Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Article reorganization

I note quite many inexactitudes and tendencious sentences in this article. It is also very surprising that the works of the internationally recognized romanian historian Nicolae Iorga are not mentioned. Nicolae Iorga published before the communist era, so it could not be said that he was influenced by the "Ceausescu's view". But of course, someone could say that being romanian, he selected evidence in a national purpose - but that it is not the case. I use the word "tendencious" because most of this article and especially the beginning, which give the "first impression", is full of notions selected to make seem "the theory of migration" as being closest to the historical facts. It's also interesting to remark the differencies between the french and the english version of this article which shouldn't be accepted even by a "free encyclopedia". The french version seem to be better documented and organised compared to the tendencious english version.

I'm also in favour of a rewrite of this article with well documented sources - both romanian and external as they are however mentioned in the paragraph "Historiography(written sources)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex97 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The article the way it is right now is just a huge mess. The wealth of unorganized information makes the article unreadable. This is the main issue of the article, as most of the information in it is OK and in most cases referenced. If anyone has issues with specific sections or paragraphs, they should tag the respective section and paragraph using the available tags. Tagging the whole article does not bring us any further, as the editors don't know were they should concentrate their work.

I support a rewrite along the lines outlined bellow: subarticles for the daco-roman continuity and the migration theory, refernced in this page, where there should also be an overview including the reason why the topic is controversial beside the summaries. The subarticles should NOT contain any comparison to the alternative, the intersted reader, could then judge for himself.Octavian8 (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Verbatim citations

Please STOP this 'verbatim citation' frenzy, it makes the article even more difficult to follow. Verbatim citations are usually used only when editors argue about the significance or interpretation of a certain idea from one and the same source, not when different sources give different interpretations to the same idea. This happens often, e.g., with old texts. Furthermore citation can also be, and mostly are, other than verbatim, when you cite, e.g., the point of view explained in the source over a few pages or a chapter.Octavian8 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation from the book by I.A. Oltean

I was asked to provide the citations that I've used to support the thesis of increased roman military presence and hence increased romanisation, after the 150AD. As I do not support verbatim citations (see above), I'll give the main citation here (from pp. 56). Who is further interested should buy the book and concentrate on Chapter 3:

...the presence of only one legion seems to have looked sufficient for the rest of the first half of the second century AD. This proved to be wrong during the events of the Marcomannic Wars, when the V Macedonica had to be brought in...

Octavian8 (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not support verbatim citation either, but I do not understand how the above citation from Oltean's work could lead to the next sentence: "Together with the attacks of other tribes in the region, this forced the Romans to increase their military presence in the area, hence intensifying the romanisation process of the occupied territory." Borsoka (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but do you understand that one legion plus one legion makes two legions? And two legions, means more roman speakers in the area, also, e.g., a bigger infrastructure that has to be built by, e.g., local and roman workers under roman military supervision and they have to interact with each-other and so on... If you are so interested, buy the book and read through, particularly the chapters I have given above. If you do not agree with what is written in there, you are welcome to come with other ideas as long as you can support them. Octavian8 (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Octavian8, thank you for your proposal. But I bought and read the book about a year ago. It is an excellent book, therefore I think none of us should falsify it. If you cannot find one or more proper sentences in the book (without "interpreting" them) which suggest the continous presence of Dacians and Romanized Dacians in Dacia Trajana province, I can help you. Borsoka (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, if you really have the book, then you know by now, that my citation is genuine, hence your tag 'failed verification' is false. Furthermore here is another extract from the book (I look forward to you telling me from what page) which supports my statements both above and in the article:

...Through their functions, these (military) sites had a huge impact and contributed to the rapid romanisation of the territory. More than in terms of administration or markets, the Roman army crucially influenced the development of the rural landscape through the construction and maintenance of (infrastructure)...

So until now we have two instead of one Roman legions in Dacia around 165 AD and the romanisation effect of the Roman military, which IS what my statement, that you've cited above, says. This statement of mine has nothing to do with 'the continous presence of Dacians and Romanized Dacians in Dacia Trajana province' as you (again falsely) 'interpret' it. However, it suggests by means of consequence, that such intense romanisation cannot disappear without traces after the Aurelian retreat. Lastly let me congratulate you on your interest in the new wave of Romanian historians, which are usually very interesting to read, and thank you for your kind help offer, that I regretfully have to reject, as I can read for myself. Regards, Octavian8 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Octavian. Your citation from page 219 does not support the sentence cited from the article: Oltean refers to the "romanisation of the landscape" and not to the romanization of the people. Therefore, if you do not find other sentence from her book, and you do not need my contribution, I am afraid that the above sentence should be properly modified. Borsoka (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, the particular quote says something about the "romanisation of the territory" and "development of rural lansdscape". However, what, in your opinion, does 'romanisation of the landscape' mean? Octavian8 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Octavian, please read the whole text of the book's subtitle you referred to above. It describes the Romanisation of the landscape: roads, aquaducts, baths, buildings ...etc (and the process in Dacia Trajana was similarly to the "Romanisation of the landscape" in Britain, the African provinces, Hellas .. etc). Borsoka (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, I gave you two citations to support my pov, why don't you come with a few citations to support your pov that everything about romanisation in Dacia is related to changing the landscape, so that it pleases the very few roman citizens that were there, so few that their numbers had no impact on romanisation of the inhabitants of that territory. You should also prove that the romanised landscape was created with workers from abroad, which, after finishing romanising the landscape, left immediately so that they won't romanise the inhabitants. Your citations should also show that Oltean meant, everywhere where she used the term romanisation throughout her book, only the landscape and that has absolutely nothing to do with the people. Octavian8 (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This dialog of yours is so funny to read!!! :):):) BTW, if you have such rich sources, why don't you improve Roman Dacia, "you lazy bastards" (jokingly) :):):) Dc76\^talk 12:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually we talk about one single book, that Borsoka interprets, in my opinion at least, in a very peculiar way. This is a good example where verbatim citations are good ;-)Octavian8 (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think my above remarks are not clear enough, so I try to summarize them (1) the sentence in the article says that Oltean suggests that there is a direct connection between the increase of the number of legions from one to two and the "intensified Romanisation" of Dacia Traiana (that is the province was Romanised during the first 50 years, and more intensively Romanized during the last 100 years) (2)the question was raised some time ago on what pages of her book the sentence or similar sentences could be found (3) Oltean writes (on page 56) of the fact that V Macedonica was transferred to Dacia Trajana, and she also writes (on page 219) that the military sites contributed to the rapid romanisation of the territory (but in this part of the book she writes of the "Romanisation of the landscape" as the part's title suggest); therefore (1) she does not write of any connection between the duplacation of the legions and the "intensified Romanisation", consequently (2) the sentence in the article is an original summary and interpretation of Oltean's book. So, I still suggest that the sentence in the article should be properly modified. I think we all should refrain from creating original sentences and suggesting that our original thoughts are based on peer reviewed books. At the end of the day, I am still ready to find a proper (and not original) sentence from her book which suggest that the Dacians were fully Romanised during the 175 years of Roman rule in Dacia, because she is obviously convinced of the Daco-Romanian continuity. Borsoka (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry too, but if we take each and every word separately and make no connection she doesn't even talk about history, let alone Dacia and romanisation. I admit that the two citations are some pages away from each-other, but considering the text in between, this does not alter my statement. Also each and every word in this article (and indeed in the entire Wikipedia), that does not come directly from some source is an interpretation of some editor. Problems appear only when these interpretations are not supported by citations (and can't be otherwise demonstrated) or are far off from the citation. I gave you the two verbatim citations to show you that my interpretation is not that far off. You seem to disagree and continuously point to the title of the Chapter, but do not explain what is the "romanisation of the landscape" and why is this not related to romanisation of the people (as I have asked in my previous post). I look forward to some citation where Oltean makes this distinction. If you want to be so precise, you also ignore that the second verbatim citation has to do with the "romanisation of the territory", this being said if our discussion continues like this, we will discuss ad infinitum, particularly if we start then discussing "romanisation of the territory" :-). My solution is to leave the text as it is, as I believe I've showed it has enough support in the citation. What is your solution? Please don't misunderstand me, as long as I am discussing with you, I am open to compromise and also to being convinced otherwise I hope you are too.

I have no problem with you introducing whatever citation you see fit from the book as long as it has something to do with this article. Our discussion is about romanisation through increased military presence and my previous remarks are restricted to this.Octavian8 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

During the first half of the second century AD, the presence of only one legion has looked sufficient, however this proved to be wrong during the Marcomannic Wars, when additionally V Macedonica had to be brought in. Through their functions, the military sites in Roman Dacia had a huge impact and contributed to the rapid romanisation of the territory. More than in terms of administration or markets, the Roman army crucially influenced the development of the rural landscape through the construction and maintenance of infrastructure. - How about this? Is it too long? Is it not enough specific? Don't forget to add something like this also in Roman Dacia. Dc76\^talk 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an article?

You call this an article? to me it looks like you guys just make lists of all the arguments you can find for or against MULTIPLE theories in the same article.

First of all: jotting down argument after argument isnt a way to write an article. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. Remove the entire lists, and instead change it into something readable. Secondly: I assume the article didnt start off like this but was expanded and expanded and expanded as time went on. The result is that the theories simply do not fit in the same article anymore - it is confusing because there are so many arguments put forth and against multiple theories that its hard to see the forest through the trees. I suggest you create sub-articles for each theory, and provide summaries here. 77.250.25.165 (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Tags

The article as a whole needs reorganization, which includes rewrite. For the rest of tags, like unbalanced, original research etc. please continue to tag the sections and in the sections the paragraphs. I do not think that the entire article is based on, e.g., original research.Octavian8 (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

'Standing' of authors

Octavian, did you archive all previous discussions of this page? I myself came to this page after having seen an Italian television science program about the conquest of Dacia by Trajan. The title was : "Il racconto segreto della colonna Traiana" i.e. "The secret tale of Trajan's column". This is no children's tale, it was written by the most authoritative Italian professor of Roman history, Dr. Livio Zerbini, Professor of Roman History, Head of the Archeology Department at the University of Ferrara, Italy. Dr. Zerbini reconfirmed to me in a personal E-mail that indeed he was the one who "curated" this movie. Dr. Zerbini has published two books on the subject of Roman Dacia in recent years. In February of 2009 Dr. Zerbini gave a presentation of a documentary entitled "Dacia Augusta Provincia" at the Italian Cultural Institute in Bucharest. You can read about this at http://www.omnigraphies.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1751. For October of 2009 Dr. Zerbini organized an international conference entitled "Rome and the Danubian Provinces". All major scholars of this subject will participate. Dr.Zerbini set up the "Ancient Danubian Provinces Laboratory" at the Department of Historical Sciences at the University of Ferrara, Italy under whose auspisces this conference will be held. I highly recommend for anybody interested in the subject of Dacia to try to legitimately download this movie, try to understand it or have friends traslate for you if your Italian is not proficient. I myself translated and quoted some key sections from it here on these discussion pages. When a scholar of such international standing such as Dr. Zerbini says today that after the Roman conquest Dacia "was ethnically cleansed, completely depopulated, and resettled by great masses from the Roman Empire" such a statement must carry some weight. You may argue otherwise but whom should we beleive? Ceausescu era trained Romanian historians or Professor Zerbini and others who are saying the same thing? Such as Dr. Neil Faulkner, foremost British expert on Romanization who says the exact same thing? (See the citations in the main article.)

The truth is that if this question of Romanian origins is important at all (and is it more important than the origins of any other nation or people?), it is now open to free debates and discussions, unlike in the Ceausescu era when anybody dissenting from the dictator's personal views risked not only his livelihood but even his personal freedom (jail). Eravian (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eravian (talk • contribs) 18:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 

I have nothing with your sources, although they are just some comments on the respective internet sites. My problem was with the emphasis on the 'high international standing' of the two authors. If you say such a thing you should also describe the framework by which the international standing is measured. To make myself more clear, this thing about 'standing' is just a pointless digression. If we leave it here it will not be long before each citation and each author in this Wikipedia article will get similar descriptions about how good they are... About Romanian historians, I'll look over your obvious bias and say just that 1+1=2 even in communism. Besides it is not only Romanian historians that believe that the 'ethnical clensing'of the entire population in the portion of Dacian land conquered by the Romans is just an exaggeration and that Eutropius and his friends were referring chiefly to the ruling elite and had no actual mean to properly estimate the number and density of Dacian population particularly outside the cities.

If by Ceuasescu's opinion you mean the daco-roman continuity, then you should know that this was not his ideea to begin with, but he adopted it and sometimes misused it for his political purposes. Octavian8 (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Octavian, I have no ax to grind on this issue, I do not have an opinion on this subject of my own. But when I came accross this Italian science film, broadcast on RAI Italian national television last December, I was very surprised at the strong language used there about the fate of the Dacian population. This was, is a major Italian TV production, filmed in large part on location in Romania. It is a one and a half hour film. Most of it is about the Roman legions, but maybe 10-15 minutes of it deals with the actual events of the Dacian wars and the conquest and its aftermath. This film should be seen by every Romanian, including yourself. Try to get it from the Italian Cultural Institute in Bucharest or try to obtain or download it from legitimate sources. I investigated who was the author of the ideas expressed in this film - which was viewed by millions of Italians -, (this "Ulisse" series is very popular), and found out about professor Zerbini. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does require sources to be cited, and these sources must have NOTABILITY. Please, read Wikipedia policies. This is not a bias on my part. There are respectable Romanian historians, who have published internationally. These would include Dr. Lucian Boia, Florin Curta, Niculescu, Mutu, Elena Oltean. They do not have to agree with Dr.Zerbini. However, when you qoute from their publications it must be done properly. General WEASEL statements such as "Romanian historians believe.." are not acceptable.

Why do not we just leave the first passage as it was? There are indeed several theories. The Migration from the south theory (Roesler theory) is as old as the Daco-roman theory and despite of what I or Romanian historians think about it, it is an existing theory and as such it is not original research. The listing of the various theories are all based on well documented, currently extant, citeble sources. Unless you are an expert yourself, and you have internationally peer-reviewed publications under your own name, you should not attempt to interpret ancient sources yourself. You should restrict yourself to qouting acceptable, notable sources, who have the proper training, expertise in ancient languages, archeology etc., for the interpretation of ancient sources.

Please, also read the Carpi page and Italian Wikipedia's Dacia page very carefully. From these, Dacia before the Roman conquest appears to be an ethnically, linguistically diverse area. I have cited Oltean previously, who admonishes against attempting to project backwards a unified, national state into an ancient historical time when such concepts were unknown and unnecessary. Eravian (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Try to understand, there is NO system to appreciate the standing of authors! the rest is just an attempt to justify one idea over the other by the 'fact' that those supporting it are somehow 'better'.

You also write 'I do not have an opinion of my own...' may I laugh :-)? Is this now supposed to make you impartial and give more weight to your anti-Daco-roman continuity opinions?

For the 'likely' part, that was not my doing, but it is what YOUR source (Faulkner) says, perhaps you should read it better.

I fail to found in my edits the WEASEL statement you are referring to. If you mean my post on this discussion site, then I ask you, did you read it? and do you know what 'weasel statement' means?

Saying that the Roessler theory is as old as the idea of Daco-roman continuity just shows that you do not know that much about it.

About the citations, perhaps you should start applying in practice the theory you put forth.

And finally, for the last paragraph of your post, I fail to see the connection to our issue or to something I have said.

If you have something to add about the standing of authors, please do so in this discussion. For other things start a new topic. Also please quit trying to put 'words in my mouth'. I do not like this.Octavian8 (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Octavian, I have Dr. Faulkner's paper right in front of me and it says (exact quote): "Dacia appears to have been laid waste, ethnically cleansed and re-settled by foreign colonists". (There are other things he says about the romanization process starting with the aristocracy and "most men of rank", "but there were limits to romanisation", "The culture of the conqueror often had little appeal to the oppressed".

Otherwise I think the text of that passage would be acceptable, with the minor change I made (and the few corrections of the misspellings.) I would be happier though, if you could actually provide exact page numbers for your references at the two places where I tagged it and at the two original places of your citations. The "relative high standing" of my references is based on the idea that while these authors have as impeccable academic credentials as anybody else in the business, their work was published by major international news organizations intended to reach millions of listeners, viewers, not just for a narrow scientific community. But I do not insist on mentioning this and elevate them above the others. Further down at the list of theories I added Lucian Boia as a reference. The more I am reading his book "History and Myth etc." the more highly I think of him. He has an ample review of the history of Romanian and other historiographies of the last few centuries (including Roesler's theories, otherwise known as immigrationist theories), and anybody can access most of it through Google books. I would also highly recommend the Thraco-Roman page. This has been greatly expanded and rewritten since about February of this year i.e. about the time of the start of my involvment with these pages. I also recommend the Proto-Romanian language page. The main thrust of all of these sources is that Romanian historians, especially during the Ceausescu regime tended to rely exclusively on archeology and ignored linguistics.

I would just add: Let us not speculate about likelynesses, probabilities of this or that scenario. With such sensitive issues we need to qoute our sources as verbatim as possible, with exact page numbers in the texts or in the case of the film minute numbers. Eravian (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read the book by Boia, I suggest you read it to the end, then start talking about it. If you want to make yourself an opinion about the issue also read the books of Djuvara and Constantiniu.

Good that you've put the quote here, it says:'Dacia appears...' this should be also clear in text.

Also, the fact that the two citations are published on the sites of 'major news organizations' said nothing for them but a lot against them. Major news organizations also reported about Irakian weapons of mass destruction... Again it would be better to just stay by the thoughts about citations from your posts. Also, citing documentaries is highly unusual and for good reason. A book or scientific publication is open to review by specialized public, while a documentary is open to review by the large uninitiated public. For example there are a lot of 'science programs' explaining everything in this world, including a lot of physical phenomena, but you will never see them cited in a 'real' physics article.Octavian8 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Octavian, Wikipedia specifically lists major international news organizations as acceptable citations. Not only that, but Dr.Neil Faulkner is a respected archeologist, an expert on Romanization. Since he is so far removed from the area we are discussing here he approaches the problem from a general point of view, how Romanization occured or why it occured in various parts of the Roman Empire. The Italian "Ulisse" series film entitled "Il racconto segreto della colonna Traiana" was written and narrated by Alberto Angela a highly respected paleontologist, science program writer, narrator, in consultation with Dr.Livio Zerbini, Professor of Roman history and head of the Archeology Department at the University of Ferrara, Italy. All the views expressed in this film have been previously expressed in the book "La Dacia Romana" (Roman Dacia) cowritten by professor Zerbini and Romanian author Radu Ardevan. Impugning the academic credentials of such outstanding and more importantly, most current sources by bringing in here Irak and "physical phenomena", well, quite frankly, it is totally inappropriate.

These authors by the way do not say Dacia was not Romanized, it is just that it was Romanized because of the large scale settlement by colonists from the Empire. (Many of these colonists were not that Romanized themselves. See your source, MacKendrick page 126 "Religious dedications reveal what must by now seem the usual mixture of races. Among those who lived and worked in Potassia were Egyptians, Pannonians, Italians, Illyrians, Thracians, and Phrygians." This review: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005-03-12.html, of the book edited by W.S.Hansen, I.P.Haynes and which contains 7 papers 5 of whose authors are:K.Lockyear, D.Ruscan, A.Diaconescu. I.A.Oltean, C.Ciongradi states: "Despite occasional differences of opinion, there seems to be a consensus among the authors that the indigenous population did not play a significant role in the creation of a new Roman society in Dacia; that the integration model in Dacia was not based on civitates; that immigrants may not have been "Romanized" to any large extent; and that Roman Dacia was subject to multicultural influences"

I am not familiar with Djuvara and Constantiniu, maybe because they are not as internationally well known as Boia, Oltean, Diaconescu, Niculescu. Wikipedia has a page on Neagu Djuvara, are you refferring to him? Lucian Boia in History and myth pages 113-126 offers a wide ranging review of Romanian and other histriography, but I did not see Djuvara and Constantiniu there

For creating a useful Wikipedia article some general ground rules should be laid down: 1./If we disagree with something, out of deference to other editors we should first tag, make our critical observations on the discussion page. Check edit history to see when the questioned sentence was last written or modified. Then wait patiently. Other editors may have gone on vacation, are doing some more research. I personally would wait at least two months to see if there is any response before I would change somebody's sentence. The only reason I changed just one word of your sentence last time was that you had jumped right in and drastically changed my sentence. By the way up to that point that was my only addition to the article. Otherwise I just communicated Dr.Faulkner's and Dr.Zerbini's views on the discussion page.

2./Because this is a subject which touches on some really sensitive nerves I must change my approach and insist on verbatim quotes only, with the names of the authors right in the text with exact page numbers. This being English Wikipedia foreign language sources must be translated verbatim with original text shown right along either in the text or in the reference. I will do this for my Italian qoutes. 3./When the other editor shows up be willing to discuss in a civilised, pertinent manner and be ready to compromise. Acknowledge that there may be other views out there. At the same time we must strive to present the current state of the art, from current internationally notable sources as they best see the subject. 4./Specifically for this page we must accept the fact that outside of the Ceausescu era when DacoRomanian continuity was the exclusive official view eventually being distorted into Dacomania and Protochronism, as Lucian Boia puts it there has always been a range of theories - Dacianism, Latinism, Immigrationism and admigration - in the Romanian historiography, not to mention other international (Hungarian, Italian, Bulgarian etc. ) Historiography.

5./Before we go into the current state of debate and cite the current authors. for the sake of the casual reader I am adding a little retrospective titled "Quest for Romanian origins". I am making this as neutral as possible. It must be a little bit better explained just how this whole thing came about. again if you disagree with something, please, tag, discuss, critisize but do not change it immediately. It is discurteous.

Eravian (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dc76! You came in and without first tagging or discussing the matter you changed my text. Nonetheless, I could live with the way the text is now if you can provide a bit more citations. I would particularly like to see a page number and a verbatim quote from Oltean for the sentence where you cite her. I am not overly enthused by the addition of haplogroup genetic studies either. This is still an evolving science and seems to be used often times to advance various claims. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25106 ,check out this page on genetics. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml, and this one, too.

If any of this can be believed, I do not see much difference in the current genetic make-up of South Central European nations despite their linguistic differences and historical allegiances.

This origins article could be expanded ad infinitum but I think the way it is now, it gives the casual reader an idea of the subject and all the problems involved. If they want to delve into details, the bit unwieldy yet very detailed and erudite second part can be studied. I do not know of any other place on the internet where you could find such detailed information on the subject. The main thing that ,I hope, everybody can agree on is that there are several views out there today and these must be made to be known to the reader of Wikipedia.

Eravian (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry if my edits were too bold. The last thing I wanted was to be regarded as an aggressive individual, I have never faced hints at that before. I am accustomed to edit in an WP:BRD manner, because in my experience with other articles it helps develop an article, and helps pinpointing the potential problems, also helps resolve things faster. I did two types of edits: 1) copyedit for clarity in existing text, and 2) addition of my own text. The second is given full citation. The first, I obviously expect someone to re-think those portions and if my edit changed anything meaning-wise, please do modify. I did not want to change the meaning, on the contrary, while reading I thought that the meaning was not expressed clear enough to the reader and copyedited to correct that. Obviously, there can be more copyedits done. Who said I would not welcome some else's edits of the same sort?

About Oltean's book/paper/whatever it is. I believe you refer to this:

Together with the attacks of other tribes in the region, this forced the Romans to increase their military presence in the area, hence intensifying the romanisation process of the occupied territory.[8]

It was NOT ME who added this. I think you absolutely justly asked for clarification. Could someone, pls, copy the exact portion from the source.

I totally agree with you that there are several views today on the matter, and they have to be made known as they are. But also, things that ARE known have to be told as known, not as interpretable. I believe people only disagree how to properly present this views (when it's about views and interpretations and not cold fact). But if we can regard that as a technical problem, not a political/personal one, I believe we can achieve it. One good improvement to the article was the creation by Borsoka of a separate article for the sources. Now, one has to go painstakingly through the corresponding section here, and compare to what tis there. Everything that is already there - remove. What is not there - add there (assuming it's properly cited and good material). This way we can eliminate that section, or at least reduce it to a max of 1 page.

About the modern research, allow me to disagree with you that it is only "evolving" and that it should not be "believed". Science is science: in a sense it is always evolving, and a scholar puts his/her reputation at stake, thus things are truthful as they say. (N.B. Scholars are always conservative.) They have studied samples of populations, not entire populations. What I presented is IMHO a glance into that. Have I drawn any conclusion about the origin of Romanians from there? I believe that the conclusion this suggests is that genetic markup of modern humans is not tied to their ethnic or linguistic heritage. But even that is in the air, it is never spell out.

You say others have advanced wild theories based on genetic markup research. But that simply means that some idiots are idiots. Did I advance any "theory". Did I even hinter any word? All I said was direct citation from those papers. In the case of table, i did not reproduce the part related to Hindu and Italians, and so on. But that is the total extent of my manipulation. There is no ethnological, linguistic, cultural, political or historical conclusion there. The conclusion "in-the-air" is that the expression "the origins of x" has been IMHO a little hijacked by the ethnology/linguistics/politics, while biology and anthropology is somehow left out. I believe that portion added by me is relevant to the article in that is says what the anthropological origin seems to be without any connection to any theories.

BTW, it is totally wrong to assign percentages of certain types to countries. They are assigned to samples of populations selected within the same locality based on specific criteria to ensure (as possible) homogeneity within the past several generations. In particular a sample is always composed of members of the same ethnic group. But the converse is not true. But assigning numbers to countries is simply grotesque. Did I say that I2 (i.e. I1b) and R1a are associated to some ethnicity? That would be totally false. One can talk only about some degree of correlation, but that degree sometimes means there is no correlation. Dc76\^talk 04:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dc76!I removed this long section about the ausgleich and such. Please, understand, that while all of that is a legitimate subject for discussions on the Transylvania or Romanian history pages of wikipedia, here in particular it is just extraneous and repetitious. It really distracts from the main subject of Romanian origins which we want to outline here. The differences between historians of various times and nationalities has already been pointed out further up as well as down in this article. This section "Quest.." is simply the briefest summary of the historiography on the subject leading into the next section. I left that one sentence "Political ..." there but moved it down where it really belongs. Changed just one word there: primordiality is more of a word used by physicists rather than historians. Single cell organisms come to mind when we talk about primordiality.

Eravian (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with you, I will accept your edit in an attempt to bridge mutual understanding between Hungarian and Romanian editors. IMHO, there are too many instances where they do not act as good civilized neighbors, and I don't want to waste any occasion. Dc76\^talk 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dc76! Please, understand, I do not represent the Hungarian view or anybody else's view on this issue. I first got interested in this by way of the Italian film on Trajan's column and was surprised how different the Italian views are on this from the views promulgated during the Ceausescu regime. Unfortunately, your latest additions to the "Current views" were largely unacceptable and I urge you to do better with your citations. Here are the serious problems, since this is an extremly sensitive and touchy subject: Bunson: This is a secondary, encyclopedical source from a man who also seems to be an expert on Vampires, The Dalai Lama, Sherlock Homes etc. He wrote similar "Encyclopedias" on many a dissimilar subject. (You might criticize on similar grounds, Alberto Angela, the narrator of the Secret tales of Trajan's column, except that the real author is Livio Zerbini as I noted before, probably the best known of current professors of Roman history in Italy today). Oltean: She is an eminently quotable, absulutely erudite archeologist, but you have been unwilling or unable to provide an exact, verbatim quote from her. I will do that, if you cannot find anything from her verbatim which would be to your liking. Lonely Planet Guide books. This is a really unacceptable secondary or even tertiary source. Stephenson(?): For this section we want the views of current scientists! Not somebody who published in 1915. Please, understand, that history is not mathematics. There are no infallible truths here. We can only rely on what experts, greater than ourselves are saying today. Steven Mitchell: The "Current views" section is only about the Roman conquest of Dacia and its immediate aftermath, i.e. Roman Dacia. This is the best, most widely studied part of the "story", the rest is even more murky and controversial. Let us not mix things up here, let us keep a chronological and logical order.

Eravian (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dc76! I added a little section about Haplogroup further up in the article. However, since you agree, as everybody else seems to be doing, that currently no real conclusions can be drawn from Haplogroup, I removed that long complicated section. It really is a distraction! Since you and I already know a fair amount about the current state of research into Romanian origins, we should try to keep this page readable for the casual reader who might venture into this neck of the woods. There is plenty in here already. I will be waiting for your EXACT quote from Oltean for the "Current views on the Roman Conquest etc." section.

Eravian (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Eravian! For the n-th time: it was NOT me who introduced anything by Oltean, so please, don't ask me to provide quotes from there anymore. I have told you this twice, no I am telling you the third time. Dc76\^talk 17:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I respectfully disagree with your removal of the section on genetic research. The information there was well-cited, and it serves the purpose of showing that there is more to the Origin of Romanians as a subject of study than centuries old Romanian-Hungarian quarrels. Whether something is conclusive or not, whether it proves something or not (for what it's worth, I am of the same opinion as you on the matter, but my personal opinion does not matter), it is for scholarly sources to say, not for us as editors. We are not bound to erase every mention of Big Bang theory from WP until it is mathematically proven correct. On the contrary, we say everything it is known about this. The same here: we can add info to show the extent of current knowledge. Why are you against that? You introduced a paragraph that is you personal opinion on the matter (conincidently also mine, too), while you erased text that I earlier introduced, which was fully referenced. You somehow, I am afraid, you believe that I introduced that section to prove a nationalistic point. Please understand: I had something totally different in mind. Dc76\^talk 17:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you, please, explain why did you remove the following two:

About a century and a half later [from the Roman conquest] hordes of barbarian invaders, coming from the north and east, swept over the country. Under the strain of those incursions the Roman legions withdrew by degrees into Moesia, and in A.D. 271 Dacia was finally evacuated. But the colonists remained, retiring into the Carpathians, where they lived forgotten of history.

In the years following the retreat of the Roman administration from Dacia (271-275 AD), besides the Romans and the romanised Dacians left behind, the number of Latin speakers was further increased by the captives brought there by barbarian tribes controlling the territory in and around the former Roman province, after successful incursions south of the Danube.

Maybe they were not placed in the correct section, but that meant that they should be moved, not erased! Dc76\^talk 18:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Octavian! About verbatim citations: It is unfortunate, that this subject is so sensitive and controversial. Every single word, except the most neutral platitudes will be contested and debated. That is the reason for the Verbatim quotes. While I agree that generally verbatim quotes are not necessary, in this instance, they are mandatory. If you were the one who added Oltean to the "Current views etc" section, please quote her verbatim where she supports the Romanisation of Dacians. I believe she does have quotable sentences.

Eravian (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by Eravian

Eravian, what you are doing right now goes against all the rules of a civil discussion. QUIT butchering my and others text only becasue it does not fit your distorted opinion that nowdays all historians believe that the daco-roman continuity is a myth. Prticularly when your opinion is based on one article, a TV show and some text on the internet site of a news organization. As I and others do not edit your refernced text, have at least the courtesy to do the same. All such major changes have to be accordingly discussed in the talk page, please start applying these principles or else I will talk to you only through admins.Octavian8 (talk) 20:36, 2http://www.zenit.org/article-26421?l=english0 July 2009 (UTC)

Octavian! You made an effort to add more citations and I appreciate that. However, there are still problems with the quality of the citations. You criticize my citations, but I have done a great deal of research on these authors and they have impeccable academic credentials. Citing the Lonely Planet Travel guide book or authors like Bunson would not be accepted on any respectable Wikipedia page. Please, believe me, I have edited other unrelated Wikipedia pages, and if there is even the slightest disagreement on any topic, NO ENCYCLOPEDICAL sources are allowed.

Let us just see who Matthew Bunson is: Check this catholic website:http://www.zenit.org/article-26421?l=english.

Matthew Bunson, who has a Doctor of Ministry degree from the Graduate Theological Foundation, is a senior fellow at St.Paul Center for Biblical Theology. He is the author of more than 35 books, including "We have a pope, Benedict the XVI.""The Encyclopedia of Catholic History." and "Papal wisdom, Words of Hope and Inspiration from John Paul the II."

In other words Bunson is NOT A HISTORIAN, NOT AN ARCHEOLOGIST. Never claimed he was. Never studied or published anything original on Roman Dacia.Eravian (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That WAS NOT my citation, look carefuly at the history of the article. However such comments are strange coming out from you, as you are ready to trust TV shows... Nevertheless, I see that you don't understand nice talk and continue to edit the article and delete referenced text without prior discussion here. Do not misundestand me, but is the last time i try to reason with you on this issue.Octavian8 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Octavian' Please, do not hastily reverse my edits. I just added your qoute from Oltean to the section. I am trying very much to find credible citations for similar views, but cannot accept encyclopedical sources, travel guides or sources from 1915 or sources not dealing specifically with Roman Dacia. Nor can I accept personal opinion. No rspectable Wikpedia page will. You would talk about "Il racconto secreto della colonna Traiana" differently, if you took the time to actally see it. Please, understand that professor Livio Zerbini is a professor of Roman History, head of the archeology department at Ferrara University, Italy, and here is what he writes:

Effettivamente ho curato io la puntata di Alberto Angela su "Il racconto della colonna Traiana". In questi ultimi anni mi sono dedicato alla Dacia Romana, con due pubbliccazioni "L'ultima conquista" e "La Dacia Romana", oltre ad alcuni articoli.

In English: "Actually, I was the one who curated (edited, organized, such as a museum curator) this film by Alberto Angela "The secret tale of Trajan's column". In these last years, I dedicated myself to Roman Dacia with two publications (these are books): "The last conquest" and "Roman Dacia" (this one was cowritten by Romanian author Radu Ardevan), beyond various articles." You may contact professor Zerbini yourself at Ferrara University, in fact I would recommend that you do so. Eravian (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with your edits as long as you keep by the rules of a civil discussion, this means discussing things not acting on your own behaf. So, stop editing without agreement.Octavian8 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was off for some three weeks and now everything is back to the distorted biased view of Eravian. It is obvious that he has a lot more time than me to police this article. I abide to the spirit of wikipedia that implies I accept there are some people with little else to do than impose their view irrespective of arguments and ignoring any type of civil discussion. This article needs to be thoroughly modified and considering editors as Eravian I don't believe anymore that these modification can be done from the current form. I hope that some historians get an interest in this article and try to edit it, but I pity them if they meet some Eravian. In the end that is wikpedia's main strength and weakness: Everybody can edit it... Octavian8 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The works of A. Armbruster

I agree that the english version of this article is tendencious compaired with the french one. I mentioned above the name of Nicolae Iorga internationally recognised historian, whose works are not mentioned here. Roeslers work about the romanian language is mentioned, but not the works of Adolf Armbruster for example, about the Latinity (Romanity if I may say so) of the Romanian people.

Sorry, I am afraid that even the French version of the article is really tendentious: it is based exclusively on works following the Daco-Romanian continuity theory (and its most orthodox version) and it obviously forgets about the most important arguments of the migrationist theory (toponyms, linguistic evidences, written sources ... etc). I think that Adolf Armbrusters' work is a little bit biased: he refers to Constantinus Porphyrogennetos' record on "the people who are called Romans" in the 10th century, but he fails to provide the information that the emperor described a population living in Dioclea and Illyricum; he (Adolf Armbruster) also cite a Romanian popular tradition recorded in a Russian Annals about the Roman origin of the Romanian people, but he fails to cite the part of the chronicle which describes that the Romanians were invited to the Kingdom of Hungary by King Ladislaus. Therefore, I think it is not a weakness of the article that it does not refer to him (although some of the sentences of the article are based on his work).Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally NOT "afraid", mister Borsoka - the french version has a form at least, it takes in account also the consequences of what happened centuries ago - the links between then and now, explains the origin of the name because in fact that is understood even by the title of the article "the origin of the romanians", etc. It is well organised, not an "amorphe quest" of proving the "migration theory" by all means and in fact it mentions also in a distinct chapter HOW all these "theories" were born , as I said before : a reaction to what happened with the frontiers. See the french version : "Construction de la Roumanie et début des controverses" and the ones which are following it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex97 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I still have concerns also about the French version of the article based exclusively on extremly biased works which fails to refer to the real argumentations of authors who do not accept the "Daco-Romanian" continuity. It looks like a better article but it is a good example of biased articles. If you read the archive of the talk page personally I suggested more than a year ago that the whole article in English Wikipedia should be rewritten based on modern works.Borsoka (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Toponyms and link to albanians

It is superficial and limited to affirm that "all historians believe that the daco-roman continuity is a myth" - in fact one of the first undisputable evidence of this continuity is the area where the romanian was and it is spoken. Even in the Gaesta Hungarorum chronical, it is mentioned the presence of the "vlachs" - but this is also contested, of course, by the hungarian historians who consider it inaccurate. Which is the evidence in favour of the fact that the Magyars finded the future Transylvania almost completely empty at their arrival? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex97 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was empty, empty of Vlachs that is. No, when the Magyars arrived in the territory of modern Transylvania, they found a slavic population there, as evident to the fact that the majority of toponyms in Transylvania are slavic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.86.29 (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you rely your affirmation that "the majority of toponyms in Transylvania are slavic"? - have you documented it? Of course, there are ones which are, but even the romanian language has words of slavian origin, but the majority of the vocabulary and of course, the grammar is by excellence one of the closest to latin, as it was accepted by the international community of linguists. Anthropologically speaking, the romanian people, as the other peoples in the Eastern Europe, is genetically quite heterogene - due to all those migrations beginning with the goths, the slavians and then the "asians" - huns, magyars, etc. As you allready know, that was the cause of the falling of the Roman Empire which could not resist anymore to the "barbarian" attacks from the exterior, as from the interior (it is known the contribution of the germanic merchants in the roman army). So they retired their administration of the territories.

Actually, the major part of the toponyms are of Hungarian origin in Transylvania (see the sources cited in the article). Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And the majority of this majority is of dacian/roman origin (see the sources cited in the article)...:-) Come on, there is no point in repeating the article in the talk page as well. You haven't yet answered my post in the "Citation from the book by Oltean" section. I was actually enjoying our discussion. Look forward to hearing from you. Btw. the link to albanians is already an almost dead issue by 2000, rejectd mostly by historians specialized on the history of albanians (e.g., K. Clewing, N. Malcom, etc.). The thing with the toponyms is related to those who first brought them on the paper and most of those, at least in Transylvania were germans/hungarians, as the romanians were underpriviledged by the end of the xiv century. Hence the apparent lack of romanian toponyms is explained by the fact that it were germans/hungarians who first reported about those names in such a way that these reports survived the centuries up to these days. Octavian8 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I thought that the question you raised above "Citation from the book by Oltean" was answered by Dc76 (I can accept his suggestion). Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks - would you please clarify whose and what connection with the Albanians was rejected?Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just check out those authors and you will see what I mean. Octavian8 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank for your suggestion, I will try it. And I would be grateful if you could specify the works I should read (author, title, ISBN ... etc).Borsoka (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your second remark is really surprising: so the Hungarians recorded Slavic toponyms but they failed to record Romanian toponyms in the 11th-14th centuries. I am surprised because it is well documented that plenty of clerks of Italian, French, German origin worked for the royal chancellery of the Kingdom of Hungary in the same period, moreover the official language of the country was Latin. Do you think they preferred Slavic toponymy to Romanian place names? They recorded hundreds and hundreds of place names of clear Slavic origin, but they did not record any of Romanian origin. Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Hungarians followed the path cleared by the previous barbarian invasions and encountered their remnants, from them they've learned the names of places. The latin speakers of the period were either slaves, hiding in the mountains or living in regions outside the main path of the barbarian invasions -- that's the way they've survived them. I don't see what is that surprising that the Hungarians took the toponyms from the first people they've met and keep them afterwards and put them in writing in works that survived the time. I mean the fact that the Hungarians encountered virtually no latin speakers (call them protoromaninas if you want) is the core idea of the migrationist theory. What they don't accept is the fact that they didn't look that well after protoromanians and were surprised to see them coming out of their hidings when the waves of barbarian invasions stopped. To put it plastically the Hungarians acted like you get into a huge dark room with only a candle in the middle, you go to the candle, see no one around it and think you are alone... But here the debate starts again :-) Octavian8 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So, If my understanding correct, the "proto-Romanians" were living outside the main path of the barbarian invasions during a period of one thousand years. Therefore, the Magyars were obliged to adopt the place-names and a significant part of the vocabulary of a sedentary population from the Slavs who had been living in hamlets, cultivating lands on the path of the migratory peoples in the course of the barbarian invasions. Therefore, because the sedentary Slavic population was braver than the sedentary (or always running?) proto-Romanian population, the latter were also obliged to adopt the Slavic, Hungarian, Pecheneg, Cuman and German toponymy (and a part of the agriculturist vocabulary of the Slavs) when they appeared suddenly in the 12th-14th century on the plains. Therefore, the fact that the toponymy of Romania is basically of Slavic, Hungarian, Turkic and German origin proves that the proto-Romanians used to live out of the path of the migratory peoples in contrast with the Slavs. Is my understanding correct? Or I missed something? Borsoka (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if we are to speculate now, let's accept the theory of migration from the south of the Danube. So how you explain the majority of romanian speaking people in Transylvania since centuries ago? Does it seem to you "historically logic" if I may say so, that all the DOCUMENTED this time thraco(daco) - roman population of Transylvania would have almost entirely left the region and migrate towards south, and later, AFTER the arrival and settlement of the slavian and magyar population, they would have begun to migrate AGAIN towards a teritory already occupied, as you affirm, by a majority of certainly hostyle(I would say) magyars (as we know that they attacked other territories and finally did treat with their germanic neighbours at that time)- why would they have done such a migration, in what purpose, which are the documents sustaining that - if it was so, such a massive migration from south would have been mentioned in Gaesta Hungarorum and other chronicles, but it's not at all the case. One of the most plausible possibility is that the "proto-romanians" did not have a strong political organisation at that time, after the retirement of the roman administration. What is also considered by many historians (not only romanians !)is that they prefered hide in the mountaines which fortunately are quite wellcoming for settlement - that's why most of the ancient romanians were herdsmen. The territory was occupied by the magyars who imposed their authority for centuries in the region, but never succeeded to "breed out" the romanians. The magyars where rulers in the region, but not the majority. In the history of Transylvania there are some known periods of revolt against those rulers - revolts which were boodily suffocated.

Nobody claims that the "Daco-Romans" migrated from Dacia Trajana in the 3rd century, and they migrated back to the territory in the 12th-14th centuries. Just for avoiding any misunderstanding, scholars who follows the migrationist theory point out, for example, that (i) it is impossible that in the province of the Roman Empire which used to be under Roman rule for the shortest period a full Romanisation of the local population could have been achieved (e.g., Britain, Rhaetia, Noricum were under Roman rule for 400 years and a Celtic population survived the Roman conquest) (ii) it is impossible that a Romanised population survived the 1,000 years of migrations (e.g., in Rhaetia, Noricum, Pannonia the Romanised population disappeared by the 8th century) (iii) it is more probable that the ancestors of the Romanians are to be searched among the Romanised population of Illyricum and Moesia - provinces under Roman rule for 400-600 centuries (iv) the Romanians' liturgical language was the Old Church Slavonic which was official only in the First Bulgarian Empire after 893, therefore it is impossible that they adopted it north of the Danube. Therefore, they suggest (based on archaeology, linguistics, toponymy, written sources) that (i) the ancestors of the Romanians used to lived in the intensively Romanised provinces of the Roman Empire south of the Danube, north of the Jirecek Line; (ii) they migrated southward when the Slavs commenced their migration to the Balkan Peninsula in the 7th century (written sources) (iii) they had close relationship with the ancestors of the Albanians (linguistics) and later with the ancestors of the Bulgarians (lingquistics and written sources) (iv) being nomads (written sources), they commenced their northward migration in the 10th century (written sources, toponyms in the Balkan Peninsula south of the Danube); (v) they appeared north of the Danube in the 11th century (written sources, toponymy of Slavic, Hungarian and German origin). Actually, I have the impression that there are only two arguments of the followers of the Daco-Romanian continuity theory: archaeology (but they have to forget about the Slavs whose presence north of the Danube is well-sourced by documents written between the 6th and the 13th century) and the Gesta Hungarorum (a chronicle which mentions Cumans, Czechs in the Carpathian Basin around 895, but does not have any knowledge of the Moravians, the Franks whose presence at that time is well-documented in contemporary sources). Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Borsoka, as you certainly know, roman(ized) population did survive in provinces like Raetia and Britannia (Wales, land of the Welsh, cognate of Wal(a)ch). Funnily enough, the geography of these regions explains the same survival mechanism as in Transylvania: people retreated in the natural fortresses of the Alps/mountainous Wales, and lived there more or less anonimously for centuries. About linguistics, you remark the "close relationship" between Romanian and Albanian, which in fact is limitid at some dozens of words from the common Thracic subtrate, but conveniently ignore the very relevant fact that the Romanian spoken in Transylvania, Banat and Oltenia, i.e., exactly on the teritories which once formed Dacia Traiana,has the highest latin content Romania wide. The demographics seem also also irrelevant to you, as at any point in time when the population of Transylvania was counted or asessed, the Romanians formed the majority, even in times of most ferocious discrimination (see the chronicles of western travellers to Transylvania in the XVIth, XVIIth centuries. Not only were they majoritary in Transylvania, but they also supplied massive migration towards south and east, over the mountains. If the migration theory is true, it only explains the origin of a tiny fraction of the total Romanian population. It is trying to fill an ocean with the water from a bottle.

• • Thank you for your remarks. Yes, it is a well-known fact that some splinters of the Roman(ized) population survived in Raetia and Britannia for some hundred years but not for a millenium. Their survival is well documented by (among other things) toponyms of pre-Roman or Roman origin (e.g., London). But it is also a fact that (although both Raetia and Britain used to be under Roman rule for more than 400 years) the Romanized population disappeared at the end of the day. Welsh people speak a Celtic (=pre-Roman) language, otherwise German languages are spoken both in Britain and in Raetia.Borsoka (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite exact: Rumantsch speaking people have survived to the the very present; their language is one of the four official languages of Switzerland, you can find it on every swiss franc bancnote. It is true that the romanized celts of Wales lost their latinity over the centuries, but why should this be the absolute, general rule? Just because the Latin speaking population didn't survive there, makes the survival in Transylvania also impossible? This is a very simplistic logic. What is regretable about this disscusion is that emotions and political opinions interfere with the interpretations of evidence, which make many contributors take either/or positions, pro or against continuity. The reality on the other hand, is most probably a mixture of both, migration and continuity theory. Also, it is an asymetric dispute; as a supporter of the migration theory, you must prove the absolute absence of any Roman/Romanian element in Transylvania before 900-1000; if 99% of the evidence were in your favour, the remaining 1% would still prove you wrong. By the way, I'm Marius, haven't registered yet.

• • Yes, I also understand that the fact that the Romanized population of the montainous regions of Dalmatia, Moesia, Dardania, Praevalitana provinces practically disappeared by now (although those provinces used to be under Roman rule for more than 500-600 years) is not surprising, if one assume that the Romanized population of a sole province of the Roman Empire (Dacia Traiana) which was Romanized less than 180 years survived in the mountains of Transylvania.Borsoka (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you refer to the sources from the 16th century or before which suggest a majority Romanian population in Transylvania and the Banat?Borsoka (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt there are any reliable sources regarding the population counting reaching that far back. But, as Romanians lost their rights as a nation in the 14th century and were therefore implicitly urged to give up their identity (which many did), the logic should tell us that their numbers probably diminished in the coming centuries, so there were more (and more notable, see John Hunyady) Romanians in the 15th century as after. Matthias Corvin was probably the last Hungarian king to speak Romanian (among other languages). Marius. To take another example - France - the name, as you already may know, comes from the germanic tribe called franks who occupied the northern part of the ex-roman province of Gallia. They become rulers and more or less mixed with the local gallo-roman population, but the language still (!) has a latin grammar and vocabulary proving also the continuity of the gallo-roman population on the territory. The same thing happened in actual northern Italy(Lombardia after the name of the germanic tribes called lombards) - the germanic rulers of the Romano-Germanic Empire(the ostrogoths - "eastern goths") did not "breed out" the "roman population" and they mixed, but the language still of latin heritage.

Sorry, France and Italy are different cases. France was under Roman rule untill the end of the Roman Empire, and around 511 a feudal state was organised there - consequently it was not criss-crossed during centuries by migrating populations who settled on the territory for centuries (the only exception is the Normans, but they occupied only a small part of the entire country). Italy has been Romanised for at least 700 years when the first "barbarians" (the Goths) settled there in the 470s, and the major part of the country was never occupied by Germanic tribes (but interestingly the Italian language contains several East Germanic loan words, in contrast to the Romanian). In Romania, only a smaller part of the country was Romanised and only for 165 years, and all the territory was occupied by migrating peoples from the 270s until 1000 (and the major part of her territory was still occupied by migratory population until the 1240s). Borsoka (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's clarify a little bit what it means that a territory was "ocupied by migratory population": first these migrating tribes were usually warior ones, which means that they were highly visible (because they were feared) and consequently their presence is very well documented. This does not mean however, that they were particularly numerous; on the contrary, as we know about the Hungarians for example, they were often tiny tribes, or small unions of tribes (see "Onogur", ten arrows, i.e., ten tribes). Now, these "ten tribes" (at their most, perhaps some tens of thousands) theoretically occupied a territory stretched between nothern Spain and Transylvania; please don't tell me that, with the exception of the places they expressely settled or pillaged, they really controlled anything in that vastness. In fact, apparently they didn't set foot in southern-central Transylvania before the Saxons they send there at around 1200, as they took the name of the river Tarnava from the Saxons (Kockel turned to Kukulö). The Romanians use a Slavic name, which implies cohabitation with the Slavs in this region, cohabitation that could only have taken place before the Magyar invasion. So much about the chronology of arrival..Marius

• • Yes, I understand that Romanians were a unique people: they were the majority population but they used Slavic words when giving a name to their rivers, mountains and settlements; their technic to hide away was so succesful that their presence were not realised by the contemporary sources although many of them realised Gepids among the Slavs (Simocatta), Kavars among the Hungarians (Regino of Prüm), Taifals among the Goths ... Borsoka (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have also managed to understand that the Goths (who lived in large settlements) were a predatory and migratory population in contrast with the proto-Romanians involved in transhumance. Therefore, the Goths were also a minority population because by the time they arrived to Moldavia and the Wallachian plain (and consequently Dacia Traiana was abandoned by the Romans) the Daco-Romans had managed to Romanize the Free Dacians, Bastarnae and Sarmatians there. I also understand that when the contemporary sources exclusively refer to Slavs, Bulgars, Magyars, Pechenegs and Cumans during the period between 500 and 1100 they are misleading, because these predatory, migratory, minority peoples lived in the sea of the majority proto-Romanians (who decided to use Slavic and later Hungarian, Cuman, German words to name the places where they were living). Borsoka (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes the Hungarians (similarly to the Romanians) adopted some place names of German origin (e.g., Romanian Beşinbav, Hungarian Besinbák from German Beschenbach), which suggest that the specific region was bereft of men when the Germans settled there (and this is in line with the contemporary written sources). Actually, the Küküllő was adopted from a Turkic language (its meaning was similar to the river's Romanian name of Slavic origin, Tirnava, namely "with blueberry"), but the majority of the names of the rivers in Transylvania is of Hungarian and Slavic origin in all the languages used nowadays in that region.
  • Yes, some toponyms suggest a cohabitation of Slavs and Romanians in some regions of Transylvania, but nobody denies that the Slavic natives survived the Hungarian conquest in Transylvania. Their presence is documented not only by toponyms of Slavic origin but also written sources which recorded Slavic personal names in the 11th-13th centuries. Even the Germans met some Slavic populations there in the 1150s and 1160s, therefore it is not surprising that the immigrant Romanians also cohabited with Slavs in some places. Borsoka (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

I wasn't talking about Goths or Slavs, but about the way smaller groups of the Magyars. You are so keen on completely ignoring any Romanian interference with history that it makes one suspect you would want Romanians to come from the moon, or even better, to go there. Now seriously, Mures, Somes, Olt, Aries, Cerna, etc are all Roman/preRoman names influenced by Slavic phonetics. There is plenty of evidence (written, linguistics, etc) which you discard up front, as it doesn't serve your purposes. And yes, Romanians have evidently followed a unique path in the history of the region, having stayed Latin, while all the others got assimilated by Slavs or Hungarians. Compare with the Hungarians: even though they were the conquering, dominating ethnical group, nowadays Hungarian contains about 20% words of Magyar origin, the remaining 80% come from Slavic, German, Latin/Romance and others. Being so fiercely Hungarian means denying 80% of your inherited identity, a big chunk of it being assimilated Romanian genes. Life's ironical, isn't it? Marius.

One of the only regions where the romans did not influence the language and probably not so much the genes either, was Britannia - there, the anglo - saxons rulers coming from the north of actual Germany (saxons), Denmark (especially the angles), the Netherlands(Friesland)) imposed themselves over the local celtic population. If the english language has latin words is not from a "roman heritage" as some would think, but as a consequence of borrowing words from the french brought by the norman conquest.

I gave all these examples in order to better clarify the situation of many "romanised" people in Europe who were conquered and ruled by succesive migratory "barbarians" as the romans called them.

WHO says that -> "it is impossible that a Romanised population survived the 1,000 years of migrations (e.g., in Rhaetia, Noricum, Pannonia the Romanised population disappeared by the 8th century)" - why would it be so impossible when it allready did in so many parts of Europe as I gave the example.

And there is NO missunderstanding : I simply ask which are the proofs for this affirmation -> "being nomads (written sources), they commenced their northward migration in the 10th century (written sources, toponyms in the Balkan Peninsula south of the Danube); (v) they appeared north of the Danube in the 11th century (written sources, toponymy of Slavic, Hungarian and German origin)" - if you have the time, give the EXACT quotations from those written sources with all their precise notifications. And also in which written sources is it so exactely specified that Transylvania was so "empty"? Of course that the romanians has linguistic links to the romanised populations from southern Balkans representing a "continuum" of roman teritory before the beginning of the gothic, slavian and "asian" invasion. Then those populations were split and no such an easy contact was kept.

Being nomads: (1) Comnena, Anna (Author) - Sewter, E. R. A. (Translator): The Alexiad (Penquin Group, 2003, London; ISBN 978-0-14-044958-7.) page 252 "the Bulgars and the nomads (commonly called Vlachs)"; (2) Tudela, Benjamin of (Author) - Adler, Marcus Nathan (Translator): The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (Hard Press, 2006; ISBN 1-4069-1326-X.) page 21 "The nation called Wallachians live in those mountains. They are as swift as hinds, and they sweep down from the mountains to despoil and ravage the land of Greece" (3) Cecaumeno (Author) - Signes Codoñer, Juan (Translator): Consejos de un aristócrata Bizantino (Alianza Editorial, 2000, Madrid; ISBN 84-206-3594-4) page 115 los valacos "tienen esta costumbre, que sus rebanos y familias permanezcan desde el mes de abril hasta el mes de septiembre en cumbres elevadas y lugares muy fríos"Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Northward migration of Romanians: (1) Letopisetul cantacuzinesc [1] (page 3) (2) The citation of the text of the Russian Anonym chronicle in Armbruster, Adolf: Romanitatea românilor: istoria unei idei (Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România) capitolul III § 1 [2]Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No written sources specifies that Transylvania was "empty". Nobody claims that there are sources specifying that Transylvania was "empty" anytime.Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Romanised population of souther Balkan? What about the Jirecek line? It is interesting that the Romanians north of the Danube, outside the empire had intensive contacts with the Romanians south of the Danube (although after 448 there was a wide no-mans land between them), but they had no contacts with the Gepids, Goths (whose presence north of the Danube, on the territory of present day Romania is well documented by written sources and archaeological evidences). Actually the Gothic invasion began in the 3rd century, so I think your above remark should be properly modified (based on works written by the champions of Daco-Romanian continuity such as Ioan Aurel Pop, Victor Spinei). Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you say that all this region was occupied by slavians ,magyars and other migrators who founded no one in the region at their arrival - you still don't have clear explanations about the fact that HOWEVER those slavian and magyar populations begun to "borrow" the language of those "nomads" as you call them and actually the majoritary spoken language is a latin one documented from centuries ago and there is NO evidence of a romanian RULING domination to impose it(the language)in Transylvania at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex97 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody claims that the Slavs, the Magyars, the Goths did not find anyone on the territories. The Goths met Sarmatians, Carpians there, the Slavs found Gepids there, and the Magyars found Slavs, Avars in Transylvania.Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you specify the meaning that "the Slav and Magyar population began to borrow the language of those nomads". Actually, while there are plenty of loan words in the Hungarian language from Iranian, Turkic and Slavic languages, there is only a very specific vocabulary borrowed from the Romanian language: words describing the life of pastors (cioban, baci ...). I think it is really remarkable that neither the Slavs, nor the Hungarians borrowed a plenty of words from the Romanian languages, although they borrowed plenty of words from each other. Maybe by the time the Magyars met the ancestors of the Romanians, there was no need to borrow new words, because their (the Magyars) sedentary life could be described by Iranian, Turkic and Slavic loanwords. Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you provide any evidence that Romanians were the majority of the population of Transylvania before the 17th century?Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"but he fails to cite the part of the chronicle which describes that the Romanians were invited to the Kingdom of Hungary by King Ladislaus." - as I'm not a specialist, in what purpose does the King Ladislau "invite" the Romanians in the region? What says the chronicle about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex97 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the citation of the text of the Russian Anonym chronicle in Armbruster, Adolf: Romanitatea românilor: istoria unei idei (Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România) capitolul III § 1 [3], you will find that King Ladislaus, according to the Romanian tradition recorded in the chronicle, invited their ancestors in order to fight against the Tatars. Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But mister Borsoka, if you speculate so, then "invite" to fight doesn't mean "at all costs" that the vlachs must have been elsewhere, but can mean ( as even in present days...) that he maybe invite them in the sense of an allied as you say it yourself, but an allied which doesn't necessarily live elsewhere.

I don't know; maybe he invited them over for tea? The purpose of King Ladislaus invited Vlachs to live in Transylvania is irrelevant.  The point is the king INVITED them.  Now why would you invite a people to come live in your domain if these people we're supposedly already established there to begin with? Perhaps he inviting them over leads one to believe that these Vlachs were not In Transylvania, but OUTSIDE of it? If this is so, it leads one to believe that since this king invited a people OUTSIDE of his land to come and live WITHIN it, that these people - the vlachs - came not FROM Transylvania, but from SOMEWHERE ELSE?... Nah, that can't be.

And - if you know about the history of those regions at that time - maybe you know or you're interested about what followed the 10th and the 11th century - as we don't learn history just for the sake of it, but to learn from it and to see that it has even NOW some consequences. How did this "migration theory" emerged if not as a reaction to the unification of Transylvania to the 2 other romanian countries. You probably heard about Mihai Viteazul (the Brave) who tried the first time to unify the 3 countries at the beginning of the 17th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex97 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Mihail Viteazul was prince of Transylvania for some months around 1600. The migrationist theory is recorded by the Cantacuzene Chronicle.

"Cantacuzino chronicle"...

And about the Transylvanian toponyms - of course there are many with magyar and german resonance as the "administrators" were magyar and also germanic (later), but there is allways a romanian variant of those names and many of them have also romanian origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.203.141.7 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that the Hungarians borrowed place names from Slavs, Turks and Germans, but they failed to borrow place names from Romanians. It is also interesting that the Romanians also borrowed toponyms from Slavs, Germans and Hungarians. Yes, all the place names has its Romanian variant - the overwhelming majority borrowed from the Hungarian or Slavic. Similarly, in the 1890s all the place names in the Kingdom of Hungary had it Hungarian variant - in several cases borrowed from a Slavic language.Borsoka

as I said, remember who ware the "dominators" and then maybe you will understand what I ment... (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot catch your point. So the fact that the Hungarians had already borrowed Slavic toponyms by the beginning of the 11th century (recorded in charters issued by King St Stephen) proves that Slavs were "dominators" in the Kingdom of Hungary? So the fact that Anglosaxon and French people in North America borrowed native toponyms suggests that the natives were "dominators"? So the fact that from the 14th century there are some place names in Transylvania borrowed from Romanian suggests that sometimes during the reign of King Louis the Great the Romanian became "dominators" in the Kingdom of Hungary? Or? Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Such as?

Reversals

I do not have any problem with citing pro-Dacian views in the "Current views etc" section which I wrote. In fact I am searching for them myself. The problem is with the quality of citations and whether they are current or not. Also in this section - because it is sensitive and contested by respectable authors - verbatim quotes are needed. We want to illustrate here with exact varbatim quotes from respectable primary sources the diversity of views. This section is still an introductory part, more detailed discussions may be included in later parts. As of right now, we seem to be moving in a vicious circle with opposing parties coming up with citations which are encyclopedical, out of the time frame studied or writing long comments in their own words. I cannot maintain 24hr vigilance over this segment so ultimately the opposing parties can do whatever they want. But I do believe that insisting on a bare minimum of scientific standards should make for a better Wikipedia page and should not provoke unreasonable behaviour.

Eravian (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eravian (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC) 

I do not see what was the "unreasonable behaviour" - I've also asked for the exact quotations when speaking about the "migration theory"...which written sources..etc. But as I already said,I agree that the english section is really not at all organized even with the few mentioned quotations.

I am not promoting the migration theory or any other theory. These theories are detailed greatly by other editors further down the article. All I am asking for is for editors to check their authors properly, before citing them, use primary sources, that is, scientists who devote their lives to reserching these issues. I would appreciate if this section "Current views.." would be left alone now. I would not mind if more elaborations are given following it under a separate, new heading such as for example "The Dacian Connection". But, please, use authors such as Boia, Oltean, Niculescu, Hansen and yes Zerbini (If you can read Italian and can get a hold of his books). Is it difficult to comprehend that encyclopedias like Matthew Bunson's or Marshall Cavendish's do not allow other editors to verify who, when and where actually wrote the information quoted? How can we compare Matthew Bunson, a theologian who turned out 35(!)encyclopedias in 15 years and never set foot at an archeological excavation site to Professor Livio Zerbini who even now is conducting major archeological excavations, is in charge of the archeology department of a major university in Italy and has made his entire life's mission to study the Roman Empire? Reaching back to 100 year old history books is also not the most appropriate. Why would we be not using the scholarly research and publications of the last twenty years? Eravian (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with citations, then TAG them. This leads to a discussion in the talk page and possibly to the elimination of the respective refernce and text it supports. THIS is the civil way of editing Wikipedia articles. DO NOT delete referenced text before discussion! Octavian8 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The section "Current views on the Roman conquest of Dacia and its aftermath"

This title as of now is misleading and it should be changed. The section speculates on the fate of the native dacian population, so the title should rather sound like: Current views on the fate of the Dacians in the aftermath of the Roman conquest.

There is an ongoing sort of edit war concerning this section. The main issue is that the user Ervaian consistently replaces work by other editors with his own ideeas without discussing issues first on this talk page.

I will revert the respective section to the version previous to Eravian`s edit spree and revert any edit until we agree here what to do with it. I invite all editors to drop their thought on the matter in this section of the talk page.

The way I see it we have the following options (please feel free to add other as well if you see fit):

Completely remove the section

This section says nothing else that the topic is still controversial and that there are divergent opinions. Well the topic WAS controversial and it WILL be controversial. Hence the section makes no sense and it makes the article even mode difficult to follow than it nevertheless is.

I fully agree with the above suggestion. The main arguments could be inserted into the proper part (archaeology, written sources ...) of the article. There is no point in repeating the same story under different titles. Borsoka (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm seek and tired to fight Eravian over this, so I agree to delete it as well. Octavian8 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite of the section to truly reflect current opinions

In my view, the section makes sense, as there is curently a new wave of romanian historians (led by Boia) that argue against the exclusivity of the Daco-roman contiuity in the romanian historian landscape. HOWEVER they DON`T argue against the ideea of continuity itself! The argue rather against the dogma with which the communist regiom in Romania surrounded it. What comes out of their writeings is that the romanian people formed not around romanized dacians but around a core of latin speakers. This includes romanized dacians (both from Dacia Trajana and around) roman citzens that chose to stay in 275, latin speakers brought as sclaves by the barabarin people controling the territory after 275, latin speakers that left the roman provinces south of the Danube under pressure from barbarian tribes. This amounts in the end to sort of a mix of continuity and migration from the south.

We could also add here the alleged link between romanian and albanians as advocated by Gottfried Schramm that is a thory rather new by comparison with the other two.

Just a remark. The connection between the Romanian and the Albanian is not a "rather" new theory. Even the connection between the Romanian, the Albanian and the Bulgarian is a rather old theory. Borsoka (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just read my text properly, I said "as advocated by Gottfried Schramm", so as to set it apart from the ´other´ wilde ideas that try to link the romanians even to the chinese.Octavian8 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep the section as an amorph mix

I mean here the mix of current ideeas for and against the daco-roman continuity and the more modern ideeas of language as catalist/mix between continuity and migration and the albanian link. This was the status od the section before user Eravian started with his wilde edits and the staus to which I am reverting it now. Octavian8 (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised when Eravian insists on that we should quote only from certain historians - I think that is wrong to limit the sources - when trying to have a more or less objective view, it must be looked upon all available sources and historical studies, otherwise it becomes biased. And I don't see why some insist so much on Boia's study and the communist times, when there are so many other studies done before the communist era was really installed (especially Iorga) which are quite reliable and also internationally recognized, but I won't insist anymore...let it be as it is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex97 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least we started some debate on these issues. How did this come about? Some months ago I came across these Italian and British views about the conquest of Dacia and its aftermath which were significantly different from what had up to that point been presented as an exclusively Romanian-Hungarian debate. I also discovered Romanian authors such as Boia, Niculescu, Oltean etc. and saw just how far Romanian historiography has come from the days of the Ceausescu dictatorship. I presented these findings on the discussion pages for several months without getting involved in the editing of the article. Finally I inserted just one sentence which stated that these authors reconfirmed (the information from the ancient authors, Strabo etc.) that the wars were bloody, the repercussions for the Dacians were severe, there was ethnic cleansing, the province became depopulated and was resettled by colonists from the Empire. Then recently Octavian came in and without first consulting about it or tagging it, added such negative qualifiers and quantifiers as "some, likely" substantially changing the significance of my sentence. I tried to accomodate this and tried to change the wording, but again and again it was altered. That is when I decided to insist on verbatim quotes. They did not like that and - as is apparent from Lex97's above comment - they do not like Lucian Boia, the currently, internationally most recognized Romanian historian either. Now I added tags to the disputed texts. Does anybody understand or accept the fact that encyclopedias such as the ones quoted, namely Bunson's and Cavendish's do not allow the reader to check where the information published in them actually came from? Do we want to keep a bare minimum of scientific standards? The Forbes 1915 history book is also not an appropriate source for "Current views". Does all the work and research of the last 20years stand for nothing? Stephen Mitchell's "History of the Later Roman Empire" deals with the time period after Roman Dacia and thus is also not proper for the question of the Conquest and its immediate aftermath. As I noted before, all of these citations, except for Oltean, are not acceptable.

Eravian (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Eravian - I did not read mister Boias book and I have not suggested that the romanian historians would "like" or not this book - I have just read what it was said about this book in this discussion and I understood from it what Boias book suggest; I also noticed that you put, I would say too much accent on those recent books but you almost completely forget to refer to other known historians, before the communist era. On the other hand, I AGREE that sources must be quoted precisely and mentioned in the bibliography as in any professional study. But history is a particular matter in the sense of its "educational and political" purposes - that is making it subject to interpretations and manipulation of the sources. And that's why I said that the way in which things are presented in this article, is tendencious. What was the interest of those new books? In which context this new research was made? In quite many educational or informative NON romanian or hungarian books (from tourist guides to even professional works as Atlas of Minorities in Europe - "Atlas des minorités en Europe : De l'Atlantique à l'Oural, diversité culturelle (Broché) de Yves Plasseraud (Auteur), Collectif (Auteur), Cécile Marin (Auteur), Yves Ternon (Auteur), Henri Giordan (Auteur)" as an example - french book available for the students at the Faculty of History) in which the history of this so controversed region is presented in a way that suggest the "romanian invasion" of some teritorries; and all is "mixed up" in such a way that even poor mister Vlad Tepes is said to be of turkish descendence (!) and that was mentioned by a history professor rewarded even for his works about the eastern europeans in those late 20 years...so you maybe understand why I insist that all internationally recognised and even those less known by the public works (because they did not have the chance to be largely distributed and translated) must be taken in consideration, from both sides romanian and hungarian. And last, but not least, don't forget to take in consideration the history after those "foggy middle ages" in the region and the political interests which were internationally financially supported (!) by "some" not to mention who ...so it is perfectely legitimate to wonder what are the real purposes and to whom are these new historians linked (even if they do not seem to have hungarian or romanian origin and they seem to have only "scientific" curiosity about the history of the region and they are completely "neutral"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex97 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Lex97, agreed: There have been and still there are many tendecious compilations of Eastern European, Romanian histories. Often times though we are just talking about negligence, especially in the case of tertiary publications which just want to say something about a country's history. Such books are travel guide books, encyclopedias, history compendiums for high schools or college undergraduate classes. This is why we want to set higher standards here at Wikipedia. see the next section here about primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

As far as older sources on the specific question of Roman Dacia, Lucian Boia in ihis "History and myth etc." reviews a great number of historians going back through the last 150 years and we provide a brief overview of the general outlines in the first paragraphs. Since in the case of Roman Dacia, in the past twenty years, there has been substantial additional research and a plethora of new scholarly publications, we want to reflect those. Wikipedia requires science to be reflected as it stands today.

Eravian (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Tags

As I have several times mentioned before in various of my posts on this page, a TV show and some article on the BBC site are not good enough sources for such a heated debated. I'm sure one can find accepted works by such 'experts' as Faulkner and Angela/Zebrini where the same ideas are stated. By accepted works I mean BOOKS with editors and ARTICLES in scientific publications, with at least peer review. As for the article, as already stated is a compilation by someone, I would like to see precisely the citations from the original works, before I am to give it credit. Compilations can easily be very far from what authors say and reflect only the limited or even malicious understanding/interpretation of the AUTHOR OF THE COMPILATION.Octavian8 (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia on citing sources, no original research, secondary sources

My objections to using high school encyclopedias, travel guide books, general multi-country history compendiums etc. are still valid, but my terminology in terms of primary and secondary sources was incorrect.

Reference is made to these Wikipedia pages: citing sources, secondary source.

Primary sources are sources very close to an event. A primary source offers an insider's view to an event. Wikipedia: "Our policy: Primsry sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. ... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory or evaluative claims about information found in primary sources."

Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. "Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source."

Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summerize secondary sources. "Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source some articles may be more reliable than others. Our policy: Tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summeries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources describes the criteria for assessing the reliability of sources"

Reliable sources "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

Unsourced material "If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing after the sentence or removing it."..."If a claim is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the tag, but remember to go back and REMOVE THE CLAIM IF NO SOURCE IS PRODUCED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.

Based on all of the above, in the case of the Roman Dacia paragraph, we must conclude that secondary sources i.e. respectable, living historians, archeologists must be found and quoted. Tertiary sources, such as Matthew Bunson's Dictionary or Marshall Cavendish's and Forbes' multi-country historical compendiums are not appropriate. Here we are talking about specific, well- defined questions about ethnic-cleansing, survival and romanization of Dacians in Roman Dacia. Here "broad summeries" for which tertiary sources are acceptable are inadequate. These broad summeries have already been given in the two preceeding paragraphs and there is no dispute about those. As for the unsourced, dubious claims, those can and will be removed if the citation issues are not addressed in a reasonable time.

Generally, indiscriminate pasting in of url. addressess and titles from Google book searches is not an acceptable approach to writing a proper Wikipedia page. In this instance, these have produced unacceptable citiations both in form and substance. The authors, publishers must be carefully investigated for proper academic credentials, before citing them.

Eravian (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced and dubious claims

As painful as this maybe, for the critical issue of the survival and romanization of Dacians in Roman Dacia we must do better than Matthew Bunson's Dictionary, Marshall Cavendish's Peoples of Europe or Forbes's 1915 "Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania" historical compendiums. These are tertiary sources using source material from older times which we have absolutely no way of tracing. We must devote time to the subject and go through proper archeological journals, books published preferably by university presses from respectable, hopefully still living and working historians archeologists. We must also understand that in the past 20 years there has been a significant move away from the official Ceausescu era historical viewpoint, mostly in the Romanian historical community itself. Many of these tertiary sources unfortunately just lift their stuff from other older, most likely, Ceausescu era encyclopedias. Quoting them is not an appropriate form of science.

I must add one note about Paul Lachlan MacKendrick's views on the Dacians of Roman Dacia. He was a popular and respected American classicist who wrote a series of books entitled "The ... stones speak". He was a very competent archeologist apparently as well and his detailed descriptions of the Roman ruins in former Dacia are very competent and in that he is not saying anything different from anybody else. Since the book was written in 1975 which was the height of the Ceausescu regime and we may assume that he had wanted and actually did visit and study those archeological sites, he was morally obliged to toe the line in terms of the Dacians. Otherwise he might not have been welcome to those Romanian archeological sites.

His statement that the Dacians prospered, kept their culture alive, yet within five generations completely lost their original language seems like a logical fallacy. Similarly illogical is the statement that the Romans had to increase their military presence to 50 thousand because the Dacians remembereing their fathers, grandfathers and Decebalus, might revolt yet these sworn enemies of Rome would not only embrace Roman customs (not a single burial stele with Dacian names has ever been found in former Roman Dacia), but would tell their sons, grand sons (that is 5 generations from grandfather of a man to his own grandson) to go to Roman primary school and learn the language of the people who killed or carried away as a slave his great-great.grandfather. (Of course, the Romans had no compulsory education system to integrate immigrants or conqured peoples like the Americans have today.)

Eravian (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And to mentioned that these Dacians preserved Roman customs and the Latin language so perfectly that they don't reflect the hundreds of years of waves upon waves upon waves of Germanic, Slavic, and Turkic tribes going through their lands and some settling there.Hypothetical BS (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User 79 116 52 124! Please, address the citation issues raised. Consistent reverting will not solve the problem. I am sure, with some work, proper secondary sources may be found to support your viewpoint.

Eravian (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)