Talk:Getae

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

text: "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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  getae experts of bow and arrows while on horseback 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Boia on Strabo 

message: 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)
replies: text: Historiography means historiography. It's simple. Dahn 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  That source is a scholarly source. Which means it fulfills Wiki's requirement of verifiability. Daizus 10:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Is this POV or not?

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Burebista vs Byrebista (and others) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: [[Getae]] vs. [[Geats]] vs. [[Goths]] in Jordanes

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

text: I corrected this to the right Crassus. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is an interest paragraph from the book THE THRACIANS 700 BC -AD 46, from OSPREY PUBLISHING, Man-at-Arms collection, Vol. 360, , 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)
thread_title: Getae not Dacians

message: 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 
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.
Boldwin (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding breakdown around Dacians and Getae 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Horrible mess of an article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Repeated deletion of WP:RS by an IP 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion of any mention of Dacians in intro 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Several tribes vs a single tribe? 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://ebin.pub/romanian-folklore-and-its-archaic-heritage-a-cultural-and-linguistic-comparative-study-3031040503-9783031040504.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  User3749 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed