Talk:Timeline of Romanian history

Traian Vuia

Quite a few others flew self-built aircraft which took off under their own power before this, Man with one red shoe, try checking Ader, Jatho, Kress, and Whitehead for starters. And I'd still like to know why you're tagging my edits as vandalism as well.Romaniantruths (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

yes it is true, but neither of them did it with a heavier than air aricraft. or do you consider gliders to be heavier than air? considering that all you posts are 100% anti-romanian and that your old nickname was also highly offensive to romanians i can pretty much concur that your edits are vandalism because you only seek to denigrate romanians 79.113.4.97 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't want to get into discussion with User:Romaniantruths (for different reasons that I don't want to enumerate here, mostly because I would be accused of incivility), but I want to point out something, Wikipedia is a large project, choosing a name like "Romanianlies" (which was clearly offensive) or "Romaniantruths" (which he chose to bend the rule and prove a point) implies some obsession, why doesn't he enlarge his horizons beyond Romanian lies or truths? man with one red shoe 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Traian Vuia

ALL the names I mentioned did it with heavier than air aircraft. The truth isn't vandalism.Romaniantruths (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I might also point out, man with one red shoe, that everyone considers gliders heavier than air. You might want to mention this to your EXTRA SPECIAL FREIND 79.113.4.97. While you're at it let him know that in English 'neither' refers to two people who flew before Vuia. The grammatically proper word when you're refering to four of the many men who flew autonomous take-off-without-the-help-of-a-catapult-or-rails-heavier-than-air-flying machines before Vuia made his brief hop would be 'all'. Romaniantruths (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC

Gliders are obviously heavier than air, nothing to debate there. I don't have any friend 79.113.4.97, nor I'm passing messages between Wikipedia users, feel free to talk directly to whomever you want without implicating me. man with one red shoe 20:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Vuia did not "sucessfully the first self-propelling heavier-than-air-aircraft, which was self-build;" see others listed above.Romaniantruths (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sculca

Anon, would you quote the text of the 1898 Encyclopædia Britannica which proves that its authors claim that the word "sculca" was used during the same military expedition as the expression "torna, torna, fratre"? Would you also refer to other sources, especially those written during the last decades, which contain a reference to the importance of the expression "sculca" in connection with the history of Romania/Romanian? Borsoka (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I was not asserting that the word was used during that event. You could have transformed that information into an other entry. It was just an additional bit of information that I happened to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:95FD:D613:D79F:3876 (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

As per WP:Due, would you clarify why is the expression "sculca" is relevant in connection with the history of Romania according to modern historians? Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It is obviously important, as, ANY INFORMATION ABOUT ROMANIA'S HISTORY IS IMPORTANT AND THERE ARE FEW WRITTEN HISTORICAL RECORDS THAT STILL SURVIVE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE LANGUAGE AT HAND. ARE YOU DUMB OR WHAT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.111.10 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bezerenbam

"Radu St. Vergatti ... believes that the king of Vlachs who defeated the Mongols was no other than Bezerenbam mentioned in the history of Fazlallah Rashid ad-Din. Hasdeu first identified that character with a member of the (future) Basarab dynasty. Hasdeu's idea was accepted by some, but in 1973, Aurel Decei demonstrated that Bezerenbam was a Polish lord." (Madgearu, Alexandru (2017). The Asanids: The Political and Military History of the Second Bulgarian Empire, 1185–1280. BRILL. p. 233. ISBN 978-9-004-32501-2.) We should not present old scholars' Romantic theories as facts in WP. Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? Aurel Decei "demonstrated"? So why not post both ideas? In the absence of definitive fact, everything is worth weighing you little racist.

Five territorial units

The map does not show "statal unions", but the Pechenegs tribes, including Charaboi. (For further details about the Pechenegs tribes I refer to Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250. Cambridge University Press. pp. 182–183. ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4.) Please try to use reliable sources when editing WP instead of self-published websites. Please name the books that you are trying to cite. Could you name and quote the "professor" whom you referred to in this edit summary: [1]? I doubt that scholars are willing to refer to maps published in 1826 when writing about the history of the 9th-10th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the professor from Moldova. Just read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.111.10 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bogus sources

I have removed several bogus sources (unreliable sources). They are basically self-published sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

E.g. Agero Stuttgart pretends to be a journal, but it is the home of all kinds of crackpot ideas, you name it, it is probably there (like Jesus died at the age of 77 in Dacia). Others are extremist nationalistic websites with little or no editorial control. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That was just a tertiary source. Regardless of what other material is out there, if they have anything that is worth mentioning, I will use it. www.adevaruldespredaci.ro posts crazy stuff at times, but other times posts good stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.111.10 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Agero Stuttgart claims that Jesus died in 77 AD, when he was 80 years old. About adevaruldespredaci: you're in deep need of reading WP:RS thoroughly (and do take notes while doing it). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Blachernos

No, I am not racist. Ilie Gherghel published the cited book in 1921. The other scholar cited, Gheorghe Popa-Lisseanu, died in 1945, so he could hardly published his work in 2014. As per WP:DUE and WP:Fringe, would you please refer to academic works which verify that the story of Blachernos from Dobrogea is widely accepted by modern historians? The existence of the Yeti is often mentioned in TV shows and popular newspapers. However, we cannot refer to these TV shows and newspapers to verify the claim that the Yeti is an actual animal/humanoid. Similarly, we cannot refer to popular media to verify that the existence of Blachernos is a well-established fact. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That was a TV show from the rather respected state-run television TVR which is the equivalent of the BBC in England. I doubt you would have reacted the same way had it been the BBC I was quoting.

You're just a racist moron. Go write the Timeline of Hungarian history and finally acknowledge the fact that you are not European and that you came from Asia.

Primary sources

No, I am not moron (idiote). WP:Primary says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." Would you refer to a secondary or tertiary source which verifies that Iamblichus's work about Zalmoxis is notable in connection with the 4th-century history of Romania? Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC) Would you also refer to a secondary or tertiary source which verifies that the report from Maurice's Strategikon and the Miracles of Saint Demetrius is relevant when describing the history of Romania? Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Go find the primary source yourself. If I know of something that is worth putting up, I will do so. People are supposed to contribute to things on Wikipedia, not delete them because they are incomplete. Any by the way, your English is rubbish.

And for the love of God, the pagan deity Zalmoxis is BY FAR one of the most notable things about Romania's history as pertains to the Dacian empire. EVERYTHING is important to the history of modern Romania. ALL of its history, not just the parts that don't inconvenience you because you're hungarian.

Menyel valahol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.111.10 (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources

Anon, before editing WP please read WP:NOR. We are not here to present our own interpretation about primary sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not presenting my own interpretation of a primary source but the source itself as and when available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.3.111.10 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of your sources are WP:PRIMARY (which falls under WP:OR), others are severely dated, and other sources are unreliable (e.g. written by a graduate student). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

And? De ce nu ajuti fraiere daca stii mai bine? A, I know, because you don't actually know better.

Severely dated? Since when is that a problem? What a moron.

WP:PLAGUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Who deleted the 5th century BC link?

Why is it that I have to keep on looking after this article?

Which one of you deleted the 5th century BC button so that it wouldn't work when pressed?

I would not be surprised if it were the hungarian that did that...

Pseudohistory

The claim that Dacians/Getae had a writing (alphabet) is pseudohistory. If you need more details see WP:RANDY.

About "not discovered yet" is the same argument as for Searches for Noah's Ark and The Exodus. (I know that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.) Besides, Goths were totally unrelated to Getae (except for the African origin of all humans). Iordanes, who conflated them, was full of craps. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Menumorout

Anon, first of all, please refrain from making uncivil remarks in edit summeries. Secondly, could you quote the text of the Gesta Hungarorum which says that Menumorut was a Vlach? Please remember, that according to the Gesta, his realm was inhabited by Khazars and Székelys (for further details I refer to the well-sourced article dedicated to Menumorut). Borsoka (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you even read his Wikipedia page?

"In Romanian historiography, he is considered to be one of the Vlach, or Romanian, dukes whose role in the Gesta proves the existence of Romanian polities in the Carpathian Basin at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries.[73]"

Yes, he is considered to be a Vlach prince by Romanian historians. However, we cannot refer to the Gesta Hungarorum when stating that he was a Vlach prince or that Romanian historiography claims that he was a Vlach prince, first of all because the Gesta Hungarorum is a primary source, furthermore it does not refer to the nationality of Menumorut and contains no information on Romanian historiography. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Original research?

So what exactly is derived from original research in this article?

Everything that was suspected as being original research has been removed.

Why is the tag still there then??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a good question you should ask yourself. Also, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, see WP:CIRCULAR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Really, wow, what an intelligent response. As if you haven't learned about Jupan Dimitrie and Gheorghe in school. Actually, maybe you haven't. Proves how much you know.

And again, if you were well-intended, if you see that a source is missing, find it and add it, what's your problem? Jealous that someone else knows more than you do? Probably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.186.84 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Listen very well: editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. If you want to continue editing here, you have to obey our rules: we don't like original research, we don't like nationalist propaganda, we don't like fringe stuff presented as objective knowledge in the voice of Wikipedia, we don't like personal attacks. As a serial abuser, you are likely to get banned from editing Wikipedia. No amount of whining or sneering will help you against that. So your choice is either behave as we wish or leave. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Original research

Again, which of the entries in this article consist of original research?

The only mention of that is at the very top of the article.

Everything that you guys disliked has been removed except the tag. Why the tag then? Because you could care less to actually find sources?

Very nice to have deleted Wulfila as if he has had nothing to do with the territory of modern-day Romania at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There are dozens of non-referenced sentences and other dozens of sentences based exclusively on primary sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That's Primary sources, not original research. They appear in other Wikipedia articles as well. It's not something I invented. An other user tried to add links to the Dacicus Maximus entries but I don't think his links worked very well.

Regardless, that falls under a separate tab which is that for relying too much on primary sources. The content is not original research. I hope you understand the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.186.84 (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Borsoka is right, we do not usually quote some guys from the 16th century, we quote mainstream scholars from the 20th and 21st centuries. If we quote primary sources at all is for illustrating the points already made by modern secondary sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Troesmis

For the attention of the jealous hungarian user Borsoka.

Troesmis was a Dacian city as per the article's page in English. The Romanian version has way more information. It is located on the present territory of Romania and the ancient territory of Dacia and is thus part of its history. As for references for other towns/cities, yes, by all means, be my guest, add them.

Ovid mentioned it in his Epistulae ex Ponto. Dacia was conquered by the Romans more than a hundred years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Who was the Legio V Macedonica "visiting" in 107 then? Hungarians??? Go acquaint yourself with history.

Here's Ovid's quote:

And the Bow bearing Getes did terrifie,

By speedy valour he did Tr•••es take

And D•nub•ed with salvage blood did make:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A08628.0001.001/1:4.4.9?rgn=div3;view=fulltext http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Ov.+Pont.+4.9.75&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0493 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Jealous for what? Yes, Dobruja was subjected to the Dacian king, Burebista for some year. Could we describe Moldavia and Wallachia as "ancient Hungarian lands" because the rulers of both territories were subjected to the kings of Hungary for decades in the 13th-14th centuries? Please read WP:Source and find reliable sources, written by modern historians and published by academic institutions, which state that Troesmis could be described as a "Dacian town". Why do you think that each coin finds from Troesmis should be mentioned in this timeline, dedicated to the history of Romania? Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not original research, http://www.turcoaia.ro/istoric.html which is the official page for the locality near it says it's geto-dacian! Maybe you should learn to read Romanian.

Troesmis WAS conquered from the Getae and given to the Rhecuporis, did you not read the link about Ovid??? It was also part of Roman Dacia, as per http://www.turcoaia.ro/istoric.html, READ!

Coins should be mentioned because they are archaeology and they are important and it's part of the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.186.84 (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you really suggest that a town's homepage is a peer reviewed academic source? Do you really suggest that all coins found at the hundreds of towns of Romania should be mentioned in this timeline? Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Here: http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=turcoaia-turcoaia-tulcea-situl-arheologic-de-la-turcoaia-troesmis-iglita-cod-sit-ran-161473.01 The Archaeological Repertoire of the Romanian Ministry of Culture. Clearly says "cetate geto-dacică".

Categorie/ Tip Epoca (Datare) Cultura/ Faza culturală Descriere/ Observații Cod LMI tezaur A fost descoperit un tezaur monetar în cursul unei periegheze cetate La Tène geto-dacică Cetate traco-getică, ulterior oraş roman şi important castru de legiune pe malul drept al Dunării, aici fiind cantonată o perioadă de timp Legiunea V Macedonica TL-I-m-A-05952.02 cetate Epoca romană târzie neprecizată TL-I-m-A-05952.03 cetate Epoca medievală timpurie (sec. VIII-XII) neprecizată TL-I-m-A-05952.01 Necropolă plană şi tumulară Epoca romană (sec. I-VII) neprecizată TL-I-m-A-05952.04

And yes, official town hall webpages are trustworthy because historians write the historical parts. https://www.historia.ro/sectiune/travel/articol/top-10-cetati-din-dobrogea and http://adevarul.ro/locale/constanta/cetatile-nestiute-dobrogei-misterele-dinogetia-stratonis-parthenopolis-troesmis-1_58d91f675ab6550cb8b935e8/index.html are also trusted sources as one is a respected History magazine and the other a respected newspaper.

As for coins, yes, the more, the better. All coin hoards should be mentioned in this article actually, because there are many of them. it's all history.

Now go and undo your stupid changes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.186.84 (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is neither for nor against Romania. What we are for is objective knowledge, i.e. verifiable information from reliable sources (secondary as a rule of thumb). We have quality standards for sources, we don't believe in everything goes. E.g. Mr. Ganciu: at the moment, he only has a Master's degree, like I do. So if blog articles by him are WP:RS, then blog articles by me are WP:RS, which is absurd according to WP:PAGs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

RAN describes the archaeological side either as "geto-dacică" or "traco-getică", consequently does not say that Troesmis was a Dacian town. For instance, an other archaeological side in Cluj-Napoca is described as "Wittenberg" ([2]), but this does not mean that we could write of the "ancient Wittenbergian town of Cluj-Napoca". Yes, coin hoards found in a town can be interesting when completing a timelime of the history of that town, but we should verify the relevance of the same information when editing a timelime of the history of the country where the town is located. Sorry, if you cannot verify your edits with references to academic works, I will sooner or later delete them, as per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, historia.ro could be published as a review, however its quality is that of scientific WP:BLOGS, not of an ISI-indexed peer-reviewed scholarly journal. So, it could be used for non-controversial claims (more like WP:BLUE), but not more than that. E.g. this article is written by an engineer (not by any means having credentials as a historian), aims to decipher an inscription (the reading could be true, it could be false, who am I to tell?), but what is striking is that it displays a total lack of critical spirit (which is rather to be expected from non-historians). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ovid is clear and enough and he is quoted by other sources as well, but you have now removed them all. I wish you well in proving that the town was actually Hungarian then, since that's what seems to be the objective here, anything BUT Geto-Dacian.

Also, TGeorgescu, other people that are smarter than you have written those things, so dial down the pride, would you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way TGeorgescu, since when is CIMEC counted for so little by someone like you that supposedly has a degree? Of course Cluj has many layers, it depends what layer one is referring to and which of them has most historical sources writing about it, otherwise, we'd refer to everything as being La Tene for example. And if a settlement like Troesmis has lived through so many eras, why not mention the most well-documented of it, as per Ovid, who clearly says that the city was taken from the Getae and given to the Thracian king Rhecuporis? CIMEC clearly says: "Cetate traco-getică, ulterior oraş roman şi important castru de legiune pe malul drept al Dunării, aici fiind cantonată o perioadă de timp Legiunea V Macedonica" from the "Geto-Dacian culture". The Thracian element is obviously because it was taken over after the Getae lost a battle. What's so hard to understand and accept? It is also the first layer of the settlement and the one about which Ovid writes, the first and oldest reference to it. No one expects us to state the entirety of its timeline when referring to it, but one expects that which was first to be mentioned first, otherwise, we'd only be taking about Romania from the 90s onwards...

I don't understand you people, you're simply anti-anything and you think it's cool. It's actually, just stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's actually quite simple: Wikipedia isn't an IQ contest, nor a patriotism contest. The WP:PAGs cannot be set aside simply because you think that other people are smarter or more patriotic than us. The germane WP:PAG is WP:RS, please take some time and read it very, very well. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I summarized my concerns above and your remarks have not addressed them. Sorry, I do not have time to discuss your assumptions about my intentions or abilities, so I stop answering your messages that do not contain relevant information. Borsoka (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu: Also, Revista Pontica is highly respected and very old, and it says it was Dacian. Have you even read the reference to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, please take time to read WP:CIVIL and WP:FREE, too. This article has not been created in order that you make sport of our sourcing WP:PAGs. Much of the information sourced to primary sources isn't false, it is just not the way we do things around here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu: again, here's an other author that says it's geto-thracian: http://revistapeuce.icemtl.ro/wp-content/uploads/Arhiva-Peuce-Serie-noua/03-Peuce-SN-III-IV-2005-2006/10-Aparaschivei.pdf He's from the Institute of Archaeology in Iași. Is this still, not a good enough reference?

"Cetatea de vest, amplasata pe un promontoriu, se presupune a fi vechiul oppidum cu caracter geto-trac. Acest stravechi centru a fost fortificat de romani si organizat ca o civitas."

Also, have you seen the 20 references at http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=turcoaia-turcoaia-tulcea-situl-arheologic-de-la-turcoaia-troesmis-iglita-cod-sit-ran-161473.01 ??? Are they, again, nothing to you? How dumb do you have to be? You're a no one. People way superior to you have written those things, yet you refuse to accept them, as does the other moron. Ooo, big deal, you're going to ban me for a month of something, who cares...

And no thanks, I won't be reading anything, feel free to thank me for contributing so much to this article. No one cared about anything prior to the 14th century until I started adding to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

So if it's not false, then why don't you get off your lazy butt and put it in whatever order or format you like, since it's obviously already true? There, an other one, Tulcea Local County official webpage: https://www.cjtulcea.ro/sites/cjtulcea/PrezentareaJudetului/Obiective%20Turistice/Lists/Cetati%20si%20Monumente/Display.aspx?ID=12

I've given you more than enough references from respected authors stating that the town belonged to the Getae. What else do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, CIMEC is very clear, and has 20 references to back it up, what the heck is your problem??? Who is more authorized to state something than CIMEC?

Here's what it says: Categorie:cetate Epoca:La Tène Cultura:geto-dacică Descriere/observații:Cetate traco-getică, ulterior oraş roman şi important castru de legiune pe malul drept al Dunării, aici fiind cantonată o perioadă de timp Legiunea V Macedonica

Here are the references. What is your problem???

Bibliografie 1. Lista monumentelor istorice 2004, MO nr. 646 bis/16/07/2004, Ordinul ministrului culturii şi cultelor nr. 2.314/2004, vol. III, 2008, p. 2284, poz. 438-442 [ordin MC] 2. DMASI, Proiectul Listei Monumentelor Istorice, 1991 [Proiect LMI] (sursa fişei de sit) 3. Custurea, Gabriel; Vertan, A.; Talmaţchi, Gabriel, Descoperiri monetare în Dobrogea (XI), Pontica, XXX, Constanţa, 1997, 371-387, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEvnoIFYC2ZNWJiYm5DanpRSzg/view [Publicaţie] (sursa fişei de sit) 4. Matei, Cristian, Consideraţii privind raportul dintre Classis Flavia Moesica şi fortificaţiile limesului roman de la Dunărea de Jos (sec. I-VI), Pontica, XXIV, Constanţa, 1991, 143-158, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEvnoIFYC2ZYk9zVngyb1JOakk/view [Publicaţie] (sursa fişei de sit) 5. Sîrbu, Valeriu, Nouvelles considérations générales concernant l'importation des amphores greques sur le territoire de la Roumanie (les VIe-Ier siècles av.n.è.), Pontica, XVI, Constanţa, 1983, 43-67, https://revistapontica.wordpress.com/revista/nr-16-1983/ [Publicaţie] (sursa fişei de sit) 6. Lungu, Virgil; Chera, Constantin, Contribuţii la cunoaşterea complexelor funerare de incineraţie cu "rug busta" de epocă elenistică şi romană de la Tomis, Pontica, XIX, Constanţa, 1986, 89-114, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEvnoIFYC2ZbkZDbGcyT1JPODQ/view [Publicaţie] (sursa fişei de sit) 7. Florescu, Radu, Limesul dunărean bizantin în vremea dinastiilor isauriană şi macedoneană, Pontica, XIX, Constanţa, 1986, 171-177, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwEvnoIFYC2Za0ZXMTRjY1hwQm8/view [Publicaţie] (sursa fişei de sit) 8. Scurtu, Florin, Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România. Campania 2004, CIMEC-Institutul de Memorie Culturală, Bucureşti, 2005, http://cronica.cimec.ro/detaliu.asp?k=3253 [Publicaţie] 9. Alexandrescu, Cristina, Gugl,Christian, Troesmis și romanii la Dunărea de Jos. Proiectul Troesmis 2010-2013, Peuce - Studii și cercetări de istorie și arheologie, XII (s.n.), Tulcea, 2014, 289-306, http://revistapeuce.icemtl.ro/wp-content/uploads/Arhiva-Peuce-Serie-noua/11-Peuce-SN-XII-2014/09-Alexandrescu-Gugl-Peuce-SN-12-2014ca.pdf [Publicaţie] 10. Mușețeanu, Crișan, Fragmente sculpturale de la Troesmis, Peuce - Rapoarte, cataloage, studii și note de istorie și arheologie, IX, Tulcea, 1984, 235-236; 631-632, http://revistapeuce.icemtl.ro/wp-content/uploads/Arhiva-Peuce-Serie-veche/09-Peuce-SV-IX-1984/13-Museteanu-a.pdf [Publicaţie] 11. Cîrjan, Romeo, The municipal law of Troesmis: preliminary remarks, Moesica et Christiana, Studies in honour of Professsor Alexandu Barnea, Brăila, 2016, 289-300 [Publicaţie] 12. Alexandrescu, Cristina - Georgeta, On the funerary altar of Valerius Firmus, veteran of legio V Macedonica în Troesmis (ISM V, 196),, Moesica et Christiana, Studies in honour of Professsor Alexandu Barnea, Brăila, 2016, 57-66 [Publicaţie] 13. Liușnea, Mihaela-Denisia, Considerații privind limes-ul roman în perioada Principatului, la Dunărea de Jos, Carpica, XXIX, 2000, 71-82, http://www.cimec.ro/pdf/carpica/dl.asp?filename=29-carpica-XXIX.pdf [Publicaţie] 14. Doruțu-Boilă, Emilia, Castra Legionis V Macedonicae und Municipium Troesmense, Dacia - Revue d'archaéologie et d'histoire ancienne, 16, București, 1972, 133-144 [Publicaţie] 15. Bounegru, Octavian, Chiriac, C., Noi descoperiri arheologice și numismatice la Troesmis, Peuce, IV, 1975, 97-108, http://revistapeuce.icemtl.ro/wp-content/uploads/Arhiva-Peuce-Serie-veche/03-Peuce-SV-IV-1973-1975-Istorie/06-Chiriac-Bounegru.pdf [Publicaţie] 16. Simion, Gavrilă, Șantierul archeologic Troesmis, Peuce, VIII, 1980, 152-288, http://revistapeuce.icemtl.ro/wp-content/uploads/Arhiva-Peuce-Serie-veche/08-Peuce-SV-VIII-1980-Istorie/06-cu-1-Simion.pdf [Publicaţie] 17. Simion, Gavrilă, Săpăturile de salvare de la Troesmis 1977, Peuce, VIII, 1980, 153-158, http://revistapeuce.icemtl.ro/wp-content/uploads/Arhiva-Peuce-Serie-veche/08-Peuce-SV-VIII-1980-Istorie/06-cu-1-Simion.pdf [Publicaţie] 18. Baumann, Victor, Observațiile topo-stratigrafice asupra locuirii de la Troesmis (casetele 1-40), Peuce, VIII, 1980, 159-196, http://revistapeuce.icemtl.ro/wp-content/uploads/Arhiva-Peuce-Serie-veche/08-Peuce-SV-VIII-1980-Istorie/06-cu-2-Baumann.pdf [Publicaţie] 19. Opaiț, Andrei, Troesmis. Așezarea romană timpurie de pe platou, Peuce, VIII, 1980, 197-229, http://revistapeuce.icemtl.ro/wp-content/uploads/Arhiva-Peuce-Serie-veche/08-Peuce-SV-VIII-1980-Istorie/06-cu-3-Opait.pdf [Publicaţie] 20. Aparaschivei, Dan, Municipiul Troesmis. Instituții și elite, Peuce, III-IV (s.n.), 2006, 189-208, http://revistapeuce.icemtl.ro/wp-content/uploads/Arhiva-Peuce-Serie-noua/03-Peuce-SN-III-IV-2005-2006/10-Aparaschivei.pdf [Publicaţie] 21. Seeck, Otto, Notitia Dignitatum accedunt Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae et Laterculi provinciarum, Berlin, 1876, 29, 39 [Publicaţie] 22. Vulpe, Radu, Barnea, Ion, Din istoria Dobrogei - Romanii la Dunărea de Jos, Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, București, 1968 [Publicaţie] 23. Tabula Peutingeriana, Codex Vindobodenis 324, Vollständige Faksimile Ausgabe, Originalformat, Granz, 1975, 7, 3, 4. [Publicaţie] 24. Miller, K., Intinerarium Antonini et Hierosolymitanum, Stuttgart, 1916, 225 [Publicaţie] 25. Procopius din Cesareea,, De Aedificiis, text, traducere și comentarii de G. Popa-Lisseanu, București, 1939, IV. 11, 23 [Publicaţie] 26. Bâltâc, Adela, Lumea rurală în provinciile Moesia Inferior și Thracia (secolele I-III p. Chr.), București, 2011, 108 [Publicaţie] 27. Suceveanu, Alexandru, Barnea, Alexandru, La Dobroudja romaine, București, 1991, 185 [Publicaţie] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHERAPY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yet more references for Troesmis being a Getian settlement!

http://revistapeuce.icemtl.ro/wp-content/uploads/04Alexandrescu-Olariu-Peuce15-2017.pdf

"Ancient Troesmis is situated on one of the old river branches of the Lower Danube (Măcin Branch), between the modern settlements of Măcin and Turcoaia (Tulcea county), being one of the main antique centres in this region. Attested as a Getic settlement, Roman legionary fortress, Roman municipium, and, later, as a Late Roman and Byzantine fortification, Troesmis was well known as an important strategic point"

The authors published in Peuce are experts and specialists known in Romania and abroad due to their major contributions in archaeology and history. The journal’s pages include studies from notable members of the Romanian Academy, of Romanian and foreign research institutes and universities. We can proudly say that Peuce takes a prestigious place in the national and international scientific community, due to the authors’ professionalism and the value of the published studies and articles. Peuce is a landmark of scientific research in Southeastern Europe.

Here's an other reference about subsequent events between the Getae and the Romans fighting over it, from the Romanian Academy Historical and Archaeological Department!!!

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=J2UsAQAAIAAJ&q=cetatea+troesmis+geti&dq=cetatea+troesmis+geti&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrw5H5kf7ZAhXB6qQKHQWpAlUQ6AEIJzAA

Does anyone have a problem with the Peuce Magazine? If so, go slap yourself you clueless moron! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.13.37 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Troublemaker

The article as well as its talk page have been semi-protected for one month. The troublemaker has used Special:Contributions/212.42.186.84 (FastNet International Ltd, Wokingham, UK), Special:Contributions/209.93.13.37 (INFONET Services Corporation, Farnham, UK) and Special:Contributions/81.3.111.10 (Timico Limited, Farnham, UK). They have information, but it is bulk information: lots of WP:PRIMARY sources, which usually cannot be used to verify claims, especially if controversial, many sources which are bunk (such as adevaruldespredaci.ro, Agero Stuttgart and such), some rather weak sources (popularized science magazines as historia.ro) and some valid secondary sources. Also, they are biased for Romanian nationalist theories or even for WP:FRINGE/PS views like protochronism, which are abhorrent even for serious Romanian nationalist intellectuals (such views are a disservice to the Romanian cause, since they depict Romanians as ready to believe crazy stuff). What I personally believe in is objective knowledge, i.e. if my country was wrong or weak in a certain historical situation, we do not have to cover this up in order to pamper national pride. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

We're not a research institute, so we cannot tell whether a claim would be true or false; all we can do is evaluate the reliability of secondary sources written by modern scholars—we obviously cannot do that with ancient primary sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Really?

So if someone clicks on the 5th century and starts reading on and concludes that there is barely anything between the 5th and 6th century?

Do you really think that would be smart to do?

The abundance of morons on Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.152.78 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, why don't you actually start adding to this article instead of yapping about everything else that other people do?

Typical lazy-ass Romanian. Too idiotic to work but jealous that other people are. It's why you still live there.

BTW, my IP changes all the time. Deal with it.

WP:NOTTHERAPY: you have no excuse for violating WP:CIVIL. Unless you want to hammer the POV that Romanians are hysterical people, I see no reason for your attacks. WP:ILLEGIT says Strawman socks: Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

~== Hi ==

Can anyone point to any sentences in this article that are still original research? Haven't you guys removed all of them? Why does this article still have that tag?

I'll give you that it has some info that is only referenced by primary sources, but I think that the other tag is not relevant anymore.

The Wulfila stuff is now deleted, so, I think that this is just an attempt by that Hungarian user to discredit an otherwise extremely good article.

If you guys don't remove it I will report this higher up the chain of command as it's just being racist at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.74.178 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The article has not been improved since the tags were places. It contains original research and multiple references to primary sources. Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I can see the references to primary sources, which is a separate issue, but I don't see any sentences that are original research? I don't have a problem with the primary sources tag but do with the original research tag as I don't see any false claims that are not referenced at all.

Could you point out, or actually, add tags to sentences you think are original research? People could find secondary references then, but, if sentences aren't actually tagged I don't see the point of the tag at the top as there isn't anything that I can find that is original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.74.178 (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

In respect to content, there is no chain of command: all editors who aren't blocked or (topic) banned are equal. In respect to WP:OR: your own analysis of WP:PRIMARY WP:SOURCES is by definition original research. According to User:Random832/WP:V is not a suicide pact this is not immediately a reason for deletion, but the maintenance template should remain, you're not allowed to remove it. Only WP:SCHOLARSHIP is allowed to interpret primary sources for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There have been links to the Dacicus and Carpicus Maximus sentences in the past but for some reason they have been removed. Also, I don't see anyone else actually caring about looking for sources, all that people do here is delete valid content that other users post. It would perhaps be helpful if the people sitting on the side of the road constantly moaning about the article would actually put some effort into finding sources for things that are otherwise known in popular culture to be true such as the Dacicus Maximus titles.

The fact that there isn't a secondary source for something that is otherwise known to be true in popular culture does not mean that it is not true, it simply means that the secondary source has not yet been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.74.178 (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems you're WP:LTA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Anon, before editing WP, please make attempts to internalize WP:Civility.Your edit summaries suggest that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Please, also read and apply WP:NOR, because all contents that are not verified by reliable sources will be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself moron. And after you do that stop deleting things that are verified. 3 quarters of the edit you deleted was just fine.

AS I PREVIOUSLY SAID, IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ONE SENTENCE, TAG IT YOU IDIOT, DON'T DELETE THE WHOLE THING!

OR ARE YOU JEALOUS THAT THERE IS MORE TO ROMANIAN HISTORY THAN YOU KNOW?

I see you are unable to internalize WP:Civility. If you are unable to apply WP:NOR and to understand WP:Unsourced, you should not edit Wikipedia. Borsoka (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello stupid hungarian

Why did you delete "| 1224 || || The Diploma Andreanum was issued by Andrew II of Hungary granting provisional autonomy to colonial Germans residing in the present-day area of Sibiu." from the article?

Is that not verified material? Or is it just that you are 3a fucking idiot?

Also, why did you delete "| 1438 || || The Unio Trium Nationum pact was signed as a reaction to the Transylvanian peasant revolt at Bobâlna." from the article, is that not verified material either?

What about "| 1514 || || György Dózsa led a peasant's revolt in Transylvania against Hungarian nobles." ?

Oh, and also, do any other of you fucking morons want to explain why you didn't point the above out as things the user should not have deleted???

Go fuck yourselves morons!

For pedagogical purposes: you are still unable to add proper citations. Please read WP:NOR and WP:Unsourced before editing. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You're deleting perfectly fine stuff again

Why did you delete "| 1224 || || The Diploma Andreanum was issued by Andrew II of Hungary granting provisional autonomy to colonial Germans residing in the present-day area of Sibiu." from the article?

Also, why did you delete "| 1438 || || The Unio Trium Nationum pact was signed as a reaction to the Transylvanian peasant revolt at Bobâlna." from the article, is that not verified material either?

What about "| 1514 || || György Dózsa led a peasant's revolt in Transylvania against Hungarian nobles." ?

You are being reported for disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.74.178 (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and WP:CHALLENGE. Borsoka (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

82.17.74.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) got blocked for five days. After so many years of bickering he still did not take the time to study our WP:RULES—no wonder then that his edits get knee-jerk reverted: his edits do not comply with basic WP:PAG. Instead of cursing others he should do his work properly and decently; or not do it at all. The IP comes over as WP:INCOMPETENT. As Epistle to Titus put it, "being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Tomis

That's quite enough. This not the lalce for your petty ethnic name calling. This is an encyclopedia. If anyone wants to make policy and source based comments, without name calling and insults, please start a new thread.-- Deepfriedokra 05:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Definitely not the lalce, I agree. EEng 15:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The timeline lists several aspects of the history of Tomis. Is the history of Tomis is more important in the course of the history of Romania than that of other towns (for example, Bucuresti, Cluj, Sibiu)? Borsoka (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Yes you moron, because there are so many sources that talk about it. This is supposed to be a timeline of history, so, by definition, as much as possible has to be added to it. Or does it bother you that there is so much written about it? Would you rather prefer that this article be thinner so that you could advance theories of "no one lived there"? Idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.33.196 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC) No, I would prefer a timeline about events which actually happened in these lands inhabited by so many peoples (Goths, Gepids, Slavs, Avars, Pechenegs, Hungarians and from the 12th century also by Romanians). Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Tomis is a major part of this land you moron! The article is called "Timeline of Romanian history". The history of everything that happened on the present and past territory of Romania should be added to the article. What's your problem with Tomis? Too much documentary evidence perhaps that destroys your Hungarian bullshit theories of "no one lived here before we arrived?" Romanians from 12th century? Really? De origine actibusque Getarum by Jordanes says "Sclavini a civitate nova et Sclavino RUMUNENSE et lacu qui appellantur Mursianus..." Do you know what that means? No? Go to school. Maybe you'll actually learn something you fucking Hungarian moron! Not to mention that Vlachs simply changed their ethnonyms and started calling themselves Romanians, as per certified stuff in that very article, so when you read Vlach it mostly (with a few Balkan exceptions) means Romanians. Oh, and you've forgotten about Gesta Hungarorum. Oh yeah, you Hungarians don't agree with it. OK, then you were never here either then! You can't pick and choose what you like from the Gesta.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.250.147 (talk • contribs) WP:NOTTHERAPY. Meaning: if you cannot behave, you don't belong among educated people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are the history of Roman empire and Byzantine Empire represented here after the Roman withdrawal?

Why are history of Roman empire and Byzantine Empire represented in this article after the Roman withdrawal (271AD)? Can you explain it? . Neither any events of the Roman or Byzantine history can be mentioned in this article which do not relate to the territory of modern Romania even during the short 160 years period of Roman rule. Only the events which happened in the territory of Romania can be represnted here. --Durnheim (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Skeptekasas and others

Those places that seems to have Romanian names, where are that places? CarpathianEnjoyer (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)