Talk:Dacians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Language

Can someone cite a reference that the Dacians and Thracians spoke a related language? As I understand it, there are almost no known words fromthe Dacian language that are known today and those that are believed to be Dacian are not yet verified as truly being of Dacian origin. --86.123.83.18 08:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

yes I will soon after I will come with enough sources (and there are plenty) to do so. this article is horrible . first of all the dacians were a thracian tribe from the Banat region and they spoke and wrote in thracian.Mitridatu (talk)

Haplogroup E3b1a2

Should we mention that it is correlated with haplogroup E3b1a2? --Kupirijo 17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC) romania ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.204.19 (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

irrelevant Mitridatu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

Various

Hey - I am fluent in Romanian, and proud of my heritage. would love to help translating it in english, might need some coaching with editing/organizing articles. drop a line on my page if you're willing to watch my back or lend a hand... sorry I wont have a whole lot of time but will definitely work on this article. thanks. Buburuza 06:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Argedava close to the Danube

There are a vew hundreds of km from what used to be Argedava to the Danube. That's not quite so close to my undersanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.106.39.91 (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In an Empire spanning thousands of miles/kilometers, a few hundred is relatively speaking a close distance. - RomânescEsteLatin (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Gibbon

Edward Gibbon, in his "The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire", Vol. 1-10, Chpt. X, Note 2, mentions that Emperor Decius was so named on account of his extraction being that of the "Decii".

"2 [ His birth at Bubalia, a little village in Pannonia, (Eutrop. ix. Victor. in Caesarib. et Epitom.,) seems to contradict, unless it was merely accidental, his supposed descent from the Decii. Six hundred years had bestowed nobility on the Decii: but at the commencement of that period, they were only plebeians of merit, and among the first who shared the consulship with the haughty patricians. Plebeine Deciorum animae, &c. Juvenal, Sat. viii. 254. See the spirited speech of Decius, in Livy. x. 9, 10.]"

Question: is he reffering to Dacians (i.e. Dacii)?

- RomânescEsteLatin (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing

Ok , everyone thats in the mood to work on this as well , we need some copy editing from Thracians,Dacian warfare,Roman Dacia any other related article.ThankouMegistias (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)::Anyone?Megistias (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not cite any references or sources

What does that mean ? Are the 20 something references not trustworthy ? --Venatoreng (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The article does have many sources referenced - should an admin remove the tags on the article's page? HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Etymology

Quotations from The Cambridge Ancient History and Strabo should be properly used Blurall (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. I have no idea what they say, but the Romanian Academy suggests the "daos"/wolf part was likely folk etymology.Anonimu (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Expanded on the Roman evacuation

Added reasoning and three sources for my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving religion, occupations, culture, language from Dacia to Dacians

Hi all! I am planning to move the religion, occupations, culture, language sections from Dacia to the Dacians article since I think it pertains to the people not the geographical region. It is also consistent with the Thrace/Thracians and Illyria/Illyrians, as well as the tree in Category:Dacians and Category:Thracians. The Dacians article also has Dacians#Religion and language sections which are just stubs. Anyone who has objections or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Proper English, sentence structure, who the f wrote this crap

Please, read this aloud to yourself and tell me it makes sense:

"The element of unity of beliefs about werewolves and lycanthropy consists in the magical-religious experience of mystical solidarity with the wolf by whatever means used to obtain it. But all have one origin myth, a primary event. Thus manages to transform into the wolf the one who comes out of himself and its present time and becoming contemporary with mythical event.[2]"

It looks as though someone used google translator or was simply too lazy to write readable sentences.

Whoever wrote this crap needs to fix it.

207.177.63.177 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It's obviously a machine translation. The whole section is just plain weird and probably OR and/or fringe. I don't see any point in trying to repair it. I've just deleted the whole section. There's no way it could be brought up to wiki standards. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The reference to Eliade and some things could be salvaged, but most of it was pretty weird.

--Codrin.B (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• the mythology section is based on reliable sources, which is one of Mircea Eliade books or archeology. If you have problems with the grammar you can correct that, but the sections stay because its important. If you have problems with what Eliade said, thats not my problem. 79.116.248.41 (talk)

@IP 79.116.248.41: Your changes were reverted because they were against consensus, and you did absolutely nothing to justify your reversion. Your comments above are meaningless. You will have to do a MUCH better job of defending the notability and reliability of this section, and build consensus. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• what consensus you talk about? A person said is need to be fixed because has some grammar problems. Another said that some part need to be keept. I said all to be keept, but to be fixed. And you said to be deleted all together, providing no reason for this. I think consensus (if we can talk about a consensus of 4 peoples) is to be keept, but have some re-writing or correction. Anyone who think is fit for this can do it. The article is copyed from Mircea Eliade, which is probably the highest world authority (or among the firsts at least) in world myths and religions, and it deals exactly with the subject. So if you have something valuable to say, say, if not please dont interfere in something you have no idea, on the basis that you dont like the source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.248.41 (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Mircea Eliade did some interesting work in some fields, but his work on the origin of the Romanians was highly compromised by his political sympathies and is fringe to the extreme, and is not notable for the purposes of this article, except as an example of Romanian nationalistic nonsense. As such, it fails WP:RS. Rewiting the section would be an exercise in futility, because the whole section is POV and non-encyclopedic, and reeks of OR and SYNTH. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• what on earth are you talking about? Pretty much all you said have nothing to do with reality. Mircea Eliade is a respected scholar worldwide, and if you find reliable sources who contest him (not that garbage you babling about nationalism or politics) you can post them too, but first, there is nothing on his level to contest this, and second if you somehow find something, make it short to not make a too long article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.212.147 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that Eliade is a reliable source here before you add or restore material ([WP:BURDEN]). You can say he is "respected scholar worldwide" until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it any truer in this case. There are plenty of reliable sources questioning Eliade's reliability in this subject area in this section from WP's own article about him, Criticism of Eliade's Scholarship.

• • • • i think you are just blinded by a kind of bias, because your edition was reverted. As i said, Eliade is a scholar, quite a big one worldwide, and his opinions stay mentioned. If you have something to combat him, needs to be strict to the object and no generalities (and from reliable sources, not historians of ideas or philosopher, but scholars with similar level as Eliade, and from the same field of expertise). If you find those, you can post few info in the same chapter. But as i said, i doubt you can find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.212.147 (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would be best if you registered and started an account here before you do any further editing. Logging in from two different ip addresses makes it difficult to tell who you are. Familiarize yourself with WP policies as well, especially WP:RS Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • regarding Eliade, as i said, he is a renowned scholar, and the fact that all kind of anonim "internet warriors" dont agree with his work is irelevant. His opinion about the subject must be presented and is in agreement with wikipedia rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.17.212 (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Your source does not fulfill the guidelines listed in WP:RS. I have explained why above. Your only response has been to repeatedly insist that YOU think the source is reliable. Unless you provide reliable sourcing, the material you restored will continue to be reverted without further comment. Please familiarize yourself with the policy in question (WP:RS). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

@DV Hmmm.. While, I see your points, I don't think that removing the whole section and dismissing Mircea Eliade as a whole is constructive or fair either. I think some of this content has merit, whether present here or in a mythology article.

@IP 79.116.248.41. If you want to be more successful contributing, I think you should join WP by creating an account, and getting more familiar with the policies regarding sources and content. It can be frustrating in the beginning but you can get the hang of it. I hope some of your cleanup content can stay. --Codrin.B (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

@Codrin: I'm not dismissing Eliade out of hand. However, not everything that Elade wrote qualifies as scholarship. His his nationalistic/fascist/antisemitic writings, under which heading "From Zalmoxis to Genghis Khan" clearly falls, are pure blither with zero scholarly value, and cannot be used as reliable sorces on WP.

Read Boia and Lachman for examples of Eliade's intellectual dishonesty and academic fraud. As far as I can tell, it's all just a figment of Eliade's deranged immagination, with no grounding in real scholarship at all, clearly violating WP:FRINGE. Werewolves???? You must be joking! I'm curious what you think should stay.

If you want to fix it up, give it a go. But you're going to have to source it with something much better than crap like "From Zalmoxis to Genghis Khan". I don't think that there's very much to be salvaged here. Until then, the section simply doesn't meet WP's standards for inclusion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

@DV: Some things are off, I agree, but your view of Eliade is focused on the negative to say the least. Someone like Boia, who has some good points, will never reach the intellectual level or fame of Eliade. It is always easy to criticize others. I don't know how much can be salvaged and of course, many sources will be needed. But I fail to see the objectivity and the WP:NPOV of everyone involved in this edit war, including yourself. I would rather add {{citation needed}} instead of removing entire sections, out of principle and to keep the things constructive and collaborative.--Codrin.B (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

@Codrinb: My gosl is simple: to improve the article by removing all traces of nationalistic POV, fringe, synth and OR. I don't care if it's pro-Romanian or anti-Romanian. Or pro- or anti-Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Polish, German, American, Indian or Ugandan, for that matter. Propaganda does not belong in this article. This article is about the ancient Dacians, and Eliade, sadly, contributed extremely little to genuine Dacology.

As for my opinion on Eliade, it's mixed. He was a genius and a lunatic at the same time. A real Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde. Some of his works are pioneering in the field, and have stimulated lots of further research among scholars world wide. Others are the ranting of a crazed fascist who should have been locked up for the protection of society, and was indeed locked up. His anti-semitic pseudoscholarship was so extreme that he managed to scare and disgust even his fellow fascists. When using Eliade as a source, you have to be careful in telling the Eliade the scholar and Eliade the raving lunatic apart.

I understand that Romanians are proud of Eliade as a scholar, and they tend to minimalize or ignore his "dark side". I live in Poland, and know how Poles instictively react to any criticism of Pope John Paul II, even if they themselves disagree with him. Nevertheless, it doesn't help the field of Dacology if we "whitewash" Eliade and treat all of his works as real scholarship.

As for leaving the material in, I'm strongly against it. It damages the article in its present state. However, I'm willing to give you the chance to fix it up and properly source it with non-nationalistic sources. Sources that depend on Eliade's nationalistic writing are clearly unacceptable. Again, I'm curious about what you think is valuable and should be saved in this passage.

I cleaned up the articles on Thracians and Paleo-Balkan Languages to remove all the nationalistic blither that was there, and am planning to do the same with this article. I've done the same with several articles on Poland as well. Unlike you, I have nothing against removing whole sections if they contribute nothing to the article and violate WP policies. But, as I said, in this case, I'm willing to give you the chance to salvage what you can. Just make sure that it's based on factual information from reliable sources about the ancient Dacians, and not on nationalistic "mythology".

I must point out that three other editors have removed this section, so it's inclusion here depends on strict adherence to WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your full view on this, I only got pieces of it from your actions and notes. Communication is very important here. Given these explanations, I have no reason to not agree with you. Maybe a paragraph on Eliade should be sufficient. Given your interest, maybe you should consider joining WP:DACIA. We need people that strive to maintain a neutral view. Do you have any comments for the section I started right above this one? I am thinking to move people related stuff from Dacia to Dacians.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• • • DV -let me tell you again, it seem you have some comprehending problems.

1-you are not in any position to contest Eliade, or to criticise him. You are not an authority in ethnology and mythology history, you are just an anonimus guy on internet, and your personal oipinon doesnt count here. 2-You cant use wikipedia as a source for criticisizing Eliade, wikipedia, as we all know, is an unreliable source, and even wikipedia itself agree with this. 3-Boia, the one you mentioned, is not a historian of religions and mythology, is a historyan of ideas, so is not his area of expertise the things we talk about here 4-if you find someone (a historian of religions and mythology) who criticize Eliade, you can show his/her opinion, posting couple words in the same part of the article. But it must be strictly related with the subject presented there, and not that bulshit mambo-jumbo with dont know what political ideas had Eliade some decades ago so all his work is wrong because of that and other such things unrelated with the subject. It must be a scientifical critic, not a biased political one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.220.132 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

@IP 79.116.220.132. I agree with some of the points you expressed above, but not with the tone. I understand the frustration, and the point that Eliade shouldn't be dismissed easily. He has indeed some deep knowledge on religions and mythology and a lot of depth in this field. The chapter that you mentioned is actually pretty well written and sourced by him. I did a lot a work to source and cleanup every phrase that made sense in the content you added. If you want this kind of controversial or hard to grasp content to stay, you should do this kind of work next time.--Codrin.B (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• One, I don't think Dominus Vobisdu's criticism is valid. Lucian Boia is not particularly dismissive of Eliade's work, he only engages few of his ideas anyway (e.g. on Dacian monotheism: [1]). Using Boia for Eliade's "intellectual dishonesty and academic fraud" is WP:OR in the least. Lachman is more critical, but as Boia, he has little to say about Eliade's work on Dacian mythology and religion (e.g. on the same Dacian monotheism: [2]). Invoking WP:FRINGE is ludicrous, Eliade's ideas, no matter how controversial, certainly have many supporters. The accusations of original research must be proved. DV's listing of WP policies is WP:GAME and the criticism of Eliade's ideas without direct arguments and mentions (about Dacians as "wolves" or "wolf-warriors", for example) is a blatant case of WP:SYNTH.
• Two, while Eliade can be a reference on mythology and religion (here DV has a point in placing the burden of proof; but if you read "Mircea Eliade" article, you'll find all the evidence you need, or at least how to get to it), he is not on language and etymologies. Eliade's theories should be mentioned in the mythology/religion sections only, while for the "wolf" etymology you should cite P. Kretschmer, Vl. Georgiev and other scholars. Daizus (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of sources

This article currently cites ancient authors as reliable sources, in blatant contradiction with WP's policy, as well as antiquated source little relevant for modern research (lots of book from the 1800s). Most of those sources were introduced by recent edits, thus this message is to notify whoever is expanding to article (as the template at the top of the article says it's happening) to stop introducing such sources, and start using modern reliable sources. Otherwise, any editor is authorised to remove any of those pseudo-sources and the statements based on them. ThanksAnonimu (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are two works which can be used to balance the "wolf" etymology and mythology from the perspective of modern scholarship.

• Dan Dana, "Dacii şi lupii. Pe marginea teoriei lui Mircea Eliade" in SCIVA 51, 3-4 (2000), pp. 153-174.
• Dan Dana, Zalmoxis de la Herodot la Mircea Eliade, Polirom (2008), see especially p. 271

It should be noted however that some other contemporary scholars are not that critical and accept (at least some of) Eliade's ideas. For instance Zoe Petre in Practica nemuririi. O lectură critică a izvoarelor greceşti referitoare la geţi, Polirom (2004) described (pp. 276-7) a "confrerie iniţiatică de războinici" (following Eliade's Männerbünde). Daizus (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

On Google Books Identitate şi alteritate: studii de istorie politică şi culturală 4 (2007) is available in snippets. In this volume see Mihaela Grancea and Alexandru Sonoc's "Discursul dacist postcomunist şi falsificarea istoriei", p. 305-332. On Eliade's theory on Dacians and wolves read these: [3] [4] [5]. Daizus (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

@Daizus: Thanks a lot! I will go through these sources and see how to use them.

@Anonimu: Thanks for the feedback. The goal is to double every ancient source with a reliable modern source interpreting it. Per WP:PSTS: "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". I think having references to the ancient sources is valuable, but indeed not enough. There is a lot of work here. Feel free to pitch in, but please be constructive and double ancient sources with modern ones, instead of removing things altogether. Thanks.

--Codrin.B (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ancient sources. I doubt Wikipedia editors are citing directly Herodotus, Strabo, Pliny etc. It is a matter of ancient languages. I can not say I agree with removing all sources from XIX century. If this is the rule, so be it. Still, I would propose to have for XIX the same rule that applies for ancient sources, eventually Boldwin (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)16:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Boldwin (talk) Paliga in Thracian and pre-Thracian studies mentioned Decev's etymology daoi = wolf. I can not cite it in the article, since I do not have Decev's book. Is there anybody else who proposed this, earlier than Decev ? I do not know if that etymology is correct or not. But, I understand you are going to remove all Tomachek's etymologies.... even though the PIE approach is based on Sanskrit, Veda that helped reconstructing PIE by Pokorny. Tomaschek and others (i.e. Gheyn cited by historians like Iorga) were interpreting names from a specific hypothesis. Is the Pokorny's Indo-Germanische more appropriate? I am just wonderingBoldwin (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC) I would live all etymologies17:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Boldwin (talk)

I'm not saying that any of them is wrong. I'm just saying that if their ideas got any acceptance in the 100 years following their publication, it shouldn't be hard to find more recent authors discussing them, either confirming or disputing it. An idea that was first stated more than 100 years ago and got no scientific attention since is hardly mainstream enough to merit inclusion in WP.Anonimu (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe sometimes older ideas are not getting "attention" because there is nothing to add, change or maybe nothing new was discovered or researched (yet). Not all old ideas or pieces of information are invalid automatically because apparently "no one" (do we know everyone?) discussed them or published something related recently. It is quite possible that some older authors were more rigorous and professional than newer ones who criticize them, ignore their work or don't know about it.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm.... no. Every sane idea of the 19th century got recycled after WW2 (especially history and anthropology, giving the century-long racist fad before the war). As for not being anything new to add... our knowledge about Dacian Wars is mostly as advanced as it was 100 years ago, yet we still have plenty of modern research about the subject. Call it natural selection... if a scholar's claims have merit, they survive and get perpetuated by other scholars, otherwise they die.Anonimu (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure I understand the point here. If our knowledge of the Dacian Wars hasn't improved in the last 100 years, what is the value coming from this "plentiful, modern research"? Isn't this because the modern researchers didn't discover anything new or added anything on top of what is already known? I agree that we should have as modern sources as we can get, but I don't agree that we should get rid of old ones or dismiss them en masse. Both sources have a place. It's like students claiming that their old professors are good for nothing and they, the young, should rewrite all the books and courses. That is not wise and the truth is exactly in the middle.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Anonimu here.

The truth is not in the middle. Even when there are no new discoveries (but usually there are), there are changes in mindset, in the theoretical approach. On Dacian religion, we have on one hand Mircea Eliade and some other authors following 19th and early 20th century scholarly traditions, taking the accounts of Herodotus and of other ancient authors at face value, believing the tribes are as nations, some immutable entities from times immemorial, and then weaving a very speculative narrative on how the Dacians could have been. On the other hand we have new generations of scholars integrating the Herodotean topoi in a discours on the Other, regarding most Greek and Roman accounts not as pure historic or ethnographic reports, but as literature, and so on. Daizus (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@Daizus: Do you happen to have those books/journals? I am still looking for them but couldn't find much yet. Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have Dana's 2008 book (his SCIVA article was mentioned in a footnote). I'll see what else I can find. Daizus (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see the source for the translated ancient authors, where these translations had been taken from. BTW, at usually, the cited translations are from around 1900. I do not doubt these translations, but I think it is easier to find and verify themBoldwin (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

tags

I added the neutrality tag because this article follows at times only one author (or few authors), one POV. For example the recent additions in the "Origin" section - not all authors support that chronology and that model of "Indo-Europeanization".

One POV claim (by Fischer following Solta) I also believe it's rather dubious: "Detailed studies regarding the Thracian position among Indo-European languages don’t confirm the difference between Dacian and Thracian". However on one hand there is Georgiev's theory reconstructing different phonetic systems for Thracian and Dacian (in "Raporturile" see p. 49 and 52). On the other hand there are several other onomastic studies, noticing such differences: "Dorénavant, on pourra donc faire une distinction entre l'onomastique dace et l'onomastique thrace, ce qui n'est pas sans importance si on s'interroge sur l'origine de telle ou telle personne. Il y a bien, à côté d'un territoire toponymique daco-mésien, un Namengebiet daco-mésien, qui montre une distinction plus nette entre les Thraces d'une part, les Gètes, les Mésiens et les Daces, de l'autre. L'anthroponymie s'accorde ainsi avec les données toponymiques et les gloses daces (noms de plantes): le dace était une langue indo-européenne différente du thrace, mais apparentée." (Dan Dana, in his article published in ZPE in 2003, see p. 181-2) Daizus (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I erased my entry Grumeza...since I do nto know if he is reliable or not. and Conti....since it is not really a historiography, they just mention one time the Geto-Dacian Costoboci.

With regard to Fischer a.s.o, just proceed according to Wikipedia rules, I do not mind if you erase. I am totally neutral. Boldwin (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Regarding to Fisher I was having also in mind and plan to add more about it. It is somehow strange, but all Indo-european list Dacian place names but name them Thracian I will bring something that would clarify There are more differences than the ones you listed, and also affinities Thank you so much for correcting thisBoldwin (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I used Grumeza entry because I have seen it was already listed at references.

The main difficulty with Dacian Thracian language article consist in the fact various wiki editors are using different terms, for the same concept, eventually. Many linguists agree Dacian and Thracian are not totally separate languages but rather dialects. For expressing this, one editor is using one term that speaks about a different dialect. Other editor read this term as denoting separate language. And so on It is something maybe unavoidable in first place, until the article will define article’s terms so that everybody will be on the same page Boldwin (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Many lingusits argue they are different languages (see the quote above: "le dace était une langue indo-européenne différente du thrace, mais apparentée"), not merely dialects, or even that we know so little about them, that we can't tell how different they really were. Daizus (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, my purpose is to present the current theories and some arguments for them. Nothing is yet established for sure, but the already entries made already a certain statement. I have read your quote. I know there are arguments for it. There are arguments for each theory. Tomaschek noticed the different ending of names dava and para but this didn't prevent him from seeing also affinities, and common “parentage” based on common people names and place names. Also, archaeological finds are saying something on this matter, acording to Daicoviciu who sustains therefore these languages were dialects. Also, I have to find at least two references for any of my entry, from now on. This takes time. Boldwin (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

But archaeology can't say much about languages. It was noted by some archaeologists (including Romanian ones - e.g. see Valeriu Sîrbu's studies) that Dacians and Getae have a different archaeology in many regards. Would you say they spoke different languages because of that? Daizus (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That statement that I cited above made me more curious than interested. I wouldn't cite it in any article, if it were not about direct inscriptions of Dacian namesBoldwin (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Boldwin (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

tag was not used by anybody when it comes to prove a linguistic affiliation with images from Trajan column by a wikipedia editor. I put it since it has to be clarified this and I consider the sentences referenced by images, in these cases, as being self-explanatory ORBoldwin (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Getae and Dacians as Thracians

There is an interest paragraph from the book THE THRACIANS 700 BC -AD 46, from OSPREY PUBLISHING, Man-at-Arms collection, Vol. 360, ISBN 1 84176 329 2, written by Christopher Webber and ilustrated by Angus McBride. On pgs. 10-11, when detailing the historical outline of the different Thracian tribes it is stated that " ... The 'Getae' lived between the Haemus range and the Skythians, on both sides of the Istros (Danube) ... Herodotus (IV, 98) called them the bravest and most noble of all the Thracians ... Diodorus Siculus (XXI.11-12) said they are barbarous and lead a bestial existence ...the poet Ovid complains about the austere Getic lifestyle ..." . Further, on pgs. 16-17 when describing the Roman conquest on the Balcanic and Pontic regions, the author adds that " ... Formal annexation did not stop further raids, incursions and rebellions, however. The most significant of these came from the 'Dacians', direct descendants of the Getae who spoke a language closely related to Thracian. Burebeista, the first great Dacian king (c.70-44) made the Geto-Dacian state powerful enough to worry Rome ...".- Periptero (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This information should be added into article Boldwin (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Validating pseudoscience

As if this article didn't have enough problems, an IP continues to remove the position on etymology presented by one of Romania's most respected historians of Antiquity, referenced in the main history compendium published by the Romanian Academy (basically, the official version of Romanian history), while giving prominence to uninformed opinions such as that of a Paliga, a specialist in modern Western Slavic languages known for his protochronist ideas, Eliade, a historian of religions whose association with the far right are notorious, or some obsolete 19th century scholars. So, if someone is going to ever fix this article, he may want to check the various vandalisms perpetrated by IPs to discover important facts removed from the article since they didn't support the frigne point of view of protochronism. I've had enough trying to mend it. Good luck! Anonimu (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• • • • Vulpe is an archeologist, thus not quite qualified in linguistic problems. There are enough linguists mentioned there, and if you wish you can find other linguists to back up your views, if you find one. Romanian Academy doesnt back up Vulpe, he is just mentioned there (probably just on the "pupincurism" base unfortunately still ppresent to us) with his own personal opinion, unqualified on this field anyway. Eliade is one of the world's most respected historians of religions and myths, and your (and your firends) political agenda doesnt fit here, you better stop that and come with scientific proofs to back up your claims if you want to be take it seriously. The only fringe theory is pushing forwards archeologists talking about linguists, then acusing other of vandalism, even if you are the one repeatedly using it and even punished for that. Whats next, coming with mathematicians talking about history of religions, or linguists talking about military history, just to back up your theories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.214.127 (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)