Talk:Origin of the Romanians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Dacia (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dacia, a WikiProject aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to ancient Dacia and primarily to the history of Dacians, Getae and Moesi. If you would like to participate, please improve this article and/or join the project and help with our open tasks. If you have questions regarding the goals of the project, as well as the time span, space, people and culture in the project scope, please review them here. Your input is welcomed!
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Stock post message.svg
To-do list for Origin of the Romanians:
No to-do list assigned.
WikiProject European history (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Romania (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Human Genetic History (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of genetic genealogy, population genetics, and associated theory and methods articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Are (were) Romanians nomads?[edit]

I observed this page in Category:Nomadic groups in Eurasia and I am asking the man who performed this inclusion to submit here his list of works that stay behind this claim.

Please read a list above (under the title "Were romanians the latest nomadic ethnic group?"). You can also read well-referenced sentences about this topic in the article (especially under the titles "Historiography" and "Sources on the Balkan Vlachs"). Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The sources under the title "Were romanians the latest nomadic ethnic group?" are old (for example: The Races of Europe (Coon) is from 1933)
So Balkan Vlachs were nomads. But there is no certainty that old Balkan Vlachs are the ancestors of modern Romanians. They could be the exclusively ancestors of Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians
Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Romanians are (at least presently) different peoples. I suggest the new title Origin of the Vlachs ("Vlach is a blanket term covering several modern Latin peoples descending from the Latinized population in the present-day territory of Romania and Moldova, as well as the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula and south and west of the Danube River")
Actually, the whole Vlach/Romanian population was described as a migratory population in the Middle Ages. Please read this article: there is a clear reference to Vlachs migrating to the Kingdom of Hungary according to the earliest Romanian chronicles. There is no debate among scholars that the Balkan Vlachs and the Vlachs/Romanians of Romania descended from the same people. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
actually Vlachs or Romanians are not nomads . Read up on what nomadism is. The settlements of proto-Romanians suggests they were agriculturalists no different to Germanic and Slavic tribes. Secondly , there is no reason to suppose that Balkan Vlachs and Romanians "descend" from the same people, except to serve the nationalist wishes of Romanians who want to claim Vlachs as part of the Romanian nation on the one hand, on the other hand used by Hungarian nationalists to "prove" that romanians come from the south of the Danube , and are thus new to Transylvania. Naturally, both approaches are flawed 120.23.48.8 (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 08:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, both approaches are accepted by non-Hungarian and non-Romanian scholars. Maybe they are non-Romanian Romanian nationalists and non-Hungarian Hungarian chauvinists. Maybe references to academic works, instead of making declarations, could substantiate all above claims. Borsoka (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
References are not needed in making preliminary suggestions, so you shouldn't react confrontationally. And "acceptance" doesn't mean a whole lot, especially for a topic which has received almost no serious recent attention by western scholarship.
And, no, neither Vlachs nor Romanians are 'nomads'. That I can give you references for Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Slovenski Volk, sorry, I have just understand the above remarks - you both refer to present-day Vlachs and Romanians. Yes, I agree, they are not nomads. As far as I know nobody claims that they are still nomads with the exception of some extremist British, French and Italian politicians. Actually, the Romanians' ancestors adopted a settled way of life centuries ago. Borsoka (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes - "nomad" and "migratory" are two different terms meaning different things. Nomads never settle in one are for long and do not establish permanent structures ... a nation/ethnicity can put down roots in one area, yet slowly 'naturally' migrate to another area for various reasons - economic, pressure from another nationality, etc. - this is not nomadism.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
You are right, I make only one remark: nomadic groups were not characterized by their constant aimless movements all along the territory they could reach, but by a periodical movement between their own summer and winter camps. For instance Victor Spinei writes that the "Pechenegs lived a primarily nomadic life, moving according to the season together with their families, herds and possessions along pre-established routes in search of good pastures." (Spinei, Victor (2003). The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century (Translated by Dana Badulescu). p. 96. ISBN 973-85894-5-2. ) Likewise, István Fodor say that the "cyclic migrations of the nomadic pastoralists, repeated year after yera, made permanent living quarters constructed from durable materials unneccessary ... [t]hey built stouter buildings only in their winter quarters. In the neighbourhood of the winter quarters on the banks of the rivers were the ploughed fields." (Fodor, István (1975). In Search of a New Homeland: The Prehistory of the Hungarian People and the Conquest. Corvina Kiadó. pp. 183–184. ISBN 963-13-1126-0. ). A similar pattern was recorded among medieval Vlachs/Romanians: "the leader of the 1066 Romanian uprising against the Byzantine government, who lived in the urban centre of Larissa, ... was not able to get in touch with his men, because in the summer they and their families were all in the mountains of Bulgaria ... [t]he above statement is, in fact, the first known mention of the practice of transhumance, that is summer-winter rotational grazing, among the Romanians." (Makkai, László (1994). "The Emergence of the Estates (1172–1526)". In Köpeczi, Béla; Barta, Gábor; Bóna, István; Makkai, László; Szász, Zoltán; Borus, Judit. History of Transylvania. Akadémiai Kiadó. pp. 178–243 (on page 185). ISBN 963-05-6703-2. ) Borsoka (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Very true, but also to begin with. Their settlements have all features of settled, agricultural communities. Eg see Victor Spenei's book, in which the evidence is otherwise known from other works also- whether Russian, or Bulgarian, etc. The idea that they were nomads is based on a few early medieval references liberally interpreted, which otherwise employed am ethnographic topos to communicate the 'otherness' of Vlachs in Byzantine eyes. Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, according to Spinei's POV, the 9th-13th-century sedentary population whose settlements were undearthed in the lands east of the Carpathians (in Moldavia and Wallachia) spoke Romanian. He even says that the fact that the Romanians adopted Turkic hydronyms everywhere in the same regions proves that they were a settled people (they did not need to differentiate the rivers because they did not move) (I refer to Spinei 2009 p. 322). On the other hand, for instance, Gottfried Schramm who wrote of the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people says that the Slavic loanwords in the Romanian language prove that the Romanians' ancestors formed a mobile group of pastoralists and the Romanians only adopted a settled way of life at a later stage of their ethnogenesis (I refer to Schramm 1997 pp. 309-310). Medieval sources unanimously describing the Vlachs as a migratory population only confirm the general picture of their migratory way of life, according to Schramm's view. Borsoka (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


I do not claim expertise on the matter, but Schramm's ideas are likely outdated. Apart from his view being coloured by an uncritical, prima facie description of medieval accounts, as well as modern Romantic notions of the wandering, cattle herding Vlach, no amount of language analysis helps clearly elucidate that a people were settled or nomadic. Whatever the case, I do agree with your point that the origin of the Wallachian and Moldovian voivodes, etc, had something closely to do with the variuos Turkic peoples which were prominent from the latter Middle Ages, and Second Bulgarian Empire, etc. At least Spinei presents actual archaeological data rather than hypotheses based on literal readings of past testimonies and linguistic reconstruction. The idea that proto-Romanians were nomads is simply false, as is the idea that they took refuge in the mountains (as if somehow invisible). Even the Turkic peoples weren't full nomads.
But my other point earlier was, (Balkan, south of the Danube) Vlachs might have little to do with Romanians (ie the formative Wallachians and Moldavians) of the Middle Ages. There were likely numerous, disconnected 'islands' of vulgar Latin speakers, both south and north of the Danube, but subsumed under catch-all terms like Sklaveni,or Gepids, etc. Certainly,there is neither literary nor archaeological evidence for a supposed migration of Romance speakers from the south to the north. On the other hand, there is good evidence that there remained vulgar Latin enclaves north of the danube as they did also south of the Danube. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Spinei presents actual archaeological data of a people living in the 9th-12th centuries in the river valleys of Moldavia and Wallachia and identifies them as Romanians, stating that even the fact that in the same regions no Romanian river-names exist prove that those people were setted Romanians. Schramm studies the Romanian language and present them as a population that had no deeper knowledge of agricultural practices because they adopted the proper terminology from Slavic peoples (I refer to Schramm 1997 pp. 309-310). The very modern idea of "language islands" was half a century ago developed based on words of Latin origin which were preserved only in certain dialects of the Romanian languages. Based on this feature, it was theoretized that there were "language islands" where the Romanians ancestors' continuously lived from Late Antiquity (I refer to Schramm 1997 pp. 309-310; Madgearu, Alexandru (2005a). "Salt Trade and Warfare: The Rise of Romanian-Slavic Military Organization in Early Medieval Transylvania". In Curta, Florin. East Central & Eastern Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The University of Michigan Press. pp. 103–120. ISBN 978-0-472-11498-6. ). Based on this idea, we could prove that the Romanians continuously lived in regions outside the Roman Empire (Maramures) and in regions where Greek was the predominant language of communication within the Roman Empire (Thessaly, south Macedonia), because the modern Romanian dialects spoken in those regions preserved special words of Latin origin which had not been preserved in other dialects (I refer to Mallinson 1988, p. 412.). Yes, I also read of the scholarly theory that there are no written evidence to the northward migration to Hungary of the ancestors of the Romanians. Romanian shcolars who deny such a migration, say that the oldest Romanian chronicles' references to Romanian groups migrating to the "Hungarian country" preserved the memory of Traian's conquest of Dacia instead of a northward migration of masses of Romanians (Davidescu, Mircea (2013). The Lost Romans. CreateSpace. ISBN: 978-1-490-53253-0, pages 102-103). Actually, I could accept your reference to the non-existence of "nomadism": if we assume that the terminus technicus "nomadic people" refers to a population always on the move, without any knowledge of agriculture, there were not a single group of nomadic peoples in Europe in Antiquity and in the Middle Ages (for instance, I refer to Bryan Cartledge's description of the pre-Conquest Magyars who cultivated small parcels of lands in the Eurasian steppes, Cartledge, Bryan (2011). The Will to Survive: A History of Hungary. C. Hurst & Co. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-84904-112-6. ). In this case, it is not the classification of the ancestors of Romanians as a "nomadic group in Eurasia" is debated, but the existence of such category ("Nomadic groups in Eurasia"). However, if we assume that the way of life of (for instance) the Pechenegs did not basically differ from the lifystyle of the Byzantines, French (because the very idea of "nomadism" is debated), this assumption should be substantiated based on peer-reviewed academic works, because I have not read of such a scholarly theory. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)en
Yes, indeed I was simply getting at that, at best, Romanians were semi-pastoral, and their oft involvement in rebelliond and banditry - as represented in sources - should bot automatically and uncritically equate them as nomads. Now, as stated, I have no expertise on the fascinating question of Romanian origins; and apparently no-one has offered an uneqivocal theory either !
Whatever the case, my other point is that we should not assume that all Balkan Romance speakers need descend from one parent population - in fact I'd put my hat on it that they don't. (Perhaps my term language islands elicited other ideas based on your readings). As for river names - I personally don't have huge amount of faith in them. Hydronyms and toponyms aren;t the biblical windows to the past that many linguists think (wish) they are- changing more often than generally acknowledeged; nor are they straightforward ethnic indicia. Eg some of the Scandinavian toponyms in Britain were spread by Gaelic speakers (or was it vice-versa), some of the Slavic toponyms in GReece were created by Greeks themselves. When you add issues of 'language dominance', etc, the issue naturally becomes far more complex. Nevertheless, I do accept one cannot overlook the weight of Slavic and other non-Latin toponyms in Romania. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree we should not assume that all Balkan Romance speakers descended from one parent population, although I do not know which are the scholarly works substantiating this assumption. I also agree with you that hydronyms and toponyms do not prove anything. However, the fact the Romanians adopted Slavic, Turkic, Hungarian and German placenames (which are attested from the 11th-13th centuries) in everywhere in Romania and the place-names of certainly Romanian origin can only be evidenced from the 1350s in the same territory is at least remarkable (I refer to the works written by Schramm, Kristó and Makkai and refferred to in the article). Of course, we can also assume, based on archaeological research, that the 9th-12th-century villages which bear a Romanian name of Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic, or German origin and are situated along rivers with a Romanian name of Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic or German origin were actually inhabited by a settled Romanian-speaking population, even if the specific Romanian vocabulary for a settled way of life was borrowed from Slavs (and partially from Hungarians), because the descriptions of the Romanians/Vlachs as nomads in medieval sources are not reliable. All the same, I am not an expert in these fields, either, therefore I suggest that we always should refer to academic works when stating anything in WP pages or editing a WP article. I must admit that I do not like making or discussing my or other editors' assumptions. Borsoka (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Very true, and that is not the issue. I was merely interjecting casually on the 'nomad' question. Talk soon, Borsoka, and keep up the high standard contributions. Much needed in SEE article ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.76.1.244 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not convinced that old Romanians can be labelled as nomads, or they just followed the system of transhumance. Because the two concepets are distinct. Nomadic pastoralism is a form of pastoralism where livestock are herded in order to find fresh pastures on which to graze. Strictly speaking, true nomads follow an irregular pattern of movement, in contrast with transhumance where seasonal pastures are fixed.
I am curious about the opinion of the WikiProject Romania members Codrinb (talk · contribs) and Biruitorul (talk · contribs) 77.78.9.77 (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Anon, first of all, I suggest that you should refer to at least one scholarly work when initiating a debate, because WP:NOR is a basic policy of our community. Your statement that "true nomads follow an irregular pattern of movement, in contrast with transhumance where seasonal pastures are fixed" contradicts to reliable sources. For instance, Victor Spinei writes that the "Pechenegs lived a primarily nomadic life, moving according to the season together with their families, herds and possessions along pre-established routes in search of good pastures." (Spinei, Victor (2003). The Great Migrations in the East and South East of Europe from the Ninth to the Thirteenth Century (Translated by Dana Badulescu). p. 96. ISBN 973-85894-5-2. ) Likewise, István Fodor say that the "cyclic migrations of the nomadic pastoralists, repeated year after yera, made permanent living quarters constructed from durable materials unneccessary ... [t]hey built stouter buildings only in their winter quarters. In the neighbourhood of the winter quarters on the banks of the rivers were the ploughed fields." (Fodor, István (1975). In Search of a New Homeland: The Prehistory of the Hungarian People and the Conquest. Corvina Kiadó. pp. 183–184. ISBN 963-13-1126-0. ). Consequently at least two specialists (Spinei and Fodor) identify nomadism as a regular pattern of movement where seasonal pastures are fixed. There are also scholars who make a difference between nomadism and transhumance. For instance, Blench states that nomads are pastoralists "whose movements are opportunistic and follow pasture resources in a pattern that varies from year to year", while "[t]ranshumance is the regular movement of herds between fixed points to exploit seasonal availability of pastures" (in a version of his study which is available on-line here [1]). If we accept Blench's categorization, we can conclude that the Pechenegs, the Magyars and the Romanians were not nomads, but peoples who practised transhumance. However, this is a debate of the name of the "Category:Nomadic groups in Eurasia", not of the neutrality of this article. Of course, any editor can argue that there was no difference between the life style of early medieval Slavs, Germans, Britons, etc. on the one hand and the way of life of early medieval Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Romanians, etc, on the other, but this unusual POV should be substantiated by reliable sources. The first group (Slavs, Germans, etc) lived in villages where they cultivated arable lands; the second group (Magyars, Pechenegs, Vlachs) moved between their summer and winter pastures following their cattle or sheep (I refer to the reliable sources cited above). Borsoka (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The statement true nomads follow an irregular pattern of movement, in contrast with transhumance where seasonal pastures are fixed is not my own creation, it comes from the wikipedia article Nomadic pastoralism 62.204.157.6 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:sources: a WP article does not qualify as a reliable source for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Johannes Lebelius[edit]

I do not clearly understand why the text of Johannes Lebelius is so important. He is one of the many humanists who repeated Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini's scholarly theory of the Romanians' descent from Roman colonists in Dacia. No other primary source is emphasized to such extent. For instance, William of Rubruck's theory of the Romanians' migration from Bashkiria is much earlier, and the Romanians' own traditon of their migration to the "Hungarian land" is more interesting. I suggest that Johannes Lebelius's text should be deleted. Maybe a summarized version could be preserved. Borsoka (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to know why Johannes Lebelius's statements are labelled in the article as "a modified version of Piccolomini's story". Which are the differences between the two views? 95.42.59.72 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Because the cited reliable source writes this. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious: Romanians as Dacians in the Suda lexicon[edit]

According to Victor Spinei: "An entry in the so-called Suidas lexicon drawn up at some point during the second half of the tenth century, claims that Dacians were now called Pechenegs. This can only mean that the Pechenegs werre ruling over the lands of ancient Dacia, which were inhabited at that time by Romanians." (Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 94. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5. ). Consequently, the Suda itself clearly identified the Pechenegs as Dacians; therefore, the statement in the article about the Suda's reference to the Romanians under the ethnonym "Dacian" is clearly misleading. I assume, that statement is actually an original synthesis of sentences from the cited scholarly work (Brezeanu's book). Could anybody verbatim cite what Brezeanu wrote on this subject in his cited work? Thank you in advance. Borsoka (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fourth theory?[edit]

A fourth theory argues that the Romanian homeland cannot exactly be determined.[36] Followers of this theory argue that the mass of the Romanized population survived to the north of the Danube, but many smaller "language islands" existed in other territories, including the northern parts of modern Greece

This is not a fourth theory, it is exactly what the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity says. 92.36.217.1 (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you cite a reliable source? I may misunderstand something. Do you suggest that the Romanian language partially developed in territories where Dacian was never spoken and Dacians never lived, according to the Daco-Romanian continuity theory? If there is no need to assume the role of Dacians in the development of the language, why does the theory refer to them? Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing that what Anon was saying is that there's no fundamental difference between this fourth theory and what the Daco-Romanian Continuity Theory claims.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
You may be right. However, the Daco-Romanian continuity theory emphasizes the role the Dacians played in the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people ("Decebalus was a Romanian king...", "The Romanians' ancestors, the noble Dacians...", "The Dacian heritage of the Romanian language..."). The fourth theory says that Romanians were descended from the Romanized populations (Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, ...) and the Roman colonists of Southeastern Europe, without emphasizing the role of any of those natives. Borsoka (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I am a little confused about this theory. It says that many smaller "language islands" existed in other territories. Until when did these "language islands" survive? By this theory, is there any connection between these "Romanian language islands" and the present-day Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian language?
I want to request, per WP:NOENG, for relevant portions of the original source (Schramm, 1997) to be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. 77.221.26.3 (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Anon, please read the quote from the cited source (Schramm): "Wo immer seit dem Mittelalter Rumänen bezeugt sind, da soll es sich nach einer weiteren Alternativedeutung um Restpfeiler einer Romanisierung handeln, die Südosteuropa unter römischer Herrschaft südwärts bist ins nördliche Griechenland vereinheitlichte. Nach dieser Auffassung gibt es keine genauer lokalisierbare Wiege des Ostromania. Zu rechnen ist vielmehr mit einem sehr weit abgesteckten Entstehungsraum, von dem in Rumänien ein großer, geschlossener Block, sonst dagegen nur Inseln bei der Überschwemmung durch die Völkerwanderungswellen stehengeblieben sind. Leider ist diese Variante nie genauer ausformuliert worden. So unterblieb eine Präzisierung, welche Territorien denn nicht zu diesen beiden Ursprungräumen gehört haben können. Auf Anhieb läßt sich das für die östliche Adriaküste behaupten, wo das Romanische in der – vom Rumänischen scharf abgehobenen – Gestalt des Dalmatischen erhalten blieb. Auf späterer Zuwanderung beruht nach – wohl übereinstimmender Forschermeinung – die Präsenz rumänischer Streuminderheiten in Istrien." Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
"When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text, in a footnote, or on the talk page), a translation into English should always accompany the quote." (WP:NOENG) 31.223.159.39 (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Anon, your "technical" remark has nothing to do with Romanian origin theories. It seems (IMO) you are just trying to discredit Borsoka' hard work on this article. Do you suggest that Schramm's explanation is misinterpreted? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your remarks. Sorry, I had much to do in RL and I have had little time to deal with WP. A rough English translation of Schramm's above cited text is the following: "According to a further alternative interpretation, any territory where the presence of Romanians since the Middle Ages could be proven should be regarded as a remnant of the Romanization that had once unified Southeastern Europe as far as northern Greece under Roman dominion. According to that view, Eastern Romance do not have a territory of origin that could be exactly determined. Instead, a realy extensive original homeland has to be assumed, of which a large block has survived the storms of the Migration Period in Romania, but in other places only language islands. Unfortunatelly, this theory has never been published in details. Therefore, the territories that did not belong to the original homeland have not been specified. At first sight, that can be assumed of the eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea, because the variant of the Latin which survived here, the Dalmatian language, is sharply distinguished from Romanian. The Istro-Romanian minority can be traced back to a later immigration, according to the unanimous opinion of researchers." Borsoka (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no problem regarding the moment of your reply, I was not expecting an immediate reply.
First of all I am going to remark the difference between the source text (Eastern Romance do not have a territory of origin that could be exactly determined) and the article text (Romanian homeland cannot exactly be determined). As far as I know, Romanians are not the only Eastern Romance people (Istro-Romanians, Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians‎ also belong to this category)
Secondly, if "this theory has never been published in details", should we still mention it in the article? Doesn't this mean that it is a fringe theory? (WP:FRNG)? 46.239.48.179 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
When writing of "Ostromania" (that I translated as Eastern Romance) Schramm always refers to the peoples speaking the four Eastern Romance dialects/languages. His approach is not unusual: almost all books cited in the article write that the four dialects/languages developed from the same (Proto-)Romanian language. The theory is neutrally described in a reliable source, which also refers to the Daco-Romanian continuity theory, the immigrationist theory and the admigration theory. Why should we assume that it is a fringe theory? It says that Estern Romance languages may have developed in almost the whole territory of Southeastern Europe. Should we say that a theory which states that Eastern Romance languages developed in territories which had been under Roman rule for 600-800 years is not scientific? Why? Borsoka (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
So your previous statement (that "the fourth theory says that Romanians were descended from the Romanized populations (Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, ...) and the Roman colonists of Southeastern Europe, without emphasizing the role of any of those natives") is false, because the original text refers to the ancestors of all the Eastern Romance people as populating a large area in the Southeastern Europe, not only to the ancestors of Romanians. The source does not make any connection between the Romanized Thracians/Romanized Illyrians and Romanians. It connects for instance Romanized Thracians with Aromanians (the exact version supported by the most Romanians scholars)92.36.194.182 (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Where is a reference to the Dacians' role in the Romanians' ethnogenesis in Schramm's text of the fourth theory? And where is a reference to a connection between the Aromanians and Thracians in the same text? Please also read my above remark: when writing of "Ostromania", Schramm always refers to all Eastern Romance peoples. Borsoka (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You are the one who mentioned above the Romanization of "Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, ...". Schramm wrote that a "large block" of Romanized population "has survived the storms of the Migration Period in Romania". Isn't this the precise theory of the Daco-Roman continuity?
You are right that Schramm did not wrote of the Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, it was my own addition. So, if my understanding is correct, the Dacians did not play any role in the ethnogenesis of the Romanians, according to the Daco-Romanian continuity theory. However, as far as I know, the Daco-Romanian continuity theory emphasizes the Dacians' role in the Romanians' ethnogenesis (I could refer to almost all Romanian authors' work cited in the article, including Georgescu), but this "fourth theory" does not refer to the Dacians (as it is demonstrated by the quote). Borsoka (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
If all Eastern Romance peoples have a common origin (the proto-Romanians) and the group is indivisible, maybr we should rename the article to Origin of the Eastern Romance people and include here the origins of the Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians? 85.94.143.128 (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe. Is there a reliable source which applies that expression? Borsoka (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Below there is the reply for the statement this "fourth theory" does not refer to the Dacians (as it is demonstrated by the quote).

Schramm does not explictly refer to Dacians, but their involvement is self-implied. He wrote that a "large block" of Romanized population "has survived the storms of the Migration Period in Romania". Isn't it obvious that this population that was Romanized is the autochthonous Dacian population? 5.43.112.49 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:NOR, nothing is obvious, because we cannot state anything based on our logic. Especially, if we take into account that Schramm clearly refuses the idea of a Romanized native population in Roman Dacia, stating that those who remained in the former province of Dacia Traiana were the non-Romanized natives (I refer to his third and fourth theses in his cited work). Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
"Schramm clearly refuses the idea of a Romanized native population in Roman Dacia" - this idea is missing from the presentation of the 4th theory. Nothing like this appears in the quote provided above. 93.180.115.223 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Please read my message above. I referred to the third and fourth thesis in Schramm's book, and not to the quote. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
"According to a further alternative interpretation, any territory..." - I don't understand clearly: is this one of the interpretations proposed by Schramm himself? I thought he was making there a synthesis of the theories supported by different scholarly works (some historians affirm this, other historians affirmat that, etc)
What's the difference between the immigrationist theory and the 4th theory? 31.223.141.97 (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
In accordance with academic rules, Schramm summarized the existing theories of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, before describing his own thoughts on the same subjects. The fourth theory says that the lands north of the Lower Danube were continuously inhabited by a Latin/Romance-speaking population; according to the immigrationist theory, Romance-speakers only started to migrate to the same territories from the last decades of the 12th century. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
(1) Followers of the continuity theory argue that the Romanians descended from the inhabitants of "Dacia Traiana"
(2) The lands north of the Lower Danube were continuously inhabited by a Latin/Romance-speaking population
I see no difference between the continuity theory (1) and the 4th theory (2). 31.223.159.217 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, with the small difference, that the fourth theory does not refer to the Dacians. Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
But the 4th theory refers to a large block that was Romanized at the north of the Danube. Considering that before the Roman conquest the present-day Romania was inhabited by Dacians, I think it can be concluded that the population that was Romanized is no ohter than the Dacians. 93.180.106.189 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but there is no reference to it in the cited work. What about the Celts, the Sarmatians, etc. who lived in "Dacia"? As far as I know Dacia was unified for lesser period than the existence of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, and many nationalities survived those latter federations. Borsoka (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course that Dacia wasn't ethnically pure, but Dacians were the majority. This interpretation (that the minority peoples were Romanized, while the Dacians themselves, who predominated in the province were not involved in the process) is surrealistic. I propose the elimination of this vague theory, which is mentioned in a single source and "has never been published in details.". 89.111.250.246 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not oppose (not because of the quite surprising reference to the ethnic composition of the short-lived Dacia, but because the theory "has never been published in details", according to the cited reliable source (Schramm). Borsoka (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ancient town names[edit]

The statement "the names of all Roman settlements attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity disappeared" is false. Counterexamples: Abrud (ancient Abruttus), Mehadia (ancient Ad mediam), Tapia (ancient Tapae), Berzovia (Berzobis)

Sources:

(1) The name of the town of Abrud is not attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity. Its name was first recorded in the Middle Ages (in 1271 AD) as "terra Obruth", because that land was situated on the Abrud River. ([2]) (2) Yes, there is a (marginal) theory that the name of Mehadia derrived from a pre-Latin *Mehadia form, but this assumed form is not attested in Roman Dacia in Antiquity. ([3], page 20) (3) Yes, according to a (marginal) theory, the name of Tapia (which was first recorded in 1761) derrived from ancient Tapae. However, Tapia is also supposed to have been borrowed from Serbian [[4], pages 19-20] (4) I have not found a reference to Berzovia in the sources you cite above. Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Open the second document, press ctrl+f, and then write Berzovia. 178.21.175.159 (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Please read more carefully the relevant section on page 22. It lists 7 settlements which now bear a name of Latin origin, including Mehadia (which cannot have been inherited from Latin as my above reference shows) and Sarmizegetusa which is not an inherited name either, but a modenr a name which was "restored" in the 20th century. Consequently, there is nothing that proves that the list contain towns with a name inherited from Antiquity. Borsoka (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

E. Sayous[edit]

According to the relevant noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard), the reliability of Sayous's almost 150-year-old work is suspect ([5]). This work obviously has not been cited by other historians for decades, because no such reference has so far been presented ([6]). Borsoka (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

According to a Third Party opinion in the Wiki pages about Gelou (Talk page), Sayous is a reliable source, more reliable than other historians of our years. Eurocentral (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Third Party opinion: Robert McClenon: "My own opinion is that a book published in 1873 does add value in addition to more modern academic sources". Eurocentral (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Eurocentral, please try not to abuse other editor's comments. The same editor wrote that ":I haven't researched the issue in detail and don't have an opinion. ... If doubts continue, go to reliable sources noticeboard or dispute resolution noticeboard" ([7]). Consequently, please do not refer to his above remark as an opinion. You also failed to mention the results of your action on the relevant wikiproject's talk page: upon your request, our co-editor, clearly stated that "What you are pointing us to is a modern reprint of a book that was originally published almost 150 years ago (in 1876)... I would question any historical scholarship that old. ... I would definitely consider it "outdated", and thus would question it's reliability" ([8]). Consequently, there is a clear declaration agains the relibiality of Sayous's work. Borsoka (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka You didn't read Lozovan but you censored him. And you show that Clenon did't read but he expressed "Sayous add more value". Where is the logic of your acts ? Of course Sayous opera is old but received the prize of French Academy. No book about Hungary received this distinction. Probably because of subjectivity of new authors. The third opinion must be respected in the case of Sayous. What is obsolete in his opera ? Nothing. Show me the Wiki rule which condemn this opera. Eurocentral (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

by the way: Borsoka never red Sayous but is ready to censor him. Declaration of 2 referees are contradictory. Borsoka, your actions are dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talkcontribs) 17:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Eurocentral, please read my above message and stop edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Lozovan[edit]

Eurocentral, would you please list some river names of Romanian origin in Transylvania? Would you also list the Hungarian names of the "important" towns which were translated from German or Romanian in Transylvania? Borsoka (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka We do not need your literary analysis. All you have to do is to read the book using Google tranlation. Lozovan is an important and reliable historian and philologist who worked at Copenhagen University. We know you act against Romanian history, but attacking historians is too much for a simple editor. Read WIKI rules and act only conforming to these rules. Romanian names of geographic places was transferred from Dacians to Romans and from Romans to Romanians as in the pages of Romanian theories about continuity. You are an subjective editor because you act against Romanian continuity censoring only Romanian scientists. Eurocentral (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, please read WP:civility and WP:weasel. If you cannot mention a single river name of Romanian origin in Transylvania from Lozovan's work, the reference should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

BorsokaYou started a new war edit against a scientist. You are not a philologist and all you have to do is to read the page. Lozovan's theory about names in Transylvania was published in a lot of publications in Danemark. His conclusion is the most important and have to be visible. You are not a censor. Eurocentral (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral, I have not started an edit war either against you or against a scientist and I am not a censor. Please list river names of Romanian origin in Transylvania, or we should delete that sentence because of WP:weasel. Borsoka (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Lozovan's statements resemble those of Romanian "scientists" in the eighties (IMO). I am just hoping that this he is not a "nationalist charlatan".Fakirbakir (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
If his work was published by an academic institution, he cannot be described as a "charlatan". However, WP:Weasel requires that no empty statements can be presented in WP articles: consequently, Eurocentral should list some Transylvanian river names of Romanian origin from Lozovan's work. Borsoka (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


Template:BorsokaAll you have to do is to is read the book in English and not to ask me to do it. When you talked with an editor ( Third Opinion in the Sayous case) first you asked: Did you read the book ?

If not, why do you talk if you know nothing?

Try to read Lozovan's opera in Englis: Eugen Lozovan, Dacia Sacra Publisher Chicago; University of Chicago. He died in 1997.

He was for a while professor at Harvard University.

Eurocentral (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka Those Romanian "historians"'studies in the seventies and eighties were published by "academic" institutions... Eurocentral Borsoka asked for examples. Could you provide some? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you know English ? The book is in English. Why you do not read the book ?

Fakirbakir and Borsoka, you are supporters of discontinuity theory. You have to play FAIRLY and accept opinions from other party. Why do you use OBSTRUCTIONISM ? Eurocentral (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion doesn't matter. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Eurocentral, I assume that you again abused a scholar's name in order to substantiate your original research. Would you please list here the names of some Transylvanian rivers which are of Romanian origin? The theory that the oldest layer of Transylvanian river names is of Romanian origin contradicts to all cited (Romanian, Hungarian, German) scholars' view.

Lozovan's work is all but useless with respect to the oldest layer of Transylvanian waterways and mountains being of Romanian origin. On p.116 of Dacia Sacra (in Romanian) regarding the layers of toponyms, Lorozan asserts: "Românesc, cel mai vechi cuprinzând numele munţilor şi ale cursurilor de apă, cu excepţia numelor de oraşe[116]." Yet in the reference to support his assertion he says: "'Această terminologie nu va fi studiată aici.. Dar nu putem exclude câteva toponime urbane, de exemplu Abrud În acest sens: E. Lozovan, Abrud de la métallurgie de l'or en Dacie, Revue int. d'onom, 13 (1961) pp.227-285" Dacia Sacra (Romanian) TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, read about WP:Weasel  : some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it is often said ... Lozovan does not use such propositions. Erasing his work and his phrases is censoring using .

Borsoka, why do you use your team mate in order to eliminate Lozovan ? You accuse me of Original research but you never read the book. Lozovan stated about the three layers of names in Transilvania: Romanian the older, about some geographic details , German about cities and Hungarian which are translated from first two. He presents 2-3 pages about his theory. Censoring this opinion is an intentional subjective action, a discrimination against Lozovan, professor at Harvard. Let use a Third opinion, not a pen friend.

Eurocentral (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, thank you for providing the proper text; now it is obvious that Eurocentral's sentence meets the "criteria" of WP:weasel and should be deleted. Otherwise the name of Abrud(bánya) is in fact originate from the settlement's original Latin name: Abrutus. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Norden1990, it is nice to see you again. :) Just two points: (1) Abrutus was not a (known) settlement in Roman Dacia. (2) Abrudbánya's name cames from the name of the nearby river, but the river's name (Obruth) was first recorded in the 13th century AD even if it seems to have been inherited from pre-Roman times (I refer to the sources cited in the article Abrudbánya). Borsoka (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Eurocentral, I know that you had a really humiliating experience with one of our Romanian co-editors: he abused you ([9]), and later he left you, stating that you do "not own the necessary skills for being a contributor here". However, please believe me: average editors do not abuse each other. I am an average editor and I do not use TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, Fakirbakir or other editors. Please also try to concentrate and to remember that I sought assistance from WikiProject:Romania on this specific subject ([10]). Borsoka (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Borsoka The text extracted from Lozovan by above editor is truncated; using truncated text is not possible to know the real text.

There are 3 sentences about the three layers(the truncated text contains 2 sentences) The sentences are extracted from his theory. His theory is about geographic names and he gave some examples about several towns. Obvious he didn't approached all geographic names. Borsoka is obsessed by rivers. Is his problem and not Lozovan problem. Lozovan stressed in some pages his theory. If rivers are not approached this does not diminish his theory. This is an interesting case: a editor against a philologist ! There is no reason to consider Lozovan theory as a Weasel(WP:Weasel  : some people say, many scholars state...) Only your original research consider Lozovan as dubious. Show me the rule of Wiki. If you are not able to explain the Wiki rule here, Lozovan will be reinserted Eurocentral (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way: some editors never red Lozovan but they hurry to censor him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talkcontribs) 17:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Eurocentral: can you mention the name of a single river from the oldest layer of Transylvanian toponymy which is of Romanian origin? If you cannot, the statement that "the oldest layers of Transylvanian toponymy (rivers and mountains) is of Romanian origin" is an empty declaration which contradicts to all scholars' view. There is a scholarly consensus that the oldest layer of Transylvanian toponymy is of Dacian origin (Mures, Somes, Cris, etc.) - I refer to the scholars cited in the article under the subsection "Romanian place names"). During your previous ban, an administrator suggested that you should edit articles outside the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. I think you should accept his/her advice. Borsoka (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Eurocentral, you have not answered my previous question, so I repeat it. Can you mention the name of a single river or mountain or any other place from the oldest layer of Transylvanian toponymy which is of Romanian origin? If you cannot, the statement that "the oldest layers of Transylvanian toponymy (rivers and mountains) is of Romanian origin" is an empty declaration which contradicts to all scholars' view. There is a scholarly consensus that the oldest layer of Transylvanian toponymy is of Dacian origin (Mures, Somes, Cris, etc.) - I refer to the scholars cited in the article under the subsection "Romanian place names"). During your previous ban, an administrator suggested that you should edit articles outside the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. I think you should accept his/her advice. Borsoka (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Borsoka We do not need to discuss about details because we do not decide if to CENSOR or not. Wikipedia is a collection of data from scientists. Your opinions are only OR. I see you promote a unilateral point of wiew.

Eurocentral (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC) So, do not erase Romanian scientists. You started a war against Romanian scientists.

Please read my above message more carefully and read WP:Fringe. Lozovan's theory contradicts to the views of all scholars cited in the article who wrote of the origin of the Transylvanian place names. If you cannot refer a single river or mountain or other place from the earliest layer of Transylvanian place names which is of Romanian origin, we have to delete the fringe statement. Borsoka (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
BorsokaAccording to Wiki rules, Lozovan is a reliable source. All your opinions are OR. Wikipedia is a collection of historians and philologists opinions. Your opinions are OR comparing to scientists opinions and STOP your war edit !

Eurocentral (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remember our co-editor's remarks above ([11], [12]): even Lozovan's own remark shows that his hypothesis is useless and is not based on the study of Transylvanian place names. Otherwise, his theory contradicts to all (!!!!) scholars' view: the oldest layer of Transylvanian place names are of Dacian origin. Borsoka (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Wiki policies, all opinions of historians must be added. Censoring of a historian by an editor is an infringement. This show a new war of Hungarian editors against Romanian historians. Eurocentral (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I repeat my above remark, please read it carefully: ":::::::Please remember our co-editor's remarks above ([13], [14]): even Lozovan's own remark shows that his hypothesis is useless and is not based on the study of Transylvanian place names. Otherwise, his theory contradicts to all (!!!!) scholars' view: the oldest layer of Transylvanian place names are of Dacian origin." Please read and apply WP:Civility as well, otherwise you will be sooner or later banned from our community. Borsoka (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Paleogenetics[edit]

I suggest that we should delete the section of Paleogenetics. This subject is highly controversial at the moment:

  • In analyzing the genetics of 13 Romanian people, the team detected an admixture event that occurred sometime around the year 1054, and almost certainly between 886 and 1194. One part of their ancestry is related to peoples like Lithuanians and Finns while the other part is related to peoples like Greeks, Cypriots, and Southern Italians including Sicilians. (A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History." Science 343:6172 (February 14, 2014): pages 747-751)
  • Our genetic study was focused on old human populations from the Bronze and Iron Ages from Romania [...] Concerning the genetic relationships at mitochondrial level, old human populations from Romania have shown closer genetic relationship to Turks of Thracian origin, while modern Romanians were closer to modern Bulgarian, Italian, Greek and Spanish populations." (Analysis of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes of old human populations from the Bronze and Iron Age from Romania." A paper to be presented at The European Human Genetics Conference 2012 in Nuremberg, Germany, June 23-26, 2012) Fakirbakir (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not an expert in the fields of paleogenetics, and my decade-old knowledge of statistics suggests that a dozen individuals can hardly be described as a representative sample, but the above study was published in a peer reviewed book. Consequently, I would not delete the section. Borsoka (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The main problem is that the peer reviewed studies contradict each other.... Moreover a genetic study from 2004 is rather outdated. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I am a stupid in the field of paleogenetics. :) Please feel free to do anything you want. I suggest you should wait 2-3 days before deleting the section. Maybe a proper template message should be placed under the relevant subtitle in the article. Borsoka (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am strongly against the deletion of this section based on Fakirbakir's original research. He says that "The main problem is that the peer reviewed studies contradict each other.... ". By this rule, we should also delete the whole article because specialists contradict each other when talking about the origin of the Romanians.

I don't think that a study from 2004 is too old. The section Hungarians#Ethnic_affiliations_and_genetic_origins references sources from 1970 and 1988 which are much older. 86.124.222.255 (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There is already a debate on that matter ([15]). Fakirbakir (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I see. Maybe the editors who participated at that debate (User:Crovata, User:Nigej and User:RJFF) could also express their opinion here. Deleting a whole section is a major decision and it must be preceded by an adequate discussion. It would not be a bad idea to send invitations to the users from Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic History. 86.124.218.6 (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've done some modifications to this section. The originally cited study has been kept, although its rather dated and the quality low. The main thing to take away from it though has been highlighted in the new paragraphs. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is controversial[edit]

Censoring the French historian Edouard Sayous, (Dead in the XIXth century; and eliminating from this page is a subjective action and shows the controversial character of this article. Sayous work is still reliable: he received the prix of French Academy for his work about history; no other historians have same consideration for the history connected to this article. Eurocentral (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please try to remember what answer you received upon your request about Sayous ([16]). What did Dennis Deletant write of the continuity theory and on what page of his cited work? His work is not about continuity theory. Borsoka (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletant wrote: "a demontration of Anonymous's unreliability does not lead to a denial of a continous Romanian presence in Transylvania from the time of the Roman withdrawal from Dacia. Force of logic leads me to accept the continuity theory".

This is a clear statement of Denis Deletant about accepting the continuity theory Eurocentral (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please specify on what page did he write the above statement. Borsoka (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Paleogenetics[edit]

What does this section have anything to do specifically to the origin of the Romanians? The current content of this section is too broad and vague to be of any relevance to the topic of the theories of the origin of Romanians. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Bistrita/Repedea[edit]

sorry, I am new to this and do not really know how to insert my comments in the conversation, but there are numerous examples in the relevant literature of rivers in Transylvania which have a name of Latin origin in the mountains (upriver) and a different name with the same meaning, but of Slavic origin, in the lowlands (downriver), which shows that the Romanized population retreated to the mountains during several waves of invasions and that continuity was maintained in the high altitude areas. The classic example is the river Bistrita, whose name means "fast" from the Slavic root "bistr*", but which is called Repedea at its source in the mountains, from the Latin etymon "rapidus"= "fast" 138.251.225.117 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I opened a new section for this topic. The Repedea/Bistrita names of the same river is mentioned in the article as a proposed example how Romanian place names gave rise to Slavic hydronyms which were borrowed by the Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Do not use OR; all you write here is personal research. You repeatedly erased Romanian references in order to promote your national theories

Eurocentral (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read what original research means, because you do not understand the very concept. Statements based on books published by academic institutions do not qualify as OR. Borsoka (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Historiography: origin of the theories vs '"Written sources"[edit]

What's the scope of each of these sections? Similar documents are mentioned in both of them. For instance Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum by Simon of Kéza is mentioned in the first one, while another Hungarian Gesta, namely Gesta Hungarorum, is mentioned in the second one. 64.62.219.167 (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the first subtitle ("Historiography: origin of the theories") summarizes the development of ideas about the origin of the Romanians. For instance, Kézai's Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum said that the Vlachs had been descended from the inhabitants of the one-time Roman province in Pannonia. On the other hand, the "Written sources" section summarize the most important sources which are also often mentioned by scholars in connection with the origin of the Romanians, but which do not explicitly write of the ancestors of the Romanians. For instance, the Gesta Hungarorum did not write of the origin of the Romanians, but suggests that the Vlachs lived in Transylvania around 900. I think the text about the Russian Primary Chronicle should be moved from the "Historiography" section to the "Written sources" section, because it does not write of the origin of the Romanians, but only says that that there was a population (Volochs) who migrated to the Carpathian Basin after the Slavs. Borsoka (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)