Talk:Bulgaria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Small Text

Archive
Archives



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


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

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

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

Contents

[edit] RfC: Did Bulgaria declare her independence in 1878 but was refused recognition until 1908?

Did Bulgaria declare her independence in 1878 but was refused recognition until 1908?

And your sources were careful enough not to mention the Treaty of San Stefano. Lantonov (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Bulgaria has been recognized in 1878 but she is still Turkish vassal. Evidence that she is recognized is Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Bulgaria in 1885 during Serbo-Bulgarian War. It is not possible to give ultimatum to state which is not existing. --Rjecina (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
By definiton a vassal state is not an independent state. Is Kosovo an independent state today? There is a parallel between the Serbian region/province of Kosovo of today and the Ottoman Principality of Bulgaria and the Ottoman Province of Eastern Rumelia of late 19th century Ottoman Empire.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"Treaty of San Stefano (1878), Article VI. Bulgaria forms autonomous, tax-paying Principality, with Christian government, and its own Army.
......
Signed:
Count Ignat'yev
Safvet
Nelidov
Sadullah"
Now look in dictionary under "autonomy": Webster says:
"au-ton-o-my (Ó ton'uh mee)  n. pl. <-mies>
                 1.  independence or freedom, as of the will 
                      or one's actions.
                 2.  the condition of being autonomous; 
                      self-government or the right of 
                      self-government; independence.
                 3.  a self-governing community.
            [1615-25; < Gk]"
I write you 'D' in history. Probably you skipped that lesson. :)

Lantonov (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks. I warned you before.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Personal attack? With knife or with a fire-arm? Lantonov (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but don't forget that the Treaty of San Stefano also never came to pass, because the Western Powers were not for it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This is right, it was revised six months later at the Berlin Congress (as Garibaldi called it, "a filthy market for the sale of nations") which also stipulated autonomous Principality of Bulgaria, and partially autonomous Eastern Rumelia, de facto dividing Bulgaria in three parts, and giving rise to the "Macedonian question". This is included in this article. Lantonov (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It turns out that for Bulgarians San Stefano passed and the treaty of Berlin never took place? According to Lantonov's logic Bulgaria declared independence in 1878 but was also a vassal of the Ottomans. Perhaps Bulgarians delared their independence among themselves and kept it as a secret until 1908. From comments by Bulgarian users here one can see the ambitions of a little state (Bulgaria) on territories gained in a war fought between two empires 130 years ago. The so called "Macedonian question" is the fault of those who did not allow Bulgaria to keep the territories gained with little Bulgarian effort. :) --Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
All I can say to this is: "If you do not like the obvious answer, do not ask". Lantonov (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Berlin Treaty boundary was far from corresponding with the ethnological limits of the Bulgarian race, which were more accurately defined by the abrogated treaty of San Stefano (see below, under _History_). A considerable portion of Macedonia, the districts of Pirot and Vranya belonging to Servia, the northern half of the vilayet of Adrianople, and large tracts of the Dobrudja, are, according to the best and most impartial authorities, mainly inhabited by a Bulgarian population.

—Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, Vol. 4, part 3, Article BULGARIA, lead section, Now in public domain, Project Gutenberg

Lantonov (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Kind of History: A must read

An informative article by Christopher Buxton.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See also the comments under the article. For further (mis)information of this sort, read also User:Nostradamus1/Conversions_to_Islam_in_Bulgaria to learn how eager and willing were the Bulgarians to convert to Islam because "The rapid and thorough conquest of the Balkans by the Ottomans convinced many Christians that the religion of the conquerors must be superior to Christianity, a conviction leading to conversion to Islam" and how happy they lived in the Ottoman Empire.Lantonov (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You could have waited until I completed the article. In any case I encourage everyone to read it as well. It will shed some light into the "super human" side of Bulgarian history.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I bet. Even unfinished, the light is so bright and shining that there are no dark nooks left. Those are really bold strokes with the whitewashing brush. Let other Europeans be jealous, and clench their teeth in anger that they have missed those good days. If they had known how good life under Ottomans was, they would have met Ottoman troops in Vienna with bread and salt, not with bullets. Lantonov (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Lantonov, you have this habit of editing your own comments even after someone responds to them. This changes the context of the conversation. I would have responded to you differently if you had written your comment as it is worded at the moment. You also have a history of plagiarism. Is that how you got your PhD? Or is that claim as credible as your other comments here?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Nostradamus1, I did not intend to have anything more with you, but since you started personal attacks against me, I feel obliged to respond. If you are in loss for words, do not blame me, blame yourself. Do I see some jealosy and spite about my PhD? I would gladly tell how I obtained it and what it cost to me, but not to you, Nostradamus1, because you wouldn't understand, and it is none of your business anyway.Lantonov (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Nostradamus1 are you English?Avidius --Avidius (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion he is a Bulgarian Turk, I am almost sure he understands Bulgarian and hates our nation. Just see his comments. --Gligan (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm not English but that would not matter since there is an escape mechanism for every Bulgarian. As Buxton points out "There are facts unknown to any non-Bulgarian historian" and "mention of other imperial experiences was treated with contempt". When I used R. Crampton as a reference in Turks in Bulgaria these users rejected this source on the grounds that the English had sided with the Turks during the 19th century and for that reason they would not qualify as unbiased sources. The same user:Lantonov claimed that "the history of Bulgaria is best known by Bulgarians." I would not agree more with what Buxton wrote in his article. He lived in Bulgaria and experienced it first hand on the ground. To quote Crampton:

There is still a tendency amongst many Bulgarians, particularly when an outsider points out a shortcoming, to relapse into a regressive fatalism, a fatalism expressed most often in phrases such as 'Five hundred years of Ottoman rule...' . This is an unhelpful attitude. It is using the past to escape from the present and more so from the future. (R.J. Crampton, A Concise History of Bulgaria, 1997, Cambridge University Press)

Buxton and Crampton hit the nail right on the head.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat here "the history of Bulgaria is best known by Bulgarians." Who do you think knows best the history of Bulgaria? The little green men from the UFOs? Or some unknown Bulgarophobe under the pseudonym Buxton with his ridiculous pasquille? Or you, Nostradamus1, who has an obviuos agenda to smear every person or country that has spoken against or has experienced Turkish attrocities? Since you have only one book on Bulgaria in your disposal (Crampton) whom you cite everywhere and for everything, let me point to you your favorite "Five hundred years of Ottoman rule ..." here. [1]:

During the five centuries of Ottoman rule, most of Bulgaria's indigenous cultural centers were destroyed. Several Bulgarian uprisings were brutally suppressed and a great many people fled abroad.

—US Department of State. Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs September 2007. [2]

This is the most important that can be said about the Ottoman rule, in two short sentences. If we get into details, numbers, methods, facts, etc., the picture becomes grimmer and grimmer. I will put this as a final reference for the period of Ottoman rule, and it will stay put. If you insist to edit-war on the same issue as in Turks in Bulgaria, it will only turn the attention of the admins on your edit history and it is not in your favor, believe me. Labeling William Gladstone as a racist does not look good at all. Now who is next to blame? USA? Let me see how you penetrate their site and change these sentences. Lantonov (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nostradamus, I ask you again to adhere to wikipedia policies. One of the main is WP:NPA. It seems you allow yourself too much of this. And once again - insulting other contributors does you no good. --Laveol T 12:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and all these nonsense that have been written in this section of the talk should be removed. Talkpages are not the place to spread propaganda and original research. --Laveol T 12:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

they aslo have a level Subscript textSubscript text

I will have to say that Buxtons article is filled with exagerations and vague statements e.g "bulgarian suffering during the Turkish Slavery was seen as unique in world history" and " they lived amid a culture of hygiene and social responsibility, which was at least partly Turkish". Frankly when I read it I didn't understand the essence of this social responsibility or are we supposed to trust the history knowledge in Bulgarian history of an english language teacher. User:Avidius--Avidius (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Some have parroted themselves by repeating "The history of Bulgaria is best known by Bulgarians". Buxton points out sarcastically by writing "There are facts unknown to non-Bulgarian historians". Regarding his comment on the Turkish contribution to the culture of hygene I would ask Gligan, for instance, the fate of the Turkish Bath House of Pazardzik. I heard rumours it too has been demolished. Scholars point out that 98 percent of the Ottoman architecture has been demolished since Bulgaria's liberation in 1878 (Kiel 1985). The elimination of any Turkish and Ottoman past has been a continuous process implemented by successive Bulgarian governments. History has been written accordingly. The Turkic background of both contemporary Turks and that of medieval Bulgars has been questioned in order to cement a mono-ethnic Slavic Bulgaria.Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgaria as a Sovietic Republic

In 1968, T. Z. proposed that Bulgaria to be the 16th Sovietic Republic. This belongs to the essence of Bulgarian people and its history! It's very important to state this in the article since Bulgaria was the most closest friend to Soviet Union. Recent facts, economic agreements with Vladimir Putin's Russia of over 10 bn $, shows that history has a repeated cycle.Anton Tudor (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is Soviet, not Sovietic. Maybe Todor Zhivkov and his clique planned many things for Bulgaria which we are yet to learn, but Bulgaria did not become a Soviet Republic, and that is all that matters. You'd better worry about the inheritance left to you by Ciausescu. Lantonov (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's why now Romanians are 3 times richer than you Bulgarians.Anton Tudor (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? Because it doesn't look exactly so when I compare data about the two countries. Lantonov (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Minimum monthly wage is in Romania 500 lei ($207/142 euro) which is your average wage. In Romania now the average wage is 550 EUR. Anton Tudor (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Boys boys boys, calm down! The outside world doesn't really distinguish between the two of you in terms of economic development or freedom of movement for workers, I can assure you. You're both in the EU now; time to learn to get along. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I am glad to learn that our neighbours are very happy to live in their own countries. :) Lantonov (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

See here who is richer. Of course Bulgaria is richer. --Gligan (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No Bulgaria is not richer. Actually is very poor. And maybe because you feel so poor and in a miserable state you think you have some arguments. Look here for sources that Bulgaria is the poorest country in EU. Grow up and give your exams since you don't know yet who's the riches, powerful nation from N of Bulgaria. Anton Tudor (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sources: Average monthly wage in Bulgaria is 284 BGN (145.210622 Euros) [3] and minimum wage in Romania is 500 lei (284 BGN http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=284+BGN+in+BGN ) So, poor bulgarian you lack sources. Anton Tudor (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You are poor romanian which is jealous for Bulgaria and I understand you, you should be. You are constantly talking that I have no sources but I haven given you, when I discuss, you have nothing to answer. I think you hate Bulgaria, don't you? --Gligan (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No, why should be a rich Romanian jealous on a poor miserable state streetless corrupted "country" with no rules jealous? Your wage is maximum 200 EUR and you feel bad since Romanians have 3 times more.Anton Tudor (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not notice "powerful nation to the north". HHAHAHAHAHA... you are funny, thank you for making me laugh. In fact romania is miserable state without history and with one of the weakest armies in the world. We have always defeated you in battle. Powerful... hahahhaha. --Gligan (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
defense budget of Bulgaria was US$550 million while Romania's was 2.82 billion U.S. dollars (speaking about who's the weakest and poor)Anton Tudor (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No history? You are a turkic tribe, the bulgars while Romanians are Romans and Dacians descendents. Maybe you are Romanic population slavised, so think twice... Anton Tudor (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You are incompetent. Have you heard of PPP (purchasing power parity)?????? --Gligan (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you heard about 550 EUR compared with 150 EUR? That's why Romanians (as rich people) went in vacation to Bulgaria(because is so cheap Bulgaria and is more expensive to stay at home - interesting no Bulgarian could afford to go out)Anton Tudor (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you don't know what PPP is. I am not surprised. --Gligan (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you can't afford to go out of Bulgaria, not even to Turkey, since you don't love your 15% part of nation. Anton Tudor (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I wonder why do I talk with such an incompetent person, but it is really funny for me. Romanian "da" comes from Bulgarian whose old form was widely spoken in Wallachia untill 19th cent.--Gligan (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Having one word of slavic origin means nothing. You should stop accusing the others when you haven't finished your exams yet...Anton Tudor (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It is good to see in the CIA Fact Book also the sections on Bulgarian history, and get some citations from there. Lantonov (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


what a childish fight .... both countries are up to their necks in sh** and you two keep arguing about who's in deeper... Btw if you want to quote figures, don't do a google search for the results you like best but get some real statistics. Minimum income is NOT the same as statistical per capita income! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.187.26 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman rule

I would like to add the following to the Ottoman rule section. However there has been an ongoing edit war since yesterday. I am placing it here until the war is ended by the "Great Powers".

Main article: History of Ottoman Bulgaria
Shipka monument (located near Kazanlak) — one of the brightest symbols of Bulgarian liberation
Shipka monument (located near Kazanlak) — one of the brightest symbols of Bulgarian liberation
There is a well-established tradition in Bulgarian historiography which treats the Ottoman period in Bulgaria as a five-century long dark age during which Ottomans deliberately attempted to wipe out Bulgarian culture and nation by a combination of forced conversion of Orthodox Christians to Islam, assimilation, and massacres. The following quote from Hristov (1980) is a representative sample that runs through most Bulgarian historiography:

Bulgaria's fall under Turkish rule ushered in the grimmest period in the history of the Bulgarian people, a period of almost 500 years of foreign domination. During it, the very existence of the Bulgarians as a nationality was threatened as a result of their extermination, eviction and assimilation and the brutal oppression and exploitation to which they were subjected by the Turkish conquerors. Foreign domination held back the development of the country's productive forces, severed the Bulgarians' contacts with all other nations and put an end to their free cultural development.Bulgaria's conquest by the Turks was accompanied by the destruction of whole towns and villages and eviction of the population. Hitherto prospering towns and villages were reduced to ruins and the land was turned into a desert. The population of whole regions were forced to seek refuge in the mountains and in remote areas far away from any roads and communications. Turkish colonists and nomadic herdsmen from Asia Minor were settled in the most fertile regions thus vacated.[1]

However Curtis (1992) comments that

The capture of Constantinople in 1453 completed Ottoman subjugation of major Bulgarian political and cultural institutions. Nevertheless, certain Bulgarian groups prospered in the highly ordered Ottoman system, and Bulgarian national traditions continued in rural areas. When the decline of the Ottoman Empire began about 1600, the order of local institutions gave way to arbitrary repression, which eventually generated armed opposition. Western ideas that penetrated Bulgaria during the 1700s stimulated a renewed concept of Bulgarian nationalism that eventually combined with decay in the empire to loosen Ottoman control in the nineteenth century.[2]

But according to Dimitrov (2002)

The five centuries of Ottoman rule featured great violence and oppression. The Ottomans decimated the Bulgarian population, which lost most of its cultural relics. Large towns and the areas where Ottoman power predominated remained severely depopulated until the nineteenth century.[3]

Crampton (1997) summarizes the Ottoman period as follows:

The vigorous but self-righteous Christians of the Victorian era created the impression that their co-religionists under Ottoman domination had suffered continual persecution for 500 years. It was not so. Ottoman history is certainly not free from terrible incidents of hideous outrage, but in Europe these were occasional. Many, if not most, followed acts of rebellion and if this does not excuse the excess it perhaps goes some way to explain it. Other outbursts were spontaneous, localised and random, the result usually of a peculiar combination of personal, political, social or economic factors. It would be unwise to imagine the Ottoman empire as some form of lost, multi-cultural paradise, but on the other hand it would also be wrong to deny that at some periods in its history the empire assured for all its subjects, irrespective of religion, stability, security and a reasonable degree of prosperity.[4]

US State Department profile of Bulgaria states that:

During the five centuries of Ottoman rule, most of Bulgaria's indigenous cultural centers were destroyed. Several Bulgarian uprisings were brutally suppressed and a great many people fled abroad.[5]

On the other hand Hupchick (2002) emphasizes that

While the subject Christians were reduced to second-class status in Ottoman society, those precepts and traditions offered them a certain measure of religious toleration, administrative autonomy, and economic well-being that was exceptional for non-aristocratic society in the rest of Europe. That condition changed during the 17th century, when the effects of Western European technological developments and global exploration began to inflict consistent military defeats and economic hardships on the Turks, resulting in the destabilization of Ottoman society and a progressive worsening in the overall situation of the Ottomans’ non-Muslim subjects that continued through the 18th century.[6]

The comment regarding the Ottoman rule of Bulgaria in CIA Factbook is:

...by the end of the 14th century the country [Bulgaria] was overrun by the Ottoman Turks. Northern Bulgaria attained autonomy in 1878 and all of Bulgaria became independent from the Ottoman Empire in 1908.[7]

Lewis (2001) points out that

Past generations of Bulgarian historians have described the entire Ottoman period as a national catastrophe and a black hole during which time Bulgarian culture was destroyed and the country was forcibly Turkified - an approach rejected by Machiel Kiel in his Art and Society of Bulgaria in the Turkish Period (Assen 1985). Over the last decade, such extreme characterizations of the Ottoman period are seen as exaggerated and idologically-colored by small but growing number of Bulgarian scholars and non-scholars.[8]

--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally not a friend of big series of block quotes in this style. I'd encourage everybody to replace this whole row of quotes with a good, fair summary synthesising all of it. But of course, views like those expressed by Lewis, Hupchik, Crampton etc. should be given prominent treatment in it. These are mainstream academic sources and represent, as far as I can see, a consensus in most of the relevant scholarship. (The CIA factbook, on the other hand, is not. Why would the CIA be a reliable source on other country's histories?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with future perfect. This may not become a quote farm. Encyclopedias are more than mere collections of rather lengthy quotes. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the above format is not good. I was forced to put it that way because some users have removed the more encyclopedic format earlier. I agree that CIA is no a reliable source. US State Department is also not a reliable source when it comes to history. (Now we are told that the Bulgars originated in Afghanistan. That was not the case before. It must be a recent policy change.) There are sufficient number of scholars and experts on the subject. I combined the above material as follows and will add it to the section:
Past generations of Bulgarian historians have described the entire Ottoman period as a national catastrophe and a black hole during which time Bulgarian culture was destroyed and the country was forcibly Turkified - an approach rejected by Machiel Kiel in his Art and Society of Bulgaria in the Turkish Period (Assen 1985). Over the last decade, such extreme characterizations of the Ottoman period are seen as exaggerated and idologically-colored by small but growing number of Bulgarian scholars and non-scholars.[9]
The well-established tradition in Bulgarian historiography treats the Ottoman period in Bulgaria as a five-century long dark age during which Ottomans deliberately attempted to wipe out Bulgarian culture and nation by a combination of forced conversion of Orthodox Christians to Islam, assimilation, and massacres. According to this view Bulgaria's fall under Turkish rule ushered in the grimmest period in the history of the Bulgarian people, a period of almost 500 years of foreign domination. During it, the very existence of the Bulgarians as a nationality was threatened as a result of their extermination, eviction and assimilation and the brutal oppression and exploitation to which they were subjected by the Turkish conquerors. Foreign domination held back the development of the country's productive forces, severed the Bulgarians' contacts with all other nations and put an end to their free cultural development. Bulgaria's conquest by the Turks was accompanied by the destruction of whole towns and villages and eviction of the population. Hitherto prospering towns and villages were reduced to ruins and the land was turned into a desert. The population of whole regions were forced to seek refuge in the mountains and in remote areas far away from any roads and communications. Turkish colonists and nomadic herdsmen from Asia Minor were settled in the most fertile regions thus vacated.[10]
Scholars opposing the above characterization indicate that this version of Bulgarian experience under Ottoman rule was the creation of Bulgarian emigre intelligentsia during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who needed to invent a new past, a past in which Ottoman rule abruptly halted the development of Bulgarian culture, destroyed its ties to Europe and prevented its participation in and contribution to European civilization. According to this view the purpose of this imagined past was to mobilize Bulgarians against Ottoman rule and to promote a Bulgarian nation state. Over time this invented past gained general acceptance among the masses and has been perpetuated by Bulgarian historians and ideologues as the authentic experience of Bulgarians under Ottoman rule.[11]
The vigorous but self-righteous Christians of the Victorian era created the impression that their co-religionists under Ottoman domination had suffered continual persecution for 500 years. It was not so. While the subject Christians were reduced to second-class status in Ottoman society, those precepts and traditions offered them a certain measure of religious toleration, administrative autonomy, and economic well-being that was exceptional for non-aristocratic society in the rest of Europe. Ottoman history is certainly not free from terrible incidents of hideous outrage, but in Europe these were occasional. Many, if not most, followed acts of rebellion and if this does not excuse the excess it perhaps goes some way to explain it. Other outbursts were spontaneous, localised and random, the result usually of a peculiar combination of personal, political, social or economic factors. That condition changed during the 17th century, when the effects of Western European technological developments and global exploration began to inflict consistent military defeats and economic hardships on the Turks, resulting in the destabilization of Ottoman society and a progressive worsening in the overall situation of the Ottomans’ non-Muslim subjects that continued through the 18th century. It would be unwise to imagine the Ottoman empire as some form of lost, multi-cultural paradise, but on the other hand it would also be wrong to deny that at some periods in its history the empire assured for all its subjects, irrespective of religion, stability, security and a reasonable degree of prosperity.[12][13]
--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that version has some major POV issues. Rather than saying what different groups say happened, give a sourced version of what happened. After that, short sourced descriptions of different groups interpretations would be ok. But the tone of your writing as it is is not encyclopedic enough. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
And is way too POV. Why are you trying to input the same version on every single article (this version being your own) by quoting passages you like and that could be adjusted well to your POV? --Laveol T 09:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also it does not have a good appearance for the main page of Bulgaria, and accusing the Bulgarian people of creating history and myth on the page of their country is insulting. In my opinion you should put this matter in the article Ottoman Bulgaria and the section in the page of Bulgaria must be reduced to its original size. You may see that in the article of Turkey there are no words accusing the Turks for their atrocities against the Armenians, Kurds, Bulgarians, Greeks and other peoples. --Gligan (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, but what you've just done, Gligan, replacing the whole section with a sentence that gives coverage to just one extreme of the spectrum of opinions, and stating that as a fact [4], is really totally unacceptable. This is tendentious editing at its worst. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
But the contemporary Ottoman sources describe the destruction of cities, taking their population in slavery and so on. That of course is good for the Turks, it was the right manner to expand their own country but for the Bulgarians it was a disaster and as this article is for Bulgaria I think it should be mentioned at that point.
In fact the article is mainly for the country Bulgaria and the sections of the history in which it did not exist as a political entity should be shorter. And the whole article is long so for instance the history section after the Liberation shall also be shortened but I am not the person to do that.
During the Ottoman rule there are a few advantages in comparison with particular states (such as that the peasants of Russia lived worser that the peasant in Ottoman Bulgaria) but for the country "Bulgaria" to which this article is devoted it was a disaster and catastrophe. As I said to my mind more detailed text on that matter should be placed in the section Ottoman Bulgaria. --Gligan (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Nobody cares about your opinion of what that period meant for Bulgaria. The only thing that counts is what professional historians think about that period, not matter if they are Bulgarian or not.
But I must grant you that the version by Nostradamus was pretty tendentious too. Nostradamus, you can't just take the wording of those quotes and string it together literally! Somebody needs to rewrite this, as a brief neutral summary. Guys, it's not that difficult. "Write for the enemy". Every single editor here, when you write something, you must, always, make your best effort to write in such a way that even your opponents will immediately recognise that your text is an improvement over what was there before. I see very little willingness to do this right now, on either side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think now? --Gligan (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Slight improvement. But not the real thing yet, by a long shot. First of all. Take out all evaluative statements. Both "...brought some improvements..." and "...a time of great violence" imply value judgments. No such implied judgments, be they positive or negative, must be stated as if they were facts. Value judgments can be quoted and discussed, but not stated as truths. Moreover, there's no reason why the passage as a whole should focus on value judgments in the first place. First, write a few paragraphs about the neutral facts. When was that period, how did Ottoman rule come about, etc. A lot of that can be described without any value judgment at all. Then, write one or two paragraphs about historical interpretations of that period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
How about now? Of course the depopulation and cultural decline should be mentioned - in 1878 there were only four Bulgarian cities with more than 20,000 inhabitants, the architecture could not compare with that of Germany, Spain, France, Austria-Hungary, the transportation network lagged far behind the European, where was practically no industry. Also the word "improvement" sounds neutral - with what word are you going to describe the building of railways, factories and the boost of trade? --Gligan (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Berlin Treaty boundary was far from corresponding with the ethnological limits of the Bulgarian race, which were more accurately defined by the abrogated treaty of San Stefano (see below, under _History_). A considerable portion of Macedonia, the districts of Pirot and Vranya belonging to Servia, the northern half of the vilayet of Adrianople, and large tracts of the Dobrudja, are, according to the best and most impartial authorities, mainly inhabited by a Bulgarian population.

—Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, Vol. 4, part 3, Article BULGARIA, lead section, Now in public domain, Project Gutenberg

Lantonov (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

and another one

The devastation of the country which followed the Turkish invasion resulted in the extirpation or flight of a large proportion of the Bulgarian inhabitants of the lowlands, who were replaced by Turkish colonists. The mountainous districts, however, retained their original population and sheltered large numbers of the fugitives. The passage of the Turkish armies during the wars with Austria, Poland and Russia led to further Bulgarian emigrations. The flight to the Banat, where 22,000 Bulgarians still remain, took place in 1730.

—Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, Vol. 4, part 4, Article BULGARIA, Ethnology, Now in public domain, Project Gutenberg

To anticipate (and hopefully prevent) another long discussion, I don't see how the date of the text in the encyclopedia would reflect on the meaning of facts and opinions expressed in it except, maybe, that in more recent time people were born to whom those facts and opinions, written in the most authoritative encyclopedia, became unacceptable. Lantonov (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Establishment

I think all states shall stick to the modern establishments of their statehoods.It's unscientific to try to think about unity to the extreme past.Bulgaria was established in 1878 i think and that's what an encyclopedia should say.(Just like my country in 1821 for example).The other dates belong to the history section. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


The Greek state was established as a political unity for the first time in 1821 before that there had never been never a country named Greece. The case with Bulgaria is different.--Avidius (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - the date of establishment should be the date of which the country Bulgaria or Greece or whatever existed. The case of Greece is 1821, the case of Bulgaria is 681 as it is pointed by Byzantine historians. --Gligan (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
False. There were no Bulgarians on this planet in 681AD. The state that was established in 681 was that of Turkic Bulgars. As many historians point out Bulgars gave or lent their name to contemporary Bulgaria and Bulgarians. The two ethnicities do not share a common language and culture. The state the Bulgarians establshed was called Kingdom of Bulgaria when the Ottoman vassalage The Principality of Bulgaria proclaimed its independence in 1908. Just as the Serbian province of Kosovo did last week. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, another Nostradamus comment. Should I remind you that in Bulgarian (and in most other languages) there is no differences between Bulgars and Bulgarians - the name Bulgarians derives from the name of the state and the name of the state derives from the name of the people. And in Bulgarian they called themselves Bulgars (Българи) and nowadays they still call themselves Bulgars (Българи). From all I've seen from you, you just hate those people or is there something else? --Laveol T 12:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In 1930 Serbia did not exist as a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.199.44 (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hm don't think so.Westerners called Byzantine Empire, Empire of Greeks shall we say 330AD was the year of Greek statehood?In 681AD was the time of the Kingdom of Asparuh (i don't know anyway put the name of the Bulgarian King) not a state.Bulgars were nomads and as the term state (as we mean the word today) wouldn't be applied to most of the already established Medieval feudal formations it's a bit of travesty to be applied in this case.681 with 1878 is 1197 years!!!!!Continuity exists only to the mind of extremists.Scientifically the State of Bulgaria was established in 1878. --Eagle of Pontus (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse states with nations, people. The fact that there was no unitary state called "Greece" before 1821 does not mean Greece didn't exist as a nation and civilization, or that there weren't countless states ruled by Greeks, some encompassing much or all of the Greek world, such as the Macedonian and Byzantine Empires. I agree that we should stick to the establishment dates of modern states, as in a political and legal sense there is no continuity between the Bulgarian state of 681 and that of 1878. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Politically - in the Middle Ages we have First and Second Bulgarian Kingdom, after 1878 - Third Bulgarian Kingdom. This is a state continuity in its purest form and this fact does not become less of a fact because someone doesn't like it. --Lantonov (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So Greece in 1832 was the Kingdom of Greeks or Βασιλεία των Ρωμαιων just like Byzantine empire so Greek state was established in 330AD.Continuity exists only in dreams.--Eagle of Pontus (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A series of attempts to reestablish independence during 5 centuries

The article was recently edited to say: "After a series of attempts to achieve its independence all along the five centuries, Bulgaria was finally .." While this statement may very well be true, I don't think we should let it in there without some sources that give a reasonable impression of a 5 century period of writing, freedom fighters, diplomats or whatever else making it plausible there was a series of attempts for half a millennium. So please provide sources. I therefore reverted it: a statement not backed up by anything added in by an anonymous source while there has been so much discussion about the history of this country and region already cannot just be let in without a bit more to back it up. Martijn Faassen (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As much as I agree that sources are needed the current state of the sentence is ridiculous. --Laveol T 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? Martijn Faassen (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Martijn's action. There were no attempts whatsoever to "reestablish independence". There was banditry (hayduts), ayans, kurdjaliistvo, local disturbances but none were "attempts to reestablish independence". The so called April "Uprising" also was not an uprising but a series of terror acts on the local Muslim population instigated and implemented by people who infiltrated the country from abroad and DID NOT enjoy public support.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)=
WOW Nostradamus are you at all familiar with the history. After your last comment about the "so called April Uprising" in which 30 000 bulgarian women,children and men were slaughterd I can only make the conclusion that you are a turk or at least a musslim, am I right? I see now that all your contributions here are led not by the persuit of neutrality and truth but exactly the opposite. Too bad.--Avidius (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The country preserves the traditions (in ethnic name, language, and alphabet) of the First Bulgarian Empire (632/681 - 1018) ..."

The statement that "The country preserves the traditions (in ethnic name, language, and alphabet) of the First Bulgarian Empire (632/681 - 1018).." is incorrect. The language of the Bulgars was lost. Also, where does the year 632 come from? First Bulgarian Empire was established in 681. The dates in this article never seem to be clear. For example, another one is 1396/1422. Also, is it 1878 or 1908? So we have 632/681, 1396/1422, and 1878/1908. How clear is that?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Data

The data presented to be for 2008 was actually for 2006. The link: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2004&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=918&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a=&pr.x=58&pr.y=6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.225.63 (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dudes, The Second Bulgarian Empire was also named Vlaho-bulgarian empire. Why have u deleted that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugyman (talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caption/Pictures not in agreement?

The caption worded as follows "Landscapes from Bulgaria. Clockwise from top left: a cloudy forest; Todorka Peak in Pirin; Lake Shabla on the Black Sea coast; Belogradchik Rocks" appears with 4 pictures that appear to show Rocks in the 3rd picture (clockwise) and a Lake in the 4th picture. That is, the caption appears to have the Lake and the Rocks in the wrong order.

But, I have never been to Bulgaria and for all I know, the rocks I see in picture number 3 are merely part of the environment of Lake Shabla, and perhaps the lake in the 4th picture includes some ('Belogradchik'?) rocks. I know that might sound unlikely, but, I have made an editing mistake or two on some unlikely situations...Would someone who has actually seen these 2 places please check this picture caption? Thank you. Publius3 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops ; ) It is a stupid mistake of mine, you are right. Thank you for noticing that! In fact the Belogradchick Rocks are exactly on the other side of Bulgaria (located near the border with Serbia) in relation to Lake Shabla (located on the Black Sea coast near the border with Romania). Again, thanks :-) --Gligan (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)