Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolohoveni

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 delete. Anyone wanting this information included again should show a reliable source for it. Mangojuice^talk 17:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolohoveni

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

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

• Weak Keep The article cites use in ancient chronicles, which makes this of some historic interest, and there are quite a few incoming links. A Google search for "Bolohoveni" -wikipedia searching only English results yields only 9 unique hits. It's certainly an obscure topic, but that still does seem a suspiciously low amount. Also, I don't think it really matters if this word is a "mutation" -- many words start out that way, including, I'd hazard, the majority of the English language. What matters is if the word, in this form, was the primary name for the topic described in the article, which I'm not sure of. I'm very much on the fence on this one, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution here. -Elmer Clark 01:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• I tested them here before putting in the article.

• • You totally missed my point: there is no such word in ancient chronicels. This is a corruption of the term by internet ignorants. Obviously, you didn't care to look into these "9 unique hits". They are in no way reputable sources. `'mikkanarxi 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Google searching picked up a few non-Wikipedia-based references to the subject. PKT 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I like the fact that Wikipedia includes obscure topics like this one. Deet 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

• Weak keep Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article has more than that. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is FALSE, for crying out loud. Did yoo care to read my explanations? `'mikkanarxi 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I could find a few instances that suggest the word exists.[1] EVula 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Either a somewhat spread spoof or an ignorant mutation of the term Vlach/Voloch, contrary to the spelling accepted in academia. --Irpen 18:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Definitely a romanization of an old slavic word, and thus the description is totally false. Errabee 13:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep EvilAlex 14:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the all of Mikka's explanations (see Comment below). Those who say "keep" have a civil duty to explain to the rest of us why. Just read what Mikka says, and then give an intelligent rebuttal if there is one. I personally can't see any and the article has to go. - Mauco 15:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was someone who originally put in some praise for this article and said Excellent about it somewhere else. But then, on that page, when the situation was explained I could understand it and I now see it well. It is a fallacy and has to be deleted. - Pernambuco 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is very usefull as to disambiguate between the various mentions of vlachs -from southwards as the Haemus, to northwards as Halici-, prior to the foundation of any statal entities. As for the existance of these people in chronicle, see at comments. Greier 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and rename - Since the article deals with a kind of Vlachs (ie: living in a certain area, as per use of the term in Romanian historiography), and the article on Vlachs tends to lists generalities, the best solution is to keep the current Bolohoveni as a main article linked in a section of the Vlachs article, and the name in use be the original used in the chronicle (transliterated using present-day rules), and not the creole term that has come to be used in Romanian (the final "i" is especially intriguing, and does indeed display the provincial interests and superficial knowledge of the article's creator). Dahn 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Is not internet spreading ignorance. In Romanian historiography this term is used. I was used before the aparition of internet.--MariusM 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mikkanarxi is right. Illythr confirmed it in Talk:Transnistria. He checked the original chronicle which is available here here and it doesn't contain any "Болоховень"(or anything similar). There is a mention of "Волохове"(Volohove) in the list of "western peoples" there, which is what Mikkanarxi says, but no indication that "volohove" (Volochs) were used specifically to refer to population of moldavian/transylvania/etc. lands and not simply vlachs from anywhere which is what Mikkanarxi also says. So he is correct. This is why I support a delete with redirect. - Pernambuco 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the existance of these "Bolohoveni" in chronicles, they definetively appear. For example, I could give The Tale of Igor's Campaign where it says: "Thou didst shatter the Galicians on the Vistula, Yarosláv; thou sittest high on thy gold-forged throne, supporting the Hungarian mountains with thy iron-clad regiments, barring the road against the [Magyar] King, closing the gates of the Danube, hurling thongs amid the Vlakhs, judging and ordaining as far as the Danube!" [2]. This is just one of their mentionings. There are more, but most of them have yet to be translated into English or to be published on the internet. If this population didn`t exist, then how come there is even an article on the Eencyclopedia of Ukraine [3]??? What reasons would they have to make such an article, if the bolohoveni didn`t exist??? The article says that they were actually slavs, and took their name from the city of Bolekhiv. However, a polish document from Lvov from 1472, still adreses that city with the name of "villa valachorum dicta". At the same time, the geographic position of the area where they were mentioned, in the Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast, Chernivtsi Oblast, Vinnytsia Oblast and Khmelnytskyi Oblast, coincided more or less with Northern Bukovina and Herta region, to this day with significant vlach populations (see also Hutsuls). But what if they were afterall slavs: another reason to keep the article. It`s still a stub, and certainly need attention from an expert. But it would be a mistake to delete it, because the very existance of it, albeit a stub, can`t do absolutelly no damage, and more than that, it stimulates further research on this matter... Greier 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of Bolohoveni in the quote from The Tale of Igor's Campaign; rather I see Vlachs mentioned. This supports the reasons why this article should be deleted. Also, the Encyclopedia of Ukraine gives Bolokhovians as entry, which is the current name. As such, the contents of the article Bolohoveni are very much in error, as they claim in the defining sentence that Bolohoveni ("Volohove") is the name used in the early Kievan chronicles, which definitely is not true, as you've proven yourself. And even if it were reason enough to keep the article, it should be moved to Bolokhovians. Errabee 11:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Why rename it? Only to be re-renamed when another source calls them Bolochovians instead of Bolokhovians??? As for arguing the deletion of the article because the Bolohoveni are identical to Vlachs, then that is not what the point is about. The article already admits the the Bolohoveni are Vlachs: "Bolohoveni ("Volohove") is the name used ... to designate the Vlachs... ". The arguments in keeping this article are 1.the article is used as toC in that time period, situated in very different geographical positions. 2. The term "bolohoveni" is already present in Romanian historic works, separate from the term "vlach" (and as you can see, even in Ukrainian histography) 3. What if the Bolohoveni/Bolokhovians/Bolochovyans/Volohovinians/etc. are not Vlachs afterall, as the EncyclopediaofUkraine article claims? Like I already sayd, the article needs an expert... For point 1, I could also argue that sources give much more info, which distinguish this population (both from the rest of the Vlachs or the rest of the Slavs, depending on their origin). For example, the Ipatievskaia lietopis mentiones a couple of rulers of this populations (e.g. a certain Stefan), as well as their relation with the Mongols (they were subdued and forced by the Mongols to cultiuvate the land, as to assure provisions for the Mongol army). Now if we would to make an article about that ruler, and say that he was a "ruler of the Vlachs", then question arise: Of which vlachs? Had he powers over all of the vlachs? Why of vlachs and not of slavs (as the Enc.ofUkraine claims)? etc... Greier 12:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced articles have no place on wikipedia. Arbusto 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is about a branch of vlachs, not about all vlachs. A redirect at vlachs is not a solution.--MariusM 02:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • False. there was no such branch of vlachs. This is a piece of ignoirance. `'mikkanarxi 04:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if these guys who vote Keep have even taken the time to READ what this page is about? It is a two-sentence article which shouldn't have been created in the first place. Where are the historical sources? They don't exist, because this "people" that they talk about never existed. This is really not something we can vote about. It is plain common sense, guys. Do we vote on whether 2+2 equals 4, or 5, or something else? - Mauco 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The article is proved false by at least two people who went thru trouble of doing some real research, and no one who voted "keep" provided opposite proof. User:Greier only proved that indeed Vlachs were mentioned in Latin texts as "valachorum". In order "to disambiguate between the various mentions of the vlachs" you don't have to have a separate articles. Wikipedia disambiuguates between different meanings, not between different spellings. I didn't see any article with such ridiculous purpose. Spellings are disambiguated using redirects.

But I see little reason to redirect from foreign language, unless one can provide, e.g., a 13th centrury chronicle with this spelling. Then it would make sense for researchers. We don't gave redirects to Germans from Nemci, Alemanes, Alemaes, Deutsche, Saksalaiset, Germani, Alman, Tyskar and 200+ more translations. Mukadderat 17:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I vote for keeping this page. The fact that it is not more elaborated and documented now, does not mean someone whould not take the pain to do it in the future. We must connect it to Vlahs, Romanians, Proto-romanians, etc, and in time, but only in time it can be merged. I am affraid some people want to rushly erase it, and I am affraid they might have an already strongly biased POV. It would be advisable to avoid decisions based on bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc76 (talk • contribs)

Why did you add a bunch of maintenance templates to this page? Did you mean to add them to the article itself? If so go ahead but I've removed them from here. -Elmer Clark 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I tested them here before putting in the article.

• I tested them here before putting in the article.

All right, but you really ought to use the Sandbox for that kind of testing. -Elmer Clark 02:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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.