Talk:Romanization (cultural)

message: This is a good article start, but it needs sectioning, as well as sources.
--Masamax 11:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Start

message: This article gives an incredibly dated view of Romanization. The concept has been the subject of considerable work by the likes of Christian Goudineau, Greg Woolf and Jane Webster. I'll probably be coming back to change this in the not too distant future... Harthacanute 21:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I made this article from scratch and most of the books that I have don´t discuss alltoo much, but I hope it is better than nothing. Fell free to improve the article. Don´t forget to include your sources in the references (I might buy some of these books) Flamarande 09:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article seems to be extremely biased and favors the Romans. There are different forms of Romanization, not just Romanization by conquest. In many cases it was. However, when talking about Germanic Romanization, it was often migrating Germanic tribes raiding Roman-controlled areas and adopting Latin features for themselves. Also, many places the Romans conquered kept most of their cultural identity in tact, such as the Egyptians. This article only discusses forced Romanization by conquest, which is neither fair to say nor accurate, and it should definitely be changed. Ceejus 09:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any report summarising mainstream published material in this vein would make an addition to the article.--Wetman (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Outdated views

message: Please see "Romance languages" and "Romanian language" articles for supportive information to include Dacia as a "most Romanized region" in this article. -- Gaston200 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dacia

message: Book: "Romanization in The Time of Augustus" by Ramsay McMullen, an excellent and in-depth source on the subject and process of Romanization in the provinces.   -- Gaston200 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: Could not Roman Catholicism be seen as a continuation of the Roman Empire, and as a form of Romanization? After all, it is centered in Rome, believes that a Roman Bishop is the supreme head of Christianity, and the spread of Roman Catholicism correspondes with the spread of a Latinized "Western" cultural mindset to the extinction of native views, and generally the spread of the Romance languages, all based on Latin. Poland (heavily Catholic) was writing Latin literary works into the 19th Century. The nobility of Lithuania believed that it was descended from the Romans, and that Lithuanian was a morphed Romance tougue. Excluding Ireland, the spread of Roman Catholicism corresponds fairly neatly with the spread of the Western Cultural sphere in a Romanophile form. --71.240.142.157 (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholicism 

message: "As it cannot be used to explain, Romanization should only be used as a theoretical tool with which to approach the Roman Provinces and not as an archaeologically verifiable process.[citation needed]"
*AFAIK, this sentence doesn't make any sense, it seems just a POV, which doesn't seem accurate at all, as Romanization is visible in archaeological finds. Shouldn't this be removed? --Pedro (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange sentence