Bulgaria is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Can someone who's got sources please ammend the bit in chapter Bulgaria in World War II where it says that Bulgaria was given the chance to claim "long coveted" Greek and Serbian territories. This is rather biased and malicious sounding. Bulgaria in fact reclaimed these territories which were taken away as a result of WW1. Furthermore they had predominantly ethnic Bulgarians living on them. So yeah, at the moment its just not fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.219.160 (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
citation:Bulgaria in fact reclaimed these territories which were taken away as a result of WW1. Furthermore they had predominantly ethnic Bulgarians living on them.
Well, in fact she did, but not quite just that. In WW2 Bulgaria claimed from Serbia/Kingdom of Yugoslavia [much more] then territories taken away as a result of WW1. While it is true that territories taken away after WW1 have predominantly ethnic Bulgarians living on them up to this day, those others (at least in todays Serbia, I can't speak for Macedonians) are predominantly either ethnic Serbian or ethnic Albanian. From what I've heard from locals, Bulgarians were certainly not received as liberators in most parts of southeast Serbia that was occupied by Bulgaria in WW2. Anyhow, it is agreed that there is no need for loaded language.
RfC: Did Bulgaria declare her independence in 1878 but was refused recognition until 1908?
Did Bulgaria declare her independence in 1878 but was refused recognition until 1908?
Bulgaria has been recognized in 1878 but she is still Turkish vassal. Evidence that she is recognized is Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Bulgaria in 1885 during Serbo-Bulgarian War. It is not possible to give ultimatum to state which is not existing. --Rjecina (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By definiton a vassal state is not an independent state. Is Kosovo an independent state today? There is a parallel between the Serbian region/province of Kosovo of today and the Ottoman Principality of Bulgaria and the Ottoman Province of Eastern Rumelia of late 19th century Ottoman Empire.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Treaty of San Stefano (1878), Article VI. Bulgaria forms autonomous, tax-paying Principality, with Christian government, and its own Army.
......
Signed:
Count Ignat'yev
Safvet
Nelidov
Sadullah"
Now look in dictionary under "autonomy": Webster says:
"au-ton-o-my (Ó ton'uh mee) n. pl. <-mies>
1. independence or freedom, as of the will
or one's actions.
2. the condition of being autonomous;
self-government or the right of
self-government; independence.
3. a self-governing community.
[1615-25; < Gk]"
I write you 'D' in history. Probably you skipped that lesson. :)
This is right, it was revised six months later at the Berlin Congress (as Garibaldi called it, "a filthy market for the sale of nations") which also stipulated autonomous Principality of Bulgaria, and partially autonomous Eastern Rumelia, de facto dividing Bulgaria in three parts, and giving rise to the "Macedonian question". This is included in this article. Lantonov (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that for Bulgarians San Stefano passed and the treaty of Berlin never took place? According to Lantonov's logic Bulgaria declared independence in 1878 but was also a vassal of the Ottomans. Perhaps Bulgarians delared their independence among themselves and kept it as a secret until 1908. From comments by Bulgarian users here one can see the ambitions of a little state (Bulgaria) on territories gained in a war fought between two empires 130 years ago. The so called "Macedonian question" is the fault of those who did not allow Bulgaria to keep the territories gained with little Bulgarian effort. :) --Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Berlin Treaty boundary was far from corresponding with
the ethnological limits of the Bulgarian race, which were more accurately
defined by the abrogated treaty of San Stefano (see below, under
_History_). A considerable portion of Macedonia, the districts of Pirot and
Vranya belonging to Servia, the northern half of the vilayet of Adrianople,
and large tracts of the Dobrudja, are, according to the best and most
impartial authorities, mainly inhabited by a Bulgarian population.
— Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, Vol. 4, part 3, Article BULGARIA, lead section, Now in public domain, Project Gutenberg
See also the comments under the article. For further (mis)information of this sort, read also User:Nostradamus1/Conversions_to_Islam_in_Bulgaria to learn how eager and willing were the Bulgarians to convert to Islam because "The rapid and thorough conquest of the Balkans by the Ottomans convinced many Christians that the religion of the conquerors must be superior to Christianity, a conviction leading to conversion to Islam" and how happy they lived in the Ottoman Empire.Lantonov (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could have waited until I completed the article. In any case I encourage everyone to read it as well. It will shed some light into the "super human" side of Bulgarian history.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I bet. Even unfinished, the light is so bright and shining that there are no dark nooks left. Those are really bold strokes with the whitewashing brush. Let other Europeans be jealous, and clench their teeth in anger that they have missed those good days. If they had known how good life under Ottomans was, they would have met Ottoman troops in Vienna with bread and salt, not with bullets. Lantonov (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lantonov, you have this habit of editing your own comments even after someone responds to them. This changes the context of the conversation. I would have responded to you differently if you had written your comment as it is worded at the moment. You also have a history of plagiarism. Is that how you got your PhD? Or is that claim as credible as your other comments here?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nostradamus1, I did not intend to have anything more with you, but since you started personal attacks against me, I feel obliged to respond. If you are in loss for words, do not blame me, blame yourself. Do I see some jealosy and spite about my PhD? I would gladly tell how I obtained it and what it cost to me, but not to you, Nostradamus1, because you wouldn't understand, and it is none of your business anyway.Lantonov (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion he is a Bulgarian Turk, I am almost sure he understands Bulgarian and hates our nation. Just see his comments. --Gligan (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not English but that would not matter since there is an escape mechanism for every Bulgarian. As Buxton points out "There are facts unknown to any non-Bulgarian historian" and "mention of other imperial experiences was treated with contempt". When I used R. Crampton as a reference in Turks in Bulgaria these users rejected this source on the grounds that the English had sided with the Turks during the 19th century and for that reason they would not qualify as unbiased sources. The same user:Lantonov claimed that "the history of Bulgaria is best known by Bulgarians." I would not agree more with what Buxton wrote in his article. He lived in Bulgaria and experienced it first hand on the ground. To quote Crampton:
There is still a tendency amongst many Bulgarians, particularly when an outsider points out a shortcoming, to relapse into a regressive fatalism, a fatalism expressed most often in phrases such as 'Five hundred years of Ottoman rule...' . This is an unhelpful attitude. It is using the past to escape from the present and more so from the future. (R.J. Crampton, A Concise History of Bulgaria, 1997, Cambridge University Press)
I repeat here "the history of Bulgaria is best known by Bulgarians." Who do you think knows best the history of Bulgaria? The little green men from the UFOs? Or some unknown Bulgarophobe under the pseudonym Buxton with his ridiculous pasquille? Or you, Nostradamus1, who has an obviuos agenda to smear every person or country that has spoken against or has experienced Turkish attrocities? Since you have only one book on Bulgaria in your disposal (Crampton) whom you cite everywhere and for everything, let me point to you your favorite "Five hundred years of Ottoman rule ..." here. [1]:
During the five centuries of Ottoman rule, most of Bulgaria's indigenous cultural centers were destroyed. Several Bulgarian uprisings were brutally suppressed and a great many people fled abroad.
— US Department of State. Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
September 2007. [2]
This is the most important that can be said about the Ottoman rule, in two short sentences. If we get into details, numbers, methods, facts, etc., the picture becomes grimmer and grimmer. I will put this as a final reference for the period of Ottoman rule, and it will stay put. If you insist to edit-war on the same issue as in Turks in Bulgaria, it will only turn the attention of the admins on your edit history and it is not in your favor, believe me. Labeling William Gladstone as a racist does not look good at all. Now who is next to blame? USA? Let me see how you penetrate their site and change these sentences.
Lantonov (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nostradamus, I ask you again to adhere to wikipedia policies. One of the main is WP:NPA. It seems you allow yourself too much of this. And once again - insulting other contributors does you no good. --LaveolT12:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and all these nonsense that have been written in this section of the talk should be removed. Talkpages are not the place to spread propaganda and original research. --LaveolT12:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
they aslo have a level Subscript textSubscript text
I will have to say that Buxtons article is filled with exagerations and vague statements e.g "bulgarian suffering during the Turkish Slavery was seen as unique in world history" and " they lived amid a culture of hygiene and social responsibility, which was at least partly Turkish". Frankly when I read it I didn't understand the essence of this social responsibility or are we supposed to trust the history knowledge in Bulgarian history of an english language teacher. User:Avidius--Avidius (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some have parroted themselves by repeating "The history of Bulgaria is best known by Bulgarians". Buxton points out sarcastically by writing "There are facts unknown to non-Bulgarian historians". Regarding his comment on the Turkish contribution to the culture of hygene I would ask Gligan, for instance, the fate of the Turkish Bath House of Pazardzik. I heard rumours it too has been demolished. Scholars point out that 98 percent of the Ottoman architecture has been demolished since Bulgaria's liberation in 1878 (Kiel 1985). The elimination of any Turkish and Ottoman past has been a continuous process implemented by successive Bulgarian governments. History has been written accordingly. The Turkic background of both contemporary Turks and that of medieval Bulgars has been questioned in order to cement a mono-ethnic Slavic Bulgaria.Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgaria as a Sovietic Republic
In 1968, T. Z. proposed that Bulgaria to be the 16th Sovietic Republic. This belongs to the essence of Bulgarian people and its history! It's very important to state this in the article since Bulgaria was the most closest friend to Soviet Union. Recent facts, economic agreements with Vladimir Putin's Russia of over 10 bn $, shows that history has a repeated cycle.Anton Tudor (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is Soviet, not Sovietic. Maybe Todor Zhivkov and his clique planned many things for Bulgaria which we are yet to learn, but Bulgaria did not become a Soviet Republic, and that is all that matters. You'd better worry about the inheritance left to you by Ciausescu. Lantonov (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Bulgaria is not richer. Actually is very poor. And maybe because you feel so poor and in a miserable state you think you have some arguments. Look here for sources that Bulgaria is the poorest country in EU. Grow up and give your exams since you don't know yet who's the riches, powerful nation from N of Bulgaria. Anton Tudor (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are poor romanian which is jealous for Bulgaria and I understand you, you should be. You are constantly talking that I have no sources but I haven given you, when I discuss, you have nothing to answer. I think you hate Bulgaria, don't you? --Gligan (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, why should be a rich Romanian jealous on a poor miserable state streetless corrupted "country" with no rules jealous? Your wage is maximum 200 EUR and you feel bad since Romanians have 3 times more.Anton Tudor (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice "powerful nation to the north". HHAHAHAHAHA... you are funny, thank you for making me laugh. In fact romania is miserable state without history and with one of the weakest armies in the world. We have always defeated you in battle. Powerful... hahahhaha. --Gligan (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No history? You are a turkic tribe, the bulgars while Romanians are Romans and Dacians descendents. Maybe you are Romanic population slavised, so think twice... Anton Tudor (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard about 550 EUR compared with 150 EUR? That's why Romanians (as rich people) went in vacation to Bulgaria(because is so cheap Bulgaria and is more expensive to stay at home - interesting no Bulgarian could afford to go out)Anton Tudor (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why do I talk with such an incompetent person, but it is really funny for me. Romanian "da" comes from Bulgarian whose old form was widely spoken in Wallachia untill 19th cent.--Gligan (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what a childish fight .... both countries are up to their necks in sh** and you two keep arguing about who's in deeper...
Btw if you want to quote figures, don't do a google search for the results you like best but get some real statistics.
Minimum income is NOT the same as statistical per capita income! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.187.26 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman rule
I would like to add the following to the Ottoman rule section. However there has been an ongoing edit war since yesterday. I am placing it here until the war is ended by the "Great Powers".
Shipka monument (located near Kazanlak) — one of the brightest symbols of Bulgarian liberation
There is a well-established tradition in Bulgarian historiography which treats the Ottoman period in Bulgaria as a five-century long dark age during which Ottomans deliberately attempted to wipe out Bulgarian culture and nation by a combination of forced conversion of Orthodox Christians to Islam, assimilation, and massacres. The following quote from Hristov (1980) is a representative sample that runs through most Bulgarian historiography:
Bulgaria's fall under Turkish rule ushered in the grimmest period in the history of the Bulgarian people, a period of almost 500 years of foreign domination. During it, the very existence of the
Bulgarians as a nationality was threatened as a result of their extermination, eviction and assimilation and the brutal oppression
and exploitation to which they were subjected by the Turkish conquerors. Foreign domination held back the development of the country's productive forces, severed the Bulgarians' contacts with all other nations and put an end to their free cultural development.Bulgaria's conquest by the Turks was accompanied by the destruction of whole towns and villages and eviction of the population. Hitherto prospering towns and villages were reduced to ruins and the land was turned into a desert. The population of whole regions were forced to seek refuge in the mountains and in remote areas far away from any roads and communications. Turkish colonists and nomadic herdsmen from Asia Minor were settled in the most fertile regions thus vacated.[1]
However Curtis (1992) comments that
The capture of Constantinople in 1453 completed Ottoman subjugation of major Bulgarian political and cultural institutions. Nevertheless, certain Bulgarian groups prospered in the highly ordered Ottoman system, and Bulgarian national traditions continued in rural areas. When the decline of the Ottoman Empire began about 1600, the order of local institutions gave way to arbitrary repression, which eventually generated armed opposition. Western ideas that penetrated Bulgaria during the 1700s stimulated a renewed concept of Bulgarian nationalism that eventually combined with decay in the empire to loosen Ottoman control in the nineteenth century.[2]
But according to Dimitrov (2002)
The five centuries of Ottoman rule featured great violence and oppression. The Ottomans decimated the Bulgarian population, which lost most of its cultural relics. Large towns and the areas where Ottoman power predominated remained severely depopulated until the nineteenth century.[3]
Crampton (1997) summarizes the Ottoman period as follows:
The vigorous but self-righteous Christians of the Victorian era created the impression that their co-religionists under Ottoman domination had suffered continual persecution for 500 years. It was not so. Ottoman history is certainly not free from terrible incidents of hideous outrage, but in Europe these were occasional. Many, if not most, followed acts of rebellion and if this does not excuse the excess it perhaps goes some way to explain it. Other outbursts were spontaneous, localised and random, the result usually of a peculiar combination of personal, political, social or economic factors. It would be unwise to imagine the Ottoman empire as some form of lost, multi-cultural paradise, but on the other hand it would also be wrong to deny that at some periods in its history the empire assured for all its subjects, irrespective of religion, stability, security and a reasonable degree of prosperity.[4]
US State Department profile of Bulgaria states that:
During the five centuries of Ottoman rule, most of Bulgaria's indigenous cultural centers were destroyed. Several Bulgarian uprisings were brutally suppressed and a great many people fled abroad.[5]
On the other hand Hupchick (2002) emphasizes that
While the subject Christians were reduced to second-class status in Ottoman society, those precepts and traditions offered them a certain measure of religious toleration, administrative autonomy, and economic well-being that was exceptional for non-aristocratic society in the rest of Europe. That condition changed during the 17th century, when the effects of Western European technological developments and global exploration began to inflict consistent military defeats and economic hardships on the Turks, resulting in the destabilization of Ottoman society and a progressive worsening in the overall situation of the Ottomans’ non-Muslim subjects that continued through the 18th century.[6]
The comment regarding the Ottoman rule of Bulgaria in CIA Factbook is:
...by the end of the 14th century the country [Bulgaria] was overrun by the Ottoman Turks. Northern Bulgaria attained autonomy in 1878 and all of Bulgaria became independent from the Ottoman Empire in 1908.[7]
Lewis (2001) points out that
Past generations of Bulgarian historians have described the entire Ottoman period as a national catastrophe and a black hole during which time Bulgarian culture was destroyed and the country was forcibly Turkified - an approach rejected by Machiel Kiel in his Art and Society of Bulgaria in the Turkish Period (Assen 1985). Over the last decade, such extreme characterizations of the Ottoman period are seen as exaggerated and idologically-colored by small but growing number of Bulgarian scholars and non-scholars.[8]
I'm generally not a friend of big series of block quotes in this style. I'd encourage everybody to replace this whole row of quotes with a good, fair summary synthesising all of it. But of course, views like those expressed by Lewis, Hupchik, Crampton etc. should be given prominent treatment in it. These are mainstream academic sources and represent, as far as I can see, a consensus in most of the relevant scholarship. (The CIA factbook, on the other hand, is not. Why would the CIA be a reliable source on other country's histories?) Fut.Perf.☼07:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the above format is not good. I was forced to put it that way because some users have removed the more encyclopedic format earlier. I agree that CIA is no a reliable source. US State Department is also not a reliable source when it comes to history. (Now we are told that the Bulgars originated in Afghanistan. That was not the case before. It must be a recent policy change.) There are sufficient number of scholars and experts on the subject. I combined the above material as follows and will add it to the section:
Past generations of Bulgarian historians have described the entire Ottoman period as a national catastrophe and a black hole during which time Bulgarian culture was destroyed and the country was forcibly Turkified - an approach rejected by Machiel Kiel in his Art and Society of Bulgaria in the Turkish Period (Assen 1985). Over the last decade, such extreme characterizations of the Ottoman period are seen as exaggerated and idologically-colored by small but growing number of Bulgarian scholars and non-scholars.[9]
The well-established tradition in Bulgarian historiography treats the Ottoman period in Bulgaria as a five-century long dark age during which Ottomans deliberately attempted to wipe out Bulgarian culture and nation by a combination of forced conversion of Orthodox Christians to Islam, assimilation, and massacres. According to this view Bulgaria's fall under Turkish rule ushered in the grimmest period in the history of the Bulgarian people, a period of almost 500 years of foreign domination. During it, the very existence of the Bulgarians as a nationality was threatened as a result of their extermination, eviction and assimilation and the brutal oppression and exploitation to which they were subjected by the Turkish conquerors. Foreign domination held back the development of the country's productive forces, severed the Bulgarians' contacts with all other nations and put an end to their free cultural development. Bulgaria's conquest by the Turks was accompanied by the destruction of whole towns and villages and eviction of the population. Hitherto prospering towns and villages were reduced to ruins and the land was turned into a desert. The population of whole regions were forced to seek refuge in the mountains and in remote areas far away from any roads and communications. Turkish colonists and nomadic herdsmen from Asia Minor were settled in the most fertile regions thus vacated.[10]
Scholars opposing the above characterization indicate that this version of Bulgarian experience under Ottoman rule was the creation of Bulgarian emigre intelligentsia during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who needed to invent a new past, a past in which Ottoman rule abruptly halted the development of Bulgarian culture, destroyed its ties to Europe and prevented its participation in and contribution to European civilization. According to this view the purpose of this imagined past was to mobilize Bulgarians against Ottoman rule and to promote a Bulgarian nation state. Over time this invented past gained general acceptance among the masses and has been perpetuated by Bulgarian historians and ideologues as the authentic experience of Bulgarians under Ottoman rule.[11]
The vigorous but self-righteous Christians of the Victorian era created the impression that their co-religionists under Ottoman domination had suffered continual persecution for 500 years. It was not so. While the subject Christians were reduced to second-class status in Ottoman society, those precepts and traditions offered them a certain measure of religious toleration, administrative autonomy, and economic well-being that was exceptional for non-aristocratic society in the rest of Europe. Ottoman history is certainly not free from terrible incidents of hideous outrage, but in Europe these were occasional. Many, if not most, followed acts of rebellion and if this does not excuse the excess it perhaps goes some way to explain it. Other outbursts were spontaneous, localised and random, the result usually of a peculiar combination of personal, political, social or economic factors. That condition changed during the 17th century, when the effects of Western European technological developments and global exploration began to inflict consistent military defeats and economic hardships on the Turks, resulting in the destabilization of Ottoman society and a progressive worsening in the overall situation of the Ottomans’ non-Muslim subjects that continued through the 18th century. It would be unwise to imagine the Ottoman empire as some form of lost, multi-cultural paradise, but on the other hand it would also be wrong to deny that at some periods in its history the empire assured for all its subjects, irrespective of religion, stability, security and a reasonable degree of prosperity.[12][13]
Well, that version has some major POV issues. Rather than saying what different groups say happened, give a sourced version of what happened. After that, short sourced descriptions of different groups interpretations would be ok. But the tone of your writing as it is is not encyclopedic enough. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And is way too POV. Why are you trying to input the same version on every single article (this version being your own) by quoting passages you like and that could be adjusted well to your POV? --LaveolT09:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also it does not have a good appearance for the main page of Bulgaria, and accusing the Bulgarian people of creating history and myth on the page of their country is insulting. In my opinion you should put this matter in the article Ottoman Bulgaria and the section in the page of Bulgaria must be reduced to its original size. You may see that in the article of Turkey there are no words accusing the Turks for their atrocities against the Armenians, Kurds, Bulgarians, Greeks and other peoples. --Gligan (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, but what you've just done, Gligan, replacing the whole section with a sentence that gives coverage to just one extreme of the spectrum of opinions, and stating that as a fact [4], is really totally unacceptable. This is tendentious editing at its worst. Fut.Perf.☼12:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the contemporary Ottoman sources describe the destruction of cities, taking their population in slavery and so on. That of course is good for the Turks, it was the right manner to expand their own country but for the Bulgarians it was a disaster and as this article is for Bulgaria I think it should be mentioned at that point.
In fact the article is mainly for the country Bulgaria and the sections of the history in which it did not exist as a political entity should be shorter. And the whole article is long so for instance the history section after the Liberation shall also be shortened but I am not the person to do that.
During the Ottoman rule there are a few advantages in comparison with particular states (such as that the peasants of Russia lived worser that the peasant in Ottoman Bulgaria) but for the country "Bulgaria" to which this article is devoted it was a disaster and catastrophe. As I said to my mind more detailed text on that matter should be placed in the section Ottoman Bulgaria. --Gligan (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody cares about your opinion of what that period meant for Bulgaria. The only thing that counts is what professional historians think about that period, not matter if they are Bulgarian or not.
But I must grant you that the version by Nostradamus was pretty tendentious too. Nostradamus, you can't just take the wording of those quotes and string it together literally! Somebody needs to rewrite this, as a brief neutral summary. Guys, it's not that difficult. "Write for the enemy". Every single editor here, when you write something, you must, always, make your best effort to write in such a way that even your opponents will immediately recognise that your text is an improvement over what was there before. I see very little willingness to do this right now, on either side. Fut.Perf.☼13:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slight improvement. But not the real thing yet, by a long shot. First of all. Take out all evaluative statements. Both "...brought some improvements..." and "...a time of great violence" imply value judgments. No such implied judgments, be they positive or negative, must be stated as if they were facts. Value judgments can be quoted and discussed, but not stated as truths. Moreover, there's no reason why the passage as a whole should focus on value judgments in the first place. First, write a few paragraphs about the neutral facts. When was that period, how did Ottoman rule come about, etc. A lot of that can be described without any value judgment at all. Then, write one or two paragraphs about historical interpretations of that period. Fut.Perf.☼13:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? Of course the depopulation and cultural decline should be mentioned - in 1878 there were only four Bulgarian cities with more than 20,000 inhabitants, the architecture could not compare with that of Germany, Spain, France, Austria-Hungary, the transportation network lagged far behind the European, where was practically no industry. Also the word "improvement" sounds neutral - with what word are you going to describe the building of railways, factories and the boost of trade? --Gligan (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Berlin Treaty boundary was far from corresponding with
the ethnological limits of the Bulgarian race, which were more accurately
defined by the abrogated treaty of San Stefano (see below, under
_History_). A considerable portion of Macedonia, the districts of Pirot and
Vranya belonging to Servia, the northern half of the vilayet of Adrianople,
and large tracts of the Dobrudja, are, according to the best and most
impartial authorities, mainly inhabited by a Bulgarian population.
— Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, Vol. 4, part 3, Article BULGARIA, lead section, Now in public domain, Project Gutenberg
The devastation of the country which followed the Turkish invasion resulted
in the extirpation or flight of a large proportion of the Bulgarian
inhabitants of the lowlands, who were replaced by Turkish colonists. The
mountainous districts, however, retained their original population and
sheltered large numbers of the fugitives. The passage of the Turkish armies
during the wars with Austria, Poland and Russia led to further Bulgarian
emigrations. The flight to the Banat, where 22,000 Bulgarians still remain,
took place in 1730.
— Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, Vol. 4, part 4, Article BULGARIA, Ethnology, Now in public domain, Project Gutenberg
To anticipate (and hopefully prevent) another long discussion, I don't see how the date of the text in the encyclopedia would reflect on the meaning of facts and opinions expressed in it except, maybe, that in more recent time people were born to whom those facts and opinions, written in the most authoritative encyclopedia, became unacceptable.
Lantonov (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Establishment
I think all states shall stick to the modern establishments of their statehoods.It's unscientific to try to think about unity to the extreme past.Bulgaria was established in 1878 i think and that's what an encyclopedia should say.(Just like my country in 1821 for example).The other dates belong to the history section. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Greek state was established as a political unity for the first time in 1821 before that there had never been never a country named Greece. The case with Bulgaria is different.--Avidius (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - the date of establishment should be the date of which the country Bulgaria or Greece or whatever existed. The case of Greece is 1821, the case of Bulgaria is 681 as it is pointed by Byzantine historians. --Gligan (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
False. There were no Bulgarians on this planet in 681AD. The state that was established in 681 was that of Turkic Bulgars. As many historians point out Bulgars gave or lent their name to contemporary Bulgaria and Bulgarians. The two ethnicities do not share a common language and culture. The state the Bulgarians establshed was called Kingdom of Bulgaria when the Ottoman vassalage The Principality of Bulgaria proclaimed its independence in 1908. Just as the Serbian province of Kosovo did last week. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, another Nostradamus comment. Should I remind you that in Bulgarian (and in most other languages) there is no differences between Bulgars and Bulgarians - the name Bulgarians derives from the name of the state and the name of the state derives from the name of the people. And in Bulgarian they called themselves Bulgars (Българи) and nowadays they still call themselves Bulgars (Българи). From all I've seen from you, you just hate those people or is there something else? --LaveolT12:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm don't think so.Westerners called Byzantine Empire, Empire of Greeks shall we say 330AD was the year of Greek statehood?In 681AD was the time of the Kingdom of Asparuh (i don't know anyway put the name of the Bulgarian King) not a state.Bulgars were nomads and as the term state (as we mean the word today) wouldn't be applied to most of the already established Medieval feudal formations it's a bit of travesty to be applied in this case.681 with 1878 is 1197 years!!!!!Continuity exists only to the mind of extremists.Scientifically the State of Bulgaria was established in 1878. --Eagle of Pontus (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse states with nations, people. The fact that there was no unitary state called "Greece" before 1821 does not mean Greece didn't exist as a nation and civilization, or that there weren't countless states ruled by Greeks, some encompassing much or all of the Greek world, such as the Macedonian and Byzantine Empires. I agree that we should stick to the establishment dates of modern states, as in a political and legal sense there is no continuity between the Bulgarian state of 681 and that of 1878. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Politically - in the Middle Ages we have First and Second Bulgarian Kingdom, after 1878 - Third Bulgarian Kingdom. This is a state continuity in its purest form and this fact does not become less of a fact because someone doesn't like it. --Lantonov (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So Greece in 1832 was the Kingdom of Greeks or Βασιλεία των Ρωμαιων just like Byzantine empire so Greek state was established in 330AD.Continuity exists only in dreams.--Eagle of Pontus (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The state established in 632AD was officialy known as Bulgaria (in 681 it conquered territories on Balkans but a state with this name appeared for the first time in 632)and its subjects called themselves Bulgarians (or Bulgars if you prefer - the difference between the two terms was made by historians - just like "Byzantine empire")and they had Bulgarian self-conscienceness which haven't been lost till nowadays. Those people who had lost it during these 14 centuries (for example the so-called 'Macedonians')are no longer Bulgarians. The state which existed 330-1453 was, by state doctrine, Roman empire and its subjects were Romans. You don't have a Roman self-conscienceness, do you? That is why Bulgaria was established in 632 and Greece - in 1832. Gur4eto (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't see on what grounds do you claim that the Eastern Roman Empire is a Greek national state albeit its citizens called themselves Romans and clearly had Roman self-conscienceness like Gur4eto pointed out.--Avidius (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A series of attempts to reestablish independence during 5 centuries
The article was recently edited to say: "After a series of attempts to achieve its independence all along the five centuries, Bulgaria was finally .." While this statement may very well be true, I don't think we should let it in there without some sources that give a reasonable impression of a 5 century period of writing, freedom fighters, diplomats or whatever else making it plausible there was a series of attempts for half a millennium. So please provide sources. I therefore reverted it: a statement not backed up by anything added in by an anonymous source while there has been so much discussion about the history of this country and region already cannot just be let in without a bit more to back it up. Martijn Faassen (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Martijn's action. There were no attempts whatsoever to "reestablish independence". There was banditry (hayduts), ayans, kurdjaliistvo, local disturbances but none were "attempts to reestablish independence". The so called April "Uprising" also was not an uprising but a series of terror acts on the local Muslim population instigated and implemented by people who infiltrated the country from abroad and DID NOT enjoy public support.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)=[reply]
WOW Nostradamus are you at all familiar with the history. After your last comment about the "so called April Uprising" in which 30 000 bulgarian women,children and men were slaughterd I can only make the conclusion that you are a turk or at least a musslim, am I right? I see now that all your contributions here are led not by the persuit of neutrality and truth but exactly the opposite. Too bad.--Avidius (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The country preserves the traditions (in ethnic name, language, and alphabet) of the First Bulgarian Empire (632/681 - 1018) ..."
The statement that "The country preserves the traditions (in ethnic name, language, and alphabet) of the First Bulgarian Empire (632/681 - 1018).." is incorrect. The language of the Bulgars was lost. Also, where does the year 632 come from? First Bulgarian Empire was established in 681. The dates in this article never seem to be clear. For example, another one is 1396/1422. Also, is it 1878 or 1908? So we have 632/681, 1396/1422, and 1878/1908. How clear is that?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The caption worded as follows "Landscapes from Bulgaria. Clockwise from top left: a cloudy forest; Todorka Peak in Pirin; Lake Shabla on the Black Sea coast; Belogradchik Rocks" appears with 4 pictures that appear to show Rocks in the 3rd picture (clockwise) and a Lake in the 4th picture. That is,
the caption appears to have the Lake and the Rocks in the wrong order.
But, I have never been to Bulgaria and for all I know, the rocks I see in picture number 3 are merely part of the environment of Lake Shabla, and perhaps the lake in the 4th picture includes some ('Belogradchik'?) rocks. I know that might sound unlikely, but, I have made an editing mistake or two on some unlikely situations...Would someone who has actually seen these 2 places please check this picture caption? Thank you. Publius3 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops ; ) It is a stupid mistake of mine, you are right. Thank you for noticing that! In fact the Belogradchick Rocks are exactly on the other side of Bulgaria (located near the border with Serbia) in relation to Lake Shabla (located on the Black Sea coast near the border with Romania). Again, thanks :-) --Gligan (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgaria and Romania
"I deleted about Bulgaria being the poorest as well as Romania". Someone put it back on. I want it off because this article is dedicated to Bulgaria, it is not about Romania, Romania has nothing to do with it so please leave Romania out of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pryde 01 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well but it was you who began to add that nonsense that Bulgaria is the poorest country in EU and about the scandals which you perfectly well know is not for the main page of a country. Romania is much more corrupt but there was nothing about such scandals. You have double standards and next time think before trying to add bad things for Bulgaria. --Gligan (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And before adding your nonsense at least first read the sources. If you continue with that I will add Romania again because after all it is worth to know after which country Bulgaria is second poorest. --Gligan (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont get so rude! Maybe your insecure about your northern neighbour doing well across the board. I can tell you Bulgarians are not happy at all with their country, they are much more unhappy than the Romanians maybe it explains the growing gap between Romania and Bulgaria. I added the scandals their because it is of International importance and that it should be added their, Encyclopedias shouldn't always have good news, you have to accept that. Leave Romania out of this it has got nothing to do with Romania. I put that their cause thats the reality you have to accept that as a Bulgarian yourself. Dont deny whats happening.Pryde 01 (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to a recent EU reserch Romania is the most corrupt nation in the union. This is certainly a matter of internatinal importance and must be added in the Romanian page. You are righ we must accept the truth that goes for Romanians too.--Avidius (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why the fuck are you taking gligans side?? Dont add that about Romania, cause recently Romania scored well for corruption according to the Forbes Doing Business. Btw Romania has gone much further in tackling corruption than Bulgaria has, Bulgaria has totally stalled. Bulgaria's the one thats getting hammered from the EU. Romania isn't the one getting the sanctions cause Romania is tackling corruption, it might be slow but at least they are doing something about it and have good mechanisms. Bulgaria's sitting there waiting for an economic catastrophe's to happen Pryde 01 (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that it is you who is rude. I can tell you that most Bulgarians are proud of their country and are very happy with it. But I read several weeks ago that more than 50% of the Romanians would get out of their country if they have that opportunity. And I don't see an economic catastrophe - we are developing very fast. And remember that every user has the right to share his/her opinion in every matter so save us your rude vocabulary and leave Bulgaria alone. I am not jealous on your country (how can anyone be) - may it develop well, but it is and has always been poorer and with lower standard that Bulgaria. --Gligan (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry buddy Romania is doing very well in all fields at least its going to overtake a shitty Italy by 2020. I have talked to many Romanians they would all go back within the next 5 years. Italy is an ailing country thats getting fucked up the ass by Romania! But Bulgaria has some awesome qualities and I agree the that bulgaria is developing very fast its going to be a leader alongside Romania within 10-15 years. I am sure Romania and Bulgaria will hold hands as the leaders of the East. Sorry for the confusion. I like bulgaria its a awesome country. I would go soon. God bless you! =P
Gligan I have been to bulgaria and I salute that country I have good respect for bulgaria its a fucking awesome place bro! I love the booze man its awesome. The country is beautiful, the people are awesome bro! I would go back to bulgaria any day. Salute bulgaria! All that shit the EU says bulgaria is the poorest. Its not man! I dont see much poverty is pretty rich :)Pryde 01 (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone heard the rumours that there is to be a new airport built on a military airport near Bansko? to accommodate the increase in tourism in the Bansko / Razlog Valley areas. I have heard this a couple of times but I cannot find any official documentation about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.234.251 (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added POV tag: Written mainly by Bulgarians and reads like a propaganda article
It appears that the very same contributors who used, say, Encyclopedia Britannica 1911, to support a view that the Ottomans oppressed Bulgarians are also the ones ignoring other opinions expressed on the same article about Bulgaria. For example, since when the "Aryan" origin theory of Bulgars is given more weight than their Turkic origin. There is NOT A SINGLE non-Bulgarian scholar buying into the Bulgarian nationalist claim of the aryan myth of Bulgar origins. It's just a local hoax. Furthemore, the introduction is conveniently avoiding the word Congress of Berlin while San Stefano -which lasted A FEW MONTHS- is prominently emphasised. The Ottoman rule section is also a typical local Bulgarian version of the history to which no western scholar subscribes. A period that lasted half a millenium is given less weight and in mainly a negative tone. There is no mention of the religious tolerance the Bulgarians enjoyed under the Ottoman rule. As long as the contributor to this article are mostly Bulgarians insisting that "the history of Bulgaria is best known by Bulgarians". This article will reflect the Bulgarian version of that country and her history. Not what unbiased English language sources say. Perhaps, that is the reason most English language sources preferred by these contributors are from the 19th or early 20th century. Otherwise they insist on Bulgarian language sources written by Bulgarian nationalist-communist ideologues. How are we supposed to verify their credibility. (BTW, -I'm not saying that it's only limited to her- but almost any article about Bulgaria in WP is full of this kind of stuff.) --Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Also to add to the above, why is there no mention of the systematic assimilation campaigns -where, in an apparent efford to rewrite history, even graveyards were demolished and names on gravestones altered. How can anyone trust any publications that were produced in that environment. Those so called Bulgarian "sources" are products, partizans, perpetrators and participants of such crimes and should not be used to inform the rest of the world about anything. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Nostradamus 1 you have a point the introduction should mention the Treaty of Berlin and how it brutally crippled Bulgaria leaving millions of bulgarians outside of its borders and thus creating the conditions for many future conflicts, perhaps you should add this to it.
During most of the Ottoman rule Christians had to build churches dug in the ground and wear simple cloths so they wouldn't catch the eye of any muslim. Is this your fictional religious tolerance? You claim there was religious tolerance so prove it.Give me at least one positive thing of the Ottoman rule because the negatives are numerous.
As far as I know there is no bulgarian who claims he knows English history for example better then the English themselves so I doubt any English historian can say the same thing about Bulgarian history and least of all you can make such a claim.
It sounds like the Treaty of Berlin was not mentioned because "it brutally crippled Bulgaria". Another part that is not mentioned is that Bulgaria was not established in 1878. Nor she did declare her indepenence in that year. What was established at the Treaty of Berlin was the Ottoman province of Eastern Rumelia and the Principality of Bulgaria which was an Ottoman vassalage. There was no independent Bulgaria. In 1885 the Principality annexed the Ottoman province despite the Russian opposition and ironically with the support of Abdulhamid II. In the chaotic aftermath of the Young Turk Revolution the Principality of Bulgaria seized the opportunity and declared her independence becoming Kingdom of Bulgaria.
Regarding the Christians under Ottoman rule I am well aware of the stories Bulgarians tell themselves and complain to everyone about the "500 years 'Turkish yoke'". The world is not buying this argument since it defies common sense. Western scholars point to the contrary Ottoman tolerance. No nation survives 500 years of occupation. The Bulgarian version of the history is rejected by western scholars and that is the reason we have only Bulgarian references to push for that version. Today Latin America is speaking Spanish, Ireland speaks English yet the former Ottoman lands speak their native languages. Ottomans did not even try to eliminate the populations they ruled. Any oppressive measures were retaliatory to suppress rebellions. Yet Bulgaria could not tolerate her minority population to speak its native language.
The history of Bulgaria is NOT known best by Bulgarians. The history of England also is not known best by the English. History is known best by the experts in the field regardless of nationality. In the case of Bulgarian sources some of the "experts" are little more than nationalist ideologues. This is an English language encyclopedia. English language verifiable sources take precedence over foreign language sources. Crampton, for example, has a number of books about Bulgaria. Why don't you read them? Perhaps, you will learn something.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nostradamus, if the Ottoman rule had so human face, explain term "Janissary" ;).
The claim "Yet Bulgaria could not tolerate her minority population to speak its native language." is a bit not on place - as far as in the Bulgarian Ministry of Agriculture, for example, most of the staff is Turkish, and they speak Turkish with no problems even if the official language of the government is Bulgarian. There are Turkish news on the National TV. The current government is based on the mandate of the Turkish Party. So it appears that your point of view is as narrow as you claim the Bulgarian is.
Nostradamus, I'm going to assume good faith and I'll avoid accusing you of any anti-Bulgarian sentiment. However, one cannot fail to notice that this is what your words sound like. Your bitter comment may be based on the Bulgarian–Turkish relations 20–25 years ago, but the tone you are demonstrating is not suitable for today.
First of all, you are trying to make the Indo-European theory look like a piece of Nazi ("Aryan?!") propaganda, which it is not: it has its good points and it is backed by many eminent scholars. You might like the Turkic theory more, but that is irrelevant to the historical truth. Don't forget that it's all theories, my own theory is that the Bulgarians were an ancient people whose culture attracted and assimilated Turkic as well as Indo-European and Finno-Ugric peoples, but I don't discuss my view anywhere.
As for the intro and San Stefano, it is pretty logical that San Stefano was one of the highlights of the modern Bulgarian state as the treaty of its creation and a much lighter moment than the unfair Treaty of Berlin (that is not my personal opinion). As such, it is much more important than the Treaty of Berlin, which is mentioned in the History section nevertheless.
Ah, the Ottoman rule. I reviewed the quotes you've provided and it is apparent that you are using them entirely out of context, i.e. you're manipulating their authors' text. According to some researchers, the Ottoman rule did indeed, for a short while, provide more security to the Balkan Christians in the 15th century. However, you can't talk about religious tolerance or freedom because that would be ridiculous: the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic state discriminating its Christian population: the Christians had to pay more taxes and basically work as slaves, they were not tolerated by the authorities, and atrocities were commonplace. Not to mention that the aristocracy was slaughtered, many people were islamicized and assimilated, and so on, and so on. As a whole, the Ottoman rule sucked for us: in fact, who would want to live in an intolerant crumbling Muslim state stuck in the Middle Ages while Europe is experiencing its greatest historical periods? Of course, that doesn't sum up the entire picture, but the point is, the Ottoman state was not called the Sick man of Europe for nothing :)
I see you've also mentioned the tense relationships between Turkey and Bulgaria in the modern era. First, I'd like to point you to the fact that "assimilation" is not the destruction of tombstones and graveyards, and neither is that act any attempt to rewrite history. In fact, the entire graveyard destruction thing makes no sense: it wouldn't achieve anything so it would be pretty stupid, don't you agree. If we're to exchange libel, then I can just link The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913 and the Batak massacre, but what's the point? Our goal today is to live together in love and friendship, isn't it. I mean, that's what the EU (that Turkey wants to get in so desperately) is all about…
Now, calling Bulgarian historians criminals is a slander and I'm not willing to comment on that.
Overall, I'd recommend that you think over what you said, because your comment was merely an outburst of some sort of anger or hatred. It's understandable, we're all humans, but you should learn to hold your temper and remember that such behaviour isn't going to get you anywhere. Peace? ;) Todor→Bozhinov17:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The the theory of Aryan Bulgar origin is new and only Bulgarian so called "eminent scholars" support it. Outside Bulgaria this theory has no adherents among scholars. Yet the article gives this -apparently agenda driven- theory an equal prominence as the widely accepted theory. That by itself constitutes undue weight and is POV pushing. What theory I prefer is irrelevant but I do understand why some Bulgarians would prefer a non-Turkic origin for Bulgars. Plus, an Indo-European origin would be seen more appropriate for a natin that recently joined the EU.
The problem with placing San Stefano so prominently here is that it does not do justice to the history. The equilibrium was reached at the Treaty of Berlin. San Stefano was only a transitionaty short phase. It lasted a few months. You claim that "San Stefano was one of the highlights of the modern Bulgarian state". There was no Bulgarian state at the time of San Stefano. In fact this treaty was signed at the end of a war between the Russian and Ottoman empires. For a very short time there was a larger area designated as Bulgaria. This territory did not correspond to any historical Bulgarian lands and was cancelled in Berlin. Why should it be unfair for Bulgaria? Do you know where San Stefano is and if it EVER had been ruled by Bulgarians for a single day? So on what grounds have an eye on this land. Greed. That is the problem here not any unfairness.
The quotes I provided were for the conditions of the Balkan peasants before the Ottoman rule and that their conditions relatively improved with the Ottoman rule. This is entirely within context but it does not sound to the ears of Bulgarians who are used to complain about the "500 years long 'Turkish yoke'". (Show me where I manipulated the original authors.) I can find you more sources to back this up but one has to continually argue with some people to have this stay in the article. I see that another sentence about the Bulgarian population not being supportive of the so-called "April Uprising" was also removed. I have sorces for this as well and even Bulgarians themselves will admit to this but it does not sound good against the standard Bulgarian complaint so it is not here.
Talking about the Ottoman religious tolerance is not "ridiculous" but is the widely accepted view. Don't you ever read history printed in English. Here:
While the subject Christians were reduced to second-class status in Ottoman society, those precepts and traditions offered them a certain measure of religious toleration, administrative autonomy, and economic well-being that was exceptional for nonaristocratic society in the rest of Europe. Hupchick, D.P., The Balkans, 2004, p.99 Palgrave. Hupchick is a former Fullbright scholar to Bulgaria and the past president of the Bulgarian Studies Association.
The Ottoman Empire was called the "Sick Man of Europe" by the Russian csar not because what you stated above but during negotiations with Greate Powers to dismember the spoils of a dying empire. See how is manipulating word now?
BTW, the Bulgarian aristocracy was not slaughtered the way you generalize it. Ivan Shishman was Murad I's brother-in-law and his son was later made the Ottoman governor of Samsun. It's true that Shishman was executed but this was only after he breached the trust forcing Ottomans to annex Bulgaria.
The distruction of Turkish graveyards and rewriting of some of the gravestones may sound stupid to you but for some others is simply sick. This is indeed revealing and shows the degree of hatred and measures that were taken during this ethnic cleansing process. There is no question as to the truth of these actions since it is well documented. It did not occur 500 years ago. There are people who lived through this and are still alive. There is evidence in the form of Bulgarianized gravestones of people who passed away well before the name change campaign. You can deny this to the world but not to me. I know people who are yet to restore their parent's gravestones to their original names.
I am all for peace but I am also for fairness. It is high time Bulgarians stop wining and using their version of events and history to bash others, pitty themselves and explain their condition by putting the blame on others.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that your comments deserve no atention at all. Affcourse we know where San Stefano is but we also now that Bulgaria never had any claims over those teritories because it was never included as part of it in the treaty of San Stefano which accuratly designated the territories inhabited predominantly by Bulgarians but you didn't know that, did you? It seems you are all for ignorance and you don't know at all what your talking about. Typical turkish nationalist.By the way whose version of the historical events should we use in your opinion the Bashi-bazouk Ottoman?Avidius (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read history sufficiently and am in the opinion that the two words historian and Bulgarian do not sound very convincing when used together. WP has rules in writing articles. Why are you people insisting on using Bulgarian nationalist sources? Why not use the available English language sources that have no axes to grind?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Affcourse they don't sound convincing to a man who ignorantly claims San Stefano was included in Bulgaria according to the treaty of the same name but this is not our issue it is yours.By the way in the 1930s turkey sold the Ottoman state archives to Bulgaria so bulgarian historians can claim that they know the Ottoman empire as good as their Western colleagues, if not better. Avidius (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"in the 1930s turkey sold the Ottoman state archives to Bulgaria".:) On what planet did that happen? It seems like San Stefano is a code word for Bulgarian territorial expansionism. These are empty unrealistic dreams which will only add to the misery of people of Bulgaria. The country is already underpopulated yet some of her citizens have an eye on the land of the neighboring countries. How is that going to happen? Dyado Ivan (Russia) is going to come and do the job so that Bulgaria can become a larger country?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know where San Stefano is, and yes, it has been within the military borders of all Bulgarian emperors who have besieged Constantinople throughout our empire's existence. But that doesn't mean it had a Bulgarian population and it was never included within the territory of the Treaty of San Stefano :) You've got it all wrong, Sir, whether we've ruled this nowadays-Turkish village has nothing to do with the Bulgarian ethnic territory which the Treaty of San Stefano traced out.
Now, your other comments are too petty to be discussed and what's worse, they're not even as funny as your ignorance towards San Stefano. The Bulgars were an ancient people and their origin is unestablished: there are theories that they were a Turkic people, there are very sound theories that they were an Indo-European tribe, whatever they were, they had a developed state-building civilization. Of course, you're making politics out of the entire issue because you wish the Bulgars were closer to the Turks than to the Europeans, but that's simply not true: most tribes that today form Europe's people came from the East. One just has to consider the Germanic and Slavic tribes and there's also the later example of the Magyars.
I already said that you're manipulating quotes. You provide those quotes to prove Bulgarians lived well in the Ottoman Empire, to which no scholar would agree. The quotes refer to a short period of stability in the empire, and for the most part of its existence it was a crumbling monster incompatible with European society. If treating Christians as second-class citizens is "tolerance", then changing the names of Turks in the 1980s must deserve a Nobel Prize for Peace, my friend. Discrimination was simply the rule: documents published by the sultans themselves read that the Christians *had* to appear "miserable and humiliated".
We don't tolerate propaganda on Wikipedia, and neither do we tolerate fabrications and revisionism. Rejecting the April Uprising is simply a stupid, but what you said about historian and Bulgarian is racism. Todor→Bozhinov 17:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC
Yesilkoy is not a village but an afluent neighborhood of Istanbul.
Giving equal weight to the Aryan and Turkic origin theories of Bulgars is POV and bias. Only several Bulgarian sources support the Aryan or so called Pamirian theory. Dobrev -the Bulgarian professor in economic history who developed this theory- is not an expert in the field. There are no non-Bulgarian scholars supporting this theory. NONE!
I provided quotes from well established and respected scholars. A statement such as "The five centuries of Ottoman rule featured violence and oppression" clearly a POV. One could say similar things about any state. For example, how about "The 130 years of Bulgarian rule featured violence and oppression"? Wouldn't that be true? You and other Bulgarians are clearly demonstrating their bias here by not taking into account well respected sources such as Hupchick above. You could at leas point that there is a disagreement among historians, especially between Bulgarian and non-Bulgarian, regarding the general portrayal of the Ottoman rule in Bulgaria. Why is that?
The quote from Hupchick clearly states it. It says that "Christians were reduced to second-class status in Ottoman society, those precepts and traditions offered them a certain measure of religious toleration, administrative autonomy, and economic well-being that was exceptional for nonaristocratic society in the rest of Europe.
If you do not tolerate propaganda then start rewriting this article since it's full of it. Where does the year 632 come from? What does it have to do with Bulgaria of the Balkans?
The so called "April Uprising" was the work of a small minority nationalists who were based in Romania. The general Bulgarian public did not support this failed "uprising". Rejecting that this was a popular uprising is not stupid. However ignoring well documented historical event is so.
There is no racism in my comment. The credibility of Bulgarian historians is questionable to me given their active role in the Bulgarian politics and in oppressing the minorities.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"On what planet did that happen?" Look it up Mr. sufficiently prepared.""The 130 years of Bulgarian rule featured violence and oppression" Bulgarian rule over what? Over Bulgarians? Your comments are getting preposterous or should I sence some territorial claims in them perhaps you think we are in possession of territory that is not ours? Answer.Avidius (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your questions, Avidius, is given by Nostradamus1 in Talk:Turks in Bulgaria: There would not be a single 'Bulgarian' left on this planet today had it not been for the generally benevolent Ottoman policy. What you ('Bulgarian') people have in Bulgaria is for the national consumption. You see, 'Bulgarian' is in quotes. We call ourselves 'Bulgarian' but it is not historically correct according to him. Time for anyone to pick choices: 'Turkish', 'Rumelian', 'Ottoman'. There is more. Even if one says 'Bulgarian' it must be understood 'Turkish' because "Bulgars were Turkic people". Such are the facts that Bulgarian historians didn't know. For the "territorial possession" issue, Turks in Bulgaria gives a glaringly clear answer. There you will find large emblems and flags of Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish Republic of Western Thrace, and will see a map of Bulgaroid state populated predominantly with Turks with some small scatterings of Bulgarians (Bulgars), Greeks, and Gypsies. All this is a classic example of racism combined with revisionism and expansionism (Nazism), so well known in history. Added to this is a genocide denial dressed as "academic writing". However, the old rags stink from under the cheap new coat.--Lantonov (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made a claim that "in the 1930s turkey sold the Ottoman state archives to Bulgaria". The burden of proof is on your shoulders and I don;t need to look it up. Provide credible English language citations. The Ottoman archives remained closed until very recently and claiming that Republic of Turkey somehow "sold" or gave up its historical heritage to Bulgaria in th 1930s is plain boloney. Furthermore, why am I not receiving any resonses to my questions above? Is it because "the history of Bulgaria is best known by Bulgarians" who were "sold the Ottoman state archives" in the 1930 and now we are left with nothing but ask the Bulgarians about the Ottoman history? I will pass the "territorial claims" question since you guys seem to be selective on answering my questions as well. If this article has to mention any oppressions during the Ottoman era it should also mention the opressions afterwards as well.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to prove to you especially when you can google it and check for yourself smart guy ! By the way you are questioning my claim so you should prove I am wrong. Avidius (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should prove you are wrong? I'd ask the same planet question again but I realize you have some special case here. First, when you shake your head and to make signs the circular movement from left to right or vice versa means 'NO. I know that it is the other way around in Bulgaria. Second, when you come forward with a positive proposition such as "turkey sold the Ottoman state archives to Bulgaria" the burden of proof is on you. Bai Ganyo did not know quite few things too but at least at the age of internet you can learn how these things work.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nostradamus1, for the sale of the Ottoman archives in 1930s, look in the (auto)biography in English language of İsmet Binark [www.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/yayin3/257-155Son.pdf], a Turkish genocide denier, published in a Turkish Web Site. This (auto)biography claims that he bought part of them back in Turkey from the Bulgarian National Library. I do not understand Turkish but it seems that this is an official Turkish government site: He succeeded in getting back the copies of the Ottoman archival documents to our State Archives, once sold in Bulgaria, in the 1930’s, by weight and published their catalogue. Given the purpose of this (mis)information, I doubt that any of this has taken place. Probably these "Ottoman archival documents" are some forgeries which the Turkish genocide deniers try to legitimize as "got back from the Bulgarians". I doubt also in the idle talk in the forums and web sites about some "wagon-loads" of Ottoman documents that were destined for burning. On the contrary, Bulgarian historians treasure very much these documents because they are the only records left from these dark years when Bulgarian literature was burned by Greeks and Turks. All these documents that we have in Bulgaria are translated, classified, and collected in the 38 volumes of "Turkish sources of Bulgarian history". I have some of these volumes in my home library.--Lantonov (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the source you provide according to you is not credible but we should consider it credible to prove your claim? Also, the user above claims that "turkey sold the Ottoman state archives to Bulgaria" what is your point? That Bulgaria sold the Ottoman arcives to Turkey? Why is it always like that with you guys?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong Nostradamus, you can't read in Enlish? The source clearly states that the Ottoman archives were in possesion of Bulgaria for quite a long period and your fellow turk has finally managed to bring copies of them back home. Or is the the truth rather unpleasant for you after all it is you who claimed that never happened in one of your usual outbursts of ignorance.Avidius (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced document states that "He succeeded in getting back the copies of the Ottoman archival documents to our State Archives, once sold in Bulgaria, in the 1930’s, by weight and published their catalogue." My questions to both of you are: 1) How does this support your claim that "in the 1930s turkey sold the Ottoman state archives to Bulgaria"? 2)Where does the reference state that the "source clearly states that the Ottoman archives were in possesion of Bulgaria for quite a long period"? 3) If this is a credible reference shall we use it as a source in other Bulgaria related articles?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nostradamus, go socialize with some Holocaust deniers, I believe I'm speaking on the part of everyone by saying that your revisionism is not welcome here. And just to add some sense to this comment, here's Georges Castellan, a modern Sorbonne historian who has written this very neutral monograph called History of the Balkans, published in 1999 in Paris:
“
The Ottoman solution was built on the millet, that is, it is based on fundamental inequality that turned the Christians into second-class citizens, as were by the way the Jews in medieval Europe... They undoubtedly suffered under it — not the nobles that were exterminated during the conquests or had accepted Islam, but the clergy, the city merchants, the village elders. As for the village masses... their status of slaves already turns them into a "herd".
”
“
[In the time of decline] the Christians suffered much more than the Muslims because they were deprived of the right to possibly turn to the sultan or to the remains of central authority for help... it becomes easy for us to understand the catastrophic descriptions of the Balkans left by European travellers in the late 18th century. A yoke weighs on all peoples, and it has become heavier.
”
As you see, your authoritative international sources don't seem to agree with your Turkish perception of the Ottoman rule. Now, I'd kindly ask you to either quit your racist and anti-Bulgarian remarks or I'll have to ask for administrator attention here. Todor→Bozhinov23:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"go socialize with some Holocaust deniers"? Do you realize this is a personal attack? You do not deserve any further resonse other than mention that your quotations do not counter what I wrote. Obviously you can't make your case and revert to personal attacks.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Nostrodamus1 has problems reading and understanding things of a historical nature, it says on that web site[8], that the archival documents were bought back in the 1930s. You can find the information, written in English, here[9].
In the 1920s, such was the Republican reaction to all things Ottoman, a large part of the archives was sold to Bulgaria for scrap paper, only to be bought back some years later when its value, especially for dealing with legal matters such as land titles, were realised. -- The Middle East, p.230. Library Information and Research Service., 2004.
So, Turkey sold the archives in the 1920s, the Bulgarian historians studied these archives until they were solds back to Turkey in the 1930s? Don't you think some users need to correct their own statements here by answering my questions? But never mind I need no answer from you since your colors are already known.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where I said, "the Bulgarian historians studied these archives until they were ?solds? back to Turkey in the 1930s". For someone that egotistically determines whether someone is a historian, you seem to have a problem understanding simplistic facts. And as usual, you are in a rush to disprove information unacceptable to you. I understand you are terrified by documented history not sanitized by Shaw, McCarthy, Lowry, Findley, Hupchick, etc.... --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did not make such claims but the whole argument started when Avidius asserted that the Ottoman archives were sold to Bulgaria by Turkey in the 1930s and when I asked for a proof I was asked to disproove it myself. Is it supposed to work that way? And you not surprisingly came to these users' defence instead encouraging them to back up their claims. When one observes this general attitude it is quite hard to take such claims seriously. Regarding my "understanding simplistic facts", that's nonsense. I asked for facts and was told to find them myself. Is it supposed to work like that? But no, do not bother to answer since as I said I know your colors. You accuse others but you are one with clear bias and prejudice. What you did in Russo-Turksih War article as here leaves no room for doubt. A historian would not inster such a statement at the cost of breaking the entire timeline of events.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, a real historian doesn't allow cherry-picking of information and wholesale distortion of references. You took a sentence from Kinross and ignored everything else in the paragraph. This has been your problem since inception. You take the information that agrees with YOUR egotistical opinion and exclude what you don't like. You asked for "facts" as if YOU are THE authority. LOL. Once given facts that "you don't like", you exacerbate the situation by implying I said, "the Bulgarian historians studied these archives until they were ?solds? back to Turkey in the 1930s. Face it, you spend as much time pushing the Pan-Turk greatness as you do with your accusations of other's nationalism!! LMAO --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please we gave you numerous sources suporting my claim and you'd have found some yourself if you had bothered to look at least in internet. it seems you have prob;ems accepting facts that don't suit you but that is not our problem I consider the case closed, you lost, get over it!Avidius (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This section does not read well. Putting aside the factual inaccuracies and bias, it is too desultory and disorganised. I wrote something about the Ottoman conquest but I do not like it and will try to improve it over the next few days. As always, the effort is to put the most important facts from this period very briefly leaving the details for a separate article on the topic. I think that a better version existed before the edit warring at the end of 2007.
When I reread for the umpteenth time the text in Britannica, it seems more biased with each new reading, as well as uninformed. I see where both Hupchick and Crampton have found their inspiration. I don't feel it will do here. Compare it with Jiricek to see how facts clash with opinions.--Lantonov (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you should try to greatly reduce the length of that section. The article should be mainly concentrated on the Bulgarian statehood, not on the foreign domination - and that section is much longer that the one for the Second Empire. That does not mean that the Ottoman rule is not important (its consequences can be felt even now unfoprtunately) but if anyone is interested for details, there are two main articles on the topic. --Gligan (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, most of the artcles in Eastern Europe have too much junk in the history section, the articles should present the countries as they are now, the history should be only a summary and point to the "History of ..." articles where those issues can be presented in a more detailed manner. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, too. However, my problem is that it is easier for me to write long than to write short. Maybe I should leave the task to somebody else who is more laconic and organised. I am serious, no irony. I found one of the two detailed articles: History of early Ottoman Bulgaria and put it as a main article. Which is the other and should it be put as main? I can contribute to those with my explanatory style. --Lantonov (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More or less like you I am rather reticent to cut down texts written by other editors unless they are patently wrong or off topic. I am not that well versed in Bulgarian history but I 'll try my hand. Don't hesitate to intervene if necessary--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Georgos, I'll appreciate it. My style of writing is not fit for such all-encompassing articles where a word should say 10 things. Now I saw the 2 main articles, both with NPOV tags. They look very lean and underfed. Ok, I'll start working from that end. --Lantonov (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cut further the Ottoman conquest. It is rather well described in Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans with all necessary detail. Some things are shaky or dubious, e.g. it writes that Adrianopol was conquered by Murad when, in fact, it was Murad's military commander Lalashihin but those are small inaccuracies that can be found in any history article. --Lantonov (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Murad I taking Edirne is not inaccurate. Lala Shahin took it on Murad's orders. Do you think, say, Alexander the Great was present at every battle in taking over each city during his conquests? You need to improve on history.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it guys. In my eyes the article is *not* too far from WP:GA, but the history section needs to be more concise indeed. I'm willing to provide assistance if you need me, although I'm more obsessed with Vasil Levski at the moment :) Todor→Bozhinov20:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After you finish with the Apostle of Freedom, your help here will be greatly appreciated ;-) Like Lantonov, I also can't write in a short manner and consider what is the most important. But definitely in my opinion the whole history section should be rewritten and shortened especially the Ottoman rule and the Third State. --Gligan (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll get round to that when I can, we can't let a revisionist manipulate the facts in our history and inform us that we lived happily under Ottoman oppression :) I wonder what that guy will do next, insert quotes that Levski was an Ottoman agent? :D Anyways, there's a lot to do those days and I won't be very active in the weeks to come, for various reasons. I'll most likely be there to discuss changes and defend GA/FL nominations but I don't think I'll have the chance to write anything. Todor→Bozhinov18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning Nostradamus1, I don't think you (we) will ever have peace with him - he is writing nonsense and greater Turkish propaganda since he arrived here in the beginning of that year I think. Just see his "accurate and neutral" edits on Turks in Bulgaria, List of Turkic States and Empires or the Ottoman section here, or the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78. I think he is a Bulgarian Turk who understands Bulgarian who hates our country for some reason (that is just my opinion), нали така, мой турски приятелю? --Gligan (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lantonov, thank you for the heads up. Let us disregard Britannica, Crampton, and Hupchick. Let us ask Konstantin Jiricek - a Slav nationalist and a paid Bulgarian government official in the 19th century- about the Ottoman rule. I am sure the world will be well informed.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Nostradamus1, it would do good especially for you to read Konstantin Jiricek instead of the Turkish propaganda. It will show you how absurd are the lies that you are trying to push here. --Lantonov (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question
I find this piece of information "Contemporaries across the continent called the Bulgarian Emperor Tervel the Saviour of Europe" a bit puzzling since the term Europe at the time did not have the meaning it attained later. It is true that his intervention was absolutely decisive but I would really like to know which are those "contemporaries" across the continent? A ref would be wonderful--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well formulated question, after all what did the contemporaries know for Europe as a continent not mention as a single civilization... I have seen that and with the name of the Western chronicle who used that term but I can't remember where... I will check out some history books at the university library at some time next week although history literature there is scarce. --Gligan (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the prompt response. It would be very interesting to add this piece of information. Western european historiography seldom mentions the role of Soutn Eastern Europe as a bullwork against the waves of invaders from the east. Charles Martel seems to be the one and only hero in this frequently one sided western European narrative and I would be very interested to learn which medieval chronicler ever bothered to mention anything happening in the East.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Tervel's act may well have saved Europe from an Arabic invasion in the East, which, coupled with the invasion in the west, could lead to a very serious threat, but I'm not sure western chroniclers realized the importance of this act. It would be curious what the actual texts said; indeed, Martel is hailed as the Saviour of Europe, and to an extent Tervel is popular in Bulgarian mass media as the unrecognized Saviour of Europe, among other things. Todor→Bozhinov18:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to realize that Charles Martel managed to become such an iconic figure in the western narrative but Tervel did not make it. If there has been a western chronicler mentioning his name and role I would most certainly like to wait a little longer if Gligan can dig it up. It would be really intriguing.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything in the university library and I had very limited time there... I hope I can continue that kind of "research" next week. --Gligan (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Charles Martel is credited for personally leading his troops in the Battle of Tours. My understanding from the texts I've read is that Tervel sent troops to aid his Byzantine allies in Constantinople. Check out page 75. Tervel's contribution is certainly significant, and this same source--from a respected University of Michigan professor who specializes in Medieval Balkan history--voices his colleagues' views by characterizing the Byzantine victory as more significant than the Battle of Tours (and another battle in the Steppes). Perhaps that's usable in this article? Of course, I know I'm commenting late in the game, but I just noticed the "citation needed" tag attached to the "saviour of Europe" quote.Raskovnik (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theophanes
The factoid about the 22,000 Arabs massacred by the Bulgars is not meant as a true estimate of the Arab losses. Medieval chroniclers were notorious for inflating numbers (and Theophanes is certainly no exception) but at any rate there is no need to get obsessed over this. The wording is quite clear "According to the Byzantine chronicler Theophanes...", this does not mean any kind of endorsement of what he says. The information simply illustrates the importance of the Arab defeat on the hands of the Bulgars and the number should simply be taken with a pinch of salt. Be that as it may we should keep in mind that Theophanes remains the only source mentioning the confrontation and the defeat. Let's not dwell on that anymore.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
native language (demographics section)
The article states that '96.3% of the population speak Bulgarian as their mother tongue' is this a joke? hoestly this has to be fixed ASAP.
Starting the article with a dry formulation such as "Bulgaria ... is a state in the Balkans" drastically confines the subject. By equating "Bulgaria" definitively and exclusively with the idea of a present-day state, it does not give a fair summary of or introduction to Bulgaria, for the article itself reveals Bulgaria also as a cultural concept with a long history of statehood and non-statehood. Let's follow the recommentations of the Wikipedia lead section style guideline, especially MOS:BEGIN and craft an informative opening sentence that immediately defines the precise topic, puts it in a context, uses the title in the grammatical subject and gives some idea of its notability without restricting it to a mechanistic equation. Try something like: "The state of Bulgaria ... has formed a significant part of the Balkans in south-eastern Europe over many centuries. -- Pedant17 (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with File:Jordanoff.jpg
The image File:Jordanoff.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
