Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bezerenbam


 * 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. "delete and merge" is not a valid option, if you want to merge this content I will have to undelete the article. It does not seem like there is any support for keeping these as standalone articles. W.marsh 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bezerenbam

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete and Merge information into other articles. This is the product of original research, meant to extend the history of Wallachia back before the country was founded. The fact is that historiography does not mention this supposed "ruler", and this relies on a mention in an Arab chronicle which is most likely unreliable (it presumably is viewed as unreliable, since most historians do not bother mentioning it). All the google hits it gets link back to wikipedia talk pages and various mirrors (as well as a minuscule number of ultra-nationalist chats). Dahn 06:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. With the given date of 1241, the military quote provided would have to refer to the Mongol invasion of 1241-2.  However, I can find no reference to any Mongol active in the region &mdash; or anywhere else &mdash; named "Ordul", nor of anything, anywhere, that might be referred to as "Kara-Ulag".  I view the quoted support as suspect at best; based on available resources, this appears simply fictional. Serpent&#39;s Choice 06:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)  Holding determination upon better evaluation of sources.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 08:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone discuss these two rulers, under these names, without referring to the Persian work? My Romanian literacy level is ill-suited to read medeival histories, but I found Histoire des Mongols depuis Tchinguiz-Khan jusqu'à Timour Bey ou Tamerlan (1834) which I can handle without much trouble.  It also refers to the same Persian work, but the author, Constantin Mouradgea d'Ohsson, seems to have some doubts about the accuracy of the names in the original.  With that said, the Mongol that has been translated from the Romanian as "Ordul" is represented in the French as Orda.  That makes sense, Orda Khan was leader of the White Horde in 1241.  But his assault was into Poland, at the Battle of Legnica.  And I don't see mention of Bezerenbam in the index of the Tartar Relation (no access to an actual copy tonight).  I worry that both of these names are simply misidentifications due to multiple translations. Serpent&#39;s Choice 08:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank's God! But you do have Bezerenbam and Mischelav at page 628. --Alex:Dan 09:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To Serpent's Choice: As indicated, all comments made available do not refer to the "rulers" independently from the Persian chronicle, and there a minimum level of methodology in respect to primary sources is to be respected (Xenopol, Djuvara, and the Histoire des Mongols all refer to the chronicle using that methodology, and reject the notion that it should be taken for granted). Dahn 09:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I can find plenty of people who quote the Persian source, but no one who seems very certain of its accuracy.  I can't find reference to these figures in the other major primary source about the Mongol activity in the period, the Tartar Relation, which is generally considered accurate.  Not to mention that all of these references are just later authors quoting (and translating) the single primary source, which is a discomforting basis for an article ... especially when no two of them seem to read the passage the same way!  I don't have any problem with their mention in another article, though I'm not certain which is the correct merge destination.  Is this text meant to refer to the Battle of Legnica or the initial Mongol victories of the Battle of Mohi?  Do any of the sources even say?  Serpent&#39;s Choice 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have suggested possible inclusions in other articles below (sorry for my answers being all over the place). I myself don't see any clear mention of the previous battle. Dahn 09:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep . This is ridiculous. Djuvara Mentions it, Xenopol also. Please take your time and read these two chapters of Xenopol's History of Romanians: vol I, chapter II.2, p. 531 - 532 and vol I, chapter III.2, p. 550 - 552 (in Romanian unfortunately). You can see that Bezerenbam and Mislau are there, well known and accepted.--Alex:Dan 07:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Xenopol clearly states, in the second quote provided above (p.552), that Bezerenbam is to be considered the same as Basarab I of Wallachia. Djuvara, as already stated, considered Mislau and Seneslau to be one and the same. Wikipedians who have pushed this "information" have relied on their own interpretation of texts, and have ignored the conclusion of the very scholarship they used (instead, they appealed to primary sources, publishing original research). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dahn (talk • contribs) 08:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I must remind you that Litovoi is not Basarab I Intemeitorul. Read again! Also, Litovoi is spelled here Lirtyoi (1247) or Lythen (cca. 1275). Mislau is omitted (I don't know why) but he can be found at Djuvara. We can, indeed, add that some historians consider Bezeren-bam = Litovoi and Mislau = Seneslau. --Alex:Dan 08:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. Dahn 08:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not original research. I'm not inventing facts. Xenopol sais the same thing, word by word, but he goes further and sais poate că era Lyrtioy el însuşi (maybe he was Litovoi himself). This can be added to the article. I want you to come with arguments, Dahn, don't hide behind OR's, it's simply ridiculous. --Alex:Dan 08:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". What we have is a mention in a Persian chronicle, that all historians you mention consider not to be accurate in itself, but to represent the result of verious confusions between the names of documented princes. No secondary or tertiary source mentions either Bezerenbam or Mislau as actual rulers. This is what Xenopol says (loc. cit.): Bezerenbam is the corruption of the name Basarab and the title of Ban; he might be the same as Litovoi (in either case, he certainly does not say a ruler of that name existed). Djuvara says Mislau was the same as Seneslau. So, in short, the only time these people are mentioned by professional historians serves to indicate that their existence is questionable. Aside from a chronicle written on another continent, thousands of kilometers away, that relies on hearsay and, as both sources you use indicate, confuses data, the only places where these people are mentioned as rulers are internet chatrooms for fringe ideologies. Dahn 08:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're mistranslating again. Djuvara sais probably, not certainly. And also, you have almost a page in which Xenopol demonstrates that the persian chronicle is definitely accurate (Conclusion: Raschid era foarte bine informat, din documentele ce le avea la indemana, asupra locurilor si a imprejurarilor, si ca putem da o deplină crezare si celorlalte arătări ale sale, care nu pot fi verificate prin alte izvoare), yet the names are corrupted. [And since you wanted an OR, I must tell you that Arabs, as Hebrews, have a writing system that doesn't note every vowel, that's why Bezerenbam can also be read as Bazarambam.]. Brief: Xenpol and Djuvara confirm their existence in The Persian Chronicle. Give me a better translation for căpetenia popoarelor ulagh and I'll be happy to modify that. --Alex:Dan 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you will note, Xenopol says that the names "cannot be verified through other sources". If you look at his argument, he says: I trust the events depicted, but there is no reason to assume that Bezerenbam can be considered a ruler other than Litovoi, and his name should be understood as standing for "Basarab". I repeat the point, also made by Serpent's Choice, that there is no source making mention of these "rulers" without making mention of the chronicle - which means that these people are not "rulers", but words in a text that has the same level of accuracy as anything in Herodotus (i.e.: quite low). What Djuvara and Xenopol confirm is their mention in the Persian chronicle, not their factual existence. Wikipedians are not allowed to draw their own conclusions from sources. Dahn 09:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This could be mentioned in an article about Wallachians in Persian chronicles, but claiming they were princes just on a primary source is OR.bogdan 08:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have modified those articles. Bezerenbam is now the leader of a valachian army, ban after Xenopol, and Mislau a căpetenie of ulagh people (how woud you translate that?). My impediment was the absence of a correct and complete quotation. --Alex:Dan 09:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Bogdan, these two articles could probably constitute notes in the Origin of the Romanians or some other such place, clearly indicating both that they are to be found in a certain source, and that those historians who discuss the mention tend to agree that they are corrupt. In this case, a note could also be slipped in the article on Litovoi (and perhaps another one in the article on Basarab). Dahn 09:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. As Bogdan said, in an article about romanians in The Persian Chronicle, with some development concerning Xenopol's theories (or as Dahn sais, as a separate paragraph in Origin of the Romanians?). I also want to ask for your opinion if it would be beter to replace the existent quotation with the translation from Serpent's Choice's link (p. 628) ? Also, I'd like to stress that not the information but the names could be corrupt, according to historians. --Alex:Dan 09:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Er... I think you may want to rename your original vote to "merge" (not "keep as"), and probably erase it. Because you only get one vote. You erase previous comments either by deleting them or striking them out. Also: the Serpent's chronicle is not actually the chronicle, but a rendition of it (unlike the direct quote in Xenopol). Dahn 09:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Xenopol quotes, at page 550, a fragment from D'Ohsson (according to note nr. 4), so the french original is closer to the source (first hand translation as I see it). --Alex:Dan 09:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right: it is a direct quote (I missed the quotation marks on the previous page). Dahn 09:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per bogdan Horvat Den 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Wallachia. Note added ref:  mentions the guy in passing, under Wallachia information.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 14:26, 22 May 2007 (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.