Talk:Bolokhovians

Talk

This is a talk page. Please don't write articles here --Codrin.B (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Bolokhoveni in 1015

Please read carefully in Spinei: "Vlachs were engaged in the disputes for the Kievan throne, beginning with 1015".(page 105) If Bolokhoveni are near Kiev, you have to agree that they were Vlachs or Bolokhoveni. I know you are angry but the text is from Spinei. Please do not erase references. Eurocentral (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"...If Bolokhoveni are near Kiev, you have to agree that they were... Bolokhoveni..." twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Read these (Hypatian Chronicle is not the only chronicle): V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkic NomadsNorth of the Danube Deltafrom the Tenth to theMid-Thirteenth Century Brill, 2009, pp 104-105

S. H. Cross, “Yaroslav the Wise in Norse tradition,” Speculum 4 (1929), pp 186–191

Eurocentral (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Eurocentral, please read what WP:NOR means. Please also read Spinei's view on their identification as Vlachs (Spinei 2009, pp. 161-162): "...controversial is the ethnicity of the Bolokhovens, a population mentioned as living in the Rus region to the northeast from Moldavia..", "..the idea that the Bolokhoveni were Rus is also supported by evidence of relations between Bolokhoven princes and Galician noble families...". Borsoka (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Map of western Rus

Dimnik writes that the land of Bolokhoveni bordered on the principalities of Halych, Volhynia and Kiev in the middle 13th century. What is the problem with a map presenting those three principalities in the same period? Borsoka (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the page of Bolokhoveni. Please do not provoke conficts ! Put the map of Galicia to Galicia Wiki page!

Please respect WIKI rules! Only data abot Bolokhoveni are acceptable. If you create a precedent, there be a revolution in all pages. Tomorrow the the users from Kiev will put their map on this page ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.40.169 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read my remarks before answering them. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anonym, for the time being the article provides a map which presents a POV of the land of the Bolokhoveni. If you read the text of the article and the referred reliable sources (the works of the historians Dimnik and Spinei) you may understand, that there is a significant POV according to which the Bolokhoveni dwelled somewhere in the lands along the borders of the principalities of Halych, Volhynia and Kiev in the middle 13th century. The map you have been deleting presents this region in the same period. Why should we delete it? Borsoka (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an attack against normal rules. ONLY DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TOPIC ARE ADMISIBLE. Your document is about GALICIA and from another ERA ! Read the title of the page and bring documents about Bolokhoveni not about Galicians!

Hi, I am surprised to see this fight about maps. Probably user Borsoka wants to say: "I do not agree with Bolokhoveni history" and put his map in a wrong place. Maybe he is from Galicia. If you read in talk page what he wrote you'll understand his negationist position. Obstructioning Bolokhoveni page with maps from other countries is not a good idea. With best regards, Nicky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.11.92 (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you please specifically refer to the rule of our community which would be "attacked" if this map were added? Please take into account, that the map presents the borderlands of the principalities of Halych, Volhynia and Kiev, where the land of Bolokhoveni was located in the same region, according to a reliable source cited in the article (Dimnik). Borsoka (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reasons why the Rus map is not accepted:

1. It is a map of a foreign state

2. It has No data about Bolokhoveni

3. Has a dubious contour

4. It is useless

If we discuss about technical errors:

a. It has not documented data

b. It overlaps a territory that does not belong to Galicia

c. The contour is not found in medieval documents

d. It missed the Uşiţa entering town in Galicia

e. Old documents showed that Andronicus (future Emperor) entered Galicia through Uşiţa; also Spinei showed that Uşiţa was the most advanced Galician town to Southern. So your map is a caricature. Sorry but this is the situation. Eurocentral (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right: the map does not contain any reference to its source, therefore it is not verifiable. Please apply the same rule to the map you designed: it also lacks any reference to a reliable source. It contradicts to the map presented in Dimnik's book (Dimnik 1981, p. 335), which present a much smaller territory along the uppermost courses of the rivers Sluch and Southern Bug. Borsoka (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've just fully protected this article due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the matter here on the talk page instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mark Arsten, thank you for your action, even if it protects the status quo instead of the status quo ante. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Borokhov's location

I am not sure but Borokhov seems to be identical with present-day Borokhiv, Volyns'ka oblast, Ukraine (eastward from city of Lutsk). Fakirbakir (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not know. But Borokhiv might be the Ukrainian / modern version of the same name. Borsoka (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ushitsa in Spinei's work

Yes, Spinei actually writes of Ushitsa and makes it clear that this town was located on the southern border of Halych / Galicia. However, he writes of the town in connection with a military action by Ivan Berladnik and his Cuman and Berladnik allies in 1159. He does not make any reference to Bolokhoveni in connection with the event. Furthermore, he clearly states that the Bolokhoveni lived somewhere to the north-east of Moldavia, not to the south of Halych / Galicia. It is also clear that Spinei does not identify the Bolokhoveni as Vlachs. Therefore any reference to his work in order to prove that the Bolokhoveni lived to the south of Halych contradicts to WP:SYNTH. (I refer to Spinei 2009, pp. 131., 161-162.) Borsoka (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bolokhoveni and Vlachs

@Skirts89:, why do you think the scholarly theory about the Bolokhoveni's association with the Vlachs should not be mentioned in the lead? Please take into account that this is a quite widely accepted theory in Romania. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, I think it is fine if the theory is in the article somewhere, but as is, it's duplicated. Perhaps we can just keep one mention, otherwise it seems redundant. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD: the lead should summarize the core of the main text. It cannot be achieved without "duplications". Borsoka (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) buidhe 22:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Bolokhoveni → Bolokhovians – There is absolutely no reason to use the romanian-language term where the English one exists: we have no idea how they called themselves. The only available chronickles about them are in Slavic. - Altenmann >talk 04:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the page move, but I have to add the current article's name is not identical with the Romanian name (Bolohoveni)...(KIENGIR (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC))

I support this proposal. Super Ψ Dro 13:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bolohoveni land from A.V. Boldur description.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Choniates and the Bolokhovians

An IP user is adding a quote from Choniates's chronicle about the Vlachs' presence at the borders of Halych. As per WP:NOR and WP:SOURCE, the connection between Choniates's Vlachs and the Bolokhovians should be verified with a reference to reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

GA?

This article does not seem to meet the standards of a GA, especially there are portions of text written by the LTA Iaaasi where the sources do not confirm what is said in the article, it is more of an association of sources over which the said user's conclusions were drawn, for example at "Etymology". Per WP:SYNTH.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read what WP:SYNTH means before referring to it. Borsoka (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I will continue to wait for other opinions, not just the predictable and defensive ones of the two contributors of the article.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to receive other opinions you should quote examples. Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not very GA, but I dgaf for WP:GAR, because WP:GACR are giving lots of slack, because they are purely formal. The last assessment in 2015 gave it all thumbs up. --Altenmann >talk 04:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

History section

It was an erroneous mishmash. I started fixing it by clearly listing the (scarse) mmentions in the Hypatian Chronicle. The same must be done for Volhynian chronicle, and only then describe the syntheses by modern historians, with attribution. --Altenmann >talk 03:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

All articles need regular revision, so thank you for your attention. However, references to sources that are more than a century old are unlikely to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I added references only to content of Hypatian Chronicle. I do not think for 100 years its content changed :-) I do agree that any 100-old commentary can be uinappropriate and must be discussed. Hoowever we routinnely cite attributed opinions of scholars of the past, especially in cases when information is scarce. For example in artiicles about Varangianns or Rus Khaganate we cite medieval arabic travelers ibn faldan, ibn rustah. --Altenmann >talk 03:42, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think this approach is in line with WP:SOURCES, particularly with regard to WP:PRIMARY? Neither Varangians nor Rus' Khaganate are GAs, so they do not represent best practice. Furthermore, the 1899 work by Onciul and the 1906 edition of the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary are not primary sources, but more than a century old works. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

OK my mistake about arabs. However you did not address my argument: what can me wrong with Efron describing, not commenting the manuscript? I think it does good job: it lists "mention1", "mentioon2", "mention3", "mention4", "mention5" without commenting. And only after that it describes opinions of contemporary scholars (which I didnt mention at all). --Altenmann >talk 04:20, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Briefly, your edits did not improve the article and instead introduced outdated sources, thereby reducing its quality. Borsoka (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Briefly, article is improved, because previous version was sloppy, that's why I edited it. Source is good for the added content. I asked you two times already what is factually wrong with Efron. Sorry, the discussion is impossible if you keep repeating that article was not improved without proviiding aguments and/or counterind mine. --Altenmann >talk 04:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

How exactly have you improved the article? You have introduced at least one unverified claim and added a new sentence concerning a mid-eleventh-century event attested only by a source more than a century old. Please cite recent peer-reviewed studies that mention this event in connection with the Bolokhovians, so that its inclusion complies with WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed an unverified claim because I am lazy to search for sources. Which "new sentence" you have in mid? --Altenmann >talk 05:47, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

There are two sentences about 11th-century events added in section History. Both should be removed as per WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh yes, they are due, because the information of bolokhvians is extremely scarce and every bit is important. --Altenmann >talk 06:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

However, modern historians do not mention them in the article's context, probably because they do not mention Bolokhovians. Borsoka (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You cannot speak for all modern historians. --Altenmann >talk 06:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Never mind I reverted myself for now, until I have time to find more modern sources, such as Володимир Ричка, Олексій Толочко «Князи Болоховьсции» Ruthenica XIII (2016), 83–107. --Altenmann >talk 07:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

When I started reading around, I see more sloppiness; I am done for today, but there is lagre mess in "Bolokhov" page as well. I would suggest to merge "Bolokhov" here to avoid content forking and mess prolifeartion. @Borsoka: What do you think? --Altenmann >talk 08:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)