Talk:Roman Dacia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dubious additoins

There are some dubious additions by User:Greier.

First of all, "Valurile lui Traian" were not made by Traian and not even by the Romans, they were made in a later era, some by Goths, some by Byzantines.

Then, the only Dacian tribe that w as mentioned after the Roman retreat were the "Carpians" (sometimes "Carpo-Dacians"). AFAIK, we don't know any other Dacian tribe and talking about Costoboci in 3rd century is anachronistic: they were destroyed in mid-2nd century. bogdan 18:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn`t say they were made by Trajan, but by the Romans. And they were built by Romans, at least some part of them. Indeed, it seems that some were built by some barbarian tribes to separate their terrioty, and others seems to be built later by the Byzantines.

Which valla are you talking about? AFAIK, there are three major valla that are located in Romania:

• Trajan's Wall, several walls built by the Byzantines in the 10th century in Dobruja.
• Atharnic's Wall, built by the Goths in the 4th century in Southern Moldavia as defence lines against the Huns.
• Brazda lui Novac, two walls in Oltenia, built sometimes in the 2nd - 4th centuries by the Romans and/or Byzantines.

bogdan 11:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Costoboci were mentioned later, until I refind the exact source, I`ll remove it.

---

what do you do now? a wich hunt? delete everything I wrote, even if it`s bad, or good? typicall pack mentality... dahn, bogdan, orioane... on what base are did you do that?

Roman withdrawal

I'm puzzled by the claim reading there are no archaeological evidence of Roman life (coins, inscriptions) after the rule of Gallienus. Virtuall all the recent archaeological or numismatic monographies, but also history studies I've encountered argue/claim the contrary. The Roman (or post-Roman life) continued not only after Gallienius, but also after Aurelianus until the last quarter of the 4th century. And there should be two different areas - the inter-Carpathian area (Transylvanian) which was abandoned in 271 and never taken back, and the Banat and Oltenia which were not really abandoned (see Drobeta, Dierna, Gornea, Mehadia, Desa) and even during the reign of Constaninus I these areas were fully taken back in the empire.

For instance, taking a summary of the archaeological evidences from Banat (Mircea Mare - Banatul între secolele IV-IX, 2004), I've made a small list of settlements from Romanian Banat where non-hoard bronze coins were found, coins issued in the last quarter of 3rd century of first half of 4th century: Baziaş (Caraş-Severin), Bănia (Caraş-Severin), Beba Veche (Timiş), Ilidia (Caraş-Severin), Jimbolia (Timiş), Mehadia (Caraş-Severin), Orşova (Mehedinţi), Satu Mare (Arad), Săcălaz (Timiş) (the list is incomplete - it is a 300 items list of settlements for both Romanian and Serbian Banat and I've just made a quick browse). Also the author claims that explicitely: "In the period of beginning of 4th century but also along the 4th century the material culture from ex-province (my note: Dacia), including Banat, has a strong Roman character based on the Roman coin" (p. 12, my translation).

Ana Maria Velter - Transilvania în secolele V-XII, 2002: "The coins circulation did not cease after the Roman withdrawal. [...] As proof there are numerous dis coveries of Roman coins isolated or in hoards. (footnote: C. Preda - Circulaţia monedelor romane postaureliene în Dacia, SCIVA nr. 26, 1975, p. 441-486)" (p. 28, my translation)

Iancu Moţu - Dacia Provincia Augusti, 2004: "Though there was a monetary crisis in the empire, around these centers (my note: the ceramic manufacturing centers from Porolissum and Cristeşti) large quantities of coins were discovered, but also in all the cities of the ex-provinces (my note: the Dacian provinces): Napoca, Potaissa, Apulum, Ulpia Traiana. [...] Taking in account in Dacia as everywhere else in the empire the most frequent coins were of bronze [...] this is one of the most important clues for the continuity o f a Roman-influenced life." (p. 194-195, my translation)

As for Avienus, the article misses to say an important thing: he claims Traianus conquered Dacia, Gallienus lost it and Aurelianus withdrew the Romans. Daizus 21:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Up

I have fixed up the article by removing all original research and I have added a reference section. Mrld 22:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• No founding date? I can't see any notice of when the province of Dacia was formally established, though I see its division. So much has been deleted. --Wetman 02:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sestertius Philip 247-lv lxiii.jpg

Image:Sestertius Philip 247-lv lxiii.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sestertius Philip 247-lv lxiii.jpg

Image:Sestertius Philip 247-lv lxiii.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Borders of Dacia Traiana province

All the reliable sources (see books written by Oltean, Grumeaza, MacKendrick cited among the sources) of the history of Dacia Traiana province unanimously express that only some territories of present-day Romania (namely Transylvania, the Banat and Oltenia) were occupied by the Romans. Moldavia, Muntenia were inhabited by Free Dacians and other tribes. Therefore, the two maps in the article do not show a realistic situation.Borsoka (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

About Goths in Roman Dacia

About the Goths around 251 AD, I quote from the posted / published article "The Goths now dominated the territories of the lower Danube and the western shore of the Black Sea; their influence in Free Dacia and their massive presence around Roman Dacia was overwhelming.[2]"

Regarding to the above mentioned statement

1) from the book "A dictionary of the Anglo-Saxon language: containing the accentuation - the ... By Joseph Bosworth" it results Goths were "powerful in Thracia in the time of Decius, A.D. 250" So, they weren't in Dacia

In the same book later on, "West-Goths settled in Dacia, they not only found remnants of Roman civilisation, but Christianity established."

2) A history of the Ostrogoths By Thomas S. Burns)

"

Teurungi and Greutungi never settled all Dacia....First area Teurungi take was part of Moldavia Just in 4th century moved down to Danube plain Gothe settled in pockets · Teuring progenitors moved in NE Dacia in Roman soil against the opposition of Carpi and Free Dacians Once victorious they had been challenged by the remnants of Roman control · Goths had to wait the desintegration of the Hun empire · Ostrogoth fell under Huns (380-400) moved up tp Botosani · Roman influence came to these various Estic Germanic groups through Romanized customs of the indigenuous population

Teurungi and their mysterious Taifali fought Carpi and refrained to enter Dacia until after 300 AD 300-400 Goths expended gradually south and west coming in contact with remnants of Free Dacians east and south of Carpathian and moving westwards and gained control of the Daco-Roman still toiling away long after Aurelian withdrawal

3) The Goths By Peter J. Heather

· Goth fought Carpi, but is was Roman empire which dismantled the latter’s autonomy · Germanic groups who moved into lands north of Black Sea in the 3rd century were not operating in a vacuum. They had also to compete with powers indigenuous to the region

4) The event that changed the relationship of Carpi with Romans occured in 238 AD when Goths moved to their lime Then, Goths's first attack of the Roman town Histria was followed by an annual subsidy granted by Romans to them

Patricius said that the Roman-Goths arrangements upset the Carpi, who claimed to be more powerful than the Goths

5) Inscriptions dated 272 AD where Aurelian is titled Dacicus attest local Dacians significant strng in Dacia at that time

6) In 273 AD, Aurelian is titled Carpicus Maximus because of significant battles against Free Dacian Carpi

7) In 297 AD, Romans under Diocletian fought again Carpi. The emperor receivied the title Carpicus Maximus. He relocated Carpi prisoners to Scythia Minor. This involves giving them lands in change for military service

8) The Roman emperor Galerius undertook the most important series of battles against Free Dacians Carpi He fought them in 301, 302, 303, 304 and 308 AD, taking no less that five titles Carpicus

9) Brennan and Bichir asserted that even at that time of 308 AD "Carpi were far from being anihilated and incorporated within Roman Empire "

10) In 336 AD, Constantin regained Dacia Felix and received the title Dacicus Maximus ("victory over Dacians") Ad, the Constantine Arch is a testimony about Dacian presence at that time

11) In 379 AD, Theodosius is the attested governor of Valens provinces, "to which Dacia was added again"

12) In 381 AD, Theodosius defeated an attack of a coalition composed by Goths and Carpi Free Dacians had been forced back of the Danube, but Romans didn't pursuit them North of Danube (Zosimus)

13) In 376 AD, Visigoths-Theurvingi asked emperor Valens to be allowed to settle with his people on the South of Danube In the same period of time, after being defeated by Huns, Ostrogoths streamed into Roman territory, too

Thank you for your above remarks. Please read the sentence you cited above from the article: it does not refer to Gothic presence in Dacia province; it says that they had strong influence among the Free Dacians. If the Goths' presence could be experianced in Thrace, as one of the source you cited above suggests, their presence on the territories north of the Lower Danube must have been even significant, as the sentence of the article you refered to states. The sources you cited above do not contradict to the sentences in the article either: the Carpians and the Goths were allied around 250, but some of the Carpians were resettled in the Roman Empire from the 290s (and not in the 250s-260s). In the article, one can also find a reference to the fact that not all the Carpians migrated to the Roman Empire even between the 290s and the 320s, some of their number stayed behind in the Danube-Carpathian region. But I think that the history of the Carpians should not be presented here, but in the article dedicated to them. Borsoka (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you response. I wanted to provide some materials that would help to clarify. I agree with your point of view Blurall (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blurall (talk • contribs) 07:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Criztu

Anything can be added based on reliable source. If one adds sententences to an article which provides a long list of reliable sources without properly source the new sentences, he/she will mislead the readers of the article because they will think that his/her sentences are based on the reliable sources listed in the article. Anything can be deleted from an article but without a proper argumentation the deletion of a properly referred source is unusual. Borsoka (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have cited plenty, place citation template where you think a citation is needed, do not revert my edits just because you think a citation is required Criztu (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, try to provide proper citation for all the sentences you are creating, not only to one. Rewriting the existing text of properly sourced sentences is not a citation, and even it might qualify as vandalism. Please try also provide an explanation before deleting properly sourced sentences - any sentence can be deleted, but for the majoriy of editors, I think, deleting just for itself is strange. Borsoka (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Some statements from the new text of the article which seem to be really suprising:

• "In the aftermath of Trajan's death in 117, unrest broke out in Dacia." - The reliable sources referred to in the reference list of the article refers to the attack of the Iazigi (it is not an unrest) - please checque the relevant sentences from the main text of the article based on reliable sources (and also the sources cited).Borsoka (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

citation "At about the same time in Dacia (118), Trajan's most significant conquest, the Roman commander Quadratus Bassus (governor of Dacia) died in campaign, either against Dacians or their Sarmatian neighbours, the Roxolani and Iazyges. [...] the situation must have seemed precarious; accordingly, armies were sent ahead to stabilize the position, soon followed by Hadrian himself. His next actions hint at the scale of the problem: large parts of Trajan's conquests north of the lower Danube that had been part of the enlarged province of Lower Moesia were abandoned; as an even more potent symbol of the dramatic reversal of Roman fortunes, the superstructure of Trajan's great bridge over the Danube [...] was dismantled, presumably because enemy forces threatened to break through." Hadrian: empire and conflict by Thorsten Opper Criztu (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• "In order to make the province less rebellious and more manageable, Hadrian and his general split Dacia the into two departments:" - how can the splitting of a province "make it less rebellious and more manageable". Moreover, it was Hadrian who withdraw one of the two legions from the "rebellious" province - please checque the relevant sentences from the main text of the article based on reliable sources (and also the sources cited).Borsoka (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

as in cited source "118-119, Hadrian divided Dacia into Superior and Inferior and divided the Superior region again in 124 A.D., forming a Dacia Porolissensis. Three provinces thus prevented a national uprising, and the presence of one governor to watch over all three kept inteligence well in hand." - A dictionary of the Roman Empire by Matthew BunsonCriztu (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

citations for article and other stuff

• Marcius Turbo was sent to quell rebellion in Dacia after the death of Trajan, and reorganized Dacia to manage it. Borsoka, you ask for citation, when there is a whole article on wikipedia about Marcius Turbo. i will provide citation mkay - "118-119, Hadrian divided Dacia into Superior and Inferior and divided the Superior region again in 124 A.D., forming a Dacia Porolissensis. Three provinces thus prevented a national uprising, and the presence of one governor to watch over all three kept inteligence well in hand." - A dictionary of the Roman Empire by Matthew Bunson. Criztu (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not refrain from adding a reliable source. Otherwise, the information that was coppied from the article Marcius Turbo is unsourced and not identical to the one you have just provided.Borsoka (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the above sentence from a tertiary source is still dubious taking into account the sources referred to above and the circumstances described above. Borsoka (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

By this judgement, i have to add citation to prove Trajan was Emperor of Rome and Decebalus king of Dacia. You are simply obstructing the editing of the article. Behind this citation frenzy you revert other information alltogether. Criztu (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you misunderstand me. I just mentioned that the information provided by this tertiary source seems to contradict to academic sources (e.g., the books written by Oltean, Grumeza, Birley - all of them referred to in the part "The first re-organizations (117-138)" of the article. That is why it is better to read the sources we want to use before commencing to edit an article. Borsoka (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

These academic sources do not contradict eachother. Hadrian reorganized Dacia, your sources do not enter into detail, my source provides more info, you are just being obstructive.Criztu (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, how could an article in an encyclopedia which summarizes the history of Dacia province give more information than whole books written of the history of Dacia (Oltean, Grumeza) or of Hadrian (Birley). Borsoka (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Customs station in Sarmisegetusa. you need citation for that ? Rome had more custom station allover. I will provide citation mkay Criztu (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not refrain from adding a reliable source. Although I do not fully understand what is the relevance of the sentence: Roman had many custom stations in the empire, therefore this information provides no added value to the article. Borsoka (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Marcomannic Wars (162-180) brought development of Dacia to an end. Borsoka you ask citation for that, when you can read the article that says Dacia was devastated and the governor killed. 18 years of continuous wars in Dacia and you ask citation. i will provide citation mkay - "The war was more significant and rich in repercussions than perhaps any other. It was in fact here that the die was cast - from then on the Roman Empire was on decline. [...] But this war marked the beginning of the end." A history of Rome under the emperors by Theodor Mommsen, Barbara Demandt, Alexander Demandt Criztu (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not refrain from adding a reliable source. Although interestingly Dacia existed for about 90-95 years after the Marcomannic Wars, even the borders of the province were strengthened. Borsoka (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, would you, please, provide information where is a reference to the "end of Dacia", or any connection to Dacia in the above cited fragment of a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear hungarian person under the username Borsoka, would you please provide verifiable citation that Dacia flourished during the Marcomannic wars ? Criztu (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu. As I have never stated that Dacia flourished during the Marcomannic Wars, there is no need to provide any reliable source. As you probably know the burden of proof begins with the one who states something - therefore, would you, please, provide the reliable source based on which this part of your last edits was made? Borsoka (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If Mommsen writes "The Marcomannic Wars brought the Roman empire to decline, this marked the beginning of the end", You have to provide source that Dacia did not decline with it.Criztu (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

But this article is specialized to the history of Dacia province. Please try to understand that while a proper source has not bee provided which contains sentences similar to the ones you tries to add to the article, they are only original research. Nevertheless, the article refers to the history of Dacia province during the Markomannic Wars based on reliable sources specialized to the history of the province. Borsoka (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Gallic Empire and Aurelian Borsoka you ask citation when you can easily read about Aurelian abandoning Dacia in order to recover Gallia in those articles. i will provide citation mkay - alright "(271) This is certainly the most likely date for his decision to withdraw all the Roman forces stationed in Dacia back south of the Danube. [...] The new Danube frontier could be held with far less military strength than would be needed to protect the whole of the transdanubian salient. This was timely, as he needed to collect as large a force as he could muster for his impending assault against Zenobia (Palmyrian Empire)" Aurelian and the Third Century By Alaric WatsonCriztu (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no reference to Dacia in the article Gallic Empire neither is there any reference to the connection of the withdrawal from Dacia and the Gallic Empire in the article Aurelius. Otherwise, when an article is written reliable sources should be used.Borsoka (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You pretend to be knowledgeable in editing the articles about Dacia, yet you do not know that Aurelian abandoned Dacia in order to use the legions stationed there to recover the Gallic Empire.Criztu (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, I have never debated that Aurelian abandoned Dacia - this had been mentioned in the article before your reverted edits. But could you please add a reliable source based on which the connection between the abandonment of Dacia and the Gallic Empire can be identified. I do not deny that there was a connection, but without a proper citation the above statement is original research. Borsoka (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear hungarian person under the username Borsoka, it is absurd to ask citation to prove connection between Gallic Empire and Dacia. If you haven't read yet, Aurelian was confrunted with the Crisis of the Third Century.Criztu (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, I think you should decide, based on reliable sources, whether Dacia's abandonment is connected to (1) the Gallic Empire (as your last edit claims) (2) or to Zenobia's empire (as the reliable source you provided suggests - you must know that Zenobia's empire was not identical to the Gallic Empire) or (3) to the general crisis of the third century (as the text of the article also suggests based on reliable sources). Borsoka (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

you are being incivil again. Better read the article about the Roman Empire crysis. Criztu (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Do you want to edit the article of the history of the Roman Empire, or do you want to edit this article? You should decide. Nevertheless, have a good night. See you next time. Borsoka (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Borsoka, you keep holding on "Latin Provinces of the Roman Empire". There is no such category as a Latin Province of the Roman Empire. Criztu (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to hold this expression, but deleting it without a proper argumentation is strange. Borsoka (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You write "Latin province" and link it to "Latin Language". Unless you provide citation that there were "Latin Provinces" and "Non Latin provinces" of the Roman Empire i will remove such absurdity Criztu (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"It was one of the empire’s Latin provinces; official epigraphs attest that the language of administration was Latin." - the sentence suggested that (in contrast, for example, to Hellas, where Greek was the official language), Dacia was a province where the Latin was used for official purposes. But I understood that this is not a necessary statement, therefore it was deleted based on the consensus you suggest. Borsoka (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Borsoka you keep reverting to "Burebista brought barbarian tribes under his authority". Greeks, who were brought under his authority were not barbarians.Criztu (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's change it. Borsoka (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Borsoka, you keep reverting to "Roman Legions reached Iron Gates sometimes in history" followed by nothing. What's so significant in some roman legion reaching Iron Gates that you insist on keeping in this article ? Criztu (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"By 74 BC, the Roman legions reached the lower Danube after a rapid succession of victories against many Dacian tribes settled on its banks, and arrived at the Iron Gates." - this is the first time, the Romans reached the borders of the future province, therefore it is relevant for the history of the Roman province. Borsoka (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Borsoka, you keep insisting on "Burebista's kingdom did not survive him", while you remove info that he was assasinated by his aristocracy. How does this pompous sentence serve the article about Roman Province Dacia - background ? what is wrong with "Burebista was assasinated and his kingdom split in 4" ? what, you need to hear the word "Dacian kingdom did not survive" or what ? Criztu (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not insist on the sentence. However, what is the relevance that he was assasinated? Borsoka (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

well what is the relevance that Burebista died ?Criztu (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The article was modified based on the consensus on the Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Caracalla granted Roman citizenship to all barbarians living in territories conquered by Roman Empire. You Borsoka removed this info with no argument. This is a most important information about the inhabitants of Dacia Trajana, yet it doesnt suit you it seems. Criztu (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, (1) the information had been provided in the article before your edits (2) there is no point in repeating it in a monster sentence which exceeds more than 4 lines (3) there is no point in emphasizing an information which is true for all the provinces of the Roman empire in an article specialized in Dacia province. Borsoka (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Exceeding information about all sorts of events not connected with Dacia Romana will be removed - You user Borsoka seem to be particulary fascinated with where and when did Burebista moved his capital and how obscure dacian chiefs planned their incursions into Moesia, like it would matter for Roman Province of Dacia. yet you claim you dont see any relevance in the assassination of Burebista who was opposing Caesar.Criztu (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Therefore, the fact that Burebista moved his capital to the territory of the later Roman province has no relevance in the fact that the Dacian capital was occupied by Trajan. Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Irelevant, since Trajan defeated Decebalus, and razed Dacian capital. The situation prior to Dacian Wars 101-106 AD is relevant, not the situation 82-44 BC.Criztu (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly all the references to the Dacian Wars should be deleted. If this is your intent, please do it. But seemingly modifying sentences in order to conceal our original research under the name of well known historians does not suggest this intention. Borsoka (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, before your last edit a reference was added to Burebista's assassination.Borsoka (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added text about Burebista's assasination. And there is no need for citation for that. You are littering the article with countless citations, like Trajan's Column or Burebista's assasination are heated controversed theories. Criztu (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As the reliable source which had been added before your last edit (Oltean's book) suggests that the assassination of Burebista is only a probability but not a fact. Therefore, a citation is necessery otherwise your last edit qualifies original research which cannot be proved based on reliable sources. As practically none of your last edits seems to have been based on reliable sources (as it is clear from the above part of our communication), I think the best solution is if all of us uses a proper citation. Which is otherwise a requirement under WP's guidlines. Borsoka (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

and overall, Borsoka, you simply revert everything that wasnt written by you. Criztu (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, please checque the history and the Talk page of the article before making any judgement on other editors. I think reverting non-properly cited sources which are not based on reliable sources is a requirement for all the editors. Similarly, original research is to be avoided when an article is edited. Borsoka (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hungarian person, I have provided citations for the settlement of 100,000 transdanubians into Moesia by Aelianus, for 50,000 getae into Moesia by Catus, and you deleted without argumentation. Criztu (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, using a primary source for two sentences in order to prove that reliable sources were used when about 20 sentences were modified or deleted or inserted without any proper citation is not the most acceptable solution for wikipedia's purposes. Borsoka (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hungarian person by the username Borsoka, you are being incivil again. I have provided citation to verifiable reliable secondary source, and i remind you Wikipedia:Verifiability allows me to use primary sources; and it is not you who decides what is acceptable for Wikipedia purposeCriztu (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP on primary sources. Borsoka (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, I desperately try to convince you that (1) real citations based on reliable sources should be used (2) the content of a sentence which is based on a properly cited reliable source should not be modified (3) the parts of a reliable source which contains a reference to Dacia should used, because this article describes the history of Dacia province. Therefore,

• Please do not pretend that the article was edited in order to delete the reference to the Latinity of Dacia, if the sentence had been deleted before your edition;
• Please do not pretend that a reliable source was used: e.g., the sentence "Hadrian sent in general Marcius Turbo who managed to stop the rebellion from materializing" seems to be based on The Cambridge Ancient History - but this book does not contain even a sole sentence which is similar to the sentence in the article which seems to be based on it).

the sentences in the articles on Wikipedia are not required to be exact copy/paste from sources. If you think there is such a rule "only exact sentences from sources are allowed" then by all means, present it to me Criztu (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that sentences in the article should not be copied litteraly from the reliable source, but if a text is modified its meaning cannot contradict to the source used. Borsoka (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please try to use properly the sources: for example the text of your footnote 15 refers to a book "Rome, the Greek World, and the East: Government, Society, and Culture in the Roman Empire", but the link you provided leads to Mócsy's book "Pannonia and Upper Moesia".
• Please try to understand that any sentence could be added based on reliable source, but the abuse of reliable sources does not give rise to such a claim. Any sentence could be deleted, but deleting a properly cited sentence which is based on a book specialized to the history of Dacia in order to write a sentence written some hundreds years ago which is specialized to the general history of the Roman Empire is strange and unusual.

Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A properly quoted source for text which exceeds the focus of this article can be removed along with the text. as in "In Rome, the monument called Trajan's Column was erected in the memory of the conquest of Dacia(citation)". being a pompous boring irrelevant text for Dacia ROman province article, i am allowed to edit it down to "Trajan's column depicts the Dacian Wars (no citation needed).Criztu (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand why a perfect English sentence based on Ioan Aurel Pop’s work would be worse than the sentence your suggest: Trajan’s column was erected in the memory of the conquest of Dacia, not just for depicting the Dacian wars. That is why all the editors should prefer reliable sources to their own original thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Dacia (Roman province) introduction section.

• In the introduction of the article, which formulation has more relevance:
  

1.The conquest of Dacia was completed by Emperor Trajan (98-117) after two major campaigns against Decebalus’s Dacian kingdom.
2.The conquest of the Dacian kingdom was achieved by Emperor Trajan in the Dacian Wars (101-102 AD, 105-106 AD) against Decebalus.

Both say exactly the same. Is this seriously a dispute?Anonimu (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the introduction of the article, which formulation has more relevance:
  

1.The province’s political life was not without perils from the start.[6] First came the Free Dacians who, allied with the Sarmatians, frequently attacked the province.
2.The Marcomannic Wars (166-180AD) which involved a multitude of barbarians along the Danube frontier, "was more significant and rich in repercussions than perhaps any other; [...] from then on the Roman Empire was in decline." [12]. The Vandals and Iazyges devastated the Dacian province in 162 AD and killed its governor, while the Dacian Costoboci crossed the Danube and ravaged Thrace[12].

A summary, affirming the troubled history of Roman Dacia. Unless those specific events (marcomannic wars, Vandal invasion) has a deciding influence on the evolution of the province, there no reason to mention. It's enough to mention that the province wasn't pacified immediately, and the limes was permeable to unconquered locals and invaders from the steppe.Anonimu (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the introduction of the article, which formulation has more relevance:
  

1.After the quieter rules of Commodus (180-193), [...] and Caracalla (211-217)
2.After the quieter rules of Commodus (180-193) who defended the provice from a local revolt and from the attacks of the Free Dacians, [...] and Caracalla (211-217) who granted Roman citizenship to the native people who lived in the territories conquered by Rome

1. If you say everything from the lead, what will you write in the rest of the article.Anonimu (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the introduction of the article, which formulation has more relevance:
  

1.In 119, the province was divided into two departments: Upper Dacia included the Transylvanian Plateau; and Lower Dacia incorporated the Banat and almost half of Oltenia;
2.In the aftermath of Trajan's death in 117, unrest broke out in Dacia. Emperor Hadrian sent in general Marcius Turbo who managed to stop the rebellion from materializing. In order to make the province less rebellious and more manageable, Hadrian and his general split Dacia the into two provinces: Dacia Superior included the Transylvanian Plateau; and Dacia Inferior incorporated the Banat and almost half of Oltenia;

Certainly not departments. Also a mention of the reason for the split is needed. Not sure that description of each new province is needed in lead. Anonimu (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is it relevant, or NPOV, for the article Dacia (Roman province) (106-271 AD), section "Background: Dacian kingdom and Roman Empire", to detaliate about Burebista (82-44 BC) "Julius Caesar planned an expedition against the Parthians and en route hoped to cut short the political development of the Dacians under Burebista. Failing to implement the idea of unity in the political mentality of the multi-ethnic society he ruled, this lead to the death of Burebista(possibly as a result of a political plot against him)" while there is no word about Julius Caesar's failure to implement the idea of unity in the political mentality of the multi-ethnic society he ruled, that lead to the death of Julius Caesar, posibly as a result of a political plot against him ? while there is virtually no information on Decebalus, king of Dacia at the time of the roman conquest ?

Previous relations between Rome and Dacians must be presented. The part about "the idea of unity in the political mentality of the multi-ethnic society he ruled" is simply anachronistic. All those concepts were unknown to the world before the 18th century.Anonimu (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is it relevanct for the article Dacia (Roman province) (106-271 AD), section "Background: Dacian kingdom and Roman Empire", to include the information "The Governor of Moesia, Plautius Aelianus around 60 AD, had "more than 100,000 trandanubians brought across with their wifes and children and chiefs or kings (and settled) so they pay tribute[15]; Aelius Catus, army commander in Moesia around 4 AD, had "50,000 Getae settled south of the Danube in Moesia"[15]." ?

Yeah, but the authors who claimed that should be attributed, and opinions of modern scholars that see those figures as exaggerated should be presented.Anonimu (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Are formulations like "(after the Romans destroyed the Dacian kingdom and turned it into a roman province) New mines were opened[...] The province’s political life was not without perils from the start. First came the Free Dacians who, allied with the Sarmatians, frequently attacked the province. POV or NPOV ?

What;s wrong with this?Anonimu (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, would you please try (not just pretend) to add reliable sources to the above alternative sentences. As you might know, Wikipedia's articles are written based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A comment

from the beginning of the text there's a wrong location of " DACIA ROMANA " ; it contains not Eastern and south-eastern part of today TRANSYLVANIA but Western and south-western part of today Transylvania ; the Eastern part belonged to Free Dacians tribes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:B64C:1100:D0D0:5FD:1F81:D511 (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Dacia Felix

Dacia Felix. "Happy Dacia" or "Fertile Dacia"? Compare Arabia Felix, "Fertile Arabia".--Simen113 (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roman Dacia/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 19:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, first of all I want to clarify that the writer (and creator) of this article is the inactive Codrinb, who has all the merit. In fact, he promoted this article to GA the first time, but it was reassessed and failed the second nomination. This may bring some issues to the review and I will understand if it fails, but I will try my best to make it pass. And as for your articles, I'm currently reviewing one, but I might take a look at some of your short articles. Super Ψ Dro 19:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi (again?) - I have to say, it's not a topic I know much about, so I will probably look through the sources for help reviewing and ask a lot of questions. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that! Super Ψ Dro 21:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, I have a doubt. Are quotes supposed to have links? Super Ψ Dro 21:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Usually not Kingsif (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• In the hat note, it uses "on" for referring to land in present territories - should this not be "in"?

Fixed

• Copyvio check looks fine; the heavy sources are a Wikipedia mirror and a page where some of the Latin quotes are

What do you mean by "heavy sources"?

The ones that have a high copyvio % - it's all good here. Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• It might be worth introducing a pronunciation guide in the lead - some people (American education system...) may think it's 'da-see-a'

I will try to request it somewhere. Should it include "Roman" as well or only "Dacia"?

Roman should be easy enough. Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I now have both the IPA pronunciation and the respell, but the user who helped me said I shouldn't add "Roman" per WP:MOS since it's a common word. Should I only add Dacia? Super Ψ Dro 12:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, don't add 'Roman' (that is what I intended above, I can see how it's ambiguous) Kingsif (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, done. Super Ψ Dro 19:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Selection of academic sources all look quality; and a good amount are available online
• Consistent ref formatting, and everything looks cited inline appropriately
• Lead has one too many paragraphs; it seems good coverage, could the information be merged/moved around a bit?

I have tried to change it a bit but there is not much to do, almost everything is quite useful and the sentences I could remove still have many details.

• Good infobox and useful sidebars
• All images free and licensed
• Could the Trajan Column image be made upright size and perhaps moved to the right, to not squash the indented quote below it?

Sure, done.

• Illustration all relevant, including good use of indentation for select quotes
• Will continue with prose Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Lead still too long

Done, I deleted the entire lead while editing and re-wrote it.

• As part of Caesar's planned Parthian campaign of 44 BC, he planned to cross into - close repetition of "planned" could be tweaked

Done.

• Although the planned expedition into Dacia also follows close after

Fixed.

• Yet for all this, there existed a measure of social, diplomatic, and political interaction between the Roman Empire and the Dacians during much of the late pre-Roman period is in a storytelling tone, not an encyclopedic one

Rewritted.

• Decebalus should be wikilinked the first time it appears

Done.

• Yet this episode was merely a prelude to the emperor Trajan's wars of conquest in Dacia - fruity storytelling language, it's effectively a "coming up next time" sentence, please rephrase

Done.

• All that was left to deal with were - I sense storytelling may be a recurring issue

Fixed.

• But he was in no position to return to Rome - ditto

Fixed, I think.

• Dacia, exposed as it was - this is where I stop leaving examples and ask for a review/re-write. It's interesting prose, but it's more a narrative version of events than an encyclopedia record. I haven't seen an issue with grammar yet, though, so notwithstanding typos and perhaps some punctuation, it should be fine in that regard. Kingsif (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. I could nominate this to WP:GOCE, but some months might pass until they take this article, so this would have to happen after the review. Super Ψ Dro 10:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: GOCE does slow it down - I've asked for it on GAN a few times, but usually when it's a rough translation. Otherwise, I prefer to get the willing nominator to do the copyedit, presuming their English is fine. Would you be okay with rewriting it like this? Kingsif (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If you mean rewrite it as we have done so far, of course! Super Ψ Dro 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Yes, that's it - could you ping me when you're done/if you have questions? Kingsif (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, I thought you meant that you were going to continue reading the article and telling me what to rewrite. Anyways, I've given it another reading and removed what didn't seem encyclopedic prose to me. I think it would be better if you gave it a fast read too in case I have omitted any sentence, though. Super Ψ Dro 20:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: If that's what you'd think would work best, we can. I'm reading through now and can flag some things, e.g. But he could not return to Rome, and possibly similar instances, don't need the word "But" - and starting a sentence with it does generally indicate storytelling tone. There's other words and phrases used to start sentences that can be omitted for this. Things like The Roxolani, angry over a Roman decision to cease the payments to which Trajan had agreed, allied themselves with the Iazyges and both tribes revolted against Rome are more descriptive than explanatory, which can be improved by reordering the sentence, like "The Roxolani allied themselves with the Iazyges to revolt against Rome, because they were angry over a Roman decision to cease payments to which Trajan had agreed". It's looking stronger though, there aren't a lot of such examples. Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, both fixed, although I think "but he could not return to Rome" was fine. Super Ψ Dro 11:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Great, I'm not seeing much else that sticks out - I've you've been over the article for similar phrasings, it should be fine. It seems appropriately neutral, and the sources all look great and clean. Your ping didn't work, but I'm now following the page if you want to reply. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall

• on hold Prose very narrative, but otherwise good. Kingsif (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Ping @Super Dromaeosaurus: For response: it's been a while, if you've checked the prose it should be good. Kingsif (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Yeah, I checked everything after the Marcomannic Wars subsection because I assume you revised that part, so it should be done. Super Ψ Dro 09:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, then this can pass! Kingsif (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for the review! Super Ψ Dro 18:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice work everyone! Codrin.B (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)