Talk:History of Transylvania

Mongol invasion

Hi Slatersteven,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Slatersteven,

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

3. FROM THE MONGOL INVASION TO THE BATTLE OF MOHÁCS

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

Subchapter: The Mongol Invasion and Its Consequences

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

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

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

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

Then there is a major problem here as this [[2]] is what 252 cites too, it does not look like nothin you are linking to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before my edit today http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=prev&oldid=1243981882 252 is "Peter"

Only after my edit http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=next&oldid=1245061815 252 became "Ottoman rule"

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

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

See England article: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=England&action=edit

ref name="2021 Nomis"

ref name="Fordham"

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

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

POV again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aristeus many times removed Hungarian academic sources from Hungarian related topics, he stated that entire Hungarian national library are not reliable and he basically suggested that Hungarian sources for their own Hungarian history is not allowed. [3] If we see the edits of Aristeus he is using mostly Romanian sources, in this case as double standard, it is a not problem for him. His goal to remove from everywhere the mainstream academic Hungarian historiography viewpoint, as this is not match with his view, that is. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@OrionNimrod, two simple closed questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aristeus01, Transylvanian landscape: [4][5][6][7][8][9] we can see there are many uninhabited mountain and forest area still today. Why do you want see population in the big forest and in the rocks? But there are many settlements in mountainous regions, as full Transylvania is a mountainous region. Google earth is your friend. Settlements are mostly in valleys. Also Vlach shepherds could not use big sheep herds in big forest, it is logical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Georg von Reicherstorffer – Transylvaniae Chorographia Moldaviae, 1550:

According to Reicherstorffer the Romanians came from Moesia [Bulgaria] into Transylvania. [10]

“Morover, Moesians were once those, who are now Valachians, is more accepted today than anyone dares to deny” [11]

“Also Vlachs dwell in this land, but sparsely, without a fixed home.” [12]

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

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

"duchy in Transylvania led by a Romanian named Gelu"

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

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

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

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

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

In other words you made it up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC Demographics and historical research

Should the section on Demographics and historical research be

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

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

A

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

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

B

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

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

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

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

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

Discusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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