Talk:Bulaqs

Books

Are there books written during the last decades which vefify the claims presented in the article? In lack of reliable sources, the article should be deleted as per WP:Notability and as per WP:Fringe. Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, this proposal demonstrates a high level of diletantism. For example, I am not a bacteriologist, so I never will propose to delete the title Bacteria from Wikipedia, just because bacteria are not visible by naked eye. So, if you are not a historian, please do not make such unqualified proposals, at all. The second evidence of diletantism is when somebody is claiming just new literature for the topic, and neglects some leading authors from the 19th century. Keeping this view means that no highly regarded authors from the 19th century should be taken into consideration, like the 19th century historian Leopold von Ranke, for example, which would be ridiculous.

Anyway, for your information below are just a few ”books written during the last decades” from some leading turkologists and historians, on the topic of Blac people.

• László Rásonyi [a leading turkologist], A magyar eredetkutatás orosz kapcsolatai. Budapest 1962. p. 105.
• Gábor Balás [historian], A székelyek nyomában. Budapest, 1984. p. 46.
• György Bodor [historian], A székely nemzetségi szervezet. Pallas-Akadémia Kiadó, Csíkszereda, 2002. Part 3, Capter: A krónikáink a székelyekről. [He states that Blacs were people of Turkic culture who were assimilated by the Székelys.]
• Imre Baski [turkologist]: CSAGIRCSA. Török és magyar névtani tanulmányok 1981-2006. Karcag, 2007. p. 14. [With etimological examples.]
• Klára Sándor [linguist, turcologist]: A székely írás Székelyföldön kívüli használatának kezdetei. In: MAGYAR ŐSTÖRTÉNET. Tudomány és hagyományőrzés. Ed. by Balázs Sudár et al. MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, Budapest, 2014. pp. 329-342. [With citations on Blac people from the chronicles of Kézai and Thuróczi.]

By the way, Blacs (blacorum, blachos, blach, blakumen, illacs, olaks, ulaks, iflak, kara-ulagh) are widely known by the ancient authors as well, from West-Europe, and the Carpathian basin’s Hungarian chronicles to Central Asia (Anonymus, Kézai, Thuróczi, Rubruck, Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Roger Bacon, Abulghazi, Rashid-al-Din etc.) Did ever Vlachs lived in Central Asia for example? Logically not. They were Blacs who lived there.

When Kézai (he makes difference between blackis and vlachis) or Thuróczi are writing about Blacs, they are telling the events within the plot of the Hun story. Were Vlachs Huns? Logically not. The Hungarian chronicles also telling that Szekler script was taken over from the Blacs, which means Blacs and not Vlachs. These two groups should not be confused. Blacs were Turkic people from the East, using the Old Turkic script, while Vlachs were an ethnic group of different people (Slavic, Illiric, [i. e Albanian], Romanian). They mainly were illeterate shepherds. Some of their popes might know only the writing of the Eastern Orthodox Church, at most, in accordance with their orthodox religion. If Blacs and Vlach would be identical, the (catholic) Szeklers could only receive the orthodox writing from the Vlachs, but there is not a single evidence that Szeklers ever used such writing. They were able to take over their runic script only from the Blacs of Central Asian origin, because no runic texts are known from the Vlachs (Romanians) in Transylvania or in Hungary, because they had no such writing, at all. The only remaining relics of Old Hungarian script are known only from the Hungarian ethnicity in Transylvania and Hungary. So, Vlachs have nothing to do with this topic, at all.--Szegedi László (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, it is a complex and not very notable topic, at least in the English sources. The term of the community was mentioned in limited historical sources, and in a confusing way. The article is not well-sourced (beside the editing style, and some really outdated sources...), some statments miss reference, there is need for appropriate balance and weight for the specific theories (Vlachian and Turkic). It is a mess. I can't go through it, even less the public.--Crovata (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any English-language sources talking about "the Blac people". I only found "the Blacs/Vlachs" in a work by Victor Spinei, where they are not referred as a separate people, but as Vlachs. 123Steller (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Rásonyi László, The History of the Blaks or Bulaks, Magyar Múlt, 1982

The sole English-language source referred in the article is Rásonyi László, The History of the Blaks or Bulaks, Magyar Múlt, 1982. Does this work really exist? I can't find this book title anywhere else online... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123Steller (talk • contribs) 11:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi it really exists, see i.e. here: http://www.unitar.hu/konyv.htm ->

U.I.1825. RÁSONYI László The history of the blaks or bulaks : An ancient Turkic ethnic group in Transylvania : [Magyar nyelvű kivonattal] / Rásonyi László. - Sydney : The Hungarian Historical Society, 1982a. - 71-94, 132p. ; 26cm. = Magyar Múlt, Hungarian Past. Vol. 11. No 2. Ser. No 30.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR are there other Hungarian historians that join László Rásonyi in supporting the Turkic origin theory, when talking about the blacks ? 123Steller (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

As you have followed the discussion in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacorum, there are also others having the same conclusion, but it is not necessarily a "joining to someone" since this theory is much more older.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

Review

In this section I will review the "historical references" from revision on 7 November and 18 November. It is clear that most of the academic references are outdated and probably wrong. I won't say a word about the intro beside that it is WP:SYNTHESIS&WP:OR:

• The writings of William of Rubruck from the mid 13th century present some of the Blacs as still living beside the Bashkirs (Pascatir) east of Great Bulgaria and the Volga River. He writes that the Tatars call them Illacs because the Tatars can not pronounce the letter B. Some of the Blacs migrated west with the Huns, Bulgarians and Vandals earlier and settled somewhere in the lower Danube area: from them come those who are in the land of Assan, those provinces from Constantinopole (westward) and which were called Bulgaria, Blackia and Sclavonia were provinces of the Greeks. He writes that they were Christians (at least one of the branches)
  • False; Firstly, William wrote 1000 years after the events even started, his remark is doubtful and probably a fictional chronology. Secondly, the linked source from 1900 is not a literal translation, but an interpretation. He wrote about Great Bulgaria, that from certain region Pascatyr (or great Hungaria somewhere east of Great Bulgaria and Ethilia) came both Huns and Hungarians, they had a great power, as then Tatars, and that with them arrived Blaci et Bulgari et Wandali (implying to the late 3rd century Migration Period). He continues that from that Great Bulgaria came those Bulgarians who live over the Danube near Constantinople, while near the land of Pascatyr are the Blachi from greater Blachia, from which came those who live in the land of Asenids (Second Bulgarian Empire), and that those people are now called as Illac, which is the same as Vlach (Blac), because the Tatars can not prononunce the letter B. He literally jumped from the 3rd to the 13th century, and his remark on the Vlachs origin is probably related to some barbarian-nomadic stereotyping.

• Simon of Keza wrote at the end of the 13th century the Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum. In it he mentions both the Blacs (Blackis) and the Vlachs (Vlahis), as such, differentiating them. He writes that the Székelys (Zaculi) live together with the Blacs (Blackis) and use the Blacs' letters. The Szekelys historically used runes of Turkic origin. The Vlachs did not have a runic script.
  • False; The chronicle is well known for false facts, and we don't have any reference. He wrote that, 10 years after the death of Attila's sons at the battle (Battle of Nedao?) the lands in Pannonia were without ruler, and that there remained only Slavs, Greeks, Teutons, Moesians and Vlachs, who together with their tribes served Attila. Similarly in the Gesta Hungarorum is said that when the Hungarians arrived the quam terram habitarent Sclavi, Bulgarii et Blachii ac pastores Romanorum (Slavs, Bulgars and Vlachs while "ac" is a synonym rather than conjunction), and that "after the death of King Attila, the Romans said the land of Pannonia was pastureland because their flocks grazed in the land of Pannonia". Both chronicles have the same conclusion - the Vlachs lived in Pannonia before the arrival of the Hungarians and Székelys. Where the Blacs are differentiated from the Vlachs? Where is mentioned that Székelys lived together with the Blacs (if that is not a misinterpreation of the Vlachs)? Did Székelys use Turkic runes, and if did, what if they also used Vlachian Latin letters? What is the context of the whole statement?

Would you refer to the source of your theory about the Vlachs' "Latin letters"? Based on the two chronicles, we can also conclude, that Greeks and Khazars lived in the Carpathian Basin before the Hungarians. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Crovata, here you are totally failing, "ac" cannot be any means a synonim, such "tricks" or willful misinterpretations alos exist regarding other documents where i.e. they altered by a false translation "ad"/"ac". "Ac is a conjuction, interpreted like "and also". There is not such clonclusion that Vlachs would lived in Pannonia, Blachij and pastores romanorum are two different terms, an obvious distinction. You cannot ask seriously in Székely would have used Turkic runes, this is a fact as also they never used "Vlachian latin" letters - as also Borsoka pinpointed it is anyway "questionable" regarding Vlachs also then.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

Borsoka I cannot provide you the specific source because it is a logical question to the specific statement. Someone need to answer the questions I made. --Crovata (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Why do you think that your original theory about the Vlachs' "Latin letters" is relevant here? Borsoka (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR I didn't fail anything, you're the one who doesn't agree with the scholar, many Hungarian even Slavic chronicles, like the one by Nestor, have the same story that the Vlachs (or some Romance-speaking people) lived in Pannonia. I can seriously ask anything, if the Székelys used the Turkic runes, then what they have anything to do with Vlachs, i.e. made-up "Turkic" Blacs? Both of you, or someone who understands Hungarian, need to find and cite where Simon of Keza mentioned that the Blacs and Vlachs were separate people, Székelys lived together with the Blacs, and used Blacs' letters? --Crovata (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Crovata, no you hav mistaken many things, explanation above. Don't mix it with other chronicles and their interpretation, since what we really could consider about "Vlachs" is in many cases are controversial. Even your question is wrong, there is no if, the Székely used Turkic-runes, nothing to do with "Vlachs" about this, they could have lived together with the Blacs in Transylvania and they borrowed their writing. It is not a necessity to find a separation in Kézai chronicle if he only mentioned Blacks, anyway we know clearly the source and the content, it says the Szekler took their special writing from the Blacs.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, with no cite provided you didn't properly respond to the questions, also see my last answer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacorum. The article must be deleted.--Crovata (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Crovata, I don't agree, anyway you may easily find the direct source/quote in Kézai's work.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR I would if the source was available and not in Hungarian. However, I don't need to because we now know it is a minor and fringe theory never, and not even now, endorsed by mainstream scholarship. Your personal disagreement will not prevent the article removal.--Crovata (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Crovata, you want a source, after you don't need it because you know what it is? Interesting approach, however Kézai's work is cited in many cases in the contrary, but like Gesta Hungarorum, many of the just cite those parts and interpretation that is fitting to a desired theory or agenda. All in all we accept then everything with an equal weight, or we do not accept anything...I think in Wikipedia the are existing rules when an article will be removed, however, I tell my opinion like you or anyone else.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, stop wasting my time, and talk page space. Now we understand the issue, if you still want to add something constructive, then please do it. Also, on Wikipedia we don't accept everything with equal WP:WEIGHT (If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it).--Crovata (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Crovata, sorry? I am not wasting anyone's time, I have no responsibility on your activity, you mean because you have a dislike towards me I should silence (interesting policy you have with this "talk page space" phrase). There is no need to teach me about Wikipedia rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I am not mean nor I dislike you, I have noted you that you speak too much but say too little. Instead of wasteful discussion about us or theory, I opened this discussion to review the historical references i.e. the related statements within them.--Crovata (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Crovata, ok, I still don't share your opinion about "speaking much...etc." and I also disagree it would be a wasteful discussion. We may finish here, not I started to deteriorate from the subject.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

• Roger Bacon in his work Opus Majus written circa 1267 writes that the Blacs lived close to the Bashkirs, west of the Ural Mountains and now live on the land of Asen, north of the New Bulgars and between New Hungary.
  • False; he literally re-wrote the same statements by William of Rubruck from 1253, "Et juxta terram Pascatyr sunt Balchi de Balchia majore, a quo venerunt Balchi in terra Assani inter Constantinopolim, et Bulgariam et Hungariam minorem. Nam populus ille dicitur nunc a Tartaris Ilac, quod idem est quod Blac. Sed Tartari nesciunt sonare b literam..."

• Geoffrey of Villehardouin in his work De la Conquête de Constantinople (On the Conquest of Constantinople) written after 1207 about the 4th Crusade names Kaloyan of Bulgaria King of the Blacs. Contemporary papal sources name him ruler of Bulgars and Blacs.
  • False; Blacs are Vlachs, Vlachs are Blacs, letter B = V, also the historical context.

• The chapters III. and VIII. of Nestor's chronicle mentions Blacs (Влах) as coming out of Scythia and conquering Bulgarians and Danube Slavs.
  • False; the Vlakhs were the Romans, Vlachs, Franks or other similar speaking people (depending on the scholar's interpretation), who attacked the Danube Slavs from the west or south. There is no mention of their conquest of the Bulgarians or arrival from Scythia.

Conclusion; the whole article is an outdated misinterpreation of the William of Rubruck's misinterpreation of the Vlachs origin.--Crovata (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment; Although I agree with your final conclusion and most of your above statements, I think the above study is your own original research, because no reliable sources were cited. Consequently, it is not relevant in the discussion. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka It is not my original research (?!) as it is based on the work Vlasi u historiografiji (Vlachs in the Historiography) (2004) by Zef Mirdita, the last reference includes a reliable source, while for the others done a research and didn't think it was neccesary to provide links because they can be easily checked. It is higly relevant to the discussion because it shows that "historical references" and Turkic theory are nonsense and as such it should be deleted.--Crovata (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. If the above statements are based on a scholarly work, you are right. I suggest you should always refer to the scholarly works that you cite to avoid misunderstanding. Borsoka (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Another source which argues for the case of Blaks being a Turkic people: by Istvan Ferenczi (prominent archeologist from Romania): A SZÉKELYEK SZÁRMAZÁSÁRÓL, Székely Útkereső, 1994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpabogar (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you quote the text which supports your above claim? In the version of the article that I found ([1]), he does not say, he accepts the theory - he only refers to it as a possibility. Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka I answered your question, here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacorum. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Arpabogar, before restoring deleted material, please read WP:NOR, especially WP:PRIMARY. We cannot edit an article based on our own interpretation of primary sources, we should verify our edits with references to books and other publications written by scholars. Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I read the WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. I didn't do any interpretations of the historical sources, they were just presented as is. " A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." quoting from WP:PRIMARY. So I think the Historical References have a place in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpabogar (talk • contribs) 03:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you are presenting quotes from primary sources to verify the claim that "Blacorum" were a Turkic-speaking population. This practise clearly contradicts to WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion only. The article is clearly about a theory supported by a well known turkologist and other authors and which states that the Blac people could have been Turkic people. The Historical References were there to see that there are sources which mention the blacs. They were presented as is, if there was an interpretation, then a secondary source was given. You are obviously not fair. So please leave the Historical References alone. They are what they are. To be able to talk about the subject in a fair matter the sources must be able to be presented. Please keep the rules yourself!157.52.7.104 Arpabogar (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you mention "other authors" who support Rásonyi's theory? Please try to avoid referring to scholars who does not accept the theory. Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Czegledy, Pais, Ferenczy, Bodor for example, see references in the articleArpabogar (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not his opinion only - István Vásáry in Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365 (2005) (pg. 29); "...It is in connection with the Blaci of Transylvania that L. Rásonyi put forward a strange theory. He tried to prove that the Blaci of Transylvania had nothing to do with the Vlakhs, but were a Turkic people named Bulaq, and that the Vlakhs and Bulaqs were later confused in the sources (61; ...the fundamental thesis about the Bulaqs is an abortive attempt that cannot be proved). Unfortunately, this theory cannot be corroborated by an sound evidence, and every historical argument speaks against it. While I do no regard it as my task to prove here that his idea cannot be sustained, I would simply remark that it was again nationalism that lay behind this theory; Hungarian nationalism has tried to minimise the Romanian presence in history, while Romanian nationalism has tried to expropriate the Hungarian and Bulgarian past. In the case of the term Blaci, we cannot but conclude that it was used to designate the Vlakhs". It is a WP:FRINGE theory, and according to WP:NPOV - "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article".--Crovata (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I only wish to react this recurring issue: I have to refuse again the accusation of "nationalism" that seems a permament attitude of yours. So anyone who notices - along with Simon de Kéza - that Székelys's took their special writing from these people - that Vlachs could not be - are nationalist? Are you serious? Anyway the existence/non-existence or presence/absense of the Blacs does not influence necessarily the Vlach presence/appearance in Translyvania. The rest of your argumentation can be taken as a consideration, but you should drop and ignore the "nationalist" card, since not just Rásonyi or Hungarians got similar conclusion.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR are you aware that you're are accusing or mistaking me, for the second time, for saying Vásáry's consideration, that you're ignoring, for the second time, the scholar (Vásáry's) consideration and the fact national historiographies are often written with nationalistic ideolological not-so-hidden agenda? Wikipedia editors personal subjective opinion has "no value" as a reference or source, it belongs to WP:OR and not WP:NPOV, thus your personal consideration that Rásonyi's theory has no nationalistic intentions, or that the theory is not WP:NFRINGE and that should be given WP:NOTE and WP:WEIGHT, is futile and worthless. On Wikipedia we consider scholar's consideration, and in this case we have Vásáry's which clearly goes with other evidence - "In the case of the term Blaci, we cannot but conclude that it was used to designate the Vlakhs" and "the fundamental thesis about the Bulaqs is an abortive attempt that cannot be proved". Borsoka why this debate is still going on? All the evidence confirmed that this theory has no notability for an article and must be deleted.--Crovata (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Too many words of two much fuss, and you repeat also continously the same I did not even reacted. Just because Vásáry's approach it does not mean that also this or other cases this is the motivation. It is useless to push on this.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC))

Yes, this article should clearly be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Istvan Ferenczi

Istvan Ferenczi is seemingly an archaeologist, are his interpretations about medieval documents reliable? 123Steller (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know however he worked at the History Department of the UBB and later at the National Museum of Transylvanian History. The "Szekely Utkereso" was a literary and cultural magazine. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, his interpretation was published in a reliable source. However, he does not say that he accept the identification of the Blacs as a Turkic people. He only says that it is a possibility. Consequently, he cannot be listed among the scholars who accept this fringe theory. Borsoka (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"The Johannes Schöner Globe (1523), a printed globe, was made in 1523. It was considered to have been lost until identified by George Nunn in 1927" (quote from Johannes Schöner globe). Is this the map referred in the text? 123Steller (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This map: (Terrestrial globe of Johannes Schöner, [2]). The "Blaci" people is clearly seen on the map north of the Caspian Sea. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That is true. The map is really interesting. 123Steller (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing interesting about the map. Firstly, where's a reference that the mentioned Blaci are related to Bulaqs? Secondly, the thesis about Turkic Blaci is wrong, there didn't exist any Turkic Blaci i.e. the Vlachs did not have any Turkic origin, and thus the value of the mentioned Blaci has the equal value of the Amazons in a map.--Crovata (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Crovata we have two different issues. Medieval authors mentioned a people who lived at the Volga River. It has "almost" nothing to do with "Blaks" in Transylvania. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Fakirbakir what are you talking about, are you joking?--Crovata (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No, Fakirbakir writes of the Bulaqs, a Turkic people on the Volga. The similarity of their ethnonym to the Vlachs' name gave rise to this strange theory (based on Caprini's report). Borsoka (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Crovata It is a fact that travellers mentioned the "Blaci" people when they travelled through the endless steppes of Eastern Europe. Look at the map, Schoner did place them next to the Urals. FYI, I had to change my mind because the studies of Tardy and Ferenczi make the article notable even if I am aware of Vasary's opinion.... Fakirbakir (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And I have to also repeat thesis if "about Turkic Blaci is wrong" how Székelys could took Turkic runes? „…Zakuli… cum Blackis in montibus confinii sortem habuerunt, unde Blacki conmixti literas ipsorum uti perhibentur.” Anyway Blaks or Blackis or Bulaqs, the etimology is very near, but of course we have to be as precise as possible. Fakirbakir, thanks for your precious corroboration of the article!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, the first thing I remark is that the book written by Láczay Ervin is in Hungarian language, so I think it is original research to translate "Blacki" to English "Blacs". 123Steller (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Crovata, you make three reverts because you don't like something, it is not nice, Wikipedia is not about this, but let's discuss then. 123Steller, I checked the the source, it is not like so as it was cited, so it's not an original research, I don't know who put it originally. Soon I will present what's in it in English, so the section could be rewritten properly.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC))

This is in the source: "Simon de Kéza in his Chronicum Hungaricum (written between 1282-1285) already knew about the "Ulahi" nation, the Vlach people but he sharply differentiates them from Blaci or Bulaq people. Kézai's chronicle (Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum) relevant note: "....they live together with the Blaci and they use their letters." The Székely runic script survived until today and related to runic script of the Turkic peoples." -> It is perfectly fitting after the Spinei source that also demonstrates the existence of this approach regarding the Blaci/Bulaq people. Here the stress pattern is on the Turkic link regarding the runic script and it prefectly demonstrates and explaines why these Turkic theories regarding Blaci and Bulaqs emerged, the sections first four pharagraph is also investgating this. So like this it has to be accepted.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, if my understanding is correct, you are trying to prove the theory because you think Kézai's report of the origin of the Székely script is reliable. This approach clearly contradicts to WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I just checked the reliable source and translated it's content properly.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

Redirect from Blaks to Bulaks

I can see that Blaks was redirected to Bulaks. However there are sources which say that Blaks are Vlachs:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=8vQLAQAAMAAJ&q=blaks+volga+turkic&dq=blaks+volga+turkic&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

• https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q="Blaks%2C+Blancois" (The Balkan Vlachs: a typological study - sorry, the link does not work) 123Steller (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Simon of Keza

KIENGIR, according to the work (2005) by Láczay Ervin which I cannot read because I don't know Hungarian, you edited in the article that "Simon of Keza wrote at the end of the 13th century the Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum. In it he mentions both the Blacs (Blackis) and the Vlachs (Vlahis), as such, differentiating them. He writes that the Székelys (Zaculi) live together with the Blacs (Blackis) and use the Blacs' letters. The Szekelys historically used runes of Turkic origin. The Vlachs did not have a runic script", as well cited in the talk page "…Zakuli… cum Blackis in montibus confinii sortem habuerunt, unde Blacki conmixti literas ipsorum uti perhibentur".

We already discussed, and Simon of Keza didn't differentiate the Vlachs from the Blacs. In the English translation Deeds of the Hungarians (1999) by László Veszprémy, Frank Schaer is noted: on pg. 54 The Blacki (i.e. Vlachi 'Vlachs') probably refers to the Romanians, cf. the Anonymus, ch. 9: Blachi ac pastores Romanorum. The same consideration has Victor Spinei in The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century (2009, pg. 79); on pg. 71 is translated Székely... However, this was not in the plains of Pannonia but in the mountains, which they shared with the Vlachs, mingling with them, it is said, and adopting their alphabet, note 3 their language preserved no ancient, non-Hungarian features and is already Magyar in the earliest sources... On the border region of Transylvania, Romanians and Székely lived side-by-side from the 12th century. Simon may have seen runic script - which he believes to be of Vlach/Romanian origin - on medieval Székely monuments, several of which survive. The inscriptions are probably written in an ancient Hungarian runic alphabet, in which oriental Turkish runes were adapted to the Hungarian language - an indication of the ethnic diversity of the Hungarians of the 9th-10th centuries (Gyorffy-Harmatta, "Rovasirasunk").

In the source there's no mention of Turkic Bulaqs or the Rásonyi's theory. The consideration will be neutrally edited according to the Review: Two Books by two Sandors about the Origins of Hungarians (2013) pg. 200.--Crovata (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Crovata,

please head to the end of the Ferenczi section, there we continued this discussion, I have just written here, Kézai made the already a differentitation in an other work. We also already discussed what "ac pastores Romanorum means" as everyone properly understands it who knows latin and other English or other language translation reinforce this, that Blachi and pastores Romanorum is not equal. Just because some authors make a confusion and you can cite it (even other Hungarians or Spinei, however Kézait never wrote about "Romanians"), it does not mean other works cannot be cited on the contrary. In this controversial and debated issue, we should represent all viewpoints, the root of the problem, why Turkic theories emerged, if you personally don't support or even there are works that does not support a view, it does not mean we should exile other works - anyway the main root cause - of emerging Turkic theories also reinforced by a secondary source, more sholar work based on more primary sources, but please read above the end the other section. Under such pretext you could have wanted to remove almost everything from the scolarship section, but this is not the right way (also none of the Daco-Roman theory or the migrationist theory is deleted or exiled because they are contradicting). We understood that you support the deletion of the article, but please be fair, and do not make objections adding the modified proper content of the source (please note I did not know that the original content was cited properly or not, now I checked and fixed it).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, what is the other work of Kézai you refer to above? Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Chronicum Hungaricum.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

Chronicum Pictum

KIENGIR edited that "Ferenczi states that it is possible that Márk Kálti the author of the Chronicon Pictum didn't make a mistake when he identified the "Olaci, Volaci, Valaci" people with the Turkic B(u)laks and these B(u)laks migrated from the Volga River west to the lower Danube area during the Migration Period or later". I am doing research in Chronicon Budense (1838) and Chronica Hungarorum (1883) and can't find any mention of "Olaci, Volcai, Valaci, Blaks", only Vlachi, Vlachos and Vlachorum. Can someone confirm Ferenczi's statement?--Crovata (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The Chronicum Pictum is from around 1358. You should search in that chronicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpabogar (talk • contribs) 02:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The above translation is correct. It proves that Ferenczi does not accept the theory, in contrast with Arpabogar's claim. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka Please be careful what you are writing, I did not write that sentence, so don't accuse me of anything. I think KIENGIR wrote it. I don't understand what Borsoka and Crovata say, but KIENGIR could you clarify? Borsoka what proves that Ferenczi did not accept the theory? (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Arpabogar, you claimed that Ferenczi supports the theory ([3]). However, he does not support it, as it is clear based on his above statement ("it is possible..."). Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, Ferenczi clearly supports the theory (read the referenced article). But the above sentence, if you are talking about that, was not written by me, and as I see it, it was misunderstood. Ferenczi means actually the opposite: that Mark Kalti probably made a mistake by identifying the Vlachs with the Bulaks. And now I think that not KIENGIR wrote the sentence but Fakirbakir Arpabogar (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I read the article and I have already asked you to quote his text which proves that he supports the theory. You have not quoted it yet. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Arpabogar they include translations of the 1358 work. Borsoka If the translation is correct, how it proves that Ferenczi didn't accept the theory? --Crovata (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

He writes "it is possible..." Borsoka (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, please read and translate the Ferenczi's quote "A rendelkezésre álló források együttes tanúsága értelmében elsősorban a Képes Krónikát összeállított Márk barát alighanem hibázott a későbbi oklevelekben Olaci, Volaci, Valaci stb. néven fölbukkanó új-latin nyelvű népnek a keleti eredetű, esetleg a dunai bolgárokkal, azután a „kettős honfoglaláskor", de esetleg csak később tájainkra sodródott, azonos művel tségűnek látszó s azokkal talán szorosan együtt is élt b(u)lak néptöredékkel való azonosításkor? Egy részük az egy időben Erdély nagy részét is birtokolt bolgároktól elszakadva bérces szűkebb hazánkban is maradhatott, és a később ide érkezett székelyekkel olvadhatott össze. A Balkán-félszigetre került ága pedig a bolgár-török népesség végzetében osztozhatott". Is the quote notable, correct or anything enough to be cited in the article?--Crovata (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe my translation wasn't too good but I try it again. "Along the testimony of all the known sources, whether Mark the monk who compiled the book called Chronicum Pictum made a mistake when he identified a new-Latin speaking people appearing in latter records as "Olaci, Volaci, Valaci" with the B(u)laks who had seemingly identical cultural markers and migrated into our lands with the Danube Bulgars, or migrated at the time of the "Double Conquest", or possibly later, and these two perhaps lived together? A part of them may have stayed in Transylvania, separated from the Bulgars who once controlled the whole area, and they may have been merged into the Szeklers who arrived into the area later. Another part of them who got to the Balkan-peninsula might have shared the fate of the Turkic Bulgars" Fakirbakir (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Think I will remove the statement because it is too vague, doesn't support or bring something factual and constructive to the article.--Crovata (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

However it's quite important what the Chronicum Pictum states IMO. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It obviously isn't as I cannot confirm it.--Crovata (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe somebody else can. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Arpabogar, sorry I lost among so many information...if I still should, what should I clarify?(KIENGIR (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

That is ok, I mistakenly thought that you wrote the above sentence from Ferenczi. But Fakirbakir clarified it. Thanks.

István Vásáry

Wanted to add that István Vásáry didn't deal with the topic. From your quotes it seems that he has maybe a few paragraphs about the subject in which he expresses that he does not agree with the theory but he specifically says that "I do no regard it as my task to prove here that his (Rasonyi) idea cannot be sustained, I would simply remark that it was again nationalism that lay behind this theory". But he does not list any arguments or does not prove anything, he does not prove that nationalsim was behind the theory either.Arpabogar (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Vásáry clearly wrote about the topic, what he meant about the specific statement is that the topic of the source isn't about the in-depth review of the theory which cannot be sustained. It is your personal problem and ignorance when don't understand (both Vásáry and Sinei), and don't want to accept the nationalistic reality behind the Hungarian-Romanian dispute about Transylvania.--Crovata (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Arpabogar, Vásáry did not deal with the topic because the theory is extremly weak. We know from other sources (for example, letters of Pope Innocent III and place names in Bulgaria) that the Vlachs/Blacs of the Bulgarian Empire spoke a Romance language. Consequently, Rubruck's report from the second half of the 13th century, that they had migrated from Bashkiria to Bulgaria in the 7th century can hardly be accepted. Therefore, any view based on Rubruck's report about a Turkic speaking Blac population in Transylvania can be described as a fringe theory. Similarly, a scholar who accepts Kézai's short remark about the Blacs' script adopted by the Székelys can create a Turkic-speaking population in Transylvania, similarly to the scholars who create Romanian principalities in Transylvania, Banat and Körösvidék based on the long narration of Anonymus. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka Is the above your original research? :) Obviously the Vlachs were speaking a Romance language. The article speaks about a possible different people called Bulaks, Blaks,... . We are discussing a serious topic here. You also have to mention sources when you write something, or in your view are you excepted? As I said before you are not fair and additionally you are not consequent.Arpabogar (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No, its not my own original research. Rubruck identified the Vlachs/Blacs of 13th-century Balkans as descendants of 7th-century migrants from Bashkiria. Rubruck even differentiated "Blakia" in the Balkans from Bulgaria. (Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. Koninklijke Brill NV. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5. page 77-78.; Vásáry, István (2005). Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-83756-1. page 30.)

That is ok, I was just trying to make you consistent. But what does the above said has to do with Vasary? In addition, to your comment, the theory is not solely based on Rubrucks's report, Rasonyi for example used mainly liguistic arguments, Czegledy did research about Karluk tribes...Arpabogar (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know. They mixed Rubruck's identification of the Vlachs of Bulgaria as a Turkic people with Kézai's remark about the Transylvanian Blacks' allegedly existing script and with the Turkic hydronyms of Transylvania. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Crovata, if a theory could be deleted from WP just because it was driven by nationalism, we should substantially rewrite WP and ignore thousands of scholarly works about history. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, I did not say such an argument.--Crovata (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Identification with Vlachs"

Bulaqs are Turkic people, while Vlachs are an Eastern Romance people, so how can they be identified with each other? 123Steller (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Crovata, you should NOT remove Makkay's source. He is a well-known scholar. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand the article and sources - the theory is that the European Blaci (Eastern Romance Vlachs) in Transylvania were Turkic Bulaqs. The source by Makkay can be listed, but not cited because the information is redudant, and the specific theory is Wikipedia:Out of scope.--Crovata (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you heard about "history of scholarship"? The information is NOT redundant, you are biased toward the subject. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If I remember right you were the one who blatantly refused to listen to me yesterday until Borsoka "enlightened" you... Get off the high horse. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is now about Bulaqs, not a fringe, minor theory about the European Blaci (Vlachs) being Turkic Bulaqs. It was already discussed, the theory alone doesn't have enough notability for a stand-alone article, and neither it should be given more WP:WEIGHT it is already given.--Crovata (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that me and you can't decide if a theory is notable or not. Frankly I didn't know too much about the subject, however, after reading the opinions of people like Pais, Tardy, Rasonyi, Ferenczi etc who are known scholars I have to say that this currently refuted theory itself would deserve a separate article because it seems notable enough. We must not threat the currently accepted historical theories as dogmas. There are still unanswered questions in this topic. It's just my private opinion, of course. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You and I have nothing to decide, your or mine private subjective opinion has no value, but the difference between mine and your's is that I edit neutrally according to objective and reliable source. As such, both of you please stop abusing the article. Your edits are more disruptive rather than constructive. There several notable and reliable modern scholars who are clear that the theory is not notable and valid enough for any serious consideration. Your understand of the scholarship or encyclopedia is disturbingly wrong.--Crovata (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive? You have no idea what you are talking about... You should thank me that I changed my mind and pointed your attention toward the "Bulaq" people. You like to humiliate people, Crovata. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You didn't point my attention toward Bulaqs. Stop misunderstanding the sources, facts and the article.--Crovata (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did [4].Fakirbakir (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop forcing your personal opinion down on other people's throat. Stop deleting important information (e.g. Kalti's Chronicon Pictum). Fakirbakir (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You really don't understand that I mentioned "where's a reference that the mentioned Blaci are related to Bulaqs... the thesis about Turkic Blaci is wrong". It is not important since it's wrong.--Crovata (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Steller, the answer to your question is about a similar etymology and name in the sources, i.e. Blacki, Blaci, Blaci, Blaq, Bulaqs, Bulak, Blachi, Blachij, Vlach, Olah, Ulahis, Olacos etc. sometimes only one letter difference.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. " Quote from WP:NPOV. Crovata stop trying to present the minority side in a negative manner. This article should be fair. Even if there is a minority side presented you should try to avoid negative comments like "fallacious", "unsuccessfully", "erroneously" ... even if you are quoting sources, which you are not by the way because you don't use quotation marks. Others and I have have also warned you please stop edit warring.Arpabogar (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You should read again about the NPOV.--Crovata (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)