Jump to content

Talk:Bulgaria/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Another round

About round 999 of the recent reverts: Tourbillon's revert (with which I agree) beat me to it, but I would otherwise have inserted the following temporary compromise, to repair the damage of Ceco31's most recent version. Ceco31 even had the cheek of calling this the "stable version established years ago", which is little more than a bald-faced lie. Anyway, this would have been my interim lesser evil: 

|sovereignty_type = [[History of Bulgaria|Formation]] 
|established_event1 = Medieval states:
|established_event2 = [[First Bulgarian Empire]]
|established_date2 = 681
|established_event3 = [[Second Bulgarian Empire]] 
|established_date3 = 1185
|established_event4 = Modern state:
|established_event5 = [[Principality of Bulgaria]]
|established_date5 = 19 February 1878
|established_event6 = [[Bulgarian Declaration of Independence|Independence]]
|established_date6 = 22 September 1908

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Given this suggestion, I reckon that "medieval states" and "modern state" is unneccessary. Only look at Iran, founded in 600 BC, without stating modern and medieval states! Why modern and medieval should be stated in Bulgaria? Do you say that they were different states and do all other articles in Wikipedia just the opposite existed BC? If you think so I disagree, it is just visible nonsense China and Iran to be the same states with these BC while Bulgaria to be one far complete different case and almost founded in 1878, this is not true Bulgaria has a history too.--Ceco31 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks that you accepted a compromise, Future. Far as I know this was the 2006 version and many users were discussing much time and grounded the point too, if so we could say that we have consensus too.--Ceco31 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Why modern and medieval should be stated ? Maybe because the Middle Ages ended, like, 600 years ago ? Note that this is a temporary solution until the other party decides to treat the issue rationally, which is doubtful given certain users' quasi-paranoid experiences. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I welcome this compromise. However, if we are going to separate Bulgaria's history in medieval and modern, then I think we should add under "medieval states" Old Great Bulgaria, as well, since the only thing Asparuch did was to move the capital from Phanagoria southeast to Pliska after the defeat of Bulgaria by the Khazars. The Manasieva Chronic, written at the time of Ivan Alexander (I hope I am correct about the period) does not even mention Asparuch as a founder of Bulgaria but it traces Bulgarian History back to Kuvrat and 632. Nice, a??? Ceco31, Ximhua, Apcbg, good job guys. Future, good job as well. I hope that sanity will prevail and noone will vandalize from now on the infobox amputating 1200 years of history. The history section is generally always bad and people tend to skim quickly over it. Very few will notice that in the medieval ages Bulgaria was a large and important Empire, which existed as independent state for 6 1/2 centuries before going under Ottoman rule. The presence of these significant dates in the infobox will however fix the attention of the reader, which is a very good thing. Cheers.Espor (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Including "Old Great Bulgaria"? Absolutely no way. Forget it. And if you do not immediately strike out that accusation of "vandalism" in your posting above, you're off to WP:AE for a topic ban right first thing tomorrow morning, sure as eggs is eggs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I find the compromise proposed by Future Perfect at Sunrise acceptable. It could stay until a consensus is reched here (which seems highly unlikely), or rather until some general guidelines and standards for the history dates in country articles infoboxes are worked out (which I believe is necessary). (Surely the First Bulgarian Empire is a direct successor state to the Old Great Bulgaria and the year 632 ought to be listed under 'Medieval states', but I would not insist on that as each party has to make some concessions in a true compromise). Best, Apcbg (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you don't figure that this is a temporary compromise until you people actually start thinking what this article is all about. And it's not about Medieval states for sure, not to mention it being about Old Great Bulgaria, which is not even in the same geographic locale. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fut. Ref. I do not see any accusations of vandalism directed to nobody specifically, so your ban is really a poor attempt. I am sorry if you recognize yourself in the role of a vandal. Anyway, this shows once again how weak you really are. When you cannot beat someone on the playground of arguments, then why not become paranoid and try to ban him, LOL. I am sorry for you, really. Besides, you cannot prove any accusations for vandalism based on that since I was speaking in general. Are you trying to put words in my mouth? Is this the civil behavior you are demanding? Cheers.Espor (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The idea about setting 632 in the lead is ridiculous. The First Bulgarian state established in 681 was not the Second Bulgar's state. The original name of the state established in 632 was Onoghuria, not Bulgaria. More, it was founded by several Bulgar tribes on the territory of modern-day Ukraine. First Bulgarian state was established on the Balkans, only by one Bulgar tribe and with the support of the different local Slavic tribes in the area, which had still begun to mix them with the numerous Romanized and Hellenized native Thracians' descendants. Also, there are any reliable neutral scientific sources in support of this strange view. Jingiby (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope that is not true. The original name of the state established in 632 was precisely Bulgaria, in fact Byzantine sourses refer to it as Old Great Bulgaria. Onughuria is the name used in western tradition. Well, I referred above to the Manasiev Chronichs from the 13. century which stipulate that Kouvrat is the founder of Bulgaria and only mention Asparuch marginally as a ruler who shifts the capital. As for a modern source, I know that Prof. Bakalov and Prof. Dimitrov support this thesis and they are quite main stream historians. Also some of the books of Peter Dobrev mention this. If I am not banned till then I will search for concrete documents which can be attached in the bibliography after the article.Espor (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And all that relates to the economy, demographics, politics and culture of this article how ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Old Great Bulgaria was known exactly as Old Great Bulgaria at the time of its existence, this is how it is referred in the Eastern Roman Empire at that time. The geography span wouldn't much matter, since during Khan Asparuh, the country simply expanded to the south west and lost the territories to the north east. Ximhua (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not know, here was science-fiction forum for propaganda of Bozhidar Dimitrov's bullshets. Jingiby (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

So your argument is insulting one of the leading historians in Europe? How convincing. Ximhua (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why 632 is being discussed, adding it in the infobox is completely out of the question. In fact, even the years 681 or 1185 are irrelevant as foundation dates and there's still no valid explanation provided as to why they should be in the infobox of a modern state. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

632 is the year Great Old Bulgaria was established, which simply moved south and east. It is an integral part of Bulgaria's history. That's why. Ximhua (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see you using the "language, symbols, religion" argumentation pattern to prove a connection between the Third Bulgarian state and this one. It's just out of the question. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
So any valid arguments on why Medieval political entities should be in the infobox, or there are no objections to remove them ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are getting disruptive again. The consensus is the current version with 618 in it. We are discussing adding 632, not removing the other ones. Don't you even think for a second that this page is not monitored daily for vandalism. Ximhua (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll tell you the same thing I told the other guy the other day: if your very next edit is not removing that remark about "vandalism" in the posting above, you're off to WP:AE for a ban. Apart from that, no, we are definitely not discussing adding 632 (it is completely out of the question); yes, we are definitely still discussing removing 681 again (no objection from me), and no, the current state is not a "consensus" but nothing but a very temporary and uncertain compromise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
@Ximhua - you can keep pretending, but current consensus is that 681, 1185 and anything before 1878 should be out of there. The discussion is about you providing a valid argument why the years you want to include should be there. For now, the only things that have come from your end of the dispute are some rambling about double standards, excuses of the "it's a Wikipedia practice" and "that's how other articles are" type (those can't even be counted as arguments), accusations of the other party "not knowing history", and some explanations about ethnicity and religion that are related to nation, and not statehood. None of the sources you ever provided states that modern Bulgaria - the one with its own constitution and indivisibility of borders - began in 681 or 1185. In a nutshell, you wasted a number of Wikipedians' valuable time for a completely unconstructive discussion only because having a certain year (already mentioned twice in the article itself) in the infobox would make things look more patriotic or whatever. You can either present a rational, unbiased argument that is not a complete strawman and is straight to the point, or this can be considered a closed issue. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Troubillon, this is not Spokie pedia, this is Wikipedia and since you have not presented any arguments to support your absurd statements, you can rest assured that there are enough sane editors, who will not allow you to continue with this. @Fut. enough with your procedural tricks, I can also request you banned. Instead of wasting everybody's time, please simply google foundation of Bulgaria and educate yourself. Ximhua (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So you don't have any arguments. Good, then we're finally done. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless you present a valid source that states that Bulgaria was not founded in 681, you will be ignored. Ximhua (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So I guess my ban is over and I am ready to contribute again. @Fut. Perf. yes, we are discussing adding 632 very seriously, if not in the box than at least in the history section. And nope, we are not moving away 681(at least not before moving away 968 from Germany's info box). I would like to know who you are to say what is out of question? You are just an editor, so be more constructive. We are here to discuss and if you do not like that than do not waste our time with your presence. @Jingiby: here is a reference to 632: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essential_History_of_Bulgaria_in_Seven_Pages. Here is a quotation:

" The Eastern Roman Empire (called Byzantium by modern 

historians) recognized the new state in 635 AD. Kubrat’s successor Khan
Asparuh expanded Great Bulgaria on the Balkan Peninsula, conquering the
Byzantine territories of Moesia and Scythia Minor (present Miziya and
Dobrudzha – the lands between the Balkan Mountains, the Danube, and Black
Sea). A 681 peace treaty with Byzantium, and the establishment of the new
capital Pliska south of the Danube River is considered the beginning of the First
Bulgarian Empire."

Pay attention to the second sentence of the above text: 

"...Kubrat’s successor Khan
Asparuh expanded Great Bulgaria on the Balkan Peninsula..."

In another words, Asparuh continues Old Great Bulgaria on the Balkans. Moreover this is a reference from the Wikipedia article on Bulgaria, which has been used in the History section. The Manasieva chronicle is a historic document and has nothing to do with Bozhidar Dimitrov. He is not my favourite historian neither but he is definitely more credible than the sources of Tourbillon, for instance, which were not even historic books but some books about folklore dancing and politics.Espor (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: I suggest that we close the present discussion. Apparently, it is leading to no consensus. It could be resumed at some future point, hopefully with more editors from those who are otherwise contributing to the article. In the meantime, let's leave the infobox history dates alone, respecting the current temporary compromise. Okay? Apcbg (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The temporary, so-called "compromise", version is just that: temporary. It will only last as long as discussion lasts. This whole "discussion" (such as it is) is to decide if dates not pertaining to the current state of Bulgaria (e.g. 681) should be included in the infobox. If, as you say, there is no consensus, it will revert to the pre-discussion version without 681 in the infobox.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 15:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the current box is almost the same as the consensus one from 2006 which means that if we stop the dispute we have to reserve that current version and not deleting the dates. If some of you want to delete go the Serbia page or the Czech page or the Germany page. There you can delete plenty of irrelevant dates in their info boxes.Espor (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear William, the present discussion was inspired by a content dispute on the infobox historical dates that started in mid June. Prior to that, the date 681 was in the infobox as you may see in this 1st June 2012 version. So I'm uphoing my proposal. Apcbg (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe there is nothing more to add than what has already been said. It's up to the other side to present a rational argument why the Bulgaria this article concerns should be considered to have begun in 681. There are First Bulgarian Empire (from 681) and Second Bulgarian Empire (from 1185/6), therefore there's no reason why this infobox here should include anything earlier than 1878, provided that there is no political continuity between modern and Medieval Bulgaria (which is blatantly obvious and already explained in detail several times). - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Espor and Apcbg: your argument regarding which version to revert to, namely, "prior to [the present discussion] the date 681 was in the infobox" is fallacious. The state of the infobox prior to the current discussion is totally irrelevant. There have been content disputes since this article was created, so by your logic, we should revert to a blank page because "that's how it was before any dispute". The question at hand is "Should any date prior to the founding of the modern state in 1878 be included in the infobox?" There is no consensus for including 681 in the infobox, so it can not be put in.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 18:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
William Thweatt wrote above: "it will revert to the pre-discussion version," and now suddenly "The state of the infobox prior to the current discussion is totally irrelevant". What happened, seems you didn't like the pre-discussion version which proved to be with, not without 681. If there were debates on 681 in the past, they took place not every day, month or even year. There were years of stability among them based on some agreement or consensus, and the last such years of stability before the present discussion featured a version with 681 included. So you cannot discuss 'the inclusion' of 681 but its removal for which there is no consensus. Let's not repeat the above discussion all over again, that's what I'm saying. Apcbg (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well Encyclopedia Britannica, clearly states that Modern Bulgaria started in 681, so I think this is without question. The 632 would be better, as Great Old Bulgaria simply moved south and west. So, that year makes sense to be in the infobox as well. Ximhua (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Apcbg, there have been a lot of debates on this article on numerous issues, which have only served as an improvement. You can't claim that a version is better only because it has been there for years, a lot of incorrect or unnecessary statements were in the article for years as well, and if we follow your reasoning, they should be reintroduced. It's just plain obvious that the reason this entire debate appeared is because you just think the year 681 should be in the infobox as some sort of grand monument to Bulgarian statehood. If Bulgaria was the same political entity as the one from the 7th century, then First Bulgarian Empire must immediately be renamed to History of Bulgaria (681-1018). Do you see where your reasoning fails now ? This article is not about Medieval states, and it has never been. It's about the modern state of Bulgaria, modern in the sense of having laws, separation of power, sovereignty and independence (because an empire whose ruler can divide it between his heirs is neither sovereign nor independent, it's just a feudal territory). The usage of "modern" in EB is yet again in the context of modern Bulgaria, because the Britannica article also concerns primarily the post-1878 history, the rest is what you call "historical background". - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well Britannica, as well as any history book on the history of Bulgaria states that Bulgaria started in 681 or 632, given the purpose of the infobox, and its build in structure with 9 dates, it would make sense to add 632 as well, since it is an integral date in the history of Bulgaria. Ximhua (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Tourbillon, The First and the Second Bulgarian Empires had laws, separation of power in the sense of well established hierarchy, they were independent and they were not "feudal territories". You just made a self-refuting argument. The third Bulgarian State is not the same political entity, which is entirely fine, but it steps on them. Iran is also not the same political entity as the Sassanid empire, neither Germany is the same political entity as the Frankish Holly Roman Empire of Otto the Great, nor is Serbia the same political entity as Principality of Rashka. The list goes on to infinity. The bottom line is that Old Great Bulgaria/The First Bulgarian Empire justify the right for existence of the Third Bulgarian State. If there were no Old Great Bulgaria/First Bulgarian Empire and Second Bulgarian Empire there would never be a Russian-Turkish Liberation war in 1877/78 in first place. It was called Liberation war precisely because its aim was to liberate Bulgaria after century long Islamic rule and not to found some new state. The San Stefano treaty even used medieval political maps of Bulgaria to determine the boarders of the revived state. The capital was established in Turnovo as a symbol of the rebirth of the Bulgarian statehood. Even in the Bulgarian mentality 1878 is a marginal year. Many people don't even know it, let alone 1908. But everybody knows 681. If you kill 681 you kill automatically 1878 as well, because the year 1878 in itself is a nonsense.
It is completely correct to say that the history of the First Bulgarian Empire is the history of Bulgaria in the period 680/681-1018. Besides, the First Bulgarian Empire referred to itself as Bulgaria, anyway, so I do not see where Apcbg's reasoning fails.Espor (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong, since separation of powers means the presence of independent legislative, executive and judiciary institutions, which Medieval Bulgaria never had. Tribes also have a hierarchy, that doesn't mean they have separation of powers or any institutions at all. And no state that is feudal is sovereign. Since you have probably skipped that class, I'll remind you that "sovereignty" includes indivisibility of borders - they can't be changed by the will of one person, as had happened with the SBE in 1371. In this sense, the Third Bulgarian State was the first truly sovereign, truly independent state, and that is pointed out in several sources above. The aforementioned reasoning fails because if you keep insisting that Bulgaria started in 681, the terms "First Bulgarian Empire" and "Second Bulgarian Empire" should be erased and replaced with "History of Bulgaria (681-1018)" and "History of Bulgaria (1018-1185)". It just shows the major contradiction of your whole argument - you do admit that the TBS is not the same political entity. It obviously isn't, otherwise we wouldn't have the notions "First" and "Second Bulgarian State" in historiography. It doesn't matter if there is historical basis for such a state to exist - the issue is whether this state exists from 681, which is what you imply, or did it begin from scratch in 1878, as had indeed happened. Since the article is about this state, and not previous ones, and it discusses the aspects of this modern state, claiming a foundation date of 681 for it is irrelevant. Besides, it's already correctly mentioned in the intro, and in the history section. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The presented information is of insignificant value. You project modern day principles and definitions to the medieval times, which is of course a fallacy. The Bulgarian Empire was a sovereign state according to the medieval standards, which is also the correct context for a historical discussion. It had a territorial integrity, its boarders were recognized by its neighbors, as attested in uncountably many political maps from the period 7-15. century and even well beyond; the sovereign of the state was the kanasubigi/tsar(emperor) and it had a sophisticated social and administrative structures of non-Roman type (in fact the only European state at that time which did not borrow the administrative structures and titles from the romans). The administrative entities of the FBE are well known in history. It is absolutely beyond any shadow of doubt that according to the juridical standards of their time the Bulgarian Empires were independent/sovereign states and you cannot change that by quoting fancy 20. century definitions from your textbook in Law. They were recognized by the Roman Empire as well as their instant neighbors and at some point the Roman Empire even paid a tribute to the Bulgarian tsardom . The F/SBE had economic relations spreading from Venice to Kievsk' Russ and Francia, which is a matter of historic account as well. In other words they had all the marks of sovereign medieval states. It is absolutely logical and expected that the notion of sovereignty changes in the course of time. One is obliged however to consider historic events in the context of their time. As for the separation of powers, in communist Bulgaria before 1991 the power was centralized i.e. there was no separation of powers in the modern sense. So we should put 1991 as the founding date of present day Bulgaria, a?
You might have overlooked what I have written in my last sentence above. The FBE and the SBE are the History of Bulgaria in the periods 681-1018 and 1185-1396, respectively and this should be clear to anyone with sense of historicity.Espor (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Well I guess there's no point in explaining one year worth of science po if you think a map and trade relations define a state, is there ? Maybe you should read the linked articles above to get a better grasp. And even if, by some absurd reasoning (which would in any case indeed be absurd) one accepts what you've listed as attributes of a sovereign state, none of those characteristics survived past 1396. The "fancy 20. century definitions" may not be relevant in the local patriotic tavern, but out here, in the real world, they're a must - which explains why you and a couple of other people don't really catch the tune. Scratching the surface won't convince anyone that two separate 14th and 19th century states are the same thing. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 20:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this article about Bulgaria, which formed for over 13 centuries. The Bulgarian alphabet for example formed in the IX century, the national symbols formed in the XII century. That is why each country article in WP has a history section. To limit the info box to the latest political entity is not helping a reader to get a good perspective. Thus, 681 should remain and 632 should be added for the purposes of completeness. Ximhua (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, if it were as you say, then the other sections would've reflected 13 centuries of economic, geographic and political development. Thus any year before 681 would be misleading as a foundation date, because this article does not include any information on any aspect other than history prior to 1878, and this is the way it should be. The reader can get good enough a perspective from reading the article; if you only read the infobox, that doesn't mean other readers have such a problem. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course other sections do mention it - the alphabet is a prime example. And if geography for example is missing something, we should improve geography and make the overall article better, rather than removing dates and making it less informative an incomplete for the reader. Ximhua (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading a different article, the other sections don't reflect anything prior to 1878, except for Culture, which is only natural considering the wide span of the term. I'm afraid to think of your definitions of "complete" might be, and this is turning in a totally different direction, which makes me think this discussion is depleted without any rational argument provided as to why Medieval states should be in the infobox. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Culture is a wide term, as you stated, as it covers many aspects of statehood, as alphabet, language, symbols, etc. and it is great that it is already in the article. We should improve the other sections and include more information from the First and Second Bulgarian Empire to make the article better. We should also include 632 in the infobox as it is integral to the formation of Bulgaria. Ximhua (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Back to this again? Culture covers zero aspects of statehood. You are again confusing states and nations. For more information see Sovereign state, which differentiates the two. CMD (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The article says that nation and sovereign states are almost synonyms. Moreover according to the Westphalian definition the medieval states were sovereign with the tsar instead of the common people being the sovereign. They have never been feudal territories as Tourbillon tries to imply. Bulgaria has never been vassal to external powers. The reader who reads this article wants to know as much as possible about Bulgaria, and not about some specific period of the history of Bulgaria. Everything belongs there as it is now. Later some new lines about the relation between Bulgaria and Old Great Bulgaria need to find place for the sake of completeness.83.78.64.139 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
^ Nice one, though block evasion is actually counterproductive and there's now even less (or no) reason to keep something a persistent user wants to see. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Clearly you haven't actually read the article properly. It notes they may be used as synonyms in casual usage, but then goes on to distinguish them; the words may have multiple meanings, but the concepts are very different. It's quite telling that you've spent ages trying to say Bulgaria was formed in 681, providing sources and arguing to try and prove this, but when there's another option that fits your POV, to push the date back further, you more than happily toss everything about 681 out of the window. CMD (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Nothing left to debate here, IMO. The other party hasn't provided anything that isn't baseless or unrelated, not to mention that they don't even agree on the same dates. I seriously think we should consider this resolved and move forward, otherwise we'll just keep wasting time. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
As the arguments seem to have come to alphabets providing statehood and states and nations being the same thing, I'd have to agree. CMD (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
For couple of days I was gone and you celebrate victory? LOL. The whole time you are circling around without saying anything deep. States do not fall from the sky. I read the article on sovereign states carefully enough to see its uselessness for the current discussion. There are different competing definitions presented in the article each with its flaws. As a matter of fact no matter which of the presented definitions you take medieval Bulgaria was a sovereign state according to all of them. Pay attention to one of the given definitions which says that in order a new state to become sovereign it is necessary to be recognized by others states. I remember Tourbillon mocking this argument when I remarked that among other things Bulgaria was recognized by other European medieval states in the 7. century. It seems the other side doesn't honor its own sources when they refute their point of view... But look what the article goes to say:
"There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood."
In other words, according to the very source you point to, there is no stable definition for a statehood. And still you insist that ancient Bulgaria was not a sovereign state according to some mystical modern day definition of statehood which as it turns out doesn't even exist. What a logic! Furthermore, what about the separation of powers argument that Tourbillon made?? During the communist era there was no separation of powers in Bulgaria, everything was centralized. Does this imply 1991 as the founding year of Bulgaria since 1991 is the year in which Bulgaria became a pluralistic democratic state with separation of powers??? I hope you see the emptiness of your arguments.
I was very consistent regarding the founding date of Bulgaria. It is 632 AD. Bulgaria's capital was moved by Asparuh in 680 from Phanagoria to Pliska. He did not create a new state but continued the tradition of his father's state which is clearly stipulated in the peace treaty between the Roman Empire and Bulgaria in 681. The fact that the romans were referring to the political entity Bulgaria rather than to the tribal entity Bulgarians like in the case of the Gauls or the Goths etc. in other peace treaties shows that in 681 there has already been a state Bulgaria. Otherwise they would not refer to Bulgaria if there was not already such a state at that time. For the sake of the compromise I will not push for 632 to be included in the box. Later, however, I will add a sentence in the history section which makes the connection between Old Great Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire. @CMD:I think you should study what a nation and what a state mean and then when you are done with your studies you should be able to understand that no one is confusing both notions, which on the top of all are not even precisely defined!!!
To sum up, there is no solid argument which rebukes 632/681 as the birthday of Bulgaria. Even the word game with the definition of statehood could not help you since on the top of all the there is no generally accepted definition of statehood, especially when it comes to the medieval period. So we have to go after what the historians say. And historians unanimously point to the 7th century as the founding date of Bulgaria. It is fair to agree with their opinion. All of your arguments are self-styled and not serious to anyone who has a basic understanding of the matter. Personal opinions in the articles of Wikipedia are not welcome and the idea that Bulgaria was some how born out of the vacuum in 1878 is your personal opinion unsupported by any evidence, any serious scholar and even by your own definition of sovereignty. Besides, the dates 1878 is in the box anyway so any one can see it. Obviously, you don't want to see the history of Bulgaria so long, you refer to keep it short, if possible as short as FYROM's history. Espor (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Ximhua directly above quoted "The article says that nation and sovereign states are almost synonyms", so yes, quite clearly someone has managed to mix the two up. As for your other arguments, no-one has disagreed that there was a Bulgaria in the middle ages (which by the way, didn't come out of a vacuum either). The point is that modern Bulgaria didn't emerge out of the previous states. It was created from the Ottoman Empire. If I wanted to cut Bulgaria's history, I'd cut the history. There's a whole section devoted to it. CMD (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Not only there's a whole section devoted to it, there's an entire article on Bulgarian history with a size of about 90 kb. If one wants to read the complete history, the article is readily linked as a main in the History section. Not our problem that some people wouldn't read it and would therefore prefer only to stick a few dates here to highlight their own misunderstanding on what statehood is. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It was not Ximhua, it was me. And that is exactly what the article says. It says that in casual usage the notions "country", "nation", and "state" are interchangeable but if you want to be very very very exact then they could be distinguished. I guess you have to read your own sources more carefully. Later the article does not discuss the difference between nation and sovereignty at all. Instead it gives couple of different possible definitions for sovereignty and even remarks that there is no unanimously accepted definition of statehood. The idea is that we cannot change the article based on things which are not even clear what they mean. You say "...modern Bulgaria didn't emerge out of the previous states. It was created from the Ottoman Empire." This sentence not just doesn't make any sense it is false. You have to define what "emerge" means. Do you mean time gap??? Well, then you have to argue what makes Bulgaria different than Germany or the Czech Republic, for instance-Germany did not "emerge" from the Holy Roman Empire, neither since there was 70 years time gap between both entities and moreover Germany's political and social structures did not inherit practically anything from the political and social structures of the HRE. So according to your standards Germany's founding date should be 1871 and not 962. Likewise the Czech Republic did not "emerge" from the Bohemian Kingdom nor has Serbia "emerged" from Principality of Rashka etc. Outside of Europe you have Iran, Armenia etc. as examples. In the light of this if you remove the medieval dates from the info box that will mislead the reader because based on his experience with the articles of practically all other states he would expect the same pattern for Bulgaria as well. Seeing only 1878 he would think that Bulgaria like Rumania or albania or greece was indeed founded in 1878, which is of course not true. Noone in Bulgaria celebrates 1878 as the founding year, only as the liberation year. Case closed.Espor (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, my apologies to Ximhua then. And no, the notions aren't interchangeable, the words are. Both "nation" and "sovereign state" have a very specific notion, which their articles deal with (country on the other hand, is a word which can cover a great deal of separate notions). No article spends a long time discussing the difference between nations and sovereign states, as they have their own individual articles, which I've read. Emerge (specifically 4). The sentence made perfect sense. There was an Ottoman Empire, and part of it became Bulgaria. Thats quite simple and clear cut. Germany on the other hand emerged from a series of confederations that go back to the Holy Roman Empire. That 70 year gap is other German entities, not an annexation. As for the other examples, you make a solid point, those didn't emerge either. CMD (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Well that's exactly the idea. Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Romania and actually all Balkan sovereign states were founded in the late 19th century. It's misleading to present them as being founded in the Middle Ages, because none of these countries had preserved or developed anything from that era in terms of form of government or political structure. They were basically modeled on Western European monarchies. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion since its inception, and I am (given my formal training, informal interests and utter repulsion to argumentative inconsistencies, tendencies toward oligarchism and as a result the application of double-standards [as so often happens when "aristocratic " hierarchies are created, both physical and virtual]) impelled to join the discussion. I am, as the name so explicitly suggests, an adherent to the use of FOL (First Order Logic) to identify logical consistencies, logical possibilities and logical necessities. Every language and every interaction, including this "debate", can be broken down into arguments that are unambiguous. Truth values are then assigned to these arguments (for example to elemental conjuncts and disjuncts) so that the total truth of a statement can be assessed. A great deal of time is devoted to following the connections, if you will, which we can generally define as functions and predicates that are used to construct atomic sentences as well as to interlace them with other atomic sentences into molecular sentences. I have taken the reductionist approach; translated this discussion into FOL (reducing all statements into atomic sentences) > synthesizing these atomic sentences primarily into conjunctions and disjunctions (incorporated Boolean connectives, logical and tautological equivalence and consequence, informal and formal proofs [specifically using Fitch] ) > additions of quantifiers, Aristotelian forms, axiomatic forms > method of existential instantiation > method of general conditional proof > set theory (emphasis on naive set theory [to construct a model of collective/cultural/national continuity], singletons and pairs, Zermelo Frankel set theory [ZFC]) > inductive mechanisms > completeness for propositional logic > and skolemization) so that I may methodically analyze its content and deduce both a "general" conclusion as well as "particular" conclusions. I am as a result joining this debate, and propose to you that Bulgaria is at least as much a product of its original foundation in the form of the First Bulgarian Empire in 681 AD as France is a product of Francia (486 AD), Germany is a product of The Holy Roman Empire (972 AD) and Russia is a product of the Rurik Dynasty (862 AD), and as a consequence, of Kievan Russ (882 AD).

I am, as a result of deeply researching those involved in the discussion, fully aware of the hostile, evasive, selective, semantically ornamented and coercive reactions that I am likely to encounter. That is, unfortunately, a part of human discourse and something I am quite accustomed to (though fond of it, I am not). This is an intro gentlemen, and this is it for today.

Ipsa scientia potestas est et candor dat viribus alas.Predicate-Logician (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Without being "semantically ornamented", I'd ask you how this Bulgaria can be considered to have been founded in 681 when the gap between the current and the 7th century entities amounts to 500 years (700 if we take the Byzantine period into consideration) ? Keeping it short will be helpful too. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
You've evaluated the wrong question. Of course Bulgaria is in part a product of the middle age Kingdoms; it's a product of history (hence the history section). The question is whether these were where modern Bulgaria's sovereignty was established. CMD (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
That point of the discussion has never been evaluated by the other party, and to be honest, all these SPAs are getting somewhat annoying. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
@Predicate-Logician, Nice and original way to expose the utter lack of logic and self-consistency of the other party. @ Torbillon, there is a profound difference between Albania, Romania and Greece on one side and Bulgaria on the other side. The difference is that the former actually do NOT have medieval roots whereas Bulgaria traces back its origin to the medieval times and bears the same name for 14 centuries unlike any of the above countries. Interesting that you mention countries like Albania, Romania and Greece which have actually never been mentioned while you skip serbia, which was actually mentioned several times as as analogous to Bulgaria case. Serbia traces back its origin to medieval times. On the top of all it existed as an independent state for not more than 2, 3 centuries. Still no actions on your behalf to correct serbias info box although its article should be accessible for you. Seems like you are interested not in the principle but to whom it applies. If it is Bulgaria, then we have to be principal and strike off 1200 years of history, if it is serbia then suddenly editors are nor obliged to monitor and correct all WP articles, lool. Very fishy, dude. @CMD: So now it turns out that the source you have given to me is not clear enough so in order to understand it I actually have to read two more articles, lool. You gave an article and I showed you its inconsistency. Next time select your sources more carefully. Cool that you finally admit that Bulgaria is related to the medieval tsardoms. If there is a relation between them that means that you admit the line of succession and the talk should be closed right there. I find it very amusing how your party changes its arguments every time it gets pushed to the wall.Espor (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Your assumption that somebody wants to "write off 1,200 years of history" doesn't do much to improve your situation. There's a History of Bulgaria article, properly linked from this one, quite large and with a huge amount of sources. Nobody wants to "write history off", what has to be written off here are establishment dates that are for past political entities, not for this one. I believe there's nothing left to argue about here. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
In my first post in this discussion, I wrote "[Bulgaria] formed under a national identity, that connected it to the previous kingdoms", so contrary to your assertions, the arguments have remained consistent (and no, a link does not imply a line of succession). You've pointed out no inconsistency in any sources, just shown your lack of understanding of them with phrases such as "nation and sovereign states are almost synonyms", which you went on to argue even further afterwards. CMD (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The fact that there is a "history of Bulgaria" article is irrelevant since every article should be self-consistent. People who read the Bulgaria article might not be interested in History but only in basic facts about the Bulgarian state and the founding year is definitely one of the first things that people look for. Removing the founding year from the info box is irrational and you were not able to substantiate it with reasons which one could not apply to every other country in Europe or around the globe-most notably Serbia, Germany, but also France etc. Every time one points out this problem you twist facts around. @CMD: I did not say "nation and sovereign states are almost synonyms", I simply quoted the mind blowing source you sent me. Moreover, I quoted from your link that there is no generally accepted definition for a sovereign state. Moreover, I said that any of the given definitions of a sovereign state actually recognize the medieval tsardoms ( Ohh, yes, Bulgaria actually has never been a kingdom, you haven't got even that right and you are arguing with me about History) as sovereign states. By the way, Tourbillon's original argument was that the medieval states did not have separations of powers and were just feudal territories, therefore their founding years should be dismissed. I remarked that Communist Bulgaria also did not have separation of powers for sixty years and that post-communist Bulgaria was politically and structurally unrelated to Tsardom of Bulgaria 1878-1944. Then using Tourbillon's logic I concluded that the correct founding year of modern Bulgaria is 1991. He saw his flaw and continued to speak only of sovereignty which as we saw doesn't lead to anywhere. In History there is a notion called "reestablishment of the statehood". That is what happened in 1878 and that is how this date has always been understood by professional historians as well celebrated by common people in Bulgaria. The rest is just speculation and you know that very well.Espor (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
So if I'm understanding correctly, you think it matters more if a certain date is placed somewhere, and it doesn't matter if there's a whole article covering in detail the entire history of the country. That will certainly convince everyone that you seek not to improve, but merely to stick nationalist exaggeration in a country article. I decided not to say anything on your comment about Communist Bulgaria lacking separation of powers because such a statement is...well, it gets close to the statement that the Second Bulgarian Empire had Roman law in place, but still doesn't beat it on the ridiculous scale. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Socratian word games won't help you. It is good that there is a History article but that doesn't mean that the basic facts about Bulgaria's history can be swept out under the carpet just because there is an article somewhere which contains this facts. I spoke about self-consistency. The current article is not self-consistent. It is not even clear what the topic of the article is. You claim that it only deals with the Third Bulgarian state but you don't state that anywhere explicitly and moreover you have a history section dealing briefly with the medieval entities. So which one is it? If the article is about all of Bulgaria as the structure of the page suggests then why is 681 missing? If it is about the Third state only, why is this not stated anywhere? As for Communist Bulgaria, yes it was a centralized state and the fact that you do not know that or you try to whitewash it only shows how unqualified all your remarks are. "The Second Bulgarian Empire had Roman law in place.."??- I do not know what your talking about.Espor (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Well this article is discussing modern Bulgaria's aspects. I don't see anything about Medieval economy or demographics in it, so it's obviously not concerning the First or the Second Bulgarian states. I suggest you read what separation of powers means before making other remarks on the issue. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Where is it stated that the article deals with the third state? It is not self-evident. You have to state that in the preamble or below the title. Don't send me articles that you don't understand. Me understanding it will not make you more knowledgable than you already are. Espor (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago I have noticed several interesting facts and misinterpretations in the English version of the WP article about Bulgaria. One of them was the fact that the founding year of Bulgaria is not present in the infobox, where the year 1878 was mentioned instead. Fortunately, I found that other people were also confused by that fact and followed with interest your discussion, thinking that the suggestion made by Fut. Perf. would be accepted. However, I was disappointed to see that after all the article was edited once again, returning to its initial unsatisfying form. As I can see that the editors taking part in this discussion obviously pretend to be following strictly formal rules and definitions I am still concerned about the consistency of the present article.

My biggest concern: - An article could not be called “Bulgaria” if it is referring solely to the Third Bulgarian State, or as you called it “modern Bulgaria” (a name indicating that it’s just a part of the entire topic “Bulgaria”, which is not the case when you call it “Bulgaria” as it is at the moment - this is definitely misleading). If I am writing an article about Playstation I should not call it Sony, should I? So there are only two correct solutions of this problem – the name of the article is changed so that it clearly indicates that it describes only this last, modern section of Bulgarian history and an additional article about the historical term “Bulgaria” is created OR the periods of the First and Second Bulgarian Empire are added in the infobox, indicating 681 as the year when the existence of Bulgaria was “attested” by The Byzantine Empire or 632 as the year of founding.

- All articles should fit to the same formal criteria, if you want to be precise and correct to the readers of WP. By this means, I would not be able to understand why, as mentioned above, articles about Germany, Serbia, Armenia etc. would have plenty of history in their infoboxes and Bulgaria not. Thus, either you state that the "Second Bulgarian Empire" is not connected with "modern Bulgaria" and then according to the same criteria there is no formal connection between the HRE and Germany etc. and these articles are corrected OR you apply the same criteria used for Germany, Serbia, Armenia etc. for all articles and add in the infobox of the Bulgaria-article a section of "Formation" where all three periods of the Bulgarian history are mentioned. Otherwise, as it is at the moment, you apply different standards which is unprofessional. From your discussion above it became obvious that formally there is no difference between e.g. HRE and Germany and the SBE and modern Bulgaria. The time span between the "founding of the two states" could not be an objective criteria as it goes in the direction of culture, nation etc. which was stated to be irrelevant for this topic.

To keep it short I would not go into details in some inconsistencies in particular arguments in this discussion, as I am not willing to get into personal conflicts with any of the people involved. Taken together, due to the fact that changing the infobox section of the present article is much more appropriate than changing the name of the article and making another additional article about Bulgaria, I would suggest an "Formation" section in the infobox of the article "Bulgaria" with the founding years of the three important historical periods in the history of Bulgaria. Moreover, I could not see why such a change might be misleading or incorrect, in contrast to the present version of the article.PPMit (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't you people understand that the amount of single-purpose accounts talking about "unprofessional" editing is inversely proportional to the attention you deserve ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this comment mean that new editors do not deserve attention? Is this the way how the discussions and improvement in WP should function - tagging someone who is new as single-purpose account and deleting its edit without any explanation? I have given two very clear arguments for my edit suggestion and don't see any understandable contra arguments. Furthermore, my arguments are independent of each other. I was thinking that Wikipedia is a place where an article could be improved by discussing with objective arguments but it seems that I might have been wrong. Nevertheless, I would expect an logical explanation why my arguments and suggested edit were so rapidly rejected. I would hope, as well, that more experienced editors would not treat other user's/editor's opinion as less important than their own opinion - I don't think that I have been offensive in any of my comments in order to become a response like that.PPMit (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

PPMit, SPA does not mean new user; it means a user obsessed with only one topic, say "Bulgaria", or several related topics. For example Espor is older than you in WP (BTW where is s/he since you came in?) but still an SPA, as s/he writes almost only on Bulgaria, Bulgarians and my TP. :-) --E4024 (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the new edit of the infobox - I believe that it is an acceptable solution for the problems I have mentioned above and it is definitely a better version compared to what we had so far. @E4024, I can see what you mean, but my idea was, that according to that criteria any new user would be initially an SPA, right? Even when I am interested in many other topics, I would not find simultaneously mistakes in articles in different topics and thus would look initially like SPA. So therefore I think that the comment that "the amount of single-purpose accounts talking about "unprofessional" editing is inversely proportional to the attention you deserve" was inappropriate and wrong. Quite the contrary - the amount of "SPA" indicating the same point of concern in an article is an evidence that something is not alright indeed and therefore I am glad that a solution of the problem was found.PPMit (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


@PPMit: you have absolutely captured some of the grand flaws in the argumentation of the other party. Quite true, the increasing number of new editors who do not agree with or are confused by the logic of tourbillon and co. indicates that there is an intrinsic problem with the other party's reasoning. @E4024: I am interested in Bulgaria and its History, I do not see anything wrong about it. On the contrary, that makes me a narrow contributer on one field only which increases the likelihood for objectivity and exactness of the contributions I make. You should be worried about people who simultaneously edit articles on quantum physics and, say, ancient Egypt. Such "Multi purpose accounts" are much more damaging than users who deal with one topic only. On the top of all, according to your own standards you are a SPA yourself since your contributions almost entirely deal with one topic: Turkey. U see my point? As for the current version, I am glad that the dates under consideration have been finally put where they belong-in the infobox. However, I do not understand since when the Bulgarian Tsardoms are kingdoms? Medieval Bulgaria has never been a kingdom, it has always been a Tsardom which stems from Czar( that is an emperor in western tradition). Furthermore, the linked WP articles dealing with the First and Second Bulgarian Tsardoms have Empire instead of Kingdom in their titles. Therefore, I believe that Kingdom should be replaced by Empire in the infobox, as it is accepted in scholarly literature. I doubt that anyone here would object to something so obvious. Espor (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately I have just noticed that the First and Second Bulgarian Empire (WP articles existing) were wrongly described in the infobox as First and Second Bulgarian Kingdom. Therefore, I am going to correct that obvious mistake as I could not imagine anyone here having an argument against it. If so - please comment, but I think that this is quite an obvious inconsistency with other WP articles.PPMit (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we're not on the same wave here. It was explained in length to you why 681 should not be added as a foundation date in this article - because the Bulgaria in question, the one this article discusses, was not established in 681. It was established as a state in 1878. There is no political nor legal continuity between Medieval and modern Bulgaria. It has no direct connection to the previous empires except for language and rites, which certainly do not equate to the existence of a country (just take the history of Jews as an example). None of you ever responded to that with something more than "other country articles are not like this" and the assumption that we should stick to some "standard". Your own skewed understanding (or lack thereof) of basic terms such as sovereignty, feudalism, independence and nation is more than enough to make other contributors consider if they should ever argue with you. So you can keep "exposing" the "plots" of "paid agents" (per earlier opinions), but I doubt anyone would actually pay attention. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

@Tourbillion: Apparently, you have paid "inversely proportional" attention to my comments, indeed. Otherwise you would have noticed that your response is not really answerring any of my two arguments and deals with older aspects of the discussion instead. The term Bulgaria, as this is the name of the article, do include all three periods when Bulgaria has existed (under the same name "Bulgaria", please note!). If it was clearly specified in the name of the article that this article deals only with the latest, modern period of Bulgaria then the old version of the infobox would have been ok, yes. Clearly, this is not the case. Moreover, in that case paragraphs like History, Culture etc. should also be changed and a new article about the term Bulgaria should be made, which this time would include the entire information about the term Bulgaria. The first and most important criteria for any article is how good and precisely the text corresponds to the title. Furthermore, your statement that Bulgaria was not founded in the 7th century CONTRADICTS sources like Enciclopedia Britanica or the site of the European Union: http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/bulgaria/index_en.htm So why are you refusing to accept these sources, I wonder? And is that not inconsistent with your statement that "It's quite enough that there's a reliable source stating that.." used in our discussion about some problems in the "Ottoman rule" paragraph? I would also like to mention that your offensive statemend of an "own skewed understanding (or lack thereof) of basic terms" of other users participationg in this discussion is still not a sufficient answer to the argument that no different criteria should be applied for the different WP articles. Nonetheless, I think that the current version of the infobox edited by Apcbg is a good solution of the problem and is even more precise than my initial edit suggestion (which after all is the idea of this discussion here, right?).PPMit (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact you're right. Might as well not bother with someone who thinks this article is about Bulgarian demographics, Bulgarian economy, Bulgarian foreign relations and Bulgarian sport throughout the ages, as you imply. This article doesn't concern all periods when Bulgaria existed. This article only concerns the present, and where relevant, the recent past of Bulgaria. There's a single history section about what happened on its territories, but the article itself is not a historical one. Hence the appropriate omission of 681 as a foundation date. As for that, no, it's not inconsistent. If you bothered to learn a bit of Medieval history outside your immediate region, you'd figure out that "national consciousness" in the Middle Ages was more or less defined by vassalage and allegiance. Therefore the "re-establishment" of the Bulgarian national consciousness is merely a group of Bulgarians figuring out that they're not the sultan's property, but also figured out that they're a nation under the aforementioned influence. And finally, the users participating in this discussion have long reached consensus that including 681 as a foundation date of this Bulgaria is wrong. It belongs to First Bulgarian Empire, not here. The fact that they've given up on arguing with users who register (probably in an organised manner) only to unleash endless rants does not mean there's not a consensus in place. And not a single piece of evidence or a rational argument has yet been provided as to how a 19th century monarchy is politically (pay attention, politically) related to an early Medieval kingdom. Such an argument or evidence cannot be provided, because these entities are simply not related. Before you unleash yet another avalanche of vowels and consonants, I'd recommend you to first make the difference between "nation" and "country". That's it from me. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
You still refuse to understand that a topic / article called "Bulgaria" is not limited to the situation in Bulgaria after 1878. If you want to write only about that period (or as you called it ""this" Bulgaria") this could not be the correct name of the topic, otherwise it would be misleading! There is only one term Bulgaria - all other terms like "Fist Bulgarian Empire" etc. are made in order to identify specific periods of the existence of Bulgaria. If you don't want to believe me then just look at sources like Enciclopedia Britanica or the official internet site of the EU, which you apparently refuse to. They clearly state that Bulgaria was founded in the 7th century. If you have another vision about the term Bulgaria this is your personal problem but I hope that you would not claim that your position should be placed above those sources or that there should be significant differences in the criteria used for an article called Bulgaria in EB, the site of the EU (which is quite obviously concidering political aspects and criteria) or an article "Bulgaria" in Wikipedia. And it is quite clear that segments of the article like economy, demographics, foreign relation, sport etc. would describe the recent situation in those fields in Bulgaria - there is nothing unusual about that.
Furthermore, it would be quite obvious for any neutral person that your claim that "the users participating in this discussion have long reached consensus that including 681 as a foundation date of this Bulgaria is wrong" is not true and has nothing to do with the current situation. In fact, I can see above rather the opposite - comments that "The consensus is the current version with 618 in it" or that "Apparently, it is leading to no consensus". I can see much more users commenting against your idea than supporting it, as well. But even if it isn't a matter of democratical solution of the problem the facts and sources you are trying to ignore show univocally that Bulgaria was founded in the 7th century.
Finally, please, do not comment here other topics which we are discussing elswhere (in that case the national consciousness) because this is making your comments confusing. I believe you should not take those discussions personally, as well. I have been trying to avoid any comments about any other users in WP whereas almost each of your comments contains unnecessary and often offensive "evaluation" of other users' abilities or comments. This is not giving any additional value to your statemens, quite the opposite.PPMit (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is named Bulgaria due to wikipedia policies and guidelines, it is the WP:Commonname of the state in question, and the WP:Primary usage of that term. A name doesn't define something (a rose by any other name), and we don't define articles by their names. Just because one thing and another share a name doesn't mean they are the same. CMD (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." So this should put an end of the discussion, I guess? Or someone is going to claim that e.g. EB or the site of the EU are not reliable English-language sources? PPMit (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

More than three weeks have passed without anyone providing any serious and on-topic argumentation as to why the aforementioned dates should remain in the infobox, the discussion should be considered closed IMO. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 16:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. That discussion was closed sometime ago with FPaS's compromise version presently in the infobox. Possible future amendments, if any, would need consensus deriving from new discussion. Apcbg (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, that consensus was only temporary and it was exactly aimed at giving you a bit more time to validate your statement somehow, which did not happen. Another "discussion" like this one is completely out of the question. The original consensus (before the arrival of the single-purpose accounts) was never broken or challenged with valid arguments, not to mention that the demands for inclusion are inconsistent themselves. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, you are not an autocrat that decides what should or shouldn't be included in the Bulgaria article. I was concerned about the things you stated on this talk page, so I decided to see if this behavior was a short term anomaly, or if it was part of a long-standing behavioral pattern. Thus I have spent the last few weeks researching all of your activity since you became a Wikipedian and I have documented many examples where you domineer, intimidate, wage editorial wars (for which you have been warned multiple times by moderators) and insult members who disagree with you (ie: you called me a single purpose account; an unsubstantiated claim that you've made in regard to other new members as well.) In other words, you are quite comfortable at making unsubstantiated claims, (a) to edit a page in a way that reflects your point of view, and (b) to discourage someone from rebuffing you. On your user page, you state that you "[...] would support a benevolent authoritarian dictatorship." That is a definitive claim that reflects a part of your value system, and it certainly fits with the behavioral pattern partially described above. Unsurprisingly, you've applied your value system in Wikipedia and as a result you act as though you are a dictator who owns the Bulgaria article, is engaged in constructing a complex propaganda machine and crushes any opposition with an iron fist (also symbolically depicted on your user page.) Though I have no doubt you feel you are a benevolent dictator, your machinations have no place herein. There is a substantial set of empirical evidence that even the harshest autocrats rationalize their oppressive actions and perceive themselves as munificent, informed and strategically minded. You err in your belief that benevolence and autocracy can go hand-in-hand; that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. I am going to give you a chance to become an upstanding member of this community. If you do not, you will not be surprised to know that I've prepared a detailed case against you and I will ask that you be banned from Wikipedia. A few of the research fellows at the university are venerable members of this virtual community and should it be necessary I shall ask for their advice in regard to this particular matter. Good day. Predicate-Logician (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
...don't know if serious or just trolling. If you've "prepared a case" with your "research fellows", I beg you to ask that I be banned. As quickly as possible. It will save me and a lot of other users the effort to compile a list of behaviour examples of SPAs on this talk page, and why nothing by the aforementioned SPAs should be taken into account (or even read, for that matter). - ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, so now you have proclaimed a Boolean condition; either I'm a troll or I'm serious. Yet another compliment from you. May I ask where I stated that I've prepared a case with my research fellows? I neither have my own research fellows, nor is it their job to research you. The research I've done on you is my own (luckily everything every user does on Wikipedia is documented and accessible to everyone) though the people I refer to have experience with the WP:AE. Either you didn't take the time to carefully read what I wrote or you've intentionally skewed what I said (either one of the possibilities being self-defeating, I might add.) It is, as previously stated, interesting and ironic that you try to intimidate and insult new users by calling them SPAs (new users have to start somewhere after all -- I haven't made an edit yet, which precludes me from being a SPA; unlike you, who has to this date made a total of 1345 edits in the Bulgaria article (more than the combined edits of the next 12 biggest contributors.)) In the context of this article, SPA may very well be a term that you may want to apply to yourself. Just a thought. Anyhow, I see that you will continue to insult me. Predicate-Logician (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well please get in touch with "the people you refer to" and nominate, and don't forget the other four users who are certainly aware of what a SPA is, unlike yourself. Once again, thank you for enabling a definitive closure to this discussion with your statements. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Tourbillon, you just want to enforce your version, no matter what, aren't you? It is absolutely obvious to anyone who can read and want to be objective that there is more than enough evidence and sources clearly showing that the dates 681 and 1185 should be present in the infobox as it is in the current version. And in fact, as Apcbg mentioned above, there is a consensus for that version, as nobody gave any reasonable argument against the arguments why those dates should be in the infobox. Instead, possibly because you realize that you can't give any strong contra-argumets, you preferred to ignore all the sources and facts which have been mentioned and after a short period in which it seemed that this discussion has finally come to an end, you quite cynically conclude that nobody has given "any serious and on-topic argumentation as to why the aforementioned dates should remain in the infobox".
What is also interesting, for this discussion you selectively ignore sources (e. g. EB) which have been used as sources for the article and which have been obviously accepted as reliable sources. If you want to make an OWN article, where you can make and explain you personal visions and make your own research, Wikipedia is obviously not the right place. If you want to make a statement differing from the literature then write a manuscript and try to convince a journal to publish it with your name on it. As long as you are hiding behind your nickname in WP you are supposed to be objective and simply summarize the already present, "most frequently used" and accepted as objective sources and data.PPMit (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Third round

Several new IP-s and socks attacked a lot of Bulgarian history related articles with fringe views and extreme POV-fictions.

Now after the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria, the new target of the nonsenses is the Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria. The last agenda is: there was no such thing as Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria, as when Tsar Ivan Vladislav died, he left no heirs and the Bulgarian aristocracy choose to join the Eastern Roman Empire. Secondly, the Eastern Roman empire itself was in grave danger of becomming part of Bulgaria; The territories north of the Danube, continued to be ruled by Bulgarian nobility until well into the XVIII century. What a mess! Jingiby (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read, the Eastern Roman Empire actually was in danger of being conquered by the Bulgarian Empire, notably by Simeon I, although Simeon wanted to be the new Emperor of a more Slavic Byzantine Empire (integrating Bulgaria) rather than demolish the Byzantine empire. If there are persistent problems, it's worth noting that Bulgaria falls under WP:ARBEE. CMD (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I see these tend to become huge discussions, in which I have no interest to involve myself. However, the edits on the the end of the First Bulgarian Empire should be no drama, as in this was not a violent event. Quite on the contrary, Basil II was a master diplomat and world class politician and yes, he did indeed offered to the Bulgarian nobles not to touch their castles, estates, common folk, taxes and internal control. He did create a theme - Bulgaria, which incorporated Bulgaria under Ivan Vladislav in its entirety, he did not dismantle the Bulgarian Church and kept its independence, he did not change Bulgarian language for something else. All in all it is fair to say, that yes the Bulgarian aristocracy, choose to join the Byzantine empire and was not forced to do it. This is probably the highest diplomatic achievement of Basil II and certainly a word class maneuver. I see nothing wrong with this text. Here is a source about the offer of Basil II: Averil Cameron, The Byzantines, Blackwell Publishing (2006), p. 170 Here is another one about the church: http://www.bok.at/en/geschichte.htm "During the time of the Byzantine rule (1018-1186) the Bulgarian church retained its independence but not as a patriarchy but as an archbishopric. As such it existed until 1767 when it was terminated by the Constantinople patriarchy. "

Last, but not least Tsar Ivan Vladislav and Emperor Basil II was related, which certainly must have helped. Hope that helps explain it, it is not an attack on Bulgarian history. In reading Bulgarian books on history (I'm not Bulgarian), I can see that this period tends to be depicted in dark colors, however the truth of the matter is that Bulgarian aristocracy, Bulgarian church and Bulgarians overall lived quite well in these 150 years and largely retained their internal independence and culture. ZomRe (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I think you are Bulgarian. You use mostly Bulgarian sources which are not neutral, as this one indicated above http://www.bok.at/en/geschichte.htm, or if some of provided source is reliable, it is impossible to check it online as cited above: The Byzantines, Blackwell Publishing (2006), p. 170. Please, stop to explain us what kind of policy Basil implemented, it was simply Byzantine-policy - clever and vulpine. He's liquidated independent Bulgarian state and Church, but made ​​some concessions to the aristocracy. The theme of Bulgaria was neither independent nor vassal national state, the Ohrid Archbishopric also was neither independent nor subordinated national church. Both were Byzantine administrative and religious units. I do not know any academic reliable secondary non-Bulgarian source to claim the opposite. Jingiby (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Incivility by Ceco31

Future Perfect, thanks for reverting a blanking attempt of sourced text, as an editor. I think you should also take action against their incivil attitude of expressing national hatred at the relevant edit summary, as an admin. (You are an admin, right?) Please protect the feelings of Turkish users here. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Turks in Bulgaria in Bulgaria article

The passage for the 1984 campaign is at least not in the correct article as none of the Turkish sadistic massacres and ethnic cleanisings against the Bulgarians is shown here. This is completely out of place in the article, not any of the Turkish massacres, genocides and ethnic cleaninising against the Bulgarians is mentioned here! as all in all many details miss in the article it is for nowhere higher than Turks in Bulgaria. It is moreover misleading as 150,000 of these 300,000 returned in Bulgaria. Here only the most important information about Bulgaria is mentioned, and important information about Bulgaria is missing too, instead there is paid attentionin on the communist campaign and then it is among the most important information for the History of Bulgaria, which is ridiculous, at least information about the The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913, Stara Zagora massacre etc. should be mentioned, at least. The communist campaign did not include mass sadistic murders and ethnic cleanisings as opposed to the Ottoman massacres, but the worst and offensive is that someone is deleting this .--Ceco31 (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because one fact isn't on this page isn't a reason to remove others, you need to provide an actual justification for the edit instead of picking some tit for tat POV clashes. There may be a good reason to remove the single sentence you're complaining about, but the above isn't it. Propose a development of the text, with sources to back up your numerical claims. Frankly, if the Turks ever engaged in ethnic cleansing or genocide, they clearly did a pretty poor job of it. CMD (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire's genocides and ethnic cleanisings against the Bulgarians excluded from the article:

Not to mention the numerical ethnic cleanisings and massacres and murders against the Bulgarian population carried out by the Greek and Yugoslav and Romanian authorities during the 20th century, but is not honest to describe here in Bulgaria article a campaign which only included name changes of a population with Bulgarian origin and at the same time to not have a single word about the massacres and ethnic cleanisings in Greece, Yugoslavia, Turkey and Romania articles is at least with no justice. Having all these Bulgarian genocides not mentioned in the respective articles, could you please delete the sentence about the Communist campaign?

I remember a time when you were arguing that some Bulgarian artisans being promoted during Ottoman rule as evidence a Bulgarian state existed, now ou argue all Bulgarians were violated by various means. I note all four examples you note above were actions taken during a period of warfare, which is not unusual, historically. Deficiencies in other articles are not reasons edit this one. Attempting to justify the actions by arguing the people assimilated were of Bulgarian origin anyway won't help any case you're trying to make. CMD (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable changes by Maurice07

1.User Maurice07 removed the Bulgarian ethnic group from the Ethnic groups section in the infobox (changing "{{Collapsible list" to "{{unbulleted list").

2. The same user added a regional language section in the infobox (with the following contents: "8.2% Turkish, 3.8% Roma, 0.7% Others"). This is clearly incorrect because in Bulgaria the sole official language is Bulgarian on all levels - National and regional. This means Turkish Roma and other languages have no official status on regional level. Maybe the user Maurice07 is mistaking the term "regional language"(official language on regional level) with "spoken language". Indeed Turkish, Roma and other languages are spoken in Bulgaria. As i understand it, the infobox is for important information about the country. A section about the unofficially spoken languages in the infobox is unnecessary and unwanted. In the United states for example Spanish Arabic French and many other languages are spoken. Does this mean there should be a section in the infobox for all languages spoken in the USA?

3. Same user (Maurice07) removed the the official script - Cyrillic from the infobox. Since the official script is not Latin i think it is important Cyrillic to be mentioned in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antemin (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

After Wikiisunbiased fixed the upper 3 problems, user Maurice07 again edited the infobox bringing back all his changes. Removing Bulgarian ethnic group from Bulgaria's page(infobox) - i call this Vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antemin (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There are no officially defined "regional languages", so Bulgarian is the only one having a place there. The three largest ethnic groups - Bulgarians, Turks and Roma are the only ones worth mentioning, the rest is not significant enough to merit a place in the infobox. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Here,there is a lot of misunderstanding. First, of course Bulgarian the only official language in Bulgaria. I don't deny it, in no way. Already,no changes were made in this issue at infobox and Turkish language and Roma language are demostrated under the title of Regional Languages !! This in no way confer legal status. Of course, this aforementioned languages, may take another naming like Spoken Languages​​ or Minority Languges..should be negotiated. This section is not unnecessary for the main country artices. Available in many instances. Austria, Iran, Republic of Kosovo, Romania..etc. CIA World Factbook, a reliable source refers to many users. Infobox contains many mistakes about Ethnic groups. Still don't have any source and rates are completely wrong. In addition, there are few things that I want to. Please, you need to observe the rules of courtesy. For instance:title name (Unacceptable changes by Maurice07) or personal attack by [1] Wikiisunbiased !!! Maurice (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Maurice07, the word "unacceptable" in the title does not маке my behaviour uncourteous towards you. Unacceptable is used to classify your changes. It has nothing to do with you personally. In other words - the use of the word "unacceptable" has nothing to do with courtesy. I am sorry if i must repeat myself but since you don't understand i must do it. The title "regional languages" have no legal status in Bulgaria- that is a fact. And since this term "regional language" have legal status in many other countries it can very easily mislead a reader(he reads "regional languages" and he may think these languages are official on regional level). Your suggestion about discussing the option "Minority language" replacing "Regional Language" is also unacceptable and unwanted because this term (Minority language) have no legal status on regional level in Bulgaria (also there is no mention in the Bulgarian constitution about "minority language" or "regional language"). Your next suggestion changing "regional language" with "spoken language" - again inappropriate because the infobox is for important information about the country. Unofficial information about the the other languages (distinct from Bulgarian) which are spoken in Bulgaria is redundant. In schools and in mixed marriage families english , french, german, spanish and other languages are also spoken in Bulgaria. Does this mean they should be included in your section "spoken languages"? Sure i agree that Russian, Armenian, turkish, roma and other languages are also spoken in bulgaria. So if your proposed section "spoken languages" in the infobox have to be correct, it must include all these languages (french german russian etc.). This is clearly redundant information which has no place in the infobox. If you have to make "spoken languages" section on the page about USA (in the infobox) do you know how many languages you should include? Clearly redundant information. One more thing, you give example with Romania, where minority languages are listed in the infobox. In Romania some languages have legal status on regional level. That's why its appropriate the language to be mentioned. In Bulgaria this is not the case - no other language except Bulgarian is legal on all levels of government. One more thing, your changes in the ethnic group i classify as Vandalism. Just look your recent changes in "View history" and you will see you deleted at least 2 times the bulgarian ethnic group from the population of Bulgaria. Fact! Also you deleted the official script section. Since latin script (widely used around the world) is not the official script in Bulgaria the Cyrillic script must be mentioned. Now about the ethnic percentages. Before you changed them they were correct. And i will give you the most reliable link. The official results from the 2011 official census in Bulgaria. Read section 3.4 if you want. http://www.nsi.bg/census2011/PDOCS2/Census2011final_en.pdf Dear Maurice07, please don't vandalize the page about Bulgaria and don't make unacceptable and/or unwanted changes to the page!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antemin (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles should not be an example for how to make this one. There are no "regional languages" in Bulgaria and listing Turkish and Romani in the infobox as such is indeed misleading. Nobody is denying what the source says, but the formulation of its content is inappropriate. Also, there's no need to list all the under-1% ethnicities up there, it contributes in no way except for making the infobox heavier. All the information on these is in Demographics. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013

Can someone who speaks Bulgarian verify "approximately 70,000 of them are engaged in criminal activities" cited in source [223]? The translation of the page appears to state only that 700,000 of Bulgaria's population, 10% of 7 million, are Roma. 143.229.244.61 (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: The whole passage has been removed with this edit.  — daranz [ t ] 21:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Fatherland Front and Red Army

The Fatherland Front was organised more than a year before the Soviet armed forces entered Bulgaria, and by that time it had already staged a number of strikes and armed attacks. The entry of the Red Army aided the FF's arrival to power, not its activities. It's in the source. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the Germans, in August 1944 the partisans in Bulgaria, including Greek and Yugoslav occupied territories, i.e. not only the Bulgarian partisans were only 12,000 people and their activity was not significant. In August 1944, the Soviet Army was approaching the Balkans. On 23 August, Romania left the Axis Powers, declared war on Germany, and allowed Soviet forces to cross its territory to reach Bulgaria. At that time, Bulgaria made a drive to find separate peace, repudiating any alliance with Nazi Germany, and declared neutrality on 26 August. However, its secret negotiations with the Allies in Cairo failed, because Bulgaria was "not in a position to argue". On September 2, the Russian troops reached the border on the Danube and the pro-German government of Ivan Bagryanov stepped down in response to the Red Army's advance towards Bulgaria. A pro-Western government of the former legal opposition came to power. It ordered the army not to resist the Soviet forces, demanded that the Wehrmacht leave, repudiated the union with Germany and started negotiations with the NOVA commander Dobri Terpeshev. The right-wing Agrarians, who controlled the government, offered the FF some ministerial positions. Advancing Soviet troops gave the Communists self-confidence and they rejected the Agrarians' offer. In the meantime, the police and the army continued to pursue the leftist partisans, unchecked by civil authority. On 5 September, the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria and on the next day invaded. Within three days, the Soviets occupied the northeastern part of Bulgaria along with the key port cities of Varna and Burgas. At the same time, between 6 and 9 September 1944, many Bulgarian towns in non Soviet-occupied area were captured by the partisans. This turn of the events, put the Bulgarian 5th. Army stationed in Macedonia, in a difficult situation, surrounded by German divisions, but it moved back to the old borders of Bulgaria. On September 8, the Bulgarians changed sides and declared war to Nazi Germany. However, in Sofia, "Zveno" mobilised its influence in the military and strong army detachments, including the Tank brigade, sided with the FF and staged a coup on the night of 8/9 September. On 9 September, Terpeshev ordered all partisans to descend from the mountains and seize power in all of Bulgaria. Afterwards the marking time Soviet Army occupied the whole of the country. Jingiby (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Source ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The second one is easily dismissable, and the first one mentions almost nothing about strikes and resistance before September. I moved the Wartime Crisis ref. The second paragraph clearly mentions the origins of the FF and the domestic instability. There's no point in denying that the Communist resistance, not widespread as it may be, was very active long before the arrival of the Soviets. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight and incorrect info pushed repeatedly by IP into the infobox of Bulgaria

Party affiliations of the President and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Bulgaria are undue weight for this article. First: it is only and definitely personal and not so important for the country information and can not be placed in the infobox of an article concerning a distinct state. Second, both are non-party and are not members of any parties. Third, the nominations of both were put forward by a coalitions, rather than a separate parties. Therefore such incorrect information has no place in this info-box. Jingiby (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bulgaria/Archive_7&oldid=599520857"