Talk:Romanians/Archive 8

Native name of "Romanians" deleted by User:Rezistenta

I see that Hungarians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Russians, Turkish people, French people, etc all have the name of the people in native tongue listed under the English name, why is this constantly removed from this page, what's the reason? Thanks. man with one red shoe (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all, see Slovaks . There are multiple issues regarding the writing of native name in this article they were discussed upper in the page, one of them being the fact that Romanians of Serbia and in some regional areas are calling themselves "Rumâni" and not "Români" ..see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timok_Vlachs. Rezistenta (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's the problem we can use "Români/Rumâni", other than that what's the reason for starting a revert war and removing legitimate (from what I can see) content? man with one red shoe (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and about Slovaks the reason is simple, they call themselves "Slovak", so the term is the same in their language as in English. But in any case it's only one example, I gave you 6 that shows that's nothing wrong with using the native name under the English name. man with one red shoe (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue was settled and discussed and therefore there isn't any removal of legitimate content. The alternative names were both used but someone was removing them so an admin reached to the conclusion that we must keep only the english name like in the article Slovaks, and the romanian endonyms are already mentioned in the intro section of the article Rezistenta (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can use past discussions in which I didn't take part to justify your edit that would mean that nothing can change, I reopen the discussion now you need to provide arguments now not that "it was settled before". I provided 6 examples where this use doesn't create any controversy and I don't provide more only because I'm lazy. So, why exactly you don't want the Romanian name under the English name, why is it soooo wrong to provide it when other articles provide the native name too? man with one red shoe (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I can, if we would reopen the settled discussions every time someone will desire then we will never reach a consensus. I already said there are 2 alternative endonyms for the romanian native name and one of them was always removed, we cannot keep only one, we will keep them both or none, what do you choose ? Rezistenta (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the diff of the "discussion" that you provided looks like a unilaterary decision to me not like the consensus conclusion of a discussion. And to respond to your question, one is better than nothing, I will leave it up to other people if we need to provide a regional name of the people, but we need to provide the common used one. I haven't seen any argument against this: you only said "it was established some time ago" which from the diff you provided doesn't seem like a valid argument since it was not result of a discussion, it was just an unilaterary decision, another argument you provided is that we need to include another form, which is not an argument against including the most common used form in Romanian. So, what's the real argument against including the commonly used form of the name of the people? man with one red shoe (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That conclusion is the consequence of a discussion is not an unilateral decision, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Romanians#Rom.C3.A2ni_and_Rum.C3.A2ni_both_forms_used_by_romanian_people Rezistenta (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I see there a whole discussion about including "Rumâni" version too, I don't see any argument against removing the "Români" form. You haven't provided one here either. 70.108.90.222 (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to login. You see only you want you to see, after several repeated debates the decision of the admin was to let only the english name like in the article Slovaks, bottom line Rezistenta (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not Gods, they can take the wrong decision, I haven't see any shread of argument agains using the "Români" form. You still refuse to provide such argument, if you don't provide an argument against that form I will revert back man with one red shoe (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand english language ? I have told you that either the both endonyms must be used or none, this was discussed over there and they reached to the conclusion that it's better to use none, the admins are not Gods but they are surely a better authority then you or me. I have asked you, what alternative do you prefere but you didn't answered. Go ahead and revert, it will be your 3rd revert for today Rezistenta (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion here is not which endonyms to use, is if we need to use an endonym at all, you haven't provided any argument against using an endonym, only that there was a debate about adding Rumâni form too, that debate was whether that form should be added or not, it's not a proof that "Români" form use is not legitimate. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I did, I have provived the example of Slovaks Rezistenta (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

One example? I provided six, do you want more? Also, Slovaks call themselves "Slovak" so your example is pretty much irrelevant. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You provided six ? so what we are doing here, we're debating which one has more examples ? In my opinion your examples are irrelevant and I didn't assert that Români" form use is not legitimate but that there is an alternate form as much legitimate as the first, either we use both legitimate endonyms either we will remove the endonyms from the infobox, it's not too complicated Rezistenta (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't think we need to present regional forms, I think we need to present the official/most common used form. I also don't understand the argument that if we don't present a regional form we shouldn't present the most commonly used form. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And I personally think that it should be presented, furthermore there was a whole discussion about this and the conclusion of an Admin was that we should remove both forms.... as a consequence your personal opinion or mine doesn't weight very much and the intro section of the article already mentions both forms Rezistenta (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you think the regional form should be presented, but I don't see the argument why the official and the most common used form shouldn't be presented if the regional form isn't. What's the logic there? man with one red shoe (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The logic is that either all romanians are represented by this article or the endonym will be removed from the infobox Rezistenta (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel it's pretty irrelevant how less than 1% of the Romanians call themselves. You have a right of opinion too, but the logic of "that's not the complete info therefore we should remove everything" is pretty silly, if we applied that consistently it would mean to erase the entire Wikipedia. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is that all romanians should be represented by this article and I gave you reasons and the proof that there was a previous debate regarding this issue and that the problem was solved. Both forms are already mentioned in the intro section so I don't understand why you make such a big deal out of it Rezistenta (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't make a big deal of it, you make it, I can accept the idea to use the regional form too although I consider that's not needed, I don't like that you keep this issue (of adding the name in the native tongue) hostage to your pet point of view that a regional form should be used too. This should be judged separately. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't keep anything, that decision was taken by an admin after a lengthy discussion. Rezistenta (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You actually do, you filibuster this discussion about keeping the native name in the infobox by promoting your pet point of view and saying that if we don't accept your point of view then you won't accept the native name in the infobox. Defending this position with an uninspired act of an admin is not going to fly. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Very clever, and who's point of view are you promoting if it's not yours ? You're not exactly the most adequate person in judgind the authority of an Admin, now give it a break Rezistenta (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that a personal attack? discuss the ideas not the editors. I don't see an argument against using the native name only your filibusting that if we don't use the regional name you won't allow the native name. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you for real ? You see to cause some problems in romanian related articles the same with Bucharest article where you delete content against the cocensus of several romanian editors one being an Admin Rezistenta (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I added both, is this a good compromise? And no, I don't have much respect for Admins when they show lack of judgement. man with one red shoe (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well this one is exactly a personal atack against an admin, please revise your attitude Rezistenta (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you know what "personal" means, I was talking in general, and I stand by my statement. Since in general is not "personal" please don't tell me what to do, OK? man with one red shoe (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please revert your last edit since is misleading it's not Romani or Rumani, one of the term is used only regionally and only by 1% of the Romanians, "or" doesn't convey that. man with one red shoe (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Calm down if you're not felling aware of contributing in this article without making personal atacks and insulting just leave it Rezistenta (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm very calm, I just asked you to revert your last edit since is misleading, I am also going to report you to 3RR notice board since this is your 4th revert in less than 24 hours even though I warned you. I will give you a chance to self-revert before I report you. man with one red shoe (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring: warning to all parties

You are at least talking, above. Thats good, and earns you some points, definitely a step up on most edit wars. The talk is getting a bit heated though: please calm down, and indeed address the issues, not the people. But you (R, and Mwors) are edit warring (without, so far, having broken 3RR). Please don't. It won't work, it will put off other editors from contributing, and it will earn you both a block (for edit warring, not for 3RR) if you continue. Finally, a note about admins: admins are not here to settle your content disputes for you. They (we) are here to hold the ring to ensure as far as practical a pleasant editing environment. They can offer you advice on wiki policies and ways to go about settling disputes (look up WP:DR for a start) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dated / archaic

Any reason in the lead why we say "dated" rather than "archaic"? I'd be more inclined to use the latter. - Jmabel | Talk 18:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that several people are obviously active here & none have disagreed with me, I'll make this edit. - Jmabel | Talk 23:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

"Some recent genetic studies reveal that the ethnic contribution of the indigenous Thracian and Daco-Getic population have indeed made a significant contribution to the genes of the modern Romanian population and to the contribution to other Balkan (Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks) and Italian groups."

1. Genetic studies cannot reveal anything about an ethnic contribution, just a genetic one.
2. "…the ethnic contribution of [X]… have… made a… contribution to [Y]" does not make sense. I believe that whatever was intended here, the word "contribution" occurs one more time than it should.
3. The phrase beginning "and to the contribution to" is absolutely confusing. Does it perhaps mean to say "and to the contribution of" rather than "to"?

- Jmabel | Talk 18:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, can you be bold and change that? Also, I took a look at that study used as a reference I don't think it's even interpreted right in this page. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what it means to say, and (as you've remarked) it is not clear exactly how the claim here relates to the cited source. Shakier ground than I'd choose to edit, that's why (in the middle of doing some copy editing) I brought it to the talk page instead. Someone more familiar with the genetic studies should take this on. - Jmabel | Talk 19:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jmabel, I urge you to be bold. This article has been the target of lots of biased editing and atrocious interpretation of sources - so much that just the thought of listing it gives me a headache. It needs serious cleanup, and I find it shameful that it was actually listed as "B-class" when much of it is in breach of some tens of policies. Dahn (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm not even confident what the sentence means to say, and certainly not what the source bears out. I think someone who actually has time to read the source and summarize it accurately should do the rewrite. Till then, the poor wording probably stands as fair warning of shoddy work. - Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Weird request for citation

Citation is requested for "The contemporary total population of ethnic Romanians cannot be stated with any degree of certainty." It seems to me to be a summary sentence amply justified by the material that follows it. While it might be possible to find an explicit citation for this statement, it seems to me to be completely unnecessary to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 19:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Aromanians

I have added this group to the list of 'disclaimers, as the potential for confusion, following the precedent and justifications re. Roma people clearly apply. RashersTierney (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. If we're going with what people "might" think, don't leave them to wrap their heads around what Romulans are to Romanians. If wikipedia is a tool aimed at the lowest common denominator (which is the only reason I can see for any such disclaimer), then they all belong. Dahn (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As for which disclaimer is stupid and which Isn't, I'm still expecting one reference that would clarify this supposed confusion exists in English. The only things that were cited so far, from dubious sources, is that one Italian politician with an agenda may have intentionally made the confusion (in Italian) and that one Romanian politician with an agenda thinks that foreigners (not specifying which foreigners) may confuse the two. In both contexts, the reference was to Romani people in Italy who are Romanian citizens - meaning that they are Romanians for all practical purposes. And the practical purposes are the only thing authorities in a democratic society are care for. So, where is this supposed confusion and who makes it?

Btw, as I have said before on this page: even for those who think it is a problem, adding a "distinguish" tag can only serve as a "don't think about elephants". If people didn't think there was a connection up to now, they might as well start after visiting this article. Either way, I for one find it despicable that one would be insulted on principle by this perception: I will not reject any of my fellow Romanian citizens as a group. Dahn (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to claim that there's no connection, of course there's a connection, that's one reason for the confusion beside the closeness of the names Roma/Romani - Romanians. So tell me, do you mean that Romani people who come from Romania and most of them speak Romanian and are Romanian citizens, have a separate language called Romani that doesn't have much to do with Romanian (beside loanwords)? That seems very confusing for "idiots" AKA "people who don't know such details", but of course Wikipedia is for people who already know everything, right? man with one red shoe (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me who makes the confusion, and we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise, I'm afraid we only have a conjecture bordering on fallacy. Dahn (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dahn's cool example of WP:POINT

I don't have problem including Romulans in the dab link although it seems a bit excessive, has there ever been a confusion between "Romanians" and "Romulans"? But in any case, if that remains there, is there a way to make the text wrap? Thanks. man with one red shoe (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Has there ever been a confusion between the Romani and the Romanians, that would be in English (i.e. the language of this article) and acknowledged as significant by a reliable secondary source? If not, then all homonyms etc. belong. Dahn (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine to list all homonyms, I'm just asking for a more sane template, not one that pushes the content of the article down the page like this. I will also look for a reference... man with one red shoe (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To what I have said above, I'll add: I find the whole "distinguish" template wrongly conceived. For starters, because of the technical problem it poses. Secondly, because, unlike the ones that send to disambig pages (where one can read all possible variants), they send the reader to an article that is prioritized in breach of POV. And thirdly: wikipedia, I feel, should sound as impersonal as possible (and the rules back me up on this); using "not to be confused" is as didactic a statement as any, and we're not here to coach readers into what they should or shouldn't do/think/believe. Dahn (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

MWORS's accusation of disruption, simply because he doesn't agree with a point being made, is a blatant contravention of WP:AGF. RashersTierney (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What can I think when Dahn removes all the "distinguish" links saying: "this has become grotesque - there was no need for the first one, and all others only illustrate why that is; furthermore, they're all assuming the reader is an idiot" and then he adds them back and adds even more grotesque ones, like disabiguation with Romulans. I think that's a trademark of WP:POINT, but that's a personal opinion and you don't have to agree with it, if that's not the case, treat this as a personal opinion, I can very well assume good faith, I have problems though when somebody says that it's "grotesque" to have some links and then he adds them back (remember, the grotesque links) and adds even more. If that's in good faith I find it at bit strange type of behaviour. man with one red shoe (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Or you could think of it as "respecting consensus". There are many things I dislike about wikipedia that I do because they seem to be done. For instance, I hated linking full dates, but then they told me to do it; now decided to stop doing that, so I'm delinking them. I still think it is grotesque, but if we can live with grotesque, then let's be consistent about it.

The one position that can argue it's WP:POINT is that were consensus was not reached about these things. May this be my guilt, because it's actually true: have a look over the first discussions we were having on this topic, and you'll see one user who presents all kind of unreliable and utterly irrelevant sources to back up what is in essence a nationalistic POV, and a plethora of users who disagree with him. The sheer stubbornness of that user has brought us to this situation that I deem "grotesque", and it was, at least then, anything but consensus. Dahn (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue of potential confusion is adequately addressed, where it should be, in the body of the article itself. RashersTierney (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit War (yet again)

Before this debate totally degenerates, could I suggest holding all controversial edits until they have been discussed and some agreement arrived at? RashersTierney (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not. Rezistenta for one appears incapable of 'resisting' the Revert button. RashersTierney (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Graham Watson the leader of liberal group in EU Parliament says : Romanians are confused with Roma people

[Link http://www.mediafax.ro/social/watson-cea-mare-problema-romanilor-confundati-romii.html?1688;1026431]

If Mr. Watson wants to edit here hes more than welcome. RashersTierney (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have no intention in improving this article, please stay away from it if you can't refrain from having this type of attitude Rezistenta (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rezistenta, I do believe you were warned about intimidating other users. Dahn (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just checked out his/her blocklog (despite his/her attempt to clear TalkPage). Extraordinary! RashersTierney (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. That is not what I would call a source at all - it is a political statement from a primary source - not a commentary in a secondary source. What would be required is someone assessing the supposed phenomenon from an analytical position.

2. Nowhere does that article state that this is because the two words sound alike, let alone that the two groups are confused by people who do not distinguish them as separate entities overall, just that they may not want to do so. Watson is not quoted directly, and what the reporter says is this: "Liderul ALDE, Graham Watson, a declarat, luni, că nu este normal să fie expulzaţi toţi românii din Italia din cauza unei greşeli făcute de un singur om, apreciind că cea mai mare problemă a României este că românii sunt confundaţi cu romii." This translates as: "The ALDE leader, Graham Watson, has declared on Monday that it is not normal for all the Romanians in Italy to be expelled [note: this rumor about expelling was never itself confirmed] because of the mistake made by one man, assessing that Romania's biggest problem is that Romanians are confused with the Romani." Nota bene: this supposedly was the case in Italy, and involved two ethnic groups, both of whom are Romanian citizens (meaning that they do share this characteristic, with the claim that Italians have a tendency to mistake all Romanian citizens for being part of a group of Romani Romanians!). The source does not claim that, if the confusion exists, it is also made by Anglo-Saxons and in English. At the very least, I would have a very hard time picturing that Italians in Italy also use English as their language of choice!

So, again, bunk. Dahn (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously an issue, even if "paranoid", it's well documentated, see for example http://books.google.com/books?id=QjqxzR0xTvoC&pg=PA264 in the middle of the page, it addresses the fear that "Roma" and "Romanian" are confused, this is also in English. man with one red shoe (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that is about the two notions in Romanian. And we're not here to endorse paranoia by making it an acceptable phenomenon. If we do that, then we may as well credit the notion that Nazis and Apartheid leaders were voicing about "Jews not being white people". It was also "a phnomenon" (in fact, it was more of a phenomenon than this is), so we place a header at the top of Jews telling people to "distinguish". Dahn (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Watson is quoted directly, look again .Mediafax is one of the main romanian news agencies, and these supposed "arguments" of yours were already answered many times before, I don't want to start the same explinations again for someone who clearly wants to prove the impossible Rezistenta (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, he is not quoted directly - that's what's called a paraphrase. But, as important as this aspect is, I won't get tangled in it: it is by no means the only problem with that "source". The very fact that you thought it could be cited in this context is evidence of ignoratio elenchi - not an attested phenomenon, not referring to the English language, not claiming to be a valid sociological observation, and not even claiming that the "confusion" is made in good faith (in fact, the text seems to indicate that he reproaches bad faith on those who supposedly make it). Dahn (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Like you've said don't tangle on it like is the only source where the obvious is being represented. Check again this talk page, bad faith good faith etc, i'm only quoting the main Romanian news agency Rezistenta (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look over our WP:PSTS policy, if you haven't so already, and then tell me more about who quotes whom in what way, and why it should be taken into consideration. Dahn (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the source of Man with one Red shoe fulfils all of your strictly criterias Rezistenta (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That source that some paranoid Romanians think there is a confusion, and that, because they discriminate against the Romani people, they did their best to "distinguish". If anything, that source confirms that we should not be using the template at all, because we would only be serving a fringe notion expressed in a language other than English. Since you yourself have claimed once that Romani activists "want" to identify with the Romanians, and are therefore conspiring to achieve this goal, I have little hope that I would get this argument to sit well with you. But that is, of course, not what I would prioritize - it's the other readers whom I expect to understand just how biased, demeaning and absurd was the original addition to the text, and just what kind of sophistry was used to make it stick. Dahn (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(od) We can't dumb down every article for people so uninformed they wouldn't be capable of reading an encyclopedia, let alone understanding it. We don't "disambiguate" the Balkans from the Baltics although there are (from my experience) many more of those misinformed readers as confuse the Roman legion with Romanian legionnaires. Pronouncements that people are grossly uninformed is not justification for getting silly with "not to be confused with..." tags. —PētersV (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You will do me the favor of noting that the speculation about how "misinformed" people may be was what got "distinguish from Romani people" (not a homonym to begin with) to be stuck there. If we start from that argument, then adding any "sounds like" is validated. If they aren't, then neither is the original one. Dahn (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This example is followed by many ethnic group articles, just to give you two examples : Bulgarians and Macedonians Rezistenta (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

With the obvious exception that those examples are homonyms in at least one variant ("Bulgarians" was also commonly used for "Bulgars"; "Macedonians" is exactly the same). We've been through this, haven't we? Dahn (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And some editor has added a 'disclaimer' on the Roma people page, evidently in response to this page. The Macedonian example above is entirely spurious as the spellings are identical and some disambiguity is clearly necessary. The practice may have precedent, but that does not make it good practice. RashersTierney (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok go there and try to "correct" it then Rezistenta (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as soon as this one is corrected. RashersTierney (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What is there really to "correct" about perfect homonyms, Rezistenta? (Other than the template itself, for the reasons I have outlined above.) Let's break it down: "Romanians" vs. "Romani people" gives you three separate letters. Since there is no difference between "Bulgarians" and "Bulgarians", and no difference between "Macedonians" and "Macedonians"... well, do I need to take out a napkin and draw it? Dahn (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, this ascpect was very much discussed here and you've made your point. Go there and try to impose your POV , or maybe you're interested only in this particular one? Dahn don't repeat these arguments, they were already answered. Thank you Rezistenta (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeatedly told you why I don't need to "go there" - both those cases refer to actual homonyms, and, what's more, neither is in tune with a racist POV. I won't respond to the claim that "you already answered", because it is bogus: like above, all you did throughout these discussions was to pretend not to understand what the point is. I can safely say that this is because you have a marginal POV to push into every such article you touch. Dahn (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why there's such a need for such extraordinary proof that there's confusion between names. I'm not aware of any other "distinguish" link on Wikipedia to require such strong references. See this discussion: http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t1363.htm No, it's not a "reliable source" kind of reference it only makes it clear that some people confuse the terms and don't know where they come from, what's so bad to add a link to Roma people? If you don't like the wording "distinguish" if you feel that sounds racist you can change it to something else, but to claim that there's no chance of confusion with people called Roma that come from Romania and speak Romani is ludicrous. man with one red shoe (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"What I don't understand is why there's such a need for such extraordinary proof that there's confusion between names." Simple: because otherwise it's marginal and trivial, and wikipedia does not record it. Of course a forum page is irrelevant as a source - it also does not refer to anything we are discussing here (it's one guy from Brazil who may or may not know what he's talking about, who still doesn't clarify what language he is talking about, and who address what is a loaded question to begin with). Furthermore, the use of this "distinction" as a paranoid prejudice is what's documented by the one reliable source you quoted, which only adds a level of seriousness to why we shouldn't do it. And it is also completely outside the scope of this discussion whether someone makes the confusion because he or she doesn't know any better even after noting that the words are not homonyms, and even after having a chance to understand what the text is about (by actually reading it). For all practical purposes, I referred to such persons as "idiots", and wikipedia is not a tool for teaching people how to understand basic info, but a tool for people who can already understand basic info. If I'm wrong, then by all means add all words that such a person could confuse with the word "Romanians", so we know we're "safe". Dahn (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And let me add a facet of the argument that we're all missing here: what I would consider ridiculous is the claim that Westerners only/primarily know Romani people who originate in Romania. I also find spurious the way in which this is postulated: if the peopel in Western countries, as you indicate, already know that the language spoken by Romani people they encounter is Romanian (and, again, it is Romanian only for x% number of cases), then it means they already know more about them than the "distinguish" tag would have us believe. Meaning that they either: don't care to distinguish (unlikely, and the template won't make them care much); don't know (in which case they are what I defined above as idiots - "they know but they don't know"); or, building on the prejudice where Romani people are "inferior", apply it indiscriminately to another group they don't like (and need I tell you why that attitude could not guide wikipedia?). The standard Romanian answer to this question, which internalizes the distinction (and therefore internalizes the prejudice) is another worrying aspect, but in itself should be without relevance to what Westerners supposedly do. Dahn (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither the Bulgarians or Macedonians examples apply here. In the former you have antecendants, in the latter, identical word used for different groups. Personally, seems to me the "Bulgars" should be a "see also" not a "not to be confused with" with respect to Bulgarians. —PētersV (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to what the article actually says

Without weighing in on what the article should say, the current '52% consider that Gypsies must be called again by their original name and not "Roma or other derivations of this term"' is poor writing. "Must be called again by" is clumsy English, and what the heck is "their original name" supposed to mean? Certainly "Roma" as a word predates "Gypsy" (which was based on a misunderstanding that they came from Egypt), but if the survey was in Romania then it presumably had nothing to do with the words "Gypsy/Gypsies". Perhaps "Ţigan/Ţigani"? If so, and if this belongs, then let's say so.

Let me go out on a limb and state my own opinion, while I'm at it. All that survey seems to me to show is that a lot of Romanians despise Roma people and are annoyed that someone else might confuse the two. That really doesn't seem to me to be particularly of encyclopedic interest, except maybe in an article about prejudice against the Roma. - Jmabel | Talk 23:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. One can also point out that the results show another prejudice (in the strictest sense): those Romanians who answered think that foreigners may confuse the words. This is not only non-encyclopedic, it is borderline nonsensical. Dahn (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Roma" as a word predates "Gypsy" -- not in Romanian language, and not in English as far as I know, it predates only in Romani since that's the name used for self-identification (just like "Romanian" doesn't predates "Wallah", "Vlah" or other variants). I'm a bit disgusted that conveying info is treated as racism, I think this is an overreaction and seeing racism where's there's not the case, to me this is an obvious case were there might be a honest confusion. Take for example Scots language, Scottish Gaelic and Scottish English there's obviously a potential confusion between Scots and Scottish (which by the way are just as related as Romani and Romanian are, and have about the same number of letters that differ) Do we really need a special reference that there might be a confusion between Scots and Scottish? No. Is anybody accused of English or Gaelic bigotry for promoting a disambiguation link there? I doubt it. I'm not obsessed with this issue I can live with or without that dab link, but I find it sad that unbased racism name-callings (more or less overt) are used to support edits in Wikipedia.

And one more thing, I also find it offensive that being unhappy with being confused with other people is attributed only to bigotry (should we accuse Obama of bigotry because he doesn't want to be called Muslim? He doesn't like to be called Muslim because he's not one, not because there's anything wrong with being a Muslim) So from what I understand you consider 52% of Romanian bigots because they don't like the idea to be confused with Romas... nice going... you don't give them the benefit of the doubt, and that there was never an instance when the similitude in names let to a confusion, that goes against the common sense, why would more than half of Romanians be afraid to be confused with Romas exactly because of the name, if that never happened or can never happen? Why 52% of the Romanians would be afraid of such an improbable thing? Either it's not so "improbable", or they are nuts. Of course it's easier to consider Romanian nuts than to think that some people do confuse Roma/Romani/Romanian especially considering that many Romas are Romanians citizens. But apparently considering 52% of the Romanian nuts and bigots is the "non-bigot" way out of this conundrum. man with one red shoe (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For the "Scottish" argument: like with Bulgarians/Bulgars, the two terms are applied interchangeably to one or both terms of comparison.

As far as I can tell, the mechanism beyond the Romanian/Romani "confusion" is indeed bigotry - a loaded and suspect theory, which I'd bet would have been aborted in most countries, has built into a marginal phenomenon in Romania, for terms in the Romanian language, and for speculations about what "others" might do. I for one do indeed consider those 52% of Romanians who were questioned in that poll to be bigots, or at least to be as gullible to accept this sort of primitive manipulation. In any case, what they believe or don't believe is of marginal importance here: it says nothing about how the world at large relates to this issue (unless those 52% regular guys and gals can suddenly claim expertise on universal linguistics and anthropology). Moreover, even the one source you cited indicates that the source of this perception is prejudice and a tendency to discriminate (a fact detailed even more clearly in the source I quoted below). And, no, I don't believe that bigotry is widespread in Romania. I know so.

Let me also comment on this: "Of course it's easier to consider Romanian nuts than to think that some people do confuse Roma/Romani/Romanian especially considering that many Romas are Romanians citizens." Yes, of course it's easier, since the poll only shows that there are Romanians who think it's not easier - nothing about reality, just something about their perceptions of the Romani people and foreigners. If anything, it would make them the study case - certainly not the authority. To give you an analogy: cancer won't get treated with herbal teas because a number of people in a poll think that it will. Yes, the analogy is flawed: some of the people who would answer a poll about cancer may have cancer, whereas the question in that other poll doesn't even allow room for personal experience.

That said, I have no problem with keeping the poll results, if it's accompanied by some nice citations from Nicolae and Barany - two scholarly sources which state the origin of this nonsense. Preferable, it should come after them. That's the only use I can see for this tidbit. But the "distinguish" tag answers no real need other than prioritizing what some conspiracy theorists in Romania claim over common sense. Dahn (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Roma people ?

Not to be confused with Roma people is offensive. The idea that Romanians might be confused only with Roma people and not,for example,with Romansch people,Romand people or people who speak Romanesco or any other Romanic people is offensive. Such a mention is offensive. "Not to be confused with Roma people " is nothing more than individualizing an insult and this is not acceptable. Many westerners believe that Romanians are a sort of Russians (because Romanians say "da" for yes,for example) while other may confuse Romanians with Romansch people or other groups that bears some resemblence,but I don't see a warning about not confusing Romanians with Romansch,Romands,Romans,Russians or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.206.132 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that paragraph is irrelevant to this article and potentially offensive to some, it should be removed. Thisglad (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so let's see the logic here: "Romanians don't like to be confused with Roma people, most of the Romanians that don't like to be confused with Roma are racists because they don't like to be confused with Roma, since this a problem that concerns racists we should ignore the simple fact that Romanians are confused with Roma" (for more reasons: the names are very similar, most of the Roma come from Romania) Did I get this right? Or maybe you claim that "Roma" and "Romanians" names are never confused? I haven't seen a shread of evindence that there is any confussion between the name of "Romanian" and "Russian", or "Romansch", but if there's a confusion between Romanian/Romansch/Romans which do sound similar we can add that in the "not to be confuse with..." link, but we'd like to see some reference that Romanian/Romansch/Romans are commonly confused, otherwise it's nothing else than original research. man with one red shoe (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Singling out one ethnic group above all others is nothing but pushing a political POV. The inclusion of the other categories highlighted this fact, and the selective revert by MWORS just confirms it. RashersTierney (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm very open to include Romans and Romansh if you bring some evidence that these names are confused with Romanians. I mean it's possible... they come from the same root. But creating a laundry list with everthing that has "Roma" root is probably not needed if these works are not actualy confused. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And you, presumably, are the authority and arbiter on what give rise to 'confusion'. The POV pushing here blatant and unequivocal. RashersTierney (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't claim that, I was also not the person who introduced that "not to be confused" link, I've also noticed that discussion go very fast down the drain when somebody accusses the other person of POV pushing... I think that we've pretty much established that there's a confusion between Romanians and Roma people based on two counts: close name and country of origin, we haven't established that there's a confusion between Romansh and Romanians names, but again if there's is I support introducing that link for Romansh too. So you need just to produce a slight evidence of such confusion, nothing more, and I will support including Romansh too. So, please come with that evidence instead of accusing me of POV pushing. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Every article on Wikipedia could begin with disclaimers 'Not to be confused with'. Irish people are frequently assumed to be English or American because they mostly share a common first language. The content of this article is self-evident and assuming total ignorance on he part of readers is unnecessary, divisive and far from respectful.RashersTierney (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is adequately addressed here, where it should be, within the body of the article. RashersTierney (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The issues with Roma people is not that Romanians are confused with Romas the problem is that the names are similar too, I don't see how can somebody confuse "Irish" name with "English", do you? It's not a "do not confuse Scottish with English people" kind of warning, the issue is that names can be confused, the fact that most of the Roma people come from Romania and they are confused with Romanians, as people, not as names (and many of them are Romanian citizens and many do speak Romanian not Romani) is only a compounding factor. This compounding factor is not present in the case of Romansh and Romans, they are not Romanian citizens, but again if you present some evidence of confusion we'll include that too. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is this 'WE' you're speaking for? RashersTierney (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Editors of Wikipedia, you and/or I. E.g., you re-add that and if somebody removes it I will point to the evidence that you brought and revert... that's how things work here, right? Why do I get a feeling that you pick on my words? man with one red shoe (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to speak for other editors. As for 'picking on your words', don't be over-sensitive. My intention is to only to make this a better article and feel that the 'disclaimer' in question takes from it considerably. RashersTierney (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who wrote the first post in this discussion and Man with one red shoe wants "evidence" that Romanians are confused not only with Gypsies,I can give him an example: In the great majority of American movies Romanians are a sort of Russians. In Mel Brooks'comedy Dracula: Dead And Loving It (1995),the locals from Transylvania wear typical Russian clothes and they use kopecks(Russian currency). In the majority of American movies Romanian characters have Russian/Slavic names. In an euronews footage about the city of Sibiu,one Romanian was interviewed and the translator who was dubbing his voice in English was trying to imitate the Russian accent. I have heard enough westerners who said that Romanians are Slavs. On the other hand,there are regions where people would never make a confussion between Romanians and other groups like Gypsies unless someone would post a disclaimer on Wikipedia,making them to believe that maybe there is a connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azdfg (talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotes from the book "Gypsy Law" by De Walter Otto Weyrauch

Page 12 : "Throughout this Article we use the alternative spelling "Rumania" for Romania to stress that the term "Roma" for Gypsies is not linguistically related to Rumanian"

Page 23 : "Its similarity to "Romania," especially in the adjectival form "Romani," leads to the misconception that Gypsies and Rumanians are identical or related"

Link

Bottom line Rezistenta (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you repeatedly start new headings when a topic is being discussed? Do you think every contribution from you deserves large bold lettering? Please stop, it is most disruptive. RashersTierney (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it then you're suggesting we rename this page 'Rumanians', to mitigate against some possible confusion. A novel proposal, but I doubt it'll fly. RashersTierney (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would expect it to take more than two snippets from amazon to clarify the case. Furthermore, from what i can read in the incomplete source, the two snippets refer to: 1) potential misconception; 2) prejudice. Both cases fail to address the issue, which is: are there documented cases where English-speaking people make the confusion between the two terms in their native language? What we see so far is one source who says that they may or they may want to. What wikipedia does is to distinguish between homonyms, not between actual and mistaken. Dahn (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I quoted from the book, It says explicitly, now stop trying to prove the day is night and viceversa . You are purely speculating and inserting your personal POV . Like Man with one Red told earlier, there is confusion because of these names, conclusion emerged after long debates several months ago, when many editors took part of it . Stop digging old and solved issues Rezistenta (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see where consensus was reached. RashersTierney (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Rezistenta, I'd wager you didn't read anything in the book other than those two snippets, so you can't be sure of how you quoted it. From what I can see so far, it doesn't document a confusion, it tries to averts one being made, and, when it speaks of a misconception, does not explicitly state that this made in the real world - just that it would be a misconception (which we all know by now). As for the "conclusion" you cite, you were and still are the one fervent supporter it's got: those who objected to your idea on this very page just got tired of having to deal with a certain kind of schemes.

Now, let me give readers a quote they may find interesting. "In a disastrous economical situation, politicians in Eastern and Central European governments need a way to relieve social tensions and an almost 'traditional' way of doing so is to find a scapegoat and to claim they are protecting the majority from their imagined enemies. I have often heard Romanian politicians saying the most outrageous things meant to distract the attention of the public from some corruption scandal in the political sphere. These distractions are taken up by the media and repeated until they become the truth. A good example comes from late 1994 when Romanian intellectuals and members of the business community were looking for a way to dissociate Roma from Romanians in the European mentality; the Roma were accused of destroying the chances of Romania to become part of the EU. An obscure and extremist nationalist Romanian professor came up with the idea that the word 'Roma' is a recent invention and had supposedly been used by criminal factions trying to destabilise Romania by persuading western Europeans that Romania is the country of the Roma (Gypsies). This 'discovery' was widely reported in the Romanian mass media. The word 'Roma' actually means 'human being' and it is much older than the names of any of the modern European states. As a result, in January 1995 Romania's Foreign Ministry attempted to dissociate Romania and the Romanian people from the Roma. The Ministry decreed that the Romanian Roma should be called 'ţigani' rather than 'Roma' as the latter name 'was likely to be confused with the Romanians.' Imagine the reaction of Michael Jordan, Colin Powell, Bill Cosby, Alice Walker and other Afro-Americans if President Bush decreed that Afro-Americans should be called 'niggers' in order that they not be confused with Americans!" (Valeriu Nicolae, "Roma Rights Activists and the Political Establishment", in Hannah Slavik, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy, Diplo Foundation, 2004, p.272-273)

Hope it's now clear to all bystanders what this "distinguish" method was motivated by. Dahn (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term Rumania above was a strategy by Ian Hancock, followed by other academics, to deliberately throw this contrived confusion back on itself. RashersTierney (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dahn, I see that you address the motivation, not the fact that such confusion do seem to happen. Motivations and facts are different things. I think that quotes presented pretty much prove that there is a chance for such confusion, which was the subject of this discussion. man with one red shoe (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Highlighting a contrivance and addressing an alleged ambiguity are not the same thing. RashersTierney (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To MWORS: I still don't see that it happens. I do indeed see "a chance for such confusion", just as I see a chance for confusing Romanians and Romulans, for confusing Romanians and Romans etc. But other than a fringe, demeaning, theory and its minor consequences (none of which is actually attested as a real phenomenon, and some being maybe used as preventive measures in one or two works), I can't really find anything to back up the claim that this is actually happening. I just find that we are discussing the consequences of such prejudice when they should have been confined to the internet forums that obsess over them. Just because one user decided to incorporate them in the article (in the article's lead!), are we supposed to accept it is relevant, and spend so much time stating the obvious? There's this Romanian proverb I'm thinking of... And, again, even if it were happening, there is no precedent for this: all the examples of this template being used refer to actual homonyms and interchangeable variants (Macedonians, Bulgarians, Scottish), not to some postulated prejudice. Dahn (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal

In the interest of averting another edit war, I'd like to propose that no Roma people 'Disclaimer',or others, are applied to this page until consensus is reached on their value to the article. Editors can give their reasons indicating whether they

• Agree or
  
• Disagree with the inclusion of 'Disclaimers' RashersTierney (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree Voting is evil, but this poll could help debunk the notion that "consensus was reached". My full reasons can be found above. In short: the only people who are attested to have actually claimed "a confusion can be made" are a fringe extremist bunch who, in any case, do not and could not argue their case outside Romania. Nothing so far validates the notion that such a confusion is made by people who speak English as their first language and are literate. If there is any merit to this entire "confusion" debate, it can be discussed in the article, not pasted on top of it (doing so in the past has broken WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOT all in one go). Dahn (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You just called 52% of the Romanians a "fringe extremist bunch" and this in the name of anti-bigotry... nicely done. man with one red shoe (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I have called a "fringe extremist bunch" those who conceived the notion that there is a "confusion". As for those 52% of Romanians answering in the poll, I have said three things: 1) it may indeed be a reflection of that theory and a prejudice, so it may be bigotry (yes, I'm sure it's a novel idea that bigotry still has a major part to play in common Romanian discourse...); 2) the poll does not establish anything about what we're discussing here, since it is nothing other than a projection; 3) polling on what people think is fact, under any circumstance, will not replace a fact as attested by third-party reliable sources, not on wikipedia and not anywhere else texts aim to be relevant. So, you see, I am actually ignoring all conjectures made about what the poll means, because they are besides the point; if I took it into consideration at all, it was just to let you know why I shouldn't.

Now, let me ask you this: if you have more comments to make in reference with what I have said, please don't pick what you think serves your point and attempt to take it out of context. I have written about these issues above, and you can still read my full replies there - I encourage you to reply there or in a new section below this survey. Let's please keep additional dialog in this section to a minimum - if anything, because readers must already be finding this hard to follow. Dahn (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a chance of confusion (and I explained why), I dislike the fact that you imply that I'm part of a "fringe extremist bunch", you have the right to your opinions, I have the right to dislike them and to reject that name-callings. That's all I wanted to say about this, I proposed to ask for a 3rd opinion because that's more relevant than the opinion of people that are close to the subject. man with one red shoe (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A prerequisite of any discussion I'm willing to have is not going down to the level of false accusations, MWORS. I have never called you any names, and you claiming that I did based on what i said about the results of a poll is sophistic reasoning. Dahn (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I might have misunderstood. man with one red shoe (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't agree with this presentation, I think that using "disclaimers" language feeds into to claim that this is about bigotry. I think it's a normal disambiguation like in case of Scots language, Scottish English and Scottish Gaelic. Similar names should be disambiguated and explained especially when there is confusion. man with one red shoe (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The expression 'Not to be confused with'. gives the game away. It reveals itself as a 'disclaimer' and not just a DAB, even if one were required. RashersTierney (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"not to be confused with" is a standard Wikipedia template, the language is introduced when a "distinguish" tag is added, of course we could use a DAB. man with one red shoe (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with templates is they take a 'one size fits all' approach to very different situations. Articles dealing with race and ethnicity are particularly sensitive, and language needs to reflect that fact. In any case I reject to notion that a DAB is required at all. The question is adequately (if crudely) addressed in the article. RashersTierney (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree with disclaimers as they have historically shown themselves to go out of control and be the subject of great invective and bad blood. Not confusing Romanians with Romans was quite ridiculous. I don't necessarily always agree with Dahn, but enough is enough. There has been no indication of any mainstream confusion. —PētersV (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: "Not confusing Romanians with Romans was quite ridiculous" - No one was talking about that dublink, that and the other ones added yesterday were added in purpuse by Dahn and his fellow in order to ridiculouse the real purpuse of it Rezistenta (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Roma disambiguate has come and gone so many times I've lost count. As I didn't check edit history, then the ridicule was justified. Roma has no need for dispelling confusion with Romanians. There's no need in the opposite direction. And, as I've commented, your examples of Bulgars and Macedonians do not apply. We don't "unconfuse" people regarding Baltics and Balkans, either. Frankly, it's demeaning if not insulting to add clarifications that carry with it "In case you are completely clueless about Romania and Romanians, they are not..." —PētersV (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The example of bulgarians and bulgars and macedonians doesn't apply over here. why ? bulgarians and bulgars are not homonys and have a lesser chance of being confused, in fact the difference of letters is lesser then in Romani people and Romanians, not to mention that Romani is the romanian endonym which is identicaly with the first one Rezistenta (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For the 15th and final time, Rezistenta: Bulgars have also been as "Bulgarians" and Bulgarians have also been known (if more rarely) as "Bulgars". Do you see the difference, or need I refer you back to the proverbial napkin? Dahn (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And what's the relevance of this argument ? Romani people are also romanians, many of them live in Romania, speak romanian language and we cannot dispute that there is no such confusion betweeen these populations and names...which is exactly the purpuse of dublinks Rezistenta (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me show you the relevancy: "Bulgarians" is a homonym of "Bulgarians", and "Bulgars" is a homonym of "Bulgars". Hence the disambig there. Comprende?

Now, not only is there no such criss-cross between Romanians and the Romani people, but all of what you post in support of that argument is absurd: a sizable section of the Romani people does live in Romania, but it is ridiculously contrived and speculative to state that Westerners only entered in contact with those. Also, assuming that those Westerners know the people they refer to speak Romanian (i.e. they understand Romanian), then they presumably also know what Romanians are! Unless, horribile dictu, they may just want to claim the two are the same thing, because they are similarly prejudiced against both. But even the fabric of your argument is paralogical, so there is no sense even taking such "eventualities" into account. And yes, we can dispute the "confusion", as we just did, per the sources cited and per logic.

And I for one have stopped even taking into consideration your "local ethnonym" argument, which you bring into the discussion over and over again, no matter how many times you're told that it's irrelevant on the English wikipedia and any other wikipedia. The only context in which the argument would begin to matter is the Romanian-language wikipedia, but I'm guessing you know it would be hilarious to assume that people who can read the version of this article there don't already realize that the two words are neither homonyms nor synonyms. Dahn (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No sources are specifying that there is no such confusion, actually they work in the other way, they confirm that there is a widespread confusion amongst all european peoples and not only. We can see how much logic your explinations have in them when you say bulgarians is homonym with bulgarians and that's why they have distinguish dab with bulgars. I wasn't refering to your "explinations" because beside the usal of latin phrases and sophisticate words casted randomly in order to impress the reader we can clearly see that they lack essence, they are turned and twisted up 10 times and they spin around the same idea so that they will look more profoundly and they are an affront to logic Rezistenta (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyeah. Well, I trust the other users have understood my point. As for whether you did... at this point in the debate, I couldn't care less. The old and new feedback here seems to indicate that there is a light at the end of the long tunnel you have been dragging this article through. Dahn (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're trusting neutral parties why did you rejected Man's with one red shoe proposal ? Or maybe this is part of the same superior logic of yours together with bulgarians being homonym with bulgarians and bulgars with bulgars Rezistenta (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To your first: you can read why in my earlier posts, but if you're asking because you don't understand why, then I'm afraid I can't help you any more than I did. To your second: it apparently is. If you still see a problem in the fact that "Bulgarians" is used to convey two senses for words that aren't synonymous (as is "Bulgars"), then I also can't help you more than i already did. But let's not make this thread about my alleged superiority to you. Dahn (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Another masterpiece of reply proving your alleged supperiority to me . Lesson one : When the arguments are rare, let's pretend we have already "explained" the issues. I can't hardly wait to hear your next teachings part of the same volume "how to prove water is not wet" Rezistenta (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, why bother? On one hand you claim that I should not answer every time you repeat some concept or another (which you do in every post and then accuse me of doing it back), on the other you jump around and pester me that I should reply to your every post. If your tactic is to fill this page with nonsense and spam, to continue flogging old horses every time some hours slip by from the last time they were proven fallacious, then you must be underestimating the intelligence and patience of our readers, who must have figured it out by now. So, no: I shan't be bothering with your comments any longer, because no matter what I do you expect me to feed into this "let's bore the readers" tactics. Whatever needed to be said was said many times over.

And, btw (as other editors have pointed out by now in reference to your posts): when people decide to comment on supposed ambiguities in English, not to say when they decide contributing to the English-language wikipedia, they ought to have a reasonable command of the language. Or at the very least punctuation marks. Dahn (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In contrast to those who are pretending they can read people minds I prefer granting the freedom of judging to the readers . Whatever needed to be said was said and the previous debates of this issue stand as evidence that the usage of the dublink is perfectly valid and as a consequence it stood for a very long period of time. Skipping the innuendo, i've noticed that you seem to be pleasantly elated by the word "fallacious". It sounds very nice indeed Rezistenta (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

---

• Alternative proposal -- let's ask for a third opinion from some uninvolved people, since all the people who posted here are either involved in this discussion or are old hands on this page, let's see an opinion from people who don't know at first hand about the subject (that's the point of dab link anyway, right?), if they find the dab link useful then we keep it (maybe change the language to sooth the misgivings of some people) if they find it useless, we remove it, simple as that. man with one red shoe (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose For starters, the issue has been discussed here in the past: you can read statements from users in both Romania and the outside world who consider the notion absurd - so we could stop right there. It's also because I and others have pointed out that there is a problem with having that in the article - ignoring it and relying on how people who are not aware of it might relate to it is illogical. "Finding it useful" in this case is also "not finding it useless" or "not caring either way" - when what's being discussed here goes far beyond that. And what do we do next? Write down any absurdity we can conceive and see if people live with it or not, and if they do just keep it there? In addition, this whole idea sounds like canvassing and, like the whole "52%" thing, an obvious argumentum ad populum. And btw, just what is the expectation here for "verifying" that it's "useful"? Testimonials? "I was blind, but now I see"? "My life got changed for the better by the addition of that template"? And lastly: I am repeating myself, but I find your interpretation of what is useful to be in breach of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Dahn (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose No third oppinion is needed, consensus is already reached. Dc76\^talk 09:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus = Bull -- Let me call bull on this, at least two people strongly disagree. Three or four agree, that's not "consensus", at most is a weak majority of people who are involved, I suggested to ask for a 3rd opinion to see an opinion of somebody who is not involved in this petty issue. man with one red shoe (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me one person on earth who disagrees with this: [1] :)

Now, seriously, I think Peters has made several good points below. Let's not blow this issue more than it's worth. But of course, I'd respect other people's oppinions, I simply fail to undestand what is the relevanc eof all this . Dc76\^talk 21:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment : My motivation in posing this question was solely to test whether there was consensus for the inclusion of banner 'disclaimers'. It is apparent that no such consensus exists. Might I further suggest that there be a little less heat in this debate. Some good points have been raised by all contributors, but these disclaimers have only been divisive and distracting. RashersTierney (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dahn and Rezistenta have been going at it for a while. I've chimed in on the let's not have disclaimers side, there's been no consensus on adding Roma disclaimers in the past. I did find the "Roma people" are not "Romanians" et al. disclaimer--and the disclaimer's inclusion of "Latin people" and mention of multiple terms is quite honestly more distracting than anything else. A disclaimer for multiple uses of a term is necessary. A disclaimer because someone might be confused is optional at best. Disclaimers for the uninformed should, quite honestly, be stuck at the end somewhere as a footnote. It's not a disambiguation or disclaimer involving multiple uses of a specific term and should not be treated with that sort of prominence. The current disclaimer (Romanians ethnic versus Romanian nationals) is informative, appropriate, and sufficient.

   If this confusion is truly a phenomenon, which I don't believe has been demonstrated, then we should consider Commonly confused Eastern European terms and stick them all in there. After all, we have the minister of foreign affairs of Australia calling the Baltics the Balkans in his testimony before the Australian legislature when he was trying, poorly, to explain why the Whitlam government (i.e., in the sole person of Whitlam) decided to grant the USSR de jure recognition of the annexation of the Baltics. Not to mention amazon.com originally matching Balkans for Baltic, long since fixed, but it was damned annoying for a long time. Let's then stick them all in one place with pointers from all nodes of confusion. And the link to this should (still) be at the bottom of the article.

P.S. Short version = completely agree with RashersTierney, particularly the divisive and distracting part. —PētersV (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. "Uninvolved" would still need to be "informed and knowledgeable." WP especially being mostly the editing arena of twenty-somethings or younger, a lot of "sounds perfectly reasonable" poor verdicts are offered by the "uninvolved" out of pure lack of historical awareness. —PētersV (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The disclaimer is necessary because in Europe, many people make the confusion between the Romanians and Roma. Those confusions are not accidental, but regular. For example, I'm going to cite an article from the German journal Europa Regional (March 2006) concerning the image of Romania in Germany. I the poll results, 58% fom the questiones peoples believe that "the majority of the Romanians descent from Gipsy people." (in German: 58 Prozent (von 69) glaubten sogar, "die Mehrheit der Rumänen stammt aus dem Volk der Zigeuner"). The article name is "Makrostrukturelle Entwicklungen in Rumänien und die Wahrnehmung des Landes in Deutschland". If you want to, I can also scan the article.
The necessity of Wikipedia is to inform the reader and as long as the confusions between the Romanians and the Roma are so widely spreaded, we have to keep the disclaimer.--Olahus (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

At least Olahus, you have the honesty to call it what it is, a Disclaimer, and not try to pretend its there for some other reason! RashersTierney (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't have to scan it, and you don't even have to cite it. It's irrelevant. I guess you haven't been following the discussion here, but let me point you to a few arguments raised here: 1) citing German-language terms for an alleged cofusion made in the English language is nonsensical; 2) the article you cite doesn't refer to Romani people as "Romani", but as "Zigeuner" (so the supposed confusion made is not based on ethymology, but on a prejudice that has no place here); 3) citing what people believe, for unclear reasons, is a conjecture (like in the case of what Romanians believe). In short, it's not a fact, it's an irrelevant opinion held by people on the street (irrelevant both in general - it's a prejudice about Romanians and Romani people, not a confusion about Romanians - and on the English wikipedia - it's in German), and you're building the argument around that opinion without paying attention to the object of this discussion. Dahn (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

HEY, everytbody. Maybe a link to a disambig page "Roman[...]" would do. "For other terms starting with the 5 letters "Roman", please see ... Dc76\^talk 01:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Why are you all afraid of 3rd opinion from somebody uninvolved? For what I know they might support your position, but if we don't ask won't know.
2. This is basically an affirmative-action type of behavior form what I see, although you admit that there's a confusion (even widespread) between Romanians and Romani you deny that is related to the name (although common sense would say so) but even if it wouldn't be related to the name (or not only to the name) why would a clarification and conveying of a correct information should be avoided? Only because some bigots like to promote it? A piece of information is information no matter who promotes it. Who promotes a piece of info is not a sufficient reason for me to supress it, if it's correct. And no, there's usually not a widespread confusion between Romanians and Romulans as far as I know. But this is about the last time I post about this issue because I don't care enough about it, I was only pissed to see this kind of "info-hidden-because-of-who-generally-promotes-it" state of mind, I don't know how to call this type of attitude... distrubing nonetheless. man with one red shoe (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Your question is a loaded question (the "how often do you beat your wife?" kind). I for one have explained above not why I'm "afraid" of, but why I believe your proposal misses the entire point. Let me add to what you can read there (and stress other posts where I indicated the same): uninvolved users have become involved here over several months, and all of us but the guy(s) who pushed the tags here were once "univolved". In other words, the tag and the article in general have become the subject of interest to the relevant audience, and questioned as such, leading you to invent new criteria for what it means to be uninvolved ("yes, but no true Scotsman...").
2. Nobody of those you're discussing this with ever "admitted" to such a thing. Ever. The only thing that was ever admitted is that there are some very opinionated people who claim there is such a confusion (for political reasons that have nothing to do with this project), with the implication that the notion itself has gained some marginal exposure. In the absence of such a confusion, the tag only feeds into one of the most abject and primitive claims ever made about the Romani identity, that according to which they are "stealing" somthing from Romanians. If only for the latter reason, the tag has no place there. Really, how much more time do we need to spend on this? Dahn (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Daco-Romanian continuity

I'm a little surprised that the term "Daco-Romanian continuity" does not appear in the article, nor does much indication that it is a controversial theory. The Ceauçescu regime were, of course, big advocates of the theory, which ultimately may have done more to discredit it with non-Romanian anthropologists than otherwise. I personally don't know enough to have an educated opinion, but I'd expect the matter to be taken up here explicitly, with some indication of who has argued for and against, and what there case is (I believe that the case against is simply, to use a Rumsfeldian phrase, "the absence of evidence" rather than something as strong as "the evidence of absence". - Jmabel | Talk 20:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the position regarding this issue has changed even after Ceausescu, so it's not related to him or communism in any way. The only change that happened was that some Roman vestiges were discovered in Transylvania that date from the time when Romans should not have been there according to Hungarian-pushed hypothesis. It's obvious that there are two positions, Hungarian and Romanian that have a specific interest in this issue, it would be interesting to see some references from historians that are outside of this circle of interests. Personally, I have my own opinions but they are not relevant here. man with one red shoe (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a too big an issue to handle here, but, yes, the article does read in part like propaganda, in part like a schoolbook for barely literate children. It's even more worrying when one looks over the part that is purely about the Dacians - not only is their connection to Romanians a disputable note within an antiquated and disturbing logic (that of ethnicism), but all the claims about them forming a "great cultural, ethnic and linguistic unity", about them having not just a state, but a "State", about the "fierce battles" are not only POVed even within Romanian historiography (let me just refer you to books by Lucian Boia, to name just one who explores this POV and its consequences) - they also show ignorance for the basic policies of wikipedia. I also for the love of me don't understand why the history section is separated from "Ethnogenesis". Dahn (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I also feel I should point out that the entire paragraph beginning with "Orichovius" is original research, based on the direct interpretation of primary sources. Not only that, but it seems the person who "transcribed" what those sources allegedly refer to into modern Romanian does not master the language's grammar ("şti româneşte"...).

And, gentlemen, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Dahn (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nil desperandum, Dahn. Even the longest journey starts with little steps. RashersTierney (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, why aren't you bold and change crappy things? Good point about Ethnogenesis, I added in History section. man with one red shoe (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would be, but the last few times I was bold in this article, I was also reverted by one particular user. Also, coming up with a relevant source-based overview would require some work - work I'm not keen on starting if it's just gonna end up deleted by users with agendas. As an early step, I'm trying to generate interest and consensus. Dahn (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, just to give you a glimpse into the complications of the ethnogenesis matter: there isn't even one "Romanian POV" on the matter. Ever since the 19th century, respectable Romanian historians too have disagreed about whether the ethnos was "formed" within present-day Romania or outside present-day Romania. [I say "respectable Romanian historians" because it's obvious we're excluding those freaks who claim wild notions such as Dacians having "Dacianized" Italy etc.] While traditionally it was assumed, within a nationalist discourse, that Romanians surfaced within or in the vicinity of Dacia, this has not only been doubted or at least nuanced in post-totalitarian times, it was also seen as a non sequitur in the 19th century. It was Xenopol who, in the 1870s or so, first noted that the Romanian language owes unusually much to a south-Danube environment, and who concluded that at least part of the ethnogenesis took place in the Balkans per se. He too was a man with an agenda, and viewed things from an ethnicist position, but back in his time the supposed "Romanian version" was not half as restrictive as it became under and since totalitarian regimes. Dahn (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wait, I think you are gently pushing Jmable in some mist here. :)

• "freaks who claim wild notions such as Dacians having "Dacianized" Italy etc" are one extreme, obviously non-scientific (well, except in Ceasescu's politicized "history")
• movement of all population south of Danube and then the return is another extreme view, also obviosuly non-scientific (well, except within the Austro-Hungarian politicized "history", but even there only partially)

What prevents people from dismissing both? Typical character of history as a humanitarian discipline rather than a science. Things are charged ethnically because one fringe theory was (not even "is") supported by a particular country. Then things are also charged politically by those who during Ceausescu's era had "Dacians (with sticks) reciting Miorita 600,000 ago" as their bread. It's all a crap, and until all these "crappy" "historians" won't finish their lives, it will be echoed.

The truth is that the ethnogenesis did NOT happen within the EXACTLY same boundaries as 1918 Romania. Vidin and Zăiceari area were within the ethnogenesis region, also parts of western Ukraine were, while the lowlands in the east (Moldova, Baragan, Dobrogea) were not, they were almost empty of people. There was a reason they called "Descalecatul Moldovei". Let's not forget that in 14th century, Moldavia only had 200,000-250,000 population. Barely half that of Transylvania (with a comparable area). Dc76\^talk 01:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but much of your post misses my point. For starters, I'm not sure that, other than extreme views, the movement o all population outside of Dacia was and is the standard Austro-Hungarian/Hungarian view - it seems to me that what they actually said, at least originally, was that Romanization in Dacia was superficial and affected an insignificantly large population. Debatable, but not the caricature (straw man) Romanians think they are answering to. Also, it is by no means a single view confronted with a single Romanian response: within scholarly opinion on this side at least, that period is still commonly referred to as the "empty millennium", and most will agree that speculation has been conducted on the basis of very little proof. Also, bear in mind that I was referring to this article as it is - of course we should have a decent review of all scholarship, but the Ceauşist rhetoric is in the article as such (together with its good friend original research) - this is the most serious matter for now, and I was pointing out that the bias is not even a Romanian bias. On the other hand, all of this matter should be treated in summary style, with a "mai article" link to here - let this article be vague wherever history itself is vague, or else we would inevitably be favoring one POV.

Also, I used "within Romania" to mean "somewhere, anywhere, within Romania". Even within the paradigm of ethnogenesis (which I find flawed for just about any example of an ethnos, but that's personal opinion), even within some of the most debatable Romanian academic sources, that is not stated as an unquestionable fact. It is political discourse which has made it that, and the least we have of that on wikipedia, the better. The same goes for the opposite "certainty". Dahn (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And note please look again over my earlier post and notice how and where I spoke about the Dacianists. I think you would find that what I stated is perfectly synonymous with your assessment that they are "one extreme, obviously non-scientific". I don't think it could have been read otherwise. Dahn (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly because the article (and Origin of Romanians, to a big extent) is written poorly, you won't see me editting here in the near future. I like things organized. Now, I am Romanian, I know some Romanian history, I have read some books, articles, and despite that I find it very difficult to follow. How about non-Romanians? POV/NPOV is not even an issue before clarity and good organization is present. That is a point I can not miss.

"one extreme, obviously non-scientific" - yes, I was saying the same as you.

"It is political discourse which has made it that" - now you said the same thing as me. Dc76\^talk 05:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dc, we may say the same things, but so far only one of us has accused the other of leading a third user on by saying those similar things. See my point? If you do, please make sure we avoid this problem in the future. Okay? Dahn (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily responding to your points, mostly thinking loudly... I find it interesting that Romanian language has become prevalent in the Romanian territory because usually the language that imposes in a territory is the language of the rulers/elites, Romanians were almost never elites, they were peasants and sheepherders. That's first interesting fact, second interesting fact is that there are terms that come from Latin through an interesting linguistic path: pavimentum -> pămînt and veteranus -> bătrîn for example. The first would not fit with an agricultural people very well since they would not call "earth" with the term used for pavement, that would be strange. There are other mysteries like preserving (mostly) the grammatical cases, while the rest of the languages based on Vulgar Latin lost them almost completely, there are also some freakish instances when some words simply disappeared from other Latin-based languages, but were kept in Romanian. Another freakish element is the Latin origin of many religious terms although the church was dominated by Old Church Slavonic for so many years, while other Latin population in Balkans (presumable from where Romanian emigrated) use Greek terms. As for Austro-Hungarian theory I think it fails Occam's razor test and doesn't solve anything, if it "explains" the lack of evidence of presence of Romanized population, it doesn't explain the lack of evidence of any major population movement and sudden majority of Romanians even in places far away from where they claim they emigrated (Moldova, Bucovina for example) I find it easier to attribute the lack of evidence of presence for the way of life that doesn't leave much traces: peasant civilization, wooden houses, no much writing, things that simply turn into dust, also cohabitation with Slavic people (actually is pretty clear from the linguistic and genetic evidence that Romanians are very close to Slavic populations around Romania), Hungarians don't deny that when they came there were Slavs in Transylvania, the next step is to admit that between Slavs and Romanians is not such a big gulf, many Romanians are probably Romanianised Slavs anyway, from what I understand the process of assimilation had probably started before the Hungarians came into this part of Europe, I have no clue what exactly mix or Romanian/Slavs they found in Transylvania, but I would find it very strange to have found 0% Romanians and 100% Slavs, and why so ethnically clean? That doesn't have much logic, only a political one. Also, there are many indications that Slavs actually created a wedge between Romanian and Albanians and between Romanians and Aromanians, it would be strange to have Romanians and Aromanians living close together (at a time when linguistic theories tell us that they already been separated by Slavs) and Slavs at North of them living in a separated, 100% ethnically clean of Romanians environment (I doubt there were "ethnically clean" places at that time in history), and then have Romanians move in mass to the North, assimilate or destroy totally all the Slavs without any historical shred of evidence, I find it easier to swallow that peasants didn't live much archaeological evidence (and actually would be hard to attribute a language to the person who made an object or left the mark on the earth if there was no writing -- losing writing is also an interesting fact, might be explained by depopulation of cities because of various invasions) than to believe that a migration and an annihilation of Slavs didn't leave any historical evidence. man with one red shoe (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I will pretend I am God and will answer now you questions :)

• Roman vetrans were the leaders of each rural community. They were able to organize, fight, work, build (remember that most of the time Roman solders were occupied with construction, not wars), they have seen the world and they knew how to get things done. If I am a Dacian idiot (smarter people were killed or were still fighting the Romanns - remember that Free Dacians still fought for more than a century), I would want my children to take knowledge from these men, and if that means they would learn (also or only) their language, I wouldn't have a problem with that. So, they did not necessary learn from ordinary Roman peasants, the veterans have passed quite some natural selection. Also, recall these were the very high-spirited 13th (remember Rubicon?) and 5th legions (August's original legion, the legion).
• You go around, but you don't say the word: Romanized Dacians were sedentary people. For a sedentary person to move 500 km is death. If Dacia would have been evacuated we would have heard about hundred of thousands of people dead on the march, people unable to addapt to new places. We don't have even indications of 10,000 people, not 1 million as we would need if the 19th cetury Austro-Hungarian theory was true to the letter.
• We don't have that many archeological traces because those people made a good job of conciling them. Recall that they were fleeing barbarians, were hiding in valleys that are difficult to access. If you start building a big house, first ensure you have an army to defend it with, b/c any significant construction draws attention. They wanted to survive, not to give traces for 20th century historians to find.
• We are not so identical with Poles and Ukrainians, who have 60% R1a Y-chomosome haplotype. We only have 20-25%, the divide is on the Dniester river.
• Hungarians won't admit this for another 20 years, but they have more Slav blood than Serbs or Romanians, in fact much more. They are the physical descendants of Panoonian Slavs, Magyarized in everything, like we are Dacians Romanized in everything, and like Serbs are Illirians Slavisized in everything. Recall that the migration of Slavs had a starting point (roughly where today the borders of Poland, Ukrain and Belarus meet) and an ending point (roughly Belgrade). Some of them took the longer route through Transylvania or even Moldavia. Most took the direct root and most of those did not arrive at the destination but settled on the road. I repeat, the most nationalistically Slav nation, Serbs, are only very little genetically Slavs, wihch proves that ethnicity and genetics do not always go hand in hand.

If you have more "questions", ask St. Peter. :) Dc76\^talk 05:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of the above is perfectly reasonable [note: in MWORS' post - Dc's is, frankly, absurd], but it is also speculative and seems to transport national identities back into a time when they did not exist as such anywhere. I would also like to point out that, as fascinating as these discussions may get, our personal theories about "how it may have happened" have little to do with the article as it should look (the article obviously can't be based on this type of research, and I wish someone would have told that to the editor/s who added all that primary-source-reading stuff here and elsewhere).

That said, allow me to point out a few things I find questionable in your argument. For starters, as attractive as the notion that "languages of the elites survive" is, I find it to be a cliche and not much more. Tell me, how much of Spanish is Gothic or Arabic? How much of french is Frankish? How much of Italian is Gothic? The situation seems to be far more complex that the frame we ware taught to look through. Also note that the Slavic imprint on basic Romanian is enormous, so large in fact that it prompted Hasdeu (who, btw, although some Romanians still refer to him as an authority, was not only one of those freaks I mentioned earlier, but also one who falsified data) to produce the theory of "words in circulation" (as in: "sure, there are more Slavic words, but the Latin ones are the most-circulated" - which I picture carries little weight outside the normative Romanian discourse). Interesting to note, his adversary in this debate was not a Hungarian or a Slav, but the Romanian Alexandru Cihac. Dahn (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't talk about national identities, I talk about linguistic identities, and actually your point helps my argument, including the huge Slavic imprint which I don't deny, and which, by the way weakens the main talking-point of Hungarians, if Slavs are a big part of Romanians is pretty much irrelevant that Hungarians claim they found "Slavs only" in Transylvania if Romanians are 40% or 60% (or pick a number) Slavic. As a side-remark I find history pretty much irrelevant when it comes to political and/or ethnic present issues (but I'm one of the few) Yes, I also agree that what I wrote is not very relevant to the article, only some speculations, I will try to limit those. And you are probably right to knock down the theory of "language of elites", I think, and again sorry, it's a speculation, that it depends on many factors, elites is only one factor, there are factors such as number and mobility of population and time of contact, most of the examples that you listed can be generally explained by the small number of the "elites". Typical example that I had in mind was Saxons in England. man with one red shoe (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said, i don't object to it being speculative (aside from noting that we may get sidetracked here); what's relevant (though I don't know how relevant for the article) is that it's reasonable. In fact, what you wrote above is a breath of fresh air compared to the usual avatar of this version. Dahn (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, somehow I took that "sure, there are more Slavic words, but the Latin ones are the most-circulated" at its face-value, I still think that's true especially that many Slavic terms sound archaic and are not really used. From Romanian language article "is estimated that in modern Romanian 90% of the vocabulary is of Latin origin" (although a might be in order) I actually doubt that there are more Slavic words, how were they counted? In the past many times words have been attributed to the wrong language. I even doubt that if you eliminate all the recent loan-words Romanian would have a Slavic-predominant vocabulary, can you give me a link with a scientific analysis about this issue? Is there an online resource for Hasdeu? Thanks. man with one red shoe (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how they were counted, and I don't know how right Cihac and his friends at Junimea were - what I have found relevant in that controversy is that these people manifestly saw more things on heaven and earth than have been dreamt of since by people who cite Hasdeu as their authority. For a short summary, see here (and the page after that). I have the book at home, in its original - there's a bit more on other pages as well, but that would be the substance of the debate. Dahn (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, wait, wait. It is not by plainly counting words of different origin (how it seems to be done in the book you are giving) that you find the roots of a language. Ask a linguist and he will tell you this: they take the first 10 most basic words, then the first 100, then the first 1000, 10000, 100000. (no problem if you do by 5 not 10, you ge tthe picture) And they calculate the precentages for ach of those. Latin has all 10 out of 10, over 90 out of 100, over 50-60% out of 1000, just ca. 30% out of 10000 and barely 15% of the 100000. Old Slavonic has 0, 5-10%, ca. 30%, ca. 30%, and ca. 15%. Then French has 0, 0-1%, 0-2%, 2-10%, and explodes at 50% or more. The numbers are approximate (I was told this many years ago), but you get the picture. Dc76\^talk 06:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dc, please distinguish between issues and terms. First, the book that I referenced does not say Cihac was right. Neither did I - though I would refrain from intruding between you and Cihac :P. What I did tell you is that the imprint of Slavic was and is considered enormous - and what Boia says (textually, if I remember correctly) is that Hasdeu and Cihac are two extreme positions in the discussion. Now, what's more, I personally would favor anything Cihac (and Junimea in general) said over anything Hasdeu said - the first term of this comparison, mistaken or not, tried to apply decent and scientific criteria in any such issues (or, in Junimea's case, was still doing that at the time); whereas, with Hasdeu, whatever wasn't pure fantasy was either pretense or a study case in collective self-gratification. Dahn (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If in such a lengthy discussion we were to forget beteen issues and terms, that would be the least of our worries. :) I would respectfully disagree with your personal appreciation of Hasdeu. He did extraordinary works, trying to gather information from primary sourses in subjects noone did before him. If you hold against him every piece of incorrect information, then where would we arrive? It is easy for you now, in 21st century, with so much ready available to talk (and still we make mistakes). Try 150 years ago. It is easy to build on the work of other people, and often to forget how much we owe them. We judge them by our standards. Why don't we judge us by theirs? Dc76\^talk 06:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing: as a historian and linguist (none of which he actually was, other than as an amateur), Hasdeu is universally discredited in academia. He has been so from the time he started writing. So no, not the 21st century: do inform yourself on the scientific standard of his time, and you'll see that Hasdeu's were still in the middle ages. This is not only an "international" standard vs. a "local" standard: Hasdeu was very much alive and, alas, productive when Junimea reacted against his style of writing history. The man was caught falsifying evidence for ideological goals, and was proven to be wrong on almost every topic he ever wrote about. Furthermore, the theory maintained by those freaks we named above, which you called "obviously anti-scientific" or smthg similar, originated with Hasdeu. It too was first debunked by Junimea, in his day, with existing standards. And, btw, Hasdeu was not just a white-bearded historian; he was a man with an extremist agenda - an ultra-radical, a nationalist, an antisemitic agitator and a supporter of pseudoscientific methods even in his more private life (as a dedicated Spiritualist). He poured his vision into his "work" by the gallon, trying to con the public into thinking that his view was historically justified, whether those of the others weren't. For more on what his contemporaries thought of his standards, his methods, and his many accomplishments, enjoy this. Dahn (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dc, this makes sense, also I don't find it credible that Romanian has one fifth of words of Turkish origin (I bet my beard some of these words are Greek) man with one red shoe (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not particularly fond of when we start inferring into a source, particularly when it seems that neither of you guys realized that the source is secondary, not primary. Let me direct you back to my actual point, before we start wasting space here with more of what we can believe and more of how we have it on good authority that "what we can suppose was done should not have been done". What I indicated was that Slavic has had a huge imprint on Romanian, however we may choose to nuance that, however we may choose to relate to its importance, whatever conclusion we may draw from it. I began by telling you that all such retrospective is speculative, and I hope we can agree on that. Now, as long as some logical criteria are respected, and the discourse refers to at least some evidence, in a pluralistic society and in the absence of scholarly consensus, there is no "good speculation" and "bad speculation". There is just a void that, just maybe, nobody will be able to fill. Let's get used to the idea. Dahn (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Dahn, leaving aside the diversions, the book that you presented is a very good source of info for the original discussion. man with one red shoe (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Boia is an authority in this field, or perhaps the authority. He's by no means not the only such source, nor the most detailed, but he offered a well-written, well-formulated and, in its day, groundbreaking overview of such issues. Dahn (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could summary his conclusions? Basically nobody knows for sure, all the parties have nationalistic interests especially those that present extreme hypothesis (no continuity or 100% continuity) and that the most complete explanation (actually the one with less downsides) is that Romanian language (note: not "people") formed in SW on both sides of the Danube. Did I miss anything? man with one red shoe (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, wait up. What Boia actually does is to look into all the debated themes, myths and cliches in Romanian historiography, and point out how verdicts have varied, how matters were interpreted and by whom, and, occasionally what makes sense and what could not. Overall, there is little personal insight, and, like wikipedia, he does not discuss the truth, but reliability. So no, he does not have a thesis to add on say, ethnogenesis, he is mainly interested in the discourse surrounding it. What you have read is not his "let me tell you how it actually is" (and it can't really be read as such), but his who said what and why. The chapter I quoted from discusses the fluctuating image of Slavs, from their impact (which we can attest and assess, though not entirely) to the interpretations. He notes that, for example, that the conservatives at Junimea were ready to accept (mistaken or not), that the Slavs may as well have been a determining factor, whereas their opponents did their best to create a historiography that either ignored or attacked that concept, because it didn't fit with their image of how things should be. Elsewhere, he notes about Junimea: "Oricare ar fi insa prejudecatile junimiste transpuse in discursul istoric, si oricat de inaccesibila obiectivitatea urmarita [by Junimea], intransigenta critica a acestui curent ideologic a infuzat culturii romane un spirit de care orice cultura are absoluta nevoie [...] Marele merit al Junimii nu a stat in 'dreptatea', mereu discutabila, a solutiilor propuse, ci in faptul ca a indraznit sa puna sub semnul intrebarii foarte multe din convingerile comode ale romanilor." The book is thus capital in that it details how Romanian perceptions of themselves have fluctuated, and treats issues such as ethnogenesis with a critical distance, which documents the fact that, as I said, there was much speculation done, in many ways, over very little evidence. (Compare that to what the article now says about that period.) Dahn (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't read it like "this is how it is", but the idea that "nobody knows for sure" appears pretty clear on page 126 in his conclusion, the idea that nationalists took over the subject is evident throughout. He also says that the linguistic theory (although not necessary "more true") that proposes that Romanian appeared in SW borderlines on both sides of the Danube "presents fewer weak points and explains more than other versions" I think this is something relevant even if he places a disclaimer that there's no way to know if this is true. I don't want to present that as a definite conclusion, just to present it as he does: that this theory supported by most foreign philologists "has fewer weak points and explains more" which I think is a very smart way to put it without arguing about its truth value. This is what I think we should write in the article. man with one red shoe (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, now I get you. Yes, it's a good approach, though it's best to cite a source for more than one verdict. I'm willing to give it a try when I have more time. In the meantime, this article couldn't possibly get any worse, so any such edit is a rescuer. Dahn (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"related Ethnic groups"

You should be more careful because parts of this article are at least annoying and inaccurate. Aromanians are not related ethnic group, but related linguistic group. And there is no evidence about emigration from "romania" to "Greece",unless you are talking about last decades emigration. Actually this map shouldn't even exist in the article.

You can't just put a map that says areas with significant numbers of romanians and include the aromanians.I changed that to areas with green... That's propaganda my friends.We are NOT romanians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geotol (talk • contribs) 03:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"Aromanians are not related ethnic group, but related linguistic group." What does ethicity actually mean to you? man with one red shoe 21:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, since aromanians in their vast majority self identify as ethnic greeks I don't see what's the point of this.They consider theirselves not just perceived greeks but by origins...

The first latinized local people were in north epirus when the greeks of the area of adriatic sea felt the pressure of the Illyrians:In 229 bc greeks from Kerkyra asked for roman help against the Ilyrrians.The romans accept to help, but they ask for the help of north epirotans (greeks) and greeks of adriatic sea cities against the Carchedoneans.To communicate at the battles they have to learn latin!!!

In addition,local people were used after the construction of via egnatia as soldiers around the main roads of the empire in the east and especially on important roads close to the mountains where many "rebels" lived.These groups of soldiers were given some fields for their offer.At that time they were called armati.In the following centuries local vlach speaking people changed this word to armatulu and later it was used in greek as armatoloi (αρματολοί). Similarities between aromanian and romanian language can be found due to immigration from south balkans to north and NOT the opposite!

In the middle of 6th century Ioannis Lydos wrote: " Νόμος αρχαίος ήν, πάντα μεν τα οπωσούν πραττόμενα παρά τοις επάρχοις, τάχα δε και παρά ταις άλλαις των αρχών, τοις Ιταλών εκφωνείσθαι ρήμασιν. ου παραβαθέντος, ως είρηται, τα της ελαττώσεως προύβαινε. τα δε περί την Ευρώπην πρατόμενα, πάντα την αρχαιότητα διεφύλαξεν εξ ανάγκης δια το τους αυτής οικήτορας, και περ Έλληνας εκ του πλείστου όντας, τη των Ιταλών φθέγγεσθαι φωνή, και μάλιστα τους δημοσιεύοντας..". He speaks about latin speaking people in the areas of west macedonia and epirus.(especially on and around Pindos) that are greeks in their majority since ancient times!!!

518-527 the slavs first attack but they do not achieve much. Since 550ac the slavs achieve to conquer many areas for some years.

In 584ac as Ioannis efesios informs us, the slavs came and destroyed and burnt cities and slavered the local people.From this time they wouldn't retreat and leave the area. Since then and until the years of Herakleios(who made greek the official language)and later the aromanians were forced to stand alone on the mountains away from the cities and lived as shepherds, in order to stay away from the attacks of the slavs.So they didn't follow the rest of people of the empire who would officially speak greek. In 746-747 epidemic of pestilence holds the vlachs as well as all others isolated. I have a lot of evidence based on historical facts, but I don't want to write forever... --Geotol (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

How people see themselves has no bearing to what language they speak, for what I care Aromanians can consider themselves Chinese, their language is still related to Romanian (actually there's no other language closer to Aromanian than Romanian). Mind you, I don't claim that one developed from the other or there's a specific direction of influence: North to South or South to North, it's only the simple fact that the languages are related (it's irrelevant how) As for the fact they feel Greeks (I assume the ones living in Greece, because there are Aromanians in other countries) it's a normal thing for patriot citizens of Greece, but, as I said there are Aromanians in other countries (including Romania) that don't consider themselves Greeks, so your point is just a factoid and not really relevant. man with one red shoe 16:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually we are saying exactly the same. As I said they are related linguistic group and then you asked me what ethnicity means to me...Aromanian is not romanian dialect but an east romance language related to romanian. Something that you might not know is that aromanian has thousands of Mycenaean,homeric, byzantine and modern greek words ... As for the aromanians claiming to be greeks, most of the north epirus (modern albania) aromanians claimed to be greeks(and received greek citizenship)...Also most of aromanians of south bulgaria claimed to be greeks and emigrated to greece after the balkan wars when their lands were part of bulgaria. And my statement is actually correct since the vast majority of aromanians live in greece... I can tell you how and why some aromanians migrated to romania because I have relatives that went there and I know the whole story... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geotol (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question for Man with one red shoe

Driven by his wicked anti-Romanian hate,Man with one red shoe claims that:"most of the Roma come from Romania" and Romania is their "country of origin". Really ? Is Romania the country of origin of the 10 million Gypsies from Turkey ? Most of the Gypsies from former Yugoslavia come from Romania ?Azdfg (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's rather simple, as a matter of fact in Eastern Europe Romania is the country with the biggest population of Roma, because of economic condition more people emigrated in these years from Eastern Europe than, let's say, France or Spain, therefore more Romas that reached Western European countries have arrived from Romania, it's a simple matter of math. I don't have numbers, but hey, if I'm wrong it's not by a large margine the point is that many came from Romania (it's possible because of wars to have more that come from former Yugoslavia, I admit I don't know this). As for "wicked anti-Romanians hate" I ask you to tone down your personal attacks and personal interpretations of my behavior per WP:PA, basically "discuss ideas, not editors" if you don't stop it there are ways to deal with this type of editors who ignore rules and engage in personal attacks. man with one red shoe 15:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not rather simple when you claim that "most of the Roma come from Romania" and Romania is their "country of origin". "Most of the Roma come from Romania" means that most of the Roma from all over the world came from Romania. How can anyone from Eastern Asia or Central Africa guess that you are reffering to Gypsies that reached Western European countries in recent years ? If you want to be rather simple you should write understandable and correct sentences like "many or most of the Romas that reached Western European countries x,y in recent years came from Romania" so the billions of people from Asia,Africa or South America who might read your message be able to understand which Gypsies you are reffering to.Azdfg (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

@man with one red shoe: this page is about the romanian people NOT about gypsies/roma. There's a page about them on wikipedia feel free to experss your feelings there. To denigrate the romanian people constantly dosen't mean that you discuss ideas or help improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadeiuss (talk • contribs) 08:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And how exactly I "denigrate the romanian people"? man with one red shoe 16:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

By suggesting to unaware readers that most of the Roma"(from all over the world) came from Romania and Romania is their point of origin,by claiming that "most of the Romanians that don't like to be confused with Roma are racists because they don't like to be confused with Roma" (who would like,since westerners are using this confusion in a derogatory manner),by supporting a disclaimer that would make a connection in the minds of those who otherwise wouldn't make any confusion (wikipedia is not only for western europeans) Azdfg (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For one thing don't put words in my mouth. I didn't claim that most of the Romanian are racists, if you are able to read... please do so and see that there were other people who claimed or insinuated that, I never attributed a characteristic to an entire group. Second, even if I said that "most of the Romas came from Romania" which in the context of the discussion meant "most of migratory Romas that Europeans met or heard about recently" it would be at most an innacuracy not a "denigration". I don't accuse you of not understanding the context of the discussion, you were not even part of it, but cease the personal attacks, this behavior won't lead you anywhere (at most will lead to being blocked -- and from the amount of your contributions I venture the guess it would not be the first time). Oh, and nobody is interested in your opinions about me. If you have problems with my person report me in the appropriate place, otherwise stop the discussion about my person now. This page is about improving article not discussing editors (see WP:NPA). Do you have anything to contribute to this article? man with one red shoe 15:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference was about "most of the Romanians that don't like to be confused with Roma" so I didn't say that you were referring to most of the Romanians as a group,although it is true that most of the Romanians don't like to be confused with Gypsies and I don't see why would someone like to be confused with any other group of any kind. Anyway,Romanians are bothered not by confusion,but by the fact that the term Gypsy applied to Romanians by western europeans is intended to be an insult by those who use it and who know the difference between the two groups. This is why I said that the disclaimer was individualizing an insult,more than an ignorant confusion.And I see that you continue with "inaccuracies" when you refer to "most of migratory Romas that Europeans met or heard about recently." This is another inaccuracy or maybe an ethnocentrist reflection because I doubt that Russians or Europeans from other 40 countries have ever met migratory Romas from Romania. The number of Gypsies from Romania who migrated is probably limited to a few urban areas from some of the western European countries. And this will probably lead nowhere although I was hoping to make you understand that wikipedia is not only for and about western europeans and their confusions and obssesions that are not shared or known by the great majority of world population. And I see that you discuss about my person when you assume that I was blocked before which is a false assumption anyway. I do not have anything to contribute to this article other that my desire to make an Eastern Asian or Central African or South American who might read your posts understand that when you used terms like "most of the Romas" or "Europeans" you were referring only to a small and specific part of Gypsies and Europeans.Azdfg (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the Russia is in Asia (same for Turkey). I was talking in general about Europeans, if there are exceptions then that's what they are "exceptions". man with one red shoe 18:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is another ethnocentrist inaccuracy. I used the term "Russians". According to wikipedia,roughly 78% of the entire Russian population lives in European Russia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Russia And I was also talking in general about Europeans i.e. about all 731,000,000 Europeans living in 50 countries. I doubt that the great majority of 731,000,000 Europeans are crowded in a half of dozen of western european countries reached by migratory Gypsies from Romania or that 40 countries from a total of 50 are exceptions.Azdfg (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Even "Russians" are probably more likely to have met a Roma from Romania rather than from let's say Greece or France. Oh and by the way take a look at this [map] this is true for the past as it's true for the present. I used the term "most" you can talk all you want about my "ethnocentrism" and "innacuracy" and debate how many exception there are, this is however not relevant to improve the article, I proposed the keep the "distingush" tag because people might confuse Romas because of the reasons I detailed, this proposal failed, so it's pretty irrelevant to discuss about this issue anymore, unless you want to debate endlessly with me about the meaning of "most" or "probably" and if "by most of the Europe" I really meant 37 countries instead of 50, I doubt people who watch this page are interested in this kind of discussion, and the level of my ethnocentrism, but hey, this seems to be your objective in life... go for it if you don't have anything better to do. man with one red shoe 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Romanians Of Italy

I think the numbers of romanians in Italy is wrong. It should be 1,000,000 something if you read the article of the demograhpics section of italy

Amateurism

This nonsense discussion about the Romanians-Moldovans question let us see that Wikipedia still needs to ameliorate itself in drastic way. It is a given fact that Moldovans are not another people than Romanians. For that you need to have facts and the next essential correlations between those “separate” people show us that in fact there is no difference.

First, the language: in both countries is Romanian the spoken language by the local population (excluding ethnic Hungarians of Russians). The difference between those two languages is in fact nihil. So we can say that “people” speak the same language.

Second, the common history: it is true that Romania as a country doesn’t exist for centuries. It’s independence was gained in the 19th century, but the county’s within the Romanian speaking-people area’s have a lot in common over lots of centuries. A perfect example is of course the existence of Principality of Moldova. This Principality, which existed till 1812, stretched from Transylvania in the west to the Dniester River in the east. That shows us that regions within Romania ànd Moldova had till 1812 a common history within a Principality that partly or in whole proportion made part of Romania. This shows us that Moldovans have a common heritage with Romanians till 1812 and between 1919-1945.

Third, cultural and religious aspects: People like Mihai Eminescu, Stefan cel Mare or Dimitrie Cantemir are national heroes of both countries. The church of both countries is in fact the same; the Romanian Orthodox Church.

This shows us that the majority of the population of Moldova, are of common ethnicity with Romanians.

Besides those important correlations there exist of course much more, just look at the flag or national currency.

I just can conclude that those who think that Moldovans are a separate native population, are people with a major identity crisis.

Greets

Religion

I wonder why is "Atheism" included under the religions, when according to all the polls I've seen (and all the maps here on wiki!) it's the country with least Atheists in Europe, after Malta and Turkey (which is not fully in Europe anyway). I'm sure there's at least one Buddhist family, why not include Buddhism too?

It is includead because 1 atheist (bogdan) feels they should be included. Since atheism is not a religion, I will remove it immediately.

simmilar articles in which this dublink is kept

simmilar articles in which this dublink is kept. few examples.

1. Bulgars with Bulgarians

2. Macedonians with Ancient Macedonians

3. Romani language with Romanian language

4. Republika Srpska with Republic of Serbia

if you want this dublink to be removed, first remove those dublinks . ok?