Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buta-ul

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. v/r - TP 15:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buta-ul

[edit]
Buta-ul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no reliable sources discussing about Buta-ul, "the ruler of two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska, and across the Tisa". It looks like either original research or a fringe theory. Daizus (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Daizus (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Daizus (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Daizus (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Daizus (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I don't see it on any of these deletion lists. Agricolae (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This book and this one would appear to confirm, at minimum, that the name Buta-ul is verifiable, and also bear out the article's claim that he held the title zupan. Other sources would appear to discuss this name in Hungarian, but Hungarian sources might as well be written in Hungarian for all the sense I can make out of them. My usual rule of thumb is that people who lived before movable type are notable by having their names written down somewhere in a preserved text. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name and the title (župan) exist, they are inscribed on a vessel from the treasure of Nagyszentmiklós ([1] [2]). However this is all what can be said about the man. I think the rest of his biography is a fiction, or at best is supported by some fringe authors (I assume rather Serbian than Hungarian, the only book mentioned in bibliography is in Serbian). Should we have a perma-stub, or to avoid WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK (this article was used to promote this "ruler" and his "lands" in other pages: [3] [4] [5]) should we only mention the name in the context of other topics and delete this article? I vote for the second option. Daizus (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a fascinating treasure! If this is a verifiable historical figure, I'd say keep the article but remove any original research. Even if all that leaves is a slight stub, this is also true of many other historical figures; they're going to be stubs because little has been preserved about them, but they are still historical figures that belong in an encyclopedia. If any of the speculation about how the treasure came to be buried has been published by academic sources, that too might belong in an article about this fellow. Edits motivated by Eastern European ethnic politics probably ought to be reverted on sight; I know little because I don't care even a little bit: but this dude and his hoard of gold should still have an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daizus, "You think that the rest of his biography is a fiction"? And that is supposed to be a reason for deletion of this article? How exactly is something what you think not an example of your original research? Do you have any notable/reliable source or author who claims that "Buta-ul is a fiction" or that info about him comes from "fringe authors"? All in all, Buta-ul is mentioned in an original source (treasure of Nagyszentmiklós), which you admitted by yourself, and he is mentioned in secondary sources as well. Due to the fact that he was an local ruler, he is person notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. And what you mean by "used to promote this ruler"? How exactly mentioning of an historical ruler in Wikipedia articles is an "promotion"? By your logic, we "promoting" in Wikipedia all subjects about which we have an article. And why should we "mention the name in the context of other topics"? Do you imply that we should also delete article about Barack Obama and mention him "in the context of other topics"? PANONIAN 15:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for input, Ihcoyc!
Panonian, I already cited two authors and the only agreement on the inscription is that is virtually untranslated and that is about two men/titles: Butaul and Buyla, both mentioned in the connection with the title župan. Thus the rest of the biography is fictional, since there's no reliable source to back it up. I don't mind having an article about Butaul if it would stay as a stub, but I do mind articles and maps about fictional realities, especially when they are not notable. The straw men you raised, no offense, deserve no further attention. Daizus (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please post here exact citations (with links) which claiming that "the rest of the biography is fictional". There is no evidence that Tutorov simply "invented rest of biography" as you suggesting. He lists his bibliography in his book, but he did not specified from which source he took info about Buta-ul. That, however, certainly does not mean that he invented the thing. I will examine additional sources in google books and then I will present additional data. PANONIAN 16:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - excuse me, but I listed my original reference on which I based this article: Milan Tutorov, Banatska rapsodija - istorika Zrenjanina i Banata, Novi Sad, 2001. All info about Buta-ul that is written in this article comes from there. Therefore: 1. article is not my original research, 2. it is not a fringe theory, and 3. source from which info about Buta-ul came is reliable. I admit that it is not good that article is based on a single source, but there are additional sources about Buta-ul (and User:Ihcoyc already provided some additional sources here). Anyway, I can easily post links to additional sources into article and I can expand it with additional info from these sources. I see no any valid reason for this deletion proposal. The fact that user:Daizus is not informed well about this subject does not mean that we should delete this article. PANONIAN 15:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided two references, and I can provide many more for the fact the inscription has no accepted translation, and certainly not "Butaul, the ruler of two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska, and across the Tisa". I don't see how Tutorov's theory (if your summary is fair, but I will WP:AGF based on your testimony above) is anything but fringe, I also don't see what makes that book a reliable source. Feel free to cite any book authored by non-Serbian scholars attesting the "two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska" and the reign of Buta-ul in these lands and across the Tisa. Daizus (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did not provided any source that claims that Buta-ul did not existed or that we deal here with "fringe theory". Tutorov and other sources are mentioning that župan Buta-ul existed and the only things that opposing this are your unsourced opinions and your own original research. As for correct translation from Serbian to English, I can agree that my original translation was not the best one, but I will see to improve it. And Tutorov is reliable source because he is an recognized Serbian historian and because he wrote very good book about history of Banat (Buta-ul is only one of the subjects that are mentioned in his book). PANONIAN 15:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE (Tutorov's theories, if they are only his, should be represented at most only in an article about the man). Then please consult the verdicts of Falko Daim (and the next page), András Róna-Tas (and the next page), Agustí Alemany. Can you cite a non-Serbian scholar supporting Tutorov's "translation" and theory? Can you provide evidence that this book is reliable source and not fringe? Publishing house? The author's academic degrees and recognition? Reviews? Citations? Preferably at least some from sources outside Serbia? Daizus (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found one source here: [6] (Quotation: "Buyla, der Großfürst des Zwei-Geten-Landes von der Theiß Buta-ul, der Taiß(Teiß) -Fürst des Tagro-Landes und des Etzi-Landes" (English translation from google translate: "Buyla, the Grand Duke of the two-country Getae-Buta-ul of the Tisza, the Taiß (Tisza) Prince of Tagro-country and country-Etzi"). Clearly, this source confirms info that comes from Tutorov, but with slightly different interpretation. We can discuss about most correct interpretation, of course, but this is clear evidence against your accusations for "original research" or "fringe theory". As for sources that you provided, can you please properly quote these sources. Which sentence in these sources is supportung your claims? PANONIAN 16:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that quote is evidence for your claim, because Mészáros's reading (1915) while somewhat similar is nevertheless different. If Tutorov's reading doesn't have the proper support (perhaps he cites Mészáros, and the differences are caused by translations from one language to another), there's no discussion, it's fringe and such tiny minority views deserve no representation, certainly not an entire biography. András Róna-Tas (the same author you quoted) concludes: "the language of the inscription [...] has so far not been satisfactorily deciphered. It is very probable that they are in a Turkic language [...] attempts to decipher the inscriptions have so far proved inconclusive". Agustí Alemany: "almost all scholars share the opinion that it is written in a from of Turkic [...] its decipherment remains a challenge in spite of many attempts and there is only general agreement that the words βουηλα ζοαπαν and βουταυλ ζωαπαν are a combination of Turkic čupan or - most probably - Slavic župan with the Turkic names/titles Buyla [...] and Butaul." So all what can be said about "Butaul" is that according to most scholars is a title or a name, used in combination with the title župan. This is a mention which can be made in the article about the treasure. If you want also to create a stub on Butaul - name or title - I don't mind it only if it stays like that and it does not become a pretext for Serbian protochronic theories. Daizus (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain yourself from attempts to make an ethnic dispute from this. Serbian historian Tutorov claims that Buta-ul was Avar and I do not see how this claim could be an example of "ethno-centric view" or "Serbian theory"? (Avars and Serbs are completely unrelated peoples and I simply do not see how mention of an Avar ruler can imply any political favor for history of Serbian statehood). German source that I provided in fact contains exactly same data as book of Serbian author Tutorov and the only thing that might be wrong here is correctness of some parts of Serbian translation in Tutorov's book. In this German source, lands ruled by Buta-ul are mentioned as "Tagro-Landes" and "Etzi landes" (which Tutorov translated in Serbian as "Targorska" and "Eciska"). I am not saying that we should use these Serbian name versions in our article, in fact, the only reason why I used these name versions is because I was not aware of any other name versions when I wrote this article. As for claims that accuracy of translation of original text is disputed by some authors, that info can be mentioned in the article, but due to the fact that there are sources which claiming that text from treasure says that there was an ruler with title župan and name Buta-ul, who ruled Banat and Bačka, I see no reason why we should not have article about that ruler. For example, we have an article about Romanian ruler Gelou, who, according to some opinions, did not really existed and was invented by the author of an medieval chronicle. We also have articles about completely fictional characters like He-Man and Skeletor and yet, you claim that we should not have article about an ruler whose name is mentioned in an archaeological finding (and due to the fact that he is mentioned in an archaeological finding, Buta-ul deserves to have his own article more than Gelou, He-Man and Skeletor all together). PANONIAN 18:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the article is only sourced by Milan Tutorov, a Serbian author, and it is about a ruler of some Slavic-sounding names (Targorska and Eciska, dubbed also as Getic lands; changing Tagro - see inscription's text below - to Targorska is dubious, perhaps alluding to Slavic *tъrgъ?). Whether this is a failure in translation or something else, I can't say, I only observed the lack of support in other sources for such a interpretation and for this biography. I also have no idea why Mészáros' two chiefs (Buyla and Buta-ul) transformed into one, thus prompting the image of a single reigndom, incidentally (in your article and on your map) covering the territory of today Bačka and Banat (which again is not supported by other sources). You say "the German source" (sic!) holds the same data, but I don't see it claiming Buta-ul as the ruler of the two Getic lands, nor the ruler of lands across the Tisa. Is this Tutorov's theory (whose book is still not proven as a reliable source), or yours, I'm not sure if it matters that much. And even if we consider what's common in the two translations, I don't think the mention of a župan ruling over the lands Tagro and Etzi qualifies for more than a controversial, unaccepted translation of the inscription (to be mentioned in a list of such translations, in the works of a scholar, or maybe not at all). As for the article on Gelou (possibly a fictional character), I couldn't care less about its existence, I personally think that one article about the historiography and discourses surrounding Gesta Hungarorum is enough. Daizus (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I explained why I used names "Targorska and Eciska". For some reason you are not satisfied with my explanation and you implying that I am forcing some "Slavic-sounding names" here (for your information, Serbian language translating all foreign names and therefore you usually cannot find such names in original form in Serbian literature). I will change these names as soon as I find more free time to improve the article. Also, we indeed have an issue with two rulers instead with one. So, perhaps we should create another article about ruler Buyla. As soon as you stop your ridiculous deletion campaign, we can have serious discussion how and where exactly we should mention these two rulers (I will also change map in accordance with new info about two rulers that we saw). PANONIAN 19:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understood my point. It's not only a suffix (but checking on sr.wiki, I see many names are not "translated"), but also changing Tagro for Targo- (e.g. Magreb not Margeb). Furthermore, when the new "Buta-ul" was created from Buyla and Butaul, his title also changed from župan to veliki župan (of Banat and Bačka). As I said above, all these may be related to bad translations, however this episode is "too Slavic". Daizus (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too Slavic??? Title Großžupan (equivalent to "veliki župan") could be found in this German source too: [7]. Anyway, whether Serbian translation of Tutorov is correct or not is now irrelevant since article is primarily based on other sources, while claims of Tutorov are mentioned only in the end of one article section. PANONIAN 14:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be almost impossible to overstate how deeply I don't care about whether this dude was a Serb, a Hungarian, a Mongreelian, or whatever. What this discussion suggests to me is that there's a fairly extensive body of literature interpreting this name and this find, and that various bits of the research may have been highjacked for nationalistic purposes. Given this development, the claim "There are no reliable sources discussing about Buta-ul" seems to be decisively falsified. In situations like this, probably the best thing to do would be to give a synopsis of the several theories and who advocates them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not engage in groundless accusations. My claim was "There are no reliable sources discussing about Buta-ul, 'the ruler of two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska, and across the Tisa'" and I stand by it, as despite your and Panonian's efforts, we still have no reliable source discussing about this guy (and to be sure, nor about Butaul, "the Avar noble who ruled the Banat and Bačka regions in the 8th century", as claimed in the lead). There are sources about some other Butaul, no doubt. Daizus (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daizus, your claim is not supported by any evidence. I agree with User:Ihcoyc that article about Buta-ul should mention what various sources are claiming about Buta-ul. I am not saying that book of Tutorov should be a base for this article. Once this ridiculous time-wasting deletion proposal is over, we can discuss how this article should look. PANONIAN 18:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the inscription is currently missing, but one translation (very similar to Thomsen's, see p. 135) is already quoted in Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. I took notice of your suggestion, but I still don't understand why this inscription should not be discussed in this article, more precisely what kind of information is appropriate for Butaul but not for Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. Daizus (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why we should mention Buta-ul only in article about "Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós"? By my opinion, an ruler is much more important subject than his buried treasure (and according to Tutorov, that treasure belonged to him). Perhaps we should merge "Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós" article into article about Buta-ul (or keep both articles separate, what ever). PANONIAN 18:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not even sure he's a ruler, we don't know nothing about the man! Your suggestion that we should rather merge the treasure article into this one is why I believe this article is a WP:COATRACK and that's why there's more harm than good to keep it. Daizus (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We know what sources are telling to us and I will properly quote these sources in the article. PANONIAN 09:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with these personal accusations. I reverted you because your edits were clear examples of vandalism - you obviously want to annihilate this article and therefore you also trying to annihilate links that lead to it from other articles. You have right to open deletion proposal, but unless your proposal turn into successful one, you have no right to remove links that leading readers to an existing article. Anyway, I will improve this article as soon as today and it will be primarily based on references from google books. PANONIAN 09:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:VANDALISM and stop raising straw men. Nothing in this discussion or in the rescue attempt showed anything about the "lands of Buta-ul", the information which I removed from those three pages. Daizus (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You want to delete article named "Buta-ul" not "lands of Buta-ul", so please do not twist facts here. PANONIAN 10:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can vote any way I want. From your gaming (my edits do not qualify for vandalism) and reverts above I see that you use this article to write about the "lands of Buta-ul" in other articles concerning the history of Banat and Vojvodina. That's original research and POV pushing and I expressed both these concerns in my comments above. If you can't follow my rationale, at least please refrain from replying, it's rather your attitude that motivated my decision: I am still unconvinced by the current rescue attempt. Daizus (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote these things in accordance with original source that I used and I was not aware about info from other sources. I will change info in these other articles so that it reflects data from multiple sources. PANONIAN 14:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: due to some objections of user:Daizus I rewrote the article and it is now primarily based on sources from google books and not on a book of historian Milan Tutorov. Also, I collected here some additional references that speaking bout Butaul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Butaul#List_of_references Therefore, I believe that, due to all these references, this deletion proposal should be declined. PANONIAN 14:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while I agree that opinion that Butaul was a name is not "universally accepted", it is at least "mostly accepted". I see no reason that we do not have an article that discussing this name and various theories and opinions about it. Article about Butaul already have enough text and it could be potentially expanded with info from other sources. I believe that Wikipedia practice supports creation of separate sub-articles in the case when sub-subjects are elaborated with large amount of info and when that info would disrupt main storyline in parent-article (In this case, article about treasure might be seen as an parent-article, while article about Butaul as an sub-article, which further elaborates one specific issue). There is also question of categorization and existing inter-wiki links, which simply could not be merged into article about treasure. Finally, treasure is example of an historical source, while Butaul is name mentioned in this source. I do not think that Wikipedia practices are supporting idea that articles about historical persons are merged with articles about historical sources that are speaking about them. PANONIAN 07:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously there are sources, it's just that someone "doesn't like" the sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buta-ul&oldid=1137662389"