Talk:Origin of the Romanians

"General view"

The general view is that the territory where the language formed was a large one, consisting of both the north and the south of the Danube (encompassing the regions of Dacia, Moesia, and possibly Illyria), more precisely to the north of the Jiriček Line

I have some reasons, Aristeus01, why this shouldn't be in the lead:

1. It replaces the admigration theory, which is notable.
2. The "general view" is the Daco-Roman theory. It's held by the majority of scholars.
3. The cited sources (Sala, Dindelegan, Pop), AFAIK descend the Romanians mainly from the Daco-Romans. They believe that Romanized elements from south of the Danube can also be found in their people, just as probably 99% of supporters of the Daco-Roman theory. "The theory of Daco-Roman continuity argues that the Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube." If they bind the survival of the Daco-Roman population to the south to north migration, than they are supporters of the admigration theory, but they certainly didn't develop a fourth theory.

What do you think? Gyalu22 (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

And the "general view" contradicts the view presented in international literature that emphasizes that the venue of the Romanian ethnogenesis is uncertain. Furthermore, the present lead does not represent the main body of the article, so the previous text is to be restored. Borsoka (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not the case: The 3 theories refer to the second and third stages of Romanian language, when Common Romanian (5th or 6th century up to 11th or 12th) and then Common Daco-Romanian (12th or 13th century up to 16th) was used. The first stage is the local Vulgar Latin. Vulgar Latin in its particular variant, called Danubian Latin, that gave way to Common Romanian, was spoken exactly as the phrasing says. That is when the language formed, roughly in the first half of the first millennium. The article, and in general the topic of Romanian language, is deficitary in understanding and presenting this distinctions. The admigration theory can be presented separately, I didn't consider it notable because as @Borsoka said somewhere "if the theory includes the territory north of the Danube it is part of continuity theory" - again, and I can't stress this enough, the 3 theories speak of later stages of the language, when it was already formed ie when we can speak of it as a separate, individual language. By the way, as it stands, Pană Dindelegan is the foremost authority in the study of Romanian language at the moment, and to answer Borsoka as well, her "view" and the views of other Romanian linguists such as Sala are not some local nationalist opinions opposed to "International literature", they are the current International literature on the subject, published in Cambridge and Oxford guides to the language's nature and history. If the article opposes this, it is the article that needs to change - wiki editors should not take the liberty of compiling texts form disparate sources in order to promote their own opinion. Aristeus01 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

1. You unilaterally changed a stable version of the lead without discussing it. 2. You ignored that there are three editors who oppose your edit. Please stop edit warring and read WP:3RR carefully because edit warring may have serious consequences. 3. The stable version summarizes the text of the main body, your preferred version introduces a text that is not mentioned in the main text. 4. Your text presents a scholarly PoV as a fact: no, it is not a general view that the venue of the Romanians' ethnogenesis included lands both to the north and to the south of the Danube. There are several scholars cited in the article who do not accept this vies. Borsoka (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not "a scholarly POV", and it is not "Romanian ethnogenesis", it is language attestation. I think you fail to make the distinction, which I explained earlier. The version stands, you guys need to familiarize yourselves with the subject and stop changing it to your POV. Please do not threaten me with "serious consequences", it is a serious enough as it is that 3 users suddenly and simultaneously decide something should be changed. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Because the article is about the origin of the Romanian people and not the language, therefore it's not the 1/3 of the lead's purpose to talk about that, instead of presenting the three theories on that.

I don't see how what you wrote presents the three stages of development of the Daco-Romanian language anyways. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Editors of two international encyclopedias of the Romance languages do not accept Dindelegan's and Sala's PoV as a fact. I did not say that the two Romanian linguists are nationalists. I only referred to the fact that they are representatives of one of the well-known scholarly theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis - the continuity theory. I did not threaten you, I draw your attention to the consequences of edit warring, fully in accordance with the relevant policy. I think unilateral changes of stable texts and edit wars can be described as a strange behaviour. Borsoka (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Which are the other 2 international encyclopedias?

Did they declare themselves as supporters of a theory? Is Schramm or Schutz a supporter of one side or international literature?

Edit war? Did I change your edits or did you change mine? Aristeus01 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Cambridge/Oxford cited in the article and the lead. 2. They are representatives of a theory: they are convinced that Romanian descended of a variant of Latin that was spoken in many provinces, including Dacia Traiana, and Dacia Traiana was part of the territory where Common Romanian developed. 3. Schramm and Schutz are representatives of an opposite theory. They are convinced that Romanian developed from a variant spoken in the middle of the Balkan Peninsula, and the first Romanian speakers did not move to lands to the north of the Lower Danube before the 12th century. 4. You rewrote the lead without discussing your changes, deleted a reference to a third theory (although it is verified in the main text of the article) and introduced an allegedly "general view" referring to books written by representatives of one of the theories. Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Cambridge/Oxford have also published the sources I cited. Why would one be cited and the other not?

2. No, that's completely inaccurate. Everybody, including Schramm, is convinced Romanian descended from the Latin spoken in those provinces, the issue is where it was spoken after Latin seized to be a living language.

3. Agreed. As such their views should not be presented as "main literature".

4. As I said, I have no problem adding the admigration theory, I simply followed your reasoning that it is either north or south. Admigration theory though speaks of the second stage of language, when it was already formed. Aristeus01 (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Nobody said that any of the sources cannot be cited. However, a PoV cannot be presented as a general view. 2. No, Schramm, Schütz, etc do not say that Dacia Traiana or Upper Pannonia played any role in the formation of the Romanian language. For instance from the Latin variant spoken in Hispania at least 3 Romance languaged developed. 3. Their views are presented as PoVs. 4. Perhaps we should present the theories as they are presented in RSs. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

1.Then why are we not citing them?

2. Schramm says Common Romanian or Wurzelstock in his phrasing developed south of the Danube after 600 CE (page 20 in my Romanian language copy) from the popular Latin, he does not contest popular Latin being spoken in all those provinces (he does say Dacians did not contribute to it which is not the same thing). No serious researcher contests this popular Latin was spoken in those provinces. I don't have Schutz at hand but I doubt he makes a different claim.

3. Then why object if I double their views by opposing view? (see river names origin)

4. RSs? Aristeus01 (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

1. We can, and the article does cite them, but we cannot present their PoV as a "general view". 2. Popular Latin was also spoken in what is today Algeria, Tunesia, etc. 3. I do not object. That the large river's name are of pre-Roman origin are mentioned in the article. 4. Reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

1. They literary say general view. How should we then phrase it? Hal of our sources say the general view is clear and another half say the general view is unclear?

2. why is this so difficult ? The Vulgar Latin spoken developed before 5th or 6th century in a particular way which became Common Romanian. The Popular Latin spoken in North Africa was the same to begin with and gradually changed during the same period into North African Romance.

4. Being which ones exactly? For me RS especially includes Romanian Academy sources. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I see the discussion has frozen. Can you (Aristeus01) give a reason why should the formation of the Romanian language be explained as explicitly as the theories on the ethnogenesis which the article is about (see short desc.) and the lead should summarize? Why should that be written so far from the second sentence that already gives enough specification (I again emphasize) in the introduction of the article about another subject? Please also take it into consideration that citations should be avoided in the begginning. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It is simply because the discussion begins with the language exposition. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, Romanian language formed from Vulgar Latin spoken on both sides of the Danube, that is an uncontestable fact. If we follow a short description of language with ethnogenesis theories it implies the opposite, that the language formed sometime after the 5th or 6th century. We are being amateurish in this case, since the ethnogenesis theories talk about the part after the Danubian Limes seized to function, when Common Romanian was already an independent - formed - language. Aristeus01 (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not an uncontestable fact. Could we say Spanish developed from a variant of Latin spoken in Hispania, North Africa and Gaul? Migrations between the provinces were nor unusual. What is incontestable that we do not know from which variant of Latin Romanian developed. We do not know because the substratum has not been identified. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"This is the stage we have reached in the modern English-speaking and Spanish-speaking world; it is, for example, quite common to hear the noun phrases ‘Australian English’ or ‘español venezolano’, but it is still thought of as a bit exaggerated to use the noun phrases ‘Australian’ or ‘venezolano’, as if the speech of those areas no longer qualified to fit within English or Spanish."

"The question of periodization is thus not so much that of how and when a language changes, for change is continuous (‘seamless’, in Penny’s description, who is there comparing diachronic stages with the seamlessness of the synchronic dialect continuum), as of why a language should change its name."

"The Thraco-Dacians, a people of Indo-European origin, occupied in the pre-Christian era a vast territory from the Carpathians to the Aegean Islands. Contact between the Romans and the Thraco-Dacians occurred both to the north and to the south of the Danube."

"There is a long list of languages which have been invoked as substrates acting in various ways on the lexical and structural development of Romance languages. For many of these (e.g., Ligurian, ‘Alpine’, Sicanian, ‘Palaeo-Sardinian’, ‘Illyrian’, ‘Messapic’, ‘Venetic’), the evidence is frankly so tenuous, or dubious, that there is little point in dwelling on them."

A few quotes from Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, a book with multiple authors published in 2016, to hopefully help you understand where I'm coming from.

We know which variant of Latin Romanian evolved from because we use "umbrella terms", phrases that cover extensive areas and periods, for multiple features. A single or a couple of features do not individualize a language from the main group. Therefore we can say Iberian Latin, Danubian Latin, or North African Latin without tedious repetition of the fact this are all geographical adjectives. They were a single language. When we step over the threshold of 5th and 6th century in our case of interest, Danubian Latin is called Common Romanian. We need to reinforce here it was not a clear cut change, as in it suddenly stopped being Latin in a particular year, it is the same language that we, the modern researchers, label differently for convenience. To someone in the 6th century the language he/she spoke was essentially the same with what their grandparents spoke a century earlier. So variant does not mean a different Latin language. It was the same Latin all over the Romanized territories and we call it Danubian Latin or say, Balkan Latin maybe, because that is where it was geographically attested in regards to later development, not because it was a different language from Iberian Latin.

As for substrate, as the quotes above say, the large and inclusive phrase Thraco-Dacian is used, meaning the language spoken in the eastern half of the Balkans. If this touches a sensitive cord of the adherent to one of the other Origin of Romanians supporters, I need to make it very clear to everyone Thraco-Dacian does not mean the language features come from Sarmisegetusa or any individual spot on the map, words are not people to live and belong to an exact location, they are used wherever the language is used, in our case a territory far larger than modern Romania, therefore it neither confirms or deny the continuity theory, for example. It is further understood from this phrasing Dacian was a Thracian language or dialect, not a different language altogether. So yes, we know what the substratum is, it's just not the answer some hoped for, that is: it does not reduce the language evolution to a small region and particular ancient state or tribe.

The insistence on having the substratum named in a different way is a moribund idea that, as Gyalu22 and I were discussing, has had only a couple of supporters in recent decades and is no longer repeated in specialized literature. Furthermore, we must not exaggerate the influence of the substrate in language formation. Substrate added features that contribute but do not define Romance language evolution. If the substrate was definitory we would not speak of Spanish as a Romance language but perhaps as an Iberian language, likewise French would a Celtic language. The accent here is on the geographical area more than on the type of substrate which is there mostly ho help us label stages of a continuous process. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The "general view" text doesn't say anything about the substratum so I don't know why are you discussing that. The territory of the formation of Romanian is disputed, so/and it doesn't have to be explained thoroughly in this lead for said reasons. Just because the place where the language originates from is briefly and loosely defined it doesn't mean it has to be exactly defined. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to complete Aristeus01's quotes:

• ad 3.: "The Thraco-Dacians, a people of Indo-European origin, occupied in the pre-Christian era a vast territory from the Carpathians to the Aegean Islands. Contact between the Romans and the Thraco-Dacians occurred both to the north and to the south of the Danube, but initially to the south, where the Romans had conquered all the Balkan Peninsula up to the Danube in the first century BC." [Sala, Marius (2013). "Contact and borrowing". In Maiden, Martin; Smith, John Charles; Ledgeway, Adam (eds.). The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Volume II: Contexts. Cambridge University Press. p. 200. ISBN 978-0-521-80073-0.]
• ad 4. "There is a long list of languages which have been invoked as substrates acting in various ways on the lexical and structural development of Romance languages. For many of these (e.g., Ligurian, ‘Alpine’, Sicanian, ‘Palaeo-Sardinian’, ‘Illyrian’, ‘Messapic’, ‘Venetic’), the evidence is frankly so tenuous, or dubious, that there is little point in dwelling on them. Very often one has a list of vocabulary items (often toponyms, geomorphic terms or plant names) of no obvious etymology but distributed geographically in an area which corresponds, more or less, to the territory in which the assumed substrate was spoken, so that a substrate explanation seems appealing but cannot be proved." [Sala, p. 195]
• What does Sala say about Thraco-Dacian? a.) "The Thraco-Dacians, a people of Indo-European origin, occupied in the pre-Christian era a vast territory from the Carpathians. (Whether Thracian and Geto-Dacian are different languages is debated, but the general view is that they are the same.)" [Sala, p. 200 (note 7)] b.) "There is very little direct information about Thraco-Dacian: a few glosses (fifty-seven 'Dacian' plant names mentioned in two treatises on medical botany ...), personal names, tribes, deities, human settlements, hydronyms and names of mountains preserved in ancient authors, in Greek or Latin inscriptions, or on coins..." [Sala, p. 200] c. "To identify Thraco-Dacian words, two major methods are used: (a) comparison of Romanian and Albanian ... the latter being considered the direct descendant of Thracian. (There is no way of knowing, however, whether a term is inherited from the substrate, or borrowed from Albanian.)" [Sala, p. 201 (note 8)]. Based on the quotes we can conclude that Sala does not write in the Cambridge History of Romance Languages that there is a general view stating that Romanian is the descendant of Latin variants spoken in vast regions of Southeastern and Central Europe. He admits that the existence of "Thraco-Dacian" is dubious. Furthermore, he confirms that the alleged "Thraco-Dacian substrate words" in Romanian may have actually been borrowed from Albanian.
• Just for comparison, I quote an other specialist's words about the grouping Thracian and Dacian together (which is a general view according to Sala!): "All attempts to relate Thracian to ... Dacian (... preserved solely in plant names in Hesychius) are ... purely speculative." [Fortson, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing. p. 404. ISBN 978-1-4051-0316-9.]. Fortson's words are not contradicted by an other notable linguist, who says that "Fragmentarily attested IE languages can be divided into two basic groups: those that have at least one attested text/inscription and those that are attested only through onosmatics or individual words in texts written in other languages. In the first group there are ... Venetic ... Thracian ... In the second group we find languages like ... Dacian ..." [Kapović, Mate (2017). "Indo-European languages-introduction". In Mate, Kapović (ed.). The Indo-European Languages. The Routledge Language Family Series. Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-415-73062-4.]
• Summarizing my view: we are not here to describe a scholarly PoV as a "general view" even if the a scholar describes their own view as such. Borsoka (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I was just replying to Borsoka about substratum.

To be completely fair, the definition of the language is not just a passing mention. It is there as part of the debate, (and it should not be used in such a way in my opinion), in a neutral text Latin should not even be mentioned since it is too broad of a topic to help. As you can see from a reply added recently, it is not me that insists on the language to be defined and used here. All I am saying, if we must say something about the language, it needs to be exact, not just a vague mention. Otherwise there is no point in saying it. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No, we do not need to say anything of the substratum: it is linked. Alternatively, we can list some of the possible substrate languages. What is clear, we cannot avoid mentioning that the so-called substrate words in Romanian may actually be loanwords from Albanian. Actually, all these are already mentioned in the article. So we can stop discussing the issue. Borsoka (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It is stated in the start, then the article gets on the theories on the ethnogenesis. As Borsoka proved it, there's no general view on the subject, and it's not fair to represent only one. Instead what everyone agrees on is represented. That text is there since years probably and no one criticized it. It says Romanian formed on the territory north of the line in this map. Saying that it formed on almost all of this territory doesn't specify the location more. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course Borsoka proved it: my view: we are not here to describe a scholarly PoV as a "general view" even if the a scholar describes their own view as such. Her view and yours top the view of an academician published by Oxford. I will not take part in this sordid affair anymore, do as you like. Wikipedia has clearly lost its way if it allows such biased opinions to be the norm just because a few editors agree on it. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No, editors' views do not top the view of an academician (Sala) published by Cambridge (not by Oxford). Sala referred to one of his theories - the presentation of Thracian and Dacian as a single language - as a "general view" in a work published by CUP. However, this allegedly "general view" is described by an other linguist (Benjamin W. Fortson IV) as a pure speculation. A third linguist Mate Kapović also separates the two languages (namely, Thracian and Dacian). Again, we cannot present a scholar's PoV as a general view if it is presented as a highly speculative theory in an other scholar's work. Perhaps, you should familiarize yourself with our community's basic policies, such as WP:NPOV: PoV pushing is not in line with them. Borsoka (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, @Borsoka, it was Pana Dindelegan, not Sala we are discussing. Sala is offering a supporting view. So it is not just Oxford, but Cambridge as well that we call POVs here, based on lawyering Wikipedia rules. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You were quoting Sala's text above. I proved above what a "general view" means in the context of this article: it can be labelled as speculation by other scholars. That Romanian is a direct descendant of the Latin variant spoken in Dacia Traiana in any way is also a scholarly PoV, not a "general view". Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Aristeus01!

I see you would like to put the lead here and in other articles as generial view that the Romanian language was formed from Latin in Dacia Trajana (Transylvania) and it was uninterruptedly spoken 2000 years long until today. This is the Daco-Roman theory, which is highly debated by historians, which is mainly accepted in Romania, but the historiography of the surrounding local countries do not accept it for a simple reason, because this theory does not agree with their own historiography and their local historical knowledge. For instance, Transylvania was part of Hungary until 1920, and it was important region in the Hungarian history, which means the Hungarian historiography or local historical knowledge relates to the region. And the Hungarian (or the surronding countries, Poland, Austria, Germany, Bulgaria, Russia, Byzantine...) historiography in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary does not know any Romanian presence before the 13th century, and I suppose the people should speak a language and not the stones, trees or birds, so I have a simple question, if we do not know about Romanian presence in the region then who spoke that language there? What is the evidences the Romanian language was spoken before the 13th century in Transylvania? I can accept your theory, if you provide real convincing historical evidences, because I see this theory is just a speculation. I think 1000 years is a huge gap between Roman Dacia and the documented presence of the Vlachs in the region. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Rome

Rome has 2.743.796 Population 2A04:2410:1706:5280:F9C5:93C9:1946:8658 (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Rásonyi

@Gyalu22: Rásonyi published his views about the association of the Hungarian chronicles Blachi with the Bulaqs more than 40 years ago. Could you refer to works published by international publishing houses accepting Rásonyi's view? If not, we should not mention it either as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Az Árpád-kori Magyarország Történeti Földrajza volume 2 by György Györffy (see the p. 48) comes to mind, but that's even older. I've recently read another publication from the journal Történelmi Szemle (27th volume 4nd issue, p. 633) that seems to support the "Bulaq theory" over the Vlach one.

I don't think that the view of Spinei is also covered and accepted by many works from international publishing houses. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

One of Spinei's works are published by BRILL. The other work is referred to by Denis Deletant's studies about Romanian history. Borsoka (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gyalu22 and OrionNimrod: could you refer to books or articles published by international academic publishing houses that support Rásonyi's theory? Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned two.

Neither of these views are discussed and accepted by many books or articles published by international academic publishing houses. Gyalu22 (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

1. The page you are referring to above does not support (or mention) the "Bulaq theory" (Györffy, György (1987). Doboka, erdélyi Fehér, Esztergom, Fejér, Fogaras, Gömör és Győr megye [Doboka, Transylvanian Fehér, Esztergom, Fejér, Fogaras, Gömör és Győr Counties]. Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza [Historical Geography of Árpádian Hungary] (in Hungarian). Vol. II. Akadémiai Kiadó. ISBN 963-05-3533-5.) 2. A random reference to the theory in respected journal does not verify the notablity of the theory. 3. I maintain that Rásonyi's theory is a typical marginal theory. Would you refer to books or articles published in English that support it? Borsoka (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

1. I don't have the book, but from an online preview I saw "A blak etnikumot illetően mongol kori források hozhatók fel annak tanúsítására, hogy itt a Volga-vidékéről eredeztetett török féle blak, ulaq népelemről lehet szó, e középkori tudós [preview ends]". And Györffy is a reputed mainstream historian.
2. My reference was wrong. On page 633, the theory is only explained, the author expresses sympathy on the next page (though he says on 633 already that he holds the Blacus name doesn't have anything to do with the Vlachs). I quote: "A blak, blök nép azonosításában két lehetőséget látok: 1. kunok előtti török, 2. eltörökösödött iráni népszórvány neve. Az előnyomuló kunok maguk közé szervezték ezt a szórványt, ennek következtében, de korábban is kerülhettek blak, blök szórványok a Volga mentére. Ahová viszont újlatin nyelvű vlachok nem érkeztek. Úgy vélem, hogy Anonymus kun körből merítette a Blacus (Blak) nevet, és ezért alkalmazta a szókezdő B-t".

Gyalu22 (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Change the title from "Origin of the Romanians" to the more academic wording "Ethnogenesis of the Romanians"

Change the title from "Origin of the Romanians" to the more academic wording "Ethnogenesis of the Romanians". Thanks in advance. Ninhursag3 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If many people wouldn't understand the word "ethnogenesis", that's a strike against it. AnonMoos (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - I also think the "Origin of the Romanians" title is easier to understand. RF354 (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - I think the same that "Origin of the Romanians" title is easier to understand. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Besides comprehensibility, similarity with the title of other articles covering the origin/ethnogenesis of other nations. Type in "origin of the" in the search bar.Gyalu22 (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Romanians to vote as well. Seems unfair for only Hungarians to vote regarding wikipedia articles about Romanians...Hungarians opposing a proposal by a Romanian is not something uncommon but quite expected. On the other hand, typing "Origins of" indeed shows different results. So on that point I understand the perspective.

However "Origins of" for saying Romanians are a few kilometers South or North of the Danube is not the same as origins of groups coming thousands of kilometers away from Siberia or India... Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I can tell of myself and OrionNimrod that we are Hungarians, but I don't know how you determined the ethnicity of the two other voters. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose not a familiar word to many. I'm not Hungarian. Since there are many theories, you could follow Origin hypotheses of the Croats. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Than rename it to "Origin hypotheses of the Romanians"? Ninhursag3 (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support that. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems many nations has many origin theories. Hungarians also has origin theories. I think modern genetic could help, however because all nations mixed during centuries each other of various levels, perhaps the combination of more theory can be also the truth. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm so glad we finally agree. I knew we could eventually see eye to eye. Like I already said "I personally think on all articles instead of "Origins of Croats/Romanians/Albanians etc" it should be changed to "Ethnogenesis hypotheses of Croats/Romanians/Albanians" etc. Just saying "origins" doesn't sound academic but almost derogatory and not just "simplified". This is an academic issue, not a "simplistic" issue. "

This is not the "simple English language version" but just the normal English language version, so words like "ethnogenesis" should be fine. Ethno means "ethnicity" and "genesis" means "origin". Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm asking too much but has anyone read the Romanians wikipedia page but the German version?https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum%C3%A4nen 10% is a few words about Romanians like "there 23,8 million Romanians around the world" and 90% is about the "Ethnogenesis of the Romanians" ("Die rumänische Ethnogenese"). This must be the most unprofessional article I've ever read on wikipedia. It's nothing like the superior English version with many references and topics regarding Romanians. Nothing about the Culture of Romania, List of Romanian inventors and discoverers, Romanian literature, Romanian architecture, Science and technology in Romania, Vlachs, Great Vlachia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, Danubian Principalities, Unification of Moldavia and Wallachia, United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, Greater Romania, Romanian language, Romanian Orthodox Church, Romanian Greek Catholic Church.

I asked in German using google translate on the German wikipedia version of "Romanians" but nobody helped *sigh*. Can anyone please help? Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment See also Origin of the Albanians. RF354 (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I already said "typing "Origins of" indeed shows different results. So on that point I understand the perspective."

I personally think on all articles instead of "Origins of Croats/Romanians/Albanians etc" it should be changed to "Ethnogenesis hypotheses of Croats/Romanians/Albanians" etc. Just saying "origins" doesn't sound academic but almost derogatory and not just "simplified". This is an academic issue, not a "simplistic" issue. Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

1. I think it's more important for a title to be clear than to be "academic sounding".
2. The article doesn't only outline the hypotheses about the origin of the Romanians, most of it is about archaeological, linguistic, genetic and literal data regarding the ancient times.

Gyalu22 (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty "academic sounding" titles on wikipedia, especially since this is not the simple English version. Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Then just "Ethnogenesis of the Romanians" without "Ethnogenesis hypotheses of Romanians". Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Origin" for similarity with other articles. Gyalu22 (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, "ethnogenesis" can be added to the other articles in order to be similar, especially since ethnogenesis is the correct word for the academic context. Ninhursag3 (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing incorrect about the word origin. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There's no other Wikipedia article titled "Ethnogenesis of" but several using "Origins of". Per Wikipedia policy WP:CONSISTENT (with other articles) the best option here would be to keep the current version. Furthermore, Ethnogenesis does indeed sound more professional but not necessarily better because of that, "Origins of" has the benefit of simplicity. Super Ψ Dro 13:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, Ninhursag3, but this article is constructed around the location of Romanians during the late Antiquity-Early Middle Ages, hence the term "origin" is more accurate. The ethnogenesis as a process is discussed here only in supporting arguments related to the possible location. Perhaps a different article dealing with mechanism of the process and its implications might be needed, yet I'm not sure wikipedians won't see it as forking.--Aristeus01 (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Romance language

@WikiUser70176: The sources which you have WP:CITEd are awfull. IMHO, I would go for only Martin Maiden. 2016. Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Aromanian. In Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages, 91-125. Oxford: Oxford University Press. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

That was not a very nice and civil thing to do, i.e. undoing my edit before I even got the chance to respond. I was about to say "thanks!" for pointing me to Maiden. It took me a while to locate the source as I don't have access to it, even with my academic credentials. And to read it. And to formulate a concise and neutral POV paragraph. Instead of my thanks, I will say:

• 1. I cite what I read. If you want me to cite something else, give me that something else, or better yet, do it yourself.
• 2. All my sources comply with WP:VERIFY. Graduate theses are accepted and I have no clue about what ideological book you refer to.
• 3. "Awfull" (sic!) is not an argument, is an opinion, therefore safely disregarded. My sources follow WP:SOURCE policy. Check again.
• 4. The place to debate your proposed paragraph is here, on the talk page, not on the main page. BTW, I was fine with your proposed paragraph. I will add that "the Eastern Romance sub-branch is a linguistic group that evolved from several dialects of Vulgar Latin which separated from the Western Romance languages in the course of the period from the 5th to the 8th centuries.. As a scholar myself, I value any country's National Academy's point of view - scholarly speaking only - above any other source (save for consensus in peer-reviewed papers), as does WP:SOURCE, as should any editor that values objectivity. At the very least it should be mentioned. I have only the 1969 edition but if you have a more recent one, feel free to amend my sentence.
• 5. Please don't start an edit-war. I am not an extremist or a nationalist or whathaveyou. You also removed a reference to the Max Planck Institute Linguistic Database (why?!, if even these people aren't reliable, than who on Earth are?!). In my experience, people who remove academic references are POV pushers and there is no debate with them. Consequently, I will not engage you. In addition, given your belligerent past, your tendency to hold grudges as evidenced by your editing history, and - most importantly - your present aggressive tone to me, someone you had no previous interactions with, this shall be my only reply and edit here. So if you revert my edits, so be it; enjoy your page and POV pushing. I'm out. Cheers.

♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 20:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't agree. The Academy of Sciences of the Socialist Republic of Romania was a strongly politicized and ideological body. So, even if they wrote that the sky is blue, WP:CITE another source for it. Vladimir Tismaneanu and some other peers of him were making sport of Ceausescu's speech introducing juche to Romania, but an older professor reminded them that's how Stalinist purges have started. That happened in 1971, see July Theses, but of course National-Communism was introduced to the Romanian people soon after the death of Dej, with many nationalists of the Iron Guard and the historical parties getting rehabilitated in order to write propaganda for the regime. Or since even the early 1960s (before Dej's death). See National communism in Romania.

And can assure you that if we debase our standards to recognize Master's theses as WP:RS, the hell would break loose at Wikipedia.

Yup, I wrote There were people sent to prison just because they dared to criticize Ceausescu's retarded juche ideology. And I can agree it is aggressive. There is however no indication that the aggressiveness was directed towards you. That's only your interpretation of what I wrote. In fact, it is directed towards my country's past and towards how historians and social scientists chose to serve the retarded juche ideology. The mystery is: why do you think I was writing that about you? You were probably not born yet at the time we are discussing. I stated a harsh truth about a harsh reality, but not about you. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@WikiUser70176 currently the Academy's view is that the language developed from the Latin spoken in the Roman provinces on the Danube (commonly referred as Danubian Latin) and went trough a stage called Common Romanian (ref Sala From Latin to Romanian). The idea that Daco-Romance languages developed separately, or from several dialects, or only in close connexion is, to my knowledge, extinct. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aristeus01 I agree. Put it in! ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 00:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Find another source, instead of the sick National-Communist propaganda book. There should be plenty of other sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

One WP:RS from WP:CHOPSY beats a dozen of dubious citations. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We stand for WP:BESTSOURCES, we have no time to waste with a Master's thesis and with a book of ancilla ideologiae. I'm not even saying that that book is junk, but they were clearly running a state-sponsored ideological propaganda show. There were people sent to prison just because they dared to criticize Ceausescu's retarded juche ideology. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I think WP:RSN thread Origin of the Romanians might interest editors involved in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The book was not making propaganda for the Romanian people, but against it. The difference with Proletcultism was the that mystique of the tractor was replaced with sugary myths of Romanian exceptionalism. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Why are hungarian users write about the origin of romanians?

I hope you banned the liars like Rásonyi from contributing, this incident should come to mind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1073#User:Borsoka_and_User:Fakirbakir 2A02:2F04:5001:A900:78BE:D4D:2367:6E6D (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify the connection between Rásonyi and myself? As far as I can remember I have never cited Rásonyi. Yes, chauvinistic Romanian editors (most of them banned from our community years ago) and their sockpuppets have made several attempts to achieve a topic ban against me for years. They have so far always failed. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Low-quality sourcing

I am not tagging the article, though it would be great if someone well-versed on the topic worked on it. Most of the article is based on partisan Romanian and Hungarian scholars who are mostly of a low quality. There is also large dependence on other old, largely discredited scholars like Schramm and Georgiev. The theory of the origin north of the Danube is treated as equal with the theory of the origin south of the Danube, though nowadays there is hardly any high-quality, non-partisan linguist specializing in the Paleo-Balkans claiming that the core of the Romanian population originated north of the Danube. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)