Talk:Bulgaria/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

On soviet time bankruptcies and credibility of the source

I've added to Bulgaria Third State a statement about financial crises the country experienced during soviet rule. It is only one sentence outlining the facts.

The place was right after :

The Soviet-style planned economy saw some market-oriented policies emerging on an experimental level under Todor Zhivkov (1954–1989).

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria

. The sentence under question is:

Yet under his rule the country went bankrupt three times

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria

.

I've seen other editors removing this sentence:

• Without giving any explanations as to why: Laveol and Tourbillon.

According wikipedia editors rules, one has to suggest a better text or try to resolve his/her disagreements with posting editor (me) before removing it.

• Removing it together with another edit related to the standard of living (see top).

After one of the first removals by my fellow editors I stated in the commit comments that these are two unrelated subjects (as they were committed separately too) and I do not see a reason to bundle them together. Or is there a reason?

• One editor (Tourbillon) stated that the source is {quote|text=the other one is unreliable}}.

The author of this source is Hristo Hristov who is renowned journalist with impeccable reputation. See also his own wikipage [1]. On what ground would anyone claim he is unreliable? The article in particular is a research into recently declassified state documents, which he has been painstakingly analyzing. His research is backed by actual documents and they are shown in the article. The whole research is also made into a book which is also with impeccable repuration [2]. On what ground would anyone claim that it is unreliable? --Nfikin (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been perfectly explained on a number of occasions: poor grammar, misinterpretation of the source, using a poor-quality source. I also doubt the person is a "renowned journalist with impeccable reputation", even the Bulgarian page on him lacks credible third-party sources and he probably does not even have sufficient notability (most of the citations in the Wiki article point to his personal website). Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'd welcome suggestions to improve the grammar or how to interpret rather than remove the post.--Nfikin (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

On the reputation : can you point to any other "credible source" which questions him or his findings?--Nfikin (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

On the credibility : there is another book by two historians {quite|text=Даниел Вачков, Мартин Иванов, „Българският външен дълг 1944-1989” – банкрутът на комунистическата икономика, Институт за изследване на близкото минало, изд. „Сиела”, 2008 г., 254 страници.} which fully supports hristo's findings. Do you find them also unreliable? --Nfikin (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The LoC entry clearly states a 75% rise in wages, food consumption and other indicators - this is a significant improvement by any criteria. Lifestyle is not the same as economic indicators. I've added a quote to the reference pointer. Adding a direct quote from the book and a page number would be a much more reliable source, yes. It is also strongly recommended that you do not make any changes until consensus is reached. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess your comment belongs to the above section where I've outlined my problems with this source and its interpretation. Would you agree to move that LoC and "significantly" to there please? I do not see a need to mix both subjects together. --Nfikin (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Only partially, the second half of my statement was about that book. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please argument your objections to credibility (I've given you another source too) rather than stating "I also doubt the person". I fail to identify any pointer which can back your doubts.--Nfikin (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I said you can freely use the other source as long as you quote it properly (page number and direct quote, as it's obviously not available for online reading). Desebg.com is unreliable per Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters (author is not a historian, while this is a history subsection), and many other things on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which you obviously did not bother reading. Also, your continuous, single-handed revert of information now constitutes Disruptive behaviour, and I'm kindly asking you to stop it. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Out of your comments I get that adding reference to the above book is ok with you? And you do not have comments over the grammar or wording, right?--Nfikin (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, there is no problem if the source is reliable and properly cited. This would mean you'll have to provide a page number and a quote, because the book doesn't seem to be available online. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

On why "standards of living rose significantly" is not truthful citation of source.

In section about Third Bulgarian State there is a statement that reads:

By the mid-1950s standards of living rose significantly

. When looking in the source, following is being written :

In the mid-1950s, Soviet-style centralized planning produced economic indicators showing that Bulgarians were returning to their prewar lifestyle in some respects: real wages increased 75 percent, consumption of meat, fruit, and vegetables increased markedly, medical facilities and doctors became available to more of the population, and in 1957 collective farm workers benefited from the first agricultural pension and welfare system in Eastern Europe.

— http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bg0062

. The source is dated back to June 1992 but lacks information as to based on what data these claims are being made.

Looking at the source, one can determine that:

1. It lacks authorship to determine its credibility.
2. It lacks pointers to the data source for these evaluations.
3. Language used is very general purpose, not economical, not political.

Basically it is of a poor factological quality, not suitable for argumented statements.

Looking at its interpretation, one can determine that:

1. It uses words "rose", "standard" and "significantly" which are NOT mentioned in the source at all.
2. It sends indication that "living standard rose" while the source speaks of "lifestyle".

It is not hard to understand that I have a hard time accepting this interpretation as truthful and objective.

With so poor quality source, to be objective is a challenge. But editorial rules are clear, either we stay truthful to the source or we do not mentioned it at all.

My proposal for the interpretation was to quote the source directly. This way there is no intentional (or unintentional) misleading the readers. But if this is not acceptable, I'd vote for removing the sentence altogether.

I've seen that other editors tend to remove my proposal and simply stick to the free-text interpretation. Also they do not give any explanation (commit comments) as to why they prefer the free text one over the direct quotation of the source ? Is this how an objective editor is supposed to behave? Based on what grounds one can claim such an interpretation as truthful and not misleading? --Nfikin (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The source is Library of Congress Country Studies. I suggest you read the entry once more, the rest of my answer is below. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd need something more comprehensive as an explanation than simply stating it is LoC. As I stated above, this source lacks authorship of its author and data input. And my complain is that the sentence suggests living standard while the article (intentionally?) speaks of lifestyle. I think another source, preferably economical, is needed to back claims about living standard.--Nfikin (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

LoC country studies were written by a panel of analysts, look around the Bulgaria entry and you'll find everything about the authorship. If you consider this source unreliable, that is entirely your problem... - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to interpret what you're saying. I think you're looking at "75% rise in wages, food consumption and other indicators" and deduct "living standard rose significantly". Right?--Nfikin (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Any non-biased reasoning would dictate so, yes. I could add GDP and a number of other economic indicators if it's not sufficient. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion you have to use altogether different source to make such statement. The way I read LoC source is "...returning to their prewar lifestyle in some respects: some numbers" which speaks of "lifestyle" improvements in very weak terms ("returning", "some respect", figures without source and not generally economical measures). This is not appropriate to use in the context you're apparently after (living standard raise). If you want to keep the source, ok with me but pls use direct words rather than your interpretation.--Nfikin (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

LoC is the most reliable source of country data in the public domain, there's no need to replace it with something else at this point. The numbers are indicative of marked improvement (unless you claim a 75% wage increase to be insignificant). We're talking about significant improvement regardless of the environment, be it a return to prewar lifestyle or achieving even higher standards of living. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If your claim that LoC is so trustworthy why do not use its works directly (as I suggested so many times)? The question here is not with the source but the way it is being interpreted? If LoC article has even one of the words "rose", "standard" and "significantly" I could accept it but that is not the case here. --Nfikin (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Because the idea is to synthesise what the source states, not copy-paste it. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And do you find the synthesis job well done? I'm not sure an unbiased and self-respecting editor (I trust you consider yourself such) can afford to use words so freely without proper backing. And I'm not sure I've seen other sources speaking in similar terms either.--Nfikin (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue - first it was the credibility of the source, then it was the interpretation, now it's my editing capabilities. What is the problem here, exactly ? That "significant" doesn't look good ? Too positive ? Not a quotation close enough ? What ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to iterate my objections again. I object on use of following words and because:

• "standard" - This article speaks about lifestyle and there is no wording suggesting they refer to something else like "living" standard.
• "rose" - This article speaks of "returning to" and "some aspects". There is not a single shred of evidence the author(s) mean rising living standard. This article has references to some economical data which can be considered an increase but the data set does not indicate this is a living standard data. Nor it contain reference to such a source. Nor it contains a comprehensive list of economical markers which could make it a living standard data.
• "significantly" - This article does provide some economical data but such quantification is missing. And level of details provided makes it impossible to justify, for example it is lacking before-after comparison, no dates, no numbers, only one percentage. Asking to quantify all of this as siginificant is pushing the readers tolerance.

All in all, this source is "poor" in context of living standard claims and "good-enough" in terms of "lifestyle" claims.

Your interpretation would be ok if it is a personal opinion but it is not factologically correct when comes to unbiased article. Sorry, nothing personal here.

What is not clear in my objections so far? --Nfikin (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sovereignty dates in the Infobox

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

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

Bălgariya or Bălgarija

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

Photos in "Culture"

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

Empire?

We have never considered ourselves to be an Empire, back in 681 ;) We talk here about First and Second Bulgarian Kingdoms, not Empires. Sorry if this is already discussed. 00:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Virosh00:29

It's just the English terminology. It's not like the word Empire has any consistent meaning. CMD (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually we have considered ourselves as Empire, because "Tsarstvo" mean "Empire" (from Old Bulgarian "Цясарь", which mean Caesar or Emperor). The word "Kingdom" mean "Кралство" on Bulgarian and is equivalent of "Княжество" in Slavic terminology (English "King" comes from Old German Konungas, related to Proto-Slavic "Кънензъ" or "Княз"). --151.237.102.118 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the previous contributor has a point. As far as I know, in the medieval sense (at the time when Simeon got recognized as Emperor), the words tsar (цар) and tsarstvo (царство) were equivalent to emperor and empire. In Bulgarian the meaning has shifted over time, however, so that nowadays tsarstvo doesn't have the connotation of empire (it now better translates as kingdom) and when people want to refer to the Roman Empire, say, they use imperija (империя) instead. Nevertheless, in Bulgarian the First Bulgarian Empire is commonly referred to as a Tsarstvo (Първо българско царство), which is perhaps the source of confusion. For those who are interested, this page can help clarify the relation between the title tsar and emperor (and between the respective terms tsarstvo and empire).Tropcho (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2014

2.235.103.126 (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC) LIARS! Moldavia and Wallachia were NOT part of the Second Bulgarian Empire! LIARS! Liars! Liars! Is Bulgaria the center of the Earth?

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

During the reign of Kaloyan and Ivan Asen II Wallachia and Moldavia ARE part of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Read, before to comment, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.102.118 (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Boris ordering the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet?

A recent addition states that Boris ordered the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet. How do we know that? I don't see a source for that. Tropcho (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox dates

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

These are formation or establishment dates, no other country has end dates. End dates add no value and clutter the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.126.199 (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Other countries usually don't have dates concerning earlier states that are divided from the current nation state by half a millennium of non-statehood either. If we are going to have these earlier incarnations at all, then it is crucial to show that they don't form a continuous tradition of one foundation event simply building upon the previous one, but are unrelated entities widely separated in time. The alternative is to not list them at all. Fine with me, but I suppose people won't like re-opening that debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

And, unsurprisingly, the Poland and Serbia articles also duly include the end dates of the prior states (1795 and 1459 respectively), only they aren't using the format of year ranges but have extra entries in the timeline instead, which is just a bit less elegant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

We achieved consensus to distinguish Medieval entities from the modern one. In fact, adding end dates only does it better and is therefore an improvement. The rest is WP:OTHERSTUFF and by extension, irrelevant. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Sorry, but I really fail to see the reason for even debating on the topic. What is the rationale behind removing the end dates? How is this an improvement? End dates do not 'clutter' the article, at least as I see it. Plus, they add valuable info about this not being a continuous state, but a country that ceased its existence for vast periods of time. Hence, the different numerical identifiers for each state. --Laveol ^T 22:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Because, the template is for establishment dates, not date ranges. It is important to the reader when the entity was formed, as this is the formation section. But you have nothing to worry, you can all now safely go and build Tsar Samuil another monument and put a quote from some of your distinguished academics on it :) or when you discover that the First Bulgarian Empire was in fact The Empire of the Macedonians, make sure to reflect it in the article. I'm sure we can all agree to close this discussion now, as while entertaining it is clear we agree to disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.126.199 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's for the establishment dates of the state the article is about, not states that disappeared centuries before the article's subject came into being. This is why its structure is event dates, as each should lead directly to the next. Once you include dates for events that do not last until the next one, the lack of end dates grossly misleads the reader into assuming each follows directly from the previous. CMD (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You're getting boring and I'm choosing to ignore you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.126.199 (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem, what an impressive argument. I don't think the anonymous user will ever understand what we're talking about, it's useless to keep arguing. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Nope, not suitable. This again makes it look exactly like what it wasn't: a continuous succession of political forms representing "Bulgaria", each building directly on the previous one (and one of which just happened to be called "Ottoman Bulgaria"). No way. Also, the christianization may have been an important point in the cultural development, but it didn't change the political status of the country; likewise, the unification of 1885 may have been important politically, but it was just the expansion of an existing entity, not the formation of a new one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain how Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria implies a continuous succession? Isn't it obvious that Bulgaria lost its sovereignty after it was conquered? If we changed Ottoman Bulgaria to e.g. Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria or Fall of the Second Bulgarian Empire, would this be acceptable? Also, regarding your remarks on the Christianization and the Unification, why should we only include events that changed the political status of the country in the Formation section (as opposed to events that influenced the formation of the country)? Tropcho (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What Fut Perf means is that it provides the implication that a political unit continued throughout these periods, just under different rulership, which is not what happened. Keep in mind the infobox is the shortest of summaries, and the sovereignty section is meant to be the briefest of bullets as to when sovereignty was obtained (although its use has expanded to when the current political status was obtained, whatever that is). CMD (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Chipmunkdavis for the clarification. I understand that this is what Fut Perf meant. This is why I asked him why he thinks that Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria implies a continuous succession of political forms. Also, previously someone mentioned that Encyclopaedia Britannica clearly states that modern Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe (Founded in the 7th century, Bulgaria is one of the oldest states on the European continent.) Obviously the authors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article saw continuity of some kind in Bulgarian statehood (btw, compare this with Fut. Perf.'s claim above that they were unrelated entities). In this connection I would like to ask why some people insist on legal or political continuity, and why other kinds of continuity are not sufficient? What is this requirement based on? As far as I can tell, it's not implied anywhere in the template description (the Template:Infobox_country indicates that the established_event fields are for key events in history of country/territory's status or formation), and from the discussion above I infer that there's no wiki-wide consensus on this. So I would like to know why political continuity is necessary, while other kinds are not sufficient. Tropcho (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not the specific wording really, it's the presentation system. It's the implication that some entity went through a series of events, such as Byzantine and Ottoman conquest. I don't think its obvious that the authors of Britannica saw a continuity in political statehood. Near the start is also says "Bulgaria gained its independence in the late 19th century", which isn't placed with a connection to any previous Bulgaria. Furthermore the more detailed parts are very clear that the Bulgarian national revival was initially cultural rather than political, and was primarily a result of widespread education. (They additionally very quickly state that Turkish influence had a large effect on Bulgaria, but no-one is trying to even get that anywhere in the prose of this article.) As for political continuity, that's used because this is an article about a political entity, so it's simply the type of continuity defined by the topic at hand. CMD (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It is true that the statement about Bulgaria gaining its independence in the late 19th century doesn't explicitly mention a previous Bulgaria. But neither does it explicitly rule out the possibility that Bulgaria existed before gaining its independence, does it? On the other hand, the statement that Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe, along with the following statement in the section Beginnings of Modern Bulgaria (preceding the section First Bulgarian Empire): The Byzantine emperor Constantine IV led an army against the Bulgars but was defeated, and in 681 Byzantium recognized by treaty Bulgar control of the region between the Balkans and the Danube. This is considered to be the starting point of the Bulgarian state., is a clear indication that the authors of Encyclopaedia Britannica believe that some entity (as you put it) went through a series of events, and that modern Bulgaria is closely related to the First and Second Bulgarian Empires (sufficiently related to be considered their continuation - otherwise why would the authors call it one of the oldest states in Europe?). Wouldn't you agree? Tropcho (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

What are you even blathering on about? We are already including those freaking empires in the box, so what the hell more do you want? We are not talking about whether or not we should include them; all we are talking about is your attempt at obscuring the situation, by giving as little as possible visibility to the fact that there are large temporal gaps between these states. This will not be tolerated, full stop. As for the contention that something could be the "continuation" of something else from which it is separated by half a millenium, this is simply not something that reasonable people can reaonably disagree about. It's a simple fact of the English language. Look up what "continuation" means. Continuation entails temporal continuaity. Debate over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

(Side remark: There is a page on wikipedia that advises editors to take a break if they find themselves unable engage in discussion in a civil way.) I would be more inclined to agree that we should end this discussion if your post had properly addressed my questions and if there were not some flaws in your argument. To answer your questions: my "blathering" is aimed at 1) challenging the statement that the First and Second Empire and modern Bulgaria are unrelated entities (and some other related notions) and 2) convincing the participants in this discussion that the presentation format I suggested (or some variation of it) is transparent (all dates are included, there's no ambiguous wording that implies things that are not supported by the sources), balanced, concise, conforms with common wikipedia usage, and is more informative, and therefore better than the present one.

I read through (most of) the preceding discussions. The impression that I got is that no source has been presented that directly supports the claim that there is no political or legal connection between the Second Bulgarian Empire and the Principality, nor the claim that they are unrelated entities. Tourbillon provided sources [3] [4] that state that the modern Bulgarian state was founded in the 19th century. However, it seems to me that the claim that the modern Bulgarian state is not related to the previous states is an extension of what is in the sources, and therefore amounts to original research. Some of the participants in the discussion have argued about what constitutes political and legal continuity and statehood, but again using definitions whose origin is not entirely clear (because there was little or no reference to sources). Please let me know if you think that I've missed something important.

Coming back to Fut Perf's argument about "continuation": First, if one looks up the word, one will actually find that one of its meanings is the act of beginning again after an interruption. Second, at first sight it seems reasonable to accept that it's impossible for a state to be the continuation of an earlier one from which it was separated by half a millennium, but it seems to me that it's actually an oversimplification. I think it really depends on what happened before and during this half a millennium. If it were as simple as the argument above suggests, then I would like to ask what is the maximum amount of time that allows us to say that one state is a continuation of another? Is it 314 years? Is it 10? Is it 1878 - 1396 = 482 years? And how do we arrive at that "cutoff"? The answer, I think, depends on many things, including personal preference, so I think it's better to leave it to the experts. Finally, we seem to have a fairly reputable source (Encyclopaedia Britannica) which seems to consider the present Bulgarian state to be the continuation of the earlier states. Or at least that's to me the most obvious interpretation of the statement that Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe. There seems to be little room for ambiguity here. I think that it's also reasonable to assume that the authors of the EB knew very well that there were long periods in the history of Bulgaria when it did not have political independence (and that they knew that the Principality was established in 1878, which is what Tourbillon's sources state). It seems that they saw no contradiction between this fact and the statement that Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe. I would be curious to hear another interpretation, if someone has one. Tropcho (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately your "reasoning" is wholly made out of appeals to authority, appeals to ignorance and basically all other logical fallacies that could possibly exist, a prime example being the Britannica straw man you keep pushing around. The EB source talks of a beginning of the "Bulgarian state" in the context of the First Bulgarian Empire; nowhere does it mention a continuous Bulgarian statehood. Honestly I have no idea how to explain that two entities separated in their existence by 500 years are not the same thing, so I don't think it's worth the effort. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment about the logical fallacies would have been valid, if you had not misinterpreted my remarks above. Let me try and explain.

If my argument went (for example) as follows:

1. EB is an authority on history.
2. EB says that Bulgaria was founded in 681.
3. Therefore, it must be true that Bulgaria was founded in 681.

this would have been an appeal to authority, and your remark would have been correct. However, re-reading my comments above should convince you that I never assumed nor implied any of the three points above. I merely pointed out that a fairly reputable source appears to have stated that Bulgaria was founded in 681.

Similarly, if I had argued as follows:

1. There is no source that proves that the present Bulgarian state and the older empires are unrelated.
2. Therefore the converse is true, i.e. they must be related.

this would have been an appeal to ignorance. But again, reading my comment above should convince you that I never argued that. I merely pointed out that so far no source has been presented that supports the view that we're dealing with “unrelated entities”.

(By the way, since it's based on a misinterpretation of my remarks, this particular part of your argument is a an example of what is called a straw man.)

Then, your comment says that I “keep pushing a Britannica straw man around”. Last time I checked a straw man was a formal fallacy based on a misinterpretation of the opponent's argument. In what way do my comments about EB constitute a misinterpretation of my opponents' arguments? Aren't the main points of argument

1. that the First and Second Empire and the Principality are “historically unrelated” and that there is “no foundation date” (Fut Perf)
2. that Bulgaria has no connection or no relation to the medieval empires (Tourbillon)
3. that Bulgaria is not a successor to the medieval empires (Tourbillon)
4. that national consciousness was lost [5] (Tourbillon)
5. that there were no traces of political culture left (Tourbillon)
6. that unbroken political continuity of statehood is important (Fut Perf)
7. that the present Bulgarian state and the earlier empires are “unrealted entities” (Fut Perf)
8. that this article is about the modern state and that continuance of statehood is lacking (CMD)

(Note: points 4-6 were added later) In what way do my comments about the EB article constitute a misinterpretation of these points? Or did you mean to say that I was misinterpreting the source? Which leads me to the next thing: your interpretation of the EB.

Your comment about EB makes me think that you read neither what I wrote nor the EB article very carefully. EB states not only that 681 ”is considered to be the starting point of the Bulgarian state.” (as you correctly point out) but also that ”Founded in the 7th century, Bulgaria is one of the oldest states on the European continent.” (this is the second sentence of the opening paragraph). Provided that it hardly makes sense to say that Bulgaria is one of the oldest states in Europe if it were founded in 1878, one rather obvious interpretation of this is that the authors consider the present Bulgarian state to be the continuation of the earlier empires, and that the founding date of the Bulgarian state is 681. This does not imply that Bulgaria retained its independence without interruption since its foundation, but it does seem to imply that the present Bulgaria is a continuation, a successor or heir to the medieval states, and that they are intimately related. Do you have an alternative interpretation? Please share it with us. And also please explain how the statements in EB are consistent with the claim that the First and Second Empire and the Principality are unrelated entities.

Furthermore, strictly speaking, the last part of your comment also constitutes a straw man, because I never claimed that modern Bulgaria and the medieval states were “the same thing”; I believe that they are quite different, but that they are related in many essential ways. Besides, it seems that this argument is a case of causal oversimplification (and pretty much a repetition of Fut Perf's earlier statement, which I commented on. See above, and perhaps try to answer the question posed there).

One more comment: I believe that your remark about “all other logical fallacies” couldn't have been seriously meant and that in spirit it is tending towards incivility. By creating an unfriendly atmosphere, this has the potential to discourage people from participating in what could be a civil and productive discussion. It's probably a good idea to abstain from such comments in the future. Tropcho (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's also reasonable to ask Fut Perf why he thinks that the info-box presentation format which is "a bit less elegant" (than including end-dates) when applied to Poland and Serbia's articles becomes intolerable when applied to Bulgaria. What's the rationale behind that, given that all three countries have gaps in their sovereignty? Tropcho (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fut Perf this is just a reminder that I'd like to hear why you think that my proposal is not acceptable, even though it is modeled on Poland and Serbia's articles, which you described as a bit less elegant. I have the feeling that perhaps people are primed a bit by the preceding heated discussions and that's why they see behind my proposal some attempt to "obscure things".

My proposal is actually not very different from the present version. I think it would even be OK to keep the medieval vs. modern tags, although they seem redundant to anyone who knows what medieval means and is capable of reading numbers. The main difference between my proposal and the present version is that my proposal includes more links (to e.g. the period of Ottoman domination or the Byzantine conquest) and that it includes the Christianization of Bulgaria. I believe that the conversion (along with the recognition of an independent church) is a key event for Bulgaria, and had political implications as well. The Christianization helped merge the Slavic and Bulgar elements and strengthened central power. The Ecclesiastical independence, on the other hand, decreased the influence of Byzantium and fostered the development of a separate identity which was quite important later on. (I can support these claims with sources, if anyone would like me to do so). Therefore it would be good to mention them in the infobox, I think. Tropcho (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fut Perf seeing that you're around, this is another a reminder that there's a question waiting for you. Cheers Tropcho (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tropcho, of course there is direct continuity between First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire and Third Bulgarian State. This is beyond question and no serious historian will argue against it. Britanica clearly states where Bulgaria starts. The real infobox dates should 632 - Old Great Bulgaria, 681 - First Bulgarian Empire, 1185-Second Bulgarian Empire, 1878-Third Bulgarian State. It is useless to argue with the above, they will never change their POV. They will deny everything you list, every source you cite. Their goal is clear - to state that the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire are not Bulgarian or at least not related, which helps their long term strategy for the invention of a Macedonian nation and state, think Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, etc. which existed from antiquity and the middle ages. That's it. The other thing is that direct political continuity is completely unimportant for the info box, no other country cares for this in their info box, neither Spain, Germany, Ireland, Poland, etc. Yet, they claim again and again that it is important. Well, it is not. What is important is to show how Bulgaria formed thru the ages. So, don't waste your time with them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.126.199 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 June 2014 Well, I see FutPerf is getting quite angry now, insulting other editors also. And again their goal is make the point that the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire are not Bulgarian or at least not related, which helps their long term strategy for the invention of a Macedonian nation and state, think Bulgarian Tsar Samuel, etc. which existed from antiquity and the middle ages. That's it. Tropcho, correctly pointed out that direct political continuity is completely unimportant for the info box, no other country cares for this in their info box, neither Spain, Germany, Ireland, Poland, etc. What is important is to show how Bulgaria formed thru the ages. TheIPInfo (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC) FutPerf you have been reported for 3RR TheIPInfo (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Christianization and introduction of the Slavic alphabet

What is the basis for the claim that "the most significant points are already mentioned", given that the Christianization is covered with one short sentence, and the adoption of the Slavic alphabet is not mentioned at all? I believe that this is a glaring omission and does not do justice to the history of the First Empire at all. A quote from RJ Crampton might help here: The most important developments of the first empire, however, were cultural rather than military. (from Bulgaria, Oxford University Press 2007, p11). By this he means two things: Christianization and the adoption of Slavo-Bulgarian as a language for state and church. Of the 4 pages he devotes to the First Empire 1.5 are about these two topics, or almost 40 percent. This is how much volume is devoted to these two topics (which basically coincide with the reign of Boris I) compared to the total amount of text about the first empire in some other sources:

• Encyclopedia Britannica: approx 46% (based on a character count) of all text dealing with the first empire.
• Steven Runciman's A History of the First Bulgarian Empire (not bad prose, by the way): approx 47/225 pages (21%) (from the foundation in 681, on p 27)
• Vasil Zlatarski's History of the Bulgarian State approx 250/1041 pages (24%) (note that there are two volumes)
• RJ Crampton, A Concise History of Bulgaria, Cambridge University Press 1997 approx 4/11 pages (36%)

These figures are, I think, a good illustration of how important the two topics are. In contrast, the figure in this article before the additions was ~4%. So I would suggest that you justify yourself or revert your own edit. If the problem is flow, do suggest improvements. If something should be removed, although I don't think so, it seems to me that there are other less important things to start with. Cheers Tropcho (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Two relevant quotes from Cramtpon's Concise History of Bulgaria:

• Boris [...] in his three and a half decades of power was to impose huge and portentous changes on his realm and its inhabitants. (p 12)
• The introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet was of enormous importance. More than any other development it prevented the absorption of the Bulgarians by the Greeks to their south or the Franks to their west. (p 16 of the 1997 edition) Tropcho (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Tropcho. A much needed and well formatted addition. Please, go ahead and add it. Walker.D.Pace (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We could mention the introduction of the alphabet, but having a whole paragraph only on religion and Cyrillic is simply unacceptable given the present structure of the article. Sure, they're major events, but a brief sentence with appropriate links is better than a paean. If you want to cover the history of Bulgaria in detail, here you go. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the significance of the Christianization, the recognition of an independent Bulgarian church, and the introduction of the alphabet is such that they deserve more than two sentences in total (especially in a context where Krum's law or Tervel's assitance in the Arab siege of Constantinople get attention). Now they get just one. In my view there's nothing sacrosanct about the present structure of the section. If it does not allow significant events to receive the amount of attention they deserve, or if it gives undue weight to less important events, I believe we should not be afraid to modify it. I have the feeling that at the moment the focus is on the military developments. What is it exactly about the structure that you think makes it incompatible with the new additions? If length and flow are your main concerns, I could make some suggestions. Also, please note that the additions I suggest are hardly concerned with the details. The essential points are mentioned with a minimal amount of context, and there is much more to be said about each of them. (For example, think of the laborious negotiations between Boris, Rome and Constantinople that led to the recognition of an autonomous Bulgarian church: only the outcome is mentioned here.) Finally (paean), if statements of fact sound like praise, I'm not sure it has to bother us. The First Empire did achieve much, as Runciman and Crampton both point out explicitly. Tropcho (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well you've clarified things yourself in your first statement - you believe these events deserve more than two sentences. They don't. The entire history of the First empire is covered in three paragraphs, and what you did was adding a whole two new paragraphs concerning the adoption of Christianity and Cyrillic script under Boris. That is totally out of balance, and if you don't care about the structure, you should carefully read Wikipedia:Summary style#Rationale on why brief is better. Details like Taking advantage of the rivalry between the churches at Rome and Constantinople... or Saints Cyril and Methodius, who found welcome in Bulgaria after being expelled from Great Moravia are absolutely unnecessary. Christianisation is already mentioned and the only reason why Cyrillic could be add there is that it's one of the few lasting pieces of Bulgarian heritage outside its borders, nothing more. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 08:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There are of course countless Bulgarian achievements that have spread and left heritage outside of the Bulgarian borders. Unlike a famous scientist or an artist, the creation and spread of the Bulgarian alphabet is a civilization forming event and deserves a mention. Walker.D.Pace (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's a terraforming event that deserves a whole two paragraphs. One sentence is more than enough to cover both of these. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting. Are you saying that you actually know that they don't deserve more than two sentences? I would like to know how you “know” that. And unless you're one of those people who just happen to know the truth, then the difference between your position and mine is that whereas I have backed up my belief with sources, you have not. Did you read the preceding posts? Did you notice that experts on the subject also assume an approach that is “totally out of balance” according to you? Also, please be reminded that even if you do “know” the truth, this isn't really relevant on wikipedia, unless you can back it up with sources. Tropcho (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Tu quoque. I don't need sources because I'm not claiming anything. I'm simply explaining why your edits are unacceptable - because of their size, and not because of their content. If you didn't read the link on Summary Style earlier, do so and try to find out why less details mean better understanding. I hope things are clear now. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that it's quite easy to see (by scrolling up) that what you're saying (i.e. that you're "not claiming anything" but are “simply explaining why my edits are unacceptable”) is plain wrong. Clearly you're claiming that my edits are unacceptable, otherwise you wouldn't be busy explaining that they are. You also claim (among other things) that 1) these topics don't deserve more than two sentences, that 2) it's “totally out of balance” to devote two paragraphs (out of five total) to them, and that 3) the above-mentioned details are “absolutely unnecessary”. You have given neither sources nor sufficient explanations to support these claims. Your referral to the summary style guideline is not enough because 1) my inclusions are a summary and nothing near an exhaustive treatment of the topics introduced and 2) the summary style guideline (understandably) does not specify what to include and what to leave out. There's no need to convince me that summary style is appropriate here. However, do you think that it implies including unimportant details (e.g. the exact location of Asparukh's migrations before crossing south of the Danube) at the expense of important events (e.g. the establishment of a national Bulgarian church, the foundation of literary centers at Preslav and Ohrid, the development of a national literature)? Also, if you can, do try and support your claims above. Tropcho (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you're not making the difference between a claim of content and an insistence that some information does not need to be presented in detail. Excellent work reducing the section even further, but some of the things you added are still far too detailed. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 07:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly made you think that I'm not making the difference? Quite the contrary: I understand what you're saying. Nevertheless, I disagree with it and (as explained above) I think you have not done enough to support your position neither with explanations, nor with sources. In contrast, I've pointed out that experts do pay a lot of attention to the reign of Boris (which, along with that of Simeon, typically occupies 40 to 60% of their narratives about the First Empire), which gives me good confidence that it's not a bad idea (nor "totally out of balance") to do the same thing in our summary here. Tropcho (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

While you're around, could you also take some time to clarify your earlier statements (in the infobox dates discussion) about the "britannica straw man" that I was supposedly pushing around? I'm still quite eager to know what you meant. Tropcho (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's even remotely relevant clarifying something that is more than clear. It would also be nice if you cease your persistent adding of "Preslav Literary School" to underscore where Cyrillic was developed. It's not really "important" outside a nationalist microcosm. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Old Great Bulgaria in the infobox?

It's very interesting for me, why Old Great Bulgaria is not representing in the infobox? Bulgaria was created in 632 by Khan Kubrat and this state, which we called "Old Great Bulgaria" was named just "Bulgaria" in all Byzantine chronicles. Old Great Bulgaria and First Bulgarian Empire are one state and the difference between both is only the capital remove south of Danube, after 680.--Tourbo L (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer is simple: they're not the same state. The First Bulgarian State was established by migrants from OGB which disintegrated years prior to the establishment of the former. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Pravets Computers

This article doesn't include any information about the Pravets computers, which were very important to the Bulgarian technological industry. It mentions the "Silicon Valley of the Eastern Bloc" but the Science and Technology section needs. I looked around and there isn't even a page for the Vitosha computers--the earliest computers in the 1960's. Please update the article because these are really important technological advancements for Bulgaria! *Prod prod* Thanks, DasPig - talk 03:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Outdated Prime Minister information!

I mentioned in the List of Bulgarian Prime Ministers article talk that the current PM is not Boiko Borisov, it is (or was) Plamen Oresharski, who himself resigned August 6 of this year (2014), and was succeeded by Georgi Bliznashki, the interim PM. As a result the Government infobox on this page contains outdated information--could we change that as well? Thanks(_{and on another page's talk I think I stated that the new Prime Minister of Bulgaria was Marin Raykov. That's not true and sorry for the false information.}), DasPig - talk 14:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2015

change "per cent" to "percent" 2601:0:8E01:1068:7046:3CB9:B6FB:BC83 (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: I think this is a British English thing, and this article uses British English. Cannolis (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Currency wasn't invented in chalcolithic Bulgaria!

In the history section of this article, it gives an example of how advanced metallurgy was in Bulgaria during its copper age. It claims, "Some of these first gold smelters produced the coins, weapons and jewellery of the Varna Necropolis treasure, the oldest in the world with an approximate age of over 6,000 years". Wow, talk about original research! Coinage wasn't invented in Bulgaria, at least not for another 3000 years!! I realise the word "coin" can mean anything flat and circular that vaguely resembles money but the meaning of coin is commonly understood as being a reference to a metal currency, of some kind. I would suggest "coins", in that sentence I quoted, could be replaced with "crowns" as that would sound just as impressive but not seem, at least at first glance, to be so much of an exaggeration. Alternatively perhaps, a more precise description should be used, as in "discs resembling coins", to prevent a confusion with a circulating prehistoric currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.138.150 (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You are quite right, 86.163.138.150. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.87.243.66 (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

31.12.2014 population clock

Tip for update - current population is 7,202,000 as of 2015 according to the Statistical office: http://www.nsi.bg/bg/content/2975/%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8-%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8-%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5-%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB It's been more than four years since the 2011 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.178.37.148 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarian Communist Regime Declared Criminal in 2000

In the year 2000, the 38th National Assembly of Bulgaria declared the communist regime in power from September 9, 1944 to November 10, 1989 as criminal. All actions of individuals who in that period were focused on resistance and rejection of the communist regime and its ideology are fair, morally justified and worthy of respect. RAPTORSKI (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120603163918/http://epi.yale.edu:80/epi2012/rankings to http://epi.yale.edu/epi2012/rankings
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120508095030/http://thesofiaecho.com/2011/10/31/1192360_president-elect-plevnelievs-final-margin-of-victory-closer-than-predicted to http://thesofiaecho.com/2011/10/31/1192360_president-elect-plevnelievs-final-margin-of-victory-closer-than-predicted
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130308142025/http://news.yahoo.com/bulgaria-government-resigns-national-protests-073220738.html?.b=index&.cf3=World+News&.cf4=1&.cf5=Reuters&.cf6=/ to http://news.yahoo.com/bulgaria-government-resigns-national-protests-073220738.html?.b=index&.cf3=World+News&.cf4=1&.cf5=Reuters&.cf6=/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121101112317/http://bnr.bg/sites/en/News_eng/Pages/en0112_B2.aspx to http://bnr.bg/sites/en/News_eng/Pages/en0112_B2.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120604090547/http://www.ccre.org/en/membres/Bulgarie.htm to http://www.ccre.org/en/membres/Bulgarie.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110812095458/http://www.demokratizatsiya.org:80/bin/pdf/DEM%2003-1%20Levinson.PDF to http://www.demokratizatsiya.org/bin/pdf/DEM%2003-1%20Levinson.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121114234654/http://ec.europa.eu:80/europe2020/pdf/themes/06_shadow_economy.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/themes/06_shadow_economy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121101112308/http://bnr.bg/sites/en/Economy/Pages/1706compandebts.aspx to http://bnr.bg/sites/en/Economy/Pages/1706compandebts.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120316132149/http://thesofiaecho.com/2011/08/18/1141389_bulgarias-ore-exports-rise-10per-cent-in-h1-2011-industry-group to http://thesofiaecho.com/2011/08/18/1141389_bulgarias-ore-exports-rise-10per-cent-in-h1-2011-industry-group
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105015344/http://bnr.bg/sites/en/Lifestyle/Life/Pages/1203DemographiccrisisDeepening.aspx to http://bnr.bg/sites/en/Lifestyle/Life/Pages/1203DemographiccrisisDeepening.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120111221228/http://www.mon.bg:80/english/high/system_educ.htm to http://www.mon.bg/english/high/system_educ.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120623132141/http://bnr.bg/sites/en/Music/Pages/2510The20112012seasonoftOperaand.aspx to http://bnr.bg/sites/en/Music/Pages/2510The20112012seasonoftOperaand.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928142341/http://www.bgolympic.org/fce/index.shtml?s=001&p=0039&n=000001 to http://www.bgolympic.org/fce/index.shtml?s=001&p=0039&n=000001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Recycling

The statement that there is no recycling in Bulgaria is frequently repeated and utterly wrong. Not just wrong but elitist. Scrap metal dealers abound, and they also buy cardboard, plastic, glass bottles etc. The scrap metal trade in Bulgaria is a big industry. Tsigani with cart loads of cardboard, paper, plastic bottles and scrap are a common sight in Sofia. I suspect that in practice recycling rates are higher in Bulgaria than in most western European countries.Pignut (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

BULGARIA, TURKIC

The relation of Bulgars being turkic is not mentioned in the prehistoric section. please add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.228.80 (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2016

Bulgaria was under Ottoman slavery. The Bulgarians who made rebellions agaisnt Ottomans- Chrosto Botev and Vasil Levski say that they are under ""Ottoman slavery. Most of the Muslims invaders flew from BUlgaria in 1878 AD, ut some of the continue to live in Bulgaria. Later, in 1990 AD, some Muslim turks made a party. They begin to lie that " there is no Ottoman slavery". But All Bulgarian know that the life for bulgarians in Otoman empire was Slavery. So at all places the word ""Ottoman rule" must be replaced with "Ottoman slavery" !!! The first Bulgarian empire helped many times Byzantium, against the Muslims invaders from Saudi Arabia. For example- 718 AD... Bulgaria was under Byzantine rule from 1018 AD to 1185 AD. It do not change very serious the life of Bulgarians, because bothe - Byzantines and Bulgarians were Christianians. So from 1018 to 1185 AD, Bulgaria is under Byzantine Rule, and from 1396 to 1878 AD Bulgaria is under Ottoman Slavery !!! So at all places the word ""Ottoman rule" must be replaced with "Ottoman slavery"

Realbulgarian (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You will not find any reliable sources to back it up. Pseudo-history and extreme nationalism are hardly acceptable in an encyclopaedia. --Laveol ^T 19:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120622094503/http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1699/papers/Broadberry_Klein.pdf to http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1699/papers/Broadberry_Klein.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130517070952/http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=473FBAEF-623D-4ADA-903A-17241B78BDDB to http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=473FBAEF-623D-4ADA-903A-17241B78BDDB
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130726200511/http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1699/papers/Broadberry_Klein.pdf to http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1699/papers/Broadberry_Klein.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120123102516/http://www.sz.government.bg/pressmsg.php?id=1776 to http://www.sz.government.bg/pressmsg.php?id=1776
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130604020149/http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-06/bulgarian-cabinet-faces-no-confidence-vote-over-atomic-plant to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-06/bulgarian-cabinet-faces-no-confidence-vote-over-atomic-plant
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111018052026/http://www.centcom.mil/bulgaria/ to http://www.centcom.mil/bulgaria/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110125201923/http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2006/04/28/feature-01 to http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2006/04/28/feature-01
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130529000210/http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=57&a1=2061&a2=2067&a3=2069 to http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=57&a1=2061&a2=2067&a3=2069#cont
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120119044239/http://www.isro.org/chandrayaan/htmls/radom_bas.htm to http://www.isro.org/chandrayaan/htmls/radom_bas.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111025160841/http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_bg_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_bg_en.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110503185125/http://www.soros.org/initiatives/media/articles_publications/publications/financial-crisis-media-20091201/bulgaria-20091201.pdf to http://www.soros.org/initiatives/media/articles_publications/publications/financial-crisis-media-20091201/bulgaria-20091201.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

Folks, I'd like to propose the following change to the Infobox Formation

• First Bulgarian Empire 680 (No change)
• Christianizing of Bulgaria 864 (New)
• Second Bulgarian Empire 1185 (No change)
• Third Bulgarian State 3 March 1878 (No change)
• Current constitution 13 July 1991

I'm removing 1908 and adding the 864, as it seems more meaningful. Also, streamlining the text a bit. Please, comment. Veliko3 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, swapping the country's independence for the year its Christianization probably started is not a good idea. The Christianization of a country is not something that happens overnight. Plus, the actual independence is a lot more meaningful event. --Laveol ^T 16:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Some (Zlatarski, Dimitrov) would argue that the becoming a Christian nation was one of the defining events in all of Bulgaria's history and without Boris I's vision, Bulgaria would've otherwise followed the fate of the Khazars. On the other hand in 1908 the country was in practice independent (see 1885 events). Good discussion. Veliko3 (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no firm opinion at this stage, but the following version could be a starting point in my opinion:

Formation

• Old Great Bulgaria 632
• First Bulgarian Empire 681
• Byzantine Bulgaria 1018
• Second Bulgarian Empire 1185
• Ottoman Bulgaria 1422
• Third Bulgarian State 3 March 1878
• Accession to EU 1 January 2007

Best, Apcbg (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

We've been through this before, haven't we ? The dates are fine as they are now. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 13:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Why, yes, I can recall someone maintaining that present France is identical to early medieval Francia (as would be present Germany too :-), while present Bulgaria has nothing to do with the First or Second Bulgarian Empire ... Apcbg (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You recall correctly. Your proposal has been rejected by consensus a long time ago. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I also recall that, first, that particular discussion was on no proposal of mine, and second, that no decision was taken by consensus either as the opinion of the participants proved fairly split on that occasion. Apcbg (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The proposal was not yours, but you currently stand by the same proposal that was raised back then. There was a lengthy dispute resolution session on that, and, while there was no consensus, there was compromise. I still see no reason why the current state should be lumped together with previous entities under something as broad as "formation". - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 23:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The proposal was to remove 681 AD from the infobox, which I did not support. It failed. The year 681 stayed ... and stays. Apcbg (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Apcbg, I like your proposal, but would suggest we remove the Byzantine & Ottoman Bulgaria lines, it seems too much. Anyone else? Veliko3 (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100722014211/http://www.ejc.net:80/media_landscape/article/bulgaria to http://www.ejc.net/media_landscape/article/bulgaria/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust

Several thousand Jews from Bulgaria were sent to the concentration camps. (217.35.237.15 (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

Bulgaria is a Turkic country 92.28.247.113 (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please include in the right hand side summary these parts of the ancient history of Bulgaria (Thracians)

Odrysian kingdom 460 BC – 46 AD Roman times 46–681 Old Great Bulgaria 632 – 665 AD

Recent study proved modern Bulgarians have indigenous European (Thracian) genes https://www.actualno.com/society/novo-genetichno-izsledvane-bylgarite-sa-evropejci-njamat-turksko-mongolski-proizhod-news_449255.html#ixzz3T2tbYJ00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.189.252 (talk) 09:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The infobox is for state political history, not ethnic origins. CMD (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206003213/http://www.ambsofia.um.dk:80/da/menu/Eksportraadgivning/Markedsmuligheder/Sektoranalyser/Outsourcing/ to http://www.ambsofia.um.dk/da/menu/Eksportraadgivning/Markedsmuligheder/Sektoranalyser/Outsourcing/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126085127/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/documents/Municipal_%20waste_%20recycled_1000t_%20update_%20website1801101.mht to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/documents/Municipal_%20waste_%20recycled_1000t_%20update_%20website1801101.mht
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116183501/http://direct-democracy-navigator.org/countries/bulgaria/legal_designs to http://direct-democracy-navigator.org/countries/bulgaria/legal_designs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224023912/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu:80/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-20122012-AP/EN/3-20122012-AP-EN.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-20122012-AP/EN/3-20122012-AP-EN.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510155940/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-24102012-AP/EN/2-24102012-AP-EN.PDF to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-24102012-AP/EN/2-24102012-AP-EN.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110826033543/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/science_technology_innovation/introduction to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/science_technology_innovation/introduction
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006114113/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tps00018 to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tps00018

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Description of map

Hi,

The description under the map is slightly confusing. It is confusing in that it does not clearly state that Bulgaria is in Europe.

The description does not say wheher the dark green is in the European Union or not.

Can I recommend a change from: – in the European Union (green)

To: – in the European Union (green & dark green)

Kind Regards, Patrick.

Pajo 16 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160430050257/http://enrin.grida.no/biodiv/biodiv/national/bulgaria/index.htm to http://enrin.grida.no/biodiv/biodiv/national/bulgaria/index.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/bulgaria-government-resigns-national-protests-073220738.html?.b=index&.cf3=World+News&.cf4=1&.cf5=Reuters&.cf6=%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130215148/http://www.vsekiden.com/63922/ to http://www.vsekiden.com/63922
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120620023219/http://www.vsekiden.com/37787/%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9-%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BE-%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB-%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%B2-%D0%B5%D1%81/ to http://www.vsekiden.com/37787/%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9-%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%BE-%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB-%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%B2-%D0%B5%D1%81/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318125456/http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups to http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-20122012-AP/EN/3-20122012-AP-EN.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516143140/http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do%3Bjsessionid%3D9ea7974b30dd8549af6fd90a4215b5a4bd09638f55ac.e34SbxiPb3uSb40Lb34LaxqRb30Ne0?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tsieb020 to http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do%3Bjsessionid%3D9ea7974b30dd8549af6fd90a4215b5a4bd09638f55ac.e34SbxiPb3uSb40Lb34LaxqRb30Ne0?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tsieb020

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sofia in the first paragraph

I suggest adding information about the capital of Bulgaria to the first paragraph of the article, showing how unique Sofia is and giving an overall description about the city. Кшищов (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017

In the Foreign Relations section under the heading dealing with relations with Russia, there is grammatical error. The current text reads "...an satellite state." It should read: "...a satellite state." Dbrinson (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 15:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916221127/http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Mongolia.html to http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Mongolia.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110219145342/http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/enlargement_process/future_prospects/negotiations/eu10_bulgaria_romania/treaty_2005_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/enlargement_process/future_prospects/negotiations/eu10_bulgaria_romania/treaty_2005_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123152707/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/12/content_11000486.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/12/content_11000486.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106213859/http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/fao/hristo_stoichkov.htm to http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/fao/hristo_stoichkov.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205023232/http://www2.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/South-Eastern+Europe/Balkans/Bilateral+Relations/Bulgaria/ to http://www2.mfa.gr/www.mfa.gr/en-US/Policy/Geographic+Regions/South-Eastern+Europe/Balkans/Bilateral+Relations/Bulgaria/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.mod.bg/bg/doc/drugi/20160513_Otchet_I_trimes_2016.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016001809/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/bulgaria.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/bulgaria.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003054128/http://www.mvr.bg/en/AboutUs/StructuralUnits/National+MoI+Services/Police/default.htm to http://www.mvr.bg/en/AboutUs/StructuralUnits/National+MoI+Services/Police/default.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055249/http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/Bulgaria.pdf to http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/Bulgaria.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

grammar error

The section "Government" has this text:

"...should GERB President nominee Tsetska Tsacheva does not win the Bulgarian presidential election, 2016, he would resign as a Prime Minister."

I suggest one of: 1) change "should" to "if", or 2) change "does not" to "not" in order to correct the grammar of "...should...[person]...does not win...".

Pythomit (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018

can you refresh the gdp per capita of Bulgaria and all of the gdps for the current 2018 :) thanks 46.233.58.243 (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Religion

Kinda fed up with people interpreting numbers as they see fit or just plain manipulating them. The article states "More than three-quarters of Bulgarians subscribe to Eastern Orthodoxy.[292]", citing the NSI Census data from 2011.

Now what the NSI data really says is 21.8% haven't answered the question about religion, and 76.0% of those who answered identify themselves as orthodox christians, meaning its not "three-quarters" but 59.4%.

I guess the same people push that number to 6.5 million in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church article.

That's not how statistics work. You don't just automatically discount the 21.8% who didn't reply. Discounting them entirely, which is what you did, is the same as assuming that none of that 21.8% are Eastern Orthodox, which is a faulty interpretation. If that 21.8% is actually 21.8% of the entire population then that means the 78.2% of the population DID answer and are an extremely accurate representation of the whole. What you're doing is math based on the assumption that the entire 21.8% would have said they were not Eastern Orthodox, but you have no way of knowing that. Thus it's your own assumptions that are (probably inadvertently), manipulating the numbers. SentientParadox (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)