Talk:Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing! | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
 |
To-do list for Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
||
 |
Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
[edit] Let's ignore sources, outright nationalism is better
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)
- 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)
