Talk:Danube

Active discussions

Name:Edit

Danube=Living (i.e Vigorous) Wide River? See English be, Latin vita, Greek bio. After all, almost all the names with a clear final vowel end in an /iː/ sound or has it before a grammatical o or other grammatical vowel... Houses39 (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of cited content by BorsokaEdit

Borsoka has removed cited content with the edit summary WP:Fringe (1) The Greek name of the river (Istros) shows that the native Thracians did not call it Donaris (2) Romanian descended from Vulgar Latin, consequently it could hardly directly preserve a pre-Latin name. (3) Donaris is a hypothetical form, consequently one cannot state, but only propose/assume that the Romanian form descended from it. They subsequently reverted my revert of that with "read the edit summary". There seems to be some confusion about WP:OR here. Arguments made from logic and personal knowledge have no standing against a valid citation. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

DIYeditorI suggest you should read both the edit summary and the article before reverting and accussing other editors of OR. (1) The statement that the Thracian name was Istros (as it is attested by the Greek name of the river) is based on a referenced statement in the article. Do you think the same river was called both Istros and Donaris by the same people? (2) That Romanian is a Romance language is a well-established fact (for further details I refer to works cited in the article dedicated to the Romanian language and Romance languages). Do you think a Romance language preserved a non-Latin river name instead of the Latin form? (3) The asterisk (*) before the name Donaris shows that it is a hypothetical form (a form which is not attested in written sources). Why do you think that one can state that a modern form descended from a hypothetical form, if the hypothetical form itself is only a proposal. Summarizing, the statement that I deleted quite obviously represents a fringe theory. If you insist on presenting it, the statement should be radically modified and the internal contradictions about the Thracian form of the river name in the text should be addressed. Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Are you challenging the source? On what grounds? Just because you think by your logic it contradicts something else doesn't give you the prerogative to remove cited material. Also, you should not try to warn editors about 3RR when your WP:EDITWARing - 3RR also does not give the prerogative to make edit war edits right up to 3. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Would you read what I wrote above? It is not me who challenges the source, but the source contradicts to other sources cited in the article about the Thracian form of the river's name. Furthermore, a hypothesis cannot be presented as a fact, as per WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
It is you who challenges the source. If there is a conflict between reliable sources usually we attribute the differing opinions to the individual sources. I see what you mean about the phrasing of the hypothetical word as a fact, but that does not invalidate the source on its own, although that could speak to editorial oversight (or lack of it) if it is worded that way in the original text. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I still think that a fringe theory should not be presented. If you want to present it, the text should be modified significantly and a proper background should be added, as per WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Danube" page.