Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolohoveni: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:05, 21 October 2006

Bolohoveni

del. the article is 100% false. There is no such English word. There is even no such Old Slavic word, contrary to the article. This is a Romanian ignorant mutation (quite possibly, quite recent) of the Old Slavic word: "Vlach" in Old Slavonic is "Voloch". "Volochove" is plural from "voloch". "Volohoveni" is a brainless Romanian coinage similar to "Moldoveni" (Moldovans), seen only in Romanian websites. `'mikkanarxi 00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It it is interesting to mention that a similar confusion happened with Ingrians, and quite very recently, too. There was land of Ingria. A person from Ingria was called by Teutons "Ingerman", and their land is "Ingermanland". The latter was borroved into Russian during the times of Russian Empire and Russified into "Ingermanlandia" And finally, some English-speaking smartass coined "Ingermanlandians" ! (thx G.d, no one wrote this article yet :-) If you don't beieve me, check google. `'mikkanarxi 00:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article cites use in ancient chronicles, which makes this of some historic interest, and there are quite a few incoming links. A Google search for "Bolohoveni" -wikipedia searching only English results yields only 9 unique hits. It's certainly an obscure topic, but that still does seem a suspiciously low amount. Also, I don't think it really matters if this word is a "mutation" -- many words start out that way, including, I'd hazard, the majority of the English language. What matters is if the word, in this form, was the primary name for the topic described in the article, which I'm not sure of. I'm very much on the fence on this one, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution here. -Elmer Clark 01:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You totally missed my point: there is no such word in ancient chronicels. This is a corruption of the term by internet ignorants. Obviously, you didn't care to look into these "9 unique hits". They are in no way reputable sources. `'mikkanarxi 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Google searching picked up a few non-Wikipedia-based references to the subject. PKT 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like the fact that Wikipedia includes obscure topics like this one. Deet 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This can be handled without having a freestanding article for the subject. Mention the word in the Vlachs article, and you are done. In fact, that will be much more helpful to those who know little about the subject and search on the word. - Mauco 15:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article has more than that. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is FALSE, for crying out loud. Did yoo care to read my explanations? `'mikkanarxi 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I could find a few instances that suggest the word exists.[1] EVula 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Either a somewhat spread spoof or an ignorant mutation of the term Vlach/Voloch, contrary to the spelling accepted in academia. --Irpen 18:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Definitely a romanization of an old slavic word, and thus the description is totally false. Errabee 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EvilAlex 14:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the all of Mikka's explanations (see Comment below). Those who say "keep" have a civil duty to explain to the rest of us why. Just read what Mikka says, and then give an intelligent rebuttal if there is one. I personally can't see any and the article has to go. - Mauco 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was someone who originally put in some praise for this article and said Excellent about it somewhere else. But then, on that page, when the situation was explained I could understand it and I now see it well. It is a fallacy and has to be deleted. - Pernambuco 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: it is not an "obscure topic". It is internet-spreading ignorance. The term is an ignorant Romanian corruption of an old Slavic word. This is English-language encyclopedia, which is not supposed to describe ignorance of Romanians. The article text is false. Thre is no such word in old Slavic chronicles mentioned in the article. `'mikkanarxi 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying the article is an outright hoax/lie? Would you care to provide some evidence? It seems verifiable, albeit barely. -Elmer Clark 17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote in nomination? It is not hoax/lie. It is ignorance. The evidence is the mentioned Slavic chronicles available online in the internet. There is no such word in them. There is old Slavic plural word "volochove" (волохове) (findable even in google in slavic manuscripts), which means simply Vlachs (singular: волох, modern Russian plural: ru:волохи; and as I see even some Russian internet posts don't understand the word волохове, because it is an archaic form of plural noun).

And it is not verifiable via reputable sources (because it cannot). `'mikkanarxi 18:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...do you have any evidence of these claims? -Elmer Clark 21:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which claims? That the article is bullshit? Why do I have to have an evidence that it is bullshit? It is the job of bullshit perpetrators to prove that they are correct. If it was not your question, then please ask exactly what you want. `'mikkanarxi 21:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except Google seems to indicate that this term is in use. What I mean is you seem convinced that this is some kind of hoax, what is the reason for this belief? -Elmer Clark 22:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cna you read my lips: it is not hoax. It is confusion. Vlachs in various latin and greek and slavic manuscribts were named by many names. There was no internet in these times, you know. Everything was by the word of mouth mostly. I may list you "Vlachs (also called Vláhoi, Βλάχοι, Wallachians, Wlachs, Wallachs, Olahs or Ulahs" (fom wikipedia), also волохи/волохове/волоховцы/болохове/влахи/власи, moreover Blazi (Latin), Blokumenn/Blakumen/Blakumenn (norse),... you want more? I am sure Arabic authors had more names. In summary, again, "bolohoveni" is mutation in Romanian language of what was written in slavic chronicles: "volohove", i.e., Vlachs, and not some new mysterious ethnos at the roots of Romanians. Does someonne want to write the "blokumenn/Blakumen" articles as well? they collect quite a few google hits as well... I'd say even more than "bolohoveni" (if kill wikipedia mirrors) `'mikkanarxi 01:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if I'm understanding you right, wouldn't moving the page to a more accurate name be a better idea than deleting it? -Elmer Clark 01:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There already exists the page, Vlachs. And there is absolutely nothing to move there from the discussed article, because it is false: "bolohoveni" are not mentioned in old slavic chronicles. Moreover, it is highly disputable whether "volohove" (Volochs) were used specifically to refer to population of moldavian/transylvania/etc. lands and not simply vlachs from anywhere.

On the second thought, it occurs to me now now that it would make sense to turn this article into a redirect to the article I've just noticed, "History of the term Vlach", which may be expanded with what I wrote in this discussion. `'mikkanarxi 01:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still prefer if you could find some citation other than your own assurances confirming that this is in fact a simple mistranslation. -Elmer Clark 02:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not mistranslation either. Let me put it in a yet another way: is is a telephone game: (1) in slavic chronicles there were "volochove" mentioned. Romanian books qouting the chronicles "romanized the word into "bolohoveni", a valid Romanian word. (2)And now someone tries to enter into wikipedia an English word "bolohoveni" , which, (3) if translated directly from slavic chronicles according to English grammar, would be "volochs". How can I give you qoutations to prove that item (2) moronic? I can give you quotations for items (1) and (3), the rest is pure logic. `'mikkanarxi 04:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 *'''Keep''' [[User:EvilAlex|EvilAlex]] 14:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' as the all of Mikka's explanations (see Comment below). Those who say "keep" have a civil duty to explain to the rest of us why. Just '''read''' what Mikka says, and then give an intelligent rebuttal if there is one. I personally can't see any and the article has to go. - [[User:William Mauco|Mauco]] 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. I was someone who originally put in some praise for this article and said Excellent about it somewhere else. But then, on that page, when the situation was explained I could understand it and I now see it well. It is a fallacy and has to be deleted. - [[User:Pernambuco|Pernambuco]] 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 '''COMMENT''': it is '''not''' an "obscure topic". It is '''internet-spreading ignorance'''. The term is an ignorant Romanian corruption of an old Slavic word. This is English-language encyclopedia, which is not supposed to describe ignorance of Romanians. The article text is false. Thre is '''no''' such word in old Slavic chronicles mentioned in the article. `'[[user:mikkalai|mikkanarxi]] 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)