# Talk:Blakumen

It is quite surprising, that the romanian historians suggests the Vlachs coming from Moldavia or even further. Especially during a fight of the 12 - th century. When the Nistor Chronicles talks about Vlachs living peacefully with the Slavs, obviously in territories of the present Ucrainian steps, and not merely the presentday Romania. PredaMi (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear PredaMi, I do not understand your above remark. Would you please clarify it. Which part of the article contains the above suggestion? Who are the Romanian historians referred to above? Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What did Saxo Grammaticus write of Blokumannaland or Wallachia? Why is his work relevant in the context of this article? Borsoka (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I sent you the link on your talk page. Here's what it says. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I have not read anything of the modern Icelandic language in the above work (Saxo Grammaticus). Therefore it is not relevant in the context. Borsoka (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Afro-Eurasian, would you please share your concerns with me. Why have you been deleting well-referenced texts from the article? Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I just want to verify that the term Blokumannaland may refer to either to Wallachia or to "Africa". How can we be sure that it's mentioned in the source if we can't read it? Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not know. Our life is terrible. We must trust each other. Disgusting. Borsoka (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm... I'm not understanding. I would like to trust that you want to improve these articles (I'm not just referring to Blakumen), but I also want to make sure that everything in the article is properly sourced and contains no added content from editors' opinions. I will remove the reference to Africa until you find a proper source that confirms this. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear Afro-Eurasian, the statement is properly referenced, so it cannot contain original research. Remember that it was not me, but you who modified a sentence in this article about the Icelandic language based on a new reference (Saxo Grammaticus) which does not mention the Icelandic language. Please believe that not all editors are like you. Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed. If someone were to add "and even South America" after "Africa", does it make it true just because there is a refernce at the end? No. You added Africa here. Therefore, it will be removed until you can verify that claim. P.S. What do you mean by "not all editors are like you"? Afro-Eurasian (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I added that information based on a reliable source. As I stated not all editors are like you who delete or add information pretending that use a reliable source (as in the case cited above with Saxo Grammaticus). Borsoka (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I understand that the actual source is reliable; but you cannot verify that Africa is even mentioned... If you can, then please do so and we wouldn't need to argue about this. And please do not be rude and insult me, I try to keep these articles neutral and in good shape. I've never insulted your editing, and I would appreciate if you didn't insult mine. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear absent-minded friend, it was you who stated of me that I had made unconstructive edits. It is also you who suggest above that I abused a reliable source, although it was  you  who made an edit in a sentence about the Icelandic language seemingly based on a source (Saxo Grammaticus) which does not refer to that languge. It was also you who deleted a number of well-referenced statements from this article. I know that you think that all editors behave like you. However, believe me you are wrong. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Pintescu, in his cited work writes, "Nous trouvons intéressant le fait que la langue islandaise contemporaine enregistre deux sens pour le mot Blökkumannaland. Au passé, ce mot signifiait "Valakía", mais à présent il désigne seulement "Afríka" (BLÖNDAL 1922, 92; BLÖNDAL MAGNUSSON 1989, 68)." He refers to BLÖNDAL Sigfús 1922 Islandsk-Dansk Ordbog, 1, Reykjavik (1920-1922), and to BLÖNDAL MAGNÚSSON Ásge 1989 Íslensk Orðsifjabók, Reykjavik. Please stop vandalising the article. You may not understand, but not all editors try to cheat. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
There we go pal! If you would have said that in the beginning, we wouldn't be arguing about this. Thanks. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
If you had not modified or deleted sentences which were based on reliable sources, we would not have debated. I think you should read some basic WP policies, including WP:GF and WP:NOR. Please also learn how to use template messages instead of modifying and deleting well referenced texts. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blakumen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 16:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


### Onel5969 review
Overview: The article is generally well-written, with good organization.  Good prose, no spelling or grammatical errors, no copyvios.
Writing: The article is generally well-written, with good organization.  The lead is short, and might be lengthened, but the article itself is short, and the lead is a brief summary of the entire article.
References: Article is well-cited with independent, reliable sources.
Scope: The article is comprehensive in the coverage of its very narrow subject.
NPOV: The article does a good job of presenting the opposing views of different scholars
Edit Wars: currently, except for a brief edit war from a single editor who was erroneously questioning sources since they were unavailable on-line (which is NOT a valid contention), the article's edit history is stable.
Images: The two images add greatly to the article, and both have no copyright issues.
Pass: On the whole, I would support this article for GA status. Onel5969 (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This isn't really much of anything in the way of a review, so I'm placing this back in the queue. Wizardman 00:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blakumen/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The link to black men in the lead is anachronistic. This seems to have been a major source of contention on this article in the past as well. I would recommend delinking "black men", and instead link "black" to dark skin.
I am confused by the first section in the article. It opens with a statement that the only attested use of the ethonym Blakumen is on a runestone, but then later on it says that "Spinei counters this view on account of the fact that several mentions of the Blakumen (for instance in the Eymund's Saga) occur in contexts taking place decades before the earliest appearance of the Cumans in the Pontic steppe.[7]" - So the term only used on a runestone, or not?--¿3family6 contribs 19:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I'm accepting sources AGF, as they are offline, and some are even in foreign languages. The use of citations is adequate, and the material well-referenced. My only issue is that several citations are placed in the middle of a sentence and interrupt the flow. They should be moved to either the end of the sentence, or to the comma ending the sentence phrase.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Covers all the major aspects, isn't bogged down by extraneous content.--¿3family6 contribs 19:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Subject portrayed in a neutral manner.--¿3family6 contribs 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Fairly stable. There was a bit of a slow-burning edit war, but it seems to have sorted itself out.--¿3family6 contribs 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Images are very suitable, and have no licensing issues.--¿3family6 contribs 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Overall: A wikilink in the lead is inaccurate, some citations interrupt flow, and I found some of the prose confusing.--¿3family6 contribs 19:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Y All issues addressed. Passed.--¿3family6 contribs 04:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Pass/Fail: 

3family6, thank you for your review. I think that I fixed the problems that you mentioned above. Borsoka (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are thousands of Varangian runes in Eurasia (for instance, in Constantinople, in Novgorod, in Budapest). Anon, why do you think that the Varangian runes in a cave and other places in Dubroja are relevant in this article? Do they mention the Blakumen? Borsoka (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There are works of Spinei, Curta and other Scandinavian researchers claiming the Blakumen were Vlachs or Romanians. In this case it is better to show that Varangians passed through the lands of Vlachs. Byzantine chronicles mentioned about Vlachs in Paradunavion or Paristrion theme. Also Arabic chronicles mentioned data about "al-Awalak" and  "ulaqut" sau "ulagh" inhabitants;   see Dimitri Korobeinikov, A broken mirror: the Kipchak world in the thirteenth century. In the volume: The other Europe from the Middle Ages, Edited by Florin Curta, Brill 2008, p. 394  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.27.102 (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the theory that the Blakumen were Vlachs is strongly emphasized in the article. Could you refer to a source stating that the rune stones found in Dubroja write of Vlachs? Do the above cited authors state that the Varangians could only meet Blakumen in Dobruja? Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, Spinei. Take his studies with a pinch of salt.....--->[1]. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I think Spinei is an excellent historian. Yes, he is a dogmatic. For instnce, he writes that the lack of Romanian hydronyms in Moldavia and Moldova proves that the territory has continuously been inhabited by (of course) sedentary Romanians. However, he is not the only historian with a strong bias. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you quote a text from Spinei proving that he thinks that Blokumannaland was not located to the south of the Danube? Borsoka (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Varangians at Black Sea.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The text body says Jesch  "allows possibility", i.e., it is wild guess not corroborated by anything, hence WP:UNDUE in the lede. (On a personal note "blakumen"-> "black men" is akin to "kitchen etymology" and I am surprized that a serious historan even suggested this). Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is what Jesch actually says:The traditional interpretation of the sequence blakumen is that it refers to ‘Wallachians’ or Vlachs, the inhabitants of a region of present-day Romania (SR XI, 267–8). An alternative explanation is that the term means ‘black men’ (e.g. SamRun), though of what kind is not clear. What is of interest is the use of the verb svíkja again. It suggests that Hróðfúss was killed by a group of men in whom he had trust and, moreover, that this happened while he was í útfor ‘on a voyage abroad’, whether this was in Wallachia or among ‘black men’.The Samnordisk runtextdatabas did indeed have 'black men' (since it is quoted that way in Janine Köster, Sterbeinschriften auf wikingerzeitlichen Runensteinen [2014]), although it looks to have been updated since to say 'Wallachians'. In addition, Pritsak says "Black Cumans". I see no reason to omit the word 'black' from the lead. Srnec (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
If we take into account that "Blokumannaland" means not only Wallachia but also Africa in the Icelandic language, the translation is not absurd. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know(and correct me if I am wrong), the cumans arrive in europe in the second half of the XIth century and the stone with the inscription is from 1050(just in the middle of the century). So the only reason that they are relationated with cumans its because it sounds like "Black Cuman"? CarpathianEnjoyer (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)