Pelasgii, dupa Herodot, vorbeau o limba barbara-Fragment din Dacia Preistorica, Nicolae Densusianu Alte notite istorice despre limba cea veche a pelasgilor le avem de la Herodot. Rezulta, asadar, din notitele ce le aflam la Homer si la Herodot, ca limba barbara, ce o vorbeau pelasgii de pe teritoriul Elladei, era o limba externa. Masa cea mai mare a natiunii barbarilor o formau populatiunile pelasge din nordul frontierelor grecesti, cu deosebire insa cele din nordul Istrului de jos si al Marii Negre. Aceeasi numire etnica si geografica o adoptase si romanii.

Author:Dojar Salkree
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):24 November 2017
PDF File Size:16.42 Mb
ePub File Size:15.54 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

It is therefore WP:RS. The statement is attributed to its author, it is not stated in the voice of Wikipedia. All major Romanian historians from the past years have rejected that work as fanciful pseudohistory and internationally he is no longer read, so forget about being taken seriously.

There were luminaries of Romanian historiography, who were nationalists and found his book appalling. How does he know? Never mind, here is the translation: on the other hand, the love of truth opposes and prevents me from praising things the right judgment urges me to criticize. I think it is better for the country to be openly opened, under the eyes of its inhabitants, the multitude of sins they have but to be deceived through deluded complaints and skillful misunderstandings, and so be confident that whatever they do they do well, while everyone who has morals especially criticizes such behavior.

Furthermore, if his view is "in conformity with serious Romanian historians" then the views of those "serious Romanian historians" should suffice. Gheorghe D. Alexandru D. Xenopol: "The theory of this author that Dacians would have coagulated the first civilization of the humankind shows that we deal with a product of chauvinism, not a product of science". I do not know if it is intentional or only because of being gauche, but your edits are an embarrassment for the Romanian national cause.

I only mentioned them to illustrate the ridiculousness of including a quote from this individual. Does Dan Alexe teach history at a University? Has he published any academic work on the subject? Name them. Feel free to ask for a third opinion, etc. Whatever that means Please ask for a third opinion or make any recourse you might like, or else the edits will be reverted.

Tgeorgescu talk , 30 October UTC 1. WP:PARITY states that "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. Thanks for clearing that up! Back to the point of the dispute. As per this Wiki guideline on content, we should "Maintain scope and avoid redundancy". Because, yes, this is how his work appears to aware intellectuals: a product of delirium.

Parvan disagreed only because he thought the genre of the book is fantasy this is why The Da Vinci Code is not delirium. So, we know what Parvan thought about Densusianu because Marinov has spelled it out for us. Brill is much more prestigious than Humanitas, Brill is a scholarly publishing house of high worldwide reputation. You are again deflecting. This is my last comment here, please ask for a third opinion or I will. Or are you purposely trying to provoke and muddy the waters?

You must be joking, right? Tgeorgescu talk , 30 October UTC You again misunderstand or purposely misstate the nature of this debate. I suggest reading it again, very carefully. Wikipedia is mainly a venue for expressing views supported by established science and peer-reviewed scholarship and perhaps reputable press, for certain subjects. Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this.

Supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is, therefore, required of all editors. Failure to respect mainstream science leads to the loss of disputes, and may result in being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites.

So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, your claims must be backed by reputable science or peer-reviewed scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then you must refrain from making a particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them.

WP:AE is pretty close from here. Iovaniorgovan talk , 31 October UTC As I said, local consensus cannot trump a content guideline, so a third opinion cannot trump a content guideline. So, getting a third opinion is in the best case useless and in the worst case it just muddies the waters.

So: his "famous" work was indeed forgotten. Scholars have plonked him. His theory does not even get rejected, let alone approved of. Tgeorgescu talk , 31 October UTC And neither are you in a position to give me an ultimatum.

Obviously we have different views on how Wiki content guidelines are being applied here. A 3O cannot trump but it can verify that content guidelines are being followed or not, as is my opinion in this case.

You are not the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia to lord over these pages and make edits willy-nilly. If no 3O is rendered I will delete your "Dan Alexe" edit and then feel free to go to arbitration, if necessary, I have no problem with that. I will start a topic there.

Hope we can settle this amicably. And, of course, the quote, if you can find it, should go where his current quote is and I think one sentence should suffice. As far as Alexe is concerned, it is a statement of fact. Tgeorgescu talk , 31 October UTC By "factual" I mean criticism along the lines of "Densusianu is wrong here because of these facts In other words, criticism that has content. You can only call someone names "crazy", "phantasmagoric", "delirious" etc so many times in one article.

We get it. It is a simple analysis of text, and indeed ND makes there patently absurd claims about the Dacians. I take it on good faith that Tgeorgescu will replace the 2 Alexe quotes currently in the article with one that satisfies the condition mentioned above.

Thanks for your consideration. Currently that sentence reads "Dan Alexe stated that the book is "mystical delirium",[14] called its author "an occultist notary without schooling in history and linguistics"[15] and "a clinical case of self-delusion".

How is that not redundant? One of those should suffice. Tgeorgescu talk , 2 November UTC One of those quotes was removed; you got a problem with that feel free to ask for 3O or make any recourse you think is necessary. Iovaniorgovan talk , 3 November UTC.


Nicolae Densusianu Dacia Preistorica Part I



Dacia preistorica - Nicolae Densusianu


Related Articles