Talk:Kaliman I of Bulgaria

Map
Reliable source cited in the article explicitly says, the claim that Bulgaria incorporated Moldavia was only based on a 14th-century forgery. Alexandru Madgearu writes: "A document in which Tsar Kaliman Asan (John Asan II's successor) appears as a ruler of Moldo-Vlachia is in fact a 14th-century forgery. ... Bulgaria's expansion to the north stopped at the Danube." Borsoka (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Madgearu's The Asanids is a hard book to get hold of. Assuming it says what the citation asserts, then yes, the graphic is wrong and should be removed. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Another reliable source also contradicts the claim presented on the map. According to Mágócsi's map, Bulgaria bordered on the Lower Danube, without incorporating Wallachia or Moldvaia around 1250 . Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , could you explain why do you think that a map allegedly based on a book published 38 years ago is more reliable than the above cited sources? Borsoka (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , the map is based on an old book and depicts an old scholarly POV as a fact. Why do you think we should preserve it? Borsoka (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, as newer book is more reliable. It is best to written yesterday - scientific value and will be the most high (sarcasm). Kandi (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think I am right why do you want to present this map? If you are kidding, why do you think a scholarly POV should be presented as a fact? Borsoka (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , would you explain why do you think that a map which depicts a scholarly point of view as a fact could be used in WP, especially if we take into account WP:NPOV. Please remember, there are two reliable sources (both published in the 21st century) which show that the borders of Bulgaria did not expanded over the Lower Danube in the 1250s. Borsoka (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)