Talk:History of Bulgaria

message: Try breaking this into a series, like History of Germany. --Jiang 16:38, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. It's got quite enough content to become a series, the only question is whether to split each existing section into its own article or group some together. --Joy [shallot] 11:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Series

message: I know this is very arrogant of me, but I'm afraid the old article was such a horrible mess that I couldn't stand looking at it any more. It was much easier to write a new one than try to rescue the old one. It's also a very educational process. Adam 15:46, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree he shouldn't have edited over my grammar/spelling fixes, but I don't see how the article can be harmed by more detail. We can always break things off into subarticles if need be. Everyking 11:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: Adam, please check in the refference when was the Romanian nation created (hint - after 18th century) and then think twice before naming the Vlachs in 13th cetury Romanians.
I shall gladly give you more lessons in medieval history.
Mr Oberholtzer I will be happy to discuss Bulgarian, Romanian or any other history with you when you drop this sneering and abusive tone towards other editors. Adam 03:03, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can't fall back on my own knowledge of the subject or anything, but it said polytheistic before, and I looked it up and found lots of references to their polytheism before conversion. Everyking 12:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Tangra was Bulgars' sole god only if we assume that Bulgars were a Turkic people. Have we got any written evidence which connects Bulgars with Tangra? I.e., how do we know Tangra was Bulgars' god? --webkid 14:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurt Oberholtzer 

message: *i'd like to correct the Ivan Asen with John Asen - i'm curious, was his original name (documents/papers/chronicles/seals/etc.) Ioan Asen, or Ivan Asen ?
*In 1185 a leading Vlach noble, Peter Asen, led a Bulgarian revolt against Byzantine rule and declared himself Tsar Peter II (also known as Theodore Peter) - i'd like to know, was Peter Asen a "noble" or just a vlach leader, did he led a "bulgarian revolt" or was it a "revolt of the vlachs and bulgars", was his title Tsar or Dux/Basileus/Rex/etc. ?
i'm asking all this because i am a romanian and i have a different view on this info. with all due respect for the bulgars Criztu 22:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What are those "good reasons"? That dynasty lived 700 years before the Asens. bogdan 15:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secon Bulgar Empire - Vlach nobles 

message: As the edit template says:
* Please cite your sources so others can check your work.
Doesn't this article need some decent references?  Many encyclopedias are hit-or-miss for accuracy.  Personal knowledge can't be cited; it can't be checked by others, and sounds like just plain POV.  I know it's hard, but I really think we need people to go back and read some respected references, list them, and adjust the article to fit better with those references.  That should avoid some of these repeated reverts.  -- A D Monroe III 12:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not correct. I wrote nearly all of it. I do not ask the nationality of people making edits, but if anyone has added Bulgarian propaganda to the article, I and others will have removed it. The same attitide will be taken to Romanian propaganda - or Zulu propaganda for that matter. Adam 04:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you did. You said: "A sizable part of it is written by Bulgarians, so it does in fact fit the definition of Bulgarian propaganda." Adam 04:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I await your edits with interest. Adam 04:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: This article isn't getting better in this mode.
If we only use personal knowledge to write a article, it seems like POV to others.  Worse, any question of the source seems like a personal attack.  Responses to personal attacks seem like personal attacks, and so on.  There's no resolution this way.
Instead, if we find and read sources, fix the article to align with the sources, and note those sources, then it doesn't look like POV.  If someone questions the references, it doesn't seem personal, nor do responses.
Of course, this is harder to do, but this is the way Wikipedia works, right?  Or does someone have a different idea?
-- A D Monroe III 16:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, references? 

message: The information here is very insufficient. Personally, I added more about Khan Krum's reign-about the laws he introduced(I took it from the article on Krum). I suggest that more information be added and, subsequently, the article to be broken into series.-Deyan, Bulgaria.
I SEE THE INFORMATION THAT I ADDED WAS ERASED. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY, SINCE THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF BG HISTORY. THE PERSON WHO ERASED IT MUST BE REALLY DUMB,INDEED.-DEYAN
Dear Deyan, see what you wrote:
"Khan Krum was also known for the first Bulgarian written laws, which, in what may be the earliest example of state social policy in history, ensured subsidies to beggars and state protection to the poor of all Bulgarians. Through his laws he became known as a magnanimous ruler, bringing Slavs and Bulgars into a centralized state. Drinking, slander and robbery were severely punished under Krum, an extraordinary personality that has impressed many prominent Europeans for many centuries."
First of all these "written laws" are known just from one source - the Byzantine Lexicon Suidas, which is compilated many time after Krum's death. (You could check this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14328a.htm.) There is significant group of Historians who have doubts of existence or at least the proper essence of these laws. There aren't any Bulgarian evidences about them.
Second. It is an absurdity to define these (supposed!) laws as first state social policy in the History. This stament surely reveals lack of knowledge about History... There are numerous examples about such kind of state policy in many ancient societies. Do you wish to give you more information?
Third. Traditionally in the Bulgarian science the very proces of centralization is thought as connected with the rule of khan Omurtag.
Fourth. Are you capable, dear Deyan, to give arguments that khan Krum really impressed many prominent Europeans for many centuries?
Finally. Am I dumb? I think your ideas are not appropriate for this site.
P. s. Deyan, I must say I could agree with formulation as "According to some late sources khan Krum implemented law reform intending to reduce the poverty and to strengthen the social ties in his significant enlarged state." Would you agree with this variant?
Dear Anonymous,
I don't know whether you're dumb or not but you haven't read what I have said. I SAID THAT I TOOK IT FROM THE ARTICLE ON KRUM. I haven't payed attention to the words "the first laws", my fault, sorry. Of course, you're right about this, only a dumb person would argue. Yet, again, I don't agree with the way you have edited it because it gives very insufficient information. For a nation, it's first laws are a key event.
Dear Deyan,
I'm afraid there are too many articles on khan Krum and many of them are examples for a patriotic mithology rather than a proper historiography. I agree that the whole review of Bulgarian History in Wikipedia is too brief and couldn't create reliable idea about Bulgarian past... But I couldn't dare to write more widely. It must be a systematic revision with clear conception. This is quite hard not only because there are many points of view about many problems in the tradition of the historical researches, but even modern popular myths as these created and supported from laical persons like Petar Dobrev... Finally, I have to say that supposed laws of Krum (other Byzantine Historians who described his reign and lived not too far from his time didn't mention anything about the existence of law reform although that reform consists of really spectacular and not typical regulations) could not be dedefined as "first laws for a nation". There are reasons to think that the first laws which described the structure and the methods of a state harmony were founded in the times of khan Asparoukh.
Yes,what you're saying is logical, but can you show me some sources, links, etc.? In Bulgaria, it is widely accepted and agreed that Krum's laws were the first that really established order and formed an adequate state policy.-Deyan
Dear Deyan,
Then how must be treated the pact between the Seven slav tribes and Severs and the motley group of khan Asparoukh? Planned systematic fortification of the whole territory of the lands of the federation during first decades after 681? Clear territorial division between slavs and protobulgars? Lack of information about internal religious and cultural conflicts from 681 to 814 although scientists such prof. V. Zlatarski supposed existence ot pro-bulgarian and pro-slavic parties among aristocrasy in the second part of 8th century? Information about my point of view you could reach in the texts of a leading contemporary archaeologist Rasho Rashev. - Anonymos
Dear Anonymous, look, maybe it's best to leave it in as it is for now. There are sources from where you can get proves of Krum's laws;amazingly enough, I can't find them in the net yet.-Deyan.
Dear Deyan, I'll cite "History of Bulgaria" in 14 volumes from Bulgarian science academy's team, volume II, Sofia, 1981, p. 144, about Krum's laws: "Information about them contains only one source - the well-known Suidas Lexicon." Further from the same text: "These laws themselves as exposed from Suidas carry to some extent legendary character, and some of them are refuted from other information about bulgarian realities at these times." - Anonymous.
"Dear Deyan, Then how must be treated the pact between the Seven slav tribes and Severs and the motley group of khan Asparoukh? Planned systematic fortification of the whole territory of the lands of the federation during first decades after 681? Clear territorial division between slavs and protobulgars? Lack of information about internal religious and cultural conflicts from 681 to 814 although scientists such prof. V. Zlatarski supposed existence ot pro-bulgarian and pro-slavic parties among aristocrasy in the second part of 8th century? Information about my point of view you could reach in the texts of a leading contemporary archaeologist Rasho Rashev. - Anonymos"  .........There are no any federation between proto bulgars and slaves in this period681 - 814 or U must proove it--Иваннт (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More info?

message: The names of the subarticles: History of Independent Bulgaria and History of Democratic Bulgaria are not very well chosen. Independent Bulgaria (1878-1940) was also democratic, while Democratic Bulgaria (1990-) is also independent. :-) bogdan 19:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of the subarticles 

message: History of Independent Bulgaria article begins with:
:The History of Independent Bulgaria commenced with the Treaty of San Stefano of 3 March 1878 which provided for an independent Bulgarian state much of Thrace and Macedonia, as well as modern Bulgaria.
However, Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878 says :
:Russia agreed a settlement under the Treaty of San Stefano (Ayastefanos Anlaşması in Turkish) on 3 March, by which the Ottoman Empire recognized the independence of Romania, Serbia and Montenegro and autonomy of Bulgaria.
Which of the two is wrong? bogdan 19:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the independence was declared only in October 1908, so the whole naming of Independent Bulgaria for the article is wrong... bogdan 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1878 -- Independence or autonomy? 

message: Don't you think the general History of Bulgaria should be a fully informative article that sums up the most important events of Bulgarian history, rather than just a page where to choose a certain period of history to read about? I mean having the most important information divided into paragraphs and included in the article, just attaching a main article to each paragraph.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 22:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article organization 

message: :"In the Balkans he extended the power of Bulgaria over south Macedonia, south Albania, and Serbia, which became his vassal; but Bulgaria's dominion north of the Danube was probably lost during his reign."
The image is POV because it presents only one point of view, the one of the Bulgarian historians. The POVs of others, including Ostrogorsky and Britannica are not presented. bogdan 14:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Britannica: "When he died he was master of the northern Balkans, including the Serbian lands..."   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, it's a matter of whether they include Romania in the Balkans or not. bogdan 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And they do.   /FunkyFly.talk_  17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Francis Tyers · 09:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the unbelievers   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote from Britannica

message: I've given a look to the three historical atlases I've got; one is of no use, as it doesn't have any map of the First Bulgarian Empire; but the other two are concord with what I said about Ostrogorsky's maps, i.e. the northern border was the Danube and the southern border didn't strech to the Aegaean.--Aldux 17:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is undisputable that the First Bulgarian empire included lands north of the Danube at some points in time.  Bulgars fought the Khazars on the Dnieper, the Avars in Pannonia and the Franks on the Middle Danube.  The question is whether they lost those lands under Simeon. (VMRO 17:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Check this map from a German atlas, reprinted in a Bulgarian atlas.  Also this one from the same place.  Curiously, the Bulgarian-made map in the atlas, showing Simeon's realm, does not show it north of the Danube. (VMRO 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict) No serious scholar disputes this, I agree. The maps I was referring to were of the time of Simeon not prior; but there is also one of Europe in 814, which shows Bulgaria controlling Wallachia, confirmed by another map of Ostrogorsky; Ostrogorsky in yet another map shows that the B. expanded to all today Romania, and had the Tibisco as western border (but note that the exact transdanubian borders are uncertain in this map).--Aldux 18:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Conventional maps reflect a view that Simeon lost the Transdanubian territories.  Here is one map showing Bulgaria in 800 just before it conquers Transylvania from the Avars (around 802 or 805).  Here is another by the same author, which shows Bulgaria in 900, right after the war with the Magyars.  Technically, however, the map in the article you are disputing says the light yellow colour shows Bulgaria in 893, which is just before the Magyars and Pechenegs supposedly conquered the Northern territories.  Whether the border was the Tisza or the Danube is a matter of dispute and we cannot know for sure.  I think the Franks conquered the Avar kingdom up to the Danube so it only makes sense that the Bulgars got the rest and did not just go to the Tisza.  Omurtag's armies fought the Franks of Louis the Pious on the Danube.  But this may have changed later if Great Moravia took over some lands.  Boris lost a war with the Moravians I am pretty sure.  Then his son Vladimir (889-893) is known to have controlled the salt mines in Trasylvania (I cannot remember the sources here).  Finally, whether Simeon and Peter (927-969) lost the transdanubian lands completely is also disputable.  Please read Mladjov's articles, the y go over all the relevant Hungarian sources for the 10th and 11th century. Conventional maps have not reflected those sources, perhaps influenced by earlier historians like Osrtrogorsky and Runciman who were not familiar with the early sources. (VMRO 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the authority Western historian right now is John Fine.  We must see what he has written in his "The Early Medieval Balkans".  Imladjov is his student.  I actually found this exchange regarding the map between him and the map's author! (VMRO 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although I see he didn't perform the revisions... - Francis Tyers · 09:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical atlases and more 

message: The map of the First Bulgarian Empire is incorrect. Just look at its borders! --PaxEquilibrium 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map is wrong 

message: :Indigenous Thracian and Daco-Getic population, lived on the territory of modern Bulgaria before the Slavic invasion. Their ancient languages had already gone extinct before the arrival of the Slavs
Do we have a source for that? The arrival of the Slavs appears to coincide in time with the disappearance of those tribes and languages, so it could be that they were simply assimilated. bogdan 09:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction of Thracian and Daco-Getic 

message: I changed the name of the section "Under Byzantine rule" to "Byzantine Bulgaria" because at this time Bulgaria was a thema in the Byzantine Empire - thema Bulgaria. Lantonov (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Byzantine Bulgaria

message: I don't know about you guys but I think the section on the First Bulgarian empire is way too long and doesn't sound like an encyclopedia. It needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naru12333 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An anon copied text from First_Bulgarian_Empire#History and pasted to this article. I restored that section to the last slim version. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: First Bulgarian Empire

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :History of Bulgaria's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "bakalov":
From Clement of Ohrid: 
From Round Church, Preslav: 
From First Bulgarian Empire: Bakalov, Istorija na Bǎlgarija, "Simeon I Veliki"
From Croatian–Bulgarian battle of 927: Bakalov, Istorija na Bǎlgarija, "Simeon I Veliki".
From Vasil Levski: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:History of Bulgaria]] 

message: Folks, would like to propose changing the headings of the side menu from Byzantine conquest to Comitopuli Period and Ottoman conquest to Late Second Empire. These periods include a lot more than the conflicts with Byzantium and Ottomans and can be expanded to include things like the Genoa invasions during the second Bulgarian Empire and Comitopuli was with Hungary. Thoughts? Hispaniolaz (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menu navigation section 

message: According to Encyclopedia Britannica: Bulgaria lost its independence in 1018 and remained subject to Byzantium for more than a century and a half, until 1185. With the collapse of the first Bulgarian state, the Bulgarian church fell under the domination of Greek ecclesiastics who took control of the see of Ohrid and attempted to replace the Bulgarian Slavic liturgy with a Greek liturgy.   Jingiby (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the First Bulgarian Empire 

message: "and is generally accepted as having good freedom of speech and human rights record.[103]" (the last but one sentence).  The external link is dead (I only find a Bulgaria country study from 1993) . Has someone new and reliable facts ? --Neun-x (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be something old. I wouldn't describe the country's recent record as good. You can take a look at the latest Freedom House report. --Laveol T 20:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  source ?  date ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of 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/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
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on History of 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/20111128233055/http://museum.starazagora.net/brunches/brunches.html to http://museum.starazagora.net/brunches/brunches.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204165922/http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556147_8/Bulgaria.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556147_8/Bulgaria.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230015953/http://sofia.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/9slwbq67Sfo4dBuR2WMVfg/about_bulgaria1.PDF to http://sofia.usembassy.gov/uploads/images/9slwbq67Sfo4dBuR2WMVfg/about_bulgaria1.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510074337/http://oldru.narod.ru/biblio/ldt6_10.htm to http://oldru.narod.ru/biblio/ldt6_10.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101011003946/http://www.bulgaria-embassy.org/History_of_Bulgaria.htm to http://www.bulgaria-embassy.org/History_of_Bulgaria.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926081523/http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005355 to http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005355
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of 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
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 632 is when Kubrat established Great Bulgaria, not 681.  681 is when Asparukh established modern Bulgaria.  Just read on in the article Dannywinrow (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Great Bulgaria is a different state. Jingiby (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I have fixed it. My mistake. Jingiby (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in initial paragraphs, 632 not 681