Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dacian script

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Protochronism. apparantly already been some kind of merge so only a redirect is now required Spartaz Humbug! 14:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian script

[edit]
Dacian script (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's simply no such things as a simple Google Book Search can prove. Moreover even normal Google Search gives nothing but mirrors of WP text. There is a fringe Romanian revisionist movement called Protochronism that attempts to make Dacians the most advanced culture of antiquity, but their claims are utterly rejected by mainstream Romanian academia (see our article about the movement). Specific attempts to identify a "Dacian script" in some 19th century forgeries such as Sinaia lead plates or Rohonc Codex were dismissed by linguist and thracologist Sorin Olteanu on his personal website, and by paleographist Dan Ungureanu in the mainstream cultural magazineObservatorul Cultural.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs) 23:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Racconish Tk 07:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


See also, for the lack of any dispute, the opinion of the archaeologist, member of the Romanian Academy and editor in chief of the main Romanian archaeology journal (SCIVA), Mircea Babes (this is just a note in a larger article exposing the pseudo-science involved in protochronism): "As long as these decipherers only feed us with hallucinating texts, while keeping for themselves the key of these alphabets and the vocabulary of the urlanguage, any serious debate, able to expose their imposture, remains impossible" (all emphasis in original; translated by myself from Observatorul Cultural).Anonimu (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Anonimu first vandalized the article and after being warned about his actions, decided to submit it for deletion. He has a very twisted interpretation of WP:FRINGE. First of all, the article starts with a very neutral sentence A so-called Dacian script..., therefore, the editor was careful not to present those controversial views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views, exactly how the Fringe theory guidelines suggest. I do not endorse the view that the script is real, however such vandalism and aggressiveness can not be accepted. I noticed his interest in the topic and I invited him constructively to join the project dealing with Dacia, where he can communicate and coordinate with great people interested in the same subject. But instead of creating he is mostly deleting and removing other peoples work without prompting any kind of conversation. His very destructive and negative attitude, activities, dubious id, Anonimu and his empty profile clearly show that his have a very hidden, revisionist agenda, some holy wars to fight and make him very suspect of sock puppetry. His request has to be viewed in this light, with the subjectivity and aggression with which he wants to impose his view.
Regarding the article, I am too skeptical of the theory, however, it is a notable, yet controversial subject, like most of Dacian history for that matter. However, there are people like Dan Romalo who spent their carrier (30 years!) researching the script and the lead plates, and even if they plates ar forgeries, they deserve respect for their efforts. Here are some pertinent articles showing the view from other side: [1], [2]. The author, Sorin Olteanu, a great linguist which I know personally since we collaborated on Wikipedia articles, and whom I respect, is in a bit of a holy war with Mr. Romalo as you can see in the link presented above as evidence. I suspect Anonimu is an extreme follower of Mr. Olteanu and unfortunately not at all objective and neutral. And the most important thing! The forgery is not proved scientifically yet! Only linguistic analysis has raised suspicion, and is the opinion of one linguist. Regardless, forgery or not, it is a notable subject, not yet elucidated. I think the readers need to know and decide, and not have the opinions on one side or another impose to them.--Codrin.B (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any links to pertinent English based material? What is that 'Observatorul Cultural' link? What credentials do you have for this journalist? --Codrin.B (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing "so-called" into a sentence does not indicate neutrality, in fact the Manual of Style guideline specifically discourages using words that give the implication of doubt. Words like this are not magic bullets that counterbalance POV or undue weight issues. There is a way to present controversial issues like this in an neutral manner, but this article clearly fails in that task.
I would also caution against using personal attacks in the AfD debate. Whatever your opinions of Anonimu and his/her editorial position, that is not the subject of this debate. This discussion is only about the Dacian script article. There are other noticeboards for dealing with allegations of vandalism. -- RoninBK T C 09:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to say. The user's counter-argument is just a rant full of personal attacks. Instead of focusing on finding sources for the subject (which he can't, as there isn't any except protochronism blabber), he goes on with metaphysical interpretations of my username and my userpage. Most ludicrous is his use of "sock puppet" as a pure personal attack (as I'm not being called a sock puppet of someone, I supposedly am an intrinsic sock puppet), failing (or ignoring) to grasp the very sense of the word (as a note, I'm contributin' since Sept 2005, and the accusation of "sockpuppeting" never surfaced).
The small part that is not about me being some kind of an illuminati is just some collection of fallacies: from argumentum ad misericordiam (an engineer with no formal training in history, linguistics, or paleography "spent his career" "researching" the script, so it must be important!), to the strong argumentum ad ignorantiam he makes (nobody proved the 2 or 3 supporters wrong, so they must me right, even if academia utterly fails to mention their miraculous discoveries). The user even fails to read the links he provided, as the only one which could be considered reliable, simply fails to state a claim about the nature of the script, just nothing it uses Greek and medieval Latin and Slavic letters (the author could not make such outlandish claims in a peer-reviewed journal; note that this is the only article in a peer-reviewed journal about the tablets, the rest of academia probably being under the influence of some occult organisation!). The other site is just a collection of internet text (Wikipedia included!), and the only texts to make the outrageous claim about the "Dacic scripts" are not incidentally those taken from the above author's personal website.
Simply put, except Codrin.B civility, there's nothing to discuss here. A "Dacian script" is not only not mentioned in any scholarly work, but the mere dispute about its existence is absent from academia.Anonimu (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's keep the discussion to the article itself, and save the personal attacks and rebuttals of personal attacks for WP:ANI -- RoninBK T C 10:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have also other merge options: Dacian language already mentioned by Hrafn, Sinaia lead plates, Rohonc Codex, Proto-Romanian, and maybe others. I think the real concern is not the existence of sources but the relation between all these different articles. Racconish Tk 10:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with the merge, since I think the article can have a stand-alone pertinent analysis of any Dacian script claims, past, current or future. It is currently trying to review two such theories, independent of each other. The previous version was also pointing to the Greek and Latin inscriptions. But if it has to be merged, I vote for the Dacian language option since it is way a way more neutral action. Merging it with Protochronism is a radical move, and not a neutral point of view, and is just one point of view. On top of it, the people who researched Sinaia lead plates and Rohonc Codex are not just Romanian nationalists, as the currently radically modified version of the article states. They are from many nations. And if the protochronists believe these are not forgeries, or at least have the courage to keep an open mind, I wonder how should we classify the people who attack these writings/scripts with so much hate and aggressiveness, not worthy of intellectuals. Maybe Agressive Protochronism Haters? Anyone wants to take as stub at this article, for neutrality and objectiveness sake, to balance things out? But hey, be careful to not bring original research to the table :-) --Codrin.B (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any salvageable information here can technically go anywhere, but Dacian language seems to me the most plausible redirect target. -- RoninBK T C 11:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Or Origin of the Romanians? The article on Dacian language currently says:"Whether Dacian in fact forms the substratum of Proto-Romanian is disputed (see Origin of the Romanians)" and does not refer to protochronism.Racconish Tk 12:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would have to say both Condrinb and Anonimu have been a little aggressive on this topic, which is notable due to it's coverage in sources (which are not too fringe as far as I can tell). Refining the article needs to be resolved on a talk page, not on a deletion discussion, Sadads (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please list the sources that cover it.Anonimu (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those on the Rohonc Codex and the Sinaia lead plates to start with. Is this really the issue here?Racconish Tk 12:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of these is written in the Greek script, the other (likely a hoax) is obviously from an entirely different historical period. Neither is relevant here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article on Sinaia lead plates says: "They also include text written in some unknown scripts that do not resemble any known written alphabet". The issue is not if these are hoaxes or not, as they are notable enough, but where best to address them.Racconish Tk 13:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as entirely unsourced. The only sources I can see in the article are those about inscriptions that are uncontroversially in other scripts (i.e. Greek), or from other historical periods, and therefore irrelevant to the topic of the article. The actual topic, of an alleged separate ancient (pre-Roman) script, appears to be so fringe that no literature seems to have been found either proposing or even just refuting it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, obvious hoax article. If this is "an important part of Romanian protochronism", lets see some decent references to back up the claim. --dab (𒁳) 14:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reduced the article to what is actually referenced. It boils down to two fringe claims concerning 18th to 19th century Romantic hoaxes. This can well be merged (as a single-line paragraph) into Protochronism. --dab (𒁳) 15:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw you did major edits on Dacian script although is under a dispute and deletion requestion. While I welcome your participation, can you please explain why you removed the relevant See also, and External links section, as well as Dacia-stub, Dacia topics, Category Dacia and Dacian languages? Controversial or not, it is connected to the Dacia topic.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:Verifiability: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." (Or, as I prefer to phrase it -- 'cite it or lose it'.) HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would further point out that this policy states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" -- which you violated with this edit which restored material without citation. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You don't seem to get the point. Why remove See also and External links which bring more information about the disputed topic. Why remove Category:Dacia if it belongs there? Why remove it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia when is a Mid importance topic for that project?! Hoax, controversy or not, it belongs to the topic Dacia. I don't endorse the idea that is real, I am very skeptical too, but I can't tolerate vandalism and deletionism at this level, especially when the article is under review and scrutiny. Let the reviewers see the article propose for deletion HOW IT WAS, let them voice the concerns on the talk page and here, then delete, merge, modify, whatever, but stop radically modifying NOW! Cause people don't know what is proposed for deletion or merger anymore! Codrin.B (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just because an article has been proposed for deletion, it doesn't mean it can't be edited. BTW, Codrinb, the way you have phrased this [3] is a violation of Wikipedia's policy against canvassing. You may inform a project of a relevant AfD but you mustn't suggest how project members ought to vote.--Folantin (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Edit is one thing, major restructuring is another or re-writing it for a diametrically opposed, non-neutral point of view is another. Removing most relevant links and explanatory sections of the content is not editing. The complete removal of the article by user Anonimu is also editing? Canvasing you are saying? I am all alone, while other probably work in groups. Look at this change by User:Dbachmann, removing the article (disputed or not), from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia which marked it previously as mid importance. Is this neutrality, respect and I should assume good faith?--Codrin.B (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Protochronism. I'm not seeing any reliable evidence this concept is any more than a tendentious hoax - if that. --Folantin (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been having a look around the Net. The top result in Romanian for "scrierea dacă" (Dacian script) is an interview with Sorin Olteanu (the linguist mentioned above) who roundly dismissses the whole idea: "scrierea dacă este pură invenţie" ("the Dacian script is pure fabrication"). Really not much else. Some stuff about the Sinaia lead plates and that's about it. Enăchiuc and Peţan, mentioned in the article, seem to be associated with Dacia Magazin (check out its website for some Dacomanic fun), the organ of the "Dacia International Revival Society" whose editor is Napoleon Săvescu. According to his own Wikipedia article: "His most famous theory says that the Romanians are not the descendants of the Roman colonists and assimilated Dacians, as mainstream historians say, but that they are the descendants of only the Dacians, who spoke a language close to Latin." Dipping into the magazine confirms this genuinely appears to be his belief (see the "Open Letter to the Youth of Romania" in the first issue, where he claims the Dacians are the ancestors of all the Latin peoples). --Folantin (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Napoleon Savescu's magazine published the work of Enăchiuc and Peţan, doesn't make them protochonists. While I am very suspicious by some of Mr. Savescu's claims, his theory about the Dacian-Latin connection is a theory that has merit. There is no clear explanation of why Dacians ended up Latinized in such a short period, while other populations in the area didn't. Good theory, bad theory, it is clearly notable, since his haters write more about it then the proponents. I am again making an appeal to objectivity, neutrality and an open mind. And I am not talking about making WP a democracy. Obviously it's impossible. But no more Inquisition please, we are in 2011. No burning of black cats. There are many theories about the Dacian language. And I welcome you all to this collaboration proposed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Dacia--Codrin.B (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you on about? This is clearly little more than fringe nationalist fantasy. So far there is no evidence it is even notable fringe nationalist fantasy (and I've searched in both English and Romanian). You've been asked time and time again to come up with evidence from reliable sources to back the article, but you have failed to do so. --Folantin (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Sǎvescu seems to be just an even more extreme proponent of the ideas of the old Romanian nationalist historian Nicolae Densuşianu, whose book Prehistoric Dacia (1913) has been described as a "fantasy novel" and was a major influence on protochronism. Although Densuşianu attributed the lack of surviving inscriptions in Dacian to the "fact" that Latin and Dacian were dialects of the same language! (See Lucian Boia History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness p.97). --Folantin (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Protochronism. There's no Dacian script other than in hoaxes.
As for the Sinaia plates, Aurora Peţan is also one of the authors with a protochronist agenda and Dan Romalo is not even a scholar, so what are we talking about?
Codrin, there's nothing to explain about Dacians (or Celts or anyone else) learning Latin or Greek in few generations. Was it hard for South Americans to learn Spanish or Portuguese? How hard was for you to learn English? How hard is for Romanians to learn Italian or Spanish when they go to work there? And how do they speak Romanian when they come back in the country? Daizus (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. But I am just not convinced of the certitude with which some of you guys call them hoaxes. What reliable references you bring to the table? Sorin Olteanu's site in Romanian, that's it? He is a great linguist, but on a holy war with Romalo, so very subjective. I love Olteanu's work and cite it in many articles but how much exposure he has to international reviewers? You guys have to face it, there is not enough scrutiny and exposure internationally, just a holy war in some Romanian circles. Neither sides have enough reliable sources to properly pass WP:IRS without forcing it. To your other point, how come the Germans, Greeks, Illyrians (Albanians?!), Israelites, Egyptians, some of the Persians, did not get Latinized?! Or even the Slavs who some say were already in the Balkans at that time. When people spend the time to link Dacian with Baltic, even Slavic and even Bactian, why is it the end of the world if someone links it to Latin, a more likely candidate then the others. It is just food for thought and not endorsing anything. And about Romanians learning Italian or Spanish, they all speak Romance language, so be careful, not be appear protochronistic, linking Latin to Latin :-)) --Codrin.B (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daizus, I will continue the debate just for the sake of keeping an open mind, and invite everyone to think outside the box. No other reason. Your answer is very detailed and pertinent, but look below for my observations --Codrin.B (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's the other way around. There are no reliable sources arguing for their authenticity. One should not create content about blue-skinned seven-eyed dwarves with green pointed hats. Probably no scholar refutes their existence, and so what?
I don't think the article talks about dwarves. Let's not exaggerate. And it sounds like the chicken and egg problem to me. You prove it, no you prove it. Childish. Let's just keep both sides available for the reader to review and decide. Most people won't believe in seven-eyed dwarves articles, so no need to help them by removing information. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it talks about dwarves! I don't have to prove anything, I'm not arguing anything about Dacian language or alphabets. There are no two sides here - there is not a single reliable source arguing about the authenticity of these scripts. As pointed to you already, "[a]ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Daizus (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. There are reliable sources saying there are hoaxes. But I don't see the point in mentioning or quoting such sources because of 1.
Just give one please. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Constantin Preda, "De la tracomanie la dacomanie", Academica (2004), 44-45.
3. If you can't understand linguistic arguments, it doesn't mean there's some sort of religious background behind them. The Sinaia script is a mixture of Greek with Cyrillic and other exotic characters. Once deciphered, the language shows words borrowed from Bulgarian (*reko = "river" < reka) or French (sekorio, edo = "help"). That is evidence enough for any intelligent reader.
I didn't say I don't understand linguistics nor that I am an expert. I know the criticism about having letters and words from the future, although I don't think is impossible to have people in the past who used some symbols that were attributed to later people. It had Greek letters? That could easily be explained by the known Greek influence on Geto-Dacians. When you say Bulgarian, you mean Bulgar Turkic or modern Bulgarian, since there are Dacian and Thracian words in the modern one (which has mostly Indo-European roots so other connections are possible). And sekorio is French for sure? And if is, we can't have words that are written the same in other languages? But my point was, linguistics alone cannot dismiss a set of physical tablets. There are other scientific means to assess their origin and age. And if you can't, just keep them and wait for other discoveries, technologies and let people know about them in interim. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you imagine linguistics is a sort of "anything goes", then clearly you don't understand it. Are the Cyrillic letters to be explained by a Christian Slavic influence on Dacians? All words change in time! If the so-called Dacian words look almost identical with modern words (and words from this language like viro, strato, filo are also used in Esperanto), then it's not about common PIE roots, it's about a modern invented language (like Esperanto). What is the PIE root inherited both in French (secour) and Dacian (sekorio)? And yes, linguistics alone can denounce such fakes. A "Mayan" tablet written in a English-Spanish mixture is a fake!
4. In the Roman Empire there were two official languages - Latin and Greek. Germania or Persia were never conquered by Romans. Moreover there were Germanic kingdoms and a Sassanid Persia. Albanian language was heavily influenced by Latin, it survived in a relatively small territory, and most of the Balkans were actually Romanized (for Illyria, see also about the Dalmatian language). But the point missed here is that romanization is one thing, the survival of a Romance idiom is another. As I argued on a talk page, we have evidence of Dacian soldiers in Egypt writing letters to each other in Greek. Do you think the other Dacians were bad learners?
I didn't say they conquered all Germania or Persia, but clearly portions. What about Germania Superior, Germania Inferior, Noricum, Assyria, Panonia, Mauretania, Syria, Iudea and a myriad of other Roman provinces where Romans stayed longer then Dacia? None of them Latinized, so different from each other, in such varied geographical locations. Why not? They were not smart enough? Or Trajan had private teachers for every Dacian but he didn't like the Cappadocians? Well maybe Asia Minor and Africa were more under a Greek influence. Really? Then why are the Jewish not speaking Greek? And why did Free Dacians (I know, contested, all Dacians disappeared instantaneously in 106 AD, kidnapped by aliens, let's delete this one too) get latinized when both free and occupied Germans did not? These are questions that open minded people should ask themselves without being protochronists or caring about some crazy theories from Mr. Savescu. But to not allow people to even wonder why not, is terrible and sad. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The provinces of Germania, Noricum, Pannonia, Mauretenia were Latinized (to different degrees). Assyria was province for few years! Syria and Judeea were Hellenized (to different degrees). The "Free" Dacians were never Latinized, but those who were colonized / migrated in the Empire. This line of argumentation is anachronistic, you're looking at the languages spoken today. Many Jews from Israel settled there in modern times, how is that relevant for the ancient history of their language in that territory? Let's not mistake open-mindedness for ignorance ;) Daizus (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. It's highly unlikely Dacian was Latin or closely related to it. Dacian is sometimes linked to Albanian or Baltic languages because there are some similarities.
Highly unlikely because?!... --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about Latin is a centum language and Dacian a satəm language? Daizus (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Romanians working in Germany learn German, those working in Canada learn either English or French, and so on. There's no "Latin to Latin" link here. Daizus (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably you didn't realize I was joking there. Not need to explain. :-) --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The very lack of references for some "artefacts" known for more than 100 years should be enough proof for their irrelevance (even more, considering the extent to which some Romanian historian patriotically "bended" sources to fit the official theory - see the way some of them decided that any individual with a Christian name mentioned in mediaeval Dobruja must necessarily be a Romanian). As for the your belief that the population couldn't learn Latin in the short time of Roman rule, you don't have to resort to pseudo-science such as protochronism, there's a respectable theory that says (part of) the ancestors of Romanians came from the Roman Balkans (I'm not saying the theory is right or wrong, but at least if you support it you aren't unanimously qualified as a quack by the academia - no matter what Romanian schoolbooks may want students to believe).Anonimu (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that all descendants of the Migration Period in Balkans are very happy that Romanians like you exist.. I wonder what do you think about your own origin. Or I better not. --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue with the personal attacks I'll have to request admin intervention. BTW, since all the decipherements of the "Dacian script" reveal a language that is farther from Romanian than is classical Latin, doesn't that suggest that Romanians are after all descendants of Roman colonists?Anonimu (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been around for five years, I frankly don't understand the sudden rush to judgement. Certainly the evidence from around 100 AD is the Dacians were using a Latin script--indeed, they have left their mark on the Latin alphabet form. As for earlier...
For example, in "The Golden Age of Transylvania", by "Maurus Jokai" (Mór Jókai), translated into English, we find the following (set in the 1600's):
CHAPTER IX
THE PRINCE AND HIS MINISTER
A Few years had passed since Apafi rose to his princely rank. We are in the period when, in consequence of the sudden death of Nicholas Zrinyi the party of Hungarian malcontents had lost their standing and most of them had gone to Transylvania, which country was rejoicing in Home rule, owing to the rivalry of the German and Turkish monarchs.
. . .
At this moment Teleki entered the Prince's apartment with an important air, took some writing from a silk envelope, opened it and placed it in Apafi's hand. The Prince appeared to read it with care and knit his brow as he did so. Suddenly he called out, "They certainly are Dacian letters!" "What!" said Teleki, astounded, with wide open eyes. He could not comprehend how the Prince had found Dacian writing in the letter handed him. "Yes, I am positive. I remember reading, perhaps in Dio Cassius, that the Romans had medals struck with a Dacian inscription and on the obverse the picture of a headless man. Here it is."
Now, obviously, this is a historical novel, these are not transcribed conversations. But, certainly, that the Dacians had their own writing system pre-dating use of the Latin alphabet has long had a hold on popular culture and would seem to me worthy of more than a redirect. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not in an article about this novel? Daizus (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It's easy enough to dig up more references to its popularity among amateur historians, etc. (i.e., more popular culture). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Historical fiction used to establish the notability of a concept unknown to academia? Are you really sure you want to keep such arguments in an AfD archive?!? The idea has no popularity outside protochronist circles, the same that support the idea first brought forward by Napoleon Savescu that "Pelasgians" (i.e. Dacians) colonized Japan and Central America (sic!!!).Anonimu (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peters had a very sensible and interesting point. Very neutral and informative. Why do you have to go to such extremes with your examples and your language to attack people? Unknown to academia? Whatever your academia is (certain, hand picked PhDs in linguistics and history, no other intelligent self educated people will count here for you I assume), is obviously screaming out loud against the unknown concept, some through your own voices. Why are you here, deleting the article if it is unknown? Because you, a great academician and beholder of the absolute truth and authority know about it, since is very notable and annoying to some people who spent their carriers around some theories and are very angered when others suggest a radically different one. It would mean that their academic lives were wasted if they admit another theory. And that's unacceptable. So let's be the Inquisition to shut up anyone who would threaten our research and vested interest. Make sure our books sell, and theirs don't, cause they are protochronists and we are great and cool. Very sensible intellectuals. And of course such ideas from Mr. Savescu are going way to far. Central America, come on! --Codrin.B (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That ancient Dacians created a civilization created a culture extending form the Atlantic to the Pacific (across Eurasia) is a basic tenet of protochronism, not an extreme example. Academia as in peer-reviewed journals, as in WP:Reliable sources, as opposed to self-published quacks. "intelligent self educated people" have no value to Wikipedia or scientific research, unless their "intuitions" are certified by academia... I'm sure even you wouldn't agree a mechanical engineer performed a heart bypass on you just because he has spent ten years studying the dog's heart. Wikipedia has a basic guideline about WP:Notability that says that if a subject is unknown, then it has no place on Wikipedia.Anonimu (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to refer to it as a "concept." BTW, I've been having a bit of trouble finding pictures of the "Dacian triptych" which has a dozen or so lines of Dacian writing on it. (Those I believe would have already been in Latin script.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the "Dacian triptych" is the one from Alburnus Maior. In Latin. Daizus (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, I rather suspect that the reference to Dio Cassius's Roman history is accurate. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as it stands now, the article just says the "script" is a protochronist fantasy, and given it's short length, it can easily be included as a separate section in the Protochronism section. Protochronism has hundreds of fantastic theories and conspiracies that make the Da Vinci Code an almost reasonable story. I don't think is reasonable to create an article for each one of them. We should just create a section in the Protochronism article, and if these guys keep shelling Wikipedia with their fantasies, create an article Protochronist theories that reunites them all. It's not about deletionists vs inclusionists, it's about Wikipedia's scientific credibility... just check Google, all sources talking about a "Dacian script" are WP mirrors. Nowadays WP (with Google's help) is creating popular culture, so we should assume responsibility for it. If for more than 100 years scholars decided that a theory doesn't deserve more than a phrase or two in hundred-pages books (as opposed to notable pseudo-science theories, such as flat earth, geocentrism or the phlogiston) , why should WP create a dedicated topic about this theory?Anonimu (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You guys rewrote this article several times to say Protochronism 50 times in it, against my attempt to freeze the work on it and get third party, neutral opinion cause no one is objective here. And now you are saying, let's merge it to Protochronism since all it does it talks about it. Somebody, shoot me now!! --Codrin.B (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not sure how this article is now "neutral". It doesn't mention the opinion of Sorin Olteanu of the Vasile Parvân Institute of Archaeology, Bucharest that "Dacian script" is "pure fabrication" and there's not even anything to discuss [4]:"There is not even talk of uncertainties or questions of interpretation (what point of view are we looking from) etc., but purely and simply Dacian writing does not exist." --Folantin (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the "Dacian alphabet" is a nationalist fabrication. It can be merged into Protochronism without any kind of loss. The continued existence of the article serves only as a trollbait, inviting further attempts to suggest or imply that the notion has any kind of credibility, and that its status as a fabrication is "only an opinion". --dab (𒁳) 17:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about something that doesn't exist. Nobody has even come forth with any evidence that "Dacian script" is even a notable nationalist fantasy. --Folantin (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no SYNTH problem. Archaeologist Mircea Babes, grade 1 researched at the Romanian Academy and editor in chief of the most important Romanian archaeology journal, includes the idea of a "Dacian script" as just another protochronist fantasy. See his view on the dispute, or better said the reasons why the script is not even a notable dispute, in my first !vote.Anonimu (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FRINGE, an article on an notable false theory is perfectly acceptable. Racconish Tk 18:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the evidence this is a notable fringe theory worthy of its own article then? --Folantin (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You actually contributed some...Racconish Tk 19:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. I contributed Olteanu's opinion that there was so little substance to the idea there was not even anything to discuss. --Folantin (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what he said. I did read your source.Racconish Tk 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So where did he say it was notable? He said: "There is not even talk of uncertainties or questions of interpretation (what point of view are we looking from) etc., but purely and simply Dacian writing does not exist." --Folantin (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if anyone doubted the artice was a troll magnet, I think recent events drive home the point. No, Racconish, this is not notable. All we have seen is that the notion exists. It gets two (2) hits on google books. "Dacian alphabet" does, that is. "Dacian script" gets zero. Any notable fringe theory will get at least a couple of hundred. The picture of the vase you insist on transcluding has never been mentioned in the context, all that can be said about it is that perhaps some Dacian attempted to imitate the Greek alphabet without actually being literate. Can we please call it a day, redirect the title, and mention this thing at Protochronism. Please stop wasting everybody's time with this. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already changed my vote to 'keep or merge' and agreed with you and on the fact 'alphabet' is more accurate than 'script'. I just think we have enough quality sources on this wrong theory to call it a notable wrong theory.Racconish Tk 19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure we need a separate article for the "Dacian script" inanity, nor am I sure if the amount of coverage (negative coverage, obviously) this ludicrous theory has had don't warrant a separate article. In practical terms, if the article really is (only) a permanent focus of users who try to push some phantasmagoria, then it is best to redirect somehow, and maybe to delete "Dacian script", and maybe to salt. Yes, the Protochronism article is imperfect - it dates back to a day when wikipedia standards were themselves less perfect -, but it does clearly reflect scholarly consensus. In any case, a discussion about that is flooding the logical debate here. Dahn (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at Talk:Dacian script#Merge proposal with Protochronism so far shows 6 editors supporting the merge, 1 against. Racconish Tk 08:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we counting the votes here or on the talk page? Also, with the exception of you, Racconish, who came in good faith to save the article and then were almost pushed to change your vote, and with the exception of Daizus who had a very sensible and respectful position which I admire, the other 4 votes come from individuals who acted with incredible aggressivity and hatred. They engaged in edit wars, canvassing, personal attacks. They are deleting WikiProject Dacia left and right, removing content, removing categories how they see fit. They obviously have a very dubious agenda, not worthy of Wikipedia, and they have the balls to accuse me of canvassing. How can someone count their votes when they acted with so much bias, hate and immaturity? --Codrin.B (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The decision to keep or delete should be largely independent from whether or not the reports of a dacian script are true or a historical invention. Wikipedia rightfully has many of pages on real-world hoaxes, misinterpretations, confected nationalist myths, and superseded theories. I'm not ready to make a judgement on whether or not the archaeological findings are really a script, but if multiple sources have devoted substantial attention to this subject then it's notable - regardless of whether those sources accepted or rejected the theory. This is certainly a challenging editing environment (and I'm baffled that anybody might think so many different warning templates are needed at the top of a stub) but an article should report what reliable sources say. If somebody happened to finds an eminent archaeologist or linguist debunking the theory at length, that would just make the subject even more notable - a reason to keep the article (and fix it), rather than delete it. On the other hand, a convincing artefact that nobody's bothered to report on would mean the subject is less notable. Forget about pro and anti; we should judge it on the number and depth of the sources that specifically discuss Dacian script. bobrayner (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we've already established that no substantial scholarly attention has been paid to this issue. Go to Google Books. "Dacian script" gets zero results. "Dacian alphabet" gets 2 results. --Folantin (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in principle - that there's a lack of sources - but a simplistic search of google books is not guaranteed to reveal all sources, given that most work on that area will be in other languages than English, and in different formats. I've spent a couple of hours browsing through a bunch of historic articles & reviews in various journals which make no mention of any native script. A lot of the region's history has been written in German, but I'm not confident in German. A (scornful) review in the Journal of Roman Studies suggests that Pârvan wrote a couple of books which ought to touch on the subject; I haven't yet found a way to get full text of these books in any of the archives that I can access. This says "The Dacian state ... has several highly distinctive features, including the absence of cities and the rejection of literacy". bobrayner (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I've already looked for Romanian sources online. This appears to be the province of protochronists and fringe amateur historians like Sǎvescu. As for German, "dakische Schrift" (or "dacische Schrift") gets zero results in Google Books as does "dakische Alphabet".Folantin (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a quick follow-up, I've been looking for French and Italian sources (searching "écriture dace", "écriture dacique", "alphabet dace", "scrittura daca", "alfabeto daco" etc.) and the results are effectively non-existent. This indicates this is definitely not a notable concept. --Folantin (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And your reasons are? Have you found any sources to say this is a notable topic outside fringe amateur history, for instance? --Folantin (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.