Talk:Bulgaria/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2018

The statistics for ethnicity are massively wrong, the Roma one not only being from the source "usually underestimated...may be...". Not only is that misrepresenting the OFFICIAL STATISTICS but it's also wrong mathematically as you cannot have 76.9% Bulgarians, 8% Turks, 10% Unspecified, 0,7% Other and then the rest being 9-11% (?) gypsies. fix it and stick to official country Bulgarian statistics, not some personal thoughts of some CIA writer please.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bu.html

Bulgarian 76.9%, Turkish 8%, Romani 4.4%, other 0.7% (including Russian, Armenian, and Vlach), other (unknown) 10% (2011 est.) Lmaoman123 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

A couple of questions based on the research I have made:

Are these official statistics the latest and accurate according to the authorities themselves? No. The head of the National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria, Reneta Indzhova sent a report to Eurostat declaring that the census is "inacurrate" , the population figure was flawed by 200k and a few declared their ethnicity.[1][2] Indzhova in her report to Eurostat said that a large part of the population's ethnic origin is "hidden" and that the covering up of this fact is unsubstantial.[3] According to the report of the National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria the statistics you are spreading in the infobox are a gross manipulation:

Висок относителен дял на неотговорилите на въпросите за „етническа група“ и „майчин език“ и много висок дял на неотговорилите на въпроса за „вероизповедание“. Причините са различни и могат да бъдат дискутирани, но опитите да се прикрие този факт с доброволния характер на тези въпроси не е състоятелен. Тази постановка беше валидна и при преброяването през 2001 г., когато делът на неотговорилите беше различен (много по-малък). Разпространението и публикуването на данни само за отговорилите лица е груба манипулация, която поражда редица спекулации." Translation: Spresding and publicating data only for individuals responding to the question is a gross manipulation and raises speculation", the report said."[4]

Second question. I know the Romani are underestimated according to CIA. Are they even enumerated according to the National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria and is the census number considered "real" by this institution? The head Indzhova declared: "I would say not enumarating the Romani was a disadvantage for us all because if we have obtained the real data we could pretend for attention and priorities before Europe."[5] According to the head of the Statistical Institute, Indzhova, the number of the Romani is not only higher than the gross m. census shows, but the Romani are not even enumerated...

Overall, the argument for this request was the official - the only. According to the authors of the census itself(the NSI) the official stance is that these 2011 census results are a gross manipulation and such data has no place in an infobox in my opinion. It is officially discredited and the validity/backing of this data by the Statistical Instute is revoked. As these results are not anymore backed by NSI they lost their reliability. These census results are only in the archive of NSI and Eurostat for being grossly manipulative and a cover up.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevan22 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

We and the Wikipedia article must be aware that according to official data of Eurostat and the Council of Europe, the Romani in Bulgaria number 750,000 or 11% of the population.[6] So the official data should somehow be in the infobox.Stevan22 (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It's still an officially declared result, which doesn't mean it cannot be contested in the appropriate section. It appears that there are plenty of substantial arguments to include at least some reference to the supposed lapses in the census, along with sources, but if something has to be added, it shouldn't be original research. I suggest keeping the declared census results in the infobox, but adding a Disputed tag linking to the demographics section. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to keeping the census results in the infobox, but in such case I suggest we mention there the official estimates available on Romani. The more the infobox relies on census results, the further it relies on what the Statistical Institute identified as a gross manipulation. I would have a hard time agreeing on keeping only the census results in the infobox. What about including the 10.33% official figure on Romani there [7]? The CIA report appears in line with the census and the official estimate of Eurostat on Romani.

I can look up for other solutions. Another suggestion may be to exclude anything related to the 2011 census results from the infobox, because it is discredited by its perpetrators themselves. This is the suggestion that seemed obvious to me as the manipulation of this census is genuinely admitted. The reasons to do so are the following conclusions admitted by the perpetrators of the census, the National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria : 1. the ethnic composition results are a gross manipulation, a cover up, 2. the total population figure was flawed by 200,000 non-existing inhabitants, 3. the Romani were not enumerated, 4. the NSI don't have the real figure of the Romani. Stevan22 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to Demographics with the sources provided. I still don't think it's an issue significant enough to merit full removal from the infobox - the differences between official and claimed values are really not that large (5% against 11% of the population and 7.1 against 7.3 million). - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That is OK. The edit request was to remove the higher Romani figure from the infobox. I can't get any insight into the specific request for removing the higher Romani figure. The author- @Lmaoman123:, please join the discussion and make your request appear reasonable if you still insist on it.Stevan22 (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Corrected with official census results, Gini index and HDI statistic updated as well. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Responding for the template list.... Dolotta (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of images

I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but can you explain, Tourbillon, why do you cleanse the article of images? Is this an encyclopedia or an essay? In particular why did you delete the sunny beach image for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowler92 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images for the basic guidelines on including an image. The purpose of images is to illustrate the text, not decorate it and make the article a tourist brochure. Furthermore most of the images were quite poor, while some sandwiched text or occupied too much space, like the ones you placed in the Military section. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, but I think the article is very poor in image content compared to other country articles. The article is about Bulgaria, but shows us very little of Bulgaria. What do you think? What do you suggest we do to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowler92 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, it's fairly illustrated in most sections. Culture requires rewriting and some images can be introduced there, but after the information is updated with reliable sources. As it is, that section is poorly written. Also, the large amount of images is not a sign of quality - most articles aren't Good or Featured. Canada is a good example, whereas Hungary is a horrible one. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, didn't notice that this is a good article. Another good article that i personally like very much is the Croatia article. I like it because it gives us a really good and detailed show of what Croatia is, after you read it, it gives you a really good feel and idea about the country. Though i suppose compared to that one, this article is lacking in text and is not written as well, it's not only the lack of images that is a problem. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowler92 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The article doesn't need to be bloated. It would be nice to make this article featured, and most featured articles keep a concise core page and detailed main pages. It's the main pages the article here links to that are lacking in quality. This one needs data updates. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

What you call "bloated" i call "rich in content". Some articles can get bloated, but you're being dramatic in this case, i don't know why you insist on keeping this article so boring and visually poor. Is that what is required to get featured on this site? An empty wall of text with no images of the culture, architecture, cuisine and everything else that is iconic about a country? I have been through many encyclopedias and have a whole collection of them and they don't share your philosophy. I honestly don't understand your mentality.

More information doesn't necessarily mean a more informative article, and more images don't mean a better presentation of what's explained. Excessive amounts of text can make the article more convoluted and confusing than an article with less text, but a better structure and a concise presentation of all the major points. A dozen cheap pictures of supposedly "traditional" dishes don't really provide more information on Bulgarian cuisine than a paragraph of well-sourced text. Four images of military equipment in a section of two paragraphs is total overkill. So I'm not sure who's being dramatic when calling this particular article "boring and visually poor". It's not a graphic novel. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

ok, that's your opinion, who has the final say here? is there a referee? voting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowler92 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not an opinion and there's no voting - it's up to consensus. However, there are some guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Writing better articles, Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. They explain really well why long articles are a bad idea and what should be taken into consideration when adding images. While not mandatory, sticking more closely to these would make the article of better quality. Conversely, making the article "more interesting" by turning it into an image gallery is almost certain to reduce quality. That would likely downgrade its GA status over time, and that would be a shame, considering that it's one of the few country articles with a GA mark. And especially bad when the article isn't that far from Featured status. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually it IS an opinion. But it's fine, i love what you've done with the article, and i agree with you that a nice compact article is better than a whole tome of text. I like it's current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowler92 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added a few more illustrations and some details without inflating it too much.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

There are perfectly valid reasons to omit the cities template: a) it adds no significant data (largest cities and their populations are already mentioned); b) it adds four images of poor illustrative quality and likely unfit licensing, and c) it just creates a block of outdated numbers that are of really no interest. Which begs the questions, a) will the article/section really be worse off without that template? b) do readers genuinely care to know the population of Asenovgrad or Vidin? c) how does this template really improve the section, other than adding a few pictures that, well, kind of suck and don't even properly illustrate the cities in question? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

1.a)ok you can delete the text that repeats what the template says if it bothers you so much; b)the images are fine and i got them from the commons, i dont see a problem with the licensing since they were uploaded here for the purpose of being on wikipedia ; c)the official census data are not "outdated numbers"

2.a)in my opinion and the opinion of everyone who adds such templates to articles, the answer is yes ; b)what a bizarre question, who are you to say what readers care about or not, we want to have an informative article, that's what wikipedia is; c)the images are fine, they are portraying central streets/squares, shows the vibe and architecture of the city in question, illustrative enough, if the readers want to know more they can open the city articles

i would like it if you stop deleting it

Regarding licensing, the article is undergoing a Featured Article candidacy where image licenses are strictly observed. The template contains four of those, and they all depict buildings and locations that likely do not have freedom of panorama and are therefore probably not free to use. The census result itself is grossly outdated and probably inaccurate, which is why even the official population figure is later clarified with a (much lower) estimate. As for the article being informative, it shouldn't contain everything, especially less relevant information - that's what main articles are for. If you want your opinion to be heard, get a blog. Given the ongoing effort to bring the article up to FA status, your recent revert prior to getting involved in the discussion objectively constitutes Disruptive editing that may be sanctioned. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

So you're not allowed to post images of PUBLIC streets in Bulgaria? What about google maps and google earth? Do they infringe on this absurd rule? If that's the case then fine, what can you do, discussing anything else is redundant.

Though the article states it's forbidden to upload images "for commercial use", uploading images to wikipedia is not commercial use. Are you sure "freedom of panorama" applies here? And two of the images claim to be licensed(Varna and Plovdiv), is their license valid?

If there are buildings, monuments or recognisable permanent structures whose author (architect) died less than 70 years ago, that image is not considered free under Freedom of Panorama regulations. More on that here. It's absurd, and actually means that most photos of Bulgarian buildings on Commons have to be deleted, but that's the law. It's the reason why I removed the pictures of the National Palace and the National Bank, even though they were quite good and were pertinent to the text. Sofia University is an exception because the architect of the building died in the 1930s (71+ years ago), although I'm still concerned that the background buildings may breach the rule. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes but it's implied that it is forbidden only in the case of commercial use, as far as I'm aware wikipedia is a non-commercial website, no one is making a profit for uploading the images or anything regarding wikipedia for that matter. I've asked this question in the candidacy article as well, let's see what they will answer. If my interpretation is correct then we should be able to freely upload images of public buildings and streets. - Bowler92 (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Any copyrighted material, regardless of whether the intended use is commercial or not, is not allowed on Commons. There is the OTRS system, but that requires a specific OTRS ticket with approval from the author/architect and that's a very slow approach. There's also fair use, but it's only allowed if no free alternatives exist (and that's the case in only a handful of unique circumstances). Therefore, pictures of buildings are best avoided, at least on this page. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

ok Nikkimaria gave me a link explaining this rule. Wikipedia doesn't accept it even if it's for non commercial use, doesn't make sense to me but that's the rule. Well do what you think is best with the template, i leave it to you.

The template is more appropriate for Demographics of Bulgaria anyway. All of the main articles (Economy of Bulgaria, Culture of Bulgaria, etc.) need to look like this one, which should summarise the content of the main pages. Feel free to add to those, I'm getting ready to work on Science and Technology once I finish the FA nomination. Britannica is a good start for a reference. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

@Jingiby: Hello Jingiby! Isn't this a great article? You recently made an edit [8] adding Romanization, and I would like to know something of the source and accuracy of that. Hellenization is the historical spread of ancient Greek culture as I have no doubt you know, and sections of Thrace in the south became Hellenized before the Peloponnesian War, we all agree on that. But if you check this out [9] it indicates Bulgaria was not culturally Romanized since they would fall into the category of "discrepant identity." I would like to know about this one! Jenhawk777 18:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Check Thraco-Roman, please. The locals were Hellenized and then Romanized, afterwards Hellenized again and finally Slavicized. Remnants from this Romanization process today are Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, Vlachs etc. incl. these in Bulgaria. The source is described in the article. Rowman & Littlefield offers scholarly books and journals for the academic market, and Raymond Detrez is Professor of East European history and cultures, who is also expert in Balkan issues. If you deny its authority I can provide additional reliable sources. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Will do--not denying anything, just asking. Checking these out, what I see is that this Romanization is about the Latinization of the language--and not about culture in the way the term Hellenization means. I can find lots about the Romanization of the languages but nothing about culture--would that include the spread of Christianity maybe?? Jenhawk777 19:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay--the Blackwell reference actually says culture, and that's good enough. Thank you! Jenhawk777 19:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

One remark: Lower Moesia and Bessi in Thrace were said to have been Gothicized in the source I added (p. 8, 270). Should this be explained in this article or another one? Stevan22 (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tourbillon: The last question is for you to address not me. I am just the source checker! Jenhawk777 06:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Preferably explained elsewhere, otherwise we'll begin digging too much into the assimilation topic over here. History of Bulgaria and Thracians would be a good spot. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will try to explain these detials in another article at some point. I am not sure is the whole thing or my addition irrelevant. Wouldn't be arbitrary to choose which are irrelevant to this article - Gothicized, Hellenized, Romanized? I noticed that the Thracians are already mentioned as a primary ancestor of the main ethnic group in another sentence, where the entire topic is relevantly explained without speculation on how and when this happened. In the sentence in question we are trying to assume how much of ethnocultural combinations there was in Thrace, which is questionable and not quantifiable. The findings of such research is a list of speculation, including Thracianized population, not to mention Dacianized. Stevan22 (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It's true that history is not an exact science, but the vast majority of sources overwhelmingly point to Thracians as a key population group, not least because of their extensive and lasting presence throughout the centuries. Unlike the Goths, who only arrived much later as invaders and then withdrew or were assimilated. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It's also true that the Thracians were heavily Hellenized and Romanized by the time of the arrival of the Slavs. For example, the Thracian languages were largely extinct by this time. Furthermore, most of Bulgaria lies south of the Jirecek Line, which means virtually all inscriptions are in Greek. In contrast, any Gothic influence was minor and confined to a very small area. So, if anything, it should be "Gothicized" that should be removed, and "Hellenized" and "Romanized" kept. I find it odd that the user who first tried to remove "Hellenized" [10] then added "Gothicized", is now arguing to remove all 3. Khirurg (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Especially considering that Hellenised/Romanised is sourced. The Goths had a negligible contribution to assimilation, although some of the sources do state that isolated bands of Thracians survived in some remote regions. But if it can be sourced, I don't see a problem with it staying. Either way, the Slavs assimilated whatever people were already present there. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but in that case, it should be in order of significance, i.e. Hellenization, Romanization, Gothicization. Khirurg (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm alright with that. Also, feel free to recommend general improvements on the ongoing FAC. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The Jirecek Line divides the country into two equal parts. Jingiby (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Not quite, I'd say 60-40. Khirurg (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tourbillon: Just want to say the Antiquity section is much improved and looking truly great. The specificity with dates makes a huge difference, and it flows easily from one concept to the next without any snags. Really good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2018

It should include the national flower also. Jetstream2006 (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

Add to: Bulgaria#Etymology

Bulgaria is the oldest country in Europe that hasn’t changed its name since it was first established. Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paskalev.boris (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That nationalist factoid is very dubious anyway. It's a by-product of another one, which claimed that Bulgaria is the oldest state in Europe, which is false. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2019

Etymology Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations. Early Bulgars inhabited the European steppe west of the Volga River from about 370 CE. Retreating with the Huns, they resettled about 460 in an arc of country north and east of the Sea of Azov. Hired by the Byzantines in 480 to fight against the Ostrogoths, the Bulgars subsequently became attracted by the wealth of the Byzantine Empire. In the 6th century the Bulgars continually attacked the Danubian provinces of the Byzantine Empire until, in the 560s, they were themselves threatened by the Avars, who were then advancing from Asia into central Europe. Boro11 (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You also need to clearly explain what you want to be changed. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC

Should the history section contain a separate subsection for the period of Byzantine rule? Khirurg (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2019

For the 2018 population estimate, change "104rd" to "104th" 173.16.33.218 (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Byzantine rule

Byzantine rule lasted from 1018 to 1180, almost two centuries. I think that warrants it's own section. Subsuming it into "Second Bulgarian Empire makes no sense. Khirurg (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. The length matters little when the Byzantine period itself is largely unremarkable in terms of events. There were no radical socio-economic or religious changes, only a small number of uprisings, and generally nothing that didn't really occur in the FBE proper. It really does not warrant its own subsection - the information in it would contribute nothing on a greater scale. The handful of uprisings hold no more weight than the civil disorder in the later SBE period or warfare against Magyars, Mongols and the like. It's unnecessary bloating. The pictures added are also disgustingly huge and completely inappropriate regarding the text. Would be nice to check out the Manual of Style. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I shrank the picture, should be ok now. But regarding the Byzantine period, it's totally false that there were no major religious changes. The Bulgarian Patriarchate was abolished. That's not major? Even if it was relatively uneventful, that does not mean it does not deserve it's own section. It deserves it's own subsection because it was a) long, and b) distinct. It was neither part of the first or the second Bulgarian empires. By your argument, the Ottoman section should also not have its own section because it was relatively uneventful (barring several unsuccessful uprisings). Khirurg (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Bulgarian religious autonomy was not completely lost, not to mention that both states were Orthodox. The nobility also remained intact. That is incomparable to the Ottoman period when both the religious and administrative structure of the Bulgarian state were completely obliterated and replaced with an Islamic system of government completely foreign to Europe.

Furthermore, as it stands now, the Byzantine subsection mentions very little of value. All that is said in those two paragraphs is just a few administrative details and how things were before and after Basil II. Compare that to the first paragraph of the next subsection, which neatly compresses the Asen uprising, the surge and decline of Roman influence, and Ivan Asen's "Silver age", all of which had major repercussions. A separate Byzantine rule subsection simply makes no sense. What's worse, it wouldn't make sense adding more information to it either, because it would again be of little comparative relevance. That would create a large and not very valuable subsection, and in turn, would necessitate to even things out by bloating the entire history segment, which is already the largest in the article by far. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Section about Byzantine period is needed. Byzantine rule lasted for 167 years, making it a so long period as the Second Bulgarian Empire. At that time, very significant events took place. The Patriarchy and laws are only two stars in heavanly horizon. Many other events are missing in the text like:

• 3 crusades passed through Bulgarian lands. No words about it inthe section right now. Something about it must be added there.
• Uprising of Petar Delyan is the most significant probably, but another events like Uprising of Georgi Voytech and Constantine Bodin are not mentoined in the text for now.
• Invasions of Cumans and Pechenegs mostly in North Bulgaria. Many settlers of these two nations were populated south than Danube and then were assimilated by local slavic population. Even Peter and Asen, the restorers of Bulgarian Empire, are probably of Cuman origin by many historians.
• The Byzantine rule was related to some significant rulers like Manuel I Komnenos, significant events like Seljuk and Norman invasions, which weakened the Byzantine Empire and have allowed the success of Asen and Peter Uprising.--151.251.254.61 (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, the length of the period should not be taken into account. If that were the case, the Neolithic would have to have a separate, extremely long subsection as it lasted thousands of years. Delving into the ethnic origin of rulers is also unnecessary. Hundreds of invasions occurred throughout the existence of all Bulgarian states (and arguably every state up until modern times), so again, that's not something that really stands out. None of those are good arguments in favour of having a separate Byzantine rule subsection. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at the current version about Ottoman rule: the Ottoman era is presented in details, such as the Crimean War, the Austro-Turkish Wars and others. Byzantine rule - only 2 sentences for church and law. What about Crusades? What about second Migration era, when thousounds of Cuman and Pecheneg settlers pass the Danube. What about Seljuk and Norman invasions, which giving a chance for Asen and Peter Uprising? Anti - Byzantine uprisings are part of some sort of international picture of events. The both Tarnovo brothers waving the banner of liberation after Normans of Kingdom of Sicily take over Thessaloniki. The uprising of Voyteh and Bodin follow the Byzantine defeat by Seljuk army near Manzikert in 1071. --151.251.254.61 (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

That's simply too detailed. The purpose of the History section is not to give a full picture, but rather cover the basic events of statehood formation/destruction. The Ottoman period is covered in a bit more detail because the Ottoman occupation resulted in a radically different political order (unlike the Byzantine occupation). The Ottoman system required several iterations of religious and economic shifts over centuries before it weakened enough to result in the Liberation. The Byzantine period can be perfectly summed up without a separate subsection, but we could mention the invasions and their effect on the Asen uprising, I guess. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly: the Byzantine occupation bring a radically different political order too. The Second Bulgarian Empire had a different look compared to the First Empire, especially when we talk about titles. First Empire is a world of dominantly Bulgar titles - kavhan, kolobar, tarkan, bori - tarkan, zhoupans and others. Second Bulgarian state perceived the Byzantine titles - the second person in state was sebastokrator, regions was ruled by despots, and others. Otherwise yes, a few short sentences for these events are needed, but without any details.--151.251.254.61 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that the second Bulgarian Empire borrowed heavily from Byzantium (taxation, currency, administrative structure and terminology, etc.. [11]). Anyway, I feel we are not going to convince one another. Might be time to put it to a RfC. Khirurg (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

So? Few countries devised their original system of government. The Byzantines themselves based much of their statehood on Roman heritage. I seriously don't understand the insistence on getting into so many details that don't really contribute much to the overall picture. I'll also restore the previous images because these are simply irrelevant (a detail of a treasure vs. Krum's feast? Hardly comparable). - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Few countries devised their original system of government is not a very good argument for not having a section on almost 200 years of Byzantine rule. Also, what's so special about Krum's feast? Why are you so into that image? Khirurg (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, if the length of the historical period is to be taken into account, should I understand that you suggest we greatly expand the Prehistory section, because that lasted thousands of years? Or that we reduce the subsection about the Third Bulgarian State, because it only spans 140 years, less than Byzantine rule? Unless you have an answer to this one, I'll just revert back to the previous version. And for one, the image illustrates something in the text. Whereas that detail of a treasure illustrates...what exactly? All I see here is the insistence to add emphasis on Byzantine rule but for no good reason (aside from personal preferences/interest in that period). There's History of Bulgaria where all the nuances are available. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 05:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, the length of the period is the smallest problem. It was a time of significant events for Bulgaria and Europe. I added some of them in the article, part of which we commented here.

The picture: the victory of Krum is perhaps a significant triumph of barbarism (and very patriotic maybe), but I think an artifact will play a better role in the narrative of the first Bulgarian state. I do not hold for the treasure; we can change it with a Madara horseman, a Great basilica in Pliska, even a Nagysentmiclosh treasure. I think just this detail of the Preslav treasure illustrates the epoch very well.--Masonyak (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The ignorance of Byzantine rule is typical problem in Bulgarian historiography according to an American Byzantinist A. Kazhdan. In his book "Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries", University of California Pr., page 31 - 32 he said: Recent Bulgarian and Romanian excavations allow an insight into urban life in the northern Balkans. Unfortunatelly, national prejudices have somethimes limited the scope and biased the interpretation of the archaeological expeditions; many Bulgarian scholars have ignored the period of the "Byzantine yoke", suppresing the evidens of the 11th century and ascribing finds from the 12 th century exclusive to the Second Bulgarian Empire, although that was estabilished only at the very end of the sentury. Nonetheless it was a Bulgarian scholar Lishev, who first demonstrated, that Bulgarian towns prospered under Byzantine rule. Even the old centers of the Bulgarian power, Pliska and Preslav survived the Byzantine conquest in 1001 - 1018... New towns were founded, one of them on the site of the ancient Thracian Seuthopolis... Inscriptions of the 11 th cent. referring to Adrianople, Aspros, Mesembria also attest to bulding activity in the northern Balkans.

--Masonyak (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Well if the length of the period is the smallest problem, then it seems like we can agree that it matters little whether Byzantine rule lasted two or 200 years. Now that this faulty argument is out of the way, let's move on to the next issue.

Your premise seems to be that Byzantine influence is somehow purposefully suppressed, which isn't the case. There's really no issue adding any of those details (invasions, Crusades, Byzantine policies and so on) from a historical point of view. The issue lies the fact that a Byzantine rule subsection simply doesn't work as a standalone entity. Now it describes the following:

• Distribution of Bulgarian territories under the Byzantine system - how is this remotely significant to be included here?
• Development of towns under Byzantine rule - completely irrelevant, towns have prospered and suffered under pretty much every other period in a similar manner;
• Byzantine warfare not directly related to Bulgarian issues - this article is about Bulgarian, not Byzantine history, mind you.

So, how do these points adequately improve understanding of Bulgarian statehood and its evolution throughout history? Simple: they don't. At its present size the subsection just gives a ridiculous amount of UNDUE on issues far less important than those described in much less detail in the other subsections. I won't even mention the almost complete lack of sources, which in itself is a good enough reason to simply remove all of this. I'll write a compromise version which will reflect the points that matter; but I'm starting to think that this is some kind of POV-pushing and not a genuine attempt to reach consensus. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

if we follow your way of thinking, the section about Ottoman rule should not exist too. Why do not move the Ottoman Age to the section for Third Bulgarian state? We have all of historical periods in Bulgarian history in your version - First Bulgarian Empire (681 - 1018), Second Bulg. Emp. (1185 - 1396), Ottoman Ages (1396- 1878)... What is missing here? Yes, the period 1018 - 1185. 200 - years black hole! Byzantine rule is just a one of the historical periods, like FBE, SBE, Ottoman rule. We can't ignore it. Well, another compromise option is just one section "Middle Ages", which unite the all periods at the time of 681 - 1396. --Masonyak (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, the Byzantines replaced or reassigned Bulgarian elites and were of the same religion. Their occupation was not entirely uneventful, but most of the events did not have such a profound effect on Bulgarian statehood. There's simply not much with enough weight to be added there. The Ottomans, on the other hand, obliterated most facets of Bulgarian statehood and culture. That's a period limited not just to Bulgaria and encompassed a much broader range of actors and processes. Recovering from it and restoring statehood was a monumental task, not to mention that the end of the Ottoman period directly lead to the territorial disputes of the modern Bulgarian state. There's just no comparison between the largely benign Byzantine occupation and the tumultuous Ottoman rule that straddled several historical eras. The Middle Ages configuration has been proposed before, but there was no consensus and it is generally difficult to put an adequate temporal definition of the Medieval period. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

With 6 sentences devoted to the Byzantine period of Byzantine rule, there is more than enough to create a separate section for it. Khirurg (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you really think that five-line paragraph looks good or that an entire subsection for it makes any sense? Honestly. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I do! Muttnick (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Well too bad, because it doesn't. No good arguments given for a separate subsection so far, so I'll return it the way it was. You can't possibly say that the Byzantine period isn't mentioned, because it is. With sufficient detail, I may add. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

All your "arguments" so far are subjective and basically boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So, yes, too bad. However, before this gets out of hand, I will start an RfC. Khirurg (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The burden of proof doesn't fall on me - so far I've given an extensive list of reasons why such a subsection is not needed, and everything that has been given as a response is "but it's important! 200 years!". Excellent. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You forgot that reliable sources, such as this [12], have a dedicated chapter to Byzantine rule, and do not subsume it into the First and Second Bulgarian Empire chapters. But So? Few countries devised their original system of government. is somehow used as a reason to not have a separate section. Khirurg (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Well we aren't supposed to copy the structure of the sources, are we? I think we are going in circles. I'll state this explicitly: there is no problem whatsoever with the content itself. The problem is that if the entire history section is to remain concise (which is one of the things that brought this article to FA status), events should be kept to the bare essentials. There is already enough to describe the Byzantine occupation. If major topics like the adoption of Christianity, the collapse of the Second Bulgarian Empire and the Macedonian question are mentioned in a single sentence, what sense does it make to have an entire subsection about Byzantine rule if it doesn't cover anything remotely as significant? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, we absolutely should follow reliable sources. I can't believe I'm hearing this from an experienced user such as yourself. If reliable sources have separate chapters and sections for the period of Byzantine rule, so then so should the article. Khirurg (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

We should cite reliable sources, not copy them. There's really no need to explain the difference... - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 12:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't create straw men. If reliable sources see fit to create a separate section for Byzantine rule, we should take the hint. Khirurg (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of the very thing you're doing. I won't even respond to your latest "argument", I'll just let it stay there as an illustration. Filing a dispute resolution would be a better way out, IMO. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 20:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2019

DaveMinionS5 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Change the population from 7,000,039 to 6,986,277

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 15:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2019

This entry does acknowledge the significant levels of deportation of Jews overseen by the Bulgiarian authorities during WWII.

Under sub-heading 'Third Bulgarian State', change 'The resulting political unrest led to the establishment of a royal authoritarian dictatorship by Tsar Boris III (1918–1943). Bulgaria entered World War II in 1941 as a member of the Axis but declined to participate in Operation Barbarossa and saved its Jewish population from deportation to concentration camps' to the following:

'The resulting political unrest led to the establishment of a royal authoritarian dictatorship by Tsar Boris III (1918–1943). Bulgaria entered World War II in 1941 as a member of the Axis alliance but declined to participate in Operation Barbarossa. Bulgarian authorities instituted anti-Jewish legislation that excluded Jews from public service, restricted their choice of places of residence, and restricted their participation in many occupations. Although Jews were not deported from the core provinces of Bulgaria, its authorities transported over 11,000 Jews from the Greek and Yugoslav territories that it occupied. Nearly all then died in the Treblinka extermination camp in German-occupied Poland. [source: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/bulgaria] Jonamemel (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 18:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2020

change "The left-wing uprising of 9 September 1944" to "The coup d'etat of 9 September 1944" - The claim is not supported and there is no evidence for a popular support of the left wing. On the contrary numerous sources suggest that it was a coup d'état provoked by the advance of the Red Army into the country.

change "the executions of some 1,000–3,000 dissidents, war criminals, and members of the former royal elite" to "the executions of some 10,000–30,000 members of the former elite" - the estimated executions were app ten times that figure - 30,000. The so called People's Court's(War Tribunal) credibility was highly compromised and the verdicts were declared unconstitutional with decision 4/1998 of the Constitutional Court of Bulgaria.

change "Compared to wartime levels, national GDP increased five-fold and per capita GDP quadrupled by the 1980s" - remove - this is an unsupported claim - Sources from UN Department of statistics and World Bank statistics show much lower growth

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=BG https://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/Basic Stanislav Genov (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Left-wing uprising" to "coup d'etat" - no argument here;
• The figure of 1,000 to 3,000 pertains to the verdicts by the People's Tribunal. What you are referring to is the violence immediately following the coup, and the figures for those events are exceptionally wide-ranging (from several thousand up to 50,000). Furthermore that violence was not sanctioned by the state per se; rather, the authorities turned a blind eye to atrocities committed primarily (but not entirely) by communist supporters. The sentence in question explicitly refers to the executions by the People's Tribunal, which are in the given range. Whether they were lawful is an entirely different matter.
• The sources on GDP you provided are post-1960 and post-1970. The GDP increase was compared to an earlier period and the figures are available in the source if you look into it carefully. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Russia. Krakkos (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2020

Add Bulgaria is an upper middle income country. The above sentence should be addded somewhere in the last paragraph before the contents table, probably before "Its market economy is part of..." This world bank indicator is icluded in the wikipedia pages for Bulgaria's neighboring countries. Thank you. Seahawk11 (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This information is already in the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Movement for Rights and Freedoms

The Movement for Rights and Freedoms, ([Движение за права и свободи (ДПС), Dvizhenie za prava i svobodi (DPS)] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help); Turkish: Hak ve Özgürlükler Hareketi (HÖH)), is a centrist political party in Bulgaria. It is a member of the Liberal International and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Party, and is a liberal party, whose main goal are the interests of the Muslims and its principal electorate are ethnic minority groups, including Turks and Bulgarian Turks in Turkey.

As parties of ethnic and religious nature are forbidden by the Constitution of Bulgaria, the party has described itself as a party for all Bulgarians, whose aim at the same time is the welfare of the minorities. The party's predecessor during the communist rule in the 1980s was the underground organization Turkish National Freedom Movement. From 2001 to 2009, the party was part of the government, first in a coalition with the National Movement Simeon II (NDSV) party and then with the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP).

The party was chaired by Ahmed Dogan from its official establishment on 4 January 1990 until 19 January 2013. On 19 January 2013, Lütfi Mestan was elected as the second chairman of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms.

36 / 240

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.136.74 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

I think to change the anthem from this, to "Mila Rodino.ogg" will be appropriate. BonsMans1 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@BonsMans1:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

New Article Section: TV & Movie Production ?

see: Pandora_(TV_series) ——→→§→→24.7.104.84 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Map Would Help

Political, or physical ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Balkan_National_Park#/media/File:Relief_Map_of_Bulgaria.jpg ). (I have peeked who the neighbors are. And picture info would help instantly.) Szozdakosvi (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Szozdakosvi, problem fixed or need help? Dinesh (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Dineshswamiin, Thank you, this helps a million. (Hesitancy due 2 dissolution of Yugosl.)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

59.4% Bulgarian Orthodoxy 75.137.169.63 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

After the following paragraph: "All other parties refused to form a government,[162] and after a brief deadlock, another elections were called for July 2021, with Stefan Yanev serving as an interim Prime Minister of a caretaker cabinet until then.[163]"

There should be an additional sentence stating the true political state in the country: "Since May 12, 2021, the country is ruled by Rumen Radev's totalitarian dictatorship, mediated through the interim cabinet put in place by Radev and lead by Radev's close friend, Stefan Yanev, seeking political revanchism towards his political opponents and general destabilization of the country." Kdinev (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Romanization

Bălgariya, Bălgarija or Balgariya? BonsMans1•talk, 13:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021

As a matter of fact, Bulgaria came under the Soviet Bloc as early as 09.09.1944 when the Coup D'état (държавен преврат) was done by the soviet intendants across bulgarian lands. You can use the great work of Stephan Tzanev - Bulgarian Chronicles, vol. 3 as a reference ! MartoSD (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2021

PLEASE change 'Grigor Dimitrov is the first Bulgarian tennis player in the Top 3 ATP Rankings.' to 'Grigor Dimitrov is the first Bulgarian tennis player to have made it into the top 3 of the ATP Rankings.' as he is NO LONGER number 3. He is number 29 in the live rankings and dropping DRAMATICALLY fast and assuredly won't be in the top 30 much longer as he just was defeated in the second round of the US Open with a foot injury and he had a back injury (BAD spasming) earlier this year which forced him to retire from the Australian Open and French Open and he is about 30.5 which is old for a tennis player although Roger Federer Rafael Nadal and Novak Đoković are even older but they are not usual so we SHOULDN'T expect Dimitrov to last that long although he might but it would be surprising to most people who watch tennis including me but I guess it could happen but certainly NOT back to number 3 again unless a mirical happened but nothing is impossible I suppose so fingers crossed. Thankyou. 185.82.217.102 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

https://www.atptour.com/en/players/grigor-dimitrov/d875/rankings-history you can see here on the official page that he is not. Also the current reference only says top 10 not top 3, so I found one that mentions him being number 3: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/sports/tennis/atp-finals-dimitrov-goffin.html . I would just add the second one as his current ranking doesn't matter anymore. Thanks!

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kiril Petkov 2021 (cropped 2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

Could remove ancient macedonian.

On ancient macedonian there is no words of bulgaria empire . There was no macedonia country in that periods Se4eno (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Assuming you're referring to the 2nd paragraph in the lede, this would've been before the first Bulgarian empire Cannolis (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022

Population update: 6520314

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bulgaria Dean ivanov (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TungstenTime (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Response to the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine

On February 28th, 2022, Bulgaria voted in the affirmative in support of the United Nations General Assembly [ES‑11/1]. The resolution condemned the invasion and demanded a full withdrawal of Russian Forces. Robbonj69 (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

Remove the “troublemakers” quote. This is highly inaccurate as all new nations were considered “troublemakers” to the groups of people they were breaking away from to establish a new nation. Read your Bible. Did the Egyptians view the Israelites as trouble makers because they wanted to establish their own nation. Yes. They are not know as the “troublemakers” however. I’m offended. If you make such a claim you have to provide evidence. In what context are they considered trouble makers? This translation is simply wrong. Bulgur is also a whole grain wheat cereal. 2600:1700:E3F0:9C40:8062:7785:3A94:83A (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 晚安 (トークページ) 08:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. casualdejekyll 12:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Anthem

"сила[та]" would translate as force, not strength. снага would translate as strength, and моћ would translate as power. "јачина" is also strength/intensity/'powerfulness'... "сирова снага" would be brute force. --5.43.73.144 (talk); 15:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Largest cities

There's nothing consistent about the templates, they way they are used, or how they are used. So it would be better left to link to the article. Iterresise (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That's really not a sufficient explanation for your actions. If you have a problem with "largest city" templates, starting a discussion at the talk page of a random country is not going to be very productive, as it's not going to be seen by anyone who's not interested in that particular country. As for "link to the article" - what article? Your edit just removed a section without replacing it with a link. In any case, removing the table removes useful information from the article. I'm going to put it back.--Daggerstab (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I can add List of villages in Bulgaria but I've removed many of these sections from other country articles. List of cities and towns in Bulgaria is already linked in the lede under "largest city". Iterresise (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

So the only way for a reader to find that list would be noticing a small piped link in a paragraph densely filled with links? The article lead is also not the place in which most readers would look for information about a country's largest cities. Daggerstab (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

We can take it out of the lede or, which I less prefer, list it out explicitly in a section. What's the call? Iterresise (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Iterresise I totally  Disagree with the massive and unilateral withdrawal of demographic tables from articles about countries and have reported their actions to the administration. You must reach consensus, not promote edit wars. Chronus (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

The image of the prime minister, next to the president’s one, is the photo of the former prime minister Kiril Petkov. Now we have a caretaker government with prime minister Galab Donev. Change the picture and the name below it. Nick710bg (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Population

Population census results have been officially published on the 3rd October 2022. The article still uses the preliminary results published by the NSI. Deostanev (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Where's the publication? If you give me a link, I'll update the article. – Uanfala (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

trying to locate someone in the academy of fine arts in sofa Bulgaria

how to reach some one in the academy of fine arts in Bulgaria sofa 50.211.125.238 (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Knowing less after reading?

This article is even worse (the historcal part) than I've imagined. I wonder if someone will ever allow Bulgarians to explain what Bulgaria is... But then again, why do you need the truth, when you can have control over people's perceptions. Insidious. Utar Sigmal (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to step in and make the improvements needed. Keep in mind, though, that it has to be the truth as reported in reliable sources, not just the truth as you see it, which may be different. Wikipedia:Reliable sources Dgndenver (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Cyrillic

Why is the name of the country in Bulgarian written as "Реnубʌиkа Бъʌƨаpия" and not "Република България"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lepringiski149 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the author was indecisive about roman or italic forms! 154.14.210.18 (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead

Lead should state that Bulgarians became Slavs in the Middle Ages, in the Balkans. Blagodarim vi. 109.245.229.168 (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

Good evening, let me suggest an edit: in the section "Economy", switch Plovdiv with Varna as the 2nd busiest airport in the country (after Sofia Airport) To be clear: departures from Plovdiv Airport per week: 9. Departures from Varna per week: 93. I'm not abilited to edit the Wikipedia English version, I don't have the minimum number of edits to do it. I'm an active member of the Italian version. Thanks --Fochinae (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Fochinae (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2023

, Christianity to be changed to 84%. No religion to be 1,5% and Muslim is 10,5%.The remaining 4% are Catholic and Jewish. 95.43.125.127 (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ancient Capitals of Bulgaria

The current wording of the WikiPage states under First Bulgarian Empire "developed in the capital, Preslav".

As no prior mention of capital has been made in the article, this gives the impression that Preslav was the first capital of Bulgaria. The Wikipage on Pliska states that "Pliska was the first capital of Bulgaria". Unless the reader already knows about Pliska, the article on Bulgaria leads to a false inference.

Please updates the article to include a mention that Pliska was the first capital, Preslav the second, and also that Veliko Tarnovo was the third capital. The Wikipage for Veliko Tarnovo states it was a medieval capital. If you insist that external links are required then that proves that the information on Wikipages just cannot be trusted to be correct and fact

Bulgaria's Many Capitals https://www.vagabond.bg/bulgarias-many-capitals-2990

The old capitals of Bulgaria https://travelista.club/guides/the-old-capitals-of-bulgaria

Three Capitals of Bulgaria in One Week https://vivitravels.com/en/discover-bulgaria/three-capitals-of-bulgaria-in-one-week

A journey to Veliko Tarnovo, the third Medieval capital of Bulgaria https://journeybeyondhorizon.com/veliko-tarnovo-bulgaria

Veliko Tarnovo - History https://www.inyourpocket.com/Veliko-Tarnovo/History

Republic of Bulgaria, Ministry of Tourism -- Official government propaganda web pages

Pliska https://www.tourism.government.bg/en/tourist-destinations/2804/5505

QUOTE Roughly 29 km from Shumen and just 2 km from present-day Pliska are the remains of Bulgaria’s first capital.Pliska was the capital of the First Bulgarian Empire, from 681-893. UNQUOTE

Veliki Preslav (Great Preslav) https://www.tourism.government.bg/en/tourist-destinations/2804/5496

QUOTE After the Preslav Council of the Church and the People of 893 it was declared the capital of the Bulgarian state. UNQUOTE

Veliko Tarnovo Municipality -- Official municipal website https://www.veliko-tarnovo.bg/en/town

QUOTE Tarnovo is the third capital of Bulgaria (from 1187 to 1393). UNQUOTE 88.207.159.108 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Objectivity failure in the introduction part

"Widespread corruption is a major socioeconomic issue; Bulgaria ranks among the most corrupt countries in the European Union."

There is no need for that part in the very top of the page if we are to assume Wikipedia strives for objectivity because of few reasons: 1) No other country that "ranks amongst most corrupt countries in European Union" has it. 2) In fact, close to none other Wikipedia page of a country that ranks worse in the Corruptions Perception index (cited there) has it. (Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, Hungary, Argentina, Brazil, India, Thailand, Turkey... etc.) 3) The link "Widespread Corruption" leads to a page that it's discussing how the corruption situation is improved, contrary to the set tone in the current article.

From the above, we can conclude this information does not add to the objective portrayal of the country's current situation and in fact contributes to an unnecessary negative bias towards the country and its people. At the very least, its part is not in the Introduction/Top. 2A01:5A8:201:79C6:3C29:64E1:5FAD:71F4 (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I support this claim and believe that this information should definitely be edited. This sort of negative information should be in more detailed sections like "Economy" rather than the introductory part which usually consists of mostly historical information about the countries in 99% of the time here in Wikipedia. I believe this has been put there by somebody with bad intentions. As the author above suggest no other European country has negative statistics and information in their summaries. Dwartbg (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)