Talk:Romanians

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)

Only if this is done for every other ethnic group in Europe on Wikipedia 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

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.[clarification needed] 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?[1]. 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 Wikipedia 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: [2] 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 [3] 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)

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. (Wikipedia 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)