Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 23

NO GENETIC STUDIES?
WHY there are no mention on modern genetic studies over Romania? You still prefer suppositions, theories, hypothesis... ? IT WOULD BE HARD for Vatican's manipulators to admit that they have worked for so long time to separate Serbs in Serbia from Serbs in Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria... and now? Genetics studies SHOW WHO IS WHO! But they have to hide them! WHY DOES WIKIPEDIA ALLOW IT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.46.15 (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the Vatican secret agents are present everywhere. I met with them in a PUB yesterday, but I could escape before they could separate me from the Serbian, Hungarian, Romanian and Bulgarian Serbs. Now, I know WHO IS WHO. Borsoka (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Respect primary sources
A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy.

However, primary sources describing genetic or genomic research into human ancestry, ancient populations, ethnicity, race, and the like, should not be used to generate content about those subjects, which are controversial. High quality secondary sources as described above should be used instead. Genetic studies of human anatomy or phenotypes like intelligence should be sourced per WP:MEDRS.

Copy/pasted from WP:SCIRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC about restructuring the article
Should the structure be changed to present the relevant sources within their respective theory sections? 08:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support As evidenced in the discussions about the current failed structure: Exhibit [|Exhibit A], Exhibit [|Exhibit B], Exhibit C and Exhibit [|Exhibit D], the current approach of separating the "evidence" from the "theories" violates WP:NPOV, WP:DUE/WP:WEIGHT, etc, and is the main reason for the non-stop edit warring on these pages (see DS notice at the top of the page). The title of the article is Origin of the Romanians, and other than a WP:LEAD it should only include the three "main" theories regarding the subject of the article (that is, the Daco-Roman Continuity Theory, the Immigrationist Theory, and the Admigration Theory). All the "info dump" currently plaguing the article should be either incorporated into one of the three sections dedicated to the theories (as per respective, relevant WP:RS), moved onto other related Wiki pages, or otherwise purged.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing as one editor involved in this debate has decided it'd be wise to archive some of the discussions referenced in this section, here's a recap of what the independent editors have had to say about the structure of this article lately:
 * How an editor characterizes the content of the article: [...] In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruse as it is. [...] How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? [...]
 * An editor's suggestion on how the article should look like: [...] This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. [...]
 * An editor's description of sections in the article: [...] The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. [...]
 * How another editor describes the article: [...] I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence [...]
 * Another editor's take on how confusing the content of the article is: [...] I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two.[...]
 * Again, the same editor providing a reader's perspective: [...] so I might not be able to add much to this other than offer the perspective of the reader. If there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained. It is not clear which theory is being discussed in the paragraph in question, and adding a single sentence about the other theory only makes things more confusing, rather than adding balance. [...] Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , please ping the editors to whom you have been referring for weeks to verify your proposal. Please let them explain their own opinion, because you are abusing the words of most of them. Borsoka (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would you clarify your above question? Are you proposing that each fact should be mentioned only under one of the three theories, even if the same facts are mentioned within the framework of each theory in reliable sources? Or do you suggest, each fact should be repeated twice or three times (that is once within the framework of each theory)? Borsoka (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If a Daco-Roman Continuity Theory (DRCT) scholar has something to say about a "fact/evidence", then present what that WP:RS says within its proper context in the DRCT section alongside the other arguments presented by DRCT WP:RS as building blocks for their theory. If an Immigrationist Theory (IT) scholar has something to say about the same "fact/evidence" then present that within its proper context in the IT section as a building block to IT. Etc. Taking these building blocks out of the buildings (i.e. "theories") destroys the buildings (i.e. "theories").Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. No encyclopedia repeats the same facts twice or three times in the same article. Furthermore, the scholarly interpretations of the same facts are extremely divergent even within the framework of the same theories, so we should several times repeat not only the same facts but also the same scholarly interpretations. This would be absurd. For instance, that Roman authors wrote of the extermination of the Dacians is a fact, and both continuity scholars and most immigrationist scholars say that the Roman authors exaggerated the massacre and the Dacians survived. Why should we repeat the fact and this scholarly interpretations three times, if we could mention the fact and its two concurring interpretations - the Roman authors were wrong, the Roman authors were right - once. This would be an encyclopedic approach. Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * According to mainstream DRCT the Dacians weren't wiped out and in time they contributed to the formation of the Romanians. According to mainstream IT, (quoting from current version) "the Romanians descended from the Romanized inhabitants of the provinces to the south of the Danube" and had nothing to do with the Dacians. Hence, we have different interpretations. IT scholars may stress that the Dacians were completely annihilated and couldn't have contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Romanians. If, on the other hand, a prominent number of IT scholars believe that the Dacians were not wiped out, then feel free to mention (in the IT section) what exactly that has to do with the Origin of the Romanians according to those Immigrationist WP:RS. If a scholar (who happens to be an Immigrationist Theorist) mentions something about the Dacians' survival/annihilation but doesn't tie that into the Immigrationist Theory, then it doesn't belong in the article. After all, a scholar (be it DRCT or IT or AT) may write about many subjects, not just DRCT/IT/AT, but here we're only concerned with the Origin of the Romanians. All that other stuff has a place on Wikipedia's many other history articles but not here.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That the non-Latin speking Dacians survived both the Roman conquest and the Roman withdrawal is an important element one of the mainstream approaches of the immigrationist theory, so we have to mention it in connection with both theories. Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, clearly, different interpretations of what happened to those Dacians.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Identical interpretation of the same fact (=Roman authors unanimously wrote of the Dacians extermination) by scholars otherwise accepting concurring theories. Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Different theories, different contexts, different interpretations, as explained above. Our job is to properly summarize what the WP:RS have to say in the context those statements are made, and if some "facts" are mentioned a couple times, so be it. Dacians are mentioned several times, so are the Romans, etc. Where do we draw the line? It's not like whole paragraphs are being repeated. Small price to pay for properly summarizing WP:RS and preserving WP:NPOV.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The same reason countless time more users explained since months under various talk page subjects, or in the NPOV noticeboard where no consensus could be reached. Suggestions of third parties have been taken consideration as far as possible as it do not contradict other principles. As well it was demonstrated even by each theory there may be concurring views with equal weight and what is also suggested for a response of such requests, we have to remember "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow the Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research policies."(KIENGIR (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC))
 * All independent editors who ever commented on the many disputes here have been unanimous in their criticism of the way the article is structured, as I already mentioned several times in the sections above, including here. Again, I'm talking about independent editors, not WP:MEAT or the like.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * However, the article now contains more information of the main theories and we agreed that the relevance of the facts mentioned in the article would be more emphasized. What is difference, that you think that we should repeat twice or three times the same facts and same interpretations, other editors say that this would not be in line with WP standards. Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't even understand Iovaniorgovan's reaction since it does not seem to connect what I have written...nobody wrote he did not mention anything several times, nobody said he would not talk about "independent editors" or whatsoever. His answer does not add anything pro or contra of my statement.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC))
 * re. "same reason countless time more users explained since months under various talk page subjects"... or whatever you meant by that.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Well those users are referred who explained why only just some parts of other's suggestions may be taken into consideration in order not to harm other fundamental rules. And it never had any connection to WP:MEAT.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC))


 * Oppose As I have explained previously, I don't think that the restructuring makes sense. Also it could create the false appearance that there are no agreed facts in this matter, just mere opinions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The current structure creates the false appearance that there is no cohesive theory pertaining to the Origin of the Romanians, just a bunch of contradictory "facts".Iovaniorgovan (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there isn't one cohesive theory, there are three major cohesive theories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And how is that a "problem"? My point exactly. Present all three theories as cohesively as possible according to their respective WP:RS. The only way to achieve that is by keeping the theories confined to their own sections, rather than pulling the theoretical "building blocks" out of them and spreading them around at some editors' whims (you do that and all that 'cohesiveness' goes out the window). It's very simple, really.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Two of the three theories are presented as cohesively as possible under dedicated subsections (2.2. and 2.3), and the further theories could also be presented in such a way. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they are not.  Cohesion : noun, the action or fact of forming a united whole.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Equivocation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A list of "facts" / "evidence" is precisely against those rules that for example KIENGIR mentioned because the list of "facts" can be easily manipulated (and it is, in the current article) to either strengthen a POV or to weaken a POV, or to create a PoV altogether. Removing "facts" from the argumentation made by a source (presenting the "facts" / "evidence", but not the argumentation, not their relevance to the theories) simply renders the theories impotent.
 * Oppose For same reasons above. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support For the reasons below:
 * Point by point approach to some of the rules that are blatantly disregarded by the current article, with the current structure:
 * WP:NPOV - All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. - There is no mention of "evidence" or "fact". There is however mention of "view(s)". Does this article dedicate entire sections to list of "facts" or "evidence"? Yes. Therefore the article, in the current state, contradicts WP:NPOV.
 * WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT - Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. - There is no mention of "evidence" or "fact". There is however mention of "view(s)". Does this article dedicate more significant space to either a lot of minority views or otherwise "facts" of "evidence" with unspecified relevance, so much so that the mainstream view is "drowned" in a sea of contradictions or irrelevant "facts" or "evidence"? Yes. Therefore the article, in the current state, contradicts WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT.
 * WP:PROPORTION - An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. - Does this article reinforces the idea that there are a number of minority views, especially on the details, so much so that the general argumentation of each theory is overshadowed? Yes. Therefore the article, in the current state, contradicts WP:PROPORTION.
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE - While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. - Again, does the article present a lot of minority views (usually related to details in the argumentation of the theories)? Yes, it does. Does this give the impression that the theories are rather unsubstantiated? Yes it does. Therefore the article, in the current state, contradicts WP:FALSEBALANCE.
 * Excuses used to circumvent those rules:
 * Could you refer to which repeats the same fact three times in the same article? / But other encyclopedias do not list all facts three times! - Irrelevant question, because each theory will not present it's own list of "facts". Each theory will present the argumentation, which even though it might be based upon some identical facts, it is different. The second variation of this excuse is also irrelevant. Should the article be structured around presenting the viewpoints this can be easily avoided by presenting only the conclusions of the argumentation, where necessary. Moreover, other encyclopedias accept one of the theories as the "standard" framework. I could point out towards, for example, Britannica or Oxford Encyclopedia of Middle Ages (I would guess nobody can say those are biased, right?) who use only one of the theories as the accepted framework for the historical genesis of the Romanian people while still mentioning (but not detailing) other "competing" theories.
 * How could you distribute the facts between the theories? - Irrelevant question, because editors don't distribute any "fact" among the theories. "Facts" are not ours to distribute, are not ours to say which theory "uses" them or not. It's the sources. Present the sources PoV, the sources argumentation (how the sources think those "facts" help them support or refute a PoV). That's it. It is not for us to remedy the fact that one theory uses some facts while another doesn't, or that one theory seems more credible or not (to us). It is not for us to dumb down a theory (by removing the narrative/argumentation of that theory) only to make another seem equally valid (or equally invalid). That's not what WP:NPOV is.
 * but there are sources disagreeing with each other! how could you present that without breaking WP:NPOV / WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT? - We present it precisely according to WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT. That means that the mainstream theories, that is the significant viewpoints, get to have the most mainspace allocated. Other points of view, even if WP:RS, don't. Some do not get any space at all. Because they are not significant enough to be mainstream. That's it.
 * but there are sources within each theory framework that disagree with some of the aspects of the theory! - As per the rule above, those disagreeing voices, even if they are WP:RS, should mostly be left out. Not saying to kill them all, maybe some could stay, depending on editor consensus. But definitely your excuse is is just that. An excuse.
 * but source X says this, source Y says that. Hey, I've got a source that says the Romanian language is a semi-Romance language. It's a viewpoint, it should be in!  - No. Those kind of views do not need to be in. In this specific case, for example, it is both irrelevant (unless the source clearly concludes it has some relevance to one of the theories) but also because, in this specific case, the overwhelming majority of linguists do not agree. So unless we include some 1000 views from from 1000 other linguists that support that Romanian is a Romance language (thus respecting WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT), in order to underline just how outlandishly fringe this PoV is, the only option left is to exclude it altogether. Otherwise we give an extreme viewpoint too much weight in the article.Cealicuca (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for summarizing your understanding of WP policies. You have not proved for months that you could secure their application if the proposal (which is the subject of this RfC) were accepted. I kindly ask you do not start to discuss issues which are being discussed on the Talk page under separate sections. Your practice force the editors with whom you are discussing those issues either to continue it here, or to allow you to unilaterally present your views. We should not prevent neutral editors from expressing their views, but if you write lengthy comments nobody will join us to discuss this issue. Thank you for your understanding. Borsoka (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The structure should not be changed. This one article has been doing fine for years with these sections. The current structure represents a NPOV interpretation of the origin theories.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All independent editors who have commented on this article lately beg to differ (see above).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, they have not answered your "pings" to support your claim. Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not "pinged" anyone and I don't need to, interestingly.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will not search the lengthy archives to prove that you (or your friend) actually pinged them. Nevertheless, you should ping them, because you have been referring to their words for weeks. Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – I am somewhat reticent to get involved in this article again, but I stand by the comments I made previously, quoted at the beginning of this section. Right now, the article is hard to read, and it's even harder to tease apart the different theories to get an overview of the subject from any one perspective. I support any efforts to clean that up. However, I'm concerned that the efforts may not be fruitful without more cooperation from all the main editors on this article, and that continued controversy would continue even if the page layout changed. As a somewhat unusual step, might I suggest creating a draft version of the restructured article at Draft:Origin of the Romanians? That way editors could work on it together without the DS restrictions applied to this page, and then ask this question again and get some informed outside opinions on the structure and layout. Would that work? Would several editors be willing to work on that together, even if it's ultimately just as a thought exercise? Brad  v 🍁 15:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the input, I think doing a first draft of the new structure is a great idea! I'll go ahead and populate that page with a version of the article we were working on before the edit wars began in earnest, with the understanding that it's just a rough draft and more stuff needs to be integrated into their respective sections.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment., I would like to respect your privacy and I understand that you are unwilling to comment this issue, but I also would like to understand your ivote. Why do you think that the proposed structure (which requires that each fact relating to the Romanians' ethnogenesis and their scholarly interpretations should be repeated twice or three times) could help? I assume that you think there are quite coherent theories which could be presented in a clear way, but this is not the case: each fact are differently interpeted by scholars who support the same theory. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm not advocating for repeating the same facts two or three times, but I do think it would be helpful if the article outlined each theory in a coherent manner. My understanding of what is being proposed is that the evidence won't be separated from the interpretation. If there's another way to accomplish that, or an experiment in the draft version that helps with that issue, I would be happy with that too. I honestly have no horse in this race - I'm just trying to offer another point of view to hopefully help the editors that are passionate about this subject to make a decision. Brad  v 🍁 04:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I promise this is the las occasion that I ping you, but we desperately need outside comments. I highly appreciate that you are willing to dedicate time to comment this issue. I think we are on the same side. We should present each theory in a coherent way, but we should avoid repetitions. For instance, we should not mention three times that Romanian descended from Vulgar Latin and contains about 2,000 directly inherited Latin words. Neither should we repeat three times that the ancient Roman authors' report of the Dacians extermination is challenged by many scholars (independently of the theories). Furthermore, I assume, we should also mention facts relating to the Romanians' ethnogenesis (according to reliable sources) which are independent of the theories (such as the assumption of many scholars that the Romanians' ancestors formed a bilingual population). Do you agree with my summary, or I misunderstood your above remark? Borsoka (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm striking my !vote in regards to this question. The proposer and only other supporter of this RfC have both been banned from further edits to this topic area, and I don't want to stand in the way of a snow-close. My initial comments were in regards to what I understood to be a readability issue, but further comments here and elsewhere have made it clear that this is actually about some much deeper ethnic dispute, of which I want no part. Brad  v 🍁 01:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Whatever is decided the lead is too short, and needs to summarize the theories a bit more, and for example, clarifying the period at issue. Some of the material from the next section down might be brought up. I frankly can't face reading this wall of text to comment on the other issue. I suspect I would be an Oppose.  Instead, some indication should be given as to which theory the various bits of evidence are usually taken to support, although I can see this would lead to many arguments. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Correct, in that the current structure does not allow for a smooth integration of any piece of "evidence" supporting any theory. If, for instance, a statement from a reliable source supporting the Immigrationist Theory (IT) is used to open a section (as is/has been the case) then the question arises as to why not open the section with a source supporting the Daco-Roman Continuity Theory (DRCT)? Why not open with a source supporting the Admigration Theory (AT), for that matter? Who gets to decide the structure within the (sub)sections? Why IT/DRCT/AT and not DRCT/IT/AT or any other combination? What about the structure within the paragraphs themselves (seeing as it's all mixed in now)? What if, after long debates, we settle on a structure for a paragraph but then someone else decides to include an additional sentence supporting one of the theories? The whole balance shifts and more of the old jousting for position ensues. Each one of these issues is subject to endless edit warring unless the theories are presented separately, as was intended by the WP:RS before editors got in the way.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment There is nothing wrong with the present structure. This article doesn't take sides and leaves the reader to decide which theory is more appealing to him/her, NPOV. I do not support the idea of a draft page because of the endless debates. If there is no consensus then we should leave the article in its current state. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, and such statements like "is subject to endless edit warring unless the theories are presented separately" seems like a prolonged...threat? Or what? I don't think in WP "endless edit warring" may be possible...not under current discreationary sanctions as well...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC))


 * Oppose for the reasons above. The current structure is perfectly neutral and encyclopedic. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose also for reasons above and neutrality. Barca (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

What to do?
, for you are the only editor who does not agree with one of my edit, I would like to understand your concerns. The text is neutral and summarizes important aspects of the development of theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis, including Romanian and Hungarian irredentism and national Communism. The text also presents independent scholars' view. Which part do you think contradict WP policies and why? Borsoka (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I have never had an opinion on your edit. All that matters is a consensus of editors using this talkpage. I did not look into any potential policy violations except the revert rule. I do also see you are pinging me in a lot of place, so it's hard to centralize any discussion you are trying to have with me. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I asked you to undo your revert yesterday, but you have so far ignored my request, so I thought you wanted to change the text. Sorry, for bothering you but I lost two days of my WP life because of your sanction. Maybe you can dedicate two minutes to this specific issue. Do you think I can undo your revert or do you suggest I still have to seek consensus with two topic-banned editor? In the latter case, I seek your advice on the issue: how could I approach them without ignoring their topic ban. Thank you for your answer. Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't remember seeing that request, and that's likely because it's in so many places. I don't see it as bothering me, I just want to make sure I try and answer all your questions once, maybe explain a few if need be. I have just reverted myself as KIENGIR & Fakirbakir noted they agree and Iovaniorgovan is not able to participate. So I hope I have done as you have asked, and dedicated two minutes to this specific issue, and addressed what needs to be addressed. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 03:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for undoing your revert. Sorry, I cannot symphatize with you. You say you cannot follow two short threads of discussions. For months, I was forced to seek consensus with two editors who wrote lengthy multiple messages and no administrators intervened (for instance here,, and here: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 74). Nevertheless, I accept that you do not want to say sorry and I stop discussing this issue with you. Borsoka (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I never ask anyone to sympathize with me. You are very much welcome to your views. I will apologize for solely focusing on this article and not looking at the bigger picture, I did not look outside the talkpage, nor did I often read a lot of the long threads. I can understand how, but not completely fathom your struggle to deal with other editors. As for the block, and i'm not trying to be rude by any means, we have our respective opinions on if it was right. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

admigration
This section should be improved because it does not discuss pro and contra arguments. Boia's statement a bit obscure because his "compromise" between the competing theories actually means that there was no substantial migration or there was a large migration from the south but the small Transylvanian core's role was much more significant. Clarification needed. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, but it is difficult, because nobody explains it. I understand that it is a "powered" version of the continuity theory. It integrates elements of the migrationist theory and abandons the most extremist proposals of continuity scholars. For instance, it accepts that the northward migration of Romanian groups across the Lower Danube cannot be denied and it acknowledges that no evidence for the continuous presence of the Romanians ancestors in Moldavia, Maramures and Moldova has so far been provided. Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Page-level Sanction
I am removing the page-level sanction that I put on this page as pointed out on my talkpage that the two topic banned editors were the super majority of the edit warring. That said, I will not hesitate to re-initiate sanctions if the issues pre my involvement arise again. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 09:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * also based on your discussion at Amanda's talk page, for RGloucester concern I have to add that Ad Orientem's restrictions - Once an edit is reverted the next stop is here on the talk page where consensus is sought. The only acceptable reasons for edit warring are reversion of naked vandalism, serious BLP vios, and copyright vios - is still valid (in my interpretation at least, since no admins revised or retreated it).(KIENGIR (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure where this was enacted, it's not in the DS log, and General sanctions are not authorized for this topic area, so I don't even know how this sanction exists. Was it maybe more of a recommendation? or do you have a diff link? -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 12:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Amanda, I did not say it has been under any "official DS" or any "official sanction", whether to decide how it should be regarded has a top importance, since if it is just a "recommendation" that would mean noone would be obligated to follow Administrator's directives could have harsh consequences...would raise how much an admin's word means, if the admin clearly told some directives to be followed...here is the diff: (KIENGIR (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC))
 * You'd have to ask, but I think that all he was asking people to do was follow WP:BRD, which you should do anyway. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That was part of a general warning I posted here in response to the edit warring that was going on at the time. It was a reference to BRD, not a formal invocation of any editing restrictions or sanctions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I see, but because WP:BRD is an essential rule also in normal editing conditions and not necessarily bounded by one revert I don't think I commited a mistake intrepreting Ad Orientems directives as it is stated, since it is more strict than the appliance of the general WP:BRD (I intend to follow admin directives precisely, as it is). Though, if you say so and it is just a general warning, than assure me that the general appliance of WP:BRD is not bounded by one revert, but the general methods are working (= advisable to avoid edit warring as far as possible, but the clear delimiter is the 3RR rule as in general). Just because in the past many users got a block for not understanding properly admin directives. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC))
 * I think this just appears to be a follow normal policies warning. There is no 1RR restriction. So as long as people are following all normal policies, sanctions should not be an issue. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 22:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Section 3.3.2 Romanian place names
During the previous debates a number of neutral editors mentioned that for the time being the article fails to fully explain the relevance of the facts in the context of the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Section 3.3.1 Development of Romanian was already rewritten to provide a better context. I propose the following text for the next section (3.3.2 Romanian place names):


 * In an article dedicated to the development of the Romanian language, Nandriș states that the study of place names "does not solve the problem of the cradle of primitive" Romanian. In contrast to this view, Schramm says that the toponyms are crucial for the determination of the Romanians' homeland, because "whole Romania is entwined with conclusive geographical names which excludes any form of continuity there". Place names provide a significant proportion of modern knowledge of the extinct languages of Southeastern Europe. The names of the longest rivers in Romania—the ones which are longer than 500 kilometers —are supposed to be of Dacian origin. About twenty of their tributaries had a name with probable Indo-European roots, also suggesting a Dacian etymology. The Romans adopted the native names of the longest rivers after they conquered Dacia.


 * Linguists Oliviu and Nicolae Felecan say that the "preservation of river names from Antiquity until today is one of the most solid arguments" in favor of the continuity theory, because these names must have been "uninterruptedly transmitted" from the Dacians to the Romans, and then to the Daco-Romans. Sala also states that the Romanian forms of some ancient river names "are a conclusive argument" for the continuity theory. The three scholars specifically refer to the Romanian name of the Danube, Dunărea, proposing that it developed from a supposed native (Thraco-Dacian or Daco-Moesian) *Donaris form. They also emphasize that the names of six other rivers display phonetic changes—the development of the consonant "ʃ" from "s", and the vowel shift from "a" to "o"—featuring the 2nd- and 3rd-century form of the native language. In contrast to these views, Nandriș (although he also accepts the continuity theory) states that alone among the rivers in Dacia, the development of the name of the Criş from ancient Crisius would be in line with the phonetical evolution of Romanian.


 * According to Vékony (who promotes the immigrationist theory), the Romanian name of the Danube evinces that the Romanians' ancestors lived far from this large river, because otherwise they must have preserved its Latin name, Danuvius. He also emphasizes that the hypothetical *Donaris form is not attested in written sources and Istros was the river's native name. According to Schramm, the early Slavs adopted the East Germanic name of the Danube, showing that a predominantly Gothic-speaking population inhabited the territory between the Slavs' homeland and the Lower Danube before the Slavs approached the river in the 5th century. Vékony proposes that the Romanians adopted the river's Cuman name, Dunay, when they reached the Danube during their northward expansion around 1100. In Schramm's view, the phonetic changes from "s" to "ʃ" in the names of five large rivers also contradict the continuity theory, because Latin did not contain the latter consonant, thus only non-Romanized natives could transmit it to the peoples who settled in the north-Danubian regions after the Romans abandoned them. Similarly, historian László Makkai says that the change from "a" to "o" shows that a Slavic-speaking population mediated the ancient names of three large rivers to modern populations (including Romanians), because this vowel shift is attested in the development of the Slavic languages, but is alien to Romanian and other tongues spoken along the rivers. Linguists (including some proponents of the continuity theory) also accept a Slavic mediation which is undeniable in specific cases. Scholars who reject the continuity theory emphasize that the Romanian names of the large rivers show that the Romanians did not directly inherit them from their Latin-speaking ancestors.


 * Around half of the longest tributaries of the large rivers—the tributaries which are longer than 200 kilometers—has a name of Slavic origin. In Schramm's view, the name of one of them, Dâmbovița, evinces that the Romanians reached Wallachia between around 900 and 1200, because it already reflects the change of the Proto-Bulgarian back vowel "ǫ", but it was borrowed before nasal vowels dissapeared from most Bulgarian variants. One of longest tributaries, Bârlad bears a Turkic (Pecheneg or Cuman) name. Almost 50 watercourses (including small rivers and creeks) bear a name of Turkic origin in the Wallachian Plain and river names of Turkic origin also abound in southern Moldavia. The names of the litoral lakes in Dobruja are also of Turkic origin. To explain the great number of Turkic river names, historian Victor Spinei, who supports the continuity theory, proposes that these "bodies of water were not sufficiently important" to the sedentary local Romanians in contrast to the nomadic Turkic peoples who used them as important "permanent markers in the landscape" during their seasonal movements. The longest tributaries of the large rivers in Banat, Crişana and Transylvania had modern names of German, Hungarian, Slavic or Turkic origin, which were also adopted by the Romanians. These tributaries run through the most populated areas where "was a greater likelihood that their names would be lodged in the collective memory", according to Makkai. In immigrationists scholars' view, these river names prove that the presence of the Slavs, Hungarians, Transylvanian Saxons predated the arrival of the Romanians who thus must have crossed the Carpathians only after the first Transylvanian Saxon groups settled in southern Transylvania around 1150.


 * Many small rivers—all shorter than 100 kilometers—and creeks bear a name of Romanian origin in Romania. Most of these watercourses run in the mountainous regions. Based on the Repedea name for the upper course of the river Bistrița (both names meaning "quick" in Romanian and Slavic, respectively), Nandris writes that translations from Romanian into Slavic could also create Romanian hydronyms. Madgearu also says that Bistrița is "most likely a translation" of the Romanian Repedea form. In his view, the distribution of the Romanian river names "coincides with that of a series of archaic cranial features within the restricted area of the Apuseni Mountains", evincing the early presence of a Romanian-speaking population in the mountainous regions of Transylvania. On the other hand, historian Pál Engel underlines that Romanian place names are dominant only in "areas of secondary human settlement" which "seem to have been colonised during the late Middle Ages".


 * Drobeta, Napoca, Porolissum, Sarmizegetusa and other settlements in Dacia Traiana bore names of local origin in Roman times. According to historian Coriolan H. Opreanu (who supports the continuity theory), the survival of the local names proves the native Dacians' presence in the province at the beginning of the Roman rule. Historian Endre Tóth (who accepts the immigrationist theory) remarks that the native names does not prove the continuity of Dacian settlements, especially because the Roman towns bearing local names developed from military camps and their establishment "generally entailed the annihilation of whatever Dacian settlement there might have been". Immigrationist scholars emphasize that the names of all Roman settlements attested in Dacia Traiana disappeared after the Romans abandoned the province, in contrast to the names of dozens of Roman towns in the south-Danubian provinces which survived until now. In defense of the continuity theory, Sala proposes that the names of the towns vanished because the Huns destroyed them, but the Daco-Romans endured the Huns' rule in the villages.


 * Place names of certainly Slavic, Hungarian and German origin can be found in great number in medieval royal charters pertaining to Banat, Crișana, Maramureș, and Transylvania. In the mountains between the rivers Arieș and Mureș and in the territory to the south of the Târnava Mare River, both the Romanians and the Transylvanian Saxons directly (without Hungarian mediation) adopted the Slavic place names. In almost all cases, when parallel Slavic-Hungarian or Slavic-German names are attested, Romanians borrowed the Slavic forms, suggesting a long cohabitation of the Romanians and the Slavs or a close relationship between the two ethnic groups. The great number of place names of Slavic origin is a clear evidence for the presence of a Slavic-speaking population when the Hungarians started settling in the regions, according to a number of historians. On the other hand, historian Tudor Sălăgean (who supports the continuity theory) states that the name of Slavic origin of a settlement does not itself prove that Slavs inhabited it in the 10th-13th century. Sălăgean underlines that Romanians live in the same settlements in the 21st century and "what is possible in the 21st century was not less possible in 10th century". According to him, the adoption of the Slavic names by the Romanians in cases when a settlement bears paralel Hungarian or German and Slavic names proves that the Romanians and the Slavs had lived side by side in the same settlements already before the arrival of the Hungarians in the late 9th century. In Makkai's contrasting view, the direct adoption of Slavic place names by the Transylvanian Saxons and Romanians proves that significant Slavic-speaking groups lived in southern and central Transylvania when the first Transylvanian Saxon and Romanian groups moved to the region in the second half of the 12th century.


 * The earliest toponym of certain Romanian origin (Nucşoara from the Romanian word for "walnut") was recorded in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1359. According to Kristó, the late appearance of Romanian place names indicates that the Romanians insisted on their mobile way of life for a lengthy period after they penetrated into the kingdom and their first permanent settlements appearead only in the second half of the 14th century. The region near the confluence of the Argeș and Lower Danube is called Vlaşca. The name clearly shows that a small Romance-speaking community existed in Slavic environment in Wallachia.


 * Numerous place names of Latin or Romanian origin can be detected in the lands south of the Lower Danube (in present-day Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Greece, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia). Place names of Latin origin abound in the region of Lake Shkodër, along the rivers Drin and Fan and other territories to the north of the Via Egnatia. According to John Wilkes, they are a clear evidence for the survival of a numerous Romance-speaking population—whom he associates with the "Romanoi" mentioned by Porphyrogenitus—until the 9th century. Schramm says that the names of at least eight towns in the same region, likewise suggest the one-time presence of a Romance speaking population in their vicinity. In Schramm and Makkai's view, they are consequences of the well-documented 7th-century southward movement of the Latin-speaking groups from the northern Balkan provinces. Romanian place names are concentrated in the wider region of Vlasina (both in present-day Bulgaria and Serbia) and in Montenegro and Kosovo. These names still prove that a significant Romanian-speaking population used to inhabit these territories. In Makkai's view, significant groups of Romanians left these territories for the lands to the north of the Lower Danube from the late 12th century and those who stayed behind were assimilated by the neighboring Slavic peoples by the 15th century.



All comments are highly appreciated. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems fine but I think two additions/modifications are needed:


 * - regarding the section caring with "Drobeta, Napoca, Porolissum, Sarmizegetusa...etc." it has to be highlighted that historically these names were not used by Romanians, but Turnu Severin, Napoca added in 1974 to Cluj, Grădiște was renamed to Sarmizegetusa in 1941, etc. Despite the opinions are well summarized, it is somehow "lost" that from a while some of the old names are officially used today, but historically it was not the case regarding Romanians who had their own names and/or names developed from Slavic and/or other origins


 * - on the next section something should be written also about the Slavic origin or mixed origin names with Slavic components in Wallachia and Moldavia as they are relevantly abundant, because in this section the competing scholarly views are concentrating only the regions of Banat, Crișana, Maramureș, and Transylvania, and try to decide this question only in the scope within this, although the question of the Slavic antecedency may be evaluated more broadly, in scope of the Second Bulgarian Empire, e.g.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC))
 * Thank you for your comment. (1) I expanded the sentence, but I think we should not disprove something which is not stated in the article. The article clearly say that all those place names were lost. (2) Do you have sources to be cited on this issue? Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not right now. As I recall an early state of this article more-more years would contain something that regarding the whole territory of present-day Romania Slavic origin placenames would prevail, but I could not find later when I searched, or it has also a chance that I remember wrong, though I think it has a little chance since I care about any interesting information, or I read it somewhere else.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC))