From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This is a talk page. Please don't write articles here --Codrin.B (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Bolokhoveni in 1015[edit]

Please read carefully in Spinei: "Vlachs were engaged in the disputes for the Kievan throne, beginning with 1015".(page 105) If Bolokhoveni are near Kiev, you have to agree that they were Vlachs or Bolokhoveni. I know you are angry but the text is from Spinei. Please do not erase references. Eurocentral (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"...If Bolokhoveni are near Kiev, you have to agree that they were... Bolokhoveni..." (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Read these (Hypatian Chronicle is not the only chronicle): V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic NomadsNorth of the Danube Deltafrom the Tenth to theMid-Thirteenth Century Brill, 2009, pp 104-105

S. H. Cross, “Yaroslav the Wise in Norse tradition,” Speculum 4 (1929), pp 186–191

Eurocentral (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, please read what WP:NOR means. Please also read Spinei's view on their identification as Vlachs (Spinei 2009, pp. 161-162): "...controversial is the ethnicity of the Bolokhovens, a population mentioned as living in the Rus region to the northeast from Moldavia..", "..the idea that the Bolokhoveni were Rus is also supported by evidence of relations between Bolokhoven princes and Galician noble families...". Borsoka (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Map of western Rus[edit]

Dimnik writes that the land of Bolokhoveni bordered on the principalities of Halych, Volhynia and Kiev in the middle 13th century. What is the problem with a map presenting those three principalities in the same period? Borsoka (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the page of Bolokhoveni. Please do not provoke conficts ! Put the map of Galicia to Galicia Wiki page!

Please respect WIKI rules! Only data abot Bolokhoveni are acceptable. If you create a precedent, there be a revolution in all pages. Tomorrow the the users from Kiev will put their map on this page ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read my remarks before answering them. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear Anonym, for the time being the article provides a map which presents a POV of the land of the Bolokhoveni. If you read the text of the article and the referred reliable sources (the works of the historians Dimnik and Spinei) you may understand, that there is a significant POV according to which the Bolokhoveni dwelled somewhere in the lands along the borders of the principalities of Halych, Volhynia and Kiev in the middle 13th century. The map you have been deleting presents this region in the same period. Why should we delete it? Borsoka (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an attack against normal rules. ONLY DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TOPIC ARE ADMISIBLE. Your document is about GALICIA and from another ERA ! Read the title of the page and bring documents about Bolokhoveni not about Galicians!

Hi, I am surprised to see this fight about maps. Probably user Borsoka wants to say: "I do not agree with Bolokhoveni history" and put his map in a wrong place. Maybe he is from Galicia. If you read in talk page what he wrote you'll understand his negationist position. Obstructioning Bolokhoveni page with maps from other countries is not a good idea. With best regards, Nicky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you please specifically refer to the rule of our community which would be "attacked" if this map were added? Please take into account, that the map presents the borderlands of the principalities of Halych, Volhynia and Kiev, where the land of Bolokhoveni was located in the same region, according to a reliable source cited in the article (Dimnik). Borsoka (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reasons why the Rus map is not accepted:

1. It is a map of a foreign state

2. It has No data about Bolokhoveni

3. Has a dubious contour

4. It is useless

If we discuss about technical errors:

a. It has not documented data

b. It overlaps a territory that does not belong to Galicia

c. The contour is not found in medieval documents

d. It missed the Uşiţa entering town in Galicia

e. Old documents showed that Andronicus (future Emperor) entered Galicia through Uşiţa; also Spinei showed that Uşiţa was the most advanced Galician town to Southern. So your map is a caricature. Sorry but this is the situation. Eurocentral (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right: the map does not contain any reference to its source, therefore it is not verifiable. Please apply the same rule to the map you designed: it also lacks any reference to a reliable source. It contradicts to the map presented in Dimnik's book (Dimnik 1981, p. 335), which present a much smaller territory along the uppermost courses of the rivers Sluch and Southern Bug. Borsoka (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


I've just fully protected this article due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the matter here on the talk page instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mark Arsten, thank you for your action, even if it protects the status quo instead of the status quo ante. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Borokhov's location[edit]

I am not sure but Borokhov seems to be identical with present-day Borokhiv, Volyns'ka oblast, Ukraine (eastward from city of Lutsk). ‎Fakirbakir (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not know. But Borokhiv might be the Ukrainian / modern version of the same name. Borsoka (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ushitsa in Spinei's work[edit]

Yes, Spinei actually writes of Ushitsa and makes it clear that this town was located on the southern border of Halych / Galicia. However, he writes of the town in connection with a military action by Ivan Berladnik and his Cuman and Berladnik allies in 1159. He does not make any reference to Bolokhoveni in connection with the event. Furthermore, he clearly states that the Bolokhoveni lived somewhere to the north-east of Moldavia, not to the south of Halych / Galicia. It is also clear that Spinei does not identify the Bolokhoveni as Vlachs. Therefore any reference to his work in order to prove that the Bolokhoveni lived to the south of Halych contradicts to WP:SYNTH. (I refer to Spinei 2009, pp. 131., 161-162.) Borsoka (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bolokhoveni/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, I will conduct a thorough and comprehensive review of this article for Good Article status within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Borsoka, I have completed both a thorough review and re-review of this article, and I find that your article meets the bulk of criteria for induction to Good Article status. Before its final passage however, I do have some comments and questions that must first be addressed. Thank you for all your hard work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Caponer, thank you for your thorogh review of the article. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:


  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the topic of the Bolokhoveni ethnic group, establishes the necessary context for the group, and explains why the group is notable and historically relevant.
  • In the first sentence of the lede, I suggest a rewording to the effect of: "were a 13th-century that resided primarily in..."
    • Thank you. The sentence was modified. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The sack of Kiev by the Mongols should be wiki-linked in the lede, as it is in the History section.
    • Thank you. WL was added. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.


  • To provide the relevance of the Chronicle's naming of the medieval Bolokhovo settlement, it may be necessary to explain that the chronicle is considered an important source of historical data for southern Rus'.
    • Thank you. Info added. Pleas let me know if further info is necessary. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The "land of Bolokhoveni" map graphic is licensed Creative Commons and is therefore free for use in this article.
  • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.


  • The Bolokhoveni's land map is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore free for use in this article. I suggest that this image be relocated to this section under the section heading in order to space the images throughout the article.
    • Sorry, I do not understand your above suggestion. Would you clarify it for me? Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Borsoka, I just thought it would be more aesthetically pleasing to move the one of the maps down the Geography section from Etymology. Let me know if this works for you. -- Caponer (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.


  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, Poland does not need to be wiki-linked in the second paragraph.
    • Thank you. WL was deleted. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the third paragraph, I recommend using "conflicts" rather than "fights" but this is merely a suggestion.
    • Thank you. The text was modified. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, inline citations should be consolidated in numerical order at the end of sentences.
    • Thank you. Citations were consolidated in numerical order. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Do any other sources or references indicated that the Bolokhoveni disappeared after they were defeated by Romanovich's troops in 1257?
    • Thank you. I rewrote the last sentence which may clarify the issue. Please let me know if further info is necessary. Borsoka (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Borsoka, as always, you have written a phenomenal article. You have addressed each of my comments, questions, and concerns in a timely manner, and upon re-review I find that this article meets all criteria necessary to fulfill Good Article status. Thank you and congratulations! -- Caponer (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)