Talk:Origin of the Romanians

Map

@Iovaniorgovan:, why do you think that a map which presents one of the main theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis violates WP:NPOV? Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Because, clearly, if there's a map for IT, there should be a map for DRCT and one for AT. Anything else violates due weight, so I suggest you refrain from posting such things until we come to a conclusion on the NPOV board debate (this is the reason we got into that debate in the first place). Again, feel free to post that map when we separate the sections.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a separate section dedicated to the immigrationist theory. Please feel free to place a map which presents any other theory in the article. WP:NPOV does not say that a map presenting one of the concurring theories cannot be placed without placing other maps. Accoring to this policy (Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete), "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content." Furthermore, the caption of the map clearly shows that it present a scholary POV, so it is fully in line with Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV. As it is presented here:

The Romanians' homeland and their medieval migrations (a map presenting views proposed by scholars who accept the "immigrationist theory")

Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

My point is we're in the middle of a debate concerning this very thing, so it behooves you to wait until we reach a consensus over there before making this kind of edit. Unless you accept the proposals made there and we create separate sections as we should (and will, eventually).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The debate has been sleeping for days and no external input has been achieved. The repetition of personal POVs is not a debate. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I sought comments on the above issue on the relevant noticeboard. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hasdeu

Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu died more than a hundred years ago. Is his theory describing the Albanians as migrating Carpians is still accepted by any experts of the subject? If not, we should delete the map presenting it. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this a joke?Cealicuca (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you name experts of the Albanians' ethnogenesis who accept this theory and published their view in peer reviewed books or periodicals, as per WP:Fringe and WP:Due? Borsoka (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we should stop here. Just because it is related to Albanians (and I would like to point out that there are several statements here, not just Hasdeu's, that are related to Albania and Albanians and Albanian language) is not grounds for removal. Although I am glad and I appreciate that you begin to understand why this article would benefit of a thorough review/reorganizing...Cealicuca (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not want to remove it because it is related to Albanians, but because it presents a fringe theory. Can you name experts of the Albanians' ethnogenesis who accept this theory and published their view in peer reviewed books or periodicals, as per WP:Fringe and WP:Due? Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It does not present a fringe theory. It is an argument brought up in the development of one theory which, coincidentally, in the article is presented as a mainstream theory.Cealicuca (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

If other scholars do not accept it, we can only describe it as a fringe theory. I requested a third opinion on the issue ([1]). Borsoka (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hasdeu's statement is not a theory on the Origin of Romanians, as you try to present it, but an argument used by him in order to support a theory. Good that you did. Please post the correct link to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Cealicuca (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I have not tried to present it as a theory on the Origin of the Romanians. If you follow the permalink above, you will find my request listed where it should be listed. Borsoka (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"If other scholars do not accept it, we can only describe it as a fringe theory." - did anyone else said that? I thought you said that... As for your permalink - it shows a difference in revisions. The Active disagreements section contains this point: Discussion about a map in the Origin of the Romanians article. Please correct it as it's not about the map per say, but rather Hasdeu. Thank you :)Cealicuca (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read my first sentence above. Borsoka (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I removed this from the Third Opinion requests since an RfC was called (below). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:, please restore it, because the map presenting Hasdeu's theory is not subject to the RfC below. Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The map referred above is the following:

@Borsoka: Restored 3O request. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: @Borsoka:@Cealicuca:@Ryanaxp: I'm not an expert so please correct me if I've got anything wrong. As far as I can tell the map is relevant because it's part of a theory which suggests that supposed similarities found solely in Romanian and Albanian reflect a shared origin from Dacian, with the Romanian variety being later supplanted by Latin, and this would help justify the theory of continuity. There definitely seem to be a number of supporters of this idea (I. I. Russu most prominently) so I would be hesitant to exclude it entirely, even if it isn't the most mainstream view. Although most of the sources I've looked at think the theory's wrong, all of them consider it worthy of at least some kind of mention or consideration, and not just ‘outdated’ or ‘historical’. The most definitive statement comes from Lloshi (1999) who says "Among Albanian language scholars there is practically no dispute over the thesis that Alabnian is related to Illyrian" but Madgearu & Gordon (2008) disagree with this and regarding the Carpi hypothesis are willing to say things like "if Russu was right", so I don't think we can treat the hypothesis as obsolete. On the other hand, the map serves little purpose at the moment because the link between the caption ("Albanians as descendants of migrating Carpians") and the text is unclear. My non-binding opinion is that it doesn't harm anyone, even if it's probably wrong, but would only be useful if the description were expanded to explain that placing the Albanians and the Romanians in the same area is desirable because, like a number of theories, it would establish a common Dacian substrate that explain supposed similarities between the languages (and therefore support the continuity hypothesis), and that the specific theory shown doesn't currently have widespread acceptance. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

References

I lent towards keeping this because I think images make a page more colourful and approachable, but thinking it over, it would be better to take it out. The main reason is that it doesn’t really illustrate anything in the text, other than suggesting that the similarities which prompted the theory are important. The other reasons are a) neither Madgearu nor Gordon are experts in Albanian as far as I can tell, and so Lloshi’s judgement is more important than theirs, b) I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence, and c) in such a contentious article these points amount to at least a minor issue with WP:Due, so it would be better to err on the side of caution. Ultimately the map was never meant for this page, and it has its home elsewhere. Sorry for the flip-flopping. Better late than never. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 10:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I suggest that we should regard your first "vote" as the final vote in order to avoid an edit war. Yes, the theory is clearly fringe. It claims that the Dacians who were under Roman rule in Dacia Traiana for 170 years ("Daco-Romans") adopted the Latin language, but those who were under Roman rule in the Balkans for more than 300 years ("Carpo-Albanians") did not. However, Madgearu mentions it in the context of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, so it could also be mentioned here. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent: May I ask what is your opinion about the fact that the article "I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence". Is that ok?Cealicuca (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

To editors that keep going back to their old habbits

I thought the administrator was clear enough - please discuss if you want to add/modify something. It seems that for some people this wasn't clear.

Maps

@Cealicuca:, you deleted two maps from the article, saying "The editor added maps from a cartographer without putting the work of a cartographer in the context of any of the historical mainstream theory." Please note, that the article's subject is the Romanians' ethnogenesis, and the two maps nicely shows aspects of the process mentioned in the article based on reliable sources.

Based on a reliable source, the article says, "The territories south of the Danube were subject to the Romanization process for about 800 years, while Dacia province to the north of the river was only for 165 years under Roman rule, which caused "a certain disaccord between the effective process of Roman expansion and Romanization and the present ethnic configuration of Southeastern Europe", according to Lucian Boia." The maps presents this "dissaccord". Why do you think the article does not provide enough context?

Length of the Roman rule and the Romance Languages

Based on reliable sources, the article says that "A royal charter of 1223 confirming a former grant of land is the earliest official document of Romanians in Transylvania. It refers to the transfer of land previously held by them to the monastery of Cârța, which proves that this territory had been inhabited by Vlachs before the monastery was founded. ... [In 1224] the Transylvanian Saxons were entitled to use certain forests together with the Vlachs and Pechenegs. ... References to Vlachs living in the lands of secular lords and prelates in the Kingdom of Hungary appeared in the 1270s. First the canons of the cathedral chapter in Alba Iulia received a royal authorization to settle Romanians to their domains in 1276. Thereafter, royal charters attest the presence of Romanians in more counties, for instance in Zărand from 1318, in Bihor and in Maramureș from 1326, and in Turda from 1342. The first independent Romanian state, the Principality of Wallachia, was known as Oungrovlachia ("Vlachia near Hungary") in Byzantine sources, while Moldavia received the Greek denominations Maurovlachia ("Black Vlachia") or Russovlachia ("Vlachia near Russia")." The map shows the Vlachs' territory near Cârța, the Vlachs and Pechenegs' forests and the earliest attested references to Vlachs. Why do you think the article does not provide enough context?

Spread of the Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary between around 1200 and 1400

Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. We don't get to find stuff and just put it here. This is WP:SYNTH. Has any scholar (WP:RS) that is specifically mentioning one of the theories also uses this map? Because otherwise what a cartographer does is what a cartographer does, it's quite different than a historian. And good luck trying to use the misleading and already skewed statements from this article as supportive arguments. This is not how you add context, you add context by properly citing sources (with the context that the source intended). Again, is any scholar that has a book, article - whatever about any of the mainstream theories using those maps? Post them here.Cealicuca (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, if it's related to the IT or another theory, then it should be under the proper section.Cealicuca (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Moreover (moreover) although I can find the map with the neo-latin languages, I can't find the second map...Cealicuca (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The source verifying these maps uses it in the context of the Romanians' ethogenesis which is the subject of the article. Why do you think they are related to only one of the theories? Do you think, Boia whose statement is quoted above accepts the immigrationist theory like Bereznay (who designed the map)? Bereznay is a historian, who worked as cartographer for the Historical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and conceived and compiled the entire map content of The Times Atlas of European History ([2]) Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said - first of all you should cite the work that interprets that map and gives it context. A historian's work (not a History graduate who is a great cartographer... and has no - as far as I can see on his - work published on this subject - how the ethnogenesis of the Romanians happend).

I published several critical treatises on atlases in The Times (of London) and in Hungarian language academic or other learned journals in Hungary and in the US. I published a thesis titled Civilizations towards a World Civilization that reviews the current of World History from the angle of Political Geography in Földrajzi Értesítö, and later again in'2000' (in Hungarian). I published a thesis titled Central Europe - a Western Landscape that contributes to the debate on the meaning of Central Europe and offers a coherent definition of its extent in Regio (in Hungarian).

But if I am wrong you will promptly be able to produce his work (or some other historian, not cartographer preferably) that deals with the maps you added. AND (if the maps do prove to be more than just a cartographer's self published work) those maps should be put in the proper section. If they refer to IT, then so be it - IT section it is.Cealicuca (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The map is not self-published, becuse it is based on the following book: Bereznay, András (2011). Erdély történetének atlasza [Atlas of the History of Transylvania]. Méry Ratio. ISBN 978-80-89286-45-4. We do not need to refer to other works which cite these specific maps, because we are not here to duplicate existing works, but to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. I sought a 3rd opinion ([3]), because our debate emerges from the different interpretations of WP policies. Borsoka (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia misses professionally designed maps. Bereznay's maps are excellent works. We would have to appreciate that he is willing to contribute to Wikipedia. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice that there's a discussion going on before reverting the edit? A cartographer is not a WP:RS when it comes to the History of the Romanians. Which WP:RS used that exact map? Cite work title and page number.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I withdrew the request for third opinion, because there are more than 2 editors involved in the debate. I initiated an RfC below. Borsoka (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: two maps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) I am pretty sure that Bereznay received a salary for his book. Few scholars publish their work without a proper renumeration. (2) and (4) The maps should be placed where they assist readers to understand certain aspects of the article as it is explained above. (3) Bereznay's work is a reliable source in itself: it was written by an expert and it was not self-published. Nevertheless, he refers, among others, to the following works: Erdély története ("History of Transylvania", edited by László Makkai and other historians, written by dozens of historians, its English translation can be read here [4]), Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9-14. század) ("Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th–14th centuries)", edited by Gyula Kristó and other historians, written by dozens of historians, [5]). Sorry, I do not want to force uninvolved editors to read lengthy and boring discussion, so I stop commenting this RfC. Borsoka (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Source

Hello,

I'd like to introduce a new source. In order to make this as smooth as possible and prevent the seemingly endless talks about WP:RS I thought best to establish first the reliability of the source. Together - group therapy :)

So, it seems to me that this source is as reliable as it gets, waiting for your input/objections.

A Concise History of Romania, by Keith Hitchins, Cambridge Concise Histories - Cambridge University Press

ISBN 978-0-521-87238-6 Hardback

ISBN 978-0-521-69413-1 Paperback

Thank you. (ETA: forgot to sign)Cealicuca (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read it yet, but it sure looks legit WP:RS. Also, you may wanna sign your comments.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that the following sections be split into the following separate articles:

• 4.1 Written sources > Origin of the Romanians (written sources)
• 4.2 Archaeological data > Origin of the Romanians (archaeological data)
• 4.3 Linguistic approach > Origin of the Romanians (linguistic approach)

The article is too large, thus these sections could provide a short summary of the historical, archaeological and linguistic approaches. The verifiability of the "4.4 DNA / Paleogenetics" section is still debated, but later it could also be splitted into a separate article. I do not ping all users who regularly visit this page, but I inform the relevant Wikiprojects about this proposal. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the use of splitting the article, we're not exactly running out of space. The aim should be to split the theories within the article for clarity and NPOV (as already suggested here), not to blow up those sections into the Wikisphere.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• The theories are already separately discussed in the article under the subtitle "1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis", but we should reduce the size of this article instead of blowing it up. Borsoka (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It is 126k bytes. That is not very big. I am not sure if these suggested titles really meet naming conventions. Qualitist (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Neutral (as per new argument) Right now, mainly just for the reason the seeing the current tendencies there are already much debates even in this article, splitting them into three we would just export and multiply the argues, however, seeing all related material in one compact article is preferred.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC))

Agreed. This is not the correct time. Qualitist (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The prose size is 120 kb. According to the relevant rule, articles above 100 kb "[a]lmost certainly should be divided", and even articles between 60 and 100 kb "[p]robably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)" (I refer to Wikipedia:SIZERULE). The splitting of the article would probably diminish the reasons for debates, because each editor could add his/her favorite pieces of information. If the article is not splitted, almost third of it should be deleted, according to the cited WP rule. I think this would cause much more debate. Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is not long at all. 40% of the page is Notes, References, Sources, Further Reading, and External Links. It's fine the way it is for now. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• The article is getting large, but the proposed division does not seem ideal. In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruse as it is. There is a section on archaeological data "to the north of the Lower Danube". The term "Romanian" does not appear in the section. The term "Vlach" shows up (twice) in the last of 11 paragraphs. How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? Srnec (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Srnec:, thank you for your comment. What is your proposal to improve the article? Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Trim it. Present no evidence without explaining its relevance. The entire section "Historiography: origin of the theories" could go. Make it a separate article if you like, but the reader of this article wants to learn about the origin of Romanians not the origin of theories about the origin of Romanians. The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.
  Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think your suggestion to explain the relevance of evidence is absolutely logical and it should be accepted. What concerns me is the deletion of the "Historiography: origin of the theories". Most reliable sources dedicated to the subject explain the development of the theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Why should we (how could we) deviate from their approach? Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• We (perhaps) should deviate from their approach because our readership is different from theirs. The sections "Historical background" and "Historiography" are tangential to the purpose of the article. The first is partially redundant to the "Evidence" section and arguably POV unless it stops with the end of the Roman period. The second is fine but could perhaps work better as a separate article with summary section here.
  I am inclined to the position that, insofar as actual historians are divided, we should stick to presenting the theories more than the evidence. This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. Srnec (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your proposal. I agree that the "Historical background" section could be deleted. How could we deal with the situation that there is no uniform "continuity" approach? Differences in the interpretations of the facts mentioned under the "Evidence" section does not depend of the theories accepted by the scholars. So we cannot say that "historians who accept the continuity theory say...", because we should list many "continuity" historians who refute the same interpretations. We could present individual scholars' views, but it would be even more confusing. I rather propose that the concurring interpretations of the facts listed under the Evidence sections should be presented there. Borsoka (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Srnec Every independent Wiki editor who ever moderated any of the many disputes here has arrived at the same conclusion as yours: the article is a mess and is in dire need of restructuring. In fact, we've been having a discussion on the NPOV notice board about this very subject (you might want to take a quick look).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Partially Oppose Very interesting timing this proposal has :) Anyway, the list of editors not invested in this article that start to realize that the "evidence" is presented without the corresponding relevance such "evidence" has to the subject of the article (that is what the sources say it is relevant for) is getting larger and larger. While at some point it would probably make sense to split the article (but not in the categories mentioned but rather maybe an article dedicated to each theory) right now it's probably best to rather clarify and restructure it.Cealicuca (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cealicuca:. OK. Let's try it. Please choose one sentence from the Evidence section, copy it to the Talk page and explain here to where would you like to move it/them and why.

@Borsoka: aaah, nope. Not going into this game again. The conclusion underlined by several moderating editors is that the article "intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence", or that "the article is extremely abstruse as it is". Especially the "evidence" section. What I find extremely surprising is your reaction ("I think your suggestion to explain the relevance of evidence is absolutely logical and it should be accepted"), given the fact that the same observations about the article were made by several editors during the better part of an year and that you rejected (or "Sorry, I don't understand your statement") such arguments at every turn. Nevertheless, I am glad you seem to finally see what the problem is.Cealicuca (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the article presents the theories separately from the evidence. Have anybody denied this? I have several times suggested that the concurring scholarly interpretations of the same facts could be presented under the Evidence section. I still maintain that the sentences from the Evidence sections cannot be divided among the theories without seriously breaching WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You have not been able to prove that you could move a simple sentence from the Evidence section to one of the theories in accordance with WP rules. So, let's try again: please choose one sentence from the Evidence section, copy it to the Talk page and explain here to where would you like to move it and why. This is an excellent occasion to demonstrate how your proposal would work. Or if you want to choose another way to demonstrate your proposal, please do it. I only kindly ask you try to avoid writing lengthy messages. Borsoka (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope. You don't get to spin this. Several problems were mentioned, by several editors. Let me repeat one of them (since you seem to somehow respect it more as long as it's not me saying it...): "It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.". But you can argue further with your perceived breach of WP:NPOV or "neutral fact" or whatever other original term you want come up with to deflect from the core of the problem. Which is that this article has intentionally obscured sourced statements (by not mentioning the relevance of those statements according to the sources) or otherwise presents irrelevant data to seemingly support one point of view or another.Cealicuca (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

And I have several times suggested that we should mentioned the relevant scholarly interpetations of these facts. Sorry, if you do not want to demonstrate your proposal I stop discussing it. Borsoka (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't try to make this as me needing to demonstrate my proposal. Please read more carefully. This is about your proposal, this is about you not getting the point that has been made both editors interested in the subject as well as editors acting in a moderator capacity - otherwise not specifically interested in the subject. I can only thank @Srnec: for underlying the problems in such a blunt manner.Cealicuca (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that your proposal is a secret, so I do not have to take it into account when editing the article. I enjoy editing this article, so I am really grateful to you. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Again with those deflecting techniques... This is not about my proposal, it's about your proposal. And yes, it seems more and more people realize just how much you "love" to edit this article, and what this "love" of yours for this article amounts to. The sad part is that you take pride in the resulting "info dump". It is however promising that it's becoming apparent this has been done on purpose, as others have observed too - "I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence.". All in all - it's funny to see multiple editors, in a moderating role only, arrive at the same conclusion - how the content of this article is intentionally obfuscating the reader's understanding of the academic view on the matter. Cealicuca (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record: the above quote - "I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence."- is out of context. It is from a message that supported one of my proposals that you had not accepted [6]. Your methods are so boring. Borsoka (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the editor was offering a supporting argument for your proposal - don't deny that - but it's irrelevant. Him realizing that the article is the way it is - intentionally - that is relevant. As for my methods - boring is actually how you try to shift focus from how the article is now as a result of you enjoying editing it. Oh, by the way, do you have more English lessons for me? Cealicuca (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This one article is more than enough about this topic. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Nicolae Drăganu

@Iovaniorgovan:, first of all, thank you for your contribution. I reverted one of your edits ([7]) and I am asking you to reconsider it. Talk page discussion shows that the use of books published before 1945 is highly debatable, according to more than one editors ([8]), because the Romanians' ethnogenesis was even more over-politcised in the 1930s and 1940s than now. I am pretty sure that Romanian historians dedicated books, articles to the origin of their nation during the last decades as well, and we do not need to cite more than 80 year old books to improve this article. If you do not agree with my revert, please seek community support. Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

So that means we should not take the Bible into account as a historical source, since it is so old, right ? Borsoka... I can't find the words to qualify you (btw my name is Mircea, not Iorgovan or Cealicuca or TGeorgescu or any other, so don't accuse them of not signing their comments and trying to offend you). I have been following this talk page for years, and I can see how you are striving towards a Hungary which should include Transilvania as its historical right, but what do you know, it is actually not your right. The bitter truth for you, my friend, is that you found us here, in these territories, and as much as you tried to "magyarize" us, you did not succeed. We are still Orthodox Christians, we still speak a language close of that of our ancestors' . These territories belong to us by our historical right, and there is Nothing you can do about it, magyar, even with your overnight pseudo-theories created by your semidoct so-called "scholars". We will die and take you with us before letting you rip even the smallest piece from our Country again, be sure of that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.130.176 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That's true, by our WP:RULES the Bible is not a reliable source for historical claims. Nor is it RS for theological claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The above anonymous comment is an exellent example of the political (or rather religious) approach of this subject. Similar fury has driven many scholars, especially in the 1930s. That is why we should ignore them. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

We have no need of editors who are extremists, radicals, nationalist propagandists or true believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka Your edits are becoming more and more disruptive but if that's how it's gonna be then so be it. The issue here is whether Draganu is still relevant today, and the answer is a clear yes. Ioan-Aurel Pop, current President of the Romanian Academy, mentions Draganu several times in his books (including a couple times in the book I quoted from above; "Romanian Identity" (2017) p. 53), but more importantly a cursory check through diacronia.ro (a contemporary peer-reviewed academic journal of linguistics) shows that Draganu's book (the one that includes the map in question) has been cited 76 times (!!) in their last 8 issues. If that's not "relevant", I don't know what is. Also probably worth mentioning the more recent (2003) bi-lingual edition of Draganu's other book "Istoria literaturii române din Transilvania de la origini până la sfârşitul secolului al xviii-lea – Histoire de la littérature roumaine de Transylvanie dčs origines ŕ la fin du xviii-e sičcle", showing again that Draganu's work is still very much relevant today. Please don't try to change the subject and cast unfounded aspersions on someone you don't know anything about. Draganu's map clearly reflects the views of DRCT scientists and will stay in the article. There's not much discussion here so I'll put the map back in. If you have any issues, feel free to escalate this debate to the proper forum.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan:, as I demonstrated above, the inclusion of this book is not consensual ([9]). Please refrain from making unilateral changes. If you think that a more than 80-year-book should be cited instead of modern scholarly work, please ask for a community opinion about this issue. Borsoka (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka I already showed that the map is still relevant today and represents current views of DRCT theorists, hence it belongs in the article. If you think otherwise, it's on you to prove that Draganu's work is not relevant anymore before deleting the map.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you have not demonstrated that the more than 80-year-old map does not present a fringe theory. The Bible is cited several times in modern scholarly works, but there are few scholars who think that God created the entire world in 6 days. Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I gave you plenty of references, feel free to check them out. I'm not interested in syllogisms so I can't help you there.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you refer to the peer-reviewed publications published during the last decades which use this more than 80-year-old map to demonstrate the presence of Romanians everywhere in the Carpathian Basin? Borsoka (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I just did, all those references in the peer-reviewed academic journal I mentioned above reference Draganu's book: the map is at the back of his book and represents an illustrated summary of the book, so a reference to the book is a reference to the map and vice-versa.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this map. You are right. We should preserve it as an excellent demonstration of DRC theory. Thank you for your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you're being facetious now. Okay, no worries. Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with the map but if I come across something better in the future I may change it. At least we have some balance now, what with your map being an excellent demonstration of IT theory. Cheers.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I love this map. I will be grateful for you till the end of my life. It is an excellent demonstration of the scholarly level of historians who accept the DRC theory. The other (modern) map also demonstrates that the theory of large Romanian communities in the entire Carpathian Basin is a well established theory among Romanian historians. I will add further material on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, just make sure to add it to the enlarged IT section (upcoming)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's be serious, I said I am not against any map, but a short reaction to some things stated here:

- "I don't think there's anything wrong with the map" -> well pretty much non-Romanian toponyms are considered by the map Romanian, however since it is indicated that who are the proponents of it, I can live with it

- "with your map being an excellent demonstration of IT theory" -> no way, medieval Hungarian documents or official records does not demonstrate any theory, it is a "snaphot" of the situation between 1200 and 1400.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC))

Well, it might be a "fact" that those are official records (no one is disputing that) but when you get into the question of "what does those records mean" then you're in the realm of theory. Why, for instance, would those be considered a record of the only Romanians living in those lands in those times? You see what I mean? Anyway, my/your opinion is irrelevant here, that's why we rely on WP:RS. Still, this "fact" is used to construct a "theory" (IT in this case). That's why every moderator has been trying to explain the same thing here, most recently @Srnec (see above): "Present no evidence without explaining its relevance."Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

What you mean is just an artificial flipbustering you suprisingly don't apply regarding other maps that you like. The map is about the Romanian settlements an territories granted to the Romanian landlords or where they are mentioned, and these are supported by official documents, there is not gap in the interpretation, the title is not "he only Romanians living in those lands in those times", or whatsoever. Such way you could accuse any other party using anything to construct a theory, what it is not relevant here, since it has not any connection to any theory. Your last sentence is just a trial to push anything to be conected a theory.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

So wait, the map "has not any connection to any theory"? If so - what is the relevance of it? Or is this another piece of "evidence", "neutral fact" etc. etc.?Cealicuca (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It is in the written sources section. It seems you ignored earlier discussions.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

It is a visual presentation of a fact mentioned in the article, in accordance with most books dedicated to the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I don't recall saying that the map doesn't reflect info in the article. I asked what is the relevance of it (is any one of you able to articulate such relevance) to the subject of the article, considering that [User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR] states that the map "has not any connection to any theory". It's a simple question - if, according to [User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR], the map has no connection to any of the theory (that explain how the ethnogenesis happen) then what is the relevance of this map?Cealicuca (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That it visually presents a fact mentioned in books dedicated to the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

ah... Please, if you would be so kind, what "books"? Can you name the sources or cite the paragraph in the article?Cealicuca (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Above, you still can find the citation from the article in a message to you: [10]. Borsoka (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean the L. Boia citation?Cealicuca (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify-- we started talking about the Draganu map. The source is unimpeachable (academic work still very relevant today, as I've already shown) so it stays in with the clear DRCT mention in the title. Nothing wrong with that. Then the conversation switched to the Settling Romanians / Autonomy map... Right? Perhaps we should move this discussion to a different section (there's a section above we've been debating this)? Also, there's an edit warring case open over the cropping of the title of that map, just so everyone knows.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You switched to that, and this discussion should not be moved anywhere, since it belongs here and covers the topic, even if you referred to something else. On the other hand what "stays" or not is dependent from our community decisions and the rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC))

And what's your argument? Please don't waste editors' time unnecessarily, if you have an issue ask for 3O or whatever. I've already made my case.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

?, I don't waste anyone's time, you should better think about it, if maybe you do this to others recently. My arguments I already told, I don't know what else you want.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC))

Transylvanian river names

@Iovaniorgovan:, would you refer to scholars who challenge significant part of the etymologies provided in the table? Please, also take into account that deleting a table is not the best solution to challenge it. I think you should also take into account that the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to the Balkans, including this article. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, in that case if I were you I'd be more careful with disruptive edits, given your long history of doing just that. Anyway, nothing less than I expected and don't take it personally. To answer your question, of course: Marius Sala, "From Latin to Romanian" (Editura Pro Universitaria, 2012), an academic work, page 27, where he argues for a Daco-Thracian origin of the following river names, Mureş, Olt, Timiş, Criş, Someş, Ampoi, Argeş, Motru, Buzău, Şiret. So, if you want that table in the article you need to clearly label it as being part of IT. I don't have a problem with it otherwise.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The table does not say that the name of those river is not of Daco-Thracian origin, so does not contradict to Sala's work. If you think I have a "long history of" disruptive edits, please do not refrain from reporting me. Otherwise, stop accusing me of disruptive editing. Borsoka (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to accuse you, you're doing a pretty good job yourself. That's some argument, I had to laugh at that. But that's not what Sala says, here's a direct quote "From whom did the Slavs settled in Dacia, and later the Hungarians, learn the names of these rivers? We can only assume they borrowed them from a sedentary indigenous population, that is, the old Romanized Daco-Thracians which by the 8th Century had become the Romanians." (p 27) So, clearly, his thesis is that those name "borrowings" weren't somehow intermediated by Slavs/Germans/Hungarians, etc (as your table represents as "fact", which is just plain wrong). In light of this please amend the table or it will be taken down.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you refer to any text in the table which contradicts the above statement? Only the Ampoi's name is presented as a borrowing from German in Romanian, but we can deal with this contradiction without deleting the table. Borsoka (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all main river names (I listed them above) and some of the tributaries are borrowed (passed down) from the Daco-Thracians directly to the Romanians (according to Sala, and also Gr. Brancus, and others), so the only way this table would work in the article is to add the IT caveat to the title. Is that really so difficult?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you name other river names from the table which are deemed not to be borrowed from German, Hungarian or Slavic, according to linguists? Borsoka (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Between Sala and Draganu (p.416-570), for instance, it's pretty much all tributaries (and I haven't even looked at Brancus yet)...Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you name other river names from the table which are deemed not to be borrowed from German, Hungarian or Slavic, according to linguists?

Didn't realize Wiki had an echo function.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. So we can conclude that the table properly summarizes the scholarly consensus about the origin of those Romanian river names. We should only mention in the table that there are scholars who think that the Romanian name of the Ampoi river was directly inherited from Latin instead of mediated by the Saxons to the Romanians (as it is presented in the table). Borsoka (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

?!! Did you read what I wrote? NONE of those tributaries' names are deemed to have been borrowed from the Slavs/Germans/Hungarians by either of those academics I mentioned.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

OK. What is the origin of the river names Nadăș and Târnava, according to the above cited sources? (The first name refers to a river with a bank covered by reef in Hungarian, the second name describes a river with a bank where blackthorne grows in Slavic languages.) Borsoka (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to prove to you that ALL those names are deemed non-derivative according to WP:RS (a couple of them might be) but I've already mentioned several (Somes, Mures, Olt, Ampoi) to which we can add Barsau, Aries, Bistrita, etc, which should suffice (I'm sure I can find more in Draganu but the burden of proof is not on me anymore)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Marius Sala does not mention the river names which are described as of German, Slavic or Hungarian origin in the table, with the sole exception of Ampoi/Ompoly (I refer to the English translation of his work: Sala, Marius (2005). From Latin to Romanian: The Historical Development of Romanian in a Comparative Romance Context. University, Mississipi. p. 17. ISBN 1-889441-12-0..) Please, do not edit WP based on your assumptions and do not try to abuse scholar's name to substantiate your assumptions. Borsoka (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You are again throwing wild accusations. My quote is directly from his Romanian edition (p 27) and I didn't add anything to it. The other river names are, as I said, from Draganu ("Between Sala and Draganu (p.416-570)..."; see above). And there are more, I just gave you enough so you understand that the general academic position of DRCT theorists is that the names of the rivers were NOT borrowed from the Slavs/Germans/Hungarians. Change the title of that table or ask for 3O or whatever.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly the theory of the supporters of the continuitiy theory, on the other hand there is no proof for their statements, the vowel shifts as well do not support these, to say nothing of, Bistrita is of Slavic origin.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

Are you serious? You obviously don't speak Romanian, else it'd be pretty obvious that those are and have always been Romanian (or Romanian-origin) names. Maybe not all of them (Bistrita is possibly/probably of Slavic origin and it's okay to mention that in the article though not in a table containing mostly names of Daco-Thracian origin according to DRCT), but clearly most of them. Anyway, as I said before our opinion doesn't matter here, it's the WP:RS that matter and they don't agree on those names being derived from the Slavs/Germans/Hungarians, hence a mention of IT needs to be made in the title.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course I am serious as always. You just reinforced that "according to DRCT", and the deriving of Slavs/Germans/Hungarians has again no connection to "IT", is has connection to linguistics mainly (as Romanian speakers in acedemic level may also notice some problems with the vowel shifts and other origin theories as others did and claiming ancient names to "have always been Romanian or Romanian origin" is again very unscientific).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

Further problems with the table: 1) the names of the main rivers (Somes, Mures, Olt) are listed, implying there's a scholarly consensus on the origin of their names-- as I've shown above, that's not the case. 2) there are, by my count, nine question marks next to some of those river names (is this done just to fatten up the list? why list those at all?); 3) in addition to some of the river names I already mentioned as being considered of Romanian-origin by DRCT scholars, there are others that DRCT scholars assign a different origin than the one listed on the table. For instance, Draganu has Lapus as being of Slavic origin not Hungarian; same with Crasna, Ilisua and Lechinta, while he has Zalau as possibly Celtic/Illyric/Roman/German but definitely not Hungarian, and Homorod as German not Hungarian, etc, etc. So you can see, there's too much debate about these names for them to be listed as a "statement of fact". So for the table to stay in the article it would need to first mention IT in the title and then also reduce (or entirely purge) all the names with the question mark since there's just too many of them proportionately speaking. All in all there are issues with at least a third of those names, and I've only consulted a couple books. Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I uphold my opinion. Reffering to Draganu is not the best, with his "etymology map" he has shown how fringe he is (Lápos and Homoród are clearly Hungarian). Crasna is rooted also by the table as Slavic, the same goes to Ilisua and Lechinta, while Zalau has really many theories but Hungarian cannot be excluded more than any other.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC))

I've already shown above that Draganu is quite relevant today (see previous thread). Crasna is represented on the table as S>H>R, rather than S>R. Again, there are too many problems with this table and I haven't even checked every name there or every WP:RS and I don't need to. I've given enough info to show that the inclusion of the table (in this state) is untenable. Perhaps at this point you should ask for arbitration of some sort, or I will amend the title to reflect IT caveat.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) The table does not say that the names of the main rivers (Someș, Mureș, Olt) are of Slavic/Hungarian/German origin. (2) Earlier you said that none of the river names in the table are said to be of Slavic/Hungarian/German origin in your books. Now you are listing some of them as such. What is the truth? (3) The table describes the names of the rivers Crasna, Ilisua and Lechinta as of Slavic origin. Nobody denies that they are of Slavic origin. The Romanian form of the Ilisua and Lechinta show that the Romanians' ancestors did not directly borrowed them from the Slavs. (4) The table lists the name of the river Zalău as of uncertain origin. The "ău" ending of the Romanian version is a typical ending in Romanian loawords of Hungarian origin. (4) Draganu's book published in the 1930s should not be cited here. What is the Slavic world from which the name of Lapus allegedly developed? (The Hungarian version of its name, Lápos, clearly refers to a muddy river.) What is the German world from which the name of the Homorod allegedly developed? (The Hungarian version of its name, Homoród, refers to a shallow river.) (5) If you find modern books substantiating that the name of Lapos is of Slavic, the name of Homorod is of German origin, we can add these pieces of information to the table which is destined to list the major river names of Slavic, Hungarian and German origin. Borsoka (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

1) No, the table implies that. Since they're not of Slavic/Germanic/Hungarian origin then take them out and simply list the tributaries. 2) I said none of the ones I'd already listed, which you failed to read correctly and wrongly assumed I was agreeing with the inclusion of the table. 3-5) I don't need to argue about this, I just brought up WP:RS to do that since this is Wikipedia (feel free to consult the sources for your own amusement/enlightemenmet if you wish). Draganu, as I've already shown, is as relevant as ever. Again, there are just simply too many question marks around this table for it to be presented in this article (at least in this form). Amend, delete, or ask for arbitration.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) The table does not imply or suggest that, because there is no "(G)", "(H)" or "(S)" after their names. However, I modify the table to make it more clear. (2) You clearly stated that none of the tributaries' name "are deemed to have been borrowed from the Slavs/Germans/Hungarians by either of those academics" here [11]. What is the truth? (3)-(5) If you want to refer to books published in the 1930s and containing fringe etimologies, you can ask for comments from other editors. Borsoka (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

1) Of course it's implied since that's what the title says, and those are river names. 2) I think you're lacking in reading comprehension skills... I said none of those, as in those I'd already mentioned. Should be obvious since I've already said I didn't check every single name on the list. In any event, who cares what I think or what you think? Let's leave it to the WP:RS who clearly put huge question marks on that entire table. Add to that "Ampoi", which Draganu dedicates several pages to (490-494) and convincingly proves it's of Daco-Roman origin and directly preserved its original name (Ampei) via Romanian. Again, I'm sure there are others as well, won't bother to go through the whole list. I've already given enough examples already from unimpeachable academic WP:RS, in both Marius Sala and Nicolae Draganu. p.s. okay, I see you added the little note on Ampoi at the bottom, just goes to show I had to use a microscope to spot it.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I think there is no point in continuing our discussion. If you think something should be modified, please seek assistance from third parties. Borsoka (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the table is coming down. Since you're the one trying to force-feed us the fringey, you should ask for help. Good luck.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I called for 3rd opinion ([12]). I think it is quite clear that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Good, hopefully you'll learn to stop presenting information as "fact" when WP:RS disagree. That's violating Wiki rules and not conducive to building an encyclopedia.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit and the rest of the Hungarian Wiki shock brigade, please refrain from edit wars while there's a 3O case pending (see above).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Izzo, Herbert J. (1986). "On the history of Romanian". In Marino, Mary C.; Pérez, Luis A. The Twelfth LACUS Forum, 1985. Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States. pp. 139–146.

I see this source used extensively. As such, would someone please provide the ISBN number so that the source is properly included in the article, as well as giving the chance for all editors to consult it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a WP:RS be freely available, it just has to be published in high-quality venues. You may ask for it at WP:RX. Also, reviews have ISSN instead of ISBN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not imply that it would be free. Nevertheless, thank you for the advice. The thinking was that since ISSN / ISBN is missing and we have one editor who is clearly using the source, then maybe this editor could help.Cealicuca (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Daco-Romanian theory

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

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

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

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

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

• Romanian:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archaeological evidence for the continuity theory

Section 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity contains the following sentence: "Archeological finds show without a doubt the presence of Romanized and early-Romanian populations North of the Danube between the 4th and 9th Centuries", implying that all scholars who accept the continuity theory share this view. However, works written by Romanian scholars contradict this impression. For instance, Alexandru Madgearu writes the following: "The existence of a Slavic population in early medieval Transylvania is indisputable. ... The presense of Romanians in Transylvania poses somewhat different problems. ... Linguistic data ... suggest the existence of speakers of Romanian in the vicinity of the salt mine district. This is indeed important, for it is very difficult to distinguish between "Slavic" and "Romanian" pottery or dress accessories. In most cases, archaeology can only identify cultural groups that, unlike Avars or Magyars, were not of nomadic origin. The wheel-made pottery produced on the fast wheel (as opposed to the tournette), which was found in several settlements of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, may indicate the continuation of Roman traditions." (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. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6.).

The same section of the article also writes: "Between the 5th and 7th century the Daco-Romans develop a new and unitary culture known as Ipotești-Candești (in Muntenia), Brateiu (Transylvania), and Costișa-Botoșani (Moldavia)", based on a book published in the 1970s. The context of the sentence suggests that this interpretation of the archaeological finds represents the view of all scholars who accept the continuity theory. However, the Romanian historian Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu says that "Overall, for the 5th-7th centuries on the present-day territories of Romanian and Republic of Moldova, the first Slavic remains were identified in the cultural environment of Ipotesti-Ciurelu-Candesti (south of the Carpathians) or Costisa-Botosanu-Hanska (east of the Carpathians). Romanian specialists consider that the two cultural groups are stongly related to the "Bratei-Taga-Biharea" vestiges in Transylvania. In their development, these communities experienced a phase that pre-dated the contact with the Slavs..., dating from the second half of the 5th century... ... [T]hese cultural groups could represent the autochtonous Romanic population that would later assimilate the Slavs. ... A constant argument brought in favor of the Romanic origin of the Ipotesti-Ciurelu-Candesti-Botosana culture was the presence of Roman-Byzantine imports and materials, but the local production of such artifacts was also attested. .. There are yet other possibilities to expoain the presence of these artifacts, especially in the areas neighboring the empire. Certainly, they were related to the contacts between the Slavs and the Roman-Byzantine environment..." (Opreanu, Coriolan Horaţiu (2005). "The North-Danube Regions from the Roman Province of Dacia to the Emergence of the Romanian Language (2nd–8th Centuries AD)". In Pop, Ioan-Aurel; Bolovan, Ioan (eds.). History of Romania: Compendium. Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies). pp. 126–127. ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4.)

We can conclude that "continuity scholars" are not unanimously convinced that the archaeological evidence for their theory is without doubt. They even challenge the "evidence" so far presented by their collegues. @Iovaniorgovan:, please modify your text in order to present a fair picture of the opinion of scholars who accept the continuity theory. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The citation I put in is from the "Bible" (published in 1994, not the 1970s) of academic archeologists. It refers to the early Slavic migration (pay attention to the time period mentioned in the text). Moreover, it doesn't need to represent the view of all scholars, just most scholars, which it does, as Opreanu himself states "Romanian specialists consider that..." Opreanu doesn't deny that view either, he simply says that there may be other possibilities. The view presented in the article need not be unanimous (no theory is ever accepted by all scholars) so we don't need to present any "fringe" or "outlier" view, even by a scholar, that's not in line with Wiki guidelines. We only need to present the mainstream theory as clearly explained in these Wiki guidelines ("Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article") Finally, I'm not done editing, consider this a "work in progress" which might take some time to finish.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan:, we cannot claim that a book published in 2005 and edited by Ioan-Aurel Pop, who is now the president of the Romanian Academy of Sciences, presents a marginal PoV. Consequently, we cannot state in the article that scholars who accept the continuity theory unanimously say that its archaeological evidence is "without doubt". Furthermore, we cannot claim in the article that all continuity historians say that only Romanized elements could produce high-level artefacts if this view is not universally accepted by historians who accept this theory. Borsoka (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take out "without doubt" even though that's directly from the text, but I see your point. As for those artifacts, that's the opinion of the archeologists who dug them out and studied them, and it refers to the specific artifacts belonging to those cultures, it's not some general statement for all artifacts of all ages, etc. It's specific so that won't be changed. And, again, no one claims that all scholars believe this or that... I could pick every statement from the IT section apart and show you scholars who disagree. We're supposed to present the mainstream view (as per Wiki guidelines mentioned above) not some unanimously agreed upon theory (if such a thing even exists).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, the problem is not solved. We should mention that there are scholars who accept the continuity theory, but say that there is no archaeological evidence for it. If a scholar say -1 and an other scholar say 1 we cannot claim that scholars say 0,5 or 0. Borsoka (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you may need to re-read the Wiki guidelines above ("Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented", etc). Feel free to ask for 3O if you're unsure.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan:, works written by mainstream historians (such as Olteanu and Madgearu) prove that the archaeological evidence for the continuity theory cannot be taken for sure, but the article presents it as an evidence deemed undeniable by all "continuity" scholars. Sorry, but I must change the text if you do not modify it, because for the time being it does not present properly the "continuity" scholars' different views about archaeological evidence. Borsoka (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka No, Olteanu's inclusion in that large anthology doesn't even present an opposing view, while he clearly states that "Romanian specialists consider that...", thus acknowledging that his view (which is not even a theory, just an attempt at looking at it from other angles) is not mainstream and is in fact a "minority view". As for Madgearu, you've purposely misrepresented his view which, in any event, does not refer to the time period in question here. Madgearu refers to the 8th-10th centuries, whereas the article refers to 5th-7th centuries. Even so, his view is not exactly what you made it out to be but that's not for discussion here since we're talking about different time periods. That said, your objections are null and void. Again, feel free to ask for 3O if the confusion persists.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You claim that continuity scholars regard the archaeological assemblages unearthed at Ipotești-Candești, Brateiu, and Costișa-Botoșani as an evidence for a unitary Daco-Roman culture. However, this is not true. Opreanu's view was published in a book edited by Ioan-Aurel Pop (who is the author of one of the sources that you cite). Do you think Pop (the president of the Romanian Academy of Sciences) contributes the publication of marginal views? If you can prove this, do it at a forum of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The overwhelming view of Romanian scholars is that that particular culture is clear evidence of continuity. Opreanu is "just" a researcher/lecturer, not a member of the Academy or a University Professor, etc, and his views are "marginal" in the context (though of course he's entitled to his own opinion). What he published was just an "article" in a massive anthology co-edited by Pop some 15 years ago. So, it was not a book, monograph, or anything of consequence written by this researcher. By his own admission, his view is held by a "tiny minority" (of one), which according to Wiki guidelines should not be represented. If you believe that his view (whatever it is, it's not even clear that he opposes the "mainstream view) has made great strides within the DRCT field, then please provide the sources that prove that. It's on you to prove that Opreanu's opinion is represented within the DRCT field to a degree that it warrants a mention in this article. But, of course, you can't because he hasn't been that influential (not at all). So, again, seeing as the burden of proof is on you, feel free to appeal to conflict resolution as you see fit. I won't make any more comments here because I've already started repeating myself ("Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented", etc).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

However, Olteanu is an archaeologist. Alexandru Madgearu likewise debates that undisputable archaeological evidence for the continuous presence of the Romanians exists (I referred to him above). Similarly, Florin Curta (an archaeologist who flatly refuses István Vásáry's migrationist views) stated that there is no undisputable archaeological evidence for the presence of Romanians in Transylvania at the end of the 9th century (Curta, Florin (2001). "Transylvania around A.D. 1000". In Urbańczyk, Przemysław (ed.). Europe around the year 1000. Wydawn. DiG. pp. 141–165. ISBN 978-837-1-8121-18.). I referred to 3 archaeologists, you cited one historian. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Many people are archeologists. Are they Academics? University Professors? The books I cited are written by some of the greatest academics within the DRCT field. Did you even bother to look at the citation? The author is a major Archeologist (he wrote the "Encyclopedia of Archeology and Romanian Ancient History"). You've misrepresented Madgearu's views and he's talking about a different period (8th-10th ten) so quit bringing him up. Curta talks about the period in question (5th-7th can) but not in the context of questioning "continuity", he just claims that "it is possible that a 'Slavic' ethnicity was invented by Byzantine authors in order to make sense of the process of group identification" (that is, the Sclavenes mentioned in sources may not be Slavs). That has nothing to do with the continuity of the Daco-Romans on the territory, it just proposes another minority view (by his own admission) on one aspect of the archeological finds. Whether the Sclavenes were Slavs or just another sub-group is inconsequential to Daco-Roman continuity. Again, another "minority" view not worth mentioning as per Wiki guidelines.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) Curta in his study quoted above does not write of the Sclavenes. He specifically writes of Transylvania in the 9th and 10th centuries. His study was published in a book edited by one of the leading Polish archaeologists, Przemysław Urbańczyk. Curta's books are regularly published by Cambridge University Press. (2) I quoted Madgearu's words stating that archaeologically Romanians cannot be distinguished from Slavs in Transylvania. There is not misrperesantation. (3) If the 8th and 10th centuries are out of the scope of the detectable elements of the evidence for the continuity theory, the article should not state that "Archeological finds (at Apulum, Napoca, Romula, Hărman, Lazu, and many other sites) show a strong presence of Romanized and early-Romanian populations North of the Danube between the 4th and 9th Centuries." Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

1) Curta's paper has nothing to do with what is in the article. His paper (which anyone can read here) is specifically about Gelu's alleged castle at Dabaca, it only covers 10th-11th centuries, as stated in the title "Transylvania around A.D. 1000" and it says nothing of the sites mentioned in the article (covering a previous time period). 2) This is what Madgearu says about the Ipotesti-Candesti-Ciurel culture: "the ceramics belonging to the Ciurel culture are profoundly different from the material culture of the Slavs in 6th-7th centuries" (work cited in the article, "Continuitate si Discontinuitate La Dunarea de Jos, Sec VII-VIII, p. 117). So I don't even know what your point is or I will gladly file for 30.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) Curta's paper deals with the archeological evidence for the presence of Romanians in the 9th-11th century. (2) Please read my above quote from Madgearu, he cleary states that "Slavic" and "Romanian" artefacts cannot be distinguished. (3) I changed the timeframe in the article in accordance with your above remarks which deny that the period after the 7th century is covered. Sincerely, I do not understand your messages: first you stated that the periods end in the 9th century, later you claim that Madgearu's and Curta's references to the 9th century are out of scope. Borsoka (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Linguistic elements of the continuity theory

Section 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity of the article contains the following text:

"The formation of the Common Romanian language from Vulgar Latin started in the 6th or 7th centuries and was completed in the 8th century. Common Romanian split into four variants (Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) during the 10th-12th centuries. Unlike other Romance languages, the Romanian subdialects spoken to the north of the Danube display a "remarkable unity". Primarily the use of different words differentiate them, because their phonology is quite uniform. The "essential Romanian vocabulary is to a large degree Latin", including the most frequently used 2500 words. Around 20% of the entries of the 1958 edition of the Dictionary of the Modern Romanian have directly been inherited from Latin. More than 75% of the words in the semantic fields of sense perception, quantity, kinship and spatial relations were inherited from Latin, but the basic lexicons of religion and of agriculture have also been preserved. Some variants of the Eastern Romance languages retained more elements of their Latin heritage than others. Linguist Gabriela P. Dindelegan underlines that contacts with other peoples has not modified the "Latin structure of Romanian" and the "non-Latin grammatical elements" borrowed from other languages were "adapted to and assimilated by the Romance pattern"."

The inclusion of these sentences in this section suggests that these facts are denied by scholars who do not accept the continuity theory. However, these are neutral facts, no scholars deny them. Significantly, one of the scholars who are cited, Paul Wexler, expressed his doubts about the continuity theory. Olga Mišeska Tomić does not say either that she is a follower of the continuity theory. Consequently, these sentences should be deleted from the 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity. (An alternative could be to repeat them under the two sections dedicated to the other two theories, but it would be strange.) @Iovaniorgovan:, please delete these sentences from section 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Chill out, man, I'm working on it right now. Do you have to chime in every 5 minutes? Wait a day and then go over the edits. What's the rush?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So just to be clear: No, the inclusion of this in the DRCT does not suggest that these facts are denied by IT scholars, it just presents the mainstream view of the DRCT scholars, and that view also includes the Linguistic aspect (which is included here and will probably be slightly expanded in the future). The section is not titled "Views only Daco-Roman Continuity scholars hold", but "Theory of Daco-Roman continuity". If other scholars agree or disagree with these statements is irrelevant. We still need to present the theory in all its aspects. As for the Wexler reference, yeah, I'll take that sentence down, I can easily find something to replace it.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No, this presentation claims that a view accepted by all specialists is accepted by only a group of them. I suggest these sentences should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

These sentences will not be deleted. Linguistics are a major part of a theory and will be represented in this section. Eventually, the "Linguistic Approach" section at the bottom of the article will become redundant as info is being moved into the main sections at the top. As per above, feel free to ask for 3O.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka Please refrain from unilaterally reverting my edits, especially since there's a discussion going on here and I already asked to you seek help (3O) if you're in doubt. You can't just bludgeon the process as you please. Same goes with that tag I noticed you put on top of the DRCT section. You can't just put that up there because you say so. It can stay while you're in the process of seeking Wiki arbitration of some sort, but it can't be there simply on an editor's whim. So unless you proceed with the proper Wiki channels it'll be removed.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No, this not a discussion, because you do not address my problem. Instead, you are trying to presents generally accepted facts as scholarly views which are exclusivelly proposed by scholars who support one of the theories. If you think, this approach is in line with WP guidlines, you can choose among the several forums of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please remember that the introductory text of the same section (Section 1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis) clearly states that the "Romanians ... speak a language descended from the Vulgar Latin that was once spoken in south-eastern Europe", so this piece of information is already mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A little bit of redundancy never hurt anyone. Besides, as I already mentioned above, we're in the process of restructuring the article and some redundancy is unavoidable. Read carefully the title of that section. It reads "Theory of Daco-Roman continuity". A big part of that theory is the field of Linguistics, which is what I'm attempting to present here as part of that theory. One cannot explain that the Slavic influence on the Romanian lexicon did not begin until the 9th century without first explaining what the Romanian lexicon consists of. That's how a theory is presented properly. If it's still not clear to you, please do whatever is necessary to achieve clarity.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not need to repeat that Romanian descended from Latin, because this piece of information is already mentioned in the article. If you think that WP supports the presentation of redundant information, please try to defend this view at a forum of Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Please remember WP:3RR: edit war may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Same applies to you. Please go ahead and call for 3O, dispute resolution, etc, looking forward to it.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I have several times called for dispute resolution. You can check it above in this Talk page. However, this case is so obvious, that I do not want to steal time from other editors. If you think that the common linguistic elements of the three theories should be presented under a section dedicated to one of the theories, you should defend your case. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to defend anything. I'm just presenting a theory as per WP:RS and other Wiki guidelines. Read the title of the section. It says "Theory of Daco-Roman continuity", and that's clearly what is being presented. What's to defend? That there's a Linguistics component to the theory?!! If you think your objection is so obvious then please make your case to whatever forum you please, and quit wasting everybody's time.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The article shows that the development of Romanian from Vulgar Latin is the key element of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, according to all theories. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue. Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka Please refrain from edit warring or making any changes to this section while awaiting 3O.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I see you decided to steal time from other editors. I can wait. Borsoka (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Section 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early archiving

Talk page is very big now and threads becoming harder to navigate. Which sections should be archived that are no more influencing active discussions? Qualitist (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I would react with the opposite, I'll list those that I consider active and should not be closed yet:

- RfC: two maps

- Nicolae Drăganu

- Transylvanian river names

- Daco-Romanian theory

- Archaeological evidence for the continuity theory

- Linguistic elements of the continuity theory

- Section 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity

(KIENGIR (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC))

Well, there is already an editor here archiving, sometimes against all common sense, but sure. Some of the less active discussions might go. I would kindly ask though NOT to archive discussions that, even though they have not seen much activity of late, they are still referenced on the boards (active discussion there). One of the editors has already archived such a discussion and imho this is not OK at all (the discussion should be archived AFTER the related board debate...).

In light of this i would nominate for archiving the following:

• To editors that keep going back to their old habbits
• Maps
• New Source
• Izzo, Herbert J. (1986). "On the history of Romanian".[...]

Thanks.Cealicuca (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 November 2018 - Add new source

Wanting to add a new source:

A concise history of Romania - Hitchins, Keith [Cambridge University Press] / ISBN 978-0-521-87238-6 (hardback); ISBN 978-0-521-69413-1 (pbk.)

Relevant chapter - "Continuity", p. 16 Cealicuca (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)