Talk:Aedava

Bulgaria Low‑importance

	Bulgaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bulgaria vs Romania

Let's not get into the who was here first discussion. Aedava is a Dacian town, on a Dacia topic (as you know Dacia's borders were not stopping at the Danube). And Dacia is an integral part of Romanian history. It's ok to have Bulgarian references but please do not remove the other ones. Thanks and looking forward to collaborate. --Codrinb (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Only because Aedava was a Dacian city, does not necessarily make it part of Romanian history. What ties this specific site to Romanian history? You're well aware that Dacians ≠ Romanians. It's not a matter of who was here first, it's actually very simple. Neither Bulgarians nor Romanians were there at the time, it's a matter of the site being in modern Bulgaria...

{{Dacia-stub}} is cool, but {{Romania-hist-stub}} makes no sense with that link to History of Romania. The place was never in Romania. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:06, 9 December 2010

(UTC)

Todor, the Dacian history is a integral part of the Romanian history and having the {{Romania-hist-stub}} is simply noting that. It is not a territorial claim or nationalistic propaganda. The article should also be marked as a stub part of Bulgarian history if needed. It is only fair. There are many regions of this world included in the history of multiple nations, as we didn't live in isolation from each other (especially in the Balkans). The whole idea is to invite editors to participate in the creation of it, with objective facts. The ideas of some Bulgarian historians that Dacians have nothing to do with Romanians nor that they are connected with the Thracians, out of shear nationalism or in order to present a more convenient, isolated version of Bulgarian history (removing from the picture the very inconvenient Daco-Thracian connection, the Romanization of Daco-Thracian people and languages prior to the arrival of the Bulgars, and the Daco-Roman continuity in Romania and surrounding areas: Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian language) should have no bearing on these kinds of articles, since it is highly subjective, detrimental and doesn't server anyone, especially in 2010 AD!.--Codrinb (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more note, it is not clear where Aedava is, but might as well be in the region called later Caliacra. If you look in this article, links to both History of Bulgaria and History of Romania peacefully coexist :-) --Codrinb (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]