Talk:Bulgaria/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Science

Is it really needed the wail for more money (by BAS) to be so blatantly repeated here, literary repeating all the statements made by the Academy. I really prefer the illustration of "An IBM Blue Gene/P supercomputer" (07:05, 7 July 2009) before the obsolete observatory of Rozhen. The section is biased. --Aleksd (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is biased here, that's you. "Wail for money"? Considering that the Government is trying to, at the very least, severely reduce BAS, their protests are quite reasonable.

And are you a specialist in astronomy? From your profile it seems you are interested in philosophy? Kostja (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not consider me uneducated in astronomy because of profile. :) Or you will compare Rozhen to SETI program, well I'd like to write an issue about my binoculars but... --Aleksd (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're not proficient in astronomy, then what about some sources to confirm your claim? Kostja (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My first question is: What does proficiency in astronomy means? LOL. Why not work on your proficiency in English and later write and discuss on topics. Moreover text and image together as a message (in semiotic sense) are pathetic. Also I insist that the IBM Blue Gene is a newer technology, is this true or you will deny this either? Do you think history of science is preferable to new technologies. Plus - it seems like the observatory is going to be closed this year for some reason. How you would reflect bg science with sth which is going to be shut down eventually? This is a rhetorical question - dont answer it. Why do you make any efforts of editing while you are destructive? Science is not limited only to BAS and Rhozhen so whatever your claims are, they are pretty much biased stances.

Also be that kind to use my discussion page for whatever you personally need to say to me. :) --Aleksd (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The science section was quite good as it was before the edits, because it was small enough, yet it contained the most valuable information. I think we should leave the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences issues for its respective page or the Science and Technology main page; what we need to have in the Bulgaria article is the most basic and important information, nothing else. Is the BAS the main scientific institution in the country ? Yes. Are there any institutions with a similar (or higher) budget, with a larger technological base ? No. Therefore all we need to have in that very section is "BAS is the leading scientific institution in the country", and that would be plain sufficient. Whoever wants to get himself informed on the Academy's problems, structure and so on, could visit the respective page. All issues that exist within Bulgaria's scientific community are to be mentioned only in the main Science and Technology page. The Bulgaria article encompasses the absolute basics on every topic about this country - what it has, what it lacks, advantages and drawbacks. Inducing a tone that would make the section look like a forum would seriously damage the quality of the article and would be a negative on the attempts to make it a GA and then a FA.

And I cannot agree on the Blue Gene issue. It is a modern technology, but we have no images of the Bulgarian Blue Gene; until we have such, inserting a picture of a foreign one is unappropriate. As to the observatory - it has not yet been closed, and Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball.

Since we're all working to bring this article to the GA level, it would be reasonable to discuss any major changes here, on the talk page, and not introduce them single-handedly. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention there is nothing unique in a Blue Gene supercomputer. As for the Observatory it is the largest in South Eastern Europe and will likely remain so for a very, very long time.--Avidius (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. Unlike the SETI program Rozhen has produced some real results.--Avidius (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Alexd, would you like to explain why you want a picture of NBU, instead of the much older, bigger and accomplished SU? Your edits are getting tendentious, not to mention risking exceeding the 3RR limit.Kostja (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I seriously advise both of you not to import your issues here and to follow the talk page. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my overheated response. I was satisfied with the article before the edits made by Alexd, but felt that if the article was to have information on the dispute between the government and BAS, it should be presented in a neutral way. I do agree that this is probably not the best place for this content, especially if the article is to improve its status. Kostja (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What this article needs is a cut in size. Adding any information, especially ongoing disputes with a variety of arguments on them, would be detrimental. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

History section

Since this is the longest section and it needs to be reduced to a more reasonable size, I propose the following changes:

1. Reducing the size of the two subsections on the First and Second empires;
2. Uniting the subsections Liberation and formation of a Third Bulgarian State and Regional and General wars into a single subsection entitled "Restoration of the Bulgarian State"
3. Uniting the subsections People's Republic of Bulgaria and Republic of Bulgaria in a single subsection entitled "Republican era";

Any objections or suggestions ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Edited subsections can be reviewed here. I will enter the corrections if there are no objections. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure it has to be reduced. I think it is too much militarized the history with less attention to government, social history etc. I think new subsections are needed like Communist regime and After 1989. Much is missing. I totally disagree of the reduction of historical section it rather needs to be rewritten. --Aleksd (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You could compare two articles - India, a featured one, with Hungary. The history section in the latter is absurdly long. It's not really good to compare Wikipedia articles, but it would give an insight what we're aiming at. The sections you mentioned did exist, but were incorporated in "Third Bulgarian State (1878)", because they were too detailed. And nothing's wrong with the history section, it may seem militarized in the post-1878 period as Bulgaria participated in a total of five wars... - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not only about how long is the text, it is also about giving some overall impression and missing important themes. I disagree with the way it is written right now, I think also the Politics section should be expanded and I will look over some more issues, of course. :) --Aleksd (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What would you suggest to be added ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I made some minor changes in his section but: expansion of After 1989, definitelly, and Politics. Also I added new images, I do not insist on them, but I insist removing the battle one - too much of the kind. Also I added stuff in Lit section and reverted sci section - i hope you and Kostja read carefully the written and not revert. Just thoughtful edits pls. That is mostly to Kostja plead :))) --Aleksd (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like "too many military images" I didnt say it clear enough? --Aleksd (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I switched back to the old look of the Third State section; the text is currently designed to be a single sub-section, and it may need slight changes if it is to be separated, although I wouldn't suggest that. And I returned the old images, as the parade photo is a very rare one, which I uploaded under Fair Use, while Zhelyu Zhelev is much more significant as a first democratically elected president than anyone else after 1990. And one more advice - do not use German transliteration with names (Popow instead of Popov). - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look at the other edits you have made, I have a few more suggestions:

• Firstly, when there is a dispute over certain content, please, do not immediately revert it to your version; this would most probably cause an edit war which will eliminate the chances of this article to achieve even a Good Article status;
• Second thing is the IBM image. The photo is of a computer which is not in Bulgarian service; when it was first introduced (and consecutively added after being removed), by me some time ago, it was removed by different users as inconsistent. I am working on acquiring an image of the Bulgarian unit from here, but I have not received a response yet. At this point, the observatory would be a more relevant illustration. Besides, I'm not certain if the computer is operational at all, as the SAITC was dismantled in 2009.
• Third suggestion is not to bring any of the disputes from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences page at BG Wiki here, or at least not at the Bulgaria page. First, nobody would care to know if its loved or hated by the public in Bulgaria (?) or what is the income in euro per square meter of real estate (?!). That's just absurd. The aim is to keep things simple, not to grow disputes, and it would be best if the section only mentions BAS as a leading institution. That's what the average reader would care to know.
• As a final, about the images - I don't understand why do you complain about military images. There is only two of them on the page (three if you count the siege of Nicopolis), and one of them is in the respective section - "Military". Adding figures such as Nadezhda Mihailova is also not recommended. That is not a politician of major importance - neither historically significant as Zhelev nor a head of state - and anyone could replace it with the photo of another figure by his/her own taste and political views, such as Ivan Kostov, Volen Siderov, Zhan Videnov, among others. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are we using an image of the NBU? Sofia University is far better known, bigger, older and certainly has more achievements than the NBU. Not to mention that the image of the rectory is certainly an iconic one. I understand that certain users want this article to have a more modern image but I don't think that the image of a rather notorious university does a good job of illustrating Bulgarian education. Kostja (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

...which is in an apocalyptic state anyway. So it really wouldn't matter which university will be displayed, although the SU could take the upper hand since it's the oldest one. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about Bulgaria's education, but I would still say that Sofia University is one of the few shaky exceptions. And it's been given a higher rating than the NBU, if this counts for something: [1]

As there appears to be no opposition, I'll put back the old image. Kostja (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Education and Healthcare

These topics don't stick together. "Education" can be incorporated in one section with "Science and Tecnology", but I don't know what could be done with the healthcare info. Any suggestions ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination

I've nominated Bulgaria to receive a Good Article (GA) status, as I think it meets the criteria. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bulgaria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Initial review – Issues needing to be addressed

Overall, I am pleased to find that the article is well written, well organized, and goes into an appropriate amount of depth without getting too detailed. I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the development of this article. That said, there are a number of details that must be addressed before I can pass this as a good article.

1. There seems to be a lack of consensus about the use of American English versus British English. For the most part, I see British spellings, but there are several words ending in -ize instead of the more common -ise. I am not fluent in British English, so I am not sure which is correct, but I think it needs to be looked over. I think it would be best to put a tag on the talk page as to which one is used in the article.

2. In the subsection "Third Bulgarian state", in the 2nd paragraph there is a confusing sentence: "The three wars combined led to 152,000 military deaths, 260,000 military wounded and a wave of 253,000 officially registered refugees, 6% of the pre-war population of the country, and an unclear number of unregistered refugees, probably as many as a third of the official ones, from the lost territories, Macedonia and Eastern Thrace, who put an additional strain on the already ruined national economy.". What is the 6% referring to? A third in relation to what? The sentence is far too long and needs to be split up. I would suggest one sentence about the dead/wounded, one sentence about refugees and one sentence about where the refugees came from and their economic impact.

3. I'm also confused by the first sentence in the "Environment and wildlife" subsection: "Bulgaria has signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol, and has managed to achieve its target by reducing carbon dioxide emissions with 30% from 1990 to 2009." Is it supposed to be "by" instead of "with"?

4. In the "Art, music and literature" subsection, the sentence listing Bulgarian writers is far too long and confusing. Please break this up.

5. In the "Economy" section, I think the Bulgarian currency deserves at least a sentence or two.

6 (a). The References section has some serious issues that need to be addressed. Several references need full citation (in reference to this edition): numbers 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 147, and 89. Number 89 is also a dead link. The checklinks tool also found several other broken links. These need to be fixed.

6 (b). The "Further Reading" section is too long and unorganized, and consists of many items that should be in a separate "Reference" subsection. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations. For more details. I believe that it would be best to create a separate section listing those sources that are cited in brief in the "Notes" section. All other sources that do not have in-line citations should remain in the "Further Readings" section; however, only include a selected few and make sure that they are alphabetized.

I will place this article on hold and allow one week for these changes to be made, more if it is requested. I'm willing to help with the formatting of the References section if you are unsure of how to go about reorganizing it. Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. I am very interesting in seeing this article improve. --Tea with toast (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1 - It has to be decided what variation of English will be used in the article. My English is a mixture of American, British and Rhodesian variations, so I wouldn't really be able to perform a standartization of the text under one style. I will ask either an American or a British user to convert the article in the appropriate variation when a consensus has been achieved.

2, 3, 4 and 5 have been taken care of. I've shortened the "Third Bulgarian State" section a bit and slightly changed the wording on some sentences to make it an easier read. I also replaced the dead links with appropriate active ones, mostly fresh such.

As to the organization of references, I would need help with that, if possible. I could not provide full citations of the references you mentioned, as these works were added a long time ago by other users, and I do not possess the works in written format. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 22:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems with sources

Thank you, Tourbillon, for cleaning up some of the previous issues. I spent some time reorganizing the references and further reading sections, and I have been finding many more citations that are not properly cited. I've done some digging on the internet to find full information for some of them, but there are other citations that I don't think we will be able to find. For these, I think you will have to find new sources to support the text. This is very important as I can not give this article a good review if it is not 100% verifiable. --Tea with toast (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(Referring to this edition) References needing full citation (or else find a new source): 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24

Now, I've done a search on some of the uncited sources. There is precise information here, such as:

• ...Boris I of Bulgaria (852–889) was baptized a Christian in 864... (the sentence in the Bulgaria article itself could thus be transformed into "the spread of Christianity in Bulgaria started with Boris' conversion" or something similar);
• Under Simeon’s successors Bulgaria was beset by internal dissension provoked by the spread of Bogomilism (a dualist religious sect) and by assaults from Magyars, Pechenegs, the Rus, and Byzantines. The capital city was moved to Ohrid (now Okhrid, Macedonia) by Tsar Samuel after the fall of Preslav in 971...

However, I also found this. On page 25 we can find a citation by Browning (1975: 194-5) that states "the grandiouse dreams ... of Symeon ended in the dreary reality of Peter's long reign, when Bulgaria became a harmless Byzantine protectorate." However, this document is a study by Paul Stephenson, another well-known historian, and further bellow in the commentary he states that actually Bulgaria declined militarily, but continued to prosper culturally and economically well into the 960s. This is a slight contradiction and might lead to a rewriting of the paragraph. This is something I did not notice before, but I guess it could be sorted out in the next 2 days.

In the article Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria, there are a number of online-available references, concerning 21 and 22. However, I couldn't find anything on 16, 23 and 24.

As I said, I don't have the works cited and I searched for a replacement, and this is what I've dug out for now. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found both new sources and added full information on the already existing ones. The article was also standartized to American English. If you have any other remarks, I'll be glad to fix them. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Final review

I am very pleased with the changes that have been made to the article, and am impressed that everything was accomplished much sooner than I had anticipated. I am happy to say that this article meets all the criteria to be listed as a good article. Congratulations! Thanks for all your effort!--Tea with toast (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To give you some more suggestions on ways to improve the article, in case you plan to submit it for Featured article review, one area that must be looked at is the cuisine section. As the section is currently written, it sounds like an excerpt from the economics section. The main article on Bulgarian cuisine offers a wealth of information, and you could easily incorporate a few sentences from there to expand the content and give it some flavor. Also, the format of each of the cited references should also be combed through. I'm not sure about all the policies on non-English references, but I think there would be a preference to at least have the titles of those refs translated into English followed by an (in Bulgarian) notice. I'm not an expert here, so you should probably ask some higher authority about what is necessary. Good luck! --Tea with toast (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I will address these issues soon, although there is still some general work to do before I nominate it for FA status. Thank you very much for the quick response and all your efforts. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection

Due to frequent IP-vandalism ([2] [3] [4] only for the last 24 hours; [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] for the last month), I suggest the article be placed under indefinite semi-protection. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 84.179.2.20, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Small correction of the pronounciation of Bulgaria - ɫ instead of l in [bɤ̞lˈɡarijɐ]

84.179.2.20 (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! Now maybe it would be necessery to correct the pronounciation of "Republic of Bulgaria" as [rɛˈpublikɐ bɤ̞ɫˈɡarijɐ]), so that both are the same. Greetings. 84.179.5.246 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 87.126.10.251, 14 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please remove the advertised sites: Bulgaria guide to cities and villages - www.guide-bulgaria.com www.bulgariatouristinformation.com

which are private sites.

Wikipedia officials will be contacted if no action is taken. 87.126.10.251 (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Done, sites have been removed.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done by Tourbillon. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Poorly written history

Especially the section "Fall of the Second Empire and Ottoman rule" is extremely biased and forgets to mention all the cultural heritage left and the architectual achievements from the Ottoman period. The Ottoman empire forced no one to change religion, didn't interfere with Christian traditions and was in many ways famous for being a very tolerant empire towards the Christians (hence most of the Balkans is still majority Christians). It should also be noted that assimilation never happened in Bulgaria or the greater Balkans during the entire Ottoman period. The section should be dealt with more objectively and professionally. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You should perhaps drop moder Turkish propaganda first.--Avidius (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that the answer you managed to come up with? --Diren Yardimli (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want a more detailed answer, here it is:

1.Even if we ignore all the other cases of both individual and massed forced conversion (some of the latter are indeed controversial), the blood tax is completely indisputable.

2.Generally, putting every possible obstacle in the building of new churches, converting many of the existing ones into mosques and prohibiting the repair of old ones would be considered interference, as would be the hanging of the supreme leader of the Orthodox church in front of his own door.

3.When one considers that the Balkans was that part of the Ottoman Empire which was eventually liberated and that in the other parts of the empire (especially modern Turkey) there are practically no Christians today, the survival of Christianity doesn't seem to be evidence of too much tolerance.

4.That many of those converted to Islam eventually became Turkified is also pretty much indisputable.

5.And speaking of the Ottoman cultural heritage, obviously you're not aware of all the cultural heritage left from previous times and destroyed by the invading Ottomans.

So perhaps you should perhaps read some non-Turkish sources first before lecturing others on having biased views. Kostja (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicely put. However you seem to ignore my point of view. I did not say that the area was not Turkified. I did not say that the Ottomans greeted the Bulgarians with flowers and left everything on its own. It was a time of war and hundreds of thousands of Turks fled, were killed or raped as well. That's my point. What I said was it that the section is biased and tells one side of the story. I did not say that that side was WRONG. And by the way, the reason there are few Christians in Turkey today has nothing to do with the history of Bulgaria. That was due to a minory taxing system, that came into effect in the 1950s. And also do you know how many Turks fled Bulgaria, all the way up to the 1990's, due to opression, Bulgarisation and forced deportation? And not that it matters, but my family comes from Bulgaria too. So I know the Bulgarian point-of-view just fine. All the best. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"It should also be noted that assimilation never happened in Bulgaria or the greater Balkans during the entire Ottoman period." Are you denying that you wrote this?

We were not talking about the 1877-1878 war. This has its own article and much information is also featured in Turks in Bulgaria. This is about the section about the Ottoman rule in Bulgaria, which I might note is based entirely on non-Bulgarian source.

Calling the Istanbul pogrom a tax problem is quite an open whitewashing of history. And let's not get into some more controversial events...

While we're discussing the treatment of the Turks in Bulgaria, perhaps you should know that they had their own schools long after minorities lost their schools in Turkey and which party has ruled more than other after 1989.

In any case, it's good that you've abandoned your confrontational attitude. After all, we can hardly discuss anything if one's argument consists just of old fashioned propaganda. Kostja (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't read what I wrote very carefully, do you? I'll rephrase. Bulgarians were NOT assimiliated, hence they still speak their own language and live their own religion. I said "the area was Turkified" meaning Turks from Anatolia were forced or many times paid to immigrate to Bulgaria, thus the area became Turkified. Assimilation is something wholly different. I have no intention to whitewash -as you put it- what happened in the 50s. It's a shame and embarrasment in the history of Turkey -something one fine government one day will publicly apologize for I hope. Yet that IS the reason there are few minorities in Istanbul today, it has nothing to do with the Ottoman period. A population exchange happened between Turks and Greeks after the Ottoman period. But Turks in Bulgaria, and Bulgarians in Turkey were not the subjects then. About minority schools we drift apart again and sadly your sources or history education fails you again. Minority schools still exist in Turkey and they have always existed and never been closed. French, Italian, Greek, Armenian, German and American elementary schools as well as highschools as well as universities has always been present and fully functional. I don't remember any Bulgarian schools now, but that's probably not so important. I dont remember this being the case in many of the Balkan states. I hope we have cleared some of your misunderstandings up. I presume you will not be the person to fix this section in the article. I wont bother either because someone like you will probably revert anything that I do, but I sincerly hope this section will be expanded by an open minded Bulgarian one day. Cheers. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As for assimilation during the Ottoman Empire, that's been confirmed by foreign authors as well. See, for example here. Regarding schools, they existed at least until the 60s and today the Muslim religious high schools use Turkish as the main language of instruction, despite the fact that many Muslims in Bulgaria do no speak the language. As for the non-Turkish schools in Turkey, is the education there really in a non-Turkish language, or do they just have lessons in those languages, as it is implied here? Note that in Bulgaria since 1989, Turkish is studied by native Turkish speakers, in fact it's compulsory for them.

I will not revert anything that doesn't violate NPOV and is based on neutral, reliable sources, but I question whether you are the one to submit such sources. Kostja (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

We are way off topic right now so I won't go into the education structure here but schools teach in those languages as well. (I, for instance, went to an American highschool and most lessons (apart from history and Turkish grammar) was in English. My partners daughter goes to a French elementary school and the same goes for her.) Honestly, it has been a productive discussion. Not everything was answered on both parts, but that goes with discussing this way. Thank you for spending your time with researching and answering. All the best, --Diren Yardimli (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we've gone way of topic (though as a final note, we do have such schools here as well and they are generally considered among the best ones). And thanks, this discussion certainly has been enlightening - about our countries' educational systems, if nothing else :) Cheers, Kostja (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm.....

Unless I am stupid, as far as I can tell the map at the top is wrong. The green country is not actually Bulgaria, Bulgaria is the one directly below the green one. If someone could fix this that would be cool. I would but I don't have an e-mail address to make an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.185.255 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Motto

It should be "Union Makes Strength" from the Belgium "Strength through Unity" (lit. "Unity makes Strength") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium. This is written on the official website of the government of Bulgaria - http://www.government.bg/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0159&n=000006&g= --Zekin (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Layout improvement

In case the established editors haven´t noticed. The former layout massively created section overlapping images. This is generally bad style and not supported by the internal MOS recommendations. Therefore the layout had to be adjusted to comply with higher standards. Hope you appreciate it. Italiano111 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The layout still looks very messy. Italiano111 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Messy" in what sense ? It has been checked from different brousers and resolutions, appears perfectly fine. I really don't see a problem if there are images both on the left and the right, if that concerns you.

And please stop adding the European Union map. A number of articles have been flooded with European flags, maps and so forth which do not carry any significant visual information or impact. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Several pics overlap with section headers. This is considered bad style. Compare other country articles of higher quality. All articles which are highly rated avoid the messy design. Italiano111 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There are exactly two pics that overlap with section headers - the eagle and the paratroopers. I'll fix it, but I don't see how this could represent a problem. The article has been given GA status, and nobody has ever complained about the image layout.

Furthermore, apparently you did not understand the latter part of my previous post. Please, do not add the EU economic sectors map. Not only that there is no color key and it has no value inside the text, but the presence of it completes the picture to a general spam-like campaign of yours to add the exact same image into a number of articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and so on). - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sound file

The sound file is obviously crated by non-native English speaker (probably a Bulgarian) and does not represent the correct English pronounciation of the word. It should be replaced or removed. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's pronounced correctly with a U.S. accent, the u in the name should be similar to the u in "urban" for example. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's pronounced "bɤɫgɛɹia" or something like that, not "bʌlˈɡɛəɹiə" as it should be.

Sorry, but this is most certainly not RP. It should be replaced. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't make a new sound file, but if it's truely wrong, I'll simply remove the current one.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What about Dacians and Moesians?

Many scholars, including Bulgarian ones, believe that Dacians and Moesians are distinct enough from Thracians to be considered different people. In that case, the Dacians living south of Danube and the Moesians should also be mentioned next to Thracians as ancestors. There are many Dacian/Moesian davae in modern Bulgaria between Danube and Balkan Mountains, the linguistic border between Dacians and Thracians (very few Thracian -para ending towns north of Balkans).--Codrinb (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Provided there are reliable sources, it could be included. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Administtraive divisions

Please stop doing this [17], it confuses that Sofia province is part of Sofia-capital. Pensionero (talk) 17:06, 01 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. One should be quite daft to think that two provinces that are shown separately on a map are actually the same thing, not to mention that the majority of countries in the world have the same type of provincial divisions. Such "clarifications" are unnecessary, as well is the addition of "other major cities are..." in the intro. Mentioning the capital is enough for the leading section. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No it does, the province named "Sofia-Capital (metropolitan province)" can be really confused with this description of Sofia province-"Capital province excluding the metropolitan area and its satellite settlements", capital province is mentioned in the both provinces and that is confusing to understand which of the two provinces is Sofia province and which Sofia-Capital. And I can't see what is the overload to mention the few major cities of the country, excluding the largest. Pensionero (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't confuse it, and there don't seem to be any other complains either. What exactly remains unclear with the description ? Figuring out that it's about the province that surrounds the capital but excludes the city proper and its satellite towns doesn't look that hard. I do see a problem with mentioning the cities - because once you mention Varna and Burgas, then somebody else will express his regional pride by adding Plovdiv, after that Pleven, Tarnovo and Gabrovo, until we finally get to Kaspichan. That's exactly how the article was inflated to 150 kb some time ago. Noting what the capital city and its population are is more than enough. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That remains unclear with the description is that the two provinces are named "Capital", this confuses which of the both are which, but however. I will remove Sofia's population in the intro as in the any other country is given only the name of the capital and largest city. Pensionero (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it may confuse you, I haven't heard any other "confused" people to complain about that. Country articles aren't written following a template - it doesn't matter how another page is written. I wouldn't make such an issue of it if you didn't do it simply for the sake of argument, as you removed the data but left the source for it inside the text. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, no matter what you agree, the only thing left in the table should be Sofia-Capital and Sofia Province and the explanatory text should be placed in a note which would appear below. I think that in its current shape the table does not look aesthetic. --Gligan (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right it is ugly, the difference between the two provinces may be written outside the table Pensionero (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographics

What was the purpose of the last series of edits on this section ? The information itself hasn't changed much, but the overall appearance now is catastrophic. Seriously, a sentence starting with "(~85%)..." ?! Before making such significant rearrangements, please discuss. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bulgaria demopraphics 2001 Turkish population % 9.4,Roman people % 4.7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.200.204 (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured status

Any suggestions on moving a FA-status work and then a procedure for the article ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Intro, infobox, etc.

It would be good if User:Pensionero abandons his nationalist doctrine. "Bulgaria is the oldest, biggest strongest" etc. type of edits are not really informative; they rather look like Wikipedia:PEACOCK and should be avoided, while the information in the intro should be kept as tight as possible. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who is playing around with the GDP figures but I hope he/she is aware that according to the consensus the infobox should show only established figures and not mere projections. So please return the 2010 GDP figures.--Avidius (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Very important facts are not deleting from the intro on that way and this is not my "nationalistic" or "peacock" docotorine I am placing true facts. The intro is already tightest as possible and the 2011 GDP you were backing was vandalism. Pensionero (UTC)

Please.

Bulgaria became the oldest Slavic state with the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire (680-1018) as state of Slavs and Bulgars, or finally in 893 AD with the adoption of the Slavic Old Bulgarian as the national language of the Empire. The emergence of Bulgarian ethnicity dates back 9th century after union of the Slavs, the Bulgars and the other tribes in the Empire under adoption of common national and native language (Old Bulgarian). In fact, the Old Bulgarian or the Old Church Slavonic has been liturgical language of all Slavic Orthodox Churches, nowadays its' successor - the Church Slavonic is replacing it.

How on Earth is the addition of the history of Old Slavonic language appropriate for a leading section ?! Not only that, starting a sentence with "in fact..." shows an intolerable lack of insight. The intro is good as it is now. I strongly recommend that User:Pensionero stops with these nationalist, unnecessary additions. True or not, nobody wants to read that in the intro. Nobody cares. The article needs less information, not more. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You seriously should stop edit warring, important facts such as Bulgaria is the fourth-oldest state in Europe and the oldest Slavic state are one of the most important for the intro. I will remove the Old Church Slavonic if you revert the entire version for it. Pensionero (UTC)

In the long run, states are rather elusive entities, coming and going, shrinking and growing. To talk about oldest and fourth-oldest states does not make much sense. Is Norway a state from 890, from 1814 or from 1905? However, if it is an established fact that Bulgaria was the first Slavic state (reliable source, please), it could be proper to put that ("first", not "oldest) in the intro. 79.160.40.10 (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am the one who should stop edit warring ? User:Pensionero, you are the one who just reverted anew to your version before turning to the talk page; not only that, you wiped out the percentage corrections that were mentioned here only to have your information back. You keep editing before any consensus on the content has been reached. Furthermore, what you consider "important facts" is nothing more than overstated details. Nobody wants to read about Old Church Slavonic in the intro. It doesn't matter. Nobody cares. Probably half of the first-time readers have not even heard about the existence of such a language. The "third, fourth, fifth oldest country in Europe" formula could be applied for every single country in Europe. Switzerland is, say, the 9th oldest country in Europe. So ? It's not THE oldest country - therefore it doesn't matter if it's fourth, or if it's the oldest Slavic state (which is, as a matter of fact, a wrong statement). It's just an unnecessary peacock and overinflation of facts which are not at all that significant for a non-nationalist user. As another problem I'll point out the poor grammar and semantics of your edits - they're simply unsuitable for a leading section. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tourbillion, I already told you that I removed the Old Church Slavoncic stentence. I don't know what you are insisting on removing "oldest" or "4th-oldest in Europe" when it is true informative fact and an average reader would find this as interesting information. The second I made was simpling the percentages of the infobox how was claimed above correct percentages are (83.9, 9.4, 4.7, 2.0 and the simpler 84, 9, 5, 2). For the oldest Slavic state I will source as was asked. Pensionero (UTC)

I don't insist on removing it for the sake of removal. Pure and simple, the intro and the article itself need less, not more information. Especially the intro. It's pointless to say that Bulgaria is the "fourth oldest country" - I would understand if it were the oldest, but this numbering is silly, the least. The statement that Bulgaria is the first/oldest Slavic state is also erroneous.And please stop re-arranging and changing the images. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course the intro would be better simpler but is different when deleting info of oldest so-and-so it is important for the intro. The fourth-oldest statement is less important but is not for direct delete beacause it is at least not overflow and can arouse interest. With "erroneous" could you show earlier Slavic state beacause that havn't existed? If you show we will delete this at the moment you see now I am seeking for finally confirm with source. I am not arranging the images I placed normal image in paragraph Modern era beacause the image was not normal and mountain image in Geography beacause the text mostly represent mountains not sandstones. Pensionero (UTC)

No. Read again - it's not the oldest state, therefore it doesn't matter if it's the second, third, fifth, or fiftieth oldest state in the Solar system. There is no ranking system of oldest and newest countries. Interest arises when a lot of information is gathered in a very small amount of sentences. You are doing the exact opposite. As for the "earliest Slavic country", Carantania established its borders in 595 AD and was the earliest known Slavic state (not to mention that Bulgaria was populated by Slavs, but it was not Slavic, at least not initially).

You keep changing the layout of the images and everything becomes more chaotic. With the "normal" image there's two presidents on the page, and the peak picture doubles in location with the one in the Tourism section. I will revert it to restore the percentages and I suggest you keep the old version until disputes have been resolved. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

First you are removing on your decision and claiming on yourself is undue, it is not removing on that disruptive way. This statement that is one of the oldest countries is interesting fact for the reader. It doesn't obligate to have to be rank of say 5 oldest countries in Europe and to be written in every intro as rank in all 5, 10 or 20 oldest countries. No, it could be only in 2nd or any and that you are removing such information is starting edit war. I don't want to go deep for this but removing whatever you rate on yourself as inappropriate is incorrect. I am more concerned on the removing of "first Slavic state" and the example you show Carantania is actually established in the 7th century, in which Bulgaria was established. For not normal picture I wanted to show the picture in Modern Era, which represents the republic period with pressconference, half of the picture are cameras, it is askew-shoted, what else? The picture in Tourism is at all not mountain, on the other hand all the pargraph Geography decribes the mountains. Pensionero (UTC)

I'm a reader - I don't find it interesting. I find it rather silly because, as the other user above noted, "oldest state" is a really wide term. The current Bulgarian state itself officially exists from 1878 - does that make it the 34th oldest, or the 35th oldest state ? If you bothered to read the article I provided you with, you would see that Carantania emerged in the 7th century, but it was separated with its own distinctive borders from the Frankish empire in 595, therefore making your claim erroneous. Your personal view on the images doesn't really interest me, what matters is that changing the pictures according to somebody's taste makes the article less stable. And, I will say it for the 567th time - the article doesn't need anymore information and images. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"The Bulgarian state exists from 1878" is bullshit and it doesn't need explanation. There is wall of sources since 7th century from Byznatine, Frankish and other chronics which talk for the wars with the state "Bulgaria" and couple of other things which is silly to term. This make your claim of 35th oldest state erroneous. And what actually means Carantania emerged in the 7th century but have own distinctive borders since 595, isn't a state emerge in one year? If the current images are of somebody's taste are of yours. I don't want to make the images of my taste there are just images such as the askew cameras that does not fit. Pensionero (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.204.203 (talk)

So you finally admit that you do not desire to comment other people's statements - why exactly is it "bullshit" ? Do you need to read the definition of what a state is ? As to the images, they do not fit according to your taste. The aforementioned image looks fine to me, and apparently to most other users, since it hasn't been removed yet. Let's make this clear - "Bulgaria is the n-th oldest state", "Musala is the tallest peak in the region", "X is the longest river", etc. are silly, pathetic, size-measuring, Balkan-patriotic statements with no real informative value. What you're doing is that you keep circling around the same old argument that these are "important facts" - no, they're not. It would've been important if all these "facts" were firsts, or Europe-significant, or globally significant. And they're not even regionally significant. Your additions are becoming simply ridiculous, and please, be civilized and do not make any changes before this dispute has been settled.. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Bulgaria dates back 1878 is simply stupid I am not going to explain it, cite it, etc., beacuse it is just waste of time. For the images you continue repeating the same and edit warring, when some of your images do not fit or at least less than others. Exactly for "Musala is the tallest peak in the region" has been already in the article not added by me. In the last your revert I was not editing any of the info in the dispute with you. Please read more carefull what you revert. Pensionero (UTC)

That means you simply avoid to explain why you labeled such a suggestion as "bullshit", not that I support any claims on how "old" Bulgaria is, as I've already stated my opinion on such "rankings". The dispute is about the relevance of your edits, not the specific components of them - I thought you have already understood that. For example, how is the inclusion of party allegiance for the head of state and prime minister relevant ? Not only that, it is also wrong, given that the president is prohibited from being a member of any party while in office by constitution. Minor changes or not, please do not make edits while a discussion on the talk page is ongoing. I've abstained from editing, so please respond in kind. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Germany, France and other 1000000 countries use the political party and I don't know why you pore on such petty things and insist for them being problematic, moreover that they are not. I explained above the "relevnce" of my edits and I should not do it again, the discussion as you see also became too long for what actually? It is simply ridiculous. Pensionero (UTC)

When a vast amount of "petty things" pile up, usually a complex problem occurs, as your previous edits have shown. In order to conclude this, I will underline the things you probably did not pay attention to:

• This article has a potential for a Featured Article candidate; therefore edit wars, drastic changes to text and image content, too much details (for example, the version of the cities template with and marks) and bad grammar are something completely undesirable;
• The addition of more content is also undesirable at this point; most users on this page tend to add information that is not a brief and highly informative text with many facts in a single sentence. Instead, what we get is a whole paragraph describing a single event. I'm actually offering a slight reduction of the History section, but I haven't received any comments on the FA proposal yet.
• Even the amount of images is quite large...one or two must be omitted. And, as I suggested, images reflecting past events are not recommended outside the History section, unless we're speaking about heritage (as in the Culture section). - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Percentages

When presenting percentages, the use of decimals has a significant meaning. The use or non-use of decimals indicates the accuracy of the numbers given. As an example, 12% indicates a number between 11.5 and 12.5 and 12.0% indicates a number between 11.95 and 12.05. In this case the source gives us exact numbers.These numbers give the following two (correct) possibilities:
83.9% Bulgarians, 9.4% Turks, 4.7% Roma, 2.0% others and unspecified, or
84% Bulgarians, 9% Turks, 5% Roma, 2% others and unspecified.
As I see it, there can be no reason not to use the more exact numbers, as the source is exact down to single persons. In the Bulgaria article, there have lately been two different presentations, depending on who has been the last one to revert whom. Both of them are wrong: One of them gives one decimal to indicate exactitude, but the decimals are wrong. The other use decimals for some numbers, and not for others. I guess this is supposed to indicate some sort of in-between exactitude, giving half percentages. This technique is sometimes used when presenting percentages in an informal way, but it should not be used in an encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.40.10 (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the numbers in the Demographics section in the same way, as well as the GDP composition figures in the Economy section. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Super! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've placed the possibility without decimals in the infobox, beacause the form is conciser and they are unless there. An interested could see the decimals in Demographics if he wants. Pensionero (UTC)

And how is this interested person supposed to know that the more exact info is to be found not in the infobox, but way down in this very long article? --79.160.40.10 (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the both is more exact there are only more concise. The % is actually (83.8928957880162% Bulgarians, 9.412145543215515% Turks, 4.675516804269365% Roma, etc.) and why in the infobox should be exactly 83.9%, not 83.892% or any other? What NSI shows is only the number and not any % - [18] and then we have to count the percentage. Nobody can say with how many decimals we should compact it for the infobox beacause that would be his point of view. Therefore the only possibilities for the infobox are the integers to be neutral. Pensionero (UTC)

It is no more neutral to use integers than to use one decimal (or 2 or 3 for that matter). If you glance through the article, you will see that percentages with one decimal are used a lot of places (economy, education, health etc.), while others are given with integers. This is a useful, and much used, way of indicating the difference between calculated numbers and estimates. As a matter of fact, I am just now editing a scientific report that makes this very useful distinction. 4.0% gives a signal that this is a calculated number, and that the real value is between 3.95 and 4.05, while 4% indicates that the number is "estimated to be somewhere around 4". Useful, informative, and very much used inside Wikipedia and outside. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Make article, not war

Please consider the following facts:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for debate and discussion.
• Most users of Wikipedia are exaxtly that: Users – hoping to find information that may be useful for them.
• Wikipedia is suppossed to be consensus-oriented. Contributors are supposed to co-operate to make the articles better.

Then take a look at what has happened with the Bulgaria article the last month.

• There has been about 200 edits, most of them reverts, re-reverts and re-re-reverts.
• In the same period there has been posted around 10 entries in the talk page.

Edit-war is ruining the article and making it useless for the normal user, as the content changes several times every day. And, what is worse: People who could contribute are being scared off from trying to help improve the article. The edit-war parties are stealing the ownership of the article. How about starting being constructive instead of destructive? Please! Regards! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed turning into a nationalistic forum - with additions ranging from how the State protects the Roma and what was the immigrant interest 20 years ago, to a comprehensive history of Old Church Slavonic in the leading section. I don't claim ownership of this article and I would never do so, despite my constant edits to it - I am merely maintaining it and attempting to bring it to FA status. This work however I am giving up. There are enough users who can make decent additions and edits, lets just hope they're more active and willing to improve the content. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Merging of history sections

I propose a merging of the First and Second Bulgarian Empire subsections into a "Middle Ages" subsection as they both encompass the same time period. Any objections ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Merging, maybe; but the resulting periodization seems less than satisfactory. We have now: Prehistory and antiquity; Middle Ages; Ottoman rule and National awakening; and Modern era. Well that "Ottoman rule and National awakening" clearly does not fit the rest; if there was no Ottoman rule then what would have been the name of that period? Apcbg (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you imply with "if there was no Ottoman rule" ? Bulgaria was a part of the Ottoman empire. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It sure was. Which does not mean that if it were to remain independent in 15-19th centuries then it would have jumped from Middle Ages into Modern era, does it? Apcbg (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, but that remains an "if". The Ottoman era is more or less the entire period where Renaissance, Reformation and Enligthenment should have occured, but since none of those really reached the region, there are few other options as to what the name of the period should be. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The First and Second Bulgarian Empires are no "ifs", and they lasted longer than the Ottoman rule, yet they do not appear; 77.77.25.241 has some point here. The proposed new periodes naming is a heterogeneous mixture of different types of periodization which I do not see as improving the article, rather the opposite. Apcbg (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that discussion will start for that. Sorry for not discussing, but Ottoman rule totally does not pass thw rest paragraphs, this mixture of periods and states seems like the Ottoman Empire was more important for the formation of the Bulgarian state than the Bulgarian Empires or that the only Bulgarian state is successor of the Ottoman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.25.241 (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

They did last longer, but they still encompass roughly what is considered the Medieval Era (7th-14th century) and it would be logical to keep them in a single subsection. The Ottoman era (15th-19th c.) on the other hand cannot be described neither as an early modern era, nor as anything else. While I do agree that it is somewhat too distinct, I don't really have any other ideas on how to categorize the period. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Middle Ages did not start in the 7th century. Did the Middle Ages in the Ottoman Empire end in 15th century or a couple of centuries later? And what started after that if not Early Modern Era? None of the articles on other countries that used to be under Ottoman rule is structured in the way you propose for the Bulgaria article. Your entire line of reasoning is OR, and a faulty one at that. I suggest that we use some established and sourced periodization of Bulgarian history instead of inventing one here. Apcbg (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's OR, it's rather common sense, and I don't think I should remind you of the timespan of the Middle ages. There is Antiquity, Middle Ages, Early modern period (or something else, it's individual for every country) and Modern era in most countries. Unfortunately "Early Modern era" is not applicable in the case of Bulgaria, because none of the cultural movements that occured in other European countries actually had impact on Bulgaria's development (with the exception of Romantic Nationalism, which also came relatively late to the region). As I said in the previous sentence, things should be regarded individually for every country. Not to mention that the history sections of all other Balkan country articles are extremely overinflated and contain too much information. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless you source your ‘common sense’ periodization od Bulgaria's history, I beg to disagree. Apcbg (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. If you disagree, you are free to propose a different periodization. The idea of categorizing the time periods according to a given source is rather silly. One might as well use the same source for the entire history section, but that wouldn't be pretty, would it be ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It doesn't work like that. I don't have to propose anything. There is an established existing version of the history section. It is you who proposes a change, which requires consensus. Providing sources is a necessary (albeit not sufficient) condition for that, and it better be more than one source in order to show that the periodization you propose has a wider acceptance. Apcbg (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if you have no constructive proposals, how are we supposed to reach consensus ? Throwing criticism and expressing disagreement is easy. My proposal is based on common sense, not on sources - simply because different sources give a different periodization. I just propose merging two sections that encompass the same time period. Apparently you disagree, but I still cannot understand what exactly is the problem with the version I suggest. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is explained above. As for my constructive proposal, it is: Keep the established version unless and until a new consensus is formed.

Other than that, you may or may not wish to do your homework and, from among the “different sources [that] give a different periodization,” you provide some sources supporting your particular proposal. Apcbg (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem, for as long as I understand it, is that the Ottoman period somewhat does not fit into the picture when a single Middle ages subsection is created. You did not specify why exactly is that. I have not based my periodization on any sources, but merely on the basic fact that the First and Second Bulgarian Empires existed in one time frame - the Middle Ages. The version you support is currently on display and consensus will be reached once you specify why is a separate section about the Ottoman period problematic. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I did “specify why is a separate section about the Ottoman period problematic”. It is not problematic per se, indeed it exists in the present version of the article. It becomes problematic in your periodization for reasons explained more than once above.

You keep repeating that “the First and Second Bulgarian Empires existed in one time frame - the Middle Ages”. Yes they did, so what? That does not mean you can replace the two Empires by “Middle Ages” for the simple reason that the Middle Ages in the Bulgarian lands started couple of centuries before the First Bulgarian Empire and ended couple of centuries after the Second Bulgarian Empire.

Repeating for you once more: The Middle Ages lasted some four centuries longer than the two Empires combined did, hence one cannot substitute the former for the latter.

I really see no point in continuing this discussion without some wider participation. After all this article has been written by quite a few authors and contributing editors, perhaps some of them might share their opinion too. Best, Apcbg (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman rule and national awakening, Line 158

Line 158 (I'm using only the articles that are already quoted): - there is no mention of a "significant" number of Bulgarian nobility and common folk north of the Danube in any quoted text. Because of this "significant" word, I belive references should be provided. - there is a clear mention of Cyrillic alphabet (16th century - 1860)in that area if you check the quoted text, not a Bulgarian language, although this exists: "Neacşu wrote in a version of the old Cyrillic alphabet similar to the one for Old Church Slavonic, and which was used in Walachia and Moldova until 1859" - many cities kept their Bulgarian names is quite vague, and one example does not prove there are many. If the phrase should be used, than maybe more examples should be mentioned. - there is no mention in the quoted text of Bulgarian population that kept it's national identity but it kept it's religiouse identity north of the Danube ("In the winter of 1461/1462, taking advantage of the ice bridge created over the Danube, Vlad III the Impaler crossed into Bulgaria and started a campaign, which led to the death of 23,884 Turks and the capture of Dobruja. He conquered Rusciuk, Shishtov, Samovit, Rahova. He spared the Christians, but he moved them north of the Danube, into his lands") - although this population never came under direct occupation, it still remained under the influence of the Ottoman Empire and this should be mentioned (it is also in the quoted text: "In all this time (and also after his death) Wallachia went back again under the influence of the Ottoman Empire"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.88.191.3 (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Demographics section - picture or table ?

The Demographics section becomes a bit too crouded with two tables - one showing the demographic evolution throughout the years, and another - the population of the largest urban centres in the country. Personally I think the first table could go away and be replaced with an image. I propose placing an image of ordinary Bulgarian people, I have a couple of proposals for an image, but I would like to hear other opinions on the issue first. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that the first table is showing information as it changes during a time period and this is usefull information and should be kept. Although the right way to show this is using a X(=time)&Y(=population) graphic, I belive this should be moved in current form to the Article:[Demographics_of_Bulgaria] (which by the way, someone should review that article). I agree, placing an image of ordinary people or a painting with a town is a better idea --87.88.191.3 (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I myself find the table very useful and informative, but it becomes too heavy on the section when coupled with the list of cities below. Once I finish updating the Economy main article, I will start working on Demographics and will transfer the table there. Since there is some degree of consensus on the image, here are my suggestions:

• 
  Bulgarians celebrating Epiphany
• 
  Bulgarian girls at a college promotion
• 
  Bulgarian students practicing with electronic devices
• 
  A group of Bulgarian photographers, 1926

Personally I find number 2 and number 4 to be the best choices, specifically number four - it is a very lively picture even though it's black and white. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more to this kind Bulgarians on ice, but because it's quite difficult to find a good (copyright free) picture, than my vote is for number 4 (good composition and indeed lively photo) --87.88.191.3 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And now about the table...

The largest cities table is somewhat problematic. It takes a lot of space and there aren't many decent views of the largest cities. Furthermore most of the cities are neither economically nor culturally significant, not even countrywise, and I don't see the point of listing them for the sake of listing. I think removing the template and placing an image of a university or a cathedral would prove useful. Thoughts ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is Greek and Roman history such a short mention?

Something like a thousand years of history is missing. Why mention the Thracians, Alexander the Great or the Roman Empire at all if it's that unimportant. It won't make FA with that information missing. It is more than notable to the subject and since it's the beginning of the article it is quite obvious it was skipped over. You have an image in that section, yet doesn't have context to the prose and is undue weight. The section needs expanding.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The Thracians have left the most lasting impact on the country's history, that is why the Romans and Alexander are only mentioned; the latter didn't have much impact on the country's development or culture. Adding too much information on Antiquity will make the subsection a bit too large and disproportionate to the others, I think. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bulgaria Etymology

For FA status you may want to add a section on the origins or the countries name.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever exists as etymology is too short; I've considered including it, but two sentences don't really make a section. I've noticed several FA status articles are actually missing such a section. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If there isn't that much information there isn't that much information. Don't include if you can't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 24 November 2011

I'd like the following part to be added after "...automobile traffic,[86][87]", which is in section Environment and wildlife "The first car in Bulgaria". toprentacar.bg. Retrieved 24 November 2011.

Peteraa (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The link was removed earlier as irrelevant. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bulgars, a Central Asian Turkic tribe

The Bulgars, a Central Asian Turkic tribe, merged with the local Slavic inhabitants in the late 7th century to form the first Bulgarian state. In succeeding centuries, Bulgaria struggled with the Byzantine Empire to assert its place in the Balkans, but by the end of the 14th century the country was overrun by the Ottoman Turks. Northern Bulgaria attained autonomy in 1878 and all of Bulgaria became independent from the Ottoman Empire in 1908. Having fought on the losing side in both World Wars, Bulgaria fell within the Soviet sphere of influence and became a People's Republic in 1946. Communist domination ended in 1990, when Bulgaria held its first multiparty election since World War II and began the contentious process of moving toward political democracy and a market economy while combating inflation, unemployment, corruption, and crime. The country joined NATO in 2004 and the EU in 2007.

Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bu.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.3.90 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Gini

I know this probably isn't a priority for this article, but it seems like Bulgaria's Gini coeffecient has trended in the opposite direction to a lot of other European nations (just like it's debt levels). Maybe this is worth mentioning under economy.

Inequality is a notable problem for Bulgaria, I was to add a few words on the discrepancy between the average GDP of its NUTS II regions (lowest is 28% of EU average while highest is 73%), but forgot about it with all the issues around the FAC nomination. I will look into it. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Most ancient Slavic language

Although sourced, the term is somewhere between vague and self-contradictory. Does "most ancient" mean oldest? Well it cannot be older than or more ancient than its predecessor tongue from which it derives - and that is Slavic. And just as Latin over years became the modern languages of French, Romanian, Portuguese, etc., so too did Old Slavic become today's European languages. So what makes one older than another? Does it mean it was attested at an earlier date? If so, what were the other Slavophonic people talking at the time? Either their own languages which must have paradoxically emerged before Bulgarian, or they were still talking older Slavic dialects which must have been older than the then-new Bulgarian tongue. Macedonian is attested around 1944, that was when it was accepted into the new Yugoslavia and a standard finally became official. But does that mean the language wasn't spoken before? From 1912-WWII, anything in the south of the Kingdom of Serbia that didn't resemble Serbo-Croat was forbidden - and some of the characteristics of Macedonian are features stretching a long way into Central Serbia (such as Torlakian regions) but were not standard Serbo-Croat. Prior to 1912, people spoke in their own dialects and those dialects have a history that go back to the same ancestor language as Bulgarian's. There were five centuries of Ottoman rule when the Vardar region had no standard for the Slavophonic people but even if there were, language changes with every generation. To that end, Macedonian - which is so close to Bulgarian - surely contains many features which other Slavic languages lost but only Bulgarian retains. Except Macedonian wasn't mentioned until much later in history, and the Bulgarian tongue cannot take credit for what is Macedonian today even if many did declare themselves Bulgarian a century back. Everything had to 'snap away' from its neighbour at some point but there is no set time that a population ceases to speak one language and starts the next. Also, the Slavic languages within the former Ottoman Empire became very corrupted in vocabulary because of the heavy influence of Turkish, the Orthodox tradition languages also take a lot from Greek. Gramatically, Bulgarian and Macedonian have lost the inflection system which the other Slavic languages have kept; BG and MK have also adopted alien features resulting from the Balkan Linguistic Union such as definite articles (absent from Old Slavic) and loss of infinitive mood of verb. The section surely needs to be rewritten somehow but I need to know - what makes Bulgarian more ancient than Slovakian? Can someone explain? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suppose that the author of the publication meant that it was the earliest testified Slavic language, as it was the first one with its own alphabet. Having a writing system of its own, its development can be traced back in history with a high degree of certainty, unlike other Slavic languages for which there is little to no written evidence of how they developed or when they emerged as distinct languages. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well Slavic itself was known! But it split and became many languages as did Latin. Bulgarian then is the earliest attested among the modern Slavic tongues. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sunny Beach ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive edits

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

Second Bulgarian Empire map

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

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

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

Cyrillic and IPA names in opening sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ottoman tone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem with Bulgarian flags of the late 1940s

1946-1967

1948-1967

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

1946  Flag of Bulgaria (1948-1967).svg

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

1946  Flag of Bulgaria (1946-1967).svg 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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