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 Eurovision (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Eurovision, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Eurovision-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-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.
 


Sovereignty dates in the Infobox[edit]

I provide here again the discussion from the Archives, to remember the result. There was not reached a consensus to put 630, i.e. Old Great Bulgaria into the info-box. Jingiby (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Also check Encyclopedia Britannica online: 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.. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Bălgariya or Bălgarija[edit]

According to ISO 9, romanization of cyrilic alphabets: it shoudl be Republika Bălgarija more correctly also see this above the flags. Anton.aldemir (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Photos in "Culture"[edit]

I know certain Bulgarians have an obsession with sticking Rila Monastery and the Panagyurishte Treasure wherever they see fit, but please, don't do it here. None of the photos introduced go well with the text, nor do they represent an improvement. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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 the present Bulgarian state and the earlier empires are “unrealted entities” (Fut Perf)
  5. that this article is about the modern state and that continuance of statehood is lacking (CMD)
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)


Empire?[edit]

We have never considered ourselves to be an Empire, back in 681 ;) We talk here about First and Second Bulgarian Kingdoms, not Empires. Sorry if this is already discussed. 00:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Virosh00:29

It's just the English terminology. It's not like the word Empire has any consistent meaning. CMD (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)