User talk:RF354

Talk page starts here

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per policy

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica

Thank you for telling me. I don't understand why they added and reverted the Encyclopaedia Britannica quote: "According to Encyclopædia Britannica from the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history." When Theophanes Confessor mentions a Vlach speaking a Romance language in 587 AD (6th century), Arab travellers/biographers/geographers/historians from the 10th century: Mutahhar al-Maqdisi and Ibn al-Nadīm mention Vlachs, an 8th century document from the Konstamonitou monastery mention Vlachs, the 980 (10th century) document from emperor Basil II mentions Vlachs, Byzantine historians, such as George Kedrenos (circa 1000), Kekaumenos (circa 1000), John Skylitzes (early 1040s – after 1101), Anna Komnene (1083-1153), John Kinnamos (1143-1185) and Niketas Choniates (1155-1217) mention Vlachs. The Jewish traveller Benjamin of Tudela mentions Thessaly as "Vlachia". Great Vlachia within the Despotate of Epirus within the Byzantine Empire between 12th-14th century. RF354 who reverted it said: "attestations in that time period are at least unreliable". If he's that strict, then all documents, chronicles and Histories from the 6th, 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries from all of Europe from that period shouldn't be taken into account, because they're "unreliable"? The adding of the Encyclopaedia Britannica quote without serious proof to back up the claims seems bizzare. The wikipedia page is already massive without this superfluous quote taking valuable space.

Thank you in advance. Hope this gets solved. Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They (Britannica) said "virtually disappeared" as the attestations in that time period are unreliable. I stand by the Britannica quote.

For example you don't even mention that the Gesta Hungarorum is widely considered unreliable and another quote refers to "Vlachs" in North Macedonia. RF354 (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So Great Vlachia within the Despotate of Epirus within the Byzantine Empire between 12th-14th century was just fictional? Second Bulgarian Empire/Vlach–Bulgarian Empire/ Bulgarian–Wallachian Empire between 1185 and 1396 (12th-14th century) "virtually" didn't exist? Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mention that some historians find Gesta Hungarorum unreliable: "However the document was written between 1200 to 1230, around 300 years after the described events and some modern historians have reservations about it." I will add unreliable to be more explicit. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It is likely that the function received by Nikulitsa was as a commander of a Vlach army." Are you serious? That should be accepted as proof of the Vlach continuity?

These are all unreliable sources whether you mention it or not. That's why Briannica says what it says. The quote is perfect where it is, after all we don't want to confuse the reader. RF354 (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if Nikulitsa was a military commander of the Vlachs or not. What we know for sure is that he was an archon of the Vlachs, as said in the document by Basil II granting him that position. What is important here are the Vlachs, and them existing in 980, not if Nikulitsa was a military commander or not. I'm going to work, until now you made no intelligent observation and the Encyclopædia Britannica quote doesn't back up its claims and takes valuable space from the wikipedia page. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Another quote refers to "Vlachs" in North Macedonia", yes that is from an 8th century document from Konstamonitou monastery, and? It's another proof Vlachs existed in Europe in that time period and didn't "virtually disappeared from history from the 5th century until the 14th century". Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "It is likely that the function received by Nikulitsa was as a commander of a Vlach army." is from historian Alexandru Madgearu in the history book "Originea medievală a focarelor de conflict din Peninsula Balcanică (The wars of the Balkan Peninsula: Their medieval origins)" pages 52 and 53 as I wrote in the reference. This is a big "bruh moment" from you. Nowadays we cannot reference historians anymore on wikipedia, eh? Even if wikipedia asks for references all the time.

Please say an intelligent, well-read argument. Until now you were only aggressive without backing up your claims. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Britannica quote is from the article Romania, it refers to the area of the present country, not North Macedonia. Romanians are not well-attested from 5th century to 14th century in present day Romania.
See next sentence: During this time Romania was invaded by great folk migrations and warriors on horseback who traveled across the Danubian Plain. We may add that one too. RF354 (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While yes, it's in the Romania page of Encyclopædia Britannica it says "From the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Walachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history." What does that mean? It generalizes ALL Romanians/Vlachs who are well-attested from the 10th century onwards. The wikipedia page "Romanians" refers to ALL Romanians, those North and South of the Danube. Also Romanians/Vlachs from Moravia ( one of three historical Czech lands, with Bohemia and Czech Silesia), the Gorals/Vlachs from southern Poland, northern Slovakia and in the region of Cieszyn Silesia in the Czech Republic. Can I ask for your permission to please remove the Encyclopædia Britannica quote because in the "Romanians" wikipedia page we write about ALL Romanians, both from North and South of the Danube? Also, very important. The Romanians/Vlachs are a pastoral people (as it's mentioned in many historical documents about Romanians) What does it mean? A pastoral transhumance is a seasonal movement of livestock between fixed summer and winter pastures. Back then (Middle Ages) there were barely/if any borders in Europe especially in Eastern and South Eastern Europe with the MANY invasions from Asia (like the invasions of the Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Mongols, Ottomans).The Romanians/Vlachs/Gorals went back and forth between North and South of Danube and eventually some chose to stay in the North of Danube and some in the South of Danube. Please check the "Map depicting historical Romanian/Vlach pastoral transhumance (a seasonal movement of livestock between fixed summer and winter pastures) in Eastern and Southeastern Europe (including the territory of Romania today)."

Thank you in advance, you're very kind. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by the Britannica quote as very important in informing the readers. It's a reliable English-language reference which is preferred compared to Romanian language sources. We may add the next sentence too:

During this time Romania was invaded by great folk migrations and warriors on horseback who traveled across the Danubian Plain.

I also would like to see more consistency with the well-referenced article Origin of the Romanians. RF354 (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While Encyclopædia Britannica is notorious/famous as a reliable English-language reference and that's the reason you added it in, the "Romanians" wikipedia page please understand that it refers to ALL Romanians including those North and South of the Danube.

Just because they're famous/notorious in the English academic sphere doesn't mean they are never wrong, or that they don't omitt to write about certain topics. Mistake by omission is still a mistake.

From what I know Mutahhar al-Maqdisi and Ibn al-Nadīm are 10th century Arab biographers/geographers/historians they are not Romanian, but maybe I'm wrong and they are Romanian historians who teleported back in time? Also from what I know Byzantine historians from the 11th to 12 centuries such as George Kedrenos (circa 1000), Kekaumenos (circa 1000), John Skylitzes (early 1040s – after 1101), Anna Komnene (1083-1153), John Kinnamos (1143-1185) and Niketas Choniates (1155-1217) are not Romanian, but maybe I'm wrong and they are Romanian historians who teleported back in time?

Please consider my point, thank you very much in advance. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you cite are generally Romanian (I didn't refer to the primary sources, but the secondary ones), the source I cited is a reliable English-language reference. That's it. RF354 (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be reliable if it just says something without showing any proof, just quoting itself? Even if you disconsider the secondary sources for being Romanian, now you disconsider the English, Hungarian, German etc secondary sources as well? Anyway, the primary sources mention Vlachs and are from the 6th, 10th, 11th and 12th centuries, like it or not. There's no debate about it. Making what Encyclopaedia Britannica said of ALL Romanians, North and South of the Danube, plain erroneous. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I still stand by the Britannica quote as very important in informing the readers. It's a reliable English-language reference which is preferred compared to Romanian language sources. I also would like to see more consistency with the well-referenced article Origin of the Romanians."

Anti Daco-Roman continuity theories were written starting with the 18th century when Romanians from Transylvania asked for equal right with other ethnicities (like the Hungarians, Szekely and Transylvanian Saxons). Documents asking for equal rights like the 1791 Supplex Libellus Valachorum. The Austrian Franz Joseph Sulzer who wasn't a historian wrote against the Daco-Roman continuity in 1780, 11 years before Supplex Libellus Valachorum, for politican reasons, opening up a whole deluge of historians and non-historians of Austrian and Hungarian descent writing against the Daco-Roman continuity for political reasons. Before then, Austrian and Hungarians didn't write about Romanians/Vlachs, they were not seen as important.

New documents were written asking for equal rights and representation like the Transylvanian Memorandum from the late 19th century and once again Hungarian and Austrian historians and non-historians were against the Daco-Roman continuity, against artifacts like the Biertan Donarium from the 4th century.

So I would say 18th and 19th century Austrian and Hungarian historians and non-historians were very politically incentivised, as were the Romanians ones, I admit. But contemporary historians like Alexandru Madgearu, Doctor in history are a very good source.

While Encyclopaedia Britannica is a famous and prestigious English source, this particular quote without backing up its claims is very unprofessional. Maybe the most unprofessional sentences Encyclopaedia Britannica ever wrote. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I asked User:Borsoka for input (she's an expert of the topic) and she says you're (partially) right. Even if I think that a couple of vague references for a nine hundred year period equate "virtually disappeared", we may leave out Britannica. RF354 (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Wow, you're really reasonable. Sorry for saying you lack intelligent arguments. *Hugs* Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if I think that a couple of vague references for a nine hundred year period equate "virtually disappeared" I ask then, what happened in those 900 years? Like I already said the MANY invasions from Asia (like the invasions of the Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Mongols, Ottomans) also those from Northern Europe like the Goths, Gepids, Visigoths. The only reason why Wallachia and Moldova became states in the early 14th century is because there finally appeared some powerful regional powers that needed buffer states. I give the example of the Kingdom of Hungary in the West, Kingdom of Poland in the North and the Byzantine Empire in the South that sometimes helped (not always) the two Wallachian Principalities to repel invasions from the East.

I hope now I elucidated the reason why you found it weird that for 900 years the Romanians/Vlachs didn't have their own kingdoms (though there was Great Valachia and the Second Bulgarian Empire/Empire of Vlachs and Bulgarians between the 12th-14th centuries) so not really 900 years. Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great Vlachia, sorry.

Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]