Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:47, 13 September 2012

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 3 months

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.

	Bulgaria 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 Date Process Result January 29, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 2, 2010 Good article nominee Listed November 6, 2011 Peer review Reviewed January 20, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 9, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

Template:VA

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. Bulgaria Top‑importance This 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 Top This 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. Countries This 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: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

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 14 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, and March 3, 2012

Archives

2004-Jan 2008 Jan 2008-Feb 2009 Mar 2009-Jun 2010 Jul 2010-Nov 2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Cyrillic and IPA names in opening sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ottoman tone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem with Bulgarian flags of the late 1940s

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

1946  Flag of Bulgaria (1948-1967).svg

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

1946  Flag of Bulgaria (1946-1967).svg 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sovereignty dates in the Infobox

To prevent any further reverts, why not just discuss the issue with different dates of establishment here. I personally am ok with the present version. Does anybody, and if he does - why, object to the current wording?--Laveol 23:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The infobox section regarding dates is designed to show the establishment of sovereignty. This is very different from showing a history of former states, or a history of the area. Bulgaria arose from the Principality established under the Ottomans that became independent in the early 20th century. It formed under a national identity, that connected it to the previous kingdoms, but it was a completely different and new state. The old kingdoms have no link that leads to the modern state. There was no legal groundwork the modern state grew off, and succession of governments. The new state was based of an ethnicity, not off a former state. The former states are correctly discussed in the history section. They're important history, but weren't part of creating the Bulgaria of today. CMD (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

While I know that other crap is not important, I have to raise a question. Does this mean that all infoboxes of countries are wrong at present? And if so, shouldn't the issue be discussed at another level? (Germany has Holly Roman Empire, France goes even back to Francia, Serbia - to the First Serb Principality, Norway - to the Unification of 882, Spain - to 569, etc)--Laveol 23:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all. There are some great ones from FAs like Indonesia and Chad, which are short and simple. India doesn't even mention the establishment of the Raj, which is the direct predecessor to the modern Republic. Many countries in Western Europe are going to stretch further back than those of Eastern Europe. What was Francia steadily evolved into modern France. The Holy Roman Empire steadily changed into modern Germany. At no point were France and Germany absorbed into another state or Empire. Norway similarly has had some established entity since unification, with most change coming from shifting the personal union Norway fell under. Serbia, on the other hand, like Bulgaria, was totally absorbed by the Ottomans, so that one probably should be changed. Serbia and Bulgaria managed to break away from the Ottoman Empire and build up a state from nothing, and then maintain that state. Surely that's something to be proud of, without the need to try and establish predecessors. CMD (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I consider three dates to be a bit too much for the infobox. Given the comprehensive history section I really don't see a pressing need to have the 681 date in the box. - ☣Tourbillon 07:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I too agree with CMD in principle. Several of the other examples are debatable, but what matters is that we get this one right here. As far as the political history in the infobox(mtbih) is concerned, it should deal exclusively with the modern state. Predecessor states that have a direct line of political succession might be included, but there are none such in the case of Bulgaria. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the date of the establishment of the modern state 1878 will be enough. Jingiby (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A well raised question by Laveol. As many other states still have the dates of establishment I think either all countries should be changed or none. Many states from Europe, probably the most of them, still keep the foundation dates and will be not fair if Bulgaria is the only state in Europe where it will be removed.--Ceco31 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not an issue of keeping the foundation date, provided there is a foundation date. Nobody is objecting against foundation dates as such. What people object to is including political entities that are historically unconnected to the present nation states. France and China are unproblematic; Germany and Iran are debatable; Egypt, Serbia and Bulgaria are obvious examples of cases where no such continuity exists. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't know about Egypt, but you are quite wrong about Serbia and Bulgaria I believe. Apcbg (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You cannot seriously be claiming that the present Bulgarian state is in any meaningful sense "the same" state as the medieval kingdoms, from which it is separated by half a millennium during which no such state existed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, confirm that you are claiming that China and France are unproblematic but Bulgaria is the problem because this is the way I understand you. Then Ancient China in 221 BC before 3 millennia and Francia in 486 are predecessors of the present nation states and were the same political entities but Bulgaria in the Middle Ages is not? Then you are wrong for Serbia and Bulgaria, they are connected to the present nation states. Their medieval states had the same language, religion etc., and do not have to do with the case of the Arab state named Egypt. I provided a source from the majority view for such cases that was saying that medieval Bulgaria was the same entity and the foundation date is in 681, but somebody deleted it: (Pickard, Rob; Çeliku, Florent (2008), Analysis and Reform of Cultural Heritage Policies in South-East Europe, Council of Europe, p. 39)
On the same way you cannot claim that China is the same entity as the state before 2 millenia and that medieval Bulgaria is not, therefore either all or none of the states must be corrected I believe.--Ceco31 (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The point is not similarity of names and languages etc. The point is unbroken political continuity of statehood. In France, there was an unbroken continuity of royal succession of people who called themselves "kings of France" from the early middle ages to the French revolution, and after that there were merely changes of political regime, but immediate and direct identity of territory, legal continuity and so on. So, yes, France is still the "same" state as it was under Hugh Capet. This is obviously not the case for Bulgaria. BTW, I can't access the google source you named above, so, what does it say? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a direct link between all the dynasties of China, who each considered their rule legitimised by the passing of the mandate of heaven from the previous ruling family. CMD (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If we're to look into dynasty claims then why not mention that Boris III claims to come after Boris II and Boris I, much like Simeon II is second to Simeon I. I am not too fond of the date either, but it is the first time a political entity with the name Bulgaria was officially recognised. Does all this mean that by the same criteria there was no direct continuity between the First and Second Bulgarian states (or empires or whatever). Should we rename those? --Laveol 14:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would we need to rename them? No, obviously, there was no direct continuity between them either, and that's precisely why we are already, quite rightly, treating them as separate. We are not claiming, in the article on the "Second" empire, that it was "founded" in 681, are we? That would be absurd. Just as absurd, in fact, as claiming that the present Bulgaria was founded back then. – The numbering of monarchs is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the point CMD and I were making. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea is that there is no continuity of government, plain and simple. No matter what post-1878 Bulgarian monarchs claim in terms of numbering, they are in no way related to the dynasties of the Second Bulgarian Empire. None of the royal houses of medieval Bulgaria - namely Shishman and Sratsimir - survived beyond the Second Empire, unlike dynasties in France and China, which were in power as late as 1830 in the case of the former and 1912 in the case of the latter. That is why listing 681 as a foundation date is irrelevant. 94.26.47.115 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching the back-and-forth regarding the dates for a while now. I tend to agree that the info box should only list the date(s) concerning the present political entity. I am a big fan of Bulgaria, but the fact is that the old empires were subsumed under Ottoman rule and for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist. 1878 would be the earliest conceivable date from which there has been direct continuity of the current political entity. The other dates (including 681) belong in the History section, not in the info box.--William Thweatt 17:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, my personal opinion is that the 681 wouldn't be redundant, as nine establishment dates are allowed in the template. But since there seems to be a consensus on the matter, so be it. --Laveol 20:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why the direct continuity is so important? It is not observed in mаny states - (Iran, Armenia, Spain etc.) and should the dates be necessarily removed there? I don't see why. Concerning the claim that the "Second" empire" was founded in 681 would be absurd and that the first empire should be necessarily treated as a separate, I believe in the opposite - "The two "Bulgarian Empires" are not treated as separate entities, but rather as one state restored after a period of Byzantine rule over its territory." - see if you want Bulgarian Empire. And the same applies for other cases, direct continuity is not necessary for a state to be the same as other, this I see as unnecessarily deepening and what can only cause the removing of valuable information around Misplaced Pages. For example if I see the Achaemenid Empire and a date in BC in the template of Iran I would appreciate this info and I wouldn't care whether there was a direct continuity or not between them, but If I see established in 1900 it will looks quite dumb. As nine establishment dates are allowed in the template, my opinion is as this of Laveol, but if the entities without direct continuity will be removed, they should be removed in all of the states, not only in Bulgaria and Serbia.--Ceco31 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Fut. Perf., sorry I can't paste the text from this Google book, see these they said the same:

Bulgaria, Indiana University, 1987, p. 53

Erik Kooper (2006), The Medieval Chronicle IV, p. 97

R. J. Crampton (2005), A Concise History Of Bulgaria, Cambridge University Press, p. 9

Francisco Rodríguez Adrados (2005), A History of the Greek Language, BRILL, p. 265

M. Avrum Ehrlich (2008), Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora, ABC-CLIO, p. 954

--Ceco31 (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This says that is one of the oldest sovereign states in Europe founded in 681:

Juliet Lodge (2010), The 2009 Elections to the European Parliament, Palgrave MacMillan, p. 60
--Ceco31 (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuity is important because post-1878 Bulgaria has nothing to do with the Medieval Bulgarian State, neither legally nor politically. You can provide as many sources on the foundation of Bulgarian statehood as you like, but that does not in any way counter the fact that the Third Bulgarian State is basically the only incarnation of a modern Bulgarian state, thus, the one this article is about. Besides, why filling the infobox with so much useless information (incl. ethnic groups) when everything is mentioned in the article ? - ☣Tourbillon 12:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ceco: none of the scholarly sources you link to above say anything even remotely relevant to the question of whether it is legitimate to call the present-day Bulgarian state a continuation of the medieval ones. The only sources that make such a claim (the Juliet Lodge one at the bottom of your list, and the "Analysis and Reform of Cultural Heritage Policies" thing you cited earlier) are not scholarly sources, but political statements. All this stuff about "oldest state" is nothing but patriotic feel-good fluff, and just looks silly everywhere else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is about Bulgaria, all of the linked above show when the questionable state (not Second, First Bulgarian Kingdom etc. but Bulgaria) was founded. They say that the same state for which the article is about was founded in the questionable year, aren't them? This isn't enough put this foundation date in the template of the article? If a claim saying that the same state as the modern was founded in 681 does not mean the continuation between it and the modern state then what exactly does? What type of claim is required then, I suppose that there are scholarly sources in the web that make the more exact claim, but is it needed to be listed again? --Ceco31 (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

All of the above mean the foundation of a Bulgarian state in the Middle Ages, obviously. It is explained several times above why modern Bulgaria has no relation to the previous states. - ☣Tourbillon 14:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, they say the foundation or the appearing in the map of Bulgaria or of the Bulgarian state, except one of them (R. J. Crampton, A Concise History Of Bulgaria) which tells the foundation of Medieval Bulgaria. I hope I don't have to make quotes.--Ceco31 (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, indeed, you don't need to support your claim with more quotations. We others here have quite well understood what the logical error in your position is. I'm not very optimistic that we will be able to make you understand it too, but rest assured that we understand you perfectly well. You have made your point and there is no need to compound it further at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To maintain that "modern Bulgaria has no relation to the previous states" is beyond me; it defies common sense. Naturally such predecessors would rather be medieval than 23rd century states :-) By the way, the oldest European state is most certainly Armenia. Apcbg (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It defies common sense because...? Because Bulgaria has no political or legal common ground with the Second Bulgarian Empire ? They're not even fully culturally identical, given the five centuries of Islamic Ottoman influence. Anyway, the question is more or less solved, so I don't see a point in discussing this matter any further. - ☣Tourbillon 15:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are not "fully culturally identical", not as fully as modern France and Francia of the Franks featured in the infobox of France article. But wait, then modern Germany may also be "culturally identical" with Francia ... hence France and Germany are culturally identical too. Great, didn't know it. Apcbg (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Because predecessors are to be found in the past not in the future, very good joke from Apcbg. Tell us why Bulgaria has no relation and has nothing to do with the Medieval Bulgarian State and why the Chinese state from 220 BC is the same state as Modern China? About Armenia, the explanation of the most common sense is that it is most likely founded in 1990 but may also be waiting for a new extraterrestrial predsuccesor or what?--Ceco31 (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Apcbg and Ceco31. Although modern Bulgaria is not a direct successor of the First and the Second Bulgarian states (obviously because of time lapse), it does claim to be a successor and it is in many aspects. If we apply 1878 as a foundation date, then Russia has to be changed to 1991, Poland to 1918, Serbia to 2006, Hungary to 1918 and so on. All mentioned countries claim earlier foundation and their Medieval states are as distant in political aspect as is Medieval Bulgaria to modern one. In my opinion, if the prevailing consensus is to include only the foundation year of the modern state, then it must be done to all countries; that is why I suggested the discussion to be held in WP:Countries so that we can see more opinions. --Gligan (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems somebody doesn't read, so I'll have to repeat. Bulgaria has no connection to the Medieval Bulgarian states because there is no continuity of legal entities, political institutions, dynasties or any form of government, for that matter. No institution or royal house from the Second Bulgarian Empire survived after its fall. Which is not the case of France, Germany, China or Russia, which all preserved dynastic rule and aristocracy to some point in the 19th or 20th centuries (1830, 1919, 1912 and 1917, respectively), when they transformed into republics or federations. Bulgaria has a 500 year gap in statehood, if you haven't noticed. And I really don't understand why Armenia is brought up as an example and why should other countries have such changes - it's a unique case for every country.- ☣Tourbillon 08:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you have reneged on France and Germany being "culturally identical" :-) All these articles are about the countries not about their administration or dynasties. There are many aspects preserved during temporary foreign domination and providing for continuity and succession. See for instance the Poland article and its infobox, that country did lose its independence in the past too. And more so the Czech Republic in 1620-1918, and still more so Croatia in 1102-1918; cf. their articles' infoboxes as well. Apparently by "unique case for every country" you mean that it's one rule applied to Bulgaria and another in the case of other countries. A "unique case" of NPOV indeed. Apcbg (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's funny how you distort things and keep adding other examples in an attempt to prove your point. Continuity of government is the principal marker for a country's existence - until the 16th century the king was the country. There is no "infobox rule" as much as you may like to think there is. We're not talking about Poland, Armenia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Djibouti or Bhutan, we're talking about Bulgaria and the fact that between its Medieval incarnation and its modern one there is a period of half a millenium where nothing but the name Bulgaria, the local language and folk culture (itself a blend of many cultures) existed. Is it that hard to understand that a modern monarchy has nothing in common, neither politically nor legally, with a 14th century empire ? I would like to hear a solid argument on the statement that there is continuity between the two entities mentioned. "Oh but look the other countryz" is not an argument. - ☣Tourbillon 10:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is no rule as you say, then one definitely has to look at the other countries' articles. And the examples I gave demonstrate that there is nothing particularly special in the Bulgarian case to justify that it should be treated differently than the others. Apcbg (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm repeating my questions - what is the legal and political basis to consider the Principality of Bulgaria a successor to the Second Bulgarian Empire and where is the continuity between the two ? - ☣Tourbillon 11:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You are not in a position to ask questions. You need to provide answers, for the burden of proof is on you. You are the one suggesting that Bulgaria should be treated differently from the other countries (like those considered above), so it is up to you to substantiate that suggestion and explain why Bulgaria article should be a deviation from the existing English WP practice.

Rather than do that, you go into self-contradictory reasoning: first you claim there is no rule, then you proceed to introduce a self-style one (some specific continuity) that neither derives from nor is it in conformity with the existing practice, demanding that your rule is enforced for Bulgaria alone. Apcbg (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well you can either answer the question, which is directly concerning the issue whether or not 681 AD should be added as a date of establishment, or you can keep ranting how I contradict myself, I don't have a neutral point of view (whatever that means in this case), or to state that there are some imaginary double standard rules. If you answer the question, the dispute is solved, if you don't - your statements will be ignored because they are becoming increasingly off-topic. The choice is yours. - ☣Tourbillon 13:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"... the issue whether or not 681 AD should be added etc."

— Nope.

There is no such issue.

The year 681 AD is in the infobox, and has been there since 2006.

Apcbg (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Filibustering won't help you. Just because you refuse to understand the argument for removal doesn't make the argument go away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I never rejected that argument. Why, it's a valid albeit not the single one. Which does not justify its selective application let alone the refusal to address other valid arguments. And as I am quite sure that you understand all this very well, I'm not wasting my time in further unconstructive exchanges here. Nevertheless, I remain satisfied that the present aberration will be fixed earlier or later. Apcbg (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ceco31, I would advise you to stop adding the date and edit warring. If you have a solid argument on why the year 681, or 1185, or anything different than 1878, should be added as a date of sovereignty, please present it. - ☣Tourbillon 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that 681 should be added in the infobox. Look at Germany's page. It lists the date of the formation of the Holy Roman Empire, then the creation of the modern German state after it ceased to exist for 65 years. I'm giving Germany as an example because it an another state which had a period in which it didn't exist. Look at every source about Bulgaria. Everywhere it says that the country is founded 681. The best way to frormulate is to give the year of foundation (681), the years of the foundation of the newest state (1878/1908) and the year of the foundation of the current state system (15 November 1990). --V3n0M93 (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Three questions: Where is the continuity between the Medieval Bulgarian empires and the modern state ? Do you make a difference between date of statehood and date of sovereingty ? And finally, if we are to add 1990, why not mention 1946 as well ? - ☣Tourbillon 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys:

I don't understand why some folks keep reverting my changes on Formation of Bulgaria to Independence. Bulgaria's history goes well and beyond 1878, thus it is really imperative that we present the full picture of Bulgarian history to the end user. Using formation follows the same approach as countries like Poland, Hungary, Czech republic, Germany, France, etc. Please, stop reverting these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.157.163 (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Consider reading the discussion above and presenting some valid arguments. In the meantime, stop reverting a version which has been agreed upon, your edits constitute vandalism. - ☣Tourbillon 21:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tourbillon - Removing 12 centuries of Bulgaria's history is vandalism. The linkage between The Second Bulgarian Empire and the Tsardom of Bulgaria is clear and completely out of question, both use the same religion, same symbols, same identity and same language. Names of cities are the same, etc. Please, stop editing the Info box, as your edits constitute vandalism.

Some more arguments for the continuation. After 1421, a good number of Bulgarians remained autonomous mainly in the mountain passes, they were fully armed and self-governing. Bulgarian titles like Boyars remained in use north of the Danube (Turgovished (a purely Bulgarian name) was the capital until XVII century, which continued to use Bulgarian script until 1829. When Bulgaria was re-established in 1878, the church continued to use Old Bulgarian, verbatim the same language used in the Second Bulgarian Empire. It was only in the XX century that this was changed to modern Bulgarian. All uprisings, from the Turnovo uprisings in the XVI century to the Chiprovci and April uprising were seeking Continuation of Old Bulgariа. One of the main figures in the XVIII Bulgaria - Paisii Helendarski, wrote about the history of the Second Bulgarian Empire as our history. And lastly, the country when re-established used the same name - Bulgaria. Thus, I think it should be crystal clear that there is direct, proven and unmistakeable continuation of the Second Bulgarian Empire into the Tsardom of Bulgaria. Even the first Parliament was specifically called in Turnovo, to underscore the continuation of Tsardom of Bulgaria and its direct linkage with the Second Bulgarian Empire. Please, kindly leave the Formation Section to reflect Bulgaria's true historical dates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.167.49 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

None of this is vandalism by either side, however one side is editing against consensus. Your argument might be slightly relevant if the infobox was meant to cover all history. However, it's not, it's about the formation of the state. No-one is removing centuries of history. Anyone with the ability to scroll down will find all the history they want. CMD (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There were no Bulgarian states existing under any form between 1400 and 1878. Bulgarian monarchs after 1878 had no relation to Medieval dynasties whatsoever. What language, capital or names were used in the modern state are merely claims. They don't create any legal continuation between the states. This said, I don't know why you insist that the infobox get filled with events that are already mentioned with enough detail in the History section. "Deleting 12 centuries of Bulgarian history"...come on. - ☣Tourbillon 07:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is no link than why did the modern Bulgarian state declare itself a successor to the medieval empires. Why did Bulgaria celebrate 1300 years of history in 1981 if it was founded in 1878 and had no connection with the previous states. The infobox is what people first see when they view the page and not everybody read the entire page. The infobox puts the basic information about the country. If there is no mention of 681 then it can confuse people that Bulgaria was founded in 1878. Also I don't see a consensus about the issue. There are many people who disagree with the change. --V3n0M93 (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was it celebrated ? I'd ask the same question. The most obvious answer would be state-sponsored nationalism by the previous regime. Whatever the claims of the modern state are, the lack of continuity is more than obvious. As for the people who don't agree with the change - none of them ever provided a valid argument to defend their opinion. - ☣Tourbillon 11:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Germany has no continuity with the medieval state in its infobox but it still remains there, so as the infoboxes of tens of countries still do not deal with the direct continuity, why don't start more global changes but focusing only on Bulgaria? Bulgaria is now treating differently from the other countries in Misplaced Pages and why Bulgaria article should be treated with different than the practice in Misplaced Pages? I did not count, but I suggest that the majority of the users who wrote here disagree with the current model and agree for the vice versa, so the unedited version prior the dispute should be returned until it is solved. Before changing to the current version, somebody should proved that the date of establishment is in 1878 or 1908 and now the current version is based only on opinions of editors. V3n0M93 well said that every source about Bulgaria says that the country is founded in 681, and also that Modern Bulgaria is a successor of the Bulgarian Empire, and the view of the experts, who understand more than you on the subject, was de facto and de jure replaced with an opinion. Currently the article supports someone's opinion, but contradicts the experts. --Ceco31 (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Tourbillon, the claim of this nationalism is supported by the majority of the experts. The current version is an editorial opinion as nobody provided a valid reference defending it, and a very minority view among them if any such exist.--Ceco31 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you introduce me to a source stating that the modern state of Bulgaria was founded in 681 ? Oh, I would also like to see one source by "experts" which explicitly states that post-1878 Bulgaria has directly evolved from Medieval Bulgaria, preserving its institutions, legal system and dynasties. I hope you know the difference between a Medieval feudal state and a modern one. Your claim about Germany is erroneous, but a nice strawman nevertheless. - ☣Tourbillon 13:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I could, but is it really necessarily to list it as many sources about Bulgaria says that, everybody here can find it fast in the web, you can start with searching in www.books.google.com for example. Your opinion is that the modern state is the only successor of Bulgaria, ok, you could said that instead of asking me for strange stuff above. This opinion, I think contradicts the majority views, please read my arguments above.--Ceco31 (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"The majority views" apparently work on a "find the sources yourself" principle, which is the reason why this dubious "majority" continues to be ignored by the people who don't have an urge to wave the flag of useless pseudo-patriotism around Misplaced Pages. Still waiting for that source. - ☣Tourbillon 13:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

To determine that one establishment is the same incarnation of the same country the following must be present, continuation of religion, continuation of name and identity, continuation of script and language. All, of this is present between the Second Bulgarian Empire and the Tsardom of Bulgaria, also present are continuation of national symbols - the Lion and continuation of the head of state title - Tsar. Unless, you can present some arguments that the above is not the case, you should leave 681, 1185 in the Info box. Also, as a number of other have pointed out, the info box has been used to outline major historical dates for the vast majority of European Countries. Here are some sources for you: Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84090/Bulgaria/42721/The-beginnings-of-modern-Bulgaria, Note that it says the "The beginings of Modern Bulgaria" Please, be kind enough to stop this useless debate and stop reverting the Formation changes. 681 & 1185 are integral to Bulgaria and we're not making justice to the users of Misplaced Pages if we're removing these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.157.163 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know who defined these "criteria" about continuation. I know law is not among the most respected things around here, but I would like to hear, finally, which institutions, laws and dynasties from the Middle Ages were present in 1878 Bulgaria. You could also look at your own source - national and ecclesiastical independence was lost after the Ottoman conquest and until the Revival there was no national consciousness, even among the hayduts. I fail to see where is the connection with the Medieval empires here, to be honest. - ☣Tourbillon 14:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So, the continuation of language, script, religion, title of the ruler and symbols is not enough for you? On laws, can tell me which laws are still surviving between the Holy Roman Empire and nowadays Germany? I did provide you a source exactly as you requested on Beginings on Modern Bulgaria. Where is your source? If you don't have a source that will negate the continuation of language, religion, name, tile and symbols you should stop and leave the formation as is.

Tourbillon can you explain to me, why should Bulgaria has different approach to dates than, say Poland, Croatia or Germany. Where is the difference please? Can you provide arguments? Read the above comment and provide arguments, for now kindly leave the Formation as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.11.215.2 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it's not enough. Please, tell me where is the continuity between the legal systems of 14th century and 19th century Bulgaria, where is the dynastic continuity and the continuity in administrative divisions, ecclesiastical institutions, central government, code of law, constitution, bureaucracy, military and anything that constitutes a modern state.

And by the way, I also pointed out the statements of *lost national consciousness* and religious independence in your own source (already used in the article, by the way). Consider matching those to your "criteria". - ☣Tourbillon 14:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal system, both Second Bulgarian Empire and Tsardom of Bulgaria used Roman law. Dynastic continuity is no argument, as dynasties change all the time in Europe. ecclesiastical - Bulgaria has a Patriarch in the Second Bulgarian Empire and again the the Thrid Bulgarian State, Central Government - Both States were ruled by a Tsar. Military symbol - St. George was also recognized. Also, I want to ask you can you give me examples of the above and how it remained the same for say Spain or Germany? Does nowadays Germany have the same organization, law, central government, etc. as the Holy Roman Empire. I don't see any substance in your arguments. Again, all European countries have listed the dates of significance in this box, why would Bulgaria be any different?? Answer this question please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.11.215.2 (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well if you these are your "arguments", then you're lacking a massive amount of basic knowledge in political science, which is not my fault. Your statement that the Second Bulgarian Empire used Roman law is a stunning example of this. Come back when you acquire what is necessary. - ☣Tourbillon 15:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC) To the IP: You are currently blocked. Accept it. Wait it out, and if you then want to discuss further, come back then. If you want your opinion to be heard here on Misplaced Pages, you will have to accept that this project has got rules, and they apply to you just like to all of us. When you're blocked, you don't edit, period. If you keep breaking the rules, you will simply be met with more blocks and more page protections wherever you go, and nobody will ever be willing to listen to you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Your attitude, as well as that of other users who insist on the same thing, is that of a person who is devoid of contact with objective reality. You desperately push for a change so minor and insignificant, that it's hard for me to imagine how somebody can be so fixated on this. I won't be exaggerating when I say that your lack of knowledge in history and political science is so vast that you do not even realise how much you have missed.

This said, I will have to explain, word by word, statement by statement, where, how and why you are wrong. But before that, a few words on article formatting. The Bulgaria page is not treated differently. Numerous users, especially such working on Balkans articles, like to think there is some sort of injustice caused to "their article", that other articles are made in a certain way and the one they are interested in is not - either because of assumed "double standards" or someone's desire to "delete important things". In fact, there is a golden rule in the art of expressing information, namely that less is more. Nobody will read a huge article full of detailed facts, figures and pictures, with an infobox full of dates linked to events that few people will click to learn about. Everyone will read a concise, compact article, where all the most significant points of a country's history, geography, economy, politics and culture are given in a nutshell. There is a reason why India is a featured article and Poland is not even GA.

Now, about those "tons of facts" you provide. It seems that I will have to explain in depth. Historically speaking, there are two types of countries - a traditional/feudal one, and a modern one. The feudal one relies on vassalage and is an absolute property of its ruler (king). The king was the state, so if there is a continuity of royal dynasties, then the state is directly the same as it was before. These Medieval countries gradually evolved, between 1400 and 1700, into modern states, with their own parliaments, separation of powers, Weberian bureaucracy, among others. With the notable exception of Tsarist Russia, modern countries are not fully owned by their monarch. This evolution has occurred in all European countries you mentioned - HRE, France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands. This evolution has not occurred in Bulgaria. During this long process of political transition, ruling dynasties were essentially the same, therefore the country was the same. The royal houses that ruled Germany, France, Spain, Portugal in the Middle Ages either remained the same, or were related to the one that inherited them. Say, France: Merovingians (5-8 century) - Frankish. Carolingians (8-10 century) - Frankish. Capetians (10-18 century) - French. Are they directly related ? Yes. Now let's look at Bulgaria: from 1018 to 1186 and from 1396 to 1878 there were no Bulgarian kings. There was no Bulgarian state. There was no transition from a feudal to a modern state because there was no state at all. The state created in 1878 took the name Bulgaria, so what - Volga Bulgaria had the same name, do you imply we're talking about the same country here ? Russia had a Tsar as well. Do you claim that Russia is a descendant country of Medieval Bulgaria as well, simply because it uses this title too ? Ethiopia has a patriarch, are you saying that Ethiopia can also claim to be a Bulgarian incarnation ? Congratulations, you have divided by zero - your lack of logic is beyond shocking. France, Germany, Spain never had their monarchies and nobility completely erradicated. Bulgaria did. Even the Bulgarian Church was only restored in 1870. There is nothing more to say here.

And finally, let's look at the difference between the two arguing sides - I use common sense to deny any political connection between Medieval Bulgaria and the Principality. You use lack of common sense and logic, and lots and lots of strawmen to try to prove a point - namely that a certain year should be in the infobox, when it's already mentioned in detail further down the article. The very fact that you keep reverting to your version, edit warring and ignoring warnings and reverts by several other users, only proves that you do not seek consensus - you seek to impose your skewed, petty nationalistic point of view. Now, feel free to tell me once more that somebody calling himself a "patriarch" or a "Tsar" is evidence of continuity. I will gladly feel free to ignore it, as will any user who has less patience than me in dealing with trolls. - ☣Tourbillon 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, stop removing my comments. I'm no longer blocked and have the right to post. Toubillon, one more time you've provided no proves, only empty talk. The section title in most countries is FORMATION. Is it not true that the language of today's Bulgaria was formed in the X century? Is it not true that the Bulgarian alphabet was created in the X century? Is it not true that the Bulgarian Patriarchate was created in 927 and re-established in 1871 (Kindly, note that Orthodox churches are independent and it does make a difference if it is Bulgarian or Serbian Orthodox Church) Are these no events that formed today's Bulgaria?

You are saying that national identity, religion, language, alphabet and symbols are not important and that continuity in type of law is more important. So tell me, if Germans and French decide to all speak French, all belong to a fictional Church of Paris, all call themselves Franks, have a head of state the President of France, you will distinguish them by their taxation code??? This is laughable.

Your main talking point was that no where was modern Bulgaria mentioned to being 681. I've provided you a reference http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84090/Bulgaria/42721/The-beginnings-of-modern-Bulgaria You're of course quite on this.

I'm proposing to you that we remove this section for now? Agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.167.49 (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC) As there is indeed no agreement, let's remove this section for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ximhua (talk • contribs) 12:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If Germans started speaking French etc., they wouldn't somehow turn into what is now France and include all the history of that France as theirs. They would be distinguished. A terrible argument if I ever heard one. As for your other argument, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whereas consistency is not unimportant, there's no need to make something worse to conform. Bulgaria is a GA. It therefore gets (or should get) more scrutiny and attention than the other, worse, articles. Dunno if Ximhua is the IP, but considering the complaint is that we're removing history, removing more sounds like a dumb solution. (And I clarify again, the infobox is not meant to cover all history.) CMD (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's not be rude guys, no need to insult. The suggestion most users here have is that this page is to use Formation rather than independence, as a heading and present a fuller picture of Bulgarian history at large and therefore the main events in it. I don't think someone has disputed the arguments about Bulgarian language & alphabet for example. It also seems that most users here agree that being consistent with other countries provides better service to the end user, as end users do take this to be an outline of the entire history, simply because that is how it is in other countries. Otherwise, let's remove it. England for example does not have such box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ximhua (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"England for example does not have such box." Yes, as England doesn't have sovereignty. Infobox, again, about sovereignty. Following on from that, this new take on the argument argument, that we should use the infobox the wrong way because other infoboxes are used the wrong way, is not a convincing one. CMD (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I actually think the infoboxes are being used correctly on most other countries, as it is clearly more important to have a holistic view of a country's history, then just the very recent one. Secondly, the continuity between First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire and Third Bulgarian State via language, alphabet and self identity is obvious. Why would we want not present a fuller picture? Isn't WP supposed to provide the most complete information? Do you seriously think users think that these dates are not related to the entire history of a country? We should strive to make WP give more information not partial snippets. In any case, there is a clear difference of opinion here and give that Ceco, Gligan, Apcbg, ximhua(me) and some unnamed users are against it and only a couple of users are for it, would you agree that at the very least it should be reverted to the 2006 version or removed all together? We should be able to find a compromise, as WP is a community, where majority has value. (Ximhua (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC))

I wouldn't think that an infobox full of dates is correct usage. The continuity argument I stated remains, and none of you has ever made any effort to tell us where is the political continuity between these entities. You keep digging into alphabet and language as markers of continuity (alphabet and language used not only in Bulgaria, hence an invalid argument), but you keep silent on the question I have posed. What fuller picture do you want to present, when there is already a 120K+ article on the country's history, geography, economy, culture and whatnot already ? You think a 120K+ article with an even larger breakdown of main articles is "partial snippets" ? Wow. - ☣Tourbillon 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the vast majority of users will not read the 120K article, but will stay on the page for 10 sec. see the summary and move on, thus a gross misrepresentation will certainly occur. On the alphabet and language, the very significant point you are missing is that this is specifically the Bulgarian Alphabet and Bulgarian language, thus a direct prove of continuity. There were other arguments listed like symbols, etc. ... in any case I think it is useless to argue further, there is a clear difference of opinion.

My question is what do you propose as a compromise, as there are at least 7 users that have expressed their desire in writing on this page that this is amended. The options I see are: a) revert to 2006 version, b) remove section all together c) revert to Formation with 681 and 1185 in it. We have to find a compromise. Work with us here please. (Ximhua (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC))

I fail to see how a user wouldn't read the introduction that explicitly mentions Bulgaria as a distinct nation being formed in the 7th century, but would read the infobox. You might be reading only the infoboxes of country articles, but I believe most educated users overcome themselves like that one Romantic German and don't skim through the article. Indeed it is useless to argue, because cultural items do not prove political continuity, and apart from that, you have no other arguments. That is why your proposals and absurd reasoning (or lack thereof) are being ignored. Plain and simple. No need to use different IPs and obviously faked accounts to create a false image of an overwhelming majority - it's too cheap a trick to work. Either provide us with a source stating that there is legal and political continuity between the Bulgarian states and a valid argument for their inclusion in the infobox, or stop chewing on the same stick. - ☣Tourbillon 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Again rudeness and accusations, but I guess that is just how you are... how sad. It is very easy to check with wikipedia sysadmins if Ceco, Gligan, Apcbg, ximhua are the same of different user, why don't you do that and then apologize in public? Just because you are not accepting our arguments, doesn't make them invalid. You are not God and you don't own Misplaced Pages either. This is a community site and a compromise has to be reached, this is not your personal playground. Your dictatorial and extremist views and behavior are against what Misplaced Pages is about. (Ximhua (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC))

There is one user that has been blocked for ignoring warnings, that insists on reverting back to his own version, and an IP that has evaded bans and reverted in the same fashion as the aforementioned user. That is indeed far from what Misplaced Pages is, and you can call me a Trujillo if you wish, but that still does not explain how are the three Bulgarian states the same political entity and why do they deserve mention in the infobox when everything is already perfectly and concisely explained in the article itself. - ☣Tourbillon 21:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You've toned down, this is an improvement. Symbols, alphabet, language and self identity is what proves the continuity between First and Second Empire and Third State. The infobox is misleading and incorrect. Again the options for compromise are: a) revert to 2006 version, b) remove section all together c) revert to Formation with 681 and 1185 in it. Which one you'd like to use? (Ximhua (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC))

"The options for compromise..."??? No "compromise" is needed. The current page is the result of consensus (consensus is determined based on the weight of the arguments, not the number of !votes, and there have been no weighty arguments justifying earlier dates by anybody) and as Tourbillon correctly pointed out, "symbols, alphabet and language" are NOT proof of political and legal continuity, which is what the infobox is for.--William Thweatt 22:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, this is becoming frustrating. It's moved on past your failure to hear the consensus argument and is becoming disruptive by wasting the time of other editors. Somebody should start a sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation. Although I am usually the first to assume good faith, it's fairly obvious what is going on here: multiple IP's and WP:SPA's with the exact same arguments and edit summaries. I am at work and don't have time to gather all the evidence now or I would initiate the investigation myself. Please stop wasting our (your's and mine) time and move on to constructive editing.--William Thweatt 22:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me remind you that you are not in a position to be a judge here and therefore determine the weight of arguments. Your arguments have no weight for us whatsoever. You are the ones who changed the 2006 agreed version, so you should prove that there is no continuity. Every respectable source, including Britanica states clearly that Modern Bulgaria starts in 681 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84090/Bulgaria/42721/The-beginnings-of-modern-Bulgaria and therefore it should be in the box. As is the case with most other countries. We are however looking for compromise, yet you keep behaving like owners of wikipedia, and ultimate judges. Kindly again, let's look for a compromise. (Ximhua (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC))

And yes, please, please do perform an investigation to determine that the four named users Ceco, Gligan, Apcbg, ximhua who oppose this are NOT the same. These are the named users that have expressed disagreement. Please, make the results public after that.(Ximhua (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC))

This is an article about Bulgaria, not an article about the "Modern State of Bulgaria". If it were the latter, there should be no mention of any history before 1878. Since it is the former (judging by the content), it is important to note that the years 681 and 1185 have a place in the article. So far all agree? I hope so, because if not, then we'd have to rewrite many history books currently in existence. Now to the central issue of this dispute - should the dates 681 and 1185 be mentioned in the info-box? If the article is about "Bulgaria", and the consensus is that dates 681 and 1185 have importance in the history of Bulgaria as founding dates of states RELATED to Bulgaria (not the modern state institutions alone, but the national identity and history as a whole), then clearly, for the sake of completeness and objectivity the answer should be YES. What the opponents of including those dates argue is lack of evidence of "continuity" between the states founded in 681 and 1185 and the modern state of Bulgaria. I have a question - if there's no evidence of continuity, why are those early states even included in the article? If the connection is only "loose" or "weak" or "purported", why is there no section in the article covering this "controversy". And if there are no rules about what to include in the info-box, why is the measure "continuity" even a factor in making that decision? There's no disagreement that between late 14th century and 1878 there was no independent state with the name Bulgaria. Is someone suggesting that there's no linguistic, religious, cultural and self-conscious sense of identity relationship between the state of Bulgaria that ceased to exist in the late 14th century and the modern state Bulgaria? If so, I would love to hear those arguments, supported by refereed historical publications and/or original historical sources. The name Bulgaria never stopped to exist in those 500 years. Here's a map of 1630 created somewhere in western Europe. http://www.swaen.com/antique-map-of.php?id=2763 - read the names there if you can. If the name did not die, did the national identity die? If so would there be a modern state of Bulgaria at all, or is this just a fluke of fate and history? In short, as someone profoundly interested in both political science and history, I think this argument should be resolved by sound "pro" (pro-include vs pro-not-include), and not setting a bar for burden of proof to meeting criteria that are at best arguable, and at worst arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniem2477 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Aniem2477 I've actually submitted a Mediation Request on this, which can be located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Bulgaria Excellent map by the way! and another prove that the boxes have 681 and 1185 in them. Ximhua (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  The dispute page status says closed - is there a resolution?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniem2477 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, not sure what is happening with the mediation on this issue. Anyway, it seems the most important argument of the current administrator Tourbillon and supporters against adding the correct dates in the infobox is the lack of political and legal continuity. First, i would like them to point out a definition of these terms and NOT their own but one used by the professional historians. That noted, here is a link to the royal family roots and blood connections to the rulers of the First and Second Bulgarian Empire: www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ancestry-of-royal-family-of-Bulgaria

Also, the original treaty of San Stefano talks about restoring Bulgaria and a number of Balkan countries and uses pre-Ottoman maps as a base for the boundaries of the "new" countries. The reality of the political world at the time lead to a totally different map and decisions of the Berlin Treaty but it can not diminish the fact it was a restoration of a country.

Do you guys still have objections to corrections in the formation info? If so, then you'll have to present a really great case why would not the same criteria be applied to all countries in similar historical positions ever: like Spain, which was 8 centuries ruled by the Arabs, Germany, France, and even China, since your argument for political continuity is valid for them too. So every time there was a change in the ruling Dynasty, the result was a brand new state, separate from the previous one?!

The whole "common sense" idea is great Tourbillon, but this is a reference site, dealing with history and "common sense" is very relative term. Why don't you just apply what the history science accepts as truth and not just your opinion?!

72.229.165.225 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Rossy Jeliazkova

We are waiting for a mediator to be selected. I can add you to the mediation page, if you'd like, since I have submitted the official complaint. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Bulgaria Obviously, I agree with you that 681 and 1185 should be in the box. Also, tourbillon is just an editor like you and me, this is an open community site. Ximhua (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Renewed

For quite some time some administrators claim that present day Bulgaria has nothing to do with the First Bulgarian and the Second Bulgarian Tsardoms, let alone with Old Great Bulgaria. Thus, they say, the dates 632 and 681 have no place in the infobox but they should be briefly remarked somewhere in the text of the article. There are two issues regarding this standpoint which I'd like to tackle and which are mutually related. The first issue is the question of continuity between the First the Second and the Third Bulgarian states and the second one refers to how much information you can put into the infobox. As for the first I have to say the following. Main stream History, say academics like Prof. Bakalov, Prof. Dimitrov etc., agrees unanimously that the 681 Bulgarian state is NOT a new Bulgarian state but a continuation of Old Great Bulgaria with the capital moved from Phanagoria to Pliska. It is not a coincidence that the peace treaty in 681 between Asparuh and Constantin IV Pogonat obliges The Eastern Roman Empire to pay tribute not to the Bulgars but to Bulgaria, implying the existence of a state of the Bulgars prior the defeat of the Romans in 681. Even more can be said on that but for the sake of brevity I will strop here for now. Important here is to understand that Kubrat's Bulgaria and Asparuh's Bulgaria are one and the same political entity and not two different separated states. Now, I don't recall any main stream historian who asserts that the Second Bulgarian Empire is a different state. In order to legitimize themselves Asen and Peter claimed even Simion I and Samuil as their ancestors and viewed their state as a continuation of the First Bulgarian Tsardom. Finally it is not your job to judge whether the Second Tsardom is a continuation of the First one but only to represent correctly the opinion of the Academia. Academia, Bulgarian as well as foreign, agrees again that Second Bulgarian Empire build upon the First one. Moreover it is us who distinguish between the First and the Second Bulgarian Empires. In the past these entities always called themselves simply Bulgaria. Period. Now, is the Third Bulgarian State something different from the previous Bulgarian Tsardoms? I read many posts pro that statement and only a few against. I am not going to repeat the uncountably many solid and sober arguments which point to the unambiguous connection between the Third Bulgarian State and the First And the Second Bulgarian Empires in terms of common name, common language, common religion, common historical memory and etc etc... Instead I will look at couple of cases similar to the case of Bulgaria and share some thoughts on the double standards. Let us start with some of the most obvious: Iran. Iran was conquered many times, once by Alexander the Great, once by the Arabs and once by the Mongols. Each of this invasion resulted in century long oppression of the Iranian statehood. Iran underwent one of the greatest cultural transformation in history in the 7.century after it was conquered by the Muslim Arabs. Iranians lost their Zoroastrian religion, they changed their Persian script with an Arabic one and adopted Arabic culture. To make things worse in the 12. century they were overrun by the Mongols who by conservative estimates eliminated 30-40% of the Iranian population at that time. If you sum up all the foreign rules in time scale you get something like 1000 years un-independent or semi-independent Iran. Interestingly Iranians regard Cyrus the Great as their founder and even celebrate the more ancient Median empire es their direct predecessor. Even more interestingly, this is reflected in the infobox of Iran's page on Misplaced Pages. And this despite the cultural, religious and ethnic transformation in the last 2600 years. Hmmm, strange.. But let us have a look at a closer example: the Czech republic. The Czechs trace back their origin to the Bochemian kingdom which did not even bear the name Czech. In the 16. century this kingdom was absorbed into the Austo-Hungarian empire and the state Czechoslovakia came into being in the 20. century, not mentioning that the modern day Czech republic was created in 1993. So they were absent from the political landscape of Europe for about 500 years, just as long as Ottoman Bulgaria. Despite that in the infobox of Chech Republic you can read the proud founding date 870. We can continue this line of examples with China, Germany, Hungary etc. What immediately makes impression is that none of the demagogues complain about Iran, the Czech republic or Germany or even Serbia etc. but they are only concerned about Bulgaria. This is a striking manifestation of double standards which cannot and will not be tolerated in an encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages. All articles here must be subjected to the same standards of accuracy and correct presentation of History. It is not permissible to apply one set of rules and criteria regarding one state and contradicting set of rules and standards regarding another state. This said I demand 632 and 681 to be included urgently in the infobox since they are one of the most important if not the most important dates in Bulgaria's history. It is irresponsible to the wikipedia users and readers to amputate 1300 years of that nation's history regardless where, in the article or in the infobox. I count on your decency and expect from you to comply with the rules of completeness and objectivity. P.S. I will not honor arguments watering down my rightful demands to simple nationalism. I am Not a brainwashed nationalist who wants to portray Bulgaria as older than it really is or who wants to depict Bulgaria as greater than it is. I am about objectivity, decency, correctness and against the application of double standards . ---Espor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espor (talk • contribs) 16:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(Subheader added) No user has ever claimed that the current Bulgaria has nothing to do with Old Great Bulgaria or the two Kingdoms. What they have said is that each successive Bulgaria was a new state. It may have been based on a former state, but it didn't emerge from the other. Old Great Bulgaria is actually new to this discussion, but as the Bulgars were not the same as todays Bulgarians, any arguments based on ethnic links (although they have nothing to do with statehood) probably fall apart right there. As for the supposed double standards, I've removed similar things from other articles, although admittedly not Iran or the Czech Republic. Editors here aren't expected to edit the 200ish (depending on who you consider a state) state articles for the same consistency. WP:Otherstuffexists isn't by itself a good argument. If you don't want to be seen as "a brainwashed nationalist", I advise you not to use phrases such as "proud founding date". As a last point, the infobox is not a history section. CMD (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(Subheader added) I would appreciate from you a full list of links to the states whose infoboxes you have corrected similarly to the infobox of Bulgaria. Since you do not know me I advise you to refrain from using patronizing tone when speaking with me like "If you don't want to be seen as "a brainwashed nationalist", I advise you not to use phrases such as "proud founding date"." If you have actually paid attention to what I have written, you would know that I was referring to the Czechs who "proudly" point to 870 as their founding year and I was not boasting about the proud founding date of Bulgaria. If you don't want to keep a minimal consistency when writing articles on history on Misplaced Pages then why are you an editor here at first place??? I have never used arguments based on ethnic links between the Bulgars and the Bulgarians so I don't know why you r bringing that on. Your job is very simple, you don't have to think and you don't have to decide whether there is a relation between the Bulgarian states. The only thing you have to do is to report the opinion of the majority of reputable historians, and not integrating your thoughts or wishes into the topic. Can you find a reputable historian who rejects the intimate relation between Old Great Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire and the Third Bulgarian State. Let me answer for you , NO you cannot find such a source. From that point on, your personal opinion is as relevant as the size of your shoes. You have to write the opinion of the specialists not your own.-EsporEspor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I just skimmed through the rant above only to see either covert or or direct insult attempts, so I will just repeat the arguments that were never heard before:

• • There is no legal or political continuity between Medieval and modern Bulgaria. Claiming the same title or bearing the same name does not provide for such continuity; neither do cultural similarities, because the infobox displays dates of statehood and does not concern culture. The question which one should pose oneself would be - did the modern state directly evolve from the Medieval one ? - to which the answer would definitely be "no". Modern Bulgaria has a constitution and is sovereign: it has territorial integrity, inviolability of borders and rule of law in place, unlike Medieval Bulgaria, or any Medieval state. Therefore no political evolution from the Second Bulgarian Empire to the Third Bulgarian state can be traced, and from this one can conclude that these are two different political entities.
  • The infobox is not a history section. Considering that the History section explains far and wide the formation of early Bulgarian states, the fanatical desire to have the 681 date in the infobox is nothing more than nationalistic point of view pushing. Not only that, it is explicitly stated even in the intro that the first Bulgarian political entities were formed in the 7th century. The only argument the other party has against this is that "readers won't read the whole article and will be confused", which is a very, very poor one at best.
  • Other country articles don't matter. Misplaced Pages country articles are anything but consistent in terms of layout, so if a certain country article uses a given configuration of its infobox, this does not mean it's the right thing to do. The world doesn't revolve around Bulgaria, so a claim of "double standards" or whatever such gibberish is more appropriate for a daily news discussion board than here. Misplaced Pages values crusading such as "if you don't want to keep consistent..." certainly does nothing but to further reduce any credibility the other side uses.

More or less, these are the arguments the other side does not want to hear. On the technical side, there is no "major consensus" against the removal - there are several single-purpose accounts, and one user who keeps displaying his discontent without giving a reasonable opinion. And please, stay brief - nobody will read half a volume of skewed history and understand it as an "argument". Be precise, and respond precisely. - ☣Tourbillon 18:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Tourbillion, who made you the architect of the info box? The info box's purpose is to present significant historic dates involved in the formation of a country. The significant historic dates for Bulgaria include 681, reading an article about Bulgaria and using 1878 as a date is ridiculous and gross misrepresentation. Please, do present a respected sources that says that the Third Bulgarian State has nothing to do with previous Bulgarian Empires? You obviously lack any historical knowledge and don't have much of a analytical capabilities either. Thus, you should not even attempt to comment on history related matters, as you are embarrassing yourself. Ximhua (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're discussing the article, not me, so feel free to provide a valid argument in favour of the changes you request. - ☣Tourbillon 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who should present arguments, as you are the one who wants to remove 681 from the info box. You do NOT own this page, realize it. You haven't presented a single source that states that the three entities are not connected? Present one or stop your vandalism. Ximhua (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I already presented them several minutes ago, please engage in responding to those instead of commenting on other people's actions. - ☣Tourbillon 18:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You presented your skewed opinion, I don't see a single respectable source that says that there is no connection between the Bulgarian Empires and the Third Bulgarian state, neither I see a source that Bulgaria started in 1878. Until you present such a source, you will be ignored. Ximhua (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So basically I should provide a source that something isn't there ? Wow, this is going nowhere real quick. But since I do provide sources when demanded, here's a few:

• • • "the old Bulgarian state structure was destroyed...much of the nobility died...the separate Bulgarian church ceased to exist...the destruction of Bulgaria's political independence", from Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture, referring to the Second Bulgarian Empire. If it was destroyed, then there was no political connection between it and the Third Bulgarian state - pretty obvious, unless you're inclined to say that two entities with an existential gap of 500 years can be connected.
    • "the haiduks lacked a strong sense of national consciousness", from Ottoman Era, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Beyond obvious that there were no traces of Bulgarian political culture whatsoever during the 500 years of Ottoman rule even among its rebels, consequently no connection between the states before and after this period.

If you will ignore the arguments - fine. But if you want to ignore the sources, then you're just being disruptive. Now please, provide me with a source that explicitly states that there is a legal and political connection between Medieval and modern Bulgaria, preferably if you directly copy and paste these last few words I said. Thank you. - ☣Tourbillon 19:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ximhua, if you continue to say things like "I don't see a single respectable source that says that there is no connection between the Bulgarian Empires and the Third Bulgarian state" then it's quite clear you haven't understood the arguments presented. Not a single person has said that there was no connection, what instead is lacking it a continuance of statehood. Modern Bulgaria is, as you say, the Third Bulgarian State (give or take Old Great Bulgaria of course, which has been in recent edits). This article is about that state, not the previous ones. CMD (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And who gave you the authority to determine the meaning of the info box? Again, I see no sources added that say Bulgaria started in 1878. The info box is quick overview on how a country formed. There could be no Bulgaria without Simeon the Great, Bulgarian alphabet, etc. How, can you not see this, or maybe you just don't want to see it? Ximhua (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What a tragedy. Though please, answer me one question: if Bulgaria proper has continously existed and it's the same thing as it was in 681 AD, then why do we refer to the post-1878 entity as a Third Bulgarian state, and not a Second or a First one ? - ☣Tourbillon 21:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The infobox section in question is for sovereignty, and current sovereignty was established in 1878. There are plenty of sources to show that. There could easily be a Bulgaria without a particular king of a particular script, just as there's a South Sudan without a particular king or particular script. That the current Bulgaria set itself up as a new version of the former empires does not change the fact it set itself up in the year 1878. CMD (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(Subheader added) Tourballon, before starting refuting your intellectual stretches one by one let me remark on the following: You certainly lack the full package to know when I am covertly or directly offensive. I doubt you can spot that. Now calm down and do not overexcite too much;) Let me start in reverse order.

• • Other country's articles absolutely DO matter. And surprisingly you have used other country's articles to justify what should go into Bulgaria's article just months ago. Let me refresh your memory:

"I don't think edit-warring by any user is something productive, at least not while the article is at a nomination. By viewing other FA-status country articles, I see the name of the country in the local language, and one transcription at most (as IPA symbols are understood by only a handful of users). There is no need to make a transcription of the official name (Republic of...), but not rendering the short form Cyrillic name and one transcription of it isn't correct either, IMO. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)" After all it turns out that whenever a comparison with other articles satisfy your editor's preferences you are happy to justify corrections based on the content of other country's articles but if the comparison does not agree with your preferences then suddenly "other country articles don't matter". This is called "double standards" and in fact some would call it hypocrisy. Thank you for the remark that the world does not resolve around Bulgaria. That is precisely why I expect the same rules to apply for Bulgaria's article as for most of the other country's articles.. Since you are so sensitive against insults I will ask you on my behalf to desist from using qualifications like "gibberish" when talking to unknown users.

• • The infobox is obviously by definition a "summit box" which among others contains also the most important historical dates of a country. Therefore the dates 632, 681 and 1185 must be put there. After all nine dates are allowed to be put in that column. It is not against the rules of Misplaced Pages to include these years there. You need to explain why these dates do not belong in the box, not the other way around. You are the one who disregarded the previous 2006 version and changed its content without a consensus and now you try to hide your violation behind the very rules that you alone have broken. This is a joke, right???? I think you have a darker agenda. You are not an admin of that page because you care about history, you are an admin because you are pursuing something else, God knows what....but whatever it is it has nothing to do with objectivity and historicity.
  • What is the legal and the political continuity between the Sassanid empire and the medieval Shia Safavid empire?? What is the legal and political continuity between the Holly Roman Empire and Deutschland? Where is the political and legal continuity between Principality of Rashka and Serbia, LOOL. You are strikingly inconsistent. You beat the drums that there is no legal continuity between the Second Bulgarian Empire and the Third state, ignoring all that... Well, to your humiliation your claim about lack of legal continuity between the Bulgarian states is not quite right. If you have attended history class in Bulgaria you should remember that the church law was actually never fully overruled or forbidden by the Ottoman Empire. And finally, your opinion on that matter is actually quite irrelevant. Noone cares about Tourbillon's opinion and certainly noone wants to read Tourbillon's opinion anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Readers care about the opinion of the actual scholars on the field. Hence, your job as an editor and an admin is not to interpret history and put your little twist on facts but to accurately present the work and the opinion of the top scholars. No more no less. With respect to that you have failed miserably in your job as an admin....

Obviously, the majority of people wants my version since it is the correct one from 2006 and not your truncated infobox full of gibberish but without the dates 632/681, 1185. You failed to provide any sources and dodge any argument against your revision with circular arguments which are highly nonconstructive.---Espor---Espor (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• WARNING TO ALL. This is a comment to all involved in this discussion. Comment on the content, not the editors. Do not put words in other editors mouths, do not call other editors views skewed and do not attack them as having failed editing duties. Be civil, and assume good faith on all sides. The next person involved here that I see making a negative comment about another user or criticising their edits will be blocked. This is for the improvement of the article not to have a go at each other. Personal attacks will not be tolerated on Misplaced Pages. Also be aware, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, it is not a voting platform, only strength of the arguments matter not numbers. And reliability of references not necessarily unbacked truth. Canterbury Tail talk 22:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean Featured Article-status pages in that comment of mine, because they, unlike the vast majority of other country articles here, are consistent, well-written, and devoid of ultranationalist inclinations. The comment I made was a principle one, concerning full against short form of country names in the introduction, and not the infobox. There is no "your version", neither "the majority of people" want it; there is a handful of users, most of whom single-purpose accounts, such as you, Ximhua, and a few others, who are promoting a biased, nationalist point of view. I'm not the one to ignore 500 years of missing Bulgarian statehood, along with two sources provided above. And please, answer my question - if modern Bulgaria is the same entity as the one that existed 1,300 years ago, why is it referred to as a Third Bulgarian state ? - ☣Tourbillon 22:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Canterbury, I'd like to draw your attention to Tourbillon's post above, which I'll ignore as no sources or arguments are presented, yet the tone is not quite civil.

CMD, the infobox is not about current political entity, as if it was so, the 1989 is the best year for Bulgaria, as will it be for Germany. Let alone France with its Third Republic, etc. The infobox is so that the casual reader get in a glance how the particular entity formed. To give a summary on Bulgaria without mentioning the First Bulgarian Empire, when the Bulgarian alphabet was created (aka Cyrillic) is gross misrepresentation and does not do justice to the reader. If it was not for this massive cultural expansion in the IX-XVI century, today's Bulgaria would not exist. Ximhua (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

(Subheader added) Tourbillon, if you are going to cite Encyclopedia Britannica cite it without cut and paste techniques. You have taken out of context some minor passage but you deliberately ignored this passege, did you:

"Bulgaria, officially Republic of Bulgaria, country occupying the eastern portion of the Balkan Peninsula in southeastern Europe. Founded in the 7th century, Bulgaria is one of the oldest states on the European continent." -the preamble of Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Republic of Bulgaria... Where are the demagogues who wish to explain the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica the legal and political continuity issue with Bulgaria. Note that this piece of information is actually in the second sentence of the article. Tourbillon, the more we dig into this the more it stinks. Don't be stubborn and realize finally that you cannot win this battle simply because the world is against you. You don't have the facts on your side nor the majority of readers of Misplaced Pages. How do I know the latter? Well, I was a reader and your article brought me here to defend the truth. Short and precise as you like it. Cheers.Espor (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@Espor: Tourbillon is perhaps simplifying too much in saying that other articles don't matter, they do, but only as other examples or consistency concerns. You'll note however, that they refers to other "FA-status country articles", rather than just any old articles. There's no guarantee an FA will be perfect, but it's far more likely to be so than an article that is not a FA. The point is that they can be used to support an argument, but arguments based on supposed double standards due to other articles aren't strong.

On a more relevant note, there's a direct political continuity between the Holy Roman Empire and modern Germany. The Holy Roman Empire existed from the 10th to the 19th century. After a short stint as the Confederation of the Rhine, it was reformed as the German Confederation, which evolved due to Prussian dominance into the German Empire, which then underwent a couple of world wars and division in the cold war before reforming into the Germany of today. In each, the political unit is set up directly upon its predecessor. That was the only FA you mentioned in your examples.

Church law is quite irrelevant to statehood (unless the church controls the state as a theocracy). That the Ottomans allowed religious freedom is not something that demonstrates any sort of legal continuity.

@Ximhua: You're right that the infobox is about how a particular entity formed. The current entity didn't form in 681; it formed in 1878. The formation of culture is not at all the formation of a state (and at any rate did not begin as soon as the first Empire was created). CMD (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

CMD, do you sincerely believe that the casual user who after a typical Google search opens this page believes it is about the latest political incarnation of that state? Since the page covers the entire Bulgarian history isn't the infobox contradicting the entire page with 1878 in it? Or should we remove the history section as well, because I can see this proposed as the next step by someone. If the page was about the Third Bulgarian State proper, then I'd agree, but on the general page about Bulgaria 1878 looks is grossly misleading. Think about it. Ximhua (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying the same thing over and over and keep getting the same answer in reply, this is getting tiresome...your "questions" are answered and you just repeat the question, which has led me to stop assuming good faith with you and realize that dialogue with you is hopeless but I'll say it once again: the history section is for history (hence the name of the section...see how logic works?), the infobox is for the current state which dates from 1878...there's no way to make it any simpler for you...if you refuse to understand that, you're just being disruptive or trying to push a nationalistic POV.--William Thweatt 02:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"the infobox is for the current state" — Sorry, that's merely POV, and refuted by Misplaced Pages practice too, never mind how many times you repeat it. Indeed Template:Infobox country provides for several dates of establishment of the country, featuring fields established_date1, established_date2 ... established_date9. If you believe that the actual WP practice should be changed then go propose that on the 'Infobox country' template talk page, not here on the talk page of one particular country. Apcbg (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a keiretsu to speak of "practice", it's an entirely voluntary project which is based on some rules and many guidelines and there is no "Misplaced Pages practice" as much as you might want there to be. If there are nine fields for historic dates, that doesn't mean all of them should be filled. Especially with years such as 632. The infobox and the article concern the current state of Bulgaria, which is politically unrelated to previous entities (as explained above), therefore the only adequate dates for the template are 1878 and 1908. - ☣Tourbillon 07:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The other side played the only possible card that was left -the nationalistic card. As if objectivity and accuracy have anything to do with "ultranationalism". Accusations of ultra-nationalism are unsubstantiated, provocative and uncivil and show the copmplete bankrupcy of the other side on the battlefield of arguments. I would like to ask @Canterbury Tail if he is going to take actions in line with his last warning against the user who falsely accuses others of ultra-nationalism. Or maybe when the blast comes from Tourbillon it doesn't count as uncivil behavior? Turbalan, you are playng word games, aren't you? The Third Bulgarian State builds upon the legacy of the previous states and this is clear as day to anyone who has knowledge on the subject, just as the Fifth Republic of France builds upon the previous ones or the Savafid empire builds upon the lagacy of the Sassanid empire. The trick with one, two, three will not pass and it underlines the lack of serious arguments on your side. Besides, 3. March 1878 is reagrded in history as the Day of Liberation and NOWHERE as the founding date of Bulgaria. Your job is to find a source claiming that Bulgaria was founded in 1878. All sourses dealing with 1878 speak of Revival of the Bulgarian state and/or simply of Liberation. I want you to comment on that but without twisting. Finally this article doesn't deal with the so called Third Bulgarian state only. To anyone with eyesight it is evident that it gives an overview of the historic formation of Bulgaria, including its economy and political structure in present days. The summit box on the right hand side reflects the most important facts of this overwiev, therefore the main dates of this overview must find their place in the box. By the way, claiming that this side deals with the Third Bulgarian State you contradict the article's content which is apparently historic in nature. So you have the following options: to delete the historic paragraphs in the article prior the 1878 state or to adjust the infobox. Pick your choice. Espor (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anyone calling anyone ultranationalist. There is mention of an article being devoid of ultranationalism, which is talking about the article, but it's not directed towards a person so nothing actionable there. Canterbury Tail talk 16:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail, you haven't watched carefully. Let me help you. This is a comment made by Tourbillon immediately after your warning: "There is no "your version", neither "the majority of people" want it; there is a handful of users, most of whom single-purpose accounts, such as you, Ximhua, and a few others, who are promoting a biased, nationalist point of view." Couple of lines above he talks about some spooky "ultra-nationalistic versions" of history. Is WP giving Tourbillon a free pass to call other editors names and to put in question their good will? I thought Misplaced Pages was all about engaging in polite discussions without personal attacks? Or when the insults are stealthy enough and come from an admin, you close your eyes.83.79.132.142 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Tourbillion isn't a en.wiki admin. Also, if you're going to quote someone, and go so far as to use quotation marks, try actually quoting what they wrote. CMD (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

@Espor, I hope you were just kidding when you offered the removal of the historic section from Bulgaria's article. This article is about Bulgaria at large and absolutely must have a full historic section, as all country articles have. We should NOT remove any historical sections from Bulgaria's article. There is a separate article about the Third Bulgarian Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/Kingdom_of_Bulgaria. The Infobox in Bulgaria article should be corrected with the proper historical dates, including 681. It is plain and simple. Hope you'd agree.Ximhua (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Since we are constantly being requested sources stating that modern Bulgaria began in 1878, here's a few:

• "despite early political uncertainty, the first thirty-four years of modern Bulgaria were in many ways its most prosperous and productive", Library of Congress Country Study, 1993 edition
• "The Bulgarians established their first state in 681 AD...A second Bulgarian state emerged in the late 12th century, but at th nd of the 14th century it fell under Ottoman rule. A third Bulgarian state did not emerge until 1878...Modern Bulgaria began as a constitutional monarchy in which the prince (known after 1908 as a Tsar or King), controlled foreign policy. Richard J. Crampton in Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States 1999.
• "Under the first constitution of the modern Bulgarian state, same read.
• "An independent Bulgarian state, the so-called Third Bulgarian Kingdom, was established only after the 1878 Russo-Turkish War., "Folklore as a means to demonstrate a nation's existence: The Bulgarian Case", in History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and Disjunctures in the 19th and 20th centuries
• "The first modern Bulgarian state...was the outcome of the diplomatic negotiations between the great powers of Europe...after the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878", in Bulgaria 1878-1918: A History, as seen in Bulgaria and Europe: Shifting Identities

In addition to these, I find it amusing how a user who states that others "lack the full package", asks why they edit here if they "aren't being consistent", and vow to do everything possible to "destroy this liEr" and "want him completely banned" are actually pretending to be good-faithed. Same is valid for Ximhua, who hasn't "found a way to permanently ban him, but sooner or later that will happen". I see both users have mastered "polite discussions without personal attacks". - ☣Tourbillon 20:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

@CMD I quoted his exact words, so I do not understand your remark. You can find them on your own, just look the first comment after Canterbury's warning. I really don't understand your confusion. By the way, I am still waiting for the list of links to other country's articles whose infoboxes you have redacted in a similar way you have corrected the box in the Bulgaria article. I do not buy bare words. Let me go back to the Holy Roman empire and Germany. Both entities are quite different and despite the fact that Germany formed shortly after the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire and emerged as a result of the unification of many of the kingdoms within the Holy Roman Empire, by no stretch of the imagination you can claim a political continuity. In fact Germany is a national state, while the Holy Roman empire is the western successor of the ancient Roman Empire. Let me expand on that. The Frankish Empire was founded by Charles the Great around 800. It comprised many different tribes: germanic, galian, frankish, italic/gallo-roman. After the treaty of Verdun in 843 the empire was divided between Charles' grandsons in three parts: West, Central and East Francia. Later, France developed out of West Francia and the Holy Roman empire out of East and partially Central Francia. Interestingly the title of the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire was initially Rex Francorum and later it evolved into Rex Romanicum to underline the relation between both Roman Empires, which persisted until the dissolution of the empire in 1806. In all of the period between 962 and the 16. century not a single word about Germany or whatever related to Germany. As you know the Holy Roman Empire was not a unified political entity but rather a system of multiple kingdoms and smaller states which elected a formal Emperor whose role was more or less symbolic. Not all of the states were germanic, some as the Bochemian kingdom were slavic; North Italy was also included in the Empire and the Italian douches were even granted access to the Election Diet for emperor. The Holy Empire was a multi-ethnic, predominantly german speaking, empire consisting of up to all in all 300 larger monarchies and smaller states as big as a village. These smaller states waged constantly war among themselves (such as the 30 years war, for instance). They only cooperated together when a new emperor had to be elected and often this alone resulted in massive clashes between the states of the Holy Roman Empire. Ironically, from the 15. century until the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 the imperial crone was held by the Habsburg House whose lands were lying outside the formal boarders of the Holy Roman Empire. In other words for about 400 years the Emperor was not even from the german states within the Holy Roman Empire, which later would form Germany, and they were politically subjected to the Austrian monarchy. Of course, after the founding of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1806 the Holy Roman Empire finally collapsed. And it was this collapse that led the German states of the ex-roman empire to seek and find for the first time of their history unifying identity in terms of language and culture and to merge finally in a single national state in 1871 . This new empire was not less different from the Holy Roman Empire than the Third Bulgarian State from the Second Bulgarian Empire. All the remarks made for Bulgaria in terms of legal and political continuity are valid 100% with full force for Germany. Despite all that the year in which Otto I became Rex Francorum (Ruler of the Franks) , stands on WP's infobox about Germany as the founding year of Germany. Honestly, I accept that because this date is part of the century long formation of Germany. Without Otto I there would be no Germany, hence it is understandable why 962 should be put in Germany's infobox. I want however the same done for Bulgaria, because contrary to Germany Bulgaria even existed as a political entity on the landscape of Europe in the early medieval already and it was not not created in the 19. century but it merely revived its statehood. It is not a coincidence that in the history textbooks you always read that Bulgaria was liberated and reestablished in 1878 and not founded. I challenge all of you to find me any history source, which claims 1878 as the founding year of Bulgaria.! If you fail to respond to that challenge I think @Canterbury Tail must step in and undo the correct infobox!!!Espor (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The only use to ever use the phrase "ultra-nationalistic versions" was you, and you did so in quotation marks citing Tourbillon. As for your other claims, the Holy Roman Empire was most certainly not the successor of the Roman Empire. As the saying goes, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. In addition, ethnicity does not equal statehood. What you call the "national state" of Germany wasn't even homogeneously German. It didn't include the Austrian Germans, and had quite a substantial Polish population, which proved quite an issue for it later in history. CMD (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

@Tourbillon: Your quotes talk about the Third Bulgarian Kingdom, however none of them talks about Bulgaria being established in that year. There are tons of links on the net talking about "modern UK" for example and citing the end of WWII. The term modern in the sentences you've picked refers to recent, and should not be confused as that the country was established then. Also, again to point it out to you the info box's purpose is to hold the historical dates of significance for a country. That is the format and no professional historian will ever challenge the fact that the First and Second Bulgarian Empire are critical in the formation of nowadays Bulgaria. Name, Tradition, Alphabet, Language, Culture. Ximhua (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources I provided state that the modern political entity of Bulgaria was established in 1878. We're not discussing "tradition, alphabet, language, culture", we're discussing the formation of a country with its own constitution, a brand new political class, and a totally different political structure - what "modern" means in this case. And since the article in general is about the aspects of this state, and not about earlier ones, foundation dates of previous entities shouldn't be present in the infobox. - ☣Tourbillon 06:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@CMD: The only user talking about ultranationalism is Tourbillon and I have quoted him correctly and you keep covering him up. And yes he was referring to " articles... devoid of ultra-nationalistic inclination" which is a politically correct way of saying "ultra-naionalistic versions" of history articles. Don't pretend that you don't understand what he is saying here. Now, as for our talk on the Holy Roman Empire. The frankish kings and later the kings of the Holy Roman empire saw themselves as successors of the tradition of the ancient Roman Empire. They viewed their kingdoms as a revived western Roman Empire. I am working from within their own understanding. If you ask me whether I think the Holy Roman Empire has anything to do with the ancient Roman Empire, no, absolutely not. If there is a relation it is entirely symbolic. But my personal opinion is irrelevant regarding this. Just as the Holy Empire was loosely related to the Roman Empire Germany is loosely related to the Holy Empire in terms of government, politics and structure and a way of viewing itself. The Holy Roman Empire was not national it had an elected emperor who in the last 400 years always was elected from the Habsburg House in Austria, which was not even part of the Holy Empire. In its own view The Holy Empire was the living successor of the Roman Empire, though this image started to decline after the 16. century when german nationality slowly began to develop. Germany on the other side came into being as a national state for the German speaking people of the collapsed Holy Roman Empire and it was constitutional. The German king was not from the Habsburg House, as the century long tradition of the Empire, but the king of Prussia. And unlike the Bulgarians before 1878, germans prior the Napoleon wars did not have even a unified national consciousness. You did not comment on the problems with Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, you just skipped them and mentioned something about ethnicity which I do not know you keep bringing up. All that said I admit that the issue with the Holy Roman Empire is very difficult due to the great mess there. There are simpler examples: Iran, the Czech Republic and of course Serbia. Did you know that even in medieval times Serbia was all in all several centuries sovereign state. It was constantly either vassal to the Byzantines or to Bulgaria and finally it was conquered by the Ottomans for about 500 years. Still in the IB of the Serbia page you find 768 as a founding year. How do you explain that? Did you try to edit their page the same way you edited the Bulgaria page? And finally I want the links of states whose founding dates in the infobox you have corrected. If you do not present it before all I will convict you in dishonesty.Espor (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@Troubillion. The article is about Bulgaria at large, as every country article is about that country in general NOT about the latest political incarnation. Thus, the infobx should represent all dates that are significant for the formation of that country. Ximhua (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@Espor: Pointing out you don't seem to know how a quote works isn't covering up anything. On your arguments, we don't view the Holy Roman Empire from the eyes of the Holy Roman Emperors. Their personal opinion doesn't hold much more sway than yours, although it is very likely more notable. You say "you just skipped them and mentioned something about ethnicity which I do not know you keep bringing up", but at the same time you discuss the nationality of German speaking people, which is about ethnicity. I'm under no obligation to present anything to you, and your threats to "convict in dishonesty" aren't very collegial. Nontheless, for the sake of it I'll say that I remember some dates popping up on the article on the Philippines, and I think I remember one on Indonesia, although that I'm not sure about. There might be more, there might not be; I don't remember every single edit I make. At any rate, I really don't see the relevance.

@Ximhua: This article is about modern Bulgaria, just as every other country article is about the modern country. Self-defining phrases such as "Bulgaria at large" do not make for very useful article topics. CMD (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@CMD: Modern Bulgaria is unthinkable without the First and Second Bulgaria Empire, which largely formed what current Bulgaria is. Bulgaria is Bulgaria, no matter in which century. Of course the country organization will be different in the IX, XIX and XXI century, but the what matters for a country is continuity of name, traditions, culture, religion and ultimately self-identity. All of this is present in Bulgaria. That's why the Empires are in the article's history section. Ximhua (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Modern Bulgaria, including the self-identity of Bulgarians, is "unthinkable" without the Enlightenment and subsequently 19th century European nationalism. Previous Bulgarian states have contributed nothing to the creation of a state whose political structure is radically different from anything that existed in the Middle Ages. We're not discussing culture, we're discussing politics, and earlier Bulgarian states are of no relevance to this domain - the same way modern Israel has nothing to do with ancient Judah, despite the cultural link. - ☣Tourbillon 20:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@CMD: Of course you are covering up. Thank you for affirming that. You keep dodging the questions, don't you. Are they too hard for you? Do you need help? If not, then you probably can answer what the immediate political relation between the Holy Roman Empire and 1871 Germany is. Apparently you have problems with basic notions like nation and ethnicity. Actually both are not equal, since a single nation can be made out of different ethnic groups such as Britain, France, Russia and of course USA, for instance. The reason why I was referring to the German nation was to stress the character of the post 1871 German state in contrast to the Holy Roman empire. It is a pity that you haven't seen that. There is a difference between how a national state functions and a non-national empire, take for example the theocratic Ottoman empire, functions. In fact basing your argument on common ethnic background would be your best chance to claim some sort of continuity between both entities because in terms of politics Germany after the Versailles treaty has nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire. They had different monarchs from different houses and different kingdoms, selected according to different rules and most importantly, different social and economic structure. Is this not Tourbillon's argument against Bulgaria? That The Third Bulgarian state is politically distinct from the previous Empires? And that the cultural, religious, ethnic and linguistic relations are simply not enough?? Well, even in an obscure example like Germany according to Tourbillon's and your measures the same problem about succession arises. By ignoring to see the exact similar pattern, it will not go away. Maybe that is why you prefer to skip questions like this and concentrate on easier ones such as what is the correct using of quote marks. And remember, Germany is the easy case. It becomes ridiculously more difficult for you whit Iran, Serbia or even plain Hungary. Maybe that is why I still haven't received a response from you regarding all these examples, as well. When you voluntary claim that you have "...removed similar things from other articles...", then you cannot blame the readers for expecting you to back up your own claim. Since you alone have brought that up, you are under a moral obligation to show your evidence. Unfortunately in your own words: "I'll say that I remember some dates popping up on the article on the Philippines, and I think I remember one on Indonesia, although that I'm not sure about. There might be more, there might not be; I don't remember every single edit I make..." you admit not having removed the founding year from the infobox of any other country apart from Bulgaria and that you have no intentions to do that in future. This brings us naturally back there where we started-namely the usage of double standards.Espor (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you begin your post with unfounded assertions, it tends to take away any value your subsequent arguments might or might not have had. "National" is not a description for how states are set up. Confederation vs federation might be a way to describe the difference in the way the states were run, but that doesn't affect the fact that one emerged out of the other. Tourbillion is simply emphasising the fact that the current Bulgaria was created as a new political entity in 1878, unlike the various predecessors of Germany which came directly out fo their predecessor, due to whatever political process was involved. Iran Serbia and Hungary are simply articles I don't actively edit, and they aren't up to the same level of scrutiny. Bulgaria is a GA, they aren't. Your lack of good faith, like your initial assertions, does nothing but damage any points you have. Compounding this is the fact that you're very wrong, as in the quote you took from me I specifically note I have reverted dates that came up on the Philippines; note, also a GA. Indonesia's an FA, for that matter. CMD (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Espor, the HRE evolved continuously in what is today Germany, without ceasing to exist for a longer period of time or falling completely under foreign domination. What you are missing here are the 500 years during which Bulgaria did not exist. Five hundred years, twice as much as the time of existence of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Germany may have had changing dynasties, changing alliances, it may have been fractured, but it was all there and became the Germany of today. Unlike Bulgaria, where the nobility corps was decimated in the late Middle Ages and after that there was no evolution of statehood whatsoever, simply because a Bulgarian state, with all its respective institutions, did not exist. You can't claim continuity between two countries whose existence is divided by half a millennium. And if you really insist on using other country articles as an argument, you should ask yourself why Iran, Serbia and Hungary are not GA, while Bulgaria is. If you care that much about other countries, I suggest you add 27 BC as a foundation date to Italy or 776 BC to Greece and see what happens. - ☣Tourbillon 07:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

@Troubillion Let me remind you that Bulgarian nobility remained alive and well in what is today Romania until XVIII century, where Bulgarian alphabet was used, Bulgarian titles like boyar were used and the official language was Bulgarian, the capital was Targovishte (a Bulgarian name), thus Bulgarian political entities did not completely stop to exist for 400 or so years. Secondly, even under the ottomans, there were Bulgarian nobles like Alexander Bogoridi, etc. and lastly there are enough countries with larger spans of no formal political entity like Spain, Portugal, Czech, Croatia, but they all have their important historical dates in the info box. The info box is for important historical dates of the country and again a country is formed mainly by culture, self-identity, language, alphabet, not political system. Ximhua (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you realise it, but you just stated that between 1400 and 1878 there was a Bulgarian state. Could you please tell us its name, form of government and ruling dynasty ? And, if possible, provide a source. Alexander Bogoridi was not of the Shishman or Sratsimir dynasties, therefore he has no relation to Medieval Bulgaria, no idea where you are going with this one...not to mention that he was an Ottoman, not a Bulgarian nobleman, since his title was given by the sultan. As I said, if you think there are double standards or that other countries' articles are correct, why don't you add 27 BC and 776 BC as foundation dates to the Italy and Greece articles, respectively ? - ☣Tourbillon 16:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

CMD wrote: “Iran Serbia and Hungary are simply articles I don't actively edit, and they aren't up to the same level of scrutiny. Bulgaria is a GA, they aren't.”

Tourbillon wrote: “And if you really insist on using other country articles as an argument, you should ask yourself why Iran, Serbia and Hungary are not GA, while Bulgaria is.”

A rather self-refuting argument I’m afraid, for Bulgaria article did feature the year 681 when it became a GA!

As a matter of fact the GA approved version was last edited by no one else but Tourbillon himself at 09:52, 6 November 2011.

Its lede says: “The emergence of a unified Bulgarian ethnicity and state dates back to the 7th century AD. All Bulgarian political entities that subsequently emerged preserved the traditions (in ethnic name, language and alphabet) of the First Bulgarian Empire.”

And the infobox of the GA reviewed version includes the entry ‘Formation’ listing ‘First Bulgarian Empire 681’, ‘Liberation from Ottoman rule 1878’ and ‘Declaration of Independence 22 September 1908’. Apcbg (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because the article continues to improve with the aim of reaching Featured Article status. Strawman fail once again. - ☣Tourbillon 16:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

@Tourbillion The rules of Wallachia from the XIV till the XVII, were writing in Bulgarian, used Bulgarian tiles and many of their names like Mircho and Vladislav are Bulgarian, titles were Boyars. Yes, it was not called Bulgaria proper, but neither was the HRE,Bavaria, etc. called Germany. It is just one more point to show that Bulgaria didn't disappear for 400 years. The name of Romania didn't exist until the XVIII century. Bulgaria was in the Balkans with traditions, religion, alphabet, culture retained, that is why the Third Bulgarian State is a direct continuance of the Second and Third Bulgarian Empire. @ Apcbg - what an excellent post, I congratulate you. So not only is the infobox for all history of a country, but also the GA version did contain Formation and Tourbillion himself stated that unified Bulgarian ethnicity goes back to the 7th century. That should be more than enough to settle this. Thank you! Ximhua (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please, provide us with sources stating that Wallachia was Bulgarian; and you were already told, like, 20 times, why culture is out of this and why it's not an argument. - ☣Tourbillon 19:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

@Troubillion. And who made you the one to determine what matters and what doesn't? Culture, self-identity, symbols, language, alphabet are what matters. The infobox is for important dates for a country. You are just another editor, and you are the minority. 681, 632 will be in the infobox. As for Walachia, do your own research, even better go to Romania and visit an old church you will see in what language the scripts are written in. Google Targovishte. Read, it may help you. Ximhua (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's called being rational. Because if everyone thought like you, the United States could claim, say, the 1707 Acts of Union as its own political event just because it shares its language with the United Kingdom. And I won't do my own research, because Misplaced Pages isn't based on original research, plus I'm not the one who claims there was a Bulgarian state existing between 1400 and 1878. Source please. - ☣Tourbillon 06:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

@Ximhua: Culture isn't part of the creation of a state, nor is ethnicities. States are political entities. The article about Culture is Culture of Bulgaria, while the article about the ethnicity is Bulgarians. CMD (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian Boyar existed and Bulgarian Culture existed in Walachia and south of the Danube. The article is about Bulgaria. Google Boyars in Walachia 9http://en.wikipedia.org/Boyar ), Bulgarian in Romania - http://en.wikipedia.org/Old_Church_Slavonic_in_Romania. Turgovishte, well it is in Bulgarian, I don't think you need explanation there. Bulgaria is founded in 681 and that will be in the infobox. Ximhua (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

- ☣Tourbillon 15:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Citations are in the citation area of the pages mentioned. And again, the main reasons for 681 in the infobox is not because there were Bulgarian Boyars in Walachia, but because Bulgaria was founded in 681/632 and because these dates are critical for the formation of Bulgaria and because the info box is about formation of a country. Ximhua (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources there mentions anything about a Bulgarian state existing in Wallachia, and if anything, one of them even mentions that Old Church Slavonic (by no means the same as, even though similar to, vernacular Bulgarian) had faded away by 1600. Bulgaria was not founded in 681. The First Bulgarian Empire was founded in 681, therefore this year should be in the infobox of its respective article. This one is about modern Bulgaria and its aspects. - ☣Tourbillon 20:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You're getting desperate, aren't you Troubilion. Old Church Slavonic is the name folks like you have given to Old Bulgarian, so that its country of origin - Bulgaria is not mentioned and it was used in the 1700s and even 1800s in Wallachia. As for Wallachia, my point is that in there Bulgarian language and alphabet was used, Bulgarian noble tiles were used and cities including the capital Trugovishte used Bulgarian names, it does show something doesn't it - Bulgarians did not disappear after 1400. First of all however, Bulgaria was indeed founded in 632/681 and modern Bulgaria is the exact same Bulgaria as the one in 632/681 - same name, identity, religion & customs, which have naturally evolved thru the centuries. BTW: Who are the Church Slavonic people and their country, would love to read about them? LOL Ximhua (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I'm getting quite amused, because you are increasingly relying on strawmen to defend your point. Yes, the Bulgarian state did disappear after 1400 - does a language make a country ? No. There are about 300,000 Bulgarians in the US, and some 200,000 in Spain. Why not claim there are Bulgarian states there ? Not that you provided a valid reference on any of the things you're actually saying, but nevermind that. If Bulgaria is the same as 7th century Bulgaria, I'm wondering where the boyars, bogomils and fiefdom are. There aren't any, because we're not talking about the same political entity. We're not talking Bulgarian culture here, we're talking Bulgarian state. And finally, if you're wondering that much about Church Slavonic, I suppose you should ask yourself the same question, this time with "Latin people" and Latin language... - ☣Tourbillon 05:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It is only natural for a country to evolve and for its political system to evolve, for titles to evolve, etc. What defines a country is religion, self-identity, language, alphabet & traditions. Thus, Bulgaria today is the same as Bulgaria in the 600s. The problem with you reference to Latin is that Latin was known from the beginning as Latin and the other was simply known as Bulgarian, same as the Eastern Roman Empire was known as the Roman Empire, until Byzantium was invented well after its demise. Bulgaria is an ancient country with centuries of history and you will not be allowed to vandalize it. But keep trying, you are really making many people laugh, with your classics such as "First Bulgarian Empire was not a sovereign state" Ximhua (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're not making a difference between a "country" and a "nation". What you speak of is a nation. What defines a country are its boundaries, political system, leadership, capital and foundation date. Someone who doesn't make a difference between "nation" and "country", lacks basic political science education (otherwise you wouldn't state that Medieval countries can be sovereign), and claims that a country hasn't changed for 1,300 years, certainly can't attract any sort of serious attitude. So I don't know who's laughing...And please, push your statements to the right with ::. - ☣Tourbillon 16:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL, another classic, you are loosing it aren't you, your statements are more and more lacking any substance. Changing what people are saying and false statements, won't help you either. Bulgaria's internationally recognized foundation date is 632/681 and the infobox is designed to have the main dates in a formation of a country. Thus, these dates will be in the infobox. Unless you can present any arguments, I'd advise you to stop embarrassing yourself. Ximhua (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a competition so that anyone would be "loOsing" it, neither is it a forum to use "lol". All necessary arguments by me, Chipmunkdavis and WilliamThweatt, have been presented above. It's your problem that you avoid them either through outright ignorance (as in, you ignore them) or by using excuses such as "internationally recognised dates", "Misplaced Pages practice" or "double standards" (which basically constitute the bulk of your "arguments"). Thus one might say that you are acting in a disruptive manner, and I won't even mention the almost certain meatpuppetry involved.

For the sake of consistency, I'll just summarise what the consensus here consists of - any years before 1878 have no place in the infobox, because this article is about the post-1878 state, which is politically and legally unrelated to previous entities (explained in detail and with sources above). The economy section here does not treat the economy of the First or Second Bulgarian empires. The demographics section here does not treat Medieval Bulgarian demographics. This article does not pay any attention to Medieval Bulgarian states apart from explaining in detail what they were in the only appropriate section - the one about history. Provided the 500-year gap - twice more than the existence of SBE itself - erradicated all Bulgarian political heritage and none of it was left by 1878, I don't really see how could you ever claim the two entities are related. You may once again chew on your "religion, language, culture", but that would just demonstrate yet again that you see no difference between nation and state, a massive educational gap. Furthermore, you are not even being consistent - first you insist that the year 681 be in the box, now you add 632. Which one should it be ? That's why the consensus is about not having 681 - because, unlike you, nobody on our side ever changed his opinion or arguments, while you keep switching from one aspect to another only to end up entangled in your own mess of strawmen. You can keep ranting, but as of now, you haven't really presented a single valid statement or source in favour of your position (whatever it is). - ☣Tourbillon 19:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Below are again a list of sources, that clearly state when Bulgaria was founded. You've provided no sources what so ever, but you've proclaimed yourself to be the owner of the infobox. The infobox is for ALL dates related to the formation of a country. 681 will be in it, as this is the consensus. Any unbiased reader will quickly realize that most has survived in these 400 or so years, including political heritage (again Wallachia Boyars), Chiprovtsi uprising was lead by a Bulgarian Boyar, Ohrid Archbishop, National Symbols - Lion, National identity, name - Bulgaria. You are of course most likely paid to do what you're doing, because it is impossible that there is someone who is so uneducated and at the same time so unable to realize a simple fact as this one. You will continue to falsify statements, create your own rules and definitions, you'll never accept actual historical arguments. Your tactics are falsifying statements, taking text out of context and being plain ignorant. One more time, here are the sources and remember you will not be let to vandalize the infobox. This is my last post, after that I will be ignoring you, as you have presented no arguments and your only goal is to prolong this.

Bulgaria, Indiana University, 1987, p. 53

Erik Kooper (2006), The Medieval Chronicle IV, p. 97

R. J. Crampton (2005), A Concise History Of Bulgaria, Cambridge University Press, p. 9

Francisco Rodríguez Adrados (2005), A History of the Greek Language, BRILL, p. 265

M. Avrum Ehrlich (2008), Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora, ABC-CLIO, p. 954
Ximhua (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Haha (had to), I'm being paid ? By whom, the Illuminati ? The Jews ? The Communists ? You're becoming increasingly pathetic with each consecutive statement. And for the record, there have been three Bulgarian states. All these sources are for the first one - not the current one. So tell us, if modern Bulgaria was founded in 681, why is it referred to as the Third Bulgarian state ? And what happened to your 632 claim ? - ☣Tourbillon 06:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There is one Bulgaria and the names you refer to are invented by historians, the country has always been named - Bulgaria. It was Bulgaria in 632, 681, 1185 & 1878. You're pitiful attempts are only making you look more and more embarrassing. You are loosing it an you know it. You have no facts and continue to demonstrate your lack of basic historic knowledge. And if you're paid, you are NOT paid by the Illuminati, Jews or Communists. You're most likely paid by someone who'd love to have the First Bulgarian Empire renamed as Macedonian Empire. How small you are... Ximhua (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A huge amount of sources and arguments have already been presented by me and the other users, but you either called them "irrelevant" or "skewed", just because you don't like the way they sound. As I said, nobody is losing anything and this is not a game - you haven't presented any reasonable points as to why the year 681 should be in the infobox of an article on a contemporary country. The "Macedonian Empire" ? And you call me small...wow. Tavern historian/conspiracy theorist much ? - ☣Tourbillon 13:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's no conspiracy. There just happens to be too much coincidence between your talk and the official talk of a near by country :) But, if you'd like to be classified as lacking any knowledge, that is fine too. Again Bulgaria was named Bulgaria in 632, 681, 1185, 1878, it was always Bulgaria and whether you like it or not 681 will be in the infobox. Ximhua (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's no conspiracy they say, but if you're going to fall that low, why even bother ? There's enough arguments above explaining to unbiased readers why these years do not belong in the box, but since you won't read any of them, you can keep trying to add them and see them reverted. Simple as that. - ☣Tourbillon 18:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're so small, and don't deserve any further attention. 681 will be in the info box. Ximhua (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence. @Tourbillon: There is a very good and obvious reason why neither Greece nor Italy can claim 776 BC, respectively 23 BC as their foundation dates. Never in the history of the world there has been a state called Greece prior 1830 nor before the 16./17. century there has ever been people who called themselves Greeks. As an editor in the History section of WP I am sure you are aware of that. Therefore Greece does not and could not continue or build on some hypothetical entity from the antiquity founded in 776 BC. The same is valid for Italy. While you claim that common language, common ethnicity, common culture, common name and common national memory are not sufficient for claiming continuity between two successive states distant in time, you should agree that their a priory lack exclude any relation between any two historic entities in advance. And unlike in the case of Bulgaria, in the case of Italy and The Roman Republic\Empire you barely can find any of the above mentioned things. So trying to link Bulgaria's case to Greece and Italy is a bizarre and unfounded thing to do, since their historic path is intrinsically different. The case of Bulgaria is actually more similar to that of Armenia. Armenia claims 190 BC as a foundation year and relates itself to even more ancient kingdoms which go back to the 3. millennium BC. Moreover in different periods of times Armenia has ceased to exist for centuries and then over periods of time was again reestablished with the same name just like Bulgaria. Although Armenia has analogous to Bulgaria's faith its article contains shamelessly the dates 1200 BC and 190 BC as founding years in the infobox. What is more the page has a high rating and no-one is complaining about the century long absence from the political landscape of the world. So the majority of editors in WP put all dates related to the formation of a particular state into the infobox. You together with CMD seem to be pretty much the only ones in the WP who think otherwise which, as Ximhua noted, really looks like an agenda.Espor (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Tourbillon and CMD are definitely not "the only ones in WP" who disagree with you. They're just the only ones who still take you seriously enough to argue with you. Your points have been refuted over and over again and I for one decided long ago not to waste valuable time continuing to entertain you and only chime in now to remind you that consensus (not to mention common sense and logic) are still against you.--William Thweatt 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Espor, I wouldn't waste any more energy with these two. They want to prolong the discussion and use it as a reason to keep the article blocked. The definition of the purpose of the infobox is clear and so is the foundation of Bulgaria. When the article is unblocked, these two will be blocked for vandalism and multiple reverts and that will be the end of it. Thankfully, there are enough sane editors in WP. Ximhua (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fut. Ref. I do not see any accusations of vandalism directed to nobody specifically, so your ban is really a poor attempt. This shows once again how weak you really are. When you cannot beat someone on the playground of arguments, then why not become paranoid and try to ban him, LOL. I am sorry for you, really. Besides, you cannot prove any accusations for vandalism since I was speaking in general.Espor (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Another round

About round 999 of the recent reverts: Tourbillon's revert (with which I agree) beat me to it, but I would otherwise have inserted the following temporary compromise, to repair the damage of Ceco31's most recent version. Ceco31 even had the cheek of calling this the "stable version established years ago", which is little more than a bald-faced lie. Anyway, this would have been my interim lesser evil:

|sovereignty_type = ] 
|established_event1 = Medieval states:
|established_event2 = ]
|established_date2 = 681
|established_event3 = ] 
|established_date3 = 1185
|established_event4 = Modern state:
|established_event5 = ]
|established_date5 = 19 February 1878
|established_event6 = ]
|established_date6 = 22 September 1908

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Given this suggestion, I reckon that "medieval states" and "modern state" is unneccessary. Only look at Iran, founded in 600 BC, without stating modern and medieval states! Why modern and medieval should be stated in Bulgaria? Do you say that they were different states and do all other articles in Misplaced Pages just the opposite existed BC? If you think so I disagree, it is just visible nonsense China and Iran to be the same states with these BC while Bulgaria to be one far complete different case and almost founded in 1878, this is not true Bulgaria has a history too.--Ceco31 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks that you accepted a compromise, Future. Far as I know this was the 2006 version and many users were discussing much time and grounded the point too, if so we could say that we have consensus too.--Ceco31 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Why modern and medieval should be stated ? Maybe because the Middle Ages ended, like, 600 years ago ? Note that this is a temporary solution until the other party decides to treat the issue rationally, which is doubtful given certain users' quasi-paranoid experiences. - ☣Tourbillon 20:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I welcome this compromise. However, if we are going to separate Bulgaria's history in medieval and modern, then I think we should add under "medieval states" Old Great Bulgaria, as well, since the only thing Asparuch did was to move the capital from Phanagoria southeast to Pliska after the defeat of Bulgaria by the Khazars. The Manasieva Chronic, written at the time of Ivan Alexander (I hope I am correct about the period) does not even mention Asparuch as a founder of Bulgaria but it traces Bulgarian History back to Kuvrat and 632. Nice, a??? Ceco31, Ximhua, Apcbg, good job guys. Future, good job as well. I hope that sanity will prevail and noone will vandalize from now on the infobox amputating 1200 years of history. The history section is generally always bad and people tend to skim quickly over it. Very few will notice that in the medieval ages Bulgaria was a large and important Empire, which existed as independent state for 6 1/2 centuries before going under Ottoman rule. The presence of these significant dates in the infobox will however fix the attention of the reader, which is a very good thing. Cheers.Espor (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Including "Old Great Bulgaria"? Absolutely no way. Forget it. And if you do not immediately strike out that accusation of "vandalism" in your posting above, you're off to WP:AE for a topic ban right first thing tomorrow morning, sure as eggs is eggs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I find the compromise proposed by Future Perfect at Sunrise acceptable. It could stay until a consensus is reched here (which seems highly unlikely), or rather until some general guidelines and standards for the history dates in country articles infoboxes are worked out (which I believe is necessary). (Surely the First Bulgarian Empire is a direct successor state to the Old Great Bulgaria and the year 632 ought to be listed under 'Medieval states', but I would not insist on that as each party has to make some concessions in a true compromise). Best, Apcbg (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you don't figure that this is a temporary compromise until you people actually start thinking what this article is all about. And it's not about Medieval states for sure, not to mention it being about Old Great Bulgaria, which is not even in the same geographic locale. - ☣Tourbillon 07:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fut. Ref. I do not see any accusations of vandalism directed to nobody specifically, so your ban is really a poor attempt. I am sorry if you recognize yourself in the role of a vandal. Anyway, this shows once again how weak you really are. When you cannot beat someone on the playground of arguments, then why not become paranoid and try to ban him, LOL. I am sorry for you, really. Besides, you cannot prove any accusations for vandalism based on that since I was speaking in general. Are you trying to put words in my mouth? Is this the civil behavior you are demanding? Cheers.Espor (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The idea about setting 632 in the lead is ridiculous. The First Bulgarian state established in 681 was not the Second Bulgar's state. The original name of the state established in 632 was Onoghuria, not Bulgaria. More, it was founded by several Bulgar tribes on the territory of modern-day Ukraine. First Bulgarian state was established on the Balkans, only by one Bulgar tribe and with the support of the different local Slavic tribes in the area, which had still begun to mix them with the numerous Romanized and Hellenized native Thracians' descendants. Also, there are any reliable neutral scientific sources in support of this strange view. Jingiby (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope that is not true. The original name of the state established in 632 was precisely Bulgaria, in fact Byzantine sourses refer to it as Old Great Bulgaria. Onughuria is the name used in western tradition. Well, I referred above to the Manasiev Chronichs from the 13. century which stipulate that Kouvrat is the founder of Bulgaria and only mention Asparuch marginally as a ruler who shifts the capital. As for a modern source, I know that Prof. Bakalov and Prof. Dimitrov support this thesis and they are quite main stream historians. Also some of the books of Peter Dobrev mention this. If I am not banned till then I will search for concrete documents which can be attached in the bibliography after the article.Espor (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And all that relates to the economy, demographics, politics and culture of this article how ? - ☣Tourbillon 14:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Old Great Bulgaria was known exactly as Old Great Bulgaria at the time of its existence, this is how it is referred in the Eastern Roman Empire at that time. The geography span wouldn't much matter, since during Khan Asparuh, the country simply expanded to the south west and lost the territories to the north east. Ximhua (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not know, here was science-fiction forum for propaganda of Bozhidar Dimitrov's bullshets. Jingiby (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

So your argument is insulting one of the leading historians in Europe? How convincing. Ximhua (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why 632 is being discussed, adding it in the infobox is completely out of the question. In fact, even the years 681 or 1185 are irrelevant as foundation dates and there's still no valid explanation provided as to why they should be in the infobox of a modern state. - ☣Tourbillon 09:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

632 is the year Great Old Bulgaria was established, which simply moved south and east. It is an integral part of Bulgaria's history. That's why. Ximhua (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see you using the "language, symbols, religion" argumentation pattern to prove a connection between the Third Bulgarian state and this one. It's just out of the question. - ☣Tourbillon 20:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So any valid arguments on why Medieval political entities should be in the infobox, or there are no objections to remove them ? - ☣Tourbillon 11:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You are getting disruptive again. The consensus is the current version with 618 in it. We are discussing adding 632, not removing the other ones. Don't you even think for a second that this page is not monitored daily for vandalism. Ximhua (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ottoman Bulgaria

Which portion of "Nevertheless, certain Bulgarian groups prospered in the highly ordered Ottoman system, and Bulgarian national traditions continued in rural areas." did you not get CMD? Do I have to go to a dispute for every edit? Did Bulgrian National traditions is not definitive enough??? Please, explain why you reverted my edit on the topic? (Ximhua (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC))

The bit where you equate this with national identity. CMD (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So, how does the fact that the author is talking about Bulgarian groups and Bulgarian National traditions not translate to national identity to you? Please, give me your definition of national identity? (Ximhua (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC))

Because they're not talking about national identity, which didn't exist in that day and age. Here's an external link, , for you to read over. CMD (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself, as if you are correct, how can Bulgarians lose something that didn't exist as a notion in the world at that time? (Ximhua (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC))

Different ideas of national identity. Read Britannica, it explains it, but in summary, historically a national identity was formed through allegiance to a ruler, rather than any individual identity. The modern idea of national identity, based on self-identity as part of a group, emerged quite recently. That's the national identity the Bulgarian National Awakening created, which was part of a general trend across Europe at the time. CMD (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So, then should we remove "and the parts of the population lost its national consciousness" all together?

And simply add this: "In small villages and mountainous areas however Bulgarian traditions, religion and customs were virtually not affected.", as it doesn't really talk about the concept of nation? (Ximhua (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC))

As long as the text doesn't mix up older and modern ideas of nationhood, it should be fine. It could be useful to mention that rural areas seemed to maintain older traditions, but in doing so we'd have to make clear that most of the population was assimilated. CMD (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course most of the population was not assimilated, come on. What happened is that certain portions moved north of the Danube to the Walachian principalities, some portions moved to the mountains, other portions remained in the cities. While there was forceful conversion to islam, this was only in limited areas. Anyway, I assume you agree with the text and I'll add it. We agree to disagree on the nationhood, so I won't mention it. (Ximhua (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC))

A rather selective reading of your source, which explicitly says "Territorial control also meant cultural and religious assimilation of the populace into the empire." That's the norm, according to the source, everything else is the exception. I didn't agree to that text, which should be immediately clear to you as you had the take the time to argue about something I said (despite it being based on your source). CMD (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

But, he goes on to clarify: "The Ottoman system also recognized the value of Bulgarian artisans, who were organized and given limited autonomy as a separate class. Some prosperous Bulgarian peasants and merchants became intermediaries between local Turkish authorities and the peasants. In this capacity, these chorbadzhi (squires) were able to moderate Ottoman policy. ". As a side note I genuinely believed you agreed to the text. Should we use the word Agree, as a single sign, going forward? Ximhua (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"He goes on to clarify" (emphasis added). That means it's not part of the norm. It's an exception. Somehow you've taken that to be the rule. Going forward, I will be sure to explicitly note what any agreement I place on this talkpage is. CMD (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well he says "Territorial control also meant cultural and religious assimilation of the populace into the empire. " assimilation into the empire does not mean, the populace became anything other than Bulgarian, it just means the population was part of the Empire. Also, please note the large number of revolts and temporary gain of control, Fruzin -1404-1421, First Turnovo - 1500s, Second Turnovo - 1600s, etc. how would these happen if there was such mass assimilation? I think the following text should be included: "The Ottoman system also recognized the value of Bulgarian artisans, who were organized and given limited autonomy as a separate class. Some prosperous Bulgarian peasants and merchants became intermediaries between local Turkish authorities and the peasants. In this capacity, these chorbadzhi (squires) were able to moderate Ottoman policy." Do you agree?

Also, I think we should mention http://en.wikipedia.org/Constantine_II_of_Bulgaria and change the date of fall of Second Bulgrian Empire to 1422, as this is now the consensus in academia. Agree? Ximhua (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You claim that being Bulgarian is defined by its continuing culture and its adherence to the Bulgarian church, but now you claim that cultural and religious assimilation into the Turkish Muslim Ottoman Empire doesn't mean they aren't Bulgarian? That's hugely contradictory. As for the text, I see no reason why the way the Ottomans treated Bulgarian artists is so notable that it needs to be mentioned on this WP:Summary style article, nor the fact that some rich Bulgarians managed to get some political sway. Your text also again doesn't note the general case of assimilation. CMD (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If there was assimilation, why were there revolts? What were Bulgarians revolting against? Also, you didn't really comment on the map one of the users listed?

Again, the text clearly states that there was little impact in the rural areas, and in case you don't know Bulgaria was 80% rural up until XX century. I'd like to see a source that states that rural areas were assimilated? In fact there was no assimilation in cities as well, as simply Bulgarians moved to smaller cities or migrated north. Ximhua (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Assimilation takes time, and even then, people can revolt over whatever they choose to revolt over. Spartacus revolted in Rome, without the need for ethnic justification. The leaders of what would become the United states didn't revolt due to ethnicity. Communist revolutions all over the world had no regard to ethnicity. Don't addendum the text with your own OR. Saying things like "In fact there was no assimilation in cities as well", directly contradicting the source you want to use to support the lack of assimilation in rural areas, just makes your arguments look pathetic. CMD (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Read more about this noble: http://en.wikipedia.org/Petar_Parchevich Also, you can use Google Translate to translate this page: http://bg.wikipedia.org/%D0%91%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5_%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE Look specifically at the dates, it has sources as well. I think it clearly proves that not much assimilation happened in the rural areas and that certain parts of the nobility continued to exist throughout. Ximhua (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I added another edit, to the apocalyptic description of the ottoman period. Let me know if you'd like to chat instead of reverting. I think we can easily agree on certain things. (Ximhua (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC))

Your edit repeated your above edit, and it's not apocalyptic at all. Such obvious hyperbole won't help your arguments. CMD (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian state exists since 681. Please amend the field "Formation" on the front page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.19.103.71 (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The end of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom was in 1396. That is the international consensus in academia. All other claims are only modern Bulgarian hypothesises. Jingiby (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, this page actually mentions 1450s as end date: http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm, it US Library of Congress. Any comment? Ximhua (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The source says that local uprisings ended in 1453 when Constantinople fell. Unless you consider Constantinople to be Bulgarian, I don't see how this would mean that Bulgaria ended that year. - ☣Tourbillon 22:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It says "Bulgarian resistance continued until 1453" don't try to change the words. It is clear that this source talks about Bulgaria. Are you denying this? Ximhua (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what is says. Does it say "Bulgaria continued to exist until 1453" ? No. The existence of opposition has nothing to do with the existence of a state. And finally, I would recommend you add whatever you have to Ottoman Bulgaria, the goal of this article is to keep things as concise as possible. - ☣Tourbillon 05:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Last attempt, before I log another dispute, how is this text only: "Bulgarian resistance however continued until 1453 with the Uprising of Konstantin & Fruzhin liberating a significant portion of Bulgaria for almost a decade.. CMD comments? Ximhua (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable neutral source for this hypothetical claims? Even Bulgarian Academy of Sciences will be enough. Do not vorget, here is not a forum but an encyclopaedia. "Trud Publishers" is nor scientific neither academic publishing house. Konstantin and Fruzhin never had liberated a significant portion of Bulgaria for almost a decade. This is simply science-fiction. Jingiby (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

With the capture of a rump Bulgarian kingdom centred at Bdin (Vidin) in 1396, the last remnant of Bulgarian independence disappeared. End of dispute. - ☣Tourbillon 13:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The source is from United States Library of Congress Research Division on the resistance until 1453 http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm. On Konstantin and Fruzhin the sources are:

1. Ангелов, П., Д. Саздов, И. Стоянов, История на България (681 - 1944 г.),т. 1, С., 2003. 2. Бакалов, Г. и др., История на българите, т. 1, Изд. Знание - ЕОД, 2003. 3. Бакалов, Г. и др., История на българите, т. 2, Изд. Знание - ЕОД, 2004. This is really my last attempt at this, then logging a dispute. Ximhua (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No neutral Academic source was provided. Full stop of this useless discussion! Jingiby (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Threats with filing for dispute resolution, and actually doing so will only end up badly for you. This dispute ended - see the source I provided, there's a pretty direct statement there. - ☣Tourbillon 15:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, may I recommend you – rather for enlightening purposes than as a ‘reliable source’ :-) – the Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages, used as source in the US Department of State Background Note: Bulgaria. (Compare “They came to Europe from their old homeland, the Kingdom of Balhara situated in Mount Imeon area (present Hindu Kush in northern Afghanistan).” in the former and “In the second century A.D., the Bulgars came to Europe from their old homeland, the Kingdom of Balhara situated in the Mount Imeon area (present Hindu Kush in northern Afghanistan).” in the latter). So the Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages puts the final subduing of the Vidin Kingdom at 1422. As a matter of fact, the last piece of the present Bulgarian territory to fall under the Ottomans was Sozopol, in 1453. Take care, Apcbg (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's good that you promote your own work, but I highly doubt this is the place to do so. - ☣Tourbillon 15:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, l even if the events in question were notable enough to make it into the Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages, the History of Bulgaria should be kept within far less than seven pages on this article. Perhaps working on some subpages would be more productive? CMD (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is for a single sentence, anyway I've submitted a dispute, as it seems we'll have to go thru this fun part for almost every edit :) It's OK, I don't mind, at the end of the day accuracy and completeness is what counts here. Here is the dispute page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&pe=1&#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FBulgaria PS: apcbg, excellent work on the essential history! Keep it up! Ximhua (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral third opinion here:

Unfortunately, your submission of the dispute somewhat misrepresent the nature of the dispute, as you claim the arguments against it is that the source is unreliable. It isn't, see here, but as evident from the discussion above, the dispute isn't that simple at all.

However,tThere is no doubt the sentence "Bulgarian resistance continued until 1453" is reliably sourced and can be added, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, that works for me. If we're all in agreement that the text below can be added, I'll close the dispute. "Bulgarian resistance south of the Danube continued until 1453 and included the uprisings of Konstantin and Fruzhin in the early 1400s." Do we agree? Ximhua (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose "Sporadical Bulgarian resistance south of the Danube continued until 1453 and included the organized revolt of Konstantin and Fruzhin in the early 1400s." Jingiby (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Ximhua (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, propose to add that to Ottoman Bulgaria, not here. With such "minor additions" the article had inflated to a size of 150k a while back, and this does little to contribute to the general historical picture. - ☣Tourbillon 19:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a much larger edit to Ottoman Bulgaria, but give it time ;) I think this single sentence is a good compromise, so unless you feel really, really strongly about it, I'm planning to add it tonight. Cheers, Ximhua (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's just a minor bit of history concerning only the 15th century. A single sentence on general resistance against the Ottomans would be a much better addition. - ☣Tourbillon 20:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just saw your post. I'd consider it quite significant actually, but we agree to disagree on that one :) In any case, I've already added it. Hopefully, this bit is settled. I'll add more on the ottoman article, which is in dire need of update. Cheers, Ximhua (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I've edited it for clarity. No need to repeat "south of the Danube" as that's in the preceding sentence, and no need to seemingly randomly specify one revolt (and no need at all really, considering the wider scheme of things, but since it's there...). Ximhua, you really should break this habit of adding things under discussion before consensus is clear. CMD (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Added both sources. The revolt was critical as it was the last revolt led by Bulgarian nobles. It is a requirement area of study for every history exam in a Bulgarian university for exampl. Also, the text was agreed upon by other folks. South of the Danube is also important, as there was quite a number of Bulgarians remaining north of the Danube, however their destiny was different, as they remained parts of the principalities of Walachia & Moldova. Hope you don't mind and won't revert. I'm willing to reach a consensus, maybe we have to figure out a better way to communicate, feel free to post on my page, happy to chat on various middle ages topics Cheers, Ximhua (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't agreed on anything, if that is what you are trying to say. This revolt was in no way critical, it's not even certain when it began. The whole section regards Ottoman-era events on a much wider scale for something this insignificant to be mentioned. - ☣Tourbillon 06:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about Bulgarians, but Bulgaria. The Bulgarians article is appropriately named Bulgarians. If you want to reach a consensus and figure out a better way to communicate, stop making edits claiming talkpage agreement when there isn't any. CMD (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverted to Tourbillion's version for now, while adding both sources, but didn't mention the revolt. The revolt is of extreme significance however, as it is led by the sons of the last Tsars of the Second Bulgarian Empire As mentioned it is a mandatory area of study in every History exam in a Bulgarian university. Other revolts are also mentioned in the article, so why exclude this one? In any case, we're back to Tourbillon's edit Ximhua (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Why remove the explanation for the date? I put that back, but with the country studies source, which mentions this. As for the book source, if you want to add one, you'll need things like page numbers and isbns, or others won't be able to find what you're citing. CMD (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Improved the wording, basically used the text from your first edit. Once I get the page numbers and ISBN will add the second source as well. Ximhua (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

How does removing the explanation for the information you added from the source you added improve the wording? CMD (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

681 in lead

I think there was value to Ximhua's addition of a date in the lead. The time when the modern Bulgarian ethnicity begins (so to speak), is I feel notable. We have 1396 already. Perhaps it would also be useful to add a sentence fragment noting Byzantine rule. If it's two long, we can reduce the text for pre 681 or something. CMD (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'd agree with this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with mentioning the important date of 681 in the lede, but it shouldn't be in the context of "ethnicity", which really didn't start taking shape until conversion to the Eastern Church. Until that time there were ethnic Bulgars and ethnic Slavs whose nationality was "Bulgarian", but no ethnic Bulgarians. See, for example, this article which says the conversion of Boris in the late 9th century is what began to cement the idea of a Bulgarian ethnicity.--William Thweatt 15:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more of how the different ethnicities that eventually merged into Bulgarian were locked down into one Empire, but the actual 9th century merge is noted. Apparently Boris' desire to create a culturally unique Bulgaria paid off. I wouldn't put it in the context of a national identity either though, as national identities were quite loose before the modern nation-state emerged. In line with that, perhaps we should replace "The emergence of a unified Bulgarian state" with a simple note of the First Bulgarian Empire being proclaimed, due to the many contexts the word Bulgarian could imply, and due to it possibly note being correct in a national sense due to entities such as Old Great Bulgaria. CMD (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Greek Language

This From the 7th century Greek became the predominant language in the Eastern Roman Empire's administration, Church and society, replacing Latin.
phrase in the Prehistory and antiquity section is imo highly misleading as Latin never was predominant in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire or later the Eastern Roman Empire(certainly not in Church or society in general);minor exceptions to this were few, very localised, short lived etc, e.g. the sack of Corinth and the creation of a colonia there and similarly the initial period during and after the founding of Constantinople;the only real and important exception to the above that I can think of,id est a large area of the (eastern) greco-roman world that got and stayed afterwards more romanised than hellenised, is the places north of the so called Jireček Line(an approximate imaginary line),let's say the very northern part of the Eastern Empire , hence e.g. the Romanian language.
The 7th century change should refer to Heraclius replacing the official language of the empire from Latin to Greek id est making the de facto predominant, common and/or lingua franca language, the de jure formal official imperial language also.I won't edit this for now but unless other people correct this in due time, I will have a go at it at some time in the future; unless of course there are -serious- objections to what I've said...
P.S.This might at first glance seem or sound irrelevant to Bulgaria but ... it's really not:
In other words unlike what Mel Gibson would like many to believe it's highely unlikely that Pontius Pilate spoke in Latin to Jesus (provided that this conversation ever took place...)... ;-) Thanatos|talk 08:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole sentence is irrelevant, it has no logical connection to the rest of the subsection. I'll move it to the History main page. - ☣Tourbillon 08:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

While deleting it isn't imo a problem , I think moving a problematic phrase elsewhere is a problem... ;-) P.S.I've quickly read through the History article;funny that I see no mention there of the hellenisation of (Southern at least) Thracians... :) Anyway...Thanatos|talk 08:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well you're free to edit it, I just say it doesn't fit with the whole subsection. - ☣Tourbillon 08:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I repeat: no objection to you deleting this phrase...The objection would be to moving an imo misleading phrase elsewhere,to some other article...If on the other hand you mean you're indeed going to relocate it to the History article and there I'm free to edit it,well considering the whole paragraph I've written above ,it would be counterproductive,don't you think??? :) Thanatos|talk 08:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As per the Encyclopedia of European peoples Infobase Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1438129181, p. 113, the Byzantines were the people of the Byzantine empire. No difference if they were Greeks, original Romans, hellenized or romanized local inhabitants and i.e. The official language and the structure of the Empire were initially Latin, respectively Roman. I do not understand why is this discussion and why was referenced text deleted? Jingiby (talk)

I removed the two sentences about the local language (Greek/Latin), because they were irrelevant to the rest of the subsection. And Byzantines would be too broad, not to mention that the link was to Byzantine Greeks. - ☣Tourbillon 12:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for any future reference my answer also to Jingiby:
I repeat the phrase in question: From the 7th century Greek became the predominant language in the Eastern Roman Empire's administration, Church and society, replacing Latin..So how should I put it more clearly?Greek didn't become after the 7th century the predominant language in the Eastern Roman Empire's administration, Church and society, replacing Latin;it had that status in the area already from the Hellenistic times (excluding the Christian Church about which the same thing is of course true but starting in CE times...);what happened with Heraclius was that Greek also became the official language of the empire, replacing Latin...So speaking more specifically about Bulgaria, it's unlikely that the Hellenised Thracians of modern day or medieval Bulgaria(at least the southern ones) spoke Latin until the 7th century and then switched to Greek.They predominantly spoke Greek and then gradually switched to speaking Bulgarian or other languages (excluding the coastal areas where Greek survived and remained dominant till the modern times) after the Slavic and Bulgarian conquests of the Balkans...Thanatos|talk 14:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Protected

There is obviously some real edit warring going on on the article right now, and nobody is discussing it on the talk page on either side. So I've protected the article for a week due to the disruption it is causing, and before anyone is blocked over what is quite clearly a content dispute. Please discuss the issues instead of revert warring. Canterbury Tail talk 12:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on the issue is still up there - Sovereignty dates in the Infobox. There is consensus among several editors, based on arguments, which the other side refuses to hear. More specifically, one or two users and a load of single-purpose accounts. - ☣Tourbillon 13:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no discussion going on recently over the edits that are currently taking place, that section of the talk hasn't been engaged in for a month now, but edit warring is going on now. Since edit warring is going on now, discussion needs to be going on now. And yes I can see there are a load of single purpose accounts, which was why I decided to protect the article to avoid further disruption, but I would expect to see an attempt to join in discussion from the more established editors, even if the other side doesn't reciprocate. Canterbury Tail talk 14:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There is consensus among several editors to keep the stable version established years ago (by consensus too), based on arguments that the anti-681 faction here refuses to hear. Apcbg (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

1. http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm
2. http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm
3. Бакалов, Георги; Милен Куманов (2003). "Фружин (неизв.-около 1460)" (in Bulgarian). Електронно издание – История на България. София: Труд, Сирма. ISBN 954528613X.

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Bulgaria articles
• Top-importance Bulgaria articles
• WikiProject Bulgaria articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Selected anniversaries (March 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2012)