Talk:Cohors I Aelia Dacorum

Personnel: additions by contributor Saturnian

Saturnian, while I appreciate your efforts to expand this section, you should understand that your contributions, as they stand, are inadmissible to this article, as they constitute (original research), which is prohibited on Wiki articles.

You have made entries based on inscriptions you have found on another website. These are primary sources. In general, you should rely only on secondary sources - that is, on published academic works - for contributions to Wiki articles.

The dangers of presenting your own research, as an amateur, are shown by a number of mistakes you have made in your entries:

1. You have entered "Alfenus Senecio" as a member of the cohort under the rubric "other". Actually, Lucius Alfenus Senecio was governor of Britannia province in ca. 205-7, and the inscr. which mentions him is actually a dedication by the cohort commander (tribune) at that time, Aurelius Iulianus.
2. You described the centurion Aelius Dida as "Dacian" - although there is no evidence that he was. In fact, given that he dates from the earliest years of the cohort's existence, it is more likely that he was a Thracian or Illyrian: although the rankers of the newly-founded unit were no doubt mostly Dacians, its officers were probably from neighbouring parts of the Balkans. In any case, it is inappropriate for us, as Wiki editors, to speculate. We should only present the views of published academic authors. When I entered that tribune Ti. Claudius Proculus Aurelianus was "prob. Numidian", that is not my personal opinion, but what it says in PME, the authoritative published source on Roman knights in the military.
3. You entered "Dacian?" as the nationality of centurion Congaonius Candidus. Actually, Congaonius was probably a Celtic name: similar names such as Concodius and Congonnetidubnus are attested in Roman Gaul. Thus, this officer was probably a Gaul or a Briton.
4. You describe the infant brothers Decibalus and Blaesus as "Dacian". Well, Decibalus is obviously a Dacian name, the same as that of the famous Dacian king Decebal. But this does not necessarily mean that the child was an ethnic Dacian. The name of his brother, Blaesus, was a Roman family name (cf: Quintus Junius Blaesus). It is thus possible that, in a multiethnic regiment, their father may have named them after comrades in the regiment, but may himself have been a non-Dacian. In this regard, you should note that although when it was founded ca. 125 AD, the regiment may have been predominantly Dacian, once it was based in Britain, recruits would probably have been mostly local Britons, so that by, say, AD 200, the regiment's personnel would prob. have been mainly Celtic British in ethnic character (and most non-Britons would prob. have come from neighbouring provinces i.e. Gallia Belgica and Germania Inferior).

As regards the personnel in general, I have followed a policy of only including those whose names are complete and datable. That is because this is article is not supposed to be a database of inscriptions relating to this cohort, but information for the general reader. I can't see how general readers would benefit from a list of undatable and/or fragmentary names. For example, what's the point of telling readers that at some unknown date during its 300-year history, the unit had a commander called -----us Con-----? (RIB 1888) EraNavigator (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi EraNavigator, we known both Wikipedia is a knowledge gathering place and a subject to continous improvement. This is a natural process which imply learning from mistakes. Thanks warning me about my mistakes. I will try to improve my contributions.

On ther other hand I am against supervising policies that dictates to the readers what information is relevant and which is not relevant for them. Facts should have priority against policies like "only including those whose names are complete and datable". I belive removing KNOWLEDGE from Wikipedia is a sabotaje of Wikipedia's main goal. And such policies are non-sense. If you don't see how readers ("general readers" is a weird term) would benefit from a list of undatable and/or fragmentary names, it doesn't mean readers cannot benefit from such names. For example I know now from the Talk page (paradoxically not from the article) Congaonius Candidus had a Celtic origin showing the mixture of different populations inside a cohort. Why this information should be forbided to all audience of Wikipedia removing that name from the article? Same thing with the children names. If a young man wish planning a novel or a movie why he should be punished by not having the access to such names. Should he be punished because he is not part of "general readers"? -- Saturnian (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, Saturnian, you've made a reasonable point about interesting information. So I propose to include those undatable names that add interesting data: e.g. the fact that child decibalus carried a Dacian name. EraNavigator (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)