Talk:Vlachs
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vlachs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Kitāb al-Fihrist
[edit]Hi @ZZARZY223 I'm wondering why you're taking out the part where I put in that it's about a Turkic people, the text makes it clear that it's about a Turkic people.
The exact quote of the text:
"Remarks about the Turks and Those Related to Them. The Turks, the Bulgars, the Blagha, the Burghaz, the Khazar, the Llan, and the types with small eyes and extreme blondness have no script, except that the Bulgarians and the Tibetans write with Chinese and Manichean, whereas the Khazars write Hebrew. My information about the Turks is what Abu al-Hasan Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ashnas related to me."
The text makes it perfectly clear that this is about the Turkic peoples, and this chapter is about the Turkic peoples in the first place!
CriticKende (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that what you are claiming is not supported by a secondary source, which is needed in this case, as it is part of the rules against original research ZZARZY223 (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- So, if I find an old text that mentions a name for which there are no other records, and therefore no other historians have written about it, then it doesn't matter what the text says, I can decide about it? Because this sounds quite interesting...The original text clearly states that they are Turks, but because someone wrote something completely different 1000+ years later, the original text is now invalid? CriticKende (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why do we need a 'secondary source' if the original source itself claims this? CriticKende (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- remove the fringe "turkik people" theory since the only one who interpreted the text like this is a single hungarian historian... and everyone else knows its about vlachs 46.97.168.128 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi!
- Yes, it really wasn’t sufficient that I provided only one source, so now I’ve added the original 1872 major German academic critical edition, which also translates it this way, as well as the latest Arabic edition (I believe it’s from 2019). I think these sources should now be sufficient.
- So, it seems that only Bayard translates it as "blagha," likely mistaking the two words.
- The text of the new Arabic edition:
- الكلام على الترك وما جانسهم فأما الترك والبلغر والبلغار والبرغز والخزر واللان وأجناس الصغار الأعين المفرطي البياض فلا قلم لهم يعرف سوى البلغر والتبت فإنهم يكتبون بالصينية والمنانية والحزر تكتب بالعبرانية والذي تادى إلى من أمر الترك ما حدثني به أبو الحسن محمد بن الحسن بن أشناس قال حدثني حمود حرار التركي المكلي وكان من التوزونية ممن خرج عن بلده على كبر وتنفط أن ملك الترك الأعظم إذا أراد أن يكتب إلى ملك من الأصاغر وزيره وأمر بشق نشابه ونقش الوزير عليها نقوشا يعرفها أفاضل الأتراك تدل على المعاني التي يريدها الملك ويعرفها المرسل إليه وزعم أن النقش اليسير يحتمل المعاني الكثيرة وإنما يفعلون ذلك عند مهادناتهم ومسالماتهم وفي أوقات حروبهم أيضا وذكر أن ذلك النشاب المكتوب عليه يحتفظون به ويفون من أجله والله أعلم
- This is the text of the new Arabic edition in English translation:
- "On the Turks and Their Related Peoples
- As for the Turks, the Bulghar, the Bulgar, the Burghuz, the Khazars, the Alans, and other groups with small eyes and exceedingly pale complexions, none of them are known to have a script, except for the Bulghar and the Tibetans, who write in Chinese and Manichaean scripts. The Khazars write in Hebrew. What has reached me about the affairs of the Turks is what Abu al-Hasan Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Ashnas narrated to me. He said that Hamoud Harrar al-Turki al-Makli, who was among the Tawzuniyya and had left his homeland as an elderly man covered in blisters, told him the following: When the great king of the Turks wants to write to one of the lesser kings, he instructs his vizier to split an arrow and engrave symbols upon it. These symbols are known to the elite among the Turks and convey the meanings the king intends, which are also understood by the recipient. He claimed that these minimal engravings could convey a great variety of meanings. They use this method during treaties, peacemaking, and even during times of war. He also mentioned that these inscribed arrows are carefully preserved and that great trust is placed in their significance. And God knows best."
- Honestly, the title of the chapter is already "On the Turks and Their Related Peoples", so it was suspicious from the start that it couldn't possibly be about the Vlachs. You're right, it's better that I provided multiple sources, and this way the "fringe" Bayard translation has been clarified. CriticKende (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- remove the fringe "turkik people" theory since the only one who interpreted the text like this is a single hungarian historian... and everyone else knows its about vlachs 46.97.168.128 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Torna Torna
[edit]Hi @Aristeus01, I see you've included the "torna torna" section in the article. I have two questions about it.
- Do you think it might be more appropriate to move this to the article about the Romanian language, since it’s not directly about the Vlachs? Also, in the book, the author interprets it as a military command. (If you feel strongly about keeping it here, we can leave it, but I believe it’s not organically connected to this article. After all, this sentence is not about the Vlachs but is (most likely) an early relic of the Eastern Romance languages.)
- My second question is whether it might be worth mentioning Theophanes the Confessor's chronicle, as he provides a slightly more detailed account of the event and includes the full phrase: "Torna, torna, fiatei."
The fiatei part is the reason several historians argue that this may not merely be a military command but a genuine statement. CriticKende (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Low-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- C-Class Rusyns articles
- Low-importance Rusyns articles
- WikiProject Rusyns articles
- C-Class Albania articles
- High-importance Albania articles
- WikiProject Albania articles
- C-Class Czech Republic articles
- Low-importance Czech Republic articles
- All WikiProject Czech Republic pages
- C-Class Greek articles
- High-importance Greek articles
- WikiProject Greece general articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages
- C-Class Poland articles
- Low-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles
- C-Class Ukraine articles
- Low-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- C-Class Slovakia articles
- Mid-importance Slovakia articles
- All WikiProject Slovakia pages
- C-Class Romania articles
- Top-importance Romania articles
- All WikiProject Romania pages
- C-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- C-Class history articles
- Low-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- C-Class Slovenia articles
- Low-importance Slovenia articles
- All WikiProject Slovenia pages