Talk:Gelou/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Origin of Gelou

Juro, I'm glad that you've added your expertise to this stub. However, the last couple of sentences are somewhat contradictory as there is a difference between myth, legend and fiction. Are you saying that the figure of Gelou was created by the author of GH and has since become a legend? And how can you be sure that the author created Gelou rather than take him from an earlier source? Scott Moore 12:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are right. I just wrote this too quickly. I hope it's better now... I am quite sure there are studies dealing specifically with the Gelou figure, which specify the exact source (if any) of this particular "legend", but since I haven't read them, I can only provide the generally assumed statement that he actually did not exist. If you have exact information on him, go on and add it. Juro 19:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to Pal Engel in his recent "Realm of St. Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary" Gelou was probably created by the author of GH like most of the enemies of Arpad. Scott Moore 12:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Juro 02:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous is a strong issue for historians and nationalists from Romania and Hungaria, if Gelu was a real character then the Daco-romanism theory have a very strong agrument using hungarian history as primary source. The argument that Gelou was created by the author is coming not from science pov but from political point of view.CristianChirita 04:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CristianChirita, I am aware that the history of Transylvania was very politicised during the communist era in both Hungary and Romania. I have deliberately avoided using any secondary sources from before 1990. However, the argument that Gelou was probably created by the author is supported by the leading Hungarian historians of today specialising in the medieval period (e.g Pal Engel as I refer to above - who was formerly Director of Medieval Studies at the Academy of Sciences). Note the word probable (Engel does not claim it as fact that Gelou did not exist - he says that it is probable, based on arguments which I have summarised in the article). Scott Moore 10:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article seems fair, I cannot be very objective, maybe someone could mention that Romanian historians argue that probable Gelu was a real character proving that the continuity of the inhabitants of transylvania was genuine. Maybe this will be once and forever solved with the help of the genographic project.CristianChirita 12:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See also the arguments given in Talk:Menumorut by Juro

Anonymous the ignorant

• author of the Gesta apparently knew little or nothing about the real political situation in the Pannonian plain around the time of the Magyar conquest; the

well, one thing was certain: Anonymous knew about a slav-vlach living together in 10th century, a situation nonexistant in 12th century, so he didn't invent starting from the realities of his time

second is that he used the name Blachi for the Vlachs, while in the 12 century the hungarian word for Vlachs was Olah, so he "apparently" knew couple of things about the past.

also, he indicates the Bulgarian rule over Transylvania in 10th century, also long vanished by 12th century.

so the "apparent" ignorance of Anonymous about the situation in Transylvania in 10th century needs more argumentation -- Criztu 08:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Vlach and Slavs living together-> Do you heard about the so-called Assenid Bulgarian Empire? (contemporary with Anonymus)

2. The royal chancellery used the phrase olachus only after 1247. Before that the expression was blachus.

Cleanup

This article needs context. How is it significant? What does it relate to? All of these are sort of absent fromt his article and need to be added. --Lendorien 01:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Issue resolved. Now needs sources for the assertations and quotes included in the article. --Lendorien 15:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of the name

The name Gelou (or Gelu)cames from Latin Angelus! so it's not of hungarian or turkic origins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.147.130 (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Unknown Editor, the Romanian word for angel is ânger. Therefore, if I understand your above remark correctly, he must have been a Latin (not a Romanian) who survived the storms of the Migration Period between 275 and 895; it sounds like an original research but if you find a reliable source, please do not refrain from citing it. But I think even if you found a reliable source to prove your interesting view, an other sentence based on a reliable source should not be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Aștileu was in Gelou's duchy?

I did not check the original text, but according to File:Gesta_hungarorum_map.jpg the village Aștileu (that is mentioned in the article) belongs to Menumorut's duchy, not to Gelou's duchy. 78.83.19.147 (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that village was situated in Gelou's duchy, according to maps presented in at least two academic works (Madgearu, Alexandru (2005b). The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum: Truth and Fiction. Romanian Cultural Institute, Center for Transylvanian Studies. p. 40. ISBN 973-7784-01-4. and Pop, Ioan Aurel (1996). Romanians and Hungarians from the 9th to the 14th Century: The Genesis of the Transylvanian Medieval State. Centrul de Studii Transilvane, Fundaţia Culturală Română. ISBN 973-577-037-7., third map between pages 112 and 113). Borsoka (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Procedee repudiate

Repudiem procedee care, recurgând la demolarea lui Anonymus, decretează absenţa românilor din spaţiile pe care aceştia le locuiesc. I. A. Pop, Românii şi maghiarii din Transilvania sec IX-XIV, Centrul de studii Transilvane, Cluj Napoca 1996, pag.7

http://www.slideshare.net/FrescatiStory/ioan-aurel-pop-romanii-si-maghiarii-din-transilvania-sec-ix-xiv?qid=6e6fa4ac-d8bf-4ec2-a8c6-cd9aacc6c45b&v=qf1&b=&from_search=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.36.185 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

When reading Wikipedia, always keep in mind that it is controlled by few people (who are they??? Borsoka and some fellows) who use a system of rules and regulation to serve their bias and interest and therefore do not to give you reliable information but act together to discredit people and ideas of their choosing. Read from http://fakeconferences.blogspot.ro/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.44.71 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

When editing WP, always keep in mind that there are policies, including WP:NOR, which cannot be ignored without explanation. Borsoka (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral

I know that you think that a book which was first published in 1873 ([1]) is still relevant, but please understand that most editors do not share this view. That there are many late 20th-century and early 21st-century scholars who think that Vlachs lived in Transylvania is mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

...Borsoka, your opinion is not according to Wiki rules. Making new rules means censoring and fraudulent activity. Show me the rule you act in this case. Making new rules and bringing supporters for your new rules is a dishonest activity. Sayous is already used in several international pages about history. So, you are dishonest acting here against Sayous, and admitting then Sayous in other pages. If you may not show me the rule, I will ask an international referee and I will accuse you of obstructionist activity. Eurocentral (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please avoid personal attacks and remember WP:civility. Would you please mention some "international pages about history" in which Sayous's work from 1873 is still referred to? Please share with us what do you want to write in the article and I will try to find a modern peer reviewed source which substantiates it if it is a relevant fact and that fact has not been mentioned in the article yet. Borsoka (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka why are you afraid of Sayous ? He was a French academic and wrote a well appreciated History of Hungary. Are you against dead historians? Why do you want to use a new rule about dead historians ? A lot of pages of Hungarian history is filled with references of dead historians.

Why do you insist to enter your personal WIKI rule about dead historians ? Why do you censor Sayous ? What do you want to hide ?

Why do you accept Sayous in some pages and why do you reject Sayous in Gelou's pages ? This is a duplicity in Wiki pages! I prepare an infringement action against your new personal rule. Eurocentral (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are some dead writers included in Hungarian history pages: Ladislaus I of Hungary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladislaus_I_of_Hungary):

References in Ladislaus I (writers wrote about facts years before them):

The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle: Chronica de Gestis Hungarorum

Archdeacon Thomas of Split: History of the Bishops of Salona and Split (dead writer )

Cosmas of Prague: The Chronicle of the Czechs (dead writer)

Bernold of St Blasien, Chronicle (year 1087) (dead writer)

Eurocentral (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, if you think that Sayous is a primary source (like Cosmas of Prague, Thomas of Split, Bernold of St Blasian) you cannot cite his work without a reference to a reliable source in accordance with WP:NOR. I repeat: instead of making idle accusations of other editors, please share with us what information do you want to write in this article and I will try to find a modern peer reviewed source which substantiates it if it is a relevant fact and that fact has not been mentioned in the article yet. Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka There hundreds of Wiki pages with historians from other centuries:

Panonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonia)

See next references from Panonia page:

Historical outlook: a journal for readers, students and teachers of history, Том 9, American Historical Association, National Board for Historical Service, National Council for the Social Studies, McKinley Publishing Company, 1918, page 194.

The third book of history: containing ancient history in connection with ancient geography, Samuel Griswold Goodrich, Jenks, Palmer, 1835, page 111

All these show that there is no WIKI rule about the century of historian. An investigation need to start in order to avoid future abuse.Eurocentral (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, you referred to some "international pages about history" in which Sayous's work from 1873 is cited, but you have not listed a single one ([2]). You think that Sayous work is a primary source (like The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle) ([3]), but you have not added a reliable source which could substantiate the use of that primary source in accordance with WP:NOR, as I suggested it to you on Friday ([4]). Please take into account that this is tha Talk page of the article about Gelou. Please tell me what information do you want to write about Gelou in this article and I will try to find a modern peer reviewed source which substantiates it if it is a relevant fact and that fact has not been mentioned in the article yet. Borsoka (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, FYI: [5]. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

I see that a request has been made for a third opinion. However, it isn't clear to me what the question is. A book that was written in 1873 is certainly a valid secondary source about someone who lived centuries earlier, if that is the question. I also suggest re-reading the civility policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thank you for your above comment. I try to re-word my question: does a reference to a book which was published in 1873 add value to WP, especially if we take into account that the scholarly POV from the 145-year-old book is already mentioned in the article based on late 20th-century and early 21st-century academic sources. Borsoka (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My own opinion is that a book published in 1873 does add value in addition to more modern academic sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thank you for your comment. My only concern is how many 19th-century scholars should be mentioned in order to be fully in line with WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the article in enough detail to offer an opinion on that. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I think that a late 19th-century historian who wrote a general book about the history of a country, but is not the expert of a specific aspect of the history of the same country could only be cited in connection with that specific topic if his views are still relevant. If his views are not cited in modern (late 20th-century and early 21st-century) scholarly works, any reference to his view can easily be regarded as OR. Could you accept this approach? Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't researched the issue in detail and don't have an opinion. I don't think that citing an obscure 19th century scholar is original research, but I don't think that original research is a magic word to sweep away obscure sources. I am finished here. If doubts continue, go to reliable sources noticeboard or dispute resolution noticeboard. I am finished here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thank you for your above (non-opinion) comments during a process dedicated to requesting a third opinion. Borsoka (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon thank you for your opinion: "My own opinion is that a book published in 1873 does add value in addition to more modern academic sources". User:Robert McClenon Eurocentral (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, Why do you erase my references, including Sayous and Lozovan ? They are accepted by the supporters of the theory of continuity. Eurocentral (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, read the relevant discussions above and below and on the Talk page of Origin of the Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Panonia

Besides Panonia, Slovakia has references from other century: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Slovakia

Reference: Lawrence Barnett Phillips (1871). The dictionary of biographical reference: containing one hundred thousand names, together with a classed index of the biographical literature of Europe and America. S. Low, Son, & Marston. p. 1020

Panonia is a Wiki page full of references from other centuries. In Gelou, the reference of E. Sayous was excluded by an editor without expressing the rule. It shows that there is a discrimination against some authors. This discrimination has to be investigated. Eurocentral (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, this is the Talk page of the article "Gelou". If you want to initiate a new discussion about the articles "Panonia" and Slovakia, please try it on the relevant Talk pages. Borsoka (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka The question is that there are a lot of Wiki pages with references from the 18,19, and 20th centuries. Censoring in Gelou the use of a 19 or 20 century reference, it is a discrimination. I asked several times: show me the Wiki rule.

If you have no rule to show me, you make a discrimination censoring a reference in this page. 86.124.151.175 (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please read our discussion under the above subtitle more carefully. You have not written what is the piece of information you have been desperatelly attempting to add based on a book written in 1873. I suggest you should not duplicate our discussion on the same topic. Borsoka (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Discrimination in Gelou pages comparing with Panonia pages

We may read in Panonia pages about references from 100 to 200 years ago:

The third book of history: containing ancient history in connection with ancient geography, Samuel Griswold Goodrich, Jenks, Palmer, 1835, page 111.

Historical outlook: a journal for readers, students and teachers of history, Том 9, American Historical Association, National Board for Historical Service, National Council for the Social Studies, McKinley Publishing Company, 1918, page 194.

THE COTTAGE CYCLOPEDIA OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY, ED.M.PIERCE, 1869, page 915.

In Gelou pages, a reference of Sayous from 100 years was eliminated. Why a editor named Borsoka made this discrimination and why he made Wiki pages contradictory and full of censored pages ?

We need an investigation. Eurocentral (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please try to remain serious and do not open new and new subpages for the same debate. As I mentioned above this is the Talk page of the article "Gelou" and not of the article "Panonia". Borsoka (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Carlile Aylmer Macartney

Eurocentral, Carlile Aylmer Macartney is a well-known specialist of early medieval Hungarian chronicles. His works are frequently cited by modern scholars. For instance, Victor Spinei lists Macartney's three works in his book published in 2009 (The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century, ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5); Alexandru Madgearu specifically refers to Macartney's work you deleted (The Medieval Hungarian Historians: A Critical and Analitical Guide) in his 2005 monography dedicated to Anonymous's narration of Gelou and the Vlachs (The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum, ISBN 973-7784-01-4). Please do not remove references to widely cited reliable sources from the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka Edouard Sayous and Macartney are born in XIXth century. Sayous was a member of French academy. For fairplay, we have to exclude both or to enter both of them. 1959 book of Macartney is too old for this page. Censoring Sayous shows a subjective approach. Eurocentral (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please read the above discussion again. (1) Macartney's work was published in 1953, Sayous's work in 1873. (2) Macartney's works are still cited in scholarly works (as I mentioned it above, referring to Spinei's and Madgearu's work. You have not referred to any modern scholarly book which refers to Sayous's book. (3) Macartney's book cited in the article is a monography dedicated to medieval Hungarian historians, including the Gesta Hungarorum, which is the only source of Gelou's life. Sayous's book is a general history of Hungary. (4) Macartney's work is specifically cited in a 21st-century scholarly work (Madgearu's above cited book) which is dedicated to the history of Transylvania around 900. Sayous's work is not cited in works dedicated to Gelou or to Gelou's alleged duchy. Consequently, please do not compare the two scholars (Macartney and Sayous) in this context. Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka Please read first, Third Opinion Request: Sayous is a reliable source ! Eurocentral (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: My own opinion is that a book published in 1873 does add value in addition to more modern academic sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please read the above discussion again, more carefully. Robert McClenon wrote that ":I haven't researched the issue in detail and don't have an opinion. ... If doubts continue, go to reliable sources noticeboard or dispute resolution noticeboard" ([6]). Consequently, please do not refer to his above remark as an opinion. Furthermore, you may have forgotten about the results of your action on the relevant wikiproject's talk page: upon your request, Blueboar, clearly stated that "What you are pointing us to is a modern reprint of a book that was originally published almost 150 years ago (in 1876)... I would question any historical scholarship that old. ... I would definitely consider it "outdated", and thus would question it's reliability" ([7]). Consequently, there is a clear declaration agains the relibiality of Sayous's work. Please also read my above argumentation about the differences between Sayous and Macartney. Borsoka (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka Read Third Opinion Request This article had a referee. The Third opinion is clear: Sayous is more reliable than a lot of other modern historians. Please respect the Third opinion. Eurocentral (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

My own opinion is that a book published in 1873 does add value in addition to more modern academic sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs)

Please read my above remark before reverting. (1) Robert McClenon clearly referred the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard ([8]); and (2) an editor on the reliable sources noticeboard explained that the reliability of an 1873 work is questionable ([9]). Please stop edit warring on this issue. Please remember WP:3RR and also your previous ban for the same reason. Borsoka (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC) FYI: I seek assistance from WikiProject Romania ([10]). Borsoka (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sayous's work belongs to the category of pseudo-science....Fakirbakir (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I would not say that his work is pseudo-science, but it is not cited by modern historians. Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You do not need to call the support of your team mate. The objectivity of Wikipedia is broken when the neutral third opinion is rejectedEurocentral (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If a neutral third opinion were rejected, WP's objectivity would be broken. However, no neutral third opinion was rejected. Borsoka (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Lozovan

If we want to write of Lozovan's fringe theory, we should add some examples. What are the rivers with names of Romanian origin? What are the names the Hungarians translated from German and Romanian in Transylvania? Borsoka (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, you have to read the book at indicated page and also to respect the third opinion. An infringement will start if you continue to erase references

Your action is not a Wiki procedure. If you start a war edit you need to bring the same explanations to all references Eurocentral (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, you should add proper examples, because Lozovan's theory in your interpretation contradicts to all scholarly research on the subject (I refer to works cited in the article Origin of the Romanians). Please also read WP:civility - there is no third opinion of Lozovan's work. Borsoka (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, There are presented in Lozovan,s work some pages about the translated names. In one example, the philologist wrote about the Hungarian translated names starting from German urban names: -burg, -stadt ,- markt, -hausen, -dorf

became -var, -varhely, -falva etc. Also he gave other 3 pages of examples in connection with his statements. I translated these paragraphs from Romanian to English. I see you do not agree references old or too new.

Lozovan lingvistic theory is aRomanian threory and it is normally to be against multiple Hungarian theories.

Lozovan was professor at Copenhagen University and is a reliable source. You may ask a third opinion. Eurocentral (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Eurocentral (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, would you list river names of Romanian origin in Transylvania? Would you list Hungarian place names which were translated from Romanian? Would you refer to Lozovan's reference to Gelou. Please remember WP:3RR before reverting. Borsoka (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka you started a war edit against Lozovan. Remember he is a reliable source.

Eurocentral (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, would you please list river names of Romanian origin in Transylvania? Would you list Hungarian place names which were translated from Romanian? Would you refer to Lozovan's reference to Gelou? Or did you again abuse a scholar's name in order to substantiate your original research? Borsoka (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka Did you read the book ?

Start to read in English: Eugen Lozovan, Dacia Sacra Publisher Chicago; University of Chicago,

Lozovan was for a while, professor at Harvard University. If you did not read the book why are you talking when you know nothing ? Eurocentral (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, the details of his life are not relevant in this discussion, but your dubious reference to his work. Would you please list the Transylvanian rivers with a name of Romanian origin? Since there is no other scholars who say that the oldest layer of the names of the Transylvanian rivers is of Romanian origin, your reference to Lozovan's work is dubious. (For more details, I refer to the well-referenced Origin of the Romanians article and the sources of its "Romanian place names" subsection.) Borsoka (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, why do you talk about a book you never read ? Please start to read it. It was published even in English. Eurocentral (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering "dubious" a Harvard professor is not permitted in Wiki pages. Also the SAYOUS case was discussed by a third editor. Why do you ask a third opinion if you dis-consider him ? Eurocentral (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please remember the relevant discussion here. You are obviously engaged in an edit war. Please remember that you warring behaviour had serious consequences some month ago. Please read and apply WP:Weasel.Borsoka (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, read about WP:Weasel  : some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it is often said ...

Nothing of these are connected to Lozovan. Please respect other opinions Eurocentral (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read again WP:Weasel - you do not understand it: "Weasel words are ... phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis." Have you add a specific example of the oldest layer of Transylvanian river names? No, you have not - consequently all your statement is an empty declaration. Please read the relevant discussion here. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

ambiguous claim ? Borsoka, you accuse Lozovan of ambiguous claim ? He has a theory on 2-3 pages and you say ambiguous ? He explained names of

Romanian geographic places and approached different names of different categories. Your dubious fixed idea about rivers has no point. Try to use even a third opinion and do not make dubious remarks. By the way, you erased all Romanian theories about rivers (see Ecaterina Goga theory about main rivers in Romania in Origin of Romanians) in order to sabotage Romanian theory of continuity. What do you intend ? to form a page contaning only theories against Romanians? Your intentions are visible. Eurocentral (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Eurocentral (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please read WP:civility. Furthermore, if you cannot refer to a single river from the oldest layer of Transylvanian toponymy which bears a name of Romanian origin, please feel free name a mountain, a town or other settlement, or any other place from the oldest layer of the Transylvanian place names which has a name of Romanian origin. Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC) By the way, please stop duplicating debates. I did not erase "all Romanian theories about rivers": see my edit summary here ([11]) and also seem my edit ([12]). You may not know, but WP is not a community where everything has to be repeated.

Curta about Dăbâca

"Romanian archaeologists made every possible effort to turn Dăbâca into a Transylvanian Troy and to prove that the Gesta was a reliable source for the medieval history of (Romanian) Transylvania. ... [D]espite 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, except a preliminary report, more than thirty years old now. ... In fact, the evidence published so far, albeit poorly, does contain evidence of a ninth-century occupation of the site. ... [T]he excavators were overwhelmed by the complexity of the site and embarrassed that no substantial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right. ... Two hearths found behind the rampart were associated with two pairs of silver bell-shaped pendants with filigree ornament most typical for ninth-century Moravian artwork." (Curta 2001, p. 148.)

Chopping the text from above show dubious intents of the editor.

The text about Dabaca of Curta does not content words about vlachs. Borsoka, please do not introduce your personal research. Eurocentral (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User Borsoka, please do not introduce your personal research in Curta text. Try to avoid your personal comments and keep them for yourself.. It is an example of a multitude of dubious edits of a subjective editor. Eurocentral (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please read the article more carefully. You may not know, but Anonymus did not write of Romanians but of Vlachs (Blaci, Blasi, etc.) - if we want to be consequent, we should use the Vlach expression (instead of Romanians) in this article. Borsoka (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Borsoka The cited text from Curta does not content words about Anonymus or nationality. Your nationalistic and dubious edits show that your intention is to destroy the Romanian "continuity" theory. Please use only texts extracted from authors. Do not include your personal research. Eurocentral (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Text from Curta: Archaeological finds suggest that the site at Dăbâca was occupied in the 9th century (Florin Curta) Here the text is about Dăbâca, supposed center of Gelou and not about other inventions you add in your edits. Eurocentral (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please read again the above cited text: "Romanian archaeologists made every possible effort to turn Dăbâca into a Transylvanian Troy and to prove that the Gesta was a reliable source for the medieval history of (Romanian) Transylvania. ... [D]espite 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, except a preliminary report, more than thirty years old now. ... In fact, the evidence published so far, albeit poorly, does contain evidence of a ninth-century occupation of the site. ... [T]he excavators were overwhelmed by the complexity of the site and embarrassed that no substantial evidence was found to prove the Gesta right. ... Two hearths found behind the rampart were associated with two pairs of silver bell-shaped pendants with filigree ornament most typical for ninth-century Moravian artwork." (Curta 2001, p. 148.) Please remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)