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. There is clearly no consensus to delete this article at this time; nor is there a clear consensus to preserve the article although User:Biruitorul has indeed brought forward a valid argument for its preservation. (This close does not indicate a final choice of name for the article, as this was a point of contention during the discussion. A final name can be decided, through consensus, in another venue where it can receive proper attention.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin[edit]

79.112.3.217 (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The name of the article is "List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin". However if you read the first sentence you will see that none of them are Dacian on the list. "Below is a list of Romanian words believed by early scholars to be of Dacian origin, but which have since been attributed to other origins (Latin, Albanian, Slavic, Greek) in most cases." Therefore this list does not make any sense. Moreover, its sources mainly support non-Dacian origins (see "notes" section). Fakirbakir (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iaaasi, you already voted, and please, decide: use IP address or sockpuppet user name. You have used both above. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no SPI showing that this is a sock, stop personal attacks 82.79.213.79 (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: ISP's first edit. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see any words on the list from Stoicescu. This list is absolutely unreliable and highly misleading. It does not fit Wikipedia standards. Is Stoicescu a linguist? According to the Romanian Wikipedia he is not even a linguist. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From another source: "Linguistic studies made by specialists have led to the identification in the Romanian language of 170 words of Dacian origin in different fields."[1] 86.127.21.225 (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does not matter. The whole list is just a mess. It is useless. Would you like to create a blank page instead of deletion? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you know what Wikipedia standards mean? You try to save the dead duck. Hasdeu's work is 120 years old. Russu and Olteanu are not linguists and most of the words on the list have counter theories..... Fakirbakir (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Russu and Olteanu are not linguists?! Olteanu is the top linguist at the Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology and THE expert in the Dacian and Thracian language topic still alive. And so was Russu. Can you stop making such blatantly false statements?--Codrin.B (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Russu was a historian and specialized in epigraphy. I do not think he is a linguist. However you are right with Olteanu he is primarily a linguist (my mistake). Fakirbakir (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You obviously didn't read the article. Russu is by far the most quoted source (see the Sources column in the table), and he is the authority on the Dacian language field to this day. I wonder why only the Hungarian editors with known radical views against Dacian-Romanian ties and Daco-Romanian continuity are voting for this ridiculous delete request?! This article makes these ties obvious, hence it is adamant to be removed at any cost to fulfill the Hungarian revisionism agenda. No Chinese or Peruvians interested in the topic, perhaps with a WP:NPOV?--Codrin.B (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Codrinb, are you sure that Kitfoxxe is a Hungarian editor who is driven by chauvinist, nationalist, revisionist, ...ist, ...ist, ...ist Hungarian purposes? I suggest that you should forget this strange idea of a world where Hungarians are working everywhere in order to destroy the well-established fortress of the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity. Borsoka (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Codrinb, please avoid personal attacks against Hungarian editors. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Biruitorul, sorry but for me even the idea of an article whose title contains a weasel word ("possible") is absurd. Borsoka (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a long time ago you were not so adverse to the word "possible". You made a renaming proposal in the past, where your proposed new title still contained this word :P Talk:List_of_Romanian_words_of_possible_Dacian_origin#Requested_move 86.127.21.226 (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I was not brave enough to propose the deletion of the whole article. I only wanted to improve the title of the article in order to reflect its actual subject: it is a list of words which may or may not have originated from the substratum of the Romanian language, which may or may not have been the Dacian language. However, Fakirbakir made the only logical proposal: the whole article should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • List of possible dwarf planets.
  • Way to ignore my entire argument and respond with an ignoratio elenchi. If it's the title you find problematic, call it, I don't know, Dacian substrate theory. I've shown that the theory is widely mentioned and that is enough for keeping the article, even if you or I or a majority of the linguistic community have doubts as to its veracity. - Biruitorul Talk 19:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but I do not understand what is the relevance of an article of words with undefined or multiple-defined origin. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The list itself has acquired notability by being republished and discussed in reliable sources. It may be inaccurate; it may even be totally discredited. That does not matter so much as the academic attention it has received. - Biruitorul Talk 13:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a huge difference. The most of the supposed Dacian words exist only in theory as opposed to English words. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The theory itself is notable. It may be completely inaccurate or outdated, but it's been covered by reliable sources, which is our basic standard for notability. - Biruitorul Talk 13:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I refer to Norden1990's remark below. Hungarian words of possible Sumerian origin are also discussed in reliable sources: they deny the relibiality of such lists. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that this user, besides his insults on the valid Daco-Romanian continuity theory (which is the main item at stake here and the main reason for the presence of Hungarian voters) and ridiculous claims as being a Hoax, is also WP:CANVASS-ing illegally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary#List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin. What have Romanian and Dacian words got to do with WP Hungary, if not an attempt to get Hungarian nationalists to vote here?!--Codrin.B (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take it easy, I suggest. Yes, my opinion is that Daco-Romanian continuity is false, ridiculous and scientifically unfounded, but I hope there is still freedom of opinion here. Furthermore I tried to involve more editors to this debate, because it's getting stale and we start to argue with each other's political identity (as evidenced by your above comment). WP:Hungary is only one of the projects where I have written. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll pretend that we don't realize that you posted on other Wikiproject talk pages only after Codrin.B expressed here his concerns about a possible canvassing case ;). If I were you, I would have given the pretext that a portion of Hungary was once a part of the Dacian kingdom :) 79.117.188.152 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Canvassing = I tell somebody how to vote. Well, that did not happen. Significant part of today's Romania belonged to Hungary until 1918/20, so this article is of interest to the Hungarian project (and whole Central Europe, of course). --Norden1990 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. The debate is not about the validity of a theory, but about the relevance of an article the subject of which is a list of words of unknown origin. Those who suggest that it should be deleted say that there is no need to maintain such lists. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Borsoka, please see AdiJapan's remark from below the list is notable and was used, again and again, to debate or to defend the theory that Romanian language started as a mixture of Latin and Dacian. Those whom support the deletion of this article using Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary misinterpret the policy. This article is not about a single word. The article is not complete, and shall not be treated as a simple list, the list shall be just a section of the article. The list is a notable encyclopedic subject, no question of that. --Silenzio76 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By this principle, all the word lists from Category:Lists_of_loanwords should be deleted. True? 86.126.34.91 (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, if they serve functionally as a dictionary as this one does. Some of them, however, contain significant encyclopedic content beyond simply a list of words, and thus should be kept. It is a case by case issue, and I do not think that this one provides enough extra value to be more than a dictionary. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does not matter??? sorry, but it is a shame. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to this opinion, I also could create a List of Hungarian words of possible Sumerian origin. There are also "reliable" sources about that. This article is completely a hoax, I maintain my position. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hungarian-Sumerian connections constitute pseudoscientific or at best fringe views (as shown by mainstream criticism and lack of mainstream acceptance). The same would need to be shown here for the two cases to be compareable. There is nothing a priori implausible about Dacian loanwords in Romanian. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Tropylium, the subject of the debate is not the validity of the list, but its notability. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only difference between the two cases that Romanian politics and "science" support this absurd theory, while Hungarian historiography has no need for self-justification and nation-building. Nevertheless I do not dispute the validity of Daco-Romanian continuity article. However this article is based on a dubious source and "Notes" section clearly indicates that these words are not of Dacian origin. On this basis, Arpad and Ur are also words of Hungarian origin. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I think all nations' historiography serves national-building purposes, and there are significant Hungarian historians who played or play this role. I could mention (and I have several times mentined) stupid theories proposed by Hungarian academics as well: all scholars are human beings and they often make mistakes. Moreover, the debate is not about the role of certain theories in the national-building process, but the notability and reliability of the list. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again I must urge you to restrain this type of inflammatory rhetoric. No one has mentioned politicians, I'm not aware of politicians who have opined about this topic, and in any case no one has proposed citing political declarations.
On the other hand, yes, your contempt notwithstanding, Constantin Frâncu is a scientist - a linguist, in fact. So is Maria Cvasnîi Cătănescu. And Gheorghe Guler. And Mihai Bărbulescu - indeed, a member of the Romanian Academy.
Or what about this text, published in Germany by Harrassowitz Verlag? Or this one, from Walter de Gruyter, also in Germany? Have German academic publishers been fooled into publishing about a fraud?
The point of the list is not to validate a theory. The theory's notability (as opposed to its accuracy) is confirmed by its routine coverage in reliable texts, which means the article must be kept, per WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 01:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Biruitorul, as I mentioned above, the list of Hungarian words of Sumerian origin are also mentioned in reliable sources, because they refuse it.
Fakirbakir, the Earth is not flat, yet we do have the Flat Earth article. There is no flying spagetti monster, yet we do have the Flying Spaghetti Monster article. So no, it does not matter if the theory about the Dacian origin of those words is right or wrong. What matters is that the theory itself exists and that it is notable. — AdiJapan 09:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By your logic, would you delete the hundred or so articles under Category:Lists of English words, particularly List of English words from indigenous languages of the Americas and Category:Lists of English words of Celtic origin? --Codrin.B (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Check template of the bottom of List of English words of Irish origin article. - Rovibroni (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Trɔpʏliʊm, can you imagine that all Romanian words would be listed in separate articles according to their (actual or proposed) origin? "List of Romanian words of Latin origin", "List of Romanian words of proto-Slavic origin", "List of Romanian words of Bulgarian origin", "List of Romanian words of Hungarian origin" ..... And should we create such lists of all words of all the languages of the world? Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a common practice to create such lists. There are 15 such lists for Spanish words: Category:Lists of Spanish words of foreign origin. Eurocentral (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) I think these list should not be subject of an article (2) even if we accept the idea, that such lists could be created, we should not create articles on words "of possible .... origin". Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole science of linguistics is based on possible word origins and etymologies, and they change, as the research evolves. What are you talking about?--Codrin.B (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Szabi237, you are wrong: please cheque the nationality involved in the above debate, this is not a debate among Hungarian and Romanian editors. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, your dear Szabi237 is not wrong. Look at the illegal WP:CANVASS-ing done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary#List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin. What have Romanian and Dacian words got to do with WP Hungary, if not an attempt to get Hungarian nationalists to vote here?!--Codrin.B (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Codrinb, also look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania#List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin. I know that in your world there are lots of chauvinistic, nationalistic, fasist, irredentist Hungarians in every corner who have been conspiring for secret dark purposes, but especially against the Daco-Romanian continuity theory. However, it is your own world, not ours. Would you please try to forget nationality in debates. I have several times made the same suggestion to Hungarian editors as well. In my world, referring to anybody's nationality in a negativ context is a most primitive and an extremely simple-minded approach. Borsoka (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please take a look at the chronology of the edits. Norden1990 put the notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania#List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin one hour after Codrin.B reported the canvassing here, so it can be a consequence of it. However I am not outraged, because the most active Hungarian users already commented here. Peace! 86.126.35.222 (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole list with its counter theories is just an assumption and may be completely wrong. It is not properly sourced. Honestly, it is rather laughable. The only "reliable" source is Russu's study (Olteanu's work is self-published?), however his method is more than questionable (see its talkpage, you can read there an expert's opinion about Russu's study). Moreover we should not really use communist sources because they were unfortunately quite biased.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the talk page of the article for details on the work and credentials of the authors you cheaply attempt to discredit, in-lieu of better arguments.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you deny that Romanian historiography was controlled by the Communist authorities? Fakirbakir (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are talking about lingustics not historiography. And what are you here? A judge at the communism's trial? Do you think that between 1948-1989, the linguists and archaeologists who did research way before communism got installed, such as Russu, became some sort of retards who produced nothing but crap hence forth?! In books from that era, you have to filter the propaganda, but they contain a lot of valid science as well. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Biruitorul, I think you suggested a logical approach. I also agree with you that we should not blame on individual scholars that they had to live in a lunatic century. Borsoka (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a similar subject, but not the same. This one contains Romanians words, while the other one is formed of allegged Dacian words. 79.117.188.152 (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but I think I miss the point. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One is a list of words in Romanian, a modern language with some 25 million speakers and which has been continuously written down for some five centuries. One is a list of words thought to have been used by the Dacians, who spoke a language that has been dead for close to 2000 years and which does not survive in written form. The topics are discrete. - Biruitorul Talk 20:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is quite interesting to read statements like this from a linguistic site: "It is noteworthy that Rumanian does not contain words of Dacian origin, while it shares some old-Balkan and non-Latin terms with Albanian." [2] (and it is not even a Hungarian site :-))Fakirbakir (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am still thinking that we have two articles about the same subject. "List of reconstructed Dacian words" has its own section about this matter:List_of_reconstructed_Dacian_words#Reconstruction_from_Romanian_and_Albanian_wordsFakirbakir (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact no sample of Dacian language survived, so the theory can't ascertained as being true or false 79.117.179.57 (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But what if the listed words are Illyrian? The title is quite comfy for someone who supports only "Dacian" origin. It is clearly biased.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this theory has important academic support, of course that a renaming could be taken into consideration 86.126.33.49 (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
More