Talk:Thraco-Roman

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

text: 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)
thread_title: "favored linguistically and religiously"

message: "'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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Biserica 

message: "…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)
replies: text: yes, it needs clarification greier 09:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Character" 

message: 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)
replies: text: It means "...one of the soldiers retreated  form the nearest endangered land shouts in «the local language»…". AdamSmithee 07:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "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)
thread_title:  Translation help needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: I guess "History of Romania". - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  românilor / româniei 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Status (sort of) 

message: When reading this article, I think it is difficult to answer some questions.
* 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.
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)
replies: text: Ok, but what are the peer-reviewed modern sources using this term for Daco-Romans? Borsoka (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who, where and when? 

message: *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.
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Did the Thraco-Romans speak Greek? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Daco-Roman 

message: 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)
thread_title:  We should respect WP users' time