Talk:Founding of Wallachia

Comment

No link to Vlachs? --Wetman (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article is not yet finished and it's not yet in a very good shape. But I just got the latest book by Neagu Djuvara on this topic. :-) bogdan (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Few suggestions

Cool article. I have done few minor edits, and I suggest couple of them:

• Foundation of Wallachia links to 2 different disambiguation pages - Cârţa and Vicina - this should be fixed.

It has been done. Thank for your suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image captions shoul be expanded a bit. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cumans

Dear Aleksandr Grigoryev, you mention that it is not certain whether the Cumans were really of Turkic origin. Would you please refer to any reliable source which contains a similar statement. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Foundation of Wallachia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is reasonably well written and complies sufficiently with the manual of style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reference #66[1] appears to be an unreliable source.

 Done (the unreliable source is deleted) Borsoka (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I assume good faith for all off-line sources.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It appears both broad and focussed.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Terratransalpina.png has no description or author information.

 Done (the map is deleted; otherwise, it is an excellent map which does not contradict to the sources referred to in the article, but I am not in the position to fix it) Borsoka (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just a few points to be addressed. On Hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for fixing those point. as you say, it is a pity about the map, but images do need sourcing information. I am haoppy to pass this as a Good Article.

Geoffrey of Villehardouin, Vlachs, Petrov

Petar Petrov in Restoration of the Bulgarian State (1185-1197) (Sofia 1985, p. 324-325), analyzing the use of the terms "Wallachia" and "Bulgaria" and "Vlachs" and "Bulgarians" by Geoffrey of Villehardouin, concludes that for Villehardouin "Bulgaria" is the land south of the Balkan Mountains and "Wallachia" is mainly north of the Balkan Mountains. The same applies to a large extent and about the terms "Vlachs" and "Bulgarians". An example is, stating Petrov, that when Geoffrey of Villehardouin talking about the murder of Marquis Boniface of Montferrat, south of Rhodopes (further south of Balkan Mountains) Villehardouin speak only about Bulgarians. Actually, Petrov assumes that for Villehardouin Bulgarian state consists of two provinces - Wallachia and Bulgaria and therefore the author of "Chronicle of The Fourth Crusade..." 15 times called Tsar Kaloyan "King of Wallachia and Bulgaria", but also the Bulgarian state and marked only as "Wallachia".--JSimin (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This analysis does not contradict to the article. The northern part of modern Bulgaria was called "Wallachia" in contemporary Western sources between c. 1185 and the 1250s. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that there is no dispute, but I still erased a dubious phrase. I thought it not worth arguing about it.--JSimin (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian presence

Concerning this edit and the words "there is no reference to Bulgarian rule north of the Danube" I would like to start with an example - Anonymi Descriprio Europea Orientalis. Imperium Constantonopolitanum, Albania, Serbia. Bulgaria, Rutenia, Ungaria, Polonia, Bochemia. Anno MCCCVIII exarata, editit. Praefatio et adnotationibus instuxit Dr. Olgierd Gorca. Craciviae, 1916. That description, made by an anonymous Dominican monk, said that Bulgaria is empire in the middle of which flows the Danube. (Коледаров, Петър. Политическа география на средновековната българска държава, Втора част (1186-1396), София 1989 (Koledarov. Petar. Political Geography of the Medieval Bulgarian State, part II. From 1186 to 1396, Sofia 1989). p. 86, 89.)--JSimin (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not found the sentence "there is no reference to Bulgarian rule north of the Danube" in the article, although I remember it. It is cited from Victor Spinei's work, and his work describes the history of the region to the north of the Danube until the middle of the 13th century, a primary source written around 1300 cannot contradict to his statement. Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)