Talk:Vlachs

Kitāb al-Fihrist
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)