Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

To editors that keep going back to their old habbits

I thought the administrator was clear enough - please discuss if you want to add/modify something. It seems that for some people this wasn't clear.

Izzo, Herbert J. (1986). "On the history of Romanian". In Marino, Mary C.; Pérez, Luis A. The Twelfth LACUS Forum, 1985. Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States. pp. 139–146.

I see this source used extensively. As such, would someone please provide the ISBN number so that the source is properly included in the article, as well as giving the chance for all editors to consult it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a WP:RS be freely available, it just has to be published in high-quality venues. You may ask for it at WP:RX. Also, reviews have ISSN instead of ISBN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not imply that it would be free. Nevertheless, thank you for the advice. The thinking was that since ISSN / ISBN is missing and we have one editor who is clearly using the source, then maybe this editor could help.Cealicuca (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Early archiving

Talk page is very big now and threads becoming harder to navigate. Which sections should be archived that are no more influencing active discussions? Qualitist (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I would react with the opposite, I'll list those that I consider active and should not be closed yet:

- RfC: two maps

- Nicolae Drăganu

- Transylvanian river names

- Daco-Romanian theory

- Archaeological evidence for the continuity theory

- Linguistic elements of the continuity theory

- Section 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity

(KIENGIR (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC))

Well, there is already an editor here archiving, sometimes against all common sense, but sure. Some of the less active discussions might go. I would kindly ask though NOT to archive discussions that, even though they have not seen much activity of late, they are still referenced on the boards (active discussion there). One of the editors has already archived such a discussion and imho this is not OK at all (the discussion should be archived AFTER the related board debate...).

In light of this i would nominate for archiving the following:

• To editors that keep going back to their old habbits
• Maps
• New Source
• Izzo, Herbert J. (1986). "On the history of Romanian".[...]

Thanks.Cealicuca (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 November 2018 - Add new source

Wanting to add a new source:

A concise history of Romania - Hitchins, Keith [Cambridge University Press] / ISBN 978-0-521-87238-6 (hardback); ISBN 978-0-521-69413-1 (pbk.)

Relevant chapter - "Continuity", p. 16 Cealicuca (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @Cealicuca: this page is no longer protected, you can edit it directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Map

@Iovaniorgovan:, why do you think that a map which presents one of the main theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis violates WP:NPOV? Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Because, clearly, if there's a map for IT, there should be a map for DRCT and one for AT. Anything else violates due weight, so I suggest you refrain from posting such things until we come to a conclusion on the NPOV board debate (this is the reason we got into that debate in the first place). Again, feel free to post that map when we separate the sections.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a separate section dedicated to the immigrationist theory. Please feel free to place a map which presents any other theory in the article. WP:NPOV does not say that a map presenting one of the concurring theories cannot be placed without placing other maps. Accoring to this policy (Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete), "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content." Furthermore, the caption of the map clearly shows that it present a scholary POV, so it is fully in line with Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV. As it is presented here:

The Romanians' homeland and their medieval migrations (a map presenting views proposed by scholars who accept the "immigrationist theory")

Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

My point is we're in the middle of a debate concerning this very thing, so it behooves you to wait until we reach a consensus over there before making this kind of edit. Unless you accept the proposals made there and we create separate sections as we should (and will, eventually).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The debate has been sleeping for days and no external input has been achieved. The repetition of personal POVs is not a debate. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I sought comments on the above issue on the relevant noticeboard. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hasdeu

Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu died more than a hundred years ago. Is his theory describing the Albanians as migrating Carpians is still accepted by any experts of the subject? If not, we should delete the map presenting it. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this a joke?Cealicuca (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you name experts of the Albanians' ethnogenesis who accept this theory and published their view in peer reviewed books or periodicals, as per WP:Fringe and WP:Due? Borsoka (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we should stop here. Just because it is related to Albanians (and I would like to point out that there are several statements here, not just Hasdeu's, that are related to Albania and Albanians and Albanian language) is not grounds for removal. Although I am glad and I appreciate that you begin to understand why this article would benefit of a thorough review/reorganizing...Cealicuca (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not want to remove it because it is related to Albanians, but because it presents a fringe theory. Can you name experts of the Albanians' ethnogenesis who accept this theory and published their view in peer reviewed books or periodicals, as per WP:Fringe and WP:Due? Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It does not present a fringe theory. It is an argument brought up in the development of one theory which, coincidentally, in the article is presented as a mainstream theory.Cealicuca (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If other scholars do not accept it, we can only describe it as a fringe theory. I requested a third opinion on the issue ([1]). Borsoka (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hasdeu's statement is not a theory on the Origin of Romanians, as you try to present it, but an argument used by him in order to support a theory. Good that you did. Please post the correct link to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Cealicuca (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have not tried to present it as a theory on the Origin of the Romanians. If you follow the permalink above, you will find my request listed where it should be listed. Borsoka (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"If other scholars do not accept it, we can only describe it as a fringe theory." - did anyone else said that? I thought you said that... As for your permalink - it shows a difference in revisions. The Active disagreements section contains this point: Discussion about a map in the Origin of the Romanians article. Please correct it as it's not about the map per say, but rather Hasdeu. Thank you :)Cealicuca (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read my first sentence above. Borsoka (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I removed this from the Third Opinion requests since an RfC was called (below). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:, please restore it, because the map presenting Hasdeu's theory is not subject to the RfC below. Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The map referred above is the following:

@Borsoka: Restored 3O request. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: @Borsoka:@Cealicuca:@Ryanaxp: I'm not an expert so please correct me if I've got anything wrong. As far as I can tell the map is relevant because it's part of a theory which suggests that supposed similarities found solely in Romanian and Albanian reflect a shared origin from Dacian, with the Romanian variety being later supplanted by Latin, and this would help justify the theory of continuity. There definitely seem to be a number of supporters of this idea (I. I. Russu most prominently) so I would be hesitant to exclude it entirely, even if it isn't the most mainstream view. Although most of the sources I've looked at think the theory's wrong, all of them consider it worthy of at least some kind of mention or consideration, and not just ‘outdated’ or ‘historical’. The most definitive statement comes from Lloshi (1999) who says "Among Albanian language scholars there is practically no dispute over the thesis that Alabnian is related to Illyrian" but Madgearu & Gordon (2008) disagree with this and regarding the Carpi hypothesis are willing to say things like "if Russu was right", so I don't think we can treat the hypothesis as obsolete. On the other hand, the map serves little purpose at the moment because the link between the caption ("Albanians as descendants of migrating Carpians") and the text is unclear. My non-binding opinion is that it doesn't harm anyone, even if it's probably wrong, but would only be useful if the description were expanded to explain that placing the Albanians and the Romanians in the same area is desirable because, like a number of theories, it would establish a common Dacian substrate that explain supposed similarities between the languages (and therefore support the continuity hypothesis), and that the specific theory shown doesn't currently have widespread acceptance. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

References

I lent towards keeping this because I think images make a page more colourful and approachable, but thinking it over, it would be better to take it out. The main reason is that it doesn’t really illustrate anything in the text, other than suggesting that the similarities which prompted the theory are important. The other reasons are a) neither Madgearu nor Gordon are experts in Albanian as far as I can tell, and so Lloshi’s judgement is more important than theirs, b) I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence, and c) in such a contentious article these points amount to at least a minor issue with WP:Due, so it would be better to err on the side of caution. Ultimately the map was never meant for this page, and it has its home elsewhere. Sorry for the flip-flopping. Better late than never. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I suggest that we should regard your first "vote" as the final vote in order to avoid an edit war. Yes, the theory is clearly fringe. It claims that the Dacians who were under Roman rule in Dacia Traiana for 170 years ("Daco-Romans") adopted the Latin language, but those who were under Roman rule in the Balkans for more than 300 years ("Carpo-Albanians") did not. However, Madgearu mentions it in the context of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, so it could also be mentioned here. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent: May I ask what is your opinion about the fact that the article "I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence". Is that ok?Cealicuca (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Maps

@Cealicuca:, you deleted two maps from the article, saying "The editor added maps from a cartographer without putting the work of a cartographer in the context of any of the historical mainstream theory." Please note, that the article's subject is the Romanians' ethnogenesis, and the two maps nicely shows aspects of the process mentioned in the article based on reliable sources.

Based on a reliable source, the article says, "The territories south of the Danube were subject to the Romanization process for about 800 years, while Dacia province to the north of the river was only for 165 years under Roman rule, which caused "a certain disaccord between the effective process of Roman expansion and Romanization and the present ethnic configuration of Southeastern Europe", according to Lucian Boia." The maps presents this "dissaccord". Why do you think the article does not provide enough context?

Length of the Roman rule and the Romance Languages

Based on reliable sources, the article says that "A royal charter of 1223 confirming a former grant of land is the earliest official document of Romanians in Transylvania. It refers to the transfer of land previously held by them to the monastery of Cârța, which proves that this territory had been inhabited by Vlachs before the monastery was founded. ... [In 1224] the Transylvanian Saxons were entitled to use certain forests together with the Vlachs and Pechenegs. ... References to Vlachs living in the lands of secular lords and prelates in the Kingdom of Hungary appeared in the 1270s. First the canons of the cathedral chapter in Alba Iulia received a royal authorization to settle Romanians to their domains in 1276. Thereafter, royal charters attest the presence of Romanians in more counties, for instance in Zărand from 1318, in Bihor and in Maramureș from 1326, and in Turda from 1342. The first independent Romanian state, the Principality of Wallachia, was known as Oungrovlachia ("Vlachia near Hungary") in Byzantine sources, while Moldavia received the Greek denominations Maurovlachia ("Black Vlachia") or Russovlachia ("Vlachia near Russia")." The map shows the Vlachs' territory near Cârța, the Vlachs and Pechenegs' forests and the earliest attested references to Vlachs. Why do you think the article does not provide enough context?

Spread of the Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary between around 1200 and 1400

Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. We don't get to find stuff and just put it here. This is WP:SYNTH. Has any scholar (WP:RS) that is specifically mentioning one of the theories also uses this map? Because otherwise what a cartographer does is what a cartographer does, it's quite different than a historian. And good luck trying to use the misleading and already skewed statements from this article as supportive arguments. This is not how you add context, you add context by properly citing sources (with the context that the source intended). Again, is any scholar that has a book, article - whatever about any of the mainstream theories using those maps? Post them here.Cealicuca (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, if it's related to the IT or another theory, then it should be under the proper section.Cealicuca (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Moreover (moreover) although I can find the map with the neo-latin languages, I can't find the second map...Cealicuca (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The source verifying these maps uses it in the context of the Romanians' ethogenesis which is the subject of the article. Why do you think they are related to only one of the theories? Do you think, Boia whose statement is quoted above accepts the immigrationist theory like Bereznay (who designed the map)? Bereznay is a historian, who worked as cartographer for the Historical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and conceived and compiled the entire map content of The Times Atlas of European History ([2]) Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said - first of all you should cite the work that interprets that map and gives it context. A historian's work (not a History graduate who is a great cartographer... and has no - as far as I can see on his - work published on this subject - how the ethnogenesis of the Romanians happend).

I published several critical treatises on atlases in The Times (of London) and in Hungarian language academic or other learned journals in Hungary and in the US. I published a thesis titled Civilizations towards a World Civilization that reviews the current of World History from the angle of Political Geography in Földrajzi Értesítö, and later again in'2000' (in Hungarian). I published a thesis titled Central Europe - a Western Landscape that contributes to the debate on the meaning of Central Europe and offers a coherent definition of its extent in Regio (in Hungarian).

But if I am wrong you will promptly be able to produce his work (or some other historian, not cartographer preferably) that deals with the maps you added. AND (if the maps do prove to be more than just a cartographer's self published work) those maps should be put in the proper section. If they refer to IT, then so be it - IT section it is.Cealicuca (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The map is not self-published, becuse it is based on the following book: Bereznay, András (2011). Erdély történetének atlasza [Atlas of the History of Transylvania]. Méry Ratio. ISBN 978-80-89286-45-4. We do not need to refer to other works which cite these specific maps, because we are not here to duplicate existing works, but to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. I sought a 3rd opinion ([3]), because our debate emerges from the different interpretations of WP policies. Borsoka (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia misses professionally designed maps. Bereznay's maps are excellent works. We would have to appreciate that he is willing to contribute to Wikipedia. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice that there's a discussion going on before reverting the edit? A cartographer is not a WP:RS when it comes to the History of the Romanians. Which WP:RS used that exact map? Cite work title and page number.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I withdrew the request for third opinion, because there are more than 2 editors involved in the debate. I initiated an RfC below. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

New Source

Hello,

I'd like to introduce a new source. In order to make this as smooth as possible and prevent the seemingly endless talks about WP:RS I thought best to establish first the reliability of the source. Together - group therapy :)

So, it seems to me that this source is as reliable as it gets, waiting for your input/objections.

A Concise History of Romania, by Keith Hitchins, Cambridge Concise Histories - Cambridge University Press

ISBN 978-0-521-87238-6 Hardback

ISBN 978-0-521-69413-1 Paperback

Thank you. (ETA: forgot to sign)Cealicuca (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read it yet, but it sure looks legit WP:RS. Also, you may wanna sign your comments.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

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.

---

I propose that the following sections be split into the following separate articles:

• 4.1 Written sources > Origin of the Romanians (written sources)
• 4.2 Archaeological data > Origin of the Romanians (archaeological data)
• 4.3 Linguistic approach > Origin of the Romanians (linguistic approach)

The article is too large, thus these sections could provide a short summary of the historical, archaeological and linguistic approaches. The verifiability of the "4.4 DNA / Paleogenetics" section is still debated, but later it could also be splitted into a separate article. I do not ping all users who regularly visit this page, but I inform the relevant Wikiprojects about this proposal. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the use of splitting the article, we're not exactly running out of space. The aim should be to split the theories within the article for clarity and NPOV (as already suggested here), not to blow up those sections into the Wikisphere.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• The theories are already separately discussed in the article under the subtitle "1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis", but we should reduce the size of this article instead of blowing it up. Borsoka (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It is 126k bytes. That is not very big. I am not sure if these suggested titles really meet naming conventions. Qualitist (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Neutral (as per new argument) Right now, mainly just for the reason the seeing the current tendencies there are already much debates even in this article, splitting them into three we would just export and multiply the argues, however, seeing all related material in one compact article is preferred.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC))

Agreed. This is not the correct time. Qualitist (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The prose size is 120 kb. According to the relevant rule, articles above 100 kb "[a]lmost certainly should be divided", and even articles between 60 and 100 kb "[p]robably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)" (I refer to Wikipedia:SIZERULE). The splitting of the article would probably diminish the reasons for debates, because each editor could add his/her favorite pieces of information. If the article is not splitted, almost third of it should be deleted, according to the cited WP rule. I think this would cause much more debate. Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is not long at all. 40% of the page is Notes, References, Sources, Further Reading, and External Links. It's fine the way it is for now. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• The article is getting large, but the proposed division does not seem ideal. In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruse as it is. There is a section on archaeological data "to the north of the Lower Danube". The term "Romanian" does not appear in the section. The term "Vlach" shows up (twice) in the last of 11 paragraphs. How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? Srnec (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Srnec:, thank you for your comment. What is your proposal to improve the article? Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Trim it. Present no evidence without explaining its relevance. The entire section "Historiography: origin of the theories" could go. Make it a separate article if you like, but the reader of this article wants to learn about the origin of Romanians not the origin of theories about the origin of Romanians. The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.
  Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think your suggestion to explain the relevance of evidence is absolutely logical and it should be accepted. What concerns me is the deletion of the "Historiography: origin of the theories". Most reliable sources dedicated to the subject explain the development of the theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Why should we (how could we) deviate from their approach? Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• We (perhaps) should deviate from their approach because our readership is different from theirs. The sections "Historical background" and "Historiography" are tangential to the purpose of the article. The first is partially redundant to the "Evidence" section and arguably POV unless it stops with the end of the Roman period. The second is fine but could perhaps work better as a separate article with summary section here.
  I am inclined to the position that, insofar as actual historians are divided, we should stick to presenting the theories more than the evidence. This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. Srnec (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your proposal. I agree that the "Historical background" section could be deleted. How could we deal with the situation that there is no uniform "continuity" approach? Differences in the interpretations of the facts mentioned under the "Evidence" section does not depend of the theories accepted by the scholars. So we cannot say that "historians who accept the continuity theory say...", because we should list many "continuity" historians who refute the same interpretations. We could present individual scholars' views, but it would be even more confusing. I rather propose that the concurring interpretations of the facts listed under the Evidence sections should be presented there. Borsoka (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Srnec Every independent Wiki editor who ever moderated any of the many disputes here has arrived at the same conclusion as yours: the article is a mess and is in dire need of restructuring. In fact, we've been having a discussion on the NPOV notice board about this very subject (you might want to take a quick look).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Partially Oppose Very interesting timing this proposal has :) Anyway, the list of editors not invested in this article that start to realize that the "evidence" is presented without the corresponding relevance such "evidence" has to the subject of the article (that is what the sources say it is relevant for) is getting larger and larger. While at some point it would probably make sense to split the article (but not in the categories mentioned but rather maybe an article dedicated to each theory) right now it's probably best to rather clarify and restructure it.Cealicuca (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca:. OK. Let's try it. Please choose one sentence from the Evidence section, copy it to the Talk page and explain here to where would you like to move it/them and why.

@Borsoka: aaah, nope. Not going into this game again. The conclusion underlined by several moderating editors is that the article "intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence", or that "the article is extremely abstruse as it is". Especially the "evidence" section. What I find extremely surprising is your reaction ("I think your suggestion to explain the relevance of evidence is absolutely logical and it should be accepted"), given the fact that the same observations about the article were made by several editors during the better part of an year and that you rejected (or "Sorry, I don't understand your statement") such arguments at every turn. Nevertheless, I am glad you seem to finally see what the problem is.Cealicuca (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the article presents the theories separately from the evidence. Have anybody denied this? I have several times suggested that the concurring scholarly interpretations of the same facts could be presented under the Evidence section. I still maintain that the sentences from the Evidence sections cannot be divided among the theories without seriously breaching WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You have not been able to prove that you could move a simple sentence from the Evidence section to one of the theories in accordance with WP rules. So, let's try again: please choose one sentence from the Evidence section, copy it to the Talk page and explain here to where would you like to move it and why. This is an excellent occasion to demonstrate how your proposal would work. Or if you want to choose another way to demonstrate your proposal, please do it. I only kindly ask you try to avoid writing lengthy messages. Borsoka (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope. You don't get to spin this. Several problems were mentioned, by several editors. Let me repeat one of them (since you seem to somehow respect it more as long as it's not me saying it...): "It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.". But you can argue further with your perceived breach of WP:NPOV or "neutral fact" or whatever other original term you want come up with to deflect from the core of the problem. Which is that this article has intentionally obscured sourced statements (by not mentioning the relevance of those statements according to the sources) or otherwise presents irrelevant data to seemingly support one point of view or another.Cealicuca (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

And I have several times suggested that we should mentioned the relevant scholarly interpetations of these facts. Sorry, if you do not want to demonstrate your proposal I stop discussing it. Borsoka (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't try to make this as me needing to demonstrate my proposal. Please read more carefully. This is about your proposal, this is about you not getting the point that has been made both editors interested in the subject as well as editors acting in a moderator capacity - otherwise not specifically interested in the subject. I can only thank @Srnec: for underlying the problems in such a blunt manner.Cealicuca (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that your proposal is a secret, so I do not have to take it into account when editing the article. I enjoy editing this article, so I am really grateful to you. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Again with those deflecting techniques... This is not about my proposal, it's about your proposal. And yes, it seems more and more people realize just how much you "love" to edit this article, and what this "love" of yours for this article amounts to. The sad part is that you take pride in the resulting "info dump". It is however promising that it's becoming apparent this has been done on purpose, as others have observed too - "I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence.". All in all - it's funny to see multiple editors, in a moderating role only, arrive at the same conclusion - how the content of this article is intentionally obfuscating the reader's understanding of the academic view on the matter. Cealicuca (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record: the above quote - "I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence."- is out of context. It is from a message that supported one of my proposals that you had not accepted [4]. Your methods are so boring. Borsoka (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the editor was offering a supporting argument for your proposal - don't deny that - but it's irrelevant. Him realizing that the article is the way it is - intentionally - that is relevant. As for my methods - boring is actually how you try to shift focus from how the article is now as a result of you enjoying editing it. Oh, by the way, do you have more English lessons for me? Cealicuca (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This one article is more than enough about this topic. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:10, 21 November 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.

Nicolae Drăganu

@Iovaniorgovan:, first of all, thank you for your contribution. I reverted one of your edits ([5]) and I am asking you to reconsider it. Talk page discussion shows that the use of books published before 1945 is highly debatable, according to more than one editors ([6]), because the Romanians' ethnogenesis was even more over-politcised in the 1930s and 1940s than now. I am pretty sure that Romanian historians dedicated books, articles to the origin of their nation during the last decades as well, and we do not need to cite more than 80 year old books to improve this article. If you do not agree with my revert, please seek community support. Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

So that means we should not take the Bible into account as a historical source, since it is so old, right ? Borsoka... I can't find the words to qualify you (btw my name is Mircea, not Iorgovan or Cealicuca or TGeorgescu or any other, so don't accuse them of not signing their comments and trying to offend you). I have been following this talk page for years, and I can see how you are striving towards a Hungary which should include Transilvania as its historical right, but what do you know, it is actually not your right. The bitter truth for you, my friend, is that you found us here, in these territories, and as much as you tried to "magyarize" us, you did not succeed. We are still Orthodox Christians, we still speak a language close of that of our ancestors' . These territories belong to us by our historical right, and there is Nothing you can do about it, magyar, even with your overnight pseudo-theories created by your semidoct so-called "scholars". We will die and take you with us before letting you rip even the smallest piece from our Country again, be sure of that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.130.176 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That's true, by our WP:RULES the Bible is not a reliable source for historical claims. Nor is it RS for theological claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The above anonymous comment is an exellent example of the political (or rather religious) approach of this subject. Similar fury has driven many scholars, especially in the 1930s. That is why we should ignore them. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

We have no need of editors who are extremists, radicals, nationalist propagandists or true believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka Your edits are becoming more and more disruptive but if that's how it's gonna be then so be it. The issue here is whether Draganu is still relevant today, and the answer is a clear yes. Ioan-Aurel Pop, current President of the Romanian Academy, mentions Draganu several times in his books (including a couple times in the book I quoted from above; "Romanian Identity" (2017) p. 53), but more importantly a cursory check through diacronia.ro (a contemporary peer-reviewed academic journal of linguistics) shows that Draganu's book (the one that includes the map in question) has been cited 76 times (!!) in their last 8 issues. If that's not "relevant", I don't know what is. Also probably worth mentioning the more recent (2003) bi-lingual edition of Draganu's other book "Istoria literaturii române din Transilvania de la origini până la sfârşitul secolului al xviii-lea – Histoire de la littérature roumaine de Transylvanie dčs origines ŕ la fin du xviii-e sičcle", showing again that Draganu's work is still very much relevant today. Please don't try to change the subject and cast unfounded aspersions on someone you don't know anything about. Draganu's map clearly reflects the views of DRCT scientists and will stay in the article. There's not much discussion here so I'll put the map back in. If you have any issues, feel free to escalate this debate to the proper forum.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan:, as I demonstrated above, the inclusion of this book is not consensual ([7]). Please refrain from making unilateral changes. If you think that a more than 80-year-book should be cited instead of modern scholarly work, please ask for a community opinion about this issue. Borsoka (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka I already showed that the map is still relevant today and represents current views of DRCT theorists, hence it belongs in the article. If you think otherwise, it's on you to prove that Draganu's work is not relevant anymore before deleting the map.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you have not demonstrated that the more than 80-year-old map does not present a fringe theory. The Bible is cited several times in modern scholarly works, but there are few scholars who think that God created the entire world in 6 days. Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I gave you plenty of references, feel free to check them out. I'm not interested in syllogisms so I can't help you there.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you refer to the peer-reviewed publications published during the last decades which use this more than 80-year-old map to demonstrate the presence of Romanians everywhere in the Carpathian Basin? Borsoka (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I just did, all those references in the peer-reviewed academic journal I mentioned above reference Draganu's book: the map is at the back of his book and represents an illustrated summary of the book, so a reference to the book is a reference to the map and vice-versa.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this map. You are right. We should preserve it as an excellent demonstration of DRC theory. Thank you for your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you're being facetious now. Okay, no worries. Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with the map but if I come across something better in the future I may change it. At least we have some balance now, what with your map being an excellent demonstration of IT theory. Cheers.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I love this map. I will be grateful for you till the end of my life. It is an excellent demonstration of the scholarly level of historians who accept the DRC theory. The other (modern) map also demonstrates that the theory of large Romanian communities in the entire Carpathian Basin is a well established theory among Romanian historians. I will add further material on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, just make sure to add it to the enlarged IT section (upcoming)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's be serious, I said I am not against any map, but a short reaction to some things stated here:

- "I don't think there's anything wrong with the map" -> well pretty much non-Romanian toponyms are considered by the map Romanian, however since it is indicated that who are the proponents of it, I can live with it

- "with your map being an excellent demonstration of IT theory" -> no way, medieval Hungarian documents or official records does not demonstrate any theory, it is a "snaphot" of the situation between 1200 and 1400.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC))

Well, it might be a "fact" that those are official records (no one is disputing that) but when you get into the question of "what does those records mean" then you're in the realm of theory. Why, for instance, would those be considered a record of the only Romanians living in those lands in those times? You see what I mean? Anyway, my/your opinion is irrelevant here, that's why we rely on WP:RS. Still, this "fact" is used to construct a "theory" (IT in this case). That's why every moderator has been trying to explain the same thing here, most recently @Srnec (see above): "Present no evidence without explaining its relevance."Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

What you mean is just an artificial flipbustering you suprisingly don't apply regarding other maps that you like. The map is about the Romanian settlements an territories granted to the Romanian landlords or where they are mentioned, and these are supported by official documents, there is not gap in the interpretation, the title is not "he only Romanians living in those lands in those times", or whatsoever. Such way you could accuse any other party using anything to construct a theory, what it is not relevant here, since it has not any connection to any theory. Your last sentence is just a trial to push anything to be conected a theory.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

So wait, the map "has not any connection to any theory"? If so - what is the relevance of it? Or is this another piece of "evidence", "neutral fact" etc. etc.?Cealicuca (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It is in the written sources section. It seems you ignored earlier discussions.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

It is a visual presentation of a fact mentioned in the article, in accordance with most books dedicated to the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I don't recall saying that the map doesn't reflect info in the article. I asked what is the relevance of it (is any one of you able to articulate such relevance) to the subject of the article, considering that [User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR] states that the map "has not any connection to any theory". It's a simple question - if, according to [User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR], the map has no connection to any of the theory (that explain how the ethnogenesis happen) then what is the relevance of this map?Cealicuca (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That it visually presents a fact mentioned in books dedicated to the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

ah... Please, if you would be so kind, what "books"? Can you name the sources or cite the paragraph in the article?Cealicuca (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Above, you still can find the citation from the article in a message to you: [8]. Borsoka (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean the L. Boia citation?Cealicuca (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify-- we started talking about the Draganu map. The source is unimpeachable (academic work still very relevant today, as I've already shown) so it stays in with the clear DRCT mention in the title. Nothing wrong with that. Then the conversation switched to the Settling Romanians / Autonomy map... Right? Perhaps we should move this discussion to a different section (there's a section above we've been debating this)? Also, there's an edit warring case open over the cropping of the title of that map, just so everyone knows.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You switched to that, and this discussion should not be moved anywhere, since it belongs here and covers the topic, even if you referred to something else. On the other hand what "stays" or not is dependent from our community decisions and the rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC))

And what's your argument? Please don't waste editors' time unnecessarily, if you have an issue ask for 3O or whatever. I've already made my case.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

?, I don't waste anyone's time, you should better think about it, if maybe you do this to others recently. My arguments I already told, I don't know what else you want.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC))

Transylvanian river names

@Iovaniorgovan:, would you refer to scholars who challenge significant part of the etymologies provided in the table? Please, also take into account that deleting a table is not the best solution to challenge it. I think you should also take into account that the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to the Balkans, including this article. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, in that case if I were you I'd be more careful with disruptive edits, given your long history of doing just that. Anyway, nothing less than I expected and don't take it personally. To answer your question, of course: Marius Sala, "From Latin to Romanian" (Editura Pro Universitaria, 2012), an academic work, page 27, where he argues for a Daco-Thracian origin of the following river names, Mureş, Olt, Timiş, Criş, Someş, Ampoi, Argeş, Motru, Buzău, Şiret. So, if you want that table in the article you need to clearly label it as being part of IT. I don't have a problem with it otherwise.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The table does not say that the name of those river is not of Daco-Thracian origin, so does not contradict to Sala's work. If you think I have a "long history of" disruptive edits, please do not refrain from reporting me. Otherwise, stop accusing me of disruptive editing. Borsoka (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to accuse you, you're doing a pretty good job yourself. That's some argument, I had to laugh at that. But that's not what Sala says, here's a direct quote "From whom did the Slavs settled in Dacia, and later the Hungarians, learn the names of these rivers? We can only assume they borrowed them from a sedentary indigenous population, that is, the old Romanized Daco-Thracians which by the 8th Century had become the Romanians." (p 27) So, clearly, his thesis is that those name "borrowings" weren't somehow intermediated by Slavs/Germans/Hungarians, etc (as your table represents as "fact", which is just plain wrong). In light of this please amend the table or it will be taken down.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you refer to any text in the table which contradicts the above statement? Only the Ampoi's name is presented as a borrowing from German in Romanian, but we can deal with this contradiction without deleting the table. Borsoka (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all main river names (I listed them above) and some of the tributaries are borrowed (passed down) from the Daco-Thracians directly to the Romanians (according to Sala, and also Gr. Brancus, and others), so the only way this table would work in the article is to add the IT caveat to the title. Is that really so difficult?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you name other river names from the table which are deemed not to be borrowed from German, Hungarian or Slavic, according to linguists? Borsoka (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Between Sala and Draganu (p.416-570), for instance, it's pretty much all tributaries (and I haven't even looked at Brancus yet)...Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you name other river names from the table which are deemed not to be borrowed from German, Hungarian or Slavic, according to linguists?

Didn't realize Wiki had an echo function.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. So we can conclude that the table properly summarizes the scholarly consensus about the origin of those Romanian river names. We should only mention in the table that there are scholars who think that the Romanian name of the Ampoi river was directly inherited from Latin instead of mediated by the Saxons to the Romanians (as it is presented in the table). Borsoka (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

?!! Did you read what I wrote? NONE of those tributaries' names are deemed to have been borrowed from the Slavs/Germans/Hungarians by either of those academics I mentioned.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. What is the origin of the river names Nadăș and Târnava, according to the above cited sources? (The first name refers to a river with a bank covered by reef in Hungarian, the second name describes a river with a bank where blackthorne grows in Slavic languages.) Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to prove to you that ALL those names are deemed non-derivative according to WP:RS (a couple of them might be) but I've already mentioned several (Somes, Mures, Olt, Ampoi) to which we can add Barsau, Aries, Bistrita, etc, which should suffice (I'm sure I can find more in Draganu but the burden of proof is not on me anymore)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Marius Sala does not mention the river names which are described as of German, Slavic or Hungarian origin in the table, with the sole exception of Ampoi/Ompoly (I refer to the English translation of his work: Sala, Marius (2005). From Latin to Romanian: The Historical Development of Romanian in a Comparative Romance Context. University, Mississipi. p. 17. ISBN 1-889441-12-0..) Please, do not edit WP based on your assumptions and do not try to abuse scholar's name to substantiate your assumptions. Borsoka (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You are again throwing wild accusations. My quote is directly from his Romanian edition (p 27) and I didn't add anything to it. The other river names are, as I said, from Draganu ("Between Sala and Draganu (p.416-570)..."; see above). And there are more, I just gave you enough so you understand that the general academic position of DRCT theorists is that the names of the rivers were NOT borrowed from the Slavs/Germans/Hungarians. Change the title of that table or ask for 3O or whatever.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly the theory of the supporters of the continuitiy theory, on the other hand there is no proof for their statements, the vowel shifts as well do not support these, to say nothing of, Bistrita is of Slavic origin.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

Are you serious? You obviously don't speak Romanian, else it'd be pretty obvious that those are and have always been Romanian (or Romanian-origin) names. Maybe not all of them (Bistrita is possibly/probably of Slavic origin and it's okay to mention that in the article though not in a table containing mostly names of Daco-Thracian origin according to DRCT), but clearly most of them. Anyway, as I said before our opinion doesn't matter here, it's the WP:RS that matter and they don't agree on those names being derived from the Slavs/Germans/Hungarians, hence a mention of IT needs to be made in the title.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course I am serious as always. You just reinforced that "according to DRCT", and the deriving of Slavs/Germans/Hungarians has again no connection to "IT", is has connection to linguistics mainly (as Romanian speakers in acedemic level may also notice some problems with the vowel shifts and other origin theories as others did and claiming ancient names to "have always been Romanian or Romanian origin" is again very unscientific).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

Further problems with the table: 1) the names of the main rivers (Somes, Mures, Olt) are listed, implying there's a scholarly consensus on the origin of their names-- as I've shown above, that's not the case. 2) there are, by my count, nine question marks next to some of those river names (is this done just to fatten up the list? why list those at all?); 3) in addition to some of the river names I already mentioned as being considered of Romanian-origin by DRCT scholars, there are others that DRCT scholars assign a different origin than the one listed on the table. For instance, Draganu has Lapus as being of Slavic origin not Hungarian; same with Crasna, Ilisua and Lechinta, while he has Zalau as possibly Celtic/Illyric/Roman/German but definitely not Hungarian, and Homorod as German not Hungarian, etc, etc. So you can see, there's too much debate about these names for them to be listed as a "statement of fact". So for the table to stay in the article it would need to first mention IT in the title and then also reduce (or entirely purge) all the names with the question mark since there's just too many of them proportionately speaking. All in all there are issues with at least a third of those names, and I've only consulted a couple books. Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I uphold my opinion. Reffering to Draganu is not the best, with his "etymology map" he has shown how fringe he is (Lápos and Homoród are clearly Hungarian). Crasna is rooted also by the table as Slavic, the same goes to Ilisua and Lechinta, while Zalau has really many theories but Hungarian cannot be excluded more than any other.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC))

I've already shown above that Draganu is quite relevant today (see previous thread). Crasna is represented on the table as S>H>R, rather than S>R. Again, there are too many problems with this table and I haven't even checked every name there or every WP:RS and I don't need to. I've given enough info to show that the inclusion of the table (in this state) is untenable. Perhaps at this point you should ask for arbitration of some sort, or I will amend the title to reflect IT caveat.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) The table does not say that the names of the main rivers (Someș, Mureș, Olt) are of Slavic/Hungarian/German origin. (2) Earlier you said that none of the river names in the table are said to be of Slavic/Hungarian/German origin in your books. Now you are listing some of them as such. What is the truth? (3) The table describes the names of the rivers Crasna, Ilisua and Lechinta as of Slavic origin. Nobody denies that they are of Slavic origin. The Romanian form of the Ilisua and Lechinta show that the Romanians' ancestors did not directly borrowed them from the Slavs. (4) The table lists the name of the river Zalău as of uncertain origin. The "ău" ending of the Romanian version is a typical ending in Romanian loawords of Hungarian origin. (4) Draganu's book published in the 1930s should not be cited here. What is the Slavic world from which the name of Lapus allegedly developed? (The Hungarian version of its name, Lápos, clearly refers to a muddy river.) What is the German world from which the name of the Homorod allegedly developed? (The Hungarian version of its name, Homoród, refers to a shallow river.) (5) If you find modern books substantiating that the name of Lapos is of Slavic, the name of Homorod is of German origin, we can add these pieces of information to the table which is destined to list the major river names of Slavic, Hungarian and German origin. Borsoka (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

1) No, the table implies that. Since they're not of Slavic/Germanic/Hungarian origin then take them out and simply list the tributaries. 2) I said none of the ones I'd already listed, which you failed to read correctly and wrongly assumed I was agreeing with the inclusion of the table. 3-5) I don't need to argue about this, I just brought up WP:RS to do that since this is Wikipedia (feel free to consult the sources for your own amusement/enlightemenmet if you wish). Draganu, as I've already shown, is as relevant as ever. Again, there are just simply too many question marks around this table for it to be presented in this article (at least in this form). Amend, delete, or ask for arbitration.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) The table does not imply or suggest that, because there is no "(G)", "(H)" or "(S)" after their names. However, I modify the table to make it more clear. (2) You clearly stated that none of the tributaries' name "are deemed to have been borrowed from the Slavs/Germans/Hungarians by either of those academics" here [9]. What is the truth? (3)-(5) If you want to refer to books published in the 1930s and containing fringe etimologies, you can ask for comments from other editors. Borsoka (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

1) Of course it's implied since that's what the title says, and those are river names. 2) I think you're lacking in reading comprehension skills... I said none of those, as in those I'd already mentioned. Should be obvious since I've already said I didn't check every single name on the list. In any event, who cares what I think or what you think? Let's leave it to the WP:RS who clearly put huge question marks on that entire table. Add to that "Ampoi", which Draganu dedicates several pages to (490-494) and convincingly proves it's of Daco-Roman origin and directly preserved its original name (Ampei) via Romanian. Again, I'm sure there are others as well, won't bother to go through the whole list. I've already given enough examples already from unimpeachable academic WP:RS, in both Marius Sala and Nicolae Draganu. p.s. okay, I see you added the little note on Ampoi at the bottom, just goes to show I had to use a microscope to spot it.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I think there is no point in continuing our discussion. If you think something should be modified, please seek assistance from third parties. Borsoka (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the table is coming down. Since you're the one trying to force-feed us the fringey, you should ask for help. Good luck.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I called for 3rd opinion ([10]). I think it is quite clear that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Good, hopefully you'll learn to stop presenting information as "fact" when WP:RS disagree. That's violating Wiki rules and not conducive to building an encyclopedia.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit and the rest of the Hungarian Wiki shock brigade, please refrain from edit wars while there's a 3O case pending (see above).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence for the continuity theory

Section 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity contains the following sentence: "Archeological finds show without a doubt the presence of Romanized and early-Romanian populations North of the Danube between the 4th and 9th Centuries", implying that all scholars who accept the continuity theory share this view. However, works written by Romanian scholars contradict this impression. For instance, Alexandru Madgearu writes the following: "The existence of a Slavic population in early medieval Transylvania is indisputable. ... The presense of Romanians in Transylvania poses somewhat different problems. ... Linguistic data ... suggest the existence of speakers of Romanian in the vicinity of the salt mine district. This is indeed important, for it is very difficult to distinguish between "Slavic" and "Romanian" pottery or dress accessories. In most cases, archaeology can only identify cultural groups that, unlike Avars or Magyars, were not of nomadic origin. The wheel-made pottery produced on the fast wheel (as opposed to the tournette), which was found in several settlements of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, may indicate the continuation of Roman traditions." (Madgearu, Alexandru (2005a). "Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania". In Curta, Florin (ed.). East Central & Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The University of Michigan Press. pp. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6.).

The same section of the article also writes: "Between the 5th and 7th century the Daco-Romans develop a new and unitary culture known as Ipotești-Candești (in Muntenia), Brateiu (Transylvania), and Costișa-Botoșani (Moldavia)", based on a book published in the 1970s. The context of the sentence suggests that this interpretation of the archaeological finds represents the view of all scholars who accept the continuity theory. However, the Romanian historian Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu says that "Overall, for the 5th-7th centuries on the present-day territories of Romanian and Republic of Moldova, the first Slavic remains were identified in the cultural environment of Ipotesti-Ciurelu-Candesti (south of the Carpathians) or Costisa-Botosanu-Hanska (east of the Carpathians). Romanian specialists consider that the two cultural groups are stongly related to the "Bratei-Taga-Biharea" vestiges in Transylvania. In their development, these communities experienced a phase that pre-dated the contact with the Slavs..., dating from the second half of the 5th century... ... [T]hese cultural groups could represent the autochtonous Romanic population that would later assimilate the Slavs. ... A constant argument brought in favor of the Romanic origin of the Ipotesti-Ciurelu-Candesti-Botosana culture was the presence of Roman-Byzantine imports and materials, but the local production of such artifacts was also attested. .. There are yet other possibilities to expoain the presence of these artifacts, especially in the areas neighboring the empire. Certainly, they were related to the contacts between the Slavs and the Roman-Byzantine environment..." (Opreanu, Coriolan Horaţiu (2005). "The North-Danube Regions from the Roman Province of Dacia to the Emergence of the Romanian Language (2nd–8th Centuries AD)". In Pop, Ioan-Aurel; Bolovan, Ioan (eds.). History of Romania: Compendium. Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies). pp. 126–127. ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4.)

We can conclude that "continuity scholars" are not unanimously convinced that the archaeological evidence for their theory is without doubt. They even challenge the "evidence" so far presented by their collegues. @Iovaniorgovan:, please modify your text in order to present a fair picture of the opinion of scholars who accept the continuity theory. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The citation I put in is from the "Bible" (published in 1994, not the 1970s) of academic archeologists. It refers to the early Slavic migration (pay attention to the time period mentioned in the text). Moreover, it doesn't need to represent the view of all scholars, just most scholars, which it does, as Opreanu himself states "Romanian specialists consider that..." Opreanu doesn't deny that view either, he simply says that there may be other possibilities. The view presented in the article need not be unanimous (no theory is ever accepted by all scholars) so we don't need to present any "fringe" or "outlier" view, even by a scholar, that's not in line with Wiki guidelines. We only need to present the mainstream theory as clearly explained in these Wiki guidelines ("Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. 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") Finally, I'm not done editing, consider this a "work in progress" which might take some time to finish.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan:, we cannot claim that a book published in 2005 and edited by Ioan-Aurel Pop, who is now the president of the Romanian Academy of Sciences, presents a marginal PoV. Consequently, we cannot state in the article that scholars who accept the continuity theory unanimously say that its archaeological evidence is "without doubt". Furthermore, we cannot claim in the article that all continuity historians say that only Romanized elements could produce high-level artefacts if this view is not universally accepted by historians who accept this theory. Borsoka (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take out "without doubt" even though that's directly from the text, but I see your point. As for those artifacts, that's the opinion of the archeologists who dug them out and studied them, and it refers to the specific artifacts belonging to those cultures, it's not some general statement for all artifacts of all ages, etc. It's specific so that won't be changed. And, again, no one claims that all scholars believe this or that... I could pick every statement from the IT section apart and show you scholars who disagree. We're supposed to present the mainstream view (as per Wiki guidelines mentioned above) not some unanimously agreed upon theory (if such a thing even exists).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, the problem is not solved. We should mention that there are scholars who accept the continuity theory, but say that there is no archaeological evidence for it. If a scholar say -1 and an other scholar say 1 we cannot claim that scholars say 0,5 or 0. Borsoka (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you may need to re-read the Wiki guidelines above ("Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented", etc). Feel free to ask for 3O if you're unsure.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan:, works written by mainstream historians (such as Olteanu and Madgearu) prove that the archaeological evidence for the continuity theory cannot be taken for sure, but the article presents it as an evidence deemed undeniable by all "continuity" scholars. Sorry, but I must change the text if you do not modify it, because for the time being it does not present properly the "continuity" scholars' different views about archaeological evidence. Borsoka (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka No, Olteanu's inclusion in that large anthology doesn't even present an opposing view, while he clearly states that "Romanian specialists consider that...", thus acknowledging that his view (which is not even a theory, just an attempt at looking at it from other angles) is not mainstream and is in fact a "minority view". As for Madgearu, you've purposely misrepresented his view which, in any event, does not refer to the time period in question here. Madgearu refers to the 8th-10th centuries, whereas the article refers to 5th-7th centuries. Even so, his view is not exactly what you made it out to be but that's not for discussion here since we're talking about different time periods. That said, your objections are null and void. Again, feel free to ask for 3O if the confusion persists.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You claim that continuity scholars regard the archaeological assemblages unearthed at Ipotești-Candești, Brateiu, and Costișa-Botoșani as an evidence for a unitary Daco-Roman culture. However, this is not true. Opreanu's view was published in a book edited by Ioan-Aurel Pop (who is the author of one of the sources that you cite). Do you think Pop (the president of the Romanian Academy of Sciences) contributes the publication of marginal views? If you can prove this, do it at a forum of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The overwhelming view of Romanian scholars is that that particular culture is clear evidence of continuity. Opreanu is "just" a researcher/lecturer, not a member of the Academy or a University Professor, etc, and his views are "marginal" in the context (though of course he's entitled to his own opinion). What he published was just an "article" in a massive anthology co-edited by Pop some 15 years ago. So, it was not a book, monograph, or anything of consequence written by this researcher. By his own admission, his view is held by a "tiny minority" (of one), which according to Wiki guidelines should not be represented. If you believe that his view (whatever it is, it's not even clear that he opposes the "mainstream view) has made great strides within the DRCT field, then please provide the sources that prove that. It's on you to prove that Opreanu's opinion is represented within the DRCT field to a degree that it warrants a mention in this article. But, of course, you can't because he hasn't been that influential (not at all). So, again, seeing as the burden of proof is on you, feel free to appeal to conflict resolution as you see fit. I won't make any more comments here because I've already started repeating myself ("Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented", etc).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

However, Olteanu is an archaeologist. Alexandru Madgearu likewise debates that undisputable archaeological evidence for the continuous presence of the Romanians exists (I referred to him above). Similarly, Florin Curta (an archaeologist who flatly refuses István Vásáry's migrationist views) stated that there is no undisputable archaeological evidence for the presence of Romanians in Transylvania at the end of the 9th century (Curta, Florin (2001). "Transylvania around A.D. 1000". In Urbańczyk, Przemysław (ed.). Europe around the year 1000. Wydawn. DiG. pp. 141–165. ISBN 978-837-1-8121-18.). I referred to 3 archaeologists, you cited one historian. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Many people are archeologists. Are they Academics? University Professors? The books I cited are written by some of the greatest academics within the DRCT field. Did you even bother to look at the citation? The author is a major Archeologist (he wrote the "Encyclopedia of Archeology and Romanian Ancient History"). You've misrepresented Madgearu's views and he's talking about a different period (8th-10th ten) so quit bringing him up. Curta talks about the period in question (5th-7th can) but not in the context of questioning "continuity", he just claims that "it is possible that a 'Slavic' ethnicity was invented by Byzantine authors in order to make sense of the process of group identification" (that is, the Sclavenes mentioned in sources may not be Slavs). That has nothing to do with the continuity of the Daco-Romans on the territory, it just proposes another minority view (by his own admission) on one aspect of the archeological finds. Whether the Sclavenes were Slavs or just another sub-group is inconsequential to Daco-Roman continuity. Again, another "minority" view not worth mentioning as per Wiki guidelines.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) Curta in his study quoted above does not write of the Sclavenes. He specifically writes of Transylvania in the 9th and 10th centuries. His study was published in a book edited by one of the leading Polish archaeologists, Przemysław Urbańczyk. Curta's books are regularly published by Cambridge University Press. (2) I quoted Madgearu's words stating that archaeologically Romanians cannot be distinguished from Slavs in Transylvania. There is not misrperesantation. (3) If the 8th and 10th centuries are out of the scope of the detectable elements of the evidence for the continuity theory, the article should not state that "Archeological finds (at Apulum, Napoca, Romula, Hărman, Lazu, and many other sites) show a strong presence of Romanized and early-Romanian populations North of the Danube between the 4th and 9th Centuries." Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

1) Curta's paper has nothing to do with what is in the article. His paper (which anyone can read here) is specifically about Gelu's alleged castle at Dabaca, it only covers 10th-11th centuries, as stated in the title "Transylvania around A.D. 1000" and it says nothing of the sites mentioned in the article (covering a previous time period). 2) This is what Madgearu says about the Ipotesti-Candesti-Ciurel culture: "the ceramics belonging to the Ciurel culture are profoundly different from the material culture of the Slavs in 6th-7th centuries" (work cited in the article, "Continuitate si Discontinuitate La Dunarea de Jos, Sec VII-VIII, p. 117). So I don't even know what your point is or I will gladly file for 30.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) Curta's paper deals with the archeological evidence for the presence of Romanians in the 9th-11th century. (2) Please read my above quote from Madgearu, he cleary states that "Slavic" and "Romanian" artefacts cannot be distinguished. (3) I changed the timeframe in the article in accordance with your above remarks which deny that the period after the 7th century is covered. Sincerely, I do not understand your messages: first you stated that the periods end in the 9th century, later you claim that Madgearu's and Curta's references to the 9th century are out of scope. Borsoka (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Linguistic elements of the continuity theory

Section 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity of the article contains the following text:

"The formation of the Common Romanian language from Vulgar Latin started in the 6th or 7th centuries and was completed in the 8th century. Common Romanian split into four variants (Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) during the 10th-12th centuries. Unlike other Romance languages, the Romanian subdialects spoken to the north of the Danube display a "remarkable unity". Primarily the use of different words differentiate them, because their phonology is quite uniform. The "essential Romanian vocabulary is to a large degree Latin", including the most frequently used 2500 words. Around 20% of the entries of the 1958 edition of the Dictionary of the Modern Romanian have directly been inherited from Latin. 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. Some variants of the Eastern Romance languages retained more elements of their Latin heritage than others. Linguist Gabriela P. Dindelegan underlines that contacts with other peoples has not modified the "Latin structure of Romanian" and the "non-Latin grammatical elements" borrowed from other languages were "adapted to and assimilated by the Romance pattern"."

The inclusion of these sentences in this section suggests that these facts are denied by scholars who do not accept the continuity theory. However, these are neutral facts, no scholars deny them. Significantly, one of the scholars who are cited, Paul Wexler, expressed his doubts about the continuity theory. Olga Mišeska Tomić does not say either that she is a follower of the continuity theory. Consequently, these sentences should be deleted from the 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity. (An alternative could be to repeat them under the two sections dedicated to the other two theories, but it would be strange.) @Iovaniorgovan:, please delete these sentences from section 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Chill out, man, I'm working on it right now. Do you have to chime in every 5 minutes? Wait a day and then go over the edits. What's the rush?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So just to be clear: No, the inclusion of this in the DRCT does not suggest that these facts are denied by IT scholars, it just presents the mainstream view of the DRCT scholars, and that view also includes the Linguistic aspect (which is included here and will probably be slightly expanded in the future). The section is not titled "Views only Daco-Roman Continuity scholars hold", but "Theory of Daco-Roman continuity". If other scholars agree or disagree with these statements is irrelevant. We still need to present the theory in all its aspects. As for the Wexler reference, yeah, I'll take that sentence down, I can easily find something to replace it.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No, this presentation claims that a view accepted by all specialists is accepted by only a group of them. I suggest these sentences should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

These sentences will not be deleted. Linguistics are a major part of a theory and will be represented in this section. Eventually, the "Linguistic Approach" section at the bottom of the article will become redundant as info is being moved into the main sections at the top. As per above, feel free to ask for 3O.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka Please refrain from unilaterally reverting my edits, especially since there's a discussion going on here and I already asked to you seek help (3O) if you're in doubt. You can't just bludgeon the process as you please. Same goes with that tag I noticed you put on top of the DRCT section. You can't just put that up there because you say so. It can stay while you're in the process of seeking Wiki arbitration of some sort, but it can't be there simply on an editor's whim. So unless you proceed with the proper Wiki channels it'll be removed.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No, this not a discussion, because you do not address my problem. Instead, you are trying to presents generally accepted facts as scholarly views which are exclusivelly proposed by scholars who support one of the theories. If you think, this approach is in line with WP guidlines, you can choose among the several forums of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please remember that the introductory text of the same section (Section 1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis) clearly states that the "Romanians ... speak a language descended from the Vulgar Latin that was once spoken in south-eastern Europe", so this piece of information is already mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A little bit of redundancy never hurt anyone. Besides, as I already mentioned above, we're in the process of restructuring the article and some redundancy is unavoidable. Read carefully the title of that section. It reads "Theory of Daco-Roman continuity". A big part of that theory is the field of Linguistics, which is what I'm attempting to present here as part of that theory. One cannot explain that the Slavic influence on the Romanian lexicon did not begin until the 9th century without first explaining what the Romanian lexicon consists of. That's how a theory is presented properly. If it's still not clear to you, please do whatever is necessary to achieve clarity.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not need to repeat that Romanian descended from Latin, because this piece of information is already mentioned in the article. If you think that WP supports the presentation of redundant information, please try to defend this view at a forum of Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Please remember WP:3RR: edit war may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Same applies to you. Please go ahead and call for 3O, dispute resolution, etc, looking forward to it.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I have several times called for dispute resolution. You can check it above in this Talk page. However, this case is so obvious, that I do not want to steal time from other editors. If you think that the common linguistic elements of the three theories should be presented under a section dedicated to one of the theories, you should defend your case. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to defend anything. I'm just presenting a theory as per WP:RS and other Wiki guidelines. Read the title of the section. It says "Theory of Daco-Roman continuity", and that's clearly what is being presented. What's to defend? That there's a Linguistics component to the theory?!! If you think your objection is so obvious then please make your case to whatever forum you please, and quit wasting everybody's time.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The article shows that the development of Romanian from Vulgar Latin is the key element of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, according to all theories. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue. Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka Please refrain from edit warring or making any changes to this section while awaiting 3O.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I see you decided to steal time from other editors. I can wait. Borsoka (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

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.

---

Due to Iovaniorgovan's editing the article is now getting more and more unbalanced, biased. Important sections have been deleted, modified without any consensus. He has no idea what consensus or neutrality means. His sources are questionable (IMHO) because their contents imply a hidden political agenda (e.g. the topic "origin of the Romanians" have nothing to do with 20th century events and there is no need to emphasize the "linguistically sacred unity" of those Romanian lands --> I refer to Felecan's statements). It seems that this user simply disliked the "Linguistic approach" section and the solution of his problem was to initiate mass deletion.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

There's already a discussion about this above, you might want to read that first. I won't repeat the arguments here, other than to say that the restructuring of the article is the result of months and months of talking and taking into account the suggestions of the neutral moderators (again, see above). Moreover, you have yet to explain how exactly the article is getting "biased" in your view. There's a DRCT section, an IT section, and an AT section, all of which can be populated with WP:RS, so there's a proper balance in place. What are the "questionable sources" you're referring to? All WP:RS are properly vetted and quoted and when the other Hungarian editor (KIENGIR) raised some questions about an edit it was promptly corrected (along with an explanation). The content in that "Linguistic approach" section had become redundant in light of the expansion of the theory sections at the top of the article and, besides, there's already a Wiki page dedicated to that very subject, making it doubly redundant. Finally, if you think there's a "neutrality" issue with the article please make a case for it on the proper NPOV noticeboard.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your disagreement does not mean you may override the rules of our comunity. Fakirbakir does not have a necessity to raise something in the talk page (anyway he made a comment there), i.e. if he sees other's comments who clearly tell if there was no conensus for something, and yes I read his comments and even if they were short, he also expressed his opinion. To always repeat the "restructuring" and "moderators suggestions" still does not mean you would have the right to turn again BRD upside down with edit warring. If it would be "redundant" or any modification is advised to be done, not blatant deletion is the solution, the community in spite of this may decide i.e. what parts to keep, how to merge or expand, relocate or delete etc. So yes, you are doing unilateral changes without consensus, regardless how you try to explain it out.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC))

Really? Here's the Wiki guidelines "Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement. Instead, explore alternative methods, such as raising objections on a talk page or following the processes in dispute resolution."Iovaniorgovan (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Again you act if you would not undestand...earlier it was already discussed in the talk, despite you made the deletion without community consensus. Again you are turning BRD upside down, and not willing to understand...you was explained about it soon ten times....

About what you did with the map - again without consensus -, although this was also discussed earlier - since you repeated again similar concerns, seems not willing to understand the earlier answer, a pinpoint again:

1) I don't have to move it to the IT section, since the map has not any connection to the IT theory, consequently I don't have to find an RS that would say "those were the only/first Romanians/Vlachs living in those lands at the time...", since

a, an RS was already shown before the RFC, and nobody stated only there would live Romanians, or in the Romanian settlements would not even live one Hungarian or Saxon or Slav, considering the map depicts villages with Romanian majority or founded to be a Romanian village

b, In order to take consideration your concern, we put the text like "according to the official documents of the Kingdom of Hungary recorded between etc.", so it clearly tells on what ground it was based and it has not any connection to any theory, it is the simple administration.

2, about this concern of yours, it is already in the map, is depicted in the legend what is meant under the word and in Máramaros it is written who and why runs the affairs

Thus, as earlier also discussed, there is no reason to move the map.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC))

Iovaniorgovan, I did read the discussion above, the discussion which is an endless senseless mess. You want a change in the article but are unable to listen to other editors'opinion. You are just repeating yourself and ignoring others. You should listen to Borsoka's opinion who has maintained this article for years. Just take a look at your editing. What you have done so far is to create an unbalanced biased article. It is a continuous attempt to lengthen, confirm, justify the "continuity theory" and to deliberately diminish other scholarly views and of course, to delete other editors' contributions. The section of "Linguistic approach" hasn't become redundant, it is only your POV. Moreover, you should not care about other editors' nationality. I tend to think that the article should be restored to its former state. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I and other editors have already been through the Wiki arbitration processes several times and what is listed above are the independent moderators' suggestions, which we're now following. If you think there are any issues with the current edits please feel free to resort to due process.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you have not went thorugh the Wiki arbitration processes. You made unilateral changes. Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

All independent editors/moderators' suggestions listed above are the result of numerous arguments we've been having here, and they count for something (a lot, in fact, since they're unanimous in their views). I chose to abide by those suggestions, whereas you chose to ignore them. Now please feel free to escalate this to whatever forum you may deem necessary to clear up the issue. You agreed to the independent editor's suggestion for "present no evidence without explaining its relevance" and yet you keep reverting my edits. You even reverted my caption tying that Map of Romanian Settlements to the IT. So, seeing as that piece of "evidence" has no relevance to any of the theories, why is it there?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's forget, that some of the statements that you quote from editors allegedly supporting your proposals, are in fact neutral statement, without taking side in the debate. However, you should read my edits before making comments on them: they are fully in line with the proposed approach, because they provide the relevant context of each facts. I will be following this approach when editing. Borsoka (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I have read your edits and the article is no different than before. It's just a "data dump" with no context and in violation of NPOV so it'll just keep being reverted until it's in line with the moderators' suggestions. Again, feel free to ask for arbitration. I already have, several times, and the moderators' suggestions are listed above.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You should read it more carefully, because there are significant differences between this version and the version before your unilateral edits. Please read also the Talk page above: several discussions were initiated by me and I provided a text before starting to rewrite the article. This approach is fully in line with the procedural suggestions made by one of the "moderators". Furthermore, the text I proposed is fully in line with the suggestions made by the "moderators". On the other hand, you made unilateral changes, ignoring the procedural suggestions. Please do not continue the edit war, because it may have serious consequences, especially because administrators may impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit this article. Borsoka (talk) 17:20, 26 November 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.

Moderator

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.

---

Iovaniorgovan you speak of a moderator. Who's the moderator? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Read the thread above.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not become any wiser by reading it. Which username has the so-called "moderator"? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• How an editor characterizes the content of the article: [...] In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruseIovaniorgovan (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC) as it is. [...] How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? [...]
• An editor's suggestion on how the article should look like: [...] This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. [...]
• An editor's description of sections in the article: [...] The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. [...]
• How another editor describes the article: [...] I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence [...]
• Another editor's take on how confusing the content of the article is: [...] 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.[...]
• Again, the same editor providing a reader's perspective: [...] 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. [...] Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think that Srnec would be a moderator of this dispute? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you need official titles now? If so, please appeal to what you consider an "official moderator" if you have any issues.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't use the word "moderator" like you do. It's reserved for WP:DRN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Then maybe that's where you'll need to take it.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline. My job was that everybody understands the WP:RULES. After these got explained at length, it's no longer my business. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, I understand. I choose to abide by the independent editors/"moderators"' unanimous suggestions. Others don't, so it's on them to seek further recourse and kick it up to the higher authorities, as it were.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you did not choose to abide by the independent editors. You made unilateral changes ignoring a series of WP policies, especially WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. As I mentioned above, we should clearly improve the article in accordance with the suggestions above, but we cannot base our edits on our own rules. Borsoka (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

All independent editors/moderators' suggestions listed above are the result of numerous arguments we've been having here, and they count for something (a lot, in fact, since they're unanimous in their views). I chose to abide by those suggestions, whereas you chose to ignore them. Now please feel free to escalate this to whatever forum you may deem necessary to clear up the issue. You agreed to the independent editor's suggestion for "present no evidence without explaining its relevance" and yet your edits run counter to that statement.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's forget, that some of the statements that you quote from editors allegedly supporting your proposals, are in fact neutral statements, without taking side in the debate. However, you should read my edits before making comments on them: they are fully in line with the approach proposed above, because they provide the relevant context of each facts. I will be following this approach when editing. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Forget what?! The "moderators" made their views clear and we're supposed to take them into consideration. They're not "neutral" in the sense that "either way is fine". Have you even read them? And, no, the new edits are even worse than before. Total "data dump" that has no place in this article and will be corrected a.s.a.p.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Please read my message more carefully: "some of the statements" are not equal all statements. "Data dump" has no place in this article, however a neutral summary of the relevant theories and a neutral summary of relevant facts and their concurring interpretations is fully in line with WP policies. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 26 November 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.

Duplications

@DalbozDuncanthrax:, we do not duplicate information in the same WP article, because WP is an encyclopedia. Pop's PoV is presented in the article based on the English version of his study. ([11]). Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Why did you write me here? DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Because of your previous edit and edit summary ([12]). Borsoka (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The lack of modern Atosomal genetis researches

We can see only outdated backward so-called Y DNA marker reserarches in this topic. Only Autosomal DNA can really prove and disprove egenetic relationship and it is the only tool to determine genetic distance of various populations. It is also the only method to show detailed genetic admixture of various populations. According to autosomal genetic researches and genetic admixture , it is extremly hard to distinguish Romanians from their true cousins, the Bulgarians and Southern Serbians.--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please remember you cannot edit WP. Borsoka (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't remember. Have you ordered the DNA kit to analize your Genetic origin? Did you upload the genetic data file to Gedmatch company for a better research? Szeged boy, did I have right that you are genetically Serbian rather than Hungarian?--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Your messages are always entertaining, but sorry, you were banned from the community, so I cannot continue this conversation. Stop editing this page. Borsoka (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

MAybe you confused me with sy. Have a nice day Serb boy!--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Oláh, Szamosközy

@LordRogalDorn: why do you think we should mention two Humanist historians in the section dedicated to the "First references to Romanians"? Do you think there is no written sources about the Romanians before the 16th century? If we want to mention Oláh and Szamosközy, we should list them among the other Humanist historians, because Oláh and Szamosközy repeated their ideas, invented in the 15th century. Please read WP:Source: we cannot establish two 16th-century historians' relevance in the context of the article on their own works. You should refer to a peer-reviewed academic work to mention them. Please also remember WP:3RR. 14:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Because the two Humanist historians talk about the Origin of the Romanians. I did not remove your mention Oláh and Szamosközy among the other Humanist historians, my aim however was to list the direct quotes themselves, as direct quotes or documents are better than the interpretations of various people. Because are interesting for readers. Can you further explain what you main in the last part? I provided the sources. I did not say or imply that they are the first written sources, I was not making that point, so why are you asking me this? How, so? The page is called Origin of the Romanians. The two 16th-century historians are talking about the Origin of the Romanians. It cannot get more relevant than that. I read WP:Source but I don't understand what part you disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

We are not here to present our own interpretation of facts, but to present scholarly views about specific subjects. I still do not understand why do you think we should quote texts from all Humanist historians' books. I again suggest you should read WP:Source, WP:NOR and WP:DUE. Your edits will be deleted if they are not in line with our community's policies. Borsoka (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

They are not my personal interpretation of facts. How could they ever be? They're quotes. By their very nature, quotes do the exact opposite of allowing personal interpretation of facts. I have explained it twice, the short version is that they are an improvement to the page, I don't understand why you think we should not. I again ask you to be specific, if your reason for being against it is a full wikipedia page, and you will not explain what part is related to this edit and where, I cannot give you a proper answer, my mind-reading abilities are limited. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was clear, but I summarize my concerns again. 1. That Humanist historians believed that the Vlachs, or Romanians, had descended from the Roman colonists in Dacia is mentioned and emphasized in the article in section "Historiography: origin of the theories". 2. We cannot quote all Humanist historians' texts, because WP is an encyclopedia, requiring summary style. 3. We cannot refer to two Humanist historians' own works, because they were not peer-reviewed. They are primary sources and we should verify their relevance in the article's context with a reference to a reliable source. 4. We cannot present Oláh and Szamosközy in section "First references to the Romanians", because hundreds of medieval and early modern historians had mentioned the Romanians. So I think that Oláh and Szamosközy could be listed in section "Historiography: origin of the theories", among other Humanist historians accepting Bracciolini's views about the Romanians' ethnogenesis, provided that a reliable source verifies their importance in the context of the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

1. I see, can you please fix the citation needed part? I don't really know how to attach it. The sources are: Analecta lapidvm vestvstorum et nonvllarvm in Dacia antiqvitatvm for the former, and Hungaria sive de originibus gentis, regionis, situ, divisione, habitu atque opportunitatibus for the latter. 2. I have seen primary sources on numerous other wikipedia pages, I don't think adding 3 extra lines will make this Wikipedia page less of a summary. 3. It also helps the reader due to the nature of this page, since there are 3 theories out of which 2 are the main ones, the reader can see the primary sources for himself rather than rely on trusting the editor. It's no secret that while Wikipedia is viewed as a good source of information, is also viewed as far from a mistake-proof one due to it's open nature. Personally, whenever I research a subject, while I read peer reviewed books, I always prefer primary sources because they are less inclined to bias, even if the author of the primary source can be biased, his bias can be seen in the context of that time, where as modern historians' bias is in the context of the present, and what do we do when we have 2 peer reviewed works that contradict each other? And since the quotes in question are from books written by the people mentioned, they are academic publications. Considering WP:PRIMARY, I am not making any personal interpretation of these primary sources, but simply listing them as they are without adding my personal opinion on the matter. 4. I agree, their quotes are best listed in "Historiography: origin of the theories". 5. You raise a good question, the "First references to the Romanians" section lacks the first references to the Romanians, should I look for the actual first references? LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS. We tend to dismiss sources older than 50 years and 100 years old sources are seldom accepted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I see, however, WP:HISTRS states: Historical scholarship is generally not: Any primary source; however primary sources may be used in accord with the WP:Primary rules. WP:Primary rules were considered in the previous comment. LordRogalDorn (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

1. We could hardly refer to the two Hummanist scholars' own work, because it would be original research. For instance, we could not state that the Hungarians were descended from the Scythians based on medieval and early modern chronicles, although this was a common place in medieval and early modern historiography. 2. We do not need to quote all primary sources written by Catholic scholars in the 15th and 16th centuries, because they agreed that the Romanians were the descendants of Roman colonists in Dacia. This fact is mentioned and emphasized in the article. They also agreed that the Hungarians descended from the Scythians, but we should not quote all Humanist historians' text in the article about the Hungarians' origin. 3. Please remember you should verify any reference to Oláh and Szamosközy with a reference to a peer-reviewed scholarly work. Otherwise they will sooner or later be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Right before the mentioning of Oláh and Szamosközy, there is mentioned Silvius Piccolomini with his views. The source given for that is a primary source - Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini: Europe. The book that he himself wrote. Why is that allowed in the case of Silvius Piccolomini but not in the case of Oláh and Szamosközy? It's the same situation. 2. We do not need to quote all primary sources, but we are talking only about 2 quotes, not all of them. We also don't need to quote everything Oláh and Szamosközy said, this is the page about the origin of the Romanians, their work on the Hungarians can be used on the origin of the Hungarians. 3. Same as point 1 with the example of Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini. LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

1. The relevance of the quote from Piccolomini's work is verified by a reference to a reliable source (Vékony (2000), p. 5.) at the end of the sentence. 2. I still do not understand why should we quote text from their work. Their views do not differ from other Humanist historians' views. Should we also quote all contemporaneous Moldavian and Wallachian chronicles about the Romanian immigration to Hungary? 3. Same as point 1. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

1. I see, but primary sources are still allowed. 2. I have explained it 3 times, the short version is that they are an improvement to the page, I don't understand why you still insist on this question since I already answered it more than once. The two Humanist historians talk about the Origin of the Romanians. And please don't exaggerate. You said that "We also don't need to quote everything Oláh and Szamosközy said" when I never suggested that in the first place. You said that "We do not need to quote all primary sources written by Catholic scholars in the 15th and 16th centuries" when I never suggested that in the first place. Now you say that "Should we also quote all contemporaneous Moldavian and Wallachian chronicles about the Romanian immigration to Hungary", when yet again, I never suggested that in the first place. If you think I might have suggested that in some way, I did not. Stick to what I said, don't exaggerate. A suggestion to buy 2 small boats for a tourism company is not a suggestion to buy all the boats in existance, to buy yachts too or to buy cars that could be used with that boat as well. LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Primary sources are allowed, provided their use is verified by a reference to a reliable source. You have not found a reliable source to verify any mention to Oláh and Szamosközy for 5 days. 2. Do you think we can arbitrarily pick Humanist historians to quote them? Why should we ignore other Humanist historians? If Humanist historians' views about the Romanians' Daco-Roman origin is quoted several times, why should not we quote 16th-17th-century Romanian (Moldavian and Wallachian) historians' chronicles about the immigration of Romanians to the Kingdom of Hungary also multiple times? Both views are represented in the article, and "Using too many quotations is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style." Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

1. WP:Primary doesn't say that. It says that any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This is not an interpretation of the source, this is the source itself. No OP on what that implies was made. 2. If you want to do that, why not do it? It's not like I'm trying to stop you. But don't imply that I have said that. Both views are represented in the article and these two quotes also offer examples. As I said previously: It also helps the reader due to the nature of this page, since there are 3 theories out of which 2 are the main ones, the reader can see the primary sources for himself rather than rely on trusting the editor. It's no secret that while Wikipedia is viewed as a good source of information, is also viewed as far from a mistake-proof one due to it's open nature. Concerning the the citation needed part, I previously asked you if you could help me with that since I don't really know how to attach it and gave you the sources that are supposed to be attached, you didn't say anything.LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

1. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. ... A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." You have not established Oláh's and Szamosközy's notability in the article's context. 2. "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." We are not here to quote dozens of primary sources because we like them. If we cannot establish their relevance, we should avoid them. 3. If you need technical assistance, please seek assistance at the Teahouse. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you, because we reached a stalemate. Two editors say you cannot use primary sources without references to secondary sources. I also say we should not quote more primary sources in the article. You may also want to read Wikipedia:CONTENTDISPUTE. Borsoka (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

1. "and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources" as well as "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". I already stated previously, it's a page about the origin of the Romanians and primary sources are allowed, what more notability do you want? 2. Please stick to what I said, don't exaggerate. The only person in this discussion who ever talked about "quoting dozens of primary sources" was you, all 4 times. The reason why, once again I stress that I never suggested that in the first place. If you think I might have suggested that in some way, I did not. Stick to what I said, don't exaggerate. You are constantly arguing against a point I was not making. I think we can both agree that this article is far from "an entire article on primary sources", do you agree? 3. Editor Tgeorgescu never said that, as he was talking about secondary sources not being older than 50 years and 100 years, that leaves only one editor who said that I cannot use primary sources without references to secondary sources, and a Wikipedia guideline page that says that I can use primary sources without references to secondary sources. LordRogalDorn (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

1. You misunderstand our policy. 2. You want to quote two Humanist historians arbitrarily, without proving their importance with a reference to an academic work. You want to quote lengthy text from them based on their own works. I approached the relevant noticeboard about this issue ([13]). Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

1. The policy is clear and we discussed it, if I misunderstood it, explain where I'm wrong with quotes from the policy, like I explained where you are mistaken with quotes from the policy, instead of vague attempts to prove I'm wrong, like "look WP:Source and WP:Primary", and when I click those links it turns out they agree with me. 2. I already did that. Then you asked me the same question, again, and again, and again, this is getting so ridiculous I could reply to you with copy-paste from my previous answers. Ok. LordRogalDorn (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not want to play this game of yours. The relevant policies are mentioned and quoted above. Borsoka (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What game? I merely asked you to justify your accusations. The relevant policies mentioned and quoted above were already discussed. WP:Source allows you to use primary sources in certain conditions that are met here. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Their view was accepted..."

KIENGIR, the motivation of my edit was that the current phrasing ("their view was accepted...") implies (in my opinion) that the Oxford scholars reviewed the conclusion of the Cambridge scholars and agreed with it, when in fact the two verdicts are unrelated. Currently the texts sounds like: "C says X is true. O agrees with C that X is true." 86.120.179.195 (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"authors of" --> "their". Regarding the acception of a non-definitive answer may be substituted with shared, if they are really unrelated.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC))

Soruces in the lead

started by sockpuppet used to evade their topic ban. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Borksa, if sources are not allowed in the lead why are there 3 sources in the lead? I have seen plenty of other Wikipedia pages with sources in the lead. Besides, if that is the case, what is the process of adding the new information to the lead? you removed the contribution from the lead arguing -OR, when I offered to add sources for my contribution, you argued that the lead doesn't need soruces. Seems like a catch 22. Iconian42 (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Please read WP:LEAD, it does not say they are not allowed. A quote should always be accompanied by a reference to the quoted source. Borsoka (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I read WP:LEAD. I was about to that, but you revered my edit saying we do not need sources. Iconian42 (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC) No, you did not quote anything. Borsoka (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC) If I didn't quote anything, then why tell me that a quote should always be accompanied by a reference to the quoted source? I don't understand the nature of your opposition to my contribution. You said that we do not need sources but reverted my contribution because it lacked sources. While at the same time saying WP:LEAD does not say sources are not allowed in the lead. Iconian42 (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Please read again WP:LEAD. The lead must summarize the main text and the main text is to be verified. Borsoka (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Again, I read WP:LEAD. The information I added can be found in the main text in another form. If you want to, I can expand the section from the main text. Iconian42 (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Is there still opposition to my contribution? Iconian42 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Clearly.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)) - What is the reason behind the opposition? As I said, the information I added can be found in the main text in another form, so your criticism is invalid. Iconian42 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC) The reasons have been explained more times, and not just here and as I see not just by me.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Protochronism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Deeply flawed map not acceptable

The map claiming that Romanian wasn't spoken in much of Transylvania (Southern Transylvania, Transylvanian Plateau) before 1830 ("190 years" ago) is lightyears away from universally and scientifically accepted historical reality. We can talk 10th century, but not 1800s. There are limits to what Hungarian irredentism seeping into the academic discussion can present as fact, even on Wikipedia. Arminden (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

No map contains such a claim. Please read before deleting. Borsoka (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Borsoka: My apologies. Note to self: 1) don't edit on the cellphone on a moving bus. 2) Go and get new glasses. I somehow combined in my head "C20" with "less than 190 years" and messed it up. I am truly sorry. Arminden (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The three political "nations"

"The three political "nations" of the Principality of Transylvania (the Hungarians, Saxons and Székelys; see Unio Trium Nationum) enjoyed special privileges."

I have just added the mention of the Unio Trium Nationum, as the use of "nations" between quotation marks isn't very transparent. I am not familiar with some details of 18th c. Transylvania, the two quoted sources are not freely available online, so please, those who know more or have access to reliable sources: do consider linking "nations" to "Estates of the realm", if the term wasn't obsolete by the 18th c. If not, and the general character of the 15th-century Unio was still valid (as I think it was), "the Hungarians" should be replaced with "the Hungarian nobility", "Saxons" with either "free Saxons" (as some outside the "Königsboden" were still serfs) or even "Saxon patriciate", and "Székelys" should maybe also be qualified. The concept was still very much alive, but I didn't want to risk introducing anachronistic terminology. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem :). I linked the term "three political nations", I hope it helps our readers to understand the concept. Borsoka (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Borsoka. I actually meant adding a link additional to the one to Unio Trium Nationum, namely to Estates of the realm, specifically for "nations". Do you know if the 18th-century state of affairs still reflected the initial Unio? I'm sure that not "the Hungarians", but "the Hungarian nobility" was the Estate represented in the Diet, as Hungarians still had lots of serfs (the majority?) within their ranks. Saxons living outside the autonomous districts, as seen for instance at Malmkrog/Mălâncrav, could remain serfs all until the 19th century, so w/o any representation rights at all, therefore a qualification there is also required –"free Saxons", or maybe "Saxon patriciate", but I don't know enough details as to choose between these two options. "Patriciate" might be too narrow a term by the 18th c. (who represented the villages in the "Stuhlsversammlung", the national assembly of representatives? Patricians were strictly urban.). Finally, the Unio article also specifies "free military Székelys", suggesting there were other Székelys, too, who didn't have such rights in the 15th c. What about the 18th? Look up "Szekler serfs", enough comes up. Enough questions :) Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, although I think a direct link explaining specifically the concept of the "three political nations" is more useful. Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two problems with that: 1) clicking around is not good, the correct basic info should be available in the article itself; 2) the article Unio Trium Nationum mainly deals with the emergence of the pact (15th c. and before). It doesn't say who were the "nations" in later centuries, and that's what we need here (18th c.). Was there no change in the system of representation worth mentioning, in neither of the 3 Estates? We're talking 300 years! I'm having a hard time to believe it, and if that's the case, it surely would be worth stating it explicitly. Arminden (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sayous

@Ramon633: why do you think again that we should cite Sayous's work? It was first published in 1876. You propably also remember that discussion at our relevant noticeboard indiciates that our community think that the use of such an old work could hardly improve WP ([14]). Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

My bad, didn't realise that reprinted versions of an old books also represent outdated information. Ramon633 (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Addressing the dubious

@Borsoka:

"In the Romanian language, the vast majority" - The author doesn't say that they weren't transmited from the Slavs, but that the Aromanians, who are confirmed to have lived south of the Danube, in the same place as the Romanians would be in the immigrationist theory, adopted the Greek words.

So, the statement about the Romanian language is irrelevant in the article's context.

"Goths and Lombards" - Lived south of the Danube for a while and would often enter the region, the author argues that if the Romanians would be placed south of the Danube as in the immigrationist theory, they should still have Germanic loanwords given their contact with them (similar with the Romanian-Albanian argument in the immigrationist theory).

Goths lived between 376 and 410 in certain regions in the Balkan Peninsula, while the lands to the north of the Danube were inhabited by Germanic peoples for more than 300 years (that is for a longer period, than by the Romans).

"Written sources did not mention any migration of the Romanians from south of the Danube towards the territories north of the Danube" - Nowhere in the Wallachian or Moldavian chronciles say that they came from south of the Danube.

"The 6th-century work Strategikon of the Byzantine emperor Mauricius, which attests to the presence of proto-Romanians" - The effective word used was "Romans" not "Byzantines". You may make the arguemnts that the Byzantines were the Romans, which is correct, but at the same time the Daco-Romans were the Romans, there was no distinction between romance-speaking Vlachs and romance-speaking Byzantines at the time as they were both "Romans". Certain is, there was a romance-speaking population north of the Danube that Mauricius mentioned. It is unlikely to have been the Byzantines as there are no records of Byzantines settling north of the Danube.

• Yes, Mauricius wrote of Romans that is Byzantines, without mentioning their language.

"The German heroic epic "The Song of the Nibelungs", in which it is related that at the wedding of Attila the Hun (5th century) with the German princess Grimhilda, the Romanian duke (herzog in German) Ramunc was also invited from :"Wallachenland" (Wallachia, the current territory of Romania), who arrived with 700 Romanian companion" - When the 2nd Bulgarian Empire was listed as the "Vlachs' land" it literally meant the Wallachians/Romanians. Vlachs being separate from Bulgarian. As it would sometimes be called the "Vlacho-Bulgar Empire" and that both Vlachs and Bulgars lived in the Empire.

• Why do you think that this was the sole German literary work that does not refer to the Second Bulgarian Empire when writning of the Vlachs' land (=Wallachenland).

"But also many small rivers, all shorter than 100 kilometers, bear a name of Roman origin, most of these watercourses run in mountainous regions, suggesting the survival of a Latin-speaking population in the mountainous area" - We could say that the Hungarians adopted the names of the rivers from the authochtonus population. In Hungary, small rivers kept their latin names as well?

Please remember Romanian and Latin are distinct languages. That a river bear a Romanian name does not mean that it is of Latin origin. Or could we say the fact that most Hungarian rivers and streams bear a Hungarian name prove that the Hungarians are the authochthonous population of the region? Borsoka (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I have also posted some dubious remarks in the immigrationist theory. Naturally, supporters of the Daco-Roman Continuity theory and of the Immigrationist theory are going to have points of contradiction, should we mention only their version in the specific paragraphs (Daco-Roman;Immigrationist) or the versions of both historians in both paragraphs? For example: "Reliable sources refer to the Romanians' presence in the lands to the north of the Danube for the first time in the 1160s" - it would be correct to say it if both pro-Immigrationist and pro-Continuity would agree on this, but they don't - pro-Immigrationist don't consider them reliable, pro-Continutiy consider them reliable. Or perhaps we could mention "Most scholars accepting the continuity/immigrationist theory regard" to highlight that it's their point of view and not an universally accepted assertion, due to the nature of the debate. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)