text:
Virtual airline (hobby)

A virtual airline (VA) is a dedicated hobby organization that uses flight simulation to model the operations of an airline. Virtual airlines generally have a presence on the Internet, similar to a real airline. Many hundreds of virtual airlines of significance are currently active, with tens of thousands of participants involved at any one time.

Purpose
Virtual airlines were started to give a sense of purpose to activities conducted within a flight simulator program, the first being SubLogic's Flight Assignment: A.T.P., released in 1990. As time has passed, the most common flight simulator used is Microsoft's Flight Simulator. This basic premise has evolved over time, along with available technology, to provide increasing levels of immersion but always with the same core purpose. When combined with increasingly powerful personal computers, advancing flight simulation software, and communications networks, virtual airlines are often able to provide compelling, realistic, experiences similar to operations inside a real airline. Virtual airlines also provide an avenue for members to gain access to additional content, such as aircraft and scenery, for use with their simulator. The appeal varies; for younger members, virtual airlines provide a sandbox realistic environment where they can experience the corporate environment of traditional commercial business in the airline industry, without the risk of financial loss. These organizations also provide an outlet for those who are interested in aviation but unable to fly themselves in real life due to financial, health, or other reasons. As of 2014, an estimated 80 percent of virtual pilots hold no real world pilot's license.

Academics have stated that members of these groups can often show significant attachment and immersion in their activity, building strong relationships with those who they share their created "space" with. Participants can become unusually dedicated and committed to their group through the forging of their strong bonds and sense of identity, despite the construct being entirely (or nearly entirely) fictional. Some of the groups are run similar to real-world airlines, and members can get a taste for being a professional pilot by joining one of the organizations. Commentators have described virtual aviation as giving Flight Simulators an interest and depth that they would otherwise not have.

Scientific and academic study
Virtual airlines have been used, both directly and indirectly, as part of research projects at universities in both aviation, modelling, and statistical theory development. It has been reported that interest in this area is increasing as of 2011, due mainly to advances in technology and the maturity of flight simulation as an industry. Enthusiasts are often of a technical background and welcome the opportunity to work with researchers, enhancing the suitability of the medium to support research initiatives.

History
Virtual airlines are early examples of online gaming communities, many of the first virtual airlines can be traced back to the early 1990s in flight simulator forums of services such as Prodigy, CompuServe or America Online While at least the early history of virtual airlines is predominantly on the Windows or DOS operating systems, Macintosh users also took part in the mid 1990s, with some of these still in operation today. Since they were first formed, these organizations are often characterized by their highly organized and structured nature when compared with other virtual groups in the gaming community. Such organizations represent some of the earliest examples of organized gaming groups similar to the clans and guilds seen in modern video gaming. It has been proposed that virtual airlines have existed since the creation of the first flight simulators, therefore predating the Internet.

Rapid growth in popularity of virtual airlines was experienced just prior to and through the new millennium. During this time, they were considered to be an immensely popular hobby often noted for how seriously it was taken by its participants. Since the rapid development of the massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) genre, virtual airlines and online flight simulation in general have seen much greater competition for participation and membership.

Given their origins through the early Internet, these organizations have often been early adopters of technology to enhance the online experience. This technology includes online databasing and multiplayer networks such as the Virtual Air Traffic Simulation Network (VATSIM), International Virtual Aviation Organization (IVAO), SkySimFlight or FSLive. Developments have tended towards more integration between Internet websites, the simulation software such as those in the Microsoft Flight Simulator series, multiplayer networks, and flight recording systems. It is believed that increased integration across these mediums provides a more immersive experience that enhances gameplay, being the primary reason for people to join the virtual groups. Commentators have described virtual aviation as giving Flight Simulators an interest and depth that they would otherwise not have. While virtual airlines are not real, since the flights only happen inside of a computer, they are considered a serious hobby that has appeal among a very wide age range of participants, with the average age of participants increasing.

Platforms
A flight simulator (usually running on a personal computer) is required for the actual conduct of operations by organization members. There are several platforms that are typically used to conduct virtual airline operations, although by definition almost any flight simulator can be utilized by such an organization. Common simulators include: (Italicized links represent free or open-source simulators)
 * X-Plane
 * Lockheed Martin Prepar3D
 * Flight Gear
 * Flight Simulator 2004: A Century of Flight
 * Flight Simulator X
 * Microsoft Flight Simulator
 * Infinite Flight (Mobile)
 * YSFlight
 * GeoFS (Web based CesiumJS; formerly Google Earth flight simulator)
 * Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
 * Roblox

Fictionally based
Virtual airlines may be organizations that are created with no ties to any real world entity. These organizations are fictional constructs of the participants, who use the roleplaying environment of the group to add a sense of immersion to the gaming activity. These types of virtual airlines are indeed the most commonly seen. Without basis on a real world entity, fictional virtual airlines are varied in their scope of both route and aircraft fleet.

Real-world
Other virtual airlines are based on real airlines, from major carriers to small operators. These virtual airlines tend to closely follow their real world counterparts in terms of aircraft fleet and routes offered. While there are examples of controversy over copyright issues, the real airline companies tend to allow similarly named virtual airlines to participate within player communities.

Military
Virtual military and paramilitary organizations often operate in a similar way to virtual airlines, but using military aircraft and ranking systems. Organizations such as VATSIM have strict regulations around the operation of such organizations within the network. Virtual militaries often specialize in one area, such as naval aviation, although there are some organizations that extend across multiple areas of military aviation and sometimes into other areas such as land and maritime operations. Virtual flying clubs are less structured and generally smaller than other forms of virtual airlines, operating in much the same was as real world Flying Clubs operate. It has been proposed that such clubs have a smaller scale than others and place a heavy emphasis on social interaction.

Operation
Technology has improved since the introduction of BBS-operated virtual airlines, allowing a wider variety of tools and resources available to virtual pilots, enhancing realism of flight simulation. Pilots can now fly online using networks such as VATSIM, IVAO or Virtual Skies. While connected to the network, pilots can see other aircraft, hear and respond to Air Traffic Control and see weather conditions that parallel the real-world weather at their plane's location. Using these services, most virtual airlines regularly host online events where virtual pilots can participate in group flights with hundreds of other pilots.

Some even simulate real-world airlines to the point where flight dispatching and fictional salary are part of the virtual airline's basic operations, as well as calculating operating costs and the full range of financial data used to manage airlines in the real world. It is common for the virtual airline to offer its members set flight routes to operate, with the offer of receiving awards and promotions as a result.

Website and forum
There are several elements that are common across many virtual airlines but none more so than a website as the focal point of the community, typically including an Internet forum where discussion and social interaction can occur. Sometimes the community is solely based on an internet forum that is part of a flight simulation forum in general, such as Flightsim.com. From the early 21st century it became more common for virtual airlines to feature an Online database for recording and reporting flights and membership statistics. This functionality has steadily expanded in line with that of other virtual communities such as gaming clans. Flight simulation, and virtual airlines in particular, have been reported as an early adopter of new web technologies.

Flight assignment
It is common for virtual airlines to provide a list of flights that can be completed by members. Each flight is considered a route as part of the virtual airline's scheduled flights. This functions in much the same way as a real airline functions, whereby they publish a list of the flights that customers can book flights on. In some virtual airlines the members can fly whichever flights they want, others the management has to assign them those flights, and in others it is possible to bid for routes they want to fly. International flights are, by virtue of the distance traveled, much longer than domestic routes and typically only available to senior members.

Award and ranking systems
Most virtual airlines have a specific ranking system for their pilots, that tend to involve restricting which airplanes the member is allowed to fly. Pilots complete flights for their airline, using their simulator, either online (using a network such as VATSIM) or offline, and then file a pilot report. A key aspect of these pilot reports is logging the number of hours flown, which directly affects the members promotion to other ranks. Ranking systems used typically use terminology associated with commercial aviation, such as designating senior pilots as captain. Commercial aircraft have flight crew consisting of several people, whereas in flight simulation it is rare for individual aircraft to have more than one person piloting it, therefore rank distinctions are focused on the members efforts within the organization rather than their seniority on board an individual aircraft.

Members may be motivated to complete flights in order to qualify for awards or certificates, either from completing specific routes (commonly referred to as tours in this context), or from a total number of hours completed either overall or on a specific type of aircraft. In such circumstances, profiles are provided for pilots where others can see their accomplishments and an overall roster displays an individual's performance among others in the group.

Airline hubs
When a virtual airline grows to a point where managing their operations becomes difficult, the airline might subdivide into smaller groups, called a hub. The concept is similar to pilot bases in real-world airlines where pilots are grouped together at a major airport to start and end a series of flights, under the direction of a hub manager. Virtual airlines based on airlines that really exist commonly provide hubs associated with what would be expected in the real world, and follow their schedules as closely as possible.

Livery
It is common for pilots to be given custom aircraft files and repaints with customized livery of the airline, usually made internally by virtual airline members. In real-world airlines such a livery serves as an advertisement, establishes a sense of pride, and functions as a method for recognizing aircraft. Using Microsoft Flight Simulator the custom livery can only be seen online if other participants have installed it or use specially developed tools for model matching, such as FLAi by the Boston Virtual ARTCC, therefore the benefit is largely for the individual and their sense of realism. Liveries can be hosted on the website of the virtual airline, or more commonly provided publicly on a flight simulation site such as Flightsim.com or Avsim.com. This enables the livery to be downloaded by general flight simulation participants rather than just those involved in the airline.

Communication
Voice over Internet Protocol (such as TeamSpeak or Ventrillo) servers are commonly provided for members to communicate freely by voice. Participants may use Direct IP Connectivity to locate other players and communication, at least initially, is conducted by text chat. As with other online communities participants utilize chat software such as MSN Messenger, ICQ, and Skype to connected with other members, who may be distributed anywhere in the world. As of 2011, Microsoft Flight Simulator X is the only platform with a communication system embedded within its software, beyond text chat.

Multiplayer events
Providing opportunities for members to participate in flights together is a key aspect of being a virtual airline member. Events are held on a game network such as VATSIM, Virtual-Skies or IVAO, through a peer-to-peer multiplayer game, or on a dedicated server run by the virtual airline.

Flight statistics and tracking
In the 1990s virtual airlines utilized manual processes for reporting flights and tracking statistics for members, progressing through to online databases in 2000, and since 2010 the trend has been towards automated flight statistics integrated into the flight simulation software. One of these automated systems is the ACARS system, first introduced by SATA Virtual in 1999. Pilots complete their flight, say in Microsoft Flight Simulator, while connected to the internet and the software tracks the flight as well as the pilots actions. At the completion of the flight the data is sent to the virtual airlines server and then processed into the online database. This has streamlined participation and opened up new avenues for statistics and tracking, enhancing realism for those involved.

Copyright issues
When a real-world airline is created in the image of a virtual airline, legal issues can arise out of copyright violations. In 2003, a real world airline, Qantas, announced a new low-cost carrier by the name of Jetstar Airways. However, a virtual airline named Jetstar International Airlines already existed, complete with a web site. As part of their startup promotion, Qantas sold 100,000 airline tickets at a discount price, and the virtual airline's web site was swamped with would-be customers, job-seekers, and prospective vendors. The virtual airline sued Qantas, claiming that Qantas stole the virtual airline's livery and trademark. The matter was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Association with terrorism
Claims have been made of the use of both flight simulators and virtual airlines as training devices for terrorist activities, although to date no conclusive link has ever been provided to indicate a situation where a virtual airline has provided flight simulation training to anyone involved in a terrorist activity.

Jermaine Lindsay, one of the four terrorists involved in the 7 July 2005 London bombings, may have used flight simulators to practice flying an airliner, with an accusation that he was registered with a virtual airline. A person of the same name listed his nearest major airport as Heathrow and clocked up 30 hours in two months with SimAirline.net. The website later denied the member's linking with the bombing, and indicated it was working with the Metropolitan Police to establish whether its former member was the bomber. The website stated that it provides information about airlines and free add-on software for Microsoft Flight Simulator and does not provide flight instruction to its members.

The 9/11 Commission in the US concluded in 2004 that those responsible for flying the planes into World Trade Center and The Pentagon had used PC-based flight simulators for training. Despite the initial concerns of the involvement of virtual airlines in these terrorist activities, largely little has come from these claims to date and no changes have been noted as occurring in their operation as a result.

title: Virtual airline (hobby)


text:
Roquepertuse

Acropolis Roquepertuse is an ancient Celtic religious center for the Celts. It is located near the city of Velaux, north of Marseille 16 miles west of Aix-en-Provence, in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region of southern France. The site was first recorded in the Bouches-du-Rhône civil statistics in 1824 when a partially buried statue of a cross-legged warrior was discovered in the garden of the parish priest. The structure was destroyed by the Romans in 124 BC and re-discovered in 1860 when a partially uncovered statue was fully excavated. Most of the excavations were done in 1923 by Henri de Gérin-Ricard.

Excavations

The accidental discovery of the first sculptures in the 19th century triggered the first excavation of the site by Count Henry de Gérin-Ricard. A series of excavations then took place over the next ten years, from 1917 to 1927, and brought to light structures identified as a sanctuary attributed to the Celto-Ligures, initially dated to just before the Roman conquest.

Officially, the relics have now been dated to the 3rd century BC, based on Celtic expansion into the area at the time. However, the clothing and gestures of certain statues found at the site suggest that they date from the 5th or 6th century BC. These statues are distinguished by their cross-legged seated position.

A platform of 50 m by 22 m paved with flat stones including a couple of reused headstones, was discovered, divided in the middle by a staircase made of large blocks of stone. Stone walls to the left and to the right of the stairs formed a terrace, probably one of several which the complex originally had.

On the platform was what has variously been called a portal, door frame, and portico with pillars, carved of limestone. Its columns have cavities in which human stone masks, and human skulls, had been placed. Its lintel was carved with the heads of four horses, and additional decoration in paint. At the top of the lintel was a limestone statue of a bird of 60 cm by 60 cm which has been called a goose, but is now thought more likely to depict a raptor.

A two-faced androgynous sculpture of limestone (0.2 m high and 30 cm long) was also found, as well as two statues of figure sitting cross-legged(0.62 m high).

The first interpretation of archaeologists was that this was a secluded sanctuary. The latest findings from various multidisciplinary studies suggest that it was an agglomeration of about 0.5 hectares with a sanctuary to the north, as well as a bulwark for protection.

The site is important in part because it provides evidence for the Celtic head cult described in Greek and Roman accounts.

The site is near another Celtic-Roman site at Entremont, which had similar relief sculpture of severed human and horse heads, as well as skull niches carved into pillars. Nearby archaeological sites include several oppida from approximately the same period. Roquepertuse was declared a monument historique, or protected historical site, in 1967.

Roquepertuse had no domicile available for worshippers and has been used as a sanctuary where only priests may have lived permanently.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Roquepertuse


text:
World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2002–2013)

The World Heavyweight Championship was a men's professional wrestling world heavyweight championship created and promoted by the American promotion WWE. It was the second world championship to be created by the company, after their original world title, the WWE Championship (1963). The title was one of two top championships in the company from 2002 to 2006 and from 2010 to 2013, complementing the WWE Championship, and one of three top championships from 2006 to 2010 with the addition of the ECW World Heavyweight Championship.

Established in September 2002, its creation came as a result of the WWE Undisputed Championship becoming exclusive to the SmackDown brand which left Raw without a world title due to the introduction of the brand split. Raw then created the World Heavyweight Championship and the title was awarded to Triple H. The titles moved between the brands on different occasions (usually as a result of the WWE Draft) until August 29, 2011, when all programming became full roster "supershows". The World Heavyweight Championship was retired at TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs on December 15, 2013, when it was unified with the WWE Championship with Randy Orton recognized as the final champion.

The title was one of five to be represented by the historic Big Gold Belt, introduced in 1986. Its heritage can be traced back to the first world heavyweight championship, thereby giving the belt a legacy over 100 years old, the oldest in the world.

Background
The title's origins lay in the first world heavyweight championship, and then to events that began in the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA), which had many different territorial promotions as members. In the late 1980s, World Championship Wrestling (WCW) was a member of the NWA, having been formed by the purchase of Jim Crockett Promotions (JCP), which had absorbed many other NWA members, by Turner Broadcasting, which aired WCW's programming. During this time, WCW used the NWA World Heavyweight Championship as its world title. The WCW World Heavyweight Championship was soon established when the recognition was awarded to then-NWA World Heavyweight Champion Ric Flair in 1991. In 1993, WCW seceded from the NWA and grew to become a rival promotion to the World Wrestling Federation (WWF), itself a former member of the NWA. Both organizations grew into mainstream prominence and were eventually involved in a television ratings war dubbed the Monday Night War. Near the end of the ratings war, WCW began a financial decline which culminated in March 2001 with the WWF's purchase of selected assets of WCW.

As a result of the purchase, the WWF acquired the video library of WCW, select talent contracts, and championships among other assets. The slew of former WCW talent joining the WWF roster began "The Invasion" that effectively phased out the WCW name. Following this, the WCW World Heavyweight Championship was unified with the WWF Championship, the WWF's world title, at Vengeance in December. At the event, the WCW World Heavyweight Championship was decommissioned with Chris Jericho becoming the final WCW World Heavyweight Champion and the subsequent Undisputed WWF Champion after defeating The Rock and Steve Austin respectively. The WWF title became the undisputed championship in professional wrestling until September 2002 with the creation of the World Heavyweight Championship, spun off from the Undisputed WWE Championship as the successor to the WCW World Heavyweight Championship.

Creation
By 2002, WWE's roster had doubled in size due to the overabundance of contracted workers. As a result of the increase, WWE divided the roster through its two main television programs, Raw and SmackDown, assigning championships and appointing figureheads to each brand of the same name. This expansion became known as the "Brand Extension". In May 2002, the WWF was renamed to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). Following these changes, the Undisputed WWE Championship remained unaffiliated with either brand as competitors from both brands could challenge the Undisputed Champion. Following the appointment of Eric Bischoff and Stephanie McMahon as General Managers of the Raw and SmackDown brands, respectively, Stephanie McMahon contracted then-WWE Undisputed Champion Brock Lesnar to the SmackDown brand, leaving the Raw brand without a world title. On September 2, Eric Bischoff announced the creation of the World Heavyweight Championship. Bischoff awarded the title to Triple H, who had been designated number-one contender to Lesnar's title the previous week. Immediately afterwards, the Undisputed Championship returned to being the WWE Championship as it was no longer undisputed. The World Heavyweight Championship and the WWE Championship switched brands a number of times before the first brand split ended in 2011.

Historical lineage
While introduced in 2002 as a new title, the WWE often made allusions to other titles including those of WCW and the NWA, amalgamating the history of the championship with the history of the belt that represents it. As affirmed by WWE, the World Heavyweight Championship is not a continuation of the WCW Championship, but rather its successor by way of the WWE Undisputed Championship, just as the WCW Championship spun off from the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. Due to its relation to both titles, its lineage is connected with the earliest recognized world heavyweight championship. In 2009, WWE released a DVD set called History of the World Heavyweight Championship that definitively linked the title to the WCW and NWA titles.

Title unification
Following the end of the first brand extension in 2011, both the World Heavyweight Champion and WWE Champion could appear on both Raw and SmackDown. In 2013, the night after Survivor Series, then-World Heavyweight Champion John Cena made a challenge to then-WWE Champion Randy Orton to determine an undisputed WWE world champion. Randy Orton defeated John Cena in a TLC match at the TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs pay-per-view on December 15, 2013, to unify the titles. Subsequently, the WWE Championship was renamed WWE World Heavyweight Championship. The unified championship retained the lineage of the WWE Championship, and the World Heavyweight Championship was retired. With his victory over John Cena, Randy Orton became the final World Heavyweight Champion. Like with the Undisputed Championship, the Big Gold Belt was used in tandem with the WWE Championship belt to represent the WWE World Heavyweight Championship until a single belt was presented to then champion Brock Lesnar in August 2014.

Subsequent championship
On the April 24, 2023, episode of Raw, WWE Chief Content Officer Triple H unveiled a new World Heavyweight Championship with a belt design that pays homage to the "Big Gold Belt", and announced that the Inaugural champion would be crowned at Night of Champions. This title does not carry the lineage of the 2002–2013 version.

Brand designation history
The following is a list of dates indicating the transitions of the World Heavyweight Championship between the Raw and SmackDown brands.

Reigns

The inaugural champion was Triple H, and there were 25 different champions overall. The longest championship reign was Batista's first reign, which lasted from April 3, 2005, to January 10, 2006, for a total of 282 days. Triple H holds the record for longest combined reigns at 616 days over 5 reigns. The shortest reigning champion was Randy Orton in his fourth and final reign, who immediately retired the championship upon winning it at TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2013) and unifying it with the WWE Championship. He was also the youngest champion, when he won the title for the first time at the age of 24 years 136 days during SummerSlam (2004) in August. The oldest champion was The Undertaker who won the title for the third and final time at the age of 44 during Hell in a Cell (2009) in October 2009. Edge held the title the most times with seven championship reigns between 2007 and 2011. There were six vacancies throughout the title's history.

Randy Orton was the final champion in his fourth reign. He defeated John Cena in a Tables, Ladders and Chairs match at TLC in Houston, Texas, on December 15, 2013, to unify the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships.


text:
The Entity

The Entity is a 1982 American supernatural horror film directed by Sidney J. Furie, and written by Frank De Felitta, who adapted his 1978 novel of the same name. The film stars Barbara Hershey as a single mother in Los Angeles who is raped and tormented by an invisible assailant.

Like the novel, the film is based on the 1974 case of Doris Bither, a woman who claimed to have been repeatedly sexually assaulted by an invisible entity, and who was observed by doctoral students at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Despite being filmed and planned for a release in 1981, the movie was not released in worldwide theaters until September 1982 and February 1983 in the United States.

Plot
In Los Angeles, single mother Carla Moran is violently raped in her home by an invisible assailant. A subsequent episode of poltergeist activity causes her to flee with her children to the home of her best friend Cindy Nash.

They return to Carla's home and the following day, Carla is nearly killed when her car mysteriously goes out of control in traffic. Urged by Cindy to see a psychiatrist, Carla meets with Dr. Sneiderman and tentatively agrees to undergo therapy. A subsequent attack in her bathroom leaves bite marks and bruises, which Carla shows to Dr. Sneiderman, who believes they are self-inflicted despite their location in places impossible for her to reach.

Sneiderman drives Carla home and meets her children. She explains to him that she suffered a variety of traumas in her childhood and adolescence, including sexual and physical abuse, teenage pregnancy, and the violent death of her first husband. Dr. Sneiderman believes her apparent paranormal experiences are delusions resulting from her past psychological trauma, but agrees to keep an open mind at her request. Shortly after Sneiderman leaves, Carla is attacked again, this time in front of her children. Her son tries to intervene, but he is hit by electrical discharges and his wrist is broken.

Carla attends a staff meeting chaired by Sneiderman's colleague, Dr. Weber. As soon as she leaves, Weber shares his belief that the experiences of the Moran household are the output of a mass delusion arising from Carla's damaged psyche, sexual frustration and propensity to masturbate. That night, Carla is tricked by the entity into having an orgasm while she sleeps by appearing to rub & suck her nipples. The next day, Sneiderman urges Carla to commit herself to a psychiatric hospital for observation, but she refuses and becomes angry when Sneiderman goes so far as to suggest she has incestuous feelings for her son.

After Cindy witnesses an attack, the two discuss possible supernatural causes. While visiting a local bookstore, Carla happens to meet two parapsychologists, whom she convinces to visit her home. Initially skeptical, they witness several paranormal events and agree to study the home under the supervision of their team leader, Dr. Cooley. During their study, Sneiderman arrives and tries to convince Carla that the manifestation is in her mind, but she dismisses him. Reassured that her case is taken seriously, Carla begins to relax. Her boyfriend, Jerry Anderson, visits and she suffers a particularly disturbing attack, which he witnesses. Hearing the commotion, Carla’s son enters the room and believes that Jerry is harming her, prompting him to attack Jerry. Later at the hospital, Jerry is so troubled by the experience that he ends their relationship.

Desperate for a solution, Carla agrees to participate in an elaborate experiment carried out by Cooley's team. A full mock-up of her home is created to lure the entity into a trap and freeze it with liquid helium. Before the experiment begins, Sneiderman unsuccessfully tries to convince Carla to leave, confirming an unorthodox personal interest in her predicament. The entity arrives but unexpectedly takes control of the helium jets, using them against Carla. She defiantly stands up to it, stating that it may kill her, but it will never have her. At this precise point, the tanks explode and flood the premises with liquid helium. Sneiderman rushes in just in time to save her. As they look back, they realize that the entity has been trapped in a huge mass of ice. It breaks free and vanishes almost immediately, but Sneiderman realizes that Carla was telling the truth the whole time. Dr. Cooley believes that, despite the destruction of the ice block, she has a valuable witness in Dr. Weber. Much to her chagrin, however, Weber decides to take refuge in the belief that he did not witness anything.

Carla returns to her house the next day. The front door slams by itself and she is greeted by a demonic voice which says, "Welcome home, cunt". She calmly opens the door, exits the house, gets in a car with her family and leaves.

A closing disclaimer verifies that Carla and her family have moved to Texas. Carla still experiences attacks from the entity, although they have lessened in frequency and severity.

Themes
Film scholar Daniel Kremer interprets The Entity as a parable for female sexual victimhood, citing the lead character of Carla Moran as a woman who "goes head-to-head with a gaggle of men (including the "entity" itself). If the men of the film do not undermine her credibility or sanity, they objectify her, exploit her victimhood, belittle her ability to take control of her unfortunate circumstances, and ultimately give her the dignity of a glorified lab rat."

Screenplay
Screenwriter Frank De Felitta adapted the screenplay from his own novel, which was based on the case of Doris Bither, a woman who alleged to have been sexually assaulted by an invisible supernatural entity on numerous occasions. The screenplay, like the novel, introduces several elements that were not investigated as part of the Bither case (including the allegations of spectral rape and the capture of an entity).

In a rare interview with Rue Morgue magazine in July 2012, director Sidney J. Furie told journalist Michael Doyle that he did not consider The Entity to be a horror film in spite of its extreme imagery, unsettling atmosphere and horrific plot. Instead, Furie said he considers The Entity to be more of a "supernatural suspense movie." Furie also confessed that he intentionally avoided researching the actual case upon which The Entity is based as he "did not want to judge the characters and story in any way." Neither he nor actress Barbara Hershey met with Doris Bither, the woman on whom the character of Carla Moran was based, at any point.

Casting
Several actresses were considered for the role of Carla Moran, including Jill Clayburgh, Sally Field, Jane Fonda, and Bette Midler, but all four declined the offer. Barbara Hershey was cast in the role only ten days before production was scheduled to begin. Hershey had hesitations about the part due to the nudity in the screenplay, but agreed to it after director Sidney J. Furie assured her the nude sequences would be accomplished via body doubles and mannequins. Recalling her casting, Hershey said: "I was frightened. I didn't know how it would be edited or marketed. But I knew that Sid saw potential in the film to approach the subject from a humanistic and psychiatric viewpoint, from a mother's viewpoint... and I felt it was a worthwhile risk."

Ron Silver was cast as Dr. Sniderman, the psychologist who questions the supernatural nature of Carla's attacks, while Alex Rocco was given the part of Jerry, her absent boyfriend. Furie had originally sought Craig T. Nelson for the role of Jerry, but producer Harold Schneider refused to cast Nelson. David Labiosa, a New York-based actor, was cast as Carla's teenage son Billy, based on his performance in the television film Death Penalty (1980) opposite Colleen Dewhurst.

Filming
The Entity was made under a tax shelter by the newly-established American Cinema International Productions, and had originally been optioned to Roman Polanski. Principal photography of The Entity began in Los Angeles on March 30, 1981. The shoot lasted a period of ten weeks, and was completed in late June 1981. Furie was pleased with the small production, later commenting: "There were no extras waiting in buses, no six camera crews, no bullshit. And at every point, we knew the film was working pretty well." The exteriors of the Moran home were shot at a house in El Segundo, while a set was constructed in Los Angeles for the home's interiors. Stylistically, Furie and his cinematographer, Stephen H. Burum, employed frequent use of close-ups and Dutch angles. The shoot was temporarily halted when Labiosa accidentally broke his wrist while filming a scene in which he is thrown backward by the entity. Labiosa's injury resulted in him being written out of several scenes.

During filming, Furie excised a subplot involving overt incestuous feelings between Carla and her son, Billy. A dream sequence in the original screenplay featured Carla fantasizing about taking her son's virginity. Labiosa recalled: "I think it was awkward for everyone to do, because of what the whole thing implied. I often wonder what the film would have been like had they kept it in." According to Labiosa, a scene was filmed in which Carla observes Billy shirtless outside, which hinted at this subplot, but this scene was cut from the film.

The majority of the special effects in the film were achieved with practical methods, and were supervised by Stan Winston. For example, the scene in which Carla's nude body is groped by the entity was shot featuring a latex dummy body with suction cups built inside, which allowed crew members to manipulate it to appear as though fingers were making impressions on her flesh; Hershey's body, aside from her head, was hidden beneath the bed during this scene. The construction of the dummy body cost the production $65,000 to create.

The film would be among the final productions made by American Cinema Productions before it filed for bankruptcy in December 1981.

Box office
The film opened in the United Kingdom on September 30, 1982 and was met by protests from women's rights groups who deemed the film offensive due to its graphic depictions of sexual assault. 20th Century Fox released the film in the United States on February 4, 1983, with little prepublicity. It grossed $3.7 million during its opening weekend, going on to gross a total of $13.3 million. In response to the protests against the film, star Barbara Hershey publicly responded, telling a reporter: "I resent being put in the position of defending the film. We worked really hard not to make it exploitative. Rape is one of the ugliest if not the ugliest thing that can happen to someone. It's murder of a sort. I have no answer for those people who are offended."

Critical response
The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 62% approval rating based on 13 reviews, with an average rating of 5.8/10.

Richard F. Shepard, in a New York Times review, praised Hershey's performance but went on to say "The Entity offers thrills in short staccato bursts and dull science in long bursts."

Contemporary criticism of the film has been favorable: Andrew Dowler of the Toronto publication Now praised the lead performances, writing: "Hershey gives Carla a believable mix of hopelessness and grit, and Ron Silver strikes the right note as an over-assertive psychologist who may have more than a professional interest in the case. Director Sidney J. Furie keeps them in the foreground, but uses slightly off-kilter angles to make his very ordinary settings creepy and cramped." American film theorist Michael Atkinson lauded the film, writing: "There may not be, outside of David Cronenberg's wonder cabinet, a more nitro-powered horror-movie metaphor hell than that fueling this post-Exorcist remnant... It's like the movie is writing its own library of fiery feminist theory. It remains unnerving and savage, arguably the most eloquent movie ever made in Hollywood about the struggle of the sexual underclass."

Director Martin Scorsese has also remarked his appreciation for the film, and ranked it the fourth-scariest horror film of all time, above Psycho and The Shining.

Home media
Anchor Bay Entertainment released The Entity on DVD in 2005, and later issued a standalone Blu-ray disc in July 2012. On June 11, 2019, Scream Factory released a collector's edition Blu-ray disc of the film featuring new interviews and other newly-commissioned bonus material.

Other uses in media
Avant-garde filmmaker Peter Tscherkassky used a print of this film for his 1999 short Outer Space.

Remake
In April 2015, it was announced that James Wan and Roy Lee were producing a remake for 20th Century Fox through their Atomic Monster and Vertigo Entertainment banners, respectively. The film would be written by Chad Hayes and Carey W. Hayes.

title: The Entity


text:
Baldwin II, Count of Hainaut

Baldwin II (1056–1098?) was count of Hainaut from 1071 to his death. He was an unsuccessful claimant to the County of Flanders. He disappeared in Anatolia during the First Crusade.

Minority
Baldwin was the younger son of Count Baldwin VI of Flanders and Countess Richilde of Hainaut. He became count of Hainaut after the death of his older brother, Arnulf III of Flanders, at the battle of Cassel. The County of Flanders was then claimed by their victorious uncle Robert the Frisian. During Baldwin's minority reign, which lasted until 1083, Richilde constantly fought against Robert to recover Flanders for her son, but she was unsuccessful. In order to obtain funds, she enfeoffed the county to the Prince-Bishopric of Liège. With the funds obtained in the transaction, around 1072, she assembled a coalition that included the duke of Bouillon, the counts of Namur, Louvain, Montaigu, Chiny, Hautmont (Clermont, according to Reiffenberg ) and others, all to no avail: Robert defeated the coalition decisively at Broqueroie.

Family
Baldwin married Ida, a daughter of Count Henry II of Leuven and sister of Count Godfrey I of Leuven, in 1084. Their children were:

 * 1) Baldwin III, Count of Hainaut
 * 2) Louis, living 1096
 * 3) Simon, a canon in Liège
 * 4) Henry, living 1096
 * 5) William, died after 1117
 * 6) Arnold; m. Beatrix von Ath (b. c. 1075 – before 1136), daughter of Walter von Ath and Ade de Roucy. Father of Eustace the Elder of Roeulx.
 * 7) Ida, (c. 1085 – after 1101); 1m: Guy de Chievres; 2m: c. 1100 Thomas, Lord of Coucy (also called Thomas of Marle)
 * 8) Richilde, (c. 1095 – after 1118); m. c. 1115 (div. 1118) Amaury III de Montfort. Became a nun at Maubeuge after the death of her husband.
 * 9) Aelidis, (before 1098 – 1153); m. Nicolas II de Rumigny

Crusade
Baldwin joined the First Crusade in the army of Godfrey of Bouillon (rather than with his nearer relative Robert II of Flanders, whose family was still at odds with his own), after selling some of his property to the Prince-Bishopric of Liège. In 1098 he was sent back to Constantinople with Count Hugh of Vermandois after the siege of Antioch, to seek assistance from Byzantine emperor Alexius I. However, Baldwin disappeared during a raid by the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia, and was presumably killed. Baldwin's fate remained uncertain for a long time. While on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1106, Baldwin's wife Ida organized a search for her lost husband in Anatolia, which was inconclusive.

title: Baldwin II, Count of Hainaut


text:
Baldwin III, Count of Hainaut

Baldwin III (1088–1120) was count of Hainaut from 1098 to his death.

History
Baldwin was son of Count Baldwin II of Hainaut and Ida of Louvain. He succeeded to the County of Hainaut in 1102. Baldwin married Yolande of Guelders at a young age. He had been betrothed to Adelaide of Maurienne, a niece of Countess Clemence of Flanders. The broken betrothal caused a scandal, and Countess Clemence brought the issue before her brother Pope Calixtus II. The pope declared that the marriage was legal and could not be dissolved.

Baldwin died at a young age of c. 33 in 1120, and was buried in Mons, Belgium. His eldest son, Baldwin IV, succeeded him. His younger son Gerard inherited the counties of Dodewaard and Dale, which had been in the possession of his mother. Countess Yolande held Hainaut as her dower for a while and as a regent for her son.

Family
He was married to Yolande, daughter of Count Gerard I of Guelders. Their children were:
 * 1) Baldwin IV, Count of Hainaut, married Alice of Namur
 * 2) Gerhard of Hainaut, ancestor of the Counts of Dale
 * 3) Gertrude/Ida of Hainaut, married before 9 August 1138 to Roger III of Tosny of Conches and Flamstead
 * 4) Richildis of Hainaut, married: 1) Thierry d’Avesnes; 2) Everard II Radulf, castellan of Tournai

After Baldwin's death, Countess Yolande married c.1120 Godfrey II, lord of Ribemont and Bouchain, castellan of Valenciennes and the son of Anselm of Ribemont. Yolande and Godfrey II had two children:
 * Godfrey III, castellan of Valenciennes
 * Berthe of Valenciennes, who married 1) Count Otto II of Duras and 2) Guy de Saint-Aubert

title: Baldwin III, Count of Hainaut


text:
Talk:Origin of the Romanians

"General view"
The general view is that the territory where the language formed was a large one, consisting of both the north and the south of the Danube (encompassing the regions of Dacia, Moesia, and possibly Illyria), more precisely to the north of the Jiriček Line

I have some reasons, Aristeus01, why this shouldn't be in the lead:

 * 1) It replaces the admigration theory, which is notable.
 * 2) The "general view" is the Daco-Roman theory. It's held by the majority of scholars.
 * 3) The cited sources (Sala, Dindelegan, Pop), AFAIK descend the Romanians mainly from the Daco-Romans. They believe that Romanized elements from south of the Danube can also be found in their people, just as probably 99% of supporters of the Daco-Roman theory. "The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube." If they bind the survival of the Daco-Roman population to the south to north migration, than they are supporters of the admigration theory, but they certainly didn't develop a fourth theory.

What do you think? Gyalu22 (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And the "general view" contradicts the view presented in international literature that emphasizes that the venue of the Romanian ethnogenesis is uncertain. Furthermore, the present lead does not represent the main body of the article, so the previous text is to be restored. Borsoka (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not the case: The 3 theories refer to the second and third stages of Romanian language, when Common Romanian (5th or 6th century up to 11th or 12th) and then Common Daco-Romanian (12th or 13th century up to 16th) was used. The first stage is the local Vulgar Latin. Vulgar Latin in its particular variant, called Danubian Latin, that gave way to Common Romanian, was spoken exactly as the phrasing says. That is when the language formed, roughly in the first half of the first millennium. The article, and in general the topic of Romanian language, is deficitary in understanding and presenting this distinctions. The admigration theory can be presented separately, I didn't consider it notable because as @Borsoka said somewhere "if the theory includes the territory north of the Danube it is part of continuity theory" - again, and I can't stress this enough, the 3 theories speak of later stages of the language, when it was already formed ie when we can speak of it as a separate, individual language. By the way, as it stands, Pană Dindelegan is the foremost authority in the study of Romanian language at the moment, and to answer Borsoka as well, her "view" and the views of other Romanian linguists such as Sala are not some local nationalist opinions opposed to "International literature", they are the current International literature on the subject, published in Cambridge and Oxford guides to the language's nature and history. If the article opposes this, it is the article that needs to change - wiki editors should not take the liberty of compiling texts form disparate sources in order to promote their own opinion. Aristeus01 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. You unilaterally changed a stable version of the lead without discussing it. 2. You ignored that there are three editors who oppose your edit. Please stop edit warring and read WP:3RR carefully because edit warring may have serious consequences. 3. The stable version summarizes the text of the main body, your preferred version introduces a text that is not mentioned in the main text. 4. Your text presents a scholarly PoV as a fact: no, it is not a general view that the venue of the Romanians' ethnogenesis included lands both to the north and to the south of the Danube. There are several scholars cited in the article who do not accept this vies. Borsoka (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not "a scholarly POV", and it is not "Romanian ethnogenesis", it is language attestation. I think you fail to make the distinction, which I explained earlier. The version stands, you guys need to familiarize yourselves with the subject and stop changing it to your POV. Please do not threaten me with "serious consequences", it is a serious enough as it is that 3 users suddenly and simultaneously decide something should be changed. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the article is about the origin of the Romanian people and not the language, therefore it's not the 1/3 of the lead's purpose to talk about that, instead of presenting the three theories on that.
 * I don't see how what you wrote presents the three stages of development of the Daco-Romanian language anyways. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors of two international encyclopedias of the Romance languages do not accept Dindelegan's and Sala's PoV as a fact. I did not say that the two Romanian linguists are nationalists. I only referred to the fact that they are representatives of one of the well-known scholarly theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis - the continuity theory. I did not threaten you, I draw your attention to the consequences of edit warring, fully in accordance with the relevant policy. I think unilateral changes of stable texts and edit wars can be described as a strange behaviour. Borsoka (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which are the other 2 international encyclopedias?
 * Did they declare themselves as supporters of a theory? Is Schramm or Schutz a supporter of one side or international literature?
 * Edit war? Did I change your edits or did you change mine? Aristeus01 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Cambridge/Oxford cited in the article and the lead. 2. They are representatives of a theory: they are convinced that Romanian descended of a variant of Latin that was spoken in many provinces, including Dacia Traiana, and Dacia Traiana was part of the territory where Common Romanian developed. 3. Schramm and Schutz are representatives of an opposite theory. They are convinced that Romanian developed from a variant spoken in the middle of the Balkan Peninsula, and the first Romanian speakers did not move to lands to the north of the Lower Danube before the 12th century. 4. You rewrote the lead without discussing your changes, deleted a reference to a third theory (although it is verified in the main text of the article) and introduced an allegedly "general view" referring to books written by representatives of one of the theories. Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Cambridge/Oxford have also published the sources I cited. Why would one be cited and the other not?
 * 2. No, that's completely inaccurate. Everybody, including Schramm, is convinced Romanian descended from the Latin spoken in those provinces, the issue is where it was spoken after Latin seized to be a living language.
 * 3. Agreed. As such their views should not be presented as "main literature".
 * 4. As I said, I have no problem adding the admigration theory, I simply followed your reasoning that it is either north or south. Admigration theory though speaks of the second stage of language, when it was already formed. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Nobody said that any of the sources cannot be cited. However, a PoV cannot be presented as a general view. 2. No, Schramm, Schütz, etc do not say that Dacia Traiana or Upper Pannonia played any role in the formation of the Romanian language. For instance from the Latin variant spoken in Hispania at least 3 Romance languaged developed. 3. Their views are presented as PoVs. 4. Perhaps we should present the theories as they are presented in RSs. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1.Then why are we not citing them?
 * 2. Schramm says Common Romanian or Wurzelstock in his phrasing developed south of the Danube after 600 CE (page 20 in my Romanian language copy) from the popular Latin, he does not contest popular Latin being spoken in all those provinces (he does say Dacians did not contribute to it which is not the same thing). No serious researcher contests this popular Latin was spoken in those provinces. I don't have Schutz at hand but I doubt he makes a different claim.
 * 3. Then why object if I double their views by opposing view? (see river names origin)
 * 4. RSs? Aristeus01 (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

1. We can, and the article does cite them, but we cannot present their PoV as a "general view". 2. Popular Latin was also spoken in what is today Algeria, Tunesia, etc. 3. I do not object. That the large river's name are of pre-Roman origin are mentioned in the article. 4. Reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 * 1. They literary say general view. How should we then phrase it? Hal of our sources say the general view is clear and another half say the general view is unclear?
 * 2. why is this so difficult ? The Vulgar Latin spoken developed before 5th or 6th century in a particular way which became Common Romanian. The Popular Latin spoken in North Africa was the same to begin with and gradually changed during the same period into North African Romance.
 * 4. Being which ones exactly? For me RS especially includes Romanian Academy sources. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see the discussion has frozen. Can you (Aristeus01) give a reason why should the formation of the Romanian language be explained as explicitly as the theories on the ethnogenesis which the article is about (see short desc.) and the lead should summarize? Why should that be written so far from the second sentence that already gives enough specification (I again emphasize) in the introduction of the article about another subject? Please also take it into consideration that citations should be avoided in the begginning. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is simply because the discussion begins with the language exposition. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, Romanian language formed from Vulgar Latin spoken on both sides of the Danube, that is an uncontestable fact. If we follow a short description of language with ethnogenesis theories it implies the opposite, that the language formed sometime after the 5th or 6th century. We are being amateurish in this case, since the ethnogenesis theories talk about the part after the Danubian Limes seized to function, when Common Romanian was already an independent - formed - language. Aristeus01 (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is not an uncontestable fact. Could we say Spanish developed from a variant of Latin spoken in Hispania, North Africa and Gaul? Migrations between the provinces were nor unusual. What is incontestable that we do not know from which variant of Latin Romanian developed. We do not know because the substratum has not been identified. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "This is the stage we have reached in the modern English-speaking and Spanish-speaking world; it is, for example, quite common to hear the noun phrases ‘Australian English’ or ‘español venezolano’, but it is still thought of as a bit exaggerated to use the noun phrases ‘Australian’ or ‘venezolano’, as if the speech of those areas no longer qualified to fit within English or Spanish."
 * "The question of periodization is thus not so much that of how and when a language changes, for change is continuous (‘seamless’, in Penny’s description, who is there comparing diachronic stages with the seamlessness of the synchronic dialect continuum), as of why a language should change its name."
 * "The Thraco-Dacians, a people of Indo-European origin, occupied in the pre-Christian era a vast territory from the Carpathians to the Aegean Islands. Contact between the Romans and the Thraco-Dacians occurred both to the north and to the south of the Danube."
 * "There is a long list of languages which have been invoked as substrates acting in various ways on the lexical and structural development of Romance languages. For many of these (e.g., Ligurian, ‘Alpine’, Sicanian, ‘Palaeo-Sardinian’, ‘Illyrian’, ‘Messapic’, ‘Venetic’), the evidence is frankly so tenuous, or dubious, that there is little point in dwelling on them."
 * A few quotes from Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, a book with multiple authors published in 2016, to hopefully help you understand where I'm coming from.
 * We know which variant of Latin Romanian evolved from because we use "umbrella terms", phrases that cover extensive areas and periods, for multiple features. A single or a couple of features do not individualize a language from the main group. Therefore we can say Iberian Latin, Danubian Latin, or North African Latin without tedious repetition of the fact this are all geographical adjectives. They were a single language. When we step over the threshold of 5th and 6th century in our case of interest, Danubian Latin is called Common Romanian. We need to reinforce here it was not a clear cut change, as in it suddenly stopped being Latin in a particular year, it is the same language that we, the modern researchers, label differently for convenience. To someone in the 6th century the language he/she spoke was essentially the same with what their grandparents spoke a century earlier. So variant does not mean a different Latin language. It was the same Latin all over the Romanized territories and we call it Danubian Latin or say, Balkan Latin maybe, because that is where it was geographically attested in regards to later development, not because it was a different language from Iberian Latin.
 * As for substrate, as the quotes above say, the large and inclusive phrase Thraco-Dacian is used, meaning the language spoken in the eastern half of the Balkans. If this touches a sensitive cord of the adherent to one of the other Origin of Romanians supporters, I need to make it very clear to everyone Thraco-Dacian does not mean the language features come from Sarmisegetusa or any individual spot on the map, words are not people to live and belong to an exact location, they are used wherever the language is used, in our case a territory far larger than modern Romania, therefore it neither confirms or deny the continuity theory, for example. It is further understood from this phrasing Dacian was a Thracian language or dialect, not a different language altogether. So yes, we know what the substratum is, it's just not the answer some hoped for, that is: it does not reduce the language evolution to a small region and particular ancient state or tribe.
 * The insistence on having the substratum named in a different way is a moribund idea that, as Gyalu22 and I were discussing, has had only a couple of supporters in recent decades and is no longer repeated in specialized literature. Furthermore, we must not exaggerate the influence of the substrate in language formation. Substrate added features that contribute but do not define Romance language evolution. If the substrate was definitory we would not speak of Spanish as a Romance language but perhaps as an Iberian language, likewise French would a Celtic language. The accent here is on the geographical area more than on the type of substrate which is there mostly ho help us label stages of a continuous process. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The "general view" text doesn't say anything about the substratum so I don't know why are you discussing that. The territory of the formation of Romanian is disputed, so/and it doesn't have to be explained thoroughly in this lead for said reasons. Just because the place where the language originates from is briefly and loosely defined it doesn't mean it has to be exactly defined. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to complete Aristeus01's quotes:
 * ad 3.: "The Thraco-Dacians, a people of Indo-European origin, occupied in the pre-Christian era a vast territory from the Carpathians to the Aegean Islands. Contact between the Romans and the Thraco-Dacians occurred both to the north and to the south of the Danube, but initially to the south, where the Romans had conquered all the Balkan Peninsula up to the Danube in the first century BC." []
 * ad 4. "There is a long list of languages which have been invoked as substrates acting in various ways on the lexical and structural development of Romance languages. For many of these (e.g., Ligurian, ‘Alpine’, Sicanian, ‘Palaeo-Sardinian’, ‘Illyrian’, ‘Messapic’, ‘Venetic’), the evidence is frankly so tenuous, or dubious, that there is little point in dwelling on them. Very often one has a list of vocabulary items (often toponyms, geomorphic terms or plant names) of no obvious etymology but distributed geographically in an area which corresponds, more or less, to the territory in which the assumed substrate was spoken, so that a substrate explanation seems appealing but cannot be proved." [Sala, p. 195]
 * What does Sala say about Thraco-Dacian? a.) "The Thraco-Dacians, a people of Indo-European origin, occupied in the pre-Christian era a vast territory from the Carpathians. (Whether Thracian and Geto-Dacian are different languages is debated, but the general view is that they are the same.)" [Sala, p. 200 (note 7)] b.) "There is very little direct information about Thraco-Dacian: a few glosses (fifty-seven 'Dacian' plant names mentioned in two treatises on medical botany ...), personal names, tribes, deities, human settlements, hydronyms and names of mountains preserved in ancient authors, in Greek or Latin inscriptions, or on coins..." [Sala, p. 200] c. "To identify Thraco-Dacian words, two major methods are used: (a) comparison of Romanian and Albanian ... the latter being considered the direct descendant of Thracian. (There is no way of knowing, however, whether a term is inherited from the substrate, or borrowed from Albanian.)" [Sala, p. 201 (note 8)]. Based on the quotes we can conclude that Sala does not write in the Cambridge History of Romance Languages that there is a general view stating that Romanian is the descendant of Latin variants spoken in vast regions of Southeastern and Central Europe. He admits that the existence of "Thraco-Dacian" is dubious. Furthermore, he confirms that the alleged "Thraco-Dacian substrate words" in Romanian may have actually been borrowed from Albanian.
 * Just for comparison, I quote an other specialist's words about the grouping Thracian and Dacian together (which is a general view according to Sala!): "All attempts to relate Thracian to ... Dacian (... preserved solely in plant names in Hesychius) are ... purely speculative." []. Fortson's words are not contradicted by an other notable linguist, who says that "Fragmentarily attested IE languages can be divided into two basic groups: those that have at least one attested text/inscription and those that are attested only through onosmatics or individual words in texts written in other languages. In the first group there are ... Venetic ... Thracian ... In the second group we find languages like ... Dacian ..." []
 * Summarizing my view: we are not here to describe a scholarly PoV as a "general view" even if the a scholar describes their own view as such. Borsoka (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just replying to Borsoka about substratum.
 * To be completely fair, the definition of the language is not just a passing mention. It is there as part of the debate, (and it should not be used in such a way in my opinion), in a neutral text Latin should not even be mentioned since it is too broad of a topic to help. As you can see from a reply added recently, it is not me that insists on the language to be defined and used here. All I am saying, if we must say something about the language, it needs to be exact, not just a vague mention. Otherwise there is no point in saying it. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we do not need to say anything of the substratum: it is linked. Alternatively, we can list some of the possible substrate languages. What is clear, we cannot avoid mentioning that the so-called substrate words in Romanian may actually be loanwords from Albanian. Actually, all these are already mentioned in the article. So we can stop discussing the issue. Borsoka (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Language influence border between Latin and Hellenic.png
 * It is stated in the start, then the article gets on the theories on the ethnogenesis. As Borsoka proved it, there's no general view on the subject, and it's not fair to represent only one. Instead what everyone agrees on is represented. That text is there since years probably and no one criticized it. It says Romanian formed on the territory north of the line in this map. Saying that it formed on almost all of this territory doesn't specify the location more. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course Borsoka proved it: my view: we are not here to describe a scholarly PoV as a "general view" even if the a scholar describes their own view as such. Her view and yours top the view of an academician published by Oxford. I will not take part in this sordid affair anymore, do as you like. Wikipedia has clearly lost its way if it allows such biased opinions to be the norm just because a few editors agree on it. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, editors' views do not top the view of an academician (Sala) published by Cambridge (not by Oxford). Sala referred to one of his theories - the presentation of Thracian and Dacian as a single language - as a "general view" in a work published by CUP. However, this allegedly "general view" is described by an other linguist (Benjamin W. Fortson IV) as a pure speculation. A third linguist Mate Kapović also separates the two languages (namely, Thracian and Dacian). Again, we cannot present a scholar's PoV as a general view if it is presented as a highly speculative theory in an other scholar's work. Perhaps, you should familiarize yourself with our community's basic policies, such as WP:NPOV: PoV pushing is not in line with them. Borsoka (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, @Borsoka, it was Pana Dindelegan, not Sala we are discussing. Sala is offering a supporting view. So it is not just Oxford, but Cambridge as well that we call POVs here, based on lawyering Wikipedia rules. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You were quoting Sala's text above. I proved above what a "general view" means in the context of this article: it can be labelled as speculation by other scholars. That Romanian is a direct descendant of the Latin variant spoken in Dacia Traiana in any way is also a scholarly PoV, not a "general view". Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Aristeus01!
 * I see you would like to put the lead here and in other articles as generial view that the Romanian language was formed from Latin in Dacia Trajana (Transylvania) and it was uninterruptedly spoken 2000 years long until today. This is the Daco-Roman theory, which is highly debated by historians, which is mainly accepted in Romania, but the historiography of the surrounding local countries do not accept it for a simple reason, because this theory does not agree with their own historiography and their local historical knowledge. For instance, Transylvania was part of Hungary until 1920, and it was important region in the Hungarian history, which means the Hungarian historiography or local historical knowledge relates to the region. And the Hungarian (or the surronding countries, Poland, Austria, Germany, Bulgaria, Russia, Byzantine...) historiography in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary does not know any Romanian presence before the 13th century, and I suppose the people should speak a language and not the stones, trees or birds, so I have a simple question, if we do not know about Romanian presence in the region then who spoke that language there? What is the evidences the Romanian language was spoken before the 13th century in Transylvania? I can accept your theory, if you provide real convincing historical evidences, because I see this theory is just a speculation. I think 1000 years is a huge gap between Roman Dacia and the documented presence of the Vlachs in the region. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Rome
Rome has 2.743.796 Population 2A04:2410:1706:5280:F9C5:93C9:1946:8658 (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Rásonyi
Rásonyi published his views about the association of the Hungarian chronicles Blachi with the Bulaqs more than 40 years ago. Could you refer to works published by international publishing houses accepting Rásonyi's view? If not, we should not mention it either as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Az Árpád-kori Magyarország Történeti Földrajza volume 2 by György Györffy (see the p. 48) comes to mind, but that's even older. I've recently read another publication from the journal Történelmi Szemle (27th volume 4nd issue, p. 633) that seems to support the "Bulaq theory" over the Vlach one.
 * I don't think that the view of Spinei is also covered and accepted by many works from international publishing houses. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One of Spinei's works are published by BRILL. The other work is referred to by Denis Deletant's studies about Romanian history. Borsoka (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * could you refer to books or articles published by international academic publishing houses that support Rásonyi's theory? Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mentioned two.
 * Neither of these views are discussed and accepted by many books or articles published by international academic publishing houses. Gyalu22 (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. The page you are referring to above does not support (or mention) the "Bulaq theory" 2. A random reference to the theory in respected journal does not verify the notablity of the theory. 3. I maintain that Rásonyi's theory is a typical marginal theory. Would you refer to books or articles published in English that support it? Borsoka (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have the book, but from an online preview I saw "A blak etnikumot illetően mongol kori források hozhatók fel annak tanúsítására, hogy itt a Volga-vidékéről eredeztetett török féle blak, ulaq népelemről lehet szó, e középkori tudós [preview ends]". And Györffy is a reputed mainstream historian.
 * My reference was wrong. On page 633, the theory is only explained, the author expresses sympathy on the next page (though he says on 633 already that he holds the Blacus name doesn't have anything to do with the Vlachs). I quote: "A blak, blök nép azonosításában két lehetőséget látok: 1. kunok előtti török, 2. eltörökösödött iráni népszórvány neve. Az előnyomuló kunok maguk közé szervezték ezt a szórványt, ennek következtében, de korábban is kerülhettek blak, blök szórványok a Volga mentére. Ahová viszont újlatin nyelvű vlachok nem érkeztek. Úgy vélem, hogy Anonymus kun körből merítette a Blacus (Blak) nevet, és ezért alkalmazta a szókezdő B-t".
 * Gyalu22 (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Change the title from "Origin of the Romanians" to the more academic wording "Ethnogenesis of the Romanians"
Change the title from "Origin of the Romanians" to the more academic wording "Ethnogenesis of the Romanians". Thanks in advance. Ninhursag3 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 * If many people wouldn't understand the word "ethnogenesis", that's a strike against it. AnonMoos (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I also think the "Origin of the Romanians" title is easier to understand. RF354 (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think the same that "Origin of the Romanians" title is easier to understand. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Besides comprehensibility, similarity with the title of other articles covering the origin/ethnogenesis of other nations. Type in "origin of the" in the search bar.Gyalu22 (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for Romanians to vote as well. Seems unfair for only Hungarians to vote regarding wikipedia articles about Romanians...Hungarians opposing a proposal by a Romanian is not something uncommon but quite expected. On the other hand, typing "Origins of" indeed shows different results. So on that point I understand the perspective.
 * However "Origins of" for saying Romanians are a few kilometers South or North of the Danube is not the same as origins of groups coming thousands of kilometers away from Siberia or India... Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can tell of myself and OrionNimrod that we are Hungarians, but I don't know how you determined the ethnicity of the two other voters. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a familiar word to many. I'm not Hungarian. Since there are many theories, you could follow Origin hypotheses of the Croats.  Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Than rename it to "Origin hypotheses of the Romanians"? Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd support that. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems many nations has many origin theories. Hungarians also has origin theories. I think modern genetic could help, however because all nations mixed during centuries each other of various levels, perhaps the combination of more theory can be also the truth. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm so glad we finally agree. I knew we could eventually see eye to eye. Like I already said "I personally think on all articles instead of "Origins of Croats/Romanians/Albanians etc" it should be changed to "Ethnogenesis hypotheses of Croats/Romanians/Albanians" etc. Just saying "origins" doesn't sound academic but almost derogatory and not just "simplified". This is an academic issue, not a "simplistic" issue. "
 * This is not the "simple English language version" but just the normal English language version, so words like "ethnogenesis" should be fine. Ethno means "ethnicity" and "genesis" means "origin". Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm asking too much but has anyone read the Romanians wikipedia page but the German version?https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum%C3%A4nen 10% is a few words about Romanians like "there 23,8 million Romanians around the world" and 90% is about the "Ethnogenesis of the Romanians" ("Die rumänische Ethnogenese"). This must be the most unprofessional article I've ever read on wikipedia. It's nothing like the superior English version with many references and topics regarding Romanians. Nothing about the Culture of Romania, List of Romanian inventors and discoverers, Romanian literature, Romanian architecture, Science and technology in Romania, Vlachs, Great Vlachia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Danubian Principalities, Unification of Moldavia and Wallachia, United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, Greater Romania, Romanian language, Romanian Orthodox Church, Romanian Greek Catholic Church.
 * I asked in German using google translate on the German wikipedia version of "Romanians" but nobody helped *sigh*. Can anyone please help? Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment See also Origin of the Albanians. RF354 (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 * I already said "typing "Origins of" indeed shows different results. So on that point I understand the perspective."
 * I personally think on all articles instead of "Origins of Croats/Romanians/Albanians etc" it should be changed to "Ethnogenesis hypotheses of Croats/Romanians/Albanians" etc. Just saying "origins" doesn't sound academic but almost derogatory and not just "simplified". This is an academic issue, not a "simplistic" issue. Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's more important for a title to be clear than to be "academic sounding".
 * The article doesn't only outline the hypotheses about the origin of the Romanians, most of it is about archaeological, linguistic, genetic and literal data regarding the ancient times.
 * Gyalu22 (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty "academic sounding" titles on wikipedia, especially since this is not the simple English version. Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then just "Ethnogenesis of the Romanians" without "Ethnogenesis hypotheses of Romanians". Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Origin" for similarity with other articles. Gyalu22 (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, "ethnogenesis" can be added to the other articles in order to be similar, especially since ethnogenesis is the correct word for the academic context. Ninhursag3 (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing incorrect about the word origin. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose. There's no other Wikipedia article titled "Ethnogenesis of" but several using "Origins of". Per Wikipedia policy WP:CONSISTENT (with other articles) the best option here would be to keep the current version. Furthermore, Ethnogenesis does indeed sound more professional but not necessarily better because of that, "Origins of" has the benefit of simplicity. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose - sorry, Ninhursag3, but this article is constructed around the location of Romanians during the late Antiquity-Early Middle Ages, hence the term "origin" is more accurate. The ethnogenesis as a process is discussed here only in supporting arguments related to the possible location. Perhaps a different article dealing with mechanism of the process and its implications might be needed, yet I'm not sure wikipedians won't see it as forking.--Aristeus01 (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Romance language
The sources which you have WP:CITEd are awfull. IMHO, I would go for only Martin Maiden. 2016. Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Aromanian. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 91-125. Oxford: Oxford University Press. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 * That was not a very nice and civil thing to do, i.e. undoing my edit before I even got the chance to respond. I was about to say "thanks!" for pointing me to Maiden. It took me a while to locate the source as I don't have access to it, even with my academic credentials. And to read it. And to formulate a concise and neutral POV paragraph. Instead of my thanks, I will say:
 * 1. I cite what I read. If you want me to cite something else, give me that something else, or better yet, do it yourself.
 * 2. All my sources comply with WP:VERIFY. Graduate theses are accepted and I have no clue about what ideological book you refer to.
 * 3. "Awfull" (sic!) is not an argument, is an opinion, therefore safely disregarded. My sources follow WP:SOURCE policy. Check again.
 * 4. The place to debate your proposed paragraph is here, on the talk page, not on the main page. BTW, I was fine with your proposed paragraph. I will add that "the Eastern Romance sub-branch is a linguistic group that evolved from several dialects of Vulgar Latin which separated from the Western Romance languages in the course of the period from the 5th to the 8th centuries. . As a scholar myself, I value any country's National Academy's point of view - scholarly speaking only - above any other source (save for consensus in peer-reviewed papers), as does WP:SOURCE, as should any editor that values objectivity. At the very least it should be mentioned. I have only the 1969 edition but if you have a more recent one, feel free to amend my sentence.
 * 5. Please don't start an edit-war. I am not an extremist or a nationalist or whathaveyou. You also removed a reference to the Max Planck Institute Linguistic Database (why?!, if even these people aren't reliable, than who on Earth are?!). In my experience, people who remove academic references are POV pushers and there is no debate with them. Consequently, I will not engage you. In addition, given your belligerent past, your tendency to hold grudges as evidenced by your editing history, and - most importantly - your present aggressive tone to me, someone you had no previous interactions with, this shall be my only reply and edit here. So if you revert my edits, so be it; enjoy your page and POV pushing. I'm out. Cheers.
 *  ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦ (My talk page) 20:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Hmm... I don't agree. The Academy of Sciences of the Socialist Republic of Romania was a strongly politicized and ideological body. So, even if they wrote that the sky is blue, WP:CITE another source for it. Vladimir Tismaneanu and some other peers of him were making sport of Ceausescu's speech introducing juche to Romania, but an older professor reminded them that's how Stalinist purges have started. That happened in 1971, see July Theses, but of course National-Communism was introduced to the Romanian people soon after the death of Dej, with many nationalists of the Iron Guard and the historical parties getting rehabilitated in order to write propaganda for the regime. Or since even the early 1960s (before Dej's death). See National communism in Romania.

 * And can assure you that if we debase our standards to recognize Master's theses as WP:RS, the hell would break loose at Wikipedia.

 * Yup, I wrote There were people sent to prison just because they dared to criticize Ceausescu's retarded juche ideology. And I can agree it is aggressive. There is however no indication that the aggressiveness was directed towards you. That's only your interpretation of what I wrote. In fact, it is directed towards my country's past and towards how historians and social scientists chose to serve the retarded juche ideology. The mystery is: why do you think I was writing that about you? You were probably not born yet at the time we are discussing. I stated a harsh truth about a harsh reality, but not about you. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @WikiUser70176 currently the Academy's view is that the language developed from the Latin spoken in the Roman provinces on the Danube (commonly referred as Danubian Latin) and went trough a stage called Common Romanian (ref Sala From Latin to Romanian). The idea that Daco-Romance languages developed separately, or from several dialects, or only in close connexion is, to my knowledge, extinct. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aristeus01 I agree. Put it in!  ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦ (My talk page) 00:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Find another source, instead of the sick National-Communist propaganda book. There should be plenty of other sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

One WP:RS from WP:CHOPSY beats a dozen of dubious citations. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We stand for WP:BESTSOURCES, we have no time to waste with a Master's thesis and with a book of ancilla ideologiae. I'm not even saying that that book is junk, but they were clearly running a state-sponsored ideological propaganda show. There were people sent to prison just because they dared to criticize Ceausescu's retarded juche ideology. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think WP:RSN thread Origin of the Romanians might interest editors involved in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The book was not making propaganda for the Romanian people, but against it. The difference with Proletcultism was the that mystique of the tractor was replaced with sugary myths of Romanian exceptionalism. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Why are hungarian users write about the origin of romanians?
I hope you banned the liars like Rásonyi from contributing, this incident should come to mind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#User:Borsoka_and_User:Fakirbakir 2A02:2F04:5001:A900:78BE:D4D:2367:6E6D (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify the connection between Rásonyi and myself? As far as I can remember I have never cited Rásonyi. Yes, chauvinistic Romanian editors (most of them banned from our community years ago) and their sockpuppets have made several attempts to achieve a topic ban against me for years. They have so far always failed. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Low-quality sourcing
I am not tagging the article, though it would be great if someone well-versed on the topic worked on it. Most of the article is based on partisan Romanian and Hungarian scholars who are mostly of a low quality. There is also large dependence on other old, largely discredited scholars like Schramm and Georgiev. The theory of the origin north of the Danube is treated as equal with the theory of the origin south of the Danube, though nowadays there is hardly any high-quality, non-partisan linguist specializing in the Paleo-Balkans claiming that the core of the Romanian population originated north of the Danube. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Origin of the Romanians


text:
Baldwin IV, Count of Hainaut

Baldwin IV (1108 – 8 November 1171) was count of Hainaut from 1120 to his death.

Baldwin IV was the son of Count Baldwin III of Hainaut and Yolande de Wassenberg. Also known as Baldwin the Builder, he purchased the property of Ath in 1158 and built the Burbant tower. He ceded the locality of Braine-la-Willotte, also known as Braine-le-Comte, to the chapter of Sainte-Waudru in 1158. In 1159, he incorporated the seigniory of Chimay and in 1160 the châtellenies of Valencians and of Ostrevent.

Baldwin IV married Alice, heiress of Namur, and had the following children:
 * Yolande (1131–1202), married first to Ivo II, Count of Soissons, and second to Hugh IV, Count of St Pol
 * Baldwin (1134–1147)
 * Agnes (1142–1168), married Ralph I, Lord of Coucy and had children including Yolande de Coucy, wife of Robert II, Count of Dreux.
 * Geoffrey, Count of Ostervant (1147–1163), first husband of Eleanor, Countess of Vermandois
 * Lauret(t)a (1150–1181), married first to Thierry of Alost, and second to Bouchard IV, Count of Montmorency
 * Baldwin V (1150–1195), also count of Flanders by his marriage to Margaret I of Flanders.

title: Baldwin IV, Count of Hainaut


text:
Baldwin V, Count of Hainaut

Baldwin V of Hainaut (1150 – 17 December 1195) was count of Hainaut (1171–1195), margrave of Namur as Baldwin I (1189–1195) and count of Flanders as Baldwin VIII (1191–1195).

History
He was the son of Baldwin IV, Count of Hainaut. In the winter of 1182 on 1183, the Count of Namur-Luxembourg was seriously ill and completely blind, whereupon Baldwin immediately visited him in Luxembourg. There he was reconfirmed as heir by his uncle and was able to receive the homage of several vassals from him. The succession was confirmed by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa on 22 May 1184 at the Diet of Pentecost in Mainz, on which Baldwin acted as imperial sword bearer. Flanders was acquired via his marriage to his widowed third cousin once removed Margaret I of Flanders, Countess of Flanders in 1169. Namur was acquired from his mother Alice of Namur. He was described as "The Count Baldwin with eyes of blue."

He was buried at the monastery of Saint Waudru before the altar of Blessed James the apostle.

Family
With Margaret, Baldwin had the following issue:

 * Isabelle of Hainaut (Valenciennes, April 1170 – 15 March 1190, Paris), married king Philip II of France
 * Baldwin VI of Hainaut (1171–1205), also count of Flanders and Latin Emperor
 * Yolanda of Flanders (1175–1219), married Peter II of Courtenay, Latin Emperor
 * Philip I of Namur (1175–1212)
 * Henry of Flanders (1176–1216), Latin Emperor
 * Sybille of Hainaut (1179 – 9 January 1217), married c. 1197 Guichard IV, Sire de Beaujeu (d. 1216)
 * Eustace of Flanders (d. 1219), regent of the Kingdom of Thessalonica, married in 1209 to a daughter, name unknown, of Michael I Komnenos Doukas, ruler of Epirus
 * Godfrey of Hainaut

title: Baldwin V, Count of Hainaut


text:
User:Solipsist/monobook.css

/* standard link colours */ a { color: #0000FF; } a:visited { color: #7F007F; } a:active, a.new { color: #FF0000; } a.interwiki, a.external { color: #3366BB; } a.stub { color: #772233; }

/* remove the ugly, recently-reinstated link underlines */ a { text-decoration: none; } a:hover { text-decoration: underline; }

/* show persondata entries */ table.metadata {display:table;}

title: User:Solipsist/monobook.css