Talk:Burebista

message: How do we know that Burebista/"Bu-ere-bu-ist-as" really means "the one that is not" ? Bogdan | Talk 10:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *His advisor was the Great Priest Deceneus, who instructed the Thracians to live according to the Belagines Laws [...] . He went to Egypt, where he taught the Egyptian priests the sacerdotal mysteries of the Pelasgians, then returned to Dacia where, together with Burebista he unified both the Thracians both spiritually and politically.
this is what Jordanes claims about Deceneus and Burebista, in his Getica, but Jordanes also claims that the Getae were the Goths, so perhaps an advertisment/caution should be provided, that this is what Jordanes wrote -- Criztu 17:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jordanes used as source of his writings some works that are now lost. He mistaken the Goths with the Getae, so the first part of his works is actually about the Getae (Burebista, Decebal, etc), and only the latter part is about the Goths. Bogdan | Talk 18:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Getica

message: We need to find as many of the attested forms of his name as possible: Burebista, Boerebostes (?), etc. etc.. Compare to Tarabostes and Rubobostes (though I've seen an internet site claim that Rubobostes is a misrendering of Burobostes). See also Albanian karabishte (stag beetle). Alex 06:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bure" could have a connection with the PIE word for "man" to relate to strength and virtue. See Viriathus as an example. Also, "burrë" means man in Albanian. "Bista" sounds like "bishtë" in Albanian meaning tail, but I'm not sure if that would be used in a name. --Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Burebista: attestation & etymology

message: From what I have read, the kingdom of Burebista was larger than suggested than the current map Hxseek (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: @Hxseek  it's kinda late but I made an map for it. you just have to school down Portasa Cristian (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll down* sorry for the grammatical mistake, I'm being busy and I don't have time to write messages now Portasa Cristian (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: in this case I will change the map into the remastered one, I hope you won't mind since the map are almost indentical Portasa Cristian (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: The Map

message: The recent article changes that you made;  had multiple problems though also some constructive additions. I've removed material that I do not think complies with Wiki policy.
*this edit to include the ethnicity of the historian was not appropriate. Being "(a Hungarian)" is neither a qualification nor a disqualification. The point of including it was to suggest that his being Hungarian makes him an inherently unreliable source. 
*;   - Claims must be accompanied by sources. Also this is patently incorrect.
*; . I think I've read this somewhere, but, again citation needed. If you have a source to back up your claim then feel free to re-instate it with the source. I'll check my sources (which is every source currently cited in the article).
* There's a couple points with this edit.
:*One) discover or create -> resurrect. The sources explicitly state that Dacians and Romanians are probably not the same peoples. The idea that Romania started with the Dacians was made extremely popular during Nicolae Ceaușescu's presidency. The lines between fact and fiction are very blurred. I have amended it to "ressurect or reinvent". Statements need to be NPOV. Statements of fact cannot be made where the evidence to support those statements does not exist.
:*Two) The change from "On the one hand the Dacians play a significant role in creating a history of an ethnically pure origin for Romanian people" to  goes against the cited source.
:*Three) . - Umm... not what the original statement meant. Dacian cultural influences in modern Romanian society are quite small. There are archaeological sites and the such, but, not the traditions. Hence "only a small role".
* - multiple issues with these changes;
:* - Problem a) do not use "we, I, us" in an encyclopaedia. Problem b) no demonstrable relevance and problem c) no source.
:* <- Umm, not sure that this is necessary. The state of Dacia didn't disappear after Burebista's death. It just became particularly weak for a short while. It was only finally dismantled after Trajan's Dacian Wars.
* <- Citation needed. Every statement needs to have a source attached to it. That said, the statement is most likely an accurate reflection of the relations between Rome and Dacia, but, unity itself has nothing to do with it. The Romans were not afraid of Dacia because it was unified, but, because it had a strong military presence under a competent commander.
*;
:*One) Trajan completed the conquest of Dacia -> . Eh, this one is difficult to really address. If you can provide a source for "two" then you'd be correct. As it stands, Dacia ceased to exist after Trajan's conquest. I'll take a look for a source to support the statement since I think you are correct.
:*Two)  
*;  <- Unsourced and not really important.
*
:*One) . <- Not accurate. They warred with the Getae specifically who were not invaders.
:*Two)  <- source? it sounds reasonable, but, still needs a source. I've left it in for the time being. No source required, this was just a rewording of the original.
:*Three)  <- not a neutral description. We don't say "the mighty and glorious Roman empire collapsed", we just say "the Roman empire collapsed".
:*Four)  <- good catch :) same with .
:*Five) . <- mostly a good rewrite, just need the citation for "a third of Dacia".
:*Six) you removed . I have reinstated it. There were many tribes in the region before the Dacian kingdom, not just the Getae and Dacians. The La Tene Celts are another example and are completely unrelated to the Dacians or Getae.
:*Seven) You changed  to . Hitchins states that they were related but different groups. Sort of like the Sioux, Lakota and Dakota tribes of the US.
:*Eight) You changed  to . It's not a major point, but, the Dacians and Getae had more than one near catastrophic engagement. They had many. I also changed "geography" to "geographic isolation". I also removed the pointlessly added "still". Don't make a value judgement as to how difficult it was. They did it and that is what we're supposed to state.
:*Nine)  <- Carphathian curveture is not correct. Do you mean The Sub Carpathians otherwise known as the Curvature Carpathians. If so, can you provide me a source saying that's where they were located. I'll double check Hitchins but as I recall he only specificied on the southern Carpathian mountains.
:*Ten)  - Nope. If that were true there wouldn't be Celtic pottery influences in Dacian sites.
:*Eleven)  <- this is not a word; you mean "ascenscion". Accession is the more correct term for "coming to the throne." 
:*Twelve) You changed  to . Please don't remove cited material. Koch explicitly states that Dacian pottery was found in Gomolava and Budapest. Yugoslavia and Pannonia are much larger geographic regions than these two specific sites. If there were ten different sites in Yugoslavia then it'd be fine to just say in Yugoslavia. As it is, one doesn't suggest broad sweeping regions. On a second point, I haven't been able to work out whether pointing out that Yugoslavia broke up in 1991/2 and that it no longer exists goes for or against policy. For some reason Yugoslavia is still commonly used in sources and I don't think it valuable enough to dig up sources just to change "Yugoslavia" into "Former Yugoslavia".
:*Thirteen)  <- No, he doesn't. If he did, then that is what would have been written. I know that it's called the Dacian Kingdom, but, some historians use "empire" to mean that it incorporated multiple countries into a single entity. In the case of Dacia this includes Romania and parts of Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Ukraine. Hence why Koch says empire. That said, I've left all the other empire -> kingdom changes because they are fine on their own and don't go against the source.
:*Fourteen)  <- this is another value judgement that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. The reader themselves is supposed to decide whether Burebista achieved his goals or not. 
:*Fifteen)  <- unnecessary since no claim to suggest that the political breakdown also led to a cultural breakdown exists. At least not until after Decebalus. There isn't a history of Dacian culture after 106 A.D. There is a group called "Free Dacians" but that only extends to at most 381 A.D. This is long before modern Romania. If you like though, the state of the article on this topic is extremely poor. You might be able to significantly improve it if that's in your topic area of interest.
:*Nth-teen) There are multiple other little things which you've changed the meaning of that aren't exactly correct or go against the sources. Most of this is one or two words. My biggest problem is your insistence on removing "conquest/conquered" from a number of passages in the article. Burebista didn't defeat the tribes and leave them in peace, he conquered them.
*Sorry, I had to go through multiple edits to clean it up. I appreciate that you are entirely new to the encyclopaedia and I can see that you're trying to contribute constructively. I don't usually like to throw thousands of links at people but I've left you a "welcome to Wikipedia" template on your page which should give you guidance on how to approach editing the encyclopaedia including core policies and guidelines. I'll link you to one thing directly; WP:BRD. If you have any issue with my reverting your bold edits to this article. Please discuss them with me on this talk page. Don't Editwar on the article. We can reach an amicable solution on this page and then make relevant changes to the article itself. This is, after all, a collaborative project with no deadline. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Grumeza "holds a Bachelors Degree in Education and a Masters Degree in Education from the University of Bucharest, Romania", according to his own website (). He has a Ph.D. in Metaphysical Sciencse from the University of Metaphysical Sciences. He also says about himself that he "immersed himself in the New York City libraries and the libraries at Yale University, absorbing knowledge in multiple fields of study." Consequently, he can hardly be described as a historian. According to a review written by Ina Merdjanova, Trinity College Dublin (), the reviewer found "it pointless to flog a dead horse by listing all the distortions, factual errors, misrepresentations and dull ethnocentrisms plaguing" an other book (The Roots of Balkanization: Eastern Europe C.E. 500-1500) written by Grumeza. She also concludes that Grumeza "does not show any research on how he arrived at these conclusions—and this is the case with most of the conclusions in his book." When writing a review about an other book written by Grumeza (Admiring the Goose-steps: How Hitler Succeeded in Intimidating the World Powers), the reviewer concludes that "this is a book that is so riddled with errors, that it cannot be recommended to anyone" (). Grumeza's book cited in the article (Dacia: Land of Transylvania, Cornerstone of Ancient Eastern Europe) is also of dubious scholarship. For instance, he states that "The Dacian language would have been similar to today's Russian" (page 84), without referring to the source of his assumption (which can only be described as a fringe theory). I think Grumeza's book cannot be described as a reliable source. We should not refer to it when editing WP articles. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've been removing material from the article that came from Grumeza's book. I'd had some concerns about partisanship (due to their Romanian heritage), and had been working to avoid any of the obvious exaggerations. Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell what is myth, fact, or half-truth with this work. I agree it would be best to opt to remove it from the article completely. An example; Burebista's second in command was the high priest and advisor Deceneus. Grumeza suggests that Deceneus was responsible for many of the religious and social reforms brought about during Burebista's reign. He created a caste of respected priests, brought sobriety into the Dacian kingdom and united the related tribes to form a society. Turns out that this story is based on Strabo's work (or rather Jordane's reference to Strabo's lost works) and Deceneus is possibly a fictitious character.Additional conquests were carried out in Pannonia where the fortified cities of Zemplin and Židovar were captured among others. The tribes of the Anarati, Pannoni and Eravisci were also brought under the control of the Dacians. Despite all these conquests, access to the Adriatic sea was sealed off from the Dacians by defiant Breuci and Segestani tribes. <- I might be able to restore at least part of this with some of the other sources already present in the article sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have not been able to find a separate source for the above, so it's just gonna have to stay out. , do you have any other concerns you'd like me to address before I remove my GAN note? I believe I've removed all of the Grumeza related material from both the body and lede of the article or replaced it with an appropriate source where that has been possible. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *The reliability of Grumeza was my principal concern. I think this problem was solved. Thank you for your work. Borsoka (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ok, I have removed the note so that a full GA review may take place. I apologize for having taken so long to deal with your concern, I was on holidays and have been semi-active on Wikipedia since due to work commitments. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ion Grumeza 

message: What does the expression "Thracian king of the Getae and Dacian tribes" mean? Does it imply that the Getae and the Dacians were ruled also by kings of non-Thracian stock? Or does it imply that he was alien to his Getic and Dacian subjects like the Norman William the Conqueror to his Anglo-Saxon subjects? I think we should describe him simply as "king of Dacia" or "the first ruler to unite the Dacian tribes". Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither. It just means that he's a Thracian of unknown branch that united the Getae and Dacians (these are distinct groups). I don't recall reading anywhere whether he was Getae or Dacian himself, so I went with the broader term Thracian (I have read both "Thracian king" and "King of Dacia" in different sources). I'm fine with the first proposal. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Thracian king of the Getae" 

message: Mommsen suggests that Deceneus was the key factor in the success of Burebista, but no mention is made in the article. If this is not true, it probably should be discounted in the article, or if true, added. Droopyfeathers (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceneus 

message: This statement has been re-added by an IP to the article without any indication of it originating in a reliable source. I have placed notices on the IPs talk page previously explaining the issue and have requested page protection. There isn't really a point in opening a talk page section as an IP cannot be pinged. Nevertheless, for posterity, this is an at best dubious claim, and at worst a fabrication. Whilst authoring this article many years ago I consulted a dozen or so sources. The only ethnic background ever provided in them for Burebista was that of 'Thracian'. The claim that he is Scythian (or any other ethnic background) needs to be supported by the literature. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  '... he was of Scythian origin'