Talk:Vlachs

Vandalism

Hello @Ninhursag3.

Why did you delete the referenced section and write that only a Hungarian historian thinks so, when I also cited the new Arabic book and Gustav Flügel, the German orientalist, along with his study/critical edition, as sources? Just because you dislike something, please don’t delete it. The Arabic text doesn’t say what you want it to say; this is a fact. The Arabic text mentions the Volga and Danube Bulgarias, not the Vlachs. CriticKende (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Gustav Flügel. Kitāb al-Fihrist. Herausgegeben mit Anmerkungen von Gustav Flügel, nach dessen Tode besorgt von Johannes Roediger und August Mueller. Zwei Bände. Mit Unterstützung der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1872. page 702.

original Arabic:

فاما الترك والبلغر والبلغار والبرغز والخزر واللان واجناس الصغار الاعين والمفرطى البياض فلا قلم لهم يعرف سوى البلغر والتبت فانهم يكتبون بالصينية والمنانية والخزر تكتب بالعبرانية والذي تادّى الى من امر الترك ما حدثني به ابو الحسن محمد بن الحسن ه ابن اشناس قال حدثني حمود حراره التركى المكلى وكان من التوزونية، ممن خرج عن بلده على كبر وتنفط ان ملك الترك الاعظم اذا اراد ان يكتب الى ملك من الاصاغر احضر وزيره وامر بشق نشابة ونقش الوزير عليها نقوشا يعرفها افاضل الاتراك تدل على المعاني التي يريدها الملك ويعرفها المرسل اليه وزعم ان النقش اليسير يحتمل المعاني الكثيرة وانما يفعلون ذلك عند مهادناتهم ومسالماتهم وفى اوقات حروبهم ايضا وذكر ان ذلك النشاب المكتوب عليه يحتفظون به ويفون من اجله والله اعلم

Arabic with latin letters:

Fa-ammā al-Turk wa-al-Bulghar wa-al-Bulghār wa-al-Burghaz wa-al-Khazr wa-al-Lān wa-ajnāṣ al-ṣighār al-aʿīn wa-al-mufraṭī al-bayāḍ fa-lā qalam lahum yuʿraf siwā al-Bulghar wa-al-Tibbat fa-innahum yaktubūna bi-al-Ṣīnīyah wa-al-Manāniyah wa-al-Khazr taktub bi-al-ʿIbrānīyah wa-al-ladhī tāda ilā min amr al-Turk mā ḥaddathanī bihi Abū al-Ḥasan Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Ishnās qāla ḥaddathanī Ḥamūd Ḥarārah al-Turkī al-Maklī wa-kāna min al-Tawzūnīyah, mimman kharaja ʿan baladihi ʿalā kibar wa-tanaffuṭ anna Malik al-Turk al-aʿẓam idhā arāda an yaktub ilā malik min al-aṣāghir aḥḍara wazīrah wa-amara bi-shaqq nashābah wa-naqasha al-wazīr ʿalayhā nuqūshan yaʿrifuhā afāḍil al-Turk tadullu ʿalā al-maʿānī allatī yurīduhā al-malik wa-yaʿrifuhā al-mursal ilayhi wa-zaʿama anna al-naqsh al-yasīr yaḥtamil al-maʿānī al-kathīrah wa-innamā yafʿalūna dhālika ʿinda muhādanātihim wa-musālimātihim wa-fī awqāt ḥurūbihim aydan wa-dhakara anna dhālika al-nashāb al-maktūb ʿalayh yuḥtafaẓ bih wa-yūfā min ajlih wa-Allāh aʿlam.

English translation:

As for the Turks, Bulgars, Bulghars, Burghaz, Khazars, Alans, and the small-eyed and exceedingly white-skinned peoples, they have no known script except for the Bulgars and Tibetans, who write in Chinese and Manichean, while the Khazars write in Hebrew. What has been conveyed to me about the Turks came from what Abū al-Ḥasan Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Ishnās told me. He said that Ḥamūd Ḥarārah, the Turkish Maklī, who was from the Tawzūnīyah tribe, and had left his homeland in old age, stated: The greatest king of the Turks, when he wishes to send a letter to a lesser king, summons his vizier and orders an arrow shaft to be split. The vizier then carves symbols upon it that are known to the elite Turks and that signify the meanings the king intends to convey and are understood by the recipient. He claimed that these simple carvings carry many meanings. They do this not only during their peace treaties and reconciliations but also in times of war. He mentioned that these inscribed arrows are carefully preserved and that their agreements are fulfilled because of them. And God knows best.

والبلغر (wa-al-Bulghar) = This word, in its shortened form, refers to the Bulgars (Bolghar), typically denoting groups living around the Black Sea region. In historical sources, it specifically refers to the Bulgars of this area, such as the Volga Bulgars.

والبلغار (wa-al-Bulghār) = This is the fuller version of the word for the Bulgars, also referring to the historical Bulgar people. It often denotes the Bulgars of the Balkan Peninsula.

So, please do not delete a historical fact just because you dislike it. The text mentions two Bulgarias: Volga Bulgaria and Danube Bulgaria. Both of them existed during this period. CriticKende (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ninhursag3

Here is Gustav Flügel's critical edition (page 702.): The text is at the top of the left-hand page. Excluding the title, on the left-hand page, the 3rd and 4th words of the first line are the ones we are discussing. You can see that both are exactly as I mentioned.

Here is also an image of the text where it is "clearer".

Here is another edition to ensure we avoid any errors. This is the 1971–1973 Tehran edition, accessible here. The link comes from the Wikipedia page titled al-Fihrist. At the bottom of the page, another Arabic version is available. You need to click on "Arabic text of the Fihrist" to view it.

In this resource, two versions are listed: the Gustav Flügel edition we have already discussed (found at the top of the table) and a second link leading to the 1971–1973 Tehran edition. I am linking that here (a link available via Wikipedia).

By clicking on "THIS ONE" and using the site’s search function, type in "Abu'l-Faraj Muhammad bin Is'hāq al-Nadim

ا بو الفرج محمد بن إسحاق النديم

الكتاب الفهرست2," and it will direct you to the relevant table and links for Kitab al-Fihrist. Clicking on the second link will display the Tehran edition (also not Hungarian).

The disputed passage can be found on page 21. However, it is specifically the last paragraph on that page. If we exclude the title, the 3rd and 4th words of the first line (read right to left, as it is Arabic) are "wa-al-Bulghar" and "wa-al-Bulghār."

Thus, as demonstrated, the first European critical edition is by Gustav Flügel. The first critical edition from Tehran (1971–73), along with the 2019 modern Arabic edition, all consistently mention two Bulgarias. That is, the text refers not to Vlachs, but to Bulgars mentioned twice, specifically Volga Bulgaria and Danube Bulgaria.

I hope this has now clarified that this is not some kind of "Hungarian propaganda." This is the original text, as evidenced by three entirely independent critical editions. Furthermore, yes, a Hungarian researcher has also highlighted this. However, I fail to see why is it problematic that a Hungarian historian point out something. Especially when an Iranian, an Egyptian, a German, and considering the 2019 edition, another Arab historian have already done so. CriticKende (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I see Ninhursag would like “academic way” and he actually removed more academic contents, replaced them with his own comments Wikipedia:No original research , finally the content lost the meaning, details, conclusions. He removed important Vlach related contents from Kekaumenos and Alexiad, however that section is about the Vlachs in those documents. OrionNimrod (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a he, I'm a she. The paragraph had no reason to be that long and take out that much space. Also, I still remember how you commented last year about the picture for the Vlachs article, being very xenophobic and talking in a dismissive and insulting way. You shouldn't be the one talking. Ninhursag3 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Check the timeline. I was the one that added the Arab scholars from the 10th century as well as the Byzantine chroniclers (plus the source references) in the Vlachs wikipedia articles. You or @CriticKende or another Hungarian only added the Hungarian perspective. Ninhursag3 (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@OrionNimrod Seems you deleted your comment, on gmail I can still read part of it. Please adress what I wrote to @CriticKende as well. Thank you in advance. Ninhursag3 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph was starting to get too long just to present a Hungarian-only perspective (the perspective wasn't also an Arab one, it just used Arab modern grammar to aid the Hungarian perspective). Important information I added in the history of Romania section in the Romania article got summarized in one sentence and it was something that spanned centuries, so it needed more than just one sentence.  

Now moving on from the 10th century Arab scholars, the Kekaumenos part I rephrased, that was a Hungarian interpretation of what Kekaumenos might have meant, but it's just an opinion, not a historical fact. Also the way that paragraph is written instead of mentioning Kekaumenos' obvious anti-Vlach propaganda since he was at war with them, it seems to agree with the insults Kekaumenos had for the Vlachs, which is the anti-thesis of academic language and academic objectivity.

Something similar happened in the Vlachs article where it was randomly written that Vlachs being shepards smelled and it went on a huge unacademic xenophobic tirade, which didn't happen in wikipedia articles about Welsh or English or Scottish shepards (which were a big part of the British life for centuries) since they all got imbued with the smell of sheep, just like the Vlachs. But the paragraph was trying to say that Vlachs are uniquely smelly, unhygenic people. That wasn't considered vandalism for some unknown reason (maybe because Hungarians are the most active on the Vlachs article). I had to delete that irrelevant, xenophobic text for not contributing anything academically, that was more than half a year ago or more.

Also, the information I added about a document from the 8th century found at the Konstamonitou Monastery in Mount Athos that mentioned Vlachs was deleted, the same happened with the source references I added previously for the 10th century Arab chroniclers/geographers. I was the one that added the Arab scholars from the 10th century as well as the Byzantine chroniclers in the Vlachs wikipedia articles. But now I'm the one doing the vandalism?

Deleting information in the article isn't vandalism because it was done by Hungarians, so it's okay by you. It seems very biased and one-sided. It seems only the Hungarian perspective is allowed on wikipedia articles about Romania and Romanians. I bet if Romanians wrote articles about Hungarians from their perspective, you Hungarians would get outraged. Again, the double standard. I see more Hungarian editors (especially those with the admin role) on wikipedia English pages about Romania/Romanians/Vlachs etc than Romanian editors. No other wikipedia pages related to a specific country have more editors from an outside country than editors from the country the article is about, only happens to Romania-related pages and Hungarian editors. Maybe it's also because the vandalism accusations are thrown around by Hungarians more than anybody but when Hungarians do vandalism they expect to not be punished. Always the double standard.

However, that doesn't dissuade me, unlike other Romanians I'm very polite and diplomatic and you won't see any insults or name calling from me. I've been on wikipedia for almost 3 years and I wasn't banned, I follow the rules. I will however point out when someone is biased and wants to spread propaganda like Hungarians often do on wikipedia articles about Romania. Ninhursag3 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the “he” but from an user name I cannot know a proper calling. Kekaumenos was always an important thing about Vlachs, and it needs a historian content not your own words taking out the details. Also you removed the exact Vlach thing which is in Alexiad. Please consult with Anna Komnea and Kekaumenos that you dont like their content. You can add Romanian academic sourced viewpoint regarding a content, Kekaumenos content was properly attributed that is the Hungarian view. Sorry I dont remember any xenophobic things regarding a picture in past. Also I dont know why are you talking a lot about smells, it seems out of topic. OrionNimrod (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot provide a detailed response right now, but could you please elaborate on why, just because after two Iranian historians, one Egyptian, one German, and one Arab historian have expressed their opinions on a matter, and now a Hungarian historian also say the same thing, the perspective is suddenly labeled as a "Hungarian-only perspective"? If a Hungarian historian ALSO writes the same opinion on a topic, does that topic suddenly become "exclusively" Hungarian?

But fine, let's remove the Hungarian researcher's opinion from the article (because, for some reason, it seems that Hungarian researchers are not allowed to express an opinion... I don't understand why, but whatever), and leave only the German, Egyptian, Iranian, and Arab perspectives. Even so, the perspective, now “Hungarian-free,” still won’t change, because the text doesn’t say what you want it to say, that’s a fact. CriticKende (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Please, if you know sources that support your edits bring them forward so we can discuss them and, if we agree, add them to the article. Otherwise the edits count as OR, and that does not help improve the article. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)