Talk:Basarab I of Wallachia

message: 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)
thread_title: reverts rule

message: 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)
thread_title:  a decent Romanian Translator? 

message: 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)
replies: text: They may be biased, but Sălăgean explicitly writes of unspecified "historical sources". Please sign your messages. Borsoka (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious: fights in 1335 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Slavic origins 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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. : 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)
replies: text: I assume you do not understand that Vlach and Romanian are synonyms in historical context. Borsoka (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And? What's your point? You haven't answered my questions. Beshogur (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I answered your questions above. Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Please read my answers again:  Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment below your answer please. Beshogur (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Thee problematic sentences