Jump to content

Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Neidhart von Reuenthal

User:Borsoka, do you know anything about this source[1] ? 86.127.8.126 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No. As far as I remember Reuenthal writes of Walves (=Cumans). Armbruster (who is cited by Curta) tends to identify Romanians everywhere (e.g. he refers to Constantine Porphyrogenitus's remark of the

inhabitants of the Dalmatian towns as a proof of the Roman conciousness of the Vlachs). Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Were romanians the latest nomadic ethnic group?

VLACHS (Romanians) WERE THE LATEST NOMADIC ETHNIC GROUP IN EUROPE. Vlachs were known as late - nomadic people in medieval chronicles. The first romanian vlach churches were built only around the turn of the 13th and 14th century. No known archiutecture existed before that period. The romanian literacy and chronicles appeared only in the 15th century.USE Google books! (The word's largest digitalized library, the largest collection of printed books) See the google book results (search the british american candian authors about medieval romanians Vlachs):


Carleton Stevens Coon: The races of Europe, Page 614 " Vlach colonists are nomads living in black tents like those of ... A greater variation is found in the cephalic index; on the plains of Moldavia and Wallachia, and in the Dobruja"


Robert William Seton-Watson: A history of the Roumanians: from Roman times to the completion of unity, page: 12 "The Roumanians undoubtedly preserved their nomadic habits to a very late date, as is proved by the existence of Vlach colonies in Moravia (the so-called "Little Wallachia" — long since completely Slavised)"


Mandell Creighton, Justin Winsor, Samuel Rawson Gardiner: The English Historical Review page:- 615. "He shows that the Vlachs of the Balkan peninsula throughout the middle ages are nomads of the strictest type, ... that Vlachs began to move north of the Danube to Wallachia and Transylvania "


Joan E. Durrant, Anne B. Smith Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights ( PAGE 210)

"Between the 3rd century A.D. and the 14th century A.D., Dacia was invaded successively by nomadic peoples, including the ... Romanians "


Norman Berdichevsky: Nations, Language and Citizenship -page: 181. "The “true Romanians” are held to be interlopers who were nomadic shepherds that migrated into Transylvania from the ... then transferred to “Wallachia,” the traditional core area of the Romanian state located east and south of Transylvania."


Other elements in the population of Greece are the Wallachians or Vlachs, the Turks, and the Jews, but they have never ... The Wallachians are a curious nomadic race


David Bruce Macdonald - 2002 Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered ... page- 131

"These hinterland Romans evolved into highland herdsmen, who for centuries led a primitive nomadic life"


Lampe, John R, Jackson, Marvin R. Balkan Economic History, 1550 - 1950: From Imperial Borderlands to ... page - 612. "Vlachs had first acquired their commercial connections in the course of moving their livestock seasonally back and forth between high and low ground. ... Alan J.B. Wace and M.S. Thompson, The Nomads of the Balkans (New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1971)"


Jane Perry Clark Carey, Andrew Galbraith Carey : The Web of Modern Greek Politics - page 73 "shepherds and nomadic herdsmen, wandering through the Balkans and the north of Greece. On their early migrations they gave the Vlach name to various districts, including the province of Wallachia in present-day Romania"


Chambers's Encyclopedia - Volume 14. page:- 339. "The Vlachs are usually mentioned as following nomadic or semi-nomadic lives as shepherds etc. in wild mountain ... nth century was known as 'Great Wallachia' and seems to have contained a relatively dense and settled Vlach population."


Denys Hay: Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries page: 220 "In the first half of the fourteenth century there also appeared there the two Romanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. ... or whether the Hungarians are right in their thesis that these Vlachs were recently immigrated nomadic shepherds"


Frank Moore Colby, Talcott Williams, Herbert Treadwell Wade: The New International Encyclopaedia Voluma 20. Page: 219 "Owing to their nomadic and predatory dispositions these Vlachs, as they are called by the Greek writers, were a ... the autonomous Rumanian principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, which grew rapidly towards south and east until the former"


Isaiah Bowman: The New World: Problems in Political Geography page - 282 "or Wallachians The Rumanians, or Wallachs (hence Wallachia), are of mixed race but of distinct speech, the Ruman, ... Home places of the nomadic Vlachs The Vlachs , Rumanian nomadism is seen in its purest form among the detached"


Norman Angell : Peace Theories And The Balkan War page: - 107. "It had been founded by a conquering caste of non-Slavonic nomads from the trans-Danubian steppes, but these were completely ... This Bulgarian state included a large 'Vlach' element descended from those Latin-speaking provincials whom the Slavs had pushed ... had established itself in the mountains of Transylvania, and was just beginning to push down into the Wallachian and Moldavian plains"


Tibor Frank, Frank Hadler : Disputed territories and shared pasts: overlapping national histories in modern Europe, page: 251 "Reference to Romanians in their preunification (1859) history was linked to the regional designation of Wallachia (today Oltenia and Muntenia) to the south ... This designation relates to the nomadic existence of the Balkan Vlach population."


Paul Coles : The Ottoman Impact on Europe - page: 114 " nomadic pastoralism provided a new lease of life for the Rumanian-speaking Vlachs, migratory herdsmen whose native principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia had fallen under Ottoman dominion during the fifteenth century"


Wace, Alan J. B. and Maurice S. Thompson. .: "The Nomads of the Balkans: An Account of Life and Custom Among the Vlachs of Northern Pindus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibretrecm (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ Nice propaganda.... too bad you we're banned for it :))) USE Google Books he said.... Can a moderator delete this Hungarian's hateful and racist comment 94.68.74.91 (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian propaganda

Some hungarians, furious of their nomadic origin, see nomads in old Europe!! Eurocentral (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sayous

E. Sayous, HISTOIRE GENERALE DES HONGROIS , Budapest & Paris, 1900,p.21 Sayous wrote: "Les Byzantins du onzième siècle, Anne Comnène entre autres, parlent des Daces, qui ne peuvent être que des Roumains" (OUVRAGE COURONNÉ PAR L'ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE) Eurocentral (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sayous's work was first published in the 19th century. Please try to use reliable source which represent the present status of research. Moreover, please add a reference page, because the standard English translation of Comnena's work does not contain the text you seemingly cited from that work. Borsoka (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


To Borsoka: Your opinion is subjective:

See Wiki pages with: Kingdom of Hungary; they contains Albert Apponyi work (born 1846 !)


In this case you are not a reliable observer. Clean first your home and then look to others!

Thank you for drawing my attention to Apponyi's work. Although it is at least 50 year younger than the source you are attempting to use, you are right that it should not be referenced either. I have just put a proper template message in the article Kingdom of Hungary requiring a better source. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

About Komnene work: see pages: Alexiad to understand the references in this case. References contains only the book and paragraph. Eurocentral (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

For better vizibility: It is E. Dawes translation from 1928, p. 385 Eurocentral (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So there is no modern reliable source which states that the "Dacians" in Anna Comnena's work are identical with "Vlachs". Modern reliable sources (I refer to the standard English translation of the work cited in the article, and to Curta 2006) state that when writing of Dacians she referred to Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
This statement implies that Anna Comnena, “ardently devoted to philosophy, the queen of all sciences, and was educated in every field", could not made the difference between Hungarians and Dacians and/or Vlachs - which it is a bit bizarre. If your statement is true perhaps then the term "Hungarians" used by Anna Comnena could denote a mixture of ethnic groups among the Hungarian tribes like Dacians, Avars and Gepids. Could be this plausible? Saturnian (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No, Anna Comnena almost always used Antique names when referring to the peoples in conflict with the Byzantine Empire. For instance, her Dacians were in fact Hungarians, her Scythians were actually Pechenegs, her Getae were Oghuzes, and her Celts were Germans or French. The context always clarifies it. For example, she wrote of "the ambassadors who came from the Dacians on behalf of the kral, kinsman of the Basileus John's wife", when referring to the envoys sent by the king (=kral) of Hungary (Coloman the Learned), who was the cousin of Irene of Hungary, the wife of the future Emperor John II Komnenos. For further details, I refer to the standard English translation of her work by E. R. A. Sewter, which is cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
If the term "Hungarians" used by Anna Comnena do not denote a mixture of ethnic groups, what is the modern scientific motivation for the wrong terms used by Anna Comnena? Saturnian (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Anna Comnena did not use the term "Hungarians", but used the term "Dacians" when referring to the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The statement "the Dacians on behalf of the kral" denotes a relationship between two different entities: one entity (Dacians) is entitled to represent the interests of another entity (king of Hungary, and subsequently the Hungarians). If we substitute, as you suggested, Dacians with Hungarians, it would lead to "the Hungarians on behalf of the king of Hungary" which is nonsense because both represent the same entity. This theory is invalid. There are three possibilities to make sense of this statement: either Dacians were a distinct entity, either the Hungarians were a loose mixture of ethnic groups, either both. Saturnian (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Your original thoughts are really interesting. However, the translator of the standard English version of her book and many other scholars (including Florin Curta) identify her "Dacians" as "Hungarians". Please also try to analyze the following sentence "the ambassadors who came from the Ottomans on behalf of the Sultan" - nobody would say that the Sultan is not the monarch of the Ottomans. Borsoka (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it is just logic. "Ottomans on behalf of the Ottoman Sultan" is a nonsense too. The point is the suggestion of different entities, as "Ottomans on behalf of the non-Ottoman Sultan" or "non-Ottomans on behalf of the Ottoman Sultan". As you said, if Florin Curta identified Anna Comnena's "Dacians" as "Hungarians" in this context, I would say his writings are doubtful and they should not be used as references. Saturnian (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
You may not know, but our community had its own rules. For instance, books published by the Cambridge University Press are preferred to editors' own logic and interpretation. Please read WP:NOR and WP:Sources. Borsoka (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it is just a misinterpretation of reliable sources by "our community". Let's not bury this mess behind an abstract formalization, own rules. All books can contain fallacies. Who are those who proposed that bizarre theory? Can you provide citations? Saturnian (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean the Dacians' identification as Vlachs in her work? I think there is no reliable source stating this. She writes of the Vlachs separately, under the name "Vlach". Borsoka (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
"Dacians were in fact Hungarians" - who are those who stated this? I hope not just you. Citations would be helpful if we want a better insight into this matter. Saturnian (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Read note 23 on page 122 of the standard translation of her work (Anna Comnena: The Alexiad (Translated by E. R. A. Sewter) (1969). Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-044958-7.) And I also refer to Curta's interpretation of chapter 7.i of The Alexiad on page of his second cited work (Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4.) They both identify the Dacians as Hungarians. Maybe their English is better than ours. Borsoka (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Good, Sewter and Curta stated that. I don’t' have the books and I'm not sure I could find them online. Can you provide the citations? About your argument "she wrote of the Vlachs as Vlachs, so her Dacians could not be Vlachs" is a masked man fallacy and your answer doesn’t and it cannot changed that. Saturnian (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
(a) Note 23 on page 122 (which is connected to the text "the Dacians" on the same page) is the following: "The Hungarians." (b) Chapter 7.i. of The Alexiad (cited standard translation, page 217): "At the beginning of the spring Tzelgu, the supreme commander of the Scythian army, traversed the upper Danube valley at the head of a mixed force. He had about 80,000 men, Sarmatians, Scyths and a large contingent of Dacians led by one Solomon." Curta's interpretation (Curta 2006, page 300): "In 1087, the Pechenegs north of the Danube organized another invasion, this time in association with Cumans and Hungarians under the command of the former king of Hungary, Solomon.", he adds that "... the marauders were badly mauled and their chieftain, Tzelgu, killed...". Borsoka (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Victor Spinei also identifies Anna Comnena's Scythians, Sarmatians and Dacians as Pechenegs, Cumans and Hungarians, respectively: "Taking advantage of the political and military crisis in the Empire, the Cumans joined the Pechenegs led by Tzelgu and the Hungarians led by the former king Salomon, and they all plundered the Balkan provinces." (page 120 Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. Koninklijke Brill NV. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5.). Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
In the above citations there is no such statement "Dacians = Pechenegs + Cumans + Hungarians". In the context of Anna Comnena such statement is a cherry picking fallacy. Perhaps these parties are the leading one but this is not sufficient. Moreover, under umbrella term of a leading mono-ethnic group other ethnic groups can exist. Saturnian (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
(1) Nobody has claimed that any of the reliable cited sources writes that "Dacians = Pechenegs + Cumans + Hungarians". However, they unanimously write that "Dacians = Hungarians, Scythians = Pechenegs, and Sarmatians=Cumans" in her work. (2) Yes, maybe, or maybe not. Please read WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
(1) I misunderstood your sentence about Victor Spinei, sorry. But what are the scientific proofs for "Dacians = Hungarians"? Why not "Dacians = Slavs + Hungarians" for example? (2) Yes, this is what I want to emphasize. If the content of Hungarian population is not known exactly, then "Dacians = Hungarians" equation would lead to "Dacians = maybe, or maybe not Hungarians". Or do you have a clear evidence contesting this? Saturnian (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"Historians believe the “Sarmatians” to be the Oghuz and the “Dacians” the Hungarians"p 147 The article should represent the mainstream historical narratives.... Fakirbakir (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree that Anna Comnena's "Dacians" were probably the inhabitants of the multiethnic "Kingdom of Hungary". However, we should use reliable sources when editing articles and not our own thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I think Borsoka made a huge mistake: Sayous and Anna talk about Dacians from the Northern slopes of Haemus; it is clear they are not Hungarians. Haemus are the Balkan mountains and they are placed South of Danube. There is a confusion. Please look at a map and see the difference.

About Curta, he cited what others wrote. Sayous made an original observation. Also, a lot of Romanians wrote about Dacians/Vlachs identity in Alexiad. Eurocentral (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(1) I could not make any mistake in this case, because I only referred to the view unanimously represented by specialists (Curta, Spinei, Sewter). If any mistake was made, these scholars made it, but we are not in the position to correct it based on our own original research. Please read WP:NOR. (2) Why do you think that Hungary is situated to the east, to the west or to the south of the Balkan Mountains? Borsoka (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


It is about Haemus slopes. So Borsoka made again a deliberate mistake. He does not know what means slopes !

This is why we need to keep the quote. To understand everybody that it is about the slopes of mountains and not about Panonia ! 79.112.14.99 (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Please be more careful when reading: "on either side of its slopes...". Where did you read that Sayous died in the 20th century? Borsoka (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Finally we talk about geography. Is Panonia on the slopes of Haemus ? Is this the geography or history you learnt in your country??? Eurocentral (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is situated Hungary to the south, or to the east, or to the west of the slopes of the Balkan Mountains/Haemus? Would you provide a map proving this? Borsoka (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Take my advise: start to learn geography. Panonia is at 1000 Km at North West from Haemus!!!!!!! This is : Magyarization of geography ! Eurocentral (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you do not have access to the relevant maps, and you think that Pannonia is identical with the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. For this reason, I copy a relevant map for you here. Please, look at it carefully and try to find where the Kingdom of Hungary is situated. If you succeeded in finding the kingdom, try to find the Haemus/Balkan Mountains. And finally, try to decide is the Kingdom of Hungary located to the north or to the south of the slops of the Haemus (top = north, bottom = south).
Europe around 1190


Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If you use a compass, Hungary stll remains at NW of Haemus ! Search again!

Eurocentral (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Kingdom of Hungary used to be a large kingdom. It was also situated to the NW of the Haemus Mountains. However, you may not know where the Haemus is situated. Here is a map:
Balkan

Please, try to concentrate to the two maps: everything will be clear, and we do not need to continue this OR. Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Slopes of Haemus = Panonia? Stop with these oditties. Wlachs or Dacians were on the Northen slopes of Haemus. For Hungarians as in this talk page, Ana used very clear Hungarians. Search her text with key words and find that she knew about Hungarians Eurocentral (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Please read the above conversation again. Nobody has said that the Haemus is identical with Pannonia, and nobody has referred to Pannonia except of you. Please read her text: she writes of "either side (please repeat to memorize: side, side, side, side) of the slopes". Yes, she also made mention of Hungary (the country), but she always referred to its inhabitants as Dacians. Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree that Anna Comnena's "Dacians" were probably the inhabitants of the multiethnic "Kingdom of Hungary". However, we should use reliable sources when editing articles and not our own thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. The statement <<Historians believe the “Sarmatians” to be the Oghuz and the “Dacians” the Hungarians.>> is NOT a scientific proof. It is just a belief. So I'm still waiting for the proofs. Saturnian (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. About "The article should represent the mainstream historical narratives", what authority said that? Then why such belief should become mainstream? Saturnian (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. As Eurocentral pointed out, the Northern slopes of Haemus would include Northern side of today's Bulgaria and probably Wallachian Plain. What are the evidences saying Hungarians lived exclusively in this space and they represent "Dacians" in Anna Comnena's text? Saturnian (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOR. Three (3) reliable sources has been presented which agree that in her book Dacians are identical with Hungarians. Would you please refer to a reliable source which contradict to their consensus? If there is no such reliable source, we are not in the position to continue our original research in this Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not using beliefs to make statements. Perhaps they are sources but not reliable if no proofs are given. Unreliable sources should be removed. Saturnian (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The 19th-century source and the sentence based on it of the identification of her "Dacians" as Vlachs should be deleted. Sayous is not a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that because I don't have Sayous' book but the text of Sayous is already marked as dubious. What about the sources based on beliefs? Saturnian (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks. Sayous is not marked as dubious. Which are the sources based on beliefs? Is there a reference to her book in the Bible? I would be surprised. Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It was marked in a previous version. I don't understand your question, sorry. You already provided interpretations and beliefs of certain authors without having a proof. Saturnian (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I referred to reliable sources (Curta, Spinei, Sewter). Actually, if you read her book, you will understand that the Dacians can only be identified as Hungarians based on the context. Borsoka (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
What scientific method to proof a fact is "I you read, you will understand"? This is more an encouragement for WP:NOR. It is a far way to reach the statement "Dacians=Hungarians" from interpretations and beliefs. In Curta's interpretation I did not found such statement "Dacians=Hungarians". We don't know that is the difference between the leaders who initiate the attack and the content of the attacking army. It is a fallacy believing there is no difference just because we don't have other proofs. Saturnian (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read again my quotes from Curta's and Spinei's work. They both identified the Dacians in Anna Comnena's work as Hungarians. Have you read in that two quotations anything which suggest that they identified them as Cumans or Pechenegs? (There are these three peoples mentioned in the two reliable sources.) Borsoka (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I read again:
  1. Curta: "In 1087, the Pechenegs north of the Danube organized another invasion, this time in association with Cumans and Hungarians under the command of the former king of Hungary, Solomon.", he adds that "... the marauders were badly mauled and their chieftain, Tzelgu, killed...". Where is "Dacians=Hugarians" statement? "Hungarians under the command of the former king of Hungary, Solomon" is not the same as "Dacians=Hungarians". The statement "Dacians=Hungarians" is result of a simple interpretation. Curta did not said "Dacians=Hugarians". Saturnian (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Spinei: "Taking advantage of the political and military crisis in the Empire, the Cumans joined the Pechenegs led by Tzelgu and the Hungarians led by the former king Salomon, and they all plundered the Balkan provinces."

"the Hungarians led by the former king Salomon" is not the same as "Dacians=Hungarians". This is an simple interpretation too, not a clear statement. Saturnian (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is like the sentence "In World Word II Germans under the command of Hitler attacked Russia on Eastern front" - true. Using a reduction fallacy, the interpretation would be "Romanians were not part of this", resulting "attackers=Germans" which is not true. Same fallacy was applied resulting "Dacians=Hungarians". Saturnian (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In the footnote both Curta and Spinei explicitly refers to Anna Comnena's text cited above, and Curta also refers to the reliable translation (Sewter) which explicitly identifies the Dacians and Hungarians. I have presented three academic works which identify her Dacians as Hungarians. Could you refer to an academic work stating that the Dacians were not Hungarians in Anna Comnena's work? Borsoka (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No, you have made interpretations using fallacies based on academic works. The interpretation of Sewter's translation "the ambassadors who came from the Dacians on behalf of the kral" that "Dacians=Hungarians" is doubious too. "Dacians=Hungarians" in this context is not an indisputable fact. It is not necessary to refer an academic work stating that the Dacians were not Hungarians in Anna Comnena's work to suppress such fallacies. Saturnian (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read again my quotes from Sewter, Curta, and Spinei (three academic source). Do they identify the Dacians as Cumans or Pechenegs, or they identify them as Hungarians? Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not force me to repeat myself. Read again what I wrote from the beginning of the discussion. Saturnian (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Saturnian:, I do not force you to repeat yourself. I only ask you to answer my question with one word (yes, or no): did Sewter, Curta, and Spinei identified Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians? Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Borsoka: Yes, it seems I have to repeat myself. Do you really have other citations where these authors wrote something like "Dacians are irrefutably solely identified as Hungarians based on these proofs:...."? I would love to read such proofs; chronicles for example. But even so "Hungarians" term is problematic term due the multi-ethnic mixture of this population. In the citations you provided, the answer is no. None of them stated "Dacians=Hungarians" in Anna Comnena's text: "Hungarians under the command of the former king of Hungary, Solomon" is not the same as "Dacians=Hungarians" and "the Hungarians led by the former king Salomon" is not the same as "Dacians=Hungarians". Only a fallacious interpretation would lead to "Dacians=Hungarians". We don't know that is the difference between the leaders who initiate the attack and the content of the attacking army (Or do you really have proofs?). It is a fallacy believing there is no difference just because we don't have other proofs. The multi-ethnic Hungarian population is another issue. Then these authors mention Hungarians under the command of the Solomon but no proof was provided backing this (Or do you really have such proofs?). Sorry, I'm still waiting for these proofs if you have them. Otherwise it is a filibustering supporting a fallacious interpretation. Saturnian (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
So if my understanding is correct, you say that the cited three academic sources identify her "Dacians" and Hungarians. Sorry, but I am not willing to carry out OR as I have several times mentioned during our conversation. This is WP, with well established rules, including WP:NOR. Of couse, if you provide an academic source which substantiates your above claim, I will be glad to continue our discussion. Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I cannot follow you, sorry. There is no proof to conclude Dacians are Hungarians in this context. If Anna Comnena mentioned Dacians under Solomon and these authors mention Hungarians under Solomon, it doesn't necessary mean Dacians are Hungarians unless the authors explicitly stated that (perhaps providing a hint about how they reached this conclusion). It is a fallacious interpretation, a WP:OR, to reach that statement. The established rules prohibit such interpretations. It seems I'm asking you in vain to bring something to support this statement :| Saturnian (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand your above concern. (1) Sewter explicitly identifies Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians (note 23 on page 122 of his work cited above and in the article). (3) Curta explicitly refers to both Anna Comnena's work and Sewter's translation when writing of Pechenegs, Cumans and Hungarians instead of Anna Comnena's Schythians, Sarmatians and Dacians (Curta 2006 page 300). (3) As I mentioned below, Spinei explicitly writes, "In the biography of Emperor Alexios I Comnenos written by his daughter Anna, it is said that the invasion was due to a numerous army under the command of the Scythian Tzelgu and made up of Sarmatians, Scythians and Dacians, the latter being headed by Salomon. The ethnonyms above designated the Cumans, the Pechenegs and the Hungarians." (Spinei (1986), pages 93-94). Consequently, all three scholars unanimously and without doubt identify Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians. The article states this, nothing more. Borsoka (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Until now the citations provided did not explicitly stated Dacians were Hungarians. Only this NEW citation of Spinei, "The ethnonyms above (Sarmatians, Scythians and Dacians) designated the Cumans, the Pechenegs and the Hungarians.", explicitly stated that. I asked this for days. Then what is the underlying base for this statement? Are they indicating a primary source (Yes or no)? If yes, which ones? Are these authors use a chain of references - Curta refers Spinei, and Spinei others for example? Please don't tell me it's forbidden to know more about the source of this statement. 05:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read carefully my comments above, but if you want I will repeat them 1000 times.. (1) Sewter explicitly identifies her Dacians as Hungarians. (2) Curta and Spinei use the word "Hungarians" instead of "Dacians" when they write of Tzelgu's attack against the Byzantine Empire. They explicitly refer to Anna Comnena's text. Consequently, as I have informed you several times, (1) there is and never was any doubt that they identify her Dacians as Hungarians; (2) these scholars use Anna Comnena's text (=a primary source) when identifying her Dacians as Hungarians. Of course, anybody can challange any scholar's view, however, when editing WP we can only use scholarly works. Actually, the context of her references always proves that her Dacians are Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
As I already told you using Hungarians word in that attack it doesn’t mean "Dacians=Hungarians". Indeed Hungarians were part of that attack but it doesn't necessary mean "Dacians=Hungarians". If there are is no proof supporting "Dacians=Hungarians" statement, their works are just stories. At least one of the authors should specify the source of this statement to be credible. Until now the books mentioned do not deserve the status of reliable source. Saturnian (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Please read what a reliable source means in our community. All three (four) sources are reliable sources for WP purposes. They all identify Anna Comnena's Dacians with Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
As usually, Borsoka forged the history. His map is from another era.

The Kingdom of Hungary was very small in the XIth century According to Țiplic, Trnsivania was occupied in some stages:

File:Transilvania.jpg
Phases of the occupation of Transilvania between the Xth and XIIIth centuries

I.M.Țiplic, Considerații cu privire la liniile întarite de tipul prisacilor din transilvania, Acta terrae Septemcastrensis, I, pag. 147-164

I.M. Țiplic, Transylvania in the Early Middle Ages (7th -13th C.), Heidelberg-Alba Iulia, 2006, ISBN 3-929848-54-6

Eurocentral (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Forging the maps Borsoka tried to put Hungarians closer to Haemus. But the discussion is about what Byzantines knew about Dacians.

The philologist and historian Sayous clearly wrote in HISTOIRE GENERALE DES HONGROIS , Budapest & Paris, 1900,p.21

"Les Byzantins du onzième siècle, Anne Comnène entre autres, parlent des Daces, qui ne peuvent être que des Roumains"

For this History, Sayous received the Prix of French Academy (OUVRAGE COURONNÉ PAR L'ACADÉMIE FRANÇAISE)

Mr. Borsoka, why do you come with your "original" interpretation ? You make us to loose time with your aberations. Eurocentral (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eurocentral:, please try to concentrate on the borders presented on "your" map. Where is situated the easternmost border of the Kingdom of Hungary (even according to this map)? Yes, you are right: to the north of the slopes of the Haemus Mountains. Please also try to read the quotes from modern academic works (Sewter, Curta, Spinei) above. How they translate Anna Comnena's Dacians? Yes, you are right: they translate it as Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


The word Slopes shows where lived the Dacians and Thraces (near mountains). In that times, majority of Hungarians lived under tents and they preffered plains. The word Slopes shows very clear that your have an "original" interpretation. Curta and Spinei only agreed, but in connection with other topics, not with Haemus By the way, Anna and Sayous opinions was the same as the Kekaumenos data.

Please stop your "original" interpretations. Give us quotes and not your ideas. Your ideas are from another movie.

Eurocentral (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Eurocentral (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


A huge stupidity is the association of Thraces with Hungarians !!! Let's find Thraces in Hungary! Eurocentral (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Borsoka sustained: Hungarians and Thraces lived on the Northern Slopes!!! Huge stupidity !
Yes, it would have been a huge stupidity. However, I have never stated this. Borsoka (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Incredible! Do anybody identify Anna Comnene's "Thraces" as Hungarians? Who? I am sure there is no academic work suggesting this. On the other hand, the identification of her "Dacians" as Hungarians is a well-established scholarly consensus. You must have been really tired in the morning that you were unable to remember the quotes from academic sources that I provided above. I repeat them just for you: :::: (1) Note 23 on page 122 (which is connected to the text "the Dacians" on the same page) is the following: "The Hungarians." (2) Chapter 7.i. of The Alexiad (cited standard translation, page 217): "At the beginning of the spring Tzelgu, the supreme commander of the Scythian army, traversed the upper Danube valley at the head of a mixed force. He had about 80,000 men, Sarmatians, Scyths and a large contingent of Dacians led by one Solomon." Curta's interpretation (Curta 2006, page 300): "In 1087, the Pechenegs north of the Danube organized another invasion, this time in association with Cumans and Hungarians under the command of the former king of Hungary, Solomon.", he adds that "... the marauders were badly mauled and their chieftain, Tzelgu, killed...". Curta explicitly refers to Anna Comnena's work and its standard translation by Sewter, when identifies Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians. (3) Victor Spinei also identifies Anna Comnena's Scythians, Sarmatians and Dacians as Pechenegs, Cumans and Hungarians, respectively: "Taking advantage of the political and military crisis in the Empire, the Cumans joined the Pechenegs led by Tzelgu and the Hungarians led by the former king Salomon, and they all plundered the Balkan provinces." (page 120 Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. Koninklijke Brill NV. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5.). Borsoka (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
@Eurocentral: Why you are repeating this? As I mentioned before, these remarks are not sufficient to prove "Dacians=Hungarians" in this context. Saturnian (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The above quotes prove that three scholars identify Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians. We do not need any further prove for WP purposes, because the article states this, not any more. Borsoka (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Note Eurocentral (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC) About: Chapter 7.i. of The Alexiad (cited standard translation, page 217): "At the beginning of the spring Tzelgu, the supreme commander of the Scythian army, traversed the upper Danube valley at the head of a mixed force. He had about 80,000 men, Sarmatians, Scyths and a large contingent of Dacians led by one Solomon...

But Solomon in that times just retired from the civil war. He battled against the King of Hungary at Oradea Mica and was beaten. He was supported by only Romanians and Cumans (or Pechenegs) and Ruthens. After battle he came back to Romanians for shelter (Cumans lived under tends). So in his expedition to Balkans he was supported by Romanians and not by Hungarians who were his enemies.

Read: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241 (In this Chronicle shows that Solomon asked help from Romanians and Ruthens)

V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to Mid-Thirteen Century, Brill, 2009, p.118 (Here Spinei wrote about Russian Chronicle)

And so, the other observations have same reply. You make a big confusion. Eurocentral (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting point: What was the relationship between the king of Hungary and this former king, Solomon? Have they cooperate together? Saturnian (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Spinei's text: "During the second half of the eleventh century, hordes of Pechenegs continued to inhabit the left bank of the Danube. In 1068, led by Osul, they launched a great attack against Transylvania and Hungary through the mountain passes across the Carpathian range. .... On their way back, they were ambushed and defeated by King Salomon ... A west-Russian chronograph misdated the raid to 1059, but blamed it on Cumans and Romanias. ..." If you try to concentrate, you can realize that while Anna Comnena writes of a raid by the Pechenegs (and Cumans and Hungarians) against the Byzantine Empire, Spinei here writes of a plundering raid against Hungary. You understand that Spinei writes that King Salomon was defeated, but in Spinei's text it is King Salomon who defeated the enemy. Please try to concentrate or have a cofee. Borsoka (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Poor Borsoka. He never understand. Please put your glases and read again. It is about the battle of Oradea Mica (kisvarda). The Russian chronicle (the same page as about Chirales) tells more if you put your glasses. Only 3-4 lines after the explanations about Chirales battle.

Only if you know Russian. Spinei only introduced and commented this chonicle in his works. Eurocentral (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eurocentral: Please change this tone. It is not useful. Saturnian (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I alway read with my glasses on, that is why I could realize that you were unable to differentiate two events: a king (Solomon) defeats the enemy in Hungary in 1068, the same person (already an ex-king) is defeated in the Byzantine Empire in 1089. Otherwise, Ya chut'-chut' govoryu po-russki. Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Here I explain again: There was 3 battles of Solomon in connection with Romanians:

1 Battle of Chirales in 1068 when Solomon was king (battled against Pechenegs and Romanians) 2 Battle of Oradea Mica, in 1085 (kisvarda) where Solomon (dethroned) battled against Hungarians led by Ludovic I (Laios); he was helped by Romanians, Ruthens and Cumans (Kutesk) 3 Battle in Balkans in 1087, where Solomon (dethroned) was again helped by Romanians (Dacians) and not by Hungarians who were his enemies (Solomon was hunted by Hungarians after Oradea Mica).

Very difficult to understand. Read and read again. Especially the chonicle. As usual, the history is a surprise for you if you read only Hungarian sources. All these explain why Dacians were Romanians and not Hungarians in 1087. Eurocentral (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you provide an academic source in order to substantiate your above claim. Do you really think that "Ludovic I/Laios" (who reigned between 1342 and 1382) owned a time machine to be able to defeat Solomon in 1085? Borsoka (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


@Eurocentral: Indeed there is a time frame difference between King Solomon and King Ludovic I. Perhaps it was Géza I of Hungary instead of King Ludovic I. Can you provide the sources? Saturnian (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
EXPLANATIONS:

1 Battle of Chirales in 1068 when Solomon was king (Solomon battled against Pechenegs and Romanians)

2 Battle of Oradea Mica, in 1085 (kisvarda) where Solomon (dethroned) battled against Hungarians led by Vladislav I (in Transilvania they call him Laios but when translated is Ludovic); he was helped by Romanians, Ruthens and Cumans (Kutesk). Solomon promised to Kutesk all Transilvania if Vladislav will be killed. Kutesk asked Solomon to merry his daughter if Solomon wants military help.Vladislav won the battle.


3 Raid and Battle in Balkans in 1087, where Solomon (dethroned) was again helped by Romanians (Dacians) and Comans and not by Hungarians who were his enemies (Solomon was hunted by Hungarians after Oradea Mica). Tzelgu (the Coman leader of expedition) and Solomon were killed in battle.

References:

For 1: Spinei & Russian chronicle: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241

For 2: Русскій хронографъ, 2, Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи, în PSRL, XXII, 2, Petrograd, 1914, p.241 It States that Solomon asked help from Ruthenians and Romanians. Spinei (Moldova in Sec. XI-XIV) showed that the expedition was through Coman/Romanian lands and Ruthenia and through the Ruthenia-Hungary mountain pass. This is why battle took place in NE of Hungary.

For 2: Here we find that Solomon remained without own men:

Marek Meško,, Pecheneg Groups in the Balkans (ca. 1053-1091) according to the Byzantine Sources. In: The Steppe Lands and the World Beyond Them.Editors Florin Curta & Bogdan Maleon, 2013.p.195 Mesko showed: ...only Kutesk, Salomon and a few other nomads were able to escape alive. In this case results no Hungarians will be with Solomon in next raids.


For 3: Here sources missing. Hungarian historians profited (Moravcsik,G. Byzantinoturcica II, p.116) and wrote that Dacians were Hungarians. But Solomon was the enemy of Hungarians (a renegade) after the battle against Vladislav at Oradea Mica; He married a Coman women and lived between Romanians and Comans. From Comans (under Tzelgu) and Romanians, Solomon started in 1087 the campaign in Balkans. This is why Anna told Solomon and Dacians. Hungarians were enemies of Solomon (who maybe left Christianity after his marriage) at that time, considering the invasion of 1085. Also, Hungarians were attacked frequently by Comans.

I found some sources stating Romanian (Vlach) participation with Comans in Balkan raids but a final conclusion will be ready soon.

Little by little we can demonstrate that Dacians were Romanians (Vlachs) in Ana Comnena work. Eurocentral (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(1) In this debate, there is no reference to scholarly works written by Hungarian historians. Two Romanian historians (Florin Curta and Victor Spinei) and a British scholar (E. R. A. Sewter) have so far been mentioned, who unanimously identify Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians. (2) In his work cited above (Moldova in Sec. XI-XIV), Spinei explicitly identifies Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians. He writes: "In the biography of Emperor Alexios I Comnenos written by his daughter Anna, it is said that the invasion was due to a numerous army under the command of the Scythian Tzelgu and made up of Sarmatians, Scythians and Dacians, the latter being headed by Salomon. The ethnonyms above designated the Cumans, the Pechenegs and the Hungarians." (Spinei, Victor (1986). Moldavia in the 11th-14th Centuries.Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Româna, pages 93-94). Please do not abuse his name. (3) Eurocentral, please add references to academmic works (author, title, publisher, page) when stating anything, because this is a basic principle of our community. (4) For the time being, in order to help you to avoid misunderstanding and to refrain you from abusing well-known scholars' name, I suggest you the following introductory text for all your communication: "Romanian historians have identified Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians, but, according to my own original research, they are wrong because ....". Borsoka (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The opinions about the real name of Daces belong to Sayous and other Romanian historians (there are a lot from the XIXth and the XXth century) not to me. The Russian Chronicle I added may help you to understand that the Romanians were the Daces of Solomon in 1087.

By the way, you said: " Dawes translated the "Cral" as the "Prince of Bulgaria", but his view was not accepted by modern historians", because at that time Bulgaria did not exist, and there was no Prince of Bulgaria whose kinswomen was the wife of John II Komnenos.

Borsoka confusions:

The relatives were from the part of former cral/king; even after death, the relatives claims they belong to cral/king family. At that time (1106) of the Oath, Alexius was emperor and his wife was Irene, daughter of Andronikos Doukas and Maria of Bulgaria (family of former cral/king). John II Komnenos started as emperor after Alexios death in 1118. His wife was Hungarian and received (after passing to Roman empire) the same name as Irene, the wife of Alexius . This is your confusion.

A lot of documents from Wikipedia are based on Dawes translation. So where is your majority? Eurocentral (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, at least three scholars - Curta, Spinei, Sewter - have been named who identify Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians (as it has been proven by several quotes from their works). The present text of the article represent all relevant POVs, including the claim from the 1870s that these Dacians should be identified as Vlachs. Borsoka (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think user:Eurocentral thinks that modern Romanian scholars are not qualified enough. They are misled by evil Hungarian historians. Sorry, but this debate does not make any sense. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


At least three scholars (secondary sources) identified Daces as Romanians:

1)E. Sayous, HISTOIRE GENERALE DES HONGROIS , Budapest & Paris, 1900,p.21

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

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

These works show there is a controverse in this question. This does not imply others historians are not qualified. It is a simply scientific controverse in wich 2 Hungarians (Borsoka and Fakirbakir) refuse to observe it. Eurocentral (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(1) Sayous wrote his book in 1876 and Gheorghe Șincai in 1811 (!!!!). Grumeza is not a historian, his work is not a reliable source according to WP's standards. (2) Late 20th-century and 21th-century scholars (Sewter, Curta, Spinei) identify Anna Comnene's Dacians as Hungarians. (3) Both theories are presented in the article. There is no point in continuing this debate. Maybe the reference to the identification of her Dacians as Vlachs should be deleted (in lack of reference to modern academic works), but I do not insist. Borsoka (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Grumeza [2]: "He holds a Bachelors Degree in Education and a Masters Degree in Education from the University of Bucharest, Romania. He completed courses in Humanistic Education at the University of Bridgeport, Connecticut, and courses in Research in Education at Hunter College, New York. He has a Ph.D. in Metaphysical Sciences from the University of Metaphysical Sciences." Fakirbakir (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Origin of the confusions between Daces and Hungarians in Alexiad

The sentence that was used by nationalist historians from Hungary in order to make confusion is extracted from Alexiad: "...envoys from the Dacia from the Cral" (book XIII, Alexiad) But there are a lot of books that showed the term is for a slavonic (maybe Bulgarian) prince:

1. TS Hughes, Travels in Sicilly, Greece and Albania, University of Michigan Library, page 6. wrote: The title of Cral is a Sclavonic word signifying king.

2 Dawes, who translated Alexiad wrote at page 357: "...envoys from the Dacia from the Cral" and added a note: "Prince of Bulgaria". Dawes simply explained what means Cral: a slavonic word

Some nationalist Hungarians, including Moravcsic, wrote some works which influenced Curta and other readers claiming Cral = Kirally. Sayous as philologist understood the meaning of Cral. It was easy to see it was a slavonic prince.

The word exist in different forms in all Eastern and Central Europe. Even in Romania there is a town named Craiova. Eurocentral (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that E. R. A. Sewter, Florin Curta and Victor Spinei - three experts identifying Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians - are Hungarian nationalist historians? Yes, Dawes in 1928 translated the "Cral" as the "Prince of Bulgaria", but his view was not accepted by modern historians, because at that time Bulgaria did not exist, and there was no Prince of Bulgaria whose kinswomen was the wife of John II Komnenos. Yes, the Hungarian world for the king is of Slavic origin. However, we do not need to continue our original research. There are three 21th-century (Romanian) historians who identify Anna Comnena's Dacians as Hungarians. Therefore this statement is based on academic sources and it is not represented as the only POV, because about 150 years ago there was a French historian, who identified them as Vlachs. Borsoka (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


:About forgery in History: The episode with the Cral was in 1109 when Alexius was emperor. His wife was Irene, born in 1066, daughter of Andronikos Doukas and Maria of Bulgaria, granddaughter of Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria.
About absent-mindedness: Anna Comnena writes: "the ambassadors who came from the Dacians on behalf of the kral, kinsman of the Basileus John's wife..." (page 434, Anna Comnena: The Alexiad (Translated by E. R. A. Sewter) (1969). Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-044958-7.). You may not know, but "Alexius" and "John" are two differents names. Therefore the wife of Alexius is not relevant, because Anna Comnena wrote of the wife of John.
About pale-mindedness: We talked until now about Elisabeth Dawes translation:the envoys who had come from Dacia from the Cral [*= the Prince of Bulgaria], the Queen's relation, Zupanus Peres and Simon and the envoys of Riscardus [358] Siniscardus, the Nobilissimus Basilius, a eunuch, and the notary Constantine."

Reference: Anna Comnena, The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Comnena, Translated by Elizabeth A. S. Dawes Publisher K. Paul, 1928

It is obvious, Sewter added words from his imagination. Dawes never talked about John II. You may not know, but "Alexius" was emperor and "John" was only a caesar (son of Emperor) at the time of episode. I sugest you to read the original document of Anna. Eurocentral (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that Sewter added words, instead of Dawes failed to translate words? Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I chequed the Hungarian translation: there is no reference to "Basileus John" either. Nevertheless, there was no "Prince of Bulgaria" in 1108 and no ruler of Bulgaria was styled "Kral". Consequently, the only ruler related to the basileus and styled "kral" was the king of Hungary at that time. Borsoka (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In this case, the relatives of Cral Irene were Maria of Bulgaria, granddaughter of former king Ivan Vladislav. It is obvious that the envoys from the Dacia from the Cral were a Bulgarians (as Dawes stated) and not Hungarians. Counting years became difficult for Hungarians. Eurocentral (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There are different opinions and they need to be known and not censored. The French book is from 1900 and not from 150 years ago (another forgery of you)Eurocentral (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree with you: there is no place for censorship in WP. Here you can read that it was first published in 1876 (138 years ago) [A+General+History+of+the+Hungarians&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Sayous. It was published for the second time in 1900. Borsoka (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

About rules:

In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals

books published by university presses

university-level textbooks

magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses

mainstream newspapers

The rules do not mention the negation of the XIXth century works. Eurocentral (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Budapest, "Athenaeum" was a respected publishing house

Eurocentral (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a big mess here. In the citation "the envoys who had come from Dacia from the Cral [*= the Prince of Bulgaria], the Queen's relation, Zupanus Peres and Simon and the envoys of Riscardus [358] Siniscardus, the Nobilissimus Basilius, a eunuch, and the notary Constantine." (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad13.asp), if Cral/Kral would be Hungarian, then Zupanus Peres and Simon would be Hungarians too? Or they do not appear in the Hungarian translation of Comnena's text? Saturnian (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Ispán (=Zupan) Peres and Simon are also mentioned in the Hungarian translation. Borsoka (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm repeating my question, so Zupanus Peres and Simon were Hungarians too? The notary Constantine was Hungarian too? Saturnian (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they were. No, he was not. Please read the text more carefully. Borsoka (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sections

The "Historiography: origin of the theories" section of the article clearly describes the pro-continuity historians' POV of the origin of the opposite - immigrationist - theory. Is there any WP which prescribes that one statement should be repeated in an article? Borsoka (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral

You have been reverting edits without adding any explanation. Please stop edit-warring. Borsoka (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

To Borsoka: your edits are subjective. I took a phrase that you added in these pages, and I putted it on the pages about "Hungarian conquest of Carpathian..." but you erased it. That means you are a double dealer. You have "double" policy. That means you practice a dishonest activity. Eurocentral (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you be more specific? Borsoka (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following sentence about the root of the debates over the Romanians' ethnogenesis, which is based on a Romanian scholar's work, was deleted: "There is "a certain disaccord between the effective process of Roman expansion and Romanization and the present ethnic configuration of Southeastern Europe": the territories to the south of the Danube were subject to the Romanization process for about 800 years, while Dacia province to the north of the Danube was only for 165 years under Roman rule." I would like to understand the reason why this sentence was deleted. Borsoka (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: What would be a neutral first sentence?

The first sentence of the lead only presents one of the two or three theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Could anybody suggest a neutral wording? Borsoka (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

All we have to do is to read other similar pages. Starting with irredentist opinions is not a Wiki policy. The main introduction have to contain neutral points of view. Eurocentral (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that the lead at present is not neutral and assumes the correctness of one point of view among several. It would be better to open with something like: "There are several theories about the origin of the Romanians." Then give a brief summary of each. I am definitely not an expert on this myself, but I don't think the origin in the Dacians is such a firmly-established consensus view as the lead asserts. Wallace McDonald (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Starting with "There are several theories... " is not a elegant introduction. Comparing with other similar pages, starting with such introduction is a negativist comment emphasizing personal views (POV) and not an academic interface with history.

Eurocentral (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Wallace, and add that the entire lead has POV problems. The third (or other) view(s) are not described, only mentioned as vaguely existing, and described as being intermediate between the two that people have been fighting over, and that may not be accurate. One problem I'm going to fix right now is describing holders of the one view as "scholars" but holders of the opposing position as "followers". I don't have suggested wording for the bulk of the lead. Judging from comments above, it would probably be useful to have proposals from Borsoka and others about how to increase the neutrality.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no neutrality in Borsoka edits. Let's see his pages "Hungarian conquest of Carpathian..." where he showed his true face. He erased a lot of phrases including references and phrases identically with phrases from "Origins of Romanians" See Schramm reference and phrase. Eurocentral (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you be more specific? Borsoka (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Political and ideological considerations, including the dispute between Hungary and Romania over Transylvania, have also colored these scholarly discussions.[10] This sentence was censored in the pages "The conquest of Carpathian basin" Eurocentral (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence was deleted from the article Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin because it was not connected to that article. Schramm did not write of the Hungarian Conquest, but of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, and did not refer to Anonymus. I am more and more convinced that you do not understand the basic principles of WP. Borsoka (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wallace as well. The lead is not at all neutral and assumes a POV; alternative theories should also be presented. "The origin of the Romanians lies in the Danube-Carpathian area in the Dacian and Roman provinces and starts in ancient times," would leave a reader wondering where the modern Vlachs of north-central Greece came from, people whose recorded presence in Greece is at least as old as the record of their linguistic siblings (see Proto-Romanian language) in modern Romania. I believe the problem is that Romanians are taught that their language roots go back in Romania to ancient times. Similarly, Vlachs are taught in Greece that their ancestors were Greeks, who mixed with local Roman legions. Those two theories work well in their own countries as part of national myths that the nations' citizens have always lived within the nations' boundaries, but these politically convenient stories have problems explaining why the two groups (Vlachs and Romanians) would share a common (post-Latin) linguistic ancestor (namely proto-Romanian). Theories that suggest a common romanized ancestor living in-between Greece and Romania (see the article's Immigrationist Theory) are also considered possible. This isn't to dismiss the Dacian theory, which has scholarly support as well, but it certainly isn't the only scholarly supported one, even if it has state support in Romania for political reasons. Piledhighandeep (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

to Piledhighandeep If you know geography you will understand that Roman provinces cover Vlachs of Greece. This is why "The origin of the Romanians lies in the Danube-Carpathian area in the Dacian and Roman provinces... is convenient for all theories. All Vlachs of Greece, Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia were in the Roman provinces.

Eurocentral (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that Greece is included in the "Carpatho-Danubian" region? Could we also write that Egypt, Israel and Spain are also included in this region because they were Roman provinces? Or could we write that Britain was a Dacian province because it was a Roman province? The more I read your comments the more I am convinced that your purpose is not the building of an encyclopedia but destroying it. Borsoka (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Starting with there are several theories means to put as the same level the theories of majority of researchers with theories based on political reasons or on irredentist opinions.

Eurocentral (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps in Romania there is only one truth, but your approach would be biased in the international scientific community. What sort of "majority" ?? The western scholars desperately try to avoid this subject.... You know well that Romanian historians, archaeologists etc between 1960 and 1990 were under the influence of National Communist political ideology. Ergo your "majority" is dubious...Fakirbakir (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
All the Romanian historians whose works are referred (and are written in English) refer to both theories. We should follow the example set by academic works. Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Piledhighandeep, thank you for your suggestion for the lead. It is much more neutral than any former version. I made two changes: the second sentence (which was only a duplication of the continuity theory) was deleted, and the last sentence was modified in order to more properly present the immigrationist view. Please write if you think any of my edits are problematic. Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up the duplication in the old material. I think the 14th century is too late, the History of Romanian article gives the 13th century as a terminal date, but I think picking another terminal date may be divisive, so why include one? It's a shame this is all seen as having implications in the 'who was there first' Hungarian-Romanian dispute. Piledhighandeep (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the Romanians' migrations lasted till the 14th century as it is demonstrated by the migration of a large group of Romanians who had settled some decades earlier in Maramures (according to the earliest Romanian chronicles) from this province to Moldavia around 1350. All the same, I think the date could be changed because the first nomadic or semi-nomadic Vlach groups settled in the lands to the north of the Lower Danube in the 12th century. Borsoka (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
All nations have different theories about origins. There is no nation with a single theory.

Eurocentral (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. However, there is no main theory. The "one truth ideology" ended in Romania about 24 years ago. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Main theory is not equal to one truth. Also a single book may not be equal to several books. You bring confusion to readers.

Your text is full with POV. Limit your ideas to only one sentence. The proposed geographic space includes all theories. Eurocentral (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Eurocentral (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've red the whole article and I've to say that Piledhighandeep's lead is kinda good in wording and definitely neutral, though the smaller or less-known theories might deserve few sentences. Also, a short introduction/summary before the the theories' description might make sense.. something like "The origin of Romanians refers to the process during which a group of people living in Southern and Eastern Europe have adopted a common identity, the Romanian" – then it could continue as the current: "There are several well-supported theories about this process..".
@Eurocentral: You might not realized, but your edits are clearly against the consensus and appears to be a POV push. You also might not understood, but the two theories are on the same level – there's no main view and other views, and shall be present accordingly. It is not the editors' work to decide whether a theory is more likely, "better" or whatever – theories must be present neutrally and it's up to the reader how s/he interprets it. Do not give undue weight to one theory over all others. Also, if you have objections, please raise them on the talk page rather than blindly reverting the widely accepted, consensus based version. In accordance with this, I have to note that you are close to edit-warring – if you continue your disruptive behaviour and go against the consensus instead of participating in the improvement of the article on the talk page I won't be shy to make the necessary steps needed in these cases. Please consider it as an official warning. Thehoboclown (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The general geographic space according to all theories is: The origin of the Romanians lies in the Danube-Carpathian area in the Dacian and Roman provinces and starts in ancient times. There is no other opinion so it is goog to be published.Eurocentral (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC).

79.112.98.48 (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No, there are other views about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The proposed sentence is about geography. I proposed Dacia and Roman provinces. Do you want to add other territories?

Eurocentral (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If no other comments, the geographic area will remain Roman provinces.(Is not the case of theories here) Eurocentral (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please try to seek a compromise instead of making declarations: Dacia is only included in the space of the Romanians' ethnogenesis according to the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity. Borsoka (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Unbalanced introduction: 1 line for continuity and 4 lines against continuity ! Propaganda of Hungarian commentators?

Eurocentral|Thehoboclown (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Both scholarly supported theories need to be introduced equally. The Daco-Romanian view is already introduced first. What more would you like? It is important to maintain an accurate and neutral portrayal of both views. I don't see the implications for Hungarians. They are known to be immigrants to the region (perhaps later ones), as well. (See, Origin of the Hungarians.) Piledhighandeep (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Eurocentral, Fakirbakir, Piledhighandeep, Slovenski Volk, SMcCandlish, Thehoboclown, and Wallace McDonald:, I suggest the following wording: "There are several well-supported theories about the origin of the Romanians. It is without doubt that the Romanian language is descended from the Vulgar Latin dialects spoken in the Roman provinces north of the "Jireček Line" (a notional line separating the predominantly Latin-speaking territories from the Greek-speaking lands in Southeastern Europe) in Late Antiquity. 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 (in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube in the course of the 2nd and the 3rd centuries. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains." (1) The text emphasizes the common features of all theories (Vulgar Latin, Jireček Line, Late Antiquity). (2) The text neutrally summarizes the two major theories. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I support your suggestion. It is a concise summary of the theories. I think it is a good idea to mention the Jireček Line because of its importance. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually I like the current version, but this one looks great as well. At first it was a bit too concentrated for me, but at a second look I can say it's good. Though, I would have some notes. First, the province of Dacia Traina included not only what is today Romania, but also the northern part of modern Serbia. To be more precise, it covered the regions of Oltenia, Transylvania and the Banat. So, I think, if you consider it is necessary to be added, then it should be added correctly. Second, while there's a concrete time span given when the ethnogenesis according to the first theory took place, there's no period given during which according to the second theory it occured. Given that it's present in the current version, I think you have a good reason to remove it?! Thehoboclown (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thehoboclown, thank you for your above remarks. "There are several well-supported theories about the origin of the Romanians. It is without doubt that the Romanian language is descended from the Vulgar Latin dialects spoken in the Roman provinces north of the "Jireček Line" (a notional line separating the predominantly Latin-speaking territories from the Greek-speaking lands in Southeastern Europe) in Late Antiquity. 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. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains." (My changes emphasize that Dacia Traiana was not exclusively situated in present-day Romania, and I deleted the reference to the time-frame.) Borsoka (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the part 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, I think that the theory of Daco-Roman continuity also supports the Romanization of the Free Dacians. For instance a paragraph from Ion Ţurcanu's Romanian-language book Istoria românilor: Cu o privire mai largă asupra culturii refers to this exact topic. Cenamol (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that the "mainly" term shows that the cohabitation of Dacians and Roman colonists is not the only "source" of the Romanian ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Vekony about early Romanian chronicles

Unfortunately I had to remove the following text added by User:Fakirbakir

Followers of the immigrationist theory say that the Romanians' earliest chronicles from the 16th and 17th centuries unanimously refer to their ancestors' northward migration under one "King Vladislav" of Hungary and only 18th-century Romanian scholars started emphasizing the Romanians' continuous presence in Transylvania in connection with their fights for the Romanians' political emancipation.

The same idea is already present in another section of the article:

A Romanian legend on their origin, preserved in the Moldo-Russian Chronicle from around 1505, narrates that one "King Vladislav of Hungary" invited their ancestors to his kingdom and settled them "in Maramureş between the Moreş and Tisa at a place called Crij"

Also, Fakirbakir's paragraph is quite unclear. Which are "Romanians' earliest chronicles from the 16th and 17th centuries"? There are not plenty of Romanian chronicles in that age (you can count on the fingers of one hand) and as far as I know this idea is present only in the Moldo-Russian Chronicle. Correct me if I am wrong. Vi3cu7 (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Migration during King Vladislaus

The only source I found is the Moldo-Russian chronicle, which refers to King Vladislav, not to the King Vladislaus. User:Borsoka if you insist that this info exists in the book, please copy-paste here the relevant quotes. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.58.175.101 (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the well sourced section "'Dismounting' by Dragoș" here. Borsoka (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Borsoka you did not answer to the request of IP 158.58.175.101, namely to present the exact quotes from the provided source (Vekony 2000) that support the statement "The earliest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of the Romanians' ancestors in the reign of one "King Vladislaus" Eurocentral (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you look for Vekony's book if you are interested? Here is the pdf version of the book:[3]Fakirbakir (talk)
I already checked the source and I was not able to find the alleged information. If you remove the Failed verification again witout providing the requested quote(s) from Vekony's book I will feel obliged to report you.

Eurocentral (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you did not check, because if you had checked it, you could have found it easily. Try it again (in the references, the abbreviation "pp" stands for "pages": you can find the information on pages 11-14. Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I want to ask User:Richard Keatinge, who checked the book, which are "the earliest Romanian chronicles" that refer to "King Vladislav". OK, we have the "legend came down to us from the annals of the Russian church in Voskresen" (one single chronicle). But which are the other early Romanian chronicles (because plural is used in Borsoka's phrase from the article)

Eurocentral (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a question that might be better directed to others. I thought it might be useful to remove one un-necessary cause of friction. The source does indeed present a quotation from the "annals of the Russian church in Voskresen" but it does so without further attribution and I can't easily check it, or its standing among modern academics, any further. I would probably change the sentence to something like "The annals of the Russian church in Voskresen, written in Old Church Slavonic about 1504, describe a migration of Rumanians to Hungary about a century before." I hope this helps. I'll now take this page off my watch list, but feel free to ping me if I can be of any help. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Richard Keatinge, thank you for your remarks. Please also cheque Spinei 1986 on page 197 (actually, the name "Vladislaus" was borrowed from Spinei instead of the Hungarian form "László" used by Vékony). I also refer to Vékony's reference to the early Romanian chronicles by logofat Istratie, dascal Simion and calugar Misail who unanimously connect the Romanians' settlement with King László the Saint (on pages 12-13 from Vékony cited work). Borsoka (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@User:Richard Keatinge. The 1504 legend is also referred at Origin_of_the_Romanians#Historiography:_origin_of_the_theories, which is more suitable and also includes text about other chronicles (for instance Grigore Ureche and Miron Costin). I suggest not repeat the idea at Origin_of_the_Romanians#Theories_on_the_Romanians.27_ethnogenesis

79.112.97.146 Eurocentral (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! I don't understand why User:Fakirbakir also inserts it to Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis section. That is not the place for including the evolution of the theories and the written documents supporting each theory Bagnume (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Geographic space

I propose as geographic space: Roman provinces and Dacian provinces Eurocentral (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For what? Do you suggest the following sentence: "The Romanians', or Vlachs', ethnogenesis started in the Roman provinces south of the Danube which were under Roman rule for 800 years. Their ancestors migrated to the territory of the former Roman province of Dacia in the 12th-13th centuries, which gave rise to a theory that claims that the Romanians are descended from the Roman colonist of this short-lived province and the autochtonous Dacians."? Borsoka (talk) 13:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
More convenient for all theories: The ethnogenesis started in the Roman and Dacian provinces.

Convenient for all theories. South or North of Danube. Eurocentral (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you do not clearly understand all the theories: at least according one of the main theories, the "Dacian provinces" played no role in the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you do not know geography. According to continuity theory, Dacian provinces were the main teritory of origins. Read all pages!

I know that you deny even Hungarian chronicles of Anonymus and Keza. You make history denying al chronicles favourable to continuity theory ! So Dacian and Roman provinces cover continuity and contrary theories. Eurocentral (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


The introduction is not balanced Onle line for continuity and 4 lines against continuity. It is a propaganda of discontinuity ? Eurocentral (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There are ~5 lines for both of the theories, what are you talking about? Bagnume (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral, you clearly misunderstand WP: it is not me or you who can deny or support anything, because we need to use sources when editing encyclopedia. So it is not "me" who denies the reliability of Anonymus's report of the Vlachs in Transylvania, but a number of scholars (including Macartney, Deletant and other British historians). Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Dacian and Roman provinces cover all theories. Even theories about Vlachs from the South of Italy. Eurocentral (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please the consensus that other editors reached above (under the title "RfC: What would be a neutral first sentence?"). You should not open a separate debate on the same issue. Borsoka (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It is necessary a separate debate about geographical area. Dacian territories are according to continuity and Roman provinces are according to

other theories. In the talk area, Borsoka is helped by sockpuppets like Thehoboclown . Borsoka will be under investigation for the use of sockpuppets. Eurocentral (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, it is you who was used by a banned editor, Iaaasi. I am not a tool of other editors and I do not use other editors as tools. Borsoka (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka About your allied editor: Thehoboclown: Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name.

Specific for you. Eurocentral (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Why not ?... 79.112.83.47 (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, sorry, I cannot take you serious in the future. You are really funny. But I must confess that I wanted to apply black magic to create a user page, but I failed because I had missed to light a candle made of goat blood in the nearby pagan cemetery at 12:00 pm. I hope next time I will be able to wake up on time. Borsoka (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka The use of editors like TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit in order to help you shows a great despair !

Eurocentral (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As geographic space I propose: Dacia (for continuity theories) and Roman provinces (for other theories). If is anybody who

wants to add supplementary geographic space, I am here to comment. Eurocentral (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, (1) Dacia and the Roman provinces are mentioned in the present lead - there is no need to repeat them twice, three times, four times, ... (2) The present lead contains a consensual text accepted by all other commentators during the above RfC, please respect it. (3) I understand that your (ab)use by an other editor must have been a really humiliating experiance for you. Please believe me average editors (like me and all the others you mention) respect each other and refrain from humiliating each other. Borsoka (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka Initially it was about first sentence but all sentences were modified. So we need to discuss:

why were all sentences modified? I do not agree to this approach: to modify all sentences of the introduction. Your statement text accepted by all other commentators is not true. 2 opinions were against. Why do you lie again? We need a consensus not a temporary majority. So I propose each side to make his proposal and to compare them in order to find a true consensus. Eurocentral (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, (1) please take into account that you are the only editor who insist on the modification (2) it was you who opened a separate subtitle for the same debate instead of joining the RfC (3) although the RfC was initiated in the subject of the first sentence, but a consensual lead was accepted after discussion (4) you should read basic WP polities, because the sentence you have been pushing contradicts WP:NPOV (5) I do not lie. Borsoka (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Vulgar Latin

What did Schramm write? Did he use the "Vulgar Latin" expression? It may be misleading. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but Vulgar Latin is more precise.
"Vulgar Latin is a generic term of the nonstandard (as opposed to classical) sociolects of Latin from which the Romance languages developed. The word vulgar in this case refers to its original meaning of common or vernacular, and not the more pejorative usage, tasteless or indecent." (from the article Vulgar Latin). Bagnume (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
If you do not know then do not change the sentence. It may be misleading. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I know, it is not right to alter sourced text. I will check the sources and add new ones if necessary.
The initial phrasing (Romanians, known by the exonym Vlachs in the Middle Ages, speak a language descended from Latin which was once spoken in south-eastern Europe) was even more misleading. It could have benn understood like this: Romanians, known by the exonym Vlachs in the Middle Ages, speak a language (descended from Latin) which was once spoken in south-eastern Europe Bagnume (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Vlachs from Greece

Why are Vlachs from Greece mentioned in the first phrase? As far as I know, Aromanians and Romanians are two different peoples. Bagnume (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Their languages are considered by linguists to have evolved from the same original Proto-Romanian language. Piledhighandeep (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
But they are still different people, as Spaniards and Italians are different people. And no, Vlachs they didn't speak "proto-Romanian". Rather, Romanian is a standarization of various East Romance languages native to Wallachia, Moldavia, etc; whilst the Vlachs of Macedonia, Serbia, Greece evolved their lanaguegs from their own, distinct, albeit very similar, version of East Romance dialects. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Please read more carefully Piledhighandeep's above remark: nobody claims that Vlachs speak a "Proto-Romanian" language. And if you read any of the books written by lingusts which are cited in the article you will find that all scholars agree that the four variants of Romanian developed from the same "Proto-Romanian language". Would you please explain how East Romance languages could be native to Moldavia which was never part of the Roman Empire? Could we also speak of the native Romance languages to South America or the native Germanic languages of South Africa as well? Borsoka (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought I had understood it: He is stating that extant Romanian and Vlach languages derive from one common ancestor - 'proto-Romanian', ie that particular type of 'Vulgar Latin' spoken in the Roman Balkans ?
If so, then my contention is that this is not fully correct. Whilst entirely acknowledging that this is indeed a communis opinio, it nevertheless is concept built from flawed methodology- ie 19th century nationalism, Herderian notions of language & ethnicity, and the simplistic Stammbaum language model.
I am thus saying, that there were in fact several different Balkan Romance lects in existence, say, between 200 - 600. There was no standardized ' Vulgar Latin' from which they derive; although they are undoubtedly very close and mutually understandable (I presume). The only "proto" Language itself was Latin itself, with no intermediate 'proto-Romanian'. Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your above clarification. I tend to accept your above approach even if I think that there must have been a close connection among the "Vulgar Latin" or "Proto-Romanian" dialects from which the four existing Romanian variants (and their dialects) developed, because the common features of the structure of these languages and the common pool of Latin, Albanian and Common Slavic vocabulary suggest that they are much more closely related to each other than to any other languages. All the same, we need at least one scholarly work to be referred to, if we want to present our POV in WP. Borsoka (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course ongoing contacts and convergence occurred. Borsoka, my comment was just in passing, to be honest. I didnt really have an issue with anything written in the main article. I am not aware of any thing new in terms of professional literature; although plenty of works in general (incl Indo-European) nothing specifically on Romanian. But this is a reflection of the stangnation in scholarship rather than the fact its not applicatble to 'proto-Romanian'. Nevertheless, the original commentator still had a valid point - from what I understand Romanians do not perceive Vlachs as 'fellow Romanians" but often call them Macedonians, etc, despite their undoubted ties Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dacians are a part of Thracian family

Thraces

Thracians inhabited an enormous area between Aegean Sea and Western Asia Minor and Pripet marshes, Bohemia and Bug river(C. C. Giurescu, The Formation of the Romanian People (1980), p.22)

Herodotus, mentions the Dacians as "the bravest and fairest of all the Thracians". Herodotus IV.93, V.3-4, V.6 and Strabo VII.3.2 wrote that Dacians belong to Thracian family. According to Mircea Eliade, the huge number of the branches coming out of the Thracian genealogical tree would amount to approximately 200. ("The Dictionary of Religions," page. 265) Professor Dumitru Balasa drew up a chart of these and counted no less than 150 Thracian branches (see "The Country of the Sun" or "The History of Daco-Romania," Kagaion Publishing House, 1997. Descendants of Thracians are present Romanians and Aromanians. Eurocentral (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


G. Cardos et all, "Paleo-mtDNA analysis and population genetic aspects of old Thracian populations from South-East of Romania" Rom J Leg Med 12(4) 239-246 (2004) www.scribd.com/doc/326027/Paleo-mtDNA-analysis-and-population-genetic-aspects-of-old-Thracian-populations-from-South-East-of-Romania (Article)

  • Casson, Lionel. "The Thracians". The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, New Series, Vol. 35, No. 1, (Summer, 1977), pp. 2–6.

Eurocentral (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A common but outdated assumption. Quite simply, Herodotus' purpose wasn't to give an accurate ethnolinguistic description of barbarians (ie the Thracians) (who he actually didn't know anything about), but to entertain / use for propaganda / etc. The "Thracians" were diverse people, linguistically, culturally and politically. There is no proof that Roman Era Dacians of Decebalus saw the 6th century BC Odrysians as fellow Dacians or 'brothers', nor the 3rd centruy Carpi . Rather, this is the result of an uncritical reading of Herodotus, and nationalistic sentiments shared by Balkan (Romanian and Bulgarian) scholars, who also ignore the fact that many of the 'tribes' actually appear at very different periods in prehistory. We don't even know what languages they spoke , we just have a handful of names, toponyms and even fewer inscriptions, none of which have been deciphered consensually. The greeks engaged in ethnographic stereotypes. Its like western colonists calling all native Americans "Indians", which they are not, and secondly are actually possess diverse languages, cultures, and have no 'national' feeling of belonging part of a larger 'family'.
Eg this can be gleamed at variously :https://www.academia.edu/382684/Peter_Delev._Stratifying_Herodotus_Local_Tribes_between_the_Lower_Axios_and_the_Nestos._Thracia_16_2005_105-121,
https://www.academia.edu/2454127/Archaeology_and_Nationalism_in_Europe_Two_Case_Studies_from_the_Northwest_and_Southeast_of_Europe
http://www.colbud.hu/mult_ant/Thyssen-Materials/Niculescu.htm
Also, there is a new Companion coming out on Ancient Thrace. One would hope it introduces some newer approaches on the subject also..
finally, I don't know what's the purpose of that genetics paper. Apart from it being dated and very low resolution (they didn't even derive any haplogroups), it tells us nothing really about how Romanians 'came to be' Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Please read only references from scientific books. Bulgarian nationalistic propaganda on wiki pages is not useful.

Eurocentral (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


LOL. Eurocentral, you have just identified to everyone that not only is your understanding of anthropology/ history/ archaeology in its infancy, but so is your behaviour.
First of all, two of the articles were written by Romanians (!); and all authors are unbiased specialists in their fieled, no matter where they come from; as they would not otherwise been published in specialist, peer-reviewed journals. Indeed, they leave your "Dictionary of Religions" in the lavatory receptacle.
Moreover, it was Romanian nationalist historians who viewed virtually every tribe, from Slovakia, to Macedonia and east to the Dnieper as "Thraco-Geto-Dacian", quite obviously an absurd position which was reflective in the early 20th century the need for Romania define its deserved 'ancient territory' into a modern political context (a view which you have apparently immersed yourself in). That need has gone, and (as is clear from the articles coming from young Romanian scholars), there has been considerable revision of those past positions.
Thirdly, I, for one, learned in primary school that primary sources, especially when Greeks and Romans discussed 'barbarians' cannot be taken a priori as truth, in fact, often far from it. You, on the other hand appear to be entirely ignorant of that simple fact.
Fourthly, I have no idea why you're even posting content that Dacians are Thracians. Apart from its evident falsehood, it has no bearing on the origin of Romanians, anyway;
Finally, I suspect your panicked response is reflective of what you might think my actual position on the O.o. Romanians might be. Actually, not that it really matters, I simply follow the evidence and see that Romance -speaking populations clearly did exist north of the Danube from antiquity into the Middle Ages. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


I undersood what you think. After you, Herodot, Strabon are bad historians. Your POV is not important.

Eurocentral (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC) 10:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


Eurocentral, would you please summarize what Cardos et al write about the genetic relationship between "Thracians" and modern Romanians. As I understand their genetic pool was taken from Dobruja, that is to the south of the Danube. How their studies prove any continuity to the north of the Danube. Old Dacians practised cremation. How these scholars were able to study their DNA? Or they did not study Dacian DNA? If they did not study Dacian DNA how their study proves any continuity to the north of the Danube? Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Cardos worked at a German Institute with the German director of the institute. Are you a genetician ? By the way, Dobrogea is on the South East part of Romania. I put a link with a paper "Paleo-mtDNA analysis and population genetic aspects of old Thracian populations from South-East of Romania just few lines above". I know you are angry and you want to kill the author.

Eurocentral (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

G. Cardos, V. Stoian, N. Miritoiu, A. Comsa, A. Kroll, S. Voss, and Alexander Rodewald. "Paleo-mtDNA analysis and population genetic aspects of old Thracian populations from South-East of Romania." Romanian Society of Legal Medicine 12:4 (2004): pages 239-246. "We have performed a study of mtDNA polymorphisms (HVR I and HVR II sequences) on the skeletal remains of some old Thracian populations from SE of Romania, dating from the Bronze and Iron Age in order to show their contribution to the foundation of the modern Romanian genetic pool and the degree of their genetic kinships with other old and modern human European populations. [...] Computing the frequency of common point mutations of the present-day European population with the Thracian population has resulted that the Italian (7.9%), the Albanian (6.3%) and the Greek (5.8%) have shown a bias of closer genetic kinship with the Thracian individuals than the Romanian and Bulgarian individuals (only 4.2%). [...] So far we can just suppose, that the old Thracian populations would have been able to contribute to the foundation of the Romanian modern genetic pool. More mtDNA sequences from Thracian individuals are needed in order to perform an complex objective statistical analysis."
Alexander Rodewald, G. Cardos, and C. Tesio. "Analysis of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes of old human populations from the Bronze and Iron Age from Romania." A paper to be presented at The European Human Genetics Conference 2012 in Nuremberg, Germany, June 23-26, 2012. "Our genetic study was focused on old human populations from the Bronze and Iron Ages from Romania [...] Concerning the genetic relationships at mitochondrial level, old human populations from Romania have shown closer genetic relationship to Turks of Thracian origin, while modern Romanians were closer to modern Bulgarian, Italian, Greek and Spanish populations."
Garrett Hellenthal, George B. J. Busby, Gavin Band, James F. Wilson, Cristian Capelli, Daniel Falush, and Simon Myers. "A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History." Science 343:6172 (February 14, 2014): pages 747-751. "In analyzing the genetics of 13 Romanian people, the team detected an admixture event that occurred sometime around the year 1054, and almost certainly between 886 and 1194. One part of their ancestry is related to peoples like Lithuanians and Finns while the other part is related to peoples like Greeks, Cypriots, and Southern Italians including Sicilians." Fakirbakir (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of sentences. But I choosed only the sentence about continuity. You choosed other ideas. You have to read before writing.

Eurocentral (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, (1) you have not answered the question: how they could seize DNA from a population (Dacians) who cremated their dead? (2) I am sure that it is surprising to you, but there are many people who do not want to kill anybody. (3) Fakirbakir's above quotations from papers published in English by the same authors suggest that their studies do not prove any continuity in the lands north of the Danube. (4) Your remark about Dobruja (which is situated to the south of the Lower Danube) also suggest that they do not prove any continuity north of the Danube. (5) Consequnetly, you are obviously again abusing the name of scholars. Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral appears to act on this article with disappointing blind-sighted emotionalism which misconstrues friendly suggestions & critiques as insults to ones core being ; which is a shame.
He appears absolutely dumbfounded at my pointing out that one cannot take primary sources, esp. ancient Greek accounts on barbarians, verbatim, something I thouht everyone who has at least a cursory understanding of ancient history, was aware of.
Finally, that genetics paper he quoted isnt worth much. All credit to the scholars who wrote it, and I am aware they are doing further, much neede studies on the ancient thracian samples and are fine tuning their techniques and results, but their preliminary paper in 2004 barely resolved any haplogroups, and the results were so broad that they tell us barely anything. Even if "genetic studies" show that ancient Thracians are similar to modern Romanians, it would still tell us nothign as to the exact circumstances about the ethnogenesis of modern Romanians. At best, it would tell us that Romanians aren't from Africa or Papua New Guinea. hardly revolutionary insight. Brosoka - the remains appear to have been inhumations from Bronze Age and early Iron Age cultures (Badabag, Monteoru-related, etc) Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Eurocentral's psychological features and IQ cannot be debated here. On the other hand, he obviously abuses the names of scholars when editing an article: he states something based on a book published in Romanian which clearly contradicts to the statements made in English by the authors of the same book. Consequently, we should clearly use the English publications. Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka wants to erase all references in Romanian but to keep all references in Hungarian. All pages of Hungarian history have references in Hungarian language. Another example of his subjective and nationalistic attitude.

Eurocentral (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

All you have to do is to add your references not to erase proposed references

Eurocentral (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I found the book Genomul uman - Georgeta Cardoş ,Alexander Rodewald online here and the cited quote is the following:

  • Populatia romaneasca actuala s-a grupat cu populatia bulgara actuala, relatie genetica ce ar putea fi explicata prin originea comuna in populatie tribale vechi (tracice). (the original one, in Romanian)
  • Current Romanian population was grouped with the current Bulgarian population, a genetic relationship that could be explained by the common origin in ancient (Thracian) tribal population . (the English translation) Bagnume (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
As I suspected the Romanian book written by the two authors do not state anything of continuity, similarly to the articles they published in English. This is only a new example of Eurocentral's abuse of scholars' names in order to substantiate his/her OR.
Although it may be hard, I think we should asume good faith also in the case of Eurocentral, maybe his misinterpration of source text is unintentional. Bagnume (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


"Current Romanian population....a genetic relationship that could be explained by the common origin in ancient (Thracian) tribal population" . From this sentence results that Romanians (and Bulgarians) have origins in ancient Thracian population. That is a continuity explained by origins.

But the book's foreword mentioned very clear this continuity in several sentences. I took the interpretation from the book's foreword (Georgeta Cardoş ,Alexander Rodewald). Eurocentral (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Borsoka is right, the statement does not prove a continuous existence of the ancestors of Romanians in Dacia. According to the Final Conclusions from page 131, the old inhabitants of Romania are most related to Aromanians and "Turks of Thracian origin" living near the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Also present-day Romanians form a cluster (are most related) with present-day Bulgarians, which is I think a conclusion of other genetical studies too (for instance the one at http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml)
It is interesting that the author of the first preface is Napoleon Săvescu, a significant protochronist (whose view is that the Romanians are not descendants of the Roman colonists and assimilated Dacians, as mainstream Romanian historians say, but that they are the descendants of only the Dacians, who spoke a language close to Latin).Bagnume (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
From mentioned phrases I choose : Romanians and Bulgarians... have common origins in ancient (Thracian) tribal population

It is necessary to be added. Eurocentral (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please read the article: the above sentence proposed by Bagnume is already included in it under the sub-title "Paleogenetics". Please also try to concentrate: genetic links between the Bulgarians and the Romanians do not prove the Daco-Romanian continuity theory, because the Bulgarians live in the Balkan Peninsula south of the Danube, but the theory claims a continuous presence of a population north of the same river. Borsoka (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Romanians and Bulgarians... have common origins in ancient (Thracian) tribal population. Do you see now

the connection between Romanians and Thracians? Even Bulgarians have origins in Thracian population. Try to put your glasses. Eurocentral (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, I have always been sure that there is a close genetical link between the Romanians and many peoples from the lands south of the Danube. The land south of the Danube were for about 800 years under Roman rule and have been inhabited by Bulgarians, Serbians for at least 1000 years. I would be surprised if the cohabitation of the Romanians' and Bulgarians' ancestors would not have any impact on their offspring. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Theories on the Romanians ethnogenesis" section

In order to avoid duplications, I suggest that under this title (including its three subsections) only the core of the theories (continuity theory, immigrationist theory and further theories) should be summarized, without any reference to the pros and cos. This would be a neutral approach. The development of the theories could be presented under the "Historiography" section, and thei argumentation is already presented under the "Evidence" section. Comments are welcome. Borsoka (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

These are ideas of a subjective commentator. He refused to add in The conquest of Carpathian basin some ideas extracted from The Orogins... That means he is subjective and his ideas are subjective. A phrase is good in The origins of... and is false in The conquest of.. A commentator with 2 faces. Of course he will add the aid of his Hungarian colleagues in order to introduce his nationalistic ideas. Eurocentral (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral, if a scholar (Gottfried Schramm) does not write of the Gesta Hungarorum, he cannot be cited in connection with the Gesta Hungarorum in an article. I hope even you can understand this. Borsoka (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Gesta Hungarorum is contested by some historians including majority of Hungarians in order to deny the presence of Romanians in the conquered space. Hungarian opinions are in contrast with Romanian historians about Gesta; finally Schramm wrote about this fight between Romanian and Hungarian historians. You brought the contradictions of historians in the talk pages. Eurocentral (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Schramm did not write of the contradiction between Romanian and Hungarian historians in connection with the Gesta Hungarorum. Would you please verbatim cite what he wrote? Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Schram wrote about the dispute between Hungary and Romania: Political and ideological considerations, including the dispute between Hungary and Romania over Transylvania, have also colored these scholarly discussions.[10] Eurocentral (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Is or no a dispute between Romanians and Hungarian historioans ?
Yes, but not about the Gesta Hungarorum. We cannot cite Schramm in connection with all debates between Hungarian and Romanian historians, because he only wrote about the Origin of the Romanians, but not about the existence of Gelou or about the Treaty of Trianon. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I.A.Pop: No migration from South to North

I.A.Pop wrote "Nu exista nici o marturie istorica explicita, nici in jurul anului 600 si nici ulterior in evul mediu in legatura cu vreo miscare masiva de populatie de la sud spre nord" This is about the inexistence of migrations from South to North of Danube. Eurocentral (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is I. A. Pop's POV. A similar POV is represented by Mircea Davidescu. For instance, the latter scholar writes that the text of the Romanian Cantacuzino Chronicle of the Romanians "who separated from the Romans and ventured to the North" and settled "in the Hungarian country along the waters of the Olt, the Mures and the Tisa and reaching as far as Maramures" do not refer to the 13th-century immigration of the Romanians to the Kingdom of Hungary, but preserved the memory of the 2nd-century Roman colonization of Dacia under Emperor Traian (Davidescu, Mircea (2013). The Lost Romans. CreateSpace. ISBN: 978-1-490-53253-0, pages 102-103) Davidescu also denies the credibility of the report in the early 16th-century Anonymous Chronicle of Moldova about the settlements of the Romanians in Maramures under one "King Vladislav of Hungary" (Davidescu 2013, pp. 108-109). In contrast with Pop and Davidescu, for instance, Gábor Vékony writes that the latter chronicle (and other early Romanian chronicles) imply that the Romanians "had an awareness that they were newcomers, late settlers along in the territory framed by the Rivers Maros, Tisza and Kõrös ... In the 15th century and about 1500 some memory must still have existed of settlements being founded in the 13th-14th centuries." (Vékony, Gábor (2000). Dacians, Romans, Romanians. Matthias Corvinus Publishing.ISBN 1-882785-13-4, page 14). So we can conclude, that there are more than one POVs: according to one POV, there is no record of the Romanians' northward migration, but an other POV also exists which refer to the oldest Romanian chronicles' report of the migration of masses of Romanians to the Kingdom of Hungary in the 13th century. Pleaser read WP:NPOV. In the future, please attempt to add all proper data (author, title, publisher, ISBN and pages) when referring to an academic source and try to translate quotes which are not written in English. Borsoka (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Above data of I.A. Pop were already entered in the text of the page so no need to add proper data. Your motivations are weird. You bring motivations only in the Romanian pages but you refused all observations made in the conquest of Carpathian...; this is an unbalanced activity. As a example, the Romanians were excluded from the land of Gelou and you mentioned only that Hungarians occupied Gelou's Transilvania. I inserted a reference about the Romanian inhabitants but you erased the name Romanians. Finally I wrote that Transilvania is larger than the duchy of Gelou and you denied it. All these show lack of objectivity. You need to get consensus before erasing.Eurocentral (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
(1) Eurocentral, no editors are required to read our discussions in this Talk page and compare it with the text of the article. Please respect other editors (those who have not been involved in our discussion yet) by always providing a proper reference (author, title, publisher, ISBN, and page) when you cite a source, and by translating the quote if it is not written in English. (2) Please refrain from discussing edits made in other articles on this article's talk page. Remember that I informed you, on the relevant Talk page, of the reasons of that specific edit, also drawing your attention to Wikipedia:Summary style [4]. (3) Of course, you or me or any editor can write our thoughts, but they are only relevant for WP purposes if they are based on academic works. Please read WP:NOR for further details. (4) I always seek consensus, but you obviously claim that consensus means the acceptance of your OR or non-neutral edits. It is you who attempts to break consensus reached by other editors, as it is demonstrated above on this same talk page [5]. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:Consensus for further details. Borsoka (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a side note – may I ask to put whatever belongs to the other article in that article's talk page and don't escalate it to here or wherever else?! This page is getting full with unrelated and personal (comment on content, not on contributor!) blabla that has nothing to do with this topic and makes it pretty hard to follow the related stuffs. Thanks, Thehoboclown (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thehoboclown, I fully agree with you. Even so, I do need to react to Eurocentral's unrelevant remarks, because it is a part of his/her tactics: he has always been attempting to question other editors' reliability by making negativ statments of their behaviour. I will try to concentrate only to the relevant issues, but sometimes I have to make it clear that he/she is only making empty declarations. I would like to avoid that anybody who reads this discussion in 5 or 100 years will think that any of Eurocentral's statements are verifiable based on facts. I am working for the future. :) Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka Your comments about editors will be investigated.
Thehoboclown Please go back to the subject of debate and avoid comments on editors. The page is monitored.193.231.27.99 (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Georgescu's statement

I have to disagree with Georgescu's statement. Russian historians in the eighties did not admit the continuity theory. Actually the Soviet historiography maintained that Romanians settled in the Carpathian Basin after the arrival of Slavs. (p. 199, Gabriel Moisa, Between Exclusion and Acceptance. The Perception of Historian Gheorghe I. Brătianu in Communist Romania, In: From Periphery to Centre.The Image of Europe at the Eastern Border of Europe, 2014) Fakirbakir (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal points of view are not admitted. This is VANDALISM. Eurocentral (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Both editors erased several times this phrase extracted from Georgescu's works:

Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12}

The vandalization will be investigated. Eurocentral (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please do not start a new section on an ongoing debate. My arguments can be read in the edit summary, Fakirbakir's argument can be read above. Please try to answer them here. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka your personal points of view are not a excuse for vandalism.

Eurocentral (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Users Borsoka and Fakirbakir were accused of vandalism after erasing a phrase of a Romanian historian that they do not agree. Eurocentral (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The content of censored phrase: Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12}

Eurocentral (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please read Fakirbakir's remark above. Georgescu's statement is a marginal POV which contradicts to statements which can be found in neutral academic works. Please refrain from accusing other editors. Borsoka (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral I cited an academic work, It is not my POV. Moisa (p. 199) ""The volume was meant as a scientific response to the Soviet historiography that asserted the idea that the Romanians settled down in this space after the Slav's arrival in the Carpathian Basin". Fakirbakir (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Before you ask me about the interpretation of the expression "in this space", the whole paragraph is about the Communist Romanian stance against "immigrationist theory". Cited: "It was not an accident that in 1988 they re-printed the volume entitled O enigmă şi un miracol istoric: poporul român (An Enigma and a Historical Miracle: The Romanian People), an extremely serious and documented pleading against the immigrationist theory, on the Romanians' South-Danubian origin and on the Romanians' continuity in the present area, inhabited since the early Middle Ages. The volume was meant as a scientific response to the Soviet historiography that asserted the idea that the Romanians settled down in this space after the Slavs‟ arrival in the Carpathian basin." Fakirbakir (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Fakibakir Georgescu was a dissident and lived in West Europe. Your knowledge of history is full of misinterpretations. Eurocentral (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Fakibakir Acting alternatively with Borsoka and starting personal research you finally try to deny Romanian historians. Erasing references alternatively with Borsoka shows that you started disruptive edits in order to eliminate other opinions and in order to avoid WIKI RULES !
Eurocentral, you should not accuse other editors of misconduct, because you are under a ban. Please respect it. I suggest that you should study basic WP policies, including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:Civility, in the following six months, because you do not understand them. Borsoka (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Borsoka and Fakirbakir accused of vandalism

Borsoka and Fakirbakir were accused of vandalism and an investigation started. They act together making impossible any impartial edit. Their personal points of view and original research are a motive to censor Romanian historians. Eurocentral (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Censored text:

Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12}

Eurocentral (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, I understand that you cannot live without duplicated debates. So I also repeat here: Georgescu's above view is a marginal POV that contradicts neutral scholars' view on the same subject, as it is demonstrated by Fakirbakir's references under the subtitle above. Please reafrain from accusing other editors. Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka I see that your Original Research became a motive for Vandalism ! It is visible that you and Fakirbakir (who acts similar as a sockpuppet) made a conspiration against Romanian historians acting alternatively. Censoring the history became your objective. Eurocentral (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Eurocentral, you should not accuse other editors of misconduct, because you are under a ban. Please respect it. I suggest that you should study basic WP policies, including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:Civility, in the following six months. Borsoka (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Fans of immigriationist theory

"Gottfried Schramm, Herbert J. Izzo and other scholars who support the immigrationist theory"

Why are Gottfried Schramm and Herbert J. Izzo to be nominated here? There are tens of major and minor historians that adopt the thory,It is not OK to choose only them, we should not nominate anyone and have a general statement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbist (talk • contribs) 08:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Microbist, are you identical with banned user Eurocentral? Borsoka (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microbist (talk • contribs) 10:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Schramm and Izzo wrote articles on the origin of the Romanians. There are not many scholars who wrote article especially of this subject. Borsoka (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians/Archive_16&oldid=789547132"