Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Re-latinization of Romanian


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Tending towards keep. Content improvements can continue to be discussed on the article talk page.  Sandstein  19:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Re-latinization of Romanian

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As per other conversation on this talk page. The article has nothing to do with proper studies that define it in nature and time, the phrase being more of a passing mention in regards to modernizing of the Romanian lexis with French loanwords. The conversation shows reasonable doubts about the article meeting WP:COPO and numerous other flaws are being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeus01 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. As multiple conversations on the article's Talk page indicate, the article's subject meets our general notability guidline because it received significant coverage in reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You might want to change your vote to Keep for consistency. RF354 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Around two dozen scientific sources confirm the article, basically every single sentence is supported by reliable sources. RF354 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It quotes almost everything except the essential part where it defines the term, classifies it, and describes its characteristics, making the article an example of affirming the consequent. Aristeus01 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the scope of the article, a summary in the lead. Then the article explains the background, the history, the recent trends etc. I don't understand your problem. RF354 (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be synthesis "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Aristeus01 (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are three references in the lead. Isn't that enough?
 * If you want to rephrase the lead, we are open to suggestions, but that doesn't mean we should delete such a well-written and well-referenced article. RF354 (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The references in the lead say "that the use of this term is inappropriate", "it conflates the larger process", and "the term's lack of precision is susceptible to lead to confusion", and they cannot be used to reinforce the synthesis.
 * I would like to participate but there's no source we can cite in favor of the article. Everything I have on the topic either refutes the concept, and/or speaks of the term(s) in the context of a debate and with quotation marks, or refers strictly to the Transylvanian School (limited) influence, not the modernizing of the lexis with French loanwords. Aristeus01 (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How about Romania: Borderland of Europe by Lucian Boia, published in 2001 by Reaktion Books, page 84? (Just after a quick search.) It seems to reinforce the current lead almost word for word. RF354 (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Romania: Borderland of Europe by Lucian Boia uses quotation marks : Romanian today is not quite the same as the Romanian of the eighteen century, since it has undergone a process of "reLatinization" in the meantime.
 * Same meaning for example in Britannica: That circumstance had important consequences for the language, triggering the so-called re-Romanization of Romanian.
 * By definition quotation marks in this position are used to indicate that a word or phrase is regarded as slang or jargon or is being discussed rather than used within the sentence.
 * The only other salvation I can think of would be a neutral title for the article like Modernization of Romanian language (or lexis ), or  Influences of Latin and Romance languages on Romanian. That would have to change the lead to something like "in this context the phrase re-Latinization has been used to discuss the strengthening of the Romance features of the Romanian language during the 18th and 19th centuries". What do you think? Aristeus01 (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the quotation marks indicate "slang" or "jargon", we also use quotation marks for very specific scientific terms.
 * I think as only Latin and Neo-Latin languages are involved, the current title is perfect, but this thread is not about moving the article to a new title. RF354 (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the symbols “ ” or ‘ ’ are put around a word or phrase to show that someone else has written or said it - Cambridge Dictionary
 * Exactly, this isn't about moving the title, it's about the article as a whole. That's why I didn't propose the solution in the first place. So, even without being able to provide a definition of the title/topic to sustain the article and not the article to support the title/definition as it is now you still consider it perfect. What else can I say? Aristeus01 (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I've added two further references to confirm the lead. I hope if the title is OK, the lead is OK and the references are OK, then we'll keep this article. References do use Re-latinization with or without quotation marks. RF354 (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly we do not have the same opinion on what so-called, quotations marks, and according to stand for when defining a topic.
 * In the interest of not making this a debate about punctuation marks, I will only add this final opinion:
 * WP:Notability - the article does not make it past Presumed notability;
 * WP:Neutral point of view - reliable sources emphasize that the use of this term is inappropriate making the phrase a seriously contested assertion (ie not a fact);
 * and quite possibly WP:Neutral point of view - the lines defining the scope and topic of the article, and presented directly in Wikivoice, give undue weight in proportion to their representation in reliable sources.
 * Thank you for your time taken to debate but I still think we should delete the article on this grounds. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AFD: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this. So I removed the bold letters, as they may easily be mistaken for a vote.
 * The article is clearly notable, and also neutral. If you want to add something based on reliable sources, feel free to do it. Now even the lead has enough references. RF354 (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. The phenomenon that is called re-latinization/re-romanization of Romanian in relevant literature has been studied for more than 200 years, as it is verified by a number of reliable sources cited in the article. 2. Re-latinization is the most widely used term to describe this phenomenon in reliable sources published in English. It may be an inappropriate term (as it is proposed by some scholars), but it is widely used in English literature. Until a new terminus technicus is not introduced by linguists, the term could hardly be changed. Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this allowed or is it WP:Canvassing? RF354 (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is quite obviously canvassing. Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Appropriate notification:
 * Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
 * Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
 * I am baffled by your interpretation of the rules. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am baffled by your interpretation of the rules. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 is this WP:MEAT? ":: You might want to change your vote to Keep for consistency. RF354 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC) " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeus01 (talk • contribs)
 * User:Borsoka had voted with Oppose (as opposing the deletion), I just warned her that to avoid confusion she should change that to Keep. After she did so, I struck my comment as no longer necessary.
 * Also quoting the very policy you just cited: The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute. RF354 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It may also be uncivil to accuse someone of canvassing. Also, how do you know the user is a "she"? Aristeus01 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You know very well what I was doing (as you've been here all along as the nominator), you still made an accusation. I thought that notifying just one editor whose opinion you admittedly knew constituted canvassing.
 * I just assume she's a she based on the sound of her WP account name. RF354 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's call this two comments misunderstandings and move on. Aristeus01 (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for curiosity. Why did you inform me about this discussion on my Talk page days after I voted above? Especially your edit summary is surprising: "just in case you weren't aware of the conversation" . Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete The article takes history as pretext to promote a biased view of reality. It presents historical facts in a heavy loaded ideological manner, resulting into a misleading entry, quite far from the Wiki scope.
 * The article has many serious flaws which have never been adressed. Out of 11 sections on the talking page, 9 sections represent pertinent, sometimes very elaborated criticism, none of it having been adressed in three years.
 * I've followed and contributed to this article since the beginning, assuming good faith. It took me time to realize that the article tried to instill a biased narrative, abusing the citation rules of Wiki. This entry doesn't reflect the scientific research on the topic. Many statements in the content are either out of context, cherry picking, fringe theories, or simply represent personal opinions, not confirmed by the source referenced. Much of this article does not meet WP:COPO.
 * Many edits are made in disrespect of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V:, or bluntly violating WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP, WP:GEVAL.
 * The main instrument in feigning credibility seems to consist in interpretations and statements not confirmed by the source: the text in the sources does not match the corresponding passages in the article.
 * Another important flaw consists in over-interpreting the source: fugitive and unsourced claims in the source are presented as indicating a real piece of research.
 * The article is richely sourced, but it is quite a clear case of abusing the spirit and content of the sources cited.
 * The talk page has all this criticism in detail.
 * After three years, this entry cannot stand anymore as it is. Horea Vêntilă (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * How can you build an ideological position out of more than two dozen (!) academic journals and scientific books?
 * Basically every single sentence is well-referenced in this article.
 * This talk page comment initiated the whole deletion process, but it has since been addressed as I've added two further references to support the lead.
 * Would you show some talk page issues that haven't been addressed? RF354 (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One can build an ideological position in many ways. As I understand, in Romanian literature "re-latinization" refers to the process when Romanian adopted a number of Latin and Romance loanwords, thus its predominantly non-Romance vocabulary was "re-latinized" said the creator of the article. I'm not sure if this is original research, but I am sure the editor confuses lexis with vocabulary and confirms his ideological view that Romanian was not a Romance language before the so- called process. This "building" can also include arguments like "there's 63 quotations on my article!", when only 2 (allegedly) sustain the core, 3 refute it(!), 1 contradicts the timeline given in the lead of 18th and 19th century by saying Romanian borrowed words from Italian in the 16th century, and the remaining 57 are used for non-core topics, including 4 that contradict a less Romance nature of the language before the said process. The whole article is an issue, fixing some auxiliary parts won't fix the core. Aristeus01 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And that would be reason enough to remove 200 years from the history of the Romanian language just because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
 * The original editors of the article presented different viewpoints, I think that makes the article better, not worse.
 * The article says clearly that Romance features of the language were first detected in the 15th century, no sooner, no later.
 * The way you try to discredit the sources would be funny if it wasn't in a WP:AFD discussion. There are no "core" and "non-core" topics, or by "core" you mean the lead? It has several references. Every single statement of the article is supported by academic journals or scientific books. RF354 (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, a single sentence from the article has not been challenged by editors who want to delete the article. The article can obviously be improved but an important aspect of the development of the Romanian language is notable to have its own article. Borsoka (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * By core I mean central point, the whole idea of the article. And it's not about like or dislike, it's about encyclopedic or not encyclopedic. I said (and say) the article fails to be part of an encyclopedia because:
 * it is not notable enough. Editors have put their minds together to improve the quality of it, including during this discussion, yet we only came up with 2 sources that mention the term (process) therefore subject to "Presumed" WP:SNG, which in my opinion it fails.
 * we did came up with 3 that refute it as inappropriate, conflated, and confusing (and we can add a couple more sources for that). Even if this is subject to WP:FRINGE/ALT as an alternative theoretical formulation, presenting it on wiki in WP:WIKIVOICE fails by employing WP:UNDUE, WP:GEVAL, and overall breaking WP:NPOV and very likely falls under WP:NOTDICTIONARY category.
 * the subject, main topic, central point, or core of the article is only in the "lead" (actual definition) of the article. Other parts of the article, richly sourced, are additions that fall under WP:NNC.
 * I have found during this discussion reasons that might put the article under WP:ADVOCACY and I quote from the creator of the article's description of the term: its predominantly non-Romance vocabulary was "re-latinized" and an important aspect of the development of the Romanian language. This opinions are nowhere found in the sources, nor are they real features of Romanian language to the best of my knowledge. This editing based on a non-academic point of view goes against the general principle of Wikipedia.
 * Aristeus01 (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * More than two dozen academic journals and scientific books make the phenomenon "Re-latinization" clearly notable.
 * I came up with two academic references that support the lead as it is and the structure of the article in a couple of minutes. User:Borsoka just forgot to add the sources in the lead, that's all. She probably treated the lead as a summary. RF354 (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that there is actually no requirement to cite sources in the lead, as long as they are cited in the body of text. The lead simply has to be a summary of the content, which the extended text and its sources should verify. Dahn (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to something such as Linguistic Latinism in Romania, or Latinist school in Romania, which is precisely what this well-attested, and quite clearly culturally relevant phenomenon is called by countless sources in Romania itself; under that title, it should also be used to cover the over-latinization of Romanian by Laurian and Marius Chicoș Rostogan, i.e. in the context ridiculed by most Romanian scholars. This nom seems like at attempt to shoot down the topic because the article could be titled better (and is somewhat incomplete). Dahn (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the article should be kept, I consider this a frivolous nomination.
 * My only problem with renaming is that many references do use "re-latinization" (or, to a lesser extent re-romanization), so these terms might be searched on Wikipedia. I quote User:Borsoka, a main editor of the article from above: Re-latinization is the most widely used term to describe this phenomenon in reliable sources published in English. RF354 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing we delete and salt the current title, just that we have it as a redirect to a title which is probably more descriptive (presumably, the references to this phenomenon as merely "Latinization" outnumber "Re-latinization", and in any case Romanian sources [self-]describe this mostly as "Latinism"); renaming it would do away with the only issue up for contention that has any traction to it, for what is otherwise a fine article and an important topic. I do agree with the characterization of this nom as frivolous. Dahn (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The logic behind this nom reminds me of a time long ago, when an editor with a strong Romanian POV thought it wise that we should delete the article on Northern Transylvania, claiming that Transilvania de nord is unheard of in Romanian. He was technically right: the concept exists in Romanian, it is painfully well established, but under the much more widespread form Ardealul de nord (as you may no, the only English translation for both Transilvania and Ardealul is "Transylvania"). This seems to be the twisted logic, or just blatant sophistry, behind the opposition to this topic -- if these editors would actually bother with anything other than attempting to erase the article at any cost, they would have to realize that the concept, under somewhat different names stemming from the same root, is very well present in Romanian scholarly literature as well. Not just the self-critical one, from Junimea (which notoriously attacked Latinists in their lifetime, and less notoriously spoke plainly about modernization as required, commendable, but limited re-Latinization) to Boia, but also in your regular overview of philology, where the neo-Latin lexis is treated as matter-of-fact. Incidentally, the view that Romanian may technically be a Slavic language was also proposed within mainstream philology by Alexandru Cihac, a Romanian from Junimea; it may be bunk, but it is not fringe bunk. Dahn (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First save the article, then we'll get back to the proper title.
 * To me "Latinization" would be acceptable, but it is a more general term: the first hit on Google Books was "Latinization: How Latino Culture is Transforming the U.S". RF354 (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry too much that this article won't survive the nom. It is not decided on a vote, but on the weight of arguments.
 * WADR, I don't think using "Latinization" or "Latinism" or etc. would be ambiguous, if the title clarifies the national context, as per my proposal. Of course, my solution carries no ultimatum, it is just a suggestion to move this forward. Dahn (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The only twisted logic here mr. Dahn, is the assumption others don't know about or dislike certain cultural movements in Romanian history.
 * The way this article is titled, defined, and presented (ie wikivoice) makes one controversially named topic of an ongoing academic discussion look like a well-established fact. An alternative theoretical formulation should be presented as it is - if presented at all since this rarely comes up in the English language literature - and not by taking sides. And by the way, the modernization of Romanian lexis was not just the result of a couple or more cultural movements, it is a process that started with the modern era (1780 onwards) meant to describe the aspects of this age and carries on, with multiple trends, and more often than not led by the large mass of native speakers rather than a few individuals, for example the use of "și" conjuction instead of "i" is not due to Transylvanian School who (a few members at least) thought it's a foreign word. To quote from Kim Schulte: "the reality (of loanwords impact) is not as black and white (as a new word simply replacing the old one)". For example the loanword "sursă" has largely replaced the Slavic "izvor" for the same meaning but also the Latin-inherited "fântână" for the general meaning of water source. We then come to the weird conclusion Romanian re-latinized by replacing Latin words with Latin words, which is why this topic is not well-defined.
 * In this sense I understand you want this to be incorporated in the appropriate category and so would I, yet the consensus about that category does not exist between editors hence my action. Also in this sense I hope you understand I cannot subscribe to editing proposals while they are not sustained by reliable sources or the reliable sources argue against the central point of the article. Again, opinions (academic, not just whatever opinions) should not be given undue weight and added as mainstream if that consensus does not exist between researchers. Call me frivolous and sophistic if you like (thanks, by the way) but for me language study is a science not just an argument for interdisciplinary studies to make a point on historical debates and this is my understanding of how this encyclopedia works as well. Else, I could easily fill pages with contentious topics such as another 100 words or more from Dacian language (allegedly!, they have no cognates in Albanian or well established etymology but there are enough sources to go by) and present it as a fact. Or re-write the Balkanscprachbund by supporting only one explanation of its origin as the fact while the others are just mentions. I will not stand for this sort of subtle interpretations. If it's not notable enough even if it's something you value it's not notable enough. If there's an opinion that makes more sense to you but other academics contradict it is just one opinion, not a fact. If we want to add arguments to support our opinion we need to follow the sourced material not just select phrases that fit in our narrative. Aristeus01 (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "The way this article is titled, defined, and presented" -- respectfully, none of those would be grounds for deleting the article. Dahn (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I really struggle to come up with a way of making this a neutral presentation without completely revamping the entire article. In my opinion the lead (definition) would need to follow the way M. Sala presents the overall process: as the influence of Romance languages and Latin on Romanian during the modern era, various examples given in the article under re-Latinization would have to be replaced with the exact term: re-romancing for loanwords that came from Romance languages, westernizing for those that are not connected to the language of origin in particular but to social and technological aspects imported from the West. NB: while I understand Franz Rainer's definition as generally acceptable, it does not really "scratch the spot" for Romanian in this context, a language that opposed at some point loanwords from Latin to those from Italian, French, and even inherited Latin words.
 * Anyway, I'm getting too deep in the topic. My point is the article would have to be re-named as you suggested, the definition would have to be inclusive of all related terms in their particular meaning, and the cultural movements presented in their respective category, for example I.H. Rădulescu's contributions cannot be named re-Latinization if we already establish that phrase should be used for Transylvanian School. I think this would mean a complete change to the article, one we can't seem to agree on. And since we cannot agree we revert to the preceding status-quo which is an article that looks good but misses the essence, therefore not contributing to the reader's knowledge in any other way than pointing him/her in the wrong direction. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has significant reliable academic sources OrionNimrod (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.