Talk:Romanians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

1911 Britannica

Britannica 1911 wrote about the national characteristics:

Two dissimilar types are noticeable among the Romanians. One is fair-haired, florid and blue-eyed; the other, more frequent among the Carpathians, is dark, resembling the southern Italians. Both alike are hardy, though rarely tall; both, when of the peasant class, frugal and inured to toil amid the rigours of their native climate. Proud of their race and country, they acquired, with their independence, an ardent sense of nationality; and they look forward to the day which will reunite them to their kinsmen in Transylvania and Bessarabia.

their traditional clothes:

The peasants retain their distinctive dress, long discarded, except on festivals and at court, by the wealthier classes. Men wear a long linen tunic, leather belt, white woollen trousers and leather gaiters, above Turkish slippers or sandals. The lowlanders? head-dress is generally a high cylindrical cap of rough cloth or felt, while the mountaineers prefer a small round straw hat. Sundays and holidays bring out a sleeveless jacket, embroidered in red and gold; and both sexes wear sheepskins in cold weather. The linen dresses of women are fastened by a long sash or girdle, wound many times round the waist: the holiday attire being a white gown covered with embroideries, one or more brightly coloured aprons and necklaces of beads or coins.

and about their traditions:

Romanians generally being more sober than the western Europeans. The ceremonies which accompany a wedding preserve the tradition of marriage by capture; a peasant bride must enter her new home carrying bread and salt, and in parts of Walachia a flower is painted on; the outer wall of cottages in which there is a girl old enough to marry. Young men swear eternal brotherhood; girls, eternal sisterhood; and the Church ratifies their choice in a service at which the feet of the pair are chained together. This relationship is morally and legally regarded as not less binding than kinship by birth. The dead are borne to the grave with uncovered faces, and a Romanian funeral is a scene of much barbaric display. All classes delight in music and dancing. Women hold spinning-parties at which the leader begins a ballad, and each in turn contributes a verse. The Romanian folk-songs, sung and often improvised by the villagers, or by a wandering guitar-player (cobzar), are of exceptional interest and beauty. The national dances and music closely resemble those of the Southern Slavs.

Population statistics

Bogdan, could you give your reference(s) on those population statistics? I've found that this kind of thing often becomes the topic of edit wars, which are greatly reduced when citations are present. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:53, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

[1]; [2]; [3] :) Bogdan | Talk 09:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The second reference is very confusing for Spain. "In Spania traiesc aproximativ 2 500 de romani..." but "...Ambasada Romaniei in Spania ii estimeaza la 100 000 dintre care doar 40% au statut legal." Any idea how to reconcile this? Any independent source? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:13, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

It's probably something like:

• people that have permanent resident status. - 2,500
• people that have temporary work permit. - the rest
• people that are staying illegally - 60,000

Bogdan | Talk 20:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Romanians in Ukraine

The 250,000 estimate is quite wrong, mainly because 385,000 people of Ukraine declared themselves "Romanians" at the last census. Sometimes, the census figures may be underestimates of their numbers (for one reason or another, people declared themselves of the majority ethnicity, in this case Ukrainian, rather than of their real origin, or in some cases could be even a falsification of the data by the state), but almost never overestimations. Bogdan | Talk 22:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Racist term

This term however, is considered quite racist, and is therefore used in lesser sophisticated social circles.

I don't know why that term should be offensive. Also, why racist? Romanians belong to the same "race" as the other peoples of South-Eastern Europe Bogdan | Talk 09:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Check the user's other contributions. Unless you specifically recognize his contributions here as being truthful, revert them as more nonsense from him. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What term, Antaeus? I have no idea what you are talking about. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Aparently, "Vlax" is used to designate a branch of Gypsy in the Balkans Criztu 18:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Orthodoxism

Criztu, you replaced:

The orthodoxism was however brought by the Slavs

with:

After the Great Schism romanians remained faithful to the Church of Constantinople

Do you have any particular reason for doing this ?

It's wrong to say that they remained faithful, because before that, the Romanians had almost no link with Constantinople.

if Orthodoxism was brought by the slavs, then let's write down when and how was Orthodoxy brought by the slavs. Since romanians have Dominus and Basilica from the romans, then there has to have been a continuity in the religion of romanians.

I'm not questioning the continuity of the Christianity here: Romanians kept during the Dark Ages their original Roman Christian tradition. But the Byzantine tradition and rite was brought by the Slavs. And it's not hard to prove:

1. mucenic, sfânt (partly), sobor, praznic, liturghie, hram and a dozen words were borrowed from Church Slavic or Bulgarian. -- If Orthodoxism was to be brought directly by the Greeks/Byzantines, we'd have Greek words instead.
2. Romanians used until the 18th century Slavonic liturgy

Since Orthodoxy occured after 1054, yet the romanians were already christians by then, then how did the the Slavs brought Orthodoxy from Constantinople to the romanians ?

I'm talking only about the rituals and the church organization.

Perhaps the Bulgarian Church "brought" Orthodoxy to the romanians, but not the Slavs Criztu 20:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Bulgarian Church was made out by the Bulgarian/Macedonian people, which were Slavs. What's wrong with this? Bogdan | Talk 21:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

that the Bulgarians speak a South Slavic lang. i agree; i think it is more specific if we say romanians adhered to the Bulgarian Orthodox church or Orthodoxy was brought by the Bulgarians or the Bulgarian Church, the term Slav i think reffers to the 5th - 7th centuries, in 1000 there were Russians, Kievans, Bulgarians, Slovenians, Polaks, etc. so let's be more specific about who exactly "brought" Orthodoxy to the romanians Criztu 21:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In English, at least, Slavs is inclusive. If we can say specifically, with confidence, Bulgarians, great, but if not Slavs is a less specific claim. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:05, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I was cautious to say Bulgarians because the language of the scripture was not vernacular Bulgarian, but Old Church Slavonic, a certain ancient dialect of the Bulgarian/Macedonian group of languages and because the translator Saint Cyril, was declared "theirs" by both the Bulgarians and Macedonian Slavs. Bogdan | Talk 23:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

well, i think it is more certain that the direction by which the orthodoxy came to Romanians was Byzantium/Church of Constantinople > Bulgarian State/Bulgarian Church >Vlach-Bulgar Empire >Romanians Criztu 00:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a confusion here between tradition and traditional rite, on one side, and the formal aspects related to church organization and affiliation, on the other. Traditionally, early Romanians (Wlachs) had no church hierarchy (no bishoprics of their own), but clearly depended on Constantinople (and not Rome) for the ordination of their priests (and therefore for the liturgic rites). This is shown by the fact that Transylvanian Romanians were traditionally orthodox, even though Transylvania is conquered as early as the 10th century by Magyars. Actually, the dependence unto Constantinople was a key point in the introduction of the slavonic as a liturgic language: In the 10th century is created the slavonic "Bulgarian" patriarchy of Ohrida, unto which Wlachs were compelled to depend by the geographic proximity. However, there were big problems with the slavonic language, because very few priests understood it. :) Concerning the other aspect, the state and the church need a formal organization as soon as they start to take shape. Therefore, the adoption of the Byzantine/Orthodox model for the organization/hierarchy of the state and church probably started in the 10th century, when Wlach political organizations started to appear on the left side of the Danube (the model being given by the then-neighboring Bulgarian, Wlacho-bulgarian, or Byzantine empires). The structuring process is completed for both the state and church in the 14th century. We can probably assume that the popular church itself was not very changed after the 14th century. However, the church hierarchy was completely new, and followed the slavonic version of the byzantine rite. It is worth noting that the adoption of the byzantine/orthodox model was also a political choice that pointed out the independence of the newly-formed states (Wallachia and Moldavia) from neighboring Hungary (catholic communities existed from the 13th century at least, and were quite active, in both Wallachia and Moldavia, and bishoprics were created). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotop (talk • contribs) 11 Sept 2005

when did the romanians adopted orthodoxy ?

there is a problem here:

• romanians have a few latin religious terms, so they were Christians since the times of the Roman Empire.
• romanians don't have an official date of adopting Christianity, nor do they have an official date when they adopted Orthodoxy.
• Cyril & Methodius wrote the Bible in Old-slavonic during the 800-900 and converted to Christianity a few kingdoms in the Balkans and Central Europe.
• romanians have a few Old-Slavonic religious terms and the romanian church officiated in Old Slavonic for a while (since what date until what date ?).
• after the Great Schism we speak of Orthodoxy(with Constantinople as its center until 1453)and Catolicism (with Roma as its center).

so romanians were Christians, and remained faithful(for lack of a better word) to the Church of Constantinople (not The orthodoxism was however brought by the Slavs) after the Great Schism, and at least for a while officiated in Old-Slavonic... but after a while started using their old latin-romanian terms again, but keeping some Old-slavonic terms as well Criztu 21:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Orthodoxy was brought during the rule of the Romanian-Bulgarian kingdom (1187-1280), right ? Until then, the Romanians were somehow isolated and the Church of the Romanians was not influenced by either Byzantium nor Rome. You can tell this by linguistic clues: there are no new words related to religion of either Italian/Latin or Greek Byzantine origin. The schism took place in 1054. Therefore, the Romanians joined the Orthodoxy after it split from Rome. Bogdan | Talk 22:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

mm... i read that some magyar chieftains from the Carpathian Basin allegedly baptised in Constantinople; Mihaly and Geza, the sons of Taksony, nephew of Menumorut, had christian names. Bulgaria having at least nominal control over the teritory of Transylvania until 1000. so if there were in Transylvania in 900-1000 "the romanian dukes Gelu, Glad and Menumorut", by 1000 the romanians may have adopted Orthodoxy through the Bulgarian State(since 865). But then, there was a Catholic Diocese of Cumania in the teritory later known as Wallachia, so until Basarab's son baptised into Orthodoxy, is there any evidence that The orthodoxism was however brought by the Slavs ? Criztu 22:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I found a reference (in Romanian):

hotărîrea celui de-al 8-lea Conciliu Ecumenic din Constantinopol, în 869-870, după care nou înfiinţatul episcopat bulgar, care a inclus şi teritoriile de locuit repectiv peregrinare ale Românilor, a fost subordonat patriarhatului de Constantinopol şi nu Romei. Referitor la aceasta, Şimanschi şi Agache scriu în volumul “Die Rumänen und Europa vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart“ [Românii şi Europa din Evul Mediu până în prezent], publicat în 1997 de Harald Heppner:

"Pentru populaţia românească, această decizie s’a dovedit a fi de maximă importanţă, întrucât fu nevoită ulterior să renunţe la limba latină în cadrul practicării cultului şi să preia de la Bulgari aşa numita limbă slavă bisericească (‘slavona’), precum şi scrisul şi liturghia. Astfel, Românii s’au depărtat de romanitatea apuseană, considerată eretică, şi au trăit din acel moment într’un ‘slavonism’ cultural care le-a împiedicat receptarea valorilor occidentale"

Bogdan | Talk 15:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suffixed names

Suffixed names generally indicate humble historical origins, in contrast with the older established families whose names reflect ancient functions, national origin or other linguistic elements.

That is not always valid. It is true however, that most of the "Romanian" rulers were not Romanian and had other origins for their names: Cuman (Basarab), Greek (Ipsilanti, Mavrocordat, Mavrogheni), Byzantine (Cantacuzino), Albanian (Ghica), Tatar (Cantemir), Italian (Moruzi, Graziani), etc.

Of the few left 'pure' Romanians, we can see Romanian names: Brâncoveanu, Bibescu, etc.

- (unsigned, undated)

The Moruzi name is not of Italian origin. They were Greeks from the Phanar district of Istambul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.151.115 (talk • contribs) 10 July 2005

Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan

The population statistic recently and anonymously added for Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan lacks a citation. Does anyone have one? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:06, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well for Russia, you can use the Russian census. I just don't remember the adress. In Khazachstan there is still 20.000 Romanians left. I dunno where u can get that number from. (anon 13 June 2005)

• The mere fact that a census exists doesn't really do much to say which number is more accurate and for what date. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Origin of Romanians

This anonymous edit gives no citation and claims quite a bit. I don't have the knowledge to evaluate it, so I would appreciate hearing from some knowledgable regular contributor. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's wrong, or at least non-NPOV. But I don't have enough time to check it now. bogdan | ^Talk 21:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

So should we cut it till someone can fix it? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'm back.

An alternative theory has them as the original local population of the ancient Roman Empire that has maintained it's language and traditions despite ongoing assimilation by the protruding Slavs, Italians, Germans, etc.

There is no linguist that claims autochtonity of all Romanian groups, so it can be labeled as original research.

Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian were formed in only one territory and only after they were formed some groups started migrating. There are lots of reasons why the multiple nuclei cannot be a valid theory, among them the core Slavic borrowings (such as trup="body"), which are identical to all these languages. bogdan | ^Talk 16:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ribbentrop-Molotov pact

From the article: "During World War II, Romania lost territory in both east and west… Both losses were facilitated by the Ribbentrop-Molotov German-Soviet non-aggression pact."

That may be loosely true, but, as I understand it, it is misleading. Unless I am mistaken, the pact said nothing at all about these lands. Obviously, Romania suffered from the fact of German-Soviet cooperation while it lasted, but the wording here seems to me to suggest that there was something in the pact about carving up Romania. Can someone clarify whether or not the pact had anything to say about these territories, and perhaps then word the article appropriately? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

In the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact Germany recognized the right of Soviet Union over Bessarabia.MihaiC 06:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. But did it have anything to say about Transylvania? That is, did it have anything directly to do with the losses in the west? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• • No, it said nothing about Transylvania. Just that since the two big powers agree with each other over Romania and the traditional Western allies (England, but especially France) couldn't help Romania, Romania was doomed.MihaiC 09:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Romanians/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A low A-class article which still needs some population figures verified/referenced, in addition to a few other {{fact}}s. The lead needs to be improved to summarize the entire article. The bulleted list in the "Population" section has items which are substantial enough that prosefication is really the best option. The embedded link in that same section should be converted to <ref></ref>, since currently it disrupts the flow of the text. The "Anthroponyms" subsection needs citation. -Fsotrain09 04:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)