Talk:Romania in the Early Middle Ages/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Copyright problems

This article has been blanked for evaluation at the copyright problems board. Considerable content has been added to this article which has been transcribed directly from copyrighted sources.

For a few verified examples of copying, this edit demonstrably introduced the following problems:

Source Article Pages
The Romans had never succeeded in closing down the “funnel of peoples” between the rivers Danube and Tisa in the west or in safeguarding in the east the “wet border” along the Prut river... There had always been problems in this area with peoples of all kinds, who appeared for the most part as free Daci or Carpi... We also hear of Costoboci and Rhoxolani. Finally, for centuries the Bastarnic element had been part of the ethnic mosaic of that area. The Romans had never succeeded in closing down the “funnel of peoples” between the rivers Danube and Tisa in the west or in safeguarding the “wet border” along the river Prut.[7] There had always been problems in this area with peoples of all kind, who appeared for the most part as free Dacians or Dacian-speaking[8] Carpians.[7] We also hear of Costoboci and Rhoxolani, and for centuries the Bastarnic element had been part of the ethnic mosaic of that area.[7] Wolfram et al. History of the Goths pages 43-44
The "western" Goths were fully occupied taking possession of the northern Danubian region on both sides of the Carpathians, dividing it with the Taifali, and keeping control of it. In the process their former allies, the Dacian Carpi, the Bastarnean Peukini, and the Vandal groups, became their rivals. The Bastarni had to give way: in 280 Probus admitted what was probably the greater part of that tribe into the Roman empire and settled them in Thrace in 280; in 295 the rest followed.... Following the Roman withdrawal, the Goths were fully occupied taking possession of the northern Danubian region on both sides of the Carpathian Mountains, dividing it with the Taifali, and keeping control of it.[7] In the process their former allies, the Carpians, the Bastarnæ, and the Vandals, became their rivals.[7] The latter had to give way: probably the greater part of the Bastarnæ settled in Thrace in 280, and in 295 the rest followed Wolfram et al, p. 56
In the summer of 328, Constantine opened the stone bridge across the Danube between Oescus-Gigen and Sucidava. At the same time the fortress Daphne-Spantov near Oltenita was erected downstream and linked by means of a large ferry with Transmarisca-Tutrakan.... The construction of the bridge was considered a first-rate military event: Constantine was celebrated as the renewer of Trajan's Dacia. While the bridge at Oescus linked the empire with Oltenia-Little Walachia, which was intended as a buffer zone.... In the summer of 328, Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) opened the stone bridge across the Danube between Œscus (in present-day Bulgaria) and Sucidava (now in Romania) linking the empire with Oltenia which was intended as a buffer zone.[7] At the same time, the fortress of Daphne (in present-day Romania) was erected and linked by means of a large ferry with Transmarisca (now in Bulgaria).[7] The construction of the bridge was considered a first-rate military event: the emperor was celebrated as renewer of province “Dacia Trajana” Wolfram et al, p. 61
Justinian built or renewed more than 600 forts in the Balkans.... Along the Danube and in the immediate hinterland, relatively small forts were built Justinian I also built or renewed more than 600 forts in the Balkans; but along the Danube and in the immediate hinterland, relatively small forts were built. Curta, p. 45.
Each settlement is no larger than about 5 acres, with a limited number of houses per habitation phase, ranging from ten to fifteen. This seems to indicate that most, if not all, sites had been occupied only for brief periods, than abandoned and new settlements established nearby.... What caused this shifting of hamlets must have been the itinerant form of agriculture practiced by their inhabitants and requiring that lands under cultivation be left fallow after a number of years of cultivation without manuring. Settlement sites excavated so far in Romania are no larger than about 0,02 km2 (5 acres), with a limited number of houses per habitation phase, ranging from 10 to 15.[19] This seems to indicate that most, if not all, sites had been occupied only for brief periods, than abandoned and new settlements established nearby.[19] What caused this shifting of hamlets must have been the itinerant form of agriculture practiced by their inhabitants and requiring that lands under cultivation be left fallow after a number of years of cultivation without manuring. Curta, pp. 56-57.
Much like the "Huns", the "Sclavenes" appear in sixth-century sources as an umbrella term for a multitude of groups living north of the Danube frontier, which could not be classified as either “Huns” or “Gepids”. On the other hand, the Sclavenes appear in 6th-century sources as an umbrella term for a multitude of groups living north of the Danube, which could not be classified as either “Huns” or “Gepids”. Curta, p. 59.
Early Avar society was based on procuring prestige goods from the Byzantine Empire and food supplies from small economic units, in the form of either direct production from family lands or tribute from subjugated population groups.... More often than not, the Avars chose to move the entire population of a conquered city or territory in the middle of the qaganate. Early Avar society was based on procuring prestige goods from the Byzantine Empire and food supplies from small economic units, in the form of either direct production from family lands or tribute from subjugated population groups.[19] More often than not, the Avars chose to move the entire population of a conquered city or territory in the middle of the Khaganate.[19] Curta, p. 65.

This is just an example. There is more copying from the books identified above. For instance, the content on the 950 baptism of the Magyar leader is a problem; cf. for one further example pp. 189-190 of Curta. See also additional problems flagged above. And not all of the books used are visible for preview and comparison.

Much of this content is still published in the article, still violating our copyright policies. While I realize that this constitutes a considerable set-back for this article, all copied content must be removed or handled properly in accordance with our copyright policies. This means that any direct copying must be marked by quotation marks, with a page number given for the quote, and that usage of direct copying must have good reason in accordance with WP:NFC. All other content based on these sources must be rewritten from scratch. Changing a few words creates a derivative work; rewriting should implement new language and structure to avoid this legal pitfall.

Alternatively, the article can be reverted to the last version prior to influx of content by the contributor who added this material, here. Content added by any other contributors may be restored, but only if it does not build off of the content added by this user from copyrighted works.

See also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Borsoka. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As no rewrite has been proposed, the article has been reverted to the last version prior to the influx of content by the contributor who added this material. The history of the article remains visible. Hopefully, there will be no issue with people restoring suspect or copied content that would require revision deletion. Contributors interested in improving the article are welcome to restore content that was added by any other contributor, but only if it does not build off of the content added by this user from copyrighted works. Content added by the user in question should not be restored, but unless there are verifiability issues of which I'm not aware, may be useful for mining facts and sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


The Hungarian user/editor Borsoka should be reported and banned from Wikipedia. Take a look at his contribution history you will find many copyright issues.

He seems to be an "expert" of the Slovakian and Romanian history. He is confusing the readers and introduces "Hungarian" bias in the articles like other editors such as Fakirbakir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.14.34 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Everybody can see that your comment is hostile toward Hungarian users, issues. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Would you please refer to actual examples of "Hungarian bias" introduced in articles? Otherwise, plagiarism might have become an issue because Hungarian editors who did not insist on the exact wording of the scholarly books they used had to face the accusation of OR by other editors. In the specific cases, good faith may be assumed taking into account that the sentences under investigation always refer to their sources, including the exact page of the books used when editing the article. But it is not me who can judge these cases. Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Systemic Bias or A Masterpiece of Twisted and Truncated History

The current article is completely biased as a result of illegitimate distortion of the historical records. The changes made especially by user User:Borsoka who tries to twist the history in favor of extremist and chauvinistic interests. Many changes are marked as " -less relevant info". This is a masterpiece of science about how the history can be twisted and used as a manipulation tool. The methods can found in the examples from below. For sure this achievement will be remembered in the annals of Wikipedia as a dark comedy. Unfortunately such mischievous acts will not resist over time. Saturnian (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed some points, because I do not understand the below list. My remarks are introduced. I think before making remarks on an article we all should read it, because the article's history is not the article itself. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
PAST PRESENT (after "-less relevant info")
Although Stephen I was crowned the first king of Hungary in 1000 or 1001, he did not at once unify the whole territory of the Carpathian Basin under his rule, many regions of which remained controlled by independent chieftains. Stephen I, the first crowned king of Hungary unified the Carpathian Basin under his rule only years after his coronation of 1000 or 1001. (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The Goths started ... from the 230s. Two distinct groups, separated by the river, the Thervingi and the Greuthungi emerged among them in the last decades of the century. The Goths started ... from the 230s. Two distinct groups, separated by the river, the Thervingi and the Greuthungi emerged among them in short time. (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The Goths' success is seems to have been marked ... The Goths' success is marked .... (Why was this a revisionist change? Please note that the "multiethnic" adjective was also introduced before the expression "Chernyakov culture". Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
A century later Chelchal, a Hun officer serving in the Roman army would remember that Gothic groups subdued to the Huns supplied their masters with food.[1] (completely removed) (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
...in 1111 attest the introduction of the county system... ...in 1111 attest to the appearance of the county system (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Stephen I, according to his hagiographer, Hartvic, "divided his territories in ten bishoprics".[2][3] (completely removed) (It was not removed. Please read the relevant section again. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
... these territories were granted to new settlers arriving from Western Europe. ... when new settlers arriving from Western Europe received these territories from the monarchs. (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Obliged to provide military services to the monarchs, the Székelys remained exempted of royal taxes.[4] (completely removed) (It was not removed. Please read the relevant section again. Borsoka (talk))
They [Székelys] were organized into autonomous administrative districts called "seats",[5] (completely removed) (It was not removed. Please read the relevant section again. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Their [Flemish, German, and Walloons] prosperity is attested by an account of the royal revenues from the 1190s, showing that almost one tenth of royal income derrived from taxes the Transylvanian "guest settlers" paid.[6] An account of royal revenues from the 1190s shows that almost one tenth of all royal income derrived from taxes paid by the Transylvanian "guest settlers".[7] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The Orthodox Romanians remained exempted of the tithe and only paid a special in kind tax, the "fiftieth" on their herds in the Kingdom of Hungary.[8] The Orthodox Romanians remained exempt of the tithe payable by all Catholic peasants.[9] Furthermore, they only paid a special in kind tax, the "fiftieth" on their herds.[9] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The colonization process continued when King Andrew II introduced the Teutonic Knights... Colonization continued by the arrival of the Teutonic Knights... (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The new duke occupied Oltenia where a separate border province, the Banate of Severin was set up in the 1230s.[10][11] He occupied Oltenia and set up a new province, the Banate of Severin in the 1230s.[10][11] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
First the spread of inhumation can be observed, which was followed by the predominance of cremation from the 450s up until the 10th century. Finally, inhumation triumphed, probably not independently of the spread of Christianity. Burial rites changed more than one times from cremation to inhumation and vice versa up until the triumph of inhumation by the end of the 10th century, probably not independently of the spread of Christianity. (450s date was removed) (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Romanians played an important role in the Second Bulgarian Empire between the 1180s and 1240s. However, their presence is less documented in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania within the Kingdom of Hungary, where Hungarian, Hungarian-speaking Székely, and "Saxon" groups arrived and settled in the period beginning around 900. Romanians inhabiting the mountainous regions of the Balkan Peninsula were mentioned under the name "Vlach" from the 970s. The existence of a late 9th-century polity of Vlachs and Slavs in Transylvania was recorded some 300 years later. The earliest Romanian polities north of the Danube are attested by contemporary documents after 1242. (completely removed) (It was not removed. Please read the lead again. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Roman Dacia was plundered by the Carpians and Sarmatians in the 230s,[12][13] but before long, a new enemy, the Goths achieved a pre-eminent position among the province's belligerent neighbors.[14] Dacia - "a projecting salient north of the Danube" (Peter Heather)[15] - was situated over the empire's natural borders.[16] (completely removed) (The second sentence was not removed. Please read the relavant section again. Why was the other modification a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The ethnogenesis of the Romanian people cannot be understood based exclusively on written sources, because the earliest records on Romanians (Vlachs) were only made in the 11th century.[17] The earliest records on Romanians (Vlachs) were only made in the 11th century, thus their ethnogenesis cannot be understood based exclusively on written sources.[18] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The Romanians speak a language originating from dialects spoken in the Middle and Lower Danube regions, north of the "Jireček Line".[19] Romanians speak a language originating from dialects spoken in Roman provinces north of the "Jireček Line".[20] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The words "torna, torna, frater" ("turn around, turn around, brother"), demonstrating "the evolution of Vulgar Latin into Proto-Romanian" (Vlad Georgescu),[21] were recorded in connection with a Roman military action in 587 or 588.[22] The "evolution of Vulgar Latin into Proto-Romanian" (Vlad Georgescu),[23] can be first demostrated by the words "torna, torna, frater" ("turn around, turn around, brother"), recorded in connection with a Roman military action in 587 or 588.[24] (The revisionist, chauvinist, .... "can be" expression changed to "was". Thank your for your remark. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
However, belciug ("staple"), coteţ ("poultry house"), grajd ("stable"), şlănină ("bacon"), stână ("fenced pasture"), stog ("haystack"), şuncă ("ham") and many other Romanian words related to animal husbandry were borrowed from Slavic.[25] Many Romanian words related to a more settled form of animal husbandry, however, were borrowed from Slavic, including coteţ ("poultry house"), grajd ("stable"), şlănină ("bacon"), stână ("fenced pasture"), and stog ("haystack").[25](It was not removed. Please read the section again. Borsoka (talk))
Similarly, Romanian has preserved a couple of Latin terms of agriculture... Romanian has likewise preserved a couple of Latin terms for agriculture... (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk))
An unknown author writing a description of Eastern Europe in the early 14th century, also wrote of the southward migration of Vlach shepherds from Pannonia.[26] An unknown early 14th-century author also wrote of a southward migration of Vlach shepherds from Pannonia.[26] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk))
Histria survived up to the time of Emperor Heraclius (610–641).[27] (completely removed) (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Towns, like Apulum and Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, and the territories surrounding them[28] continued to be inhabited, but "the inhabited urban areas shrank in size" (Mihai Bărbulescu) beginning with the 270s.[29] Towns, like Apulum and Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, and the territories surrounding them[28] continued to be inhabited, but the "urban areas shrank in size" (Mihai Bărbulescu).[30] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Urns found in late 3rd-century cemeteries at Bezid, Mediaş, and in other parts of Transylvania... Urns found in late 3rd-century cemeteries at Bezid, Mediaş, and in other Transylvanian settlements... (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
They followed the example set by the Bastarnae who had left their homeland in two waves in 280 and 295.[31] Bastarnae were never again mentioned,[31] but "Carpo-Dacians" were listed among the peoples "mixed with the Huns" (Zosimus)[32] in 379.[33][34] Nevertheless, "Carpo-Dacians" were listed among the peoples "mixed with the Huns"[35] as late as 379.[33][36] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Some year after the arrival of the Carpians in Transylvania, Sarmatians settled in Banat.[37] The Sarmatians perpetuated close relationship with the empire,[38] demonstrated by a Roman invasion against the Goths when the latter were marching against the Sarmatians in 332.[39][40] In Banat, Sarmatians settled at the end of the 3rd century.[37] They were allies of the empire,[41] demonstrated by a Roman invasion in 332 against the Goths, their enemies.[39][42] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Map of the Sântana de Mureş-Chernyakhov culture
Territory of the "Sântana de Mureş-Chernyakhov culture"
 (completely removed) (A completely wrong map: Romans in Transylvania and Chernyakov culture in Wallachia mutually exclude each other. (this argumentation can be read in article history) Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The earliest certain record on the Goths is connected to their attack on Histria in 238.[43][44][45] They also set about penetrating into territories controlled by Bastarnae and Carpians west of the river Dniester.[46][47] he Goths started to penetrate into territories west of the river Dniester from the 230s.[48][49] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
They also set about penetrating into territories controlled by Bastarnae and Carpians west of the river Dniester.[50][51] (completely removed) (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Expelled from his homeland, Ulfilas settled in Moesia in 348.[52] Expelled from Gutthiuda during a persecution of Christians, Ulfilas settled in Moesia in 348.[53] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The majority of the Thervingi sought asylum in the Roman Empire instead of resisting the invaders.[54] The majority of the Thervingi sought asylum in the Roman Empire.[55] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Necropolises in Gepidia formed by inhumation graves arranged in long lines are the easternmost examples of the "Reihengräber cemeteries", widespread in contemporary Western and Central Europe.[56][57] (completely removed) (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The network of new settlements expanding[58] along the rivers Mureş... New settlements appearing along the rivers Mureş... (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
They were farmers engaged in agriculture and cattle breeding, but looms, ... They were primarily farmers, but looms, ... (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
They were eminent mounted archers, which enabled them to impose their authority over the Alans, the Goths, the Scirii and an increasing number of neighboring peoples.[59][60] Eminent mounted archers, they imposed their authority over an increasing number of neighboring peoples.[61][62] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The Huns transferred their center of power to the Middle Danube region in the 410s or 420s.[63] (completely removed) (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
A period of stability started in the Lower Danube region with the establishment of the Avar Empire.[64] The Lower Danube region experienced a period of stability after the establishment of the Avar Empire.[65] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
A 7th-century Armenian geographical work described the territory between the Danube and the Dniester as the "large country of Dacia" inhabited by Slavs who formed "twenty-five tribes" (Ananias of Shirak).[66][67][68] a 7th-century Armenian geographer described the "large country of Dacia" as inhabited by Slavs who formed "twenty-five tribes".[69][70][71] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Their network was expanding along the rivers Mureş, Olt and Someş in the subsequent period.[72][73] Their network was expanding along the rivers Mureş, Olt and Someş.[72][73] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
...which suggests that Slavs used to be employed in the Transylvanian mines. ...suggesting that Slavs were employed in the mines for a longer period. (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The fortification system in the Balkans was strengthened under Justinian I in response to their intensified attacks.[74] (completely removed) (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
For instance, a certain Musocius "was called rex in the barbarian tongue".[75][76] For instance, one of them, Musocius "was called rex in the barbarian tongue".[77][78] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The Avars (a people speaking a Turkic language)[79] occupied Gepidia in 567... The Turkic-speaking[80] Avars occupied Gepidia in 567... (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Archeological sites from this period in Moldavia, Oltenia and Wallachia Archeological sites in Moldavia, Oltenia and Wallachia (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
...suggesting a Bulgarian control over either the salt mines,[81] ...suggesting a Bulgarian control over either the Transylvanian salt mines,[81] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Instead, he mentioned a number of personalities unknown for other chroniclers.[82][83] Instead, he writes of a number of personalities unknown for other sources.[82][84] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The great variety in burial rites also demonstrates the multiethnic character of the Bulgarian Empire.[85] Even the dominant Bulgars were divided in this respect, some of them practicing inhumation, others cremation.[86] Initially, a sharp distinction existed between the Bulgars and the subject peoples, but the former's Slavicization was accomplished by the early 10th century.[87] (completely removed) (It was not removed. Please read the relevant part of the article again. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
...imposed their authority over a number of neighboring Slavic tribes.[88][89] ...imposed their authority over a number of neighboring tribes.[90][91] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
However, the Bulgarians incited the Hungarians' eastern neighbors, the Pechenegs to invade them from the east,... The Bulgarians incited another nomadic tribe, the Pechenegs to invade the Hungarians from the east,... (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
In the Gesta's narration, the Hungarians only began the conquest of the eastern regions after the conquest of the regions west of the Tisa.[92] In the Gesta's narration, they began the invasion of the lands east of the Tisa after the conquest of the western regions.[93] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Anonymous also writes of Menumorut's defeated, but he could preserve his rule in Crisana by giving his daughter in marriage to Zolta, heir to Árpád, the head of the Hungarians.[94][95] Although Anonymous also writes of Menumorut's defeat, he is desribed to have preserved his rule in Crisana until his death by giving his daughter in marriage to Zolta, heir to Árpád, the head of the Hungarians.[94][95] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
The earliest "Bjelo Brdo" cemetery (belonging to a 10th- and 11th-century archaeological culture with finds in all over the Carpathian Basin) was found at Deva.[96] An early "Bjelo Brdo" cemetery (belonging to a 10th- and 11th-century archaeological culture with finds in all over the Carpathian Basin) was found at Deva.[97] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Graffiti from Basarabi caves
Graffito from the Basarabi Cave Complex
 (completely removed) (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))
Over the Vlachs living in the occupied territories, Emperor Basil II extended the authority of the Archbishopric of Ohrid in 1020.[98][99] Over the Vlachs living there, the Archbishop of Ohrid acquired ecclesiastic jurisdiction in 1020.[100][101] (Why was this a revisionist change? Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC))

A lot of hard work over years and many articles. Probably money was received for this ... but in vain.

  • Interesing, personally I can imagine a world where people work free for community purposes, but we are not the same. Nevertheless, neither do I state nor do I deny that I am a green man from planet XRSA'45T and by creating articles I am working for dark green purposes. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The changes, removal of facts and dates, changing the emphasis, is favouring Hungarian point of view and as consequence the entire article is {{sistemic bias}}. Also other users pointed out that the article has many issues. Saturnian (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your remark, although the case remained totally mystic for me. (1) The above table contains lots of mistakes, since in many cases the sentence listed as "completely removed" were not removed in fact. (2) The above table contains a list of not significant changes, therefore they could not lead to "systematic bias". (3) What is the "Hungarian point of view" and how is it presented in the article? Without a proper argumentation and without explicit statements about the concerns, the template is only a joke. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The current article is a big joke. You try to ask petty questions since the differences are obvious. Please revert your systematic changes. Saturnian (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention my above remarks and questions which remained unanswered, so I repeat it. (1) The above table contains lots of mistakes, since in many cases the sentence listed as "completely removed" were not removed in fact. (2) The above table contains a list of not significant changes, therefore they could not lead to "systematic bias". (3) What is the "Hungarian point of view" and how is it presented in the article? Moreover (4) What are the "non-Hungarian point-of-views" ignored? Without a proper argumentation and without explicit statements about the concerns, the template is to be removed. Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Borsoka is right, no concrete problems were identified so far. Dear Saturnian, please specify your issues with the changes, as just stating that they are "biased" is not sufficient to keep a warning template. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I will not repeat myself. Enough is enough. I will not play your game. -- Saturnian (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The "game" is called Wikipedia and you should also play by the rules. So far you just gave a list of changes and said that they are biased, without actually giving at least some examples which specify your main problems with the changes (based on which you claim that they are "biased"). Please, also read the related Wikipedia policies, for example, Wikipedia:TAGGING#Constructive_tagging says: "Especially in the case of a tag such as {{npov}}, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them.". Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank both of you for your remarks. Dear Saturnian, please read Wikipedia:Negotiation. Sorry, I am afraid I cannot understand declarations. I would like to ask you again to answer the following questions or to suggest any other proper way to solve the conflict, because there is no point in labelling articles without argumentation. (1) The above table contains lots of mistakes, since in many cases the sentence listed as "completely removed" were not removed in fact. (2) The above table contains a list of not significant changes, therefore they could not lead to "systematic bias". (3) What is the "Hungarian point of view" and how is it presented in the article? (4) Which are the "non-Hungarian point-of-views" ignored? Borsoka (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Thompson 2001, pp. 173., 182.
  2. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 42.
  3. ^ Hartwick, Life of King Stephen of Hungary (8), p. 383.
  4. ^ Kristó 2003, pp. 136-137.
  5. ^ Engel 2005, p. 115.
  6. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 122.
  7. ^ Kristó 2003, p. 122.
  8. ^ Engel 2005, p. 119.
  9. ^ a b Engel 2005, p. 119.
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Sălăgean 173 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Engel 95 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Bolovan et al 1997, p. 42.
  13. ^ Tóth 1994, p. 52.
  14. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 44-45.
  15. ^ Heather 2010, p. 112.
  16. ^ Opreanu 2005, p. 102.
  17. ^ Georgescu 1991, pp. 8., 13.
  18. ^ Georgescu 1991, pp. 8., 13.
  19. ^ Opreanu 2005, p. 128.
  20. ^ Opreanu 2005, p. 128.
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference Georgescu 1991, p. 8 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Vékony 2000, pp. 206-207.
  23. ^ Georgescu, 1991. p. 8.
  24. ^ Vékony 2000, pp. 206-207.
  25. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Kopecký was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  26. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Spinei_09_76 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  27. ^ MacKendrick 1975, pp. 185., 222.
  28. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Haynes, Hanson 24 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  29. ^ Bărbulescu 2005, p. 183.
  30. ^ Bărbulescu 2005, p. 183.
  31. ^ a b Wolfram 1988, p. 56.
  32. ^ Zosimus (2002), The History, retrieved 18 July 2012
  33. ^ a b Thompson 2001, p. 30.
  34. ^ Heather 2010, pp. 166., 660.
  35. ^ Zosimus (2002), The History, retrieved 18 July 2012
  36. ^ Heather 2010, pp. 166., 660.
  37. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Bărbulescu 185 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  38. ^ Heather 2006, p. 98.
  39. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Wolfram_61 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  40. ^ Heather 2010, p. 168.
  41. ^ Heather 2006, p. 98.
  42. ^ Heather 2010, p. 168.
  43. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 44., 396.
  44. ^ Heather, Matthews 1991, pp. 1-2.
  45. ^ Todd 2003, p. 140.
  46. ^ Heather 2010, pp. 112., 117.
  47. ^ Todd 2003, p. 142.
  48. ^ Heather 2010, pp. 112., 117.
  49. ^ Todd 2003, p. 142.
  50. ^ Heather 2010, pp. 112., 117.
  51. ^ Todd 2003, p. 142.
  52. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 79-80.
  53. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 79-80.
  54. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 71-72.
  55. ^ Wolfram 1988, pp. 71-72.
  56. ^ Curta 2001, p. 192.
  57. ^ Todd 2003, p. 82.
  58. ^ Opreanu 2005, p. 120.
  59. ^ Thompson 2001, pp. 30., 40-41.
  60. ^ Wolfram 1997, pp. 123-124.
  61. ^ Thompson 2001, pp. 30., 40-41.
  62. ^ Wolfram 1997, pp. 123-124.
  63. ^ Heather 2006, p. 203.
  64. ^ Bolovan et al 1997, p. 52.
  65. ^ Bolovan et al 1997, p. 52.
  66. ^ Spinei 2009, pp. 80-81.
  67. ^ Bóna 1994a, pp. 98-99.
  68. ^ The Geography of Ananias of Şirak (L1881.3.9), p. 48.
  69. ^ Spinei 2009, pp. 80-81.
  70. ^ Bóna 1994a, pp. 98-99.
  71. ^ The Geography of Ananias of Şirak (L1881.3.9), p. 48.
  72. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Bóna 99 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  73. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Bărbulescu 197 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  74. ^ Barford 2001, p. 52.
  75. ^ The History of Theophylact Simocatta (vi. 9.1.), p. 172.
  76. ^ Curta 2001, p. 101.
  77. ^ The History of Theophylact Simocatta (vi. 9.1.), p. 172.
  78. ^ Curta 2001, p. 101.
  79. ^ Barford 2001, p. 56.
  80. ^ Barford 2001, p. 56.
  81. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Curta 178 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  82. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Engel 11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  83. ^ Madgearu 2005b, p. 39.
  84. ^ Madgearu 2005b, p. 39.
  85. ^ Fine 1991, p. 68.
  86. ^ Fiedler 2005, p. 157.
  87. ^ Fine 1991, p. 69.
  88. ^ Fiedler 2005, p. 154.
  89. ^ Curta 2006, p. 81.
  90. ^ Fiedler 2005, p. 154.
  91. ^ Curta 2006, p. 81.
  92. ^ Madgearu 2005b, pp. 21-22.
  93. ^ Madgearu 2005b, pp. 21-22.
  94. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Sălăgean 146 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  95. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Georgescu 15 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  96. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 250.
  97. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 250.
  98. ^ Stephenson 2000, p. 75.
  99. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 102-103.
  100. ^ Stephenson 2000, p. 75.
  101. ^ Curta 2006, pp. 102-103.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania_in_the_Early_Middle_Ages/Archive_4&oldid=1120780961"