Talk:Bulgaria

Motto

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

That's right! You're absolutely correct. DemonX (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Back on the motto topic - according to me "Unity gives strength" comes closer to the Bulgarian wording, but according to the government's official website, the correct English translation is "Union makes strength" , so I suggest that it is changed to the official version. Killer4o (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, neither 'un1ity' nor 'union' is the English for 'съединение'. 'Unity' is 'единство' and 'union' is 'обединение' in this context. The correct English word for 'съединение' would be 'unification', which is seen e.g. in the interwiki correspondence between the articles Съединение на България and Bulgarian unification. Therefore, the motto ought to be 'Unification makes strength'.

Just a thought: the Belgian motto is similar to the Bulgarian, and is translated as "Strength through Unity" (lit. "Unity creates Strength", "Unity makes one strong"). By the way, does anybody know if the similarity is a coincidence? Do the Saxe-Coburgs have anything to do with it? Preslav (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that strictly sticking to dictionary definitions isn't really the right approach here - 'strength through unity' definitely comes closest to conveying the same meaning as the Bulgarian phrase. In the motto, 'съединението' doesn't concretely refer to the unification of Bulgaria, but rather to the concept of acting in unity, therefore I'd go with 'unity'. Anyway, as Killer4o points out this is a moot point, since the government has blessed us with an official translation, as ridiculous as it sounds... Tomatoman (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia Request for Comment

The Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is getting too long

According to WP:SIZE, readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, while this one is 142 KB at the moment. In comparison, it was 94 KB this time last year, and 115 KB three months ago. Since the article has already generated many sub-articles, the only way to keep it readable is to cut text. I think we should consider which information is absolutely essential for a reader who wants to read an encyclopedia article about Bulgaria but has a limited attention span, and move less-notable information into sub-articles (and create ones for it if necessary). Maybe we should introduce a ban on adding information unless at least twice as much as is added is removed in the same edit? Preslav (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is my opinion:

• The Geography section should be a bit shorter, maybe removing some of the information under "Climate" and "Hydrography".
• The History section is very long; "Ottoman rule" and "Interwar years" should be reduced in size, especially the former.
• The Politics section includes too much unneeded info on the judiciary.
• The Military section seems fine;
• The Economy section is very long, but a large part of the information in it is important, sho it should be shortened with care.
• The Science, technology and telecommunications section is long, but this is mostly because an article on the subject does not exist. However, like the Economy section, this one should be approached with caution.
• The Transport section seems fine;
• The Culture section is inexplicably long, especially "Customs" and "Cuisine";
• The Tourism section is both huge and ugly. It's a personal opinion, but I'm even against such a section in the article as a whole. Only the most significant should be taken out, and merged with Economy.
• The Sports section is full of unessential information, especially when it comes to soccer.
• The Religion section is too long. Only the basic information should be left, and probably merged with Culture.

I can start working on Economy and Science, since in recent months I've closely monitored both of them and fount a few sources to fill citation tags. Objections ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To my mind the section for the Ottoman rule must be greatly reduced. It used to be quite reasonable but it was overextended by a non-constructive User:Nostradamus1. The information after the Liberation is very long too. Considering the Science and Sports sections, the look very nice and I think that their content should be copied to a new main pages dedicated to that matter and only the most important should be left on the page for Bulgaria.

Considering the images, I think that we should try to put only beautiful and neat pictures - for example I don't think there should be a picture of the market or the mine of Elshitsa...

AND to my opinion in the section for the religion there should be two pictures - a church and the Rila Monastery. --Gligan (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

On the image issue - the Economy section has a very adequate picture variety. The point is not to show beautiful pictures, the point is to illustrate different types of economic activity. Factories, mines or markets are rarely beautiful, but they perfectly illustrate the various industrial and commercial sectors. As to the religion section - it should be shortened to such a degree, that maybe one picture will be enough; and, from an aesthetic point of view, pictures of landmarks such as the Rila Monastery are somewhat unappropriate, unless in context - otherwise the article starts looking like a tourist brochure. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 17:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is true that that shows what economy looks like but still for countries with far larger reliance of mining industry it is shown something more aesthetic. Everyone knows that countries don't include only beautiful things but generally in the main article I thing we should put pictures that look neat. Otherwise, the mines would be great illustration for the economy/industry article or even a separate article for mining (which I am too lazy to make unfortunately...) But that is, of course, my personal opinion. We should discuss that issue further... --Gligan (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, this is an unimportant part of the problem. We should start shortening the article, especially "History" and "Sports" (no other wikipedia article has such a long sports section). I'm taking the Economy, and I'll see what I can do for Science and Culture. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left the most important information and moved the unimportant facts to the main article at "Economy".

@Gligan: pics like these [1][2] would be pretty useful, especially the second one. If you have a flickr account, you can contact the author and ask for a permission for the pic to be downloaded from the site and then uploaded in commons. I dont have the time or a flickr account to do that, sorry. They would look effective in the Economy section. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is true that this is not the most important thing right now... I also don't have a Flickr account but I found these two pictures on which it is written "some rights reserved" - [3] and [4]. I think that the first one is appropriate ;-) --Gligan (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the first one is fantastic actually, but the license is still not acceptable and a permission should be asked. Here's the list [5] of acceptable flick licenses in Commons. This pic would be a great contribution. It would be great if you can contact the author and ask for a permission, so that the picture can be uploaded. :) I will continue reducing the size of the article and finding references (because this is a major problem too). - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that the images can be uploaded by the terms of creative commons. I think it is not necessary for the pictures to be in Wikipedia Commons or it is needed? --Gligan (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it can be uploaded locally, but the best practice is to be in Commons, so that the image can be available to all language versions. Unfortunately, its current license (CC-BY-NC-ND) is incompatible with Commons, so the only solution is to ask the author to change the license to either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA...- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 16:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tourbillon is right; "non-commercial-only" flickr images can't be used here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I've reduced the article to a reasonable size of 100 KB, provided sourced statements, removed the unsourced and reworked the sections. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 10:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

inconsistency in article

In the 'Geography' section, it states that Bulgaria has 'vast coal reserves', yet in the 'Economy' section, under 'Energy', it the article states that 'Bulgaria has relatively few reserves of natural fuels such as coal'. This needs to be rectified

It seems that someone has wrongly edited the economy section because we don't have natural fuel such as oil and gas but have enough coal. I will correct it, thank you for the remark ;-) Best, --Gligan (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits to the science section

I removed the texts because:

• John Atanasoff was not Bulgarian and his contributions to science were not made in Bulgaria;
• Peter Petroff's contributions were made long after he had left Bulgaria;
• Georgi Mandushev was part of an international team without Bulgarian institutes, and their discovery was made outside Bulgaria;
• It was the USSR who sent Georgi Ivanov into space; the Bulgarian contribution to the USSR space programme was minor;
• The number of scientists working at CERN is 30 according to the reference, the other 60 must be technicians, secretaries, cleaners, etc.

so these can hardly be said to be Bulgaria's contribution to science. Preslav (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree - I was going through this section thinking "wow, they're really pushing it in terms of what's considered Bulgarian". I guess the question is: if a scientific development was the work of a Bulgarian person, however it was carried out outside Bulgaria and/or without support from Bulgarian institutions, does it still count as a "Bulgarian" development? I don't have enough Wikipedia experience to know the answer. With regard to John Atanasoff, it may be worth mentioning him despite the tenuous link, as his was an important discovery. Tomatoman (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, my other thought was that there's a lot of stuff in the sci-tech section that should probably be moved to the dedicated article, Science and technology in Bulgaria. A lot of it is way beyond the scope of what most people would consider a brief summary. Tomatoman (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

All of the people that you took out of the Bulgarian Science & Technology section are considered Bulgarian, or Bulgarian-American. They considered themselves as such and no one else has the right to tell them otherwise. An example from a non Bulgarian section is someone like T.S.Yau who proved the Calabi conjecture hence the famous mathematical expressions of the Calabi-Yau manifolds. This man is Chinese-American, even though he came up with his impressive theory when he was in the USA. How about the Nancy Pelosi article where it states that she is the first Italian-American to become a speaker of the house? She was not born in Italy, but there is consensus that she is Italian-American. How about Michelle Kwan, who was born in Torrance, California and yet is Chinese-American? There is no debate about this either, but rather full editor and administrative consensus. Will you be editing her article as well with your revisionist philosophy? I would like to see how your subjective perspectives are dealt with in these and many other non-bulgarian Wikipedia articles. Indeed, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of other articles that are examples of this factors. I have had the priviledge of observing discussions regading this very topic, which have involved some of the original administrators on Wikipedia. It is thus clear that you are incorrect in your assesment of this specific issue. If you however have a problem with this then you will have to also change all of the other articles on Wikipedia regarding various personas of human history. If however you want to include the words Bulgarian-American for some of the scientists/engineers, then please do so. --Monshuai (talk) 10:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying their Bulgarian birth or ancestry. But what you seem to suggest is that T.S. Yau should be mentioned here, Nancy Pelosi here, and Michelle Kwan here. Preslav (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can see the Chinese article mentions personas that they want to present therein. Who's to tell them which people stemming from their nation should and should not be mentioned? The same holds true across the Wikipedian landscape. You can also be certain that should T.S. Yau manage to create a universal "theory of everything" using his mathematical insights into String Theory, he will be regarded as one of the greatest minds of recent human history. In such a case, he would most surely be promptly mentioned in the China article. I have discussed this very conjecture with Chinese editors and administrators who are in agreement. Until then he remains a relatively minor figure in the context of 1.4+ billion people of Chinese background.--Monshuai (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, before this turns into a revert war...based on other Wikipedia articles, could we agree on some of the following:

• The science and technology section should include inventions/discoveries by Bulgarians or people of Bulgarian descent, similar to the one on the Czech Republic#Sciences.
• Again, this should be a brief bullet point list of up to 6–7 people that describes their contribution in just a few words. Further details should be left to the article on Science and technology in Bulgaria. As it stands, the science section here just duplicated large sections of the dedicated article, which is a bit pointless. In fact the Bulgarian science section is twice the length of the science section of the USA article.
• In the case of John Atanasoff, I think it should be noted that he is "of Bulgarian descent" rather than actually "Bulgarian", though I'm sure we can iron this out.
• Finally, there should be a paragraph or two on the current state of the sci-tech industry, as in the article on Poland#R&D.

It seems to me that shaped this way, the section would provide a much more useful overview of Bulgaria's role in the world of science and technology. Please comment. Tomatoman (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally object against point 1 already. This is the article about Bulgaria, not about Bulgarians. There is a separate article about the ethnic group. This article is about things that happened in this country, not about things that people whose parents came from this country did elsewhere later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's funny you say that, as that was also my initial idea. But having looked around other countries' articles, their science sections almost universally include lists of notable achievements by nationals of that country – as Monshuai alluded to. Purely based on that pseudo-standard, I think such a list would be appropriate. It also shows that Bulgaria has over the years had a strong scientific community.

Having said all that, I think the section as it stands is incredibly biased – the sort of thing you might read in a communist party bulletin proclaiming how well everything's going (I'm kidding, but you get my point). It never mentions that the 0.4% of GDP research spending is just about rock-bottom in comparison to the rest of the EU [6] (tied with Slovakia and Romania, who have significantly greater GDPs), and is actually decreasing. It never mentions that nowadays those 47 universities and the BAS, that "leading scientific institution", produce very little meaningful output, after much of the competent workforce left the country since the 1990s. Moreover, science education at universities, as well as schools, is at a level far below what would be required to raise a new generation of talent. The country's "strong tradition" in science and technology has eroded at a phenomenal pace due to resource shortages in both human and monetary terms, and I think the article needs to better reflect that. I know there are lights at the end of the tunnel (EU framework grants, etc), but for the time being the sector is in throes. Tomatoman (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You make some very good points about some of those the things that ought to be in the section. I'll still disagree about the treatment of emigre individuals though. The distinction between the treatment of a country and the treatment of an ethnic group is an important one to make, and just because some other articles are doing it wrong isn't a good argument for doing it wrong here too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of pure logic (Bulgaria vs Bulgarians), I really want to agree with you. You also obviously have vastly more experience than me in this. However I think the distinction is more subtle: several aspects of a country are defined by its people and their achievements/behavior, rather than anything intrinsic to the country. I looked around a bit, and more often than not the Science, Culture, and Sports sections of country articles are dominated by references to people - as it is the people from which a country derives those traits. Such is the case with the article on Germany, for example: a featured article that undoubtedly receives much attention and has been tweaked numerous times. Its Science section contains three paragraphs listing people, followed by a short one listing facilities. Moreover, several of the personalities mentioned - notably Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and Hermann Weyl - spent much of their career outside Germany. On this note, I think in order to give the reader an accurate impression of the role that science plays in any given country, it is essential to mention notable scientific personalities and development. I know this is turning into a bit of a long discussion but I do believe it will be a fruitful one. Tomatoman (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

VNIMANIE!

Ima hora koito se opitvat da predstaviat laji za Atanasoff i napalno nepriemtat che e chast Bulgarin. Otidete na statiatamu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Vincent_Atanasoff i napishete mneniata si po tozi vapros v "discussion". Ima administratorka koita spodeli che kolkoto poveche hora potvurdiat tezata che Atanasoff e Bulgarski-Amerikanets tolkova po sklonna bi bila tia da prieme che tova triabva da se napishe v negovata statia. Molia otdelete malko vreme.--Monshuai (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostja (talk • contribs)

The Province of Montana

What is the origin of the name Montana? It is clearly latin and not slavic. It is perhaps because people living there speak a latin language or for other reasons? Thanks for a kind answer. --Deguef (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an answer at Montana, Bulgaria#Names. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Very kind of you.--Deguef (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

--Monshuai (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)== Ancient Heritage ==

It would seem that a few editors have been making biased edits of the Bulgaria article lede. They've repeatedly obscured and/or completely suppressed/removed lede information (see edit history for the priod of 2007-2010) regarding the prehistoric and ancient heritage of the country's territories. These editors have stated that including such information in the lede is reflective of PEACOCK behaviour. On the other hand, they choose to evaluate other article ledes, such as the one regarding the country of Greece, using different standards from the ones they applied/apply to the Bulgaria article. This is empirical evidence of the utilization of double standards that are by their very existence inconsistent and therefore contrary to the singular rules established by the Wikipedia community. After all, Wikipedia guidelines are applied equally to ALL country articles, and any editing behaviour that counters this ideal is insubordinate with the virtual "rule of law" that is supposed to exist herein. One must also mention that in addition to the Greece article, many other country article ledes include information about their prehistoric/ancient legacy, including Italy, Jordan, Iran, China, Iraq, etc... Indeed there has been a multi-year consensus that such information does belong in the lede. Please feel free to read any of these and numerous other country ledes throughout the Wikipedian landscape whenever you have some time.

As an example of the above mentioned hypocracy, I would like to point out that Future Perfect at Sunrise states in his recent edit summary that it is unacceptable (PEACOCK) to write about the Bulgarian territory's ancient heritage in the lede, while as evidenced by way of his actions, or lack thereof, it is OK to write the following sentence in the Greece article lede: "Modern Greece traces its roots to the civilization of ancient Greece, generally considered to be the cradle of Western civilization. As such, it is the birthplace of democracy, Western philosophy, the Olympic Games, Western literature and historiography, political science, major scientific and mathematical principles, and Western drama, including both tragedy and comedy."

Note that Future Perfect at Sunrise has edited the Greece article 28 times since March 2/2009 alone and strangely never once suggested nor, as he did here in the Bulgaria article, REMOVED information about Greece's ancient legacy in the lede in favour of detailed geographic data about its mountain peaks. I am curious, how would Wikipedia's top tier administration feel about this?--Monshuai (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FPaS. Besides "look what other article does" is never a good argument on Wikipedia. Also, it's a matter of notability, I'm afraid to say this, but "Ancient Greece" is a bit more notable than "Ancient lands that now are occupied by Bulgarians". man with one red shoe 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If we were to use your argument of notability, then wouldn't it be correct to assume that other countries have even more notable ancient history than Greece? If that is in fact the case (and assuming something like this can be quantified), your argument necessitates that only the country with the "highest" level of ancient historical notability should have information about it in its lede. Finally, what you've blatantly stated is that Bulgaria's ancient history is less notable because its "ancient lands are now occupied by Bulgarians." Not only is this an incredibly racist statement for obvious reasons, but it also attempts to racially demarcate ancient history. It also disregards the fact that modern nations are composites. As such, modern Bulgarians calling themselves by that same name does not change their links to a past that they inherit from a few of their many ancestors. Furthermore, it is necessary to note how other country articles are written, because rules are the same across Wikipedia and are therefore not designed to be at the whims of subjectivity. Your lack of recognition of Bulgaria's historical legacy and prejudiced statement anchored by your general conjecture of "current ethnicity" of a modern nation is not only derogatory but in fact maximally subjective. Finally (and indeed this is beyond the point), in recent years Bulgaria's archaeological wealth has been notable throughout the world, including the global exhibitions of its Thracian treasures (ie: Valley of Thracian Kings, King Teres gold mask, Varna Necropolis, etc). Furthermore, the science of Thracology was founded in Bulgaria due to the wealth and indeed notability of its historical legacy... Still, you've decided that mentioning Bulgaria's mountain peaks in the lede is more notable than its ancient heritage. You sure that will stand above water when all is said and done?

BTW, is this an attempt on your part to get me involved in a revert war? Your provocation will not work, although it (as embodied by your above statements) is duly noted.--Monshuai (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what, stop calling people racist only because you disagree with them. Second, even if I wrote "Ancient Greece" is a bit more notable than "Ancient Bulgaria" my argument would still stand, although Ancient Bulgarians were not called Bulgarian and were not speaking Bulgarian, but nevertheless, let's call them Ancient Bulgarian, that doesn't change anything in my argument. Third, yes, you are correct there must be some countries with history more notable than Ancient Greece (although in Europe I'm not sure which one you are talking about, outside of Europe I would think of China, India, possible Iran) and you should be free to militate to include history bits in the lead (if it's not already there), however here's not the case. man with one red shoe 23:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So it's OK for you to offend, but not OK for me to note how you've offended? After all, you stated that ""Ancient Greece" is a bit more notable than "Ancient lands that now are occupied by Bulgarians"". Why mention the "occupation" of ancient lands by Bulgarians at all? Is there a reason to using this ethnic denomination as part of your argument, when in fact we are discussion something that is different from the modern concept of nationality? Also, what about your argument hasn't changed? Is it that Bulgarians can not mention their ancient heritage in the lede because information about their mountain peak Musala and their fertile Danube plains is more notable than their ancient Roman, Thracian, etc legacy? Or is it that your argument still attempts to establish demarcations in regard to ancient heritage? On top of this, why are you constricting the discussion to Europe in regard to Greece's notability, instead of looking at this issue from a neutral and indeed global perspective? Are there specific Wikipedia rules that apply only to European countries and their comparative historical inheritance within this rather small geographic area? Does this mean that only the territories of modern Greece have an ancient historical notability? Will you be removing information about Italy's ancient legacies from its lede because you deem it less notable than Greece's? You see (or perhaps you're still confused), Wikipedia's rules on notability are not comparative between nations, and therefore the legacy of one country is not mutually exclusive with the legacy of another. Finally, Bulgaria is an inheritor of an abundance of ancient historical wealth (please educate yourself) and is indeed the epicentre of Thracology. Now then answer each point one by one.--Monshuai (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

" Why mention the "occupation" of ancient lands by Bulgarians at all? Is there a reason to using this ethnic denomination as part of your argument, when in fact we are discussion something that is different from the modern concept of nationality" -- for a simple and practical reason, I said "Ancient Greece", there was no "Ancient Bulgaria" at that time. Can you stop the rhetorical questions and bring arguments? As I said, if you want to add information about ancient Rome (wait a moment, we do have a page about Ancient Rome but not an Ancient Bulgaria article...so, I guess the notability issue stands) then feel free to add such info, but here's Bulgaria and such historical info is unwarranted in the lead for notability and balance reasons. man with one red shoe 01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You did not answer all the questions. How come? BTW, not unlike the existence of the Ancient Rome article you mentioned, Wikipedia also has articles about the Varna Necropolis, Varna culture, Ezero culture, Thracian Kingdoms (ie: Odrysian Kingdom). You can read these and many other Wikipedia articles about the ancient heritage of Bulgaria's lands, and they are indeed officially part of the series on the History of Bulgaria! The fact that this territory is today called Bulgaria (just like a small part of the Roman Empire is now called Italy) does not erase its ancient legacy. In fact it is attested by the vast number of archaeological sites throughout the country.

As regards to Greece, there was no country by that name in ancient times. There were city states or empires that were never called Greece. Also, the country of Greece is not a pagan state that has a culture centred on the belief that Zeus, Appollo, etc are rulers of the land and universe. It is a secular state, with a predominantly Christian/monotheistic populace that has a national (non existent concept during ancient times) and partly European self identity (again not applicable to ancient Greek city states). If we are to use your argument about continuity of nations, than it would be proper to only include lede information about the history of modern Greece which was founded in the 19th century, the century during which the Greek nationality/sovereignty was essentially created. If you don't agree with this, than you are suggesting that the concept of nationality existed 2500 years ago. If so please show me the academic source that states this!

In extrapolating your application of what is and isn't notable to a given country, one must ask why are modern nation-states are partly defined by the "objects" within the territory they occupy? In other words, why is it that it is OK to state that Bulgaria has such and such a mountain? Did the modern Bulgarian nation make that mountain? Obviously it didn't! Nonetheless, everything within the territory of that nation-state that is deemed to be under public/government jurisdiction belongs to it (reflective of the modern concept of sovereignty). This doesn't just include "mountain peaks" but rather natural resources and archaeological artefacts within that territory. As such, if natural elements (ie: a lake, river, forest) can be notable for a country it is also certainly true that the archaeological wealth/heritage buried within its soil is also notable. In fact, since a modern country is a concept that is not created by inanimate objects such as rocks, but rather one that is a projection of sentient humans, it is logical to suggest that the actions of humans long ago on that particular land are even more relevant and notable to those who currently "occupy" it than are its geological peculiarities.--Monshuai (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

All, or most, the countries have archaeological artifacts, however, the practice is not to mention that in the lead. Do you see anything mentioned about Stonehenge in the lead of Great Britain? man with one red shoe 02:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you blow off your top you should understand that I used the word "occupy" in the sense of "inhabit". All people occupy or inhabit the place of other people, that's not specific to Bulgaria, I didn't use the word occupy to suggest that Bulgarians occupy somebody's else rightful territory. man with one red shoe 02:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, where is Ancient Bulgaria? Make your points that there was no "Ancient Greece" in that article and spare us of your tirades. Also, there's no comparison, Rome had one of the biggest empire in the world, about 690 million of people speak a language that's derived from Latin, how many people speak a language derived from Thracian? Zero (or maybe at most couple of millions if you consider the convoluted theory that Albanian is a kind of Thracian). How much empire did Varna or Ezero had? I don't care about your rants, the info about old cultures on the territory of Bulgaria should of course be mentioned, as it is, but not in the lead of this article. man with one red shoe 02:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

By not answering the questions I've asked, you have indeed shown that your argumentative foundations have been undermined. Thank you for implicitly admitting this. In regard to your latest statement, I told you that there need not be an article titled Ancient Bulgaria in order for the modern country of Bulgaria to have an abundance of archaelogical wealth, which is as much a part of the country as are its natural ressources. I also explained that the concept of nationality is modern, and thereby an article on Ancient Greece is as connected to modern Greece as an article on Ancient Egypt is connected to modern Egypt. Now can you see that such "names" are not important and the lack thereof does not have anything to do with archaelogical heritage? I also don't see what the size and power of Ancient Rome has to do with its notability to the modern state called Italy. Are you saying that smaller ancient cultures are not notable? As an extension of this, are you saying that small nation-states in the modern era are not notable/important? If that were true than it would mean that we shouldn't have articles on Greece, Lebanon, Jordan, Bulgaria etc simply because they don't have as you say, "the biggest empire[s] in the world." :) --Monshuai (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The size and power of Ancient Rome has to do with the notability of Ancient Rome, you have to admit that Varna culture is a bit more obscure than Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, or Ancient Egypt that you just mentioned. As I said, all countries have a past, if you are such a fan of comparing pages, what about Great Britain and Stonehenge? There's no mention of Stonehenge or other past glories in the lead of the Great Britain article. Oh, and I don't responded to all your questions for a simple reason: TL;DR. man with one red shoe 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Great Britain, I looked at the article on England (you know, the country that created the UK) and I saw that it mentions its ancient cultural heritage in the lede. This is a fact, even whilst it neither has as many archaelogical sites as Bulgaria nor is the epicentre of a specific science focused on studying a particular ancient culture as is the case in Bulgaria in regard to Thracology and Thracians. Did you look at the Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq etc articles btw? So, has you argument now fully shifted to specifying notability to country based on the size of an empire?--Monshuai (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability is measured in many ways, I don't use only one measure as you claim. Nor can you claim in a sane manner that Thracians are just as notable as Ancient Greeks or Romans. In the England article I see in the lead "The area now called England has been settled by people of various cultures for about 35,000 years,[8] but it takes its name from the Angles, one of the Germanic tribes who settled during the 5th and 6th centuries. England became a unified state in AD 927" That seems pretty balanced, it explains where the names comes from and when the England became a unified state first time. Bulgaria can have similar information "The area that is now called Bulgaria has been settled by people of various culture for about [...] years, but it takes its names from Bulgars..." I don't have anything special against that, just that I prefer current version. I prefer that information in the history section. man with one red shoe

04:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the article lede on England (imperial initiator and core state of Great Britain) does say that (got you by surprise there, but nice try earlier) even whilst the country does not have the same quantity of archaelogical sites/ancient heritage as Bulgaria. It is after all the epicentre of Thracian archaelogy. Oh and don't worry, the Bulgaria article will have the type of lede that it deserves (since the same rules will be applied to it as those utilized by other country ledes). If need be, this issue will be comparatively analyzed in WP by neutral admins who'll be asked to look at numerous country lede examples countering each of your remarks herein (I have prepared 22 examples thus far). So if it comes to this, these neutral admins will be pointed to this discussion, your edit for this article and your thoughts on historical demarcations, "national" identities in antiquity, notabilities rooted in empire sizes, etc which will all be dissected "on the table" as they say... ;) Oh and I am happy you have finally admitted that this was an issue of preference for you. Indeed, to have preference is the same as having a bias. The two terms are interchangeable. The problem for you is that Wikipedia is not about preferences/biases, it is about singular rules applied equally across the board under the guiding eye of maximal objectivity! --Monshuai (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer (I'm biased that way) you didn't misrepresent my positions, I didn't say it's a matter of preference between your version and the current version, I said is a matter of preference between an intro like the one in England and the current version. I'm not here to debate endlessly with people who don't understand what I write or choose to misrepresent my positions. Good luck in your enterprises, convince other people you are right and leave my "bias" alone. man with one red shoe 15:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since your preferences/biases from the onset of this "debate" were conspicuous, it was clear that your argumentative foundations were flawed and therefore your efforts to build a coherent argument quite futile. You have solely yourself to blame. I've already elucidated that it is your responsibility to think through your statements before you post rather than find yourself in a difficult argumentative position after I have dissected and debunked your reckless comments. Statements about (1) ancient lands being occupied/inhabited by Bulgarians (as though modern Bulgarians are aliens to these lands and don't have connections with the people that lived on their territory in antiquity), (2) notability being analysed in the context of Europe and not the world simply because it fits your proposition that Greece should have more lede "rights" than a country such as Bulgaria (even though both have substantial and comparable heritage from ancient civilizations/cultures), (3) empire size as a measure of whether information about it belongs in the lede of a modern country's article, etc are all examples of rather unrefined efforts to rationalize the utilization of double standards (something that is explicitly prohibited in Wikipedia).--Monshuai (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Last time.
1. No, I didn't imply that, I'm not responsible for your delusions and imagination.
2. Europe or entire world doesn't matter, it's notability, I used Europe as an example because I'm more knowledgeable about European history and it's better to compare an European notability item with another European item (you know, apple and apples comparison, vs. apples and oranges), but if you want to compare Varna culture with Hindus culture for notability be my guest, I don't see any difference in the lab of the notability of different old cultures on Bulgarian territory.
3. Notability can be observed in many ways, I'm sure few people in Japan (let's say, but think of any other country that's not bordering Bulgaria) heard about Varna or Ezero cultures, but them most likely heard about Roman empire and Ancient Greece.

Before you come again with interminable strawmen, attacks, and other idiocies check any regular history book from any other country than Bulgaria and see if they mention Roman empire and Ancient Greece, and if they mention old cultures on Bulgarian territory? And if they do (but they would have to be very detailed to do so) do they give the same amount of coverage as for the Roman empire and Ancient Greece. Also, open a philosophy book and see how many philosophers from Ancient Bulgaria you can find there, since we are at that open a book about history of math and see how mane mathematicians from Ancient Bulgaria you can find there. Oh and since we talk about notability tell me about books that discuss the political system in Ancient Bulgaria, or if we talk about justice tell me which countries base their justice system on the example of Ancient Bulgaria? Please also provide the Mahabharta or Rāmāyaṇa of the Ancient Bulgarins... man with one red shoe 18:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

1) Your comments are on this page so everyone interested in this discussion can see, analyze and interpret them. Thus if you feel you haven't said anything improper you need not worry about my "imagination and delusions".

2) When utilizing said global comparisons it can be argued that the People's Republic of China is the epicentre of ancient culture(s) that have notabilities far greater than those of ancient Greek city states. Therefore in using your criteria there should be no mention of ancient Greek city states in the modern Greece country article. :)

3) Are you really, really, really sure you want speak about the notability of Bulgaria's ancient heritage in Japan? OK, suit yourself! Here are some links for you:

- http://sofiaecho.com/2009/07/16/756602_golden-thracian-treasure-returns-to-bulgaria-from-japan

- http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=100803

As you can see the Thracian heritage of Bulgaria is famous in Japan, the country that you decided to use as an example to the contrary. In fact the latest exhibition of Bulgaria's ancient heritage in Japan averaged over 20,000 visitors per day, and a record performance of 45,000 visitors in the peak day. The Japanese are also quite familiar with Varna culture of Bulgaria, as the Varna Necropolis treasures were on exhibition for 7 months in Japan in 1982.

That Bulgarian exhibit in Japan was called, "'The Oldest Gold in the World - The First European Civilization' with massive publicity, including two full length TV documentaries. In the 1980s and 1990s it was also shown in Canada, Germany, France, Italy, and Israel, among others, and featured in a cover story by the National Geographic Magazine. Varna necropolis artefacts were [also] shown for the first time in the United States in 1998 and 1999 as part of a major Bulgarian archaeological exhibition, Thracians' Riches: Treasures from Bulgaria."--Monshuai (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, an exhibit, how amazing. Let me repeat maybe you'll understand what I talk about when I talk about "notability": open a philosophy book and see how many philosophers from Ancient Bulgaria you can find there, since we are at that open a book about history of math and see how many mathematicians from Ancient Bulgaria you can find there. Oh, and since we talk about notability tell me about books that discuss the political system in Ancient Bulgaria, or, if we talk about justice tell me which countries base their justice system based on Ancient Bulgarian justice system? Please also provide the Mahabharta or Rāmāyaṇa of the Ancient Bulgarians. man with one red shoe 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You know I realize that it is a natural human tendency to shift arguments when one's former statements are disproved. Still, this does nothing more than further erode your argumentative basis. I'll give you an example based on our most recent exchange. You said, "I'm sure few people in Japan (let's say, but think of any other country that's not bordering Bulgaria) heard about Varna culture." Luckily for me I lived in Japan in 2004 and knew this was not the case. Thus I proceeded to show you that the Varna culture's Necropolis exhibition was on display in museums across Japan, including the national museum for 7 months in 1982. Another exhibit (2008-2009) of Bulgaria's Thracian treasures was seen by 45,000 people in one day alone and was shown all over Japan for 1.5 years. In addition, since I do have basic reading skills in Hiragana and Romaji I have found numerous Japanese language articles, books and sources regarding Bulgaria's ancient heritage. Would you like me to post links to these as well? Now let me repeat your words again, YOU WERE SURE few people in Japan had knowledge of this. When self professed certainty is scrutinized and disproved it completely undermines the credibility of its original communicator, because it tells us that his/her certainty is actually not rooted in fact. Not good news for you... As a defensive reaction, you then proceeded to infuse your argument with yet another statement that seems to dismiss the important work that museums do (preserve, exhibit, and educate)... Maybe next time you walk into the National Museum of Tokyo, the Louver or any other nationally/internationally significant museum you can also sarcastically exclaim, "Wow, an exhibit, how amazing."

There is another point I'll mention briefly. You have twice stated that you will not be continuing this discussion. Needless to say, you've gone back on your word both times. Let me ask you, if a person is inconsistent and doesn't follow through with their explicit proclamations, is it not logical to deduce that they themselves are unsure of what they're saying in the first place? Don't get me wrong, I would actually like you to stay here as our conversation has been incredibly fruitful. After all, it will give many people a chance to think about what has been said here, and likewise become aware of the hipocrisy that abounds.--Monshuai (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope an admin would take notice about the personal attack ("Hipocrisy" that you accuse me, or imply I showed here).

As for your argument, please familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, therefore we don't even need to debate endlessly if "Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome are more notable than prehistoric cultures in the Bulgarian lands" because it's irrelevant as I said from the beginning. But I do stand by my assertion and by what I consider that is common sense. You won't prove to me that even 16 million Japanese (yes, that's few) have seen some prehistoric exhibit from the territory of Bulgaria that suddenly prehistoric cultures from the Bulgarian lands are somehow even close to the importance, relevance, notability of Ancient Greece, Rome, China, or India (not that would really matter, per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). man with one red shoe 04:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So now that you've lost the argument your final, yet ultimately flawed attempt at salvaging the situation is to claim a victim's mentality? The irony here is that this in itself is another clear example of hypocrisy. You stated that I am "delusional" and yet you feel offended when I say you are hypocritical? Hellllooooo, you've just proven my point! As a heads up, you've bee hypocritical (as in using double standards) from the onset of this discussion. Take a look at earlier phases of our conversation. I guess you didn't know that the two (hypocrisy, double standards) mean one and the same thing. Anyway I do like your idea about involving administrators, especially those that are not involved with Balkan related articles. So why don't we continue this discussion in WP and let all the neutral admins there take a look at what has been said here including your ethnically divisive statements about Bulgarians and the lands they inhabit, or the lack of importance/notability of Bulgaria's history? Are you in agreement?

Another thing, I'm curious about your statement that FEW is equivalent to 16 million people. I have to tell you, your statements strike as becoming stranger and stranger by the hour. 16 million people is not a "few" as you say by any measure, let alone when it makes up 12.6% of a country's population. Maybe for Bulgaria to qualify as having notable ancient culture under your biased criteria we would require all 127,530,000 Japanese citizens to visit the exhibit. BTW, would you like me to post links to the worlwide exhibits of Bulgaria's ancient legacy? I can't guarantee that all 6,798,234,031 people on Earth have seen them though. Sorry! One more thing, when you discuss other articles that include information about their ancient cultures in the lede, why not also mention small countries like Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, etc?--Monshuai (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)