Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bulgaria: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:07, 29 June 2014 editTropcho (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users628 edits →Infobox dates← Previous edit Revision as of 13:01, 29 June 2014 edit undoFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,181 edits →Infobox dates: reformat for readabilityNext edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 104: Line 104:
:::::: You're getting boring and I'm choosing to ignore you. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :::::: You're getting boring and I'm choosing to ignore you. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::''Ad hominem'', what an impressive argument. I don't think the anonymous user will ever understand what we're talking about, it's useless to keep arguing. - ☣'']'' <sup>]</sup> 06:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC) :::::::''Ad hominem'', what an impressive argument. I don't think the anonymous user will ever understand what we're talking about, it's useless to keep arguing. - ☣'']'' <sup>]</sup> 06:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::: Hi guys, what do you think about ? It makes it clear that there were periods when Bulgaria was not a sovereign state. I also added two important events that have had decisive influence on the development of Bulgaria: the Christianization in the 9th century and the Unification in 1885. ] (]) 11:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Hi guys, what do you think about ? It makes it clear that there were periods when Bulgaria was not a sovereign state. I also added two important events that have had decisive influence on the development of Bulgaria: the Christianization in the 9th century and the Unification in 1885. ] (]) 11:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::: Nope, not suitable. This again makes it look exactly like what it wasn't: a continuous succession of political forms representing "Bulgaria", each building directly on the previous one (and one of which just happened to be called "Ottoman Bulgaria"). No way. Also, the christianization may have been an important point in the cultural development, but it didn't change the political status of the country; likewise, the unification of 1885 may have been important politically, but it was just the expansion of an existing entity, not the formation of a new one. ] ] 12:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC) :Nope, not suitable. This again makes it look exactly like what it wasn't: a continuous succession of political forms representing "Bulgaria", each building directly on the previous one (and one of which just happened to be called "Ottoman Bulgaria"). No way. Also, the christianization may have been an important point in the cultural development, but it didn't change the political status of the country; likewise, the unification of 1885 may have been important politically, but it was just the expansion of an existing entity, not the formation of a new one. ] ] 12:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::: Could you explain how ] implies a continuous succession? Isn't it obvious that Bulgaria lost its sovereignty after it was conquered? If we changed ''Ottoman Bulgaria'' to e.g. ''Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria'' or ''Fall of the Second Bulgarian Empire'', would this be acceptable? Also, regarding your remarks on the Christianization and the Unification, why should we only include events that changed the political status of the country in the ''Formation'' section (as opposed to events that influenced the formation of the country)? ] (]) 12:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC) ::Could you explain how ] implies a continuous succession? Isn't it obvious that Bulgaria lost its sovereignty after it was conquered? If we changed ''Ottoman Bulgaria'' to e.g. ''Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria'' or ''Fall of the Second Bulgarian Empire'', would this be acceptable? Also, regarding your remarks on the Christianization and the Unification, why should we only include events that changed the political status of the country in the ''Formation'' section (as opposed to events that influenced the formation of the country)? ] (]) 12:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
⚫ :::What Fut Perf means is that it provides the implication that a political unit continued throughout these periods, just under different rulership, which is not what happened. Keep in mind the infobox is the shortest of summaries, and the sovereignty section is meant to be the briefest of bullets as to when sovereignty was obtained (although its use has expanded to when the current political status was obtained, whatever that is). ] (]) 14:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
⚫ :::::::::::Tropcho, of course there is direct continuity between First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire and Third Bulgarian State. This is beyond question and no serious historian will argue against it. Britanica clearly states where Bulgaria starts. The real infobox dates should 632 - Old Great Bulgaria, 681 - First Bulgarian Empire, 1185-Second Bulgarian Empire, 1878-Third Bulgarian State. It is useless to argue with the above, they will never change their POV. They will deny everything you list, every source you cite. Their goal is clear - to state that the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire are not Bulgarian or at least not related, which helps their long term strategy for the invention of a Macedonian nation and state, think Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, etc. which existed from antiquity and the middle ages. That's it. The other thing is that direct political continuity is completely unimportant for the info box, no other country cares for this in their info box, neither Spain, Germany, Ireland, Poland, etc. Yet, they claim again and again that it is important. Well, it is not. What is important is to show how Bulgaria formed thru the ages. So, don't waste your time with them.
⚫ ::::Thanks, Chipmunkdavis for the clarification. I understand that this is what Fut Perf meant. This is why I asked him why he thinks that ''Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria'' implies a continuous succession of political forms. Also, previously someone mentioned that '''' clearly states that modern Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe (''Founded in the 7th century, Bulgaria is one of the oldest states on the European continent.'') Obviously the authors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article saw continuity of some kind in Bulgarian statehood (btw, compare this with Fut. Perf.'s claim above that they were '''unrelated entities'''). In this connection I would like to ask why some people insist on legal or political continuity, and why other kinds of continuity are not sufficient? What is this requirement based on? As far as I can tell, it's not implied anywhere in the template description (the ] indicates that the ''established_event'' fields are for ''key events in history of country/territory's status or formation''), and from the discussion above I infer that there's no wiki-wide consensus on this. So I would like to know why political continuity is necessary, while other kinds are not sufficient. ] (]) 22:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
⚫ ::::::::::::What Fut Perf means is that it provides the implication that a political unit continued throughout these periods, just under different rulership, which is not what happened. Keep in mind the infobox is the shortest of summaries, and the sovereignty section is meant to be the briefest of bullets as to when sovereignty was obtained (although its use has expanded to when the current political status was obtained, whatever that is). ] (]) 14:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
⚫ :::::It's not the specific wording really, it's the presentation system. It's the implication that some entity went through a series of events, such as Byzantine and Ottoman conquest. I don't think its obvious that the authors of Britannica saw a continuity in political statehood. Near the start is also says "Bulgaria gained its independence in the late 19th century", which isn't placed with a connection to any previous Bulgaria. Furthermore the more detailed parts are very clear that the Bulgarian national revival was initially cultural rather than political, and was primarily a result of widespread education. (They additionally very quickly state that Turkish influence had a large effect on Bulgaria, but no-one is trying to even get that anywhere in the prose of this article.) As for political continuity, that's used because this is an article about a political entity, so it's simply the type of continuity defined by the topic at hand. ] (]) 03:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
⚫ :::::::::::::Thanks, Chipmunkdavis for the clarification. I understand that this is what Fut Perf meant. This is why I asked him why he thinks that ''Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria'' implies a continuous succession of political forms. Also, previously someone mentioned that '''' clearly states that modern Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe (''Founded in the 7th century, Bulgaria is one of the oldest states on the European continent.'') Obviously the authors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article saw continuity of some kind in Bulgarian statehood (btw, compare this with Fut. Perf.'s claim above that they were '''unrelated entities'''). In this connection I would like to ask why some people insist on legal or political continuity, and why other kinds of continuity are not sufficient? What is this requirement based on? As far as I can tell, it's not implied anywhere in the template description (the ] indicates that the ''established_event'' fields are for ''key events in history of country/territory's status or formation''), and from the discussion above I infer that there's no wiki-wide consensus on this. So I would like to know why political continuity is necessary, while other kinds are not sufficient. ] (]) 22:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
⚫ ::::::It is true that the statement about Bulgaria gaining its independence in the late 19th century doesn't explicitly mention a previous Bulgaria. But neither does it explicitly rule out the possibility that Bulgaria existed before gaining its independence, does it? On the other hand, the statement that Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe, along with the following statement in the section '''' (preceding the section ''First Bulgarian Empire''): '''The Byzantine emperor Constantine IV led an army against the Bulgars but was defeated, and in 681 Byzantium recognized by treaty Bulgar control of the region between the Balkans and the Danube. This is considered to be the starting point of the Bulgarian state.''', is a clear indication that the authors of Encyclopaedia Britannica believe that ''some entity'' (as you put it) went through a series of events, and that modern Bulgaria is closely related to the First and Second Bulgarian Empires (sufficiently related to be considered their continuation - otherwise why would the authors call it one of the oldest states in Europe?). Wouldn't you agree? ] (]) 10:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
⚫ ::::::::::::::It's not the specific wording really, it's the presentation system. It's the implication that some entity went through a series of events, such as Byzantine and Ottoman conquest. I don't think its obvious that the authors of Britannica saw a continuity in political statehood. Near the start is also says "Bulgaria gained its independence in the late 19th century", which isn't placed with a connection to any previous Bulgaria. Furthermore the more detailed parts are very clear that the Bulgarian national revival was initially cultural rather than political, and was primarily a result of widespread education. (They additionally very quickly state that Turkish influence had a large effect on Bulgaria, but no-one is trying to even get that anywhere in the prose of this article.) As for political continuity, that's used because this is an article about a political entity, so it's simply the type of continuity defined by the topic at hand. ] (]) 03:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::What are you even blathering on about? We are already including those freaking empires in the box, so what the hell more do you want? We are not talking about whether or not we should include them; all we are talking about is your attempt at obscuring the situation, by giving as little as possible visibility to the fact that there are large temporal gaps between these states. This will not be tolerated, full stop. As for the contention that something could be the "continuation" of something else from which it is separated by half a millenium, this is simply not something that reasonable people can reaonably disagree about. It's a simple fact of the English language. Look up what "continuation" means. Continuation entails temporal continuaity. Debate over. ] ] 10:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
⚫ :::::::::::::::It is true that the statement about Bulgaria gaining its independence in the late 19th century doesn't explicitly mention a previous Bulgaria. But neither does it explicitly rule out the possibility that Bulgaria existed before gaining its independence, does it? On the other hand, the statement that Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe, along with the following statement in the section '''' (preceding the section ''First Bulgarian Empire''): '''The Byzantine emperor Constantine IV led an army against the Bulgars but was defeated, and in 681 Byzantium recognized by treaty Bulgar control of the region between the Balkans and the Danube. This is considered to be the starting point of the Bulgarian state.''', is a clear indication that the authors of Encyclopaedia Britannica believe that ''some entity'' (as you put it) went through a series of events, and that modern Bulgaria is closely related to the First and Second Bulgarian Empires (sufficiently related to be considered their continuation - otherwise why would the authors call it one of the oldest states in Europe?). Wouldn't you agree? ] (]) 10:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

{{hat|collapsed}}
⚫ Tropcho, of course there is direct continuity between First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire and Third Bulgarian State. This is beyond question and no serious historian will argue against it. Britanica clearly states where Bulgaria starts. The real infobox dates should 632 - Old Great Bulgaria, 681 - First Bulgarian Empire, 1185-Second Bulgarian Empire, 1878-Third Bulgarian State. It is useless to argue with the above, they will never change their POV. They will deny everything you list, every source you cite. Their goal is clear - to state that the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire are not Bulgarian or at least not related, which helps their long term strategy for the invention of a Macedonian nation and state, think Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, etc. which existed from antiquity and the middle ages. That's it. The other thing is that direct political continuity is completely unimportant for the info box, no other country cares for this in their info box, neither Spain, Germany, Ireland, Poland, etc. Yet, they claim again and again that it is important. Well, it is not. What is important is to show how Bulgaria formed thru the ages. So, don't waste your time with them.{{unsinged|76.99.126.199| 13:44, 28 June 2014}}
{{hab}}

Revision as of 13:01, 29 June 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bulgaria article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why were my edits to the intro section removed ?
A1: The intro represents a summary of the article itself. It should present, in a nutshell, the sourced information in the sections below, without unnecessary details. Therefore its structure should not be changed either, unless there is a general restructuring of the article itself.


Q2: The national motto is "Strength through unity", not "Unity makes strength" ?
A2: The national motto of Bulgaria is based on a phrase that was first used as a motto by the Dutch Republic in 1581. The phrase was later adopted by Belgium, as L'Union fait la force, and in turn by the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which ruled Bulgaria after its Liberation, in 1887.


Q3: Why was my image removed ?
A3: This is not a picture gallery. Images should illustrate information that is present in the text; they should illustrate the most significant points of a section and should be with near-Featured Image (if not FI) quality. If you think your image is good, consider proposing it for Featured Image status at Wikimedia Commons. Also, images of "modern buildings" are completely undesired; "modern" could mean anything and a building could never represent the entire economy of the country. If you want to remove or replace an image, please, discuss it with the community on the talk page. For more information, read Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Images.


Q4: Bulgaria is ranked as the 98th-largest petroleum producer and was 5th on the Handball European League in 1996, this is important information, why do you remove it ?
A4: Avoid including facts that are neither statistically informative nor significant on a global, or at least on a continental level. As the intro summarizes the article itself, the sections summarize the content of their respective main articles in the same manner. Include any information more detailed than the usual in the relevant History, Geography, Economy mains, not here. This page only presents the most basic information, along with the statistically superlative items of the country - Bulgaria being the largest essential oil producer globally or the site of the first man-made structures (yet discovered) in Europe is something significant; a Bulgarian making it up to the Wimbledon semifinals or discovering a sixth heart sound is not. Consider reading Misplaced Pages:Summary style and Misplaced Pages:UNDUE.


Q5: I have added information on the origin of the Bulgars/Thracians, why was it removed ?
A5: This article's historical section is only dealing with how the Bulgarian state formed. The origins of its constituent peoples are out of its scope and should not be included.


Q6: There are no positive developments pointed out in the Ottoman rule section, this is not a neutral point of view ?
A6: The events presented are a collection of sourced statements and historical developments. After all, the Ottoman era represents a long-lasting military occupation.
Good articleBulgaria has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 29, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 2, 2010Good article nomineeListed
November 6, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
January 20, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 9, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WP1.0Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBulgaria Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEurovision Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 18 dates. March 3, 2004, September 22, 2005, September 22, 2006, March 3, 2007, September 22, 2007, March 3, 2008, September 22, 2008, March 3, 2009, September 22, 2009, March 3, 2010, September 22, 2010, March 3, 2011, September 22, 2011, March 3, 2012, September 22, 2012, March 3, 2013, September 22, 2013, and March 3, 2014

Archives
  1. 2004 – Jan 2008
  2. Jan 2008 – Feb 2009
  3. Mar 2009 – Jun 2010
  4. Jul 2010 – Jun 2012
  5. Jul 2012 – Sep 2012
  6. Sep 2012 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Sovereignty dates in the Infobox

I provide here again the discussion from the Archives, to remember the result. There was not reached a consensus to put 630, i.e. Old Great Bulgaria into the info-box. Jingiby (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Also check Encyclopedia Britannica online: The Byzantine emperor Constantine IV led an army against the Bulgars but was defeated, and in 681 Byzantium recognized by treaty Bulgar control of the region between the Balkans and the Danube. This is considered to be the starting point of the Bulgarian state.. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Bălgariya or Bălgarija

According to ISO 9, romanization of cyrilic alphabets: it shoudl be Republika Bălgarija more correctly also see this above the flags. Anton.aldemir (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Photos in "Culture"

I know certain Bulgarians have an obsession with sticking Rila Monastery and the Panagyurishte Treasure wherever they see fit, but please, don't do it here. None of the photos introduced go well with the text, nor do they represent an improvement. - ☣Tourbillon 16:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox dates

What is the reason for not providing our readers with the end dates of the medieval kingdoms? CMD (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

These are formation or establishment dates, no other country has end dates. End dates add no value and clutter the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.126.199 (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Other countries usually don't have dates concerning earlier states that are divided from the current nation state by half a millennium of non-statehood either. If we are going to have these earlier incarnations at all, then it is crucial to show that they don't form a continuous tradition of one foundation event simply building upon the previous one, but are unrelated entities widely separated in time. The alternative is to not list them at all. Fine with me, but I suppose people won't like re-opening that debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The version without the end dates has been around for years, you're offering no reasonable arguments here, Britanica clearly states where modern Bulgaria starts. Sooner of later the end dates will be removed. I don't have more time to waste here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.51.178 (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And if you want examples, look at Poland, Serbia, Croatia, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.51.178 (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

And, unsurprisingly, the Poland and Serbia articles also duly include the end dates of the prior states (1795 and 1459 respectively), only they aren't using the format of year ranges but have extra entries in the timeline instead, which is just a bit less elegant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
We achieved consensus to distinguish Medieval entities from the modern one. In fact, adding end dates only does it better and is therefore an improvement. The rest is WP:OTHERSTUFF and by extension, irrelevant. - ☣Tourbillon 16:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, nothing specific, just your POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.51.178 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really fail to see the reason for even debating on the topic. What is the rationale behind removing the end dates? How is this an improvement? End dates do not 'clutter' the article, at least as I see it. Plus, they add valuable info about this not being a continuous state, but a country that ceased its existence for vast periods of time. Hence, the different numerical identifiers for each state. --Laveol 22:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Because, the template is for establishment dates, not date ranges. It is important to the reader when the entity was formed, as this is the formation section. But you have nothing to worry, you can all now safely go and build Tsar Samuil another monument and put a quote from some of your distinguished academics on it :) or when you discover that the First Bulgarian Empire was in fact The Empire of the Macedonians, make sure to reflect it in the article. I'm sure we can all agree to close this discussion now, as while entertaining it is clear we agree to disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.126.199 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It's for the establishment dates of the state the article is about, not states that disappeared centuries before the article's subject came into being. This is why its structure is event dates, as each should lead directly to the next. Once you include dates for events that do not last until the next one, the lack of end dates grossly misleads the reader into assuming each follows directly from the previous. CMD (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You're getting boring and I'm choosing to ignore you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.126.199 (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Ad hominem, what an impressive argument. I don't think the anonymous user will ever understand what we're talking about, it's useless to keep arguing. - ☣Tourbillon 06:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, what do you think about this proopsal? It makes it clear that there were periods when Bulgaria was not a sovereign state. I also added two important events that have had decisive influence on the development of Bulgaria: the Christianization in the 9th century and the Unification in 1885. Tropcho (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not suitable. This again makes it look exactly like what it wasn't: a continuous succession of political forms representing "Bulgaria", each building directly on the previous one (and one of which just happened to be called "Ottoman Bulgaria"). No way. Also, the christianization may have been an important point in the cultural development, but it didn't change the political status of the country; likewise, the unification of 1885 may have been important politically, but it was just the expansion of an existing entity, not the formation of a new one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Could you explain how Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria implies a continuous succession? Isn't it obvious that Bulgaria lost its sovereignty after it was conquered? If we changed Ottoman Bulgaria to e.g. Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria or Fall of the Second Bulgarian Empire, would this be acceptable? Also, regarding your remarks on the Christianization and the Unification, why should we only include events that changed the political status of the country in the Formation section (as opposed to events that influenced the formation of the country)? Tropcho (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
What Fut Perf means is that it provides the implication that a political unit continued throughout these periods, just under different rulership, which is not what happened. Keep in mind the infobox is the shortest of summaries, and the sovereignty section is meant to be the briefest of bullets as to when sovereignty was obtained (although its use has expanded to when the current political status was obtained, whatever that is). CMD (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Chipmunkdavis for the clarification. I understand that this is what Fut Perf meant. This is why I asked him why he thinks that Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria implies a continuous succession of political forms. Also, previously someone mentioned that Encyclopaedia Britannica clearly states that modern Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe (Founded in the 7th century, Bulgaria is one of the oldest states on the European continent.) Obviously the authors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article saw continuity of some kind in Bulgarian statehood (btw, compare this with Fut. Perf.'s claim above that they were unrelated entities). In this connection I would like to ask why some people insist on legal or political continuity, and why other kinds of continuity are not sufficient? What is this requirement based on? As far as I can tell, it's not implied anywhere in the template description (the Template:Infobox_country indicates that the established_event fields are for key events in history of country/territory's status or formation), and from the discussion above I infer that there's no wiki-wide consensus on this. So I would like to know why political continuity is necessary, while other kinds are not sufficient. Tropcho (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not the specific wording really, it's the presentation system. It's the implication that some entity went through a series of events, such as Byzantine and Ottoman conquest. I don't think its obvious that the authors of Britannica saw a continuity in political statehood. Near the start is also says "Bulgaria gained its independence in the late 19th century", which isn't placed with a connection to any previous Bulgaria. Furthermore the more detailed parts are very clear that the Bulgarian national revival was initially cultural rather than political, and was primarily a result of widespread education. (They additionally very quickly state that Turkish influence had a large effect on Bulgaria, but no-one is trying to even get that anywhere in the prose of this article.) As for political continuity, that's used because this is an article about a political entity, so it's simply the type of continuity defined by the topic at hand. CMD (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It is true that the statement about Bulgaria gaining its independence in the late 19th century doesn't explicitly mention a previous Bulgaria. But neither does it explicitly rule out the possibility that Bulgaria existed before gaining its independence, does it? On the other hand, the statement that Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe, along with the following statement in the section Beginnings of Modern Bulgaria (preceding the section First Bulgarian Empire): The Byzantine emperor Constantine IV led an army against the Bulgars but was defeated, and in 681 Byzantium recognized by treaty Bulgar control of the region between the Balkans and the Danube. This is considered to be the starting point of the Bulgarian state., is a clear indication that the authors of Encyclopaedia Britannica believe that some entity (as you put it) went through a series of events, and that modern Bulgaria is closely related to the First and Second Bulgarian Empires (sufficiently related to be considered their continuation - otherwise why would the authors call it one of the oldest states in Europe?). Wouldn't you agree? Tropcho (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
What are you even blathering on about? We are already including those freaking empires in the box, so what the hell more do you want? We are not talking about whether or not we should include them; all we are talking about is your attempt at obscuring the situation, by giving as little as possible visibility to the fact that there are large temporal gaps between these states. This will not be tolerated, full stop. As for the contention that something could be the "continuation" of something else from which it is separated by half a millenium, this is simply not something that reasonable people can reaonably disagree about. It's a simple fact of the English language. Look up what "continuation" means. Continuation entails temporal continuaity. Debate over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Tropcho, of course there is direct continuity between First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire and Third Bulgarian State. This is beyond question and no serious historian will argue against it. Britanica clearly states where Bulgaria starts. The real infobox dates should 632 - Old Great Bulgaria, 681 - First Bulgarian Empire, 1185-Second Bulgarian Empire, 1878-Third Bulgarian State. It is useless to argue with the above, they will never change their POV. They will deny everything you list, every source you cite. Their goal is clear - to state that the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire are not Bulgarian or at least not related, which helps their long term strategy for the invention of a Macedonian nation and state, think Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, etc. which existed from antiquity and the middle ages. That's it. The other thing is that direct political continuity is completely unimportant for the info box, no other country cares for this in their info box, neither Spain, Germany, Ireland, Poland, etc. Yet, they claim again and again that it is important. Well, it is not. What is important is to show how Bulgaria formed thru the ages. So, don't waste your time with them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.126.199 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Categories: