Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 23

Simon of Kéza

Simon of Kéza's text is the following, according to its authoritative English translation: "These Székely are in fact remnants of the Huns, and when they found out that the Hungarians were returning to Pannonia, they came to meet them on the borders of Ruthenia, and then joined with them in the conquest of Pannonia and acquired part of the country. However, this was not in the plains of Pannonia but in the mountains, which they shared with the Vlachs, mingiling with them, it is said, and adopting their alphabet." Gyula Kristó's translation of part of the same text is the following: "According to [Simon of Kéza], the Székely, "together with the Vlachs, received their part among the mountains of the frontier region." Nothing proves that Kéza thought that the Vlachs had lived in the mountains before the arrival of the Székelys. Borsoka (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Scheianu:, first of all, please carefully read WP:3RR. Secondly, you have been attempting to add a text to a section which is not connected to the text. Your text is about the settlement of the Székelys and Romanians in the mountains (of Transylvania), but you have been attemtpting to add it to the section dedicated to the development of the diverse theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Thirdly, please use the authoritative English translation of Kéza's text, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Immigration debate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Immigration theory should be renamed to Immigration hypothesis throughout the entire article. There are several difference between a theory and a hypothesis and as such, Roesler's south-to-north immigration doesn't amount to a theory. It stands opposed to the Daco-Roman continuity, which is supported not only by several author's research (just like Roesler's) on the subject but, more importantly, by archaeological findings which, in turn, coupled with linguistic evidence and primary sources form a cohesive base that support the the hypothesis - transforming it into a theory. This comprehensive and diverse evidence pool is lacking in support for Roesler's hypothesis.

I would have not proposed this editing, but this false equivalence (and the Wikipedia article) are often times used to support certain nationalistic views. I believe that it is important to underline the distinction between a supposition (Roesler's immigration) that lacks crucial evidence (especially archaeological) and a supposition (Daco-Roman continuity) that is supported by a wide range of evidence, from linguistic, archaeological, toponymy, geographical and not least, lately, even some genetic studies. Equally important is the fact that while any of those evidences might be disputed, individually, they form a cohesive base for the theory. Imagine a criminal investigation - where there are few individual pieces of evidence that provide a definite answer - but rather the totality of the evidence is the one that paints the whole picture. Simply put, evidence support each other so that while individually they might have several explanations when put together they point towards a single common one.

Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose. The immigration theory is at least as well supported by archeological research, linguistic evidence and written sources as the continuity hypothesis. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Oppose, as well. Moreover, the Daco-Roman continuity theory have numerous weak points, that the other theory does not have. It's a bit odd that the IP is identifying i.e. "linguistic", "toponymy", "geographical studies" roughly as a "comprehensive and diverse evidence pool", although especially these are in the strong support regarding the Immigration theory.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)) Definitely oppose. Both theories have their weaknesses when it comes to evidence, but to call one a theory and the other hypothesis is dubious, especially considering that the immigration theory doesn't solely rest upon Roesler.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC) I concur: accurately speaking, both are just hypotheses, they never made it to "theory". Conclusive evidence is severely lacking for both. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC) @Borsoka, KIENGIR, TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: Please list those evidences - that support/prove the migration/admigration hypothesis. Saying that some evidence that supports the Daco-Roman theory - or comes into conflict with it gives more credence to the other two hypothesis is a logical fallacy. Such evidences that support those two hypothesis are not present in the article, while the article does present evidence supporting the Daco-Roman continuity theory. Evidence of a Latin-Speaking population south of the Danube does not support those two theories - you need to present evidence proving the alleged migration (especially in the light of abundant evidence of a Latin-speaking population north of the Danube, present in this article). Until those evidences are listed under the same section, in this article, those two (migration, admigration) cannot and should not be presented as "well supported" and "competing" theories. It's simply ridiculous that those evidences are not referenced/presented in this article, for all of us to see how well supported they really are.Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) There is no evidence for anything the (Proto)Romanians did for roughly 1000 years. So, obviously, too many pieces of the puzzle are missing to have conclusive evidence for any "theory" in this respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Yes, there is no evidence for the continuous presence of a Latin/Romance-speaking population in the territory of the former province of Dacia Traiana after the withdrawal of the Romans. On the other hand, the Romanians adopted the names of the major rivers from Slavs, Hungarians, Turkic peoples and Germans (which can hardly be explained based on the continuity theory). The Romanians did not adopt a single word from the Germanic peoples, although the Gepids dominated the territory for a longer period than the Romans had held it. The oldest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of masses of Romanians from the Byzantine Empire to Hungary. The Romanians adopted Albanian loanwords. The Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population even in the 12th-15th centuries ... Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC) @Borsoka: 1. As I said, provide those said evidences as links for all the world to see. You, on the other hand, use the same tactic as others (see point 4 below) of trying to take apart the evidence of Daco-Romanian continuity, by casting doubt on the individual parts and hoping that somehow the "whole" gets invalidated. I asked for evidence supporting your "immigration" hypothesis. The burden of proof is on you. You need to prove a POSITIVE statement - meaning linking/citing archaeological discoveries, corroborated with primary sources, maybe even genetics that show a massive movement of Romanians from the south of Danube to the North. Point by point: "there is no evidence for the continuous presence of a Latin/Romance-speaking population in the territory of the former province of Dacia Traiana after the withdrawal of the Romans." - Of course there is, archaeological and primary sources. Byzantin coins, Tombstones with latin inscriptions, cities continuously inhabited etc. Some of those very evidences are cited in this article. "The Romanians did not adopt a single word from the Germanic peoples" - well, I don't have to take your propagan... sorry, word on it. Prove it. Again you make a NEGATIVE statement so good luck in proving it. "The oldest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of masses of Romanians from the Byzantine Empire to Hungary." - Prove it. Where is this chronicle? I happen to know though of the other way around, of Kekaumenos and Ana Comnena's writings, from the 11th century BC, that point towards a movement of a latinized population from Panonia to Transylvania first, and then from Transylvania to northern Danubian plain. "The Romanians adopted Albanian loanwords." - says who? Yes, there are some (40-50) words similar, but I challenge you to link any independent western study that shows Romanian has adopted Albanian words. Moreover, even if such a thing happened (which might very well be the case) you need to show when that happened, in which historical context etc. "The Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population even in the 12th-15th centuries ... " - see, this is where you show your true colours. Nothing but a Hungarian nationalistic trying to push his political agenda. Support this extremely general statement. You also show the limits of your knowledge (if any) in confusing Vlach/Voloh/Olah/Blach etc. with Romanians. "Vlach" was used to describe many latinised people, just like Romans called the non-Romans barbarians. Now following your logic we should assume that all non-Romans are of the same ethnicity (since all were called Barbarians). 2. You should start by toning your speech down, then you might sound a bit more convincing. This entire article is filled with messy sections since it fails to recognize the "Vlach" exonym, and the fact that it was applied by various people through history to describe various ethnicities, whom were more or less related but nevertheless spoke latin (or vulgar latin for that matter). Of course, the context of "Vlach" use is to underline the balkan origin. Because readers who are not invested in this will not dig deeper, and the superficial and unrelated mentioning of Balkan Vlachs gives more credence to an otherwise pure speculative migration from south to north of daco-romans. 3. The fact that a Hungarian (with Russian links) is actively trying to molest this page with pseudo-science is appalling. 4. I would not have gone to this length and let you be with your ideas unless this was a public place and as it turns out you are a part of the current campaign of pushing a politically motivated idea (same campaign is happening on Quora). As I said, I asked for evidence to PROVE the migration hypothesis. You bring nothing to the table but propaganda and modern nationalistic slogans ("The Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population even in the 12th-15th centuries ..."). No links, no citations, no nothing. Disproving (or trying to cast doubt) bits and pieces of the Daco-Roman continuity does not equate, in any shape or form, to proving the migration hypothesis, and this is the core of my request. If Wikipedia is to present all those statements (Daco-Roman continuity, South-to-north Immigration or even the more plausible Admigration) in the same light, use the same burden of proof for all of them. So... where are the archeological finds + primary sources + DNA studies + linguistic studies + etc. etc. etc. that support the migration hypothesis? Why isn't "Vlach" described in the article in a non-ambiguous way? Another carefully crafted piece of propaganda: I could not help but notice that in the Historiography section it is mentioned that the Daco-Roman continuity theory was even taught in the Austro-Hungarian Empire until 1870, but in 1780 Franz Joseph Sulzer "rejects" the Daco-Roman Continuity theory. Whomever made this addition is clearly simply malevolent since it is a half truth, and the context is not provided (his beef with Ipsilanti for example). Franz Joseph Sulzer proposes an "alternative fact" which is politically motivated - and he argues that this is the condition of Romanians (justified by his hypothesis - therefore they are not the original inhabitants), to be kept in near slavery. So it comes that this Wikipedia page quickly points out that the Transilvanian School used the Daco-Roman Continuity theory (in order to lead the reader towards the feeling that it is a politically motivated theory) while the Sulzer's theory is not mentioned as politically motivated (he himself clearly points to this!). So while the Daco-Roman hypothesis was USED as a political tool (which is 100% true) BUT, it was just that, as the theory was already established theory for centuries - so it has no effect on it's merits. On the other hand the migration hypothesis was CREATED as a political tool. And this, imho, has quite a lot to say about it's merits. It simply falls under the same category with Racial Purity. So much for balance, impartiality and burden of proof. I do wonder who added those tidbits of texts. Also I have to wonder if there is any Romanian, Serbian or Slovakian wondering around on the Hungarian history Wikipedia pages spreading unproven nationalistic propaganda. P.S. Even though you do not declare yourself as a Hungarian/Russian agent, your arguments so far and the way you support them are precisely taken from the "book" of Hungarian nationalistic propaganda. A simple google search will lead to forums filled with so-called scientific talk where the arguments always start with "[...] and as we all know the Romanians are a migratory shepherd people [...]".Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Cool down, buddy, see WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTTHERAPY. Since we do not know what (Proto)Romanians did for roughly 1000 years, evidence is missing for both of the competing theories. We have to acknowledge that much: both are educated guesses. And that's what our article is saying. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: Although you are right about the cooling down, stating that both statements (continuity vs migration) are educated guesses is misleading at best. Again, I ask for the migration evidence (that will form a cohesive context supporting it - so I ask for the same principle of burden of proof to be aplied to both statements) to be linked to the main article, for everyone to be able to judge the validity of such a claim. Until then one is an educated guess (the continuity), ti paraphrase you, the other is pure speculation. I could very well contort some explanation about the Hungarian origins as well.Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Nobody claims that there was one wave of migration from the south. The immigration theory proposes that the migration started around 1170 and it continued for centuries. Why do you think that Anna Comnena who described the Vlachs as nomads was a Hungarian or Russian agent? Why do you think that archaeological research has proved the continuous presence of a Romance-speaking population if all early medieval sites are situated along rivers bearing Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic or German names in settlements with Slavic, Hungarian, etc names? Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC) @Borsoka: I did not say that Anna Comnena is a Hungarian / Russian agent. Please read more carefully. Moreover, again you misleading, Ana Comnena actually mentions Vlachs coming from the NORTH (to SOUTH), not the other way around. And moreover - it's slow migration now? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? Math and medieval population growth is enough to put this to shame. Again - can you bring supporting evidence to your statement? (migration or slow migration, as you seem to call it now)?Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Anna Comnena does not write of a migration from the north to the south. She mentioned that the words "Vlach" and "nomadic" are synonyms. You wrote that only Russian and Hungarian agents say, that the Vlachs formed a migratory population. Please read Dlugosz and Chalkokondiles who clearly wrote of waves of migration. Borsoka (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC) @Boesoka: Chalkokondyles? That is about Albanian migration. Jan Dlugosz - 1070 A.D. The first uncontested mention of Vlachs north of the Danube. Jan Dlugosz, a Polish chronicler, reports that Rhutenians, Patzinakas and Vlachs were fighting in the army of cnez Wiaczeslav against Boleslaw, who later become king of Poland. Can you provide a link for both Chalkokondyles and Dlugosz where thes supposed south-north migration is mentioned/inferred? How about backing up your claims?Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) You're in the wrong place, Wikipedia does not evaluate evidence: we're neither research institute, nor university. We simply render WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES according to WP:DUE, that's all. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: ??? So anything goes? Is there no rules about acurate information? And even so - @Borsoka (and even the Wikipedia article itself) has so far failed to produce any WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES. As for WP:MAINSTREAM my contention is that the migration hypothesis is far from it (I cannot understand how can you, rightfully in my oppinion, dismiss Desusianu, but admit this). What is mainstream? Is it 90% Hungarian nationalistic authors/articles mainstream? How about some US, British, French scholars? The Wikipedia article cites not even one such article (supporting the migration hypothesis) - yet it is considered mainstream? Moreover, the article starts with "several well-supported" theories, but in case the reader does on he can only find evidences for the Daco-Roman continuity and, as for the other "well supported theory", the mention of Franz Joseph Sulzer - and, I again stress, thought the Wikipedia article makes sure to underline the use of the Daco-Roman continuity theory as a political tool by the Transylvanian School it does nothing to mention WHY and HOW Franz Joseph Sulzer came up with the migration theory - reasons he himself admited. Funny enough, those things (his disparaging view of the Romanians) and his conflict with Ipsilanti can be found on Wikipedia too (@Borsoka - go quickly to edit the page). Since you seem so dismissive of the Romanian ethnogenesis (keep mentioning that nobody knows what the proto-Romanians did for 1000 years) may I respectfully ask to compile such information, presented in a clear way with links to sources where possible? Add this to whatever is present on this page. I understand and I agree that the comunist regime has used many of those things as a political (Mihai Viteazu and his "national" union for example, Burebista and Decebal as "national heroes" and the list goes on) but this does not take away the merits of every piece of supporting evidence as quite a lot of them, corroborated with the newest tool in historical research (genetics) have been used by Western scholars (US/UK/Germany/France etc) to argue in favor of Daco-Roman continuity. I also ask that the problem regarding Franz Joseph Sulzer be corrected. Either the context of his "alternative" hypothesis is mentioned or, in case it is considered irrelevant, the mentioning of the Transylvania School's use of the Daco-Roman continuity for political purposes be removed for the same reason (since the theory itself was not something they invented). @Borsoka: Just in case you forgot, can you bring any support to your claims? Point by point: "there is no evidence for the continuous presence of a Latin/Romance-speaking population in the territory of the former province of Dacia Traiana after the withdrawal of the Romans." - Of course there is, archaeological and primary sources. Byzantin coins, Tombstones with latin inscriptions, cities continuously inhabited etc. Some of those very evidences are cited in this article. "The Romanians did not adopt a single word from the Germanic peoples" - well, I don't have to take your propagan... sorry, word on it. Prove it. Again you make a NEGATIVE statement so good luck in proving it. "The oldest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of masses of Romanians from the Byzantine Empire to Hungary." - Prove it. Where is this chronicle? I happen to know though of the other way around, of Kekaumenos and Ana Comnena's writings, from the 11th century BC, that point towards a movement of a latinized population from Panonia to Transylvania first, and then from Transylvania to northern Danubian plain. "The Romanians adopted Albanian loanwords." - says who? Yes, there are some (40-50) words similar, but I challenge you to link any independent western study that shows Romanian has adopted Albanian words. Moreover, even if such a thing happened (which might very well be the case) you need to show when that happened, in which historical context etc. "The Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population even in the 12th-15th centuries ... " - see, this is where you show your true colours. Nothing but a Hungarian nationalistic trying to push his political agenda. Support this extremely general statement. You also show the limits of your knowledge (if any) in confusing Vlach/Voloh/Olah/Blach etc. with Romanians. "Vlach" was used to describe many latinised people, just like Romans called the non-Romans barbarians. Now following your logic we should assume that all non-Romans are of the same ethnicity (since all were called Barbarians).Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) We have no use here for propagandists of chauvinism, nor for fringe peddlers. WP:OR is expressly prohibited. As for me, there are things which cannot be known: some cannot be known at all, some cannot be known at the present time. Once you understand that, it becomes much easier to agree to disagree. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: "We have no use here for propagandists of chauvinism" - so Desusianu is considered propaganda and chauvinism (which I do tend to agree) but the migration hypothesis is not? Fact is Franz Joseph Sulzer proposed the southern migration as a political TOOL against the Romanian ethnics in Transylvania. Ever since then it has been used as a political tool - so why encourage one type of propaganda/chauvinism and not the other? Or if we are to dismiss propaganda and chauvinism (as it should be) why dismiss Desusianu but not the southern migration? As for philosophy - yeah, you are right (and I hope not trying to patronize me). It has it's place, but not here. Here we are talking about burden of proof, balance, and measuring all statements with the same measure. As for agreeing to disagree, I really need no lectures (not necessarily implying you are trying to give me on). So again, why is Wikipedia knowingly accepting a politically motivated statement be presented as a mainstream, well-supported theory?Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC) I agree with the proposal. The immigrationist and ad-migration hypotheses are both suppositions scarcely backed by physical evidence, as opposed to the continuity theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.130.24 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC) I agree with the proposal to downgrade said "theories" to "hypotheses", as there is no evidence to support them. For instance, there are no contemporaneous accounts of any such mass migration for the time period the hypotheses require, all such accounts come from hundreds of years later and are not believable. Moreover, in a rich folklore like Romania's something like a mass migration would've been recorded in significant ways, yet no such thing happened.--196.245.9.70 (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC) The time period started around 1170 and it has not ended yet. There are several contemporaneous accounts of the settlement of significant Vlach groups in Banat, Transylvania, Maramures, Galicia, Slovakia... Are there reliable sources that label the main scholarly views about the Romanians' ethnogenesis as "hipotheses"? Borsoka (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Please link to those contemporaneous accounts (not accounts written much later) of mass migration that you speak of. You also have to prove that no Vlachs/Romanians were living in any of the present Romanian territories at the time. FYI, as recent DNA studies have shown, the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people was already accomplished in Middle Neolithic in the same space occupied by Romanians today (yes, including Transylvania). Minimal change/admixture (especially mtDNA) has occurred since. Quite a coincidence that the exact same ethnicity lives in the exact same place 4,000 years later. All Romanian folklore revolves around the same space. The immigrationist hypothesis has already been proven false. Time for you to find another hobby.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Read any collection of diplomas from the 13th-15th centuries. You will find many references to Vlach knezes who settled on royal or private lands together with their peoples. Do you say ancient Romanians spoke Slavic, Hungarian, Cuman and German, that is why they did not name the rivers of their "homeland" in Romanian? Or should we say that Hungarian folk tales about Hungarian heroes fighting against seven-headed dragons living in the Carpathian Basin could prove a Daco-Hungarian continuity theory? Borsoka (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC) WP:PRIMARY sources are very easy to WP:CHERRYPICK: simply don't mention the sources you disagree with. That's why WP:SCIRS demands WP:SECONDARY sources (reviews). It is not our task to write literature reviews, we are not a channel for publishing original research, even one based upon WP:PRIMARY sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC) I've read those sources (everybody who's done research on the subject has read them) and they show nothing of the sort. A few movements of pockets of people within their ancestral homeland does not amount to mass migration. And, of course, you choose to ignore all the sources mentioning the presence of Dacians/Vlachs/Romanians in those territories (from Alexiad to the Gesta). As for the language, this is what Jordanes writes about the people who gave you your language (btw, modern-day Hungarians do NOT descend from either the Huns or the Magyars, as every DNA study has shown, like here or here; "Magyars imposed their language on Hungarians but seem not to have affected their genetic structure… These results suggest that the influence of Magyars on the Hungarian gene pool has been very low through both females and males and the Hungarian language could be an example of cultural dominance.") -- now here's Jordanes "There the unclean spirits, who beheld them as they wandered through the wilderness, bestowed their embraces upon them and begat this savage race, which dwelt at first in the swamps-- a stunted, foul and puny tribe, scarcely human, and having NO LANGUAGE save one which bore but slight resemblance to human speech. Such was the descent of the HUNS who came to the country of the Goths." So you see, there wasn't much there to borrow from by either the Dacians/Vlachs/Romanians or anyone else for that matter. In fact, Hungarian linguist Ferenc Bakos in his book "A magyar szókészlet román elemeinek története" (Akadémiai Kiadó, 1982) identifies more than 2,300 words that Hungarian borrowed FROM Romanian. That amounts to up to a QUARTER of your "active, basic vocabulary."--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC) You've read those sources, and "nothing of the sort"? Borsoka just mentioned a few points, not exhaustively. You are encountering the subject in a heavy prejudicative way, regarding the subject already decided and over the controversial issues you pass through easily. Even deteriorating from the subject and "caring" about fantastic theories regarding Hungarians. Before you are planning to distribute i.e. Roxin-propaganda, just check i.e. what was adopted by the Romanians from the Hungarian language and a little bit do a research about Hungarian vocabulary, it's cardinality and other charachteristics. However, it seems in your world if some people, nations are judged seriously "scarcely human, and having NO LANGUAGE save one which bore but slight resemblance to human speech", there is no doubt you could be able to cultivate i.e. those editors, that disagree with you in some questions :-).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)) Yes, I stand by what I said, "nothing of the sort". I don't know what "Roxin-propaganda" is, I don't see that name on either of the DNA studies I linked to or the documents I mentioned. That quote is from Jordanes, I didn't make it up. Again, as DNA research shows, you don't descend from those people, so no insult was intended. The point was about the Hun(garian) language in its original state. I don't speak Hungarian but I did read books on that issue and I quoted from a well-researched and well-argumented work by an established Hungarian linguist (published by the official publisher of the Hungarian Academy, if I'm not mistaken) to dispel any presumption of bias (actually, that's Wiki-proof info, you can put it in your Wiki article on the Hungarian language, if it's not there already).--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Well, then I think you did not read/checked those sources carefully. The so-called "language" claim became distributed by a propagandist. I know where was the quote from, however, you've made an unprofessional, silly assertion regarding that. Again, this article and the topic was not about Hungarians, so I won't go into deeper reactions to that. Did you read the book? If you don't speak Hungarian, no problem, according to your adopted conclusion, you may easily understand the language in case - at least quarterly :-). Did you think about the a propagandistic conclusion of a fringe source - not the book itself, but the OR interpretation of it by some enthusiastic laymen presented in Romanian, i.e. - should be taken carefully? Do you know hat percentage or significance would have if you really care about the total number of number Hungarian words? Again, did you check the amount of words inthe Romanian language borrowed from Hungarian, and i.e. making a comparison? Or also did you check from what in a bigger-lower amount the Hungarian language borrowed from other languages or the the same regarding the Romanian language, and i.e. what assertions could be drawn regarding any foreign influence with less amazement? You think you have enough knowledge to state anything about "the Hungarian langugage in it's original state? Amazing....pfff.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)) I read those sources very carefully, only a Hungarian extremist (or a slave to that ideology) would still think that those "documents" amount to proof of a mass migration. And, again, you choose to completely dismiss all the sources directly contradicting your hypothesis, the many sources attesting to the presence of the Dacians/Vlachs/Romanians in those territories. My point about the Hungarian language was in direct rebuttal to your co-propogandanist's assertion that Romanians borrowed I don't know how many words and names from Hungarians. I claimed, with arguments, that the opposite probably happened. Yes, Jordanes was probably not fond of the Huns, but maybe he had a reason... Also, if there are any primary sources stating how rich and complex the Hun(garian) language was circa 5th century (before it borrowed most of its vocabulary from the neighbors) please present it if you have "enough knowledge". As for the eminent Hungarian linguist's work, I think it speaks for itself-- whether it was 2300 words or 1000 words, the borrowing still happened mostly in one direction-- from Romanian to Hungarian.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC) (1) Oldest Romanian chronicles about the Romanians' northward migration to the "Hungarian land": Russo-Moldavian Chronicle and Cantacuzene Chronicle. (2) Archaeological evidence: how can archaeological finds from territories along rivers with Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic and German names prove the continuous presence of a Romance-speaking population? (3) Scholars about the Albanian loanwords in Romanian: Gottfried Schramm and Vladimir Orel. (4) Lack of Germanic loanwords in Romanian as a negative statement: ok, let's make positive statements. 4th-century 1Roman historians knew that the Romans had been withdrawn from Dacia; the Romanians adopted Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic place-names; the Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population for centuries (moreover, they paid tax on their sheep and they adopted their words for a settled way of life from the Bulgarians and Hungarians); there are contemporaneus sources about the settlement of Romanian groups in Hungary from the 14th century; the oldest Romanian chronicles wrote about their ancestors' northward migration to the "Hungarian land". How can you prove the continuity theory without making negative statements about these facts? (5) Romanian loanwords in Hungarian are connected to sheep and goat-breeding. Hungarian loanwords in Romanian are connected to a settled and organized way of life (hotar, adamana, razes...). (6) If you can refer to reliable sources stating that Sulzer's theory was driven by political motifs, please do not hesitate to use them to edit this article. The statement that the scholars of the Transylvanian School created the continuity theory, because they wanted to change the 17th- and 18th-century Transylvanian laws describing the Romanians as a newcommer population is based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC) @Borsoka: (1) Oldest Romanian chronicles about the Romanians' northward migration to the "Hungarian land": Russo-Moldavian Chronicle and Cantacuzene Chronicle. - Please detail this. What passage exactly is mentioning this. Also, where is the pre-condition (that there were no Romanians inhabiting the land already) necessary for you to support the migration hypothesis? (2) Archaeological evidence: how can archaeological finds from territories along rivers with Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic and German names prove the continuous presence of a Romance-speaking population? - really? How do you back your conclusion about Hungarian names? Especially for archaeological findings dating 7th, 6th or even 5th century BC? This will make for a very interesting reading. Or did history start with the Hungarian conquest (which nobody denies) of Pannonia and Transylvania? As for how archaeology works in relation to history - for example, if we find a cemetery dating from 7th century BC, with tombstones inscribed both in Latin and in Slavic then the natural conclusion is that there were both people inhabiting the area. If we again find another cemetery dating 8th century BC, with Slavic and Latin tombstones, then the natural conclusion is that there were both Slavic and Latin(ised) people living together in those 2 centuries. See, this is how it works. The archaeological findings mark milestones in time, and you put the pieces together. What archaeological findings can the migration theory claim (I mean you surely have some vestigial remains showing both the route and the time-frame of such migration, right? But as always, you are trying to validate a hypothesis by somehow invalidating another. No, it doesn't work this way. So I respectfully ask you to support migration (or slow-migration - whatever you wish) with archaeological findings. But just for the record - archaeological remains that support the continuity theory exist. If we broaden our horizons to the villages where the population actually lived, one finds extensive, and important, evidence. For example, the one industry which remained relatively unchanged (until the 5th or 6th century) was the ceramics industry. Monetary treasures at Alba Iulia, Alecus, Dimboa, Hunedoara, Jeledinti, Lapusnic, Reghin, Tiboau and Lisea. If the entire population pulled out of Dacia *during peacetime* , then why didn't they take their wealth with them. Other important findings come in the form of tombstones or cemeteries. Also one can examine the 6th Century paleo-Christian pots lid discovered at Tibiscum; the fifth or sixth century Christian bronze earthen lamp (rush-light) discovered at Dej; the devotional cross found at Biertan is inscribed in Latin :"Ego Zenovius votum posui". On the other hand, if people stayed behind, and then the barbarians started invading, it suddenly makes sense to bury one's wealth. The ceramic trail alone attests to the continuous survival of a culture. In any case, it is also worth noting that the Roman withdrawal was not complete. As late as Justinian the Great's reign (483-565), the Empire still maintained fortifications on the Danube's northern bank. (3) Scholars about the Albanian loanwords in Romanian: Gottfried Schramm and Vladimir Orel. - You really paint a poor image of yourself if you keep peddling this. First of all it's quite irrelevant, as all languages in the area have borrowed extensively. So the burden of proof is on you not ONLY to show that words have been borrowed, but when and under what circumstances. Second - one can easily refute this by reading the article here, on Wikipedia, about the Romanian language: "Thus, Romanian is scientifically very interesting from a linguistic and historical viewpoint, since Romance languages did not prevail in the other frontier regions of the Roman Empire in Europe, Asia and Africa; North Africa's falling under Arab sway may have played a role in the ultimate demise of Romance dialects. Also, the conservation in Romanian of these numerous vestiges of Latin military slang (sermo castrensis) – such as a (se)aține ("to waylay"), coif ("helmet"), împărat ("emperor"), a împresura ("to encircle with pressure"), a (se) (în)cumeta ("to venture"), a înțina ("to make thin a tree for its collapse on the invaders"), aținat ("made thin a tree"), mire "fiancé" (< Lat. miles "soldier", metonymy), a purcede ("to advance"), a răpune ("to kill"), rost "sense" a.s.o. (< Lat. rostrum "beak at prow of Roman warship"), (f)sat "village" (< Lat. fossatum "trench for defence", metonymy), șes "plain" (< Lat. sessus "plain place for camping", metonymy), a supune ("to subject"), tindă "veranda" (< Lat. tenda sub vallo "tent out of agglomerated fortress", metonymy), țară "homeland" (< Lat. terra "earth" ˃ Arom. țară "earth"), etc. and their absence in Aromanian (Balkan Romanian dialect spoken in peaceful area) – indicates the continuity of the Latinophones in the northern Danubian region, this despite dire and constant defensive wars with Germanic, "Turanian"[vague] (Turkic peoples and Magyars) and Slavic populations who entered and eventually settled there. This linguistic evidence challenges the Roeslerian theory. The vestiges from Latin military slang particularize the Romanian language in the neolatin area, together with its isolated history.[11] According to Cristian Mihail, the Roslerian theory is annihilated because of the fact that the Romanian words in common with the Albanian words do not preserve the sound "l" between vowels – in accordance, i.e. with Rom. "māgurā" and Alb. "magulë" etc. – likewise with Romanian words from Latin linguistic stratum (Rom. "scara" < Lat. "scala" etc.) unlike the words from Slavic later stratum, which preserve the sound "l" intervowels (cf. Rom. "mila", no "*mira" < Sl. "mila") would prove that the Romanian words in common with the Albanian words proceed of a latter stratum in Balkan region, near the Albanians, as supporting also by linguistics the continuity of the Latinophons (Romanians) in the Nordic-Danubian region.[12]" So go fast and edit this article... (4) Lack of Germanic loanwords in Romanian as a negative statement: ok, let's make positive statements. 4th-century 1Roman historians knew that the Romans had been withdrawn from Dacia; the Romanians adopted Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic place-names; the Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population for centuries (moreover, they paid tax on their sheep and they adopted their words for a settled way of life from the Bulgarians and Hungarians); there are contemporaneus sources about the settlement of Romanian groups in Hungary from the 14th century; the oldest Romanian chronicles wrote about their ancestors' northward migration to the "Hungarian land". How can you prove the continuity theory without making negative statements about these facts? - Care to back up those "facts"? Also, you keep mentioning the Roman retreat. Yes, nobody disputes that - but what is the relevance of that? As pointed out several times, the administration and legions retreated (although, as I already mentioned, a small military presence remained north of the Danube). But people lived in villages, villas and to some extent in cities. For everything else - back them! As for Romanians settling Transylvania later - tough luck. It's not enough to show that groups of Romanians came to Transylvania in whatever century you wish (12th, 15th, 21st etc). You also need to show there were no Romanians there already (which, coincidentally, even Gesta mentions - and it's irrelevant that Gesta is or not reliable as far as dates and people and other stuff go, the point is why would it mention them AT ALL if there were none there already?) As opposed to you, proving the daco-roman continuity is based precisely on that - so there is no need to make negative statements. It's like a film - you know what that is? If we have enough frames then you can reasonably build enough of the film to make sense out of it. Which is not the case with the migration, or slow migration hypothesis - or at least I challenge you to show us the pieces of puzzle. (5) Romanian loanwords in Hungarian are connected to sheep and goat-breeding. Hungarian loanwords in Romanian are connected to a settled and organized way of life (hotar, adamana, razes...). - So? First of all, it's OK with you to apply some logic (debunked) to the "Albanian-Romanian" connection but... not for the Hungarian-Romanian connection? How come? Using your own logic, it seems only reasonable to suggest that simply because Hungarian has sheep and goat breeding loanwords they must have met Romanians when they came to Transylvania, and after conquering the territory and imposing a certain administration the Romanians, naturally, borrowed the specific loanwords from Hungarian. By the way, I am totally lost on the "adamana" word. On another note you show a really poor understanding of what transhumance means. Again, go check the article here on Wikipedia. And feel free to edit it and say that of course, transhumance does NOT apply to Vlach shepherds because... reasons. The gist of it is that it's a seasonal migration. So they go up in the mountains during the summer, and come back to the plains during the winter. More importantly is that it's not the WHOLE family/community that travels with the sheeps, so to speak. They have a permanent settlements - call them whatever you want. They have "bases of operations" both in the mountains and, even more importantly, in the plains. (6) If you can refer to reliable sources stating that Sulzer's theory was driven by political motifs, please do not hesitate to use them to edit this article. The statement that the scholars of the Transylvanian School created the continuity theory, because they wanted to change the 17th- and 18th-century Transylvanian laws describing the Romanians as a newcommer population is based on reliable sources. - So, we're at it again with the deliberate misleading and misinformation? The Transylvanian School did not CREATE the Daco-Roman continuity theory (again, read the article, and afterwords as usual edit it to fit your views - there's a whole campaign on it) since the theory was thought in the Austro-Hungarian empire at least until the 19th century - ergo it existed, and was thought, before the mere concept of Transylvanian School came into being. I do have to wonder how come the Daco-Roman continuity was pounding people into accepting that Romanians were living on the land of Transylvania and Hungary since time immemorial, in the context of a continuous migration. I mean the social pressure must have been enormous, to make people see those shepherd emigrants, who were coming in such huge numbers, as the original inhabitants of the land. Surely there must have been a good reason to do this - one that unfortunately I am unaware of. But I am sure you will provide us with a reasonable explanation, heck, maybe even a positive statement, of why such a logical conundrum would exist in Hungary / the Austro-Hungarian Empire. As for mr. Franz Joseph Sulzer: - He was an amateur historian, who decided that his knowledge is enough to warrant a study on the origin of Romanians. He did no original research on the matter, but used only existing sources which he either agreed or disagreed with. - you can also check the Wikipage on him and (again, go and edit it to eliminate this...) see his conflict with Ipsilanti, after which he decided to, in good Dracula-like fashion, write a little piece of fiction berating the Romanian people. - seriously now - it's enough to quote his own work - the highlight being an argument in the favour of his hypothesis which is... wait for it... Politial! Yep, Pure political. The current political situation of the Romanians represents one of the premise for his statement - being that their condition (treated almost like slaves, even by the "later arrival" ethnics) comes into conflict with them being presumably the original inhabitants of the land. (na: like that has never happened before, the conquerors treating the aborigines like slaves... hard to imagine, right? we couldn't possibly find such cases in history, right?) Therefore, in a truly amazing spectacle of logic, he concludes that they must have NOT been in Transylvania, and came later than the Hungarians, BECAUSE they are treated like slaves. WOW!. Moreover, he resorts to willingly mistranslation. In a source he cites, mentioning that two Romanian voievozi (Litovoi and Seneslau) would no longer hold their lands who have been under their rule for so long. But because that would go against his premises (of Romanian migration) he magically transforms that to mean "would no longer hold their lands who have been under their rule for the past 3-4 years" by mistranslating the word "hactenus" [latin] to mean "3-4 years ago", instead of "for so long". Bring it on Borsoka, I start to like this.Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) adding a brief note to the comments by another editor (see above), re. Letopisetul Cantacuzinesc -- I asked that Hungarian fellow before (on several occasions) to come up with contemporaneous accounts of that "migration" he speaks of and yet he can only provide sources that were written hundreds of years (500 years in this case) after the fact. A few things to note about this piece, in no particular order: it was written in the context of the political conflict between Cantacuzino and the Baleanu boyar family; it was meant to portray an "origin" story for Cantacuzino, a Phanariote with Byzantine origins (that is, SOUTH of the Danube), so no wonder he talks about (his) people coming from there; strangely, the pockets of Vlachs (Romanians) crossing the Danube due North do not encounter any resistance at all, they just take over some of the richest land in Europe like they own it, starting to build cities, churches, what have you, at their hearts' desires with no resistance at all, while just a few decades earlier, as mentioned in the Alexiad, no one could cross the Danube without facing a fierce enemy, the "Dacians"-- all this to say that the only reason there was no resistance is because other Romanians (Dacians) already lived there; finally, there's the inconvenient (for immigrationists) story of Radu Negru Voda (a Romanian ruler from Fagaras, Transylvania) and his cohorts actually traveling North to South, the opposite way.--23.83.37.154 (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Yes, it seems the editors are quick to remind us of various WP:... rules but forget to abide by WP:PROVEIT, WP:BURDEN, Wikipedia:Verifiability in general.Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) In certain respects, experienced Wikipedia editors are a hive mind. You cannot therefore win a war against WP:PAGs. As for WP:PROVEIT and 500 years after the fact, Wikipedia editors do not make the call, WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes the call, see also WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC) Iovaniorgovan, I see so anyone who does not agree with you is judged as an "extremist". Fine. I did not dismiss anything, I just told you did not read carefully or interpreted properly them, without the necessary objectivity. I don't know who would be my "co-propagandist"??. If is a fact that Romanians borrowed from Hungarians, as well the opposite happened, and you did not claimed only what you assert now, but weird conlcusions on the effect of the vocabulary. The complexity of the Hungarian language (that you practically equal with the language of the Huns) in the 5th century to be asserted by a source of an overdid, faboulus, pretentious negative description is the most amateur and unprofessional thing that you can do. The same goes for your statement: "before it borrowed most of its vocabulary from the neighbors". Did you ever check a statistic about the Hungarian vocabulary (or more)? Don't worry, I present the problems of your deductions...again, regarding the "eminent Hungarian linguist's work", it was never debated that Hungarians borrowed from Romanians, what was debated the conclusion and the weird evaluations and assertions regarding this.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)) @Kiengir -- Well, I exaggerated little, for effect:-) My bad. I do try to be objective and I've been schooled in science, which is why I always open my arguments here with the DNA studies because they're the most objective and cut through the historical muck. Once I have a clear & factual starting point then I can look at the historical sources in the proper light and dismiss those that don't agree with the facts. For instance, the theory/hypothesis that the Romanians formed as an ethnicity in the first millennium somewhere in the Balkans (popular with some Hungarians) has been proven completely false (see DNA study I linked to above). Also, the question of "who was first in Transylvania", has been answered beyond a reasonable doubt by that same study. For what it's worth... I'm not here to discuss politics, I'm only interested in history. Once I have a solid ground to stand on I start looking at the other options and see what "sources" best fit the "facts", what "sources" don't fit the "facts" and why. Etc, etc. Like I said, I don't know for sure what the state of the Hun language was in the 5th century AD, but (right now) I'm inclined to believe that Jordanes was not completely off the mark. If you present evidence (primary sources) to the contrary I'm willing to change my mind about it. It's not something that's set in stone for me. I go where the evidence takes me. And, sure, I agree that there was probably two-way borrowing going on between the two languages, I just don't think that Romanian borrowed all that much from Hungarian (that was in response to that other editor's comments, see above). Naturally, if the Germans or the Hungarians founded a city/settlement and named it, then the Romanians most likely used that same name. Else, they used names given by themselves (like Satu Mare, Mures, etc). As for the "co-propagandist" swipe, I guess that was a little out of line. I thought you guys were in cahoots or something (what with replying for one another) but I just went through the backlog of the "talk" pages here and saw that this other guy has been at it for years (!!), asking the same questions, getting the same answers, to no effect, going around in circles. It's like arguing with a machine. Waste of time. Anyway, all the best.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC) It's not our task to weigh evidence, our task is to weigh modern scholarly sources. As I told you, one WP:PRIMARY source does not weigh very much, it is not our task to write reviews. If you keep insisting that a WP:PRIMARY has established WP:THETRUTH, you have a WP:CIR problem and you should be banned from editing and discussing articles which concern the history of Eastern Europe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Ivaniorgovan, according of the indication of the other editors and as you quitted, I also intend to end this discussion with this final asnwer. Probably almost everybody tries to evaulate everything on that pattern or "holy" matter as you describe, despite there was, are and will be many arguments, as even some evidence or facts are judged differently sometimes. I.e. be careful with the DNA studies, since if a population is coming on another population, admixture happens very possibly, and after more waves it is hardly to say who, when and where was first, especially in Europe where the moving, mixing of peoples, cultures, languages were very intense and versatile, at least I disagree as it would be one and only fixpoint correlate from, thus I disagree about the exlusion regarding the ethnogenesis of the Romanians i.e. in the Balkans. Also I did not tell Iordanes should be dismissed all the way, I just pinpointed that regardless of a suggested relation of Huns and Hungarians, especially a few more hundred years the landtaking Magyars and their language is not such a direct reference point. As for the adoption of words regarding Romanian or Hungarian, you may easily check existing statistics and calculate with them. Regarding the names, the name Satu Mare was given in 1925. Mures was the most possible adopted by the directly or by intermediation from Slavic. If more topics or question are coming up, people may explain or raise them more times. All the best as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)) Two quick points: DNA studies do exactly that: calculate admixture. If mtDNA from the Middle Neolithic almost precisely matches modern-day Romanian DNA then there was (little to) no admixture. Case closed. As for Satu Mare, please read a wiki primer here-- there are whole books written about the city but since we're on wiki... Cheers!--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu Good job laying out the traffic rules at Wiki. Will try to not get a ticket.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Still does not necessarily applies to location. I know the Satu Mare article. Bye(KIENGIR (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)) @Iovaniorgovan: Truth is that there is only one editor who can get you banned from Wikipedia, that editor is you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC) DNA studies can not confirm that Romance speakers (as the direct ancestors of Romanians were called in medieval era: the Vlachs) existed in the area before the high medieval period. Vast majority of modern Romanians (especially in Wallachia) have the very same Balkanic genetic mixture as the Bulgarians and Southern Serbians. It is very hard to genetically distinguish these populations. (The Slavic element in Serbia had lesser impact in the Serbian Genetics, than the ancient balkanic genetic heritage, modern-day Bulgarians had only a small conqueror elite which gave the name of Bulgaria, but the population genetically remained mostly local) Itself the fact, that the population of ancient Dacia has the very similar East-Balkanic genetic admixture like these above mentioned modern-day nations can not prove that Romance speaker Vlachs had any continuity (or more relationship than the genetic ancestors of Bulgarian population and Southern Serbian population. Therefore if we take seriously the migration theory, the migration of the genetically East Balkanic Vlachs to modern-day Romania, these typical East Balkanic genetic results wouldn't be really different than the genetics of ancient Dacian population. We must also know that the genetics of modern Moldavians Wallachian Romanians and Transylvanian Romanians are different genetically. Moldavians are much more Eastern Slavic, Wallachians genetically are the same as East Balkanic nations, Transylvanian Romanians have more Central - European genetics. Therefore only the Wallachian Romanians have East-Balkanic genetic similarity with Dacian era populations. If the ancestors of Romance speaking Vlachs had lived constantly on the Dacian area (The Daco-Roman continuity theory) even after the Roman withdrawal, they wouldn't could preserve their purely East-Balkanic type genetic admixture heritage, due to the centuries admixture of brutal conquerors (Goths, Huns, Longobards, Carpians, Gepids). But Vallachian-Romanians do not have the genetic heritage of these conqueror populations. (these mixture genetic with the conquerors would make them genetically more Central European, more distant from the original East-Balkanic herritage of Wallachian-Romanians.) Logical conclusion: Slavo-Romance mixed speaker Vlachs (the direct ancestors of Wallachian Romanians according to the migration theory) must have migrated from the Balkans in the high medieval era, this is the only possibility that they have similar East-Balkanic type of admixture like Dacians. (I still do not consider Wallachian Romanians genetically closer to Dacians than the other Genetically close East-Balkanic people like Bulgarians or the genetically East-Balkanic Southern Serbians. The ancient East-Balkanic genetic heritage was reintroduced/restored by the high medieval migration of other genetically East-Balkanic Vlach population in the territory of modern -day Wallachian Romania.--Filederchest (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC) You're all over the place with your comments and you obviously need a briefer course in DNA. First off, feel free to post the links to the DNA studies that support your assertions. I have done so with mine, and they clearly disprove EVERYTHING you say. Just because different people lived in the same regions does NOT necessarily imply admixture, as the DNA study I posted shows. There's another recent study by a German team of ancient DNA of Egyptian mummies-- "Johannes Krause, a University of Tubingen paleogeneticist and an author of the study, said the major finding was that “for 1,300 years, we see complete genetic continuity. ”Despite repeated conquests of Egypt, by Alexander the Great, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Assyrians — the list goes on — ancient Egyptians showed little genetic change.“ So this shows in yet another example that it's quite possible to not have admixture despite constant invasions. The other big surprise,” Krause said, “was we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancestry.” What the study found was "that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic ANATOLIAN and European populations (Fig. 5a,b). When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested." So, you see, those ancient ANATOLIAN people did not mix, just like the Vlachs/Romanians (who are, according to the study I linked to, POSSIBLY related to that Anatolian population and hence perhaps living by the same laws; in fact, the Lege Valachorum prohibited marriage with foreigners) did not mix much (at least as mtDNA is concerned, though a bit more on the Y-DNA, as expected due to wars, etc). Now here's another DNA study that shows just how homogenous the Romanian population is and regardless of whether they live North or South of the Carpathians there are some differences, obviously, but they are relatively small "However, this limitation is weak at most, without a strong Northern and Southern Carpathian Mountains mitochondrial haplogroup differentiation". This again disproves your hypothesis. There are Y-DNA studies as well, like the one mentioned in the study above, but even "among these, one study assessing the variability of the Y-chromosome has proposed that... the population structure of the Carpathian basin is relatively homogenous". So there you have it. Either way you look at it the results are pretty clear. Your entire hypothesis is based on the assumption that people occupying the same territory = major admixture, which has already been proven wrong. Also, keep in mind that the Dacians and the Thracians were, according to all ancient sources, related and spoke similar languages so one should expect Romanian DNA to cluster with Balkan DNA. However, they're clearly distinguishable, as you can see in ALL studies ever taken. I assume you're Hungarian, so here's a DNA study for you here, which shows that "Consistent with previous studies, Hungarian-speaking populations are genetically closely related to their geographic neighbours. The Hungarian and Szekler groups cluster together with some other central Europeans (e.g. Czechs and Slovaks), but MAINLY with Balkan populations.” I realize that this comes as a shock to your programming but, as they say, maybe it's time to unplug. Happy readings! p.s. the "Carpians" you mention were actually Free Dacians and they're still all over Moldavia/Moldova to this day, going by the same name (Carp/Carpian); how's that for continuity?.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC) To wit, you lump together the Balkans like they're one big population with no genetic difference between their respective countries or nationalities. That's completely wrong, and only a cursory research will reveal that much. I'm not here to teach you what DNA is and how to read DNA studies, you should do that on your own and then come back informed. Besides, it's frowned upon on these pages to talk about DNA research (see thread above). So I'll be brief, with just one example-- go to the Wiki page on the Genetic Studies on Bulgarians and see for yourself. On the Y-DNA side, they found "The overall profile of 808 Bulgarian samples, according to a level of phylogenetic analysis calculating distribution of hgs R1a1a7, R1а1, R1b1a2, R2a, I, E1b1, E1b1b1, E1b1b1a, E1b1b1b, J2b, J2a, J2a1b, J1, G, T, NO, C, H, Q, L, A and B, is positioned nearest to the Romanians per 147 their samples,[14] also backed by studies as early as 2000.[43] However the analysis of the Bulgarian study showed inaccuracy in some aspects using population datasets which proved to contain genetic drift according to alternative more extensive studies on these populations. Furthermore, the analysis did not even involve the populations Macedonians, Serbians, Montenegrins and Slovaks. It is unclear why the extensive datasets and the most proximal Slavic populations to the Bulgarians were excluded from the phylogenetic analysis of the Bulgarian study selectively. The study of the 149 Romanians by whose data they came out most proximal to Bulgarians concludes that Romanians are closer to Ukrainians and Hungarians than to the Bulgarian group sampled by the study.[44]" My note: as expected, seeing as modern-day Hungarians are (according to all DNA studies) Magyarized Europeans (including Magyarized Romanians, obviously), and the Ukraine was occupied in the past by Scythian tribes, many of which were related to the Dacians/Getae (like the Thyssagetae, and even the Massagetae at some point; Sarmatians were most likely of the same race, too). As for the mtDNA study, which is more important here, "According to the largest-scale mtDNA Bulgarian study involving 996 Bulgarian samples, comparing distribution of hgs H, H5, HV, HV0, R0a, J, U1, U2, U2e, U3, U4, U5a, U5b, U6, U7, U8, K, N1, N2, X, M, Т1, Т2, the Bulgarians came out nearest to the Poles, followed by Ukrainians, Croats, Czechs, while neighbouring Turks, Romanians and Greeks remained more or very distant.[61]" That goes to show that, for all our similarities, there are still BIG differences between these ethnicities (for better or worse, I'm not making any judgement here; big love to everyone), something that's easy to pick up on by any DNA expert. And that's the case with that Middle-Neolithic study I mentioned. There's only one population in modern-day Europe that perfectly fits the genetic fingerprint of that ancient people, and that's the Romanians. Moreover, the two closely related populations, 4000-5000 years removed, just happen to live on the exact same territory. If you don't understand this much... Anyway, like I said, I may get kicked off of Wiki for posting about DNA so please do the research on your own, with an open mind and devoid of prejudices and you'll find the truth there eventually, I'm sure. All the best.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC) As I said, WP:PRIMARY sources are very easy to twist: simply don't mention those which disagree with you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Agreed. So isn't it time to downgrade the immigrationist "theory" to a "hypothesis"? As far as I'm concerned it should be "fringe", but I'm not the one making the call.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC) The continuity thesis fares no better, believe me. Just because you hear it more often, it would not mean that it would be more supported. Other people hear the immigrationist thesis more often, that's the difference. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Iovaniorgovan, I agree with Tgeorgescu. You still believe too much your "own proofs", and as well ignore those points we already discussed, seems like a bit "post hoc ergo propter hoc". Regarding Hungarians - as you mentioned them - of course they are related to their neighbors since, instead of parts of the today's Croatian border, parts - more or less - were part of Hungary and they were in the same genetic pool. However we should not enter on those debates that what genes are assigned to what groups and what kind of considerations are attached to that, since it is always twofold that who could be source.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)) Well, I disagree. The historical evidence, as well as the Wiki-acceptable sources, is overwhelmingly favoring continuity. I don't know how you can see it otherwise. As for genetics, there's no "twofold" way about it. Again, I don't think you have a clue about how genetics work. Even in today's state of "admixture", given a relatively sizable sample there's no way for a specialist to mistake Romanian DNA for Hungarian DNA or Bulgarian DNA, or whatever. Hungarians represent a culture more than an ethnicity. Here's another DNA study of Hungarians showing the same thing: "Conclusion: “"Magyars imposed their language on Hungarians but seem not to have affected their genetic structure… These results suggest that the influence of Magyars on the Hungarian gene pool has been very low through both females and males and the Hungarian language could be an example of cultural dominance."" Every DNA study ever done on Hungarians shows the same thing: you do not descend from the Huns/Magyars but rather you're a mix of Magyarized Europeans (Slovaks, Romanians, Germans, Bulgarians, Gypsies, etc), a mix that's still in the process of formation. So how exactly would the Romanians have gotten their particular DNA fingerprint in your "theory"? That same DNA fingerprint present in Transylvania more than 4000 years ago? That same DNA fingerprint present fairly homogeneously across all Romanian territories? Do you realize how little sense you're making or you're just here to troll? You Hungarians are clearly, by any measure, a very young and still forming European people and yet this is not reflected in the Wiki page of "Origin of the Hungarians" (which redirects to "Hungarian prehistory" and has a blank Genetics section). Shouldn't you be more concerned with tending your own garden than trolling these pages?--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Without to wish to repeat myself, I disagree that historical evidence or something else would "overwhelmingly favoring continuity". My reasons I explained already. Despite this page is about the origin of the Romanians, you care too much about Hungarians. A bit surpised about Bulgarians and Gypsies with such an emphasis :) I think also others before me expressed their opinions, I don't need to repeat, you may read them again. Again, what you see/measure today, is a result of a long way process, tending to assumptions of an early state, where the assignment of some charasteristics in a broad term are based on assumptions or designations by a recent consensus. Debates may be on this, and once a consensus of an assigment is debated or changed, than what was considered to belong to subject "A" will belong to subject "B" and present observational distribution may be challenged by causality. It is just about now which genetic markers are considered to belong a group of people and/or which is present and where in present-day populations and/or what hy written history we believe/assume about the movement of people of nations. If you don't understand what I mean, just check the Scythian/Indo-European debate/confusion, the major shift in the historiography of the romantic nationalism in the 18th-19th centuries when the earlier long-standing standpoints and facts where totally distorted, reinterpreted and they are keeping even today, regardless of many unexplainable confusions and back in time contradicting contemporary evaluation and sources everything is judged differently, but I could the same way mention the Finno-Ugrian theory, that simply does not match with genetic studies. Excuse me, but I cannot take serious such statements like "You Hungarians are clearly, by any measure, a very young...", since Hungary is one of the oldest existing countries, however, no doubt the Hungarians mixed with other people since they contacted with many nations, and we could say the language and cultural preservation was a significant element also in this process. About the questionable and dangerous interpretation of genetic studies also others warned you before. Your harsh accusations about "trolling" I have to refuse, you generated a discusssion that once you said you have finished, but it seems not. I you cannot bear different opinions like yours, sorry, it is not my fault.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)) @KIENGIR: "Despite this page is about the origin of the Romanians, you care too much about Hungarians." - Really? The irony of what you just said escapes you, right? This article has been vandalised for a long time by Hungarian editors. How come so much interest? I would expect a natural interest from Romanian editors, but Hungarian editors? Why would an article explaining the Romanian origins have multiple Hungarian editors? How come this subject is of such interest for Hungarians? What does the Hungarian state teach you in school? That the Daco-Roman Continuity theory is false. Biased much?Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) This page is about the Origin of the ROMANIANS, and yet you Hungarians are here in force. For what reasons, you should ask yourselves... If I cared too much about Hungarians I'd be trolling the Origin of the Hungarians page (I just had a look and there's a LOT missing on that page, including the Genetics studies, as I've mentioned before). I only bring up Hungarians because the only foreign contributors here are Hungarians. Do you see any other people posting here? Bulgarians? Turks? Ukranians? No. Just Hungarians... for some reason. That says more about you than us. Food for thought. When you post repeated comments with NOTHING to back them up, just expressing your OPINIONS, and even those in poorly constructed "arguments", then you can forgive me for accusing you of "trolling". Didn't mean to sound harsh, but sometimes there's just no other way to put it (there's also a difference between a "troll" and someone just "trolling", you understand?) Anyway, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? The historical arguments you just mentioned, which actually I agree with, in the main, do not really apply to the argument I made. If you don't "get it", please read again what I wrote. And I said that Hungarians are a young "people"-- it's clear in the context that it's meant as "ethnicity", not "nation." The two concepts are not necessarily related. You try to downplay the significance of these recent DNA studies (maybe because they contradict everything you believe?) but you do it out of a position of ignorance-- which is okay, no one is an expert in everything. However, it's difficult to have a discussion at this level, and this is not the right forum for it. That was my earlier point, which is why I will really try to end it here. So let me state this here in no uncertain terms: the recent DNA studies (of which I only mentioned a couple) have completely, unequivocally and irreversibly proved Romanian continuity on current territories, while completely and irreversibly disproving the "immigrationist hypothesis". No amount of future denying, equivocating, or plain "cultural terrorism" (to use a term coined by your compatriot György Lukács) can change this fact. The only reason we're still talking about it here is because Wiki has certain rules-- as clearly outlined by Tgeorgescu on these pages-- and in general the academia is very slow moving (it has its own interests to preserve and protect). That may take a year or two but it's inevitable, the dam is breaking. In the meantime you can behave like Scrat, that proto squirrel from Ice Age 2, trying its hardest to plug every fresh hole in the ice dam, when the end result is inevitable. But how you choose to spend your time is your business. I sincerely wish you the best.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC) @Iovaniorgovan: The whole article has been hijacked. Take a look at the history of it, at one point the information was presented in a very structured way. Even though the migration hipothesys was mentioned (a thing I do not object to) it was obvious how "well supported" is because of how the article was strcutured. Today's article is, in my oppinion, deliberately misleading and covering for the lack of evidence for the migration/admigration. It has been deliberately (again check the history and archives) by mainly Borsoka - who is of course a neutral, objective and non biased (even though he grew up "knowing" that the Daco-Roman continuity theory is false - a thing he learned in school). And well... disappointment all around. The only one here who should be a counter balance, Tgeorgescu - with all due respect, arbitrarily applies WP rules, or he is more concerned that the Hungarian Irredentist article does mention the educational program of Hungarian schools. The gist of this is the article is poorly structured, deliberately misleading, lacks a neutral point of view, respects some WP rules (that are convenient for the editors) but not others. Form my point of view, this being an encyclopedia and not a cooking blog, where otherwise opinions are welcomed, should first and foremost obey the burden of proof. You can make a statement - how about backing it up. Then you go to the reputable sources and such.Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) I agree. And you can clearly see the double standard applied between the Origin of the Romanians page and the Origin of the Hungarians page. Where's the consistency? Even though I also see Tgeorgescu's points, in some ways, it's just a matter of emphasis. As is, equal weight is given to both theories, which is not fair by any standards of proof. On a side note, you might want to sign your comments here because Tgeorgescu reported me for "At Talk:Origin of the Romanians many IPs have shown up, advancing the same POV in the same style as Special:Contributions/Iovaniorgovan," etc. In other words Tgeorgescu appears to lump together everyone who contests the "immigrationist" hypothesis or his way of handling the page content and is trying hard to get us blocked. Nice guy otherwise.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC) @Iovaniorgovan, @Tgeorgescu Yes, my bad. I apologise about this, never meant to be drawn up in this.There we go, I hope I signed all my statements (hope I didn't miss any).Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) As Wikipedians, our allegiance isn't to a country/nation, our allegiance is to WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. For us, truth means what mainstream scholars say is true. If no WP:RS/AC has been reached, we tell it in our articles. And no consensus can be reached, simply because 1000 years of (Proto)Romanian history are missing from the record. This is not a conspiracy against my country, it is simply the way things are. About "may take a year or two": don't make promises you cannot keep; do not make promises in the name of third parties. According to WP:BALL and Benjiboi, "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu - Sure, I completely agree with this (the quote). Nevertheless this is an encyclopedia - not an opinion blog, and as such the burden of proof is enforced. And the burden of proof come BEFORE all the other WP:RULES that are thrown around here. Editors, it seems, simply "[...] disagree that historical evidence [...]" (mainly Hungarian editors - who of course, although thought in school that the Daco-Romanian Continuity theory is false, are in no way whatsoever biased... Just look at Borsoka, throwing around the same "arguments" even if he is shown repeatedly that those statements are wrong/false.). So what gives? Is selectively and arbitrarily applying WP:RULES a sign of a balanced, neutral and objective editing? Do rules apply the same for everyone, of some rules apply when the editor "agrees" or "disagrees"? Is this an encyclopedia or a medium to push fringe ideas for the sake of balance? Example: Even today there are people who believe, sincerely, that the earth is Flat. Shouldn't Wikipedia, by your own standards, be allowed to present this as a competing and "well supported" theory among others? How about Creationism? Maybe the page dedicated to Evolution should contain more Creationism, for the sake of balance (instead of a page dedicated to the controversy - one which is too complex, evidently, to be treated in a couple of short and unsupported statements). Or maybe Climate change denial. Surely that should be presented as a competing (and well supported) theory along with Climate Change. Please go check Britannica. Read about the origin of Romanians - and although the "migration" hypothesis is mentioned, the encyclopedia chooses to present the Daco-Roman Continuity. Does that make you think about things? Can you read between the lines? Surely such a source, that openly states there are indeed evidences (archaeological and written) supporting continuity, as well as the fact that when the Hungarians conquered Transylvania there were indeed both Slav and Proto-Romanian "voievodate". Surely Britannica qualifies as a reputable source, and surely this lands the death nail in the "migration" hipothesys. "Between the 10th and 14th centuries new political formations emerged in the Carpathian-Danube region. The Hungarians, who had settled in Pannonia at the end of the 9th century and who entered Dacia in the 10th century, overwhelmed the Slavic-Romanian duchies, or voivodates, that they encountered there. "Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Cealicuca, I really don't understand what kind of "irony would escape me" (from what?). I don't know of any "long time vandalism by Hungarian editors". I suppose mainly editors from Romania or Hungary are interested since the two nations share history on a common location where they live up today. Just for curiosity, could you support you statement with something i.e. what would be taught in the Hungarian schools? Anyway, your overexaggerated conspiracy-theories I am not interested and I agree again with Tgeorgescu, in WP editors has not bounded by nationality or whatsoever, they are Wikipedians. Iovaniorgovan, I don't know about such thing that "Hungarians would be at force" or similar. I did not check entirely if there would be any editor of a different supposed nationality, however, it is irrelevant anyway, just see earlier comments. However I've met with editors with supposedly different nationality in many Romania or Hungary related articles, but again, WP is not about this, and without a honest self-declaration - or even with that - you cannot judge people's nationality here. With such like "NOTHING to back them up, just expressing your OPINIONS, and even those in poorly constructed "arguments", I disagree, this is your opinion and I still advice you not to focus on personal issues. However, thanks for your clarification. We are discussing here and yes, maybe it is better to read back former arguments than to repeat them again if we do not agree if they were applied properly or not. I've met with many DNA research - and excuse me, I don't agree I would be "completely ignorant" - also the same way could be concluded fantastic theories about Hungarians and how many thousand years ago they would be present, etc. but as you see I don't promote them, because I know about those things things that I tried you to enlight. Shortly: an observational distribution in a present time and it's comparison to an earlier epoch will always be dependent of the initial assigment of the supposed variables and their designations, including as well the location parameter, as well included other parameters that are unceartain. You may conclude partially what is today the situation, what surely what belongs to whom and who was the source and who was borrowing will always have an uncertainty level. If something does not add up according to the accepted/famous theories, explanations are created of the reason, that may be true or not (again, like the Finno-Ugrian theory, or other problems I mentioned before). I am sorry if you don't understand this. Such statements like "the recent DNA studies (of which I only mentioned a couple) have completely, unequivocally and irreversibly proved Romanian continuity on current territories, while completely and irreversibly disproving the "immigrationist hypothesis"." clearly shows that you are fully accepting and believing something, that current (overall) science could not be able to prove. As for your "Ice age" tale I can reflect that you introduce a study of the similarity of the Romanians regardless they are in the north of south claiming as an evidence to support your standpoint, however there is no surpise i.e. in case the same people are migrating to more locations. You can interpet it also that way. The same goes for your orther argumentation that "because some research shows that Romanians would be closer to Hungarians and Ukrainians than Bulgarians" today (my addition), it would prove your standpoint and you even explain them by ad-hoc assumptions like "occupied by Scythian tribes, many of which were related to the Dacians/Getae" and you immediately equal Dacians/Getae as the ancestors of the Romanians, although it is not proven, just an assumption, meanwhile you dismiss the huge effect of Slavs on Romanians, Hungarians, but with a high stress pattern regarding the historical Moldova. The same way you handle Hungarians "who could only borrow everything from it's neighbors". I recommend you to check how the ancestry, origin, language or the race of the Huns or Scythians were classified until the 18th-19th century and/or if the reason of their re-classification are solid or dubious or based on further scholar assumptions that became accepted but as well criticized. Then you will understand hopefully how dangerous is to excommunicate some "ultimate proofs" of origin. All the best as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)) @Kiengir, the DNA studies have to be taken all together in consideration in order to paint a clear picture. The "homogeneity" study I mentioned showed very slight (neighboring) influences in the respective main Romanian territories, but not enough to say they are distinct from one another. In fact, the opposite is true, they are all fairly homogenous, which should tell you one thing: traditionally, the Romanians have NOT mixed much at all despite the various influences (Austrians, Magyars and forced Magyarization, Russians and forced Slavicization, the Turks, etc) over hundreds of years. I added some of my comments to explain the findings, I didn't plan to write an end-all dissertation on the subject (I didn't mention the Slavic influence because, while not as major as some would think, it did play a factor obviously and it's a well-known fact). This "homogeneity" is, again, in accord with the study that finds present-day Romanians very closely related (not just genetically but also culturally, as evidenced by pottery patterns, shapes, etc) to the Middle-Neolithic people living in the same territories. That Middle-Neolithic presence is the anchor, as it were. The Romanians were already formed as a people back then. End of. If you say that Romanians later migrated "in toto" to the South and then migrated "in toto" back to their original territories (with minimal genetic admixture over millennia), then you have a hell of an argument on your hands-- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... which you don't have because it doesn't exist. So I'll take Occam's razor: we've been here all along.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC) @KIENGIR"Despite this page is about the origin of the Romanians, you care too much about Hungarians." So it's not OK for a Romanian to be concerned about Hungarians editing the Origin of Romanians article, but it is perfectly fine for a Hungarian to be concerned in the origin of... Romanians? Is it more clear now? "I suppose mainly editors from Romania or Hungary are interested since the two nations share history on a common location where they live up today." - You suppose wrong. If it were Transylvania - sure, I could agree you with. But it's totally not understandable the level of voluntary non-academic interest the Hungarians show regarding the Origin of Romanians - overexagerated conspiracy or not. And you know why? Because Hungarians, the same people that display stamps with "Greater Hungary" on their cars 100 years from Trianon, are susceptible to bias. The Hungarian educational program is concerned (yet another piece of irony) with "proving" that the Daco-Roman Continuity theory is false. This is my claim (and it ties up nicely with point 1) - this is what you wanted me to support? Would a public voluntary admission of such from a Hungarian national suffice?Cealicuca (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC) About WP:BURDEN: flat Earth theories are not propagated by WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES. In fact what WP:BURDEN requires of us is precisely citing WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES. This is the way we do things around here, and this satisfied the burden of proof: WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP evaluates the evidence and our task is simply citing WP:RS written by mainstream scholars. This is what Wikipedia is about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: Ok. Let's go step by step. The migration hypothesis rests on two pillars. 1st, and the most important, is to show there were NO proto-romanians (or as everyone here seems to be fond of using - the exonym Vlach, which coincidentally comes in handy to avoid mentioning Tara Romaneasca. Everyone is using Wallachia). The 2nd one is a consequence of the 1st statement and the conflicting reality - that there ARE Romanians in Transylvania at the moment. So, logic dictates that they must have come from somewhere - but ONLY IF the 1st statement is shown as true. Otherwise, the 2nd statement is irrelevant. On another note, and this is the main problem of the migration - it rests on a negative premise. See, logic is beautiful. It's quite difficult - to say the least, to provide evidence that something IS NOT. And this is why this migration will always be in doubt and cannot ever be considered a theory. It start with: "there couldn't have been Romanians in Transylvania, at the time, because so and so". By the way, this "so and so", when this hypothesis was proposed by mr. Sulzer, consisted of "romanians are near slaves so obviously they couldn't be native". I do hope that we live in a more enlightened century where such "proof" is treated the way it deserves. Not on Wikipedia though... Nest step - the 2nd statement is covered quite a lot, and there are even (yes, admitting to it) evidence that show movements of population from the South of Danube to the North. But there are is also evidence of population movement from the North of the Danube to the South. In any case, again, this is irrelevant while the 1st statement is not supported. So, again (and again, and again) I ask: where is the evidence that supports the 1st statement? Anyone? I'll throw in a pack of Oreos, really. On the other hand, I just cited one very respected and trustworthy source: the Encyclopedia Britannica. "Between the 10th and 14th centuries new political formations emerged in the Carpathian-Danube region. The Hungarians, who had settled in Pannonia at the end of the 9th century and who entered Dacia in the 10th century, overwhelmed the Slavic-Romanian duchies, or voivodates, that they encountered there. " The article on Britannica has been written by a lot of people, only 1 or 2 of them being Romanians. Anyone can check it out. So, if this source clearly states that there were Romanians in Transylvania at the time the Hungarians settled it. This supports the Daco-Roman Continuity AS WELL AS destroys the Migration hypothesis. Hence, trying to "prove" part two of the Migration hypothesis becomes irrelevant. Simple as that.Cealicuca (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Typical WP:IDHT reply: I have repeatedly stated that it is not the task of Wikipedia editors to engage in WP:OR in order to evaluate evidence, we simply render WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES, and this satisfies WP:BURDEN. Modern mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP is where evidence gets evaluated, obviously not inside Wikipedia and not by Wikipedia editors. We may only comment on the reliability/reputation of WP:RS relying upon objective criteria (see WP:PAGs), so we render WP:RS/AC, or, in this case, the lack of academic consensus. We do not substitute ourselves for mainstream scholars. This is not the place to advocate that one theory is better than the other, peer-reviewed mainstream historical journals are the place for doing that and we simply take at face value that there is no academic consensus upon the origin of Romanians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Our house, our rules is a blunt way of saying that the Wikipedia community has a set of norms that govern how the encyclopedia is built: norms about what kind of sources we use, about how we handle conflict, and so on. Those norms include not using self-published internet sources, not making blanket statements about ethnic groups (Jews, in this case) without support, not editing against the consensus of editors, and so on. You may consider discussion of those norms as "off-topic," but the Wikipedia community tends to think they are important. Wikipedia articles aren't "owned" by individuals, but they are "owned," in a sense, by the Wikimedia community and the consensus of editors. When an editor, like yourself, decides they want an article to go in a direction other than what the majority of editors want to do, the majority of editors typically preserve their preferred version. Adding material to an article, and then having other editors take that material out, is part of the normal editing process. It's not "force" and it's not "vandalism." It happens to all of us. I'm pretty sure that none of us have our edits here accepted by the community 100% of the time. Learning to abide by Wikipedia's communal decisions is an important part of getting along here as an editor. And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC) This is in response to your post on the Leonora Piper talk page which has been reverted. Kazuba, I'm sorry to drop into the middle of this but I saw your post and it intrigued me. I think one of the greatest mysteries in the Internet is "What is Wikipedia for?" Quite a few people have tried to edit Wikipedia believing it to be the place to put your findings and your research so that others can see them. Unfortunately, that's not what Wikipedia was built for. Others try and post what they have seen to be the "truth", again they will find themselves getting reverted because that's not a goal of Wikipedia. I guess the best way to describe it is "The Largest Collection In The World". Wikipedia collects all the other knowledge and puts it in one place so it can be referenced. You express above your love and talent for research - I thinks that's wonderful. We need people like you because we already have enough people like me (I can't find my socks on my feet). The issue would be putting that research on Wikipedia, so long as it's in a book or over-sighted article, fine. If not, you'll get push-back. Also, we have to present both sides of an argument. There's no way to quantify how famous a person is, so Wikipedia tries to stay away from determining who's more or less popular. To say that a thing was very popular is one thing, to compare it to other things that may also be popular is different. Even statements like the ones in the section on "Phinuit" are a bit too far. There are statements that refer to "Phinuit" as a doctor and that his French wasn't very good... That's intimating that "Phinuit" is a real person who could be a doctor and know French. Since there's never been any evidence proving this all we can do is refer to it as "the entity Mrs. Piper referred to as Phinuit". These are some of the restrictions placed on us by Wikipedia, they make it so the stuff we add to an article is concrete and cited to other sources so Wikipedia doesn't get in trouble for "making up stuff". I understand your indignation, I have an article about my father on this site and I can't add several things to it because they are not written down anywhere. I lived with the man for 15 years... was raised by him... ate his cooking... but I can't say "he had one brown eye and one green eye" because it's not written somewhere else. Please don't loose heart, try and stick around and if you need help presenting an argument, please leave a message on mytalk page and we'll work it out together. Padillah (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I have quoted what other editors stated in another context, but it is recommended to learn from what they stated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Again, the problem was not presenting POVs but HOW those are presented. False equivalence. As for Wikipedia, unfortunately it's THE PLACE to go for the current and future generation, for the foreseeable future. As such, Wikipedia is FACT for quite a lot of people, both young minds and not so young. The fact that there is no academic consensus is no excuse for a poorly structured and, in my opinion, biased in quite a lot of statements (see the Transylvanian school reference - using the Daco-Roman Continuity as a political tool, while failing to mention how Immigration came to be. Nothing on Sulzer's political motives - which in turn would make the Immigration a politically created tool) article. I never said to remove content about Immigration / Admigration. I personally think that the Admigration is the most likely explanation, but since it basically suffers from the same logical fallacy I cannot support it in any honest way. I am also stating that this misleading article has been brought to such a state deliberately - this is my opinion. The gist of it is that several statements are presented as "well supported" while the structure provides no structure in order for people to be able to actually asses such statement, and how well supported they really are. Each one (Daco-Roman continuity, Immigration and Admigration) should have it's own dedicated area, dealing with the evidence, critical points and the possible rejection of those critical points etc. And as a matter of fact I would really like for the content (Immigration) to remain - because if nothing else it has educational value. As for Wikipedia, no matter how this turns out, it NEEDS to adapt to the educational role it has today. And in order to do that it must be able to police the content a lot better than it does now. Simply dismissing this responsibility, out of hand, is nothing short of cowardice.Cealicuca (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) For us, false equivalence means WP:GEVAL. Please elaborate how presenting different major mainstream views would amount to WP:GEVAL. And stop accusing others of cowardice, this is not appreciated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC) I did not accuse you personally of cowardice, I was obviously referring to the fact that Wikipedia declares itself as a "collection" of knowledge when in FACT it has become much more than that. And apparently it has no policy in place for this, so instead of accepting the responsibility, it applies the same policies as it did BEFORE becoming what it became - and please try to deny that Wikipedia is used as FACT check today. As such it IS mainstream - so everything on Wikipedia automatically gains weight. Weather you like it or not, Wikipedia became MAINSTREAM. As such, things on Wikipedia begin to have a life of it's own. And here lies the problem - what you call "major mainstream views" is false. The only "mainstream" place, outside Hungary, that supports the Imigration theory is... Wikipedia (in terms of encyclopedias). As for evaluating evidence - you say you don't, but you do. I just gave a reputable source, plainly stating things that you repeatedly said were false. Quoting you: "There is no evidence for anything the (Proto)Romanians did for roughly 1000 years.". This means that you consider this source, Britannica - even more, a reputed Encyclopedia, adding to it the weight of all the research and fact checking of the information provided - as... well, not trustworthy. Is this not evaluating evidence? How can you reconcile your statement to that? Have you not just decided that your opinion is more trustworthy than what the Britannica article stipulates? Does the article of Wikipedia reflect those views? (rhetorical question - yes it does). Or is the Britannica article I quoted and provided a link not considered a worthy source of information for this article? As for bias - sure it is. The statement "several well-supported theories" is just that, an unsubstantiated statement. It is not backed up by the Wikipedia article itself, not to mention other sources. No, i'll stick to Wikipedia. If one makes such a statement then by all means, provide the supporting information (sources, links whatever) for the theories. As such - provide supporting evidence for the 1st pillar of the Immigrationist "theory". A neutral, balanced response to my proposal would have been: "ok, why do you say that, let's see how we can improve etc." - instead I immediately got this: "The immigration theory is at least as well supported by archeological research, linguistic evidence and written sources as the continuity hypothesis." So the editor shuts me down with that statement, which I challenge (provide links to said evidence, within this article especially), and he simply keeps on stating it as FACT. After which I am "punished" for not getting it. I get it - I ask that this treasure of information upon which his statement is built be presented on this page so that anyone can come to a conclusion. Wikipedia - a collection of information, right? Considering all of the above - I therefore ask for arbitration. Since you seem to be an expert on the workings of Wikipedia, could you provide me with the necessary information on how to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC) No experienced Wikipedian wishes to open an arbitration case unless it is imperiously necessary. And arbitrators only judge behavior, not content: they have no authority on which theory should be preferred in this article. An experienced advice would be that filing for arbitration could end with WP:BOOMERANG. The rest of your arguments are the pot calling the kettle black or special pleading. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Well, I am no experienced Wikipedian. I'm fine with my behavior. I wonder if you and others are OK with yours. So yes, I'd like to formally file for arbitration. Now, care to chip in on the other points I made? Like editors not assessing evidence and such? Or how "well supported" is not a subjecting (and in my opinion misleading) forgone conclusion? How come your statements fly in the face of another source yet they are somehow balanced and in line with the "no assessment of evidence" creed? How this article is definitely structured in a balanced and neutral way so that people accessing it can themselves asses the merits of those competing well-supported theories? And if you still have time - about Wikipedia - that it IS mainstream and as such anything here, supported or not, suddenly becomes FACT in the eyes of so many (and from here the imperious need to present the information in a very structured way, pros and cons like, debate even, so that anyone can actually asses the information - this as an alternative to self-policing, like other reputable Encyclopedias, for example Britannica). As for "he pot calling the kettle black" - sorry, YOU are the master here so you see, even if I were biased, and non neutral and such - you should not. You HAVE to stick to your OWN rules. Be neutral (not make statements with a foregone conclusion). Things like that. Again stressing, I did not ask for removal of the content but rather a change in how it is presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Very short answer, and Tgeorgescu has right, this discussion and it's frame is already gone too far, you should consider WP:drop the stick. I as well won't continue until the standard of the discussion does not reach a considerable value. Answers to your questions (pharapraphs): 1. You confuse my statement, I meant in this page mainly the origin of the Romanians should be discussed, not the origin of the Hungarians. 2. Similar assumptions, accusations could be also addressed to the opposite side, but the problem is you just generalized Hungarian people in a prejudicative, negative way, does not belong to WP and is highly unprofessional. 3. I don't agree your "point 1" would tie up with what you claim that is anyway a confusion. So you have a claim only. Well, FYI, I heard in the school both of the theories, and I heard also in the Romanian schools more theories are mentioned. Obviously we could say the same way after the most accepted version is discussed entirely, shall it be in Hungary or Romania. Bye(KIENGIR (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)) The discussion was also shaped by the article editors too. Those editors substitute their beliefs and ego (see Mr. Georgescu's latest gem) to... well, whatever they wish. I mean if it's not WP:SOURCE it's WP:MAINSTREAM or whatever. Anyway: 1. Precisely, the Origin of the Romanians - and I did not confuse your statement at all. You did miss the irony it seems. 2+3. I said not only that you learn in school - I said you learn that it is FALSE. Not merely "mentioned". And that makes a whole lot of difference. As for the rest of the point... well, so far I accused only mr. Borsoka of being a nationalist propagandist, willingly or not. As for the last sentence - I am sorry but I did not understand where you want to go with that statement.Cealicuca (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC) The point of this whole thread was to argue over the demotion of the "immigrationist theory" to "immigrationist HYPOTHESIS" in order to fairly assign weight to the respective theories. As is, the "continuity theory" and the "immigrationist theory" are given equal weight when the (Wiki-proof) evidence is overwhelmingly favoring the continuity theory. The immigrationist hypothesis is only seen as valid and promoted mainly/only in Hungary (for obvious political reasons), hence all the Hungarian "nationalist" propagandists here (see double-standard comment I made above), hence the inevitable discussion here about the Origins of Hungarians (which, while revealing in the greater context, I agree is irrelevant here). Like the other user(s) before me, I also ask for an objective assessment of this debate and, if the custodians of this Wiki page are either unwilling or unfit to do this, then this should go to arbitration. If Wikipedia is to maintain its reputation then it should not allow for the possible/potential bias of one editor (page custodian) and/or a group of well-coordinated agents to interfere with a fair presentation of the generally accepted theories.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC) I warn you again, better stop with groundless, prejudicative accusations like "all the Hungarian "nationalist" propagandists here" or "well-coordinated agents" just because some editors disagree with you, such may have heavy consequences in WP. As well, "for obvious political reasons" is the same inobjective, prejudicative judgment that could be also addressed to the other side if someone does not wish to remain on the ground of the scientific standards. And you claim "objective assessment". Final answer to you as well, as the above mentioned reasons.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)) The idea that we should renegade WP:PAGs because Wikipedia is used for fact checking is one of the most ludicrous arguments ever written in Wikipedia talk pages. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Again deliberately misinterpreting. Never said to renounce rules. Actually I ask for more rules to be ENFORCED universally (since content on Wikipedia becomes mainstream and thus is accepted as... valid content BECAUSE it is mainstream), by select 3rd parties, not article editors and definitely NOT arbitrarily (seeing your previous comment about Britannica and your own conflicting statement about not assessing evidence). Of course "Renegade WP:PAG" that it's ludicrous - it's always like that after twisting stuff.Cealicuca (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Britannica isn't WP:SECONDARY, it's WP:TERTIARY, i.e. not of the kind of sources we prefer. Actually, here at Wikipedia we are pretty much lording it over Britannica. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Oh, here at Wikipedia... "we" are lording it? Oh sorry, I didn't know that this is a good excuse for you to abuse the rules and policies. Also, really? Say what? You lording Britannica? Jeesus Christ! So just abusing WP:RULES is not enough? While yes, there might be articles on Wikipedia that "lord" over other traditional sources, this article ain't no way near that. Anyway, give it a rest already. Quoting from Wikipedia, what "Reliable source" is: "In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals / Books published by university presses / University-level textbooks / Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses / Mainstream newspapers" So tell me how is Britannica NOT a reliable source. Also care to explain how what you said is not the pinnacle of arrogance and how your statement doesn't mean that you actually substitute yourself to a SOURCE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 07:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC) We are not seeking to emulate Britannica, we are a different encyclopedia with different concerns and guidelines. Sometimes it is interesting to know what Britannica wrote, but this discussion of "Britannica is better" has been rehashed many times. And I never meant that I substitute my own judgment for Britannica's or for the judgment of WP:RS. Everything we add to Wikipedia is or should be the view of some reputed scholar. We don't indulge in WP:OR, so my own opinion in the end never trumps the opinions of WP:RS. What I have stated here repeatedly is that WP:RS have diverse views on the origin of Romanians, no academic consensus has been reached, so we merely render the diversity of views, that's all. If there was an academic consensus on this subject, it would be quite another matter. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC) OK - so explain what kind of different? As I remember Wikipedia started with the mission to provide as acurate information as, say, Britannica. The fact that more than 90% of it's articles are less than A rated (so practically junk following it's own rules) - this article included, says a lot. Explain Borsoka's reply to my OP in which he starts with "Yes, there is no evidence for the continuous presence of a Latin/Romance-speaking population[...]" as well as yours (no evidence for what they did for 1000 years) in spite of what the article mentions. Explain how Borsoka is NOT biased in light of his statement? Explain the structure of the article. We're presented with "well supported" theories - isn't "well supported" your opinion? Why aren't the theories presented clearly, as statements? Why is the most important statement missing from the Immigrationist theory (that in order to have any relevance then the must be NO continuity whatsoever on Transylvania's territory - because this is the contention really)? Without this - everything else is irrelevant. Because if there were Vlachs in Transylvania then it is irrelevant if there were Vlachs in other areas, or that Vlachs moved from another area to Transylvania. Explain the misleading structure of the article. Presenting the theories and then... Evidence. The Evidence is not catalogues (evidence for WHICH theory) and even the chapters are misleading. Evidence from present day Romania / Evidence of Balkan Vlachs / Evidence of Medieval Vlachs? Based on which rule did those 3 chapters appeared? Why are not the evidence linked to each theory that it supports? I'll tell you why, 'cause if we do this then the Immigrationist theory, based on this very article, gets a really really bad image - simply because the most basic statement is not supported by any piece of evidence, not even one that is in contention. Explain how come the part about the "political reasons" for the theories only mention the Transylvanian school, but not the backgrounf of the Immigration theory? Why not the criticism of Roesler and Sulzer? Was that not also political? So OK, forget changing the wording from Theory to Hypothesis. Just restructure it so it makes sense. We have Theory A, Theory B, Theory C. Evidence supporting Theory A, Theory B, Theory C. History of Theory A, Theory B, Theory C. Sound pretty fair imho. Care to explain how, if one takes a look at the history of the article, it WAS at some point (long ago) quite clear in this respect (mentioned above) while it started to turn into this deliberate misleading mess after Borsoka took over?Cealicuca (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Funny thing is you deleted some of my edits ascribed to "reputed scholars" (like Conf. Univ. Dr. G.D. Iscru et al) simply because YOU didn't deem them as "reputed" (despite their credentials) based on your own BIAS. Further, no one here has said that "diverse views" are not welcome, what's on the table here is attributing PROPER WEIGHT to said theories. All theories are not created equal (evidence overwhelmingly favors one over the other), and you should assign proper weight/visibility to the two theories in question by downgrading the "immigration theory" to "immigration hypothesis". Also, you should allow theories/comments/notes coming from academics who don't agree with your POV. Else, you're in effect the arrogant "dictator" of this Wiki page and the rest of us plebes might need to stage a Wiki "rebellion" of sorts. I'm sure it wouldn't be the first one either. Please keep an open mind and make these fair changes as suggested.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC) As I have stated, Protochronism is WP:FRINGE/PS (pseudohistory) and does not belong here, it cannot be taken seriously as WP:RS. Also, the deal is this: we cannot downgrade only one of the major views. If we were to downgrade one, we'd have to downgrade them all, see above the argument with 1000 years missing from the record. Since missing such record, it can be predicated almost anything about what (Proto)Romanians did for 1000 years: all such views would be equally supported, or equally baseless. In this context, the continuity theory is like seeing a ship in the haven of Rotterdam, one year later you see the same ship in the haven of Rotterdam and you infer that it stayed in the haven for one year. And the immigrationist theory is like you infer that the ship sailed to US and back. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC) First off, when you say "1000 years" aren't you exaggerating by a few hundred years? Should we have a recap of the sources now? And to follow your logic, even if we were missing 10 years from the record the "immigration theorists" would still claim that a decade was long enough for everyone to get in the boats and sail to the US (as you say) then return (once the Magyars had conveniently planted their flag in Satu Mare!) So the argument will never cease. However, as with most theories, one should use common sense and sound judgement to assign fair weight to the credibility of each. And, for better or worse, I think that's your job here (if I'm not mistaken). If you're saying you're not going to do it, then let's escalate the problem to the next level. I don't have a problem with that. After all, I doubt that page custodians (or whatever you guys are called) are elected for life, like some kind of royalty. You have to adapt to the times (and the emerging evidence) else you'll be left behind. Again, I'm trying to be as nice and courteous as possible, especially considering that you have falsely accused me (and probably others as well) of trying to get around the Wiki "controls". I'm not waiting for an apology, though one would be welcome. What I'm waiting for is a change in the weight given to the theories mentioned. That's it. Can you do it?--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: Your example is wrong. The immigrationist "theory" is NOT akin to "the ship sailed to US and back." because this is a falsifiable statement. The immigrationist "theory" is akin to "they couldn't have been in port for the whole time" - an unfalsifiable statement which does not require them to bring proof to support it (since the ship could have left at any point, for any period of time, or maybe some other sister ship took it's place and the original ship sailed away etc.). And this is not opinion, it is FACT. Now onto my opinion - the point is that no matter how much evidence in support of the continuity is brought, the "immigrationist" can always provide as "evidece" any gap in continuity. - This is the main problem with the immigrationis so-called theory and this is why it is pseudo-science and, in my opinion, more fringe than the Dacian origins (which at least makes falsifiable statements afaik). Give it (imigrationis statements) to a scientist and he will laugh at it being called a "theory" all day long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC) I don't know who would be the "page custodians". I don't know what these words mean. Wikipedia has admins, patrollers and ordinary editors (with various degrees of confirmation, like auto-confirmed and extended confirmed). As for the accusation of using WP:PROXY and of WP:SOCKing, I don't have to apologize, since my request for checkuser was endorsed at Sockpuppet investigations. Ok, it ended with inconclusive, but there was enough evidence presented so that the case got endorsed. As for why I have mentioned the 1000 years gap: as a way of explaining why there can be no agreement among scholars on the origin of Romanians. As stated, in the end my own opinion is irrelevant, all that matters are the opinions of WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES. Wikipedia is a service which abstracts mainstream academic learning, per WP:NOTFORUM it is not a free webhost where editors ventilate their own opinions. And it is not a service which performs original research on empirical evidence. As for nationality, the Romanian Academy does not trump the Hungarian Academy, or vice-versa. Suggesting otherwise is the plague. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC) okay, non-apology not accepted. so what's your status in the Wiki rank and file?--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC) ALL (100%) of the advocates of the "immigrationist hypothesis" on these pages (the Origins of the ROMANIANS) are self-declared Hungarians. Yet that should not be seen as either "subjective" or "coordinated" or "nationalist" or "political" in any way, right? Just a coincidence... I rest my case. p.s. thanks for the "warning", I'll be watching my back from now on.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Who can take seriously an mt.DNA and Y DNA research in the era of Autosomal tests? WRONG, IGNORANT, BIASED AND LEADING QUESTION BY A HUNGARIAN NATIONALIST. mtDNA AND Y-DNA RESEARCH IS MORE RELEVANT NOW THAN EVER AND WILL NEVER GO AWAY. WE DON'T LIVE IN THE "ERA OF AUTOSOMAL TESTS", THIS PERSON IS TROLLING AND HAS NO CLUE WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC) As in the DNA research paper revealed, it is only an mt.DNA Y-DNA research, so it is not autosomal DNA research. Only Autosomal researches can clearly prove genetic admixture and genetic differences and distances between populations.--Filederchest (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Everyone takes the research seriously except Hungarians upset that mtDNA and Y-DNA research proves Romanian ethnogenesis in the Carpathian basin (see links/discussion above).--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Wrong. Do you think that French and British are related to Sub-Saharan Africans like Chad or Central-African Republic, because they have high ratio of R1B Y haplogroup? https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7f/e8/93/7fe893c095e2bab69729640c4410262f.png Or do you think, that the famous (mostly) typical Slavic R1A Y haplogroup marker makes any serious genetic kinship with northern Indians. See the map: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2012/10/800px-R1a1a_distribution.jpg However the Autosomal DNA proved , that these Y haplogroup markers are not trustable to provide genetic kinship and distance between populations , and the Black Africans are not related to British or French population like Northern Indians are not really related Slavs. So English are not negroids, like Czechs are not really related to Indians. That!s about the Y haplogroup markers. But it is very easy to mislead people with Y DNA, who have absolutely no clue about population genetics even in the very basic level. If you can prove that English people are close cousins of black Africans and Poles are close cousins of Indians (because of Y haplogroup marker similarities), than I will believe that your Dacians are related to modern Romanians. Genetically the Wallachians are not distinguishable from Bulgarians and Southern Serbians. Dacians had genetically similar east-Balkan stock like these three nations, however it does¨not mean that Romanians are real direct descendants of Dacians. The Daco-Romanian continuity theory is nothing more than a nationalist wishful thinking so-called nativist idea of the era of national awakening. This highly politically motivated theory was designed and created to claiming (fake) "historic" rights for their high-medieval era immigrant late-nomadic shepherd ancestors.--Filederchest (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC) It's not what I think, it's what the DNA experts think. And they don't think like you. Your "logic" is laughable. Of course you'll find just about any haplogroup in several populations. That's not how these studies are done and I'm not here to educate you. A basic high-school level genetics class would clear up a lot of your confusions. And besides, the seminal study I quoted has to do with mtDNA, not Y-DNA. Anyway, see other answers to your "questions" in the thread above. It'd be a waste of time to rehash the whole discussion here even though I see you find it very difficult to get over it. This is not a thread on psychology so I can't help you there.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC) It does not really matters what they think (or want to think), until they had not real tools for proper examination. Until they could not come up with Autosomal tests, which is the only tool what can measure the exact genetic admixture and measure the proper genetic distance between populations, it is not a reliable source. It is a great news only for nationalist wishful thinkers (who don not care about reality and who have no clue about genetics) . Do you really think, that English Irish or French people are very close cousins of Central African Negroes because of the very same R1B Y-DNA subclade? Or Do you think that Czech or Poles are Indians because of the same R1A Y DNA subclade? Do not be ridiculous.--Filederchest (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC) The research is very suspicious, why did they use only the backward (Like Y DNA and mt.DNA) from the early 2000s, instead of modern Autosomal tests? Why?--Filederchest (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Your "logic", sheer ignorance, and misplaced obsessions are the only suspicious things around here. If you want to debate the DNA experts (who all agree on the methods, regardless of nationality, belief, etc) feel free to publish your own peer-reviewed rebuttal and show them how it's done the "right" way. LOL. In the meantime keep embarrassing yourself and your ilk and show the world your true colors and "knowledge".--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Hi Filederchest. Because I recognized the "[...] high-medieval era immigrant late-nomadic shepherd ancestors [...]" construct (that is, as expected, full of hyperbole because what else can you do to get your point across unless make it 'uuuuge - inflate everything with hyperbole) I googled it. So I ask you to keep your opinions to the "specialized" forums (for people sharing your beliefs - most of them with ".hu" domain) or spam the appropriate Quora questions (you know exactly which) or the appropriate YouTube videos (again I am pretty sure you know exactly which) that were returned by the google search. Second, this "late-nomad" stuff would not be a problem unless, in all the instances it is used in it's entirety (there's a whole allegory dedicated to this), it's meant to be derogatory, and ethnic slur, an insult to Romanians - both present-day and "late-medieval". Third, it's actually kind of baffling to see someone who is a descendant of a proud and fierce migratory people trying to belittle others using the "migratory" argument. Or, if you decide to actually come here and say meaningful stuff (and please, I understand this is a bit hard on you, but leave the hyperbole at home) you might want to no longer use the same broken record (blah blah late-nomad blah blah vlach shepherds blah blah). Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC) In fact PLoS One has a bit of a reputation for harbouring cranky research (Beall calls it a "a lonely and un-selective digital repository more than a scholarly publication"[1]), and we know that studies on TCM out of China are suspect (Taiwan is independent of the PRC but it is China). So no, this is not a reliable source for assertions about biomedicine. Alexbrn (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Alexbrn quoted from Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 30. So now there are three reasons why the claim is weak: a WP:PAGs reason, namely we do not care much for WP:PRIMARY sources, the reason with such approach to DNA analysis being scientifically outdated and the reason that PLoS One is a weak source in itself (see WP:MEDRS and you will get what I am talking about). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC) "has a bit of reputation"... really? That's all you can do to try to dismiss sound research by a multi-national team of geneticists? So you dismiss every peer-reviewed article of research ever published on that site just because one person (more on him below) made an unfounded accusation that actually has nothing to do with the research at hand? And you quote Beall, who has been accused of being an "unethical blogger (known as Predatory Blogger)" who unleashed an "unprofessional attack on PLos One". This DNA study has been referenced in several other studies in specialty magazines (like here) so you have to take it seriously. It certainly makes your claims weak. And how exactly is DNA analysis outdated? Feel free to explain.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Just a remark: the adjectives "(semi-)nomadic" or "migratory" are not derogatory or instulting. These words describe a specific way of life: the seasonal movements of pastoralists populations along rivers (in the steppes) or between the valleys and the mountain pastures (in the mountainous regions) and their migrations from their pastures if weather conditions did not allow them to continue their traditional way of life there. Borsoka (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Just a remark. This whole article deliberately makes extensive use of "vlach" and "Wallachia". Of course, mentioning "ruman"/"roman" or "Tara Romaneasca" would be quite unbalanced, right? Also, it is the first time I see you using the "(semi)nomadic" term. This whole article alludes to "nomadic" only, because of course, actually using the term transhumance (along with an explanation of what it means, seasonal movement and also seasonal settlements) would put a dent into some of the opinion-stated-as-facts things in this article. Because of course, who wouldn't want to relay the equivalence of nomadic Huns, for example, with nomadic Vlachs...Cealicuca (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Jordanes writes "There the unclean spirits, who beheld them as they wandered through the wilderness, bestowed their embraces upon them and begat this savage race, which dwelt at first in the swamps-- a stunted, foul and puny tribe, scarcely human, and having no language save one which bore but slight resemblance to human speech. Such was the descent of the HUNS who came to the country of the Goths." Just a remark: the adjectives "puny" or "stunted" or "foul" are not derogatory or insulting. These words describe a specific way of life...--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Migratory or Nomad terms do not matter in this debate, what is really matter that they had no real genetic proofs (Autosomal research) from these fossils. But they will repeat it again and again as a "proof" due to their desperate politically motivated nativist nationalist origin theory.--Filederchest (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC) @Filederchest: Nationalist? Wait... as far as I know in Romania you can't find people with bumper stickers depicting a "Greater" Romania up to Tizsa river or even the whole Pannonia? As far as I know the Romanian Academy and Educational system does not concern itself with the Hungarian origins, nor do they promote a theory to negate the official explanation of the Hungarian Academy. And I could provide a very, VERY long list about stuff what Romania, Romanians and Romanian state institutions DO NOT do - while the Hungarian counterparts DO... well, I guess one only needs to pick up a newspaper to read about it. Care to provide some sources for this rabid Romanian nationalism? Because I can, for each of my statement, concerning the Hungarian nationalism. Are you sure you want to open this Pandora's box?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) WP:BATTLEGROUND. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Yes - great. NOW you call it a battleground? Because of course "But they will repeat it again and again as a "proof" due to their desperate politically motivated nativist nationalist origin theory" was not inflammatory at all, right?.Cealicuca (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Are you that ignorant? "mtDNA is maternally inherited. Therefore, barring a mutation, an individual's mother, siblings, as well as all other maternally-related family members will have IDENTICAL mtDNA sequences. As a result, forensic comparisons can be made using a reference sample from any maternal relative, even if the unknown and reference sample are separated by many generations."Is it getting through to you now? Do you understand that the scientists know what they're doing and YOU don't? Quit trolling these pages with your inane comments. Your desperation is only proof that deep down inside (even though you won't admit it) you know you've lost this argument.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology. As for Beall, his verdict is law for Wikipedia, see the archive of WP:RSN. If you choose to fight against Beall, the forces of WP:PAGs are against you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC) How's Beall's verdict law on Wiki? Please explain. I don't find his name in that archive. In any case, what does that have to do with the study in question? The study was also published elsewhere and it has been vetted/underwritten by major institutions (NOT Romanian): The Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of the University of Porto, the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, the Basque Government to Research Groups of the Basque University System, the University of the Basque Country, Department of Medicine Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, etc, AND the Anthropological Research Centre of the Romanian Academy! (prestigious enough for you?) What exactly does one guy's beef with an online site collecting peer-reviewed articles have to do with this? It's like saying "Article X has no validity because it was posted on the internet, and it's been proven that there are some shady things on that internet." That's essentially the kind of logic you're applying here. I thought you were better than that. It's the kind of thing one of the "other guys" would say.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC) And this is for anyone who might come across this thread, not wanting to leave them hanging if they don't have the time to do the research. This article shows exactly how Autosomal DNA testing works and what it does. Below the photo showing the DNA shuffle you'll find this: "Notice that you (there at the bottom left) have no orange in your DNA. Does that mean your great-great-grandmother Merla wasn’t American Indian? Of course not. It just means that you didn’t happen to inherit that DNA from her in the random shuffling that occurs at each generation." What it's saying is that Autosomal DNA cannot even account for your great-great-grandmother to trace you ancestry back even a couple hundred years, never mind thousands of years. A mtDNA testing would find your great-great-grandmother to a certainty of 99.99%. That's why geneticists (including the German team I mentioned above) use mtDNA when they look for continuity over long periods of time. This other article shows the accuracy of the Autosomal DNA testing. As you can see it's only about 25% for grandparents! So, again, the OP of this thread (and the other ones who jumped on the bandwagon) have no clue how genetic testing works (and apparently no inclination to open a book or do some research) but they have no problem posting silly comments here and pretending to give the real scientists lessons in how things are done the right away. That's sadly, the level of debate on the Wiki talk pages. To sum it up, the only ways to test for continuity over long periods of time is by doing either mtDNA analysis (preferably, as mtDNA is passed down unchanged from mother to children), or Y-DNA analysis (as Y-DNA is passed down unchanged from father to son). In addition, as stated in one of the other links I also posted above, "Most human cells contain hundreds of copies of mtDNA genomes, as opposed to two copies of the DNA that is located in the nucleus. This high copy number increases the likelihood of recovering sufficient DNA from compromised DNA samples." Hope that's clear enough even for the detractors.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Put in Wikipedia search box Beall's list prefix:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, of course you have not searched for Beall, so don't lie to us, we know better. You have no WP:CLUE, see WP:CIR. Also the article has not been in any way vetted by those universities. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Of course that article & research were either vetted and/or funded by those institutions since they conducted the research. It's as sound and prestigious as it can possibly get, especially given the multi-national academic pedigree of its researchers. Re. Beall, you're right, I was in a hurry and only looked on that "front" page rather than the "archive". I'll check it out later. So what you're referring to is this "Beall's List"? (where on that list is Plos One?) Either way, pretty irrelevant to the discussion. The study I mentioned has already been referenced in other important genetic studies (see link above) and thus sanctioned by the peers.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu:It is educative to see you dispensing in such a discretionary and one sided manner of the WP:RULES. You do that, of course, in a non biased and balanced way. It is hard though to reasonably explain why you had nothing to say to Filederchest - for example this statement of his - "Only Autosomal researches can clearly prove genetic admixture and genetic differences and distances between populations." - should have prompted your rigorous reaction regarding the infringement of WP:RULE, maybe... WP:OR. On another note - did you read the following? If not - do take some time and read it thoroughly. And afterwards please feel free to tell us more about you "lording" Britannica. And please do keep repeating your own non-WP:OR "for 1000 years [...] no evidence [...]" while of course making sure our "newbish" heads are finally pounded into submission with whatever WP:RULES suits you best at the moment. It surely paints a clear picture of your capabilities as a balanced, non biased editor. By the way, when are you going to address the chapter with the political "reasons" for the "competing" theories? Since the Transylvanian School is mentioned (rightfully so) to have used the already established Daco-Roman Continuity theory it only seems fair to mention Roesler's and Sulzer's reasons for creating (emphasize on create) the Migrationist hypothesis. Oh wait... that would pretty much be like really really bad, actually mentioning that those two were not actually historians in the first place and that they also "created" this Migrationist thingie to explain why the Romanians (sorry, illiterate late-nomadic Vlachs), while forming a clear majority - though let's not forget they are actually "late-medieval nomads" - should only be tolerated in Transylvania and not given equal rights (like the Hungarians, Germans and Szekely nations). Oh, by the way, being on the point of "illiterate late-medieval nomads" - who removed the reference to Simon Keza's mention that the Szekely's begun using the "letters" of the Vlachs?Cealicuca (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC) It might surprise you: I have no dog in this fight, I only care about WP:RS. Show me your WP:RS. WP:OR applies to articles, not to talk pages. Primary sources in biology are weak sources by default (this is widely accepted by Wikipedians, it is not my invention). If you want to insert stuff into the article, talk page arguments aren't enough, you should also have WP:RS. Why don't you two cite Pop? Perhaps because he does not suit your POV? And frankly, Dacians-only continuity is so improbable that it is ridiculous, it is a "theory" which makes the Romanian cause look ludicrous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Mr. Tgeorgescu - you do not address any of my points but only deflect. I don't need to cite Pop because I really don't want to - I am not supporting the "Dacian-only heritage" hypothesis. I accuse you of applying WP:RULES discretionary (example being that you used it as an argument against both me and Iovaniorgovan. Nevertheless you failed to do so against Filederchest, or Borsoka or even yourself with your "1000 years [...]" stuff. All of us have been using arguments here, more or less sourced (actually Iovaniorgovan is the only one that mostly sources his comments) yet your WP:RULES spidey sense applies to only some of us. As for me - I also have no dog in this fight (Dacian-only continuity) since I personally do not agree with - nevertheless I find it just as improbable (though less so) than the "migration" hypothesis. The difference, in my opinion, is that one was a product of Romanian nationalists and the other was a product of Austro-Hungarian / German "nationalists" (less concerned about their nation but rather about their privileges) but otherwise both were created, and are still used, as political tools. The only one who cannot be "accused" of being created as a political tool (but was at times used as a political tool) is the Daco-Roman continuity (admitted in the article by being taught in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, as well as being supported by non-Romanian authors before Sulzer's revelation). Thus the only one that is "less tainted" so to speak, and still has merits as a scientific theory (at least born as one) is the Daco-Roman continuity. I have repeatedly asked why the Historiography: origin of the theories chapter takes great care to underline the role of the Daco-Roman continuity in the Transylvanian School's political struggle, yet nothing of the sorts is mentioned about Sulzer's migration.Cealicuca (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC) [ETA]:I posit that the article should be structured more like this or this. The way the article is structured now (and my belief is that this was done intentionally) makes the Daco-Roman continuity (emphasis on the continuity) less credible than it actually is - simply because any historical continuity theory is all about building a cohesive picture out of various pieces. Even more, if we try to build a cohesive theory out of the "migration" (that is try to give contemporary context to the arguments) then it becomes less reliable (again in my opinion). This article tries to address a very complex and thorny historical issue with total disregard to any scientific methodology and even more, starting with pre-determined conclusions - which incidentally I posit they constitute a breach of WP:OR ("several well supported theories"). The article also completely disregards otherwise accepted sources (especially relevant to Eastern / South Eastern Europe) like Oral traditions. So what say you - is my proposal that wild? I would gladly participate in re-organizing the article according to the principles that are inferred by the links I gave (within an initial framework that no new sources/arguments are added until we reach the final version - so that we do not concentrate on pro/counter arguments, leaving this for later). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 09:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Again, WP:OR is perfectly ok, inside the talk page. It isn't ok for suggesting additions to the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Yes, yes... +1 to Deflection Skill. Now let's get back on track. As I said, I posit that the article should be structured more like this or this. The way the article is structured now (and my belief is that this was done intentionally) makes the Daco-Roman continuity (emphasis on the continuity) less credible than it actually is - simply because any historical continuity theory is all about building a cohesive picture out of various pieces. Even more, if we try to build a cohesive theory out of the "migration" (that is try to give contemporary context to the arguments) then it becomes less reliable (again in my opinion) - but this is something to be seen. This article tries to address a very complex and thorny historical issue with total disregard to any scientific methodology and even more, starting with pre-determined conclusions - which incidentally I posit they constitute a breach of WP:OR ("several well supported theories"). The article also completely disregards otherwise accepted sources (especially relevant to Eastern / South Eastern Europe) like Oral traditions. So what say you - is my proposal that wild? I would gladly participate in re-organizing the article according to the principles that are inferred by the links I gave (within an initial framework that no new sources/arguments are added until we reach the final version - so that we do not concentrate on pro/counter arguments, leaving this for later).Cealicuca (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu, I have quoted Pop (see the Densusianu debate; and by Pop I don't mean Densusianu, whose birth name was "Pop"); you seem to have a very short memory when it suits you. I have read Pop extensively and I hold him in pretty high regard, even though I think he's mistaken. I do have high hopes that he will eventually show strength of character and flip-flop on the matter like Parvan before him. You also just accused me of casting aspersions when in fact you're the one who has falsely accused me and others in the past.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC) @Cealicuca, re. Sulzer-- see this book here, pages 19-20, 454- etc), published by the Romanian Academy, hence unimpeachable as far as Wiki goes. Whatever's written there should go into this article. p.s. I'm out of town, traveling at the moment, and don't have the time/means to do it myself until I return.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Again, the SPI case was endorsed, and I did not "suspect" you of using WP:PROXY, I know for a fact that you two have used WP:PROXY. Seen the inconclusive result of SPI, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. About DNA: biologists consider highly likely that all native Europeans from the 21st century are descendants of Charlemagne, i.e. we're all from his bloodline. About Pop changing his mind in support of Dacians-only continuity: people would say that the president of the Romanian Academy has lost his mind. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC) "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" - coming from you it's the peak of irony. I mean after your "There is no evidence for anything the (Proto)Romanians did for roughly 1000 years" used as an "argument" it really paints and interesting picture. As for the proxy stuff - you are aware, of course, that sometimes (actually quite often) it is not a choice - one can't avoid it, right? ISP(s) and such...Cealicuca (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Again, I stated the 1000 years gap as an explanation why scholars (not me, but reputable scholars) cannot agree on this matter. Since evidence is absent, it can be predicated almost anything about what the Proto(Romanians) did, without having evidence standing in one's way. About WP:PROXY: Wikipedia policy is to ban open proxies, and those who cannot do otherwise should use Wikipedia's own closed proxies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Ah, I see now what my folly was. Thank you (no sarcasm, I actually think your statement opened my eyes to my mistake). So - what would those sources be (that say "There is no evidence for anything the (Proto)Romanians did for roughly 1000 years" or anything close to that - so that we can leave room for some poetic license...)? Please provide one (or several if that would suit you).Cealicuca (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC) For a start, there is a quote from Neagu Djuvara at [2]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Apart from quoting something from EVZ ( :))))))) really? That piece of... "professional journalism"?) I will, unlike you (who so arduously demolish sources based on association or other tactics like that), accept it simply because it's from Djuvara. Nice, I didn't know this quote from Djuvara. But wait a sec, what about this: "Archaeology probably remains the best source of information about the ethnic constitution of the largest population in southeast Europe. The Romanization of Dacia and the birth of a Daco-Roman people can [...] be considered the first stage in the long process of the formation of the Romanian people, but this stage did not end in 275. It continued until the early 6th century, as long as the empire, still in power along the Danube and in Dobrudja, continued to influence the territory north of the river. The continual circulation of people and goods across the river and back certainly facilitated this. Georgescu, Vlad (1991)"? It's exactly the opposite.Cealicuca (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC) How do you dare to discuss the history of Romanians while ignoring its basic facts? It's not just Djuvara, see George W. White (2000). Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-8476-9809-7. Lucian Boia (23 January 2013). History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Central European University Press. pp. 225–226. ISBN 978-963-386-004-5. Florin Diacu (November 2011). The Lost Millennium: History’s Timetables Under Siege. JHU Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-4214-0287-1. Radu Florescu (1982). Romania between East and West: historical essays in memory of Constantin C. Giurescu. East European Monographs. ISBN 978-0-914710-97-4. namely that there was a gap of a thousand years in the history of the Romanians. Ion Grumeza (16 May 2009). Dacia: Land of Transylvania, Cornerstone of Ancient Eastern Europe. University Press of America. p. 247. ISBN 978-0-7618-4466-2. That's just what I could find quickly on Google Books. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC) How do I dare? How dare you? How dare you quote Djuvara as a source for your fallacy? Also, are you a professional historian? Who made you the keeper of absolute truth? Well, I dare. You want to know why? Because you are deliberately misleading. Or outright lie. Yep, both you and Borsoka. Djuvara said, and i quote, „În toată istoriografia europeană şi chiar în cea românească, se recunoaşte că e un fel de mileniu întunecat, unde sunt prea puţine informaţii, şi de acest lucru au profitat unii din vecinii noştri. Pentru unguri, Dacia era complet evacuată şi nu mai era nimeni când au venit ei, pentru ruşi sau ucrainieni nu era nimeni în Moldova, erau ei, şi acuma se întreabă cum dracu’ sunt atâţia români. Grecii nu ştiu de unde au venit aromânii, sunt căzuţi din cer”. Which by the way (quite clearly) takes a poke ("au profitat") at the neighbors of Romanians - stating that they are scratching their heads to explain where those Romanians came from... Are you sure you speak Romanian? Moreover, "mileniu întunecat" - (Dark Ages: Significantly, Baronius termed the age 'dark' because of the paucity of written records.) refers in his quote to the lack of written sources. Not evidence as you and mr. Borsoka like to say. So first of all cool down (see WP:NOTTHERAPY). Second, both Djuvara and Georgescu are right, but you and mr. Borsoka simply mislead or outright lie. It is you who are ignoring the most basic facts (that though there is an acute lack of written sources, BUT there are enough archaeological sources). Please educate yourself on what "historical sources" is. For example it is also this. Now, back to your "1000 years" quote. You used "evidence", not "sources". So please provide a source stating that for 1000 years there is no evidence, not sources stating there is a lack of written sources (because they are not the same thing).Cealicuca (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC) If you find tombs, how do you know that they were Daco-Romans? Have they inscribed their tombs with "We're a Daco-Roman population"? You don't display any signs of having read the page from White. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC) I don't need to justify your answer, I just gave you a source (quote from this article). This is WP:RS. Or are we talking logic now? Because you didn't seem to like it before (see below about the point I make with the negative statement, a point I made earlier too). So which is it? Do you deal in evidence, sources, logic? But I will answer your question - archaeologists can distinguish based on the details of the tomb, for example. Find a piece of jewelry on the skeleton? This tell you something. Find a specific position of the skeleton? this tells you another thing. Find the skeleton without head? Or maybe there is no skeleton at all, maybe there's an urn containing ashes. And so on and so forth. Your (i hope feigned) ignorance is disturbing - to ask such a question. Please educate yourself in Archaeology. It seems that "Archaeologists study human prehistory and history" so I am pretty sure they have the means to do such amazing feat you're inquiring (If you find tombs, how do you know that they were Daco-Romans?). As for your sources - i will just quote George W. White (2000). Are you sure you red his book? 'Cause here is what it says at some point: "Very little evidence exists that can support [...] theory, commonly called the Daco-Roman theory". So "very little evidence" is a universe away from "no evidence". But you know what has no evidence. And I mean no evidence. At all. That there were NO Romanians (or Vlachs, or proto-romanians) in Transylvania before the Magyars came. And I invite you to provide such evidence (for this cornerstone of the Migration hypothesis and, coincidentally, a negative statement) and humiliate me in public. Oh wait. Are we still talking evidence? Or sources? 'Cause you seem to oscillate between the two as you please. Anyway, you and Borsoka (as well as others) insist on "no evidence". Moreover: "But if the Daco-Roman theory is correct, Romantic (n.a. not Romanians but Romantic) nationalism sides with the Romanians on the dispute over Transylvania. Therefore, the Hungarians are just as compelled to disprove the Daco-Roman theory as the Romanians are compelled to prove it". So now we know why so many Hungarian editors here. Anyway - I do not fault mr. White, and it's book should be read without any pre-conceptions. But even mr. White puts little to no value on other sources than the written sources. Fortunately the world has evolved, quite a lot, in this regard. And it would be a shame, since otherwise Troy would have remained a simple place of legend from Homer's Odyssey.Cealicuca (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC) First, we will never include WP:OR inside our article. Second, what I have stated about the 1000 years gap was a way of explaining why scholars cannot reach consensus upon this issue, i.e. I was explaining to you why there is disagreement among WP:RS. It was never meant for including my own opinion inside our article. It's like apples and oranges. Third, Boia (pp. 226-232) is quite adamant that the 1000 years gap is a big problem for the theories concerning the origin of Romanians. So now you have both: evidence and sources. Pop, Djuvara, Boia are quite patriotic, it is just that they are no fools (or were, since Djuvara is now dead). Fourth, don't lecture me about archaeology: I know that archaeological evidence is rather opaque and multi-interpretable. Fifth, if a smoking gun would have been found, Wikipedia would know about it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC) What WP:OR? I quoted a source from this article (Georgescu) and mr. white's book (that your sourced). Or are you referring to all your "arguments"? If so - I wholeheartedly agree. A "Major problem" does not equal "no evidence". Simple as that. Again deflecting, misleading, twisting sources to match a biased preconceived POV. (But no sir - you will not TOUCH the "no evidence" part on behalf of the Migration theory). But you still call yourself "neutral". Anyway, you asked about the Daco-Roman tomb - it's the same as finding a soldier on a field of WW2 and determining it was a member of 101th Airborne. Simple as that. An no - you don't get to run from it. You used the "1000 years" thingies as a way to dismiss the criticism I gave to this article - which was, coincidentally, that it is misleading and biased and it contains WP:OR. As for "Fifth, if a smoking gun would have been found, Wikipedia would know about it." :)))) Yeah, right. More WP:OR form your part - since Wikipedia's own accuracy and neutrality is in dispute. "I know that archaeological evidence is rather opaque and multi-interpretable." - this is simply WP:IGNORANCE and WP:OR on your part. Archaeologists' interpretations are not necessarily any more authoritative than eyewitness accounts of events (ie written sources), or vice-versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC) So? You parse words "very little evidence" vs. "no evidence". Is that your defense? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Are you serious? I mean really... Are you serious? I do not need to defend myself, you need to defend yourself. "Very little evidence" does not equal "no evidence". Period. You are misleading. Period. And your last statement (parse words "very little evidence" vs. "no evidence".) is simply mind boggling! As are your statements about archaeology. The difference with archaeological data (published) is that it is always peer reviewed and meticulously scrutinized. Once published it is seen as a responsibility for others to correct any and all erroneous data and interpretations. It is not flawless, for sure, and is always subject to bias (same as written sources) but these safe guards are in place nonetheless. Safeguards that are not usually present for a lot of written sources. Which makes it quite often more reliable than written sources. For example, Roman historical sources claimed that by law, soldiers were not allowed to marry during their years of active service, while archaeological evidence of legionary fortresses clearly demonstrated that soldiers cohabited with women and raised children inside the camp.Cealicuca (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC) My honest view is that the emperor is naked: all the competing theories are naked and miserable. That was my point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Talking about last minute... you were raising my blood pressure sir. Anyway, thank you for toning it down a little. My honest view is that to remove all suspicion of bias and original research we (you) need not take any stance towards any theory. You, and Borsoka, and others - failed to do this. Or at least this is what you made me think. you fiercely attacked the Daco-Roma Continuity but said nothing of the sorts about the Migration. Anyway, I am just a person "passing by" (and yes, you have your suspicions, and I can't alleviate them - but this is the truth nevertheless), a couple of months ago, that was appalled at how opaque and misleading the article is. Not necessarily because of the content, but the way the content is organized. And then I took a look at the history of it. And again I was appalled at how many things went "missing". What I ask is to reorganize the article so that each theory has it's own chapter. Clearly stated (all statements). History of how and when and WHY they came to be. Pro/counter arguments, sources. No more "evidence". Sources. So that anyone can get to decide what is what. I won't deny it, I totally believe that after such reorganization we would get to see the Migration as the naked emperor, while the Daco-Roman Continuity actually made a lot more obvious. I might be wrong - but nevertheless I cannot understand why such a proposal get resisted so fiercely. Unless I am right (and frankly I can hardly see how I might be wrong... but I'm only 99% of the time correct :) ). Again, I do not ask for any of the current content to be removed, at this time (unless of course links broken and such technical stuff). Reorganize whatever is here. Afterwards we can start bashing our brains in fierce fights about arguments/counter arguments and whatnot. Have a nice weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 22:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC) What we have resisted is promoting one of the theories at the expense of the other theories. Since it cannot be known which is true, we have to present all major theories as equally valid. You are rightly not allowed to skew the article in favor of one of the theories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC) And my problem with the article is that it is ALREADY skewed, deliberately, by not clearly mentioning the statements of the theories (which would mean that the statement "There were NO Vlachs in Transylvania at the time of the Magyar conquest must be mentioned - in my view the silver bullet since it's impossible to prove). Misleading by weirdly categorizing sources and not linking them to the theory/theories they support. Contradictory "sources" (see written sources vs archaeological) etc. It is a MESS. And I honestly believe it's a deliberate mess. Again, what is wrong with reorganizing it the way I proposed? No new content. Just the existing one. Since you are so sure that they all are "naked". And please, please don't use things like "since it cannot be known which is true". "We cannot and should not decide which is true" is a lot more appropriate. Let the content and the reader decide.Cealicuca (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Frankly, you should not employ non sequiturs, this is not Fools' Debate Club. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Why shouldn't I. It's a fatal flaw on the part of the Migration - necessary nevertheless as otherwise no matter how many sources (written archaeological or whatever) they would use to support any kind of migration becomes simply irrelevant. This is why I initially asked for it to be "downgraded" as you said to Hypothesis - it's not even a valid historical theory. Simple as that. Nevertheless, this is the Talk page, and I fail to see why you get to use logic a couple of statements above but I cannot. Also, I no longer ask for it to be "downgraded". The only thing that still remains WP:OR is the "well supported" phrase. And considering your previous statement I am quite surprised you do not agree with removing it. End note: I reiterate - rewrite the article. Clearly state what each theory says. Add the current content (sources) for each theory (or theories if a source may support more than one theory). Let's see what we get. And in the end let the user/reader see which is which. Is that so unreasonable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 22:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC) I don't always get it my way, that's part of a collaborative project. Besides, we follow WP:RS, not the opinions of the editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Wait what? What has WP:RS has to do with what I said? Please explain the relevance - and why WP:RS would prohibit the reorganizing of the article (not adding, nor removing content). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC) I think that you have made abundantly clear that you do not wish a neutral article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC) On the contrary, I think I made it abundantly clear I want a neutral article. Please re-read (not selectively as you seem to do now) my previous statements. We're on Talk page, and as long as no new content is added, nor is removed (except of course the WP:OR "well supported") why is there a danger to neutrality? If things are as you say (all naked) then there is no worry. And on the same logic, you admit it's far from neutral at this time since you do oppose such a reorganization. Oh, and if WP:NPOV serves my preference - so what? Since when a neutral point of view can't actually support (by itself, not by editors) one statement or another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC) And on the same logic, you admit it's far from neutral at this time since you do oppose such a reorganization. — it seems like a grammatically correct phrase, but I cannot figure out what it means. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC) I am tempted to let you figure it out... Really... I try to be civil here but your tactic (you are always on the offensive and only selectively answer to my points) has a name - used by a type of users I would not like to believe you are one of. Anyway - it goes like this. I asked for a reorganization with no new content added/removed. I ask for any forgone conclusion to be removed (more precisely "well supported" statement - which in case it will hurt, it will hurt ALL the theories in the same manner). No matter my bias (existing or not) simply reorganizing the content should not hurt the neutrality (if such neutrality already exists) of it since the content remains the same. Moreover, I ask that each theory has it's own dedicated chapter with description (statements) clearly made, sources clearly linked, arguments pro/con clearly stated, history of how and when they came to be clearly mentioned etc. Opposite of what is actually going now (I am still chuckling when I think of the mental gymnastics it took someone to come up with the "4.1.1 Sources on present-day Romania/4.1.2 Sources on the Balkan Vlachs/4.1.3 Sources on Medieval Vlach lands" categories... I mean really? Those are not even close to being disjunctive! Why shouldn't there be sources on present-day Romania about Balkan or Medieval Vlachs?). So I establish that if the content is neutral at this time, reorganizing it will not affect it neutrality - and please let everyone know how this statement is false. Oh, I know, you'll gloss over the details and pick something contentious from my post. I do wonder if you actually read the whole thing or not. test - say test if you reached this far. Anyway... I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time. But since you seem to oppose (with far fetched invocation of WP:RULES that have nothing to do whatsoever with reorganizing an article) then the only logical conclusion (that remains) is that it is NOT neutral at this time or that a WP:NPOV is actually something you don't actually like to achieve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 23:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC) That's just your logic, that's just your view. I don't find it compelling. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Maybe I should try some philosophy? Since you're so fond of quoting philosophy as logical arguments (!?!). Anyway, it doesn't matter what your opinion is about my view, or my logic. What matters is what your excuse is for not allowing a logical organization of the current content of this poorly organized article. Again - I revert to my previous observation about the categories of sources. Or maybe there was another criteria? Please enlighten me! Anyway, you failed the "test" test :).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) Stanford University will explain, why Y DNA and mt.DNA are not good for ancestry test. http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/limits-mtdna-testing OR here: https://www.myfamilydnatest.com/ydna-mtdna-autosomal-dna-comparison/ And here: https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/Y-DNA-mtDNA-and-Autosomal-DNA-Tests Because Y only contain information of a single male ancestor (the male line) from 10.000 - 15.000 years ago and mt.DNA contains information only from a single ancient maternal ancestor from 10.000 - 15.000 years ago, it has no information about your thousands of your other direct ancestors in the past, it had no information about mixing with other groups also. So it carries info about the 0,001% of your total direct ancestors. Autosomal tests, however can carry info from all maternal and paternal ancestors, and detect the ratio of many many mixtures through history with high resolutions. For example, John a Swedish citizen has Black African grandmother from his paternal line and ethnic Swedish paternal grandfather, he has also ethnic Swedish maternal grandfather and black African paternal grandmother. According to the Y - DNA test John is ethnic Swedish, because he carries his Swedish paternal grandfather's Y DNA, and according to mt.DNA researches John is ethnic Swedish, because he carries the mt.DNA of his Swedish maternal Grandmother. However an Autosomal test will show the reality: that John has genetically 50% black origin.--Filederchest So the Y DNA and mt.DNA research is meaningless, without any autosomal data from the fossils. Only Autosomal DNA tests can confirm ethnicity percentages and close relationships with a high level of accuracy.--Filederchest (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC) @Swarm: Seemingly User:Filederchest has resumed arguing about a topic that was closed by you. Please help. P. S. This is probably a sockpuppet of User:Stubes99, but it makes no sense to block him because he would return with another account :) 123Steller (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Densusianu is fringe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

* Copied from WP:FTN

ND's book is WP:CB, seriously, mainstream Romanian historians have called it "mystical delirium". Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose. DNA studies Ancient DNA from South-East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic, as objective and NON-fringe as it gets, agree with Densusianu's main thesis, that of continuity of the same people over the same territory over millennia. "M_NEO and modern populations from Romania are VERY CLOSE, in contrast with Middle Neolithic and modern populations from Central Europe."[p.11] As you can see from the yellow diamonds in Fig 2 & 3 in that article, modern-day Romanians/Moldovans are closer to their Middle Neolithic ancestors than to any modern European population. Other people/ethnicities passed through that area over the centuries but there was minimal admixture of mtDNA, except with already related populations. This study alone (there are others) disprove the "Romanization" theory, so what you call "mainstream historians" obviously do not have the last word on the matter and competing theories must be allowed in the arena of debate. Your contesting the inclusion of these theories on this wiki page does a great disservice to truth and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC) I mean, the matter is not even debated: for Romanian historians (whether nationalists or not) ND (in respect to Ancient Dacians) is a lunatic, an open shame, testimony to the endless gullibility of the great unwashed. So, whatever that DNA study says, it does not validate his preposterous ravings. He is like the madmen who showed to C.G. Jung that God exists — even if God exists, it does not mean they weren't mad. Also, the paper you cite does not even mention the word "Dacian(s)", "Getae" or "Thracian(s)". As far as the paper goes, it does not even support the thesis that they have ever existed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Oppose. The matter is absolutely debatable. In fact, many "mainstream" academics have given ND his due credit-- like Iosif Constantin Dragan, Dumitru Berciu, Stefan Pascu (member of the Academy), Conf. Univ. Dr. G.D. Iscru, just to name a few; and many "mainstream" historians in the past held similar views-- like Grigore Tocilescu (member of the Academy), Ioan Andriesescu (correspondent member of the Academy) and even Vasile Parvan, initially critical of ND's work, came around to his way of thinking towards the end of his life (see his posthumously published work), not to mention Mihai Eminescu (not a historian by profession, but still... Eminescu!) and other historians from the past. As for the DNA study... of course they don't mention Dacians, etc, those Middle Neolithic people didn't sign their tombs or anything like that. The geneticists just present the facts, and they are pretty conclusive: direct connection spanning millennia, with minimal admixture. Now, I don't know if you've actually read "Prehistoric Dacia", but the "validation" I refer to (re. ND's work) follows logically. I see, going by your profile, that we went to the same high school so I'd like to think you have basic logic covered. The M-Neo population referred to in the DNA study is what ND calls the "ancient Pelasgians" and the main tenet of his book is that there's a direct link (ethnically and culturally) from those Pelasgians to modern-day Romanians. If you don't see the DNA study as firmly propping ND's thesis, I don't know what to tell you... Of course I realize that ND's methods are a bit unconventional by "scientific standards", as he treats folklore as historical source, but keep in mind that not too long ago the "mainstream academe" scoffed at Homer's writings being anything but pure fiction... until Schliemann discovered Troy. So, it's not quite how you make it out to be. But... obviously, it's your opinion and so be it, I wouldn't try to wipe your opinion off of Wiki just because I don't agree with it, and by the some token I wouldn't want someone to delete my entries just because they don't agree with the theory I espouse (an age-old theory, mind you). Hope we can be civil about this and not have to take it to arbitration. Noroc!--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC) You have repeatedly violated WP:FRINGE. Please take time to read it: Densusianu's woo is not welcome here. Also, Protochronism is not welcome here, and no, it is not mainstream. Perhaps it was promoted as mainstream by Nicolae Ceausescu's state propaganda, but no more than that. Source for "mystical delirium": Dan Alexe (2 August 2016). Dacopatia şi alte rătăciri româneşti. Humanitas SA. p. 95. ISBN 978-973-50-4978-2. (the book is of the popularized science sort, but it was published by the prestigious publishing house Humanitas). Here is an article by Zoe Petre: https://web.archive.org/web/20120919170054/http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Burebista-contemporanul-nostru*articleID_1496-articles_details.html Here is an article by Mircea Babeș: https://web.archive.org/web/20080619232513/http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Renasterea-Daciei*articleID_9072-articles_details.html The verdict of conscious Romanian historians is unanimous: ND's book is pseudohistory/fantasy trying to pass for history. It is totally ignored by worldwide historians and rejected by the Romanian academics by consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Obviously there's no consensus since I already gave you names of historians/academicians who don't subscribe to your views. For every historian you name on your side I can name one on my side of the argument. I'm not interested in "Protochronism" or whatever label you wish to give a theory to dismiss it out of hand. Just the same, I can label you a "Daco-Romanopat" or "Romanopat" for what it's worth. You have no right to tell people which theories are welcome here and which are not. I see you also deleted my other edits, which were properly quoted from works by established linguists and historians (not Densusianu), replacing them with an idea that lacks a proper citation ["citation needed"]-- so I guess such a view is welcome, even without proper citation, just because it agrees with your views. Anyway, pointless to argue about this any further, I'm afraid I'll have to take this to arbitration. All the best.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC) This does not at all mean that we don’t in loose, rough and ready ways judge interpretations… all the time. And this does not at all mean that practically speaking that some interpretations are obviously slightly better than others. Let me return to familiar ones like the traffic light. If it’s red and you see it as green, the outcome can be disastrous; Derrida doesn’t deny it. You know, it’s a bad misreading… bad misreading. But this is a familiar mistake and it is made about a lot of Derrida’s work. Philosophers call someone a relativist by which they mean it’s a person that holds that any view is as good as any other view. My simple response to that is this: that is a straw person argument, no-one in the world believes it or ever has believed it. No-one – Derrida or anyone else – believes that every view is as good as every other view. That’s only a view we discuss in freshman philosophy class in order to quickly refute it. I mean no-one believes it. There are no defenders of the view and since this tape will be going out, if we run into one it will be interesting, but we will likely find that person in one of the institutions Foucault discussed rather than in some seminar, okay. That’s where we will find them, if anybody believes that. No, Derrida’s kind of slippage is to remind us that the text of philosophy is not fixed; can not be fixed. It is of the nature of the text of philosophy and its relation to language that we cannot fix it once and for all. In a way it’s like the leaky ship where we haven’t got anything to stop the leak so we just keep bailing. I mean, the leak is in the language. — Rick Roderick, 307 Derrida and the Ends of Man (1993) Conclusion: if you want to edit here, you have to abide by our rules, we don't believe in "everything goes", see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) WP:FTN This is about Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Densusianu is fringe, namely including fringe authors in a mainstream history article. I have stated that WP:DRN is not the proper channel to advocate for such inclusion. By fringe authors I mean Nicolae Densusianu and Protochronist authors. The gist of the matter: Dacia Preistorică by Nicolae Densușianu is a close encounter of the WP:FRINGE kind. All Iovaniorgovan could quote from among the contemporary "scholars" are Protochronist authors and their walled garden. Per WP:ONEWAY pseudohistory is not welcome in a mainstream history article. Source for ND's book is "mystical delirium": Dan Alexe (2 August 2016). Dacopatia şi alte rătăciri româneşti. Humanitas SA. p. 95. ISBN 978-973-50-4978-2. (Alexe's book is of the popularized science sort, but it was published by the prestigious publishing house Humanitas — prestigious by Romanian standards). Here is an article by Zoe Petre: [3], one by Mircea Babeș: [4], and one by Eugen Ciurtin: [5]. All of these articles treat ND's book with high contempt, noting that there is nothing new about such contempt from notable Romanian historians in the past 100 years. The articles exemplify such contempt with quotes. They note that all the interest for ND's book was from dilettantes and that his book was not appreciated by professional historians. (ND had some serious historical contributions, but not in respect to the Antiquity.) The verdict of conscious Romanian historians is unanimous: ND's book is pseudohistory/fantasy trying to pass for history. It is totally ignored by the international scholarship and rejected by the Romanian academics by consensus. As Ciurtin notes, nobody (i.e. scholars) reads ND's book any longer, this is shown by consulting the somewhat recently published historical scholarship. In respect to the claim of Dacian continuity, this is an odd claim and I would like to see mainstream sources supporting it. It should not be conflated with the theory of Daco-Roman continuity which, although not proven, is taken seriously as an explanation of the origin of Romanians. I.e. stating that there is a purely Dacian continuity, with little or no Latin influence is an oddball in respectable historical scholarship (Protochronists are by definition eccentric and marginal, thus not a respectable position in historical scholarship). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC) DNA studies such as this, Ancient DNA from South-East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic, as objective and NON-fringe as it gets, agree with Densusianu's main thesis, that of continuity of the same people over the same territory over millennia. "M_NEO and modern populations from Romania are VERY CLOSE, in contrast with Middle Neolithic and modern populations from Central Europe."[p.11] As one can see from the yellow diamonds in Fig 2 & 3 in that article, modern-day Romanians/Moldovans are closer to their Middle Neolithic ancestors than to any modern European population. Other people/ethnicities passed through that area over the centuries (as shown in the Late Neolithic sample from the same study) but there was minimal admixture of mtDNA, except with already related populations. This study alone (there are others) disprove the "Romanization" theory (no DNA study to date has shown any "Roman" input in the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people). This DNA study clearly shows that the Romanian ethnicity had already formed (in the same area occupied today) by Middle Neolithic. This is a fact, not a matter of opinion, so we must allow for competing theories that take this into consideration. I don't suggest that Densusianu's work is the historical bible that we must all follow to the letter, but to call him "fringe" is to go to the other extreme. Dacian continuity (with minimal Roman influence) is a perfectly legit theory that is now supported by DNA research (all other theories are NOT), and many reputed scholars have subscribed to it. Here goes again: Iosif Constantin Dragan, Dumitru Berciu, Ștefan Pascu (member of the Academy), Conf. Univ. Dr. G.D. Iscru, Grigore Tocilescu (member of the Academy), Ioan Andriesescu (correspondent member of the Academy) and even Vasile Parvan, initially critical of ND's work, came around to his way of thinking towards the end of his life (see his posthumously published work). And since you anchor your argument to a book by Dan Alexe, a journalist/filmmaker, please allow me to quote the greatest Romanian poet/journalist, Mihai Eminescu, who said that in light of the historical record, "Everything should be Dacicized from now on". Finally, I would also like to mention recent work from two reputable linguists (doctorates, the works) who also subscribe to this view, that no "Latinization/Romanization" ever took place: Carme Jiménez Huertas (We Don't Come From Latin; Original Spanish Title: No venimos del latín; ISBN 9788490503645), and Dr. Mihai Vinereanu (The Evolution of the Proto-Indo-European *BH Sound in Latin and Why Romanian Doesn't Come From Latin)--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC) One other thing-- one does not need Densusianu's writings to prop up the Dacian continuity theory. The theory can be thoroughly supported without resorting to ND's work, although people (myself included) do it out of convenience (one-stop-shopping kind of thing).--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC) From the article Iosif Constantin Dragan: According to historian Lucian Boia, Drăgan promoted an extreme version of protochronism, which claimed that the Romania was the cradle of civilization, and the Romanian people the oldest in Europe: As the author of We, the Thracians (1976) and editor of the periodical of the same title (Noì, tracii) that was launched in 1974, he was the leading figure of an entire movement aimed at amplifying the role of the Thracians in European history, a movement supported by all sorts of amateurs (even a lawyers’ group!) but also by some less than scrupulous professionals (among them the archaeologists Dumitru Berciu and Ion Horaţiu Crişan). In the periodical Noi, tracii it was possible, for example, to claim that the ancestors of the Romanians lived 100,000 years ago, eloquent proof that the Romanian people is the oldest in the continent, if not in the world. As for the extent of the Thracians’ territory, Drăgan generously allows them almost half of Europe, centered, evidently, on the present-day space of Romania.<ref>Boia, Lucian, ''History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness'', Central European University Press, Budapest, 2001, p.105</ref> The work of Densusianu begins with (I translate): Behind the populations known in ancient times as Dacians and Getae there was for many thousands of years a genial, powerful and glorious nation, which much time before the Trojan times [the Trojan war, sung in Iliad], founded the first vast empire of the world, established the first cultural unity of Europe and established the basis of moral and material progress in West Asia and North Africa From ro:Dacia preistorică: Alexandru D. Xenopol stated "The theory of the author that Dacians have established the first civilization of the humankind shows that it is a product of chauvinism, not of science". Vasile Pârvan, in his monumental work, Getica, mentions the author and his work - "his fantastic novel Dacia preistorică, full of mythology and absurd philology, which from its publication has awakened wonder and unbounded enthusiasm among the Romanian archaeology dilettantes"<ref>Quoted by M. Babeș</ref>. According to WP:SCIRS and WP:HISTRS I want to see many mainstream (i.e. not from the walled garden of Protochronism) secondary sources which support the Dacians-only continuity claim. Not one or two pieces of DNA study wherein the authors claimed that they had not studied enough people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Again, all you offer is... opinions, NO arguments. As for Lucian Boia, your leading man, and former University of Bucharest Secretary of Propaganda for the Communist Party (up to the Revolution), here's what Ioan-Aurel Pop (Istoria, adevarul si miturile, Ed Enciclopedica, 2014; first published in 2002), an advocate of the Daco-Roman theory and the recently elected President of the Romanian Academy, has to say "Lucian Boia is not able to read a document in Latin, Slavonic, or Greek.[...] His entire so-called expertise is restricted to the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century. He's not a historian of ancient times, he simply borrows from here and there. He even acknowledged that he does not apply historical methods in his books because the historical methods are outdated. [...]He is a falsifier of history." So, we can go back-and-forth on this until the cows sing the blues. The DNA study I mention clearly states that it performed a "genetic analysis of a RELATIVELY LARGE NUMBER of samples of Boian, Zau and Gumelniţa cultures in Romania (n = 41) (M_NEO)", which is the period in question. It says that further studies are necessary to draw conclusions in regards mostly to the Late Bronze findings-- that is, ancient populations that are not related to any modern populations. That's to be expected-- Romanians were not the only people to ever inhabit those lands, other people came and left (like the Celts), they're just the only ones who have been living there continuously. Speaking of DNA studies, here's another recent one (from last year) that made waves at that time because of its surprising finds, DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies reveals their ancestry-- "Johannes Krause, a University of Tubingen paleogeneticist and an author of the study, said the major finding was that “for 1,300 years, we see complete genetic continuity.” Despite repeated conquests of Egypt, by Alexander the Great, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Assyrians — the list goes on — ancient Egyptians showed little genetic change. “The other big surprise,” Krause said, “was we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancestry.” What the study found was "that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations (Fig. 5a,b). When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested." This came as a shock to everyone EXCEPT readers of Densusianu. So here you have not one but TWO major DNA studies published in the last two years, both confirming Densusianu's version of ancient history. These are recent studies and it takes a while to enter the mainstream but eventually this new and (re)emerging version of history (closer to the truth) will win out. Too bad that the pace is made slower by irrational detractors. Wikipedia should allow these theories to be represented on its pages, lest one will start branding DNA studies as "fringe."--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC) I did not say that the DNA studies would be fringe. I have stated that WP:SCIRS and WP:HISTRS demand many WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES. Also, Densusianu's work is comparable to the hallucinations of a drugs addict, so whatever the DNA studies show, he cannot be right. Protochronists maintain that Dacians have conquered the Americas and Japan, so far goes their ludicrousness. Besides, Pop has stated on Acad. prof. univ. dr. Ioan-Aurel Pop - Despre falsificarea istoriei on YouTube that he has nothing against Boia dispelling the myths of National-Communist historiography, he only maintains that Boia is not an expert who can provide positive information about the history of Romania. In Pop's view Boia is good at removing the weeds from the garden of Romanian historiography—and he should stick to doing that (he is qualified for doing it, but not in other fields). "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Wikipedia is a place where we kowtow to the academic mainstream. If you don't like doing that, you won't like it here. See WP:ABIAS. Since you cited Densusianu and Iosif Constantin Dragan as if they wrote reliable sources, you don't have the faintest idea of what WP:RS means. I suggest reading it thoroughly, and please take notes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Now you're using specious arguments: Densusianu = "protochronist" and since one "protochronist" said "X" then Densusianu must have also believed "X". Densusianu wrote nothing of the sort. In fact, I only linked to his work once in the entries that you deleted. Every author should be scrutinized, including ND, but one should be able to quote from a work (if fitting) without dismissing the entire work just because the author didn't get everything 100% right. Else, we'll be left with no books to quote/cite. And that also goes for all those ACADEMICS I just quoted.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC) ND's work has been flat out rejected by all serious Romanian historians of the past 100 years. So it's not WP:RS, it is an exercise in mythomania. Also Dragan is not regarded as a scholar, he hardly published peer-reviewed articles in serious historical journals, so for us he isn't an academic. He was a propagandist for Fascism (Ion Antonescu), Protochronism and the like. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Well, I disagree. Anyway, like I said before, there are actually two arguments here: 1) Densusianu is "fringe", 2) Thraco-Dacian continuity is "fringe". I don't need Densusianu to prove Dacian continuity, and to say (2) is true is just... preposterous. Recent DNA studies support the Thraco-Dacian continuity theory, famous historians and writers (including Romania's greatest, Mihai Eminescu) advocated it, contemporary university historians and linguists (not just Romanian, I linked to a Spanish one, too, just for good measure) also support it... It's never been "fringe" and will never be "fringe".--2602:301:7769:EF70:1D88:8886:4A13:2F40 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC) :Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; 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. — WP:DUE Please note that Protochronists are not WP:MAINSTREAM, Densusianu is WP:CB and DNA studies aren't WP:SECONDARY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC) I named plenty of "prominent adherents". I rest my case then. --Iovaniorgovan (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Protochronists, as a rule of thumb, do not count as academics, and even if some count, they certainly do not pass WP:RS. They fail WP:FRINGE—this is why we don't allow their claims inside Wikipedia. Our encyclopedia isn't an everything goes forum for crank science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC) You seem a little confused, to say the least, and you're resorting to all sorts of conflating and specious arguments (taint by association) to make your points, which only exposes the weakness of your arguments. Protochronism was a national/political movement that used a theory/idea, in this case Dacianism, for political purposes. As we've seen in history, just about ANY idea/theory can be used for political manipulation or economic gain. One can use atomic energy for benevolent purposes, another can use it to start wars... that doesn't make the science wrong. Just like in our case, Dacian continuity is simply a theory that has ZERO political value in and of itself. We're only concerned with historical truth here. Hope you can understand this much.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC) That's a red herring: Protochronists are unreliable as sources because they are ideologically tainted, they make fanciful claims, they are not published in mainstream peer-reviewed historical journals, such works are not cited approvingly by mainstream historians, their viewpoints are not taught as fact in faculties of history (yes, even in Romania), they have their walled garden publishing houses, these are all WP:REDFLAGs of fringe theories. So, unless you cite mainstream WP:HISTRS/WP:SCIRS, you cannot add that to our article. The problem that Protochronism/Dacians-only theory are fringe is not ours to fix, see WP:RGW. The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable. — User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV Mutatis mutandis, this applies to your WP:SOURCES: these are not written by mainstream historians, so we don't use them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC) That's circular reasoning: If one adheres to the (strictly) Dacian continuity that makes him a "protochronist" and hence he is unreliable and ideologically tainted. Anyway, it looks like we've been going around in circles too. Okay then, no problem, I'll make sure to cite only mainstream sources, and if you don't think they're mainstream then feel free to delete them (and let me know why). However when/if I do that I may need to add a header, etc, for clarity.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. you're really reaching there, mutatis mutandis.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Here is why: the only people who champion the Dacians-only view are Protochronists (and other wannabe-scholars who are their fellow travelers), Protochronists write unreliable sources, so this is catch 22 for getting the Dacians-only claim in our article, which defaults to it being fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC) I get what you're saying but that doesn't make it right or true (your first statement above is patently false). The theory doesn't just magically default to "fringe", it does so because people like you deem themselves the absolute arbiters of what is "mainstream" and what isn't (if members of the Academy are not mainstream, what is?) Not that Wiki doesn't need policing, it does, but there should be a way to mitigate such "conflicts". Again, I'll just post mainstream sources (as mainstream as possible in my estimation) and hopefully we can reach a ceasefire.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Well, don't cite any Protochronist (or fellow traveler) for a start. Cite only mainstream WP:RS compliant with WP:SCIRS or WP:HISTRS. And a thing to remember: Wikipedians do not have much regard for WP:PRIMARY sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Since you've spoken of Pop, he shares the same despise for Protochronism/Dacomania as Boia, only Pop does not consider it scientific/scholarly enough to even warrant discussing it very often. So, there is no quarrel about that between Pop and Boia. In other words, Pop has plonked the Dacomans. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Actually, I very much like Pop as a person. I think his intentions are good and he's a great patriot. And, clearly, he has vast knowledge of the subject but I think he's made a serious error in judgement which unfortunately lies at the very foundation of his argument. He bases his "Romanization" argument solely on ONE premise-- that only a relatively small Dacian population resided within the territories occupied by the Romans. He literally makes up the numbers, pulls them out of thin air (I don't have the link now but I can find it, if you're not familiar with his work; if I recall he says there were less than 100,000 Dacians left in Dacia Felix after the war), to make his argument and later he even admits that if the Dacian population was something close to a million then his argument would probably not work. Well, there are sources putting that Dacian population at more than a million (even after the conquest), with allegedly half a million moving South after the Roman withdrawal, so Pop's numbers are shoddy, which makes his elaborate argument very weak. I get it though, this Daco-Roman theory has been pounded into our heads for so long it's become dogma and now you have all these professors who have invested their entire lives into a theory, it's their and their families' livelihood and they're not about to admit that they were wrong all along, quit their jobs, and get in the unemployment line. This kind of change, which is surely coming, takes a bit of time. On the other hand you have the Sinaia Tablets, which are deemed by many as forgeries (a ridiculous argument), because they are lead copies of the (presumably) gold originals-- they are clearly authentic IN CONTENT. And I know people who have seen photographs of at least one gold original; one is actually made out of solid silver and you can find that online. Of course, this is not the kind of "evidence" you can bring to Wiki, but I'm just mentioning it because if ONE such gold tablet resurfaces then it's game over for the Daco-Romans. Mihai Vinereanu has some great articles on the Sinaia Tablets at limbaromana.org but that site is kinda slow sometimes.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Ironic side note: Densusianu's original family name was Pop.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC) So you do support WP:FRINGE views with forged evidence. That's why it does not fly. The Sinaia Tablets argument is somewhere between absurd and hilarious. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC) I didn't say I support the Sinaia Tablets as "scientific" evidence. I think I was pretty clear on that. However, if you study the CONTENT of the tablets in any kind of depth you may come to the conclusion that they're not fakes. I'm not talking about something to be PROVEN in any scientific ways. If you dismiss them out of hand, then good for you. Nothing to talk about here. Point is, the Daco-Roman theory has two main components: ethnic and linguistic. The ethnic component is already settled by DNA analysis which shows (both mtDNA and Y-DNA) no kinship with the Romans/Italians. And if there was no (or insignificant) mixing to change the language spoken "at home" from Dacian to Latin then no linguistic impact could've occurred. Latin was and remained simply an administrative language. This Latinization/Romanization didn't happen in Italy, why would it happen in Dacia? What about the free Dacians? Pop's answer to that is "somewhere between absurd and ridiculous". So the whole Roman-language borrowing hypothesis is hanging by a thread-- that was my point with the Sinaia Tablet resurfacing (but it could be anything, really). p.s. The Sinaia Tablets are ASSUMED to be forgeries, it's not been PROVEN that they are forgeries, so following the scientific method we have to leave this as an open question, until further study settles the matter one way or another. It's called "keeping an open mind", which is what the best of scientists do.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC) The WP:BURDEN is upon those who claim that those would be authentic, and this claim is flat out rejected by mainstream scholars. Besides, here inside Wikipedia we don't have to prove anything, we just have to quote WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES. A WP:PRIMARY DNA study does not get you very far (even if it is true). Don't think of it as a major discovery, it is a minor footnote in this debate. Wikipedically you're clutching at straws. The goal of the intelligent design movement is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design — John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District verdict The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to foment revolution, but to take the WP:RS/AC for what it is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Did you somehow miss the part where I said "Of course, this is not the kind of "evidence" you can bring to Wiki"?... It's just "talk", don't get your panties in a bunch.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC) It wasn't just about the Sinaia Tablets, but also about that DNA study and about this Daco-Roman theory has been pounded into our heads for so long it's become dogma and now you have all these professors who have invested their entire lives into a theory, it's their and their families' livelihood and they're not about to admit that they were wrong all along, quit their jobs, and get in the unemployment line. This kind of change, which is surely coming, takes a bit of time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC) We're on the "talk" page, hence opinions... Over and out.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC) References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI notice

Due to too much WP:SOCKing at this page, I have opened a topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proxies and banned users. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Please Move Extended Discussions On Your User Talkpages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This Page is getting too long with extended discussions on the Wiki policies, Sock investigations, and other miscellaneous subjects. This is not a forum. I recommend moving further discussions not directly related to this article to your respective user talk pages.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Agree, but the two "newbies" won't take no for an answer and I have no easy way of closing the discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Oppose, the matters discussed are interrelated and reflect on the whole.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Exception being the trolling posts by various Hungarians who keep posting the same comments, get promptly rebuffed, then wait a few days and copy/paste the same silly comments like nothing happened (see Filederchest above). Funny how on the Origin of the Romanians page the Hungarian editors outnumber the Romanians 2 to 1. Then you wonder why the extended discussions?--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC) I think we should ignore him. Do we need to maintain a discussion with an editor whose principal argumentation is based on other editors' nationality? Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC) @Borsoka, what exactly is your motivation for posting on these pages? (or more like repeatedly "copy/pasting", from what I gathered.) What are you trying to accomplish here?--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC) I want to help the Martians to conquer the Earth, because they would appoint me as their governor in Transylvania, Transdanubia, Transjordania and Transnistria. I hide secret codes in my edits on these pages to help them to open the secret tunnel between the Mars and the Earth. The secret codes were revealed by a Chupacabra to me 2,000 years ago. Borsoka (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Good to see you're taking your medication. I was worried there for a second.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC) No, I have always refused to take them, because pharmaceuticals have been conspiring against the Martians. Borsoka (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Yup, Iovaniorgovan and Cealicuca have offered no positive WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES, they rely instead upon paranoid conspiracy theories, empty rhetoric and wishful thinking. Of course this does not fly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC) As opposed to you? Actually, YOU simply reject any sources you dislike (as you did with Britannica, because you "lord" it so it's NOT mainstream enough for you...). As for other sources you wholeheartedly accept (or at least you do not dispute - especialy on the basis of "nationalism" - like... hmmm, 19th century / 20th century Hungarian sources?). As for my claims - I actually criticize the way the article is structured (made deliberately opaque in order to hide the shaky ground the Migration hypothesis is built upon (imho) - that is lack of evidence, especially archaeological) - and therefore biased. From an article depicting clearly the theories, with their pro/counter arguments, it has become under Borsoka's supervision (and yours) an amalgam of "things" preceded by another piece of WP:OR - "several well supported theories". But hey, this does "fly", right? Oh... there we go... some philosophy ('cause everyone knows philosophy should be the basis of judging the merits of a scientific theory) - positive? Wow. But of course, sure, how else could you make your claims more relevant other than to embellish them. I asked that this statement ("Several well supported theories") be removed and the so-called "support evidence" be listed clearly so that every reader can make up his/her mind. I also cannot let go of the fact that you selectively pick parts of what other editors (myself included) write here and apply, discretionary (as in only for those "select" editors) the WP:RULES. Also you and others present as "facts" your own opinions which, if I am not mistaken, would fall under WP:OR. Examples: see the repeated statement of "no evidence for 1000 years" or along this line, "believe me [...] no evidence" and such Borsoka's Please remember that the Romanians adopted the names of the major rivers in Transylvania from the Hungarians, Slavs and Saxons, which is quite strange if we assume the Romanians' continuous presence in the territory. which is AT BEST disputed (or even his "Albanian connection" argument which, incidentally, is debunked in this very article as well as other articles here on Wikipedia) but hey, it flies as an argument to dismiss others, right?. Also, I cannot help but LOL at you being concerned about other editor's professional credential and expertise (see the genetic research). Do you by any chance have such expertise? I think not. As for sources - I can provide some more, that would actually provide more strength to the notion that the only theory that is indeed "mainstream" is the Daco-Romanian Continuity (as opposed to the Migration hypothesis). For example, Library of Congress – Federal Research Division - p. 1: "Today’s Romanians are in part descended from the Getae, a Thracian tribe that lived north of the Danube River[...]" / p. 2: "In 896 the Magyars, the last of the migrating tribes to establish a state in Europe [...]" (so, implicitly, the Vlachs are not the LAST migratory tribe to establish a state in Europe), p. 2: "The Hungarians [...] began proselytizing Transylvania's indigenous people.". Is this mainstream enough for you? But this (adding sources) should rather be done after this poor excuse for a WP:NPOV is reorganized to actually reflect such a neutral PoV. I have also stated that personally I believe that the "admigration" is more closer to the truth - but that it suffers from some of the same logical fallacies as the "migration" hypothesis, easily detectable if the article would be reorganized properly - that being the lack of material (archaeological) "evidence" supporting it. You want to mention behavior? Go ahead - I ask for the content of this page to be reorganized. And there you go, between asking me (and others) to "trust" your opinions, stating other opinions as facts, "lording" Britannica (no - I simply can't let this one go, it's just such a gem), even going as far as to selectively ask for an investigation (because hey, the 3 editors that were "opposed" to my OP DID NOT support each other all of the sudden...), you simply twist my statements, selectively "answer" to parts of them etc. I'd say this is quite an aggressive behavior, as is the current topic that amounts to simply hiding the poor job that you and the other editors did with this article (poor in my opinion, in yours it's probably "lordly") under the rug.Cealicuca (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC) I offered plenty of mainstream and secondary sources, you just chose to dismiss them as "fringe" or "protochronist" because they don't agree with your views.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC) No, by definition Protochronist sources aren't mainstream, but are WP:FRINGE/PS (pseudohistory). The president of the Romanian Academy wholeheartedly agrees. The mandate of WP:ARBPS is loud and clear: we have to weed out Protochronist sources from Wikipedia. Again, instead of pointless chatter which won't get you anywhere, show me your WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES. Otherwise you make a complete mockery of the Romanian cause, depicting Romanians as extremist, gullible and inane. Well, that's the kind of nationalism that Ceausescu promoted. I don't know if you realize it, but your own actions can be construed as a defamation campaign against Romania. Among civilized, educated people that's what your arguments mean. I.e. what WP:ILLEGIT calls "strawman socks": "... to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side." "I cannot quote any mainstream secondary sources to defend my position and the supremacy of the continuity theory has to be accepted on bogus, irrational grounds (by fiat)", that's what you're saying. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Time and time again you put a spin on what I wrote. I am not what you call a "nationalist" and I am definitely not for any type of "protochronism". Having lived through Communism I am understandably repulsed by that type of propaganda. However, one needs to separate between "theory-seeking-truth" and "theory-as-propaganda". What you've been doing here is using "protochronism" as a bat to squash any kind of research or info supporting the Thraco-Dacian origin/continuity, irrespective of source and context. In effect, you deem the T=D theory "protochronist" by definition, even though its current advocates in academe do not (and do not intend to) use it for any kind of political means. This political element is what's in discussion here. Protochronism is by definition history applied to political propaganda. Take the "political" aspect out and then you just have history/theory that should be judged on equal terms with the other theories if it stands on its own merits. To make an analogy here, we all know that most dictators/rulers in the past have identified themselves (iconographically, etc) with the Sun, seeing as everything revolves around the Sun. Are we to discard the heliocentric model of our galaxy just because those despots have used it in their propaganda? That's basically what you're doing with the T=D theory. So when I bring up a book or document supporting Thraco-Dacian continuity then you have to treat it just like any other item supporting opposing theories. If then you deem that the author was a propagandist for the Communist party (like Lucian Boia) and pushed Dacomania onto the people to serve a political agenda, then of course you have the right to challenge that item. In fact, I wouldn't try to use such an author myself. But if the item in question is "free" of political influence, as far as we can tell, it should be allowed to stand. It's a question of methodology because what you're doing is, in effect, censorship. I hope I made myself clear.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC) You have no WP:CLUE, see WP:CIR. Protochronist books and papers are Makulatur. Inside Wikipedia we may only cite Makulatur in order to make it obvious that it is WP:CB. My advice to you: read WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:VER very thoroughly, take notes, read them again, and only then come back at this talk page. We simply don't believe that every book or every article would be a WP:RS, somehow you have repeatedly failed to understand this. Also you have failed to understand that some sources are for us very shoddy, according to WP:PAGs, especially primary sources in biology. Also, we do examine who published something, at which publishing house/journal in order to evaluate the reliability of a source. We do this all the time inside Wikipedia, so the sources you have mentioned have not been singled out for special treatment. According to WP:ARBPS, we do censor Makulatur from Wikipedia, that's not what WP:NOTCENSORED is about, see WP:FREE for an explanation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC) You don't seem to "get it". I'm not talking about whether (rightfully tagged) protochronist papers should be allowed on Wiki (I get that part and you've over-explained it yourself), I'm talking about genuine historical research/books by reputable historians and published by mainstream publishers that are falsely tagged as "protochronist" here on Wiki just for the "sin" of supporting a theory that was used in the past as a tool in a political game. My point is you need to prove that those sources are used or have been used politically in order to nix them. Else, they should be allowed to stand. Anyway, I feel like I'm wasting my time here so what I'll do is I'll open a new thread when I get some time (soon) and rehash this part of the discussion there and then we can take it to arbitration like civilized wikipedians. I get your points about Wiki policies regarding some other things but I think you're definitely in the wrong here.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration does not decide upon content disputes, arbitrators only analyze behavior, like repeatedly violating WP:PAGs or casting aspersions upon other editors. You should also note that tricks which work very well for debate teams don't work inside Wikipedia: we're not Debatepedia, we're only a service which abstracts mainstream secondary sources, we simply stick to mainstream science/scholarship. You won't be able push here a POV with mere arguments. If your sources are Densusianu, Dragan and people like them, you will never succeed. They have a reputation of raving maniacs in respect to the origin of Romanians. Wikipedia is not a platform for these wackos. And... Eminescu? As you stated, he wasn't a historian, so he could not have written WP:RS for Wikipedia on this count alone. Also, he died too long ago to pass as contemporary scholar. Fails WP:RS on both counts. So, his opinion upon this issue is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Wait... wait. The "migrationist" theory was, quoting this very article, "proposed" by Franz Joseph Sulzer. In 1780. While earlier, several non-Romanian authors were "adepts" of the Daco-Roman Continuity - and yes, I can provide sources if need be... though this is already sourced and admitted in the article - but here goes: Antonio Bonfini (ca. 1427-1503) - the Roman origin of the Romanians sprang from a fusion of Roman colonists with Dacians and Getae inhabiting Dacia in antiquity. Incidentally, as for the Hungarian king Matthias I Corvinus [1458-90] - he says "who was himself a 'Vlach." Kaspar Helth [Gaspar Heltai] (1510/20-74), translated portions of Bonfini's account into Hungarian. This Transylvanian chronicle, the first one in Hungarian, incorporated data about Daco-Roman continuity. He was the first as well to use in print the name Romanians, in Hungarian-Romanusok, for Transylvanian Vlachs [Olahok]. Szekely author Pal Lisznyai (1630-95) - about the Romanians' beginnings and subsequent development. Joszef Benko (1740 - 1815), indicated the Latin foundation of the Romanian language as being evidence of the Vlachs' Roman ancestry; he then traced the establishment of the Wallachian and Moldavian principalities to Vlachs emigrating from Transylvania and Maramures respectively. Peter Bod (1712-69) - (unpublished) "Brevis Valachorum Transylvanium" reached 1764, describing the Romanians' ethnic roots, their customs etc. Johann Troster (d. 1670), argued that Romanians were the offspring of Roman settlers and constituted the oldest and most numerous denizens of what had once been Dacia. Proof of the Romanians' Roman ancestry lay in the Romanians' lexicon, dances, and clothing. Yet nothing is mentioned about the context in which Sulzer's work (which differed from all the above) came to be - that being that he was having at the time a dispute (legal) with Ipsilanti, and moreover, his work: "Geschichte des transalpinischen Daciens, das ist: der Walachey, Moldau und Bessarabiens, im Zusammenhange mit der Geschichte des ubrigen Daciens als ein Versuch einer allgemeinen dacischen Geschichte" contained some very... let's say colorful description of the Romanians as well as deriving his conclusions (migration) based on those "colorful" descriptions - as in they're illiterate shepherds so they surely are (enhanced for drama) late-medieval migratory illiterate shepherds - as some on this page have already mentioned (but failed to trigger your ever present, all-knowing WP:RULES sense). While I can understand that this type of... philosophical "reasoning" might be appealing for certain mindsets, logic dictates it is BS. Or at least not a valid historical theory. Now - since you seem so eager to cast doubt on other theories/sources based on association, or context or lack of expertise - how come Sulzer's hypothesis, in and of itself a political tool, is "flying"? You criticize Eminescu for not being a historian (justly so) - thus his "credentials" are not "flying" but the context surrounding Sulzer's work is quite OK, right? This whole historical debate evolved because (primarily) Transylvanian German authors (and later Magyar), in championing their own privileged status in Austria (and later by Hungary to justify some sort of historical claim to Transylvania), denied the ethnic continuity of their Romanian compatriots. And stating this does not make me a nationalist - but it does make you and other biased for not even mentioning it in the same chapter where the Transylvanian Schools is scolded for using the Daco-Roman Continuity theory as a political tool. This article mentions not ONE SINGLE WORD about why the "migration" hypothesis came to be (as a political tool) and it's contemporary and modern role as a political tool for the Hungarian nationalists. And what's even worse is that his article is provided as "proof". No wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I do not have time to discuss the results of your researches. All statements in the article are verified by references to academic works and the article can be edited based on academic works. Furthermore, you should comment the existing version of the article.Borsoka (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Sure mr. Borsoka... Oh wait, my "researches"? Sorry, I am not the one who uses his opinions as "facts" - you on the other hand are (see the Albanian connection which is debunked in this very article). For the past 10 years you have "cleaned up" the article and removed a lot of content with no check. It is funny to see how sometimes you even faked a "converstaion" in which you agree with yourself to remove some "irrelevant" content (which, coincidentally, almost always supports the Daco-Roman continuity). Nevertheless, your last reply is just an attempt at deflecting. I criticize the deliberate misleading and opaque structure of the article (like, for example, on what planet do the following categories make sense?!?) 4.1.1 Sources on present-day Romania (so sources found on a territory) 4.1.2 Sources on the Balkan Vlachs (sources referring to an ethnic group) 4.1.3 Sources on Medieval Vlach lands (sources referring to an ethnic group's territory) The use of "Vlach" and "Wallachia" without clearly explaining those are exonyms, without clearly mentioning that the "Vlachs" have called themselves (sourced above) "ruman" or other alternatives, without mentioning "Tara Romaneasca" which literally means Land of Romanians, underlying that the Daco-Roman Continuity theory was used as a political tool while the "migration" hypothesis is like Virgin Marry - oh so pure and unaltered by nationalists or any political ideologies. So, deflecting much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 07:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC) About Sulzer: your comment is irrelevant, since we don't quote him talking about himself, we quote 20th and 21st century mainstream historians who think that his view is more or less valid, i.e. that he had a notable contribution to this problem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC) About Sulzer, please explain how is it possible for him to be considered a reliable source when it comes to a whole god damn theory, presented, supported, argument pro and against on this article, but it is not OK to quote from his work - the actual book in which he, among other stuff, develops this so-called theory (don't spin it, please. It's not quoting him talking about himself. It's actual quotes from his book that give a pretty good context about WHY this theory came to be). Especially since the article goes to great lengths to promote the idea that the Daco-Roman Continuity theory is a political tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC) It's really simple: quotes from Sulzer may be used to illustrate points already made by WP:RS. Besides, the name Sulzer appears only once in our article (including references), look it up for yourself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC) See, thing is I want to quote from sources that explore this side of Sulzer's work. They quote him. And moreover, again, don't spin it. The article states that Mr. Sulzer, and i quote, " proposed a 13th-century migration from the Balkans". there is no other mentioning of who and when actually created the migration theory. The first time it appears, chronologically, is with mr. Sulzer. So if mr. Sulzer is not a WP:RS then... whomever builds upon his work is not a WP:RS. On the contrary, if mr. Sulzer is a WP:RS then agian please explain why shouldn't we able to quote his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 23:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Simply put, Sulzer is no WP:RS by Wikipedia's criteria. The rest of your argument is a formal fallacy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Oh, ok then. Then remove the "although the Austrian Franz Joseph Sulzer had by the 1780s rejected any form of continuity north of the Danube, and instead proposed a 13th-century migration from the Balkans.[145]". Also, formal fallacy like "There were NO Vlachs in Transylvania at the time of the Magyar conquest". So let me see, not it's OK for you to use this as a counterargument, but it is not OK for me to use it. right? Anyway, formal fallcy smorfal shfallacy - the point remains that since mr. Sulzer is NOT a WP:RS then the links to his work as well as other using him as pro-arguments for their own work should be removed. As well as "although the Austrian Franz Joseph Sulzer had by the 1780s rejected any form of continuity north of the Danube, and instead proposed a 13th-century migration from the Balkans.[145]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC) I think that you should take a wiki-break, you don't seem to make sense. What you argue it's like Sorites paradox#Paradox of the heap. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC) I think you should try some more :). What does not make sense? You just declared Sulzer as a non WP:RS. So, in light of this revelation, why is him mentioned in the following: although the Austrian Franz Joseph Sulzer had by the 1780s rejected any form of continuity north of the Danube, and instead proposed a 13th-century migration from the Balkans.[145]. If he is NOT a WP:RS then his "rejection of the Daco-Roman continuity has no basis, is irrelevant. Irrelevant and unreliable is also his "proposed a 13th-century migration from the Balkans.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC) You have no WP:CLUE. Our role is to render 21st century mainstream scholarship. 21st century mainstream scholars say that Sulzer is important, and we take this at face value. That's what WP:VER means. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC) On the contrary, you are WP:IGNORANCE. Deliberately i mean. I did not ask to remove the "21st century mainstream scholarship". I did ask you to remove precisely what mr. Sulzer (independently of whatever any scholarship says) "rejected" or "proposed" as you deemed him not being a WP:RS. Otherwise you are open to all sorts of nasty stuff. Like, for example, people citing Desusianu (really, you opened up to it). I mean people that are 21st century mainstream scholars. Oh wait, they are tainted by association because Desusianu is NOT a WP:RS. Or, you are free to put anywhere in the article (provided you show the relevance of it) that scholars from the 21st century think mr. Sulzer is important. Anyway, great gymnastics in getting a non-WP:RS mentioned (actually not only mentioned, but get his greatest "achievement" mentioned) in the article. So this is the trick - nice to know. Breathtaking!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) WP:IGNORANCE is about newbies ignoring our rules, it is not about being an ignoramus. I insist with my advice: please take a wiki-break, you won't succeed in undoing our policies, in this respect all experienced editors constitute a hive mind, united by WP:PAGs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Yes, yes. Again - what relevance has mr. Sulzer if he is not a WP:RS? Fell free to mention that mainstream scholars think he is "important". Heck, he IS important. No doubt about it. But for the rest - either remove it or admit you dodged and played the system to get a WP:RS in the article. And of course, feel free to counter with a lot of unrelated WP:RULES. By the way, I meant you feint WP:IGNORANCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 00:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC) As you can see for yourself, the quoted WP:RS is Vékony 2000, pp. 19-20, it is not something that Sulzer has written. That's why your argument is fallacious. We cite Vékony, not Sulzer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Oh, OK. I see. But then what is mr. Sulzer's relevance? Why is he important? I mean - i'm OK with whatever mainstream respected scholar mentioning him - but why put it in the article. What is the relevance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 00:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Vékony says that Sulzer is important and says what Sulzer is reputed for, and we take this at face value. That's how WP:VER works. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) So Vékony, which is a WP:RS (according to you) says that "although the Austrian Franz Joseph Sulzer had by the 1780s rejected any form of continuity north of the Danube, and instead proposed a 13th-century migration from the Balkans."? I just want to make sure that I understand correctly. Do you confirm?Cealicuca (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC) It's not a direct quotation, it is an abstract of what Vékony wrote there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Oh... so what is the direct quotation? In English please, since this article is on the English page. Also provide that pages. Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC) It is not my business to provide you with such quotes, you should ask at WP:RX. I simply assume that the reference was added in good faith, though there are others who are able to go to the library and check if this is true. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Aha. Interesting - about the good faith. Anyway - could you please confirm the following. If I were to present a WP:RS that would add criticism (or context) towards Sulzer's political motivation when "developing" the Migration hypothesis - would that be relevant? I would think so, since Vékony's reference is relevant. Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 01:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC) First, we have to be sure that it is actually a WP:RS and not Makulatur. That's relatively easy to check: is the author a reputed scholar? Is the publishing house reputable for publishing academic works? These can be sought on Google. Second, if you are asked for quotes, you should provide brief quotes. I haven't added Vékony to this article, so it is not me who has to provide such quotes, but searching Google Books for "vekony sulzer" (without the quote marks), Vékony has written about Sulzer, so it does not raise red flags. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Ok, i'm calling it off. Thank you for the information! I would expect the whole thing not be altered, deleted, archived (good faith and such). Be back soon - and again, have a nice weekend. On another note - what do you hear? Laurel or Yanni? I get a clear Laurel! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Just for clarification, Sulzer was not the first to propose the immigrationist theory. The Byzantine Laonikos Chalkokondyles had already stated that the Romanians came from many places to their lands and the Dalmatian Johannes Lucius had also stated that the Romanians' ancestors could not survive in the lands to the north of the Lower Danube. An we should also remember that around 1505 the Moldo-Russian Chronicle also wrote of the immigration of the Romanians from the Balkans to Maramures. Nevertheless, relevant information can be added based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Oh Mr. Borsoka, back to your old tricks? I envy you, you've had 10 years to perfect them... Laonikos Chalkokondyles also stated that he never heard anyone "explain clearly where" the Romanians "came from to inhabit" their lands, in the same piece of work. So he is either suffering from split personality, or he is throwing suppositions all around. Nevertheles, without engaging in WP:OR, that is a source that would support both the Migration (what you said) as well as the Daco-Roman continuity (since nobody actually explains where they came from). Dalmatian Johannes Lucius - first of all the article states something else, so you get +0.1 points in WP:OR - cause you getting so many points in WP:OR for the past 10 years means that you now have diminishing returns... Dalmatian Johannes Lucius expressed his concerns about the survival of Romans in a territory exposed to invasions for a millennium. So while really nice of him to think about their survival - it's irrelevant. Sure, present it as "supporting" the Migration theory. No problem with that. "King Vladislav of Hungary" invited their ancestors to his kingdom and settled them "in Maramureş between the Moreş and Tisa at a place called Crij". Sure, again, this might be considered as supporting the "migration" half of the Migration theory. Nevertheless, what do any of those sources have anything to do with mr. Sulzer? As for your "Just for clarification, Sulzer was not the first to propose the immigrationist theory." - this is WP:OR. Again, according to the article. So please let us all know where those sources you mention say anything about a "(im)migrationist theory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 08:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Please read what WP:OR means before accusing other editors of original research. All my statements are based on sentences that are verified in the article with references to reliable sources. You have been unable to refer to a simple academic work when sharing your thoughts with the community. Sorry, I do not have time to discuss your researches, so I will make only occasional comments on your thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Yes mr. Borsoka - all your 3 statements are WP:OR. This is precisely how you vandalized this article for the past 10 years - and one can see your tactics at work by simply checking the archive and the Talk page - your discussions with previous editors who, until they left, kept you in check (you were not able to make some really outrageous edits). Your "arguments" were rejected because you acted exactly like now. Let's see why: 1. Just for clarification, Sulzer was not the first to propose the immigrationist theory. - So this means that there were others to have proposed such a theory... So let's see how you argument this. 2. The Byzantine Laonikos Chalkokondyles had already stated that the Romanians came from many places to their lands - Beside the fact that Chalkokondyles also said that he never heard anyone "explain clearly where" the Romanians "came from to inhabit" their lands (which seemingly contradicts his other observation or at the very least puts it firmly in the "speculation" category), please refer to the paragraph from Chalkokondyles where he devises such a theory. As I said - you may use the first Chalkokondyles statement as support for the migrationist hypothesis but his statement does not equate, in any shape or form, to proposing a historical theory. Unlike Sulzer who actually (at least) dedicated some work to this. 3. Dalmatian Johannes Lucius had also stated that the Romanians' ancestors could not survive in the lands to the north of the Lower Danube. - Again, beside misleading by misquoting (seemingly changing a small part that actually changes the statement quite a lot) again it does not equate to "proposing" a migration hypothesis. Otherwise you are free to support your statement by providing the name of Dalmatian Johannes Lucius's work where he develops a theory. 4. [...] the Moldo-Russian Chronicle also wrote of the immigration of the Romanians from the Balkans to Maramures. - idem 2, 3. Let me educate you mr. Borsoka: a simple observation (the "what") without the context (the "when", "why") does not equate to a theory. A historical theory especially - who needs to also add context to the "what". So no - Sulzer was the first to propose the migration hypotehsis - according to this article and the source referenced and you simply saying otherwise is WP:OR - but you are free always to present us with the necessary supporting WP:RS. 5. Sorry, I do not have time to discuss your researches, so I will make only occasional comments on your thoughts. - Please, feel free to address my WP:OR. I will thoroughly respond in the same way and with the same consideration as you did when I criticized your first aggressive and deflecting answer to my OP (see the top of this debate). Don't expect respect and consideration where you show none. And by the way - I do not fault you. According to mr. White's work (see above, Tgeorgescu kindly provided it for me) Hungarians are compelled to disprove the Daco-Roman continuity. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts about that. Is mr. White a Romanian nationalist?Cealicuca (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC) WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Oh, c'mon Mr. Tgeorgescu. You can do much better than that. Please explain how is it WP:CHERRYPICK. As I said, a supportive source is not equivalent with a theory. Otherwise the Daco-roman theory was created when Trajan conquered Dacia, following the same reasoning. Please, please try to argue that the Chronicle, for example, was somehow in fact proposing a Vlach migration theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 21:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Actually, what Borsoka did is precisely WP:CHERRYPICK: "As to contradictory information that needs to be reported in Wikipedia, if, for example, a source says "Charlie loves all blue coats and hates all red coats", to report in Wikipedia that according to that source "Charlie loves all ... coats" is cherrypicking from the source.". So unless that tag was directed against him, you missed the target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carlo Troya

The "Historiography: origin of the theories" section presents the development of the scholarly views about the origin of the Romanians in a chronological order. It concentrates to the most relevant scholars. @Iovaniorgovan:, why do you think Carlo Troya is so relevant in the context? In accordance with WP:DUE, could you refer to reliable sources which substantiate that his role was actually preeminent in the development of the theories? Borsoka (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

the "development" is an on-going process, isn't it? anyway, I moved that reference to sources. as mentioned before by others, the article is in dire need of restructuring.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the development is an on-going process. In accordance with WP:DUE, could you refer to reliable sources which substantiate that Troya's played an important role in the development of the theories? Yes, an article can always be improved, but editors who randomly throw irrelevant pieces of information to any sections of the article can rarely contribute to its improvement. Please also take into account that the present structure of the article was developed through discussions over many years. Nevertheless, I would be glad to read your proposal for a new structure. Borsoka (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Carlo Troya is a reliable secondary source, who draws on well circulated, and hence influential, medieval works like Simon of Beauvais's, or Person Gobelinus', or the Chronicon Danicum. That in itself should suffice. Just the same, there's a book on Carlo Troya (Arguments for the Rewriting of European History) published in 2015 by Editura Uranus, a reputable Romanian publisher, which re-assesses his work. Either way, the mention should be allowed to stand. I mean, there are many secondary sources in that article that are just a few years old... how exactly do you prove that each one of those recent authors "played an important role in the development of the theories"? Again, it's an ongoing process and if I need to reference the Romanian book, instead of Carlo Troya directly, then I'll do that, but that quote will be in the article either way.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There are several 10th-21st-century scholars who wrote about the origin of the Romanians. All references to a scholar under the section "Historiography: origin of the theories" are verified by a reference to books (partly or fully) dedicated to this specific subject (that that is, to the origin of the theories). None of the cited reliable sources refers to Troya, suggesting that he is not regarded as a crucial expert on this field. Could you verify his notability in the context of the article by reference to books dedicated to this subject? Are his attempts to rewrite the European history acknowledged by renowned historians in Romania? Borsoka (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Carlo Troya's work on the Goths/Getae has been influential in Europe, and that's all that's necessary to include his findings into the "sources" section and thus show that it was a widely accepted fact (or what you'd call "theory") in medieval Europe that the people who were known by the exonym of "Vlachs" in the 13th century were the descendants of the ancient Getae-Dacians (he quotes several contemporaneous sources stating that fact). Troya's writings (not) being "influential" to the Romanian historians in the past hundred years or so is irrelevant since Romanian historians had enough proof at home, as it were, to establish their theories and didn't need to resort to Troya's work to buttress what they already knew. However, it's fair to show that other renowned (non-Romanian) historians in the past thought along the same lines.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you refer to academic works that refer to Troya's importance in the development of the theories discussed in this article? We cannot list hundreds of historians who whenever wrote a book about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right, if we were to list all the sources supporting Continuity there'd be no room left for the affirmative action content.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with this being included. I see no reason (as mentioned it falls under WP:RS - there has been no dispute as to that) as to it being excluded as it works towards a WP:NPOV, in relation to "Austrian Franz Joseph Sulzer had by the 1780s rejected any form of continuity north of the Danube, and instead proposed a 13th-century migration from the Balkans.". As an alternative we could follow Wikipedia's advice and "If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• You are wrong. There was a dispute and the conclusion is that Troya is not a reliable source [6]. Please try to concentrate on the subject of this discussion. Sulzer is not subject to it. Borsoka (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that Troya's writings are too old (even though they're mid 19th cen) to be considered "reliable second sources" as per Wiki rules. Not that they're not reliable, period. Of course Troya's reliable, he based his writings on many primary sources that state the same or similar things, and his erudition was second to none. You can't even compare, by any standards of the imagination, Troya to Sulzer: the former was a great historian, the latter was a frustrated huckster. The difference, in Wiki's hive mind of editors and rules, is that Sulzer was used as a source by Hungarian academicians desperate to make some kind of point (hence, his mention in this article), while Troya's work has not been used by Romanian academicians (since, obviously, they didn't need him to prove Continuity, Daco-Roman or otherwise). Of course, I may be wrong about Romanian academicians writing on Troya, as I don't live at the Library of the Academy, but I'll try to post whatever reliable secondary sources I can find in the near future, seeing as it's not required that they be from card-carrying academics, just "reliable".--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, this is the line that got excised "Italian historian Carlo Troya states that by mid-13th century a part of the ancient Daco-Getae had survived under the name of Vlachs.", as stated in Storia d'Italia del medio-evo, 2.2, Eruli e Goti. Napoli (1846): Dalla Stamperia Reale. pp. Appendice, 58.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

However, there are Romanian academic books that expose Sulzer for what he really was (I mentioned the source in another thread), so maybe we can find a place for those. Maybe start another thread... for clarity.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Since you are again sharing your thoughts with the community without referring to a single reliable source, I think it is time to close this debate. Troya cannot be mentioned in the article without a reference to reliable sources which verify his notability in the context of the article. I will not make comments on this issue any more. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan: This is exactly the type of "bludgeoning" discussion that I warned against above. Talk pages are not a forum, and if you continue to post your personal opinions here and fail to resolve specific points of contention, you're going to be banned from the subject area without further warning. Swarm ♠ 21:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Holban about Sulzer

I doubt that the article summarizes Holban's text properly. How could Sulzer's views about the migration of the Romanians to the "Romanian lands" contribute to his appointment as imperial council in Wallachia and Moldavia? Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, I'd be also curios how the two things may be connected...(KIENGIR (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC))

The edit seems to me like an ad hominem counterpoint meant to discredit Sulzer. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

And why do you doubt that? Have you read the book? I gave the exact pages and the line/edit I included in the article includes the precise wording used in the book. If you "doubt" it feel free to check for yourself. The point of the book/edit is that Sulzer tried to paint the Romanian principalities as having "problems" that he (Sulzer), and by extension Austria, would be perfectly qualified to exploit, therefore it was in his interest to paint the Romanians in an unfavorable light (to say the least). He devotes two chapters of his book to basically plead for the position of imperial consul! See also his conflict with Ipsilanti, also mentioned in the book I quoted in the article. Actually, the book paints him in a much worse light than I made it look by my one-line edit. If you insist, I can include a few more choice paragraphs to dispel your "doubts" (though I figured a one-line rebuttal would be par for the course). In the meantime the line is going back in the article, as there's no possible reason why it shouldn't be there-- this is an academic publication. So, hands off! p.s. next time you delete one of my edit please have the decency to notify me, rather than doing it on the sly (or maybe you thought I wasn't going to notice?!)--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

If the book paints him in a much worse light than you made, you should modify the text. Sorry, I still do not understand how could have Sulzer's views about the migration of the Romanians to the "Romanian lands" contributed to his appointment as imperial consul in Wallachia and Moldavia? Why was the "invention" of the migration theory in the interest of Austria? Please remember, you are on the edge of being banned from editing this article, so you should avoid making uncivil remarks. You obviously do not understand that all articles can be edited by anybody, without noticing other editors. Have you noticed me before inserting your text about Sulzer? Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Why should I notify you of any inclusions? This is not your personal fiefdom, in spite of what you might think. However, I would notify you (as one should) if I edited or deleted one of your own edits. It's the CIVIL thing to do. It's called courtesy. Do you understand that the whole point of the Romanian academics' book was that Sulzer was highly biased and prejudiced against Romanians, hence his "history" book is to be taken with a grain of salt? It's not that difficult to understand. If you have a problem with that, please FEEL FREE TO CHECK OUT THE BOOK YOURSELF. I made it easy for you by listing the pages as well. I didn't include anything in my edit that's not in the book (almost word for word). The fact that you don't understand (or refuse to) is beyond my powers as a Wiki editor and is not a condition for the inclusion of an edit (as far as I can tell). All I did was quote from an academic's book. End of.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Put the article on your watchlist and you will realize that there is no need to notice each other about our edits. I understand that Holban says, Sulzer was biased. However, there are three editors who do not understand what is the connection between his appointment as imperial consul in Wallachia and Moldavia and his views about the Romanians' migration, so you should explain it based on the book. There were dozens of imperial consuls in Poland, Italy, Sweden, Spain and other countries, but they did not propose theories about the migrations of Poles, Italians, Swedes and Spanish people. You also ignored my reference to the dubious connection between the interests of Austria and the migration theory: the concurring continuity theory was tought in the schools of the Habsburg Monarchy, including Austria. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You mean three HUNGARIAN editors who just do not understand... The line I included is about Sulzer being biased, and his BIAS reflecting on his work according to ROMANIAN ACADEMICS. If you want to explore the subject further, again, READ THE BOOK FOR YOURSELF. What do you want me to do? Translate the whole book and include it here so you can understand every little detail? This is not a book review. Anything more than what I included would amount to an unnecessary addition to an article that's not about Sulzer. My job is to quote properly from a reliable source (which I've done) and point other curious minds in the right direction for further study. That's what EVERY edit on Wiki amounts to.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

What we want you to do? Explain the connection between both imperial consulship and the migration theory, and Austrian interests and the migration theory with few words based on the cited scholarly work: this is what editing of an article means. Why we urge you to explain it? Because imperial consuls did not develop migration theories in other countries and the continuity theory was tought in Austria for more than a century after Sulzer proposed the concurring migration theory. Sorry, this is my last message on the subject. Borsoka (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The BOOK explains it, all I did was mention what the book's principal claim is. If you want a thorough explanation then read the book, though the gist of the argument can be summarized in one word: BIAS (or "anger at...") After you read the book then you may contemplate on your own time why WANNABE imperial consuls in other countries didn't develop migration theories, or flat earth theories, or alien origins theories. While you're at it, maybe you can figure out why these WANNABE imperial consuls occasionally had different thoughts and views from another? (because the rest of us have yet to figure that out) Then you can publish your book with the Hungarian Academy and post your findings here on Wiki (no worry, you won't need to explain your arguments in detail, just post a one-line summary). Anyway, I'll maybe add another line to the initial edit. Anything beyond that goes to arbitration.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"in other countries didn't develop migration theories" There are not much proof behind the politically motivated nationalist NATIVIST continuity theory either.--Filederchest (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Filederchest: I suggest you drop the provocative rhetoric if you want to avoid serious serious consequences. Cealicuca (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Iovaniorgovan, thank you for adding a valid argumentation (i.e., Sulzer's plans about the German colonization of the two principalities). I deleted the quite obviously weak arguments about the connection between imperial consuls, Austrian interests and migration theories. Nevertheless, I suggest you should adopt a less warring style if you want to avoid serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You mean on the "talk" pages? You got it. So, why did you delete my latest edit?--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

never mind, I see you skipped a line and it threw me off for a second. I'll go over your edit soon and let you know what I think.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka, that's... basically okay. I can live with that. Just a minor edit... You wrote "Sulzer's view about the Romanians' migration", implying there WAS a Romanian migration. That should read "Sulzer's theory of the Romanians' migration was apparently connected to his plans about the annexation of..." So I'll go ahead and change that. Hope we can all agree on that point. Have a nice weekend!--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

"Scholars" instead of "Followers"

Replacing "Follower of the continuity theory [...]" with "Scholars supporting the continuity theory [...]". Reason: "followers" is a rather ambiguous term, more suite for a religion, philosophical current, leadership etc. As such it indicates an non-rational reason of supporting the statement (equivalent of "believers"). From a scientific point of view, just like the other two theories, "scholars" is a more appropriate term. See Manual of Style. See WP:NPOVCealicuca (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, that's better wording.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Romanian place names

(1) That the Romanian names of the longer rivers in Transylvania are of Hungarian, Slavic or German origin is a fact and not a POV. Consequently, it should not be presented as a POV. (2) That the first place name of Romanian origin was recorded in 1359 is also a fact and not a POV. (3) All rivers that are mentioned in the article as bearing a name of Hungarian or Slavic origin are smaller than 100 km: Fizeş/Füzes (46 km), Căpuş/Kapus (32 km), Lonea/Lónya (37 km) and there are lots of other small rivers with Hungarian names. Consequently, saying that the rivers with a length of up to 100 km "usually" have a name of Romanian origin is an exeggaration. Borsoka (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. As such the changes were appropriate (summary of a source). Applies to 1, 2. Agree on the "usually" as WP:WEASEL. Cealicuca (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, after consulting the source, it seems a pretty good summary: "Formațiile românești caracterizează, de regulă, categoria apelor sub 100 de km, adică râurile mai mici și pâraiele". Removing the tags.Cealicuca (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Or, in French: "le réseau hydronymique mineur porte généralement des noms roumains.".Cealicuca (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you refer to rivers with a name of Romanian origin? The Repedea version of the upper course of the river Bistrita is mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You are free to read the source material if you so wish.Cealicuca (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not need to read it. However, you should provide examples, because all examples listed in the article contradict to the claim you are trying to add: there are lots of rivers with a length up to 100 km which have a name of Hungarian, Slavic or German origin. Could you refer to reliable sources which say that the longer tributaries of the rivers in the intra-Carpathian regions have a name of Romanian origin? Borsoka (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Please take a moment and calm down. It is no MY statement, it is not MY claim, I am not the editor who added it. It is though a sourced WP:RS statement (a summary of a specific chapter). |Felecan|Felecan|2015|p=262,|Tomescu|2009|p=2728. So you can check out the sources yourself. But to answer your question, smaller tributaries like (and now quoting from the source): Baicu, Căliman, Ghișa, Manciu.Cealicuca (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any "irony" in my statement. According to is not needed as I explained. The phrase "usually" in such context is misleading, would suggest that under 100 km there are usually Romanian-origin named rivers, that is not correct in this way, better I would use what the original source says. I am afraid "Căliman" originates from "Kelemen".(KIENGIR (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC))

I was referring to the following: "The longer tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin[...]". Your argument, as well as the other tags, applies to this statement too since"The longer tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin, which were also adopted by the Romanians." and "the smaller rivers and streams (under 100 km) characterize hydronims of Romanian origin, for instance Baicu, Ghișa, Manciu.", to which you added "typically" have (had, before you added "typically") the same structure and wording. So both statements should be treated with the same measure. Or otherwise please point me to the differenc between the two that would cause one to be treated in one way while the other not receiving the same treatment. As for Caliman - your opinion doesn't actually matter, what matter is WP:RS. Not to mention that there actually might be more than just one small river with the same name (I could give you several examples).Cealicuca (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

On another note, I did take a look at this source. Please point me towards the page that contains the statement "The longer tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin" because the link provided does not point towards such page/paragraph.Cealicuca (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the text under the title "Toponymy and Chronology" ([7]) verifies the statement. And it also lists dozens of rivers under 100 km which have names of Hungarian, Slavic and German origin. Borsoka (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, you didn't answer my question. Should I consider that the statement "The longer tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin" is unsupported by WP:RS?Cealicuca (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

OR?

Recently from the article about Vlachs the category "Nomadic groups in Eurasia" has been removed. The reason I don't know, however I added the "Transhumant ethnic groups" category as the Origin of the Romanians page has the same - after a discussion and consensus, as I recall the discussion were about nomadism and semi-nomadism, and the latter is included the current removed category - but this was also removed and also from this article as well by claiming "OR"...however, according to the reasoning in the other article; "...many old Europeans were involved in such activities" then why would be something wrong with this? (KIENGIR (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC))

I don't know, my two cents are that all the scholarly parties involved agree to at least transhumance, nomadism is not agreed by all, kind of begs the question. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The info shouldn't be added just because another article mentions it WP:CIRCULAR.Cealicuca (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

On another note, I wonder how many other "old Europeans" that practiced transhumance (which would be virtually any group living near mountainous areas raising animals) would have their article linked to that category.Cealicuca (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

According to [...] deleted by KIENGIR

@Kiengir: I would not like to undo you, but I will if I must. You use as an argument for your edits the following: "[...] since the river names are known and clear..." in reference to another statement, which is ironic considering the nature of the statements that you edited (they do not name specific rivers, one example is given) -> "The longer tributaries of the large rivers [...]". As a compromise we could formulate the same (using "According to...) the following statement "The smaller rivers (with a length of up to 100 km) usually bears name of Romanian origin." for a balanced measure.Cealicuca (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Cealicuca, you should not duplicate all debates on this Talk page. Kiengir, I suggest you should ignore this remark, because there is an ongoing debate on the same issue above under the subtitle "Romanian place names". Borsoka (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka I'm sorry, I don't think I was duplicating anything. The two subjects, although referencing the same chapter, are about different things. Please concentrate. Following your line of thought we should probably have only one subject on the talk page since all the debates are related to one subject, right? Cealicuca (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you really say that you did not realize that there is an ongoing debate about the use of the "according to" expression under the subtitle "Romanian place names"? Borsoka (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Linguistic approach // Development of Romanian

There are some issues with this section, as far as I can tell, which I will be randomly picking at whenever I get the chance to verify some of these sources. Most of the problems have to do with questionable wording, though others appear to be deliberate misrepresentations.

1. "In addition to words of Latin or of possible substratum origin, a great number of loanwords can be detected." That's fine, though I would replace "great number" with "significant" because "great number" is relative/indeterminate and doesn't really mean anything unless you put in percentages.

2. "Initially, Slavic languages had a major influence on Romanian..." a) The word "initially" does not belong here because it doesn't make sense-- initially related to what exactly? the beginning of history? the beginning of time? Additionally, the word "initially" appears in the quoted source/page but in a different context, meaning the mutual exchange of loanwords between Rumanian and Slavic was initially of a popular nature. b) "major influence" does not appear in the quoted source/page and I suggest "major" should be replaced with "significant", as above. c) in fact, in the source/page cited the author states that the number/figures of Slavic loanwords into Romanian "have been exaggerated". There are other academics who agree with the view that Slavonic influence on the Rumanian language has been exaggerated, and here's one here. In conclusion, the sentence above should read "Slavic languages had a significant influence on Romanian, although the degree of that influence is debatable [insert the two sources here], but there are also a significant number of loanwords from Turkic, Hungarian, Greek or German languages."

3. "... the Transylvanian Hungarians primarily adopted dozens of Romanian ecclesiastic and political terms to refer to specific Romanian institutions already before the mid-17th centuries,[note 8][412] but also words in the language of everyday life, agriculture, food, clothing, superstition, medical care and witchcraft." I see someone asked for "clarification" and I suggest the inclusion of this article (page 10) in citation, as well as including a few more categories mentioned in the article "industry, trade, money, and measures" to the ones already listed.

4. "The adoption of the Romanian terminology shows, among other things, that the traditional Romanian institutions, which followed Byzantine patterns, were alien to the Hungarians." This is a strange sentence. To begin with, this is not the place/page to prove or disprove that Romanian institutions were different than the Hungarian institutions. In fact, I think everyone (academics) can more or less agree that the respective institutions were different. That's a given. Secondly, no such "logical deduction" is to be found in the article/page cited, so it doesn't belong here on those grounds alone. Finally, the word "alien" has tendentious connotations (one way or another) and does not appear in the article/page cited. To sum up, either we delete this sentence altogether (my preference), or if we decide to keep it we should change it to a direct quote from the Szabo article mentioned: "The Byzantine-Orthodox orientation of Romanian ecclesiastical and court life as well as the character of state life and military organization differed considerably from their Western counterparts, and thus brought into being a specialized Romanian vocabulary in the related fields, elements of which penetrated into Hungarian."[p.60] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) 08:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca, feel free to chime in; also, can you please remove the footnotes at the bottom of the page, they're a kinda distracting. Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) 10:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan: Sorry, been away for a while. Still too much to catch up to here... see the old boys are up to their old tricks again. And I still wonder where that Fakirbakir character is again - though I recently spotted him on some very "truthful and real history" non-self-serving forums. The kind of forums where the Sz... Guards hang out.Cealicuca (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ad 1: Sorry, I do not understand why is "significant" better than "great number". If we want to change the wording, we should specify the text: "In addition to words of Latin or of possible substratum origin, loanwords make up about 80% of the Romanian vocabulary." [The cited source verifies this statement, saying that about 14% of the words were borrowed from Slavic languages and about 65% from other Romance languages, such as French and Italian.]

Ad 2a: Initially means "at the beginning". One of the cited sources [Schulte 2009 pp. 236-237] does not use the word "initially", but it lists the languages that influenced the Romanian language in chronological order, and the list begins with the Slavic languages. Consequently, we can conclude that the sentence is verified by one of the cited sources. Nevertheless, we can change the order of the sentences to clarify the chronological order: (1) the East Germanic languages did not influence Proto-Romanian, but (2) Slavic influence can be detected.

Ad 2b: "major" and "significant" are interchangeable. Nevertheless, the cited source emphasize that "Much more substantial then the Germanic adstrate in the Western Romance languages is the Slavic adstrate in Balkan Romance. From around the middle of the first millenium there must have been considerable contact between southern Slavic and what was to become Rumanian." [Mallinson 1988 p. 413]. Consequently, we can conclude that the sentence and the wording is verified by the cited source.

Ad 2c: Yes, Mallinson says that the number of Slavic loanwords in Romanian "have been exaggerated", but the percentage of Slavic loanwords in the article is based on Mallinson's cited book and the above statement about the "substantial" Slavic influence on Romanian is also based on his book. Consequently, we can conclude that the sentence properly summarizes Mallinson's work.

Ad 3: Could you mention loanwords in the semantic fields of everyday life, agriculture, food, clothing, superstition, medical care and witchcraft, industry, trade, money, and measures which were attested centuries ago? Or do you think loanwords first attested in the 17th-20th centuries are related to the origin of the Romanians? If you think so, please provide a reliable source to verify your claim. Please also note that the source you referr to above (Borbála Zsemlyei's article) testifies that the loanwords attested in the 17th-19th centuries most frequently refer to Romanians or Romanian institutions (which is also mentioned in the article). For instance, an elderly Romanian woman was mentioned as bába in 1749, a Romanian girl as fata in 1661, an immigrant from Muntenia as muntyán in 1700, a Romanian brother-in-law as kumnát in 1725, a Romanian man's boots as kalcun in 1802, a Moldavian currency as izlot in 1636. Consequently, we can conclude that the sentence properly summarizes the reliable sources that have been so far presented and we can also conclude that loanwords in the semantic fields of everyday life, agriculture, food, clothing, superstition, medical care and witchcraft, industry, trade, money, and measures can hardly be connected to the origin of the Romanians. (For further details I refer to Ad 4 below.)

Ad 4: The cited source says: "since the Byzantine-Orthodox orientation of Romanian ecclesiastical and court life as well as the character of state life and military organization differed considerably from heir Western counterparts, and thus brought into being a specialized Romanian vocabulary in the related fields. Certain elements of this vocabulary, through peacetime and wartime military communication, penetrated into Hungarian, where they showed varying vitality." [Szabó T. 1985 p. 60.] The author of the article clearly wanted to explain that Romanian loanwords were adopted by the Hungarians to name specific Romanian institutions, and he says that the Romanians institutions were alien/strange/different... [Just for clarification, this is similar to the adoption of loanwords such as tsar, sultan, padishah, maharaja by European languages - those institutions were so exotic for the European peoples that they adopted the term instead of translating them into their own languages.] Consequently, we can conclude that the sentence is fully in line with the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Something can be in "great number" and yet be INsignificant. Ask a mathematician what a "great number" is and get back to me. Again, it's relative and inconclusive, whereas "significant" denotes an impact. If you specify what one source says (re. percentages) then I'll bring several other sources that say otherwise and we end up with a never-ending edit war. (see 2c and why I used the word "debatable" rather than an actual quote from the book/article)

2a. Initially="at the beginning"... of WHAT? You failed to clarify. Your point is that the respective researcher BEGINS HIS STUDY with the influence of Slavic languages, but he says NOTHING of what happened BEFORE, and the influences BEFORE the Slavic migration. So how does that make it the beginning of the Romanian Language? So, if we're to use "initially" then it should be qualified, as in "initially upon contact with the Slavic tribes..." or something of that nature. As for the order of "influence", I'm fine with that, Slavic should go first.

2b. "major" and "significant" are not quite interchangeable (maybe you should consult a dictionary); additionally, the source does not use "major" in its wording but "substantial", as you mentioned. So then we'll replace "major" with "substantial", right? (I still think "significant" fits better, but "substantial" is fine, too)

2c. as I already mentioned above, I didn't propose that we put in the direct quote from the book (saying the Slavic influence on Rumanian has been exaggerated), but rather than the influence is DEBATABLE, since that's exactly what the cited author says. In addition I included another academic paper (from USC) proposing the same thing. If your claim is that the DEGREE of the impact of Slavic on Rumanian is NOT DEBATABLE, and that somehow the academics all agree on this point, then you've already been proved wrong by the two sources cited.

3. here's an exact quote from page 10 of that paper: "The Historical Dictionary of the Hungarian Language in Transylvania contains the complete vocabulary of the Hungarian language used in Transylvania in the period of the 15th–19th centuries." Last I checked, 15th century predates 17th century. Then the author goes on to list the loanwords from Rumanian, so I think the citation definitely works to "clarify" the sentence (in fact Zsemlyei uses Szabo's unpublished work). As for the addition of categories, the author mentions loanwords in several other categories, all belonging to mid 17th century or prior. If I correctly read your point, you're saying that some of those loanwords are dated AFTER mid-17th century and therefore they (and their respective categories) should not be included in the sentence? If that's the case, I agree. So then, we can add "kinship and human relations", "the house and its surroundings", "nature", and "money".

4. The quote from the author trumps your INTERPRETATION (or "clarification") of it. Again, the author does NOT use the word "alien", but rather he uses the word "different". The two words have different CONNOTATIONS, and hence "alien" will be deleted from this article. End of.

I welcome a third-party Wiki arbitrator (a native English speaker) at this point to weigh in on the use of those debated words/phrases if there's an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ad1: Please do not hesitate to refer to reliable sources instead of making declarations. I modify the sentence using multiple reliable sources (one of them writes that loanwords make up 40% of modern Romanian vocabulary).

Ad2a: OK. I change the order of the sentences.

Ad2b-2c: Could you refer to reliable sources which say that Slavic influence was minor/not substantial/insignificant? I think you should read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words..." [And I added two verified sentences which further strengthen Mallinson's view about the Slavic languages' major influence on Romanian. [8] Borsoka (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)]

Ad3: I delete the reference to "everyday life, agriculture, food, clothing, superstition, medical care and witchcraft, industry, trade, money, and measures", because no reliable sources have so far been cited to verify its relevance in the context of the article and no examples has so far been listed. Which reliable source about the origin of the Romanians emphasizes that the Transylvanian Hungarians sometime used the proper Romanian words when they refered to Romanian men and women, Romanian boots and currency and Romanian immigrants? Would you really think that the use of the Russian words "batiushka" and "dyevka" in a number of English books relating to Russia or Russians ([9] and [10]) has anything to do with the origin of the Russians?

Ad4: OK, I modify the word. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

1. No problem (over the next few days I'll be adding some stuff from The Grammar of Romanian, Oxford Univ Press, 2013). I'll also change "major" to "substantial" in the Slavic influence sentence. I'll also delete your "(according to certain estimations almost 80%)" edit since it's not found in the source/page cited.

2b-2c. My point is not that the Slavic influence was minor or major (that remains to be ascertained), my point is that the DEGREE to which Slavic was an influence on Rumanian is DEBATABLE, and I cited 2 academic sources (one was already cited in the article, the other I'll add on); so I'll be adding this point as well (as worded above).

3. I don't understand why you deleted those references. Are you saying Szabo and Zsemlyei are not reliable sources?! I'll hold off on this until you explain yourself through reliable sources debunking what Szabo and Zsemlyei are saying (rather than using false analogies).

NOTE: I don't think you or I or anyone else should be doing direct edits on this Wiki page without first bringing the proposed edit to the TALK pages for the community to process and weigh in. This is not your personal webpage, or mine, or anyone else's-- it belongs to the community and I think we should extend that courtesy to the community instead of editing willy-nilly to our heart's desire. Which is exactly what I did above, as you might've noticed, I first proposed the edits on the Talk page. Now I guess it's okay since I had several points to make here and it could get confusing (and please note I will also perform some direct edits on your most recent additions, as par for the course), so we can let this one slide. HOWEVER, from now on I suggest that any direct and un-checked edits (from me, you, or anyone else) should be immediately reverted and brought to the Talk pages for assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) 08:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ad NOTE: Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, consequently we should not and cannot establish our own rules and cannot expand them to other editors. None of us is entitled to edit articles "willy-nilly to our heart's desire", because we should respect the basic principles of our community when editing articles and communicating each other. Borsoka (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ad1. Mallinson writes: "One linguist has examined the 1958 Dictionarul Limbii Romine Moderne, conatining more than 48,000 entries and gives the following figures: 20 per cent Latin, 14 per cent Slavic and an enormous 35 per cent French. If one counts other Romance sources, the overall Latin-based vocabulary comes to around 85 per cent." (Mallinson 1988 p. 417) ~80% = 14% (Slavic) + [~85% (Latin-based words) - 20% (Latin words)]. Please do not delete sentences that are based on a reliable source. You can request third opinion on this issue, but please remember that editors' time is a precious asset, so you should not bother them unnecessarily. Borsoka (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ad2b-2c. Mallinson writes: "Much more substantial than the Germanic adstrate in the Western Romance languages ... is the Slavic adstrate in Balkan Romance. From around the middle of the first millenium there must have been considerable contact between southern Slavic and what was to become Rumanian. Initially of a popular nature, lexical influence was later also religious and political, resulting in a very substantial Slavic percentage of the total word stock of Rumanian (though the figures have been exaggerated)". (Mallinson 1988 p. 413) He clearly writes that the number or ratio of Slavic loanwords was exaggerated. However, the percentage of the Slavic loanwords in Romanian is mentioned based on Mallinson's work. Why do you think that he referred to himself when writing of exaggerated number? This edit suggest that Mallinson states something about Slavic influence on Romanian, although Mallinson did not refer to syntax, phonology, etc. Consequently, we cannot refer to Mallinson when writing about general Slavic influence on Romanian, especially, if other authors emphasize it. [The other allegedly cited author, Petrucci, does not write of Slavic influence in general, either. [11] ] You can request third opinion on this issue as well, but please remember that editors' time is a precious asset, so you should not bother them unnecessarily. Borsoka (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ad 3. Sorry, until you cannot refer to reliable sources which state that the use of Romanian words by Transylvanian Hungarians when they refer to Romanian men or women, or Romanian boots, or Romanian immigrants or Romanian currency is connected to the Romanians' ethnogenesis, I will not answer your question. (Of course, you can also prove that the use of the Russian words "batiushka" and "dyevka" in a number of English books relating to Russia or Russians ([12] and [13]) has anything to do with the origin of the Russians.) Borsoka (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

re. Note: thanks for stating the obvious. I was trying to make it easy on everyone (that is, the few people currently editing here) and save us some time but, no problem, we can do it the hard way, too.

1. Take some time to read what I wrote, I deleted that section because IT WAS NOT PROPERLY CITED-- that is, the cited page is WRONG. Go back and correct it or I'll delete it again. I don't have a problem with the content, I could've given you a couple other sources saying the same thing. Anyway, I'll include a follow-up to that sentence soon, something out of The Grammar of Romanian, a work I already mentioned.

2. Mallinson writes that "the figures have been exaggerated" BY PREVIOUS RESEARCHERS! It's clear as day. Else, he'd write "but I have exaggerated the figures", which wouldn't make sense anyway. So, since Mallinson writes that GENERALLY the Slavic influence has been exaggerated, then that amounts to what I said: the DEGREE of Slavic influence is DEBATABLE. As for the second source, he doesn't need to refer to the entire range of Slavic influence on Romanian, he picks one IMPORTANT point and proves that what some researchers believe is Slavic influence is NOT (at least according to him). That also supports the argument (perhaps by itself would not amount to a lot, but these sources together definitely warrant the inclusion of "the degree of influence is debatable"). I will also add another reference from The Grammar of Romanian stating that "the Latin structure of Romanian has not been modified by any of these external factors (re. Slavic invasion, etc)", which does not refer to syntax. If you don't agree, that's fine with me, let's bring in a third-party to read those passages and offer an objective opinion on what they mean.

3. So what you're saying is that it's okay to mention that the Hungarians borrowed political, ecclesiastical, etc, words from the Romanians but not words in other categories that Szabo and Zsemlyei mention (nature, money, etc)? Explain the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ad1 Thank you for clarifying your note. I fixed the page. Just a side remark, if you know what is the problem and you can fix it, please do not hesitate to fix it instead of deleting a sentence. Otherwise, other editors may think you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

Ad2 Are there figures that have been exaggerated by previous researchers mentioned in the article? No. Consequently, Mallinson's reference to previous researchers' figures is out of the context of the article. Sorry, I will not comment on this issue any more. Feel free to add properly sourced relevant material.

Ad3 I do not want to present any of the Romanian words that are used by Transylvanian Hungarians to name Romanians or Romanian objects, institutions, etc, because no reliable source mention them when writing of the Romanians' ethnogenesis. It was not me who raised the issue (namely, Hungarian words of Romanian origin) in this context. Borsoka (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

1. be nicer and you'll find people will be nicer to you, too;)

2. actually, I realized that it's better if I just add that sentence about the Latin structure of the Romanian language (see above), and that'll take care of the issue.

3. I'll look into this.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The Grammar of Romanian (by Pană Dindelegan)

@Iovaniorgovan:, I again strongly suggest that you should read and apply Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing: "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words...". Copyright violations may have serious consequences. Furthermore, please do not present a scholarly POV about the continuous presence of the Romanians in the lands that now form Romania as a fact. Please remember this POV is summarized at the beginning of the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

As you might have noticed if you open any history book, there's always a one-sentence or one-paragraph summary, generally in the introduction or at the very beginning of the book, wherein the author states what the main thrust of his/her theory is and what the reader should expect from reading the book. My PARTLY quoting such statement does not violate anyone's copyright (seeing as the material was CLEARLY ATTRIBUTED). In fact, there are plenty of direct quotes even in the section in question (from Schulte, Wexler, etc) but I guess those are okay with you because they serve your view. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if the POV was summarized at the beginning of this article because this is a DIFFERENT SECTION that EXPANDS on that summary, so one should expect a brief re-cap of the main theses in the context of the sub-section. Finally, as is, the way the content is presented is deplorable, with the first sentence being the worst offender: so the Romanian language was considered to belong to a group of languages in the past, but now it's not... followed by "CITATION NEEDED"? That's the very first sentence! What can a casual reader gain from such an abomination? Who edited this article?! Is that the best Wiki editors can do? In keeping with the structure of this page, the first sentence of this section should introduce the Daco-Roman LINGUISTIC theory, which is what I'll do. So, that sentence that I initially added will go BACK IN, only this time I will also add another citation (in addition to the Grammar of the Romanian) from an academic work, this time in Romanian (Al. Rosetti, Istoria Limbii Romane, 1986, p70); I will preface the sentence with something like "Linguists believe..." so it doesn't sound like a statement of facts. Any issue with this and we're going to arbitration.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I see you keep deleting my edit, which is a PROPER INTRO to the sub-section, as mentioned above. Please do not touch my edit before we have arbitration settle the matter.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No. We do not need to repeat a piece of information which is mentioned at the very beginning of the main text of the article and in the lede of the article. Furthermore, many linguists (including the editors of The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages and The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages) say that the venue of the formation of the Romanian language is uncertain. We cannot present one of the theories as a fact. Finally, I suggest that you should seek advice on the proper application of the Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not a repeat, it's a different formulation to PROPERLY INTRODUCE the sub-section. There's a lot of info in the article that's redundant, the point is to make each sub-section stand on its own. I didn't state it as a "fact" (see beginning of sentence) and the two cited sources are HIGHLY RELIABLE, so the sentence stays in unless arbitration decides otherwise. I made my case, now let's kick it upstairs, as it were (any edit you do on this from now on will be reverted).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

In addition to violating copyright and repeating one of the theories, the first sentence is unbalanced: it presents only one of the theories. None of us is entitled to revert other editors' edits continuously. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring and please read the very first message on this Talk page: this article is under a special regime and uninvolved administrators are authorized to impose discretionary sanctions. Nevertheless, I will request third opinion on the issue. Borsoka (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not violating any copyright (sources were PROPERLY ATTRIBUTED), it does NOT repeat a theory, it just summarizes its LINGUISTIC component for the respective sub-section in a way that properly introduces the sub-section. The structure of the article is "evidence/sources for Daco-Roman continuity" followed by "evidence/sources for Immigration theory", and in the third paragraph of this section we have Schultz and Wexler advocating for the latter, so there's balance. So, yes, let's bring in a third-party (or two).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I see you've finally added a citation where "Citation was Needed" (just in time!) So now there's balance between the first sentence (the one I added) and the second sentence (the one you added). As far as I'm concerned this should stay the way it is. Fair and balanced.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the "dubious/unbalanced" notes, the paragraph and the section are now as balanced as can be.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No, there is no balance: the sentence still presents only one of the several theories. Furthermore, the sentence is still redundant, because the same piece of information is presented in the article when the concurring theories are presented. Sorry, I do not comment on this issue until a third opinion is provided. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Bradv (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Borsoka

Thank you for your offer. (1) The first sentence under subtitle 4.3.1 Development of Romanian contains redundant information, because it only repeats information already mentioned under subtitle 1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis (namely, that the Romanian language descended from the Vulgar Latin of the Latin-speaking Roman provinces of Southeastern Europe). (2) The same sentence presents only the scholarly theory that emphasizes the continuous presence of a Latin/Romanian-speaking population in the lands to the north of the Danube, although there is an opposite theory (as it is demonstrated under the qsubtitle 1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis). I suggest that the sentence should be deleted in order both to avoid presenting superfluous information and to achieve a neutral approach. [I think there is an additional close paraphrasing problem with the sentence, but it could be fixed through rephrasing the sentence.] Borsoka (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Iovaniorgovan

(1) In keeping with the structure of this Wiki page ("evidence/sources for Daco-Roman continuity theory" followed by "evidence/sources for Immigrationist theory", etc), and in the spirit of clarity (which for the benefit of the casual reader should contain "some" redundancy) I wish to open the Linguistic Approach (Development of Romanian) section with a one-sentence summary (using a unique, non-redundant reliable source) of the Daco-Roman Linguistic continuity theory. (2) That sentence is currently followed by SIX sentences in support of the Immigrationist theory, and even with this added sentence the Daco-Roman linguistic continuity is still outnumbered 7 to 5 in this paragraph alone! If you choose to delete this sentence, then we'll end up with SIX sentences supporting the Immigrationist theory at the very top of this section, a non-neutral and major imbalance by all accounts. As for the "paraphrasing" charge, no problem, I can change it to "According to linguist Al. Rosetti...[insert quote]". Thanks for your consideration in this matter.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Borsoka: (1) The article does not follow the pattern mentioned above. (2) Even if one accept, that there are 6 sentences supporting one of the theories (which is not the case, according to me, but this is not important), the repetition of redundant information is useless. If one begins all subsection with a sentence claiming that the "Romanians are descendant of the Dacians", but they cannot provide evidence to support it, they achieved nothing. Sorry, I promise I will not make further comments. Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Tgeorgescu

I won't take sides in this dispute, I just want to point out where the rub lies. To avoid useless comments, Boia is an expert in what is wrong with other historians; his specialism is historians of Romania, not history of Romania. Lucian Boia (23 January 2013). History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. Central European University Press. p. 227. ISBN 978-963-386-004-5. Regarding the question of the formation and continuity of the Romanian people, Romanian historians of the last half century have tended to overestimate their own means, showing little interest in the research and conclusions of linguists. As the literary sources have in general been used up, Romanian historiography has come to rely on archaeology. The problem of continuity has thus become an almost exclusively archaeological one. Language has taken second place to "concrete" evidence. It is a curious approach, given that what is called, in a somewhat vague formula, the "forming of the Romanian people" actually means, in more precise and appropriate terms, "the forming of the Romanian language". The Romanians are people who speak Romanian; even if it is not the sole "condition" it is certainly the first and essential condition. I would not go so far as to say that archaeology has nothing to offer in such a question, but ultimately its role is limited. In fact, for decades archaeologists have taken upon themselves the mission of fully clarifying the problem of continuity. Naturally enough they have discovered, in every corner of Romania and for every period under discussion, remains which confirm the continuity of life. But here there has been a confusion; it matters little whether deliberate or not. What is at issue is not the continuity of the population in general, but Roman and Romanian continuity. For the purposes of this discussion, a "Dacian" who did not speak Romanian is of no interest: he was not Romanian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion by Bradv

I know very little about this topic, so I might not be able to add much to this other than offer the perspective of the reader. If there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained. It is not clear which theory is being discussed in the paragraph in question, and adding a single sentence about the other theory only makes things more confusing, rather than adding balance. Is it possible to frame this in a separate subsection or paragraph that is both neutral and provides clarity to the reader? Is it necessary to do so in order to adequately explain this topic? Bradv 13:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your above suggestion. The theories are detailed at the beginning of the article: thereafter facts or contrasting POVs are listed, without claiming that a fact or POV strengthen or weaken one of the theories. Could you explain your suggestion in more details? Do you suggest a "pro and con list"? The relevant policy says, "Pro & con lists oversimplify controversies. There are issues where describing a dispute or controversy is an important part of an article. There is no way to discuss certain subjects adequately without discussing the massive controversies on these issues. Pro & con lists seem to be a way to describe the views of the different sides on a controversy." Borsoka (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a pro-and-con list, as I don't think this can be simplified that far. What I'm wondering is if it's necessary to mention the Daco-Roman theory in this section at all? If it is, it should probably be done either in a separate paragraph or under a separate subheading so it's clear which theory is being referenced. Bradv 14:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the above clarification. For the time being, there are no separate paragraphs for the contrasting theories under each subsection (with the notable exemption of the first subtitle 1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis, which is dedicated to this specific subject). Instead, each subsection list the most relevant facts, which are also mentioned in works dedicated to the subject of the article (that is to the Romanians' ethnogenesis). In most cases, if there are contrasting scholarly interpretations of the facts, the most relevant/typical scholarly POVs are also presented. For instance, the following paragraph under the subtitle 4.1.1 Sources on present-day Romania contains facts and concurring interpretations:

• The Gesta Hungarorum from around 1150 or 1200 is the first chronicle to write of Vlachs in the intra-Carpathian regions. [Fact1] Its anonymous author stated that the Hungarians encountered "Slavs, Bulgarians, Vlachs, and the shepherds of the Romans" when invading the Carpathian Basin around 895. [Fact2] He also wrote of Gelou, "a certain Vlach" ruling Transylvania, a land inhabited by "Vlachs and Slavs".[Fact3] In his study on medieval Hungarian chronicles, Carlile Aylmer Macartney concluded that the Gesta Hungarorum did not prove the presence of Romanians in the territory, since its author's "manner is much rather that of a romantic novelist than a historian". [POV1] In contrast, Alexandru Madgearu, in his monography dedicated to the Gesta, stated that this chronicle "is generally credible", since its narration can be "confirmed by the archaeological evidence or by comparison with other written sources" in many cases. [POV2]

Do you think that we should expand each subsection with further subheadings or could we follow the pattern that was adopted a couple of years ago? Borsoka (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This proposal has has been floated around on these pages before. Actually, the main reason I created a Wiki account was because I was frustrated by the confusing state of this Wiki page and another editor (@Cealicuca) also recently proposed a re-structuring of the article for clarity following the pattern on the German Wiki page of this article. For now, as I stated in my initial comment I propose we follow the structure already employed at the top of the article (Continuity followed by Immigrationist) in every sub-section, thus keeping the paragraphs separate. This way a reader can start from the top of the page and easily figure out which arguments favor this or that theory-- it also helps if we start the paragraphs the way I did it here "According to proponents of Daco-Roman continuity...etc"Iovaniorgovan (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

If there is a need to cover the continuity theory in that context, could it be done in a separate paragraph? If there is enough written about it in that specific context it could possibly be its own subsection. I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two.

Now it's possible that consensus is that only one theory is worth mentioning and that the other theory has been thoroughly debunked, but if that's the case the article should be very clear about that, and right now I don't think it is. Bradv 23:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

As it stands, the Daco-Roman theory is BY FAR the most agreed upon by historians and linguists, but in the spirit of fair-play the Immigrationist theory (promoted mainly in Hungary, which explains all the Hungarian editors here) should also be mentioned-- for historical purposes if nothing else-- and I believe it should be given a fair shake. You are correct in that the two theories are mentioned alternatively in almost every paragraph, which has produced confusion in the readers and a tug-o-war between editors. I think my proposal would work though-- keep the order at the top of the page (Daco-Roman, Immigrationist, etc) for each subsection, with one paragraph allotted to the first theory, the next to the second theory, and in the following paragraphs, if need be, we can have some kind of mix if that serves to get the point across in an informative way (I think we can do this w/o creating further sub-headings to each sub-section). We can sort out the details later, but I propose we re-structure this section first and see how it goes.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The place where Romanian developed is unknown, according to recent scholarly consensus outside Romania:

• "The thesis of "continuity", according to which Romanian continues the Latin of Dacia (a Roman province from 107 to 275 AD, when it was abandoned by Aurelian), is not uneversally accepted. Some scholars hold that Romanian was formed wholly or in part to the south of the Danube, and that the current location of Romanian is the result of internal migrations. The historical, archaeological and linguistic data available do not seem adequate to give a definitive answer." (Andreose, Alvise; Renzi, Lorenzo (2013). "Geography and distribution of the Romance languages in Europe". In Maiden, Martin; Smith, John Charles; Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Volume II: Contexts. Cambridge University Press. p. 287. ISBN 978-0-521-80073-0.)
• "Romanian (and other, closely related "Daco-Romanian" varieties), Aromanian (also called "Macedo-Romanian"), Istro-Romanian, and Megleno-Romanian jointly constitute the four subdivisions of the "Daco-Romance" branch of the Romance languages. Although they share a common ancestor, their early history (including the location and extent of the territory where "Daco-Romance" originated; cf. Andreose and Rnzi 2013:287), and the historical link between them, remain obscure. (Maiden, Martin (2016). "Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Aromanian". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. p. 287. ISBN 978-0-19-967710-8.)

The German wikipage is a "pro and con list". If my understanding is correct, you (Bradv) suggest that we should create "pro and con" paragraphs under each subsections, instead of mentioning the facts and their concurring interpretations (if it is necessary). Are you sure this is the proper approach? Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning against any pro and con list simply because that kind of format in my opinion is more liable to have more POV, OR, and Improper Synthesis statements like this article previously had when it was a pro and con list. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

In sections where facts take up the bulk of the space (like 'Archaeological Data') and the interpretations amount to one sentence, then we can alternate sentences. If somehow, in time, the size of the interpretations grows to one or more paragraphs (for either theory) then we break it down into alternating paragraphs until all views and counter-views are presented (possibly use indented paragraphs for clarity).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

My principal concern about a "pro and con" approach is that in most cases, there is no clear-cut difference. Just a few examples:

• Romanian historians who accept the "continuity theory" associate the Vlachs/Romanians and the Volokhi who were defeated by the Magyars/Hungarians in the late 9th century, according to the Russian Primary Chronicle. The same historians regard the Russian Primary Chronicle as an undeniable proof for the Transylvanian presence of Vlachs/Romanians in the late 9th century. [For instance, Georgescu, Vlad (1991). The Romanians: A History. Ohio State University Press. p. 14. ISBN 0-8142-0511-9.; Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. Koninklijke Brill NV. pp. 73–77. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5.] A British specialist of the Romanian history, Dennis Deletant, writes that "Of one thing we can be reasonably certain: that the Russian Primary Chronicle is an unreliable source for a Vlach presence in Transylvania at the time of the Magyar invasion", although Deletant does not accept the "immigrationist theory". [Deletant, Dennis (1992). "Ethnos and Mythos in the History of Transylvania: the case of the chronicler Anonymus". In Péter, László (ed.). Historians and the History of Transylvania. Boulder. p. 85. ISBN 0-88033-229-8.] Consequently, we could not write that "Historians who accept the continuity theory associates the Volokhi of the Russian Primary Chronicle with the Vlachs, and only historians who reject the continuity theory refute the identification of the two peoples."
• A German historian who dedicated several of his works to the history of the Balkans, Gottfried Schramm, says that the Romanian names of the major rivers of the one-time Roman province of Dacia exclude any form of continuity there, because the Romanians borrowed the river names from the Slavs and Hungarians instead of directly inheriting them from Antiquity. [Schramm, Gottfried (1997). Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5-7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter [=A Dam Breaks: The Roman Danube frontier and the Invasions of the 5th-7th Centuries in the Light of Names and Words] (in German). R. Oldenbourg Verlag. pp. 294–295. ISBN 3-486-56262-2.] The Romanian linguist, Domnița Tomescu, also says that the same river names were transmitted through Slavic mediation from Antiquity, but she seemingly does not accept the "migrationist theory". [Tomescu, Domnița (7 April 2009). Romanische Sprachgeschichte / Histoire linguistique de la Romania. 3. Teilband. Walter de Gruyter. p. 2728. ISBN 978-3-11-021141-2.] Consequently, we could not write that "Only scholars who accept the migrationist theory say that the Romanians borrowed the names of the major rivers of their country from the Slavs".

In accordance with TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit's above remark, I think that artificial divisions along "pro and con" lines could not be verified based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Those sentences, as you wrote them, are overly generalized and hence they ring false. You make a good point but I believe there's an easy way to get around those issues. For instance, as regards your first example, the way that respective paragraph currently reads in this article is perfectly fine-- it follows the pattern FACT→DRT (Daco-Roman theory)→IT (Immigrationist theory). The FACT is "The Russian Primary Chronicle from 1113 contains possible references to Vlachs in the Carpathian Basin.[271][272] It relates how the Volokhi seized "the territory of the Slavs"[273] and were later expelled by the Hungarians.[274] Therefore, the Slavs' presence antedates the arrival of the Volokhi in the chronicle's narration.[272]", followed by DRT "Madgearu and many other historians argue that the Volokhi are Vlachs.", followed by IT "However, they have also been identified with either Romans or Franks annexing Pannonia (for instance, by Lubor Niederle and by Gyula Kristó respectively)." So that's perfectly alright. This is under the heading "Sources on Medieval Vlach lands" so one should expect pretty much an itemized list of sources, rather than full paragraphs dedicated to one theory or the other, so this format works fine here without explicitly identifying the theories. This should be obvious to a reader, as it follows the same general pattern.

We find more or less the same situation in the second paragraph you bring up, which is under the heading "Romanian place names"-- so, again, a section where you'd expect lists with brief descriptions and not theories. Following the already established structure we have--

FACT: "Place names provide a significant proportion of modern knowledge of the extinct languages of South-eastern Europe.[422] Drobeta, Napoca, Porolissum, Sarmizegetusa and other settlements in "Dacia Traiana" bore names of local origin.[298] Some towns preserved their ancient names[note 9] in South-eastern Europe up until now, but the names of all Roman settlements attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity disappeared.[35][423] The Romans adopted the native names of the main rivers[note 10] and these names survived the Roman withdrawal.[424][298][425]" followed by--

DRT1: "Linguists Oliviu and Nicolae Felecan write that the names were "uninterruptedly transmitted" from the Dacians to the Romans, and then to the Dacoromans.[425] Grigore Nandriș states that alone among the rivers in Dacia, the development of the name of the Criş from ancient Crisius would be in line with the phonetical evolution of Romanian.[426], followed by--

IT1: "Domnița Tomescu, Gottfried Schramm and other scholars say, the names of the rivers were preserved through a Slavic mediation.[427][428] The vowel shift from [a] to [u] or [o] experienced in the case of the rivers Mureş [< Maris], Olt [< Aluta], and Someş [< Samu(m)] is attested in the development of the Slavic languages, but is alien to Romanian and other tongues spoken in their regions.[429] Schramm emphasizes that the [ʃ] ending of the modern names of the rivers could not be directly inherited from Latin, so they must have been transmitted from the native population through Slavic mediation.[430]" followed by--

DRT2: "Dunărea, the Romanian name of the Danube may have developed from a supposed[431] Geto-Dacian *Donaris form.[432]", followed again by--

IT2: "However, this form is not attested in written sources.[431] Therefore, it is possible that the Romanians' ancestors in this case also adopted a Slavic name.[433]", followed again by--

DRT3: "Based on the Repedea name for the upper course of the Bistrița (both meaning "quick"), Nandris writes that translations from Romanian into Slavic could also create Romanian hydronyms.[434]"

To sum up, here's the pattern in this paragraph: FACT→DRT1→IT1→DRT2→IT2→DRT3. This is okay... but it could be better. First off, as you notice the DRT and IT are not mentioned explicitly so we don't need to explain to the reader that Tomescu, for example, is actually DRT and not IT-- if her statement in this context appears to support IT, so be it, let the reader draw their own conclusions as to what that means in the whole context. Now, the way this paragraph could be improved is, as with ALL paragraphs in the article, by shortening the elements in the string as much as possible (there are 6 here). In this case we can move DRT2 and IT2 up and squeeze them between DRT1 and IT1 to obtain FACT→DRT1/DRT2→IT2/IT1→DRT3, a string with ONLY 4 elements (instead of the original 6) which flows a lot better and is a lot easier to process. Here's the end result "Place names provide a significant proportion of modern knowledge of the extinct languages of South-eastern Europe.[422] Drobeta, Napoca, Porolissum, Sarmizegetusa and other settlements in "Dacia Traiana" bore names of local origin.[298] Some towns preserved their ancient names[note 9] in South-eastern Europe up until now, but the names of all Roman settlements attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity disappeared.[35][423] The Romans adopted the native names of the main rivers[note 10] and these names survived the Roman withdrawal. Dunărea, the Romanian name of the Danube may have developed from a supposed[431] Geto-Dacian *Donaris form. However, this form is not attested in written sources.[431] Therefore, it is possible that the Romanians' ancestors in this case also adopted a Slavic name. Domnița Tomescu, Gottfried Schramm and other scholars say, the names of the rivers were preserved through a Slavic mediation.[427][428] The vowel shift from [a] to [u] or [o] experienced in the case of the rivers Mureş [< Maris], Olt [< Aluta], and Someş [< Samu(m)] is attested in the development of the Slavic languages, but is alien to Romanian and other tongues spoken in their regions.[429] Schramm emphasizes that the [ʃ] ending of the modern names of the rivers could not be directly inherited from Latin, so they must have been transmitted from the native population through Slavic mediation. However, based on the Repedea name for the upper course of the Bistrița (both meaning "quick"), Nandris writes that translations from Romanian into Slavic could also create Romanian hydronyms." Much better, right? There's another issue with this paragraph, the Schramm "explanation" is over-elaborate and disproportionate to the rest of the content, but we can fix that later. The point now is to settle into a structure.

Finally, when DRT or IT need to be explained in more detail and in paragraph form, then we can adopt the same structure but for paragraphs... within reason. The point is to NOT break the flow of a paragraph with unnecessary intrusions and objections when you can make a separate case (also more intelligible) in the following paragraph. When that's not possible we can add ("Notes:") indented and italicized at the very bottom of the paragraph in question (or something to that effect.)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, you said above that the present structure of the article is good, but each paragraph could be improved. If this is the case, a consensus is reached. We should only decide the original question: should we preserve the first sentence under subtitle 4.3.1 Development of Romanian, or we should delete this sentence which presents redundant information in a non-neutral way. [A side remark: Please note that your above text ignores WP:DUE, because the scholarly consensus is that the Romanian form of the larger rivers' names display a Slavic mediation, while your text ignores this fact. But we should not discuss this issue here.]

@Bradv:, what is your opinion? Borsoka (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have also an opinion, I also don't support the changing of the structure of the article agreeing with the argumentation of those who are against. Furthermore, I don't understand what refers that statement that the presence of the Slavs would "antedate" the arrival of the "Volokhi/Vlachs?", since as far as I remember the chronicle clearly wrotes that "Volokhi/Vlachs?" entered the are after the Slavs...secondly about the "...Sarmizegetusa and other settlements in "Dacia Traiana" bore names of local origin" statement, "bore" is past tense, so I don't see the relevance since today they are used only in a symbolic way but historically these names were not used in the last near millenium (i.e. Grădişte was used, etc.). In spite of this the statement "Linguists Oliviu and Nicolae Felecan write that the names were "uninterruptedly transmitted" from the Dacians to the Romans, and then to the Dacoromans", is also interesting what would suggest, if the Daco-Romans existed, they used those names, but if these names were not used in the past near millenium...? Last but not least "Dunărea, the Romanian name of the Danube may have developed from a supposed[431] Geto-Dacian *Donaris form" is one of those propagated suggestion that does not have even any partial evidence, it is just a very-very hyphotetic suggestion without any attest.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC))

I may now take sides, since we're discussing something else than the initial question: if it is doubtful that a change improves the article, we prefer the status quo. Ain't broken, don't fix. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary - it IS broken. The article has been re-written with the simple goal of obfuscating information as much as possible to that it will give a (false) impression of "equality". Which by the way, for such a rule-loving person like you, should be enough. Statements, claims whatever should not be "forcefully" made "equal". Each should stand on it's own and the reader should be the one that decided. As it stands this is anything but a neutral article. a "pro" - "con" approach would do the trick, just as a dedicated section for each theory (each with it's own sources and hypothesis and such) should. On another note, I love how you mention Boia's criticism on Romanian historians, but fail to mention his criticism on other historians, foreign, who seem much more interested in showing that Romanians came from somewhere else - sometimes even more than their own histories. Like Hungarians - striving to show that Romanians came from south of the Danube. But Greeks prefer them to have never been there (south of the Danube). Russian historians place them west and south of the Carpathians, just because. Just because you can guess. so if we take all those sources into account, Romanians somehow landed from outer space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 19:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Correct, I was referring to the FACT→DRT→IT, etc, general structure of the article and its subsections, which should be preserved in the interest of making the article readable and eliminating the tug-o-war between editors. The "Linguistics" section does NOT follow this pattern, which is why we got into this argument in the first place. So then, if we all agree, then I should be allowed to introduce that section with a DRT paragraph, to be followed by an IT paragraph, etc. Again, a little bit of redundancy (especially if it's a different reliable source and different wording) will not hurt anyone but instead would make the sub-section stand alone and readers would not need to read the whole article to "get" the point (feel free to do the same with the IT paragraph, I'm all for clarity). In addition to respecting the internal structure outlined above, the other goal would be to shorten the length of these DRT→IT strings, else it could get pretty confusing (see my example above for a way to do it). As for that first sentence, I already offered to change it (see above) to sound neutral, as in "According to linguist Al. Rosetti...[insert quote]".Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should close the original issue: should the first sentence be preserved or deleted. Yes, for the time being, the 4.3.1 Development of Romanian subsection differs from all other parts of the 4. Evidence section, because it begins with a POV sentence which contains redundant information. We should not duplicate the core of one of the theories or all of them in each paragraph, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a ballad with literary repetitions. Borsoka (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's the compromise I suggest: we can remove that first sentence BUT, (1) I will add a Al. Rosetti citation (not a quote) to a sentence in "Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis" (maybe slightly re-word that sentence, TBD), and (2) I will swap out the first two paragraphs in the "Development of Romanian" subsection, so that it starts something like this "The "essential Romanian vocabulary is to a large degree Latin":[403] more than 75% of the words in the semantic fields of sense perception, quantity, kinship and spatial relations were inherited from Latin, but the basic lexicons of religion and of agriculture have also been preserved. Around 20% of the entries of the 1958 edition of the Dictionary of the Modern Romanian have directly been inherited from Latin.[402], etc etc". (notice I switched the order of the sentences in this paragraph; as for the rest we can work it out fairly quickly). This way we preserve the internal structure of DRT→IT, repeat...Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should wait for the third opinion. Sorry, I will not comment on this issue until the third opinion is provided. [Just a side remark: that the essential vocabulary of Romanian is of Latin origin and that less than a quarter of the Romanian words were inherited directly from Latin are facts. These facts are not denied by neither of the theories.] Borsoka (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It should be FACT→DRT→IT (repeat), is what I'm saying. As it is, it's 5-6 sentences of IT to start off the section (if I take out the "contested" opener), thus violating the internal structure of the article. Third opinion welcome at any time.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like our third-opinion has gone M.I.A. (vacation?). Maybe we should ask for a second third-opinion?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

We have time. No need to run. Borsoka (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Now that there are more people involved in the discussion, and the two of you are discussing things again, I'll leave this to you to figure out. It appears to me that this question is best resolved by people who know more about the subject than I, and there are several of those here on this talk page. Bradv 16:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, so much for that... So, are we in agreement as to what the "internal structure" of the article should be: FACT→DRT→IT (repeat), whether in sentence or paragraph form or any combination thereof, or should we ask for a another third-opinion?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think a FACT→DRT→IT structure could hardly be followed in a consequent way, because there is no clear-cut difference, as it was demonstrated above. Furthermore, there is a consensus that a "pro and con approach" should be avoided. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The article is already for the most part structured this way, as I have shown above. NO need for radical change, many of the sections are more or less fine 'as is'. ONE EXCEPTION: the section in question. Either I'm allowed to re-arrange the section to follow this structure, OR please ask for another third-party opinion to chime in.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not want to change anything, so I do not need to ask for third-party opinion. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, actually I just came back to post that I don't need anyone's permission to make edits that abide by Wiki rules. If a third-opinion is willing to weigh in on the good-faith ground rules mentioned above, so be it. It'd save a lot of hassle. But either way is fine with me. Changes to the section coming shortly...Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Development of Romanian - edits

As you might have noticed, I've made several changes to this section: 1. I did NOT delete any of the info previously in there, just moved stuff around for readability, although I amended a couple sentences for clarity and detail (re. "Common Slavic and Old Church Slavonic loanwords adopted by all Eastern Romance variants prove that the start of the disintegration of Common Romanian into its four dialects...", etc) and fixed the "close paraphrasing" of "The grouping of Dacian, Illyrian and Thracian languages into a Thraco-Illyrian branch of the Indo-European language family..." with the proper attribution, "according to Benjamin Fortson". 2. I added some critical info about the "Development of Romanian" which, incredibly, was missing from the section! Such as, when do proponents of DRT think the language actually formed?!! Also info about dialects, sub-dialects, ETC, etc. [note: I only included reliable sources; I could cite more works, including Al. Rosetti here but I don't want to clutter the article; but I could if anyone has an issue with this). Any issues with any of my edits please bring them up here first so we don't get into an editing war.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for adding info about the chronology of the formation of the Romanian. As I mentioned above, Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, so we cannot develop our own rules when editing it. Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed your first two references to Wexler due to "undue weight". Wexler's article is a HYPOTHESIS, as the title of his article clearly states "The case for the relexification hypothesis in Rumanian", and by his own admission in the article, "further studies will be needed in order to corroborate these tentative claims." And yet, you deemed this hypothesis worthy enough to quote/cite it FOUR times in this brief section. Let me remind you what Wiki says about this: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." So feel free to add something else (more reliable and mainstream) to the end of that second paragraph if you wish, but not Wexler (or at least not this article). I kept the last Wexler reference for balance (minus the analogy to the US West coast, which doesn't make any sense, nor does it belong here) although I would also suggest you add another source to the citation if you can. I also re-added the info about Romanian's FUNDAMENTAL lexicon. Please do not remove this, as it's essential. Any issue with this and we're going to arbitration.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I see you undid my latest changes so I undid yours and it will stay like this until we bring a THIRD-OPINION in. So if you think a third-opinion will break the Wiki rules for you then be my guest. I'm waiting. I have nothing further to say about this and any edits you make in the meantime will be promptly reverted until we settle this dispute.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Wexler's sentences that are presented in the article are well-known facts. I removed his marginal assumption before your edit ([14]), so please do not refer to it. Please read WP:Edit war before "promptly" reverting my edits. Borsoka (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

No, they're not facts. I'll have to look at the other citation you inserted and see if it checks out. May take a day, may take a month, but we're not out of the woods here just yet. Same goes for other stuff in this article. But, back to the recent edits which you abusively deleted:

1. this edit, which you deleted several times, GOES BACK IN (with a minor addition): "However, the fundamental lexicon (consisting of the 2500 most important words by frequency and semantic richness) shows a radical change in percentages, the vast majority of words being of Latin origin, followed by Romance and classical Latin neologisms." I added '2500' so maybe you'll get it this time around. This is NOT redundant info and it's CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT to the article. You delete this one more time and we'll have to call in the Wiki hounds.

2. this also GOES BACK IN (slightly different wording): "Romanian was subject to various influences, including Hungarian, Church Slavonic, Greek, Turkish, modern Slavic languages, and German (especially in Transylvania), but “the Latin structure of Romanian has not been modified by any of these external factors, all influences being limited to lexis and word formation.” This is also NOT REDUNDANT and VERY IMPORTANT, as it pertains to the STRUCTURE of the language. You touch this one more time and we're going to arbitration.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

We do not need to repeat information and we should not present POVs as facts. That the basic vocabulary of Romanian is of Latin origin is mentioned in the article, that the structure of the Romanian is Latin is highly debatable, taking into account that its structural features are shared with non-Romance languages, like Albanian, Bulgarian. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Yet again with this... Care to back up your extraordinary claim? So many linguists here... so few sources. I mean "highly debatable"? I know exactly in what circles this is debatable, definitely not academic.Cealicuca (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That info is NOT redundant. I just reverted your changes so please call in a THIRD-OPINION, or I will. Either way is fine with me.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

We do not need to ask for a third opinion to establish that no pieces of information should be repeated in the article. The other piece of information is dubious: Romanian shares structural features with non-Romance languages (I refer to the Balkan Sprachbund), conseqently we can hardly state that it preserved its Latin features. Or do you suggest, Latin was a Slavic language, or closely related to Albanian? Borsoka (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Your pet theories count for nothing here on Wiki. Same goes for the rest of the Hungarian Wiki shock brigade. What counts here is mainstream "WP:RS", which is what I provided. Might I remind you, this article is titled "Origin of the Romanians", NOT "Hungarian view of the Origin of the Romanians", as much as you've been trying to make it appear so. Anyway, third-opinion is on the way, and we'll go past that if need be.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody's pet theories count here on Wiki. Yes, the article is dedicated to the origin of the Romanians, consequently all sentences in the article should be connected to this subjects. You obviously have not realized that I did not refer to Hungarian authors in the section in connection with the structure or vocabulary of Romanian (actually, I deleted two references to Hungarian authors). I suggest you should abandon this "Hungarian-are-conspiring-against-my-views" approach. We are here to build an encyplopedia, not to push Hungarian/Romanian national myths. Sorry, I will not comment on your nationalistic remarks in the future. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The sentence about the "fundamental lexicon" works okay now, slightly re-worded, but it gets the point across so I'm fine with it. So I guess the only dispute left is the inclusion of the sentence about "structure". I hope you realize you can't win this argument. You can't find a more reliable source than this, and this book (along with its companion on the Syntax) is basically the official academic publication of the Daco-Roman Linguistic Continuity Theory. Your objecting to this inclusion amounts to denying a Wiki editor inclusion of reliable sources in support of the theories presented just because you don't agree with the theory. That is unacceptable. Best you can do is provide a sentence from a reliable source showing a different/opposing view, and if it passes muster we'll make sure to find a place for it in the article. You may remove that "dubious" claim hanging above the sentence and then feel free to remove my request for a third-opinion. Else, let the third-opinion walk you through the Wiki rules.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody will win or loose, because Wikipedia is not a battleground. No scholar whose theories are mentioned in the article denies that the Romanian language was descended from the Latin language - therefore, there are no concurring linguistic theories about the origin of the Romanian language. The sentence in question contains a dubious POV statment: "the Latin structure of Romanian has not been modified by any of these external factors". Can you refer to other Romance languages featured by postponed definitive articles? Or can you refer to reliable sources claiming that postponed definitve articles featured the Latin language? Or do you say the postponed definitive articles and other Balkanisms of the Romanian language are not the consequences of gradual modifications? Nevertheless, the whole question is independent of the subject of the article, because, as I mentioned, nobody claims that the Romanian language is not a descendant of the Latin language, so we do not have to discuss this issue here. Borsoka (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the claim that the Latin structure of the Romanian language has not been modified by other languages is at best dubious and at worst false since it is a fact that the grammar of the Romanian language (along with Megleno-Romanian, and Aromanian, and Istro-Romanian) share similarities with the grammar of the modern languages in the Balkans such as Albanian, Bulgarian and Macedonian. For example, the definite articles are post-fixed at the end of nouns, the lack of infinitives, etc. Of course, under the Migrationist theory, this fact is explained that the reason the Romanian languages share grammatical features with the Balkan languages is because that's where the Romanian languages were originally formed - in the Balkans. How does the Continuity theory explain it? I still don't know. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You are right, the grammatical structure, origins, and the similarity with some other linguistic fetaures of the previously mentioned other languages are well documented, sourced and proved, roughly an "Illyrian core with a Latin shell with Slavic effects" if we speak about the very early stage. What is obvious, Romanian developed in the similar time, but on a different route like the other Romance languages. We have to be careful what we would refer exactly as a "Latin structure". Of course, we can say the language preserved it's "Latinity", since it is a Romance language, but a proper wording to describe this in an appropriate way should be found. The continuity theory developed some possible "explanations", i.e. the ancestors of Albanians migrated from the Carpathian Basin to the south of the Balkan, or others are pushing that the words/structure of i.e. Albanian origin are as well just loans inherited from a common source or a common ancestor that would be Thracian/Dacian, trying to solve the paradox in such a way...however, without any proof.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC))

Wow, mised a lot. But hey, nothing changes. I see the same old TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit popping out whenever KIENGIR says "something" (because hey, you both just happen to be always in accord with each other, right?). And of course I suppose both of you have PhDs in linguistics. On another note - yes, the Albanian linguistic heritage is pretty debunked. Not by some wiki always-agreeing editors but by people with real knowledge. You can search on wiki. By the way, how does someone join your club? I mean I'd really like to come here and say whatever I wish, of course use the best(est) hyperboles in the process, and then have some two-three people coming in and "yes yes yes"-ing me. :) Or, as some other editor here, be like a "hive mind". Because of course, there is no need to remind nobody of WP:MEAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs)

I suggest you to have a civilized behavior and unnecessary accusations or any inconstructive additions that has not in any connection to the topic are not necessary. I just answered a question, that's all. However, as an addition, it came later to my mind there are also such theories, that the Slavic langauge would resemble with some stucture or sounding with the Dacian language.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC))

@Cealicuca:, please do not hesitate from initiating a sock puppet investigation or stop accusing other editors of sock puppetry. Please remember that the administrators are authorized to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit this article. Discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who, for instance, repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to any expected standards of behaviour. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka::

• It's not the first time you are talking in KIENGIR's place. While there's no rule against it, I find it weird. I'm pretty sure KIENGIR is old enough to speak for himself.
• On the accusation part - I am sorry, but all I am doing is following your and Tgeorgescu's lead. Since you two have no qualms with this (throwin acusations around) I fail to see why I should.
• Again, following Tgeorgescu's lead (who has several times brout up the subject of me and other editors being accused of wrongdoing... of course, being accused by him) I fail to see why KIENGIR's extensive WP:MEAT history should not be relevant.
• "Discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who, for instance, repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to any expected standards of behaviour." - Oh, again with the intimidation? Moreover, you should start by adhering to those expected standards of behaviour yourself, before asking other to do so :) It seems rather fair.Cealicuca (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

KIENGIR, TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, Tgeorgescu, I think we should ignore him. Nevertheless, I will ignore him. Borsoka (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka, thanks, your recent edits work as far as I can tell (traveling now, but I'll take a closer look soon). So I guess this settles this particular dispute. Cheers Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I removed this entry because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, the matter was settled eventually. Thanks!Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The inherent flaw of this article and why it needs restructuring

Neutral, as defined by Wikipedia standards, refer to presenting the information (as stated by the sources) clearly, in an unbiased way. More exactly - "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". This article is anything but because:

• We have several competing theories. As such, it is not up to the editors to "determine" which has more merit, or to simulate neutrality by adopting a seemingly equivocal stance on all of the theories (weirdly enough, the same editor then declares himself a non-expert in the subject. So in his reality, someone who is not an expert is entitled to hold all the information he is not an expert in as equally "truthful"). Being equivocal does not mean neutrality. It is the reader and the sources of course who are to give weight and judge the information, not the editors. They are here only to add/summarize WP:RS and of course to determine which is a WP:RS. As such each theory must be presented clearly, each with it's own background, historiography section, evidence section, criticism section and so on. As the article is written it skews the information either by diluting or taking information out of context. So this is my goal: present each theory in a clear, continuous way. After all, like any normal theory out there, it's validity is mostly given by the context. If one is to take pieces of it and throw it all around, mingled with competing hypothesis, the perception about it's validity is artificially diminished.

• The "Evidence" section is a mess. First of all the, and one can clearly see this as a bias that reflects some of the editor's here attitude towards historical sources, the written sources are put forcefully into the spotlight. Archaeological evidence and genetics are neglected. Moreover, the Written sources are categorized arbitrarily. Sources on present-day Romania, Sources on the Balkan Vlachs, Sources on Medieval Vlach lands do make sense at all. But I'm not all-knowing, I admit - so I ask the other editors to enlighten me. The implied assumption is that the Medieval Vlach lands and not the same with Balkan Vlachs (are they still a territory?) and of course, not the same thing with the present-day Romania (i presume it's still about lands, so geography...). I may be wrong here, and maybe I can't see the logic behind it - but at least it fails the "present the information in a clear way" test.Cealicuca (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and I tried to push for a move in that direction but got no support... so far. It'd be helpful to see what some of these sections would look like in a new format and decide then. However, even as is, there's still a lot of info missing from this article. I just added some critical info to the Linguistics section but there's still more to be added and/or corrected. I wonder what the article would look like with all the stuff added though. We might get a better picture of the "problem" then but it's already beginning to look like it might need restructuring in some way.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I just remark that most editors expressed under the subsection The Grammar of Romanian (by Pană Dindelegan) above that a "pro and con list" should be avoided. Sorry, I do not understand your remarks about the Written sources section. I agree that the Archaeological section should be improved, because it does not state expressly that there is no evidence of the continuous presence of a Romanized population in the former province of Dacia. Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Please stop deflecting. Please stick to the subject (so don't bring into discussion which theory the archaeological evidence support or not, this is not up to this debate). Also - I think I was clear enough on the Written sources categories. They are not, by any logical measure, disjunct categories, simply because one of them reference a specific geographical area (present-day Romania), the other specifies an ethnic(?) group, and another one specifies a vague medieval(?) geographical area. I asked for someone to explain what was the criteria used for creating them, because there seems to be no logical one, and their only purpose is to seemingly obfuscate the presented information even more. Your non-answer is not a valid answer, but you may try again. If it's so clear to you (the criteria upon which the categorization of the written sources is based upon), please explain.Cealicuca (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

What is your suggestion? The present structure reflects the main division between the two theories: one of the theories states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis occurred in the territories that now form Romania, the other theory suggest that it happened in the Balkans. Of course we could mention all written sources about the early medieval history in the article, but only sources mentioning Vlachs are relevant in the context of the article. Or do you say that sources mentioning Croats, Serbians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Romani, Saxons, Greeks, Turks, Pechenegs, etc in the Balkans should also be listed? Could you refer to books dedicated to the subject of the article which list all written sources about the peoples once inhabiting the Balkans? The third subsection (Medieval Vlach land) is distinguished, because the location of those lands is uncertain. Borsoka (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Why invent some names for the categories? Why not simply link them with the theories they are supposedly a supporting evidence? Moreover, all the categories are ambiguous. Define those Balkan lands. Wait... should we think of them as they are in 2018? or in 1850? Heck, I challenge you to define what Balkan means exactly today. The terms today denote different regions than say 200 years ago (roughly when the IT was invented, for example). Generally speaking each theory should have it's own narrative (so each theory should have it's one sub-section of historiography, evidence, criticism and counter-arguments to the criticism etc.) instead of presenting all the information as a disparate and diluted wall of text, with back-and-forth stuff like "He said in whatever ear, but then in another year she said, but then in yet another year he said etc.".Cealicuca (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The "pro and con" approach has already been refuted by many editors several times. For the last time, under the subtitle "The Grammar of Romanian (by Pană Dindelegan) - "Third opinion". There is no point in opening a new debate on the issue. Borsoka (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok... Let me try again, as you don't seem to understand. The "pro and con" is kind of actually right now. It's just very creatively crafted as to not look like one. Because instead of actually focusing on each theory, all the "pro" and "cons" are arbitrarily categorized. See "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."Cealicuca (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, try to initiate a new RfC on the issue. I do not have time to discuss this issue twice a month. Borsoka (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The issue already "discussed" was initially related to Romanian grammar. Moreover, I believe that the way the article is structured right now is just a fancy "pro"/"con" list (carefully avoids actually namig "pro" or "con" but basically it does this in every section). Which I believe it gives rise to a lot of unnecessary disputes. Like for example removing (or otherwise considering it as unacceptable) a sentence because it is not "balanced" - not mentioning all theories (?!?!?!). This is what this article has been reduced to and this is precisely what forcing "balance" (from, I hope, only a misguided notion of neutrality, and not other reasons), the way it is forced upon a lot of the information presented here, comes to the detriment of the content itself. I believe that, in line with Wikipedia's suggested article structure, each theory should be treated within it's own narrative. Right now, if one wants to actually understand what each theory is based upon, needs to sift through disparate amounts of sub-sections and find bits on info, most of the times structured in a "he said / she said" way. As for the specific sections regarding Written sources (Sources on present-day Romania, Sources on the Balkan Vlachs, Sources on Medieval Vlach lands) those definitely need at least renaming. Even you conveniently added "lands" to Balkan Vlachs in order to make it seem more logical. As it stands the naming is vague and misleading. Even if we were to think that all 3 of the categories refer to a geographical area, it means that present-day Romania excludes Balkan Vlachs (lands) and both exclude Medieval Vlachs (whatever that may mean) (lands).Cealicuca (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan: Could you help me with this arbitration thing? What do I need to do? You seem to have gone through the process at least once.Cealicuca (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest a request for comment as a first step... then dispute resolution. In any event, I support the restructuring of the article for clarity purposes. Another opinion from an experienced Wikipedian might help get his process started. As is, some sections in this article are unreadable.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka @Bradv: Actually, on closer inspection, Bradv actually supports exactly the same idea: "if there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained." / "I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two. Now it's possible that consensus is that only one theory is worth mentioning and that the other theory has been thoroughly debunked, but if that's the case the article should be very clear about that, and right now I don't think it is."Cealicuca (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Țara Românească

@Iovaniorgovan:, this is the English version of the article. We do not write of Magyarország instead of Hungary, of Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίω instead of Byzantine Empire and of Țara Românească instead of Wallachia. I (and many other editors) would be grateful if you could stop pushing personal rules when editing Wikipedia. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a false analogy. To begin with, in that respective sentence the mention is the establishment of a NEW principality, and therefore its GIVEN NAME should be listed first: Țara Românească. Secondly, the exonyms Vlach/Wallach/Wallachia are of GERMAN origin, not English. Thirdly, most of the English-speaking world has called your country Hungary, therefore I suppose it makes sense to use that name in that article (even though I would argue that if there's a sentence relating to its creation, it should first list its given name in the original language), whereas the vast majority of the English-speaking world of today (the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc), for whom this article was written, has no (or very little) history of having called that Romanian principality Wallachia. Conclusion: the way the other editor first edited the sentence is correct, and it should read something like this: "...led to the establishment of a new principality, Țara Românească (or "Romanian Land", also known by its exonym, Wallachia)" (with the respective hyperlinks). That's plain as day to any English speaker, aged 3 and above. So that's how it should read.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you refer to other articles about other countries that follow the rule that you want to push? Please read WP:Edit warring Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

And what rule would that be?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The rule that prescribes that Wallachia should be mentioned first as Țara Românească in the English version of Wikipedia. (All sources listed in the article which refer to this principality and were published in English refer to it as Wallachia.) Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You may want to re-read what I wrote. I said that it should be named "Țara Românească" (first) in the sentence about its ESTABLISHMENT, since what was established was NOT Wallachia, but "Țara Românească", therefore it would be technically false to say that "Wallachia" was established. I think the explanation in the brackets is clear for everyone "...led to the establishment of a new principality, Țara Românească (or "Romanian Land", also known by its exonym, Wallachia)".Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not a rule, this is your personal view. Wikipedia is edited in accordance with its own principles. If you cannot refer to a WP rule verifying your edit, your edit will be reverted. Sorry, I stop making comments on your remarks, because I have no time to discuss your personal rules. Borsoka (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I follow historical accuracy and clarity. What exactly is the Wiki rule you're following?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You should follow the relevant WP conventions. "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. … The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context.". Wallachia is the English name of the country ([15]), consequently we should use it. If you continue to push your personal rules, one can conclude that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"The same name should be used consistently" is not the same as "The same name should be used ALWAYS". The name is being used consistently in the article, so that's not "at issue" here. At issue here is the use of the name in THIS SENTENCE! It does not make historical sense to say that "Wallachia" was established because the vague term of Wallachia (as land of the Vlachs), however vaguely it was used at the time, did not refer precisely to the territory that became "Tara Romaneasca". Hence the two names are not interchangeable for the time period of the establishment of the principality. So the way that sentence was formulated above is historically accurate and it ALSO uses the term "Wallachia", which ALSO makes it consistent, as per the Wiki rules you brought up. Now you'll need to explain why the name "Wallachia" should ALWAYS be used (rather than just "consistently") or I'll revert your edit.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not need to explain it. You should verify your claim by referring to reliable sources. You are on the edge of being banned from editing this article as per Swarm's remark above [16]. I stop discussing this issue with you. Borsoka (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source for WHAT? That the name of the principality was "Țara Românească" and NOT "Wallachia"? It's already in the article. That the order of the names in this sentence should be reversed? I already gave a reason for that. And, again, the way it was formulated by the other editor (and then by me) did not violate any Wiki rules by any stretch of the imagination. It just reversed the order of the names to make it historically accurate. Maybe you should call a THIRD-OPINION and calm down a bit. You also need to provide an explanation for why you reverted my edit, to me and/or a THIRD-OPINION. Again, all I'm asking for is an EXPLANATION as to why the reverse order is not acceptable. So far, I've gotten nothing.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Please stop being aggressive towards other editors. Please stop trying to "win" argument by intimidating the other side. I understand that the current trend among some of the editors is to "win" by getting the other side banned but I'd like to ask to stop this trend, as it simply has nothing to do with the substance of the article but rather personal PoVs and grudges. And please calm down.Cealicuca (talk) 08:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are also on the edge of being banned from editing this article. This is not an aggressive approach, this is a fact, based on your warring behavior. Your personal attacks, on the other hand, can be described as an aggressive approach against almost all editors who make remarks on this Talk page [17]. Borsoka (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Please calm down, don't try to intimidate other editors and certainly don't push the discussion into a lock-down just because you can't contribute anything constructive to it.Cealicuca (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: And as a disclaimer for my "warring comments" you brought up... I am sorry you can't get a jest and a pun :)Cealicuca (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Cealicuca and Iovaniorgovan, I hope you know that the first documentary mention of the name "Țara Românească" (in Romanian language) dates back to 1521 (Neacșu's letter). 123Steller (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. The English name of the principality of Țara Românească is Wallachia and therefore the English name must consistently used throughout the article. If you want to get technical, the Romanian name is first attested in Neacșu's Letter in 1521 written in the Cyrillic alphabet as Цѣра Рȣмѫнѣскъ or "Țeara Rumânească". The name Wallachia it is understood that Romanians were called Vlachs by other peoples and the Slavonic name of Wallachia is "Ungro-Vlachia" in contrast to the other "Wallachias" south of the Danube (Great Wallachia in Thessaly and Small Wallachia in Serbia). TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@123Steller: You may be right, but where is a preceding document stating that the principality was called Wallachia (by the inhabitants)? It seems only reasonable to assume that they called it the same. Nevertheless, unless we have a source that states that at the moment the principality gained independence the inhabitants/rulers (Barasab I in this case) were calling their own principality using the term "Wallachia" there is no reason to believe that from Basarab's independence up to Neacsu's letter the name changed (again, as they referred to themselves, not the exonym). Otherwise we may change that and add a short explanation that Tara Romaneasca is the proper name of the principality, dating at least from 1521.Cealicuca (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: Thanks for your neutral input. Though I fail to see the relevance of what alphabet was used. Nevertheless, in the context of the article I believe it is an important piece of information (that the inhabitants called their own country "Tara Romaneasca" and not Wallachia). Important enough to be mentioned at least once (while in the rest of the article Wallachia should still be used), important enough so that any user reading this should not have to "dig" through layers to find out that Wallachia and Tara Romaneasca are the same thing. After all, the article title is about Romanians, not Vlachs. So the information that Wallachia was actually called Tara Romaneasca (literraly Romanian Land) since at least 1521 is quite important considering all the controversy around here. It's a clear and undisputed piece of information.Cealicuca (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be confused that Wallachia and Țeara Rumânească are the same. A user seems to be splitting hairs over something that nobody is arguing for. Nobody is disputing that the Romanian name for the principality of Wallachia is Țeara Rumânească, but this is the English Wikipedia and thus we use the English names for places, which in this case is Wallachia. And yes, the article title is about Romanians and not Vlachs, but one can not talk about Romanians without Vlachs since the name for the people's now called Romanians were called Vlachs by the neighboring peoples. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: Yes, there seems to be a confusion. As this article is not written for OUR (editors) purposes (and none of us are confused) it should not be confusing for the casual reader (I dare say it should even try to educate...). As such, I highly doubt that the casual reader ("target audience" since this is an Encyclopedia) has any notion of Țeara Rumânească. Yet the article professes to be about the Origin of the Romanians (not Vlachs). I find it quite relevant to have it mentioned at least ONCE, clearly, how the Romanians called one of their core principality, which is tied to their origins :). "but one can not talk about Romanians without Vlachs since the name for the people's now called Romanians were called Vlachs by the neighboring peoples. " - please review this argument of your.Cealicuca (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

What was left out from this discussion, that "Țeara Rumânească" was not an official name, were not used as an official reference in any official document or administration, seems at least until 1622, but not even sure after even.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: No, this is not a sensible conclusion. Official according to whom? Is there an official international medieval name for a "country"? Let me put it this way: On official Romanian documents, written in romanian, by the Romanian administration, Switzerland is referred to as Elvetia. In Switzerland, their official documents, written in their languages (French, German, Italian, Romansch etc.) they themselves have various names for their own country. I bet Hungary doesn't write Hungary in it's official documents, in Hungarian language. Moreover, official Romanian documents, issued by Romanian administration, used in international correspondence in the English language, refer to Elvetia as... Switzerland. No, Neacsu's letter is important to show that Romanians, in their own language, called the principality "Țeara Rumânească". The official name of the principality had different designations depending on the sources (one can see how the Ottoman Empire uses Eflâk, not Wallachia). This one (from 1521 mind you, long before 1622...) simply attests that Romanians, in Romanian language, were calling the principality as such. And the assumption that the inhabitants actually knew what their principality was called in their own language is a sensible one (so Neacsu didn't just invent the name), at least until someone provides a source pre-dating Necasu's letter or at least contemporary to it, that would have a Romanian referring to the principality of Wallachia (sic!), in Romanian, other than "Țeara Rumânească" (or similarly). And in the context of this article this is an important piece of information.Cealicuca (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

We are again making a lengthy, boring debate about two single issues. (1) Could/Should the Romanian name of Wallachia (Țara Românească) mentioned in the article? I think we could mention it. (2) Could/Should the Romanian name of Wallachia (Țara Românească) be mentioned first. I say no because it would contradict to all existing policies. And we have been discussing this issue for hours, because ...... because Iovaniorgovan is unable to understand basic WP policies, and Cealicuca enjoys participating in lengthy conversations, and we all fall into his trap. Do we need to continue this conversation or could we close it? Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we should close the conversation. It is non issue and it's irrelevant to the subject. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If the current phrasing remains (led to the establishment of a new principality, Wallachia (in Romanian, Țara Românească, or "Romanian Land")), I agree with closing this subject. As for how relevant it is, it's certainly relevant how people would call themselves and their medieval statehood entity, in their own language when we talk about their origins and development. It goes to show their self-identity.Cealicuca (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Personally I don't understand the "first" thing (in general) but yes, it should be first - for practical reasons. Simply because it is more confusing to see "Wallachia" say 8-9 times and them someone says: "oh wait... the romanians called the principality Tara romaneasca, in their own language". So the current "led to the establishment of a new principality, Wallachia (in Romanian, Țara Românească, or "Romanian Land")." should satisfy your "not first" policy (?!). An no, I can definitely confirm that I do NOT enjoy having lengthy conversation. Cealicuca (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Your and the other user's rants made me think of something: If according to the Continuity theory, the ancestors of the Romanians originated in Transylvania, how come Transylvania isn't and never was ever called Wallachia or Țeara Rumânească? The original Romanian name for Transylvania was "Ardeal", which is a transliteration of the Hungarian name for Transylvania "Erdély" which means "Beyond the Forest". How come there are two Wallachias south of the Danube and one north of the Danube but it's not Transylvania? Under the Migrationist theory, this fact is explained that the reason Transylvania isn't and never was "Wallachia" was because the ancestors of the Romanians did not originate there but South of the Danube in the Balkans where two Wallachias were formed and centuries later the Principality of the Romanians was established in the region south of Transylvania but north of the Danube by Basarab I. The principality was called in Slavonic and formerly by the Romanian Orthodox Metropolis as "Ungro-Vlachia" or "Wallachia near Hungary". How does the Continuity theory explain this? TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: I don't really know, I really don't care, but you can always find WP:RS who will answer your questions. Until then it's a mystery, at best. On Wikipedia it's WP:OR. But my guess would be that it might have been called something else - it's just we have no sources stating otherwise. And no, Transylvania is not of Magyar origin. Also, you seem to have no grasp whatsoever on how things work out when naming statehood entities. Hope you'll never get to talk with some German and ask them how come they call their own country Deutschland but claim to be of German descent. Oh, you should really tone it down (the "rant" thing), otherwise people like Borsoka might take offence of your "warring" attitude. Or not, since you don't disagree with him (like never disagree with him, on anything) :)Cealicuca (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit:On another note... when you find the answer to your mystery, maybe you can tackle another. Why is it that the Unites States of America is called like that, while the american-indians claim (shamelessly, right?) to be the indigenous inhabitants? If that were so it should be called something like United States of Cherokee, Appachee and Commanche or whatever :)Cealicuca (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

To the Hungarian editors who just refuse to get the gist of the argument: this (relatively minor) dispute is over the ORDER in which the names "Wallachia" and "Tara Romaneasca" should be used in THAT PARTICULAR SENTENCE RELATING TO ITS ESTABLISHMENT. Please read the sentence I just wrote a few times and we'll all save some time. As written, it's NOT historically accurate. May not look like much to most people but I think it's an important detail. And, again, someone has yet to answer my original question: why is the sentence with "Tara Romaneasca" mentioned first and "Wallachia" second NOT acceptable? If no one answers this question satisfactorily I will apply the changes accordingly.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Borsoka has right that this discussion leads to nowhere, making long statements because some evident basic wikipedia conventions are not understood. This discussion should be closed. This is my final answer to this subject. It is totally a sensible solution, for those who undertand WP practise or standards. Official is what is written in the native documents in the official adminstration, it has zero connection how the inhabitants would call on their own language the country, if it was not clear the debate has no connection to such, the fallacious argumentation shows as it assumes that it would have been denied...FYI, until 1622 there was a strict Slavic administration in Wallachia, this was the point contrary to the erroneus assumption.

The continuity theory does not have an "explanation" for this. The same is like the Transylvanian Romanians were called as "Ungurean", as they were coming from/living in Hungary. Transylvania is the transliteration of Erdő-Elve into the official documents of the Kingdom of Hungary written in Latin. "Deutsch" is originating from Old High German so I don't think any German would meet any confusion referred above.

@KIENGIR: It's extremely relevant how the native inhabitants were calling their own administrative entity as THIS article is about the ORIGIN of those people. On another note - what you just said about the translation is just one of the hypothesis. The Hungarian historians claim that, other historians disagree. You are here to write an article based on WP:RS not push your own WP:OR or any other agenda you may have. You view on any of the theories, just like my view on the same theories, is irrelevant. I may be less experienced than you, but both our opinions are just that. Opinions. Stop polluting the talk page with made-up arguments, aggressively pushing one self-serving PoV (evident to anyone who reads your "input" as well as some other editor's "contributions". One can barely find a paragraph where you don't complain about how mean and bad and "untruthful" the continuity theory is while at the same time how the migration theory explains everything). Stop provoking "debates" (Like you and TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit did with how continutity doesn't explain this and that while the topic was something else) - so that later on you and other editors who use the same tactic come and say that anything gets done so slow. Oh, and FYI - what I've learned from you and your club (and I thank you for this) is that I have to question everything you say. Slavic administration until 1622? Sure... WP:RS? Relevance towards Romanian origins? The German administration of WW2 Poland wasn't using the same term as the Polish did. How about the Ottomans when they occupied Hungary proper? Again - stop with this official non-sense. Yes, Wallachia doesn't go away - for sure, nobody said that. So for me it's unclear what your goal to this discussion is other than artificially inflaming it.

Finally, if is still not clear - unfortunately - In the English Wikipedia "Wallachia" is a well-established, undebated, long-time standing reference - as well the name of the mother article in Wikipedia - and has it's coherence to the official native name of the country, while "Țara Românească" is an inofficial apellation that was not even sure that was even used in the time of the foundation in the principality, however it does not matter, since even mentioning just "Wallachia" would be totally enough in that section, however, I have no problem in this case if the Romanian name is also mentioned in brackets after it, as this a widespread practise in WP in some cases. However, naming conventions of WP is sometimes complicated for some inexperienced users may be complicated to understand since it has many aspects, rules, possibilities in differents contexts. All in all, here of course not an inofficial name fits in the first place, but the well-established Wallachia.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I really didn't want to drag this any further. I just thought we had reached a compromise, I mean even Borsoka seemed happy (or at least so far he chose not to continue with this). Yes, nobody questioned Wallachia being in that sentence. But... WHAT? "and has it's coherence to the official native name of the country, while "Țara Românească" is an inofficial apellation that was not even sure that was even used in the time of the foundation in the principality" - are you joking? Wallachia being official native? Oh, it's just some more WP:OR. As per the discussion above, Neacsu's letter clearly establishes (as in documents) that in 1521 a Romanian, in his own language, was using Tara Romaneasca. Please input a WP:RS that Romanians, in Romanian, were using Wallachia to refer to Tara Romaneasca or until that time comes stop pushing around your own PoVs as facts - that is WP:OR. And stop with this official non-sense. As per my examples already mentioned, the "official" name off a country depends on many factors, even today, more so centuries ago when a lot of the documents were written in Latin for example, in Central and Western Europe. Documented, attested... whatever. take your pick. But there is no official in the sense you're implying ("universal" official). Not even nowadays, as shown. And stop panicking - nobody said to remove Wallachia.

"I really didn't want to drag this any further" -> Sorry, I don't believe this, and also others warned me I should not fell into this "trap" that there is a user that is inventing continous matter because of his fallacious interpretation or some other reasons to chit-chat on something, filled with various accusations and illusions. The subject had been already overdiscussed and finished also by me, I just answer to your responses personally, and after regardless what you answer, I will simply ignore this section of the talk page.

- you completely misunderstood the things...I referred that regarding the above argumentation and the current change in question is irrelevant how the native people call their own entity, because in the English WP a well established name trials on the first place. I never said generally it would not be relavant/important "how the native inhabitants were calling their own administrative entity".

- not I was the one who started discussions in this talk page in the past months, so I might answer if there is a discussion, well the hypothesis could not be disproved until now. Your teachings about WP:OR or whatsoever are not needed, everyone can tell his opinion in the talk page in general.

- "Stop polluting ...... so that later on you and other editors who use the same tactic come and say that anything gets done so slow. -> Sorry, I have to laugh, you failed the recipient, I did not do such activities, on the contrary, but I think the majority of users contributing here could easily determine for wich users really these allegations would hold :-) Btw, every issue, case, context is different, but there is always a guidline and practise or consesus about namings, even if sometimes they are complicated. For Ottoman Hungary, if there is an Ottoman name used - like for eyalets - no problem having them in the first place.

- I don't have any "club", if you are not aware how long were i.e. Slavic administration, then make an own research. Relevance was just about the discussion of the topic that went broader, it was also an information regarding when and what and how was written.

-"So for me it's unclear what your goal to this discussion is other than artificially inflaming it." -> "inflaming" what you clearly did by your former answers, btw. I am not contributing much by majority of these discussions, not even in a quantitative way, unlike others do.

- Finally, you should properly read and interpret sentences, above another user questioned the validity of the naming order, for that I reacted. I never said that "Wallachia" would be official or native (I said it has it's coherence). So your entire answer and it's content was totally useless and will be ignored.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I am truly sorry. I asked a native English-speaking person to "translate" the following, after explaining a little bit of the context (Wallachia = Exonym): "[...] "Wallachia" [...] has it's coherence to the official native name of the country" (as per what you wrote). The answer was: A - the person who wrote this has a poor understanding of the English language and misused (?) the terms "coherence" (?!) and "official native" (?!?) so this sentence is nonsense (we cannot infer anything from it). B - the person who wrote this sentence has a poor understanding of the English language (and used some automatic translation) but we could reasonably presume (s)he meant that "Wallachia" is (or should be? "coherence"?) an "official native" name. Maybe (s)he meant that "Wallachia" is correlated (linked? -> more suitable) with the native official name of the country, but that in itself would be presumptuous as from what you told me about the subject, it would still not matter. Wallachia would still remain the "official" name used no matter the term the locals would use, since it was different from the native name from the start - so there is no correlation to speak of. So sorry for the misunderstanding but the "coherence" is really confusing, especially with the "native name" (?). Nevertheless, I would also ask you to at least try to keep a pretense of neutrality. Having you, TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, and Borsoka proclaiming at every turn your contempt towards the Continuity Theory (and at the same time unconditional admiration towards the Immigration hypothesis) does you no good. Relax, it's holiday season. Take a long vacation, please do! Cealicuca (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hyperlinking

As per Wiki rules, "What generally should be linked": Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers. Therefore, "Țara Românească", a term unfamiliar to most users should be hyperlinked since its ONLY occurrence in the article is in this sentence. This is all according to Wiki rules.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The link to Țara Românească is a redirect to Wallachia and both proper names are mentioned in the same sentence as synonyms, consequently readers can understand their meaning. I will not comment on this issue any more and I strongly suggest you should seek assistance at Wikipedia:Teahouse, because you are unable to understand the core of basic policies. Borsoka (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I already gave you the Wiki rule above, so it looks like you're the one who can't understand basic Wiki policies. If "Țara Românească" is not hyperlinked in the sentence, the implication is that it's just a Romanian translation of "Wallachia", rather than the actual name of the principality-- as in, the actual official name of the country is "Wallachia" but the Romanians call it "Țara Românească". As I'm sure it's your intention, which is why you're opposing the hyperlink. With "Țara Românească" hyperlinked, it becomes clear that it's more than just a translation, without having to click on "Wallachia" and read another article to find out. I don't see how another hyperlink can hurt in any way, and it actually helps tremendously. Again, AS PER THE BASIC WIKI POLICY ABOVE, the name "Țara Românească" should be hyperlinked independently of "Wallachia". Alternatively, we may preserve the other wording of the sentence, "...led to the establishment of a new principality, Țara Românească (or "Romanian Land", also known by its exonym, Wallachia)", in which case we can only hyperlink Wallachia. So, it should be one of the two. If you don't agree with it, feel free to ask for Third-Opinion.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)