Talk:Bulgaria/Archive 1

message: ----
At the NATO summit i Prague 21-22 November Bulgaria was invited to join NATO
----
Someone who knows/cares about Bulgaria might like to review/merge the content in Bulgarians ... Martin
----
Why is "Bulgaria" termed as "small"? I am not Bulgarian- and I am not taking offense at all, but it seems rather odd considering Bulgaria is not particularly "small" in the context of many of the world's nations.
:We tried to discuss this at the Bulgarian Wikipedia, but only three people participated in the discourse. You're right, we are not a small country. --webkid 09:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: I do not understand why Macedonians hate Bulgarians so much. I have to say, as a representative of the general Bulgarian public, that we Bulgarians do not have anything against Macedonians. The general opinion in Bulgaria is that Macedonians are in fact Bulgarians, given that they fought for their unification with Bulgaria only 100 years ago in the dumb ass Balkan War and then in the stupid  World War 1. It appears that this statement is extraordinary ofensive to the people of FYROM and my question to any person from this country who reads that (beacause it appears that quite a lot are reading it) is: Why are you so offended? Why are you not flattered by the fact that another nation wants to find historical roots with you and embrace you? Isn't it flattering rather than offensive that Bulgarians want to be recognized as one with the great Macedonian nation!? 
Your hatered seems very revealing to me. It is as if Macedonians are running from some ugly truth, which is none of my concern or, in fact, none of the concern of most peacefully living Bulgarians. We are not worried about history and we really do not care about the big controvrsy about it. What I am concerned about is all this hatered. I will take the liberty to represent the Bulgarian opinion on this matter: Macedonians, We do not hate you! We have nothing against you. But I have to say it gets tiring to listen about historical problems delivered to us with this extreme hatred. To those of you who are sensible: just forget about it and live in the present! We do not care, why should you? And maybe if you redirect all this hatered into something constructive Macedonia will truly become a greater country(if any more greatness than the present is possible).
----
Misplaced sections re-ordered while archiving. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We use the term "Republic of Macedonia" simply to distinguish the country from all the other places called Macedonia. It doesn't imply endorsement of that name - see Republic of Macedonia#Note. The reason we don't use "Republic of Bulgaria", "Republic of Greece" etc. is because those country names aren't the subject of confusion with other names. See Republic of China for a comparable example. -- ChrisO 19:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonia and Bulgaria 

message: If the Ottoman empire had tried to proselytize the ethnic Bulgarians to Islam over a 500 year period, there would be no christian ethnic bulgarians left. 
Instead the majority of ethnic bulgarians are orthodox christians, the only muslims are the Turks and Tatar minorities, while only a small minority of muslims is ethnic bulgarian. 
Why are there not more ethnically bulgarian muslims? why did the empire not try to make more bulgarians muslim? Is it because Turks and Bulgars are ethnically related?
--Kahraman 11:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bulgarian and Turks are NOT ethnically related. In a few words the cristians in the borders of the Ottoman empire were forces to pay much bigger taxes (including the Blood Tax, which consisted of giving every first-born son to become a soldier in the Ottoman army), so it was better for the empire to have the majority of people with different religions.
As far as official school history goes, Islam conversion was used by the Ottoman Empire on strategical places only. The effect was strengthened by forced migration of Christians to Islam territoryies and vice verca. Not just in Bulgaria, but all their conquests.
Unlike the two Roman Empires, the Ottomans allowed different religions. They considered that a full-scale conversion would generate too much stir-up.
Crowday 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion of bulgarians to Islam 

message: When Bulgaria occupied Macedonia during World War Two, Bulgarian officials rounded up the Jews of Skopje in the city's main tobacco factory. From there they were handed over to German officials who sent them to their death in Treblinka. For this reason, I am not sure that it is balanced for this article to include the unqualified statement that Bulgaria was not involved in sending Jews to concentration camps. I can provide sources for my comment should these be requested. (This comment is by no means motivated by any sort of anti-Bulgarian sentiment. Please do not understand it as such.) User: MJ. April 6, 2005
Giovanni : Please, cite your sources if you want to be taken seriously! This applies to everybody advancing a theory, especially in public!
by yavor: I'm a Bulgarian, and it is true. I studied it a few months ago at University (History of The Bulgarian State and Law). Bulgarians did not have a choice and were forced to hand over the Jews. Many Bulgarians do not know this, because we don't study it at school. But what you do not know is, that when they were going to hand over those in Bulgaria (without Macedonia), there were massive protests of Bulgarians and The Government could not oppose. Those Jews were saved. If you want to know more (yavor@abv.bg)
I second Yavor. It is a historical fact that nobody declines. As they are Macedonian, it does little to do with Bulgarian Jews not being send to the deathcamps. Unless all Macedonians say that they are Bulgarian, but this is quite impossible to happen nowadays.. Crowday 13:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the interests of balance: Bulgaria's role in sending Macedonian Jews to Treblinka 

message: In the WikiProject Wikipedia:Nuttall_Encyclopedia_topics, we hit on the city "Tirnova", 
:Tirnova is a fortified town of Bulgaria, 35 m. SSE. of Sistova. It is the seat of the Bulgarian patriarch. It was formerly the State capital.
Sistova seems to be a town in Moldavia, like the webpage of Tirnova The source is from 1907, so much has changed. Thanks--J heisenberg 12:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tirnova? No, Tarnovo or Turnovo, it's hard to spell it right to pronounce a letter that does not exist in English. Its Veliko Turnovo, like stated below. No such town Tirnova exist or existed. Me 00:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's probably ment the town of Tarnovo, spelled aslo as Turnovo (or Veliko Tarnovo), an old Bulgarian town in North Bulgaria with reach and long history, and it has been also the capital of Bulgaria indeed (until 1393) and also one of the most famous historical persons from Tarnovo is the Patriarch Evtimiy. So I think this article is some kind of mistake and should be removed or edited, if there is such town. --Tzeck 16:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that helped a lot --J heisenberg 17:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sistova seems to be Svishtov in that case. The names should be Romanian, at least they sound such to me, plus the Moldavian context. --TodorBozhinov 18:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The names are actually the Turkish versions of the names of the towns, it is not only Sistova (Svishtov), but also Plevna (Pleven), Shumla (Shumen), etc. VMORO 08:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who knows this town? 

message: "Bulgaria is getting the latest addition to the James Bond franchise, Casino Royale, before several countries including Australia and Japan."
First of all, this seems like something much too trivial to have its own section in the article. Secondly, and maybe more importantly, what does it even mean?
Nicholai 20:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgaria and James Bond 

message: The area listed ( 111,001.9 km² ) and rank (102nd) do not match
with the List_of_countries_by_area. I presume these should be
the same but most country articles do not agree with the figures
listed in List_of_countries_by_area.
--Mr link 21:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area 

message: The figure given of 4.7% of total population ins wrong... It is much more.
: Official data is used.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roma minority is around 5 to 6 %, but the turkish is around 12-13% as the latest statistics. --Eliade 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  % of Roma 

message: Some reference should be made about the government campaign against the turks...
: This is done in the History of Communist Bulgaria article, and I personally don't consider it notable enough to be mentioned in the general Bulgaria article.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May be mentioned in article Turks in Bulgaria. The campaign it was not only in the Communist Bulgaria. --Timurberk 22:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The forced Bulgarization of the Turkish minority is conveniently blamed on the communists.  It was not a 1990s issue.  Bulgaria was not a communist country in 1940 when most Turkish names of places and towns were renamed with Bulgarian names.  There were repeated campaigns against the Turks by Bulgarian governments which were mostly backed by the citizens. When communism collapsed and Turks were given back some degree of freedom there were public protests and demonstrations staged by Bulgarian citizenry. So Bulgarians considering this issue not to be "notable enough" should be weighted in the light of these facts.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1990s Turks issue 

message: Heeeeeeeeeey! Slow down! It was in 1870's when you got you Bulgarian church! Before, there was only the beautifull and very romantic thing called Ottoman rule + Church of Constantinopoli!
: Ummm... false. Read the article first. Our church was restored in 1870, but founded in 870 and autonomous since 927. Besides, I don't really think the Ottoman rule and the Patriarchate of Constantinople are that beautiful and romantic, whatever this is supposed to mean.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian Orthodox Church which was founded in 870 AD under the Patriarchate of Constantinople and has been autocephalous since 927.????? 

message: How many Jews are living in Balgarija an in Sofija? What language is spoken by them? Perhabs they are Aschkenasim-Jews!? Simon Mayer
: Most of Bulgaria's Jews, as far as I know, are Sephardim that traditionally have spoken Ladino, although it's not a language you would commonly hear nowadays. It is hard to determine the number of Jews, but here is a brief list of important people of Jewish origin that are connected to Bulgaria.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 11:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish 

message: Why do Bulgarians use the ancient name Bulgaria which was a turkish tribe in the area you live today?
: Why do Russians use the name of the Scandinavian Rus' people? Why do the mostly Celtic and Latin French use the name of the Germanic Franks? It's just how things happened through the course of history, I wouldn't say it's uncommon for a people to adopt the name of another people, given the many examples. Besides, Bulgars had an important role in the early years of Bulgarian history, before they mixed with or (more likely to me) were even assimilated by the local Slavs.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 22:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...who according to the two prevalent historical theses were either of Turkic or Iranian origin. - Bulgars --89.190.200.137 22:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Asking Bulgarians if their ancestors were a Turkic people may be perceived too brutal by some.  However the original name of the Volga river is Itil. It bacame known as Volga since a branch of Bulgars migrated to the area from the Kuban valley in Caucasus. In any case Bulgars were a Turkic tribe. However Bulgarians who became Slavs do not like to acknowlege this due to their hatred towards the Ottoman Turks and would typically try to dissasociate themselves with the Turks.  Therefore a recent theory by a Bulgarian pseudo-scientist -who used a dictionary and proposed some similarities with certain Iranian words- claiming Bulgars to be of Pamirian origin became popular in Bulgaria. Only Bulgarians are supporting it while the rest of the community of experts is laughing about it. Bulgars and Bulgarians should be viewed as two distinct ethnic groups.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Nostradamus1, we Bulgarians (and Hungarians, Bavarians, Austrian, Lombards, Prussians, Finnish, Estonians) find your point of view too brutally stretching and distorting the truth. Lantonov (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how the Bavarians and all the other ethnic groups you mention made it here (and how you find yourself in a position speak for them) but to reiterate my position on this: Bulgars and Bulgarians are two separate ethnicities.  The former one contributed to the formation of the latter. I can see why Bulgarians would want to combine the two into one but the facts are that they are not. Until the reign of Boris I the rulers of the Bulgar kingdom -that is when the khans became tsars- were Bulgars.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: All the peoples in the parenthesis are Turkic people (they have, or are supposed to have something Turkic in their roots). So are the Ottoman Turks, which are direct descendants of Seldjuk Turks. The last, however, are as different from the original Turkic roots, as are all mentioned above. So, we may have been relatives with all but very distant relatives and in the pre-historic past - something like the 25th cousins. Lantonov (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the people that you mentioned in paranthesis -that is Hungarians, Bavarians, Austrian, Lombards, Prussians, Finnish, Estonians- are Turkic. (Part of the Hungarian formation was from the Cumans and the Kabar Turks that included the founding father Arpad and his dynasty but calling Hungarians of today a Turkic people would be a stretch in my opinion.) It would also not be so accurate to claim that the Ottomans were direct descendants of the "Seldjuks".  Oghuz bands who were not part of the Seldjuks arrived in Anatolia as a result of Mongol pressure some forming their own beyliks and ultimately being absorbed into the Ottoman empire.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hang on people, the Avars who settled in Bulgaria were Turks. By Turks I do not mean the Turks of Modern Day Turkey, I mean the Steppe peoples from Asia that rode fast moving horses and sacked many a town on the way to Byzantine held Danube territory in the 7th century.Tourskin 06:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not know whether to laugh or seriously respond to the assertion of Especially since it became obvious that proto-Bulgarians ware radar Iranians then turks, so they ware much closer to ‘slavic’ then previously believed. :) Last Friday I was speaking to a Bulgarian guy and he told me similar things - that Asparuh spoke a Slavic language and that Bulgaria had 2000 years of history but the Ottomans had only 700. If it's possible to laugh at and feel emphaty for these people's pain this is one such case.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The only pain I see here is that of Nostradamus1. Bulgaria is not in the Ottoman Empire for 130 years now. Get used to it. Lantonov (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgars were an ancient turkish tribe 

message: Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring, a poll is currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article.  Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Republic of Macedonia#POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article|POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article]] 

message: Zdrasti Bozhinov! Moje6 li da dobavi6 taka nare4enata "Gallery" kum tazi statia (kakto pri Romania, Turkey i Serbia naprimer) ? Ne 4e iskam da prili4ame na tqh, no ako priemem, 4e stra6no mnogo hora izpolzvat wikipedia to za6to togava da ne si napravim malko reklamka (snimki ot 4ernomorieto, vazrojdenski seli6ta i drugi prirodni zabelejitelnosti) ?Samiat az neznam kak se pravi tova i zatova se obra6tam s tazi molba kum teb.
: Да, и аз си мислех за нещо подобно и наистина има нужда, снимките са перфектни за илюстрация и дават представа за страната повече от много текст. Ще се заема да отсея разни хубави снимки и да си сложим една галерийка.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 14:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Готово! Ти ако в Уикипедия си намерил други хубави снимки, за които смяташ, че имат място в статията, като са достатъчно качествени и изобразяват познати и известни обекти или характерни черти на България, се чувствай напълно свободен да ги добавиш към галерията, тя е затова :)  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Great job at adding the picture gallery Todor! I think it's a good start; my only suggestion would be to add more visually appealing pictures. Also, to include pictures of places unique to Bulgaria. Let me know what you think. Thanks! --Kassabov 07:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, don't hesitate to add images that you've found on Wikipedia and that are released under a free license to the gallery! The ones I've picked out are some of the more appealing ones, I believe, but also feel free to remove some in order to prevent the gallery from getting too large. Be bold!  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 11:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: A proposal to add a photo gallery to the page as in other country articles. It was shortly fulfilled by me.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job at adding the picture gallery Todor! I think it's a good start; my only suggestion would be to add more visually appealing pictures. Also, to include pictures of places unique to Bulgaria. Let me know what you think. Thanks! --Kassabov 07:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, don't hesitate to add images that you've found on Wikipedia and that are released under a free license to the gallery! The ones I've picked out are some of the more appealing ones, I believe, but also feel free to remove some in order to prevent the gallery from getting too large. Be bold!  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 11:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary in English

message: Hello! WikiProject Bulgaria, devoted to better organizing, maintaining and developing the network of Bulgaria-related articles, is currently gathering members in order to be started. If you're interested in participating, add your name to the "Interested Wikipedians" subsection of the proposed project's section in the list of proposed WikiProjects.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Bulgaria 

message: Where can I find a home page for Bulgarian sport? I would like to write more articles on Bulgarian sportspeople, but there is no point of reference I can find. --Cryout 15:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian sport 

message: I don't know how common torture is in Bulgaria, but this story about police torturing nurses for 174 days suggests that it's a problem.  The webpage says its information comes from "Troud", which it says is Bulgaria's biggest newspaper.  Is Bulgaria's human rights record discussed anywhere?  or where should links like this go? Gronky 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, hello? This article is about torturing Bulgarian nurses in Lybia  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks.  Glad I asked. Gronky 17:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Bulgaria has no negative human rights record I know of after the forcing some Turkish population to leave or change their names in the late 1980s. All abuses are handled at the court in the Hague - and Bulgaria fully accepts its responsibilities. Indeed, it is Bulgarian citizens abroad whose rights are occasionally abused. --Cryout 13:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do links about torture in Bulgaria go? 

message: Correct me if I am wrong but I think there is a typing mistake in the IPA pronounciation of Bulgaria as written in IPA: /ˌbɤlgarˈia/. The IPA letter ɤ is pronounced closer to G - this letter describes a consonant not a vowel! Please correct it, because I am not sure which one has to be used (according to me the correct pronounciation is ˌbəlgarˈia). Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.167.63 (talk) 
:Take a look at the articles on IPA and Bulgarian language. --Daggerstab 17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it seems that some (European) countries do, in fact, use slashes — Montenegro, Romania, and the Ukraine. I leave it as it is, but something else still looks not quite right: why not put the stresses before the syllables instead of immediately before the vowels? --Cameltrader 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation in IPA 

message: What type of fish can I catch in the river Yantra? I am going to visit Veliko Turnovo and hope to fish there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.128.84 (talk) 
: According to the website of some hunting lodge, a certain reservoir at the Yantra (called Skalsko) is stocked with sheatfish, carp, and chub, among others. Unfortunately, I'm not a specialist and half of the fish listed on the website don't seem to show up in my Bulgarian-English dictionary, so I don't know the names in English. Todor→Bozhinov 19:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fishing in Bulgaria 

message: Could somebody point me to the source of the genetic phenotype results presented in the history section of the article? --Cryout 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic study source 

message: Are you sure Sofia is second oldest capital in Europe? I'm not. --Tzeck 08:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also against in saying that Sofia is the second oldest capital in Europe, where are Athene, Rome? --Eliade 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Greece, Italy? Sofia is as almost as old as Rome, which was traditionally founded in 753 BC (7th 8th century BC), and Sofia's history dates back to the 7th century BC. As for Athens, it's the first in that list :) I'm also against mentioning that 'second' thing, but 'one of the oldest' is more than perfectly acceptable, if even a bit modest (but we Bulgarians are modest people, generally). Todor→Bozhinov 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second oldest capital? 

message: OK, first of all Mr. Bozhinov, you don't have the ultimate right to decide what should and should not be in the history section. Second, your perception of what is subjective or invented is yours alone, and if you want sources, I'll give you sources. I'm leaving for Shanghai on Thursday, but in approximately five weeks I'll be back with those additions and their respective academic sources. Would you prefer them in MLA or APA? :) BTW, I'm not going to go into your education vs. my education, but if you prefer I'll be more than happy to tell you what I do and thus likely imply to you that my knowledge and authority on history is well regarded in national circles. Furthermore, what you do not seem to realize is that history is one lie built on top of another, and the way in which you portray Bulgarian history supports some of the lies built from imperial propaganda that spawned in classical Europe just two centuries ago. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, than I'll be happy to enlighten you on this issue. It is thus critically important to portray Bulgarian history from our perspective with our studies and interpretations at the forefront, because after all we are its agent and trans-generational carriers. There is already too much anti-Bulgarian propaganda due to multiple failures on our part in international relations and in particular due to the volatility and strategic importance of the region where our country is located. I will however say that what I write is an integral part of the modern curriculum in Bulgarian schools and universities. If you feel you have the authority to go against that curriculum and the way in which it interprets history, versus what is likely a history you learned in communist days from Mother Russia and its scholars, then you have a psychological inadequacy that is exacerbated by delusional visions of personal grandeur Mr. Bozhinov. However, if you accept the material as it was, with a list of sources, then I will gladly reconsider my last statement. And parenthetically, the oldest country in Europe refers to Bulgaria being the only one with a national identity of the so-called 'Bulgarian sovereignty' since 681 (despite repeated invasions from external entities). Our culture goes back much further than this date, but only since 681 have we called ourselves Bulgarian (as a reference to a people of multiple cultural origins and not only Bulgar), whilst the general central geographic area of the country has remained the same. No other country in Europe can claim the same status as applied to the last 1325 years; thereby this perspective is correct as based on the modern understanding of nationality (identified by the majority of the united populace as belonging to an internal collective) and geographic cohesiveness. On the other hand, if you have been influenced by Western Europe's interpretation on the matter as expressed in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), then you probably feel that no country existed in the modern sense before this date. That said, the historical subjectivity born from the said treaty is rather West-Euro centric and does not take into consideration the developments of nationhood in other parts of the world, which came much earlier than its own entrance into the world of lawful international politics. 
Once again, you leave me no choice but to prove you wrong, and your comment on recent studies not convincing you is beyond the issue. You are not the one who even needs to be convinced as you do not hold the key to Bulgaria's history, and as far as I know, in no way are you a prominent individual within our society. If I'm wrong about that please correct me, and then I shall also gladly tell who I am and what my position in our society is. I will write again what you removed, and therein it will be your futile job to prove me wrong in order to try and establish your opinion as one that carries higher ground. So in fact, it is your comments that don't convince me, and I must be brutally honest with you, as I feel I need not be convinced by someone who thus far has given me a negative impression of their intellectual capacity. I realize this may lead to a nasty argument, but do remember that I added to what was written and only removed the 'turkic' connection from the article as this has been proven to be incorrect. You on the other hand feel you have the clout to simply remove everything someone has contributed... So why should we not talk about our Bulgarian achievements and someone like Atanasoff. This is about as much as most foreign people will read on the Bulgaria section, and it certainly is beneficial to our country to showcase facts that elevate the status of the nation beyond its miserable current international reputation, or lack thereof. What you don't seem to realize is that this article is also a virtual advertisement for Bulgaria. Please don’t convulse and then try to explain that history does not have a commercial implication. That’s not what I’m stating, as history is always written in the best interests of the victors. It’s time we write in this way too, as no one else will go out of their way to emphasize those facts that place a little more light on our civilization, both from collective and individual achievements. Do you even know the meaning of socio-cultural marketing? If you don't, I suggest you research the masters at this game, primarily the USA, England and recently China. 
I truly hope that you are not the kind of thickheaded fool that I have visualized upon my first impressions. Indeed, I am sincerely optimistic that some part of what I said will permeate into your psyche, thereby giving you the opportunity to see the value of what I just wrote along with what I had written two days ago in the main article. The best way to resolve this issue is through intellectual dialogue and a unified national spirit... So as you say, "consider that!"
: Please refrain from personal attacks. Now, if you're willing to provide very serious referencing for the things you believe in, and acknowledge they're not the accepted and universal history of Bulgaria, then they might be suitable to include. I'm not any authority on the subject or anything like that, I'm only one Wikipedian following Wikipedia principles, guidelines and policies, and they say "no original research" and "neutral point of view". New theories may be true, but they also may be wrong — time will tell. Until then, the history of Bulgaria is as established by the authoritative sources and books on the topic. When you add content here, you're supposed to follow the rules — no matter what your education is and anything else, you're just a Wikipedian.
: Also, I haven't removed Atanasoff from the article, he's part of the Culture section already. Note that this article is supposed to be a concise summary, with the vast majority of the actual content being located at other, specific topic-related pages (like, for example, First Bulgarian Empire or Ivan Asen II of Bulgaria). This is one of the reasons I've removed your additions — they were in the inappropriate article, and content like this, generally considered to be controversial, is as  a rule removed until (or if) it can be made neutral and perfectly referenced. So it's your turn now. Todor→Bozhinov 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple; your edits are pov and I haven't seen a single source presented. So I don't see why they should stay. And when sources are presented, remember they have to be WP:RS.--Aldux 10:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Okay, so I'm thinking of removing the references to Bulgaria's Antarctic base and its participation in treaties regarding Antarctica from the intro, and possibly placing them somewhere else in the article. This sort of information isn't typically included in introductions to articles, and I see no reason to make an exception here. It's just not that important when considering Bulgaria broadly. Does anyone disagree?  Adlerschloß 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the country places some priority in its special involvement in Antarctica, along with 27 other nations that have a vote (and veto) in the governing of Antarctica.  The website of the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry has a top entry Bulgaria - Antarctica together with  Bulgaria - EU, Bulgaria - NATO, Bulgaria - UN, and Bulgaria - OSCE. Apcbg 05:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctica 

message: Material for changes in the article: speeches by Olli Rehn  and José Manuel Barroso  --Michkalas 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today accession to EU on 1.1.07 approved 

message: I am not certain that  might be the right IPA transcription of the name of the country, "България".  The "я" in "България" is unstressed, while the yodized "ъ" \jə\" only occurs – if I am not wrong – in stressed sylables as in "вървя" \vərvjə\. Apcbg 07:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make it clear, is "" what you propose instead? --Cameltrader 08:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the linguists ought to offer the educated judgement on this one, mine is just an opinion.  The version  doesn't appeal to me either.  Perhaps in this article should appear a more formal transcription like , as it is indeed pronounced on some official occasions, recitings etc.  In common speech the pronunciation varies with the ending possibly  but unlikely .  But again, this is just an opinion. Apcbg 09:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once, there was a lengthy discussion in Talk:Bulgarian language#Vowel_Chart on similar issues, and in particular the distinction between ram's horns () and the schwa (). In my amateur opinion, the schwa is the only vowel closest to ъ. Maybe there was a mistake in the chart then, because I've seen the ram's horns in two different places on the chart (one of them closer to "o"). But you definitely have to mark the difference between the stressed and unstressed "a" — Bulgarian is quite different from, say, French, in which stress doesn't noticeably modify tenseness, openess, etc. Such ambiguities are not uncommon, and I was also thinking about proposing a special template for Bulgarian IPA transcriptions, so that we can easily fix them all, once we have a policy. But anyway, we need experts... --Cameltrader 10:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA transcription 

message: A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics in Cyrillics 

message: Nai starata strana v Evropa? Malko ste se poizhvurlili mai a? Gurciq ne e li po stara? Da ne govorim che 5 veka ni e nqmalo na kartata. Prosto ne razbiram kvo se ima predvid s takova izrechenie? (Posted by 81.242.188.29)
:You may wish to see the maps
:*Europe AD 700 and
:*Europe AD 800.
:The state of Byzantium existing at that time was not Greece. Apcbg 20:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly... neither was Byzantium Greece nor can be the ancient poleis considered a single state. And I think you should drop this pessimism and stuff, we should be proud of what we are, not deny it without even considering it. Todor→Bozhinov 16:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only European state older than Bulgaria is San Marino (founded in 301)--SOMNIVM 14:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: San Marino was not a state in 301 AD — for sourced relevant details see the section San Marino and the oldest European states below; as an internationally recognized state Bulgaria is much older.  In the wider European family of nations though, Armenia (and Armenia alone) is older than Bulgaria, albeit geographically situated in Asia. Apcbg 15:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Some reference for the year 635 (or 632?). Not that I don't believe but it will give weight to this statement. Lantonov 16:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest European country? 

message: Welcome to the European Union!	
Congratulations! – Alensha talk 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot. And Happy New Year! Bulgaria deserves its place into the EU - especially because of the further work it is still ready to do in order to help the continental integration. Having said that, I am not sure that the EU is something that defines our country so much as to be the centre-piece of the map that shows Bulgaria's position in the world. I mean that Bulgaria has to be in the centre of its own map and independent of the international organizations that it is a part of - e.g. NATO, EU, UN or even FIFA or Unicef. Yes, the EU is an enormous matter, but it still stands far below Bulgarian as the identity of the citizens of our country. --Cryout 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks! Todor→Bozhinov 12:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, the EU stands far below Bulgaria, and Bulgaria deserves to be there. May the New Year bring joy and prosperity to the Bulgarian People!!! --Gligan 19:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU 

message: I am thinking of removing the gallery at the end. One reason is that there are already 17 (!) other photographic images inside the article. Another is that the gallery takes up space and makes the article look empty, while pretty long - this is space for more descriptive text. Finally, the place for such a gallery is in Commons and each of these pictures is accessible inside its topical article. --Cryout 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Gallery 

message: These links:
* Doing Business in Bulgaria The World Bank Group guide
* Enterprise Surveys: Bulgaria
* Privatization Database: Bulgaria
Were added by an IP address registered to the World Bank Group (doingbusiness.org is a World Bank Group domain). In keeping with our conflict of interest and external links guidelines I've moved it here for consideration by regular editors of this article who are unaffiliated with the site. 
My personal opinion is that all three links are too much and don't provide enough context for linking directly from this article. Though the links look like they could be useful in more focused circumstances and might be good sources. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Bank Group external links 

message: According to Aeronautica Militare#History "In 1911, during the Italo-Turkish war, Italy employed aircraft, for the first time ever in the world, for reconnaissance and bombing missions.". According to our article, "The Bulgarian Air Force was the first in military history to use airplanes in combat, bombing Turkish positions at Adrianople during the First Balkan War on 16 October 1912." Can someone clarify this issue, please? --Daggerstab 15:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that the Bulgarian Air Force was the second, the Italian Air Force being the first; numerous sources like ,,, etc. testify that the first air bombardment was carried out on 1 November 1911, when Lieut. Giulio Gavotti threw four grenades on an enemy camp at Ain Zara (Libya) in the course of the Turco-Italian War. Apcbg 17:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work - you have corrected the statement in Aerial warfare, too. Thanks! --Daggerstab 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more correction is due I believe.  As explained in the sourced article Radul Milkov, and corroborated by web sources, the first bombardment by the Bulgarian Air Force was made not by Lieut. Radul Milkov and Lieut. Prodan Tarakchiev on 16 October 1912, but by the Italian volunteer pilot Giovanni Sabelli and Maj. Vasil Zlatarov on 17 November 1912. Apcbg 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use of airplanes in warfare 

message: Can we consider Old Great Bulgaria as the same state like contemporary Bulgaria? In my opinion no because the population itself differs, in Great BG it was only by Bulgars, while in Danube BG they merged with the Slavs and formed the Bulgarians; it is the same with Volga BG, it cannot be considerred as our state although its population was Bulgar; the territories were different; from Great BG emerged two seperate states so I think it should be considerred as one of the several BG states, for example Prussia cannot be considerred as Germany, it was found in 1871. What do you think? --Gligan 10:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we can, at least as much as we consider modern Bulgaria a state that has evolved from Asparuh Bulgaria.  In terms of territory Asparuh Bulgaria overlapped more with Great Bulgaria than with modern Bulgaria; it resulted from the expansion of the former to the south of Danube River.  The larger portion of Asparuh Bulgaria was situated north of the Danube, and south and east of the Carpathians and along the northwest coast of Black Sea, which were Great Bulgaria's territories.  The minor portion of Asparuh Bulgaria situated between the Danube and the Balkan Mountains (Moesia) is the only territory in which it overlaps with present day Bulgaria.  Similarly in terms of population, in all those territories it was mixed Bulgar and Slavic people as well as others (dozens of ethnic groups from the Great Migration, also Romanized and Hellenized native population in the cities etc., which subsequently assimilated); it is well established by archeology that the Bulgars lived together with Slavs in the territories north of the Black Sea, while Bulgars and Slavs, both separately and jointly migrated and settled on Byzantine territory south of the Danube on a number of occasions already in the 6th century.  The merger of the Bulgars and Slavs into a single ethnic group speaking a common language was a process of change that did not happen to differentiate Great Bulgaria from Asparuh Bulgaria, it happened more than a century later to reach its final stage maybe in the second half of the 9th century.  As for Volga Bulgaria, it was an offspring of Great Bulgaria indeed, yet unlike Asparuh Bulgaria that country had no direct territorial or possibly state continuity with Great Bulgaria; it was established on an entirelly new territory, according to some historians that happened not in the 7th century but much later.  Still later they changed in a more radical way, and today the languages they speak (Tatar, Chuvash) derive from none of the original languages spoken in Great Bulgaria (Bulgar and Slavic).  And finally, unlike the successor state of Asparuh Bulgaria, the successor states of Volga Bulgaria have not even kept the name 'Bulgaria' today. Apcbg 14:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what we consider to be the western border of Great Bulgaria. On most of the maps and till now officially it was the Dneper river (as it is on the map above), while the same river served as an eastern border of Danube Bulgaria so in this case there is no coincedence. I have read the new theories that Great Bulgaria could have reached the Dnester or even the Danube, and if this is true we can accept that Danube Bulgaria is simply extention to the west of Great Bulgaria and both states are one whole, but the question here is "Is it true, are there any proofs for this?" Lastly, if both states were one and the same, why then we say Old Great Bulgaria instead of simply Bulgaria? --Gligan 15:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The map you quote is apparently based on a Byzantine source describing certain Bulgar territories at Azov Sea, Don and Kuban Rivers.  However, that source did not specify the western borders of Great Bulgaria.  Speaking of those borders ask yourself the question, border with whom?  Who was the western neighbour of Great Bulgaria?  Before becoming independent, the Bulgars were under Avar domination, or rather a partner/component in a joint Avar-Bulgar state.  The Avars were based in Panonia, and eventually retreated there following their defeat at Constantinople in 626.  While there is no archeological evidence of Avar population east of the Carpathians after that, there is such ample evidence of the Bulgar population in the steppe region north of Black Sea between the Carpathians to the west and Caucasus to the east.  For instance, detailed archeological data presented in the monograph by Rasho Rashev, Die Protobulgaren im 5.-7. Jahrhundert, Orbel, Sofia, 2005 (in Bulgarian, German summary), confirms the Bulgar culture in the 5th-7th centuries not only on the territory around the lower course of Dnieper River (present Herson Oblast), but also well to the west of the Dnieper, in the lower course of Southern Bug River (present Mykolaiv Oblast).  On the map Europe in 600 AD you may see Bulgars shown in few regions including the territory between Danube and Dniester Rivers.  The map The Pontic steppe region, c. 650 AD shows Great Bulgaria as extending west of Dnieper River.  By the way, there is no reason why in time of peace the head of state of Great Bulgaria should be buried on the border rather than near some important centre of the state; and Khan Kubrat’s grave in Mala Pereshchepina is even wrongly shown on the map you quote (it is actually located further to the northwest in present Poltava Oblast).  (One plausible explanation of Kubrat's burial at that particular place would be that the  Bulgar tradition was to have two state capitals, a 'winter' and a 'summer' one; and it could be that the 'summer' capital of Kubrat was in Mala Pereshchepina area.)  Why Old Great Bulgaria?  Because that is the documented name.  It exists both in Byzantium documents in Greek, and in its Latin version ‘Antiquitus Vulgaria est Magna’ (Anastasius Bibliothecarius).  Of course, ‘Old’ was added subsequently by authors who were not contemporaries, so the actual name was more likely just ‘Great Bulgaria’. Apcbg 18:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right then, you are very convincive and i will accpet that because I want to believe this and your evidence is good. But what about the official possition that Bulgaria was founded in 681? Do you think other people or officieals will accpet this? --Gligan 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this is by no means my original research, but what apparently is becoming established among leading Bulgarian historians at least.  There is really no serious reason to object the date 632 AD.  As for the "official position", that is presently moving towards the possible acceptance of the date 165 AD — not as the founding date of the state of Bulgaria but as the beginning of Bulgarian statehood.  This is supported by such historians as Prof. Georgi Bakalov, Vice-Rector of Sofia University, and Prof. Georgi Markov, Director of the Institute of History at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.  That idea was presented at a high profile conference held at Sofia University in March 2005, with the participation of the Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov (himself a historian).  It was announced at the conference that this understanding of the early Bulgarian history would be included in the school curricullum.  As for 632, Prof. Markov maintained that "Danube Bulgaria was not a new state formation built with the collective effort of Bulgars and Slavs, but a continuation of Kan Kubrat's Bulgaria" (Kan is the form considered more authentic for the Bulgar rulers than Khan.) Apcbg 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  632 0r 681 ??? 

message: See  :-)(animation). But, dear Bulgarian friends, it could be Athens (or Rome, Moscow, Dublin, etc,) on a bad day :-( Politis 14:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have to be a bad day to be Sofia too :) It's funny, but most things are far from the truth, and others have nothing to do with the country (e.g. the neighbourly rivalry thing). Todor→Bozhinov 16:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh my, was that suppose to make fun of Bulgaria? It could easily be New York. In fact New York came to my mind when I saw that. The music sounded French to me but then again I'm not French or Bulgarian.Tourskin 19:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe v Bulgaria 

message: San Marino is a very old European state, with a fascinating history indeed, yet one should compare equal qualities – in this case the dates of founding as independent states.  Yes according to tradition, San Marino was established in 301 AD.  However, nobody says that it was an independent state in 301 AD, nor in 632 AD for that matter.  As seen from a more detailed narrative of the San Marino history (a San Marino source), “Until 1300 San Marino was a feudal possession of the bishop of Montefeltro, whose diocese, a part of the Papal State was centred at San Leo.”  San Marino was originally established as a community of Christians fleeing from persecution, developing (as evidenced from a 1243 document) as an autonomous commune with their own rules, represented by two Consuls (today called Captains Regent), but “still under the feudal authority of the bishop of San Leo”.  In the 14th century San Marino succeeded in breaking its feudal dependence; its independence was formally recognized by Pope Pius II in 1463, reaffirmed by the Pope in 1631, and successfully defended with two brief interruptions during the centuries.  Therefore, San Marino may possibly qualify as Europe’s oldest distinct ethnic-territorial entity, however countries like Bulgaria or France were founded much earlier as independent states (in 632 AD and 843 AD respectively).  Apcbg 09:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Marino and the oldest European states 

message: *Viktor Antonov, the art-director for the computer game Half-Life 2 is Bulgarian.
*Bulgarian Beach on Livingston Island in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica is named for Bulgaria.
Are these really that relevant? There are other pieces of trivia that seem to me to be of dubious relevance to the article, but let's discuss these for now. I think other kinds of facts would be more suitable for the section.
I already removed this as it seemed to be the most irrelevant piece of trivia:
*Two-time Academy Awards winning American actor Tom Hanks spoke in Bulgarian in his role as Viktor Navorski in the movie The Terminal. 
Krum Stanoev 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia cleanup 

message: according to 2001 census, population of Bulgaria is 7,973,671
wikipedia is error!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.132.78.94 (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  population 

message: 88.203.248.252 17:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone should mention our Chess Masters especially the champion from last year! 

message: Could a transliteration for the name of the country be agreed on, because fly-by anons keep changing it. One doesn't like "y" and removes it, another incorrectly reinstates it... for easy reference: Romanization of Bulgarian and Britannica calls it Republika Bulgaria.--Domitius 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration 

message: Hello editors,
You are welcome to use any of my images from http://community.webshots.com/user/onebulgar. If you wish larger formats of the images which were taken by me, please let me know and I can certainly send you the full size image(s).
Thanks,
Pete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.115.200 (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: There should be an etymology section right after the intro, can someone who knows the subject write it? Baristarim 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'd personally evade this topic... the name of the Bulgars is so ancient and lost in time, there are so many theories regarding its origin, explaining it by means of so many and so different languages that there's no way a neutral and concise overview can be written. Gosh, there are even books dedicated to single theories about it! :) Todor→Bozhinov 17:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The map in the info box that shows european countries and EU members says that those coloured camel only are EU members; this implies that bulgaria is not, as it is coloured orange. this needs to be changed as bulgaria (according to the article) is an EU member. i tried to do it but couldnt figure it out. Trottsky 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map in info box 

message: Въобще не му е мястото там! Махнете го! (82.199.193.217 20:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Текстът "The Beautiful Antique Towns" /за Трявна/ 

message: :Image:John Atanasoff.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressed, but could be improved by uploader with more specific information. Robert K S 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:John Atanasoff.gif 

message: You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New European vector maps 

message: The history section says that Bulgaria is the "home of the world's oldest known writing system, engraved on the Gradeshnitsa Tablets."
The source cited is a single book (aimed at the general public) which seems rather poor support for such an extraordinary statement.
In fact the wikipedia article on Writing credits the Mesopotamians for inventing written script, as do most people. The statement 
also doesn't appear in the History of Bulgaria page. 
So this looks unsubstantiated and I propose to remove the phrase (or at least inject a great deal of doubt in it). Any objections ?
Nberger 20:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope - some time ago it said "one of the oldest", but someone must have changed it. With so many edits on the article daily, it is hard to keep up with all of them. --Laveol T 21:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gradeshnitsa Tablets 

message: So what happened to Bulgaria under Medieval Roman occupation?? This article doesn't deserve featured status if over 100 years of history is just ignored.Tourskin 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some stuff, but its mostly concerned with what happened to Bulgaria rather than what was happening within Bulgaria itself, if u know what i mean.Tourskin 19:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article in not featured: ) Anyway, it is good that you have added something for that period. --Gligan 11:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byzantine Bulgaria 

message: The following information has been taken from Turkish sources.
===Name of Bulgars===
The origin of Bulgars was looked for for a period more than 150 years, and it was claimed that they were of Ural, Finnish, Slav, Tatar etc. origin. At last, the opinion alleged first by Vambery that they were of Turkish origin was finalized with the archeological studies of G. Feher and linguistic investigations of Gy. Nemeth. The word "Bulgar", as a nation's name, was not present before the 2nd half of 5th century, it first revealed as the name of a community to the north of Black Sea to whom Byzantine emperor Zenon applied for military assistance to fight against Eastern-Gots in 482.
The name Bulgar arose from a historical event: The Hun masses who left Middle Europe under the command of Irnek, after the death of 2nd son of European Hun emperor Attila, Dengizik because of the struggles emerged between the dependent nations and sons pursuant to Attila's death, mingled with other Turkish communities they met at Black Sea coast. The new community given birth by this mingling was called "Bulgar" in Turkish.
===Origin of Bulgars ===
In the "list of Bulgarian khans" which shows the names of the Bulgarian rulers and their durations of reign from the beginning to 765 although its remaining from a later time and which we now have a Slavic translation in a Russian Chronicle, Irnek is indicated to be the ancestor of Bulgarian ruler dynasty. The real name of those Turks who mingled with Hun masses was Ogur, and they inhabited in the steppes from Danube mouth to Volga to the north of Black Sea as distinct clan unions like Pachenegs and Kumans: Saragur (Sa-rı/Ak/Ogur), Bittigur (Beş-Ogur), Ultingur~Altziagir (Altı-Ogur), Kutri-gur-Kuturgur ("Tukurgur" = Dokuz-Ogur) Ungur ~ Hunugur ~ Onugur (On-Ogur), Utigur ~ Uturgur (Otuz-Ogur).
 
Ogur Turks, whom Byzantine historian Priskos (5th century) told they were driven away from their countries in eastern part of Ural mountains by Sabars and went to the plains of Black Sea (about 461-465), were in three groups as to the same historian: Saragur, Urog (Ogur) and On-Ogur. These peoples had sent envoys to Byzantium to keep their position against Sabars being driven by Huns to the west. Recent investigations revealed that Ogurs were in three groups in their original land before the big migration: Eastern group (in the vicinity of Seyhun-Cu rivers and Calkar Lake: On-Ogurs); medium group (near today's Kazak-Kirghiz steppe and Emba river, probably, Otuz-Ogurs) and western group (near Yayik river-supposedly-Dokuz-Ogurs). It is also probable that against Saragur (Ak-Ogur) mass, the others may have formed "Kara Ogur" group.
===The issue of Ogur-Oghuz===
Ogurs are brothers of Oghuzes. Probably because they separated from each other in very early periods (before 3rd Century B.C.), there occurred some phonetical differences in their languages. The most definite difference is that the "Z" sound in main Turkish was turned into "R" in Ogur dialect. In fact, since "Oghuz" term meant "Turkish clans" directly, the following difference in the names of Oghuzes, the main mass who remained in the east and continued to use Z sound and Ogurs (western Turks) attracts attention: Oguz-Ogur. The Ogur clan unions above meant successively: 5 Oghuz, 6 Oghuz, 9 Oghuz, 10 Oghuz and 30 Oghuz.
 
As a matter of fact there are some unions named with the number of clans in Eastern Turks. Another difference in Ogur dialect is that y is replaced with d (for example: yilan-dilom etc.) Ancient Greek Geographer Ptolemaios (160 -170) stated the name of Yayik river discharged to Caspian Sea (Today's Ural river, the real Turkish name was changed by Russians in the 2nd half of 18th century) as Daih (aix), which documents that the ancestors of Bulgarians lived in Western Siberia in 2nd century in steppes as far as Itıl (Volga).
===Danube Bulgarian State===
The state which developed in military and political aspects being established in south Dobruca breaking the resistance of Emperor Konstantinos the 4th by Asparuh, is most long-lasting the political organization established by Ogur Turks. We can understand that the state was founded on sound foundations because it could survive between two major powers such as Byzantium and Avar empires. Bulgar Turks from abroad came out successful in taking Slavic masses in the region under their control. The Bulgars, being unfamiliar with state idea, armed Slavs who used to live in tribe order and ensured their protecting themselves from Byzantium.
The strictest political relations of Danube Bulgars were with Byzantium. Emperor Justinianus the 2nd, who married to Hazar princess, was ascended the throne for the second time in 705 with assistance of Bulgarian Khan Tervel (702-718). Emperor Philippikos' being overthrown in 713 is also considered as a result of Bulgarian advance in Byzantium territories. The force Bulgarian state gained in a short time can be understood from this event too. The Bulgarian helped Byzantium during Istanbul siege of Arabs in 717-718. Such cooperation brought about many financial interests to the Bulgarian state.
 
However, Byzantium, taking advantage of the chaos in Bulgarian country in 8th century, organized various expeditions on Bulgarian territories. "Krum Khan" (803-814), who acceded to Bulgar throne in early 9th century, seized Hungary and Transylvania. Byzantine Emperor Nikepheros the 1st, being afraid of the "skillful warrior and intellectual organizer" personality of Krum, acted to get rid of him (811). He destroyed the capital city of the country Pereyaslav, now to the southwest of Şumnu (Shumen). However, in the end, Nikephoros was defeated, his army was routed, and he was killed at the battlefield. It was the first time a Byzantine emperor was killed by an enemy for 450 years.
 
Krum Khan then defeated Mikhael the 2nd, who marched against the Bulgars commanding his army strengthened with units from eastern states of the empire, took an oath to hang his golden sparrow on the gilded Gate (the ceremony gate in Yedikule), by eliminating Byzantium. He occupied Sofia, Nis, and Belgrade city castles and thus took the greatest commercial and military transportation way between Europe and Middle East under control. He reached Edirne in 813 and leaving there under siege, went on proceeding. He besieged Istanbul in 814 Spring. However, he died instantly on 13 April 814 in the most impetuous moment of the attacks.
 
His son Omurtag Khan (814-831) signed a commercial agreement of 30 years with Byzantium. Omurtag Khan, who wanted to agree also with Frankish Empire, could not be successful in that, and thus used his weapons and opened the saltpans for management again which were all closed after Roman Period, and thus earned for his state a great wealth. His period was the brightest period of Danube Bulgars. Constructed cities, palaces, constructions and improvements on a wide scale, aqueducts, monuments, developed cities and the epitaph and relief of Krum Han on horse on a high rock covering an area of 40 m2 are all the memories of that period.
 
However, Bulgar Turks who were less in population compared to the Slavs, began to be influenced by Slavic culture under Byzantine effect in time. The number of Slavs commissioned in civil service increased, the two societies mixed by means of marriages more and more, the influence of Slavic language grew and Turks began to get Slav rapidly. On Boris Khan's accepting Orthodox sect officially, the process of Bulgar's getting Slav came to an end.
for more information: 
--Ersinist 08:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "turkiness" of the Bulgars is just a past Turkish propaganda (at least i hope it is in the past now) aiming to present Bulgars and Turks as the same people . There is a great difference between Turkic and Turkish. --Laveol T 04:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OGURS ( BULGARS ) - Turkish Identity 

message: The state which developed in military and political aspects being established in south Dobruca breaking the resistance of Emperor Konstantinos the 4th by Asparuh, is most long-lasting the political organization established by Ogur Turks. We can understand that the state was founded on sound foundations because it could survive between two major powers such as Byzantium and Avar empires. Bulgar Turks from abroad came out successful in taking Slavic masses in the region under their control. The Bulgars, being unfamiliar with state idea, armed Slavs who used to live in tribe order and ensured their protecting themselves from Byzantium.
The strictest political relations of Danube Bulgars were with Byzantium. Emperor Justinianus the 2nd, who married to Hazar princess, was ascended the throne for the second time in 705 with assistance of Bulgarian Khan Tervel (702-718). Emperor Philippikos' being overthrown in 713 is also considered as a result of Bulgarian advance in Byzantium territories. The force Bulgarian state gained in a short time can be understood from this event too. The Bulgarian helped Byzantium during Istanbul siege of Arabs in 717-718. Such cooperation brought about many financial interests to the Bulgarian state.
 
However, Byzantium, taking advantage of the chaos in Bulgarian country in 8th century, organized various expeditions on Bulgarian territories. "Krum Khan" (803-814), who acceded to Bulgar throne in early 9th century, seized Hungary and Transylvania. Byzantine Emperor Nikepheros the 1st, being afraid of the "skillful warrior and intellectual organizer" personality of Krum, acted to get rid of him (811). He destroyed the capital city of the country Pereyaslav, now to the southwest of Şumnu (Shumen). However, in the end, Nikephoros was defeated, his army was routed, and he was killed at the battlefield. It was the first time a Byzantine emperor was killed by an enemy for 450 years.
 
Krum Khan then defeated Mikhael the 2nd, who marched against the Bulgars commanding his army strengthened with units from eastern states of the empire, took an oath to hang his golden sparrow on the gilded Gate (the ceremony gate in Yedikule), by eliminating Byzantium. He occupied Sofia, Nis, and Belgrade city castles and thus took the greatest commercial and military transportation way between Europe and Middle East under control. He reached Edirne in 813 and leaving there under siege, went on proceeding. He besieged Istanbul in 814 Spring. However, he died instantly on 13 April 814 in the most impetuous moment of the attacks.
 
His son Omurtag Khan (814-831) signed a commercial agreement of 30 years with Byzantium. Omurtag Khan, who wanted to agree also with Frankish Empire, could not be successful in that, and thus used his weapons and opened the saltpans for management again which were all closed after Roman Period, and thus earned for his state a great wealth. His period was the brightest period of Danube Bulgars. Constructed cities, palaces, constructions and improvements on a wide scale, aqueducts, monuments, developed cities and the epitaph and relief of Krum Han on horse on a high rock covering an area of 40 m2 are all the memories of that period.
 
However, Bulgar Turks who were less in population compared to the Slavs, began to be influenced by Slavic culture under Byzantine effect in time. The number of Slavs commissioned in civil service increased, the two societies mixed by means of marriages more and more, the influence of Slavic language grew and Turks began to get Slav rapidly. On Boris Khan's accepting Orthodox sect officially, the process of Bulgar's getting Slav came to an end.
for more information: 
--Ersinist 08:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "turkiness" of the Bulgars is just a past Turkish propaganda (at least i hope it is in the past now) aiming to present Bulgars and Turks as the same people . There is a great difference between Turkic and Turkish. --Laveol T 04:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Danube Bulgarian State

message: Check out imagesfrombulgaria.com. It says there you can use any of the images if you mention the source, there are over 25 000 images from Bulgaria there. I think they can be put to good use here in Wikipedia. Cheers, --Vanka5 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  25 000 free images from Bulgaria 

message: Could someone please explain why Bulgaria is not called "Bulgary"? To me it sounds the same as Hungary. The ending is "gary", -> Bulgary, Hungary. Why would the English language rules be suddenly changes to call a country Bulgaria that should be called Bulgary instead? Is there some explanation for this? Also note that if you search in google from Bulgary, you will find many travel agencies, real estate, companies, that refer to the country as Bulgary instead of Bulgaria (which is more natural in English tongue) - but there is no explanation in wikipedia article or in discussion on how and why the country should be called Bulgaria and why not Bulgary.
::Because Roumania is not Rumany, Yugoslavia is not Yugoslavy, Macedonia is not Macedony, Slovenia is not Sloveny, Slovakia is not Slovaky, Nigeria is not Nigery :). More seriously, because Bulgaria is well-established name over centuries of use, it is not good to change it just because some other countries are called differently. Lantonov 10:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those travel companies are just trying to sell more holidays by using an old-style, "romantic" name, although the historic Bulgary was in Russia so its misleading. Even that is often referred to as Volga Bulgaria. But I've never seen a modern map or newspaper call the Balkan country Bulgary - Gladstone certainly referred to it as Bulgaria back in the nineteenth century. 
I think its Hungary thats the exception (ie not being called Hungaria). Jameswilson 23:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe because the Turks themselves do not call their country 'Turkia' in the first place, contrary to the Bulgarians and the Romanians who do call their countries Bulgaria and Romania (actually Bəlgariya and Romənia) respectively.  The English 'Turkey' (and the German Türkei) seems to derive from the original Turkish 'Türkiye', nothing wrong about that.  The version with '-ia' in certain languages may originate to artificial medieval Latin forms (like 'Polonia', 'Walachia' etc.) -- nothing wrong about that either. Apcbg (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgary or Bulgaria 

message: It seems like the intro is mostly ancient history. Shouldn't it be about defining the nation as it is in modern times? We can leave most of the history to the history section and article...
Just saying 65.27.139.162 12:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro... 

message: I like the intro this way. If you look at the introductions for other countries, those who do have ancient history discuss it from the get-go! Take China for example... The point being is that Bulgaria has very interesting, important and certainly truly ancient history that must be presented and showcased from the very beginning. Many people know little about Bulgaria and the articulate and indeed immaculately presented first three paragraphs of this "section" are slated to make visitors much more interested in all other fascinating socio-cultural, economic and natural wonders (or otherwise) that the country of Bulgaria has to offer. As formerly stated, please look at other country sections in Wikipedia and see for yourselves that all of them play to their strengths in their respective introductory paragraphs. This is the first time that I see the Bulgarian section accomplishing this noteworthy achievement and I am 100% for it. From: Dr. Alexander Alexiev (PhD: Physical Anthropology)
: Thank you doctor. Be so kind as to sign your posts with four squigly dashes of these: ~ like this ~ ~ ~ ~ but without the spaces of course. Thank you.Tourskin 03:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Intro is GREAT! 

message: Please note, the following citation(s) was/were used to cite the Gradeshnitsa Tablets. However users such as Martin Faassen, Daggerstab, et al. have regarded it as somehow irrelevant and took it upon themselves to edit the Bulgaria section without first reading the academically cited references. Such actions oppose and in fact disregard the findings of Bulgarian/International academia, and furthermore transgress upon the policies of this herein international web-based organization.
Anyone who is looking for sources regarding Bulgaria's Gradeshnitsa Tablets and/or those that are interested to know about Bulgaria's claim to being a cradle of European civilization (both literary and non-literary) should read the following works, including the numerous academic sources provided below!
While the Gradeshnitsa Tablets are not yet deciphered, important studies from respected personas who exemplify expertise in related fields, and who have shared their works and academic opinions regrading the said tablets must always be taken into account. Please read: The Gradeshitsa Tablets examination by Marco Merlini (General Director of the Prehistory Knowledge Project (Roma, Italy) and Director of the Institute of Archaeomythology (Sebastopol, USA)), who has come to the conclusion that the Gradeshnitsa Tablets do indeed represent an early form of writing. Monshuai (talk • contribs)
Here are all the Bibliographical References that Marco Merlini uses to support his findings: (Found at above link!) 
Posted by:Monshuai (talk • contribs)
:I would suggest you start adding information to the Gradeshnitsa tablets article then. You have gathered a wealth of resources to start expanding the information in that article. By the way, I have removed the list of references from this page, for two reasons: 1) this information is, as you mention, at the previous link and is otherwise needlessly filling up this talk page. 2) this information may be copyrighted. In order to add this to wikipedia literally, we would need permission. Martijn Faassen 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to speak to the Wikipedia authorities about this. I still think we should err on the side of caution concerning the literal copying of a full list of citations. The article itself you copied from did have a copyright notification. I also offered another reason - the list was cluttering up two talk pages and it is easy enough to examine this list by way of clicking the hyperlink. Martijn Faassen 01:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not include this newspaper article myself - this was another wikipedian. See the talk page of this section for more information. I am very much in favor of citing academic sources, but the proper way to do this in my mind is to read the relevant individual articles and then cite these in context. Martijn Faassen 01:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence for Gradeshnitsa Tablets 

message: We currently seem to have a pattern where Monshuai keeps adding something like the following text to the introduction of the article, and others have removed it several times (I think I removed it once, perhaps twice, myself). So far I  have been most active in discussing this with Monshuai on the talk page. I would invite others to give their comments as well.
The country's proto-modern statehood roots stem from the Thracian civilization, whilst further sculpted by the Greek and later the Roman worlds of antiquity. Indeed Bulgaria's civilized history dates back more than six millennia to a time and place within the heart of its territory that marks the birth of Europe's and possibly the world's first literary culture. Though relatively small in terms of territory and population, Bulgaria's continuous historical wealth throughout prominent cyclical eras of growth, decline and medieval renaissance rivals that of the much larger and more populous countries of China, India and Egypt.
This paragraph keeps being added as the second paragraph. The paragraph following this (still in the article) reads like this:
Modern Bulgaria borders five countries: Romania to the north (mostly along the Danube), Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia to the west, and Greece and Turkey to the south; as well as the Black Sea, which makes up its entire eastern border. Bulgaria lies in a region once inhabited by the ancient Thracians and later by Greeks and Romans, and is a successor of a powerful European medieval empire, the First Bulgarian Empire, which at times covered most of the Balkans and spread its culture and literature among the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe. Centuries later, during the decline of the Second Bulgarian Empire, the country fell under five centuries of Ottoman rule. Bulgaria was reestablished as a constitutional monarchy in 1878, also known as the birth of the Third Bulgarian Empire. Part of the Eastern Bloc after World War II, today Bulgaria has become a democratic, unitary, constitutional republic, a member of the European Union and of NATO. In 2006 Bulgaria attracted 5 million visitors for the whole year. To date in 2007, Bulgaria has attracted 4 million visitors.
There appears to be a consensus about this paragraph, so let's first eliminate the things in the controversial paragraph that are already there anyway:
* Thracian, Greek and Roman connection.
* Important in medieval history.
* Culture and literature spread in medieval history.
Let's not discuss these, as everybody agrees. Now as to the more controversial claims. These
are the claims in the proposed introduction paragraph that are not already covered by the consensus paragraph:
* continuity of Bulgarian civilized history for 6 millennia.
* Bulgaria was home to Europe's, and possibly the world's first literary culture.
* Bulgaria, even though small, has a history comparable with China's, Egypt's or India's. (comparable in antiquity, development of ancient culture?)
We should be able to gather evidence (academic citations, etc) of the continuity of Bulgarian civilized history over the millennia. If such evidence is hard to find in the English language, I think we should not give it prominence in the introduction. Instead, let's develop this in a "History of Bulgaria" article, or "Antiquity of Practices of Modern Bulgarian Culture" article, first. Once this is very well established in such an article, we could then make a reference to it in the Bulgaria article. On the other hand, scientific consensus might be that there is no such continuity. If there is still a significant minority view supporting this antiquity, we could still make a mention of this in a special article on the topic, but it definitely won't belong in the introduction then.
:Monshuai, I applaud your approach in your latest edit to try to integrate your points with the existing paragraph. Hopefully we will be able to work out matters this way. A claim of a continued civilization of 6000 years is still a strong claim however, and we need to back this up carefully. My impression is that Bulgaria did not have a simple 6000 year cultural continuity - the Bulgarians only entered the region afterwards, for instance, and South East Europe in general is home to a large mixture of peoples of different origins. Since you have knowledge about this, you seem to be the ideal person to come up with some good academic citations for this claim. These can then be added as references to the article, or, if the section becomes too big that way, we can move them into the History of Bulgaria article. Martijn Faassen 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Monshuai, Wikipedia gets contributions of any nationality and from people of a wide range of skills and qualifications. Instead of going into people's qualifications, let's back up our claims with external sources. Since you are trying to make points, unfortunately this means you will have to come up with these sources. If it turns out that there are sources with multiple views on the same matter, Wikipedia generally includes references to both. Martijn Faassen 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to learn more about these traditions, in particular in their connection to the Thracians, and their antiquity. Note that the oldest mention of the Thracians, in the Iliad, is less than 3 millennia old. That's 2 more millennia to go to reach 5 millennia. Can you find wikipedia articles about them? Citations please? Martijn Faassen 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: According to his user page, he is from Switzerland (I'm delusional, I said Germany before). Martijn Faassen 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction text 

message: I urge the people (or the sick person, I do not know) who are constantly vandalizing this page to stop! Cnn lies 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protected for a while. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The data is all wrong, the last census was in 2001 and the result yielded was a population of 7 932 984
persons 
The latest data of the National Stastics is for the end of 2006 -  and the population given is 7 679 290 people.
I have no idea how the infobox was compiled before but it is completely wrong - both about the dates and the numbers. I suppose the person who did it used data from the World Factbook which has been publishing inexact data for years now (for example, the number of the Jews in the country until recently was consistently placed at 0.8% or 50-60,000 people when the majority of the Jews left the country in 1948! So they used information which was more than 50 years old.) For some reason, the WF is consistently underestimating the total population of the country, now it is by almost 300,000. The funny thing is that in 2001 they said that the population was 7,700,000  but the census which was conducted in the same year showed a population of 7,930,000 . Please refrain from using the Factbook about Bulgaria, I don't know why but they can't seem to get things right...
===Eurostat===
Here is the data of Eurostat:   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.225.63 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population numbers 

message: Here is the data of Eurostat:   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.225.63 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurostat

message: Ima chujdentsi koito ne iskat da pokazvame starosta na nashata durjava i korennite tsivilizatsii koito sa vrodili moderniya Bulgarski narod. Edin ot tezi 'neblagopriatni' hora e ot Grukski proishod i sveki den premahva purvite izrecheniya vuv nashata stranitsa za Bulgaria. Sega i drugi mu pomagat. Az sum slojil vsiakakvi akademichni knigi na Angliiski ezik koito pokazvat che teritoriata na Bulgaria ima 6-hiledoletia stara istoria. Pomognete da zapazim stranitsata da pokazva na sveta istinata, a ne da bude napisana spored mneniata i supernicheskite kompleksite na chujdentsi koito ne ni mislyat dobro. Vseki den triabva da se vrushtame tuk i da si satrudnichim kogato drugi si mislyat che imat pravoto da pishat nashata istoria kakto si izmislyat. Ako zaedno rabotim shte ospeem da predstavim Bulgaria vuv dobra svetlina. Mersi na vsichki.--Monshuai (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia kazva v pravilata si, che "ne e myasto za dokazvane" na znanie, a myasto za informirane. V momenta sum na put I nyama da moga da pregledam spomenatite promeni, no obeshtavam da go napravya utre vecher. Shte te pomolya da pishesh na anglijski tuk. Kakto gurtzite, taka I vseki durg chetyasht Wikipedia, e nayasno sus strastite,koito mogat da se razgoryat pri razminavane na gledni tochki (ne kazvam koi e prav predi da sum vidyal faktite). Sorry to all readers for writing this in Bulgarian. Cheers. User:Cryout  —Preceding comment was added at 02:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Da prav si, no kakto mogat Kitaiitsite da pishat vuv Wikipedia kolko dulga e istoriata na tiahnata klasicheska teritoria, taka mojem i nie. Shte te pomolya da poglednesh vsichki dokumenti/knigi i akademichni materiali koito sum pokazal tuk. Mersi... Pisha na Bulgariski samo sega, inache mojesh da vidish kolko sum napisal na Angliiski vuv tezi dulgi diskusii za informirane. Tuk vapros ne e za dokazvane, zashtoto vuv akademichni krugove ne se osporvat tezi antropologichni fakti, a prosto che hora koito ne poznavat Bulgaria ne priemat tya da ima velika istoria kato durjava taka i kato teritoria. :)--Monshuai (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''ZA VSICHKI BULGARI''' 

message: This line is completely misleading:
"The country boasts the second-highest standard-of-living in Southeastern Europe in terms of GDP per capita"
Bulgaria is one of the poorest in EU. Its like saying MacDonalds sells the best burgers for a restaurant with big yellow M out the front.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackerlacken (talk • contribs) 11:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy