Talk:Peter II of Bulgaria

Untitled

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

Name

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)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED per original proposal. I didn't read the whole thing but it looks like the original proposal was widely supported, and alternatives were not. If someone thinks I read this wrong, please explain it to me and I'll probably just revert myself if my close looks questionable. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Peter IV of Bulgaria → Peter II of Bulgaria – Per above. And it seems the other Peters were rebel leaders. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. WP:NAME: he is never mentioned as Peter IV in books published in English, but he is often referred to as Peter II. Borsoka (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support as per the sources above; where did the IV come from, do we know? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 06:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment two rulers were crowned as Tsar Peter during the time Bulgaria was part of the Byzantine Empire. These are Peter Delyan and Constantine Bodin. I have to research it a bit before taking a stance on this one. --Laveol ^T 12:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's possibly worth mentioning that a similar debate in the Bulgarian Wikipedia ended up in renaming the article Theodore-Peter. However, this decision was made over 10 years ago and it might need an update. --Laveol ^T 12:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Could you refer to a book published in English which calls him Theodor-Peter? Borsoka (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I really don't have the time to do a thorough search, unfortunately. A quick one (via Google books) shows that some authors like Ostrogorsky (link) and Hussey (link - you'll have to use the overall Google book search result to see the actual mention here) use the formula Peter (Theodore). I notice some Bulgarian authors also use Theodore-Peter in English (Nikolov, Jordanov). There's some ambiguity with the numbers of Petar Tsars in actual Bulgarian historiography, so it is indeed kind of an issue. Unfortunately, I do not see an actual discussion taking lace back in 2009 when the page was renamed in Bulgarian. I will also post there, in case we can get someone familiar with the topic to provide some insight. --Laveol ^T 13:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. If my understanding is correct, for the time being, there is one reference to Theodore-Peter in Nikolov's book (dedicated to an early modern historian). I have not found the reference to Theodore-Peter in Jordanov's book. Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. The mention is on page 455 "John Asen was proclaimed co-ruler along with his brother Theodor Peter". I really wish I had more time to help with the discussion. I did post a short notice on the Bulgarian page. So far there's been no reaction there. --Laveol ^T 22:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support in theory; sources are mentioned but not cited. No prejudice against the Theodore-Peter option. Just use whatever the WP:COMMONNAME is in English-language sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Thank you for your remark. When quoting a book above (under the "Name" subtitle), I always used its index. Borsoka (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Peter II or Theodore-Peter. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Theodore-Peter unless someone can come up with evidence of English usage of Peter II... or Peter IV.... Peter II... is particularly problematical owing to the ambiguity with Peter Delyan. Andrewa (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Please find the following sources for Peter II: Chary, Frederick B. (2011). The History of Bulgaria. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-38446-2.; Crampton, R. J. (2005). A Concise History of Bulgaria. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89452-4.; 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.. Would you refer to books, published in English, proving that Peter Delyan is habitually mentioned as Peter II in English literature? Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Even the first source you quote (Chary) supports the claim in our article that Delyan took the name Peter II or Petar II (see page 16). I have no doubt that scholars of the topic avoid calling him that, for obvious reasons, but we are a general encyclopedia, and the name Peter II... is sufficiently ambiguous to be confusing to the general reader. Andrewa (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
      • • Thank you for your message. Chary clearly calls Asen's brother (the subject of this article) Peter II (I refer to the list of Bulgarian monarchs on page xvi, and the reference to him on page 17). According to my experiences, works published in English refer to Peter Delyan as Peter Delyan/Deljan (I refer to the list of books under the previous subtitle). The Theodore-Peter version of the name of Asen's brother has so far been verified only by two books published in English (one dedicated to an early modern scholar and an other dedicated to coinage, thus none of them write of him). I think this suggests that specialists of Bulgarian history, who write of him, do not think that Theodor-Peter is the proper version of his name. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: It seems people are divided on what to call the article, though it's clear that "IV" will not stay. Peter II or Theodore-Peter? @The Emperor's New Spy, Borsoka, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Laveol, SMcCandlish, SMcCandlish, and Andrewa:. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Peter II of Bulgaria, as per sources cited above. Thank you for your action. Borsoka (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The target can be argued both ways, I'd still go with Theodore-Peter but will support a close that moves to either. Andrewa (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I am divided as well. Possibly slightly more in favour of Theodore-Peter as it would avoid any possible ambiguity. As Andrewa I'd support any resolution agreed upon by the others though. --Laveol ^T 14:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The policy does read in part Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. (my emphasis) This seems to me to describe this case exactly. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
      • And the same policy continues: "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." (1) The form "Theodore-Peter" is not common. It is only shortly mentioned in two sources, but their subject is not his life or the history of Bulgaria. (2) There is no ambiguousity, because no reliable source so far cited refers to other monarch as "Peter II of Bulgaria". (Peter Delyan is always mentioned as Peter Delyan/Delian in sources dedicated to the history of Bulgaria. The case of Louis Antoine, Duke of Angoulême is similar to Delyan's case. The duke styled himself "Louis XIX of France", which is mentioned in all sources dedicated to him, but he is referred to as Louis Antione of Angoulême.) Borsoka (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Assertions (1) and (2) both appear to me to be false, and are only justified by being selective in the sources used. Andrewa (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
          • If my understanding is correct, you found reliable sources published in English which prove that both the form "Theodore-Peter" for the subject of this article and the form "Peter II" for Peter Delyan are common. Could you list them? Borsoka (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC
            • They are above. I have said my piece, I think we should now leave others to judge the validity of the arguments presented. Andrewa (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'll go with Peter II of Bulgaria; "The form 'Theodore-Peter' is only shortly mentioned in two sources, but their subject is not his life or the history of Bulgaria" clinches it. Converted to support per WP:CONSISTENCY, etc., as detailed below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Revised 08:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC).
  • That would be fine if the statement were true, but it's not. 105 Google book hits, almost 2000 ghits, many of them relevant even if we try our best to reject any if their subject is not his life or the history of Bulgaria. That's a bit peculiar, how they could discuss this person without referring to his life or the history of Bulgaria is a puzzle; The ones I followed don't seem to! Andrewa (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the list. Yes, it should have been further limited, because many examples do not verify the use of the form "Theodore-Peter" (for instance, Fine's cited work and other works show the expression "Theodore, Peter" or "Theodor (Peter)", and Ertl emphasizes that the emperor is "sometimes known" as Theodore-Peter). Furthermore, most of the listed books referring to him as Theodore-Peter are dedicated to numismatics, implying that this usage can be attributed to a common source. Nevertheless, it is clear now that the use of "Theodore-Peter" can be substantiated by books published in English. Could you also list the books proving that Peter Delyan is known as "Peter II" in books published in English? If there are no ambiguousity we do not need to discuss this issue any more. Borsoka (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
      • We don't generally call such a search a list, and it's evidence rather than proving anything. But if you accept it as evidence, this is progress. Yes, it would be good to do some similar searches to investigate whether Peter Delyan is known as "Peter II" in books published in English, if you regard the ambiguity of Peter II as in doubt (despite the first of your own sources substantiating the claim, see above).
      • I think I now understand the point about numismatics. If so it is irrelevant. Multiple scholars frequently rely on a single source. We still regard them as multiple sources for the purposes of article name choice. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Thank you for appreciating my progress and also for your advice on Englishn usage. Sorry, but I thought that books listed above which do not substantiate the claim that "Peter II of Bulgaria" was called as "Theodore-Peter" (such as Fine), could not be labelled as evidence for the movement of this article to "Theodore-Peter". Please also remember that the only evidence you have been referring to (Chary) does not call Peter Delyan "Peter II" (as I mentioned above). If there is no ambiguity, why do you think that we should continue this debate? Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
          • There seems little point, as I said above, but not because of any lack of ambiguity. I think that has been established, but not to your satisfaction, and we should now leave it to others to judge. This google search might help (but it is not a comprehensive list of sources any more than my previous search was).
          • I am however interested in whether User:SMcCandlish still thinks that your statement The form 'Theodore-Peter' is only shortly mentioned in two sources, but their subject is not his life or the history of Bulgaria settles the issue of whether that name is commonly enough used to be a possible article title. We now seem agreed that the statement was in fact false. Andrewa (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

            I don't. I was taking it at face value. I agree that this is usually true: "Multiple scholars frequently rely on a single source. We still regard them as multiple sources for the purposes of article name choice." So, that would seem to invalidate the "only two sources" point. However, I still favor Peter II of Bulgaria as more WP:CONSISTENT with our treatment of regnal names generally. Since CONSISTENT is actually one of the WP:CRITERIA, that seems good enough to me in a case of mixed usage in sources. WP:COMMONNAME is not one of the criteria at all, but the AT policy's suggestion for the most likely approach to arrive at a name that satisfies the criteria. When the commonnest name is difficult to determine and subject to conflicting interpretations, it's not a quasi-rule that serves us well in that case, and we have to look to the criteria directly. It seems at least as WP:RECOGNIZABLE, is WP:NATURAL (maybe even more so – rulers are usually referred to by their regnal not birth names, nor anachronistic constructions, which Peter-Theodore looks like it may be), is WP:PRECISE (possibly more so, since "Theodore-Peter" might also be someone else's name), and WP:CONCISE enough (or it would not be our default style for such names).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

            Good points all. I'm still concerned at the ambiguity with the other Peter II, but we accept the most common numbering for Pope John XVII and Pope John XXIII, so it's acceptable, I just don't see it as optimal. Andrewa (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

            Peter-Theodor isn't objectionable to me, just not preferable. Peter IV just has to go.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

            Agree. If the result is Peter II... then a hatnote to Peter Delyan would be in order IMO, and the names Peter II and Petar II should be more prominent in the lead to that article. If not then there are also navigation aids to consider. Andrewa (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

            • • Could you list reliable sources proving that Peter Delyan is referred to as "Peter II" in books published in English? Please remember that Chary's book does not mention him as Peter II. Borsoka (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

                Before I go to the trouble of revisiting what should be a closed issue, have you read p18, as suggested above? Andrewa (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

                • Yes. Peter Delyan is not mentioned as Peter II on that page. Borsoka (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NAME BobLaRouche (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-English versions of his name

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)

Response to third opinion request :

I am here to provide a third opinion, and after reading the article and the rationalesarguments, I think that the best way to represent the names is probably the way User:Borsoka wishes it unless User:Kandi can find a reliable, newer source. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 16:19, 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)

Origins

@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)

GA Review

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

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. 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)

Romanian name

@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)

Peter IV again

@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)