Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Which one is the mainstream theory?!

You are trying to present the "Theory of Daco-Romanian continuity" as having equal of less weight than the "Immigrationist theory". What king of NPOV is that? Do you have statistics as to how many modern scholars support the "Immigrationist theory"? I would give it 5% outside Hungary and 70-80% in Hungary, as wild guesses. I think we should look for these numbers, mention them in the article, and give the proper weight to each theory. Otherwise this article is just Hungarian radical propaganda and tardive revisionism. It doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you refer to the reliable sources based on which the above calculation was made. Which part of the article could be qualified as a "Hungarian radical propaganda"? Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The entire article, if you are left unchecked. --Codrin.B (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read what reliable source and original research means. I would really appreciate if the reliable sources of the above calculation were presented. For instance, Peter R. Petrucci in his Slavic Features in the History of Rumanian (1999, LINCOM EUROPA, ISBN 3-89586-599-0) names G. Nandris, E. Scarlatoiu and other Romanian scholars supporting the migration theory (op. cit. pages 4-5). Borsoka (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This entire article is anti-Romanian propaganda. I wish that Romanian state intervene to solve this dispute. It cannot stay online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.121.132 (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you please clarify why you think that the article is an "anti-Romanian propaganda"? Are there any statements that are not based on reliable source or contradict to other reliable sources? Or are there significant facts which were ignored? Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

For example you use mainly modern sources (nationalistic ) Hungarian revisionists historians.A Hungarian historian cannot be trusted to write an unbiased article about Romanian history. I hope Romanian state intervene and shut you down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.162.121.132 (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot understand your general statements. Would you please add examples ("XY the Hungarian chauvinistic nationalistic revisionistic fascist historian writes that ...., but his view is obviously wrong because ZZ the neutral expert of this subject says....") I really sorry that you live in a country where state authorities can "shut people down" because of their views on specific historic issues, but please believe that this approach is rather unusual in our community named Wikipedia. You do not need to wait for any action from state authorities. You can challange any statements based on reliables sources. Please do not refrain from doing so. Borsoka (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Rîm meant Rome in Romanian chronicles

See "papa de Rîm" (pope of Rome) http://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Letopise%C8%9Bul_%C8%9A%C4%83r%C3%AEi_Moldovei_de_la_Aaron_Vod%C4%83_%C3%AEncoace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.172.113 (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

or Așea împărățiia Cartaghinii vrîndŭ să supuie Rîmul, au cădzutŭ la robiia rîmlénilor. (about Ancient Carthage) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.172.113 (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Lucian Boia in his cited work on page 85 writes: "In Romanian historiography it was Grigore Ureche, towards the middle of the seventeenth century, who first noted that the origin of the Romanians was in Rim." I think Boia should be mentioned. (Otherwise, I really do not understand why it were an issue: without mentioning him, there is a probably copyright problem, by mentioning him, the problem is solved.) Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Romanians "come from Rîm" is not present in Boia's book. "We Romanians come from Rome" ("de la Rim ne tragem") is the exact quote used by Ureche chronicle 79.117.169.165 (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read Boia's cited work more carefully. He verbatim writes "Rîm". Borsoka (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

[1] Rîm is used in the original chronicle 79.117.169.165 (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if the original chronicle uses the word "Rîm", Boia's above cited sentence is the source of the statement. We should avoid a copyright violation. Borsoka (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"the origin of the Romanians was in Rim" (Boia)

"Romanians come from Rim" - in the article = translation of original Ureche chronicle text ("de la Rim ne tragem")

NO COPYRIGHT ISSUE

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.219.47 (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• According to Elemér Illyés (Ethnic continuity in the Carpatho-Danubian area, p. 37) the translation is "we originate from Rome" ("de la Rim ne tragem"). Fakirbakir (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

yes, it is the same thing. [2]. Other sources use "descend" [3] The phrase is between quotation marks => no copyright issues 79.117.153.139 (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"I do not understand why the deletion of Boia's name from the sentence" - because Boia is one of the many authors who quoted Ureche chronicle. The quote belongs to Ureche, not to Boia. 79.117.153.139 (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please try to read the whole sentence not only one word. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It was an attributed quote (the author - Ureche - was mentioned). I hope you don't suggest that someone has copyrights on a simple translation. ("de la" = from; "ne tragem" - we descend, come, originate). It is funny to write "According to X, Ureche said" 79.117.153.139 (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid we are communicating parallelly: I referred to the similarities between the whole sentence in the article and the sentencecited above from Boia's work. The whole sentence is the context of 3-4 words which are cited from Ureche, so these 3-4 words are not important from copyright point of you. I desperately ask you: please try to read whole sentences instead of words in the future. However, I think for the time being the present text of the sentence in the article is consensual: therefore, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Or maybe I am wrong? Borsoka (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I completely agree with the current version. I have to admit that our lack of understanding each other was very irritating (probably for you, too), but it is good that the dispute is finished now . For me the present formulation is almost identical with mine, but if you say that this is much safer, let it be like this :) 79.117.140.95 (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Good news. :) Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

w.n.n.d.r

Are we sure that the people called w.n.n.d.r by Gardezi are to be included here? They lived to the south of the Danube and they bear the early medieval Hungarian name for the Bulgarians (see Vladimir Minorsky's translation). Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Armbruster and Constantine VII

Adolf Armbruster in his cited work refers to Constantine VII's report of a population known as Romani in Dalmatia ([4], footnote 20). As far as I know Dalmatia does not belong to Romania, therefore Armbruster's reference cannot be cited under the title of "Romania in Antiquity and in the Early Middle Ages". Borsoka (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The genesis of Romanians doens't happened exclusively inside the current border of Romania. That's a naive approach. Armbruster's reference must be cited because it clearly deals with proto-romanians. Saturnian (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. That is why I did not delete the sentence, but removed it to its proper place. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The most neutral place for Constantine VII's reference to the inhabitants of Ragusa, Spalato and other Dalmatian towns who called themselves "Romani" is the "Historiography" section. It is noteworthy that Adolf Armbruster cites Constantine VII's reference to the speakers of the Dalmatian language in order to prove the Roman consciousnes of those who speak the Romanian language. It is also interesting that he claims that according to Constantine VII "Roman emperors (especially Diocletian)" settled the ancestors of the "Romani" in Dalmatia, while Constantine VII only writes of Diocletian. All the same, Armbruster's work is a reliable source for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)