Talk:Bulgaria/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Greek Language

This From the 7th century Greek became the predominant language in the Eastern Roman Empire's administration, Church and society, replacing Latin.[19]
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 ^A ? 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 ^A ? 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 ^A ? 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.[19].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 ^A ? 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)

BRD and Clarification and RfC

First of all I must apologize for a confusing edit: When I said "the other ethnicities" I meant only the Turks and the Roma. After that clarification, there is no doubt that the current wording of the article on language is misleading as it gives the impression that everybody in Bulgaria use the Bulgarian language in everyday life. That is only true for the ethnic Bulgarians and maybe some others, but not so for the Turks or those members of the Roma community that consider themselves as Turks, as these people speak Turkish in daily life among themselves. The text of the article as it is now gives the impression that a Turkish mother speaks Bulgarian to her children. (Maybe it is my understanding but the article gives the impression like everybody in Bulgaria use the Bulgarian language all the time, right? One thing is knowing, being able to speak a language and the other is to use it in daily life, leaving aside one's mother tongue...) What do you think, is there not a need to develop this language issue in this article so that the other languages in Bulgaria receive the treatment they deserve in WP? --E4024 (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see an issue here, to be honest. "All ethnic groups speak Bulgarian, the only language with official status, and a native language for 85.2 per cent of the population" - all Bulgarian citizens use it (being the official language), not all of them speak it as a native language. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I understand your concern and I agree that assertion All ethnic groups speak Bulgarian without additional clarification could mislead readers to believe that Bulgarian is native language of those ethnic groups or spoken by them in everyday life. But there is additional clarification: the only language with official status, and a native language for 85.2 per cent of the population. I think it is clear there are other languages, native for 14.8% of people) which don't have official status. Therefore I don't think there is an issue here. (I left this comment after being notified about this discussion by RfC bot).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for both comments. --E4024 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 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, [1], 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/wiki/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/wiki/Petar_Parchevich Also, you can use Google Translate to translate this page: [2] 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 ^A ? 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 ^A ? 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 ^A ? 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 ^A ? 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 [the Bulgars] 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 ^A ? 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia: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 ^A ? 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 ^A ? 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 ^A ? 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)

I am suggesting a minor correction in the "Ottoman rule" part of the "Bulgaria" article: In the first paragraph the sentence "The nobility was eliminated, the peasantry was enserfed to Ottoman masters,[36] and the population lost its national consciousness.[39]" should be changed to "The nobility was eliminated and the peasantry was enserfed to Ottoman masters.[36]". The final part of that sentence is not a correct interpretation of the cited reference and is even contradictory to the fact (mentioned directly after that) that Bulgarian people organized many revolts throughout the entire time of the Ottoman rule in order to re-establish their state. Moreover, this final part of the sentence do not give any important information and could be only misleading.PPMit (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Independently of the merits of whatever that sentence is trying to say, I have tagged the source for the last part of it as unreliable: Schurman ([1916] 2005), The Balkan Wars: 1912–1913 is a wartime opinion piece by a politician, not a serious academic historian. Moreover, the passage from which the quote is taken is irrelevant to the question at hand: it deals with the political justification of the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and mentions the claim of "loss of national consciousness" (whatever that is supposed to mean) only in passing. Entirely unsuitable source for this kind of statement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian people did not organized any mass revolts based on its national idea before 1876. Jingiby (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a better source for that: Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Bruce Alan Masters, Infobase Publishing, 2009, ISBN 1438110251, p 422.[3] Jingiby (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

@jingiby: the source you have cited here do not show or claim that "the population lost its national consciousness". Where is the proof for your statement that "Bulgarian people did not organized any mass revolts based on its national idea before 1876" I wonder? Why was Shishman III proclaimed as Tsar of Bulgaria during the First Tarnovo Uprising (1598) if there was no national idea and national consciousness until the 18th century as stated below in the article? Yes, it is true that the national consciousness was put under immense pressure and people were forced to hide their national consciousness in order to survive in those conditions but it was not lost! And it is a question of quite simple logic - if a population lose its national consciousness for over 300 years (means several generations), how should it restore its national consciousness later, as it is mentioned in the WP article! By saying that I still can not understand why my edit suggestion should be rejected? The statement that "the population (meaning the Bulgarian population) lost its national consciousness" is clearly contradictory to many of the facts stated later in the text. Furthermore, there aren't any reliable, non-subjective sources which support that idea - possibly due to the fact that measuring the "national consciousness" is not an easy task, especially, when people are trying to hide their national consciousness in order to prevent punishment and survive.PPMit (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it has something to do, also, with the Revolution of 1789 and the birth of nationalism, as a result of a series of socio-economic and political changes: enlightment, industrial revolution, etc. --E4024 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong, PPMit. The next source, namely Britannica, explicitly states how haiduks lacked a strong sense of national consciousness and that Bulgarian national consciousness did not reappear prior to the Revival. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 04:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

@E4024: Sorry, could you specify what did you mean with "it" - I could not quite understand which point of the discussion you mean? If you mean that people stated demonstrating their national consciousness much more obviously after these political changes - of course, I fully agree. Though, my point is that Bulgarians did not lost their national consciousness but were forced to hide it in order to survive. That's why I think that the final part should be changed or better deleted, as the situation was far too complicated in order to be summarized in the way it is in the current version of the article. @Toubillon: My initial comment was about the source cited here (in the Talk) by jingiby (see above). Nonetheless, the sources you mentioned also do not claim that the population lost its national consciousness - to state that "the population lost its national consciousness" is an over-interpretation of the text which would not fit to the other facts in the "Ottoman rule" part. The haiduks were rather bandits (as mentioned in your source) and thus are not expected to have a national consciousness per se but this statement could not be applied to the Bulgarian population! I would repeat myself but still - why would Shishman III be proclaimed as Tsar of Bulgaria during the First Tarnovo Uprising (1598) if there was no national consciousness during that time? The situation during the Ottoman rule was quite simple - if you want to stay out of trouble and stay alive you should not demonstrate your national consciousness (but you don't lose it). Therefore, it might have seemed that Bulgarians have lost their national consciousness (this was the prerequisite in order to survive) but this could not have been the case otherwise where did that "restored national consciousness" came form? And simply because some people were too proud in order to hide their national consciousness there were revolts like the First and Second Tarnovo Uprisings etc. which are also a clear evidence that the national consciousness was at best reduced but not lost.PPMit (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Almost all of the existing evidence regarding the Tarnovo uprising (and especially its leaders) is apocryphal. It's quite enough that there's a reliable source stating that Bulgarian national consciousness only reappeared during the Revival. Nothing more to add to that. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the evidences regarding the Tarnovo uprising is apocryphal then I wonder why any statement about the national consciousness of a population, which could not be measured and is per se a very subjective topic, is not apocryphal and should be taken into consideration. Furthermore, I really can't see where the two sources cited in the current version of the article claim that the Bulgarian population (or in fact any of the other populations which were under the Ottoman rule) lost its national consciousness. The first of the sources deals with nationalism, which is not equal to national consciousness. The second source even rather contradicts to the idea that the national consciousness was lost, stating rather that the language and religion "maintained the national identity and consciousness and cultural traditions during the Ottoman rule" and only the elite "often willingly adopted the Greek language in order to enhance their social and cultural status". So these two sources are clearly irrelevant for a claim that "the population lost its national consciousness" and even rather contradict it. That's why I think that this part of the text should be deleted as there is no real evidence or source supporting it as well as because the topic about the existence of a national consciousness is per se quite subjective. And suggesting that with "It's quite enough that there's a reliable source stating that Bulgarian national consciousness only reappeared during the Revival" you mean the EB source you have cited above I want to point out that the source do not state that the national consciousness reappeared ONLY during the revival. I am not against that idea - I don't want changes in the part of the article claiming that the National Awakening "restored national consciousness and became a key factor in the liberation struggle", which is reflected in the source you have given. Indeed, during the previous years most of the people were forced to hide their national consciousness and during the National awakening people like V. Levski tried to encourage people to show their national consciousness in order to start the revolutionary movement for the liberation of Bulgaria. But to claim that the national consciousness of the population was LOST is wrong (of some people e.g elite - yes, but not of the entire population). On the basis of the present sources this would be a strong and subjective over-interpretation. Please, explain why do you think that the phrase "and the population lost its national consciousness" is well-founded and should in any case be present in the text and not deleted? I believe that to state as few as possible about a fuzzy, subjective topic as the national consciousness of a population is the best way to stay correct and objective in an article. Thank you and sorry for the long comment! PPMit (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have left the topic for a while waiting for any argumets against my suggestion that "the population lost its national consciousness" is a misleading and inappropriate statement. As some changes in the section have been made but the national consciousness question has not been edited and there is still no real source or discussed arguments here, why this statement should be present in the article I would want to remove it. I am open for a discussion if there are any objections and if you think that this sattement should not be deleted.

Here, once again the reasons for my decision: The national consciousness and its presence is generally a very subjective topic. There is no reliable source stating the loss of the national consciousnes (namely because it could not be seen or measured). Just one source stating that the national identity was "virtually lost" was cited, but this statement in the source is based on a single-author book (which is rather like a historical essay) by a Serbian author, which I hope that you would agree could not be an objective source. But regardless whether the source is reliable or not - the topic of the "national consciousness" itself is subjective and therefore should not be present in an WP article. And even if you disagree that the topic is subjective (because it is subjective and therefore you might have a different view than mine), the statement that "the population lost its national consciousness" should be removed because it is against the general principle in any scientific and based on facts publication that a statement could not be based on a negative observation: if so far we have not seen any alliens that does not mean that they do not exist. And even if we find an evidence for their existance - we would not be able to say whether they have existed prior to that or not (their existense would be laid so far back as the first proof for their existence - anything else would be a speculation). Therefore, the statement that the national consciousness was lost is a speculation and does not deserve a place in this article (especially if you consider the simple explaination that the population was forced to hide their national consciousness in order to survive and/or avoid hard punishment from the Ottomans and therefore the national consciousness was not obvious to foreigners).PPMit (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you are totally wrong. You did not read even the added sources. Jingiby (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read the sources quite carefully. Exactly therefore I have removed two of the sources - they are inappropriate for this topic. Please, explain why "I am "totally wrong"", otherwise we are not having a discussion! I have explained the reasons for my edit - you have not explained yours. You quickly removed my edit instead. As far as I am concerned, this article is not a place for own, subjective interpretations of facts or sources. PPMit (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

How are they "inappropriate" ? It's not a place for personal interpretations of facts or sources - and that is exactly what you have been doing. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned above, the statement in the first source (38) "is based on (it cites) a single-author book (which is rather a historical essay) by a Serbian author, which I hope that you would agree could not be an objective source". The statement is just a personal statement not based on any facts or historical findings. The second source is inappropriate (at least if it should be a source for the national consciousness topic) simply because it does not state that the national consciousness was lost. Please, show me which part of the source states that the population lost its national consciousness if you disagree with that?

But once again, the main problem with the statement about the loss of national consciousness is the fact that the topic itself is too subjective and that you can not make a negative conclusion simply by lacking evidence for the opposite! You can not measure the national consciousness and can not base your statement about it on anything else than a personal opinion. Therefore, such a controversy statement should be skipped from the article. Otherwise we are claiming in an WP article that aliens do not exist (which is clearly inappropriate).

I am also interested why the final part of my edit: "However, Bulgaria did not change radically in its religious or ethnic composition during the Ottoman period" was removed, as well? It is based on serious sources like e.g. EB and complements the previous Rum Millet topic.PPMit (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Аren't 40% Muslims during the 18 Century not radicall change in the religious composition. If I know during the 14 Century they were nearly absent. More, there were not Turks at that time, but Ottomans, i.e. the Islam Millet, including converted Slavs (former Bulgarians, Serbs etc.) Conversion to Islam in the Balkans: Kisve Bahası - Petitions and Ottoman Social Life, 1670-1730, Том 30 от Ottoman Empire and its heritage, Anton Minkov, BRILL, 2004, ISBN 9004135766, p. 193.. As Paisius of Hilendar exclaimed in an desperate attemt to awake the nearly extinct Bulgarian national consciousnesses in 1762: "Why are you ashamed to call yourself Bulgarian?" By the way, do not tuch the sources. If you do not understand them, the problem is your. Jingiby (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The very simple answer to your first question is: NO! A radical change is a change of the nature / of the major part of something! And I guess you can realize that even according to the source you have cited the major part of the ethnic and religious composition remained unchanged.

Furthermore, the 40% you are reffering to are Muslims on the BALKANS and I hope you are aware that this is not equal to the percentage relevant to Bulgaria. Nowadays, with Turkey being significant part of the Balkans, a big part of the Balkan's population might still be composed of Muslims but that does not mean that Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece etc. have changed their religious composition simply because this Muslims live mainly in Turkey and some other smaller regions. In fact, if you look further in the source you are citing, there is a map (page 43, map 2) which quite clearly shows that the distribution of Muslims in Bulgaria in the 16th century was way below that 40%-mark you are talking about. Only the regions nearest to the Bosphourus (or to the centre of the Ottoman Empire) had a higher percentage of "new-Muslims" - people converted to Islam.

To come back to my original topic/edit - you still have no answer to my argumets and have not shown any convincing information supporting the statement that "the population have lost its national consciousness". Just mentioning some sources which, however, do not claim or suppost your statement could never be a convincing answer. And the problem is not mine - you have made a statement (or possibly someone else but you are supporting it) - you have to defend it. I just want to remove it because it is a highly speculative statement and nobody have been able to defend it so far (and because there is no way to defend it simply because this topic/statement is subjective and can not be proven by facts). If the statement is made somewhere previously based on facts and not just personal suggestions - just copy-paste it here instead of simply telling me "do not tuch the sources".PPMit (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hm. What is a source? Is a collective specialized publication from authoritative world University Press as Oxford a source? "Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity," Disciplinary and Regional Perspectives, Joshua A. Fishman, Ofelia García, Oxford University Press, 2010, ISBN 0195374924, p. 276: There were almost no remnants of a Bulgarian ethnic identity; the population defined itself as Christians, according to the Ottoman system of millets, that is, communities of religious beliefs. The first attempts to define a Bulgarian ethnicity started at the beginning of the 19-th century. Jingiby (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a source and I guess that the fact that you have given a NEW source means that you agree that the sources used so far are inappropriate and should be removed. However, the new source you have given is not a historical one (it is a linguistic book) and possibly therefore it has the same weaknesses which have been discussed several times above: the cited statement is not based on any historical findings or data and is highly subjective. In fact, the source itself admits that the ethnic identity and its characterisation is highly subjective and contextual topic and can not be defined univocally (see the "Identity" and "Anthropological characterization of ethnicity" sections of your last source). What is more, this source follows pretty much the linguistic aspect of the the ethnic identity and there are many sources which clearly state that "As a result, ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire preserved their linguistic identity" [4], which "was glorified as having maintained the national identity and consciousness and cultural traditions during the Ottoman rule" [5] and "The Turkish women and children spoke Bulgarian quite well and the Bulgarians, like their children, managed to get by in Turkish, the result being a sort of mixed patois. Those Turks who worked at Bulgarian houses were accepted as close friends…. We were used to the Turks. We Bulgarians lived our own life, to be sure, we had our own dress, our own customs and stuck to our own faith, while they lived another way, had other customs and other costume, their faith was different too. But all this we took as being in the order of things" (Warriner 1965) etc... Other aspects as names, history, religion etc. were also not lost so I really wonder based on what the authors concluded that "There were almost no remnants of a Bulgarian ethnic identity"? Furthermore, as I said above, making a negative conclusion simply by lacking evidence for the opposite is not convincing and it would be just like making the statement that aliens do not exist (and if you were involved in scientific works you should have learned that). And in fact, the uprisings during the Ottoman period were an "evidence for the opposite", an evidence that the Bulgarian population (or at least significant part of it) was aware of its history and wanted its independence back.

Nevertheless, I think you still do not understand the problem I am trying to make clear here - in general terms like "nation", "identity" and especially "national consciousness" are highly subjective, imprecise and abstract. Just take a look at the WP articles about these terms: "A nation may refer to..", "is the relation each thing bears just to itself", "a person's self-conception", "National consciousness is the understanding that a group of people share.."... How would you make a objective, reasonable statement/conclusion about something so abstract and individual? I can not understand why you guys are so keen on keeping the speculative and subjective statement that "the population lost its national consciousness" in the article. In this discussion here Tourbillon was claiming that "the goal of this article is to keep things as concise as possible" and therefore some facts about the Bulgarian resistance should not be a part of it but in the same time you insist that a speculative and controversial statement like the loss of national consciousness should remain in the article? Furthermore, it seems ok for you to use a linguistic book to make such a statement but it is not ok when I am citing Encyclopedia Britannica with the sentence "However, Bulgaria did not change radically in its religious or ethnic composition during the Ottoman period", right? Does this look like an objective style of editing to you?

If you really want to keep the article concise and as objective as possible then you have to simply skip this subjective topic. Yes, I would agree that the acceptance by the Ottoman Empire of the Greek language for the Orthodox Church might have been a threat for the national consciousness and this was most probably the reason for the "Bulgarian National Revival" but you can not make any qualitative or quantitative statements about something so abstract and subjective like the national consciousness of a population as it could not be objectively determined or measured.PPMit (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

However, here is not a forum. All sources are perfect. Jingiby (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You are turning it into a forum with your last comments. You claimed that Bulgaria changed radically in its religious composition and at the same time cited a source contradicting your statement, showing that you did not even understood your or possibly my source properly. And now you are claiming that all sources are perfect? And if all of them are perfect why was the addition of "However, Bulgaria did not change radically in its religious or ethnic composition during the Ottoman period" deleted? You are contradicting yourself to often and this is not making your comments more convincing at all!PPMit (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

When 40% from the population were Muslims and the rest Rum, i.e. most of the urban strata were acculturated into the Greek ethnie, and the peasantry was "Greek" in the sense of being Orthodox Christians. There were almost no remnants of a Bulgarian ethnic identity. The people identified with their village and called themselves "Christians". More, the non-islamized Bulgarian/Slavic speakers lived into the mountain villages. After 1750, the influence of the Western Enlightenment led to secularization, liberalism, and an undermining of the religious world view of the Eastern Church. With the French Revolution, this trend intensified. Greek-Orthodox intellectuals reconceptualized the Orthodox Rum millet. They argued for a new, secular "Hellenic" national identity. Still, their visions of a future state included all Balkan Orthodox Christians. This activists were called Phanariotes and played a crucial role and influenced the formation of the Greek National identity. As a counter-reaction, the Bulgarian National idea reemerged, still kept till then in some isolated monasteries. It was not, however, until the 1840s, whenn the Bulgarians initiated a purposeful struggle against the Greek clerics, demanding the use of Church-Slavonic in liturgy and fixed salaries for bishops. As a basis, the Slavic population used its preserved linguistic identity, their language was common and they called it Bulgarian. [[[User:Jingiby|Jingiby]] (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that all non-Muslims were put formally under the same "Rum" definition for Christians in the Ottoman millet system does not mean that the nations/ethnic groups included in that confessional community lost their identities, national consciousness, language etc.! So, it is completely inaccurate to make a conclusion that "There were almost no remnants of a Bulgarian ethnic identity" out of that.

And I did not understand why you started the topic about the Phanariotes etc. - as I said at the end of my previous comment I also agree that exactly those attempts for "hellenization" were the reason for the later "answer" of the Bulgarian population with the so called "National awakening" of Bulgaria. Though, this has nothing to do with the discussion whether the statement that "the population lost its national consciousness" is wrong and should be removed or not. And to be honest, I could not quite understand from your last comment which part of my arguments you disagree with and why.

Last but not least, please differentiate between Slavic population and Bulgarian population. You are making a similar mistake as previously when you were speaking about the Christians and Muslims on the Balkans.PPMit (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. Jingiby (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you realize that your last comment has absolutly no value unless you give proper reasons and sources to support it. Until then I suggest that the "the population lost its national consciousness" statement should be removed from the article due to its speculative and subjective nature and lack of reliable sources. However, I will wait for a while in order to give you time to respond to my arguments and explain why this statement should be in the text and why a statement like "However, Bulgaria did not change radically in its religious or ethnic composition during the Ottoman period" (Encyclopedia Britannica) should not be present. So, once again - my suggestion would be that rather both statements are not present in the article in order to keep it concise and avoid potentially incorrect, controversal statements.PPMit (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If we're quoting Britannica, they have a good article on nationalism, noting that "Nationalism is a modern movement...it was not until the end of the 18th century that nationalism began to be a generally recognized sentiment molding public and private life". They also have the more specific article on Balkan national identities, here, which supports Jingiby's claims that national identity was mostly preserved through religion, and that any national identity was restricted to small groups prior to the 18th century. It also supports Jingiby's claim that Bulgarian (and Serbian) nationalism only really took hold due to an overreach of the Greek church. CMD (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

CMD, by possibly trying to act like some sort of Jingiby's lawyer you have continued its line of explaining things which I have never disagreed with BUT which have nothing to do with the fact that the statement "the population lost its national consciousness" should not be presend in the text due to reasons I have already explained. Yes, nationalism is a modern movement BUT we are discussing a statement about the national consciousness of a population and those two things are not identical so what is the point of mentioning it. "In fact, though nationalism is predicated on national consciousness, the two are not identical. Nor is nationalism a special political movement that aternately defends or promotes the integrity of a nation, though this is much closer to the truth. Both national conschiousness and national movement existed long before nationalism" .

Furthermore, its not just Jingiby's claim that "Bulgarian (and Serbian) nationalism only really took hold due to an overreach of the Greek church" and that "that national identity was mostly preserved through religion" - I have never claimed the opposite and in fact I have mentoned that several times during this discussion: "as I said at the end of my previous comment I also agree that exactly those attempts for "hellenization" were the reason for the later "answer" of the Bulgarian population with the so called "National awakening" of Bulgaria.", "Yes, I would agree that the acceptance by the Ottoman Empire of the Greek language for the Orthodox Church might have been a threat for the national consciousness and this was most probably the reason for the "Bulgarian National Revival"". So, trying to emphasize that statements made by Jingiby (and not mentioning me, as if I have stated something else) are supported by sources is not especially objective and furthermore has no meaning for our discussion as those statements are not decisive for that whether the "loss of nationalconsciousness" statement should be removed or not. What is more, even though I agree with you about the fact hat the national identity was mostly preserved through religion, your are making a complete misinterpretation of the sources by claiming that "national identity was restricted to small groups prior to the 18th century". Jingiby himself has given previously a source confirming that Bulgaria did not change radically during the Ottoman period and the EB part you are quoting also claims that "A sense of national identity also owed its survival to the fact that Ottoman power was concentrated in the towns. The villages were still largely Christian, and there Christian customs survived largely unaffected by the new dominant religion. Also, the Ottomans frequently left the administration of villages in the hands of villagers". So if you mean that the national identity was perserved through religion, why should you claim that the population lost its national consciousness, I wonder?

Just look at the article - what would be the impression of a neutral reader: The Ottomans came, the Bulgarian population lost its national cnsciousness, then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, due to the Enlightment the national consciousness was restored? This impression is (deliberately or not) quite confusing and not discribing the real situation we all agree with: that the national consciousness / identity was threatened by the Greek movement for hellenization of the Balkans, which (also stimulated by the situation in the rest of Eurape at that time) led to the defensive movement of the National awakening of Bulgaria. I would say that not only the statement that "the population lost its national consciousness" should be removed, but we should probably make sure that the reasons for the initiations of the National awakening are explained better, as well.

Jingiby, please, stop changing this part of the text until the discussion here is over - we can not discuss properly something which is constantly changing (even tough you have done just some cosmetic changes it is still disturbing - make your edit suggestions here, you know that we are discussing the same part of the text).PPMit (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, the term "Greek," which was used in the early nineteenth century to refer to members of the Orthodox Christian merchant class regardless of their "ethnic origin" or the language they spoke, came to mean "Greek" in the national sense (Stoianovich 1960:311). During the Ottoman period, therefore, terms like "Bulgarian" and "Greek" were not used to designate different ethnic or national groups; they were used to designate different sociocultural categories in what Hechter (1978) has called a system of "cultural division of labour." In this system of ethnic stratification the process of upward social mobility by which a Slavic-speaking peasant or a Vlach-speaking shepherd entered the merchant class was indistinguishable from the process of "Hellenization." When a farmer or a shepherd became a merchant, he was no longer a "Bulgarian" or a "Vlach"; he became a "Greek." During this time ethnicity was "the modality in which class [was] lived (Hall et al. 1978:394). Did you know? Jingiby (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A national consciousness is different from a religious consciousness, while religious identity has been an important part of self-identification for a great span of human history, national identity wasn't much more than who you swore allegiance to till the enlightenment. The reason there was a national awakening was because they formerly didn't have this strong identity. CMD (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, what is with the edit reverting? The difference between the two is that Jingiby's edit gives a timespan, rather than saying an absolute. Besides that, the content is identical. If it changes POV at all, it changes it slightly to a Bulgarian one, as it sort of impies they didn't lose it immediately. There's absolutely nothing worth reverting about there, except perhaps minor grammar points. CMD (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what this argument is all about. It's explained clearly enough in the sources present.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This discussion here is all about the presence of a subjective, controversial statement in this article! Especially considering that this is an encyclopedia, subjective interpretations and quantification of abstract terms should not be allowed.

I agree that some people drifted away from my main argument but this probably indicates once again that the topic of the national consciousness is quite ambiguous and subjective. I am going to repeat myself but it is obviously needed: I claim that the national consciousness of a population can not be measured or objectively determined and therefore any quantification (presence or loss) of it is strongly speculative and determined by personal visions and interpretations. Furthermore, it is a general principle that not being able to measure / determine something does not mean that it does not exist (simple example is the "existence of aliens"). So far I have not seen a reasonable argument against that and therefore I believe that the "the population lost its national consciousness" (which now, however, despite my appeals have been unnecessarily modified by Jingiby) should be removed form the text as well as any other quantifying statement about that topic (please note, I don't want a to replace that statement with its opposite - we simply should not make any statements about such a subjective and potentially controversial topic).

So, I think that we should stop discussing all of those topics started by Jingiby or CMD as all of them lead to the same problem - the subjective nature of statements about "identity" and "consciousness". There always be different POVs on topics like these and therefore they don't have a place in an encyclopedia (unless all possible viewpoints are mentioned, which in this case is not necessary as the national consciousness topic is not central/crucial for this article).

Last but not least, I think that I was clear enough in my last comment: we can not discuss properly something which is constantly changing. Ignoring me and E4024 and restoring your initial edit just shows once again that you are not here to listen to other editors and try to be objective and constructive. Furthermore, the editors are not here to make the article "slightly to a Bulgarian one" or not - the aim of articles like this one is to inform the reader and not to give him a positive or negative point of view! Therefore, the article should consist of neutral facts and no speculations or personal interpretations.PPMit (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You're the one who keeps arguing about the essence of "consciousness", not the others. The sources used have stated clearly that there was no national self-perception during most of the Ottoman era. I don't think there's anything else to comment beyond that. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the "essence of "consciousness"" according to "the others" and how is it measured/determined? In order to keep the articles conform I have been referring to the WP definition of "national consciousness" while others involved terms like ethnic identity, religious consciousness, hellenization etc. in the discussion. Don't blame me for that. The sources have been already discussed, but still: giving previously published personal statements which are not based on facts/data is inappropriate. We don't need sources of speculations/opinions but sources of evidence/facts/data/statistics/findings etc..

So once again, because you keep ignoring my argumets: Do you disagree that the statement that "the population LOST its national consciousness" is not speculative/subjective (due to the lack of objective observations/data/findings which could confirm it) and if so - why? Furthermore, if you accept such subjective and not well-proven statements why was the statement (made in EB) "However, Bulgaria did not change radically in its religious or ethnic composition during the Ottoman period" removed?PPMit (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything in history is speculative to a degree. However, we have reliable sources, both secondary, and tertiary, that mention this point. Your opinion on the issue is not a reliable source. CMD (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem I have been pointing out here: there is no primary source for this topic. So, in that sense the sources you are referring to have no real value and are only speculations. I have never claimed that my opinion is a reliable source and you know that very well. I have just tried to make you aware of that lack of primary sources and use some common sense in order to explain that there is a certain controversy between the sources as when there were revolts, trying to restore the Bulgarian state, and when the language, culture and the religious and ethnic composition "did not change drastically" it does not seem reasonable that "most of the population lost its national consciousness". Therefore, I have suggested that the best way to maintain NPOV would be to avoid any statements on that potentially controversial topic, especially as it is not a central or important component for this article.

What has turned out to be even more disturbing, however, is the fact that editors taking part in this discussion selectively tolerate the presence of some subjective statements and ignore others in a manner, which create an incomplete and thus significantly changed POV. For example, my edit "However, Bulgaria did not change radically in its religious or ethnic composition during the Ottoman period" complements the Rum millet topic but it was immediately removed form the article. In the same time you are trying to protect the statement about the loss of national consciousness by giving the same source (EB). What is more, you seem to be aware but still tolerate the fact that this statement has a rather biased POV: “If it changes POV at all, it changes it slightly to a Bulgarian one”. I hope that you are still aware that editors should be “representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias”. The fact that Jingiby’s edit was performed during our ongoing discussion on the same part of the text was not quite according to the WP rules either: “any potential problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back”. Additionally, you deleted my edit "However, Bulgaria did not change radically in its religious or ethnic composition during the Ottoman period" without giving any explanation (which is against the WP editing policy) and even when I continued asking for a comment on that in our discussion you continued ignoring it. So, I am starting to wonder if some of you are still trying to follow all WP guidelines. Though, I agree that it is difficult to present such a complicated, subjective topic concise but proportionately and without bias and that is exactly the reason why I am still suggesting that it would be best if there is no statement instead of claiming something controversial which presents just partially the situation. PPMit (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the sources we have are reliable, and have value. Jingiby didn't add any contentious material, they just threw a couple of dates in. If you want to focus on a sentence about ethnic and religious composition, I suggest you do this in a separate section, so it's not mixed in with your disagreements with our sources. CMD (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"National consciousness is the understanding that a group of people share a common ethnic or linguistic or cultural background" and it was you who wrote "which supports Jingiby's claims that national identity was mostly preserved through religion". So, the ethnic and religious composition topic is very much a part of this discussion and it demonstrates exactly the problem I am pointing out - the sources give contradictory information (in regard to the national consciousness topic!). Furthermore, there is a discrepancy between "A sense of national identity also owed its survival to the fact that Ottoman power was concentrated in the towns. The villages were still largely Christian, and there Christian customs survived largely unaffected" and the current statement made in the WP article "most of the population gradually lost its national consciousness, with the exception of the clergy in some isolated monasteries.". As there are no primary sources you can not evaluate whether a source is reliable or not, especially when there are contradictory statements present on that topic. However, instead of avoiding in that case any statement, it seems that you have selected the more negative statements on each aspect and have put only them in the article. This does not look like an NPOV-manner of editing. PPMit (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources do not give contradictory information. The religious identity and ideals of allegiance to the state were very different from the national identities of the modern era. I'm not sure which statement I've selected is negative, but there's still no case for dismissing our reliable sources. CMD (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I can not understand why you are still claiming that the sources do not give contradictory information when I have just given one example for that and further examples have been discussed previously. Nonetheless, here are once again some of the statements which clearly state something different than "most of the population gradually lost its national consciousness, with the exception of the clergy in some isolated monasteries" - as quoted previously, the national consciousness is formed by a common ethnic or linguistic or cultural background, so:

ethnic: "Bulgaria did not change radically in its religious or ethnic composition during the Ottoman period" [6], "A sense of national identity also owed its survival to the fact that Ottoman power was concentrated in the towns. The villages were still largely Christian, and there Christian customs survived largely unaffected by the new dominant religion." [7] (I hope you would not claim that those Christians were Turks for example) and in fact the preservation of the Bulgarian ethnic composition has been further verified by genetic studies [8], [9].

linguistic or cultural: "As a result, ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire preserved their linguistic identity" [10], which "was glorified as having maintained the national identity and consciousness and cultural traditions during the Ottoman rule" [11] and "The Turkish women and children spoke Bulgarian quite well and the Bulgarians, like their children, managed to get by in Turkish, the result being a sort of mixed patois. Those Turks who worked at Bulgarian houses were accepted as close friends…. We were used to the Turks. We Bulgarians lived our own life, to be sure, we had our own dress, our own customs and stuck to our own faith, while they lived another way, had other customs and other costume, their faith was different too. But all this we took as being in the order of things" (Warriner 1965).

Do you think that those statements are not contradictory to what "most of the population gradually lost its national consciousness, with the exception of the clergy in some isolated monasteries" claims? And you have not only ignored those contradictory statements but you statement has combined the most negative POVs, because instead of choosing a more neutral statement giving a trend like "the Greek (not Turkish!) influence that had started to wear down the Bulgarian pride in its distinct ethnicity and language." [12] you have given the worst quantification (despite absence of a primary source) "lost". Furthermore, instead of limiting the "loss of national consciousness" to the elite [13] and "the people of the Rhodope Mountains who were converted" [14] you have preferred a statement that "most of the population..., with the exception of the clergy in some isolated monasteries" lost its national consciousness. PPMit (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

As there seem to be no reasonable arguments against the fact that the national consciousness topic is subjective and the sources give contradictory information, I would assume that this discussion could come to an end with the conclusion that the "and between the 15th and 19th centuries, most of the population gradually lost its national consciousness, with the exception of the clergy in some isolated monasteries." part of the text should be removed. Nonetheless, I will still wait for a couple of days more in case that somebody still disagrees with this conclusion or any of the arguments.PPMit (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You can assume anything, but I don't think anyone would pay attention. Your opinions on sources are your opinions and nothing beyond that. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not given "opinions" - I have cited statements of sources which clearly contradict the part of the article we are discussing here. Unless you have some reasonable arguments against that "I don't think anyone would pay attention" to your opinion.PPMit (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have given you plenty of time to respond to my arguments. As there are no reasonable objections that the national consciousness topic is highly subjective and the sources give contradictory information, (and especially considering that "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it" [15]) I am going to remove the statement "most of the population gradually lost its national consciousness, with the exception of the clergy in some isolated monasteries" from the article. As it has been discussed previously, an additional problem with this statement is the fact that it does not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" [16]. This is a crusial factor for the achievement of a NPOV and thus gives a further reason why this statement should not remain in the text. PPMit (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

PPMit, your rehashed arguments have been responded to above. The sources clearly establish the viewpoint presented, and your misunderstanding of the WP:BLP criteria is not a reason for removal. CMD (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My arguments have not been responded (giving an opinion like "you are wrong" or "I don't think anyone would pay attention" is not a reasonable response). I have given statements made by reliable sources which clearly contradict the statement we are discussing here - do you have any objections to that? So, the sources give contradictory information and this is the main reason for the removal of the statement - not my "misunderstanding of the WP:BLP criteria". However, the statement is indeed about living persons (even if not about a single person) so you should be even more careful with your statements and I am not sure where is my "misunderstanding" in that case - yes it is not the typical case but it is analogue (it is a biography of the Bulgarian population if you wish). Nonetheless, this is not the reason for my edit and I have made that clear enough.PPMit (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments are discussed in the conversation above. A Christian identity is not the same as a Bulgarian identity, and secondary sources (especially when backed up with tertiary sources) would take precedence over any interpretation you made of primary sources. BLP applies to disparaging information that could harm an individual. Nothing here remotely fits that criteria. CMD (talk) 01:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, stop pretending that my arguments have been discussed above - I have used the WP definition for "national consciousness" which defines that term with "common ethnic or linguistic or cultural background" and have given for each of those pivotal components clear statements from reliable sources which univocaly confirm that the Bulgarian population did not lost any of them during the Ottoman period. You have never commented that obvious contradiction to your statement that the Bulgarian population lost its national consciousness, so I can not understand why you continue reverting my edit. At least Jingiby seems to has realised some of the problems with that statement and his edit seems to be a small step in the right direction. Though, that does not change the fact that there is plenty of contradictory information on that topic and therefore it would be better to simply remove it rather than trying to find a neutral version or mention all aspects and contradictory statements made in the sources. The primary sources I have mentioned directly confirm that the Bulgarian population (at least outsite the big cities) never lost its language, customs, culture. So, I am not making any interpretations of those sources and to claim that the linguistic book (which do not mention any sources on that topic) is a more reliable/important source is not serious. And once again - we are not here to choose which source is "better" - they give contradictory information, so we should put both versions in the text or none of them - none of them is the easiest, less controversial and shorter version. Furthermore, the statement that a nation lost its national consciousness could ceratinly be disparaging and could harm an individual, so I disagree that the mentioned BLP criteria does not apply to our topic.PPMit (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What you've done is take some sources, going as far as to even use a genetic study, and put your own interpretation on the information to argue something the sources don't say. This is WP:Synthesis and WP:Original Research. Jingiby has expanded on the difference between ethnic identity and religious identity. This is exactly what has been explained to you above. We do look at sources to determine which one(s) are better, which is why the NPOV page has a whole section on weighing sources. A statement on a historical national consciousness is not about living people, it does not harm any individual. To argue it does is ridiculous. You've presented your arguments here, and no consensus has been reached to make the changes you've proposed. Unless there's anything new, there's not much point continuing this conversation further. Regards, CMD (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not put any interpretation on the information! I have cited sources which clearly state that the Bulgarian population did not change in their ethnic composition (if you have read the genetic studies you would have seen that they clearly show that the Bulgarian population is very different genetically from the Greek, Serbian or Turkish population), that it did not lost its language, customs etc. So stop pretending something which is not the case. The "difference between ethnic identity and religious identity" has nothing to do with these facts. Furthermore, in this case we are not here to determine which one is better as there are many sources which do not claim and even contradict your statement and just one which do claim it. It is definitely not a NPOV to ignore all of them and if so where is your understading of balance "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoin" ? Last but not least, the statement about a loss of national conciousness of the Bulgarian population (living people) means that the Bulgarians do not have a common ethnic or linguistic or cultural background, which for sure might harm "any individual". PPMit (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

...if you have read the genetic studies you would have seen that they clearly show that the Bulgarian population is very different genetically from the Greek, Serbian or Turkish population... PPMit, is this a serious claim or a kind of new joke? In the first case, you are absolut dilettante, in the second case, the joke is too flat. Jingiby (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Jingiby, with your comment it is you who shows that you did not understand the study. To be genetically different does not mean to have different genes in terms of being a different species- the mtDNA haplotype variations have been studied and they could be used to study ethnic relationships/origins. For example Fig.1 of the Karachanak paper clearly shows the differences between the Greek, Serbian or Turkish population. Please, be sure that you understand the topic before you give comments on it.PPMit (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nature 456, 98-101 (6 November 2008) Genes mirror geography within Europe, John Novembre at al.; map from the study; details. Jingiby (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

So, is this source suppose to somehow contradict my statement? It once again confirms that there is a distinct Bulgarian population which is in quite some distance form the Turkish and Greek population. The fact that there is a "a close correspondence between genetic and geographic distances" is nothing unexpected. However, even if you are trying to ignore those studies, it would not change the fact that the rest of the sources give contradictory information to your statement about a loss of national consciousness. Furthermore, the last source you have added clearly claims that " Throughout the centuries of Ottoman domination, the Eastern Orthodox church...contributed a great deal to the preservation of the Bulgarian language and Bulgarian national consciousness" [17] which clearly contradicts the "loss of national consciousness" statement and is a clear support to my arguments (which were refused by CMD). However, for an unknown reason you have preferred to ignore that statement and involve in the article only the "and the militant Catholic community in the northwestern part of the country" part. So, there is a certain contradiction even between the sources used to support the statement in the WP article (39 and 41). I still believe that the contradiction is quite obvious and we should be able to solve this dispute without receiving outside help. Though, I am starting to think that you are not really trying to understand and answer properly/objectively my arguments and I am not willing to spend ages arguing on a subjective topic if the other party is selectively ignoring or refusing (without understandable reasons) to accept/comment some of the contradictory information on that topic. Regards,PPMit (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Archive request

Can someone kindly archive the old discussions here? Or should we open new sections to make life easier? Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do, if the dates discussion above can be considered closed. Personally I have no desire to take part in it anymore, but there must be universal agreement on considering it closed. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 04:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Images

I have several reasons to revert the image changes. The first reason is that most of them, along with the captions, are somewhat tendentious. There's no need to represent an object with the most... from each domain (ex. largest cathedral), or something very typical (e.g. tarator). That is exactly what makes the article look like an advert, as addressed here. The second reason is the quality of the photos themselves. The cathedral photo is a perfect example of what sort of an image should not be added, per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE - the object is obscured; in the case of the road map, the minimised image is crispy, and a few lines on a map are never as illustrative as a high-quality photo of the motorway itself. Same goes for the Cyrillic map. The treasure is not a bad photo, but it doesn't display the fine details as the close-up photo of the wreath. And finally, such broad changes are generally undesirable, as they undermine the stability of the article. I do agree that better photos of Bulgarian sportspeople and traditional attire are needed. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat tendentious? I think the caption below one of the pics goes between ridiculous and dramatic: "Threw stones and the bodies of their fallen comrades" (or something like that) "on the Ottoman soldiers". (I do not know if those words were added after you wrote this comment though.) Is this acceptable? What is the source, an epic theatre screenplay or something? I am going to remove those words. If anyone is going to fight for that please say it now, or never... --E4024 (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just cannot help asking you: Why should this be defined as unacceptable? Wikipedia is not a censorship and neither is it disrespectful to sourced content. The source is history books, military reports and war correspondents. Plus the source indicated immediately after the sentence you deleted. The battle was fierce, Bulgarians and Russians had no ammunitions and used the only advantage they had - their position above the opposing army. They did indeed throw rocks and body parts at the soldiers bellow. And while the heroic depiction of these events might be exaggerated etc., the very sentence you question is simply truth. And it is sourced. And you just removed sourced content noting you actually know nothing on the topic. And then you want to "fight" somebody over this? --Laveol ^T 02:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere is it said that this was "heroic", "epic", or anything like that in the caption. It's just what actually happened, and this was one of the most (if not the most) significant battles in modern Bulgarian history. As for sources, I'll simply add two more. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we want that sort of detail in a caption? It seems undue to me to include that in the text, let alone a picture caption. CMD (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

No we don't. @Tourbillon: The Ottoman soldiers were lucky in fact. The Bulgarians could have thrown on them some nationalist WP users, live, from the area that used to be Ottoman Empire territory... --E4024 (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, it is heavy, but it's also very illustrative of the character of the war itself. And the above comment is an excellent illustration of how one can assume good faith. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an undeniably interesting event, but it's one that doesn't need to be mentioned on the article. A better caption would perhaps mention why the defence was crucial to defeating the Ottomans, rather than just noting it was. Exact details on how the battle went should go on Battle of Shipka Pass, which although not the most dire of articles, isn't something I would likely point anyone to (It doesn't even mention the detail currently in the caption here). CMD (talk) 11:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hm, don't think so, an explanation of why the battle was crucial would probably be lengthy as well. Maybe replace the image with something else ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW any idea why the painting (by the artist Alexey Nikolaevich Popov) is called "The Defeat of Shipka Pass"? (And not "The Defence of Shipka Pass" as in the caption?) --E4024 (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Because the Ottoman Army suffered a defeat, that's actually pretty clear. And the discussion is about how best to illustrate the section. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you really not capable of understanding a simple question or pretending to be so? I asked why the name of a painting has been altered in this article... --E4024 (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And are you really not capable of distinguishing between the name under which an image is uploaded at Commons and the name of the actual painting? The name of the painting in Russian is "Защита «Орлиного гнезда» орловцами и брянцами". Do you need a translation? It is not exactly the same as the caption, do you want a literal translation and for what purpose? Also, if you need any help with Wiki-rules or a guideline to how the encyclopaedia works, feel free to ask or refer to the relevant help pages.

As the event is undeniably the most relevant and noteworthy incident of the Ottoman period (along with the April Uprising), it'd probably be better if the image stood. On the other hand, as Tourbillon pointed out an explanation as to why the event was crucial to the course of the war might be a bit on the lengthy side. Perhaps we can add two sentences to the relevant sections. It currently states that the Empire was defeated with the help of Bulgarian volunteers. --Laveol ^T 13:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

How about "The battle of Shipka Pass of the Russo-Turkish War was a major defeat for Ottoman military forces."? This directly links the battle to the war it was part of, and states the result. If anyone does find a better picture for the section, it can always be changed later. CMD (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Question:Is this article about Turco-Russian relations? Whay is the need for a pic from a Turco-Russian war? --E4024 (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a war that resulted in the creation of modern Bulgaria. You could argue that perhaps another picture would be better, but there's no basis to an argument that it's unimportant here. CMD (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Cyrillic in First Bulgarian Empire

Dear folks, I'm proposing that we add the following to the First Bulgarian Empire section of the this article. "During the Golden Age, the Cyrillic Alphabet was created in Bulgaria's capital Preslav and started its gradual spread to the North and North-east of Europe."

Since, this is the most important achievement of the First Bulgarian Empire, which effect is still current from the Mediterranean to the Pacific, it should be mentioned in the history section as well as in the culture section. ZomRe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of mentioning something twice in the same article ? It just looks too forced, especially since Cyrillic is basically in use only in Bulgaria, and in the former Soviet and Yugoslav space. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this fact that the Cyrillic was created in Bulgaria should be expressed with an image in the First Bulgarian Empire or Culture's section. It is one of the major alphabets in the world and encompasses two continents. It could be the map of the World usage of the Cyrillic together with the text ZomRe mentioned instead Krum's fest or instead the Thracian crown: Image:Cyrillic alphabet world distribution.svg .--Ceco31 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact the Cyrillic alphabet is the world's #2 alphabet by geographical distribution (after Latin). It should be mentioned not only in the First Bulgarian Empire section, but also in the intro, where we can say something like. Bulgaria is the birth place of the world's second geographically distributed alphabet - Cyrillic as well as the country of the first Tsars. I also agree with Ceco31's suggestion of the map. ZomRe (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Both of those are massive overstatements - there's barely 250 million people in only a dozen countries using Cyrillic, which is a fairly minor amount compared to the 2 billion users of Latin script or the 1.4 billion using Chinese script. Does consistently repeating how great an achievement is make it any greater ? No. It's mentioned once, its proliferation is pointed out, and that is completely sufficient. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I reckon that such an image with the map of the Cyrillic would be more greater than the some unfamous Thracian crown or book, when it is the #3 alphabet in the world it is simply absurdly to put such images before such an achievement of the country. About the other pictures, the 2010 games are completely unsuitable as they are expired and Bulgaria never in its history as participator performed well in Winter Olympics. The traditional religion is more important than some sort of university.--Ceco31 (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A map of places using Cyrillic tells the reader nothing about Bulgaria. A crown or book at least shows an actual object. CMD (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The map tells where something invented in Bulgaria is used in the world officially and which parts of the world it influenced, this is also about Bulgaria.--Ceco31 (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. This article is not about Cyrillic and devoting more than a sentence to it is just ridiculous. I won't even pay attention to the shocking comment that a university is less significant than religion. And please stop being destructive with all these reverts. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Does the map further readers understanding of or insight into Bulgaria? It doesn't. Your sentence above notes that the subject is the thing invented in Bulgaria, rather than Bulgaria itself. While such things often merit mentioning in the text, they're usually not due for an image, especially for something as bland as a green-grey map. CMD (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Cyrillic should be mentioned in the intro and in the First Bulgarian Empire section, it is the defining feature of Bulgaria and its most significant contribution to the world's civilization and tells a tremendous amount about the country to the reader. Map should be included as well. ZomRe (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And how is stating that three times an improvement to this article ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 18:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In the intro as it is the most significant contribution and it should be there. In the First Bulgarian Empire - since this is the period it happened and in Culture as aside from Political it is also a cultural event. ZomRe (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

How will either of those edits help the reader better understand Bulgaria? CMD (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Understanding where Cyrillic came from and its impact is of gross importance for proper understanding of Bulgaria. Again, this is one of Bulgaria's most significant contributions to the world. It like asking what will the mention of the Industrial revolution help the reader in his understanding of England. ZomRe (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

How does reading about the Industrial revolution help a reader understand England as a country ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that a series of events that changed the entire world's economic, social, and policial structures, is comparable to a new codification of Greek letters. CMD (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Calling the Cyrillic codification of greek (or rather Phoenician, to be precise) letters shows your utter lack of historical and political knowledge. Cyrillic or the Bulgarian Alphabet, helped create a civilization and culture that influenced and uniquely formed an area from the Mediterranean to the Pacific and certainly has influence to the entire world. But, based on your comments it is clear that you don't want to have a discussion and are interested in promoting your anti-Bulgarian agenda. You can't change the fact that the Bulgarian alphabet, and Bulgarian culture shaped a civilization, no matter how much you try. I have no more time to waste here, sooner or later Cyrillic will be in the intro. ZomRe (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that Cyrillic should be mentioned not once, but three times in this article to underline that "Bulgaria has shaped a civilization" ? I'm sorry to say it, but the small country complex doesn't belong here. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

At the time of the First Bulgarian Empire Bulgaria was rivaling Byzantium, which is like rivaling the United States today, not quite a small country. It is your anti-Bulgarian posts that don't have place here. You are both so obvious. ZomRe (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ZomRe, but this which is conspicuous is that he raised so many points and Tourbillon did not answer them with posting mockingly a sentence but instead actively reverts in the article as a proprietor of Wikipedia. Stop edit-warring arrogantly without explaining why and start talking as a normal human being here on the talk page. Answer the others before edit-warring again you have not bothered for the questions I raised several times on the talk page and on the edit summary..--Ceco31 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)