Talk:Brodnici

Origin
The Brodnici was a Slavo-Romanian, Slavic or Turanian vassal state of Galicia.

Where did you read that they were Turanian? --Anittas 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

in the second reference (victor spinei) and in a high school romanian history book of the early 90s -- Anonimu 10:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Brodnici was a Slavo-Romanian, Slavic or Turanian vassal state of Galicia.

I want prove that: 1. it was a state 2. it was slavo-romanian or slavic or turanian 3. it was vassal of Galicia

The territory of Brodnici comprised of the southern part of what was to become the Romanian principality of Moldavia.

4. it was where you located it

Until then, I modified it.


 * 1. i agree. i couldn't find any info that they formed a state
 * 2. the second reference and romanian history books say it. until you come with some references that deny this, it should be here
 * 3. since they fought at the battle of kalka along with a galician prince, maybe they were a kind of vassals
 * 4. hungarian sources say that teutons extended their territory till the brodniks border, and most romanian historians think this reffers to southern moldova. the author of the second reference says that they lived in southern moldavia and southwestern part of ukraine ( black sea coast between dniester and dniepr) maybe we should say this. but if you find another reference that puts them elsewere, i'll agree to mention it in the article

Anonimu 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC) -
 * 2. romanian history books says that with what proves? reference to deny this? well, modern "romanian history books" say that they were romanian. and whatever the truth, how come the possibility that they were romanian is missing?
 * 4. again, in a "romania history book" map, the brodnici appear is north-eastern Muntenia. But I also think that they lived somewhere in Buceac, southern Ukraine, along the mouth of the Danube and Dniester.

Ploskânea
It is wrong that Ploskânea was initially on side of Mstislav the Bold. Nothing in Chronicle about it. --Tigga en (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

However, there are some lines: "...Ploskânea kissed the cross of slavs..." According to Boldur, Ploskânea was a Christian and allied to Cumans. Aggerr (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Brodnici live today
We are the Bodrici live n Republic of Adygeya. Our popularity is about 5000-7000. --85.26.241.6 (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ploscânea
Ploscânea is discussed by many historians because he participated at Kalka. Eliminating him means to eliminate Hypathian Chronicle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.130.187 (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We're already discs suing him, including the possibility that his association with the Brodnici may be just an accident (a misreading of the original chronicle). The problem is that his name is originally written in Old Church Slavonic, and consequently the standard transliteration of his name in English is Ploskynya. I see no reason to render it the Romanian way, as the event he is associated with is far away from the Romanian speaking area. Anonimu (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

...."Accident" is your original opinion. See rules about OR in Wiki. Majority of sources (4 or 5 sources) about Ploscânea came from Romanian historians and the name is in latin letters and is not necessary another latin name. You may put both transliterations. Another mistification is about Galicia. Spinei never wrote about any connection between Galicia and Brodnici. So you use false allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.131.218 (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments and refer to books published in English when verifying the proper usage (as per WP:English). Borsoka (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ii does not matter which historians and how transliterate the name arounf=d the world. What matters is how he is called in the original manuscripts and how this name transliterated in English (the language of this encyclopedia). - üser:Altenmann >t 03:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Brodnici. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929203924/http://www.auditorium.ru/books/242/gl5.pdf to http://www.auditorium.ru/books/242/gl5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

LTA Iaaasi
This article is full of mumbo-jumbo edits typical of Iaaasi. For example, avoiding the consensus issued by Victor Spinei regarding the Turkic origin and inventing Romanian-Alanian origins or anything that contains "Romanian-" something. --Kun Kipcsak (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

footnote in which the "archive URL" works OK, but not [the clickable link for] the "primary" URL
As of the most recent revision ... that is, the "07:47, 13 January 2023‎" revision -- footnote "[6]" consists of (it 'uses') a "ref" tag that does not actually use a "cite web" template [instance] -- nor something like that -- but it does contain a clickable link to an "archived" version of the reliable source.

That clickable link to an online version of the source is not exactly an "archive-URL" field value of a template field. Rather, it uses a "webarchive" template instance.

However, I just noticed recently that ... if it were coded using an "archive-URL" ... then -- [as far as I can tell] -- now it would now be appropriate to include "| url-status = dead" since the "PRIMARY" clickable link [URL] does not work!

Well ... it does not work for me. I wanted to check and see whether this agrees with your findings ...
 * (anyone who is willing to click on the link to the "PRIMARY" URL -- http://www.auditorium.ru/books/242/gl5.pdf [displayed as "Ch. 5, Polovtsians" in the footnote])

since it might just be my browser, or something. That was one of the main reasons for my decision to enter this on the "Talk:" page, instead of immediately changing the footnote (currently footnote number "[6]") in the article.

Any comments? Mike Schwartz (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the articles here and on the Romanian Wikipedia were edited by a long-term vandal who was "specialized" in nonsense, here including erroneous, false footnotes alongside information in the same style or carefully selected. I started rewriting the article on ro.wiki based on reliable sources, some already cited, but in an incomplete form.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)