Talk:Bulgaria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Bulgaria has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Bulgaria (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 


Infobox dates[edit]

What is the reason for not providing our readers with the end dates of the medieval kingdoms? CMD (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

These are formation or establishment dates, no other country has end dates. End dates add no value and clutter the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.126.199 (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Other countries usually don't have dates concerning earlier states that are divided from the current nation state by half a millennium of non-statehood either. If we are going to have these earlier incarnations at all, then it is crucial to show that they don't form a continuous tradition of one foundation event simply building upon the previous one, but are unrelated entities widely separated in time. The alternative is to not list them at all. Fine with me, but I suppose people won't like re-opening that debate. Fut.Perf. 11:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The version without the end dates has been around for years, you're offering no reasonable arguments here, Britanica clearly states where modern Bulgaria starts. Sooner of later the end dates will be removed. I don't have more time to waste here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.51.178 (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And if you want examples, look at Poland, Serbia, Croatia, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.51.178 (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And, unsurprisingly, the Poland and Serbia articles also duly include the end dates of the prior states (1795 and 1459 respectively), only they aren't using the format of year ranges but have extra entries in the timeline instead, which is just a bit less elegant. Fut.Perf. 21:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
We achieved consensus to distinguish Medieval entities from the modern one. In fact, adding end dates only does it better and is therefore an improvement. The rest is WP:OTHERSTUFF and by extension, irrelevant. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, nothing specific, just your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.51.178 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really fail to see the reason for even debating on the topic. What is the rationale behind removing the end dates? How is this an improvement? End dates do not 'clutter' the article, at least as I see it. Plus, they add valuable info about this not being a continuous state, but a country that ceased its existence for vast periods of time. Hence, the different numerical identifiers for each state. --Laveol T 22:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Because, the template is for establishment dates, not date ranges. It is important to the reader when the entity was formed, as this is the formation section. But you have nothing to worry, you can all now safely go and build Tsar Samuil another monument and put a quote from some of your distinguished academics on it :) or when you discover that the First Bulgarian Empire was in fact The Empire of the Macedonians, make sure to reflect it in the article. I'm sure we can all agree to close this discussion now, as while entertaining it is clear we agree to disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.126.199 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It's for the establishment dates of the state the article is about, not states that disappeared centuries before the article's subject came into being. This is why its structure is event dates, as each should lead directly to the next. Once you include dates for events that do not last until the next one, the lack of end dates grossly misleads the reader into assuming each follows directly from the previous. CMD (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You're getting boring and I'm choosing to ignore you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.126.199 (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Ad hominem, what an impressive argument. I don't think the anonymous user will ever understand what we're talking about, it's useless to keep arguing. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, what do you think about this proopsal? It makes it clear that there were periods when Bulgaria was not a sovereign state. I also added two important events that have had decisive influence on the development of Bulgaria: the Christianization in the 9th century and the Unification in 1885. Tropcho (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not suitable. This again makes it look exactly like what it wasn't: a continuous succession of political forms representing "Bulgaria", each building directly on the previous one (and one of which just happened to be called "Ottoman Bulgaria"). No way. Also, the christianization may have been an important point in the cultural development, but it didn't change the political status of the country; likewise, the unification of 1885 may have been important politically, but it was just the expansion of an existing entity, not the formation of a new one. Fut.Perf. 12:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Could you explain how Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria implies a continuous succession? Isn't it obvious that Bulgaria lost its sovereignty after it was conquered? If we changed Ottoman Bulgaria to e.g. Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria or Fall of the Second Bulgarian Empire, would this be acceptable? Also, regarding your remarks on the Christianization and the Unification, why should we only include events that changed the political status of the country in the Formation section (as opposed to events that influenced the formation of the country)? Tropcho (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
What Fut Perf means is that it provides the implication that a political unit continued throughout these periods, just under different rulership, which is not what happened. Keep in mind the infobox is the shortest of summaries, and the sovereignty section is meant to be the briefest of bullets as to when sovereignty was obtained (although its use has expanded to when the current political status was obtained, whatever that is). CMD (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Chipmunkdavis for the clarification. I understand that this is what Fut Perf meant. This is why I asked him why he thinks that Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria implies a continuous succession of political forms. Also, previously someone mentioned that Encyclopaedia Britannica clearly states that modern Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe (Founded in the 7th century, Bulgaria is one of the oldest states on the European continent.) Obviously the authors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article saw continuity of some kind in Bulgarian statehood (btw, compare this with Fut. Perf.'s claim above that they were unrelated entities). In this connection I would like to ask why some people insist on legal or political continuity, and why other kinds of continuity are not sufficient? What is this requirement based on? As far as I can tell, it's not implied anywhere in the template description (the Template:Infobox_country indicates that the established_event fields are for key events in history of country/territory's status or formation), and from the discussion above I infer that there's no wiki-wide consensus on this. So I would like to know why political continuity is necessary, while other kinds are not sufficient. Tropcho (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not the specific wording really, it's the presentation system. It's the implication that some entity went through a series of events, such as Byzantine and Ottoman conquest. I don't think its obvious that the authors of Britannica saw a continuity in political statehood. Near the start is also says "Bulgaria gained its independence in the late 19th century", which isn't placed with a connection to any previous Bulgaria. Furthermore the more detailed parts are very clear that the Bulgarian national revival was initially cultural rather than political, and was primarily a result of widespread education. (They additionally very quickly state that Turkish influence had a large effect on Bulgaria, but no-one is trying to even get that anywhere in the prose of this article.) As for political continuity, that's used because this is an article about a political entity, so it's simply the type of continuity defined by the topic at hand. CMD (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It is true that the statement about Bulgaria gaining its independence in the late 19th century doesn't explicitly mention a previous Bulgaria. But neither does it explicitly rule out the possibility that Bulgaria existed before gaining its independence, does it? On the other hand, the statement that Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe, along with the following statement in the section Beginnings of Modern Bulgaria (preceding the section First Bulgarian Empire): The Byzantine emperor Constantine IV led an army against the Bulgars but was defeated, and in 681 Byzantium recognized by treaty Bulgar control of the region between the Balkans and the Danube. This is considered to be the starting point of the Bulgarian state., is a clear indication that the authors of Encyclopaedia Britannica believe that some entity (as you put it) went through a series of events, and that modern Bulgaria is closely related to the First and Second Bulgarian Empires (sufficiently related to be considered their continuation - otherwise why would the authors call it one of the oldest states in Europe?). Wouldn't you agree? Tropcho (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
What are you even blathering on about? We are already including those freaking empires in the box, so what the hell more do you want? We are not talking about whether or not we should include them; all we are talking about is your attempt at obscuring the situation, by giving as little as possible visibility to the fact that there are large temporal gaps between these states. This will not be tolerated, full stop. As for the contention that something could be the "continuation" of something else from which it is separated by half a millenium, this is simply not something that reasonable people can reaonably disagree about. It's a simple fact of the English language. Look up what "continuation" means. Continuation entails temporal continuaity. Debate over. Fut.Perf. 10:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
(Side remark: There is a page on wikipedia that advises editors to take a break if they find themselves unable engage in discussion in a civil way.) I would be more inclined to agree that we should end this discussion if your post had properly addressed my questions and if there were not some flaws in your argument. To answer your questions: my "blathering" is aimed at 1) challenging the statement that the First and Second Empire and modern Bulgaria are unrelated entities (and some other related notions) and 2) convincing the participants in this discussion that the presentation format I suggested (or some variation of it) is transparent (all dates are included, there's no ambiguous wording that implies things that are not supported by the sources), balanced, concise, conforms with common wikipedia usage, and is more informative, and therefore better than the present one.
I read through (most of) the preceding discussions. The impression that I got is that no source has been presented that directly supports the claim that there is no political or legal connection between the Second Bulgarian Empire and the Principality, nor the claim that they are unrelated entities. Tourbillon provided sources [1] [2] that state that the modern Bulgarian state was founded in the 19th century. However, it seems to me that the claim that the modern Bulgarian state is not related to the previous states is an extension of what is in the sources, and therefore amounts to original research. Some of the participants in the discussion have argued about what constitutes political and legal continuity and statehood, but again using definitions whose origin is not entirely clear (because there was little or no reference to sources). Please let me know if you think that I've missed something important.
Coming back to Fut Perf's argument about "continuation": First, if one looks up the word, one will actually find that one of its meanings is the act of beginning again after an interruption. Second, at first sight it seems reasonable to accept that it's impossible for a state to be the continuation of an earlier one from which it was separated by half a millennium, but it seems to me that it's actually an oversimplification. I think it really depends on what happened before and during this half a millennium. If it were as simple as the argument above suggests, then I would like to ask what is the maximum amount of time that allows us to say that one state is a continuation of another? Is it 314 years? Is it 10? Is it 1878 - 1396 = 482 years? And how do we arrive at that "cutoff"? The answer, I think, depends on many things, including personal preference, so I think it's better to leave it to the experts. Finally, we seem to have a fairly reputable source (Encyclopaedia Britannica) which seems to consider the present Bulgarian state to be the continuation of the earlier states. Or at least that's to me the most obvious interpretation of the statement that Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe. There seems to be little room for ambiguity here. I think that it's also reasonable to assume that the authors of the EB knew very well that there were long periods in the history of Bulgaria when it did not have political independence (and that they knew that the Principality was established in 1878, which is what Tourbillon's sources state). It seems that they saw no contradiction between this fact and the statement that Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe. I would be curious to hear another interpretation, if someone has one. Tropcho (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately your "reasoning" is wholly made out of appeals to authority, appeals to ignorance and basically all other logical fallacies that could possibly exist, a prime example being the Britannica straw man you keep pushing around. The EB source talks of a beginning of the "Bulgarian state" in the context of the First Bulgarian Empire; nowhere does it mention a continuous Bulgarian statehood. Honestly I have no idea how to explain that two entities separated in their existence by 500 years are not the same thing, so I don't think it's worth the effort. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment about the logical fallacies would have been valid, if you had not misinterpreted my remarks above. Let me try and explain.
If my argument went (for example) as follows:
  1. EB is an authority on history.
  2. EB says that Bulgaria was founded in 681.
  3. Therefore, it must be true that Bulgaria was founded in 681.
this would have been an appeal to authority, and your remark would have been correct. However, re-reading my comments above should convince you that I never assumed nor implied any of the three points above. I merely pointed out that a fairly reputable source appears to have stated that Bulgaria was founded in 681.
Similarly, if I had argued as follows:
  1. There is no source that proves that the present Bulgarian state and the older empires are unrelated.
  2. Therefore the converse is true, i.e. they must be related.
this would have been an appeal to ignorance. But again, reading my comment above should convince you that I never argued that. I merely pointed out that so far no source has been presented that supports the view that we're dealing with “unrelated entities”.
(By the way, since it's based on a misinterpretation of my remarks, this particular part of your argument is a an example of what is called a straw man.)
Then, your comment says that I “keep pushing a Britannica straw man around”. Last time I checked a straw man was a formal fallacy based on a misinterpretation of the opponent's argument. In what way do my comments about EB constitute a misinterpretation of my opponents' arguments? Aren't the main points of argument
  1. that the First and Second Empire and the Principality are “historically unrelated” and that there is “no foundation date” (Fut Perf)
  2. that Bulgaria has no connection or no relation to the medieval empires (Tourbillon)
  3. that Bulgaria is not a successor to the medieval empires (Tourbillon)
  4. that national consciousness was lost [3] (Tourbillon)
  5. that there were no traces of political culture left (Tourbillon)
  6. that unbroken political continuity of statehood is important (Fut Perf)
  7. that the present Bulgarian state and the earlier empires are “unrealted entities” (Fut Perf)
  8. that this article is about the modern state and that continuance of statehood is lacking (CMD)
(Note: points 4-6 were added later) In what way do my comments about the EB article constitute a misinterpretation of these points? Or did you mean to say that I was misinterpreting the source? Which leads me to the next thing: your interpretation of the EB.
Your comment about EB makes me think that you read neither what I wrote nor the EB article very carefully. EB states not only that 681 ”is considered to be the starting point of the Bulgarian state.” (as you correctly point out) but also that ”Founded in the 7th century, Bulgaria is one of the oldest states on the European continent.” (this is the second sentence of the opening paragraph). Provided that it hardly makes sense to say that Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe if it were founded in 1878, one rather obvious interpretation of this is that the authors consider the present Bulgarian state to be the continuation of the earlier empires, and that the founding date of the Bulgarian state is 681. This does not imply that Bulgaria retained its independence without interruption since its foundation, but it does seem to imply that the present Bulgaria is a continuation, a successor or heir to the medieval states, and that they are intimately related. Do you have an alternative interpretation? Please share it with us. And also please explain how the statements in EB are consistent with the claim that the First and Second Empire and the Principality are unrelated entities.
Furthermore, strictly speaking, the last part of your comment also constitutes a straw man, because I never claimed that modern Bulgaria and the medieval states were “the same thing”; I believe that they are quite different, but that they are related in many essential ways. Besides, it seems that this argument is a case of causal oversimplification (and pretty much a repetition of Fut Perf's earlier statement, which I commented on. See above, and perhaps try to answer the question posed there).
One more comment: I believe that your remark about “all other logical fallacies” couldn't have been seriously meant and that in spirit it is tending towards incivility. By creating an unfriendly atmosphere, this has the potential to discourage people from participating in what could be a civil and productive discussion. It's probably a good idea to abstain from such comments in the future. Tropcho (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's also reasonable to ask Fut Perf why he thinks that the info-box presentation format which is "a bit less elegant" (than including end-dates) when applied to Poland and Serbia's articles becomes intolerable when applied to Bulgaria. What's the rationale behind that, given that all three countries have gaps in their sovereignty? Tropcho (talkcontribs) 23:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@Fut Perf this is just a reminder that I'd like to hear why you think that my proposal is not acceptable, even though it is modeled on Poland and Serbia's articles, which you described as a bit less elegant. I have the feeling that perhaps people are primed a bit by the preceding heated discussions and that's why they see behind my proposal some attempt to "obscure things".
My proposal is actually not very different from the present version. I think it would even be OK to keep the medieval vs. modern tags, although they seem redundant to anyone who knows what medieval means and is capable of reading numbers. The main difference between my proposal and the present version is that my proposal includes more links (to e.g. the period of Ottoman domination or the Byzantine conquest) and that it includes the Christianization of Bulgaria. I believe that the conversion (along with the recognition of an independent church) is a key event for Bulgaria, and had political implications as well. The Christianization helped merge the Slavic and Bulgar elements and strengthened central power. The Ecclesiastical independence, on the other hand, decreased the influence of Byzantium and fostered the development of a separate identity which was quite important later on. (I can support these claims with sources, if anyone would like me to do so). Therefore it would be good to mention them in the infobox, I think. Tropcho (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Fut Perf seeing that you're around, this is another a reminder that there's a question waiting for you. Cheers Tropcho (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2014[edit]

2.235.103.126 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC) LIARS! Moldavia and Wallachia were NOT part of the Second Bulgarian Empire! LIARS! Liars! Liars! Is Bulgaria the center of the Earth?

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
During the reign of Kaloyan and Ivan Asen II Wallachia and Moldavia ARE part of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Read, before to comment, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.102.118 (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Christianization and introduction of the Slavic alphabet[edit]

What is the basis for the claim that "the most significant points are already mentioned", given that the Christianization is covered with one short sentence, and the adoption of the Slavic alphabet is not mentioned at all? I believe that this is a glaring omission and does not do justice to the history of the First Empire at all. A quote from RJ Crampton might help here: The most important developments of the first empire, however, were cultural rather than military. (from Bulgaria, Oxford University Press 2007, p11). By this he means two things: Christianization and the adoption of Slavo-Bulgarian as a language for state and church. Of the 4 pages he devotes to the First Empire 1.5 are about these two topics, or almost 40 percent. This is how much volume is devoted to these two topics (which basically coincide with the reign of Boris I) compared to the total amount of text about the first empire in some other sources:

These figures are, I think, a good illustration of how important the two topics are. In contrast, the figure in this article before the additions was ~4%. So I would suggest that you justify yourself or revert your own edit. If the problem is flow, do suggest improvements. If something should be removed, although I don't think so, it seems to me that there are other less important things to start with. Cheers Tropcho (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Two relevant quotes from Cramtpon's Concise History of Bulgaria:
  • Boris [...] in his three and a half decades of power was to impose huge and portentous changes on his realm and its inhabitants. (p 12)
  • The introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet was of enormous importance. More than any other development it prevented the absorption of the Bulgarians by the Greeks to their south or the Franks to their west. (p 16 of the 1997 edition) Tropcho (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Tropcho. A much needed and well formatted addition. Please, go ahead and add it. Walker.D.Pace (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We could mention the introduction of the alphabet, but having a whole paragraph only on religion and Cyrillic is simply unacceptable given the present structure of the article. Sure, they're major events, but a brief sentence with appropriate links is better than a paean. If you want to cover the history of Bulgaria in detail, here you go. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the significance of the Christianization, the recognition of an independent Bulgarian church, and the introduction of the alphabet is such that they deserve more than two sentences in total (especially in a context where Krum's law or Tervel's assitance in the Arab siege of Constantinople get attention). Now they get just one. In my view there's nothing sacrosanct about the present structure of the section. If it does not allow significant events to receive the amount of attention they deserve, or if it gives undue weight to less important events, I believe we should not be afraid to modify it. I have the feeling that at the moment the focus is on the military developments. What is it exactly about the structure that you think makes it incompatible with the new additions? If length and flow are your main concerns, I could make some suggestions. Also, please note that the additions I suggest are hardly concerned with the details. The essential points are mentioned with a minimal amount of context, and there is much more to be said about each of them. (For example, think of the laborious negotiations between Boris, Rome and Constantinople that led to the recognition of an autonomous Bulgarian church: only the outcome is mentioned here.) Finally (paean), if statements of fact sound like praise, I'm not sure it has to bother us. The First Empire did achieve much, as Runciman and Crampton both point out explicitly. Tropcho (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Well you've clarified things yourself in your first statement - you believe these events deserve more than two sentences. They don't. The entire history of the First empire is covered in three paragraphs, and what you did was adding a whole two new paragraphs concerning the adoption of Christianity and Cyrillic script under Boris. That is totally out of balance, and if you don't care about the structure, you should carefully read Wikipedia:Summary style#Rationale on why brief is better. Details like Taking advantage of the rivalry between the churches at Rome and Constantinople... or Saints Cyril and Methodius, who found welcome in Bulgaria after being expelled from Great Moravia are absolutely unnecessary. Christianisation is already mentioned and the only reason why Cyrillic could be add there is that it's one of the few lasting pieces of Bulgarian heritage outside its borders, nothing more. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
There are of course countless Bulgarian achievements that have spread and left heritage outside of the Bulgarian borders. Unlike a famous scientist or an artist, the creation and spread of the Bulgarian alphabet is a civilization forming event and deserves a mention. Walker.D.Pace (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, it's a terraforming event that deserves a whole two paragraphs. One sentence is more than enough to cover both of these. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Very interesting. Are you saying that you actually know that they don't deserve more than two sentences? I would like to know how you “know” that. And unless you're one of those people who just happen to know the truth, then the difference between your position and mine is that whereas I have backed up my belief with sources, you have not. Did you read the preceding posts? Did you notice that experts on the subject also assume an approach that is “totally out of balance” according to you? Also, please be reminded that even if you do “know” the truth, this isn't really relevant on wikipedia, unless you can back it up with sources. Tropcho (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Tu quoque. I don't need sources because I'm not claiming anything. I'm simply explaining why your edits are unacceptable - because of their size, and not because of their content. If you didn't read the link on Summary Style earlier, do so and try to find out why less details mean better understanding. I hope things are clear now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that it's quite easy to see (by scrolling up) that what you're saying (i.e. that you're "not claiming anything" but are “simply explaining why my edits are unacceptable”) is plain wrong. Clearly you're claiming that my edits are unacceptable, otherwise you wouldn't be busy explaining that they are. You also claim (among other things) that 1) these topics don't deserve more than two sentences, that 2) it's “totally out of balance” to devote two paragraphs (out of five total) to them, and that 3) the above-mentioned details are “absolutely unnecessary”. You have given neither sources nor sufficient explanations to support these claims. Your referral to the summary style guideline is not enough because 1) my inclusions are a summary and nothing near an exhaustive treatment of the topics introduced and 2) the summary style guideline (understandably) does not specify what to include and what to leave out. There's no need to convince me that summary style is appropriate here. However, do you think that it implies including unimportant details (e.g. the exact location of Asparukh's migrations before crossing south of the Danube) at the expense of important events (e.g. the establishment of a national Bulgarian church, the foundation of literary centers at Preslav and Ohrid, the development of a national literature)? Also, if you can, do try and support your claims above. Tropcho (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Obviously you're not making the difference between a claim of content and an insistence that some information does not need to be presented in detail. Excellent work reducing the section even further, but some of the things you added are still far too detailed. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
What exactly made you think that I'm not making the difference? Quite the contrary: I understand what you're saying. Nevertheless, I disagree with it and (as explained above) I think you have not done enough to support your position neither with explanations, nor with sources. In contrast, I've pointed out that experts do pay a lot of attention to the reign of Boris (which, along with that of Simeon, typically occupies 40 to 60% of their narratives about the First Empire), which gives me good confidence that it's not a bad idea (nor "totally out of balance") to do the same thing in our summary here. Tropcho (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
While you're around, could you also take some time to clarify your earlier statements (in the infobox dates discussion) about the "britannica straw man" that I was supposedly pushing around? I'm still quite eager to know what you meant. Tropcho (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's even remotely relevant clarifying something that is more than clear. It would also be nice if you cease your persistent adding of "Preslav Literary School" to underscore where Cyrillic was developed. It's not really "important" outside a nationalist microcosm. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Boris ordering the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet?[edit]

A recent addition states that Boris ordered the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet. How do we know that? I don't see a source for that. Tropcho (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Old Great Bulgaria in the infobox?[edit]

It's very interesting for me, why Old Great Bulgaria is not representing in the infobox? Bulgaria was created in 632 by Khan Kubrat and this state, which we called "Old Great Bulgaria" was named just "Bulgaria" in all Byzantine chronicles. Old Great Bulgaria and First Bulgarian Empire are one state and the difference between both is only the capital remove south of Danube, after 680.--Tourbo L (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer is simple: they're not the same state. The First Bulgarian State was established by migrants from OGB which disintegrated years prior to the establishment of the former. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)