Talk:Origin of the Romanians

Section 1.1 Theory of Daco-Roman continuity

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historiography: origin of the theories

Section 2.1 Historiography: origin of the theories should be slightly modified. For the time being, it fails to provide a proper context for non-specialist readers in many cases and fails to mention important aspects of the development of the theories, while other aspects are over-emphasized. My proposal for the new text is the following (text to be deleted are scored out, text to be added are in bold):

Byzantine authors were the first to write of the Romanians (or Vlachs). The 11th-century scholar Kekaumenos wrote of a Vlach homeland situated "near the Danube and [...] the Sava, where the Serbians lived more recently". He associates the Vlachs with the Dacians and the Bessi and with the Dacian king Decebal. Accordingly, historians have located this homeland in several places, including Pannonia Inferior (Bogdan Petriceicu Hașdeu) and "Dacia Aureliana" (Gottfried Schramm). When associating the Vlachs with ancient ethnic groups, Kekaumenos followed the the practice of Byzantine authors who named contemporary peoples for peoples known from ancient sources. The 12th-century scholar John Kinnamos wrote that the Vlachs "are said to be formerly colonists from the people of Italy". William of Rubruck wrote that the Vlachs of Bulgaria descended from the Ulac people, who lived beyond Bashkiria. Rubruck's words imply that he regarded the Vlachs a migrant population, coming from the region of the Volga like their Hungarian and Bulgarian neighbors. The late 13th-century Hungarian chronicler Simon of Kéza states that the Vlachs used to be the Romans' "shepherds and husbandmen" who "elected to remain behind in Pannonia" when the Huns arrived. An unknown author's Description of Eastern Europe from 1308 likewise states that the Balkan Vlachs "were once the shepherds of the Romans" who "had over them ten powerful kings in the entire Messia and Pannonia".

Poggio Bracciolini, an Italian scholar wrote was the first to write (around 1450) that the Romanians' ancestors had been Roman colonists settled by Emperor Trajan. This view was repeated by Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, who stated in his work De Europa (1458) that the Vlachs were a genus Italicum ("an Italian race") and were named after one Pomponius Flaccus, a commander sent against the Dacians. Piccolomini's version of the Vlachs' origin was repeated by many scholars—including the Italian Flavio Biondo and Pietro Ranzano, the Transylvanian Saxon Johannes Lebelius and the Hungarian Stephan Szántó—in the subsequent century. Flavio Biondo noted that "the Dacians or Wallachs claim to have Roman origins"; Pietro Ranzano wrote that the Vlachs declared themselves "descendants of Italians"; the Transylvanian Saxon Johannes Lebelius mentioned that Trajan "led the Vlachi along with Italian people into the kingdom, spread them all around the Dacian kingdom" and "these people after so many severe fights which they have survived, remained in Dacia, and are now farmers of the land"; the Hungarian Jesuit Stephan Szántó stated that the Wallachians were "the offspring of an ancient colony of the Romans that used to be once in Transylvania" and "true Italians" could understand their language. On the other hand, Laonikos Chalkokondyles—a late-15th-century Byzantine scholar—stated that he never heard anyone "explain clearly where" the Romanians "came from to inhabit" their lands. Chalkokondyles also wrote that the Romanians were said to have come "from many places and settled that area". The 17th-century Johannes Lucius expressed his concerns about the survival of Romans in a the territory of the former Dacia Traiana province, exposed to invasions for a millennium.

A legend on the origin of the Moldavians, preserved in the Moldo-Russian Chronicle from around 1505, narrates that one "King Vladislav of Hungary" invited their Romanian ancestors to his kingdom and settled them "in Maramureş betweeIovaniorgovan (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)n the Moreş and Tisa at a place called Crij". Logofăt Istratie and other 17th-century Moldavian historians continued to credit "King Vladislav" with the settlement of the Romanians' ancestors in Maramureş. Grigore Ureche's Chronicle of Moldavia of 1647 is the first Romanian historical work stating that the Romanians "all come from Rîm" (Rome). In 30 years Miron Costin explicitly connected the Romanians' ethnogenesis to the conquest of "Dacia Traiana". Constantin Cantacuzino stated in 1716 that the native Dacians also had a role in the formation of the Romanian people. Petru Maior and other historians of the "Transylvanian School" flatly denied any interbreeding between the natives and the conquerors, claiming that the autochthonous Dacian population which was not eradicated by the Romans fled the territory. The Daco-Roman mixing became widely accepted in the Romanian historiography around 1800. This view is advocated by the Greek-origin historians Dimitrie Philippide (in his 1816 work History of Romania) and Dionisie Fotino, who wrote History of Dacia (1818). The idea was accepted and taught in the Habsburg Monarchy, including Hungary until the 1870s, although the Austrian Franz Joseph Sulzer had by the 1780s rejected any form of continuity north of the Danube, and instead proposed a 13th-century migration from the Balkans.

The development of the theories was closely connected to political debates in the 18th century. Sulzer's theory of the Romanians' migration was apparently connected to his plans on the annexation of Wallachia and Moldavia by the Habsburg Monarchy, and the settlement of German colonists in both principalities. The three political "nations" of the Principality of Transylvania (the Hungarians, Saxons and Székelys) enjoyed special privileges, while local legislation emphasized that the Romanians had been "admitted into the country for the public good" and they were only "tolerated for the benefit of the country". When suggesting that the Romanians of Transylvania were the direct descendants of the Roman colonists in Emperor Trajan's Dacia, the historians of the "Transylvanian School" also demanded that the Romanians were to be regarded as the oldest residents of the country. The Supplex Libellus Valachorum – a petition completed by the representatives of the local Romanians in 1791 – explicitly demanded that the Romanians should be granted the same legal status that the three privileged "nations" had enjoyed because the Romanians were of Roman stock.

References

Thank you for all comments. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Funny, you added (in bold) sections that belong in IT, and struck out (for deletion) passages that should be in DRCT. A more biased approach can hardly be seen on Wikipedia. Thanks for showing your true face. I think you should just wait for the result of our dispute resolution before trying to shoehorn your ideologically tainted edits into this article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Your approach is funny. You have not realised that the core of the sentence which was struck out was placed in the previous sentence. Do you think that listing Italian, Saxon and Hungarian scholars who accepted the continuity theory is a neutral approach, while mentioning that the earliest Romanian historians thought that their ancestors had been moved from the Balkans to Maramures during the reign of a Hungarian king is a biased way of presentation? I think you should familiarize yourself with the concepts of "neutrality" and "bias" before making comments on these pages. Do you think that Victor Spinei, an ardent supporter of the continuity theory, represents a pro-immigrationist view? Sorry, I must think that your knowledge about the theories is quite limited. Borsoka (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You again misunderstand. Each theory has its own historiography, and this big confusing section (the one you listed above) should be broken up, with each segment linked to its proper theory (DRCT, IT, or AT) as the case may be, in order to preserve neutrality.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Which theory should appropiate the earliest sources (Kekaumenos, Simon of Kéza, Kinnamos, Description of Eastern Europe). They unanimously write of the Vlachs' south-Danubian homeland. Should we mention these sources only under the IT? Should we ignore "continuity" scholars' comments on them? How this approach could secure the neutral presentation of facts? Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Present no evidence without explaining its relevance to an Origin of the Romanians theory.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Your dismissive non-answer to Borsoka's questions is why we get nowhere. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's your and Borsoka's (and others') ignorance of "moderators'" suggestions and Wiki guidelines that turned this article into a mess. You might also want to take a look at who's responsible for the shape of the failed article unanimously panned by all independent editors in the first place. Does anyone want to take responsibility for that? No matter, this discussion's going nowhere. I'll let the moderators decide the next course of action.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's your inability to grasp that you cannot impose unilateral changes in the article. I saw what you did neutral approach is far far away from you. Anyway why did you sign in the middle of the proposed text?[1] Fakirbakir (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yet another good example of how we end up in an endless debate because some editor or another tries to add (or remove) content that seems relevant to him/her, instead of content that is relevant in the framework of mainstream theories.Cealicuca (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Instead of making general statements, please quote a single statement from the above text whose relevance in the context of the Romanians' ethnogenesis is not verified by reliable sources. Please also quote a single statement which should exclusively be presented within the framework of one of the theories. Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be incapable of realizing that there can be two or more diverging theories based on the same set of data. Thus the "exclusively" added attribute is nonsensical.Cealicuca (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This is what I have been explaining to you for months. Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, don't try to spin it. You said that because the same fact can be interpreted differently we cannot (somehow, because of this original concept of "neutral facts") present those interpretations. The interpretations are the theories.Cealicuca (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I never claimed that we cannot present the different interpretations of the same facts. Borsoka (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You claimed, several times, you cannot distribute "fats" among theories. But never mind that, what you did here is to misrepresent what sources said. For example you took out "the offspring of an ancient colony of the Romans that used to be once in Transylvania and true Italians" (Stephan Szántó) and attributing to several sources (including this one) the following: "[...] the Vlachs were a genus Italicum ("an Italian race")" using the following sentence: "Piccolomini's version of the Vlachs' origin was repeated by many scholars—including the Italian Flavio Biondo and Pietro Ranzano, the Transylvanian Saxon Johannes Lebelius and the Hungarian Stephan Szántó—in the subsequent century.".

This is misrepresenting what the sources state, practically (and this is but one example, he did the same with several sources) he removed Szanto's "the offspring of an ancient colony of the Romans that used to be once in Transylvania" and attributed to him and true Italians" with "Vlachs were a genus Italicum ("an Italian race")". As always, you removed the most relevant thing and left only what would serve your preferred view. In short, manipulated the sources (and carefully placing them one after another so that the idea of "the offspring of an ancient colony of the Romans that used to be once in Transylvania" is gone but the idea of "Vlachs were a genus Italicum" is preserved (which is not under contention). So practically you removed some sources that were used as argument (proof) by one theory by removing the relevant element from them.Cealicuca (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read before commenting. No source was "manipulated": it is clear that Szántó believed that the Transylvanian Vlachs descended from Roman colonists who settled in Dacia Traiana. If you continue to misrepresent my edits, I will ignore your comments. Borsoka (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not at all clear. The original was this:

• Poggio Bracciolini, an Italian scholar wrote was the first to write (around 1450) that the Romanians' ancestors had been Roman colonists settled by Emperor Trajan. This view was repeated by Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, who stated in his work De Europa(1458) that the Vlachs were a genus Italicum ("an Italian race") and were named after one Pomponius Flaccus, a commander sent against the Dacians. Piccolomini's version of the Vlachs' origin was repeated by many scholars—including the Italian Flavio Biondo and Pietro Ranzano, the Transylvanian Saxon Johannes Lebelius and the Hungarian Stephan Szántó—in the subsequent century. Flavio Biondo noted that "the Dacians or Wallachs claim to have Roman origins"; Pietro Ranzano wrote that the Vlachs declared themselves "descendants of Italians"; the Transylvanian Saxon Johannes Lebelius mentioned that Trajan "led the Vlachi along with Italian people into the kingdom, spread them all around the Dacian kingdom" and "these people after so many severe fights which they have survived, remained in Dacia, and are now farmers of the land"; the Hungarian Jesuit Stephan Szántó stated that the Wallachians were "the offspring of an ancient colony of the Romans that used to be once in Transylvania" and "true Italians" could understand their language.

you changed it into:

• Poggio Bracciolini, an Italian scholar was the first to write (around 1450) that the Romanians' ancestors had been Roman colonists settled by Emperor Trajan. In 1458, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini stated in his work De Europa (1458) that the Vlachs were a genus Italicum ("an Italian race") and were named after one Pomponius Flaccus, a commander sent against the Dacians. Piccolomini's version of the Vlachs' origin was repeated by many scholars—including the Italian Flavio Biondo and Pietro Ranzano, the Transylvanian Saxon Johannes Lebelius and the Hungarian Stephan Szántó—in the subsequent century.

Suddenly, the reference to "remaining in Dacia" and all that has vanished. Any reader, when asked to summarize the modified paragraph will say "yeah, some sources attest to the Romanians being of Roman stock" or whatever. The important reference to where they were romanized is gone. For example: Trajan "led the Vlachi along with Italian people into the kingdom, spread them all around the Dacian kingdom" and "these people after so many severe fights which they have survived, remained in Dacia, and are now farmers of the land"; the Hungarian Jesuit Stephan Szántó stated that the Wallachians were "the offspring of an ancient colony of the Romans that used to be once in Transylvania" and "true Italians" are all gone. So that's that - you changed the whole thing.Cealicuca (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Fair point. I changed the text to clarify the issue. Borsoka (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what exactly you fixed. One of the most important part is still missing: "these people after so many severe fights which they have survived, remained in Dacia, and are now farmers of the land". This part has been now replaced, practically, with Piccolomini's view, who "stated in his work De Europa (1458) that the Vlachs were a genus Italicum("an Italian race") and were named after one Pomponius Flaccus, a commander sent against the Dacians.".

It is not fixed as the sources viewpoints are still not accurately presented. According to the "fix", Johannes Lebelius is, by association, in agreement with "Vlachs were a genus Italicum("an Italian race") and were named after one Pomponius Flaccus, a commander sent against the Dacians." instead of his own "these people after so many severe fights which they have survived, remained in Dacia, and are now farmers of the land" which is something else entirely - Vlachs that remained in Dacia.

Basically, if we ask ourselves, "Would it be possible for the romanized dacians to migrate south and afterwards migrate north?"

• The "new" paragraph says "Yes!", as there is nothing there to contradict that.

• Poggio Bracciolini, an Italian scholar was the first to write (around 1450) that the Romanians' ancestors had been Roman colonists settled in Dacia Traiana. In 1458, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini stated in his work De Europa (1458) that the Vlachs were a genus Italicum("an Italian race") and were named after one Pomponius Flaccus, a commander sent against the Dacians. Piccolomini's version of the Vlachs' origin from Roman settlers in Dacia Traiana was repeated by many scholars—including the Italian Flavio Biondo and Pietro Ranzano, the Transylvanian Saxon Johannes Lebelius and the Hungarian Stephan Szántó—in the subsequent century.

• Previously, it would have been a "No!", since it was pretty clear it was not the case (see underlined text):

• Poggio Bracciolini, an Italian scholar wrote was the first to write (around 1450) that the Romanians' ancestors had been Roman colonists settled by Emperor Trajan. This view was repeated by Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, who stated in his work De Europa(1458) that the Vlachs were a genus Italicum ("an Italian race") and were named after one Pomponius Flaccus, a commander sent against the Dacians. Piccolomini's version of the Vlachs' origin was repeated by many scholars—including the Italian Flavio Biondo and Pietro Ranzano, the Transylvanian Saxon Johannes Lebelius and the Hungarian Stephan Szántó—in the subsequent century. Flavio Biondo noted that "the Dacians or Wallachs claim to have Roman origins"; Pietro Ranzano wrote that the Vlachs declared themselves "descendants of Italians"; the Transylvanian Saxon Johannes Lebelius mentioned that Trajan "led the Vlachi along with Italian people into the kingdom, spread them all around the Dacian kingdom" and "these people after so many severe fights which they have survived, remained in Dacia, and are now farmers of the land"; the Hungarian Jesuit Stephan Szántó stated that the Wallachians were "the offspring of an ancient colony of the Romans that used to be once in Transylvania" and "true Italians" could understand their language.Cealicuca (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hitchins quote perfect for this article

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

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

— Keith Hitchins (2014)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Borsoka is right, you should have gone to Specsavers, the full book is here===>[2] Fakirbakir (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Politics in the lead?

If the Habsburg policies have to be featured in the lead then we must mention how the Marxist/Leninist/Far-right doctrines of the National Communism used the continuity theory (e.g. [3]). Fakirbakir (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

What would be the relevance of that?Cealicuca (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The relevance is that both sides had an axe to grind. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I meant that both communist governments tried to use history to prop their regimes. In both countries. Comparison with the Habsburg policies is unwarranted in this context. Apples to oranges.Cealicuca (talk) 11:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrong comparison, the Hungarian Communist Government was totally anti-Hungarian with zero national feelings, even chasing any idea that would be just a little bit "right", by any sense, practically they would gladly give up more territories to the neighbours just to have "less fascist" or "reactionist" in the country in their meaning, the total silence of sensitive questions and brainwash was the agenda of the hardline Communists in Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

Are you refering to Bela Kun's government?Cealicuca (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No, how could I refer to that??(KIENGIR (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

I am happy that politics are not in the lead anymore (more accurately, it contains a sentence about politics, but that is absolutely NPOV). However, I am still thinking that the "Historiography: origin of the theories" section is missing some infos at its present state. If the section mentions that Sulzer's theory and Habsburg expansionism were connected then we will definitely have to write something about Ceaucescu's obsession with the continuity theory and the highly politicized Romanian historiography at the time of Ceaucescu (e.g. "From the Geto-Dacian state to the unitary Romanian state"[4]). So I suggest that we should either delete political related content or improve it. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe the context of that observation, as per the source, says a lot about this subject. It was about the obsession of the Dacian state. If anything, the communist regime lead to the birth of the all-dacian continuity theory. Things like "[...] In some extreme cases extravagant claims about the direct line of descent of Romanians not from the immixture of Dacians and Romanians [source mistake: Romans], that is Daco-Romans, but from Dacians alone. Thus, the argument ran, descent from the Dacians proved that the Romanians were indigenous to Romania [...]. Such surmise, by completely denying the role of the Romans in the ethnogenesis of Romanians, dispensed with the need to press the traditional theory of Daco-Roman continuity [...] The regime's obsession with with the Dacians was highlighted in 1980 when the propaganda section of the Central Commitee proposed the celebration of the 2050th anniversary of the foundation by King Burebista of the 'centralized independent Dacian state' [...]. The most authorative presentation of this view [the Dacian-only continuity] was given by Mirecea Musat and Ion Ardeleanu in their "From the Geto-Dacian state to the unitary Romanian state" [...]".

So my question now is: shouldn't we say that the Communist Regime actually hurt the development of the Daco-Roman theory? It didn't encourage it (as per the source you brought) but actually impeded it. There is a distinction between the Dacian Continuity promoted by the Communist regime in Romania and the Daco-Roman continuity.Cealicuca (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead

According to WP:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." For the time being, the lead is not fully in line with this policies. The last attempts to solve this problem resulted in a parody of lead, describing several aspects of a late 18th-century document and some minor issues ([5]). To fix the problems, I suggest the following text:

Several theories address the issue of the origin of the Romanians. The Romanian language descends from the Vulgar Latin dialects spoken in the Roman provinces north of the "Jireček Line" (a proposed notional line separating the predominantly Latin-speaking territories from the Greek-speaking lands in Southeastern Europe) in Late Antiquity. The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains. According to the "admigration theory", migrations from the Balkan Peninsula to the lands north of the Danube contributed to the survival of a Romance-speaking population in those territories.

The earliest records about the Vlachs' homeland are contradictory, but the idea that they descended from Roman ("Italian") colonists appeared already in the late 12th century. Humanist scholars were the first to propose (around 1450) that the Romanians' ethnogenesis started in Dacia Traiana. On the other hand, the earliest Moldavian chronicles described the ancestors of the Romanians of Maramureș and Moldavia as colonists who were settled in the Kingdom of Hungary to strengthen its defense and Transylvanian legislation did not regard the local Romanians as a native population. Wallachian historians started to emphasize the Dacians' role in the formation of the Romanian people in the early 18th century. Their theory became widely accepted and taught even in the schools of Hungary in the next century. Political motivations—the Transylvanian Romanians' claim to emancipation, Austro-Hungarian and Romanian expansionism, and Hungarian irredentism—influenced the development of the theories, and "national passions" still color the debates.

Each theory have their own sets of arguments. Most defenders of the continuity theory regard the archaeological evidence for the development of the Romanian people from the Romanized population of Dacia Traiana (or Daco-Romans) undisputable. Their opponents emphasize that linguistic data exclude the continuous presence of the Romanians' ancestors in the lands north of the Lower Danube. In 2013, authors of The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages came to the conclusion that the "historical, archaeological and linguistic data available do not seem adequate to give a definitive answer" in the debate. Their view was accepted by scholars contributing to The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, published in 2016, which concludes that "the location and extent of the territory where "Daco-Romance" originated" is uncertain.

References

• Andreose, Alvise; Renzi, Lorenzo (2013). "Geography and distribution of the Romance languages in Europe". In Maiden, Martin; Smith, John Charles; Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Volume II: Contexts. Cambridge University Press. pp. 283–334. ISBN 978-0-521-80073-0. {{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)
• Maiden, Martin (2016). "Romanian, Istro–Romanian, Megleno–Romanian, and Arumanian". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 91–125. ISBN 978-0-19-967710-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Thank you for your comments in advance. Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I am ok with it.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC))

I will come back later in the day with a few comments. I must underline that overall I am pleasantly surprised by the proposal. As I said, I will add some specific comments later in the day. Peace.Cealicuca (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's see now...

• Several theories address the issue of the origin of the Romanians. - OK

• The Romanian language descends from the Vulgar Latin dialects spoken in the Roman provinces north of the "Jireček Line" (a proposed notional line separating the predominantly Latin-speaking territories from the Greek-speaking lands in Southeastern Europe) in Late Antiquity.

I find it weird that this is the second sentence in the lead, and reinforces the idea that the language is the main element while neglecting the others. this is not for an editor to decide frankly, but for the academics supporting (or criticizing) the theories. Keep the section clear and concise.

• The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains. According to the "admigration theory", migrations from the Balkan Peninsula to the lands north of the Danube contributed to the survival of a Romance-speaking population in those territories. - OK

• The earliest records about the Vlachs' homeland are contradictory, but the idea that they descended from Roman ("Italian") colonists appeared already in the late 12th century.

This is, again, simply cluttering. Moreover, using the anachronism "Vlach" is both confusing and breaking NPOV by association, since it will simply reinforce the only sentence that mentions Vlachs in the previous paragraph which is referring to the immigrationist theory.

• Humanist scholars were the first to propose (around 1450) that the Romanians' ethnogenesis started in Dacia Traiana.

let's leave the scholar's arguments in favor of one theory or another for the sections dedicated to describing each theory.

• On the other hand, the earliest Moldavian chronicles described the ancestors of the Romanians of Maramureș and Moldavia as colonists who were settled in the Kingdom of Hungary to strengthen its defense and Transylvanian legislation did not regard the local Romanians as a native population.

same as the two above, keep this for the presentation of the theories, if the relevance of that is given by a RS in the context of one or another theory.

• Wallachian historians started to emphasize the Dacians' role in the formation of the Romanian people in the early 18th century.

Again using an anachronism - the sensible solution would be, if we would really want to underline the location of the scholars, to say "Romanian scholars from Wallachia". But, just like above, this is supposed to be lead. Short and concise. Leave the arguments (as they are made by the scholars) for the section dedicated to the theories.

• Their theory became widely accepted and taught even in the schools of Hungary in the next century.

Again, leave it to the theories, not in the lead.

• Political motivations—the Transylvanian Romanians' claim to emancipation, Austro-Hungarian and Romanian expansionism, and Hungarian irredentism—influenced the development of the theories, and "national passions" still color the debates.

First comment, the "claim" is not a good choice of words here. The primary meaning of the word is "state / assert that something is true, generally without providing evidence or proof." I propose "activism". The second comment - Romanian expansionism is not backed up by any source so far. So either someone bring a source to back up that "Romanian expansionism" is mentioned in the context of any of the three theories or remove it. The only "Romanian expansionism" is expressed, and this is why I ask for sources, by communist elements during interwar periods (when referring to Bessarabia) or Bulgarian sources when it comes to Cadrilater. I would also add Lucian Boia's - History and Myth [...] since it seems a source that is respected by both sides. Relevant quote: "The denial of Romanian continuity and the bringing of the Romanians from south of the Danube obviously corresponded to Austro-Hungarian objectives in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It continues to be a point of dogma in present-day Hungarian historiography, where it serves to ensure chronological primacy in Transylvania for the Magyars."

So my proposal is (provided there's a WP:RS that mentions "Romanian expansionism", not necessarily literally, in the context of any of the mainstream theories - but especially the continuity and denial of continuity theory):

Several theories address the issue of the origin of the Romanians. The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains. According to the "admigration theory", migrations from the Balkan Peninsula to the lands north of the Danube contributed to the survival of a Romance-speaking population in those territories.

Political motivations—the Transylvanian Romanians' emancipation activism, Austro-Hungarian expansionism, and Hungarian irredentism—influenced the development of the theories, and "national passions" still color the debates.

Cealicuca (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I have only one remark - though my initial statement did not change, and I'll let others right now to deal with the other things you pop up - that "Romanian expansionism" is considered the motivations and struggles to acquire Transylvania, by the concept of Daco-Romanism; in other words, the concept of Unirea, that manifested in countless occasions, thus I am surprised about your claim such would be only the "by communist elements during interwar periods"...how could you ignore this...although this is the primary and supreme core of everything...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

Look, there is at least one WP:RS (hungarian) that describes the Transylvanian Romanians were actually "loyal subjects" of the Austro-Hungarian empire. They, initially at least, did not wish to unite with the Old Kingdom (and if I were'n afraid of a polemic I would start enumerating the reasons). They were "forced", along with others in Transylvania (like Germans) to do that because of the fear of magyarization (real or not) and because they were hopeless that in the end they would gain the political equality they were looking for (within the AH Empire, later Hungary). I will find the source and be back with it, ok?Cealicuca (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Please, you are totally missing the subject, I did not refer to the Transylvanian Romanians especially, or anybody according to location! The same way I disagree that Romanians or Germans would be "forced" of anything by the fear of Magyarization or they would be hopeless, it is really polemic and fringe! Transylvanian Romanians wanted to keep Transylvania's autonomy mainly even by joining Romania, while Germans first became neutral, later with one vote with the occupying Romanian army nearby they opted for Romania. But you don't have to find any source about this, because this is not the subject!

The subject is, that there were Romanians (apart from location, some in Transylvania, some in the Regat, I don't speak about a compact community or similar) and there was a poltical agenda for establishing the Unirea. This recurently came up by some leaders, shall it be the Church, or 1848, or the further rendering of the Daco-roman theory, but mainly motivated by this. From 1867 it was an open political agenda in the Kingdom of Romania by some circles, later with more support by the intelligentsia or in the parliament in a way. It is true that it may not manifest to an official policy, but the sounds of it and the agenda was known. I did not brought up this now to generate a 80 km long discussion again, don't worry, if we need sources for this, won't hard to find, calm down!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

I support Cealicuca's version of the lead. I assume it's just one paragraph, right? The second paragraph, as written by Borsoka, cannot possibly be included since the DRCT WP:RS disagree with all the statements made there (Pavel Parasca, Demir Dragnev, etc).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. (2) Romanians are regarded a Romance people, because their language descended from the Vulgar Latin. That the language from which Romanian descended was spoken to the north of the "Jireček Line" is a common element of all theories. We editors should respect scholarly consensus. (4)-(8) "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should ... summarize the most important points": the development of the theories is an important element of the article (and the topic). (4) Why is the expression "Vlach" an anachronism? Romania was established in the lands to the north of the Lower Danube in 1859 while the sentence refers to 11th-13th century Balkan Vlachs. (7) Why is Wallachian an anachronism? It refers to scholars from Wallachia, some of them being of Greek origin. (9) That the Daco-Roman continuity theory served Romanian irredentism in the late 19th and the early 20th century is as well-supported by sources as the immigrationist theory's role in Hungarian irredentism after 1920. (I can refer, for instance, to Schramm, Gottfried (1997). Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5-7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter (in German). R. Oldenbourg Verlag. p. 278. ISBN 978-3-486-56262-0.) If we mention the Romanian scholar's view about the alleged dogmatism of Hungarian historians, we should also mention that a German scholar (Schramm) criticize the low scholarly level of studies supporting the continuity theory. I think the best solution if we ignore these view. (+1) Why do you want to ignore views reflecting the consensus of the international scholarly community? Two recently published books (the first one was published in 2013 by the Cambridge University Press, the second one in 2016 by Oxford University Press) explicitly contain this conclusion. My proposal is the following:

Several theories address the issue of the origin of the Romanians. The Romanian language descends from the Vulgar Latin dialects spoken in the Roman provinces north of the "Jireček Line" (a proposed notional line separating the predominantly Latin-speaking territories from the Greek-speaking lands in Southeastern Europe) in Late Antiquity. The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains. According to the "admigration theory", migrations from the Balkan Peninsula to the lands north of the Danube contributed to the survival of a Romance-speaking population in those territories.

The earliest records about the Vlachs' homeland the topic are contradictory, but the idea that they Romanian descended from the language of ancient Roman ("Italian") colonists appeared already in the late 12th century. Humanist scholars were the first to propose (around 1450) that the Romanians' ethnogenesis started in Dacia Traiana. On the other hand, the earliest Moldavian chronicles described the ancestors of the Romanians of Maramureș and Moldavia as colonists who were settled in the Kingdom of Hungary to strengthen its defense and Transylvanian legislation did not regard the local Romanians as a native population. Wallachian historians started to emphasize the Dacians' role in the formation of the Romanian people in the early 18th century. Their theory became widely accepted and taught even in the schools of Hungary in the next century. Political motivations—the Transylvanian Romanians' claim to emancipation, Austro-Hungarian and Romanian expansionism, and Hungarian irredentism—influenced the development of the theories, and "national passions" still color the debates.

Each theory have their own sets of arguments. Most defenders of the continuity theory regard the archaeological evidence for the development of the Romanian people from the Romanized population of Dacia Traiana (or Daco-Romans) undisputable. In their view, the lack of evidence for mass migrations across the Lower Danube and the Carpathian Mountains contradicts the immigrationist theory. Proponents of the latter theory emphasize say that linguistic data exclude the continuous presence of the Romanians' ancestors in the lands north of the Lower Danube, while the gradual settlement of Romanian groups first in the mountainous regions, later in the lowlands in the same territory is well-documented. In 2013, authors of The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages came to the conclusion that the "historical, archaeological and linguistic data available do not seem adequate to give a definitive answer" in the debate. Their view was accepted by scholars contributing to The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, published in 2016, which concludes that "the location and extent of the territory where "Daco-Romance" originated" is uncertain.

References

• Andreose, Alvise; Renzi, Lorenzo (2013). "Geography and distribution of the Romance languages in Europe". In Maiden, Martin; Smith, John Charles; Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Volume II: Contexts. Cambridge University Press. pp. 283–334. ISBN 978-0-521-80073-0. {{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)
• Maiden, Martin (2016). "Romanian, Istro–Romanian, Megleno–Romanian, and Arumanian". In Ledgeway, Adam; Maiden, Martin (eds.). The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 91–125. ISBN 978-0-19-967710-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Support.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

Oppose Borsoka's version for reasons stated above: most DRCT WP:RS dispute those statements in the second paragraph (just read the authors I cited). The last two sentences of the third paragraph are also unnecessary (or, at best, could be combined into one).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Please name those authors who dispute those statements in the second paragraph. Why do you think that The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages and The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages are unneccessary? Borsoka (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@KIENGIR:I was and I am calm. How about you? You seem a little on edge (all the "!" and such...). Anyway, Szilágyi N. Sándor's expresses twice that Transylvanian Romanians (at least at the level of political elite, the one who were actually making political use of the continuity theory): "[...] they were completely loyal citizens of Hungary at that time, and they would not have had an interest in joining Romania [...]" and "[...] Romanian politicians to the Hungarian state were necessarily loyal and ultimately law-abiding citizens [...]". I did not deny Romanian expansionism, but it had nothing to do with the development of the theories. The political emancipation of the Romanians in Transylvania did. We have plenty of sources for that - but OK, I might be wrong. I am not all knowing. So if there are RS linking the Romanian expansionism to the development of the theories please let us know. Thank you.

Sorry, also down you acknowledged what mistake you have commited because you are so sudden and it is useless to generate again long discussions just becase you are mistaking some contexts instantly, better concentrate just and only to the topic (however, despite you spent again time to "demonstrate" something that is not connected to the topic). Yes, you are partially wrong, because the development of theories had connection to the idea of acquariation to Transylvania, mutually vica-versa. Only in case I will care about this.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

@Borsoka:

• (2) Romanians are regarded a Romance people, because their language descended from the Vulgar Latin. That the language from which Romanian descended was spoken to the north of the "Jireček Line" is a common element of all theories. We editors should respect scholarly consensus. - And who said we shouldn't? Still, the article is about the Romanian origin. That is explained by three mainstream theories. That Romanian is a Romance language is just one part of the argumentation. By bringing it in the summary it simply shifts to focus to the language, instead of the theories. Not a summary at all.
• (4)-(8) "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should ... summarize the most important points": the development of the theories is an important element of the article (and the topic). - Yes, the development is important, but it is not the only one that is important. It is also polemical and it will invite other "expansions" of this summary.
• (4) Why is the expression "Vlach" an anachronism? Romania was established in the lands to the north of the Lower Danube in 1859 while the sentence refers to 11th-13th century Balkan Vlachs. - Because it is when it's used to describe to Romanian people as they are today, and it's funny you claim otherwise.
• (7) Why is Wallachian an anachronism? It refers to scholars from Wallachia, some of them being of Greek origin. - I agree with this point.
• (9) That the Daco-Roman continuity theory served Romanian irredentism in the late 19th and the early 20th century is as well-supported by sources as the immigrationist theory's role in Hungarian irredentism after 1920. - So you say. We have yet any source to support that (but please add one if you have). The Daco-Roman continuity theory was used by the Transylvanian Romanians in their fight for political and social emancipation. Nothing else (so far as per RS). "we should also mention that a German scholar (Schramm) criticize the low scholarly level of studies supporting the continuity theory." I don't see how the "low scholarly level of studies [...]" supports your claim that

"That the Daco-Roman continuity theory served Romanian irredentism".

• Why do you want to ignore views reflecting the consensus of the international scholarly community? Two recently published books (the first one was published in 2013 by the Cambridge University Press, the second one in 2016 by Oxford University Press) explicitly contain this conclusion. - I did not ignore your views. And you're really not saying what consensus, consensus about what conclusion?

So my counter-proposal is: (for a leading summary) is:

Several theories address the issue of the origin of the Romanians. The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains. According to the "admigration theory", migrations from the Balkan Peninsula to the lands north of the Danube contributed to the survival of a Romance-speaking population in those territories.

Political motivations—the Transylvanian Romanians' political and social emancipation activism, Austro-Hungarian expansionism, and Hungarian irredentism—influenced the development of the theories, and "national passions" still color the debates.Cealicuca (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

(4)-(8) You simply ignored my argumentation. We should summarize the most important points of the article. (9) You misunderstood my message. Please read more carefully. (+1) You did not answer my question. Sorry, if you continue this type of communication, I will ignore your messages. Borsoka (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not ignore your argumentation. It's just that your argumentation is... irrelevant. Nobody said to ignore sources (although you claim that, for what purpose - I'm sure we shall discover...). The point is that a summary section must and should include the conclusions that the theories reach, and not delve into the argumentation (which, by the way, opens pandora's box). For that - we have the sections dedicated to each theory. Even language is simply a component of the theories (several linguistic details are used as arguments by each theory). As for (9), again, the Daco-Roman Continuity theory did not serve any Romanian irredentism according to the sources I've read. It was used as a political tool, true. So if you have a source, a relevant RS source, please do bring it to surface. I've come to understand that you have access to lots and lots of sources.

I already responded to your question (+1). I said: "I did not ignore your views. And you're really not saying what consensus, consensus about what conclusion?".Cealicuca (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. I shortened the lead. We cannot ignore that Romanian descends from a Latin variant spoken to the north of the Jireček Line, because this is the basis of all mainstream theories. Neither could we ignore, that independent scholars regard the debate undecided in the 2010s.

Several theories address the issue of the origin of the Romanians. The Romanian language descends from the Vulgar Latin dialects spoken in the Roman provinces north of the "Jireček Line" (a proposed notional line separating the predominantly Latin-speaking territories from the Greek-speaking lands in Southeastern Europe) in Late Antiquity. The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube. The competing immigrationist theory states that the Romanians' ethnogenesis commenced in the provinces south of the river with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains. According to the "admigration theory", migrations from the Balkan Peninsula to the lands north of the Danube contributed to the survival of a Romance-speaking population in those territories.

Political motivations—the Transylvanian Romanians' efforts to achieve their emancipation, Austro-Hungarian and Romanian expansionism, and Hungarian irredentism—influenced the development of the theories, and "national passions" still color the debates. In 2013, authors of The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages came to the conclusion that the "historical, archaeological and linguistic data available do not seem adequate to give a definitive answer" in the debate. Their view was accepted by scholars contributing to The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, published in 2016, which concludes that "the location and extent of the territory where "Daco-Romance" originated" is uncertain.

Borsoka (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Two things - actually one (that applies to two things).

• You are (at best) WP:CHERRYPICKING with attributing "Romanian expansionism" as a factor in the development of the theories to Schramm. As I said, the prevalent view (substantiated by a whole slew of sources NOT mentioning this) is that Romanian expansionism (such as it was) did not influence the Daco-Roman Continuity theory. It was the political struggle of the Transylvanian Romanians political elite. This is virtually what all WP:RS agree on, and it is mentioned already. Yet you added the Schramm citation to the "Romanian expansionism", which at best is a minority view. The struggle for social and political equality of the Transylvanian Romanian political elite does not equate to Romanian expansionism. Nor does it mean that Romanian expansionism did not exist, but it had no effect per say to the development of the Daco-Roma theory. Or are you saying that it affected the development of the Immigrationist theory? Or the Admigration theory? Please clarify.
• The last two sentences are WP:CHERRYPICK since there are sources on both sides of the isle who are "certain" that the romanians originated from one place or another. We also have non-hungarian / non-romanian WP:RS that actually accept on or another theory as the working premise for their studies (implicitly considering one theory or another as acceptable). Moreover, those are linguistic studies, limited in scope (which is not the same with the scope of the theories).Cealicuca (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not continue this absurd debate with you. If you think that books recently published by CUP and OUP do not represent the POV of neutral scholars on this issue, I have no reason to continue this debate. Borsoka (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka So you unilaterally closed this debate and published your edit without consensus!? I'm afraid the admin folks clearly admonished us against doing such a thing. I suggest you revert your edit and seek a third opinion before adding this bit to the article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I will not seek third opinion. I do not want to waste editors' time to read absurd claims as they can be read above. Borsoka (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Drăganu's map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand perfectly. Try this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In case, I would prefer like so:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-Romance language

The following statement (among others) was added by Borsoka (without any discussion on the talk page) while the editor himself was complaining of others adding/moving content without discussion...

So let's see, beside WP:CHERRYPICKING, it tries to present a WP:FRINGE statements under the guise of a respected source. The chapter describes the history of Romance language studies. The same author (R. Pozner) then goes on and mentions that although Diez's work remained very important for half a century it has been improved and surpassed by other works. Interestingly enough, R. Pozner then goes on with her own study of Romance languages and Romanian is analyzed along with the other Romance languages without any distinction (see for Chapter "What is a Romance language" p. 43, p. 65 etc.). I would say that R. Pozan is of greater relevance to the Romanian language than Diez.

It's simply just another attempt at an anecdotal piece of "evidence" added in this article on the part of Borsoka or, as we can see on this talk page, just to get a laugh.

In any case, I respectfully invite the editor to remove thisCealicuca (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The whole context is the following: "One of the first scholars who systematically studied the Romance languages, Friedrich Christian Diez, described Romanian as a semi-Romance language in the 1830s. In 2009, Kim Schulte likewise argued that "Romanian is a language with a hybrid vocabulary". The proportion of loanwords in Romanian is indeed higher than in other Romance languages. Its certain structural features—such as the construction of the future tense—also distinguish Romanian from other Romance languages. The same peculiarities connect it to Albanian, Bulgarian and other tongues spoken in the Balkan Peninsula. Nevertheless, as linguist Graham Mallinson emphasizes, Romanian "retains enough of its Latin heritage at all linguistic levels to qualify for membership of the Romance family in its own right", even without taking into account the "re-Romancing tendency" during its recent history. The core vocabulary is to a large degree Latin, including the most frequently used 2500 words. Around one-fifth 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 are of Latin origin, but the basic lexicons of religion and of agriculture have also been preserved." Consequently, the presentation of the issue is neutral and fully in line with scholars who study the languge. Furthermore, the section provides a good background for the development of the theories, especially because all theories deal with these issues.

References

Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No Borsoka, what you said is the context is WP:SYNTH. The context, as the source presents it, is the one I described.Cealicuca (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not synthesis. That modern scholarship regard it as a Romance language is emphasized in the same text. Modern scholars describe Romanian as a peculiar member of the Romance family. This is what the text says, fully in accordance with the cited sources. We could delete the "likewise" expression form the second sentence. Borsoka (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You took out a quote from a source, without providing the context that source meant (which I did). The same statement is, today, WP:FRINGE (at best) yet you are using it in the article, mingled with other statements from other sources. "Modern scholars describe Romanian as a peculiar member of the Romance family." - "peculiar" is a weasel term, and no matter how hard you try, modern scholars (including the source you took the statement from!) do not refer to Romanian as a "semi-romance" language. It is a Romance language that has some specific characteristic due to (enter here a lot of reasons). Furthermore, this is just another "piece of evidence" that you scour the sources for, that has no proven relevance (as per the source, not as per your view) to any of the theories.

So you do insist on keeping this statement?Cealicuca (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The same context is provided based on an other source (Mallinson). Until a Romanian linguist's POV about the unmodified Latin structure of Romanian is mentioned in the article, we should keep the balance through mentioning that it is not a clear issue. Borsoka (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Why should I have a Romanian PoV's when Posner treats Romanian under the same Romance language category? Again, you took something from Posner, which is used by Posner to illustrate the development of romance language study development. Posner states that the thing you took is outdated (was considered "the Bible" of Romance language studies for 50 years). Posner then goes further, in accordance with the overwhelming majority of modern linguists, and treats Romanian as a Romance (not semi-Romance) languages. But no, you had to squeeze in the article an already rebutted, outdated opinion. And the fact that Romanian is a Romance language with peculiarities is not the same as "semi-Romance" language (whatever semi-Romance language may mean). You are pushing it hard. In Mallison's own words Romanian language "retains enough of its Latin heritage at all linguistic levels to qualify for membership of the Romance family in its own right".Cealicuca (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and Mallinson's words are quoted. Borsoka (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

So what if Mallison is quoted? You said/implied Mallison shares the same opinion as Diez!!! Mallison (as Posner) does not share it. Diez's "semi-romance language". This is what we are talking about. You run out of excuses for your blatant WP:OR / WP:SYNTH.Cealicuca (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Read before commenting. Sorry, I do not want to discuss your thoughts about my thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I understand you don't want to comment on my thoughts about your thoughts, since this is not happening what's happening. Nut maybe you can then enlighten us about:

• What is the relevance of this Diez's "remark" in relation to the Origin of Romanians. The relevance according to scholars, not according to you.
• Explain why should there even be a mention of a study that is outdated, as per the very source (Posner) you mention. Even the source you cite from (Posner), is in disagreement with Diez - clearly treating Romanian just as any other Romance language (treating Romanian and other Romance languages in bulk, not in a differentiated way).Cealicuca (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Posner mentions it in his study dedicated to the Romance languages. She even emphasizes that the Balkan features of Romanian distinguish it from all other languages (Posner op. cit. page 340). By the way, she does not say that it is outdated. (I also think that it is outdated, but we should not verify our own thoughts referring to scholars.) Borsoka (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You haven't answered what is the relevance of Diez's remark in relation to the Origin of Romanians. As per Posner (since this is where you quoted from).

Posner mentions Diez only to show the chronological development of the field of romance language studies. Moreover, on p. 4 (the same page that you took the remark from...), Posner says: "[...] Wilhelm Meyer, whose own Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen (1890 - 1902), translated immediately into French, was to replace that of Diaz [...]" and goes on to explain in more details why this has happened, as the latter work was an improvement in a lot of ways over Diez's work. At any rate - Posner clearly established Diez's work as outdated.

Moreover, and again taking things out of context, Posner may mention all the things you say, but even though you try and equate that (through Posner's voice nonetheless) the particularities of Romanian with a "semi-Romance language" (whatever that is since neither you nor the source explains), Posner does not mention anywhere this. It's just your WP:OR.Cealicuca (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not try to credit Posner with describing Romanian as a semi-Romance language, I only say, that she also distinguishes it from all other Romance languages. However, Posner establishes the relevance of the statement that you have been challenging. Posner says that Diez wrote one of the first books dedicated to the development of the Romance languages from Vulgar Latin and she thinks that Diez's description of Romanian ("a semi-Romance language") is relevant enough to be mentioned in this context. Borsoka (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and Posner's mention is relevant in the context of the development of the studies of Romance languages. That's it. Oh wait, there's more. Posner also establishes Diez's work as being outdated. It's not the context you have used the statement in, as per the article. Again, how is this (outdated) work of Diez relevant, as per Posner, to the origin of Romanian people?Cealicuca (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Again (and before you unilaterally decide to archive stuff that's only 4-5 days old) could you justify this semi-Romance addition with anything other than you getting a kick out of it on the talk page?

• What is the relevance, as stated by Posner, between this remark and the Origin of Romanians (Did Posner conclude that Diez's work influenced one theory or another?). I looked at the source and there's nothing about this connection, but maybe I am mistaken. So please clarify.Cealicuca (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

FAILED STRUCTURE: Exhibit A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAILED STRUCTURE: Exhibit B

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRCT section title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historic Background section -- Unnecessary and Biased

The Historic Background section is completely unnecessary and should be deleted. There's nothing in that section that cannot be gleaned from the WP:RS (if properly summarized). There's also such a thing as hyperlinking, when in doubt, so there's no need for "historic background" in addition to what the sources say. To boot, there are Wikipedia pages for History of the Balkans, and History of Romania for the reader who wants more in-depth info. Finally, the word "Romanian" is mentioned only 3 times in this section; the word "Vlach" is mentioned once; meanwhile, the words Hun/Hungarian/Hungary are mentioned 10 times!! All this in the "historic background" section of the Origin of the Romanians article. I wonder who wrote this piece... There are many other issues with this section but it's all moot because the entire section should be marked for deletion.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You may not know, but there are about 6,5 billion people who have no knowledge of the history of Southeastern and Central Europe. We should provide them a general picture. The Huns are mentioned once, but we can delete some references to the Hungarians if it is so disturbing. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I diasgree complete deletion, some parts may be tranformed partially but only with consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC))

• Support integrating it in each theory's section - This is self evident. The only relevant info on this article should be the historic context of the theories (the historical context of their development). History of [insert country name here] - there are dedicated articles on that. Having a short (one-two sentence) neutral summary is no excuse for a lot of unrelated (to any of the mainstream theories representing mainstream academic views on the subject).Cealicuca (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

How could you distribute the facts between the theories? Could you quote a single sentence which should only be mentioned in connection with only one of the theories? Borsoka (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop with the false premises (statements that have a false assumption from which a conclusion arises). I did not say, nor do I wish to distribute "evidence". But maybe you are... As for your assessment - "Romanian is a language of Latin origin only in connection with the continuity theory" - if there are sources using the Romance aspect of the language as an argument in favour of the continuity theory, we need to present that interpretation (view). If there are sources using the same aspect of the Romanian language (a Romance language) arguing that this is an argument for the immigrationist theory, we should present that interpretation (view). If there are sources using the argument that Romanian is a Romance language in arguing for the admigration theory, we should present that interpretation (view). Simple. We do not get to distribute anything, and we present in a neutral way all points of view.Cealicuca (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Absurd. Why should we mention the same fact three times? Could you refer to sn encyclopedia which repeats the same fact three times in the same article? Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Why? Because we don't present the "facts" (therefore we don't repeat the same thing three times, as you seem to be concerned). We present the interpretations the scholars give to those "facts".

No, it is not absurd at all. Say the "evidence" is "The Sun is a dwarf star." Say you had an article that deals with how our solar system formed, and you have two competing theories (example just for the sake of it, not factual necessarily).

• One says: "Because the Sun is a dwarf star, it would have been impossible to retain as many planets as there are now in our solar system. Therefore some of those planets are "wanderer" planets that have been captured by the gravity of the Sun over time".
• The competing theory says: "Because we have so many planets in the Solar system, and because the sun is a dwarf star, it means that the Sun must have had a companion star."

It is only absurd because you do not wish to present the context that the sources give that evidence. It is absurd only when you think in terms of "evidence. Collecting "evidence". You believe that this article should somehow present all the "facts". Sorry, "neutral facts". Irrespective of how the academia thinks those "facts" fit in the picture. The main problems with that is that, since we no longer attribute meaning to the evidence according to the sources, we can make whatever we want with that "evidence" and paint whatever picture we want. Arrange them differently, put one next to another, remove one from a section etc. And what do you know, we're now pushing the idea and the view we like, not the one that was meant by the source.Cealicuca (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You have not named a single encyclopedia which repeats the same facts in the same article. Sorry, I will not comment your proposals which could result in an original encyclopedical structure. It is extremly annoying, that you have been blowing up this Talk page for months only to repeat the same set of arguments. We are discussing the same issue under half a dozen subtitles now. Borsoka (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I have not. This is simply because other encyclopedias, and I mean serious ones - not encyclopedias who leave the content of an article to the whims of one editor and his group of friends, have no qualms in weighing the theories and establishing a basic framework for their content. Yes, they do nod towards the fact that there is a debate, but that's it. Not more than a nod...:

The fate of the Romanized, or Daco-Roman, population north of the Danube after Aurelian’s withdrawal has been a subject of great controversy. Many scholars, especially Hungarians, argue that Romanization in Dacia was, in fact, modest and that the later Romanian population living north of the Carpathians was not native to the region but migrated there from south of the Danube. Other scholars, including the majority of Romanians, insist that a substantial Romanized population maintained itself continuously in old Dacia and that the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people occurred precisely there. The account that follows expands upon the latter interpretation.

- This is from Britannica in case you're wondering. Or is Britannica biased?

So other encyclopedias are not concerned with the "facts", "evidence" whatever. Being encyclopedia, they rather focus on the result - and what do you know They even assign WP:WEIGHT to it to their further explaining of things. But this is not what is happening here. No, here we have an article that somehow is rather concerned in presenting "evidence". Lots and lots of it. And have the editors fight over which bit of evidence comes first, and the language and whatever.Cealicuca (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

(1) If you had read Britannica, you would have realized that it also mentions the Goths, Huns, Gepids, Slavs, Avars, Bulgars and Hungarians, similarly to first section of the article. (2) As I mentioned several times, recent summaries of the subject regard evidence for the continuity theory unconvincing. Borsoka (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't the one to bring up other encyclopedias. You did. Yes, it mentions Goths, Huns, Gepids, Slavs, Avars, Bulgars and Hungarians. So what? Has anyone argued against it? It is irrelevant to what we were talking. Here, let's see the full quote:

The fate of the Romanized, or Daco-Roman, population north of the Danube after Aurelian’s withdrawal has been a subject of great controversy. Many scholars, especially Hungarians, argue that Romanization in Dacia was, in fact, modest and that the later Romanian population living north of the Carpathians was not native to the region but migrated there from south of the Danube. Other scholars, including the majority of Romanians, insist that a substantial Romanized population maintained itself continuously in old Dacia and that the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people occurred precisely there. The account that follows expands upon the latter interpretation.

The Slavs

For nearly eight centuries after the withdrawal of the Roman administration and army, Dacia was overrun by a series of migratory peoples. The earliest of them—the Visigoths (275–376), the Huns (end of the 4th century to 454), and the Germanic Gepidae (454–567)—had little impact on the Daco-Roman population. But the Avars’ defeat of the Gepidae in 567 opened the way for a massive advance of Slavs into Dacia. Together with the Avars, the Slavs then broke through the Danube frontier of the Byzantine Empire in 602 and occupied much of the Balkan Peninsula. Now, for the first time since Trajan’s conquest, Dacia was cut off from the Roman (Byzantine) world.

The Slavs achieved political and social preeminence in Dacia in the 8th century, but even then they were undergoing assimilation by the more numerous Daco-Romans. Their position was enhanced in the 9th century when the rulers of the first Bulgarian empire extended their control over Dacia following Charlemagne’s crushing defeat of the Avars in 791–796. Local Slav chiefs apparently entered into a vassal relationship with the Bulgarian tsars, who, after the conversion of Boris I to Christianity in 864, served as religious and cultural intermediaries between Dacia and the Byzantine Empire.

- from Britannica

So except a brief (and only) mention of the Hungarian view on the matter, the encyclopedia makes it quite clear what is the basic premise for everything that follows. Reinforced by the bolded text in the second and third paragraph.

So by all mean let's follow on the model of other encyclopedia. As I see it, there's no "evidence" section, no "facts" presented or whatever.

Again, I did not invoke other encyclopedias. You did. Are you sure you want to follow that route?Cealicuca (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I must think that you are wasting other editors' time on purpose. Please try to be serious. I could refer to encyclopedias which prefer the immigrationist theory. Could you refer a single encyclopedia which repeats the same fact three times in the same article? Borsoka (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I am serious. Please do bring Encyclopedias who refer to the Immigrationist theory and use it as a basis for their article. Preferably an internationally recognized encyclopedia. Preferably not an obscure one. Like Britannica. Actually, one of the most respected historical encyclopedias actually goes with the Admigration theory - which I personally, as I said more than once, believe it's closest to reality. But I have yet to see a respected encyclopedia using the Immigrationist theory as the standard. So please surprise us, I am completely aware of how many resources you have access to. Again, I did not initiate this, but you seem to like to bring it up from time to time...

As for your question - your question is irrelevant, because it contains a false assumption. I did not say that each theory should list the same "fact". All I said is that each theory should be faithfully (to the sources used) presented. The theories are build by interpreting various evidence, or facts. Therefore there is no repetition since the interpretations are different. You agreed, more than once, that the same fact can have different interpretations. All it takes is to drop the "info dump" and present the theories, their argumentation, the interpretations the scholars give (sometimes wildly different) to those "facts".Cealicuca (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

FAILED STRUCTURE: Exhibit C (Historiography)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAILED STRUCTURE: Exhibit D (Evidence)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bludgeoning

@Iovaniorgovan:, you were already asked to stop this "bludgeoning" type of communication ([8]). We all agree that the article could (and should) be improved. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC about restructuring the article

Should the structure be changed to present the relevant sources within their respective theory sections? 08:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support As evidenced in the discussions about the current failed structure here, here, here and here, the current approach of separating the "evidence" from the "theories" violates WP:NPOV, WP:DUE/WP:WEIGHT, etc, and is the main reason for the non-stop edit warring on these pages (see DS notice at the top of the page). The title of the article is Origin of the Romanians, and other than a WP:LEAD it should only include the three "main" theories regarding the subject of the article (that is, the Daco-Roman Continuity Theory, the Immigrationist Theory, and the Admigration Theory). All the "info dump" currently plaguing the article should be either incorporated into one of the three sections dedicated to the theories (as per respective, relevant WP:RS), moved onto other related Wiki pages, or otherwise purged.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Would you clarify your above question? Are you proposing that each fact should be mentioned only under one of the three theories, even if the same facts are mentioned within the framework of each theory in reliable sources? Or do you suggest, each fact should be repeated twice or three times (that is once within the framework of each theory)? Borsoka (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment If a Daco-Roman Continuity Theory (DRCT) scholar has something to say about a "fact/evidence", then present what that WP:RS says within its proper context in the DRCT section alongside the other arguments presented by DRCT WP:RS as building blocks for their theory. If an Immigrationist Theory (IT) scholar has something to say about the same "fact/evidence" then present that within its proper context in the IT section as a building block to IT. Etc. Taking these building blocks out of the buildings (i.e. "theories") destroys the buildings (i.e. "theories").Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. No encyclopedia repeats the same facts twice or three times in the same article. Furthermore, the scholarly interpretations of the same facts are extremely divergent even within the framework of the same theories, so we should several times repeat not only the same facts but also the same scholarly interpretations. This would be absurd. For instance, that Roman authors wrote of the extermination of the Dacians is a fact, and both continuity scholars and most immigrationist scholars say that the Roman authors exaggerated the massacre and the Dacians survived. Why should we repeat the fact and this scholarly interpretations three times, if we could mention the fact and its two concurring interpretations - the Roman authors were wrong, the Roman authors were right - once. This would be an encyclopedic approach. Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

According to mainstream DRCT the Dacians weren't wiped out and in time they contributed to the formation of the Romanians. According to mainstream IT, (quoting from current version) "the Romanians descended from the Romanized inhabitants of the provinces to the south of the Danube" and had nothing to do with the Dacians. Hence, we have different interpretations. IT scholars may stress that the Dacians were completely annihilated and couldn't have contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Romanians. If, on the other hand, a prominent number of IT scholars believe that the Dacians were not wiped out, then feel free to mention (in the IT section) what exactly that has to do with the Origin of the Romanians according to those Immigrationist WP:RS. If a scholar (who happens to be an Immigrationist Theorist) mentions something about the Dacians' survival/annihilation but doesn't tie that into the Immigrationist Theory, then it doesn't belong in the article. After all, a scholar (be it DRCT or IT or AT) may write about many subjects, not just DRCT/IT/AT, but here we're only concerned with the Origin of the Romanians. All that other stuff has a place on Wikipedia's many other history articles but not here.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That the non-Latin speking Dacians survived both the Roman conquest and the Roman withdrawal is an important element one of the mainstream approaches of the immigrationist theory, so we have to mention it in connection with both theories. Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, clearly, different interpretations of what happened to those Dacians.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Identical interpretation of the same fact (=Roman authors unanimously wrote of the Dacians extermination) by scholars otherwise accepting concurring theories. Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Different theories, different contexts, different interpretations, as explained above. Our job is to properly summarize what the WP:RS have to say in the context those statements are made, and if some "facts" are mentioned a couple times, so be it. Dacians are mentioned several times, so are the Romans, etc. Where do we draw the line? It's not like whole paragraphs are being repeated. Small price to pay for properly summarizing WP:RS and preserving WP:NPOV.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The same reason countless time more users explained since months under various talk page subjects, or in the NPOV noticeboard where no consensus could be reached. Suggestions of third parties have been taken consideration as far as possible as it do not contradict other principles. As well it was demonstrated even by each theory there may be concurring views with equal weight and what is also suggested [9] for a response of such requests, we have to remember "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow the Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research policies."(KIENGIR (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC))

All independent editors who ever commented on the many disputes here have been unanimous in their criticism of the way the article is structured, as I already mentioned several times in the sections above, including here. Again, I'm talking about independent editors, not WP:MEAT or the like.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

However, the article now contains more information of the main theories and we agreed that the relevance of the facts mentioned in the article would be more emphasized. What is difference, that you think that we should repeat twice or three times the same facts and same interpretations, other editors say that this would not be in line with WP standards. Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't even understand Iovaniorgovan's reaction since it does not seem to connect what I have written...nobody wrote he did not mention anything several times, nobody said he would not talk about "independent editors" or whatsoever. His answer does not add anything pro or contra of my statement.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC))

re. "same reason countless time more users explained since months under various talk page subjects"... or whatever you meant by that.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As I have explained previously, I don't think that the restructuring makes sense. Also it could create the false appearance that there are no agreed facts in this matter, just mere opinions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The current structure creates the false appearance that there is no cohesive theory pertaining to the Origin of the Romanians, just a bunch of contradictory "facts".Iovaniorgovan (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that there isn't one cohesive theory, there are three major cohesive theories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose For same reasons above. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support For the reasons below:

A list of "facts" / "evidence" is precisely against those rules that for example KIENGIR mentioned because the list of "facts" can be easily manipulated (and it is, in the current article) to either strengthen a POV or to weaken a POV, or to create a PoV altogether. Removing "facts" from the argumentation made by a source (presenting the "facts" / "evidence", but not the argumentation, not their relevance to the theories) simply renders the theories impotent.

Point by point approach to some of the rules that are blatantly disregarded by the current article, with the current structure:

WP:NPOV - All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. - There is no mention of "evidence" or "fact". There is however mention of "view(s)". Does this article dedicate entire sections to list of "facts" or "evidence"? Yes. Therefore the article, in the current state, contradicts WP:NPOV.

WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT - Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. - There is no mention of "evidence" or "fact". There is however mention of "view(s)". Does this article dedicate more significant space to either a lot of minority views or otherwise "facts" of "evidence" with unspecified relevance, so much so that the mainstream view is "drowned" in a sea of contradictions or irrelevant "facts" or "evidence"? Yes. Therefore the article, in the current state, contradicts WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT.

WP:PROPORTION - An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. - Does this article reinforces the idea that there are a number of minority views, especially on the details, so much so that the general argumentation of each theory is overshadowed? Yes. Therefore the article, in the current state, contradicts WP:PROPORTION.

WP:FALSEBALANCE - While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. - Again, does the article present a lot of minority views (usually related to details in the argumentation of the theories)? Yes, it does. Does this give the impression that the theories are rather unsubstantiated? Yes it does. Therefore the article, in the current state, contradicts WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Excuses used to circumvent those rules:

• Could you refer to <whatever> which repeats the same fact three times in the same article? / But other encyclopedias do not list all facts three times! - Irrelevant question, because each theory will not present it's own list of "facts". Each theory will present the argumentation, which even though it might be based upon some identical facts, it is different. The second variation of this excuse is also irrelevant. Should the article be structured around presenting the viewpoints this can be easily avoided by presenting only the conclusions of the argumentation, where necessary. Moreover, other encyclopedias accept one of the theories as the "standard" framework. I could point out towards, for example, Britannica or Oxford Encyclopedia of Middle Ages (I would guess nobody can say those are biased, right?) who use only one of the theories as the accepted framework for the historical genesis of the Romanian people while still mentioning (but not detailing) other "competing" theories.
• How could you distribute the facts between the theories? - Irrelevant question, because editors don't distribute any "fact" among the theories. "Facts" are not ours to distribute, are not ours to say which theory "uses" them or not. It's the sources. Present the sources PoV, the sources argumentation (how the sources think those "facts" help them support or refute a PoV). That's it. It is not for us to remedy the fact that one theory uses some facts while another doesn't, or that one theory seems more credible or not (to us). It is not for us to dumb down a theory (by removing the narrative/argumentation of that theory) only to make another seem equally valid (or equally invalid). That's not what WP:NPOV is.
• but there are sources disagreeing with each other! how could you present that <the way you say to> without breaking WP:NPOV / WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT? - We present it precisely according to WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT. That means that the mainstream theories, that is the significant viewpoints, get to have the most mainspace allocated. Other points of view, even if WP:RS, don't. Some do not get any space at all. Because they are not significant enough to be mainstream. That's it.
• but there are sources within each theory framework that disagree with some of the aspects of the theory! - As per the rule above, those disagreeing voices, even if they are WP:RS, should mostly be left out. Not saying to kill them all, maybe some could stay, depending on editor consensus. But definitely your excuse is is just that. An excuse.
• but source X says this, source Y says that. Hey, I've got a source that says the Romanian language is a semi-Romance language. It's a viewpoint, it should be in! <chuckles> - No. Those kind of views do not need to be in. In this specific case, for example, it is both irrelevant (unless the source clearly concludes it has some relevance to one of the theories) but also because, in this specific case, the overwhelming majority of linguists do not agree. So unless we include some 1000 views from from 1000 other linguists that support that Romanian is a Romance language (thus respecting WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT), in order to underline just how outlandishly fringe this PoV is, the only option left is to exclude it altogether. Otherwise we give an extreme viewpoint too much weight in the article.Cealicuca (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Thank you for summarizing your understanding of WP policies. You have not proved for months that you could secure their application if the proposal (which is the subject of this RfC) were accepted. I kindly ask you do not start to discuss issues which are being discussed on the Talk page under separate sections. Your practice force the editors with whom you are discussing those issues either to continue it here, or to allow you to unilaterally present your views. We should not prevent neutral editors from expressing their views, but if you write lengthy comments nobody will join us to discuss this issue. Thank you for your understanding. Borsoka (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The structure should not be changed. This one article has been doing fine for years with these sections. The current structure represents a NPOV interpretation of the origin theories.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

All independent editors who have commented on this article lately beg to differ (see above).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, they have not answered your "pings" to support your claim. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have not "pinged" anyone and I don't need to, interestingly.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I will not search the lengthy archives to prove that you (or your friend) actually pinged them. Nevertheless, you should ping them, because you have been referring to their words for weeks. Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Section 3.3.1 Development of Romanian

Taking into account that editors suggested that the relevance of each fact mentioned in the article within the context of the Romanians' ethnogenesis should be emphasized, I tried to rewrite one of the sections of the article. My proposal is the following:

The formation of Proto-Romanian (or Common Romanian) from Vulgar Latin started in the 5th-7th centuries and was completed in the 8th century. The common language split into the four Eastern Romance variants during the 10th-12th centuries. The Romanian dialects spoken to the north of the Danube display a "remarkable unity", because their phonology is quite uniform, primarily the use of different words differentiate them. Linguist Gabriela P. Dindelegan (who accepts the continuity theory) asserts that the Romanian shepherds' seasonal movements, and commercial contacts across the mountains secured the preservation of language unity. Paul Wexler argues that the "relative recency of the Romance-speaking settlement" is a more plausible explanation, because the levelling effect of migrations is well-documented (for instace, in eastern Germany, and along the western coasts of the USA). Some variants of the Eastern Romance languages retained more elements of their Latin heritage than others. Primarily, the dialects of the peripheral areas (like Maramureș and Moldavia) preserved archaic linguistic features which were lost in other variants. For instance, the Maramureș subdialect of Romanian still uses the ancient -a ending of verbs and the Latin word for sand (arină) instead of standard nisip (a Slavic loanword), and arină was also kept in Arumanian. Emphasizing that western Transylvania used to be an integral part of Dacia Traiana, Nandriș concludes that "Transylvania was the centre of linguistic expansion", because the Transylvanian dialects preserved Latin words which were replaced by loanwords in other variants, furthermore place names with the archaic -ești ending abound in the region.

There are about 100-170 Romanian words with a possible substratum origin. Almost one third of these words represent the specific vocabulary of sheep- and goat-breeding. The substrate language has been identified as Thraco-Dacian, Thracian, or Daco-Moesian, but the origin of these words—Albanian, Thraco-Dacian or an unidentified third language—is actually uncertain. When analyzing the historical circumstances of the adoption of the supposed substrate words, linguist Kim Schulte asserts that initially the "political and cultural dominance of the Romans" defined the relationship between the Latin-speaking groups and speakers of the substrate language, but the two communities continued to live side by side, communicating "on regular basis about everyday matters regarding their pastoral activity and the natural environment" even after the end of Roman rule.

About 70-90 possible substrate words have Albanian cognates, and 29 possible substrate words are probably loanwords from Albanian. Similarities between Romanian and Albanian are not limited to the subtrate words and their common Balkan features: the two languages share calques and proverbs, and display analogous phonetic changes. Most linguists suppose that Albanian descended directly from the Eastern Romance substratum, or from a language closely related to it. Marius Sala, who supports the continuity theory, argues that Thraco-Dacian was "a variant of Thracian from which Albanian originited". According to Nandriș, the common features of the two languages have been overvalued; proponents of the immigrationist theory regard them as an important evidence for the Romanians' south-Danubian homeland. One of the latter scholars, Schramm proposes that the Romanians' ancestors were Roman refugees who settled near the native semi-pastoralist population of the mountains in the central Balkans in the 5th-6th centuries; they could only take possession of the highest mountain pastures where they lived surrounded by the semi-sedentarian Proto-Albanians for centuries.

Every Romance language inherited only about 2,000 words directly from Latin. More than 200 Latin words that other Romance languages preserved are missing in Romanian, but about 100 Latin terms were inherited only by Romanian. The preservation of the latter terms—including creștin („Christian”) and împărat („emperor”)—was due to their frequent use, according to Sala. Linguists note that the inherited terminology for motion is strikingly numerous, not independently of the preeminent role of transhumant pastoralism in the Proto-Romanians' economy. Proponents of the continuity theory argue that the preservation or lack of certain Latin terms reveal that Romanian developed north of Lower Danube. One of these terms is the Latin word for gold (aurum), preserved in Daco-Romanian, but lost in Aromanian and Istro-Romanian. For Nandriș, this word is important evidence for the continuity theory, because Romanian mountainers owned many Transylvanian gold mines in Modern Times, and he thinks that their ancestors' would not have been allowed to open mines if they had been newcomers in the province. The Latin terms for fig tree (ficus) and chestnut (castaneus) were kept in Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian, but they disappeared from Daco-Romanian. Nandriș and Sala argue that this fact is also a clear testimony for the Daco-Romanians' north-Danubian homeland, because these plants did not grow there. Nandriș asserts that the semantic evolution of certain inherited Latin words also supports the continuity theory. For instance, he refers to the development of Latin terminus ("border, boundary, frontier") into Daco-Romanian țărm ("embankment, sea-shore, river bank"), proposing that this must have occurred north of the Lower Danube after the Roman withdrawal which made the river the empire's northern frontier. He also mention a Latin inscription in Dacia Traiana which contains the Latin word for moon (luna) with the meaning for month, because Daco-Romanian displays a similar semantic development. Other scholars attribute the same change to Slavic influence.

Romanian reflects most changes of Latin which occurred in the 2th-6th centuries. In Gábor Vékony's view, only uninterrupted contacts between the ancestors of Romanians, Dalmatians, Italians and other Romance peoples could secure the adoption of these changes, which excludes the north-Danubian territories, abandoned by the Romans in the late 3rd century. Vékony and Schramm also emphasize that the meaning of almost a dozen of inherited Latin terms changed paralelly in Romanian and Albanian. For instance, the Latin word for dragon (draco) developed into Daco-Romanian drac and Albanian dreq, both meaning devil; Daco-Romanian bătrîn and Albanian vjetër (both meaning old) descend from the Latin term for veteran (veteranus). Furthermore, Romanian sat ("village") was not directly inherited, but borrowed from Albanian fshat ("village"), which is the direct continuation of Latin fossatum ("military camp"). According to opponents of the continuity theory, only close contacts between Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albanian explain the parallel semantic changes.

In addition to words of Latin or of possible substratum origin, loanwords make up more than 40% (according to certain estimations 60-80%) of the Romanian vocabulary. Schulte notes that even "relatively basic words denoting continually present meanings, such as features of the natural environment, are frequently borrowed". Nandriș emphasizes that linguistic influences "are due to cultural intercourse" and do not reveal closer contacts. Linguist Gabriela P. Dindelegan also says 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".

No loanwords of East Germanic (Gothic or Gepid) origin have so far been proven. According to scholars opposing the continuity theory, the lack of East Germanic loanwords confute it, because Germanic-speaking tribes dominated most regions that now form Romania from the 270s to the 560s. Defending the continuity theory, historian Stelian Brezeanu proposes that the absence of East Germanic loanwords is "basically the consequence of the gap" between the Orthodox Romanians and the Arian Goths and Gepids. He adds that the Daco-Romans assimilated the last Eastern Germanic groups in Transylvania before the middle of the 7th century. Also in defense of the continuity theory, Sala mentions that the Germanic peoples stayed in the former Dacia Traiana province "for a relatively brief span of time, only a couple of centuries", without maintaining close contacts with the Daco-Romans. Nandriș says that those "who support the South Danubian origin of the [Romanians] on the ground of the lack of Germanic elements in [Romanian] have the same argument against them", because Germanic tribes also settled in the Balkans in the early Middle Ages. On the other hand, Schramm argues that both Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albanian must have developed in the central regions of the Balkans where no Germanic tribes settled, because direct borrowings from East Germanic languages are also missing in Albanian.

Slavic loanwords make up about 20% of Romanian vocabulary, showing that Romanian "rejuvenated its vocabulary with words of Slavonic origin, which often replaced or doubled the Latin words". According to certain estimations, Slavic terms are more numerous than the directly inherited Latin roots. All Eastern Romance variants contain the same 80 Slavic loanwords, indicating that these terms were borrowed during the Common Romanian period. The Romanian forms of the vast majority of Slavic loanwords display phonatic changes that occurred after around 800. To explain the lack of early borrowings, Brezeanu supposes that the Christian Proto-Romanians and the pagan Proto-Slavs did not mix. Schulte proposes that the Proto-Romanians and Proto-Slavs must have lived in close proximity under Avar rule, but neither group could achieve cultural dominance, because the Avars formed the elite. Schramm argues that the only explanation for the lack of early Slavic borrowings is that the Proto-Albanians separated the pastoralist Proto-Romanian groups living in the mountains of the central Balkan and the agriculturalist Proto-Slavs who inhabited the lowlands.

The most intensive phase of borrowings form Slavic (specifically from Southern Slavic) tongues started around 900. The proportion of Slavic loanwords is especially high (20-25%) in the Romanians' religious, social and political vocabulary, but almost one-fifth of the Romanian terms related to emotions, values, speech and languages were also borrowed from Slavs. Slavic loanwords tend to have positive connotations in "antonym pairs with one element borrowed from Slavic". The names for most species of fish of the Danube and of a number of other animals living in Romania are also of Slavic origin. Romanians also adopted dozens of Latin words through Slavic mediation. Wexler argues that Slavic patterns gave rise to the development of significant part of about 900 Romanian words that are deemed to descend from hypothetical Latin words (that is words reconstructed on the basis of their Romanian form). Linguists often attribute the development of about 10 phonological and morphological features of the Romanian language to Slavic influence, but there is no consensual view. For instance, contacts with Slavic-speakers allegedly contributed to the appearance of the semi-vowel [y] before the vowel [e] at the beginning of basic words and to the development of the vocative case in Romanian.

Linguist Kim Schulte says, the significant common lexical items and the same morpho-syntactic structures of the Romanian and Bulgarian (and Macedonian) languages "indicates that there was a high decree of bilingualism" in this phase of the development of Romanian. Brezeanu argues that contacts between the Romanians' ancestors and the Slavs became intensive due to the conversion of Bulgaria to Christianity in 864, due to the arrival of Bulgarian clerics to the lands north of the Lower Danube. Borrowings from Bulgarian, and the semantic evolution of the Romanians' e Thereafter, Slavs formed the social and political elite for a lengthy period, as it is demonstrated both by loanwords (such as voivode and cneaz, both referring to the leaders of the Vlach communities) and by the semantical development of the term rumân (which referred to serfs in mediewal Wallachia). Schramm argues that the Proto-Romanians' spread in the mountains in search for new pastures and the Slavicization of the Balkans explain that close contacts developed between the Proto-Romanians and the Bulgarians.

Borrowings from Slavic languages show that there were "localized contacts" between Romanian and Slavic groups even after the disintegration of Common Romanian. The Daco-Romanian subdialects of Maramureș and Moldavia contains loanwords from Ukrainian, Polish and Russian. The Romanian form of loanwords from Ukrainan evinces that they were borrowed after the characteristic Ukrainian sound change from h to g was completed in the 12th century. Serbian influenced the subdialects spoken in Banat and Crișana from the 15th century. Bulgarian continued to influence the Wallachian subdialects.

Linguistic research plays a preeminent role in the construction of the way of life of the Romanians' ancestors, because "historical sources are almost silent". In his study dedicated to the formation of the Romanian language, Nandriș concludes that the Latin population was "reduced to a pastoral life in the mountains and to agricultural pursuits in the foothills of their pastural lands" in the whole "Carpatho-Balkan are" (both to the north and to the south of the Lower Danube) after the collapse of the Roman rule. While preserving the basic Latin agricultural vocabulary, the Romanians adopted a significant number of Slavic technical terms for agricultural tools and techniques. For historian Victor Spinei, the Slavic loanwords evince that the Romanians had already "practiced an advanced level of agriculture" before they entered into close contacts with the Slavs, because otherwise they would not have needed this special terminology. On the other hand, Sala argues that the Slavic terms "penetrated Romanian” because they designed the Slavs' more advanced technology which replaced the Romanians' obsolete tools. Schramm concludes that the Proto-Romanians were pastoralists with superfitial knowledge of agriculture, limited to the basic vocabulary and retained only because they regularly wintered their flocks on their sedentary neighbors' lands in the foothills. According to him, the adoption of Slavic (and later Hungarian) agricultural terminology evinces that the Romanians started to practice agriculture only at a later stage of their ethnogenesis.

All neighboring peoples adopted a number of Romanian words connected to goat- and sheep-breeding. Romanian loanwords are rare in standard Hungarian, but abound in its Transylvanian dialects. In addition to place names and elements of the Romanian pastoral vocabulary, the Transylvanian Hungarians primarily adopted dozens of Romanian ecclesiastic and political terms to refer to specific Romanian institutions already before the mid-17th centuries (for instance, bojér, logofét, kalugyér and beszerika). The adoption of the Romanian terminology shows that the traditional Romanian institutions, which followed Byzantine patterns, significantly differed from their Hungarian counterparts.

References

• Augerot, J. (2009). "Romanian". In Brown, Keith; Ogilvie, Sarah (eds.). Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. Elsevier. pp. 900–904. ISBN 978-0-08-087774-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• 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)
• Georgescu, Vlad (1991). The Romanians: A History. Ohio State University Press. ISBN 978-0-8142-0511-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Izzo, Herbert J. (1986). "On the history of Romanian". In Marino, Mary C.; Pérez, Luis A. (eds.). The Twelfth LACUS Forum, 1985. Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States. pp. 139–146. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Mallinson, Graham (1988). "Rumanian". In Harris, Martin; Vincent, Nigel (eds.). The Romance Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 391–419. ISBN 978-0-19-520829-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Mihăescu, H. (1993). La Romanité dans le Sud-Est de L'Europe [=The Romans in South-Eastern Europe] (in French). Editura Academiei Române. ISBN 97-3270-342-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Mišeska Tomić, Olga (2006). Balkan Sprachbund Morpho-Syntactic Features. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-4487-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Nandris, Grigore (December 1951). "The Development and Structure of Rumanian". The Slavonic and East European Review. 30 (74): 7–39. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (2013). "Introduction: Romanian - a brief presentation". In Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (ed.). The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–7. ISBN 978-0-19-964492-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Petrucci, Peter R. (1999). Slavic Features in the History of Rumanian. LINCOM EUROPA. ISBN 978-3-89586-599-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Sala, Marius (2005). From Latin to Romanian: The Historical Development of Romanian in a Comparative Romance Context. University, Mississipi. ISBN 1-889441-12-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Schramm, Gottfried (1997). Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5-7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter [=A Dam Breaks: The Roman Danube frontier and the Invasions of the 5th-7th Centuries in the Light of Names and Words] (in German). R. Oldenbourg Verlag. ISBN 978-3-486-56262-0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Schulte, Kim (2009). "Loanwords in Romanian". In Haspelmath, Martin; Tadmor, Uri (eds.). Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook. De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 230–259. ISBN 978-3-11-021843-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. Koninklijke Brill NV. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Szabó T., Attila (1985). "Hungarian Loanwords of Romanian Origin" (PDF). Hungarian Studies. 1 (1): 51–65. ISSN 0236-6568. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Vékony, Gábor (2000). Dacians, Romans, Romanians. Matthias Corvinus Publishing. ISBN 978-1-882785-13-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Wexler, Paul (1997). "The case for the relexification hypothesis in Rumanian". In Horváth, Júlia; Wexler, Paul (eds.). Relexification in Creole and Non-Creole Languages: With special attention to Haitian Creole, Modern Hebrew, Romani, and Rumanian. Harrassowith Verlag. pp. 162–188. ISBN 978-3-447-03954-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's not for you to decide what goes into the theory sections (DRCT, IT, AT) and what doesn't. There's already a Wikipedia page on the History of the Romanian Language and some of this stuff should go there (if it's not there already). The last thing this article needs is another "info dump" of the "he said, she said" variety and little (to no) presentation of the actual theories.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The article contains sections dedicated to the theories, so the principal arguments of the theories are presented. The "History of the Romanian" article is not dedicated to the linguistic aspects of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, consequently we cannot transfer material relating to the topic of this article to that article. The above texts clearly shows that there is no uniform approach, even within the theories. For instance, scholars who support the continuity theory do not agree whether the "substrate" words are actually substrate words or borrowings from Albanian, or the lack of early Slavic loanwords is the consequence of the Slavs' paganism or the fact that both the Slavs and the Romanians were subjected to the Avars, and the Slavs could achieve cultural dominance only after the fall of the Avars. How could you explain these internal contradiction in a coherent way in the section dedicated to one of the theories? How could you secure that immigrationist scholars' PoVs (which are not in contradiction with explanations provided by some continuity scholars) are also presented in connection with the same facts? The "he said, she said" approach is called NPOV in our community. No doubt, the text should be boldly copyedited, but this is an other question. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)