Talk:Peter Delyan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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! | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | |
 |
To-do list for Peter Delyan: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
||
Serbian historians and those from republic of Macedonia consider Samuil and his succsesors as Slavs or macedonian Slavs and not Bulgars,so puting that Peter was Bulgar is not neutral.He was emperor of Bulgaria,but it doesn`t mean he was Bulgar.Just like Constantine Bodin was emperor of Bulgaria,but he wasn`t Bulgar.Uprising started in modern Serbia,among ancestors of modern Serbs so it should stay how his name is written in serbian.
Ostrogorski says calls last archbishop Slav John(Словен Јован),if someone else says different it should be put in the article.
If quotes for other things are needed,I will give it.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 04:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes but the historians in the other parts of the world consider Samuil and his successors Bulgarians. So putting only Slav is also not neutral : ) But I want you to understand something, the Bulgarian people emerged as a mixture of Bulgars and Slavs, and there were more Slavs than Bulgars. Bulgaria has always been a Slav country so Slav here should also mean Bulgarian.
- And in the past much of what is now Serbia used to be populated by Bulgarians and within the borders of Bulgaria (see the talk page of Pirot, there is a long conversation on the topic I think). When this rebelion broke out in Belgrade, this town has never been in Serbian states up to that moment (1040), while in was Bulgarian in the period (805-c.1010). --Gligan 09:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We should not mix terms Bulgar,Bulgarian and Bulgaria.
I know what the rest of historian think,but some have different view which should be represented.
Delyans or Odelyan(to carve out of wood) name very clearly says he has Slavonic origin(which means his descendants would either be Bulgarians or Serbs,we cannot say which) and thats why I only put Slav,`cause in XI century was still very clear distinction between Bulgars and Slavs.
I know that Bulgarians are more Slavs then Bulgars,but Slav could also be Serb(in this context) as well as Bulgarian.
These parts of modern Serbia were parts of Bulgaria YES,BUT they had Slavonic,not Bulgar population.(If you have sources which says differently please quote me when and where those Bulgars from Belgrade and Pomoravlje went,`couse I`m curios.)What happened to them we could not tell.They moved out,or their descendants became Serbs or Bulgarians.That`s why I believe it is enough to put Slav,but OK if you think that Slav/Bulgar is better or precise definition,then OK,but both names of rebel leaders(Delyan and Tihomir) are very clearly slavonic.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, there wasn't any distinction between Bulgars and Slavs in the 11th century, they had long mixed, so please substitute that with "Bulgarian" and remove any mention of this ridiculous "Slavic uprising". The rulers of the First Bulgarian Empire already had Slavic names (Ivan Vladislav, Gavril Radomir, Vladimir) and used Old Bulgarian exclusively. So basically, all of your argumentation is totally flawed.
- I'd ask you to move the article back to its original position (according to the Wikipedia guidelines, as he was Tsar of Bulgaria, this should be exclusively indicated as "of Bulgaria"). Per WP:Undue weight, the view which you advocate, and which is only popular in Serbia, does not deserve the space you have alloted it, and should be summarized briefly, so that it does not seem as prominent as the prevalent one. I'd suggest giving it not more than three short sentences and a separate section like ===Alternative theories=== or something.
- The current version of the article is biased and gives too much credit to the alternative Serbian point of view, so it is not neutral at all, per WP:NPOV. Todor→Bozhinov 18:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
...remove any mention of this ridiculous "Slavic uprising".
Are you my friend sugesting that ancestors of modern Bulgarians also lived in modern Albania and rebeled under Tihomir?You should become comedian.
If etnogenezis of Bulgarians was completed in XI centhury,how some of Samuils men had very clear Bulgar(Krakra),while other had very clear Slav/christian names (Dragomuz,Bogdan,Ivac,Nikolitza,Gavra)?Shouldn`t all of them have Slav/christian names,like Bulgarians today?Or I`m wrong again?
No,he was rebel leader who proclaimed himself tsar of Bulgaria,he led rebelion not state or even empire.He didn`t have capital or court or any other form of power.
Ok,you`re again hiding behind masses.Masses believe that Earth was flat,so it still doesn`t mean they right.I don`t see what`s the problem to explain and show other views.To you(from world and Bulgaria) it`s alternative theory,but for us(from Serbia and RM) your theory is alternative.I have my sources,if needed I will quote them and it is expected the same from all others.Nothing more,nothing less.
As I said,it should stay he was a Slav(Bulgarian or Serb),`cause that`s what he was.
CrniBombarder!!! (†) 05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- But non-Slavic names are still in use in Bulgaria as they have been for 1300 years, for example many people nowadays bear the names Krum, Kurt, Omurtag and others. The fact that the Slav predominated does not mean that all Bulgar heritage has vanished. There are now non-Slavic words in the Bulgarian language still in use from the time of Asparukh.
- And, there were also almost no Bulgars in Thrace, does it mean that this population has anything to do with the Serbs??? Look, my friend, you should agree that some territories in what is now Serbia (and the whole of Macedonia : )) were traditionally populated by Bulgarians. You know that the old name of Southern Morava was Bulgarian Morava, while of Western Morava was Serbian Morava, so there used to be the approximate border between our peoples. These names were not just a coincidence.
- Other questions: if Peter Delyan was indeed a Serb, why then he did not act in any cooperation with the Serb states; and why if he wanted to lead the Serbs to freedom he adopted the name of the Bulgarian Emperor Peter I? The Bulgarians had destroyed the Serbian states several times, so I doubt that the Serbs had good feelings to them. --Gligan 07:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, my ancestors lived in modern Albania too — we ruled over much of Albania during significant periods, and there is still a small Bulgarian-speaking (from a purely linguistic point of view, no offence to our brothers in the RoM) population there. I haven't thought of becoming a comedian yet, but I'll take that as a compliment :) And yes, you're wrong again, I don't see why some of the Bulgar names shouldn't have been preserved at least for several centuries, and particularly among a part of the nobility, which is traditionally known to be reluctant to mess with the "rabble".
- You're confusing the terms "wide majority" and "tiny minority" with "masses". You Serbs may be "masses", but you (and we, of course) are all but nothing, purely mathematically, compared to the rest of the world. So if the wide majority thinks one way and you think the other way, then your position may well not deserve the same attention as the commonly accepted one. This is what Wikipedia:Undue weight is all about, and I'm just applying guidelines here. Todor→Bozhinov 09:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
