Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Copyright problems

This article closely paraphrases several print sources; see User:Daizus/Investigation/Plagiarisms. In addition to those listed, a quick search brings up more instances of copying: [1], article section: "Slavs, Avars and Bulgars"; [2][3] (article section: "Ethnic situation in Dacia Traiana after the Roman withdrawal"). As such, I have blanked this article for copyright problems. A major contributor to this article, User:Borsoka has repeatedly violated copyright; see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Borsoka. MER-C 04:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose "rewrite" instead of senseless deletion. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If so, here's a temporary subpage. The article will likely be reverted if it is not rewritten. MER-C 11:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As MER-C said, anyone can do a re-write using this temporary page. However, if there is not a copyvio free re-write available in one week, this article will be reverted to the last clean version. Before you begin, please note that apart from clearly marked quotes which have an inline citation to the exact page number from which they came, and the list of references, you may not paste any material from the current version of this article into the temporary page. Please also read WP:Close paraphrasing before you start. You cannot simply take the copyvio material and change or delete one or two words in it or move parts of the sentences around. You must write original prose. Voceditenore (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to ask like this but I have been on wikipedia for a few years and I have never seen an article disappear like this. Why is this article unavailable all the sudden? What is going on? Does this means that the article will be deleted ?!?Adrian (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There are currently over 100 articles blanked or partially blanked in this way. See Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems. This has been a standard practice here for several years. For legal reasons, once copyright violations are discovered, they must either be removed or in more complicated cases, the article must be blanked until they have been removed. In some cases, this may require a complete rewrite and deletion of the orginal article. In other cases, it can be removed by reverting the article to a "clean" version, i.e. before the copyvio was added. You can still view the article before it was blanked via the article's history. [4]. However, while the article is blanked, it must not be edited or the blanking template removed except by an adminstrator or a copyright clerk. There is more information in my comment above. - Voceditenore (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've now reverted to the last version before Borsoka edited, which is the last version I can assume is clean of copyvios, as no rewrite has been forthcoming. I realise that this is a drastic action but having any article is better than having none. I have not revdeled the hundreds of intervening versions so that editors can salvage text from them that is not copyvio. I urged editors to make sure any text they do re-introduce is not copyvio as by re-introducing it they would be responsible for any breech of copyright. Due to the backlog at WP:CP I don't personally have time to find what's clean and introduce it, and anyway think that this is best left to people who know the subject as I may introduce biases etc. Dpmuk (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have just reverted an IP who restored the entire copyvio version [5]. Please note this version (2 June 2008 at 18:10), is the only one which we can be sure is free of copyvio. Do not restore the text after that date wholesale. It must be re-written. If editors continue to abuse this, all versions of the article after 2 June 2008 at 18:10 may have to be deleted from the history. Voceditenore (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning

• The article states that there are two theories on the origin of the Romanian peoples. In fact, there are at least four theories. See Gottfried Schramm's work from 1997 (Ein Damn bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5-7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter, ISBN 3-486-56262-2), and Lucian Boia's work written in 2001(History and myth in Romanian consciousness, ISBN 963-9116-97-1)
• The article states, without citing a reliable source, that the fact that Dacian (actually, Pre-Roman) toponyms have been preserved is an argument for the continuity theory. However, a Pre-Roman name can hardly prove the continuous presence of a Latin speaking population on the territory (see Gottfried Schram's above cited work). Moreover, the Pre-Roman name was transferred to all the peoples inhabiting the territory in the Middle Ages (Hungarians, Germans, Romanians) through a Slavic phonology [6].
• The article states, without citing a reliable source, that the fact that Constantine the Great adopted the title Dacicus Maximus prove the presence of Dacians north of the Danube. Again, the presence of a Pre-Roman population how can prove the continuity between a Romanized population and a modern population?
• etc, etc, etc. Borsoka (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think the other side of the argument is currently more non-neutral POV in terms of language at the moment. Silvrous (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, the continued presence of the Dacians might be seen as a counter-argument to the depopulation argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvrous (talk • contribs) 09:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Cut statements without citations where no logic is present in statment

Is what I'm doing. I think there's been some unfortunate translation from Romanian here, which has been grammatically cleaned up at some point but has, as a consequence, lost its meaning, The following statements are uncited and do not seem to be academic arguments in their current form:

"Morpho-syntactical, lexical and phonetical differences between Romanian and Aromanian are considerable, making mutual comprehension almost impossible. It is therefore extremely difficult to explain how two different Romance languages could appear and differentiate at the same time and in the same area, as implied by the immigration theory."

This may be OR, but the obvious answer is that the languages split when the theoretical migration happened! The statement is so daft that it needs a source to stay.

The lack of Gothic words in Romanian is not evidence that a Daco-Roman populace never co-inhabited the region with the Goths. Comparatively, literary Italian has no words of Longobard (Lombard - a Germanic tribe that invaded Italy after the fall of the Western Roman Empire) origin, though the Lombards presided over Italy for centuries. However, the Lombaridan dialect of Italian contains Longobard words. There are also several words in Romanian of Germanic origin (lăutar etc.)"

This is a counterpoint to a claim not made in the text, and is in any case false (Italian has quite a few Germanic words). Wants a citation and repositioning.

"The name of the Danube in Romanian has a form which appears to be original (derived from a reconstructed *donaris) and not borrowed from other languages, which shows that the Romanians always lived somewhere near this river and not far south like some theories suggest."

This is unsourced and is not a serious argument.

Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

While everyone is invited to contribute, this is not the kind of article where you can remove content on this scale without prompting a conversation. It is too controversial and started too many edit wars already. I suggest discussion on this page, accompanied with tagging but not removed the problem content.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Although the whole article as of September 29 is a huge mass of OR and a mixture of non-reliable dated sources, I can accept the above approach.Borsoka (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but let's not replace that "huge mass of OR" with a unbalanced POV and start some damn edit wars. I would not throw away unsourced content like this. All ideas seemed valid, someone might source them eventually. You seem to be looking for trouble by continuously editing on this subject, as a Hungarian. I would take Romanians and Hungarians away from this article and let the Chinese and Peruvian editors work on it. I am not kidding. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks, even if I do not agree with some of them. First of all, I am not "looking for trouble", I am interested in the history of our region, mainly in Antiquity and in the Middle Ages. For instance, I have not started and have not been involved in an edit warring for several years (as far as I can remember my last "war" was waged in 2008 or in early 2009). Secondly, I think discussions and debates are the best methods to improve WP, therefore there is no need for a ban on editors based on their nationality (I otherwise strongly oppose any distinction between human beings based on their nationality). Borsoka (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand the basis of you two's historical disagreements, but I don't see why there is any problem with removing unsourced content that doesn't appear to be academic in nature. I really don't see how this can stay without a source:

"Morpho-syntactical, lexical and phonetical differences between Romanian and Aromanian are considerable, making mutual comprehension almost impossible. It is therefore extremely difficult to explain how two different Romance languages could appear and differentiate at the same time and in the same area, as implied by the immigration theory."

It's either very silly OR or a translation from the Romanian which has been grammatically cleaned up in a way that has changed its meaning so much that it no longer makes sense. To have this in the article is an immediate flag to a serious scholar that the article is useless (perhaps it should stay then...), even a layman would see it and think "this makes no sense".

Boynamedsue (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to illustrate why this paragraph must go, here is a rephrasing which shows how anti-linguistic it is:

• Morpho-syntactical, lexical and phonetical differences between German and English are considerable, making mutual comprehension almost impossible. It is therefore extremely difficult to explain how two different Germanic languages could appear and differentiate at the same time and in the same area, as implied by the immigration theory.

Except of course, we know there WAS a migration. And the immigration theory DOES NOT imply that they differentiate "in the same area", they differentiate in DIFFERENT areas, what with all the migrating....

This is not a question of "Citation needed", this is making the article look ridiculous, it goes against all scientific understanding of historical linguistics.

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Historic background" section

While the "Historic background" section can help, it is quickly becoming too large. What is the connection between the Ostrogothic Kingdom in Italy and the Origin of the Romanians?! This needs to be a brief summary not a copy-paste from other articles. --Codrin.B (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be shortened sooner or later. However, the whole issue cannot be understood without a historical context. Borsoka (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The local history of Romania is convoluted, hence the controversies. But it has to be the briefest summary ever, otherwise it takes over the article. Not an easy task. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Kekaumenos

The article states that Kekaumenos' text contradicts to the migration theory: however, he clearly states that the Vlachs used to live along the rivers Danube and the Sava where the Serbs live at his time. The view proposed by the followers of the migration theory is fully in line with his report. See: Cecaumeno: Consejos de un aristócrata bizantino (Introducción, traducción y notas de Juan Signes Codoñer) [=Kekaumenos: A Byzantine Nobleman's Advice: Introduction, Translation and Notes by Juan Signes Codoñer] (2000, Alianza Editorial, ISBN 84-206-3594-4.), page 122. Borsoka (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What about the fact the Vlachs used to live and still live today ON BOTH sides of the Danube. Does that contradict anything? He simply doesn't talk about the north of Danube. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So if my understanding is correct, the Serbs inhabited both side of the Danube at the days of Kekaumenos (because he clearyl states that the Vlachs used to live where the Serbs live at his time). All the same, the article does not properly cite the source: Kekaumenos' reference to the Serbs is not cited. Borsoka (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

They still do today: Serbs in Romania. This argument doesn't support either theories. --Codrin.B (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I am soon deleting it. Borsoka (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous

The article states that the anonymous author of the Gesta Hungarorum referred to the Pechenegs when used the Cuman name. However, the Gesta Hungarorum clearly differentiate the Cumans from the Pechenegs when describes the Vlachs and Slavs of Transylvania being attacked by the Pechenegs and the Cumans. See. Anonymus, Notary of King Béla: The Deeds of the Hungarians (Edited, Translated and Annotated by Martyn Rady and László Veszprémy) (Rady, Martyn; Veszprémy, László; Bak, János M. (2010); Anonymus and Master Roger; CEU Press; ISBN 978-9639776951), page 59. Borsoka (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Russian Primary Chronicle

The article refers to the Russian Primary Chronicle ("the Venerable Nestor") stating that the chronicle contradicts to the migration theory. However, according to the chronicle: "The Magyars passed by Kiev over the hill now called Hungarian and on arriving at the Dnieper, they pitched camp. They were nomadic like the Polovcians. Coming out of the east, they struggled across the great mountains, and began to fight against the neighboring Vlakhs and Slavs. For the Slavs had settled there first, but the Vlakhs had seized the territory of the Slavs." (See. The russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text (Translated and edited by Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowith-Wetzor), the Mediaeval Academy of America, 1953, Library of Congress Catalog No. 53-10264, page 62). Therefore Nestor's chronicle (if his Vlakhs can really be identified with the Romanians) might prove a Romanian presence in the Carpathian Basin around 900, but the same source also proves the validity of the migration theory: an invasion against the native Slavic tribes of the Carpathian Basin by the Vlachs. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Your own interpretation of primary sources is called WP:OR. We need to quote serious researchers who analyzed these statements, and verified them against evidence. But for the sake of conversation. If doesn't say which mountains, but it seems far north (Kiev, Dnieper), he talks about Bukovina, Maramures maybe? If that's the case, the Vlachs were far north of the Danube. And one possibility is that they took their own territory back, or maybe they took what used to be Hunnic, Gothic or Dacian territory. It is irrelevant, yet biased as was written by a Slav. --Codrin.B (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read the source of the statement on the Russian Primary Chronicle: it is the Primary Chronicle itself. That is why I thought that a sentence whose only source was a primary source could be challanged by using the same primary source. However, I fully agree with you that there is no place for OR in this article. Therefore I will delete that sentence from the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of OR

Based on the consensus which has been reached under the title of Russian Primary Chronicle above, I think all sentences exclusively based on primary sources are to be deleted from the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Instead of the deleting left and right, if you care about doing the right thing, why don't you look for the researchers who quoted and analyzed those primary sources? That is much more constructive. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand the above proposal. (1) I read the sentences (2) I found that they are solely based on primary sources (3) I read some of the primary sources (Kekaumenos, Russian Primary Chronicle, etc.) in question (4) I found that the primary sources contradicts to the sentences which were seemingly written based on them. Why should I vaste my time by searching for sources supporting the result of original research??? The whole article has been tagged for several months - if there would have been reliable sources, editors could have add them. Borsoka (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Dubious, non-mainstream statements

1. "Mobile lifestyle of the Romanians' ancestors", says Schramm - this seems like a radical, non-mainstream idea. There is no archeological, historiographical or cultural evidence that Vlachs or Romanians were migrating people. Zero evidence! But it is beyond doubt from archeological and historiographical evidence that Huns, Slavs, Bulgars and much later Magyars were mobile, migratory people. If he refers to Transhumance, that is a practice of many sedentary people, for example, the Romans

In order to avoid original research, the above statements should be based on reliable sources. However, it is interesting that a number of Romanian terms connected to a settled lifestyle were borrowed from the "nomadic" Slavs (coasa - scythe, grajd - stable, lunca - meadow, podgorie - vineyard, potir - cup, prag - threshold, stina - fenced pasture) See: Petrucci, Peter R.: Slavic Features in the History of Rumanian (1999, LINCOM EUROPA, ISBN 3-89586-599-0), pages 142-147.

1. "... mobile Romanians come into close contact with a sedentary Slavic-speaking population in the 10th century", says Schramm - The Slavs arrived in the area in the late 6th century. The Romance-speaking population must have been in a suspended state of animation not to come in contact for 4 centuries (!!) with the Slavs who were raiding and settling in their lands. Ridiculous.

In order to avoid original research, the above statements should be based on reliable sources. However, it is interesting that there are only about 15 Slavic loanwords in the Romanian language which can possibly be dated to the Common Slavic period. Most Romanian words of Slavic origin cannot have been borrowed earlier than the 850s, because they represent a South Slavic (Bulgarian, Serbian) form. See: Petrucci, Peter R.: Slavic Features in the History of Rumanian (1999, LINCOM EUROPA, ISBN 3-89586-599-0), page 5. See also: Curta, Florin: The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500-700 (2001, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-80202-4) page 345-346. Otherwise, Schramm suggests that the pastoralist Romanians had direct contact with the Albanians instead of the Slavs which is suggested by a number of common features of the Albanian and Romanian languages. Borsoka (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Given these two statements in a row, there are serious questions for the reliability of Schramm.--Codrin.B (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's OR, Codrin. And I think there are quite a few problems with your arguments. If you feel Schramm should not be a source, you need information on him that leads us to accept h is not a serious scholar. Your analyses of his work aren't relevant, and are a little extreme in my book.

Boynamedsue (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)