Talk:Dacians

message: I'm copy-editing this article following a request at the WP:GOCE requests page. One of the things I will be doing will be removing the "this section is empty" and "this section needs expansion" markers, while also combining and merging material that is appropriate for the marked sections, so as to give a more coherent structure and layout to the article.
However, some of these markers were presumably intended to be placeholders to give other editors ideas on what needed to be added. And in some cases, still needs to be added! So, for the reference of editors aiming to improve and expand the article in future, this is a listing of the sections that were marked as requiring expansion (some of which do not, or will not, exist in the article after copy-editing):
* Physical characteristics
* Early history
* Relations with Persians
* Relations with Scythians
* Dacian kingdoms
* Roman rule
* After the Aurelian Retreat
* Construction
* Language
* Religion
* Symbols
* Pottery
* Art
* Clothing
* Science
* (Warfare)
** Troop types and organisation
* Famous individuals
* Archaeology
* Legacy
** Middle Ages
** Early Modern usage
** In art
** In nationalism
--Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With much delay, thank you soo much for all the great work on copy editing. And thanks for saving those sections! It would be great to fill them up eventually. Best --Codrin.B (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sections requiring expansion" markings - to be removed during copy-editing 

message: "Unlike the Greeks, Scythians, and Germanics, Dacians are generally described as being much taller, their skin whiter and with straight light-coloured hair and blue eyes." 
Really?Care to provide the sources that confirm this description of them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, really. Blue eyes originated in the Black Sea region. Also, if you look carefully, you'll notice a citation at the end of the sentence. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Would you care to share your source for the Thracian "remains having a high amount of melanin in the upper derma" along with a few examples of Thracian frescos? For example, the Greek poet Xenophanes described the Thracians as blue-eyed and red haired. The Dacians (and Thracians) definitely would have had blue eyes and and lighter hair, though not all of them. Many modern Romanians have blue or green eyes and lighter brown or blonde hair. And of course the majority would have darker hair color and eye color due to the dominance in genes. But what does eye and hair color have to do with neo-nazism? Nazi ideology is disgraceful garbage founded by mentally disturbed and inferior Germans. Yes, I am of Romanian descent, and yes I do have light colored green eyes and brown/blonde hair, but that definitely does not mean I am of Slavic nor Germanic ancestry (I am Spaniard, Italian, French, Romanian, and Greek - absolutely no Germanic/Slavic or even Celtic ancestry). In fact, the majority of Slavs and Germs have dark eyes and hair. Only Scandinavians who are North Germanic have the highest frequency of light eyes/hair in the Germanic family group. Hitler, the maniac that spread Nazi ideology, had dark hair and eyes! So that has absolutely nothing to do with an article related to Dacians, the ancestors of Romanians. Based on your response, You just think that anyone who has or could have lighter eyes, hair, or complexion is a neo-Nazi. And since you are so concerned with my ethnic background, may I ask what your ethnic background is? P.S. leave any messages unrelated to Dacians on my talk page, or even if you wish to have a debate, it belongs on my talk page not an article talk page. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Haha! You're hilarious. "Don't worry about my ethnicity", yet you are so concerned about mine. Why is this? Perhaps you're Slavic? Either way, both image 1 and 2 depict the same man, image 3, 4, and 5 are so small I can hardly see any detail of hair and/or eye color (in fact image 4 looks like light brown hair). Afro-Eurasian (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Actually, if you study European history at all, you would know that modern Romanians descend from Dacian and/or Thracian and Roman peoples. You would also know that Romanians and Moldovans take great pride in knowing that their ancestors were the Dacians, and that the Dacians have an amazing and beautiful history, one that precedes that of the Romans and Greeks. There is evidence that the Dacians invented written language. That they were the first settlers of Europe. That they were the first to have a civilization. That they discovered mathematics, sciences, agriculture, etc. So if you're trying to claim that modern Romanians do not descend from Dacians, then you definitely need to study ancient European history. Also, I see that you are making more claims without giving proper sources, such as "The most the Dacian component contributes to modern day Romanian genetics would be somewhere below 10 percent". Haha. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate on Appearance, 2014

message: ~2,500 BC: There seems to have been a catastrophic event that coincides with the end of these early cultures.  It coincides with weather changes that forced proto-Indo-Europeans, such as the Yamna, across Europe and the world during the late Neolithic.  The Yamna civilization had previously developed above the Black Sea.  It was associated with horse-drawn chariots, and evidence of Yamna influences are seen in this region about this time.  As a result, we have no idea what percent of the existing poulation was devestated.
~2,000-1800 BC: Mass migrations from the Steppes in response to environmental changes bring multi-cordoned ware culture into the Balkans from the north, which is also associated with proto-Indo-Europeans.  From this culture, the proto-Thracians develop.
~1000 BC: Dacians and Thracians emerge. Dacians are also influenced by the Scythians (not clear whether these are modern-day Scythians or simply "barbarians" of Herodotus).
Modern Bulgarians have a little over 50% of their genetic makeup from early neolithic sources, about 1/3 from Yamna, and a small remaining amount from western European hunter-gatherers. 
What follows here is incomplete, but shows you how much cultural exchange and genetic change may have occurred between the already-mixed Thracians and the Scythians, Persians, Romans, Macedonians, Celts, Bulgars, and Slavs.  At any cross-sectional point in time (for example, Herodutus' descriptions), the people could have been influenced by dramatically different genetic influences:
~700 BC: Scythians enter the Baltic region
516-511 BC: Darius the Great takes parts of the region under the Persian Empire
340 BC-355: Alexander's campaigns against Thrace makes much of Bulgaria into Macedonia.
300s BC: Celtic attacks bring Celtic influence to region.
146 BC: Odrysian Kingdom falls to Romans
100 BC: Dacians drive out Celts
500s AD: Bulgars and Slavs arrive, forming Bulgarian empire, assimilating or displacing prior residents.  Region will be devastated by conflict until the collapse of the Byzantine empire in 1453.
1500s to mid-1800s: Ottoman Wars reduced the population of Balkans from 8 to 3 million people. 
1881: Romania gains independence, followed by Bulgaria in 1908.
Now here's another piece of irony: a recent study was done on Thracians, but analyzed populations from 3,000 to 1,000 BC (Ancient human mitochondrial genomes from Bronze Age Bulgaria: new insights into the genetic history of Thracians).  Many of these remains would not have been Thracian at all, representing instead the earlier Old European cultures without the added Steppe genetics.
It is also worth mentioning that in addition to slightly darker complexion, black-haired frescos, there is also a fresco from later in the period that has a very pale, red-headed woman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrusha_mound#/media/File:Thrace-ostrusha.jpg.  I daresay, perhaps the society had some diversity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winspiff (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever were those people in 3500 BCE, they certainly weren't Dacians. tgeorgescu (talk)  20:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding information on appearance

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia/Drafts/Dacian Art --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly useful resources in improving this article 

message: I think this is a fine candidate for a GA rating; in fact, when I noticed it was newly bannered for the Classical G&R project, I was about to suggest nominating it, and then noticed it already was. One minor suggestion: I find it confusing to have two different sections on language, Dacians#Linguistic affiliation and Dacians#Language. I don't see "Language" as belonging under "Material culture", and would recommend merging that section into the earlier "Linguistic affiliation" section. The doubling is reflected by having Davae linked as a "See also" in both sections. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Good suggestions. I will try to work out the suggested changes. I agree that Linguistic affiliation and Language should be merged. Need to find some good example for the best section names and their order. Any good suggestions? --Codrin.B (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language sections 

message: Do anybody think that this is a GA? Why? Borsoka (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course this is a "good article". Why wouldn't it be? This is actually a very important article... I'm not understanding your question. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this article does not meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Please read my remarks here, the reviewer's answer here, and the GA review above on this Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can explain what exactly is not good in the article? I'll be working on this article to fix it up and I'll be removing anything unsourced or otherwise incorrect. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Afro-Eurasian, you may not know but template messages assist other editors to improve the article. If you are deleting them without fixing the problems they sign, you are hindering the improvement of the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Would you specify why do you think I want to ruin the article? Please instead of deleting the template messages, try to fix the issues they mark. If something is unclear, please address it on this Talk page.  Borsoka (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a good article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dacians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002102519/http://www.fondazionedragan.org/media/04_1992_nt_aprile.pdf to http://www.fondazionedragan.org/media/04_1992_nt_aprile.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the "Origins and ethnogenesis," section -  specifically, "Alexander the Great attacked the Getae in BC 335 on the lower Danube, but by BC 300 they had formed a state founded on a military democracy, and began a period of conquest.[67]".
This part of the sentence is confusing: "they had formed a state founded on a military democracy, and began a period of conquest".  Is "they" referring to the Dacians or the Macedonias?  It also does not describe the outcome of the conflict.  Suggest clarifying this paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winspiff (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity Issue

message: The language used is too dense and academic and should be simplified. 188.26.22.176 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should use more common language.