"Sections requiring expansion" markings - to be removed during copy-editing[edit]

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):

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Debate on Appearance, 2014[edit]

"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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Then how do you explain the multiple Thracian(a people that are related to the Dacians)remains that were examined and found to have a high amount of melanin in the upper derma which points to those individuals having Dark hair and eyes?And Thracian frescos showing them being Dark haired and eyed.And even if blue eyed people can be traced to one ancestor that lived around the black sea 10,000 years ago(way before what we call dacian civilization was formed)how would that prove that the majority of Dacians had blue eyes?Your logic is flawed lol.But it's ok,this isn't the only page on Wikipedia that has been hijacked by neo-nazis.And if you are Romanian with blue eyes and light hair chances are you are of slavic,german or other western European decent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Don't worry about my ethnicity.Xenophanes only described Thracians in that way because that was the Greeks view of all northern "barbarians" i highly doubt that he ever even saw a Thracian. Below are some links to the Thracian frescos.http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3664/3553164343_1c9ab73d43.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Aleksandrovo_kurgan.jpg/800px-Aleksandrovo_kurgan.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGpyCDCg_2ERu0Q46oGvLGs5CoOfme2aMU351r77JosJYv9bJC

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6lT5Bh0vc3vD6D8w6Pwy-yM-vl9cZAtsEj5tEacu4DV1JtMUy

http://www.novinite.com/media/images/2004-03/32711.jpg

Link to the genetic analysis of Thracian remains. http://www.scribd.com/doc/326027/PaleomtDNA-analysis-and-population-genetic-aspects-of-old-Thracian-populations-from-SouthEast-of-Romania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Also what you said "Dacians, the ancestors of Romanians" is completely not true.Genetically modern Romanians have very little to do with Dacians.The most the Dacian component contributes to modern day Romanian genetics would be somewhere below 10 percent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.222.206 (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

"Blue eyes originate from the Black Sea region" Source?

"Roman peoples" There is no such thing as 'Roman peoples'. Being Roman meant being a Roman citizen. It was a legal status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.173.217.52 (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In 2004, a study of mitochondrial DNA polymorphism was performed on the skeletal remains of Thracians from southeastern Romania dating from the Bronze Age and Iron Age. MtDNA were compared with several modern mtDNA sequences from five present-day European populations. The results reflect a genetic similarity between the old Thracian individuals and the modern south-east European populations.[245] The Thracian individuals show informative point mutations in 7np (nucleotide position), the Romanian, Greek and Albanian individuals in 7np, and the Bulgarian individuals in only 5np out of 12 most informative nucleotide positions presented in the study.[245] As concerns the frequency of point mutations in the 12 nucleotide positions, the Italian individuals show the highest mutation frequency with 12.5%, followed by the Thracian individuals with 8.3%, the Albanian individuals with 7.5%, the Romanian and Greek individuals with 6.25%, and the Bulgarian individuals with only 4.6%.[245] Computing the frequency of common point mutations of the present-day European population with the Thracian population has indicated that the Italians (7.9%), the Albanians (6.3%) and the Greeks (5.8%) have a bias of closer genetic kinship with the Thracian individuals than the Romanian and Bulgarian individuals (only 4.2%).[245] The study concluds that, it can only be supposed, but cannot be proven that "the old Thracian populations contributed to the modern Romanian genetic pool." LOL! Did you not read the whole article?This is at the very bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiu92g (talk • contribs) 08:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding information on appearance[edit]

~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)Reply[reply]

More importantly, here is a metal statue of one guy's kick-ass beard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Seuthes_III#/media/File:Sofia_Archeological_Museum_bronze_head.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winspiff (talk • contribs) 20:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Also interesting: Present-day Bulgarians carry genes of Thracians and Proto-Bulgarians, not of Slavs: https://bnr.bg/en/post/100729084/present-day-bulgarians-carry-genes-of-thracians-and-proto-bulgarians-not-of-slavs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winspiff (talk • contribs) 20:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am neither one of the people above, but I hope I can contribute to this conversation in a less antagonistic, more productive manner. My only interest is accuracy - I have no particular attachment to the actual appearance of these individuals. Plus, the more I learn about history, with its overlapping tides of human movement, the less I believe that in the concept of "race" (as we know it). In fact, even the geographically isolated modern Sardinians, who trace most of their genetic background to early neolithic populations, still are descendants of western European hunter-gatherers and Yamnaya populations.

On a side note: here is the reference for the cause of blue eyes identified as a mutation that emerged 6-10,000 years ago in the Black Sea region (Romania) (Eiberg H, Troelsen J, Nielsen M, Mikkelsen A, Mengel-From J, Kjaer KW, Hansen L. Blue eye color in humans may be caused by a perfectly associated founder mutation in a regulatory element located within the HERC2 gene inhibiting OCA2 expression. Hum Genet. 2008 Mar;123(2):177-87. doi: 10.1007/s00439-007-0460-x. Epub 2008 Jan 3. PMID: 18172690.).

First, it is of vital importance to start with context. The Balkans represented the link between what we think of today as Europe and the middle east. It was also set on the Black Sea, linking Europe to the Steppe. There was an incredible amount of movement through these regions for all of human history.

~7,000-5,000 BC: From a prehistoric perspective, farming first entered Europe from Anatolia (modern Turkey) through the Balkans. During this time, there were clear populations of both "indigenous" hunter-gatherer populations as well as incoming Turkish populations for a long period of time ("Paleogenomic Evidence for Multi-generational Mixing between Neolithic Farmers and Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Lower Danube Basin").

~5,500-3,500 BC: During the Neolithic period, you find advanced "Old European" cultures (e.g. Vinca) in what is now Bosnia, Serbia, Romania, and Macedonia. Or Cucuteni–Trypillia culture, also known as the Tripolye culture, is a Neolithic–Eneolithic archaeological culture (c. 5500 to 2750 BCE) of Eastern Europe. It extended from the Carpathian Mountains to the Dniester and Dnieper regions, centred on modern-day Moldova and covering substantial parts of western Ukraine and northeastern Romania, encompassing an area of 350,000 km2 (140,000 sq mi), with a diameter of 500 km (300 mi; roughly from Kyiv in the northeast to Brașov in the southwest).[1][2] The majority of Cucuteni–Trypillia settlements consisted of high-density, small settlements (spaced 3 to 4 kilometres apart), concentrated mainly in the Siret, Prut and Dniester river valleys.[3] During its middle phase (c. 4000 to 3500 BCE), populations belonging to the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture built the largest settlements in Neolithic Europe, some of which contained as many as three thousand structures and were possibly inhabited by 20,000 to 46,000 people.[4][5][6] One of the most notable aspects of this culture was the periodic destruction of settlements, with each single-habitation site having a lifetime of roughly 60 to 80 years.[7] The purpose of burning these settlements is a subject of debate among scholars; some of the settlements were reconstructed several times on top of earlier habitational levels, preserving the shape and the orientation of the older buildings. One particular location; the Poduri site in Romania, revealed thirteen habitation levels that were constructed on top of each other over many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.45.239.18 (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoever were those people in 3500 BCE, they certainly weren't Dacians. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly useful resources in improving this article[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia/Drafts/Dacian Art --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dacians/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 05:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Hi,I will be doing the review for this article.Firstly I will recommend you to provide citiations for the places where there is the citiation needed tag.Thanks.RRD13 (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I will be reviewing those tags shortly.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi! I tackled all the "citation needed" tags, adding sources where I found them or removed unsourced statements.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origins and ethnogenesis

  • In the absence of written historical records-Why?Did writing was not known to them?
  • Indo-Europeanization was complete by the beginning of the Bronze Age-You can explain it in brief(not more than 2 sentences).
  • There are just single sentence lines which can be expanded
  • I have put a [citation needed]

    • RRD13 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The Currency section needs referencing.
  • The small paragraphs at the end of Material Culture makes it horrible

    • RRD13 (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I've combined several small paragraphs, and two very small sub-sections, in the Dacians#Material culture section. See if this looks better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For what it's worth, I've gotten rid of any one-sentence paragraphs during my recent copyedit. — Mr. V (t – c) 05:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We need to deal with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view this aspect before we go any further. If the editors can deal with the section that has been tagged with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view then I will certainly endorse with for a GA. Nickelroy (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Language sections[edit]

    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)Reply[reply]

    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)Reply[reply]

    Is this a good article?[edit]

    Do anybody think that this is a GA? Why? Borsoka (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]

    I left you a message on your talk page here. At this point it seems as though you would rather ruin the article instead of improve it. Feel free to message me on my talk page, or to reply on your talk page and hopefully we can resolve this issue and actually improve this article, which is what I am interested in doing. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    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)Reply[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link 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:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

    checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Edit warring[edit]

    Is Honved2018 saying that all the removed sources have engaged in chauvinist propaganda? As far as I know, there is doubt that the Dacians had a centralized, unitary state, not that they had a country. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    The idea that a country called "Dacia" existed is a lie fabricated by the Ceausescu loving Communists of Romania and some dishonest fools trying to justify the theft of nearby countries or territories, however you'd like to put it. It's claimed that even Poland and Serbia belong to Romanians somehow; this is a just a terrible joke. Might as well claim all of Europe as Romania, and just take it over. Or, just go and claim the Earth along with the Moon as Romania.
    Come on, we aren't going to side with Ceausescu, right? He was a nutcase, same as the Protochronist's.
    From Honved2018.
    That's not what the WP:SOURCES say, it is just WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ceausescu simply came too late to that discussion, although he placed his bet on Dacomania/Thracomania. So I don't deny that some "historians" have written crazy stuff that Dacians were kind of supermen who colonized Japan and the Americas, but the sources you tried to remove simply are not of that sort. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So eplain Roman historians references to 'Dacia'? What bollocks.50.111.12.90 (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Clarity Issue[edit]

    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)Reply[reply]

    Getae[edit]

    @Transilvanicus: You have WP:CENSORED the article with the claim that the Getae are not Dacians. While some scholars agree, others disagree, so your deletion is contentious. Also, removing the information that the Free Dacians were called Carpi means censoring the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    @Transilvanicus: Second-guessing Fergus Millar in the name of original research? Try better next time! Ioan-Aurel Pop's academic clout is not even close to Millar's academic clout.

    "Dacians were not Thracians"—I never heard that before! Such claim is not even WP:FRINGE, but sheer ignorance. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    @Transilvanicus: "‎If Dacians were Getae"—I'm not saying it's true, I'm not saying it's false, I say it is murky. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    A people is indicated by an ethnonym. The function of the ethnonym is to differentiate a people from other peoples. Therefore Daci (Dacians) were a distinct people from Gete (Getaeans) and Trax (Thracians) Transilvanicus (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Transilvanicus: If the Getae were the same as Dacians is one of the unsolved mysteries of Ancient history. Our article has WP:RS to that extent. Your WP:OR claims won't do.
    To tell you what I believe: Dacians were Thracians, and Getae were Scythians. But it is merely an opinion, not a fact of Ancient history. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Categories