# Talk:Basarab I of Wallachia

I've changed my mind a lot while editing today, but I didn't break anything if anyone feels the need to tell me that I've broken the rule Wikipedia:Edit warring; it clearly says "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.120.207.251 (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC) 

Hello, the one to be doing personal research input right now are the various admins roaming over here! All I've said is that his name may be coming from the Daco-Thracian substrate from the area. I've cited a book written by a renowned historian and linguist Sorin Paliga. NOTE that I didn't use a verb like "IS" as it was the case with Djuvara's work, expressing the fact that the idea given is INVARAIBLY TRUE. I've used a way more relative term i.e. "support"... 
Until you all get a degree in the matter and publish a book yourself, I don't think you are fit to contest his work! Maybe you are anti-romanian or anti-autochtony, maybe you are now revealing the political bias of Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.120.207.251 (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC) 

WP:DUE: WP content is not based on marginal (and quite obviously fringe) theories. Yes, Paliga tends to prefer etymologies based on his reconstruction of an unknown language ("Daco-Thracian") instead of searching the origin of words in well-documented languages (Turkic, Hungarian, ...). WP:NOR: we cannot make statements about the origin of theories ("Djuvara's theory") or about a community of historians ("Romanian historians" vs "international historiography") without vefifying them. Just a side remark, I am not an admin and I will not be an admin. Borsoka (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I will take the time and translate the entire chapter and put it here if you will. What you consider a fringe theory or not is up to you and it doesn't hold any relevance. I guess you are not a linguist with a phd nor an achieved historian. The fact that one man, i.e. Neagu Djuvara, made a theory that he came up with from nowhere, that isn't backed up by any archeological, sociological or forensic information, just his etymological explanation, and that theory is now STANDARD because occidentals like it, is all pretty rubbish! Meanwhile dozens of academics published works with way more sense in them, that are just overlooked. If you ask me, time has come to put down Djuvara's theory because it's very "fringe" as you like to say. Once more, I've used the term "support". It's wrong to say that Romanian historians cannot even support a theory... When a considerably big number of contemporary Romanian historians do in fact support this theory, I think it's ok to refer to them that way. The fact that you've put tags all over there just shows how stubborn you are. I'm just saying that "Romanian historians support" and that's not WRONG  in any way. Now, will you leave my edits alone for once? Pretty please? Thank you for your interest.
Please read WP:DUE and WP:Fringe: we are not here to spread theories that "currently" do not have "popularity" (as you described it on my Talk page ([1])). Please address the concerns the tags indicate instead of deleting them. Please also read WP:3RR carefully, because edit warring may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Haha, what I've written there is definitely not fringe. "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". It's not the case here, because in the field of linguistics, Paliga's theory is well documented. Can you stop bullying me already with this rule? That's the only thing you've got? Read the matter yourself if you've got doubts and please stop bothering me. There's nothing departing significantly from mainstream scholarly practice in Paliga's work. Also stop using "we", you and who? The entirety of wikipedia editors? I don't know what are your reasons for dogmatically following Djuvara's view, but let me point out to you, that it's very criticized in the academic circles in Romania. The only people that agree with it are foreigners that write random stuff on the internet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.120.207.251 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think the Romanian historian Victor Spinei accept the traditional theory? (By the way, it was not developed by Djuvara. It was popularised by him in Romania.) Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Why is that theory mainstream? Who declared it mainstream? What institute? what authorithy? None. It's everything but traditional. Once again, you are delving into matters you are not very aware of.
Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you. If you want to learn how to edit WP articles, please seek assistance at WP:TEAHOUSE. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
In the upcoming days I will edit in the entire theory of the name "Basarab" and you'll see that it has it's roots in indo-european linguistics. As for "proper weight", it has proper weight because this theory is written in a book written in collaboration with an anthropologist and an archaeologist, and it circulates in the academic circles. Currently there are not many people who consider Djuvara's theory mainstream or even popular at the moment...   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.120.207.251 (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"He practically founded the principality of Wallachia."
I've removed this until we can sort out what it should actually say. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 15:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The name Basarab is considered as being of Cuman origin, meaning "Father King", Basar-Aba."
And I've removed this pending information on who considers this, and why (and what might be said against it). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
It's correct that the name is of Cuman origin. See history articles of Neagu Djuvara. bogdan | Talk 15:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
OK — it was perhaps just the way that it was expressed. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If anyone here has the time paitence and ability it would hel this article greatly to add information to the articl from its Romanian Counterpart. http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basarab_I Tnu1138 (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

When writing of a war between Wallachia and Hungary in 1335, Tudor Sălăgean refers to unspecified "historical sources" in his excellent summary of the medieval history of the lands that now form Romania. Gyula Kristó does not make any mention of the same wars in his very detailed monography on the wars of the Anjou kings of Hungary. I think that those "historical sources" should be specified in order to substantiate Sălăgean's reference to this specific war. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Romanian and Hungarian historians are impartial if you ask me.

They may be biased, but Sălăgean explicitly writes of unspecified "historical sources". Please sign your messages. Borsoka (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Basarab might had Slavic roots the name is very common in countries like Russia, Ukraine or Poland. Statistics can be found here Basarab name

Thank you for your message. Please read WP:NOR. Academic works unanimously write that Basarab's name is of Turkic origin. Consequently, we can only state this theory in this article. If some academic works also substantiate the theory that his name is of Slavic origin, we can mention it. However, without proper sources, this theory cannot be presented in the article. Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Basarab I of Wallachia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 11:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Borsoka, I will perform a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks for all your hard work on this article! -- West Virginian  (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Borsoka, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article and I assess that it easily exceeds Wikipedia Good Article criteria. Prior to its final passage, however, I do have a few comments and suggestions that should first be addressed. I want to take this opportunity to thank and commend you for all your extraordinary works documenting the lives of Hungarian, Romanian, and other Balkan nobility and royalty! Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding my comments. -- West Virginian  (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
West Virginian, first of all thank you for your thorough and comprehensive review. Please find my comments below. Please let me know if any further action is needed to complete the procedure. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, this lede adequately defines Basarab, establishes context for Basarab, explains why Basarab is notable, and summarizes the most important points of Basarab's life.
Since Hungary is mentioned as the Kingdom of Hungary, would it be appropriate to mention Serbia as the Kingdom of Serbia and wiki-linked to Kingdom of Serbia (medieval)?
Modified. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Could the statement "Basarab's descendants ruled Wallachia for centuries." be quantified?
I added that they "ruled Wallachia for at least two centuries". Unfortunatelly, none of the sources cited in the article clarify this issue, but it is clear that Wallachia was ruled by his descendants in the 16th century. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The info box template is beautifully formatted, its contents are cited within the text, and the image is released to the public domain and is therefore acceptable to use here.
The lede is otherwise well-written and includes content that is adequately cited within the prose below with sources that are referenced, accessible, and verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.
Origins

While this is not a deal breaker for Good Article status, I wonder if Basarab was both Catholic AND Orthodox. Given the timeline, he was Catholic at the time he received the correspondence from the Pope, then over twenty years later he was described as a "perfidious schismatic." With that said, I wonder if a change in religious sympathies had to do with his falling out with Catholic Hungary. This is all mere speculation, but I was curious if you had found any information that supported any of these theories. With all that said, this section is written well and meets Good Article criteria as is.
Actually, I think that the pope, or rather the pope's scribe, who wrote identical letters to 5-6 high officials of Charles I of Hungary on the same day, did not change the wording when he completed the 6th or 7th copy of the same letter which was to be sent to Basarab (who was officially also an official of Charles I). Consequently, I think that Basarab was always Orthodox and the pope's scribe was wrong when he called him "a devout Catholic prince" in his 6th or 7th copy of the same letter. But this is my own OR. :) Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
This section is otherwise well-written, and includes content that is adequately cited within the prose with sources that are referenced, accessible, and verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.
Reign

Thocomerius and Banat of Severin need only be wiki-linked once at each's first mention in the article's prose.
Delinked. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Both images in this section have been released to the public domain and are acceptable for use here in this article.
This section is otherwise well-written, and includes content that is adequately cited within the prose with sources that are referenced, accessible, and verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.
Family

This section is well-written, and includes content that is adequately cited within the prose with sources that are referenced, accessible, and verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.
Legacy

The image of the Princely Church of St. Nicholas is released to the public domain and is therefore acceptable for use here.
As was mentioned regarding the Lede section, is it possible to quantify how many centuries Basarab's descendants ruled Wallachia?
Modified. See my comment above. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
This section is otherwise well-written, and includes content that is adequately cited within the prose with sources that are referenced, accessible, and verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.
Borsoka, thank you for addressing my comments and suggestions in such a timely manner! Upon my review and re-review, I find that everything looks to be in order and I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on another job well done, Borsoka! As always, it's been a sincere privilege reviewing you phenomenal article. -- West Virginian  (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Shakshak31: I would highly advise you to revert your edits to the original revision and explain yourself here.
This sourced text was removed by you; BasaCrab's name implies that he was of uman or Pecheneg ancestry, but this hypothesis has not been proven.
Why?
You also changed the lede; Although his name is of Turkic origin, 14th-century sources unanimously state that he was a Vlach. ->  There are multiple theories about his ethnicity.
And that's your current edit. Before I reverted you, you even removed even more sourced info [2], such as A scholarly hypothesis states that he was descended from Seneslau, a mid-13th-century Vlach lord. WP:TENDENTIOUS at its best. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran No, i just delete "but this hypothesis has not been proven" part because given sources does not say this. Also, it was already written that his name was of Turkic origin, but it was changed by an IP editor. You can look at Old versions of the article [3]--Shakshak31 (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, Laurentiu Radvan says on page 129 that he was a "Romanianized Turk". [4]--Shakshak31 (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Another source: "According to scholar Neagu Djuvara, this correspondence with the Holy See proves that Basarab was a Catholic, which also testifies to Basarab's Cuman origin, because the Cumans had been baptized according to Catholic rite.[16]"--Shakshak31 (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Shakshak31: Uh no, this is the original revision by @Borsoka: who has made this article a GA [5], which you are now disrupting. You forgot to mention the part in the citation where it says; The ethnical origin of the later is subject to debate, some claiming him to be Pecheneg or Cuman which seems to fit pretty well with the statement. Also, in what world does Romanianized Turk mean that he was a Turk? And also what about the two other citations? You still haven't answered why you changed the lede either, or why you removed even more sourced info earlier, not to mention you haven't reverted your edit. Tell me why I shouldn't report you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
User:HistoryofIran Other given source. Read page 153. [6]
..@Shakshak31: Which amongst other things says: Basrab and his family were also presumably of Cuman extraction, founded a dynasty, and became Romanians. And I quote Romanians. Anyways, does that mean screw the other sources/information because they didn't fit your view? I'm not reading anything more until you answer my questions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean the given sources does not say that. "but this hypothesis has not been proven"   What's wrong with deleting it?--Shakshak31 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Shakshak31: The source doesn't have to say that exact thing, it still implies the same nonetheless. That's one question (kinda) answered, cheers. What about the rest? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Where are the other parts that you find wrong? "There are multiple theories about his ethnicity." sentence is already true because some historians claim his father was Chingisid, some historians claim he was a cuman some historians claim he was a vlach etc. There is nothing wrong with that sentence.--Shakshak31 (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shakshak31: Because he wasn't a Turk, the source you added above literally says the same (this was the original text which you removed this Although his name is of Turkic origin, 14th-century sources unanimously state that he was a Vlach.). He was a Romanian/Vlach, this was already well explained in the article. He may have had Turkic ancestors, but he certainly was not one of them. You still haven't answered the rest of my questions, and you're barely even answering these ones. I have frankly giving up trying to work with you. Last chance, revert your edits and reach WP:CONSENSUS or I'll report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
No, I didn't delete that sentence. It's still there. Also i didn't add a new source i add only link of the source. If you want remove the "There are multiple theories about his ethnicity." part you can. But i don't see anything wrong with that sentence. --Shakshak31 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The theory, as it is presented in the article, shows all features of a fringe theory. Paliga makes connection between words that are similar to each other and states that they are connected to each other without substantiating his statement. A similar approach was adopted by Hungarian nationalistic "scholars" more than a hundred years ago, who stated that the name of Adan is of clear Hungarian origin, because "ad" is a pure Hungarian word ("to give"). Are there respected Romanian historians who accept Paliga's views? Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
(Relevant discussion copyied from my Talk page:)

Hello Borsoka. I've seen that once again you've took interest in editing my contribution. I'd like to point out to you that the modern Romanian language does indeed have a Daco-Thracian substrate, fact agreed upon by all universities in this country and abroad. There's no reason to put a undue weight tag there... As for the rest of the tags, I'll leave them there until we reach a consenus in the talk page. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
1. Yes, "Daco-Thracian" may be the substrate language of Romanian. Or, it is also a possibility, that early medieval Romanians borrowed a specific pastoralist vocabulary from Proto-Albanian and this specific vocabulary is described now as heritage of a supposed substrate language. Both views are mentioned in international scholarly literature. 2. Romanian also borrowed words from Slavic and Turkic languages, from Hungarian, from Western Romance languages. If you understand Hungarian, you certainly realize that the name "Basarab" is extremly similar to two Hungarian words  ("to make love" in slang and "Arab"). Could we assume that the name is of Hungarian origin based on this similarity? No, because similarity does not make a connection. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's not the nicest of assumptions, but you could nullify in the same manner the cuman theory, which is also based on such connections. The Proto-Albanian language may have also derived from a Thracian idiom, hence some similarities between our languages. Your derogatory way of using "pastoralist vocabulary" shows me that you may have indeed a visible adversion to Romanians. Keep going like that and you'll also find your way into ANI.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 02:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
No, the Cumans dominated the Pontic steppes just decades before Basarab's birth and Cumans made up a significant part of the population of the Golden Horde in the 14th century. Making a connection between a language widely spoken in the region in the 12th-14th century and the name of a ruler born in the 13th century is quite logical. However, making connection between a ruler and a language spoken more than a millenium before his birth is a fringe theory. Sorry, but I think my Talk page is not the best place to discuss this issue. Please use the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
(End of discussion copyied from my Talk page.) Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Mate it's 6 in the goddamn morning. There's no rule on Wikipedia that bans me from presenting academics' theories. The way you're saying that Paliga "makes connections between words that are similar to each other" is exactly the same way Djuvara links words to the Cuman language. To me it makes more sense that if every single historical source out there tells us that Basarab is Vlach, then his name must reflect a Vlach heritage. Truth is that both theories aren't conclusive and they must be treated as such. Consequently, it's unfair that you want to totally eliminate the theory that I support, and leave only yours... Why can't we show both of them and let the readers choose for themselves?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I have never read books written by mainstream scholars suggesting that the Vlachs spoke Daco-Thracian. As soon as you can verify that Paliga's statement is not a marginal theory, we can present it. However, we are not here to present all marginal theories of the world, as per WP:DUE and WP:Fringe. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you actually bothered to check out the book, you can see that it's released in 2018, it's quite recent and probably you haven't heard of it, but the facts explained there aren't new. The term marginal doesn't apply here because we aren't talking about exact sciences. It's not like I'm denying gravity or condoning flat earth theories. I'm just presenting an academical work made by a certified historian and linguist with a PhD. Second, there's no standard or scholarly general consensus as to place different views as marginal. There's no institution or renowned historian that says that Basarab is 100% undoubtedly Cuman. The entire deal is still unclear, and never ever will etymological research alone be enough to testify one's background. I know that you probably care for this article, since you've made it GA, but it's time that you let others contribute to it. Thank you. Boyar Bran
Whether Basarab's was a Cuman is not subject of this discussion (especially, because all primary sources describe him as a Vlach). We are discussing whether a theory published in 2018 that has not been discussed in other peer reviewed books should be mentioned in the article, taking into account that it makes a connection between the name of a man living around 1300 and a language that was last documented centuries before. Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I requested a third opinion. Borsoka (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Paliga makes a connection between a name and a language spoken by his people before and after his birth. That language is Romanian which was the result of the romanization of the Dacian/Daco-Thracian language, later substrate of the Romanian language. Boyar Bran (talk)
BTW even that template says "Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view."...different points of view. Generally Wikipedia has a policy that is against dogmatic thinking i.e. sticking strictly to just one theory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 05:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you quote Paliga's statement that Basarab's name is of Romanian origin? A Celtic idiom is the substrate languages of English, but we cannot say that the name Owen is of English origin, because it is of Celtic origin. Even if Daco-Thracian is the substrate language of Romanian (which is also an unproven theory), we cannot say that Basarab's name is of Romanian origin based on Paliga's proposal of the name's possible Daco-Thracian origin. Paliga makes a connection between a poorly attested language that died out in the 6th-7th century at the latest (Daco-Thracian) and the name of a ruler who was born in a region inhabited by a Turkic- and Romanian-speaking population in the late 13th century. In this case, the best solution is the deletion of this marginal (and likely fringe) theory. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you, because we should allow third parties to make comments without reading a large wall of texts. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Saying that Daco-Thracian isn't a substrate of a language known in international linguistics as Daco-Romanian is a very bold statement! It comes without say that Paliga obviously means that Basarab is a name coming from the Romanian language. I'm not happy that you seem to harbour anti-romanian sentiments. Please check out the Romanian language wikipage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 05:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I did not say that Daco-Thracian is not a substrate of Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian (the four descendants of the common Proto-Romanian language). I only said this was only one of the theories published in peer-reviewed books. All editors would be grateful if you could concentrate on the core of this debate: is Paliga's theory accepted by mainstream Romanian historians? Borsoka (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)ve
You clearly said that Daco-Thracian has nothing to do with the modern Romanian language, don't hide it now. Can you speak in your name, "all editors" seem to be just you. As for Sorin Paliga, yes he is a respected historian and he is mainstream. Note that the Daco-Thracian words he used are also documented by many Bulgarian historians and linguists which have researched Thracian etymologies. So this theory isn't the work of Sorin Paliga alone. As far as I'm concerned yes, he is mainstream.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 06:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
1. I have never said that Daco-Thracian has nothing to do with modern Romanian. I only stated that this connection is only a theory, coexisting with other scholarly theories. 2. Yes, Bulgarian, Hungarian, German, etc. linguists agree that there are about 80 words of possible subtrate origin. Basarab is not listed among these words, only by Paliga. That is why his view should be treated as a marginal/fringe theory. Borsoka (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Those aprox. 80 words, are words that are exclusively found in Daco-Thracian and haven't suffered any change. They don't refer to the forms, prefixes and suffixes that have been inherited through other languages (which are way more consistent in numbers.). As you can see Basarab is a name that has changed a lot through the ages and naturally it doesn't belong to that list of 80 words. Bran (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Words that have not suffered any change for centuries! Nice idea. Nevertheless, if you could refer to linguists who accept Paliga's theory, we should not continue this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Wow, 80 words out of a modern language, which generally has between 40.000 and 60.000+ words, unbelievable. I'm sure there are plenty words in Hungarian which are unique to Hungarian. Anyway this is not the topic. Topic is that I've explained again and again, that you have no right to delete a sourced theory. Thank you. Bran (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Borsoka has fully right, moreover just alone the Daco-Thracian hypothesis is controversial, as well it's possible relation to the Romanian language, which is neither proved or share academic consensus. You should not confuse assumptions with facts.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC))
The theory he is supporting isn't fact either. It's just another assumption and it is not standard. Not even Neagu Djuvara meant to say that he is certain about the cuman theory. I don't care where Borsoka brought you from, but another user said that you are not allowed to remove sourced info. Side fact: User:Shakshak31 that did just that got banned. I can also call my friends and tell them to aid me over here, but I don't. Bran (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The main difference between the two theories are the following: 1. The Cuman origin is supported my multiple scholars (including Romanian historians). 2. The Cuman origin takes into account 13th-14th century ethnic realities. 3. Scholars supporting the Cuman theory has not proposed that the Summerian script originated in the lands now forming Romania and has not associated Hungarian words as elements of the substrate of the Romanian language. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Boyar Bran,
nobody brought me here, btw. it seems you don't understand some of our basic policies (I checked the user's history you mentioned, I don't see any ban, did I miss something?). As well, Borsoka's summarization is correct, from this all case I just recall when a someone tried to prove a few years ago Romanian topnyms being of Sumerian origin, and after it turned out all of them was toponyms of Hungarians origin, the nominator had to withdraw his theory since without wanting he proved something different he originally wanted, the all ended in a very ridiculous way...I am not sure it the person was not Paliga, but this show will end up here, the page will be restored to the last table version per policy, and explicit consensus needed for any change from now on.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC))
@Boyar Bran: please read WP:DUE. Why do you think a recently developed theory about a link between a 14th-century rulers' name and a language spoken centuries before his birth should be presented in the article? Please remember you have not been able to refer to a single historian accepting this theory, while the theory about the name's Cumanian origin is proposed by multiple scholars, including Romanian historians. Borsoka (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This theory isn't new, when I'l gett access I'll put more books that show this theory. As for the Daco-Dhracians words they were researched by multiple scholars from different countries: Bulgaria, Serbia, etc... Bran (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Thracian, Dacian words are researched by hundreds of scholars. And you cannot refer to a single of them to verify that Pal8ga's claim is not marginal. Borsoka (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not familiar to this topic, but three sentences caught my eyes.

​but this hypothesis has not been proven.
Is this what the three sources say? Or did someone else put this because "2 other conflicting claim". Can someone point out which, if yes.

Atleast four royal charters from the 14th century refer to Basarab as a Vlach.
Is this an original research or did the writers (secondary source) imply "he's a Vlach because ... sources called him so"? If not, I have other comments.

Charles I of Hungary referred to him as "Basarab, our disloyal Vlach" in 1332.
Same thing like the previous one. Beshogur (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

1. The hypothesis remained unproven, especially because it contradicts all primary sources. 2. No, this is not original research. That four primary sources refer to him as a Vlach is a fact and this fact is mentioned based on reliable secondary sources. 3. No, this is not original research. That Charles I refers to him as a Vlach is a fact and this fact is mentioned based on reliable secondary sources. Borsoka (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The hypothesis remained unproven It isn't a hypothesis, if you call it hypothesis. No WP:OR. I really want to see if those authors said that. At that time there were various Cuman dynasties migrating from Hungary. :That four primary sources refer to him as a Vlach is a fact and this fact is mentioned based on reliable secondary sources Can you show a pdf or the sentences of the primary sources? I have Ioan Basarab, un domn român la începuturile Țării Românești pdf and this author doesn't explicitly say "Basarab is Wlach because ... sources said so" or I am missing it. Beshogur (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Also @HistoryofIran: I saw this edit. I checked the source and the sentence is indeed correct. Yes, this user was a sock, but can be readded as well, considering Radvan is used in the whole article. Full sentence: The ethnical origin of the latter is subject to debate, some claiming him to be Pecheneg or Cuman. He was most likely a Romanianized Turk. Also an update to my comment above: "our disloyal Vlach" is incorrect, because the Romanian book says "our disloyal Romanian". I dont'know if those two terms are the same, yet this doesn't prove anything considering the author didn't say he was a Vlach (or I missed it, maybe a Romanian speaker can check). Beshogur (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I assume you do not understand that Vlach and Romanian are synonyms in historical context. Borsoka (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
And? What's your point? You haven't answered my questions. Beshogur (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I answered your questions above. Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 my three questions please. Beshogur (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Please read my answers again: [7] Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
See my comment below your answer please. Beshogur (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Those comments make no sense in WP environment. 1. Basarab's Cuman origin is not a fact, but a scholarly hypothesis. 2. All quotes from the primary sources are verified by one or more references to reliable sources. We do not need to present pdf-s. Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)