Talk:Dacianism/Archive 1

message: There were also other nationalist myths of links to ancient civilizations, but these AFAIK none did reached the status of state policy.
* in Croatia, the Illyrian Movement, a 19th century national movement, who linked South Slavs to Ancient Illyrians
* in Hungary, the alleged Hungarian-Sumerian links
bogdan 13:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other countries

message: Even though it's quite clear they are fake, but still get some attention:
http://www.gardianul.ro/index.php?a=mediacultura2005080106.xml
bogdan 13:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinaia lead tables 

message: I think we should completly rewrite this article, removing all that is related to dacians... Actually real Protochronism wanted to demonstrate the diferences between romanians and other minorities in the country, and to do so, the dacian element was avoided, the greater importance was given to the roman origin. Because if romanians are "more dacians than roman", it means they have more in common with other people like slavians, hungarians, etc than we think.
This article is pure speculation. I think it is the fantasy of someone! Since when did Ceausescu wanted to glorify the Dacians??  Excepting it is written with a point of view against the dacians as a civilisation, insulting the dacians more than anything, it has almost nothing to do with real Protochronism and the raise of Romanian nationalism.
Moa3333 22:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is defined as such. I gave reference. Read at least part of it. The term might be applied to something else, because of its ETYMOLOGY, but this is its use in academia. Dahn 22:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: the connection between Ceausescu and Dacians is as obvious as staple as could ever be within the framework of Romanian nationalism. Dahn 22:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And:I FAIL to see how it is an insult to say that Dacians couldn't write. They couldn't! Dahn 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Moa, then what were the "2050 de ani de la crearea Statului Dac centralizat şi independent" celebrations about ? :-) bogdan 23:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh 

message: Re: the recently added Hungarian examples. 
It should be noted that vast majority of the Hu population is not interested in these theories, any Hungarian, if asked, would say that Hungarians are a Finno-Ugric people, having been arrived at the Carpathian Basin in 896. I, as a Hungarian, have never heard of most of the "other strange theories" added by Greier.
He did not include, however, an unconfirmed myth that really exists among many Székelys - I wonder if he can find it. :-) If not, I will include it later on. 
 One more thing: these theories have never been supported by any significant political party, or significant political movement in the last 60 years.
--KIDB 10:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern-day equivalents - Hungary 

message: :A newer, pejorative term that was given to the Romanian phenomenon is Dacomania
Verdery's book, written around 1989, published 1991, uses the word "Dacomania" twice, so it's not very new. bogdan 22:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dacomania 

message: I took this part out: Protochronism was an official ideology in Romania, while in Hungary, these are only the theories of some individual crack-pots, therefore irelevant to this article.
:=== Hungary ===
:Hungarian alternative history present the Magyar tribes as the descendants of various ancient peoples, ranging from the :Etruscans, Sumerians and Celts to Scythians and Huns, or claim direct linking with different ancient peoples like the Sarmatians , Iazyges, Avars and even Dacians, commonly called "Magyar brethren", which colonised the Carpathian Basin in successive waves. 
:Other strange theories, like the supposed Magyar origin of Jesus Christ, the descendancy of the Magyar tribe from on of the Lost Tribes of Israel, the racial purity of the Hungarians, Hungarian as the most ancient language, the Hungarian origins of Easter,  the ancient Hungarian origins of the wheel or the Hungarian origin of the panties are also common.
:See external links: 
:* An anthropological discussion of the significance of theories of cultural and :historical primacy illustrated with examples from Hungary and Serbia - Eric Beckett Weaver
:* HunMagyar.com; A site which presents several theories regarding the Magyar tribes.
bogdan 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Bogdan's changes. An essential thing has been dropped en passant by KIDB, and I think it should be stressed again: One more thing: these theories have never been supported by any significant political party, or significant political movement in the last 60 years.Dahn 22:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a mention could be made about Szálasi's fantasies, as they might qualify under "official policy". I am, however, not sure about their purpose and exent. Dahn 23:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if Szálasi or his idiot friends had any sophisticated theory. What I heard of is that in the 19th century it was believed by many that Huns were the predecessors of Hungarians. And that is still quite common amongst Székelys to believe that after the death of Attila, many Huns fled to Transylvania under the leadership of his son, Prince Csaba - and this is where the Székelys are from. Note that names like Attila, or Csaba are often used in Hungary --KIDB 06:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protochronism and the Hungarians 

message: I am not very sure, if "popularity gains" are factual accurate. Mr. Napoleon Savescu and his collegues provide a loud and grotesque presence, though I wouldn't equate this to a gain in popularity. Actually, both instances which could decide upon popularity in this case - the audience at large and the scientific community - ignore royally the dacomaniac agitation. To make the passage from Ceausescu to present days, a more moderate formulation than "popularity gains" would probably not be such a misplaced ideea.--Vintila Barbu 17:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it is safe to say that the phenomenon has democratized itself, and that it is not enforced by any rigid state structure. Apparently, the myths attract more people freely expressing their options (and more and more vandals to this page); of course, it is not the case of academia - but, hopefully, academia is not about popularity. What do you suggest instead? Dahn 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, you already formulate it...let's say something like: "After the downfall of the Ceausescu's regime, prothocronism ceased to be enforced by any state structure. Though it receives no recognition (maybe better: is largely ignored by) from the national or international scientific comunity, prothocronism still gathers a number of enthusiasts and nostalgics."--Vintila Barbu 11:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took up your format and reworded it somehow. Would you say it is ok? Dahn 12:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Perfect. Note that the 22 source alludes to the difference, so we may use it as well. Dahn 18:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The present popularity gains of prothocronism" 

message: I believe that another term used for this is "Daco-Romanian continuity", but I don't see that in the article. If you Google '"Daco-Romanian continuity" -wikipedia' you'll see that while there are not a ton of hits, they are mostly from pretty solid sources. - Jmabel | Talk 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is a major difference. Most Romanians and Romanian historians will probably agree that there is a connection between the Dacians and the first Romanians, and most will in any case oppose all notions that Romanization occurred [solely] south of the Danube. Most of them will never present Dacians as superior or even reasonably advanced, and they will not argue that the Romans played a negative/insignificant role in ethnogenesis. Dahn 01:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: More of what you just said needs to make it into the article, to clarify what portions of this intersect what historians otherwise accept, and what do not. - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daco-Romanian continuity 

message: Do we have any sources for this section? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protochronism#Modern-day_equivalents Or is it the author who is speculating? Is that stuff mentioned in any of the books listed in the reference section? --Thus Spake Anittas 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, that section does not add to this article, and there has been a lot of back and forth about what should be included in there. Ever since the article was created, it appears that the section has been supplanted by Nationalism and ancient history, and that is where the info can be included if it is decided it should be kept. For now: I have pointed out elsewhere that a parallel has been drawn between Romania and Mexico, and I think that should be added in the text. Dahn 16:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources needed 

message: The context is wrong. Iran is a direct cultural and more importanly lingustic successor of the ancient Persian states starting from the Achaemenids. Nothing questionable about that. If the Reza Pahlavi claimed descent from the Elamites it would make sense.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern-day equivalents - Iran 

message: I find some of the language on this page problematic.
1. there are usages such as "enigmatic Dacian language" and "mysterious Zalmoxis cult". Daican language is not enigmatic, it's simply not known, since it was never written. The Dacian's (polytheistic generally but at least in part monolatrist, according to mainstream historians) religion is again, a suject that's not really 100% known, but to call it mysterious it's kind of unusual. Such words are not really NPOV, though I'm not really sure exaclty what they are intended to suggest.
: I second that, this article is the best example for how to avoid writing an article. The WP:NPOV policy is absolutely tarnished. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this page 

message: Does this term exist in English? Is it being used? --Thus Spake Anittas 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a few of the authors whose works in English (or translated into English) use the term: Gabriel Liiceanu, Alexandru Zub, Norman Manea, Dennis Deletant, András Bozóki, David Turncock, Alex Drace-Francis, Andrew H. Dawson & Rick Fawn, Marcel Cornis-Pope & John Neubauer, Andrew Hammond, Tom Gallagher, Ted Anton, Vladimir Tismăneanu, Lidia Vianu. This is, of course, without the references already provided in the text. Dahn 05:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they use it in reference to Romania? Does any author use the term in reference to anything else but Romania? And lastly, does this word exist in the English dictionary (like Websters)? I tried to look it up, but found nothing. A quick google search results in a modest 521 searches. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the article refer to anything but Romania? See why this whole thread is pointless? Dahn 06:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't asking about the article, but about the word. It seems to me that the term doesn't exist in the English language and the authors just did some kind of transliteration of the Romanian word. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Dahn 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the article doesn't make that clear. One may believe that that the term also exists in the English language, especially when it says that the word "is a modern tendency in cultural nationalism." It may be so, but only in Romanian. The article does say that the term was coined in Romania, but that doesn't have to mean that one must believe the term is only used there. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article should make it clear that the term is used only in reference to Romania and not in reference to other countries. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that I should start a consesus, unless the article makes it clear that the term is used only to Ro-related topics and that the term does not exist in English. The article should, perhaps, be deleted or merged with another article. The term doesn't have enough notability. --Thus Spake Anittas 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you like me to fix it? --Thus Spake Anittas 11:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This term 

message: The article for Protochronism is written from an obvious non-neuntral point of view, full of hate rhetoric. The protochronism concept by itself is outdated and linked to Socialism and Communism. Many of the new authors deemed protochronists are living and have careers outside Romania, in democratic and open-minded societies which encourage thinking outside the box. While some of their accusers are still even today in the same structures of Romanian academia that promoted Protochronism during Nicolae Ceauşescu and which barely changed their views or created any quality research in the last 20 years. The hypocrisy is huge. Terms like Dacoman, although ridiculous and pejorative, may make more sense if at all. The article is also a platform for absorbing other articles like Dacian script, based on very subjective claims that all the researchers behind those distinct theories described there are unqualified and protochronists. Above all, this has become a place for people to dump their hate and venom against whomever they hate or disagree with in the Dacian history topic, based on personal, subjective reasons. I don't find it worthy of Wikipedia, it is limited to Romanian space and doesn't bring any good to anyone. Keep an open mind. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to clarify some basic concepts, these people  are researchers. People upholding dacomania are not. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that, but I think there is too much negativity in this war among Romanians, about their own history. The foreigners are looking at this and are laughing their ass out, some are very happy to see how masochistic and fatalistic we can be about ourselves. We can simply be left alone by anyone who doesn't want our success as a nation since we will surely destroy ourselves. And you saw the response of James Murray to this letter. He was very objective and not very partisan. American Academia welcomes opinions from anyone.The difference between the American and European (definitely the Romanian) mentality is that they give the chance to people to speak at least ONCE. They believe in the freedom of speech. It doesn't mean they cannot discern between qualified and not so qualified people. Be sure that anyone who talks about Dacians, Atlantis and Maya in one sentence will be dismissed and not invited next time! But it means they encourage, thinking outside the box, new theories. The answer has a nice statement in the end: "specially from underrepresented regions of  		the world.", proving my points. He was eluding to the fact that these Romanian academicians who took the time to write the petition, maybe the Romanian government who pays them in universities and governmental offices, should DO more, should be PRESENT there themselves and not let Dacomans fill the void. They should PARTICIPATE, they should DO more SCIENCE. They should remove the Dacomans, by showing EXAMPLES about how they DO rigorous science, not by putting their fists in their mouths. Why Bulgarians can have respected Thracologists who have done many amazing discoveries  recently (look at the discoveries, ignore the fact that the site may be maintained by a Dacoman - Sic!),  and we can't restore honor to the term Dacologist? Bulgarians had their own protochronism, linking Slavs and Bulgars to Thracians, which is more far-fetched than linking Dacians to Romanians, but is barely mentioned in this article. But Bulgarians managed to clean up the Thracologist term and make it respectable again. Why our academicians don't take these titles back and go to work, pushing the Dacomans into obscurity? Why can't we have a qualified Romanian "Zahi Hawass" who does significant discoveries like the modern Bulgarian thracologists and is not afraid to call himself a "dacologist" if he is researching Dacians? Or Getologist, Phrygologist or whatever you want to call them. Why egyptologist is a great title, Thracologist is fine now, but the term Dacologist is doomed? If Dacians and Thracians are not as strongly connected as originally thought, why someone who is researching Dacia should continue to call himself Thracologist? Out of fear of this masochistic and fatalistic Anti-Neo-Protochronism Police? The news about Eastern Europe ancient archaeology and history that hit the international press have very commonly two types articles: Amazing discoveries in Bulgaria and Theft and devastation at Romanian archaeological sites. Why is that? I tell you why, because some Romanian academicians are so busy burning Dacoman witches that they forgot to do their jobs. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Codrinb, your message above is an absolute fallacy, from top to bottom; it discredits whatever point you're trying to make, and shows that you're only seeing this matter in terms of cultural relativism (bordering on moral relativism?) - in other words, that we should open wikipedia articles to praise for esoteric, anti-scientific and fringe theories because we are Romanian, and like all Romanians, one is led to conclude, we are all naturally attracted to, and represented by, such canards. Argumentum ad populum, tu quoque, and so on. Do you have any objection that would actually be supported by wikipedia policies, as opposed to your fringe POV? I suppose not. Dahn (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other thank attacking me personally, you didn't answer any of my valid questions.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Really, if you've got four divergent plausible theories, isn't that just a scholarly euphemism for "no idea, really"? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Note to self, my timeline here needs to go back further. And we can see how the conversation went there. (!). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Peters, thanks, really good points. Appreciate your neutral position. Much needed here.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Peters, why are we even discussing this? The Protochronist theory is dismissed "outright" for a very sound reason: it is unscientific and counterfactual, it is pursued by amateurs, it is politically tainted from the start. That there are other theories around is irrelevant, since those theories are all from within the scientific community. In short, Protochronism is ridiculed because it is ridiculous. Whatever you personally want to infer from your past debates with me (and why?), please refrain from poisoning the well with "I have to wonder" speculations. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dahn, stop going in circles with your patronizing, know-it-all attitude and answers these very clear questions. What is wrong with the terms "Dacology" and "Dacologist" in contrast with "Thracology" and "Thracologist" and why it cannot be cleaned up like the Bulgarians did? Why this entire article is so Romania-centric and no Bulgarians, Albanians rush here to thrash their own people and write at least as much content as Romanians do? Why spend the time writing an article full of hatred, and spend the time deleting content, if your knowledge is vastly superior and the List of Dacian towns points to a LOT of non-existing articles? Why favor destruction to creation? How many Germans do you think spend their time on writing the Nazi Germany and Hitler articles? How many Israelis spend their time on writing Palestine Liberation Organization article? Why all this Romanian self-hatred, negative behavior, finger pointing, masochism and fatalism, and above HUGE hypocrisy? --Codrin.B (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and applicability 

message: Just wanted to leave my thanks for all the work that went into this article (and my opinion). Although I don't think the article is terrible good at the moment, it really is useful. It's just good to have something in English at all. I wish I could improve it, but I don't have any good sources either. MauriceM3 (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks