This is an archive of past discussions about Vlachs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
This situation has been going on for a while, and is being kept comparatively stymied by perennial interference. Recently, we requested to have this page semi-protected per WP:CT/EE. It seems we need a little more help. I tire of thinking in terms of sockpuppetry or brigading, since I have concrete evidence of neither, but it should be clear that an admin needs to put an explicit revert rule on the article page for a while, so we can have some peace and quiet. I assume this is the consensus of everyone chatting above. Remsense诉18:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The absolute majority of non-Romanian historians do not agree with the theory of the Dacian-Romanian cotinuation, as the above list shows. I think the word "most" is the right word, simply to make it clear that we are not talking about equal theories, but about an internationally accepted one(immigration), and one that is not accepted by all historians even in Romania, although it is a fact that in Romania the majority do(dacian). CriticKende (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@CriticKende, could I ask you to keep specific discussions in one place? I feel once I clear this page, we should have headers for each major theme of disagreement, but I feel bad for the admin about to tiptoe into this! :) Remsense诉19:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I fully agree with the protection of the article, however, I still do not support the idea that the historical sources should be removed, because what will be done instead? The opinion of modern historians? What would be less biased than the writings of people who lived many hundreds of years ago? Or then no Hungarian/Romanian historians, just foreigners? Or am I the only one who hasn't yet seen how this article will look like? What do you think about this? CriticKende (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
As an uninvolved admin, I've add the "enforced BRD restriction" to this article. This means:
an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
I see no evidence to suggest that "most" non-Romanian scholars support the immigrationist theory. The three sources cited at the end of that sentence definitively are not enough to verify it. Unless very heavy sourcing is provided to support this wording or we change it. I suggest and recommend for the sake of neutrality and good faith to use "other" instead of "most" or "some" as it does not express any quantity. This is anyway not the article to discuss the origin of the Romanians. For that we have origin of the Romanians. We should avoid absolute and resolute statements like "most say that..." because I doubt the article for this topic, which is detailed and well-written, makes such statements. SuperΨDro18:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
we've already decided this language isn't necessary. we're currently trying to hash things out. Speaking of. @Byte-ul @OrionNimrod et al., I'm really antsy to start directly deliberating on the page, but I don't want to archive and start DRN-style non-threaded discussion until things are totally good. If I do this, could everybody please refrain specifically from extended discussions of other periods of history, except when pertaining directly to people being cited for the article? Remsense诉18:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the ethnicity of the historians important either, I fully agree with that, I just put this list here because the controversial part is about "non-romanian historians". CriticKende (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Here is a quick, far not complete list.(this list was deleted from this talk page before, but you can find it here)
Noel Malcolm (british): Kosovo A Short History
Gottfried Schramm (german): many works
Herbert John Izzo (canadian/american): also not just one work
Stefan Schumacher: “The Romanian language developed somewhere south of the Danube, but Romanians don’t want to admit that because the Hungarians can claim that they have been there before,”- Stefan Schumacher (Austrian Linguists, professor of the University of Vienna)
Willem Vermeer (dutch): He argues that the ancestral homeland of Albanians and Romanians must have been around Kosovo.
Michiel Arnoud Cor de Vaan (dutch): He argues that the ancestral homeland of Albanians and Romanians must have been around Kosovo.
Professor Dr Joachim von Puttkamer (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned
Joachim C. Fest (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned
Meinolf Arens (austrian): in the debate which has already been mentioned
Daniel Bein (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned
Thede Kahl (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned
Hansgerd Göckenjan (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned
Wolfgang Dahmen (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned
Hans-Martin Gauger (german): in the debate which has already been mentioned
Johannes Kramer (austrian): in the debate which has already been mentioned
prof. dr hab. Ilona Czamańska (polish): the link before
Joan E. Durrant (american) & Anne B. Smith (american): Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights
Dr. Norman Berdichevsky (american): Nations, Language and Citizenship
Prof. Dr. Frank Hadler (german): Disputed territories and shared pasts: overlapping national histories in modern Europe
and all Hungarian historians
--- pre world war historians----
Johann Erich Thunmann (swedish): linguistic results
Jernej Bartol Kopitar (slovenian): linguistic results
Mandell Creighton (british): The English Historical Review
Samuel Rawson Gardiner (british): The English Historical Review
Justin Winsor (american):The English Historical Review
Robert William Seton-Watson (Scottish) : A history of the Roumanians
as a note, the "debate" was organized by the Hungarian Institute in Munich and the historians were paid for participating. None of them have any related works on this conclusion and the debate was clearly in bad faith, all the predetermined topics (by the hungarian institute) being against the continuity theory.
@Byte-ul, do you see yourself able to work with the other people here contribute to this article? I've been begging you over and over to please try and assume good faith in other people, and you have not let up in even one post. Remsense诉21:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
yes, I can work with people, but not with people that obviously act in bad faith with every chance they get. I assumed good faith in everyone so far, but their arguments keep proving the opposite.
List the fake/distorted informations that i wrote! Because you haven't done that so far, apart from saying that everyone is lying. CriticKende (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Emily Hanscam simply explains the mystified history during the communist era (that Romanians descended directly just from Dacians and/or Romans - and did not mix with other populations - and the whole focus being just Dacia - dubious scientific methods used in archeology during that time, etc) but doesn't support the migration theory either ZZARZY223 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It is interesting that one would take time to make a list like that.
Nevertheless, Wikipedia has some clear rules and adding "some" or "most" based on such lists constitutes WP:OR. And even if there were RS we can cite for such a statistic, given the contentious nature of the statement more than a few would be needed from each part. Therefore I strongly agree that we should use "others" to introduce the viewpoints and I would appreciate if we could all agree on this and move on. Aristeus01 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Moreno Morani (Italian) - Introduzione alla linguistica latina
Lorenzo Renzi (Italian)
Klaus-Henning Schroeder (German) in Die einzelnen romanischen Sprachen und Sprachgebiete von der Renaissance bis zur Gegenwart: Rumänisch, Dalmatisch / Istroromanisch, Friaulisch, Ladinisch, Bündnerromanisch
Hans Goebl(Austrian) Wolfgang Dahmen (German) in Romanische Sprachgeschichte
Lucien Musset (French) - Les invasions. Le second assaut contre l'Europe chrétienne
Roumen Daskalov, Alexander Vezenkov (both Bulgarians) in « Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies - claim that both Bulgarian and Serb historiography generally view the ethnogenesis of Vlachs North of the Danube
Pat Southern (British) - The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine
Birgül Demirtaş-Coşkun (Turkish) Vlachs: A Forgotten Minority in the Balkans
Robert William Seton-Watson which unlike in your comment, in "A history of the Roumanians" he DOES accept the continuity theory
Johann Erich Thunmann - again, what you said is not true. He claimed Vlachs were descendads of Dacians, see
Prichard, James Cowles (1841). Ethnography of Europe. 3d ed. 1841. Houlston & Stoneman. p. 476.
Mandell Creighton - once again, not true, he literally claims " The actual inhabitants of Roumania are, however, descended from a mixture of the Roman colonists settled here by Trajan, and the original populalation with whom they intermarried. The latter adopted, as we have said, the language of their conquerors, and called themselves Vlachs or Romans. "[2]
So no, it's completely false that "only" Romanian scholars accept the continuity theory, there's no consesus even outside the debate between Romanian and Hungarian historians. The authors of The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages and The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages conclude that the exact origin of the Romanian language is uncertain and still debated. The Encyclopedia Britannica is also ambiguous, it claims "Thereafter the Romanized Dacian inhabitants either moved into the mountains and preserved their culture or migrated southward. The area then was repopulated by peoples from the Romanized lands south of the Danube River or from the Balkans. The Magyars (Hungarians) conquered the area at the end of the 9th century and firmly established their control over it in 1003 when their king Stephen I, according to legend, defeated the native prince Gyula." (also it doesn't claim Vlachs moved there after the Hungarian conquest)
Also about "Joan E. Durrant (american) & Anne B. Smith (american): Global Pathways to Abolishing Physical Punishment: Realizing Children’s Rights" where is there even written anything about Vlachs/Romanians?? ZZARZY223 (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
And lastly, I will mention the Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vlach), which states, "Nationalist historians deploy one or the other scenario to justify modern territorial claims or claims to indigeneity. Thus, Hungarian (Magyar) claims to Transylvania assume a complete Roman exodus from Dacia, while Romanian claims assume that Romance continued to be spoken by Romanized Dacians. Most scholars who are not nationally affiliated assume the second scenario."
So here's your solution to an earlier debate, if most historians agree. Yes, they agree. They agree with the Continuation Theory. YoursTrulyKor (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
you listed many pre WW2 scholars, even people from 1700s. I think we need deal with modern academic scholars. Also it would be good to check that is true or not true, sadly that is my experience that followers of the Daco-Roman theory usually show "evidences" but if I check that "evidences" it usually see different thing in that sources. For example you listed an Austrian linguist, not a historian, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Goebl it would be good to know how do you know that he is supporter of Daco-Roman theory. Regarding Dennis Deletant, he was on blacklist during nationalcommunist time is Romania, probably the state did not like his theories, just I a showed a document from him above, where he refuse many Daco-Roman "evidence" things. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Btw as I suggested and more people agreed in this topic we do not need say numbers just "supporters of theory think" + "others think" OrionNimrod (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @OrionNimrod, I mentioned those pre ww2 and 1700s scholars, like Mandell Creighton and Johann Erich Thunmann, because @CriticKende did in his comment, claiming they supported the migration theory, which did not at all + I wrote "historians, archeologists and linguists in favour of contuinity", since linguists' opinion is also important because for example Gottfried Schramm bases the vast majority of his claimings about Vlach migration from Macedonia on linguistic evidence. About Hans Goebl, I mistaken him with Wolfgang Dahmen [3], where in Romanische Sprachgeschichte he does explain the evolution of Romanian language in such manner.
Dennis Deletant has criticized some claims made by Romanian historians, but did not claim that Romanians migrated there, he also has worked with Keith Hitchins, Mihai Barbulescu, Pompiliu Teodor, Serban Papacostea to write Istoria României (2012) and was even awarded by the Romanian Academy (which obviously does not support the migration theory) ZZARZY223 (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
It surely does. For example the Russian Primary Chronicle case, which is already cited in this article (which personally neither I think that is undoubtedly referincig Vlachs) ZZARZY223 (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I could ask what the Romanian chronicles wrote about you then, but I've already written that above, and we've been asked to discuss the things not here, but in the "Stable Version" section, for the sake of transparency. So please continue the discussion there. CriticKende (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
the autor of that chronicle also points the vlachs in the carpathian basin, and there the franks didn't arrive.So the autor refers to franks and (probably) romanians. CarpathianEnjoyer (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus, I see you wanted compromise and use "some" + "some" for both theories. I agree with you, I would like also compromise and close the debate. However since then the numbers again changed. I suggested many times and others also agreed that we can total leave the numbers. This is an endless debate, I think we do not need to say any numbers like "most/some", it is impossible to determine how many supporters have theory A and B.
Change this:
According to one origin theory, modern Romanians, Moldovans and Aromanians originated from Dacians. According to most linguists and scholars, the Eastern Romance languages prove the survival of the Thraco-Romans in the lower Danube basin during the Migration Period. On the other hand, some other historians believe that Romanians, Moldovans, Aromanians and other Eastern Romance groups originated in the southern Balkans and migrated north from there from the 11th-12th centuries onwards.
To this: naming the theory
According to one origin theory, the Daco-Roman continuity theory modern Romanians, Moldovans and Aromanians originated from Dacians. According to supporters of this theory, the Eastern Romance languages prove the survival of the Thraco-Romans in the lower Danube basin during the Migration Period. On the other hand, opponents of this theory believe that Romanians, Moldovans, Aromanians and other Eastern Romance groups originated in the southern Balkans and migrated north from there from the 11th-12th centuries onwards.
Full Hungarian historiography beleive in the oppent theory, full Bulgarian also, German historiography also: At the conference held in Freiburg in 2001, eight German, two Hungarian and one Romanian historians and linguists debated the issue of Daco-Romanian continuity and took a 10:1 position against it. [34] Polish historiography also: Florin Curta, in a 2020 study, complains that the Daco-Roman theory is not accepted in Polish histography [35] + many other historians were listed earlier and now. This cannot be "some". Like the Daco-Roman theory has many supporters, so this also cannot be "some".
I think, in this way it would be no more endless debate about "most/some". I also think we do not need emphasize the nationalities of historians here. Just presenting shortly theory A and theory B. The existence of them is fact. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
the "conference" organized by the Hungarian Institute in Munich where the historians were paid for participating and none of them have any related works on this conclusion, the debate being clearly in bad faith, all the predetermined topics (by the hungarian institute) being against the continuity theory?
You need to stop recycling lies and flawed arguments. According to Encyclopedia Britannica most scholars agree with the continuity theory. Since we have a source confirming this, we'll go with it. Byte-ul (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
One side assures their vision is the predominant and the other does too. The problem is obvious, the dispute becomes a petty back-and-forth. Specially considering neither of the two have been able to reliably and appropriately cite their claims. Byte-ul, a single source is not enough, and again I insist we leave this because this is not an article dealing with the origin of the Romanians. Let's just keep the equal "some"/"some other" version and move on. SuperΨDro11:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Super Dromaeosaurus, I agree with you, "equal and move on", so everybody is satisfied. But if we keep numbers "some+some" you can see users could feel to rewrite them in the future to start the same boring debate again and again. That is why I suggested to remove the "some" and use "supporters of theory" + "opponents of theory", I think these words will end this number debate. What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Byte-ul how do you know who organized? How do you know that they were paid? Did you see the bank account of those historians? :D And that Britannica article was written by a Romanian historian, which means the neutrality also can be a question. That is why I suggested to stop using numbers to end this debate. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Let's not make this about ethnicities, shall we? I also didn't go out of my way to point out that I don't know what historian is of X origin, and as such, their opinions should be discredited.
Also, I forgot to respond to a comment made a while ago, where you mockingly joked, "I guess Romanians are celtics now" in regards to the Celtic Cross- just so you know, the Celtic Cross is actually a pretty common Christian symbol and represents the christianity of Saint Patrick. It is also rather common in countries like France, Germany, etc. Does that mean they are Celtic too or..? YoursTrulyKor (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The author of the article, Victor Friedman, was born on October 18, 1949 in Chicago, Illinois, U.S. He is not a romanian historian and the article was also fact-checked by the editors of Encyclopædia Britannica Byte-ul (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
