Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thraco-Roman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Thraco-Roman

Thraco-Roman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

In its current form, there's no point of this article to exist. The whole article is written from a strong Romanian nationalist POV. It assumes some very bold claims, which are usually not accepted by mainstream historians, such as:

  • the Thracians, Getae and Dacians were the same people
  • these people were the same people as the Romanians (the source language of substrate of Romanian is not clearly known)
  • many claims like Saint Andrew is known locally as the Apostle "of the wolves" which are nothing but nationalist propaganda
  • it assumes that every Roman Emperor born in the Balkans is a Thraco-Roman.

Maybe one day, an article should exist about the actual Thraco-Roman culture (which existed in Bulgaria, not in Romania), not as an anachronistic word for "Romanians in the Roman era". bogdan (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree, the article should not be deleted: the article may be POV and may need corrections, but your position is biased:

  • Herodotus names Dacians as part of Thracians
But modern linguistics considers that affirmation as dubious. bogdan (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
your "modern linguistics" (which ones?) did live in the same epoch as Thracians? Herodotus did. Is Thracian or maybe Dacian language known so one can have a ferm opinion? Bluehunt (talk)
well, Herodotus certainly has never been to Dacia or Thrace and he based his book on what he heard from travelers, especially traders who went to those places and were likely not experts in languages. Some modern linguists (for instance, I. I. Russu) agree with Herodotus, while others (like V. Gheorghiev) consider them to be completely different languages. In any case, neither version is certain, so claiming one version over the other as true is against the rules of WP:NPOV. bogdan (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • the article asumes not that Dacians are the same people with Romanians, but presumes that the latinized Balkan peoples, north of Jircek line are at the origin of Romanians
  • the article does not claim Saint Andrew is known locally as the Apostle "of the wolves" . Hippolyte of Antioch (died ~AD 250) in his On apostles, Origen in the third book of his Commentaries on Genesis (AD 254), Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church History (AD 340), and other sources, like the Usaard's Martyrdom written between 845-865,[1] Jacobus de Voragine in the Golden Legend (~1260),[2] mention that Saint Andrew preached in Scythia Minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluehunt (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
from that link: "His travels spanned into Ethiopia, Scythian Russia, Asia Minor and Greece". So, which part of the Balkans is in Scythian Russia? bogdan (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
do not deservs a comment Bluehunt (talk)
What I mean is that Andrew's voyage to Romania is just a Romanian nationalist myth, invented quite recently. All the ancient sources talk about Andrew's voyage to Scythia, which is indeed in Russia and Ukraine, nothing about Dobruja/Scythia Minor. You can read about this and other Romanian national myths (which are very present in this article) in History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness by Lucian Boia. bogdan (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)