Jump to content

Talk:Romanians/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Real number of Romanian immigrants in Italy

I posted the real number of Romanian immigrants in Italy estimated by projections of past trends. The Romanian user keeps adding as source the census which only shows citizens with a permanent residence, so understimating the real number of Romanians in Italy. It is even written in the link he posted. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyc91 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to try engage with your arguments although it's very difficult because you seem to ignore everyone else.
1. The "real" number is inherently unknown since any way of counting people correctly will have some error and especially 'the real number' is definitely unclear by your source which is an obscure tertiary source. It is not authoritative when compared to the latest census data which takes precedence over any other obscure numbers. By the way, by the very fact that you are using the label 'real number' you are in fact kind of diminishing your own argument.
2. The purpose of the country info box in the article is to give a total number of Romanians. The census data records all Romanians residing in Italy. Previous to 2007 (and especially 2002), there may have been an issue about those Romanians who worked in Italy but officially did not reside there. After 2007, this issue is now mute because of EU membership. Secondly, even if there was a case of people living in Italy without having their permanent residence there, they would have still been counted in the Romanian census of 2011 so by counting them again in Italy it would basically mean you are double counting.
3. The 997,000 - 1,032,000 numbers you provide (by the way, the 997,000 is something I myself posted before the census data became public) are outdated. They are simple estimates based on what iSTAT thought the number of foreign workers was without any real mechanism of recording them since the previous census in 2001. If you do a little research, you'll see that iSTAT itself admitted that it overstated the number of immigrants (from ALL countries) by about 1/2 million.
In conclusion, stop reverting the numbers!!!Dapiks (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
As an addendum to Dapiks' response, you were engaging with other editors through edit summaries rather than the talk page. The process is bold → revert → discuss. Discussion takes place here. Nevertheless, you were informed previously other editors who reverted you that census figures are preferred to independent statistics, most particularly for infoboxes. iSTAT and other such statistical companies are not reliable sources. Not even the best are transparent about their information gleaning techniques, whether they be using small sample groups or based on projected data looking at trends in previous census stats. In other words, the methodology is unknown to us. Note, also that, as stated by Dapiks above, the information on the site is dated. Take a look at the About Istat page: "In 2010 Istat started working on the new round of Census. Carried out every ten years, the survey paints a picture of the country on the basis of uniform criteria, thus allowing for comparisons at European and international level. In October 2010 the 6th Census of agriculture started. In October 2011, the 15th Census of population and housing and the 9th Census of industry and services will start.". Does anything strike you about the statement? Firstly, the statistics in their database which you are accessing are based on old census information. They talk about October of 2011 in the future tense. Read their legal disclaimer. Enough said? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Joeyc91 it would be a nice show of common sense if you would try to engage with the comments here before just reverting the article again. If you keep reverting the article five times a day, I will take this up with admins.Dapiks (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
As Joeyc91 has been provided with comprehensive arguments for not introducing his/her content, yet has persisted in reverting to their version after the fact, should this occur again, I will take it up as slow edit warring but suspect that it will be bumped to the WP:SPA or WP:ANI. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
First of all I am not reverting the numbers more than you do. So stop accusing me of doing something you are doing more often!

1) The 997,000 figure was initially posted by me and comes from one of the last ISTAT paper. 2) This figures I've posted, are including all the immigrants now working and residing in Italy and not just the ones who have the permanent residence here. It's not that 400.000 and more Romanians in Italy disappear just because they prefer to keep their legal residence in their home country. So I stand correct. 3) Please post the link where the ISTAT itself admitted that it overstated the number of immigrants (from ALL countries). This is the last update from their official website. The numbers are in line with those of older estimates

http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/129854

4) I can easily show you how your census admits that it only counts immigrants with the legal permanent residence in Italy.

--Joeyc91 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


Joeyc91 you seem to focus on one single thing - having this number look as large as possible - despite being told 1000 times that YOU or I or anyone else are not an authority about what "the full number is". The sources are. The source with the 997,000 number is before the official census data. The one with 1,032,000 is an obscure tertiary source that is unclear as to how it arrives at this number. The most authoritative source among all these is the 2011 census data released in Dec 2013. The same is true for all the other countries listed. The official census of 2011 counted ALL those self-identifying as Romanians in Italy. If there are Romanians who are residents in Romania but working in Italy (something which was rather true before 2007 but not so much after that date)then those people have been counted in the Romanian census of Oct 2011. This means, adding them again here AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE COUNTING! You have been very aggressive in pushing for this change, occasionally even resorting to personal attacks and this is the only contributions your account seems to make - which may raise questions about WP:SPA. Do you even care about having a talk here or do you just want to push for your own point of view no matter what? I will not revert back your latest change in good faith and in the hope that you yourself will restore the article to the version which has been up there for months. Dapiks (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic Romanians (Romanian Nationals) vs. Those of Romanian Citizenship and Their Descendants

As a Jew, I take issue with Jews (along with other non-Romanian peoples) being classified as Ethnic Romanians. Especially in light of Anti Semitic theories such as the Khazar Theory, I resent that Romanian Jews are classified as Vlachs and other types of Romanian (forgive my archaic wording) ethnics. The converse, I imagine, applies to Romanian ethnics in Israel.

There needs to be, I feel, a separate page for Ethnic Romanians and Non-Romanian ethnic groups in Romania. 74.103.28.81 (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


Romanians in Italy Numbers

These numbers keep going up and down since certain users (I will not say who) inflate them with irrelevant data just for the sake of making them look larger. The official census data from Italy in 2011 but released in December 2013 so basically the most recent data cites 800,000. However, numbers keep going up citing istat data from 2012 and 2013 which are just estimates (933,000, 1081,000). 104.254.93.198 (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I seem to remember this coming up before either here or on one of the other pages relating to demographics. I can't find anything in the talk archives, but it could well be that it's tucked away in the archives of another page.
To all intents and purposes, census statistics take precedence over any other form of statistical analysis and estimates unless there is an exceptional period of time between the instances of a census being held (Ukraine, for example, hasn't held a census since 2001 therefore, where supplementary data is warranted, RS are used accordingly). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through the talk page properly and discovered that some of the sections had been inadvertently turned into subsections at some point. I've rectified the situation and, sure enough, found Joeyc91's WP:SPA behaviour by in October of last year recorded in the above section. Please desist from resuming your edit-warring. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are not estimates. ISTAT is adding the number of registered new immigrants to the 2011 census. Read the link I've posted. Joeyc91 (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

no ISTAT is not adding the number of registered new immigrants to the census. The census data was released in December 2013. Istat kept publishing its estimates until 2014 and then it went back on certain years and gave a disclaimer that in fact it over-estimated immigrant numbers. In any case, census data is still taking precedence over ISTAT estimates because it's a census. The source that you provide by the way does not say that ISTAT is adding newcomers to the already existing census numbers. Why do you just choose to erase the census data and ignore it? I don't know if you are just ignorant or if you are really trying to inflate the numbers no matter what.104.254.93.142 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
We've been through this already, Joeyc91. Please desist from your disruptive editing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You can't even read the link I've provided to you. That's what it says. Click on Note to read it.

"La popolazione straniera residente è costituita dalle persone di cittadinanza non italiana aventi dimora abituale in Italia; viene calcolata, per ciascun comune, al 31 dicembre di ogni anno successivo al Censimento della popolazione, sommando alla popolazione straniera censita come residente nel comune, il movimento anagrafico registrato nel corso di ciascun periodo. Nel caso specifico dell’anno 2011, la popolazione al 31 dicembre del 2011 è stata calcolata con il medesimo criterio, a partire dai dati del Censimento al 9 ottobre 2011 e utilizzando il movimento anagrafico registrato nel periodo 9 ottobre - 31 dicembre 2011.

Sul sito, in una sezione dedicata, è pubblicata anche la serie pre-censuaria dei dati del bilancio demografico della popolazione straniera residente, a partire dall’anno 2002. Tra i dati relativi al periodo 1° gennaio 2002 - 8 ottobre 2011 e i successivi esiste una discontinuità nella serie storica, determinata dal XV Censimento della Popolazione. La serie storica coerente verrà determinata successivamente attraverso la ricostruzione dei bilanci del periodo intercensuario.

Per una migliore interpretazione degli eventi demografici che hanno caratterizzato il movimento della popolazione straniera residente nel corso del periodo, si richiama l'attenzione sulle poste del bilancio demografico.

Le iscrizioni si distinguono in: Iscrizioni per nascita: nati nel corso del periodo da genitori entrambi stranieri, almeno uno dei quali residente nel comune. La nascita fa riferimento alla data di registrazione dell'atto in anagrafe e non alla data effettiva dell'evento. Iscrizioni da altro comune: cittadini stranieri iscritti in anagrafe per trasferimento di residenza da un altro comune italiano. Iscrizioni dall'estero: cittadini stranieri iscritti in anagrafe per trasferimento di residenza dall'estero; Iscrizioni per altri motivi: cittadini stranieri iscritti in anagrafe per altri motivi non altrove classificabili. Le cancellazioni si distinguono in:

Cancellazioni per morte: cittadini stranieri residenti deceduti nel periodo. La morte fa riferimento alla data di registrazione dell'atto in anagrafe e non alla data effettiva dell'evento. Cancellazioni per altro comune: cittadini stranieri cancellati dall'anagrafe per trasferimento di residenza in altro comune italiano. Cancellazioni per l'estero: cittadini stranieri cancellati dall'anagrafe per trasferimento di residenza all'estero. Acquisizioni di cittadinanza italiana: individui cancellati dalle liste dei residenti di cittadinanza straniera e registrati in quelle della popolazione italiana residente; tali cancellazioni, pertanto, non influiscono sulla variazione del numero complessivo degli iscritti in anagrafe. Cancellazioni per altri motivi: cittadini stranieri cancellati dall'anagrafe per altri motivi non altrove classificabili (ad es. a seguito di definizione di procedimento di irreperibilità ordinaria, per mancato rinnovo della dichiarazione di dimora abituale a seguito di scadenza del permesso di soggiorno, ecc.)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyc91 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Romanians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Checked Confirmed as correct. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I would be interested in discussing reintroducing the gallery to the infobox. I do not see where anyone called it "redundant" or where this consensus to remove it is; in fact two admins reverted back to it. What is your issue now? --Steverci (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Which two 'admins' restored it? Please provide the diffs. It was, in fact, reintroduced by an IP hopper here.
I suggest that you read over this entire talk page and take a look at the article history (prior the removal of the gallery) in order to get a sense of how much edit warring had taken place over who should feature in the gallery, who is Romanian and who is not, etc. This was a tiresome editor energy and time sinkhole which concluded with consensus in this section (above). Note, also, that someone tried to reintroduce a selection of 'candidates' for a gallery here. Pay particular attention to the fact that no one wanted to even discuss it. Please also note that personal attacks are not appreciated, therefore please abstain from comments like, "What is your issue now?. Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to this statement by Cei Trei.
I have read it over, and I still don't understand what the current problem is. The person who started this whole thing (PersecutedUser) is blocked now. Cei Trei only wanted to remove a few people. Nergaal approved of almost everyone in the info box. So I don't understand the cause to remove the whole thing except for things to WP:CALM down, which they are and I now think it is an appropriate time to discuss restoring it. Your main justification for removing it was that no one was editing on the talk; well I'm here now and willing to do that. I wasn't making a personal attack, it was a blunt statement. What is it that you have a problem with for the template? Because it seems that after others got tired of discussing who should or shouldn't be in it, you took the opportunity to remove the whole thing because you don't seem to like these kinds of templates for ethnic groups. That's not really a valid excuse, so please share who you do or don't want in it and lets go from there. --Steverci (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not certain as to what you mean when you refer to 'you' (as being me as a singular entity?). Have you read through the archives? I am not alone in considering the implementation of a gallery as being redundant, particularly as it isn't a mandatory field, and has only served as a time and energy sinkhole for regular editors to have to mediate.
As regards who should or shouldn't feature in a prospective gallery, "I" have no preferences one way or the other. This is simply an article on my watchlist. What does concern me is when more time is dedicated to edit warring over who is or isn't an appropriate (or reliably sourced) member of any particular ethic group over and above improving the text content of an article.
For the moment, consensus stands at no gallery. If you wish to start a new section calling for interested parties to compile a source-based gallery, by all means do so. If, however, you intend to make executive decisions as to a gallery as being
1) appropriate, and
2) who qualifies as fitting the criteria.
I will revert to the consensus of 'no gallery'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD that you cited, just because you and someone else agreed with each other a year ago that the infobox should go, doesn't mean it will be gone forever. Hence, "Cycle. When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion."
I'll take a look at the old infobox and the problems had with certain people and make my own proposal here. I don't think anyone with dubious origin is qualified for these infoboxes, so you don't need to worry about that. --Steverci (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I for one disagree with using a gallery unless an objective criteria for inclusion is defined. Otherwise, we'll go back to revert wars or constant growth. And what's the role of the infobox gallery anyway?Anonimu (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The same role that lists like these have. To show noteworthy people. Wikipedia revolves around Wikipedia:Notability, the reader who comes here is probably more interested in famous Romanians than a random postcard. --Steverci (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
No, they are lists, not articles. None of them feature any images. If people are interested in finding out who notables are, they can go to the lists. As already noted, an image gallery isn't even a parameter in Template:Infobox ethnic group. To repeat, someone, at some point, thought it would be a terrific idea to add a gallery to one or another of the articles using this template: others ended up copying. That doesn't make it good practice or even a good idea. In fact it's been downright irritating with every IP wanting to put their favourite 'notable' into the gallery (particularly as regular editors have to go through the process of checking that the person did/does identify with that contemporary ethnic group). Even worse, edit warring breaks and article talk pages full of vitriol and senseless arguments are a common result... not just on this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Haven't looked at all them, and I doubt you have too, but there's List of Russian people. It's your opinion if it's a bad idea, just like it can be an opinion if removing the infobox is a bad idea. From what I've seen, such editors like that come around once in a blue moon. Even with the infobox gone, it seems someone occasionally puts the infobox back before you remove it, so this doesn't spare any edit warring. What you complain of can really apply to anything anyone can edit on this website. Personally I think ethnic groups should be pages only registered users can edit, that would probably solve the problem almost completely. If IP users messing with the template is your biggest concern, than how about after I propose an infobox without "executive decisions" that nobody has a problem with, we put it on the article and see if this concern is relevant or not. I predict it won't be, but if it becomes a problem I'll be fine with removing it again. --Steverci (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
1) We are not discussing lists here. 2) Considering that you're now POV-pushing on the Russians article, I'm hardly instilled with any good faith as to how reintroducing a gallery for this article will be tackled. The current consensus appears to have been upheld as 'no gallery'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh? And how did you come to the conclusion consensus has been "upheld"? Wikipedia:Consensus isn't a vote, so Anonimu agreeing with you doesn't mean anything. Consensus is achieved through discussion. You seem to have this WP:ICANTHEARYOU outlook that means you don't have to justify yourself. And you evidently have no idea that someone is edit warring and making personal attacks against me on that article, while I'm being really patient with them, so don't bring up something that isn't relevant here. --Steverci (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:Consensus was reached well before you brought up the reintroduction again. No, it's not a !vote. Neither is it only deemed to have been reached through formal processes like RfCs because Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. You're merely continuously pushing your belief that WP:ITSIMPORTANT does not constitute consensus, nor even that a gallery serves an informative purpose. As regards the Russian article, in case you're unaware, I was involved with it (and other such articles) well before you started your renewed push for a gallery. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Iryna, Wikipedia:Consensus is assumed when someone makes an edit and no one reverts it. When someone reverts it, that is the moment consensus is lost. This means that it doesn't matter that two people agreed on something over a year ago, because consensus can change. So you don't get to throw a fit that no one can make edits you don't like because so and so. Considering you have reverted a collage 7 times now, it is very clear there is not a consensus against it. Considering this, your main justification for removing the collage is now null and void. You say have one will result in people fighting over who goes in it, but not having it at all results in fighting over putting it back, which you are doing a great deal of. I did not realize there was a 30 person 1-photo collage, which is good news because those are the best things to put on these pages. Changes are very rare because they become more difficult and most IPs give up when they can't figure out how to alter them. The way I see it, putting the 30 person collage up is the only way to go because it would appease everyone who both wants a collage and is afraid one will result in edit warring. Compromise for all ideas is an important part of the consensus article, and I hope you will agree with what I propose. --Steverci (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Try reading WP:CON again. Where did you get the impression that "When someone reverts it, that is the moment consensus is lost."? The same place where you got the two non-existent admins (something you'd copied from another comment from an inexperienced user)? Please read WP:TALKDONTREVERT, and take note that it wasn't consensus between two editors over a year ago (try reading this talk page properly), and that a single WP:BATTLEGROUND editor continuing to push the issue doesn't mean that it's time to reintroduce something dismissed as the result of protracted edit warring and, most importantly, because regular editors had enough of the only activity on this article revolving around who should be in the gallery and who should not. Sorry, but I'm not budging. The only revert made to the removal was by one user who didn't join in on the discussion regarding removing the gallery, and has since added content without showing any interest in the existence or non-existence of a gallery. Add to that the fact that I don't see any other editors even wanting to join in in supporting you on this discussion and I understand that to be an indicator of consensus. Please drop the stick; it's getting WP:TEDIOUS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The above is amusing. "we have consensus to have no gallery, we refuse to recognize any comment stating that we don't have consensus, and because there was previous drama, we refuse to discuss it any further...(but we have consensus)" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The irony...

of an editor who has been blocked over 10 times, reverting me and telling me not to edit war, in the edit summary of his revert... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Not if you take into account that the last block of that editor was 5 years before you first edit on WP (though I may note that you became experienced in WP jargon uncommonly early).Anonimu (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I would hope that I would learn by the first block or at most the second block (or even better, never be blocked). But we all learn at different speeds, no harm in that.
And yes, I have tried to pick up some of the terms and become familiar with the various and regulations at a fast pace. I've edited similar sites before, just not wikipedia, which helps. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Your grasp of the learning curve is quite remarkable, Spacecowboy420. So far, I see no consensus for restoring a gallery other than a few new accounts and IP WP:ILIKEIT comments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
You might consider it to be remarkable, which I will take as a compliment. However, wikipedia isn't that hard to figure out if you watch the edits made by the decent editors/admins. It's strange that you don't see any consensus for restoring the gallery apart from a few new accounts and an IP, because I didn't see you having any consensus for removing it in the first place. And, I'm sorry - I didn't realize that the opinions of new editors or IP editors were any less valid that someone who has been here since day one, please link me to that policy, so I can educate myself on the lack of worth that new editors have in comparison to someone who has been here years. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You can educate yourself further by learning to read talk page archives: try starting with archive 9... then you can argue about not seeing any consensus. To be on the safe side, read every archived page just to get a picture of what an energy sinkhole WP:POV arguments about who should feature in the gallery are. Better yet, get to know what WP:NOR actually means and explain to me how a reliably sourced gallery based on third party, academic sources can even exist.
Understand that your WP:ZOMBIE remark is a violation of WP:CIVIL. You've been pushing the envelope with multiple targeted remarks directed explicitly at me. Seriously, leaving a comment a couple of days ago in response to something I said in a thread back in April? But enough of trying to WP:BAIT me, as amusing as you find yourself. Discussion over. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Iryna Harpy, I checked the discussion from archive 9, and there were ~4 editors that agreed to remove the gallery. Other opinions also existed, you even wrote there somewhere the following: "I'd say we have consensus for Binksternet's maximum of 16 (4 women, twelve men).", so the demand for the complete elimination of the gallery was not overwhelming at all. Also, User:PersecutedUser considered that "the debate must be carried out in a broader framework and that we should get a consensus regarding all ethnic group infoboxes, not a separate consensus for each one" and that "it is preferable to create a standard that would work everywhere.". As long as there will not be a consensus for the removal of all galleries, I think the reintroduction of the gallery should be attempted (because around 95% of the ethnic groups have galleries and I don't see why this article has to be different, and I am convinced that we can find a gallery composition that would not generate edit wars). Hahun (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Hahun: I appreciate that these galleries are being used on a multitude of articles, and that I've also participated in working towards a consensus version on other articles at the request of other editors seeking me out for an NPOV editor's input (such as Greeks and Italians). Despite my personal disdain (which didn't exist years ago when I first started editing), there are few that are arrived at without being challenged per WP:CCC within a short period of time. Most of these articles are neglected in terms of improving content and, when an alert comes up on my watchlist, I know it's going to be vandalism or drive by changes to the gallery by one time contributors, or by editors who have no other interest in Wikipedia (per WP:NOTHERE and disappear after they've gotten their way.
Please ask yourself whether, for example, two years down the line, you're going to be willing - or even interested in - checking the galleries of all of the ethnic groups articles to ensure they haven't been changed against consensus (remember, even if articles are on your watchlist, you don't get alerts for every change when you're focussing on an entirely different series of articles). Again, please read through all of the archived talk pages here as most of them are dedicated to arguments as to who should or shouldn't be here. This consensus was at the end of constant bickering, and the only constant was that consensus couldn't ever be reached because there is no way of establishing consensus over POV preferences and definitions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Iryna, I'm sorry but merely saying "discussion over" does not really sound like the way wikipedia works. If you don't wish to discuss things, then fine - you may step away from the discussion & article at any time, I'm sure the article will survive without you looking after it. If you don't like me commenting on things you said in April, then why are you asking me to read all the archives? Should I read them, but only on the understanding that after reading them, I should agree with you? From the above comments, the archives and the multiple editors reintroducing the gallery, it is very obvious that there was no consensus. It's pure laziness on the part of editors who are unwilling to debate who should and should not be in the gallery. Again, if you're unwilling to do the work involved in getting a stable gallery, then feel free to back away from the article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Bottom line is, the few editors who are active on Romanian topics are against the idea of introducing a gallery. If you mean to start a general consensus in order to decide whether such articles will either have a gallery or not--in order to achieve uniformity--then such a consensus will need to take part elsewhere. However, I'd like to say that such a consensus will surely fail, because, as I see it, Wikipedia treats certain articles autonomously--that is, the editors who are familiar with the article and its problems, get to decide what works and what doesn't. I'm not convinced that a gallery is without merit. Some people, like 'Anonimu' and Iryna, seem to think so. I like to believe that a gallery can aid the casual reader in helping her to navigate the article and finding people of interest. For instance, I might not want to invest a lot of time in learning about Mongols, but I still feel the need to know something about one of their prominent persona: having a gallery would aid me in reaching that goal. It's shallow, but it works in retrieving information, especially for those who are poor searchers. Another idea is that a gallery can show the diversity of a people, and in such a way communicate that through diversity, they find unity. Either way, when it comes to the article on Romanians, there are too few editors who are involved in maintaining the article, whereas when it comes to the gallery, every lowlife has an opinion on who should be included and who shouldn't. Since we don't have a standard for inclusion, that is, we don't have criteria for what to value and how to measure candidates for the gallery, it's been decided, by the (somehow) active editors, to have the gallery removed. That was the main reason for taking this action. It wasn't because 'Anonimu' finds the gallery unacademic or because Iryna finds it distracting.

Even if you find this style of determining things to be flawed, it's still better than what you have. You have a single voice that points out to some kind of idealism that doesn't exist on Wikipedia. As for you, Iryna, I don't think you needed to link to a bunch of Wikipedia bureaucratic stuff. I started the discussion on removing the gallery and I hadn't--and still haven't, read more than a few paragraphs of that stuff. Those policy articles are written by bureaucrats...for bureaucrats. :) --Cei Trei (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@Cei Trei: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY + WP:NOTANARCHY. You seem to think that I take this far more seriously than I actually do. It isn't personal, so please don't take it personally. WP:NOR is policy, not a guideline. Let's just lighten up and agree to disagree on how Wikipedia works. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
And what do those links have to do with anything I said? WP:NOR (no original research): what's that got to do with any of this? --Cei Trei (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, if I'm a bureaucrat, and you're drawing on the what Wikipedia is WP:NOT policies, I'm reminding you that it isn't a democracy or an exercise in chaos, either. Creating a gallery of 'notables' is pure OR. The WP:TITLE of the article is "Romanians", not "List of notable Romanians". Which RS are going to enumerate the most notable Romanians for your gallery as most notable to least notable? What are the criteria for selection other than purely subjective? Sorry, but policy trumps any form of localised page consensus every time. You may not like my using wikispeak, but you're not an experienced Wikipedian. I honestly don't mean that as a put down, but the reason I include the wikispeak is in order to point contributors to relevant policies and guidelines, not to baffle or bewilder them. Policies and guidelines have evolved for a reason... and they really do make sense when put into practice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The bureaucrat comment was referring to your way of expressing yourself, but yeah, I don't like wikispeak, newspeak, or any bureaucratic jargon: here or elsewhere. If having a gallery is against policy, then all galleries would be removed by now, so I assume that the stewards (and others) interpret it differently. Also, Wiki not being a democracy has nothing to do with the process of conducting a census or holding a discussion in order to come to a decision. As for the questions that you raise there, those are pretty much the same questions that I raised in my previous post. --Cei Trei (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm editing this article in the same way a casual reader would look at the article. I have zero knowledge regarding Romania or Romanians and wish to learn more (I tend to learn by editing, rather than merely reading). I would happily leave the political debate about who fits the required criteria for the gallery, to editors who know the subject much better than me. I just see an article that could be better for the readers being handicapped by editors who are using it to prove political points. Are people editing this article in order to make something good for people to read, or are they more interested in pushing their own political agendas and proving points regarding wikipedia policies? Personally, I couldn't care less about agendas or policies, as long as the end result is a decent article.

Do you think a paper encyclopedia ever has this sort of bullshit drama about what image to use to represent a race? Of course not, they put an image and accept that while a few people will get mildly annoyed over the image choice, the vast majority of readers will never care. This article is being treated as if it's for the editors, not as if it's for readers. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest a pause of this discussion until we have an outcome in the debate that is taking place in a broader framework here. Hahun (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems sensible. The tiresome "I can't hear you, but I'm correct" attitudes of some are starting to get a little tedious, so a break would be good. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you please just leave our people alone?

Hello, may I know what's your problem? You deleted a beautiful gallery filled only with ethnic Romanians and Romanian ancestors. May I know why? Why this hate towards our national personalities? What was even the consensus anyway? "Duh, let's be unjust to the representatives of a country that never wronged us in any way!" Yeah, very professional! -_-

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the gallery?

I noticed the gallery is gone for some reason. Please restore it. The Romanian language page has a gallery, use that pleasse https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom%C3%A2ni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.43.205 (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read this talk page. The gallery has been removed by WP:CONSENSUS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like consensus. People put the gallery back, they get reverted and you claim consensus? that isn't how it works, sorry.

consensus is about making a compromise that editors are happy with, until you get that agreement you do not have consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Instead of giving up and removing the gallery, why not actually do some work and find a list of images that most people can agree on? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Instead of the removing the content, let's talk about it and see if we can find a nice compromise that can be true consensus. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420, please see previous discussion (also check the archives). The current consensus agreed by the community is that this article shouldn't have a gallery. While consensus can change, you have to prove that through discussion, not just simple reverting. Thank you!Anonimu (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course there wasn't consensus, how can you say that consensus was agreed by the community when people are saying there should be a gallery? I understand that it caused a lot of drama to previous editors, but laziness is no excuse for avoiding the issue. If people are unwilling to discuss it, then perhaps they should edit easier articles rather than saying "we can't have a gallery because we don't want the drama involved in choosing who is shown that gallery" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a pity that this article does not have a gallery, like the most articles describing ethnic groups. I think the debate should be resumed and we should make efforts to gain a consensus on the names to be included in the gallery. Hahun (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I really hope there can be some discussion. From what I've read, previous editors are refusing to discuss it. Well, if they don't discuss it, they certainly can't claim to have any consensus. It will be up to the editors who are willing to talk, to get their own consensus between them. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I've proposed the return of a gallery before and am happy to once again. I've long lost count of how many editors trying to reinstate the gallery that Iryna has told there's no consensus to do so. --Steverci (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Having a gallery seems pretty much standard for this type of article, I guess there is always a little drama about who should be on that gallery, but we have so many tools available to us, there are people familiar with the article, we can request outside opinions, etc.

Right now, we have no consensus either way. Removing the gallery and bringing it back both results in reverts, so we can work here to achieve consensus. Hopefully, we can gain it with discussion, as a constant revert cycle doesn't seem like fun. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm being rude. Iryna, come join this discussion please. You seem to have knowledge and experience of this article, consensus seems somewhat lost right now, do you have any ideas how we could improve this article, in regards to the gallery? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

A good start would be to look at the last gallery used...

File:Representative Romanians.jpg


1st row: Basarab I of Wallachia • Mircea I of Wallachia • Vlad the Impaler • John Hunyadi
2nd row: Stephen the Great • Michael the Brave • Constantin Brancoveanu • Horea
3rd row: Nicolae Balcescu • Mihai Eminescu • Marie of Romania • Ionel Bratianu
4th row: George Enescu • Constantin Brancusi • Mircea Eliade • Eugen Ionesco
5th row:Henri Coanda • George Emil Palade • Nadia Comaneci • Gheorghe Hagi

what specific problems do editors see with that gallery, and what changes would they suggest to improve it? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

For a start, this file lacks proper source documentation (just like several other versions did that I've seen used here). At least one of the components, the George Emil Palade one, is an apparent copyvio [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
To me it looks too large. In the past I proposed a size of 16 photos, so four should be removed, but not the two women who should stay. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I like balance, so 4x4 or 5x5 seems nice. 5x5 might dwarf the article. Let's see what others think, I have no idea if they share our views on aesthetics. Once we have worked out (the easy part) of how many photos, we can move onto the hard part of who stays and who goes. I would go for a nice balance people who are well known around the world, and for those who have had some impact throughout history. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The number 20 is below average if we take into account that the galleries of European ethnic groups have 24 Bulgarians, 30 Serbs, 25 Czechs, 25 Croats, 24 Bosniaks, 25 Finns, 25 Swedes, 30 Georgians, 30 Flemish people, 30 Catalans, 25 Portuguese people, 25 Norwegians, 24 Basques and 30 Albanians. Hahun (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Please first state how is the gallery supposed to help the reader and provide encyclopaedic content.Anonimu (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
In the same manner as the galleries of the articles listed above help their readers. You are acting like this would be a peculiar proposal, but the reality is that this article is one of the very few exceptions where there is no gallery. Hahun (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The fact that other crap exists doesn't mean we should pollute this article. Maybe its time to get rid of them other galleries.Anonimu (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
This encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. I think you disregard a legitimate comparison between articles of the same type. Hahun (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course the gallery (and all other galleries/images) help the reader. You might as well ask why do newspapers and magazines have pictures. Of course if you manage to gain consensus that wikipedia should be 100% image free apart from graphs and charts, I will respect that. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I came to this page after reading this posting at the Help Desk. I have read the arguments above, and do not understand the opposition to a gallery. Other articles on ethnicities have galleries, and I have enjoyed looking at them, and have learned from them (and reacted e.g. "I'd never realised that she was Polish!"). I understand there have been problems in the past, with editors including people who are not ethnically Romanian. And I think I see why this is a particular problem in this article: some patriotic Romanians have a tendency to claim credit for things that are not really Romanian. But I am surprised that this can't be overcome. Incidentally, I see the specimen gallery above includes Marie of Romania, whose grandparents were German, English, and Russian, with no evidence of Romanian ancestry. Maproom (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

erm...yes why is Marie of Romania there? I'm not Romanian, so I'm willing to be educated, but what are the reasons for having her there? Is she someone very important to Romanians? I'm assuming that her inclusion has been previously discussed. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Marie of Romania does not have Romanian ancestry, but she was the Queen of Romania after World War I and helped to put Romania back on the track after the destruction of the war by creating diplomatic ties with other countries. She is very important to Romania. However, I am not sure if she belongs on the gallery of this article (after all, this article is not Romania, but Romanians). Gug01 (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

We can't have a gallery with psycho-Vlad in it, with so many brilliant scientists, inventors and other technocrats omitted while we add Eminescu, Hagi and Nadia. And what's Horea doing there? Also, Iancu hasn't done a great deal for his ethnicity, so remove him as well. Balcescu fought the Greeks from recreating the Byzantine Empire: why is he there? Conclusion: no gallery. --Cei Trei (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There are a few authors and inventors omitting that should be in there. For instance, why is Ion Agârbiceanu the Older and the Younger omitting? The Older one was an inspirational author while the younger was a scientist who invented important things. They should both be on the gallery. I am sure there are other inventors/scientists which should be there, but yes, there are quite a few people to be removed. Gug01 (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there anyone apart from Marie who people think does not belong on the gallery? It might be nice to get something on the page soonish, and from there it's easy to remove/add new people or just rotate the pictures on a weekly basis. Rotation of the pictures would mean that we could introduce 100s of famous Romanians to the readers, instead of just 20 or 30. We could keep everyone happy and have lots of the more obscure historical figures. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you fail to grasp the meaning of an encyclopaedia: a reference work with a fairly stable content that helps reader quickly understand a topic. A gallery with pictures of people who may or may not have considered themselves part of that ethnic group (something almost impossible to ascertain for people who lived before the late 18th century), which moreover changes every week, may work for a personal web page or some marketing project, but its certainly not fit for an encyclopaedia.Anonimu (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

As a compromise, I say we only add one photo to represent Romanians: the painting of Stephen. That will make everyone content. Well, almost everyone. --Cei Trei (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC about galleries for articles like these can be found here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Anonimu, I don't fall to grasp the meaning of an encyclopedia. This is not a paper encyclopedia and it is able to be updated on a regular basis. Are you suggesting that people make an article and then sign it off as completed and not to be edited again? I think you're failing to grasp what we are capable of doing on wikipedia. Go submit a research paper to a journal and it will remain the same for eternity, don't expect that from an online encyclopedia that encourages updates. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Cei Trei, your compromise might be a good temporary solution while something more long term is arranged. Either way, it's better than no image or an edit war. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Sweet, you added his portrait. Such a beautiful painting. :) --Cei Trei (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I think having a male Moldavian as representative of Romanians is highly unbalanced, and moreover disrespectful, considering the latest census showed female Romanian citizens outnumber males. Consequently, I think we also need a female next to the Stephen, yet I'm undecided whether the chosen one should be Sandra Romain or Alina Plugaru. What do you think, A? 13:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I think a little Mongol-Tatar boy is lost on the wide Siberian steppes. --Cei Trei (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I know nothing about the guy, I know nothing about Romanian history...but I do like old paintings, but I have no idea if the other editors will agree. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This might be considered to be original research, but my personal view is that Alina is more attractive. Besides, I'm not politically correct, I don't really mind if something is disrespectful, it's an improvement to have one photo, rather than none and an edit war. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Be bold anon, if you want to add one of those two, no one is stopping you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
There has been WP:CONSENSUS established for no gallery. Have the courtesy to read through the entire talk page and archives. Spacecowboy420 and Cei Trei, please do not edit war, only to further disrupt the article by encouraging each other to be WP:BOLD. You are handing out bad advice as Wikipedia's position is that bold is fine... but WP:RECKLESS is not. Using WP:POV images reflecting personal taste does not meet with WP:PERTINENCE. Liking old paintings and thinking them 'beautiful' does not serve anything aside from decorating the article. This in an encyclopaedic resource, not someone's personal project. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought the humor in the above comments was pretty obvious. But aesthetics are important, a beautiful image is better than some blurry nasty image that is unpleasant to the eyes. And actually, I wasn't being serious when I suggested that one of those images should be added, and from the fact that neither were added, my lack of seriousness, in my comment was recognized by everyone editing this article...well apart from you. So, I shall make it clear for every - Please do not add pictures of pornographic actresses to the gallery of this article without discussion and consent, thank you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It's becoming very clear that there is certainly no consensus to have the gallery removed. If there was consensus we would not be having this discussion. I noticed the inclusion of Simona Halep, if she is included are there any better pictures? When I did a google search for images, there were some awesome pictures. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I am against the inclusion of the painting of Stephen the Great of Moldavia in the infobox. It is not the most illustrative image for this topic. Hahun (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Who do you think would be better? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but you lost me on the WP:CONSENSUS bit. WP:GAMING ≠ CONSENSUS. Consensus was reached by several regular editors with proven track records. WP:CCC does not accommodate WP:SPA and various new contributors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Reintroduced gallery, and hopefully it will stay like that

You have to understand: Until you reach your "consensus", our people remain with no representatives, and that's humiliating, as there are next to no ethnic groups without representatives. Even very small ones, like the Gibraltarians, have a list of representatives. I don't know what's your beef with our people, why you can't seem to accept who we are, but I'll tell you right here, right now: THOSE are us! THEY are Romania! Our symbolical personalities! I don't care if you don't like them, it doesn't affect their importance and representativeness in any way! Those are us, the Romanians, and you'd better deal with it! Romanian-and-proud (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right. The gallery should be here and people should discuss who are the best people for the gallery, instead of trying to remove it. I put it back on the article, as there is no consensus for this article to be any different from others. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
We should also add the caption with the names of the personalities in the infobox. 95.141.47.71 (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Spacecowboy420, please note that consensus with permabanned editors and their socks does not count.22:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs)
Anonimu, perhaps you should focus on signing your posts a little more and calling people disruptive in your edit summaries a little less. I found your edit summary to be so funny "the fact that you agree with an editor blocked for tendentious editing should make you think about who's the one disrupting wiki" - that could be a quite valid comment coming from most editors, however considering that you have been banned ten times - it's just very very funny. Next time you want to accuse me of being a disruptive editor or comment on another user being banned, you might want to take a little look at your own block log before you comment. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? A collage of 40 tiny specks, without even a caption telling us who they are? That has to be the most absurd misuse of the gallery concept ever. In any case, since the image file lacks proper sourcing and probably contains copyvios (as did pretty much all previous collages that I've seen here), and will almost certainly be deleted from Commons within a few days, and in light of the strongly emerging consensus at WP:WikiProject Ethnic groups, I'm removing it again, for the moment. I'm giving formal warning: I will request blocks for any editor who inserts or reinserts a gallery without at least proper source and copyright documentation for each component image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Fut.Perf. Can you give a reason, a good one, for which the Romanians shouldn't have a gallery like everyone else? There was one at the beginning of this year, good one, representative, with all notable Romanians, their ancestors, and it was labeled. Why it got deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.127.180 (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Just read what I wrote just above your posting here. There are in fact three reasons mentioned there; two why the particular gallery image I removed was unacceptable, and one why the article shouln't have one in principle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. Oh, but why it shouldn't? All other ethnic groups have! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.127.180 (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are too lazy to simply read what I wrote and follow the link to the central discussion, I can't help you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well can't you just "discuss" faster? Don't you realize that all this while, we have no representatives, and people maybe laughing at us or mocking us over it? Yes, there actually are some people! You really have no idea how much harm you do to us, do you? And no, I don't understand what is even to be discussed so much! Romanians chose their representatives already. Just go to 100 Greatest Romanians and pick 20-30 of them for a gallery, or even the first 20-30! It shouldn't be rocket science to pick the top representatives of a people from the once that they chose! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.127.180 (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and since you are evidently a block-evading sock of User:Romanian-and-proud, you are blocked. You are not allowed to edit here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Romanians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked Confirmed as correct. Thanks Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

130.204.90.195, while editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, they are also asked to be cautious. The latest round of content changes to statistics, as well as the addition of a gallery of 27 demographic maps with nothing to indicate their significance in line with the text seems to be less than productive or edifying for the reader.

Firstly, census statistics are the WP:PRIMARY source used to base stats on, however reliably sourced and verifiable supplementary WP:SECONDARY sources are valid. As an aside, referring to their use as 'vandalism' and 'falsification' is contrary to assuming good faith... in fact, it's downright uncivil when a contributor has been reverted by other editors. Also, it would be appreciated if you paid attention to what you are reverting to when there have been multiple fixes to references, copyediting, etc. between that which you believe to be correct and the current state of the article (see this in order to view how much you've undone in order to change two figures to the ones you prefer).

If you are contesting content, or if you want to add extensive content that doesn't particularly make sense to other editors, it is expected that you engage in the Bold → Revert → Discuss process. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Romanians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked Correct x 1 +replaced archived RAR capture with earlier working capture x 1. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Vlachs vs Romanians

What is the difference between Vlachs and Romanians? Why these articles are not merged together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.218.30 (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

genetics section

There is a lot of interesting and useful information here, but parts of this could be written a bit more clearly so it doesn't seem to contradict other parts of it, which is often a problem on a wiki. I've seen a variety of studies done; is 10% meant to be an overall average of R1b for all counties, because most estimates from studies I've seen were higher and closer to 20%, with a few being slightly above it, but mostly in the upper teens from what I recall. I'll look for some examples. Also, what's the point of describing the R1a as general 'satem' (either Baltic or Slavic) influence? It's almost positive that it comes from Slavic speaking populations, and I don't recall there being any evidence of the Baltic speaking family reaching Romanian territory. Might as well just say Slavic. The Dark Age migrations happened after those two closely related families differentiated. Another thing is the comment about Aromanians: on the genetic section of the Aromanian page itself, it says they are still rather closely related to surrounding Balkan populations, which aren't that differentiated. But on here it says they have a strong input from the 'Roman West', whatever that means. I've noticed many people making the assumption, for some reason, that Aromanians are actually mainly descended from Romans while Romanians were just Romanized, and I'm not sure what the evidence for this is (I'm not advocating that either are descended significantly from Romans, and believe they are essentially the existing native peoples with some later various influences, and they probably once formed a close continuum of Eastern Romance speakers before splitting up 1000 years ago; conversely, I'm also not saying it's impossible that Vlachs do have a bit of contribution from the west, but it needs to be supported). I have a feeling that it's largely anecdotal and many people just base it on the fact that Aromanians have a somewhat more 'southern' leaning appearance (more likely due to Greek admixture), and sometimes a southwestern European look, but that alone is not enough to make a judgment like that and a valid theory. Regarding the high incidence of R1b in Aromanians, which is certainly real: it's unclear what the paragraph is trying to say, because it seems to say that it's an eastern clade, like L23. In that case, that's not evidence of strong Italic input since it's not the western Alpine-Appennine branch. So this could be clarified a bit. Word dewd544 (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Romanians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on what the primary topic of this article should be

People of Romanian ethnicity and people of Romanian nationality are both referred to by the term "Romanians". This conflation of ethnicity and nationality is also characteristic of other ethnicities and nationalities in Europe and beyond. The implications of these conflations for the primary topic of Wikipedia articles has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#"Germans", "French people" etc - ethnicity vs nationality. This issue is also of relevance to our article on Romanians. That leads to the question: What should be the primary topic of this article?

Krakkos (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  • People of Romanian ethnicity: the concept of ethnicity may be perceived in a more flexible way in Western Europe, but it is something clear in Eastern Europe. An ethnic Hungarian from Transylvania or a Gypsy are different from an ethnic Romanian. Similarly, ethnic Romanians in Romania's neighbours are not the same as for example the ethnic Ukrainians or Serbs of the countries they inhabit. Super Ψ Dro 22:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
May I ask, Super Dromaeosaurus, what you mean by “(...) it is something clear in Eastern Europe”? I think Wikipedia should deal with questions on ethnicity in a very careful manner. Many Hungarians in Transylvania do, in fact, have Romanian ancestry (and a connection to other groups as well). Where do we draw the line? Personally, I think that it is up to the individual to decide, as should be evident in a census or something of the kind, but when it comes to ethnicity in a historical context, things soon get much trickier and then I think we should be more careful when interpreting the sources. This is my view. After all: we cannot be sure about how Romanians several hundred years ago defined themselves, even though the records may indeed show that many really did define as Romanians. Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 17:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Krakkos already withdrawn this also at other articles, we don't really need a "Germans 2" discussion. I think the current scope of the article is fine, I agree with Super's summarization.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC))

Manipulation of reliable modern sources in the section about the origin of the term romanian.

Several times the opinion of the Thede Kahl was manipulated and his name deleted from this section. Jingiby (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC) . Jingiby (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You didn't cite Thede Kahl anywhere. You cited Roumen Daskalov, Tchavdar Marinov, Tomasz Kamusella, Peter Burke and Onoriu Colăcel. Super Ψ Dro 17:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
They are citing Thede Kahl. Jingiby (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I doubt that all those 5 authors are citing him and even if they did, that does not mean that the view of Kahl is such. I assume that they are also citing more authors in their works, but we aren't atributting those claims to them as well, right? Super Ψ Dro 17:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Of course, no. Jingiby (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Jingiby, could you please cite me the sentence that you cite from reference 104? In that book, there's a separate section for Romanians (in around page 730) and another one for Vlachs (which seems to be talking about Aromanians and starts at page 931, which you cited). Are you sure that the sentence you added refers to Romanians? Super Ψ Dro 14:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Super, the exact citation is on: [2] After the emergence of the modern Romanian state in the 1860s , the ethnonym “ Vlach ” began to be used more restrictedly , mainly for the designation of the Balkan Vlachs . To better distinguish the latter from the North Danubian ones. Jingiby (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Where exactly does it say "after the emergence of the modern Romanian ethnonym in the middle of the 19th century"? Super Ψ Dro 14:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Super, please stop manipulation of reliable modern sources in the section about the origin of the term Romanian. Jingiby (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Jingiby, please stop your bad-faith continous accusations of POV-pushing, manipulation and disruption, specially when it's barely now that you actually start giving real arguments. Super Ψ Dro 14:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Stop icon I ask you again, Super Dromaeosaurus, to stop edit warring in the article. The matter should always be discussed on the talk page until consensus has been reached. Disruptive edits do not help the discussion nor contributes to the spirit of this community. Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 15:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Åttiotrean 226, your continuous actions of following my edits and intervening in the discussions I am in against me or just reverting or contradicting my edits in any way and with no reason or purpose can be perfectly reported with WP:HOUNDING. Super Ψ Dro 16:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood. I am also a contributor in the articles that you are editing (seeing as we have similar and sometimes even identical interests). Therefore, I think it is my right to ask you to stop doing edit warring when you continue to engage in it instead of keeping to an ongoing discussion like this one. I think that you deserve an honest chance to stop (which is why I did not post a message on your talk page). I will have nothing to do with any attempt to make this out to be something personal, nor – and this I really want to stress – an accusation of hounding! Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 16:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but that excuse is not credible anymore. If your reasons really weren't personal, you would try to view the discussion from an objective point of view, not straight up warn me once again. I also find it rather amuzing that you see me as the only one who is acting bad and who deserves to be warned. I don't want to waste time detailing nor to blame others, but I doubt that the attitude that Jingiby is having is particularly exemplary (there already are about 3 references whose information was cherry-picked or changed to fit this user's claims). And NO, we had no "identical interests" until I backed off from one of our argues. When did you edit List of Moldovans before I did (besides, why did you revert my edit)? When did you edit this article before I had this dispute with this user? When did you edit Romance languages before I did this edit today (also, your edit, which has a revert filter, was only to change the number that I added to letters, so as to simply contradict me)? And if your reasons really are genuine, you're pretty bad at showing this. I left you alone already, now I ask you to leave me alone. Super Ψ Dro 17:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion is one thing – and I agree about what you say about being objective – but edit warring is not part of the actual discussion. It is the very opposite of the discussion. I do not see you as “the only one acting bad or deserves to be warned”, but with us having an interest in the same topics, it does naturally catch my eye when you edit war like you did now (or do anything else, but we have no reason to go into that again). I will not apologise for noticing or reacting to an edit war that is only destructive to the article itself; nor will I accept an accusation of hounding for having an interest in an article I happen to believe suffers as a result of an edit war. (Furthermore: what seemed like I reverted your edit was in fact just a regular edit and I do apologise for giving you another impression.) Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 17:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
May I ask that we keep to this discussion now? If you want to discuss this further, my talk page is always open for you and a constructive discussion. Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 17:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Super your recent edits here, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive. A claims as source falsification, which are very offensive, that is claimed only because you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, is unacceptable. Rather do than, please try to sway with disruptive tactics. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I simply removed things that are not in the source. You did this with three sources before. It isn't surprising that you did with more. Super Ψ Dro 09:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This again

Jingiby, all of this content you've added is a bunch of WP:SYNTH. None of the sources you used explicitly stated that the term "Romanian" has any direct connection to the term "Rum" or "Roman" in the Christian sense. Please refrain from these activities and bring sources actually illustrating the point you're supporting, not ignorant sources stating that "Wallachian" was being replaced by "Romanian" or that the "Wallachian language" exists. Super Ψ Dro 12:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, please cite here what sentences of the books you are using. All of the sources I removed had no free access and it was difficult to verify the text present in them. Super Ψ Dro 12:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I am currently reading this article about the Rum millet and there's not any kind of reference to the Romanians originating their names from this designation, even though the use of "Roman" by the Greeks is mentioned (which is unrelated to this article). This is also mentioned "I would like to suggest that Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, and Romanians were ethnies in the Ottoman Balkans and were clearly aware of their differences". And again, even if the Romanians truly originated their names from "rum" (although there's evidence that the Romanians called themselves "Romans" before the arrival of the Ottomans in the region, see the source about the Nibelungenlied from before the 1200s that I added), this name is still clearly originated from "Roman", so twisting the facts is useless and proves nothing. Roman --> Rum --> Romanian is still the same as Roman --> Romanian. Super Ψ Dro 13:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I am going now to add sentence by sentence and citation by citation in the text. Jingiby (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think "the terms "Romania" and "Romanian" were adopted as an ethnonym in 1838" can be verified with "Between 1782 and 1846, 37 Walachian-language periodicals appeared in Walachia and Moldavia, and the first daily, Romania, started publishing in 1838 in Bucharest." I again doubt the reliability of this article because of its use of a supposed "Wallachian language" and because of the fact that "Wallachian" does not exist in Romanian. I've got no problems with Dahmen's source. Super Ψ Dro 14:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Per Kamusella: Although the term 'Tara Românesca' (Romanian lands) had been in use among ̆ Walachians for denoting Walachia since the 16th century, the preference for the term 'Walachia' continued. Jingiby (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, Wallachia is not a term in Romanian. It was only recently introduced in the 20th century as an exonym as Valahia. Most people still use Tara Românesca or Muntenia, anyway. So this particular information is wrong. Are you able to find more sources stating the same thing? Super Ψ Dro 09:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Link to the content of the book published by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Moldovan Academy of Sciences with editors Mikhail Guboglo and Valentin Dergachev cited by Vladimír Baar and Daniel Jakubek here. Jingiby (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Islam and Judaism

While ethnic Romanians who convert to Islam or Judaism do exist, they are scarce enough to consider it WP:FRINGE. I mean they are less numerous than the cult Worshippers of Onion, and that's a cult most Romanians don't know that it exists. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The German version of the "Romanians" wikipedia page is one of the most unprofessional articles on wikipedia in any language

Maybe I'm asking too much but has anyone read the Romanians wikipedia page but the German version?https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum%C3%A4nen

10% represents a few words about Romanians like "there 23,8 million Romanians around the world" and 90% is about the "Ethnogenesis of the Romanians" ("Die rumänische Ethnogenese"). There should be a separate page for the "Origins/Ethnogenesis of the Romanians" just like there is in English: Origin of the Romanians

This page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum%C3%A4nen must be the most unprofessional article I've ever read on wikipedia. It's nothing like the superior English version with many references and topics regarding Romanians. Nothing about the Culture of Romania, List of Romanian inventors and discoverers, Romanian literature, Romanian architecture, Science and technology in Romania, Vlachs, Great Vlachia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Danubian Principalities, Unification of Moldavia and Wallachia, United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, Greater Romania, Romanian language, Romanian Orthodox Church, Romanian Greek Catholic Church. I asked in German using google translate on the German wikipedia version of "Romanians" but nobody helped *sigh*. Can anyone please help?

Per NOTFORUM - Off topic discussion. Please discuss on their talk page.

Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Good day! Thank you very much for your comment! I totally agree with you! I have contributed in the past on the German Wikipedia and did so with success there (despite constant bad will stemming from several admins there). However, before discussing the quality of the corresponding article (i.e. this one regarding Romanians) on the German Wikipedia, I will have to mention the fact that the German Wikipedia has a different editing mechanism than the English Wikipedia (which makes it quite peculiar in my humble opinion, at least when compared to the English Wikipedia or other Wikipedias).
First of all, as a normal, registered user, your edits are pending to a review by an admin (admins there are both willing to approve good faith and accurate edits and not; sadly, it's also a matter of luck sometimes, from my personal experience, which is noteworthy there as well). Secondly, as any Wikipedia project in a different language, the German Wikipedia has its own rules and regulations (including those related to content) and it's absolutely normal to be as such. But, from your comment, and my opinion as well, there is a tremendous difference in terms of quality and content in general between the two versions and this is crystal clear to other readers, users, and possibly admins as well (and I am underlying this in a balanced and neutral manner, without saying that is good or bad). Thirdly, if you take a look even at the corresponding article of the Bukovina Germans there (i.e. Bukowinadeutsche), which I also helped considerably improve and expand over the course of at least several months this year, you will sadly notice the fact that content was subsequently deleted (by some admins). On which grounds, frankly speaking I have no idea, but it was accurate and even well-sourced (some sources still remained there). Fourthly, infoboxes, for some odd way of reason, are frowned upon there and the addition of them (just like here on the English Wikipedia, which is absolutely normal) for ethnic groups is even deemed 'wild' (stemming from my personal experience). Once again, why, I have no idea.
Lastly, the German Wikipedia also has a series of factual errors which I helped improve as I understand the German language (to a certain extent at least) and can even write well in it to the extent of approved good faith and good quality edits. I tried to update the article regarding Vlachs there (please see Walachen in this regard when you have time), adding just the Romanian names in the introduction and a map highlighting the transhumance process later on, but, as you noticed, I noticed the same things regarding that article and many more articles. And, as for the discussion pages, I haven't sadly received any (positive) responses in some threads and when I did, only cynical and even rude ones on behalf of a certain user (fortunately other admins approved my edits which were accurate in the meantime). Well, such is the German Wikipedia and even the behaviour of some (definitely not all) German persons in real-life. Signed someone with genetic German ancestry as well (according to a myHeritage DNA recent test as well). All the best and much respect! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
P.S.: As another opinion on the matter, for me it seems that the German Wikipedia is not as well integrated and organised with respect to overall content as its English counterpart, sadly... Best regards! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much, as they say "the silence is deafening". The fact that the users on pages about Romania/Romanians are mostly of Hungarian ethnicity and they didn't write back to me and didn't try to help improve the article in the German version is saying a lot. It's saying that they're happy with the situation regarding the German version of the wikipedia article. If you look at the Early Middle Ages from the 6th century until the 13th century all the historical references, the Arab, Jewish, Byzantine, Hungarian etc chroniclers were added by me. It was in response to @RF354 trying to add the incorrect assertion by Encyclopaedia Britannica: "According to Encyclopædia Britannica from the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history." (never mind Great Vlachia from the 12th to the 14th century or Second Bulgarian Empire also called Bulgarian–Wallachian Empire from 1185 until 1422). RF354 tried to use Encyclopædia Britannica's reputation as the best academic source in the English language as a shield, as infallible to correction, as always right even though all historical texts contradict that. You can read more of our epic battle here:User talk:RF354#Britannica
The user @Borsoka, a Hungarian user herself was the knight in shining armour that saved the day, the whole thing was Lord of the Rings levels of epic.
As a Romanian, I say this in the most Neutral point of view, I feel very lonely here on wikipedia, especially when there is a topic to be voted on, like Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Change the title from "Origin of the Romanians" to the more academic wording "Ethnogenesis of the Romanians" and there is no Romanian except me, 4 are Hungarian (2 admitted it, is is RF354 from his comments most likely a Hungarian and the other possible Hungarian as well) one (@Johnbod) said he's neither Romanian or Hungarian but the rest of Romanians... crickets. Where are Romanian users like@Biruitorul or @Super Dromaeosaurus? Of course, talking in a cordial, respectful, Neutral point of view but nevertheless talking.
As a Romanian, I was in the situation to be saved by a Hungarian ( @Borsoka) and not a fellow Romanian user. I think we as Romanians can do better and still be respectful and not get banned on wikipedia...And do something about this poorly written German wikipedia page about Romanians: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum%C3%A4nen
Can't the Germans get banned for their hostile and rude behaviour, changing back the paragraphs you have written? I don't know if you're Romanian but my point still stands. Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the Encyclopaedia Britannica page: https://www.britannica.com/place/Romania
And the quote: "From the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Walachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history." Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
This is not the page to discuss this. This talk page is for this article. Please discuss this on the German Wikipedia talk page. See also WP:NOTFORUM. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I already added a topic in German, if you would have bothered to read my comment where I said: " I asked in German using google translate on the German wikipedia version of "Romanians" but nobody helped *sigh*."
Here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Rum%C3%A4nen "Unprofessionelle rumänische Wikipedia-Seite, bitte machen Sie sie professionell wie die englische Version"
Nobody replied, like I said "the silence is deafening". The Germans refuse to improve the page. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
This is still the wrong forum. You flagged it up for editors on your first line, but the discussion goes on the German page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
If the Germans don't want to engage on the German discussion page, what to do then? Something must be done, that page's quality is execrable. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
In that case, not only Germans but any German-language speaker. Paradoxically or not, German speakers from Switzerland are the ones who can treat you better, neutrally and even on a personal level while approving your edits and even improving them accordingly, if need be. As per my experience, sometimes it's better to get silence than rude comments or even worse, inaction and constant deletions when what you write there is factually correct. Best regards! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Sirfurboy🏄 and Ninhursag3: With all due respect, I think the discussion thread on this topic here might be productive because, for some odd way of reason based on my personal experience, when I added threads on the discussion pages there both in German and English either some did not reply at all for months, others behaved very rude, and others were so-so. That matters less and can be even superfluous and irrelevant. What still matters is the fact that the culture of dialogue there seems not be very well in place so to put it, as elegantly as possible, please believe me. There was such an admin there who did not even know what 'ad interim' means (and deleted a good faith and accurate edit of mine on no logical grounds) and others who delete visual content, well-written and good-formatted text, sources as well, without any justification... It has also become sort of personal because I wanted to improve the articles concerning the history and communities of my country and home region (i.e. Bukovina) and I was treated as rude as possible there (with a few exceptions). Admins can behave very rude to you (and even lie in front of other admins regarding your edits) and get away with it. Instead, when you claim that one is liar there, with arguments and sources, you are even humiliated once more, instead of the tone of discussion being neutral and see that you are in fact right. Such was my experience. But, regardless of the bad will towards me, the vast majority of my edits were approved...
P.S.: There is also the very peculiar case in which an admin reverts or deletes the encyclopaedic content by another user or even admin, to the point where reliable data gets permanently lost in the current version of the page. With all due respect, that is absolutely abnormal to me (and not only, of course). That's one more reason why I hope and politely ask here for this thread to be maintained as a form of discussion on the matter because if we would do the same thing on the German Wikipedia on either German or English we will be banned and our discussion threads deleted even if we are right, with plenty of arguments on our side while we are at it. To conclude, for me, the behaviour that I received on the German Wikipedia is unjustifiable, stemming from certain users at least. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The article should begin with Origin of the Romanians

The article should begin (not end) with the Origin of the Romanians. This way the article Origin of the Romanians will be linked only once. Any encyclopedia reader would want the history of the Romanian people to actually start with their origin. RF354 (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it should begin with what historical documents write about, hence the History section. The theories about the ethnogenesis of the Romanians are in the right place in "Genetics and ethnogenesis" and the link to Origin of the Romanians is there, people can access it any time. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The history section is a history of the Romanian people. It should start with the theories regarding their origin. This is still an encyclopedia. We don't want to hide the origin section, we want to start the article with it. I probably also wouldn't bury the Genetics sources at the very end of the article, but the Origins are definitely where we (and any reader) would start. RF354 (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
"Any encyclopedia reader would want the history of the Romanian people to actually start with their origin." Unfortunately it wouldn't start with their origin but theories about their origin which would take a lot of space, bombarding the reader with theories instead of reading about what ancient and medieval chroniclers write about the Vlachs/Romanians. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON. Don't mislead the readers because of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. That's it. RF354 (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I will say the same: WP:BLUDGEON. Don't mislead the readers because of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. That's it. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The link to Origin of the Romanians is on the page, people can access it any time, you're just stubborn and want to put it in front because: WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.
Just like you did with adding the incorrect and shameful Encyclopaedia Britannica quote: "From the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Walachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history."
Since you did that, I will assume bad faith from you. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT: you are trying to hide info from the readers, not me.
I do stand by the "shameful" Encyclopaedia Britannica quote, I was just editing against two editors. RF354 (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so you deny Byzantine, Arab, Jewish and Hungarian chroniclers from the 6th to the 13th century. You are indeed a bad faith actor and constitute Vandalism. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Britannica didn't find the few questionable sources convincing enough, that's why they wrote "the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history". I do stand by that.
I wouldn't throw around unfounded vandalism charges now that you are actively damaging the project simply because of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.
I also wouldn't attack another editor in the edit summaries as you just did. RF354 (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I didn't "attack" you. I didn't attack your ethnicity, your religion, your skin color, your sexual orientation, I didn't insult, denigrate or belittle you in any way, shape or form. Your actions made you a possible perpetrator of Vandalism. Just because you wanted to shield yourself from criticism by using Encyclopædia Britannica's reputation and fame as the best academic source in the English language as infallible to correction, as always right even though all historical texts contradict that quote. Those historical texts aren't just "few questionable sources" they are contemporary or near contemporary sources from different ethnicities and parts of the world, religion etc (Byzantine, Arab, Jewish and Hungarian). Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Shall we better cite from Latin from Gesta Hungarorum and Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum instead? These are even more reliable than Encyclopædia Britannica in this context. Or perhaps the works of Transylvanian Saxon scholar Johannes Honterus? I do see that as a bad faith edit as well and historically inaccurate. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not accurate at all to mention that the 'Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history' when there are many Medieval Latin-language chronicles (also penned by Hungarian writers of the High Middle Ages) stating otherwise. Please reconsider that source in a historically-accurate context. Also, I love Encyclopædia Britannica and do consider it a very reliable source, but it does have its flaws here and there as well, in this particular context all the more. Best regards! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romanians/Archive_10&oldid=1243998929"