Talk:Bulgaria/Archive 1

---

At the NATO summit i Prague 21-22 November Bulgaria was invited to join NATO

---

Someone who knows/cares about Bulgaria might like to review/merge the content in Bulgarians ... Martin

---

Why is "Bulgaria" termed as "small"? I am not Bulgarian- and I am not taking offense at all, but it seems rather odd considering Bulgaria is not particularly "small" in the context of many of the world's nations.

We tried to discuss this at the Bulgarian Wikipedia, but only three people participated in the discourse. You're right, we are not a small country. --webkid 09:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"...Khan Asparuh and his Bulgars migrated into the Balkans, where they assimilated the minor Slavic, Thracian inhabitants..." - I would say they were assimilated by the Slavic inhabitants, at least Turkic (or at least Altaic) language of Bolgars was completely lost as well as most of their cultural heritage... Essentially the most influential things brought by Bolgars were their military organization and the name of the people still in use today Vassili Nikolaev 09:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Macedonia and Bulgaria

I do not understand why Macedonians hate Bulgarians so much. I have to say, as a representative of the general Bulgarian public, that we Bulgarians do not have anything against Macedonians. The general opinion in Bulgaria is that Macedonians are in fact Bulgarians, given that they fought for their unification with Bulgaria only 100 years ago in the dumb ass Balkan War and then in the stupid World War 1. It appears that this statement is extraordinary ofensive to the people of FYROM and my question to any person from this country who reads that (beacause it appears that quite a lot are reading it) is: Why are you so offended? Why are you not flattered by the fact that another nation wants to find historical roots with you and embrace you? Isn't it flattering rather than offensive that Bulgarians want to be recognized as one with the great Macedonian nation!? Your hatered seems very revealing to me. It is as if Macedonians are running from some ugly truth, which is none of my concern or, in fact, none of the concern of most peacefully living Bulgarians. We are not worried about history and we really do not care about the big controvrsy about it. What I am concerned about is all this hatered. I will take the liberty to represent the Bulgarian opinion on this matter: Macedonians, We do not hate you! We have nothing against you. But I have to say it gets tiring to listen about historical problems delivered to us with this extreme hatred. To those of you who are sensible: just forget about it and live in the present! We do not care, why should you? And maybe if you redirect all this hatered into something constructive Macedonia will truly become a greater country(if any more greatness than the present is possible).

---

Misplaced sections re-ordered while archiving. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I suggest that Bulgaria stops using the term Macedonia for anything else than the country Macedonia (also Macedonia or RoM, not FYROM) as this might misslead. Arnegjor 10:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Svetlo, Macedonia will always be to the Macedonian people, just am "sorry" for u that ur brain has been washed away, its a common thing in bulgaria

Well, officially you are still F.Y.R.O.M, you haven't won the name yet Svetlyo 13:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm from Bulgarian Macedonia and since the end of Yugoslavia I have to change the name of my region, cause some other people

want to monopolise something that they don't have (less than 50%) and historically don't deserve. 

At least they can give the opportunity for others to use the name Macedonia. How can I describe my region? Macedonia (Pirin), bordering Macedonia? Am I Macedonian, or not? And then if Macedonian I'm not Bulgarian? I can be Bulgarian Macedonian and they can be Slav Macedonians and Greeks can be Macedonians but they don't want to and you support them, they want to monopolise the name. I suggest that we change the name of the country to FYROM Svetlyo 19:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We use the term "Republic of Macedonia" simply to distinguish the country from all the other places called Macedonia. It doesn't imply endorsement of that name - see Republic of Macedonia#Note. The reason we don't use "Republic of Bulgaria", "Republic of Greece" etc. is because those country names aren't the subject of confusion with other names. See Republic of China for a comparable example. -- ChrisO 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You see how tricky it gets with the name Republic of Macedonia? Go get another name Svetlyo 00:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Svetlyo. Besides, Macedonia belongs to Bulgaria anyways so give the land back!

I personaly don't know about a country named "Macedonia" i know of a province which belongs to Bulgaria named Macedonia.

Most sources point that Macedonia was part of Bulgaria before the Ottoman Empire but it is no longer. The only opinion that really matters is the Macedonian people’s. Nobody can force them to call themselves Bulgarians unless by exercising the Ottoman way of conversion which we Bulgarians know all too well. Therefore I must sadly disagree with some of the former statements.

Well the Serbs forced the Bulgarians in what is now Republic of Macedonia to think they are Macedonians when they failed to force them to think they are Serbs. And this was achieved after decades of terror. Tell me why you concider yourself as a Macedonian? Isn't it better to think more seriously and come to the conclusion that you and the population of Macedonia is Bulgarian.

OK I red all you guys said, and I must call in most parts bullsh*t. Let me tell you just one thing. Was Alexander or the people of Ancient Macedonia Slavs? NO.

You are very smart you should know – he he! What so ever with Alexander? Europa from the legend – who was a Thracian girl – gave her name to the whole continent. But she was Thracian – ohooo – Therefore FOLLOWING YOUR LOGIC – NO ONE IN THE CONTINENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE EUROPEAN, BECAUSE NO ONE OF COURSE IS THRACIAN??? Maybe only Bulgarians could be Europeans – because they can be regarded as Thracian descendants? SO WHAT YOU SAID IS AT ALL BULLSH*T!

Conversion of bulgarians to Islam

If the Ottoman empire had tried to proselytize the ethnic Bulgarians to Islam over a 500 year period, there would be no christian ethnic bulgarians left. Instead the majority of ethnic bulgarians are orthodox christians, the only muslims are the Turks and Tatar minorities, while only a small minority of muslims is ethnic bulgarian.

Why are there not more ethnically bulgarian muslims? why did the empire not try to make more bulgarians muslim? Is it because Turks and Bulgars are ethnically related? --Kahraman 11:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Bulgarian and Turks are NOT ethnically related. In a few words the cristians in the borders of the Ottoman empire were forces to pay much bigger taxes (including the Blood Tax, which consisted of giving every first-born son to become a soldier in the Ottoman army), so it was better for the empire to have the majority of people with different religions.

As far as official school history goes, Islam conversion was used by the Ottoman Empire on strategical places only. The effect was strengthened by forced migration of Christians to Islam territoryies and vice verca. Not just in Bulgaria, but all their conquests.
Unlike the two Roman Empires, the Ottomans allowed different religions. They considered that a full-scale conversion would generate too much stir-up.
Crowday 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Romanization of Bulgarian names

What is the correct Romanization of Република България ?

• Wikipedia says Republika Bulgariya
• Encarta says Republika Bǎlgarija and apparently this is also used in the maps from the European Union website.

Probably there are two different versions of transliteration, but which is the official one ? Bogdan | Talk 19:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are two different systems of transliteration - the first one uses diacritic symbols from Czech or Croatian (I don't remember exactly), the other one uses only the letters which exist in the English alphabet. The one which should be applied is the second one - the first one is practically never applied, at least not in Bulgaria. VMORO 14:33, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

In general, is there a standard accepted way of transliterating Bulgarian names from their original alphabets? Right now it's a mess, for instance:

• ъ is sometimes u, sometimes a (I've seen ǎ and ŭ as well),
• ю is sometimes iu, sometimes yu,
• ц is sometimes ts, sometimes c,
• х is sometimes kh, sometimes h

What I'd like to see is something like Transliteration of Russian into English. Markussep 8:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I collected some transliteration schemes here: Transliteration of Bulgarian into English. I think the United Nations system (with the Czech/Croatian diacritics) is not practical for Wikipedia. The BGN/PCGN and the official Bulgarian system are quite similar, except for х (kh vs. h), ц (ts vs. c), ъ (ŭ vs. a) and ь (' vs. y). Apart from the fact that the a's in Varna and the a in Tarnovo will not be distinguishable, the official Bulgarian system looks OK to me. Opinions? Markussep 10:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you entirely sure that ц according to the official Bulgarian system is transliterated with c? As, as far as I remember, it should be represented with tz... VMORO 21:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, I didn't see it on a Bulgarian government site. My source is this, it says "Bulgarian Council of Ministers". Tz seems strange though, a bit German. It's "c", see this ID card. Too bad they don't have a transliteration scheme there. Markussep 06:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Three other sources (the Bulgarian embassy in Washington, something that looks official too and another reference) say ц is ts, and refer to a law from 1999. Could be it changed from "c" to "ts". Markussep 13:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, on my ID card it is "tz", but basically you can just choose the kind of transliteration for your ID card for yourself. I expressly wanted to spell my name that way, because I think this is the most understandable way for all the nations (in English "tz" is spoken just like in German and so on) and in my eariler international pass (when I was too young to say personally what kind of transliteration I would like) it was also "tz". In many web pages containing bulgarian transliteration I also found "tz", look at this for example. I think the "c" spelling is totally wrong, it is used only by Bulgarians in the chat rooms for shorting the words when there's no cyrilic font, just think about it, it can be spoken as "s" or "k" or "tz" in the different languages.

I really don't know which of these is official, but that's what I think about and use. --Tzeck 20:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's funny, that you can choose your own transliteration. Was this before or after 1999? To me (I'm Dutch) "tz" is a bit strange because in Dutch (French, Polish, Czech likewise I think) it would be a voiced consonant. In German and Italian, "z" by itself would be the same as ц. You're right that "c" is ambiguous in many languages. I would prefer "ts" then. BTW I did the Google test for "Vratsa" (only English language pages), that was ts:tz:c = 91k:44k:7k. "Berkovitsa" ts:tz:c = 17k:12k:360. Markussep 20:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, this is the transliteration of Bulgarian according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs [1]:

А Б В Г Д Е Ж З И Й К Л М Н О П Р С Т У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ Ъ Ь Ю Я

A B V G D E ZH Z I Y K L M N O P R S T U F H TS CH SH SHT A Y YU YA

As you can see, the variant used is "ts" - although I think that "tz" also can be used. May be Tzeck has right that it can be optional. Anyway I agree with him completely as the present transliteration system is based solely on English and I have noticed that English speakers tend to pronounce "tz" as a voiceless affricat [ts] whereas "ts" brings about horrific problems and an unsecure prononciation somewhere around the voiceless fricative [s]. You shouldn't think too much about how the letter combination can be pronounced in different languages as the transliteration system is based solely on the English pronounciation; it is anyway impossible to invent a transliteration system which is universally valid for all languages, right? The problems come from the fact that before 1989 there were two transliteration systems. One used French as a model ([u] for example by "ou") and the other one diacritic signs. Afterwards there was a complete chaos and everyone transliterated as they wished. Well, enough for the lyrical digression - I think we should follow the offical system of the MIA (the same as the one you found for the Bulgarian Embassy in D.C.). VMORO 23:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the point - this is an English speaking Wikipedia and it doesn't matter if some letter could be spoken otherways in other languages different than English. And, Markussep, I forgot to make mention about the "ts" spelling, that I also find alright, but as VMORO said the most English sreaking people use "tz", that's the result of my personally "investigations", too. However, I find both of them ("tz" and "ts") usable for the Wikipedia (I just prefer "tz"), but not the "c".

The transiteration in Bulgaria is optional only for some difficult letters like this and I think when you say nothing about than it will be "ts" on your ID card. And that was in year 2000, but I don't think it was otherways before 1999. When I made my card I was thinking about going to Germany, but in German the most correct spelling of my name begins with "z" . But in England (and by any English speaking man, and there are many of them in the world) it will be pronounced totally wrong, as the bulgarian "з", not "ц". When it begins with "tz" there will be no problems pronounsing it right in both languages (the too most popular, not to forget). Well, I'm maybe influenced by these too languages and the fact that I had the idea to go to Germany, but still I think "tz" is the best choise for the English Wikipedia, "ts" the second. --Tzeck 14:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I remember my primary school lessons correctly, "ц" should be transliterated as "ts" just because they use to describe it as the union of "т" and "с". As for "х", I believe it should be "kh", based on my experience with Armenian. In it there are three Hs:Խ, Հ, Յ ; each with a different pronunciation. The one corresponding to the bulgarian "х" is "Խ", which is transliterated as "kh". Unfortunately my knowledge of linguistics is very limited and I can not describe the pronunciation of the sounds in question so that we can agree on a transliteration. However, I can tell you for certain that the pronunciation of the bulgarian "х" is stronger than that of the english "h", just like "Խ" is compared to "Հ". I hope I was of help. mattriculated 21:13, 09 Aug 2006

How about using this Ministry of Interior transliteration as the standard in Wikipedia for Bulgarian names (except where there are common English names like Sofia)? We can make it a naming convention. Markussep 08:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of balance: Bulgaria's role in sending Macedonian Jews to Treblinka

When Bulgaria occupied Macedonia during World War Two, Bulgarian officials rounded up the Jews of Skopje in the city's main tobacco factory. From there they were handed over to German officials who sent them to their death in Treblinka. For this reason, I am not sure that it is balanced for this article to include the unqualified statement that Bulgaria was not involved in sending Jews to concentration camps. I can provide sources for my comment should these be requested. (This comment is by no means motivated by any sort of anti-Bulgarian sentiment. Please do not understand it as such.) User: MJ. April 6, 2005

Giovanni : Please, cite your sources if you want to be taken seriously! This applies to everybody advancing a theory, especially in public!

by yavor: I'm a Bulgarian, and it is true. I studied it a few months ago at University (History of The Bulgarian State and Law). Bulgarians did not have a choice and were forced to hand over the Jews. Many Bulgarians do not know this, because we don't study it at school. But what you do not know is, that when they were going to hand over those in Bulgaria (without Macedonia), there were massive protests of Bulgarians and The Government could not oppose. Those Jews were saved. If you want to know more (yavor@abv.bg)

I second Yavor. It is a historical fact that nobody declines. As they are Macedonian, it does little to do with Bulgarian Jews not being send to the deathcamps. Unless all Macedonians say that they are Bulgarian, but this is quite impossible to happen nowadays.. Crowday 13:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarians are descendants of the Moesians

Bulgarians did not come from anywhere in 679 because the truth is they've been living in the same region even before Christ for Bulgarians are in fact Thracians. Bulgarians is the new name of the Moesians (plus some other Thracian tribes). It is not really known why they started to call themselves Bulgarians but one possibility is that they got their name from the Romans as being federates of the Roman Empire for some time. It's possible that at one point around the time of Attila they mixed with one part of the "wandering thracians" or Schythians called Huns as Attila's son Irnik is said to be the second prince of the Bulgarians as stated in "List of Bulgarian kings". 83.228.61.152

I am sorry, I didn't mean to laugh but I couldn't resist! Bulgarians are mix of Pro- Bulgars, Slavs and Tracians. Me 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni : Please, cite your sources if you want to be taken seriously! This applies to everybody advancing a theory, especially in public!

It fascinates me how User:83.228.61.152 was able to fit so much pseudo-history in one short paragraph. He must have practised. Alexander 007 07:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It amuses me how somebody can actually believe said "pseudo-history" mattriculated 21:16, 09 Aug 2006

Bulgarians are a mix of Thracians, Slavs and Bulgars. Around 679 the Bulgars came from the northeast and mixed with the Slavs and the minority of what was left from the Thracians tribes

Revert

I have reverted the following anonymous contribution:

"Recently, there have been voices calling for a change of the parliamentary system into presidential. Although probably the majority of citizens would support such a change, it seems unlikely that the deputies and the parties in the parliament would support it since it could limit their power."

I don't believe this paragraph adds any substantial, objective information, no sources, references or numbers are given, plus it seems rather insignificant to mention this type of recent opinions on a country-page.

Guus July 1, 2005 16:55 (UTC)

Who knows this town?

In the WikiProject Wikipedia:Nuttall_Encyclopedia_topics, we hit on the city "Tirnova",

Tirnova is a fortified town of Bulgaria, 35 m. SSE. of Sistova. It is the seat of the Bulgarian patriarch. It was formerly the State capital.

Sistova seems to be a town in Moldavia, like the webpage of Tirnova The source is from 1907, so much has changed. Thanks--J heisenberg 12:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Tirnova? No, Tarnovo or Turnovo, it's hard to spell it right to pronounce a letter that does not exist in English. Its Veliko Turnovo, like stated below. No such town Tirnova exist or existed. Me 00:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's probably ment the town of Tarnovo, spelled aslo as Turnovo (or Veliko Tarnovo), an old Bulgarian town in North Bulgaria with reach and long history, and it has been also the capital of Bulgaria indeed (until 1393) and also one of the most famous historical persons from Tarnovo is the Patriarch Evtimiy. So I think this article is some kind of mistake and should be removed or edited, if there is such town. --Tzeck 16:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that helped a lot --J heisenberg 17:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sistova seems to be Svishtov in that case. The names should be Romanian, at least they sound such to me, plus the Moldavian context. --TodorBozhinov 18:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The names are actually the Turkish versions of the names of the towns, it is not only Sistova (Svishtov), but also Plevna (Pleven), Shumla (Shumen), etc. VMORO 08:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

War with the USA?

Is it true, due to some technicalities in peace treaties, Bulgaria and the USA were officially in a state of war from World War 2 until the 1980s? 153.104.16.114 23:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Not again those urban legends ... I've heard this for at least 3-4 other countries. It was the Cold War and Bulgaria was part of the Warsaw Pact, nothing more. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov _{→ Talk}

De-Facto Bulgaria was IN war with the USA during WWII as ally to Nazi Germany. But USA soldiers or whatsoever never participated in combat versus Bulgarians.

Yes they did. The USAF bombed Sofia and few communication centres in the province; some American planes were shot down by the Bulgarian air force in the process. Apcbg 21:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In which province? Списаревски 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The website Bulgarian Aviation gives the following statistics on the air war in Bulgaria's airespace from 2 March 1941 until 9 September 1944: 117 Allied (RAF and USAF) planes shot down, 65 of them by Bulgarian fighter planes; 329 British and American pilots taken Prisoners of War, and some 200 killed. As for the geographic distribution that site gives few details, mentioning Sofia and Ferdinand (present Montana). Air battles occured mostly when Allied air formations bombed major Bulgarian cities and railway stations. Apcbg 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I was poking fun at the Francophone usage of "Province" and I am also interested because my grandparents have told me stories about how they used to cover the windows with books when bombers were coming and such. There is still often no info on important facts about Bulgaria and generally non-US related things on the Internet.

Towards the end of WWII -while switching sides- for a brief period (three hours) Bulgaria was at war with both sides, i.e Germany and the Allies (US, USSR, etc.).--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bulgaria and James Bond

"Bulgaria is getting the latest addition to the James Bond franchise, Casino Royale, before several countries including Australia and Japan." First of all, this seems like something much too trivial to have its own section in the article. Secondly, and maybe more importantly, what does it even mean? Nicholai 20:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess it means Casino Royale (2006 film) will be released in Bulgaria before Australia and Japan. This seems to be true according to this but I wouldn't expect movie release dates to feature in country articles.

--Mr link 21:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty, I think I'll be taking it off then. (Hopefully I'm not overstepping my bounds. I'm new to this Wikipedia thing...) Nicholai 23:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You are definately overstepping your bounds. Stop pushing your luck.

Mr link 23:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Somebody impersonating me. What a strange feeling of importance this gives me.

--Mr link 00:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Shut up you filthy Bulgarian.

--Mr link 20:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well...I do hope you're joking, I'll just assume so... Nicholai 14:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Area

The area listed ( 111,001.9 km² ) and rank (102nd) do not match with the List_of_countries_by_area. I presume these should be the same but most country articles do not agree with the figures listed in List_of_countries_by_area.

--Mr link 21:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Filthy??? Zdr i az sam Bulgarin :P

Idiot... Zdrasti na vsi4ki Bulgari!

% of Roma

The figure given of 4.7% of total population ins wrong... It is much more.

Official data is used. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course the figure of 4.7% is wrong. The Roma minority in Bulgaria is around 10% out of around 7.5 million citizens in Bulgaria.

Roma minority is around 5 to 6 %, but the turkish is around 12-13% as the latest statistics. --Eliade 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

4.7% are those that consider themselves to be Roma. Many Roma although consider themselves to be Bulgarian or Turk, and even have Bulgarian surnames. They speak Bulgarian with a pecular accent some Turkish and Roma words thrown in or Turkish with some Roma words. Many Roma words have entered Bulgarian slang. Some of them have fully assimilated and you cannot tell them apart from the Bulgarians or the Bulgarian Turks. -dimitar ouzounoff

There was a documentary on B-Tv - i think called "Reporters" (roughly translated) that looked at a possibility that the actual percentage of the Romany demigraph is unknown. The documentary mentioned that alot of marriages within this sphere were below the legal age and that alot of children born into these relationships are keep away from national listings, such as Birth Certificates, Identity Cards, and passports, out of fear that the couple might find themselves in trouble. The programme did go on to say that even though this is not agood thing, the effect on the number of Romany individuals living in Bulgaria is not as significant as one might think.--Whiskey Blues123 02:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

1990s Turks issue

Some reference should be made about the government campaign against the turks...

This is done in the History of Communist Bulgaria article, and I personally don't consider it notable enough to be mentioned in the general Bulgaria article. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

May be mentioned in article Turks in Bulgaria. The campaign it was not only in the Communist Bulgaria. --Timurberk 22:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The forced Bulgarization of the Turkish minority is conveniently blamed on the communists. It was not a 1990s issue. Bulgaria was not a communist country in 1940 when most Turkish names of places and towns were renamed with Bulgarian names. There were repeated campaigns against the Turks by Bulgarian governments which were mostly backed by the citizens. When communism collapsed and Turks were given back some degree of freedom there were public protests and demonstrations staged by Bulgarian citizenry. So Bulgarians considering this issue not to be "notable enough" should be weighted in the light of these facts.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is important as for communist Bulgaria and also to the general article about Bulgaria as well. Oppression and ethnic cleansing against the turkish and muslim population is a continiuos policy of the Bulgarian state since the Ottoman-Russian war. There are hundreds of thousands people who were forced to emigrate from Bulgaria to the Ottoman lands, signifacant proportion of them perished during this ethnic cleansing campaign, most of the other refugees was unable to return (their properties were looted, confiscated or in many instants forcibly occupied by bulgarian christian villagers) to their homeland after the end of the war. After this initial ethnic cleansing, remaining turkish minority was subject to constant government lead discrimination policy, which sometimes caused another big migration waves. Finally communist regime in Bulgaria continued nationalistic policy against muslims in the country, and finally at the end of 1980-ies this resulted in the first large-scale ethnic cleansing campaign in Europe since the Warld War II. I think that this policiy of communist Bulgaria is one of the most important political issues in the country in the recent history, it's comparable to some Yugoslav war issues, althugh whith much more lower human live costs and thus should be mentioned with great attention in this sections; Also, after the collapse of the communism, ethnic relations imporoved and there is significant improvement of minority rights in Bulgaria, partly because of the task of fulfilling European Union's policies.--Leventcik (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarian Orthodox Church which was founded in 870 AD under the Patriarchate of Constantinople and has been autocephalous since 927.?????

Heeeeeeeeeey! Slow down! It was in 1870's when you got you Bulgarian church! Before, there was only the beautifull and very romantic thing called Ottoman rule + Church of Constantinopoli!

Ummm... false. Read the article first. Our church was restored in 1870, but founded in 870 and autonomous since 927. Besides, I don't really think the Ottoman rule and the Patriarchate of Constantinople are that beautiful and romantic, whatever this is supposed to mean. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you do not know what the terms romantic and beautiful are supposed to mean, how can you refute them when applied to state institutions? Perhaps you mean that these terms are not 'suitable'. No, they are not; though they must have had some romance and beauty.Politis 13:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The greek guy - you can read a bit more history before you write in bold !!! And I don't think the city you are mentioning is Constantinopoli ... Istanbul is closer ... or Tsarigrad if you want.

---

Generally I think the article is very good. I have only one question - Why it doesn't say on the left banner what year Bulgaria was christianized? I mean, this is an important information, being the first slavic country to aqcuire the Christian religion. If you look at the polish page it's widely anounced. --Stoyan.stoyan 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer is 864 :)

A piece of advice, read Mercia Macdermott, theres quite alot of information describing the Helanisation of Bulgaria during the Ottoman rule. As for the formation of the Bulgarian Church as an independant body there are quite a few sources, such as Steve Runciman etc. I use these two Authors becouse they come from the "Western" school off thought.--Whiskey Blues123 03:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much! I would never ever guess the year of Christianizing! With all the due respect, the question was why it is not mentioned on a visible place since it is an important and interesting fact of our history? But seriously, thanks for the answer! ;))) Stoyan.stoyan 01:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Jewish

How many Jews are living in Balgarija an in Sofija? What language is spoken by them? Perhabs they are Aschkenasim-Jews!? Simon Mayer

Most of Bulgaria's Jews, as far as I know, are Sephardim that traditionally have spoken Ladino, although it's not a language you would commonly hear nowadays. It is hard to determine the number of Jews, but here is a brief list of important people of Jewish origin that are connected to Bulgaria. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 11:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria did more to protect Jews from the Holocaust than the vast majority of European nations.

Bulgars were an ancient turkish tribe

Why do Bulgarians use the ancient name Bulgaria which was a turkish tribe in the area you live today?

Why do Russians use the name of the Scandinavian Rus' people? Why do the mostly Celtic and Latin French use the name of the Germanic Franks? It's just how things happened through the course of history, I wouldn't say it's uncommon for a people to adopt the name of another people, given the many examples. Besides, Bulgars had an important role in the early years of Bulgarian history, before they mixed with or (more likely to me) were even assimilated by the local Slavs. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 22:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The ancient name Bulgaria was a turkish tribe??? What, uh, uh!!! Bulgaria is a name that comes from the bulgarians, people from the Volga region in todays Russia or Ukraine.

...who according to the two prevalent historical theses were either of Turkic or Iranian origin. - Bulgars --89.190.200.137 22:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Asking Bulgarians if their ancestors were a Turkic people may be perceived too brutal by some. However the original name of the Volga river is Itil. It bacame known as Volga since a branch of Bulgars migrated to the area from the Kuban valley in Caucasus. In any case Bulgars were a Turkic tribe. However Bulgarians who became Slavs do not like to acknowlege this due to their hatred towards the Ottoman Turks and would typically try to dissasociate themselves with the Turks. Therefore a recent theory by a Bulgarian pseudo-scientist -who used a dictionary and proposed some similarities with certain Iranian words- claiming Bulgars to be of Pamirian origin became popular in Bulgaria. Only Bulgarians are supporting it while the rest of the community of experts is laughing about it. Bulgars and Bulgarians should be viewed as two distinct ethnic groups.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Nostradamus1, we Bulgarians (and Hungarians, Bavarians, Austrian, Lombards, Prussians, Finnish, Estonians) find your point of view too brutally stretching and distorting the truth. Lantonov (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how the Bavarians and all the other ethnic groups you mention made it here (and how you find yourself in a position speak for them) but to reiterate my position on this: Bulgars and Bulgarians are two separate ethnicities. The former one contributed to the formation of the latter. I can see why Bulgarians would want to combine the two into one but the facts are that they are not. Until the reign of Boris I the rulers of the Bulgar kingdom -that is when the khans became tsars- were Bulgars.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

All the peoples in the parenthesis are Turkic people (they have, or are supposed to have something Turkic in their roots). So are the Ottoman Turks, which are direct descendants of Seldjuk Turks. The last, however, are as different from the original Turkic roots, as are all mentioned above. So, we may have been relatives with all but very distant relatives and in the pre-historic past - something like the 25th cousins. Lantonov (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

None of the people that you mentioned in paranthesis -that is Hungarians, Bavarians, Austrian, Lombards, Prussians, Finnish, Estonians- are Turkic. (Part of the Hungarian formation was from the Cumans and the Kabar Turks that included the founding father Arpad and his dynasty but calling Hungarians of today a Turkic people would be a stretch in my opinion.) It would also not be so accurate to claim that the Ottomans were direct descendants of the "Seldjuks". Oghuz bands who were not part of the Seldjuks arrived in Anatolia as a result of Mongol pressure some forming their own beyliks and ultimately being absorbed into the Ottoman empire.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The country has the name Bulgaria - from its very beginning in the VII century. Both Danube Bulgaria (this one) and Volga Bulgaria (the other one you mention) are direct descendants of the Old Great Bulgaria which was geographically between them. Both was found by two brothers - the second and the third son of Kubrat (The first stayed in Old Great Bulgaria). Its name is Bulgaria because it was founded and consisted of Bulgarians from the verry beginning. YES the language became to close to slavic langwages due to slavic presance and literature but this so coled "asimilation" is i'm afraid - highly doubtful! Especially since it became obvious that proto-Bulgarians ware radar Iranians then turks, so they ware much closer to ‘slavic’ then previously believed! I repeat – Bulgarians WARE NOT a turkish tribe – they came in Europe in II century, long before the turkish tribes!

Hang on people, the Avars who settled in Bulgaria were Turks. By Turks I do not mean the Turks of Modern Day Turkey, I mean the Steppe peoples from Asia that rode fast moving horses and sacked many a town on the way to Byzantine held Danube territory in the 7th century.Tourskin 06:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not know whether to laugh or seriously respond to the assertion of Especially since it became obvious that proto-Bulgarians ware radar Iranians then turks, so they ware much closer to ‘slavic’ then previously believed. :) Last Friday I was speaking to a Bulgarian guy and he told me similar things - that Asparuh spoke a Slavic language and that Bulgaria had 2000 years of history but the Ottomans had only 700. If it's possible to laugh at and feel emphaty for these people's pain this is one such case.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The only pain I see here is that of Nostradamus1. Bulgaria is not in the Ottoman Empire for 130 years now. Get used to it. Lantonov (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

Zdrasti Bozhinov! Moje6 li da dobavi6 taka nare4enata "Gallery" kum tazi statia (kakto pri Romania, Turkey i Serbia naprimer) ? Ne 4e iskam da prili4ame na tqh, no ako priemem, 4e stra6no mnogo hora izpolzvat wikipedia to za6to togava da ne si napravim malko reklamka (snimki ot 4ernomorieto, vazrojdenski seli6ta i drugi prirodni zabelejitelnosti) ?Samiat az neznam kak se pravi tova i zatova se obra6tam s tazi molba kum teb.

Да, и аз си мислех за нещо подобно и наистина има нужда, снимките са перфектни за илюстрация и дават представа за страната повече от много текст. Ще се заема да отсея разни хубави снимки и да си сложим една галерийка. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 14:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Готово! Ти ако в Уикипедия си намерил други хубави снимки, за които смяташ, че имат място в статията, като са достатъчно качествени и изобразяват познати и известни обекти или характерни черти на България, се чувствай напълно свободен да ги добавиш към галерията, тя е затова :) → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Може да вземете купища качествени снимки от www.photo-forum.net. Просто пуснете тема, в която казвате че търсите снимки на характерни за България места, който ви трябват за wikipedia. Мисля, че ще получите помощ ;)

Мисля че снимки може да се вземат и от тук: http://imagesfrombulgaria.com С висока резолюция са, снимките са само от България, хората от сайта ги дават свободно - под Creative Commons 2.5. Имат повече от 23 000 снимки на България - мисля, че са идеални за целта.

Summary in English

A proposal to add a photo gallery to the page as in other country articles. It was shortly fulfilled by me. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Great job at adding the picture gallery Todor! I think it's a good start; my only suggestion would be to add more visually appealing pictures. Also, to include pictures of places unique to Bulgaria. Let me know what you think. Thanks! --Kassabov 07:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't hesitate to add images that you've found on Wikipedia and that are released under a free license to the gallery! The ones I've picked out are some of the more appealing ones, I believe, but also feel free to remove some in order to prevent the gallery from getting too large. Be bold! → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 11:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Bulgaria

Hello! WikiProject Bulgaria, devoted to better organizing, maintaining and developing the network of Bulgaria-related articles, is currently gathering members in order to be started. If you're interested in participating, add your name to the "Interested Wikipedians" subsection of the proposed project's section in the list of proposed WikiProjects. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian sport

Where can I find a home page for Bulgarian sport? I would like to write more articles on Bulgarian sportspeople, but there is no point of reference I can find. --Cryout 15:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

tons of great bulgarian weightlifters here: http://www.chidlovski.net/liftup/l_athlete_listingCountry.asp?cdescription=Bulgaria

Where do links about torture in Bulgaria go?

I don't know how common torture is in Bulgaria, but this story about police torturing nurses for 174 days suggests that it's a problem. The webpage says its information comes from "Troud", which it says is Bulgaria's biggest newspaper. Is Bulgaria's human rights record discussed anywhere? or where should links like this go? Gronky 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, hello? This article is about torturing Bulgarian nurses in Lybia  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Glad I asked. Gronky 17:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria has no negative human rights record I know of after the forcing some Turkish population to leave or change their names in the late 1980s. All abuses are handled at the court in the Hague - and Bulgaria fully accepts its responsibilities. Indeed, it is Bulgarian citizens abroad whose rights are occasionally abused. --Cryout 13:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But the name forcing happened after turkish terrorists bombed a train and killed 7 people - mothers with their children. 88.203.248.170 11:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Empire !?!?!?

Doesn't anybody have a problem with the term EMPIRE used everywhere in this page !? I am Bulgarian and love and respect the history of my country, yet it has never been an Empire. Yes, Simeon might have assumed the style of "Emperor of the Bulgars and the Romans", but we had Hans, Tzars and Knjazs' ruling the country through its history!

http://www.bulgaria.com/history/rulers/

This is the first and only place I've seen discussion of First, Second etc. Bulgarian Empires!

Evgeny Kolev / Евгени Колев —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.90.4.2 (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2006

As far as I know, "Empire" is the established historical term in the English-speaking part of the world. --Daggerstab 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Evgeny, the title tsar itself means "emperor". It is a contraction of the Roman title caesar. The lesser one that cowprresponds to "king" is "kral", as you might know. The medieval Bulgarian state was never ruled by a "kral". How do you understand the difference between an empire and a kingdom in this context and in general? Todor Bozhinov  → 19:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This can be found in the [http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/empire?view=uk%7COxford dictionary under empire: (1) an extensive group of states ruled over by a single monarch or ruling authority; (2) supreme political power. I believe the relevant explanation is (1). Then, there is my general understanding, which is somewhat supported by Wikipedia's article on empire: a supranational or superethnical political entity that is ruled by a monarch (with absolute power). In this sense Bulgaria has been an empire for short period of time: maybe under Simeon and then around the years of Ivan Asen II. However, this doesn't turn Bulgaria into an empire for the genral case (so First, Second or Third Empire is meaningless). Now, we should also remember that the Bulgarian use of "tzar" has little to do with "emperor". To say the least, our current Tzar Simeon II was never a ruler of more than one (major) nationality within the borders of the Kingdom of Bulgaria. I will not change the terms before I get some response in the near future. However, it is my firm belief that they have to be changed. --Cryout 06:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Emperors are autocrats with absolute power elected by the people represented by their electives. For example Julius Ceaser was elected Emperor by the Roman Senate [2] or Napoleon Bonaparte was (at least technically) elected by the French Parliament.

Since the etymology of Tsar is from ceaser some confuse Tsar with Emperor, however the term Tsar clearly changed its meaning in Bulgarian (more about this here [3]) and should be translated as King, respectively Tsarstvo is Kingdom.

In contrast, the Serbian language (along with the closely related Croatian, Bosnian, and Slovene languages) translates "emperor" (Latin imperator) as tsar (car, цар) and not as imperator, whereas the equivalent of king (kralj, краљ) is used to designate monarchs of non-imperial status, Serbian as well as foreign, including Biblical and other ancient rulers.

Since Tsar in Bulgarian is the hereditary title of the ruler of a sovereign state appointed by god, the article is incorrect and should be edited to use King or Tsar and Bulgarian Kingdom. 66.194.227.150 16:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation in IPA

Correct me if I am wrong but I think there is a typing mistake in the IPA pronounciation of Bulgaria as written in IPA: /ˌbɤlgarˈia/. The IPA letter ɤ is pronounced closer to G - this letter describes a consonant not a vowel! Please correct it, because I am not sure which one has to be used (according to me the correct pronounciation is ˌbəlgarˈia). Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.167.63 (talk)

Take a look at the articles on IPA and Bulgarian language. --Daggerstab 17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Many countries (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ...) cite the IPA transcription of their names in square brackets. I gave up before finding any pages of countries that use slashes. As the transciption here looks narrow enough, I suggest that we use brackets too. --Cameltrader 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, it seems that some (European) countries do, in fact, use slashes — Montenegro, Romania, and the Ukraine. I leave it as it is, but something else still looks not quite right: why not put the stresses before the syllables instead of immediately before the vowels? --Cameltrader 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

fishing in Bulgaria

What type of fish can I catch in the river Yantra? I am going to visit Veliko Turnovo and hope to fish there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.128.84 (talk)

According to the website of some hunting lodge, a certain reservoir at the Yantra (called Skalsko) is stocked with sheatfish, carp, and chub, among others. Unfortunately, I'm not a specialist and half of the fish listed on the website don't seem to show up in my Bulgarian-English dictionary, so I don't know the names in English. Todor→Bozhinov 19:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook link is broken

,.

Genetic study source

Could somebody point me to the source of the genetic phenotype results presented in the history section of the article? --Cryout 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Second oldest capital?

Are you sure Sofia is second oldest capital in Europe? I'm not. --Tzeck 08:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also against in saying that Sofia is the second oldest capital in Europe, where are Athene, Rome? --Eliade 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In Greece, Italy? Sofia is as almost as old as Rome, which was traditionally founded in 753 BC (7th 8th century BC), and Sofia's history dates back to the 7th century BC. As for Athens, it's the first in that list :) I'm also against mentioning that 'second' thing, but 'one of the oldest' is more than perfectly acceptable, if even a bit modest (but we Bulgarians are modest people, generally). Todor→Bozhinov 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Education missing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria#Education why? --Eliade 19:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, somebody inserted the heading and decided not to write anything under it, that's why. It's not because we don't have anything to boast in that sphere, that's for certain :) Like, the oldest academies of the medieval Slavic world, etc.

Can someone tell me who removed the sections about John Atanasoff, the Pravetz and military aeronautical achievements of the Bulgarians? I am curious, is someone here unhappy about Bulgaria's achievements. If you don't believe thees things, do the research yourself. Furtherstill, you can look at the genotype studies done in recent years and you will see that 60% of Bulgarian phenotypes are Eastern Mediterrenean in origin, which is directly descended from the Thracians. Recent studies in BAN, also show that the Bulgars originated in the Hindu Kush and were not Turkic in origin. In fact, they were as previously stated of Aryan Persian descent. And Aryan has nothing to do with blond hair and blue eyes, as the real aryans were dark. If you want to re-invent Bulgarian history or simply ommit facts, such as the computer industry developed in the 1970s, or world firsts such as those made by Bulgarian pilots in the Second Balkan War then you obviously have complexes that make you fear the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monshuai (talk • contribs)

No, I'm relying on the established historical facts. Recent studies don't convince me, and let's not mention a controversial topic like the Bulgars' origin (I don't say they were Turkic). You're the one reinventing or revising, since you're trying to make recent theories look like established facts when they're not, and this is close to WP:OR. Also, the history section was getting too long, you may like to expand the relevant articles (Bulgars, First Bulgarian Empire, Military history of Bulgaria during World War II, etc.) instead. And place cite your sources when claiming things such as 'oldest country in Europe', 'second in the world after the USA to develop a personal computer industry', etc. Also, do you really think John Atanasoff's medals are relevant in the history section of an article so general as this one? Consider that. Todor→Bozhinov 10:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, is there no one who can contribute to the Education paragraph? --Eliade 07:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Dunno might be good if someone could write about the effects of communism on the broader education. Since i'm born and educated in the UK, I've only ever heard people boast about it. Also migt be good to mention the success of the Mathmatical and Computar technology spheres. Guess these are some suggestions i hope :). --Whiskey Blues123 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

History section

OK, first of all Mr. Bozhinov, you don't have the ultimate right to decide what should and should not be in the history section. Second, your perception of what is subjective or invented is yours alone, and if you want sources, I'll give you sources. I'm leaving for Shanghai on Thursday, but in approximately five weeks I'll be back with those additions and their respective academic sources. Would you prefer them in MLA or APA? :) BTW, I'm not going to go into your education vs. my education, but if you prefer I'll be more than happy to tell you what I do and thus likely imply to you that my knowledge and authority on history is well regarded in national circles. Furthermore, what you do not seem to realize is that history is one lie built on top of another, and the way in which you portray Bulgarian history supports some of the lies built from imperial propaganda that spawned in classical Europe just two centuries ago. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, than I'll be happy to enlighten you on this issue. It is thus critically important to portray Bulgarian history from our perspective with our studies and interpretations at the forefront, because after all we are its agent and trans-generational carriers. There is already too much anti-Bulgarian propaganda due to multiple failures on our part in international relations and in particular due to the volatility and strategic importance of the region where our country is located. I will however say that what I write is an integral part of the modern curriculum in Bulgarian schools and universities. If you feel you have the authority to go against that curriculum and the way in which it interprets history, versus what is likely a history you learned in communist days from Mother Russia and its scholars, then you have a psychological inadequacy that is exacerbated by delusional visions of personal grandeur Mr. Bozhinov. However, if you accept the material as it was, with a list of sources, then I will gladly reconsider my last statement. And parenthetically, the oldest country in Europe refers to Bulgaria being the only one with a national identity of the so-called 'Bulgarian sovereignty' since 681 (despite repeated invasions from external entities). Our culture goes back much further than this date, but only since 681 have we called ourselves Bulgarian (as a reference to a people of multiple cultural origins and not only Bulgar), whilst the general central geographic area of the country has remained the same. No other country in Europe can claim the same status as applied to the last 1325 years; thereby this perspective is correct as based on the modern understanding of nationality (identified by the majority of the united populace as belonging to an internal collective) and geographic cohesiveness. On the other hand, if you have been influenced by Western Europe's interpretation on the matter as expressed in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), then you probably feel that no country existed in the modern sense before this date. That said, the historical subjectivity born from the said treaty is rather West-Euro centric and does not take into consideration the developments of nationhood in other parts of the world, which came much earlier than its own entrance into the world of lawful international politics.

Once again, you leave me no choice but to prove you wrong, and your comment on recent studies not convincing you is beyond the issue. You are not the one who even needs to be convinced as you do not hold the key to Bulgaria's history, and as far as I know, in no way are you a prominent individual within our society. If I'm wrong about that please correct me, and then I shall also gladly tell who I am and what my position in our society is. I will write again what you removed, and therein it will be your futile job to prove me wrong in order to try and establish your opinion as one that carries higher ground. So in fact, it is your comments that don't convince me, and I must be brutally honest with you, as I feel I need not be convinced by someone who thus far has given me a negative impression of their intellectual capacity. I realize this may lead to a nasty argument, but do remember that I added to what was written and only removed the 'turkic' connection from the article as this has been proven to be incorrect. You on the other hand feel you have the clout to simply remove everything someone has contributed... So why should we not talk about our Bulgarian achievements and someone like Atanasoff. This is about as much as most foreign people will read on the Bulgaria section, and it certainly is beneficial to our country to showcase facts that elevate the status of the nation beyond its miserable current international reputation, or lack thereof. What you don't seem to realize is that this article is also a virtual advertisement for Bulgaria. Please don’t convulse and then try to explain that history does not have a commercial implication. That’s not what I’m stating, as history is always written in the best interests of the victors. It’s time we write in this way too, as no one else will go out of their way to emphasize those facts that place a little more light on our civilization, both from collective and individual achievements. Do you even know the meaning of socio-cultural marketing? If you don't, I suggest you research the masters at this game, primarily the USA, England and recently China.

I truly hope that you are not the kind of thickheaded fool that I have visualized upon my first impressions. Indeed, I am sincerely optimistic that some part of what I said will permeate into your psyche, thereby giving you the opportunity to see the value of what I just wrote along with what I had written two days ago in the main article. The best way to resolve this issue is through intellectual dialogue and a unified national spirit... So as you say, "consider that!"

Please refrain from personal attacks. Now, if you're willing to provide very serious referencing for the things you believe in, and acknowledge they're not the accepted and universal history of Bulgaria, then they might be suitable to include. I'm not any authority on the subject or anything like that, I'm only one Wikipedian following Wikipedia principles, guidelines and policies, and they say "no original research" and "neutral point of view". New theories may be true, but they also may be wrong — time will tell. Until then, the history of Bulgaria is as established by the authoritative sources and books on the topic. When you add content here, you're supposed to follow the rules — no matter what your education is and anything else, you're just a Wikipedian.

Also, I haven't removed Atanasoff from the article, he's part of the Culture section already. Note that this article is supposed to be a concise summary, with the vast majority of the actual content being located at other, specific topic-related pages (like, for example, First Bulgarian Empire or Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria). This is one of the reasons I've removed your additions — they were in the inappropriate article, and content like this, generally considered to be controversial, is as a rule removed until (or if) it can be made neutral and perfectly referenced. So it's your turn now. Todor→Bozhinov 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you Mr. Bozhinov, what are these authoritative and established books that you have been reading? I'm curious, because the most authoritative Bulgarian books say different things then what you have presented thus far. In consequence, I'm led to believe that your identification of authority is something external to the Bulgarian academic environment. Bulgaria does not write the history of other nations, and if we were to do so, then their populaces would contest many facts due to disagreements in the matter of perspective and the consequent interpretations. After all, history is simply an interpretation of a past reality as inflated and deflated by internal and external sources. What is left is never "universal." If your reference books are not written by Bulgarian historians, anthropologists, archaeologists and sociologists, then I suggest you give your ancestral academia a chance. If by "universal" history you mean the history written about Bulgaria in western literature then I would advice you to reconsider this stance. Tell me, do you feel Ethiopians are best suited to write and interpret the "universal" history of Sweden, or likewise the Swedes to do the same with respect to Malaysia? How about Englishmen and Americans writing about Bulgaria and vice-versa? Would you call it universal history if the way in which Bulgarians interpret western Europe was published in their history books? What if a Bulgarian historian wrote an entire chapter in the Encyclopaedia Britannica about how the Bulgars inflicted one defeat after another on the Crusaders, who acted in barbarous ways everywhere they went and were in no way upholding the ideals of Christianity? Do you feel that Britannica's chief editor would even dare allow such material? Is that a part of your so-called "universal" history and if not, why not? Is it because Western literature somehow chooses to omit such facts by blinding its readers with what are always naturally slanted versions of reality? Even if three people see the same event, they will always interpret it in a slightly dissimilar fashion. Now multiply that over thousands of years and you get the point. Taking this to nth degree, if a fact is maximally proven, then the way in which it is interpreted will eventually make it contestable anyway. In today's world, this same western literature is arguably the most influential in the world due to capital resources that are the pillars of its propaganda mechanisms, upon which much of history is based. In reality, just because something is said to be 'established' and 'universal' from the western perspective, does not mean it is so in other parts of the world. Based on this, I have a feeling that you don't live in Bulgaria...

This is not about personal attacks, but it's about someone who claims objectivity in the face of a subjective world. Perhaps you have academic potential, and your ability to identify truth from fiction may yet develop, but you must sink you psyche into the depths of Bulgarian literature, both ancient and modern. Then and only then, will you have the chance to truly see the meaning of neutrality. Knowing the issue from one side of the equation leads only to a disequilibrium that is anything but neutral. Please think carefully about what I have said. As stated, I will re-write all those things previously mentioned according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. Further still, I will include those things that I believe are most beneficial to the presentation of Bulgaria in the main article. Have a great day and thank you for understanding.

Somebody called Aldux keeps deleting the paragrapph about the Ottoman rule of the Bulgarian lands without giving explanation. It certainly is a very important part of Bulgarian history and I'm wondering what her motives are.

Simple; your edits are pov and I haven't seen a single source presented. So I don't see why they should stay. And when sources are presented, remember they have to be WP:RS.--Aldux 10:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Aldux is some kind of a maggot that unfortunately has an editing control over the Bulgarian history in Wikipedia, even thought the site is supposed to be a free site. A few months ago, I had the same problems with him (maybe her) and I am sure that s/he sleeps in front of his/her monitor and watches over our history. Whenever the e-mail comes in s/he changes the info back immediately. I swear, there is only a few minutes difference between somebody else's posting and the inevitable change from the infamous Aldux. I don't know what he looks like, but I traced his name back to Italy or Belgium.

turkish is definitely an official language of bulgaria, see this source

please do not blindly revert! See http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=BG --ElevatedStork 19:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Bulgaria. Narodna Republika Bulgaria. 7,517,973. National or official languages: Bulgarian, Turkish. Literacy rate: 90% --ElevatedStork 19:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Turkish is "official" in the sense of being officially locally recognized (Turks only live in compact groups in the south and northeast, and largely not elsewhere in the country, so they have local recognition of the language). The national language and the only language official in the entire country is Bulgarian. Besides, the literacy rate is 90% to 98%, although I don't see the connection and why you've bolded it :) Todor→Bozhinov 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The constitution has something else to say.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the constitution^[4]:

“ Чл. 3. Официалният език в републиката е българският. ”

in English, this is^[5]:

“ Article 3. Bulgarian shall be the official language of the Republic. ”

No mention of Turkish, Chinese, Swahili or Samoan. Supposedly, regionally recognized languages are treated with a separate law, they're not important enough for the constitution, where the sole official language is only mentioned. Todor→Bozhinov 21:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be rude, but this funny quote from a ridiculous source is too much for me to take ... even on a forum. Here is the quote: Republic of Bulgaria. Narodna Republika Bulgaria. 7,517,973. National or official languages: Bulgarian, Turkish. Literacy rate: 90% . First of all, "Narodna Republika Bulgaria" is the former, communist, name of the country. Second, you only show the 90% literacy rate. Well, your source claims: "90% to 98%". Even if you take the average of this rather large band, it is 94%, and this number is still below the true value. Only then could we discuss Turkish being an official language in Bulgaria. Well, it is not. It is an important language, and one our official institutions respect and provide some services in (e.g. a daily newscast on public TV). So, please, please, please, don't provide these kind of data again. They are laughable, and what is worse - their rebuttal just now wasted 5 minutes of my life. --Cryout 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have bothered, really. User:ElevatedStork is (or should we say was) one of the numerous sockpuppets of User:Bonaparte, a banned Romanian user known for trolling and nationalist editing. The anti-Bulgarian edits of this account of his are a sort of vendetta for what happened to User:Eliade, another account of his, who insisted that the Vlachs in Bulgaria are Romanians but had no grounds to claim this. Todor→Bozhinov 12:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hohohoho. Don't be ridiculous. turkish is NOT and will NEVER be an official language in our country. --Gligan 14:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

for the one above, turkish is not an important language, please.....Делян 23:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Holidays?

Hey neighbors! I've been trying to find your national holidays, and can't see them in the article. I suppose Oct. 5th would be one. Can you point me to an article or section with all your holidays? That would also be a nice element to add in this article, until the next FA nomination... •NikoSilver• 20:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yasu, I'm not sure if an article exists about them here, but there's a list of Bulgarian holidays at government.bg. 5 October is not one of those, I'm afraid. I hope I can help later this week, but not tonight. --Cameltrader 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I am copying the text below, in case someone wishes to add that info:

1 January – New Year’s Day 
3 March –  National Holiday (Bulgaria’s Day of Liberation from the Ottoman Rule)
1 May – Labour Day
6 May – St. George’s Day, Day of the Bulgarian Army
24 May – Day of Bulgarian Enlightenment and Culture and of Slavonic Alphabet
6 September – Bulgaria’s Unification Day 
22 September – Bulgaria’s Independence Day
1 November – Enlightenment Leaders Day – a day-off for educational establishments  
24 December – Christmas Eve 
25 and 26 December – Christmas
Easter – two days (Sunday and Monday); moveable holiday

Happy editing! •NikoSilver• 10:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica

Okay, so I'm thinking of removing the references to Bulgaria's Antarctic base and its participation in treaties regarding Antarctica from the intro, and possibly placing them somewhere else in the article. This sort of information isn't typically included in introductions to articles, and I see no reason to make an exception here. It's just not that important when considering Bulgaria broadly. Does anyone disagree? Adlerschloß 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the country places some priority in its special involvement in Antarctica, along with 27 other nations that have a vote (and veto) in the governing of Antarctica. The website of the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry has a top entry Bulgaria - Antarctica together with Bulgaria - EU, Bulgaria - NATO, Bulgaria - UN, and Bulgaria - OSCE. Apcbg 05:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Today accession to EU on 1.1.07 approved

Material for changes in the article: speeches by Olli Rehn [6] and José Manuel Barroso [7] --Michkalas 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

IPA transcription

I am not certain that IPA: [bɤlˈgarijə] might be the right IPA transcription of the name of the country, "България". The "я" in "България" is unstressed, while the yodized "ъ" \jə\" only occurs – if I am not wrong – in stressed sylables as in "вървя" \vərvjə\. Apcbg 07:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, is "IPA: [bɤlˈgariə]" what you propose instead? --Cameltrader 08:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the linguists ought to offer the educated judgement on this one, mine is just an opinion. The version IPA: [bɤlˈgariə] doesn't appeal to me either. Perhaps in this article should appear a more formal transcription like IPA: [bəlˈgarija], as it is indeed pronounced on some official occasions, recitings etc. In common speech the pronunciation varies with the ending possibly IPA: [-iɤ] but unlikely IPA: [-iə]. But again, this is just an opinion. Apcbg 09:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Once, there was a lengthy discussion in Talk:Bulgarian language#Vowel_Chart on similar issues, and in particular the distinction between ram's horns (/ɤ/) and the schwa (/ə/). In my amateur opinion, the schwa is the only vowel closest to ъ. Maybe there was a mistake in the chart then, because I've seen the ram's horns in two different places on the chart (one of them closer to "o"). But you definitely have to mark the difference between the stressed and unstressed "a" — Bulgarian is quite different from, say, French, in which stress doesn't noticeably modify tenseness, openess, etc. Such ambiguities are not uncommon, and I was also thinking about proposing a special template for Bulgarian IPA transcriptions, so that we can easily fix them all, once we have a policy. But anyway, we need experts... --Cameltrader 10:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Italics in Cyrillics

A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Municipalities

I think it is high time to create articles for all or at least some of the municipalities of the country. BUT it would be nice if someone downloads a map of municipalities of Bulgaria, so that their location can be showed, as it is for the serbian municipalities. I cannot download anything so please help. --Gligan 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, not sure about that. We can't determine exactly which municipalities are notable and which aren't in most cases. Also, the way I proceed with municipalities is write about them in a section on the town article, just as it is with Serbian municipalities (which you gave as an example), because I don't ever think most of them would ever grow larger than a list of places + population/area data (i.e. they wouldn't ever take up more than a paragraph or two). You can see my idea for dealing with this at Sredets or Pleven.

Now, there's also these municipalities which lack a municipal centre (like Dobrichka municipality, which includes the villages around Dobrich, but the city itself is a municipality of its own. Other peculiar cases include Rodopi municipality and Maritsa municipality of Plovdiv Province, Tundzha municipality of Yambol Province... there could be more. These do deserve an article of their own, just because we can't effectively assign them to a specific other article as a section in the same manner as those which have an administrative centre.

Do you like my idea? Todor→Bozhinov 12:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, sounds good. I like the your idea for Sredets, it should be therefore applied for the other cities and towns. In the Bulgarian version there are maps of the regions with municipalities, I wonder is there a way to be downloaded in the English version? I tried but without success. I think it would be useful for the articles for provinces to have those maps (up to now only Blagoevgrad Province has one). --Gligan 16:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's perfectly possible, but the names of places on the maps are in Bulgarian and need to be transliterated. I can deal with it, I think :) I'll also include a "munimap" (or something) parameter in {{Infobox Province of Bulgaria}}, so we could have it in the infobox. Todor→Bozhinov 09:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oldest European country?

Nai starata strana v Evropa? Malko ste se poizhvurlili mai a? Gurciq ne e li po stara? Da ne govorim che 5 veka ni e nqmalo na kartata. Prosto ne razbiram kvo se ima predvid s takova izrechenie? (Posted by 81.242.188.29)

You may wish to see the maps

• Europe AD 700 and
• Europe AD 800.

The state of Byzantium existing at that time was not Greece. Apcbg 20:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly... neither was Byzantium Greece nor can be the ancient poleis considered a single state. And I think you should drop this pessimism and stuff, we should be proud of what we are, not deny it without even considering it. Todor→Bozhinov 16:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The only European state older than Bulgaria is San Marino (founded in 301)--SOMNIVM 14:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

San Marino was not a state in 301 AD — for sourced relevant details see the section San Marino and the oldest European states below; as an internationally recognized state Bulgaria is much older. In the wider European family of nations though, Armenia (and Armenia alone) is older than Bulgaria, albeit geographically situated in Asia. Apcbg 15:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Some reference for the year 635 (or 632?). Not that I don't believe but it will give weight to this statement. Lantonov 16:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

EU

	Welcome to the European Union!

Congratulations! – Alensha ^talk 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. And Happy New Year! Bulgaria deserves its place into the EU - especially because of the further work it is still ready to do in order to help the continental integration. Having said that, I am not sure that the EU is something that defines our country so much as to be the centre-piece of the map that shows Bulgaria's position in the world. I mean that Bulgaria has to be in the centre of its own map and independent of the international organizations that it is a part of - e.g. NATO, EU, UN or even FIFA or Unicef. Yes, the EU is an enormous matter, but it still stands far below Bulgarian as the identity of the citizens of our country. --Cryout 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Todor→Bozhinov 12:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dobro došli! :) I'm a slight euro-skeptic but I still think that in the short term at least, joining the EU is a very positive thing for Bulgaria. A very happy New Year, friends! K. Lásztocska 18:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the EU stands far below Bulgaria, and Bulgaria deserves to be there. May the New Year bring joy and prosperity to the Bulgarian People!!! --Gligan 19:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture Gallery

I am thinking of removing the gallery at the end. One reason is that there are already 17 (!) other photographic images inside the article. Another is that the gallery takes up space and makes the article look empty, while pretty long - this is space for more descriptive text. Finally, the place for such a gallery is in Commons and each of these pictures is accessible inside its topical article. --Cryout 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how could I delete a image I have uploaded. Currently the image is in the gallery - catholic church in Ruse. I mean, not just to remove it form the gallery, but to delete it form the site?

The Trivia section contains errors and false statements

This are a few examples of errors or false statements that an be found in this article:

1. Quote: "• Founded in 681, Bulgaria is the oldest contemporary country in Europe. ". This statement can be considered true only if one wants to forget about the dissolution of the Bulgarian Empire from XIV century till the last decade of XIX century, and the Ottoman occupation of the whole Bulgarian teritory. Many other contries have been unified for some period of time during the history, but their union did not stand till the modern times. This is why I found this statement at least disputable.

2. Quote: "• In its modern history Bulgaria never lost a flag, captured by an enemy army. ". During The Second Balkan War Bulgaria had lost at least 3 major battles. The war ended desastously for Bulgaria, they lost a lots of teritories to Greeks, Serbians,Ottomans, and Romanians. Moreover, on the last phase of the war the Ottomans and the Romanians have entered on a Bulgaria that had most of its troops on the Serbian front. This lead to one of the most rapid defeat of a country in history, as the Romanian army marched trough Sofia, the Capital City of Bulgaria, in less than 13 days (27 June/10 July 1913). It is at least hilarious to pretend that the Bulgarian army didn't had a military garrison in Sofia, and that they didn't surrender themselves. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Balkan_War, or any other appropriate source.

3. Quote: "• Bulgaria has not been in a war since 1945, and has not been involved directly in any of the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s. ". Bulgaria was a part of Warsaw Pact, and the country had participated in the invasion of Checkoslovakia during the Praga Spring in 1968. Please take any history book that was not written by the communists to check this fact,or visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praga_Spring. Since 1990 Bulgaria was a participant in the economical embargo imposed to ex-Yugoslavia (Bulgaria has a common border with Serbia), and has particpated to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. No more comments about the above statement.

This being a free encyclopedia does not mean that one can write anything he thinks about the subject and deform the historical truth any way he wanted. I'm sorry, but this is a communist manner to impose things. Maybe the site admin will check out for this facts, because it is strange to see such statements on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bogdan0407 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Dear Bogdan, should you wish your points to be taken seriously, please substantiate and source them. Namely,

1. Please produce your examples of European countries with dates of establishment given in any popular web reference source (e.g. CIA World Factbook) as being earlier than 681 AD;

2. Please produce your references to Bulgarian regimental or other military unit flags in Romanian or any other museums (like there are Russian (from WWI) etc. regimental flags in Bulgarian museums);

3. Please produce your references to sources on any post-1945 war (including the Afghanistan or Iraq War) citing Bulgaria among the war parties.

Unless you succeed in producing such sources, your comments above are but your original research for what that's worth. Apcbg 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Apcbg, first of all I want to tell you that I am not a historian, I am just a person who is interested in history. As for your observations:

1. I did not provided any example of another country because it sounds strange to me that the Bulgarians are saying they invented the national state in Europe. After I read a little bit more about this, I found that the Bulgarian Empire (both of them) was/were located exactly on the actual teritory of Bulgaria (and partial over the actual Romanian teritory - the IIend Empire). OK. But this does not mean that we are talking about the first Eurpeean State, the ideea of STATE, as is it percived today has appeared much later, in the XVII - XVIII century. So, all I am saying is that Bulgaria cannot be considered a COUNTRY or a STATE in 681 - it was an EMPIRE, a political structure of that time, and that the "national conscience" did not appear for the first time to the Bulgarian people in 681 AD, before appearing to all the other nations in the world. It is just a question of definition of words. It seems that your acception of the term "NATION" or "STATE" or "COUNTRY" has the tendency to be more extent than the modern "western" acception. In this case, please let me provide with earlier "countries": Italy - the romans (ancestors of actual italian people) lived on the actual Italian teritory since V century BC; Macedonya: now an independent country, existed as a small (not so small during the Great Alexander rule) greek populated independent country long before AD, and they occupied almost the same teritory as the actual Macedonian State. They don't qualify for all time first "countries"? Why? Please enlight me.

2. Sorry, as much as want to provide you right now an example of a Bulgarian military flag from a museum in Romania, Tukey, Serbia, or Greece, I cannot. As I already told you, I am not a historian. I promise I will try to find you a good example in the following weeks. My problem is that the person who posted this information had not cited his source either. So, it is very hard for me to believe that in the context of those impressive defeats, the entire Bulgarian army had succesufully guarded all their flags. If you have any source about this things please share it with me. Please see: http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/bulgaria/bulg-national-history.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dobro_Pole for a possible flag loss.

3. It seems that you agree with the Bulgarian intervention along with the soviet forces in Prague Spring of 1968, as well as for the economic embargo against former Yugoslavia. For war participation, mea culpa, Bulgaria did not participate in the Afghanistan war, I was a little carried away. However, Bulgaria was a part of the military coalition in IRAQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq , even if it has withdrawn his troops in 04/2006. QED.

Answers:

1.Bulgaria was an Empire, but it was populated mainly by Bulgarians, it was not an Empire because it ruled over many peoples, but because the Bulgarian rulers wanted to have the title of the Byzantine emperor, and after successful wars they received it. If the concsiousness of the medieval Bulgarians was not a truely Bulgarian one, we would have never liberated neither from byzantium nor from turkey. I have not heard of contemporary European state founded earlier. The example of Macedonia is ridiculous because the population of ancient macedonia was hellenistic, while of contemporary is Slavic (Bulgarian), the cont. state simply bares the name of the ancient region.

You cannot say that Japan was founded in the mid 19th cent. when it introduced a modern style of government, it existed for centuries; you cannot say that France suddenly became a state when this deffinition was introduced in the 16th cent, it existed from 978 when Hugo Capet was crowen; the same is with Bulgaria.

2.In the Second Balkan War we DID NOT lose a single battle. In Bregalnitsa the serbs were defeated (though the serb sourses tell sth else), the greeks were surounded in Kresna Gorge, and the romanians were not defeated because there was not a single soldier against them. The war ended before the romanian army enter Sofia (they never did, they were at 30 km) => the garrison (if there was one I am not sure) did not surrender to anyone. --Gligan 09:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bogdan:

1. If you look at the map of Europe as of 700 AD you would see that surely Bulgaria was not the only European state at that time, nor was it the first one; however, none of those European states survived except Bulgaria. The Frankish Kingdom evolved in several modern states (including France, Germany, Holland etc.); Byzantium was still Roman Empire, and for the Byzantines themselves it always was; they called themselves Romans (ρωμαϊ) and their empire Roman not Hellenic (Greek). Of course the dominant language and culture was Hellenic yet the concept of that empire was not ethnocentric but claimed universality and exceptionality based on special religious ‘mission’ (similarly to the Ottoman Empire later). The Bulgarian Empire followed no such ‘universality’ pattern; even if multinational it was clearly ethnically dominated by the Bulgarians, e.g. like the medieval Hungarian Kingdom in Central Europe was Hungarian dominated while comprising a number of other ethnic groups too. Ancient Macedonia differs from the present Republic of Macedonia geographically, ethnically, and culturally. It comprised the territory of present Greek Macedonia proper; its people, originally related to the Greeks, were Hellenized few centuries BC so their true successors today live in Greece rather than in Skopje or in Bulgarian Macedonia. The changes in the geographical notion of Macedonia (region) in the subsequent over two millenniums, after Ancient Macedonia was annexed by Rome, were changes made by other peoples, not by the ancient Macedonians themselves.

2. You are basing your allegations regarding Bulgarian battle flags on arguments from ignorance and incredulity. The story of all such flags (since the 1878 liberation) was well documented, and the flags safely preserved in Bulgaria. Regarding the flags of military units that were in danger of being taken by the enemy at the end of WWI (there were 12 such flags I believe), none of these was lost. To commemorate the heroism of the Bulgarian officers, sergeants or soldiers who carried those flags across enemy controlled territory back to Bulgaria a special award was established in 1922, “For the Salvation of a Flag: 1915-1918”. Just a couple of examples. As you mention Dobro Pole, one of the units fighting there was the 19 Shumen Infantry Regiment, the flag of which was saved and brought from Dobro Pole to Bulgaria by Lt.Col. Marin Kutsarov; the flag of the 15 Lom Infantry Regiment was saved by Col. Vasil Shishkov, Lt.Col. Hristo Mladenov, Capt. Petko Kapitanov, Lieut. Strahil Mitov, and Sgt.Maj. Dono Velkov; etc. etc.

3. Here we consider wars (the article speaks of participation in wars) not springs or peacekeeping missions. The Iraq War ended with the fall of Saddam Hussein, following the end of that war Bulgaria participates in a UN-sponsored peacekeeping mission invited by the internationally recognized government of Iraq; Bulgaria is not at war with Iraq (whether declared or not) and has never been.

Once again, this is not a discussion forum; I provided the above information as an exception, having neither the time nor the obligation to do your homework; it’s up to you to educate yourself why no other European state has its (widely accepted) date of establishment before that of Bulgaria, who captured whose battle flags, who took part in what war etc. If you are "just a person who is interested in history" as you say, then you might as well pursue your interest, having in mind that history does not value arguments from ignorance and incredulity. Best, Apcbg 11:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Apcgb, thanks for your answers. I want to say that if what you are saying is the truth, and I am not saying that it is not, I am really impressed with the fact that Bulgarian army didn't lose a flag in its modern history, my respects. As for the military participation of Bulgaria in Iraq, I have to say one more thing. "The Multinational force in Iraq, also known as the Coalition" was not a blue helmets mission, was not a UN mission. Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq , and you will see that the Bulgarian forces were part, and still are (as "troops guarding Camp Ashraf in Iraq") part of the coalition, not UNAMI (UN operation in Iraq).

Thanks again for your answers.

Dear Bogdan, please read carefully before responding, and deal correctly with your sources too. Nobody says that the Multinational Force in Iraq is a UN force; I wrote "UN-sponsored", and your quoted source confirms that indeed the Multinational Force in Iraq (of which Bulgaria is a part) operates "under a United Nations resolution". Indeed, Resolution 1511 (2003) "authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq", and Resolution 1546 (2004) "reaffirms the authorization for the multinational force" — and these UN resolutions are no mandate for war against anyone either. Best, Apcbg 09:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

answers and tips - version 2:

1. From what I know, there is no other country, whose name has not changed for so many centuries. The previous arguements in favour of the theory were generally true.

2. !!! When Bulgarians were going to be defeated and could not save their flags, they burned them. :)

3. Hm... better not comment :)Quote # 1,232,654,787,685,645,323,434,325,435 "God this has lots of Quotes"

World Bank Group external links

These links:

• Doing Business in Bulgaria The World Bank Group guide
• Enterprise Surveys: Bulgaria
• Privatization Database: Bulgaria

Were added by an IP address registered to the World Bank Group (doingbusiness.org is a World Bank Group domain). In keeping with our conflict of interest and external links guidelines I've moved it here for consideration by regular editors of this article who are unaffiliated with the site.

My personal opinion is that all three links are too much and don't provide enough context for linking directly from this article. Though the links look like they could be useful in more focused circumstances and might be good sources. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First use of airplanes in warfare

According to Aeronautica Militare#History "In 1911, during the Italo-Turkish war, Italy employed aircraft, for the first time ever in the world, for reconnaissance and bombing missions.". According to our article, "The Bulgarian Air Force was the first in military history to use airplanes in combat, bombing Turkish positions at Adrianople during the First Balkan War on 16 October 1912." Can someone clarify this issue, please? --Daggerstab 15:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the Bulgarian Air Force was the second, the Italian Air Force being the first; numerous sources like [8],[9],[10],[11] etc. testify that the first air bombardment was carried out on 1 November 1911, when Lieut. Giulio Gavotti threw four grenades on an enemy camp at Ain Zara (Libya) in the course of the Turco-Italian War. Apcbg 17:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work - you have corrected the statement in Aerial warfare, too. Thanks! --Daggerstab 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

One more correction is due I believe. As explained in the sourced article Radul Milkov, and corroborated by web sources, the first bombardment by the Bulgarian Air Force was made not by Lieut. Radul Milkov and Lieut. Prodan Tarakchiev on 16 October 1912, but by the Italian volunteer pilot Giovanni Sabelli and Maj. Vasil Zlatarov on 17 November 1912. Apcbg 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

632 0r 681 ???

Can we consider Old Great Bulgaria as the same state like contemporary Bulgaria? In my opinion no because the population itself differs, in Great BG it was only by Bulgars, while in Danube BG they merged with the Slavs and formed the Bulgarians; it is the same with Volga BG, it cannot be considerred as our state although its population was Bulgar; the territories were different; from Great BG emerged two seperate states so I think it should be considerred as one of the several BG states, for example Prussia cannot be considerred as Germany, it was found in 1871. What do you think? --Gligan 10:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes we can, at least as much as we consider modern Bulgaria a state that has evolved from Asparuh Bulgaria. In terms of territory Asparuh Bulgaria overlapped more with Great Bulgaria than with modern Bulgaria; it resulted from the expansion of the former to the south of Danube River. The larger portion of Asparuh Bulgaria was situated north of the Danube, and south and east of the Carpathians and along the northwest coast of Black Sea, which were Great Bulgaria's territories. The minor portion of Asparuh Bulgaria situated between the Danube and the Balkan Mountains (Moesia) is the only territory in which it overlaps with present day Bulgaria. Similarly in terms of population, in all those territories it was mixed Bulgar and Slavic people as well as others (dozens of ethnic groups from the Great Migration, also Romanized and Hellenized native population in the cities etc., which subsequently assimilated); it is well established by archeology that the Bulgars lived together with Slavs in the territories north of the Black Sea, while Bulgars and Slavs, both separately and jointly migrated and settled on Byzantine territory south of the Danube on a number of occasions already in the 6th century. The merger of the Bulgars and Slavs into a single ethnic group speaking a common language was a process of change that did not happen to differentiate Great Bulgaria from Asparuh Bulgaria, it happened more than a century later to reach its final stage maybe in the second half of the 9th century. As for Volga Bulgaria, it was an offspring of Great Bulgaria indeed, yet unlike Asparuh Bulgaria that country had no direct territorial or possibly state continuity with Great Bulgaria; it was established on an entirelly new territory, according to some historians that happened not in the 7th century but much later. Still later they changed in a more radical way, and today the languages they speak (Tatar, Chuvash) derive from none of the original languages spoken in Great Bulgaria (Bulgar and Slavic). And finally, unlike the successor state of Asparuh Bulgaria, the successor states of Volga Bulgaria have not even kept the name 'Bulgaria' today. Apcbg 14:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what we consider to be the western border of Great Bulgaria. On most of the maps and till now officially it was the Dneper river (as it is on the map above), while the same river served as an eastern border of Danube Bulgaria so in this case there is no coincedence. I have read the new theories that Great Bulgaria could have reached the Dnester or even the Danube, and if this is true we can accept that Danube Bulgaria is simply extention to the west of Great Bulgaria and both states are one whole, but the question here is "Is it true, are there any proofs for this?" Lastly, if both states were one and the same, why then we say Old Great Bulgaria instead of simply Bulgaria? --Gligan 15:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The map you quote is apparently based on a Byzantine source describing certain Bulgar territories at Azov Sea, Don and Kuban Rivers. However, that source did not specify the western borders of Great Bulgaria. Speaking of those borders ask yourself the question, border with whom? Who was the western neighbour of Great Bulgaria? Before becoming independent, the Bulgars were under Avar domination, or rather a partner/component in a joint Avar-Bulgar state. The Avars were based in Panonia, and eventually retreated there following their defeat at Constantinople in 626. While there is no archeological evidence of Avar population east of the Carpathians after that, there is such ample evidence of the Bulgar population in the steppe region north of Black Sea between the Carpathians to the west and Caucasus to the east. For instance, detailed archeological data presented in the monograph by Rasho Rashev, Die Protobulgaren im 5.-7. Jahrhundert, Orbel, Sofia, 2005 (in Bulgarian, German summary), confirms the Bulgar culture in the 5th-7th centuries not only on the territory around the lower course of Dnieper River (present Herson Oblast), but also well to the west of the Dnieper, in the lower course of Southern Bug River (present Mykolaiv Oblast). On the map Europe in 600 AD you may see Bulgars shown in few regions including the territory between Danube and Dniester Rivers. The map The Pontic steppe region, c. 650 AD shows Great Bulgaria as extending west of Dnieper River. By the way, there is no reason why in time of peace the head of state of Great Bulgaria should be buried on the border rather than near some important centre of the state; and Khan Kubrat’s grave in Mala Pereshchepina is even wrongly shown on the map you quote (it is actually located further to the northwest in present Poltava Oblast). (One plausible explanation of Kubrat's burial at that particular place would be that the Bulgar tradition was to have two state capitals, a 'winter' and a 'summer' one; and it could be that the 'summer' capital of Kubrat was in Mala Pereshchepina area.) Why Old Great Bulgaria? Because that is the documented name. It exists both in Byzantium documents in Greek, and in its Latin version ‘Antiquitus Vulgaria est Magna’ (Anastasius Bibliothecarius). Of course, ‘Old’ was added subsequently by authors who were not contemporaries, so the actual name was more likely just ‘Great Bulgaria’. Apcbg 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

All right then, you are very convincive and i will accpet that because I want to believe this and your evidence is good. But what about the official possition that Bulgaria was founded in 681? Do you think other people or officieals will accpet this? --Gligan 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well this is by no means my original research, but what apparently is becoming established among leading Bulgarian historians at least. There is really no serious reason to object the date 632 AD. As for the "official position", that is presently moving towards the possible acceptance of the date 165 AD — not as the founding date of the state of Bulgaria but as the beginning of Bulgarian statehood. This is supported by such historians as Prof. Georgi Bakalov, Vice-Rector of Sofia University, and Prof. Georgi Markov, Director of the Institute of History at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. That idea was presented at a high profile conference held at Sofia University in March 2005, with the participation of the Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov (himself a historian). It was announced at the conference that this understanding of the early Bulgarian history would be included in the school curricullum. As for 632, Prof. Markov maintained that "Danube Bulgaria was not a new state formation built with the collective effort of Bulgars and Slavs, but a continuation of Kan Kubrat's Bulgaria" (Kan is the form considered more authentic for the Bulgar rulers than Khan.) Apcbg 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Bulgaria was founded in 680-681.
• Old Great Bulgaria had been founded in 632.
• There are difference between the two.Great BG had been situated north from the Black Sea and its people had been bulgars.

Bulgaria is in the Balcans and the ancestors of modern Bulgarians are Bulgars and Slavs.

• The article is about modern Bulgaria so the year 681 is more accurate.

Все пак аз живея в България и знам кога е била създадена!Xr 1 18:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Europe v Bulgaria

See [12] :-)(animation). But, dear Bulgarian friends, it could be Athens (or Rome, Moscow, Dublin, etc,) on a bad day :-( Politis 14:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It would have to be a bad day to be Sofia too :) It's funny, but most things are far from the truth, and others have nothing to do with the country (e.g. the neighbourly rivalry thing). Todor→Bozhinov 16:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, was that suppose to make fun of Bulgaria? It could easily be New York. In fact New York came to my mind when I saw that. The music sounded French to me but then again I'm not French or Bulgarian.Tourskin 19:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

San Marino and the oldest European states

San Marino is a very old European state, with a fascinating history indeed, yet one should compare equal qualities – in this case the dates of founding as independent states. Yes according to tradition, San Marino was established in 301 AD. However, nobody says that it was an independent state in 301 AD, nor in 632 AD for that matter. As seen from a more detailed narrative of the San Marino history (a San Marino source), “Until 1300 San Marino was a feudal possession of the bishop of Montefeltro, whose diocese, a part of the Papal State was centred at San Leo.” San Marino was originally established as a community of Christians fleeing from persecution, developing (as evidenced from a 1243 document) as an autonomous commune with their own rules, represented by two Consuls (today called Captains Regent), but “still under the feudal authority of the bishop of San Leo”. In the 14th century San Marino succeeded in breaking its feudal dependence; its independence was formally recognized by Pope Pius II in 1463, reaffirmed by the Pope in 1631, and successfully defended with two brief interruptions during the centuries. Therefore, San Marino may possibly qualify as Europe’s oldest distinct ethnic-territorial entity, however countries like Bulgaria or France were founded much earlier as independent states (in 632 AD and 843 AD respectively). Apcbg 09:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Population growth

"Bulgaria has had the slowest population growth of any country in the world since 1950, except Saint Kitts and Nevis (due to their high emigration rate)."

Does this mean:

1. Every year since 1950, Bulgaria had the lowest population growth compared to the growth other countries that year; or
2. For some year, Bulgaria had the lowest population growth compared to the growth of any country of any year since 1950

(1) seems more plausible, although both seem hard to believe. What about war-torn countries, such as Rwanda or Chechnya? Disregarding reality checks, (2) may be understood considering the reference to the 1990s which is near the sentence.

Also, which population growth was low due to the high emigration rate -- the Bulgarian or the one of Saint Kitts and Nevis? Certainly Bulgaria has not always had a had emigration since 1950, so this too supports (2) above. -Pgan002 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The first one is absolutely imposible, because in 50s and 60s the population growth was quite normal and steady. Up to 1985 the population was constantly growing.

The second might be true but I doubt it because for example in Cambodia there were dramatic population drops during the rule of the red khmers.

There was emigration from Bulgaria only after 1989, I do not for St Kristofer and Nevis. I do not know who has written all this, but I think you should remove it because it is unsoursed and difficult to believe...

The only thing that makes sense is that perhaps if you compare the population from 1950 and 2006; its change in Bulgaria is the smallest of all. --Gligan 13:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:11 (UTC)

Trivia cleanup

• Viktor Antonov, the art-director for the computer game Half-Life 2 is Bulgarian.
• Bulgarian Beach on Livingston Island in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica is named for Bulgaria.

Are these really that relevant? There are other pieces of trivia that seem to me to be of dubious relevance to the article, but let's discuss these for now. I think other kinds of facts would be more suitable for the section.

I already removed this as it seemed to be the most irrelevant piece of trivia:

• Two-time Academy Awards winning American actor Tom Hanks spoke in Bulgarian in his role as Viktor Navorski in the movie The Terminal.

Krum Stanoev 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

population

according to 2001 census, population of Bulgaria is 7,973,671 wikipedia is error!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.132.78.94 (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree...besides on the National Statistics institute site (which is as external link ) the population for 2001 is 7 928 901 ..so it;s noway possible that we are 9 mln. now....somebody shpud change this!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.130.117.149 (talk)

Someone should mention our Chess Masters especially the champion from last year!

88.203.248.252 17:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC) one bulgarian girl

Ethnicity of Bulgarian-administered Yugoslav and Greek territories during WWII

I see some recent reverts/controversy on that subject. According to some Bulgarian data, 2/3 of the population there was Bulgarian as of 1941. However, the situation was quite different in Vardar Macedonia on the one hand, where the population was mostly Bulgarian (more so that the Albanian-majority districts in the west were not included), as opposed to eastern Aegean Macedonia and Western Thrace, where the pre-1912 Bulgarian relative majority had shrunk to tiny minority as a result of (1) massive exodus of ethnic Bulgarian refugees after the two Balkan Wars and WWI, partly regulated by the Mollov-Kafandaris population exchange agreement between Bulgaria and Greece; and (2) a population exchange of even larger scale between Greece and Turkey following the 1919-22 Greco-Turkish War. As a result of that radical demographic change, the ethnic Greeks apparently formed a significant majority in the Bulgarian-administered Greek territory during WWII. Apcbg 10:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why it is inconceivable to describe the Bulgarian-occupied (its "administration" was illegal) Greek territories as "inhabited mostly by Bulgarians". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

But before the awful represions by the greeks after 1912-1918 Western Thrace was populated mainly by Bulgarians who were after the WW1 forced to flee to Bulgaria and many who did not were killed. This is why in WW2 we only returned what was ours and these lands were to be settled again by the refugeees who the greeks expelled.

And, the occupied lands of Yugoslavia (mainly Macedonia) WERE inhabited by Bulgarians and they were not expelled. You remove "Bulgarian-populated" even to those lands.

And what does illegal administration mean??? It might have been illegal for the greeks but NOT for the Bulgarians. Western Thrace was one of the many injust and unreasonable territorial changes made after WW1. Why did the greeks need it? For us it was precious because it gave Bulgaria outlet to the Mediterranean, and for Greece it was just a territory without any significant value, and it is still much inderdevelopped even today. And please, don't even try to tell me that the majority of the population used to be Greek before 1912 because it is ridiculous.

I will not change the edit, but you will change it in an approprite way. I know that in 1940s Western Thrace was no more inhabited by Bulgarians, but Macedonia was, so you should leave Bulgarian-populated land for Yugoslavia. --Gligan 12:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"We only returned [sic] what was ours"? You've got to be joking. Are you laying claim to Greek territory now? As for the "awful represions by the greeks", you might wish to read up on the treatment meted out by the Bulgarians to the Greeks of Eastern Rumelia, not to mention the atrocities committed against the Greeks during the World War II occupation of East Macedonia and Thrace when Bulgaria was a Nazi puppet state. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't claim Western Thrace now, though I would like it to be in Bulgaria; but I understand the difference between what I want to and what is possible. What was the treatment of the greeks in Eastern Rumelia? There were not so many greeks there: only in Plovdiv and in some towns along the Black Sea coast. You know perfectly well that 100 ago the vast majority of the population lived in villages, and in Eastern Rumelia there were almost no greek villages (in fact I have never heard of any, but still there might have been a few). We have always respected our neighbours but they never responded with the same; there is now a village on the coast called Irakli, which is inhabited by Greeks who fled from their country to settle in Bulgaria, why did they choose Bulgaria if it was famous with represions against the greeks?

And about the atrocities against Greeks in WW2: these people were not killed because they were Greeks, but because they sabotaged the Army. Thousands of Bulgarians have been killed too throughout the whole country because of the very same reason. In the war there used to be guerilla movements not only by Greeks burt also by Bulgarians who opposed the government and in wartime this is considered treason and the penalty is death.

While the Greek repressions against the Bulgarian population were exactly because these people were Bulgarians, and this repression was much stronger between the two world war than in any war. --Gligan 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You may "like it to be in Bulgaria", but your pitiful attitude demonstrates precisely why you never deserved it in the first place. Over and out. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK Gligan, you may like it and its 70% Greek majority to be in Bulgaria, but don't you think it sounds unreasonable? Today is a big day for Bulgarian-Greek relations [13], there's little reason to feel bitter. Western Thrace is a totally different situation to the Western Outlands: there is not and never was a Bulgarian majority in Western Thrace, yet there was and still is in Bosilegrad and Tsaribrod.--Domitius 14:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all the Balkans need, another irredentist movement against Serbia. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the off-topic debates, all of you. Not a political noticeboard here. Anything related to what should be in the article, based on sources? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Transliteration

Could a transliteration for the name of the country be agreed on, because fly-by anons keep changing it. One doesn't like "y" and removes it, another incorrectly reinstates it... for easy reference: Romanization of Bulgarian and Britannica calls it Republika Bulgaria.--Domitius 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Error in a figure legend

The figure "Death of Samoil" is in fact a picture of a wedding. On expanding the picture, another legend appears (the right one?) that says that this picture represents the wedding of Samoil's daughter. Please correct !

Also, Samuil is the more accepted name rather than Samoil.

Thanks, the legend is corrected.

Images

Hello editors,

You are welcome to use any of my images from http://community.webshots.com/user/onebulgar. If you wish larger formats of the images which were taken by me, please let me know and I can certainly send you the full size image(s).

Thanks, Pete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.115.200 (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Dates of formation

The list of dates in the info-block in the upper right corner is a mess! First of all the dates are not the officially known or thought at school. They are what some believe was true (as opposed to the official position). Then, little explanation is given on which dates and why are chosen. This is very judicious. For example, it can be argued that the Bulgarian state created in 680 (and recognized by Byzantium in 681) was very different from Great Bulgaria. For one, Bulgaria in the Balkans was ethnically mainly a Slavic state, while Great Bulgaria was a Middle Eastern country (Turkic, or whatever you want it to be). Wikipedia is *not* a place to debate the facts. It is instead a place for the facts themselves. Finally, the will to believe that modern Bulgaria was founded in 632 doesn't make that a fact! --Cryout 22:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle Eastern, Turkic? Wow, you seem to have quite an old-fashioned perception of the Bulgars. Plus, AFAIK the bulk of the modern Bulgarian historians accept that Old Great Bulgaria was the same state as the First Bulgarian Empire, and not a new one; i.e., it just moved to the southwest due to Khazar pressure. The integration of the Seven Slavic tribes and the Slavicization of the nobility was a consequence of the larger number of the Slavs and their significance as partners of the Bulgars. Todor→Bozhinov 13:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Couple points to add. First, a look at the map of Asparuh Bulgaria would show that the newly conquered lands south of the Danube were the smaller part of the state territory, and the territorial overlapping between Great Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire was over 50%. Second, the partnership between Bulgars and Slavs had had a long tradition already, with Great Bulgaria itself having a mixed Bulgar-Slavic population; moreover, Bulgars and Slavs used to carry out some joint invasions of the Eastern Roman Empire in previous centuries too. And third, see Prof. Georgi Bakalov for a concise modern account of the early Bulgar history including the formation of the Bulgarian state. Apcbg 20:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I claim that I understand and appreciate the modern view on Bulgarian history. I have watched the whole bTV series "The Bulgarians" and have followed other popular sources of information with great interest. I am fully aware that the date of formation of the Bulgarian state, as we know it today, is a debatable issue on more than one point: who can be called Bulgarian; how close are the Proto-Bulgarians (Bulgars) and today's Bulgarians; how were Asparuh and his nobility perceiving their movement to the South, not forgetting that Asparuh was leading only one of the ttribes of the Bulgars at that point. Note, then, that if the beginning of today's Bulgaria is decided to be 632, then Volga-Bulgaria is nothing, but an exclave that our forefathers lost during the 13th century. I for one know that there were in fact few connections between the Bulgarian states that sprung up after the fall of Great Bulgaria. Therefore, Asparuh and his brothers did indeed led their tribes in order to creates new states, which were all named after the beloved Motherland, but were different. This is a major contradiction, which makes the assumption that Bulgaria of 632 and Balkan Bulgaria of 681 are the same thing very close to senseless. Finally, I will not take on myself to change the dates, since I am no professional historian. I will wait until I find what international organization or the Bulgarian government have adopted as an official position. --Cryout 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a different point I want to make and that's why I start a new paragraph: History is not what you want it to be; instead it is a series of facts that followed the irreversible arrow of time. However, many people will rewrite it as the centuries roll. Many self-proclaimed scientists will try to push new ideas that are based on little evidence, but large consensus. Then the facts are lost, hypothesis are accepted without any tests and eventually we get to the point, where dates are changed at swing of someone's will. That hurts real science and molds the minds of the people in dangerous politicized ways. I really don't care when Bulgaria was established. I will love my tribe in any case. However, I will never "choose" one idea over another, just because it sounds better to my nationalistic ears. Indeed, it is great that modern Bulgaria is a continuity of Great Bulgaria. However, let's not forget that Bulgarians are probably, more than anything else, Slavs in their ethnic origin. Then, they are obviously Turcik in their cultural origin. And, yes, if the latest hypothesis are correct, our Proto-Bulgarian ethnicity also has important Indo-Iranian roots. In conclusion, please keep your minds open and don't take one's words for granted before you have considered the reality. Peace. --Cryout 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Za boga, zashto gi vodim tezi razgovori na anglijski. Kakto kazvat "staromodnite" hora, shte ni se smeyat chuzhdentzite!

The dates of formation shouldn't go back to pre-medieval times. See Turkey - that article also can mention things all the way back to the Gokturks :) But it only goes back until the last continious entity (strictly speaking - the Ottoman Empire. People who are interested in having more background info should check those articles. In any case the history section covers this issue, so no need to crowd the infobox and confuse the reader.

Articles for several other European countries give at least 3 dates of formation. Most Bulgarians, in particular, would definitely claim that the state was established in 681. That would be the de facto date, I presume. 1878 would then be the de jure year. The inclusion of the other dates is a matter of personal preference. That's why I don't care which ones are included, as long as the commonly accepted ones are there. --Cryout 03:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates of state formation go as far back in history as they do. In the case of Bulgaria, it's early Middle Ages. In the case of Armenia or Iran though, it's Antiquity. Turkey is one of the successor states to the multiethnic Ottoman Empire in which the Turks, albeit a dominating people, were not a majority; similarly, Byzantium was not Greece, and Rome was not Italy. Even if the early Turkish history is included, it would go to the Battle of Manzikert (11th century), and then it was not a single state but for few centuries there were a multitude of Turkic state entities in Asia Minor until eventually amalgamated into the Ottoman Empire (the last of them subjugated even in the 15th century with the help of by then vassal Christian armies from the Balkans ...). Apcbg 06:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

There should be an etymology section right after the intro, can someone who knows the subject write it? Baristarim 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'd personally evade this topic... the name of the Bulgars is so ancient and lost in time, there are so many theories regarding its origin, explaining it by means of so many and so different languages that there's no way a neutral and concise overview can be written. Gosh, there are even books dedicated to single theories about it! :) Todor→Bozhinov 17:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that there is some consensus that Bulgar comes from Balh and Balhara and means 'white' or 'noble'. At least I haven't seen any serious arguments against that or some alternative, more consistent etymology. --Lantonov 07:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Map in info box

The map in the info box that shows european countries and EU members says that those coloured camel only are EU members; this implies that bulgaria is not, as it is coloured orange. this needs to be changed as bulgaria (according to the article) is an EU member. i tried to do it but couldnt figure it out. Trottsky 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Текстът "The Beautiful Antique Towns" /за Трявна/

Въобще не му е мястото там! Махнете го! (82.199.193.217 20:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)yavor)

Fair use rationale for Image:John Atanasoff.gif

Image:John Atanasoff.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Addressed, but could be improved by uploader with more specific information. Robert K S 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarians, Macedonians and region of "Macedonia"

Obviously this matter is very controversial, but people are making it more complicated than it should be

As a person with Macedonian background (that is a slav from RoM), i have absolutely nothing against Bulgarians (or Greeks for that matter). I definitely see the near-identical nature of the two countries, and that's not a bad thing !

I acknowledge that after WWII there was active attempts by the Yugoslav government to distance Macedonians from Bulgarians, especially linguistically. Obviously there were political reasons for this.

THe similarity is testamount to the common origins and subsequent development of the two peoples. Both are descended from Slavic tribes that arrived to the Balkans, both are Christian Orthodox.

The region of Macedonia was part of the Bulgarian 'empire' before being incorprated into the Serbian empire in c. 1400s AD. (Then fell to the Turks). MAny significant contributions to the Bulgarian empire came from Macedonia. Eg ohrid. THe peple that lived there are the descendents of modern Macedonians. Whatever they were called in Medieval times, whether Bulgarians/ Macedonians/ even Serbians, doesn;t change they fact that it IS them and they existed. And, certainly back then, they were all Slavs, not very differentiated, so proabably all the same anyway !

So because the concept of Macedonian identity is only a new thing, it doesn't mean that they never existed, or had no history. In fact, nationality is a NEW construct in every conutry. It's just that most countries have a rather less complicated, some would say rich, history. (ie the historical time-line is more clear cut). You can;t say the people from medieval Ohrib or Monastir were Bulgarian or Macedonian. Most were uneducated peasants, and only new one thing- they were slavic orthodox. This was their 'nationality'

THe only thing I object is to the idea of some Bulgarians that Macedonia 'belongs' to Bulgaria. For the above reasons, macedonia (ie the area of RoM) belongs to the people that have always live there. If they want to be independent and known as macedonians, then that should be supported. If they beleived they are bulgarian, then i;m sure they would vote to be part of bulgaria. But, as time has shown, it seems that unity is not a quality that us southern slavs possess.

With all the differences and wars, Serbs, Croats, Macedonians and Bulgarians are very similar. Much more so compared to say English and Scottish (who are actually different ethnically). France was made up of Franks, Burgundians, Alemanni, etc. All different. What was lacking in the Balkans was a ruler strong enough to unite all the south slav tribes

THe Greek objection to Macdedonia being called Macedonia is laughable. HAving the name FYROM is a f*%$ing joke. By being called macedonia, no one is going to claim that we are now Alexander the great's successors. That is what the greeks are hung up about. Furthermore, they claim tha Macedonia is greek. As i've said before, a region belongs to the people that live in it. No one should claim ownership over a people just because they ruled it over 2000 years ago !

Anyway, the Greeks never even considered macedonia to be greek before Phillip conquered greece, they considered them as northern barbarians, more Thracian than anything. But now modern greeks are in hysterics claiming how greek macedonia is. As if it will bring back the old glory of ancient greece.

Even if Macedonia WAS greek 2000 years ago, it is not greek now, at least not ALL greek. Greece is a very different country now. New people have arrived. In medieval times, macedonia was lergely inhabited by Slavs. Even until the 1950s even Greek Macedonia had a very large slav component, that is until the Greek government forcibly expelled and/ or Hellenized slavs.

So if MAcedonia is anything, it is SLAVIC.

Gradeshnitsa Tablets

The history section says that Bulgaria is the "home of the world's oldest known writing system, engraved on the Gradeshnitsa Tablets." The source cited is a single book (aimed at the general public) which seems rather poor support for such an extraordinary statement. In fact the wikipedia article on Writing credits the Mesopotamians for inventing written script, as do most people. The statement also doesn't appear in the History of Bulgaria page.

So this looks unsubstantiated and I propose to remove the phrase (or at least inject a great deal of doubt in it). Any objections ? Nberger 20:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope - some time ago it said "one of the oldest", but someone must have changed it. With so many edits on the article daily, it is hard to keep up with all of them. --Laveol ^T 21:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine Bulgaria

So what happened to Bulgaria under Medieval Roman occupation?? This article doesn't deserve featured status if over 100 years of history is just ignored.Tourskin 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I added some stuff, but its mostly concerned with what happened to Bulgaria rather than what was happening within Bulgaria itself, if u know what i mean.Tourskin 19:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

But the article in not featured: ) Anyway, it is good that you have added something for that period. --Gligan 11:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I intend to make an article on Byzantine Bulgaria putting only a short synopsis here but it is not my first priority so it may take some time. Lantonov 14:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

OGURS ( BULGARS ) - Turkish Identity

The following information has been taken from Turkish sources.

Name of Bulgars

The origin of Bulgars was looked for for a period more than 150 years, and it was claimed that they were of Ural, Finnish, Slav, Tatar etc. origin. At last, the opinion alleged first by Vambery that they were of Turkish origin was finalized with the archeological studies of G. Feher and linguistic investigations of Gy. Nemeth. The word "Bulgar", as a nation's name, was not present before the 2nd half of 5th century, it first revealed as the name of a community to the north of Black Sea to whom Byzantine emperor Zenon applied for military assistance to fight against Eastern-Gots in 482.

The name Bulgar arose from a historical event: The Hun masses who left Middle Europe under the command of Irnek, after the death of 2nd son of European Hun emperor Attila, Dengizik because of the struggles emerged between the dependent nations and sons pursuant to Attila's death, mingled with other Turkish communities they met at Black Sea coast. The new community given birth by this mingling was called "Bulgar" in Turkish.

Origin of Bulgars

In the "list of Bulgarian khans" which shows the names of the Bulgarian rulers and their durations of reign from the beginning to 765 although its remaining from a later time and which we now have a Slavic translation in a Russian Chronicle, Irnek is indicated to be the ancestor of Bulgarian ruler dynasty. The real name of those Turks who mingled with Hun masses was Ogur, and they inhabited in the steppes from Danube mouth to Volga to the north of Black Sea as distinct clan unions like Pachenegs and Kumans: Saragur (Sa-rı/Ak/Ogur), Bittigur (Beş-Ogur), Ultingur~Altziagir (Altı-Ogur), Kutri-gur-Kuturgur ("Tukurgur" = Dokuz-Ogur) Ungur ~ Hunugur ~ Onugur (On-Ogur), Utigur ~ Uturgur (Otuz-Ogur).

Ogur Turks, whom Byzantine historian Priskos (5th century) told they were driven away from their countries in eastern part of Ural mountains by Sabars and went to the plains of Black Sea (about 461-465), were in three groups as to the same historian: Saragur, Urog (Ogur) and On-Ogur. These peoples had sent envoys to Byzantium to keep their position against Sabars being driven by Huns to the west. Recent investigations revealed that Ogurs were in three groups in their original land before the big migration: Eastern group (in the vicinity of Seyhun-Cu rivers and Calkar Lake: On-Ogurs); medium group (near today's Kazak-Kirghiz steppe and Emba river, probably, Otuz-Ogurs) and western group (near Yayik river-supposedly-Dokuz-Ogurs). It is also probable that against Saragur (Ak-Ogur) mass, the others may have formed "Kara Ogur" group.

The issue of Ogur-Oghuz

Ogurs are brothers of Oghuzes. Probably because they separated from each other in very early periods (before 3rd Century B.C.), there occurred some phonetical differences in their languages. The most definite difference is that the "Z" sound in main Turkish was turned into "R" in Ogur dialect. In fact, since "Oghuz" term meant "Turkish clans" directly, the following difference in the names of Oghuzes, the main mass who remained in the east and continued to use Z sound and Ogurs (western Turks) attracts attention: Oguz-Ogur. The Ogur clan unions above meant successively: 5 Oghuz, 6 Oghuz, 9 Oghuz, 10 Oghuz and 30 Oghuz.

As a matter of fact there are some unions named with the number of clans in Eastern Turks. Another difference in Ogur dialect is that y is replaced with d (for example: yilan-dilom etc.) Ancient Greek Geographer Ptolemaios (160 -170) stated the name of Yayik river discharged to Caspian Sea (Today's Ural river, the real Turkish name was changed by Russians in the 2nd half of 18th century) as Daih (aix), which documents that the ancestors of Bulgarians lived in Western Siberia in 2nd century in steppes as far as Itıl (Volga).

Danube Bulgarian State

The state which developed in military and political aspects being established in south Dobruca breaking the resistance of Emperor Konstantinos the 4th by Asparuh, is most long-lasting the political organization established by Ogur Turks. We can understand that the state was founded on sound foundations because it could survive between two major powers such as Byzantium and Avar empires. Bulgar Turks from abroad came out successful in taking Slavic masses in the region under their control. The Bulgars, being unfamiliar with state idea, armed Slavs who used to live in tribe order and ensured their protecting themselves from Byzantium.

The strictest political relations of Danube Bulgars were with Byzantium. Emperor Justinianus the 2nd, who married to Hazar princess, was ascended the throne for the second time in 705 with assistance of Bulgarian Khan Tervel (702-718). Emperor Philippikos' being overthrown in 713 is also considered as a result of Bulgarian advance in Byzantium territories. The force Bulgarian state gained in a short time can be understood from this event too. The Bulgarian helped Byzantium during Istanbul siege of Arabs in 717-718. Such cooperation brought about many financial interests to the Bulgarian state.

However, Byzantium, taking advantage of the chaos in Bulgarian country in 8th century, organized various expeditions on Bulgarian territories. "Krum Khan" (803-814), who acceded to Bulgar throne in early 9th century, seized Hungary and Transylvania. Byzantine Emperor Nikepheros the 1st, being afraid of the "skillful warrior and intellectual organizer" personality of Krum, acted to get rid of him (811). He destroyed the capital city of the country Pereyaslav, now to the southwest of Şumnu (Shumen). However, in the end, Nikephoros was defeated, his army was routed, and he was killed at the battlefield. It was the first time a Byzantine emperor was killed by an enemy for 450 years.

Krum Khan then defeated Mikhael the 2nd, who marched against the Bulgars commanding his army strengthened with units from eastern states of the empire, took an oath to hang his golden sparrow on the gilded Gate (the ceremony gate in Yedikule), by eliminating Byzantium. He occupied Sofia, Nis, and Belgrade city castles and thus took the greatest commercial and military transportation way between Europe and Middle East under control. He reached Edirne in 813 and leaving there under siege, went on proceeding. He besieged Istanbul in 814 Spring. However, he died instantly on 13 April 814 in the most impetuous moment of the attacks.

His son Omurtag Khan (814-831) signed a commercial agreement of 30 years with Byzantium. Omurtag Khan, who wanted to agree also with Frankish Empire, could not be successful in that, and thus used his weapons and opened the saltpans for management again which were all closed after Roman Period, and thus earned for his state a great wealth. His period was the brightest period of Danube Bulgars. Constructed cities, palaces, constructions and improvements on a wide scale, aqueducts, monuments, developed cities and the epitaph and relief of Krum Han on horse on a high rock covering an area of 40 m2 are all the memories of that period.

However, Bulgar Turks who were less in population compared to the Slavs, began to be influenced by Slavic culture under Byzantine effect in time. The number of Slavs commissioned in civil service increased, the two societies mixed by means of marriages more and more, the influence of Slavic language grew and Turks began to get Slav rapidly. On Boris Khan's accepting Orthodox sect officially, the process of Bulgar's getting Slav came to an end.

for more information: [14]

--Ersinist 08:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the Bulgars might have been a Turkish tribe, yes. But those that went to the Balkans were assimilated by the numerically superior Slavs. They also mixed in with thracians, etc. THey adopted slavic names, culture, and christianity. In fact, the 'Turkishness' of the Bulgars disappeared within 1 or 2 generations ! Literally it was bred out. So Bulgarians today are (largely) slavs and have been since before 1000 AD Hxseek 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The "turkiness" of the Bulgars is just a past Turkish propaganda (at least i hope it is in the past now) aiming to present Bulgars and Turks as the same people . There is a great difference between Turkic and Turkish. --Laveol ^T 04:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

25 000 free images from Bulgaria

Check out imagesfrombulgaria.com. It says there you can use any of the images if you mention the source, there are over 25 000 images from Bulgaria there. I think they can be put to good use here in Wikipedia. Cheers, --Vanka5 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bulgary or Bulgaria

Could someone please explain why Bulgaria is not called "Bulgary"? To me it sounds the same as Hungary. The ending is "gary", -> Bulgary, Hungary. Why would the English language rules be suddenly changes to call a country Bulgaria that should be called Bulgary instead? Is there some explanation for this? Also note that if you search in google from Bulgary, you will find many travel agencies, real estate, companies, that refer to the country as Bulgary instead of Bulgaria (which is more natural in English tongue) - but there is no explanation in wikipedia article or in discussion on how and why the country should be called Bulgaria and why not Bulgary.

Because Roumania is not Rumany, Yugoslavia is not Yugoslavy, Macedonia is not Macedony, Slovenia is not Sloveny, Slovakia is not Slovaky, Nigeria is not Nigery :). More seriously, because Bulgaria is well-established name over centuries of use, it is not good to change it just because some other countries are called differently. Lantonov 10:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think those travel companies are just trying to sell more holidays by using an old-style, "romantic" name, although the historic Bulgary was in Russia so its misleading. Even that is often referred to as Volga Bulgaria. But I've never seen a modern map or newspaper call the Balkan country Bulgary - Gladstone certainly referred to it as Bulgaria back in the nineteenth century.

I think its Hungary thats the exception (ie not being called Hungaria). Jameswilson 23:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious why travel agencies want to call the country Bulgary: it is to connect it to the famous fashion brand 'Bvlgari' (perfumes, clothing etc.) and sell their travel packages better. --Lantonov 11:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not about Bulgaria but why did English start to call Turkia to Turkey? or why didn't they call Bulgaria to Bulgarey or Romania to Romaney? I really wonder it.88.233.10.59 (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because the Turks themselves do not call their country 'Turkia' in the first place, contrary to the Bulgarians and the Romanians who do call their countries Bulgaria and Romania (actually Bəlgariya and Romənia) respectively. The English 'Turkey' (and the German Türkei) seems to derive from the original Turkish 'Türkiye', nothing wrong about that. The version with '-ia' in certain languages may originate to artificial medieval Latin forms (like 'Polonia', 'Walachia' etc.) -- nothing wrong about that either. Apcbg (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro...

It seems like the intro is mostly ancient history. Shouldn't it be about defining the nation as it is in modern times? We can leave most of the history to the history section and article...

Just saying 65.27.139.162 12:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Intro is GREAT!

I like the intro this way. If you look at the introductions for other countries, those who do have ancient history discuss it from the get-go! Take China for example... The point being is that Bulgaria has very interesting, important and certainly truly ancient history that must be presented and showcased from the very beginning. Many people know little about Bulgaria and the articulate and indeed immaculately presented first three paragraphs of this "section" are slated to make visitors much more interested in all other fascinating socio-cultural, economic and natural wonders (or otherwise) that the country of Bulgaria has to offer. As formerly stated, please look at other country sections in Wikipedia and see for yourselves that all of them play to their strengths in their respective introductory paragraphs. This is the first time that I see the Bulgarian section accomplishing this noteworthy achievement and I am 100% for it. From: Dr. Alexander Alexiev (PhD: Physical Anthropology)

Thank you doctor. Be so kind as to sign your posts with four squigly dashes of these: ~ like this ~ ~ ~ ~ but without the spaces of course. Thank you.Tourskin 03:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tourskin, but please do not advice me on matters relating to my name, my profession and/or in what form or fashion I should have to write my signature. Focus on your schoolwork as I see you're not a straight-A student (yet), then when you have a PhD in a related field such as history/anthropology/archeology we can have an intellectual discussion.

Incorrect information

Bulgaria only became an autonomous principality in 1878. It declared independence in 1908. --PaxEquilibrium 18:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just trying to figure out myself when Bulgaria became independent since story jumps from 1903 to 1912, so someone should put in proper info, with references, if possible.

Carol Moore 18:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

INTRO

The intro must state Bulgaria's strengths, especially its ancient history. This is necessary because; (A) it distinguishes Bulgaria from many other countries that do not have such a rich and ancient history (B) it functions in the same fashion as the intros of Greece, India, Egypt, etc... thus highlighting the importance of the country/territory in a historial context (C) rouses the attention of the reader to vastly important and archeologically/anthropologically proven facts that most people are not aware even exist! In fact, it seems some people here contest many of these academic perspectives, especially those of the Bulgarian academic community, and I am led to believe these transgressors are not historians/anthropologists/archeologists and have some sort of hidden agenda. Perhaps they are also not Bulgarians and do not want to see this country presented in a positive light! Otherwise why is such a fascinating, academically rooted and well written introduction being changed to something boring, technically deficient and utterly non compelling in the attainment of the very mission/objective that opening remarks must contain... Other countries have these intros and are proud of them, and so should Bulgaria and Bulgarians! User:68.147.112.124

The problem is that some of us are so tired of nationalistic rubbish in articles on Eastern European countries that we have learnt to be suspicious of any claim that Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, wherever, has a "special" history, particularly that they were the "cradle of civilisation", etc, etc!

You may well be right about Bulgaria's archaeology being so important - I have no idea. But we foreigners have no way of telling if such claims are objective or just the product of a nationalistic mindset. Jameswilson 01:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is well-known that for foreigners from the Western Europe, important archeological finds and historic facts from Eastern Europe are nothing but "nationalistic rubbish". If you are tired of those, no one has put a gun on your head to read it. Lantonov (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

The fact that some foreigners do not know the importance of Bulgaria's ancient history is a problem with their personal education! Read about the Thracians, prime ancestors of modern Bulgarians, the six millenia old Gradeshnitsa written language, etc... and in general the cultural wealth of the Balkan cultual groups as a whole (Illyrians, Macedons, Greeks, Thracians) and you will be able to see clearly where the cradle(s) of European civilization is/are for yourself. Also, read the country section on England and tell me whether I should call what's written there rubbish as well? If you are suspicious that Bulgaria's historical claims are such, then an equal reaction on my part would be to do the same with those claims placed forth in the English section regarding its modern international influences. As you can see I haven't done this, likely because I've read a lot more about English history than you have read about Bulgarian history. Indeed while one country may have influenced the world primarily in its ancient past, another may have done this in a more recent time! Before you speak or take the initiative to edit a country's historical articles, you should first be an expert in its socio-cultural heritage. Maybe even learn the Bulgarian language and read from our textbooks, academic articles and the likes! Afterall who is to say that what you have read in Western literature is more objective? Perhaps we should examine whether what's written in Western European history books is correct... Furtherstill, my Western colleagues are no less prone to affirm that Bulgaria is one of the cradles of European civilization in ancient times, and in more modern context a medieval core of Slavic literature. There are even Western books that show evidence of the so-called Renaissance occurring in pre-Ottoman Bulgaria before it had a chance to take root in Italy centuries later. Feel sick about these realities all you want, whilst we Bulgarians and other Eastern Europeans may feel the initiative to start editing your country's pages. I have a lot of patience and determination. Let's just see!

When I read the article yesterday I had the same thought as some of the commenters: cradle of civilization, oldest writing system of the world - sound suspiciously like nationalistic claims common in many country articles. Suspect. Makes me think worse of wikipedia. There's not even a wikipedia article elsewhere about this ancient writing system. The one link goes to a bulgarian book. And there's a history of people wanting to see ancient writing where there might be nothing more than ancient abstract art. All this gives off pseudo-science vibes. I'm glad that today the article has already been amended - I was about to do so myself. If you are serious about this, then come up with some more serious sources. Since this is the english language wikipedia, I think sources in English aren't too much to ask for given the boldness of the claim. Martijn Faassen 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Anyone can read a recent article in National Geographic about Bulgaria and see for themselves that it is in fact one of Europe's cradles of civilization. Archeologists don't dispute this issue unlike some less informed Wikipedians who seem to think it's their right to do so!

---

To Jameswilson, Martijn Faassen, and the anonymous user who wrote: "The problem is that some of us are so tired of nationalistic rubbish in articles on Eastern European countries that we have learnt to be suspicious of any claim that Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, wherever, has a "special" history, particularly that they were the "cradle of civilisation", etc, etc!"

Well many European countries have made significant contributions to European civilization, with Hungary, Poland and Bulgaria certainly being among them.

In addition, Bulgaria's contribution is special in being pioneering (early and paving the way for others who followed) in several major areas.

When the Great Bulgaria and its successor the First Bulgarian Empire were established in the mid-7th century, Bulgaria was not just one of the major European powers along with the Eastern Roman Empire and the Frankish Empire (also the single one of them that exists today, and second only to Armenia as an independent European state), but the Bulgarians also denied and overcame the political, state, cultural and linguistic (in ecclesiastical affairs) monopoly exercized in Eastern Europe by the Eastern Roman Empire until then.

Yes it was a "craddle" as the Cyrillic alphabet -- one of the three EU alphabets today -- was designed in the First Bulgarian Empire (not the earlier Glagolitic alphabet that is now dead) to spread subsequently to other languages too.

These are plain facts, and most significant ones by any standard.

I never disputed any of this. What I did dispute was mentioning, in the introduction section, that Bulgaria is a "cradle of civilization" and home to the world's oldest writing system (we're not talking about Cyrillic here). I at least was discussing prehistory, and I'm sorry you misread my comment as one discussing the more recent period. I believe the prehistory of the Bulgaria region has a place in wikipedia, but I did not think the place and tone was correct where it was (and is again, right now). Martijn Faassen 02:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Should you wish you may peruse a couple pages of consize highlights of the logic behind the early Bulgarian history at History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages (specially written for non-Bulgarians). Best, Apcbg 10:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bulgaria has great archaeology, same as the rest of Europe, but there can be no question that this should belong in the INTRO of this aritcle. It belongs in Category:Archaeology of Bulgaria, and if you really want to expand on it, create Prehistoric Bulgaria along the lines of Prehistoric Romania. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue debated here (and my comment above) is about the article's Introduction refering to historic not prehistoric Bulgaria, so your stress on archaeology and prehistory is way off mark I guess. Apcbg 16:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I think if it is unreasonable for the INTRO to Bulgaria to highlight its influences on the world and historic achievements in its ancient past then it is also unreasonable for a country such as England to highlight its influences on the world and its achievements a few hundred years ago. The English INTRO has a great deal devoted to its history and yet none of you "foreigners" have gone to change it. I will however...

WP:POINT. "a few hundred years" is rather different than 6,000 years. --dab (𒁳) 12:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

it would actually make more sense to organize articles on prehistory on period complexes, not along modern-day boundaries. Hence, don't do prehistoric Romania, prehistoric Bulgaria etc., but for example do a nice South-East European Bronze Age article. dab (𒁳) 13:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

removed the following paragraph

I've removed the following text:

One of the cradles of European civilization,[15] Bulgaria fostered the world's oldest known writing system[16], found engraved on the 6000-year-old Gradeshnitsa tablets, which are currently preserved in the Vratsa Museum.  In the year of 2006 Dr. Stephen Guide released his book, The Thracian Script Decoded, which focuses on deciphering the Gradeshnitsa Tablets. His works have identified the symbols on the said tablets as an early form of a simple hieroglyphic writing system.

I commend the addition of citations to this paragraph. They would make a great start on an article on the Gradeshnitsa Tablets.

I just discovered a new article on this topic already exists, here: Gradeshnitsa tablets. This article claims that the claim for ancient writing is a hoax. Again, it's clear that there is far from universal agreement on the claim "world's oldest writing system". Martijn Faassen 00:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A number of reasons:

• the claim "oldest known writing system" is stronger than what the citations suggest..

• the paragraph following it already makes the claim in a more NPOV way. This paragraph is still in

the article.

• The research of one Stephen Guide does not belong in the second paragraph on a country.

• I would suggest the author create a new article on the Gradeshnitsa Tablets. We can work out the details on the evidence there into a true NPOV article. Bulgaria can then refer to this article, though I would strongly suggest not in the second paragraph of the introduction.

By the way, I'm not disputing the antiquity of culture in Bulgaria. I'm not even debating that it's possible that in its area originated the world's oldest writing system. But these are strong claims and it's entirely clear from the references given that there isn't hardly any universal agreement on this. Wikipedia's NPOV policy then indicates we should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn faassen (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian experts have expressed skepticism about Guide's theory on Gradeshnitsa Tablets, so I doubt if Gradeshnitsa should be mentioned in the article (let alone in the Introduction), more so that there are plenty of information on Bulgaria's history worth mentioning here; and prehistory too, e.g. the first human-made symbols (1.2-1.4 million years old) discovered by French-Bulgarian archaeological research in Kozarnika Cave, northwestern Bulgaria. Apcbg 08:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

---

OK, but why did you remove moe than just that text you showed? I will accept your revision if it is done exactly as you stated.

I've reconsidered and rv-ed your entire edit. Your edit also changed Bulgaria's GDP to 2nd in the world! In addition, re-reading this paragraph also makes a rather grandiose claim (comparison with China, etc, as cradle of civilization): "Though relatively small in terms of territory and population, Bulgaria's continuous historical wealth throughout prominent cyclical eras of growth, decline and medieval renaissance rivals that of the much larger and more populous countries of China, India and Egypt." I also don't think there is universal agreement of this. Martijn Faassen 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I never put anything about the GDP being 2nd. However, Bulgaria's history is just as old and rich as any of those countries. What more consensus do you need then to read a textbook and see for yourself that Bulgaria had the Varna Necropolis Culture, the Vinca culture, the Thracian culture, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, etc... ... Do you mean to say that Egypt or India have a longer civilized history? Clearly at 6 millenia and counting, Bulgaria's civilized history is not something your subjective views can dispute! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.112.124 (talk)

"I never put anything about the GDP being 2nd." But you did - it seems that you've reverted to an old version of the article, undoing a lot of edits. Please don't do that again.

And please restrain from qualifying other users and their views, it doesn't help. --Daggerstab 07:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editing the section of a country you seem to know very little about! What are your qualifications regarding Bulgaria's history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.112.124 (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for Gradeshnitsa Tablets

Please note, the following citation(s) was/were used to cite the Gradeshnitsa Tablets. However users such as Martin Faassen, Daggerstab, et al. have regarded it as somehow irrelevant and took it upon themselves to edit the Bulgaria section without first reading the academically cited references. Such actions oppose and in fact disregard the findings of Bulgarian/International academia, and furthermore transgress upon the policies of this herein international web-based organization.

Anyone who is looking for sources regarding Bulgaria's Gradeshnitsa Tablets and/or those that are interested to know about Bulgaria's claim to being a cradle of European civilization (both literary and non-literary) should read the following works, including the numerous academic sources provided below!

While the Gradeshnitsa Tablets are not yet deciphered, important studies from respected personas who exemplify expertise in related fields, and who have shared their works and academic opinions regrading the said tablets must always be taken into account. Please read: The Gradeshitsa Tablets examination by Marco Merlini (General Director of the Prehistory Knowledge Project (Roma, Italy) and Director of the Institute of Archaeomythology (Sebastopol, USA)), who has come to the conclusion that the Gradeshnitsa Tablets do indeed represent an early form of writing.[17] Monshuai (talk • contribs)

Here are all the Bibliographical References that Marco Merlini uses to support his findings: (Found at above link!)

Posted by:Monshuai (talk • contribs)

I would suggest you start adding information to the Gradeshnitsa tablets article then. You have gathered a wealth of resources to start expanding the information in that article. By the way, I have removed the list of references from this page, for two reasons: 1) this information is, as you mention, at the previous link and is otherwise needlessly filling up this talk page. 2) this information may be copyrighted. In order to add this to wikipedia literally, we would need permission. Martijn Faassen 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, sources that are used in academic articles is not copyrighted information. Your statement tells me you are ill-informed about what copyrights stand for. You see, citations and bibliographical references are used to back up copyrighted information and come from copyright text, but they themselves are not copyright property. Just as an address of a property is not the same as the property itself. I will now contact various Wikipedia authorities and highlight everything that has transpired herein, along with the history of your transgressive behaviour and I will see to it that you are punished for what you have done to the Bulgaria section.

I am happy to speak to the Wikipedia authorities about this. I still think we should err on the side of caution concerning the literal copying of a full list of citations. The article itself you copied from did have a copyright notification. I also offered another reason - the list was cluttering up two talk pages and it is easy enough to examine this list by way of clicking the hyperlink. Martijn Faassen 01:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, all those sources that I posted were used to prove that Bulgaria likely is the home to the world's oldest writing system. They also reference studies by various academics that show Bulgaria to be one of the cradles of civilization. These sources have also been sent to proper Wikipedia authorities and I have shown your removal of them, while at the same time using a newspaper (Standart News) in their place (see: Gradeshnitsa section). --Monshuai 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not include this newspaper article myself - this was another wikipedian. See the talk page of this section for more information. I am very much in favor of citing academic sources, but the proper way to do this in my mind is to read the relevant individual articles and then cite these in context. Martijn Faassen 01:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The introduction text

We currently seem to have a pattern where Monshuai keeps adding something like the following text to the introduction of the article, and others have removed it several times (I think I removed it once, perhaps twice, myself). So far I have been most active in discussing this with Monshuai on the talk page. I would invite others to give their comments as well.

The country's proto-modern statehood roots stem from the Thracian civilization, whilst further sculpted by the Greek and later the Roman worlds of antiquity. Indeed Bulgaria's civilized history dates back more than six millennia to a time and place within the heart of its territory that marks the birth of Europe's and possibly the world's first literary culture.[18] Though relatively small in terms of territory and population, Bulgaria's continuous historical wealth throughout prominent cyclical eras of growth, decline and medieval renaissance rivals that of the much larger and more populous countries of China, India and Egypt.

This paragraph keeps being added as the second paragraph. The paragraph following this (still in the article) reads like this:

Modern Bulgaria borders five countries: Romania to the north (mostly along the Danube), Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia to the west, and Greece and Turkey to the south; as well as the Black Sea, which makes up its entire eastern border. Bulgaria lies in a region once inhabited by the ancient Thracians and later by Greeks and Romans, and is a successor of a powerful European medieval empire, the First Bulgarian Empire, which at times covered most of the Balkans and spread its culture and literature among the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe. Centuries later, during the decline of the Second Bulgarian Empire, the country fell under five centuries of Ottoman rule. Bulgaria was reestablished as a constitutional monarchy in 1878, also known as the birth of the Third Bulgarian Empire. Part of the Eastern Bloc after World War II, today Bulgaria has become a democratic, unitary, constitutional republic, a member of the European Union and of NATO. In 2006 Bulgaria attracted 5 million visitors for the whole year. To date in 2007, Bulgaria has attracted 4 million visitors.

There appears to be a consensus about this paragraph, so let's first eliminate the things in the controversial paragraph that are already there anyway:

• Thracian, Greek and Roman connection.

• Important in medieval history.

• Culture and literature spread in medieval history.

Let's not discuss these, as everybody agrees. Now as to the more controversial claims. These are the claims in the proposed introduction paragraph that are not already covered by the consensus paragraph:

• continuity of Bulgarian civilized history for 6 millennia.

• Bulgaria was home to Europe's, and possibly the world's first literary culture.

• Bulgaria, even though small, has a history comparable with China's, Egypt's or India's. (comparable in antiquity, development of ancient culture?)

We should be able to gather evidence (academic citations, etc) of the continuity of Bulgarian civilized history over the millennia. If such evidence is hard to find in the English language, I think we should not give it prominence in the introduction. Instead, let's develop this in a "History of Bulgaria" article, or "Antiquity of Practices of Modern Bulgarian Culture" article, first. Once this is very well established in such an article, we could then make a reference to it in the Bulgaria article. On the other hand, scientific consensus might be that there is no such continuity. If there is still a significant minority view supporting this antiquity, we could still make a mention of this in a special article on the topic, but it definitely won't belong in the introduction then.

Monshuai, I applaud your approach in your latest edit to try to integrate your points with the existing paragraph. Hopefully we will be able to work out matters this way. A claim of a continued civilization of 6000 years is still a strong claim however, and we need to back this up carefully. My impression is that Bulgaria did not have a simple 6000 year cultural continuity - the Bulgarians only entered the region afterwards, for instance, and South East Europe in general is home to a large mixture of peoples of different origins. Since you have knowledge about this, you seem to be the ideal person to come up with some good academic citations for this claim. These can then be added as references to the article, or, if the section becomes too big that way, we can move them into the History of Bulgaria article. Martijn Faassen 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The second claim, that Bulgaria was home to Europe's and possibly the world's first literary culture is a very strong claim. If this is so, one would expect a lot of material about this that we can cite. It makes sense to start looking at History of writing and List of undeciphered writing systems, which currently do not make a reference to the Gradeshnitsa tablets which have been proposed as evidence of such. It does reference Old European Script (Vinca script). Note that finds of such ancient markings are not exclusive to the territory of modern day Bulgaria, but are found in Greece, Romania, Yugoslavia, eastern Hungary, Moldova and southern Ukraine. If the Gradeshnitsa tables are an example of such, this would indicate that south-eastern Europe is the region that can claim to a possible ancient writing system. According to the Old European Script article however, there is no universal agreement that these markings indeed constitute writing, so even if these markings were only found in Bulgaria, the claim "oldest writing system" for Bulgaria in particular appears too strong.

The last claim is hardest to back up, as it is so vague. As far as I know, there is no scientific way to determine the comparative importance of histories of countries. So, this is mostly an opinion. The question is whether this opinion is very common among historians (and to a lesser extent, the general public). Making this somewhat surprising claim might otherwise have the opposite effect and make people doubt the content of the entire article, instead of convincing the reader. Martijn Faassen 14:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Monshuai's edits to this article are plainly inappropriate. They would be more at home at history of Bulgaria, which is so far missing a "prehistory" section. I would invite him to contribute there, except that he is clearly not interested in discussing prehistory as such so much as trying to write an essay to glorify Bulgaria based on random observations of its prehistory. dab (𒁳) 16:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dab, you are certainly no judge on Bulgaria, because you have clearly not read a single archeological or cultural book about Bulgaria. How then do you deem yourself a judge of who we are?. Your uneducated view about our connection to the past is indeed one of random observations, mostly gathered, I imagine, from your personal emotional and psychological likes/dislikes, while Bulgarians' connection to their past is one not only of archeological and anthropological evidence, but also one of traditions and lineage.

Monshuai, Wikipedia gets contributions of any nationality and from people of a wide range of skills and qualifications. Instead of going into people's qualifications, let's back up our claims with external sources. Since you are trying to make points, unfortunately this means you will have to come up with these sources. If it turns out that there are sources with multiple views on the same matter, Wikipedia generally includes references to both. Martijn Faassen 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We Bulgarians still practice the Kukeri, Martenitza, etc... traditions of our Thracian ancestors that date back more than 5 millenia. Furthermore, there is evidence that the Kukeri is even older than this

I would like to learn more about these traditions, in particular in their connection to the Thracians, and their antiquity. Note that the oldest mention of the Thracians, in the Iliad, is less than 3 millennia old. That's 2 more millennia to go to reach 5 millennia. Can you find wikipedia articles about them? Citations please? Martijn Faassen 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, do you practice such ancient traditions in your country? If you do, I'll be glad to hear about it and unlike you I will not disrespect your nation's connection to its past. Also, please include the name of your country.

According to his user page, he is from Switzerland (I'm delusional, I said Germany before). Martijn Faassen 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That said, we Bulgarians also practice the traditions of our other ancestors, and we are certainly aware of our diversified heritage. You cross the line when you make uneducated comments about the country and its people, particularly when our ancient history is of utmost importance to our national consciousness and the way that we express it through our continuous socio-cultural practices. Are you the one to tell us that our ancient Thracian traditions are not important to us? Are you the one to decide whether we should or should not tell the world that we indeed live in a land that has 6 millenia of civilized history that we carry by way of a tribal/ethnic mozaic that comprises the modern composite nation of our country? Someone like yourself who has likely never read a book about Bulgaria is not eligible to decide how the country presents itself to the world. Those who are eligible to do this are the people that know the most about Bulgaria's history, primarily people who are educated in related academic fields. I'm certain you don't hold a masters or a PhD on Bulgaria and as I said, I even doubt if you have read a single book about Bulgaria. If you have, please tell me the name of the book, author and date of publication and highlight its primary theme/thesis! From all that you have said, my impression is that you are a prejudiced person, who simply does not want a country that you feel is inferior to yours to present itself in a light that you may deem too good to be true. That's why you call our reality, "glorification." Unfortunately for you, I am not going to let you decide what is and isn't written about my country!--Monshuai 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer to your ignorance

Martijn, if you want to know about the Kukeri you can certainly look it up yourself. However, since you now want me to prove my own traditions to you and their antiquity, I will do that. Still, I find it amusing that I should give you sources about my traditions, because it's much the same as telling a Jewish person to prove to you that the Yom Kippur tradition is a real Jewish tradition...

I just looked up Kukeri. This article currently does not seem to cite evidence this tradition is 6000 years old. You are the one making the claim that these traditions are 6000 years old, possibly more. You use this claim to back up your argument that Bulgaria has a continuous civilization of over 6000 years old. Anyone, from any culture, who claims their civilization is more than 6000 year old better have very convincing arguments indeed. You are the one who wants to add this information to wikipedia. I am just telling you that if you want to do so, you should back this up within wikipedia with clear citations. Go edit the Kukeri article and add this stuff in, with good citations, please. Martijn Faassen 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, your tone is starting to sound suspicious to me, even though I was trying to tell myself that your intentions were positive and your psyche open to learning something new.

Isn't it funny? Strangely enough, I had the impression that you have been telling yourself my intentions were negative! I had this impression because you said you sent letters to various newpapers, would discuss this in class as an example of western bias, and would contact the Bulgaria Academy of Sciences about my behavior. It's interesting how ones impression of someone can be mistaken! Martijn Faassen 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The point being, is that if you doubt our traditions, you can go to your public library and pick up a few books about Bulgaria's culture. And if your library doesn't have such material, then that would be too bad, because it would then symbolize how little you or most others in your country know about us.

You are editing wikipedia. The goal should be to add verified information to wikipedia. I care about wikipedia, which is why I have asked you to back up your claims. I trust you can point the readership of the English language wikipedia to English language academic resources about the 6000 year old antiquity of various Bulgarian traditions. Please go edit Kukeri. Martijn Faassen 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn’t surprise me one bit, as every public study and statistically valid survey done in Western Europe (ie: Holland) shows that people in that half of the continent believe themselves to be superior to those on the other half.

It's indeed not hard for you to imagine that I'm some ignorant western-european with a superior mindset. Just imagine a lot of Wikipedia readers are like what you think of me, and try to convince them, within the wikipedia articles, by citing sources. Not just to me on a talk page. Martijn Faassen 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No doubt, this is a consequence of having biased and selective informatioal sources! Anyway, here are some sources for you, which you could have easily found yourself. Oh and the first few are all there to show you that your comment about the Thracian cicilization being 3000 years old is very incorrect. (Actually, it's more like double that!):

1) A favourite book of mine, The Celtic Encyclopaedia, which discusses how Thracian artisans were sought after as early as 5000 BC. (That's 7 millenia in case you missed that!) http://books.google.com/books?id=LTbc1GIAwcIC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=thracians+3000+bc&source=web&ots=_s1TWE7tWW&sig=b245pzLrZT2ukkSwMHGc88zgwRw

Thanks for the link. It dates the proto-Thracian culture to around BC 3000. It does say that gold work was practiced in the region of present-day Bulgaria since the 5th millennium, but doesn't seem to clearly identify this earlier gold work as (proto) Thracian, though is clearly implies a continuity of artisanship into the Thracian era. Martijn Faassen 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a reference to the 3000 BC statement in this book in the Thracians article. Martijn Faassen 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

2) Book discussing the Thracian civilization being approximately 6000 years old. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-1521%28197722%292%3A35%3A1%3C2%3ATT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage --- Another one of my favourite books on the matter. I used this book by way of my university's JSTOR membership as a source in my master's thesis.

It traces the smiths to 3000 BC, but it says the Thracians that Homer mentions entered the land around 1500 BC. That's an interesting discrepancy with 3000 BC. These newcomers are apparently also identified as Thracians, and are Indo-European. I've tried to include this in the Thracians article as well. Martijn Faassen 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

3) Archeological excavations of Thracian tools from 5000 years ago.(Gold dager from 3000 BC): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5251266.stm

I added a reference to this in Thracians. Martijn Faassen 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

4) Another source showing the Kazanluk Thracian Tomb excavation from 4000 BC (6 millennia): http://www.digsys.bg/books/cultural_heritage/thracian/thracian-intro.html

This page seems to imply the Thracians arrived after 3000 BC but isn't clear about this. Martijn Faassen 23:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

5) Book about the ancient history of Bulgaria. Also discusses how the Thracians and Slavs became a composite ethnic group making up modern Bulgarians. http://books.google.com/books?id=fwG8Y0Xh06oC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=thracians+3000+bc&source=web&ots=euEc8MQvhq&sig=3m4zQTiw6vQYPQLb6s_LjgyXDpQ

This is a Lonely Planet guide to Bulgaria. I would prefer a more academic source. It does mention Thracian settlements going back to 5000 BC, but I also have the impression that "Thracians" can refer both to the older peoples and to the Indo-Europeans who arrived later (and the subsequent mixture). It would be interesting to have more sources about this we can add to Thracians. Martijn Faassen 23:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

6) Hunter College - Department of Anthropology, discussing the Thracian traditions of Bulgaria. Anthropologist Gerald Creed conducts his research in Bulgaria and discusses the Kukeri: http://maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/anthro/crdfld.html

It'd be nicer to have a paper going into this, but it's a start. I added this to the kukeri page. Martijn Faassen 23:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

6) Thracian Kukeri Traditions: http://www.abvg.net/Traditions/Kukeri/index.html

Part of a tourist site. Again, it'd be nice to have a paper. Martijn Faassen 23:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

7) More about Thracian Kukeri: http://www.odysseia-in.com/?page=2&subpage=4&program=35&progcode=FEST&lang=en

A travel site. Martijn Faassen 23:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

8) Thracian Martenitza Customs of Bulgaria: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/bulgaria_customs.htm

9) In french, also about the Thracian Martenitza: http://martin.jean-marie.club.fr/MARTENITZA.htm

10) More information about different customs in Bulgaria: http://www.carnaval.com/bulgaria/kuleri.htm

Excellent! I invite you to edit the Thracians and Kukeri articles to integrate some of the information from these sources. Note that showing the antiquity of the Thracians is not enough to show a continuity of civilization in Bulgaria. It also depends on the definition of the words "civilized history" (is something history without there being written historical sources that can be read?), and on whether there is enough cultural continuity between the Thracians and modern day Bulgarians. But again, it's a step in the right direction, and if this can be backed up, there's definitely something to say about continuity of traditions. Martijn Faassen 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, there are many other traditions that we carry from our Thracian ancestors, just like we also carry traditions from our Slav and Bolgar ancestors. Next time, question yourself when you show ignorance toward a history and a people that you do not understand. Remember, it was you that claimed Thracians to have only 3000 years of history.

Why do you say I made this claim? I said "Note that the oldest mention of the Thracians, in the Iliad, is less than 3 millennia old. That's 2 more millennia to go to reach 5 millennia." I then asked you for information to back up the extra millennia. Please do so in the context of the Thracians article, which currently lacks this information. Martijn Faassen 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's unbelievable Martijn, to say this and then to claim that you are interested in this matter. You should be ashamed of yourself for needing proof about what’s accepted academic/cultural knowledge that is discussed in many books on the subject that you could buy yourself. On top of this, what in the first place gives you the right to be suspicious of my culture and to question my traditions??? Shame! It’s almost as though you feel you have the authority to question everything Bulgarian. I never thought ignorance and a superiority complex could run so high! --Monshuai 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears like you really don't comprehend the reason why I'm asking these questions. It's not because I don't believe you. It's because I engage in the skepticism of someone who wants to help maintain an encyclopedia. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you make claims, especially impressive claims about the continuity of Bulgarian history or traditions, I ask you to back them up. The end goal is to improve wikipedia.

Please also note that I've been tirelessly polite to you. I have gotten a lot of impoliteness from you in return. Could you consider toning down your bluster, please? Martijn Faassen 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling yourself tirelessly polite. Questioning a country's traditions is not polite, even if you try to do so in a diplomatic tone. There is a difference between respecting the culture of a nation by educatiing yourself on related matters and questioning the credibility of that nation's continuous traditions without having even a beginner's base of knowledge regarding its culture.

BTW, again you show disrespect by saying, "Note that showing the antiquity of the Thracians is not enough to show a continuity of civilization in Bulgaria." I gave you sources about the Kukeri and Martenitza Thracian traditions, which are considered amongst the most important customs in Bulgaria. They and many other such traditions, show the continuity of Bulgaria's Thracian roots. I don't know how you call yourself polite, when you have clearly disregarded the infomation I already gave you. At the time of my writing this you clearly had not looked at sources 6-10, whilst still mentaining your non-academic opinion about matters that are accepted on a scientific and cultural level. Again, do some reading please! Questions without an education are empty on many levels. I also already invited you to read anthropologist Gerald Creed's studies on the Thracian traditions of Bulgarians. He and other academics have highlighted that modern Bulgarians carry on the traditions of their Thracian ancestors more so then of other ethnic groups that habitated in Bulgaria. BTW, look up the definition for the continuation of a civilization! It means to carry on the traditions and the customs of that particular cultural entity... Oh, and now that we have this established, I imagine you will question the genetic background of Bulgarians. In that case, please refer to the National Geographic Genome project. Accrding to this study, Bulgarians carry mostly phenotypes associated with the ethnic populations that inhabited the territory of Bulgaria between 5000-12000 years ago. I contributed to the study by purchasing the swab-test package and sending it to the Genome laboratories for evaluation. Anyhow, there are other phenotype studies that confirm these reports, and these sources were included in this section as proof of the predominant Thracian ancestry of modern Bulgarians. I am not sure who removed them, but I will check! And once again, you are not polite when you question the traditons of a nation! What you are then is ethnocentric and disrespectful!--Monshuai 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I just spent an hour going through your sources, thinking about them, commenting on them, and editing wikipedia articles accordingly, and then I read this. Thanks, you really know how to make me feel appreciated. This isn't about convincing me, it's about improving wikipedia. Please consult Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Martijn Faassen 23:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and yet you made the "Note that showing the antiquity of the Thracians is not enough to show a continuity of civilization in Bulgaria" comment before that hour was finished. Further more, you still failed to say that you have learned something new over this hour of "going through [my] sources, thinking about them, and editing," and consequently state that you now understood there is a continution of Thracian culture. Instead, you decided to play the victim once more, while never apologizing for doubting my customs! How would you feel if I claimed that Dutch customs weren't Dutch at all... I bet you'll say it wouldn't be a big deal, but I and many other people share the understanding, that those who know their customs best are not random wikipedians, but rather people who belong to a certain cultural entity and who have been tought these traditions since they were children. You efforts to improve Wikipedia would have been better served reading books about those questions that you had, rather than diplomatically insulting a nation and making me look for information I already learned years ago!--Monshuai 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You evidently are incapable of toning down your bluster. Goodbye. Do with this article whatever you want. Martijn Faassen 00:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And you are obviously incapable of admitting your mistakes, prejudice and ethnocentrism! I was certain you would leave once I had proven your uneducated doubts incorrect. Consequently, now that I have used English language sources, you have no choice but to leave as you are finding it ever more difficult to disregard the realities of Bulgaria's history, its people and cultural roots... I am very happy you will no longer be vandalizing the section of a country you disrespect. Please don't come back and try to do what you did here to a country section such as China! Wait and see how you'll be treated there if you try to pass your prejudiced views on them. I hope Wikipedia will evolve by not having uneducated people write their views about matters that they do not understand. In Wikipedia everyone can edit, but not everyone has the proper knowledge to do so. Mr. Faassen, you are a pompous human being, whose education on Bulgaria is minimal, yet you assumed the irresponsibility of omitting facts from Bulgaria's history. Again I say, never come back! --Monshuai 00:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I urge the people (or the sick person, I do not know) who are constantly vandalizing this page to stop! Cnn lies 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a while. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Population numbers

The data is all wrong, the last census was in 2001 and the result yielded was a population of 7 932 984 persons [19]

The latest data of the National Stastics is for the end of 2006 - [20] and the population given is 7 679 290 people.

I have no idea how the infobox was compiled before but it is completely wrong - both about the dates and the numbers. I suppose the person who did it used data from the World Factbook which has been publishing inexact data for years now (for example, the number of the Jews in the country until recently was consistently placed at 0.8% or 50-60,000 people when the majority of the Jews left the country in 1948! So they used information which was more than 50 years old.) For some reason, the WF is consistently underestimating the total population of the country, now it is by almost 300,000. The funny thing is that in 2001 they said that the population was 7,700,000 [21] but the census which was conducted in the same year showed a population of 7,930,000 [22]. Please refrain from using the Factbook about Bulgaria, I don't know why but they can't seem to get things right...

Eurostat

Here is the data of Eurostat: [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.225.63 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

ZA VSICHKI BULGARI

Ima chujdentsi koito ne iskat da pokazvame starosta na nashata durjava i korennite tsivilizatsii koito sa vrodili moderniya Bulgarski narod. Edin ot tezi 'neblagopriatni' hora e ot Grukski proishod i sveki den premahva purvite izrecheniya vuv nashata stranitsa za Bulgaria. Sega i drugi mu pomagat. Az sum slojil vsiakakvi akademichni knigi na Angliiski ezik koito pokazvat che teritoriata na Bulgaria ima 6-hiledoletia stara istoria. Pomognete da zapazim stranitsata da pokazva na sveta istinata, a ne da bude napisana spored mneniata i supernicheskite kompleksite na chujdentsi koito ne ni mislyat dobro. Vseki den triabva da se vrushtame tuk i da si satrudnichim kogato drugi si mislyat che imat pravoto da pishat nashata istoria kakto si izmislyat. Ako zaedno rabotim shte ospeem da predstavim Bulgaria vuv dobra svetlina. Mersi na vsichki.--Monshuai (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia kazva v pravilata si, che "ne e myasto za dokazvane" na znanie, a myasto za informirane. V momenta sum na put I nyama da moga da pregledam spomenatite promeni, no obeshtavam da go napravya utre vecher. Shte te pomolya da pishesh na anglijski tuk. Kakto gurtzite, taka I vseki durg chetyasht Wikipedia, e nayasno sus strastite,koito mogat da se razgoryat pri razminavane na gledni tochki (ne kazvam koi e prav predi da sum vidyal faktite). Sorry to all readers for writing this in Bulgarian. Cheers. User:Cryout —Preceding comment was added at 02:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Da prav si, no kakto mogat Kitaiitsite da pishat vuv Wikipedia kolko dulga e istoriata na tiahnata klasicheska teritoria, taka mojem i nie. Shte te pomolya da poglednesh vsichki dokumenti/knigi i akademichni materiali koito sum pokazal tuk. Mersi... Pisha na Bulgariski samo sega, inache mojesh da vidish kolko sum napisal na Angliiski vuv tezi dulgi diskusii za informirane. Tuk vapros ne e za dokazvane, zashtoto vuv akademichni krugove ne se osporvat tezi antropologichni fakti, a prosto che hora koito ne poznavat Bulgaria ne priemat tya da ima velika istoria kato durjava taka i kato teritoria. :)--Monshuai (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the intro/antiquity of civilization in Bulgaria

As for 3rd alcove, there is nothing nationalistic about stating the amount of time a land has been developing as a composite civilization with given academic sources. Further still, there is nothing nationalistic about stating that Bulgaria is the sole heir of the First Bulgarian Empire. You constantly change this to "sees itself" as though you are suggesting that this is only Bulgaria's view and it isn't actually the heir of this entity. How could you call me a nationalist when you are a Greek person who constantly tries to hide or express things about Bulgaria from your nationalistic "Hellas" perspective, where only your country can express the antiquity of its civilization. You've also taken the liberty of doing similar things to some Albanians with whom I've had discussions about your actions. Don't worry, as I said the history of your actions regarding Bulgaria and others is monitored and we shall see who has the ethical and academic support in this case. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monshuai (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, overlooking the fact that I also removed silly nationalist wordings from Greek-related articles, aren't we? What composite civilisation? Maybe we should mention that every Balkan country has neolithic settlements since the Nth millennium BC right in the intro. Get real and stop being disruptive. 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You could of course go to the discussion page and see what cultural anthropologists have to say about the composite Bulgarian civilization. For example the fact that Thracian traditions are still practiced by modern Bulgarians and even exist in the form of national holidays. Indeed I've provided numerous academic sources regarding this very topic and the conclusions of anthropologists such as Dr. Gerald Creed are there for you to examine. You asking, "what composite civilization" simply shows your lack of knowledge on Bulgaria and therefore further proof that you are no authority on Bulgarian history. And what's with this "sees itself" statement regarding the First Bulgarian Empire? You didn't answer the first time I asked you. As I say, there is light at the end of the tunnel and we shall see who will have to get real. :) Monshuai (talk • contribs)

I wonder what is the problem to mention in the introduction that the civilized history of the Bulgarian lands spans for 6000? Everything mentioned in the indroduction is also written below with more details. It is not mentioned in the indtroduction for the neolithic settlements. And also the country is the successor of the medieval Bulgarian Empire and we do not need "sees itself" - the name Bulgaria is mentioned in Byzantine texts since the very foundation of country.--Gligan (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I got drawn into all this, and against my better judgement I'm going to get involved in the discussion. I'm going to thread very carefully in this discussion (Monshuai, please don't accuse me of all kinds of things, or go into my extreme lack of qualifications!). One thing I wonder about is the term "sovereign heir". What is meant by that? "sovereign" has some political connotations. You use the word 'successor', which sounds more neutral to me. Perhaps you can edit it to say simply say "successor" instead of "sovereign heir"? Another issue of meaning is the use of the term "classical areas" in connection to 6000 years before present; the mediterranean classical era which seems to be referred to is much younger than 4000 BC.

There's the word "civilized". According to the Civilization article this is characterized by agriculture (much of Europe by 6000 years before present practiced this to a certain extent, including the region of the Netherlands, say, which I'd hardly consider civilized until much much later), and settlement in cities. Was there significant settlement in cities in the region around 4000 BC? What about evidence of significant devision of labour and social hierarchy? Thracian or proto-Thracian gold finds go back to 3000 BC at least, so that's supportive of the use of the term. There are also the inscriptions found in the south-east europe region that might indicate some forms of proto-writing, so that also supports the existence of a relatively complex social system as well. Martijn Faassen (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote the Civilization article: "The term civilization is often used as a synonym for culture in both popular and academic circles. Every human being participates in a culture, defined as "the arts, customs, habits... beliefs, values, behavior and material habits that constitute a people's way of life". That's the meaning of "civilization" used here. "Civilized" comes from the noun, meaning that they had developed culture, and, more specifically, writing system and art. For the first objection: "Successor" is more neutral than "sovereign" but neutral words are not always the best. In this case, "successor" is less specific by not giving the information of the right to inherit and the form of inheritance. Italy and Byzantium are successors to the Roman Empire but their culture and society are fundamentally different from the Roman ones. Bulgaria preserved to a great degree the culture, language, customs, etc. of the First Bulgarian Empire during many centuries, and this gives the right to the country to be the sovereign heir to the First Bulgarian Empire: preserved "Bulgarianness" in the same way as England has preserved "Britishness". Lantonov (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the word civilized: you seem to be proposing to just have it be synonymous to "culture". That's I think, not the impression that is given by the use of the word "civilized" when going back 6000 years. If you use the word "civilization" to refer to some group *now*, you can use it more or less as culture ("western civilization", etc), but when applied to the dawn of civilization you can't do this as easily. I think the case is actually stronger for civilized: I'd rather see "civilized" history in the intro than "cultural history spanning more than 6000 years".

Concerning "sovereign heir": just put it like this: what if modern Britain, which preserved to a great deal the culture, language, customs, etc, of the British Empire, was said to be the "sovereign heir" of the British empire? Does this mean it claims Canada? You say that the Roman empire and modern Italy are fundamentally different while there's a clear path of continuity between the First Bulgarian empire and modern democratic Bulgaria. Is there indeed such a qualitative difference? There is a great deal of continuity of language, culture and custom between the two. Martijn Faassen (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lantonov, I am not going to continue a discussion with you, as unfortunately I now have a hard time to trust your motives. I saw you lifted text I wrote on my talk page, from an entirely unrelated debate with Monshuai and used it elsewhere to make your points, without any attribution (in another Bulgarian discussion). Anyway, at the very least this makes me think you are not a very honest debater. It also makes me wonder whether there is a connection between you and Monshuai. Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Faassen, are you suggesting that I am not an honest debater simply because you have lost all debates that you and I have ever had? I use academic sources and you do not. Since the entire editing history and placement of sources is available for everyone to see, people will judge for themselves. I am very curious how using academic sources to prove what I've said can be considered dishonest, especially when I've been dealing with people who know little of Bulgaria, do not provided academic sources to counter my sources, and yet claim editorial authority... Please don't try to establish connections between myself and others. Check the IP adresses and you'll have your answer! If however there is someone who should be ashamed of their debating/vandalizing style it is people like yourself. Months ago you edited the Bulgaria section of Wikipedia without regarding any of the sources currently provided. You certainly did not have these sources at the time (partial excuse), but then again anyone who considers himself worthy of editorial authority on a nation's/country's history should go looking for such sources in the first place before changing texts according to his subjective opinions and/or complexes. That is indeed a form of dishonest writing/editing, and you should be careful with your words! Also, I ask that you not reply, because if you want to debate with me again you'll once more find yourself in a darkness called self pitty! Finally, I thought you would never come back to this section. You said it afterall... Must you go back on your word? That's a rhetorical question that you don't have to answer...--Monshuai (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're really enjoying this, aren't you? I'm feeling sorry for you. (and you misremember you saying "Never come back" as me saying I was leaving forever. It's right there for all to read, as you say). Martijn Faassen (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I said Lantonov isn't an honest debater. Are you Lantonov, Monshuai? Martijn Faassen (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do enjoy finding academic sources that prove people like yourself incorrect! You are right about that one as you already have experience being proved incorrect...

You probably don't remember I was the one who asked you for citations when all this started. After a while you came up with some reasonable ones, which I went through. I suspect more of your citations ended up in articles by my hand than by your own. I am willing to be informed. I'm patient enough to actually try to listen to you. I get a lot of abuse from you for it, and you seem to enjoy the feeling that you are "winning" debates with me, but what the heck, it's entertaining to me too, right? You're fascinating strange to me. You're articulate and intelligent. You're not very nice. and you think worse of others like myself. Unless you still have some growing to do, there is an unbridgable gap between us where we just don't understand each other. Martijn Faassen (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I said "never come back" after you said you were leaving! :) Here's the quote from you: "Goodbye. Do with this article whatever you want." It is after this that I said what I said. :) Also, you did say to Lantonov that he's a dishonest debater, but then you said, "It also makes me wonder whether there is a connection between you and Monshuai" as though you were implying we are one and the same person. That said and in defence of Lantonov, after you accused him of dishonesty, you did not provide any evidence to back this statement up. Do you always say things without providing hard evidence as proof? That's another rhetorical question that you don't have to answer. No matter how you try to twist information, history is afterall as they say, HISTORY! The truth always comes out Faassen. --Monshuai (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did say goodbye, and as you note I haven't bothered with this article for some months. I got myself drawn in again against my better judgement. Since there seems to be little hope in rational discussion leading to improvements, I will leave you alone again. I hope someone else can find something useful in my words to improve the introduction, but I doubt it as it gets lost between all this verbiage (which I am equally to blame for). I'm sure you'll chalk this up as another victory over me: fine. I hope it makes you happy. You evidently think I'm pushing an agenda. You just outright say I'm *vandalizing* articles! It's clear that your reality is incredibly divergent from my own. Yes, of course I wonder what the connection is between you and Lantonov. It is a rather obvious thing to wonder about in my position, given that he used my words to you, the Bulgarian connection, and given that I don't think you're an honest debater yourself. What is your explanation for Lantonov's use of my words to you in another discussion? See Talk:Turks in Bulgaria. I should just give it the most positive spin and consider Lantonov inspired by my beautiful words which he just happened to chance upon? That might even be true, but even you should understand that this makes me wonder! Martijn Faassen (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I read what Lantonov said and I still fail to see the problem. If he used your written statements without citing them as such, ask him to edit the page with respective quotation marks whilst citing you as the original author of as you say, "your beautiful words." Otherwise this does not concern me in anyway form or fashion... As for dishonesty, you already know who I think fits this description. You are just one of those people who does not find sources in his own good time, yet takes the liberty to edit/judge the academic sources provided by others. Yet after all is said and done surprise, surprise, you've decided to leave once more. Yes, indeed against your "better judgement" you decided to debate me again and when you saw that I am rather adept at dealing with you, you started to insult me and even accuse me of being someone else. I understand you now Faassen, you run away whilst insulting your opponents. A strategy that no doubt: (1) Allows you to distance yourself from those who better you in one way or another (2) You still get to express your frustrations at a 'relatively safe distance' so that the chance of being proven wrong again is marginally neutralized. Good for you, your debating tactics are a model for ethics and morality. In case you're confused, my last sentence is also a model for sarcasm. Goodbye and this time I hope you keep your promise of not coming back! :)--Monshuai (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Monshuai, you are putting words in my mouth, thoughts in my mind, and you're *projecting*. Martijn Faassen (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem confused yet again. In case you wonder why I react as I do, then read a little about Bulgarian history. Our little country has had to endure the subjective opinions of those from without, rather than develop according to the views of those from within. Are you still confused? Let's just say that outsiders have always tried to tell us who we are, what we are and how we should be. Let's also stipulate for a moment and come to the hypothetically 'straight-edged' conclusion that some of us are seeking the sovereignty that every nation must defend, until that heavenly day when humanity is truly one! Still confused? Well in lamens terms, we the Bulgarians know better who WE are than you my dear Faassen! This can only change if you come and join us in our struggle to find the sunshine that we crave from the shadows of a former glory turned into a present misery. If you're still confused, write your PhD thesis on Bulgarian history and then we'll discuss this as academics, not desktop historians! --Monshuai (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's good you treat people who try to learn something about your history and want to talk to you about it this way. That's really the right way to go about it, unquestioningly. :) Martijn Faassen (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

From Lantonov (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A direct response to Martin Faassen. No, I am not Monshuai, Martin. I am what I have written on my talk page. If you continue to insist that I am Monsuai, I will initiate an investigation of IP addresses to prove that I am not, and then hold you responsible for your insinuations of dishonesty. As for the sentences that I copied, I admit that I copied some sentences from your response to Monshuai because I deemed them pertinent for the discussion with Nostradamus. I did not give credit because Wikipedia explicitly says that everything written here is not copyrighted (on this page look at the bottom the small text after "Copyright": All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License). If you still insist on giving you credit, this is it: hereby I give the credit to User:Martijn faassen for the text: I won't go into a debate, but since you are talking to me about it, I'll try to explain what's going on. Cited sources are good. Cited sources don't make any text in Wikipedia immune to further editing. It depends on the quality of the text and the quality of the sources and whether what's in the sources matches the text. It depends on what other sources there are. Lantonov (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As an afterthought, you may learn from my discussion with Nostradamus1 why are those words in the Bulgarian article. I will leave for a short time the article Turks in Bulgaria in the way Nostradamus1 has done it and invite you to take a look at it. From it you will learn that Turks (!?) established Bulgaria way back in the 6th century, Byzantium was glad to give up the government of the region to the Ottoman Turks because they were all relatives, the whole history of the Ottoman Empire was a chain of glorious victories over infidels, there was never such thing as forced Islamisation of the Christian population, there was persecution of Turks during the April Uprising and Russian-Turkish war, and the Third Bulgarian State was incorrectly established, because the population was Turkish anyway. Then Turks underwent forced Bulgarisation to become Bulgarians. The conclusion is: there is no reason for existing of Bulgaria, Bulgarians are all Turks, so that Turkey has a sovereign right to govern Bulgaria. The same user goes to all Bulgarian articles, and insists on changing Bulgarians to Bulgars, as the last are nothing but Turks. Then you will, if you have some vestige of conscience, see at least part of the reason behind "sovereign heir". If you do not, then go unite with Nostradamus1 and beat Bulgaria from two sides, you from the West, and he from the East until we fall unconscious, forget everything, and do not know who we are. To warn you, I am going to copy most of this in Talk:Turks in Bulgaria, so please do not accuse me of plagiarising myself. Lantonov (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A rebuff to Lantonov's allegations and distorted representation of my views can be read here--Nostradamus1 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just now saw your fine point, User:Martijn faassen: "civilization" can be applied only to "western civilization" to mean "culture", otherwise if it is applied to other than the "western" society, it means "agriculture". Good point :).

The point I was trying to make it that yes, civilization when applied to present-day groupings can mean culture, but I don't think that generally this is the way the word 'civilization' is applied to ancient groupings. You'll note that I was actually looking at evidence to support the word "civilized". I'm certainly not getting into the debate with Nostradamus1 either. Martijn Faassen (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

About your other quibbles:

• Britain: If there was such state entity as "British Empire", Britain will not only "be said", it will be in fact, a "sovereign heir" of this empire. As it was, there existed the country England (or Britain), ruled by the Queen (or King) of England (not Empress (or Emperor) of England), and many colonies all over the world that were also ruled by the Queen (or King) of England. It was an Empire in all but the name. Over time, one by one, the colonies revoked the sovereignity of the Queen (or King), some by revolutions (like the United States), others by civil wars, and still others by wars with other European countries. Not so Canada: most of its citizens remained loyal to the Queen (King) of England, and therefore even today, Canada is British Dominion, recognizing the sovereignty of the Queen of England. Not all are happy with this, for instance, the French people of Quebec are not happy, but that's the way it is. So the short answer is: yes, England is the sovereign heir of the British Empire, and, yes, England claims Canada. The other former colonies became members of an entity called "British Commonwealth" with Britain (now UK) as a ruling country in this organisation to give some legality to the fact that in some time of their history they have been British. What is Britishness? "Britishness" is a highlight in the platform of Gordon Brown when he succeeded Tony Blair as Prime Minister of UK. Read "Guardian", "Independent", "Times", "Daily Mail" from the end of June this year for definitions of this term. I brought back here from London issues of those newspapers so I can borrow them if you are interested in the topic.

I suggest you go put in 'England is the sovereign heir of Canada' in the Canada article and see what happens. :) Martijn Faassen (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably be eaten alive by Quebecois? :). Lantonov (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Italy: Italy now and in Roman times are two very different states. First, Italian language is very different from Latin in vocabulary, grammar, and pronounciation. The phrase that Latin is "dead language", not spoken anymore, corresponds to a great deal to the truth. Second, customs and culture in present Italy were to a great extent introduced after the fall of Roman Empire from the "barbaric" tribes that invaded the peninsula, and now they are very different from customs and culture in Roman times. The same pertains to Byzantium but to a much greater degree (oh, I forgot, you think that "barbaric" tribes did not have culture ("civilization") because they came from the East; only the Roman Empire had culture because it was in the West).

Lantonov (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you put words in my mouth? Now I'm suddenly a Roman empire apologist? Everybody had culture. I was wondering where the word 'civilization' is appropriate, and where the words 'sovereign heir' is appropriate. Civilization is appropriate for a heck of a lot of ancient entities, and that may include those cultures that resided in the present-day territory of Bulgaria. It's not an appropriate word for a lot of other groups (such as the cultures residing in the Netherlands at the same time period). Martijn Faassen (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you find a well-developed culture (such as using some form of writing) in Netherlands in this or earlier period, why not say that such civilisation existed on the territory of Netherlands? I do not think that anybody will have a problem with this. Lantonov (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

However, you still think that the word "civilization" may not be applied to Bulgaria, as appears from your latest edit, in which you did everything to remove it and replace it with something neutral and faceless. Lantonov (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Economy

This line is completely misleading:

"The country boasts the second-highest standard-of-living in Southeastern Europe in terms of GDP per capita"

Bulgaria is one of the poorest in EU. Its like saying MacDonalds sells the best burgers for a restaurant with big yellow M out the front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackerlacken (talk • contribs) 11:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that the line is completely misleading, unfotunately it's one of most of it's kind in the section for Bulgaria. Subtitles about industry, agriculture, science, technology etc. are full of false and misleading information about the reality in Bulgaira.It resembels definition common used during the communist regime. Someone who doesn't knows Bulgaria (and especially a person who previously visited Greece, as an example of Balkan country) can make a completely wrong conclusion about modern Bulgaria. In fact, the country is the poorest in the EU, with GDP per capita and average wages well below the average EU, also much poorer than other transition economies in Europe. In fact Bulgaria has significantly lower GDP per capita than neighbouring Turkey, and Romania too. Bulgarian population was severely hit by the collapse of the economy after 1990-ies, unemplyement reached enormous dimensions,with high double digit figures in many areas, and as a result hundreds of thousands of bulgarian citizens moved to other European countries, some to USA, Canada seeking for better living conditions,since the country lost mainly young and educated people, as a result of this Bulgaria experienced one of the worst demographic crisis of its recent history, unemployment rate fell to nearly 10%,but it's still higher than developed countries of Europe. For economic details about Bulgaria please visit http://www.wiiw.ac.at/e/bulgaria.html #http://www.fdi.net/country/sub_index.cfm?countrynum=33&infocntry=33 Leventcik (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) The second Bulgarian empire was in fact an romanian-bulgarian empire.(Who made this ridiculous statement? Where are the facts? --Lantonov 10:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

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?

• From the way the question has been phrased it is possible to answer without needing to look at the facts. This is Wikipedia. Truth is not important; WP:Verifiable is. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I was not able to verify that Bulgaria declared its independence in 1878 but was somehow denied its recognition until 1908. My sources say that Congress of Berlin created the Ottoman Principality of Bulgaria and the Ottoman Province of Eastern Rumelia in 1878. In 1885 the Ottoman Principality of Bulgaria annexed Province of Eastern Rumelia. In October 1908 Principality of Bulgaria declared its independence becoming Bulgaria.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And your sources were careful enough not to mention the Treaty of San Stefano. Lantonov (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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. :)

Lantonov (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks. I warned you before.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack? With knife or with a fire-arm? Lantonov (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but don't forget that the Treaty of San Stefano also never came to pass, because the Western Powers were not for it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

All I can say to this is: "If you do not like the obvious answer, do not ask". Lantonov (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Lantonov (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)