Talk:Romania in Antiquity

The definition in the lead is contradicted by the contents
The definition in the lead is restricting "Romania in Antiquity" to Classical Antiquity (Greek and Roman+Byzantine periods), while the article also contents the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages. Serious error, needs to be sorted out. No encyclopedic article has any value if it doesn't respect its own definitions. Arminden (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read it more carefully: these ages are mentioned in the "Background" section. Please do not destroy wikilinks when editing the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I am rather new to this WP domain of Romanian history. After a cursory look at the talk pages, I can see that you are quite rhetorical and militant in your tone and approach, while at the same time asking others for "civility". I won't go into that kind of discussion, do as you please, even if you disturb a proper development of the articles.

Fact is, if you present everything up to the arrival of the Greeks as not part of Antiquity, you are deeply wrong - in English. In other cultures, seemingly, there is a separation between Classical Antiquity and what preceded it: in English there isn't. So it's a matter of factual error, not just interpretation. You would do well to better restraint your temper and knee-jerk reactions and study things a bit deeper. Good luck at it. Arminden (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When do you think Antiquity in Romania commenced and what reliable source verify your claim? Borsoka (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

European "Antiquity" is defined by English dictionaries, including the Oxford dictionaries, as the entire period before the Middle Ages. So starting with prehistory. Per definition, so no sources are needed, and it's not my private "claim". Arminden (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary says: antiquity: "the ancient past, especially the times of the Greks and the Romans". Why do you think that making a distinction between Prehistory and the period covered by written sources is a great mistake? As far as I know all scholarly books make this distinction. How do you think the period between Prehistory and the Middle Ages should be mentioned, if we cannot use the word "Antiquity"? Borsoka (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

We are reading the same, but you're not paying attention to the wording. See also here: "The ancient past, especially the period of classical and other human civilizations before the Middle Ages." So definitely separate the two, but in English Antiquity consists of both Prehistory and Classical Antiquity, of which the latter usually covers all periods from which we start having written sources. So yes, of course I agree with a distinction between the two, but the terms should be used accurately: for the time of the Greeks and Romans (elsewhere also Persians, Byzantines etc.) it's Classical Antiquity, not just Antiquity. Even WP is quite precise about that :) Second, please mind that literate and illiterate cultures coexisted in the territory of Romania - the Greeks encountered a whole number of peoples there who had no writing of their own. This is a common problem in historiography, and that's why I invited more learned editors to refine the subdivisions I had introduced - and you have again removed. Arminden (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the concept of Prehistory (because it ends with the appearance of written sources about a territory, independently of the illiteracy of the peoples inhabiting the same territory), but for me the "Classical Antiquity" is an acceptable expression. Borsoka (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)