User talk:Codrinb/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Codrinb! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Napoca

Daca cititi sectia "etimology", veti vedea ca nu este clar de unde provine cuvantul "napoca". (Sau daca nu aveti incredere, sa va uitati pe Povestea oraşului-comoară. Scurtă istorie a Clujului şi monumentelor sale de Lukács József.) In plus, fiindca nu supravietuiesc texte sau inscriptii in limba dacilor (cel putin nu indeajuns de multe ca sa ne dam seama despre caracteristicele ei), este prin consecinta numai o speculatie sa zicem ca un anumit cuvant provine din acea limba. Poate fi o speculatie inteligenta, dar asta ramane. Acum, este posibil ca romanii sa nu fi folosit deloc denumirea Napoca (aici nu stiu ce sa spun), caz in care ar fi valabil sa o scoatem complet. Dar nu mi se pare corect sa adaugam ca fara indoiala dacii ii ziceau "Napoca" orasului. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Am analizat mai atent si am conclus ca probabil aveti dreptate. Scuzati-ma pentru reactia mea initiala de panica. Provine de la faptul ca sunt multi pe Internet care, sa zicem, sunt prea fixati pe originele dacice ale românilor. Adica le ridica deasupra de tot in importanta, si aici la Wikipedia am cautat sa amelioram situatia. Nu ca nu ar exista acele origine dacice, si de fapt e ocazia sa se ajunga in istoriografia romaneasca la o intelegere mai nuantata despre cine au fost dacii si ce au contribuit (dupa exagerarile Epocii de Aur), dar totul sa fie la locul lui, altfel se ajunge la protohronism. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Enosesti

Bună, yes, there was good reason for the redirect. Some time ago, a group of editors on English Wikipedia (which isn't governed by what goes on at Romanian Wikipedia) decided that we would have articles on Romanian cities, towns and communes, but that villages would be redirected to the article on the parent locality (usually a commune, but in this case a town). Of course, consensus can change, but there is good reason to preserve this consensus. The main reason is that most of Romania's 13,000+ villages simply aren't that notable, and that whatever there is to be said about them can be said in separate sections at the parent locality's article. (See for instance Coronini: it also includes the village of Sfânta Elizabeta, and everything one needs to know is amply covered there. And even one of Romania's most famous villages, Humuleşti, redirects to the parent town of Târgu Neamţ; take a look at Ion Creangă's biography to see how this works in practice: "Humuleşti, a former village which has since been incorporated into Târgu Neamţ city...") Plus, with redirects, there's no difficulty in finding the relevant article: typing in Enoşeşti, Enosesti, Enoşeşti, Olt, Enosesti, Olt will all take readers to the same place. (A second reason for not having village articles, though not applicable in this case, is true in about 95% of cases: most villages are in communes that include villages A, B, C, D, E, etc. But the communes themselves usually have the name of "A". And so if villages B, C, D and E have articles, do we make separate articles for village A and commune A? It seems logical, but awfully redundant at the same time.)

I encourage you to say all you have to say about Enoşeşti in the Piatra-Olt article, in a separate section if you wish. But I hope I've explained why a separate article would not be such a good idea. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirects can have categories. I just put one in for Enosesti; is that fine?

There isn't an ideal solution, but at ro.wiki, how about linking to a section if there is one? Say, [[en:Piatra-Olt#Enoşeşti]]. If not, the link will still lead to Piatra-Olt, where the relevant information will be. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Salut!

Best of luck to you and i hope that you'll become an important editor to the project. Cheers and thanks for using the templates i've created. BineMai 20:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

From what i know there is no portal or wikiproject for Dacia and if you decide to start one of these projects i'll be glad to help out. BineMai 08:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dacia

Re your invitation to contribute articles on Dacia, it is rather outside my field although I probably added/amended some categories for Dacian history. Thanks anyway. Hugo999 (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. Not a problem!--Codrinb (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Partecipation

Based in my knowledge of Dacian topics, I feel than I can only participate in a discrete level in articles related to Dacian language. Do you think is enough for becoming a task force member? Aigest (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not!--Codrinb (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll participate there but I am also interested in PIE features and phonetic rules. Aigest (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for mediation concerning Aedava, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 21:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Decree of Dionysopolis

Hi, I did some formatting and minor copyediting to your article about the Decree of Dionysopolis, thanks for that! If you add references to all paragraphs (most are currently not directly referenced by footnotes), it can nominate it so that it appears in the Did you know section on the Main Page. Do let me know if you can or are willing to do that! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 17:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! All paragraphs should have inline references for DYK. Personally, I like to have at least a few footnotes per paragraph and I never leave any uncited parts, but I don't think the DYK requirements are that stringent! :)

Seeing as you started the article yesterday, it should be alright if you work on it for a few more days before we nominate it. DYK is for articles no older than five days, but if you look at T:TDYK you'll see pieces much older waiting for review.

About the museum: if the article you've cited (Mihailov 1970) only says "national museum" or "people's museum", then that has to be the National Historical Museum. I can think of only one other museum in Sofia that could potentially own such an artifact, and that would be the National Archaeological Museum. If that was the case, however, I'm pretty sure your source would have said it's the archaeological museum, not the national museum.

As for the stub tags: there aren't really any solid rules, so common sense applies here (WP:STUB: "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text", "Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs").

Here's my logic. The article currently has 2474 characters of prose. On DYK, the length requirement is 1,500 characters and stubs are not permitted. From that I deduct that articles over 1,500 characters are usually not considered stubs. Another lead is the "a few sentences of text" description from WP:STUB. "A few" means something like 3–10; the article currently has almost twenty sentences, most of which long.

Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 20:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Dacia project questions

Make sure you have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dacia on your watchlist, I have a couple of questions that we need to deal with. Sadads (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Re Getica stuff

Codrinb, one of the difficulties for new editors, especially on esoteric stuff like Getica, is that the creation of stub articles generally leaves way too much doubt initially about the validity of the article. The merges you mentioned are one result of this stub approach. The solution to this however is simple. Create new articles as drafts in your user space (ie. User:Codrinb\Getica (Criton)) for example. As a draft in your userspace, you can add references, experiment with organization and flesh out the content until you are confident it meets WP guidelines. Additionally you can invite others to review it and help get it right. Once you are satisfied, it can be moved in toto to the article space. This approach generally prevents premature tagging for compliance issues. If you need any help in this area, let me know. Thanks for your contributions. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, good advice. I stopped by because of your notice at the Greece & Rome Project. Just wanted to say that I appreciate the care you're taking to understand procedure. Very thoughtful editing. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Great advice!--Codrinb (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Dacian language

Article is in a awkward and nonacademic form. I tried to modify it a little bit. I think that it need a major restructuring, what do you think? Anyway I will with it in when I'll have some more spare time, meanwhile ideas are appreciated. Happy new year btw:) Aigest (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work! Thank you! And happy new year!--Codrin.B (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Articole despre România

(in Romanian) Bună, Codrinb. Sunt foarte impresionat de site-ul Wikipedia şi mă bucur că am găsit aici articole despre România şi despre români. Mi-ar plăcea să adaug şi eu informaţii şi să creez pagini, doar că nu ştiu să vorbesc cursiv engleza. Pot crea însă articole în limba române şi mi-ar plăcea ca cineva să traducă şi să le adauge şi pe Wikipedia în limba engleză. Răspunde-mi te rog la propunere. Mulţumesc! --MJ for U (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bună. Îți sugerez să creezi un cont pe Wikipedia în limba română și să creezi articole acolo. Apoi poți cere să fie traduse. O listă de traducători este aici.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, o să creez pagini, dar unde voi face propunerile?--MJ for U (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

O descriere e aici, din păcate în engleză. Dar are și o variantă mai puțin detaliată in română. Pe scurt pui articolul într-o categorie de tradus folosind un format util (template). Dacă există articolul în Română și e mult mai complet decât cel în engleză, marchezi articolul din versiunea engleză cu {{Expand Romanian}} (dacă lipsește cu desăvârșire - trebuie sa-l cauți bine - îl creezi cu o frază si apoi pui formatul util). Apoi poți contanta direct și traducătorii din lista care ți-am dat-o.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Codrinb. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_January_2.
Message added 03:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Megleno-Romanians

Hi! I saw your recent edit to Megleno-Romanians, mentioning whatever other languages the Megleno-Romanians might speak. What's the point of that? Maybe some of them know English and Spanish. I am ready to revert, but wanted your input. Nice picture of Machu Picchu. Been there last month. Regards!--Codrin.B (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello.Yes, it is true that they may speak even English, but often in that box are put the languages that are official in the country where people live and that means they know it for sure (some may use them at home for instance). I have seen that in many infoboxes and that's why I have put it. Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You must be kidding. It sounds very unrealistic to list all languages of one countries as spoken by a tiny minority and hints to some nationalistic agenda not welcomed on Wikipedia. Can you give any examples? And let's keep the discussion in one place. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacians = ? Balto-SLavs

Actualy, the closest living relative to Dacian is modern Baltic. Quite a few linguists have found that. THis doesn;t mean that Dacians were Balts, or vice-versa, ofcourse. But this has led some to propose that a dialectical-linguistic continuum extended right accross eastern EUrope, into the eastern Balkans from the northern forests Hxseek (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about Alinei theory? Aigest (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

To me this sounds like a very controversial theory, definitely not mainstream. Others clearly suggest Albanian as a living relative, while Romanian and Bulgarian are the only languages that I know of which have Dacian words in them. Give examples of Baltic words of Dacian origin please. And then there are the Thracian and Illyrian strong connections, none of which have anything to do with Baltic, and definitely not with the Slavic or a extended and forced Balto-Slavic grouping Nonetheless, this would never justify those changes to the map, as controversial linguistic affinities do not convert a distinct population, with a significantly different cultural background and at a far away location to the Balto-Slavic tribes. No way! Dacians are a distinct group, and historically had quite a large population that challenged Rome significantly. The Balto-Slavs were far away from Balkans at that time and no historical sources show any kind of interaction between Dacians and them, let alone describe them as relatives. But there is plenty of known Dacian interaction with Illyrians, Thracians, Celts, Sarmatians, Scythians, Romans, Greeks, Germanic tribes, with whom Dacians share more cultural and linguistic affinities. The map is completely removing this large and distinct group of people from history based on some strange theories, only 19 years after the war with Rome. This map should reflect Dacians as distinct until more significant evidence is brought to the table. To me all these theories and actions sound liked very political, forced justifications of early presence of Slavs in Balkans, politics which are very inconvenienced by the presence of a different, ancient group of people. They have no place on an encyclopedia. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

CodrinB, the Baltic-Dacian affnity theory is based on comparitive onosmatics, ie similarity of some river names and plant names. It has nothing to do with ALinei's theory, and has nothing to do with nationalism (believ it or not, not all Slas want to invade Romania !), so you don't need to panic !

The idea that Balto-Slavic shows some affinity with Dacian, does not remove the independence of Dacians and their role in history. I am not necessarily supposing that Dacians were Balto -Slavic (in fact, i am interested in it because it gives some clues as to how Slavic developed, which, we'd all agree came after Dacian. If Dacian & Thracian were indeed rather similar to Slavic, then they might not have 'beomce extinct' but rather evolved into Slavic).

Whatever the case, the Dacians were a distinct political-military group which existed before and around the time of Roman conquest. People have extended this label, Dacian, to supposed linguistic phylu, based on scanty -to -nonexistent evidence. The Dacians were defined by their military activities against Rome, and not due to some particular language, or percievd modern descendents, as most people would argue Hxseek (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hxseek, very thoughtful response. Thanks for clarifying your points. However, the Baltic-Dacian connection is a very interesting theory but it is not mainstream and doesn't warrant such radical changes to a map used by a myriad of articles. Personally I am even more skeptical of the Dacian-Slavic connection and suspicious of the motifs, since doesn't have much support and due to the point I raised before, but I welcome your research on that and I hope to read books written by you. However, changing the Roman Empire map, and writing assertions and convincing statements using such research done by Wikipedia users or non-main stream authors, infringes the Wikipedia:No_original_research policy. Notice the dubious original research in the section Changes to Empire 125 map, removed from the current Talk page maybe in good faith. Not worried about the Slavs invading, way to late for that :-) P.S. Don't forget to use indentation when talking, when it makes sense. --Codrin.B (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by 'mainstream'. AFAIK, virtually all who have analyzed Dacian have made this connection, however, we unfortunately know far too little of Dacian. [I have actually been trying to liaise with some prominent THracian language analysts: Duridanov, Polome, etc - all dead ! :( ]

The map issue is another subject. I'll leave that to you, Era and Andrei to sort out. Regards Hxseek (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, Dacian and Thracian do show some "affinities" with Balto-Slavic, but that does not mean it belongs to Baltic or a Slavic (although Alinei proposed the last one). Slavic and Baltic though different groups do show some similarities, that's why they are sometime put together in a supergroup called sometimes Northeastern group. It's like Italo-Celtic supergroup, (NorthWestern group) while both groups are independent (Italic and Celtic) they do show some affinities. Returning to our case, yes it can sow some affinities, but that doesn't mean that it belongs to them. Mainstream right now is that they were independent. I wouldn't be surprised of other affinities,(an eg Albanian shows affinities with Balto-Slavic, Italo-Celtic and even with Greek-Armenian called southern group) but the data on Dacian are scarce. What they have produced so far are only affinities with Balto-Slavic. Aigest (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

CodrinB. May I make a suggestion. As an illustrative example: your suggestion that the Basternae were "definitely" Celto-Germanic with some Dacian elements, "for sure", it worries me. I actually haven't had a lot to do with Dacian stuff apart from odd comments on the Carpi, etc. However, if you really want to create some great articles on Dacians, et al, then I suggest you really get up to speed with recent developments on culural anthropology and critical archaeology. With the above example, on what basis do you call the basternae Celto-Germano-Dacian ? (I know you probably just read it) But I can tell you that there is in fact No evidence whatsoever as to what language they spoke , is there ? So then, what is the basis that scholars argue that they were Celto-Dacian, given that, above all, it is alinguistic categorization ?

The only evidence we might have for them is archaeological. Eg certain types of weapons, jewellery, settlements found in areas where we suppose they lived (don;t even know for sure). Furthermore, these features show much in common with other assemblaes from Dacia and eastern Europe. So they actually do no suficiently tell us how and why they were different, from eg Venedi, or Carpi.

The problem is a lot of eastern European historians, including (& especially) Romanian ones, are so intent on proving 'continuity', etc, that they compromize their methodology. One has to keep this in mind when debating issues regarding past ethnic groups for which we have little and difficult to interpret evidence.

Hxseek (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacian script

Please stop removing articles left and right or I'll have to report your vandalism. You have no reason to remove the Dacian script articles even if you don't agree or believe in it. It is possibility. Even if it all fake, it deserves an article to clarify the theories with pros and cons. What consensus do you cite? And why do you hide under this nick name? --Codrin.B (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You want to get yourself accustomed to Wikipedia rules about pseudoscience, available at WP:FRINGE. There's not one established historian attesting the existence of such thing as "Dacian script" (as opposed to Latin or Greek script used to write "Dacian"). Wikipedia's is not a place to publish historical revisionism by obscure non-specialists, so unless you bring a proof of scholar support for this "Dacian script" or at least prove that there's a notable dispute about the subject (which is not the case either, as even the most dacophile mainstream historians acknowledge that the only scripts used in the area of Dacia were Latin and, much less frequently, Greek). Thank you. Anonimu (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid you have a very twisted interpretation of WP:FRINGE. First of all, the article starts with a very neutral sentence A so-called Dacian script..., therefore, the editor was careful not to present those controversial views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views, exactly how the Fringe theory guidelines, I repeat guidelines suggest. I do not endorse the view that the script is real, however I can not tolerate such vandalism and aggressiveness. I noticed your interest in the topic and I invited you constructively to join the project dealing with the Dacia topic, where you can communicate and coordinate with great people. But instead of creating you are mostly deleting and removing other peoples work without prompting any kind of conversation. You are accusing others of revisionism but this is exactly what you do. Your destructive and negative attitude, your activities, your id, Anonimu and your empty profile clearly show that you have a very hidden agenda, you have some holy wars to fight and make your very suspect of sock puppetry. I suggest you review your actions and attitude, and come forward with honesty about your interests and agenda. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Rescue of Dacian script

Why not merge the article with Sinaia lead plates, Proto-Romanian or Dacian?Racconish ^Tk 08:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Declined, content dispute

FYI - edit, Jeepday (talk) 13:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Codrinb. You have new messages at Explicit's talk page.
Message added 02:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And another reply to the same discussion. — ξ^xplicit 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Codrinb. You have new messages at Bine Mai's talk page.
Message added 20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• Commented again :) BineMai 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hélène Cuvigny, Ostraca de Krokodilô

Yes, it is a great book but I don't have it. Daizus (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good list. Some of those names are already discussed in the relevant literature, see the studies I cited for Costoboci (for Natopor see page 11). Daizus (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacians on the Roman Empire map

Hi Codrin,

First of all the Bastarnae were initially of mixed Celtic-Germanic origin (until about the 1st century BC), but by the 2nd century they have become Germanic. The accounts of both Pliny the Elder and Tacitus support this. Secondly, the links between Dacian and the Baltic languages are attested in several publications. If you want I will ask Hxseek to provide you with some references. I strongly oppose being unfairly accused of original reasearch.

Now, regarding the 'political motivations' behind 'rewriting the ancient history of Dacia' on wiki I have to say you and Daizus are still thinking according to obsolete nationalist and protochronist patterns. To be honest, the importance of the Dacians and their role in the Romanian ethnogenesis has been grossly overemphasized in the Communist period. It's not a tragedy if we admit that the regions East and South of the Carpathians (Moldavia and Muntenia) and parts of Transylvania were most likely colonized and Romanized (or rather Wallachianized) during the Middle Ages (7-14 centuries) by a Romance-speaking population coming from the territories immediatly South of the Danube (Central Serbia and Northern Bulgaria). In fact the younger generation of Romanian historians (Alexandru Madgearu, Marian Tiplic, C. Opreanu and others) have suggested that the Romanians originated chiefly from the region situated between the Jirecek line and Danube with only some isolated islands of Latin-speakers surviving in Banat and the Western Carpathians after 271.

Finally, my personal opinion is that instead of evoking Burebista, Decebal and the Dacians we should rather concentrate on the history of the Latin-speaking population of the Balkans during the 3-6 centuries, a period in which most Roman and East Roman Emperors were of Romanized Thraco-Illyrian and later Germanic origin. Perhaps we should even take the example given by the Serbs and have some streets and other locations in Romania named after famous Later Roman Emperors, Constantine the Great or Iustinian for example. At least they are well-known figures in the Western World, unlike Decebal or Burebista, and this reorientation could increase the international prestige of Romania. It's not wild to consider modern Romania as the paramount successor state to the East Roman Empire since the country has an Eastern Romance official language and bears the same name as the former Empire.

Andrei (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andrei,

1. Your theory on Bastarnae relies on what reliable sources? Some other accounts say the Bastarnae are Scythians. Strabo (VII 3.17) claims the Roxolani are one of the Bastarnic tribes.

2. I don't know any reliable sources asserting Dacian was a Baltic (or Balto-Slavic) language, as depicted on your map, but please, prove me wrong. There are some controversial, fringe theories (like Harvey Mayer's theory of Dacian and Thracian as "Baltoidic" languages, i.e. languages derived from a Pre-Baltic language, whatever that means), but such theories shouldn't be illustrated on such maps. That this is OR it's quite clear on your talk page - it's EraNavigator's pet theory followed by a request (acknowledged to be a speculation!)

3. I never write of Romanians when I discuss about Dacians. That is not an excuse for some users here to use Dacians or other ancient tribes to promote their own views as reliable theories and unfortunately their ignorance also. Daizus (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe I went too far talking about Romanians, the Romanian Ethnogenesis and the Middle Ages. I have to admit to you and to Codrin that the ruthless promotion of the Dacians as having the same importance as the Romans or the Slavs in the formation of the Romanian people (even in recent years) and the immutable character of the 'Daco-Roman Continuity' theory have created quite a recoil in me so I came to somewhat despise the Dacians. The tons of Dacomanic literature I see in Romanian bookstores is really not helping me to overcome this feeling.

So you despise the Dacians and you made them Balts on your maps so Romanians can get rid of them :) As for your "tons of dacomanic literature", I guess it really depends on the bookstores, and on the publishing house (for me, at least, that's also a choice to make). Most of the times I find none. The last time I saw something like that was about the Sinaia lead tablets. Daizus (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Strabo lived and wrote in the late 1st centrury BC and early 1st century AD. I would rather trust what Pliny and Tacitus say as they lived at a time closer to AD 125.

That's irrelevant and OR. Neither Pliny, nor Tacitus are known to have first hand knowledge of the Bastarnae. Daizus (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

2. I will try to find some references myself but you should debate this issue with Hxseek and EraNavigator. They are much better prepared than me to carry on this dispute.

I've read their references and arguments in several discussions here - no proof or bibliography whatsoever for Dacian as a Balto-Slavic language. To be sure, Balto-Slavic as a group is ridiculous and also OR, as there are Slavic languages, Baltic languages, and a hypothetic Proto-Balto-Slavic ancestor. Daizus (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

3. You might call my views or EraNavigator's views as proves of ignorance, that's fine with me. I know our theories need to be more polished but I think someone has to challenge some obsolete and embarrassing theories regading the ancient and medieval history of Romania, even here on Wikipedia. Andrei (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

At this moment, at least in the articles on Dacian tribes, the only embarassing theories are EraNavigator's. As he once said: "the Baltic peoples came from Dacia, which was one stop on their migration from Asia Minor (part of the Indo-European migrations into Europe)". This theory is not even related to the history of Romanians. But this and other ludicrous views of his explain some of the bias and the OR from his articles. His theories need no polish, they just need to be ignored. One can't have a plausible theory without no knowledge. Following some of EraNavigator's OR I realized he doesn't even understand Latin well and he misread the ancient accounts to fit his preconceived views (e.g. Ammianus on Costobocae). Lack of knowledge is a big problem, but a bigger one is that his theories are as dogmatic as the "paradigms" (that's his word) he fights against. He's just one more ideologue! And as it happens in such a case, much of the "challenge" is a straw man. Cui prodest?

Anyway, presenting "your" theories and challenging other theories on Wikipedia is OR. Thank you for proving my point! ;) Daizus (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, don't get me wrong. I don't want the Romanians to get rid of the Dacians, I just want their place to be where it should be in the history of Romania, alongside the Gepids, Goths, Bulgars and Cumans. What I really despise is the way the Dacians are constantly used to sustain backward protochronistic theories.

Give me one author who lived in the 1st or 2nd centuries AD and had a better knowledge of the Bastarnae than Pliny the Elder or Tacitus.

Have you at least personally asked Hxseek or EraNavigator for some references? I wonder what are you waiting for.

You previously said we shouldn't bring Romanians into our debate concerning the Dacians. Now you say that what EraNavigator wrote (regardless of what he stated there about migration patterns) has nothing to do with the history of Romanians... How comes that? And I bet you are an expert in translating Latin texts and that you can proove he has indeed misread Ammianus and other ancient authors...

In any case EraNavigator has sustained his theories with some solid references in the articles he wrote on the Costoboci and Carpi. Is it so hard for you to accept that there is a 50% chance these tribes were something else than Dacian?

My feeling is that you are as much as an ideologue as EraNavigator is. Why else would you be so horrified by this statement: 'Therefore, modern Romanian is not descended from Dacian at all'? There is not a single word in Romanian which can be certified as originating from Dacian. All of the presumed Dacian words in Romanian are in fact simillar to Albanian words.

Andrei (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Why would we need authors with "better knowledge of the Bastarnae"? Do you even know such authors existed? And let's not forget, still OR!

2. I know enough about such stuff, to realize when someone is making up or when he quotes scholars. Nevertheless I asked for reliable sources, and expectedly I received none, only rhetoric. EraNavigator's articles on Costoboci and Carpi are obvious cases of poorly referenced OR.

3. You can check EraNavigator's knowledge of Latin by reading Ammianus in any editions available:

Ammianus' Latin text: Europaei sunt Halani et Costobocae gentesque Scytharum innumerae

EraNavigator's quote: gentes Costobocae (sic!)

Loeb edition: European Halani, the Costobocae, and innumerable Scythian tribes

EraNavgiator's translation: Costobocan tribes

I guess he doesn't know how the enclitic "que" works. Senatus Populusque Romanus means "the Senat and the Roman people", not "the Senat, the people, and the Roman" ;)

Actually, that is wrong, too. Que does not directly translate to "and"; it "is used especially where the two members have an internal connection with each other" (Bennett's New Latin Grammar, apparently) A better translation would be "The Europeans are / the Halani / and the Costobocae *with* (among? one of the?) the tribes of the innumerable Scythians", suggesting that the Costobocae are connected to Scythians. If Ammianus simply meant to list -- "Halani, Costobocae, and the Scythian tribes" -- he would have just used "et" instead of "que".

senatus populusque romanus = the Senate "and" (meaning "with", or "connected to") the populace -of- Rome

costobocae gentesque scytharum innumerae = Costobocae *with* the tribes -of- the innumerable Scythians

--Agamemnus (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? In Senatus Populusque Romanus, even you translated "-que" by "and", so how am I wrong? The Loeb translation is just fine (Costobocae and countless Scythian tribes), and frankly your rebuttal is OR if anything. Yes, que-relation is stronger than et-relation, but still that word is translated directly to "and" ([1] [2] [3] etc.) And certainly Ammianus does not say the Costobocae were a group of tribes as EraNavigator wants to read here (Costobocae gentes (sic!)). Halani were one tribe, Costobocae were another tribe, and there were countless others. So I'm not wrong at all! Daizus (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

4. 50% chance of not being Dacian? And 40% chance of being Tibetan, right? Where do you get this stuff? Look, I don't know if Costoboci were Dacian or not, but at least those few names of theirs were showed to be Dacian over and over by scholars (maybe they were Sarmatians having Dacian names, I don't know, if you have a reliable source for this theory, you can cite it in the article).

5. Modern Romanian language is not descended from Dacian at all, but from Latin. You know next to nothing about me and my beliefs, stop making a fool of yourself ;) I am not the one talking about Romanians in Dacian topics (but you, EraNavigator, CodrinB and others), I am not the one liking or hating ancient tribes, so how am I an ideologue? What are my theories, anyway?

6. As for Romanian and Albanian, yes, Proto-Albanian is identified with Dacian, Thracian, Illyrian or whatever unknown language, so here's your source for those Romanian words (oh no, Dacian too, teh horror! but you hate them so let's rule out that possibility)

7. In the end, you did nothing to prove such theories are anything but OR. You showed quite the opposite, you'll support any fringe theories as long as they are not what some/most Romanian scholars argue (in your own words, you "want to compensate"). The decision to use other maps in those articles was eventually a good one. Daizus (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You mentioned both Hxseek and EraNavigator, however my answer considered only the contributions of the latter. IMO, Hxseek is much more knowledgeable and at the same time more neutral. Read carefully his opinions and arguments, I think he has some answers you seek. Daizus (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

1. You were the one who doubted what Pliny the Elder and Tacitus wrote of the Bastarnae, not me. You are the one who needs to come forward with some other contemporary author who contradicts what they say.

2. So you claim you can precisely determine when someone is making up original theories. I wonder who made you the judge?

3. I second Agamemnus on what he said. Or perhaps we should also accuse the guys who wrote the Bennett's New Latin Grammar of OR, right?

4. I see that you now agree with what EraNavigator states, that the Costoboci were of uncertain origin (either Dacian or Sarmatian, or maybe a mixture of the two ethnic identities). If you agree the same goes for the Carpi then the case is closed and the 2 tribes will remain labelled as of uncertain origin on my map. I'm glad we solved at least one of the problems.

5. Yes you are an ideologue (perhaps unwillingly), one who is promoting obsolete National-Communist pseudo-historical truisms, like Bichir's conclusion that the Carpi were Dacian, or that a Daco-Roman continuity existed across entire modern Romania, theories based solely on archeological findings, a method classified as unscientific by modern scholars. You are causing much embarrassment to the younger generation of Romanian historians.

6. Wow, you really pointed out what I wanted to. Thank you very much! So, if proto-Albanian is identified with Dacian, Thracian or Illyrian, and you acknowledge the linguistic affinities of Albanian with Balto-Slavic (at least that's what E.P. Hamp's 'Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics' says) then you must agree that Thracian, Illyrian and Dacian were not isolated languages, and that a linguistic continuum existed across Eastern Europe.

7. No, you are the one promoting theories which are gradually becoming peripheric in Romanian Academia.

8. Hxseek had no objections to Dacian being clasiffied as Balto-Slavic and he even volunteered to provide some references in support of my map.

Andrei (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

1. You're building a straw man. Cassius Dio says the Bastarnae are Scythians. Strabo says the Roxolani were a Bastarnic tribes. You're choosing to believe Pliny and Tacitus and not the others, and that's original research.

2. No one made me a judge, but the proof is when I ask for reliable sources and people can't provide them. You, for instance, are one of them.

3. Who cares? The Loeb editions are reliable sources, you and Agamemnus are not (he used a forum for source, and Bennett's New Latin Grammar says what I said: that -que means "and"!)

4. EraNavigator insisted that you should make Costoboci a Sarmatian tribe on your map.

5. I don't know what you're smoking but that's some heavy stuff. I don't promote "obsolete National-Communist pseudo-historical truisms", I don't even have Bichir's books. I don't believe "Daco-Roman continuity existed across entire modern Romania" and to be sure, I can't be an "embarrassment to the younger generation of Romanian historians", because I'm not one of them. Since all your assertions on me were blatant lies, now who's the ideologue? :)

6. I very much doubt that. I don't acknowledge any particular linguistic affinities of Albanian with Balto-Slavic (Hamp has his point of view, there are others), and I said Proto-Albanian can be "Dacian, Thracian or Illyrian" (or means not all three at once!). These languages are not isolates, they are all Indo-European languages (try to use some words you know their meaning, ok?). Today you have the same Indo-European "linguistic continuum" (sic!) (except some enclaves like Magyar or Basque), but if you imagine there's something special about Romanian and Ukrainian because of some words in common, then you're really off the track.

7. I always provided sources (most of them not even Romanian, but I guess that's too much for you to observe) for my claims in those articles, you just whine.

8. Yeah, sure! But until Hxseek or God Almighty will give you a reliable source saying Dacian is a Balto-Slavic language, I will remove your map from articles on Dacian topics. Daizus (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Daizus 100%! Please start meaningful, respectful conversations, based on verifiable facts and reliable sources on the corresponding article talk pages. I invite those with Dacian-Baltic connection theory to start that separate page and add all the knowledge you have, as long as is not original research.--Codrin.B (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I give up. So you want me to reintroduce the Dacian linguistic group. But then should I maintain the Carpi and Costoboci classified as Uncertain or should I color them as being Dacian?

I hope this will make you keep my map in the Dacia-related articles.

Regards,

Andrei (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the best and most neutral way is to abandon "linguistic research" on that map. But if you all really believe this map should also show languages, I vote for as many "uncertains" as possible. I think you should put in "uncertain" Daci, Costoboci, Carpi, Veneti, Bastarnae and probably several others. Daizus (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Still I cannot simply abandon EraNavigator and the idea that a Balto-Slavic linguistic continuum existed between the Balkan Mountains and the Baltic Sea. Maybe it would be better to have two maps, one supporting the Balto-Slavic hypothesis and one without any ethno-linguistic classifications. What do you think?

In any case I want to remake the map of Roman Dacia as well and add the topography on it. But this will be later, perhaps at the beginning of March.

Now I want to do some research on the history of Christianity in the Northern Balkans between the 4th and 7th century.

In the end I have to thank you and Codrin for giving me the opportunity to practice my English and to enjoy this interesting debate. You know, I don't really care if the Dacians were Balto-Slavs or Thracians, if there was a Daco-Roman continuity in Dacia after 271 or if the Vlachs came from south of the Danube during the Middle Ages. It's just that sometimes I like to take one side in order to have some fun battling other people.

Andrei (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am very happy we finally came to terms :-) Happy to help you practice the English. :-) I vote the version prior to November 19, when Daci were blue and had their own distinct grouping. That's the most important part I think. If you want to keep the Carpi and Costoboci blue as well, until we clarify all their corresponding articles and the Dacian-Baltic theory, that would be super. If you want to chose another color for them plus Bastarnae as uncertain, I could live with that. Thanks again!--Codrin.B (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, I was gone for a moment reading an anti-protochronistic blog and look what's going on my talk page! :-) I welcome the dialog guys, I like the tone. Andrei, a few points:

1. I have to agree with Daizus, you can't make the Dacians Slavs using a fringe theory out of a desire to compensate with some Dacoman movements (I don't like to call them "Dacologists", I believe the term has to salvaged and restored to the respectful place, next to "Thracologist" and "Egyptologist")
2. I wasn't accusing you of original research, your seem to be doing the graphics, but I have to second Daizus when it comes to EraNavigator's "work". The guys is smart and seems to know a lot, but I think he has a serious problem understanding the Wikipedia's policy regarding original research. As I was saying in other places, I'll be happy to read books by him but I don't want to see his early, unpublished creations in Wikipedia.
3. You didn't seem to have a problem with the Dacian grouping and and color until November 2010, when Era convinced you to make those changes. I think you should revert to that model until more, better science comes along. It is not a protochronistic move.
4. I don't think you should accuse Daizus of protochronism since he recently proposed the merger of Dacian script to that main article :-) I respect his opinion and I think he is very neutral.
5. I am also striving to stay neutral too, but I cannot stay away from the actions of some who not in good faith are working to remove or mess up Dacia related articles, part of a very aggressive anti-protochronist police. Some actions might be right, but some are very dubious and nasty, pointing to the anti-Romanian, anti-Dacian agenda of some people, which goes beyond fighting Dacomans (they only invoke that as excuse to destroy).
6. I started the WikiProject Dacia in good faith without any agenda. I put a lot of work in it and I did it because I believe that the story of Dacians deserves to be told and made available to English speakers. Most articles are in bad shape and need a structure to organize them.
7. I don't endorse Dacomans and theories about Pelasgians ruling the World, but I believe their (not all negative) nationalism and energy, if done wisely, can be channeled toward the creation of missing content, which can be then cleaned up by specialists. After all, with the exception of some extremists, they are young guys who want to know and lover their history. In other words I believe in inclusionism and incrementalism, as the foundational principles of Wikipedia.
8. Are you sure all these words are certified Albanian words? Let's not be so masochistic about our own history and kill the Dacians, please! There are plenty of people looking to do it anyway. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
9. Regarding Carpi and Costoboci, logic should tell you that it is impossible that in 106 AD, all Dacians disappeared (abducted by aliens?), all their Davae outside Dacia Trajana got replaced instantly by inhabitants from other nations. Or alternatively, that the borders of Dacian Trajana define the only territory where the Dacians every lived, and therefore outside them, in 106 AD, there were no Free Dacians. According to historical sources they had a numerous army and population, and they should have had, in order too keep the Celts, Germanic tribes, Sarmatians, Macedonians from conquering them before the Romans. And all nations conquered by Romans had groups or tribes staying outside the lost territory, raiding inside the newly acquired Roman land, and trying to get what they lost back or at least have some guerrilla/resistance war. German, Celts, Persians all did it. It is only logical to assume that Dacian Carpi and Costoboci (maybe allied and mixed with others), did the same. Besides, there are plenty of reports showing Dacians raiding Romans south of Danube, before 101 AD, trying perhaps to get back their Davae and reclaim territory that Burebista had. It sounds like too much bullshit to me to say something radically different. And in the desire to combat Dacomania and Neo-Protochronism, we cannot just embrace all the fringe theories that strive to remove Dacians in any shape or form.
10. To me, saying that the Dacians were nothing, maybe some Slavs, which quickly disappeared, is by no means less extreme or valid than the protochronistic theories. The truth is always in the middle.
11. I think you have to find a way to love Dacians again. You can diminish their role, but I am sure parts of them, are in you. And you can't allow to hate yourself or be a hypocrite. Your quest for truth is great and your desire to put Dacians in their rightful place is understandable, but try to not put them in the wrong place. I think that we should put all the knowledge together first, create all missing articles, consult all possible sources, and only then reassess articles/maps and do dramatic changes. Too much is missing to make decisions.

--Codrin.B (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm not classifying the Dacians as Balto-Slavic because I want to compensate for the theories of some crazy Dacomans. Don't mix up what I said above. I've asked Hxseek to come up with some references for the links between Dacian and the Baltic Languages.

2. Whether EraNavigator has broken the wiki policies on original research should be decided by the administrators, not by us.

3. That's because I didn't paid much attention to the issue of Dacian linguistic affiliation until then.

4. OK. But I want to see he has no problem if in the near future (10-20 years) the Dacians were to be treated by Romanian and foreign historians as a people with almost no links to modern Romanians whatsoever.

5. And I strongly support (as any Romanian of good faith should) the aggressive anti-protochronist police EraNavigator is pioneering here on Wikipedia. You really disappointed me when you mixed the anti-Dacian with the anti-Romanian agenda. I believe an anti-Dacian agenda (with a strong emphasis on anti-protochronism) can only be good for the future of Romanian historiography. The Dacians have contributed to the Romanian Erhnogenesis as much as the Gepids or Cumans, they had a valuable albeit minor role. I believe Dacians are to Romanians what ancient Phrygians are to modern Turks.

7. You mean their anti-nationalism and mockering of what Romania really is: an Eastern-Romance nation bearing the name of the former Eastern Roman Empire. They are only causing embarassment to the younger and open-minded generation of Romanian historians. The Dacians ought to be studied bare of any nationalistic passions.

8. But this is the truth. We don't know for certain if we have any surviving Dacian words in Romanian. I wish we could know for certain that some words were 100% of Dacian origin.

9. Well the Dacians are present on my map, West of Siret river, in Northern Muntenia, Western Moldavia and Northern Transylvania. These were the Free Dacians. My only desire is that we should stop overemphasising the importance of Dacians in Romanian history. The history of the Romanized Thraco-Germano-Illyrians in the 3-6 centuries is far, far more valuable for modern Romania.

10. The Dacians were not Slavs! I only suggest they were linguistically related to the Balts.

11. I am more interested in the history of the Later Roman Empire (3-6 c.), particularly that of the Roman provinces in the Northern and Western Balkans. I will never treasure a people who worshipped their god (Zalmoxis) with human sacrifices. I just can't do it, the Dacians will never be part of me.

Andrei (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrei, You gave me some great arguments which I accept, but overall, I am sorry to see that you are so negative and anti-Dacian. You are trying to separated from being also anti-Romanian but is a very twisted way of thinking. Honestly, everyone will associate the two whether you like it or not. I think to put Dacians and Gepids on the same level is unfortunate and unacceptable. We have almost nothing from those people, compared to what we have from Dacians. Not even close! Are you under the impression that Huns, Germanics, Illyrians and even Romans were less barbaric in their wars and religious practices that Dacians? I am sorry, but you are very anti-Dacian, which explains the changes you did. You are promoting a hate police? All this is immature, unbalanced, unwise and will bring only conflict and no solutions. The actions of this police are breaking many Wikipedia policies, from uncivility, to harassment, war edits and almost vandalism, abusing and misunderstanding the WP:NOT#DEM. This is not what sensible Wikipedians should do. Your attitude might created more Dacomans than you can kill. Because control and imposing views by force, aka Dictatorship and Inquisition, never work. Never. You have to lead by example and teach others in order to win the on your side. I suggest you keep an open mind and heart, stay positive, be wise, try to keep and look at a glass half full then half empty. The maps you are creating are great.--Codrin.B (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't like associating the Dacians with modern Romanians. It would be like associating ancient Phrygians to modern Turks or ancient Babilonians to modern Iraqis. Why should any Romanian bother to trace his ethnic past to the Dacians when we barely have anything left from then, except for some ruins. I think anyone should instead be horrified by their despisal for human life.

I hope you noticed the recent archeological findings related to the Gepids, such as the Franziska Tesaurus (1996) or the Vlaha Necropolis (2004). In case you were wondering why these remarcable discoveries were made only after 1989 you should know (just in case you didn't) that during Communism funds were almost entirely allocated for Dacian-related sites or for other sites attesting the 'undoubtful continuity of the Daco-Romans' all over modern Romania. Yet another reason not to be enthusiastic about the Dacians or Continuity theories.

How can you say I am breaking Wikipedia policies if I am condemning highly unscientific and discredited pseudo-historical tendencies such as Protochronism and Dacology? I said the focus should be on the protochronist predilections and on avoiding to overemphasize or idylize the role of Dacians in Romanian history.

Of course the Huns, Carthaginians, Romans, Illyrians and others were at least as savage as the Dacians were, but the Romans gained a moral ascendency after they adopted Christiniaty in the 4th century. You have to admit it was a revolutionary religion for that period, and its embracement by the Empire was a step forward towards a more humane society. It was exactly Christianity and the Roman-Catholic Church which successfully preserved and even expanded the legacy of the Roman Empire in Western and Northern Europe, even after 476. The same happened in the Balkans as the Vlachs survived and Romanized (or Wallachianized) new regions north of the Danube thanks to the intense activity of the Latin-speaking clergy from the Iustiniana Prima Archbishopric or from other major centres of religious activity north of the Jirecek line.

And why have you deleted the message from Dahn? Do you feel ashamed by your trolling activities?

Andrei (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrei, please be more mature and positive. Again very negative and provocative. I removed negative messages which do nothing good. User Dahn, with whom I am trying to establish peace, did an equal amount of trolling during the heated debates. Here is very long List of Dacian towns and Davae. Many of them also coincide with most major cities in Romania proving continuity. There is also a huge list of unnamed Dacian settlements in this list of historical sites. And then who knows how many are underground. And I did not include the Dacian settlements in neighboring countries. Please give me a list of Gepid towns please. Thank you.--Codrin.B (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wasting your time if you're trying to convince me to be more enthusiastic about the Dacians or to support the Daco-Roman Continuity all over modern Romania or even on the entire territory of former Dacia province. The trend is changing since at least 2000 and I urge you to take this into account. You're wasting your energy on something unrewarding and which is not helping Romania to finally overcome the Communist legacy.

Are you kidding me trying to make me believe continuous habitation equates to ethno-linguistic continuity? Hah! Codrin, please be more mature and realistic!

I'm afraid this conversation is going nowhere so I'll leave you to your energy-sucking Dacians. Nice chat anyway. Thank you for making me more secure and determined about the theories and principles I decided to believe in, which of course will be promoted here only by respecting all Wikipedia regulations.

Cheers,

Andrei (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Costoboci

Thanks. If you can add something to that article, then please do. Daizus (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please move conversations to corresponding pages

Guys, interesting debate, but please move the conversation to corresponding pages for Talk:Dacian language, Talk:Costoboci, and File_talk:Roman_Empire_125.svg. It is impossible to follow it at this point and others may want to join. Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, Codrin..

Thanks. In text, as people often say, the inflection of words and gestures is lost. So, at the risk of "sounding" like an egotistical maniac, I appreciate your apology! --Agamemnus (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Map of Hallstatt culture

I outcommented the map in December. Please, see Talk:Hallstatt culture. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Your leadership of Prject Dacia

Shame on you, Codrin.B! You have assumed leadership of the Dacia project, and yet you do not act as an impartial arbiter. You should know better than to take sides in the disputes. Instead of encouraging people with new ideas to get involved, you have backed the outrageous tactics of Daizus and the Anonymous editor in the Carpi (people) and Costoboci articles - arbitrarily removing content without a consensus, inserting unreferenced material, and now replacing the superb map of the Empire created specially for Wikipedia by Andrei Nacu and me, which shows every river, region and barbarian people mentioned in the article with a completely irrelevant map of Roman Dacia - simply because the Geto-Daco-Romanists don't like a few rubrics. You have supported their demand that the Carpi and Costoboci be shown as Dacian-speakers, even though the evidence (and the CAH) do not warrant this.

If you see your role simply as the watchdog of Geto-Daco-Romanic continuity orthodoxy, then your project will get nowhere. Any contributor who wants to open up the debate and explore new possibilities will simply not bother to get involved, and you will be left with a series of boring articles parroting the tired shibboleths of a largely discredited theory. You might as well simply translate the relevant Romanian wiki articles into English and be done with it. By I think our readers deserve much better than this.

If you want your project to succeed, you must adopt a strictly neutral position in academic disputes e.g. with the linguistic affiliation of the Carpi and Costoboci, you should back an "uncertain" classification, as that is the neutral position. You must also stop the edit wars, instead of complacently presiding over them. You should ban the tactics of Daizus and co. You should not allow content to be removed without a consensus (which must obviously include the agreement of the main author) unless that content is irrelevant or not properly referenced. You must also ban any unreferenced contributions. Anonymous is the big offender here (at least Daizus provides refs for his input): despite repeated invitations, Anonymous has refused to get a Username. Early on, he let slip that he had "lost" his previous Username: does this mean he was banned from editing? I would not be surprised if he was, given his modus operandi. Although he has made a few useful contributions, most of Anonymous' input has been negative, and you need to rein him in hard; if he does not respond, get his computer no. banned as well. You must also ban personal abuse: if you look at the debate above, I have been called ignorant, biased, and even dishonest. This is unacceptable. Above all, you must encourage people to explore ideas outside the orthodoxy, instead of ganging up with the Geto-Daco-Romanists to suppress their contributions - otherwise the whole exercise is a waste of time. EraNavigator (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, if want to say something to me, don't accuse me on someone else's talk page. Let's check my "outrageous tactics".

I replaced the map, because you requested twice Costoboci to be shown as Sarmatians (and where currently Dacians are Balts). On the current map the readers can see a probable location of this tribe with no other speculations and agendas.

I removed original research and POV-pushing making the Costoboci Sarmatians. Now the lead says "The Costoboci [..] were an ancient tribe ..." Outrage! Not a Sarmatian tribe?

I removed diatribes against Romanian scholars and other irrelevant information (about Anglo-Saxon burials or whatever).

I removed or questioned the unsourced claims and the un-encyclopaedic insinuations (that scholar's X evidence is inadequate, inconsistent, etc) Daizus (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have discussed all my edits on the talk page and in commentaries. You replied but you did not answer to my criticisms (on onomastics, on Ammianus, etc). Meanwhile the article was flagged with multiple problems and requiring expert attention. So here I am.

If you believe any of your former edits is of any value or relevance, you can argue on the talk page. Please note I questioned all your Batty refs, and so far you did not answer. If you refuse to answer, those dubious claims will have to go, too. Daizus (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, I was against the proposal of making the Costoboci Sarmatian on my map (see the former discussion on my talk page) and I offered myself to provide EraNavigator with some more recent Romanian works on this subject so that he could forget what Bichir and other Communsits wrote about the Carpi and Costoboci. Still, you cannot argue for the map replacement simply beacsue of an unsatisfied request from EraNavigator.

Andrei (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Andrei, my feeling is that your map is subject to EraNavigator's mood swings. You made Dacian Balto-Slavic when he asked you to (even though acknowledged to be just a speculation). I cannot endorse a map used by editors to push views which are fringe or not present in the text of those articles. A map should be stable (as your map on Roman Dacia). This map isn't. On his talk page you said "I was thinking of classifying the Daci, and perhaps the Bastarnae as well, as Uncertain. Don't get upset, this will only be a temporary edit (I hope)". So how can I endorse a map where neutrality is considered a "temporary edit"? This is not only about Costoboci, but about that "linguistic research" I mentioned above. I'm sorry for my skepticism, but I'm still waiting to see a honest intention behind that map. Daizus (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on, this map would have never been completed if it were for Era's mood swings. Are you ignoring the 3 modern cartographic sources I mentioned in the summary of my map? I believed Dacian was related to the Baltic Languages long before EraNavigator made his request and I was happy he shared my view. Seeing I was not the only one supporting this theory made me more secure to make the change to the Empire map. Now, until EraNavigator (or Hxseek, or someone else) comes with some solid references prooving that Dacian was indeed related to Baltic the Daci will be labelled as Uncertain. I will make the according changes later this evening. If Era will finally be able to support the Balto-Slavic linguistic continuum with some certain references then the map will have to be reverted to its current version. I'm not keen on making Dacians Balto-Slavs or Costoboci Sarmatian but we have to sometimes allow people to explore and promote different theories or ideas.

Andrei (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok: based on your and Era's mood swings :) I don't know why you say the map would have never completed, because it's completed for a while, but still changes, and often not in a good way. You can believe whatever you like, as long as that belief doesn't affect your work. That's what neutrality is. It's nice to explore, but you can do that in libraries, on blogs, forums, and so on. An encyclopedia should reflect. Your map has indeed cartographic sources (but also non-cartographic ones, such as Tacitus), however it does not always reflect them. By the way, are you aware of WP:SYN?

Your map is great as a map of the Roman Empire (as it was initially conceived, I guess), but not as a map of the barbarian world. For an article like Costoboci it would be so much better to have a map of the South-Eastern Europe showing the Roman border, important sites (such as Eleusis), important tribes (Costoboci, Hasdingi, Marcomanni, etc) and maybe important battles. But hey, why make something really nice and useful? Daizus (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Daizus, you have no right to trawl through my communications and discussions with my mapmaker and regurgitate long-past quotes in your campaign to discredit the map. Andrei and I have been working on this map (on and off) for over two years, and obviously, as we have done research, some of our views have evolved (and not because of "mood-swings"!) You have a right to criticise the rubrics as they stand now - and only their merits, not on the basis of what I may have said long ago. EraNavigator (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Cry me a river. I have the right to intervene whenever and wherever I want. You don't like it, report me. My criticism is not at all about "what you may have said long ago", but about what you said in late 2010, and early 2011.

As for your "research", ha, ha! When you're excited about a new book you read, you say it confirms your ideas. You've been asked repeatedly for sources and citations, and you failed to provide them. If you want to prove something, then prove it with sources, not with whining. Daizus (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I will make a new map of Roman Dacia, Moesia and parts of Dalmatia and Pannonia in the coming weeks so you won't have to wait for too long for a really nice and useful map of South-Eastern Europe. Andrei (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be very nice! If you need sources or reference maps to guide you in your work, just let me know. Daizus (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if you can provide me some reference maps. And of course if we are talking about Romanian sources I need maps published after 1989, or after 2000 would be even better. Thank you in advance.

Andrei (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)