Talk:History of Transylvania

Trajan's Column correct picture

Hi Aristeus01, can we settle the disagreement here about whether or not people can recognize what is happening on the full and unedited Trajan's Column, and that is it better than the previous image ([1])? I don't understand the logic in your revert reason ([2]), but we can make that happen by summoning an RfC, if you consent. What do you think? Gyalu22 (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

hi @Gyalu22! Sounds like a good idea. Aristeus01 (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, what do RS say, issue solved. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC

Can readers recognize what is happening on the illustrations of the full and unedited picture of Trajan's Column or should we break it up to edited version(s)? See the chapter § Ancient history. Gyalu22 (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close. I do not see that the editors who disagree on this have made any effort to discuss and resolve this matter before starting an RfC, and that is required. Talk about it first, see if you can come to an agreement, and if you hit an impasse, then an RfC might be appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I can't identify what the column shows from the current picture and I think other readers can't too. Aristeus01 believes the opposite. Can you give any advice on how the two of us can decide which possibility is better for readers? Gyalu22 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade thank you for joining.

  I confirm that what gyalu22 said is the root if the discussion. So we can kick-start a discussion: from my view the image offers more detail than a simple frame from the monument and I think that is more informative for the reader. It can also be zoomed in on the PC version. We are very fortunate to have such detailed images available and it would be a shame to not use them. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, see, there we go. Now we know what everyone's position is, and why. So talk about it, and see if you can come to an agreement. (Is there, by the way, any reason that both images couldn't be used in the article? That should seem to me the simplest solution.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  The resolution of the image is indeed very good, but my point is rather at the reader's ability to infer what is happening. The Column's informative value shouldn't be forgotten. We can make use of that if we divide it up and provide the frames with explanatory captions. Otherwise, it's nice, but its stories remain esoteric and it can't illustrate the events that well. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am a picture fan, I usually put many images to articles (maybe sometimes too much), so for me would be ok to keep both. That depiction is related to the ancient history of Transylvania. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Or we can combine both: realistic photo and detailed, examples:

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colonna_di_Traiano,_particolare_(27660411886).jpg

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IT_Roma_1106_(42)_(17069153470).jpg

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colonna_di_Traiano,_particolare_(27620575891).jpg

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colonna_di_Traiano,_particolare_(27416680210).jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Those are some great images, @OrionNimrod, thank you! I would not mind using a couple of them. Aristeus01 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  @OrionNimrod Yes, I was referring to similar pictures.

  @Aristeus01 Here are the scenes with descriptions if you click the icon at the bottom: http://www.trajans-column.org/?page_id=107 http://www.trajans-column.org/?page_id=578 Gyalu22 (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Aristeus01 so how did you decide? Do you agree that we change back to the previous picture and use separate pictures and captions when we want to give an illustration to an event from the wars? Gyalu22 (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Gyalu22 no. The column itself is important. We can perhaps replace it and the denarii with a closer image like the first OrionNimrod proposed, but individual separate frames won't do it justice. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why? Gyalu22 (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Because the monument itself, not a specific scene from it, is the most quoted example of recorded history of the Dacian Wars in historical studies. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  To put in the whole monument is not a quotation because no one will be able to understand what the scenes say. If we insert them separately, then they will have a meaning. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  That is just your opinion, your preference. Again, the sources speak of the entire monument, not just a single frame.

  Going on the thread of smaller images, here is another example:

  File:IT Roma 1106 (53) (16636497943).jpg - Wikimedia Commons but the quality is not as good as in the current image. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have no problem to show the big column as mark of the Dacian Roman wars, but it would be good to show some detailed images with description of the current scene. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  @OrionNimrod that could work. Perhaps one instead the denarius image? Aristeus01 (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  In my opinion, the coin is pretty cool. And it represents the provincial era, while column is more about war times. I think there's enough space in § Roman-Dacian Wars to put back at least the image of the Dacian population. Gyalu22 (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I'm fine with that. Aristeus01 (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think the column and its reliefs a great piece of art, it would be good to show a close up photo with description. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Undefined ref

@Netpartizán: please fill in a source for the ref that you named "kypos". -- Fyrael (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Content

Hi Aristeus01

I removed this unrelated content from the Hungarian conquest chapter [3]

But could you explain what is this? Why did you readded? I really do not understand. I suppose the" history of Transylvania" article is about the key history events not a deailed archeology book. Why should we list "Blandina A, B, C, D, E, F..." "Pemilor X2, X3, X5..." archeolgy sites? Are these info important regarding the historical events in Transylvania? Why should we only emphasize 4 sites 400 years long between 800-1200? Should I add more hundred additonal sites in the list? Should we list every single Dacian, Roman, Gepid, Goth, Avar, Hungarian... cemetery? Should we list every single pottery and findings on those sites? It would easier just put a image where the archeology sites are marked as dots. Did you see in other Wiki articles to list archeology sites one by one? I did not see ever. Or it should be a separate article "archeology sites in Transylvania". What is the connection listing site with the Christianity chapter? The chapter clearly say it was Christianity in Transylvania in the period of 9-13th century. What is the connection with the "the culture of the Transylvanian highland" in 1000m with the Christianity? Too much "possible", instead of real key events? Btw we know well Transylvania was never empty, locals did not evaporated, just mixed always with newcomers. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod

Yes, of course we should add more information pertaining to Archaeology branch of history and you are most welcomed, at least from my point of view, to do so. After all, the page is called History of Transylvania. As for how much in detail we should go, we can always discuss on concrete cases. The addition of this type of data is already accepted in the article:

"The earliest Hungarian artifacts found in Transylvania date to the first half of the 10th century. The very typical feature of the Asian Hun and European Hun cemeteries is the partial horse burials, almost in all Hun graves there are only remain of horses. Outside the Huns, only the Hungarians used partial horse burials. This ancient tradition that went through centuries, it is easily identifiable in the Huns and Hungarians graves. Archeologists also found this kind of horse burial in Transylvania. During joint research, archaeologists from the University of Sibiu (Romania) and the University of Tübingen (Germany) excavated one of the most important Hungarian cemeteries from the time of the Hungarian conquest near Orăștie (Szászváros in Hungarian) in 2005. According to Romanian archeologist Marian Tiplic, the excavated graves refer to the second generation of Hungarian conquerors, the skeletons found here are the remains of the Gyula tribe. It was a permanent settlement, the location of which, on top of a hill, suggests that the goal of the Hungarian was to control the valley of the Mureș. Hungarian cemeteries from the 9th and 10th centuries were also unearthed at Cluj-Napoca (Kolozsvár in Hungarian), Gâmbaș (Marosgombás in Hungarian), and other Transylvanian sites. A coin minted under Berthold, Duke of Bavaria (reign 938–947) found near Turda indicates that Transylvanian Magyars participated in western military campaigns. Although their defeat in the 955 Battle of Lechfeld ended Magyar raids against western Europe, raids on the Balkan Peninsula continued until 970. Linguistic evidence suggests that after their conquest, the Magyars inherited the local social structures of the conquered Pannonian Slavs; in Transylvania, there was intermarriage between the Magyar ruling class and the Slavic élite."

so I do not understand why the discussed information should be treated differently. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Aristeus01 Those Hungarian content are sentences (btw those were there a long time ago before my first edit) not a list with arcehological codenames and "possible influence" speculation. It is quite out of the style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Information_style_and_tone. I checked the source, somewhere it use "?" "Ciumbrud (south Danubian influence Christian?)", it is important to list speculations with "?" ? Do we have space for those things in a long wiki history page? The Hungarian related content shows an uique type of burial and the time of the apperance of the first conqueros there, tribe names, settlements, related history story. Morover the deleted list shows only 4 sites in a wide timeline between 9-12th century, it does not clear the exact period of each, while the Hungarian story match to the content, focusing to the conquest period. Btw how fit that list to the Christianity chapter? What about the "possible" highlanders 1000m? Along these groups, Gh Baltag introduced the concept of Table land culture that defines a local population of the 8th to 10th centuries, living on the high altitude areas (600-800m). His argument is represented by the unusual ceramic discovered on the site of Albeşti, Mureş County. Speculation based on 1 ceramic item? Is this a Christianity history event? Is this really important in a such a long article with many important history events? OrionNimrod (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod

Certainly that taken out of context, the rescued text might appear questionable. I would kindly remind you that it was added there as a continuation of the paragraph:

"According to supporters of the Daco-Roman continuity theory, Transylvania was populated by Romanians at the time of the Hungarian conquest. Opponents of this theory assert that Transylvania was sparsely inhabited by peoples of Slavic origin and Turkic people. The presence of Slavs is confirmed by archaeology, but no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest."

With or without the logical connection or the overall debate, I do think it is important to have these scientific results in the article. I am still quite perplexed on why we did not add them previously, considering the claim of knowledge on the topic. I mean, actual, physical evidence from a period of 3-400 years from the history of the area when we have little written evidence must at least be mentioned.

If the issue is the connection of the text with the rest of the paragraph, I propose the following: moving the " funerary rite and rituals" at the beginning of the sentence, since this is a religious-connected practice:

"Based on the funerary rite and rituals, Transylvania was multi-ethnic in the period of 9th to 12th centuries, being inhabited by several cultural groups according to Romanian-German archaeologist Kurt Horedt:

(list)

"and removing the paragraph:

"In addition, Romanian archeologist Gheorghe Baltag, based on his research at Albești site, Mureș County, defined "the culture of the Transylvanian highland", referring to a possible indigenous culture in higher areas (over 600m and up to 900-1000m) between 8th and 10th centuries."

which to me is just a speculation (but again, I am obviously not an expert on Transylvanian archaeology). Aristeus01 (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01, btw I read the full chapter [4] the deleted content is from the very end in the source. And the majority of archeology part in the very detailed sections talk about mostly the Hungarian remains (and before Avars, Slavs), but somehow the summarize at the end just mention Kurdt Horedt from 1950s which was used here.

So I see, you like that source, becuuse mentions "Romanians" based by speculation. In this case I think, this could be add to the demographic section. I also find interesting things in the source regarding archeology:

The history of the Romanian territories between the end of the 9th century to the beginning of the 12th is still a debated subject. Due to the lack of archaeological data that could prove the existence of the Romanian population in Transylvania, starting with the 19th century, the Romanian historiography transformed the stages of the formation of Romanian people into a political issue related to that time’s status-quo. The archaeological researches of the early medieval period of the Transylvanian territories are a necessity since the historiography has little resources to call on the written evidences of the events of 9th to 12th centuries. Identifying archaeological artefacts belonging to the Hungarian population within the Carpathian Basin is only a routine exercise for today’s archeologists.Warrior inhumations, particularities of their outfit and weaponry were related to the Hungarian Conquest Period since, in 1834, when western coins dated the 10th century were first found. On the next decays, Romanian Ethno genesis as well as the formation of the Romanian Medieval states captured the interests of scholars. Not always those informations were also pertinent, so as a consequence various critical analysis were elaborated. One of these critical reviews materialized in 1990 on an article by Radu Popa256 Given the circumstances of the medieval archaeology, regarded as a branch of the Romanian historical researches, it is not a surprise that a big part of the results are corrupted and unreal. The new wave of young archaeologists which emerged after 1990 has a difficult task: to get rid of the lumber from previous archaeological researches , the one who, in the early ‘90s established a new direction on the medieval Romanian archaeological researches. He is the one that critically analyzed all the thesis of the Romanian historiography related to the emergence of Romanian states and their relations to the Arpadian royalty and the Transylvanian population.

I also find similar by other Romanian authors:

Andrei Gandila: Cultural Encounters on Byzantium’s Northern Frontier, c. AD 500-700 Coins, Artifacts and History, Cambridge 2018

"Although to some extent the manipulation of archaeological material was true of most Eastern European schools between 1945 and 1989, the Romanian case became the most conspicuous in its attempt to distort the past in order to serve the communist regime’s quest for legitimacy in the 1970s and 1980s."

"The nationalistic discourse dominating the last communist decades in Eastern Europe distorted not only the interpretation of the archaeological evidence discussed in the previous chapter, but also views on the development of Christianity. Most studies shared a common agenda: to demonstrate the cultural continuity of the Daco-Roman population across centuries of vicissitude when the descendants of the Roman colonists had to deal with numerous barbarian invasions, while struggling to maintain their connection to the Roman world and assimilate the newcomers into their superior culture."

"Such theories developed in the 1970s and 1980s in the context of national-communism remain firmly entrenched in historiography to this day."

Florin Curta [5] “A leading Romanian medievalist, Radu Popa in a devastating critique published first in Romanian, then in German, Popa accused Romanian archaeologists of having paid lip service to Ceaucescu’s regime and of having manipulated the archaeological evidence to meet the demands of his nationalist policies in Transylvania. One of Popa’s targets was the group of archaeologists excavating the early medieval hillfort at Dabaca, near Cluj-Napoca. During the late 1960s through 1989, the site was repeatedly identified with the capital city of Gelou, a Romanian duke mentioned in Gesta Hungarorum as having opposed the conquest of Transylvania by Tuhutum. Romanian archaeologists made every possible effort to turn Dabaca into a Transylvanian Troy and to prove that the Gesta was a reliable source for the medieval history of (Romanian) Transylvania. Popa criticized not only this historicist stance, but also the manipulation of the archaeological evidence in order to match the historical record. Moreover, despite extensive excavations designed to produce substantial evidence of a Romanian occupation of the site prior to the Magyar conquest, to this day no results have been published.” OrionNimrod (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @OrionNimrod

I'm not going to lie, I am slightly disappointed that we resort to the same antiques of "you like" and "theories developed in the 1970s and 1980s". It is 2024 after all, although some act like its the 1930s, and, regardless of editor, sources created by Romanians cannot be excluded from the history of an area... in Romania.

But if we are to be objective and follow Curta's thinking the we should also take this into account:

"Bona's perversely Kossinist approach has its roots in a long tradition established by the "Budapest school" of archaeology. His obstinate focus on ethnic interpretation and political interpretation did not go unnoticed and were promptly denounced."

so the following parts of the article should also come under question:

"By 376 a new wave of migratory people, the Huns, led by Uldin defeated and expelled the Visigoths, setting up their own headquarters in what was Dacia Inferior. Hoping to find refuge from the Huns, Fritigern (a Visigothic leader) appealed to the Roman emperor Valens in 376 to be allowed to settle with his people on the south bank of the Danube. However, a famine broke out and Rome was unable to supply them with food or land. As a result, the Goths rebelled against the Romans for several years. The Huns fought the Alans, Vandals, and Quadi, forcing them toward the Roman Empire. Pannonia became the centre during the peak of Attila's reign (435–453).

The race of Huns, long shut off by inaccessible mountains, broke out in sudden rage against the Goths and drove them in widespread confusion from their old homes. The Goths fled across the Danube and were received by Valens without negotiating any treaty.- Paulus Orosius: Histories against the Pagans

Dating from 425 to 455, the Transylvanian traces of the Huns lie in the lowlands of the Mureș valley. The most important testimonies of the Hun rule are the two separate sets of coins discovered at Sebeș. Between the 420s and 455, Hun princes and lords established summer residences in Transylvania. The newest discoveries strengthens the theory that there was a more serious Hun military presence in Transylvania."

and

"The earliest Hungarian artifacts found in Transylvania date to the first half of the 10th century. The very typical feature of the Asian Hun and European Hun cemeteries is the partial horse burials, almost in all Hun graves there are only remain of horses. Outside the Huns, only the Hungarians used partial horse burials. This ancient tradition that went through centuries, it is easily identifiable in the Huns and Hungarians graves. Archeologists also found this kind of horse burial in Transylvania. During joint research, archaeologists from the University of Sibiu (Romania) and the University of Tübingen (Germany) excavated one of the most important Hungarian cemeteries from the time of the Hungarian conquest near Orăștie (Szászváros in Hungarian) in 2005. According to Romanian archeologist Marian Tiplic, the excavated graves refer to the second generation of Hungarian conquerors, the skeletons found here are the remains of the Gyula tribe. It was a permanent settlement, the location of which, on top of a hill, suggests that the goal of the Hungarian was to control the valley of the Mureș. Hungarian cemeteries from the 9th and 10th centuries were also unearthed at Cluj-Napoca (Kolozsvár in Hungarian), Gâmbaș (Marosgombás in Hungarian), and other Transylvanian sites. A coin minted under Berthold, Duke of Bavaria (reign 938–947) found near Turda indicates that Transylvanian Magyars participated in western military campaigns. Although their defeat in the 955 Battle of Lechfeld ended Magyar raids against western Europe, raids on the Balkan Peninsula continued until 970. Linguistic evidence suggests that after their conquest, the Magyars inherited the local social structures of the conquered Pannonian Slavs; in Transylvania, there was intermarriage between the Magyar ruling class and the Slavic élite."

for example, pardon my repetition.

But our disagreement is not on some 1990 theories, it is, from my point of view, on the relevance of the data in the rescued text. And to complement the sources you mentioned and strengthen the importance of those archaeological finds here are a few more:

"When do similar assemblages with handmade pottery appear inside the Carpathian Arc? It is not easy to answer that question, primarily because handmade pottery (including shapes that are directly comparable to the so-called Prague type)are known from assemblages that can be dated to the 6th century and have been attributed to the Gepids. For example, at Rákoczifalva (near Szolnok, on the Middle Tisza river), handmade pottery appears together with wheel-made potterywith burnished or stamped decoration. Handmade pottery appears together with wheel-made pottery with burnished or stamped decoration in three assemblages of the 6th-century settlement excavated in Moreşti, near Târgu Mureş, in the heart of Transylvania."

An ironic smile: the Carpathian Mountains and the migration of the Slavs - Florin Curta

"Transylvania entered the Hungarians’ sphere of interest from the beginning, but the actual situation of the region before the conquest is difficult to reconstruct due to the extremely poor written sources and a rather rudimentary archaeological knowledge. Although there has been some progress over the past century, no one has yet outlined a credible picture of what Transylvania might have looked like around the year 1000, a picture that could be equally accepted by any historiographical approach.

The archaeological remains show that Transylvania was inhabited by a heterogeneous population"

Church Archaeology in Transylvania (ca. 950 to ca. 1450) - Daniela Marcu-Istrate

"Transylvanian archaeology as such at present is experiencing a revival as well. The heritage and the school of Béla Pósta were newly established in Cluj by the Béla Pósta Association and the Transylvanian Museum Society, who for many years has been organizing annual archaeological conferences and also created a by now well-established archaeological school for Hungarian students focusing mostly on local sites. Important schools and excavations were organized emphasizing the medieval history of Transylvania and establishing a first generation of medieval archaeologists in the region."

Archaeology in Transylvania - Csaba Szabó

As for the locations themselves:

Necropola medieval timpurie de la Alba Iulia-Str. Brânduşei. Cercetările arheologice din anii 1997-2008

The early medieval necropolis from Alba Iulia - Izvorul Împăratului. Archaeological researches in 2014

Byzantine influences in the Carpathian Basin around the turn of the millennium. The pillared church of Alba Iulia

The Military Suite from Alba Iulia-Emperor’s Spring’s Necropolis

So we have numerous sources dealing with the content we discuss. And just like in the case of questioning the relevance of early Christianity in Transylvania, I just do not understand why we side-line the topic. Unless, of course, as Curta said, we mean to follow an "obstinate focus on ethnic interpretation and political interpretation", presenting only information that can be associate with an ethnicity or the other. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aristeus01. The text recently added by this Romanian user is clearly intended to create bias. It is actually a mention of irrelevant opinions from certain Romanian archaeologists. The insertion of a list of random archaeological sites there is also abnormal and inapposite. The whole addition diverges from the style of the article and summary style the article has to take. And probably no one will agree with your solution to also oppositely expand Hungarian views. We should return to the non-speculative and non-theorizing, instead factual-in-nature explanation of the two standpoints and the telling of established history. You can get rid of this if you can argue what's wrong with it. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Gyalu22

"The text recently added by this Romanian user is clearly intended to create bias"

the bias was already created by claiming in Wikivoice the following:

" The presence of Slavs is confirmed by archaeology, but no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest."

the user was correct in correcting that statement to achieve neutrality.

And speaking of bias, twice in your reply you dismiss opinions as "biased" and "irrelevant" because they are Romanian, hence your further claim of "factual-in-nature explanation of the two standpoints and the telling of established history" drops in objective value. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I also dismiss writing down Hungarian opinions (while you embraced the idea of expanding further this way) because they aren't appropriate here. Again, why should we drop the required summary style to explain theories of random scholars? To my understanding, it's correct that no definite evidence of Romanian presence in Transylvania during that time is known, and this is why concurrent standpoints have emerged. Certain scholars may consider certain things to be such (and develop their own hypotheses of them), but that's no cause to start describing each of their researches.

The concurrent standpoints are introduced briefly, and elsewhere the article unfolds its topic regional history (not so much archaeology, especially not so much to discuss specific sites BTW) using data everyone agrees upon. This is in accordance with the editing guidelines, while the novel text isn't. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Precisely, and we should keep these concurrent standpoints to a briefness that does not trigger users to expand with counter-arguments in one direction or another. So from my point of view neither

" but no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest."

and

"Romanian archeologist Marian Tiplic considers that the graves dated in the end of the 9th century and beginning of 10th century, that belong to the Blandiana A and the Ciumbrud cultural groups, represent the last stage in the Romanian people ethnogenesis.

In addition, Romanian archeologist Gheorghe Baltag, based on his research at Albești site, Mureș County, defined "the culture of the Transylvanian highland", referring to a possible indigenous culture in higher areas (over 600m and up to 900-1000m) between 8th and 10th centuries."

are needed, since we already said and established that:

"Conflicting theories exist concerning whether or not the Romanians are a Romanized Dacian population that, surviving the Migration Period remained in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans."

and this should be enough. Whoever wants to know more can check the linked article which far better explains the situation than a few contradicting paragraphs on this page.

For my interest the only part needed from the rescued text is the Kurt Horedt research which is on funerary rites and rituals and strongly connected to the history of Christianity in the area. That we express it as a list or a contiguous text is a matter of style and I do not object either way. But I am not willing to part with the rest of text just because @OrionNimrod wanted it deleted. The article must be written from a neutral point of view. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

My problem was the style and relevance. I have no problem to present more scholar viewpoints. I think what Tiplic says (“we beleive”) should be fit to the demography research section. OrionNimrod (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

So far we've determined that the recently added text is not good in the article. But can we not remove irrelevant speculations in exchange for suitable factual information that is written in accordance to the encyclopedia instructions? That wouldn't be an improvement. Please see the lead of Origin of the Romanians, which also doesn't omit saying the conclusion that no definite evidence exists (and this is the reason that large opposing scholarly theories emerged).

Again, I don't uphold getting rid of appropriate information (whose correctness nor relevance is doubtful), but I'm happy we've reached the starting point that attempting to decrease its weight with subjective archaeology lessons is inappropriate. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't noticed you want to keep Horedt's theory. To that, the same applies as to the other theories. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not see where we determined that the added text is irrelevant speculation and no good for the article. I'm no expert on archaeology, but looking at the sources, and in particular at Curta's study linked a bit earlier, I am not convinced we established facts, not from an archaeological point of view, and what you call subjective archaeology expands to more than one entry.

"The presence of Slavs is confirmed by archaeology, but no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest."

Is not a factual information. Who established this? The sources do not seem as authoritative as one would expect, it is a line cited from a single author. But as a scholarly opinion I understand if you want it kept in the text, or even expanded - as I understand @OrionNimrod leans towards. However, then the same would apply to the other ones. I mean, it's basic logic that expanding means adding more, hence the rescued text should stay and we should add more in the same vein. That is exactly the same principle the article on the Origin of Romanians works.

For the opposite option, towards which you and I seem more favorable, I need to make a clarification, and perhaps I wasn't explicit enough previously: the archaeological sites presented by Horedt and by extension the objects within are real, non-subject to interpretation. So when we say factual, it cannot get more factual than that. Why would we remove facts from the article? And why not remove the duplicate regarding the theories on Origin of Romanians? Aristeus01 (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

If that's not a problem for you, let's get to a point on this first and discuss Horedt separately.

If you hold onto these two lines (Tiplic and Balthag) to balance in your opinion bias created by that other sentence elsewhere, but you otherwise don't consider them an improvement in the article they must be irrelevant. On the other hand, they are also problematic for multiple reasons I already talked about. Basically, they are descriptions of what theories two random scholars set up from their own researches—in the wrong context, where history is and is required to be told in summary style, and not through explaining unique speculations on very specific and abstract archaeology. I can be a reference point to an average reader: despite my greater proficiency on the history of Transylvania, these names don't ring a bell to me—not even to Google Search.

In contrast, I find the study of reputed historian Curta good to be there because whether Hungarians settled Transylvania immediately isn't accepted. It can possibly improve the statement "no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest" you criticize to quote Cambridge, also confirmed by Oxford: "historical, archaeological and linguistic data available [on the presence of Romanians in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest] do not seem adequate to give a definitive answer" (see Origin of the Romanians). I don't accept removing this information altogether, because it is relevant and correct. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes on the first part, and since you agree I will remove them shortly. I mean not to be stubborn, I simply said the text was relevant where it was initially placed as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Out of context, not so much. On the second part, please do not get me wrong, I do not contest the WP:RS, I am saying there is a repetition in regards to the theories and because of its placement it leads to WP:CFORK. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Can you specify which unacceptable case of content fork applies to the text in your opinion? If the case is clear, I will make a second edit, resolving this problem too. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean these two entries:

"Conflicting theories exist concerning whether or not the Romanians are a Romanized Dacian population that, surviving the Migration Period remained in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans."

"According to supporters of the Daco-Roman continuity theory, Transylvania was populated by Romanians at the time of the Hungarian conquest. Opponents of this theory assert that Transylvania was sparsely inhabited by peoples of Slavic origin and Turkic people. The presence of Slavs is confirmed by archaeology, but no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest."

They are both dealing with the same topic. While the first one is a "closed brief", the second one adds more content on the subject. I think they should be conflated. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I think those are not details about the theories just mentioning that we have 2 scholar views, the existence of 2 main theories is fact, that is why we are debating always :) The first one is related to Roman Dacia about 300, I think is relevant. The second one is related to Hungarian conquest about 900 (600 years later event), we know well it is a key debate whether or not the Romanians were Transylvania at the time of conquest, it is relevant, so the first sentence shows 2 scholar views. We can see, those are not details about theories just key views regarding the relevant chapter.

But I think the second part should move to demography/research section, because it shows the archeology but only from one view.

After this: According to Romanian historiography, the uninterrupted presence of a Romanized population in Transylvania is proven by archaeological evidence, including artefacts bearing Christian symbolism, hoards of bronze Roman coins and Roman-style pottery...

It is relevant this to show both views regarding archeology: According to Hungarian historiography, the presence of Slavs is confirmed by archaeology, but no distinctive trace of Romanians had been found in Transylvania at the time of the Hungarian conquest

I think all 3 contents now show both views together. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I can understand your thinking here. There is however a repetition through the article of these summaries of the debate and I am not convince we are not allowing WP:CFORK with them or in some way just bloat the article with repeated information. Anyway, if you think its important then we should probably keep them. Aristeus01 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, (Origin of a people is a big topic) I do not think that would be repetation because this 3 things are different, first mention the theory that Romanians are (or not) Romanized Dacians mentioning there are 2 main scholar views (linking origin of romanians page), regarding Roman Dacia chapter. Second mention, Romanians (Vlachs) present (or not) much later at the time of Hungarian conquest (that is not the question that Vlachs are Dacians or not like before just the possible ot not possible relation with hungarian conqueros) again 2 views presented. The third one is just archeology, and no mention any origin theory just what is the view in Hungarian and Romanian historiography. I think this is balanced in this way. You was right that archeology section was out of the context above that is why somebody put that additional content there as you mentioned as reason. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

And on Horedt: I believe inserting his enigmatic opinion on Blandiana A and Dridu sites in the summary explanation of early Christian religion in Transylvania breaks style and relevance—and thus guidelines. Maybe in the demography section. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If scientific information "breaks style and relevance" of the article then we have a problem with the article. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Rather the style and relevance of that text is problematic. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

2021 Census

The source used is the 2021 census

The following counties are considered to be entirely in the region of Transylvania: Alba, Arad, Bihor, Bistrita-Nasaud, Brasov, Caras-Severin, Cluj, Covasna, Harghita, Hunedoara, Maramures, Mures, Satu Mare, Salaj, Sibiu, Timis.

In Bacau county, the commune considered is Ghimeș-Făget, in Neamt county are Bicazu Ardelean, Bicaz-Chei and Dămuc, in Mehedinti are Orșova, Eșelnița, Dubova and Svinița.

The ethnic composition by county is, considering Romanians, Hungarians, Germans and Not Available:

Alba - Romanians 268,753 - Hungarians 11,494 - Germans 544 - N/A 31,780 - Total 325,941

Arad - Romanians 317,713 - Hungarians 25,731 - Germans 2,000 - N/A 41,301 - Total 410,143

Bihor - Romanians 347,148 - Hungarians 112,387 - Germans 529 - N/A 48,428 - Total 551,297

Bistrita-Nasaud - Romanians 247,935 - Hungarians 11,049 - Germans 261 - N/A 25,398 - Total 295,988

Brasov - Romanians 416,664 - Hungarians 28,221 - Germans 1,853 - N/A 74,884 - Total 546,615

Caras-Severin - Romanians 195,703 - Hungarians 1,424 - Germans 1,364 - N/A 32,114 - Total 246,588

Cluj - Romanians 488,212 - Hungarians 78,455 - Germans 567 - N/A 91,719 - Total 679,141

Covasna - Romanians 42,752 - Hungarians 133,444 - Germans 73 - N/A 14,101 - Total 200,042

Harghita- Romanians 33,634 - Hungarians 232,157 - Germans 62 - N/A 20,949 - Total 291,950

Hunedoara - Romanians 300,972 - Hungarians 9,180 - Germans 500 - N/A 44,870 - Total 361,657

Maramures - Romanians 342,052 - Hungarians 23,153 - Germans 548 - N/A 48,380 - Total 452,475

Mures - Romanians 252,400 - Hungarians 165,014 - Germans 904 - N/A 54,378 - Total 518,193

Satu Mare - Romanians 182,750 - Hungarians 93,491 - Germans 3,722 - N/A 32,698 - Total 330,668

Salaj - Romanians 136,552 - Hungarians 40,554 - Germans 40 - N/A 17,416 - Total 212,224

Sibiu - Romanians 313,119 - Hungarians 6,112 - Germans 2,716 - N/A 52,930 - Total 388,326

Timis - Romanians 484,243 - Hungarians 21,285 - Germans 4,684 - N/A 110,879 - Total 650,533

Bacau (Ghimeș-Făget) - Romanians 2,098 - Hungarians 2,637 - N/A 122 - Total 4,928

Neamt (Bicazu Ardelean, Bicaz-Chei, Dămuc) - Romanians 8,896 - Hungarians 51 - Total 9,878

Mehedinti (Orșova, Eșelnița, Dubova, Svinița) - Romanians 8,770 - Hungarians 17 - Germans 31 - N/A 1460 - Total 12,602

TOTAL: Romanians 4,390,366 (67.7%) - Hungarians 995,856 (15.3%) - Germans 20,398 (0.3%) - Data not available 743,807 (11.5%) - Total 6,489,189 ZZARZY223 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Arad is not Transylvania but in the Great Hungarian Plain. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Temes also not OrionNimrod (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

But those were counted in the previous censuses mentioned in the list, and even Varga E. Árpád includes them [6] ZZARZY223 (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZZARZY223 Then it needs revisit the numbers. Only the green is Transylvania, it would be improper to add different areas: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Romania_Counties_1930-2008.svg

Transylvania is not start in Oradea.

In your link, it says "that calculate those lands total which moved to Romania from Hungary" (including Oradea)

You know well these Romanian regions:

Historical regions of Romania#/media/File:Greater Romania.svg

Banat, Crisana, Maramaros is not Transylvania. But this is Transylvania article. I can say it needs to be expert to know the exact borders, which settlements belongs exactly to Transylvania and calculte only those settlements regarding all census. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)