Talk:Origin of the Romanians

Definitely is too extreme

@123Steller: A subjective statement is exactly that Romanian has definitely Latin origins. In fact it used to be a blend of Slavic and other languages until the 19th century when the united country invented and imposed a Romance identity in contrast to its neighbors. Notice that Vlachs in Ukraine and Poland are nowadays Slavs. Propositum (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Propositum: It's unbelievable for me that a "researcher from one of the leading universities" questions the fact that Romanian is a Romance language. 123Steller (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@123Steller: We should simply avoid so strong statements, because the ethnogenesis is complex. Propositum (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Propositum, language and ethnicity aren't always linked. Do you have any reliable sources that dispute the fact that Romanian has Latin origins and is in fact a Romance language?TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

To clear the matter: most words from Romanian are of Slavic origin (neologisms excepted), but the basic vocabulary is of Latin origin. There were indeed Romanian intellectuals who sought to super-Latinize the language, but these efforts have imho failed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The sentence which we are discussing is explicitly about the language. The origin of Romanian has been always doubtful and you can read about this for example here: Lucian Boia, Romania, London 2001, p. 53-58.

@TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: When will you answer (excuse me for forgiving to sign my last comment)? Propositum (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Too many extremists from Hungary commit here attacks against Romanians. Suckpuppits like TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit|TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit] were several times under discussion in the Board of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.94.221 (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Eurocentral, you should not make comments here, because you are banned from WP. Please also try to understand that there is still a rift between your imagination and real world. You are obviously unable to understand that the comment above by TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit does not suggest that he/she is an extremist from Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

New campaign of irredentists

A new campaign of irredentists started in these pages. They use false data and original research to restore the domination of minority over majority. False data are used in order to support irredentist theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.94.221 (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Eurocentral, you should not make comments here, because you are banned from WP. Please also try to understand that there is still a rift between your imagination and real world. Borsoka (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

New archaeological discoveries supporting the Dacic continuation

Hello All, I have read a relatively recent article about a site in Nyiregyhaza where a 3rd century Dacic settlement was found, proving that the Dacians had been in the Pannonia plain before the arrival of the Huns. The article is here: https://positivenewsromania.com/2016/01/14/archaeologists-discover-new-evidence-concerning-the-dacian-tribes/ . If anyone is willing to help investigate more the archaeological site or bring some more sources to this, we should start a very serious discussion about reconsidering the weight of the Origin theories. Have a nice day to all !

What is the connection between a non-Romanized tribe and the origin of the Romanians (who speak a language with quite obvious links to the Latin language)? Or do you want to discuss how the Hungarians of the Pannonia plain were partially descended from non-Romanized Dacians? Borsoka (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Although I don't enjoy your needless sarcasm regarding the origin of the Hungarians, I will answer as best as I can to your question: One of the theories states that the Huns didn't find anyone in the Trans-Carpathian region when they came. Clearly the region, even extending to Pannonia, was not empty even in the third century, that was my point, supporting the continuation theory. Who tells you they were non-Romanized by the way, can you determine what language that "tribe" (actually ex-Dacian empire, to be more historically correct) spoke ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.130.24 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Which theory says that the Huns did not find anyone in the Carpathian Basin or Transylvania? The territory was obiously inhabited by Getae, (non-Romanized) Dacians, Vandals, Goths, ... What one of the theories says that there is no evidence that any Latin/Romance-speaking population survived in the territory until the 10th century. The new discovery does not challenge this theory. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

So what happened to the Getae etc found by the Huns ? Were they "Hungarized" ? How come we (in the Carpathian basin) are not all speaking Hungarian if the Latins migrated as late as the 10th century ?

(1) They were Germanised, Slavicized, Avarised. (2) Because the immigration of the Vlachs began in the 12th century and it continued untill the 21st century. Please remember neither were the Transylvanian Saxons Magyarized, although they settled in the province in the 12th and 13th centuries, and their immigration did not last for nine centuries. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. If they were Germanised etc. as you claim, when Dacia was overtaken by the Roman Empire, well, then the Dacians were Latinised, using your line of thought (and historical evidence). The Romanian people are speaking a Romance (Latin) language and, "coincidentally", are situated exactly on the place where the biggest battles between Rome and Dacia took place.... so they must have been here quite some time before the 10th Century. The Transylvanian Saxons were not Magyarized indeed, mostly probably because of the ethnic composition of the land (Romanians, Magyars, Saxons) - even under the Habsburgic rule over Transylvania, the interdiction to have schools in the native language, the trials to impose Catholic religion, the other groups were not Magyarized. This alone says something about the numbers and culture strengths of the other groups . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.90.110.122 (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

My photo could be used as evidence, for example, to determine if 1) the water was higher than last week or 2) the winter ice was gone 3) the boat race was on some other lake or 4) if aliens were waterskiing that day. But, until you advance some relevant theoretical claim a photo is just a photo—it is not “evidence.”

— Karl W. Giberson, My Debate With an ‘Intelligent Design’ Theorist

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

According to one of the theories of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, their ancestors lived under Roman rule for more than 700 years in the lands to the south of the Danube. The lands to the north of the Danube were under Roman rule for less than 170 years, while German peoples dominated the same territory for almost 300 years. Please remember that the Romanians adopted the names of the major rivers in Transylvania from the Hungarians, Slavs and Saxons, which is quite strange if we assume the Romanians' continuous presence in the territory. Please remember that the oldest Romanian chronicles wrote of the Vlachs' immigration to Hungary. Please remember that 17th-18th-century Transylvanian laws emphasized that the Vlachs had been "admitted into the country for the public good". Please remember that the first Romanian translations of the Bible were published in Transylvania in the 17th century. Please remember that Catholic Romanian priests initiated the Re-Latinization of the Romanian language in the 18th century, etc. Yes, between 1867 and 1918, there was an official policy of Magyarization: do you really think that those four decades could annihilate the consequences of a continuous immigration which had begun in the late 12th century? However, Tgeorgescu is right: we should not debate the concurring theories here. I only wanted to emphasize that the fact that Dacian/Carpian.. groups lived in the Carpathian Basin in the late 4th century, does not contradict to any of the theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Sorry, I will not continue the debate. Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

What I mean by "theoretical claim": one has to cite a reliable source preferable used by other scholars, not just a random website without serious editorial control. But since so many pieces of this puzzle are missing, it is unlikely to be solved any time soon. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu . Your answer is really .... strange, to be polite, considering I was inviting others to proceed on investigating the claims of those discoveries. I was not merely showing a picture and stating: "See, it's displayed here, so it must have happened".

@Borsoka : good for you for not debating anymore. "Please remember: the development of the name of the Criş from ancient Crisius would be in line with the phonetical evolution of Romanian". Your claims are based on a few "fellow" scholars, as I can base a lot of claims on my "fellow" scholars, and indeed the debate would go on forever. Finding (more) archaeological proof, by contrast, can destroy any scholar claim and present the real truth. That is one of my initial points of this talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.130.24 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Simon of Kéza

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

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

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

Thank you. 158.169.40.6 (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. The immigration theory is at least as well supported by archeological research, linguistic evidence and written sources as the continuity hypothesis. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, as well. Moreover, the Daco-Roman continuity theory have numerous weak points, that the other theory does not have. It's a bit odd that the IP is identifying i.e. "linguistic", "toponymy", "geographical studies" roughly as a "comprehensive and diverse evidence pool", although especially these are in the strong support regarding the Immigration theory.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC))

Definitely oppose. Both theories have their weaknesses when it comes to evidence, but to call one a theory and the other hypothesis is dubious, especially considering that the immigration theory doesn't solely rest upon Roesler.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur: accurately speaking, both are just hypotheses, they never made it to "theory". Conclusive evidence is severely lacking for both. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka, KIENGIR, TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: Please list those evidences - that support/prove the migration/admigration hypothesis. Saying that some evidence that supports the Daco-Roman theory - or comes into conflict with it gives more credence to the other two hypothesis is a logical fallacy. Such evidences that support those two hypothesis are not present in the article, while the article does present evidence supporting the Daco-Roman continuity theory. Evidence of a Latin-Speaking population south of the Danube does not support those two theories - you need to present evidence proving the alleged migration (especially in the light of abundant evidence of a Latin-speaking population north of the Danube, present in this article). Until those evidences are listed under the same section, in this article, those two (migration, admigration) cannot and should not be presented as "well supported" and "competing" theories. It's simply ridiculous that those evidences are not referenced/presented in this article, for all of us to see how well supported they really are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.4 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence for anything the (Proto)Romanians did for roughly 1000 years. So, obviously, too many pieces of the puzzle are missing to have conclusive evidence for any "theory" in this respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is no evidence for the continuous presence of a Latin/Romance-speaking population in the territory of the former province of Dacia Traiana after the withdrawal of the Romans. On the other hand, the Romanians adopted the names of the major rivers from Slavs, Hungarians, Turkic peoples and Germans (which can hardly be explained based on the continuity theory). The Romanians did not adopt a single word from the Germanic peoples, although the Gepids dominated the territory for a longer period than the Romans had held it. The oldest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of masses of Romanians from the Byzantine Empire to Hungary. The Romanians adopted Albanian loanwords. The Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population even in the 12th-15th centuries ... Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. The immigrationist and ad-migration hypotheses are both suppositions scarcely backed by physical evidence, as opposed to the continuity theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.130.24 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to downgrade said "theories" to "hypotheses", as there is no evidence to support them. For instance, there are no contemporaneous accounts of any such mass migration for the time period the hypotheses require, all such accounts come from hundreds of years later and are not believable. Moreover, in a rich folklore like Romania's something like a mass migration would've been recorded in significant ways, yet no such thing happened.--196.245.9.70 (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The time period started around 1170 and it has not ended yet. There are several contemporaneous accounts of the settlement of significant Vlach groups in Banat, Transylvania, Maramures, Galicia, Slovakia... Are there reliable sources that label the main scholarly views about the Romanians' ethnogenesis as "hipotheses"? Borsoka (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Please link to those contemporaneous accounts (not accounts written much later) of mass migration that you speak of. You also have to prove that no Vlachs/Romanians were living in any of the present Romanian territories at the time. FYI, as recent DNA studies have shown, the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people was already accomplished in Middle Neolithic in the same space occupied by Romanians today (yes, including Transylvania). Minimal change/admixture (especially mtDNA) has occurred since. Quite a coincidence that the exact same ethnicity lives in the exact same place 4,000 years later. All Romanian folklore revolves around the same space. The immigrationist hypothesis has already been proven false. Time for you to find another hobby.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Read any collection of diplomas from the 13th-15th centuries. You will find many references to Vlach knezes who settled on royal or private lands together with their peoples. Do you say ancient Romanians spoke Slavic, Hungarian, Cuman and German, that is why they did not name the rivers of their "homeland" in Romanian? Or should we say that Hungarian folk tales about Hungarian heroes fighting against seven-headed dragons living in the Carpathian Basin could prove a Daco-Hungarian continuity theory? Borsoka (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY sources are very easy to WP:CHERRYPICK: simply don't mention the sources you disagree with. That's why WP:SCIRS demands WP:SECONDARY sources (reviews). It is not our task to write literature reviews, we are not a channel for publishing original research, even one based upon WP:PRIMARY sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I've read those sources (everybody who's done research on the subject has read them) and they show nothing of the sort. A few movements of pockets of people within their ancestral homeland does not amount to mass migration. And, of course, you choose to ignore all the sources mentioning the presence of Dacians/Vlachs/Romanians in those territories (from Alexiad to the Gesta). As for the language, this is what Jordanes writes about the people who gave you your language (btw, modern-day Hungarians do NOT descend from either the Huns or the Magyars, as every DNA study has shown, like here or here; "Magyars imposed their language on Hungarians but seem not to have affected their genetic structure… These results suggest that the influence of Magyars on the Hungarian gene pool has been very low through both females and males and the Hungarian language could be an example of cultural dominance.") -- now here's Jordanes "There the unclean spirits, who beheld them as they wandered through the wilderness, bestowed their embraces upon them and begat this savage race, which dwelt at first in the swamps-- a stunted, foul and puny tribe, scarcely human, and having NO LANGUAGE save one which bore but slight resemblance to human speech. Such was the descent of the HUNS who came to the country of the Goths." So you see, there wasn't much there to borrow from by either the Dacians/Vlachs/Romanians or anyone else for that matter. In fact, Hungarian linguist Ferenc Bakos in his book "A magyar szókészlet román elemeinek története" (Akadémiai Kiadó, 1982) identifies more than 2,300 words that Hungarian borrowed FROM Romanian. That amounts to up to a QUARTER of your "active, basic vocabulary."--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Densusianu is fringe

* Copied from WP:FTN

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

Oppose. DNA studies Ancient DNA from South-East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic, as objective and NON-fringe as it gets, agree with Densusianu's main thesis, that of continuity of the same people over the same territory over millennia. "M_NEO and modern populations from Romania are VERY CLOSE, in contrast with Middle Neolithic and modern populations from Central Europe."[p.11] As you can see from the yellow diamonds in Fig 2 & 3 in that article, modern-day Romanians/Moldovans are closer to their Middle Neolithic ancestors than to any modern European population. Other people/ethnicities passed through that area over the centuries but there was minimal admixture of mtDNA, except with already related populations. This study alone (there are others) disprove the "Romanization" theory, so what you call "mainstream historians" obviously do not have the last word on the matter and competing theories must be allowed in the arena of debate. Your contesting the inclusion of these theories on this wiki page does a great disservice to truth and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iovaniorgovan (talk • contribs) 09:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean, the matter is not even debated: for Romanian historians (whether nationalists or not) ND (in respect to Ancient Dacians) is a lunatic, an open shame, testimony to the endless gullibility of the great unwashed. So, whatever that DNA study says, it does not validate his preposterous ravings. He is like the madmen who showed to C.G. Jung that God exists — even if God exists, it does not mean they weren't mad. Also, the paper you cite does not even mention the word "Dacian(s)", "Getae" or "Thracian(s)". As far as the paper goes, it does not even support the thesis that they have ever existed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. The matter is absolutely debatable. In fact, many "mainstream" academics have given ND his due credit-- like Iosif Constantin Dragan, Dumitru Berciu, Stefan Pascu (member of the Academy), Conf. Univ. Dr. G.D. Iscru, just to name a few; and many "mainstream" historians in the past held similar views-- like Grigore Tocilescu (member of the Academy), Ioan Andriesescu (correspondent member of the Academy) and even Vasile Parvan, initially critical of ND's work, came around to his way of thinking towards the end of his life (see his posthumously published work), not to mention Mihai Eminescu (not a historian by profession, but still... Eminescu!) and other historians from the past. As for the DNA study... of course they don't mention Dacians, etc, those Middle Neolithic people didn't sign their tombs or anything like that. The geneticists just present the facts, and they are pretty conclusive: direct connection spanning millennia, with minimal admixture. Now, I don't know if you've actually read "Prehistoric Dacia", but the "validation" I refer to (re. ND's work) follows logically. I see, going by your profile, that we went to the same high school so I'd like to think you have basic logic covered. The M-Neo population referred to in the DNA study is what ND calls the "ancient Pelasgians" and the main tenet of his book is that there's a direct link (ethnically and culturally) from those Pelasgians to modern-day Romanians. If you don't see the DNA study as firmly propping ND's thesis, I don't know what to tell you... Of course I realize that ND's methods are a bit unconventional by "scientific standards", as he treats folklore as historical source, but keep in mind that not too long ago the "mainstream academe" scoffed at Homer's writings being anything but pure fiction... until Schliemann discovered Troy.

So, it's not quite how you make it out to be. But... obviously, it's your opinion and so be it, I wouldn't try to wipe your opinion off of Wiki just because I don't agree with it, and by the some token I wouldn't want someone to delete my entries just because they don't agree with the theory I espouse (an age-old theory, mind you). Hope we can be civil about this and not have to take it to arbitration. Noroc!--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You have repeatedly violated WP:FRINGE. Please take time to read it: Densusianu's woo is not welcome here. Also, Protochronism is not welcome here, and no, it is not mainstream. Perhaps it was promoted as mainstream by Nicolae Ceausescu's state propaganda, but no more than that.

Source for "mystical delirium": Dan Alexe (2 August 2016). Dacopatia şi alte rătăciri româneşti. Humanitas SA. p. 95. ISBN 978-973-50-4978-2. (the book is of the popularized science sort, but it was published by the prestigious publishing house Humanitas).

Here is an article by Zoe Petre: https://web.archive.org/web/20120919170054/http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Burebista-contemporanul-nostru*articleID_1496-articles_details.html

Here is an article by Mircea Babeș: https://web.archive.org/web/20080619232513/http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Renasterea-Daciei*articleID_9072-articles_details.html

The verdict of conscious Romanian historians is unanimous: ND's book is pseudohistory/fantasy trying to pass for history. It is totally ignored by worldwide historians and rejected by the Romanian academics by consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Obviously there's no consensus since I already gave you names of historians/academicians who don't subscribe to your views. For every historian you name on your side I can name one on my side of the argument. I'm not interested in "Protochronism" or whatever label you wish to give a theory to dismiss it out of hand. Just the same, I can label you a "Daco-Romanopat" or "Romanopat" for what it's worth. You have no right to tell people which theories are welcome here and which are not. I see you also deleted my other edits, which were properly quoted from works by established linguists and historians (not Densusianu), replacing them with an idea that lacks a proper citation ["citation needed"]-- so I guess such a view is welcome, even without proper citation, just because it agrees with your views. Anyway, pointless to argue about this any further, I'm afraid I'll have to take this to arbitration. All the best.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This does not at all mean that we don’t in loose, rough and ready ways judge interpretations… all the time. And this does not at all mean that practically speaking that some interpretations are obviously slightly better than others. Let me return to familiar ones like the traffic light. If it’s red and you see it as green, the outcome can be disastrous; Derrida doesn’t deny it. You know, it’s a bad misreading… bad misreading. But this is a familiar mistake and it is made about a lot of Derrida’s work. Philosophers call someone a relativist by which they mean it’s a person that holds that any view is as good as any other view. My simple response to that is this: that is a straw person argument, no-one in the world believes it or ever has believed it. No-one – Derrida or anyone else – believes that every view is as good as every other view. That’s only a view we discuss in freshman philosophy class in order to quickly refute it. I mean no-one believes it. There are no defenders of the view and since this tape will be going out, if we run into one it will be interesting, but we will likely find that person in one of the institutions Foucault discussed rather than in some seminar, okay. That’s where we will find them, if anybody believes that. No, Derrida’s kind of slippage is to remind us that the text of philosophy is not fixed; can not be fixed. It is of the nature of the text of philosophy and its relation to language that we cannot fix it once and for all. In a way it’s like the leaky ship where we haven’t got anything to stop the leak so we just keep bailing. I mean, the leak is in the language.

— Rick Roderick, 307 Derrida and the Ends of Man (1993)

Conclusion: if you want to edit here, you have to abide by our rules, we don't believe in "everything goes", see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:FTN

This is about Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Densusianu is fringe, namely including fringe authors in a mainstream history article. I have stated that WP:DRN is not the proper channel to advocate for such inclusion. By fringe authors I mean Nicolae Densusianu and Protochronist authors.

The gist of the matter:

Dacia Preistorică by Nicolae Densușianu is a close encounter of the WP:FRINGE kind. All Iovaniorgovan could quote from among the contemporary "scholars" are Protochronist authors and their walled garden. Per WP:ONEWAY pseudohistory is not welcome in a mainstream history article.

Source for ND's book is "mystical delirium": Dan Alexe (2 August 2016). Dacopatia şi alte rătăciri româneşti. Humanitas SA. p. 95. ISBN 978-973-50-4978-2. (Alexe's book is of the popularized science sort, but it was published by the prestigious publishing house Humanitas — prestigious by Romanian standards).

Here is an article by Zoe Petre: [1], one by Mircea Babeș: [2], and one by Eugen Ciurtin: [3]. All of these articles treat ND's book with high contempt, noting that there is nothing new about such contempt from notable Romanian historians in the past 100 years. The articles exemplify such contempt with quotes. They note that all the interest for ND's book was from dilettantes and that his book was not appreciated by professional historians. (ND had some serious historical contributions, but not in respect to the Antiquity.) The verdict of conscious Romanian historians is unanimous: ND's book is pseudohistory/fantasy trying to pass for history. It is totally ignored by the international scholarship and rejected by the Romanian academics by consensus. As Ciurtin notes, nobody (i.e. scholars) reads ND's book any longer, this is shown by consulting the somewhat recently published historical scholarship.

In respect to the claim of Dacian continuity, this is an odd claim and I would like to see mainstream sources supporting it. It should not be conflated with the theory of Daco-Roman continuity which, although not proven, is taken seriously as an explanation of the origin of Romanians. I.e. stating that there is a purely Dacian continuity, with little or no Latin influence is an oddball in respectable historical scholarship (Protochronists are by definition eccentric and marginal, thus not a respectable position in historical scholarship). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

DNA studies such as this, Ancient DNA from South-East Europe Reveals Different Events during Early and Middle Neolithic, as objective and NON-fringe as it gets, agree with Densusianu's main thesis, that of continuity of the same people over the same territory over millennia. "M_NEO and modern populations from Romania are VERY CLOSE, in contrast with Middle Neolithic and modern populations from Central Europe."[p.11] As one can see from the yellow diamonds in Fig 2 & 3 in that article, modern-day Romanians/Moldovans are closer to their Middle Neolithic ancestors than to any modern European population. Other people/ethnicities passed through that area over the centuries (as shown in the Late Neolithic sample from the same study) but there was minimal admixture of mtDNA, except with already related populations. This study alone (there are others) disprove the "Romanization" theory (no DNA study to date has shown any "Roman" input in the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people). This DNA study clearly shows that the Romanian ethnicity had already formed (in the same area occupied today) by Middle Neolithic. This is a fact, not a matter of opinion, so we must allow for competing theories that take this into consideration. I don't suggest that Densusianu's work is the historical bible that we must all follow to the letter, but to call him "fringe" is to go to the other extreme. Dacian continuity (with minimal Roman influence) is a perfectly legit theory that is now supported by DNA research (all other theories are NOT), and many reputed scholars have subscribed to it. Here goes again: Iosif Constantin Dragan, Dumitru Berciu, Ștefan Pascu (member of the Academy), Conf. Univ. Dr. G.D. Iscru, Grigore Tocilescu (member of the Academy), Ioan Andriesescu (correspondent member of the Academy) and even Vasile Parvan, initially critical of ND's work, came around to his way of thinking towards the end of his life (see his posthumously published work). And since you anchor your argument to a book by Dan Alexe, a journalist/filmmaker, please allow me to quote the greatest Romanian poet/journalist, Mihai Eminescu, who said that in light of the historical record, "Everything should be Dacicized from now on". Finally, I would also like to mention recent work from two reputable linguists (doctorates, the works) who also subscribe to this view, that no "Latinization/Romanization" ever took place: Carme Jiménez Huertas (We Don't Come From Latin; Original Spanish Title: No venimos del latín; ISBN 9788490503645), and Dr. Mihai Vinereanu (The Evolution of the Proto-Indo-European *BH Sound in Latin and Why Romanian Doesn't Come From Latin)--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

One other thing-- one does not need Densusianu's writings to prop up the Dacian continuity theory. The theory can be thoroughly supported without resorting to ND's work, although people (myself included) do it out of convenience (one-stop-shopping kind of thing).--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

From the article Iosif Constantin Dragan:

According to historian Lucian Boia, Drăgan promoted an extreme version of protochronism, which claimed that the Romania was the cradle of civilization, and the Romanian people the oldest in Europe:

As the author of We, the Thracians (1976) and editor of the periodical of the same title (Noì, tracii) that was launched in 1974, he was the leading figure of an entire movement aimed at amplifying the role of the Thracians in European history, a movement supported by all sorts of amateurs (even a lawyers’ group!) but also by some less than scrupulous professionals (among them the archaeologists Dumitru Berciu and Ion Horaţiu Crişan). In the periodical Noi, tracii it was possible, for example, to claim that the ancestors of the Romanians lived 100,000 years ago, eloquent proof that the Romanian people is the oldest in the continent, if not in the world. As for the extent of the Thracians’ territory, Drăgan generously allows them almost half of Europe, centered, evidently, on the present-day space of Romania.<ref>Boia, Lucian, ''History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness'', Central European University Press, Budapest, 2001, p.105</ref>

The work of Densusianu begins with (I translate):

Behind the populations known in ancient times as Dacians and Getae there was for many thousands of years a genial, powerful and glorious nation, which much time before the Trojan times [the Trojan war, sung in Iliad], founded the first vast empire of the world, established the first cultural unity of Europe and established the basis of moral and material progress in West Asia and North Africa

From ro:Dacia preistorică:

Alexandru D. Xenopol stated "The theory of the author that Dacians have established the first civilization of the humankind shows that it is a product of chauvinism, not of science". Vasile Pârvan, in his monumental work, Getica, mentions the author and his work - "his fantastic novel Dacia preistorică, full of mythology and absurd philology, which from its publication has awakened wonder and unbounded enthusiasm among the Romanian archaeology dilettantes"<ref>Quoted by M. Babeș</ref>.

According to WP:SCIRS and WP:HISTRS I want to see many mainstream (i.e. not from the walled garden of Protochronism) secondary sources which support the Dacians-only continuity claim. Not one or two pieces of DNA study wherein the authors claimed that they had not studied enough people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, all you offer is... opinions, NO arguments. As for Lucian Boia, your leading man, and former University of Bucharest Secretary of Propaganda for the Communist Party (up to the Revolution), here's what Ioan-Aurel Pop (Istoria, adevarul si miturile, Ed Enciclopedica, 2014; first published in 2002), an advocate of the Daco-Roman theory and the recently elected President of the Romanian Academy, has to say "Lucian Boia is not able to read a document in Latin, Slavonic, or Greek.[...] His entire so-called expertise is restricted to the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century. He's not a historian of ancient times, he simply borrows from here and there. He even acknowledged that he does not apply historical methods in his books because the historical methods are outdated. [...]He is a falsifier of history." So, we can go back-and-forth on this until the cows sing the blues.

The DNA study I mention clearly states that it performed a "genetic analysis of a RELATIVELY LARGE NUMBER of samples of Boian, Zau and Gumelniţa cultures in Romania (n = 41) (M_NEO)", which is the period in question. It says that further studies are necessary to draw conclusions in regards mostly to the Late Bronze findings-- that is, ancient populations that are not related to any modern populations. That's to be expected-- Romanians were not the only people to ever inhabit those lands, other people came and left (like the Celts), they're just the only ones who have been living there continuously. Speaking of DNA studies, here's another recent one (from last year) that made waves at that time because of its surprising finds, DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies reveals their ancestry-- "Johannes Krause, a University of Tubingen paleogeneticist and an author of the study, said the major finding was that “for 1,300 years, we see complete genetic continuity.” Despite repeated conquests of Egypt, by Alexander the Great, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Assyrians — the list goes on — ancient Egyptians showed little genetic change. “The other big surprise,” Krause said, “was we didn't find much sub-Saharan African ancestry.” What the study found was "that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations (Fig. 5a,b). When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested." This came as a shock to everyone EXCEPT readers of Densusianu. So here you have not one but TWO major DNA studies published in the last two years, both confirming Densusianu's version of ancient history. These are recent studies and it takes a while to enter the mainstream but eventually this new and (re)emerging version of history (closer to the truth) will win out. Too bad that the pace is made slower by irrational detractors. Wikipedia should allow these theories to be represented on its pages, lest one will start branding DNA studies as "fringe."--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that the DNA studies would be fringe. I have stated that WP:SCIRS and WP:HISTRS demand many WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCES. Also, Densusianu's work is comparable to the hallucinations of a drugs addict, so whatever the DNA studies show, he cannot be right. Protochronists maintain that Dacians have conquered the Americas and Japan, so far goes their ludicrousness. Besides, Pop has stated on Acad. prof. univ. dr. Ioan-Aurel Pop - Despre falsificarea istoriei on YouTube that he has nothing against Boia dispelling the myths of National-Communist historiography, he only maintains that Boia is not an expert who can provide positive information about the history of Romania. In Pop's view Boia is good at removing the weeds from the garden of Romanian historiography—and he should stick to doing that (he is qualified for doing it, but not in other fields). "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Wikipedia is a place where we kowtow to the academic mainstream. If you don't like doing that, you won't like it here. See WP:ABIAS. Since you cited Densusianu and Iosif Constantin Dragan as if they wrote reliable sources, you don't have the faintest idea of what WP:RS means. I suggest reading it thoroughly, and please take notes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Now you're using specious arguments: Densusianu = "protochronist" and since one "protochronist" said "X" then Densusianu must have also believed "X". Densusianu wrote nothing of the sort. In fact, I only linked to his work once in the entries that you deleted. Every author should be scrutinized, including ND, but one should be able to quote from a work (if fitting) without dismissing the entire work just because the author didn't get everything 100% right. Else, we'll be left with no books to quote/cite. And that also goes for all those ACADEMICS I just quoted.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

ND's work has been flat out rejected by all serious Romanian historians of the past 100 years. So it's not WP:RS, it is an exercise in mythomania. Also Dragan is not regarded as a scholar, he hardly published peer-reviewed articles in serious historical journals, so for us he isn't an academic. He was a propagandist for Fascism (Ion Antonescu), Protochronism and the like. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. Anyway, like I said before, there are actually two arguments here: 1) Densusianu is "fringe", 2) Thraco-Dacian continuity is "fringe". I don't need Densusianu to prove Dacian continuity, and to say (2) is true is just... preposterous. Recent DNA studies support the Thraco-Dacian continuity theory, famous historians and writers (including Romania's greatest, Mihai Eminescu) advocated it, contemporary university historians and linguists (not just Romanian, I linked to a Spanish one, too, just for good measure) also support it... It's never been "fringe" and will never be "fringe".--2602:301:7769:EF70:1D88:8886:4A13:2F40 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

:Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
  — WP:DUE

Please note that Protochronists are not WP:MAINSTREAM, Densusianu is WP:CB and DNA studies aren't WP:SECONDARY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I named plenty of "prominent adherents". I rest my case then. --Iovaniorgovan (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Protochronists, as a rule of thumb, do not count as academics, and even if some count, they certainly do not pass WP:RS. They fail WP:FRINGE—this is why we don't allow their claims inside Wikipedia. Our encyclopedia isn't an everything goes forum for crank science. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem a little confused, to say the least, and you're resorting to all sorts of conflating and specious arguments (taint by association) to make your points, which only exposes the weakness of your arguments. Protochronism was a national/political movement that used a theory/idea, in this case Dacianism, for political purposes. As we've seen in history, just about ANY idea/theory can be used for political manipulation or economic gain. One can use atomic energy for benevolent purposes, another can use it to start wars... that doesn't make the science wrong. Just like in our case, Dacian continuity is simply a theory that has ZERO political value in and of itself. We're only concerned with historical truth here. Hope you can understand this much.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a red herring: Protochronists are unreliable as sources because they are ideologically tainted, they make fanciful claims, they are not published in mainstream peer-reviewed historical journals, such works are not cited approvingly by mainstream historians, their viewpoints are not taught as fact in faculties of history (yes, even in Romania), they have their walled garden publishing houses, these are all WP:REDFLAGs of fringe theories. So, unless you cite mainstream WP:HISTRS/WP:SCIRS, you cannot add that to our article. The problem that Protochronism/Dacians-only theory are fringe is not ours to fix, see WP:RGW.

The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable.

— User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV

Mutatis mutandis, this applies to your WP:SOURCES: these are not written by mainstream historians, so we don't use them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

That's circular reasoning: If one adheres to the (strictly) Dacian continuity that makes him a "protochronist" and hence he is unreliable and ideologically tainted. Anyway, it looks like we've been going around in circles too. Okay then, no problem, I'll make sure to cite only mainstream sources, and if you don't think they're mainstream then feel free to delete them (and let me know why). However when/if I do that I may need to add a header, etc, for clarity.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

p.s. you're really reaching there, mutatis mutandis.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is why: the only people who champion the Dacians-only view are Protochronists (and other wannabe-scholars who are their fellow travelers), Protochronists write unreliable sources, so this is catch 22 for getting the Dacians-only claim in our article, which defaults to it being fringe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I get what you're saying but that doesn't make it right or true (your first statement above is patently false). The theory doesn't just magically default to "fringe", it does so because people like you deem themselves the absolute arbiters of what is "mainstream" and what isn't (if members of the Academy are not mainstream, what is?) Not that Wiki doesn't need policing, it does, but there should be a way to mitigate such "conflicts". Again, I'll just post mainstream sources (as mainstream as possible in my estimation) and hopefully we can reach a ceasefire.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, don't cite any Protochronist (or fellow traveler) for a start. Cite only mainstream WP:RS compliant with WP:SCIRS or WP:HISTRS. And a thing to remember: Wikipedians do not have much regard for WP:PRIMARY sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Since you've spoken of Pop, he shares the same despise for Protochronism/Dacomania as Boia, only Pop does not consider it scientific/scholarly enough to even warrant discussing it very often. So, there is no quarrel about that between Pop and Boia. In other words, Pop has plonked the Dacomans. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I very much like Pop as a person. I think his intentions are good and he's a great patriot. And, clearly, he has vast knowledge of the subject but I think he's made a serious error in judgement which unfortunately lies at the very foundation of his argument. He bases his "Romanization" argument solely on ONE premise-- that only a relatively small Dacian population resided within the territories occupied by the Romans. He literally makes up the numbers, pulls them out of thin air (I don't have the link now but I can find it, if you're not familiar with his work; if I recall he says there were less than 100,000 Dacians left in Dacia Felix after the war), to make his argument and later he even admits that if the Dacian population was something close to a million then his argument would probably not work. Well, there are sources putting that Dacian population at more than a million (even after the conquest), with allegedly half a million moving South after the Roman withdrawal, so Pop's numbers are shoddy, which makes his elaborate argument very weak. I get it though, this Daco-Roman theory has been pounded into our heads for so long it's become dogma and now you have all these professors who have invested their entire lives into a theory, it's their and their families' livelihood and they're not about to admit that they were wrong all along, quit their jobs, and get in the unemployment line. This kind of change, which is surely coming, takes a bit of time. On the other hand you have the Sinaia Tablets, which are deemed by many as forgeries (a ridiculous argument), because they are lead copies of the (presumably) gold originals-- they are clearly authentic IN CONTENT. And I know people who have seen photographs of at least one gold original; one is actually made out of solid silver and you can find that online. Of course, this is not the kind of "evidence" you can bring to Wiki, but I'm just mentioning it because if ONE such gold tablet resurfaces then it's game over for the Daco-Romans. Mihai Vinereanu has some great articles on the Sinaia Tablets at limbaromana.org but that site is kinda slow sometimes.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ironic side note: Densusianu's original family name was Pop.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

So you do support WP:FRINGE views with forged evidence. That's why it does not fly. The Sinaia Tablets argument is somewhere between absurd and hilarious. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say I support the Sinaia Tablets as "scientific" evidence. I think I was pretty clear on that. However, if you study the CONTENT of the tablets in any kind of depth you may come to the conclusion that they're not fakes. I'm not talking about something to be PROVEN in any scientific ways. If you dismiss them out of hand, then good for you. Nothing to talk about here. Point is, the Daco-Roman theory has two main components: ethnic and linguistic. The ethnic component is already settled by DNA analysis which shows (both mtDNA and Y-DNA) no kinship with the Romans/Italians. And if there was no (or insignificant) mixing to change the language spoken "at home" from Dacian to Latin then no linguistic impact could've occurred. Latin was and remained simply an administrative language. This Latinization/Romanization didn't happen in Italy, why would it happen in Dacia? What about the free Dacians? Pop's answer to that is "somewhere between absurd and ridiculous". So the whole Roman-language borrowing hypothesis is hanging by a thread-- that was my point with the Sinaia Tablet resurfacing (but it could be anything, really). p.s. The Sinaia Tablets are ASSUMED to be forgeries, it's not been PROVEN that they are forgeries, so following the scientific method we have to leave this as an open question, until further study settles the matter one way or another.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

References