Talk:Roman Dacia/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Copyright violations / plagiarism

Unfortunately this article has been discovered to contain extensive copyright violations, as explained here: User:Daizus/Investigation/Plagiarisms. The violations were largely introduced by one massive expansion of the article in July 2009 ([1]). Accordingly, the article has been reverted to the state it was in before the expansion and de-listed as a good article. That's really the only option here, because every subsequent edit to the article since that expansion built on the "copyvio" text with which the article was expanded; thus, since July 2009, the article has been essentially founded on widespread copyright violations. Notwithstanding the complete innocence of every other editor who has since worked on it, all the edits since July 2009 have to be reverted.

Normally in these circumstances, the history of the page would immediately be deleted back to July 2009 in order to expunge the copyright violations from the record. But I'm going to hold off on that for at least two weeks. That will give editors the chance to review the history and rescue anything "clean" that might have been added since July 2009, such as categories, images or non-copyright violating text. If I get the chance over that two weeks, I'll do the same myself. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I think that going from a 85k GA article to a 9k article, and even removing the history, is a very disproportionate measure. There has been A LOT OF WORK put into this article and I can't imagine that everything is a copyvio. Can we just remove the offending statements/paragraphs? In any case, I salvaged the article in the WP:DACIA drafts section.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Codrin, the July 2009 expansion is 73k. Perhaps not everything is a copyvio, but certainly is more than I identified, because my investigation was not exhaustive - I don't have access to all the cited materials anyway. Here're two more to prove my point: [2] and[3] (references 15a and c in the deleted version, 15b is a reference to a detail on a barbarian invasion). I have just copied text from this article and googled after it - it is that simple! Daizus (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Codrinb: I did the same checks before winding the article back, and pretty much every passage of the article I checked was lifted from a copyrighted book searchable on google books. The copying really was very extensive, as Daizus' evidence page (which is only a sample) shows. I suspect that if someone went through every single paragraph of the article, they would only be left with a handful of clean sentences (such as quotes) that would be largely useless on their own. Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia/Drafts/Roman Dacia: I'm afraid we can't host copyright violating content anywhere on the project, including wikiproject and userspace. In these (very unfortunate) circumstances I'm happy to leave it alone for a couple of weeks, but I'm afraid the draft will have to be deleted at some point. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@Daizus: I started to ~~mark with red~~ the copyright violations in the draft copy. Please give me a hand to identify the extent of this situation. This is very unfortunate. Thanks for catching this.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: Understood. I think it would be important to salvage the article structure, images, references, templates and bibliography. If you can extend that period till end of the year, I think it would help us clean up the draft and go back to the main space. Regarding removing the history of article changes, is this really necessary? I think it is very important to know who did what to the article, either good or bad. Also, I don't understand how did the article go to WP:GA with all these violations... --Codrin.B (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

At the time of the review, a copyvio check was not an explicit GA requirement. I have personally been doing simple copy and paste checks on GA reviews for some years, so getting a basic copy and paste check included as part of a GA review seemed to me quite appropriate. It has now been included since August this year. I noted during the review that some copying had been done, and brought it up. My fault was that I did not do a back up check when I returned to close the GAN, which I normally do. I put my hands up to not doing a good enough job in this case. I spotted it, but didn't follow up. My bad. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, the end of the year will be fine. We'd better NOINDEX the draft page though so it won't be picked up by google. Re deleting the history: it's done for two reasons: (1) our history is still hosting the copyright violation, which may be a copyright violation in and of itself; and (2) to stop inadvertent restoration of any of the content. But I'm open to discussion about it: deletion isn't always done. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I am trying to get help on a few fronts for this. Hopefully we'll clean it up by then. Thanks for the NOINDEX, didn't know about that one but makes sense. I personally vote for keeping all the changes/entire history, but especially/at least those changes which were not WP:COPYVIO. I get the feeling that as long as we keep the history of changes which shows that the copyright violations were identified and dealt with, WP should be covered legally. But I understand your arguments to cleanup any traces of copyright violations. We just need a good compromise. --Codrin.B (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, just jumping in briefly to the red-ink task (hope you don't mind), the text is looking unsalvageable in any form... In that first section of the article it seems every single sentence is copied. Of course, as you say, the article structure, images, references, templates and bibliography may still be of use though. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I second that. I went through several sections and followed two books, virtually all citations were copied. I am taking a break now, but I don't think there's much text to re-use, except half-sentences here and there. Daizus (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the extent of the copying it would be more appropriate, and easier, to work on the current version than from the tainted version. By the time one has gone through and picked out what has been copied and what has not, one could have written up a new article. It would be easier if the user who introduced the copied text could have helped out, but looking at this, it appears the user does not quite understand the nature of the problem, and is unwilling or unable to assist. I support deletion of the draft page, and removing the history of this article back to the untainted version. I also applaud the diligent work of Daizus in uncovering the copyvio in this and other articles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we got a lot of help from many users and I think we are close to salvage this. I think we could move the draft back to main space any time soon.

@Mkativerata: Could you please assist us with the move? Ideally, it would be great to move also the history of changes in the draft, to track everyone's work.

@SilkTork: Once we move it back to main space, could please give it a second review? It would be great to bring it back to a WP:GOOD status.

Thanks everyone for all the help!

--Codrin.B (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to move it back over the current article once everyone thinks it's ready. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Loooks ready! Oatley2112, amazing work! Thanks so much.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done a spot check of snippets of the new draft against Oltean and they seem ok. I'd suggest that if Oatley is ready, he/she cut the latest version of the draft and paste it as a new revision of the main article, to ensure that his/her work is properly attributed. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dubios, undue, verify credibility need a talk page section

When adding {{Dubious}}, {{Undue-inline}} and {{Verify credibility}}, it is very important to expand on each item on the talk page, otherwise these tags are useless and don't help much. At least {{Dubious|talk page section name}} and {{Undue-inline|talk page section name}}, provide a parameter for talk page section name. Let's try to clarify, properly source and clean up all these phrases with dubious tags. Without it, someone who would want to clean it up, wouldn't know where to start. What is dubious and why? Need to write the reason down. It would be great to get this article cleanup and back to WP:GOOD.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Few notes:

{{Verify credibility}} was added months ago based on several discussions. So I'm not sure if there's anything else to add, probably those references should be replaced.
{{Undue-inline}} occurs only once: "The province’s Daco-Roman population was forced to flee south across the river Danube to seek refuge in Moesia" - isn't there another theory arguing that the local population did not flee, only the administration and the army?
Here are also few of the obvious {{Dubious}} statements:

~~Dacia Apulensis (focused principally in the Banat region) - check the article map, check where Apulum was~~
Two years later, the Chauci invaded Dacia - click on the link and check where the Chauci lived.
During this period, the Carpi invaded the province - click on the link to see they first invaded the Empire in 238. How can that be "during this period" (i.e. the reign of Caracalla?) Daizus (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed two of the above. And I added a new one. On Dacian names in Roman Dacia:

Oltean 2009, 95: "became virtually invisible in the epigraphic record. [...] Few preserved traditional names, with only the latter [i.e. Decebalus Luci] having a heroic name, though from a father with a purely Romanized name (Lucius) ande with the first two examples having their origin indicated by the use of their ethnic name as a cognomen."
Dana & Matei-Popescu 2009, 244: "dans l’épigraphie de la province de Dacie, l’absence des noms indigènes(daces) est frappante, avec l’exception notable d’un Decebalus Luci elle s’explique aussi bien par la faible pratique de l’epigraphic habit de la part des indigènes que, et surtout, par l’exploration archéologique très insuffisante du milieu rural."

On the other hand the article continues with "the native Dacians did retain their names" and cites:

Bunson 2002, 167: "The Dacian retained their names". Were the Dacians "virtually invisible in the epigraphic record" with only few names recorded, or did they retain their names? Daizus (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Daizus, nice work! Getting the whole article consistent is the hardest thing. I guess for conflicting information, we could present both views if no mainstream exists. Regarding Chauci, I don't know the details and I am not contradicting but for example the Goths appear to originate from Scandinavia, yet, they still invaded Dacia. Indeed, some parts of Grumeza's work are quite sketchy. But I give him credit for publishing a book in English about Dacia, where there is such a void of English books on the topic from real specialists. Also, as an immigrant, for being concerned about his homeland history and not forgetting from where he left. Hopefully the gap will close gradually with more and more WP:RS about ancient history of Romania and surroundings in English. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess the mainstream position on the indigenous names in Roman Dacia is "few" (see also the "Colonists" section; out of 3,000 names, only 60 are Thracian and Dacian).

Grumeza is not a WP:RS and that should be the bottom line. As for Chauci, it is not only their remote location that makes their presence here implausible, but also in that article there's not a word about a migration so far east, and moreover there's no other (reliable) source to confirm Grumeza's claims. That book is replete with inaccuracies, innuendos and unlikely scenarios. Some egregious examples: "Even the Chinese were aware of the powerful [Roman] empire that they called Da Qin/Dakin, a name that sounded closer to Dakia/Dacia." (p. 153), "The next emperors - Caligula, Claudius, and Nero - took no interest whatsoever in the military problems of the empire. Certainly, they were not concerned with Dacia ..." (p. 154), "Nero's statue, gilded in gold, was higher than the Statue of Liberty." (p. 154), jumping more pages "In retaliation for this affront, the savage Mongols moved along the Danube and devastated the castri, forts, fortresses, and the Roman cities of Illyricum, Dacia Mediterranea, and Dacia Ripensis" (p. 239) etc. Really? Daizus (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, I've been laughing when I was reading some of those naive statements. I am not saying we should quote him on articles. I for one stopped doing it once I finished reading his book, realized his background and seen statements like that. I think he should be quoted only for the narrow cases where there is absolutely no other English source for a statement, and that statement originates from a non-English reliable source that he is paraphrasing/translating from in the book (if such source can be identified). Alternatively we could always quote directly the (for example Romanian) academic source he was translating from, even though English sources are preferred on en WP. We would not even have this conversation if there would be more academic publications about Dacia in English... --Codrin.B (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your last remark. However I believe most of what Grumeza has to say can either be reworded and re-sourced or ignored. Daizus (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the GA review failed since there are still about 4 dubious tags in the article. Can we clarify what is still dubious and see if we can fix this? We are very close to bring it back to WP:GA status. Lots of great work so far!--Codrin.B (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"...the Slavs possibly took at least some place-names..." (Pares et al. 1939, p. 149). Can we be any more specific than "possibly at least some"? Braincricket (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Caracalla and his visit in Dacia

File:Roman Dacia 1.1.svg

Roman Dacia

That paragraph really looks bad and I think there are several different theories which now are presented in a single incoherent account.

First we read that some barbarians attacked the Black Sea cities. Ok, then Caracalla and his legions came from Porolissum and attacked those barbarians expanding the province borders eastward. It doesn't make any sense. The Black Sea cities are not near Olt or near the eastern borders of Dacia (see map), and to push the invaders eastward means to drown them in the sea. Perhaps Caracalla attacked some other barbarians, not those who raided Moesia Inferior. Maybe so, but the text doesn't say that. However according to other interpretations, it was a "Carpian-Vandal unrest" on the northern borders of Dacia in 212 or 213 (and probably in this interpretation Caracalla's visit in Dacia should be dated in 213). Daizus (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the Grumeza part ("Caracalla then marched his legions from Porolissum, forcing the barbarian tribes eastward") which is sitting in between Caracalla's arrival on the lower Danube, his dealing with the tribes invading Lower Moesia, and his actions in Dacia including his extending the border eastwards. I agree it currently makes not a lot of sense, but I am attempting to fix one Grumeza citation at a time, which is an ongoing process. I have not been able to find a source that supports what Grumeza says about Caracalla's march from Porolissum, so I have left it intact for the moment. If I cannot find another source which says this, I was planning to delete that part of the text. Yet by all means fix this if you have a source which helps. :) Oatley2112 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I try to find sources, and so far I identified several different events, maybe related (I guess it depends from scholar to scholar):

Caracalla's journey to Orient was interrupted and he had to visit (northern) Dacia. He visited Porolissum among other cities (there are statues and inscriptions dedicated to him). This visit is mentioned by Herodian [4] and Historia Augusta [5]. These events are variously dated to 213 or 214.
Caracalla executed Gaiobomarus, the king of Quadi, and turned the Vandili and the Marcomanni against each other. This event is mentioned by Cassius Dio [6].
At some time during his reign, Caracalla secured an alliance with some Dacians also taking some hostages. They were returned back during the reign of Macrinus (217-218), thus stopping the Dacian raids on Dacia. Source: Cassius Dio [7] Some scholars noted that the Greek text has here Δακρίγγοι which was variously interpreted as Dacians, Vandals (I guess assuming an original *Λακρίγγοι = Lacringi), or a mixture of them (as in Mócsy's "Carpian-Vandals")
During the reign of Caracalla apparently the Romans also fought against the "Getae" (Goths, Dacians?), somewhere near the Black Sea. The literary source is Historia Augusta: [8]
Some modern authors mentioned an expansion of province Dacia eastward. Not sure what is the evidence for this, and how it relates to all the other events.
Some scholars mix the interpretation of literary sources with inscriptions. For military activity on middle Danube: [9] [10]. For Black Sea coasts: [11] Daizus (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The other thing to consider is the timeline for Caracalla's reign. In 213, he was on the Rhine. Prior to this there is no evidence of any serious campaigning in 212, when he was mostly in Rome, and certainly not along the Danube. For 213, it is unlikely he would have finished campaining against the Alamanni and started a campaign along the Danube in the same campainging season. By 215 he was in the east, where he remained until his death. 214 is the only year that fits the general flow of events. Added to this the reference in Cassius Dio that he did not go back to Dacia after this visit (suggesting a once only event), and the reference in the Historia Augusta that he was on his way east when he was forced to stop along the Danube to deal with the troubles there, including his stay in Dacia.

What this suggests is a once off visit, brought on by the incursions into Moesia Inferior, Driving the invaders northwestward out of the province, Caracalla then proceeded to Dacia, dealt with some issues there, and during which time the border was pushed eastward (I agree, no ancient source attests this expansion, but I suppose the modern authors must have access to some archeaological evidence to support this). After this, he continued on his way to the east.

I am now deleting the Grumeza reference in any case, as it is definitely clouding the issue. Oatley2112 (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What puzzles me is that in the few books I've read on Caracalla and Dacia, there's no account about threats to both Dacia and Moesia Inferior (attacks on cities on or near the coast of the Black Sea) at the same time. Thus Mócsy (1974) describes an unrest in northern Dacia, but Wilkes (2005) places the raids in Moesia Inferior. I think we need at least one scholarly account to encompass both events. Daizus (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that position. Yet the problem is that even within a single reference source, such as CAH, you have inconsistent accounts, with Wilkes describing the attacks in Moesia Inferior, but Campbell instead describing Caracalla's visit to Dacia in diplomatic terms, although he does say it is unclear exactly what happened there. There may be no single source that harmonizes all these different threads.

The only way forward I can see at this point is to simplify the narrative - say, Caracalla arrived in Dacia on his way to the east, he stirred up some trouble for the various tribes, and had the Quadi king killed while he was at Porolissum - that would be the minimum. I would like to keep the expansion of the border eastward if possible, but we perhaps should jettison the attacks on Moesia. What do you think? Oatley2112 (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with a minimal account. I am a bit skeptic about the border expansion. I think it's about limes Transalutanus which was started by Trajan and finished by Septimius Severus. Daizus (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Pertinax

There is not a word about Pertinax in the article, but I snapped this picture of his statue at the National Museum of the Union in Alba-Iulia in September 2011. It is from the ruins of Apulum. I still have to read about this subject, but maybe you guys know more about it. It seems to be only statue of him we have on Commons so far and I wonder if this could be one of the few statues of him in existence. Nice work on Grumeza-related cleanup.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Pertinax's involvement in Dacia predates his accession to the purple. He was procurator of Dacia during the late 160s and governor during the late 170s before falling foul of Commodus. See here Oatley2112 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Grumeza

About Grumeza:Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Grumeza Fakirbakir (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have removed all but 5 references to Grumeza's work, replacing these with other more reputable sources. The ones which remain are all linked to the Marcomannic War, to which I can find no other source which confirms the details in relation to Dacia. The information they contain do not appear unreasonable, but I am happy to leave this to others to review and comment. Oatley2112 (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Second century reorganization of the Dacian provinces

The article possibly has some problems with the timelines involved in the reorganisation of the Dacian provinces, from Dacia Superior & Inferior (around 117 AD) to Dacia Superior, Inferior & Porolissensis around 124. Earlier accounts of this period had the threefold division of the province occuring in the reign of Antoninus Pius, but it is now commonly accepted that the division occurred during Hadrian's reign. However, the article has a division of the province occuring twice, once under Hadrian, and once under Pius. The issue, I think, was that the so-called reorganization under Pius was nothing more than a renaming of the three provinces, so Dacia Superior became Dacia Apulensis, Dacia Inferior became Dacia Malvensis, while Dacia Porolissensis remained the same. There appeared to be no administrative changes as a result of this reorganization. Does anyone have any further information on this? Oatley2112 (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Chauci invasion of Dacia (Marcomannic Wars and their effects (161–193))

This whole section is frankly rubbish - the Chauci did not attack the Costoboci (it was the Astingi (according to Anthony Birley - pg. 170)), and the attack was not in 170 (which is when the Costoboci (among others) invaded the provinces), but probably 171 (the Chauci attacked Belgica in 170). Timelines are also all wrong (eg Frontio died around 170, not 172-3 as is implied in the article). This part of the article needs a good rewrite, using a decent source like Birley. Any takers? Oatley2112 (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Costoboci article covers the 170/1 events (mostly affecting the Balkan provinces, not Dacia). Daizus (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The first half of the paragraph that begins "The result was that the Dacians of Crișana..." which is primarily sourced through Grumeza, appears to me to be an account of why the Roxolani did not participate during the First Marcomannic War. Aside from a brief note in Bury (pg. 545) which specifically states that the Roxolani did not join the mass invasions, I can find no other modern source which talks about the Roxolani's decision not to invade Dacia or any other province. So the question is - do we allow the dubious marked Grumeza statements to stand, altered so that it specifically refers to the Roxolani, or do we delete it altogether, leaving a small note attributable to Bury? Oatley2112 (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Free vs UnRomanized Dacians

Hi Codrinb - just a quick word about the changes from UnRomanized Dacians to Free Dacians. Whilst I agree that there was some degree of Romanization that occured to those Dacian tribes that were not under Roman administration, the use of the term "Free Dacian" to describe these tribes is very POV - free is a loaded term, bound up with the centuries old controversies about the origins of the Romanian people, and implying that the Dacians within imperial Dacia were not "free" (whatever that means). I felt that the use of the term "UnRomanized" to be a better description of these Dacian tribes, rather than Free Dacians. What do you think? Oatley2112 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oatley2112 - first of, hats off for all the great work you did so far. I moved the conversation here so people can pitch in if needed. Here are my arguments:

If you defined freedom as the ability of one or of a group to govern himself, the Dacians in the remaining parts of the disintegrated Dacian Kingdom were obviously free. So I think is the proper word to use, I don't see the POV or the assertion here.
Another argument for using the Free Dacians is that we already have an article aptly named as such. Why mask the name? And if you do question that name, you will have to do it on that article's Talk page.
Using Un-Romanized while admitting that Romanization did occur outside Roman borders is an incorrect assertion. Even if I would say that choosing between Free and Un-Romanized is like choosing between two evils (which I don't since Free is a correct term), choosing Un-Romanized would not be the lesser evil since it is incorrect or misleading assertion
The term Free Dacians precisely implies that the other Dacians, the ones under the Roman rule were not free. How can a defeated, conquered, and undergoing Romanization nation can be considered free, by the definition of freedom? The Dacians in Roman Dacia no longer had a king, an independent kingdom, they no longer govern themselves and their lands were occupied and transformed by a foreign culture. In the aftermath of the Trajan's Dacian Wars we are talking about tens of thousands sent in slavery, many to the arena (see Ludus Dacicus), a large number of davae show signs of being leveled, burned and depopulated based on archaeological finds and historical records, we have a large number (way over 100 cf. Velcescu) of so-called Dacian prisoners statues created (although puzzlingly they don't show any chains, just serious/sad faces)? Would you call any subdued nation (the Gauls, the Britons) in the Roman Empire free?
I fail to see the link between Romanian nationalism and the term Free Dacians. Scholars like Millar and MacKendrick use this term, just to name a few. And where is the nationalism in stating the obvious? Are we afraid of using words like free even when they are proper?--Codrin.B (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Codrin B. Thanks for the reply, all good points, and I do agree that "Unromanized Dacians" is a very unsatisfactory term. And I also agree that there is an article for Free Dacians, so under usual circumstances we should use that for linking purposes, certainly.

However, the assertion of your fourth point is where I have the difficulty. The term "free" implies quite strongly that those Dacians who were within imperial Dacia were in bondage, enslaved to the Roman state. Your link to the image of the enchained Dacian is clearly meant to evoke this image. Now, I'm sorry, but the Roman state just did not operate like that. Outside of the initial brutal and bloody conquest with the subjugation of the Dacians (which like all wars everywhere was catastrophic for the local people), the Romans (and by this stage, Romans included Arabs, Gauls, Spaniards, Germans who had been given citizenship, extended by Caracalla in 213 AD to everyone) co-opted local elites to run their local affairs, so long as taxes were paid and the authority of the local governor (and ultimately, the emperor) respected. Dacia in this sense was no different to Britain, Gaul, or any other province of the empire. You cannot say that Ceasar's conquest of Gaul was any less bloody and violent than Trajan's conquest of Dacia. And you certainly do not see any other tribe or national group refer to themselves as "free" at the borders of the empire (free Berbers, free Celts, free Picts, free Arabs, free Chauci, etc) - so why extend this privelege to the Dacian tribes bordering the imperial province? To me, there is obviously some other agenda here at play.
However, that does not detract from the need to identify the Dacians who were within the province as opposed to those who lived at the borders and beyond, which is what we should be focusing on. Having thought on this for some time, I believe that the appropriate term we should use for this article (taking it up at the Free Dacians page is another exercise, and should not delay its implementation here, if you and others agree) is "Independent Dacians". Free is simply (to my view at least) too emotive/prejudicial a term (one person's freedom is another person's bondage), with too many negative implications for the Dacians within the province. At this distance in time, we cannot say that the Dacians within the province believed they were "free" or not, and it is not up to us to say they were or weren't. Independent is a far more neutral, and accurate, English term for use in this context, and these Dacians were clearly independent of the Roman state. What do you think? Oatley2112 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oatley2112, I can see your points. I know that for example Romans tolerated other religions, and somehow after the Roman conquest of south western Dacia, Romans and Dacians managed to live together. It is speculative of course to know about how Dacians felt, but we don't need inscriptions of people complaining about their lost freedom in order to state that conquered people cannot be free. Yes the Romans were open minded and there were benefits for the conquered peoples, but they remained conquered peoples. They were not converted to Roman citizens overnight, especially after a bloody war and a possible genocide based on archaeological data. Of course, a few generations down the road, say by 200 AD, things changed, with the help of initial depopulation, slavery, Romanization and ultimate assimilation. But if the Roman Dacia article covers 106 to 271 AD, I hope you won't tell me that in 108 AD or even 130 AD the conquered Dacians were free or felt free. Out of curiosity, I checked about Free Britons, Free Celts on Google Books and actually such terms obviously exist. Every nation conquered by Romans fought for freedom, until time passed and they were assimilated, wiped out, granted citizenships or otherwise. Let's not forget about Boudica, Battle of Watling Street, Vercingetorix, Jewish Revolt etc. I am not saying that people felt like nations back then since it is anachronistic, but the sense of freedom was present in any conquered tribe. It is a basic human thing. Independent Dacians sounds ok, although there are 2050 hits for Free Dacians vs 31 hits for Independent Dacians on Google Books. The term Free Dacians already made it to main stream scholarly works. I don't think that we should try to invent one since that would become a WP:POV or WP:OR by itself ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Codrin B. - Your arguments are quite persuasive, although I don't subscribe to the notion that using a synonym of "Free" (which the term "Independent" is) instead of Free as being WP:POV or WP:OR. And I don't like using a modern term like Genocide to describe events in the distant past, as again, it has implications that go way beyond the intent of the occupying power (in this case Rome), which was in no way interested in completely obliterating a conquered peoples, but assimilating them - something which most modern examples of genocide clearly are not interested in doing. Also, using Google search in such a manner is misleading, as it also includes negative statements (see here, here, and here - a small number, admitedly, but these are only a few of the possibilities in couching the negative argument, plus your Google search ignores all those scholars who do not refer to them as "Free Dacians" at all, but as Carpi, Sarmatians, etc. You have strong opinions on this (which is good), and I am fairly agnostic at the end of the day on the matter. Although my gut instinct is telling me that the term "Free Dacians" is being largely pushed by a group of scholars for a particular agenda, unless someone else wishes to contribute in support of "Independent Dacians", I am happy to leave "Free Dacians"as is :) Is that acceptable for you? Oatley2112 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

All your points are more than fair. Indeed, there are false positives on Google search but overwhelming differences in numbers should be a good indicator. I don't think we should always use politically correct words, because in the end we end up not saying much. Also, I for one don't see any POV behind the word free and I don't see what agendas it can satisfy. The existence of Free Dacians doesn't really clarify or support the Latin origins of the Romanians. Regarding genocide, I don't know what term can be used to describe the fact that a large number of Dacian settlements discovered so far show signs of being burned to the ground and having their in-habitation halt around early 2nd century. See Ziridava for example. I get the feeling you really think the Romans were the nicest, wisest guys. Just take a look a this picture from Trajan's Column. That advanced society included a lot of large scale brutality as well. I am always amazed and fascinated by the level of development attained by the Romans, but their violence closely matches their achievements. But as always, the truth is always somewhere in the middle ;-)--Codrin.B (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

References removed

I removed unused references here in case someone wants to use them.

Kean, Roger Michael; Frey, Oliver (2005). The Complete Chronicle of the Emperors of Rome. Ludlow: Thalamus Publishing. ISBN 978-1902886053. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Klepper, Nicolae (2002). Romania: An Illustrated History. Illustrated Histories. New York: Hippocrene Books. ISBN 978-0781809351. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)^{[unreliable source?]}
Kousoulas, Dimitrios George (1997). The Life and Times of Constantine the Great. Rutledge Books. ISBN 978-1887750615. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Radice, Betty; Pliny the Younger (1963). The Letters of the Younger Pliny. Penguin Classics. trans. Betty Radice. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0140441277.

Clay^Clay _Clay 23:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)