Talk:Sinaia lead plates

Missing section

- I read a lot about Sinaia lead plates these days, and all I can say is that I'm a bit confused... Is there anybody out there able to establish once and for all what is all about? The mixed filling that I have, is that if proven to be real as [http://www.dacia.org does, that can change the whole antique history, with huge negative consequences for many of the nations considered to be the creators of civilizations in Europe. It will go so far that cultures must be re-writing, religions and churches could be in a big decline, and of course, why not, a huge opportunity for the antiquity hunters to show their teeth... It is a duty for the historians to clarify this in the interest of knowing the truth, no matter if painful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by D21roman (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 November 2005

Untitled

No worries. The tablets are surely fake, so they will not revolutionize history. Alexander 007 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked a bit at this book in a bookstore. It's awful! I never saw any other linguistics book that is so far off. The author is absolutely clueless. :-) bogdan 21:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

However, it would be cool to have the full text of the plates at wikisource. They're interesting from the artistic point of view, for being a 19th century constructed language. :-) bogdan 21:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

for romanian nativ speakers, or advanced romanian speakers, i urge you to check out the article in romanian. it is still "under construction" but i think there are a few things there worth translating. (i started the article and brought the most contributions to it. i'm still working on it, and have, thus, not much time to spare for the english version)IleanaCosanziana 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to start an edit war, but the Romanian article is POV to say the least.Plinul cel tanar 15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

so that must be the reason why it received third prize in this year's writing competition, ei? i'm very sorry, but the article is far from being POV. i understand the fact that you are a new wikiuser (at least newer than me), but do try to be less sententious in your future activity on wikipedia. from the date, i see that your comment above was written a day after you presented your opinion regarding the article's "faults" on the romanian wiki, but one day before i have noticed and acknowledged your opinion+arguments, and presented my counterarguments. i've also, just now "completed" the article with Sorin Olteanu's main points of view/arguments. i'm replying here as well so there won't be any misleads.

ps: for everyone's knowledge, we (myself and Plinul) have discussed things and we've reached some main agreements regarding further edits on the romanian article. IleanaCosanziana 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm Plinul's verdict (reading the Romanian Wiki article, as well). In this article the so called completion is rather a misrepresentation. Here the entire presentation of the arguments is rather an original research of the editors (actually is only an editor, which also created this very dubious article: Dacian script), trying to push a certain POV. Few examples: there's no confirmed Dacian Greek style of writing so one cannot speak of it as a counter-argument; in linguistics is not enough for words to be similar (e.g. Romanian "măr" and "mare" are unrelated, though similar); the tables do not seem to be made in XIXth century, they are dated that way; moving to the "pro original" side: is any 100% reconstruction of Sarmizegetusa that anyone can speak of "pinpoint accuracy"?; if information does not appear in other sources, on what grounds is qualified as "Dacian history"; on what grounds is its plausibility being judged (have you read the Chronicle of Huru?), etc., etc.. Also we have a translation, but the Peţan qualifies the language as "unknown language". So original research, again. This article deserves fully being flagged for original research and POV-pushing. Daizus 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

True. I mean, if wikipedia were about original research, the first thing I'd point out is the late medieval halberd held by the "Dacian" guard in figure 3 of the Petan article http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/petan/index.html. But since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia we should stick to the sources (scholarly and peer-reviewd if possible) and while the English article is acceptable, the Romanian article clearly advocates pseudohistory.Plinul cel tanar 13:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dead link culled

I have removed the following dead link. If anyone can find a live version, feel free to restore it. Thanks. --Reuben (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Linguist Sorin Olteanu's verdict on the tablets (in Romanian)

Move to talk page

This was a section of the article page (I changed from level 2 to level 3 heading when I moved it here). I'm not convinced this adds to the article since the 'translations' are out of context. RJFJR (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fragments (translated and adapted into English)

"Zamolxes has given to Scadiun a forest located on a land near the country of the Scythians, said Geniuklo, head of the lowland churches."

"Decebal in front of the Dacian army, presumably said: many will be those who will die at Sarmizegetusa at the hands of the cursed Roman army."

"Decebal got married with Roziana, the great judge of the Dacians, because the land of the Dacians was overwhelmed by the evil enemies. She bowed before the god Zavelio. Diegis and Vezina brought to the dacian king at Sargetia, captured Roman soldiers."

"Fakso said to Mary: be wise! Joseph turned to his parents-in-law who looked at his son Musat, and said :you may be the ruler of the country!"

"At his return, Decebal said to his friends, commanders over the Dacian soldiers: I`m afraid that the city of Sarmizegetusa will fall because of the evil ones. But the god Zavelio knows who are those."

"King Decebal returned carrying brutish Roman soldiers captured. To these two were given salt and bread, according to our customs. But before that, they went into the knowledge of Zamolxe, Aksine and Mary. God Zavelio stopped the evil forces two day journey from Sarmizegetusa. Then the great king Decebal attacked, together with the great priest Voicu."

More to cleanup?

What is left to do before we remove the clenaup tag? Have we addressed the OR and POV concerns? RJFJR (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why remove citation needed templates?

Why remove the {{Citation needed}} templates where entire paragraphs obviously don't cite any source? --Codrin.B (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

AKA "historical "Argument"

"Arguments for being fake:

• The writing does not respect the writing norms of the Greek alphabet (however they were written in Dacian, not in Greek).
• The language has many similar words with Romanian, but very few from the Dacian substratum.

and then

• The language from the tablets has some words which we know originated in Slavic languages.

"

LOL?!

So EVERYTHING which was written in ancient times MUST BE GREEK or LATIN?!!

Is this even an Argument? This is Ad populum (not argument).

Original research components

...can be moved to [1] and cross-referred if preferred/more suitable for WP. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sinaia lead plates. 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/20110910124438/http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/index2.htm to http://www.bibliotheca-dacica.ro/index2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)