Talk:Bulgaria/Archive 3

Education

What is the percentage of university graduates? --144.122.250.137 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Location map colour scheme

When I went to school, Orange was not another name for dark Green and Camel wasn't a shade of light Green. I would have corrected such a glaring mistake but I wasn't able to find the edit button. 83.104.135.68 (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The colour names were specified in a template, which didn't match the map image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bulgars

The Bulgars created three known kingdoms in Eurasia before creating the First Bulgarian Empire. Why are they called semi-nomadic when in fact they created centralized states. This is akin to calling Alexander the Great a nomad just because his life was spent expanding his empire. Furthermore, Jingiby feels that more information should not be provided about the Bulgars, for fear that they may actually be honourably and objectively presented. He feels that they should not be called state builders, or related to the Huns, because his argument is that these are topics that have their own articles. At the same time he calls them Turkic and semi-nomadic. By his logic, these two disputed points should also not be included because they too have their own articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monshuai (talk • contribs) 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is not a phantasy club. Thank you. Jingby (talk)!

Is it a fantasy that you have been prevented from editing many articles due to your inapropriate edits? How about that one time when your account was suspended for months? It can happen again.

BTW, when you call something a fantasy, you should say what exactly and then tells the why, what, who, where and when. It is a proven fact that the Bulgars built many kingdoms throughout Eurasia (every academic agrees on this issue, yet it is something you repetedly erase), where on the other hand it has not yet been proven that they were Turkic. There is as of yet no consensus on this issue.

My edits include the fact that many academics believe tthe Bulgars may have been Turkic, but it also includes a fact that every academic agrees on, and that is that the Bulgars built kingdoms everywhere they went (ie: Volga Bulgaria, Balhar, Great Bulgaria, The First Bulgarian Empire etc)... Try to refute any of these points and remember that your edit war without your proving these points means you will be punished by the relevant authorities. After all they can see what I have written in the discussion section and likewise your statements.

Thank you. :)--Monshuai (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Turkish emmigration

Since there has been a slow revert war on this, it'd be better if the parties would begin a discussion on it. My personal view is that this piece of info is quite relevant and worth mentioning here since it was quite sadly the most popular info about the country for the 80s if not of the whole Communist period. It's worth adding some detail, though, mentioning the Communist government did it in a last attempt to stay in power with the on-doing Perestroika and all the rest. --Laveol ^T 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

as long as it's well referenced, I removed the text because the number didn't appear in the article. Also, cause-effect has to be explained clearly (not inferred, as in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH)... people leave a country for many reasons, we need to have that presented clearly in a reliable, unbiased source. man with one red shoe 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia centralised discussion

Following the conclusion of the Arbcom case (WP:ARBMAC2), a new centralised discussion for Macedonia-related naming issues has now been opened at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Motto

The motto is not translated correctly. The correct form in English should be "Strength through unity!". Satelitko (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right! You're absolutely correct. DemonX (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone who's got sources please ammend the bit in chapter Bulgaria in World War II where it says that Bulgaria was given the chance to claim "long coveted" Greek and Serbian territories. This is rather biased and malicious sounding. Bulgaria in fact reclaimed these territories which were taken away as a result of WW1. Furthermore they had predominantly ethnic Bulgarians living on them. So yeah, at the moment its just not fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.219.160 (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

citation:Bulgaria in fact reclaimed these territories which were taken away as a result of WW1. Furthermore they had predominantly ethnic Bulgarians living on them.

Well, in fact she did, but not quite just that. In WW2 Bulgaria claimed from Serbia/Kingdom of Yugoslavia [much more] then territories taken away as a result of WW1. While it is true that territories taken away after WW1 have predominantly ethnic Bulgarians living on them up to this day, those others (at least in todays Serbia, I can't speak for Macedonians) are predominantly either ethnic Serbian or ethnic Albanian. From what I've heard from locals, Bulgarians were certainly not received as liberators in most parts of southeast Serbia that was occupied by Bulgaria in WW2. Anyhow, it is agreed that there is no need for loaded language.

Back on the motto topic - according to me "Unity gives strength" comes closer to the Bulgarian wording, but according to the government's official website, the correct English translation is "Union makes strength" , so I suggest that it is changed to the official version. Killer4o (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, neither 'un1ity' nor 'union' is the English for 'съединение'. 'Unity' is 'единство' and 'union' is 'обединение' in this context. The correct English word for 'съединение' would be 'unification', which is seen e.g. in the interwiki correspondence between the articles Съединение на България and Bulgarian unification. Therefore, the motto ought to be 'Unification makes strength'.

Just a thought: the Belgian motto is similar to the Bulgarian, and is translated as "Strength through Unity" (lit. "Unity creates Strength", "Unity makes one strong"). By the way, does anybody know if the similarity is a coincidence? Do the Saxe-Coburgs have anything to do with it? Preslav (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that strictly sticking to dictionary definitions isn't really the right approach here - 'strength through unity' definitely comes closest to conveying the same meaning as the Bulgarian phrase. In the motto, 'съединението' doesn't concretely refer to the unification of Bulgaria, but rather to the concept of acting in unity, therefore I'd go with 'unity'. Anyway, as Killer4o points out this is a moot point, since the government has blessed us with an official translation, as ridiculous as it sounds... Tomatoman (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia Request for Comment

The Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Where does the name Bulgaria come from

It's funny that this article makes no comment about where the word Bulgaria comes from. Maybe it's because it would have to give reference to Tatar and Turkic roots, then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.141.157 (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's clear where the name Bulgaria is derived from - country is named after the tribe. :) As for the name of the tribe, there are separate articles describing the origin of Bulgars (proto-bulgarians) or Bulgarians, there may be you can find an answer to your question. -- Nedyalko Radev —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC).

Can you give me evidence that the name comes from Turkic or Tatar? If you can`t shut up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.139.203.243 (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is getting too long

According to WP:SIZE, readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, while this one is 142 KB at the moment. In comparison, it was 94 KB this time last year, and 115 KB three months ago. Since the article has already generated many sub-articles, the only way to keep it readable is to cut text. I think we should consider which information is absolutely essential for a reader who wants to read an encyclopedia article about Bulgaria but has a limited attention span, and move less-notable information into sub-articles (and create ones for it if necessary). Maybe we should introduce a ban on adding information unless at least twice as much as is added is removed in the same edit? Preslav (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is my opinion:

• The Geography section should be a bit shorter, maybe removing some of the information under "Climate" and "Hydrography".
• The History section is very long; "Ottoman rule" and "Interwar years" should be reduced in size, especially the former.
• The Politics section includes too much unneeded info on the judiciary.
• The Military section seems fine;
• The Economy section is very long, but a large part of the information in it is important, sho it should be shortened with care.
• The Science, technology and telecommunications section is long, but this is mostly because an article on the subject does not exist. However, like the Economy section, this one should be approached with caution.
• The Transport section seems fine;
• The Culture section is inexplicably long, especially "Customs" and "Cuisine";
• The Tourism section is both huge and ugly. It's a personal opinion, but I'm even against such a section in the article as a whole. Only the most significant should be taken out, and merged with Economy.
• The Sports section is full of unessential information, especially when it comes to soccer.
• The Religion section is too long. Only the basic information should be left, and probably merged with Culture.

I can start working on Economy and Science, since in recent months I've closely monitored both of them and fount a few sources to fill citation tags. Objections ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To my mind the section for the Ottoman rule must be greatly reduced. It used to be quite reasonable but it was overextended by a non-constructive User:Nostradamus1. The information after the Liberation is very long too. Considering the Science and Sports sections, the look very nice and I think that their content should be copied to a new main pages dedicated to that matter and only the most important should be left on the page for Bulgaria.

Considering the images, I think that we should try to put only beautiful and neat pictures - for example I don't think there should be a picture of the market or the mine of Elshitsa...

AND to my opinion in the section for the religion there should be two pictures - a church and the Rila Monastery. --Gligan (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

On the image issue - the Economy section has a very adequate picture variety. The point is not to show beautiful pictures, the point is to illustrate different types of economic activity. Factories, mines or markets are rarely beautiful, but they perfectly illustrate the various industrial and commercial sectors. As to the religion section - it should be shortened to such a degree, that maybe one picture will be enough; and, from an aesthetic point of view, pictures of landmarks such as the Rila Monastery are somewhat unappropriate, unless in context - otherwise the article starts looking like a tourist brochure. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is true that that shows what economy looks like but still for countries with far larger reliance of mining industry it is shown something more aesthetic. Everyone knows that countries don't include only beautiful things but generally in the main article I thing we should put pictures that look neat. Otherwise, the mines would be great illustration for the economy/industry article or even a separate article for mining (which I am too lazy to make unfortunately...) But that is, of course, my personal opinion. We should discuss that issue further... --Gligan (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, this is an unimportant part of the problem. We should start shortening the article, especially "History" and "Sports" (no other wikipedia article has such a long sports section). I'm taking the Economy, and I'll see what I can do for Science and Culture. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left the most important information and moved the unimportant facts to the main article at "Economy".

@Gligan: pics like these [1][2] would be pretty useful, especially the second one. If you have a flickr account, you can contact the author and ask for a permission for the pic to be downloaded from the site and then uploaded in commons. I dont have the time or a flickr account to do that, sorry. They would look effective in the Economy section. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is true that this is not the most important thing right now... I also don't have a Flickr account but I found these two pictures on which it is written "some rights reserved" - [3] and [4]. I think that the first one is appropriate ;-) --Gligan (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the first one is fantastic actually, but the license is still not acceptable and a permission should be asked. Here's the list [5] of acceptable flick licenses in Commons. This pic would be a great contribution. It would be great if you can contact the author and ask for a permission, so that the picture can be uploaded. :) I will continue reducing the size of the article and finding references (because this is a major problem too). - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that the images can be uploaded by the terms of creative commons. I think it is not necessary for the pictures to be in Wikipedia Commons or it is needed? --Gligan (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it can be uploaded locally, but the best practice is to be in Commons, so that the image can be available to all language versions. Unfortunately, its current license (CC-BY-NC-ND) is incompatible with Commons, so the only solution is to ask the author to change the license to either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA...- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tourbillon is right; "non-commercial-only" flickr images can't be used here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I've reduced the article to a reasonable size of 100 KB, provided sourced statements, removed the unsourced and reworked the sections. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

inconsistency in article

In the 'Geography' section, it states that Bulgaria has 'vast coal reserves', yet in the 'Economy' section, under 'Energy', it the article states that 'Bulgaria has relatively few reserves of natural fuels such as coal'. This needs to be rectified

It seems that someone has wrongly edited the economy section because we don't have natural fuel such as oil and gas but have enough coal. I will correct it, thank you for the remark ;-) Best, --Gligan (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits to the science section

I removed the texts because:

• John Atanasoff was not Bulgarian and his contributions to science were not made in Bulgaria;
• Peter Petroff's contributions were made long after he had left Bulgaria;
• Georgi Mandushev was part of an international team without Bulgarian institutes, and their discovery was made outside Bulgaria;
• It was the USSR who sent Georgi Ivanov into space; the Bulgarian contribution to the USSR space programme was minor;
• The number of scientists working at CERN is 30 according to the reference, the other 60 must be technicians, secretaries, cleaners, etc.

so these can hardly be said to be Bulgaria's contribution to science. Preslav (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree - I was going through this section thinking "wow, they're really pushing it in terms of what's considered Bulgarian". I guess the question is: if a scientific development was the work of a Bulgarian person, however it was carried out outside Bulgaria and/or without support from Bulgarian institutions, does it still count as a "Bulgarian" development? I don't have enough Wikipedia experience to know the answer. With regard to John Atanasoff, it may be worth mentioning him despite the tenuous link, as his was an important discovery. Tomatoman (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, my other thought was that there's a lot of stuff in the sci-tech section that should probably be moved to the dedicated article, Science and technology in Bulgaria. A lot of it is way beyond the scope of what most people would consider a brief summary. Tomatoman (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

All of the people that you took out of the Bulgarian Science & Technology section are considered Bulgarian, or Bulgarian-American. They considered themselves as such and no one else has the right to tell them otherwise. An example from a non Bulgarian section is someone like T.S.Yau who proved the Calabi conjecture hence the famous mathematical expressions of the Calabi-Yau manifolds. This man is Chinese-American, even though he came up with his impressive theory when he was in the USA. How about the Nancy Pelosi article where it states that she is the first Italian-American to become a speaker of the house? She was not born in Italy, but there is consensus that she is Italian-American. How about Michelle Kwan, who was born in Torrance, California and yet is Chinese-American? There is no debate about this either, but rather full editor and administrative consensus. Will you be editing her article as well with your revisionist philosophy? I would like to see how your subjective perspectives are dealt with in these and many other non-bulgarian Wikipedia articles. Indeed, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of other articles that are examples of this factors. I have had the priviledge of observing discussions regading this very topic, which have involved some of the original administrators on Wikipedia. It is thus clear that you are incorrect in your assesment of this specific issue. If you however have a problem with this then you will have to also change all of the other articles on Wikipedia regarding various personas of human history. If however you want to include the words Bulgarian-American for some of the scientists/engineers, then please do so. --Monshuai (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying their Bulgarian birth or ancestry. But what you seem to suggest is that T.S. Yau should be mentioned here, Nancy Pelosi here, and Michelle Kwan here. Preslav (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can see the Chinese article mentions personas that they want to present therein. Who's to tell them which people stemming from their nation should and should not be mentioned? The same holds true across the Wikipedian landscape. You can also be certain that should T.S. Yau manage to create a universal "theory of everything" using his mathematical insights into String Theory, he will be regarded as one of the greatest minds of recent human history. In such a case, he would most surely be promptly mentioned in the China article. I have discussed this very conjecture with Chinese editors and administrators who are in agreement. Until then he remains a relatively minor figure in the context of 1.4+ billion people of Chinese background.--Monshuai (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, before this turns into a revert war...based on other Wikipedia articles, could we agree on some of the following:

• The science and technology section should include inventions/discoveries by Bulgarians or people of Bulgarian descent, similar to the one on the Czech Republic#Sciences.
• Again, this should be a brief bullet point list of up to 6–7 people that describes their contribution in just a few words. Further details should be left to the article on Science and technology in Bulgaria. As it stands, the science section here just duplicated large sections of the dedicated article, which is a bit pointless. In fact the Bulgarian science section is twice the length of the science section of the USA article.
• In the case of John Atanasoff, I think it should be noted that he is "of Bulgarian descent" rather than actually "Bulgarian", though I'm sure we can iron this out.
• Finally, there should be a paragraph or two on the current state of the sci-tech industry, as in the article on Poland#R&D.

It seems to me that shaped this way, the section would provide a much more useful overview of Bulgaria's role in the world of science and technology. Please comment. Tomatoman (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally object against point 1 already. This is the article about Bulgaria, not about Bulgarians. There is a separate article about the ethnic group. This article is about things that happened in this country, not about things that people whose parents came from this country did elsewhere later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's funny you say that, as that was also my initial idea. But having looked around other countries' articles, their science sections almost universally include lists of notable achievements by nationals of that country – as Monshuai alluded to. Purely based on that pseudo-standard, I think such a list would be appropriate. It also shows that Bulgaria has over the years had a strong scientific community.

Having said all that, I think the section as it stands is incredibly biased – the sort of thing you might read in a communist party bulletin proclaiming how well everything's going (I'm kidding, but you get my point). It never mentions that the 0.4% of GDP research spending is just about rock-bottom in comparison to the rest of the EU [6] (tied with Slovakia and Romania, who have significantly greater GDPs), and is actually decreasing. It never mentions that nowadays those 47 universities and the BAS, that "leading scientific institution", produce very little meaningful output, after much of the competent workforce left the country since the 1990s. Moreover, science education at universities, as well as schools, is at a level far below what would be required to raise a new generation of talent. The country's "strong tradition" in science and technology has eroded at a phenomenal pace due to resource shortages in both human and monetary terms, and I think the article needs to better reflect that. I know there are lights at the end of the tunnel (EU framework grants, etc), but for the time being the sector is in throes. Tomatoman (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You make some very good points about some of those the things that ought to be in the section. I'll still disagree about the treatment of emigre individuals though. The distinction between the treatment of a country and the treatment of an ethnic group is an important one to make, and just because some other articles are doing it wrong isn't a good argument for doing it wrong here too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of pure logic (Bulgaria vs Bulgarians), I really want to agree with you. You also obviously have vastly more experience than me in this. However I think the distinction is more subtle: several aspects of a country are defined by its people and their achievements/behavior, rather than anything intrinsic to the country. I looked around a bit, and more often than not the Science, Culture, and Sports sections of country articles are dominated by references to people - as it is the people from which a country derives those traits. Such is the case with the article on Germany, for example: a featured article that undoubtedly receives much attention and has been tweaked numerous times. Its Science section contains three paragraphs listing people, followed by a short one listing facilities. Moreover, several of the personalities mentioned - notably Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and Hermann Weyl - spent much of their career outside Germany. On this note, I think in order to give the reader an accurate impression of the role that science plays in any given country, it is essential to mention notable scientific personalities and development. I know this is turning into a bit of a long discussion but I do believe it will be a fruitful one. Tomatoman (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

VNIMANIE!

Ima hora koito se opitvat da predstaviat laji za Atanasoff i napalno nepriemtat che e chast Bulgarin. Otidete na statiatamu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Vincent_Atanasoff i napishete mneniata si po tozi vapros v "discussion". Ima administratorka koita spodeli che kolkoto poveche hora potvurdiat tezata che Atanasoff e Bulgarski-Amerikanets tolkova po sklonna bi bila tia da prieme che tova triabva da se napishe v negovata statia. Molia otdelete malko vreme.--Monshuai (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostja (talk • contribs)

The Province of Montana

What is the origin of the name Montana? It is clearly latin and not slavic. It is perhaps because people living there speak a latin language or for other reasons? Thanks for a kind answer. --Deguef (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an answer at Montana, Bulgaria#Names. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Very kind of you.--Deguef (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Heritage

It would seem that a few editors have been making biased edits of the Bulgaria article lede. They've repeatedly obscured and/or completely suppressed/removed lede information (see edit history for the priod of 2007-2010) regarding the prehistoric and ancient heritage of the country's territories. These editors have stated that including such information in the lede is reflective of PEACOCK behaviour. On the other hand, they choose to evaluate other article ledes, such as the one regarding the country of Greece, using different standards from the ones they applied/apply to the Bulgaria article. This is empirical evidence of the utilization of double standards that are by their very existence inconsistent and therefore contrary to the singular rules established by the Wikipedia community. After all, Wikipedia guidelines are applied equally to ALL country articles, and any editing behaviour that counters this ideal is insubordinate with the virtual "rule of law" that is supposed to exist herein. One must also mention that in addition to the Greece article, many other country article ledes include information about their prehistoric/ancient legacy, including Italy, Jordan, Iran, China, Iraq, etc... Indeed there has been a multi-year consensus that such information does belong in the lede. Please feel free to read any of these and numerous other country ledes throughout the Wikipedian landscape whenever you have some time.

As an example of the above mentioned hypocracy, I would like to point out that Future Perfect at Sunrise states in his recent edit summary that it is unacceptable (PEACOCK) to write about the Bulgarian territory's ancient heritage in the lede, while as evidenced by way of his actions, or lack thereof, it is OK to write the following sentence in the Greece article lede: "Modern Greece traces its roots to the civilization of ancient Greece, generally considered to be the cradle of Western civilization. As such, it is the birthplace of democracy, Western philosophy, the Olympic Games, Western literature and historiography, political science, major scientific and mathematical principles, and Western drama, including both tragedy and comedy."

Note that Future Perfect at Sunrise has edited the Greece article 28 times since March 2/2009 alone and strangely never once suggested nor, as he did here in the Bulgaria article, REMOVED information about Greece's ancient legacy in the lede in favour of detailed geographic data about its mountain peaks. I am curious, how would Wikipedia's top tier administration feel about this?--Monshuai (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FPaS. Besides "look what other article does" is never a good argument on Wikipedia. Also, it's a matter of notability, I'm afraid to say this, but "Ancient Greece" is a bit more notable than "Ancient lands that now are occupied by Bulgarians". man with one red shoe 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If we were to use your argument of notability, then wouldn't it be correct to assume that other countries have even more notable ancient history than Greece? If that is in fact the case (and assuming something like this can be quantified), your argument necessitates that only the country with the "highest" level of ancient historical notability should have information about it in its lede. Finally, what you've blatantly stated is that Bulgaria's ancient history is less notable because its "ancient lands are now occupied by Bulgarians." Not only is this an incredibly racist statement for obvious reasons, but it also attempts to racially demarcate ancient history. It also disregards the fact that modern nations are composites. As such, modern Bulgarians calling themselves by that same name does not change their links to a past that they inherit from a few of their many ancestors. Furthermore, it is necessary to note how other country articles are written, because rules are the same across Wikipedia and are therefore not designed to be at the whims of subjectivity. Your lack of recognition of Bulgaria's historical legacy and prejudiced statement anchored by your general conjecture of "current ethnicity" of a modern nation is not only derogatory but in fact maximally subjective. Finally (and indeed this is beyond the point), in recent years Bulgaria's archaeological wealth has been notable throughout the world, including the global exhibitions of its Thracian treasures (ie: Valley of Thracian Kings, King Teres gold mask, Varna Necropolis, etc). Furthermore, the science of Thracology was founded in Bulgaria due to the wealth and indeed notability of its historical legacy... Still, you've decided that mentioning Bulgaria's mountain peaks in the lede is more notable than its ancient heritage. You sure that will stand above water when all is said and done?

BTW, is this an attempt on your part to get me involved in a revert war? Your provocation will not work, although it (as embodied by your above statements) is duly noted.--Monshuai (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what, stop calling people racist only because you disagree with them. Second, even if I wrote "Ancient Greece" is a bit more notable than "Ancient Bulgaria" my argument would still stand, although Ancient Bulgarians were not called Bulgarian and were not speaking Bulgarian, but nevertheless, let's call them Ancient Bulgarian, that doesn't change anything in my argument. Third, yes, you are correct there must be some countries with history more notable than Ancient Greece (although in Europe I'm not sure which one you are talking about, outside of Europe I would think of China, India, possible Iran) and you should be free to militate to include history bits in the lead (if it's not already there), however here's not the case. man with one red shoe 23:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So it's OK for you to offend, but not OK for me to note how you've offended? After all, you stated that ""Ancient Greece" is a bit more notable than "Ancient lands that now are occupied by Bulgarians"". Why mention the "occupation" of ancient lands by Bulgarians at all? Is there a reason to using this ethnic denomination as part of your argument, when in fact we are discussion something that is different from the modern concept of nationality? Also, what about your argument hasn't changed? Is it that Bulgarians can not mention their ancient heritage in the lede because information about their mountain peak Musala and their fertile Danube plains is more notable than their ancient Roman, Thracian, etc legacy? Or is it that your argument still attempts to establish demarcations in regard to ancient heritage? On top of this, why are you constricting the discussion to Europe in regard to Greece's notability, instead of looking at this issue from a neutral and indeed global perspective? Are there specific Wikipedia rules that apply only to European countries and their comparative historical inheritance within this rather small geographic area? Does this mean that only the territories of modern Greece have an ancient historical notability? Will you be removing information about Italy's ancient legacies from its lede because you deem it less notable than Greece's? You see (or perhaps you're still confused), Wikipedia's rules on notability are not comparative between nations, and therefore the legacy of one country is not mutually exclusive with the legacy of another. Finally, Bulgaria is an inheritor of an abundance of ancient historical wealth (please educate yourself) and is indeed the epicentre of Thracology. Now then answer each point one by one.--Monshuai (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

" Why mention the "occupation" of ancient lands by Bulgarians at all? Is there a reason to using this ethnic denomination as part of your argument, when in fact we are discussion something that is different from the modern concept of nationality" -- for a simple and practical reason, I said "Ancient Greece", there was no "Ancient Bulgaria" at that time. Can you stop the rhetorical questions and bring arguments? As I said, if you want to add information about ancient Rome (wait a moment, we do have a page about Ancient Rome but not an Ancient Bulgaria article...so, I guess the notability issue stands) then feel free to add such info, but here's Bulgaria and such historical info is unwarranted in the lead for notability and balance reasons. man with one red shoe 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You did not answer all the questions. How come? BTW, not unlike the existence of the Ancient Rome article you mentioned, Wikipedia also has articles about the Varna Necropolis, Varna culture, Ezero culture, Thracian Kingdoms (ie: Odrysian Kingdom). You can read these and many other Wikipedia articles about the ancient heritage of Bulgaria's lands, and they are indeed officially part of the series on the History of Bulgaria! The fact that this territory is today called Bulgaria (just like a small part of the Roman Empire is now called Italy) does not erase its ancient legacy. In fact it is attested by the vast number of archaeological sites throughout the country.

As regards to Greece, there was no country by that name in ancient times. There were city states or empires that were never called Greece. Also, the country of Greece is not a pagan state that has a culture centred on the belief that Zeus, Appollo, etc are rulers of the land and universe. It is a secular state, with a predominantly Christian/monotheistic populace that has a national (non existent concept during ancient times) and partly European self identity (again not applicable to ancient Greek city states). If we are to use your argument about continuity of nations, than it would be proper to only include lede information about the history of modern Greece which was founded in the 19th century, the century during which the Greek nationality/sovereignty was essentially created. If you don't agree with this, than you are suggesting that the concept of nationality existed 2500 years ago. If so please show me the academic source that states this!

In extrapolating your application of what is and isn't notable to a given country, one must ask why are modern nation-states are partly defined by the "objects" within the territory they occupy? In other words, why is it that it is OK to state that Bulgaria has such and such a mountain? Did the modern Bulgarian nation make that mountain? Obviously it didn't! Nonetheless, everything within the territory of that nation-state that is deemed to be under public/government jurisdiction belongs to it (reflective of the modern concept of sovereignty). This doesn't just include "mountain peaks" but rather natural resources and archaeological artefacts within that territory. As such, if natural elements (ie: a lake, river, forest) can be notable for a country it is also certainly true that the archaeological wealth/heritage buried within its soil is also notable. In fact, since a modern country is a concept that is not created by inanimate objects such as rocks, but rather one that is a projection of sentient humans, it is logical to suggest that the actions of humans long ago on that particular land are even more relevant and notable to those who currently "occupy" it than are its geological peculiarities.--Monshuai (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

All, or most, the countries have archaeological artifacts, however, the practice is not to mention that in the lead. Do you see anything mentioned about Stonehenge in the lead of Great Britain? man with one red shoe 02:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you blow off your top you should understand that I used the word "occupy" in the sense of "inhabit". All people occupy or inhabit the place of other people, that's not specific to Bulgaria, I didn't use the word occupy to suggest that Bulgarians occupy somebody's else rightful territory. man with one red shoe 02:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, where is Ancient Bulgaria? Make your points that there was no "Ancient Greece" in that article and spare us of your tirades. Also, there's no comparison, Rome had one of the biggest empire in the world, about 690 million of people speak a language that's derived from Latin, how many people speak a language derived from Thracian? Zero (or maybe at most couple of millions if you consider the convoluted theory that Albanian is a kind of Thracian). How much empire did Varna or Ezero had? I don't care about your rants, the info about old cultures on the territory of Bulgaria should of course be mentioned, as it is, but not in the lead of this article. man with one red shoe 02:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

By not answering the questions I've asked, you have indeed shown that your argumentative foundations have been undermined. Thank you for implicitly admitting this. In regard to your latest statement, I told you that there need not be an article titled Ancient Bulgaria in order for the modern country of Bulgaria to have an abundance of archaelogical wealth, which is as much a part of the country as are its natural ressources. I also explained that the concept of nationality is modern, and thereby an article on Ancient Greece is as connected to modern Greece as an article on Ancient Egypt is connected to modern Egypt. Now can you see that such "names" are not important and the lack thereof does not have anything to do with archaelogical heritage? I also don't see what the size and power of Ancient Rome has to do with its notability to the modern state called Italy. Are you saying that smaller ancient cultures are not notable? As an extension of this, are you saying that small nation-states in the modern era are not notable/important? If that were true than it would mean that we shouldn't have articles on Greece, Lebanon, Jordan, Bulgaria etc simply because they don't have as you say, "the biggest empire[s] in the world." :) --Monshuai (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The size and power of Ancient Rome has to do with the notability of Ancient Rome, you have to admit that Varna culture is a bit more obscure than Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, or Ancient Egypt that you just mentioned. As I said, all countries have a past, if you are such a fan of comparing pages, what about Great Britain and Stonehenge? There's no mention of Stonehenge or other past glories in the lead of the Great Britain article. Oh, and I don't responded to all your questions for a simple reason: TL;DR. man with one red shoe 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Great Britain, I looked at the article on England (you know, the country that created the UK) and I saw that it mentions its ancient cultural heritage in the lede. This is a fact, even whilst it neither has as many archaelogical sites as Bulgaria nor is the epicentre of a specific science focused on studying a particular ancient culture as is the case in Bulgaria in regard to Thracology and Thracians. Did you look at the Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq etc articles btw? So, has you argument now fully shifted to specifying notability to country based on the size of an empire?--Monshuai (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability is measured in many ways, I don't use only one measure as you claim. Nor can you claim in a sane manner that Thracians are just as notable as Ancient Greeks or Romans. In the England article I see in the lead "The area now called England has been settled by people of various cultures for about 35,000 years,[8] but it takes its name from the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled during the 5th and 6th centuries. England became a unified state in AD 927" That seems pretty balanced, it explains where the names comes from and when the England became a unified state first time. Bulgaria can have similar information "The area that is now called Bulgaria has been settled by people of various culture for about [...] years, but it takes its names from Bulgars..." I don't have anything special against that, just that I prefer current version. I prefer that information in the history section. man with one red shoe

04:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the article lede on England (imperial initiator and core state of Great Britain) does say that (got you by surprise there, but nice try earlier) even whilst the country does not have the same quantity of archaelogical sites/ancient heritage as Bulgaria. It is after all the epicentre of Thracian archaelogy. Oh and don't worry, the Bulgaria article will have the type of lede that it deserves (since the same rules will be applied to it as those utilized by other country ledes). If need be, this issue will be comparatively analyzed in WP by neutral admins who'll be asked to look at numerous country lede examples countering each of your remarks herein (I have prepared 22 examples thus far). So if it comes to this, these neutral admins will be pointed to this discussion, your edit for this article and your thoughts on historical demarcations, "national" identities in antiquity, notabilities rooted in empire sizes, etc which will all be dissected "on the table" as they say... ;) Oh and I am happy you have finally admitted that this was an issue of preference for you. Indeed, to have preference is the same as having a bias. The two terms are interchangeable. The problem for you is that Wikipedia is not about preferences/biases, it is about singular rules applied equally across the board under the guiding eye of maximal objectivity! --Monshuai (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer (I'm biased that way) you didn't misrepresent my positions, I didn't say it's a matter of preference between your version and the current version, I said is a matter of preference between an intro like the one in England and the current version. I'm not here to debate endlessly with people who don't understand what I write or choose to misrepresent my positions. Good luck in your enterprises, convince other people you are right and leave my "bias" alone. man with one red shoe 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since your preferences/biases from the onset of this "debate" were conspicuous, it was clear that your argumentative foundations were flawed and therefore your efforts to build a coherent argument quite futile. You have solely yourself to blame. I've already elucidated that it is your responsibility to think through your statements before you post rather than find yourself in a difficult argumentative position after I have dissected and debunked your reckless comments. Statements about (1) ancient lands being occupied/inhabited by Bulgarians (as though modern Bulgarians are aliens to these lands and don't have connections with the people that lived on their territory in antiquity), (2) notability being analysed in the context of Europe and not the world simply because it fits your proposition that Greece should have more lede "rights" than a country such as Bulgaria (even though both have substantial and comparable heritage from ancient civilizations/cultures), (3) empire size as a measure of whether information about it belongs in the lede of a modern country's article, etc are all examples of rather unrefined efforts to rationalize the utilization of double standards (something that is explicitly prohibited in Wikipedia).--Monshuai (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Last time.
1. No, I didn't imply that, I'm not responsible for your delusions and imagination.
2. Europe or entire world doesn't matter, it's notability, I used Europe as an example because I'm more knowledgeable about European history and it's better to compare an European notability item with another European item (you know, apple and apples comparison, vs. apples and oranges), but if you want to compare Varna culture with Hindus culture for notability be my guest, I don't see any difference in the lab of the notability of different old cultures on Bulgarian territory.
3. Notability can be observed in many ways, I'm sure few people in Japan (let's say, but think of any other country that's not bordering Bulgaria) heard about Varna or Ezero cultures, but them most likely heard about Roman empire and Ancient Greece.

Before you come again with interminable strawmen, attacks, and other idiocies check any regular history book from any other country than Bulgaria and see if they mention Roman empire and Ancient Greece, and if they mention old cultures on Bulgarian territory? And if they do (but they would have to be very detailed to do so) do they give the same amount of coverage as for the Roman empire and Ancient Greece. Also, open a philosophy book and see how many philosophers from Ancient Bulgaria you can find there, since we are at that open a book about history of math and see how mane mathematicians from Ancient Bulgaria you can find there. Oh and since we talk about notability tell me about books that discuss the political system in Ancient Bulgaria, or if we talk about justice tell me which countries base their justice system on the example of Ancient Bulgaria? Please also provide the Mahabharta or Rāmāyaṇa of the Ancient Bulgarins... man with one red shoe 18:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

1) Your comments are on this page so everyone interested in this discussion can see, analyze and interpret them. Thus if you feel you haven't said anything improper you need not worry about my "imagination and delusions".

2) When utilizing said global comparisons it can be argued that the People's Republic of China is the epicentre of ancient culture(s) that have notabilities far greater than those of ancient Greek city states. Therefore in using your criteria there should be no mention of ancient Greek city states in the modern Greece country article. :)

3) Are you really, really, really sure you want speak about the notability of Bulgaria's ancient heritage in Japan? OK, suit yourself! Here are some links for you:

- http://sofiaecho.com/2009/07/16/756602_golden-thracian-treasure-returns-to-bulgaria-from-japan

- http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=100803

As you can see the Thracian heritage of Bulgaria is famous in Japan, the country that you decided to use as an example to the contrary. In fact the latest exhibition of Bulgaria's ancient heritage in Japan averaged over 20,000 visitors per day, and a record performance of 45,000 visitors in the peak day. The Japanese are also quite familiar with Varna culture of Bulgaria, as the Varna Necropolis treasures were on exhibition for 7 months in Japan in 1982.

That Bulgarian exhibit in Japan was called, "'The Oldest Gold in the World - The First European Civilization' with massive publicity, including two full length TV documentaries. In the 1980s and 1990s it was also shown in Canada, Germany, France, Italy, and Israel, among others, and featured in a cover story by the National Geographic Magazine. Varna necropolis artefacts were [also] shown for the first time in the United States in 1998 and 1999 as part of a major Bulgarian archaeological exhibition, Thracians' Riches: Treasures from Bulgaria."--Monshuai (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, an exhibit, how amazing. Let me repeat maybe you'll understand what I talk about when I talk about "notability": open a philosophy book and see how many philosophers from Ancient Bulgaria you can find there, since we are at that open a book about history of math and see how many mathematicians from Ancient Bulgaria you can find there. Oh, and since we talk about notability tell me about books that discuss the political system in Ancient Bulgaria, or, if we talk about justice tell me which countries base their justice system based on Ancient Bulgarian justice system? Please also provide the Mahabharta or Rāmāyaṇa of the Ancient Bulgarians. man with one red shoe 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You know I realize that it is a natural human tendency to shift arguments when one's former statements are disproved. Still, this does nothing more than further erode your argumentative basis. I'll give you an example based on our most recent exchange. You said, "I'm sure few people in Japan (let's say, but think of any other country that's not bordering Bulgaria) heard about Varna culture." Luckily for me I lived in Japan in 2004 and knew this was not the case. Thus I proceeded to show you that the Varna culture's Necropolis exhibition was on display in museums across Japan, including the national museum for 7 months in 1982. Another exhibit (2008-2009) of Bulgaria's Thracian treasures was seen by 45,000 people in one day alone and was shown all over Japan for 1.5 years. In addition, since I do have basic reading skills in Hiragana and Romaji I have found numerous Japanese language articles, books and sources regarding Bulgaria's ancient heritage. Would you like me to post links to these as well? Now let me repeat your words again, YOU WERE SURE few people in Japan had knowledge of this. When self professed certainty is scrutinized and disproved it completely undermines the credibility of its original communicator, because it tells us that his/her certainty is actually not rooted in fact. Not good news for you... As a defensive reaction, you then proceeded to infuse your argument with yet another statement that seems to dismiss the important work that museums do (preserve, exhibit, and educate)... Maybe next time you walk into the National Museum of Tokyo, the Louver or any other nationally/internationally significant museum you can also sarcastically exclaim, "Wow, an exhibit, how amazing."

There is another point I'll mention briefly. You have twice stated that you will not be continuing this discussion. Needless to say, you've gone back on your word both times. Let me ask you, if a person is inconsistent and doesn't follow through with their explicit proclamations, is it not logical to deduce that they themselves are unsure of what they're saying in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I would actually like you to stay here as our conversation has been incredibly fruitful. After all, it will give many people a chance to think about what has been said here, and likewise become aware of the hipocrisy that abounds.--Monshuai (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope an admin would take notice about the personal attack ("Hipocrisy" that you accuse me, or imply I showed here).

As for your argument, please familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, therefore we don't even need to debate endlessly if "Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome are more notable than prehistoric cultures in the Bulgarian lands" because it's irrelevant as I said from the beginning. But I do stand by my assertion and by what I consider that is common sense. You won't prove to me that even 16 million Japanese (yes, that's few) have seen some prehistoric exhibit from the territory of Bulgaria that suddenly prehistoric cultures from the Bulgarian lands are somehow even close to the importance, relevance, notability of Ancient Greece, Rome, China, or India (not that would really matter, per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). man with one red shoe 04:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So now that you've lost the argument your final, yet ultimately flawed attempt at salvaging the situation is to claim a victim's mentality? The irony here is that this in itself is another clear example of hypocrisy. You stated that I am "delusional" and yet you feel offended when I say you are hypocritical? Hellllooooo, you've just proven my point! As a heads up, you've been hypocritical (as in using double standards) from the onset of this discussion. Take a look at earlier phases of our conversation. I guess you didn't know that hypocrisy and double standards mean one and the same thing. Anyway I do like your idea about involving administrators, especially those that are not involved with Balkan related articles. So why don't we continue this discussion in WP and let all the neutral admins there take a look at what has been said here including your ethnically divisive statements about Bulgarians and the lands they inhabit, or the lack of importance/notability of Bulgaria's history? Are you in agreement?

Another thing, I'm curious about your statement that FEW is equivalent to 16 million people. I have to tell you, your statements strike me as becoming stranger and stranger by the hour. 16 million people is not a "few" as you say by any measure, let alone when it makes up 12.6% of a country's population. Maybe for Bulgaria to qualify as having notable ancient culture under your biased criteria we would require all 127,530,000 Japanese citizens to visit the exhibit. BTW, would you like me to post links to the worldwide exhibits of Bulgaria's ancient legacy? I can't guarantee that all 6,798,234,031 people on Earth have seen them though. Sorry! One more thing, when you discuss other articles that include information about their ancient cultures in the lede, why not also mention small countries like Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc?--Monshuai (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked you in your page to cease accusing me of hypocrisy and to stop discussing my person, since you didn't stop and continue to bate me I reported you here. By the way you haven't addressed any point I raised, instead you decided to nitpick on words and things taken out of context and somehow you declared yourself victor in the debate and called me hypocrite. Nice going. man with one red shoe 03:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have presented information that functions to prove my proposition, as well information that functions to disprove your statements (ie: in regard to comments about Japan). You stated that few people had heard of Bulgaria's ancient heritage there and I showed you this wasn't true. You then said that even 16 million people in that country was equivalent to few. I also explained to you why you have been hypocritical:

(1) You apply different standards to Bulgarian and Greek history and refuse to aknowledge the type of ledes (written by consensus) in articles about Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. You also shift your argument when your statements are debunked.

(2) You said I am "delusional" and yet you say I personally attacked you when I said you are hypocritical. Can you not see the irony in that?

(3) You posted on my talk page and then told me not post on yours. This too is a double standard, aka hypocritical.

(4) You have decided to post a second time on my user page using an inappropriate word to express your feelings.

Incredible!--Monshuai (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me respond to the issues regarding the article:
"You apply different standards to Bulgarian and Greek history" -- No. They are simply not comparable in notability.

"refuse to aknowledge the type of ledes" -- I don't really care that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, if you think that the historic leads are unwarranted there then please militate to remove them, before you'll accuse me again of hypocrisy and why I don't it myself, let me explain that 1. I don't follow those pages. 2. I don't know enough about the history of those countries to have an informed opinion.

"You also shift your argument when your statements are debunked." -- you never addressed the key argument (or better said, you never made an argument: using "other crap exists" type of argument doesn't work on Wikipedia), instead of supporting your argument you chose to pick on words like "few" and "occupy" and took things out of context, your entire "argument" in this monstrous discussion is to pick on what I say and then declare me hypocrite and declare that you won the argument. man with one red shoe 04:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So you don't edit the said articles about Syria, Jordan, Lebanon etc because you don't know their history very well? Wait a minute that's a contradiction with what you previously stated. After all, you said that information about ancient cultures should only be in the lede when a great many people know a particular country's ancient history. You even mentioned your knowledge about the ancient cultures of India, China, etc to showcase why these countries have the types of ledes that they have. Well, now you're saying that you don't know Syria's, Jordan's, Lebanon's ancient history enough to have an informed opinion, which according to your previous arguments would mean that their ancient heritage is not notable enough to be in the lede.--Monshuai (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, man... where is the contradiction? _I_ don't know much about the history of the bunch of counties you enumerated, how is that in contradiction with anything? Does it mean that the history of those countries is not notable? Not at all, it doesn't mean that by a long shot, I'm a simple person my knowledge about a subject doesn't rule the notability of that subject. But let's assume that it means that the history in not notable, does that mean that those pages should remain like they are, no it doesn't, does it support your argument that we need to introduce crap in this article because other articles have crap, again no. So what exactly do you try to claim here? man with one red shoe 04:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet you used your own knowledge as an example to show why Greek, Chinese and Indian ledes were the way they are. That is a contradiction! However since you now say that you "are a simple person whose knowledge about a subject doesn't rule the notability of that subject" it means that your knowledge also can't rule the notability of Bulgaria's ancient heritage. That in itself nullifies your asserions on this issue. Also, please don't call lede information about Bulgaria's history "crap".--Monshuai (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In contradiction with what? I said that Ancient Greek, Chinese and Indian cultures are notable or more notable than the cultures of people who inhabited the territory of Bulgaria, I stand by this statement. Where is the contradiction? That I cannot or don't want to pronounce in case of Lebanon? Or, does it mean that if I know about Ancient Chinese and Indian culture that I should know about the Lebanese history? What contradiction? And again you twist my words, of course that my personal knowledge about Bulgaria or Greece or any other country doesn't rule anything, nor does your knowledge, there are other ways to determine notability. As I said, provide philosophical writing of ancient people inhabiting the territory of Bulgaria, provide political analyses made by Thracians, or provide something similar to Mahabharata or Ramayana, or provide example of political and judicial systems that are based on the political or justice systems of Thracians. Provide the Thracian Homer, the Thracian Herodotus, the Thracian Thucydides, the Thracian Sophocles, the Thracian Plato, The Thracian Aristotle, the Thracian Thales, and so on. It's also not only my opinion, I simply said "I agree with FPaS user who removed that lead" so at least two editors concur, I don't see anybody supporting your view. man with one red shoe 05:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this is a reply to a comment made by user:man with one red shoe, that he later decided to remove. In it he discussed the use of google to measure historical notability. Below is my response to his use of google. Maybe your google results show order of magnitude differences because in English it's not called "Thracia" but actually "Thrace". Now then if you google Ancient Thrace you get 2,770,000 results. When you google Ancient Greece you get 5,880,000. In other words, the former results make up 47% of the latter. Very, very, very far from an order of magnitude differnce as you stated. On the other hand Ancient China yields 24,110,000 results. Thus the Ancient Greek results make up only 24% of the Ancient China results. This means that your google search result popularity/notability criteria shows us that the notability of Ancient Thrace is a lot closer to that of Ancient Greece than is the notability of Ancient Greece to China. You also mentioned Iran's culture as being very notable earlier. Well again using google, the results for Ancient Persia yield 626,000 results, which is only 22% of the Ancient Thrace results. So using your criteria, one can again see the relative prominence of the Thracian heritage. You also just edited your above statement to say that "Phoenicia is more notable than Thrace." Then you edited your comment again and removed this bit. Either way, using your google suggestion, Phoenicia yields 1,220,000 results, which is 44% of the Ancient Thrace results. There you have it man with one red shoe.--Monshuai (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your search is faulty you should search for "Ancient Thrace" with the quotes, that gives about 50,000 results, if you look for Ancient Thrace without the quotes it includes the pages that contain only the word "Ancient". man with one red shoe 05:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you basically asked: why Greece "deserve" a historic intro and Bulgaria doesn't, it unfair, right? Take a look at these lists: Category:Academic_philosophers, Category:Ancient_Greek_mathematicians, Category:Ancient_Greek_philosophers, Category:Ancient_Greek_physicists, Category:Peripatetic_philosophers, Category:Hellenistic_era_philosophers, Category:Aristotelian_philosophers, Category:Philosophers_and_tutors_of_Alexander_the_Great, I'm sure I missed many other lists, can we establish at least that the history of Greece is notable? OK? man with one red shoe 05:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again you suggested we use google (note: I don't think google should be used for this, but you brought it up nonetheless). Indeed let me summarise again:

-Ancient China = 24,110,000 search results

-Ancient Greece = 5,880,000 search results

-Ancient Thrace = 2,770,000 search results

-Phoenicia = 1,220,000 search results

-Ancient Persia = 626,000 search results--Monshuai (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Google is unreliable to establish historical notoriety, that's why I removed my initial post, but in any case you don't even search right, you should use quotes when you search multiple words "Ancient Thrace" gives only 50,000 results. In any case you have your answer, Thrace is less notable than Greece as you can see from any type of search you try, even more the word "Thrace" is used for a part of Greece so you actually include that in your results. man with one red shoe 05:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So if you insist on Google results:

-"Ancient Greece" 3,970,000 search results

-"Ancient Thrace" 50,000 search results man with one red shoe 05:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not even one order of magnitude, it's two. Even Phoenicia is 2 order of magnitude more popular than "Ancient Thrace"... but again, Google is not that reliable to establish notoriety, I'll let this slide, please address the question about Greece notoriety, I provide you some lists, please provide such a list for great Thracians. Thanks. man with one red shoe 05:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the search is not faulty, as it includes pages that include both the words ancient and thrace. The two terms do not have to follow one another. Just as when China or Persia are mentioned in the historical context they do not need to be immediately preceded by the word ancient. Thereby if we now search the way you insist, "Ancient Persia" yields 217,000 search results, while "Ancient Phoenicia" yields 46,200 results.--Monshuai (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, learn to use Google first. Also the word "Thrace" is used in current settings so searching for it alone doesn't mean anything. Virtually nobody calls "Ancient Phoenicia" because there's no "Current Phoenicia" I'm amazed that there are 46,200 results... man with one red shoe 06:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the list of Thracians though. man with one red shoe 06:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC

In most texts the word Thrace is used to denote this ancient land. Would you like me to give you a number of academic sources to demonstrate this? Thus when you search for it as such "Thrace" it yields 2,710,000 results. Also, "Ancient Macedonia" yields --Monshuai (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Here's a famous Thracian for you called Spartacus. The search for him alone yields 5,760,000 search results. "Alexander the Great" yields 3,410,000 results. ;)--Monshuai (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You duplicated your post. So Spartacus is your list of known philosophers, mathematicians, physicists from Ancient Bulgaria? By the way when you talk about Varna culture you don't talk about Thracians, it's a 3000 years gap, so no matter how well Thracian are known, and we established even by your numbers that they were less notable than Ancient Greeks, they have little to do with proving the notability of the previous cultures on the Bulgarian territory. man with one red shoe 06:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I just used your google criteria to show you that a Thracian named Spartacus yields 5,760,000 results. Again, google is absolutely inappropriate to use for this purpose and therefore your orginal suggestion for its use was fallacious, but I've decided to continue using your standards to make a point. So here it is: according to the search results Spartacus the Thracian is more notable than Alexander the Great. BTW, remember what you said about the size of empires and notability? Well Alexander the Great made one of the largest empires in history (although much smaller than the Mongolian Empire) and yet strangely he is not as famous in your google searches as a Thracian who led a rebellion against Rome. Now the Mongolian Empire itself is the largest empire that has ever existed on the face of our Earth. A google search for Mongolian Empire yields 115,000 results. So what's going on here? Either you were completely wrong about using google to prove your points, or you were completely wrong about sizes of empires equalling notability. What do you think? Furthermore, according to google search results, Genghis Khan (the most powerful man at one point) yields 1,530,000. Hmmmm... The situation in which you now find yourself is called a Catch 22.--Monshuai (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So let me see, when is your advantage you don't use the quotes in your search, you compare Ancient Greece with Ancient Thrace without quotes, but in case of Spartacus and Alexander the Great you suddenly decided to use the quotes? Hmm, interesting, I wonder why... should I try Alexander the Great without quotes? And why compare with Alexander the Great, who not compare with another one word names like... Socrates, over 10 mil. finds, or Aristotle, over 12 mil. and so on. Again, I presented 9 categories of Greek philosophers, mathematicians, physicists, historians, you came with a name of a soldier/slave, I'm still waiting for something similar, otherwise please stop trying to prove the impossible, you'll only make people laugh. man with one red shoe 07:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I already told you that "Thrace" yields over 2 million results. The word Thrace is used in much of the literature on Thracians without the word ancient in front of it so your premise about this was not valid. You still did not answer my question about the Mongolian Empire (largest ever) and Genghis Khan. Also, are you saying that Spartacus was not important in history because he was as you put it a "soldier/slave"? I'm not sure if people will laugh about this, or be disgusted by your comments.--Monshuai (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I saying that? No, I said what I said, not what you imagine, no reason to be disgusted by your imagination. Let me repeat what I said: "I presented 9 categories of Greek philosophers, mathematicians, physicists, historians, you came with a name of a soldier/slave" What do you claim here, equal notability? And sorry, I thought we discuss here about heritage, culture, not about soldiers, not sure what you want to prove here, do you want to write an intro about Spartacus something like "Spartacus was born on the territory of Bulgaria" in the intro? man with one red shoe 07:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

So a man that was able to revolt against the Roman institution with the goal of ridding the empire of slavery and who eventually set an important military precedent is not as notable as a mathematician? That would be like saying that Martin Luther King, Jr. is not as notable in the modern era as the mathematician Richard Askey.--Monshuai (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you are a master of the rhetorical questions, I'm interested to see here what's your opinion. Should we talk about Spartacus in the intro about Bulgaria? Is the contribution of Spartacus just as notable as all the Greek philosophers, mathematicians, historians, physicists, astronomers? Please respond. man with one red shoe 07:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are the only person that has wondered if Spartacus should be in the Bulgaria article lede. Did you see me mention Spartacus in the lede element you removed? As you can see, I don't believe this is about individual personas (you brought that up), but rather about holistic ancient heritage. BTW, did you finally figure out how to respond to the questions I posed regarding the Mongolian Empire and Genghis Khan?--Monshuai (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"holistic ancient heritage" -- exactly, you brought one example of a notable person, does that make in any sense "holistic ancient heritage". I'm not interested to discuss about Genghis Khan, Mongolian Empire, Lebanon, Jordan, Nigeria, Richard Askey, or Martin Luther Kong, Jr. you are all over the place, the issue here is simple "Ancient Greece" is very notable that's why is mentioned in the Greece article in the lead, "Ancient populations that lived on Bulgarian territory" while very interesting and worth to be mentioned in the article are not that important to be mentioned in the lead, Spartacus notability won't change that. My opinion (and some other editors too), your is different, learn to live with differences. man with one red shoe 08:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You're telling me to learn to live with differences and yet you cannot live with Bulgaria's ancient heritage being mentioned in the lede? This is now the fourth example that I note regarding your explicit use of double standards. It has already been shown that the Thracian heritage of Bulgaria is globally known. In fact you can find information about the Thracians in a great many of the worlds languages. Do you want sources in different languages? So indeed Bulgaria is the epicentre of this ancient heritage, Thracology as a science was officially founded in Bulgaria and many people throughout the world know about it. It was shown that the Japanese have an interest in Bulgaria's ancient heritage (remember you stated that 12.6% of the population of the world's 10th most populous country is few, even though Japan is 11.23 times more populous than Greece [or as you would say an order of magnitude bigger]). I can also give you many other sources and links showcasing the said interests of people from other countries (not bordering Bulgaria as you said).--Monshuai (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have to explain every single thing I say, by "learn to live with differences" I didn't mean that you should accept my opinion, but to accept that other people have other opinions without being ill-intentioned or hypocrites -- you seem to have a problem with that concept. As I said, I think all of that you mentioned is nice, and it is already mentioned in the article, and even more, it is developed in Thrace and Thracians and couple of other articles, however, it is my belief that it is unwarranted in the lead of this article, you belief is that it should be there, so be it. I do not care that much as all this discussion would seem to show, but I was constantly baited by you, constantly provoked, constantly asked rhetorical questions that implied that I said things that I didn't say (it's of course my fault that I replied), dragged through Genghis Khan, Mongolian Empire, Lebanon, Jordan, Nigeria, Richard Askey, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Let me reiterate my initial positions (edited so you won't take advantage of the choice of words) and I will leave it to that:

• I agree with FPaS. Besides "look what other article does" is never a good argument on Wikipedia. Also, it's a matter of notability, I'm afraid to say this, but "Ancient Greece" is a bit more notable than "Ancient people who lived on what is now Bulgarian territory"

Clear, concise, I stand by this comment, I will go now because I got tired and noticed how stupid I've become to get into such a travesty of discussion. Since I'm not going to respond anymore you can have your victory lap, declare how you proved that I was wrong, how I am hypocrite and racist, and basically do what you want in this page, I won't came back to this talk page to be trolled to death by you. You can edit the lead however you want from my part, I will not revert you. Have a good one! man with one red shoe 09:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This was never a competition between the notability of Greece's ancient heritage and Bulgaria's ancient heritage. This is about objectivity and the neutralization of double standards. The territory of the modern country of Greece has notable ancient heritage and the territory of Bulgaria has notable ancient history (epicentre of ancient Thracian culture, birthplace of Thracology and attracter of global attention in regard to this matter). If it were possible to conduct an objective, quantifiable comparative analysis between countries, it is likely that China, India and/or Egypt would be considered world leaders. In other words, the fact these countries may have greater historical legacies from antiquity does not mean that the Greece and Bulgaria article ledes should not have information about their territories' ancient heritage.--Monshuai (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The global notability of the Bulgarian territories' ancient heritage has been demonstrated (also should anyone require I can post sources/links in different global languages regarding Bulgaria's ancient heritage), and the use of double standards has been exposed using references to numerous Wikipedia country articles. Therefore this information will now be placed in the lede.--Monshuai (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to express an opinion in this absurdly long discussion.

First, a paragraph with vital geographic information was removed in favor of another, which is full of words yet not so informative - every country has been a home of ancient and prehistoric civilizations; Bulgaria is not comprised of those regions, it only includes parts of them, and that couldn't in any way be significant enough to be in the introduction of the article; and lastly, the factually inaccurate sentence about the Thracians, Romans and Greeks. None of them sculpted the country's heritage, actually they had little overall impact on Bulgaria's culture.

Second, the lead shouldn't describe the entire history of the country, it should only summarize it, starting from the beggining of the state's existence; Bulgaria's existence dates back to the 7th century, not earlier, not later. I will restore the old version of the head section, as it was a lot more balanced and not so accented on history. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tourbillon, and I hope the two who fuelled this absurd discussion will devote their energy to writing good articles instead of just editting talk pages. Preslav (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tourbillon, Bulgaria's heritage is indeed sculpted by ancient civilizations. The Kukeri festival, one of Bulgaria's largest and most important, is Thracian. Many historians consider the Martenitsa to be of Thracian origin as well. The Bulgars for a time adopted a written language that stemmed from the Ancient Greeks (to the demise of their Kuban alphabet). The Cyrillic alphabet created in the First Bulgarian Empire was heavily influenced/sculpted by that same Ancient Greek alphabet. The legal system of the country too is rooted in Roman law, and the First Bulgarian Empire's administration adopted many elements of it in its formative years. Furthermore, many people around the world have been exposed to Bulgaria's ancient heritage (through exhibits, archaeological conferences, articles such as those in the National Geogrpahic, etc). Finally Bulgaria is comprised of the three regions of Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia, unless you know of other regions that are part of it. The geographic section you advocate for states that Bulgaria has the Danubian Plane in the north. Now if I was being cheeky and using your exclusion criteria, I could argue that information about the Danubian Plain should not be there because the it is also a part of other other countries' territories. But no body thought that did they? Therefore please excercise a little more consideration before making contradictory statements. Thanks...

Second, the lede describes the heritage of a country, not its history since the date when it was created (unlike what you stated). If this wasn't the case, then the Greece, Italy, Jordan, England, Lebanon, India, China, Egypt, Iran and many other ledes would include ONLY information starting from the 19th to 20th centuries. These countries did not exist as the modern definition of the state until very recently.

You also stated that "every country has been home of prehistoric and ancient civilizations". That is not true! May I ask, what civilizations lived in today's Cuba in ancient or prehistoric times? On top of that, one can utilize your statement in regards to the geography part of the lede and state that every country has geological features (which btw is absolutely true). Nonetheless, the most correct statement would be that every country has a unique geological topography, just as every country has unique heritage from various civilization(s) (some older than others). The following was originally published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: http://members.multimania.co.uk/rre/History-Seven.html--Monshuai (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: I have no problem with the geographic/geological information in the lede per se. However it is not customary in Wikipedia to include such information there and to further use it as an exlusion of that country's ancient legacy.--Monshuai (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Heritage 1

What you are trying to promote, is at best original research, not to mention - factually inaccurate. Bulgaria's "heritage", or if we should be more correct - cultural heritage, is neither Greek, nor Roman nor Thracian. Traces of those cultures exist, but Bulgaria is clearly a Bulgar-Slavic nation with a Christian Orthodox allegiance. Argumentation - Bulgarian language is, and has always been, a Slavic language with an enormous number of Bulgar features, no matter what writing system it uses or has used historically. Certainly the Thracians have had some impact on Bulgaria, but if they sculpted its culture, nowadays the majority of its citizens would be anarchic tribesmen worshipping Dionisus. In addition, Orthodox Christianity is not a creation of any of those cultures; practically the legal system of all states in Europe is somewhat based on Roman law. Even South Africa uses the Roman code, does that mean it has Roman heritage ? I won't even argue about the regions, its as useless as it gets.

Second, the head section gives a summary about the country's location, geographic features, and finally, its history. Deleting one of them in favor of a self-researched "ancient heritage" is simply truncating the lead and making it uselessly pompous. There is a comprehensive history section with lots of details for any information alike. Please don't give examples of how other articles are made; that's not constructive and probably serves as a cover for a lack of a more in-depth argumentation. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You say that, "if they (the Thracians) sculpted its culture, nowadays the majority of its citizens would be anarchic tribesmen worshipping Dionisus." Do the citizens of today's Egypt believe in the God Ra and build Pyramid tombs for their leaders with slave labour so that they may transit safely to the afterlife? Do the Greeks today believe that Zeus rules the universe from atop Mount Olympus, while Apollo pushes the sun round our Earth? Do the Italians make sacrifices and festivals in honour of Flora so that the season of Spring may bring with it bountiful fertility and the beauty of blossoming flowers? Do the Iranians in the 21st century worship Mithra? Do the Lebanese go to the Temple of Eshmun to pray for the healing powers of Eshmun? Do the Iraqi people seek the wisdom of Nanna at the Ziggurat of Ur?

Your statement about the three regions that makeup Bulgaria's territory is peculiar. Once again, can you explain to me if any other territories comprise Bulgaria other than Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia? Your argument is like saying that Switzerland can't mention that their country has the Alps, because other countries have them too. You also stated that every country had ancient civilizations. One more time, can you please tell me which ancient civilizations existed in today's Cuba? Please stop avoiding questions that you know have answers that prove you were incorrect in your original assertions. The ancient heritage of a country's territory (especially when nationally known) is part of its overall character, something that you are stating should be suppressed in the lede. It's part of what makes that country unique. Finally, if the the ancient heritage is not part of Bulgaria (and self researched by me as you say), then why are a third of the artefacts in the National Historical Museum (Bulgaria) from antiquity? :) --Monshuai (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

None of them does, but you're missing the fact, that all of those had already built their states under some form when those ancient cultures existed. Bulgaria did not have a state when the Thracians inhabited the Balkans under their original form, and when the First Bulgarian Empire was fount, they were already fading away from the scene. Their surviving traditions were assimilated and most of what was and what is Bulgaria, stems from the Bulgars and the Slavs, not from the Thracians. As I said, mentioning a Thracian origin or something like that in the lead is, at best, a huge overstatement.

Probably you didn't get the thing about the regions either - Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia do not comprise Bulgaria; it includes parts of them. Stating that Macedonia or Thrace comprise Bulgaria would include The Republic of Macedonia in its entirety, as well as north-eastern Greece and north-western Turkey, which is, as I mentioned, factually inaccurate. It could be said that the country includes parts of those regions; not that they comprise it. Yet again that would be a bit too detailed to be in the head section.

You can answer the other questions yourself - with examples as various as Chad, Argentina and Sweden, and as to the museum argument - it's ridiculous, the Louvre is full of African artifacts, so what ? Please, try not to open and maintain useless questions, and concentrate on the point. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no modern country is a product of an ancient state. The modern state exists as a phenomenon in the post Treaty of Westphalia period. Indeed it is you who has missed this and many other facts. So far we've had your misinformed opinion on these matters and consequent shifts in the premise whenever it is shown to utilize what is known by logicians as fallacious reasoning. In this case, you've employed two argumentative misconstructions that amplify the errors and/or incompleteness in your original assertions and therefore lead to defective conclusions. By doing so you have unfortunately committed both a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy. Thus (as an example on the matter), if you knew that people in Greece do not believe in Zeus, or that Italians do not pray for the seasonal gifts of the Goddess Flora, or that any of the other people I cited as examples do not adhere to the religious/institutional traditions of bygone eras, then why did you cite Bulgarians' lack of worship of Dionysus as evidence that information about the country's ancient heritage should not be included in the lede?

You also don't seem to get the fact that in the lede you currently support there is information about Bulgaria's Danubian Plain that is also part of other countries. You also say that it is too detailed to mention Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia, while somehow you feel it is not too detailed to discuss Stara Planina, Rodopi, Rila, Musala, the upper Thracian Plain and the Danubian Plain. All of these geographical and geological elements are within the more general aforementioned regions of Bulgaria. In other words, if your argument is about not getting too detailed in the lede, then the information that's currently there should be replaced with the more general information about the wider geographical regions of the country. Furthermore, no one has ever said that these regions only comprise Bulgaria. As I stated before, parts of them most certainly makeup the sovereign territory of other states. The fact that each region was linked to its respective Wikipedia article (Thrace, Moesia, Macedonia) meant that people could easily click on them and read in detail about this and many other facts. You should try it sometime. With all that said, based on the grammatical errors that you have made above and the incorrect interpretation of the contextual meaning of the word comprise, I am led to conjecture that your knowledge of the English language is limited. For example, the country of Canada is comprised of approximately 33,995,000 people. Many of these folks have double citizenships and are therefore citizens of other countries as well. Therefore using the word comprise does not exclude the fact that other countries claim a portion of these people as well. I can give you many more examples in case you're still having trouble understanding this concept.

As for the museum, it's actually the National Museum of Bulgarian History, which is not in the same category of a museum that showcases foreign exhibits, such as the Louvre. I would have assumed that you already knew the difference between the two, but since you apparently don't (or pretend not to) I am forced to once again elucidate your lack of knowledge on the matter. In other words, the Nation Museum of Bulgarian History ONLY shows artefacts from Bulgaria's historical heritage and not that which belongs to other countries. Please educate yourself on the matter: http://www.historymuseum.org/collection.php

--Monshuai (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, I won't even bother reading this. If you can summarize it in a few lines - OK, if not - the current version of the head section will be kept; all users are on the opinion that it's the best.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your response is indeed evidence of immaturity, disrespect and the inability to formulate a coherent response. What you wrote beforehand was 240 words long, while what I wrote was 574 words long. Thus your statement was 42% as long as my response to it. So what you're saying is that you had the time to write 240 words, but did not have the time to read twice as many? When you say things like this it makes one wonder whether all of your other statements are also built upon such flimsy and incredulous foundations. Considering that the average reading speed is multiple times faster than the average typing speed, you would have spent far more time composing your message than you would have reading mine. ;) Thus, I think you already read it and for lack of better arguments assumed an emotionally charged defensive position. That in itself undermines your credibility. Now if you really did not read it that's even worse, because it means that you were unwilling to examine information that counters your own premise. That itself demonstrates that you are not guided by objectivity and fairness, but rather by engrained opinions and emotions. That does not bode well for you! Also, I don't think you speak for all users nor are you the person who decides what will be kept and what will not. Do you claim to have that authority (especially in the context of your above mentioned behaviour)? Now if you keep insisting, the next course of action will be to report this in WP:ANI and ask neutral administrators who have not been involved with Balkan related articles to evaluate the situation themselves (ie: discussion, references, links), and all the various Wikipedia articles cited.--Monshuai (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please report yourself to the admin boards. It is high time somebody applies WP:ARBMAC on you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's about time someone takes a look at your Bulgaria article and Greek article edits respectively. The difference in your editing and administrative behaviour is embedded in the history of both articles. As stated, the Greece article that you have edited 28 times since March 2/2009 contains the line in the lede, "Modern Greece traces its roots to the civilization of ancient Greece, generally considered to be the cradle of Western civilization. As such, it is the birthplace of democracy,[6] Western philosophy,[7] the Olympic Games, Western literature and historiography, political science, major scientific and mathematical principles, and Western drama,[8] including both tragedy and comedy." Not once have you removed this or identified it as peacocky, yet you removed a line from the Bulgarian article lede mentioning the ancient heritage of Bulgaria on the grounds that it was peacocky.--Monshuai (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Monshuai, you are probably not aware that my refusal to read an enormous post without a concrete point is not a sign of immaturity, but quite the opposite. It's immature to turn a discussion into a (guess what) size-measuring competition. You even bother to measure the length of replies in words, which is, frankly said, frightening. You can make accusations and admin threats as much as you want, but I can assure you that will backfire. Take a tip, and take a break. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You state above that I am "probably not aware that [your] refusal to read an enormous post without a concrete point is not a sign of immaturity, but quite the opposite." How would you know that there isn't a concrete point without reading it first? See what I mean now, you've assumed something before you read it! That illustrates my above points. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place where double standards reign supreme. To attempt to neutralize these, is not equivalent to a "size-measuring competition" as you put it. That is a purely incorrect conflation. Also, whether something backfires for me or not is beyond the point. I am not in control of how neutral non-involved admins who have never dealt with you, fut. perf., myself or others would react. You, him or anyone else are also not in control of this. What I do however have is my brain, my resolve, my knowledge, my ability to use that knowledge and consequently utilize deductive, abductive, inductive and analogical reasoning to present my case. Therein lays my power.

PS: I really don't have anything to lose regardless of how this discussion turns out because I am simply an editor that is at the bottom of Wikipedia's virtual hierarchy. Not only that, but I haven't filled my personal account page with various awards, colourful medals and/or lists about my educational background, various languages that I speak/write and mastery of specialized capabilities. In other words, I am not here to market myself nor somehow impress the community. Again, nothing to lose! However there may be something to lose for others. If push comes to shove, I believe I can present solid evidence (based on an extensive evidentiary list that I have compiled over the last three years) that an admin (and a few editors) has/have applied double standards.--Monshuai (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Monshuai, even if you are right, your methods are the problem. Persistent nagging while consensus is clearly against you and retaliatory trolling (such as at the Byzantine Empire article) give people excuses to dismiss your proposals.--Ptolion (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the important discussion I have started in the talk: Byzantine Empire article is equivalent to trolling? Also, presenting an evidentiary premise and defending it is not equivalent to nagging, just so you're clear on this. Furthermore, the future will tell who is is right or not.--Monshuai (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I forced myself to read your replies, but I dismissed the last two or three after the second sentence. If you want to prove yourself somehow, good, but this isn't the place. You constantly give examples with other articles, claim how hostile all users are here, create unneeded and totally deconstructive spin-off discussions, and nothing of that is needed. The Greece article is just the Greece article, forget about it. This is the talkpage of the Bulgaria article, we're not discussing Greece's achievements nor Cuba's lack of prehistoric settlements nor Fredrick II's flute. Oh, and one more thing - if you want your posts to be read, make them shorter and not so tragic. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tourbillon, first the only reason that Cuba was even mentioned is because you wrongly stated that "every country has been a home of ancient and prehistoric civilizations". Cuba was an example that disproved your statement. So please don't pretend there isn't a cause-effect relationship to your own premises. You were wrong, and proving you incorrect is hardly a "deconstructive spin-off discussion". You are welcome to try and refute this. ;) Second, Greece's article was mentioned in respect to editors and an admin who edit the Greece article using different standards than those that they use in the Bulgaria article. That point can be illustrated by showcasing the comparative historical edits of both articles. Do you feel that double standards should continue to exist? Third, you still haven't replied to my previous comment. How is it that you knew my "massive post" (as you put it) had no concrete points before you read it? That's an assumption made in absence of careful examination.--Monshuai (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Part 2

So much explanation and so little the effect. Just state in a few words what, in your opinion, are the "double standarts" and what needs to be changed, so that we can make this discussion sane. I don't think I'll read the ton of nonsence that exists above. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop calling something nonsense if you haven't read it. As stated previously, presumptions without examination are not welcome in an intellectual debate, as it shows a preset and inflexible attitude on the topic at hand. Once you do show some respect and spend some time reading it, we'll be able to continue this discussion in a sensible manner. One cannot fully understand or be even mildly objective in regard to the argumentative dynamics, premises and conclusions of a journal article or book by reading a summary. The same holds true herein. I believe you are smart, so I'm sure you are very capable of organising your cognitive strengths in a way that would allow you to look at this matter in a maximally neutral fashion.--Monshuai (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to have intellectual debates, please go somewhere else; Wikipedia is not a debating club. This talk page is to reach consensus regarding the Wikipedia article on Bulgaria. Consensus has been reached, and is against you (anyone else besides Monshuai who disagrees, please react!). Preslav (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there were no concrete demands for changes in the article, we should consider the discussion closed.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Concrete changes were already proposed and made only to be reverted by you. Do not pretend that you do not know what this is about, as you are very much directly involved. The discussion will be over only once the article receives the lede that reflects the territory's ancient heritage.--Monshuai (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

They were reverted by several users, not just by me, which is quite a clear sign that there is no place for what you are trying to push (or at least not under the form you attempt). You can spare your endless, senseless and progressively ramifying harangues on the talkpage, and for once, don't feel yourself obliged to have the last word. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You once again attempted to shift the discussion by making yourself and three other users seem like representatives of the Wikipedia community. I disproved your points and I noted that you made conclusions before examining all the information. What I don't think you have come to understand yet, is that double standards don't have a place in Wikipedia regardless of whether you and a few other people may want to believe that. The very fact that you could not respond to the questions I posed earlier whilst hastily proclaiming the "final word" is an indication of your inability to counter what I have stated. Remember your comments about how every country has ancient civilizations? Do you remember your statement about Bulgarians not believing in Dionysus as proof for your assertion, even whilst Greeks don't pray to Zeus, Italians don't make sacrifices to Flora nor the Lebanese to Eshmun or the Iraqi people to Nanna? You also compared the National Museum of Bulgarian History to museums that showcase international history as a way to prove that it's collections do not reflect Bulgaria's ancient heritage. Did you read its official website and see for yourself that its exhibitions reflect Bulgaria's historical legacies? One must also not forget your statement regarding not reading my "massive post" even though it took you a lot longer to write yours. Perhaps you already forgot that you admitted you didn't read my comments altogether even though you believe you are objective on the matter. I think you're in for a surprise as to the future of the lede.:)--Monshuai (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FA prospects

The article is well-sourced, neutral, has been reworked and is now much shorter than it was before. In my opinion, it has all prospects to become a featured article, but if anyone has any complaints or can point out any issues with it, please do it. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

At a glance, there's plenty of entirely unreferenced paragraphs and I think we would have to drastically cut on the History section, as much as I might like history. The first step should be a GA nom, then a peer review, and then we can go for FA. At this point, rushing it to WP:FAC will only result in a speedy rejection. I'm not saying it's a mission impossible, but there's a long way to go :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Good, that's what the talkpage is for. :) But before reducing the history section, there should be a consensus on what is to stay and what is to be removed...- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is impressing. I only have some disagreements with the science section. There are also different types of selected articles I think but with some work it could be a featured one. --Aleksd (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)