Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacorum


 * 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 keep and move to Bulaqs. The content dispute seems to have been resolved, and the current article is about the Bulaq tribe, with some discussion of the theory that the Blacs were the Bulaqs, not the Vlachs. In any case, the Bulaqs are notable, and since the article is now about them I see no reason to delete. Cerebellum (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Blacorum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The notability of the article has not been substantiated for more than 3 months. It contains references mostly to books written during WWII and to some primary sources. Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Borsoka (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If, as the article says, the majority of historians identify the people referred to by this name as Vlachs then that article is where they should be covered, rather than a separate article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But the article also says that there are scholarly views which say that the Blacs are not identified with the Vlachs and the article lists several historically important references according to which there is a clear difference between Blacs and Vlachs. So deletion of the article would not support a clear scientific discussion about the subject. With that point I agree that the title should be changed to Blaci, but the term Blaci shouldn't redirect to the term Vlachs. Just because many historians identify the Blacs with the Vlachs does not prove anything. Obviously there are different views on the subject but exactly because of that we should keep this article to keep the scientific discussion going. Arpabogar (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am working on the new revision of the Vlachs which already includes information about the "Blacs". Although they have a specific name, and mostly are related to specific region (Pannonia), as well the Romanian-Hungarian ethno-historical dispute, currently on the criteria of notability and reliable sources don't see the need for a separate article.--Crovata (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Think that so-called Blacorum could be related to the uncertain Vlachs also known as Shepherds of the Romans, Blakumen, Bolokhoveni.--Crovata (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, since if the article starts as "a historical term used for Eastern Romance-speaking peoples" than already we have a problem. Also like for Blakumen and the other's you mentioned a separate article is proper.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC))


 * First of all, this proposal demonstrates a high level of diletantism. For example, I am not a bacteriologist, so I never will propose to delete the title Bacteria from Wikipedia, just because bacteria are not visible by naked eye. So, if you are not a historian, please do not make such unqualified proposals, at all. The second evidence of diletantism is when somebody is claiming just new literature for the topic, and neglects some leading authors from the 19th century. Keeping this view means that no highly regarded authors from the 19th century should be taken into consideration, like the 19th century historian Leopold von Ranke, for example, which would be ridiculous.


 * Anyway, for your information below are just a few ”books written during the last decades” from some leading turkologists and historians, on the topic of Blac people.


 * László Rásonyi [a leading turkologist], A magyar eredetkutatás orosz kapcsolatai. Budapest 1962. p. 105.
 * Gábor Balás [historian], A székelyek nyomában. Budapest, 1984. p. 46.
 * György Bodor [historian], A székely nemzetségi szervezet. Pallas-Akadémia Kiadó, Csíkszereda, 2002. Part 3, Capter: A krónikáink a székelyekről. [He states that Blacs were people of Turkic culture who were assimilated by the Székelys.]
 * Imre Baski [turkologist]: CSAGIRCSA. Török és magyar névtani tanulmányok 1981-2006. Karcag, 2007. p. 14. [With etimological examples.]
 * Klára Sándor [linguist, turcologist]: A székely írás Székelyföldön kívüli használatának kezdetei. In: MAGYAR ŐSTÖRTÉNET. Tudomány és hagyományőrzés. Ed. by Balázs Sudár et al. MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, Budapest, 2014. pp. 329-342. [With citations on Blac people from the chronicles of Kézai and Thuróczi.]
 * Comment: as per below, I doubt that the above list of publications allegedly written by scholars is reliable. Borsoka (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hülye... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szegedi László (talk • contribs) 08:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, Blacs (blacorum, blachos, blach, blakumen, illacs, olaks, ulaks, iflak, kara-ulagh) are widely known by the ancient authors as well, from West-Europe, and the Carpathian basin’s Hungarian chronicles to Central Asia (Anonymus, Kézai, Thuróczi, Rubruck, Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Roger Bacon, Abulghazi, Rashid-al-Din etc.) Did ever Vlachs lived in Central Asia for example? Logically not. They were Blacs who lived there.


 * When Kézai (he makes difference between blackis and vlachis) or Thuróczi are writing about Blacs, they are telling the events within the plot of the Hun story. Were Vlachs Huns? Logically not. The Hungarian chronicles also telling that Szekler script was taken over from the Blacs, which means Blacs and not Vlachs. These two groups should not be confused. Blacs were Turkic people from the East, using the Old Turkic script, while Vlachs were an ethnic group of different people (Slavic, Illiric, [i. e Albanian], Romanian). They mainly were illeterate shepherds. Some of their popes might know only the writing of the Eastern Orthodox Church, at most, in accordance with their orthodox religion. If Blacs and Vlach would be identical, the (catholic) Szeklers could only receive the orthodox writing from the Vlachs, but there is not a single evidence that Szeklers ever used such writing. They were able to take over their runic script only from the Blacs of Central Asian origin, because no runic texts are known from the Vlachs (Romanians) in Transylvania or in Hungary, because they had no such writing, at all. The only remaining relics of Old Hungarian script are known only from the Hungarian ethnicity in Transylvania and Hungary. So, Vlachs have nothing to do with this topic, at all.--Szegedi László (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep, well-sourced article about a relevant historical theory. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Whatever becomes of this article its title certainly shouldn't be a Latin genitive plural. If it must be in Latin let's at least put it in the nominitave case, Blaci (I knew that Latin O level that I passed over forty years ago would come in useful sometime). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article's title itself proves that the whole article is a diletant collection of sentences from old and older books. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

*Merge or delete. If I get it right this page is about a scholarly theory which assumes that the Blacs were not Vlachs but a Turkic people. I think we could simply discuss this matter as a "minor" theory in one of the chapters of the page of Vlachs. However, if more expert editors were able to prove that the theory of "Turkic Blacs" is "fringe" among the current scholarly theories then we would have to delete this article. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, or possibly redirect to Vlachs if a redirect from a Latin genitive is at all useful. All the checks I have been able to make show that the mainstream view by the vast majority of historians is that Blaci is simply the Latin name for the Vlachs. As I said above Blacorum is the genitive case of this, usually appearing in phrases such as Blacorum et Bulgarorum ("of the Vlachs and the Bulgars") so it seems that this article is based on a misinterpretation of Latin sources by people who don't even know basic Latin. The distinction between the Vlachs and the Blaci only seems to be a fringe idea by people with the long discredited notion that there is such a thing as racial purity, and don't want to admit that they might share some ancestry with people who they regard as racially inferior. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The difficulty with fringe ideas not based on any evidence is that mainstream scholars usually ignore them rather than refute them. I did manage to find this source that refutes Rásonyi's (the first author listed above by Szegedi László) characterisation of the Blaci, saying "He identified the Blaci with a Turkic population, but this is not suitable. The Blaci are the Romanians, as other medieval Hungarian chronicles and deeds are clearly showing." The footnote on page 75 of this book, The Medieval Hungarian Historians: A Critical and Analytical Guide by Carlile Aylmer Macartney, is also telling. This whole idea of the Blaci being anything other than Vlachs is simply something made up to support an irredentist claim that Transylvania was not inhabited by ancestors of the Romanians before the Magyars moved in. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with your final conclusion, I do not accept your second argument. If all theories made up for political/irredentitst purposes should be deleted, we should also delete all references to the Daco-Romanian continuity theory. It was originally made up to verify the "historical rights" of the Transylvanian Romanians who were regarded as newcommers ("admitted into [Transylvania] for the public good") even in the 18th century, and the same idea was later used to support the irredentist claims of Romania to "all Romanian territories". Consequently I suggest, that the last sentence in the IP's argumentation should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that we shouldn't cover irredentist claims here, but that we can only do so on the basis of reliable secondary sources that write neutrally about those claims, rather than repeating such claims as fact on the basis of what the people making the claims have written. This applies whether the claims are made by Armenians or Azerbaijanis, Greeks or Albanians, Hungarians or Romanians or whoever. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to Vlachs. Blacorum is the genitive plural form of Blacus= Vlach (see par example http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/18975/1/18975.pdf, where quidam Blacus is translated " a certain Vlach"). I can't find any English-language sources talking about "the Blac people". I only found "the Blacs/Vlachs" in a work by Victor Spinei, where they are not referred as a separate people, but as Vlachs. 123Steller (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that you deleting the text of the article shows that you are not open minded about the subject and are completely biased. How can one judge if the article should be kept or not if you delete the main text? Arpabogar (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep article to promote scientific discussion about this real, historically important question about the difference between Blacs and Vlachs. There are scholarly views which say that the Blacs are not identified with the Vlachs and the article lists several historically important references according to which there is a clear difference between Blacs and Vlachs. So deletion of the article would not support a clear scientific discussion about the subject. Arpabogar (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the blaci (genitive blacorum) are not the Vlachs, then what is the Latin for "Vlachs"? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User talk:Arpabogar, which are the English sources that use the name "Blacs"? 123Steller (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Possible keep or merge (as a new section) to Vlachs. The fact that certain authors are claiming them to have been a separate people means that the content should not disappear completely.  The nom has set out the case at length, but in a way that shows there is a controversy.  Blac and Vlach are cognate, so that my guess is that they are the same.  However, the fact that certain people suggest not (even if they are wrong) is grounds to retain the article or a redirect.  If kept, rename, possibly Blacs - a Latin genitive plural is unsatisfactory as an article title.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I observe that exists as a redirect to Vlachs, which is probably appropriate, but that article needs a section on the Blac controversy. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep it is an important issue, Victor Spinei also mentiones about this theory in one of his works also referring to Kézai, however he does not support it. Later the term Vlach restricted strictly on Romanians, but it was not always like so, it had more interpretation also as well the different versions that were mistaken. In Kézai's work the Blackis and Ulahis terms were separated and the Szeklers anyway could not take their special runic writing from Romanians. Later, also many Hungarian authors - such as Károly Szabó translated both version as "oláh" so willfully or not merged the different meanings. J. Chr. Engel 1794: "in medio aevo notam suisse in Asia Valachiam magnam, vixissieque ibi Blacos seu Valachos, in vicinia Baskiriae. Addit his Rubuquisius [1,5 & XVIII,1]: ex hac magna Blachia prodiisse in Europam subditos Asanis coaevi sui, Bulgariae Thracicae principis: it is very unpropable that along with the Bulgarians vulgar-latin speaking people would come from Baskiria... (Commentatio de expedtionibus Traiani as Danubium, et origine valachorum. Vindobonae 1794 289-290: Bulgari a Slavis Volochi dicti).

Further meanings Vlach or Blac:

- Sheperd, nomadic, peasant in Albania (Salvert: Vlach ou vlachi en Albanais signifie pasteurs" - Essai sur les noms d'hommes de peuples et de lieux. Paris. 1824. II. 107.), Schafarik (vlache = pastores, Slav. Alterth. I. 377.)

- peasant, Bulgarian raja during the Ottoman reign (Hilferding Gesch. d. Serb. u. Bulg. II. 6.)

- inhabitant of Volga-Bulgaria by Rubriquis, Baco and Abulghazi "...qu'on apelle Ilac, qui est le meme que Blac, les Tartares ne pouvant prononcer la lettre B." - Rogerius Baco (1214-1292) (Et pres de la terre nommée Paskatur son les Blaciens, ainsi nommés de la grande Blacie")

- Gaul or Celtic people (i.e. Schafarik)

- Turkic-nomad by Pachymeres

- people with Orthodox religion in Croatia (Jirecek)

- Christian Slav in Bosnia (Jirecek)

So there are also other historic sources, whether or not it has to expanded with also non-Hungarian and non-Romanian sources so noone can make an accusation of willfull motivation by any nationalistic aims. However, this Blacorum regarding what we have seen fits the mostly to the Turkic people from Baskiria who came along with Bulgarians, so i don't support merging or deleting.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC))
 * , if the article describes an important theory, why it has not been verified for more than three months? Could you refer to signifact modern historians who accept it? You may not have realized, but we are now in the year 2016 AD. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what goes to three months I noticed this discussion yesterday. I did not recently dig in more the subject. I don't think that only that would have validity that is accepted by modern-historians, historical research or validity is not equal with acceptance that is anyway changing in years, I think then many articles could be deleted with such an argumentation. "You may not have realized, but we are now in the year 2016 AD." -> Borsoka, please at least recpect me just 1/10 as much a I respect you.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC))
 * (1) Yes, many articles will be deleted sooner or later. (2) If you want to cite books written in the 19th century, please accept that you have to be reminded that we are in the 21st century. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) I see. I don't really understand what is the problem if something is cited from older times, the content and validity should be judged, isn't it? You are professionally aware about this since you are mainly interested in historical research and in countless cases old sources - much more older ones - are referred. Just because recently the subject is not necessarily researched in the mainstream? I.e. how many articles about mathematics could be deleted since very old theories, theorems are not investigated or cited recently by mainstream authors? (2) As I told, it does not have a connection to the current timeline, what to cite if there is not necessarily a newer existing right now?(KIENGIR (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC))


 * Comment - the sole English-language source referred in the article is Rásonyi László, The History of the Blaks or Bulaks, Magyar Múlt, 1982. Does this work really exist? I can't find this book title anywhere online... 123Steller (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi it really exists, see i.e. here ->


 * U.I.1825. RÁSONYI László The history of the blaks or bulaks : An ancient Turkic ethnic group in Transylvania : [Magyar nyelvű kivonattal] / Rásonyi László. - Sydney : The Hungarian Historical Society, 1982a. - 71-94, 132p. ; 26cm. = Magyar Múlt, Hungarian Past. Vol. 11. No 2. Ser. No 30.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

Borsoka, to our earlier discussion, I recommend you the "Makkay János HOGYAN LETTEK A BLAKOKBÓL ROMÁNOK - (avagy hogyan támogatják teljes odaadással magyar kutatók a román hipernacionalizmust)" Kiadó	Szerző, 1997 ISBN 9636508232, ISBN 9789636508234 Terjedelem	55 oldal" művet is ami habár magyar forrás, de a szerző ismert igényes és hasznos Erdélyyel kapcsolatos munkáiról szerintem számodra is, nagyon jó összeállítás sok nem magyar forrással is.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC))
 * We can conclude that there is a publication (Rásonyi's work on the subject) which is not cited in a single peer reviewed academic book. And there is an other publication (Makkay's work) which says that the Hungarian historians do not accept the theory about a blak/bulak population in Transylvania (instead, according to the author of the publication, they accept the theory of Romanian nationalists). Do you really think that these two publications prove that this (obviously fringe) theory is notable enough to have a separate article? Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , if I understand correctly, Rásonyi's work is not reliable according to the criteria of Wikipedia? 123Steller (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot decide, because it cannot be read online. All the same, no other scholars have so far thought it notable enough to cite it. Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really, this is a subtitle about how Hungarian historians support something unintentionally by a considered mistake, it is just a title with a kind of metafora or euphemism. I don't agree that the theory would be fringe, you know very well how some people who simply does not like a theory is persisting to immediately judge something to be considered fringe, so they can remove even any source because of the disliked content, you also met with such cases, mostly when it is about a sensitive topic. However, I certainly know not this is your motivation since you are well-known to stand up against such acts. Anyway regarding the first work, I just answered to 123Steller, the second I have/read the significant chapter of the topic. Regarding the ancient history of Transylvania, I still consider it is a very important issue since in this - you now the best - there are many debates and controversies, to have more approach, sources viewpoints just increase the chance of better evaluation and understanding. On the other hand, not any merging I support regarding and article i.e. Vlachs, since they are designated as Eastern-Romance speaking people, and in the list we see not even the term Vlach meant always like so, to say nothing of Blacs.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, May I ask why some of you delete the historical references? For example the reference to William Rubruck was deleted. He is one of the most important sources about the Blacs. It seems that you are not comfortable with the subject. I understand that it is a controversial subject but I tried all my best to present it in a civil manner. I didn't hide the fact that many historians identify the Blacs with the Vlachs. But I think that in order to have a clear discussion about the subject we should be able to present the other sides opinion as well. There are scholars who do not identify the Blacs with the Vlachs. If you guys always delete the historical references than how can one judge if we should keep the article or not. Basically it is vandalism what you are doing because historical references are what they are. They are not some kind of an opinion only. Of course historical sources can be right or wrong but that is not for you to decide, just by deleting them. Lets keep the discussion going but please do not delete important references especially ones which can not refer to the Vlachs. Arpabogar (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Vasary, a well-known medievalist, Rasonyi's theory is fringe, Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365 (2005). I would really like to see evidence that Rasonyi's research is supported by other studies. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I showed at Talk:Blacorum, in the article are used wrong historical references and they are misinterpreted, both by some minor (or outdated) scholars, and Wikipedia editors. William of Rubruck mentioned that the Blacs or Illacs are Vlachs in his fictional chronology of the Vlach origin, and the same story Roger Bacon copied. Simon of Keza mentioned that the Slavs, Bulgars and Vlachs lived in Pannonia before the Hungarians, and until now no one confirmed other Simon's statements. That's it. We have two historical references, with doubtful accuracy, but they clearly mentioned the Romance-speaking Vlachs and not some Turkic-speaking "Blacs".
 * István Vásáry's source (pg. 29); "It is in connection with the Blaci of Transylvania that L. Rásonyi put forward a strange theory. He tried to prove that the Blaci of Transylvania had nothing to do with the Vlakhs, but were a Turkic people named Bulaq, and that the Vlakhs and Bulaqs were later confused in the sources (61; ...the fundamental thesis about the Bulaqs is an abortive attempt that cannot be proved). Unfortunately, this theory cannot be corroborated by an sound evidence, and every historical argument speaks against it. While I do no regard it as my task to prove here that his idea cannot be sustained, I would simply remark that it was again nationalism that lay behind this theory; Hungarian nationalism has tried to minimise the Romanian presence in history, while Romanian nationalism has tried to expropriate the Hungarian and Bulgarian past. In the case of the term Blaci, we cannot but conclude that it was used to designate the Vlakhs".
 * The article is fringe and minor theory, a misinterpretation, a natio-ideological conflict about the Vlachs. By no criteria the theory should have a stand-alone article. However, it can be (if needed)e mentioned in the notes of some specific and related article. Delete. --Crovata (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Crovata, without repeating my points, I wish only to add that I have to reject that any "Hungarian nationalism" would behind of anything. Romanian presence is dubious/unproved/questionable in some timelines, moreover The runic writing is also a cutting edge. Anyway also non-Hungarians perceived something is different regarding the Blacks/Vlach question, I think more sources, approach, addition would improve the theory, why not to present all of them?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC))
 * , you cannot reject Vásáry's own words because you're not Vásáry. You have a nationalistic bias toward the article because of which you ignore Wikipedia policy like WP:NPOV and WP:NOTE, historical facts and even other scholars. Romanian presence sometime is dubious, but not in this case. You constantly mention the runes, but until now didn't cite a single word from the fringe sources. More sources can improve the understanding of the theory, but the theory has no notable value, do you understand?--Crovata (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Crovata, I did not say anything about Vásáry. I don't have any nationalistic bias, I do not ignore any Wikipedia policy, I am supporting NPOV as always, I do not even ignore but heavily support historical facts. So this accusation list has nothing to do with any good faith, it is useless to do such because you don't agree with me. I cited you I told you already the content, anyway. Notability will be decided according to the rukes, it is not true that I would ignore it.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC))
 * , actions speak louder than words, you said that Hungarian nationalism wouldn't be behind anything (wrong), you didn't say anything about Vásáry i.e. continue to argue in support of the theory, which doesn't have heavily supported historical facts. It's OK. What others have to say?--Crovata (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Crovata, please don't decide instead of me what "I am doing", you are totally wrong, I just answered to your because many things you have stated are not true or I disagree. No Hungarian nationalism behind me or any author regarding this theory and I did not necessarily argue for something, I just reacted. Historical facts are the Szekler's use runic script and also other athors attested us about the Blac people that beucase of other circumstances seem different people like Vlachs. That's all. Support or acceptance does not change this, I consider still it has to be investigated. Please finish accusing or attacking personally me, simply accept not everybody is agreeing with you, with peace. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC))

My only concern is that Rasonyi was a noted Turkologist, historian, linguist, member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and visiting professor at the University of Ankara. Beside Rasonyi's study, I only found ?self-published? works about "Turkic Blaks" by Tibor E. Barath and Ervin Laczay and they seem to be unreliable sources IMO. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not uncommon that reliable and noted scholars sometime supported minor or fringe theories. That doesn't diminish the credibility and value of his other work, rather than as a scientist he saw something, tried to research, "connect the dots", made a theory, and in conclusion it was not endorsed by the scholarship.--Crovata (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The article starts like this: "The Blacs or Blaks..." Is there any English-language source that says that "Blacs" are the same people with the "Blaks"? 123Steller (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Blaks" people never existed, it is a very minor fringe theory and as such should be deleted. This discussion, as well on the talk page, is basically over as we already know the real issue. --Crovata (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not this was Steller's question, he asked something about English sources. The rest is your personal opinion, that of course has to be respected, as opinions of other's as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC))
 * There appears to be no English language source that mentions either the Blacs or the Blaks as distinct people from the Vlachs. Of course mediaeval primary sources in any language use different spellings, because spelling wasn't standardised then in any language. That's one of the many reasons why Wikipedia articles should be based on modern secondary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

If Rasonyi's study is the only reliable source for the subject then the article will have to be deleted because the theory could hardly be classified as a "minority view". Please try to find more RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES. Studies in Hungarian would be fine too. It's not a problem if the study is old as long as it's cited in modern scholarly works. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User Szegedi László states that Imre Baski (Eotvos Lorand University, Department of Turkic Studies) makes a possible connection between Blaks and Turkic peoples. (Imre Baski [turkologist]: CSAGIRCSA. Török és magyar névtani tanulmányok 1981-2006. Karcag, 2007. p. 14.) I don't have access to Baski's book. Borsoka, What do you think it is a reliable source? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to checkout Szegedi László's list (above). Imre Baski's work may be a reliable source. Gyorgy Bodor was not a historian but a lawyer....Gabor Balas was a lawyer too though he was familiar with legal history. Klara Sandor's study might be a reliable source too, but somebody needs to check it because I don't have access to her book either. (Klára Sándor [linguist, turcologist]: A székely írás Székelyföldön kívüli használatának kezdetei. In: MAGYAR ŐSTÖRTÉNET. Tudomány és hagyományőrzés. Ed. by Balázs Sudár et al. MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, Budapest, 2014. pp. 329-342.) Fakirbakir (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not have acces to Baski's work either, but I am not convinced that he published a study under the above mentioned title. His own list of his own works does not refer to the allegedly cited work . I have access to a book written by Klára Sándor (A székely írás nyomában, Typotex, 2014, ISBN 978-963-279-387-0). It is obviously a high quality reliable source. However, she does not identify the Blacs as a Turkic people in that work. She only refers to this theory. I must assume that the above list of alleged sources is not reliable. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Borsoka, I have found Baski's study, here:. I couldn't find a word about "Blaks" in the book. There is nothing on page 14 ..... Ergo, none of the cited books support the theory of Turkic Blaks... Fakirbakir (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So we can conclude, that Rásonyi's theory is marginal and its notability cannot be verified. Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Borsoka what do you mean by Klara Sandor "only" refering to this theory? Does she accept it, or how does she refer to it? Is the source online by any chance?Arpabogar (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly what the words mean: she mentions that such a theory exists. This article does not support, either, that she accepts the theory: . Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I found another source which argues for the case of Blaks being a Turkic people: by Istvan Ferenczi (prominent archeologist from Romania): A SZÉKELYEK SZÁRMAZÁSÁRÓL, Székely Útkereső, 1994 Arpabogar (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have found this study, here: Ferenczi says that we have to distinguish between Vlach/Valachus and Ivlach/B(u)lak and also refers to Lajos Tardy's study (p. 10). He states that it is possible that Mark Kalti the author of the Chronicon Pictum didn't make a mistake when he identified the "Olaci, Volaci, Valaci" people with the Turkic B(u)laks. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * We should simply KEEP and RENAME the article to "Blaks" or "Bulaqs". The main topic should be the history of a Turkic tribe in Eastern Europe and NOT the controversial identification of the Transylvanian "Blachi" with "Bulaqs". Fakirbakir (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Istvan Ferenczi is an archaeologist, are his interpretations about medieval documents reliable? 123Steller (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, his interpretation was published in a reliable source. However, he does not state that the identification is a fact. He only says, it is a possibility. I agree with 's proposal that an article/this article should be dedicated to the Bulaqs, and this fringe theory could be mentioned in two or three sentences in that article. Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to Bulaqs, as according to the source by Peter Benjamin Golden, because article gets notability when is about a specific Karluks tribe which was misunderstood by some scholars during the clarifying of few vague and erroneous European medieval sources. However, user Fakirbakir still ignores, doesn't understand and twists the fact about the Turkic tribe.--Crovata (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There seems to be a bit of a content dispute discussion here, along with no definitive answer as what to do with the article. Relisting. Note content disputes should bee addressed on article's talk page. Nordic  Nightfury  09:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge, whether or not this includes fringe theories is another matter, but regardless of that, there are enough reliable sources in the article to justify adding the content to the main Vlachs article. Icebob99 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename/Redirect, I think I agree with Fakirbakir that an article based on Ferenczi would be notable, and parts of this article are that. I think an important part of notability when it is contested is whether or not the source is edited by experts, not simply if the author of the source is an expert. With that in mind, what/who is the editor of Rásonyi, 1982? Is it "Magyar Múlt"? What is that, is it a reputable publisher? Smmurphy(Talk) 17:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  09:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Fakirbakir that we should KEEP and RENAME the article to "Blaks", "Bulaqs" or "Bulaks".Arpabogar (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Blaks is not the correct name, while Bulaks is the less used version compared to Bulaqs.--Crovata (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In the Hungarian literature Bulak and Blak is more prevalent; Rasonyi writes about them in all three versions in English: Blaks, Bulaks and Bulaqs. In Rubruck's writings the term is translated to English as Blacs.Arpabogar (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those Hungarian sources are old. In most of the sources, especially latest and English it is used Bulaqs. Blak or Blacs, especially in the Rubruck's work, have nothing to do with the Bulaqs. Blak/Blacs are not Bulaqs, Blak/Blacs are not the name for the Bulaqs, and the article is not about the theoretical Blak/Blacs, but real Bulaqs.--Crovata (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I still hold to my opinion for deletion. The article that we have here now, as edited, still has most of its content about a discredited fringe view of one or two people. This should be deleted and, if sources are available, an article should be created containing accepted knowledge about the Bulaqs rather than most of it being about this nonsense. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for non-notability and Merge. It has taken some effort to try to understand the issues at play here. Both aspects of the article - the Bulaqs description and confusion with Vlachs section - have a feeling of non-native English and are in need of adjustment for clarity and cohesiveness. I'm not clear that the sources in the History section all definitely refer to the same group without WP:SYNTH. For the name "Bulaqs" Google returns precious few results. DIY Editor (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with what? There are no non-fringe reliable sources here, so what is there to merge with anything? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP or RENAME -> as more editors updated or reinforced their decision, I update with this, if the rename is demanded, rename to Bulaqs or Bulaks or anything else that would reach consensus, this ethnic group deserves an article on the other hand their history and confusions regarding the naming is well demonstrated as well because of this what other theories emerged with proper reasoning.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Why should an article written about the genitive plural of the Latin name for the Vlachs be kept or renamed as an article about a completely different enthnic group? If we are to have an article about the Bulaqs or Bulaks or whatever spelling people want to use then it should be started from scratch, not developed by hijacking an article about a totally different topic. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, similar names and they different forms are debated an not in all case is clear which ethnic group they are really referred, regardless how the wished to be accepted by some views. I am amazed that you ask why it should be renamed, although more editors also explained why it would be necessary, especially your first question could have also implied it. The article does not ignore the scratch and it can be developed further, there is not any hijacking with a totally different topic, since the confusion and controversy of this people has a history so it is an important and interesting information regarding their evaluation.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC))
 * The whole point is that all we have is confusion, and nothing supported by reliable sources. That's the very reason why this article should be deleted. If any article about a similarly named ethnic group can be created on the basis of reliable sources it should be created from scratch, rather than this confusing nonsense be incorporated into it. The article that this discussion is about was, at the time of nomination, about an ethic group already covered in a pre-existing article, the Vlachs, and simply had a title in the wrong language and in the wrong case. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is just your opinion, reliable sources are present, as also speaking continously about "nonsense". Turkic people cannot be considered as Eastern Romance speaking people, as both of them shared similar or identical etymology, with more versions, that is the main reason for confusion. Yes, you expressed more times your wish for deletion together with such nonsense and bad faith arguments like The distinction between the Vlachs and the Blaci only seems to be a fringe idea by people with the long discredited notion that there is such a thing as racial purity, and don't want to admit that they might share some ancestry with people who they regard as racially inferior. This suggest an other motivation behind.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC))
 * László Makkai wrote: "There has been some speculation that Anonymus' Blaks were the Turkic people who are mentioned in medieval sources as bearing the same name and living east of the Carpathians, but this hypothesis does not bear the test of scholarly scrutiny." - http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/59.html 123Steller (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You presented one opinion, so what? This is just one brick, what are discussed here are much broader.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC))
 * One opinion among several with the same conclusion.--Crovata (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As also there are other's with different conclusion.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Stop literally abusing and twisting WP:NPOV. Their conclusion was found wrong and thus their conclusion can't have the same WP:WEIGHT, quantitatively and qualitatively. One more such comment and I will report you on the noticeboard for intentional disruptive behavior.--Crovata (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not twist or abuse anything, you should give up on this aggressive mentality of threats and uncivility, I don't have any "intentional disruptive behavior", you accuse everyone with everything who does not immediately share your POV, this is not a fair behavior in Wikipedia, to say nothing about edit warring. Calm down and be civil and polite!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you constantly twist the facts and principles. There is fine line between civility and stubborn irritancy. I did not immediately accuse anyone, only after many discussions some people can't waste their time and energy to write and explain for 1000th time the same thing. The three of you intentionally don't want to understand and accept that the hypothesis is irrelevant, fringe and refuted, as well not notable enough according to the Wikipedia's principle. It has nothing to do with my personal POV.--Crovata (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wondering when we would get the standard POV-pusher's argument that anyone pointing out the lack of neutrality must be pushing the opposite POV. I have no connection with Romania or Hungary and have no opinion about any of the ethnic disagreements in the region, other than being able to see the basic failure of logic that applies to any irredentism anywhere, and have no motivation other than to keep Wikipedia in conformance to its basic content policies. I do however have a pretty sensitive, and usually accurate, bullshit detector. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No Crovata, I did not twist any fact or principles, also I am not a performer of any irritacy, you are overreacting something also regarding others in a very harsh way and your accusations came early to more persons, on the other hand not mine or other's motivation is to repeat something all the time. Like now, "intentionally", "refuted", "Wikipedia principle", it is useless to react on these again, read back if necessary why not this is the situation. Dear IP, than your "detector" should have immediately eliminate this remark of yours: The distinction between the Vlachs and the Blaci only seems to be a fringe idea by people with the long discredited notion that there is such a thing as racial purity, and don't want to admit that they might share some ancestry with people who they regard as racially inferior.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC))


 * Delete - I can't find any other sources relating to this topic. If we have more sources for this then I would reconsider.  The Ninja5 Empire  ( Talk ) 12:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you. There are more than half a dozen scholars in the article. Do you suggest that we should delete an article because non-English sources are in majority? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Issues
It seems that there are several different issues at play: These are overlapping matters and it makes for a confused discussion. It might help to narrow the focus of the debate. —DIY Editor (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether this article is or should be about the Turkic group "Bulaqs" —DIY Editor (talk)
 * From now it should be primarily about the Turkic people called Bulaqs. The hypothesis is related to them and thus is worthy of mention.--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What would be the right name for the article and why does it have the current name —DIY Editor (talk)
 * Bulaqs, the current name was a mistake which was not corrected.--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether an article about Bulaqs should cover possible confusion with Vlachs —DIY Editor (talk)
 * According to WP:WEIGHT "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia", thus it should not. The hypothesis has not enough notability for a separate article, not even for such an extensive mention. It is barely mentioned by other scholars, and all of them have the same conclusion - it is a minor refuted hypothesis not worthy of attention. Such an extensive mention gives wrong weight to it. I think it should be mentioned, but the real issue is how much?--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a refuted hypothesis, some scholars does not support the theory, while other's support, there is not any general refute on this basis. However, it is already indicated that "minority of scholars" and "generally accepted Vlachs" so your complain is a real overreaction.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
 * No. From now on I will not, and call the others as well, consider your opinion anymore on the topic because we cannot continue a discussion if one editor and the main opposition intentionally continues to ignore the reality of the topic. You constantly twist the facts about the issue, and give undue WP:WEIGHT and make WP:FALSEBALANCE. You don't understand WP:NPOV and as you intentionally don't want accept the NPOV principles the Wikipedia is edited, and as the Wikipedia principles are over any editor, and your personal opinion is ridiculously wrong, we can simply ignore it.--Crovata (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But yes, I don't have to call anyone, you failed to grasp some Wiki rules that you cannot exclude or ignore any opinion. I did not "intentionally ignore" anything, you repeat the same invalid phrases like "twist", "NPOV", "Wikipedia principles" that you don't keep, you focus on me although editors also share the same opinion on the contrary, I do not push any personal opinion, contrary to you. Everything is else were already discussed above, no need to repeat.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * "invalid phrases like "twist", "NPOV", "Wikipedia principles"", that's enough.--Crovata (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, I've told the same a long ago.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Incredible, you admited that from the very beginning the Wikipedia and NPOV principles were nothing but invalid phrases for you.--Crovata (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I just reflected that your repeat of invalid accusations are useless.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Oh my God, you still don't get it - those are not invalid accusations. Now you made a literal confirmation that you intentionally don't understand and accept the Wikipedia principles like NPOV, WEIGHT, FALSEBALANCE.--Crovata (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This behavior is seriously disruptive and dangerous, WP:NOTHERE is suspected. You invent something and put something in my mouth that I did not, you sank down a very deep level. I confirmed as I said, that your continous listing of false accusations are useless, and you are repeating the same nonsense since I don't harm those rules. Details everywhere. With such "oh my god type remarks" you just qualifying yourself.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * You are a typical example of WP:DISRUPT behavior.--Crovata (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For your misfortune, I am not, I did not harm any rule, unlike you. N+1 accusation won't help your situation.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Yes, for my misfortune because I wasted my time on someone who WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--Crovata (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you use your time for an unnecessary overreaction. I am very sorry you ended up like so.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Whether Vlachs should cover possible confusion with Bulaqs —DIY Editor (talk)
 * No.--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. We don't do censorship. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether there are reliable sources regarding Bulaqs and variations on that spelling and a way to tie those sources together without WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE —DIY Editor (talk)
 * Yes, see references from the "Etymology" and "History" section, as well Spinei, Vasary...--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether there are reliable sources regarding confusion between Bulaqs (by which spelling and by whom) and Vlachs without WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE —DIY Editor (talk)
 * Yes, and they are already cited. Basically, the article does not have the SYNTH issue like before, however it still does have the UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE issues about the hypothesis' information.--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rasonyi, Ferenczi, Makkay, Pais and Tardy eliminate the "Undue" issue. No censorship pls. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't eliminate UNDUE, and it has nothing to do with any kind of censorship. You don't understand and accept the UNDUE principle.--Crovata (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether there is any material worth salvaging from article —DIY Editor (talk)
 * Yes, mainly the "Etymology" and "History".--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment We should not forget that we are dealing with two different issues here. We do know that the Bulaqs were an existing people in medieval times. I hope you all recognize this. I don't even know why we are still discussing this nomination. It would be a big mistake not to keep an article about the Bulaq people. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well is blocked for two months for edits on this article so that may put some of the dispute to rest. I think the article's title is part of what has prolonged the debate on keeping it - the title and article as originally created seem to refer to Vlachs, while the current content is about Bulaqs. As to the notability of Bulaqs, if we are to assume that any foreign language sources are accurately cited then the topic of Bulaqs would appear to merit an article. However, given the seemingly contentious nature of the article I'm personally not entirely comfortable assuming that is so. There is next to nothing available in English to check some of the basic facts. —DIY Editor (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content dispute can be settled elsewhere. We don't delete articles because of such disputes.  DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But this isn't a content dispute. Neither the title of this article (the Latin genitive of Vlachs) nor the content when it was nominated had any relationship to the so-called Bulaqs described here now. It's like someone starting a new article about Donald Trump with the title "Donald Trump's" and then, during its deletion discussion, rewriting it to be about Forrest Gump and claiming it should be kept because the new subject is notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2016 (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.