Talk:Bulgaria

Cyrillic and IPA names in opening sentence

An editor recently removed this and when it was cleaned up and reinserted less obtrusively, he removed it again (this time to a footnote) with the reasoning "this is the English wikipedia, not the Bulgarian, Ukranian, Russian" etc. I am of the opinion that it should remain in the lede as this is fairly standard in all country articles (see for example Russia, Germany, France, Thailand, Cambodia).--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 07:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide a reason that two and a half lines of gobbled text intruding after the very first line is useful for English-speakers? It is not in a footnote, thus perfectly accessible. Or you could go to the Bulgarian WP. Tony (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the effort of reducing the clutter, but removing the whole info completely or relegating it into a footnote is not a good idea. Information about the native name of the country is a vital part of our encyclopedic coverage of it. When it's in a footnote people won't find it, because people expect footnotes to primarily contain references. What I think can be left out is the IPA rendering of the English pronunciation, because that is not really problematic for English-speaking readers. We might also leave out the Bulgarian rendering of the "Republic of..." part, because it's a trivial translation matter. But the name itself should be there both in Cyrillic and in a transcription. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the English WP, not the Bulgarian WP. Foreign languages, especially impenetrable foreign scripts, have no place right at the opening, occupying two and half lines after the very first word. If it were one or two words, it might be passed over: but it's humunguously long and destroys the opening. If you really insist on retaining it in the main text, it needs to go somewhere further down, not in the summary. I'm sorry that Bulgarians who consult this will have to click on the opening footnote to get that little shot of serotonin from seeing their own script. My advice: work on the Bulgarian WP article on Bulgaria. Could I ask whether the Bulgarian WP gives English-language equivalents after the first word of each geographical article? No. en.WP is not for readers who do not speak English. That is why we have 282 WPs in different languages. Ease of reading and keeping the text relevant to the 99.99% of readers who are not Bulgarian is more important. I cannot see any remote use in having the cyrillic script in the article at all; a prominent footnote is a reasonable compromise. In the info box, I also object to the use of Bulgarian script and language for the national motto, then the transliteration, then the English translation. But I suppose we'll have to put up with that clutter. Infoboxes should not be unnecessarily long. And a national motto seems rather trivial to be displaying right at the top. Tony (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Future, I've had dealings before with you where you act before editors can come in to discuss a matter. Please wait. Tony (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You've been edit-warring. Next revert and you're at WP:AN3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That is an offensive post, and your editing behaviour on the article page was also offensive. You are warned. Tony (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think edit-warring by any user is something productive, at least not while the article is at a nomination. By viewing other FA-status country articles, I see the name of the country in the local language, and one transcription at most (as IPA symbols are understood by only a handful of users). There is no need to make a transcription of the official name (Republic of...), but not rendering the short form Cyrillic name and one transcription of it isn't correct either, IMO. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

After finding this firestorm here, I was really curious to see what the objectionable original opening looked like.

Needless I say, I am astounded that this is it:

Bulgaria /bʌlˈɡɛəriə/ (Bulgarian: България, tr. Bŭlgariya, IPA: [bɤ̞ɫˈɡarijɐ]), officially the Republic of Bulgaria ([Република България, tr. Republika Bŭlgariya, IPA: [rɛˈpublikɐ bɤ̞ɫˈɡarijɐ]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)), is a parliamentary republic in Southeast Europe. It borders Romania to the north, Serbia and Macedonia to the west, Greece and Turkey to the south, as well as the Black Sea to the east. Bulgaria is a very mountainous country due to its location in the Balkan peninsula. With a territory of 110,994 square kilometres (42,855 sq mi), Bulgaria ranks as the 15th-largest country in Europe.

This paragraph is really standard. We should go back to this version.

As for the "impenetrable foreign scripts", c'mon, I learned to read Cyrillic for fun when I was 13 or 14 years old, during the commercial breaks in my favourite TV programmes.

And that's been good enough for me for the past 40 years.

Varlaam (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the correct Bulgarian pronunciation is [bɐɫˈɡarijɐ] because the stress is on the second syllable and a reduction occurs in the first one.Xr 1 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Preslav school - the birthplace of the Cyrillic; Bulgaria - the major centre of Slavic culture

Why this about the birthplace of the Cyrillic was deleted? Isn't this an important description for Bulgaria as a whole and isn't it has to be noted? If not in the begining of the page, it deserve to be written in the map of the Cyrillic countries. Also some books from Google in the page say directly that Bulgaria was the major centre of the Slavic culture in the Middle Ages exerting considerable cultural influnce over rest of the Eastern Orthodox world - not just "a cultural hub of the Slavic peoples" as is written now, I am on the opinion that this sentence has misses and should be corrected too. And second I think that the Ancient Macedonians were present in the territories of Bulgaria not the Ancient Greeks, or at least for longer period, the Macedonians I think hould be noted. Comments? Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.137.215 (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have read the article thoroughly, you would notice that it both implies and points directly towards a firm position of Bulgaria as a centre of Slavic culture in general. You might think that Ancient Macedonians were present on Bulgaria's teritories before the Greeks, but that is incorrect. The first Greek colonies were established in what is now Bulgaria long before the first Macedonians ever appeared in the area. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sunny Beach ?

Seriously, this is the best way to represent the economy of Bulgaria ? It's like representing the Colombian economy with an image of a coke plantation, simply because it "brings a lot of money". Even if we assume tourism was more significant than exports in mining and metallurgy (and it's not), why would this campy, overconstructed, cheap squalor have any merit to stand there ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, if not Sunny Beach, then at least Golden Sands or Primorsko or Sozopol deserve a photo in this section. File:Town of Primorsko aerial Boby Dimitrov 2.jpg - this is a good one, for example. A photo of a Bulgarian major sea resort is simply better as, as I said before, tourism is an important source of income for the economy and such photo will be better than the current one, which simply shows what's written in the text and adds nothing more. - Nicksss93 (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Golden Sands and Sozopol don't really have a good reputation outside Bulgaria. I'd suggest this view of Sveti Vlas, it's not such a display of megalomaniac overconstruction and is a less popular destination for non-Bulgarian tourists. Anything from the 100 Tourist Sites of Bulgaria would also be a good choice, though there are little quality photos of those objects. Also, if any such picture replaces the exports map, the Sofia photo in the upper right corner would also have to be removed - two photos of settlements would put too much weight on geographic locations. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a better one. Also, I don't think having 2 photos will be a problem - FA articles like Cameroon and Chad have as many as four photos in their economy sections. - Nicksss93 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The second one is too generic, in my opinion. And the problem is not that there will be two photos, but that both will be of geographic locations. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anywhere a Wikipedia rule or FA criteria that there shouldn't be two photos of geographic locations in the economy section. However, if it's really a problem, then a specific photo from Sofia with a place of economic significance like Business Park Sofia, The Bulgarian National Bank, Bulbank, etc. could replace the overall image of the city. And about the Sveti Vlas photos - in my opinion, the overall photo of the resort is better exactly because of its generic character as it gives the reader a more overall notion of the town, and is also of better quality. - Nicksss93 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an economy section after all, having pictures only of settlements would not look very adequate, simply because any settlement with a size of more than 100,000 inhabitants could claim economic significance and, therefore, an image in the section. Economic activity is worst represented by buildings or locations. Generic photos like the one of BPS, the National Bank or any resort not only make the section look like a tourist advertisement, but also don't bring any information to the reader. Not to mention that they're not even pretty nor impressive, as much as many people would think BPS is something significant. I suggest we leave the article as it is now in terms of images, and resolve the question after the FA nomination expires. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ottoman tone

This article generally is much better than many at NPOV, but there are some issues with the Ottoman empire I think should be addressed.

• The infobox has a stage of sovereignty noted as "Liberation from Ottoman rule". Liberation is always a word which rings alarm bells, and probably isn't that accurate. It was still nominally under Ottoman suzerainty, which is why a declaration of independence was made. Something like "Ottoman client state" would be better, or perhaps "Autonomous principality" if we want to emphasise the fact it emerged from the Ottoman Empire, rather than being conquered by it.
• "The Ottomans subjugated all Bulgarian lands south of the Danube after the Battle of Nicopolis and the fall of the Vidin Tsardom three years later." Subjugate is another powerful word, and again misplaced. Land can't really be subjugated, it's just physically there. Better to say annexed or conquered. It may also be a good idea to change the order of the sentence, so note the battles and the result, rather than result than battle. Rough eg. "After the Battle of Nicopolis and the fall of the Vidin Tsardom three years later, the Ottoman Empire took control of all Bulgarian lands south of the Danube."
• "and the population lost its national consciousness under the oppression of the invaders." The last part, "under the oppression of the invaders" isn't needed. Aside from using both "oppression" and "invaders", it doesn't help the readers as it should already be clear why the national conscience was lost. The oppression is very clearly laid out in the previous two sentences.

While I'm here, I suggest shortening "Ottoman rule and national awakening" to just "Ottoman rule". The national awakening happened as part of Ottoman rule, and looks weird in the TOC as it implies there was no national identity before (It's also currently the longest title in the TOC). Also, in the sentence "This prefigured Bulgaria's militaristic approach to foreign affairs and its participation in four wars during the first half of the 20th century", "prefigured" is a weird word. Perhaps replace it with something like "was a major factor in". CMD (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll check them out. "Liberation" has likely not been used with the purpose of a certain POV though, that's simply how the event exists in Bulgarian historiography. Maybe simply "Autonomous state" or "Autonomy proclaimed" would be better ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that any of these are the way they are to try and push a POV. I'm just looking at this, as a reader, and noting that it implies a certain viewpoint to me. "Autonomous state" or something along those lines would indeed be more accurate. Not sure about proclaimed though, as the new state was the result of treaties rather than proclamations. CMD (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The word liberation is probably used because Bulgaria was actually under formal Ottoman rule until 1908. That's why "independence" would not be correct. And liberation is correct in the sense that Bulgaria was again self-governing. As for the connotations of the word, I understand the problems with it, but that was probably the general feeling among the Bulgarians at the time. And the word has been occasionally used by foreign authors as well.

Land can't be subjugated, but countries can be subjugated. Annexed is rather anachronistic in this context and implies a far more peaceful process than the one in reality.

I don't see why you are against "oppression of the invaders" which actually explains the loss of national consciousness. Of course the Ottomans were invaders and while I see why oppression might sound POV, there is the fact that the Ottomans imposed a system which turned the native population into second class subjects.

The national awakening period is notable enough to be included in the section title, especially since it takes up most of the section. Kostja (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed those to a less reactive tone. "Autonomous principality" is what I placed in the infobox; Liberation of Bulgaria itself asserts that the term is dominant mostly in Bulgarian historiography, but feel free to reword the rest if there are some inaccuracies. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I personally find it odd to describe it as liberation is it wasn't full independence. Perhaps it referred to some sort of social liberation, not being ruled as a lower class or something like that? If anyone knows why, Liberation of Bulgaria could use the info. Anyway, thanks Tourbillon, a much better tone. CMD (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Autonomous principality" is not the proper term I'd use. Yes, Bulgaria had some independence but not enough to be called autonomous. No army, no police, taxation determined by the Ottoman ruler, blood tax (Devşirme in Turkish: taking small boys from the conquered regions and turning them into Janissaries, which in many cases fought against rebellions ergo killing their own (a modern term such as brainwashed is appropriate here)) etc. should all be taken into consideration. The Ottoman empire also directly/indirectly forced Islam on the population in many regions (however Christian consciousness still remained in most of them during the Ottoman rule). Only a Muslim had the rights of full citizenship. Religion (Christianity) was not abolished though. Based upon religion there was the Muslim Millet-i Rum and the Orthodox Christianity Millet-i Rum for example. According to the confessional community one belonged to, Muslim Sharia, Christian Canon law or Jewish Halakha law was applied when crossing the line (stealing, murder etc.). So the law system was more or less autonomous. "Liberation" is correctly used because of the things I mentioned above. 78.53.219.240 (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria was suzeraine Principality or tributary state. Jingiby (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

I would advise User:Ceco31 to cease the disruptive edits. None of the images added has any reason to be there other than personal opinion, the information has many flaws in orthography, grammar, style, citing and placing, and borders nationalist POV. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Second Bulgarian Empire map

I propose it be changed with something smaller and aligned to the left. This map takes too much space and is causing a gap between paragraphs. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree as this is an extremely important part of the Bulgarian history and this map surely deserves its place there. Maybe its size could be reduced so that it doesn't cause gaps, but should not be removed. Nicksss93 (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not the size that causes the gap, it's the image itself. Aligning it to the left only causes the title of the next subsection to be pushed to the right by the lower border of the image. If there's a rectangular, horizontal map, I'd gladly place that. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Bulgarian flags of the late 1940s

1946-1967

1948-1967

Hi,
If you look at Bulgaria's country data, Template:Country data Bulgaria, you have this odd line:

1946  Flag of Bulgaria (1948-1967).svg

where 1946 is paired with a 1948 image.
Most other languages seem to have this 1946/1948 pairing, including Bulgarian, bg:Шаблон:Данни страна България,
but not Serbian, sr:Шаблон:Подаци о застави Бугарска:

1946  Flag of Bulgaria (1946-1967).svg 

Serbian has 1946/1946.
If you compare the 1946 flag and the 1948 flag, they are not the same. 1946 has the lion on red with golden lettering; 1948 has blue with white lettering.
So what is really going on here? The Flag of Bulgaria article says nothing about 1946 or a distinct 1946 flag.
Varlaam (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I gather and mind you, I am no expert on the subject, Bulgaria continued to use something resembling the old (1927-1946) coat of arms until 1948. I think it was not part of the flag, though. Then in 1948, after the People's Assembly had voted it in 1947, they put the red background version in the upper-left corner of the flag. It was only briefly there, though, being superseded by the blue background one which also has a cogwheel beneath the lion. --Laveol ^T 10:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

So the 1948 flag is a correct flag from then, forward?

And the 1946-1948 flag is the pre-1946 one?

(This is Varlaam, but I am currently blocked over a 1930s historical disagreement.)

69.165.222.18 (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's pretend the above comment never happened. This issue won't go away in 60 hours, and this comment is the kind of thing that would extend the block to a week or so. CMD (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sovereignty dates in the Infobox

To prevent any further reverts, why not just discuss the issue with different dates of establishment here. I personally am ok with the present version. Does anybody, and if he does - why, object to the current wording?--Laveol ^T 23:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The infobox section regarding dates is designed to show the establishment of sovereignty. This is very different from showing a history of former states, or a history of the area. Bulgaria arose from the Principality established under the Ottomans that became independent in the early 20th century. It formed under a national identity, that connected it to the previous kingdoms, but it was a completely different and new state. The old kingdoms have no link that leads to the modern state. There was no legal groundwork the modern state grew off, and succession of governments. The new state was based of an ethnicity, not off a former state. The former states are correctly discussed in the history section. They're important history, but weren't part of creating the Bulgaria of today. CMD (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

While I know that other crap is not important, I have to raise a question. Does this mean that all infoboxes of countries are wrong at present? And if so, shouldn't the issue be discussed at another level? (Germany has Holly Roman Empire, France goes even back to Francia, Serbia - to the First Serb Principality, Norway - to the Unification of 882, Spain - to 569, etc)--Laveol ^T 23:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all. There are some great ones from FAs like Indonesia and Chad, which are short and simple. India doesn't even mention the establishment of the Raj, which is the direct predecessor to the modern Republic. Many countries in Western Europe are going to stretch further back than those of Eastern Europe. What was Francia steadily evolved into modern France. The Holy Roman Empire steadily changed into modern Germany. At no point were France and Germany absorbed into another state or Empire. Norway similarly has had some established entity since unification, with most change coming from shifting the personal union Norway fell under. Serbia, on the other hand, like Bulgaria, was totally absorbed by the Ottomans, so that one probably should be changed. Serbia and Bulgaria managed to break away from the Ottoman Empire and build up a state from nothing, and then maintain that state. Surely that's something to be proud of, without the need to try and establish predecessors. CMD (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I consider three dates to be a bit too much for the infobox. Given the comprehensive history section I really don't see a pressing need to have the 681 date in the box. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I too agree with CMD in principle. Several of the other examples are debatable, but what matters is that we get this one right here. As far as the political history in the infobox(mtbih) is concerned, it should deal exclusively with the modern state. Predecessor states that have a direct line of political succession might be included, but there are none such in the case of Bulgaria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the date of the establishment of the modern state 1878 will be enough. Jingiby (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A well raised question by Laveol. As many other states still have the dates of establishment I think either all countries should be changed or none. Many states from Europe, probably the most of them, still keep the foundation dates and will be not fair if Bulgaria is the only state in Europe where it will be removed.--Ceco31 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not an issue of keeping the foundation date, provided there is a foundation date. Nobody is objecting against foundation dates as such. What people object to is including political entities that are historically unconnected to the present nation states. France and China are unproblematic; Germany and Iran are debatable; Egypt, Serbia and Bulgaria are obvious examples of cases where no such continuity exists. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't know about Egypt, but you are quite wrong about Serbia and Bulgaria I believe. Apcbg (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You cannot seriously be claiming that the present Bulgarian state is in any meaningful sense "the same" state as the medieval kingdoms, from which it is separated by half a millennium during which no such state existed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, confirm that you are claiming that China and France are unproblematic but Bulgaria is the problem because this is the way I understand you. Then Ancient China in 221 BC before 3 millennia and Francia in 486 are predecessors of the present nation states and were the same political entities but Bulgaria in the Middle Ages is not? Then you are wrong for Serbia and Bulgaria, they are connected to the present nation states. Their medieval states had the same language, religion etc., and do not have to do with the case of the Arab state named Egypt. I provided a source from the majority view for such cases that was saying that medieval Bulgaria was the same entity and the foundation date is in 681, but somebody deleted it: (Pickard, Rob; Çeliku, Florent (2008), Analysis and Reform of Cultural Heritage Policies in South-East Europe, Council of Europe, p. 39)
On the same way you cannot claim that China is the same entity as the state before 2 millenia and that medieval Bulgaria is not, therefore either all or none of the states must be corrected I believe.--Ceco31 (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is not similarity of names and languages etc. The point is unbroken political continuity of statehood. In France, there was an unbroken continuity of royal succession of people who called themselves "kings of France" from the early middle ages to the French revolution, and after that there were merely changes of political regime, but immediate and direct identity of territory, legal continuity and so on. So, yes, France is still the "same" state as it was under Hugh Capet. This is obviously not the case for Bulgaria. BTW, I can't access the google source you named above, so, what does it say? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a direct link between all the dynasties of China, who each considered their rule legitimised by the passing of the mandate of heaven from the previous ruling family. CMD (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If we're to look into dynasty claims then why not mention that Boris III claims to come after Boris II and Boris I, much like Simeon II is second to Simeon I. I am not too fond of the date either, but it is the first time a political entity with the name Bulgaria was officially recognised. Does all this mean that by the same criteria there was no direct continuity between the First and Second Bulgarian states (or empires or whatever). Should we rename those? --Laveol ^T 14:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would we need to rename them? No, obviously, there was no direct continuity between them either, and that's precisely why we are already, quite rightly, treating them as separate. We are not claiming, in the article on the "Second" empire, that it was "founded" in 681, are we? That would be absurd. Just as absurd, in fact, as claiming that the present Bulgaria was founded back then. – The numbering of monarchs is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the point CMD and I were making. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea is that there is no continuity of government, plain and simple. No matter what post-1878 Bulgarian monarchs claim in terms of numbering, they are in no way related to the dynasties of the Second Bulgarian Empire. None of the royal houses of medieval Bulgaria - namely Shishman and Sratsimir - survived beyond the Second Empire, unlike dynasties in France and China, which were in power as late as 1830 in the case of the former and 1912 in the case of the latter. That is why listing 681 as a foundation date is irrelevant. 94.26.47.115 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching the back-and-forth regarding the dates for a while now. I tend to agree that the info box should only list the date(s) concerning the present political entity. I am a big fan of Bulgaria, but the fact is that the old empires were subsumed under Ottoman rule and for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist. 1878 would be the earliest conceivable date from which there has been direct continuity of the current political entity. The other dates (including 681) belong in the History section, not in the info box.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 17:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion is that the 681 wouldn't be redundant, as nine establishment dates are allowed in the template. But since there seems to be a consensus on the matter, so be it. --Laveol ^T 20:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why the direct continuity is so important? It is not observed in mаny states - (Iran, Armenia, Spain etc.) and should the dates be necessarily removed there? I don't see why. Concerning the claim that the "Second" empire" was founded in 681 would be absurd and that the first empire should be necessarily treated as a separate, I believe in the opposite - "The two "Bulgarian Empires" are not treated as separate entities, but rather as one state restored after a period of Byzantine rule over its territory." - see if you want Bulgarian Empire. And the same applies for other cases, direct continuity is not necessary for a state to be the same as other, this I see as unnecessarily deepening and what can only cause the removing of valuable information around Wikipedia. For example if I see the Achaemenid Empire and a date in BC in the template of Iran I would appreciate this info and I wouldn't care whether there was a direct continuity or not between them, but If I see established in 1900 it will looks quite dumb. As nine establishment dates are allowed in the template, my opinion is as this of Laveol, but if the entities without direct continuity will be removed, they should be removed in all of the states, not only in Bulgaria and Serbia.--Ceco31 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Fut. Perf., sorry I can't paste the text from this Google book, see these they said the same:

Bulgaria, Indiana University, 1987, p. 53

Erik Kooper (2006), The Medieval Chronicle IV, p. 97

R. J. Crampton (2005), A Concise History Of Bulgaria, Cambridge University Press, p. 9

Francisco Rodríguez Adrados (2005), A History of the Greek Language, BRILL, p. 265

M. Avrum Ehrlich (2008), Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora, ABC-CLIO, p. 954

--Ceco31 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This says that is one of the oldest sovereign states in Europe founded in 681:

Juliet Lodge (2010), The 2009 Elections to the European Parliament, Palgrave MacMillan, p. 60
--Ceco31 (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuity is important because post-1878 Bulgaria has nothing to do with the Medieval Bulgarian State, neither legally nor politically. You can provide as many sources on the foundation of Bulgarian statehood as you like, but that does not in any way counter the fact that the Third Bulgarian State is basically the only incarnation of a modern Bulgarian state, thus, the one this article is about. Besides, why filling the infobox with so much useless information (incl. ethnic groups) when everything is mentioned in the article ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ceco: none of the scholarly sources you link to above say anything even remotely relevant to the question of whether it is legitimate to call the present-day Bulgarian state a continuation of the medieval ones. The only sources that make such a claim (the Juliet Lodge one at the bottom of your list, and the "Analysis and Reform of Cultural Heritage Policies" thing you cited earlier) are not scholarly sources, but political statements. All this stuff about "oldest state" is nothing but patriotic feel-good fluff, and just looks silly everywhere else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is about Bulgaria, all of the linked above show when the questionable state (not Second, First Bulgarian Kingdom etc. but Bulgaria) was founded. They say that the same state for which the article is about was founded in the questionable year, aren't them? This isn't enough put this foundation date in the template of the article? If a claim saying that the same state as the modern was founded in 681 does not mean the continuation between it and the modern state then what exactly does? What type of claim is required then, I suppose that there are scholarly sources in the web that make the more exact claim, but is it needed to be listed again? --Ceco31 (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

All of the above mean the foundation of a Bulgarian state in the Middle Ages, obviously. It is explained several times above why modern Bulgaria has no relation to the previous states. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, they say the foundation or the appearing in the map of Bulgaria or of the Bulgarian state, except one of them (R. J. Crampton, A Concise History Of Bulgaria) which tells the foundation of Medieval Bulgaria. I hope I don't have to make quotes.--Ceco31 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, indeed, you don't need to support your claim with more quotations. We others here have quite well understood what the logical error in your position is. I'm not very optimistic that we will be able to make you understand it too, but rest assured that we understand you perfectly well. You have made your point and there is no need to compound it further at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To maintain that "modern Bulgaria has no relation to the previous states" is beyond me; it defies common sense. Naturally such predecessors would rather be medieval than 23rd century states :-) By the way, the oldest European state is most certainly Armenia. Apcbg (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It defies common sense because...? Because Bulgaria has no political or legal common ground with the Second Bulgarian Empire ? They're not even fully culturally identical, given the five centuries of Islamic Ottoman influence. Anyway, the question is more or less solved, so I don't see a point in discussing this matter any further. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are not "fully culturally identical", not as fully as modern France and Francia of the Franks featured in the infobox of France article. But wait, then modern Germany may also be "culturally identical" with Francia ... hence France and Germany are culturally identical too. Great, didn't know it. Apcbg (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Because predecessors are to be found in the past not in the future, very good joke from Apcbg. Tell us why Bulgaria has no relation and has nothing to do with the Medieval Bulgarian State and why the Chinese state from 220 BC is the same state as Modern China? About Armenia, the explanation of the most common sense is that it is most likely founded in 1990 but may also be waiting for a new extraterrestrial predsuccesor or what?--Ceco31 (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Apcbg and Ceco31. Although modern Bulgaria is not a direct successor of the First and the Second Bulgarian states (obviously because of time lapse), it does claim to be a successor and it is in many aspects. If we apply 1878 as a foundation date, then Russia has to be changed to 1991, Poland to 1918, Serbia to 2006, Hungary to 1918 and so on. All mentioned countries claim earlier foundation and their Medieval states are as distant in political aspect as is Medieval Bulgaria to modern one. In my opinion, if the prevailing consensus is to include only the foundation year of the modern state, then it must be done to all countries; that is why I suggested the discussion to be held in WP:Countries so that we can see more opinions. --Gligan (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems somebody doesn't read, so I'll have to repeat. Bulgaria has no connection to the Medieval Bulgarian states because there is no continuity of legal entities, political institutions, dynasties or any form of government, for that matter. No institution or royal house from the Second Bulgarian Empire survived after its fall. Which is not the case of France, Germany, China or Russia, which all preserved dynastic rule and aristocracy to some point in the 19th or 20th centuries (1830, 1919, 1912 and 1917, respectively), when they transformed into republics or federations. Bulgaria has a 500 year gap in statehood, if you haven't noticed. And I really don't understand why Armenia is brought up as an example and why should other countries have such changes - it's a unique case for every country.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you have reneged on France and Germany being "culturally identical" :-) All these articles are about the countries not about their administration or dynasties. There are many aspects preserved during temporary foreign domination and providing for continuity and succession. See for instance the Poland article and its infobox, that country did lose its independence in the past too. And more so the Czech Republic in 1620-1918, and still more so Croatia in 1102-1918; cf. their articles' infoboxes as well. Apparently by "unique case for every country" you mean that it's one rule applied to Bulgaria and another in the case of other countries. A "unique case" of NPOV indeed. Apcbg (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's funny how you distort things and keep adding other examples in an attempt to prove your point. Continuity of government is the principal marker for a country's existence - until the 16th century the king was the country. There is no "infobox rule" as much as you may like to think there is. We're not talking about Poland, Armenia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Djibouti or Bhutan, we're talking about Bulgaria and the fact that between its Medieval incarnation and its modern one there is a period of half a millenium where nothing but the name Bulgaria, the local language and folk culture (itself a blend of many cultures) existed. Is it that hard to understand that a modern monarchy has nothing in common, neither politically nor legally, with a 14th century empire ? I would like to hear a solid argument on the statement that there is continuity between the two entities mentioned. "Oh but look the other countryz" is not an argument. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is no rule as you say, then one definitely has to look at the other countries' articles. And the examples I gave demonstrate that there is nothing particularly special in the Bulgarian case to justify that it should be treated differently than the others. Apcbg (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm repeating my questions - what is the legal and political basis to consider the Principality of Bulgaria a successor to the Second Bulgarian Empire and where is the continuity between the two ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You are not in a position to ask questions. You need to provide answers, for the burden of proof is on you. You are the one suggesting that Bulgaria should be treated differently from the other countries (like those considered above), so it is up to you to substantiate that suggestion and explain why Bulgaria article should be a deviation from the existing English WP practice.

Rather than do that, you go into self-contradictory reasoning: first you claim there is no rule, then you proceed to introduce a self-style one (some specific continuity) that neither derives from nor is it in conformity with the existing practice, demanding that your rule is enforced for Bulgaria alone. Apcbg (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well you can either answer the question, which is directly concerning the issue whether or not 681 AD should be added as a date of establishment, or you can keep ranting how I contradict myself, I don't have a neutral point of view (whatever that means in this case), or to state that there are some imaginary double standard rules. If you answer the question, the dispute is solved, if you don't - your statements will be ignored because they are becoming increasingly off-topic. The choice is yours. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"... the issue whether or not 681 AD should be added etc."

— Nope.

There is no such issue.

The year 681 AD is in the infobox, and has been there since 2006.

Apcbg (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Filibustering won't help you. Just because you refuse to understand the argument for removal doesn't make the argument go away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I never rejected that argument. Why, it's a valid albeit not the single one. Which does not justify its selective application let alone the refusal to address other valid arguments. And as I am quite sure that you understand all this very well, I'm not wasting my time in further unconstructive exchanges here. Nevertheless, I remain satisfied that the present aberration will be fixed earlier or later. Apcbg (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ceco31, I would advise you to stop adding the date and edit warring. If you have a solid argument on why the year 681, or 1185, or anything different than 1878, should be added as a date of sovereignty, please present it. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that 681 should be added in the infobox. Look at Germany's page. It lists the date of the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, then the creation of the modern German state after it ceased to exist for 65 years. I'm giving Germany as an example because it an another state which had a period in which it didn't exist. Look at every source about Bulgaria. Everywhere it says that the country is founded 681. The best way to frormulate is to give the year of foundation (681), the years of the foundation of the newest state (1878/1908) and the year of the foundation of the current state system (15 November 1990). --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Three questions: Where is the continuity between the Medieval Bulgarian empires and the modern state ? Do you make a difference between date of statehood and date of sovereingty ? And finally, if we are to add 1990, why not mention 1946 as well ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys:

I don't understand why some folks keep reverting my changes on Formation of Bulgaria to Independence. Bulgaria's history goes well and beyond 1878, thus it is really imperative that we present the full picture of Bulgarian history to the end user. Using formation follows the same approach as countries like Poland, Hungary, Czech republic, Germany, France, etc. Please, stop reverting these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.157.163 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Consider reading the discussion above and presenting some valid arguments. In the meantime, stop reverting a version which has been agreed upon, your edits constitute vandalism. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tourbillon - Removing 12 centuries of Bulgaria's history is vandalism. The linkage between The Second Bulgarian Empire and the Tsardom of Bulgaria is clear and completely out of question, both use the same religion, same symbols, same identity and same language. Names of cities are the same, etc. Please, stop editing the Info box, as your edits constitute vandalism.

Some more arguments for the continuation. After 1421, a good number of Bulgarians remained autonomous mainly in the mountain passes, they were fully armed and self-governing. Bulgarian titles like Boyars remained in use north of the Danube (Turgovished (a purely Bulgarian name) was the capital until XVII century, which continued to use Bulgarian script until 1829. When Bulgaria was re-established in 1878, the church continued to use Old Bulgarian, verbatim the same language used in the Second Bulgarian Empire. It was only in the XX century that this was changed to modern Bulgarian. All uprisings, from the Turnovo uprisings in the XVI century to the Chiprovci and April uprising were seeking Continuation of Old Bulgariа. One of the main figures in the XVIII Bulgaria - Paisii Helendarski, wrote about the history of the Second Bulgarian Empire as our history. And lastly, the country when re-established used the same name - Bulgaria. Thus, I think it should be crystal clear that there is direct, proven and unmistakeable continuation of the Second Bulgarian Empire into the Tsardom of Bulgaria. Even the first Parliament was specifically called in Turnovo, to underscore the continuation of Tsardom of Bulgaria and its direct linkage with the Second Bulgarian Empire. Please, kindly leave the Formation Section to reflect Bulgaria's true historical dates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.167.49 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

None of this is vandalism by either side, however one side is editing against consensus. Your argument might be slightly relevant if the infobox was meant to cover all history. However, it's not, it's about the formation of the state. No-one is removing centuries of history. Anyone with the ability to scroll down will find all the history they want. CMD (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There were no Bulgarian states existing under any form between 1400 and 1878. Bulgarian monarchs after 1878 had no relation to Medieval dynasties whatsoever. What language, capital or names were used in the modern state are merely claims. They don't create any legal continuation between the states. This said, I don't know why you insist that the infobox get filled with events that are already mentioned with enough detail in the History section. "Deleting 12 centuries of Bulgarian history"...come on. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is no link than why did the modern Bulgarian state declare itself a successor to the medieval empires. Why did Bulgaria celebrate 1300 years of history in 1981 if it was founded in 1878 and had no connection with the previous states. The infobox is what people first see when they view the page and not everybody read the entire page. The infobox puts the basic information about the country. If there is no mention of 681 then it can confuse people that Bulgaria was founded in 1878. Also I don't see a consensus about the issue. There are many people who disagree with the change. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was it celebrated ? I'd ask the same question. The most obvious answer would be state-sponsored nationalism by the previous regime. Whatever the claims of the modern state are, the lack of continuity is more than obvious. As for the people who don't agree with the change - none of them ever provided a valid argument to defend their opinion. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Germany has no continuity with the medieval state in its infobox but it still remains there, so as the infoboxes of tens of countries still do not deal with the direct continuity, why don't start more global changes but focusing only on Bulgaria? Bulgaria is now treating differently from the other countries in Wikipedia and why Bulgaria article should be treated with different than the practice in Wikipedia? I did not count, but I suggest that the majority of the users who wrote here disagree with the current model and agree for the vice versa, so the unedited version prior the dispute should be returned until it is solved. Before changing to the current version, somebody should proved that the date of establishment is in 1878 or 1908 and now the current version is based only on opinions of editors. V3n0M93 well said that every source about Bulgaria says that the country is founded in 681, and also that Modern Bulgaria is a successor of the Bulgarian Empire, and the view of the experts, who understand more than you on the subject, was de facto and de jure replaced with an opinion. Currently the article supports someone's opinion, but contradicts the experts. --Ceco31 (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Tourbillon, the claim of this nationalism is supported by the majority of the experts. The current version is an editorial opinion as nobody provided a valid reference defending it, and a very minority view among them if any such exist.--Ceco31 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you introduce me to a source stating that the modern state of Bulgaria was founded in 681 ? Oh, I would also like to see one source by "experts" which explicitly states that post-1878 Bulgaria has directly evolved from Medieval Bulgaria, preserving its institutions, legal system and dynasties. I hope you know the difference between a Medieval feudal state and a modern one. Your claim about Germany is erroneous, but a nice strawman nevertheless. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I could, but is it really necessarily to list it as many sources about Bulgaria says that, everybody here can find it fast in the web, you can start with searching in www.books.google.com for example. Your opinion is that the modern state is the only successor of Bulgaria, ok, you could said that instead of asking me for strange stuff above. This opinion, I think contradicts the majority views, please read my arguments above.--Ceco31 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"The majority views" apparently work on a "find the sources yourself" principle, which is the reason why this dubious "majority" continues to be ignored by the people who don't have an urge to wave the flag of useless pseudo-patriotism around Wikipedia. Still waiting for that source. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To determine that one establishment is the same incarnation of the same country the following must be present, continuation of religion, continuation of name and identity, continuation of script and language. All, of this is present between the Second Bulgarian Empire and the Tsardom of Bulgaria, also present are continuation of national symbols - the Lion and continuation of the head of state title - Tsar. Unless, you can present some arguments that the above is not the case, you should leave 681, 1185 in the Info box. Also, as a number of other have pointed out, the info box has been used to outline major historical dates for the vast majority of European Countries. Here are some sources for you: Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84090/Bulgaria/42721/The-beginnings-of-modern-Bulgaria, Note that it says the "The beginings of Modern Bulgaria" Please, be kind enough to stop this useless debate and stop reverting the Formation changes. 681 & 1185 are integral to Bulgaria and we're not making justice to the users of Wikipedia if we're removing these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.157.163 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know who defined these "criteria" about continuation. I know law is not among the most respected things around here, but I would like to hear, finally, which institutions, laws and dynasties from the Middle Ages were present in 1878 Bulgaria. You could also look at your own source - national and ecclesiastical independence was lost after the Ottoman conquest and until the Revival there was no national consciousness, even among the hayduts. I fail to see where is the connection with the Medieval empires here, to be honest. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So, the continuation of language, script, religion, title of the ruler and symbols is not enough for you? On laws, can tell me which laws are still surviving between the Holy Roman Empire and nowadays Germany? I did provide you a source exactly as you requested on Beginings on Modern Bulgaria. Where is your source? If you don't have a source that will negate the continuation of language, religion, name, tile and symbols you should stop and leave the formation as is.

Tourbillon can you explain to me, why should Bulgaria has different approach to dates than, say Poland, Croatia or Germany. Where is the difference please? Can you provide arguments? Read the above comment and provide arguments, for now kindly leave the Formation as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.11.215.2 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it's not enough. Please, tell me where is the continuity between the legal systems of 14th century and 19th century Bulgaria, where is the dynastic continuity and the continuity in administrative divisions, ecclesiastical institutions, central government, code of law, constitution, bureaucracy, military and anything that constitutes a modern state.

And by the way, I also pointed out the statements of *lost national consciousness* and religious independence in your own source (already used in the article, by the way). Consider matching those to your "criteria". - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal system, both Second Bulgarian Empire and Tsardom of Bulgaria used Roman law. Dynastic continuity is no argument, as dynasties change all the time in Europe. ecclesiastical - Bulgaria has a Patriarch in the Second Bulgarian Empire and again the the Thrid Bulgarian State, Central Government - Both States were ruled by a Tsar. Military symbol - St. George was also recognized. Also, I want to ask you can you give me examples of the above and how it remained the same for say Spain or Germany? Does nowadays Germany have the same organization, law, central government, etc. as the Holy Roman Empire. I don't see any substance in your arguments. Again, all European countries have listed the dates of significance in this box, why would Bulgaria be any different?? Answer this question please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.11.215.2 (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well if you these are your "arguments", then you're lacking a massive amount of basic knowledge in political science, which is not my fault. Your statement that the Second Bulgarian Empire used Roman law is a stunning example of this. Come back when you acquire what is necessary. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC) To the IP: You are currently blocked. Accept it. Wait it out, and if you then want to discuss further, come back then. If you want your opinion to be heard here on Wikipedia, you will have to accept that this project has got rules, and they apply to you just like to all of us. When you're blocked, you don't edit, period. If you keep breaking the rules, you will simply be met with more blocks and more page protections wherever you go, and nobody will ever be willing to listen to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your attitude, as well as that of other users who insist on the same thing, is that of a person who is devoid of contact with objective reality. You desperately push for a change so minor and insignificant, that it's hard for me to imagine how somebody can be so fixated on this. I won't be exaggerating when I say that your lack of knowledge in history and political science is so vast that you do not even realise how much you have missed.

This said, I will have to explain, word by word, statement by statement, where, how and why you are wrong. But before that, a few words on article formatting. The Bulgaria page is not treated differently. Numerous users, especially such working on Balkans articles, like to think there is some sort of injustice caused to "their article", that other articles are made in a certain way and the one they are interested in is not - either because of assumed "double standards" or someone's desire to "delete important things". In fact, there is a golden rule in the art of expressing information, namely that less is more. Nobody will read a huge article full of detailed facts, figures and pictures, with an infobox full of dates linked to events that few people will click to learn about. Everyone will read a concise, compact article, where all the most significant points of a country's history, geography, economy, politics and culture are given in a nutshell. There is a reason why India is a featured article and Poland is not even GA.

Now, about those "tons of facts" you provide. It seems that I will have to explain in depth. Historically speaking, there are two types of countries - a traditional/feudal one, and a modern one. The feudal one relies on vassalage and is an absolute property of its ruler (king). The king was the state, so if there is a continuity of royal dynasties, then the state is directly the same as it was before. These Medieval countries gradually evolved, between 1400 and 1700, into modern states, with their own parliaments, separation of powers, Weberian bureaucracy, among others. With the notable exception of Tsarist Russia, modern countries are not fully owned by their monarch. This evolution has occurred in all European countries you mentioned - HRE, France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands. This evolution has not occurred in Bulgaria. During this long process of political transition, ruling dynasties were essentially the same, therefore the country was the same. The royal houses that ruled Germany, France, Spain, Portugal in the Middle Ages either remained the same, or were related to the one that inherited them. Say, France: Merovingians (5-8 century) - Frankish. Carolingians (8-10 century) - Frankish. Capetians (10-18 century) - French. Are they directly related ? Yes. Now let's look at Bulgaria: from 1018 to 1186 and from 1396 to 1878 there were no Bulgarian kings. There was no Bulgarian state. There was no transition from a feudal to a modern state because there was no state at all. The state created in 1878 took the name Bulgaria, so what - Volga Bulgaria had the same name, do you imply we're talking about the same country here ? Russia had a Tsar as well. Do you claim that Russia is a descendant country of Medieval Bulgaria as well, simply because it uses this title too ? Ethiopia has a patriarch, are you saying that Ethiopia can also claim to be a Bulgarian incarnation ? Congratulations, you have divided by zero - your lack of logic is beyond shocking. France, Germany, Spain never had their monarchies and nobility completely erradicated. Bulgaria did. Even the Bulgarian Church was only restored in 1870. There is nothing more to say here.

And finally, let's look at the difference between the two arguing sides - I use common sense to deny any political connection between Medieval Bulgaria and the Principality. You use lack of common sense and logic, and lots and lots of strawmen to try to prove a point - namely that a certain year should be in the infobox, when it's already mentioned in detail further down the article. The very fact that you keep reverting to your version, edit warring and ignoring warnings and reverts by several other users, only proves that you do not seek consensus - you seek to impose your skewed, petty nationalistic point of view. Now, feel free to tell me once more that somebody calling himself a "patriarch" or a "Tsar" is evidence of continuity. I will gladly feel free to ignore it, as will any user who has less patience than me in dealing with trolls. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, stop removing my comments. I'm no longer blocked and have the right to post. Toubillon, one more time you've provided no proves, only empty talk. The section title in most countries is FORMATION. Is it not true that the language of today's Bulgaria was formed in the X century? Is it not true that the Bulgarian alphabet was created in the X century? Is it not true that the Bulgarian Patriarchate was created in 927 and re-established in 1871 (Kindly, note that Orthodox churches are independent and it does make a difference if it is Bulgarian or Serbian Orthodox Church) Are these no events that formed today's Bulgaria?

You are saying that national identity, religion, language, alphabet and symbols are not important and that continuity in type of law is more important. So tell me, if Germans and French decide to all speak French, all belong to a fictional Church of Paris, all call themselves Franks, have a head of state the President of France, you will distinguish them by their taxation code??? This is laughable.

Your main talking point was that no where was modern Bulgaria mentioned to being 681. I've provided you a reference http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84090/Bulgaria/42721/The-beginnings-of-modern-Bulgaria You're of course quite on this.

I'm proposing to you that we remove this section for now? Agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.167.49 (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC) As there is indeed no agreement, let's remove this section for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ximhua (talk • contribs) 12:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If Germans started speaking French etc., they wouldn't somehow turn into what is now France and include all the history of that France as theirs. They would be distinguished. A terrible argument if I ever heard one. As for your other argument, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whereas consistency is not unimportant, there's no need to make something worse to conform. Bulgaria is a GA. It therefore gets (or should get) more scrutiny and attention than the other, worse, articles. Dunno if Ximhua is the IP, but considering the complaint is that we're removing history, removing more sounds like a dumb solution. (And I clarify again, the infobox is not meant to cover all history.) CMD (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's not be rude guys, no need to insult. The suggestion most users here have is that this page is to use Formation rather than independence, as a heading and present a fuller picture of Bulgarian history at large and therefore the main events in it. I don't think someone has disputed the arguments about Bulgarian language & alphabet for example. It also seems that most users here agree that being consistent with other countries provides better service to the end user, as end users do take this to be an outline of the entire history, simply because that is how it is in other countries. Otherwise, let's remove it. England for example does not have such box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ximhua (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"England for example does not have such box." Yes, as England doesn't have sovereignty. Infobox, again, about sovereignty. Following on from that, this new take on the argument argument, that we should use the infobox the wrong way because other infoboxes are used the wrong way, is not a convincing one. CMD (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I actually think the infoboxes are being used correctly on most other countries, as it is clearly more important to have a holistic view of a country's history, then just the very recent one. Secondly, the continuity between First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire and Third Bulgarian State via language, alphabet and self identity is obvious. Why would we want not present a fuller picture? Isn't WP supposed to provide the most complete information? Do you seriously think users think that these dates are not related to the entire history of a country? We should strive to make WP give more information not partial snippets. In any case, there is a clear difference of opinion here and give that Ceco, Gligan, Apcbg, ximhua(me) and some unnamed users are against it and only a couple of users are for it, would you agree that at the very least it should be reverted to the 2006 version or removed all together? We should be able to find a compromise, as WP is a community, where majority has value. (Ximhua (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC))

I wouldn't think that an infobox full of dates is correct usage. The continuity argument I stated remains, and none of you has ever made any effort to tell us where is the political continuity between these entities. You keep digging into alphabet and language as markers of continuity (alphabet and language used not only in Bulgaria, hence an invalid argument), but you keep silent on the question I have posed. What fuller picture do you want to present, when there is already a 120K+ article on the country's history, geography, economy, culture and whatnot already ? You think a 120K+ article with an even larger breakdown of main articles is "partial snippets" ? Wow. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the vast majority of users will not read the 120K article, but will stay on the page for 10 sec. see the summary and move on, thus a gross misrepresentation will certainly occur. On the alphabet and language, the very significant point you are missing is that this is specifically the Bulgarian Alphabet and Bulgarian language, thus a direct prove of continuity. There were other arguments listed like symbols, etc. ... in any case I think it is useless to argue further, there is a clear difference of opinion.

My question is what do you propose as a compromise, as there are at least 7 users that have expressed their desire in writing on this page that this is amended. The options I see are: a) revert to 2006 version, b) remove section all together c) revert to Formation with 681 and 1185 in it. We have to find a compromise. Work with us here please. (Ximhua (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC))