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)

Borsoka Ferenczi clearly argues for the case of the Blaks/Bulaks and Ivlachs as a separate people from the Vlachs. He enlists several arguments based on medieval sources and he is convinced. Fakirbakir translated most of Ferenczi's arguments. And then he continues that it is likely that Márk Kálti, who wrote Chronicon Pictum, made a mistake when he identified the Olaci, Volaci, Valaci with the Blaks/Bulaks (Ferenczi's "alighanem" = "likely as not" in English, "alighanem"= "probabilmente" in Italian). So Ferenczi can clearly be mentioned as someone who accepts Rasonyi's theory.Arpabogar (talk) 19:08, 1 December 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.Arpabogar (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

Crovata It is not proper behavior that you attack people personally, you did it with me and as I see you did it with others as well.

Saying the truth is not a personal attack. Without anything constructive to say you're now accusing me for personal attacks.--Crovata (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You know very well what I mean. You tried to call me ignorant, that I have a personal problem and you "advised" me to learn to read English on your personal talk page, when I tried to discuss with you in a civil manner. And as I see it you try to bully other people as well.Arpabogar (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't. You several time showed obvious and intentional ignorance of the topic issues, and that is your problem. Well I am sorry if you don't understand the difference between civility, political correctness and deliberate irritation - because this is clearly stupid. If anything else, now I feel offended because you're the one personal attacking-labeling me for uncivil manner and bullying - that is a typical next step when someone doesn't have any better constructive argument related to the article.--Crovata (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you just call me stupid?Arpabogar (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't, read again.--Crovata (talk) 16:21, 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)

Some remarks

I think, there are multiple issues to be addressed in connection with the article. I try to list them below, along with my suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(1) Title

(1a) The present title of the article is obviously a misunderstanding. "Blacorum" is the Latin plural possessive form of the word Blac.

(1b) The theory presented in the article associates the "Blacs" of the Gesta Hungarorum and Kézai's chronicle with the Bulaqs, a Turkic people. Consequently, if this theory is notable enough, it should be mentioned in the articles dedicated to the Bulaqs and Vlachs.

(2) Notability

(2a) The theory claims that a group of Turkic-speaking Bulaqs moved from Bashkiria to Bulgaria/Transylvania in the late 7th century and they survived at least till the 10th century to teach the Székelys their script. The theory is based on the following facts:

(2ai) The late 13th-century Rubruck mentioned that the Vlachs of the Second Bulgarian Empire were descended from a group of Bulaqs "Illacs" who had migrated to Bulgaria in the late 7th century. Later, Bacon repeated this theory and two 16th-century cartographers placed the Blaci to the north of the Black Sea.

Rubruck, Bacon and other medieval authors did not relate the Vlachs with Bulaqs - that's the theory's speculation.--Crovata (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The theory of Rasonyi, Ferenczi, Bodor does not say that Rubruck identified the Blacs with the Vlachs. They say that Rubruck and Bacon were speaking about a different people than the Vlachs who appear also in the lower Danube area. This point is really important to understand.Arpabogar (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

"The idea of a correspondence between the Blacs in the Carpathian-Balkan area and the Bulaq tribe in the Ural Mountains was probably suggested ... by a remark made by William of Rubruck... [Rubruck] signalled a population called Illac, beyond [Bashkiria], whose real name he considered to be Blac, the same name as that of ... the Vlachs in Asenid Bulgaria. ... Rubruck knew that the Bulgars of the Balkans were natives from Bulgaria Magna..." (Spinei 2009, page 77-78.)

"was probably suggested to G. Bodor and L. Rasonyi by a remark made by William of Rubruck" (Spinei 2009, page 77).--Crovata (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

? Borsoka (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you reply to my remark about the article below? You made a mistake "Rubruck mentioned that the Vlachs of the Second Bulgarian Empire were descended from a group of Bulaqs" is not a fact because Rubruck (and other medieval authors) did not mention that the Vlachs were related to the Bulaqs (as well the Bulaqs never lived in Bashkiria or near the Volga River) - this Vlachs-Bulaqs relation is theory's speculation - then you quoted the source by Spinei in which you did not include the part about G. Bodor and L. Rasonyi, then I did it in hope other editors would not misunderstand it.--Crovata (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I understand. You say, Rubruck does not write of the Bulaqs, but the Illac. Fair enough. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not true. Rubruck clearly writes about the Blacs as going west with the Huns: "With them also came the Blacs,the Bulgars and the Wandals." Pg 130 of William Rubrucks work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpabogar (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Blacs are not Bulaqs! William's erroneous remark about the Vlachs made up all this mess.--Crovata (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(2a2) The late 13th-century Kézai mentioned that the Székelys adopted their script from the Blacs. The Székely script is clearly connected to the scripts used by Turkic peoples.

(2a3) There are Transylvanian place names of Turkic origin, evidencing that a Turkic-speaking population lived in Transylvania. (Let's ignore that the presence of the Turkic-speaking Avars, Bulgars and Pechenegs in Transylvania is well documented.)

Do we think that the theory is well established?

(2b) The notability of the theory has not been verified. Eminent scholars of the history of the region (Vásáry, Spinei) say that it is a fringe theory which should not be detailed. The latest summary of Hungarian scholarship of the early medieval history of Hungary - Korai magyar történeti lexicon (9-14. század) [Enncyclopedia of the Early History of the Hungarians (9th-14h Centuries)], ISBN 963-05-6722-9 - concluded in 1994 that further evidence is needed to substantiate the theory.

Do we think that we can dedicate long sentences to the theory if reliable sources only make a short remark about it?

Rasonyi, Ferenczi, Makkay were also eminent scholars. Their theory desreves to be presented even if they are in a minority. Their theory should be presented without negative comments accoridng to WP:NPOV.

You don't know anything about NPOV. According to NPOV "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view". The refuted theory is refuted, and has almost none support. László Rásonyi died in 1984, György Bodor in 1976, Dezső Pais in 1973, Géza Nagy in 1915, János Makkay is 83 years old, while István Ferenczi died in 2000.--Crovata (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope the above summary contributes to the discussion. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, according to the revision, the current article should be renamed to Bulaqs (the less-used term Bulaks shouldn't be mentioned because it is the same thing with different spelling) be about them, and be interlinked with other articles like Karluks, Yagma among others. However, if we compare the amount of text directly related to the Turkic tribe, the refuted theory has been given too much WP:WEIGHT. The most of theory's information is already on the edge of the article scope, yet other editors, who don't understand the topic and its issues, constantly want to bring more and more redundant information. The theory's information should be reduced to the main points. First of all - the mention of the historical sources and remarks by previously mentioned scholars, while the paragraphs "There are several scholars... Géza Nagy, Dezső Pais and Makkay..." and "Following Pais's reasoning, Rásonyi says..." should be removed, this doesn't mean removal of the specific sources. The article should provide the references to the specific theory for those who want to read about it.--Crovata (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Would you, please, summarize what is your suggestion. Sorry, I am a really simple-minded person. I can only understand simple sentences and I am unable to read long discussions where everybody is only repeating their views. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Basically compare the same previous revision with the current revision.--Crovata (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Because you redirected here,I reinforce that you should keep Wiki rules as I had also to keep previously. You make continous reverts speculating outside the 24 hours, this is not fair. Status quo ante until if new consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC))

Moreover, not any theory was "refuted". This is a wordage and view you push, beucase this is what you support or like, but it is not working like so. The current vesrsion is totally neutral, it states the fact that a number of scholars made a different identification unlike others. No need to cause turmoil and conflict here. Also we do not judge the Daco-Roman Theory or The Finno-Ugrian theory as "refuted" or "proved" or any other theory, that is not clearly scientific and measurable.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC))

HAHAHA, Crovata, "who don't understand the topic and its issues" You've made my day. Your ignorant disruptive editing, continuous reverting piss everyone off. I assume you don't speak Hungarian therefore you can't read studies in Hungarian. Be honest you don't know this topic well. YOU ARE who doesn't understand others' approaches. I've never said that "this theory is "universally accepted". However it is a very interesting notable topic IMHO.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

About notability. This theory is NOT less than Phantom time hypothesis or Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia. Do they have their own article? Yes. Should we put down our dogmatic approach? Yes. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The minor fringe theory was and is refuted - the end. It doesn't have enough notability - the end. It must not be given undue weight - the end. With your replies you only showed that you don't understand, and do not want to understand how Wikipedia should be edited. Those theories can not be compared.--Crovata (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It is just your personal opinion. You wanted to delete the whole article a couple of days ago. You obviously don't know the topic. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

At the time the article was about the theory, and not about the Bulaqs. You two or three guys did not do one constructive edit about the Bulaqs, you only push information about the refuted theory. Also I simply don't understand the need for the verify tag because you have an easily accessible source, and the information can be found on the page 77. Also, the changed introduction is better because, "They were identified by a minority of scholars with the European Blaci or Blachi in Transylvania contrary to the generally accepted Vlachs", the Blaci and Blachi are the same term for the Vlachs, while the whole statement also gives the impression they were generally identified with the Vlachs - that statement to be correct should be reformatted as "The Blaci or Blachi in Transylvania were identified by a minority of scholars with the Bulaqs contraray to the generally accepted Vlachs".--Crovata (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

But your sentence is misleading. You don't understand my problem. Where did Schoner and other cartographers state that their "Blaci" had anything to do with Vlachs? He and other mapmakers ONLY placed a people named "Blaci" in the vicinity of the Volga River. The scholar Ferenczi is who stated that Schoner possibly displayed the Bulaq people. I don't think that their maps in the 16th century were based on Rubruck's story.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, the Ivlach people mentioned by Galonifontibus maybe refer to the Turkic Bulaqs in Eastern Europe and this possibility is NOT about the "Blaci/Vlach/Bulaq" problematic. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Where did Schoner and other cartographers state that their "Blaci" had anything to do with the Bulaqs? I already asked that question before, and it's more then clear that the "Blaci" on the map by Schoner are obviously those Blac or Il(i)ac near Magna Hungaria by William of Rubruck and Roger Bacon. Ferenczi's consideration is his own speculation which is related to the refuted theory (Blac=Bulaqs). The Ivlach or Ivlat are obviously related to the Rubruck's account (Tardy), and again Ferenczi is the own who speculated and related them to the Bulaqs, the same thing is with the Aulaqu (17th century, while the Bulaqs were conquered by the Russians in 1592).--Crovata (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Where does Spinei state that Schoner's map was based on Rubruck's story? Fakirbakir (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinei has nothing to do with the map...--Crovata (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Where does Ferenczi state that the word "Ivlach" has anything to do with Rubruck's account? Fakirbakir (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Ferenczi because I didn't edit him nor understand Hungarian. Tardy is the one who related the Ivlach with Rubruck.--Crovata (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It is very dangerous what Crovata is doing, he does not even respect wiki rules or considers different rules for himself than to others. The next harm of WP:BRD would be definetly considered as an edit war and disruptive editing. Nothing was "refuted", moreover a personal belief or view is not meant to override anyything, it has also nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Also I have to refuse that the "two or three guys" would not be contructive, they were not concentrating on mainly removing everything they don't like (and you repeat continously this "refuted" POV of yours. Moreover you did not push yet that version you presented here, anyway Fakirbakir has right, this was not about the "Blaci/Vlach/Bulaq" problematic.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC))

It is not refuted?! Sincerely, after all this discussion, I don't consider your opinion anymore. You don't understand and don't accept the way Wikipedia is edited. You don't understand the topic. You don't accept the reality of the theory. You don't accept that the theory is refuted, has almost none support, that almost every scholar is dead decades ago.--Crovata (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

"I don't consider your opinion anymore" -> this is against any Wiki principle, everyone's opinon has to be considered

"You don't understand and don't accept the way Wikipedia is edited" -> this must be a joke, I did not harm more times the WP:BRD process unlike you

"You don't understand the topic." -> I am sorry, you are definetly wrong, I perfectly understand the topic

"You don't accept that the theory is refuted" -> again you recurring statement. I don't know about any refute, just only that you are continously stating it, moreover you mix the things with possible support of any theory, that is a totally different case.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC))

I can't speak with you and take your opinion seriously when you intentionally ignore that the theory is refuted, and that is not my, but consideration by Vásáry, Madgearu and Spinei. Incredible. You two-three guys are doing everything to push the theory. I begin to suspect that your activity is not random. You intentionally ignore the reality of the whole issue.--Crovata (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Crovata you proved it several times that you are completely biased and you dont't respect WP rules. The topic has obviously two sides. Neither of them was refuted and both have to be presented fairly according to WP rules. The minority side has also prominent scholars expressing their views. Even if you don't agree with them, it is not up to you.Arpabogar (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not biased, you are! The topic is about the Bulaqs, you're discussing about the theory. The theory is refuted - the end. Stop to ignore the remark and conclusion by Vásáry, Madgearu and Spinei. The minority side is extreme minority because László Rásonyi died in 1984, György Bodor in 1976, Dezső Pais in 1973, Géza Nagy in 1915, János Makkay is 83 years old, while István Ferenczi died in 2000 - thus Makkay is the only theory supporter alive, and according to 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) 15:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Crovata, I did not ignore, deleted or removed or altered Vásáry, Madgareu or Spinei's view. We don't ignore any information, the article is much more better as it was initially, the aim is not to disrupt but develop. You should stop your bad faith accusations just because in some views you remain alone, this is not a good response after you continously ignored the editing rules (mainly WP:BRD).(KIENGIR (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC))

Arpabogar "both have to be presented fairly according to WP rules" - WRONG, read WP:WEIGHT - "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects... Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view", in other words "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view".--Crovata (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR You didn't ignore? "I don't know about any refute". That is more than enough.--Crovata (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

If you understood me properly, not any general or ultimate refute exists, just opposing viewpoints regarding theories, despite you push to make a general sentence, that is totally inappropriate (as also you were told by other theories). I don't think that such remarks like "worthless discussions with people who intentionally don't want to understand and accept the reality of the article and topic, even Wikipedia" would be proper and comply with good faith or stating that only you'd made the most contructive edits. You should calm down, it seems you try to make a mountain out of a molehill, much more peaceful approach would be needed.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC))

Crovata Nagy, Pais, Tardy, Rasonyi, Ferenczi and Makkay give "due weight". Fakirbakir (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No, they don't.--Crovata (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka I hear that you pride yourself in being impartial. Please have a look at Crovata's attitude. He broke the WP:3RR rule several times and he keeps attacking people in a personal way. He tried to intimidate me also, see above in the Istvan Vasary section. Why is it ok for him to delete important sections, revert the topics more than three times in 24H and so on and then the topic is left according to his edits because he is pushy?Arpabogar (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Literally, you're a waste of my time. Instead of editing more important article I have to waste my time on worthless discussions with people who intentionally don't want to understand and accept the reality of the article and topic, even Wikipedia, and to correct every redudant information, alteration or removal, and I am the one who made the most constructive edits about the article. What's even more incredible is your accusation to have intimidated you. That I am pushy? That I removed "important" sections? Do you understand how much your behavior is irritating and boring?--Crovata (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

So, Spinei SPECULATES that Schoner's work was based on Rubruck's story. Hahaha. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly based on Rubruck's story, i.e. the influential work by Roger Bacon.--Crovata (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What does Schoner's map have to do with "Vlach/Blaks/Bulaqs" theory? Fakirbakir (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't edit the map, if I'm not wrong, you did on 28 November. Well, the map visually mentions the Blaci from the Rubruck's story, and it is mentioned by Spinei (perhaps Schoner is also mentioned by others) in relation to the theory. Have you forgotten that you mentioned and discussed the map in the section "Istvan Ferenczi" above?--Crovata (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

But you were the one who continuously reverted me when I tried to move the map to its appropriate section. It possibly depicts the Bulaqs. I didn't want to keep it in the "Confusion with Vlachs" section because it can be misleading. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It does NOT depict the Bulaqs, and it DOES belong to the "Confusion with Vlachs" section.--Crovata (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It depicts a Turkic tribe regardless of Rubruck's "Vlach/Blaci" theory. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It does NOT depict a Turkic tribe.--Crovata (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Even If I accepted that Schoner's map is based uniquely on Rubruck's account (which I doubt) you entirely disregard the fact that Rubruck DID travel to Asia and made useful reports on peoples of Eurasia. He observed the "Blaci" folks irrespective of his origin theory. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Your personal opinion has no value, it's not a reliable reference, especially not even as an advice because of the lack of logic and criteria. He didn't mention any Bulaqs, and the Blaci are not the Bulaqs. The theory is refuted, fringe. Stop to abuse Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

OMG, you still mix the Blak/Vlach theory with Bulaqs. Don't you understand that we have two different issues? Primary sources described a people living on the steppes and MODERN scholars (Makkay, Ferenczi etc) make a possible connection between Bulaq and Rubruck's (and others') Blaci. It has NOTHING to do with Transylvania. Get it? Fakirbakir (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, have you heard about 3RR? You did revert at least 5 or 6 times in the last 24 hours. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't mix anything. No, we don't have such two different issues. It has EVERYTHING to do with Transylvania. For this reason we have the citation from Rubruck's and Bacon's work in which are clearly stated that the Blaci or Blachi came from the land of Pascatir or greater Blachia, i.e. from which came the Blachi in the land Assani between Constantinople and Bulgaria and lesser Hungary i.e. the Vlachs. This erroneous chronology caused that few Hungarian scholars considered those people as separate from the Vlachs (i.e. they accepted only one part of the Rubruck's account), and related the Blaci or Blachi with the Bulaqs. Get it? Anyway, I know very well about WP:3RR, perhaps I wouldn't need to revert you so often if you don't make so many WP:DISRUPT edits?--Crovata (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You should have gone to Specsavers... Read again what I wrote. 1, Do you really believe that Rubruck met "Romanians" who took gifts to Batu Khan? 2, Modern scholars mentioned other primary sources and researches as well and you only focus on Rubruck's account (e.g. You constantly deleted the observations of Mark Kalti's Chronicon Pictum) Your approach is biased. That's it. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Well - he wrote in the 13th century, he said that the Blaci or Il(i)acs i.e. Vlachs have the same name, and that the Vlachs came from the same land, basically, if we go by your logic that if he "met" someone, I doubt he witnessed the Blacs-Vlachs migration in the 4th century. Those scholars mentioned other sources for their speculation - they basically stated seriously contested assertions as facts, and opinions as facts, which should be avoided according to NPOV. Their other speculations don't matter, it is refuted theory, and today the theory is supported by extreme minorty (because of which shouldn't be mentioned at all on Wikipedia!). Oh well, I already accepted your level of ignorance.--Crovata (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I do not want to take part in this discussion any more, because for the time being I do not want to waste my time in an endless polemic about a marginal fringe theory based on Rubruck's erroneous etymology. Borsoka (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry to see you leave, but the article is not about this theory anymore but about the Bulaks. As for the theory mentioned in it, it is a minority theory not a fringe theory. Rasonyi, Ferenczi, Czegledy, Makkay, Pais are well respected scholars who argue for the case. As argued by Fakirbakir they are not less than Spinei or Vasary who argue against the theory.Arpabogar (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It is incredible that you're still pushing the same argument, still don't accept the reality of the theory, nor the Wikipedia policy. Do you understand by ignoring WP:NPOV i.e. WP:WEIGHT your behavior became disruptive?--Crovata (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Intro

According to the recent reverts - [5] and [6] - by KIENGIR we need to discuss the specific statements.

"The European Blaci or Blachi in Transylvania were also identified by a minority of scholars with the Bulaqs, contrary to the generally accepted view that they were Vlachs"

• This statement changes intro's subject from the Bulaqs to Blaci or Blachi; Blaci or Blachi are not different people, they are same terms for the same people i.e. Vlachs; the small minority of scholars are dead decades ago and it became an extremely small minority, one live supporter (?), and according to WP:WEIGHT such a view "does not belong on Wikipedia", however we decided to include it (?); the quantity of supporters is redudant information for the intro; it does not mention the specific hypothesis per se.

"A refuted hypothesis was that they migrated and lived in European Transylvania in the period of the Hungarian Conquest"

• It is an abstract about the hypothesis; does not mention the Vlachs i.e. like the section's name. I support.--Crovata (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As I stated before, I support the intro variant no. 2 ("'A refuted hypothesis was..."). 123Steller (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Guys, what I have really did not understood, after Steller rephrased the sentence as Crovata wished in the previos section and it was accepted, by Steller needed again to revert to the unconsensused version after multiple warnings and the state of edit warring cannot be avoided anymore? To say nothing of the status quo ante until possible new consensus that Steller knows very well...

Crovata's concern is the same he repeats his point of view about the names, although it has no connection the fact the names were confused and interpreted differently by different sholars or by even older sources. The problem Croavata want to introduce a generalized POV of "refution" although such does not exist, conflicting viewpoints are. The original sentence - even the rephrased one - is totally neutral, it is emphasized that the minority of scholars had an other theory, so there should not be any concern regarding WP:WEIGHT or something, these confusion are part of the history of these people, regardless how they are called. As I see from a minor problem a huge unnecessary conflict is created, just because some people would support general statements about refution a theory they don't like, however such wordage could have been also used regarding other controversial or still unproved theories then. Not any general refute exists, some sholars may consider like so, but nothing ultime existing. Thus I support the original version or the rephrased version by Steller. Claiming that some authors are already dead I consider thrilling, on that pretext all Wikipedia could be altered, a very unprofessional argumentation.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

I have no comment. I can't comment anymore because speaking to you is worse than speaking to a wall. It is impossible that after all the discussion you still don't understand the Wikipedia's editing policy, as well the issue about the topic. It is impossible that you are so persistent to ignore there DOES EXIST generalized scholars POV about the refuted hypothesis. You intentionally ignore modern scholars (Victor Spinei, Alexandru Madgearu, István Vásáry, including László Makkai and Hungarian encyclopedia from 1994). You intentionally twist the reality about the refuted hypothesis, which not only doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY, you give it undue WP:WEIGHT.--Crovata (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

You have issues with NPOV. Rasonyi, Ferenczi, Janos Makkay etc.... are not less than "your" scholars. I respect Vasary's opinion, but his approach is arbitrary and dogmatic (as yours).Fakirbakir (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

You have no comment, but you have. Maybe you should a little bit revise yourself about "speaking to wall - or more walls?", maybe there is a problem with your behavior, that you cannot accept that other's have different point of view or simply your claim is not supported, despite you generally repeat what you have said earlier, it is simply not enough and does not comply. Also here, it is funny to hear we would not understand "Wikipedia's editing policy", since you harmed continously WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and initiated an edit warring despite more notification from more users, and you repeat again your favourite phrase about "refuted hypthesis". Not any other scholar's opinion were/are ignored, THEY ARE PRESENTED IN DETAILS IN THE PAGE, those who does not agree with you did not make a sport to delete detailed further additions unlike you. We do not twist anything "intentionally", this is your conrinous accusation and you also dealed with many personal attacks and incivilities also in other pages that is not a good faith approach. Just calm down, on the other hand, I agree with Fakirbakir.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Fakirbakir and with KIENGIR as well, the one who was not respecting WP rules was Crovata.Arpabogar (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Really, what can I say when you reply that I'm the one who have the issues with NPOV and don't respect WP rules? Fakirbakir Stop to twist the facts and the issue - it is not about the scholars credibility, it is about the hypothesis credibility and critical reception. As well, saying that Vasary's opinion is arbitrary and dogmatic is your personal bullshit, especially when all three of you constantly mix the scholars opinion with my personal opinion. We don't edit Wikipedia on personal POV, we do it on reliable sources' POV, but this is something you obviously don't understand.--Crovata (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I just answer on my behalf, I don't mix scholars opinion with your personal opinion. Your last sentence I agree, that's why the change of the sentence is not supported.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

Yes, both you and other two editors constantly mix my and yours personal opinion with the sourced scholars opinion. Basically, because of that you constantly push the hypothesis information, and give undue WP:WEIGHT to it making WP:FALSEBALANCE.--Crovata (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No, there is not any mix and not any push. Since it is clearly indicated that "minority of scholars" and "generally accepted Vlachs", you have no reason to complain or make such a huge overreaction.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

Yes, there is and you intentionally make FALSEBALANCE. I reverted the lead and if you again revert it to the previous revision I will consider it as WP:DISRUPT and report you to the noticeboad because this crossed every measure of logic and NPOV principles.--Crovata (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

:), if such unprofessional acts and considerations are your motivation just because your POV-pushing did not reach consensus, just because you harmed WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, and your are claiming WP rules like WP:NPOV although you just don't follow it, you make again threats although also other users do not have the same opinion like you, by continouing edit-warring deliberately multiple times despite of many warnings than do not surprise about the possible consequences.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

It was enough. It is useless to discuss with you. You wrote your personal report.--Crovata (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not wrote my personal report. You choose not to discuss because more users do not agree with you and your claims.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

Yes, and you continue to write it. No, because you consciously don't accept and ignore Wikipedia principles.--Crovata (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You are funny, I respected everything, you harmed so many rules until now continously, you don't have a drop of shame...(KIENGIR (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

And again you're lying, you don't "respect everything" when for the second time admited that the Wikipedia principles are "invalid phrases" and "accusations"--Crovata (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not, you again fail civility with groundless accusations, I confirmed that your listing of continous false accusations does not lead to any good, I am not you.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

I won't comment anymore your behavior because it is unrelated to the topic issue. We know your POV and stand, and it is wrong.--Crovata (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You told this many times, not my behavior is the problem here anyway, you are conflicting with many other's also, you think you have the right to ultimately judge what is right, what is wrong, Wikipedia is not about this.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

Again you're twisting the facts and making a fool of everbody and everything. Precisely because of possible subjective judgements and edits we have Wikipedia principles like WP:NPOV to judge what is right, wrong, major, minor, fringe, reliable, unreliable. You obviously don't understand that when you're constantly presenting Wikipedia principles like my personal principles.--Crovata (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Aha, you repeat and continue again, how trustable. These statements of yours are not holding, on the contrary, read back everywhere, it is useless to repeat, n+1 repeat does not help on your current situation, better stop in time.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

Crovata keeps saying that it is "refuted". I have three points to argue against putting this word or sentence in the article. 1. First of all there are two opposing theories, as it was said above neither is refuted, what it is possible to say is that one theory is a minority theory supported by a few well respected scholars the other is the mainstream theory. The original sentence clearly stated that. 2. I read Madgearu's reference given and first I didn't even find where does he refer to the minority theory. I had to look three times to find in the Notes of his book review article one sentence which was quoted by Crovata. So that is definitely not an argumentation against the minority theory. Vasary also has a sentence or a paragraph refering to the minority theory. He definitely does not refute it. 3. There are several sentences in the article which try to present the minority theory in a negative manner: that the minority theory is refuted is one of them. The other one tries to present the minority theory as originating from nationalism. That was not proven and it just tries to put the minority theory off the table with a negative branding. This is clearly against WP:NPOV: "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."Arpabogar (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes by IP user

Hi, IP user 2a02:2f0e:5408:2500:6dfd:3d2b:379d:a81d, I reverted your changes for now. Please review the writings you want to include in the article again, they are hardly understandable and completely unsourced. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality in the section "Confusion with Vlachs"

The theory about the confusion of "Vlachs" and "Bulaqs" is only supported by some Hungarian historians. This view is however not considered at all even by prominent Hungarian scholar Kristó Gyula and disputed by Vásáry István and Makkai László. Romanian historians which support the Daco-Roman continuity consider the Gesta Hungarorum as a reference to Vlachs. Foreign historians do not even consider such a confusion. ZZARZY223 (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi ZZARZY223!

[7]Could you explain why do you remove a source from a mainstream award winning historian György Györffy from 1987? [8] OrionNimrod (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

ZZARZY223! I see in the article Romanian opinion is presented as balance, so why would be any problem with neutrality? Btw Those Hungarian historians who does not say the Blaci is not Bulaq at Anonymus, they states that Anonymus projected back the contemporary population of his age together with many imaginary figures (Glad, Menumarot, Salan, Gelu) who are not exist in any contemporary sources, and fictious nations, like Cumans, who were actually not present at the time of the Hungarian conquest, but only at the time of Anonymus. Conclusion = those Hungarians historians who does not say the Blaks are Bulaqs, they say the source of Anonymus about the Blaks is just a fantasy story.

Anyway, do you think it is forbid to present the Blak=Bulaq theory, which is expressed by other historians?

Do you think the Vlachs lived in the Ural?

The "Blaci" people next to Magna Hungaria depicted on the Johannes Schöner's terrestrial globe (1523/24)

The "Blaci " people next to Magna Hungaria depicted on Oroncé Finé's world map Nova Universi Orbis Descriptio (1531)

OrionNimrod (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this view should not be mentioned in the article, or it could be mentioned in a short footnote. The international community of historians has never accepted it. Borsoka (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem with neutrality arises from the fact that it is not presented as balanced. This confusion problem does come from the Gesta Hungarorum, as there are no other instances where a confusion of Vlachs and Bulaqs could be possible. Like in the maps here, it's obvious that those maps are referencing to the Turkic Bulaqs. However, the view from which in Gesta the Bulaqs could be confused with Vlachs is supported only by some Hungarian historians. The accuracy of the events described by Anonymous and Simon of Kéza are not the main point of the argument. The problems comes from the fact that the only instance of confusion between Vlachs and Bulaqs can be traced only in those works, and like said before, a large part of Hungarian historians agree with the translation of "Blachi" as Vlachs, they criticize the accuracy of what the stories claim, but not the translation ZZARZY223 (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The text in the section of this article was as following: "In contrast to these rejections (those above) György Györffy wrote in his work (Az Árpád-kori Magyarország Történeti Földrajza) that "regarding the Blak ethnicity, Mongol sources can be brought up to testify that they talk about the Turkic Blak, Ulaq element"

First of all, how can be claimed that György Györffy wrote in his work, published in 1963, in contrast to the rejections of Spinei, Makkai, Vásáry, Madgearu, works published in 2009, 2001, 2005 and 2000 respectively?? Even about the version that you linked, of 1987, how can it contain a rejection of those works that were published after? ZZARZY223 (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I see, timeline issue. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Many reliable works do support this hypothesis over the other one. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi ZZARZY223!

You rewrote the original source. "Far from that Greater Bulgaria came the Bulgars, which are beyond the Danube near Constantinople "

Original source: https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/rubruck.html "For from that Greater Bulgaria come the Bulgars, who are beyond the Danube near Constantinople." OrionNimrod (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for that change, I thought it was a mistranslation ZZARZY223 (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Just like I've said before, this theory is supported by some Hungarian historians, and thus it should be written as such. Also the map by Auguste Dufour refers to the 5th century, and has nothing to do with the topic. ZZARZY223 (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)