Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:30, 31 January 2011

Archives
18 July 2007 – 21 February 2008 Feb 2007 – Dec 2008 Jan 2009 – 4 Aug 2009 4 Aug 2009 – Dec 2010

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)

Dacian language collaboration

Hello from WikiProject Dacia!

Since there are so many religious wars going on at the moment around Dacians and their language, we are proposing to all involved to use their creativity, knowledge and energy in creating separate articles for different language affinities. Stop deleting and reverting and start creating!

Please refrain from changing the main article on Dacian language, the origins of Dacian tribes, the maps of Dacia and the Misplaced Pages language tree based on linguistic theories. And above all, please be careful to not introduce original research and keep an neutral point of view.

Instead, expand or create the articles listed at the WikiProject Dacia's Current Collaboration, using as much academic evidence you can gather.

Once these separate articles went through a lot of scrutiny and have reached a good article status, we can discuss the addition of links to the various theories and potentially even add sections about them in the Dacian language and Dacian tribes articles.

Let the Daciada begin! Thanks for your support! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacian language as Balto-Slavic

Hi and a Happy New Year!

I need your help in a small dispute I'm having because of my newest Roman Empire map. I think you've seen I've labelled the Dacians as Balto-Slavic and this has caused the anxiety of 2 users: Codrinb and Daizus (see the discussion here: talk). Can you provide some references for the possible connection between Dacian and the Baltic languages and also for the existance of proto Balto-Slavic? Thank you in advance.

Andrei nacu (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Dacian-Baltic connection Codrin.B (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacians etc

Hey, mate, how you going? A very happy 2011 to you. I wanted to thank you for the constructive comments you made in the Dacian/Baltic debate. Unfortunately, as you can see, we are up against a Daco-Roman continuity mafia who think they have a right to censor any article about Dacia/Romania to ensure what they call "neutrality" i.e. unswerving support for their own (discredited) theory. What do you think of the Roman Empire 125 map as improved by Andrei Nacu by applying computer-generated relief, Smashing, isn't it? It's by a huge stretch the best such map on the Net - if not off it. The best thing about it is how it presents a large amount of information without appearing cluttered. I'm really proud of it. It speaks volumes for the continuity-mafia's intellectual intolerance that they have removed the map from all articles on Dacia on the grounds that it does not show the Carpi/Costoboci as Dacian-speaking and that the probable language of the DACI themselves was Balto-Slavic: quite apart from the substantive arguments involved, this action demonstrates their astonishing arrogance.

Talking about this subject, I noticed that you supported showing a link between Dacian and the Baltic languages - but questioned whether this meant they were part of the Balto-Slavic group. Surely, they would be part of the group by definition, since are not all the Baltic languages descended from proto Balto-Slavic? EraNavigator (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

EraNavigator, my Italian friend, please do not use the word mafia again or I will have to report you. This is unacceptable! I don't know anyone here, I started all this alone. I happen to agree with Daizus pertinent comments, criticizing your original research and promotion of fringe theories. Being in agreement with someone you don't know, doesn't constitute a Mafia. I hope you can calm done and come to your senses. I gave you enough opportunity for collaboration and civility. Grazie mille.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To all concerned RE: Balto-Slavic and Dacian

I would be more than happy to help clarify this situation, I already know the books required to provide vierifiable, non-POV views on this matter. This will take me a few days, so if all parties concerned can take some time out for now, that would be good.

To briefly outline my arguement will be along the following lines

(1) As we all know, the evidence for Dacian is frustratingly poor. Some scholars have seen particular affinity with Baltic, but this does not mean it is, or vice -versa

(2) The evidence for what languages the peoples known as Carpi, Costoboci, Veneti, basternae spoke is 'non-existent. I know that well-reputed and otherwise uniterested historians (eg Malcolm Todd - not a Slav or Romanian) have postulated various things, include a variety of 'mixture' scenarios. This might well warrant mention, however, it doe not overcome the previous point.

(3) We must also take heed of the fact that lingusitic affilitation does not imply any ethnic homonymy (although it does today). Eg the Carpi were NOT Dacians. Simply, because, when the Romans spoke of "Dacians", they referred to Decebalius (& his ancestors) and his men in what became Roman dacia. The (unsupported) idea that Carpi spoke Dacian has not come from any evidence, but from Romanian scholarship simply assuming that they "must have been" Dacian just because they lived in what is now modern Moldavia, or from following a few fragmentery lines of writing which suggests that some Dacians might have fled there after Roman defeat

(4) Nor, do I suppose that the Carpi were Slavs. Even if they spoke a language (eg a precursor, or relative) like Slavic, the Slavs first appear as a defined ethno-political group in the 6th century, so they could not have been Slavic either ! I think Era's efforts on the Carpi (and Andrei's maps) are commendable, and are not fringe - becuase if one looks at things fairly, all theories about them are FRINGE given the lack of any solid evidence !

(5) The only thing we do know is that they occasionaly raided Rome, and they lived in huts, used pottery and certain fibulae similar to other groups in the Moldavia & Ukraine region in Late Roman times. Hardly surprising

Hxseek (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I decided to mark the Dacians as Uncertain on my map, but what do you think about classifying the Venedi and Aestii as Balto-Slavic? Daizus suggested to mark them too as Uncertain.

Andrei (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Say that to Daizus! Look at what he's doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/Aesti#Historical_sources (see the map description modified by him) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Vistula_Veneti#Inconsistent_map

I think he believes I'm on a crusade against Romania because I made the Daci Balto-Slavic and the Carpi and Costoboci as of Uncertain origin and now he's trying to discredit my map everywhere on Misplaced Pages. Also take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#File:Roman_Empire_125.png

Cheers, Andrei (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop lying, Andrei. I never said anything of you making the Costoboci or any other group uncertain, I actually encouraged you to do that. I only have issues with your Balto-Slavic theory (and actually most linguistic affiliations on your map in Eastern Europe). Daizus (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

About Jordanes' myth of Veneti as Slavs: . Leaving your map aside, that article has other serious problems by following Gołąb's narrative on early Slavs but ignoring more recent others such as Curta's. Daizus (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Daizus, I'm deeply sorry I had to involve you in this dispute regarding the Wiki project Dacia. My issue is with Codrin, his Dacomanic beliefs and how he's running the wiki-project, not with you. I would be more than happy to see you head this project instead of the Dacian-biased Codrin. I appologize if you ever felt insulted in any way by me and I retract everything I said about you being paid by some organization.

Andrei (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

bbbTemplate:Hcref

Notes

 a: Blah

Notice

4 reverts? You really ought to know better by now. Reported here . Athenean (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Discretionary sanctions

In accordance with WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, I am hereby banning you from reverting any edit for any reason (with the sole exception of blatant vandalism) on Ancient Macedonians (0RR) and restricting you to one revert per article per 24 hour period on all other articles within the scope of the case. This restriction is in place indefinitely.

You may appeal this restriction to the relevant noticeboard, currently WP:AE, or to the Arbitration Committee. Violations of this restrictions will lead to blocks of increasing duration, up to the maximum one year allowed under the case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Slovenski Volk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Furthermore, the indefinite restriction on future is also too severe. Reasons being: I have not got a track record of this. Secondly, I was facing a 'coalition' of biased editors who were blindly reverting referenced, credible sources just becuase they did not like what it stated,. They changed quoted, referenced material so that the reference is essentially distorted and misrepresented. Thirdly, if you note, I have actually been trying to improve the quality of the article.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= I accept that I violated 3RR, and do not challenge the reason for block itself. I ''do'' think that 72hrs is steep for a first time offence. Is it not usually procedure to first go to 24 or 48hrs, especially given that my main work was on the actual article ''talk page'' . The reverting war was an unfortuante side-event Furthermore, the indefinite restriction on future is also too severe. Reasons being: I have not got a track record of this. Secondly, I was facing a 'coalition' of biased editors who were blindly reverting referenced, credible sources just becuase they did not like what it stated,. They changed quoted, referenced material so that the reference is essentially distorted and misrepresented. Thirdly, if you note, I have actually been trying to improve the quality of the article. I have not been blatantly edi-warring. If you see the relveant talk page, I have endeavoured to engage in civili and repsectful discourse (and it the ''other'' editors who aren't taking a particularly civil tone. This does not obsolve my actions, however, I'd like this to be considered |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= I accept that I violated 3RR, and do not challenge the reason for block itself. I ''do'' think that 72hrs is steep for a first time offence. Is it not usually procedure to first go to 24 or 48hrs, especially given that my main work was on the actual article ''talk page'' . The reverting war was an unfortuante side-event Furthermore, the indefinite restriction on future is also too severe. Reasons being: I have not got a track record of this. Secondly, I was facing a 'coalition' of biased editors who were blindly reverting referenced, credible sources just becuase they did not like what it stated,. They changed quoted, referenced material so that the reference is essentially distorted and misrepresented. Thirdly, if you note, I have actually been trying to improve the quality of the article. I have not been blatantly edi-warring. If you see the relveant talk page, I have endeavoured to engage in civili and repsectful discourse (and it the ''other'' editors who aren't taking a particularly civil tone. This does not obsolve my actions, however, I'd like this to be considered |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= I accept that I violated 3RR, and do not challenge the reason for block itself. I ''do'' think that 72hrs is steep for a first time offence. Is it not usually procedure to first go to 24 or 48hrs, especially given that my main work was on the actual article ''talk page'' . The reverting war was an unfortuante side-event Furthermore, the indefinite restriction on future is also too severe. Reasons being: I have not got a track record of this. Secondly, I was facing a 'coalition' of biased editors who were blindly reverting referenced, credible sources just becuase they did not like what it stated,. They changed quoted, referenced material so that the reference is essentially distorted and misrepresented. Thirdly, if you note, I have actually been trying to improve the quality of the article. I have not been blatantly edi-warring. If you see the relveant talk page, I have endeavoured to engage in civili and repsectful discourse (and it the ''other'' editors who aren't taking a particularly civil tone. This does not obsolve my actions, however, I'd like this to be considered |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Hxseek (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock