Talk:Second Bulgarian Empire

message: It somehow struck me as an unusual representation to use a map of the empire in its most progressed territorial decline and invasion by the Osman forces in the introduction of the article. 
For example look at the article on the Roman Empire. The map in the introduction shows the empire in its greatest territorial extent, not in the years where it covered only 1/2 of the Italian peninsula.
The same goes for the Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire or any of the empires in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires)
Should we consider consistency and get a more representative map showing the empire at its greatest territorial extent !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.135.71 (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Map on top of the article

message: According to this map, Constantinople is in the middle of the Howard Stern Sea and the Danube spills inland. Someone should clean it up. :-) bogdan 22:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, don't mock it, it's the Library of Congress!! :) Todor→Bozhinov 11:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: The modern Bulgarian state is 110,000 km squared, so how can this empire be 7 times as large? Any dumb nationalists want to defend this stupidity?
Tourskin (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is ridiculous but the mistake can be explained: at first I have created one infobox for the Bulgarian Empire as a whole and then someone made separate infoboxes for the two Empires and had obviously forgotten to correct the territory. But at its greatest extend the Second Empire covered around 350,000 km2 and I added that figure. Thank you for noticing that stupid mistake :-) --Gligan (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: And in the future, please assume good faith :) It's not always "dumb nationalists" and "stupidity", there is no need for attacks and negative classifications, we're just talking about a simple mistake that was promptly corrected. Don't let stress or something else affect your manners. Todor→Bozhinov 16:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  750,000 km squared? 

message: Can we have a citation from a reliable source in English, please? It strikes me as dubious, which is why I added a  tag. Thank you. El_C 07:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: -I suggest we remove it altogether. It's not just dubious but impossible. --Laveol T 12:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: --I would suggest leaving it in at least until more research as done (I see nothing wrong with using non-English sources so long as at least someone is bilingual). Anyway, there is some evidence that some cultures spontaneously achieved high literacy rates regardless of schooling and technological development. It has been argued that the Cree in North America had a literacy rate that exceeded contemporary rates in England within a generation or so of the development of Cree Syllabics (and these people were nomadic). An 80% literacy rate does seem dubiously high but is by no means impossible (if literacy is the ability write ones name and a few key words in the sand). It is certainly an interesting angle to research further. Hrimpurstala (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 80 percent literacy rate

message: I've added "citation needed" after this part. I'd rather see some evidence that the nobility was being KILLED, and not DEPORTED to somewhere, for example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FaceInTheSand (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ottoman Turks who ruined Bulgaria's economy and infrastructure, depopulated large areas and killed the nobility" 

message: I've just reverted a bunch of edits by User:Dinner for three:
# The long name of the state is , the short name  is separate from that and does not need to be added to Template:Infobox former country.
# The Principality of Bulgaria is a logical successor state, but is not the immediate successor. With an interval of nearly 500 years between them, it is inappropriate for the Principality to be highlighted in the infobox; it should instead be mentioned in the lead paragraph. The Former Country infobox is specifically for articles on the immediate predecessor and successor states. Ottoman Bulgaria is the appropriate successor here, as it describes Bulgaria within the Ottoman Empire, which is the successor state to the lands of the Second Bulgarian Empire.
# Language templates such as  should be used wherever possible, as they have the same visual appearance, but add metadata to the HTML in the page, providing better accessibility.
# Alphabets other than our Latin alphabet should not be italicised, as is stated in the Text formatting section of the Manual of Style.
# We avoid using HTML escapes for Unicode characters on the Wikipedia; there are scripts such as Advisor that allow automated correction of these.
# The Encyclopædia Britannica is provided as a source for the name . This is a reliable source and can be argued against in the article if people object to it, but should not be removed willy-nilly.
— OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, but I'm afraid you're wrong on the predecessor/successor stuff. Template:Infobox former country does not track the logical successor after a gap of 400 years. This isn't POV, no-one is disputing that the Principality of Bulgaria is heir to the Second Empire and that they were both known by the shortname of Bulgaria, but the gap of 400 years means that we don't track them in the infobox. That's simply how the infobox is used across Wikipedia — for immediate predecessors and successors. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've thought thant the meaning of "immediate succesor" in English is "proper heir", which was my mistake - sorry for that!Dinner for three (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. I meant immediate as in immediately (, according to Google Translate). I agree completely that the Principality is the heir to the Second Empire, and this should be reflected in the text of both articles  :o) -- OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits 

message: I just deleted the "Romanian-Bulgarian" empire since the word "romanian" comes centuries later and as well is not relevant how the modern Romanian historiography perceives the name of the country, but how is called from the historians and in other official documents in that age, not in the 21th century. 
212.10.94.203 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is relevant. And you are wrong about modern names. Second Bulgarian Empire was not used in official documents in that age either. 79.117.143.174 (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

text: 17 sources  (oldest from 1973) 79.117.143.174 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

text: What has nationailsm to do here? I don't understand. It is just a name. In the article it is clearly stated that the name is used exclusively in Romanian historiography. The article deals with the name used by modern historians in reference with the medieval empire. Similarly, the term Byzantine Empire does not appear in contemporary sources either (throughout its existence Byzantium was known simply as the Roman Empire; the name Byzantine Empire appeared in the 19th century).79.117.168.93 (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I don`t "buy" that the source is not credible(why is Ioan Aurel Pop not credible? per WP:IRS it is) and I think all viewpoints should be included in the article (Serbian, Greek if there are valid sources) according to their sources and the number of them. Removing it just because we don`t agree with it is invalid (WP:OR). I will reintroduce this data, and if you believe this is not a credible source(biased and nationalistic) please use the reliable source noticeboard. It clearly says that this name is used in the Romania, saying "only Romanian interpretations of history, whom them self lack credibility and historical roots." isn`t really an argument and there is nothing wrong about this. Adrian (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

text: You can`t discredit a whole group of historians just because you think one way or another - that can`t and isn`t an argument. As for focusing, I can hardly see it focusing about that one statement added in the second section at the end...Adrian (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

text: If you disagree please use the reliable sources noticeboard. Please read WP:SOURCE - Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight. Adrian (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Romanian-Bulgarian empire

message: During a requested GOCE copy-edit; I saw at first instances of American orthography, but as I worked down the article I started running into British spellings. Since the article's subject has strong links to neither country, I took the first variant, AmEng, as the dominant variant in use there. There's no note on the talk page and I'm not prepared to trawl the archive to discover the first historical variant. The requester Gligan (talk · contribs) has told me his/her preference is BrEng, to which I'll change the article when I've finished my c/e in about two days from my timestamp. Is there any reason I shouldn't do this? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change to British English

message: There is an anthropological distance between the ethnicities living in the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire, regardless of the preservation of "Bulgarian" ethnonym. This should be specified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianisv (talk • contribs) 09:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the information regarding Second Bulgarian Empire as the sucessor of the First Bulgarian Empire 

message: This page has been subjected to a number of minor changes throughout time by dubious users (Bulgarian nationalists), who removed the multiethnic emphasasis of the state, replacing all mentions of vlachs and cumans participating in battles - as described by Byzantine chronicles - with "Bulgarians". Adrianisv (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide your exact proposals here for discussion and consensus and stop edit-warring. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In his letters to the Pope, Kaloyan spoke of his Bulgarian origin and that he was a descendant of the Bulgarian tsars of the First Bulgarian Empire. His lead seal says that he is Tsar of the Bulgarians. In the Synod of Tsar Boril it is written that Assen and Peter liberated Bulgaria from Byzantine rule. There is nothing of Wallachian origin here. Kandi (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

text:  In his letters to Pope Innocent IV Kaloyan referred to emperors Simeon I, Peter I and Samuel as his predecessors, therefore claiming continuity with the First Empire. Kaloyan took the nickname Romanslayer, referring to Basil II the Bulgarianslayer. The first emperor of the Second Empire Theodore changed his name to Peter, the name of the first universally recognised emperor of the First Empire. You'd know that, if you bothered to read the article rather than enforcing nationalist rethorics. Vlach-Bulgarian Empire is not an alternative name but rather an ephimerical name sometimes used only in the first few decades of its existence of over 200 years. Gligan (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Historical sources: 1. ″CORRESPONDENCE OF THE BULGARIANS WITH POPE INOCENTIUS III″.(translation from latin by Mikhail Voynov, Ivan Duychev) - Kaloyan's second letter to the Pope: ″In the first place, we, as a beloved son, want from our mother, the Roman Church, a royal crown and dignity according to what our ancient emperors had. As we find recorded in our books, one was Peter (Bulgarian tsar Peter I) , the other was Samuel (Bulgarian tsar Samuil), and others who preceded them in reign.″ , 2. ″The Book of Boril or Boril Synodic″ 13th century  - official document of the Bulgarian royal court: ″To Tsar Ivan Asen Belgun, who freed the Bulgarian people from Greek slavery - his eternal memory. To Theodore, called Peter, his brother and tsar, and to his brother tsar Kaloyan, who achieved many victories over the Greeks and Francs - their eternal memory.″ , Lead seal of Tsar Kaloyan with which a letter from his office was attached. Inscription in Bulgarian - Kaloyan, tsar of the Bulgarians, 4. Patriarch Euthymius of Tarnovo (14th century) - "Hagiography of St. Ivan of Rila" - tells about the liberation and restoration of the Bulgarian state by the Bulgarian tsar Asen I. 5. Patriarch Euthymius of Tarnovo - "Praise for Mikhail Warrior"  - tells about the victories of the Bulgarian tsar Kaloyan over the Latin knights (4 crusade). Kandi (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Of course, the sources are in Bulgarian. These are domestic sources from the 13th-14th centuries, from the Second Bulgarian Empire, from the royal chancellery, seals, diplomas and works of the Bulgarian writer, statesman and patriarch Euthymius. It seems that no one in Bulgaria in the 13th-14th centuries knew that he lived in the Wallachian kingdom. Kandi (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

text: The alternative name is an alternative view and it is not appropriate for the leading section. Please read MOS:LEADALT. Jingiby (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Adrianisv  may you explain why the name of the country as attested by historical artifacts and written in the then official state language was deleted. However, the above circumstance was confirmed by reliable secondary English sources which were also deleted. Jingiby (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting: the Romanian point of view is tolerantly and is giving equality to Bulgarians and Romanians in this medieval multiethnic state, while the Bulgarians want only their own nationalist point of view. I know many medieval chronicles considered this state often like "Wallachia", or "Zagora", sometimes as "Bulgaria". According to Bulgarians only "Bulgaria" is valid name, which mean Bulgarian History Science is still dominated by nationalistic agenda.--Antilios (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia works based on modern sources, not on medieval chronicles. The prevailing consensus among international historian community differs from  Romanian POV. Jingiby (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating Bulgarian ethnic identity from Bulgarian civic identity 

message: Please provide reliable sources before pushing this fringe view here. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1422 as end of the Empire.