove it because it is related to Albanians, but because it presents a fringe theory. Can you name experts of the Albanians' ethnogenesis who accept this theory and published their view in peer reviewed books or periodicals, as per WP:Fringe and WP:Due? Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not present a fringe theory. It is an argument brought up in the development of one theory which, coincidentally, in the article is presented as a mainstream theory.Cealicuca (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If other scholars do not accept it, we can only describe it as a fringe theory. I requested a third opinion on the issue ([2]). Borsoka (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasdeu's statement is not a theory on the Origin of Romanians, as you try to present it, but an argument used by him in order to support a theory. Good that you did. Please post the correct link to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Cealicuca (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not tried to present it as a theory on the Origin of the Romanians. If you follow the permalink above, you will find my request listed where it should be listed. Borsoka (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If other scholars do not accept it, we can only describe it as a fringe theory." - did anyone else said that? I thought you said that... As for your permalink - it shows a difference in revisions. The Active disagreements section contains this point: Discussion about a map in the Origin of the Romanians article. Please correct it as it's not about the map per say, but rather Hasdeu. Thank you :)Cealicuca (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my first sentence above. Borsoka (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I removed this from the Third Opinion requests since an RfC was called (below). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg:, please restore it, because the map presenting Hasdeu's theory is not subject to the RfC below. Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map referred above is the following:

@Borsoka: Restored 3O request. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the administrator was clear enough - please discuss if you want to add/modify something. It seems that for some people this wasn't clear.

@Cealicuca:, you deleted two maps from the article, saying "The editor added maps from a cartographer without putting the work of a cartographer in the context of any of the historical mainstream theory." Please note, that the article's subject is the Romanians' ethnogenesis, and the two maps nicely shows aspects of the process mentioned in the article based on reliable sources.

Based on a reliable source, the article says, "The territories south of the Danube were subject to the Romanization process for about 800 years, while Dacia province to the north of the river was only for 165 years under Roman rule, which caused "a certain disaccord between the effective process of Roman expansion and Romanization and the present ethnic configuration of Southeastern Europe", according to Lucian Boia." The maps presents this "dissaccord". Why do you think the article does not provide enough context?

Based on reliable sources, the article says that "A royal charter of 1223 confirming a former grant of land is the earliest official document of Romanians in Transylvania. It refers to the transfer of land previously held by them to the monastery of Cârța, which proves that this territory had been inhabited by Vlachs before the monastery was founded. ... [In 1224] the Transylvanian Saxons were entitled to use certain forests together with the Vlachs and Pechenegs. ... References to Vlachs living in the lands of secular lords and prelates in the Kingdom of Hungary appeared in the 1270s. First the canons of the cathedral chapter in Alba Iulia received a royal authorization to settle Romanians to their domains in 1276. Thereafter, royal charters attest the presence of Romanians in more counties, for instance in Zărand from 1318, in Bihor and in Maramureș from 1326, and in Turda from 1342. The first independent Romanian state, the Principality of Wallachia, was known as Oungrovlachia ("Vlachia near Hungary") in Byzantine sources, while Moldavia received the Greek denominations Maurovlachia ("Black Vlachia") or Russovlachia ("Vlachia near Russia")." The map shows the Vlachs' territory near Cârța, the Vlachs and Pechenegs' forests and the earliest attested references to Vlachs. Why do you think the article does not provide enough context?

Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. We don't get to find stuff and just put it here. This is WP:SYNTH. Has any scholar (WP:RS) that is specifically mentioning one of the theories also uses this map? Because otherwise what a cartographer does is what a cartographer does, it's quite different than a historian. And good luck trying to use the misleading and already skewed statements from this article as supportive arguments. This is not how you add context, you add context by properly citing sources (with the context that the source intended). Again, is any scholar that has a book, article - whatever about any of the mainstream theories using those maps? Post them here.Cealicuca (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, if it's related to the IT or another theory, then it should be under the proper section.Cealicuca (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover (moreover) although I can find the map with the neo-latin languages, I can't find the second map...Cealicuca (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source verifying these maps uses it in the context of the Romanians' ethogenesis which is the subject of the article. Why do you think they are related to only one of the theories? Do you think, Boia whose statement is quoted above accepts the immigrationist theory like Bereznay (who designed the map)? Bereznay is a historian, who worked as cartographer for the Historical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and conceived and compiled the entire map content of The Times Atlas of European History ([3]) Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said - first of all you should cite the work that interprets that map and gives it context. A historian's work (not a History graduate who is a great cartographer... and has no - as far as I can see on his - work published on this subject - how the ethnogenesis of the Romanians happend).

I published several critical treatises on atlases in The Times (of London) and in Hungarian language academic or other learned journals in Hungary and in the US. I published a thesis titled Civilizations towards a World Civilization that reviews the current of World History from the angle of Political Geography in Földrajzi Értesítö, and later again in'2000' (in Hungarian). I published a thesis titled Central Europe - a Western Landscape that contributes to the debate on the meaning of Central Europe and offers a coherent definition of its extent in Regio (in Hungarian).

But if I am wrong you will promptly be able to produce his work (or some other historian, not cartographer preferably) that deals with the maps you added. AND (if the maps do prove to be more than just a cartographer's self published work) those maps should be put in the proper section. If they refer to IT, then so be it - IT section it is.Cealicuca (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map is not self-published, becuse it is based on the following book: Bereznay, András (2011). Erdély történetének atlasza [Atlas of the History of Transylvania]. Méry Ratio. ISBN 978-80-89286-45-4. We do not need to refer to other works which cite these specific maps, because we are not here to duplicate existing works, but to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. I sought a 3rd opinion ([4]), because our debate emerges from the different interpretations of WP policies. Borsoka (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia misses professionally designed maps. Bereznay's maps are excellent works. We would have to appreciate that he is willing to contribute to Wikipedia. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that there's a discussion going on before reverting the edit? A cartographer is not a WP:RS when it comes to the History of the Romanians. Which WP:RS used that exact map? Cite work title and page number.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew the request for third opinion, because there are more than 2 editors involved in the debate. I initiated an RfC below. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can the two maps discussed above be placed in the article? Borsoka (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Yes, they can. They are designed by a professional cartographer, properly sourced. We would need more maps like these. I do not even understand why it is an issue. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think two editors display a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, importing ethnic conflicts into Wikipedia, as explained at User:Moreschi/The Plague. So I would say that the maps can be placed in the article. Of course, maps supporting the other theories could be placed as well, if they comply with WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Against Just to be clear, I'm not against maps as long as they're taken out of a WP:RS and placed within their proper theoretical context. This one is not, as it's only "verified" by Borsoka, a Wiki editor, hence amounting to WP:OR. Furthermore, that cartographer is NOT a WP:RS when it comes to the ORIGIN OF THE ROMANIANS, or else you should be able to produce some of the cartographer's academic work on the subject. Finally, if the maps in Schramm's work "verify" this cartographer's map, as Borsoka claims, why not just post a map from Schramm's book (with the proper citations and context)?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)— Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • The map is verified by a reliable source (Bereznay) not by me. We are not here to duplicate maps from existing scholarly works, especially as per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I have never claimed that these maps are verified by Schramm's work. Borsoka (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have, right here ("Furthermore, the maps in Schramm's work verify Bereznay's map.") You either have a very short memory, seeing as you just posted that, or you are deliberately obfuscating.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There are 3 maps. 1 of them is verified also by a map in Schramm's work. The 2 other maps are subject to this RfC. Borsoka (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I support - as always - any properly sourced maps, as such are present in plenty of other articles; i.e. in some Romania related articles there are only present maps based on i.e. Hasdeu's origin theory, but nothing else, but nobody struggled to remove them. The more maps, the more viewpoint, the more to NPOV.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]

• Against ...in the current form. There are several problems here.

• 1. The source is a freelance map cartographer, he does that for a living, under contract. As such, he doesn't need any historical analysis, just money and someone to pay him to compile given historical sources.
• 2. Does this cartographer offer any context (historical analysis) to this map? Is his work (in this case) simply descriptive?
• 3. Would any of you be OK with another editor randomly posting content from otherwise WP:RS that are not historians and do not have any supporting historical analysis for their maps? We're not here to build a theory on the Romanian ethnogenesis.
• 4. (!!!) Even in case the maps were to be accepted, considering the map represents a theory (graphical descriptor of the arguments that the theory presents) it cannot and should not be placed in an "Evidence" section. It is a descriptor of a theory - a theory which interprets said evidence, therefore a map that describes part of that theory is not evidence in and of itself. It should be placed in the corresponding (theory) section.
• I would also like to remind some people of WP:MEAT. As for other editors, please stop provoking and don't push the discussion to a certain direction. So far it has been civil and nobody (but you) has brought up the subject of ethnic conflicts.Cealicuca (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)— Cealicuca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(1) Bereznay's map was published by a publishing house, independent of him. Bereznay worked for the Hungarian Academy of Science and other renowned institutions. Do you think historians do not work for a salary? (2) His work is simply descriptive, based on reliable sources dedicated to the subject of the map. For instance, works written by László Makkai and Gyula Kristó (two renowned Hungarian historians) are among his sources. Any WP editor is entitled to prepare a map based on reliable sources. Why do you think a cartographer is forbidden to complete a map? (3) If it is based on reliable sources, yes. (4) The map should be put where it is connected to the article's text. (Would you please delete your bold sentence because it is disturbing. Furthermore it is baseless.) Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Bereznay's map was indeed published by a publishing house. But is the map his research? Or was he paid (as in commercial contract - which is far from academic research) to compile/create a map on someone else's research? Is the published piece an academic research article/book? Janitors also work for a salary. Shout they also be considered reliable sources because historians also get paid for their work? (2) So if his work is simply descriptive then it should be presented as such, not as having a role in the development of any of the theories or as evidence supporting a theory. The article has a section dedicated to that. (3) The fact that it is based on WP:RS (uses WP:RS to compile data) does not make it a WP:RS. And thank you for letting us know what you consider a well sourced content. (4) The map should be placed in the section describing the theory which the map itself supposedly describes. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Again, why do you insist on placing it otherwise, and thus mislead the readers, when we already have a (small) section dedicated to this? (4) I am sorry it disturbed you, I have removed it.Cealicuca (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I am pretty sure that Bereznay received a salary for his book. Few scholars publish their work without a proper renumeration. (2) and (4) The maps should be placed where they assist readers to understand certain aspects of the article as it is explained above. (3) Bereznay's work is a reliable source in itself: it was written by an expert and it was not self-published. Nevertheless, he refers, among others, to the following works: Erdély története ("History of Transylvania", edited by László Makkai and other historians, written by dozens of historians, its English translation can be read here [5]), Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9-14. század) ("Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th–14th centuries)", edited by Gyula Kristó and other historians, written by dozens of historians, [6]). Sorry, I do not want to force uninvolved editors to read lengthy and boring discussion, so I stop commenting this RfC. Borsoka (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Yes. Point being - it's a freelance cartographer's work. Nothing more. It does not constitute an analysis on the Romanian ethnogenesys but, at best, it's a non-historian, non-academic graphical description of one of the theories adressing the issue. (2) Why so cryptic? Is the map presenting IT arguments? Yes. Does the article have a section dedicating to describing/summarizing IT? Yes. Does the map have anything to do with the development of the IT theory? No. Is any description of a theory a supportive argument for that theory? No. So why should it be placed in any other place than the section dedicated to that theory? (4) Sorry, I think i missed the academic peer review on this WP:RS. Could you please link it? Not any piece of work that uses WP:RS is a WP:RS. Oh, how thoughtful of you... "Sorry, I do not want to force uninvolved [...]". I actually expected you to say "Sorry, I do not understand your statement [...]".Cealicuca (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I can easily design a map, which has to be based on a reliable source and has to comply with other Wikimedia Commons' rules (e.g copyvio), and this map can be used freely on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who the author is. Even if the author was a mechanic it would not matter. Bereznay's maps are based on academic researches and his maps help to understand certain academic viewpoints.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fakirbakir: While you're at it you may want to actually read why I said I oppose.Cealicuca (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I see no reason whatsoever not to include these maps as they are relevant to the topic and are properly sourced. These maps in my opinion help illustrate the points and theories of the origins of the Romanians. I don't see how this could be a NPOV issue at all. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I can't see any valid objection to the use of these maps. As mentioned above, it really doesn't matter who made them, as long as they accurately illustrate the points made in the article. If there's some dispute as to their accuracy, that can be addressed through their placement in context, and captioning. But that doesn't seem to be at issue in this dispute. P Aculeius (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: Actually at least this map is a little bit incorrect. The legend depicts Romanian language and "other Neo-Latin" spread, c. 20. It includes areas where Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian are/were spoken - (added for clarity: but the map labels it as "Romanian") - while at the same time the article states that "Common Romanian split into four variants (Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) during the 10th-12th centuries.". So both cannot be correct at the same time. Moreover, the legend contains "Other Neo-Latin speaking in mid-C20, with language" which I suppose is an auto-translation - nevertheless should be rectified.

The last thing is that this map being a description it should not be put in the Evidence or Historiography section. Since it's not considered a WP:RS it cannot constitute "evidence" nor has it had any role in the development of any of the three theories. Would you agree to this? Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cealicuca:, please revert your message to P Aculeius, because (1) the map does not state that either Romanian or other Neo-Latin languages spread in the 20th century (so it does not contradict the article, either); (2) the legend describes the map correctly (Portuguese, Spanish, Gallego and other Neo-Latin languages are mentioned); (3) please note that the "disaccord between the effective process of Roman expansion and Romanization and the present ethnic configuration of Southeastern Europe" (Lucian Boia) is a generally accepted background of any theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. I kindly ask you to respect other editors' time and abandon this "bludgeoing" type of discussion. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Oh, bludgeoning it is. Right :). Why revert it? If I am wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll admit it gladly. Its not that hard to check either (look at the map, read at the article). (1) The map legend states "Other Neo-Latin speaking in mid-C20, with language". Could you explain what that does refer to? (3) Thank you for sharing your "generally accepted background" research with us. Could you possibly quote the specific statement in the IT section? Furthermore, how does that solve the two conflicting pieces of information? I gave a direct quote from the article, as well as a direct quote from the map.Cealicuca (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make distinction between the words "speaking" and "spreading" and you cannot understand basic sentences in English. Sorry, I do not have time to play your game. Borsoka (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... you mean this sentence? The legend depicts Romanian language and "other Neo-Latin" spread? As in noun, not verb. The extent, width, or area covered by something. (ETA to make it clearer: In this context, the area covered by Neo-Latin language speaking populations). I am sorry you were not able to understand this.Cealicuca (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'd like to introduce a new source. In order to make this as smooth as possible and prevent the seemingly endless talks about WP:RS I thought best to establish first the reliability of the source. Together - group therapy :)

So, it seems to me that this source is as reliable as it gets, waiting for your input/objections.

A Concise History of Romania, by Keith Hitchins, Cambridge Concise Histories - Cambridge University Press

ISBN 978-0-521-87238-6 Hardback

ISBN 978-0-521-69413-1 Paperback

Thank you. (ETA: forgot to sign)Cealicuca (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it yet, but it sure looks legit WP:RS. Also, you may wanna sign your comments.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]