Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

WP:NOR /dubious statement: Russian Primary Chronicle and Letopisetul Cantacuzinesc

Dear anonymous editor, you seem to be new in our community. Please read WP:NOR which prescribes that "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed". By inserting, one or two days ago, the "" template to the sentence which is exclusively based on primary sources (namely on the Russian Primary Chronicle and the Cantacuzino Chronicle), I expressed that I doubt that those sentences could be attributed to a reliable source. (Please also read what a reliable source means in our community's vocabulary.) Therefore, please do not delete the above template, but try to search a reliable source which substantiates the statement, otherwise it will be deleted in a couple of days. Furthermore please take into account that the Letopisetul Cantacuzinesc writes of the Romanians' northward migration across the Danube to the Kingdom of Hungary. Since Hungarians did not settle in the territories north of the Danube before the 9th century, it is highly dubious that the chronicle refers to a 7th-century migration of the Romanians. Please also try to find reliable sources which confirm this highly dubious claim, because without proper reference to at least one reliable source it would be deleted in a couple of days. Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the opinion of most neutral (i.e. non-Romanian, non-Hungarian) scholars? Presumably immigrationist?

I'm curious what the viewpoints of non-Romanian and non-Hungarian scholars are. For obvious reasons, Romanian and Hungarian scholars are likely to have their scholarship tempered by their ethnic views -- it is always difficult to remain objective in the face of strongly-held emotionally-resonant viewpoints, and it's a natural human tendency to rationalize. I would guess that most neutral scholars believe the immigrationist perspective, although I don't know the field well enough to be sure. Certainly, from an a-priori standpoint, the immigrationist theory seems more likely, given the fact that Dacia was at the very edge of the Roman empire and only briefly and imperfectly (and not at all peacefully) under Roman control, and the fact that populations (especially non-agricultural ones like sheepherders) can easily migrate, and the known history of the Balkans with migrations all over the place in recent times, and the similarity between the Romanian and Aromanian languages (suggesting a late divergence), and the obvious question of what happened to all the former Romance-language speakers in current Slavic lands south of the Danube, and the lack of older-stratum Romance place names in Romania, and the fact that a non-Slavic population must have physically/geographically intervened between Serbs and Bulgarians for centuries after the arrival in their current areas given the extreme differences between their languages and the almost complete lack of areally-diffused language features between them except in fairly recent times.

Among immigrationists, is there a consensus of where the point of origin of the Proto-Romanians was?

There is a page here [1] with some interesting theories, that suggests that the Romanians (Vlachs) originated in southern Albania, and migrated northeast in the 6th to 11th centuries (at which point they would have separated the Serbs and Bulgarians, see above), and split into Romanian/Aromanian in the 11th century as the ancestors of the modern Romanians began to migrate north of the Danube. There is a logic to this but I don't know how well supported it is.

Any comments?

Benwing (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Benwing, there is no consensual view of "neutral" scholars. Actually, "neutral" scholars avoid this subject (I refer to Schramm 1997 who emphasizes that "Western European" historians do not want to intervene in this debate). For instance, Barford who wrote a book of the history of the Early Slavs (Barford 2001) makes no reference to Latin- or Romance-speaking populations in the territory of present-day Romania. He emphasizes that sporadic archaeological finds in the territory of modern Romania are identified "by Romanian scholars" as representing "Roman tradition". Schramm, in his cited work (Schramm 1997), explicitly denies any continuity to the north of the Danube. Fiedler denies Romanian archaeologists' view of a Christian population practising cremation to the north of the Danube, which is a crucial point of the continuity theory (Fiedler 2008). Tertiary sources (such as Britannica) present the continuity theory based on Romanian scholars' works, but make mention of the immigrationist theory as well. The followers of the immigrationist theory agree that the mointains along the present-day borders of Bulgaria and Serbia belonged to the Romanian "homeland", but there is no consensus of the territorial extent of this homeland (I could only refer to a source written in Hungarian). Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Benwing, the page you mentioned follows entirely the Hungarian/immigrationist theories, although it starts by saying it is a "neutral view". Plus it doesn't mention the author, sources etc. While interesting at the first sight, it looks like pure propaganda in disguise which grows more and more aggressive as the content unfolds, something is quite typical for the people and parties involved in this contentious topic. I am yet to find a *really neutral* article on this subject. Most non-Hungarian and non-Romanian historians stay away from this topic, mostly because they don't know enough, they don't want to be involved in politically-loaded arguments or since they mostly don't care about this part of the world.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, your wording ("Hungarian/immigrationist theory") seems to be quite biased. Please remember that the immigration of Romanians from the south to the territory of present-day Romania was first mentioned by the earliest Romanian chronicles (I refer to the Moldo-Russian Chronicle's account of the invitation of the Romanians to Hungary by "King Vladislav" and their settlement in Maramures, and to the Cantacuzino Chronicle's narration of Romanians crossing the Danube at Turnu Severin before migrating to the Kingdom of Hungary and before "filling all places" in Wallachia. Please also remember that not Hungarian, but Austrian and Swiss historians (Sulzer and Roesler) were the first who challenged the continuity theory using a scientific method. Please also take into account that there are a number of non-Hungarian specialist who reject the continuity theory (For instance, I refer to Schramm and Petrucci whose works are mentioned in the article). Borsoka (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Romanians vs Vlachs

"Romanians, also known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages, speak a language descended from the Latin which was once spoken in south-eastern Europe." Dear Borsoka, I agree with your reasoning ("as far as I know, the Vlach exonym and its variants (oláh, etc) were only used in the Middle Ages). Romanians were known as "Vlachs" in the Middle Ages and the term "Romanians" was not really used. Am I right? I am not sure but if the answer "yes", the word "also" will be redundant. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, I have not read a simple reliable source which states that the "Romanian" ethnonym was used when referring to the Vlachs/Romanians in the Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that also is not that redundant since Vlach is an exonym, meaning how others called the Romanians. The Romanians themselves always used, logically, the autonyms, derived from Latin "Romanus", like rumân. Unfortunately, we don't have documents written by the Romanians in those times and instead the documents from the foreigners who obviously used the exonym. So I would rephrase as Romanians, known to foreigners/in foreign source as Vlachs.--Codrin.B (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, are we talking here about English-language manuscripts from the Middle Ages? Some ethnonyms used in the past are "Wallachians", "Wallacks" 79.117.174.222 (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anon, please read WP:V before deleting sentences from the article. Please also take into account that we live now in the year 2013 AD. Borsoka (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Cihac dictionary

Sources give contradictory data. According to a Hungarian author, the percentages are: 45.7% words Slav origin, 31.5% words of Latin origin, 8.4% words of Turkish origin, 7% words of Greek origin, 6% words of Hungarian origin, 0.6% words of Albanian origin

https://www.google.ro/search?q=45%2C7%25+%3Blatinesti+31%2C5%25+%3Bturcesti+8%2C4%25&btnG=C%C4%83utare+de+c%C4%83r%C5%A3i&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=ro#hl=ro&q=%22according+to+Cihac%2C+Wallachian+linguist%2C+the+Rumanian+language+could+be+divided+into+the+following+...+Slavic+origin+Latin+origin+45.7%25+31.5%25+8.4%25%22&tbm=bks 86.127.24.139 (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Cihac's work is just another point of view. There is nothing wrong with it. Actually his research is quite important (IMO) because it shows the situation of Romanian language prior to Re-Latinization. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The above percentages refer to Cihac's work too. And there was no re-Latinization. 86.127.24.139 (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between "Cihac's work is appreciated by specialists as being far superior to Laurian's linguistic fantasies" and "Cihac's work is appreciated by specialists". In addition, puffery (WP:PEA) should be avoided. 86.127.24.139 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Cihac's study is not reliable: [2] 86.127.24.217 (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? There was no re-Latinization? :) Fakirbakir (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I would rather call it Frenchization :) . Latinization was only an indirect, not necessary intentional, consequence (some French words that entered Romanian were of Latin origin themselves)

I'm gonna open soon a thread on WP:RSN regarding the information about Cihac. Please don't reinsert it until we reach consensus (it will not take more then a few days)

Also, please take care that there are two books by Lucian Boia (the 2nd being Romania: Borderland of Europe), you need to make some corrections.

By the way, do you have any idea who is Lajos Kazar? 79.117.186.90 (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

He was an academic at the Australian National University. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Anna Comnena about Romanians

Anna Comnena described the Romanians from Balkans and former Dacia in Alexiade :Ion Grumeza, The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500,University Press of America, 2010, p.58

But she used the term Dacians instead of Romanians (Vlachs).In Alexiade the term appers in 7 pages including description of Balkan Romanians. She clearly described the Balkan Romanians from North Balkans (Alexiade, 14.8 pag.253)Anna used the term Hercinian forest and showed that Romanians were on the North side and Macedonians on the South side.

She clearly showed that the Istro (Danube) is between Dacia and the Roman Empire (3.3 pag.67)

Also she wrote about an invasion of Pechenegs, Cumans and Dacians from Northern side of Danube.(Alexiade 7.1 pag 117) from: Ion Grumeza, The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500,University Press of America, 2010, p.58

The Book of Grumeza is on net. You can read about 80% for free. Eurocentral (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Are these data important ? Eurocentral (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, please take into account that Grumeza is not a historian, so his book is not a reliable source for our community purposes. Moreover, you should take into account that all historians know that when writing of Dacians, Anna Comnena in fact referred to the Hungarians (for instance, Curta, 2006, p. 300). Likewise, the standard English translation of her book /Anna Comnena: The Alexiad (Translated by E. R. A. Sewter) (1969). Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-044958-7./ clarifies that the Dacians were in fact Hungarians (note 23 on p. 122). Finally, if you read the book, you can also realize that the Dacians can only be Hungarians in the context. For instance, the Byzantine duchess writes of "the ambassadors who came from the Dacians on behalf of the kral, kinsman of the Basileus John's wife" (op cit. p. 434.): the kral is the Hungarian király (=king) Coloman the Learned who was the cousin of Irene of Hungary, wife of the future Emperor John II Komnenos (=Basielus John). Borsoka (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, read about Grumeza text in: http://books.google.ro/books?id=DTxu6RxdecUC&pg=PP2&lpg=PP2&dq=ion+grumeza,+the+roots,+preview&source=bl&ots=GWiILT2XvT&sig=1QPAkj94rQpiYnp1AQO7y3X3Xq0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YZWIUtHfC4OdtQbn8IHoCg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=ion%20grumeza%2C%20the%20roots%2C%20preview&f=false

Grumeza wrote several books about history. More than Vasary. About your hilarious words: Dacians can only be Hungarians: Do you know better than Comnena how it was ? Did you live in her era? Why do you deny another source ? Eurocentral (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Read Grumeza book and see why hungarians are not dacians.Eurocentral (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, please read what a reliable source means for our purposes. Otherwise, I read a book of Grumeza: it is obvious that he is not a historian. Do you know better than Florin Curta and many other historians what is the meaning of Dacians in Comnena's text? I suggest you should read books written by historians of history. Borsoka (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Denying sources is your crucial feature. Ana was historian, her husband was historian her father was Imperator. She wrote about dacians from Balkans and Dacia in 7 places. She wrote about Hungary only in 2 places. Where do you see hungarians in her vecinity? Read my observations: she told about Romanians in North side of Balkan mountains and Macedonians on South side. Where do you see hungarians ? They are in Panonia. Grumeza clearly showed what was the confusion starting point: a translator's note who wrote about his opinion. But this was a translator note and not Anna's point of view. You fell in this trap as a lot of historians. All you have to do is to read again Alexiade !

I red your words: note 23 on p. 122 showed Dacians were Hungarians; but this note is made by a translator over a milenium Eurocentral (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Grumeza text in: http://books.google.ro/books?id=DTxu6RxdecUC&pg=PP2&lpg=PP2&dq=ion+grumeza,+the+roots,+preview&source=bl&ots=GWiILT2XvT&sig=1QPAkj94rQpiYnp1AQO7y3X3Xq0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YZWIUtHfC4OdtQbn8IHoCg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=ion%20grumeza%2C%20the%20roots%2C%20preview&f=false

If Grumeza (tertiary source) text is enough we will start new edits.Eurocentral (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read what a reliable source means for WP purposes. Please read what the historian Florin Curta writes. Please forget Grumeza who is not a historian. Borsoka (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Grumeza -according to his own biography- is a metaphysician. He has a "PHD" from the "University" of Metaphysical Sciences (http://umsonline.org/).:)Fakirbakir (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I red Curta's book but he admitted that Dacians were Romanians.Eurocentral (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC) So, what can you say ?

I suggest you should switch on the light when trying to read books. Would you refer to the exact page and would you cite his words admitting that the Dacians in Anna Comnena's work are Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We have 2 references now: Curta and Grumeza(universitary professor). A third author will be revealed soon. By the way: Hungary appears 2 times in Anna's book and Dacia 7 times. So magyars are in connection only with Hungary. Final score: 7:2 Eurocentral (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No, try to count it again: Curta does not state that the Dacians are Romanians in Anna Comnena's work (he writes of Hungarians instead) and the standard translation of her book also states that the Dacians are Hungarians in the context. Grumeza is not a historian. Final score 0:2.

French historian Ed. Sayous agrees that Dacians were Romanians and added that the Hungarians must have encountered a large number of Latin-speaking people when they arrived in Pannonia. Other writers used his remarks. There are 3 authors for true Dacian Alexiade. Eurocentral (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, Anna Comnena does not write of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin. Therefore the mysterious Ed. Sayous's remark in connection with that event is not relevant in this discussion. There is no reliable source stating that the Dacians in her work are Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

There are too many authors showing that Dacians from Alexiade are Romanians. We have to start a modification using first 3 authors..

A. Elian, N.S. Tanasoca, Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanae, Saec. XI-XIV, Editura Academiei RSR, Bucuresti,1975,note 91 in p.117.

Gh. Sincai, Opere, Hronica romanilor, tom 1, Bucuresti,1967, p.325-326

Ion Grumeza, The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500,University Press of America, 2010, p.58 Eurocentral (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, Gheorghe Șincai wrote his Hronica romanilor in 1811. You might have not realized but we are in the year 2013 AD. Grumeza is not a historian. Would you please cite the note 91 on page 117 from the first book you listed. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There are too many authors showing that Dacians from Alexiade are Romanians. We have to start a modification using first 3 authors..

A. Elian, N.S. Tanasoca, Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanae, Saec. XI-XIV, Editura Academiei RSR, Bucuresti,1975,note 91 in p.117.

Gh. Sincai, Opere, Hronica romanilor, tom 1, Bucuresti,1967, p.325-326

Ion Grumeza, The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500,University Press of America, 2010, p.58 Eurocentral (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Eurocentral (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, please read my above messages more carefully before pretending to answer them. (1) Please cite the note 91 on page 117 from the first book (A. Elian, N. S. Tanasoca, etc), because that book is a primary source (2) Gh. Sincai's Hronica romanilor was first published in 1811, therefore it is not a reliable source for wikipedia's purposes (3) Ion Grumeza is not a historian, his works do not qualify as reliables source for wikipedia's purposes. Borsoka (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a compromise: Dacians from Anna Comnen are Romanians, Pechenegs , or Magyars according to a Magyar historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 07:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, according to all reliable sources (as I cited them above, and none of them was written by Hungarian historians), the Dacians in her work are allways Hungarians. Alternative or fringe theories do exist, but this is WP with well established rules. Borsoka (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

WE already talked. Romanians apper 5 times, Hungarians 1 or 2 times in Anna's work. Read again Comnen: Dacians are on the North side of Haemus mountain and Macedonans on the South side. Comnena wrote in 2 places about Hungarians (with H) from Panonia; they were not called Dacians. Only Moravcsik, as translator of Comnen, supposed Hungarians to live on North side of the Haemus. Alexandru Elian is a well known byzantinolog. Read him Eurocentral (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC) References you cited are based on Moravcsick (as translator) and I already put him in the article.Eurocentral (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Read here: http://www.investigacioneshistoricaseuroasiaticas-ihea.com/files/alexiada.pdf (at page 253) Anna Comnen clearly describes Dacians around Haemus mountains. A lot of Romanian writers saw this. This is why I proposed a compromise. Moravcsick was a translator and his observation was considered good by a large part of readers. Comnen used "Hungarians" term only in connection with Panonia.Eurocentral (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, please add at least one reliable source before editing: your own interpretation of Anna Comnena's work is not relevant here. Please stop wasting other editors' time with OR. Borsoka (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Modern / western sources ?

As above discussion, to the frustration of the non-Romanian, non-Hungarian enthusiasts for the region, there is virtually no recent, western work on this thorny question. However:

• a critic on the idea of a unified 'Geto-Dacian' world [3]
• There is the theory of linguist P Wrexler who argues that the formation of Romanian langauge, and Romanians, has more to do with events in the early second millenium AD (!) than with Dacians and Romans [4]
• There is also R Batty who briefly discusses the problems of so-called 'Geto-Dacian world' [5]

I'm sure more can also be found on the biases of Hungarian scholars, in turn

Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Romance people ≠ Romanians

Why is the text: The Romani ethnonym was first mentioned by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (r. 912–959),[105] who wrote of a population bearing this name "whom the emperor Diocletian" brought "from Rome and settled"[106] in Dalmatia' worth including in this article? How do we know that it does not refer to speakers of the extinct Dalmatian language? Not all the Eastern Romance people are/were Romanians. I think it should be removed, as there is no reliable source that asserts it is a reference to the ancestors of modern Romanians

I can see many references to Balkan Vlachs (Origin_of_the_Romanians#Sources_on_the_Balkan_Vlachs), which can be the predecessors of Aromanians, Morlachs, Megleno-Romanians or Istro-Romanians - distinct Eastern Romance peoples from Romanians. 79.117.178.247 (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with you. However, in order to prove that the Romanians' ancestors were always well aware of their Roman roots Armbruster cites the emperor's reference to the inhabitants of the Dalmatian towns who were called Romans. As far as I know Armbruster's work is still part of the Romanian people's knowledge of their past. It is often cited. Borsoka (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

These references to the Balkan Vlachs are mentioned in all reliable sources dealing with the formation of the Romanians. For instance, Armbruster, Spinei, Georgescu, etc, etc. Moreover, there is a significant theory stating that these Balkan Vlachs were the ancestors of the Romanians (now living to the north of the Danube) as well. Furthermore, most toponyms in the Balkans are clearly "Daco-Romanians" (Visitor, Dormitor, ... etc), suggesting that the territory used to be inhabited by a population speaking that variant. Borsoka (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In the particular case of the affirmation The late 11th-century Kekaumenos relates that the Vlachs of the region of Larissa had "the custom of having their herds and families stay in high mountains and other really cold places from the month of April to the month of September the cited works don't seem to focus on the origin of Romanians, but on events happening in the Byzantine Empire. I don't see any indication that those Vlachs would be regarded as ancestors of modern Romanian. If there is not objection, I propose its deletion

I have the same remarks about the phrase Benjamin of Tudela describes the Vlachs of Boeotia sweeping down "from the mountains to despoil and ravage the land of Greece 79.117.176.117 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Kekaumenos's reference is important: (1) it clearly makes mention of Bulgaria as well (2) it is one of the few sources referring to the way of life of the Vlachs who (according to him) lived also along the Sava river. Borsoka (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I too agree anonymous IP. The various Romance speakers had no greater, 'national' identity until the modern period, when Romanian intellectuals called for a pan-Romanian unity. Otherwise, prior to this, there is no clear evidence that the diverse Balkan Romance speakers felt "Romanian". WE are too inclined today to think that same or similar language = automoaticaly a feeling of being 'brothers'. This was certainly not the case until very recently in any ethnolinguistic group. Even today, the Dutch - who speak (Northwest) German - would be mortally offended if you called them 'Germans". Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Slovenski Volk, I really enjoy reading your views. I am sure they are based on reliable sources. Would you refer to them? Borsoka (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There is The nature of ethnic phenomena is not questioned, only what archaeologists, with their limited means, can do to recognize them in the archaeological record. Central to their representation is still the belief that people speaking the same language are an ethnic group, an assumption essential for the construction of the national past[13], for the ethnogenesis of the Romanians, which is treated as similar and intimately related to the formation of the Romanian language,[14] despite the fact that two linguists clearly state that the formation process of the Romance languages “should not be confounded with the formation process of the Romanic peoples (original emphasis), which is one of ethnic nature” (IR3 – M. Sala, G. Mihăilă: 111 From [6] Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Quote needed

I was not able to find the source for the text

The Romanians' Daco-Roman origin became widely accepted after the publication of Dionisie Fotino's History of Dacia in 1818.

Apparently the referred text does not contain this idea [7]. 79.117.163.76 (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Georgescu on cited page: "After this the idea of the Romanization of the Dacians became a permanent feature of Romanian historiography. It was expounded in great detail in such works as Dionisie Fotino's Istoria Daciei (History of Dacia [1818]) and Naum Ramniceanu's Despre origina romanilor (On the origin of the Romanians [1820]). Fotino concludes that "the Romans and Dacians, crossbreeding, created a distinct, mixed people"" Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This does not look very similar with the phrase The Romanians' Daco-Roman origin became widely accepted after the publication of Dionisie Fotino's History of Dacia in 1818. In the book it is affirmed that the theory became popular "after this", where "this" is not the publication of Fotino's work, but an unknown event 86.127.29.8 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The cited source states (1) The Romanization of the Dacians became a permanent feature of Romanian historiography only in the early 19th century (2) It was detailed by Dionisie Fotino (3) Fotino writes that the Romanians are descendants of Dacians and Romans. What is the issue? Borsoka (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"The Romanization of the Dacians became a permanent feature of Romanian historiography only in the early 19th century" - I can only see that the theory became popular "after this", where I don't know what "this" refers to. Do you have access to the phrase prior to this? I can't reach it... 79.117.163.241 (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Also please note that there are 2 continuity theories:

• Romanians being the descendants of Roman colonists
• Romanians being the descendants of Roman colonists + Dacians

I think that text refers to the appearance of supporters of the second variant (before the Dacian elemnt was dismissed) 86.127.30.237 (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the new theory that the Romanians from are descendants of Romans and Dacians were not popular and widespread before the 1820s. Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

... in his 1787 Gramatica rumaneasca (Romanian grammar), and Vacarescu was also the first author to draw a favorable portrait of Decebalus. After this the idea of the Romanization of the Dacians became a permanent feature of Romanian historiography. - the source says the theory became popular after 1787 and Boia talks about year 1800 79.117.189.13 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian schools

Where did you take the length of 60 years from? It does not appear in the original phrase from the book 86.127.29.8 (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The 60 years is not mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've now fully protected the page. I'd recommend dispute resolution to help move this forward otherwise you'll probably end up arguing the same points over and over. GedUK  12:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ged, thank for your action. I am making a last effort to solve the debate on this Talk page. If I fail, I am trying to seek assistance from third parties. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

As I saw, Borsoka agrees some facts in Romanian history pages but he denies the same facts in the Hungarian history pages. That means he is a double dealer. Do we need double standards in Wiki pages ? Do we need such activities ? What may understand a reader ? Is Wiki a low quality source ? Eurocentral (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess, try a dispute reslution on this talk page about what specifically you are arguing about. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, would you specify the basis of your above accusation? Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Some sentences of "Origin of the Romanians" and from other pages were finally accepted by Borsoka (after fierce and inutile fights and OBSTRUCTIONS) but the same sentences were erased by Borsoka from Hungarian history pages. From "Origin of the Romanians" it is the case of a sentence about Romanian and Pecheneg raid in 1068 accepted with obstructions by Borsoka. I inserted this sentence in some Hungarian pages and all were erased by Borsoka. So we have a clear double standard in WIKI promoted by Borsoka. Is this the future of WIKI ? Eurocentral (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

We do not need subjective referees. Eurocentral (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, yes, our editing styles are sharply different. For instance, I think that putting the same POV sentence into 6-10 articles based on the same source do not add any value for our community purposes. Borsoka (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So, WIKI became a subjective source. In some pages we may contribute in other pages it is forbidden according to Mr. Borsoka. It is a good news. I shall send this new issue to some journals. People needs to know about WIKI and how these pages are managed.Eurocentral (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No, WP is not a subjective source. I suggest that you should read basic WP policies and more than one book before editing. Borsoka (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I red about Double standard. Could be the end of Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.53.57 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, you should first read basic WP policies, because without reading them you are not in the position to criticize them. You may not know, but in most human communities people do not make statements of things they are not familiar with. For instance, I refer to our above discussion under "Anna Comnena about Romanians" which is still pending or to our discussion on the Talk page of the article "Bolokhoveni": referring to a book written two hundred years ago or making statements on English usage based on books written in the Romanian language contradict all standards. I am sure that you will be satisfied with our community's basic standards if you try to apply them. Borsoka (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, you try to avoid the main subject. The problem is the credibility. Hungarian and Romanian pages have to reflect correctly common events. If you introduce DISCRIMINATION the result is a distorted and subjective data base. Eurocentral (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You should discriminate sources, but based on relevance, quality and how up-to-date they are. It doesn't matter whether they are Romanian or Hungarian . In fact, on a topic like this , you'd need both to be only fair Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Borsoka agrees some facts in Romanian history pages but he denies the same facts in the Hungarian history pages. This is DISCRIMINATION He just reckognised: "yes, our editing styles are sharply different". For this discrimination feature, his position here is discutable. We do not need DOUBLE DEALERS. Eurocentral (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, deleting a sentence of an event which happened in 1059 from an article wich deals with events ending in 907 is not discrimination, but rationality. Are you sure that you can add value to WP if you cannot differentiate two numbers (907 and 1059)? Borsoka (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, in the same article you put chronicles with facts from the XIth and XIIth centuries. Do you understand now? Do you understand what means DOUBLE STANDARD ? The same case in the History of Hungary pages and in many many more pages. You sent a reply to me and a different reply now. And a lot of data in connection with other historical facts. Here we talk about your general activity, a DISHONEST attitude concerning Wiki pages.

The main problem is this: In Wikipedia Borsoka agrees some facts in Romanian history pages but he denies the same facts in the Hungarian history pages. This is discrimination. Due to this activity, the credibility of WIKI is coming down.Eurocentral (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to Gesta Hungarorum? It is cited because it tries to explain the events of the Hungarian conquest. Of course, it is highly questionable because it was written 300 years later. However your source (about a Pecheneg attack on Tranylvania in the middle of the 11th century) has nothing to do with Hungarian conquest period. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, are you able to read a question? Please concentrate, because you should be able to read more than 20 words in the following sentence. I trust you. My simple question is the following: why do you think that an event which happened in 1059 should be mentioned in an article dealing with events ending in 907? Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You lost your memory: we confonted in other pages: Ladislaus I, king Solomon and many more.

Eurocentral (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, would you please clarify your above accusation. I did not delete any sentence from "the other pages" either if they were based on reliable sources and were connected to the topic of the article. Please stop wasting other editors' time with your accusations and original research. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomads being called Vlachs in Anna Comnena's Alexiad

The text referred in my latest edit is [8] The nomad people are called Vlachs, but there is made no localization (the space is not limited to the Balkans and Vékony's statement does not contain this element either) 86.127.26.109 (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anon, thanks for your message, although I do not understand it. Anna Comnena makes a distinction between the sedentary Bulgarians and the nomadic Vlachs. According to Vásáry (who is also cited), Anna Comnena's statement is crucial "since it clearly shows that at the end of the eleventh century the primary connotation of "Vlakh" was "nomadic shepher of the Balkans"." Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the opinion of byzantinolog Alexandru Elian (about Dacians from Anna Comnen) in the "Sources on the Balkan Vlachs" be presented to clarify the dispute about Dacians?

  Eurocentral (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Should the "Sources on the Balkan Vlachs" contain a reference of Alexandru Elian about this topic? Eurocentral (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Borsoka (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC) What is Alexandru Elian's opinion? Borsoka (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

I think you should answer first to this: "Please cite the note 91 on page 117 from the first book (A. Elian, N. S. Tanasoca, etc)," before asking for other comments. 11:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.189.152 (talk)

About the reference: A. Elian, N.S. Tanasoca, Fontes Historiae Daco-Romanae, Saec. XI-XIV, Editura Academiei RSR, Bucuresti,1975,note 91 in p.117

Elian and Tanasoca wrote at page 117 that Dacians from Anna Comnen are Pechenegs or Romanians. Also they showed that Moravcsik launched the opinion that Dacians were Hungarians. These are important opinions and should be discussed. Eurocentral (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you verbatim cite their text from the note? It would be great to read how they "showed that Moravcsik launched the opinion that the Dacians" (in Anna Comnena's work) "were Hungarians". How they identify "kral, kinsman of the Basileus John's wife" who is mentioned as a Dacian by Anna Comnena? Do they state that the Romanians and Pechenegs spoke in Hungarian when naming their ruler (the kral)? Borsoka (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked the source and on page 117 it says (in Romanian): "Generally by Dacians Anna Commena appoints Hungarians but it is not excluded, however, that in this particular case to be covered under this name the Romanians and the Pechenegs in the norh of the Danube" [9] 86.126.33.202 (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP, thank you. Dear Eurocentral, your above statement is not true: the work you cite states that the Dacians in Anna Comnena's work are usually Hungarians, and does not state that the Dacians in her work are Romanians (it is only a possibility in connection with one sentence). Would you please stop abusing historians' name in order to justify your own original research. Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Elian clearly showed that Romanians and Pechenegs are the Dacians from Comnen in a discussed case. Also he showed that: "in this particular case to be covered under this name the Romanians and the Pechenegs from Northern Danube; see 11 note" and in this note (11) it is stated that Moravcsik proposed the identity between Dacians and Hungarians.

The facts are:

1. Elian stated that Romanians and Pechenegs are Dacians in the approached case

2. Elian stated that Gyula Moravcsik proposed the identity between Dacians and Hungarians

3. It is a difference of opinions between Elian and Moravcsik.

4. Elian wrote "it is not excluded" but Borsoka EXCLUDED this opinion.

Excluding opinions is equal to DISCRIMINATION Eurocentral (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The historians: Grumeza (universitary professor of history) and Gheorghe Sincai had the same opinion, making the identity between Romanians and Dacians. Even the pages of Hungarian history contain old historians or professors of history. Eurocentral (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Same opinions have:

Gh. Sincai, Opere, Hronica romanilor, tom 1, Bucuresti,1967, p.325-326

Ion Grumeza, The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500,University Press of America, 2010, p.58

Eurocentral (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral (1) as it is demonstrated above, Elian did not state that the Dacians are Romanians in the text (2) Sincai wrote his work more than 2 hundred years ago (3) Grumeza is not a historian. Borsoka (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)