# Talk:Peter II of Bulgaria

This article is idiotic. The Disputed Origins section is larger than the actual history of czar Peter's life. The Vlach-Rumanian theory is one of the most proposterous in the world, and devoid of any logic. When Czar Ivan Asen II - nephew of Peter and son of czar Ivan Asen I became the Bulgarian ruler he did not (not once) refer to himself or was refered to by others as Vlach. So what do Rumanian historians claim - that he was somehow "assimilated"? Or maybe he just forgot. His descendants too.
It's just so stupid it's not even worth arguing. - Mladen

History is not logical. Andrew Dalby 00:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe, just maybe, history IS in fact logical. And stupid articles like this one, written by petty nationalists, are not. Just a thought - but then again, you do have to, in fact, read history in order to answer that. - Mladen

As per WP:Name, I would like to know which reliable source published in English refers to him as Peter IV of Bulgaria? The following sources do not use that name:

Chary, Frederick B. (2011). The History of Bulgaria. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38446-2.  [He writes of "Todor (Peter II, Tsar)".]
Crampton, R. J. (2005). A Concise History of Bulgaria. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4.  [He refers to him as "Petûr II".]
Curta, Florin (2006). Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85085-8.  [He writes of "Peter, Vlach rebel".]
Fine, John V. A (1994). The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08260-4. [He refers to him as "Peter II of Bulgaria (brother of Asen)".]
Madgearu, Alexandru (2017). The Asanids: The Political and Military History of the Second Bulgarian Empire, 1185–1280. BRILL. ISBN 978-9-004-32501-2. [He writes of "Peter (brother of John Asan I)".]
Stephenson, Paul (2000). Byzantium's Balkan Frontier: A Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900–1204. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-02756-4. [He mentions him as "Peter, Bulgarian and Vlach ruler".]
Treadgold, Warren (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-2630-2. [He refers to him as "Peter (Bulgarian emperor of the restored empire)".]
Vásáry, István (2005). Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-83756-1. [He writes of "Peter, Kalopetrus".]
Based on the above sources, I think, Peter II of Bulgaria would be the proper title of the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Since this is the English version of the WP, we should not list all native forms of his name. The Bulgarian version of the article shows that "Теодор-Петър" is the most natural form of his native name. Madgearu cited work also suggests that "Петър ІV" is not the most common form. Nevertheless, the latest form is also mentioned (based on reliable source) in a note. Borsoka (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Kandi, would you explain why do you think that we should more than one Bulgarian forms of his name here? Would you also explain why do you think that the Bulgarian name used in the Bulgarian version of WP (Теодор-Петър) is not the most common name in Bulgaria? Please remember that a single book published almost 40 years ago may not be the best source to prove that "Петър ІV" is widely accepted in Bulgaria. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Peter IV is used in Bulgaria. Attached is the authoritative source. Deleting is vandalismKandi (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
However, the Bulgarian WP suggests that Peter IV is not his most common Bulgarian name. There are no authoritative sources, but reliable sources. I think that a book published in the late 1980s could hardly evidence scholarly consensus in the late 2010s. Furthermore, the fact that some Bulgarian scholars refers to him as Peter IV is also mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kandi:, FYI: I requested a third opinion on this issue: [1]. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
In Bulgaria there is an established name. Todor Peter also not always be used. There are several forms of name. It is therefore necessary clarification by the name Peter IV. I repeat, you delete an authoritative source, and this is vandalism.Kandi (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I did not delete any "authoritative" sources because authorative sources do no exist for WP purposes. We can refer to reliable sources. And according to a reliable source, Madgearu's cited work, the form "Peter IV" is only used by some Bulgarian scholars. Why do you think he is wrong? Borsoka (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Said my source is authoritative book. You delete it.Kandi (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Just for clarification, I deleted a reference to a scholarly work published in the late 1989 which obviously contradicts to recent literature only after no new references were added: [2]. You still have not answered the question: why do you think Madgearu is wrong when stating that there are only "some" Bulgarian historians who refer to Peter II as Peter IV? Borsoka (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
In Bulgaria name Peter IV is used. This should be reflected in article. Repeat, said my source is authoritative book. You can not teach me what is the name of the Bulgarian ruler in BulgarianKandi (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I do not want to teach you. Why do you think that the editors of Bulgarian WP also ignored this form ("Peter IV"), preferring an other version ("Theodor -Peter")? Borsoka (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Bulgarian Wikipedia is not a source of information. There admitted many mistakes. Kandi (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
OK. I understand: Madgearu is wrong, Bulgarian WP is also wrong, because you have a book published in 1989. Interesting approach. Sorry, I think there is no point in continuing this debate. I hope we receive a third opinion in a couple of days. Borsoka (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Said my guide (book) there are new releases. He enjoyed now and many Bulgarians know this ruler precisely as Peter IV. This is convenient because it is the fourth Bulgarian tsar with that name. You can not delete this information just because you do not like. Kandi (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Just for clarification: I did not delete this information, it is mentioned in "note 1". Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
You deleted the name Peter IV and the attached source. This is the destruction of information. Accurate and reliable information. The name Peter IV enjoyed in Bulgaria and read the article entitled to know. Kandi (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Borsoka and Kandi: I saw this disagreement on WP:3O, and came to provide a third opinion. Is this acceptable? 68.233.214.74 (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 68.233.214.74 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Arguments? Kandi (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your 3rd opinion. Borsoka (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Kandi, why do you think that a self-published website which is based on books published in 1762 or 1929, or by Marin Drinov (who died in 1906) or by Vasil Zlatarski (who died in 1935) [3] is compliant with the above third opinion? Borsoka (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The name Peter IV is used in Bulgaria. Stop delete the sources. Kandi (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we know that it is used in Bulgaria by some historians. This fact is mentioned in the article in a footnote. However, Peter IV is not his common Bulgarian name. Please respect the 3rd opinion and try to use modern academic works to verify your claim instead of 100-year-old books. Borsoka (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Bulgarian khans and tsars - from Khan Kubrat to Tsar Boris III. Historical guide", Yordan Andreev and Andrey Pantev, Publishing House "Abagar", Sofia, 2015. Kandi (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@RaresM2001: and @Jingiby:, could you please discuss the issue on the Talk page? Both parts of the sentence in the lead ("He and his younger brothers, Asen and Kaloyan, were mentioned as Vlachs in most primary sources, but they were most probably of mixed (Vlach, Bulgarian and Cuman) origin.") are verified in the main text under the title "Early life".  Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

RaresM2001 is probably WP:SPA. As for myself, I agree with the sentence's accuracy,  but I think the place to mention the primary sources is not in the lede. Jingiby (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
All cited academic sources mention that Peter and his brothers were regarded as Vlachs in the late 12th century, so we could hardly deny that this is an important piece of information. Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't  deny this fact, however its place is not in the first sentence is my opinion. Per WP:UNDUE.Jingiby (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
It is actually in the third sentence. Why do you think that info about his origins should not be mentioned at the beginning of the lead? Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
No, it may be mentioned and after my edit such info remained in the leading paragraph. Jingiby (talk) 04:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter II of Bulgaria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 06:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


### Basic GA criteria
Well written: the prose is clear and concise. 
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch. 
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations. 
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided. 
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc. 
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline. 
No original research. 
No copyright violations or plagiarism. 
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style. 
Neutral. 
Stable. 
Illustrated, if possible. 
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright. 
Hello, Borsoka. I'll be doing this review and will use the checklist above to register progress. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


### Report
Hello, Borsoka. This is a very interesting history which easily passes all of the checks above and so I am promoting it to GA. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: thank you for your review and I am also grateful to you for promoting the article. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby:, the articles of both Peter II and Ivan Asen I state that they were Vlachs and/or had Vlach origins. In this context, it refers to the Vlachs between the Balkan Mountains and the Danube, so those Vlachs were Romanians. I don't see how adding their Romanian names is harmful. Super Ψ Dro 08:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ψ, the article of Asen dynasty claims their origin is uncertain. Whether they were Cumans, Vlachs, Slavs or were of mixed origins is not clear, but most probably they were Cumans. However it is clear they were crowned Tsar of Bulgaria, where the official language was the Bulgarian version of Church Slavonic. Jingiby (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Some sources seem to firmly assert that they were both somehow related to the Vlachs, while I only saw a couple mentions of the Cumans. But I am not an expert on the subject to say this. Super Ψ Dro 09:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Basarabs in Walachia, Terterids and Shishmanids in Bulgaria were also Cumans. Jingiby (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about the last two, but I've never heard anyone referring to the Basarabs as Cumans beyond the origin of the name. That they had a Cuman ancestor is plausible, but they were still Vlachs. Super Ψ Dro 10:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Check here about Basarabs and Asenids please: on p. 153. Jingiby (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
It's the same thing I said, even if the Basarabs and Asenids had Cuman origins, they essentially were Romanians and Bulgarians or at least of mixed ethnicity. Their Cuman origins are anyways disputed (as it says in the book you cited). Super Ψ Dro 12:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kandi: this is the English version of the WP and we should not list all native forms of his name. The Bulgarian version of the article shows that "Теодор-Петър" is the most natural form of his native name. If you think it should be changed, please make a proposal on Bulgarian WP. Madgearu cited work suggests that "Петър ІV" is not the most common form in Bulgaria. Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter IV never bore the name Todor-Peter. The name Todor-Petar has not been officially established in Bulgarian history. There are the forms Peter, Good Peter, Kalopeter and others. Peter IV is correct because we have Peter I, Peter II Delian, and Peter III (Constantine Bodin). This Peter is the fourth Bulgarian ruler named Peter. Peter IV is often used in Bulgaria, I have put an authoritative source, the authors are scientists from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Peter II is wrong, because this is the fourth Bulgarian ruler named Peter, not the second. The name Todor is his personal name, which he did not bear as a tsar.Kandi (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Kandi: you have not answered my above questions. I referred to a reliable source suggesting that "Петър ІV" is not the most common form in Bulgaria. The corresponding Bulgarian article's title is "Теодор-Петър". If you think, it is not correct, please raise this issue in Bulgarian WP. Listing all variants of his non-English names is not encyclopedic. Borsoka (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Todor-Petar is not used more often in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Wikipedia is not a source of information. Peter II is wrong because we have Peter II Delyan and Peter III. This is the fourth Peter. I have provided a reliable source of information. Don't allow yourself to rub it. Kandi (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
WP is not a source of information, but I referred to a reliable source above. If you do not want to convince the editors of Bulgarian WP, why should we accept your claim? Borsoka (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
It is not my statement, but that of professors Andrey Pantev and Yordan Yindreev. The name Peter IV is used in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, and in other wikipedias too. The name Peter II is not used because it is false. There is not a single Bulgarian historian who calls Peter IV by the name of Peter II. This is a fake name. Peter II is Peter II Delyan. Kandi (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The corresponding Bulgarian article is named "Теодор-Петър", a discussion above shows that his most common English name is Peter II, a reliable source suggest that "Петър ІV" is not the most common form of his name in Bulgaria. And we do not need to mention all Bulgarian, Romanian, Macedonian... versions of his name in English WP. Borsoka (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The name Peter IV is common enough to be mentioned in the article. I have not written about Romanian names, nor Macedonia, only Bulgarian because he is a Bulgarian ruler . The name of this article is wrong, Peter II is Peter Delyan. The name Peter IV is used in the Bulgarian Wikipedia too. Do not delete authoritative sources. Kandi (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
If you think the name is wrong you can suggest a move. Why do you think the Bulgarian WP adopted his less common name as the article's title? Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)