Talk:Getae

Comments

According to Herodotes the Gatae where the second most populous nation after the Hindi, therefore their representation in the map (small red area) is highly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.101.146.196 (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Herodotus was incorrect. 50.111.25.199 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Criztu wrote:

"The Tyragetae are believed to have been the Getae living near the river Tyras (Dniester)."

This needs a proper citation. The reason it is not guaranteed, despite superficial appearances, is that there were apparently non-Thracic tribes with the -getae element in their ethnonyms: Thyssagetae, Massagetae, and perhaps more. Alexander 007 04:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I found three sites that list the Tyragetae as a Daco-Getic tribe, so I will restore mention of them in a newly phrased sentence; v. [http://www.unrv.com/provinces/dacia.php , [http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/dacian-tribes.htm , [http://www.geocities.com/cogaionon/article6.htm . Alexander 007 05:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with the Dacians

I strongly disagree with the idea of merging the article with Dacians, as it is clear from Lucian Boia's points I reported that important Romanian historians disagree on the idea of a single people. The merge appears mostly wanted to awnser a Romanian nationalistic pov.--Aldux 14:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Lucian Boia is not a scholar of the ancient world, quoting him on this matter is like quoting anyone else. He is a reference on Romanian historiographies, not Romanian history. Daizus 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, droped merge proposal. 14:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with the fact that the Getae and the Daci are two different names, and that to a point they designate different populations (different, not by ethnie, language nor history, but by pottery, influences, etc). However, a distinction between the two causes clear disambiguation. Just one example (one which comes from common sense, so not one which is based on the tens of ancient sources which unanimoulsy speak of the Getae-Dacian equality): following the Dacian wars, Trajan wrote his "Dacics", while Stratilius Crito`s works on the wars are called the "Getics"... Even the name of the Dacian capital Sarmisegetusa says it all...

Daci or daos is just a name, taken for unknown reasons by the Getae (probably because they consider themselves "wolf-warriors"; daos=wolf)... Tomaschek sayd that "Les daces et les Thraces bessiens sont des emigrants aryaques, qui de trcs bonne heure, plusieurs siccles avant les Scolates du Pont et les Sarmates encore plus situe a l'est, quittcrent la patrie premicre des Ariaques, se fixcrent dans les Carpathes (a savoir, les Balcans dans la langue des Turcs). L'habitat s'appelait lui-meme Dak: le K est sans doute de nature suffixale de manicre qu'il semble qu'on puisse rattacher a la racine Da; le nom Dakos porte en general par les esclaves du pays des Gctes. Celui qui douterait encore de l'etroite affinite du peuple besso-thrace avec les Daces et de la parente originaire des deux peuples avec les Iraniens se laissera sans doute convaincre par la nomenclature topographique"

And saying that the Getae lived primarily in Bulgaria is plain gros 14:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Pity Tomaschek lived in the 19th century, so I don't think he can be called up-to-date scholarship, especially when it comes to linguistics. Lucian Boia is instead among the most important living Romanian scholars, and he states that they were concentrated primarily in northern Bulgaria. Also Tomashek only says this:"le nom Dakos porte en general par les esclaves du pays des Gctes", i.e. that Dakos was trhe name brought by the slaves in the land of the Getae. Not a great deal. And be careful Greier: you already know how much you are risking with a blocklog like yours, and the next block could be the last.--Aldux 15:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to rely on Tomaschek to argue against Boia. You can check a pile of works written in the last hundred of years, from Parvan onwards. Lucian Boia has no expertize to claim anything about Geto-Dacians therefore he's no scholar authority in the field. These being said, no offense, I also doubt you're an expert in ancient history as you claimed in a reply below, as you do not seem to be able to select a proper bibliography. And as Wikipedia policy states 'no original research' unless you can provide a proper authority, Tomaschek remains the only proper (though obsolete) authority issued in this page. Daizus 12:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I also find it quite suspect to blame Strabo together with Boia but to take at face value Herodotus' claims. I believe the earlier POV tag was quite justified. Daizus 12:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you don`t know what you are talking about. 15:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite an expert regarding ancient history, and I have the luck of not being polluted by nationalistic bias. As for the high quality of your work, it speaks for itself and through the comments of the other users.--Aldux 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you`re poluted by prejudice. 16:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Aldux, if you'll add again L. Boia to support historical facts, I'll ask for arbitration according to Wikipedia's policies. He's not a scholar of Ancient world, therefore you bring POV and original research in the article. I'll grant you to add him as an uneducated opinion ('LB claims' instead of 'scholar LB argues') and balanced by the other scholars because LB's fame, however I won't grant you to single him as a scholar in this topic because he's not. Daizus 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, if you are familiar with scholarship on the ancient world, reference it in the text without removing other references, all of which are perfectly valid. Also note that Boia is a respected voice in regard to historiography, which means that he rejects the very notion that much of what is considered a source could be taken as such (the "not a scholar of the ancient world"/"uneducated opinion" argument is therefore absurd - it is like saying that a person cannot write good prose "because he does not write it in English"). As a personal observation: I'm sorry to say, but archeology-based history is actually the most speculative of all, so the "historical facts" part may turn against the point you are making. Under no circumstance is Lucian Boia "original research", unlike what you did in one of your past edits. Dahn 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, history is not historiography so Lucian Boia is out of his league (needless to add that his argument on Strabo is childish and a hideous strawman - to my knowledge no scholar of the ancient world claimed Strabo ran around to gather himself the information). Lucian Boia was not presented in this article to reject a historigraphical notion, but to argue about historical facts of that period. What Getae were or what they weren't.

It cannot be possibly be my burden of proof to show Lucian Boia is not a scholar but his or anyone supporting that to show that he is (the burden of proof lies on the affirmative). Check his page on Bucharest University's site, oh no, that is empty. Check the presentation on his books. What do we see? Scholar of ideas. Scholar of historiographies. Is anywhere written "Ancient world"? Is he at least a paleographist? An archaeologist? A historian on Classical languages? Nothing like that. Yet he makes wild claims on Strabo or Getae. Show me anywhere in his professional title he's entitled to be an authority in this subject and I'll concede.

Also, your analogy makes me think you're unaware of Wikipedia's policy concerning "original research". Perhaps you or me can write reasonable arguments, however we're not scholars. Lucian Boia is not a scholar in the topic debated in this article. Add him as a marginal refernce on a historiographical debate, I'm fine. Add him as an uneducated opinion (because of his fame), I'm fine. But he has no scholarly title therefore he only claims, he has just an opinion. He cannot make scholarly arguments because he doesn't have the authority, the expertise for them

If you believe any of my edits are "original research" please point out what exactly you found that way. And I'll give you a contemporary scholar as reference for it. Daizus 17:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, what you need to do is find a reliable scholar that makes the same arguments you make about what Boia says, and cite him or her saying them in reply to Boia (and not in a dialog that you set up), without introducing weasel words to raise your point from the ground, and without launching into your own theories about how ancient writers used to gather material. For starters.

As for the rest: you need to find yourself reliable historians that say this and that, cite them saying it, and differentiate between them and Boia, with the knowledge of the fact that you will also allow other criticisms to be expressed. Regardless of my unfamiliarity with the subject, I know that historians of the antiquity in Romania and elsewhere also doubt the identification, and I know that it is prevalent in Romanian historiography for very political reasons.

For these reasons, the merger is POV. Even if the prevalent tone would be that historians agree Dacians and Gatae are one and the same (and I doubt it will ever be), the debate is likely to be open forever, and we need to give readers that information, not the one that suits us. Dahn 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're promoting a false difference both here and in the edit you performed to the main page. Lucian Boia is no scholar, therefore the article as is currently written is virtually unreferenced (uneducated opinions do not count as references), I removed no scholarly reference (hence no vandalism), not even a relevant reference (no one here even attempted to show Boia's work is of any relevance on Getae), I introduced no "weasel words" (unless you consider Boia a scholar in Antiquities, but he's not, so the actual "weasel word" is "scholar" as an epithet given to Boia) etc.. Consequently I do not need to find a scholar to argue against Boia. It is my edit against someone's else, it is not my edit against a scholar. The false difference would get promoted even more if Boia remains labeled as a "scholar" and to get scholars opposing him as you ask me to. That would be an article about Boia's work and about making him someone he's not, not about Getae, about ancient Dacia, Roman conquest or whatever chapter of the history Boia has no specialization in, not even about historiographical debates on Getae as Boia can at best be an analyst of the debate (rhetorical procedures, stereotypical syntagms, possible agendas, etc.), not to judge the accuracy of the presented facts.

I don't understand why the stubborness in keeping Boia as a reference here. It would be obvious even for someone not knowing anything about the Boia as even the book references is called Romania, the borderland of Europe. Can you tell me how such a book is actually the authority book on Getae? Do you or Aldux dare to share the content of this book for all of us to see what irrelevant material you claim to be a reference?

Sometimes a persuasive argument is the analogy: would you accept in this article a reference like Elie Faure (a historian of art, in case you don't know)? I think this rests my case about Boia and about all the Wikipedia policies you and Aldux ignore when you reverted my edits. Daizus 22:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there are historians doubting the equation between Dacians and Getae, but usually the same historians doubting that identity, also doubt Herodotus words and doubt much of the knowledge on the Dacians and the Getae (because esentially all is built in a similar way) or claiming the Dacians (and Getae and other alleged Thracian tribes north of Danube) had a heavy Celtic influence and large Celtic pockets among them and so on and so forth. So you either doubt everything and blow away the Dacian civilization into a skeptic approach on the fragmented barbarians outside the Roman world, or you are more tolerant, more assertive, and attempt to build them as a noteworthy civilization.

I also know quite a number of historians asserting an identity or at least a close relationship between Dacians and Getae (and I already evoked Parvan for a starter). But this is what I've wrote in the main article ("historians"), this is what you reply to me ("historians"), no references from both sides, so how come my edits and my opinions are POV while yours and Aldux are ok? Moreover your conclusion here is misleading as I kept in the article the doubt on the identity Dacians and Getae and I have not yet openly pledged on the merge (actually the merge is justified if you keep the note that some consider the Getae and Dacians to be not quite the same).

In my last edit you had trashed I said "some historians". Perhaps some of them are the same historians you think of. For instance, let's take a historian like Iancu Motu (a so-called "Romanist"). Of course, unlike Boia's he just casts the doubt (but he also casts a doubt on Herodotus claims and on many others) and focus on the real historiographical mistakes (the centralization of the Dacian state, the large ethnical space of Daco-Getae - see the map of pre-Roman Dacia attached here on Wikipedia, etc.) while operating with a common identity covering both Dacians and Getae because there are such premises (they might not be identically the same people, but the hints show they are related enough from many points of view). To claim Getae and Dacians are rather different, from this new historiographical position is equally wrong to claim they are the same, but perhaps even worse because there's not even an indirect, a circumstantial evidence to support that. Boia is simply wrong in his arguments mentioned in the article. No ancient author specifically said Dacians and Getae are two different populations as Boia claims. These ethnonyms are used preponderently in two different worlds, even at two different moments of time. First we have the Getae in the Greek sources and later we have the Dacians in the Roman sources. In the same space where sometimes we have earlier Getae, we have later Dacians. The toponymy (like the -dava settlements) cover quasi-uniformously both the alleged habitats of the Getae and of the Dacians (check a map of those toponyms if you don't take my word for it). The Getae have no tendency to be rather south of Danube, they were on the both shores.

Now that I started to talk at length these issues, I was puzzled by the way my rather common-sense statements about how ancient authors are regarded to have their works compiled were classified as "original research". One could have at best add the tag requiring a scholar reference. But let me answer this irrational outburst - even the above mentioned Iancu Motu when he criticizes the contemporary chronicles and geographers writing on Dacia he details a bunch of possible sources of information (traveling themselves, gathering the information from other sources - travelers, merchants, soldiers, etc., compiling earlier works etc.). But this is not valid only for written sources on Getae or Strabo or Herodotus, but for most historical writers taken as sources. Take any serious work considering the reliability of an author from the past taken as source and you'll notice that. With a minimum of effort (and without making a fuss on my inconvenient edit) you could have searched for books on Strabo and reach by Google a link like: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-01-25.html. In this link you'll find both a hint on the multiple sources of Strabo's work, but also emphases on Strabo's reliability regarding realities he probably never witnessed, accidentally the example being quite a close parallel: "Strabo was completely accurate when he noted a close linguistic connection between the Bactrian and the Sogdian languages". With such a minimal perspective, Boia's reply that "Strabo never visisted those places so he couldn't know" renders to be moody and narrow. Daizus 22:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, I'm sure you know that your entire argument is sophistry. I have made my point clear, as far as I am concerned. Dahn 06:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're launching personal attacks and unfounded assumptions. On contrary, I believe my argument to be strong, rational and you (and Aldux) have failed yet to provide any evidence for Lucian Boia's scholarship in the matters discussed here.

I've even found Wikipedia's policies concerning sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

a) chapter 'Scholarship' - no Antiquity or relevant journal, magazine, publication, etc. for the topic of the article hasn't peer-reviewed Lucian Boia (if I'm wrong please provide evidence), he's no recommended bibliographical reference in any book concerning this topic.

b) chapter 'Non-scholarly sources' - Attributability, Expertise - people should know Lucian Boia is not a historian of Antiquities or anything close or that the main focus of his research are the mentalities, the images, the myths, not the actual accuracy of historical facts, particularily the history of the territory of actual Romania and Bulgaria 2 millenia ago. Daizus 07:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

People don't "need to now" your theory about what is and isn't relevant. If a scholar has publicly argued that Boia's opinion "is irrelevant... because...", they need to learn that. As we stand, here's the archeologist Victor Babeş: "De unde sa stie poetul ca Herodot a scris despre geti si nu despre daci, care au aparut in izvoare abia dupa patru secole?" (see also his reaction to the "Traco-Geto-Daci" denominator and to the "age" of the Dacian language). Again: as far as Boia is concerned, we are talking about someone who rejects the possibility that the statements by ancient authors are to be taken for granted, and does so based on his expertise in historiography (while pointing out that the discourse is the product of recent political priorities). Again, if you have sholarly works to cite, cite them. Otherwise, what you are doing is arbitrary and anti-cultural. Dahn 07:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're waging a war against me, not against my argument. It is not my theory, it is your burden of proof to prove Boia's scholarship (as he's noted as a scholar in the article).

Actually it seems you haven't read much of my lengthy paragraphs because I stated myself the same thing as Victor Babes quoting the historian Iancu Motu - the doubt on the identity between Dacians and Getae (and also on taking Herodotus claims at face value). However when I stated this you labeled it as a sophistry. Now you're telling me the same thing. How can I reach a consensus with you (as Wikipedia policies ask me) if you're not even reading my replies?? Let me spell it clearly for you: the issue is not the identity or the difference between Dacians and Getae, but the alleged scholarship of Boia. None of my edits removed the issue of differentiating Dacians and Getae. My first edit from yesterday only stripped Boia of the epithet "scholar". My second edit removed Boia for good and kept the debate anonymously, between historians. These are my options: make the reference properly, as to a non-scholarly source, or do not make it at all.

For conformity, if you want scholars asserting the identity or the close relation between Getae and Dacians pick your choices: V. Parvan, I. I. Russu, C. Giurescu, etc. or run to the online version of "Istoria Romanilor" and feel free to search its rich bibliography on the chapter of Antiquities.

However, let's move to a consensus: do you agree to replace the reference on Boia with the reference on M. Babes (take care with that Victor, you almost got me too :D) ? Daizus 07:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already told you what I agree with: keep the Boia references (I don't even know why we would be debating to remove them), indicate what Boia's field of research is (which, unlike removing the word "scholar", is NPOV), add if you will references to Babeş, and include as many citations (book, edition, page) from as many scholars as you want saying differently. I'm sorry I did not read all of your previous post, but this article is far removed from the scope of my interests, and I primarily react to removing perfectly valid references. Dahn 08:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, Boia is not a scholar on Getae. To avoid further accusations of sophistry please consult Wikipedia's policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship. He can be detailed as a historian of mentalities and historiographer, but that would make him no service in being a reference on that page. Daizus 08:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you want edit war. I cannot do one more because it will be my 3rd on the same issue. I'll bring this page to comment/arbitration according to Wikipedia's policies concerning POV and OR. Daizus 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As you wish. Dahn 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is the irrationality triggering that, not only my wish. As long as no one is able to prove Boia's scholarship in these issues, flagrantly being against several Wikipedia's policies, I don't think there's any middle ground to it. I'd rather prefer an article with unsourced claims than one with fake scholars. Daizus 22:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently,you are going against wikipedia policies regarding OR. Dahn 06:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ad nauseam. These assertions become insinuating and offensive and I suggest you to stop them if you can't bring a shred of evidence to support your opinions. Daizus 07:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

When you make your own assessment in a text, as you did in one of your edits, you are contributing original research. I have told you what you would need to do if you want to get that point across. As far as I am concerned, this discussion is over. Dahn 07:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My assessment was "some historians said" so it was not original research at the best it was unreferenced material. You could at least development the decency to read a text before you perform an edit or a revert. Daizus 07:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless you cite the historians, it is original research (because it involves an assessment of other scholarly works). Dahn 08:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your point becomes moot as more than half of this article (except some quotes from ancient authors and the arguments of Boia, not a scholar but can be considered as a non-scholarly source) is 'original research' (as in without sources). Actually most of the articles on Romanian history are 'original research' from this point of view. Should we erase them and leave only the referenced material? Because Wikipedia's policy is clear: any material lacking sources can be removed or at least moved in a talk page or hidden in a HTML comment (and editors can object if they can provide references). Daizus 08:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

An answer to both of your last posts: I oppose removing Boia, and, again, suggest working "around him". If you can provide references, do provide them. Dahn 19:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cassius Dio

I repeat: when you use your own comments on sources to draw conclusions about a reference, you are engaged in original research. Dahn

Your reverts prove unjustified bias and ignorance. The numbers I enclosed in parantheses represent references in the author's work (and in the same article but also in many articles in Wikipedia you have such references - for instance, check Herodotus), references which are available for everyone curious enough as those works are translated in English in many online libraries. For the particular case of Cassius Dio you can check http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html. There's absolutely no qualitative difference between a claim saying L. Boia argues X in that book (a claim which cannot be verified as we have no authoritative online copy or scan of the book, so we have to take the word of the editor on it or check ourselves) and a claim saying Dio Cassius argues Y in his work (and an identitical reasoning applies). Daizus 13:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, I understood perfectly what those references where. What you did not understand is that you using Cassius Dio to indicate that Boia is omissive or mistaken or whatever is Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. So all of that diatribe above is pointless, whereas I am repeating this simple guideline the fourth time around. As I have said: if scholars (ie: commentators, and obviously not primary sources) say that "Boia is wrong because...", cite them; if other scholars, without entering a dialog with Boia, draw different conclusions based on the same primary sources, cite them saying that. What you have added there is basically: "But I, Daizus, could just as well say say that Boia is wrong based on my love for reading or whatever". That perspective is unencycopedic and contrary to wikipedia norms. Dahn 14:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're making a strawman. My contribution was simply "Cassius Dio argued X, and detailed more Y". It is not my fault Boia's claim is invalidated by "those" ancient authors, those primary sources and that quoting them exposes Boia's shallow and dubious statements (this is my own opinion, which you don't see it anywhere in the main article). I simply quote the ancient author as a source (please, stop talking without reading, please read Cassius Dio at that address and see that I haven't altered the meaning, even the epithet "ignorant" - which I assume is bothersome - addressed to Greek writers is used by CD himself, for conformity I'll add quotes on this word when I'll modify again the main article and I suggest you to do not give me an opportunity to report you for 3RR) in a manner perfectly compatible and widely used on Wikipedia. In case you have a doubt, what was not between quotes was a slight rephrasing (Boia's not quoted word by word also as 99% of the quoted sources of scholars) to change from the 1st person used in CD's work to 3rd (as my sentence was in the context of the paragraphs - what the ancient authors, i.e. they, have to say) and to bind CD's sayings in the flow of the text. You don't like it, improve it, do not remove it. That was your own advice, your own principle when I questioned Boia's scholarship.

Because though you're claiming it ad nauseam Boia is not a scholar in this question because Wikipedia's own policy on scholarship (which I linked it somewhere in our previous debate) requires peer-reviewed material and Boia doesn't have a single work concerning Getae or any ethnical reality of Ancient Balkans, Dacia or whatever, what else to ask about a peer-reviewed one. So please stop downplaying other arguments with this alleged scholarship of Boia. Boia has a POV. Primary sources give another. I told you I won't go that low to quote reputable scholars to demolish Boia or opposing him a POV, simply because there's no real oppositions. There are scholars disagreeing, and there's Boia who notices these scholars, reports their quarrels (a wonderful thing which brought him fame and appreciation) and eventually (as in this case) takes a side. I'm simply giving a POV from the most fundamental level of information, the one invoked by Boia himself - the written primary sources. You have absolutely no grounds to reject them (unless you can argue they're irrelevant). Daizus 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, I suppose you read the guideline. That is all I have to say. Dahn 15:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why don't you concede? Why do you remove a reference (a primary source) from the main article and how is your view supported that I (personally) am questioning Boia's (as a source) in the main article. According to Wikipedia's policies we should present POVs and referenced materials. And I did it. Yes I admit, my true intention was to undermine Boia's alleged authority on what Getae were or were not, but in the article the oppositions of POVs speaks for itself. I am happy to have the readers make their own mind reading those POVs. Daizus 16:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the time of my edit and the time of your edit, you obviously even didn't read what I replied you. And it is not the first time.... Daizus 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, because me reading it would not have meant you not breaking a clear-cut guideline. I have ben as clear as could have ben. I'm calling on administrators to intervene. Dahn 16:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do so. I'll try my best to shape your incoherent position to keepthe references you like and remove the references you don't like. Daizus 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

getae experts of bow and arrows while on horseback

there is a historic text translated in english that reads ”getae experts of bow and arrows while on horseback”, but i cant find it pff Criztu 16:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Boia on Strabo

Now that apparently we reached on consensus on how to regard Boia's contribution, I have another thing I don't agree. The argument given by Boia (I don't have this book so I even don't know if it is properly quoted) on Strabo. I've already provided in the lengthy debate on Boia's scholarship this link: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2003/2003-01-25.html to justify my opposition to the rushy dismissal of Strabo as a source. On the other hand I don't think this is the right place to question Strabo's reliability, even in a match between scholars. But keeping only Boia's opinion (again, if it is properly quoted) in the page seems POV to me. So I want either a) add opinions crediting Strabo as a source or at least specifying it is not necessary for Strabo (whatever ancient writer) to visit places himself to take him as a source b) remove Boia's argument and reference #3 and leaving him as a reference only for the first part of the paragraph. Daizus 10:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've found also an interesting (but unfortunately in Romanian) online material on Strabo, and it seems unlike Boia claims he was a great traveler himself and a constant observer of the linguistical particularities in the places he visited. The irony is this material is signed by a professor from the University of Bucharest and hosted by this institution. http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/romanodacica/a5.htm Daizus 12:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have answered above (only to those very few things in the above two posts that I can consider relevant to the debate). Dahn 14:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Cassius Dio as primary source

In a debate on the identities and differences between Getae and Dacians I've quoted also Cassius Dio. The current version in the main article now says: << But also Cassius Dio in his Roman history argues the Dacians are "either Getae or Thracians of Dacian race" (51.22)[2] but also details he calls the Dacians with the name used "by the natives themselves and also by the Romans" and he is "not ignorant that some Greek writers refer to them as Getae, whether that is the right form or not". (67.6)[3]. >>. The references point to the relevant paragraphs from this site: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html

When I added first time this information the user Dahn removed it on sight (as OR), later he attempted to argue on it (see above Cassius Dio section) but eventually he couldn't justify what is the OR in it. Now he keeps boycotting the mainpage by keeping {content} tag (which was added after I told him I won't concede with his removal so he should watch for 3RR policy) for the same reason - OR.

I believe his reason unjustified because all along that quote simply mentioned CD's testimony. I have not commented on it, therefore his accusations (also in the comments he made while editing, also here) are not supported. Daizus 11:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the part of the text in full: "One of the elements to support this theory was found in Strabo, who wrote in his Geographia about the two tribes speaking the same language[1], to which Boia argues that it would be naive to assume that Strabo knew the Thracian dialects so well[1]. But also Cassius Dio in his Roman history argues the Dacians are "either Getae or Thracians of Dacian race" (51.22)[2] but also details he calls the Dacians with the name used "by the natives themselves and also by the Romans" and he is "not ignorant that some Greek writers refer to them as Getae, whether that is the right form or not". (67.6)[3]." Note the comparison ("Boia says..., but...") made not by a reliable source, but by Daizus. This in clear breach of Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I would not object to reshaping the entire article and keeping Boia as one of the references - for example, editors could treat Cassius Dio as a source on its own, in a paragraph dealing specifically with what sources say, and differentiate between ancient testimonies and their assessment by scholarship. Daizus has also attested being able to produce scholarly arguments that would contradict Boia (indirectly or directly); I am perfectly aware these exist, and urge him to base his edits on what historians says about sources, not on what he thinks historians have failed to say about sources. Dahn 11:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I note that the request here makes a false claim about me not having discussed the issue on the talk page. I will demand from Daizus that he withdraw that comment. Dahn 13:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Boia is not a scholar on Getae (evidence? peer review?) so he does not qualify as a reliable source. The whole paragraph reads "POV 1 (Boia) gives X but POV 2 (primary sources) gives Y". "But also" continues the arguments made by Justin and Strabo (which were part of the article before I contributed to it). Also it's weird to move Cassius Dio in a separate paragraph as a) the purpose of the paragraph is the identity/difference between Getae and Dacians in written source b) Justin and Strabo as Cassius Dio are primary sources concerning this issue. Moreover I draw no conclusion, therefore it's wrong to invoke "Synthesis of published material". Terms like "conclude", "conclusion", "so", "hence", "therefore", etc. are not part of the paragraph. "But" does not offer a conclusion, but (sic!) a different view. Which is in total compliance with NPOV policy. Moreover, if Dahn bothered only on that "but" he could have removed it, yet his alternatives were total removal of references on Cassius Dio or the presence of tags. I question therefore his WP:AGF. +

And also because Boia is not a scholar I don't want to suggest he is one by opposing his view (a non-scholarly POV) to other scholarly views. Dahn previously stated he's against removing Boia (he also opposed removing the qualifier "scholar", misleading in the context of the paragraph, which now turned into "historian of ideas and historiographer") therefore I'll add no scholarly references unless Boia's opinion will be discarded or at least demoted in background (something like "even L. Boia supports this POV"). I also suggested I could add scholars supporting Boia's view (e.g. Iancu Motu) but my suggestion had no effect.

As for your note, Dahn, it's obviously that your argument for OR, the troublesome "but", popped up only after my RfC. Therefore I believe I have no reason to withdraw that comment. Daizus 13:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the guideline. Also note that my argument was stated in full in the previous section, long before the RfC. Dahn 13:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You do not bring arguments and you fail to concede. That's why I started the RfC in the first place. Daizus 13:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the guideline. "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Have the common decency of not presenting yourself as a more reliable source than Boia. Dahn 13:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"But" is not synthetising, it offers a different POV. If you don't know what synthesis means you may check a dictionary. Daizus 13:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the guideline. Dahn 14:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The guidline says I should not do A + B = C. But I'm doing A vs B. First one is synthesis. Second one is NPOV. I can oppose as many POVs I like, it's no OR involved. Daizus 14:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the very definition of OR, no matter what sophistry you envelop it in. Dahn 14:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the position you're defending, opposing two POVs is not qualified as OR by Wikipedia. Daizus 14:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is clear as hell that Cassius Dio is a source, not a comment, and that the comment is yours. Cassius Dio does not say that Boia is wrong about Strabo being naive, he is merely another primary source presenting what Boia is objecting to. You are using Cassius Dio to comment on how Boia did his job. I repeat: detail the sources as much as you want to in a section involving sources. Have a go at as many scholarly comments as you will. Move Boia to become one of the many points of view about the sources, and use sources that do take Cassius Dio or Boia or both into account. Do that and you will move beyond the current state and into something relevant. Spam all you want, but I believe my point is clear to all good-faithed editors. Dahn 14:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you to read better. There's no supplimentary comment in the main article. My addition to article does not say "Boia is wrong", Cassius Dio does not say anything about how Boia did his job. The text reads "Boia claims X but Cassius Dio (and Justin and Strabo while we're at it) claim Y". This is the very definiton of NPOV. The conclusion "Boia is wrong" or "CD is wrong" or "none is wrong" or "both are wrong" belongs to the readers.

Also the section in itself concerns the primary sources. The purpose of the section is to present how the ancient writers regarded Getae and Dacians - as being the same or different. There's no reason to put that information somewhere else unless you expand the entire section and dedicate a paragraph to each ancient source, which is not (yet) the case.

My impression is that you sympathize with Boia and you don't want his POV to be faced with other POVs. Daizus 14:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This somewhat unending dialogue has obscured the core of the dispute, as far as I could understand it. This case is about how sources should be treated. The most basic academic common sense and practice teaches us, that there is a hierarchy among sources: most important sources are primary sources (those closest to the object), than sources commenting primary sources, that is, secondary sources, than those building upon secondary sources, etc. The most modest chrestomathy, accessible in the secondary school, is structured according to this principle. In the case of Getae, ancient authors like Cassius Dio or Strabo enjoy undoubtedly the most auctorial authority. Citing and/or invoking such sources represent the ultima ratio in any argumentative discourse. We don’t have better than primary sources. It is therefore beyond any hesitation that primary sources should have the primacy in any demonstration. So far the principles. As for the actual article under debate, I don’t think that Daizus had a good idea in contrasting Cassius Dio to …Boia. With all due respect, it seems to me quite ridiculous to oppose a monumentally primary source like Cassius Dio to a contemporary historian with no credentials in ancient history, like Boia. This is not a democracy. You cannot equiponderate opinions like in a survey or a talk-show. Cassius Dio and Strabo have not the same weight as …Boia. It is already a chance that an issue of ancient history can be backed by primary sources: this article should be founded essentially on those sources. Than, secondary and tertiary sources should be used, weighting them as complementary and secondary comments, anyway it would be preferable to find some more qualified voices than Boia.--Vintila Barbu 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

However I believe primary sources are not always the best sources to use because sometimes they can be erroneous (and usually secondary sources - i.e. scholarship - notice that; one good example would be Jordanes with his famously mistaken equation Getae = Goths), or sometimes they can be hard to understand. Wikipedia policies on sources warn on that. However in this case, the debate was on "what primary sources say" and also the texts invoked were quite clear. Getae, Dacians, Thracians were concepts (supposedly at least - the article has room for improvement) defined in the text and the claims were straightforward (with little/no room for interpretations).

As for Boia, yes, I have a problem with that too, but I prefer to take things one at a time. For now I need to legitimate my "But also Cassius Dio argues ...". Daizus 22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Daizus here. In addition to primary sources, which are contemporary testimonies, history also uses logic and comparisons with better-known situations. At the same time (like Vintila Barbu says), separating and clearly marking the quality of the sources is essential. I'd say a good solution is to separate the presentation of the Cassius Dio and Boia sources. Cassius Dio comes first, with the note that he is paramount. Boia comes second, with the bemoles related to his specialization (not ancient history) and reputability (not yet widely accepted). This approach also addresses one of the arguments of Dahn (the one related to the presentation of Boia relative to Dio Cassius, which Dahn sees as a value judgement). Dpotop 09:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I find very awkard to make points on Boia's unscholarship in an article only few paragraphs long and with no other scholars mentioned (it would mean irrelevancy and undue weight). Boia's unscholarship should be emphasized only if his opinion would be countered by other scholars. But this more than likely would attact other complaints and it will give a weird and controversial appearance of the page (people would ask: if this guy is obviously not a scholar, if other scholarly opinions are given, why is his opinion mentioned in the first place?). That's why I prefer as long as some struggle to keep Boia here to do not add other scholars (I won't do it, if someone else will, his choice).

Anyway, following your suggestion to appease Dahn, Justin, Strabo and Cassius Dio should make a whole different paragraph, as they are all primary sources. They should come first not only because their primacy, but also because Boia makes a reference on them. So it would be a paragraph with what Justin, Strabo and Cassius Dio say. And then a paragraph with Boia saying the authors distinguish between tribes and that Strabo could not know what languages those guys really speak. I hope at least this time Dahn will confirm if this is a solution.

However, Dahn's complaint is that "POV1. But POV2." constitutes OR. And this I find absurd and a boycott to this page. Anytime in future he'll be able to use the same sneaky maneuver to compromise the integrity of a page I'm working on. And this is against the fundamental Wiki policies. Daizus 10:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you fully. I read the paragraph you proposed, and think it's OK as it was. You basically used Dio Cassius and Boia to summarize the two views on this "Getai vs Dacian" question. This is the way history is constructed (not an exact science, but a sum of more-or-less converging oppinions). But I don't see another solution to this conflict. If you see another, you have my support. Dpotop 10:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thinking a bit more on it, it's quite difficult to make only two paragraphs as the text is deeply interconnected. It's about historians, about Romanian historiography, about "Geto-Dacians", about Boia and three primary sources. However, I found a temporary solution. Dahn told me he'll keep his objection as long as the "piece of OR" stays. His accusation argued I am guilty of OR through synthesis because I'm allegedly comparing Boia's reliability with Cassius Dio's. For consensus's sake I'll remove "But also" and leave only Cassius Dio's opinion. Removing the troublesome "but" should remove the problem. I hope. Daizus 15:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, Aldux, don't you think you have to motivate your revert actions? Daizus 08:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question, no answer. :) Dpotop 09:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Khoikhoi motivated his revert in my talk page - he considers the tag should be placed as long as the debate is open.

Also Dahn said in his talk page: "the objection will stand for as long as the text features that piece of OR". He seems to not to care about the new arguments made continuously after his last contribution here (and he labeled them as "sophistry" and "chorus"). I will try a mediation, but I'm afraid I can't solve this only by a RfA. Daizus 09:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

One main problem with Dahn is that his most usual approach to what he sees as "not completely NPOV and academic and ..." edits is to create a conflict by reverting them altogether, regardless of the complexity of the argument involved. I presume his inner argument is "I'll come later here to rewrite the entire article from scratch, so incremental contributions can be thrown away". This implies that getting him to actually edit along with other users is difficult (only possible when his current focus is on the article). I suggest we continue to edit the article, and then revert his wholesale reverts (and keep constructive ones). Dpotop 10:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually not. Dahn clearly stated: "this article is far removed from the scope of my interests". His latest contributions to the article were adding tags and reverts. I already contributed to the article but I cannot contribute much more (i.e. add scholars) because Dahn made another point clear: "I oppose removing Boia, and, again, suggest working 'around him'. ". Also I might add, that even he was challenged several times, he failed to provide reasons on why to keep the Boia reference. Daizus 10:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Actually, I was thinking about replacing Boia altogether with a real history book on the subject. "Romania: Borderline..." is not a history book. Keeping Boia as a source has only one reason: It's in English. Otherwise: it's hot history (I see it as a long and good essay on Romanianness), not that reputable, and not mainstream. I'll take a look in Boia to see what he cites, and maybe replace him. Dpotop 10:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You can find that book on "Google books". Unfortunately, no footnotes, no arguments. A better presentation of the problem you'll find in "History and myth ..." where Al. Vulpe and G. Niculescu are quoted to support his opinion (of course, not supporting his allegations on Strabo's reliability, but on the identitary fragmentation in the Thracian ethnic space). Daizus 10:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be sure: are these 2 books different from their Romanian language versions (which I read)? Dpotop 11:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read only "Istorie si mit ...". But really can't say, I haven't followed them line by line, word by word ... Daizus 11:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I also suggested to replace Boia with other historians arguing on the same issue (i.e. Iancu Motu in Dacia Provincia Augusti), but again, no response. Daizus 10:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I consider this RfC closed. The issues were resolved. Daizus 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Boia

I cite from the introduction of the Romanian version of "Romania: borderline of Europe", ISBN 973-50-0392-9. The last 3 lines of the introduction, in page 11, are:

Iata, asadar, in cele ce urmeaza, nu Romania in deplinatatea ei, ci, pur si simplu, o interpretare personala, Romania mea

(Approximate) translation: Here follows not Romania in its entirety, but a personal interpretation, my Romania.

Dpotop 18:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: We are not here to promote Boia's work and deconstruct Romanian founding myths. We are here to report existing positions in Romanian and other historiography according to their weight. Dahn, your edits are POV. Dpotop 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

For one, that book was already cited. You claimed that his view was contained in one of the two books. It is present in both. The rest of your allegations makes no sense, and I have already suggested what your approach should be instead of useless chitchats about POV and Boia. I'm not interested in yet another debate about what you can speculate about. Dahn 19:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I claim that his writings are not history and should be cited as such. See you tomorrow for the next revert. Dpotop 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, your POV is of no interest to wikipedia. Furthermore, let's see you make the same claim about History and Myth, which is not subject to that "disclaimer" but makes the same statement. Claro? Dahn 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we've passed over Dahn's objection, now I'm working in gathering scholarly info on Getae on several chapters (archaeology, written sources, linguistical - from linguists and thracologists, religion, historical episodes). When I'll have it ready, I'll remove Boia and keep him only as a reference to historiography. No one could provide so far evidence he's a scholar in something else but historiography, the other users answering to my RfC confirmed my view, but more important if we have proper scholarly references I'll see absolutely no reason to keep him here. His comments on Strabo are at this moment an undue weight (the Wiki article on Strabo doesn't doubt at all his reliability and there are scholars - I provided links above, trusting Strabo's reliability in picturing an ethno-linguistical reality!) but I consider this issue temporary.

I will also try to dedicate to each source a separate paragraph so no other "OR by synthesis" type of accusations to be justified. Daizus 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And guys, please, can't you talk a bit things in here before fighting in the main article? For instance, I see that my reference on a book of Boia for the position of Romanian historiography was lost in your edit wars and now that claim appears with a {cn}. Daizus 22:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The last time I am replying to such sophistry: Boia is perfectly qualified for any historical subject, and his comments here are about a historiographic issue (i.e.: treatment of sources). I'm sure you'll continue spinning this issue, Daizus (as you do with "we've passed over Dahn's objection"), but your objections are irrelevant. For the last time: if you have an objection, add to the text on a NPOV basis. Dahn 22:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to prove Boia qualification. Credentials and peer review that is. You were asked repeatedly to do so, you only affirmed it is so. No evidence, no scholarship. One does not get scholar because user Dahn wants to. Daizus 22:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV basis requires that once in debate scholarly opinions are quoted, uneducated opinions should get discarded. This is a historical article, there is no room here for various opinions. Daizus 22:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, University of Bucharest professor Boia is definitely "uneducated", his is "no scholarship" and a "various opinion"... The comment he makes is not on the treatment of sources, which historiographers are best qualified to deal with, but on some hidden meaning only accessible to Daizus and his friends. Dahn 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Univesity of Bucharest does not reveal Boia's scholarship. The treatment of written sources does not belong to historiographers (you got it all wrong) but to paleographists, epigraphists, linguists, historians of the respective age (knowing the historical events, understanding the proper names used, etc.) - Boia is nothing like that.

And let's start to bring evidences on Boia scholarship. Here's from a review performed by a member of the Romanian Academy (http://www.jsri.ro/old/html%20version/index/no_13/codruta_cuceu_recenzie.htm). Boia is a "a renowned Romanian historian, interested mainly in the history of ideas and of the imaginary, but also in the problem of ideologies". On what grounds can he question if it was easy or not for a Greek to recognize or not Thracian dialects? Does he have any competence in ancient languages? Does he have any competence in general linguistics to assert how hard or how easy would be for someone to recognize or not a dialectal difference/unity?. Lucian Boia's statements are selfdefeating. It would be naive to believe Lucian Boia can tell us anything about Strabo's skills as long as he has no competence in the field. Daizus 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

All of that is the same type of irksome, dense, and utterly irrelevant OR that you have posted on other pages. It is filled with so many fallacies that I will not even begin to contemplate answering to anything in it. Dahn 23:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is you haven't brought any evidence in support for Boia's scholarship and that will allow me to remove that reference as soon as it will get obsolete once the article will be properly referenced. Daizus 23:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that I do not have to present any evidence that would appear to substantiate a fallacious approach. Dahn 23:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies on the affirmative, that is for those who claim Boia is a scholar in the matters he was invoked. If they can't prove that, then it means he is not and can be dispensed once it will be for the better of the article. We can't and shouldn't allow any user to bring fictional references to value their claims. Daizus 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ad nauseam special pleading. Dahn 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's ad nauseam it doesn't mean it's not true. And special pleading it is not. So to answer in your register: non sequitur. I'm going to sleep. Daizus 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you say so, it must mean it is so. Shazzam. Dahn 07:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this POV or not?

I am not sure whether the following fragment is POV:

At a certain point in Romanian historiography[2], the expression "Geto-Dacians" was coined to suggest the existence of a common ethnical identity.

Is this expression unique to Romanians? Or we have to trust Boia on this, too? In any event, I think that this is the POV of Boia, and should be presented as such. Dpotop 19:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Historiography means historiography. It's simple. Dahn 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but for other historiographies you have to bring other references. But more realistically, in other historiographies the debate was less heated, as they dedicate lesser space for Getae and Dacians. Only Bulgarians I guess have a relative interest in the history of the Getae, but I know of no assessment of their historiography. Daizus 22:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but does that mean we can write the previous line as truth? My impression is that this phrase is backed by only one source. Dpotop 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That source is a scholarly source. Which means it fulfills Wiki's requirement of verifiability. Daizus 10:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but according to NPOV rules, we must specify that the previous statement is the POV of Boia, and present it as a conclusion, not as the opening statement of the section. The section should be opened by the controversy/non-agreement phrase, which is declined next into Primary sources, Mainstream of the Romanian historiography, and Boia. Dpotop 10:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Let me preface by saying I have no inclination to enter into the pros and cons of this debate, having no idea who Lucian Boia is, and what his qualifications are, and also having no clear idea after reading this article what the relation between the Getae and the Dacians really was. But just on a purely grammatical level, I am having problems with the following fragment from the article:

Lucian Boia states that "At a certain point, the pharse Geto-Dacian was coined in the Romanian historiography to suggest a unity of Getae and Dacians" [1]

Is this an ad-literam quote from that book (written in English, I assume)? If so, I hesitate to correct it, because I don't want to distort the original. But let me point out that "pharse" should be "phrase", from what I gather. Also, one would normally say "in Romanian historiography" instead of "in the Romanian historiography". Moreover, one would probably set in quotes "Geto-Dacian" in such a sentence, but that's a bit more optional. Finally, beyond the grammatical aspects, I wonder what that "certain point" refers to. Could one make the temporal reference more precise, at least within plus/minus a decade or so (or at the very least, place it within a given century)? For otherwise, it seems just too vague to me, leaving the novice reader wondering what this "certain point" refers to. Turgidson 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That piece of text is quoted from Boia, Romania the borderland of Europe ("At a certain point, the phrase 'Geto-Dacians' was coined in Romanian historiography to suggest a unity of Getae and Dacians, the existence of a single people"). So all your observations on grammar are correct.

As for vagueness, though Boia is a historiographer, I find this material poorly written. No footnotes, no references, no details and vague claims (as you remarked - "at a certain point" - what point?). And actually Romanian historiography makes a clear stand on the existence of a common identity, not necessarily a single people (see for instance C. Giurescu - Formarea Poporului Roman, 1973), because the Romanian historians talk about Geto-Dacians as an union of tribes. The absurd concept of "non-centralized state" given in Ceausescu Era to Buerebista's ruleship was actually derived from the fact Buerebista was a ruler over an union of tribes (that's why his "state" was "non-centralized")! And in this respect, the discourse of Romanian historiography on Geto-Dacians is not different from the discourse of other historiographies talking of Franks (the Germanic tribes of Chamavi, Bructeri, etc. - and here the school of Annales provided justified criticism against this indiscriminate concept of Franks), Slavs (see Curta's careful review of Slavs in the written sources and archaeology), most north-Pontic steppe populations (Scythians, Petchenegs, Cumans, Tartars - were considered so often on the basis of a common ethnical identity), etc.. However, I cannot say such things in the main article as the scholarly opinions I invoked are quasi-irrelevant to the article (maybe in a different article on ethnicity they'd have their proper place) and I know of no scholar to correct Boia and Romanian historiography is actually among his specialities. I just find surprising the false problems issued by L. Boia and his failure to properly place a problem in its wider frame. Daizus 10:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK. But the page is now blocked, and that un-grammatical sentence is still standing there. How long will it be till someone can correct it? Turgidson 13:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You can ask to remove protection - see the links in the tag. But I suggest you leave this page at least a day or two, otherwise new edit wars and careless reverts will keep trashing the content (several of the actual sentences from the text were much better written in the past). Daizus 13:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am the perpetrator of that deformed citation. My only excuse is working under pressure (out of reasons you may know) and don’t even having the original text in front of me at that moment. Anyway, as it is now, the article is but a mess: in the heat of the editing war, information got lost, text was massacred. I am however optimistic that material loss will go along with some learning. After restoring the lost stuff, I suggest keeping in the article two structural gains: 1. the sections; 2. the order of presentation, which should begin with the primary sources, mention modern main stream interpretations and end with voices which dissociate. I dare to believe, that these suggestions are basic common sense. --Vintila Barbu 18:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone -- in fact, I had no idea who introduced the sentence in question. But I think everyone agrees we need well-written articles. Actually, it looks to me that, beyond the differences, the discussion here is at a quite high level of sophistication (unlike some of the really low-level discussions I've seen on a few other talk pages), so, with a bit of give and take, maybe a compromise can be reached? Again, I'm not competent to put forward an opinion on the substance on the dispute, but maybe I could help with the editing, once a consensus is (hopefully) reached. Turgidson 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake, how could I feel offended if your comment is true ?! I think that common sense, good faith and familiarity with norms of scientific thinking will more than suffice for expressing pertinent and helpful input here. Cheers,--Vintila Barbu 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Name

I'm no expert in ancient languages, but from "Getae" (nominative plural) and from "Getarum" (see Jordanes - for genitive plural), it looks this is a 1st declension noun. There also was the Greek form "Getai". I suspect the nominative singular in Greek would have been "Getis" (I found a parallel in "Persis" - persian). Warning - this is my OR. Daizus 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bah, the ancient Greeks pronounced "Getes" (respectively "Perses"). Daizus 17:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Burebista vs Byrebista (and others)

Byrebista is an attested form (Byrebistas, Boirebistas, etc). AFAIK there's no Burebista (though Jordanes called him "Burvista") - this is a modern scholar (co/i)nvention. If the scholar consulted for this material used Byrebista, I think it ok to use it as such. Also, as you can see from Burebista's article, though virtually unreferenced, it has a note that his name in Greek sources was Byrebistas. Daizus 10:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand. We need to look which is the most usual name (cf. WP:NPOV)? In Romanian it's Burebista, but here we're on en.wiki. How is the guy referenced in English books? Dpotop 10:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Getae vs. Geats vs. Goths in Jordanes

Are Getae, Geats and Goths distinct people, maybe a short distinction about what they are , and they not shoul be put the three mentioned articles. because here in the article is mentioned that: several writers (Marcellinus Comes, Orosius, John Lydus, Isidore of Seville, Procopius of Caesarea) used the same ethnonym Getae to name populations invading the Eastern Roman Empire (Goths, Gepids, Kutrigurs, Slavs). For instance, in the third book of the History of the Wars Procopius details: "There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at the present, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepaedes. In ancient times, however, they were named Sauromatae and Melanchlaeni; and there were some too who called these nations Getic. Still in the Geats article there is a mention like this: "Geats should not be confused with the Thracian Getae." But the article mention Jornanes and mention that the Geats are in Jordanes Gautigoths and Ostrogoths. To be more confusing the Goths article states that: According to Jordanes' Getica, written in retrospect in the mid-6th century, under their 5th king, Filimer, son of Gadaric, the Goths entered Oium, a land of bogs, part of Scythia,[27] defeated the Spali and moved to the vicinity of the Black Sea.[28] There they became divided into the Visigoths ruled by the Balthi family and the Ostrogoths ruled by the Amali family.[29] Ostrogoths means "eastern Goths" and Visigoths means "Goths of the western country."[30] Can someone put some order in the above mentioned articles, the things are not very clear and I think that jordanes create a lot of confusion regarding the Geats:) 193.230.195.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC).

Jordanes is known to have created that confusion quite purposefully - at least this is the wide spread modern point of view. Being a Roman of Gothic ethny, he wrote a history in which he tried to add to the contemporary glory in arms of his folks a more renowned ancestry, and he did that by using the related phonems Get - Got. It is seems that the confusion was purported until the early Renaissance in Scandinavia.PredaMi (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The article names several historians who had made the same equation as early as the 4th century; Jordanes was merely agreeing with what those before him had said. So you could say he is known not to have created it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You people are complete morons.Getae-dacian people have nothing to do with Goths.The Goths arrived in Dacia after the Roman conquest.And it is known that they spoke a Germanic language and what is also known is Dacians did not speak a Germanic language nor the getae.Just because both of the peoples names start with a "g" doesn't mean they have direct corellation to each other.For fucks sake this is the worst article on wikipedia.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement might help you. -- Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Might help me with what?Most historians today would laugh in your face if you told them that Getae and Goths are the same people,so why would i need help with proving something which is widely accepted everywhere by any serious historian.Sorry if i can't use your triangle of disagreement properly tho i do apologize for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well what you can do, since you say that is "accepted everywhere by any serious historian", is find one of them for a reliable source, and then maybe we can add that viewpoint to the section, which currently endorses no claims about the Getae being Goths, but merely notes impartially that Late Classical and Mediaeval writers had believed this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Origins."The Getae were also assumed to be the ancestors of the Goths by Jordanes in his Getica written at the middle of the 6th century. Jordanes assumed the earlier testimony of Orosius." So he assumed that the Getae where the ancestors of the goths,yet he claims that Goths migrated eastward from "Scandza"(Scandinavia).Interesting,so the Getae after being displaced by the Romans sailed to Scandinavia adopted a Germanic language and then migrated back to Dacia and gave rise to the Gothic nation.No fallacies here at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"During 5th and 6th centuries, several historians and ethnographers (Marcellinus Comes, Orosius, John Lydus, Isidore of Seville, Procopius of Caesarea) used the same ethnonym Getae to name populations invading the Eastern Roman Empire (Goths, Gepids, Kutrigurs, Slavs)." This just proves that the term Getae was used as an umbrella term for any barbarian tribe that attacked the roman empire from Dacia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, why don't you see if your point of view, or the point you are trying to make, is reflected in any WP:RSS? [Note: Wikipedia articles don't qualify as RSS] Presumably it should not be too hard for you since you have asserted that it's "accepted everywhere by every serious historian". You only need to find one. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And what proof do you have that contradicts my views?A bunch of fairy-tales written by historians known for their inaccuracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want your view represented in the article, the burden is on you to source it if possible. (Hmmm, seems to be harder than I would have thought, from your assurance that historians are in unanimous agreement about this!) Without any sourcing, we can't really add it as an unsourced random viewpoint; it's against policy... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok,in that case.Give me the sources that proof that the Getae people weren't actually Koreans.I mean if you can't find any historians saying otherwise it must mean that they are Korean.(That's what your logic is right now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Logic is the art of spotting fallacies, and any trained logician should be able to spot several big enough to drive a truck through with that last proposition. You don't just throw your opinion or theory out there and then announce that it stands as proven fact if nobody can rebut it. That's just not how it works, not here. You need sources. Look, I'll make it easy for you. You claimed above that all historians are in agreement with your opinion. Since you have this strong opinion on who the Getae and Goths really were, you must have got it from somewhere, right? I mean, if you did not acquire this inner knowledge orally by word of mouth, you must have read it somewhere, right? So try and remember where you read it. That could be the source we are looking for. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

After re-reading this, I think I can possibly clear up another misunderstanding of yours. 1) The article is not arguing that the Goths and Getae were indeed the same. 2) I am not arguing this either. Most of your argument here seems to be with society 1200-1600 years ago who thought this at the time, and wrote it in their books. This is a strawman or imaginary opponent, or a ghost opponent from 1600 years ago. The article at the moment merely notes impartially what the view was back then (this is known as historiography), per WP:NPOV without taking a stand one way or the other, and neither do I take a stand one way or the other. If we can find some more recent scholar commenting on the likelihood of this connection, however, then we certainly should be able to use it to add more viewpoints to the article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And you don't see how stating this can give people the wrong idea?I'm pretty sure many people who never did any kind of self study about Thracians,dacians,or getae after having read the "goths and getae" section at the end of the article now equate them as the same people in their heads which was probably the goal of the person who posted that information.It is misleading people from main stream history.(I really shouldn't have to provide you with sources that state that the Getae and goths were completely different people how about just Google "goths" research as much as you can on them and then Google Getae it should be pretty clear from their language difference that they could not have been the same people)And the sources provided contradict each other.In the book "Getica" jordanes states that goths came from scandza.How can he later claim they sprung from a native people from the Balkans that by itself should ring a few bells in your head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, come back when you are willing to look for sources. What I am trying to tell you is that improving the article on something like this is virtually impossible with zero sources. And that's not my fault, that's just the way it is. And one of the first things they teach you or should teach you is that you don't assume races from languages, because to do so is highly deceptive for any number of reasons (like assuming all Amerians are of English extraction for instance, because they are English speakers) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, the picture I get from Jordanes and the other medieval writers, even saga writers like Snorri Sturleson, is that these people had a very wide range, and went back and forth several times between Scandinavia and Dacia during all the "prehistoric" years. So the argument "Well one is from Scandinavia and one is from Dacia, so that proves it" is not totally compelling if they are right. Colin McEvedy has a lot to do with the view that the "Teutons" stayed put in Scandinavia all that time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually for a group of people to speak a certain language means that the group was at one point(especially in the case of Americans)mainly made up of people that were from a country that spoke that language.There is no way a minority of people will impose their language on a majority unless they are superior in some kind of way either military wise of technology wise.Also one question to you.How would all these medieval writers know what kind of migrations happened in "prehistory" times?

Also how do you explain this.

The story of the Goths generally begins in Scandinavia, as is told by the historian Jordanes in his The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, chapter 4: " IV (25) Now from this island of Scandza, as from a hive of races or a womb of nations, the Goths are said to have come forth long ago under their king, Berig by name. As soon as they disembarked from their ships and set foot on the land, they straightway gave their name to the place. And even to-day it is said to be called Gothiscandza. (26) Soon they moved from here to the abodes of the Ulmerugi, who then dwelt on the shores of Ocean, where they pitched camp, joined battle with them and drove them from their homes. Then they subdued their neighbors, the Vandals, and thus added to their victories. But when the number of the people increased greatly and Filimer, son of Gadaric, reigned as king--about the fifth since Berig--he decided that the army of the Goths with their families should move from that region. (27) In search of suitable homes and pleasant places they came to the land of Scythia, called Oium in that tongue. Here they were delighted with the great richness of the country, and it is said that when half the army had been brought over, the bridge whereby they had crossed the river fell in utter ruin, nor could anyone thereafter pass to or fro. For the place is said to be surrounded by quaking bogs and an encircling abyss, so that by this double obstacle nature has made it inaccessible. And even to-day one may hear in that neighborhood the lowing of cattle and may find traces of men, if we are to believe the stories of travellers, although we must grant that they hear these things from afar." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

At this point, if you are going to spend any amount of time on wikipedia, you should read our cornerstone policies to learn how things work, particularly WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:VER. We don't get in to offering up our own novel arguments and unique counter arguments based on our own interpretations of the evidence. [You might conclude it is impossible from the evidence; I might disagree, etc.] Instead, we keep it very simple: we strictly stick to reporting views that can be found in published sources. (That's why I keep saying "sources"). I will not get drawn into a debate on how likely or unlikely I think it is that some account from 300 BC is to be correct or incorrect. Wikipedia is not interested in our personal opinions as editors. We are interested in reporting opinions in published sources. There are plenty of other websites and blogs and things out there if you want to engage in a debate with someone on your theories about what is possible, where sources may not be so stringently required. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

But i just posted above a source that says Goths have their origin in Scandinavia....Or is that invisible to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

We can probably use just about anything from a WP:RS that has anything to say specifically mentioning the article topic, Getae. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And by that you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the basic criterion we use for sourcing information added to an article. The source at least has to actually mention the article topic (in this case, Getae.) Can you find any sources that talk about Getae? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

We aren't only talking about Getae here tho.We are also discussing Goths(which you seem to claim are the same people as getae) so i'm providing proof of Goths originating in scandza and having nothing to do with getae.Why are you acting like i am completely of topic here?This is a talk page.It is not only made for providing sources.It is made for general discussion about the Getae.What i posted should be added to the 'goths and getae" section.Infact I'll do it myself as it is a "reliable source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The only purpose this page is supposed to be used for is discussing potential improvements to the Getae article. That normally requires sources that actually mention the article topic, Getae. This principle honestly is not immensely difficult for most of our editors to grasp. It is NOT for "general discussion" about the Getae - see WP:TALK and WP:SOAP. If we try to use a source that doesn't mention Getae, it would violate WP:SYNTH which you should also read. And to repeat, once again in case you missed it, I am NOT claiming the Goths "are the same people as getae", my pov is irrelevant although without any secondary sources whatsoever I have to assume anything is possible knowing that the peoples in that region had a tendency to migrate over hundreds of miles over the centuries, rather than remain in one country the entire time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you removing my changes to the article then?Personal grudge?I provided sources for every statement i made.This is why Wikipedia is a piece of shit they allow retards to become mods and basically re-write history from their own perspective.Quoting fairy-tales written in the medieval times.I just read almost half of Jordanes "Getica" he also claims that the Goths sacked "Troy and Ilium" just after they had recovered somewhat from the war with Agamemnon.Hmm,i thought the war in troy happened around the bronze age and didn't the Goths emerge around 200 ad?So you can keep ruining this article by allowing fairy tales to be accepted as reliable sources.Maybe someone can find a reference to Getae in a star wars book and it can be seen as a reliable source as well.This is Wikipedia at it's finest.And i am trying to improve this article by removing all the fabricated fictitious history from it.

You need to read our policies. We cannot use material in the article that makes no claims or mention about the article topic. What part do you not understand? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

What i posted did mention the Getae.....So why was it removed?

bout the origin of the name Massagetae, scholars have emphasized that: "The classical and modern authorities say that the word "Massagetae" means "great" Getae(mentioned). The ninth-century work De Universo of Rabanus Maurus[7][8] states, "The Massagetae are in origin from the tribe of the Scythians, and are called Massagetae, as if heavy, that is, strong Getae(mentioned)."[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Source ^ Maurus, Rabanus (1864). Migne, Jacques Paul, ed. De universo. Paris. "The Massagetae are in origin from the tribe of the Scythians, and are called Massagetae, as if heavy, that is, strong Getae." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that last paragraph does mention Getae, so it should be added to the relevant section for Massagetae, probably not that section. The long extract from Jordanes talking about Goths might be a candidate for the article Goths, but since it is a WP:PRIMARY source, we can't interpret it for the Getae unless perhaps some secondary source specifically interpreted it in that light. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So you are giving me permission to add a section to the Getae article called "Massagetae" and add that to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A section for Massagetae and Getae might make some sense, so I would not object, but no need to reproduce the entire article Massagetae. Anything can always be tidied up by someone else later, so go for it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Getae not Dacians

There should be included more ancient quotations, and neutral After reading this article I understand Getae are not related to Dacians. Just some Romanians pretend this but Boias and Djuaras clarified this. I was confused before Now I know why Thank youLBartok (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:PSTS. Dahn (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Augustus?

"Augustus aimed at subjugating the entire Balkan peninsula, and used an incursion of the Bastarnae across the Danube as a pretext to devastate the Getae and Thracians. He put Marcus Licinius Crassus"

I mean, is this sentence refering to this augustus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus? If so, this is a mistake, since Crassus was long dead by the time Augustus had any sort of power to give orders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.126.242 (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I corrected this to the right Crassus. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an interest paragraph from the book THE THRACIANS 700 BC -AD 46, from OSPREY PUBLISHING, Man-at-Arms collection, Vol. 360, ISBN 1 84176 329 2, written by Christopher Webber and ilustrated by Angus McBride. On pgs. 10-11, when detailing the historical outline of the different Thracian tribes it is stated that " ... The 'Getae' lived between the Haemus range and the Skythians, on both sides of the Istros (Danube) ... Herodotus (IV, 98) called them 'the bravest and most noble of all the Thracians' ... Diodorus Siculus (XXI.11-12) said 'they are barbarous and lead a bestial existence' ...the poet Ovid complains about 'the austere Getic lifestyle' ..." . Further, on pgs. 16-17 when describing the Roman conquest on the Balcanic and Pontic regions, the author adds that " ... Formal annexation did not stop further raids, incursions and rebellions, however. The most significant of these came from the 'Dacians', direct descendants of the Getae who spoke a language closely related to Thracian. Burebeista, the first great Dacian king (c.70-44) made the Geto-Dacian state powerful enough to worry Rome ...". Periptero (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

The entry that an anonymous reworded and whose meaning he changed, it was clearly stating the point of view of known ancient sources. BTW, it was properly referenced according to Wikipedia rules.

The article starts with interpreting the records of ancient sources, but , first, we have to know what they say. While nobody can make such a statement that Dacians were indiscriminately Getae, It is important to know the view of the ancients. When reading Cassio, it is important to know that, the Dacians of Cassio Dio were Getae, because of the fact he stated himself that he named the Getae of Greeks, Dacians. Boia, whose works are about Myths and Mythologies, is not a linguist either. So, his view about Thracians, Dacians and Getians language is not a linguist expertise. He also ignores that Strabo visited the Pount Euxinus region.

Do you expect from us to write the ethnicity of all historians? British, Bulgarians, French a.s.o.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint [1]

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.[2] Boldwin (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding breakdown around Dacians and Getae

I think it adds a lot to readability, since there are too many large paragraphs in the 1st section. It also groups the opinions by their view, useful to the reader. The section about Vulpe is in between the two opinions, his position being ambivalent. It can be part of either sections, but I think it provides a nice transition from the 1st to the 2nd view. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Horrible mess of an article

This has got to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia - choppy, disorganized, in places even incoherent. Small wonder serious historians laugh at Wikipedia. Congratulations guys, for a job well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.184.70.232 (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I find the passage "The Romanian historian of ideas and historiographer Lucian Boia stated: "At a certain point, the phrase Geto-Dacian was coined in the Romanian historiography to suggest a unity of Getae and Dacians".[28] Lucian Boia took a sceptical position, arguing the ancient writers distinguished among the two people, treating them as two distinct groups of the Thracian ethnos.[28][29] Boia contended that it would be naive to assume Strabo knew the Thracian dialects so well,[28] alleging that Strabo had "no competence in the field of Thracian dialects".[29] The latter claim is contested, some studies attesting Strabo's reliability and sources.[30] There is no reason to disregard Strabo's view that the Daci and the Getae spoke the same language.[17] Boia also stressed that some Romanian authors cited Strabo indiscriminately.[29]" - all worth removing. The arguments are of a confused mind - there is no specific reason to question Strabo's "competence in the field of Thracian dialects" more than the competence of ANY historian of antiquitiy, talking about the relations between various Celtic, Germanic or even Scythic tribes. The problems is always there, when it comes to distinguishing Goths from Gepides, or Galls from some small Celtic tribe in the Alps, etc - the pars pro toto issue is omnipresent. So Boia's adolescentine phrase brings nothing to the reader. Besides, more than being a controverse, it is hard to understand its reason. In any case, Getae are some part of the Thraco-Dacian family - be it as an alternative name, at a different period of time, be it, as one might also read from Strabo, as a smaller subfamily. But what is the point of the controversy. Except for some Boia wanting to pretend to bring a different light on just about anything, for the sake of rumour - there is no logical point and the Wiki article fails to present it. Therefore, better let it be. Write in 10 years, when Boia will certainly be forgotten! If there is no reaction within one week I will erase that partPredaMi (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC).

Words phonetically akin to 'Getae'

You can say that the word 'Khettas', used in some places to design the 'Hittites', can be considered an equivalent to 'Getae', the quotation that they were experts in throwing arrows while horseback riding may be probably found also in the Bible: Hittites taught Zyon to build war chariots, and along with horseback riding, Hittites introduced an idolatric cult, this is also referred in the Bible in the Hebrew withdrawing from the idolatry, and along with getting ride of it, never came back to the horseback riding they learned concomitantly. The 'Town in the height' -in classical Greek: 'Acropolis'- that Jesus Christ Himself cites that 'can't be hidden', most probably was 'Hattusa', the capital of the 'Hittite empire', burnt by its inhabitants -scorched earth- and abandoned when a civil war cut the supplies coming there from the rest of their empire. The 'Hittites' seem were not an uniform people from a genetical point of view, perhaps its ruling groups were, but the main constituent of the Hittites seem people from several ethnic backgrounds that accepted a rule for the welfare advantages its efficacy gave for those incorporating to this group, the constituents of this society not belonging to the ruling group, class, or ethnicity received the collective name 'Hittis' (Any connection to 'Hostis'='Enemy' in Latin? -the tradition of officers considering some subordinates as a potential 'enemy' existed inside the Spanish armies not long ago, the armies there having had a remote predominancy of Visigoths-, 'Hittis' being a word more definitory of social functions than of ethnicity. How cognate can be considered these 'Khettas', a synonim of 'Hittites', to the 'Getae', considered also equal as the Visigoths? Had them common and close, or even identical, ethnic backgrounds, or was it mainly a cultural similarity more than other things?. If the subject is already solved an considered fixed, it would be of interest receiving more information from experts in the field. Thanks. --Jgrosay (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2013

What about getes?

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uShGAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA453&dq=jatt+scythia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lZzCUu-9H4WChQf4wICYCg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ

Repeated deletion of WP:RS by an IP

What are secondary sources (passing wp:rs) that oppose the fact that some early medieval authors confused the Getae with the Goths. This is the mainstream academic view on the matter, AFAIK, but IP 172.58.185.32 claims that adding sources to that effect is a breach of WP:NPOV. So, IP 172.58.185.32, please present reliable academic sources that reaffirm the view of early medieval authors in identifying the Getae with the Goths. If such sources pass wp:rs, we will surely add them to the article. In the meantime, please stop removing reliable sources and restoring unsorced text. Vladimir (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Ive noticed your not much of one for discussing your pov like any rational editor does, you're more from the "act haughty and superior, while resorting to any stratagem to avoid an honest discussion" school of thought, or so I find when I see on my talkpage that you are accusing me of being someone else. So as faras Im concerned, congratulations, you've fucked up another article with one sided pov pushing on Wikipedia, which is like a joke website infamous for its laughable partiality, so you may have it and to hell with you too, anyone with a lick of sense knows to get their info elsewhere 172.58.185.32 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear IP 172.58.185.32, you shouldn't be mad at me at all. I just added reliable sources to the article (even to the point of over-referencing due to your reverts), and that's what wikipedia is primarily about. I called on you to present any WP:RS with the opposing view (frankly I'm not aware of any RS that claims that the Getae and the Goths were the same people), but instead I got that not quite polite comment of yours. As for the "accusation", the good editors who volunteered to deal with such issues will hopefully resolve it. If I'm wrong, I will apologize. But somehow I doubt I'm wrong about that. Cheers, Vladimir (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of any mention of Dacians in intro

The article clearly states that the Getae were strongly associated with the Dacians.

There is no consensus among scholars (yet) that the Dacians were a subgroup of Thracians.

Therefore the formulation "Dacian and/or Thracian" is more accurate.

Grant | Talk 22:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the Dacians should have been mentioned in the lede, and I edited it accordingly. While I haven't extensively researched the scholarly position on Dacians specifically, with regards to Getae ancient authors were explicit and thus modern scholars are unanimous: they were Thracians. Whether Dacians were Getae (or the other way around) is still a matter of discussion, and you formulation would imply supporting a point of view still disputed in the academia.--Anonimu (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Although ... after further reflection I see that the problem is even more complicated.

For example:

"Strabo ...wrote that the Dacians and Getae spoke the same language, after stating the same about Getae and Thracians."

"Pliny: ... at one spot the Getae, by the Romans called Daci."

"Appian .... noted ... Getae over the Danube, whom they call Dacians ..."

"Justin ... wrote ... that Dacians ... as well are a scion of the Getae..."

"Cassius Dio ... argues that the Dacians are "Getae or Thracians..."

Getic language redirects to Dacian language, which seems slightly controversial, given the possibility that both were distinct and separate dialects of Thracian? Anyway, it suggests us that there "is general agreement among scholars" that all three spoke Indo-European languages, although "widely divergent views exist about their relationship". The article lists four theories about their relationship.

• Dacian/Getic was a northern dialect of Thracian. (Mihailov 2008 p=598; Trask 2000 p=343).
• Conversely Thracian may have been a southern dialect of Dacian/Getic (Trask 2000 p=343).
• Dacian/Getic and Thracian were distinct but related languages, descended from one branch of Indo-European (Shashi 1992 p=107; Academic American Encyclopedia 1994 p=198).
• Dacian/Getic and Thracian were not related and constituted dissimilar/separate branches of Indo-European, which nevethless shared a large number of words due to long-term geographical proximity (Duridanov 1969 p=100).

From the above we have at least six different (although not all mutually exclusive) theories regarding the relationship between the Getae, Dacians and Thracians as ethnolinguistic groups

1. Getae = Dacians; an offshoot of Thracians (Strabo; Pliny; Mihailov; Trask/)
2. Getae as progenitors of Dacians (Appian; Justin)
3. Getae and/or Thracians distinct and either one or both progenitors of Dacians (Cassius Dio)
4. Getae = Dacians totally distinct from Thracians (Duridanov)
5. Getae = Dacians distinct from, but related to Thracians (Shashi)
6. Getae = Dacians, progenitors of Thracians (Trask)

Of these, only the last seems unlikely and not supported by the ancient sources. Grant | Talk 09:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Several tribes vs a single tribe?

The sources cited in the article for the most call the Getae a single tribe, rather than a collection several tribes, so I will be correcting the article accordingly. If anyone is able to obtain significant sources showing that the Getae were in fact composed of multiple tribes, then feel free to revert my edit and add those sources in the citations. Antiquistik (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)