Talk:Gelou

message: From the time of Krum to the time of Samuel of Bulgaria, this territory which Gelou protected was politically dependent on Preslav and Ohrid in the end. So, I do not see any reason to remove the :Category:Transdanubian Bulgaria. Moreover, Hungarian statehood up to 1000 years cannot be said, let alone Romanian statehood.
Here is a source. Unfortunately, the book has not been translated into English: Transylvanian (Siebenbürgen) Bulgarians. Ethnicity. Language. Ethnonymy. Onomastics. Prosopography Angel Angel 2 (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If Gelou existed at all, he was not subject to Bulgarian authority either according to the Gesta Hungarorum or according to modern scholars who think he existed. Borsoka (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political affiliation and power over the territory 

message: , why do you think we need to mention the continuity theory in an article about a legendary Vlach duke? Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The is no mention of the continuity theory but of the author's opinon about the only work which describes Gelou. The particular paragraph is "Gesta Hungarorum's reliability" which is exactly what Deletant talks about, so it's relevant. Why do you think the direct quote from Gesta Hungarorum concerning Gelou is not relevant to the page? TheGoldAge (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article's consent, Deletant's view of the historicity of Gelou is relevant. His view about the presence of Romanians in Transyvania is out of the scope of the article. Borsoka (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But is Deletant's view of Gesta Hungarorum relevant? As his view is slightly different from that of the other historians mentioned: István Bóna, Pál Engel, Gyula Kristó. He doesn't argue that "Anonymus had no real knowledge of the Carpathian Basin (including Transylvania) at the time of the Hungarian conquest and invented all the opponents of the Hungarians because he needed characters to be defeated by the conquerors" as currently present in the article. TheGoldAge (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

text: In the article's context, Deletant's view does not differ from other scholars: Gelou was invented like the Hungarians' all other  enemies in the Gesta.  Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it does, Deletant says that the cases for and against the existance of Gelou simply cannot be proven. Which is different from István Bóna, Pál Engel and Gyula Kristó's views that he is incorrectly put together with. And István Bóna, Pál Engel, Gyula Kristó views on Anonymus' knowledge of Transylvania that he is again incorrectly associated with. Deletant says that a number of Anonymus' characters are clearly created and lists them, Gelou is not part of that list. TheGoldAge (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I have rewritten that part and removed Deletant's view of Gesta Hungarorum as a whole, including his view about the presence of Romanians in Transyvania, only mentioning the part related to Gelou in particular. Do you agree with this new edit? TheGoldAge (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a possible approach, but you verbatim cited him without using apostrophes. I fixed the problem. Borsoka (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Why was my post deleted? I had marked everything with a source, and this is a theory accepted by several historians and referred to by several written sources. I have specifically stated that it is a theory, just as this whole page is about a probably fictional person. Zsombor wiki (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As per DUE: the vast majority of mainstream historians do not accept this theory. Furthermore, the theory could be desribed as a fringe theory. It was quite obviously fabricated by historians who wanted to accept Anonymus' tales about the  Magyars' heroic deeds during the Conquest without accepting a Vlach presence in Transylvania before the Conquest. Borsoka (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, two contemporary sources, mentioning the Bulaq Turks as newcomers who came with the Bulgars, and the Nord sagas, also mention a people called "Blokumenn" who were horse nomads, and not Christians, which are not appropriate adjectives for the Vlachs. (Eymund's Saga, Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla) I think it would be fair to include the opinions of other historians, especially if it is cited as a "theory", and is corroborated by contemporary sources, as well as place names and archaeological finds that attest to a Turkic population in the area. I think it's not that they want to accept the fictional fabulous conquest of the Hungarians, but that archaeology, place names and written sources refer to a population whose leader was "Gelou", which is also an earlier name for this people.There is reason to believe that the "Blasis" are not Romanians and are a Turkic people, especially since old maps and old sources distinguish them. CriticKende (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:DUE, we can hardly mention a theory that contradicts all relevant scholarly theories. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite this, there are still a lot of theories on a lot of historical topics, such as the origin of the Albanians, there is a special section on the Caucasian origin of the Albanians, although everyone has been rejecting that for 30 years. Or the theories about the origin of various ancient peoples. Why not here, then, as many historians say, and there is archaeological, linguistic and historical evidence. But fine, then don't mention their opinion. CriticKende (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gelau as a Bulaq