Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Origin of the Romanians. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 23 |
Simon of Kéza
Simon of Kéza's text is the following, according to its authoritative English translation: "These Székely are in fact remnants of the Huns, and when they found out that the Hungarians were returning to Pannonia, they came to meet them on the borders of Ruthenia, and then joined with them in the conquest of Pannonia and acquired part of the country. However, this was not in the plains of Pannonia but in the mountains, which they shared with the Vlachs, mingiling with them, it is said, and adopting their alphabet." Gyula Kristó's translation of part of the same text is the following: "According to [Simon of Kéza], the Székely, "together with the Vlachs, received their part among the mountains of the frontier region." Nothing proves that Kéza thought that the Vlachs had lived in the mountains before the arrival of the Székelys. Borsoka (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Scheianu:, first of all, please carefully read WP:3RR. Secondly, you have been attempting to add a text to a section which is not connected to the text. Your text is about the settlement of the Székelys and Romanians in the mountains (of Transylvania), but you have been attemtpting to add it to the section dedicated to the development of the diverse theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Thirdly, please use the authoritative English translation of Kéza's text, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Immigration debate
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Immigration theory should be renamed to Immigration hypothesis throughout the entire article. There are several difference between a theory and a hypothesis and as such, Roesler's south-to-north immigration doesn't amount to a theory. It stands opposed to the Daco-Roman continuity, which is supported not only by several author's research (just like Roesler's) on the subject but, more importantly, by archaeological findings which, in turn, coupled with linguistic evidence and primary sources form a cohesive base that support the the hypothesis - transforming it into a theory. This comprehensive and diverse evidence pool is lacking in support for Roesler's hypothesis.
I would have not proposed this editing, but this false equivalence (and the Wikipedia article) are often times used to support certain nationalistic views. I believe that it is important to underline the distinction between a supposition (Roesler's immigration) that lacks crucial evidence (especially archaeological) and a supposition (Daco-Roman continuity) that is supported by a wide range of evidence, from linguistic, archaeological, toponymy, geographical and not least, lately, even some genetic studies. Equally important is the fact that while any of those evidences might be disputed, individually, they form a cohesive base for the theory. Imagine a criminal investigation - where there are few individual pieces of evidence that provide a definite answer - but rather the totality of the evidence is the one that paints the whole picture. Simply put, evidence support each other so that while individually they might have several explanations when put together they point towards a single common one.
Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Borsoka: 1. As I said, provide those said evidences as links for all the world to see. You, on the other hand, use the same tactic as others (see point 4 below) of trying to take apart the evidence of Daco-Romanian continuity, by casting doubt on the individual parts and hoping that somehow the "whole" gets invalidated. I asked for evidence supporting your "immigration" hypothesis. The burden of proof is on you. You need to prove a POSITIVE statement - meaning linking/citing archaeological discoveries, corroborated with primary sources, maybe even genetics that show a massive movement of Romanians from the south of Danube to the North. Point by point: "there is no evidence for the continuous presence of a Latin/Romance-speaking population in the territory of the former province of Dacia Traiana after the withdrawal of the Romans." - Of course there is, archaeological and primary sources. Byzantin coins, Tombstones with latin inscriptions, cities continuously inhabited etc. Some of those very evidences are cited in this article. "The Romanians did not adopt a single word from the Germanic peoples" - well, I don't have to take your propagan... sorry, word on it. Prove it. Again you make a NEGATIVE statement so good luck in proving it. "The oldest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of masses of Romanians from the Byzantine Empire to Hungary." - Prove it. Where is this chronicle? I happen to know though of the other way around, of Kekaumenos and Ana Comnena's writings, from the 11th century BC, that point towards a movement of a latinized population from Panonia to Transylvania first, and then from Transylvania to northern Danubian plain. "The Romanians adopted Albanian loanwords." - says who? Yes, there are some (40-50) words similar, but I challenge you to link any independent western study that shows Romanian has adopted Albanian words. Moreover, even if such a thing happened (which might very well be the case) you need to show when that happened, in which historical context etc. "The Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population even in the 12th-15th centuries ... " - see, this is where you show your true colours. Nothing but a Hungarian nationalistic trying to push his political agenda. Support this extremely general statement. You also show the limits of your knowledge (if any) in confusing Vlach/Voloh/Olah/Blach etc. with Romanians. "Vlach" was used to describe many latinised people, just like Romans called the non-Romans barbarians. Now following your logic we should assume that all non-Romans are of the same ethnicity (since all were called Barbarians). 2. You should start by toning your speech down, then you might sound a bit more convincing. This entire article is filled with messy sections since it fails to recognize the "Vlach" exonym, and the fact that it was applied by various people through history to describe various ethnicities, whom were more or less related but nevertheless spoke latin (or vulgar latin for that matter). Of course, the context of "Vlach" use is to underline the balkan origin. Because readers who are not invested in this will not dig deeper, and the superficial and unrelated mentioning of Balkan Vlachs gives more credence to an otherwise pure speculative migration from south to north of daco-romans. 3. The fact that a Hungarian (with Russian links) is actively trying to molest this page with pseudo-science is appalling. 4. I would not have gone to this length and let you be with your ideas unless this was a public place and as it turns out you are a part of the current campaign of pushing a politically motivated idea (same campaign is happening on Quora). As I said, I asked for evidence to PROVE the migration hypothesis. You bring nothing to the table but propaganda and modern nationalistic slogans ("The Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population even in the 12th-15th centuries ..."). No links, no citations, no nothing. Disproving (or trying to cast doubt) bits and pieces of the Daco-Roman continuity does not equate, in any shape or form, to proving the migration hypothesis, and this is the core of my request. If Wikipedia is to present all those statements (Daco-Roman continuity, South-to-north Immigration or even the more plausible Admigration) in the same light, use the same burden of proof for all of them. So... where are the archeological finds + primary sources + DNA studies + linguistic studies + etc. etc. etc. that support the migration hypothesis? Why isn't "Vlach" described in the article in a non-ambiguous way? Another carefully crafted piece of propaganda: I could not help but notice that in the Historiography section it is mentioned that the Daco-Roman continuity theory was even taught in the Austro-Hungarian Empire until 1870, but in 1780 Franz Joseph Sulzer "rejects" the Daco-Roman Continuity theory. Whomever made this addition is clearly simply malevolent since it is a half truth, and the context is not provided (his beef with Ipsilanti for example). Franz Joseph Sulzer proposes an "alternative fact" which is politically motivated - and he argues that this is the condition of Romanians (justified by his hypothesis - therefore they are not the original inhabitants), to be kept in near slavery. So it comes that this Wikipedia page quickly points out that the Transilvanian School used the Daco-Roman Continuity theory (in order to lead the reader towards the feeling that it is a politically motivated theory) while the Sulzer's theory is not mentioned as politically motivated (he himself clearly points to this!). So while the Daco-Roman hypothesis was USED as a political tool (which is 100% true) BUT, it was just that, as the theory was already established theory for centuries - so it has no effect on it's merits. On the other hand the migration hypothesis was CREATED as a political tool. And this, imho, has quite a lot to say about it's merits. It simply falls under the same category with Racial Purity. So much for balance, impartiality and burden of proof. I do wonder who added those tidbits of texts. Also I have to wonder if there is any Romanian, Serbian or Slovakian wondering around on the Hungarian history Wikipedia pages spreading unproven nationalistic propaganda. P.S. Even though you do not declare yourself as a Hungarian/Russian agent, your arguments so far and the way you support them are precisely taken from the "book" of Hungarian nationalistic propaganda. A simple google search will lead to forums filled with so-called scientific talk where the arguments always start with "[...] and as we all know the Romanians are a migratory shepherd people [...]".Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Boesoka:
Chalkokondyles? That is about Albanian migration. Jan Dlugosz - 1070 A.D. The first uncontested mention of Vlachs north of the Danube. Jan Dlugosz, a Polish chronicler, reports that Rhutenians, Patzinakas and Vlachs were fighting in the army of cnez Wiaczeslav against Boleslaw, who later become king of Poland. Can you provide a link for both Chalkokondyles and Dlugosz where thes supposed south-north migration is mentioned/inferred? How about backing up your claims?Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: "We have no use here for propagandists of chauvinism" - so Desusianu is considered propaganda and chauvinism (which I do tend to agree) but the migration hypothesis is not? Fact is Franz Joseph Sulzer proposed the southern migration as a political TOOL against the Romanian ethnics in Transylvania. Ever since then it has been used as a political tool - so why encourage one type of propaganda/chauvinism and not the other? Or if we are to dismiss propaganda and chauvinism (as it should be) why dismiss Desusianu but not the southern migration? As for philosophy - yeah, you are right (and I hope not trying to patronize me). It has it's place, but not here. Here we are talking about burden of proof, balance, and measuring all statements with the same measure. As for agreeing to disagree, I really need no lectures (not necessarily implying you are trying to give me on). So again, why is Wikipedia knowingly accepting a politically motivated statement be presented as a mainstream, well-supported theory?Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Borsoka: (1) Oldest Romanian chronicles about the Romanians' northward migration to the "Hungarian land": Russo-Moldavian Chronicle and Cantacuzene Chronicle. - Please detail this. What passage exactly is mentioning this. Also, where is the pre-condition (that there were no Romanians inhabiting the land already) necessary for you to support the migration hypothesis? (2) Archaeological evidence: how can archaeological finds from territories along rivers with Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic and German names prove the continuous presence of a Romance-speaking population? - really? How do you back your conclusion about Hungarian names? Especially for archaeological findings dating 7th, 6th or even 5th century BC? This will make for a very interesting reading. Or did history start with the Hungarian conquest (which nobody denies) of Pannonia and Transylvania? As for how archaeology works in relation to history - for example, if we find a cemetery dating from 7th century BC, with tombstones inscribed both in Latin and in Slavic then the natural conclusion is that there were both people inhabiting the area. If we again find another cemetery dating 8th century BC, with Slavic and Latin tombstones, then the natural conclusion is that there were both Slavic and Latin(ised) people living together in those 2 centuries. See, this is how it works. The archaeological findings mark milestones in time, and you put the pieces together. What archaeological findings can the migration theory claim (I mean you surely have some vestigial remains showing both the route and the time-frame of such migration, right? But as always, you are trying to validate a hypothesis by somehow invalidating another. No, it doesn't work this way. So I respectfully ask you to support migration (or slow-migration - whatever you wish) with archaeological findings. But just for the record - archaeological remains that support the continuity theory exist. If we broaden our horizons to the villages where the population actually lived, one finds extensive, and important, evidence. For example, the one industry which remained relatively unchanged (until the 5th or 6th century) was the ceramics industry. Monetary treasures at Alba Iulia, Alecus, Dimboa, Hunedoara, Jeledinti, Lapusnic, Reghin, Tiboau and Lisea. If the entire population pulled out of Dacia *during peacetime* , then why didn't they take their wealth with them. Other important findings come in the form of tombstones or cemeteries. Also one can examine the 6th Century paleo-Christian pots lid discovered at Tibiscum; the fifth or sixth century Christian bronze earthen lamp (rush-light) discovered at Dej; the devotional cross found at Biertan is inscribed in Latin :"Ego Zenovius votum posui". On the other hand, if people stayed behind, and then the barbarians started invading, it suddenly makes sense to bury one's wealth. The ceramic trail alone attests to the continuous survival of a culture. In any case, it is also worth noting that the Roman withdrawal was not complete. As late as Justinian the Great's reign (483-565), the Empire still maintained fortifications on the Danube's northern bank. (3) Scholars about the Albanian loanwords in Romanian: Gottfried Schramm and Vladimir Orel. - You really paint a poor image of yourself if you keep peddling this. First of all it's quite irrelevant, as all languages in the area have borrowed extensively. So the burden of proof is on you not ONLY to show that words have been borrowed, but when and under what circumstances. Second - one can easily refute this by reading the article here, on Wikipedia, about the Romanian language: "Thus, Romanian is scientifically very interesting from a linguistic and historical viewpoint, since Romance languages did not prevail in the other frontier regions of the Roman Empire in Europe, Asia and Africa; North Africa's falling under Arab sway may have played a role in the ultimate demise of Romance dialects. Also, the conservation in Romanian of these numerous vestiges of Latin military slang (sermo castrensis) – such as a (se)aține ("to waylay"), coif ("helmet"), împărat ("emperor"), a împresura ("to encircle with pressure"), a (se) (în)cumeta ("to venture"), a înțina ("to make thin a tree for its collapse on the invaders"), aținat ("made thin a tree"), mire "fiancé" (< Lat. miles "soldier", metonymy), a purcede ("to advance"), a răpune ("to kill"), rost "sense" a.s.o. (< Lat. rostrum "beak at prow of Roman warship"), (f)sat "village" (< Lat. fossatum "trench for defence", metonymy), șes "plain" (< Lat. sessus "plain place for camping", metonymy), a supune ("to subject"), tindă "veranda" (< Lat. tenda sub vallo "tent out of agglomerated fortress", metonymy), țară "homeland" (< Lat. terra "earth" ˃ Arom. țară "earth"), etc. and their absence in Aromanian (Balkan Romanian dialect spoken in peaceful area) – indicates the continuity of the Latinophones in the northern Danubian region, this despite dire and constant defensive wars with Germanic, "Turanian"[vague] (Turkic peoples and Magyars) and Slavic populations who entered and eventually settled there. This linguistic evidence challenges the Roeslerian theory. The vestiges from Latin military slang particularize the Romanian language in the neolatin area, together with its isolated history.[11] According to Cristian Mihail, the Roslerian theory is annihilated because of the fact that the Romanian words in common with the Albanian words do not preserve the sound "l" between vowels – in accordance, i.e. with Rom. "māgurā" and Alb. "magulë" etc. – likewise with Romanian words from Latin linguistic stratum (Rom. "scara" < Lat. "scala" etc.) unlike the words from Slavic later stratum, which preserve the sound "l" intervowels (cf. Rom. "mila", no "*mira" < Sl. "mila") would prove that the Romanian words in common with the Albanian words proceed of a latter stratum in Balkan region, near the Albanians, as supporting also by linguistics the continuity of the Latinophons (Romanians) in the Nordic-Danubian region.[12]" So go fast and edit this article... (4) Lack of Germanic loanwords in Romanian as a negative statement: ok, let's make positive statements. 4th-century 1Roman historians knew that the Romans had been withdrawn from Dacia; the Romanians adopted Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic place-names; the Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population for centuries (moreover, they paid tax on their sheep and they adopted their words for a settled way of life from the Bulgarians and Hungarians); there are contemporaneus sources about the settlement of Romanian groups in Hungary from the 14th century; the oldest Romanian chronicles wrote about their ancestors' northward migration to the "Hungarian land". How can you prove the continuity theory without making negative statements about these facts? - Care to back up those "facts"? Also, you keep mentioning the Roman retreat. Yes, nobody disputes that - but what is the relevance of that? As pointed out several times, the administration and legions retreated (although, as I already mentioned, a small military presence remained north of the Danube). But people lived in villages, villas and to some extent in cities. For everything else - back them! As for Romanians settling Transylvania later - tough luck. It's not enough to show that groups of Romanians came to Transylvania in whatever century you wish (12th, 15th, 21st etc). You also need to show there were no Romanians there already (which, coincidentally, even Gesta mentions - and it's irrelevant that Gesta is or not reliable as far as dates and people and other stuff go, the point is why would it mention them AT ALL if there were none there already?) As opposed to you, proving the daco-roman continuity is based precisely on that - so there is no need to make negative statements. It's like a film - you know what that is? If we have enough frames then you can reasonably build enough of the film to make sense out of it. Which is not the case with the migration, or slow migration hypothesis - or at least I challenge you to show us the pieces of puzzle. (5) Romanian loanwords in Hungarian are connected to sheep and goat-breeding. Hungarian loanwords in Romanian are connected to a settled and organized way of life (hotar, adamana, razes...). - So? First of all, it's OK with you to apply some logic (debunked) to the "Albanian-Romanian" connection but... not for the Hungarian-Romanian connection? How come? Using your own logic, it seems only reasonable to suggest that simply because Hungarian has sheep and goat breeding loanwords they must have met Romanians when they came to Transylvania, and after conquering the territory and imposing a certain administration the Romanians, naturally, borrowed the specific loanwords from Hungarian. By the way, I am totally lost on the "adamana" word. On another note you show a really poor understanding of what transhumance means. Again, go check the article here on Wikipedia. And feel free to edit it and say that of course, transhumance does NOT apply to Vlach shepherds because... reasons. The gist of it is that it's a seasonal migration. So they go up in the mountains during the summer, and come back to the plains during the winter. More importantly is that it's not the WHOLE family/community that travels with the sheeps, so to speak. They have a permanent settlements - call them whatever you want. They have "bases of operations" both in the mountains and, even more importantly, in the plains. (6) If you can refer to reliable sources stating that Sulzer's theory was driven by political motifs, please do not hesitate to use them to edit this article. The statement that the scholars of the Transylvanian School created the continuity theory, because they wanted to change the 17th- and 18th-century Transylvanian laws describing the Romanians as a newcommer population is based on reliable sources. - So, we're at it again with the deliberate misleading and misinformation? The Transylvanian School did not CREATE the Daco-Roman continuity theory (again, read the article, and afterwords as usual edit it to fit your views - there's a whole campaign on it) since the theory was thought in the Austro-Hungarian empire at least until the 19th century - ergo it existed, and was thought, before the mere concept of Transylvanian School came into being. I do have to wonder how come the Daco-Roman continuity was pounding people into accepting that Romanians were living on the land of Transylvania and Hungary since time immemorial, in the context of a continuous migration. I mean the social pressure must have been enormous, to make people see those shepherd emigrants, who were coming in such huge numbers, as the original inhabitants of the land. Surely there must have been a good reason to do this - one that unfortunately I am unaware of. But I am sure you will provide us with a reasonable explanation, heck, maybe even a positive statement, of why such a logical conundrum would exist in Hungary / the Austro-Hungarian Empire. As for mr. Franz Joseph Sulzer: - He was an amateur historian, who decided that his knowledge is enough to warrant a study on the origin of Romanians. He did no original research on the matter, but used only existing sources which he either agreed or disagreed with. - you can also check the Wikipage on him and (again, go and edit it to eliminate this...) see his conflict with Ipsilanti, after which he decided to, in good Dracula-like fashion, write a little piece of fiction berating the Romanian people. - seriously now - it's enough to quote his own work - the highlight being an argument in the favour of his hypothesis which is... wait for it... Politial! Yep, Pure political. The current political situation of the Romanians represents one of the premise for his statement - being that their condition (treated almost like slaves, even by the "later arrival" ethnics) comes into conflict with them being presumably the original inhabitants of the land. (na: like that has never happened before, the conquerors treating the aborigines like slaves... hard to imagine, right? we couldn't possibly find such cases in history, right?) Therefore, in a truly amazing spectacle of logic, he concludes that they must have NOT been in Transylvania, and came later than the Hungarians, BECAUSE they are treated like slaves. WOW!. Moreover, he resorts to willingly mistranslation. In a source he cites, mentioning that two Romanian voievozi (Litovoi and Seneslau) would no longer hold their lands who have been under their rule for so long. But because that would go against his premises (of Romanian migration) he magically transforms that to mean "would no longer hold their lands who have been under their rule for the past 3-4 years" by mistranslating the word "hactenus" [latin] to mean "3-4 years ago", instead of "for so long". Bring it on Borsoka, I start to like this.Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
DNA studies can not confirm that Romance speakers (as the direct ancestors of Romanians were called in medieval era: the Vlachs) existed in the area before the high medieval period. Vast majority of modern Romanians (especially in Wallachia) have the very same Balkanic genetic mixture as the Bulgarians and Southern Serbians. It is very hard to genetically distinguish these populations. (The Slavic element in Serbia had lesser impact in the Serbian Genetics, than the ancient balkanic genetic heritage, modern-day Bulgarians had only a small conqueror elite which gave the name of Bulgaria, but the population genetically remained mostly local) Itself the fact, that the population of ancient Dacia has the very similar East-Balkanic genetic admixture like these above mentioned modern-day nations can not prove that Romance speaker Vlachs had any continuity (or more relationship than the genetic ancestors of Bulgarian population and Southern Serbian population. Therefore if we take seriously the migration theory, the migration of the genetically East Balkanic Vlachs to modern-day Romania, these typical East Balkanic genetic results wouldn't be really different than the genetics of ancient Dacian population. We must also know that the genetics of modern Moldavians Wallachian Romanians and Transylvanian Romanians are different genetically. Moldavians are much more Eastern Slavic, Wallachians genetically are the same as East Balkanic nations, Transylvanian Romanians have more Central - European genetics. Therefore only the Wallachian Romanians have East-Balkanic genetic similarity with Dacian era populations. If the ancestors of Romance speaking Vlachs had lived constantly on the Dacian area (The Daco-Roman continuity theory) even after the Roman withdrawal, they wouldn't could preserve their purely East-Balkanic type genetic admixture heritage, due to the centuries admixture of brutal conquerors (Goths, Huns, Longobards, Carpians, Gepids). But Vallachian-Romanians do not have the genetic heritage of these conqueror populations. (these mixture genetic with the conquerors would make them genetically more Central European, more distant from the original East-Balkanic herritage of Wallachian-Romanians.) Logical conclusion: Slavo-Romance mixed speaker Vlachs (the direct ancestors of Wallachian Romanians according to the migration theory) must have migrated from the Balkans in the high medieval era, this is the only possibility that they have similar East-Balkanic type of admixture like Dacians. (I still do not consider Wallachian Romanians genetically closer to Dacians than the other Genetically close East-Balkanic people like Bulgarians or the genetically East-Balkanic Southern Serbians. The ancient East-Balkanic genetic heritage was reintroduced/restored by the high medieval migration of other genetically East-Balkanic Vlach population in the territory of modern -day Wallachian Romania.--Filederchest (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@KIENGIR: "Despite this page is about the origin of the Romanians, you care too much about Hungarians." - Really? The irony of what you just said escapes you, right? This article has been vandalised for a long time by Hungarian editors. How come so much interest? I would expect a natural interest from Romanian editors, but Hungarian editors? Why would an article explaining the Romanian origins have multiple Hungarian editors? How come this subject is of such interest for Hungarians? What does the Hungarian state teach you in school? That the Daco-Roman Continuity theory is false. Biased much?Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Iovaniorgovan: The whole article has been hijacked. Take a look at the history of it, at one point the information was presented in a very structured way. Even though the migration hipothesys was mentioned (a thing I do not object to) it was obvious how "well supported" is because of how the article was strcutured. Today's article is, in my oppinion, deliberately misleading and covering for the lack of evidence for the migration/admigration. It has been deliberately (again check the history and archives) by mainly Borsoka - who is of course a neutral, objective and non biased (even though he grew up "knowing" that the Daco-Roman continuity theory is false - a thing he learned in school). And well... disappointment all around. The only one here who should be a counter balance, Tgeorgescu - with all due respect, arbitrarily applies WP rules, or he is more concerned that the Hungarian Irredentist article does mention the educational program of Hungarian schools. The gist of this is the article is poorly structured, deliberately misleading, lacks a neutral point of view, respects some WP rules (that are convenient for the editors) but not others. Form my point of view, this being an encyclopedia and not a cooking blog, where otherwise opinions are welcomed, should first and foremost obey the burden of proof. You can make a statement - how about backing it up. Then you go to the reputable sources and such.Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Who can take seriously an mt.DNA and Y DNA research in the era of Autosomal tests?WRONG, IGNORANT, BIASED AND LEADING QUESTION BY A HUNGARIAN NATIONALIST. mtDNA AND Y-DNA RESEARCH IS MORE RELEVANT NOW THAN EVER AND WILL NEVER GO AWAY. WE DON'T LIVE IN THE "ERA OF AUTOSOMAL TESTS", THIS PERSON IS TROLLING AND HAS NO CLUE WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC) As in the DNA research paper revealed, it is only an mt.DNA Y-DNA research, so it is not autosomal DNA research. Only Autosomal researches can clearly prove genetic admixture and genetic differences and distances between populations.--Filederchest (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Migratory or Nomad terms do not matter in this debate, what is really matter that they had no real genetic proofs (Autosomal research) from these fossils. But they will repeat it again and again as a "proof" due to their desperate politically motivated nativist nationalist origin theory.--Filederchest (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Stanford University will explain, why Y DNA and mt.DNA are not good for ancestry test. http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/limits-mtdna-testing OR here: https://www.myfamilydnatest.com/ydna-mtdna-autosomal-dna-comparison/ And here: https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/Y-DNA-mtDNA-and-Autosomal-DNA-Tests Because Y only contain information of a single male ancestor (the male line) from 10.000 - 15.000 years ago and mt.DNA contains information only from a single ancient maternal ancestor from 10.000 - 15.000 years ago, it has no information about your thousands of your other direct ancestors in the past, it had no information about mixing with other groups also. So it carries info about the 0,001% of your total direct ancestors. Autosomal tests, however can carry info from all maternal and paternal ancestors, and detect the ratio of many many mixtures through history with high resolutions. For example, John a Swedish citizen has Black African grandmother from his paternal line and ethnic Swedish paternal grandfather, he has also ethnic Swedish maternal grandfather and black African paternal grandmother. According to the Y - DNA test John is ethnic Swedish, because he carries his Swedish paternal grandfather's Y DNA, and according to mt.DNA researches John is ethnic Swedish, because he carries the mt.DNA of his Swedish maternal Grandmother. However an Autosomal test will show the reality: that John has genetically 50% black origin.--Filederchest So the Y DNA and mt.DNA research is meaningless, without any autosomal data from the fossils. Only Autosomal DNA tests can confirm ethnicity percentages and close relationships with a high level of accuracy.--Filederchest (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
|
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Densusianu is fringe
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
* Copied from WP:FTN
ND's book is WP:CB, seriously, mainstream Romanian historians have called it "mystical delirium". Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
WP:FTNThis is about Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Densusianu is fringe, namely including fringe authors in a mainstream history article. I have stated that WP:DRN is not the proper channel to advocate for such inclusion. By fringe authors I mean Nicolae Densusianu and Protochronist authors. The gist of the matter: Dacia Preistorică by Nicolae Densușianu is a close encounter of the WP:FRINGE kind. All Iovaniorgovan could quote from among the contemporary "scholars" are Protochronist authors and their walled garden. Per WP:ONEWAY pseudohistory is not welcome in a mainstream history article. Source for ND's book is "mystical delirium": Dan Alexe (2 August 2016). Dacopatia şi alte rătăciri româneşti. Humanitas SA. p. 95. ISBN 978-973-50-4978-2. (Alexe's book is of the popularized science sort, but it was published by the prestigious publishing house Humanitas — prestigious by Romanian standards). Here is an article by Zoe Petre: [3], one by Mircea Babeș: [4], and one by Eugen Ciurtin: [5]. All of these articles treat ND's book with high contempt, noting that there is nothing new about such contempt from notable Romanian historians in the past 100 years. The articles exemplify such contempt with quotes. They note that all the interest for ND's book was from dilettantes and that his book was not appreciated by professional historians. (ND had some serious historical contributions, but not in respect to the Antiquity.) The verdict of conscious Romanian historians is unanimous: ND's book is pseudohistory/fantasy trying to pass for history. It is totally ignored by the international scholarship and rejected by the Romanian academics by consensus. As Ciurtin notes, nobody (i.e. scholars) reads ND's book any longer, this is shown by consulting the somewhat recently published historical scholarship. In respect to the claim of Dacian continuity, this is an odd claim and I would like to see mainstream sources supporting it. It should not be conflated with the theory of Daco-Roman continuity which, although not proven, is taken seriously as an explanation of the origin of Romanians. I.e. stating that there is a purely Dacian continuity, with little or no Latin influence is an oddball in respectable historical scholarship (Protochronists are by definition eccentric and marginal, thus not a respectable position in historical scholarship). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The WP:BURDEN is upon those who claim that those would be authentic, and this claim is flat out rejected by mainstream scholars. Besides, here inside Wikipedia we don't have to prove anything, we just have to quote WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES. A WP:PRIMARY DNA study does not get you very far (even if it is true). Don't think of it as a major discovery, it is a minor footnote in this debate. Wikipedically you're clutching at straws.
The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to foment revolution, but to take the WP:RS/AC for what it is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
References |
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ANI notice
Due to too much WP:SOCKing at this page, I have opened a topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proxies and banned users. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Please Move Extended Discussions On Your User Talkpages
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This Page is getting too long with extended discussions on the Wiki policies, Sock investigations, and other miscellaneous subjects. This is not a forum. I recommend moving further discussions not directly related to this article to your respective user talk pages.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Carlo Troya
The "Historiography: origin of the theories" section presents the development of the scholarly views about the origin of the Romanians in a chronological order. It concentrates to the most relevant scholars. @Iovaniorgovan:, why do you think Carlo Troya is so relevant in the context? In accordance with WP:DUE, could you refer to reliable sources which substantiate that his role was actually preeminent in the development of the theories? Borsoka (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- the "development" is an on-going process, isn't it? anyway, I moved that reference to sources. as mentioned before by others, the article is in dire need of restructuring.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the development is an on-going process. In accordance with WP:DUE, could you refer to reliable sources which substantiate that Troya's played an important role in the development of the theories? Yes, an article can always be improved, but editors who randomly throw irrelevant pieces of information to any sections of the article can rarely contribute to its improvement. Please also take into account that the present structure of the article was developed through discussions over many years. Nevertheless, I would be glad to read your proposal for a new structure. Borsoka (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Carlo Troya is a reliable secondary source, who draws on well circulated, and hence influential, medieval works like Simon of Beauvais's, or Person Gobelinus', or the Chronicon Danicum. That in itself should suffice. Just the same, there's a book on Carlo Troya (Arguments for the Rewriting of European History) published in 2015 by Editura Uranus, a reputable Romanian publisher, which re-assesses his work. Either way, the mention should be allowed to stand. I mean, there are many secondary sources in that article that are just a few years old... how exactly do you prove that each one of those recent authors "played an important role in the development of the theories"? Again, it's an ongoing process and if I need to reference the Romanian book, instead of Carlo Troya directly, then I'll do that, but that quote will be in the article either way.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- There are several 10th-21st-century scholars who wrote about the origin of the Romanians. All references to a scholar under the section "Historiography: origin of the theories" are verified by a reference to books (partly or fully) dedicated to this specific subject (that that is, to the origin of the theories). None of the cited reliable sources refers to Troya, suggesting that he is not regarded as a crucial expert on this field. Could you verify his notability in the context of the article by reference to books dedicated to this subject? Are his attempts to rewrite the European history acknowledged by renowned historians in Romania? Borsoka (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Carlo Troya's work on the Goths/Getae has been influential in Europe, and that's all that's necessary to include his findings into the "sources" section and thus show that it was a widely accepted fact (or what you'd call "theory") in medieval Europe that the people who were known by the exonym of "Vlachs" in the 13th century were the descendants of the ancient Getae-Dacians (he quotes several contemporaneous sources stating that fact). Troya's writings (not) being "influential" to the Romanian historians in the past hundred years or so is irrelevant since Romanian historians had enough proof at home, as it were, to establish their theories and didn't need to resort to Troya's work to buttress what they already knew. However, it's fair to show that other renowned (non-Romanian) historians in the past thought along the same lines.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- There are several 10th-21st-century scholars who wrote about the origin of the Romanians. All references to a scholar under the section "Historiography: origin of the theories" are verified by a reference to books (partly or fully) dedicated to this specific subject (that that is, to the origin of the theories). None of the cited reliable sources refers to Troya, suggesting that he is not regarded as a crucial expert on this field. Could you verify his notability in the context of the article by reference to books dedicated to this subject? Are his attempts to rewrite the European history acknowledged by renowned historians in Romania? Borsoka (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Carlo Troya is a reliable secondary source, who draws on well circulated, and hence influential, medieval works like Simon of Beauvais's, or Person Gobelinus', or the Chronicon Danicum. That in itself should suffice. Just the same, there's a book on Carlo Troya (Arguments for the Rewriting of European History) published in 2015 by Editura Uranus, a reputable Romanian publisher, which re-assesses his work. Either way, the mention should be allowed to stand. I mean, there are many secondary sources in that article that are just a few years old... how exactly do you prove that each one of those recent authors "played an important role in the development of the theories"? Again, it's an ongoing process and if I need to reference the Romanian book, instead of Carlo Troya directly, then I'll do that, but that quote will be in the article either way.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Could you refer to academic works that refer to Troya's importance in the development of the theories discussed in this article? We cannot list hundreds of historians who whenever wrote a book about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- You're right, if we were to list all the sources supporting Continuity there'd be no room left for the affirmative action content.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this being included. I see no reason (as mentioned it falls under WP:RS - there has been no dispute as to that) as to it being excluded as it works towards a WP:NPOV, in relation to "Austrian Franz Joseph Sulzer had by the 1780s rejected any form of continuity north of the Danube, and instead proposed a 13th-century migration from the Balkans.". As an alternative we could follow Wikipedia's advice and "If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are wrong. There was a dispute and the conclusion is that Troya is not a reliable source [6]. Please try to concentrate on the subject of this discussion. Sulzer is not subject to it. Borsoka (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Troya's writings are too old (even though they're mid 19th cen) to be considered "reliable second sources" as per Wiki rules. Not that they're not reliable, period. Of course Troya's reliable, he based his writings on many primary sources that state the same or similar things, and his erudition was second to none. You can't even compare, by any standards of the imagination, Troya to Sulzer: the former was a great historian, the latter was a frustrated huckster. The difference, in Wiki's hive mind of editors and rules, is that Sulzer was used as a source by Hungarian academicians desperate to make some kind of point (hence, his mention in this article), while Troya's work has not been used by Romanian academicians (since, obviously, they didn't need him to prove Continuity, Daco-Roman or otherwise). Of course, I may be wrong about Romanian academicians writing on Troya, as I don't live at the Library of the Academy, but I'll try to post whatever reliable secondary sources I can find in the near future, seeing as it's not required that they be from card-carrying academics, just "reliable".--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, this is the line that got excised "Italian historian Carlo Troya states that by mid-13th century a part of the ancient Daco-Getae had survived under the name of Vlachs.", as stated in Storia d'Italia del medio-evo, 2.2, Eruli e Goti. Napoli (1846): Dalla Stamperia Reale. pp. Appendice, 58.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- However, there are Romanian academic books that expose Sulzer for what he really was (I mentioned the source in another thread), so maybe we can find a place for those. Maybe start another thread... for clarity.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Since you are again sharing your thoughts with the community without referring to a single reliable source, I think it is time to close this debate. Troya cannot be mentioned in the article without a reference to reliable sources which verify his notability in the context of the article. I will not make comments on this issue any more. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Iovaniorgovan: This is exactly the type of "bludgeoning" discussion that I warned against above. Talk pages are not a forum, and if you continue to post your personal opinions here and fail to resolve specific points of contention, you're going to be banned from the subject area without further warning. Swarm ♠ 21:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Holban about Sulzer
I doubt that the article summarizes Holban's text properly. How could Sulzer's views about the migration of the Romanians to the "Romanian lands" contribute to his appointment as imperial council in Wallachia and Moldavia? Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know, I'd be also curios how the two things may be connected...(KIENGIR (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC))
- The edit seems to me like an ad hominem counterpoint meant to discredit Sulzer. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- And why do you doubt that? Have you read the book? I gave the exact pages and the line/edit I included in the article includes the precise wording used in the book. If you "doubt" it feel free to check for yourself. The point of the book/edit is that Sulzer tried to paint the Romanian principalities as having "problems" that he (Sulzer), and by extension Austria, would be perfectly qualified to exploit, therefore it was in his interest to paint the Romanians in an unfavorable light (to say the least). He devotes two chapters of his book to basically plead for the position of imperial consul! See also his conflict with Ipsilanti, also mentioned in the book I quoted in the article. Actually, the book paints him in a much worse light than I made it look by my one-line edit. If you insist, I can include a few more choice paragraphs to dispel your "doubts" (though I figured a one-line rebuttal would be par for the course). In the meantime the line is going back in the article, as there's no possible reason why it shouldn't be there-- this is an academic publication. So, hands off! p.s. next time you delete one of my edit please have the decency to notify me, rather than doing it on the sly (or maybe you thought I wasn't going to notice?!)--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- If the book paints him in a much worse light than you made, you should modify the text. Sorry, I still do not understand how could have Sulzer's views about the migration of the Romanians to the "Romanian lands" contributed to his appointment as imperial consul in Wallachia and Moldavia? Why was the "invention" of the migration theory in the interest of Austria? Please remember, you are on the edge of being banned from editing this article, so you should avoid making uncivil remarks. You obviously do not understand that all articles can be edited by anybody, without noticing other editors. Have you noticed me before inserting your text about Sulzer? Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why should I notify you of any inclusions? This is not your personal fiefdom, in spite of what you might think. However, I would notify you (as one should) if I edited or deleted one of your own edits. It's the CIVIL thing to do. It's called courtesy. Do you understand that the whole point of the Romanian academics' book was that Sulzer was highly biased and prejudiced against Romanians, hence his "history" book is to be taken with a grain of salt? It's not that difficult to understand. If you have a problem with that, please FEEL FREE TO CHECK OUT THE BOOK YOURSELF. I made it easy for you by listing the pages as well. I didn't include anything in my edit that's not in the book (almost word for word). The fact that you don't understand (or refuse to) is beyond my powers as a Wiki editor and is not a condition for the inclusion of an edit (as far as I can tell). All I did was quote from an academic's book. End of.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Put the article on your watchlist and you will realize that there is no need to notice each other about our edits. I understand that Holban says, Sulzer was biased. However, there are three editors who do not understand what is the connection between his appointment as imperial consul in Wallachia and Moldavia and his views about the Romanians' migration, so you should explain it based on the book. There were dozens of imperial consuls in Poland, Italy, Sweden, Spain and other countries, but they did not propose theories about the migrations of Poles, Italians, Swedes and Spanish people. You also ignored my reference to the dubious connection between the interests of Austria and the migration theory: the concurring continuity theory was tought in the schools of the Habsburg Monarchy, including Austria. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- You mean three HUNGARIAN editors who just do not understand... The line I included is about Sulzer being biased, and his BIAS reflecting on his work according to ROMANIAN ACADEMICS. If you want to explore the subject further, again, READ THE BOOK FOR YOURSELF. What do you want me to do? Translate the whole book and include it here so you can understand every little detail? This is not a book review. Anything more than what I included would amount to an unnecessary addition to an article that's not about Sulzer. My job is to quote properly from a reliable source (which I've done) and point other curious minds in the right direction for further study. That's what EVERY edit on Wiki amounts to.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- What we want you to do? Explain the connection between both imperial consulship and the migration theory, and Austrian interests and the migration theory with few words based on the cited scholarly work: this is what editing of an article means. Why we urge you to explain it? Because imperial consuls did not develop migration theories in other countries and the continuity theory was tought in Austria for more than a century after Sulzer proposed the concurring migration theory. Sorry, this is my last message on the subject. Borsoka (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- The BOOK explains it, all I did was mention what the book's principal claim is. If you want a thorough explanation then read the book, though the gist of the argument can be summarized in one word: BIAS (or "anger at...") After you read the book then you may contemplate on your own time why WANNABE imperial consuls in other countries didn't develop migration theories, or flat earth theories, or alien origins theories. While you're at it, maybe you can figure out why these WANNABE imperial consuls occasionally had different thoughts and views from another? (because the rest of us have yet to figure that out) Then you can publish your book with the Hungarian Academy and post your findings here on Wiki (no worry, you won't need to explain your arguments in detail, just post a one-line summary). Anyway, I'll maybe add another line to the initial edit. Anything beyond that goes to arbitration.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- What we want you to do? Explain the connection between both imperial consulship and the migration theory, and Austrian interests and the migration theory with few words based on the cited scholarly work: this is what editing of an article means. Why we urge you to explain it? Because imperial consuls did not develop migration theories in other countries and the continuity theory was tought in Austria for more than a century after Sulzer proposed the concurring migration theory. Sorry, this is my last message on the subject. Borsoka (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- You mean three HUNGARIAN editors who just do not understand... The line I included is about Sulzer being biased, and his BIAS reflecting on his work according to ROMANIAN ACADEMICS. If you want to explore the subject further, again, READ THE BOOK FOR YOURSELF. What do you want me to do? Translate the whole book and include it here so you can understand every little detail? This is not a book review. Anything more than what I included would amount to an unnecessary addition to an article that's not about Sulzer. My job is to quote properly from a reliable source (which I've done) and point other curious minds in the right direction for further study. That's what EVERY edit on Wiki amounts to.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Put the article on your watchlist and you will realize that there is no need to notice each other about our edits. I understand that Holban says, Sulzer was biased. However, there are three editors who do not understand what is the connection between his appointment as imperial consul in Wallachia and Moldavia and his views about the Romanians' migration, so you should explain it based on the book. There were dozens of imperial consuls in Poland, Italy, Sweden, Spain and other countries, but they did not propose theories about the migrations of Poles, Italians, Swedes and Spanish people. You also ignored my reference to the dubious connection between the interests of Austria and the migration theory: the concurring continuity theory was tought in the schools of the Habsburg Monarchy, including Austria. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Why should I notify you of any inclusions? This is not your personal fiefdom, in spite of what you might think. However, I would notify you (as one should) if I edited or deleted one of your own edits. It's the CIVIL thing to do. It's called courtesy. Do you understand that the whole point of the Romanian academics' book was that Sulzer was highly biased and prejudiced against Romanians, hence his "history" book is to be taken with a grain of salt? It's not that difficult to understand. If you have a problem with that, please FEEL FREE TO CHECK OUT THE BOOK YOURSELF. I made it easy for you by listing the pages as well. I didn't include anything in my edit that's not in the book (almost word for word). The fact that you don't understand (or refuse to) is beyond my powers as a Wiki editor and is not a condition for the inclusion of an edit (as far as I can tell). All I did was quote from an academic's book. End of.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- If the book paints him in a much worse light than you made, you should modify the text. Sorry, I still do not understand how could have Sulzer's views about the migration of the Romanians to the "Romanian lands" contributed to his appointment as imperial consul in Wallachia and Moldavia? Why was the "invention" of the migration theory in the interest of Austria? Please remember, you are on the edge of being banned from editing this article, so you should avoid making uncivil remarks. You obviously do not understand that all articles can be edited by anybody, without noticing other editors. Have you noticed me before inserting your text about Sulzer? Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
"in other countries didn't develop migration theories" There are not much proof behind the politically motivated nationalist NATIVIST continuity theory either.--Filederchest (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Filederchest: I suggest you drop the provocative rhetoric if you want to avoid serious serious consequences. Cealicuca (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Iovaniorgovan, thank you for adding a valid argumentation (i.e., Sulzer's plans about the German colonization of the two principalities). I deleted the quite obviously weak arguments about the connection between imperial consuls, Austrian interests and migration theories. Nevertheless, I suggest you should adopt a less warring style if you want to avoid serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- You mean on the "talk" pages? You got it. So, why did you delete my latest edit?--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- never mind, I see you skipped a line and it threw me off for a second. I'll go over your edit soon and let you know what I think.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka, that's... basically okay. I can live with that. Just a minor edit... You wrote "Sulzer's view about the Romanians' migration", implying there WAS a Romanian migration. That should read "Sulzer's theory of the Romanians' migration was apparently connected to his plans about the annexation of..." So I'll go ahead and change that. Hope we can all agree on that point. Have a nice weekend!--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Iovaniorgovan, thank you for adding a valid argumentation (i.e., Sulzer's plans about the German colonization of the two principalities). I deleted the quite obviously weak arguments about the connection between imperial consuls, Austrian interests and migration theories. Nevertheless, I suggest you should adopt a less warring style if you want to avoid serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
"Scholars" instead of "Followers"
Replacing "Follower of the continuity theory [...]" with "Scholars supporting the continuity theory [...]". Reason: "followers" is a rather ambiguous term, more suite for a religion, philosophical current, leadership etc. As such it indicates an non-rational reason of supporting the statement (equivalent of "believers"). From a scientific point of view, just like the other two theories, "scholars" is a more appropriate term. See Manual of Style. See WP:NPOVCealicuca (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, that's better wording.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Romanian place names
(1) That the Romanian names of the longer rivers in Transylvania are of Hungarian, Slavic or German origin is a fact and not a POV. Consequently, it should not be presented as a POV. (2) That the first place name of Romanian origin was recorded in 1359 is also a fact and not a POV. (3) All rivers that are mentioned in the article as bearing a name of Hungarian or Slavic origin are smaller than 100 km: Fizeş/Füzes (46 km), Căpuş/Kapus (32 km), Lonea/Lónya (37 km) and there are lots of other small rivers with Hungarian names. Consequently, saying that the rivers with a length of up to 100 km "usually" have a name of Romanian origin is an exeggaration. Borsoka (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. As such the changes were appropriate (summary of a source). Applies to 1, 2. Agree on the "usually" as WP:WEASEL. Cealicuca (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, after consulting the source, it seems a pretty good summary: "Formațiile românești caracterizează, de regulă, categoria apelor sub 100 de km, adică râurile mai mici și pâraiele". Removing the tags.Cealicuca (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Or, in French: "le réseau hydronymique mineur porte généralement des noms roumains.".Cealicuca (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Could you refer to rivers with a name of Romanian origin? The Repedea version of the upper course of the river Bistrita is mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- You are free to read the source material if you so wish.Cealicuca (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, I do not need to read it. However, you should provide examples, because all examples listed in the article contradict to the claim you are trying to add: there are lots of rivers with a length up to 100 km which have a name of Hungarian, Slavic or German origin. Could you refer to reliable sources which say that the longer tributaries of the rivers in the intra-Carpathian regions have a name of Romanian origin? Borsoka (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please take a moment and calm down. It is no MY statement, it is not MY claim, I am not the editor who added it. It is though a sourced WP:RS statement (a summary of a specific chapter). |Felecan|Felecan|2015|p=262,|Tomescu|2009|p=2728. So you can check out the sources yourself. But to answer your question, smaller tributaries like (and now quoting from the source): Baicu, Căliman, Ghișa, Manciu.Cealicuca (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see any "irony" in my statement. According to is not needed as I explained. The phrase "usually" in such context is misleading, would suggest that under 100 km there are usually Romanian-origin named rivers, that is not correct in this way, better I would use what the original source says. I am afraid "Căliman" originates from "Kelemen".(KIENGIR (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC))
- I was referring to the following: "The longer tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin[...]". Your argument, as well as the other tags, applies to this statement too since"The longer tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin, which were also adopted by the Romanians." and "the smaller rivers and streams (under 100 km) characterize hydronims of Romanian origin, for instance Baicu, Ghișa, Manciu.", to which you added "typically" have (had, before you added "typically") the same structure and wording. So both statements should be treated with the same measure. Or otherwise please point me to the differenc between the two that would cause one to be treated in one way while the other not receiving the same treatment. As for Caliman - your opinion doesn't actually matter, what matter is WP:RS. Not to mention that there actually might be more than just one small river with the same name (I could give you several examples).Cealicuca (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- On another note, I did take a look at this source. Please point me towards the page that contains the statement "The longer tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin" because the link provided does not point towards such page/paragraph.Cealicuca (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, the text under the title "Toponymy and Chronology" ([7]) verifies the statement. And it also lists dozens of rivers under 100 km which have names of Hungarian, Slavic and German origin. Borsoka (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Unsurprisingly, you didn't answer my question. Should I consider that the statement "The longer tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin" is unsupported by WP:RS?Cealicuca (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see any "irony" in my statement. According to is not needed as I explained. The phrase "usually" in such context is misleading, would suggest that under 100 km there are usually Romanian-origin named rivers, that is not correct in this way, better I would use what the original source says. I am afraid "Căliman" originates from "Kelemen".(KIENGIR (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC))
- Please take a moment and calm down. It is no MY statement, it is not MY claim, I am not the editor who added it. It is though a sourced WP:RS statement (a summary of a specific chapter). |Felecan|Felecan|2015|p=262,|Tomescu|2009|p=2728. So you can check out the sources yourself. But to answer your question, smaller tributaries like (and now quoting from the source): Baicu, Căliman, Ghișa, Manciu.Cealicuca (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, I do not need to read it. However, you should provide examples, because all examples listed in the article contradict to the claim you are trying to add: there are lots of rivers with a length up to 100 km which have a name of Hungarian, Slavic or German origin. Could you refer to reliable sources which say that the longer tributaries of the rivers in the intra-Carpathian regions have a name of Romanian origin? Borsoka (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- You are free to read the source material if you so wish.Cealicuca (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Could you refer to rivers with a name of Romanian origin? The Repedea version of the upper course of the river Bistrita is mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
OR?
Recently from the article about Vlachs the category "Nomadic groups in Eurasia" has been removed. The reason I don't know, however I added the "Transhumant ethnic groups" category as the Origin of the Romanians page has the same - after a discussion and consensus, as I recall the discussion were about nomadism and semi-nomadism, and the latter is included the current removed category - but this was also removed and also from this article as well by claiming "OR"...however, according to the reasoning in the other article; "...many old Europeans were involved in such activities" then why would be something wrong with this? (KIENGIR (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC))
- I don't know, my two cents are that all the scholarly parties involved agree to at least transhumance, nomadism is not agreed by all, kind of begs the question. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- The info shouldn't be added just because another article mentions it WP:CIRCULAR.Cealicuca (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- On another note, I wonder how many other "old Europeans" that practiced transhumance (which would be virtually any group living near mountainous areas raising animals) would have their article linked to that category.Cealicuca (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
According to [...] deleted by KIENGIR
@Kiengir: I would not like to undo you, but I will if I must. You use as an argument for your edits the following: "[...] since the river names are known and clear..." in reference to another statement, which is ironic considering the nature of the statements that you edited (they do not name specific rivers, one example is given) -> "The longer tributaries of the large rivers [...]". As a compromise we could formulate the same (using "According to...) the following statement "The smaller rivers (with a length of up to 100 km) usually bears name of Romanian origin." for a balanced measure.Cealicuca (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cealicuca, you should not duplicate all debates on this Talk page. Kiengir, I suggest you should ignore this remark, because there is an ongoing debate on the same issue above under the subtitle "Romanian place names". Borsoka (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka I'm sorry, I don't think I was duplicating anything. The two subjects, although referencing the same chapter, are about different things. Please concentrate. Following your line of thought we should probably have only one subject on the talk page since all the debates are related to one subject, right? Cealicuca (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Do you really say that you did not realize that there is an ongoing debate about the use of the "according to" expression under the subtitle "Romanian place names"? Borsoka (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka I'm sorry, I don't think I was duplicating anything. The two subjects, although referencing the same chapter, are about different things. Please concentrate. Following your line of thought we should probably have only one subject on the talk page since all the debates are related to one subject, right? Cealicuca (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cealicuca, you should not duplicate all debates on this Talk page. Kiengir, I suggest you should ignore this remark, because there is an ongoing debate on the same issue above under the subtitle "Romanian place names". Borsoka (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Linguistic approach // Development of Romanian
There are some issues with this section, as far as I can tell, which I will be randomly picking at whenever I get the chance to verify some of these sources. Most of the problems have to do with questionable wording, though others appear to be deliberate misrepresentations.
1. "In addition to words of Latin or of possible substratum origin, a great number of loanwords can be detected." That's fine, though I would replace "great number" with "significant" because "great number" is relative/indeterminate and doesn't really mean anything unless you put in percentages.
2. "Initially, Slavic languages had a major influence on Romanian..." a) The word "initially" does not belong here because it doesn't make sense-- initially related to what exactly? the beginning of history? the beginning of time? Additionally, the word "initially" appears in the quoted source/page but in a different context, meaning the mutual exchange of loanwords between Rumanian and Slavic was initially of a popular nature. b) "major influence" does not appear in the quoted source/page and I suggest "major" should be replaced with "significant", as above. c) in fact, in the source/page cited the author states that the number/figures of Slavic loanwords into Romanian "have been exaggerated". There are other academics who agree with the view that Slavonic influence on the Rumanian language has been exaggerated, and here's one here. In conclusion, the sentence above should read "Slavic languages had a significant influence on Romanian, although the degree of that influence is debatable [insert the two sources here], but there are also a significant number of loanwords from Turkic, Hungarian, Greek or German languages."
3. "... the Transylvanian Hungarians primarily adopted dozens of Romanian ecclesiastic and political terms to refer to specific Romanian institutions already before the mid-17th centuries,[note 8][412] but also words in the language of everyday life, agriculture, food, clothing, superstition, medical care and witchcraft." I see someone asked for "clarification" and I suggest the inclusion of this article (page 10) in citation, as well as including a few more categories mentioned in the article "industry, trade, money, and measures" to the ones already listed.
4. "The adoption of the Romanian terminology shows, among other things, that the traditional Romanian institutions, which followed Byzantine patterns, were alien to the Hungarians." This is a strange sentence. To begin with, this is not the place/page to prove or disprove that Romanian institutions were different than the Hungarian institutions. In fact, I think everyone (academics) can more or less agree that the respective institutions were different. That's a given. Secondly, no such "logical deduction" is to be found in the article/page cited, so it doesn't belong here on those grounds alone. Finally, the word "alien" has tendentious connotations (one way or another) and does not appear in the article/page cited. To sum up, either we delete this sentence altogether (my preference), or if we decide to keep it we should change it to a direct quote from the Szabo article mentioned: "The Byzantine-Orthodox orientation of Romanian ecclesiastical and court life as well as the character of state life and military organization differed considerably from their Western counterparts, and thus brought into being a specialized Romanian vocabulary in the related fields, elements of which penetrated into Hungarian."[p.60] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) 08:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Cealicuca, feel free to chime in; also, can you please remove the footnotes at the bottom of the page, they're a kinda distracting. Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) 10:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Iovaniorgovan: Sorry, been away for a while. Still too much to catch up to here... see the old boys are up to their old tricks again. And I still wonder where that Fakirbakir character is again - though I recently spotted him on some very "truthful and real history" non-self-serving forums. The kind of forums where the Sz... Guards hang out.Cealicuca (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ad 1: Sorry, I do not understand why is "significant" better than "great number". If we want to change the wording, we should specify the text: "In addition to words of Latin or of possible substratum origin, loanwords make up about 80% of the Romanian vocabulary." [The cited source verifies this statement, saying that about 14% of the words were borrowed from Slavic languages and about 65% from other Romance languages, such as French and Italian.]
- Ad 2a: Initially means "at the beginning". One of the cited sources [Schulte 2009 pp. 236-237] does not use the word "initially", but it lists the languages that influenced the Romanian language in chronological order, and the list begins with the Slavic languages. Consequently, we can conclude that the sentence is verified by one of the cited sources. Nevertheless, we can change the order of the sentences to clarify the chronological order: (1) the East Germanic languages did not influence Proto-Romanian, but (2) Slavic influence can be detected.
- Ad 2b: "major" and "significant" are interchangeable. Nevertheless, the cited source emphasize that "Much more substantial then the Germanic adstrate in the Western Romance languages is the Slavic adstrate in Balkan Romance. From around the middle of the first millenium there must have been considerable contact between southern Slavic and what was to become Rumanian." [Mallinson 1988 p. 413]. Consequently, we can conclude that the sentence and the wording is verified by the cited source.
- Ad 2c: Yes, Mallinson says that the number of Slavic loanwords in Romanian "have been exaggerated", but the percentage of Slavic loanwords in the article is based on Mallinson's cited book and the above statement about the "substantial" Slavic influence on Romanian is also based on his book. Consequently, we can conclude that the sentence properly summarizes Mallinson's work.
- Ad 3: Could you mention loanwords in the semantic fields of everyday life, agriculture, food, clothing, superstition, medical care and witchcraft, industry, trade, money, and measures which were attested centuries ago? Or do you think loanwords first attested in the 17th-20th centuries are related to the origin of the Romanians? If you think so, please provide a reliable source to verify your claim. Please also note that the source you referr to above (Borbála Zsemlyei's article) testifies that the loanwords attested in the 17th-19th centuries most frequently refer to Romanians or Romanian institutions (which is also mentioned in the article). For instance, an elderly Romanian woman was mentioned as bába in 1749, a Romanian girl as fata in 1661, an immigrant from Muntenia as muntyán in 1700, a Romanian brother-in-law as kumnát in 1725, a Romanian man's boots as kalcun in 1802, a Moldavian currency as izlot in 1636. Consequently, we can conclude that the sentence properly summarizes the reliable sources that have been so far presented and we can also conclude that loanwords in the semantic fields of everyday life, agriculture, food, clothing, superstition, medical care and witchcraft, industry, trade, money, and measures can hardly be connected to the origin of the Romanians. (For further details I refer to Ad 4 below.)
- Ad 4: The cited source says: "since the Byzantine-Orthodox orientation of Romanian ecclesiastical and court life as well as the character of state life and military organization differed considerably from heir Western counterparts, and thus brought into being a specialized Romanian vocabulary in the related fields. Certain elements of this vocabulary, through peacetime and wartime military communication, penetrated into Hungarian, where they showed varying vitality." [Szabó T. 1985 p. 60.] The author of the article clearly wanted to explain that Romanian loanwords were adopted by the Hungarians to name specific Romanian institutions, and he says that the Romanians institutions were alien/strange/different... [Just for clarification, this is similar to the adoption of loanwords such as tsar, sultan, padishah, maharaja by European languages - those institutions were so exotic for the European peoples that they adopted the term instead of translating them into their own languages.] Consequently, we can conclude that the sentence is fully in line with the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- 1. Something can be in "great number" and yet be INsignificant. Ask a mathematician what a "great number" is and get back to me. Again, it's relative and inconclusive, whereas "significant" denotes an impact. If you specify what one source says (re. percentages) then I'll bring several other sources that say otherwise and we end up with a never-ending edit war. (see 2c and why I used the word "debatable" rather than an actual quote from the book/article)
- 2a. Initially="at the beginning"... of WHAT? You failed to clarify. Your point is that the respective researcher BEGINS HIS STUDY with the influence of Slavic languages, but he says NOTHING of what happened BEFORE, and the influences BEFORE the Slavic migration. So how does that make it the beginning of the Romanian Language? So, if we're to use "initially" then it should be qualified, as in "initially upon contact with the Slavic tribes..." or something of that nature. As for the order of "influence", I'm fine with that, Slavic should go first.
- 2b. "major" and "significant" are not quite interchangeable (maybe you should consult a dictionary); additionally, the source does not use "major" in its wording but "substantial", as you mentioned. So then we'll replace "major" with "substantial", right? (I still think "significant" fits better, but "substantial" is fine, too)
- 2c. as I already mentioned above, I didn't propose that we put in the direct quote from the book (saying the Slavic influence on Rumanian has been exaggerated), but rather than the influence is DEBATABLE, since that's exactly what the cited author says. In addition I included another academic paper (from USC) proposing the same thing. If your claim is that the DEGREE of the impact of Slavic on Rumanian is NOT DEBATABLE, and that somehow the academics all agree on this point, then you've already been proved wrong by the two sources cited.
- 3. here's an exact quote from page 10 of that paper: "The Historical Dictionary of the Hungarian Language in Transylvania contains the complete vocabulary of the Hungarian language used in Transylvania in the period of the 15th–19th centuries." Last I checked, 15th century predates 17th century. Then the author goes on to list the loanwords from Rumanian, so I think the citation definitely works to "clarify" the sentence (in fact Zsemlyei uses Szabo's unpublished work). As for the addition of categories, the author mentions loanwords in several other categories, all belonging to mid 17th century or prior. If I correctly read your point, you're saying that some of those loanwords are dated AFTER mid-17th century and therefore they (and their respective categories) should not be included in the sentence? If that's the case, I agree. So then, we can add "kinship and human relations", "the house and its surroundings", "nature", and "money".
- 4. The quote from the author trumps your INTERPRETATION (or "clarification") of it. Again, the author does NOT use the word "alien", but rather he uses the word "different". The two words have different CONNOTATIONS, and hence "alien" will be deleted from this article. End of.
- I welcome a third-party Wiki arbitrator (a native English speaker) at this point to weigh in on the use of those debated words/phrases if there's an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ad1: Please do not hesitate to refer to reliable sources instead of making declarations. I modify the sentence using multiple reliable sources (one of them writes that loanwords make up 40% of modern Romanian vocabulary).
- Ad2a: OK. I change the order of the sentences.
- Ad2b-2c: Could you refer to reliable sources which say that Slavic influence was minor/not substantial/insignificant? I think you should read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words..." [And I added two verified sentences which further strengthen Mallinson's view about the Slavic languages' major influence on Romanian. [8] Borsoka (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)]
- Ad3: I delete the reference to "everyday life, agriculture, food, clothing, superstition, medical care and witchcraft, industry, trade, money, and measures", because no reliable sources have so far been cited to verify its relevance in the context of the article and no examples has so far been listed. Which reliable source about the origin of the Romanians emphasizes that the Transylvanian Hungarians sometime used the proper Romanian words when they refered to Romanian men and women, Romanian boots and currency and Romanian immigrants? Would you really think that the use of the Russian words "batiushka" and "dyevka" in a number of English books relating to Russia or Russians ([9] and [10]) has anything to do with the origin of the Russians?
- Ad4: OK, I modify the word. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- 1. No problem (over the next few days I'll be adding some stuff from The Grammar of Romanian, Oxford Univ Press, 2013). I'll also change "major" to "substantial" in the Slavic influence sentence. I'll also delete your "(according to certain estimations almost 80%)" edit since it's not found in the source/page cited.
- 2b-2c. My point is not that the Slavic influence was minor or major (that remains to be ascertained), my point is that the DEGREE to which Slavic was an influence on Rumanian is DEBATABLE, and I cited 2 academic sources (one was already cited in the article, the other I'll add on); so I'll be adding this point as well (as worded above).
- 3. I don't understand why you deleted those references. Are you saying Szabo and Zsemlyei are not reliable sources?! I'll hold off on this until you explain yourself through reliable sources debunking what Szabo and Zsemlyei are saying (rather than using false analogies).
- NOTE: I don't think you or I or anyone else should be doing direct edits on this Wiki page without first bringing the proposed edit to the TALK pages for the community to process and weigh in. This is not your personal webpage, or mine, or anyone else's-- it belongs to the community and I think we should extend that courtesy to the community instead of editing willy-nilly to our heart's desire. Which is exactly what I did above, as you might've noticed, I first proposed the edits on the Talk page. Now I guess it's okay since I had several points to make here and it could get confusing (and please note I will also perform some direct edits on your most recent additions, as par for the course), so we can let this one slide. HOWEVER, from now on I suggest that any direct and un-checked edits (from me, you, or anyone else) should be immediately reverted and brought to the Talk pages for assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) 08:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ad NOTE: Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, consequently we should not and cannot establish our own rules and cannot expand them to other editors. None of us is entitled to edit articles "willy-nilly to our heart's desire", because we should respect the basic principles of our community when editing articles and communicating each other. Borsoka (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ad1. Mallinson writes: "One linguist has examined the 1958 Dictionarul Limbii Romine Moderne, conatining more than 48,000 entries and gives the following figures: 20 per cent Latin, 14 per cent Slavic and an enormous 35 per cent French. If one counts other Romance sources, the overall Latin-based vocabulary comes to around 85 per cent." (Mallinson 1988 p. 417) ~80% = 14% (Slavic) + [~85% (Latin-based words) - 20% (Latin words)]. Please do not delete sentences that are based on a reliable source. You can request third opinion on this issue, but please remember that editors' time is a precious asset, so you should not bother them unnecessarily. Borsoka (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ad2b-2c. Mallinson writes: "Much more substantial than the Germanic adstrate in the Western Romance languages ... is the Slavic adstrate in Balkan Romance. From around the middle of the first millenium there must have been considerable contact between southern Slavic and what was to become Rumanian. Initially of a popular nature, lexical influence was later also religious and political, resulting in a very substantial Slavic percentage of the total word stock of Rumanian (though the figures have been exaggerated)". (Mallinson 1988 p. 413) He clearly writes that the number or ratio of Slavic loanwords was exaggerated. However, the percentage of the Slavic loanwords in Romanian is mentioned based on Mallinson's work. Why do you think that he referred to himself when writing of exaggerated number? This edit suggest that Mallinson states something about Slavic influence on Romanian, although Mallinson did not refer to syntax, phonology, etc. Consequently, we cannot refer to Mallinson when writing about general Slavic influence on Romanian, especially, if other authors emphasize it. [The other allegedly cited author, Petrucci, does not write of Slavic influence in general, either. [11] ] You can request third opinion on this issue as well, but please remember that editors' time is a precious asset, so you should not bother them unnecessarily. Borsoka (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ad 3. Sorry, until you cannot refer to reliable sources which state that the use of Romanian words by Transylvanian Hungarians when they refer to Romanian men or women, or Romanian boots, or Romanian immigrants or Romanian currency is connected to the Romanians' ethnogenesis, I will not answer your question. (Of course, you can also prove that the use of the Russian words "batiushka" and "dyevka" in a number of English books relating to Russia or Russians ([12] and [13]) has anything to do with the origin of the Russians.) Borsoka (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- re. Note: thanks for stating the obvious. I was trying to make it easy on everyone (that is, the few people currently editing here) and save us some time but, no problem, we can do it the hard way, too.
- 1. Take some time to read what I wrote, I deleted that section because IT WAS NOT PROPERLY CITED-- that is, the cited page is WRONG. Go back and correct it or I'll delete it again. I don't have a problem with the content, I could've given you a couple other sources saying the same thing. Anyway, I'll include a follow-up to that sentence soon, something out of The Grammar of Romanian, a work I already mentioned.
- 2. Mallinson writes that "the figures have been exaggerated" BY PREVIOUS RESEARCHERS! It's clear as day. Else, he'd write "but I have exaggerated the figures", which wouldn't make sense anyway. So, since Mallinson writes that GENERALLY the Slavic influence has been exaggerated, then that amounts to what I said: the DEGREE of Slavic influence is DEBATABLE. As for the second source, he doesn't need to refer to the entire range of Slavic influence on Romanian, he picks one IMPORTANT point and proves that what some researchers believe is Slavic influence is NOT (at least according to him). That also supports the argument (perhaps by itself would not amount to a lot, but these sources together definitely warrant the inclusion of "the degree of influence is debatable"). I will also add another reference from The Grammar of Romanian stating that "the Latin structure of Romanian has not been modified by any of these external factors (re. Slavic invasion, etc)", which does not refer to syntax. If you don't agree, that's fine with me, let's bring in a third-party to read those passages and offer an objective opinion on what they mean.
- 3. So what you're saying is that it's okay to mention that the Hungarians borrowed political, ecclesiastical, etc, words from the Romanians but not words in other categories that Szabo and Zsemlyei mention (nature, money, etc)? Explain the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ad1 Thank you for clarifying your note. I fixed the page. Just a side remark, if you know what is the problem and you can fix it, please do not hesitate to fix it instead of deleting a sentence. Otherwise, other editors may think you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
- Ad2 Are there figures that have been exaggerated by previous researchers mentioned in the article? No. Consequently, Mallinson's reference to previous researchers' figures is out of the context of the article. Sorry, I will not comment on this issue any more. Feel free to add properly sourced relevant material.
- Ad3 I do not want to present any of the Romanian words that are used by Transylvanian Hungarians to name Romanians or Romanian objects, institutions, etc, because no reliable source mention them when writing of the Romanians' ethnogenesis. It was not me who raised the issue (namely, Hungarian words of Romanian origin) in this context. Borsoka (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- 1. be nicer and you'll find people will be nicer to you, too;)
- 2. actually, I realized that it's better if I just add that sentence about the Latin structure of the Romanian language (see above), and that'll take care of the issue.
- 3. I'll look into this.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
The Grammar of Romanian (by Pană Dindelegan)
@Iovaniorgovan:, I again strongly suggest that you should read and apply Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words...". Copyright violations may have serious consequences. Furthermore, please do not present a scholarly POV about the continuous presence of the Romanians in the lands that now form Romania as a fact. Please remember this POV is summarized at the beginning of the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- As you might have noticed if you open any history book, there's always a one-sentence or one-paragraph summary, generally in the introduction or at the very beginning of the book, wherein the author states what the main thrust of his/her theory is and what the reader should expect from reading the book. My PARTLY quoting such statement does not violate anyone's copyright (seeing as the material was CLEARLY ATTRIBUTED). In fact, there are plenty of direct quotes even in the section in question (from Schulte, Wexler, etc) but I guess those are okay with you because they serve your view. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if the POV was summarized at the beginning of this article because this is a DIFFERENT SECTION that EXPANDS on that summary, so one should expect a brief re-cap of the main theses in the context of the sub-section. Finally, as is, the way the content is presented is deplorable, with the first sentence being the worst offender: so the Romanian language was considered to belong to a group of languages in the past, but now it's not... followed by "CITATION NEEDED"? That's the very first sentence! What can a casual reader gain from such an abomination? Who edited this article?! Is that the best Wiki editors can do? In keeping with the structure of this page, the first sentence of this section should introduce the Daco-Roman LINGUISTIC theory, which is what I'll do. So, that sentence that I initially added will go BACK IN, only this time I will also add another citation (in addition to the Grammar of the Romanian) from an academic work, this time in Romanian (Al. Rosetti, Istoria Limbii Romane, 1986, p70); I will preface the sentence with something like "Linguists believe..." so it doesn't sound like a statement of facts. Any issue with this and we're going to arbitration.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see you keep deleting my edit, which is a PROPER INTRO to the sub-section, as mentioned above. Please do not touch my edit before we have arbitration settle the matter.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- No. We do not need to repeat a piece of information which is mentioned at the very beginning of the main text of the article and in the lede of the article. Furthermore, many linguists (including the editors of The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages and The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages) say that the venue of the formation of the Romanian language is uncertain. We cannot present one of the theories as a fact. Finally, I suggest that you should seek advice on the proper application of the Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's not a repeat, it's a different formulation to PROPERLY INTRODUCE the sub-section. There's a lot of info in the article that's redundant, the point is to make each sub-section stand on its own. I didn't state it as a "fact" (see beginning of sentence) and the two cited sources are HIGHLY RELIABLE, so the sentence stays in unless arbitration decides otherwise. I made my case, now let's kick it upstairs, as it were (any edit you do on this from now on will be reverted).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- In addition to violating copyright and repeating one of the theories, the first sentence is unbalanced: it presents only one of the theories. None of us is entitled to revert other editors' edits continuously. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring and please read the very first message on this Talk page: this article is under a special regime and uninvolved administrators are authorized to impose discretionary sanctions. Nevertheless, I will request third opinion on the issue. Borsoka (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is not violating any copyright (sources were PROPERLY ATTRIBUTED), it does NOT repeat a theory, it just summarizes its LINGUISTIC component for the respective sub-section in a way that properly introduces the sub-section. The structure of the article is "evidence/sources for Daco-Roman continuity" followed by "evidence/sources for Immigration theory", and in the third paragraph of this section we have Schultz and Wexler advocating for the latter, so there's balance. So, yes, let's bring in a third-party (or two).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see you've finally added a citation where "Citation was Needed" (just in time!) So now there's balance between the first sentence (the one I added) and the second sentence (the one you added). As far as I'm concerned this should stay the way it is. Fair and balanced.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Feel free to remove the "dubious/unbalanced" notes, the paragraph and the section are now as balanced as can be.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, there is no balance: the sentence still presents only one of the several theories. Furthermore, the sentence is still redundant, because the same piece of information is presented in the article when the concurring theories are presented. Sorry, I do not comment on this issue until a third opinion is provided. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- In addition to violating copyright and repeating one of the theories, the first sentence is unbalanced: it presents only one of the theories. None of us is entitled to revert other editors' edits continuously. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring and please read the very first message on this Talk page: this article is under a special regime and uninvolved administrators are authorized to impose discretionary sanctions. Nevertheless, I will request third opinion on the issue. Borsoka (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- That's not a repeat, it's a different formulation to PROPERLY INTRODUCE the sub-section. There's a lot of info in the article that's redundant, the point is to make each sub-section stand on its own. I didn't state it as a "fact" (see beginning of sentence) and the two cited sources are HIGHLY RELIABLE, so the sentence stays in unless arbitration decides otherwise. I made my case, now let's kick it upstairs, as it were (any edit you do on this from now on will be reverted).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- No. We do not need to repeat a piece of information which is mentioned at the very beginning of the main text of the article and in the lede of the article. Furthermore, many linguists (including the editors of The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages and The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages) say that the venue of the formation of the Romanian language is uncertain. We cannot present one of the theories as a fact. Finally, I suggest that you should seek advice on the proper application of the Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Third opinion
Bradv (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
- Viewpoint by Borsoka
- Thank you for your offer. (1) The first sentence under subtitle 4.3.1 Development of Romanian contains redundant information, because it only repeats information already mentioned under subtitle 1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis (namely, that the Romanian language descended from the Vulgar Latin of the Latin-speaking Roman provinces of Southeastern Europe). (2) The same sentence presents only the scholarly theory that emphasizes the continuous presence of a Latin/Romanian-speaking population in the lands to the north of the Danube, although there is an opposite theory (as it is demonstrated under the qsubtitle 1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis). I suggest that the sentence should be deleted in order both to avoid presenting superfluous information and to achieve a neutral approach. [I think there is an additional close paraphrasing problem with the sentence, but it could be fixed through rephrasing the sentence.] Borsoka (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Viewpoint by Iovaniorgovan
- (1) In keeping with the structure of this Wiki page ("evidence/sources for Daco-Roman continuity theory" followed by "evidence/sources for Immigrationist theory", etc), and in the spirit of clarity (which for the benefit of the casual reader should contain "some" redundancy) I wish to open the Linguistic Approach (Development of Romanian) section with a one-sentence summary (using a unique, non-redundant reliable source) of the Daco-Roman Linguistic continuity theory. (2) That sentence is currently followed by SIX sentences in support of the Immigrationist theory, and even with this added sentence the Daco-Roman linguistic continuity is still outnumbered 7 to 5 in this paragraph alone! If you choose to delete this sentence, then we'll end up with SIX sentences supporting the Immigrationist theory at the very top of this section, a non-neutral and major imbalance by all accounts. As for the "paraphrasing" charge, no problem, I can change it to "According to linguist Al. Rosetti...[insert quote]". Thanks for your consideration in this matter.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment by Borsoka: (1) The article does not follow the pattern mentioned above. (2) Even if one accept, that there are 6 sentences supporting one of the theories (which is not the case, according to me, but this is not important), the repetition of redundant information is useless. If one begins all subsection with a sentence claiming that the "Romanians are descendant of the Dacians", but they cannot provide evidence to support it, they achieved nothing. Sorry, I promise I will not make further comments. Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Viewpoint by Tgeorgescu
- I won't take sides in this dispute, I just want to point out where the rub lies. To avoid useless comments, Boia is an expert in what is wrong with other historians; his specialism is historians of Romania, not history of Romania. Lucian Boia (23 January 2013). History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Central European University Press. p. 227. ISBN 978-963-386-004-5.
Regarding the question of the formation and continuity of the Romanian people, Romanian historians of the last half century have tended to overestimate their own means, showing little interest in the research and conclusions of linguists. As the literary sources have in general been used up, Romanian historiography has come to rely on archaeology. The problem of continuity has thus become an almost exclusively archaeological one. Language has taken second place to "concrete" evidence. It is a curious approach, given that what is called, in a somewhat vague formula, the "forming of the Romanian people" actually means, in more precise and appropriate terms, "the forming of the Romanian language". The Romanians are people who speak Romanian; even if it is not the sole "condition" it is certainly the first and essential condition. I would not go so far as to say that archaeology has nothing to offer in such a question, but ultimately its role is limited. In fact, for decades archaeologists have taken upon themselves the mission of fully clarifying the problem of continuity. Naturally enough they have discovered, in every corner of Romania and for every period under discussion, remains which confirm the continuity of life. But here there has been a confusion; it matters little whether deliberate or not. What is at issue is not the continuity of the population in general, but Roman and Romanian continuity. For the purposes of this discussion, a "Dacian" who did not speak Romanian is of no interest: he was not Romanian.
Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Third opinion by Bradv
- I know very little about this topic, so I might not be able to add much to this other than offer the perspective of the reader. If there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained. It is not clear which theory is being discussed in the paragraph in question, and adding a single sentence about the other theory only makes things more confusing, rather than adding balance. Is it possible to frame this in a separate subsection or paragraph that is both neutral and provides clarity to the reader? Is it necessary to do so in order to adequately explain this topic? Bradv 13:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your above suggestion. The theories are detailed at the beginning of the article: thereafter facts or contrasting POVs are listed, without claiming that a fact or POV strengthen or weaken one of the theories. Could you explain your suggestion in more details? Do you suggest a "pro and con list"? The relevant policy says, "Pro & con lists oversimplify controversies. There are issues where describing a dispute or controversy is an important part of an article. There is no way to discuss certain subjects adequately without discussing the massive controversies on these issues. Pro & con lists seem to be a way to describe the views of the different sides on a controversy." Borsoka (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting a pro-and-con list, as I don't think this can be simplified that far. What I'm wondering is if it's necessary to mention the Daco-Roman theory in this section at all? If it is, it should probably be done either in a separate paragraph or under a separate subheading so it's clear which theory is being referenced. Bradv 14:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the above clarification. For the time being, there are no separate paragraphs for the contrasting theories under each subsection (with the notable exemption of the first subtitle 1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis, which is dedicated to this specific subject). Instead, each subsection list the most relevant facts, which are also mentioned in works dedicated to the subject of the article (that is to the Romanians' ethnogenesis). In most cases, if there are contrasting scholarly interpretations of the facts, the most relevant/typical scholarly POVs are also presented. For instance, the following paragraph under the subtitle 4.1.1 Sources on present-day Romania contains facts and concurring interpretations:
- The Gesta Hungarorum from around 1150 or 1200 is the first chronicle to write of Vlachs in the intra-Carpathian regions. [Fact1] Its anonymous author stated that the Hungarians encountered "Slavs, Bulgarians, Vlachs, and the shepherds of the Romans" when invading the Carpathian Basin around 895. [Fact2] He also wrote of Gelou, "a certain Vlach" ruling Transylvania, a land inhabited by "Vlachs and Slavs".[Fact3] In his study on medieval Hungarian chronicles, Carlile Aylmer Macartney concluded that the Gesta Hungarorum did not prove the presence of Romanians in the territory, since its author's "manner is much rather that of a romantic novelist than a historian". [POV1] In contrast, Alexandru Madgearu, in his monography dedicated to the Gesta, stated that this chronicle "is generally credible", since its narration can be "confirmed by the archaeological evidence or by comparison with other written sources" in many cases. [POV2]
- Do you think that we should expand each subsection with further subheadings or could we follow the pattern that was adopted a couple of years ago? Borsoka (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the above clarification. For the time being, there are no separate paragraphs for the contrasting theories under each subsection (with the notable exemption of the first subtitle 1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis, which is dedicated to this specific subject). Instead, each subsection list the most relevant facts, which are also mentioned in works dedicated to the subject of the article (that is to the Romanians' ethnogenesis). In most cases, if there are contrasting scholarly interpretations of the facts, the most relevant/typical scholarly POVs are also presented. For instance, the following paragraph under the subtitle 4.1.1 Sources on present-day Romania contains facts and concurring interpretations:
- I'm not suggesting a pro-and-con list, as I don't think this can be simplified that far. What I'm wondering is if it's necessary to mention the Daco-Roman theory in this section at all? If it is, it should probably be done either in a separate paragraph or under a separate subheading so it's clear which theory is being referenced. Bradv 14:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your above suggestion. The theories are detailed at the beginning of the article: thereafter facts or contrasting POVs are listed, without claiming that a fact or POV strengthen or weaken one of the theories. Could you explain your suggestion in more details? Do you suggest a "pro and con list"? The relevant policy says, "Pro & con lists oversimplify controversies. There are issues where describing a dispute or controversy is an important part of an article. There is no way to discuss certain subjects adequately without discussing the massive controversies on these issues. Pro & con lists seem to be a way to describe the views of the different sides on a controversy." Borsoka (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- This proposal has has been floated around on these pages before. Actually, the main reason I created a Wiki account was because I was frustrated by the confusing state of this Wiki page and another editor (@Cealicuca) also recently proposed a re-structuring of the article for clarity following the pattern on the German Wiki page of this article. For now, as I stated in my initial comment I propose we follow the structure already employed at the top of the article (Continuity followed by Immigrationist) in every sub-section, thus keeping the paragraphs separate. This way a reader can start from the top of the page and easily figure out which arguments favor this or that theory-- it also helps if we start the paragraphs the way I did it here "According to proponents of Daco-Roman continuity...etc"Iovaniorgovan (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- If there is a need to cover the continuity theory in that context, could it be done in a separate paragraph? If there is enough written about it in that specific context it could possibly be its own subsection. I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two.
- Now it's possible that consensus is that only one theory is worth mentioning and that the other theory has been thoroughly debunked, but if that's the case the article should be very clear about that, and right now I don't think it is. Bradv 23:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- As it stands, the Daco-Roman theory is BY FAR the most agreed upon by historians and linguists, but in the spirit of fair-play the Immigrationist theory (promoted mainly in Hungary, which explains all the Hungarian editors here) should also be mentioned-- for historical purposes if nothing else-- and I believe it should be given a fair shake. You are correct in that the two theories are mentioned alternatively in almost every paragraph, which has produced confusion in the readers and a tug-o-war between editors. I think my proposal would work though-- keep the order at the top of the page (Daco-Roman, Immigrationist, etc) for each subsection, with one paragraph allotted to the first theory, the next to the second theory, and in the following paragraphs, if need be, we can have some kind of mix if that serves to get the point across in an informative way (I think we can do this w/o creating further sub-headings to each sub-section). We can sort out the details later, but I propose we re-structure this section first and see how it goes.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- The place where Romanian developed is unknown, according to recent scholarly consensus outside Romania:
- "The thesis of "continuity", according to which Romanian continues the Latin of Dacia (a Roman province from 107 to 275 AD, when it was abandoned by Aurelian), is not uneversally accepted. Some scholars hold that Romanian was formed wholly or in part to the south of the Danube, and that the current location of Romanian is the result of internal migrations. The historical, archaeological and linguistic data available do not seem adequate to give a definitive answer." (Andreose, Alvise; Renzi, Lorenzo (2013). "Geography and distribution of the Romance languages in Europe". In Maiden, Martin; Smith, John Charles; Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Volume II: Contexts. Cambridge University Press. p. 287. ISBN 978-0-521-80073-0.)
- "Romanian (and other, closely related "Daco-Romanian" varieties), Aromanian (also called "Macedo-Romanian"), Istro-Romanian, and Megleno-Romanian jointly constitute the four subdivisions of the "Daco-Romance" branch of the Romance languages. Although they share a common ancestor, their early history (including the location and extent of the territory where "Daco-Romance" originated; cf. Andreose and Rnzi 2013:287), and the historical link between them, remain obscure. (Maiden, Martin (2016). "Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Aromanian". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. p. 287. ISBN 978-0-19-967710-8.)
- The German wikipage is a "pro and con list". If my understanding is correct, you (Bradv) suggest that we should create "pro and con" paragraphs under each subsections, instead of mentioning the facts and their concurring interpretations (if it is necessary). Are you sure this is the proper approach? Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm leaning against any pro and con list simply because that kind of format in my opinion is more liable to have more POV, OR, and Improper Synthesis statements like this article previously had when it was a pro and con list. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- In sections where facts take up the bulk of the space (like 'Archaeological Data') and the interpretations amount to one sentence, then we can alternate sentences. If somehow, in time, the size of the interpretations grows to one or more paragraphs (for either theory) then we break it down into alternating paragraphs until all views and counter-views are presented (possibly use indented paragraphs for clarity).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- My principal concern about a "pro and con" approach is that in most cases, there is no clear-cut difference. Just a few examples:
- Romanian historians who accept the "continuity theory" associate the Vlachs/Romanians and the Volokhi who were defeated by the Magyars/Hungarians in the late 9th century, according to the Russian Primary Chronicle. The same historians regard the Russian Primary Chronicle as an undeniable proof for the Transylvanian presence of Vlachs/Romanians in the late 9th century. [For instance, Georgescu, Vlad (1991). The Romanians: A History. Ohio State University Press. p. 14. ISBN 0-8142-0511-9.; 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. pp. 73–77. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5.] A British specialist of the Romanian history, Dennis Deletant, writes that "Of one thing we can be reasonably certain: that the Russian Primary Chronicle is an unreliable source for a Vlach presence in Transylvania at the time of the Magyar invasion", although Deletant does not accept the "immigrationist theory". [Deletant, Dennis (1992). "Ethnos and Mythos in the History of Transylvania: the case of the chronicler Anonymus". In Péter, László (ed.). Historians and the History of Transylvania. Boulder. p. 85. ISBN 0-88033-229-8.] Consequently, we could not write that "Historians who accept the continuity theory associates the Volokhi of the Russian Primary Chronicle with the Vlachs, and only historians who reject the continuity theory refute the identification of the two peoples."
- A German historian who dedicated several of his works to the history of the Balkans, Gottfried Schramm, says that the Romanian names of the major rivers of the one-time Roman province of Dacia exclude any form of continuity there, because the Romanians borrowed the river names from the Slavs and Hungarians instead of directly inheriting them from Antiquity. [Schramm, Gottfried (1997). Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5-7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter [=A Dam Breaks: The Roman Danube frontier and the Invasions of the 5th-7th Centuries in the Light of Names and Words] (in German). R. Oldenbourg Verlag. pp. 294–295. ISBN 3-486-56262-2.] The Romanian linguist, Domnița Tomescu, also says that the same river names were transmitted through Slavic mediation from Antiquity, but she seemingly does not accept the "migrationist theory". [Tomescu, Domnița (7 April 2009). Romanische Sprachgeschichte / Histoire linguistique de la Romania. 3. Teilband. Walter de Gruyter. p. 2728. ISBN 978-3-11-021141-2.] Consequently, we could not write that "Only scholars who accept the migrationist theory say that the Romanians borrowed the names of the major rivers of their country from the Slavs".
- In accordance with TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit's above remark, I think that artificial divisions along "pro and con" lines could not be verified based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- My principal concern about a "pro and con" approach is that in most cases, there is no clear-cut difference. Just a few examples:
- The place where Romanian developed is unknown, according to recent scholarly consensus outside Romania:
- As it stands, the Daco-Roman theory is BY FAR the most agreed upon by historians and linguists, but in the spirit of fair-play the Immigrationist theory (promoted mainly in Hungary, which explains all the Hungarian editors here) should also be mentioned-- for historical purposes if nothing else-- and I believe it should be given a fair shake. You are correct in that the two theories are mentioned alternatively in almost every paragraph, which has produced confusion in the readers and a tug-o-war between editors. I think my proposal would work though-- keep the order at the top of the page (Daco-Roman, Immigrationist, etc) for each subsection, with one paragraph allotted to the first theory, the next to the second theory, and in the following paragraphs, if need be, we can have some kind of mix if that serves to get the point across in an informative way (I think we can do this w/o creating further sub-headings to each sub-section). We can sort out the details later, but I propose we re-structure this section first and see how it goes.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- This proposal has has been floated around on these pages before. Actually, the main reason I created a Wiki account was because I was frustrated by the confusing state of this Wiki page and another editor (@Cealicuca) also recently proposed a re-structuring of the article for clarity following the pattern on the German Wiki page of this article. For now, as I stated in my initial comment I propose we follow the structure already employed at the top of the article (Continuity followed by Immigrationist) in every sub-section, thus keeping the paragraphs separate. This way a reader can start from the top of the page and easily figure out which arguments favor this or that theory-- it also helps if we start the paragraphs the way I did it here "According to proponents of Daco-Roman continuity...etc"Iovaniorgovan (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Those sentences, as you wrote them, are overly generalized and hence they ring false. You make a good point but I believe there's an easy way to get around those issues. For instance, as regards your first example, the way that respective paragraph currently reads in this article is perfectly fine-- it follows the pattern FACT→DRT (Daco-Roman theory)→IT (Immigrationist theory). The FACT is "The Russian Primary Chronicle from 1113 contains possible references to Vlachs in the Carpathian Basin.[271][272] It relates how the Volokhi seized "the territory of the Slavs"[273] and were later expelled by the Hungarians.[274] Therefore, the Slavs' presence antedates the arrival of the Volokhi in the chronicle's narration.[272]", followed by DRT "Madgearu and many other historians argue that the Volokhi are Vlachs.", followed by IT "However, they have also been identified with either Romans or Franks annexing Pannonia (for instance, by Lubor Niederle and by Gyula Kristó respectively)." So that's perfectly alright. This is under the heading "Sources on Medieval Vlach lands" so one should expect pretty much an itemized list of sources, rather than full paragraphs dedicated to one theory or the other, so this format works fine here without explicitly identifying the theories. This should be obvious to a reader, as it follows the same general pattern.
- We find more or less the same situation in the second paragraph you bring up, which is under the heading "Romanian place names"-- so, again, a section where you'd expect lists with brief descriptions and not theories. Following the already established structure we have--
- FACT: "Place names provide a significant proportion of modern knowledge of the extinct languages of South-eastern Europe.[422] Drobeta, Napoca, Porolissum, Sarmizegetusa and other settlements in "Dacia Traiana" bore names of local origin.[298] Some towns preserved their ancient names[note 9] in South-eastern Europe up until now, but the names of all Roman settlements attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity disappeared.[35][423] The Romans adopted the native names of the main rivers[note 10] and these names survived the Roman withdrawal.[424][298][425]" followed by--
- DRT1: "Linguists Oliviu and Nicolae Felecan write that the names were "uninterruptedly transmitted" from the Dacians to the Romans, and then to the Dacoromans.[425] Grigore Nandriș states that alone among the rivers in Dacia, the development of the name of the Criş from ancient Crisius would be in line with the phonetical evolution of Romanian.[426], followed by--
- IT1: "Domnița Tomescu, Gottfried Schramm and other scholars say, the names of the rivers were preserved through a Slavic mediation.[427][428] The vowel shift from [a] to [u] or [o] experienced in the case of the rivers Mureş [< Maris], Olt [< Aluta], and Someş [< Samu(m)] is attested in the development of the Slavic languages, but is alien to Romanian and other tongues spoken in their regions.[429] Schramm emphasizes that the [ʃ] ending of the modern names of the rivers could not be directly inherited from Latin, so they must have been transmitted from the native population through Slavic mediation.[430]" followed by--
- DRT2: "Dunărea, the Romanian name of the Danube may have developed from a supposed[431] Geto-Dacian *Donaris form.[432]", followed again by--
- IT2: "However, this form is not attested in written sources.[431] Therefore, it is possible that the Romanians' ancestors in this case also adopted a Slavic name.[433]", followed again by--
- DRT3: "Based on the Repedea name for the upper course of the Bistrița (both meaning "quick"), Nandris writes that translations from Romanian into Slavic could also create Romanian hydronyms.[434]"
- To sum up, here's the pattern in this paragraph: FACT→DRT1→IT1→DRT2→IT2→DRT3. This is okay... but it could be better. First off, as you notice the DRT and IT are not mentioned explicitly so we don't need to explain to the reader that Tomescu, for example, is actually DRT and not IT-- if her statement in this context appears to support IT, so be it, let the reader draw their own conclusions as to what that means in the whole context. Now, the way this paragraph could be improved is, as with ALL paragraphs in the article, by shortening the elements in the string as much as possible (there are 6 here). In this case we can move DRT2 and IT2 up and squeeze them between DRT1 and IT1 to obtain FACT→DRT1/DRT2→IT2/IT1→DRT3, a string with ONLY 4 elements (instead of the original 6) which flows a lot better and is a lot easier to process. Here's the end result "Place names provide a significant proportion of modern knowledge of the extinct languages of South-eastern Europe.[422] Drobeta, Napoca, Porolissum, Sarmizegetusa and other settlements in "Dacia Traiana" bore names of local origin.[298] Some towns preserved their ancient names[note 9] in South-eastern Europe up until now, but the names of all Roman settlements attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity disappeared.[35][423] The Romans adopted the native names of the main rivers[note 10] and these names survived the Roman withdrawal. Dunărea, the Romanian name of the Danube may have developed from a supposed[431] Geto-Dacian *Donaris form. However, this form is not attested in written sources.[431] Therefore, it is possible that the Romanians' ancestors in this case also adopted a Slavic name. Domnița Tomescu, Gottfried Schramm and other scholars say, the names of the rivers were preserved through a Slavic mediation.[427][428] The vowel shift from [a] to [u] or [o] experienced in the case of the rivers Mureş [< Maris], Olt [< Aluta], and Someş [< Samu(m)] is attested in the development of the Slavic languages, but is alien to Romanian and other tongues spoken in their regions.[429] Schramm emphasizes that the [ʃ] ending of the modern names of the rivers could not be directly inherited from Latin, so they must have been transmitted from the native population through Slavic mediation. However, based on the Repedea name for the upper course of the Bistrița (both meaning "quick"), Nandris writes that translations from Romanian into Slavic could also create Romanian hydronyms." Much better, right? There's another issue with this paragraph, the Schramm "explanation" is over-elaborate and disproportionate to the rest of the content, but we can fix that later. The point now is to settle into a structure.
- Finally, when DRT or IT need to be explained in more detail and in paragraph form, then we can adopt the same structure but for paragraphs... within reason. The point is to NOT break the flow of a paragraph with unnecessary intrusions and objections when you can make a separate case (also more intelligible) in the following paragraph. When that's not possible we can add ("Notes:") indented and italicized at the very bottom of the paragraph in question (or something to that effect.)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- If my understanding is correct, you said above that the present structure of the article is good, but each paragraph could be improved. If this is the case, a consensus is reached. We should only decide the original question: should we preserve the first sentence under subtitle 4.3.1 Development of Romanian, or we should delete this sentence which presents redundant information in a non-neutral way. [A side remark: Please note that your above text ignores WP:DUE, because the scholarly consensus is that the Romanian form of the larger rivers' names display a Slavic mediation, while your text ignores this fact. But we should not discuss this issue here.]
- @Bradv:, what is your opinion? Borsoka (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I have also an opinion, I also don't support the changing of the structure of the article agreeing with the argumentation of those who are against. Furthermore, I don't understand what refers that statement that the presence of the Slavs would "antedate" the arrival of the "Volokhi/Vlachs?", since as far as I remember the chronicle clearly wrotes that "Volokhi/Vlachs?" entered the are after the Slavs...secondly about the "...Sarmizegetusa and other settlements in "Dacia Traiana" bore names of local origin" statement, "bore" is past tense, so I don't see the relevance since today they are used only in a symbolic way but historically these names were not used in the last near millenium (i.e. Grădişte was used, etc.). In spite of this the statement "Linguists Oliviu and Nicolae Felecan write that the names were "uninterruptedly transmitted" from the Dacians to the Romans, and then to the Dacoromans", is also interesting what would suggest, if the Daco-Romans existed, they used those names, but if these names were not used in the past near millenium...? Last but not least "Dunărea, the Romanian name of the Danube may have developed from a supposed[431] Geto-Dacian *Donaris form" is one of those propagated suggestion that does not have even any partial evidence, it is just a very-very hyphotetic suggestion without any attest.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC))
- I may now take sides, since we're discussing something else than the initial question: if it is doubtful that a change improves the article, we prefer the status quo. Ain't broken, don't fix. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- On the contrary - it IS broken. The article has been re-written with the simple goal of obfuscating information as much as possible to that it will give a (false) impression of "equality". Which by the way, for such a rule-loving person like you, should be enough. Statements, claims whatever should not be "forcefully" made "equal". Each should stand on it's own and the reader should be the one that decided. As it stands this is anything but a neutral article. a "pro" - "con" approach would do the trick, just as a dedicated section for each theory (each with it's own sources and hypothesis and such) should. On another note, I love how you mention Boia's criticism on Romanian historians, but fail to mention his criticism on other historians, foreign, who seem much more interested in showing that Romanians came from somewhere else - sometimes even more than their own histories. Like Hungarians - striving to show that Romanians came from south of the Danube. But Greeks prefer them to have never been there (south of the Danube). Russian historians place them west and south of the Carpathians, just because. Just because you can guess. so if we take all those sources into account, Romanians somehow landed from outer space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 19:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- I may now take sides, since we're discussing something else than the initial question: if it is doubtful that a change improves the article, we prefer the status quo. Ain't broken, don't fix. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I have also an opinion, I also don't support the changing of the structure of the article agreeing with the argumentation of those who are against. Furthermore, I don't understand what refers that statement that the presence of the Slavs would "antedate" the arrival of the "Volokhi/Vlachs?", since as far as I remember the chronicle clearly wrotes that "Volokhi/Vlachs?" entered the are after the Slavs...secondly about the "...Sarmizegetusa and other settlements in "Dacia Traiana" bore names of local origin" statement, "bore" is past tense, so I don't see the relevance since today they are used only in a symbolic way but historically these names were not used in the last near millenium (i.e. Grădişte was used, etc.). In spite of this the statement "Linguists Oliviu and Nicolae Felecan write that the names were "uninterruptedly transmitted" from the Dacians to the Romans, and then to the Dacoromans", is also interesting what would suggest, if the Daco-Romans existed, they used those names, but if these names were not used in the past near millenium...? Last but not least "Dunărea, the Romanian name of the Danube may have developed from a supposed[431] Geto-Dacian *Donaris form" is one of those propagated suggestion that does not have even any partial evidence, it is just a very-very hyphotetic suggestion without any attest.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC))
- @Borsoka: Correct, I was referring to the FACT→DRT→IT, etc, general structure of the article and its subsections, which should be preserved in the interest of making the article readable and eliminating the tug-o-war between editors. The "Linguistics" section does NOT follow this pattern, which is why we got into this argument in the first place. So then, if we all agree, then I should be allowed to introduce that section with a DRT paragraph, to be followed by an IT paragraph, etc. Again, a little bit of redundancy (especially if it's a different reliable source and different wording) will not hurt anyone but instead would make the sub-section stand alone and readers would not need to read the whole article to "get" the point (feel free to do the same with the IT paragraph, I'm all for clarity). In addition to respecting the internal structure outlined above, the other goal would be to shorten the length of these DRT→IT strings, else it could get pretty confusing (see my example above for a way to do it). As for that first sentence, I already offered to change it (see above) to sound neutral, as in "According to linguist Al. Rosetti...[insert quote]".Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think we should close the original issue: should the first sentence be preserved or deleted. Yes, for the time being, the 4.3.1 Development of Romanian subsection differs from all other parts of the 4. Evidence section, because it begins with a POV sentence which contains redundant information. We should not duplicate the core of one of the theories or all of them in each paragraph, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a ballad with literary repetitions. Borsoka (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: Correct, I was referring to the FACT→DRT→IT, etc, general structure of the article and its subsections, which should be preserved in the interest of making the article readable and eliminating the tug-o-war between editors. The "Linguistics" section does NOT follow this pattern, which is why we got into this argument in the first place. So then, if we all agree, then I should be allowed to introduce that section with a DRT paragraph, to be followed by an IT paragraph, etc. Again, a little bit of redundancy (especially if it's a different reliable source and different wording) will not hurt anyone but instead would make the sub-section stand alone and readers would not need to read the whole article to "get" the point (feel free to do the same with the IT paragraph, I'm all for clarity). In addition to respecting the internal structure outlined above, the other goal would be to shorten the length of these DRT→IT strings, else it could get pretty confusing (see my example above for a way to do it). As for that first sentence, I already offered to change it (see above) to sound neutral, as in "According to linguist Al. Rosetti...[insert quote]".Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Here's the compromise I suggest: we can remove that first sentence BUT, (1) I will add a Al. Rosetti citation (not a quote) to a sentence in "Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis" (maybe slightly re-word that sentence, TBD), and (2) I will swap out the first two paragraphs in the "Development of Romanian" subsection, so that it starts something like this "The "essential Romanian vocabulary is to a large degree Latin":[403] more than 75% of the words in the semantic fields of sense perception, quantity, kinship and spatial relations were inherited from Latin, but the basic lexicons of religion and of agriculture have also been preserved. Around 20% of the entries of the 1958 edition of the Dictionary of the Modern Romanian have directly been inherited from Latin.[402], etc etc". (notice I switched the order of the sentences in this paragraph; as for the rest we can work it out fairly quickly). This way we preserve the internal structure of DRT→IT, repeat...Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think we should wait for the third opinion. Sorry, I will not comment on this issue until the third opinion is provided. [Just a side remark: that the essential vocabulary of Romanian is of Latin origin and that less than a quarter of the Romanian words were inherited directly from Latin are facts. These facts are not denied by neither of the theories.] Borsoka (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- It should be FACT→DRT→IT (repeat), is what I'm saying. As it is, it's 5-6 sentences of IT to start off the section (if I take out the "contested" opener), thus violating the internal structure of the article. Third opinion welcome at any time.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like our third-opinion has gone M.I.A. (vacation?). Maybe we should ask for a second third-opinion?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- We have time. No need to run. Borsoka (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Now that there are more people involved in the discussion, and the two of you are discussing things again, I'll leave this to you to figure out. It appears to me that this question is best resolved by people who know more about the subject than I, and there are several of those here on this talk page. Bradv 16:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- We have time. No need to run. Borsoka (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, so much for that... So, are we in agreement as to what the "internal structure" of the article should be: FACT→DRT→IT (repeat), whether in sentence or paragraph form or any combination thereof, or should we ask for a another third-opinion?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think a FACT→DRT→IT structure could hardly be followed in a consequent way, because there is no clear-cut difference, as it was demonstrated above. Furthermore, there is a consensus that a "pro and con approach" should be avoided. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- The article is already for the most part structured this way, as I have shown above. NO need for radical change, many of the sections are more or less fine 'as is'. ONE EXCEPTION: the section in question. Either I'm allowed to re-arrange the section to follow this structure, OR please ask for another third-party opinion to chime in.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I do not want to change anything, so I do not need to ask for third-party opinion. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, actually I just came back to post that I don't need anyone's permission to make edits that abide by Wiki rules. If a third-opinion is willing to weigh in on the good-faith ground rules mentioned above, so be it. It'd save a lot of hassle. But either way is fine with me. Changes to the section coming shortly...Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I do not want to change anything, so I do not need to ask for third-party opinion. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- The article is already for the most part structured this way, as I have shown above. NO need for radical change, many of the sections are more or less fine 'as is'. ONE EXCEPTION: the section in question. Either I'm allowed to re-arrange the section to follow this structure, OR please ask for another third-party opinion to chime in.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think a FACT→DRT→IT structure could hardly be followed in a consequent way, because there is no clear-cut difference, as it was demonstrated above. Furthermore, there is a consensus that a "pro and con approach" should be avoided. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Development of Romanian - edits
As you might have noticed, I've made several changes to this section: 1. I did NOT delete any of the info previously in there, just moved stuff around for readability, although I amended a couple sentences for clarity and detail (re. "Common Slavic and Old Church Slavonic loanwords adopted by all Eastern Romance variants prove that the start of the disintegration of Common Romanian into its four dialects...", etc) and fixed the "close paraphrasing" of "The grouping of Dacian, Illyrian and Thracian languages into a Thraco-Illyrian branch of the Indo-European language family..." with the proper attribution, "according to Benjamin Fortson". 2. I added some critical info about the "Development of Romanian" which, incredibly, was missing from the section! Such as, when do proponents of DRT think the language actually formed?!! Also info about dialects, sub-dialects, ETC, etc. [note: I only included reliable sources; I could cite more works, including Al. Rosetti here but I don't want to clutter the article; but I could if anyone has an issue with this). Any issues with any of my edits please bring them up here first so we don't get into an editing war.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding info about the chronology of the formation of the Romanian. As I mentioned above, Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, so we cannot develop our own rules when editing it. Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I removed your first two references to Wexler due to "undue weight". Wexler's article is a HYPOTHESIS, as the title of his article clearly states "The case for the relexification hypothesis in Rumanian", and by his own admission in the article, "further studies will be needed in order to corroborate these tentative claims." And yet, you deemed this hypothesis worthy enough to quote/cite it FOUR times in this brief section. Let me remind you what Wiki says about this: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." So feel free to add something else (more reliable and mainstream) to the end of that second paragraph if you wish, but not Wexler (or at least not this article). I kept the last Wexler reference for balance (minus the analogy to the US West coast, which doesn't make any sense, nor does it belong here) although I would also suggest you add another source to the citation if you can. I also re-added the info about Romanian's FUNDAMENTAL lexicon. Please do not remove this, as it's essential. Any issue with this and we're going to arbitration.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I see you undid my latest changes so I undid yours and it will stay like this until we bring a THIRD-OPINION in. So if you think a third-opinion will break the Wiki rules for you then be my guest. I'm waiting. I have nothing further to say about this and any edits you make in the meantime will be promptly reverted until we settle this dispute.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wexler's sentences that are presented in the article are well-known facts. I removed his marginal assumption before your edit ([14]), so please do not refer to it. Please read WP:Edit war before "promptly" reverting my edits. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, they're not facts. I'll have to look at the other citation you inserted and see if it checks out. May take a day, may take a month, but we're not out of the woods here just yet. Same goes for other stuff in this article. But, back to the recent edits which you abusively deleted:
- 1. this edit, which you deleted several times, GOES BACK IN (with a minor addition): "However, the fundamental lexicon (consisting of the 2500 most important words by frequency and semantic richness) shows a radical change in percentages, the vast majority of words being of Latin origin, followed by Romance and classical Latin neologisms." I added '2500' so maybe you'll get it this time around. This is NOT redundant info and it's CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT to the article. You delete this one more time and we'll have to call in the Wiki hounds.
- 2. this also GOES BACK IN (slightly different wording): "Romanian was subject to various influences, including Hungarian, Church Slavonic, Greek, Turkish, modern Slavic languages, and German (especially in Transylvania), but “the Latin structure of Romanian has not been modified by any of these external factors, all influences being limited to lexis and word formation.” This is also NOT REDUNDANT and VERY IMPORTANT, as it pertains to the STRUCTURE of the language. You touch this one more time and we're going to arbitration.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- We do not need to repeat information and we should not present POVs as facts. That the basic vocabulary of Romanian is of Latin origin is mentioned in the article, that the structure of the Romanian is Latin is highly debatable, taking into account that its structural features are shared with non-Romance languages, like Albanian, Bulgarian. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: Yet again with this... Care to back up your extraordinary claim? So many linguists here... so few sources. I mean "highly debatable"? I know exactly in what circles this is debatable, definitely not academic.Cealicuca (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- That info is NOT redundant. I just reverted your changes so please call in a THIRD-OPINION, or I will. Either way is fine with me.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- We do not need to ask for a third opinion to establish that no pieces of information should be repeated in the article. The other piece of information is dubious: Romanian shares structural features with non-Romance languages (I refer to the Balkan Sprachbund), conseqently we can hardly state that it preserved its Latin features. Or do you suggest, Latin was a Slavic language, or closely related to Albanian? Borsoka (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your pet theories count for nothing here on Wiki. Same goes for the rest of the Hungarian Wiki shock brigade. What counts here is mainstream "WP:RS", which is what I provided. Might I remind you, this article is titled "Origin of the Romanians", NOT "Hungarian view of the Origin of the Romanians", as much as you've been trying to make it appear so. Anyway, third-opinion is on the way, and we'll go past that if need be.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody's pet theories count here on Wiki. Yes, the article is dedicated to the origin of the Romanians, consequently all sentences in the article should be connected to this subjects. You obviously have not realized that I did not refer to Hungarian authors in the section in connection with the structure or vocabulary of Romanian (actually, I deleted two references to Hungarian authors). I suggest you should abandon this "Hungarian-are-conspiring-against-my-views" approach. We are here to build an encyplopedia, not to push Hungarian/Romanian national myths. Sorry, I will not comment on your nationalistic remarks in the future. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- The sentence about the "fundamental lexicon" works okay now, slightly re-worded, but it gets the point across so I'm fine with it. So I guess the only dispute left is the inclusion of the sentence about "structure". I hope you realize you can't win this argument. You can't find a more reliable source than this, and this book (along with its companion on the Syntax) is basically the official academic publication of the Daco-Roman Linguistic Continuity Theory. Your objecting to this inclusion amounts to denying a Wiki editor inclusion of reliable sources in support of the theories presented just because you don't agree with the theory. That is unacceptable. Best you can do is provide a sentence from a reliable source showing a different/opposing view, and if it passes muster we'll make sure to find a place for it in the article. You may remove that "dubious" claim hanging above the sentence and then feel free to remove my request for a third-opinion. Else, let the third-opinion walk you through the Wiki rules.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody will win or loose, because Wikipedia is not a battleground. No scholar whose theories are mentioned in the article denies that the Romanian language was descended from the Latin language - therefore, there are no concurring linguistic theories about the origin of the Romanian language. The sentence in question contains a dubious POV statment: "the Latin structure of Romanian has not been modified by any of these external factors". Can you refer to other Romance languages featured by postponed definitive articles? Or can you refer to reliable sources claiming that postponed definitve articles featured the Latin language? Or do you say the postponed definitive articles and other Balkanisms of the Romanian language are not the consequences of gradual modifications? Nevertheless, the whole question is independent of the subject of the article, because, as I mentioned, nobody claims that the Romanian language is not a descendant of the Latin language, so we do not have to discuss this issue here. Borsoka (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- The sentence about the "fundamental lexicon" works okay now, slightly re-worded, but it gets the point across so I'm fine with it. So I guess the only dispute left is the inclusion of the sentence about "structure". I hope you realize you can't win this argument. You can't find a more reliable source than this, and this book (along with its companion on the Syntax) is basically the official academic publication of the Daco-Roman Linguistic Continuity Theory. Your objecting to this inclusion amounts to denying a Wiki editor inclusion of reliable sources in support of the theories presented just because you don't agree with the theory. That is unacceptable. Best you can do is provide a sentence from a reliable source showing a different/opposing view, and if it passes muster we'll make sure to find a place for it in the article. You may remove that "dubious" claim hanging above the sentence and then feel free to remove my request for a third-opinion. Else, let the third-opinion walk you through the Wiki rules.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- We do not need to ask for a third opinion to establish that no pieces of information should be repeated in the article. The other piece of information is dubious: Romanian shares structural features with non-Romance languages (I refer to the Balkan Sprachbund), conseqently we can hardly state that it preserved its Latin features. Or do you suggest, Latin was a Slavic language, or closely related to Albanian? Borsoka (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wexler's sentences that are presented in the article are well-known facts. I removed his marginal assumption before your edit ([14]), so please do not refer to it. Please read WP:Edit war before "promptly" reverting my edits. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for adding info about the chronology of the formation of the Romanian. As I mentioned above, Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, so we cannot develop our own rules when editing it. Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I would say that the claim that the Latin structure of the Romanian language has not been modified by other languages is at best dubious and at worst false since it is a fact that the grammar of the Romanian language (along with Megleno-Romanian, and Aromanian, and Istro-Romanian) share similarities with the grammar of the modern languages in the Balkans such as Albanian, Bulgarian and Macedonian. For example, the definite articles are post-fixed at the end of nouns, the lack of infinitives, etc. Of course, under the Migrationist theory, this fact is explained that the reason the Romanian languages share grammatical features with the Balkan languages is because that's where the Romanian languages were originally formed - in the Balkans. How does the Continuity theory explain it? I still don't know. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- You are right, the grammatical structure, origins, and the similarity with some other linguistic fetaures of the previously mentioned other languages are well documented, sourced and proved, roughly an "Illyrian core with a Latin shell with Slavic effects" if we speak about the very early stage. What is obvious, Romanian developed in the similar time, but on a different route like the other Romance languages. We have to be careful what we would refer exactly as a "Latin structure". Of course, we can say the language preserved it's "Latinity", since it is a Romance language, but a proper wording to describe this in an appropriate way should be found. The continuity theory developed some possible "explanations", i.e. the ancestors of Albanians migrated from the Carpathian Basin to the south of the Balkan, or others are pushing that the words/structure of i.e. Albanian origin are as well just loans inherited from a common source or a common ancestor that would be Thracian/Dacian, trying to solve the paradox in such a way...however, without any proof.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC))
- Wow, mised a lot. But hey, nothing changes. I see the same old TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit popping out whenever KIENGIR says "something" (because hey, you both just happen to be always in accord with each other, right?). And of course I suppose both of you have PhDs in linguistics. On another note - yes, the Albanian linguistic heritage is pretty debunked. Not by some wiki always-agreeing editors but by people with real knowledge. You can search on wiki. By the way, how does someone join your club? I mean I'd really like to come here and say whatever I wish, of course use the best(est) hyperboles in the process, and then have some two-three people coming in and "yes yes yes"-ing me. :) Or, as some other editor here, be like a "hive mind". Because of course, there is no need to remind nobody of WP:MEAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs)
- I suggest you to have a civilized behavior and unnecessary accusations or any inconstructive additions that has not in any connection to the topic are not necessary. I just answered a question, that's all. However, as an addition, it came later to my mind there are also such theories, that the Slavic langauge would resemble with some stucture or sounding with the Dacian language.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC))
- @Cealicuca:, please do not hesitate from initiating a sock puppet investigation or stop accusing other editors of sock puppetry. Please remember that the administrators are authorized to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit this article. Discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who, for instance, repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to any expected standards of behaviour. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka::
- It's not the first time you are talking in KIENGIR's place. While there's no rule against it, I find it weird. I'm pretty sure KIENGIR is old enough to speak for himself.
- On the accusation part - I am sorry, but all I am doing is following your and Tgeorgescu's lead. Since you two have no qualms with this (throwin acusations around) I fail to see why I should.
- Again, following Tgeorgescu's lead (who has several times brout up the subject of me and other editors being accused of wrongdoing... of course, being accused by him) I fail to see why KIENGIR's extensive WP:MEAT history should not be relevant.
- "Discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who, for instance, repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to any expected standards of behaviour." - Oh, again with the intimidation? Moreover, you should start by adhering to those expected standards of behaviour yourself, before asking other to do so :) It seems rather fair.Cealicuca (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- KIENGIR, TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, Tgeorgescu, I think we should ignore him. Nevertheless, I will ignore him. Borsoka (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka::
- @Cealicuca:, please do not hesitate from initiating a sock puppet investigation or stop accusing other editors of sock puppetry. Please remember that the administrators are authorized to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit this article. Discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who, for instance, repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to any expected standards of behaviour. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest you to have a civilized behavior and unnecessary accusations or any inconstructive additions that has not in any connection to the topic are not necessary. I just answered a question, that's all. However, as an addition, it came later to my mind there are also such theories, that the Slavic langauge would resemble with some stucture or sounding with the Dacian language.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC))
- Wow, mised a lot. But hey, nothing changes. I see the same old TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit popping out whenever KIENGIR says "something" (because hey, you both just happen to be always in accord with each other, right?). And of course I suppose both of you have PhDs in linguistics. On another note - yes, the Albanian linguistic heritage is pretty debunked. Not by some wiki always-agreeing editors but by people with real knowledge. You can search on wiki. By the way, how does someone join your club? I mean I'd really like to come here and say whatever I wish, of course use the best(est) hyperboles in the process, and then have some two-three people coming in and "yes yes yes"-ing me. :) Or, as some other editor here, be like a "hive mind". Because of course, there is no need to remind nobody of WP:MEAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs)
- @Borsoka, thanks, your recent edits work as far as I can tell (traveling now, but I'll take a closer look soon). So I guess this settles this particular dispute. Cheers Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Third opinion
 Response to third opinion request:
|
| I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC) |
- That's fine, the matter was settled eventually. Thanks!Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The inherent flaw of this article and why it needs restructuring
Neutral, as defined by Wikipedia standards, refer to presenting the information (as stated by the sources) clearly, in an unbiased way. More exactly - "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". This article is anything but because:
- We have several competing theories. As such, it is not up to the editors to "determine" which has more merit, or to simulate neutrality by adopting a seemingly equivocal stance on all of the theories (weirdly enough, the same editor then declares himself a non-expert in the subject. So in his reality, someone who is not an expert is entitled to hold all the information he is not an expert in as equally "truthful"). Being equivocal does not mean neutrality. It is the reader and the sources of course who are to give weight and judge the information, not the editors. They are here only to add/summarize WP:RS and of course to determine which is a WP:RS. As such each theory must be presented clearly, each with it's own background, historiography section, evidence section, criticism section and so on. As the article is written it skews the information either by diluting or taking information out of context. So this is my goal: present each theory in a clear, continuous way. After all, like any normal theory out there, it's validity is mostly given by the context. If one is to take pieces of it and throw it all around, mingled with competing hypothesis, the perception about it's validity is artificially diminished.
- The "Evidence" section is a mess. First of all the, and one can clearly see this as a bias that reflects some of the editor's here attitude towards historical sources, the written sources are put forcefully into the spotlight. Archaeological evidence and genetics are neglected. Moreover, the Written sources are categorized arbitrarily. Sources on present-day Romania, Sources on the Balkan Vlachs, Sources on Medieval Vlach lands do make sense at all. But I'm not all-knowing, I admit - so I ask the other editors to enlighten me. The implied assumption is that the Medieval Vlach lands and not the same with Balkan Vlachs (are they still a territory?) and of course, not the same thing with the present-day Romania (i presume it's still about lands, so geography...). I may be wrong here, and maybe I can't see the logic behind it - but at least it fails the "present the information in a clear way" test.Cealicuca (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, and I tried to push for a move in that direction but got no support... so far. It'd be helpful to see what some of these sections would look like in a new format and decide then. However, even as is, there's still a lot of info missing from this article. I just added some critical info to the Linguistics section but there's still more to be added and/or corrected. I wonder what the article would look like with all the stuff added though. We might get a better picture of the "problem" then but it's already beginning to look like it might need restructuring in some way.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I just remark that most editors expressed under the subsection The Grammar of Romanian (by Pană Dindelegan) above that a "pro and con list" should be avoided. Sorry, I do not understand your remarks about the Written sources section. I agree that the Archaeological section should be improved, because it does not state expressly that there is no evidence of the continuous presence of a Romanized population in the former province of Dacia. Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: Please stop deflecting. Please stick to the subject (so don't bring into discussion which theory the archaeological evidence support or not, this is not up to this debate). Also - I think I was clear enough on the Written sources categories. They are not, by any logical measure, disjunct categories, simply because one of them reference a specific geographical area (present-day Romania), the other specifies an ethnic(?) group, and another one specifies a vague medieval(?) geographical area. I asked for someone to explain what was the criteria used for creating them, because there seems to be no logical one, and their only purpose is to seemingly obfuscate the presented information even more. Your non-answer is not a valid answer, but you may try again. If it's so clear to you (the criteria upon which the categorization of the written sources is based upon), please explain.Cealicuca (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- What is your suggestion? The present structure reflects the main division between the two theories: one of the theories states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis occurred in the territories that now form Romania, the other theory suggest that it happened in the Balkans. Of course we could mention all written sources about the early medieval history in the article, but only sources mentioning Vlachs are relevant in the context of the article. Or do you say that sources mentioning Croats, Serbians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Romani, Saxons, Greeks, Turks, Pechenegs, etc in the Balkans should also be listed? Could you refer to books dedicated to the subject of the article which list all written sources about the peoples once inhabiting the Balkans? The third subsection (Medieval Vlach land) is distinguished, because the location of those lands is uncertain. Borsoka (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Why invent some names for the categories? Why not simply link them with the theories they are supposedly a supporting evidence? Moreover, all the categories are ambiguous. Define those Balkan lands. Wait... should we think of them as they are in 2018? or in 1850? Heck, I challenge you to define what Balkan means exactly today. The terms today denote different regions than say 200 years ago (roughly when the IT was invented, for example). Generally speaking each theory should have it's own narrative (so each theory should have it's one sub-section of historiography, evidence, criticism and counter-arguments to the criticism etc.) instead of presenting all the information as a disparate and diluted wall of text, with back-and-forth stuff like "He said in whatever ear, but then in another year she said, but then in yet another year he said etc.".Cealicuca (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- The "pro and con" approach has already been refuted by many editors several times. For the last time, under the subtitle "The Grammar of Romanian (by Pană Dindelegan) - "Third opinion". There is no point in opening a new debate on the issue. Borsoka (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ok... Let me try again, as you don't seem to understand. The "pro and con" is kind of actually right now. It's just very creatively crafted as to not look like one. Because instead of actually focusing on each theory, all the "pro" and "cons" are arbitrarily categorized. See "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."Cealicuca (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please, try to initiate a new RfC on the issue. I do not have time to discuss this issue twice a month. Borsoka (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- The issue already "discussed" was initially related to Romanian grammar. Moreover, I believe that the way the article is structured right now is just a fancy "pro"/"con" list (carefully avoids actually namig "pro" or "con" but basically it does this in every section). Which I believe it gives rise to a lot of unnecessary disputes. Like for example removing (or otherwise considering it as unacceptable) a sentence because it is not "balanced" - not mentioning all theories (?!?!?!). This is what this article has been reduced to and this is precisely what forcing "balance" (from, I hope, only a misguided notion of neutrality, and not other reasons), the way it is forced upon a lot of the information presented here, comes to the detriment of the content itself. I believe that, in line with Wikipedia's suggested article structure, each theory should be treated within it's own narrative. Right now, if one wants to actually understand what each theory is based upon, needs to sift through disparate amounts of sub-sections and find bits on info, most of the times structured in a "he said / she said" way. As for the specific sections regarding Written sources (Sources on present-day Romania, Sources on the Balkan Vlachs, Sources on Medieval Vlach lands) those definitely need at least renaming. Even you conveniently added "lands" to Balkan Vlachs in order to make it seem more logical. As it stands the naming is vague and misleading. Even if we were to think that all 3 of the categories refer to a geographical area, it means that present-day Romania excludes Balkan Vlachs (lands) and both exclude Medieval Vlachs (whatever that may mean) (lands).Cealicuca (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Iovaniorgovan: Could you help me with this arbitration thing? What do I need to do? You seem to have gone through the process at least once.Cealicuca (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I suggest a request for comment as a first step... then dispute resolution. In any event, I support the restructuring of the article for clarity purposes. Another opinion from an experienced Wikipedian might help get his process started. As is, some sections in this article are unreadable.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka @Bradv: Actually, on closer inspection, Bradv actually supports exactly the same idea: "if there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained." / "I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two. Now it's possible that consensus is that only one theory is worth mentioning and that the other theory has been thoroughly debunked, but if that's the case the article should be very clear about that, and right now I don't think it is."Cealicuca (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- The "pro and con" approach has already been refuted by many editors several times. For the last time, under the subtitle "The Grammar of Romanian (by Pană Dindelegan) - "Third opinion". There is no point in opening a new debate on the issue. Borsoka (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Why invent some names for the categories? Why not simply link them with the theories they are supposedly a supporting evidence? Moreover, all the categories are ambiguous. Define those Balkan lands. Wait... should we think of them as they are in 2018? or in 1850? Heck, I challenge you to define what Balkan means exactly today. The terms today denote different regions than say 200 years ago (roughly when the IT was invented, for example). Generally speaking each theory should have it's own narrative (so each theory should have it's one sub-section of historiography, evidence, criticism and counter-arguments to the criticism etc.) instead of presenting all the information as a disparate and diluted wall of text, with back-and-forth stuff like "He said in whatever ear, but then in another year she said, but then in yet another year he said etc.".Cealicuca (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- What is your suggestion? The present structure reflects the main division between the two theories: one of the theories states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis occurred in the territories that now form Romania, the other theory suggest that it happened in the Balkans. Of course we could mention all written sources about the early medieval history in the article, but only sources mentioning Vlachs are relevant in the context of the article. Or do you say that sources mentioning Croats, Serbians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Romani, Saxons, Greeks, Turks, Pechenegs, etc in the Balkans should also be listed? Could you refer to books dedicated to the subject of the article which list all written sources about the peoples once inhabiting the Balkans? The third subsection (Medieval Vlach land) is distinguished, because the location of those lands is uncertain. Borsoka (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: Please stop deflecting. Please stick to the subject (so don't bring into discussion which theory the archaeological evidence support or not, this is not up to this debate). Also - I think I was clear enough on the Written sources categories. They are not, by any logical measure, disjunct categories, simply because one of them reference a specific geographical area (present-day Romania), the other specifies an ethnic(?) group, and another one specifies a vague medieval(?) geographical area. I asked for someone to explain what was the criteria used for creating them, because there seems to be no logical one, and their only purpose is to seemingly obfuscate the presented information even more. Your non-answer is not a valid answer, but you may try again. If it's so clear to you (the criteria upon which the categorization of the written sources is based upon), please explain.Cealicuca (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I just remark that most editors expressed under the subsection The Grammar of Romanian (by Pană Dindelegan) above that a "pro and con list" should be avoided. Sorry, I do not understand your remarks about the Written sources section. I agree that the Archaeological section should be improved, because it does not state expressly that there is no evidence of the continuous presence of a Romanized population in the former province of Dacia. Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, and I tried to push for a move in that direction but got no support... so far. It'd be helpful to see what some of these sections would look like in a new format and decide then. However, even as is, there's still a lot of info missing from this article. I just added some critical info to the Linguistics section but there's still more to be added and/or corrected. I wonder what the article would look like with all the stuff added though. We might get a better picture of the "problem" then but it's already beginning to look like it might need restructuring in some way.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Țara Românească
@Iovaniorgovan:, this is the English version of the article. We do not write of Magyarország instead of Hungary, of Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίω instead of Byzantine Empire and of Țara Românească instead of Wallachia. I (and many other editors) would be grateful if you could stop pushing personal rules when editing Wikipedia. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- That's a false analogy. To begin with, in that respective sentence the mention is the establishment of a NEW principality, and therefore its GIVEN NAME should be listed first: Țara Românească. Secondly, the exonyms Vlach/Wallach/Wallachia are of GERMAN origin, not English. Thirdly, most of the English-speaking world has called your country Hungary, therefore I suppose it makes sense to use that name in that article (even though I would argue that if there's a sentence relating to its creation, it should first list its given name in the original language), whereas the vast majority of the English-speaking world of today (the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc), for whom this article was written, has no (or very little) history of having called that Romanian principality Wallachia. Conclusion: the way the other editor first edited the sentence is correct, and it should read something like this: "...led to the establishment of a new principality, Țara Românească (or "Romanian Land", also known by its exonym, Wallachia)" (with the respective hyperlinks). That's plain as day to any English speaker, aged 3 and above. So that's how it should read.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Could you refer to other articles about other countries that follow the rule that you want to push? Please read WP:Edit warring Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- And what rule would that be?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- The rule that prescribes that Wallachia should be mentioned first as Țara Românească in the English version of Wikipedia. (All sources listed in the article which refer to this principality and were published in English refer to it as Wallachia.) Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- You may want to re-read what I wrote. I said that it should be named "Țara Românească" (first) in the sentence about its ESTABLISHMENT, since what was established was NOT Wallachia, but "Țara Românească", therefore it would be technically false to say that "Wallachia" was established. I think the explanation in the brackets is clear for everyone "...led to the establishment of a new principality, Țara Românească (or "Romanian Land", also known by its exonym, Wallachia)".Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a rule, this is your personal view. Wikipedia is edited in accordance with its own principles. If you cannot refer to a WP rule verifying your edit, your edit will be reverted. Sorry, I stop making comments on your remarks, because I have no time to discuss your personal rules. Borsoka (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I follow historical accuracy and clarity. What exactly is the Wiki rule you're following?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- You should follow the relevant WP conventions. "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. … The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context.". Wallachia is the English name of the country ([15]), consequently we should use it. If you continue to push your personal rules, one can conclude that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- "The same name should be used consistently" is not the same as "The same name should be used ALWAYS". The name is being used consistently in the article, so that's not "at issue" here. At issue here is the use of the name in THIS SENTENCE! It does not make historical sense to say that "Wallachia" was established because the vague term of Wallachia (as land of the Vlachs), however vaguely it was used at the time, did not refer precisely to the territory that became "Tara Romaneasca". Hence the two names are not interchangeable for the time period of the establishment of the principality. So the way that sentence was formulated above is historically accurate and it ALSO uses the term "Wallachia", which ALSO makes it consistent, as per the Wiki rules you brought up. Now you'll need to explain why the name "Wallachia" should ALWAYS be used (rather than just "consistently") or I'll revert your edit.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, I do not need to explain it. You should verify your claim by referring to reliable sources. You are on the edge of being banned from editing this article as per Swarm's remark above [16]. I stop discussing this issue with you. Borsoka (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Reliable source for WHAT? That the name of the principality was "Țara Românească" and NOT "Wallachia"? It's already in the article. That the order of the names in this sentence should be reversed? I already gave a reason for that. And, again, the way it was formulated by the other editor (and then by me) did not violate any Wiki rules by any stretch of the imagination. It just reversed the order of the names to make it historically accurate. Maybe you should call a THIRD-OPINION and calm down a bit. You also need to provide an explanation for why you reverted my edit, to me and/or a THIRD-OPINION. Again, all I'm asking for is an EXPLANATION as to why the reverse order is not acceptable. So far, I've gotten nothing.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: Please stop being aggressive towards other editors. Please stop trying to "win" argument by intimidating the other side. I understand that the current trend among some of the editors is to "win" by getting the other side banned but I'd like to ask to stop this trend, as it simply has nothing to do with the substance of the article but rather personal PoVs and grudges. And please calm down.Cealicuca (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you are also on the edge of being banned from editing this article. This is not an aggressive approach, this is a fact, based on your warring behavior. Your personal attacks, on the other hand, can be described as an aggressive approach against almost all editors who make remarks on this Talk page [17]. Borsoka (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: Please calm down, don't try to intimidate other editors and certainly don't push the discussion into a lock-down just because you can't contribute anything constructive to it.Cealicuca (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: And as a disclaimer for my "warring comments" you brought up... I am sorry you can't get a jest and a pun :)Cealicuca (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- No, I do not need to explain it. You should verify your claim by referring to reliable sources. You are on the edge of being banned from editing this article as per Swarm's remark above [16]. I stop discussing this issue with you. Borsoka (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- "The same name should be used consistently" is not the same as "The same name should be used ALWAYS". The name is being used consistently in the article, so that's not "at issue" here. At issue here is the use of the name in THIS SENTENCE! It does not make historical sense to say that "Wallachia" was established because the vague term of Wallachia (as land of the Vlachs), however vaguely it was used at the time, did not refer precisely to the territory that became "Tara Romaneasca". Hence the two names are not interchangeable for the time period of the establishment of the principality. So the way that sentence was formulated above is historically accurate and it ALSO uses the term "Wallachia", which ALSO makes it consistent, as per the Wiki rules you brought up. Now you'll need to explain why the name "Wallachia" should ALWAYS be used (rather than just "consistently") or I'll revert your edit.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- You should follow the relevant WP conventions. "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. … The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context.". Wallachia is the English name of the country ([15]), consequently we should use it. If you continue to push your personal rules, one can conclude that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I follow historical accuracy and clarity. What exactly is the Wiki rule you're following?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a rule, this is your personal view. Wikipedia is edited in accordance with its own principles. If you cannot refer to a WP rule verifying your edit, your edit will be reverted. Sorry, I stop making comments on your remarks, because I have no time to discuss your personal rules. Borsoka (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- You may want to re-read what I wrote. I said that it should be named "Țara Românească" (first) in the sentence about its ESTABLISHMENT, since what was established was NOT Wallachia, but "Țara Românească", therefore it would be technically false to say that "Wallachia" was established. I think the explanation in the brackets is clear for everyone "...led to the establishment of a new principality, Țara Românească (or "Romanian Land", also known by its exonym, Wallachia)".Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- The rule that prescribes that Wallachia should be mentioned first as Țara Românească in the English version of Wikipedia. (All sources listed in the article which refer to this principality and were published in English refer to it as Wallachia.) Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- And what rule would that be?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Could you refer to other articles about other countries that follow the rule that you want to push? Please read WP:Edit warring Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Cealicuca and Iovaniorgovan, I hope you know that the first documentary mention of the name "Țara Românească" (in Romanian language) dates back to 1521 (Neacșu's letter). 123Steller (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia. The English name of the principality of Țara Românească is Wallachia and therefore the English name must consistently used throughout the article. If you want to get technical, the Romanian name is first attested in Neacșu's Letter in 1521 written in the Cyrillic alphabet as Цѣра Рȣмѫнѣскъ or "Țeara Rumânească". The name Wallachia it is understood that Romanians were called Vlachs by other peoples and the Slavonic name of Wallachia is "Ungro-Vlachia" in contrast to the other "Wallachias" south of the Danube (Great Wallachia in Thessaly and Small Wallachia in Serbia). TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @123Steller: You may be right, but where is a preceding document stating that the principality was called Wallachia (by the inhabitants)? It seems only reasonable to assume that they called it the same. Nevertheless, unless we have a source that states that at the moment the principality gained independence the inhabitants/rulers (Barasab I in this case) were calling their own principality using the term "Wallachia" there is no reason to believe that from Basarab's independence up to Neacsu's letter the name changed (again, as they referred to themselves, not the exonym). Otherwise we may change that and add a short explanation that Tara Romaneasca is the proper name of the principality, dating at least from 1521.Cealicuca (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: Thanks for your neutral input. Though I fail to see the relevance of what alphabet was used. Nevertheless, in the context of the article I believe it is an important piece of information (that the inhabitants called their own country "Tara Romaneasca" and not Wallachia). Important enough to be mentioned at least once (while in the rest of the article Wallachia should still be used), important enough so that any user reading this should not have to "dig" through layers to find out that Wallachia and Tara Romaneasca are the same thing. After all, the article title is about Romanians, not Vlachs. So the information that Wallachia was actually called Tara Romaneasca (literraly Romanian Land) since at least 1521 is quite important considering all the controversy around here. It's a clear and undisputed piece of information.Cealicuca (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody seems to be confused that Wallachia and Țeara Rumânească are the same. A user seems to be splitting hairs over something that nobody is arguing for. Nobody is disputing that the Romanian name for the principality of Wallachia is Țeara Rumânească, but this is the English Wikipedia and thus we use the English names for places, which in this case is Wallachia. And yes, the article title is about Romanians and not Vlachs, but one can not talk about Romanians without Vlachs since the name for the people's now called Romanians were called Vlachs by the neighboring peoples. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: Yes, there seems to be a confusion. As this article is not written for OUR (editors) purposes (and none of us are confused) it should not be confusing for the casual reader (I dare say it should even try to educate...). As such, I highly doubt that the casual reader ("target audience" since this is an Encyclopedia) has any notion of Țeara Rumânească. Yet the article professes to be about the Origin of the Romanians (not Vlachs). I find it quite relevant to have it mentioned at least ONCE, clearly, how the Romanians called one of their core principality, which is tied to their origins :). "but one can not talk about Romanians without Vlachs since the name for the people's now called Romanians were called Vlachs by the neighboring peoples. " - please review this argument of your.Cealicuca (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- What was left out from this discussion, that "Țeara Rumânească" was not an official name, were not used as an official reference in any official document or administration, seems at least until 1622, but not even sure after even.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC))
- @KIENGIR: No, this is not a sensible conclusion. Official according to whom? Is there an official international medieval name for a "country"? Let me put it this way: On official Romanian documents, written in romanian, by the Romanian administration, Switzerland is referred to as Elvetia. In Switzerland, their official documents, written in their languages (French, German, Italian, Romansch etc.) they themselves have various names for their own country. I bet Hungary doesn't write Hungary in it's official documents, in Hungarian language. Moreover, official Romanian documents, issued by Romanian administration, used in international correspondence in the English language, refer to Elvetia as... Switzerland. No, Neacsu's letter is important to show that Romanians, in their own language, called the principality "Țeara Rumânească". The official name of the principality had different designations depending on the sources (one can see how the Ottoman Empire uses Eflâk, not Wallachia). This one (from 1521 mind you, long before 1622...) simply attests that Romanians, in Romanian language, were calling the principality as such. And the assumption that the inhabitants actually knew what their principality was called in their own language is a sensible one (so Neacsu didn't just invent the name), at least until someone provides a source pre-dating Necasu's letter or at least contemporary to it, that would have a Romanian referring to the principality of Wallachia (sic!), in Romanian, other than "Țeara Rumânească" (or similarly). And in the context of this article this is an important piece of information.Cealicuca (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- What was left out from this discussion, that "Țeara Rumânească" was not an official name, were not used as an official reference in any official document or administration, seems at least until 1622, but not even sure after even.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC))
- TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: Yes, there seems to be a confusion. As this article is not written for OUR (editors) purposes (and none of us are confused) it should not be confusing for the casual reader (I dare say it should even try to educate...). As such, I highly doubt that the casual reader ("target audience" since this is an Encyclopedia) has any notion of Țeara Rumânească. Yet the article professes to be about the Origin of the Romanians (not Vlachs). I find it quite relevant to have it mentioned at least ONCE, clearly, how the Romanians called one of their core principality, which is tied to their origins :). "but one can not talk about Romanians without Vlachs since the name for the people's now called Romanians were called Vlachs by the neighboring peoples. " - please review this argument of your.Cealicuca (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody seems to be confused that Wallachia and Țeara Rumânească are the same. A user seems to be splitting hairs over something that nobody is arguing for. Nobody is disputing that the Romanian name for the principality of Wallachia is Țeara Rumânească, but this is the English Wikipedia and thus we use the English names for places, which in this case is Wallachia. And yes, the article title is about Romanians and not Vlachs, but one can not talk about Romanians without Vlachs since the name for the people's now called Romanians were called Vlachs by the neighboring peoples. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- We are again making a lengthy, boring debate about two single issues. (1) Could/Should the Romanian name of Wallachia (Țara Românească) mentioned in the article? I think we could mention it. (2) Could/Should the Romanian name of Wallachia (Țara Românească) be mentioned first. I say no because it would contradict to all existing policies. And we have been discussing this issue for hours, because ...... because Iovaniorgovan is unable to understand basic WP policies, and Cealicuca enjoys participating in lengthy conversations, and we all fall into his trap. Do we need to continue this conversation or could we close it? Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think we should close the conversation. It is non issue and it's irrelevant to the subject. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- If the current phrasing remains (led to the establishment of a new principality, Wallachia (in Romanian, Țara Românească, or "Romanian Land")), I agree with closing this subject. As for how relevant it is, it's certainly relevant how people would call themselves and their medieval statehood entity, in their own language when we talk about their origins and development. It goes to show their self-identity.Cealicuca (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: Personally I don't understand the "first" thing (in general) but yes, it should be first - for practical reasons. Simply because it is more confusing to see "Wallachia" say 8-9 times and them someone says: "oh wait... the romanians called the principality Tara romaneasca, in their own language". So the current "led to the establishment of a new principality, Wallachia (in Romanian, Țara Românească, or "Romanian Land")." should satisfy your "not first" policy (?!). An no, I can definitely confirm that I do NOT enjoy having lengthy conversation. Cealicuca (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Your and the other user's rants made me think of something: If according to the Continuity theory, the ancestors of the Romanians originated in Transylvania, how come Transylvania isn't and never was ever called Wallachia or Țeara Rumânească? The original Romanian name for Transylvania was "Ardeal", which is a transliteration of the Hungarian name for Transylvania "Erdély" which means "Beyond the Forest". How come there are two Wallachias south of the Danube and one north of the Danube but it's not Transylvania? Under the Migrationist theory, this fact is explained that the reason Transylvania isn't and never was "Wallachia" was because the ancestors of the Romanians did not originate there but South of the Danube in the Balkans where two Wallachias were formed and centuries later the Principality of the Romanians was established in the region south of Transylvania but north of the Danube by Basarab I. The principality was called in Slavonic and formerly by the Romanian Orthodox Metropolis as "Ungro-Vlachia" or "Wallachia near Hungary". How does the Continuity theory explain this? TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: I don't really know, I really don't care, but you can always find WP:RS who will answer your questions. Until then it's a mystery, at best. On Wikipedia it's WP:OR. But my guess would be that it might have been called something else - it's just we have no sources stating otherwise. And no, Transylvania is not of Magyar origin. Also, you seem to have no grasp whatsoever on how things work out when naming statehood entities. Hope you'll never get to talk with some German and ask them how come they call their own country Deutschland but claim to be of German descent. Oh, you should really tone it down (the "rant" thing), otherwise people like Borsoka might take offence of your "warring" attitude. Or not, since you don't disagree with him (like never disagree with him, on anything) :)Cealicuca (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit:On another note... when you find the answer to your mystery, maybe you can tackle another. Why is it that the Unites States of America is called like that, while the american-indians claim (shamelessly, right?) to be the indigenous inhabitants? If that were so it should be called something like United States of Cherokee, Appachee and Commanche or whatever :)Cealicuca (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- To the Hungarian editors who just refuse to get the gist of the argument: this (relatively minor) dispute is over the ORDER in which the names "Wallachia" and "Tara Romaneasca" should be used in THAT PARTICULAR SENTENCE RELATING TO ITS ESTABLISHMENT. Please read the sentence I just wrote a few times and we'll all save some time. As written, it's NOT historically accurate. May not look like much to most people but I think it's an important detail. And, again, someone has yet to answer my original question: why is the sentence with "Tara Romaneasca" mentioned first and "Wallachia" second NOT acceptable? If no one answers this question satisfactorily I will apply the changes accordingly.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, Borsoka has right that this discussion leads to nowhere, making long statements because some evident basic wikipedia conventions are not understood. This discussion should be closed. This is my final answer to this subject. It is totally a sensible solution, for those who undertand WP practise or standards. Official is what is written in the native documents in the official adminstration, it has zero connection how the inhabitants would call on their own language the country, if it was not clear the debate has no connection to such, the fallacious argumentation shows as it assumes that it would have been denied...FYI, until 1622 there was a strict Slavic administration in Wallachia, this was the point contrary to the erroneus assumption.
- Your and the other user's rants made me think of something: If according to the Continuity theory, the ancestors of the Romanians originated in Transylvania, how come Transylvania isn't and never was ever called Wallachia or Țeara Rumânească? The original Romanian name for Transylvania was "Ardeal", which is a transliteration of the Hungarian name for Transylvania "Erdély" which means "Beyond the Forest". How come there are two Wallachias south of the Danube and one north of the Danube but it's not Transylvania? Under the Migrationist theory, this fact is explained that the reason Transylvania isn't and never was "Wallachia" was because the ancestors of the Romanians did not originate there but South of the Danube in the Balkans where two Wallachias were formed and centuries later the Principality of the Romanians was established in the region south of Transylvania but north of the Danube by Basarab I. The principality was called in Slavonic and formerly by the Romanian Orthodox Metropolis as "Ungro-Vlachia" or "Wallachia near Hungary". How does the Continuity theory explain this? TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think we should close the conversation. It is non issue and it's irrelevant to the subject. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- We are again making a lengthy, boring debate about two single issues. (1) Could/Should the Romanian name of Wallachia (Țara Românească) mentioned in the article? I think we could mention it. (2) Could/Should the Romanian name of Wallachia (Țara Românească) be mentioned first. I say no because it would contradict to all existing policies. And we have been discussing this issue for hours, because ...... because Iovaniorgovan is unable to understand basic WP policies, and Cealicuca enjoys participating in lengthy conversations, and we all fall into his trap. Do we need to continue this conversation or could we close it? Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- The continuity theory does not have an "explanation" for this. The same is like the Transylvanian Romanians were called as "Ungurean", as they were coming from/living in Hungary. Transylvania is the transliteration of Erdő-Elve into the official documents of the Kingdom of Hungary written in Latin. "Deutsch" is originating from Old High German so I don't think any German would meet any confusion referred above.
- @KIENGIR: It's extremely relevant how the native inhabitants were calling their own administrative entity as THIS article is about the ORIGIN of those people. On another note - what you just said about the translation is just one of the hypothesis. The Hungarian historians claim that, other historians disagree. You are here to write an article based on WP:RS not push your own WP:OR or any other agenda you may have. You view on any of the theories, just like my view on the same theories, is irrelevant. I may be less experienced than you, but both our opinions are just that. Opinions. Stop polluting the talk page with made-up arguments, aggressively pushing one self-serving PoV (evident to anyone who reads your "input" as well as some other editor's "contributions". One can barely find a paragraph where you don't complain about how mean and bad and "untruthful" the continuity theory is while at the same time how the migration theory explains everything). Stop provoking "debates" (Like you and TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit did with how continutity doesn't explain this and that while the topic was something else) - so that later on you and other editors who use the same tactic come and say that anything gets done so slow. Oh, and FYI - what I've learned from you and your club (and I thank you for this) is that I have to question everything you say. Slavic administration until 1622? Sure... WP:RS? Relevance towards Romanian origins? The German administration of WW2 Poland wasn't using the same term as the Polish did. How about the Ottomans when they occupied Hungary proper? Again - stop with this official non-sense. Yes, Wallachia doesn't go away - for sure, nobody said that. So for me it's unclear what your goal to this discussion is other than artificially inflaming it.
- Finally, if is still not clear - unfortunately - In the English Wikipedia "Wallachia" is a well-established, undebated, long-time standing reference - as well the name of the mother article in Wikipedia - and has it's coherence to the official native name of the country, while "Țara Românească" is an inofficial apellation that was not even sure that was even used in the time of the foundation in the principality, however it does not matter, since even mentioning just "Wallachia" would be totally enough in that section, however, I have no problem in this case if the Romanian name is also mentioned in brackets after it, as this a widespread practise in WP in some cases. However, naming conventions of WP is sometimes complicated for some inexperienced users may be complicated to understand since it has many aspects, rules, possibilities in differents contexts. All in all, here of course not an inofficial name fits in the first place, but the well-established Wallachia.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC))
- @KIENGIR: I really didn't want to drag this any further. I just thought we had reached a compromise, I mean even Borsoka seemed happy (or at least so far he chose not to continue with this). Yes, nobody questioned Wallachia being in that sentence. But... WHAT? "and has it's coherence to the official native name of the country, while "Țara Românească" is an inofficial apellation that was not even sure that was even used in the time of the foundation in the principality" - are you joking? Wallachia being official native? Oh, it's just some more WP:OR. As per the discussion above, Neacsu's letter clearly establishes (as in documents) that in 1521 a Romanian, in his own language, was using Tara Romaneasca. Please input a WP:RS that Romanians, in Romanian, were using Wallachia to refer to Tara Romaneasca or until that time comes stop pushing around your own PoVs as facts - that is WP:OR. And stop with this official non-sense. As per my examples already mentioned, the "official" name off a country depends on many factors, even today, more so centuries ago when a lot of the documents were written in Latin for example, in Central and Western Europe. Documented, attested... whatever. take your pick. But there is no official in the sense you're implying ("universal" official). Not even nowadays, as shown. And stop panicking - nobody said to remove Wallachia.
- "I really didn't want to drag this any further" -> Sorry, I don't believe this, and also others warned me I should not fell into this "trap" that there is a user that is inventing continous matter because of his fallacious interpretation or some other reasons to chit-chat on something, filled with various accusations and illusions. The subject had been already overdiscussed and finished also by me, I just answer to your responses personally, and after regardless what you answer, I will simply ignore this section of the talk page.
- - you completely misunderstood the things...I referred that regarding the above argumentation and the current change in question is irrelevant how the native people call their own entity, because in the English WP a well established name trials on the first place. I never said generally it would not be relavant/important "how the native inhabitants were calling their own administrative entity".
- - not I was the one who started discussions in this talk page in the past months, so I might answer if there is a discussion, well the hypothesis could not be disproved until now. Your teachings about WP:OR or whatsoever are not needed, everyone can tell his opinion in the talk page in general.
- - "Stop polluting ...... so that later on you and other editors who use the same tactic come and say that anything gets done so slow. -> Sorry, I have to laugh, you failed the recipient, I did not do such activities, on the contrary, but I think the majority of users contributing here could easily determine for wich users really these allegations would hold :-) Btw, every issue, case, context is different, but there is always a guidline and practise or consesus about namings, even if sometimes they are complicated. For Ottoman Hungary, if there is an Ottoman name used - like for eyalets - no problem having them in the first place.
- - I don't have any "club", if you are not aware how long were i.e. Slavic administration, then make an own research. Relevance was just about the discussion of the topic that went broader, it was also an information regarding when and what and how was written.
- -"So for me it's unclear what your goal to this discussion is other than artificially inflaming it." -> "inflaming" what you clearly did by your former answers, btw. I am not contributing much by majority of these discussions, not even in a quantitative way, unlike others do.
- - Finally, you should properly read and interpret sentences, above another user questioned the validity of the naming order, for that I reacted. I never said that "Wallachia" would be official or native (I said it has it's coherence). So your entire answer and it's content was totally useless and will be ignored.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC))
- @KIENGIR: I am truly sorry. I asked a native English-speaking person to "translate" the following, after explaining a little bit of the context (Wallachia = Exonym): "[...] "Wallachia" [...] has it's coherence to the official native name of the country" (as per what you wrote). The answer was: A - the person who wrote this has a poor understanding of the English language and misused (?) the terms "coherence" (?!) and "official native" (?!?) so this sentence is nonsense (we cannot infer anything from it). B - the person who wrote this sentence has a poor understanding of the English language (and used some automatic translation) but we could reasonably presume (s)he meant that "Wallachia" is (or should be? "coherence"?) an "official native" name. Maybe (s)he meant that "Wallachia" is correlated (linked? -> more suitable) with the native official name of the country, but that in itself would be presumptuous as from what you told me about the subject, it would still not matter. Wallachia would still remain the "official" name used no matter the term the locals would use, since it was different from the native name from the start - so there is no correlation to speak of. So sorry for the misunderstanding but the "coherence" is really confusing, especially with the "native name" (?). Nevertheless, I would also ask you to at least try to keep a pretense of neutrality. Having you, TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, and Borsoka proclaiming at every turn your contempt towards the Continuity Theory (and at the same time unconditional admiration towards the Immigration hypothesis) does you no good. Relax, it's holiday season. Take a long vacation, please do! Cealicuca (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- - Finally, you should properly read and interpret sentences, above another user questioned the validity of the naming order, for that I reacted. I never said that "Wallachia" would be official or native (I said it has it's coherence). So your entire answer and it's content was totally useless and will be ignored.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC))
Hyperlinking
As per Wiki rules, "What generally should be linked": Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers. Therefore, "Țara Românească", a term unfamiliar to most users should be hyperlinked since its ONLY occurrence in the article is in this sentence. This is all according to Wiki rules.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- The link to Țara Românească is a redirect to Wallachia and both proper names are mentioned in the same sentence as synonyms, consequently readers can understand their meaning. I will not comment on this issue any more and I strongly suggest you should seek assistance at Wikipedia:Teahouse, because you are unable to understand the core of basic policies. Borsoka (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I already gave you the Wiki rule above, so it looks like you're the one who can't understand basic Wiki policies. If "Țara Românească" is not hyperlinked in the sentence, the implication is that it's just a Romanian translation of "Wallachia", rather than the actual name of the principality-- as in, the actual official name of the country is "Wallachia" but the Romanians call it "Țara Românească". As I'm sure it's your intention, which is why you're opposing the hyperlink. With "Țara Românească" hyperlinked, it becomes clear that it's more than just a translation, without having to click on "Wallachia" and read another article to find out. I don't see how another hyperlink can hurt in any way, and it actually helps tremendously. Again, AS PER THE BASIC WIKI POLICY ABOVE, the name "Țara Românească" should be hyperlinked independently of "Wallachia". Alternatively, we may preserve the other wording of the sentence, "...led to the establishment of a new principality, Țara Românească (or "Romanian Land", also known by its exonym, Wallachia)", in which case we can only hyperlink Wallachia. So, it should be one of the two. If you don't agree with it, feel free to ask for Third-Opinion.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- The link to Țara Românească is a redirect to Wallachia and both proper names are mentioned in the same sentence as synonyms, consequently readers can understand their meaning. I will not comment on this issue any more and I strongly suggest you should seek assistance at Wikipedia:Teahouse, because you are unable to understand the core of basic policies. Borsoka (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)