Talk:Thraco-Roman

Please use a section, don't just put things on top

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was Thrace and Dacia are two different areas, but ignoring that no move on basis of discussion below. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thraco-Roman → Daco-Roman — "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." The article describes the early stage of the history of the Romanian people and uses the "Thraco-Roman" expression. However, the article itself refers to the fact that it was only Ovid Densusianu who used this name for the ancestors of the Romanians around 1900. In modern works, one can only find one which uses this expression, but not in connection with the early Romanians, but in connection with a Roman village in Bulgaria (the other search results do not contain the expression "Thraco-Roman", but only the separate words "Thraco" and "Roman") []. In the context of the arcticle, modern works exclusively use the "Daco-Roman" expression [], for example:
 * Grumeza, Ion: Dacia: Land of Transylvania, Cornerstone of Ancient Eastern Europe (Hamilton Books, 2009, ISBN 978-0-7618-4465-5)
 * Oltean, Ioana A.: Dacia: Landscape, Colonisation, Romanisation (Routledge, 2007,ISBN 978-0-415-41252-0)
 * Parry, Ken – Melling, David J. – Brady, Dimitry – Healey, John F. (Editors): The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2001, ISBN 0-631-18966-1)
 * Bradshaw, Michael J. – White, George W.: Contemporary World Regional Geography: Global Connections, Local Voices (The McGraw Hill Companies, 2004, ISBN 0-07-254975-0)
 * Pop, Ioan Aurel: Romanians and Romania: A Brief History (Columbia University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-88033-440-1)Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is no need to merge this article into Daco-Roman. Daco-Romans are Romanized Dacians. Thraco-Romans refers to Romanized people of Moesia, which were known as Thracians, but only a part of them also as Dacians. We should follow the Roman provinces in regard to Romanization: Daco-Romans (Dacia), Thraco-Romans (Moesia, Thrace), Illyro-Romans (Illyria, Pannonia, Macedonia). Dc76\talk 16:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I think there is a misunderstanding: this is not a merger proposal, but a proposal to rename the article. Otherwise, the article does not describe the history of the Romanized population of one province (e.g., Thrace, Dacia, Moesia), but try to create a really original mixture of pieces of information connected to several provinces (Moesia, Dacia, but interestingly fails to provide any information on Thrace). I think we should take into consideration WP guidlines, namely our naming guidlines cited above. Therefore, I think, we should use the name used by the overwhelming majority of the above cited modern (mostly academic) sources - and they use the expression "Daco-Roman". Borsoka (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Sorry, I thought Daco-Roman was a totally different article. Just an idea: what of you think of an article dealing with the phenomenon of Romanization in Eastern Europe, to which all Daco-Roman, Thraco-Roman, Illyro-Roman would be redirects. IMHO, we need an article describing the phenomenon culturally, ethnically, socially, politically, economically, etc. Also, it should mention (just mention, not prioritize) Ovid Densuseanu's thoughts, and other considerations by historians. The area where this happened was sometimes larger, sometimes smaller. The phenomenon was similar. This is different from Origin of the Romanians, since not all Romanized populations became Romanians. Some (actually many) were assimilated. As it is, this article describes many things that did not happen in Roman Dacia, but in Moesia Inferior. Of course, we can also separate them carefully into two articles: Daco-Roman and Romanization in Moesia Inferior (including the Early Byzantine times, until ca. 600). Illyro-Roman would deal with the rest of the Romance population of the Eastern Europe (Illyria, including Pannonia, Macedonia, Dalmatia). Dc76\talk 19:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the second approach could be acceptable (although I think Moeso-Roman an not Romanization in Moesia Inferior would be the parallel of Illyro-Roman and Daco-Roman, and we should not forget of Thraco-Romans, namely the Romanized population of Thrace province), but first of all the reliable sources based on which those articles could be written should be found. Sorry, I do not understand the scope of the first article 'Romanization in Eastern Europe'. What are the specific features of the Romanization process in (South)Eastern Europe which distinguish it from the Romanization of Western Europe? Is there any reliable source which makes this spesific distinction? Borsoka (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"favored linguistically and religiously"
"Clearly, Dacians must have been favored linguistically and religiously, by some unique ethnological features…": offhand, this strikes me as unencyclopedic, nationalistic, and imprecise. I'd say that as an opinion, it needs citation, but more than that it needs clarification: what on earth does it mean (for example) to be "religiously favored"? Does this presume that it is good fortune to be a Christian (certainly not an NPOV statement)? Etc. - Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you`re right, the paragraph must be rewritten. greier 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article certanly seems very POV. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject to contribute directly, but see Protochronism, which seems highly relevant for this. AdamSmithee 07:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Biserica
"'Church' - Biserica… unique to Romanian Orthodoxy." I've heard this claim before, but I'm not at all sure it is correct. With a more precise meaning, basilica—the precise Latin word, rather than an evolute—exists in quite a few Western Romance languages and even in English: see Basilica. I suspect that in English it is a relatively modern borrowing (circa 15th century), but I imagine that it has persisted continuously in some of the others. - Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this claim is true. Basilica means something different that Biserica. A Basilica is a Basilica, and a Biserica is a Church. That`s where the "uniqueness" comes from. It`s (probably?) the only language which still uses the word "basilica" to designate not what in modern times a basilica means. Other languages use either the Greek kuriakon based "church", "crkva", "kirken", or the latin based ecclesia (ultimatelly aslo from Greek) "iglesia", "ekklesia", etc. greier 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Character"
"…switched from the Latin character to a neolatine idiom…": I can sort of guess at what this means, but it isn't very clear. - Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, it needs clarification greier 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Question on sources
On the whole, this is great stuff. I do have one question about sources: when I see something like the note at Thraco-Roman, I tend to guess that there was some "intermediate" source. I'm guessing that it is more likely that this list comes by way of someone else's published work, which should be acknowledged (e.g. the note should probably begin "As cited in &lt;source&gt;…" (If someone working on this article actually had their hands on this voluminous array of sources, many dating back to the 19th century, all I can say is "wow".) - Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That`s why I try to categories the sources into two "types": inline and general


 * By the way, there was an initiative to make a category Footnotes separate from the References. That is to use   separate from  . Anybody knows what happened to that initiative? greier 09:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"a running recoil"
"…causing a running recoil, as the shouting were known to the crowd…": odd English, to the point where I'm not sure what it means. Could someone provide the Latin (or, given that this is cited as published at Leipzig, possibly the German) from which this was translated, so someone can work out how to say this in clear English? Thanks.

Even more oddly "…when the enemies had poped near them faster than any imagination". "Poped" exists only as a very obscure word meaning to make someone a pope. I'm guessing someone meant "popped", which isn't quite right, either; maybe "popped up"? But unless the original Latin contains a word really analogous to "popped", "appeared" would be better. "…[F]aster than any imagination" isn't common English either: maybe "faster than anyone could imagine", making this "when the enemies had popped up near them faster than anyone could imagine"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my rugged english... Here`s the Greek and the Romanian text... Use it to polish up my clumsy translation:

Theophylactus:"unul din animalele de povara si-a scuturat sarcina de pe el. Se întâmplase însa ca stapânul lui sa mearga înainte. Dar cei care veneau în urma si vedeau animalul de povara târând în dezordine sarcina dupa el, îi strigara stapânului sa se întoarca si sa îndrepte povara de pe animal. Ei bine, acest lucru a fost pricina tulburarii ordinii în ostire si a facut sa înceapa fuga înapoi, caci strigatul suna cunoscut multimii: cele spuse erau si un semnal si pareau sa însemne fuga, ca si cum dusmanii s-ar fi ivit în apropiere de ei mai repede decât orice închipuire. S-a produs o foarte mare învalmaseala în ostire si mult zgomot; toti tipau tare si se îndemnau unul pe altul sa se întoarca strigând cu mare tulburare în limba tarii torna, torna, ca si cum li s-ar fi ivit pe neasteptate o lupta în timpul noptii."

Theophanes:"Un animal de povara aruncase sarcina de pe el si cineva i-a strigat stapânului animalului sa îndrepte sarcina, zicându-i în limba parinteasca: torna, torna, fratre. Stapânul catârului nu a auzit strigatul, dar oamenii l-au auzit si, crezând ca sunt înfrânti de dusmani, o luara la fuga, strigând în gura mare: torna, torna"


 * "…si a facut sa înceapa fuga înapoi, caci strigatul suna cunoscut multimii…" ==> "and started a flight to the rear, because the shout was known to the crowd". "ca si cum dusmanii s-ar fi ivit în apropiere de ei mai repede decât orice închipuire" ==> "and as if the enemies had appeared nearby more rapidly than could be imagined." Also, "oştire" in this context is probably (at least in the first instance) better rendered as "army" than "host". I'll edit accordingly. Thanks for the Romanian (which is what I worked from, my Greek is minimal). - Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation help needed
I'm having trouble with "…unul dintre soldaţii retraşi din cel mai apropiat ţinut primejduit strigă «în limba locului»…" I get most of it, I think the sense of retraşi here is what is throwing me. I'm pretty sure of "…one of the soldiers…shouted in the local language…" and I understand "cel mai apropiat ţinut primejduit" as something like "the nearest linked danger", but don't understand whether it is "the most closely linked danger" or "the danger closest at hand". Can someone with better Romanian help me out here? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It means "...one of the soldiers retreated form the nearest endangered land shouts in «the local language»…". AdamSmithee 07:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "form" ==> "from", I presume. ţinut ==> "region", oops, certainly, I missed that, thanks. Yes, I know that retraşi can mean "retreated", that was my first thought on that, but, still, "retreated from the nearest endangered land" makes no sense here. I'll put that in there, because it seems the best translation we've got, but can someone see if there is a more meaningful way to construe this? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

românilor / româniei
Clearly "Istoria românilor" should translate as "History of the Romanians". Should "Istoria româniei" translated differently? Perhaps "Romanian History"? - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess "History of Romania". - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Status (sort of)
I've done what I can with this; I've translated pretty much everything that needed to be translated, except one thing in transliterated Russian that I couldn't make out; someone might want to check my translations: my reading skills in the various languages I translated from are decent, but I'm not truly fluent in any of them, so I could have made mistakes.

The main thing I think would improve this right now is more clarity about the "intermediate" sources in the various footnotes: that is, if (as I gather is the case) most of this comes from the "general" references, it would be useful to scholars to say what came from which.

Anyway, thanks to Greier for a very good article, and I hope that what I've done has also helped significantly. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It was mostly a translation + copy-paste from other articles + copy edits... Anyway, thanks for all the help given greier 08:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Who, where and when?
When reading this article, I think it is difficult to answer some questions. My suggestion is that the article should be renamed Daco-Roman in order to follow the mainstream terminology, and it should be shortened: "Daco-Roman is the terminus technicus used by modern scholars to describe the population of the province of Dacia Traiana (that is the natives, the Romanized natives, the Roman colonists and other immigrants and their descendants). etc."Borsoka (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Who were the Thraco-Romans? Yes, Ovid Densusianu used this expression in 1901 (and I think he was the only scholar who used this), but nowadays "Thraco-Roman" refers to the Romanized population of Bulgaria; therefore, merging all the Romanized population of the Balkan and Danube provinces of the Roman Empire under one umbrella term is unusual.
 * Who were the Thracians? The article suggests that the Thracians spoke a uniform language (similar to the English language), but it is hard to imagine that an uniform language was spoken on an enourmous mountainous territory where Thracian tribes lived. Even the earliest sources imply that there were Thracian languages (similarly to the language family of Romance languages, but individual languages, such as Spanish, French and Italian are distinguished).
 * Where? The article narrates facts which occured on the territory of present-day Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia and Greece, but it is really difficult to find out what happened where (and in connection with whom).
 * When? Some chronology should be followed.

I agree with you in the aspect that the article lacks sufficient clarity in areas you mentioned. I also agree that the intro should contain a reference to the term Daco-Roman as well. But I disagree with us trying to answer some questions. All we can do is reproduce what historians say, no more. I also disagree with the proposed new intro, at least not in this form. Daco-Roman as a term definitevely used much larger than strictly in reference to 106-271. Whether we like this or not, it is a fact that the term is used in a wider sense. I think we need to find and read more sourses before we attempt major changes ("read" in reference to me, obviously). Ideally, the article should 1) describe the Romanized Dacians/Thracians in more detail than now, and 2) be clear at who and when uses what term. Whether that usage is correct or wrong is a different question, which the reader should answer him/herself by clicking on blue links (i.e. who, in what context uses a term or another) Dc76\talk 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, but what are the peer-reviewed modern sources using this term for Daco-Romans? Borsoka (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Based on the above features of the article I suggest that it should be renamed (Daco-Romans) and the new article (in maximum 10 sentences) could summarize the most important information on those people ("the common name of the Roman colonists and other colonists in Dacia Trajana, the Romanized Dacians, the Dacians under Roman rule and the Free Dacians who are claimed to be Romanized after the Roman withdrawal") based on modern sources. Otherwise, the information of the article could be merged into the Origin of the Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the article describes one of the theories of the origin of the Romanians, and most of its text is repeated in the article Origin of the Romanians.
 * The article provide information without answering some basic questions (who did what when and where and based on the work of whom).
 * Thraco-Roman means the Romanized population of modern Bulgaria in modern literature.
 * Several sources of the article (including the source of its name) were written in the early 20th century; I am sure the we can find newer ones.
 * The article is based on several primary sources; I think we should avoid any original research.

I suggest to expand this article. It should be the main article about Romanization of Dacians (as opposed to the administrative organization of the province). The article should not go beyond 7th century. And in general, post 271 info should ihmo be limitted to one section. Dc76\talk 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thraco-Romans lived also south from Danube. After slavicisation they became later Bulgarians. Please, do not merge. Jingby (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on the two above remarks I think the article should be demerged, merged and improved simultaneously. One article should describe the Daco-Romans (Romania) and it could also refer to their connections to the Thraco-Romans, and the other the Thraco-Romans (Bulgaria). Actually, the above question (which are the modern peer-reviewed sources using the term "Thraco-Roman" to the Romanized inhabitants of Dacia Traiana province) has not been answered yet. Borsoka (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the proposal, I agree, you are proposing something very logical. As for the question, I don't know, I'm not a historian, i'm just reading. Dc76\talk 22:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Did the Thraco-Romans speak Greek?
The inscription in the church of the four Thraco-Roman martyrs is written in Greek letters. Their names are also Greek. Does it mean (as it was suggested on the talk page of the Origin of the Romanians by one of the Romanian editors) that the Thraco-Romans spoke Greek? If this is the case, it should clearly be mentioned (based on reliable source).

The picture of the ruins of the Turnu-Severin church is added to the article, but there is no information of the church in the article. What is the reason? Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Greek and Roman were the only available alphabets at that time in that region. Using that particular alphabet does not imply any particular origin. Dc76\talk 12:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. However, it is interesting that their names are also of Greek origin. But by now I have been taught that persons with Greek names who used Greek letters may prove the Daco-Romanian continuity because they were Christians. Borsoka (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not a specialist, and I do not know about what proves what about these theories. I am just a non-specialist reader. This was a common sense observation. BTW, IMHO, the ultimate purpose is not to prove that mine/your/someone else's theory is correct, but to discover the truth. Dc76\talk 22:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

New merger proposal
I propose to merge Thraco-Roman, Illyro-Roman (and also redirect there Daco-Roman) into an article Romanization of Illyria, Moesia and Dacia, and expanded. Dc76\talk 12:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I do not understand what is the point in (or what is the reason of) the above proposal. Why not Romanisation of Italia, Lusitania and Dacia? Or Romanization of the Roman Empire? Is there any connection between a 600 year long process (Illyricum) and a process that did not last more than 175 years (Dacia Traiana)? So I still suggest that a separate article should be dedicated to "Daco-Romans"; this is the approach followed by most of the Romanian authors (e.g., Pop, Oltean). Borsoka (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously you do understand what is common with these 3 provinces: these are the Romanized Balkan peninsula, the area north of the so-called Jericek line. There are several advantages of such an article, among which: common features are dealt with in one place (WP:FORK), there won't be different theories in different articles, i.e. there will be more consistency. Thraco-Dacian vs Daco-Illyrian vs whatever can be explained without forking. Obviously I am not saying to settle it. Just to explain the existing views of historians. The article should not conclude that the Romanization of these ares was similar, but should note the reality as it was and as it is known to historians today. Obviously, an alternative name could be Romanization of Balkan peninsula or Romanization of Southeastern Europe. This is similar to Romanization of Britain (not only of England), of Iberia (as a whole, not only Lusitania), or of Gaul (as a whole), or of Italy (not only Sicily). Dc76\talk 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you cite some books that describe the Romanisation of Southeastern-Europe as a uniform process? It would be similar to an article "Romanisation of Western Europe" or "Romanisation of Central Europe". Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I did not say it was uniform. And I would strongly object if the article would suggest anything of the kind. Certain features were similar, but that's all. And anyway their intensity was not. I believe the article should underline the specificities (and in some case as Greece the minimal Romanisation, if any), while providing a clear view from a "higher altitude". And yes, indeed, it would be like "Romanisation of Western Europe", you are correct, only that not such large area as half a continent, it would be more like "Romanisation of British Islands". Nobody said the every island was Romanized. In fact the article would point to the limits (territorial, cultural, political, etc) of Romanisation. My motive is to have more clarity and more context. IMHO, Roman Dacia is more strongly connected to the History of Roman Empire than to the History of Romania. Now, to be truthful, there are a number of common features: spread of the Latin language (as official), spread of Greek-Roman culture, spread of technology (architecture, medicine), appearance of law and (relative) order. With the exception of Greece, the other SE European territories were comapratively to Romans quite primitive. The Romanization in particular accustomed them with the advances known to mankind at the time, which was incredible for them. Dc76\talk 11:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still do not understand what is the basis of such an article? First of all, I mean the academic sources based upon which such an article could be written.
 * On the other hand, I do not understand what are the common specific features of the Romanisation of the Balkan provinces? Spread of the Latin language? Spread of the Greek-Roman culture? Spread of technology? These are the common features of the process of Romanisation not only in Southeastern Europe, but in the whole territory of the Roman Empire (African provinces, Britain, Sicily, Egypt, Gaul ... etc) - and there is an article (Romanisation (cultural)) dedicated to this subject.
 * The "Romanisation of the British islands" would describe the Romanisation of one province: Britain - the above suggested article would cover the Romanisation of at least three provinces. What is the reason of such a grouping of provinces?
 * I still think that the major issue around the present form of the article Thraco-Roman, as it is described above, that its reader cannot understand what happened when and where and in connection with whom. The proposed article "Romanisation of Southeastern Europe" could only solve this issue, if it would separately describe the Romanisation of Illyricum, Moesia and Thrace - therefore, at the end of the day, it should be described in three separate articles.Borsoka (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "These are the common features of the process of Romanisation not only in Southeastern Europe, but in the whole territory of the Roman Empire". Yes. This article would simply be more specific about SE Europe, with more dates, with short description of pre-Roman population, with short description of post-Roman events. 2) "The proposed article "Romanisation of Southeastern Europe" could only solve this issue, if it would separately describe the Romanisation of Illyricum, Moesia and Thrace." ... and Dacia. Yes, yes, in three/four different sections. As of today, I don't see enough material for three different articles. I am not that fond of ancient history to start a comprehensive search, so you know I am lazy. :) I enjoy reading, I don't like to search. :) I just want more clarity of existing info in WP, so that it can be improved by other editors. Right now, it is not clear in which article a potential good contributor could add info. This is a simple matter of organization. When in the future there will be enough material for separate articles, it should be spilt, I agree with you. I think we should also add Pannonia, Macedonia, and Greece. There will be 6-7 sections, one for each of these. Dc76\talk
 * And why do not we add Noricum, Lusitania, Syria? I think we should not create or write articles based on our own feelings, we should improve Wikipedia based on reliable, peer-reviewed academic sources. I still do not understand why we should ignore the fact that plenty of historians (first of all Romanian historians) writes of Daco-Romans - there is a concept therefore a separate article should be dedicated to the Daco-Romans. On the other hand, as far as I understand no contemporary scholars writes of Thraco-Romans in connection with Dacia Trajana, therefore the present article is one of the best examples of original research. Borsoka (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And Ovid Densusianu, who coined the term? Noricum would be fine, but Lusitania and Syria - not. The title would be Romanisation of Eastern Europe. :) Dc76\talk 21:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ovid Densusianu was the only author who used this expression in 1901. I think there must be some reason that other scholars do not use it any more. So Noricum would be fine, but Syria not - why? Why Romanisation of Eastern Europe? Is Noricum part of Eastern Europe? Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me ask you then, where are articles (or particular sections) that talk about Romanization of all these provinces: Noricum, Pannonia, Illyricum, Moesia, Dacia, Thrace, Macedonia, Greece? If you show 8 such articles, then you have a point. Otherwise, it seems as we are trying to somehow remove information about Romanization from WP. Forget about theories about the origin of Romanians, that is not relevant here. I would like to see where goes information about Central and Southeastern Europe from Roman conquest until 602 (when Slavs crossed Danube). Dc76\talk 12:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I desperately try to understand the logic behind the above list of proposal (1) Romanization of Illyria, Moesia and Dacia (2) Romanization of Southeastern Europe (3) Romanization of Illyria, Moesia, Dacia, Pannonia, Macedonia and Greece (4) Romanization of Illyria, Moesia, Dacia, Pannonia, Macedonia, Greece and Noricum (5) Romanisation of Eastern Europe (6) Romanisation of Central and Southeastern Europe. So why not Romanisation of East, West, South and North Europe or why not Romanisation (cultural) (an already existing article) or why not Romanization of each province separately. So I think there are two clear approaches: (i) Romanization as a general procedure in the Roman Empire; or (2) Romanization as a specific process in each of the provinces. But I think there is no point in grouping the provinces without any internal logic within each groups. So what is the reason to group together Illyria, Moesia and Dacia, and what is the reliable source which follows the same grouping? Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is I don't know which are the province-specific articles/sections. And I presume if I don't, the casual reader won't find them either. Dc76\talk 18:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, if my understanding is correct, you suggest to create articles which describe the Romanization procedure in a group of provinces in order to help casual readers to find specific information on the Romanization of individual provinces. My logic suggests, that articles dedicated to the Romanization of individual provinces would better be fitted to your purpose. And it would not create an issue to be solved: we should not answer the questions what provinces should be grouped together and on what reliable source such a groupin would be based. Borsoka (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget about grouping for a moment. What are the specific articles? If they exist and are more or less developed, we obviously don't need any grouping. But are we in that situation, when we can not even list them? Dc76\talk 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think these discussions come from the gaps existing in attestation, documentation and understanding the romanization process in Thrace, Dacia, Moesia, Pannonia. Current Wikipedia articles didn't clarify many aspects related to Thracians. Thracians (they include Getae-Dacians) didn't live in only one modern country. Blurall (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Daco-Roman
I still suggest that a separate Daco-Roman article should be created, because this article (based exclusively a book written in 1901) uses the Thraco-Roman expression when describing historical facts which are exclusively connected to the Daco-Romans both in Romanian and in international scholarship. Anybody can make a search for "Thraco-Roman" expression, no reliable source would be found in the context the article describes the Thraco-Romans. Therefore I suggest that all the parts of the article which describes events connected to the Daco-Romans should be deleted (most of these sentences are not properly verified), and a new article Daco-Roman should be created based on modern reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting a Daco-Roman section instead and when and if the article gets too large, split the two with links to each other, as they are obviously deeply connected. Even them, I would have sections on each and links name for more details see/main article see... --Codrin.B (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thraco-Roman
There is only one source cited in the article using the term "Thraco-Roman", therefore the whole article is an original syntesis of sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is already in 6 languages! Do not remove this content again. I had the feeling you are trying to find your way towards a NPOV position and un-disrupting editing. I am starting to think that you took a sharp right turn and about the head in the opposite direction. Do explain yourself. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are over 100000!! hits on Google Books for "Thraco-Roman". And hundreds of articles link to in on WP. How can you remove this article and call yourself an experience editor who strives towards a NPOV?!!--Codrin.B (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here, an example of a serious book using the term. Or maybe you wish to read The Thraco-Roman Villa Rustica near Chatalka, Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
 * And BTW, redirecting Thraco-Roman to the History of Romanian is non-sense. Even Spartacus can be referred to as a Thraco-Roman and he has nothing to do with the Romanian language. Language is just an aspect of the Thraco-Roman concept. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the "number of sources" : Moesi, ..., Romanization of Southeastern Europe..., History of the Romanian language..., Eastern Roman people ... - books written based on WP articles (they are not reliable sources). Building up uspects ... and the Thraco-Roman villa rustica ... deal with Thrace in Bulgaria and has nothing to do with the content of this article. The article has been tagged for several month to be merged, because (1) its largest part is OR based on primary sources (2) only one of its reliable sources (a book written in the early 1900s) uses the term "Thraco-Roman". Consequently, the 99% of the article's content is to be deleted if we want to follow WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which merger tag? I don't see one? And I don't see a discussion either. You are just trying to erase the "Thraco-Roman" and "Daco-Roman" concepts at any prices, to push your revisionism in relation to the Origin of the Romanians. Period. The "Thraco-Roman" article is notable, sourced, has versions in many languages and a plethora of links to it. You cannot dismiss it at your will. I will have to escalate this. Your behaviour is no longer acceptable. And erratic, by first redirecting it to History of Romanian than to Thrace. What's next?!--Codrin.B (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read, for example the verson of September 15: there is a proposal for merger. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked through my Credo, Questa, and Highbeam accounts, but found nothing notable. The Google book results, even when you filter out anyone that mentions Wikipedia, still seems impressive though.  You need to post at the History Wikiproject, or see if there is a Roman Wikiproject or portal, and mention it there, to get more attention from those who are knowledgeable about this.  Is it mentioned in any college textbooks?   D r e a m Focus  09:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should stop creating new concepts. Although the evolution of Thrace during Roman times would truly be interesting, the subject is simply not an academic topic (Romanians don't want it because they believe would undermine the theory of continuity north of the Danube, Bulgarians are more interested about the populations that had a major influence on their current culture - i.e. Slavs and Bulgars, the rest don't care). The relatively large number of citations on GBooks has 2 causes: books using WP content, and the article "The Thraco-Roman Villa Rustica near Chatalka" which seems to be highly cited. The rest of hits are just the passing mentions.
 * The article as it stands now is a hodgepodge of facts, plausible claims, and outright fabrications, being a prime example of original WP:SYNTHESIS. Borsoka's solution was drastic, albeit entirely justified. The only other solution (per policy) would be to reduce the article to a in-expandable stub talking about Densusianu's theory. The rest of the article is not salvageable, being just a collection of fragments from other articles arranged in order to prove a point. And the fact that the population of the main part of Thrace (i.e. south of the Danube) is barely mentioned is just another proof of that.Anonimu (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I search for "thraco roman" -wikipedia -"Villa Rustica" to eliminate the highly cited article. 289 results still there.  Most don't have a preview.  I posted at the Wikiproject for Rome related things, asking them to join this discussion.   D r e a m Focus  12:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anonimu that the way article stands right now, it is not helping. He also pointed to the root causes that make the literature on these topics so limited. But that doesn't mean that the Daco-Roman culture and the Thraco-Roman culture didn't exist or that they are not encyclopedic topics. Also terms like Thraco-Roman and Daco-Roman obviously are used in today's scholarly work. For example the very recent book Dacia: Landscape, Colonization and Romanization (2007) by Ioana Oltean, talks extensively about Daco-Roman settlements in Transylvania. And it is a very modern book, taking a balanced approach to the research of post-Roman Dacia. I think the mess here is caused in part by the mixing of Thraco-Roman and Daco-Roman in the same article. While closely related, the conquests of Dacia and Thrace by the Romans were quite separated by time and space. The best examples to follow in rewriting these articles (I would split them), would be: Gallo-Roman and Romano-British culture. Dream, thanks for jumping in. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding search, you can also look in other languages, for example in Romanian, a search (which eliminates Wikipedia and Books LLC) for "traco-roman" brings 210 hits. And don't forget the "Daco-Roman" term which is lumped together here, brings over 14,000 hits, as there is much more literature on the subject.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue is that the article at its present state is an original synthesis of primary sources and secondary sources which do not even use the term "Thraco-Roman". However, please feel free to improve the article based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, over 150 hits when searching for "Thraco-Roman" in Bulgarian (i.e. Трако-римската).--Codrin.B (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

OR
I am afraid, I do not understand what is the point in rewriting an article which was an original mixture of primary and secondary sources, if the new text is not based on reliable sources? Are there reliable sources based on which this article can be improved? If there are such sources, I suggest they should be used. Borsoka (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you wouldn't continuously obstruct the writing of the article, and you would be willing to collaborate, maybe we get to those sources. You don't need to add all those tags in the lead, as it is a summary of the article. Regarding the borders, we don't have a clear demarcation between Dacia, Thrace, Moesia etc. before they became Roman provinces. The Dacians, Getae, Moesi, and the Thracian tribes lived intermingled between Danube and Balkan Mountains. North of the Danube (Dacia proper) and south of the Balkans (Thrace proper), things are much simpler. --Codrin.B (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If I correctly understand the above statements the article at its present state is not based on reliable sources. I am not "obstructing the writing of the article", I have been desparately attempting to improve it, but without reliable sources our work is just wasting of time, since there is no place for OR in this project. Please also read Manual of Style/Lead section. Borsoka (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your were desperately trying to DELETE it by redirecting it to the worse possible choice, disregarding the purpose of the article, the versions in other languages and especially the links to it.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So no reliable source using the term Thraco-Roman in the context of the article has so far been found. What is the point in maintaining an article that cannot be written based on reliable sources? Actually, there were two choices of redirection: one to the "History of the Romanian language" (since the only source of the article using the term "Thraco-Roman" places it in a linguistic context), the other to "Thracia" (based on the only modern English-language source using the same term by refering to a villa site in Bulgaria). Please read carefully WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They are both horrible choices, as a reader of Justinian I article will be terribly confused of a redirection to either. You have to care about what articles link to what and above all about the readers. So far you are only obstructing all the efforts to clarify the concept and you are banking on the fact that the sources are very limited for the topic, in your attempt to dismiss it altogether. Can someone WP:AGF for you? I don't think so. --Codrin.B (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read carefully WP:NOR. In order not to confuse WP users, none of us is entitled to write an article based purely his/her own imagination, because it would be terrible consequences. For instance, I could add my favourite Bulgarian poems to this article, because Bulgarians live in the same territory where "Thraco-Romans" used to live, or I could also write in this article of public transport in Sofia for similar reasons.Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Codrinb has asked for input from members of the Classical Greece & Rome project. In general, I agree with Codrinb's reasoning on this talk page. However, I wonder whether this article shouldn't just be merged with Thracia. I'm not sure how helpful it is to separate a description of a province's culture from its main article, unless the main article has become too long and the culture section disproportionately detailed. That isn't the case here. If it remains an independent article, however, I would suggest that it be renamed Thraco-Roman culture (now a redirect here) per WP:TITLEFORMAT, and that the scope of the article be clearly established in the lead section as describing the culture of the province of Thrace under Roman rule. (I don't see this discussion of possible OR as a fruitful way to proceed, and suggest that you drop it for now.) Cynwolfe (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your remarks. I fully agree with your suggestion to merge this article with Thracia, since the independent article seems to stimulate original research in lack of proper sources independently dealing with this theme. Borsoka (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments Cynowolfe. I would rather go with Thraco-Roman culture, keep it separate, short and to the point. The users who get here usually come from articles like Justinian I, looking for the definition of Thraco-Roman, not for Thracia. The two concepts are related but distinct. Don't forget that we have Gallo-Roman and Roman Gaul; Romano-British culture and Roman Britain, and there, no one has an issue with keeping them separate. Note that the articles on the provices tend to be rather large and cover many points, not just the resulting mixed cultures. In any case, any merge proposal should not be by force or sole decision of a user, but by following WP:MERGE and reaching a consensus (which was never done here). --Codrin.B (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that no merging should take place without a consensus. I don't recommend it necessarily; it's just one possible solution. As I said elsewhere, though, Roman Britain deals with the cultural overview better than Romano-British culture, which seems more about history than culture. So I wouldn't feel strongly about keeping Romano-British culture, either. I do think per WP:TITLEFORMAT, there can be no controversy about making Thraco-Roman culture the main article, with the adjectival form the redirect: this is the case with Gallo-Roman redirecting to Gallo-Roman culture. (I think, though I'm not uncertain about these kinds of procedural things, that because both pages already exist, you'll need to do a cut-and-paste merge, with the template requesting that an admin merge the page histories; see WP:CUTPASTE).


 * Presumably, then, Thracia deals with geography, political history, and administration, and Thraco-Roman culture deals with things like art, education and languages, daily life, religion, Roman architecture in Thracia and whether/how it draws on local traditions, and so on. So I see no reason to keep it short, as long as the scope is made clear. I would also suggest that it makes no difference whether your sources label this culture "Thraco-Roman" or "Romano-Thracian," or whether they simply refer to "Roman-era Thrace" or "Thrace as a Roman province," if the scope of the topic is clearly stated as the cultural life of Thrace and the Thracians under Roman rule, with all the usual questions provincial interactions and influences. I should note that my comments are made in the context of Roman Empire, an article I've been working on for about six weeks more or less within its preexisting framework, which includes culture. Of all the articles on the culture of a Roman province, Gallo-Roman culture is the most developed and has the best grasp of topic scope, IMHO. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an article on "Religious-Cultural Identity in Thrace and Moesia Inferior" in Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces (OUP, 2007), p. 107ff. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank for the above remarks for both of you. I can also accept the idea that the article remains unmerged. However, I still maintain and underline that an article can only be developed based on reliable sources which cover the topic. Collecting primary sources and interpretate them is not our task in this project named WP. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cynwolfe. I fully agree with all the above points. As for you point Borsoka, no one wants unsourced content here. But I seriously question the removal in mass of properly sourced content by you. And when content is not properly source (i.e. only primary sources are quoted), if you care about solving the problem constructively, add secondary sources, instead of removing or tagging the content as OR! --Codrin.B (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my constructive friend. In order to correct my accidental mistake, would you refer to my "mass removal of properly sourced content"? However, I am afraid I cannot accept your second proposal, since all of us are to respect our community rules and to refrain from contributing without using reliable sources. As far as I know, neither a superior nor an inferior class of editors exist, therefore there are no editors who can write without searching and reading reliable sources, because their inferiors are obliged to carry out this work instead of them. Borsoka (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We should respect WP users' time
By copying material from closely connected articles, we make a fool of all who want to improve their knowledge on the subject. I think we all should avoid this. Therefore, I think there is no point in repeating texts taken from other articles (for further details I refer to the article's edit history). Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)