Revision as of 04:39, 13 November 2006 editFsotrain09 (talk | contribs)7,245 edits rated article as A-class and High importance← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:05, 21 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,797,893 editsm →top: Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings: -Start, keep B; cleanupTag: AWB | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | ||
{{WikiProject European history|importance=mid}} | |||
== Archives== | |||
{{WikiProject Romania|importance=top}} | |||
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="Talk Archives" style="{{divstylegray}}"><center><b>Talk Archives</b></center> | |||
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe|importance=High}} | |||
*''']''' (Dec04-Aug05)—<small>''1911 Britannica–Pop. stats–R. in Ukraine–Racist term–Orthodoxism–Suffixed names–Russia,Kazakhstan,Uzbekistan–Origins–Ribbentrop-Molotov pact''</small> <BR> | |||
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=High}} | |||
*''']''' (Sep05-Nov05)—<small>Several discussions on the number of Romanians, and of people of other ethnicities in Romania</small> | |||
{{WikiProject Anthropology|importance=mid}} | |||
*''']''' (Nov05 - 23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)) | |||
{{WikiProject Human Genetic History|importance=}} | |||
*''']''' (21 March 2006 - 22 July 2006) | |||
}} | |||
<BR></div> | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|maxarchivesize = 120K | |||
|counter = 10 | |||
|algo = old(30d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Romanians/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | |||
{{Article history | |||
__TOC__ | |||
|action1=GAN | |||
|action1date=6 April 2007 | |||
|action1result=not listed | |||
|action1oldid=120579075 | |||
|currentstatus=FGAN | |||
}} | |||
{{Archives|auto=yes}} | |||
== Vlad Ţepeş == | |||
== Romanians are a nationality not a ethnic group. == | |||
Sometime in the last few weeks, "the historic Transylvanian figure of Vlad Ţepeş" became "the historic Wallachian figure of Vlad Ţepeş". Given that he was born in Sighişoara, I would have expected that the former is more correct, though I realize that he ruled for a time in Wallachia. Comments? - ] | ] 06:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC). | |||
Any race can be Romanian. There is black Romanians, Chinese Romanians, Jewish Romanians and many Gypsy Romani Romanians. Most Romanians are of Roma (Gypsy) ethnicity born in Romania. Roma Gypsies are the fastest growing ethnic group in Romania. Jews are historically from Romania too. Please remove or change Romanians the first sentence stating that Romanian is a ethnic group. Romanian is a nationality. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
In fact he is a Rumanian figure. He was born in Sighişoara, but giving the fact that all his purpose in life was to reign over Wallachia, you could say that he was a historic Wallachian figure. And considering his family background … <br> | |||
There are a lot of Rumanian books on him, but I’m afraid that your language skills must develop before you can get a first raw biographic material. If you have questions about historic Rumanian figures, I’m open to answer. | |||
], 10 August 2006. | |||
:Whoever unsigned coward wrote this should take his pill. Romanian is a term which denotes both the nationality and the ethnicity. And no, most Romanians are not of Rromani (or Gypsy) ethnicity. This is clearly proven by many genetic tests for larger population cohorts/groups. For your reference, there are also Hungarian Romanians and German Romanians. We are all more or less intermixed, if you ever had the slightest interest on delving into genetics a bit, so there is no such thing as a pure race. Welcome to the real world (a brief introduction coupled with scientific facts as well). ] (]) 10:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
: I have no problem with characterizing him as "Romanian", but "Wallachian" is a rather narrower designation, at least in English (even if it is etymologically related to "Vlach", equivalent to Romanian. And what precisely do you find inadequate about my "language skills"? - ] | ] 05:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I totally agree with you @]. When I read "Most Romanians are of Roma (Gypsy) ethnicity born in Romania" I couldn't believe my eyes. How about Gypsies from Spain? ] (estimated 720,000-1,500,000) <ref name="Diagnostico Social de la Comunidad Gitana en Espana - CIS">{{cite web |title=Diagnóstico social de la comunidad gitana en España |url=http://www.msc.es/ssi/familiasInfancia/inclusionSocial/poblacionGitana/docs/diagnosticosocial_autores.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171010161106/http://www.msc.es/ssi/familiasInfancia/inclusionSocial/poblacionGitana/docs/diagnosticosocial_autores.pdf |archive-date=2017-10-10 |access-date=2016-05-21 |website=Msc.es}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Estimations |url=http://www.gfbv.it/3dossier/sinti-rom/img/n7a.jpg |access-date=2016-05-21 |website=Gfbv.it |format=JPG}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |year=2002 |title=The Situation of Roma in Spain |url=http://www.eumap.org/reports/2002/eu/international/sections/spain/2002_m_spain.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071201172552/http://www.eumap.org/reports/2002/eu/international/sections/spain/2002_m_spain.pdf |archive-date=1 December 2007 |access-date=15 September 2010 |publisher=Open Society Institute |quote=The Spanish government estimates the number of ''Gitanos'' at a maximum of 650,000.}}</ref><ref name="immigration">, page 87-8 (09.2010 figures)</ref> | |||
::Or ] (est. 1,000,000)? The Romani or Roma are a ] ethnic group, commonly known as '''Gypsies''', who have been in the Americas since the first Romani people reportedly arrived on Christopher Columbus’ ] in 1498.<ref name="Harvard">{{cite web |date=November 24, 2020 |title=Romani Realities in The United States |url=https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2464/2020/11/Romani-realities-report-final-11.30.2020.pdf |accessdate=December 10, 2020 |work=Harvard University}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Deutsch |first=James |date=April 8, 2022 |title=Romani Rights and the Roosevelts: The Case of Steve Kaslov |url=https://folklife.si.edu/magazine/steve-kaslov-romani-roosevelts |accessdate=May 25, 2022 |work=Smithsonian Institution}}</ref> | |||
::This user @] is cunning. Trying to sound "leftist" to seem that what he just said is in ] but it's actually only masked as such, but it's actually written in bad faith aka v] on wikipedia, in order to insult Romanians (] , ] and lying as per ]). Genetically and linguistically Roma people originated in the ]; in particular, the region of ]. <ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Marinov |first=Aleksandar G. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Kl2jDwAAQBAJ |title=Inward Looking: The Impact of Migration on Romanipe from the Romani Perspective |date=2019-10-03 |publisher=Berghahn Books |isbn=978-1-78920-362-2 |pages=31 |language=en |quote=It is unclear what made this people leave the Indian sub-continent but they are generally believed to have originated from central India, possibly in the modern Indian state of Rajasthan, migrating to the northwest around 250 BC.}}</ref>{{sfn|Hancock|2002|p=|ps=: 'While a nine century removal from India has diluted Indian biological connection to the extent that for some Romani groups, it may be hardly representative today, Sarren (1976:72) concluded that we still remain together, genetically, Asian rather than European'}}<ref>{{cite book |author1=Simon Broughton |url=https://archive.org/details/roughguidetoworl00simo |title=World Music: Africa, Europe and the Middle East |author2=Mark Ellingham |author3=Richard Trillo |publisher=Rough Guides |year=1999 |isbn=978-1-85828-635-8 |page= |access-date=8 December 2015 |url-access=registration}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Silverman |first=Carol |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lw-Byail0EkC&pg=PA49 |title=Romani Routes: Cultural Politics and Balkan Music in Diaspora |date=2012-05-24 |publisher=OUP USA |isbn=978-0-19-530094-9 |pages=49 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Snodgrass |first=Mary Ellen |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DMGpDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA260 |title=The Encyclopedia of World Folk Dance |date=2016-08-08 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=978-1-4422-5749-8 |pages=260 |language=en}}</ref> The Roma began to leave India about 1,000 years ago. They most likely left to escape the invasion of Afghan general ] early in the 11th century. Mahmud's troops probably pushed the Roma out of northern India and into the area that is now Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran.<ref>{{cite web |title=Migrations of the Romani People |url=https://media.nationalgeographic.org/assets/file/romani_MIG.pdf}}</ref> The Roma people arrived in Europe around the 14th century.<ref>{{cite book |last=Kenrick |first=Donald |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tQKyAAAAQBAJ&pg=PR37 |title=Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies (Romanies) |date=5 July 2007 |publisher=Scarecrow Press |isbn=978-0-8108-6440-5 |edition=2nd |page=xxxvii}}</ref> | |||
::According to a triple analysis – ], ] and ] — of available data from large-scale studies, the whole genome ] data situates Romanians are most closely related to ], ], followed by other European populations, which form a coherent cluster among worldwide populations.<ref name="pmid26332464">{{cite journal |last1=Kushniarevich |first1=Alena |last2=Utevska |first2=Olga |last3=Chuhryaeva |first3=Marina |last4=Agdzhoyan |first4=Anastasia |last5=Dibirova |first5=Khadizhat |last6=Uktveryte |first6=Ingrida |last7=Möls |first7=Märt |last8=Mulahasanovic |first8=Lejla |last9=Pshenichnov |first9=Andrey |last10=Frolova |first10=Svetlana |last11=Shanko |first11=Andrey |last12=Metspalu |first12=Ene |last13=Reidla |first13=Maere |last14=Tambets |first14=Kristiina |last15=Tamm |first15=Erika |display-authors=29 |year=2015 |title=Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal Data |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=10 |issue=9 |pages=e0135820 |bibcode=2015PLoSO..1035820K |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0135820 |pmc=4558026 |pmid=26332464 |doi-access=free |last16=Koshel |first16=Sergey |last17=Zaporozhchenko |first17=Valery |last18=Atramentova |first18=Lubov |last19=Kučinskas |first19=Vaidutis |last20=Davydenko |first20=Oleg |last21=Goncharova |first21=Olga |last22=Evseeva |first22=Irina |last23=Churnosov |first23=Michail |last24=Pocheshchova |first24=Elvira |last25=Yunusbayev |first25=Bayazit |last26=Khusnutdinova |first26=Elza |last27=Marjanović |first27=Damir |last28=Rudan |first28=Pavao |last29=Rootsi |first29=Siiri |last30=Yankovsky |first30=Nick}} "Most South Slavs are separated from the rest of the Balto-Slavic populations and form a sparse group of populations with internal differentiation into ''western'' (Slovenians, Croatians and Bosnians) and ''eastern'' (Macedonians and Bulgarians) regions of the Balkan Peninsula with Serbians placed in-between... Furthermore, Slovenians lie close to the non-Slavic-speaking Hungarians, whereas ''eastern'' South Slavs group is located together with non-Slavic-speaking but geographically neighboring Romanians and, to some extent, with Greeks."</ref> | |||
::Most ], ], and ] were found to share as many identical by-descent DNA segments with ] as with Romanians, ] and ].<ref name="slav" /> | |||
::In 2021, the largest ] company in the world, ], contradicted the 2017 study based on more recent genetic findings, placing ] (including ]), ] and ] (in Central Europe) in the ] DNA region: "Formally Romania and Hungary were not considered part of the region but they now are considered Balkan in terms of their DNA." Slovakia was also included in the Balkan DNA region.<ref>{{cite web |date=September 2021 |title=What is the Balkans DNA Ethnicity on Ancestry? |url=https://namecensus.com/blog/what-is-the-balkans-dna-ethnicity/ |access-date=4 April 2023 |work=namecensus.com |language=en}}</ref> | |||
::So no, genetically most ethnic Romanians are not Roma/Gypsies. Like you said: " Romanian is a term which denotes both the nationality and the ethnicity." The ethnicity of Romanians is not Roma (old term: Gypsy). ] (]) 19:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Thank you very much for your comment! I will get back to you with a more detailed response later today. And also, that is not to say that we have something against the Romani people (I on the contrary). At the same time, the respective edit was done by someone who did not even register as a user on Misplaced Pages, and therefore should all the more not be taken that much seriously (at least by some like you and me). All the best! ] (]) 04:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Indeed, very thorough and well-organised comment! Much respect for it! As for the genetics, it is as you mentioned as per my understanding and documentation as well. Also, I think that it would be counterproductive to focus more on that comment on that thread. I think a wise and intelligent decision would be to leave the discussion as it is at this point because we are both scientifically and encyclopaedically correct. Best regards! ] (]) 06:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Of course, what I wrote was in ] and I see positive things in all ethnicities, including the Roma/Gypsies. I only brought genetic and historic facts without insulting the Roma in anyway. My sister's highschool English teacher was a teacher of Roma descent and she was/is very admired by her students. The facts say that in all regards: genetically, geographically, linguistically, historically and culturally the Roma/Gypsies are different from Romanians and that's not a good or a bad thing. It's a netural fact of life like breathing air is a neutral fact of life. ] (]) 07:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::Yes, you are correct, neutrally and encyclopaedically. All the best here on Misplaced Pages and in general! I wish you happy editing and plenty of positive experiences and edits here! Much respect once again! ] (]) 11:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::Thank you so much, hope you'll reply to my new comment on the German versions of Romanians wikipedia page. Best regards ^^ ] (]) 11:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I certainly will! All the best and keep up the good work! You can see the threads that I started there as well. For example, I previously added the fact that Romanians and Italians are related (genetically as well, as a fun/trivia fact I'm mostly Italian per my recent genetic test), but it was deleted... I will add references next time... Hopefully, that information won't be deleted, but even with reliable references it can be (from my personal experience). It's sad but it's true as well... ] (]) 11:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Genetically, Romanians are closest to Bulgarians and Macedonians. I'm sure you know that the Dacians were a sub-group of the Thracians (the region where Thracians lived is now Bulgaria) so it makes sense. Romanian is a Latin/Romance language but trying to prove we're very close to Italians genetically when genetically we're the closest to Bulgarians and Macedonians seems superfluous to me. In antiquity Thracians and Dacians were known for having red and light hair. Bulgarians aren't less white than other Europeans, even if the rulers were ethnic Turkic people/Bulgars, the majority of the population was Slavic (formerly Scythian) and Balkan (formerly Thracian). Also I was very suprised when I read you wrote "my country and home region (i.e. Bukovina)". Bukovina is indeed a region but not a country, even if you did a DNA test and have some Italian blood the truth is that your home country is Romania, not Bukovina and you're Romanian from the region of Bukovina. You should be proud of being Romanian ^^ My grandfather was Hungarian/Székely from Harghita but you don't see me jumping up and down of how special and non-Romanian I am. Best regards <3 ] (]) 12:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I meant Romania and Bukovina, respectively, I apologise if I let myself be misunderstood. It was meant in that order. Genetically, I am mostly Italian. And yes, of course I know about the Dacians. And yes, you are right about the genetic similarities between Romanians and South Slavs, that is also factually correct. But, historically, since the Roman conquest, Romanians are also related to the Italians (also per larger genetic studies). In this regard, please see: https://www.romania-insider.com/new-genetic-map-of-the-world-shows-romanians-ties-to-lithuanian-finnish-south-italian (this article seems interesting because it sort of explains why I am a bit Finnish as well, according to my genetic test). All the best! ] (]) 12:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::P.S.: I am not a nationalist, but I respect my home country as best as I can, in as many contexts as I can, here as well (while adhering and striving to respect the rules of neutrality and factual accuracy of Misplaced Pages, at the same time). Truth was it was a bit peculiar for me to discover an overwhelming Italian ancestry, but it was a very positive surprise I must admit. And a significant German one as well... ] (]) 12:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::It's not so strange hearing about your DNA. Romania in the 19th century especially after the Unification of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859 and the first half of the 20th century had many immigrants looking for better work conditions and better pay. And as a new kingdom, the Kingom of Romania was an ideal place to set up shop and start businesses. Case and point, the famous painter Romanian Nicolae Grigorescu (1838-1907) was an apprentice at the workshop of the Czech painter Anton Chladek (who migrated to Romania). The case of Anton Chladek is not an isolated one. Best regards, we will continue this discussion on your page. ] (]) 13:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::I know the history of the Kingdom of Romania very well! Thank you for mentioning more on the early history of the Romanian kingdom. It is best however to continue to continue this topic, if you wish, that is, on my discussion page! Regardless of those trivia facts regarding my ancestry (genetically speaking), the genetics' section of this article can and must be improved (I previously did that as well) and I am willing and intend to do that in the future as well. I hope I will be able to improve it. All the best! ] (]) 13:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::I hope you will be let by those German admins to improve the German page as well but is seem unlikely since they just don't respond and refuse to improve the article. You should show them these messages and let them known how we Romanians are disappointed at their lack of quality in their wikipedia articles and their admins. ] (]) 14:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::This feels repetitive, but please read ]. This conversation should not be on an article talk page. From the policy page: {{tq|bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article}} and indeed are not there for discussing other pages in other wikiprojects. ] (]) 14:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::You are right, I agree! If @] want to discuss this subject more in-depth she should feel free to do so on my discussion page, wholeheartedly. All the best! ] (]) 14:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::That wouldn't influence their turn of mind anyhow, unfortunately. They don't seem so sensitive at how other users or readers feel... that's life. But, on the brighter side of things, more and more of my edits are approved there, so that's quite a new beginning. We'll see what happens in the future... Hopefully for good. All the best! ] (]) 14:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Only if this is done for every other ethnic group in Europe on Misplaced Pages where ethnicity and mationality match. | |||
:So this is the list | |||
:Albanians | |||
:Belarus | |||
:Bulgarians | |||
:Croats | |||
:Czechs | |||
:Danes | |||
:Dutch | |||
:Estonians | |||
:Finns | |||
:Germans | |||
:Greeks | |||
:Hungarians | |||
:Italians | |||
:Icelanders | |||
:Irish | |||
:Latvians | |||
:Lithuanians | |||
:Macedonians | |||
:Maltese | |||
:Montenegrins | |||
:Norwegians | |||
:Poles | |||
:Portuguese | |||
:Romanians | |||
:Slovaks | |||
:Slovenians | |||
:Serbians | |||
:Spaniards | |||
:Swedes | |||
:Turks | |||
:You can start with letter A Albanians ] (]) 00:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
== Historiography section == | |||
Hi! Since he ruled Wallachia....I think he was Wallachian rather than Rumanian (or had Wallachian origins). And I would like to point out that the concept of Rumania didn`t exist at his time yet. Obviously Wallachians were ancesters of Rumanian people. He was born in Sighişoara in 1480 which back then was part of the Hungarian Kingdom. It is hard to know his nationality based on his birthplace, since back then the Rumanian population was scarce compared to the Hungarian/German population in transilvania. csabap=username 11:46 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
In all fairness, what is that, for real? Should it even be there? The impression I get from reading it is that it was on purpose placed there and that is biased. Any thoughts? | |||
Any thoughts please on this? Thank you very much in advance! | |||
: Let us first secure some linguistic and historical facts: | |||
== Genetics and ethnogenesis == | |||
:"Wallachian" was a foreign-designation (exonym) of "Romanian" | |||
The ethnogenesis part of this section is written in prose, but the genetics discussion is just a list of studies and haplogroup numbers, meaningless to a reader and reliant on a slew of primary sources. This needs rewriting. Does anyone have a secondary source about genetics relating to Romanian ethogenesis? Or should I just remove all that? ] (]) 07:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:"Romanian" is a self-designation, an endonyme: Romanians never having called themselves other than..."Romanians" (români/rumâni) | |||
:I haved added the data from ], if you delete the ethnogenesis part, the Hungarians will be very angry and will undo your action. I recommend you leave it there. The theories be they "written in prose" as you say or not is irrelevant, scholars have 3 theories about the ethnogenesis of Romanians, like it or not and should stay there. Best regards ^^ ] (]) 08:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:In the time of Vlad the Impaler, Romanians living in what was the Principality of Wallachia, called themselves Romanians. Moreover, the name they gave to their own country was "Ţara Româneascǎ" - "Romanian Land". | |||
::More accurately the ] genetics section inside the bigger ]. ] (]) 08:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Per ], ancestry.com is not a reliable secondary source. Please note I am not proposing deleting ethogenesis prose, the part that is meaningless to readers is this:{{tqb|The prevailing Y-chromosome in Wallachia (Ploiești, Dolj), Moldavia (Piatra Neamț, Buhuși), Dobruja (Constanța), and northern Republic of Moldova is recorded to be Haplogroup I. On the basis of 361 samples, Haplogroup I occurs at 32% in Romanians. The frequency of I2a1 (I-P37) in the Balkans today is owed to indigenous European hunter-gatherers tribes, and was present before the Slavic expansion.}} | |||
:::{{tqb|According to an Y-chromosome analysis of 335 sampled Romanians, 15% of them belong to R1a. Haplogroup R1a among Romanians is entirely from the Eastern European variety Z282 and may be a result of Baltic, Thracian or Slavic descent. R1a-Z280 outnumbers R1a-M458 among Romanians, the opposite phenomena is typical for Poles, Czechs and Bulgarians. 12% of the Romanians belong to R1b, the Alpino-Italic branch R1b-U152 is at 2% per 330 samples, a lower frequency recorded than other Balkan peoples. The branches R1b-U106, R1b-DF27 and R1b-L21 make up 1% respectively. The eastern branches R1b-M269* and L23* (Z2103) make up 7% and outnumber the Atlantic branches, they prevail in parts of east, central Europe and as a result of Greek colonisation – in parts of Sicily as well. 8% of the Romanians belong to E1b1b1a1 (E-M78) per 265 samples. Other studies analyzing the haplogroup frequency among Romanians came to similar results.}} | |||
:::This is supported by 8 primary sources, no secondary sources and no appreciable prose placing this in context. It needs a complete rewrite. ] (]) 09:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::That part you quoted is not written by me. As for ]: it is the largest ] genealogy company in the world, it operates a network of genealogical, historical records, and related ] websites. I has a lot of value in the study of genetics since it has the biggest human genetic data, it should count for something. ] (]) 09:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::It has a lot of value* sorry autocorrect >.< ] (]) 09:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::Did you follow the link? Ancestry.com contains information that constitutes reliable ''primary'' sources but content is user generated so it is not reliable as a ''secondary'' source. ] (]) 09:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Okay, so if https://namecensus.com/ notes that ] inside ] changed what constitues the Balkan DNA in 2021 (now includes Hungary and Romania in the Balkan DNA region as well) is this not good? ] (]) 09:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Not very good, no. What information are you trying to present to the reader? Are you talking about this reference?. This supports the text: {{tq|In 2021, the largest genetic genealogy company in the world, Ancestry.com, contradicted the 2017 study based on more recent genetic findings.}} That text raises alarm bells. The article is user generated by one Neil Edwards. Who is he? we are told a "Genealogist and family-tree research specialist" (which both appear to be the same thing, and is how much of Ancestry.com's user base might self describe. We have no qualifications, and no publications I can find (his name is a common one, so hard to be certain on this point, but restricting publications to the field of genealogy, his purported specialism, brings up nothing). There is no peer review of this piece, so claiming, in Wikivoice, that this contradicts earlier research is definitely not OK. And again, per ], the Misplaced Pages community has decided that Ancestry.com is generally unreliable for this kind of thing. If the concusion is sound, there will be better sources available. If no better secondary sources exist, it is unsound. ] (]) 10:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Ok, I will find other souces just namecensus/Neil Edwards. ] (]) 10:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I rephrased the paragraph to remove " contradicted the 2017 study" since you didn't like how it sounded. I will ask you why you didn't have the same rigour when RF354 added the incorrect and shameful Encyclopaedia Britannica quote: "From the arrival of the in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of and in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history." when Byzantine, Arab, Jewish and Hungarian chroniclers from the 6th to the 13th century wrote about Vlachs/Romanians (never mind ] from the 12th to the 14th century or ] also called Bulgarian–Wallachian Empire from 1185 until 1422). RF354 tried to use Encyclopædia Britannica's reputation and fame as the best academic source in the English language as a shield, as infallible to correction, as always right even though all historical texts contradict that quote. ] (]) 10:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Because my concern is with the the meaningless genetics section. Please don't try to introduce a different subject from a different section with this talk section about the genetics information. ] (]) 11:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Ok, so the entire page can be edited in any chaotic manner as long as it doesn't happen to the genetics section since you only care about that section. Got it. ] (]) 11:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::@]: With all due respect, the genetics section is not meaningless, not all. Not in my eyes, certainly! ] (]) 12:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::@] Encyclopaedia Britannica has its flows here and there. It's not the best English-language source at all times. But it's still a very good and reputable source, overall. However, not in this particular case, I wholeheartedly agree! All the best! ] (]) 12:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::P.S.: (it's quite an interesting website, in my humble opinion) might be good and if not then please try searching for various scientific journals regarding genetic studies on Romanians via e.g. ], Academia.edu, ], ] or the like. Plenty of success! I'll try to see if I can help as well in the near future! Best regards! ] (]) 12:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::Please keep this talk section focused on the genetics section, or there will be an almighty mess, Britannica is discussed in the section below. Rosenborg BK Fan, you say the information I have quoted above is not meaningless. Would you care to explain what it means then? in plain English prose. Such a summary could replace that material. ] (]) 13:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::My bad mentioning Britannica there, I presume. As for your question, certainly, I can, but that is not quite an attitude to reply to, when you mention 'in plain English prose'. For one, genetics is not a topic that can be easily discussed 'in plain English prose'. It requires more in-depth understanding and research, therefore it is not 'meaningless'. Genetics and science are not meaningless, at least for me. All the best! ] (]) 13:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::But this is not a paper to a genetics conference, it is an encylopaedia article, which should be written in plain English prose. The manual of style is quite clear that prose is preferred, and a list of haplogroups tells the reader nothing. This is a matter of audience. In any case, I see that we also have a similarly problematic section at ]. That is where detail in this section belongs. This section is duplicating that article, and is largely superfluous. It should just summarise that article. I have removed the worst of the offending data now. There remain significant issues. for instance, having had the discussion above about Ancestry not being reliable, the paragraph has been allowed to stand, just citing namecensus.com. The citation is to a blog, and blogs are not normally ] as they are self published. However I took a look to see if namecensus has any editorial authority, and found nothing. Whois tells me it is hosted by namecheap, by a private registrant who has availed themself of the privacy afforded private registrants. It is thus clearly also self published and not a ]. ] (]) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::This edit: added text copied from ]. Per ] you should attribute the source page when copying between pages. The amount is small though, but the real problem here is that it copied in several sfn references wothout checking or adapting them to this page. Now I have found the source, I expect I can fix this, but please take care when copying between pages. ] (]) 19:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::I already fixed it, I put the bibliography in the references. Thanks anyway. ] (]) 19:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::Not so much. I will start a new section as referencing is a whole new topic. ] (]) 19:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::This edit is more of the same regarding primary sources. Any paragraph that starts like "A 2017 paper says..." is going to be primary. Genetics sections become a mish-mash of contradictory information and do not provide a coherent narrative. So again, we need secondary sources. Also, why do we need this section at all when we have the ] page? All that is needed here is a brief summary of that page and a signpost. ] (]) 06:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Referencing == | |||
:Thus, both ethno-linguistically and politically, the name "Romanian" was long well-established in the time of Vlad the Impaler. | |||
This page has inconsistent referencing. There are 30 sfn references but about 150 inline references. It appears information is being copied from pages with sfn without adapting the references (a problem not unique to this page). I was going to just fix these until I saw there were 30 of them. Instead, I will create a bibliography so the references work at least. We then could do with a discussion as to what the best referencing style actually is. Although there are more of the inline style, the origins page uses sfn, and sfn does make a page easier to edit. ] (]) 19:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Calling people and countries according to their own name (endonyme) is usual and appropriate. | |||
:The three sfn references in the genetics section now work with a bibliography. I cannot immediately find the other sfn sources, and no more time now. There are still therefore a lot of broken sfn references in this article. ] (]) 19:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Hence, designating Vlad the Impaler as a Romanian Prince isn't but legitimate. | |||
== Genetics section == | |||
--] 08:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Regarding . I need a direct quote within the reference brackets (not the main text) to verify them as they go against mainstream genetic findings.<br> | |||
In your you basically say the whole new section you added is ]. (''Misplaced Pages doesn't want direct quotes but to explain scientific data but now you don't want scientific data explained from studies used as source reference'') ] (]) 08:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Well, friend, it is hard to distinguish between Romanians and Hungarians based upon their DNA, and even harder to distinguish between Romanians and Bulgarians. I speak of 21st century people. ] (]) 09:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
I partly agree with u! People back then didn't think in nationalities. The most important was the person in charge and religion. Obviously Wallachia and Moldovians had the same religion. I agree with the language too. But politically back then they were definitly separate untill Michel the Brave was elected by the congregates of the two part. Really Wallachians are ancestors of Romanians! is ] 3:22 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::But {{tq|modern Bulgarians, highlighting highest resemblance between them and Romanians, Northern Italians and Northern Greeks?}} This seems to be a rough generalization and ]. ] (]) 09:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
== States and ethnicities == | |||
From the article: | |||
:The Romanians were part of different statal entities: with the Moldavians and the Wallachians being split off and having shaped separate political identities, possessing states of their own, and with the rest of Romanians being part of other states. However, they all retained their Romanian cultural and ethnic identity. | |||
In this period, would Eastern Romance speakers south of the Danube (Aromanians, for example) have shared this ethnic identity or not? I'm just wondering if, in leaving them out, we are writing history backwards, working backwards from modern states that are based on Daco-Romanian national identity. - ] | ] 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Well, the issue of what "Romanian" meant prior to 1877 is very blurry: if we would take "Romanian" to mean a speaker of Romanian (which, according to Britannica, is divided into four dialects: Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian) than yes, they could also be counted as Romanians. Furthermore, even common self-designation "rumân", and the common exonym "vlach" supports this approach. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 31 July 2006.</small> | |||
==Ridiculous Numbers== | |||
As of right now, the article states that the total number of Romanians in the world is 21 mil. + est.(something that sounds ridiculous because most other nationalities on Misplaced Pages do not have this “+est.” added to their total number, even though most of them are estimates anyways). However if you look closely at the Romanians in each country and you add them up, you get something close to 21.5 mil. (the only estimated number is the one for Brazil: 33.000). | |||
Another issue is the Moldovans and the question over their inclusion in the total number of Romanians. As of right now, the article is POV since it leads the reader to believe that “Moldovans are 100% not Romanians”. This is done under the disgusting cloak that “official census data is the only data to be used” and certain pov anti-Romanian editors go as far as to block the article from being edited if someone tries to include the Moldovans. Perhaps those people have forgotten that this is an encyclopedia and that a respectable encyclopedia includes ALL points of view, even if they do not agree with them. Since a great deal of people DO include Moldovans as part of the Romanian ethos, I propose that the article be unblocked and that the total number for Moldova be given in brackets, right beside the “official data” and that the total number of Romanians be changed to correspond with the numbers in each country.] 17:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Article is only semi-protected. Established users can edit it as it stands. Regards, ]] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I know that Asterion, but if someone will try to make any of the changes I mentioned above (which in my opinion are not pov at all, if anything they are trying to correct the article and make it more NPOV), they will get reverted by a minority of users who do not allow for any other opinion on wikipedia other then their own on.] 23:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::You should consider placing a ], so other uninvolved editors can voice ther opinion on this. Regards, ]] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Amazing. Before we were getting absurdly high numbers (like 35 million!). Now we're getting absurdly low ones. | |||
The notion that somehow "Romanians" (as an ethnicity) end at the river Prut seems pretty silly to me. It's like saying that a Jew in Vancouver, BC has a different ethnicity than a 300 km away Jew in Seattle, because one is an "American Jew" and the other is a "Canadian Jew". | |||
Can't we just make it clear that in terms of numbers we are talking about a reasonably broad ethnic classification of, basically, Daco-Romanians, which includes Moldovans (but not, for example, Aromanians)? It's not like there are any magic, well-defined categories, and these matters will always require that articles discuss the penumbra of a classification. - ] | ] 07:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::: I compleetely agree. Numbers should not be exagerated or distorted in order to achieve a political gain. This sort of stuff is disgusting and has no place on wikipedia.] 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Should Moldovans be included in the figure? == | |||
It is clear that there are two contradictory POVs about the Moldovans, on whether they are or not Romanians. Current version, just changed by ], includes again just the POV that the Moldovans are Romanians. | |||
I propose listing both POVs: | |||
:'''Total population: 21-24 million¹''' | |||
:Moldova: 75,000-2,638,000¹ | |||
Any comments? ] 09:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: I would be very curious to know how do the people that have the "POV" that Moldovans are 100% not Romanians, would back up their statement (other then by going on about the "2004 Census" which had so many irregularities that no organization or encyclopedia in the world takes them seriously). ] 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::The POV that Moldovans ≠ Romanians is the POV of the government of the Rep. of Moldova and of various other former Soviet countries (e.g. the Ukraine). I think Bogdan's proposal is fair enough. --] 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::: But if you find Bogdan's proposal fair, then why did you revert it to the previous equally POV version with "21+est"?? ] 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::Shoo, shoo! —<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Don't talk like that. It's not nice. How would you like it if someone told you "shoo, shoo"? I don't see you telling Irpen "shoo, shoo" even though he is disruptive. Is it perhaps because you have a bias? ] 17:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Oh yes, ''much'' better. ;-) —<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 18:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
I have a proposal as to how to handle this, but first I'll make it clear where I'm coming from. | |||
I doubt the intellectual honesty of the claim that there is a change of ethnicity at the River Prut. I can see the case that says that all Moldavians are ethnically distinct from Wallachians, but the one that says that Romanians in Transylvania, plus Wallachians, plus those Moldavians who live in Romania are of one ethnicity—Romanians—and those Moldavians who live across the border are of a different ethnicity strikes me as mere sophistry. Now, it happens that the Moldovan government engages in this sophistry, so it is notable sophistry, but (like any other minority view) it should be noted and moved past. | |||
Here's how I would handle it: | |||
#In the section ] we should have exactly one paragraph mentioning this controversy, indicating the Moldovan government's position on the matter, and indicating that virtually no anthropologist or demographer outside of Moldova agrees with the Moldovan government's position on the matter. | |||
#In the places on this page where we give a count of Romanians in Moldova or total number of Romanians in the world, we give a number in the body of the article that includes Moldovans, but we link the number to a note that explains that the Moldovan government describes the numbers differently, counting Moldovans as a distinct ethnicity. We also mention in the note that demographers in other countries do not make that distinction, and that numbers for other countries include an indeterminate number of Moldovans, but we '''don't''' link this note from every statistic that we mention for other countries. | |||
#In the ] section and in the note, we say ''See ] for further discussion.'' | |||
Note that this is not an attempt to say that all articles should handle the matter this way. In particular, the articles on ] and ] should take this up at greater length, expanding on the controversy itself, and discussing both the theory and the politics of the matter. But this article should not. It should be here to inform a reader about the Romanians, in the sense that a typical anthropologist or demographer today would use that term, which includes Moldovans. It should also discuss that in dealing with older history, this ethnic group may be defined to include Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, and Istro-Romanians, but that in dealing with matters since roughly the mid-19th century, these are generally considered related ethnic groups rather than part of the same ethnic group as Daco-Romanians. -- ] | ] 05:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
There are Moldovans that live in Romania (Moldavia) and Moldovans that live in Rep. Moldova. Both are 100% Romanian, there's no doubt in my mind. Believe me I know many Moldovans from the Republic and all of them consider themselves Romanian. Saying Moldovans aren't Romanians only plays in the hands of the communist regime in Chisinau that still stands by the history written by soviet 'scholars'. ] 10:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
===Self identification issue=== | |||
:''This below is written in response to the post above by ].'' | |||
Jmabel, personally, I take no position on whether Moldovans and Romanians are the same ethnicity or not, while I agree that the division is caused purely by political developments at some point of time. Nevertheless, what you suggest discounts the ethnical self-identification, an important factor. The census results in Moldova (and in Ukraine) are available. People answered who they are as they chose and these numbers should be the basis from which we proceed. If we have significant and referenced allegations of census fraud, coersion and counting falcification, we should add them as well. If those allegations would have warranted the reputable observers to call an entire census so unreliable that its numbers are ''totally'' meaningles and useless (a stament I have yet to see), we would say so, of course, and use other sources as the primary ones. If we have only occasional and isolated complaints, we can add them too, but as occasional and isolated and those won't affect the census as a whole. The only source cited for now on census criticism, putting aside any issues with this source, does not make a sweeping statement on the census numbers being totally unreliable. Note the statement ''"The expert group has not yet completed its work on the assessment of the census as a whole."'' Whatever that group is, even they made no statements recommending to disqalify in their entirety the census results, particularly on the nationalities issue. | |||
As such, I beleive, the main number should be census based. Now, if other respectable sources state numbers that are different from census, fine, we cite those numbers too, referenced of course. But those alternative numbers have to be referenced to a respectable source that cites them as the numbers of Romanians. Wer can't have in an article a number based on the mathematical exercise of one or the other Misplaced Pages editor, who from time to time pops up in the article to demonstrate he can add numbers. Especially nonsensial is that those fellows add the numbers taken from the very census they claim compromised, add them and produce in their view "true results" based on a "compromised census". | |||
For the language questions self-identification is of course less important. Linguists are qualified to judge whether two languages are in fact two names of one and the same language. But substituting people's self-identification by the opinion of antropologists is highly controversial to say the list. --] 08:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Still, I would conjecture that most people who identify as Moldovans consider that to mean a subset of Romanians, or consider both to be a subset of Daco-Romanians. This whole thing seems such a tempest in a teapot. | |||
:I rarely say "let's look at how ''Britannica'' handles this", but… has someone got a ''Britannica''? How do they handle it? - ] | ] 06:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Here are some relevant quotes: | |||
::From ] article: | |||
:::"'''Romanian language''': Romance language spoken primarily in Romania and Moldova. There are about 23,680,000 speakers of Romanian, of whom about 20,500,000 live in Romania, 2,700,000 in Moldova, some 350,000 in Ukraine, and about 40,000 in Yugoslavia and 10,000 in Hungary. " | |||
::From ]: | |||
:::"The '''Moldovans''', who ethnically are kindred to the Romanians, are the indigenous people of the republic..." | |||
:::"...thereupon began a heated debate over whether the language should be called Romanian or Moldovan." | |||
::From ] (they lumped together the article about ] with the one on the Southern Vlachs): | |||
:::"'''Vlach''', also called '''Romanian''', or '''Ruman''', member of a European people constituting the major element in the populations of Romania and Moldova, as well as smaller groups located throughout the Balkan Peninsula" | |||
:: ] 09:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Please do not confuse the language issue with the national identity. Austrians and Germans speak German. Here is another quote from EB: | |||
::::'s complex political history has led to a very mixed population, including Russians, Poles, Jews, Hungarians, '''Romanians, and Moldavians''', although Ukrainians form about three-quarters of the total. | |||
:::--] 09:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
So, in short, I gather that ''Britannica'' splits the difference: one language, two ethnicities. - ] | ] 05:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Ancient Times== | |||
I think there is no proof of the people called Dacians(correct me if I`m wrong...) (the romans called | |||
people from Dancia province Dacians, regardless of their nationality) being the ancestors af modern | |||
Romanians. After the Roman rule there were a lot of Romans that remained there, but after there was a | |||
few hundred years that we do not know anything. There were Slavic, Germanic(Gepid,Goths,), Avars, | |||
Scythians and Sarmatans. The presence of these people is proved both by references and archeology. If | |||
there is archeological proof for eg. of the Carpi...could u. help me out...I`m really interested in | |||
this complicated and fascinating time of history :)....Thanks!!! ] 4:00 9 Sept | |||
2006 (UTC) | |||
: Well, what we know about the pre-Roman ancestors of modern Romanians is about a couple hundreds words, most of them with cognates in Albanian. (for example, Romanian "moş"=old man, cognate with Albanian "moshë"=age) We also know from the phonetic evolution that Albanian and the Romanian substrate were distinct, but closely related dialects in Ancient times. | |||
: The three important languages in the region were ], ] and ], each with their dialects. Illyrian is almost ruled out because it seems it was a centum language, not satem. There is little evidence for choosing Dacian over Thracian, but it seems that more Dacian toponyms can be explained with Old Albanian. | |||
: We know very few ancient Dacian or Thracian words and there is one known correspondence between an ancient Dacian word ("manteia", blackberry) and a modern Albanian ("man", mulberry). | |||
: So, no, there is no actual proof of the Dacian origin, but it's just a "very likely" hypothesis. | |||
: But Dacian tribes also lived outside what is now Romania, so, it is possible that the Romanians originally lived in the area of the city of ] (now Niš, Serbia) before the Hunnish invasion (5th century). ] 05:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Intresting! So is it possible that Romanians are of partly of slavic origins? Ty! | |||
] 05:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Romanians in contemporary Bulgaria == | |||
According to the last official census in 2001 (concrete results could be seen ): | |||
1. Vlachs 10 566 | |||
2. Romanians 1 088 - ] 14:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Possible alternate image == | |||
]] (who is currently banned, for reasons that do not bear on his trustworthiness) sent me the image I have now uploaded as ], and suggests that it might make a better choice for the Infobox here. From left to right, ] (Ştefan Cel Mare); composer ]; scientist ]; and jet aircraft pioneer ]. All images should be public domain. And of course we could mix and match. Just passing it along. - ] | ] 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
: I am certain that Anittas is not happy with the current image because it has no Moldavians, but it has three Wallachians. :-) ] 20:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: I remember... —<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 20:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
I think that this is just a POV-push over Stephen "as Romanian". I myself think that the idea of having ''any'' pictures, in ''any'' infobox, is sheer stupidity (as it forces people to agree on whan particular chart). If I have to chose, I say: ''drop all pictures of people living before 1829'', not because Romanianness is necessarily flawed before that date, but because it is ''problematic''. ] 21:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::: Master Yoda: "Unlearn what you have learned, drop all pictures of people living before 1829, and you will find peace". :) ] 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:While the proposed image is better than the current one, I think there are still two personalities not included: ] and ]. Brâncuşi is arguably the most prominent Romanian of the 20th century in the non-political sphere (aside from Comăneci, another possible candidate). Even though I'm not a particular fan of him at all, Eminescu is widely-acclaimed within Romania, and in the cultural world he is probably seen as the greatest single figure and contributor to Romanianism. So, I suggest replacing Stephen the Great with any of these two. ]] ''']''' ] 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: Agreed, there is no "Romanians list" without Eminescu. ] 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Anittas wanted to include Brâncuşi, but couldn't find a PD or free-use image. And there is really not much argument for fair use in something like this. - ] | ] 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: He also remarked on wanting to include a woman, but couldn't think of anyone appropriate for whom a free-use image would be available. - ] | ] 06:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Protected == | |||
Page protected. Again. Best, ] ] 01:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Why exactly is there an edit war over this article? If we add up all of the current figures, we get slightly over 21 million, so I suppose "21 million +" is correct. However, wasn't there consensus that a second figure would be added, including Moldovans. I think this would not only settle the revert problem but also present multiple points of view, which is the essence of NPOV. ]] ''']''' ] 06:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Agreed. ] 12:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
To Ronline: I cannot begin to fathom how that would be "NPOV". I too hold the view that the Moldovan ethnicity is invented, but we. have. the. fact. that. those. people. do. not. describe. themselves. as. Romanians. For God's sake: I do not have the right to tell them what they are, and this article should only refer to people that invest in the fact that they are Romanians! I mean, we don't go counting people whom we, or I, or whomever ''believes'' are Romanians, but those who ''declare'' themselves Romanians. ] 14:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Also, it is useful to read the talk pages as this was explained a couple of sections above at ]. --] 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, I have read the talk page, but for the amount of edit-warring going on, it seems there hasn't been much discussion. I'm personally disinterested in this whole issue of the number of Romanians around the world, since I don't believe it's particularly better for there to be more Romanians (if anything, it is arguably worse, since a large diaspora indicates internal problems). ]] ''']''' ] 06:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: But whether there are a lot of romanians or a few romanians outside romania is not something you or Dahn or Ipren can control. I would also just love it if there were few Romanians outside the country but unfortunately for me and you things are not this way. We cannot just manipulate facts and data in order to please us or our views. To return to the question of "who is Romanian" first of all let me point out some facts | |||
*Dahn says that "these people do not consider themselves Romanians but Moldovans" That is very, very superficial. In fact due to the manner in which the census in 2004 was conducted (and please note that international observers pointed out major irregularities when it came to the lang/eth questions) and due the fact that not all Moldovans view their "Moldovan Identity" as "100% non-Romanian": one cannot say beyond any reasonable doubt that "in Moldova there are 75.000 Romanians only". That is why, the suggestion that we put a range of 75.000 - 2.8 mil. seems to me like the best way to reconcile both points of view, which is after all what Misplaced Pages is supposed to do. ] 00:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::To my knowledge, Dapiks, nobody has been pointing out "how many would have declared themselves Romanian but couldn't", and nobody could. We have official data, even if that data is ''partly'' questionable (I use Occam's razor against the view that "all of it questionable"), over Constantzeanu's data (whereby every person in the world who did not send him a letter saying "I'm not Romanian" is in fact Romanian). ] 10:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Constantzeanu, first of all, please choose which of the two accounts ] you choose to use and stick to it from now on. We can return to the issue then. --] 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Whatever buddy. When you and your buddies have nothing to say, you turn to cheep comments like that. It's really getting disgusting. ] 02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Coat of Arms == | |||
"In addition to these colours, each historical province of Romania has its own characteristic animal | |||
symbol: | |||
* Oltenia: Lion | |||
* Dobrogea: Dolphin | |||
* Moldavia: Aurochs/Wisent | |||
* Transylvania: Black eagle | |||
* Wallachia: Eagle | |||
The Coat of Arms of Romania combines these together." | |||
There is an ommision here: "* Oltenia: Lion" . Although the characteristic animal of Oltenia IS a lion, the lion is also the ch. animal of Banat. As described on the presidentil web-site the lion on the coat-of arms represents both Oltenia and Banat http://www.presidency.ro/?_RID=htm&id=3&lang=en | |||
Please make the necessary changes. Thank you | |||
:Actually, that very section is redundant, simplistic, and ill-defined (symbols of Romania=symbols of the Romanians...). Plus, most articles on national symbols in Romania need to be copyedited. The section is also without parallel, and disregards the fact that symbols such as Transylvania's have ''never'' stood for "Romanians". ] 11:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
===Outragious=== | |||
Why is that we are not allowed to put an estimate for the number of Romanians. The article on ] and ] give official data as well as estimates. In our case, we are compelled to give just the official data for Romanians in Moldova and Ukraine. Why is it that the page is being blocked right now? And why can't we give estimates as well, besides the so called "official data" which some pro-] editors love so much? ] 16:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
===Lack of standards on other pages=== | |||
While you are right about the Greek page, the lies and nationalist propaganda on it are a disgrace: they insist on counting as Greek the 700.000 immigrants in Greece, for example. Is it such a problem that the Romanians and Romanian pages are kept to a higher standard of integrity than the Greek ones. Ir shows that Romania has a better claim than some other countries to be in the EU, when a sense of self-discipline is visible. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 28 September 2006.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
::I really do not see what the EU-membership and Misplaced Pages content and/or editors have to do with this dispute. First of all, even if we consider the current numbers (i.e. Moldova with 75.000 Romanians), the number should read 21.5 million, not 21 million. Just do the math! Another point I want to bring fourth is that, not everyone agrees with offical censa, so in the spirit of NPOV and respecting wikipedia rules and norms, this article should reflect that. As mentioned above, not only Roma and Greeks have estimates but ] do as well.] 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Population overestimates== | |||
They've been rampant on wikipedia: ], ], ]. It's not unlikely that "foreign" embassy statistics drive their numbers as high as possible. There are several reasons for this. One, most such sources tend to put emphasis on "Romanian nationals abroad" rather than Romanian ethnics. Two, they further tend to include any foreigner who can lay trace to some Romanian blood in their heritage, long after that emigre has died. So the Romanian diaspora will probably include someone who has a Romanian grandmother, perhaps even great-grandmother. If we did that for all ethnicities, we'd probably double the world's population. | |||
::Go and change the articles on ], ], ] and ] first and then come here and change these numbers. | |||
Secondly, there are sources which point to a much much lower number. Joshua Project for one which stauncly includes only the most ethnic of Romanians estimates the population to be around 19 million: http://www.joshuaproject.net/peopctry.php?rop3=108398&rog3=RO | |||
::This Joshua Project seems to me a little bit of a joke. Its numbers are nothing like the numbers from official censa. On what base, do they make their approximations? | |||
We're giving the benefit of the doubt by simply totalling up as many census numbers as we can. Most such articles on wikipedia do the same. I see no reason to overestimate using possibly biased estimations. ] 06:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Nobody sees any reason to overestimate but nobody wants to underestimate either. What is your base for the 21.5 million people? Do you have a reliable source? Usually official censa is taken into account (NOT SOME WEIRD JOSHUA ESTIMATE thats based on pure fantesy). Even if we take the official censa, then the numbers add up to 23 million, not 21. However the issue of the Moldovans is a very touchy one, hence it has to be mentioned in brackets, just like other articles on wikipedia do it. | |||
Furthermore, you might be thinking that this number should be higher because we should include ]. I definitely agree with you there. I think this whole ethnogenesis bit is a little too POV for wikipedia. There's little we can do to change that unless there's some type of mass movement to remove the population statistics on ]. Otherwise, we're just repeating numbers. ] 06:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The Issue at ] is explained very well. That article deals with the notion of moldvoans and what that term means in a number of cases, not with an ethnicity per se (note that the article is almost exclusively talking about the controversy on the identity in itself).] 08:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
What seems to be based on pure fantasy is the notion that the ethnic Romanian population nearly tripled over less than a century. I hope everyone here realizes that "Romanians abroad" simply refers to Romanians who are currently living/working in another country. Many of these Romanians are not citizens of those countries, and are included in the 19 million ethnic Romanian census of Romania. By including these are extra Romanians, you are counting each person twice in the census, which is hysterical to say the least. The censuses of each independent country is the only source reliable enough to come to a total ethnic Romanian population abroad. Several of the sources used for the "28 million" estimate aren't even referring to ethnic Romanians (such as the million estimate in the US). Pay attention to exactly what the sources say and don't guess. The number of 21-22 million was pretty stable until now, what sparked this huge addition of 6 million Romanians? ] 21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Romedia includes non-ethnic Romanians into their numbers. This is a page for ETHNIC Romanians. We shouldn't make any mention of "400,000" Romanians in Canada or "1,000,000" in the US because this page runs on the idea that a Romanian is an ethnic Romanian. ] 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
to horvat den, the 6 million figure is derived from the source evenimentul zilei, which estimates the number of romanians in different countries. For example, they estimate that their were 600,000 romanians working abroad before the 2002 census. | |||
:And have these people been subtracted from Romania's population? Have they? Because that is where they legally reside, and that is where they are counted. Aren't you counting them twice? ] 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Dahn, we dont know if this so called 600,000 illegal romanians were in romania in 2002, so their is no way of knowing if we are counting them twice or not. However, i would assume that not all of them would have been in romania during the census, maybe not even half of them. My fellow friends, i believe we should place the old figure back of 21 million, as that is derived from censuses. We can not give a proper estimation for the number of romanians, as a large number of them left illegaly during and after communism. (] 07:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)) | |||
::Allow me to shed some light. The 28 mil people figure was not made based upon a total of the 1.1 mil in USA and the 400.000 in Canada,which I totally agree with you that it should be taken out and replaced with the census figure. The total of 28 mil. was given based on a number of sources(check them out -> there are quite a lot of them), mostly the Romanian presidency (which by the way is the ultimate source of Romanian foreign policy) and just like a census (which is government sponsored and by no means perfect), the President of Romania as the supreme source of foreign policy, has made it clear that Romania as a state considers 8 mil ethnic-Romanians to live outside its borders. I find it sort of silly to revert to the 22 mil people. Based on what sources will you do that? Can you find a reliable source that says, "In the world Today there are 22 mil ethnic-Romanians and not a single mil over that number". If you do, by all means make the change. Ethnologue is the only one that comes close but even Ethnologue states that there are 23.5 mil. Romanian native speakers in the world. ] 12:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Dapiks, The Romanian article should include only primary information (eg: census), and not what the president of romania believes the figure is. BaNaTeaN | |||
:To answer both of you (while welcoming and endorsing BaNaTeaN's non-speculative approach): in 2002, you were ''required by law'' to say if you had relatives who were citizens but lived abroad. Even if many people were not aware of this, that count was the basis for all estimates of Romanian citizens (citizens, nota bene) living abroad. So: no speculation regarding workers abroad is allowed. ] 13:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:'''Dahn''':Wait a little Dahn, of what you explained, that you were obligated by law in the 2002 census to say if oyu have relatives abroad, that means there about 19.4 millions Romanians in the whole world??? No offence, but this is absolutely out of discussion. When I had the 2002 census, there was no place in the questionary for that. | |||
::Again you mix terms, Arthur, in an issue that is relatively simple. The census says there are 21 million and something ''citizens of Romania'' (throughout the world). Inside Romania, there are 19 million ''ethnic Romanians'' of the total population. The latter number ''includes'', per what I've just told you, those who are out of Romania on business or whatever (but are still Romanian citizens); various systems were used to count them and compare data - if your entire family was not at home when the census-taker came to visit you, you had, to the best of your knowledge, to provide the data for the rest of your family (that is what I did). ''All those present abroad of the 19-21 million are thought to have been counted'', and, rest assured, we don't all have to go to Bethlem for that. | |||
::What you have to add to that is the number of ethic Romanians that are ''citizens'' of other countries (and are not also citizens of Romania), and list ''only'' those places where this applies. Please, see my point. | |||
::Welcome back, btw, and please stand by the pledge on your talk page. ] 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:'''Banatean''': although your explication makes no sense, let's see. You say that we should include only primary source information that means '''censuses'''. Come on, take a look at ], ] or other large diasporas. At Poles by exemple, only USA, Canada and Poland are using '''census official infos'''. All others are unofficial sources, but they're however put there. Even for USA, when at the 2000 USA census, they were 8 997 000 Poles '''declared''', they decided to add the unofficial larger figure of 9 300 000. Why this doesn't apply here??????? If you all sustain this stupid explanations, then answer my question: '''WHY AT ROMANIANS ARTICLE WE DON'T LIKE OTHERS, InCLUDE ALL KIND OF DATA??????????????''' Come on guys, what is your proof for sustaining that? | |||
''']''' 28 October 2006 | |||
::We cannot include self-contradicting data, Norbert. Estimates, perhaps - only if they are attested by sources. Adding hundreds of thousands of people ''twice'' is unacceptable. ] 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:'''Dahn''', I really don't understand what you mean by saying that the people are counted twice. I agree that the 1.5 million Romanian workers in Spain and Italy we ca't really count them as residents of these countries. That's ok. After my opinion, the 321 000 for Spain and 300 000 for Italy are ok and we don't need to touch at that. What me I propose, and I'm asking all of you to express your opinion, against of for. I would like that we find for '''the estimations, after the official dates''', the so-wanted '''reliable, attested and exactly figures''' on websites for each country and we decide here if the wbesite is ok or no. I waiting your propositions and arguments. | |||
''']''' 28 October 2006 | |||
::Arthur, again: if those people are not citizens of Spain or Italy, they were already counted ''in Romania''. Secondly, as a rule, we are not counting and adding people ourselves. ] 20:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
*Well the 1.5 million Romanian workers in Italy and Spain is most certainly an exagerated number given by newspapers such as ] and we all know that newspapers have an affinity for the dramatic (i.e. articles that stand out). So we can't really take these sort of data seriously. | |||
*What we have is the official data: 321.000 in Spain in 2006 and 297,500 in Italy at the beggining of 2006. It is not likely that these numbers would be actually higher since there is no reason for Romanians to work iligally ihose two countries (Romanians can go there without much trouble ever since 2002). In other words these numbers probably represent the true figures as far as Romanians working abroad are concerned. What Dahn is saying is that even these numbers might actually count Romanians twice since many of them came during the 2002 - 2006 period. It would be great to get official data about the numbers of Romanians in Italy and Spain prior to 2002 (the year of the Romanian census as well as the year when mass-emigration to Italy and Spain started).] 20:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::What I am saying beyond that is that those people (migrant workers et al) were already counted at home, and they would have to be deducted from the number of people in Romania, not added to it. This in itself is not a welcome gesture, IMO, since migrant workers are not really residents of another country, anfd since (nota bene), the figures for migrant workers et al are based on citizenship, not ethnicity (so we don't know if they should be deducted from 19 million or from 21 million). ] 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::: Yeah, that's true. Subtracting them form the 21.7 mil would do us no good since it would not help us determine the total number of ethnic-Romanians, which is what this article is about. Well I managed to determine that the number of Romanians residing in Italy prior to the 2002 Romanian census was 70,000. The source is here: just press forward to get all the regions of Italy: . So I guess we could state that 397,500 - 70,000 Romanians (already there) = 327,500 Romanians that are counted twice. But then again, like you pointed out, these might not really be all ethnic-Romanians since we must subtract them from the 21,7 mil number. I haven't gotten the number for Romanians in Spain in 2001 or 2002 yet. So if anyone can help, that would be great. ] 21:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
I don't know Romania's specific standards in doing its censuses, but international standards are well summarized in a UN document called . It's a PDF, and unfortunately Google doesn't offer an HTML version. | |||
It's actually a pretty interesting read, discussing a lot of the difficulties in getting anything like accurate (and internationally comparable) numbers. There is a lot of discussion of "place of enumeration". It discusses how a census may be based either on where a person is on one particular day or on their usual place of residence, and recommends that if a country is trying to count both, they should keep the concepts distinct and produce two sets of numbers (p.52). Hence (p.63), "the total may comprise either all usual residents of the country or all persons present in the country at the time of the census." | |||
There are a large number of issues identified where countries may have different policies, and each should document their policies. Page 63 has an interesting listing of many classifications of people that may present difficulties with these numbers, and says that each country should be clear how they address each of 14 categories, getting down to things as subtle as "Transients on ships in harbour at the time of the census." My guess is that, with some research, one could get good information on how each relevant country handles these cases in their censuses. I bet that someone could get some good information out of this, and probably a few things worth writing about in articles ''about'' censuses. - ] | ] 05:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
====Map Proposal==== | |||
There is currently a map for Romanian ''grais'' but none for ethnic Romanians. Here is a map inhabited by Romanians, in case someone feels that it should be placed in the article. ] 01:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Caption should probably be "Territories inhabited by ethnic Romanians in the 21st century"; what are the sources that are the basis for the map? (It looks basically right, but it is still making substantive claims, so it should cite sources.) Assuming it can be decently cited for, I'd be all for adding it to the article. - ] | ] 03:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::The map should read something like "territories inhabited majoritarily by Romanians". In many of the areas highlighted yellow, there are also several other ethnic groups living, some of which form sizeable minorities. More importantly, in some of the areas which are not shown as being inhabited by ethnic Romanians, there are still ethnic Romanian minorities (e.g. the ]). ]] ''']''' ] 04:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::And,at the risk of sounding monotonous, might we remember something called "Moldovans"? I'm not going to repeat my arguments (they seem to be ignored by each and all), I'm just going to say that that is reason enough for that map not to be in this or any other article. One more time (and not for the Bonaparte socks who are about to insult me over what I have just said): it. does. not. matter. what. you. or. I. think., it. matters. what. people. in. the. Moldovan. census. think. ] 04:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::How about "Romanians (and Moldovans)"? ] 04:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::But the said census still makes a distinction. Since that distinction is, in all likelyhood, also grounds for a map, we'll just be moving the problem around. And, if the connection is intended as neutral, why not also make a map for, say, "Territories inhabited by Romanians, Serbs, and Eskimos"? ] 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::Then again, the censuses themselves may not be neutral either; a whole lot of Moldovans materialized between 1930 and later decades. The point, though, is that both ] and ] make clear that the identity of the Moldovans as a separate ethnic group is controversial, and the map aims to present both together because there is a general consensus that the two ethnic groups are in fact the same, and that those who think otherwise do so for primarily political reasons, etc. I've fought this battle too many times, though; tragedy has become farce by now. ] 05:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::As I have said elsewhere, it is universally known that the Moldovan identity was created artificially (I should say "more artificially than others"). That,however,does not concern this map. What concerns this map is the fact that many citizens of Moldova consider themselves "Moldovan" in the ethnical sense - when taking the census, they were presented with a simple question, to which they gave a direct answer. Of course, the result is questioned - it is not, however, question''ed'' in toto; it is not, however, question''able'' in toto (it takes quite a stretch to say that the number of Romanians is ten times or so what the results say it is). According to that definition, people want to be seen as different from Romanians: that definition is not subject to academic arguments (because it is an ever-subjective notion, whatever the reason behind it may be); at the same time, it certainly does not become the subject of decisions taken by outsiders on the basis of empiricist approaches. Of course someone profits from the results (as if someone else wouldn't profit from the opposite results...), but that is not to say that: a. that someone has interfered in recent times - that remains to be proven; b. most Moldovans are brainwashed, most Romanians are rational; c. political motivation is a bad thing in defining one's ethnicity (I can prove that it is the motivator behind virtually every case imaginable). I personally don't feel that ethnicity is ever an objective and/or necessary criterion. While I do believe that "Moldovan" is in fact Romanian, while I do understand and evidence all the criminality involved in getting that country where it is today, I cannot either believe that I should tell others that I know better than them what they are, I cannot tell them that any ethnicity is ever objective or even relevant, and I cannot turn back the time to reflect choices they would have made "were it not for". ] 05:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::To turn the tables a bit: what would your ideal map look like – which areas would you shade? Or would you not include one at all? ] 05:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I wouldn't include one, I suppose. ] 05:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Fair enough. I, for one, like the current map, ''provided accurate labelling is given''. But let's wait for some consensus to develop. ] 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:And what about Timok Vlach.. do we have a consensus? ~~ | |||
::Oh, I see, it wasn't ''surreal enough'' without the Vlachs... ] 14:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Well it seems that this map will cause yet again another row of arguments over who is a Romanian. Irony has it that the ] theory is now being advokated by our very own people (as if the Russians and their buddies were not enough). I thought it would have been better for the article to have the map there but I see that it will only bring more controversy so I am going to erase the map. What does bother me is that user Mikka and Khoikhoi follow edits related to Romanians almost as if they are set to disprove what Mikka calls "Imperialist expantionist and irredentist Romanian propaganda". I guess everyone else here thinks that is a perfectly normal thing to do.] 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::Irony has it that Constantzeanu/Dapiks, Bonaparte, and Mikkalai use the same Leninist reasoning of "who is not with us is against us". I'm genuinely sorry that you view my actions as "advocacy of this or that theory". Although I've had months to do it, it is still hard getting across a message about what an encyclopedia is and what it is not. In the words of Jmabel: "if this is a pissing contest beteween x and y, there are those of us whiping off the piss and making this an ancyclopedia". Being "my very own people" should not prevent me from seeing the puddle and from whiping it out. ] 12:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::Right.... ] 13:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Right. ] 14:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
My oppinion: A map of majority Romanian inhabitation exists and is long accepted, under ]. From here, everything goes astray: | |||
# Old stalinist theories are enforced by some Russians and Sovietophiles | |||
# Some "positive action" Romanians want to achieve consensus at any price and therefore reuse dusty ethnic constructions, such as "Daco-romanian" just to avoid saying "Romanian" (even though the actual sense of these constructions is not the wikipedian one). | |||
Still, I have to acknowledge that the last solution seems the only one on wikipedia (which is why I edit less and less here). What we write here resembles more a armistice convention than an encyclopedia. | |||
] 13:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:On much of this, I agree with Dpotop that "Daco-Romanian" is more to the point, and elides present-day nationalist arguments. As for wording discussed above ("territories inhabited majoritarily by Romanians"): "majoritarily" is one of those things that's just barely an English word; more natural English would be "territories with a Romanian majority" or, if Dpotop's suggestion is adopted, as I think it should be, "territories with a Daco-Romanian majority". It's also sometimes useful on these things rather than just a majority/minority approach to code in successive color bands, e.g. <5%, 5-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75-100%. But I don't know if there is decent data to do such a thing. - ] | ] 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: This is a quite chiselled map: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/legbelso.php3?nev=17 unfortunately copyrighted --] 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::: Yeah, right. You daydream. :) As ] already noted below, this map is from 1910. ] 18:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::: The information can't be copyrighted, only the presentation. So it would be possible for someone who is good at maps to make something similar, starting from the usual basic GFDL or PD maps. - ] | ] 21:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::But aren't the data on that map from 1910? How relevant would they be for today? ] 23:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 14:05, 21 November 2024
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Romanians was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Romanians are a nationality not a ethnic group.
Any race can be Romanian. There is black Romanians, Chinese Romanians, Jewish Romanians and many Gypsy Romani Romanians. Most Romanians are of Roma (Gypsy) ethnicity born in Romania. Roma Gypsies are the fastest growing ethnic group in Romania. Jews are historically from Romania too. Please remove or change Romanians the first sentence stating that Romanian is a ethnic group. Romanian is a nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.145.4.233 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Whoever unsigned coward wrote this should take his pill. Romanian is a term which denotes both the nationality and the ethnicity. And no, most Romanians are not of Rromani (or Gypsy) ethnicity. This is clearly proven by many genetic tests for larger population cohorts/groups. For your reference, there are also Hungarian Romanians and German Romanians. We are all more or less intermixed, if you ever had the slightest interest on delving into genetics a bit, so there is no such thing as a pure race. Welcome to the real world (a brief introduction coupled with scientific facts as well). Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you @Rosenborg BK Fan. When I read "Most Romanians are of Roma (Gypsy) ethnicity born in Romania" I couldn't believe my eyes. How about Gypsies from Spain? Gitanos (estimated 720,000-1,500,000)
- Or Romani Americans (est. 1,000,000)? The Romani or Roma are a nomadic ethnic group, commonly known as Gypsies, who have been in the Americas since the first Romani people reportedly arrived on Christopher Columbus’ third voyage in 1498.
- This user @45.145.4.233 is cunning. Trying to sound "leftist" to seem that what he just said is in good faith but it's actually only masked as such, but it's actually written in bad faith aka vandalism on wikipedia, in order to insult Romanians (taunting , baiting and lying as per Misplaced Pages:Civility#Identifying incivility). Genetically and linguistically Roma people originated in the Indian subcontinent; in particular, the region of Rajasthan. The Roma began to leave India about 1,000 years ago. They most likely left to escape the invasion of Afghan general Mahmud of Ghazni early in the 11th century. Mahmud's troops probably pushed the Roma out of northern India and into the area that is now Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran. The Roma people arrived in Europe around the 14th century.
- According to a triple analysis – autosomal, mitochondrial and paternal — of available data from large-scale studies, the whole genome SNP data situates Romanians are most closely related to Bulgarians, Macedonians, followed by other European populations, which form a coherent cluster among worldwide populations.
- Most West Slavs, Hungarians, and Austrians were found to share as many identical by-descent DNA segments with South Slavs as with Romanians, Torbeshi and Gagauzes.
- In 2021, the largest genetic genealogy company in the world, Ancestry.com, contradicted the 2017 study based on more recent genetic findings, placing Romania (including Transylvania), Hungary and Slovakia (in Central Europe) in the Balkan DNA region: "Formally Romania and Hungary were not considered part of the region but they now are considered Balkan in terms of their DNA." Slovakia was also included in the Balkan DNA region.
- So no, genetically most ethnic Romanians are not Roma/Gypsies. Like you said: " Romanian is a term which denotes both the nationality and the ethnicity." The ethnicity of Romanians is not Roma (old term: Gypsy). Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your comment! I will get back to you with a more detailed response later today. And also, that is not to say that we have something against the Romani people (I on the contrary). At the same time, the respective edit was done by someone who did not even register as a user on Misplaced Pages, and therefore should all the more not be taken that much seriously (at least by some like you and me). All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, very thorough and well-organised comment! Much respect for it! As for the genetics, it is as you mentioned as per my understanding and documentation as well. Also, I think that it would be counterproductive to focus more on that comment on that thread. I think a wise and intelligent decision would be to leave the discussion as it is at this point because we are both scientifically and encyclopaedically correct. Best regards! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Of course, what I wrote was in good faith and I see positive things in all ethnicities, including the Roma/Gypsies. I only brought genetic and historic facts without insulting the Roma in anyway. My sister's highschool English teacher was a teacher of Roma descent and she was/is very admired by her students. The facts say that in all regards: genetically, geographically, linguistically, historically and culturally the Roma/Gypsies are different from Romanians and that's not a good or a bad thing. It's a netural fact of life like breathing air is a neutral fact of life. Ninhursag3 (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct, neutrally and encyclopaedically. All the best here on Misplaced Pages and in general! I wish you happy editing and plenty of positive experiences and edits here! Much respect once again! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, hope you'll reply to my new comment on the German versions of Romanians wikipedia page. Best regards ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I certainly will! All the best and keep up the good work! You can see the threads that I started there as well. For example, I previously added the fact that Romanians and Italians are related (genetically as well, as a fun/trivia fact I'm mostly Italian per my recent genetic test), but it was deleted... I will add references next time... Hopefully, that information won't be deleted, but even with reliable references it can be (from my personal experience). It's sad but it's true as well... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Genetically, Romanians are closest to Bulgarians and Macedonians. I'm sure you know that the Dacians were a sub-group of the Thracians (the region where Thracians lived is now Bulgaria) so it makes sense. Romanian is a Latin/Romance language but trying to prove we're very close to Italians genetically when genetically we're the closest to Bulgarians and Macedonians seems superfluous to me. In antiquity Thracians and Dacians were known for having red and light hair. Bulgarians aren't less white than other Europeans, even if the rulers were ethnic Turkic people/Bulgars, the majority of the population was Slavic (formerly Scythian) and Balkan (formerly Thracian). Also I was very suprised when I read you wrote "my country and home region (i.e. Bukovina)". Bukovina is indeed a region but not a country, even if you did a DNA test and have some Italian blood the truth is that your home country is Romania, not Bukovina and you're Romanian from the region of Bukovina. You should be proud of being Romanian ^^ My grandfather was Hungarian/Székely from Harghita but you don't see me jumping up and down of how special and non-Romanian I am. Best regards <3 Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I meant Romania and Bukovina, respectively, I apologise if I let myself be misunderstood. It was meant in that order. Genetically, I am mostly Italian. And yes, of course I know about the Dacians. And yes, you are right about the genetic similarities between Romanians and South Slavs, that is also factually correct. But, historically, since the Roman conquest, Romanians are also related to the Italians (also per larger genetic studies). In this regard, please see: https://www.romania-insider.com/new-genetic-map-of-the-world-shows-romanians-ties-to-lithuanian-finnish-south-italian (this article seems interesting because it sort of explains why I am a bit Finnish as well, according to my genetic test). All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- P.S.: I am not a nationalist, but I respect my home country as best as I can, in as many contexts as I can, here as well (while adhering and striving to respect the rules of neutrality and factual accuracy of Misplaced Pages, at the same time). Truth was it was a bit peculiar for me to discover an overwhelming Italian ancestry, but it was a very positive surprise I must admit. And a significant German one as well... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's not so strange hearing about your DNA. Romania in the 19th century especially after the Unification of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859 and the first half of the 20th century had many immigrants looking for better work conditions and better pay. And as a new kingdom, the Kingom of Romania was an ideal place to set up shop and start businesses. Case and point, the famous painter Romanian Nicolae Grigorescu (1838-1907) was an apprentice at the workshop of the Czech painter Anton Chladek (who migrated to Romania). The case of Anton Chladek is not an isolated one. Best regards, we will continue this discussion on your page. Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I know the history of the Kingdom of Romania very well! Thank you for mentioning more on the early history of the Romanian kingdom. It is best however to continue to continue this topic, if you wish, that is, on my discussion page! Regardless of those trivia facts regarding my ancestry (genetically speaking), the genetics' section of this article can and must be improved (I previously did that as well) and I am willing and intend to do that in the future as well. I hope I will be able to improve it. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I hope you will be let by those German admins to improve the German page as well but is seem unlikely since they just don't respond and refuse to improve the article. You should show them these messages and let them known how we Romanians are disappointed at their lack of quality in their wikipedia articles and their admins. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- This feels repetitive, but please read WP:NOTFORUM. This conversation should not be on an article talk page. From the policy page:
bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article
and indeed are not there for discussing other pages in other wikiprojects. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)- You are right, I agree! If @Ninhursag3 want to discuss this subject more in-depth she should feel free to do so on my discussion page, wholeheartedly. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- That wouldn't influence their turn of mind anyhow, unfortunately. They don't seem so sensitive at how other users or readers feel... that's life. But, on the brighter side of things, more and more of my edits are approved there, so that's quite a new beginning. We'll see what happens in the future... Hopefully for good. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- This feels repetitive, but please read WP:NOTFORUM. This conversation should not be on an article talk page. From the policy page:
- I hope you will be let by those German admins to improve the German page as well but is seem unlikely since they just don't respond and refuse to improve the article. You should show them these messages and let them known how we Romanians are disappointed at their lack of quality in their wikipedia articles and their admins. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I know the history of the Kingdom of Romania very well! Thank you for mentioning more on the early history of the Romanian kingdom. It is best however to continue to continue this topic, if you wish, that is, on my discussion page! Regardless of those trivia facts regarding my ancestry (genetically speaking), the genetics' section of this article can and must be improved (I previously did that as well) and I am willing and intend to do that in the future as well. I hope I will be able to improve it. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I meant Romania and Bukovina, respectively, I apologise if I let myself be misunderstood. It was meant in that order. Genetically, I am mostly Italian. And yes, of course I know about the Dacians. And yes, you are right about the genetic similarities between Romanians and South Slavs, that is also factually correct. But, historically, since the Roman conquest, Romanians are also related to the Italians (also per larger genetic studies). In this regard, please see: https://www.romania-insider.com/new-genetic-map-of-the-world-shows-romanians-ties-to-lithuanian-finnish-south-italian (this article seems interesting because it sort of explains why I am a bit Finnish as well, according to my genetic test). All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Genetically, Romanians are closest to Bulgarians and Macedonians. I'm sure you know that the Dacians were a sub-group of the Thracians (the region where Thracians lived is now Bulgaria) so it makes sense. Romanian is a Latin/Romance language but trying to prove we're very close to Italians genetically when genetically we're the closest to Bulgarians and Macedonians seems superfluous to me. In antiquity Thracians and Dacians were known for having red and light hair. Bulgarians aren't less white than other Europeans, even if the rulers were ethnic Turkic people/Bulgars, the majority of the population was Slavic (formerly Scythian) and Balkan (formerly Thracian). Also I was very suprised when I read you wrote "my country and home region (i.e. Bukovina)". Bukovina is indeed a region but not a country, even if you did a DNA test and have some Italian blood the truth is that your home country is Romania, not Bukovina and you're Romanian from the region of Bukovina. You should be proud of being Romanian ^^ My grandfather was Hungarian/Székely from Harghita but you don't see me jumping up and down of how special and non-Romanian I am. Best regards <3 Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I certainly will! All the best and keep up the good work! You can see the threads that I started there as well. For example, I previously added the fact that Romanians and Italians are related (genetically as well, as a fun/trivia fact I'm mostly Italian per my recent genetic test), but it was deleted... I will add references next time... Hopefully, that information won't be deleted, but even with reliable references it can be (from my personal experience). It's sad but it's true as well... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, hope you'll reply to my new comment on the German versions of Romanians wikipedia page. Best regards ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct, neutrally and encyclopaedically. All the best here on Misplaced Pages and in general! I wish you happy editing and plenty of positive experiences and edits here! Much respect once again! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your comment! I will get back to you with a more detailed response later today. And also, that is not to say that we have something against the Romani people (I on the contrary). At the same time, the respective edit was done by someone who did not even register as a user on Misplaced Pages, and therefore should all the more not be taken that much seriously (at least by some like you and me). All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Only if this is done for every other ethnic group in Europe on Misplaced Pages where ethnicity and mationality match.
- So this is the list
- Albanians
- Belarus
- Bulgarians
- Croats
- Czechs
- Danes
- Dutch
- Estonians
- Finns
- Germans
- Greeks
- Hungarians
- Italians
- Icelanders
- Irish
- Latvians
- Lithuanians
- Macedonians
- Maltese
- Montenegrins
- Norwegians
- Poles
- Portuguese
- Romanians
- Slovaks
- Slovenians
- Serbians
- Spaniards
- Swedes
- Turks
- You can start with letter A Albanians 178.221.76.14 (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
References
- "Diagnóstico social de la comunidad gitana en España" (PDF). Msc.es. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-10-10. Retrieved 2016-05-21.
- "Estimations" (JPG). Gfbv.it. Retrieved 2016-05-21.
- "The Situation of Roma in Spain" (PDF). Open Society Institute. 2002. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 December 2007. Retrieved 15 September 2010.
The Spanish government estimates the number of Gitanos at a maximum of 650,000.
- Recent Migration of Roma in Europe, A study by Mr. Claude Cahn and Professor Elspeth Guild, page 87-8 (09.2010 figures)
- "Romani Realities in The United States" (PDF). Harvard University. November 24, 2020. Retrieved December 10, 2020.
- Deutsch, James (April 8, 2022). "Romani Rights and the Roosevelts: The Case of Steve Kaslov". Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved May 25, 2022.
- Marinov, Aleksandar G. (2019-10-03). Inward Looking: The Impact of Migration on Romanipe from the Romani Perspective. Berghahn Books. p. 31. ISBN 978-1-78920-362-2.
It is unclear what made this people leave the Indian sub-continent but they are generally believed to have originated from central India, possibly in the modern Indian state of Rajasthan, migrating to the northwest around 250 BC.
- Hancock 2002, p. xx: 'While a nine century removal from India has diluted Indian biological connection to the extent that for some Romani groups, it may be hardly representative today, Sarren (1976:72) concluded that we still remain together, genetically, Asian rather than European' sfn error: no target: CITEREFHancock2002 (help)
- Simon Broughton; Mark Ellingham; Richard Trillo (1999). World Music: Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Rough Guides. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-85828-635-8. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
- Silverman, Carol (2012-05-24). Romani Routes: Cultural Politics and Balkan Music in Diaspora. OUP USA. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-19-530094-9.
- Snodgrass, Mary Ellen (2016-08-08). The Encyclopedia of World Folk Dance. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 260. ISBN 978-1-4422-5749-8.
- "Migrations of the Romani People" (PDF).
- Kenrick, Donald (5 July 2007). Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies (Romanies) (2nd ed.). Scarecrow Press. p. xxxvii. ISBN 978-0-8108-6440-5.
- Kushniarevich, Alena; Utevska, Olga; Chuhryaeva, Marina; Agdzhoyan, Anastasia; Dibirova, Khadizhat; Uktveryte, Ingrida; Möls, Märt; Mulahasanovic, Lejla; Pshenichnov, Andrey; Frolova, Svetlana; Shanko, Andrey; Metspalu, Ene; Reidla, Maere; Tambets, Kristiina; Tamm, Erika; Koshel, Sergey; Zaporozhchenko, Valery; Atramentova, Lubov; Kučinskas, Vaidutis; Davydenko, Oleg; Goncharova, Olga; Evseeva, Irina; Churnosov, Michail; Pocheshchova, Elvira; Yunusbayev, Bayazit; Khusnutdinova, Elza; Marjanović, Damir; Rudan, Pavao; Rootsi, Siiri; et al. (2015). "Genetic Heritage of the Balto-Slavic Speaking Populations: A Synthesis of Autosomal, Mitochondrial and Y-Chromosomal Data". PLOS ONE. 10 (9): e0135820. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1035820K. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135820. PMC 4558026. PMID 26332464. "Most South Slavs are separated from the rest of the Balto-Slavic populations and form a sparse group of populations with internal differentiation into western (Slovenians, Croatians and Bosnians) and eastern (Macedonians and Bulgarians) regions of the Balkan Peninsula with Serbians placed in-between... Furthermore, Slovenians lie close to the non-Slavic-speaking Hungarians, whereas eastern South Slavs group is located together with non-Slavic-speaking but geographically neighboring Romanians and, to some extent, with Greeks."
- Cite error: The named reference
slav
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - "What is the Balkans DNA Ethnicity on Ancestry?". namecensus.com. September 2021. Retrieved 4 April 2023.
Historiography section
In all fairness, what is that, for real? Should it even be there? The impression I get from reading it is that it was on purpose placed there and that is biased. Any thoughts?
Any thoughts please on this? Thank you very much in advance!
Genetics and ethnogenesis
The ethnogenesis part of this section is written in prose, but the genetics discussion is just a list of studies and haplogroup numbers, meaningless to a reader and reliant on a slew of primary sources. This needs rewriting. Does anyone have a secondary source about genetics relating to Romanian ethogenesis? Or should I just remove all that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I haved added the data from Ancestry.com, if you delete the ethnogenesis part, the Hungarians will be very angry and will undo your action. I recommend you leave it there. The theories be they "written in prose" as you say or not is irrelevant, scholars have 3 theories about the ethnogenesis of Romanians, like it or not and should stay there. Best regards ^^ Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- More accurately the AncestryDNA genetics section inside the bigger Ancestry.com. Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:ANCESTRY, ancestry.com is not a reliable secondary source. Please note I am not proposing deleting ethogenesis prose, the part that is meaningless to readers is this:
The prevailing Y-chromosome in Wallachia (Ploiești, Dolj), Moldavia (Piatra Neamț, Buhuși), Dobruja (Constanța), and northern Republic of Moldova is recorded to be Haplogroup I. On the basis of 361 samples, Haplogroup I occurs at 32% in Romanians. The frequency of I2a1 (I-P37) in the Balkans today is owed to indigenous European hunter-gatherers tribes, and was present before the Slavic expansion.
According to an Y-chromosome analysis of 335 sampled Romanians, 15% of them belong to R1a. Haplogroup R1a among Romanians is entirely from the Eastern European variety Z282 and may be a result of Baltic, Thracian or Slavic descent. R1a-Z280 outnumbers R1a-M458 among Romanians, the opposite phenomena is typical for Poles, Czechs and Bulgarians. 12% of the Romanians belong to R1b, the Alpino-Italic branch R1b-U152 is at 2% per 330 samples, a lower frequency recorded than other Balkan peoples. The branches R1b-U106, R1b-DF27 and R1b-L21 make up 1% respectively. The eastern branches R1b-M269* and L23* (Z2103) make up 7% and outnumber the Atlantic branches, they prevail in parts of east, central Europe and as a result of Greek colonisation – in parts of Sicily as well. 8% of the Romanians belong to E1b1b1a1 (E-M78) per 265 samples. Other studies analyzing the haplogroup frequency among Romanians came to similar results.
- This is supported by 8 primary sources, no secondary sources and no appreciable prose placing this in context. It needs a complete rewrite. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- That part you quoted is not written by me. As for Ancestry.com: it is the largest for-profit genealogy company in the world, it operates a network of genealogical, historical records, and related genetic genealogy websites. I has a lot of value in the study of genetics since it has the biggest human genetic data, it should count for something. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- It has a lot of value* sorry autocorrect >.< Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Did you follow the link? Ancestry.com contains information that constitutes reliable primary sources but content is user generated so it is not reliable as a secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, so if https://namecensus.com/ notes that AncestryDNA inside Ancestry.com changed what constitues the Balkan DNA in 2021 (now includes Hungary and Romania in the Balkan DNA region as well) is this not good? Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not very good, no. What information are you trying to present to the reader? Are you talking about this reference?. This supports the text:
In 2021, the largest genetic genealogy company in the world, Ancestry.com, contradicted the 2017 study based on more recent genetic findings.
That text raises alarm bells. The article is user generated by one Neil Edwards. Who is he? we are told a "Genealogist and family-tree research specialist" (which both appear to be the same thing, and is how much of Ancestry.com's user base might self describe. We have no qualifications, and no publications I can find (his name is a common one, so hard to be certain on this point, but restricting publications to the field of genealogy, his purported specialism, brings up nothing). There is no peer review of this piece, so claiming, in Wikivoice, that this contradicts earlier research is definitely not OK. And again, per WP:ANCESTRY, the Misplaced Pages community has decided that Ancestry.com is generally unreliable for this kind of thing. If the concusion is sound, there will be better sources available. If no better secondary sources exist, it is unsound. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)- Ok, I will find other souces just namecensus/Neil Edwards. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I rephrased the paragraph to remove " contradicted the 2017 study" since you didn't like how it sounded. I will ask you why you didn't have the same rigour when RF354 added the incorrect and shameful Encyclopaedia Britannica quote: "From the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Walachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history." when Byzantine, Arab, Jewish and Hungarian chroniclers from the 6th to the 13th century wrote about Vlachs/Romanians (never mind Great Vlachia from the 12th to the 14th century or Second Bulgarian Empire also called Bulgarian–Wallachian Empire from 1185 until 1422). RF354 tried to use Encyclopædia Britannica's reputation and fame as the best academic source in the English language as a shield, as infallible to correction, as always right even though all historical texts contradict that quote. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because my concern is with the the meaningless genetics section. Please don't try to introduce a different subject from a different section with this talk section about the genetics information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, so the entire page can be edited in any chaotic manner as long as it doesn't happen to the genetics section since you only care about that section. Got it. Ninhursag3 (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Sirfurboy: With all due respect, the genetics section is not meaningless, not all. Not in my eyes, certainly! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ninhursag3 Encyclopaedia Britannica has its flows here and there. It's not the best English-language source at all times. But it's still a very good and reputable source, overall. However, not in this particular case, I wholeheartedly agree! All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- P.S.: Eupedia (it's quite an interesting website, in my humble opinion) might be good and if not then please try searching for various scientific journals regarding genetic studies on Romanians via e.g. ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley, RefWorks or the like. Plenty of success! I'll try to see if I can help as well in the near future! Best regards! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Please keep this talk section focused on the genetics section, or there will be an almighty mess, Britannica is discussed in the section below. Rosenborg BK Fan, you say the information I have quoted above is not meaningless. Would you care to explain what it means then? in plain English prose. Such a summary could replace that material. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- My bad mentioning Britannica there, I presume. As for your question, certainly, I can, but that is not quite an attitude to reply to, when you mention 'in plain English prose'. For one, genetics is not a topic that can be easily discussed 'in plain English prose'. It requires more in-depth understanding and research, therefore it is not 'meaningless'. Genetics and science are not meaningless, at least for me. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- But this is not a paper to a genetics conference, it is an encylopaedia article, which should be written in plain English prose. The manual of style is quite clear that prose is preferred, and a list of haplogroups tells the reader nothing. This is a matter of audience. In any case, I see that we also have a similarly problematic section at Origin of the Romanians. That is where detail in this section belongs. This section is duplicating that article, and is largely superfluous. It should just summarise that article. I have removed the worst of the offending data now. There remain significant issues. for instance, having had the discussion above about Ancestry not being reliable, the paragraph has been allowed to stand, just citing namecensus.com. The citation is to a blog, and blogs are not normally WP:RS as they are self published. However I took a look to see if namecensus has any editorial authority, and found nothing. Whois tells me it is hosted by namecheap, by a private registrant who has availed themself of the privacy afforded private registrants. It is thus clearly also self published and not a WP:RS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- This edit: added text copied from Origin of the Romanians. Per WP:COPYWITHIN you should attribute the source page when copying between pages. The amount is small though, but the real problem here is that it copied in several sfn references wothout checking or adapting them to this page. Now I have found the source, I expect I can fix this, but please take care when copying between pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- I already fixed it, I put the bibliography in the references. Thanks anyway. Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not so much. I will start a new section as referencing is a whole new topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- This edit is more of the same regarding primary sources. Any paragraph that starts like "A 2017 paper says..." is going to be primary. Genetics sections become a mish-mash of contradictory information and do not provide a coherent narrative. So again, we need secondary sources. Also, why do we need this section at all when we have the Origin of the Romanians page? All that is needed here is a brief summary of that page and a signpost. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not so much. I will start a new section as referencing is a whole new topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- I already fixed it, I put the bibliography in the references. Thanks anyway. Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- This edit: added text copied from Origin of the Romanians. Per WP:COPYWITHIN you should attribute the source page when copying between pages. The amount is small though, but the real problem here is that it copied in several sfn references wothout checking or adapting them to this page. Now I have found the source, I expect I can fix this, but please take care when copying between pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- But this is not a paper to a genetics conference, it is an encylopaedia article, which should be written in plain English prose. The manual of style is quite clear that prose is preferred, and a list of haplogroups tells the reader nothing. This is a matter of audience. In any case, I see that we also have a similarly problematic section at Origin of the Romanians. That is where detail in this section belongs. This section is duplicating that article, and is largely superfluous. It should just summarise that article. I have removed the worst of the offending data now. There remain significant issues. for instance, having had the discussion above about Ancestry not being reliable, the paragraph has been allowed to stand, just citing namecensus.com. The citation is to a blog, and blogs are not normally WP:RS as they are self published. However I took a look to see if namecensus has any editorial authority, and found nothing. Whois tells me it is hosted by namecheap, by a private registrant who has availed themself of the privacy afforded private registrants. It is thus clearly also self published and not a WP:RS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- My bad mentioning Britannica there, I presume. As for your question, certainly, I can, but that is not quite an attitude to reply to, when you mention 'in plain English prose'. For one, genetics is not a topic that can be easily discussed 'in plain English prose'. It requires more in-depth understanding and research, therefore it is not 'meaningless'. Genetics and science are not meaningless, at least for me. All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Please keep this talk section focused on the genetics section, or there will be an almighty mess, Britannica is discussed in the section below. Rosenborg BK Fan, you say the information I have quoted above is not meaningless. Would you care to explain what it means then? in plain English prose. Such a summary could replace that material. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- P.S.: Eupedia (it's quite an interesting website, in my humble opinion) might be good and if not then please try searching for various scientific journals regarding genetic studies on Romanians via e.g. ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley, RefWorks or the like. Plenty of success! I'll try to see if I can help as well in the near future! Best regards! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Because my concern is with the the meaningless genetics section. Please don't try to introduce a different subject from a different section with this talk section about the genetics information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- I rephrased the paragraph to remove " contradicted the 2017 study" since you didn't like how it sounded. I will ask you why you didn't have the same rigour when RF354 added the incorrect and shameful Encyclopaedia Britannica quote: "From the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Walachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history." when Byzantine, Arab, Jewish and Hungarian chroniclers from the 6th to the 13th century wrote about Vlachs/Romanians (never mind Great Vlachia from the 12th to the 14th century or Second Bulgarian Empire also called Bulgarian–Wallachian Empire from 1185 until 1422). RF354 tried to use Encyclopædia Britannica's reputation and fame as the best academic source in the English language as a shield, as infallible to correction, as always right even though all historical texts contradict that quote. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I will find other souces just namecensus/Neil Edwards. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Not very good, no. What information are you trying to present to the reader? Are you talking about this reference?. This supports the text:
- Okay, so if https://namecensus.com/ notes that AncestryDNA inside Ancestry.com changed what constitues the Balkan DNA in 2021 (now includes Hungary and Romania in the Balkan DNA region as well) is this not good? Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Did you follow the link? Ancestry.com contains information that constitutes reliable primary sources but content is user generated so it is not reliable as a secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- It has a lot of value* sorry autocorrect >.< Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- That part you quoted is not written by me. As for Ancestry.com: it is the largest for-profit genealogy company in the world, it operates a network of genealogical, historical records, and related genetic genealogy websites. I has a lot of value in the study of genetics since it has the biggest human genetic data, it should count for something. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:ANCESTRY, ancestry.com is not a reliable secondary source. Please note I am not proposing deleting ethogenesis prose, the part that is meaningless to readers is this:
- More accurately the AncestryDNA genetics section inside the bigger Ancestry.com. Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Referencing
This page has inconsistent referencing. There are 30 sfn references but about 150 inline references. It appears information is being copied from pages with sfn without adapting the references (a problem not unique to this page). I was going to just fix these until I saw there were 30 of them. Instead, I will create a bibliography so the references work at least. We then could do with a discussion as to what the best referencing style actually is. Although there are more of the inline style, the origins page uses sfn, and sfn does make a page easier to edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- The three sfn references in the genetics section now work with a bibliography. I cannot immediately find the other sfn sources, and no more time now. There are still therefore a lot of broken sfn references in this article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Genetics section
Regarding these studies. I need a direct quote within the reference brackets (not the main text) to verify them as they go against mainstream genetic findings.
In your edit summary you basically say the whole new section you added is WP:Original research. (Misplaced Pages doesn't want direct quotes but to explain scientific data but now you don't want scientific data explained from studies used as source reference) RF354 (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, friend, it is hard to distinguish between Romanians and Hungarians based upon their DNA, and even harder to distinguish between Romanians and Bulgarians. I speak of 21st century people. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- But
modern Bulgarians, highlighting highest resemblance between them and Romanians, Northern Italians and Northern Greeks?
This seems to be a rough generalization and WP:Original Research. RF354 (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- But
- B-Class European history articles
- Mid-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- B-Class Romania articles
- Top-importance Romania articles
- All WikiProject Romania pages
- B-Class Ethnic groups articles
- High-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- B-Class Anthropology articles
- Mid-importance Anthropology articles
- Former good article nominees