Talk:History of Christianity in Romania/Archive 1

= Scythian Monks - Theopaschite doctrine + Dionysius Exiguus - Anno Domini Era =

Untitled
There's no explicit statement about them personally in the entire article: I would hardly consider them unimportant.

= Christianity in the 2nd century, Christianity in Roman Dacia =

Borsorka,

No scholar needs to prove anything to you. You don't have to correct scholars like you attempted on Spinei (editorializing "wrongly described" to "described"). The statement you disagree with is quite clear: the local communities date from 2nd-3rd century. What's to explain? I conceded on a tag for local, but the  tag and all the other stuff you're doing there is WP:GAME. Your own(!) source states it clearly. I added two more sources, Madgearu's article is online: "Having strong relations with the Oriental provinces, Dobrudja (a part of the Roman province Moesia Inferior) was an area where Christianity began to spread since the 2nd century."

I don't have time for all your POV-pushing games. I will add a NPOV tag to the entire section until will reflect correctly what (at least some of) the reliable sources say, that the history of Christianity on the lower Danube starts in 2nd century. Daizus (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Daizus, it is not me to whom anything should be proven. Actually, I think there is no need to prove anything in this context. I know that the POV that Christianity existed in Scythia Minor already in the 2nd century is shared by many historians. I only propose that, similarly to the POV that Christianity is attested from the 3rd century, the former one should also be substantiated. I suppose that the reliable sources provide some evidence in order to substantiate their POV. Otherwise, the first sentence of the "Roman provinces" section is only a vague general phrase. Borsoka (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a general phrase, but it is not vague at all (except perhaps by saying "local", but for instance see Madgearu on Dobrudja). 2nd century is as specific as you can get, what do you expect, a year?
 * You can use the 'expand section' tag if consider more info is needed. You can't just flag the dates you don't agree with. Daizus (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase is not substantiated by any facts, it is a simple declaration (that is POV) which seems to contradict to the evidence provided in other reliable sources on the existence of Christian communites in the third century. Borsoka (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is WP:OR. Those scholars have no obligation to present all the evidence, and certainly they have no obligation to present evidence to you. They quote the relevant bibliography and that's enough. If you have no source asserting there were NO Christians in the second century in Dacia or Lower Moesia (Scythia Minor), there's no contradiction. And if there's any contradiction, then we must present a NPOV content, by presenting both points of view. Daizus (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Another dubious case which needs to be fixed in this section.

Article text: "The existence of Christian communities in "Dacia Traiana" province is still not proven uncontestably."

Source 1 (Boia 2001, p. 11): "There is no incontestable evidence of Christianity in Roman Dacia."

Source 2 (MacKendrick 1975, p. 187): "There is no evidence for Christianity in Dacia until after the Roman withdrawal in 271"

In the case of MacKendrick "still not proven" verges on WP:OR. This author wrote something else ("there is no evidence" - a strong statement) and perhaps he was just not aware of it (in a book written more than 30 years ago, whereas the other books were published in the past 20 years)

In the case of Boia, it's a question of WP:RS and WP:DUE. Boia is no scholar of Antiquity nor Christianity. He did not write a book on ancient history nor on Christianity. He wrote a book on Romanian histography. His (unreferenced - no footnote, no relevant bibliography) assertions must be taken with due weight, especially when the experts in the field have a different opinion. He can be quoted for his skepticism, but as a historiographer, not a historian of Christianity in Roman provinces. Daizus (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Mihai Bărbulescu writes (Pop et al. 2005, p. 186) that “Few of the objects which belonged to the Christians could have been from the pre-Aurelian age.” Based on the three sources (Bărbulescu, Boia, MacKendrick), it is hard to claim that there is incontestable evidence of Christianity in the Roman province of Dacia; therefore the sentence cannot be qualified as OR. Borsoka (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your use of Bărbulescu is again WP:OR, however bringing a new source, doesn't fix the misuse of the previous sources. MacKendrick is obviously not aware of the evidence (he doesn't say the evidence is contestable, he says there's no such evidence whatsoever) and Boia has no competence to discuss the Christianity in Roman Empire. His book also lacks the relevant bibliography. Daizus (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bărbulescu is not a new source. Please checque in the article's history. Borsoka (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is a new source for that statement. Daizus (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And there's a case of WP:SYNTH in the current version of the article. The sources quoted assert clearly those objects (lamps, gems, etc) ARE from 3rd century, before the Roman withdrawal. Instead you choose to present only Bărbulescu's view that those objects COULD HAVE BEEN from that period. Daizus (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So there are two POVs presented by reliable sources: (1) those finds are from the 3rd century and before the Roman withdrawal (2) those finds are most probably from the 3rd century and they may "with caution" be dated before the Roman withdrawal. What can be the proper wording? Borsoka (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We can say the (early?)-mid 3rd century date is controversial, if anyone indeed doubts the dating (isn't there a footnote on that page?). I'll check few more books and articles, to see if there are any other scholars doubting the dating of those objects. Daizus (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Scope of the article
Could someone clarify the scope of this article? Is it about the Christianity in Romanian, as the title implies, or is just an ethnophiletist approach to the history of Romanians, as the lead suggests? In the latter case, it should be merged with the article about Romanian Orthodox Church. Anonimu (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Anonimu, would you please clarify the above question? The article's title suggests that it is about the history of the Christianity on the territory what is now Romania. Therefore, the article summarizes the main points of the history of several Christian denominations (among them the history of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Greek-Catholic and several Protestant Churches) in this territory. The lead also make references to the crucial points of the history of non-Orthodox Churches in modern Romania (for example, Roman Catholic bishoprics set up in the eleventh century, the presence of Protestant denominations, and the establishment of the Romanian Church United with Rome). Therefore, merging this article with the an article which only describes the history of one of the churches concerned would not be a logical approach. Borsoka (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the order and selection of events presented clearly appears tendentious. Some random example: the existence of some "pseudo-bishops" in the 13th century is mentioned before the establishment of Roman bishoprics in the 11th century; extensive passages about Christianity in the Southern Balkans; only feeble mention of Roman monastic orders (Cistercians at least were important in early Transylvania, probably others too); the influence of the Christian hierarchy on the temporal power mentioned only for the modern era; no mention of non-Orthodox religious education institutions. This is just from skimming through the article.Anonimu (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not refrain from adding information based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I do not understand your reference to the Roman bishoprics in the 11th century. Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead states the first hierarchy "of the Romanians" was mentioned in 1247, and after that goes to say the Catholic bishoprics were founded in Transylvania in the 11th century... do you call that chronological order?Anonimu (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lead does not (and I think should not) follow a strict chronological order. Since in 2010 the majority of the inhabitants of Romania are ethnic Romanians, it would be strange if the lead did not concentrate to their religious history. Nevertheless, the article is open for anybody to edit it. Just one remark, there is no mention of hierarchy "of the Romanians" in 1247 in the lead. The lead refers to the first evidence of church hierarchy among Romanians in the territory of modern Romania from 1234. Borsoka (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Does WP:NPOV say it's ok to change time flow if current politics dictate so?Anonimu (talk)
 * Thank you for your remarks above and below. I still think that in this case by following a strict chronological order, we would find themselves in contradiction with common sense. Does WP:NPOV suggest that chronological order cannot be set aside in the lead in order to help summarizing the article? Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither do I understand your reference to "extensive" passages about Christianity in the Southern Balkans. (1) There is some sentences describing the Christianization of the First Bulgarian Empire whose territory at that time extended over significant part of Romania (2) There are c. five sentences connected to Vlachs (the role of the archbishopric of Ohrid in the history of the Vlachs, Benjamin of Tudela's reference to Vlachs living in modern Greece, and a reference to the Vlach-Bulgarian rebellion). Most of these examples are traditionally mentioned in reliable sources describing the history of modern Romania (see for example, Georgescu's cited work, or the History of Romania written by many Romanian historians). Borsoka (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about 2). None of the events have any relation to Romania, they speak about the Southern Balkans. About tradition: Romanian historians traditionally never write books about the "History of Romania", but about "History of Romanians". While the difference may seem minor, it surely is not, especially considering that included in this definition of "Romanians" is whoever helps sustain the historian's agenda, with ludicrous results such as talking about prehistoric cultures in a book about a modern ethnic group.Anonimu (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read again the title of the book edited by Pop and Bolovan in 1205. Borsoka (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I said traditionally, not exclusively. Does that book mention Southern Balkans?Anonimu (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the references to the connection between the archbishopric of Ohrid and Romanians living in the Balkans on page 151 of the History of Romania: Compendium by Ioan Aurel Pop and Ioan Bolovan (2006); references to Romanians living in Greece on page 167 of the same book; and to the Romanians' participation in the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire on pages 167-171 of the same work and on pages 63-64 of an other book, titled A History of Romania by Kurt W. Treptow and others (1997). Both books are referred in the article's relevant sections.  Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

sc -> şt
to Borsoka: sc -> şt is a common phonetical feature of Romanian, found in many words, for instance:
 * Latin scire --> şti[re] (to know)
 * Latin nascere --> naşte[re] (to give birth)
 * Latin crescere --> creşte[re] (to grow)

etc. The word Paşte is not a debated word, because the phonetics fit (the plural version of Pascha is Paschae, in Vulgar Latin pronounced as Pasce).

The word for Christmas, Crăciun (cf. Hungarian Karácsony) is the one debated: some Romanian linguists proposed the Latin creationem as the etymology, but it doesn't fit perfectly: if it were inherited from that word, it would probably be "Creciune". bogdan (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the above clarification. My earlier question has been answered. Nevertheless, some citation based on a reliable source should be added - www.dex-online.ro may help. :) Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

biserică and Dumnezeu

 * Some of them, for example biserică ("church", from basilica) and Dumnezeu ("God", from Domine Deus), are independent of their synonyms in other Romance languages

That's false. Basilica meaning "church" is found in Rumansch (baselgia), and Domineddio is used in various Italian dialects for God, so they're not completely independent, but rather independent of their synonyms in most other Romance languages. bogdan (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)