Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mislau

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 delete. "delete and merge" is not a valid option, if you want to merge this content I will have to undelete the article. It does not seem like there is any support for keeping these as standalone articles. W.marsh 14:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mislau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete and Merge information into other articles. Like its friend Bezerenbam, this is the product of original research, meant to extend the history of Wallachia back before the country was founded. The fact is that historiography does not mention this supposed "ruler", and this relies on a mention in an Arab chronicle which is most likely unreliable (it presumably is viewed as unreliable, since most historians do not bother mentioning it). All the restricted google hits it gets link back to wikipedia talk pages and various mirrors (as well as a minuscule number of ultra-nationalist chats) [1], [2]. Additionally, what is indicated as a "source" for the article actually states that he was the same as Seneslau. Dahn 06:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As with its sibling article above, with the given date of 1241, the military quote provided would have to refer to the Mongol invasion of 1241-2. However, I can find no reference to any Mongol active in the region — or anywhere else — named "Ordul", nor of anything, anywhere, that might be referred to as "Kara-Ulag". I view the quoted support as suspect at best; based on available resources, this appears simply fictional. Serpent's Choice 06:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is ridiculous. Djuvara Mentions it, Xenopol also. Please take your time and read these two chapters of Xenopol's History of Romanians: vol I, chapter II.2, p. 531 - 532 and vol I, chapter III.2, p. 550 - 552 (in Romanian unfortunately). You can see that Bezerenbam and Mislau are there, well known and accepted.--Alex:Dan 07:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the quotes provided from Xenopol are not actually about Mislau, but about "Bezerenbam". Xenopol clearly states, in the second quote provided above (p.552), that Bezerenbam is to be considered the same as Basarab I of Wallachia. Djuvara, as already stated, considered Mislau and Seneslau to be one and the same. Wikipedians who have pushed this "information" have relied on their own interpretation of texts, and have ignored the conclusion of the very scholarship they used (instead, they appealed to primary sources, publishing original research). Dahn 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must remind you that Litovoi is not Basarab I Intemeitorul. Read again! Also, Litovoi is spelled here Lirtyoi (1247) or Lythen (cca. 1275). Mislau is omitted (I don't know why) but he can be found at Djuvara. We can, indeed, add that some historians consider Bezeren-bam = Litovoi and Mislau = Seneslau. --Alex:Dan 08:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR. Dahn 08:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research. I'm not inventing facts. Djuvara sais the same thing, word by word: probabil [că Seneslav era] acelasi cu "Miselav", "capetenia popoarelor Ulagh" (vlahe), de care cronica orientala a lui Rasid-ed-din zice ca a înfruntat coloana cea mai sudica a invaziei mongole din 1241 (probably [Seneslav was] the same person with Miselav "the head of Ulagh (vlach) people" whom the persian chronicle of Rasid-ed-din sais that he faced the southern column of Mongolian invasion of 1241). This can be added to the article. I want you to come with arguments, Dahn, don't hide behind OR's, it's simply ridiculous. --Alex:Dan 08:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". What we have is a mention in a Persian chronicle, that all historians you mention consider not to be accurate in itself, but to represent the result of verious confusions between the names of documented princes. No secondary or tertiary source mentions either Bezerenbam or Mislau as actual rulers. This is what Xenopol says (loc. cit.): Bezerenbam is the corruption of the name Basarab and the title of Ban; he might be the same as Litovoi (in either case, he certainly does not say a ruler of that name existed). Djuvara says Mislau was the same as Seneslau. So, in short, the only time these people are mentioned by professional historians serves to indicate that their existence is questionable. Aside from a chronicle written on another continent, thousands of kilometers away, that relies on hearsay and, as both sources you use indicate, confuses data, the only places where these people are mentioned as rulers are internet chatrooms for fringe ideologies. Dahn 08:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistranslating again. Djuvara sais probably, not certainly. And also, you have almost a page in which Xenopol demonstrates that the persian chronicle is definitely accurate (Conclusion: Raschid era foarte bine informat, din documentele ce le avea la indemana, asupra locurilor si a imprejurarilor, si ca putem da o deplină crezare si celorlalte arătări ale sale, care nu pot fi verificate prin alte izvoare), yet the names are corrupted. [And since you wanted an OR, I must tell you that Arabs, as Hebrews, have a writing system that doesn't note every vowel, that's why Bezerenbam can also be read as Bazarambam.]. Brief: Xenpol and Djuvara confirm their existence in The Persian Chronicle. Give me a better translation for căpetenia popoarelor ulagh and I'll be happy to modify that. --Alex:Dan 08:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered in the Bezerenbam AfD entry. Dahn 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just like Bezerenbam. bogdan 09:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified those articles. Bezerenbam is now the leader of a valachian army, ban after Xenopol, and Mislau a căpetenie of ulagh people (how woud you translate that?). My impediment was the absence of a correct and complete quotation. --Alex:Dan 09:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bogdan, these two articles could probably constitute notes in the Origin of the Romanians or some other such place, clearly indicating both that they are to be found in a certain source, and that those historians who discuss the mention tend to agree that they are corrupt. In this case, a note could also be slipped in the article on Seneslau. Dahn 09:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as Bogdan said, in an article about romanians in The Persian Chronicle, with some development concerning Xenopol's theories (or as Dahn sais, as a separate paragraph in Origin of the Romanians?). I also want to ask for your opinion if it would be beter to replace the existent quotation with the translation from Serpent's Choice's link (p. 628) ? Also, I'd like to stress that not the information but the names could be corrupt, according to historians. --Alex:Dan 09:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See comment above. Dahn 09:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.