Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Origin of the Romanians. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
who were nomads?
I observed this page in Category:Nomadic groups in Eurasia and I am asking the man who performed this inclusion to submit here his list of works that stay behind this claim.
- Please read a list above (under the title "Were romanians the latest nomadic ethnic group?"). You can also read well-referenced sentences about this topic in the article (especially under the titles "Historiography" and "Sources on the Balkan Vlachs"). Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- The sources under the title "Were romanians the latest nomadic ethnic group?" are old (for example: The Races of Europe (Coon) is from 1933)
- So Balkan Vlachs were nomads. But there is no certainty that old Balkan Vlachs are the ancestors of modern Romanians. They could be the exclusively ancestors of Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians
- Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Romanians are (at least presently) different peoples. I suggest the new title Origin of the Vlachs ("Vlach is a blanket term covering several modern Latin peoples descending from the Latinized population in the present-day territory of Romania and Moldova, as well as the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula and south and west of the Danube River")
- Actually, the whole Vlach/Romanian population was described as a migratory population in the Middle Ages. Please read this article: there is a clear reference to Vlachs migrating to the Kingdom of Hungary according to the earliest Romanian chronicles. There is no debate among scholars that the Balkan Vlachs and the Vlachs/Romanians of Romania descended from the same people. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please read a list above (under the title "Were romanians the latest nomadic ethnic group?"). You can also read well-referenced sentences about this topic in the article (especially under the titles "Historiography" and "Sources on the Balkan Vlachs"). Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- actually Vlachs or Romanians are not nomads . Read up on what nomadism is. The settlements of proto-Romanians suggests they were agriculturalists no different to Germanic and Slavic tribes. Secondly , there is no reason to suppose that Balkan Vlachs and Romanians "descend" from the same people, except to serve the nationalist wishes of Romanians who want to claim Vlachs as part of the Romanian nation on the one hand, on the other hand used by Hungarian nationalists to "prove" that romanians come from the south of the Danube , and are thus new to Transylvania. Naturally, both approaches are flawed 120.23.48.8 (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 08:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- Interestingly, both approaches are accepted by non-Hungarian and non-Romanian scholars. Maybe they are non-Romanian Romanian nationalists and non-Hungarian Hungarian chauvinists. Maybe references to academic works, instead of making declarations, could substantiate all above claims. Borsoka (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- actually Vlachs or Romanians are not nomads . Read up on what nomadism is. The settlements of proto-Romanians suggests they were agriculturalists no different to Germanic and Slavic tribes. Secondly , there is no reason to suppose that Balkan Vlachs and Romanians "descend" from the same people, except to serve the nationalist wishes of Romanians who want to claim Vlachs as part of the Romanian nation on the one hand, on the other hand used by Hungarian nationalists to "prove" that romanians come from the south of the Danube , and are thus new to Transylvania. Naturally, both approaches are flawed 120.23.48.8 (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 08:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- References are not needed in making preliminary suggestions, so you shouldn't react confrontationally. And "acceptance" doesn't mean a whole lot, especially for a topic which has received almost no serious recent attention by western scholarship.
- And, no, neither Vlachs nor Romanians are 'nomads'. That I can give you references for Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Slovenski Volk, sorry, I have just understand the above remarks - you both refer to present-day Vlachs and Romanians. Yes, I agree, they are not nomads. As far as I know nobody claims that they are still nomads with the exception of some extremist British, French and Italian politicians. Actually, the Romanians' ancestors adopted a settled way of life centuries ago. Borsoka (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes - "nomad" and "migratory" are two different terms meaning different things. Nomads never settle in one are for long and do not establish permanent structures ... a nation/ethnicity can put down roots in one area, yet slowly 'naturally' migrate to another area for various reasons - economic, pressure from another nationality, etc. - this is not nomadism.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are right, I make only one remark: nomadic groups were not characterized by their constant aimless movements all along the territory they could reach, but by a periodical movement between their own summer and winter camps. For instance Victor Spinei writes that the "Pechenegs lived a primarily nomadic life, moving according to the season together with their families, herds and possessions along pre-established routes in search of good pastures." (Spinei, Victor (2003). The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century (Translated by Dana Badulescu). p. 96. ISBN 973-85894-5-2.) Likewise, István Fodor say that the "cyclic migrations of the nomadic pastoralists, repeated year after yera, made permanent living quarters constructed from durable materials unneccessary ... [t]hey built stouter buildings only in their winter quarters. In the neighbourhood of the winter quarters on the banks of the rivers were the ploughed fields." (Fodor, István (1975). In Search of a New Homeland: The Prehistory of the Hungarian People and the Conquest. Corvina Kiadó. pp. 183–184. ISBN 963-13-1126-0.). A similar pattern was recorded among medieval Vlachs/Romanians: "the leader of the 1066 Romanian uprising against the Byzantine government, who lived in the urban centre of Larissa, ... was not able to get in touch with his men, because in the summer they and their families were all in the mountains of Bulgaria ... [t]he above statement is, in fact, the first known mention of the practice of transhumance, that is summer-winter rotational grazing, among the Romanians." (Makkai, László (1994). "The Emergence of the Estates (1172–1526)". In Köpeczi, Béla; Barta, Gábor; Bóna, István; Makkai, László; Szász, Zoltán; Borus, Judit (eds.). History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. pp. 178–243 (on page 185). ISBN 963-05-6703-2.) Borsoka (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Very true, but also to begin with. Their settlements have all features of settled, agricultural communities. Eg see Victor Spenei's book, in which the evidence is otherwise known from other works also- whether Russian, or Bulgarian, etc. The idea that they were nomads is based on a few early medieval references liberally interpreted, which otherwise employed am ethnographic topos to communicate the 'otherness' of Vlachs in Byzantine eyes. Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, according to Spinei's POV, the 9th-13th-century sedentary population whose settlements were undearthed in the lands east of the Carpathians (in Moldavia and Wallachia) spoke Romanian. He even says that the fact that the Romanians adopted Turkic hydronyms everywhere in the same regions proves that they were a settled people (they did not need to differentiate the rivers because they did not move) (I refer to Spinei 2009 p. 322). On the other hand, for instance, Gottfried Schramm who wrote of the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people says that the Slavic loanwords in the Romanian language prove that the Romanians' ancestors formed a mobile group of pastoralists and the Romanians only adopted a settled way of life at a later stage of their ethnogenesis (I refer to Schramm 1997 pp. 309-310). Medieval sources unanimously describing the Vlachs as a migratory population only confirm the general picture of their migratory way of life, according to Schramm's view. Borsoka (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I do not claim expertise on the matter, but Schramm's ideas are likely outdated. Apart from his view being coloured by an uncritical, prima facie description of medieval accounts, as well as modern Romantic notions of the wandering, cattle herding Vlach, no amount of language analysis helps clearly elucidate that a people were settled or nomadic. Whatever the case, I do agree with your point that the origin of the Wallachian and Moldovian voivodes, etc, had something closely to do with the variuos Turkic peoples which were prominent from the latter Middle Ages, and Second Bulgarian Empire, etc. At least Spinei presents actual archaeological data rather than hypotheses based on literal readings of past testimonies and linguistic reconstruction. The idea that proto-Romanians were nomads is simply false, as is the idea that they took refuge in the mountains (as if somehow invisible). Even the Turkic peoples weren't full nomads.
- But my other point earlier was, (Balkan, south of the Danube) Vlachs might have little to do with Romanians (ie the formative Wallachians and Moldavians) of the Middle Ages. There were likely numerous, disconnected 'islands' of vulgar Latin speakers, both south and north of the Danube, but subsumed under catch-all terms like Sklaveni,or Gepids, etc. Certainly,there is neither literary nor archaeological evidence for a supposed migration of Romance speakers from the south to the north. On the other hand, there is good evidence that there remained vulgar Latin enclaves north of the danube as they did also south of the Danube. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, Spinei presents actual archaeological data of a people living in the 9th-12th centuries in the river valleys of Moldavia and Wallachia and identifies them as Romanians, stating that even the fact that in the same regions no Romanian river-names exist prove that those people were setted Romanians. Schramm studies the Romanian language and present them as a population that had no deeper knowledge of agricultural practices because they adopted the proper terminology from Slavic peoples (I refer to Schramm 1997 pp. 309-310). The very modern idea of "language islands" was half a century ago developed based on words of Latin origin which were preserved only in certain dialects of the Romanian languages. Based on this feature, it was theoretized that there were "language islands" where the Romanians ancestors' continuously lived from Late Antiquity (I refer to Schramm 1997 pp. 309-310; Madgearu, Alexandru (2005a). "Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania". In Curta, Florin (ed.). East Central & Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The University of Michigan Press. pp. 103–120. ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6.). Based on this idea, we could prove that the Romanians continuously lived in regions outside the Roman Empire (Maramures) and in regions where Greek was the predominant language of communication within the Roman Empire (Thessaly, south Macedonia), because the modern Romanian dialects spoken in those regions preserved special words of Latin origin which had not been preserved in other dialects (I refer to Mallinson 1988, p. 412.). Yes, I also read of the scholarly theory that there are no written evidence to the northward migration to Hungary of the ancestors of the Romanians. Romanian shcolars who deny such a migration, say that the oldest Romanian chronicles' references to Romanian groups migrating to the "Hungarian country" preserved the memory of Traian's conquest of Dacia instead of a northward migration of masses of Romanians (Davidescu, Mircea (2013). The Lost Romans. CreateSpace. ISBN: 978-1-490-53253-0, pages 102-103). Actually, I could accept your reference to the non-existence of "nomadism": if we assume that the terminus technicus "nomadic people" refers to a population always on the move, without any knowledge of agriculture, there were not a single group of nomadic peoples in Europe in Antiquity and in the Middle Ages (for instance, I refer to Bryan Cartledge's description of the pre-Conquest Magyars who cultivated small parcels of lands in the Eurasian steppes, Cartledge, Bryan (2011). The Will to Survive: A History of Hungary. C. Hurst & Co. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-84904-112-6.). In this case, it is not the classification of the ancestors of Romanians as a "nomadic group in Eurasia" is debated, but the existence of such category ("Nomadic groups in Eurasia"). However, if we assume that the way of life of (for instance) the Pechenegs did not basically differ from the lifystyle of the Byzantines, French (because the very idea of "nomadism" is debated), this assumption should be substantiated based on peer-reviewed academic works, because I have not read of such a scholarly theory. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)en
- Yes, indeed I was simply getting at that, at best, Romanians were semi-pastoral, and their oft involvement in rebelliond and banditry - as represented in sources - should bot automatically and uncritically equate them as nomads. Now, as stated, I have no expertise on the fascinating question of Romanian origins; and apparently no-one has offered an uneqivocal theory either !
- Whatever the case, my other point is that we should not assume that all Balkan Romance speakers need descend from one parent population - in fact I'd put my hat on it that they don't. (Perhaps my term language islands elicited other ideas based on your readings). As for river names - I personally don't have huge amount of faith in them. Hydronyms and toponyms aren;t the biblical windows to the past that many linguists think (wish) they are- changing more often than generally acknowledeged; nor are they straightforward ethnic indicia. Eg some of the Scandinavian toponyms in Britain were spread by Gaelic speakers (or was it vice-versa), some of the Slavic toponyms in GReece were created by Greeks themselves. When you add issues of 'language dominance', etc, the issue naturally becomes far more complex. Nevertheless, I do accept one cannot overlook the weight of Slavic and other non-Latin toponyms in Romania. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree we should not assume that all Balkan Romance speakers descended from one parent population, although I do not know which are the scholarly works substantiating this assumption. I also agree with you that hydronyms and toponyms do not prove anything. However, the fact the Romanians adopted Slavic, Turkic, Hungarian and German placenames (which are attested from the 11th-13th centuries) in everywhere in Romania and the place-names of certainly Romanian origin can only be evidenced from the 1350s in the same territory is at least remarkable (I refer to the works written by Schramm, Kristó and Makkai and refferred to in the article). Of course, we can also assume, based on archaeological research, that the 9th-12th-century villages which bear a Romanian name of Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic, or German origin and are situated along rivers with a Romanian name of Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic or German origin were actually inhabited by a settled Romanian-speaking population, even if the specific Romanian vocabulary for a settled way of life was borrowed from Slavs (and partially from Hungarians), because the descriptions of the Romanians/Vlachs as nomads in medieval sources are not reliable. All the same, I am not an expert in these fields, either, therefore I suggest that we always should refer to academic works when stating anything in WP pages or editing a WP article. I must admit that I do not like making or discussing my or other editors' assumptions. Borsoka (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Very true, and that is not the issue. I was merely interjecting casually on the 'nomad' question. Talk soon, Borsoka, and keep up the high standard contributions. Much needed in SEE article ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.76.1.244 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that old Romanians can be labelled as nomads, or they just followed the system of transhumance. Because the two concepets are distinct. Nomadic pastoralism is a form of pastoralism where livestock are herded in order to find fresh pastures on which to graze. Strictly speaking, true nomads follow an irregular pattern of movement, in contrast with transhumance where seasonal pastures are fixed.
- I am curious about the opinion of the WikiProject Romania members Codrinb (talk · contribs) and Biruitorul (talk · contribs) 77.78.9.77 (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Anon, first of all, I suggest that you should refer to at least one scholarly work when initiating a debate, because WP:NOR is a basic policy of our community. Your statement that "true nomads follow an irregular pattern of movement, in contrast with transhumance where seasonal pastures are fixed" contradicts to reliable sources. For instance, Victor Spinei writes that the "Pechenegs lived a primarily nomadic life, moving according to the season together with their families, herds and possessions along pre-established routes in search of good pastures." (Spinei, Victor (2003). The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century (Translated by Dana Badulescu). p. 96. ISBN 973-85894-5-2.) Likewise, István Fodor say that the "cyclic migrations of the nomadic pastoralists, repeated year after yera, made permanent living quarters constructed from durable materials unneccessary ... [t]hey built stouter buildings only in their winter quarters. In the neighbourhood of the winter quarters on the banks of the rivers were the ploughed fields." (Fodor, István (1975). In Search of a New Homeland: The Prehistory of the Hungarian People and the Conquest. Corvina Kiadó. pp. 183–184. ISBN 963-13-1126-0.). Consequently at least two specialists (Spinei and Fodor) identify nomadism as a regular pattern of movement where seasonal pastures are fixed. There are also scholars who make a difference between nomadism and transhumance. For instance, Blench states that nomads are pastoralists "whose movements are opportunistic and follow pasture resources in a pattern that varies from year to year", while "[t]ranshumance is the regular movement of herds between fixed points to exploit seasonal availability of pastures" (in a version of his study which is available on-line here [1]). If we accept Blench's categorization, we can conclude that the Pechenegs, the Magyars and the Romanians were not nomads, but peoples who practised transhumance. However, this is a debate of the name of the "Category:Nomadic groups in Eurasia", not of the neutrality of this article. Of course, any editor can argue that there was no difference between the life style of early medieval Slavs, Germans, Britons, etc. on the one hand and the way of life of early medieval Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Romanians, etc, on the other, but this unusual POV should be substantiated by reliable sources. The first group (Slavs, Germans, etc) lived in villages where they cultivated arable lands; the second group (Magyars, Pechenegs, Vlachs) moved between their summer and winter pastures following their cattle or sheep (I refer to the reliable sources cited above). Borsoka (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- The statement true nomads follow an irregular pattern of movement, in contrast with transhumance where seasonal pastures are fixed is not my own creation, it comes from the wikipedia article Nomadic pastoralism 62.204.157.6 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please read WP:sources: a WP article does not qualify as a reliable source for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- The statement true nomads follow an irregular pattern of movement, in contrast with transhumance where seasonal pastures are fixed is not my own creation, it comes from the wikipedia article Nomadic pastoralism 62.204.157.6 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Anon, first of all, I suggest that you should refer to at least one scholarly work when initiating a debate, because WP:NOR is a basic policy of our community. Your statement that "true nomads follow an irregular pattern of movement, in contrast with transhumance where seasonal pastures are fixed" contradicts to reliable sources. For instance, Victor Spinei writes that the "Pechenegs lived a primarily nomadic life, moving according to the season together with their families, herds and possessions along pre-established routes in search of good pastures." (Spinei, Victor (2003). The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century (Translated by Dana Badulescu). p. 96. ISBN 973-85894-5-2.) Likewise, István Fodor say that the "cyclic migrations of the nomadic pastoralists, repeated year after yera, made permanent living quarters constructed from durable materials unneccessary ... [t]hey built stouter buildings only in their winter quarters. In the neighbourhood of the winter quarters on the banks of the rivers were the ploughed fields." (Fodor, István (1975). In Search of a New Homeland: The Prehistory of the Hungarian People and the Conquest. Corvina Kiadó. pp. 183–184. ISBN 963-13-1126-0.). Consequently at least two specialists (Spinei and Fodor) identify nomadism as a regular pattern of movement where seasonal pastures are fixed. There are also scholars who make a difference between nomadism and transhumance. For instance, Blench states that nomads are pastoralists "whose movements are opportunistic and follow pasture resources in a pattern that varies from year to year", while "[t]ranshumance is the regular movement of herds between fixed points to exploit seasonal availability of pastures" (in a version of his study which is available on-line here [1]). If we accept Blench's categorization, we can conclude that the Pechenegs, the Magyars and the Romanians were not nomads, but peoples who practised transhumance. However, this is a debate of the name of the "Category:Nomadic groups in Eurasia", not of the neutrality of this article. Of course, any editor can argue that there was no difference between the life style of early medieval Slavs, Germans, Britons, etc. on the one hand and the way of life of early medieval Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Romanians, etc, on the other, but this unusual POV should be substantiated by reliable sources. The first group (Slavs, Germans, etc) lived in villages where they cultivated arable lands; the second group (Magyars, Pechenegs, Vlachs) moved between their summer and winter pastures following their cattle or sheep (I refer to the reliable sources cited above). Borsoka (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Very true, and that is not the issue. I was merely interjecting casually on the 'nomad' question. Talk soon, Borsoka, and keep up the high standard contributions. Much needed in SEE article ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.76.1.244 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
B. Fowkes (2002) : Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World -PAGE: 12
"That curious minority, the Vlachs of the Balkans, for example, were on the face of it Romanians ('Wallachians') but in fact the name was also applied to Slavs who shared the same pastoral, nomadic life as the Romanian shepherds."
Norman Berdichevsky (2004): Nations, Language and Citizenship -page: 181.
"The “true Romanians” are held to be interlopers who were nomadic shepherds that migrated into Transylvania from the ... then transferred to “Wallachia,” the traditional core area of the Romanian state located east and south of Transylvania."
Victor Roudometof (2002): Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question - PAGE: 128
"The Vlachs are mainly pastoral nomads dispersed among the states of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Romania. Since they are Orthodox Christians, they have mostly become part of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox ..."
Roumen Daskalov, ?Alexander Vezenkov - 2015: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Three: Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies PAGE: 309
"Zlatarski adds an a priori statement that the very thought of an uprising could occur only to Bulgarian local notables or voivods, not to the nomadic Vlachs, who he says were at a low level of cultural development"
Rob Humphreys, ?Susie Lunt, ?Tim Nollen - 2002 : Rough Guide to the Czech & Slovak Republics - Page 408
"Wallachian culture As far as anybody can make out, the Wallachs or Vlachs were semi-nomadic sheep and goat farmers who settled the mountainous areas of eastern Moravia and western Slovakia in the fifteenth century."
Marek Koter, ?Krystian Heffner - 1999 : Multicultural regions and cities - Page 164
"Nomadic shepherds from the Balkan Peninsula (Wallachians) were moving along the bow of the Carpathians in search of new pastures. "
Marek S. Szczepański Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, Jan 1, 1997 - Ethnic Minorities & Ethnic Majority: Sociological Studies of Ethnic Relations in Poland -PAGE: 325 "They were just the Wallachian people (nomadic tribes from the present Romania) from who contemporary Lemks descended; it should be testified by both the elements of material culture, similarities of customs and languages"
Normal J. G. Pounds - 1976 - : An Historical Geography of Europe 450 B.C.-A.D. 1330, Part 1330 -PAGE: 251
"The chief importance of the Vlachs lies, however, in the possible relationship to the Romanians. ... Ages, crossed the Danube into Walachia and continued their pastoral and semi-nomadic life in Transylvania and the Carpathian Mountains."
--Cézárocskácska (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is the opposite view (namely that Romanians have continuity). Anyway, there is no hard evidence for one or the other, so it isn't a matter of fact, but a matter of opinion, which is to be rendered as doxography (thus not in Wikipedia's voice). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Anon, the above conversation proves that the Vlachs/Romanians were regarded a nomadic population by dozens of scholars. Why do you think that we should not use the proper category? Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Romanians were "Latinized pastoralists", according to Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia, edited by Jeffrey Cole, page 16 123Steller (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- And there are plenty of other books which calls them as nomads. Or do you suggest that we should mention the Avars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Huns, etc. as pastoralists? Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- If it is a well-known fact that Romanians were nomads, why aren't they mentioned at all in the main article of the category i.e. Eurasian nomads? 123Steller (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you read the above conversation you will find plenty of scholars who describe them as nomads. Please respect basic WP policies, including WP:Verify and remember that WP is not a reliable source for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Nomadic groups in Eurasia refers to ethnic groups. The subject of the article is not the Romanian ethnic group, but origin hypotheses of an ethnic group. 123Steller (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Who were nomads during a phase of their ethnogenesis. Similarly to the Hungarians, who are also listed in the same category as Hungarian prehistory (although the prehistory is obviously not an ethnic group). Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please post below the quotes from reliable sources that support this claim. 123Steller (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please find above the long list, including this quote ([2]) and this one ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- The second source refers to "Balkan Vlachs", not to Vlachs north of the Danube.
- Biruitorul & KIENGIR, what do you think about this subject? 123Steller (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- However, the first source (and other sources cited above) explicitly states that the Romanians' ancestors were nomads. Borsoka (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- 123Steller, I think until dispute resolution status quo ante should be followed as per wiki rules. Despite some sources refer Vlachs in a certain region, the article covers the enthnogenesis and origin theories generally of Vlachs, and as mentioned other sources explicitly does not necessarily differentiate. Recently I was discussing personally about the subject with a Romanian professor as well I am also reading a book that may have deep connections to this subject, but still I am at the beginning. The same perspective of debate from a certain point of view may arise as we have seen in this section, generally mainly about the frame of different origin theories, but it should not be a competition between the two prespectives. I think be the partner of Borsoka in a good discussion as the collaboration and mutual respect is the best way to go on.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC))
- There is no academic consensus upon whether the Romanians or their ancestors were nomads and unless a row of spectacular archaeological discoveries happen, it is unlikely that there will soon be any consensus on this issue. To be sure, a number of nomadic populations became were assimilated by the Romanian people, but there is no consensus whether the (proto-)Romanians were nomads. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- 123Steller, I think until dispute resolution status quo ante should be followed as per wiki rules. Despite some sources refer Vlachs in a certain region, the article covers the enthnogenesis and origin theories generally of Vlachs, and as mentioned other sources explicitly does not necessarily differentiate. Recently I was discussing personally about the subject with a Romanian professor as well I am also reading a book that may have deep connections to this subject, but still I am at the beginning. The same perspective of debate from a certain point of view may arise as we have seen in this section, generally mainly about the frame of different origin theories, but it should not be a competition between the two prespectives. I think be the partner of Borsoka in a good discussion as the collaboration and mutual respect is the best way to go on.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC))
- Please find above the long list, including this quote ([2]) and this one ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please post below the quotes from reliable sources that support this claim. 123Steller (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Who were nomads during a phase of their ethnogenesis. Similarly to the Hungarians, who are also listed in the same category as Hungarian prehistory (although the prehistory is obviously not an ethnic group). Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Nomadic groups in Eurasia refers to ethnic groups. The subject of the article is not the Romanian ethnic group, but origin hypotheses of an ethnic group. 123Steller (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you read the above conversation you will find plenty of scholars who describe them as nomads. Please respect basic WP policies, including WP:Verify and remember that WP is not a reliable source for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- If it is a well-known fact that Romanians were nomads, why aren't they mentioned at all in the main article of the category i.e. Eurasian nomads? 123Steller (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- And there are plenty of other books which calls them as nomads. Or do you suggest that we should mention the Avars, Magyars, Pechenegs, Huns, etc. as pastoralists? Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Romanians were "Latinized pastoralists", according to Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia, edited by Jeffrey Cole, page 16 123Steller (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- Anon, the above conversation proves that the Vlachs/Romanians were regarded a nomadic population by dozens of scholars. Why do you think that we should not use the proper category? Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- No academic consensus? What? "Such transhumance has been particularly associated with the Vlachs"[4] Who are the Vlachs if they are not (one of) the ancestors of the Romanians? Are they extinct? I think we should clarify what What "nomad" means because there is no such a difference between nomadism and transhumant pastoralism."Pure nomads or transhumant do not have fixed settlement, but move between established territories and pastures"[5] "In the description of another Western specialist on nomads and pastoralism, Khazanov's classification system is the most modern approach, "classifying nomadic forms according to a society’s extent of migratory mobility, the primacy of specific animals in producing their subsistence products, and the level of symbiosis between nomadic and settled agricultural societies. He categorizes pastoralists into five types, ranging from “pure pastoral nomadism” to “semi-nomadic pastoralism,” “semi-sedentary pastoralism,” and finally to “distant-pastures husbandry” and “seasonal transhumance” (Khazanov’s yaylag – Khazanov 1994, 19-23)......."Because it is semiarid, large parts of the Middle East traditionally have been given over to a mode of livelihood that combines the extensive cultivation of crops such as wheat and barley with sheep and goat herding. Herds are usually moved in fixed patterns between adjacent ecological zones in the course of a year and graze on the stubble of cultivated fields after harvest. Such movement is called transhumant pastoralism or seminomadism, and it differs from the movement of nomadic groups who follow their herds (pastoral nomadism). ..." Fakirbakir (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- "There are essentially two forms of pastoralism namely, nomadism and transhumance." (...) "Transhumance production system consists of a seasonal displacement of flocks from one area to another by herders who have permanent residences in search of better or suited grassland. It can be considered either as the next phase from the nomadism system towards a complete settlement or as an elementary form of the seasonal suitability or seasonal grazing system involving partitioning a rangeland into separate units on the basis of vegetation types" (quotes from source 5 above)
- "Romanians migrated northward into the Carpathians, these traces indicate that they were mainly seasonal shepherds, spending summers on mountain pastures and winters in the river valleys or on the coast. Transhumance did not exclude ancillary farming activity, and there are in fact traces of terraced cultivation on the higher slopes of Transylvanian mountains." (...) "Shepherds' settlements, known as katuns, were grouped into broader administrative units (kenézség) led by the kenéz." (source of the quotes: http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/73.html)
- Proto-Romanians practised seasonal shepherding / transhumance, not nomadic pasoralism. Similarly, people who (still) practise Alpine transhumance are not nomads.123Steller (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Quote from the begiining of the debate: "... nomadic groups were not characterized by their constant aimless movements all along the territory they could reach, but by a periodical movement between their own summer and winter camps. For instance Victor Spinei writes that the "Pechenegs lived a primarily nomadic life, moving according to the season together with their families, herds and possessions along pre-established routes in search of good pastures." (Spinei, Victor (2003). The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century (Translated by Dana Badulescu). p. 96. ISBN 973-85894-5-2.) Likewise, István Fodor say that the "cyclic migrations of the nomadic pastoralists, repeated year after yera, made permanent living quarters constructed from durable materials unneccessary ... [t]hey built stouter buildings only in their winter quarters. In the neighbourhood of the winter quarters on the banks of the rivers were the ploughed fields." (Fodor, István (1975). In Search of a New Homeland: The Prehistory of the Hungarian People and the Conquest. Corvina Kiadó. pp. 183–184. ISBN 963-13-1126-0.). A similar pattern was recorded among medieval Vlachs/Romanians: "the leader of the 1066 Romanian uprising against the Byzantine government, who lived in the urban centre of Larissa, ... was not able to get in touch with his men, because in the summer they and their families were all in the mountains of Bulgaria ... [t]he above statement is, in fact, the first known mention of the practice of transhumance, that is summer-winter rotational grazing, among the Romanians." (Makkai, László (1994). "The Emergence of the Estates (1172–1526)". In Köpeczi, Béla; Barta, Gábor; Bóna, István; Makkai, László; Szász, Zoltán; Borus, Judit (eds.). History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. pp. 178–243 (on page 185). ISBN 963-05-6703-2.) Borsoka (talk)" If both the Pechenegs' and the (Proto-)Romanians' way of life was characterized by the families' sesonal movement along well-known routes, following their heirds, why do we artifically differentiate the two peoples, saying that the Pechenegs were nomads and the Proto-Romanians pastoralist? Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- 123Steller See Khazanov's explanation, "classifying nomadic forms according to a society’s extent of migratory mobility...he categorizes pastoralists into five types...". Also, "transhumant pastoralism" and "seminomadism" are synonyms ..."Because it is semiarid, large parts of the Middle East traditionally have been given over to a mode of livelihood that combines the extensive cultivation of crops such as wheat and barley with sheep and goat herding. Herds are usually moved in fixed patterns between adjacent ecological zones in the course of a year and graze on the stubble of cultivated fields after harvest. Such movement is called transhumant pastoralism or seminomadism, and it differs from the movement of nomadic groups who follow their herds (pastoral nomadism)"[6]. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Borsoka The answer is: According to nationalists nomadic peoples are not Europeans but "Asians" (or "Africans")..... The "true successors of the Roman Empire" cannot be associated with nomadic folks.... It doesn't matter that about half of the Eastern Europeans practiced transhumance on the steppes.... Everything what comes from "Asia" is bad for them. With this logic the (Proto)Hungarians were very nasty Asian Mongol nomadic folks (even if they had nothing to do with the Mongols)... Same applies to Patzinaks.... Therefore, Vlachs are not seminomads but transhumant pastoralists because the second one sounds more "European". Fakirbakir (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- If my understanding is correct, according to Khazanov's typology, Pechenegs, Magyars, Proto-Romanians and Cumans were transhumant pastoralists or seminomads. We can conclude, all these peoples should be presented under the same category - the only question, what is the proper name of the category. Sincerely, I think "nomad" is the most common term that everybody can understand without further research. Do you agree? Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I do agree. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Victor Spinei does not agree. He wrote in his work The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century (at page 230) that "contrary to a widespread misconception, transhumant pastoralism is not nomadism". 123Steller (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Spinei's opinion is fringe. See>[7] or [8] Fakirbakir (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I support the inclusion into a category containing the word semi-nomadic, but not nomadic. 123Steller (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, this discussion has come down to categorical hairsplitting. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fakirbakir, it is not true that "transhumant pastoralism" and "seminomadism" are synonyms. Pastoralism refers to the mode of subsisetence, while seminomadism refers to mobility. "The transhumance of village flocks may or may not involve an element of nomadism, depending on whether the population moves with the herds. The degree of human involvement is therefore one vital index of the presence of nomadism" (Nomads in Archaeology, by Roger Cribb) 123Steller (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, this discussion has come down to categorical hairsplitting. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I support the inclusion into a category containing the word semi-nomadic, but not nomadic. 123Steller (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Spinei's opinion is fringe. See>[7] or [8] Fakirbakir (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Victor Spinei does not agree. He wrote in his work The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century (at page 230) that "contrary to a widespread misconception, transhumant pastoralism is not nomadism". 123Steller (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I do agree. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- If my understanding is correct, according to Khazanov's typology, Pechenegs, Magyars, Proto-Romanians and Cumans were transhumant pastoralists or seminomads. We can conclude, all these peoples should be presented under the same category - the only question, what is the proper name of the category. Sincerely, I think "nomad" is the most common term that everybody can understand without further research. Do you agree? Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would prefer to categorize the Pechenegs, Magyars, Proto-Romanians, etc. as nomas, but the use of a separate category "semi-nomadic ethnic groups" can also be verified. All peoples whose way of life was characterized by the sesonal movement of the families along well-established routes in search for new pastures should be listed under this new sub-category. Borsoka (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- "Chatty (1974) distinguished between the terms seminomadic, semi-settled or transhumant by establishing whether the entire human group moved with the flock or not. In other words, a semi-nomadic group was one where the whole human group - usually a family - moved with the flock. Transhumant or semi-settled people had only part of the group, or a shepherd, attending to the flock during its migratory route, while the rest remained at the home base." [9] "Transhumance is the movement of livestock in search of water and food. It differs from nomadism in that only the herders who lead the flock participate, leaving their families behind."([10])
- In the case of Romanians "the shepherds are not accompanied by their families"(Spinei) so they are not (semi-)nomads. 123Steller (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please read the above quote: "the leader of the 1066 Romanian uprising against the Byzantine government, who lived in the urban centre of Larissa, ... was not able to get in touch with his men, because in the summer they and their families were all in the mountains of Bulgaria ... [t]he above statement is, in fact, the first known mention of the practice of transhumance, that is summer-winter rotational grazing, among the Romanians." (Makkai, László (1994). "The Emergence of the Estates (1172–1526)". In Köpeczi, Béla; Barta, Gábor; Bóna, István; Makkai, László; Szász, Zoltán; Borus, Judit (eds.). History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. pp. 178–243 (on page 185). ISBN 963-05-6703-2.). The quote is based on the account of an eyewitness (Kekaumenos). If we accept that transhumance means that the shepherds' family does not accompany the herds, we cannot describe the 11th-century Romanians as a transhumant population. In this case, we should also list them among the nomads - this is my preferred version. Borsoka (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- According to one of the two main theories, proto-Romanians did not live in Thessaly region, so in this view this description can't apply to them. 123Steller (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand your above statement. Would you refer to a reliable source stating that the way of life of the Romanians in Thessaly and in present-day Romania differed from each other? Would you refer to a reliable source stating that the Romanians of Thessaly and present-day Romanian were not descended from the same population speaking a proto-Romanian language? (Please note that there are many sources cited in the article which contradict to your research.) Borsoka (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- 123Steller, you are again making unilateral reverts without citing reliable sources. Please remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- "In the lands north of the Lower Danube the environment, as well as the social and political circumstances were different, and consequently no parallels can be drawn between Vlachs in the Balkans and Romanians in the Romania" (Spinei) 123Steller (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a POV about the way of life. A contrasting POV can also be cited: "...the Romanians, as opposed to the Saxons and the Székely, were not a settled people yet [in the 13th century]. This becomes evident from the fact that-althoght they had been living in the sourthern periphery of the Carpathian Basin ... -they did not form their own toponyms in Transylvania up to the end of our period [895-1324]" (Kristó, Gyula (2003). Early Transylvania (895-1324). Lucidus Kiadó. p. 144. ISBN 963-9465-12-7.). Please note, that in this sentence you can read an argument, not general statements ("the environment, as well as the social and political circumstances were different..."). Would you refer to a reliable source stating that the Romanians of Thessaly and present-day Romanian were not descended from the same population speaking a proto-Romanian language? For instance, Ioan-Aurel Pop and Vlad Georgescu emphasize the close contacts between the Balkan Vlachs and the Romanians to the north of the Danube. Borsoka (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- "In the lands north of the Lower Danube the environment, as well as the social and political circumstances were different, and consequently no parallels can be drawn between Vlachs in the Balkans and Romanians in the Romania" (Spinei) 123Steller (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- 123Steller, you are again making unilateral reverts without citing reliable sources. Please remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand your above statement. Would you refer to a reliable source stating that the way of life of the Romanians in Thessaly and in present-day Romania differed from each other? Would you refer to a reliable source stating that the Romanians of Thessaly and present-day Romanian were not descended from the same population speaking a proto-Romanian language? (Please note that there are many sources cited in the article which contradict to your research.) Borsoka (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- According to one of the two main theories, proto-Romanians did not live in Thessaly region, so in this view this description can't apply to them. 123Steller (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Quote from the begiining of the debate: "... nomadic groups were not characterized by their constant aimless movements all along the territory they could reach, but by a periodical movement between their own summer and winter camps. For instance Victor Spinei writes that the "Pechenegs lived a primarily nomadic life, moving according to the season together with their families, herds and possessions along pre-established routes in search of good pastures." (Spinei, Victor (2003). The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century (Translated by Dana Badulescu). p. 96. ISBN 973-85894-5-2.) Likewise, István Fodor say that the "cyclic migrations of the nomadic pastoralists, repeated year after yera, made permanent living quarters constructed from durable materials unneccessary ... [t]hey built stouter buildings only in their winter quarters. In the neighbourhood of the winter quarters on the banks of the rivers were the ploughed fields." (Fodor, István (1975). In Search of a New Homeland: The Prehistory of the Hungarian People and the Conquest. Corvina Kiadó. pp. 183–184. ISBN 963-13-1126-0.). A similar pattern was recorded among medieval Vlachs/Romanians: "the leader of the 1066 Romanian uprising against the Byzantine government, who lived in the urban centre of Larissa, ... was not able to get in touch with his men, because in the summer they and their families were all in the mountains of Bulgaria ... [t]he above statement is, in fact, the first known mention of the practice of transhumance, that is summer-winter rotational grazing, among the Romanians." (Makkai, László (1994). "The Emergence of the Estates (1172–1526)". In Köpeczi, Béla; Barta, Gábor; Bóna, István; Makkai, László; Szász, Zoltán; Borus, Judit (eds.). History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. pp. 178–243 (on page 185). ISBN 963-05-6703-2.) Borsoka (talk)" If both the Pechenegs' and the (Proto-)Romanians' way of life was characterized by the families' sesonal movement along well-known routes, following their heirds, why do we artifically differentiate the two peoples, saying that the Pechenegs were nomads and the Proto-Romanians pastoralist? Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- "Nomadic and semi-nomadic cattlebreeding was given a strong impetus in Macedonia, Aepyrus, Thessaly, Albania, Serbia and Bulgaria. Written sources testify to the fact that throughout the Middle Ages nomadic Vlachs, Saracatsans, Albanians and others, practised seasonal nomadism, which is closely connected to semi-nomadism"[11], "The filurcis, conscripted mainly among the semi-nomad Vlachs, were one of the specific corps in this province and the western parts of the neighbouring Nigbolu sancak."[12], "Some vlachs were almost competely nomadic, others semi-nomadic or sedentary"[13], "The Vlachs are among the last nomadic peoples in recent European history. They still live a semi-nomadic life."[14], "Nomadic or semi- nomadic Vlachs spread southwards into northern Greece from the tenth century onwards"[15], ""the Vlachs lived in peace and were helped by strong rule under the Ottoman Empire. As a result of their semi-nomadic life, they were able to gain important tax concessions.." [16], "This evidence shows the existence in the Balkans, in the dark ages, of a people known as the Vlachs and speaking a language akin to Rumanian. The Vlachs are usually mentioned as following nomadic or semi-nomadic lives as shepherds etc, in the wild mountain districts" [17]. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Borsoka, let's suppose that Romanians "were not a settled people yet [in the 13th century]" and "did not form their own toponyms in Transylvania up to the end of our period [895-1324]". In this case, why is the map The ethnic map of Kingdom of Hungary in the 11th century based on place-names considered relevant? The ethnic map excludes the presumable "semi-nomadic" Romanians, which possibly have formed an important proportion of the population, despite not having their own toponyms yet. 123Steller (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
If Romanians were "were not a settled people yet [in the 13th century]", why "many Romanian settlements are noted" in "Serb royal documents dating from 1198–1450"? (http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/60.html) 123Steller (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand the relevance of your above remark. You mentioned Spinei's POV which stated that the Vlachs to the north of the Danube were not nomads. I referred to a contrasting POV - there is no relevance of your other questions. (Of course, if you are interested in the topic, you can read about the nomadic Vlachs' settlements, known as katuns in Serbia and Bulgaria. As we concluded above, (semi-)nomadic groups, such as the Magyars, Pechenegs, Vlachs, had settlements, because they sesonally moved along well established routes. They spent the winter and the summer at their camps.) Borsoka (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- (summoned by bot) I feel the need to preface my comments by saying that I know zero about the origins of the Romanians and that there seems to be a very academic dispute here. However, perhaps a different point of view from fresh eyes may help. I have encountered the word transhumance exactly once, in a translation I did for Wikipedia. I had to look it up. The context was a very old town in southern France (Castellane if it matters) where transhumance was practiced in the sense that the animals were moved up into mountain pastures in the summer, and brought down into the valley in the winter. There was no suggestion that anyone involved was nomadic;
everyone lived in or near that town.Based on that ridiculously small sample I might speculate that perhaps it matters how far apart the summer and winter pastures are, but in and of itself transhumance does not seem to necessarily imply nomadism. Hope that helps a little. Elinruby (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)- (correcting myself) Actually now that I re-read it there is mention of flocks coming "from the coast", which was probably several days away in the middle ages. But nomadism still does not seem to be implied except perhaps for the shepherds. Elinruby (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments above. Yes, transhumance in a settled community means that only the shepherds move from a village to the nearby mountains. However, Magyars, Pechenegs and Vlachs had no villages: the whole community moved between the winter and the summer pastures, according to the available sources (for the Vlachs, I refer to the sources cited in this article, for the Magyars, to the sources cited in the article Hungarian prehistory, and for the Pechenegs, to the sources mentioned several times above). Borsoka (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- If it is everyone and there is a certain amount of distance (?) that's all I've got. Elinruby (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments above. Yes, transhumance in a settled community means that only the shepherds move from a village to the nearby mountains. However, Magyars, Pechenegs and Vlachs had no villages: the whole community moved between the winter and the summer pastures, according to the available sources (for the Vlachs, I refer to the sources cited in this article, for the Magyars, to the sources cited in the article Hungarian prehistory, and for the Pechenegs, to the sources mentioned several times above). Borsoka (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- (correcting myself) Actually now that I re-read it there is mention of flocks coming "from the coast", which was probably several days away in the middle ages. But nomadism still does not seem to be implied except perhaps for the shepherds. Elinruby (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Johannes Lebelius
I do not clearly understand why the text of Johannes Lebelius is so important. He is one of the many humanists who repeated Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini's scholarly theory of the Romanians' descent from Roman colonists in Dacia. No other primary source is emphasized to such extent. For instance, William of Rubruck's theory of the Romanians' migration from Bashkiria is much earlier, and the Romanians' own traditon of their migration to the "Hungarian land" is more interesting. I suggest that Johannes Lebelius's text should be deleted. Maybe a summarized version could be preserved. Borsoka (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, I'd like to know why Johannes Lebelius's statements are labelled in the article as "a modified version of Piccolomini's story". Which are the differences between the two views? 95.42.59.72 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Because the cited reliable source writes this. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Dubious: Romanians as Dacians in the Suda lexicon
According to Victor Spinei: "An entry in the so-called Suidas lexicon drawn up at some point during the second half of the tenth century, claims that Dacians were now called Pechenegs. This can only mean that the Pechenegs werre ruling over the lands of ancient Dacia, which were inhabited at that time by Romanians." (Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 94. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5.). Consequently, the Suda itself clearly identified the Pechenegs as Dacians; therefore, the statement in the article about the Suda's reference to the Romanians under the ethnonym "Dacian" is clearly misleading. I assume, that statement is actually an original synthesis of sentences from the cited scholarly work (Brezeanu's book). Could anybody verbatim cite what Brezeanu wrote on this subject in his cited work? Thank you in advance. Borsoka (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Fourth theory?
A fourth theory argues that the Romanian homeland cannot exactly be determined.[36] Followers of this theory argue that the mass of the Romanized population survived to the north of the Danube, but many smaller "language islands" existed in other territories, including the northern parts of modern Greece
This is not a fourth theory, it is exactly what the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity says. 92.36.217.1 (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Would you cite a reliable source? I may misunderstand something. Do you suggest that the Romanian language partially developed in territories where Dacian was never spoken and Dacians never lived, according to the Daco-Romanian continuity theory? If there is no need to assume the role of Dacians in the development of the language, why does the theory refer to them? Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that what Anon was saying is that there's no fundamental difference between this fourth theory and what the Daco-Romanian Continuity Theory claims.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- You may be right. However, the Daco-Romanian continuity theory emphasizes the role the Dacians played in the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people ("Decebalus was a Romanian king...", "The Romanians' ancestors, the noble Dacians...", "The Dacian heritage of the Romanian language..."). The fourth theory says that Romanians were descended from the Romanized populations (Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, ...) and the Roman colonists of Southeastern Europe, without emphasizing the role of any of those natives. Borsoka (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that what Anon was saying is that there's no fundamental difference between this fourth theory and what the Daco-Romanian Continuity Theory claims.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Would you cite a reliable source? I may misunderstand something. Do you suggest that the Romanian language partially developed in territories where Dacian was never spoken and Dacians never lived, according to the Daco-Romanian continuity theory? If there is no need to assume the role of Dacians in the development of the language, why does the theory refer to them? Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am a little confused about this theory. It says that many smaller "language islands" existed in other territories. Until when did these "language islands" survive? By this theory, is there any connection between these "Romanian language islands" and the present-day Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian language?
- I want to request, per WP:NOENG, for relevant portions of the original source (Schramm, 1997) to be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. 77.221.26.3 (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Anon, please read the quote from the cited source (Schramm): "Wo immer seit dem Mittelalter Rumänen bezeugt sind, da soll es sich nach einer weiteren Alternativedeutung um Restpfeiler einer Romanisierung handeln, die Südosteuropa unter römischer Herrschaft südwärts bist ins nördliche Griechenland vereinheitlichte. Nach dieser Auffassung gibt es keine genauer lokalisierbare Wiege des Ostromania. Zu rechnen ist vielmehr mit einem sehr weit abgesteckten Entstehungsraum, von dem in Rumänien ein großer, geschlossener Block, sonst dagegen nur Inseln bei der Überschwemmung durch die Völkerwanderungswellen stehengeblieben sind. Leider ist diese Variante nie genauer ausformuliert worden. So unterblieb eine Präzisierung, welche Territorien denn nicht zu diesen beiden Ursprungräumen gehört haben können. Auf Anhieb läßt sich das für die östliche Adriaküste behaupten, wo das Romanische in der – vom Rumänischen scharf abgehobenen – Gestalt des Dalmatischen erhalten blieb. Auf späterer Zuwanderung beruht nach – wohl übereinstimmender Forschermeinung – die Präsenz rumänischer Streuminderheiten in Istrien." Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote." (WP:NOENG) 31.223.159.39 (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Anon, your "technical" remark has nothing to do with Romanian origin theories. It seems (IMO) you are just trying to discredit Borsoka' hard work on this article. Do you suggest that Schramm's explanation is misinterpreted? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your remarks. Sorry, I had much to do in RL and I have had little time to deal with WP. A rough English translation of Schramm's above cited text is the following: "According to a further alternative interpretation, any territory where the presence of Romanians since the Middle Ages could be proven should be regarded as a remnant of the Romanization that had once unified Southeastern Europe as far as northern Greece under Roman dominion. According to that view, Eastern Romance do not have a territory of origin that could be exactly determined. Instead, a realy extensive original homeland has to be assumed, of which a large block has survived the storms of the Migration Period in Romania, but in other places only language islands. Unfortunatelly, this theory has never been published in details. Therefore, the territories that did not belong to the original homeland have not been specified. At first sight, that can be assumed of the eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea, because the variant of the Latin which survived here, the Dalmatian language, is sharply distinguished from Romanian. The Istro-Romanian minority can be traced back to a later immigration, according to the unanimous opinion of researchers." Borsoka (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is no problem regarding the moment of your reply, I was not expecting an immediate reply.
- First of all I am going to remark the difference between the source text (Eastern Romance do not have a territory of origin that could be exactly determined) and the article text (Romanian homeland cannot exactly be determined). As far as I know, Romanians are not the only Eastern Romance people (Istro-Romanians, Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians also belong to this category)
- Secondly, if "this theory has never been published in details", should we still mention it in the article? Doesn't this mean that it is a fringe theory? (WP:FRNG)? 46.239.48.179 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your remarks. Sorry, I had much to do in RL and I have had little time to deal with WP. A rough English translation of Schramm's above cited text is the following: "According to a further alternative interpretation, any territory where the presence of Romanians since the Middle Ages could be proven should be regarded as a remnant of the Romanization that had once unified Southeastern Europe as far as northern Greece under Roman dominion. According to that view, Eastern Romance do not have a territory of origin that could be exactly determined. Instead, a realy extensive original homeland has to be assumed, of which a large block has survived the storms of the Migration Period in Romania, but in other places only language islands. Unfortunatelly, this theory has never been published in details. Therefore, the territories that did not belong to the original homeland have not been specified. At first sight, that can be assumed of the eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea, because the variant of the Latin which survived here, the Dalmatian language, is sharply distinguished from Romanian. The Istro-Romanian minority can be traced back to a later immigration, according to the unanimous opinion of researchers." Borsoka (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Anon, your "technical" remark has nothing to do with Romanian origin theories. It seems (IMO) you are just trying to discredit Borsoka' hard work on this article. Do you suggest that Schramm's explanation is misinterpreted? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote." (WP:NOENG) 31.223.159.39 (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Anon, please read the quote from the cited source (Schramm): "Wo immer seit dem Mittelalter Rumänen bezeugt sind, da soll es sich nach einer weiteren Alternativedeutung um Restpfeiler einer Romanisierung handeln, die Südosteuropa unter römischer Herrschaft südwärts bist ins nördliche Griechenland vereinheitlichte. Nach dieser Auffassung gibt es keine genauer lokalisierbare Wiege des Ostromania. Zu rechnen ist vielmehr mit einem sehr weit abgesteckten Entstehungsraum, von dem in Rumänien ein großer, geschlossener Block, sonst dagegen nur Inseln bei der Überschwemmung durch die Völkerwanderungswellen stehengeblieben sind. Leider ist diese Variante nie genauer ausformuliert worden. So unterblieb eine Präzisierung, welche Territorien denn nicht zu diesen beiden Ursprungräumen gehört haben können. Auf Anhieb läßt sich das für die östliche Adriaküste behaupten, wo das Romanische in der – vom Rumänischen scharf abgehobenen – Gestalt des Dalmatischen erhalten blieb. Auf späterer Zuwanderung beruht nach – wohl übereinstimmender Forschermeinung – die Präsenz rumänischer Streuminderheiten in Istrien." Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- When writing of "Ostromania" (that I translated as Eastern Romance) Schramm always refers to the peoples speaking the four Eastern Romance dialects/languages. His approach is not unusual: almost all books cited in the article write that the four dialects/languages developed from the same (Proto-)Romanian language. The theory is neutrally described in a reliable source, which also refers to the Daco-Romanian continuity theory, the immigrationist theory and the admigration theory. Why should we assume that it is a fringe theory? It says that Estern Romance languages may have developed in almost the whole territory of Southeastern Europe. Should we say that a theory which states that Eastern Romance languages developed in territories which had been under Roman rule for 600-800 years is not scientific? Why? Borsoka (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- So your previous statement (that "the fourth theory says that Romanians were descended from the Romanized populations (Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, ...) and the Roman colonists of Southeastern Europe, without emphasizing the role of any of those natives") is false, because the original text refers to the ancestors of all the Eastern Romance people as populating a large area in the Southeastern Europe, not only to the ancestors of Romanians. The source does not make any connection between the Romanized Thracians/Romanized Illyrians and Romanians. It connects for instance Romanized Thracians with Aromanians (the exact version supported by the most Romanians scholars)92.36.194.182 (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Where is a reference to the Dacians' role in the Romanians' ethnogenesis in Schramm's text of the fourth theory? And where is a reference to a connection between the Aromanians and Thracians in the same text? Please also read my above remark: when writing of "Ostromania", Schramm always refers to all Eastern Romance peoples. Borsoka (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- You are the one who mentioned above the Romanization of "Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, ...". Schramm wrote that a "large block" of Romanized population "has survived the storms of the Migration Period in Romania". Isn't this the precise theory of the Daco-Roman continuity?
- You are right that Schramm did not wrote of the Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, it was my own addition. So, if my understanding is correct, the Dacians did not play any role in the ethnogenesis of the Romanians, according to the Daco-Romanian continuity theory. However, as far as I know, the Daco-Romanian continuity theory emphasizes the Dacians' role in the Romanians' ethnogenesis (I could refer to almost all Romanian authors' work cited in the article, including Georgescu), but this "fourth theory" does not refer to the Dacians (as it is demonstrated by the quote). Borsoka (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- If all Eastern Romance peoples have a common origin (the proto-Romanians) and the group is indivisible, maybr we should rename the article to Origin of the Eastern Romance people and include here the origins of the Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians? 85.94.143.128 (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe. Is there a reliable source which applies that expression? Borsoka (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- You are the one who mentioned above the Romanization of "Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, ...". Schramm wrote that a "large block" of Romanized population "has survived the storms of the Migration Period in Romania". Isn't this the precise theory of the Daco-Roman continuity?
- Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Where is a reference to the Dacians' role in the Romanians' ethnogenesis in Schramm's text of the fourth theory? And where is a reference to a connection between the Aromanians and Thracians in the same text? Please also read my above remark: when writing of "Ostromania", Schramm always refers to all Eastern Romance peoples. Borsoka (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- So your previous statement (that "the fourth theory says that Romanians were descended from the Romanized populations (Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, ...) and the Roman colonists of Southeastern Europe, without emphasizing the role of any of those natives") is false, because the original text refers to the ancestors of all the Eastern Romance people as populating a large area in the Southeastern Europe, not only to the ancestors of Romanians. The source does not make any connection between the Romanized Thracians/Romanized Illyrians and Romanians. It connects for instance Romanized Thracians with Aromanians (the exact version supported by the most Romanians scholars)92.36.194.182 (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- When writing of "Ostromania" (that I translated as Eastern Romance) Schramm always refers to the peoples speaking the four Eastern Romance dialects/languages. His approach is not unusual: almost all books cited in the article write that the four dialects/languages developed from the same (Proto-)Romanian language. The theory is neutrally described in a reliable source, which also refers to the Daco-Romanian continuity theory, the immigrationist theory and the admigration theory. Why should we assume that it is a fringe theory? It says that Estern Romance languages may have developed in almost the whole territory of Southeastern Europe. Should we say that a theory which states that Eastern Romance languages developed in territories which had been under Roman rule for 600-800 years is not scientific? Why? Borsoka (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Below there is the reply for the statement this "fourth theory" does not refer to the Dacians (as it is demonstrated by the quote).
Schramm does not explictly refer to Dacians, but their involvement is self-implied. He wrote that a "large block" of Romanized population "has survived the storms of the Migration Period in Romania". Isn't it obvious that this population that was Romanized is the autochthonous Dacian population? 5.43.112.49 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- As per WP:NOR, nothing is obvious, because we cannot state anything based on our logic. Especially, if we take into account that Schramm clearly refuses the idea of a Romanized native population in Roman Dacia, stating that those who remained in the former province of Dacia Traiana were the non-Romanized natives (I refer to his third and fourth theses in his cited work). Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- "Schramm clearly refuses the idea of a Romanized native population in Roman Dacia" - this idea is missing from the presentation of the 4th theory. Nothing like this appears in the quote provided above. 93.180.115.223 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please read my message above. I referred to the third and fourth thesis in Schramm's book, and not to the quote. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- "According to a further alternative interpretation, any territory..." - I don't understand clearly: is this one of the interpretations proposed by Schramm himself? I thought he was making there a synthesis of the theories supported by different scholarly works (some historians affirm this, other historians affirmat that, etc)
- What's the difference between the immigrationist theory and the 4th theory? 31.223.141.97 (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- In accordance with academic rules, Schramm summarized the existing theories of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, before describing his own thoughts on the same subjects. The fourth theory says that the lands north of the Lower Danube were continuously inhabited by a Latin/Romance-speaking population; according to the immigrationist theory, Romance-speakers only started to migrate to the same territories from the last decades of the 12th century. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- (1) Followers of the continuity theory argue that the Romanians descended from the inhabitants of "Dacia Traiana"
- (2) The lands north of the Lower Danube were continuously inhabited by a Latin/Romance-speaking population
- I see no difference between the continuity theory (1) and the 4th theory (2). 31.223.159.217 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, with the small difference, that the fourth theory does not refer to the Dacians. Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- But the 4th theory refers to a large block that was Romanized at the north of the Danube. Considering that before the Roman conquest the present-day Romania was inhabited by Dacians, I think it can be concluded that the population that was Romanized is no ohter than the Dacians. 93.180.106.189 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe, but there is no reference to it in the cited work. What about the Celts, the Sarmatians, etc. who lived in "Dacia"? As far as I know Dacia was unified for lesser period than the existence of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, and many nationalities survived those latter federations. Borsoka (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Of course that Dacia wasn't ethnically pure, but Dacians were the majority. This interpretation (that the minority peoples were Romanized, while the Dacians themselves, who predominated in the province were not involved in the process) is surrealistic. I propose the elimination of this vague theory, which is mentioned in a single source and "has never been published in details.". 89.111.250.246 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I do not oppose (not because of the quite surprising reference to the ethnic composition of the short-lived Dacia, but because the theory "has never been published in details", according to the cited reliable source (Schramm). Borsoka (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Of course that Dacia wasn't ethnically pure, but Dacians were the majority. This interpretation (that the minority peoples were Romanized, while the Dacians themselves, who predominated in the province were not involved in the process) is surrealistic. I propose the elimination of this vague theory, which is mentioned in a single source and "has never been published in details.". 89.111.250.246 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe, but there is no reference to it in the cited work. What about the Celts, the Sarmatians, etc. who lived in "Dacia"? As far as I know Dacia was unified for lesser period than the existence of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, and many nationalities survived those latter federations. Borsoka (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- But the 4th theory refers to a large block that was Romanized at the north of the Danube. Considering that before the Roman conquest the present-day Romania was inhabited by Dacians, I think it can be concluded that the population that was Romanized is no ohter than the Dacians. 93.180.106.189 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, with the small difference, that the fourth theory does not refer to the Dacians. Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- In accordance with academic rules, Schramm summarized the existing theories of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, before describing his own thoughts on the same subjects. The fourth theory says that the lands north of the Lower Danube were continuously inhabited by a Latin/Romance-speaking population; according to the immigrationist theory, Romance-speakers only started to migrate to the same territories from the last decades of the 12th century. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please read my message above. I referred to the third and fourth thesis in Schramm's book, and not to the quote. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- "Schramm clearly refuses the idea of a Romanized native population in Roman Dacia" - this idea is missing from the presentation of the 4th theory. Nothing like this appears in the quote provided above. 93.180.115.223 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- As per WP:NOR, nothing is obvious, because we cannot state anything based on our logic. Especially, if we take into account that Schramm clearly refuses the idea of a Romanized native population in Roman Dacia, stating that those who remained in the former province of Dacia Traiana were the non-Romanized natives (I refer to his third and fourth theses in his cited work). Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Ancient town names
The statement "the names of all Roman settlements attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity disappeared" is false. Counterexamples: Abrud (ancient Abruttus), Mehadia (ancient Ad mediam), Tapia (ancient Tapae), Berzovia (Berzobis)
Sources:
- http://www.alil.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Toponime-de-origine-roman%C4%83-%C3%AEn-Transilvania-%C5%9Fi-%C3%AEn-sud-vestul-Moldovei.pdf
- http://www.rjgeo.ro/atasuri/revue%20roumaine_55_1/M.%20Buza.pdf 178.21.175.30 (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- (1) The name of the town of Abrud is not attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity. Its name was first recorded in the Middle Ages (in 1271 AD) as "terra Obruth", because that land was situated on the Abrud River. ([18]) (2) Yes, there is a (marginal) theory that the name of Mehadia derrived from a pre-Latin *Mehadia form, but this assumed form is not attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity. ([19], page 20) (3) Yes, according to a (marginal) theory, the name of Tapia (which was first recorded in 1761) derrived from ancient Tapae. However, Tapia is also supposed to have been borrowed from Serbian [[20], pages 19-20] (4) I have not found a reference to Berzovia in the sources you cite above. Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Open the second document, press ctrl+f, and then write Berzovia. 178.21.175.159 (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Please read more carefully the relevant section on page 22. It lists 7 settlements which now bear a name of Latin origin, including Mehadia (which cannot have been inherited from Latin as my above reference shows) and Sarmizegetusa which is not an inherited name either, but a modenr a name which was "restored" in the 20th century. Consequently, there is nothing that proves that the list contain towns with a name inherited from Antiquity. Borsoka (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Open the second document, press ctrl+f, and then write Berzovia. 178.21.175.159 (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- (1) The name of the town of Abrud is not attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity. Its name was first recorded in the Middle Ages (in 1271 AD) as "terra Obruth", because that land was situated on the Abrud River. ([18]) (2) Yes, there is a (marginal) theory that the name of Mehadia derrived from a pre-Latin *Mehadia form, but this assumed form is not attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity. ([19], page 20) (3) Yes, according to a (marginal) theory, the name of Tapia (which was first recorded in 1761) derrived from ancient Tapae. However, Tapia is also supposed to have been borrowed from Serbian [[20], pages 19-20] (4) I have not found a reference to Berzovia in the sources you cite above. Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
E. Sayous
According to the relevant noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard), the reliability of Sayous's almost 150-year-old work is suspect ([21]). This work obviously has not been cited by other historians for decades, because no such reference has so far been presented ([22]). Borsoka (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
According to a Third Party opinion in the Wiki pages about Gelou (Talk page), Sayous is a reliable source, more reliable than other historians of our years. Eurocentral (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Third Party opinion: Robert McClenon: "My own opinion is that a book published in 1873 does add value in addition to more modern academic sources". Eurocentral (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Eurocentral, please try not to abuse other editor's comments. The same editor wrote that ":I haven't researched the issue in detail and don't have an opinion. ... If doubts continue, go to reliable sources noticeboard or dispute resolution noticeboard" ([23]). Consequently, please do not refer to his above remark as an opinion. You also failed to mention the results of your action on the relevant wikiproject's talk page: upon your request, our co-editor, clearly stated that "What you are pointing us to is a modern reprint of a book that was originally published almost 150 years ago (in 1876)... I would question any historical scholarship that old. ... I would definitely consider it "outdated", and thus would question it's reliability" ([24]). Consequently, there is a clear declaration agains the relibiality of Sayous's work. Borsoka (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Borsoka You didn't read Lozovan but you censored him. And you show that Clenon did't read but he expressed "Sayous add more value". Where is the logic of your acts ? Of course Sayous opera is old but received the prize of French Academy. No book about Hungary received this distinction. Probably because of subjectivity of new authors. The third opinion must be respected in the case of Sayous. What is obsolete in his opera ? Nothing. Show me the Wiki rule which condemn this opera. Eurocentral (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
by the way: Borsoka never red Sayous but is ready to censor him. Declaration of 2 referees are contradictory. Borsoka, your actions are dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 17:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Eurocentral, please read my above message and stop edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Lozovan
Eurocentral, would you please list some river names of Romanian origin in Transylvania? Would you also list the Hungarian names of the "important" towns which were translated from German or Romanian in Transylvania? Borsoka (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Borsoka We do not need your literary analysis. All you have to do is to read the book using Google tranlation. Lozovan is an important and reliable historian and philologist who worked at Copenhagen University. We know you act against Romanian history, but attacking historians is too much for a simple editor. Read WIKI rules and act only conforming to these rules. Romanian names of geographic places was transferred from Dacians to Romans and from Romans to Romanians as in the pages of Romanian theories about continuity. You are an subjective editor because you act against Romanian continuity censoring only Romanian scientists. Eurocentral (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Eurocentral, please read WP:civility and WP:weasel. If you cannot mention a single river name of Romanian origin in Transylvania from Lozovan's work, the reference should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
BorsokaYou started a new war edit against a scientist. You are not a philologist and all you have to do is to read the page. Lozovan's theory about names in Transylvania was published in a lot of publications in Danemark. His conclusion is the most important and have to be visible. You are not a censor. Eurocentral (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Eurocentral, I have not started an edit war either against you or against a scientist and I am not a censor. Please list river names of Romanian origin in Transylvania, or we should delete that sentence because of WP:weasel. Borsoka (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Lozovan's statements resemble those of Romanian "scientists" in the eighties (IMO). I am just hoping that this he is not a "nationalist charlatan".Fakirbakir (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- If his work was published by an academic institution, he cannot be described as a "charlatan". However, WP:Weasel requires that no empty statements can be presented in WP articles: consequently, Eurocentral should list some Transylvanian river names of Romanian origin from Lozovan's work. Borsoka (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Lozovan's statements resemble those of Romanian "scientists" in the eighties (IMO). I am just hoping that this he is not a "nationalist charlatan".Fakirbakir (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
BorsokaAll you have to do is to is read the book in English and not to ask me to do it.
When you talked with an editor ( Third Opinion in the Sayous case) first you asked: Did you read the book ?
If not, why do you talk if you know nothing?
Try to read Lozovan's opera in Englis: Eugen Lozovan, Dacia Sacra Publisher Chicago; University of Chicago. He died in 1997.
He was for a while professor at Harvard University.
Eurocentral (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Borsoka Those Romanian "historians"'studies in the seventies and eighties were published by "academic" institutions... Eurocentral Borsoka asked for examples. Could you provide some? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you know English ? The book is in English. Why you do not read the book ?
Fakirbakir and Borsoka, you are supporters of discontinuity theory. You have to play FAIRLY and accept opinions from other party. Why do you use OBSTRUCTIONISM ? Eurocentral (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- My personal opinion doesn't matter. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Eurocentral, I assume that you again abused a scholar's name in order to substantiate your original research. Would you please list here the names of some Transylvanian rivers which are of Romanian origin? The theory that the oldest layer of Transylvanian river names is of Romanian origin contradicts to all cited (Romanian, Hungarian, German) scholars' view.
Lozovan's work is all but useless with respect to the oldest layer of Transylvanian waterways and mountains being of Romanian origin. On p.116 of Dacia Sacra (in Romanian) regarding the layers of toponyms, Lorozan asserts: "Românesc, cel mai vechi cuprinzând numele munţilor şi ale cursurilor de apă, cu excepţia numelor de oraşe[116]." Yet in the reference to support his assertion he says: "'Această terminologie nu va fi studiată aici.. Dar nu putem exclude câteva toponime urbane, de exemplu Abrud În acest sens: E. Lozovan, Abrud de la métallurgie de l'or en Dacie, Revue int. d'onom, 13 (1961) pp.227-285" Dacia Sacra (Romanian) TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Borsoka, read about WP:Weasel : some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it is often said ... Lozovan does not use such propositions. Erasing his work and his phrases is censoring using .
Borsoka, why do you use your team mate in order to eliminate Lozovan ? You accuse me of Original research but you never read the book. Lozovan stated about the three layers of names in Transilvania: Romanian the older, about some geographic details , German about cities and Hungarian which are translated from first two. He presents 2-3 pages about his theory. Censoring this opinion is an intentional subjective action, a discrimination against Lozovan, professor at Harvard. Let use a Third opinion, not a pen friend.
Eurocentral (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, thank you for providing the proper text; now it is obvious that Eurocentral's sentence meets the "criteria" of WP:weasel and should be deleted. Otherwise the name of Abrud(bánya) is in fact originate from the settlement's original Latin name: Abrutus. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Norden1990, it is nice to see you again. :) Just two points: (1) Abrutus was not a (known) settlement in Roman Dacia. (2) Abrudbánya's name cames from the name of the nearby river, but the river's name (Obruth) was first recorded in the 13th century AD even if it seems to have been inherited from pre-Roman times (I refer to the sources cited in the article Abrudbánya). Borsoka (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Eurocentral, I know that you had a really humiliating experience with one of our Romanian co-editors: he abused you ([25]), and later he left you, stating that you do "not own the necessary skills for being a contributor here". However, please believe me: average editors do not abuse each other. I am an average editor and I do not use TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, Fakirbakir or other editors. Please also try to concentrate and to remember that I sought assistance from WikiProject:Romania on this specific subject ([26]). Borsoka (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Norden1990, it is nice to see you again. :) Just two points: (1) Abrutus was not a (known) settlement in Roman Dacia. (2) Abrudbánya's name cames from the name of the nearby river, but the river's name (Obruth) was first recorded in the 13th century AD even if it seems to have been inherited from pre-Roman times (I refer to the sources cited in the article Abrudbánya). Borsoka (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Borsoka The text extracted from Lozovan by above editor is truncated; using truncated text is not possible to know the real text.
There are 3 sentences about the three layers(the truncated text contains 2 sentences) The sentences are extracted from his theory. His theory is about geographic names and he gave some examples about several towns. Obvious he didn't approached all geographic names. Borsoka is obsessed by rivers. Is his problem and not Lozovan problem. Lozovan stressed in some pages his theory. If rivers are not approached this does not diminish his theory. This is an interesting case: a editor against a philologist ! There is no reason to consider Lozovan theory as a Weasel(WP:Weasel : some people say, many scholars state...) Only your original research consider Lozovan as dubious. Show me the rule of Wiki. If you are not able to explain the Wiki rule here, Lozovan will be reinserted Eurocentral (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
By the way: some editors never red Lozovan but they hurry to censor him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Eurocentral: can you mention the name of a single river from the oldest layer of Transylvanian toponymy which is of Romanian origin? If you cannot, the statement that "the oldest layers of Transylvanian toponymy (rivers and mountains) is of Romanian origin" is an empty declaration which contradicts to all scholars' view. There is a scholarly consensus that the oldest layer of Transylvanian toponymy is of Dacian origin (Mures, Somes, Cris, etc.) - I refer to the scholars cited in the article under the subsection "Romanian place names"). During your previous ban, an administrator suggested that you should edit articles outside the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. I think you should accept his/her advice. Borsoka (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Eurocentral, you have not answered my previous question, so I repeat it. Can you mention the name of a single river or mountain or any other place from the oldest layer of Transylvanian toponymy which is of Romanian origin? If you cannot, the statement that "the oldest layers of Transylvanian toponymy (rivers and mountains) is of Romanian origin" is an empty declaration which contradicts to all scholars' view. There is a scholarly consensus that the oldest layer of Transylvanian toponymy is of Dacian origin (Mures, Somes, Cris, etc.) - I refer to the scholars cited in the article under the subsection "Romanian place names"). During your previous ban, an administrator suggested that you should edit articles outside the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. I think you should accept his/her advice. Borsoka (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Borsoka We do not need to discuss about details because we do not decide if to CENSOR or not. Wikipedia is a collection of data from scientists. Your opinions are only OR. I see you promote a unilateral point of wiew.
Eurocentral (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC) So, do not erase Romanian scientists. You started a war against Romanian scientists.
- Please read my above message more carefully and read WP:Fringe. Lozovan's theory contradicts to the views of all scholars cited in the article who wrote of the origin of the Transylvanian place names. If you cannot refer a single river or mountain or other place from the earliest layer of Transylvanian place names which is of Romanian origin, we have to delete the fringe statement. Borsoka (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- BorsokaAccording to Wiki rules, Lozovan is a reliable source. All your opinions are OR. Wikipedia is a collection of historians and philologists opinions. Your opinions are OR comparing to scientists opinions and STOP your war edit !
Eurocentral (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please remember our co-editor's remarks above ([27], [28]): even Lozovan's own remark shows that his hypothesis is useless and is not based on the study of Transylvanian place names. Otherwise, his theory contradicts to all (!!!!) scholars' view: the oldest layer of Transylvanian place names are of Dacian origin. Borsoka (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
According to Wiki policies, all opinions of historians must be added. Censoring of a historian by an editor is an infringement. This show a new war of Hungarian editors against Romanian historians. Eurocentral (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I repeat my above remark, please read it carefully: ":::::::Please remember our co-editor's remarks above ([29], [30]): even Lozovan's own remark shows that his hypothesis is useless and is not based on the study of Transylvanian place names. Otherwise, his theory contradicts to all (!!!!) scholars' view: the oldest layer of Transylvanian place names are of Dacian origin." Please read and apply WP:Civility as well, otherwise you will be sooner or later banned from our community. Borsoka (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Paleogenetics
I suggest that we should delete the section of Paleogenetics. This subject is highly controversial at the moment:
- In analyzing the genetics of 13 Romanian people, the team detected an admixture event that occurred sometime around the year 1054, and almost certainly between 886 and 1194. One part of their ancestry is related to peoples like Lithuanians and Finns while the other part is related to peoples like Greeks, Cypriots, and Southern Italians including Sicilians. (A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History." Science 343:6172 (February 14, 2014): pages 747-751)
- Our genetic study was focused on old human populations from the Bronze and Iron Ages from Romania [...] Concerning the genetic relationships at mitochondrial level, old human populations from Romania have shown closer genetic relationship to Turks of Thracian origin, while modern Romanians were closer to modern Bulgarian, Italian, Greek and Spanish populations." (Analysis of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes of old human populations from the Bronze and Iron Age from Romania." A paper to be presented at The European Human Genetics Conference 2012 in Nuremberg, Germany, June 23-26, 2012) Fakirbakir (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am not an expert in the fields of paleogenetics, and my decade-old knowledge of statistics suggests that a dozen individuals can hardly be described as a representative sample, but the above study was published in a peer reviewed book. Consequently, I would not delete the section. Borsoka (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- The main problem is that the peer reviewed studies contradict each other.... Moreover a genetic study from 2004 is rather outdated. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am a stupid in the field of paleogenetics. :) Please feel free to do anything you want. I suggest you should wait 2-3 days before deleting the section. Maybe a proper template message should be placed under the relevant subtitle in the article. Borsoka (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- The main problem is that the peer reviewed studies contradict each other.... Moreover a genetic study from 2004 is rather outdated. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am not an expert in the fields of paleogenetics, and my decade-old knowledge of statistics suggests that a dozen individuals can hardly be described as a representative sample, but the above study was published in a peer reviewed book. Consequently, I would not delete the section. Borsoka (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I am strongly against the deletion of this section based on Fakirbakir's original research. He says that "The main problem is that the peer reviewed studies contradict each other.... ". By this rule, we should also delete the whole article because specialists contradict each other when talking about the origin of the Romanians.
I don't think that a study from 2004 is too old. The section Hungarians#Ethnic_affiliations_and_genetic_origins references sources from 1970 and 1988 which are much older. 86.124.222.255 (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is already a debate on that matter ([31]). Fakirbakir (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I see. Maybe the editors who participated at that debate (User:Crovata, User:Nigej and User:RJFF) could also express their opinion here. Deleting a whole section is a major decision and it must be preceded by an adequate discussion. It would not be a bad idea to send invitations to the users from Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic History. 86.124.218.6 (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've done some modifications to this section. The originally cited study has been kept, although its rather dated and the quality low. The main thing to take away from it though has been highlighted in the new paragraphs. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This article is controversial
Censoring the French historian Edouard Sayous, (Dead in the XIXth century; and eliminating from this page is a subjective action and shows the controversial character of this article. Sayous work is still reliable: he received the prix of French Academy for his work about history; no other historians have same consideration for the history connected to this article. Eurocentral (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please try to remember what answer you received upon your request about Sayous ([32]). What did Dennis Deletant write of the continuity theory and on what page of his cited work? His work is not about continuity theory. Borsoka (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Deletant wrote: "a demontration of Anonymous's unreliability does not lead to a denial of a continous Romanian presence in Transylvania from the time of the Roman withdrawal from Dacia. Force of logic leads me to accept the continuity theory".
This is a clear statement of Denis Deletant about accepting the continuity theory Eurocentral (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please specify on what page did he write the above statement. Borsoka (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Paleogenetics
What does this section have anything to do specifically to the origin of the Romanians? The current content of this section is too broad and vague to be of any relevance to the topic of the theories of the origin of Romanians. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Bistrita/Repedea
sorry, I am new to this and do not really know how to insert my comments in the conversation, but there are numerous examples in the relevant literature of rivers in Transylvania which have a name of Latin origin in the mountains (upriver) and a different name with the same meaning, but of Slavic origin, in the lowlands (downriver), which shows that the Romanized population retreated to the mountains during several waves of invasions and that continuity was maintained in the high altitude areas. The classic example is the river Bistrita, whose name means "fast" from the Slavic root "bistr*", but which is called Repedea at its source in the mountains, from the Latin etymon "rapidus"= "fast" 138.251.225.117 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I opened a new section for this topic. The Repedea/Bistrita names of the same river is mentioned in the article as a proposed example how Romanian place names gave rise to Slavic hydronyms which were borrowed by the Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Do not use OR; all you write here is personal research. You repeatedly erased Romanian references in order to promote your national theories
Eurocentral (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please read what original research means, because you do not understand the very concept. Statements based on books published by academic institutions do not qualify as OR. Borsoka (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Historiography: origin of the theories vs '"Written sources"
What's the scope of each of these sections? Similar documents are mentioned in both of them. For instance Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum by Simon of Kéza is mentioned in the first one, while another Hungarian Gesta, namely Gesta Hungarorum, is mentioned in the second one. 64.62.219.167 (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think the first subtitle ("Historiography: origin of the theories") summarizes the development of ideas about the origin of the Romanians. For instance, Kézai's Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum said that the Vlachs had been descended from the inhabitants of the one-time Roman province in Pannonia. On the other hand, the "Written sources" section summarize the most important sources which are also often mentioned by scholars in connection with the origin of the Romanians, but which do not explicitly write of the ancestors of the Romanians. For instance, the Gesta Hungarorum did not write of the origin of the Romanians, but suggests that the Vlachs lived in Transylvania around 900. I think the text about the Russian Primary Chronicle should be moved from the "Historiography" section to the "Written sources" section, because it does not write of the origin of the Romanians, but only says that that there was a population (Volochs) who migrated to the Carpathian Basin after the Slavs. Borsoka (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Lack of evidence
A well-known problem in the history of Romanians is the 1000 years gap, or 1000 years silence: there is no evidence of what Romanians or their ancestors did for a thousand years. So, none of the competing theories could have enough evidence for itself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but the scope of this article is to present the main theories of the origin of the Romanians neutrally - regardless of the dearth of evidence or arguments from silence they may contain.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, all major views have to be presented, because there is simply no way to decide which one is right. Hungarian historians mostly see Romanians as migrants, while Romanian historians mostly support the continuity thesis. So, besides having national propaganda value, these theories can be neither rejected nor confirmed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- That's not true. Although there are ways to determine which theory best describes the historical reality, the scope of the article is to present the major theories for the Origin of the Romanians, and not determine which one is "right". Historical theories can be rejected or confirmed depending on the weight of the evidence supporting it and it's explanatory power.
- I agree, all major views have to be presented, because there is simply no way to decide which one is right. Hungarian historians mostly see Romanians as migrants, while Romanian historians mostly support the continuity thesis. So, besides having national propaganda value, these theories can be neither rejected nor confirmed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Historical theories, unlike the physical sciences, cannot be supported by observation because whatever happened took place in the past and therefore cannot be observed by anyone today. Like crime scene investigators, the job of historians is to gather facts and evidence to reconstruct the past as accurately as possible. Unfortunately, some historians let their ideological/nationalistic biases get in the way of good historical work. For a historical theory to win out, it needs the most evidence and the best explanation of the facts. One way a theory is supported is called predictive power, and it sort of goes like this:
Daco-Romanian Continuity Theory
- If Romanians descended from the inhabitants of Dacia Traiana, then what kind of evidence should we find if it were so?
- If close contacts between the autochthonous Dacians and the Roman colonists led to the formation of the Romanian people because many provincials stayed behind after the Roman Empire abandoned its territories north of the Danube, then what kind of evidence should we find if it were so?
- If the process of Romanization expanded to Maramureş, Moldavia and other neighboring regions due to the free movement of people across the former imperial borders, then what kind of evidence should we find if it were so?
- If the spread of Christianity contributed to the process of Romanization, since Latin was the language of liturgy among the Daco-Romans, then what kind of evidence should we find if it were so?
- If a sedentary Romance-speaking population survived despite a millennium of migratory peoples invading the lands now forming Romania, then what kind of evidence should we find if it were so?
- If the lands now forming Romania remained the main "center of Romanization" after the Slavs began to assimilate the Latin-speaking population of the Balkans in the 6th century, then what kind of evidence should we find if it were so?
Immigration Theory
- If Romanians descended from the Romanized inhabitants of the provinces to the south of the Danube, which were under Roman rule for more than 500 years, then what kind of evidence should we find if it were so?
- If some of the Romanized population moved south to regions where Latin had not been widely spoken following the collapse of the empire's frontiers around 620, giving rise to the modern Vlach shepherds, then what kind of evidence should we find if it were so?
- If others of the Romanized population took refuge in the Balkan Mountains where they adopted an itinerant form of sheep- and goat-breeding and their mobile lifestyle contributed to their spread in the mountainous zones, then what kind of evidence should we find if it were so?
- If the Romanians' ancestors came into close contact with sedentary Slavic-speaking communities in the 10th century at the latest, then what kind of evidence should we find if it were so?
- If the Romanians' ancestors adopted Old Church Slavonic liturgy in the First Bulgarian Empire, and preserved it along with their Orthodox Christian faith even after their northward migration across the Danube began, then what kind of evidence should we find if it were so?
- If the Romanians' ancestors were first employed as border guards along the southeastern frontiers of the Kingdom of Hungary and later settled in other sparsely inhabited regions as well, then what kind of evidence should we find if it were so? TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Borsoka and suck puppetry
Serbian ethnologist Paun Es Durlić wrote:
Due to inexplicable historic inertia, Romanization continued even after the breakup of the Roman Empire which gave rise to the Romanian State to the North of the Danube. It was from that area that the Slav tribes pushed through to the Balkans in the 6th century. Paun Es Durlić, SACRED LANGUAGE OF THE VLACH BREAD, Balkankult Foundation, BELGRADE, 2011.p.8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.35.163 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Eurocentral, please try to understand, there are no "Serbian", "Romanian" views on the subjects, just scholarly POVs. For instance, the earliest Wallachian and Moldavian chronicles knew that the Vlachs had migrated from the lands to the south of the Danube to the "Hungarian lands".Borsoka (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Borsoka's addiction to immigration theory is obvious. Also his edits are subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.81.51 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think, the migration theory is more compatible with facts than any other theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Yes, I am a human being, not a computer. However, you should not edit WP, because you are a banned user. Borsoka (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Borsoka's addiction to immigration theory is obvious. Also his edits are subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.81.51 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Addiction to immigration theory is characteristic in Wiki pages for frustrated persons and suck puppets from Austrian-Hungarian space. This theory collides with the history of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Greece. It looks like a fanatic struggle against the history of these countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.31.27 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, the histories do not collide: if you read the article, you can realize that the migration theory can easily be inserted into the history of both the Balkan and the lands now forming Romania. Interestingly, I am not frustrated at all and I have never been a suck puppet like you. Eurocentral, I suggest you should stop writing messages on WP talk pages, because you are a banned user. Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Addiction to immigration theory is characteristic in Wiki pages for frustrated persons and suck puppets from Austrian-Hungarian space. This theory collides with the history of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Greece. It looks like a fanatic struggle against the history of these countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.31.27 (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- There are some suck puppets like TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, Norden and Borsoka who write and edit together working like a gang. I red about these accusations in some talk pages of Wikipedia. Why they do not edit the pages of their own country? Why they edit pages of neighbor countries starting war edit and spreading their addiction ? The activities of such gangs made Wikipedia a terrain of propaganda. As a result, several scientific publications
and international organizations showed that wikipedia is NOT a reliable source and the references of wikipedia are NOT allowed. 193.231.27.65 (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC) 193.231.27.65 (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.27.81 (talk)
I know some administrators were noticed about the activities of suck puppets organised in gangs. It is impossible to apply some rules in this situation like 3RR because they act successively. Also the founder of Wikipedia was informed about editors organized in gangs acting to block the edits of other editors. We wait for an investigation in next weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.27.81 (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, your experiences as a puppet of an other Romanian editor must have been humiliating ([33]). He even told us that you were an untalented one. I am pretty sure, he was wrong. You must be an experienced, talented and committed suck puppet. I suggest you should also report this case to the Secretary-General of the UNO. You should persuade him to let you speak about suck puppetry at the General Assembly. I am convinced that the event would be broadcasted by many television channels. Borsoka (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Staying day and night in these pages of a country you hate shows that your destiny is to war edit and to block other editors. This addiction is
characteristic for irredentists sock puppets organised in gangs. Your anonymity will end soon. 79.112.22.106 (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- There is no country that I hate. Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
These fights must be avoided. I tried to find the reason of fight searching in the talk pages. I found: 1. The fight was frequent especially when discussing Romanian references. Some Romanian references where blocked including T. Georgescu, Lozovan, Djuvara etc. Reason of blocking: their opinion is not according to other opinions…
2. Frequently, during war edits there were 2:1 or 3:1 involved persons. This conducted editors to believe there are organized gangs. Borsoka, TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, and Norden TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit and Norden were involved in unbalanced adits
3. This lead to the conclusion that they are suckpuppets organized in a gang. But this has to be verified.
4. Shortly, as mentioned by anonyms, the {{3RR]] rule was broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.86.190.243 (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
"Blachi"
"Blachi" is missing from the article? Should we discuss the medieval names of the Romanians in more detail? "It is suggested here that the Blachi ac pastores Romanorum may have been such peoples who drifted northwards along with Bulgars, during the period of the First Bulgarian Empire" [34] Fakirbakir (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. The forms of the Vlachs' ethnonym are relevant in the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
[Request for comment] Can people who practise transhumance be classified as (semi)nomads?
There is no consensus in this RfC. As Jojalozzo noted below, "I think North is helping clarify the RFC awesomely. I highly recommend you start a new RFC once you've agreed on the basis of dispute." Cunard (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2017 (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 people who practise transhumance be classified as (semi)nomads?
There is a dispute on this issue at Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#who_were_nomads.3F. 123Steller (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Survey
* Yes, My opinion: transhumance can be classified as nomads. Reason: There are different categories of nomads. Per the definitions in:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nomad and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transhumance, both sets of definitions include the seasonal movement of humans with their livestock, which is a category of nomad. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC) * Yes, as per sources cited above which classify transhumance as a form of nomadism. Borsoka (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- No as a compromise, add Category:Transhumance. Where that belongs as a sub-category is another discussion. Anyway, the lede of transhumance does not support the idea that all people who practice transhumance are nomads: the majority of the population could be sedentary and only the livestock and its herders move. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand your argumentation. (1) Why do you think that WP is a reliable source for WP purposes? Encyclopædia Britannica obviously contradicts to WP, because it defines transhumance as "form of pastoralism or nomadism organized around the migration of livestock between mountain pastures in warm seasons and lower altitudes the rest of the year." ([35]) The same encyclopaedia also says, that nomadism is "a way of life of peoples who do not live continually in the same place but move cyclically or periodically". (2) Why do you think that there were significant groups of sedentary Proto-Romanians? Borsoka (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- (1) Well, Britannica says "pastoralism or nomadism", it does not say "nomadism (only)". That is pretty much the same as the Wikipedia article says. (2) The consensus is that proto-Romanians were practicing transhumance, not that they were nomads. There is consensus on the former but not on the later. Besides, as I said, if you want to make [[Category:Transhumant ethnic groups]] a sub-category of [[Category:Semi-nomadic ethnic groups]] (as it currently is), that is another discussion. This RFC is not concerned with that discussion. Because of over-categorizing, the parent category should be removed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why do you think that pastoralism and nomadism are different? According to the 7th edition of Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary pastoralims: "a way of keeping animals such as cattle, sheep, etc that involves moving them from place to place to find water and food". We can conclude that pastoralism, nomadism and transhumance cover the same idea: a movement from place to place following the herds. Borsoka (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Which loops back to my argument that herders are mobile, but the population of their own villages is not necessarily so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why do you think that pastoralism and nomadism are different? According to the 7th edition of Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary pastoralims: "a way of keeping animals such as cattle, sheep, etc that involves moving them from place to place to find water and food". We can conclude that pastoralism, nomadism and transhumance cover the same idea: a movement from place to place following the herds. Borsoka (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- (1) Well, Britannica says "pastoralism or nomadism", it does not say "nomadism (only)". That is pretty much the same as the Wikipedia article says. (2) The consensus is that proto-Romanians were practicing transhumance, not that they were nomads. There is consensus on the former but not on the later. Besides, as I said, if you want to make [[Category:Transhumant ethnic groups]] a sub-category of [[Category:Semi-nomadic ethnic groups]] (as it currently is), that is another discussion. This RFC is not concerned with that discussion. Because of over-categorizing, the parent category should be removed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand your argumentation. (1) Why do you think that WP is a reliable source for WP purposes? Encyclopædia Britannica obviously contradicts to WP, because it defines transhumance as "form of pastoralism or nomadism organized around the migration of livestock between mountain pastures in warm seasons and lower altitudes the rest of the year." ([35]) The same encyclopaedia also says, that nomadism is "a way of life of peoples who do not live continually in the same place but move cyclically or periodically". (2) Why do you think that there were significant groups of sedentary Proto-Romanians? Borsoka (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Would you refer to a source stating that the population of the Proto-Romanian settlements did not move? Please read the sources cited in the article Origin of the Romanians under the subtitle Evidence - Written sources - Sources on the Balkan Vlachs (which says that the families also moved). Please also read this source ([36]) which says that the Romanians' first permanent settlements cannot be documented before the late 14th century. If no permantent settlements existed where did their families remained? Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- My argument is much simpler: we don't know very much about the Proto-Romanians, so it is rather far-fetched to claim that they were nomads. They could have been, but we simply don't know enough about them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please find my comment below here: [37]. Borsoka (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- My argument is much simpler: we don't know very much about the Proto-Romanians, so it is rather far-fetched to claim that they were nomads. They could have been, but we simply don't know enough about them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
- 123Steller, are you sure, that this is the relevant question? The above discussion is about the classification of the proto-Romanians as a (semi-)nomadic group along with the Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans. Could we say that the Magyars were not nomads in the Pontic steppes, because the Hungarians are a clearly settled people now? Borsoka (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
123Steller, you have been making unilateral edits, although we have not terminated the debate. Therefore, I restored the status quo ante, which is fully in line with the opinion of the majority of the editors who contributed to this debate. Moreover, EB also defines transhumance as a form of nomadism ([38]), consequently the category "nomad" contains the subcategory "transhumant". Please also remember this message on your Talk page ([39]). Borsoka (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- However, the debate is still on. You again made unilateral edits. Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your edits ara as unilateral as mine. Do you contest the fact that the old Romanians were a transhumant ethnic group? 123Steller (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- However, the debate is still on. You again made unilateral edits. Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no consensus. Tgeorgescu wrote that "there is no academic consensus upon whether the Romanians or their ancestors were nomads". Roger Cribb (Australian archaeologist and anthropologist who specialised in documenting and modelling spatial patterns and social organisation of nomadic peoples) wrote that "the transhumance of village flocks may or may not involve an element of nomadism". 123Steller (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- (1) No, I did not make unilateral edits. I tried to restore the status quo ante only after you made unilateral edits. (2) Do you think that transhumant ethnic groups are not (semi-)nomads? Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Logically dissecting this: Is the RFC statement really a statement of the dispute? The core dispute regarding actual edits seems to be about inclusion in "Nomadic" category. First, I think that there is one element that you have agreed on, which is to include historical behavior as a basis for classification. (I.E. not limiting it to current Romania) But, if the core dispute is about inclusion in "Nomadic" category, the RFC question only represents the dispute IF you have already agreed on the following....have you?
- That they did practice transhumance. I think that you have tacitly agreed to this.
- That they did NOT practice nomadism outside of their transhumance. So the only basis for the "nomadic" term would be their transhumance. I'm thinking that you have not agreed on this in which case the RFC question is not an accurate statement of your core question.
Regarding deriving "nomadic" from "transhumance" that question includes variability in the current meaning of the term "nomadic". My gut feel is that the common meaning of nomadic does not include transhumance. But I think that your core question is really inclusion of "nomadic" in addition to "transhumance". My suggestion is to shake hands and say "yes". I think that you have sources that say this, you have tacitly agreed to include historical behavior in classification, and you'd probably both agree that at some time in the past there was some "purely nomadic" behavior. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- North8000 sources refer to semi-nomadism rather than pure nomadism. 123Steller (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which aspect of the discussion you are referring to. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- The question if most of the Proto-Romanians behaved purely nomadic has not been answered consensually. There are a handful of fragmentary glimpses from a period of one millennium or more, so one can hardly pretend that such glimpses represent the whole story, for most of the population, at least for one of those centuries. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans are described as (semi-)nomads based on about a dozen of fragments in medieval Arabic, Persian, Rus' and Western works (As to the Magyars, I refer to the sources cited in the article Hungarian prehistory). In the case of the Magyars, we also know that they borrowed a significant part of their vocabulary related to agriculture and a settled way of life from Slavic languages. Consequently, we do not know that the Magyars were nomads during a long phase of their ethnogenesis, but we can assume it. Why are the Romanians different? There are medieval documents showing that they had no permanent settlements and they borrowed a significant part of their agricultural vocabulary and their words related to a settled way of life from Slavic languages (I refer to the works cited in this article and in the article Romania in the Early Middle Ages). Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- The keyword is WP:RS/AC. It seems to me that one category is contentious, while the other category can be made a sub-category of the contentious category and thus moving the contention from this talk page to a higher plane (categories talk page). Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand your reference to WP:RS/AC. What category should be used when listing the Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans and Vlachs? Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I meant: for Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans there is academic consensus they they were (originally) nomadic peoples. For Proto-Romanians there is no such academic consensus. That's the difference. Note that I don't object to the categorization as transhumants (a bot has removed over-categorization). Whether the present category really belongs to semi-nomadic peoples category is another discussion, which does not concern this RFC and frankly I do not wish to debate that problem since the categories existing now on this article are a good compromise to make everybody happy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand your reference to WP:RS/AC. What category should be used when listing the Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans and Vlachs? Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- The keyword is WP:RS/AC. It seems to me that one category is contentious, while the other category can be made a sub-category of the contentious category and thus moving the contention from this talk page to a higher plane (categories talk page). Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans are described as (semi-)nomads based on about a dozen of fragments in medieval Arabic, Persian, Rus' and Western works (As to the Magyars, I refer to the sources cited in the article Hungarian prehistory). In the case of the Magyars, we also know that they borrowed a significant part of their vocabulary related to agriculture and a settled way of life from Slavic languages. Consequently, we do not know that the Magyars were nomads during a long phase of their ethnogenesis, but we can assume it. Why are the Romanians different? There are medieval documents showing that they had no permanent settlements and they borrowed a significant part of their agricultural vocabulary and their words related to a settled way of life from Slavic languages (I refer to the works cited in this article and in the article Romania in the Early Middle Ages). Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- The question if most of the Proto-Romanians behaved purely nomadic has not been answered consensually. There are a handful of fragmentary glimpses from a period of one millennium or more, so one can hardly pretend that such glimpses represent the whole story, for most of the population, at least for one of those centuries. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which aspect of the discussion you are referring to. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- I was invited here by a bot and have no expertise in this area. I think North is helping clarify the RFC awesomely. I highly recommend you start a new RFC once you've agreed on the basis of dispute. Please invite me back when you have settled on the question and then I will be glad to study up on the issues and respond to the request. Jojalozzo (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2017 (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.
Nomads were the Hungarians, Pechenegs and Cumans. If we accept the nomadism connected to jobs, we need to transform the history: All workers going to the place of work are nomads or commuters ? This kind of stupid problems are promoted by persons without knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.27.66 (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Romanian as a re-lexified South Slavic idiom (?!)
"An extreme view point sees Romanian simply as a 're-lexified' Slavic language - i.e. one where Vlach and Turkic boyars actively began introducing Romanisms into an essentially South Slavic language, as a sociolinguistic strategem to distinguish themselves politically and ethnically from neighbouring polities in Southeastern Europe"
Even if this opinion is correctly presented as an "extreme viewpoint", it has not to be mentioned, because it is a factual error. I doubt even about the scholarly character of the cited source (and it is cited many times as an authority on other subjects too).
As a rule, not all the opinions about a subject are to be cited. And the stupid, the absurd, the interested - and yes! the extreme - ones are to be avoided. For now I abstain myself from eliminating this passage, because I prefer an open discussion.
But what is to be discussed here is not the creole character of the Romanian, but rather the objectivity of the contributor that added this opinion. With contributions like this, no wonder that this page has become controversial.
Just for kidding, there is another "extreme view point that sees Romanian simply as" being exactly the Dacian language, that is the ancestor of the Latin, but nobody in his right mind could cite it as a scholarly opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorin.Botezat (talk • contribs) 11:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this "theory" doesn't even need mentioning, as it has no basis in any linguistic factual reality; any professional in the field can easily argue against it. It's just as fringe and silly as the 'Romanian comes from Dacian theory', which has gained a disturbing amount of traction among some Romanians in recent times (although, knowing the culture, this isn't as surprising as it seems; but I digress). The protochronist school still seems to exert influence to this day, sadly. Word dewd544 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
PERSONAL VIEW
"(A)few Romanian historians dispute the Daco-Roman continuity theory." It's a mere fantasy, personal POV. Did they ask historians from all universities of Romania? Was there a poll to measure it? This sentence ---> "The nationality of historians influenced their views of the Romanians' ethnogenesis" is more than enough about this matter. NPOV pls! Fakirbakir (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is a statement supported by reliable sources. 123Steller (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- However, the content is NOT neutral. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Plea
- I think it is neutral. Please don't make unilateral text removals.123Steller (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's sources are not supposed to be neutral. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." Dimadick (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Dimadick I do NOT think that the Communist POV should be underlined in the article. Before the fall of Communism the study of history in Romania was abused for political reasons, see:National Communism in Romania. For that reason, we shouldn't really care what Georgescu stated in 1988. This is only my POV of course. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- He wasn't a commie. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nor were other Romanian historians he refers to. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if he was a commie or not. However, it does matter that Ceausescu celebrated the 2,050th anniversary of the founding of the "unified and centralized" Dacian state of Burebista in 1980.[40] Fakirbakir (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Dimadick I do NOT think that the Communist POV should be underlined in the article. Before the fall of Communism the study of history in Romania was abused for political reasons, see:National Communism in Romania. For that reason, we shouldn't really care what Georgescu stated in 1988. This is only my POV of course. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's sources are not supposed to be neutral. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." Dimadick (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think it is neutral. Please don't make unilateral text removals.123Steller (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- However, the content is NOT neutral. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Plea
- It is a statement supported by reliable sources. 123Steller (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Fakirbakir, please stop edit-warring. It has been explained to you that Georgescu's work appeared posthumously. Moreover, it appeared in Columbus, Ohio, which was never under communist rule. Have I addressed your objections, or shall we carry on with this sterile debate? - Biruitorul Talk 16:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- You don't even try to understand my problem. Georgescu wrote in 1988 that RO historians accepted the "continuity" theory. What else could he have written? Under Ceausescu nobody dared to question the "Dacian-Romanian myth" in Romania. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- You do understand that Georgescu lived in the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany after 1979, and that he was not subject to the dictates of communist historiography, right?
- Moreover, if you have more recent sources on the topic - say, something from the past five years that indicates there's actually a lively debate among Romanian historians about this theory - by all means bring it up. Until then, there's nothing wrong with using Georgescu, so long as it's contextualized. ("According to émigré historian Vlad Georgescu, writing at a time when Protochronism was an official ideology....") - Biruitorul Talk 17:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I do understand. But he wrote about RO historians. The American or German scholars are Romanians? Fakirbakir (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Romanian is a nationality, so there is nothing factually incorrect in saying that the nationality of historians influenced their views. Moreover, for obvious reasons, it is Romanian historians, and not Belgian or Portuguese or Korean, who are most interested in this topic, and who have probably published the majority of relevant research. - Biruitorul Talk 19:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Bulgarian historians are willing to accept the continuity theory" ??? Really? Read Daskalov's book (2015) please. The whole "who supports what and to what degree" part is a big pile of trash. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I realized now that the statements are outdated anyway, so I agree with Fakirbakir to remove the paragraph in question. 123Steller (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Bulgarian historians are willing to accept the continuity theory" ??? Really? Read Daskalov's book (2015) please. The whole "who supports what and to what degree" part is a big pile of trash. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Romanian is a nationality, so there is nothing factually incorrect in saying that the nationality of historians influenced their views. Moreover, for obvious reasons, it is Romanian historians, and not Belgian or Portuguese or Korean, who are most interested in this topic, and who have probably published the majority of relevant research. - Biruitorul Talk 19:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is a mistake. The original text was mixed with personal and original research of Fakirbakir. Let's turn back to the original idea of Georgescu, without personal reserach of fakirbakir
- Yes, I do understand. But he wrote about RO historians. The American or German scholars are Romanians? Fakirbakir (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- You don't even try to understand my problem. Georgescu wrote in 1988 that RO historians accepted the "continuity" theory. What else could he have written? Under Ceausescu nobody dared to question the "Dacian-Romanian myth" in Romania. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
79.112.40.152 (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- The original text was debated several times starting from last year. It is very important because shows the diversity of opinions. Choping the initial text and erasing several references is very similar to vandalism. All we need is to eliminate the text proposed by
persons who want to hide data.
The nationality of historians influenced their views of the Romanians' ethnogenesis.[1]</ref>Some Bulgarian historians accept the continuity theory, but they deny the survival of a significant Romanized population in present-day Bulgaria.[1] Russian historians are ready to accept the uninterrupted presence of the Romanians' ancestors in Transylvania, but not in Moldavia.[1]
This article has no introduction
An introduction is still missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.27.66 (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Genetical genealogy proves evidence against the continuity theory of local Romanization
The Romanization of any population in the Nord of Danube never take place, anytime. This is just only a nationalistic myth. The Romanization of modern Romanians took place in the south of the Danube, where settled they ancestors in the roman estic empire, the meanwhile slavized before romanized Thracians. In the roman empire the Thracian population were Romanized up to 5th century, after that began a period of the Grazisation and Slavization with the beginning Slavic invasion. At the beginning of the 8th century, in the period of the Grazisation of the Byzantine empire (the Latin language was replaced by the Greek and he emperor called himself "Basileos" instead of "Imperator"), the romanized Thracian population crossed the Danube to the north, where the Getae and Gothae lived on the Danube, and north of them the Gepids, Carpi and Kostoboki. A larger migration took place with the expansion over the Danube of the Bulgarian-Vlachian empire in the 13th century, under the leadership of the brothers Peter and Ioanes Asen (Bulgarian-Wallachian descent, her mother was a Vlachian from Larissa). (see the scripts of Acropolites, Pachymeres, Eurtropius).
There were already many Principates on the Greek peninsula with this name already centuries before the Principate of Wallachia on the Danube, in the area of ??Thessaly around Larissa (Megaloblachia, Great Wallachia) and in Dalmatia (Small Wallachia) and others. (see Georgios Akropolites (1217-1283), in his "Chronikos") The name of "vlah" is originated in this region from 7th century.
The result was a mixed population and also a mixed language, with Romance-Slavic vocabulary and Cyrillic alphabet. Today's modern Romanian language originated only from the 18th and 19th centuries, in particular using French influence, with today only a few Slavic words, but before that with many more. (see examples of preserved letters)
The last irrefutable proof of this fact, is a new science branch so called "Genetical Genealogy", developed together from English, German, Russian and other scientists on the University of Oxford from London. Compliant with these findings, the Romanians to day are to 1/4 Slavic (the Slavic invasion starting from the 5th century over the Eastern Europe and the Balkan peninsula) and to 1/4 Anatolian (the Thracians are immigrated from Anatolia (Mysia)), see neolitic migration Maps in this Project) and just only to 1/6 Romans. The surprising findings of this study is, that the Austrians are no longer Germans, the Hungarians do not have asiatic roots and the Moldavians of Romania do not are Romanians. See "The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across Europe".
For examples: "Thus, sharing nearly the same language is not accompanied by specific genetic similarity between Moldavians and Romanians. Furthermore, Italian populations that share the Romance/Latin language with Moldavians and Romanians, show little genetic similarity with them. These results agree with previous genetic studies suggesting that the genetic landscape of southeast Europe had been formed long before the modern linguistic/ethnic landscape was shaped."
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053731.g004 Y Chromosome Variation and Moldavian Origins PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 January 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 1 | e53731
That's implies die conclusion that linguistic/ethnic analysis can not reveal the Historie of the roots of people. Each continuity theory (each country has its own), only source of nationalist hatred, is thus rendered ad absurdum, forever. And that's good so for ever.2A02:8071:2984:6200:C0B3:690D:4A87:77EF (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Example of an extremist nationalistic discourse. 79.112.40.152 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- I found several genetic plots from various autosomal or mitochondrial studies with European population structures, but I'm not sure these can be used or linked to directly simply as images, unless they're associated with a certain peer-reviewed and published scientific article or paper. Some of these were created as results from DNA testing services, or appear on blogs related to the subjct, but I'm not sure if that's admissible? Also, does anyone know where to find more in depth sources for some of these?
- some examples are
https://dnatestingchoice.com/perch/resources/britains-dna-european-600x530-border-v2.jpg (from https://dnatestingchoice.com/en-us/ancestry/provider/scotlands-dna/877?sort=rating), http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2011/01/MDS1600.png (from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/tag/dodecad/#.WNnBHYErI2w, or Dienekes' site), http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html, http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v24/n7/suppinfo/ejhg2015233s1.html (this one would actually work), https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2008/4-researchersl.jpg (from https://phys.org/news/2008-09-geographic-individuals-dna.html), https://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Genes-mirror-geography-for-Europeans.jpg (from 23andme). For these ones, I can't really find the original source; don't know if anyone knows: http://oi52.tinypic.com/335gmd4.jpg, http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8211/8437291103_92212c88bf_o.png, http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8080/8325654300_7d1a494875_o.png.
- Also, should parts of this bit from the Genetics section of the main Romanian page be used? It seems to have more on haplogroups and paleo-genetics than this one, actually. And this bit about the R1b in certain regions is interesting to note. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Romanians#GeneticsWord dewd544 (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The article is not a historical point of view but a nationalist racist
The history in general, but the history of peoples and nations in detail, is a stochastic growth process and thus can not be described causally deterministically. We know the result, but the path to it can not be described deterministically. There are many theories about the origin and continuity of peoples and nations all over Europe and the world, but none of them is scientific, because it is not possible to describe a stochastic process deterministically. The Austrians claim their descent from the Celts, the Hungarians from the Magyars, the Bulgarians from the Thracians and the Romanians from the Romans. But not one is truth.
- Such a category like as the "origin of a people or a nation" makes no scientific sense, because it can not be described deterministically.
- The only point of view we can talk about, is the linguistic and cultural ethnogenesis.
The "Gentic Genealogy" says:
- the Austrians are not descents of the Celts and today no longer are Germans
- the Hungarians do not have Asiatic roots, they are not the descents of the Hunians, Cumans or Aavars
- the Bulgarians are not descents of the asiatic Bolgars, they are Slavians
- the Romanians are not descents from the Dacians neither from the Romans, or mixture
All these people have the same politropic genetical background and are ethnogenetically related, but culturally diverse. Because all these migratory peoples, Huns, Cumans, Avars, Protobulgars, were relative only a small number, but formed the leadership for a time of history, with their military power. At last they were culturally absorbed and thus disappeared from history. This is proved by the fact that they have not left any permanent genetic traces among the European peoples. 2A02:8071:2984:6200:C0B3:690D:4A87:77EF (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Traian Georgescu
About sentence: The nationality of historians influenced their views of the Romanians' ethnogenesis.
- You yourself confirm with your statements this sentence.
- "western historians", "along with Hungarian scholars",
- "Bulgarian historians are willing", "Russian historians are ready to accept".
- But the historical truth and the evidence of historical facts can not depend on what different historians are willing to accept.
- Therefore, only scientific facts such as those of archeology or genetic genealogy can be impartial evidence.
- Even historical writings are not always impartial and correct.2A02:8071:2984:6200:C0B3:690D:4A87:77EF (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
There are contradictory statements and possible puppetry of the same editor: on December 13, 2016 Borsoka added Traian Georgescu and last days he changed again. We need more serious approach about this subject
Second sentence from Georgescu was:
Few Romanian historians dispute the Daco-Roman continuity theory.[1][2][anachronism] However, present-day[anachronism] western historians,[3] along with Hungarian scholars, refute it.[note 1][1][2] Bulgarian historians are willing to accept the continuity theory, but they deny the survival of a significant Romanized population in present-day Bulgaria.[1] Russian historians are ready to accept the uninterrupted presence of the Romanians' ancestors in Transylvania, but not in Moldavia.[1] There was a discussion but Fakirbakir added his original research as an argument against Georgescu
This sentence was chopped and mixed with OR original research by Fakirbakir. Fakirbakir claimed about Georgescu: "a big pile of trash". This kind of remarks are specific to Fakirbakir who also claimed: Slovakia is a fascist state.
I propose to eliminate all additions of Fakirbakir and the restored sentence to be: The nationality of historians influenced their views of the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Some Bulgarian historians accept the continuity theory, but they deny the survival of a significant Romanized population in present-day Bulgaria. Russian historians are ready to accept the uninterrupted presence of the Romanians' ancestors in Transylvania, but not in Moldavia.
- It is a scientific evidence of facts that today's Romanians are not direct descendants of neither the Dacians nor the Romans,
- says the "Genetics of Gnealogy". And thus the ethnogenesis of today's Romanian people can not have taken place in the Dakia of Decebal.
- Not to mention the commonalities of the Wallachian language of the Wallachians in Macedonia, the Rodopenians and Albania, for which there are no hikes.
- So they must have be born on the same place. This common place can only have been, from the historical evidence of facts, south of the Danube,
- in the so called "Byzantine empire". They himself called their empire "Romania".
2A02:8071:2984:6200:C0B3:690D:4A87:77EF (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- As stated and perhaps deleted by you by mistake Alexbrn's point was that Plos One is not a reliable source for biomedical claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No Romanians before the 7th century in Wallachia and Moldavia
The famous namesake of the Jirecek line, C.J. Jirecék, writes in his "History of the Bulgarians"
- In the 7th century we find in Wallachia and Moldova, as has been shown, not Romanians but only Slavs.
- Jirecék, History of the Bulgarians, page 114, Chapter IV--2A02:8071:2984:6200:C0B3:690D:4A87:77EF (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Jirecek made a lot of mistakes: his proposed line is false: a lot of Bulgarian Vlachs, Cutzovlachs, Meglenovlachs, Aromanians and other vulgar latin speakers live in Balkans in Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia and Albania. Why Jirecek mitigate the importance of these populations ? Why today Bulgaria refuses to sign the Declaration of minorities from Balkans promoted by UE ? 79.112.31.32 (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Bulgaria never signed European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/European_Charter_for_Regional_or_Minority_Languages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.31.32 (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- Based on our list and its sources, the relevant treaty has been ratified by Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Only 25 states out of 50 current European states.
- The 25 states which have not signed or ratified the treaty include Albania, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, the Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Portugal, Russia, San Marino, Turkey, and Vatican City.
- There are other 6 states in Europe, with limited international recognition. None of them is a party of the treaty. They include Abkhazia, the Republic of Kosovo, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, and Transnistria. Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- To be sure, in the 7th century the Romanian people was still forming, so I would agree there were no Romanians, but there were Proto-Romanians. The claim that there were only Slavs is unsupported by evidence. That's exactly the problem: there is little evidence (for any of the claims and counter-claims) and those rely mostly upon guessiology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, there may have been Proto-Romanians if any population living in an area which which was never conquered by the Roman Empire but has been inhabited by Romanians/Vlachs possibly since the 12th or 13th century can be described as such. Could we also call the Dacians, Daco-Romans, Goths, Gepids, Avars, Slavs as Proto-Székelys? All those population lived in the territory of present-day Székely Land and Székely Land has been probably inhabited by the Székelys since the 13th century. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- First, according to WP:OR, Wikipedia editors don't make the call, instead WP:SOURCES make the call. Editors may comment upon the reliability of sources. And sources tell us there is very little evidence upon which scholars could make the call. And this is the reality: there are many competing scholarly views and there is no winner among them, simply because the lack of evidence does not allow any of those views to become consensual. So, neither is consensual the idea that there were only Slavs there. As I was telling before, only a row of many spectacular discoveries could solve the dilemma (both "many" and "spectacular" required). Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. I only wanted to emphasize that your above statement contained a scholarly theory ("there were Proto-Romanians...") as a fact, although there is very little evidence (actually there is no evidence) that a population which could be described as "Proto-Romanian" lived in the region before the 12th/13th century. Borsoka (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- For me, it is more of a question ("were there Proto-Romanians?") instead of a hard fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, questions should alwyas be raised. Were there Proto-Székelys in Székely Land before the arrival of the Hungarian-speaking Székely groups and the development of the Székelys' self consiousness? Were there Proto-Croatians in the territory of present-day Croatia before the arrival of the Slavs and the formation of Croatia? And the answer always depends on what a scholar think about the concept of a Proto-Nation. Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Since someone mentioned genetics above, Romanians are descended from Charlemagne. So are Hungarians, too. See [42]. Small world, huh? Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Good point. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Since someone mentioned genetics above, Romanians are descended from Charlemagne. So are Hungarians, too. See [42]. Small world, huh? Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, questions should alwyas be raised. Were there Proto-Székelys in Székely Land before the arrival of the Hungarian-speaking Székely groups and the development of the Székelys' self consiousness? Were there Proto-Croatians in the territory of present-day Croatia before the arrival of the Slavs and the formation of Croatia? And the answer always depends on what a scholar think about the concept of a Proto-Nation. Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- For me, it is more of a question ("were there Proto-Romanians?") instead of a hard fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. I only wanted to emphasize that your above statement contained a scholarly theory ("there were Proto-Romanians...") as a fact, although there is very little evidence (actually there is no evidence) that a population which could be described as "Proto-Romanian" lived in the region before the 12th/13th century. Borsoka (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- First, according to WP:OR, Wikipedia editors don't make the call, instead WP:SOURCES make the call. Editors may comment upon the reliability of sources. And sources tell us there is very little evidence upon which scholars could make the call. And this is the reality: there are many competing scholarly views and there is no winner among them, simply because the lack of evidence does not allow any of those views to become consensual. So, neither is consensual the idea that there were only Slavs there. As I was telling before, only a row of many spectacular discoveries could solve the dilemma (both "many" and "spectacular" required). Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, there may have been Proto-Romanians if any population living in an area which which was never conquered by the Roman Empire but has been inhabited by Romanians/Vlachs possibly since the 12th or 13th century can be described as such. Could we also call the Dacians, Daco-Romans, Goths, Gepids, Avars, Slavs as Proto-Székelys? All those population lived in the territory of present-day Székely Land and Székely Land has been probably inhabited by the Székelys since the 13th century. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- To be sure, in the 7th century the Romanian people was still forming, so I would agree there were no Romanians, but there were Proto-Romanians. The claim that there were only Slavs is unsupported by evidence. That's exactly the problem: there is little evidence (for any of the claims and counter-claims) and those rely mostly upon guessiology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- As a Romanian myself (but raised mostly outside the country and thus not as blinded by bias or nationalism), I believed the standard/default/"mainstream" theory about Daco-Roman continuity for a long time and thought the opposing theory was just crafted by Hungarians, but over time, as I actually looked into the existing evidence in detail, I began questioning it leaning more and more toward a south-of-the-Danube origin (at least for the language's formation, not necessarily the entire people's). I can also see some merit in a mixed, compromise 'admigration' position. There just isn't enough evidence to definitively fully support either side, as far as I know. But there seems to be less evidence for the direct continuity theory, when you really examine it. The much longer duration of the empire's presence south of the Danube, the presence of specifically Late Latin vocabulary, some pertaining to Christianity, the presence of the Aromanians and other Vlachs (whose languages only split from Romanian about 1000 years ago), links with Old Church Slavonic and Bulgarian, and the close relationship with proto-Albanians (including many borrowed words) seems to point toward this. There isn't enough said about the ties with Albanians; traditionally, it's often simplistically assumed that any ties are some paleo-Balkan "substratum" due to Dacian and Illyrian, but there's no evidence for this. Closer examination of cognates now indicates that the majority of those terms uniquely found in Romanian and Albanian were taken from Albanian, as they show regular sound shifts/correspondences; even many terms of Latin origin in Albanian have regular parallels in Romanian (this article has some good info if you can read Romanian https://dexonline.ro/articol/Despre_leg%C4%83turile_rom%C3%A2nei_cu_albaneza). There's also the Balkan sprachbund issue, and some interesting links with Macedonian.
- Personally, I think proto-Romanians or Vlachs, before they differentiated, extended across the central Balkans in what is now eastern and southern Serbia to the northern parts of FYROM, Kosovo, and up to northeastern Serbia, possibly across the Danube into southwestern Romania/Oltenia and possibly to the southwestern Carpathian range, where I think the language began forming its unique characteristics and spreading north and east across what is now Romania. But the part of northeast Serbia that was known as Moesia is a strong likely candidate, and interestingly there are still (Daco-)Romanian speakers here today, who speak a slightly archaic dialect. If you recall, the Roman citizens from Dacia were evacuated and relocated there, so it's not impossible that some of those Dacians or Daco-Romans came to form part of the eventual Romanian ethnogenesis, later moving back across the river. I think it's possible there were Vlachs on both sides of the river, but not too deep into what is now Romania until later. There's absolutely no evidence for Vlachs or Romance speakers in the Moldova region until rather late on the historical scene, well into the High or Late Middle Ages (we even have the legend of Prince Dragos from Maramures chasing the auroch as a sort of foundation myth there). Genetically, Moldovans aren't even that close to a lot of other Romanians, especially those from far sides of the country. Which probably means that there were already a fair amount of people there when the Vlachs/Romanians expanded into the area and spread their language (probably a mixture of Slavs with perhaps leftover assimilated remnants of earlier peoples, including a few Iranic and Central Asian nomads perhaps). How and why this spread of Romanian happened is unclear exactly.
- The rest of Dacia/Romania was obviously not completely empty when the early Vlachs began expanding, so it's possible that some diluted/assimilated remnants of the ancient Dacians (after Germanic and Slavic invasions/migrations) still made it into the population/ethnogenesis in some way. Romanians clearly have some background from those peoples, and the immigrationist theory would be crazy to imply that the incoming Vlachs from the south just totally replaced whatever was there with just themselves, after multiplying like crazy and spreading all over the land, eventually forming a population of 25 million or so... It was clearly a combination of peoples and cultures; in history, when languages spread, they don't usually wipe out the speakers of the previous ones, but rather assimilate them. As others have mentioned, the base or root genetic profiles for the region were largely formed in prehistoric times, so populations didn't change that radically. Haplogroups show patterns consistent with gradual shifts across Europe as well as ancient populations, and there may well be traces of ancient Celtic influence in Transylvania. As for the Hungarians' presence in the country, it's hard to say: there were probably native European peoples there who may have even been Slavic, Germanic, Avar, Illyrian, or even Romance speakers (look up Pannonian Romance), who later became Hungarian speakers and thus "Hungarians", but the actual Magyars were likely an elite minority. So it's complex; you can't say one people was really there before another, as both people's probably share a lot of the same ancestry with ancient peoples that existed in the region before either Magyars or Vlachs arrived.
- The importance and centrality of the pastoral/shepherding profession in the past is also interesting evidence. We see similar lifestyles in other Vlachs, although Aromanians focus more on goats while Romanians on sheep. Many words relating to this sphere of life are inherited from Latin (with the notable exception of cioban, but there is also păstor and păcurar), indicating that it goes back deep. There are very few words relating to urban or city life. The links with Bulgarians, including many words from their language and Old Church Slavonic, are another clue (some might argue that since the Bulgarian Empire spread over into Romania, and may have been partly ruled by some Vlachs, that explains it, but I don't know). There's also very few if any words from the Goths, Gepids, and migratory Turkic peoples that passed through and briefly ruled over parts of Romania, which indicates Romanian speakers weren't there to absorb their vocabulary. Genetics also show a strong similarity to South Slav and other Balkan populations like Albanians and Greeks (most South Slavs generally being more native Balkan than Slavic, despite their language). Romanians generally show up in the center of this cluster, which is more evidence that at least some of them came from around there.
- I don't even see why it's such a big deal, and why many Romanians so virulently defend the continuity theory as if their entire existence depends on it. The biggest problem is likely the issue with Hungary over Transylvania, but we let modern issues cloud things too much. And yes, it's true, Romanians were taught that theory as the default history in school, and I guess I can see why some get attached to it (probably because it seems to make the ethnogenesis of the people more important, being connected with the notable Trajan's wars and all). But things in history rarely fit so nicely into a simple narrative like that, and reality is more complex. Also, I don't see why admitting the possibility that at least some part of Romanians or their language came from not too far from the south over a river changes things that much; it's not like it's saying we came from Africa or China or something. It's still the same basic region, and our culture has more ties with the Balkan countries to the south than any others. It still largely fits the idea that they came primarily from a Latinized paleo-Balkanic population (in this case more like Thracians or Illyrians, but possibly with some remnants of exiled Dacians in Moesia anyway), with other local influences. Also, I don't see why this theory means that Romans, whatever that means, played no role either. If anything, it made it more likely since they were under the empire for longer and in a more heavily Romanized region. But if anything they probably played a rather small role, and it was people from around the empire.
- All in all, there really isn't enough evidence IMO. Unless more evidence comes to light on this issue (which I doubt at this point), any further debate is just going to be clouded by nationalist bias and arguments, and I think it's largely fruitless (no side is going to want to give up its position, so including both sides is necessary). I doubt we're going to uncover some great hidden clue that suddenly solves this whole mystery. Word dewd544 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- You've made a high quality summarization of the subject, with much objectivity. I would have only two additions: there is not such like "issue with Hugary over Transylvania" or "modern issue" would influence the Hungarian standpoint in the question, it is based primarily on sources, linguistic evidence, documents, etc. And I have to also add that there are significantly more evidence/support for one of the theories contrary to the other one, however of course more evidence would be good to came to light. However, the best evaluation may be made by a totally neutral party, so noone could accuse him being influenced of any sides. Your objectivity is much appreciated! Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC))
- Thanks. Yeah, that was kind of just my two cents on the issue, but I felt like there needed to be a more objective look at it from someone of Romanian background so it doesn't look like there's some agenda or something. I'll actually search for more specific sources to support these ideas on it, since I did actually get these from a variety of sources and didn't just pull it out of nowhere... that was more of a broad summary in case anyone wanted to debate or delve into a certain point more as it relates to the actual article, or maybe provide a framework for considering further additions (though at the same time I'm aware this isn't a forum to just discuss it either). As for the mention of the Hungary issue, I mainly did that to account for the few outspoken and sometimes biased nationalists you get on both sides on pages like this (especially on the Romanian side, I admit); unfortunately these pages often tend to devolve into protracted edit wars that go nowhere. But right now, the article doesn't look too bad, actually. Word dewd544 (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- You've made a high quality summarization of the subject, with much objectivity. I would have only two additions: there is not such like "issue with Hugary over Transylvania" or "modern issue" would influence the Hungarian standpoint in the question, it is based primarily on sources, linguistic evidence, documents, etc. And I have to also add that there are significantly more evidence/support for one of the theories contrary to the other one, however of course more evidence would be good to came to light. However, the best evaluation may be made by a totally neutral party, so noone could accuse him being influenced of any sides. Your objectivity is much appreciated! Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC))
Definitely is too extreme
@123Steller: A subjective statement is exactly that Romanian has definitely Latin origins. In fact it used to be a blend of Slavic and other languages until the 19th century when the united country invented and imposed a Romance identity in contrast to its neighbors. Notice that Vlachs in Ukraine and Poland are nowadays Slavs. Propositum (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Propositum: It's unbelievable for me that a "researcher from one of the leading universities" questions the fact that Romanian is a Romance language. 123Steller (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@123Steller: We should simply avoid so strong statements, because the ethnogenesis is complex. Propositum (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Propositum, language and ethnicity aren't always linked. Do you have any reliable sources that dispute the fact that Romanian has Latin origins and is in fact a Romance language?TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- To clear the matter: most words from Romanian are of Slavic origin (neologisms excepted), but the basic vocabulary is of Latin origin. There were indeed Romanian intellectuals who sought to super-Latinize the language, but these efforts have imho failed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- The sentence which we are discussing is explicitly about the language. The origin of Romanian has been always doubtful and you can read about this for example here: Lucian Boia, Romania, London 2001, p. 53-58.
- @TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: When will you answer (excuse me for forgiving to sign my last comment)? Propositum (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Too many extremists from Hungary commit here attacks against Romanians. Suckpuppits like TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit|TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit] were several times under discussion in the Board of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.94.221 (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Eurocentral, you should not make comments here, because you are banned from WP. Please also try to understand that there is still a rift between your imagination and real world. You are obviously unable to understand that the comment above by TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit does not suggest that he/she is an extremist from Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
New campaign of irredentists
A new campaign of irredentists started in these pages. They use false data and original research to restore the domination of minority over majority. False data are used in order to support irredentist theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.94.221 (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Eurocentral, you should not make comments here, because you are banned from WP. Please also try to understand that there is still a rift between your imagination and real world. Borsoka (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
New archaeological discoveries supporting the Dacic continuation
Hello All, I have read a relatively recent article about a site in Nyiregyhaza where a 3rd century Dacic settlement was found, proving that the Dacians had been in the Pannonia plain before the arrival of the Huns. The article is here: https://positivenewsromania.com/2016/01/14/archaeologists-discover-new-evidence-concerning-the-dacian-tribes/ . If anyone is willing to help investigate more the archaeological site or bring some more sources to this, we should start a very serious discussion about reconsidering the weight of the Origin theories. Have a nice day to all !— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.90.110.125 (talk • contribs)
- What is the connection between a non-Romanized tribe and the origin of the Romanians (who speak a language with quite obvious links to the Latin language)? Or do you want to discuss how the Hungarians of the Pannonia plain were partially descended from non-Romanized Dacians? Borsoka (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Although I don't enjoy your needless sarcasm regarding the origin of the Hungarians, I will answer as best as I can to your question: One of the theories states that the Huns didn't find anyone in the Trans-Carpathian region when they came. Clearly the region, even extending to Pannonia, was not empty even in the third century, that was my point, supporting the continuation theory. Who tells you they were non-Romanized by the way, can you determine what language that "tribe" (actually ex-Dacian empire, to be more historically correct) spoke ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.130.24 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Which theory says that the Huns did not find anyone in the Carpathian Basin or Transylvania? The territory was obiously inhabited by Getae, (non-Romanized) Dacians, Vandals, Goths, ... What one of the theories says that there is no evidence that any Latin/Romance-speaking population survived in the territory until the 10th century. The new discovery does not challenge this theory. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- So what happened to the Getae etc found by the Huns ? Were they "Hungarized" ? How come we (in the Carpathian basin) are not all speaking Hungarian if the Latins migrated as late as the 10th century ?
- (1) They were Germanised, Slavicized, Avarised. (2) Because the immigration of the Vlachs began in the 12th century and it continued untill the 21st century. Please remember neither were the Transylvanian Saxons Magyarized, although they settled in the province in the 12th and 13th centuries, and their immigration did not last for nine centuries. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think you are missing my point. If they were Germanised etc. as you claim, when Dacia was overtaken by the Roman Empire, well, then the Dacians were Latinised, using your line of thought (and historical evidence). The Romanian people are speaking a Romance (Latin) language and, "coincidentally", are situated exactly on the place where the biggest battles between Rome and Dacia took place.... so they must have been here quite some time before the 10th Century. The Transylvanian Saxons were not Magyarized indeed, mostly probably because of the ethnic composition of the land (Romanians, Magyars, Saxons) - even under the Habsburgic rule over Transylvania, the interdiction to have schools in the native language, the trials to impose Catholic religion, the other groups were not Magyarized. This alone says something about the numbers and culture strengths of the other groups . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.90.110.122 (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- (1) They were Germanised, Slavicized, Avarised. (2) Because the immigration of the Vlachs began in the 12th century and it continued untill the 21st century. Please remember neither were the Transylvanian Saxons Magyarized, although they settled in the province in the 12th and 13th centuries, and their immigration did not last for nine centuries. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- So what happened to the Getae etc found by the Huns ? Were they "Hungarized" ? How come we (in the Carpathian basin) are not all speaking Hungarian if the Latins migrated as late as the 10th century ?
- Which theory says that the Huns did not find anyone in the Carpathian Basin or Transylvania? The territory was obiously inhabited by Getae, (non-Romanized) Dacians, Vandals, Goths, ... What one of the theories says that there is no evidence that any Latin/Romance-speaking population survived in the territory until the 10th century. The new discovery does not challenge this theory. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Although I don't enjoy your needless sarcasm regarding the origin of the Hungarians, I will answer as best as I can to your question: One of the theories states that the Huns didn't find anyone in the Trans-Carpathian region when they came. Clearly the region, even extending to Pannonia, was not empty even in the third century, that was my point, supporting the continuation theory. Who tells you they were non-Romanized by the way, can you determine what language that "tribe" (actually ex-Dacian empire, to be more historically correct) spoke ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.130.24 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- What is the connection between a non-Romanized tribe and the origin of the Romanians (who speak a language with quite obvious links to the Latin language)? Or do you want to discuss how the Hungarians of the Pannonia plain were partially descended from non-Romanized Dacians? Borsoka (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
My photo could be used as evidence, for example, to determine if 1) the water was higher than last week or 2) the winter ice was gone 3) the boat race was on some other lake or 4) if aliens were waterskiing that day. But, until you advance some relevant theoretical claim a photo is just a photo—it is not “evidence.”
— Karl W. Giberson, My Debate With an ‘Intelligent Design’ Theorist
- Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- According to one of the theories of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, their ancestors lived under Roman rule for more than 700 years in the lands to the south of the Danube. The lands to the north of the Danube were under Roman rule for less than 170 years, while German peoples dominated the same territory for almost 300 years. Please remember that the Romanians adopted the names of the major rivers in Transylvania from the Hungarians, Slavs and Saxons, which is quite strange if we assume the Romanians' continuous presence in the territory. Please remember that the oldest Romanian chronicles wrote of the Vlachs' immigration to Hungary. Please remember that 17th-18th-century Transylvanian laws emphasized that the Vlachs had been "admitted into the country for the public good". Please remember that the first Romanian translations of the Bible were published in Transylvania in the 17th century. Please remember that Catholic Romanian priests initiated the Re-Latinization of the Romanian language in the 18th century, etc. Yes, between 1867 and 1918, there was an official policy of Magyarization: do you really think that those four decades could annihilate the consequences of a continuous immigration which had begun in the late 12th century? However, Tgeorgescu is right: we should not debate the concurring theories here. I only wanted to emphasize that the fact that Dacian/Carpian.. groups lived in the Carpathian Basin in the late 4th century, does not contradict to any of the theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Sorry, I will not continue the debate. Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- What I mean by "theoretical claim": one has to cite a reliable source preferable used by other scholars, not just a random website without serious editorial control. But since so many pieces of this puzzle are missing, it is unlikely to be solved any time soon. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu . Your answer is really .... strange, to be polite, considering I was inviting others to proceed on investigating the claims of those discoveries. I was not merely showing a picture and stating: "See, it's displayed here, so it must have happened".
- @Borsoka : good for you for not debating anymore. "Please remember: the development of the name of the Criş from ancient Crisius would be in line with the phonetical evolution of Romanian". Your claims are based on a few "fellow" scholars, as I can base a lot of claims on my "fellow" scholars, and indeed the debate would go on forever. Finding (more) archaeological proof, by contrast, can destroy any scholar claim and present the real truth. That is one of my initial points of this talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.130.24 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- My answer isn't strange and here is why: if it is an important discovery, it must have been noticed by scholarly sources. So quote scholarly sources, not WP:BLOGS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- What I mean by "theoretical claim": one has to cite a reliable source preferable used by other scholars, not just a random website without serious editorial control. But since so many pieces of this puzzle are missing, it is unlikely to be solved any time soon. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- According to one of the theories of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, their ancestors lived under Roman rule for more than 700 years in the lands to the south of the Danube. The lands to the north of the Danube were under Roman rule for less than 170 years, while German peoples dominated the same territory for almost 300 years. Please remember that the Romanians adopted the names of the major rivers in Transylvania from the Hungarians, Slavs and Saxons, which is quite strange if we assume the Romanians' continuous presence in the territory. Please remember that the oldest Romanian chronicles wrote of the Vlachs' immigration to Hungary. Please remember that 17th-18th-century Transylvanian laws emphasized that the Vlachs had been "admitted into the country for the public good". Please remember that the first Romanian translations of the Bible were published in Transylvania in the 17th century. Please remember that Catholic Romanian priests initiated the Re-Latinization of the Romanian language in the 18th century, etc. Yes, between 1867 and 1918, there was an official policy of Magyarization: do you really think that those four decades could annihilate the consequences of a continuous immigration which had begun in the late 12th century? However, Tgeorgescu is right: we should not debate the concurring theories here. I only wanted to emphasize that the fact that Dacian/Carpian.. groups lived in the Carpathian Basin in the late 4th century, does not contradict to any of the theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Sorry, I will not continue the debate. Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- ^ a b c d e f g Georgescu 1991, p. 12.
- ^ a b Deletant 1992, p. 69.
- ^ Várdy 1985, p. 189.
Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).