# Talk:Ivan Asen I

I put a mention in the article regarding the origin of Ioan Asan. According to a credible source that was "Vlach or Romanian". By the way the source is not Romanian. I just like to take issue with the blind nationalism of the guy consistently deleting my edits with the absurd motivation that there was "no Romania at that time" (a statement which totally misses the point, it's like saying that because there was no Italy, no Italians existed either). I understand that the issue of his ethnical background is contested, mostly by Bulgarian authors. If there are credible sources to be indicated, that's fine. But simply deleting valid information from the article it is not.  Pyretus (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You completely ignored my post on your talk page. I cited you credible sources claiming they were either Bulgarian or Cuman. The biggest Byzantologist of all time Ostrogorski says they were Bulgarian - so where do we get to? Ethnicity was not a factor back then so why do you want to claim some even given that the matter is controversial? It's you that's pushing the nationalistic position, not me. And it's you that's pushing the Romaninas stuff. Does your source say that they were Romanian? Cause all other sources refer to him as Bulgarian, Cuman or Vlach. And no, the issue of his ethnical background is contested by many authors, not only Bulgarian. In fact the ?Vlach origin is far from a majority one in scholars' opinion. Oh, and I didn't say there was no Romania, but that there was no Romanians - if you have a source about a Romanian population anywhere on the Balkans at the time, cite it. But remember Romanians, not Vlachs or Romans (since Byzantines were Romans). And I'm not saying your source is Romanian, but are the once I posted on your talkpage Bulgarian? Oh, and don't accuse other editors of blind nationalism when you're the one pushing an ethnic qualifier in an article about a medieval ruler. --Laveol T 09:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You are totally mischaracterizing my position, which is really unfortunate. I repeatedly invited you to read the source I indicated, which you clearly failed to do. It does use the word "Romanian". Again, if the matter is controversial (which I accepted), say it in the article I have no problem with that (here it may be an example - even though there are some statements even there that seem dubious and do not indicate a clear source). It is your position of totally suppressing information which I criticize and take issue with.
Now, the Romania issue. In fact, you DID claim as reason for deleting my edit that "...there was no Romania at the time", remember? (look on the history page of the edits). On the other hand, anybody with an interest in the history of this region should know that the word "Romanian" was simply not in use at that time as far as sources are concerned. You will not find ANY source of that time saying anything about "ROMANIANS" anywhere in this world. Which does not mean that Romanians did not exist - they were generally included in the term Vlachs.Pyretus (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and because there was no Romanians at the time (as a name if you like) and because noone at the time used the word Romanians, it should not be in the article. Pure logic? And I criticize (since you use that term the fact that you want to present only a minor POV (minor in the context of being one of the 3 POVs to be presented and probably in the number of reliable publications that stick to it). So why don't you say that his origin is a matter of dispute between historians and that it is  Bulgarian, Cuman or Vlach instead of putting only one POV? And I repeat you're the one who wants to put a modern ethnic qualifier (from the XIX century) into a medieval article and you have absolutely nothing behind this claim. --Laveol T 18:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea that there were no Romanians at that time seems so far from any sense of elementary logic that I will not bother discussing this anymore. I'd really want you to show me sources which prove this point that you make. I'd not mind seeing that I'm wrong. Romanians did exist, the fact that the word was not in use at that time is irrelevant. Pyretus (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems most relevant actually, as people were(are) distinguished by names. It's an important factor in Christianity as well. Jotaro97 (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

„. Asen and his brothers were mentioned as Vlachs in most primary sources, but Bulgarians and Cumans must have also been among their ancestors, according to modern scholars.”
„Their close relationship with the Cumans and the Turkic etymology of Asan's names imply that they were of Cuman or Pecheneg stock.[8][9]”
And from Vasary again
”Chronicles written in the late 12th and early 13th centuries unanimously described them as Vlachs.[7]” 
So how is this having a sense ? You should explain all of the theories separated, not take some from Madgearu and some from Vasary, unite their works in a blatant  exaggeration named ”modern scholars”, as if they all agree, then go in details from both of them resulting in huge contradictions. 
Then. 
If many sources stated that they were Vlachs, how we presume that they were Bulgarians or Cumans? Is not as people have no right to draw conclusions and elaborate, but the article is giving the sensation that the sources are less important than what some historian from modern Bulgaria, Romania, etc say, or latter sources say.
By that logic all the Romanians were Jews, Slavs and very remotely Romanians. The name can be a trend, not a clue of ethnicity. Many Romanians had their sons named by pure Roman names in Transylvania, in the modern era, I doubt they spoke Latin as first language or weared togas. Now we have many with Italian, French and English names, that is not a clue that Romania is some weird place where all of this nations mixed together. Then the Turkic  names could be names used by his Turkic subjects, or a name used by his allies, or a nickname gain in battles or in reign. 
Is pretty ignorant when you have sources to go for the name. But that is not a big deal, is science and people are free, what is a big deal is to portray the sources from the past as secondary sources, after the modern ones as this articles does.   

And what about this blatant attack on the Romanians by this user in the talk section? Romanians never existed back then is more of a Soviet propaganda or a Youtube troll comment, not a comment from a user of Wikipedia. What were the differences between Vlachs and Romanians?  Is he an expert on Romanian language or Romanians? In that century is not even clear that the dialects of the Romanians and Aromanians had evolve some differences between them,  and even the Dalmatian language was not too far from Romanian. There is no Vlach in the Romanian language, even Wallachia was named Ţeara Rumânească in Romanian, and the Romanian term is the accepted term for the Romanians in English today, why to use the medieval exonym? We are writing articles for the medieval folk, for the Bulgarian ultranationalists or for the modern English speaking people?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.147.172 (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC) 

Please read WP:NOR. We cannot edit the article based on our own interpretation of primary sources. Why do you think that the Vlachs of the second Bulgarian Empire should be mentioned as Romanians? Borsoka (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I refuse any debate with fascists from this page, to be clear, I just posted my opinion and I pointed out a huge issue, and I will defend my post from your critic even if is not the central issue of my post.
You already started with a lie? I urged people to value more the primary sources, not the interpretations as you state. So your claims make no sense to me. You are not wikipedia to say wikipedia cannot change things, so I will say you need to read some rules too, and stop pulling facts out of context just to make an argument where you cannot point factual reasons for an argument. I never promoted the use of interpretations.
To recap, I am for the primary sources, not ”well, even if the first sources say he was a Vlach, he was a Cuman because reasons... and because we are smart ”.
Naming the Vlachs of the Second Empire by their native name who is the norm in the modern world was an interpretation only in Stalin's USSR, or in various fascist groups, but not in science.
I already gave you the reason, Wikipedia is written for the modern English speaking world, not for the medieval speaking world, for the Hungarian fascists, for Bulgarian, Greek, Romanian, or Serbian fascists.  Vlachs means nothing or means other things in our age for the Anglo-Saxon world . Without the original text being quoted, the term Vlach has only political reasons to exist in this article since is out of use and is used only by fascist of Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia or Hungary for various reasons, like negating the right to preserve the identity of the Romanian minority, or the right to be schooled in Romanian, or to promote various theories like negating the Latin origin of Romanians and Romanian language, the invention of the Romanian language. 
Today is used in English to describe some Romanian people from South of Danube, not all Romanians like in middle ages.https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vlach
So is wrong to use the Vlach term,  since Vlach today means just Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, Istro-Romanians or Romanians South of Romania, not all Romanians as in medieval times. So without proving Assan was Aromanian, before Aromanian dialect existed(!!!), or that it's descendants formed the Aromanian people, saying he was a Vlach in modern English is equal with saying he is only part of the Aromanian heritage, and he was an Aromanian, and that is beyond rational thinking or common sense.
Romanian is the native word for Romanians and describes all Romanians regardless of place[For specific Romanian dialects, languages and people we have concepts like ”daco-romanian”, aromanian, istro-romanian, megleno-romanian”], regardless of the nation who they claim to belong, describes the Romance people who speak Eastern Vulgar Latin and have the Eastern Romance Culture. We cannot ignore an ethnic identity for a subjective identity, as national claims. Nations are subjective constructs, ethnic identities are easy to observe by objective observers. Also, we cannot ignore the fact that Aromanians are Romanians too, and that in middle ages this dialectal difference was not present, just because Romanians of the north have a country who issues ID-s with the term ”Romanian” as citizenship name, so Aromanians are not Romanians in this term, citizens of a country! So, when quoting the original text is ok to use the exact words, like Vlachs, when writing a modern article is ok to use the modern names who are based on the native names,  who can transmit the whole information. If not, you will need to prove that Assan was Aromanian before the Aromanian dialect existed(or language by some claims). I wish you good luck with proving that!
Note: the Aromanian native name is not ”Armâni”, or ”Vlaşi”, ”Vlahi”, all exonyms, but ”Râmâni”, who is an evolution of ”Rumâni”, who is an evolution of ”Români”, who is an evolution of Romani(singular Râmân-Rumân-Român-Romanus), proven and common to Romanian. All of this evolutions were present in modern Romania too, before the adoption of the medieval form ”Român” as the norm for the name of the citizenship.
[Vlach it was still used by strangers in the medieval time because Romania was still the name of the Roman Empire in popular language, and by Romanian you will say citizen of Rome, not some Romance people who already were outside of the Empire. So if you wanted to make a difference between various people(Greeks and Latins) who called themselves Romanians, then you will adopt other names like Greeks or Vlachs(For the Danube Basin Romans), Vlosi( Italian Romans), Spaniards, etc, and not Romanians who will upset the emperor from Constantinople.]
The vast majority of the historians cited in the article – Florin Curta, Francesco Dall'Aglio, John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., Alicia Simpson, Paul Stephenson, Warren Treadgold – use the term Vlach in the context of the article. They can hardly be described as fascists, so we should not ignore their decision, in accordance with WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
That is correct, but we also know that those science books are intended for science reviews and for people with a background in history, in the first place, people who can grasp very well what the author intends to transmit, while Wikipedia is intended to inform all people from different backgrounds with a quick version about the events or people. So naming him Vlach and not mentioning even between brackets the term Romanian in an article intended for the common people, when Vlachs means already only Romanians south of Romania, for the common Englishmen, is like stating he was Aromanian or Meglenoromanian. Is like stating that Cleopatra was Egyptian, without pointing out what Egyptian could mean in those days, or like saying Alexander was Macedonian, without saying what Macedonian meant in those days. If we say Alexander was Macedonian without saying he was Greek or what Macedonia meant in those days, common people will understand he was Western Bulgarian from Vardar Macedonia/Macedonia Secunda Salutaris. So is not so simple, because science books are not meant to explain all the simple concepts, or to inform the car washer from Essex or Kentucky about the subject, in most cases the author has an elitist attitude in writing and wants to keep it simple, to show he is well documented to his fellow peers, that's why we have Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.5.212.134 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
If we accept that the term "Vlach" refers to Romanians who live to the south of the Danube, its use is the only solution in the context of the article. (However, the use of the term "Vlach" when referring to medieval Romance-speaking communities north of the Danube in scholarly books can also be demonstrated.) Borsoka (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kandi:, why do you think we should ignore Wikipedia:Picture tutorial? It says, "Typically, if you specify a width in pixels, it should be at least 300px." Borsoka (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kandi:, Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria was the leader of an uprising which started in the Byzantine themes of Paristrion and Bulgaria in 1185 or 1186. Why do you think that a map depicting historical events that occurred before 1100 is better than a map which depicts the Byzantine themes in the Balkan Peninsula (including Paristrion and Bulgaria)? Borsoka (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The map shows Bulgaria in the period of the Byzantine rule (1018-1185), not 1100. The Bulgarians did not use the Byzantine administrative partition. The rebellion is not in Paristrion. The rebellion is in Moesia, Thrace, and Macedonia. Kandi (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think the map shows Bulgaria? It shows the Balkan Peninsula, including Albanian, Serbian and Greek territories. Why do you think the map is a proper presentation of the Asens' uprising in the 1180s if the latest date on the map is 1084? Why do you think the Bulgarian used an alternative administrative system instead of the official (Byzantine) one in the 1180s? Please read the well sourced article: it clearly says, the rebellion broke out in Paristrion. Why do you think we should not help WP users to locate the events? Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is about a Bulgarian ruler who recovered the Bulgarian state at the end of the 12th century. A map showing the Byzantine areas in 1045 is inappropriate. Your map does not bring any benefit to the article. My map shows Bulgaria under Byzantine rule (1018-1185) - preceding the uprising of Asen and Peter, and is much more relevant here. Kandi (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The map does not contradict to the map about the Byzantine Empire in 1143, presented in Warren Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Treadgold, Warren (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press. p. 635. ISBN 0-8047-2630-2.). Do you think the frontiers of the Balkan themes of the Byzantine Empire changed significantly after 1143? Why do you think that a map which does not name the principal venues of the Asens' uprising helps readers to understand the article? Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The map is not needed here because it does not give any useful information to the article. The uprising of Assen and Peter is not in Paristrion but spreads to the territory of Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia. Kandi (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Most sources cited in the article writes that the Asens' first took possession of Paristrion. Would you refer to the sources saying that the Asens did not occupy Paristrion?  The map about the Byzantine themes (that you have been deleting from the article) also shows Bulgaria, Thrace and Macedonia. Please remember that Moesia was an ancient Roman province, not a Byzantine theme. Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Moesia the Bulgarians call North Bulgaria. The map showing the Byzantine provinces in 1040 is deleted because it is unnecessary in an article about Assen I. Kandi (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The map does not contradict to the map about the Byzantine Empire in 1143, presented in Warren Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Treadgold, Warren (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press. p. 635. ISBN 0-8047-2630-2.). Do you think the frontiers of the Balkan themes of the Byzantine Empire changed significantly after 1143? Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
If the reader wants to know what Parrition is, he can press the hyperlink. There is no need to put a whole map for this. What territories encompasses the uprising and Bulgaria in the time of Asen and Peter is well seen on the map Second Bulgarian Empire from 1185 to 1196. Kandi (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
However, if there is a map showing Paristrion theme, the reader does not need to press the hyperlink. Moreover, a map about WW1 could hardly help readers to understand the events of WW2. Similarly, a map presenting 11th-century uprisings is disturbing when the article is about the leader of a late 12th-century uprising. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The map Bulgaria under Bizantine rule (1018-1185) presents the previous uprisings of Asen and Peter with other uprisings of the Bulgarians and introduces the subject. The fact that you need to put pictures instead of hyperlinks is nonsense. So instead of hyperlinks you can put pictures of Balkan Mountains, Latin Empire, Isaac II Angelos and so on. So the reader does not need to press the hyperlink. Kandi (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Please look at that map more carefully: it does not present the Asens' uprising, it does not refer to them and it does not present any event that happened after 1084. The Asens' uprising started about a hundred years later. I did not say that I want to put any picture instead of any hyperlink. I only said that readers could better understand the article, if a map about the Byzantine themes mentioned in the article would be added instead of a map which is not connected to the subject of the article. Borsoka (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I requested third opinion. I think we should wait instead of continuing our endless debate. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your third opinion. Borsoka (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not a third opinion. This is one more time Borsoka opinion. Just as in the article on Peter 4. Kandi (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Please respect the third opinion and do not start an edit war, because it may have had serious consequences for you. If you do not agree with the third opinion, you can apply other forms of dispute resolution (you can find more information here). Borsoka (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not a third opinion. This is one more Borsoka opinion. Kandi (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
If you think, the above IP is identical with me, you can initiate an investigation against me here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. However, you should avoid edit warring, because you may be easily banned from editing articles about the history of Bulgaria. Borsoka (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Both of you, stop. Kandi, I am not a sockpuppet. I am a 3o moderator, and I go through the backlogs. I can relist this if you would like a different moderator. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
68.233.214.74 is a bot of Borsoka Kandi (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I am a schoolkid editing from school. I don't have an account, and don't want one. I will relist this dispute and not interact with any of you again. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Would you please clarify your above remark about me. It is quite offensive. Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 3O Response: Inclusion of the map is supported by a reliable source. Additionally, please do not make personal attacks on other editors. ProgrammingGeek talktome 20:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@ProgrammingGeek:, thank you for your comment, but I am not sure I understand it because there are two maps. One map depicts anti-Byzantine uprisings, the other map shows Byzantine themes (or provinces). Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant Boroska's map, which was being discussed. ProgrammingGeek talktome 12:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification. Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CPA-5 (talk · contribs) 13:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe we should add "(died in 1196)" after "Asen I or John Asen I (Bulgarian: Иван Асен I)"
After the emperor had refused them The Emperor.
fled over the Danube, but they returned in the autumn Link Danube.
over the lands along the Struma river in the early The Struma River.
them to return to the Byzantine Empire in the autumn.[34][31][35] Re-order the refs in numerical order.
thus adopting the name of a 10th-century tzar (or emperor) of Bulgaria Link tzar.
Which English do you use? Because I can see some American v. British usages.
First Bulgarian Empire is overlinked.
Link Constantinople.
occupy new territories of the Byzantine Empires You mean Byzantine Empire?
I see eight howevers, maybe we should limit the word to max two howevers?
Cumans is overlinked.
The emperor dispatched Alexios Gidos and Basil Vatatzes The Emperor?
the Byzantine fortresses along the river Struma leaving The River Struma?
for a huge ransom from the emperor The Emperor?
tsar v. tzar maybe standardise one of the tsars?
Isaac Komnenos persuaded Ivanko to kill the tsar The Tsar?
with a sword hidden under his garments.[71][67] Re-order the refs in numerical order.
became the emperor of Bulgaria in 1218 The Emperor?
@CPA-5:, thank you for your comprehensive review. I fixed the above problems. Sorry, I do not know which English I use. Borsoka (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I think American because it was written in American first so remove the hyphens and replace the space in the words counter-offensive, counter-attacks and merge counter-invasion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Images

Looks good to me.
Sources
I'll do this tomorrow.

O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniatēs's source needs a Google Books' URL.
Some ISBNs have hyphens while others don't maybe standardise them.
The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa needs a Google Books' URL.
Chary's book needs a Google Books' URL.
Curta's ISBN goes to another book. Wrong ISBN?
Fine's book needs a Google Books' URL.
Standardise Brill and BRILL.
Petkov's book needs a Google Books' URL.
Same as above.
The rest looks good.
Infobox

Looks good to me.
@CPA-5:, thank your for your further comments and suggestions. I think I fixed the above problems. Please let me know if any further action is needed. Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I see here and there "the emperor" instead of "the Emperor". For the rest, it looks good to go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I fixed. I did not change one sentence, because it is a quote. Borsoka (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I'll pass it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Again thank you for your review, and also for promoting the article. Have a nice week! Borsoka (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka, every day I am more confused by how troublesome a term as simple as Vlach can be. Do those Romanian authors claim a difference between the Daco-Romanians and the Vlachs? Could the issue be fixed by adding a source with a Romanian author relating the Vlachs and the Romanians? Or maybe a note explaining what "Vlach" meant would do as well. Super Ψ Dro 09:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi SD, there is a real problem with the term Vlach for many Romanians, to the point where some of them consider it to be racist abuse (it's normally extremists who say that, but still). This is linked to the oppression of Balkan speakers of Aromanian and other dialects in the 19th/20th centuries. Boroska is right in stating that suggesting that Vlachs (as used in current English, generally referring to speakers of a Romanian language outside of Romania) are the ancestors of Romanians contradicts the Daco-Roman continuity theory. I personally think this theory is implausible, but it is probably (just) the most generally accepted theory worldwide, and is almost universally held within Romania. I might suggest "(Balkan speakers of Romanian Languages)" as a gloss which is mostly neutral, or else just let readers click on the link if they don't know.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
BTW, I think mainstream Daco-Roman continuity theory posits that the Vlachs are descendants of the Daco-Romanians who left the famous "Carpatho-Danubian space" during the early middle ages. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you, I just added "predecessors of the Romanians" because I thought it would get reverted otherwise. Should we remove "predecessors" and simply state that the Romanians and the Vlachs were the same? Super Ψ Dro 11:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately they are not the same in either theory, "(Balkan Romanians)" might work? Boynamedsue (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, those Romanians were not very different from those at the north of the Danube. There are still some Romanians in the northernmost parts of the Vidin County and we don't say that they are not the same as Romanians in Romania. However, if this is the only option, sure I suppose. Super Ψ Dro 12:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, re the adjustment. The Romanians in the Balkans speak a different language, the language spoken in pockets of northern Bulgaria is a dialect of Daco-Romanian, the pockets in the south are Aromanian. They are as different as Spanish and Portuguese. We can't really be sure which ones are referred to here, or whether they spoke a language that left no modern descendent. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Since the uprising that made the Second Bulgarian Empire happened pretty close to the Danube shores, it can be assumed that they were Romanians. Those Romanians at Vidin county that I mentioned earlier speak Romanian as far as I know, they are like the Timok Vlachs at Serbia. Super Ψ Dro 12:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
If that's the case, you are probably right, but we can't be sure from the description "Vlachs", it's really difficult to project ethnicity back in time.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
What do we do then? Do we go with "Balkan Romanians"? Super Ψ Dro 13:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe that's best. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
By the way, most of the Vlachs in Bulgaria today do not identify themselves as Romanians, but simply as Vlachs. Jingiby (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, ethnicity and nationality is a complicated thing. I was called a racist once for even using the word with regards to Romanian speaking minorities living south of Romania, yet some of them happily accept the term. It's just one we have to be careful with, even though when used in English there is absolutely no offensive connotation.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I applied the changes. Super Ψ Dro 20:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with these changes . Transferring modern ethnic categories to the Middle Ages is ahistorical. The Vlachs south of the Danube still do not identify themselves as Romanians. To describe their ancestors in the 12th century as Romanians, given that such a national group emerged in the 19th century, is strange to say the least.Jingiby (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Your claim that the Romanians did not exist until the 19th century is pretty ahistorical too, specially when you've been shown historical sources that say otherwise. It is generally agreed that by the 10th century approximately, the modern Romanians had already "formed" (see Common Romanian) or at least separated from the other Eastern Romance groups. Also, the source I cited states a relation between the Vlachs and the Romanians. Do you have any sources saying that Bulgarian Vlachs are an ethnicity of their own? Super Ψ Dro 10:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)