Talk:Zalmoxis

Comments

the link to Herodotus Histories that i added ( http://www.iranchamber.com/history/herodotus/herodotus_history_book4.php ) was more complete, the reader having the possibility to read the entire book, including info about the getae(dacians) and about that period of history -- criztu

If the reader wants to read the whole Herodotus' history, he may use the links from the article of Herodotus. This particular article is about Zalmoxis, so we link only to what's pertinent to it. Bogdan | Talk 17:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what if the first link malfunctions, wouldn't it help to have an alternate link to it ? i specified to the reader that the paragraphs 4.93-4.96 contain Herodotus account on Zalmoxis, it also help to track down the paragraph on Zalmoxis on the net in case the iranchamber link doesn't work either -- criztu

the link won't malfuction. :-) Bogdan | Talk 20:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The variant Zamolxis is actually more common than Zalmoxis. (cf. also ). Any objections to moving the article there (now a redirect)? dab (ᛏ) 10:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just did it. complain if unhappy. dab (ᛏ) 12:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

nop, since Herodotus called him Zalmoxis, then Zalmoxis it is ... you should leave a few days for everybody to have the chance to read your intentions, then take actions Criztu 12:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ok, it's easily undone, you know. Herodotus is not the only source, though. We have, in Ancient Greek:

• Zamolxis: 80 times (including Diogenes Laertius, Aristoteles, Strabo, Zenon, Democritus)
• Salmoxis: 14x (including Herodotus(!), Pythagoras(!))
• Zalmoxis: 11x (including Platon)

so, what you say is not correct. Herodotus seems to call him Salmoxis, but Hesychius quotes Hdt. as calling him Zalmoxis

<Ζάλμοξις>· τοῦτον Ἡρόδοτος (4,95) μέν φησι τοὺς περὶ τὸν Πόντον οἰκοῦντας Ἕλληνας λέγειν δοῦλον Πυθαγόρου γενέσθαι, εἶτα ἐλευθερωθέντα καὶ πλεύσαντα ἀπελθεῖν, καὶ ἀφρονεστέραν μαθόντα .

(maybe there are Hdt MS variants, I don't know). I'm trying to find references for the "foreign man" etyology: who said that? dab (ᛏ) 12:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

strike Pythagoras, Democritus. These are references to testimonia about them. (I am doing TLG searches, here). dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how did Herodotus called this man originaly - Zalmoxis or Salmoxis, from the translations on the net he appears as Zalmoxis ... the other ancient writers just quoted/cited Herodotus, or used their own sources in spelling the name of Zalmoxis ? in case the others just misquoted Herodotus, then wouldn't Herodotus' version be prefferable ? Criztu 13:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

as far as i can speculate(not based on actual science), Zal Moxis could have some connection to either Moesia or Moses, "moshë" means "age" in albanian, and "mos" (read 'mosh' like in jewish Moshe Dayan) means "old man" in romanian... Zal from Zalmoxis could be related to either Saul or romanian nominative for God - "Zeul" from Deus or Zeus Criztu 13:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

well, at least Zeno may be independent. you need a critical edition of Hdt. to figure out the exact situation, translations are just, well, translations. Anyway, I don't mind if you move it back, it's not an important point imo, all variants are attested. Your hebrew etymology seems pulled out of thin air (why hebrew?). Zalmoxis is just the Greek form, cf. Artaxerxes, Amenophis, Psammetichus etc., so we need an etymology for either zalm- or zamol-. The -oxis is probably just a greek stem. Romanian Zeul has probably no connection either, being just a continuation of latin deus. But it may be worth looking into, you'd need a Romanian etymological dictionary for that. Hes. seems to call the god Salmoxis. It's difficult to say what Hdt. really wrote (we don't have his original text, you know), but if Aristotle and Strabo have Zamolxis, there is a good chance this is 'correct'. But it seems Salmoxis is the spelling in Hdt. editions. Zalmoxis is spurious, but it's in Plato, so I suppose it's also respectable. They are just variants of the same name. dab (ᛏ) 14:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yep, just as a speculation; ZalMoxis was a freed slave from Egypt (long before Pythagora's times) who taught his people (the getae) that the soul is immortal, kinda' like Moses - another interesting info is the legend (writen by the monks from XIIIth century in Transylvania) of Almos(read 'aal-mosh') who led his people from enslavement of the khazars, into the promised land of Pannaan(aka Pannonia). There were some biblical (N.T.) passages pointing to the rightiousness of the Scythians among barbarians when it came to religion. http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/scythian.html ... -- Criztu 14:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

also, why is he categorized as an 'oracle'? I think there is no explanation of this in the article. dab (ᛏ) 13:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

"The Dacians (tribe) were known as Geton (plural Getae) in Ancient Greek writings, and as Dacus (plural Daci) and also Getae in Roman document" Nobody reacting to the fact that this article present Getae and Daci as different? As if Daci would have had nothing to do with Zamolxe (the name I grew up with in Orastie). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaulOancea (talk • contribs) 07:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

variants

Criztu, what I have said above refers to the 'standardized' TLG texts. They have no critical apparatus. If you want to make statements as to which author uses which variant, you have to get editions of the texts that include critical apparatus. You need to understand that the manuscript situation is in most cases very complicated (not in Hesychius' case though). There may be lots of different manuscripts, with different variants. You have to find information on this, otherwise you will not be able make the kind of statement you just made. dab (ᛏ) 17:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herodotus seems to call him Salmoxis, but Hesychius quotes Herodotus as calling him Zalmoxis. In later ancient writings the name Zamolxis appears more frequent. - you mean this statement ?

Let's put it in order:

• how did Herodotus called Zalmoxis as: Salmoxis, Zalmoxis or Zamolxis ? what is the variant accepted as for how did Herodotus called him in ~450 BC ?
• which ancient writer wrote about Zalmoxis, without quoting Herodotus ? and how did they call him ? Criztu 17:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have explained this above: It's a complicated question. If you want to know, go to a library and find a critical edition of Herodotus. This is not something you can just find out with google. dab (ᛏ) 18:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

then on what criteria do you conclude that Zamolxis should be the name of the article, and not Zalmoxis ? only on the frequency of Zamolxis in "standardized" TLG texts, which you say they don't have critical apparatus ? Criztu 22:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zalmoxis

In the earlier sources, we find the forms Zalmoxis and Salmoxis. In later sources, we find 'Zamolxis' much more often. The explanation is simple: 'Zamolxis' is a corruption of the correct spelling, which was either Salmoxis or Zalmoxis, according to pronunciation. There was a Getic King named Zalmodegikos, and this is yet another indication that Zalmoxis is the correct form. The article should not reflect which name "occurs more" in later writings, but which form is more likely to be the original form. I don't know whether Db changed the spelling because he was taken aback by Criztu's explanation of the name found on his User page (>no comment) but that is not reasonable grounds to change the article to 'Zamolxis'. The Perseus Digital Library, which is quite critical and does compare manuscripts (though it does not usually give the variant versions on its site, they are taken into account and considered), gives Salmoxis as the spelling in its Greek text of Herodotus' History. Zalmoxis or Salmoxis should be the name of the article.

Other issues: the Euhemeristic version of Zalmoxis (a version spread by Pontic Greeks) is a late addition to the myth-cycle, and I agree with Herodotus that Zalmoxis originally was a (Daco-)Getic god, a sky god associated with the afterlife and the underworld in his function as a god of the dead, as in ancient Greece we find Zeus Ouranios and Zeus Chthonios. Zalmoxis was no more based on an actual man than Zeus was based on an actual man. Zalmoxis has nothing to do with Moses and nothing to do with Hebrew. Euhemerism was an intellectual fad that gripped the Greeks in the classical and post-classical period, as the old myths became less beleivable, so they had to rationalize them. Alexander 007 07:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The interpretation given by late writers such as Diogenes Laertius (ca 200-500 ad)is spurious, and is based on a south Thracian word (Zalmos, Zelmas=skin, hide, leather) that has nothing to do with Zalmoxis the ancient Daco-Getic god (not a man, as Diogenes believed). The name did not mean "Leather" or "Bear-skin". And even if his interpretation were correct, it could not literally have meant 'bear-skin': only 'skin' or 'hide' or 'leather' would be possible, because in his scenario the name would be formed from 'zalmos' or 'zalmon' or 'zelmas', and the rest of the name would be a suffix (zalmo-xis), so there is no 'bear' in the name, and that is impossible. You beleive Diogenes at your own risk. Alexander 007 08:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sure, I agree it's not a matter of counting TLG hits, if we have better evidence. I have no problem with Zalmoxis. But the Perseus digital library is not 'very critical'. Critical means 'including MS variants'. Would be nice to have an explanation why Zamolxis became more common. I'll try to find a critical edition of Herodotus and get back to you. dab (ᛏ) 08:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The simplest explanation, and probably the correct explanation is: Zalmoxis is more of a tongue-twister than 'Zamolxis', which rolls off more easily (compare 'zamol', which rolls easily, to 'zalmo'; it is harder to remember to place that 'l' before the 'm', and the tongue wants to place it after the 'm'). So, gradually Zalmoxis/Salmoxis became corrupted to 'Zamolxis', and since these writers were foreigners (not Daco-Getians), they had no idea they were mispronouncing (and misspelling) the name---and they probably would not have thought that it made any difference. Though it actually makes a very big difference. Alexander 007 08:27, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

mmm.. i find it even harder to pronounce "l" before "x"... who knows, perhaps the ancients found it harder to pronounce "l" before "m" :) Criztu 08:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zamolxis rolls off easier for me. The 'l' can be run into the 'x', as in English 'folks', the 'l' often being run into the 'ks' sound (so that folk and yolk rhyme with foke and yoke: folksis>foxis). So that makes it flow even smoother. Though Zamolxis flows smoother, that has no relevance: the forms that become more common in later times are the forms that are easier to pronounce, whether or not they are correct. Alexander 007 09:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i was thinking at Dalm(atia) and Palm(yra), or Sarm(atia) and Sarm(isegetusa), or the romanian words "palmas", "talmaci", "balmaji", "calma", or "zarghit", "sarmos", "carmaci", "frumos"(from 'formosus')

Criztu 09:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To the Dacians, pronouncing Zalmoxis was no problem, because they grew up with that pronunciation. I was referring to non-Dacians, non-Getians, specifically to Greeks: they probably would have inclined towards Zamolxis. And the manuscripts show that indeed over time that's how they inclined. I have no problem pronouncing 'Zalmoxis' because I accentuate Zalm-. Yet if I compare the two, I see that 'Zamolxis' is smoother: that's what I was saying. I wasn't saying '-alm' is a rare form, because it is not rare if you search in a large sample of languages: I'm saying it is a form that was easily mutated.

One more issue: though Zalmoxis and Salmoxis are just about equally correct, 'Salmoxis' is too unfamiliar, so the name of the article should be Zalmoxis. Alexander 007 10:23, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just what is wrong with Zamolxis? We don't know its 'later', it might just as well be equally old. It was the common spelling in Antiquity, and it is still common (with about the same number of google hits as Zalmoxis). Is there some secret reason why you are opposed to Zamolxis? I really don't care too much, it just seems to be the preferable spelling, all things considered. dab (ᛏ) 08:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, to make both parties happy, we can rename the article to Salmoxis. Alexander 007 10:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm leaving here two sources (the first seems more reliable to me):

• Paliga, Sorin. "La divinité suprême des Thraco-Daces". In: Dialogues d'histoire ancienne. Vol. 20, n° 2. 1994. pp. 137-150. [DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/dha.1994.2182]

[www.persee.fr/doc/dha_0755-7256_1994_num_20_2_2182]

• Drugaş Şerban George Paul. The Name of Zalmoxis and Its Signiflcance in the Dacian Language and Religion. In: Hiperboreea. Journal of History, vol. 3, %N°2,2016. pp. 5-66. [DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/hiper.2016.914] [www.persee.fr/doc/hiper_2284-5666_2016_num_3_2_914] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5CE7:8E72:EC12:30AF:8230:EF8C (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

spelling in Hdt

ok, I have a critical edition of Hdt now (Rosen, 1987). It turns out the manuscripts have all readings, Zalmxoxis, Samolxis and Zamolxis. Which variant appears in a translation is the choice of the editor. We have no way of knowing which was the actual form written by Herodot himself. The majority of MSS have Salmoxis, though.

We have:

S Cantabrigiensis Sancroftianus coll Emmanuelis gr 30

T Laurentianus plut. LXX 6

M Mutinensis Estensis 221

IV.94f.: S: Zalmoxis; M Samolxis, Zamolxis; T Zamolxis;

The MS history is very complicated, and there is no obvious way to judge reliability. It seems we have two choices: Either move to Salmoxis, the most probable Hdt form, or to Zamolxis, the classical standard form. dab (ᛏ) 13:14, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Salmoxis is fine by me. Alexander 007 01:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Egyptian Fiasco

The "he travelled to Egypt" idea is a gag that was over-used by the Greeks. Every philosopher of the day was alleged to have "travelled to Egypt" whether they actually did or not: Pythagoras, Plato, and so on, ad nauseum. Of course, the gods also joined the trip: Dionysus is said to have went there with a bottle of wine in hand. Alexander 007 08:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Read this

Olteanu writes [1]:

In cele mai multe si mai bune izvoare antice in care apare, numele acestui zeu esta insa scris Zalmoxis, de la o tulpina zalmo-, pentru care de altfel opteaza si majoritatea tracologilor.

---He not only rejects the alleged "*zamol" etymology, he also states that Zalmoxis is considered to be correct by the majority of Thracologists, and probably related to the Thracian word for hide. Alexander 007 09:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Question

Is there any chance the name 'Zalmoxis' and 'Moesia' might be related ? -- Lucian.

Only true god, yadda yadda

Several of the claims this article makes are extremely dubious: that he was "the only true god" is a statement contested by most mainstream historians (so is Eliade's account), and so are several details presented as reliable here - see for example Lucian Boia, Romania: Borderland of Europe, 2001, p.37. The arguments about the etymology should be sourced, as should the quotes from the classics, and the kurgan issue needs to be detailed in the text - just who is it that claims the naked angry man is Zalmoxis? Concerning the amount of bullshit that has been produced about Zalmoxis and the Dacian religion, this article is surprisingly coherent, but it needs to clarify these issues. Dahn 13:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

This artcle should be expanded. There are not so many article about the Supreme God of Getae-Dacians Zalmoxis And, how Zalmoxis effected his believers since Herodotus time through High Priest Deceneu and later through remnants believes I do not know Lucian Boia. Is he more reliable just because is Romanian? Is he more reliable than Herodotus, Plato, Strabo, Iamblichus, Josephus, Eliade ? There is also a mistake to consider only the hostile version of the Greek of Black Sea They were Ionians as Pytagora It seems like this is the reason they compared Zalmoxis with Pytagora Even Herodotus noticed the Ionians version is not Zalmoxis (most likely lived before Pytagora) Some sources are saying around 713 BC He most likely received his teaching from Egypt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blurall (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign Blurall (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC) ro:Zamolxis

Herodotus heard some rumors (aka hearsay), that's how all the Zalmoxis story begun. In lack of a better name, we call that god Zalmoxis. The Dacians were not allowed to write, so we don't know how they called him (they had a taboo about writing). Oh, by the way, Wikipedia sides with modern scholars, i.e. WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, thus not with historians from the Antiquity and not with the fanciful writings of pseudohistorians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Zalmoxian religion

This section of the article looks very dubious to me, and the references highly tendentious too. I've just been collecting all the ancient sources, you see. I mean, "aniconism"? What the hell is that? And which ancient source says so? I would get rid of this section. I doubt there was anything recognisable as a "Zalmoxian religion". Roger Pearse (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

for Zalmoxis sake,please stop putting pseudo-historical crap on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.13.24 (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Other spellings

What about the forms Zalmoxes, Zamolxes, Zamolxe? Some Google Books searches: Zalmoxes Dacia, Zalmoxes Thracian,Zamolxes Dacia, Zamolxes Thracian, Zamolxe Dacia, Zamolxe Thracian.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Added the Greek script as well, though I am not sure if the name Zamolxe and Zamolxes would have had "ε" or "η". Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

How can Lactantius paraphrase Julian?

Lactantius died before Julian the Apostate was born! I have marked this as a contradiction, but maybe someone can figure out what's going on. 96.231.17.131 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I made a comment about this yesterday without realizing somebody had already pointed it out. Considering this obvious error has been on here with no clarification, no citation, and no revision for ten years, I think it's fair to delete it. Even if it's actually Lactantius quoting Trajan directly, without Julian as a mediator, the only place this quote shows up is this page and several blog sites and internet forums which seem to quote it verbatim from this page. Raccoon Enthusiast (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Rather than create a disambiguation page, I have placed two dab hatnotes at the top of this page to accommodate the harvestman genus and the assassin bug genus. --Bejnar (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for reverting, it appeared that the page didn't exist when you first edited so I wasn't sure if it was legitimate at the time. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

Nowhere http://m.dexonline.ro/definitie/r%C3%A2vnitor claims anything about Zalmoxis, so the etymology is WP:OR, unless it can be verified in reliable sources. And I do not mean in Dacomanic press, which is by default WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan Dana

Dana's PhD thesis basically says that all the "evidence" about Zalmoxis comes from Herodotus, who heard something from somebody about the Dacian religion. So, basically, it is all based upon hearsay from Herodotus, the rest is imagination (all subsequent reports got their info from him). The ferocious debate if Dacians were monotheists or polytheists should tell you that all knowledge of Dacian religion is a big load of craps. If we can't know whether they were monotheists then we don't really know anything about Dacian religion. Ancient Egyptian religion was preserved in hieroglyphs. Dacians had no writing, so the content of their religion is irretrievably lost to us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Modern cognate in Romanian

Hello! In order to not keep going back and forth, I would just like to ask for clarification directly. I am a casual Wikipedia user so I believe that someone more experienced, such as yourself could explain this to me. I don't quite understand how my edit was violating the synthesis of published material, I added a source for the word's translation in Romanian, that being the Romanian Dictionary and I added a source to show that the English translation is indeed correct. Point A was that the word "nămol" exists in Romanian and point B was that it translates to "mud" in English, there were sources correlating to both of those respectively without implying a point C. Could you please educate me in regards to this? Thanks in advance and I apologize for any formating errors on this talk page, I haven't used this feature before __2A02:2F09:E20B:AE00:41EB:AC1B:2A1F:BE85 (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no WP:RS claiming that Zalmoxis has anything to do with nămol. So, such link is original research. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

But I did not claim that, my edit was to the specific part of the Etymology section which I quote:

"The -m-l- variant (Zamolxis) is favoured by those wishing to derive the name from a conjectured Thracian word for "earth", *zamol. Comparisons have also been made with the name of Zemelo and Žemelė, the Phrygian and Lithuanian goddess of the earth, and with the Lithuanian chthonic god Žemeliūkštis.[16] The Lithuanian word Žalmuo means "corn shoot" or "fresh grass". Žalmokšnis is another possible form of it.

The -l-m- variant is admitted to be the older form and the correct form by the majority of Thracologists, as this is the form found in the older Herodotus manuscripts and other ancient sources. The -l-m- form is further attested in Daco-Thracian in Zalmodegikos, the name of a Getic King; and in Thracian zalmon, 'hide', and zelmis, 'hide' (PIE *kel-, 'to cover'; cf. English helm)."

Lithuanian is widely considered to be part of the Balto-Slavic language family, and the "zamol/zalmon/Žalmuo/Zemelo words have other modern cognates in Slavic languages such as "Zemlya" (Land) in Russian and "Zemili" in Ukrainian, this is a fact.

According to the source I provided, the Romanian word has Ukrainian origins, therefore it is a cognate with the Lithuanian alternatives in Petrescu's hypothesis, which is why I added my edit where I did.

As such, I do not believe it to be original research because the edit was not derived from a conclusion to which I came myself, but rather an observation based on academic research which has already been conducted, it is a relevant piece of information in regards to the theory that I have quoted and which I have sourced. Thank you for your attention.

2A02:2F09:E20B:AE00:41EB:AC1B:2A1F:BE85 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a Thracologist and I'm not concerned with what Thracologists believe. Find a WP:RS explicitly (i.e. verbatim) linking between Zalmoxis and nămol or be gone from here. I'm not giving you any other choice. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The primary source provided was the Romanian Explicative Dictionary, a work to which many academics, linguists and scholars contributed, hardly original research, but surely a WP:RS. To my knowledge there is no other academic or linguistic version of an etymology for the word "nămol", aside from the version provided by Romanian scholars, it is unchallenged. If I am wrong then you can by all means be the one providing WP:RS to prove the contrary, which you can also likewise edit into the article as then we would have no scholarly consensus, in which case both points of view would need to be showcased.

But as of right now, with the sources I have provided and none other to prove otherwise, there is no reason why the edit shouldn't stick. If you feel the need to, you can also tell me why the source I have provided isn't reliable, that would clear up a huge amount of confusion. I am not trying to link "Zalmoxis" with "Nămol", the link is between "Zalmoxis and "zamol","zalmon","Žemelė" and ultimately "Nămol", all quoted inside the article.

I simply provided sources for the fact that in the context of Petrescu's hypothesis (which is featured in the article and which you should absolutely be concerned with, if not with the primary field of study related to the article), the word "nămol" would've ultimately been borrowed into Romanian from Ukrainian and then ultimately from Proto-Lithuanian. I have provided a reliable source for the definition of the modern word which also lists etymology and also translation into English in order to correspond with my edit, if there is a more reliable source that I can provide for the etymology of the word, please do let me know and I will add it. Any other WP:RS needed has already been cited inside the section related to the hypothesis inside the article, hence why I assume that the entire section is still present and available to read for everyone. If you believe that shouldn't be the case, you should go through the process of removing it in order to avoid any future controversy. I also do not believe that assuming a bad-faith stance through telling newer editors to "be gone" is constructive to the future credibility and reliability of the page, nor to the expansion of Wikipedia's userbase as a whole. I am trying to expand the article with related information for which I have provided sources. My attempt here is to find out why the sources provided ,that are of academic origin are not WP:RS, yet I am confronted with the claim that you are not concerned with this field of study. Please tell me what a more reliable source for word etymology would be aside from the Romanian Explicative Dictionary, which I would also like to know why you don't consider a WP:RS even though it is so by definition ,so that I can go through all the hoops and effort needed to provide a source that is satisfactory. 2A02:2F09:E106:E800:81FA:E4C1:2EE0:D7C2 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Combining different WP:RS in order to draw your own conclusion in prohibited by WP:SYNTH, as long as that conclusion isn't verbatim mentioned in either of those sources and it is you who draws that conclusion. Take it or leave it, it's part of the package.

Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil. -- In other words: duh only book-lurnin we likes 's frum books, not school-folk wit deir fancy-shmancy deeplomas. Ye ain't gots to be unschooled to edit, but ya bettah bring yer damn sauces like uh chef at tha Italian resteeraunt.

As Ian.thomson has put it.

To put it clearer: you may not insert Nămol into this article as long as you don't have a WP:RS (only one, not a combination of several WP:RS) explicitly positing that there is a link between Zalmoxis and Nămol. Take your own analysis to your own blog, this website is not interested in your personal opinions, nor in how you combine different WP:RS in order to draw a desired conclusion which is not explicitly mentioned in any of them. This is not a website for editors to ventilate their own opinions. We only render views that are explicitly mentioned in a (1, one) WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I still believe that there is a communication error at play here. I am not claiming or combining sources to reach any third personally presumed connection between Zalmoxis and Nămol. In my initial edit I simply added in a word that exists in the modern Romanian language and mentioned the English translation for it, that is what the sources were meant to verify. Word existence and accurate English translation. If confusion for potential readers is an issue then in addition to the word addition, I can also add ""Nămol", in modern Romanian means "Mud", though there is no scientific consensus pointing towards any connection between this and the word "Zalmoxis". This way the information which to which I've provided reliable sources for can be kept while also avoiding anybody coming to non-proven conclusions. Thank you for your time and sorry for this dragging on for so long. 2A02:2F09:E308:6300:1429:EA06:1AEF:B33F (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't care about your conclusion. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

See WP:NOR - see WP:PRIMARYCARE and WP:SCHOLARSHIP – “Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves” – “Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible” per WP:PSTS. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please read what I wrote instead? You said this before, I understand. I am not writing any personal conclusion about anything, I am trying to provide a sourced translation of a word and nothing more, I also suggested adding a specific mention in order to avoid any confusion but you have not responded to that. I have read and understood what you sent me, thank you, but please just respond to the feedback which I've given in return and if it can or cannot be done. For clarification, I am trying to add the following lines to the article: ""Nămol", in modern Romanian means "Mud", though there is no scientific consensus pointing towards any connection between this and the word "Zalmoxis"". In this situation, the sourced translation will be kept while also trying to avoid confusion for readers, based on the references which you've sent me, I do not see any policy being violated as the statement is sourced while mentioning that any further interpretation is NOT. This is not a personal conclusion, it is a word followed by a translation and a mention of no further sources pointing towards a connection. 2A02:2F09:E308:6300:E0C1:A42B:9C59:5B09 (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Zalmoxis is not WP:COATRACK for translating the word Nămol. We are not interested in such translation, thank you very much. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright then, I understand, I am glad that we came to terms and I hope that in the future I will be able to become an editor who can provide important information and sources to other articles.2A02:2F09:E308:6300:C075:E3DD:E1D1:D20B (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Phrygia and Lithuania?

In the etymology section, it says that Zemele is a Phrygian and Lithuanian goddess, but AFAIK those cultures have nothing to do with each other, and the page about the goddess it links to has no references to Phrygia, which is in modern day Turkey. 2601:2C4:47F:A0A0:4005:8FB1:B725:7CCC (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Lactantius, Julian the Apostate, and Trajan

Lactantius can't possibly be providing a translation of Julian the Apostate's quotation of Trajan because Lactantius died five years before Julian the Apostate was born. This section needs a proper explanation and citation, or it needs to be deleted immediately. Raccoon Enthusiast (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Ioan Coman?

Can anybody find an actual reference to this scholar somewhere? He is referenced numerous times throughout the article with zero citations given. Recent scholarship on the subject seems to suggest that his theories lack historical grounding to begin with. Raccoon Enthusiast (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)