Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin

79.112.3.217 (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Keep An unsourced statement from the article ("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.") cannot be a reason for deletion. According to the historian Nicolae Stoicescu, there are 160 - 170 Romanian words of Dacian origin (the source is in the article). 79.117.186.76 (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: ISP's first edit. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Strong keep. The deletion request is based on non-sense and political agenda, constantly pushed by this user. The list name says it all "List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin". I agree it needs more work, such as newer sources and cleanup, but the user's attitude and sarcastic comments don't help in any way in that direction. If he wants to help, he should do it with an open mind and honesty. Otherwise, he should take his political agenda elsewhere. This is not the right place. All the books/authors in the Sources section treat the listed words as Dacian or Thracian. Even the titles of some of the books have it very clear in them. Ion I. Russu, Limba traco-dacilor (i.e. The language of the Thraco-Dacians); Ariton Vraciu, Limba daco-geților (i.e. The language of the Daco-Getae). Sorin Olteanu, "The TDM Palatal" ("Sorin Olteanu's Thraco-Daco-Moesian Languages Project"); The statement Moreover, its sources mainly support non-Dacian origins is a pure fabrication for the un-advised reviewer of this "deletion request". What this article really needs are inline citations from the mentioned sources plus newer, modern sources. However, the research on this field is limited in the modern times, hence, the latest good sources remain the books from Russu and others. --Codrin.B (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Strong delete although WP:Other stuff exists any "list of words" is a mini-dictionary and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides that any reference book, encyclopedia or dictionary, is for factual information not for things that someone sometime somewhere said were possible. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. (1) The article is mainly based on the work of a late 19th-century scholar (Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu) whose views have not been universally accepted. (2) That there are words in the Romanian language which are of Dacian origin is only a POV, which cannot be substantiated: there are less than a 100 documented Dacian words and none of them is attested among the Romanian words of "possible Dacian origin". Therefore these words can be of "possible Thracian origin" or of "possible Illyrian origin", as well. (3) There are many words in all languages the origin of which is uncertain, but there are no separate articles/lists for them. I think there is no need to create such lists. (4) WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Codrinb, please avoid personal attacks against Hungarian editors. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - regardless of the scientific merit of the concept, it's an idea that has had wide circulation for well over a century and has been amply covered by reliable sources. Eminescu, journalist and national poet, was keenly interested in these theories. Historia, the popular history magazine, recently published an article on the Dacians, including discussion of the words on this list. The tone indicates the list is fairly well known by the average Romanian reader. Dan Caragea, art critic with training in linguistics, recently discussed the list at length. It appears in university curricula (p.29). There's at least one book solely devoted to this topic. Yes, the book is from 1983, at a time when Protochronism was rampant, but we don't fail to cover ideas that have fallen into discredit (Alchemy, Phrenology), and this one still has some currency.
• I don't really understand the claims that this is an invalid topic. Not only has it explicitly received academic attention, but we have a whole Category:Lists of loanwords. Around 60 Lists of English words by country or language of origin! All right, there's WP:WAX to consider, but clearly the consensus is in favor of such lists in principle. Individual lists may not be worth keeping, but the general idea has been accepted.
• Finally, I agree this could use some tightening here and there, some tweaks to make various things clearer, but that is a matter for the editing process. The topic itself is a notable one, and there is no plausible reason to delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Keep Since the subject is impossible to prove 100% (that far in history nothing is 100%), hence the tittle "possible". The article needs some improving or maybe even some tittle change but that is not the reason to delete it. Keep. Adrian (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore WP is not the place of propaganda of false and silly Daco-Romanian continuity. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • • Let`s keep our personal attitude and crazy opinions for ourself. Keep to the facts. Calling a Daco-Romanian continuity propaganda or similar is just POV and has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion while ignoring some major facts. You voted delete based on absolutely nothing tangible except that you don`t believe in it...Adrian (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
      • There are no facts. That is the problem. The etymology of these words are just theories (and not to mention their counter theories)....Fakirbakir (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree with Fakirbakir. This article is a hoax, there are inconsistencies between the title and the content. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • A dictionary is a work where words are defined. The purpose of this list is not to define words, but to enumerate words supposed by some to be of Dacian origin. Moreover, if you have such a problem with the concept, feel free to start nominating for deletion the entries at Lists of English words by country or language of origin. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Keep Silly or not the Daco-Romanian continuity's theory exists, as well as the theory that some of Romanian's words are coming all the way back from Dacian. The theory is very notable, as a large sum of schoolars have poured lots of ink on works with pros and cons. The article needs improvements, but I disagree with deletion. All the best, --Silenzio76 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Delete Even though the purpose of the article seems to be to point out that the Romanian language has Dacian origin words, I tend to agree with Kitfoxxe that any list of words is essentially a type of dictionary. The main article on the Romanian language mentions the historical debate about the origin of the Romanian language, and it seems to me anything that sources from this list could add to an encyclopedia could be included there without getting too much like a dictionary. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Keep "The list is relevant for the vocabulary of Romanian language. Many works by specialists refer to words of possible Dacian origin" * Eurocentral (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)