Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

RfC: two maps

The consensus is that the two maps discussed at Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 20#Maps (File:Map Length of Roman Rule Neo Latin Languages.jpg and File:Map Romanian Settling and Autonomy in Medieval Hungary.jpg) can be placed in the article.

Cunard (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

Can the two maps discussed above be placed in the article? Borsoka (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Yes, they can. They are designed by a professional cartographer, properly sourced. We would need more maps like these. I do not even understand why it is an issue. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support I think two editors display a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, importing ethnic conflicts into Wikipedia, as explained at User:Moreschi/The Plague. So I would say that the maps can be placed in the article. Of course, maps supporting the other theories could be placed as well, if they comply with WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Against Just to be clear, I'm not against maps as long as they're taken out of a WP:RS and placed within their proper theoretical context. This one is not, as it's only "verified" by Borsoka, a Wiki editor, hence amounting to WP:OR. Furthermore, that cartographer is NOT a WP:RS when it comes to the ORIGIN OF THE ROMANIANS, or else you should be able to produce some of the cartographer's academic work on the subject. Finally, if the maps in Schramm's work "verify" this cartographer's map, as Borsoka claims, why not just post a map from Schramm's book (with the proper citations and context)?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)— Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • The map is verified by a reliable source (Bereznay) not by me. We are not here to duplicate maps from existing scholarly works, especially as per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I have never claimed that these maps are verified by Schramm's work. Borsoka (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you have, right here ("Furthermore, the maps in Schramm's work verify Bereznay's map.") You either have a very short memory, seeing as you just posted that, or you are deliberately obfuscating.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• There are 3 maps. 1 of them is verified also by a map in Schramm's work. The 2 other maps are subject to this RfC. Borsoka (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support I support - as always - any properly sourced maps, as such are present in plenty of other articles; i.e. in some Romania related articles there are only present maps based on i.e. Hasdeu's origin theory, but nothing else, but nobody struggled to remove them. The more maps, the more viewpoint, the more to NPOV.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC))

• Against ...in the current form. There are several problems here.

• 1. The source is a freelance map cartographer, he does that for a living, under contract. As such, he doesn't need any historical analysis, just money and someone to pay him to compile given historical sources.
• 2. Does this cartographer offer any context (historical analysis) to this map? Is his work (in this case) simply descriptive?
• 3. Would any of you be OK with another editor randomly posting content from otherwise WP:RS that are not historians and do not have any supporting historical analysis for their maps? We're not here to build a theory on the Romanian ethnogenesis.
• 4. (!!!) Even in case the maps were to be accepted, considering the map represents a theory (graphical descriptor of the arguments that the theory presents) it cannot and should not be placed in an "Evidence" section. It is a descriptor of a theory - a theory which interprets said evidence, therefore a map that describes part of that theory is not evidence in and of itself. It should be placed in the corresponding (theory) section.
• I would also like to remind some people of WP:MEAT. As for other editors, please stop provoking and don't push the discussion to a certain direction. So far it has been civil and nobody (but you) has brought up the subject of ethnic conflicts.Cealicuca (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)— Cealicuca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(1) Bereznay's map was published by a publishing house, independent of him. Bereznay worked for the Hungarian Academy of Science and other renowned institutions. Do you think historians do not work for a salary? (2) His work is simply descriptive, based on reliable sources dedicated to the subject of the map. For instance, works written by László Makkai and Gyula Kristó (two renowned Hungarian historians) are among his sources. Any WP editor is entitled to prepare a map based on reliable sources. Why do you think a cartographer is forbidden to complete a map? (3) If it is based on reliable sources, yes. (4) The map should be put where it is connected to the article's text. (Would you please delete your bold sentence because it is disturbing. Furthermore it is baseless.) Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) Bereznay's map was indeed published by a publishing house. But is the map his research? Or was he paid (as in commercial contract - which is far from academic research) to compile/create a map on someone else's research? Is the published piece an academic research article/book? Janitors also work for a salary. Shout they also be considered reliable sources because historians also get paid for their work? (2) So if his work is simply descriptive then it should be presented as such, not as having a role in the development of any of the theories or as evidence supporting a theory. The article has a section dedicated to that. (3) The fact that it is based on WP:RS (uses WP:RS to compile data) does not make it a WP:RS. And thank you for letting us know what you consider a well sourced content. (4) The map should be placed in the section describing the theory which the map itself supposedly describes. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Again, why do you insist on placing it otherwise, and thus mislead the readers, when we already have a (small) section dedicated to this? (4) I am sorry it disturbed you, I have removed it.Cealicuca (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) I am pretty sure that Bereznay received a salary for his book. Few scholars publish their work without a proper renumeration. (2) and (4) The maps should be placed where they assist readers to understand certain aspects of the article as it is explained above. (3) Bereznay's work is a reliable source in itself: it was written by an expert and it was not self-published. Nevertheless, he refers, among others, to the following works: Erdély története ("History of Transylvania", edited by László Makkai and other historians, written by dozens of historians, its English translation can be read here [1]), Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9-14. század) ("Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th–14th centuries)", edited by Gyula Kristó and other historians, written by dozens of historians, [2]). Sorry, I do not want to force uninvolved editors to read lengthy and boring discussion, so I stop commenting this RfC. Borsoka (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) Yes. Point being - it's a freelance cartographer's work. Nothing more. It does not constitute an analysis on the Romanian ethnogenesys but, at best, it's a non-historian, non-academic graphical description of one of the theories adressing the issue. (2) Why so cryptic? Is the map presenting IT arguments? Yes. Does the article have a section dedicating to describing/summarizing IT? Yes. Does the map have anything to do with the development of the IT theory? No. Is any description of a theory a supportive argument for that theory? No. So why should it be placed in any other place than the section dedicated to that theory? (4) Sorry, I think i missed the academic peer review on this WP:RS. Could you please link it? Not any piece of work that uses WP:RS is a WP:RS. Oh, how thoughtful of you... "Sorry, I do not want to force uninvolved [...]". I actually expected you to say "Sorry, I do not understand your statement [...]".Cealicuca (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I can easily design a map, which has to be based on a reliable source and has to comply with other Wikimedia Commons' rules (e.g copyvio), and this map can be used freely on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who the author is. Even if the author was a mechanic it would not matter. Bereznay's maps are based on academic researches and his maps help to understand certain academic viewpoints.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir: While you're at it you may want to actually read why I said I oppose.Cealicuca (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support I see no reason whatsoever not to include these maps as they are relevant to the topic and are properly sourced. These maps in my opinion help illustrate the points and theories of the origins of the Romanians. I don't see how this could be a NPOV issue at all. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I can't see any valid objection to the use of these maps. As mentioned above, it really doesn't matter who made them, as long as they accurately illustrate the points made in the article. If there's some dispute as to their accuracy, that can be addressed through their placement in context, and captioning. But that doesn't seem to be at issue in this dispute. P Aculeius (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: Actually at least this map is a little bit incorrect. The legend depicts Romanian language and "other Neo-Latin" spread, c. 20. It includes areas where Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian are/were spoken - (added for clarity: but the map labels it as "Romanian") - while at the same time the article states that "Common Romanian split into four variants (Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) during the 10th-12th centuries.". So both cannot be correct at the same time. Moreover, the legend contains "Other Neo-Latin speaking in mid-C20, with language" which I suppose is an auto-translation - nevertheless should be rectified.

The last thing is that this map being a description it should not be put in the Evidence or Historiography section. Since it's not considered a WP:RS it cannot constitute "evidence" nor has it had any role in the development of any of the three theories. Would you agree to this? Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca:, please revert your message to P Aculeius, because (1) the map does not state that either Romanian or other Neo-Latin languages spread in the 20th century (so it does not contradict the article, either); (2) the legend describes the map correctly (Portuguese, Spanish, Gallego and other Neo-Latin languages are mentioned); (3) please note that the "disaccord between the effective process of Roman expansion and Romanization and the present ethnic configuration of Southeastern Europe" (Lucian Boia) is a generally accepted background of any theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. I kindly ask you to respect other editors' time and abandon this "bludgeoing" type of discussion. Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Oh, bludgeoning it is. Right :). Why revert it? If I am wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll admit it gladly. Its not that hard to check either (look at the map, read at the article). (1) The map legend states "Other Neo-Latin speaking in mid-C20, with language". Could you explain what that does refer to? (3) Thank you for sharing your "generally accepted background" research with us. Could you possibly quote the specific statement in the IT section? Furthermore, how does that solve the two conflicting pieces of information? I gave a direct quote from the article, as well as a direct quote from the map.Cealicuca (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You cannot make distinction between the words "speaking" and "spreading" and you cannot understand basic sentences in English. Sorry, I do not have time to play your game. Borsoka (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh... you mean this sentence? The legend depicts Romanian language and "other Neo-Latin" spread? As in noun, not verb. The extent, width, or area covered by something. (ETA to make it clearer: In this context, the area covered by Neo-Latin language speaking populations). I am sorry you were not able to understand this.Cealicuca (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca:I believe "mid-C20" means "mid-20th Century", not "circa 20 AD", and "neo-Latin" here refers to the modern Romance languages, the distribution of which is relatively uncontroversial. As far as I can tell the map doesn't claim to directly describe the spread of Latin, only the length of Roman rule, which is much easier to obtain data on. Obviously these two things are juxtaposed to explain the basis for a theory, but as far as I can tell the map itself doesn't make any questionable claims (unless you have reason to believe that the given lengths of Roman rule are inaccurate). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent: I am a bit confused - I did not say "circa 20 AD". I was referring to the following: It includes areas where Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian are/were spoken - (added for clarity: but the map labels it as "Romanian") - while at the same time the article states that "Common Romanian split into four variants (Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) during the 10th-12th centuries.". So both cannot be correct at the same time. - so basically the map says that mid 20th century Romanian is spoken in several areas which comes into conflict with what the article says (those areas being the ones where actually Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian are spoken.Cealicuca (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the map describes all mid-20th-century Romanian variants (Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) as Romanian. Please, do not play this game. It is boring. Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support including informative maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualitist (talk • contribs) 08:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Both maps represent information within the realm of recorded history as far as I can tell, so as long as they're accurate (which they very much seem to be), the circumstances of their creation are irrelevant. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent The first map (re Neo-Latin languages) is fine as far as I can tell. The second one, however, bears the contentious and tendentious caption at the bottom that reads "Settling Romanians" but neither the article itself (nor the map info) offers any further explanation as to what that means: how do we know that those settlements were not already settled before the Hungarians (or whoever) recorded them? Actually, even the Hungarian editor above states this "It refers to the transfer of land previously held by them to the monastery of Cârța, which proves that this territory had been inhabited by Vlachs before the monastery was founded." So, it's Settled Romanians, not Settling Romanians (a subtle but important distinction). Shouldn't the caption then read "Romanian settlements"? If the caption is changed/cropped then I'd be in favor of including it, with the mention that it represents the Romanian settlements as recorded in those times by the Hungarians, etc (also important). Finally, where in the article should the maps be placed? I don't know if you're aware of it, but there's been a discussion about the restructuring of this article (you may want to take a look), which would go a long way towards clarifying the context of each map (or future inclusions).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

There is not any "contentious and tendentious" caption, you just combinate to much, it is obvious that "Settling Romanians" means a continous activity between 1200-1400. The further info is on the upright of the image, accurate as possible without any contradiction you try to insist, neutrally where is presence and when and what is mentioned in the documents. Moreover other Hungarian Royal documents clearly express when and where villages were founded and if Romanians were settled or allowed to be settled (and also in case where from). Regarding Kerc (Cârța), preceding to it is documented that Romanians were settled to Szeben and Fogaras Counties, and it is not far away, including not having a complete sedentary life still. So it cannot be "settled", since the map represent a continous activity - and to crop the original work based on any OR should be avoided - anyway it was written beneath explanation like "Spread of the Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary between around 1200 and 1400" that is totally correct.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC))

The map is an illustration of the last 8-10 sentences under the title "Sources on present-day Romania". Borsoka (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I found a source which seems to back up the idea of a spread suggested by the title:

The spread of Romanians in Transylvania and the neighbouring counties can be followed with relative certainty. They are first mentioned in the region of Flăgăraş (Fogaras) in the early thirteenth century, then later in the counties of Hunyad and Fehér in 1292 and 1293 respectively. From here they spread westwards and eastwards through the counties of Zaránd (1318), Krassó (1319), Bihar (1326), Arad (1337), Kraszna (1341) and Temes (1333), and within Transylvania itself. Their arrival in great numbers was the outcome of a deliberate settlement policy on the part of the monarch and the local landowners.

However, I think it would still be prudent to have a caption which makes clear that the map only directly represents the earliest written records of these settlements, especially given the blue areas, which are most likely to have been around earlier. It would also be useful if someone could find a source which deals with the more detailed information that KIENGIR suggests is given in Hungarian royal documents. It seems @Andras Bereznay: is active, so possibly they could help us with this issue. Otherwise, if there's a good academic source seriously disputing the idea of a spread into Transylvania during this time (/one that claims most of these settlements were there already) then I'd be fine with the title being changed to "Romanian Settlements (1200–1400)" or something like that. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 23:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In a way I don't understand what would be the problem with the caption, in the map, upper left and upper right is written "first mention", "first reference" (=earliest written record), so it is already included. As well I don't see why the "Spread of the Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary between around 1200 and 1400" title would be changed, it is perfect, regardless of any claims of any origin theory it is a fact the the settlements spread on and on as they are documented and dated, moreover the King soon from the beginning of the period gave the right also to the landlords and cnezes to improve and render the settling policy. Regarding the Royal Charters, there is no problem, i.e. this work is dealing with them.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC))

I think the caption could be changed to "Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary (c. 1200–c. 1400)". We can also add the following sentence: "The map presents the Romanians as a mobile pastoralist population, with permanent settlements first appearing in the late 13th century." Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent First off, the only place in the article for this map is in the IT section, with the specific mention that this represents IT. Again, I have to refer to that NPOV discussion, as it becomes clearer by the day that (at the very least) an expansion of those sections (DRCT/IT/AT) at the top of the article is needed for clarity and fair NPOV presentation of the theories (which is why, for instance, even the debate above regarding the Carps to Albania "theory" resulted in the added DRCT mention). As for the continuous presence of a Romanian population in Transylvania (covering the area and time frame in the map), the academic sources are plenty so I'll just mention a couple: Ioan-Aurel Pop (current president of the Romanian Academy) in his work "Romanian Identity" (2017) ("Places, People and Communities" p. 159-176), or the oldie but goldie by academician Nicolae Draganu "Romanians in the IX-XIV Cen. on the basis of Toponomy & Onomastics" (from which a "Romanian settlements" map will be included in the article shortly, as it's in public domain). In any event, we're not here to argue over which WP:RS is correct or not, our job is simply to present the WP:RS as clearly and neutrally as possible. Point is, the map in question here does not describe a "settling" population, but rather a combination of already established communities with some that, surely, were founded during that time period. So, I agree with @Borsoka here in that the main title/caption should read "Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary (c. 1200–c. 1400)", but without that additional explanation because I fail to see how the map "presents the Romanians as a mobile pastoralist population, etc"-- should we draw some sheep on the map to make it more informative (one map sheep = 1000 real sheep)? Something more neutral, such as "The map presents Romanian settlements as recorded by Hungarian officials between the 13th-14th Centuries" might work better. And, needless to say, this is purely IT so it only belongs in that section.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) We cannot say that the map represents the "immigration theory" unless we assume that a map presenting the first contemporaneous records of the Romanians' presence in Transylvania is by nature an "immigrationist" map. Consequently, it should be placed where it illustrates the text. (2) The shorter caption is OK. (3) Of course, Romanian historians' maps about the continuous presence of Romanians in Transylvania from the 3rd century could also be placed in the article. Yes, I remember Pop's maps showing Romanian districts first mentioned in the 12th-16th centuries as an illustration of this view. Borsoka (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with additional sentence Borsoka proposed. Yes, the map has not any connection to any theories, it just simply presenting a factal situation. "as recorded by Hungarian officials" is totally needless, since who else would "record" them in Hungary, on the contrary is not just a "record", since the villages were continously created and founded, is not that something "Hungarian officials" would know much later some events in their own country after more hundred years where administration and tax paying is applied, and yes the map represents a settling population, since in this period point by point after the initial settlemets the villages were created on and on (with the grant and permittance of the officials), it is a process with a natural by-product that if a settlement was already created it became already established comparing to that was founded later.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC))

Earliest mentions of Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary. Some see this as evidence for Romanians first spreading throughout the region around the 13th century, while others argue that their earlier presence had just gone unrecorded. It is agreed some settlements were new, as founding dates were sometimes recorded in Hungarian documents.

I agree with Borsoka’s point (1) that the best place for the map is in the “Historic background” section. Even if the map did represent a theory, the debate is the main topic of the article so it wouldn’t follow that mention of any disputed ideas should be limited to one section. However, either the caption or the article should reflect that the interpretation of the information shown is the subject to debate. For example:

As for the title (on the image itself), unless it is agreed that at least half the settlements were probably the result of recent migration, it ought to be changed. However, without the change I wouldn’t consider this serious enough to disqualify it from being displayed on the article as long as we have a balanced caption. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your suggestion. I would avoid referring to books published before 1945. The subject is over-politcised and it was even more politicised in the 1930s and 1940s. Therefore, I would not refer to Tamás Lajos and Nicolae Drăganu's books mentioned above. What about the following caption? "Earliest mentions of Romanian settlements in official documents in the Kingdom of Hungary. Some see this as evidence for the northward spread of Romanian settlements in the 13th and 14th centuries; others say that the earlier existence of Romanian settlements had just gone unrecorded." Borsoka (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

More than fair. With that said and done I don't think there's much point changing the title since a) it's a hassle, b) clearly there was some settling, c) the legend is already very clear about its sources, and any remaining ambiguity is prevented by the caption. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear ReconditeRodent. Thank you for your kind invitation to contribute to this to my mind unbelievably annoying, fruitless, phony debate. I resent extremely what I find being Wikimedia's value system, approach. All about side issues, formalities, authoritarian considerations as if all that would be what decides about merit, and never about substance. People seem to engaged in the main to coerce each other under one pretext and another. Meanwhile the tangible seething hatred felt by some is enwarapped into a pseudo polite, bogus academic wording. It is not my intention to be part of any such things. I regret my having contributed to Wikimedia which I hope not needing to open ever again. In all honesty, the disgust and resentment I feel is far too strong. Sorry. Andras Bereznay (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As for the image title, I still see no problem since regardless of any origin or migration theory the "settling" was an open practice and policy, i.e., as well for the Saxons earlier, I have to emphasize the third time that initially the King's approval allowed any settling and later this right was given other "officials" or noble in the behalf of the King. Regarding the caption proposed by ReconditeRodent, I think it is too long and the various interperations of the evidence of the emerging settlements should be restricted on that section where the map would be placed. Borsoka's suggestion is much shorter, however I think as just mentioned before, whe should not make such interpretation in the caption, thus the initial "Romanian settlements between 1200 and 1400 in the Kingdom of Hungary" I would consider enough (and noone could debate it, since it is independent from any theory or approach, totally neutral). Regarding the Pop source - I don't know it's content, I can just draw what was presented here - the so-called "unrecorded" interpretation is the traditional base of support a weird theory that rides through the missing evidence in support of the continuity theory that Romanians were there just they were not recorded suprisingly until in the Hungarian documents they appeared, suggesting Transylvania was not conquered for 300 years, that is highly fringe and also contradicting other various evidence. As well, it would be surprising that why the unrecorded Romanian villages would chose Hungarian names, because only in the 14th the first Romanian toponyms appeared. As well, many villages were not originally Romanian villages, but so-called twin-villages were set as Romnians were settled next to any existing Hungarian village copying it's name to Romanian, and finally the village were united - even the name - and by some time some villages became entirely Romanian (like Gurusada, first it was mentioned as "Zad" = Szád = "mouth", while Gura was added that in Romanian means the same). Of course, late on some villages like Râușor, immediately was founded with a Romanian name etc. So we have to be very careful what we write down, the shorter and most neutral is the easiest and less controversial.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC))

@ReconditeRodent a) I don't see how changing the title is a "hassle" (it takes 2 min in Photoshop and Borsoka already offered to change it) and, besides, why is "being a hassle" even an excuse to populate the article with misleading information? (if you disagree on this then let's ask for another opinion). b) clearly there was some settling, BUT in order for the map to bear the title "Settlling Romanians" you'd need to show that 100% of those locations match that description (which is not the case here), else it's "Romanian settlements"; you may also be under the impression that these were the result of some systematic census but that can't be further from the truth, these are mostly records for various administrative purposes (taxes, etc); all formal censuses ever conducted (and even anecdotal evidence) show the Romanians being in the majority in those areas at all times (but I'll let the WP:RS speak for themselves in the article). c) the caption is fine (though, again, the title ought to be changed to the more neutral "Romanian settlements"). d) I can see why you'd think this belongs in the "Historic Background" section but wait until 4-5 more maps are added (to reflect DRCT and AT spread, settlements, etc) and we'll end up with a hot mess, with the article already being plagued by confusion (every neutral arbitrator ever to comment on our disputes agreed on this); so, again, I suggest expanding the sections at the top of the article and inserting the maps there for clarity and NPOV.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(a) and (c) I did not offer to change it. The caption shows that no universally accepted interpretation of the data presented in the map is available. (b) The Hasdeu map is much more controversial, depicting a marginal theory, but it is placed under the "Development of Romanian" section. Nothing implies that the Romanians formed the majority of the population before the 17th century, but this RfC section is not the proper place to discuss this issue. (d) The map does not present a theory, but a fact. Consequently, it can be placed in the proper context within the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making edits while the discussion is ongoing.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka "I think the caption could be changed to "Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary (c. 1200–c. 1400)"" Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)" (see above) That's what I was referring to.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you realized that I reverted an edit which was made during an ongoing discussion? Have you realized that you reverted my edit that provided the caption which is "fine", according to your own words above? However, I can accept this caption as well. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I made a slight mistake there, sorry, your caption was fine, just crop the bottom of that map or change the wording and we're good. Re. Hasdeu, you may notice that the map is properly contextualized within the DRCT.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think right now the map and the caption is fine. What you wanted regarding the wording has been completed. As well Borsoka's remarks are holding. Regarding your point b), as well we don't wish to crop those Hungarian, Slavic, ancient or other etc. other names that Drăganu identified as Romanian (Alcsút, Felcsút, Tata, Temesvár, Toplica, Vad, Sziget, Feketerdő, Brassó, Bihar and many others), beucase it part of the author's work and interpretation (considering here really we could judge much broadly and easily what would not match the description.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC))

@Borsoka You have yet to change the title of that map and if you don't then I will. Currently it reads "SETTLING ROMANIANS; AUTONOMY", which is strange to say the least. We've already discussed the "Settling" issue but even more egregious here is the word "AUTONOMY"-- whose "autonomy" and from whom? Where's "autonomy" discussed in the article? What does that have to do with anything? So that title needs to go. p.s. I realize that there's a small "autonomous" Romanian enclave on the map, but why does the word "autonomy" need to be in bold capital letters in the title? Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not have to change the title, because the author of the map can only decide what is the title of a map. I could not change the title of a book either, even if I do not like its title or regard it as a POV. However, I expanded the caption in order to explain what autonomy means to those who do not know this word. Borsoka (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan:, you cannot change the map without the author's permission. Please refrain from copyvio because it may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong, the author of the map gave specific licensing rights, which you can read here, which includes "share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.", which is what I've done already. Perfectly legal.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Please, seek advice on this issue at the relevant notice board. Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't done anything wrong but you seem very confused so please seek advice. In the meantime I'm putting the cropped image back in.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

But you did, since without consensus you intitiated a change, although the addition of the map as it is is supported by this RFC. Moreover, there is nothing "egregious", neither with settling, nor with autonomy, since settling represent the open and official settling policy, while autonomy refers to the lands granted to the Romanian landlords in return for their allegiance to the King (i.e. Máramaros, etc.)(KIENGIR (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC))

@KIENGIR Please refrain from making any further changes to that map and read the thread above for clarification. You seem a bit confused, feel free to ask questions.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You are clarly harming WP rules and accuse others about confusion? Sorry, I have to refuse such as well, if you are not aware what you are doing, you have to ask questions. I read all the discussion, your self-casted POV cropped map (you name it clarification or not) did not gain any consensus and goes against the RFC, thus you have no right to remove the current map and put another one (that you did at least three times and because of this it is really the time you should refrain from making any further changes)(KIENGIR (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

Listen, I don't have time to waste, we've already been over this (see Borsoka's comment above: "I think the caption could be changed to "Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary (c. 1200–c. 1400)"" Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)" The caption wasn't changed so I cropped it. Legally, as per Wiki rules, which I linked to above. So, everything was done on the up and up, as per talk page and Wiki rules. If you have any issues please kick this up to arbitration or take whatever recourse you think might be necessary.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Borsoka spoke about the caption that was as it was recommended, why you wish to mislead the community and identify it in support of something that does not hold? No way, you were just explained two times why your are against wiki rules and why you changes in the page is not legal, as per talk page. Also in the edit logs you mislead the community, since not I am the "abusive" editor two fo us, moreover I referred to the talk page also earlier, and RFC is also a reference to the talk page. I am sorry you inititated an edit warring...(KIENGIR (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

---

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

Daco-Romanian theory

@Iovaniorgovan:, I really like your edits because they demonstrate the scholarly level of the continuity theory. Consequently, I kindly ask you, try to take into account that this is the English version of Wikipedia and most of the readers of this article do not speak Romanian. If Pop (the president of the Romanian Academy of Sciences) writes that the preservation of the Latin word for emperor (împăratul) evince the continuous presence of the Romanians outside the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, please translate this Romanian word (and all other Romanian words). Another question: are you sure that Pop says that archaeological finds evince the presence of a Romanized population only until the 9th century? If this is the case, we should emphasize it, otherwise the sentence should be modified. Borsoka (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what he says and I'll add one of the books he references to the citation (for what it's worth, though his statement alone should suffice). Also, this is an ongoing (and slow) process of adding stuff to the section and I'd appreciate it if you could stay out of the way as much as possible, as I didn't interfere with your recent edits/additions to the IT section. I see you're constantly editing/adding/deleting, etc, the IT section, which is normal and I let you do your thing. As long as you present WP:RS and cut down on redundancy (though some is to be expected, seeing as we're basically moving stuff from the subsections into the main sections, but we can clean that up later), it's fine with me. So I expect reciprocity in turn. I just added that sentence 15min ago, I wasn't done with it (I'll add the English translation to those words shortly, don't worry about it.)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick answer. Of course, I will respect your precious work. @Cealicuca:, I only want to secure that there is no misunderstanding, and the president of the Romanian Academy of Sciences actually writes that the presence of a Romanized population can archaeologically be detected in the lands to the north of the Danube between the 4th and 9th centuries. Could you check it? I would be grateful if you also check whether Pop refers to the preservation of the Latin word for imperator in the parts of his work which list evidences for the continuity theory. We should not write that the preservation of this word hundreds of miles away from the frontiers of the Eastern Roman Empire proves the continuity, according to Pop, if he does not write it and he only emphasizes the strong Latin heritage of the Romanian language (as far as I can remember this is a usual part of his works). Borsoka (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is a lot closer to a good collaboration. If you could (please) tone down the condescending tone a little bit ("respect your precious work") it would be great. Anyway - yes, I'll try to see what's what when the time permits (sometime this week). Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: @Iovaniorgovan: So, about the Pop WP:RS... I think the relevant section is found on p. 148:

• Romanian:

[...] Romaniile populare sunt nuclee de viata social-politica de traditie romana, pe care le-au conservat daco-romanii la nord de Dunare si care au supravietuit alaturi de (si in paralel cu) alte structuri politice, impuse de migratori. Aceste nuclee, prin mijlocirea carora romanii au mostenit imparatul/imparatia [...] adica acea componenta romana sau romano-bizantina a institutiilor lor medievale, nu au fost inventate de Nicolae Iorga, ci doar denumite de el astfel [...]

• and you're probably interested in the following English translation:

[...] people's Roman-like polities are the center of traditional roman sociopolitical life. They were maintained north of the Danube by daco-romans and survived alongside other political structures imposed by [conquering] migratory people. These sociopolitical centers, by means of which romanians preserved [words like] ("imparatul"/"imparatia") ([lit.] (the) emperor/(the) empire) [...] or what constitute(s) the roman or eastern-roman component of their [daco-roman] medieval institutions, have not been an invention of Nicolae Iorga's, but rather described by him using the term [...]

I tried to preserve the concept described in the text so the translation is less literal.Cealicuca (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, these words have nothing to do with the Romanians' ethnogenesis north of Lower Danube, according to Pop. He does not claim that those words suggest that the Romanians developed to the north of the river, instead he says that those words suggest that the Romanians preserved ancient Roman concepts, such as "emperor". Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Your "understanding" is incorrect. Pop clearly states on the previous page (147) that he's talking about statal structures belonging in turn to the Daco-Romans, proto-Romanians and then Romanians. Statal structures that originated and were preserved both north of the Danube and to the south of the Lower Danube.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

So we cannot state that this fact is a significant part of the continuity theory, because it could have happened to the south of the Lower Danube as well. If Pop does not state that these words are evidence for the continuous presence of the Romanians' ancestors to the north of the river, we cannot refer to him to substantiate our original research. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from trying to somehow "divine" what WP:RS are saying, without reading the actual text. Pop clearly states that these terms/words are evidence of a continuous presence to the north of the Danube. His theory is that the process happened both north and (to a certain extent) to the south of the river. He does not say that it might've happened either north or south, but that it happened both ways. It's actually mentioned in the article, as that's part of the theory, which I guess you're not familiar with ("historical and ethnic conditions for the formation of the Romanian people (mainly Daco-Getae and Latinized people) existed both North and South of the Danube via the natural movements of populations over a large Romanized territory").Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Neither you, nor Cealicuca have so far quoted a single text from Pop which suggests that these words could only be preserved to the north of the river. Borsoka (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to read the book and maybe you'll "get" it eventually. In the meantime I don't need to explain anything further to you. Pop says what he says and that's what's in the article (free of any distortion), as the other editor independently verified. End of.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@@Borsoka: "So we cannot state that this fact is a significant part of the continuity theory, because it could have happened to the south of the Lower Danube as well". as well as "Neither you, nor Cealicuca have so far quoted a single text from Pop which suggests that these words could only be preserved to the north of the river." Care to take this kind of argumentation and your list of "evidence" and "neutral facts" to the boards? Please do so - I am personally getting tired of this logical fallacy you keep professing on this page. Maybe you need a couple more moderators shutting this thing down...Cealicuca (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You are really surprising. Do you claim that Pop says those words prove that the Romanians developed north of the Danube. Please read the quotes: he says that those words prove that the north-Danubian Romanians must have had contacts with the south Danubian territories. However, the article does not say this. Please continue to pretend civility. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually what Pop says, in the piece of text I translated (and if you don't agree with the translation please say so - I'm not saying it's perfect...) is that Daco-Romans preserves traditionally roman sociopolitical entities north of the Danube, even while there were parallel political entities imposed by the migratory people. Moreover, those preserved (or maintained) sociopolitical entities helped preserve words like "emperor" since those words were integral to said sociopolitical entities. Do you agree with that or not? Because I'm not clear what it is you're actually saying is wrong.Cealicuca (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, nothing proves in the quote that Pop connects these words with the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people. He says that the Romanians preserved Romanian institutions. Iovaniorgovan defended the case through quoting an other text which mention the movement of people across the border. If movemrnt from the south to the north were necessary to preserve a word, we should not mention it to prove a northern presence or should mention that the (allegedly) close contacts with the south-Danubian theories secured its preservation. Sorry, I think it is time to close this debate. Borsoka (talk)|

"nothing proves in the quote that Pop connects these words with the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people" - I suggest you read the paragraph again. And again. And again. Maybe then you'll stop taking things out of context. What you do here is exactly what you did with the archaeological finds near the salt mines...

What I translated can be summarized (I'll try to keep to short sentences... maybe it will be easier to understand, ok?), for the purpose of this discussion, as "The institutions were preserved north of the Danube. The words (like emperor...) were preserved too, as being a (big) part of those institutions. The words represent the specific roman / eastern roman component of these medieval institutions." - quite simple. That puts emphasis on the words as well as the institutions. The words were used in describing the core of the institutions and there is a mutual connection between them and the institution. The connection to the north of the Danube is made via the institutions preserved... north of the Danube (because this is what he's talking about). The fact that it might have happened south of the Danube too is irrelevant because what is important is that, according to the source, it DID happen North of the Danube (where the contention is). Do you understand now?Cealicuca (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Restructuring the article

This is to bring up to speed the johnny-come-lately editors who haven't been keeping up with the Talk pages and the latest moderator's suggestions. The agreed-upon overriding principle for the editing of this article is to present no evidence without explaining its relevance to an Origin of the Romanians theory (see Talk above for @Srnec's suggestions, among others, etc). Therefore, all the "info dump" sections currently in the article will be deleted, just like the Linguistic Approach section was deleted for being redundant and presenting "evidence" disconnected from either of the three theories (DRCT, IT, AT). Whatever is in those bottom sections (Toponymy, Archeological Data, Historiography, etc) will be either 1) deleted, or 2) incorporated into the top sections (DRCT, IT, AT) by linking the "evidence" to a corresponding WP:RS, or 3) will be moved onto another Wiki page (the Linguistic Approach data, for instance, was already to be found in another Wiki article on the Origin of Romanian, so there are Wiki pages with similar topics where we can dump this stuff if needed). So, again, please read this carefully before undoing other editors' actions or otherwise obstructing the process. Wiki administrators are watching this page and I think we should show some common sense while going through this process. Thanks.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@KIENGIR I see you've decided to revert to the map with the title when there's already an ongoing Talk about it above. Since there were unresolved disagreements about the title of the map, due process required you to go through the requisite steps, such as asking for a third opinion, etc. No problem though. Here's what you can do if you really want that map in the article. 1) you need to move it to the IT section (since the Toponymy section will be purged) by stating how exactly that map of Romanian settlements figures into the Immigrationist Theory; in other words, find a WP:RS within IT that says something to the effect that "those were the only/first Romanians/Vlachs living in those lands at the time..." or some such, and 2) explain in the caption (and/or in the IT section) that the "Autonomy" in the map title refers to the autonomy of that Romanian enclave in Maramures.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There is not any ongoing discussion, it is obvious as per WP rules what has to be done in such cases - that you were told countless time in multiple places, so I won' repeat it thorougly again and again. Despite, as again your activity and your comments show, you still do not understand properly how editing process or dispute resolution is ongoing in Wikipedia. There are not any "unresolved disgareement about the title of the map", the RFC result is clear. You, personally raised a disagreement, but instead of trying to build consensus, you started without it to do actions, thus harming a bunch of rules. The process works like so: if you manage to build consensus, only then you can act, but if before any other community decision or any former consensus is against your action, or if you do a bold edit but others with a revert or in the talk page indicate that there is a diasgreement, then you have to stop, and you have to try to build consensus and naturally the page will be reset to the former version. If you manage to convince the community, then you may do the edit, if not you have to let it go. It is still funny you wish to turn Wikipedia rules upside down by applying the BRD process vica versa....no I don't have ask for any third opinion, I have no obligation to do anything, since I have no problem with the result of the RFC. Such unprofessional statements like "Here's what you can do if you really want that map in the article" or any "to do-list" is again completelyIovaniorgovan (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC) reinforcing you lack of competence about WP editing, since again, there is already community decision that the map can be inlcuded in the article.

On the other hand, also I recommend you to stop since the rest what you have written about this section, I indicate now that there is not any consensus for any later change until the debate of the recent changes are not resolved, already many cases are open, and many for them there was no consensus. Just because there is a suggestion of third parties, it does not mean a new consensus is built, also other's opinion count, as well, just because you announce what you will delete from the article, it does not mean a green light, no way, you just simply do not understand what consensus means. The Linguistic section was also deleted without consensus, since immediately an editor per the answer indicated his diasagreement, as well other's expressed it, and I also join, it will be undone along with any edits where consensus failed until now. And, there are not any "johnny-come-lately editors", consensus building is not always a rapid process, almost everybody contributes in a few days, anyway WP rules does nout bound in time, this cannot be an excuse. So be very careful not to do any further changes, planned purges or deletions without community support or consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC))

Let me again remind you what all the independent moderators have had to say about this article in the past few months, in case you've forgotten (as compiled by @Cealicuca and presented on the NPOV noticeboard):

• How an editor characterizes the content of the article: [...] In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruse as it is. [...] How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? [...]
• An editor's suggestion on how the article should look like: [...] This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. [...]
• An editor's description of sections in the article: [...] The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. [...]
• How another editor describes the article: [...] I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence [...]
• Another editor's take on how confusing the content of the article is: [...] I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two.[...]
• Again, the same editor providing a reader's perspective: [...] so I might not be able to add much to this other than offer the perspective of the reader. If there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained. It is not clear which theory is being discussed in the paragraph in question, and adding a single sentence about the other theory only makes things more confusing, rather than adding balance. [...]
• Finally, consensus does not mean unanimity, here's the Wiki definition "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." You must respect third parties' (unanimous) suggestions regarding the proper application of Wiki policies and guidelines in this article, or you're clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The restructuring of the article will proceed as per the guidelines outlined above.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat content. As I saw, the editors you are debating with took into consideration the whole or part of the suggestions of third parties. Regarding the last part, I know very well what that means, but you should not misinterpret or misuse it, there are next to strict regulations also other rules in which cases when you may have different treatment but also it has to comply with legitimation while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Also multiple times your suggestions has been respected (many times with much broader tolerance that you did the opposite way), you cannot say the opposite, meanwhile with your current stance you don't wish to take in cosideration more editors considerations, and/or if you are in a clear minority with a concern that is barely legitimate, it does not mean may misuse this last pharagraph. "The restructuring of the article will proceed as per the guidelines outlined above"-> be careful again, in spite of taking consideration of some editors, you cannot ignore other groups as well, and if you continue purging and deleting and reverting in such a way, than you'll justify not being here build an encyclopedia.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC))

Even though we disagree on most things here, I sincerely hope that you can make the IT section as good as it can be (especially considering that you have access to Hungarian WP:RS). Wouldn't that be great for everybody, instead of endlessly fighting over minutiae?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not fight with anyone, I did respect the rules and not because of me the current situation arose. In order to create a good article, enough time is needed, point-py-point it may be done, however, as I said, until the issues regarding the "Daco-Roman" section next to the improper deletions are not well set, until generating new issues are not recommended, thus I will wait until the other involved editors will react and comment on the current happenings.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC))

Nearly the entirety of Iovaniorgovan's and Cealicuca's editing history and commentary on this page and others can be summed up with one sentence: Rules for thee, but not for me. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is the rule that I apply to others and not to me?Cealicuca (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Cealicuca, you think seriously I have to cite an RS for an obvious huge fallacy that would only written down that does not have an ivory-tower-scholar knowledge of basic history, toponimy, or even the Hungarian language?? Seems an OR misinterpretation what is written down and/or in the source, or if it was really there it has to be considered fringe and should not be cited....but I think simply the one who inserted misread/misinterpreted the source by it's own OR...

"Some" is not weasel, since only Frumoasa may be valid, anyway, the vast majority of the the toponyms were anyway not of Romanian origin, thus many would be anyway not valid...

Sajó: Old Hungarian word form the old Árpád Era, the combination of só = (salt), and jó (good), many placanemaes and rivers located in the entire Carpathian Basin, the same meaning in Slovak (Slaná), nothing do to with "quick". Anyway the city of Sajó was first mentioned in 1373, the other next to Beszterce - Nagysajó - in 1319 (!!!), such ridiculous and hilarious stupitidy cannot be written down that is was translated between 1940-44 (!!!!)

Beszterce: is a commonly used Hungarian form of the Slavic Bystrica, that from countless toponyms from all the the Carpathian Basin is used and Hungarians consistently used the form "Beszterce", since the Conquest of the Carpathian Basin, so again, such stupidity cannot be written down that it would emerge between 1940-1944, to say nothing of it has zero connection to Romanians, since Hungarians took form the Slavs! The other conceptual fallacy is that especially Bistrița (Siret) was called by Hunagrian as "Aranyos-Beszterce", not just "Beszterce". The one who inserted this again commited the same mistake like with Sebes-Frumoasa, confusing the main river with its tributary and their etymologies (!!! that are not same), since the "Bistrița River (Someș)" that section refers to the tributary of Sajó!!! But anyway is was called since always Beszterce by Hungarians!

Alsóbeszterce - 1411

Beszterce (city) - 1141

Borgóbeszterce - 1750

Besztercebánya - 12th century

Felsőbeszterce - 1411

Máriabeszterce - 1209

Óbeszterce - 1417

Pozsonybeszterce - 1314

Tapolybeszterce - 1312

Újbeszterce - 1316

So please, check twice before reinserting such a shameful and amateur mistake! Jesus Christ!(KIENGIR (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC))

Cool down, ok? Some is just as weasel as many (considering that not everything is listed, but a couple of examples are given). It's curious how you can condemn "many" but not some. Anyway, with the Sojo, it was not accurately cited. I changed that. For all the other observations of yours - so far, unfortunately, they are mere observations. Please note that the citation is not "translated" but "changed the Romanian names of toponyms and anthroponyms into their Hungarian equivalents" which is something quite different. For all your other observations, the super heavy use of super duper epithets doesn't make them true or false. It just makes your observations less likely to be taken serious. Please back them up with some good sources and we'll fix it ASAP. I will modify / remove the text myself in such a case. Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to make this clearer - I think you didn't read what those examples are for. I put the relevant text in the comment to my undo of your undo. Basically it's an example how when territory changes "hands" - a new administratio - that administration changes the names of places and geographical units. I do not dispute what you're saying (that long epithet filled passionate statement about Sojo and Bisztrice) but basically it's irrelevant, what is relevant was that the names were changed by the new administration. I am sure this has happend many many times, in more places than Romania (Transylvania), through history. At least this is my take 17:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Iovaniorgovan (talk)on this piece of text.Cealicuca (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, your entire argumentation is fallacious, you did not read carefully what I have written.

- What is not accurately cited, is the source as it was also with Sebes - confusing the main river with the tributary, etc.

- What I have written are not just observations, they are facts

- My epithets pinpointed how fringe and unprofessional things happening sometimes by OR and lack of synthesis or misinterpreation sources (and this one is one of the greatest I ever met on Wikipedia in more years)

- "It just makes your observations less likely to be taken serious" -> Sorry, not for professionals or anyone who have even a basic adequate knowledge on the subject

- Please have in mind that if you claim an RS that is fringe or drawn by a false synthesis or OR, it is not needed to find an RS that reflect especially of a combinative mistake of the inserting editor or the source, it is simply reverted as per BRD, and if the the claimant verifies the content undoubtedly and the argumentation is verified or not objected by the community only then comes the reinsertion into question

- "I think you didn't read what those examples are for" -> Sorry this goes to you and/or who made the original bold edit (as immediately noticed by the fallacious confusion of Sebes and Frumoasa). In the following, I will reflect it again just to see what kind of ridiculous and unprofessional things are going on:

- About your "new administration" contemplation, Hungarians did not had to invent anything new, since they changed back those names that were used before 1920. In exceptional cases - possibly as by Frumoasa - when historically there was never registered a Hungarian name for a little tributary, but had a known Romanian name, equvivalents could have put, but in a microscopic amount. But claiming to invent new names that were existing since a millenium is obviously false, and any serious editor based on it's own good faith should not put misleading content after if the huge problems are pinpointed.

- So again, a demonstration of the overlapping huge conceptual mistakes:

- 1. Sajó is name/word of Hungarian origin, reinforced by a proper source, recorded and used anyway since the early times of the Kingdom of Hungary

- 2. The statement you insert "Hungarian sajó: “quick/salty river”" -> is false, since it has NO CONNECTION by any means to the word "quick" (reinforced as well by the source).

- 3. Consequently, the same mistake was commited by the one who confused Sebes with it's own tributary, Frumoasa, artificially forging not existing words and meanings in Hungarian like "szebes" and pair it with falsely with existing words like "Szép", although could not have any connection, not even with the proper form of meaning. In other words the Bystrita tributary of Siret was originally confused with Sajó, althouth they don't have any connection, neither by location, neither by etymology! As I reflected, by the insertion or by the sources the one confused it with Bistrița River (Someș)! However, all the deduction is false and fallacious by the overlapping mistakes, since Sajó was never an equivalent of Bistrița, as for the falsely inserted Bistrița (Siret) there was never an equivalent of "Beszterce", but "Aranyos-Beszterce", only for the Bistrița River (Someș) was the equivalent "Beszterce", but this was never inserted before! If it is still not clear for you, read it again and again and slowly read one-by-one the original insertion!

And it does not change anything or makes it better that by your revert you changed the wording [3], and you "separated" Sajó and Bistrita (Siret) with "and", because it you did by on your own OR to try to save the sentence, but even the start was there was a bunch overlapping conceptual fallacies of the original insertion! As the original insertion meant only to insert only Bystrita regarding "equvivalents" and nothing to do with Sajó! (becase Bistrița River (Someș) is the tributary of Șieu (Sajó))!!!!

4. Consequently, nothing has to be further proven with Sajó, since orginially (similarly to Sebes) was not part of the original trial of equivalents, since as Bystrita is a tributary of Sajó (Șieu), the same way was Frumoasa the tributary of Sebes. (= in other words, one of your modifications corrected a huge error of the initial bold edit, the second modification of yours was fallacious OR that turned things much more upside down.

5. The last conceptual fallacy that comes from all that "Beszterce" cannot be identified as an equivalent of the Romanian name changed under Hungarian administration or whatsoever, since the context obviously is meant to Romanian-origin names (as Frumoasa is), and not for other names. As it was demonstrated, the Hungarian form "Beszterce" emerged since the early times consistently borrowed from Slavic, it is not a subject of a name of Romanian origin, thus it cannot be identified as such. Moreover the theory of the Repedea-Bistrica exchange is already mentioned in the Daco-Roman Theory section under the Toponimy, shall it be true or not it cannot be mixed or confused by any means neither with the Hungarian-Slavic borrowings made in the early middle ages, nor with the 1940 restoration of fromer Hungarian names (to those that were not identical with names that had never a former Hungarian name, such as Frumoasa and other extremely rare examples).

Consequently, as per BRD, as per mistaken original bold edit drawn from the claimed source by false translation, synthesis or copy-edit by (mistaken) OR, this problematic part will be reverted until in the talk page it is not clarified what Iovaniorgovan (= who made the original insertion) really wanted to do, and does not clearly verify with original inline citation with original language, because it is a clear heavy mess....Thank You for your understanding, better do not support by your own reputation any fallacious content before proper verification. My demonstration is flawless, however it is hard to get by the first glance.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC))

@KIENGIR I think it's pretty pointless to argue about this unless there's a clear mistake in the translation or the conflation of sources, which is what we do here sometimes when summarizing sources and I'm sure it happens from time to time. However, the whole idea is to have the WP:RS arguments presented in the article. Of course a DRCT WP:RS will not agree with an IT WP:RS and vice-versa, so if you find something to object to (from an IT perspective) in the DRCT section then go ahead and present the respective IT WP:RS view in its IT section as a rebuttal. That's the right and fair way to do it. Also, keep in mind that we don't have the space here to go into elaborate detail about the WP:RS arguments so it's possible that the explanation may not come across as thorough sometimes. Moreover, on occasion an author makes a statement in a journal article while referencing more elaborate arguments presented in previous books/monographs so our summaries here will not give the argument full justice. That's true for either side.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Iovaniorgovan, there are clear mistakes, a huge ones. You should better concentrate to really explain from where what, how you took, with the original Romanian text, since if you read it carefully, numerous overlapping mistakes and confusions are (even if they were commited by00:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Iovaniorgovan (talk) mistake) with zero synthesis. Aynway, what was ok by the RS, I did not bother, the mistakes are out of the context of the different theories mainly, as you may interpret properly, not this is the problem (thus the solution cannot be that I would insert "IT refusals", or similar, we may do it just and only if by the other source it is surely proved that there was no conflation/copyedit/interpreation/OR/fringe/phrasing/summarization or other mistake).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC))

Correct. What's fair is fair and I'll be the first to admit I probably made a mistake summarizing the sources (although the current version looks fine to me and the meaning hasn't changed). The main point of the authors is that the Hungarian administration changed the official names of the rivers from their Romanian names (official or "local"), "insofar as they understood them", into Hungarian equivalents. So I left out the part that says "insofar as they understood them", meaning they might have changed the name of a river with the Hungarian equivalent of a tributary, just because that's what they understood its Romanian name to be. That allows for some confusion on their part. Secondly, the authors also consider both the official names of the rivers and the names given to them locally (what the folks living there call them), which compounds the confusion. So you can see, it's not easy to summarize this argument and I think the way it currently reads is good enough without going into details, which would take half a page. As for the Sebes argument, the authors also say the following: "Sebes, situated in the South-East of Transylvania is a Hungarian name (means "quick"), while one of its tributaries bears the name Bistra, which in Slavic means the same thing, "quick", while upstream Sebes is called Frumoasa, a Romanian name. Schematically the situation may be presented as follows: Repedea (rom.) – Bistrița (sl.) – Șieu (magh.) – Someș (autohton); Frumoasa (rom.) – Bistra (sl.) – Sebeș (magh.) – Mureș (autohton)." Of course, I won't be putting that in there, just illustrating that sometimes arguments are difficult to properly summarize. Hope this helps. p.s. I mean I'm ok with the current version after "fixing" it.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir Please familiarize yourself with the suggestions made by independent moderators regarding the restructuring of this article (see above) before trying to interfere with the process. If you have any questions about WP:RS feel free to ask here on the Talk pages. You cannot label something WP:OR simply because you don't agree with what the WP:RS has to say (as evidenced by the comments you made). There's an IT section in the article which you're welcome to contribute to.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Iovaniorgovan, in summary I have to emphasize and reinforce what happened after 1940, only those Romanian-origin names were have translated/made to be equivavelented into Hungarian, that never had a Hungarian official before (= were not really known, being local names, the rest was reverted as it was before 1920). About your schematics, I have to add that it is uncertain whether Repedea was first and Slavs adopted and translated it, it is a hypthothesis, since the opposite - every nation inherited much etymology from the Slavs - is clearly attested in practice, having the name of the main rivers related have Slavic etymology.

On the other hand Fakirbakir regarding the Linguistic section did not do anything wrong, since before your deletion and afterward more users indicated that there was no consensus for that.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC))

I'm only quoting the sources. I'm sure the "official" names changed a few times depending on who came to power so feel free to insert a similar statement in the IT section for cases of river names that have been changed into Romanian (from Hungarian, German, Slavic, etc). I never said that it's certain that the Repedea name came first, the WP:RS cited clearly states a hypothesis, which is that "translations from Romanian into Slavic could also create Romanian hydronyms", a hypothesis shared by several WP:RS. Again, it's a theory, we're not dealing with facts here. As for the other editor, sorry, I'll have to disagree. He made the changes without bringing the issues up here in the Talk pages. Did you read the comments he made? Not very constructive. What we're doing (restructuring the article) is the result of months and months of talks and looking at the neutral and independent advice of several moderators, all unanimously saying the same thing: restructure the article. So we're not doing anything unilaterally here, it's all the end result of a long process. Looking forward to seeing your contributions to the IT, etc, and your comments regarding the others' edits are always welcome.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The proposed structure of the article contradicts a number of WP policies. First of all, WP:NOR: it presents the Latin heritage of the Romanian language as an evidence for the continuity theory, although immigrationist scholars also regard this statement as a starting point. Secondly, it contradicts WP:NPOV because it artificially separates universally accepted facts and their concurring scholarly interpretations. Thirdly, the new wording clearly ignores WP:COPYVIO (I refer to a sentence copied word by word from Hitchins' cited work). Although some of the remarks quoted above were not made in a negative context, we all should accept that the article is to be improved. For instance, in each section, we should clearly underline the relevance of each sentence in the context of the Romanians ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The section is called "Daco-Roman Continuity Theory" and is presented as such, as per Wiki guidelines. You may be under the impression that the section is called "A rebuttal to the Immigrationist Theory", but it's not, so all the different elements included in DRCT will be mentioned in the section. If you have any issues please refer to the relevant Wiki boards, arbitration, etc.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka Clearly, this is one of those "sticky" points, so if you feel like any WP guideline is being violated here, please feel free to appeal to due process for clarity and avoid edit wars.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The version that I proposed also summarizes the continuity theory. Furthermore, the approach that I am proposing (presenting the concurring scholarly interpretations of the same facts at the same place) is fully in line with WP:NPOV. Furthermore, we should not pretend that there is a uniform continuity argumentation if there are significant debates about the main sets of "evidence" for the continuity theory even among scholars who accept it. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

References

No, it's not in line with NPOV, let me remind you what the moderator of our NPOV debate had to say about this: "The gist of the problem is this: The article that deals with the Origin of the Romanians. As such, the article mentions that there are 3 mainstream academic theories that explain it. Apart from the summary of those 3 theories, anything that the sources say in the context of those 3 mainstream theories is categorized, arbitrarily, by the editors, in the "Evidence" section and the subsequent subsections (main body) of the article. Moreover, the sourced statements are never referencing the context (ie: which if any of the theories) in which those statements were made. So I say that this is a breach of WP:NPOV - that what the sources say is misrepresented (removed from the context, that is one of the three theories)." And, yet, you choose to ignore the moderator's suggestion just because it doesn't agree with your views. I abide by that suggestion and my edits conform with it. If you have an issue, please appeal to the right forum because I won't abide by your suggestions which clearly violate NPOV (not only in my opinion, but the moderators' as well).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The above sentences were not stated by a "moderator". It was stated by an editor deeply involved in the debate. Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

An independent entity mediating a conflict between two parties is the definition of what a "moderator" is. You may wanna look that up.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka, Cealicuca A case was filed on the Dispute resolution noticeboard.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, an independent editor could play the role of a moderator. However, referring to a party deeply involved in a debate as a moderator is, let's say, an unusual approach. I see you like stealing time from other editors. Do you really think that a case could be defended without referring to a single WP policy and through ignoring crucial WP rules? Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The First Line of the Article

Cealicuca, please explain how the first sentence of the article, "Several well-supported theories address the issue of the origin of the Romanians." is false equivalence. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I asked for a citation. Lacking a RS stating that, this presumes that all theories are equivalent. Or are you somehow qualified to determine how well supported each theory is, or that all theories as just as well supported?Cealicuca (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the sentence does not presume or indicate that the theories contained in the article are equivalent. What you are now doing is trolling. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. You being aggressive doesn't change that fact that unless a WP:RS specifies this the sentence is simply an unsourced statement that equally qualifies the theories.Cealicuca (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Carefully reading the sentence, I have to reinforce that the sentence does not equally qualify any theories, apart from anything not even gramatically or semantically, thus your reasoning is wrong.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

After studying recent literature, I also came to the conclusion that the first sentence does not properly present scholarly consensus. Non-involved scholars say that neither of the theories are well established. Furthermore, an "outsider" (non-Romanian and non-Hungarian) scholar who dedicated a lengthy monograph to the issue noticed that the sets of argumentats used by the proponents of the continuity theory imply the low level of their scholarship. I think we have also experienced the "uncreative stubbornness" (einfallslosen Hartnäckigkeit) of editors who regard the continuity theory as a dogma with sacred texts which could only be adorned and repeated. I fix the problem. Borsoka (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca:, you challenged the first sentence. I read some books written by third-parties (scholars not directly involved in this debate). One of them (The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages) verifies your claim that we cannot speak of well-established theories. The other source (Schramm) confirms your claim that the scholarly representation of one of the theories (unfortunatelly, the continuity theory) is weak. Why do you move and delete these sentences from the lead? Borsoka (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I cite sources too. Cambridge nonetheless. Interesting, huh?Cealicuca (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead is the place where you can summarize. You do not have to explain all aspects of the issue. The Cambride History of The Romance Languages gives an excellent summary about the views of international scholarly community about the issue: there is no convincing evidence for any of the theories. Instead, you placed lengthy sentences about a "well referenced" late-18th-century document. Do you think this is in line with any of WP policies? If your answer is yes, I would be grateful if you shared your arguments with me. Borsoka (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you place sentences about "uncreative stubbornness". I would guess that a "well refenced" 18th century document (who actually existed, and we actually KNOW what was the deal with it, and it wasn't this "newcomer" summarization) beats it. As for the Cambridge History - it was you who chose to, for the first time, use the "Cambridge". We could do that with many sources, but nobody didn't. You chose to do this in order to associate the reputation of the source with a specific view you wish to push. Simple as that.

So if you want to summarize please keep a minimum of balance and accuracy. Do you want to enter a game where we bring sources, well respected sources (non-romanian, non-hungarian) that at best give a nod and nothing more to one of the theories (and we both know which theory that is...)? I would hope not.Cealicuca (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you explain me how the quote from The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages helps me to push a specific view? I do not understand your way of thinking. You challenged the first sentence of the article, which claimed that there are several well-established origin theories. I found a reliable source, actually a source which is the summary of mainstream scholarly thinking, which verifies that none of the theories are well-established. And you choose to replace it with sentences about a well-sourced late-18th-century document. Please also read the very first sentence on the top of the Talk page. You are very close to be banned from editing. Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Your fabourite author, Schramm, explicitly mentions the continuity theory (in a dubious way nonetheless). You then come with another statements which does not explicitly mention that "all theories have problmes". That is WP:SYNTH. You did not cite the "newcomers" thingie, but only what was in front of it. Moreover, the article itself (as well as my source... huh) contradict this "newcomer" idea of yours. So what, in the name of summarizing we should accept some unsourced statement from you in place of what the article (as well as a source from me) clearly state? At best it's a split view. At best - if you can source your newcommer idea.Cealicuca (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) Schramm is an author who started to study the question sine ira et studio. (2) Editors are rarely in the position to replace a sentence from a monography written by several specialists and published by CUP with a sentence describing a late-18th-century document as "well sourced". (3) I moved the properly sourced sentences from the main body. Borsoka (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

Before going to the proper board to solve this I would like to ask the following editors to explain (and restore) properly cited content that they removed (as in deleted from the article, not moved to another section or whatever.)

I specifically refer to the following edits: Borsoka's and Fakirbakir's (actually Borsoka's as the two are for all intents and purposes the same voice).Cealicuca (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please go to the proper board to solve the problem. I will not play your game. Borsoka (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

So you deleted WP:RS just because you felt like it?Cealicuca (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This one article has been doing fine for years! You are one of the two new editors who has begun to vandalize the article recently.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious. Surely the editors not invested in this article who had such high words abut it's "fineness" are soooo mistaken, right?Cealicuca (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring

To everyone involved... knock it off. This article has already been fully protected in the recent past and yet the edit warring goes on. I am now handing out blocks. Once an edit is reverted the next stop is here on the talk page where consensus is sought. The only acceptable reasons for edit warring are reversion of naked vandalism, serious BLP vios, and copyright vios. That's it. If it becomes necessary for me to revisit this subject anytime in the near future unhappiness is likely to follow. Have a nice day. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening. Qualitist (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I've also enacted DS on this page now to control this crap. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving this to the bottom to flag it again, and I would like to reiterate, if you think we are joking about stopping this, 3 blocks have just been issued. Edit carefully. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Now 4 blocks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Amanda, based on the recent events - again a new block because of the violation of other admins conditions - I would like to ask a rollback to the revision as "08:23, 27 November 2018‎", because everything after did not gain really any consensus. As I recall AE is competent of this also. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

As I see recent edits, it is not anymore necessary...(KIENGIR (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC))

Section 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity

The section dedicated to the presentation of the Daco-Roman continuity theory ignores several well-established WP policies. First of all, it presents POVs as generally accepted by are scholars proposing the continuity theory, although there all scholars who accept the same theory but debate those POVs. For instance, the idea of associating certain archaological finds or assemblages with Daco-Romans or Romanians is highly debated by a significant number of mainstream "continuity" archaeologists in Romania. (For further details, I refer to the discussiun above #Archaeological evidence for the continuity theory.) Secondly, the section describes facts as if they were only connected to the continuity theory, although these facts are universally accepted by all mainstream historians, independently of their views of the Romanians' ethnogenesis. For instance, the section pretends that the Latin origin of the basic Romanian vocabulary is not accepted by scholars who support the immigrationist theory. Facts that are common elements of all theories can only be presented as such in the article. (For further details, I refer to the discussiun above #Linguistic elements of the continuity theory.) Thirdly, the section contains random statements without explaining their relevance. For instance, the section writes that the Romanian word for emperor (împăratul) is of Latin origin, but fails to explain what is the role of this fact in the theory. (Should we suppose that the word could only be preserved in the lands to the north of the Lower Danube, hundreds of miles away from the northern borders of the Byzantine Empire, and not withing the borders of the empire ruled by an emperor?) Lastly, the section fails to list the elements of the continuity theory which are actually mentioned in studies written by scholars who accept the theory. In order to fix these problems, I drafted the following text for presenting the theory:

Scholars supporting the continuity theory argue that the Romanians descended primarily from the inhabitants of "Dacia Traiana", the province encompassing three or four regions of present-day Romania to the north of the Lower Danube from 106. In these scholars' view, the close contacts between the autochthonous Dacians and the Roman colonists led to the formation of the Romanian people because masses of provincials stayed behind after the Roman Empire abandoned the province in the early 270s. Thereafter the process of Romanization expanded to the neighboring regions due to the free movement of people across the former imperial borders. The spread of Christianity contributed to the process, since Latin was the language of liturgy among the Daco-Romans. The Romans held bridgeheads norths of the Lower Danube, keeping Dacia within their sphere of influence uninterruptedly until 376. The north-Danubian regions remained the main "center of Romanization" after the Slavs started assimilating the Latin-speaking population in the lands south of the river, or forcing them to move even further south in the 7th century. Although for a millennium migratory peoples invaded the territory, a sedentary Christian Romance-speaking population survived, primarily in the densely forested areas, separated from the "heretic" or pagan invaders. Only the "semisedentarian" Slavs exerted some influence on the Romanians' ancestors, especially after they adopted Orthodox Christianity in the 9th century. They played the role in the Romanians' ethnogenesis that the Germanic peoples had played in the formation of other Romance peoples.

Historians who accept the continuity theory emphasize that the Romanians "form the numerically largest people" in southeastern Europe. They also highlight the importance of the massive and organized colonization of Dacia Traiana. One of them, Coriolan H. Opreanu underlines that "nowhere else has anyone defied reason by stating that a [Romance] people, twice as numerous as any of its neighbours..., is only accidentally inhabiting the territory of a former Roman province, once home to a numerous and strongly Romanized population". With the colonists coming from many provinces and living side by side with the natives, Latin must have emerged as their common language. The Dacians willingly adopted the conquerors' superior culture and they spoke Latin as native tongue after two or three generations. Estimating the provincials' number at 500,000-1,000,000 in the 270s, supporters of the continuity theory rule out the possibility that masses of Latin-speaking commoners abandoned the province when the Roman troops and officials left it. Historian Ioan-Aurel Pop concludes that the relocation of hundreds of thousands of people across the Lower Danube in a short period was impossible, especially because the commoners were unwilling to "move to foreign places, where they had nothing of their own and where the lands were already occupied."

Most Romanian scholars accepting the continuity theory regard the archaeological evidence for the uninterrupted presence of a Romanized population in the lands now forming Romania undeniable. Especially, artefacts bearing Christian symbolism, hoards of bronze Roman coins and Roman-style pottery are listed among the archaeological finds verifying the theory. The same scholars emphasize that the Romanians directly inherited the basic Christian terminology from Latin, which also substantiates the connection between Christian objects and the Romanians' ancestors. Other scholars who support the same theory underline that the connection between certain artefacts or archaeological assemblages and ethnic groups is uncertain. Instead of archaeological evidence, Alexandru Madgearu highlights the importance of the linguistic traces of continuity, referring to the Romanian river names in the Apuseni Mountains and the preservation of archaic Latin lexical elements in the local dialect. The survival of the names of the largest rivers from Antiquity is often cited as an evidence for the continuity theory, although some linguists who support it notes that a Slavic-speaking population transmitted them to modern Romanians. Some words directly inherited from Latin are also said to prove the countinuous presence of the Romanians' ancestors north of the Danube, because they refer to things closely connected to these regions. For instance, linguist Marius Sala argues that the Latin words for oil, gold and bison could only be preserved in the lands to the north of the river.

Written sources did not mention the Romanians, either those who lived north of the Lower Danube or those living to the south of the river, for centuries. Scholars supporting the continuity theory notes that the silence of sources does not contradict it, because early medieval authors named the foreign lands and their inhabitants after the ruling peoples. Hence, they mentioned Gothia, Hunia, Gepidia, Avaria, Patzinakia and Cumania, and wrote of Goths, Huns, Gepids, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans, without revealing the multi-ethnic character of these realms. References to the Volokhi in the Russian Primary Chronicle, and to the Blakumen in Scandinavian sources are often listed as the first records of north-Danubian Romanians. The Gesta Hungarorum—the oldest extant Hungarian chronicle—mentioned the Vlachs and the "shepherds of the Romans" (along with the Bulgarians, Slavs, Greeks and other peoples) among the inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin at the time of the arrival of the Magyars (or Hungarians) in the late 9th century; Simon of Kéza's later Hungarian chronicle identified the Vlachs as the "Romans shepherds and husbandman" who remained in Pannonia. Pop concludes that the two chronicles "assert the Roman origin of Romanians... by presenting them as the Romans' descendants" who stayed in the former Roman provinces.

References

• Brezeanu, Stelian (1998). "Eastern Romanity in the Millenium of the Great Migrations". In Giurescu, Dinu C.; Fischer-Galați, Stephen (eds.). Romania: A Historic Perspective. Boulder. pp. 45–75. ISBN 0-88033-345-5. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |ignore-isbn-error= ignored (|isbn= suggested) (help)
• Felecan, Oliviu; Felecan, Nicolae (2015). "Etymological strata reflected in Romanian hydronymy". Quaderns de Filología. Estudis Lingüístics. 20 (Toponímia Románica): 251–269. ISSN 1135-416X. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Georgescu, Vlad (1991). The Romanians: A History. Ohio State University Press. ISBN 0-8142-0511-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Hitchins, Keith (2014). A Concise History of Romania. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-69413-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Madgearu, Alexandru (2005). "Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania". In Curta, Florin (ed.). East Central & Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The University of Michigan Press. pp. 103–120. ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Opreanu, Coriolan Horaţiu (2005). "The North-Danube Regions from the Roman Province of Dacia to the Emergence of the Romanian Language (2nd–8th Centuries AD)". In Pop, Ioan-Aurel; Bolovan, Ioan (eds.). History of Romania: Compendium. Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies). pp. 59–132. ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Pop, Ioan Aurel (1999). Romanians and Romania: A Brief History. Boulder. ISBN 978-0-88033-440-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Sala, Marius (2005). From Latin to Romanian: The Historical Development of Romanian in a Comprarative Romance Context. University, Mississippi. ISBN 1-889441-12-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Tomescu, Domnița (2009). Romanische Sprachgeschichte / Histoire linguistique de la Romania. 3. Teilband. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-11-021141-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I would appreciate all comments on the above suggestion and text. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka I appreciate your effort, but... while there's some good stuff in there (which I'll probably end up using, so thanks for that), there are some fundamental issues to be addressed here before we move forward (I see we've been banned from editing the article for a week, which is not surprising, and hopefully it won't come to this again in the future). So, here goes:

• 1) The scholarly WP:RS views within the DRCT field/section may vary from one another in certain aspects. After all, if they all said absolutely the same thing about everything then they'd just be reprinting each others' works over and over again, making sure to change the name in the byline before collecting their paychecks. So, with that in mind, the idea is to present the "mainstream" view of each particular aspect of the theory. If, for instance, the president of the Romanian academy, Ioan-Aurel Pop, would hypothetically write an article stating that the Ciurel culture, in his esteemed opinion, originated on Mars, then Pop's view of the Ciurel culture would not be worthy of inclusion in this article because it would constitute a "minority view" with respect to the Ciurel culture. Exaggerating a little here to illustrate a point. Back to the article, the archeological finds mentioned in the DRCT section are not debated by a significant number of scholars, as you claim. You only brought two "articles" in support of your argument, and none of those hold water. In the first one, the author himself states that "Romanian specialists consider that...", thus indicating his own opinion as a "minority view", and as per Wiki guidelines ""Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented". As for Madgearu, you again used a flimsy 18-page article titled "Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania". He does say in the article that it's difficult to distinguish Romanian from Slavic pottery, but let's put that passage in context "Linguistic data thus suggest the existence of speakers of Romanian in the vicinity of the salt mine district. This is indeed important, for it is very difficult to distinguish between "Slavic" and "Romanian" pottery or dress accessories." So, that quote you pulled from his article is not some kind of blanket statement. It refers specifically to the "vicinity of the salt mine district" (clue's also in the title). As I've already shown above, Madgearu's view of the Ipotesti-Candesti-Ciurel culture is as follows: "the ceramics belonging to the Ciurel culture are profoundly different from the material culture of the Slavs in 6th-7th centuries" (work cited in the article, "Continuitate si Discontinuitate La Dunarea de Jos, Sec VII-VIII, p. 117). So Madgearu's view is very much in line with "mainstream" DRCT with respect to archeological finds from that period. In other words, there is no significant number of scholars debating the view presented in the article (at least up to 7th-8th cen)

• 2) The "facts", as presented, are connected with the DRCT because that's how one expounds a theory. Nowhere does it say that this "fact" or that "fact" only agrees or is explained by DRCT. The Linguistic element of DRCT is crucial to the theory and needs to be presented properly and thoroughly. That's how one forms a theory, piece together some archeological finds, add some primary sources, look at the linguistic aspects and then you connect these elements together to form a theory about the origin of a people. You can't leave out any of those elements when explaining the theory or it won't make any sense. If DRCT says that Latin is the origin of Romanian, then feel free to counter (in the IT section) by finding an IT/Hungarian WP:RS that says something like "Sure, Romanian is a Latin/Romance language, but that's because it formed South of the Danube... etc." So, that would make it clear to anyone that the Latin aspect of Romanian is not disputed, but its origin is. That's how you present theories properly, without distorting WP:RS by separating the evidence from the theories.

• 3) see (2) above. That statement from Pop's book makes perfect sense in the context of DRCT, because it explains how the linguistic elements in Romanian show a continuity of statal structures ("Romanized socio-political nuclei") that survived the various political structures imposed by the migratory peoples. As before, this "agrees" (for DRCT scholars) with the pockets of Romanized settlements (among the Slavs, etc) discovered by archeologists, and together they help create a "big picture", if you will, of a people surviving through those dark ages. As above, the way to counter this is by referring (in the IT section) to an IT/Hungarian WP:RS that says something to the effect that "Sure, those words of Latin origin relating to social structures were preserved in Romanian but only because..." That's the fair way to go about it and it's not that difficult.

• Finally, as I already mentioned before, this article is in the process of being restructured and it may take some time, especially seeing as I'm only one of two editors willing to contribute. So I think it's a bit below the belt to say that the article fails to mention this or that, especially considering that I spend all my time on Wiki debating you instead of doing more productive things, such as adding to the article (again, maybe that's the idea). You didn't see me (or other Romanian editors) interfering with your restructuring the IT section, did you? In any event, thanks for some of that material which I think is useable. That's appreciated. So, again, as per @Srnec's proposal above ("Present no evidence without explaining its relevance."), which you agreed to ("I think your suggestion to explain the relevance of evidence is absolutely logical and it should be accepted."), eventually all the sections from the bottom of the article (archeology, linguistics, etc) will be moved into the top sections (DRCT, IT, AT) and whatever is left of the "evidence" not tied into any theory by any WP:RS will be either purged or moved onto their own separate pages (as @Srnec proposed we do with 'Historiography', though some of that stuff can be worked into the top sections.) Thanks again.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) Scholarly views published in books edited by the president of the Romanian Academy of Sciences cannot be presented as marginal views. (2) For nobody denies that Romanian descended from the Latin, we cannot present this statement as if it were proposed only by one of the theories. (3) The article does not explain the link between the preservation of those words and the continuity theory. Why does Pop think that the word "emperor" could only be preserved in the lands north of the Lower Danube, far away from the borders of all states ruled by emperors? (4) The article or its sections are not owned by individual editors. For the time being, the section presents facts without explaining their relevance and presents facts which are not connected to one of the theories (I refer to the inherited Latin words, and to the Latin origin of the Romanian). Borsoka (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

1) Of course scholars can hold "minority views", regardless of who they are. That author says so himself in the article. 2) Read my answer above. 3) Read my answer above. 4) Correct, this is not your article to misuse as you please. All "facts" in the DRCT section are currently presented within their theoretical framework. Again, read my answer above.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No misusing here. Actually you should thank Borsoka that he/she has continuously expanded and improved its content and been maintaining the article for years.Fakirbakir (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir:, thank you for your kind words. And what is your view about the proposal? @Iovaniorgovan: (1) There are at least 3 archaeologists (Olteanu, Madgearu and Curta) who support this "minority" view. (Actually, by denying the "undeniable" connection between artefacts and ethnic groups, they are among the Romanian archaeologists who represent the internationally mainstream view). (2) The following sentences from the present text of the article represent views that are accepted by all scholars who wrote of the Romanians' ethnogenesis: "The formation of the Common Romanian language from Vulgar Latin started in the 6th or 7th centuries and was completed in the 8th century. Common Romanian split into four variants (Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) during the 10th-12th centuries. Unlike other Romance languages, the Romanian subdialects spoken to the north of the Danube display a "remarkable unity". The "essential Romanian vocabulary is to a large degree Latin", including the most frequently used 2500 words. Around 20% of the entries of the 1958 edition of the Dictionary of the Modern Romanian have directly been inherited from Latin. More than 75% of the words in the semantic fields of sense perception, quantity, kinship and spatial relations were inherited from Latin, but the basic lexicons of religion and of agriculture have also been preserved. Some variants of the Eastern Romance languages retained more elements of their Latin heritage than others. Slavic loanwords amount to about 14%, although a "re-latinization" process has decreased their number since the 19th century." Do you think that these sentences should be repeated under each theory, instead of presenting them only once? (3) No, you have not explained the relevance of these words in the context of the continuity theory. Why does Pop think that those words could only survive in the lands north of the Lower Danube? Borsoka (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir & Borsoka Oh, really? Let's take a look at what the independent moderating editors had to say about this article lately (this was compiled by @Cealicuca and presented on the NPOV noticeboard):

• How an editor characterizes the content of the article: [...] In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruse as it is. [...] How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? [...]
• An editor's suggestion on how the article should look like: [...] This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. [...]
• An editor's description of sections in the article: [...] The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. [...]
• How another editor describes the article: [...] I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence [...]
• Another editor's take on how confusing the content of the article is: [...] I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two.[...]
• Again, the same editor providing a reader's perspective: [...] so I might not be able to add much to this other than offer the perspective of the reader. If there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained. It is not clear which theory is being discussed in the paragraph in question, and adding a single sentence about the other theory only makes things more confusing, rather than adding balance. [...]
• So, nothing to be thankful for here. Although, of course, if your aim is to make a mockery of the theories presenting The Origin of the Romanians, especially the Daco-Roman Continuity theory, then it's mission accomplished (not just in my opinion, as you can see above). So things are going to change with the article and we're already moving in that direction. You may try to resist it but I'm sure that eventually, with the help of other independent editors and moderators, the article will shape up.
• @Borsoka, just repeating something does not make it true. 1) I already showed above that Madgearu's article is about the salt mines, Curta's article is about a castle from 10th-11th century, while Olteanu's view (whatever it is, it's not clear) is a "minority view" by his own admission. So those sources count for nothing with respect to what's already in the article. If I put in something about the salt mines in Transylvania, or Gelu's castle, then feel free to bring them up. 2) A "fact" is viewed differently by different theories, so if it's necessary to mention something more than once in order to properly expound what the WP:RS say, then so be it. Are we supposed to start chopping sentences down just because certain words have already been used before in the same article? 3) Read my answer above.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Some comments:

"(I see we've been banned from editing the article for a week, which is not surprising, and hopefully it won't come to this again in the future)" -> It just depends on your future behavior, you should avoid applying BRD cycle only in one way, but if other users do the same with you, you should remain in the talk page and not engaging edit wars and reverts with false references in the edit logs that does not support your actions. The same way avoiding violation of community decisions and additions without consensus, etc.

"that I spend all my time on Wiki debating you instead of doing more productive things" -> the debates should be made mainly in the talk page, instead of continous reverts and with respect to WP's dispute resolution guidelines. Consensus building is inavoidable, you have to be prepared that your bold additions without consensus may be reverted by any user, continously re-reverting them with edit-warring would not preserve them, as per the rules they will be undone until new consensus would be built.

"You didn't see me (or other Romanian editors) interfering with your restructuring the IT section, did you?" -> This is the "reciprocity" that you "offered" to Borsoka, local consensus may be worked out but it does not mean the disrespect of other WP rules. For instance Borsoka may undo Draganu's map that he raised doubts but you forced it despite of the BRD process, so it depended on his good faith not to undo it, on the other hand you reverted his addition regarding the Transylvanian River Names map. A typical example of the one-sided approach of yours, you owe Borsoka for his nice and calm approach on the contrary to your behavior.

"Correct, this is not your article to misuse as you please" -> The same holds to you

"just repeating something does not make it true" -> First of all, this is a major problem - as more of us experienced - of yours, not willing to see or understand some things. However, sooner or later - if not by us - you will understand by others.

I see your argumentation as you wish to have the Daco-Roman Theory section inside it's classic boundaries, claiming WP:RS but the problems and proposals of Borsoka does not contradict these, since also he is working with WP:RS. Thus, as per the rules you have to build consensus with him and if you will succeed an agreement about the content than that will be added. If not, i.e. any bold edits you've done may be undone by Borsoka to the last stable version. This is how Wikipedia is working. Combination of rules and guidelines, community decisions and consensus, sometimes in an equal weight, sometimes in an overriding way, depends on the corresponding situation and rule, misusing them or pulling the time won't change anything, these are all above us.

Just because also a group of modern scholars different viewpoints are reflected on some parts it does not mean they would not belong to the mainstream - though they support the same theory - will not cause any problem to that section, on the contrary will raise objectivity, since things have to be presented in a proper synthesis, thus I support Borsoka's proposal. I just don't like it does not work here.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC))

(1) No, Madgearu clearly writes of the impossibility of distinguish Slavs and Romanians based on archaeology in Transylvania in the 8th-9th century. ("The existence of a Slavic population in early medieval Transylvania is indisputable. ... The presense of Romanians in Transylvania poses somewhat different problems. ... Linguistic data ... suggest the existence of speakers of Romanian in the vicinity of the salt mine district. This is indeed important, for it is very difficult to distinguish between "Slavic" and "Romanian" pottery or dress accessories. In most cases, archaeology can only identify cultural groups that, unlike Avars or Magyars, were not of nomadic origin. The wheel-made pottery produced on the fast wheel (as opposed to the tournette), which was found in several settlements of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, may indicate the continuation of Roman traditions.") Curta clearly writes: "...no open settlement excavated in Transylvania produced evidence safely dated to the late tenth or early eleventh century.." which cleary contradicts to the statement that there is undisputed archaeological evidence for the continuity theory. Since there are significant archeologists, otherwise accepting the continuity theory, who clearly state that the archaological evidence for any form of continuity in Transylvania is uncertain, we should mention this PoV. (2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Could you refer to encyclopdias which repeat the same piece of information three times in the same article? Or could you refer to policies prescribing that the same pieces of information should be repeated three times? (3) No, you have not explained how those words prove the continuous presence of Romanians north of the Lower Danube (as it is claimed by the continuity theory). If you cannot explain it based on Pop, the sentence should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Look, I thought we were past this...

• I see we're back to claiming "how does that prove X theory"... We're not here to prove anything (or disprove for that matter...).
• The sections dedicated to each theory describe "general" views. As such, of course there might be sources who might disagree, at least to a degree, with some of the details (and if necessary, we might and should include such diverging views as per WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT). A more simplistic or otherwise speculative theory will have less details (avoid criticism by being vague) that might be under scrutiny. A more complex, fact-based, in-depth theory will have a much larger debate and internal criticism around it. It's normal. Frankly, it actually speaks to the interest the academical environment invests in it. Also, in academic circles, self-criticism is rather a good sign... It's one of the things that separate pseudo-science from science.
• The claim that one thing or another should not be referenced in one section (or another) because it's not "exclusive" to a certain theory is a logical fallacy. The same thing may have value for multiple theories, because the sources supporting (or criticizing) those theories have different interpretations of the very same "thing" (duuuuh! - this is why we have several theories. If everyone would agree to the same interpretation there there would be NO competing theories...).
• One last thing (and I'll only use one example, but I'm referring to all such cases): if a source says something like "difficult to establish" this does not mean that "it's impossible to distinguish". It just means "it's difficult to establish". Difficult != Impossible, ok? So I would like to ask all to drop the use of absolute terms unless the cited source(s) specifically mention so.Cealicuca (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) Agree. We are not here to prove anything. We are here to discuss the presentation of a theory. (2) Agree. We should present the divergent views within the theory. (3) Can you refer to encyclopedias which repeat the same facts three times? If a fact is not exclusively part of the argumentation of a theory, it cannot be presented as such as per WP:NOR. (4) Agree. Concluding: only one thing is debated: should/could the same pieces of information repeated three times in the article. I suggest that the Latin origin should not be mentioned in each section dedicated to the three theories, but only once, under the common section 1 Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis). Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understand, the "Development of Romanian" section will be purged, seeing as it's a laundry list attached to no theory. Soon as the ban is lifted, I or anyone else, will/should delete that section. There's already a Wiki page (History of Romanian) containing most of that info. So, if you need to get anything from here and add to IT, feel free to do it now (you may also access it later though the article's "history", of course). So I don't think much or any of it will be repeated three times in the article. Next to go will be the "Romanian place names" section, then "Archeological Data" etc.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid it is you who do not understand the process of editing. We cannot arbitrarily attach facts to theories as per WP:NOR, and we cannot arbitrarily separate the divergent scholarly interpretations of the same facts as per WP:NPOV. Furthermore, you have not referred to a single encyclopedia that repeats the same facts twice or three times in the same article or to a WP policy which encourages this practice. Borsoka (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you do not understand the process of properly summarizing WP:RS. It's the WP:RS that use "facts" to expound "theories" and all we need to do is present them in a neutral way. You can't purposely ignore or edit a WP:RS simply because it makes use of a "fact" that's already been mentioned in the article (albeit in a different context). That would violate WP:NOR.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not want to ignore any reliable sources. I only want to secure the proper application of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. If the Latin origin of the Romanian language is not debated by any of the scholars, we cannot present it as a fact connected exclusively to one of the theories. This is quite simple. Sorry, I will not continue discussing this obvious issue any more. Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You grossly misunderstand (or purposely misstate) the issue. No worries though, that's what Wiki arbitration is for.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: "If the Latin origin of the Romanian language is not debated by any of the scholars, we cannot present it as a fact connected exclusively to one of the theories."

Who said anything about exclusively? All has been said is that the fact that the Romanian language has Latin origin is an integral part of the Continuity theory and thus presented as such. So we need to present the interpretation (according to sources) of that fact. Do sources say as much? Yes they do! Feel free to present the interpretation that the IT gives to that fact (that Romanian is a Latin language). From my point of view, and as a compromise if your will, I feel that presenting that the romanian language is of Latin origin in such a detailed manner is overdoing it and that should be left out for the Romanian Language article. We should however present what the interpretation (relevance) of that is for each theory insofar as we have sources mentioning that. Certainly, no matter how minute, if there are specific language-related details that serve as an argument for one or another theory (according to sources) then it's OK to present it as such and stress, of course, the interpretation/relevance the sources give to those details rather than the detail itself.Cealicuca (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Many details of the linguistic section are relevant parts of any studies about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Dud the Romanians descend from a mobile or a sedentary population, or were their ancestors to be searched in a bilingual population? These specific aspects of the Romanian language cannot be discussed in an article dedicated to its general features. 14:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You seem to feign misunderstanding... If we have sources that state a certain relevance of something in the context of one theory or another then that goes in as being relevant to that theory. Pure and simple. Are there sources that say it's relevant to the Continuity theory that the Romanian language is Latin based? Yep! Then what those sources say is relevant along with how that is relevant (or what the relevance is) is certainly more important that what you, or I, or anyone else think is relevant or not. On the other hand please feel free to cite sources mentioning the relevance of the same fact (Romanian is Latin based) to other theories, if you so wish. As long as they are WP:RS and properly cited it's great.Cealicuca (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, you returned to the claim that several pieces of information should be repeated twice or three times in the article. However, you have not named an encyclopedia which follows this practice or a WP policy which encourages it. I think it is time to stop this absurd drbatr. Borsoka (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

These debates are redundant and clearly disruptive. The only aim of these conversations is to place the "continuity theory" first among the theories, dogmatically, and to diminish the other existing theories. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I did not return to claim nothing, no matter how hard you try putting those words on me. If you have problems with citing a source properly then it's your problem. Pure and simple. You're not here to weigh evidence. You're not here to list facts simply because you're not qualified (per WP:RULES) to even name the "facts" that are relevant for this article (none of us are) nor are you qualified (per WP:RULES) to say what the relevance of those "facts" is in relation to this article. It's the WP:RS that do that. Again, if you can't accept that then you have a big problem.Cealicuca (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

For the removal of of the linguistic approach there was not any consensus, it has to be restored, as well the restructuring cannot go in only one way if both parties come with RS, consensus have to be built for that.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC))

I agree, there was a lot of WP:RS content removed recently. I know that I've added quite a few lately and it was abruptly removed via reverting for no reason whatsoever (none mentioned at least).Cealicuca (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hitchins quote perfect for this article

I am quite surprised. The following quote should be the 1st thing that any reader should see before going to the list of "evidence" and "info dump".

The scholarly and, often, polemical debate about the continued presence of a Daco-Roman population north of the Danube, particularly on the territory of the old Roman province [of Dacia Traiana] (much of Transylvania, the Banat, and Oltenia) after Aurelian’s withdrawal has been clouded by a paucity of firsthand sources and, in modern times, by national passions. The controversy has been wide-ranging and has lasted down to the post-Communist era, though it has assumed an attenuated form as membership in the European Union has softened territorial rivalries between Romania and Hungary.

— Keith Hitchins (2014)

It characterizes both the polemic around the two main competing theories as well as this talk page. Not only that, but it is perfectly in line with WP:NPOV. Definitely better than having a statement buried in a wall of unstructured text.Cealicuca (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead contains the same thoughts and we do not need to duplicate the same pieces of info in this long article.Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree, no need to duplicate. What I don't understand, especially coming from you, is why isn't it to your "taste" to have the extremely explicit quote replacing the "Political and ideological considerations, including the dispute between Hungary and Romania over Transylvania, have also colored these scholarly discussions."? I find it a lot clearer and, more importantly, such a statement is very important to the entire article. It should not be "buried".Cealicuca (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is not buried. It is a quite explicit statement, furthermore the political background is also mentioned in the "Historiography: origin of the theories" section. Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I will emphasize the political aspects of the debate in the lead as well. Borsoka (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I improved it. I suggest a section dedicated to that.Cealicuca (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you did not improve it. You deleted the political background of the development of the continuity theory: the Romanians were regarded newcomers/immigrants (advena) in Transylvania, so they used the continuity theory to substantiate their claim to equal position. Borsoka (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I did (improve it) and you keep vandalising the article.Cealicuca (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever heard about Transylvania's three nations? The Romanians were not among them. Have you ever wondered why? You should refresh your historical knowledge before you make any changes in the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References

You should study more. I wondered why and I found out. You should too (or are you too busy working out consensus on behalf of your friends on multiple Wikipedia articles?)Cealicuca (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca:, if you think my edit was an act of vandalism, please report me. Otherwise stop using this word in connection with me. Nevertheless, you have not explained why did you delete an important aspect of the political background of the continuity theory if you insisted to emphasize the political aspects of the theories. Borsoka (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: You should read more carefully. I did not delete anything, I just moved it. The "Cambridge history of Romance Languages" was moved to the daco-Roman section, as it mentiones the Daco Roman section. Moreover, you chose a non-neutral way of putting it in (you're trying to press your point by using the reputation of the institution). That's a big no-no. Moreover, related to what the Romanian's political ambitions, your "newcommers" idea was unsourced AND it is directly contradicted by SEVERAL sources WITHIN THIS very article. I moved the relevant statements from the historiography. One last thing, I also added new content (Hitchins) which you, for the second time, delete.Cealicuca (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca:, you should read the sentences before moving them. You moved a sentence from "Cambridge History of Romance Languages" which summarizes the conclusion of the authors of this huge work: none of the theories are convincingly verified. Furthermore, you added a text about a "well-referenced" late-18th-century document. The minimum if I say that this approach is surprising. "My" newcomers idea is well sourced in the text of the article. Please read before editing. Borsoka (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca:, maybe it's hard to understand but the continuity theory is just one of the main theories. Stop your non-neutral POV pushing.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, your "newcommers" idea might be well sourced or not - please add the source. The statements I add are from the article too. you also deleted, yet again, properly sourced content.Cealicuca (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You were trying to emphasize in the lead that the continuity theory was an indisputable fact. This is not a neutral approach. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because this is why I added this: "It has been pointed out however, that although scholars who deny continuity point towards the lack of credible evidence supporting the Daco-Roman continuity, the same "silence of the sources" applies to the basic premises of the Immigrationist theory too.". And of course, just to emphasize how grand the daco-roman continuity is I asked for that quote from hitchins which, CLEARLY, make the daco-roman continuti super superior.Cealicuca (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you name a proponent of the immigrationist theory who says that the lack of written sources about the Romanians is evidence for the immigrationist theory? Borsoka (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Cealicuca has just admitted that he is a POV pushing editor. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir You clearly haven't heard about sarcasm. But do continue... @Borsoka what?! I just did, Here's a quote: "Those who deny continuity cite the lack of credible evidence, either written or archeological, attesting to the presence of a Romanized population in Dacia after the third or fourth century down to the emergence of the Romanian principalities in the fourteenth century. - Hitchins, Keith. A Concise History of Romania - Cambridge University Press."Cealicuca (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

While you're at it, since you're the one using the source, add the ISBN/ISSN for the Izzo source.Cealicuca (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you say that Hitchins says that the lack of written sources proves that the Romanians migrated from the Balkans to their present country? If this is the case, we should attribute this statement to him. However, this is quite a minority view. No other proponents of the immigrationist theory uses this argument. Borsoka (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, it seems we're getting there. Since you insist on adding the political component of the Transylvanian school (which is weird, since even the statement you added contains the "also" word which means that the Transylvanian schools was primarily interested in something else) I also insist on adding the sourced statements about the Supplex Libellus Valachorum Transsilvaniae and what it actually called for (equal political rights - since that is actually relevant in this paragraph...). Either that or we simply summarize as "the Daco-Roman continuity theory has seen political use by the Transylvanian school" (or something equivalent). As for Hitchins :))))) Minority view? He is regarded as one of the most respected >>historians<< (mind you, not linguists... ahem) when it comes to Southeastern Europe, Romania, Transylvania and... nationalism. But if you really want to go there - feel free to do it. One thing though, I will clarify the statement. He refers to no sources mentioning the removal of all the population from Dacia. One more thing - you may want to start removing those tags.Cealicuca (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not state that I want to delete a sentence. I am only surprised why should we emphasize this minor argument. However, if Hitchins supports the immigrationist theory with reference to the lack of source we should clarify it. Please feel to write of "well-referenced" late-18th-century documents in order to substantiate the continuity theory. Schramm actually emphasizes that Romanian historians have unable to develop new approaches during the last 200 years. Borsoka (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I am confused. You stated above that Hitchins denies the continuity theory because of the lack of written sources. Now you rewrote the sentence without naming him as the immigrationist scholar using this argument. Would you please name a single immigrationist scholar who denies the continuity theory because of the lack of written sources? Borsoka (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca:, I am afraid you did not properly summarize Hitchins' view. He only writes that continuity scholars also has a set of arguments. He does not say that the relocation of the Daco-Romans is a basic premise of the immigrationist theory, neither he says that the written sources are silent about this movement. He says that Romanian historians say that the written sources are silet about this movement. Actually, what Hitchins says that the Romanian historians also have their own sets of arguments. His conclusion is the following: "The "obvious" conclusion [the Romanian historians] draw is that no migration of such proportions occurred." When using the word "obvious" between parentheses he clearly express that the previous sentences does not present his views, but the views of Romanian scholars. Please do not abuse Hitchins' name to verify your own original research. Borsoka (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You are joking? Right? Here is the full excerpt:

"Those who deny continuity cite the “silence of the sources,” that is, the lack of credible evidence, either written or archeological, attesting to the presence of a Romanized population in Dacia after the third or fourth century down to the emergence of the Romanian principalities in the fourteenth century. They point out that historians and other writers of the time duly noted the succession of migratory peoples who came to Dacia after the third century, but make no mention of any Romanized inhabitants. The deniers of continuity also use language to buttress their case. They cite similarities between the Albanian and South Slavic languages, on the one hand, and Romanian, on the other, as evidence that the original home of the Romanians could only have been south of the Danube.

The Romanian defenders of continuity are by no means without arguments of their own. They have had recourse to the evidence of archeology to show that a Daco-Roman population inhabited at least parts of old Dacia down to the sixth century. They may acquiesce in the contention of critics that the written sources of the time do not specifically mention the Daco-Romans of Dacia, but they point out that it was the usual practice to note only the leading political or military classes and, hence, the conquerors – the Goths, Huns, Avars, or Bulgarians – but not the Daco-Romans, the conquered. They further insist that the written sources would have recorded such a momentous event as the removal of the whole population of Dacia to south of theDanube, but here, too, they are silent. The “obvious” conclusion they draw is that no migration of such proportions occurred. As for the affinities between the Albanian and Romanian languages, Romanian scholars suggest that the words they share may be a common inheritance from a Dacian or Thracian substratum, although such a theory cannot be verified, as little is known about Dacian or Thracian. They also point out that Slavic borrowings in Romanian could just as easily have occurred in Transylvania through the assimilation of the Slavs as south of the Danube, where they predominated.

Hitchins, Keith. A Concise History of Romania (Cambridge Concise Histories) (pp. 18-19). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition. "

Conincidentally, the Chapter is called "Continuity", not "Immigrationist" or whatever. So please read the whole thing and do not try to take things out of context. And yes, i've cleared the statement.Cealicuca (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Borsoka is right, you should have gone to Specsavers, the full book is here===>[4] Fakirbakir (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, on the same page, he says, and I quote: "The number of frequently used words in Romanian of Slavic origin suggests that Daco-Romans and Slavs lived together for an extended period before the Romanian language had been fully formed and before the Slavs north of the Danube had been assimilated by the more numerous Daco-Romans." without attributing to anyone else. This very sentence actually shows exactly what his opinion is about the Daco-Roman continuity - he implicitly accepts it as true. Peace.Cealicuca (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fakirbakir: Are you a bot? If the book is there read the chapter. It's called "Continuity" (you won't read it for sure because it's called like that - it doesn't fit your views...). Moreover, as I've posted above, Borsoka is not right after all since the author goes on and implicitly accepts those said arguments. Nevertheless, to clarify things, i've cleared the statements anyway.Cealicuca (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hitchins just introduces the main tenets of the opposite parties, he does not take sides. He later writes about the cohabitation of Slavic and Daco-Roman (speaking) populations. That's it. Where is the important statement from Hitchins? There is nothing new under the Sun. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me like you need to re-read. There, I helped it.Cealicuca (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

FAILED STRUCTURE: Exhibit A

So there are two paragraphs on Linguistics in the Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis section, then one more paragraph on Linguistics in the DRCT section, then an entire section on Linguistic Approach further down the road!! Most of that is just "info dump", its relevance to the Origin of the Romanians being left for the readers to guess. Never mind that there's already a separate Wikipedia page on the History of the Romanian Language, containing most of that info. Just more proof of the inept, failed structure currently plaguing this article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the linguistic section should be rewritten. Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support removing the section by integrating it in the sections dedicated to each theory: Integrating the linguistic section (or whatever is relevant from it, relevant according to the cited sources) in the sections dedicated to each theory. Again, I must stress, used properly (meaning that if the source makes the connection between the conclusions and the theories then its ok, otherwise it's irrelevant since we cannot and should not infer any relevance from it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 11:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

How can you distribute the facts mentioned in the section between the theory without ignoring WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? Could you quote one single sentence which is only connected one of the theories? Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Leading question, the same leading question, as always - I did not say to distribute evidence, as that is again WP:RULES (it would mean deciding what is "evidence" or not and what the relevance of that "evidence" is). On the other hand, the evidence is weighted and given an interpretation by the scholars. Thus, and considering Wikipedia's rules, we present the interpretation of said "evidence" by scholars, within the mainstream theories framework (otherwise it would mean we present scholarly interpretations that fall outside the mainstream - not good). Given the interpretations are different among the theories, there is no concern of repeating things.Cealicuca (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopedia, so we cannot present each scholar's full argumentation here. We are here to present the Romanians' ethnogenesis, including the main theories, which describe it, but we are not limited to the three theories, because several aspects of the subjects (including the Latin origin of the language, the possible bilingualism of the Romanians' ancestors, sheep-breeding as a preeminent element of their economy) are independent of the theories. Borsoka (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No, we should present a summary of the argumentation. That were are in agreement. What is weird though is that, beside presenting the theories (which, again, represent the mainstream view) you insist on allocating most of the article to sections that deal with "evidence" which either have no relevance to the argumentation of the theories, or was taken out of that argumentation because (reasons). So you insist on adding content that is either irrelevant (as per the sources) or is simply, by the sheer volume of it, outweighing the mainstream views.Cealicuca (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No, this is not a proper summary what I propose, but I will not repeat it again. Borsoka (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Starting to add up "evidence" about "including the Latin origin of the language, the possible bilingualism of the Romanians' ancestors, sheep-breeding as a preeminent element of their economy", independent of the theory, is nothing short of trying to build a theory of our own. Wikipedia has dedicated articles for the language. Maybe it's time to start a dedicated article on how the Romanians were concerned about sheep-breeding. I don't know. But if you're so keen on those subjects feel free to start a page. The main topic is Origin of Romanians. This topic is not ours to "solve", but ours to present according to the sources. As it happens there are some mainstream views. More more mainstream than others, frankly, but this is for the future. Nevertheless, of course some other relevant information (relevant as per sources) may be added, but last I checked, mainstream views (that is the theories) should not have less space dedicated in the article than a list of "evidence" added by editors over the year, who's relevance to the subject is obscure to the readers (just like many other independent editors have pointed out several times).Cealicuca (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

FAILED STRUCTURE: Exhibit B

A cursory look at the article will reveal that the space allotted to the actual ORIGIN OF THE ROMANIANS theories (DRCT, IT, AT) makes up less than a quarter of the entire article. The rest is just "info dump" with little or no relevance to the theories the article is supposed to present. Further proof of the inept, failed structure of the article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Disagree.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

The rest of the article is dedicated to the facts which are mentioned in most reliable sources dealing with the Romanians' ethnogenesis. We agree that we should clarify each facts exact relationship to the subject, but we cannot ignore basic WP principles, such as WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - every statement in the article needs to be relevant, as specified by the source, to the subject in case. Applying WP:WEIGHT / WP:DUE it means practically that the relevance should be specifically mentioned to one of the three mainstream academic views. On another note - @Borsoka - would you be so kind as to provide an in-line citation of the specific WP:NPOV you are afraid of being ignored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 11:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Please quote a single sentence from the evidence section which is related only to one of the theories. You have so far been unable to prove that these facts can be distributed among the theories without ignoring WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. For instance, your last attempt resulted in a version which mentions that Romanian is a language of Latin origin only in connection with the continuity theory. Borsoka (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not here to distribute "evidence", but maybe you are. Stop with the false premises (statements that have a false assumption from which a conclusion arises). As for your assessment - "Romanian is a language of Latin origin only in connection with the continuity theory" - if there are sources using the Romance aspect of the language as an argument in favour of the continuity theory, we need to present that interpretation (view). If there are sources using the same aspect of the Romanian language (a Romance language) arguing that this is an argument for the immigrationist theory, we should present that interpretation (view). If there are sources using the argument that Romanian is a Romance language in arguing for the admigration theory, we should present that interpretation (view). Simple. We do not get to distribute anything, and we present in a neutral way all points of view.Cealicuca (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree, we do not need to distribute anything. We should improve the article within its present structure. Borsoka (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't, not in the current structure. The current structure emphasizes a collection of "evidence" without specifying the relevance of that "evidence" to the subject in question. This means that, according to you, we should keep on scouring for sources (related or not to the Origin of Romanians) and add as much "evidence" as possible to the article, regardless of their relevance.Cealicuca (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I have several times stated that the relevance of the facts should be made more clear and their concurring interpretations should be mentioned, in accordance with WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Perfect. So let's get rid of the Evidence sections and, as per each cited source, integrate it within the theories. Simple, we just need to look at what the sources say.Cealicuca (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

DRCT section title

Can't help but notice that the word "Theory" appears at the beginning of the DRCT section (Theory of Daco-Roman continuity) but at the end of the other sections (Immigrationist Theory, Admigration Theory). For the sake of consistency, if nothing else, the section should be titled "The Daco-Roman Continuity Theory".Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Support.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

Before making proposals of this type, we should study the basic principles of spelling. The article was copyedited some time ago. We should not decide against those who know those basic principles. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, really? Who exactly copyedited it? And when?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral - On the other, I to am curious what Borsoka is referring to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Capital letters. Borsoka (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... ok.Cealicuca (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

FAILED STRUCTURE: Exhibit D (Evidence)

For the independent editors/moderators... just try to read the whole thing if you can. 'Nuff said. Again, the evidence is presented separately from the theories, thus undermining the arguments presented by WP:RS within the context of their respective theory. As stated before, this is another "he said, she said" type of presentation, where the building blocks of a theory are not allowed to come together in a cohesive way (as presented by WP:RS) but rather they are exhibited separately from their context and hence without the means to build up a picture, as was intended by WP:RS. This is in clear violation of several Wiki guidelines, such as WP:SYNTH, WP:CHERRYPICKING, or WP:NPOV, as already discussed elsewhere. Again, further proof of the inept, failed structure of the article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, there is not such like "moderator" in WP. Disagree, because it has been demonstrated even scholars who are mainly supporting one of the theories have different arguments, sometimes contradictory regarding some important elements of the respective theory, evidence and their summarization. Thus, not necessarily may be any theory presented in an uniform manner regarding all the details and their acceptance by RS.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

There's a dispute resolution pending. The volunteers/"moderators" might come here to take a look with an open mind and see what's happening, hopefully.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

We agree that the article could (and should) be improved, but we cannot ignore basic WP policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:OR. We cannot distribute facts among theories, because we should secure the neutral presentation of their concurring scholarly intepretations, especially because most cases scholars accepting the same theory interpret differently the same facts. Borsoka (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Fully support the removal of the section content (and consequent integration into the sections dedicated to each theory).

• We do not decide what is or is not "evidence" since we're editors, not sources (otherwise it's WP:OR / WP:SYNTH). It's the sources that do that.
• We do not decide what "evidence" is or is not relevant, since we're editors, not sources (otherwise it's WP:OR / WP:SYNTH). It's the sources that do that.
• We do not get to collect "evidence" supporting one theory or another - or, if it's the case, expressing negative criticism to a theory or another, since we're editors, not sources (otherwise it's WP:OR / WP:SYNTH). It's the sources that do that.

So every piece of this "evidence" needs to be, in fact, and as stated by the source we use, relevant to the subject. Since the subject is dealt with via three mainstream academic theories, this means that any piece of this "evidence" needs to be explicitly, as per the source, linked to one of the three theories (otherwise, even when dealing with the Romanian origins, but somehow not linked to the mainstream views, we cannot dedicate a section to it according to WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT.

I would like to ask Borsoka to provide an in-line citation of whatever WP:RULE comes into disagreement with what I just said above.Cealicuca (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:SENSE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu - so you imply it's "common sense" to have the editor collect "evidence" for one theory or another (instead of scholarly interpretation of that evidence)?Cealicuca (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia only works in this article based upon relatively recent WP:SCHOLARSHIP. All other sources are discarded by default. Borsoka already knows this and obeys it, so your argument is a straw man fallacy. So, your whole proposal of restructuring the article does not make sense, since you cannot cogently answer Borsoka's questions in respect to the same piece of evidence being used differently by scholars of different theories and differently even among the scholars subscribing to only one theory, let alone scholars who don't subscribe to any of them and just say there is no WP:RS/AC for either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

So wait, now WP:RULES don't apply?

I am not answering Borsoka's question since it is irrelevant and presumptuous one, based on a false premise (that we, or I, should somehow "distribute evidence among the theories"). As I said, an editor's job is not to collect and distribute evidence. We are here to present what the academics say about those "evidence". Their interpretation, not ours. And if it so happens that their interpretation, even among the same framework, is different - Wikipedia has rules what to do in that case. And if it so happens that their interpretation is a minority view - then Wikipedia has rules on what to do with it. And if it so happens that the "evidence" is not at all interpreted by a scholar, then it has no business being in the article.

And since you're on the subject of answering questions - we can do this the hard way. I'll take a set of 3-4 statements, and ask everyone to answer what is the relevance of that. And based on the answer it will be easy to determine where the "evidence" should be. Because any answer will fall under the following categories:

• The source makes the statement in a context that has no relation whatsoever with the mainstream theories that the academia developed to describe Romanian's origins -> it will simply be deleted.
• The source makes the statement in a context that has a relation with the ethnogenesis of the Romanians but it is not related to any mainstream view -> it will be treated just like any other PoV that is not mainstream.
• The source makes the statement in the context of one theory or another -> it means that this article has misrepresented what the source means and the editor who added that particular statement, as a piece of "evidence" has tried to use the statement in a different manner than the source meant.
• The source makes the statement in the context of one theory or another, but comes into conflict with another source having a different view on the same thing, within the same theory (so no consensus) -> We get to argue about whether we say "X says this, while Y says that" or "Y says this while X says that". And, of course, such statements should rather be underrepresented in the article in favor of PoVs that the academia agrees on.

Wikipedia provides all the necessary rules to deal with this, but out of an unknown (to some) obscure reason, you and other editors are trying to dismantle the theories framework by removing what the sources consider as evidence, by circumventing the argumentation upon which each theory rests. Of course, if you take said "facts" out of context, you'll end up with different interpretations because you know what? We DO have competing theories which, obviously, interpret differently the same thing.

Moreover, related strictly to what you claim Borsoka knows and obeys, there's already a discussion here on some piece of "evidence" Borsoka added (with apparently no other reason than to give him and some other editors a good laugh). One that is contradicted by the very source mentioning it, and in total disregard of the context that the source mentioned Diez's "semi-romance" language. Or is Diez's statement (taken out of the context presented by Posner, and anyway in contradiction with what Posner mentions through the ) a "recent WP:SCHOLARSHIP"?

Go to WP:SENSE and look at the the chart. Then go to the specialized board and ask for the rules to be changed. Because otherwise you are basically advocating WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.Cealicuca (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

False dilemma. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Care to expand on that? What is the option I did not mention?Cealicuca (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

E.g. scholars who are not subscribing to any of those theories and just try to assess how well all those theories fit with objectively known facts, giving examples of such facts. So a single fact is linked by a scholar to two or more theories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, you should re-read the categories. It's covered. But in any case, so what? We're all in agreement that a "fact" may be linked to more than one theory. It's self-evident. But the article goes out of it's way to present the "facts" and build a narrative with those "facts". Those "facts" are easily manipulated - by simple methods like association via proximity for example (that is putting two otherwise unrelated statements next to another and give the impression of a whole). This is why trying to make a collection of facts is dangerous, and this is the precise reason why this was done here.

A good example is Borsoka's latest edit, see the section. Borsoka removed what was the most important part (for the argumentation of one of the theories) of what some sources said by simply associating them to Piccolomini, who is cited as writing "that the Vlachs were a genus Italicum ("an Italian race") and were named after one Pomponius Flaccus, a commander sent against the Dacians". No more reference to "remaining in Dacia", "surviving many fights" or "the offspring of an ancient colony of the Romans that used to be once in Transylvania". Poof. Gone. So now, instead of having sources that are precious to the argumentation of one theory, those sources have been devoid of their relevance towards that theory and transformed into "neutral" sources. By the editor. How easy is to get your message across with the help of some friends...

So, as I said before, it's not about the "facts". Because anyone can manipulate a set of "facts", a set of "evidence" and make all that play to whatever tune we wile. Our job is to present the mainstream interpretations, and if there are scholars disagreeing with it, sure. Mention them to. But not in a manner that means the article is dedicated to the people disagreeing rather than the mainstream theories. WP:WEIGHT / WP:DUE.Cealicuca (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

@Iovaniorgovan:, you were already asked to stop this "bludgeoning" type of communication ([5]). We all agree that the article could (and should) be improved. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Bludgeoning "is most common with someone who feels they have a stake in the outcome or feels they own the particular article or subject matter." Seeing as you've been at it for years, editing this article into a hot mess, I'd say that most certainly applies to you. So please stop this.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Remember that it was you whose bludgeoging was noticed by an "outsider". If you read the Talk page above, you will find several examples of my attempts to cooperate. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, what better evidence of your willingness to cooperate than right here? Speaks volumes.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I stop debating this issue with you. If you think that I ignore any WP rules, please report me on the relevant notice board. Borsoka (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

DRCT: new edit in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH

This earlier edit of the section contained the following summaries of WP:RS: "Between the 5th and 7th century the Daco-Romans develop a new and unitary culture known as Ipotești-Candești-Ciurel (in Muntenia), Brateiu (Transylvania), and Costișa-Botoșani (Moldavia).[50] When groups of Slavs began to settle in the Transylvania region in the 6th-7th century, they brought with them an inferior culture, archeologically identified by rudimentary ceramics, tools, or jewelry.[50] These Slavic elements appear as an "add-on" to the Daco-Roman culture and in time they acquired obvious Romanized features, proving that the early Slavic arrivals formed a thin layer quickly assimilated by the Romanized masses.[50] However, later cultures, such as the Dridu culture (8th-11th century) make the connection between certain artifacts and archaeological assemblages and ethnic groups less certain.[51][52]", and further down the section, "Linguistic studies have shown that Slavic elements did not appear in the Romanian language until the 9th century, showing that Romanians and Slavs co-existed for centuries while living in relative isolation from one another, the Romanians mostly in the mountains and forests, and the Slavs in the open plains, [70] Only after the waves of migrations subsided did the Romanians descend back on the plains and assimilated the remaining Slavs.[70] Linguist Gabriela P. Dindelegan underlines that contacts with other peoples has not modified the "Latin structure of Romanian" and the "non-Latin grammatical elements" borrowed from other languages were "adapted to and assimilated by the Romance pattern".[60]". As anyone can see, this shows how the WP:RS connect disciplines such as archeology and linguistics to paint a cohesive picture of a people, with the archeology and linguistics research matching perfectly for the timeframe in question. However, the new edit has done away with all the connective tissue inherent in the WP:RS and has reduced the argument to this: "Most Romanian scholars accepting the continuity theory regard the archaeological evidence for the uninterrupted presence of a Romanized population in the lands now forming Romania undeniable.[145][146][147][148] [...] Other scholars who support the same theory underline that the connection between certain artefacts or archaeological assemblages and ethnic groups is uncertain.[148][152] " So no time frame is mentioned at all, boiling the elaborate argument down to a "he said, she said" by giving undue weight to a minority view (Opreanu), while quoting Madgearu out of context, as I've shown here. This amounts to misrepresenting what the WP:RS are actually saying, thus violating WP:SYNTH. This is just one of many such instances present in the current article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I see you cant stop bludgeoning. The whole context is the following: "Most Romanian scholars accepting the continuity theory regard the archaeological evidence for the uninterrupted presence of a Romanized population in the lands now forming Romania undeniable. Especially, artefacts bearing Christian symbolism, hoards of bronze Roman coins and Roman-style pottery are listed among the archaeological finds verifying the theory. The same scholars emphasize that the Romanians directly inherited the basic Christian terminology from Latin, which also substantiates the connection between Christian objects and the Romanians' ancestors. Other scholars who support the same theory underline that the connection between certain artefacts or archaeological assemblages and ethnic groups is uncertain. Instead of archaeological evidence, Alexandru Madgearu highlights the importance of the linguistic traces of continuity, referring to the Romanian river names in the Apuseni Mountains and the preservation of archaic Latin lexical elements in the local dialect. The survival of the names of the largest rivers from Antiquity is often cited as an evidence for the continuity theory, although some linguists who support it notes that a Slavic-speaking population transmitted them to modern Romanians. Some words directly inherited from Latin are also said to prove the continuous presence of the Romanians' ancestors north of the Danube, because they refer to things closely connected to these regions. For instance, linguist Marius Sala argues that the Latin words for oil, gold and bison could only be preserved in the lands to the north of the river." So the text emphasizes the multiple (archaeological and linguistic) evidence for the theory. Furthermore, the article contains the following text as well under Section To the north of the Lower Danube: "Romanian archaeologists propose that a series of archaeological horizons that succeeded each other in the lands north of the Lower Danube in the early Middle Ages support the continuity theory. In their view, archaeological finds at Brateiu (in Transylvania), Ipotești (in Wallachia) and Costișa (in Moldavia) represent the Daco-Roman stage of the Romanians' ethnogenesis which ended in the 6th century. The next ("Romanic") stage can be detected through assemblages unearthed in Ipotești, Botoșana, Hansca and other places which were dated to the 7th-8th centuries. Finally, the Dridu culture is said to be the evidence for the "ancient Romanian" stage of the formation of the Romanian people. In contrast to these views, Opreanu emphasizes that the principal argument of the hypothesis—the presence of artefacts imported from the Roman Empire and their local copies in allegedly "Daco-Roman" or "Romanic" assemblages—is not convincing, because close contacts between the empire and the neighboring Slavs and Avars is well-documnted. He also underlines that Dridu culture developed after a "cultural discontinuity" that followed the disappearance of the previous horizons. Regarding both the Slavs and Romanians as sedentary populations, Alexandru Madgearu also underlines that the distinction of "Slavic" and "Romanian" artefacts is difficult, because archaeologists can only state that these artifacts could hardly be used by nomads. He proposes that "The wheel-made pottery produced on the fast wheel (as opposed to the tournette), which was found in several settlements of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, may indicate the continuation of Roman traditions" in Transylvania." Both Oltean and Madgearu's words are properly summarized and quoted and the timeframe is also mentioned.

References

I am afraid, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

First off, after we all got hit with blocks, the admin folks suggested that we bring up any issues to the Talk pages, and that's exactly what I'm doing. If opening a conversation about an issue and talking with the other editors to try to achieve consensus counts as bludgeoning in your opinion, then maybe you're not here to build an encyclopedia. Secondly, your comment above only proves what I've been saying all along: evidence is separated from the theory. Also, this critical Linguistic element ("Linguistic studies have shown that Slavic elements did not appear in the Romanian language until the 9th century, showing that Romanians and Slavs co-existed for centuries while living in relative isolation from one another, the Romanians mostly in the mountains and forests, and the Slavs in the open plains, [70] Only after the waves of migrations subsided did the Romanians descend back on the plains and assimilated the remaining Slavs.[70]), which connects Linguistics research of the era with the archeological finds has been deleted by you. So these issues are not going anywhere until they get fixed.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read before commenting in the future. The same section contains the following sentences: "Although for a millennium migratory peoples invaded the territory, a sedentary Christian Romance-speaking population survived, primarily in the densely forested areas, separated from the "heretic" or pagan invaders. Only the "semisedentarian" Slavs exerted some influence on the Romanians' ancestors, especially after they adopted Orthodox Christianity in the 9th century. They played the role in the Romanians' ethnogenesis that the Germanic peoples had played in the formation of other Romance peoples."

References

Borsoka (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Look, the section needs review - just like the other sections dedicated to a theory, and will probably get changed anyway. Let's not get into the debate now, let's simply do it step by step. Those sections (the dedicated sections) will shape up naturally once we start integrating the relevant content from the other sections. Is everyone in agreement?

As for deleted content - yes, during the "war of edits" there was a lot of content removed. Some of it was added by me - and it got deleted even though it was properly sourced. This is not good for the article, let's just see what gets removed, what gets moved, what gets added. Step by step.Cealicuca (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, WP articles are always changing are are always being developed. However, we are not here to develop an original encyclopedical structure. We should not repeat the same facts several times in this article. Borsoka (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka Please read my comments before making snarky remarks. Again, where did this critical Linguistic element ("Linguistic studies have shown that Slavic elements did not appear in the Romanian language until the 9th century...) go? That's not the same as saying "Only the "semisedentarian" Slavs exerted some influence on the Romanians' ancestors..." What "influence" would that be, and how do scholars know that? We're here to properly summarize and present a theory (DRCT in this case), a theory that includes Linguistics as a field of study. Therefore, this critical and precise element coming from Linguistic studies (which is in accord with archeological studies) should be presented as such, rather than warp it into a generalized and fuzzy "some influence" statement.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be mentioned under the Linguistic section, because it is a common element of the argumentation of all theories. We are not here to repeat the same facts several times in the same article. The above summary clearly states, that according to continuity scholars the Slavs and Romanians were separated from each other until the 9th century. Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You don't have the right to distribute evidence and bits of theories willy-nilly as you see fit. Why not then simply mention that Linguistic element on another Wiki page? Say, the History of the Romanian Language page (seeing as it's still within the Wikipedia encyclopedia and you don't want to have any redundancy)? In fact, why even bother with this article at all? Let's just distribute all these pieces of evidence to other (relevant) Wikipedia pages and be done with?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

None of us is entitled to pretend that the linguistic fact that the Romanians' ancestors did not have close contacts with the Slavs before the 9th century is only part of the argumentation of one of the theories. Borsoka (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Just like none of us is entitled to pretend that the linguistic fact that the Romanians' ancestors did have close contacts with the Slavs before the 9th century is only part of the argumentation of one of the theories.Cealicuca (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

We agree. Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree to what precisely?...Cealicuca (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you able to read your own message before my answer? I decided to ignore your messages for a while. Borsoka (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The better question is, are you? Because if you say we agree then it means that we both agree on that this article needs to drop the heavy collection of "facts" and "evidence" and start actually treating the subject in a wikipedian way - that is presenting the academia's opinions on the subject, in a non-biased fashion (like, for example, no more quipping by you and your friends on almost every single Talk section about how the continuity theory is this and that...), the theories as they are presented, not as we would like them to be presented.Cealicuca (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Drăganu's map

Drăganu's map should be deleted. It is a very old map its content is laughable. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is funny. Gottfried Schramm noticed in 1997 that the scholarly level of the continuity theory is extremly low. However, Madgearu accepts a very similar view and refers to similarly debatable etymologies to substantiate this view. The presence of a sizeable Vlach population in Pannonia at the time of the Magyar conquest is accepted by some Romanian historians. I think we should modify the caption to make it clear that this map was designed in 1935 and its etymologies are not widely accepted. Borsoka (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, at least to explain that the so-called "names of Romanian origin" are just Drăganu's supposition, since many names are clearly have zero connection to aynthing Romanian (my favorites are Feketeardó, Hajdúböszörmény, Nagykanizsa, Alcsút, Felcsút, Vajdahomok, Nagyrippény, Vad, but I better do not continue the list).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC))

My personal favorites are the 11th-13th-century Latin translations of Hungarian place names found in Latin documents (such as Aqua Striga and Piscina Rotunda), which are used as evidence for the presence of a Romanian-speaking population. Maybe the Romanians' ancestors spoke Latin even in the 11th-13th centuries and only later adopted a semi-Romance language. :) :) :) Borsoka (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I did notice the addition of the semi-Romance language. That in itself (so a 19th century observation used to open a section over modern linguists opinion) , is laughable, but we'll get there too. On another note, I can't help but notice a certain conversion of this talk page into a forum.Cealicuca (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Borsoka, plus we can add to the problematic (= non-Romanian origin names) that are just considered like so ad-hoc (like Brassó) or those of composed of possible foreign and Hungarian origin and was phonetically transcripted to Romanian but does not have a meaning in Romanian (Temesvár), or those who are treated as "Romanian-origin" just because they include a Hungarian reference as being Romanian-majority inhabited or village founded for Romanians, i.e. Oláhfenes, where the original village was founded as "Fenes" (Hungarian etymology), and later it got the Oláh suffix because Vlach's were settled and soon it became a type of village mentioned before. Similarly as Oláhtelek, that seems founded and meant initially for Vlachs.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC))

Yes, many places on the map do contain names that are definitely not Romanian in origin. If no one objects, I also think it should be removed. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course, should there be WP:RS that mention all that you guys are saying in the context of one of the mainstream theories that explain the Origin of Romanians, please add it. If scholars studying the subject had deemed it relevant, by all means add if. Otherwise it's WP:SYNTH in case it is not at all related to the Romanian ethnogenesys or, in case it is not related to any of the three mainstream theories according to WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT it shouldn't be added. Again, we're not here to "gather" evidence one way or another, nor to establish what is relevant or not according to our own belief of what is true or not, or even logic. Oh, just to make myself clear, I DO object. Having it "old" is no reason for removing it. As stated above, go ahead and brin relevant RS to support the inconsistencies and we'll remove it then. Until then, of course that "old" and "laughable" are not grounds for removal.WP:NOTTRUTHCealicuca (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The accuracy of this map has never been demonstrated. What are the reliable sources to support the accuracy of this map? Can you bring relevant sources to show that all the places of this map are Romanian settlements between the 9th and 14th centuries? TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Just like other maps here (I remember one recently) as long as there is no problem (ie: relevant sources showing there is a problem with it) it should be treated the same. I fail to see how one could apply different rules to one map over another. On another hand, the map itself is "Vatra străromână", drawing according with Jireček, Petrović, Popp, Pușcariu, Rosetti and also Mircea Cociu, Spațiul etnic românesc, ed. Militară, Bucharest 1993, ISBN 973-32-0367-XCealicuca (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Please try not to waste other editors' time. Draganu's funny map is the subject of this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You probably missed this: Just like other maps here (I remember one recently) as long as there is no problem (ie: relevant sources showing there is a problem with it) it should be treated the same. I fail to see how one could apply different rules to one map over another. On another hand, the map itself is "Vatra străromână", drawing according with Jireček, Petrović, Popp, Pușcariu, Rosetti and also Mircea Cociu, Spațiul etnic românesc, ed. Militară, Bucharest 1993, ISBN 973-32-0367-X - this was about this map.Cealicuca (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. I must again repeat: please read before commenting. Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand perfectly. Try this:

• 1. Click on map (you will see an enlarged version of it).
• 2. On the bottom left-hand corner there's a big clue button called "More Details". Click on it.
• 3. You should now be on this Wiki page.
• 4. Read the description. It's in the Summary section.

Since you seem to be so concerned about other editors' time, I must return the favor so I hope this is neither complicated, nor inconvenient for you. Enjoy.Cealicuca (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You do not understand. Search it in the section "Romania in Antiquity and the Middle Ages". Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I must admit my mistake and apologize for it (mistaken the map in question for another). Could you please be more specific next time? Thank you.

In any case, I reiterate that if there are relevant (see above about the relevant RS) WP:RS contradicting the map the of course, it can be removed. But I cannot support a removal on the grounds of "funny", "old" etc. etc. So please, I know you have have access to lots and lots of sources, cite a relevant (see above about the relevant RS) source and I will be on board with your proposal, no questions asked. Peace.Cealicuca (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Draganu's map will not be deleted, for the reasons I already explained in this Talk section (which, "for some reason", got archived too early). I don't see any new arguments here, so it appears we're going around in circles. To those who contest the map, feel free to ask for third opinion, request for comments, etc. Else, please don't waste editors' time by opening identical Talk sections every two weeks just because you can't achieve consensus.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You forget that by other's good faith the map was not contested finally, you did not really built consensus for it, but eventually it was let to put, the opposite did not depend on much! And please, do no accuse others about "wasting other editors time" or "opening identical Talk sections every two weeks just because you can't achieve consensus", because exactly with this phenomenon we met in the past months and you have been a major participant in it!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

I still suggest that the caption should be changed. My proposal is the following: "Romanian settlements in the Carpathian Basin in the 9th-14th centuries, according to a map published in 1933. The map presents all settlements which are deemed to be inhabited by Romanians in the period on the basis of place names and personal names. Many of the place names are of Hungarian or Slav origin, or refer to Italian and Walloon colonists, according to later studies." Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

In case, I would prefer like so:

"Romanian settlements in the 9th-14th centuries, according to a map published in 1933. The map presents all settlements (in cursive) which are deemed to be inhabited by Romanians in the period on the basis of place names and personal names according to the author. Many of the place names are of Hungarian or Slavic or other origin, or refer to Italian and Walloon colonists, according to later studies."(KIENGIR (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

If the text "or other origin" is deleted, I would be happy with this caption. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, shall it be like so.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

Not trying to further this, but I'm just curious. Which sources back up this: "Many of the place names are of Hungarian or Slav origin, or refer to Italian and Walloon colonists, according to later studies."?Cealicuca (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources, but a general work is the "Földrajzi nevek etimológiai szótára" (Etymological Encyclopedia of Toponyms) by Lajos Kiss ([6]). That the wine regions in Syrmium, around Eger and Tokay were colonized by Italians and Walloons (instead of Vlachs) is well-known. Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka, KIENGIR, The map belongs in the DRCT section, which is where it will end up eventually. The map summarizes DRCT viewpoints, and amending the caption (as per your suggestions) would violate what the WP:RS (Draganu) has to say about it. As I've already shown, Draganu's book is still hugely influential and this map, by and large, represents the DRCT scholarly view. If you have IT sources saying otherwise then please feel free to present them in the IT section. In fact, I see you've already shoehorned your "Rivers" table back into the article without consensus even though it's presented as a statement of fact, with no reference to IT. But, no worries, we'll get to that soon. So, again, the Draganu map belongs in DRCT. The "Rivers" table belongs in IT. Very simple.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan:, as per agreement the text written under the map may be formed and in case we put "according to the author/Drăganu" it does not contradict anything, as the supposition of the new text as well did not contradicted the authors original consideration, just intended to put it's proper evaluation in order.

"In fact, I see you've already shoehorned your "Rivers"....etc." -> if you want to insist this would be a recent edit, you are false and anyway I have no involvement in it. Simply by your former edit warring with other users it was the by-product of their restoration of the article as it standed before the admins intervened and set the new editing policies. Thus, recently it has not any connection to any "possible failure of consensus" or any failure of any new regulation imposed by the admins.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC))

We cannot ignore the fact that Draganu's etymologies are challenged by a number of scholars. Alternatively, it could be deleted, as it is suggested by most editors. Borsoka (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wikipedia does not rely on counting votes but rather on respecting Wiki guidelines. Again, Draganu's work constitutes WP:RS and represents "current mainstream" DRCT viewpoints and it should be moved to the DRCT section. It won't be deleted.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, WP is not a personal place to play, but a community experience. You do not understand it. I deleted the map as per above discussion. Borsoka (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

There was no consensus whatsoever for the deletion of the map (a properly sourced WP:RS). Your edit was in violation of Wiki guidelines and I will follow proper Wikipedia channels to sanction your act of complete disregard for standard procedures and the advice of admins following the recent blocks. Whether it's through the pending dispute resolution or through other mediating forums, this is not the end of this chapter.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

FAILED STRUCTURE: Exhibit C (Historiography)

This section should be broken up and incorporated into their respective "Origin of the Romanians" theories. Each theory has its own historiography and should be presented within its proper context, else we end up with a typical "he said, she said" of contradictory WP:RS (much like the rest of the article, in fact) that amount to "nothing can be known". However, the WP:RS present arguments that, taken as a whole, do depict a viable picture of the development of a people. These arguments are sorely missing from this type of presentation. Further proof of the inept, failed structure of the article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. The primary pharagraph may neutrally represent information without any theory, shall it support anything, since data and evidence was not rendered necessarily by any theory. since afterwards all the three major theories' own section any of them may be developed individually with arguments, so I don't see any problem with the structure.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

Before continuing this bludgeoning, please answer my related question that I raised a couple of days ago ([7]): "Which theory should appropiate the earliest sources (Kekaumenos, Simon of Kéza, Kinnamos, Description of Eastern Europe). They unanimously write of the Vlachs' south-Danubian homeland. Should we mention these sources only under the IT? Should we ignore "continuity" scholars' comments on them? How this approach could secure the neutral presentation of facts?" Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Fully support - We are dealing with three mainstream academic views, their historiography should naturally be integrated in their dedicated sections. On another note - Borsoka - Nobody said that a theory or another should "apropritate" those primary source. However, to the extent those primary sources are used by secondary sources dealing with the theories (ie: you have a secondary source that use those primary sources in their argumentation then by all means mention it). So you see, we're not to decide who "owns" or how to "use" those primary sources since their relevance cannot (and should not, otherwise we get into WP:OR territory) be established by us.Cealicuca (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you suggest that those sentences should be repeated under each theory? Can you refer to encyclopedias which repeat the same pieces information in the same article? Borsoka (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No, i do not suggest that. Here is an example: The Romanian language is a Romance language (what you call "evidence"). If there are sources using the Romance aspect of the language as an argument in favour of the continuity theory, we need to present that interpretation (view). If there are sources using the same aspect of the Romanian language (a Romance language) arguing that this is an argument for the immigrationist theory, we should present that interpretation (view). If there are sources using the argument that Romanian is a Romance language in arguing for the admigration theory, we should present that interpretation (view). Simple. We do not get to distribute anything, and we present in a neutral way all points of view. Otherwise, this "evidence" is irrelevant or the relevance is not expressed in the framework of a mainstream view, being added to the article by an editor collecting such "evidence", for his/her own purposes only.Cealicuca (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Absurd: you say we have to mention three times the same fact. Can you name an encyclopedia which repeats the same fact three times in an article? Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no rule that you can't repeat a "fact" in an encyclopedia article. Repeating a "fact" (piece of evidence) is not redundant if it's presented through the lens of a different theory. There are however Wiki guidelines about properly summarizing WP:RS, which is what concerns us here. You can't properly summarize what a WP:RS has to say about a "fact" if you can't say what the "fact" is. So if DRCT has something to say about a piece of "evidence" then that should be stated in the DRCT section, and if IT has something to say about it then by all means include that in the IT. For instance, while both DRCT and IT agree that Romanian is a Latin language, they disagree on the place and the mechanism of its development, so you can't separate the bit that's common (Latin heritage, even though there's some debate there as well) from the rest of the theories without unraveling the argument and presenting it out of the context of the theory (as intended by WP:RS), with supporting arguments from other fields of study like archeology, ethnography, etc. Same applies to those sources mentioned above, they mean different things to DRCT as they do to IT (as will be shown once we expand the respective sections), and whatever the scholars have to say about them is connected and interpreted through the lens of all the other fields of study combined. That's how scholars/WP:RS build a theory, and that's why those interpretations (as presented by WP:RS) need to be placed within their proper theoretical context (as intended by WP:RS) and it's a violation of Wiki guidelines to do otherwise. Pulling a piece of "evidence" out of its context destroys the context (that is, the theory). Fortunately, Wikipedia guidelines trump your guidelines any day, any time. Which is why, like it or not, the article will eventually be restructured.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The core of the two main theories is summarized in the article, fully in accordance with reliable sources and also taking into account WP:NPOV. You have not named a single encyclopedia that repeats the same facts in the same article. For saving our time, I will not comment your suggestions which would result in an original structure, alien to all encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to create your own encyclopedia. That way you'll be free to apply your own rules.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, Tgeorgescu well expressed also recently more times - I understand he would be tired to put it all the sections in a way or another circling on the same problem - and pinpointed what is the problem; that it seems two editor do not/not willing to undestand that their one-way and fallacious interpretation of the rules of editing this encyclopedia is the problem, and not those charges are valid that are continuously addressed to other editors...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC))

Excuse me, that editor is quoting rules only when, strangely, it helps the views expressed by you, Borsoka, Trix, Fakirbakir and others. When it's not, common sense is mentioned (to hell with the rules). This approach is at best a double standard.Cealicuca (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Or, maybe all of us understand something that two editors do not (still).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC))

Oh, you mean none of these independent editors get it (still)?:

• How an editor characterizes the content of the article: [...] In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruse as it is. [...] How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? [...]
• An editor's suggestion on how the article should look like: [...] This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. [...]
• An editor's description of sections in the article: [...] The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. [...]
• How another editor describes the article: [...] I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence [...]
• Another editor's take on how confusing the content of the article is: [...] I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two.[...]
• Again, the same editor providing a reader's perspective: [...] so I might not be able to add much to this other than offer the perspective of the reader. If there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained. It is not clear which theory is being discussed in the paragraph in question, and adding a single sentence about the other theory only makes things more confusing, rather than adding balance. [...] Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:MNA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Considering what was summarized about independent editor's opinion on what this article looks/reads like, as well as the problem is (which has been pointed out multiple times), I'd guess you and some other editors simply WP:IDHT. You receive the criticism about how this article is confusing, about the evidence not properly framed etc. from multiple editors otherwise not involved in this article - so they don't have a stake on wither changing the status quo nor "pushing" some PoV as you say - on several occasions but you carry on.Cealicuca (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

False accusation again (btw. IDHT perfectly describes the situation, but vica versa). Simply not understanding, although more people more times made their explanation. I see the suggestions of the other editors are taken into consideration as far as possible in order not to harm any fundamental WP rules and editing standards, like WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, not to repeat the same thing more times and /or, accept that scholars even supporting one viewpoint have different views on a theory and their possible evolution. This is all circling around, as I see. But I see as well, regardless how many times it is explained, you are interpreting everything differently, and that's why never ending discussions are generated. That's why it is bludgeoning.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC))

If you think I'd be the partner to generate again 280 km lengthy discussion about something every section an other editor (possibly) discussed with you...if there is something new, I gladly discuss about it but I think it is not the best summary like All this "debate" is caused by you, Borsoka, Trix and Fakirbakir, of course also with the always-there-when-needed help of Tgeorgescu, since as I recall, none of these users started any debate with you, but the opposite happened...(KIENGIR (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC))

We all saw what user Iovaniorgovan did with this article about ten days ago. There is no need for that kind of approach. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is. Because the approach of presenting viewpoints and not a list of "facts" or "evidence" is the approach that follows the Wiki policies. Your "original" approach is against the Wikipedia policies. Your original approach leads to the content being easily manipulated to tell any story (not necessarily the sources). Your approach, so far, has been proven to only generate debates - debates that (coincidentally or not) nevertheless you control, since, as Tgeorgescu has once said, you are of a "hive" mind. Fortunately, it seems that the "hive" mind is only limited to this rather very close-knit group, since only in the past couple of months this otherwise obscure article has been viewed by other editors. Unfortunately for you, those editors have noticed the problems about the article. So it seems to me like this 4 person hive mind is in actuality breaking the consensus to which, independently, several non-partisan editors have arrived to.Cealicuca (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If you cannot beat them, join them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no one to "beat", therefore no one to "join". The aim is truthfulness (or the Wiki version of it), and to quote Solzhenitsyn, "One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world."Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:THETRUTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I added the qualifier ("the Wiki version of it") especially for you. You're welcome.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)