Dacians are marked with the same color as Slavs which is completely incorrect and unfortunate. While Costoboci and Carpi, considered by most historians as Dacian, are in a blue/uncertain color. While Bastarnae who are a Celtic-Germanic mix with possible Dacian elements is marked as Germanic for sure. This is raising serious questions about the map and its neutrality. I suggest at least a distinct Dacian color and section in the legend. See also similar map: commons:File:Roman Empire 125.png --Codrin.B (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Roman_Empire#Dacians as Slavs, Costoboci uncertain on the Roman Empire Map?--Codrin.B (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response (by User EraNavigator, responsible for advising on the map's content):

Firstly, the map does not purport to describe the ethnic or cultural attributes of the barbarian peoples. It simply indicates, using the best available evidence, to which broad linguistic group of the Indo-European family of languages the tongue of each people is likely to have belonged to. So the map does not claim that the Dacians were ethnic "Slavs": simply that the ancient Dacian language probably belonged to the Balto-Slavic grouping of languages. Please note the word "probable": this does not mean "certain": in fact, there is no certainty about any of these linguistic affiliations, just shades of probability. Where the available evidence does not support even probability, the affiliation is entered as "uncertain"

Supporting references are as follows:

• Probable Germanic affiliation of BASTARNAE: TACITUS (ca, AD 100): Germania 46
• Probable Balto-Slavic affiliation of Dacian: DURIDANOV, Ivan (1969) Die Thrakisch- und Dakisch-Baltischen Beziehungen (some online samples of Duridanov's work: http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_9.html and http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/index.html)
• Uncertain classification of COSTOBOCI: Cambridge Ancient History 2nd ed Vol XI (2000) p. 171
• Uncertain classification of CARPI: Cambridge Ancient History 2nd Ed Vol XII (2005)

EraNavigator (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Probable Balto-Slavic affiliation of Dacian: H. Krahe, Baltico-Illyrica. - "Festschrift für M. Vasmer..." Wiesbaden, 1956, p. 245.
• Probable Balto-Slavic affiliation of Dacian: T. Sulimirski, "Ancient Southern Neighbours of the Baltic Tribes", Acta Baltico-Slavica, Bialystok, 1967, p. 6-17.
• Probable Balto-Slavic affiliation of Dacian: Dr. Harvey E. Mayer, Lituanus, Volume 42, No.2 - Summer 1996 (http://www.lituanus.org/1996/96_2_06.htm)

Andrei (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know that there are sources that classify them differently, correct? Secondly, if you look at the articles using the map, they have nothing to do with linguistics but with political/ethnic/military groups and subjects. So you either remove this linguistics map from those articles or create a separate linguistics map for your theories and leave this one for political groupings. Too many things are mixed. Andrei suggested that we discussed on commons, so let's not talk in too many places. --Codrin.B (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tacitus is not a reliable source, per WP:RS ("When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.")
• Duridanov does not claim Dacian is a Balto-Slavic language.

In your links you can read his conclusion: "in earlier times – probably in the III-th millennium BC, and before the realisation of the aforementioned sound shifts, – the Thracian language formed a close group with the Baltic (resp. Balto-Slavic), the Dacian and the 'Pelasgian' languages. More distant were its relations with the other Indo-European languages, and especially with Greek, the Italic and Celtic languages, which exhibit only isolated phonetic similarities with Thracian; the Tokharian and the Hittite were also distant." - in 3rd millenium BC Thracian, Dacian and "Pelasgian" (a pre-Greek Indo-European language) were closely related ("formed a close group") with Baltic (Balto-Slavic). However they were not Balto-Slavic languages.

• CAH XII p. 215 (map) shows CARPI/DACI. therefore your map fails to follow this reference. Keep looking ;)Daizus (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Krahe does not claim Dacian is a Balto-Slavic language.
• Sulimirski does not claim Dacian is a Balto-Slavic language.
• Harvey Mayer does not claim Dacian is Balto-Slavic language. Harvey Mayer's articles claim Dacian (and Thracian) are Baltic languages, but not Slavic, because in his opinion there's no such thing as a Balto-Slavic group, while Slavic is a "Balticized" Albanian (and Slavs migrated from south to north). He also believes Romanians are Albanians/Slavs who were quickly Romanized in the Carpathian region, to escape the domination of their Baltic masters. However he's an unreliable source. Daizus (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dacian as Balto-Slavic is so far WP:OR (that's quite clear in the case of Duridanov and Mayer where you provided links that do not support your interpretation, and Mayer does not even qualify for a reliable source)

Do you really believe your "sources" are not verified? Daizus (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they all say Dacian had certain affinities with the Baltic languages and this is more than enough for marking the Dacians as probably belonging to the Balto-Slavic linguistic group.

Andrei (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't - that's your original research. It is one thing to belong to a group, it's an entirely different thing to be related to that group. There are certain affinities between Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages or Germanic and Celtic languages, as well ( [1] ) and between many other languages and groups, yes so? If you don't know anything about linguistics, why do you even argue? Daizus (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing which says a lot about you and your research. They do not all say "Dacian had certain affinities with the Baltic languages ". Krahe's paper is about relations between Illyrian and Baltic languages ([2]). The truth is you haven't read that paper at all, but most probably you just copied the two references from this site. Daizus (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I argue for fun. I like to see how people react to what you call 'original research'. I support both Hamp's suggested links between Albanian and the Baltic languages and Duridanov's proven Dacian-Baltic connection. Of course this does not imply that Dacians were Balts or Slavs, we cannot talk about such ethnic identities in the 2nd century AD.

Yes you are right. I copied the references from the site you mentioned. Big deal. But if Illyrian had a 'privileged relation' with the Baltic languages than they might have formed a linguistic continuum together with the Thracians, Dacians and the Venedi and I'm not referring to the IE connection. For me the probable Balto-Slavic linguistic affiliation of the Daci has enough reasons in order to be present on the map.

Andrei (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Andrei, you argue here to push your own theories (or Era's). For a while I thought you care about facts, but in the end you just want to push a certain view, as you admitted in the discussions with your friend. You insult users who don't agree with you, you falsify evidence and references and you create content you know it's not reliable to promote these theories of yours. Here's one article I guess you haven't read: WP:OR

• Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.
• Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research.
• Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.
• Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. Daizus (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it's fun to push my own theories when I see how much opposition they meet from people like you and Codrin. Of course I could surrender to your arguments but that would just end our battle and it will take some time to find some other pioneering theories to fight for. What facts are you talking about when we know so little about the Dacian language and based on what we know people like Duridanov have argued that a Dacian-Baltic connection existed beyond the obvious links shared by the IE languages. You should accuse Duridanov, Harvey Mayer or E. Hamp of doing original research, not me. I wish you good luck!

Andrei (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]