Talk:Dacianism/Archive 2

Roman Emperors

"claimed that Dacians gave Rome many of her Emperors ".

Is this a reference to the so-called Illyrian emperors? Those actually born in the Balkans? Dimadick (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably. Dahn (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dahn, time to rush and delete that article, or mark it Protochronistic and incorporate it here. Or probably you are not doing it because it says Illyrian instead of Dacian? --Codrin.B (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You still fail to see the point, it's not that "it" says Illyrian instead of Dacian it's that scholarly literature says Ilyrian instead of Dacian. And, quite importantly actualy although not necessarily on wikipedia, the emperors themselves used Ilyrian in their own propaganda, one would speak of virtus Ilyrici or genius exercitus Ilyriciani. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Protochronism of FYROM (Former Yogoslav Republic of Macedonia), Macedonia the 2000-borne Country

I think this Protochronism deserves mention in the article alongside the Albanian and other Protochronisms.

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), supports the theory that its citizens (mostly Slavic of Bulgarian origin, and ethnic Albanian and Greek Slavophones) are direct descendants of the Greek Macedonian King Alexander II and the Greek Macedonian phylum of which Alexander was from at large, ignoring even such obvious facts as language (Slavic was not a language Greek Macedonians spoke or wrote in) or the arrival of Slavic peoples in the region (they came in the area at least 800 years after Alexander).

This claim was initially used by FYROM as a means to foster some form of national cohesion and ethnic identity so as to fight off the overwhelming national inferiority complex and defeatist sentiment that had resulted after the collapse of the Yugoslav Union about a decade ago, leaving the then-impoverished and struggling new-borne state at the time known as "Vardarska" (later to be renamed as FYROM) being in dire need to ascribe and ascertain validity for its existence. This was achieved by FYROM, similarly to the "Thracian" and "Dacian" protochronisms, mainly by seizing the unclaimed idea of "Macedonian" sentiment; which remained unclaimed by all neighboring nations until a few years before FYROM first formed (with the exception of Greece, which already owned the vast majority of what was the geographic area of Greek "Macedonia" since the first Balkan wars, but had no nationalist claims concerning the "Macedonian" sentimenmt at the time, much like it is not nationalistic about its Minoan culture at present, unless the Egyptians begin saying Minoans were Egyptian).

FYROM nationalists use the name "Macedonia" to give false credence of greatness and ancient roots, or even have claims to geographic expansion, and by extension have adopted the view that they are "Macedonians" in the sense that they are descendants of the ancient Greek Macedonian tribe. It is not in reference to th use of the name "Macedonia" that the protochronism is made, but with regard to the claims of shared ancestry with ancient Macedonians, and the connections to Alexander the Great, making the FYROM protochronism a prime example of protochronisms, more so than the Thracian and Dacian examples, due to the fact that these views are shared ubiquitously shared by the majority of the people of the FYROM.

In effect, by forging such a link to ancient Greek Macedonian ancestry as well as using the name "Macedonia" and appropriating these as their own unique culture, and by way of the resulting semantics confusion that has resulted (the Greek prefecture "Macedonia", and FYROM now calling itself Macedonia), FYROM has aims to achieve much more than national cohesion, whereby the FYROM usurps and obviously desires to annex, in its view, parts of the modern Greek state's prefecture "Macedonia", gaining access to the Aegean Sea, since FYROM is landlocked.

This nationalistic propensity and desire to access the Aegean has resulted in forging history books, misinforming the public with the erection of statues of Alexander III inscribed in Slavic, and even issuing FYROM bank notes that represent a large area of the Greek state's prefecture "Macedonia", including part of the Greek peninsula of "Chalkidiki" and the Greek city Thessaloniki, with the border of this area of the Greek state fringed with barbwire, as though this area is under occupation by the Greek State. The semantics confusion of the name "Macedonia" is the a Protochronism in itself, achieved by FYROM by appropriating the name "Macedonia" that refers to the Modern Greek Province and the ancient Greek Kingdom "Macedonia", with the ancient geographic region of that kingdom and the homonymous modern Greek prefecture of "Macedonia" and a small part to the south of FYROM up to lake Ohrid, and loosely connecting and distorting historic facts using procrustean means in order to ascertain connection to antiquity.

The Protocronist ideology of FYROM is heavily borrowed from the Protochronism of Albania mentioned previously, given that all three countries share borders, and in particular due to the communist regime that FYROM was under during the Yogaslav union.

Most people fail to see that the right of the people of FYROM to sovereignty and to name their country whatever they want, are not the same as deliberately harnessing this idea of the right to sovereignty so as to have leverage over geographic claims. Worst of all, by claiming ancestry to what was formerly amn ancient Greek kingdom named Macedonia, as well as claiming to be part of the lineage of one of its kings, they, like the Albanians, feel that they may have precedence over certain areas, presently part of Greece.

In a nutshell, FYROM attempts to claim primacy over the Greeks in the region called "Macedonia" from antiquity until present, even though, they as Slavic peoples arrived in the area about 1000 years after Macedonians were there. This is a prime example of an attempt to show that they were "first" "in time" (thus a protochronism) in the region and assert land claims.

I suggest that a mention be made in the article alongside the other types of protochronisms.

---

Ἑλλαιβάριος/Ellaivarios 00:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

It was added a new chapter which contains criticism on works of the main critics of "protochronism". All this is in acord with wiki rules, have a very reliable source, and bring a little balance on neutrality of the article. For avoiding any problems i suggest talks here to be done before any new changes on the main article. I know that there are Boia fans, but they should understand that there are many most important or specialized historians who doesnt agree with some of his ideas, and those must be presented as well for a neutrality of the article (inexistent now). Fact that Boia twisted his opinions acording which what political regime was in power, that he is not specialized in any of the historical fields mentioned there and he was criticised by PhD historians, members of Romanian Academy, for his ideas must be show there ofcourse, as he is the main author quoted in the article

If you write a paragraph on "controversies", then discuss the topic/facts, not the people. I don't think it's relevant to the article what Boia did during the Ceaușescu era or what is the ethnicity of Verdery. If there's an opinion that Boia's methodology was wrong or Verdery used facts that were not correct, then add that (with a reference to the author of that criticism), not some unsourced personal drivel about them. bogdan (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

it is very relevant. First, about Verdery, it is an know fact how hungarian historyography look at Dacian and Daco-Roman continuity, and how many of their views are more like fringe theories then close to reality. If there is specific things pointed by her, and supported by other neutral historians or archeology, i agree she can be a reliable source. She s personal opinion are not (btw, what specialization she have?). About Boia, it must be said that he is not a specialist in any of the areas he talk about, and his change of views from a period to another, (as well as his suspect promovation in hierachy at that University) might have other reasons sometimes, and are not necessary related to historical truth. More then that, those who criticize him are well known historians and we need to point out their opinion as well, for a balance and neutrality of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.222.182 (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop it. Dahn (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

i am sory, things dont go like that. I see you are a fan of some specific view in this problem, but is need to show both sides of the coin. That is a neutral point of view, and i dont care if you like it or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.230.156 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

All you have added is inflammatory self-sourced data, which is in direct contrast to wikipedia policies (mentioned in my edit summary), and contradicts consensus. Other speculations of yours do not interest me in the least, and your original research cannot in fact bear any weight on the wikipedia project. Dahn (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you also read our WP:SYNTH policy. Dahn (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources are correct, and i can quote from them if you wish, ofcourse. All i write there is backed by what one or another of those two PhD historians said. Not to mention that they are specialized in those fields of expertise, unlike Boia. I understand that you dont agree with them, which is not my concern. Before to trow all kind of "wiki policy" around learn to respect the neutral point of view one, and the balanced view of material presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.230.156 (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you even understand WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP? Or should I take you to WP:AN/I? Dahn (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, to cut out some of the bullshit, the Tribuna source "quoted" for Ioan-Aurel Pop (the anonymous editor couldn't even get his name right!) is an interview with Pop, where Pop repeatedly states that his views on mythology are "complementary" with Boia's, and where protochronism isn't mentioned at all. The personal site mentioned for Scurtu's opinion is uncitable (wikpedia simply doesn't use such self-published web "sources" against scholarship - see WP:RS) - and even that, cited in the awful way it is cited, doesn't say anything about protochronism. This is simply the IP's editorializing and ungrammatical original research. So is the sinister crap about Boia's "communism" and how Verdery's supposed Hungarian origin "disqualifies" her - in fact, it is entirely the IP's rant and vendetta against sources this article uses. I can't even begin to count how many other wikipedia policies are explicitly broken by such edits (though WP:BLP is especially stringent), and I'll happily get this article semiprotected if this guy comes back with such tripe. Dahn (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

what on Earth are you talking there? A site of a PhD historian, member of ROmanian Academy, is not good because is "self-published"? Are you real? He states there pretty clear his opinions about Boia, or his work, and for a neutral point of view, and a more balanced article, that should be mentioned too. Ioan Aurel Pop needs to be mentioned as well, and he pretty clear said he is not in the same line with Boia, and his book actualy is "correcting" Boia ideas. I understand you want to defend a POV, but i understand as well that wiki try to be a neutral site, and all the opinions need to be presented, especially ones coming from such full proof sources (as 2 PhD historians, members of Academy and way more specialized then historian of ideas Boia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.140.13 (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, self-published: WP:RS. On Boia: contentious original research, not actually verified by any published sources, and in gross breach of our WP:BLP policy. Not to mention irrelevant to this text. See also WP:COAT and stop flogging the dead horse - I assure you this type of manipulative soapboxing is not taken lightly by administrators of this project. Dahn (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

dahn, stop vandalizing the page, none of your points are valid, and the sources are quoted correct and reliable. Wiki encourages a balanced point of view and a presentation of all opinions, and discouraging these little moanings and personal wars made by users who dont like another point of view. You are edit warring so stop this vandalism, its really pathetic and embarrasing

I see someone called bogdangiusca reverted a perfectly good and sourced material, probably hurted in his feelings about some authors like Boia. Anyway, the addings will stay as are backed by solid proof sources (books of two PhD historians members of Romanian Academy) who discuss and dismiss most of Boia assertions about so called "protochronism". About so called "attack at person", I dont see where it was? If someone mention there "former communists", "amateur archeologists", "iron guardist", "imposed by comunists" I see no reason to be mentioned as well "former head of communist propagnada bureau", "paid by Soros Fundation" or "not qualified in the fields discussed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.233.168 (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is the biggest hoax on Wikipedia. Dahn created something out of nothing. From now on, he shall be known as Dahn ex machina. --Cei Trei (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:NPOV

I have removed unsourced, biased, and overall anti-Romanian and anti-Dacian content that violates WP:NPOV. It should be kept this way. Please reply to this section if I missed anything, or if something should be added. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how the text you removed could be construed as such. Moreover, I take issue with you modifying sourced text, potentially misconstruing the information provided by those sources.Anonimu (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Modifying which sourced text? Afro-Eurasian (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Any sentence ending with a ref hatnote is supposed to represent the position of the mentioned source (with the caveat that sometimes ref notes refer to more than just one sentence). By selectively removing parts of those sentences you are possibly misrepresenting those sources.Anonimu (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations to Anonimu for some removals! To my opinions insufficiently many. The whole article should be removed. There is so much rightfull criticism in all this discussion, the phenomenon is spread all over the place, several have been discussed even here. Remember Wiki is read throughout the world, Australians DO BELIEVE that protocronism is a romanian speciality. I insist - remove the article, whoever is allowed or in charge of doing so!79.241.131.242 (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

'Controversies' section

Ignoring the fact that it is written in an extremely bad English, the section is completely biased towards attacking Lucian Boia without any reliable source other than self-published books by authors considered to have far-right nationalist views. I demand a check on the neutrality of this article and especially of the Controversies section. Cipika (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Large sections of the controversies section appear to be unsourced or inadequately sourced. I added a tag to that section indicating the problem, and indicating that unsourced material may be removed. Bradv 06:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

What Pop says about Boia is that Boia is a specialist in 20th century historiography (i.e. protochronism), but Boia isn't a specialist in ancient or medieval history. So Pop does not disagree with the negative arguments mounted by Boia (i.e. dispelling the myths of National-Communist historiography), but says that Boia is unable to provide positive knowledge about the ancient and medieval history of Romania. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb-XONv1KVo Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Modern-day equivalents

There says "Albanian nationalists claim that the Albanians descend from the ancient Pelasgians" and this is given as a modern-day equivalent of Protochronism. Interestingly there is not a single source to say that this Pelasgian theory is really an example of Protochronism. Unless a source is added, this is just POV. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Um no, there are three different sources in there. Sounds more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. Athenean (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I undid your revision as I had not seen your participation here. This is Original Research because there is no single source to say that Pelasgian theory is an example of Protochronism. There is no single source to mention word "Protochronism". Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.) It is better for you not to support such things. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this is one of the most surreal "discussions" I have ever taken part in. There are three sources in the paragraph you removed. click on them and read them. Persistent refusal to get the point is grounds for a topic ban, just so you know. Athenean (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Ktrimi991: as long as no source makes an explicit connection with Protochronism or discusses/list it along protochronism, connnecting them would be WP:SYNTH. We have reliable sources discussing separately false flag operations by the US gvt and 9/11; however, as no source connects the two, listing 9/11 inside the article about false flag operations would be an original synthesis. Furthermore, threatening a part in a content discussion with a topic ban is a gross violation of our WP:CIVILITY pillar, so I seriously advise you to rethink your arguments. Anonimu (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the sources [1] [2]? There is absolutely no sythesis. Athenean (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I only read the quotes in the references section, which did not mention the connection. Indeed, these sources do indicate a relation. Anonimu (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The relation is that just like Romanians, Albanians and some other population from the Balkans imported a version of High Stalinism and gave importance to their origin matter. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Priestland source needs to be double checked if the author refers to Protochronism in Albania. This article mainly refers to a Romanian context. We cannot have content in this article about other countries unless the source specifically refers to the term and then other things (i.e nationalism, myths etc in a particular country). As such i also deleted bits that were added for Iraq and Slovenians. The insistence made by a particular editor in here on the issue, he has to show that the those sources which he refers too use the term Protchronism in relation to Albania. No original research. Since he was very strict about this in relation to the Northern Epirus article about using sources that only use the term "Northern Epirus", likewise the same precedent and standard applies here. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please check on the Priestland source? I also have a bad feeling about this. --Cei Trei (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Cei Trei, What are your concerns, as i have it?Resnjari (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification

I have consulted pp. 160-61 from Boia's work. He does not claim that there were no country called Dacia. Speaking in general, there is doubt that Dacians had a centralized, unitary state, not that they had a country. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality check ? It's everything checked neutral.

"Dacopatia şi alte rătăciri româneşti", / Editura Humanitas / Romania "Dacopathia and other Romanian aberrations" I lived in that country at that time and y am confirming everything. It's everything checked neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:3E90:6200:B54A:A177:DF7B:4238 (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Romania" Empire

At first, a "Byzantine Empire" has never existed. (see maps of the time) This is a creation of a German historian, Hieronymus Wolf, the first time that the name "Byzanz" and "Byzantinisches Reich" is mentioned in the historiography. So the name is an "exonym" given by others, not by itself. They self named their empire as "Romania" (see maps of the time), to distinguish it from the ancient, whole, lost and divided "Imperium Romanum", their capital they called at the founding "Nova Roma" (renamed later as "Constantinopole") and they called themselves "Romni", from which the today's name "Români" is derived. The Greeks called them in old times, "romajoi" and after the modern Greek language reform, "romei", from which the German usage "Rhomäer" is derived. In their idiom, people called themselves "romun" or "rumun" (even today in Romania),(see also "Rum-Seljuk" and "Rumelia" as successor areas.) This was the case until the Slavic invasion of the Balkans and the Empire beginning in the 6th century. After the slavic invasion, the native romanic population, to distinguish it from the Slavic newcomers, were called from Greeks variously "blachoi", "blachi" and later by slavic reading, "b" -> "v", "vlachi", "vlahi". The whole population was called "Romanian" citizens, but whit different ethnical roots. That's the reason for why sometimes even the Slavic and Greek ethnics where called in some scripting sources, as empire citizens not with its ethnic name, rather than "vlahi", for the older form "romajoi". Petre Pascu (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic, see WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Cultural and ethnic Islands in the "Imperium Romanum"

Even throughout the Empire in the "Imperium Romanum" there was never exist a cultural and linguistic unity among the people. Even after the conquest by the Romans in the ancient Greek world in the Balkans, around the Black Sea and in Anatolia, the Grecian culture and language continued to exist, becoming partially romanized. Likewise, other cultural islands (Illyrian, Macedonic) continued to exist or new ones emerged, with a Romanized typological character. Ethnic groups with a less developed culture, without own writing and administrative state system, were earlier and more Romanized. Thus, the Jirecek-Line was formed in the Balkans, as evidenced by archaeological finds and inscriptions. Thus, the Jirecek line was formed in the Balkans, evidenced by archaeological finds and inscriptions, romanized in the north and remaining predominantly Greek in the south. These cultural islands lived largely ethnically, culturally and linguistically isolated among the people, as recent genetic studies prove. These cultural islands continued to exist after the division of the empire, and even in a sharply increased, more dominant form, with increasing disintegration of the empire. Petre Pascu (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic, see WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Genetic evidences for the non-existence of Dacians in the Roman-conquered part

According to genetic studies, genetic traces of the Dacians still exist only in the northeast of the Moldavia, where the "Free Dacians" lived after the conquest of Dacia, but no genetic traces in the rest of present-day Romania. And "all Aromuns (Wallachian) groups are much closer genetic to Greeks than to Italians". Since the historical development in all parts of present-day Romania was the same, one must necessarily conclude that within the borders of the Roman Empire no semnificative number of Dacian population remained. (see gentical studies, "Paternal and maternal lineages in the Balkans show a homogeneous landscape over linguistic barriers, except for the isolated Aromuns")Petre Pascu (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic, see WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Wallachians are not Romanians

But, the Romanians to day are ethnically the directly followers of the Wallachians, but with an European genetic spread and an more evolved European culture. The Walachians are the romanized substrat of a mixture of the native population of the Eastern Roman Empire, where they coexisted for 1000 years. In some cultural and genetic Islands, they still exist today (see genetic studies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petre Pascu (talk • contribs) 10:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The Romanians can not be the followers of the Dacians because the same Wallachian language existed in many areas outside of the to day Romania, and thus the ancestors of the Romanians have formed outside of Romania with their language and religion. Romanian orthodoxy was for centuries associated with the patriarchy of Ochrida outside Romania. All this is not possible if the Wallachian proto-Romanian language and culture was born in Dakia. An emigration from Romania did not take place.

Quote from Georgios Akropolites History (1260): “The name "Megaloblachia" appears in the sources for the first time in the 13. century with Niketas Choniates (CSHB, 81f1,lk-15; ed. Van Dieten, 638,50), Georgios Akropolites (k3,1;61,23-.25) and Pachymeres (1,83,11), although the toponymic "Vlachia", land of the Vlachs, existed from the 12. century both in western and Byzantine sources as name for certain regions of Thessaly. The name Vlachia came to be applied to Thessaly because of the large Vlach population settled in its mountainous regions from the time of the Slavic invasions. When the name first appears (in Benjamin of Tudela), it refers to the mountainous regions of south Thessaly, around Mt. Othrys.”

The Wallachian = (synonym to) "Pelasgian", are the oldest arborigines of Thessaly and later the northern area to the Danube from the time of the Greek single states building, romanized over hundreds of years in the Byzantine Empire. (see maps of states building) There is no doubt about that. After the ever greater Greekization of the empire, Heracleus abolished Latin and introduced Greek, the Slavs fearing their conquests, and occupying the plains (Jirecek), the Wallachians have isolated themselves in the mountains, continuing to speak her Wallachian while in the rest of the empire she was now speaking Greek, and later migrated north of the Danube. Under the pressure of the collapse of the empire, they then moved north over the Danube. It has been proven genetically that they were and are an isolated group. "Paternal and maternal lineages in the Balkans show a homogeneous landscape over linguistic barriers, except for the isolated Aromuns" / doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.2005.00251.x Petre Pascu (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"Wallachian = Pelasgian" is WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

As you can read above, the Wallachians were referred to in historical documents of the time as a "native population", synonymous with "pelasgian".

See, "Pelasgi – Valahi / Vlahi" / Prof. Dr. Ion Pachia-Tatomirescu, Membru al Asociației Istoricilor Bănățeni, Universitatea Cluj-Napoca, s.a.

But wait a while, I have not finished yet, I'm just beginning. Petre Pascu (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Equating any really existing ethnicity with the Pelasgians is bunk. We have no idea who the Pelasgians were: various unconvincing hypotheses have been advanced to explain their identity, it's like The Hunting of the Snark. Just to be sure: Protochronism is a crackpot idea, that's Wikipedia has to say; this is not open for negotiation. Around here, we don't appreciate those who WP:PROMOTE WP:FRINGE views, and they will be eventually blocked or banned from this website. If you will try to insert in our articles woolly claims like "Wallachians are not Romanians", they will be reverted without pardon. I can tell you that it is woolly since I am both a Wallachian and a Romanian. And... I.P.-T.? Seriously? The guy who filled the internet with the purported fact that Aethicus Ister traveled around the world (not: globe, the Earth he traveled around was flat) and has discovered America. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

who say's that? from whom is this threat?

"If you will try to insert in our articles woolly claims like "Wallachians are not Romanians",

they will be reverted without pardon. I can tell you that it is woolly since I am both a Wallachian and a Romanian."

@Tgeorgescu, is this from you?

For protochronists who do not know nothing

The "wallachians" say's on theyr websites that they are not Roumanians.

Homer, Ilias, 2, 840, 841

Όμηρος, Ἰλιάς, 2, 840,841

Ο Ιππότωνας οδήγησε τις φυλές

O Ippótonas odígise tis fylés

Hippothoos brought the tribes

το δόρυ χρησιμοποίησε το Pelasgoi

to dóry chrisimopoíise to Pelasgoi

of the spear-experienced Pelasgoi

από τη Λάρισα, τη γη των ψηλών πεδίων

apó ti Lárisa, ti gi ton psilón pedíon

out from Larissa, the land of lofty fields

Petre Pascu (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't want to offend anyone, just to render the general perception: for all Romanians the thesis "Wallachians are not Romanians" is batshit crazy. Speaking not of Vlachs, but about the traditional inhabitants of Wallachia. If you mean Vlachs, call them Vlachs, not Wallachians. Merriam-Webster Dictionary does not even admit that Wallachians could mean Vlachs. I gather that you want to fight against a fringe view with an even more far-fetched and eccentric view. That's not the way we do things around here. Per WP:FREE, we do not seek to be jerks, but you do have to obey our rules in order to continue editing here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)