Talk:Romania in the Early Middle Ages/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Banat, Crişana, and Transylvania on the eve of the Magyar Conquest (9th century)

I miss the ethnic theories, statements of Transylvania, Banat, Crişana at the eve of the Hungarian conquest. It just emphasized Gesta Hungarorum and nothing else. I inserted 2 theories about Transylvania but a lot of opinions are still missing there.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Fakirbakir, I fully agree with you that the Gesta Ungarorum is a tale which was invented around 1200 in order to describe the heroic struggles, around 900, of Árpád and his Hungarians against enemies whose existence in the Carpathian Basin cannot be substantiated based on 9th-10th century sources. I also fully agree with you that any reliable sources could be presented in the article. However, I think that using weasel words ("other scholars") and presenting never-proven theories ("11th century source of the Chronicon Pictum") is not the best solution. I hope that the solution I am working on and will be present would also be acceptable for you. Borsoka (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Magyars in Transylvania

"No evidence exists of Magyars crossing the Eastern Carpathians into Transylvania, or even moving from the Middle Danube region into Transylvania before the middle of the 10th"

I have to disagree. Archeological evidences exist about Hungarian presence before 950. Check the source: [1] ('Lovastemetkezések időrendje' section)Fakirbakir (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC) The presence is likely. We do not know the movements, but we can assume the Hungarian presence.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

These cemeteries have been used for decades and the first appearances of the Hungarian warriors, cavalries were from the first decades, but the burying-places were lasted -I mean riders' graves- for decades. We may establish a longer period. What should I mean "could not settle for a longer period"? The archeological findings are incomplete (unfortunately) in the first half of the 10th century, but from the middle of the 10th century, we encounter 'vast' findings in connection with Hungarian warrior's graves. I just wanted to emphasize, we can demonstrate 'Hungarian' population (warriors and common people in same graveyard)from the earlier times as opposed to Florin Curta tried to explain us.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no sharp contradiction between the above statement and Curta's claim. I think the fact that there are some warrior graves found in Kolozsvár and other places of Erdély does not mean that masses of the Hungarian population moved to the territory before the middle of the 10th century. I suggest that a reference should be made to the early Hungarian graves in Erdély (for example, based on Kristó's book or on the "History of Transylvania"). Borsoka (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've withdrawn it, but I think the lack of wide archeological researches causes the problem in Transylvania. Curta's statement is too strong too me, it would be better to use 'conditional' sentence in this case.But of course, it is just my opinion.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Köszönet! Nem kötözködni akartam, csak legyünk következetesek (még, akkor is ha csak az ökör következetes, legalábbis Bismarck szerint). I am planning to suggest a version today or tommorrow. I hope you'll have some time to comment it this week. Borsoka (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:Dacia

I think this article cannot be part of the Wikiproject:Dácia. In the Early Middle Ages, Denmark was called Dacia in written sources. Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Aurelian's withdrawal

I think this sentence should be either removed or replaced by a more realistic statement.

The withdrawal under Aurelian in 271 was largely of administrators and landowners, the poorer Dacians stayed on.[12]

First of all, the author quoted here, MacKendrick, wrote a somewhat Dacian-biased book ("The Dacian Stones Speak") which favours Romanian protochronism. There was a recurring pattern during the 1970's and 80's to employ foreign historians (most often leftist French authors) to write books supporting Romania's offical Daco-Roman protochronist ideology.

MacKendrick goes so far as to refer to the native Dacians and Moesians as being "ancient Romanians" (read the bottom of the 3rd page: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Lwt5Li_q2asC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Dacian+Stones+Speak&source=bl&ots=Q-aDj1cLkf&sig=d2YxDX0kJg2LzQCBuUNz7h2Tduo&hl=en&ei=RjVcTcyuCIyTswbLwPTvAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false).

Moreover it is ludicrous to speak about Non Romanized "poorer Dacians" living in Roman Dacia by the late 3rd century. Aurelian removed most of the Roman population to resettle the Western Balkans and this fact is supported by the majority of modern historians.

I think references coming from MacKendrick's book ought to be entirely removed from this article. Andrei nacu (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Merging

• Comment Wallachia was grown up in the Late Middle Ages. This article is about the period of Early Middle ages. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wallachia is only one of the regions now forming Romania. Borsoka (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Yes, Wallachia is just one of them. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't read the title as suggestive of a "medieval Romania", no more than I read "prehistoric France" or "slaves of Romania". True, there are a lot of jingoism and Whig history in Romanian history, but this is in itself proof of neither. And yes, though it tends to be seriously exaggerated, there was a common fluid history linking Wallachia and Moldavia and parts of other regions together culturally and socially, as much as there was gluing them politically to then-existing polities. As long as clear explanations exist in the text as to the political status of the day, there should be no real misunderstanding. Dahn (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose see Dahn's comment above. My IP is from a completely different area from any of the above editors. I would only support if the same is done for all other such articles in Wiki that apply. 76.208.183.45 (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't merge this with Wallachia either, but the problem here is clearly that there was no Wallachia during the Early Middle Ages. Let alone a "Romania". Afaik, the first state known by this name was the Principality of Romania, formed 1866. So, saying "there was no Wallachia" misses the point entirely when discussing the merit of this page's title.

Now in principle there is nothing wrong with articles like Switzerland during the Roman era, meaning the territory of what is now Switzerland during the Roman era. But since Romania even since 1866 (and unlike Switzerland) has undergone tremendous territorial fluctuations, it isn't really the best term to describe the history of Dacia during the Migration period.

• So, if my understanding correct, because Romania's territory "has undergone tremendous territorial fluctuations", no article can be written on the medieval history of Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, Bulgaria and Moldova either, since the tremendous territorial fluctuations of Romania's territory must have been a tremendous effect on the neighboring countries' territories as well. Moreover, the logical consequence of the above suggestion would be that the article History of Romania should be restricted to the period beginning with the proclamation of the new state formed by the union of Moldavia and Wallachia. For me, this approach seems to be absurd - we should not say that generations of scholars who wrote books of the history of the Czech Lands, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia or Slovania, made a "tremendous" mistake when they describe events that happened before the formation of these modern states. For example, the borders of Poland have undergone more "tremendous territorial fluctuations" than the frontiers of Romania, and similarly to Romania, Poland did not exist as an unified state for several centuries. Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A much better title for an article discussing Dacia during the Migration period would be, for example, Dacia during the Migration period.

• Is there any reliable source using the above suggested expression? Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Note also that most of this article doesn't even discuss "Romania during the Early Middle Ages", even if by "Romania" we mean "the territories which as of 2011 are part of Romania". Almost half of it discusses either Late Antiquity or the High Middle Ages.

• Please read the source of the first sentence of the article you deleted. Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Note how not a single one of the refernces cited proposes to discuss a "medieval Romania".

• Please read, for example, the books written by Georgescu and Pop (they are referred to in the sources section). Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Titles that come closest to the topic apparently envisaged here are Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages or The Early Medieval Balkans. You always need to be skeptical of articles that propose to discuss topics that are not identified under the term chosen for the article in any of the sources cited. We call this WP:SYNTH.

• I think an article could be written on the history of Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages or of the Early Medieval Balkans, similarly to articles on World History or on the History of Europe in the 11th century, but their scope would be broader than the scope of this specific article. As to the non-existence of this topic I refer to the above mentioned sources cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As long as there is no topical unity on this page, and its topic not established as a topic that has indeed been addressed under this title in quotable literature, I am afraid we are looking at a case of {{split}} and/or {{cleanup-rewrite}}. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I see your concern, however Dacia did not exist during the Migration period either. Dacia would not be a good solution in my opinion.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

yes, you see, I don't want to be a jerk about this, as the article really is quite good, it just happens to brush with a few project rules. And WP:CFORK is a more severe problem for maintaining articles than you would expect at first glance. I will be happy with any approach that at least partially addresses the concerns raised. I would suggest Dacia because it is always less of an anachronism to use old names than to use "future" names. Territories tend to continue to be referred to by their old names for centuries. I am sure if any early medieval author wrote about the area, they would have called it "Dacia". --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur but territories of Dacia and Moesia could cover 'better' that geographical area.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Dacia" is an over-flexible term, since it may refer to (1) the one time Roman province(s) to the north of the Danube (2) the one time Roman province(s) to the south of the Danube (3) the one time Roman diocese to the south of the Danube (4) the territories ruled by Burebistas or Decebal (and these territories themselves "underwent tremendous territorial fluctuations" in short periods); or even to (5) Denmark (its Medieval Latin name was "Dacia"). An again, are there reliable sources writing of the medieval history of Dacia? Borsoka (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If this is infringing on any wikiproject's rules (and here I can hardly refrain myself from asking "so what?"), then maybe those rules need to be revisited. Let's not throw the baby out with the water. Dahn (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight

The following sentence is marked with the template "", but without adding any reasoning: "The Slav raids intensified in frequency and scale from the 530s: hardly a year went by in this period without a major raids of the Slavs sometimes together with other peoples (such as Huns and Kutrigurs)." I would really appreciate some more clarification. Borsoka (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The "major yearly raids" are not supported by all scholars (see Curta 2001 for a detailed account of Slavic raids from the 530s onwards) And we don't know for sure the Slavs accompanied the Kutrigurs (on Zabergan's invasion from 558-9, see Curta 2001, p. 44-45). Daizus (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the above clarification. The following sentences are also marked with the same template: "The apparently sudden appearance in the sub-Carpathian territories of a relatively uniform material culture after a century of sparse settlement in that region, suggests the material reflection of the appearance of Slav self-identification. The new material culture, characterized by a combination of sunken huts and handmade cooking pots, resembles to early-vintage "Korchak materials" unearthed in Podolia." I am just wondering whether a view shared by a number of scholars (namely, that is the spread of a Slavic-speaking population is detectable in archaeological records by the spread of Kolchak culture) could receive "undue weight" if it has so far been challenged only by one archaeologist, namely by Florin Curta. Borsoka (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's more than associating the Slavs with Korchak culture, first and foremost there's no Korchak culture on the territory of Romania. However:

• There's no "relatively uniform" material culture "characterized by a combination of sunken huts and handmade cooking pots". At least all local archaeologists (i.e. those excavating the sites) report a mixture of handmade and wheelmade pots (often in the same settlements, same houses or even fired in the same kiln), many pots with Roman or earlier barbarian (e.g. Dacian, Carpic, Sarmatian, etc) analogies in shape or decoration. Some pots are incised with crosses or zvastikas, a fact which was correlated with Christianity or the solar cults of the steppe nomads. Also the sunken huts (Grubenhaüser) are known in the Chernyakhov culture. There's much more variety in this culture than the pots and the huts: spindle whorls, bow fibulae, pectoral crosses and so on. Many scholars argue about diversity, not about uniformity, with many elements coming from the earlier Chernyakhov culture. The persistence of older elements raises serious question marks about "the apparently sudden appearance".
• As for identification, it is a matter of debate. Some say the Slavs can be identified by handmade pottery, some say that both by handmade and wheelmade pottery, and some other say they can't be identified by pottery at all. Please note however that being identified by doesn't mean they use it for self-identification, I'm quite sure the latter is a minority viewpoint, that Slavs deliberately used pottery to say "hey, I'm a Slav, not a Gepid". Most of the pottery was exclusively for domestic usage.
• You should note that many Romanian scholars (especially before 1989) argued most (if not all) rural settlements belonged to Romanized populations ("autochthonous") (e.g. [2], not to Slavs. Daizus (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. (1) Yes, Curta argues that the term "Korchak culture" describes a phenonemon that does not exist, however, his views are not shared with scholars (Barford, Heather) who are well aware with Curta's views. (2) According to Theodor (Teodor, Dan Gh. (1980). The East Carpathian Area of Romania, V-XI Centuries A.D. BAR International Series 81., pp. 14-16.) fast-wheel pottery is "fairly rarely attested" or "very rarely attested" in the territories to the east of the Carpathians, while the technique of slow-wheel pottery changes exactly in the middle of the 6th century ("the pottery modelled in a fabric containing a large quantity of stone and stone specks is typical of the settlements of the 5th-6th centuries and only rarely contains a smaller percentage of crushed sherds, while the vessels dating from the second half of the 6th century and the first half of the 7th century are exclusively made of a paste whose composition consists only of stone specks and crushed sherds"). (3) Crosses, crosses followed by "tails", swasticas incised on vessels may have or may have not represent a religious symbolism. Nevertheless, according to Teodor (Teodor, Eugen S. (2005). The Shadow of a Frontier: The Wallachian Plain during the Justinianic Age. In. Curta, Florin: Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis: Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. ISBN 2-503-51529-0, p. 243.) "there is no doubt that signs incised on pots, spindle-whorls, and other categories of artefacts to convey messages of Christian faith must be seen in connection with that frontier" (i.e. the Lower Danube) "since such evidence is rare on contemporary sites in Ukraine, Poland, or Slovakia" - so such symbolism is not a unique feature of sites in Romania, but such symbolism have been found in other Slavic-settled regions as well. (4) Maybe those "many scholars" arguing "about diversity, not about uniformity" should be cited. (5) Yes the earlier cultures are also characterized by sunken-huts, however, sunken-floored huts with a hearth built of stones and placed in one of the corners is a new phenomenon. (6) Hand-made pottery, in itself, cannot be identified with Slavs. However, the features of a new culture (buildings, pottery and other artifacts, cremation rite) spreading in the vast territories of Eastern, Southeastern and Central Europe where the presence of Slavic-speaking population is well attested by written sources and toponyms suggest that this culture represent the spread of the Slavs. Yes, in such a huge territory local variants developed and existed during the centuries, but the main features were stable. (7) Yes, it is an interesting characteristic of Romanian archaeology, that it tends to identify Romanized elements even in territories that were not dominated by the Roman Empire for more than about 12-30 years - mainly based on coins and wheel-made pottery. Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's not about Curta here. Few (if any?) scholars extend the Korchak culture to territories that are today Romania.

Would you, please, name at least some of those scholars and the sources written by them. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow you. To name scholars for what? Daizus (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• According to Eugen Teodor, south of Carpathians the 6-7th century pottery is ~50% handmade, ~50% wheelmade.

Would you, please, cite his work. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• According to the same author, the crosses and zwastikas are religious symbols.

I do not deny that he thinks the crosses, crosses followed by tails and swastikas are religious symbols. However, the same author states that these symbols are not absent from territories inhabited by Slavic peoples (Slovakia, etc.; I refer to his work and its page referred to above) Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• Eugen Teodor, Dan Gh. Teodor, Florin Curta are just three of those arguing about diversity. South of Carpathians there's the so-called Ipoteşti-Cândeşti culture. East of Carpathians Costişa-Botoşana, Suceava-Şipot and others. It was argued these cultures were more diverse than these name would suggest. So who are the scholars saying this territory in 6-7th century is covered by one material culture and what's their expertise? (e.g. are they able at least to read Romanian, to read the excavation reports?). And if there's such view, we can represent it, but what's the name of this mysterious archaeological culture?

Would you, please, cite Eugen Teodor's work about diversity. Yes, he states that "more research is needed" to demonstrate the cohabitation of the natives and the Slavs. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time and access right now, but see the Origin of Romanians article for several points and citations, and also below. If I reckon correctly, Teodor argues northern Moldavia cannot be the homeland of the Slavs because it was culturally too diverse and the conclusion of that study was an emphasis on the diversity and the dichotomies in the material culture of Wallachia in Justinianic age. On the other hand, you still did not provide the name of this allegedly uniform culture. Would you please tell me its name so we can check together if it's suppported by scholars? Daizus (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• In the lowlands the ovens are not built from stone, but from clay. And these ovens are absent from many other "Slavic" terriories.

You are right. In the lowlands the ovens are not built of stone, but of clay. However, otherwise building with ovens built in the corners represent a new phenomenon. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Eugen Teodor this phenomenon starts in the 5th century, before the apparition of Slavs in literary sources. Daizus (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• If anything is characteristic for the material cultures of 6-7th century Romania is not stability, but the opposite. See the study you cited by Eugen Teodor.

Would you, please, cite sentences based on his work that support the above view. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time and access right now, but see the Origin of Romanians article for several points and citations, and also below. Daizus (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• True, but wheelmade pottery with shape and volume analogies in the Roman world. I fail to see why 'Slavic pottery' is a valid concept, but 'Roman pottery' isn't? Either Curta is right and pottery shape is quasi-irrelevant, or else, if one searches for 'Slavic pottery', then this article should acknowledge a large part of the pottery is 'Roman' or 'Dacian' or 'Sarmatian', not 'Slavic'. Daizus (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, read again Teodor's work. He does not state that locally made pottery from the period following the middleg of the 6th century represent Dacian, Roman, Sarmatian tradition. There is no "Slavic pottery", there is an archaeological culture characterized by specific buildings, hand-made pottery and cremation rite which is a typical representative of arhcaeological assemblages in the territories inhabited, according to written sources and toponyms, by Slavic speaking peoples. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I am very familiar with his work, especially with his PhD thesis on pottery traditions in 6-7th century Wallachia (written in Romanian). I don't have time and access now to search for all relevant citations, but you can check the Origin of Romanians article, the Archaeology section, where Eugen Teodor is reference for the following paragraph:

In a large perspective above all Ipoteşti-Cândeşti sites, exactly half of its pottery is handmade.[74] The missing homogeneity is operating also at the design level: the morphologies with arguably Roman analogies are rising to 90% in Oltenia, 66% for western Muntenia, but only to 25% in some of the Bucharest sites. [74]

Can you name a Slavic toponym attested in 6-7th centuries on the territory of modern Romania? Daizus (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My question is still valid. Based on Curta's opposite view, can any view supported by at least two scholars receive "undue weight"? Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not a valid question. This is not about Curta, but about virtually all archaeologists (Peter Heather is not one, Paul Barford is the exception so far) finding a material culture which is diverse, not uniform as the article claims. Daizus (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I do accept your claim on your knowledge of Teodor's work. However, unfortunatelly, an article cannot be written based on faith. Therefore, I must ask you to name those archaeologists and would you refer to their work - I think if all archaeologists share the above claim, it would not take many time to cite some of them. Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now access to all my books and materials. Relative to the new culture, its presumed uniformity and its characteristic markers (sunken huts, handmade pottery), from Teodor 2005 (cited by Borsoka above):

• on pottery shapes south of Carpathians, p. 216: As for archaeologists from neighbouring Slavic-speaking countries, they seem to have taken from summaries in foreign languages whatever happened to match their own interpretations. As a consequence, in most studies dedicated to this problem and published abroad, Muntenia appears as part of the great Slavic Urheimat.[Barford's Early Slavs is also mentioned in the footnote here] However, there is not much to support such claims. First and foremost, the handmade pots found in sixth-century assemblages from southern Romania have nothing in common with the Slavic pottery of that same age. For example, the average rim angle (measured from the neck diameter) is 94 degrees for Ukrainian specimens, 96 for those found in Poland, 98 for Slovakia, 99 degrees for Bohemia, but 109 degrees for Muntenia. The average vessel capacity is 3.138 litres in Korchak (Ukraine), 3.685 litres for Polish sites, 4.104 litres for Slovakia, but just 2.6 litres for Muntenia.
• on pottery traditions south of Carpathian, p. 216-221: In Oltenia Romanization was an accomplished fact by 500. There are just a few shapes (under ten percent of the corpus) of Dacian tradition, most others are of clearly Roman inspiration. Moreover, the vessel volumes in this part of Walachia seem to follow Roman units of capacity with morphological distinctions thus corresponding to functional groups (vessels for storage of liquids, vessels for storage of solid food, or kitchen vessels) most familiar from the traditional Roman table- or kitchenware. Across the Olt River, in western Muntenia, about two thirds of all vessels have shapes of Roman tradition, but a significant number of much older forms go back to either the Dacian or the Sarmatian pottery of the first centuries AD. [...] Each settlement excavated in Bucharest represents a separate case. Ever since 1958, it has become fashionable to treat the Ciurel settlement as some kind of power centre of the migratory Slavs. To be sure, Ciurel is not the best choice for that distinction. If anything, the ceramic assemblage from this small site points to a much-isolated community. Most shapes are of Roman tradition, but with only few direct analogies in contemporary assemblages. Moreover, most analogies are with assemblages in western Muntenia (especially with Dulceanca 2), not with neighbouring settlements on the territory of modern Bucharest. Judging of from the ceramic evidence, it look as if each community chose to recycle the Roman repertoire of vessel shapes according to its own rules or tastes. [...] The cluster of settlements in the Colentina valley displays a comparatively small number of shapes of Roman tradition. At Bucharest-Soldat Ghivan Street, vessels of Roman inspiration represent no more than two fifths of the entire assemblage, with the remaining vessels divided between Dacian and Sarmatian traditions (most typical for the Walachian Plain) and an eastern influence that can be distinguished only to the east of the Colentina River. The strongest presence of the latter was identified at Străuleşti-Lunca and Străuleşti-Măicăneşti. Most typical for these two settlements are hand-made, tall pots whose direct analogies are to be found in the ceramic repertoire of the Carpian culture.
• on houses, p. 228: There is also the fairly old debate about houses and house 'types', whether or not any one of them could be attributed to the migratory Slavs alone. In my opinion, the only thing that came from the Lower Dnieper steppes were the strong winter winds, but by now the debate is deadlocked.
• on pottery north-east of Carpathianbs (Raskov), p. 229: The analysis of the ceramic assemblages of this large settlement showed multiple links with several other sites, both east and west. Rashkov has the largest number of links with remote sites and presents, perhaps, the greatest openness to outside influences among all sixth- to seventh-century sites taken into consideration in this analysis. There are many features reminiscent of the pottery from assemblages in Korchak, on sites in southern Poland and in eastern Germany, or of the so-called Pen’kovka culture. Despite such variety, one particular feature of the Rashkov pottery is that almost every vessel has a short, peculiarly enlarged foot. There are almost no analogies in Ukraine for this particular feature. The only other examples of vessel feet are in Korchak, but these are comparatively much higher feet. Rashkov’s unique position within the ‘Slavic world’ may be explained only in reference to previous archaeological cultures in the area, none of which, however, could be associated with the Slavs.
• on pottery east of Carpathians (Botoşana ), p. 230: On the other side of the Ukrainian-Romanian border, the site at Botoşana presents an equally complex picture. In Romania, the site is known for having given its name to the Costişa- Botoşana culture, which allegedly represents the local population before the arrival of the Slavs. The hallmark of this culture is the wheel-made pottery of clear Roman traditions, in terms of both technology and shape. By contrast, the handmade pottery has a number of analogies on a variety of sites in Eastern Europe. But almost half of all shapes identified at Botoşana have no analogies anywhere else, which suggests the existence of some local traditions of yet unspecified character.
• more on pottery north-east and east of Carpathians, p. 231-232: Unlike all other sites in Bukovina, the ceramic assemblages at Kodyn have no link with the ‘Slavic world’. The existing evidence points to a community almost isolated from the changing cultural landscape in the region. A very slow tendency towards uniformity of vessel shapes can be identified only for the late seventh and early eighth centuries. The same is true in general lines for another site of the Ukrainian-Romanian border, Suceava-Şipot. Due to the limited number of excavated assemblages, it is not possible to establish the network of possible links between this and other contemporary sites. Much like Kodyn, however, Suceava-Şipot displays a solid inclination towards shapes of Dacian and Sarmatian tradition. By contrast, the small excavation at Dolheştii Mari produced sufficient evidence pertaining to a group of newcomers, most likely without any contacts with the local population.
• the conclusion of the above discussion is: Judging from the existing evidence, therefore, Bukovina was not the 'homeland of the Slavs', but a region of great cultural complexity, in which traditions existed side by side, with different degrees of fusion. The archaeological evidence suggests that a process of ethnic synthesis was on its way, but it is not clear when that process ended, if at all.
• about the large cemetery at Sărata Monteoru and the its presumed 'Slavic pottery', p. 237: If we admit, for an instant, that all cremations found in the northern Balkans are Slavic and try to apply the same line of reasoning to Sărata Monteoru, the latter still has a disproportionately higher number of pit graves. And if urn graves are burials of Slavic warriors, it is hard to explain why most urn shapes have no analogies anywhere else.
• and I could go on and on, but let's skip to the conclusion of the paper, p. 243: Archaeology confirms this record of ambiguity [about Wallachia during the age of Justinian]: the pottery is of Roman tradition but of ‘barbarian’ fabric; the settlements indicate a sedentary population, but all ephemeral; in archaeological terms, the ‘Romance population’ looks barbarian and the ‘barbarians’ Roman; the inhabitants of the Ipoteşti-Cândeşti villages were Christian, but practiced cremation; on feasts they took out their pots decorated with crosses, while wearing ‘Slavic’ bow fibulae or Roman brooches with bent stem, depending upon circumstances.

Are these citations enough to justify the neutrality issues I see with the section on Early Slavs on the territory of Romania, and their new uniform culture marked by handmade pots and sunken huts? Daizus (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hold on

Yet again, two valuable editors are consumed by edit-warring in an article that was once recognized content. 1) You need to stop reverting each other; 2) It does seem like Borsoka makes a valid point about the prevalence of scholarship; if it were after me, I'd go with attributing the opinions and citing both. But, lo, Daizus, you have yet to cite (down to page number) at least one version that contradicts the one selected by Borsoka. Please do so in the near future, or leave the tag out of the article. (Btw, I trust the citation will be to something more solid that a PhD cite, because that type of sourcing is, ahem, in the "so and so, better not" category...) Dahn (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your "intervention". I think it is obvious that the two sentences challenged by Daizus should be changed, since an expert on the subject suggests it. However, I would not like to accept declarations, because it would contradict to our policies. Borsoka (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have right now the time available to provide all the citations Borsoka requested above, on several different issues (however on a quick Google search: [3], all the article is relevant for our debate above, but for some sort of summary see p. 112-113). However:

• "once recognized content" - by whom? Do the "recognition" criteria include expert opinions? Currently the section doesn't even reflect the current bibliography of the article (e.g. Curta 2001, whose book is largely ignored because, according to Borsoka, that book represents a minority view).

Please read more carefully the footnotes. Curta is cited six times. It is true that Curta 2001 is cited only twice, because the four other citations are based on one of his later books. Borsoka (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read more carefully what I write. Curta is not cited at all to balance Barford's view about the Early Slavic material culture. Daizus (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• The same subject is covered in the Origin of Romanians (where Borsoka was a main contributor), section 6.4.2. Why the sections read so different? One of them is clearly biased and selective in information.

Please remember that those section in the article Origin of Romanians was rather fairly rewritten. Borsoka (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And if there are significant content differences between these two articles, what should we do? Where can we read a more accurate and neutral description of the material cultures of Early Middle Ages Romania (in particular the 'Slavic' ones) and what article should we correct and improve? Daizus (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I asked Borsoka two times already what's the name of this 'uniform material culture' he postulated for Early Middle Ages Romania. No answer yet, though allegedly he used the proper citations and his content is a fair reflection of the available literature.

Although I have not realized that the above question has been raised, I have already answered it: "Korchak". Borsoka (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Korchak culture does not cover the territory of modern Romania. See the Wiki article, its bibliography, and also the Heather citations provided by Fakirbakir. Daizus (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please read again the same citations from Heather's book. Borsoka (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please read again the same citations from Heather's book. Daizus (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• As a side note, many articles created or expanded by Borsoka lack adequate citations (he cites books, not pages). There are tons of unverified material added by him, but he tasks me to provide mountains of evidence when I find his presentation incomplete, to say the least. WP:GAME is an euphemism for what he's doing here. Daizus (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please refer to one sentence in this specific article which lacks adequate citation. Otherwise, historically you may be right: in 2008 and 2009 I ignored references to pages, but from 2010 I think there is no edition made by me without proper reference to pages. Borsoka (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Citing a book, but not a page is inadequate. Origin of Romanians is tagged also because of this. Daizus (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please try to read the answers before re-answering them. Would you please refer to one sentence in this specific article which lacks adequate citation. Borsoka (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please read my answers before replying to me? Why would I refer to a sentence in this article? Daizus (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The 'problematic' sentence from Barford's book:

• "The apparently fairly sudden appearance of a relatively uniform material culture in the fifth century after the collapse of the classical Cherniakhovo Culture (together with its subsequent spread into areas of central Europe where we know from written sources that Slavs were penetrating) suggests that we can see here a material reflection of the appearance of Slav self-identification. "

The 'problematic' sentences from Heater's book:

• "Curta also attacks Rusanova's conclusions, arguing that the Korchak materials of the sub-Carpathian region are older than their equivalents in Polesie and hence could not derive from them."
• "It is only natural to suppose that the appearance of Vendedi-derived Slavs in the sub-Carpathian region around or just after the year 500 was the result of migration from the north."
• "The type-site of Korchak itself was one of her excavations and led her to change Borkovsky's original 'Prague' label to Korchak for the characteristic combination of sunken huts and handmade cooking pots on the basis of its claimed anteriority."
• "The Polesian Korchak materials certainly postdate their equivalents south of the Carpathians. It is also very likely that somewhere in the Carpathian system is the correct zone in which to place the origins of at least those Slavs who ended up in an east Roman orbit in the sixth century."
• "Another recent view proposed first by Volodymyr Baran and taken further by Polish archeologists of the so-called Cracow school, suggest that we should perhaps be looking more to the north-east. Here in modern Podolia, large quantities of early vintage Korchak materials (much earlier than those of Polesie still further to the north-east) have been unearthed."Fakirbakir (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the concept of "undue weight". If we can't work it sentence by sentence, then maybe you'll find a solution for the section as a whole.

Also, now that we have the citations, it's obvious this article engages in blatant plagiarism. "Once recognized", Dahn? Daizus (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Those 2 sentences by Borsoka are proper conclusions from Heather's and Barford's theories. It is not plagiarism. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, please read carefully WP:CV and WP:PLAG and WP:PARAPHRASE. Check for example Borsoka's "The apparently sudden appearance in the sub-Carpathian territories of a relatively uniform material culture after a century of sparse settlement in that region, suggests the material reflection of the appearance of Slav self-identification" vs Barford's "The apparently fairly sudden appearance of a relatively uniform material culture in the fifth century after the collapse of the classical Cherniakhovo Culture (together with its subsequent spread into areas of central Europe where we know from written sources that Slavs were penetrating) suggests that we can see here a material reflection of the appearance of Slav self-identification". Anyway, does Barford write anything of sub-Carpathians and a century of sparse settlement?Daizus (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please again check the two footnotes to the sentences you have deleted: the first one was based not purely on Barford's book. Borsoka (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please read more carefully again WPs you referred to above before stating that "this article engages in blatant plagiarism". Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Like Dahn below, you seem not to be familiar with Wikipedia's policies. A form of plagiarism which is not allowed is "[i]nserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text." As the policy explains it: "Here the editor is not trying to pass the work off as his own, but it is still regarded as plagiarism, because the source's words were used without in-text attribution. The more of the source's words that were copied, and the more distinctive the phrasing, the more serious the violation. Adding in-text attribution ("John Smith argues ...") always avoids accusations of plagiarism, though it does not invariably avoid copyright violations. Make sure the material being copied or closely paraphrased is not too long if the work is copyrighted. A few words would rarely be problematic." (See WP:PARAPHRASE about close paraphrasing)

In my example above on Barford, you copied his sentence word by word, changing too little. Your argument that it was "not purely on Barford's book" suggests WP:OR. On what grounds did you add "sub-Carpathians" and "after a century of sparse settlement" instead of Barford's "fifth century"? Also if the your last two consecutive edits are like that and if you're unaware this is a problem, how about your earlier edits? Were they verified? Were your edits verified when you supplied citations lacking page numbers? Daizus (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please read the answers on your accusations before re-answering them. Borsoka (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you please read my answers before replying to me? Daizus (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Daizus, to clarify my point: recognized content in the sense that this was promoted to Good Article status. This was done based on the quality standards of wikipedia, not necessarily of research, so whether or not it [also] satisfies [some] researchers is in fact irrelevant on that point (remember WP:OR and the golden rule of WP:V?). Now, I cannot guarantee that the article doesn't also have other flaws, and I should not be expected to - just because I pointed out that the current text does meet wikipedia specifications, whereas your edits, it seems to me, are misinterpretations and misapplications of the "undue weight" policy (to wit, WP:GAME as invoked above by you). Precisely because one is not supposed to address a potential and unproven POV supposedly existing out there in the world, as long as there is solid source backing the info. You can simply address that by proving the existence of other theories, and Borsoka has indicated that she sees no problem with it being added to the article - though I suspect what you aim for is not for the other version to be added, as much as it is for this one to be removed... Now, you respond to this [mild] objection of mine by raising other issues: plagiarism allegations, which may or may not be accurate, and which are certainly irrelevant to the issue the three (four?) of us have been debating. How do you expect the debate to move forward? Dahn (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• And frankly: prima facie, the claim of plagiarism seems frivolous. The quotes you mention are not that similar (just how many ways can someone cite anything that precise in that affixed a jargon?), and your claim is contradicted by your own parallel assessment that unverified info was "added" into the quoted phrase: presuming that Borsoka has stated in one phrase what could be found over several phrases of the source text, which may just as well be the case, the result would be neither plagiarism nor original research. Might I remind you of WP:AGF at this point? Dahn (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You're trolling, Dahn. You should remind yourself of WP:AGF since your intervention on this page is just to throw unfounded accusations at me.

"Once recognized" content is mostly about formal standards. The text was not truly verified, nor that the citations support the allegations made in the article, nor that text does not plagiarize the cited works, nor that the article's content is neutral and representative. "Undue weight" is a legitimate concern, if other known views are ignored (Borsoka acknowledged their existence and even created content based on them, I also added a citation to the fact, so I don't really have to prove anything more)

Your "suspicion" is unfounded and ludicrous and frankly in bad faith. I added Barford in a quote, so how exactly is my aim to remove information, and how exactly does WP:GAME apply to what I did (my evil purpose was to replace Borsoka's skillful prose with a quote from that book or what?)

As for the plagiarism case, it's not about "may be or may be not", it is. If you can't follow a paragraph to its source when it's copied word by word, with few words changed here and there, or if you are not familiar with the copyvio policies, or if you don't know what is jargon and what is not, then please stay away of this page and of this debate. Daizus (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have made one single accusation against you, Daizus. I have just called your rationale above spurious, at least until you back it with some evidence, and I have pointed out that you're misinterpreting wikipedia guidelines - whether this is done on purpose or innocently doesn't concern me. In short: you are being unfair. And let's not get dragged into a massive tu quoque, please, but rather focus on the content issue.

For starters, there are no "allegations" in the article, as there couldn't be any such in this topic of research. Nobody here states "true" or "untrue" facts, just various accounts of something that couldn't possibly be of direct relevancy to people living at this time. I took part in verifying this article, and so none of the major issues you claim are evident - true, I did not check it sentence by sentence, but neither was I required to (or, indeed, could). Neither did the person who actually took charge of reviewing the text against the GA criteria. As for what Borsoka acknowledged: the point is that you may be right, you just have to prove your point by citing sources, not "in theory". Do that, and we'll have something to talk about. In any case, the one version you contest need not be removed from the article once you cite another point of view - that is simply not an option.

I note that your addition happened after the discussion above, which goes to show that it was some good to bring it up. Thank you. Now, since you also added Curta, what problem do you still find with the text? What other opinions do we need for a neutral text, and when do you plan on actually revealing them?

Also, you assume that Borsoka plagiarized or modified quoted text, and I assume that (s)he didn't, then you accuse me of condoning the supposed breaches of policy because I apply AGF. The inflammatory comments at the end of your post really are trolling: make sure you reread the above, and see what I actually mean. You imply that everyone opposing you lacks competence or has an agenda, because they do not assume bad faith. I say relax already: even if you're right, it doesn't help your position to take the combative stance on such a trite issue. Not that I planned to add much to this debate for now (simply because I have other things to do), but I do get off talk pages when I wish to, not when Daizus attempts to intimidate me. As for WP:GAME, which you invoked: citing a wikipedia rule against its spirit is an attempt at gaming the system; in this case, undue weight for not reflecting a supposed POV, which is how you were formulating the issue what I first posted my reply. Dahn (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So what are the examples proving that your statement "this article engages in blatant plagiarism" is based on fact. Borsoka (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we should develop this article. I think repeating accusations against other editors that are seemingly not the best established is not the best solution. Any of us can edit this article, none of use is in the position to create a perfect article alone, therefore your contribution would be wellcome. Borsoka (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Borsoka,

I agree we should develop this article, but so far you showed to be unexpectedly hostile when I signaled some content has neutrality issues. When I questioned some days ago about the uniform culture Barford is talking about, your edit was a WP:SYNTH (to say the least, see my analysis below) and eventually you tried to hide away the issues, by removing as fast as possible the incriminating tags. This is not collaboration, but WP:OWN and violation of many other policies, eventually promoting flawed content but make the article look good. If this is what you're after, then I'm not your man. Daizus (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dahn,

Many edits are allegations, since we have to assume (per WP:AGF) the content is reflecting some cited authoritative views. For instance, Borsoka alleges Heather describes Barford's "new material culture", however on a closer look it doesn't seem to be so.

I did invoke undue weight because that section was not neutral, so WP:GAME does not apply to what I did. If you fail to follow me, then it's a question of competence, because I also provided citations and many other arguments (ignored by you, fortunately not all ignored by Borsoka). Since I already cited some sources, I don't care if you troll and you repeat ad nauseam I didn't.

I removed the content per WP:CV and WP:PLAG, not per WP:POV, so stop the WP:GAME. And I added Barford's quote not "after" the discussion above, it's ludicrous to lie when scripta manent: you have accused me that I removed a certain POV after I added that quote. WP:COMPETENCE applies again, if you wage a crusade against me without some basic fact-checking.

I don't assume the edits are plagiarisms or original research, I show them to be so. If you fail to recognize it (because you want this article to keep the GA status or whatever other reason) and instead you bring spurious rhetoric counter-arguments, it is again a question of competence, regardless if you find it inflammatory or not. Just because I question your competence in some issues, it doesn't mean it's related to your opposing position - unfounded accusation. As for agendas - just another unfounded accusation.

I did not intimidate you to leave this page, I said "please stay away" if you lack the competence (whether it's about knowledge, willingness or whatever). Can you argue without resorting to straw men? And I am not combative to "help my position", but to point out some serious issues (lack of neutrality, plagiarism, original research). Promoting biased views (e.g. by suppressing 'undue weight' tags, as done by Borsoka and Fakirbakir) to penalize my attitude is WP:POINT. Daizus (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the development of that section, I don't have full access to e-books and other resources for several more days. I also do not have the books cited by Borsoka and based on the citations provided, the Heather-Barford synthesis was flawed. The section is not neutral, simply because it does not reflect the available literature on Early Slavs on the territory of modern Romania. Meanwhile, make sure you're ready to acknowledge and fix the problems. To be sure, that is not the section with problems, but the section where we stuck since I asked Borsoka to detail Barford's view. Daizus (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism - a case study

Borsoka: The apparently sudden appearance in the sub-Carpathian territories of a relatively uniform material culture after a century of sparse settlement in that region, suggests the material reflection of the appearance of Slav self-identification.

Barford: The apparently fairly sudden appearance of a relatively uniform material culture in the fifth century after the collapse of the classical Cherniakhovo Culture (together with its subsequent spread into areas of central Europe where we know from written sources that Slavs were penetrating) suggests that we can see here a material reflection of the appearance of Slav self-identification.

The text in bold was copied word by word. The sentence has the same structure and all the copied words are in the same order. The only arguably jargon term is "material culture". "In the sub-Carpathian territories" and "after a century of sparse settlement in the region" may be WP:OR (Borsoka argued that paragraph was not purely based on Barford's book). Actually the latter arguably is, because there was not a word about 5th century material culture in this section, and all the other claims refer to the 6th and the 7th centuries, suggesting to the readers Barford too had the 6th century in mind, whereas he referred to the 5th. I considered this paragraph a blatant plagiarism of the cited work and I removed it per WP:CV and WP:PLAG. It was claimed this is not a case of plagiarism, but:

• by Fakirbakir: "the proper conclusions of [...] Barford's theories"
• by Dahn: "not that similar"
• by Dahn: "how many ways can someone cite anything that precise in that affixed a jargon?"

Please defend your views. And please read WP:PARAPHRASE and look at the example provided there. Daizus (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Your removing was incorrect. It is definitely not plagiarism. A conclusion have to be based on reliable sources and this subject has a very specific jargon. We would have to remove half of the wikipedia contents if we labeled it for plagiarism. Moreover, your cited sentence is based on Heather's (sub-Carpathian territories) and Barford's works.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

How is "apparently sudden appearance" (for example) specific jargon?

"In the sub-Carpathian territories" may be WP:SYNTH (Borsoka must reveal the actual source for the addition), combining the paragraph above with this one from Heather: Curta also attacks Rusanova's conclusions, arguing that the Korchak materials of the sub-Carpathian region are older than their equivalents in Polesie and hence could not derive from them.

Let's review also the Heather-sourced paragraph:

Borsoka: The new material culture, characterized by a combination of sunken huts and handmade cooking pots, resembles to early-vintage Korchak materials unearthed in Podolia.

Heather: The type-site of Korchak itself was one of her excavations and led her to change Borkovsky's original 'Prague' label to Korchak for the characteristic combination of sunken huts and handmade cooking pots on the basis of its claimed anteriority.

Heather: Here in modern Podolia, large quantities of early vintage Korchak materials (much earlier than those of Polesie still further to the north-east) have been unearthed.

I also think it's plagiarism, even though the words are not always in the same order, and occasionally copied with slight changes (e.g. 'characteristic' was rephrased as 'characterized by'). Also a serious issue with this second paragraph is WP:SYNTH: in the first instance Heather is not referring to Borsoka's "new material culture" but to the site of Korchak itself. Arguably it be extended to the entire Korchak culture, or even to Korchak materials. But I see no claims from Heather concerning the uniform material culture "in the sub-Carpathian region". To be sure, we have citations in other articles that would contradict such a position (e.g. see above on wheelmade pottery). Daizus (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As I see,

1,I cited a few sentences from the books and you want to operate with them. 2, We should check the full text of the books before accusations 3, Presumably you did not read these books, sorry, but it seems this was the first time when you did read those statements 4, you could not defend your allegations with reliable sources before (Borsoka asked you at least 4 times for proper citations) 5, you may have misconception about plagiarism 6, You try to accuse others instead of defending your statements in connection with the topic.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

1. They are evidence for plagiarism, I did not create content based on those citations. 2. Sure, maybe we can find more plagiarism and original research and whatever other sloppy work made by editors. 3. See 1. 4. I did defend my allegations and I also provided citations, at least twice on this page. 5. I quoted the policy already. If you can't understand sentences like "The more of the source's words that were copied, and the more distinctive the phrasing, the more serious the violation. " is not my fault. 6. I did not assert anything about the quality of Borsoka's edits (yet :P), therefore your accusations are ungrounded. 0. So your only argument to defend the plagiarism is that "I may have misconceptions"? Daizus (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is ridiculous. Please try to compile it in another way with the same meaning: "combination of sunken huts and handmade cooking pots" Fakirbakir (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"settlements with sunken huts (sunken floored buildings, pit houses, Grubenhäuser) and handmade pottery (pots, ceramics, earthenware)", "the inhabitants lived in sunken huts and produced handmade pottery", etc. It's even easier to rephrase the non-jargon verbiage. Daizus (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Cooking pot is not the same as 'pottery', It is more specific and If you want to use pottery it will sound dilettante and your approach can eventuate 'neverending' long articles (explanation of every words).....Fakirbakir (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Curta (quoted by Heather on 'Korchak materials') uses "pottery". Curta is an archaeologist, Heather is a historian. Is Curta a dilettante? Or are you a dilettante, lacking the most basic knowledge on the subject, and parroting but not understanding the sources? Just because you have no idea how to rephrase and compile scholarly materials, it doesn't mean this is not possible. Just google for "Korchak handmade pottery" and see what you can find. Daizus (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal attack (WP:NPA). You could not compile it in another way properly('Cooking pot' is an exact kitchen cooking tool, yeah a kind of 'pottery') . Instead, you just offend others without valid reason. It is pretty straightforward. And you used "sunken huts" and "handmade" words. It is 'plagiarism'........Fakirbakir (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

What personal attack? Are you not a dilettante? Are you not parroting the sources and avoid any attempt to understand and compile the information in a new and meaningful way? If you're offended when you're called a dilettante, why did you use this word to describe my suggestion? Of course we can compile it many other ways, just google for sources on Korchak, and you'll see plenty of references to "handmade pottery" instead of "handmade cooking pots".

As for "sunken huts" (but you can use any other synonym) and "handmade" as plagiarisms, this is just WP:POINT. Please read the policies, as you were already told, and stop using this page like a forum for endless and misguided argumentations. Daizus (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this issue seems more wide-spread than I thought. While reading the archaeology section of the Origin of Romanians article, with this issue in mind it seemed to me that some passages have unusual wording and unexpected changes of style. Some quick checks confirmed my concerns. One example:

Borsoka: From the second half of the 6th century, there is a significant cluster of vessels with finger impressions or notches on the lip east of the Carpathians, while stamped decoration is especially abundant within the Carpathian Basin.

Curta: There is a significant cluster of vessels with finger impressions or notches east of the Carpathians, while stamped decoration is especially abundant within the Carpathian Basin. The earliest specimens of handmade pottery with finger impressions or notches on the lip were found in association with artefacts of the second half of the sixth century.

Another one:

Borsoka: The analysis of coin finds from the Balkans and from Romania suggests that between 545 and 565, precisely at the time of the Sclavene raids stopped, there was an interruption of the coin circulation north and south of the Danube frontier. This interruption was accompanied by a sharp decline in the quantity of goods of Roman provenance, which may have until then been obtained by means of trade.

Curta: The analysis of coin finds from the Balkans and from Romania suggests that between 545 and 565, precisely at the time of the Sclavene raids stopped, there was an interruption of the coin circulation north and south of the Danube frontier. This interruption was accompanied by a sharp decline in the quantity of goods of Roman provenance, which may have until then been obtained by means of trade and used as prestige goods.

And since I was reminded repeatedly how Borsoka cited Curta, here's another example for this article (allegedly a GA and properly verified):

Borsoka: In the 6th–7th centuries, most, if not all, settlements were occupied only for brief periods, then abandoned and new settlements established nearby. What caused this shifting of hamlets must have been the itinerant form of agriculture practiced by their inhabitants and requiring that lands under cultivation be left fallow after a number of years of cultivation without manuring.

Curta: This seems to indicate that most, if not all, sites had been occupied only for brief periods, then abandoned and new settlements established nearby. [...] What caused this shifting of hamlets must have been the itinerant form of agriculture practiced by their inhabitants and requiring that lands under cultivation be left fallow after a number of years of cultivation without manuring.

I'll make a list to provide adequate evidence and then escalate the issue to see what's to be done about this editor and the affected content. Daizus (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Daizus, I won't continue the debate a section above, because it's clear to me that my intentions of not seeing you both face admin sanctions for an edit war, and of trying to mediate an understanding, have been interpreted as contentious and partisan remarks. I still suggest you should relax. And cut me some slack, would you?

That said, the above samples are indeed a concern, and if this close paraphrasing is shown to have accumulated in the article, then I do believe we have a potential plagiarism issue. Borsoka, I think you should consider explaining yourself. Dahn (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And what if he(she) used same sentences sometimes? OMG..How dare...., :P He (she) is a very diligent editor. Anyway please help him to rewrite it. That is all. Those sentences are important statements. A lot of editors change the rewrited sentence to the original because they do not like the new compositions.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we're not supposed to be doing that, and I never did it and never will. What's more, when I AGFed on the text and copyedited it while it was being reviewed, I made various changes - had I realized the problem, I myself would have done something about it back then: whether it be changing the phrasing or reporting the issue. Please accept that this is no bagatelle. Dahn (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I can not find these sentences in the present text at the page of Origin of Romanians. I found only the 'cluster of vessels with...' part, however this statement has a very specific vocabulary.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My list is slowly growing. I really wonder why Borsoka asked for examples. His/her imposture is exposed precisely because of his/her hostile attitude. Otherwise who'd spend time to check so many edits and citations (and we have WP:AGF)? Daizus (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter what happened in 2009.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure it does. Those 2009 edits are still in the current version of the article (check Current column in my list). It won't be only my decision, but I guess this article will be either deleted or reverted to its pre-Jan 2009 state. As for practice, Borsoka last did it when he/she added Heather's views (Sep 2011). Daizus (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, for not intervening into the above discussion for some days, but I have had no time until now. I think the article should be slightly rewritten. Although it does not contain OR, it properly refer to the cited reliable sources (including the exact pages of the sources), moreover neither has it been proven that any text in the article received undue weight, plagiarism might be supposed: there is a very narrow path between OR and plagiarism, thus even bona fide editing may be attacked on either the former or the latter bases. My question is, how this possible problem could be fixed? I would like to thank Daizus and Fakirbakir to help to collect the "suspectful" cases. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I did prove the undue weight. See [4].

I also proved the OR in the case of Heather and I eventually quoted Barford to eliminate both the plagiarism and your original synthesis. The plagiarism is not to be supposed, it is obvious and endemic in your articles. Given your mala fides, I will grow that list until it will be enough to trigger sanctions. Daizus (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Good work. If there is a case of proven bad faith plagiarism, it is important to be sanctioned. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion good faith is to admit the deed and eventually help in fixing the problems created: at least by providing lists of edits and citations (some materials will be probably reverted on the whole, even though some sections could be saved - but who will check hundreds if not thousands of paragraphs and citations?) Daizus (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have once raised the question: I would like to know what is the proper way to fix this possible problem. I think the creation of pages with texts from the original sources would not help in improving the article, and it in itself could creat copyright issues. Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I already asked you and others to read WP:CV and WP:PLAG. That text has to be removed. If it will be just removed or rewritten, it's up to you and other editors. As long as you keep avoiding the blame, the responsibility, and you keep arguing about possible problems, I'll keep working on that list, to show there's an actual problem, and also to find out its extent. Daizus (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Carphatianbasin gepidia.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Carphatianbasin gepidia.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

next to plagiarism, original research

While working on the list with copy-pasted and closely paraphrased content, I noticed in several cases Borsoka "polished" the text, sometimes with noticeable bias. For instance, here are some examples where he "eliminates" the Romanians from the cited sources:

Madgearu 2005, p. 104: Salt production implies the existence of a subject sedentary population, most probably Slavs and Romanians.

Borsoka: The salt production implies the existence of a subject sedentary population.

Madgearu 2005, p. 106: Moreover, the chronology of the Transylvanian spurs suggests the existence of cavalry troops of Slavs and, perhaps, Romanians in Avar service.

Borsoka: The chronology of spurs excavated in Transylvania also suggests the existence of cavalry troops.

I'm quite sure the quantity of original research, especially syntheses (see also the previous case where he "adjusted" a claim by Barford with material gathered from Heather), is quite significant. This article is just a collection of sentences cherry-picked from various books (and often truncated). Daizus (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)