Talk:Ivan Asen I

message: , 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)
thread_title:  Map 

message: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 (). 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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 (). 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I requested third opinion. I think we should wait instead of continuing our endless debate. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your third opinion. Borsoka (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is not a third opinion. This is one more Borsoka opinion. Kandi (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 68.233.214.74 is a bot of Borsoka Kandi (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Would you please clarify your above remark about me. It is quite offensive. Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

text: , 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)
replies: text: Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant Boroska's map, which was being discussed. ProgrammingGeek talktome 12:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your clarification. Borsoka (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Unfortunately they are not the same in either theory, "(Balkan Romanians)" might work? Boynamedsue (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What do we do then? Do we go with "Balkan Romanians"? Super Ψ Dro 13:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that's best. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I applied the changes. Super Ψ Dro 20:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Vlachs and Romanians 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria →  – There is no other monarch with this name and numeral, so no need to disambiguate. Векочел (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 May 2024