Talk:First Bulgarian Empire: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bulgaria B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (Nov 2005–Feb 2009)

It was in fact a Kingdom. So both Empire and State are wrong. In Bulgarian you say 'Първо българско царство'. Which translates as 'The first Bulgarian Kingdom' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.214.241 (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the Byzantine Empire should be listed as a predecessor? The two states hardly had anything in common, besides part of the territory. It's more the case of an expansion of an independent kingdom/khanate or whatever. It's not like Bulgars rebelled against Byzantine dominance as is the case with the Second Bulgarian Empire. --Laveol ^T 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically:

• The sources used to call it "First Bulgarian State" are low quality websites such as www.macedonian-heritage.gr and www.hunmagyar.org. This is scraping the bottom of the barrel and starting to dig. Second, it is highly disingenuous because the "f" in "first" is not capitalized. This makes a world of difference between a state being the first Bulgarian state, and it being called as such in the literature. Only high quality sources should be used for this, and the "f" should be capitalized. In any case, "First Bulgarian State" is redundant with "First Bulgarian Empire".

Secondary sources from recent history books have now been added. Kostja (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim that the state was known as "Danube Bulgar Khanate" only between 681 and 864 is not based on any sources, only on some users' dislike of the term. It is known as such in the Western literature today, it is not an autonym. Also, the claim that "First Bulgarian State" is completely subjective and again solely based on one user's dislike of the term "Danube Bulgar Khanate."

After 864 the title of the Bulgarian ruler was no longer Khan, therefore Khanate is incorrect. Do you have any sources using such a name for the period after 864? Kostja (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names that are not applicable for the whole existence should not be in the lead. Danube Bulgar Khanate is a term used to differentiate it from the Volga Bulgar Khanate, as I have written and as you have removed. You can find sources calling the country Macedonian Empire, Samuil's State, Western Bulgaria but this does not mean that they should be included because neither of this can describe the country as a whole. You can say that Asparukh ruled over the First Bulgarian Empire, you cannot say that Peter I ruled over the Danube Bulgar Khanate. --Gligan (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim that The official name of the country since its very foundation was Bulgaria. is sourced to a single Bulgarian language source from 1963. Again, unacceptable. This needs to be much more solidly sourced.
• Every effort is made by Bulgarian editors to hide the fact that the Bulgars were a Turkic tribe. This is beyond question, solidly sourced, and should be mentioned in the lead.

That is disputed - see here:[1]. Also, the relevance of this statement is doubtful. Kostja (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And above all I have never seen in any lead thing saying Slavic Bulgarians, Slavic Russians, Turkic Magyars. Do you understand how ridicoulous you sound? --Gligan (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim that it was a "rival to the Byzantine Empire" is also PEACOCKy and unsourced.

It fought multiple wars with the Byzantine Empire. What madditional evidence you need? Kostja (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim that Khan Tervel was recognized as Caesar is misleading. This is not as obvious as it appears and needs to be put in proper context in the body of the article, not casually mentioned in the lead in PEACOCKy form.
• The claim that Indeed, Bulgaria served as an effective shield against the constant invasions of nomadic peoples from the east is PEACOCKy and completely unsourced, nor is it sourced elsewhere in the article.
• The claim that The Bulgars brought new construction and battle techniques to Europe. is also PEACOCKY and unsourced, either in the lead or elsewhere in the article.
• The claim that The Inner town had a sewerage and floor heating long before cities such as Paris and London. speaks for itself.
• As do the claims that Cyrillic alphabet was developed there and that Preslav and Ohrid are the second oldest universities in Europe. WP:REDFLAG, anyone?

The issue over the Cyrillic alphabet is well sourced. It is known that it was invented in Bulgaria. In fact what is your theory? That it was made in Constantinople?

In summary, the lead reads like a litany of PEACOCKy claims ("the greatest this, the oldest that..." with very little to no sourcing either in the lead or elsewhere in the article. Athenean (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In summary PEACOCKy, says Athenean, in whose city's lead is written "the cradle of Western civilization" (no not PEACOCKy at all), "the birthplace of democracy", "Parthenon, widely considered a key landmark of early Western civilization". Who says PEACOCKy???

And also Athenean's edits were once again unconstructive. When you last removed me you did not even try to keep the conversion of the sources I have done which is required if the page is one and the same. --Gligan (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, can we all calm down? And what has Athens to do with this article and Athenean as a user? Let's not engage in stupid tit-for-tats. If some assertions are made, they should be referenced. I have also some issues with the lead, which selectively highlights certain moments in the history of the Bulgarian Empire and draws sweeping over-generalizations from them. Some of my concerns I have already exposed here. Constantine ✍ 09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was the first to start with that and above all writing in capital letters and unfortunately I am such type of person who cannot let such tone unanswered.

Well, Constantine, since we are discussing the leading section here, write down your concerns and the way you think it would be better to be rewritten. You are really the only reasonable person such issues can normally be discussed without evolving in stupid childish argues. --Gligan (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. First, as a general rule, per WP:LEAD it should summarize the article and have no need of citations since the stuff is to be expanded upon & referenced below. Now, in more detail: "The country was known since its very foundation as Bulgaria." implies that this was something of an official name. It is also too awkwardly placed. I suggest simply merging it into the first sentence as "...also known as the First Bulgarian State[1][2] or simply as Bulgaria...". Now, on the history. I would suggest adding a short reference of where the Bulgars came from, since they were not an indigenous people. Also a reference to the fact that they mingled with the local populations and became slavified. I would also remove the over-generalizations from the history section, and emphasize the more varied aspects of Byzantine-Bulgarian relations in particular. Something along the lines of (comments in parentheses):

"As the state solidified its position on the Balkans, it entered on a centuries-long process of close interaction with the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria emerged as Byzantium's chief antagonist in the Balkans, resulting in several wars. The two powers however also enjoyed periods of peace and alliance, most notably during the Second Arab siege of Constantinople, where the Bulgarian army played a crucial role. Byzantium had a strong cultural influence on Bulgaria, which also led to the eventual adoption of Christianity by Bulgaria in 864 (Military feats are all well, but I think that the cult. influence is undeniable and along with the Christianization the most persistent legacy of Byzantine-Bulgarian interaction, hence it must be mentioned).

In the north, the Bulgarians came into repeated conflict with the nomadic steppe peoples from Eastern Europe. After the disintegration of the Avar Khanate (changed because it was Charlemagne who actually dealt the Avars the death blow), the Bulgarians expanded their territory up to the Pannonian Plain and the Tatra Mountains. Later the Bulgarians confronted the advance of the Pechenegs and Cumans, and achieved a decisive victory in 896 over the Magyars, forcing them to establish themselves permanently in Pannonia.

In the late 9th century and early 10th centuries, under Tsar Simeon (he is very notable) and following a string of victories over the Byzantines, the Bulgarian empire reached its apogee, comprising most of the Balkans. The Byzantines eventually recovered, while Bulgaria was crucially weakened by a Byzantine-sponsored Rus' invasion in 968 (this must also be mentioned. It was the Rus' invasion that first dissolved the Bulgarian state). A revival under the Cometopuli followed, but led to a decades-long war with Byzantium under Basil II which culminated in a disastrous defeat at the Battle of Kleidion in 1014. By 1018, the last Bulgarian strongholds had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire, and the First Bulgarian Empire had ceased to exist. Bulgaria remained under Byzantine control until it regained independence with the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire in 1185. (rephrased because "succeeded" is not quite correct here.)"

This is to give a general impression. A few other rulers might be mentioned (Krum?, Tervel?), or a few other events (suggestions?) I am less knowledgeable about the cultural aspects, but I would suggest a larger and more generalized presentation too (this of course is also contingent on finding some good sources for the relevant sections in the main text). From what I remember about the ODB's entry on Bulgaria for instance, it emphasizes three areas: architecture (eclectic use of Romano-Byzantine models with some strikingly Bulgarian elements), the ceramic tiles (possible Arabic influence?), and literature (mostly ecclesiastic translations etc after the 880s). "The Inner town had a sewerage and floor heating long before cities such as Paris and London" this I'd remove. It was a standard feature of Greco-Roman civilization for a millennium already, and the comparison is not really very useful. The same with the last sentence. The important role on (mostly religious) learning in the early Slavic world is already well made, without needing to resort to anachronistic comparisons (What exactly do we call a "university"? Do the famous schools of Al-Andalus not count as being "in Europe", etc..) Constantine ✍ 14:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that you would eventually come out with something acceptable. Indeed that Byzantine cultural influence has to be mentioned. As for Krum or Tervel, we might mention Tervel in connection with the siege of Constantinople; while Krum's significant success at the Varbitsa Pass I don't know how to include, wouldn't that make too much detail? Also, we might provide link to the Medieval Bulgarian Army in that sentence "The Empire played a major role in European politics and was one of the strongest military powers of its time". An event we might mention can be the emergence and spread of the Bogomils.

For the cultural section, your ideas are also good, you should try to make the whole paragraph to see how it sounds. Considering the comparison between Pliska's sewers and London and Paris that is true but obviously redundant but after all mentioning the sewerage system in the capitals is important to me because that was quite rare for the Middle Ages when the achievements of the Antiquity were lost and above all both Pliska and Preslav were build and planned by the Bulgarians. Concerning the universities, well, the Magnaura school itself is not a university in the wide-spread term but something like a predecessor. I can't find sources, but I think I have met somewhere that the literary schools of Preslav and Ohrid can also be considered predecessors of higher education (I have to ask Todor Bozhinov to look for sources). So, what I suggest is to try to paraphrase the sentence and not necessarily include the word "university". --Gligan (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, could the other editors here also say their opinion on the proposed history section above? I agree that Tervel should be added, he was perhaps the most important early ruler. Bogomilism is a very good point. We could introduce it right after the Christianization: "As a reaction against the Byzantine church doctrines, the influential sect of Bogomilism emerged in Bulgaria in the 10th century." How is this for the ethnic origin: "Over the centuries, the originally Turkic Bulgars mixed and merged with the local populations. These were chiefly Slavs, whose language the new Bulgarian nation adopted." Any further suggestions are welcome. Constantine ✍ 17:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Bulgarian state is a frequently used term, especially when talking about the three Bulgarian state (as the modern Bulgarian state was not an empire and is not even a monarchy even more). Therefore its inclusion is completely justified as a valid alternate name. Kostja (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is referenced as the "First Bulgarian State" (note the capitals), then obviously it is OK. :)Constantine ✍ 10:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specific sentences in the lead, like these mentioned above, make this article look like a huge peacock, not to mention that the -cn- tag which is dominant now (and pleaze 'read' the book before inserting [[2]]). Thanks to Athenean the article's quality has been considerably improved with additional historical data, supported with wp:rs, nothing to do with pc. style expressions. Characteristically [[3]], the article claimed that Bulgarians' origin was nearly unknown... accidentally avoiding the Turkic link...Alexikoua (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning that, Athenean had made valuable edits in improving the article's English and grammar, which I specially thanked him. The source I used was used to describe the significance of the Siege of Constantinople and it is unbelievable to me that it doesn't mention the Bulgarians. After all, it was the Bulgarian army that defeated the Arabs when they tried to break out. I haven't read the source, does it really miss to mention the Bulgarians? --Gligan (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other then the many issues at the lead, and the fact that its too long and flamboyant.

• "The country was known since its very foundation as Bulgaria." Ref 6 is in Bulgarian,and 7 redirects to the article itself.
• "The Bulgars brought new...after the University of Constantinople." has to be moved below and then edited.
• The entry to the article has to be 1st.introductory 2.generic but still related to its birthMegistias (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the Bulgarian historians are the most competent on Bulgarian history and just ignoring them is unthinkable. We all know that the sources for the Bulgarian history are somehow dispersed because we rely mainly on Byzantine contemporaries whose primary work was to describe Byzantium, not Bulgaria and only the Bulgarian historians have made thorough examination of all known pieces of information concerning our history kept in different locations around the world. It would be an improvement to have citations of Bulgarian authors. And the book of Andreev and Lalkov the Bulgarian Khans and Tsars is quite a reliable source and I wonder why Alexikoua removed it. I have that particular book at home and if anyone has doubts, I can translate literally any passages or pages. Ref 7 was put by Athenean, you should ask him why it redirects to the article but I think that this can be corrected.

On the other hand, I think that the lead section is quite good for an article of this size, having in mind that the article itself has to be expanded further. Also, to my mind the introduction should include the most significant military and cultural achievements and to be an extremely short summary of the whole history from the beginning to the end. --Gligan (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this part [[4]] from the lead, apart from the peacock style it is written, he wasn't the 'one and only' non-Byzantine that became ceasar. As far as I know there was also Roger de Flor.Alexikoua (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger de Flor was not a ruler like the sentence stated so besides the dubious peacock style argument you had no justifiable reason to remove that.--Avidius (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cplakidas' suggestion for the lead is fine by me. My only concern at this point is length. Per WP:LEAD, we should keep it to 4 paragraphs. Regarding the history in the lead, we should focus on the most important events: Foundation by the Bulgars, help in the siege of Constantinople, apogee, and fall. Less important stuff like the defeat of the Magyars should be omitted for brevity. Athenean (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other things:

• The term Danubian Bulgar Khanate should be mentioned at the start, it is too frequently used in the literature to try and hide it because some users don't like it.

Not applicable for the whole period of existence. Samuil or Peter I did not rule over a Danube Bulgar Khanate.

Very applicable, the name is widely used in the literature. Our readers are thus highly likely to encounter it. Suppose someone read about the Danubian Bulgar Khanate in the literature, and types it into wikipedia to read more about it. How does he know he has arrived at the right article? He doesn't, unless the name Danubian Bulgar Khanate is mentioned in the lead. Once again you are just trying to hide the empire's Turkic origins. Athenean (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Used in literature but not applicable for the state as a whole because it is used only for a particular period of existence. Furthermore obviously that term is employed to differentiate it from the Volga Bulgar Khanate which is awkward to be explained in the lead but would fit pretty well at the place it is now. --Gligan (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the two sources you brought refer to it as Danubian Bulgar Khanate period, not "for a particular period of its existence". By the same argument, it was only known as the First Bulgarian Empire for a particular period of its existence. It is sourced to top-quality sources. So if we have First Bulgarian State in bold in the lead we should also have Danubian Bulgar Khanate. The name is found hundreds of times in the literature. It is simply too important to be left out of the lead to soothe the national sensibilities of some users. Athenean (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the term First Bulgarian Empire is well-established to refer for the country during its whole period of existence. You can say Tervel was a ruler of the First Bulgarian Empire but you cannot say that Samuil was a ruler of the Danube Bulgar Khanate. National sensibilities have nothing to do here. We also do not mention Empire of the Greeks in the Byzantine Empire lead because that is inapplicable for its initial period of existence. --Gligan (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the same argument, you can't say that Asparukh was the ruler of a First Bulgarian Empire. In the beginning it was the Danubian Bulgar Khanate, which then turned into the First Bulgarian Empire. It wasn't the "First Bulgarian Empire" from the beginning. Bottom line, if sources like The Cambridge Ancient History use the term, then it is more than sufficiently notable to be included in the lead. Athenean (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But nonetheless First Bulgarian Empire is established as a term for the whole country and Danube Khanate is not. If you have History of the First Bulgarian Empire, it will begin with Asparukh; if you have History of the Danube Bulgar Khanate (which I doubt) it cannot continue until 1018. --Gligan (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We shouldn't try to hide the Turkic origins of the Bulgars, this should be clearly mentioned.

That is as if saying Slavic Bulgarians in every lead section where the Bulgarians is mentioned which is ridiculous. No one is trying to hide anything - if people are interested, they will click on Bulgars and read and it is above all mentioned with 9 sources in the first section.

Not saying it should be mentioned everywhere but it should be mentioned at least once in the lead. Otherwise someone might assume that the Bulgars are indigenous to the Balkans, which they aren't. There is nothing to be ashamed of, like you said. Athenean (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or the other side of the coin - you are trying to push Turkic without a reason. It is not natural to put the racial features of the peoples in a lead unless the article is ofr the specific people itself. Putting Turkic Maguars, Turkic Bulgars, Slavic Russians, Germanic Ostgoths is redundant and ridiculous. --Gligan (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "redundant" or "ridiculous" about saying the "Turkic tribe of the Bulgars". I am not trying to push it, I am trying to inform our readers. Doing the opposite is hiding information from our readers, again only for the sake of protecting national sensibilites. Athenean (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that logic put in every lead Slavic Poles, Germanic Franks, Latin Spaniards to see what you are going to achieve - it would be obviously more informative but still redundant. The same logic applies here. --Gligan (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, everybody knows that the Spaniards are Latin and the Poles are Slavic. But you can't assume that everyone knows that the Bulgars, especially since the name sounds similar with "Bulgarians", whom everyone knows are Slavic. Athenean (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is doubtful and 100% impossible to prove. It is not certain and everyone knows that Poles for example are Slavs (come on, there are Americans who believe California is another country) and above all you cannot determine what percentage of knowledge is need in order to put Slavic, Iranic or Turkic in the front. So, since it does not sound natural Slavic, Iranic or Turkic to be put in such cases, it has to be applied for all. --Gligan (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph of the lead currently reads like an exercise in trying to cram the words "Bulgaria" and "Bulgarian" as much as possible The First Bulgarian Empire (modern Bulgarian: Първo Българско царство, Parvo balgarsko tsarstvo), also known as the First Bulgarian State was a medieval Bulgarian state. 4 times in one sentence. Not bad. Athenean (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Bulgarian state in the way it is is need because that is a link to Bulgaria which will look odd if put in one of the previous phrases and according to everyone 681 is the birth of Bulgaria as a country. --Gligan (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is a "medieval Bulgarian state"? Bulgaria as a country was born in the 19th century. This is a medieval Turkic Khanate that assumed Slavic features over time. There is a world of a difference. It's like saying the Byzantine Empire was a medieval Greek state and the birth of Greece as a country. Nonsense. Athenean (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria as a country was born in 681 not in 1878. In 1878 it was reborn. The First Empire is like France - the country was born before the people - in Bulgaria there were Bulgars and Slavs which formed the Bulgarian people in 9th century; in France there was North French people and South French people which formed a single French people somewhere until 12th century. So, our country evolved from a Bulgar-dominated Khanate to a state of the Bulgarian people which was resilient enough to be reborn after a 1,5 century Byzantine and almost 5 century Ottoman rule. --Gligan (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if the "country was born before the people", how could it be a "medieval Bulgarian state"? And the word "country" carries a modern connotation. No one refers to the medieval France and the Holy Roman Empire as a "country". Athenean (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But everyone refers that France as a country exists since 987, not since 1789 or when the modern terminology was established. International relations is also a modern term and a modern discipline but that does not mean that they did not exist until 20th century.

So it is a medieval Bulgarian state, because it evolved in that and all subsequent entities were reestablished as Bulgarian states on that ground. --Gligan (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Pechenegs and the Magyars. The battle of Veroia happened after the First Empire was gone. The Pechenegs became a concern for Byzantium after Bulgaria was destroyed which is by itself a prove that Bulgaria effectively stopped them earlier. Why didn't the battle of Veroia happen before 1018?

The Magyar moved westwards to Pannonia after 896 where they stay until this day. That is indisputable as well, no? --Gligan (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the Bulgarians were so effective at stopping them, why did the Byzantines have to do it all over again? Only after the Battle of Veroia were the Pechenegs defeated once and for all. Athenean (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarians did not have interest of destroying the Pechenegs because they were their allies more often than not. There are even theories that they were Bulgarian federates (of course, it might have been because the Bulgarians were unable to do so, which also cannot be proven); but for certain they prevented any major Pecheneg invasions on Byzantine territory - they all happened after 1018. Furthermore, the end of Pecheneg influence is also linked to a new wave of migrating nomads from the east such as Ouzes and Cumans which did not appear while Bulgaria existed. --Gligan (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets stick in English and modern sources,

• This is from 1930. A history of the first Bulgarian empire‎,Steven Runciman - 1930, and its been used several times in ref 3 and ref 57Megistias (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me a single reason why Runciman is not credible? That is history article, history does not change and many respected historians worked many decades ago. Furthermore, I don't know any recent and significant English language book dedicated to Medieval Bulgaria.

I have explained above why the Bulgarian historians should not be just dismissed. --Gligan (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were told here to stick to sources less than 40 years old [5]. Athenean (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reason for the removal of the Runciman references. IF there is an issue regarding their age, then tag the references and provide counter references on the talk page. So where are the counter references? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, this is too much. Runciman is one of the top historical sources, regardless of age. Byzantine studies wouldn't be what they are without him. Things may have changed in terms of how we perceive and interpret social structures and specific events, the structure and role of the economy, etc. but the essential historical narrative is still the same, and Runciman was one of the greatest authorities on the medieval Eastern Med. Where he needs to be supplemented by newer sources he should, but per se he is reliable. Constantine ✍ 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, does anyone see anything wrong with the current lead sentence The First Bulgarian Empire (modern Bulgarian: Първo Българско царство, Parvo balgarsko tsarstvo), also known as the First Bulgarian State, was a medieval Bulgarian state... or is it just me? Athenean (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is a bit simple, we have a medieval state, but the lead doesn't mention which people or tribe created this state. I tried to add this information with a few worlds but it finally disappeared [[6]]. I believe that it deserves to be written as per wp:lead. Doesn't it sound exaggerated right?Alexikoua (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Cplakidas' excellent start, I am proposing the following as the article's lead. Comments are in Italics.

The First Bulgarian Empire (modern [Първo Българско царство, Parvo balgarsko tsarstvo] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)), also known as the Danubian Bulgar Khanate^[1][2], the First Bulgarian State^[3][4], or more simply Bulgaria, was a medieval state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by the Bulgars, a Turkic tribe^[5] from Central Asia that eventually mingled with the native populations and became slavified.
As the state solidified its position in the Balkans, it entered on a centuries-long interaction, sometimes friendly and sometimes hostile, with the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria emerged as Byzantium's chief antagonist in the Balkans, resulting in several wars. The two powers however also enjoyed periods of peace and alliance, most notably during the Second Arab siege of Constantinople, where the Bulgarian army played a crucial role in breaking the siege. Byzantium had a strong cultural influence on Bulgaria, which also led to the eventual adoption of Christianity by Bulgaria in 864. In the north, the Bulgarians came into repeated conflict with the nomadic steppe peoples from Eastern Europe. After the disintegration of the Avar Khanate, the Bulgarians expanded their territory up to the Pannonian Plain and the Tatra Mountains. Later the Bulgarians confronted the advance of the Pechenegs and Cumans, and achieved a decisive victory in 896 over the Magyars, forcing them to establish themselves permanently in Pannonia. (This para is Cplakidas' version almost verbatim.)
In the late 9th century and early 10th centuries, under Tsar Simeon and following a string of victories over the Byzantines, the Bulgarian Empire reached its apogee, including all of the northern Balkans in its territory. After the annihilation of the Byzantine army in the battle of Anchialus in 917, the Bulgarians laid siege to Constantinople in 923 and 924. The Byzantines eventually recovered, while Bulgaria was crucially weakened by a Byzantine-sponsored Rus' invasion in 968 . A revival under the Cometopuli brothers followed, but led to a decades-long war with Byzantium under Basil II, which in 1014 culminated in a crushing defeat on the Bulgarians at the Battle of Kleidion.^[6] By 1018, the last Bulgarian strongholds had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire, and the First Bulgarian Empire had ceased to exist.^[7] Bulgaria remained under Byzantine control until it regained independence with the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire in 1185. (This is practically Cplakidas's version verbatim.)
After the adoption of Christianity in 864, Bulgaria became for a time the cultural center of Slavic Europe. Its leading cultural position was further consolidated with the invention of the Cyrillic alphabet in Preslav, with some credit to the Bulgarian scholar Clement of Ohrid. Literature produced in the Old Bulgarian language soon began spreading north and became the lingua franca of Eastern Europe where it came to also be known as Old Church Slavonic.

Basically, a combination of the current version with Cplakidas' version. 1st para is the intro, 2nd and 3rd para discuss the history, 4th para discusses culture.

Some specific points:

• Danubian Bulgar Khanate should be mentioned, even under qualification. The designation is used by the highest caliber sources and is too notable and frequently used to be left out of the lead.

But is still inappropriate for the whole period of existence. In that logic you can include Western Bulgarian Empire or Samuil's State which is ridiculous. I think, Constantine, that you should rethink on that. --Gligan (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here I will add also that this term is not contemporary but modern and employed in science to differentiate Bulgaria from the Volga Bulgar Khanate - that explanation is important but still not appropriate for the lead but for the section about the establishment of the country. Furthermore the term is not used by historians such as Runciman, Zlatarski, Duychev who all have book dedicated to the First Empire. Zlatarski uses Danube Bulgaria, many historians use Bulgarian Khanate. The only established terms which are applicable for the state during its whole period of existence are First Bulgarian Empire, First Bulgarian State and Bulgaria. --Gligan (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The origin of the Bulgars should be mentioned, as well as their mingling with the local population and eventual slavification. Again, this is too important to be left out, especially as we can't assume our readers know that the Bulgars were not indigenous. I also seen no compelling arguments for withholding this information from our readers, the only counter-arguments offered being thinly disguised appeals to national sensibilities ("it is ridiculous").

Not needed because that is explained in the first paragraph. We do not say Slavic Bulgarians in any lead because it makes no sense. --Gligan (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Peacock type sentences of the type "The Empire played a major role in European politics and was one of the strongest military powers of its time." and "Indeed, Bulgaria served as an effective shield against the constant invasions of nomadic peoples from the east in the so called second wave of the Great Migration." should be avoided. As WP:PEACOCK makes clear, show, don't tell. The spirit of these two sentences is perfectly illustrated in the version I am proposing, minus the peacock language.

The Empire played a major role in European politics and was one of the strongest military powers of its time. It is far less peacocky that "cradle of the Western Civilization". --Gligan (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly, empty sentences of the type "the Bulgars brought new construction and battle techniques to Europe. The first Bulgarian cities were made of large monolith stones." should also be avoided.
• Lastly, I also don't see the point of mentioning the area of Pliska in the lead. As the sources make clear, the reason it was so large in area was because it was a fortified settlement of pastoral nomads. As a result, it had a low population density and was hardly the megalopolis that the current version makes it appear to be.

Who says it was a megapolis? We mention its size, closed in the city walls which is really extraordinary as area for this period. --Gligan (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, to keep this discussion form getting out of hand, we should ideally discuss one paragraph at a time. Athenean (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance, I am generally supportive of this version. The "Danubian Bulgar Khanate" is well-supported, but it should be qualified: known in its early period as the Danubian Bulgar Khanate. I also agree about the Turkic origin, as I mentioned above. I do feel that a few aspects on culture ought to be mentioned further, i.e. the distinctly syncretistic art & architecture (whether examples a re necessary is another issue), and I think that the rise of Bogomilism too warrants a brief mention, because it had a major impact on medieval Europe outside the Balkans. Constantine ✍ 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems with qualifying Danubian Bulgar Khanate, and also including the cultural aspects you mention. Athenean (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"was a medieval state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by the Bulgars, a Turkic tribe^[8] from Central Asia that eventually mingled with the native populations and became slavified."

That particular part would be better this way "was a medieval Bulgarian (we need a link to Bulgaria's article) state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by the Bulgars in coordination (you can think of a better word here) with Slavs that eventually mingled into the slavified Bulgarian people by 9th century." - the Slavs are themselves not a local population, neither were the Bulgars and further details of their ancestral homelands and way of life must go to the first paragraph "Background" where we have to put sections for the Bulgars and the Slavs. After all the Bulgars did not submit the Slavs, nor fought them, so the state was created as a coordinated effort of both peoples which is important and has to be mentioned.

I will say my other concerns tomorrow. --Gligan (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very strange that there is such a subvertive effort on the part of a few (and by that I mean [x < 10]) Greek editors to remove positive and factual information about the First Bulgarian Empire from the lede. This isn't only about this particular issue, as there is empirical evidence that the very same holds true for other Bulgarian history articles. Whenever these few editors can, they state that certain information is not sourced. Whenever that information is however sourced, these editors then say it's not notable enough for the lede and too peacocky or that perhaps it has been misinterpreted. Perhaps what they don't realize is that articles regarding Greek states/history can be edited using their criteria. Very disappointing! Not to worry however, this is simply a time of disequilibrium and soon enough the same standards will be applied both to Bulgarian and Greek history articles. That application of objectivity however will result in a net loss of peacocky material from Greek history articles and a net gain of factual information in Bulgarian articles. Wikipedia is evolving after all.--Monshuai (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I disagree with Constantine's proposals and therefore do not think he should be re-writing the lede, just as I'm sure he wouldn't want me to re-write the lede on Ancient Greece, or the modern Greek article for that matter. Also, what happened to the information about Tervel being the first and only non Byzantine to be crowned Caeser? I find it inexcusable that factual information about a defining historical precedent both for the Byzantines and Bulgarians is removed.--Monshuai (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gligan: Arguments of the type "X is inappropriate", "Y is not needed", "Z is not as peacocky as the Cradle of Western Civilzization" are not valid arguments and have no place here. I also don't think "a medieval Bulgarian empire" with a wikilink to Bulgaria is a good idea. It's really weird to link a medieval empire to state that came into existence 1000 years later. We don't say the Ottoman Empire is a Turkish Empire or that the Byzantine Empire is a Greek Empire, or that the Achaemenid empire was a Iranian Empire. In fact, we don't say any such thing about any other empire in history, have a look at other empire articles to see what I mean. What does it mean to be a "Bulgarian" Empire? That everyone there was Bulgarian? Sorry, but your proposal just doesn't make sense. Also, in my proposal, I was careful to say "mingled with local populations", not "mingled with the local Slav population". Thus I am not making the mistake of claiming that the Slavs were local. I'm just saying the Bulgars mingled with whomever happened to be there and eventually were Slavicized. Athenean (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments create precedents which are not to be fount in the lead of any European country. For the Kingdom of Hungary it is not mentioned that the Magyars were Turkic; for the Kingdom of England it is not said that the Anglo-Saxons were Germanic; the Duchy of Normandy, also founded by invaders does not say that the Vikings were Norse people. Credible sources such as Runciman clearly state that 681 is the birth date of modern Bulgaria. And we say that the Ottoman Empire is a Turkish Empire and we have a link for Turkey in the lead. In Achaemenid empire we have a link for Iran and statements as "universal role". And now, my suggestion for the sentence is better because we mention the role of the Slavs in the foundation of the country because it was not just a Bulgar conquest but a coordination of common interests.

PS: I propose neutral users such as Kansas Bear to say their opinion on the pending issues. --Gligan (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And concerning sources - dismissing well-established Bulgarian historians such as Zlatarski, Duychev, Andreev is not serious. English-language literature specially dedicated to the First Bulgarian Empire and Medieval Bulgaria as a whose is scarce (I can only think of Runciman's book now). English literature on the subject is usually extracts or chapters of books dedicated to the Byzantine Empire or history of the Balkans as a whole meaning that the Bulgarian Empire is not the primary object of their research and it is highly doubtful that they have used more sources that the mentioned Bulgarian authors. --Gligan (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you and I it seems have said everything we've had to say on this (at least I know I have), now we should step back and see what others think. Get some sleep, it's going to be ok :) Athenean (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute how do you know if everything has been said on this topic? I propose that based on the standards used by some of the Greek editors here, we can also change the lede of the Byzantine Empire to mention that it was originally created by Latins who imposed themselves on the Greek population. We can then go on to say that the Byzantine Empire was indeed multi-ethnic, composed of speakers of Latin, Greek, Slavonic, Vlach and Arabic amongst others as noted in the books by Baynes (1907), Gutas (1998) and Shopen (1987).--Monshuai (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Athenean meant me and him when he said everything has been said... Now, the fact of Tervel is interesting but did you manage to find a source with exact page to illustrate it? If yes, put the source(s) here and if the Greek editor do not agree, put them in that section and I think they will pass since your said on your talk page there are credible sources. It would be also interesting to find citation about Tervel being called "The Saviour of Europe" - unfortunately I don't even remember the name of the original Western European chronicles who said this. --Gligan (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Gligan, I did mean you :) I realize this subject is very important to you, and I assure that I am here to improve it, not damage it in any way. I am confident that once other users participate in this discussion, what will emerge will be a much stronger lead, and a better article. Athenean (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the lede of the Byzantine article. However I am certain that I will have to start a discussion there as it seems some editors are unwilling to use the same standards there as are being used here. Nonetheless, since this is bound to become a WP:ANI discussion soon, there will be neutral adminiatrators (those who have never been involved with Balkan articles) that will get involved and edit both the Bulgarian and Greek articles. Thus we will ensure objectivity. Either way, I am sure that just as Athenean is here to improve Bulgarian articles, I am also here to improve Greek history articles. As Athenean puts it, "what will emerge will be a much stronger lede, and a better Byzantine article."--Monshuai (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gligan, which source are you looking for. There are multiple sources about Tervel being crowned Caeser. I will get you some if you are having trouble finding them. As for the historian that called Tervel the saviour, that was Theophanes. Don't worry everyone, Bulgarian and Greek articles will be greatly improved as the neutral admins become involved. Onoe way or another, more respect will be built between Bulgarian and Greek editors.--Monshuai (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, are you sure about Theophanes? If it was him, then Zlatarski I suppose should have definitely included Saviour of Europe in his book. It would be really nice if you find out the source because I seems I am often not good in finding sources :):) As for Tervel and the title Caesar, I don't mind which of the sources you would chose - my suggestion is between 1 and 3 sources, if possible in English. Also, I agree that we need neutral mediation by persons not involved in Balkan topic but generally Constantine's version looks fine but there are some things that should be omitted (at least to my mind) and some things that should be added, especially in the culture section but not only. After all, his current version is not final at all and it is shown here so that we can further improve it. You can add it bold let's say, what you suggest. --Gligan (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was a question why information about Tervel was removed in lead , it's because this is historically wrong [[7]], Roger de Flor was also named Caesar, so he wasn't the one and only one non-Byzantine leader [[8]] [[9]] [[10]]. What's ironic is that this book [[11]] says that Roger was the only non-Byzantine that became Caeser, which is also historically wrong too.

By the wat Glingan's version is in general fine, althought a little overextented according to the Byzantine-Bulgarian relations.Alexikoua (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Khan Tervel was the first and only foreign leader to be crowned Caesar by the Byzantine Empire. Roger de Flor was never head of a foreign state!!! More generally, Tervel also set the historical precedent by becoming the first non-Byzantine to do this (500 years before RvF). Indeed precedents are very notable as focal points of history, therein defining to both the First Bulgarian Empire's history and Byzantium, which means it was inappropriately removed from the lede. The sentence in the lede can be that Khan Tervel set a historical precedent by becoming the first foreigner and only foreign head of state ever to be crowned Caesar by the Byzantine Empire.--Monshuai (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, Monshuai is dedicated to proving that Byzantium was under the political control of Tervel. Until he comes up with some sources for this claim, this won't be included. If Tervel was crowned Caesar, that is notable for Tervel, but how did that affect the Bulgarian state? This is the question we must ask as the criterion for inclusion: is the event of wider importance or just local (in time or space). Tervel did two things of long-term importance: a) he played a crucial part in the 2nd Arab siege of Constantinople b) he expanded Bulgaria further south through territory given to him by Justinian II, firmly establishing it as a major power in the Balkans. Mentioning the "Caesar" thing in all this is simply unnecessary, since by itself it did not alter anything. Fine for the main text, but not the lede. Constantine ✍ 11:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Monshuai: Actually what you try to do is to create a sentence in the lead about Tervel being 'the one and only'... named Caesar, effectively excluding Roger d.F. (yes he lived 500 years after, this contradicts nothing) from the definition you give. We are not talking about Tervel's article but about the First Bulgarian Empire. Tervel's vital assistance against Arabs is just enough for the lead, as per wp:lead.Alexikoua (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not advocating that my premise regarding Tervel's "political control" should be included in the article. I am having a debate with Constantine that's purely done outside of this talk page. Also proof of political control is not a conditionality for the fact that a Bulgarian Emperor did something no one else before him had done. In other words Constantine, your statement of placing the validity of one conditionality with a seperate premise is called formal fallacy, which falls under the more general term of fallacious reasoning. As you can see here, I am talking about you trying to suppress information about a historical precedent. That is something that is pivotal, defining and notable for the First Bulgarian Empire. If you insist on acting this way I will have no choice but to report you in WP:ANI and involve neutral administrators. They will be able to see whether the fact that a Bulgarian Emperor was the first foreigner to become Caeser is notable to the First Bulgarian Empire.--Monshuai (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read again: it is notable, but not for the lead... It was an one-off event, a reward for giving Justinian II aid in reclaiming his throne. It does not go further than that. It is notable for Tervel himself, but it did not in the long run affect the development of Bulgaria or Byzantium in any way. Constantine ✍ 12:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine, it's a historical precedent. PERIOD. So do you agree that WP:ANI is the way to go?--Monshuai (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, precedent for what? Look up "precedent" in a dictionary. Tervel's getting the title was a one-off event which did not influence anything (even the title of Tsar wasn't adopted by the Bulgarians until 200 years later). Anyhow, WP:ANI has nothing to do with a content dispute, unless it gets out of hand, which so far it has (thankfully) not. Constantine ✍ 12:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I personally find it more important to mention the recognition of the Bulgarian Patriarchate in 927, I think the first recognized Patriarchate out of the Five ancient ones and Krum's victory at the Varbitsa Pass (Nicephorus I was the second Eastern Roman Emperor to perish in battle after Valence); or his victories was a whole. --Gligan (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I think of it - in bold my version, in italic my comments

The First Bulgarian Empire (modern [Първo Българско царство, Parvo balgarsko tsarstvo] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)), also known as the First Bulgarian State^[9][10], or more simply Bulgaria, was a medieval Bulgarian (we need a link to Bulgarian) state founded in the north-eastern Balkans^[11][12] in c. 680 by the Bulgars in coordination (you can think of a better word here) with Slavs that eventually mingled into the slavified Bulgarian people by 9th century. (the Slavs are themselves not a local population, neither were the Bulgars and further details of their ancestral homelands and way of life must go to the first paragraph "Background" where we have to put sections for the Bulgars and the Slavs. After all the Bulgars did not submit the Slavs, nor fought them, so the state was created as a coordinated effort of both peoples which is important and has to be mentioned.)
The Empire played a major role in European politics and was one of the strongest military powers of its time. (after all at that time the country was among Europe's most influential and militarily strong countries - the Byzantine Empire is also mentioned to have been one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military forces in Europe) As the state solidified its position in the Balkans, it entered on a centuries-long interaction, sometimes friendly and sometimes hostile, with the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria emerged as Byzantium's chief antagonist in the Balkans, resulting in several wars. The two powers however also enjoyed periods of peace and alliance, most notably during the Second Arab siege of Constantinople, where the Bulgarian army played a crucial role in breaking the siege. Byzantium had a strong cultural influence on Bulgaria, which also led to the eventual adoption of Christianity by Bulgaria in 864. In the north, the Bulgarians came into repeated conflict with the nomadic steppe peoples from Eastern Europe. After the disintegration of the Avar Khanate, the Bulgarians expanded their territory up to the Pannonian Plain and the Tatra Mountains. Later the Bulgarians confronted the advance of the Pechenegs and Cumans, and achieved a decisive victory in 896 over the Magyars, forcing them to establish themselves permanently in Pannonia.
In the late 9th century and early 10th centuries, under Tsar Simeon and following a string of victories over the Byzantines, the Bulgarian Empire reached its apogee, including all of the northern Balkans in its territory. After the annihilation of the Byzantine army in the battle of Anchialus in 917, the Bulgarians laid siege to Constantinople in 923 and 924. The Byzantines eventually recovered, while Bulgaria was crucially weakened by a Byzantine-sponsored Rus' invasion in 968 . A revival under the Cometopuli brothers followed, but led to a decades-long war with Byzantium under Basil II, which in 1014 culminated in a crushing defeat on the Bulgarians at the Battle of Kleidion.^[6] By 1018, the last Bulgarian strongholds had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire, and the First Bulgarian Empire had ceased to exist.^[7] Bulgaria remained under Byzantine control until it regained independence with the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire in 1185.

(Up to that point things look good to me, we can only add something on Krum's victories if we can do it in a subtle manner)

After the adoption of Christianity in 864, Bulgaria became for a time the cultural center of Slavic Europe. Its leading cultural position was further consolidated with the invention of the Cyrillic alphabet in Preslav, with some credit to the Bulgarian scholar Clement of Ohrid. Literature produced in the Old Bulgarian language soon began spreading north and became the lingua franca of Eastern Europe where it came to also be known as Old Church Slavonic.

(The text that section is good but we all agree here that it should be expanded further and I suggest Constantine or Kansas Bear to do that because their English is much better. What I would certainly add is the recognition of an Autocephalous Bulgarian Patriarchate and links probably links to the Preslav and Ohrid Literary School. Also we fully agreed to mention the emergence of the Bogomils. We may also add a sentence about the pre-Christian Bulgarian culture.)

That is what I think of up to now.

PS: I have explained my reasons for not mentioning Danube Bulgar Khanate above. --Gligan (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, for the ethnic origin part, the ODB says that the Bulgars mixed with the indigenous populations (Slavs, Vlachs, Thracians & some Greeks) to form, by the 9th century, a unified, slavicized Bulgarian nation. So saying that "... by the Bulgars. These mingled with the indigenous peoples, especially the Slavs, to form a distinct Bulgarian people by the 9th century." or variants thereof is acceptable to me. (For the Slavs, they were not quite "indigenous" but they played the larger role, and they were to be found on both banks of the Danube.) For the names, we could leave the two major names, i.e. "First Bulgarian Empire" and "Bulgaria", and move the other two ("First Bulgarian State" and "Danube Bulgar Khanate") into a footnote, allowing for more context as to their use and meaning there as well. Constantine ✍ 07:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That for the footnote is another reasonable suggestion - by moving both Danube Bulgar Khanate and First Bulgarian state into a footnote, we can explain why are there terms used. Yes, your text "... by the Bulgars. These mingled with the indigenous peoples, especially the Slavs, to form a distinct Bulgarian people by the 9th century." is good. We might add another footnote on Slavs and explain in short that the settled in the Balkans in the previous few centuries and another on Bulgars to mention in short their origin, ancestral homelands and Old Great Bulgaria from where they came.

For Footnote [a] I suggest something like that: "Until 852/864 the First Bulgarian Empire is often referred to as the Danube Bulgar Khanate to differentiate it from the Volga Bulgar Khanate, established by another Bulgar group from Old Great Bulgaria. The country was also known in that period as Danube Bulgaria or Bulgarian Khanate". For footnote [b] my proposal is "The First Bulgarian Empire is widely known in Bulgarian historiography as the First Bulgarian State. Of course, you can paraphrase them to sound better :) --Gligan (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular wording proposal for the introduction, yet reading the above comments it occurred to me that some essentials of those historical developments are concisely npresented in the few relevant paragraphs of Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages -- for a comparison if nothing else. Apcbg (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine, the word precedent stems from precede and is used not only as a noun but also as an adjective. Here's the definition from the dictionary: Adj. 1. precedent - preceding in time, order and thereby having historical significance, preceding - existing or coming before (Oxford, 1984). So, a historical precedent (not directly related to the common law system's term of legal precedent) is something that happened for the first time in history, a one off event simply because FIRSTS can only happen one time. The second time, is no longer a precedent. :) Also, it's very contradictory to advocate for inclusion of information regarding how the Byzantine Empire influenced Bulgaria, and not how a Bulgarian Emperor became Caesar of that empire. Another point, the Bulgarians defeated the land armies of the Umayyad Caliphate and therefore stopped the siege. PERIOD., Therefore it is deceiving to state in the lede that they simply came to the aid of the Byzantines, as that implies the Bulgars did not having a leading/dominant role in the battle. Indeed the Byzantine Empire sent urgent messages asking for the First Bulgarian Empire's help. This too should be in the lede, otherwise it gives readers who are unfamiliar with this history an inaccurate perspective on the events.

In regard to your other comment, this is out of hand since you're dead set against including factual information about a historical precedent. Should you continue to insist on this, the Administrator Noticeboards will become the next logical step in resolving the issue.

ANI boards are not the place for a civil and up to now productive content dispute. You are however free to do as you wish. Constantine ✍ 07:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean, I have already started a discussion in the Byzantine article. Therein I have stated that the origins of the Byzantine Empire must be written in its lede. These origins are that Latins conquered the region and subjugated the local Greek population (Just as you insist on mentioning ethnicities, (ie) the Bulgars, a Turkic people, in the First Bulgarian Empire lede). The Byzantine Empire is also notable for the fact that it was multiethnic (also in the discussion page). I will also advocate that information about the First Bulgarian Empire be included in the lede of the Byzantine Empire, just as information about the Byzantine Empire is included here. I'm going to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines in order to stimulate positive change. I am determined and I will not rest until double standards are neutralized. It's a worthy cause...--Monshuai (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"preceding - existing or coming before" a small word is missing here: "...coming before something". "precedent" means initiating something, being the first in a line of events. Synonyms include "example, model, pattern, standard." It would be a precedent if all or some subsequent Bulgarian rulers held high Byzantine titles, but that is not the case. Also, how did Tervel's title of "Caesar" influence Byzantium or Bulgaria in any way that would not have happened had he not gotten this title, so that it would be necessary to mention this in the lede? Please enlighten me. Second, about the siege, I myself added a small word there, "crucial", which makes all the difference on the Bulgarian army's role. Please read what I write more carefully. Constantine ✍ 07:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A precedent is the first time an event occurs. There need not be a second, third or fourth event for a precedent to exist. For example, Barack Obama as the first African-American President, set a precedent in American politics. As you and I both know, this event has not been repeated for obvious reasons. With all due respect, I can assure you that your argument about this definition is unwinnable. I think you know this, but the problem it seems is that our debate has escalated, your position has become entrenched and you possibly feel that you must win at all costs. Unfortunately, and I mean this sincerely (although you likely don't believe that), what you're doing is unwise because it shows that your feelings can get in the way of your ability to conceid error. Nonetheless, we are all human and as such we all tend to do this sometimes, especially when we are intimidated by the possibility that our reputation is on the line.--Monshuai (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, a precedent is the first time an event occurs and opens the way for it to occur again (as with Obama). :) Since the Byzantine and Bulgarian empires do not exist any more, with the benefit of hindsight we can safely say that this was a unique event. Either way, my basic point is not whether it was a "precedent" or anything else, but its long-term importance. Since the title did not exert any measurable influence over the history of Bulgaria, it may eb important to Tervel, but remains irrelevant to the lead on the Bulgarian state. As for our little dispute, when you produce a solid argument, or better yet, some source to back your POV, I will concede error. Until then... Constantine ✍ 14:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the event did occur after, as another foreigner (Flor) became Caeser 500 years later. Thus (even though your defintion is incorrect) it fits with what you said above. Now you're trying to shift the definition again though, as you can no longer say that Obama's electoral victory is repeated. Remember your previous words? Please don't talk to me about how it may be repeated in the future, unless you're here to claim that you can "sense" the future. ;) The title did exert influence as it showed that the First Bulgarian Empire has solidified its position/prestige on the Balkans as a state that had gained the respect of the Byzantine Empire (the one whose territory was taken by the Bulgars to create the First Bulgarian Empire in the first place). Actually, that too should be included in the lede, as the state was created on a territory conquered by the Bulgars (as some of the Greek editors insist on stating) from the Byzantines. :) --Monshuai (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, here we have this Bulgarian state, with the caption saying: 680-1018 (that is 338 years), that "was ruled by emperors", when the first ruler of the state who proclaimed himself "emperor" did so in 925! When Symeon proclaimed himself "Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Romans", Romanus I replied "Why don't you call yourself master of the entire universe or Emir of the Arabs?" However, he was recognised as "Emperor of the Bulgarians" (Caesar--> Czar), as Charlemagne had been previously recognised as Emperor of the Franks. And that's where the Bulgarian Khanate ends and the Bulgarian Empire begins. So, this state had been a Khanate for 245 years and en Empire for 93! And don't say this is details and unimportant, because Symeon was pretty happy about it, he ended all hostilities with Constantinople and peace was established for many decades. Let me also sipmly underline that even mentioning the Pope of Rome here is meaningless, since he had nothing to do with the title of "emperor", nor did he have any power internationally at the time. You can either have Khanate for the first period and Empire for the second, or have Khanate for all of it. It makes no sense otherwise. Let's start with that and then go on to all the other mistakes that are found densely throughout the rest of the aricle. :)--Michael X the White (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good idea to my mind. Between the Khanate and the Empire there was a period as Knyazhestvo (or Principality); so the Khanate lasted up to 864 which is 183 years. The state is one whole with Pagan period and Christian period. What makes sense (and I wanted to suggest it) is to be created articles History of Bulgaria (681-852) and History of Bulgaria (852-1018) as more detailed description of the history such as the article Byzantium under the Komnenoi for example. Otherwise, First Bulgarian Empire is an established term to refer for the whole period of existence and the article must stay like that as naming. --Gligan (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Michael though, that "ruled by emperors" is a bit weird. First, since the name is First Bulgarian Empire, that implies that it was ruled by Emperors so "ruled by emperors" is redundant. Saying "The First Bulgarian Empire was a medieval Bulgarian state ruled by emperors" is an exercise in redundancy and tautology. Second, as Michael says, during its Khanate phase it was ruled by Khans, not Emperors. Athenean (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, your question makes sense. In fact I did not pay attention to that particular phrase. I should be either "...ruled by hereditary khans and later emperors" or "...ruled by hereditary monarchs". Only hereditary emperors is obviously wrong :) (I guess the stress in that whole part of the sentence is "hereditary" in order to show that the rulers were not elective. --Gligan (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean says, "I would agree with Michael though, that "ruled by emperors" is a bit weird. First, since the name is First Bulgarian Empire, that implies that it was ruled by Emperors so "ruled by emperors" is redundant." Using the same reasoning, the Byzantine Empire article should not include the line that it was ruled by emperors! Therefore, what he identifies as an excercise in redundancy and tautology herein also exists therein.

With regard to the khanate vs. empire discussion, it is important to note that khan is equivalent to emperor. Genghis Khan created the world's largest empire (in all of human history), called the Mongolian Empire in English or otherwise known as khanate in Altaic languages. Type Mongolian Khanate in the Wikipedia search window and see where that leads you. :) Khan = Emperor, Khanate = Empire. Here we're writing in English, not Mongolian, Hunnic, Bulgar etc... Here are a just a few of hundreds of examples from academia:

- (Weatherford, 2004)) Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, where it is explicity stated that khan means emperor, http://books.google.com/books?id=Fjd-CH7jvl8C&pg=PA290&dq=emperor+genghis&lr=&cd=21#v=onepage&q=emperor%20genghis&f=false

- (Lamb, 1978) Genghis Khan, the Emperor of All Men, http://books.google.com/books?id=1JVCAAAAYAAJ&q=emperor+genghis&dq=emperor+genghis&cd=2

- (Webb, 1967) Ghengis Khan, Conqueror of the Medievil World, is identified as the Mongolian Emperor, http://books.google.com/books?id=R91BAAAAIAAJ&q=emperor+genghis&dq=emperor+genghis&cd=7

- (Benson, 1995) Six Emperors: Mongolian Aggression in the Thirteenth Century, identifies Emperor Ghenghis, http://books.google.com/books?id=jy5tAAAAMAAJ&q=emperor+genghis&dq=emperor+genghis&cd=8

- (Lamb, 2009) Genghis Khan, the Conqueror, Emperor of All Men, http://books.google.com/books?id=yWvWAAAAMAAJ&q=emperor+genghis&dq=emperor+genghis&lr=&cd=9

- (Benson, 1991) The Mongol Campaigns in Asia: A Summary History of Mongolian Warfare with the Governments of Eastern and Western Asia in the 13th Century, identifies him as Emperor Genghis, http://books.google.com/books?id=9i5tAAAAMAAJ&q=emperor+genghis&dq=emperor+genghis&lr=&cd=15

--Monshuai (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mongolian Empire is referred to as an Empire because it was massive. "Empire"" there is used in the way it was used in 19th century Britain (an enormous kingdom). Khan may mean emperor, but the title is distinguished in literature, history, and especially in politics at the time. Khanate=Empire would be an over-simplification. In exactly the same way you could say that Khanate=Kingdom and so this could be "first bulgarian kingdom". Yet the very title of "Czar of the Bulgarians" that was recognised in 927 made a change in the political position of that Bulgarian State and started a new era for it and its relations with the Roman Empire (Byzantine). It could be split in "Bulgarian Khanate"-"Bulgarian Kingdom/Princedom"-"Bulgarian Empire" or History of the Bulgarian State (in the way Gligan describes).--Michael X the White (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article itself must not be split because in all established literature it is treated as one single state formation and the term for it is First Bulgarian Empire (or very often in Bulgarian literature - First Bulgarian State). My suggestion is not to split the article but create even more detailed articles for the two major periods - up to 852 when Boris I became Khan and after that as we have for the Byzantine Empire. But in Bulgaria's case it would be more difficult to split it by dynasties because between 753 and 803 ruled many Khans of different dynasties; between 803 and 997 ruled one dynasty, exactly during whose time the Christianization (864) and accession to Empire (927) took place... --Gligan (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gligan. The state has a continuous history and is commonly treated as the same entity, regardless of the title of its leader. The other names can, a I have suggested, go in a footnote, right after "First Bulgarian Empire", clarifying that the Bulgarian rulers did not claim the title of emperor until 927 and that the state is also referred to as "Danube Bulgarian Khanate" etc. This is IMO by far the best solution. Constantine ✍ 17:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should not be split, but I disagree about the footnote idea. Most people don't read them. But perhaps "Danube Bulgar Khanate" can go into the second sentence, see below.

It seems the main differences between the version proposed by me and that proposed by Gligan are in the first paragraph. So here is what I am proposing:

The First Bulgarian Empire (modern [Първo Българско царство, Parvo balgarsko tsarstvo] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)), also known as the First Bulgarian State^[13][14], or more simply Bulgaria, was a medieval state in the north-eastern Balkans. Known in its early days as the Danubian Bulgar Khanate^[15][16], it was founded in c. 680 by the Bulgars, a Turkic tribe^[17] from Central Asia that eventually mingled with the native populations, especially the Slavs, to form a distinct Bulgarian people by the 9th century.

I also object to The Empire played a major role in European politics and was one of the strongest military powers of its time. (in boldface, no less!). Sorry guys, but that is pure WP:PEACOCK. Completely against the spirit of "show, don't tell". The second and third paragraphs amply show how and the first BE played an important role in European politics and was one of the strongest of its day. We shouldn't have to tell our readers in this fashion. Other than the above, I don't see any other great differences between my proposal and Gligan's, so we are making progress. Athenean (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I continue to support the footnote idea, nothing different here but now concerning that sentence The Empire played a major role in European politics and was one of the strongest military powers of its time. (it is bold not because it is going to be bold in the text but because it is by my suggestion, to differ from your version) - it might sound a bit peacocking but it is true as is the following Byzantium had a strong cultural influence on Bulgaria,... which obviously sounds like WP:PEACOCK but is also true. I maintain the position that we should include both sentences. --Gligan (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean, I see that you are not responding to my comments because you know that I have showcased your double standards. I suggest that in the spirit of show and don't tell you edit the ledes for the Greece article and Byzantine Empire. Unless you'd prefer it if we involved outside admins to evaluate their level of peacockiness!? I also told you that if Bulgars are mentioned then it is necessary to specify their historical role, which was to conquer the territory from the Byzantine Empire and create a state on its former territory. Finally, you must apply the same standards (in regards to ethnicity) there that you try to apply here, mainly that Latins conquered and subjugated the Greeks. Otherwise I will report you and the admins can take a look what I am accusing you of doing.

Michael the X, you said, "The Mongolian Empire is referred to as an Empire because it was massive. "Empire"" there is used in the way it was used in 19th century Britain (an enormous kingdom). Khan may mean emperor, but the title is distinguished in literature, history, and especially in politics at the time. Khanate=Empire would be an over-simplification." Your statement that the Mongolian Empire was called an empire because it was massive is incorrect, unacademic and not referenced. Please humour me by showing me a reference that states the empire is called an empire when it is "massive". What does massive mean? How many square km? Where do you draw the line? Funny isn't it? I gave you 6 academic literature examples. I can give you many more if you like. The Mongolian Khanate is called the Mongolian Empire. Genghis Khan is called Emperor Genghis. PERIOD.--Monshuai (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please spend some time reading the empire article.--Michael X the White (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is have you read the literature on the First Bulgarian Empire, its date of foundation and the manner in which the Bulgars conquered the territory from the Byzantines? Please spend some time reading these books:

-(Hammond, 1976) Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas‎ - Page 67

-(Ference, 1994) Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history‎ - Page 61

-(Cramton, 1987) A short history of modern Bulgaria‎ - Page 2

-(multiple authors, 1980) Academic American encyclopedia, Volume 10‎ - Page 556

-(multiple authors, 1993) Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 1‎ - Page 750

-(Medieval Academy of America, 1950) Speculum, Volume 25‎ - Page 529

-(Setton, 1974) Europe and the Levant in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance‎ - Page 617

-(Dobson et al, 2000) Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1‎ - Page 1581

-(Shashi, 1992) Encyclopaedia of humanities and social sciences‎ - Page 1207

-(Obolensky, 1994) Byzantium and the Slavs‎ - Page 9

-(Stoyanov, 1994) The hidden tradition in Europe‎ - Page 109

-(multiple authors, 1989) Library of Congress Classification Schedules D History General and Old World‎ - Page 181

-(McCarty et al, 1999) Masks: Faces of Culture‎ - Page 133

--Monshuai (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good you deleted the "I have read that article", because you haven't. Could you explain to poor me what "the manner they conquered their territory" has to do with Khanate=Empire?--Michael X the White (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read it and focused on the academic sources. These sources can very quickly be incorporated into the Empire article as well, which will further solidify the premise that is shared by academia. Would you like me to incorporate them now? Therein I ask, did you read the sources? The state is called the First Bulgarian Empire from 681 onward. Second, the role of the Bulgars was to incorporate various ethnic groups into their empire. These were the Slav and local Byzantine populations. Since you ensist that ethnicities be mentioned, then the relevant roles and amalgamation of the various ethnic groups in the formation of the state also must be mentioned.--Monshuai (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it's more than obvious you are playing like kids jere. Again why the Turkic origin of the Bulgars is removed? @Kostja&Mons.: You don't even repsect the versions of Cplakidas and Glingan. This extreme nonsense has to stop.Alexikoua (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The First Bulgarian Empire, also known as the First Bulgarian state, the Danubian Bulgar Khanate, or more simply Bulgaria, was a medieval state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c.680 by the Bulgars and by 864 included Slavic cultural influences. At the height of its power it spread between Budapest and the Black Sea and from the Dneiper river to the Adriatic.

As the state solidified it position in the Balkans it became a rival of the Byzantine Empire, at times even forcing it to pay tributes in exchange for peace. Bulgaria's ruler Tervel, came to the aid of the Byzantines during the siege of Constantinople in 718. After the disintegration of the Avar Khanate, the Bulgarians expanded their territory up to the Pannonian Plain and the Tatra Mountains. Later the Bulgarians confronted the advance of the Pechenegs and Cumans, and later achieved a decisive victory over the Magyars, forcing them to establish themselves permanently in Pannonia.

During the late 9th and early 10th centuries, Tsar Simeon achieved a string of victories over the Byzantines, and expanded the Bulgarian Empire to its apogee. After the defeat of the Byzantine army at the battle of Anchialus, the Bulgarians besieged Constantinople in 923 and 924. However, the Byzantines recovered, and in 1014, inflicted a defeat on the Bulgarians at the battle of Kleidion. By 1018, the last Bulgarian strongholds had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire and the First Bulgarian Empire had ceased to exist. It was succeeded by the Second Bulgarian Empire in 1185.

Following the adoption of Christianity in 864, Bulgaria became, for a time, the cultural center of Slavic Europe. Its leading cultural position was further consolidated with the invention of the Cyrillic alphabet in Preslav, with some credit to the Bulgarian scholar Clement of Ohrid. Literature produced in the Old Bulgarian language soon began to spread north and became the lingua franca of Eastern Europe, later known as Old Church Slavonic.

Thoughts? Concerns? Hate mail? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Throw in "...in the north-eastern Balkans. It was founded in c. 680 by the Bulgars, a Turkic tribe from Central Asia that eventually mingled with the native populations, especially the Slavs, to form a distinct Bulgarian people by the 9th century." instead of "...in the north-eastern Balkans in c.680 by the Bulgars and by 864 included Slavic cultural influences." and I'm in. Although your version is fine by me, really. Athenean (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that this version is fine. I think that it should be added that the state was called Khanate only until 864. I disagree about adding that the Bulgars were Turkic - information like that is usually not mentioned in the lead. And they didn't come from Central Asia, but from the area of today's Ukraine. Kostja (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I have written above, I agree with the suggestion of Constantine to move the other names in a footnote. Other thoughts - I somehow prefer Constantine's sentence about the siege of Constantinople and since the Byzantine Empire has a sentence "The Empire remained one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military forces in Europe" I don't see why the First Empire shouldn't have something of the sort. And finally we have agreed to expand a little bit further the last paragraph with adding a sentence about the Bogomils and the recognition of the Bulgarian Patriarchate.

Otherwise, the lead looks nice. In general, my only remarks are the removal of two words and adding three more sentences. --Gligan (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, overall nice, with a few nitpicks. The sentence on the origin must be altered, "Slavic cultural influences" is too little. The Bulgarian ethnos that had emerged by ca. 864 was very much slavicized. I also feel that the Rus' invasion of 969 should be mentioned, and the phrasing of "succeeded by the Second Bulgarian Empire" altered, perhaps "...surrendered to the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria remained under Byzantine rule until the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire in 1185". I also would favour putting the alternate names into a footnote, and the inclusion of the Bogomils and the separate Patriarchate... Perhaps we should change the last para altogether: "Bulgaria adopted Christianity in 864, and a separate Bulgarian patriarchate was founded in 927. During this time, Bulgaria became the cultural center of Slavic Europe, its position further consolidated with the invention of the Cyrillic alphabet in Preslav, with some credit to the Bulgarian scholar Clement of Ohrid. Literature produced in the Old Bulgarian language soon began to spread north and became the lingua franca of Eastern Europe, later known as Old Church Slavonic. As a reaction against Byzantine influences in the church, the influential Bogomil sect was born in Bulgaria in the mid-10th century." Constantine ✍ 13:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Constantine's remarks. --Gligan (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This version looks quite good to me too, with Athenean's remarks accepted of course. Gligan, the sentence is not substantial, and still, this article is not written in comparison to Byzantine Empire.:):)--Michael X the White (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean & Michael -- I don't see any reason to mention, was a Turkic tribe from ....., unless I should waste an equal amount of wording explaining the Slavs origins. Besides, the Bulgars "Turkic" origins are quickly mentioned(1.1) within the article and heavily referenced.

Gligan & Constantine -- If the mention of other names(placing in a footnote) can be agreed upon by everyone then, that is fine with me.

Gligan -- The sentence, "The Empire remained one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military forces in Europe", needs a reference(IMO) and if agreed upon by consensus then I'll remove my request for a reference.

Constantine -- "Slavic cultural influences" is too little, what would you suggest? As for changing the last paragraph to:

"Bulgaria adopted Christianity in 864, and a separate Bulgarian patriarchate was founded in 927. During this time, Bulgaria became the cultural center of Slavic Europe, its position further consolidated with the invention of the Cyrillic alphabet in Preslav, with some credit to the Bulgarian scholar Clement of Ohrid. Literature produced in the Old Bulgarian language soon began to spread north and became the lingua franca of Eastern Europe, later known as Old Church Slavonic. As a reaction against Byzantine influences in the church, the influential Bogomil sect was born in Bulgaria in the mid-10th century."

I don't have a problem with that, it just has to pass consensus.

Kostja -- If the other names of the Empire are footnoted then placing a date for the Danubian Bulgar Khanate shouldn't be a problem.

Did I miss any other issues?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think mentioning in the lead that the Bulgars were of Turkic origin is important not only from the point of view of informing our readers, but also because the name is similar to "Bulgarians" and many readers might initially confuse them with the latter. I see no compelling arguments against doing so, moreover. Re the footnote idea, I am against footnotes because they tend to go unread. Lastly, the sentence "The Empire remained one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military forces in Europe" is pure WP:PEACOCKery, I cannot agree to that. Never mind that "remained" is weird. It remained after what? It's also excessive. The empire was a mid-level European power for about a century during its apogee in the 10th century. It was never the superpower that sentence makes it out to be. Prior to the 10th century it wasn't that powerful, and from the 11th century it was all downhill. Athenean (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is a direct copy from the article of the Byzantine Empire, so since it is a "pure WP:PEACOCKery", please remove it from there. What I meant here is that I want a similar sentence, not that particular one. In fact, the Empire was among Europe's largest powers during almost all of its existence. In fact, between 681 and 1018 I can think of the Byzatnine, Frankish (and its two main successors) and Bulgarian Empire as the top powers (I exclude short-lived powers like Great Moravia, or powers that formed as such after 950s such as Hungary and Rus). In the beginning of the 9th century Bulgaria was already a power, along with Byzantium and the Franks, so prior to 10th century it was already a major power and in general it remained as such almost until the very end. And if I can say, a prove for that is at the least the fact that it survived for more 300 year against the Byzantine Empire which was at the time by far Europe's top power in all aspects and it managed to build firm foundation and consciousness among the population and ultimately to revive after 150 years of Byzantine rule.

For the mentioning the origin of the Bulgars I will say no more - it is redundant in that case. --Gligan (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments of the type "Your empire has a sentence like that, so our empire should have one too" are as childish as they are irrelevant. Everything about the sentence screams WP:PEACOCK, and that's all that matters. [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and we are not here to discuss other empire articles, only the First Bulgarian Empire. And even if we concede that the FBE was a power by the mid 9th century, that is still only 150 years. It never ruled a particularly large area (the Balkans are that' big) for a long period of time, and was hardly the European superpower your sentence makes it out to be. Athenean (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why is that? If I put that "the sentence screams WP:PEACOCK" in the Byzantine Empire talk page what would you answer there (I don't see what is the problem to answer it here). And now about the "superpower" (not a particularly nice term for the Middle Ages) - tell me other European "superpowers" in the period we are looking at (681-1018)... (except for the Byzantine Empire). --Gligan (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean, the same standards are used in Wikipedia. Double standards are not welcome. Also, no one is going to confuse Bulgars with Bulgarians, as the two words mean something different all together. The Bulgars were an ancient group, the Bulgarians are a modern ehtnicity that is a composite of several ethnic groups. That said, if the ethnicity of the conquerer must be mentioned, then it is essential that the ethnicities of the conquered also be mentioned. After all, the First Bulgarian Empire was an amalgamation of Slav and Byzantine populaces who were ruled by the Bulgar elite until it was assimilated. Would you like the sources for this as well, as there are tens of them that I can paste here like I did before? :) Finally, removing academic sources is vandalism, which is something you've done several times. Doing so again will not work in your favour. ;) I will now re-incorporate these sources into the article:

1)- (Hammond, 1976) Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas‎ - Page 67

2)- (Ference, 1994) Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history‎ - Page 61

3)- (Cramton, 1987) A short history of modern Bulgaria‎ - Page 2

4)- (multiple authors, 1980) Academic American encyclopedia, Volume 10‎ - Page 556

5)- (multiple authors, 1993) Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 1‎ - Page 750

6)- (Medieval Academy of America, 1950) Speculum, Volume 25‎ - Page 529

7)- (Setton, 1974) Europe and the Levant in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance‎ - Page 617

8)- (Dobson et al, 2000) Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1‎ - Page 1581

9)- (Shashi, 1992) Encyclopaedia of humanities and social sciences‎ - Page 1207

10)- (Obolensky, 1994) Byzantium and the Slavs‎ - Page 9

11)- (Stoyanov, 1994) The hidden tradition in Europe‎ - Page 109

12)- (multiple authors, 1989) Library of Congress Classification Schedules D History General and Old World‎ - Page 181

13)- (McCarty et al, 1999) Masks: Faces of Culture‎ - Page 133

-Monshuai (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the power of the First Bulgarian Empire here is what the "Encyclopaedia Britannica, A New Survey of Universal Knowledge, Volume 4 - page 37" has to say:

-"The national power (of the First Bulgarian Empire) reached its zenith under Simeon (893-927), a monarch distinguished in the arts of war and peace. In his reign, 'Bulgaria assumed rank among the civilized powers of earth.' His dominions extended from the Black Sea to the Adriatic, and from the borders of Thessaly to the Save and the Carpathians. Having become the most powerful monarch in Eastern Europe, Simeon assumed the style of 'Emperor and Autocrat of all the Bulgars and Greeks' (tsar i samodrzhetz usem Blgarom i Grkom), a title which was recognized by Pope Formosus."

--Monshuai (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of other sources regarding other points of dispute.

With regard to the Bulgar conquerers being assimilated:

14)- Graboïs, A. (1980). The illustrated encyclopedia of medieval civilization. New York: Mayflower Books., p. 148

15)- The South Slav journal: 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. (1989). The South Slav journal, 43-44 vol.12 no.1-2 Spring-Summer 1989. London: the journal., p. 4

16)- Ference, G. C. (1994). Chronology of 20th-century eastern European history. Detroit, MI: Gale Research., p. 61

With regard to Tervel being the first foreigner to receive the title Caeser:

17)- Ostrogorski, G. (1969). History of the Byzantine state. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press., p. 143

Regarding the First Bulgarian Empire being a cultural centre of Slavic Europe:

18)- Sedlar, J. W. (1994). East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500. A History of East Central Europe, v. 3. Seattle: University of Washington Press., p. 426

19)- Hussey, J. M. (1990). The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford history of the Christian Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press., p. 100

20)- Encyclopaedia britannica: A new survey of universal knowledge., Volume 4, Part 4A. (2009). Chicago: Encyclopaedia britannica., p. 37

--Monshuai (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This [12] edit to First Bulgarian Empire is not acceptable and highly disruptive. Regarding the stuff about Tervel being made caesar, there is a clear consensus on the talkpage that this stuff doesn't belong in the lead. Even other Bulgarian users have agreed to that. Second, most of the sources we are bombarded with have no page number, and as such are meaningless. Third, Britannica is a tertiary source and as such should not really be used. But most importantly, making such massive, non-consensual edits to the lead while a discussion is ongoing is extremely disruptive and needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have vision problems or can't read Arabic numerals, because all the sources I have provided do indeed have page numbers. I guess that shows us how accurate you are in your comments. Also the source regarding Tervel does indeed state that he is the first foreigner to get the title of Caeser. That is the condition for notability established in this discussion and elsewhere in Wikipedia. Finally, if there is disruptive behaviour it is by you. Since it seems that neutral admins will have to be involved due to your repeated transgressions, they will look at your edits, your removal of sources and double standards. The very same information that you believe should not be included in the First Bulgarian Empire article is the type of information you support in Greek articles. Wait and see, but don't tell me you weren't warned. ;)--Monshuai (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I also explained to you that if you insist on discussing the Bulgars as a seperate ethnic group, then information about the other ethnic groups must also be included. The only reason it even makes sense to discuss ethnic groups in the lede (which again is what YOU insist on) is if the role of the other ethnic groups is also included. Otherwise you are confusing the reader with partial information. After all, the empire affected and indeed involved more than one ethnic group. In summary, all sources on this particular matter state that the Bulgars conquered the territory from the Byzantine Empire and imposed themselves on what were populations formerly under Byzantine control. PERIOD. If you are still having trouble with this let me repeat, you cannot misinform the reader by selectively including a piece of detailed information at the expense of the overarching/general information of which it is a only one of a multitude of components. Therein, if ethnicity is included in the lede then it will be for all involved parties and their respective historical roles.--Monshuai (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Moshuai: I'm sorry but you seem to have a great desire turning the lead into chaos: Several sources to make a point, tertiary sources virtually useless and again this Caesar=Tervel nonsense. Please read the entire discussion again. At least this time you didn't add that he was 'the first and only'.Alexikoua (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, it is a chaos of sources when he proves something that you don't like but it is not chaos of sources to put nine references that the Bulgars were Turkic people. If Britannica is not valid, remove only that reference and do not use it as an excuse to remove all. That is not constructive at all. --Gligan (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that tertiary sources are permitted, especially high quality ones like Brittanica:

[13].

Kostja (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The saturation bombing campaign with sources is an exercise in filibuster and disruption. There is a clear consensus that the stuff about Tervel is not sufficiently notable to go into the lead, regardless of whether it is the WP:TRUTH. By aggressively re-inserting it in the manner he has, Monshuai has acted against consensus and edit-warred in doing so. Furthermore, when people are trying to reach a consensus on the lead in the discussion, edits of this kind are extremely disruptive. I also note that his contributions to the discussion are also non-constructive and solely designed to throw the discussion off track, which he has largely succeeded in doing. It is my opinion that as long as Monshuai is participating in this discussion, we will get nowhere. Athenean (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Athenean, I have provided sources while you have provided your opinions and a very clear set of double standards. Furthermore, to say that your opinion is consensus is quite pompous. The source provided clearly states that Tervel was the first foreigner to become Caesar of the Byzantines. A historical first is notable. PERIOD.

Second, in your unsuccessful attempt to suppress and indeed disregard factual academic information you claimed that I didn't provide page numbers for the 20 sources. Anyone who had actually looked at my posts would have been able to clearly note that page numbers were provided from the start. This leads me to believe that you don't read what people post here nor acknowledge the sources they provide, making your participation in this discussion seem extremely partial and unethical.

@ Alexikoua, as Kostja stated, credible tertiary sources such as Britannica are accepted in Wikipedia. Gligan also made a good point that if you were concerned about source chaos, you should have noted this a long time ago regarding the nine sources used to reference the Bulgars' ethnic background. Furthermore, unlike some users here, Encyclopaedia Britannica (a source you seem to suddenly have a problem with) references its texts and therefore their root academic material can be posted here as well. So, would you like me to post 20 more sources, or would you prefer twice as many? With my access to academic databases that's not a problem. ;) As for your comment about Tervel, he was indeed the first and only foreign head of state to become Caeser. It's a fact of history, simple as that. He is also the first foreigner to be given that title by the Byzantine Empire, de Flor being the second. Maybe you should re-read this discussion and perhaps you'll note the subtle and sometimes not so subtle shifts in your compatriots' premise when faced with facts.--Monshuai (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Alexikoua, even the two reasonably neutral participants in this discussion, Kansas Bear and Constantine have stated that including Turkic in the lead is not needed. I still haven't seen any real argument why it should be included. I also don't see any reason for the term "Danube Bulgarian Khanate" to be featured so prominently or without any explanation of the context. I'm a bit ambivalent about some of the things Monshuai wants to include (though I don't see why well sourced information shouldn't be included, if it's neutral), but as long as you and Athenean continue to revert to your preferred POV version, I'm afraid I'll have to revert as well. My main sticking points, so to speak, have been accepted by most participants in the discussion, so it would greatly help if you made steps towards a consensus. Kostja (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monshuai's edits are deliberately disruptive and against consensus. I wouldn't edit-war on their behalf if I were you. Athenean (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the entire discussion has lead to nothing and the present lead is more hardcore and unencyclopedic written than the initial one thanks to User:Monshuai who insists on launching a national crusade here ignoring everyone and making unconstructive edits in combination with empty accusations:

• As per Wikipedia:Lead#Citations reference bombardment in lead is useless, the references can wait for their relevant sections in the main text below.
• About the Turkic origin I added a single reference in lead [[14]], suppose you need some real argument to post, not fictional ones.
• Users Glingan and Cplakidas have proposed their lead versions, which are real good ones but they are ignored too.
• The Tervel=Caesar madness [[15]] is still present in lead.

If tendentious editing is to continue that way, I see that the major responsible of this chaos will soon get blocked.Alexikoua (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are in a position to threaten me, especially when I am the one who has supported his premise with academic sources. Alexikoua and Athenean have not done so. So if you do threaten me one more time, I will report you in WP:ANI and as previously stated ask administators who have never been invoved with Balkan articles to look at this discussion, the sources provided, Wikipedia rules/standards and to do a comparative analysis regarding the way Alexikoua and Athenean have edited this article and likewise Greek articles. I am looking forward to this as I know that with the evidence prepared thus far it is you who should be worried about being blocked. So let's go to the next step.--Monshuai (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please refrain from threats and accusations and stick with the issue at hand? We are discussing the lead here. We still have to hear from Constantine. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Bear, your comments in trying to diffuse this situation is most appreciated. I believe that thus far you have been maximally neutral (more so than I am) and trust your opinion on this matter. I would also like to mention that I just found out that the said users started a page in Wikipedia Noticeboard/Incidents found here {{{thread}}}. }} accusing me of disruptive behaviour and asking that I get banned. Ironically, this happened right after I provided the combined 20 sources that are posted above. Plenty of ad hominem attacks flying around and also an accusation that I use sock puppets. Can you please tell me Wikipedia's rules regarding wrongful accusations of sock puppetry? How are people who accuse you of this punished when it has already proven otherwise? Thank you for your help and if you have the time please share your opinion in WP:ANI.--Monshuai (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since several users have been totally ignored by a specific one, I'm not surprised that a case has been filled against him.Alexikoua (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My statements are backed by reliable sources, not double standards used by the users you mention. :)--Monshuai (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The First Bulgarian Empire, also known as the First Bulgarian state, the Danubian Bulgar Khanate, or more simply Bulgaria, was a medieval state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c.680 by the Bulgars and by 864 included Slavic cultural influences. At the height of its power it spread between Budapest and the Black Sea and from the Dneiper river to the Adriatic.

As the state solidified it position in the Balkans it became a rival of the Byzantine Empire, at times even forcing it to pay tributes in exchange for peace. Bulgaria's ruler Tervel, came to the aid of the Byzantines during the siege of Constantinople in 718. After the disintegration of the Avar Khanate, the Bulgarians expanded their territory up to the Pannonian Plain and the Tatra Mountains. Later the Bulgarians confronted the advance of the Pechenegs and Cumans, and later achieved a decisive victory over the Magyars, forcing them to establish themselves permanently in Pannonia.

During the late 9th and early 10th centuries, Tsar Simeon achieved a string of victories over the Byzantines, and expanded the Bulgarian Empire to its apogee. After the defeat of the Byzantine army at the battle of Anchialus, the Bulgarians besieged Constantinople in 923 and 924. However, the Byzantines recovered, and in 1014, inflicted a defeat on the Bulgarians at the battle of Kleidion. By 1018, the last Bulgarian strongholds had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire and the First Bulgarian Empire had ceased to exist. It was succeeded by the Second Bulgarian Empire in 1185.

Bulgaria adopted Christianity in 864, and a separate Bulgarian patriarchate was founded in 927. During this time, Bulgaria became the cultural center of Slavic Europe, its position further consolidated with the invention of the Cyrillic alphabet in Preslav, with some credit to the Bulgarian scholar Clement of Ohrid. Literature produced in the Old Bulgarian language soon began to spread north and became the lingua franca of Eastern Europe, later known as Old Church Slavonic. As a reaction against Byzantine influences in the church, the influential Bogomil sect was born in Bulgaria in the mid-10th century.

To address some concerns

• Athenean & Michael -- Your concern for the readers confusion over Bulgars and Bulgarians is easily remedied by wiki-linking both. As stated before, the Bulgars Turkic origin is immediately mentioned in the article and only mentioned once! Compared to Slavs/Slavic which starting at (2.3) is mentioned consistently throughout the article. I find nothing compelling, through your concerns or mentioned within the article, to include the fact that the Bulgars were a Turkic tribe in the lead.
• Gligan -- Unless a 3rd party source can be found I would not add the sentence, The Empire remained one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military forces in Europe. As for the footnoting of other names for the Empire, I decided to leave them in the lead, without any footnoting.

But that is not the sentence I suggested. That was just an example and I told you that several times... --Gligan (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Kostja -- if you have the date(s) for the Danubian Bulgar Khanate, I doubt anyone would argue their inclusion.
• Constantine -- if you have any additions please feel free to let me know. You mentioned a better phrasing of ...and by 864 included Slavic cultural influences.

--Kansas Bear (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, your version is fine by me. I would still replace "...in the north-eastern Balkans. It was founded in c. 680 by the Bulgars, a Turkic tribe from Central Asia that eventually mingled with the native populations, especially the Slavs, to form a distinct Bulgarian people by the 9th century." instead of "...in the north-eastern Balkans in c.680 by the Bulgars and by 864 included Slavic cultural influences.", but if I am alone in this, then I won't insist. By the way, seems to me the reason the origin of the Bulgars is only mentioned once is because it doesn't sit well with some of the editors, and they have made sure that this is so. Athenean (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree, with Athenean's revision. If the "Turkic" thing bothers so much, it can be left out, but the phrasing "eventually mingled with the native populations, especially the Slavs, to form a distinct Bulgarian people by the 9th century." is otherwise perfect. Constantine ✍ 09:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the 'Turkic' thing is essential part of the article and it needs to be mentioned in lead.Alexikoua (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tirkic is not essential and does not need to be mentioned at all. It is not natural to occur in the lead. I repeat for I don't-know-how-many times that we don't say Slavic Bulgarians or Latin Spaniards in any lead.

Reasons for not including the Danube Bulgar Khanate (and putting it in a footnote as Constantine suggested):

1. Does not apply for the whole existence of the state

2. It is completely out of context there - it is used to differentiate it from Volga Bulgaria

3. Not the only name used for that period - also we use Danube Bulgaria, Bulgarian Khanate and others

PS: I am not going to be home until Monday, so don't modify the article itself until I return to resolve the last details. --Gligan (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Also, if we mention that the Bulgars came from Central Asia, we have to mention the the Slavs came from north-eastern Europe. Because since we already call the Slavs "local population", in that logic we have to say that the Bulgars came from Old Great Bulgaria. --Gligan (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can just mention that they were of Turkic origin nothing more. It is essential because a reader, who's not an expert, might become comfused with the similarity of the terms Bulgar-Bulgarian. However I believe that the 'Central Asian' thing isn't necessary, just Turkic is enough to me.Alexikoua (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been possible to mention the Turkic origins theory in the lead if it were universally accepted which it certainly is not; it cannot be mentioned without mentioning the other main theories but then such details are hardly suitable for the lead. As for the ‘Danube Bulgar Khanate’, surely such an obscure term having 25 (twenty five!) Google hits has no place in any country article’s lead. (‘First Bulgarian Empire’ has 18 400 hits.) Apcbg (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First_Bulgarian_Empire#The_Bulgars this section seems to exhibit that it is the dominant view. "The Bulgars (also Bolgars, Bulghars, or Proto-Bulgarians) were a Turkic people"Megistias (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So does the Bulgars with many references. There seems to be no doubt they were Turkic.Megistias (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One or two more things: My source says the Pechenegs defeated the Magyars, because they were coming against Bulgaria in aid of the Byzantine Empire. Later, the Empire convinced the Pechenegs to attack the Bulgar state instead. Also, I think it is important to mention Basil II in the lead and change the "it was succeded... in 1185" with "Eventually, a 2nd Bulgarian Empire rose in 1185". But that's only minor details. Otherwise it's excellent.:) About the Khanate/Empire/State, my opinion is expressed two sections above. I believe Khanate or State are more accurate. Also, it would be good to include somewhere that the Bulgars mixed with the populations after adopting Christianity. Pagan and barbaric tribes had a social system where the ruling tribe would not "mix" with the "lesser" ones, something that ended when christianity was adopted.--Michael X the White (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgars were not a barbaric tribe (unless we accept that barbaric means non-Greek speakers) and they mixed with the Slavs long before Christianity. Also, the main battle for the Magyars' defeat happened between the Bulgarian and Magyar armies. Boris I who had abdicated led the army because Simeon was defeated twice, ordered three-day feast and on the third day the Bulgarians defeated the Magyars; our losses were 20,000 rider... That is all sourced, if I go to the library I can tell you the the name of the Medieval author who wrote it. The Pechenegs destroyed the camps of the Magyars but did not participate in the decisive battle. --Gligan (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term First Bulgarian state, is a modern Neologism (the Bulgars themselves nor their enemies, i.e. the Byzantines did not refer to it in such a way) that makes scholar's work easier but this does not weigh crushingly against the ‘Danube Bulgar Khanate’ (but that seems to be a modern construct as well), and the names need not be weighed against each other in antagonism. The second one refers to its birth and origin, to how it really begun, the first period, while the other one is a generic term encompassing all the centuries, but they both are modern terms. Representative terms used by scholars should be included, just as endonyms and exonyms are included in such articles. When it was founded, at 680 with its capital at Pliska (680–893), it was a Danubian Bulgar Khanate for 200 years.Megistias (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where Apcbg sees 25 google hits for "Danube Bulgar Khanate", as it is used by top-level sources [16] [17]. If it is good enough for Cambridge University Press and Princeton University Press, the term is certainly notable and is more than good enough for this article. Athenean (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Dominant' falls short of 'universally accepted'; moreover, the assertion that that theory is 'dominant' is a questionable POV and OR. 'Notable' the term ‘Danube Bulgar Khanate’ well might be, for someplace in some article; but with 25 Google hits, it cannot be representative of anything and has no place in the lead of a country article (and yes Google hits are seen in Google of course, it's an easy type and click job.) Apcbg (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's really odd, because I get 601 hits on Google Books for "Danube Bulgar Khanate" [18]. Are you sure you're typing it in right? Athenean (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

767 hits for Danube Bulgar Khanate on Google scholar [19]. Athenean (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you are searching not for "Danube Bulgar Khanate" proper but for any of the three words; if you use the quotation marks you would get 2 hits on Google Books and none on Google Scholar. Apcbg (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, those are top-level sources. And "Bulgar Khanate", gets 127 hits, most of which refer to the state founded by Asparukh [20] rather than the Volga Bulgar Khanate. Athenean (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, it should also be made clear that this term refers only to the state in its initial period. Either a footnote or the addition of "up until 864 also known as" should do. I have already mentioned my opinion re the alt. names "First Bulgarian state", "Danube Bulg. Khanate": too many names in the lead are confusing. Constantine ✍ 10:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely agree here. We should mention both Danube Bulgar Khanate (and Danube Bulgaria and Bulgarian Khanate) and First Bulgarian State in a footnote and leave only First Bulgarian Empire and Bulgaria and the lead. --Gligan (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Athenean's sentence is the most balanced including the people's origin, and agree with what Alexikoua said about the readers, and as Megistias pointed, that seems to be by far the more prevailing theory. In a lede having four paragraphs and twenty lines, I see no reason why not to mention with exactly two words the more commonly accepted origin of the people. If an editor wants to include alternative theories, if notable and not obviously nationalistic/racist (such as "Arian" etc.) it is possible to mention them in the main body of the text. --Factuarius (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. You cannot mention the origin of the Bulgars and omit the origin of the Slavs. Since I really have never seen a single lead with Slavic Bulgarians I don't see reason for having a lead with Turkic Bulgars; having in mind that it is heavily referenced and catches the eye in the very first section below; and despite the many sources that support that theory, there is still another theory which you cannot just deny because the Turkic theory is well referenced. As for Alexikoua's statement, be sure that many Americans don't know that the Bulgarians are Slavic, so including Turkic for the Bulgars for the reader's sake must mean including Slavic Bulgarians, Latin Spaniards and so on in every lead as well. So, here I think that the version of the sentence suggested by Kansas Bear is the best. --Gligan (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've reached the best solution possible. I agree with Gligan that Turkic shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, due to this being non-standard and the theory being disputed. I think that alternate names are appropriate for the lead, with the necessary explanations, of course (preferably in a footnote). I have the minor quibble with the second to last paragraph. As it reads now, one might think that the Byzantines and Bulgarians fought non-stop between 924 and 1014. I would change it to: During the late 9th and early 10th centuries, Tsar Simeon achieved a string of victories over the Byzantines, and expanded the Bulgarian Empire to its apogee. After the defeat of the Byzantine army at the battle of Anchialus, the Bulgarians besieged Constantinople in 923 and 924. However, starting from 971, the Byzantines increasingly gained the upper hand, culminating in 1014, when they inflicted a defeat on the Bulgarians at the battle of Kleidion. By 1018, the last Bulgarian strongholds had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire and the First Bulgarian Empire had ceased to exist. It was succeeded by the Second Bulgarian Empire in 1185. Kostja (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to strongly disagree over the so called ‘Danube Bulgar Khanate’, its suggested inclusion in the lead (directly or by way of a footnote) would be placing disproportionate stress and prominence on an obscure term not established in English common usage. This is anything but NPOV. (By the way, listing military battles in a country article’s lead is not exactly good style — in my opinion at least). Apcbg (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite weird that some editor change his mind, all of the sudden, like Glingan, whose initial proposal was to include the Turkic origins of the Vulgars [[21]].

The Turkic origin of the state's founders should be mentioned in the lead, as per Gligan's initial proposal [[22]]. Also I don't understand why he has changed his mind in the proccess. Anyway, their Turkic origin is a historical fact which is undeniable today according to modern scholars and a lead version without the Vulgars mentioned creates a major incosistency in the lead since we have no information who created this entity. Alexikoua (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't agree to it, he simply doesn't mention it. Now, however, he is against it, as am I and Apcbg. I've explained my reasoning for that, so I won't do it again. By the way, calling a strongly disputed theory in recent years "a fact" is not very constructive. Kostja (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, you don't follow the discussion. I told you twice that this is the proposal of Athenean. Mine is below, as I again told you twice and I will paste it here so that you don't say that I changed my mind (that is direct copy from above, my objections to the proposal of Athenean which you wrongly say is mine, are in bold):

"

The First Bulgarian Empire (modern [Първo Българско царство, Parvo balgarsko tsarstvo] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)), also known as the First Bulgarian State^[18][19], or more simply Bulgaria, was a medieval Bulgarian (we need a link to Bulgarian) state founded in the north-eastern Balkans^[20][21] in c. 680 by the Bulgars in coordination (you can think of a better word here) with Slavs that eventually mingled into the slavified Bulgarian people by 9th century. (the Slavs are themselves not a local population, neither were the Bulgars and further details of their ancestral homelands and way of life must go to the first paragraph "Background" where we have to put sections for the Bulgars and the Slavs. After all the Bulgars did not submit the Slavs, nor fought them, so the state was created as a coordinated effort of both peoples which is important and has to be mentioned.)
The Empire played a major role in European politics and was one of the strongest military powers of its time. (after all at that time the country was among Europe's most influential and militarily strong countries - the Byzantine Empire is also mentioned to have been one of the most powerful economic, cultural, and military forces in Europe) As the state solidified its position in the Balkans, it entered on a centuries-long interaction, sometimes friendly and sometimes hostile, with the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria emerged as Byzantium's chief antagonist in the Balkans, resulting in several wars. The two powers however also enjoyed periods of peace and alliance, most notably during the Second Arab siege of Constantinople, where the Bulgarian army played a crucial role in breaking the siege. Byzantium had a strong cultural influence on Bulgaria, which also led to the eventual adoption of Christianity by Bulgaria in 864. In the north, the Bulgarians came into repeated conflict with the nomadic steppe peoples from Eastern Europe. After the disintegration of the Avar Khanate, the Bulgarians expanded their territory up to the Pannonian Plain and the Tatra Mountains. Later the Bulgarians confronted the advance of the Pechenegs and Cumans, and achieved a decisive victory in 896 over the Magyars, forcing them to establish themselves permanently in Pannonia.
In the late 9th century and early 10th centuries, under Tsar Simeon and following a string of victories over the Byzantines, the Bulgarian Empire reached its apogee, including all of the northern Balkans in its territory. After the annihilation of the Byzantine army in the battle of Anchialus in 917, the Bulgarians laid siege to Constantinople in 923 and 924. The Byzantines eventually recovered, while Bulgaria was crucially weakened by a Byzantine-sponsored Rus' invasion in 968 . A revival under the Cometopuli brothers followed, but led to a decades-long war with Byzantium under Basil II, which in 1014 culminated in a crushing defeat on the Bulgarians at the Battle of Kleidion.^[6] By 1018, the last Bulgarian strongholds had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire, and the First Bulgarian Empire had ceased to exist.^[7] Bulgaria remained under Byzantine control until it regained independence with the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire in 1185.

(Up to that point things look good to me, we can only add something on Krum's victories if we can do it in a subtle manner)
"

That is it. And they are called Bulgars, not Vulgars --Gligan (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

@Kostija: Thats your problem we have not a disputed theory but a clear historical fact. See for example the relevant article: Bulgars.Alexikoua (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That article has many problems. I wouldn't take it so seriously. ::::Kostja (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just a repetition of Gligan's previous proposal, which did not garner any approval. Athenean (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

another proposal

"The First Bulgarian Empire, also known as the First Bulgarian state, the Danubian Bulgar Khanate, or more simply Bulgaria, was a medieval state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c.680 by the Bulgars and was destroyed at 1018 by Byzantine Emperor Basil II Bulgaroctonus. At the height of its power it spread between Budapest and the Black Sea and from the Dneiper river to the Adriatic.

The Bulgars were a Turkic tribe from Central Asia and migrated to the Balkans between 670 and 680. The Byzantine Empire at that point was weakened by the Byzantine-Persian and Byzantine-Arab wars of the 7th century and did not consider the Bulgars a big enough threat to withdraw armies from the Middle-East to fight them. After a defeat of a Byzantine provincial army under Constantine IV on the Danube river, the Byzantine Empire recognised the Bulgar state on former Byzantine provinces.

Due to its proximity to Constantinople, the Bulgarian Empire was at times a trusted ally and a bitter enemy of the Byzantine Empire, until it was finally destroyed by Basil II Bulgaroctonus in 1018. The apogee of the Bulgarian Empire was reached under Tsar Simeon, who even besieged Constantinople in 923 and 924. A second Bulgarian Empire rose in 1185.

Bulgaria adopted Christianity in 864, and a separate Bulgarian patriarchate was founded in 927. Christianity opened the way for the ruling Bulgar tribe to mingle with the native, mainly Slavic populations. During this time, Bulgaria became the cultural center of Slavic Europe, its position further consolidated with the invention of the Cyrillic alphabet in Preslav, with some credit to the Bulgarian scholar Clement of Ohrid. Literature produced in the Old Bulgarian language soon began to spread north and became the lingua franca of Eastern Europe, later known as Old Church Slavonic. As a reaction against Byzantine influences in the church, the influential Bogomil sect was born in Bulgaria in the mid-10th century."

This is based on Kansas Bear's proposal. It has less mention of military battles and so on. It mentions the "Turkic" because in that way we can address later in the Background section how the Onogurs where defeated by the Hasars in 642 (although both were allies to Byzantium) and so were forced to move west in the Ukrainian steppe. A part of them, the Bulgars, the migrated further south to Danube the in "Bulgaria". I dealed with the "population mingling" in the christianity paragraph, which I otherwise left untouched. --Michael X the White (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work Michael IX the White. The heavy mentioning of battles for a lede in the previous versions was also a concern by me, but I didn't wanted to open another issue, so I didn't said anything in first place. In general I prefer it. --Factuarius (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

When I read User talk:Michael IX the White proposal it makes me wonder is this supposed to be a lead for the First Bulgarian Empire article or a lead for an article about some Byzantine military campaign.For example he has mentioned the names of Byzantine emperors three times, meanwhile the name of the ruler who founded the Bulgarian Empire is omitted.It is not good enough, this shouldn't be a Byzantine centered article. --Avidius (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Avidius. For now I suggest to focus on the two main issues of the discussion - whether to include or not Turkic and Danube Bulgar Khanate. --Gligan (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Avidius and Gligan. The version by Kansas Bear seems to be most acceptable to all participants in the discussion, so I think it should be used as a basis. Kostja (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Avidius, is the name of the founder included in the other versions? Gligan, I give above reason to include both. Turkic is important because we'll later have to explain in the background how the Bulgars "appeared" in Bulgaria, and Khanate should be included because "Empire" is a historiographical generalisation prior to 927 and the very title of "Tsar" that was given then was quite important. Kostja, the version by Kansas Bear was the basis for this. Since most people here give a lot of weight on how this state was created and how "its rule there was consolidated", I believe that this is the most appropriate way of including it in the lead.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That was one single state and we must use only terms that apply for the whole existence. First Bulgarian Empire is established term for the whole existence of the state, while Danube Bulgar Khanate is not; First Bulgarian State and Bulgaria can also be used for the whole period of existence. Furthermore, as I said multiple times, there are at least two other terms which are also used for the same thing - Bulgarian Khanate and Danube Bulgaria and they should be mentioned along with Danube Bulgar Khanate in a footnote and properly explained. I think that Constantine, Avidius, Kostja and me agree to that.

The origin of every people is important but the origin is not used in leads of countries but in leads for the peoples themselves. Furthermore, Turkic is not important, particularly for the lead here, because the country had extremely low Turkic cultural influence and is always categorized as a Slavic state. Whether the Bulgars were Turkic (widely accepted, I also support that) or Iranic is not important because the state and the Bulgarian people became Slavic in culture and language. --Gligan (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Danube Bulgaria/Bulgar Khanate/Danube Bulgarian Khanate is just a play on words that does not really need any sophisticated explanation, and certainly not buried in a footnote. The usefullness of Danube Bulgarian Khanate could be the distinction between the Khanate in Danube and the "Old Great Bulgaria" Onogur Khanate in Ukraine. Turkic could be used here not to demonstrate that the state's culture was Turkic, but that the people who founded it were Turkic and they came slowly from Central Asia, and so they were not indigenous. As I put it, it does not imply or show in any way that the state's culture was Turkic, and is only there to explain when, why and how the Bulgars founded their state. It is important in that way, and can be elaborated more in the article itself.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's not relevant to add the information about the Bulgars being Turkic and it's even less relevant to add the inaccurate information that they came from central Asia. Kostja (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand why you insist on such an extreme version. Our reader need to read who created this state. Again we are talking about a historical fact, not a controvarsial issue. Please try to remain constructive without making massive removals.Alexikoua (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The version you are calling extreme is the one at the top of this section. It has been made by a neutral editor and has been approved by most participants in the discussion. It's not constructive to claim a false consensus for a version that is supported only by a few editors. Kostja (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

@Kostija, please stop manipulating the lead and unprovocably removing the historical fact that Bulgars were a Turkic tribe. I remind you that one of Monshuai's obssesions that lead him topic banned was exactly this [[23]]. There is no reason to hide this essential piece of information, on the contrary we have to mention this briefly in the lead: the founders of this state were the Bulgars, a Turkic tribe. Is it so tough?Alexikoua (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

diff, the Bulgars are considered a Turkic tribe and that is substantiated. It is not a theory among several. Megistias (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A new beginning

FWIW, this discussion is going nowhere and I noticed the last version standing is Monshuai's. It seems to me Kansas Bear's version has garnered the most support, and if no one objects too strenuously, I will implement it over the next few days. This has gone on long enough, and no progress is being made. Athenean (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that most of the contention centers around the first paragraph, while there is a general consensus about the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th para. I will implement therefore Kansas Bear's versions of those paragraphs and leave the 1st para alone for now. Athenean (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually liked Cplakidas' version for the 1st half of the second paragraph better, so I implemented that one instead. Hope that's ok with everyone. Regarding the names, having four names in bold in the lead seems rather odd, so it might be more elegant to move them to a separate "Name" section. However, in the interests of the general peace I am refraining from doing so until I hear back from people. Athenean (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mhmmm... I also agree that most, if not all of the contradiction is in the first paragraph. I wonder if a name section would be needed indeed. If we can think of let's say two paragraphs of the name section I might probably support that idea. In fact I have thought of why is our country's name Bulgaria, does the name derive directly from the Bulgars or...? If we can think of the entimology of Bulgaria as a 1st paragraph and mention Bulgarian Khanate, Banube Bulgar Khanate, Danube Bulgaria, Tsardom of Bulgaria, Principality (Knyazhestvo Bulgaria) and First Bulgarian State, I think it might be acceptable.

If we clear that, we will only face the dispute of including Turkic in front of Bulgars.... (Gligan from somewhere) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.120.210.239 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added two sentences about the Bulgarian Patriarchate and the Bogomils as we have previously agreed with Constantine. Also, I think, we should leave the sentence about the tribute.

And also, if we can think of a proper title, we can create one paragraph for both the name the country and the titles of the Bulgarian rulers - I can now think of Khan, Great Khan, Prince (Knyaz), Archon, Emperor (Tsar) (of Bulgarians and Romans - unrecognized but used used by Simeon) and the title Caesar of Tervel. In Bulgaria there is currently a discussion whether the title is Khan or Han, so if the include both things probably we can make a good-looking paragraph. --Gligan (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

On the use of "Turkic"

The debate over the inclusion of the word "Turkic" has once again flared and reveals that all Bulgarian users are viscerally opposed to its inclusion. It seems we have hit on a national sensibility, yet wikipedia is supposed to be immune to national sensibilities (as all Greek editors have painfully learned). Including information on the origins of the Bulgars informs our readers, who may not a priori know that the Bulgars are separate and distinct from the Bulgarians. The names sound very similar and our less-informed readers might be led into thinking they are one and the same. By including it we would be doing are readers a service, without damaging encyclopedicity in any way. The purpose of wikipedia is to inform, not hide information from our readers. In addition, I have so far failed to see any compelling arguments against its inclusion, all arguments against it so far being nothing more than thinly veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments. True, our readers can click on the link to Bulgars, but a) we cannot assume that all our readers will do so, and b) that is still not a compelling argument against its inclusion. Neither is the argument that it is debatable that the Bulgars were Turkic and originally from farther east: That much can be sourced [24] to dozens of reliable sources. The Turkic origin of the Bulgars is only "controversial" if you have a problem with it. Mainstream scholarship doesn't seem to. Athenean (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

1. It is not normal to mention the origin of the peoples in the leads of their countries. I have never seen Slavic Bulgarians, Latin Spaniards, Celtic Scots, Iranic Pashtuns and so on. That belongs only to the lead about the peoples and including it because several Greek users want it is good. If Wikipedia is to inform and every piece of information is important, then edit all pages of all countries, include the origin of their peoples, and then do it to the First Bulgarian Empire - you will do many services to our readers. In fact you can never determine what is known and what is unknown. You have no idea how many people in the world have never heard of Bulgaria at all, mistake our capital for Bucharest and don't tell me that they will expect to know that the Bulgarians are Slavic. And since we do not have Slavic Bulgarians in any lead though it is quite informative, I don't see why we should have Turkic Bulgars.

2. The fact that the Bulgars were Turkic is not important at all. The development of the country hasn't anything to do with the origin of the Bulgars because it was not them who shaped the linguistic and cultural features of the nation. So, their origin is something secondary and does not belong to a lead. That is the same case as Tervels' - mentioning the he was the first ruler to receive the title Caesar is interesting and informative but not very important for the development of Bulgaria and mentioning the origin of the Bulgars is absolutely the same.

3. Think what you want but there is a discussion about the origin of the Bulgars. No one argues that the Bulgarians are Slavic but it seems that there is after all doubt that the Bulgars are Turkic. --Gligan (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You only confirm what Athenean says above. There is a large number of discussions in the world about lots of things, but that does not mean they cannot be included. As I have said before, Turkic is important to make the reader understand that a) Bulgars didn't suddenly spawn in Danube in 680 and b) that they were not indigenous. Once more, Turkic is important not for the development, but for the very creation of the state. The culture argument is interesting, if you would/could define the slavic and turkic cultures in the 7th century.--Michael X the White (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Arguments of the type "It is not normal to mention the origin of the peoples in the leads of their countries" have no place here. First, this is not a country article. Second, each article is unique and has its own peculiarities. Everyone knows that the Spaniards speak a Romance language. We cannot possibly assume that everyone knows that the Bulgars are Turkic and non-indigenous. Leaving out the origin of the Bulgars might lead many of our readers to think they are indigenous (after all, the place is called "Bulgaria"). The arguments "then edit all pages of all countries, include the origin of their peoples, and then do it to the First Bulgarian Empire" and "The fact that the Bulgars were Turkic is not important at all." are the epitome of childishness, I have nothing to say to that. They certainly aren't compelling. As for the "discussion" on the origin of the Bulgars, well, I'm sure it's a discussion in Bulgarian nationalist circles (in fact, we had just such an editor who maintained that Bulgars were "Aryan", but, well, we saw what kind of an editor he was), but not in mainstream scholarship. Athenean (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we are just going around in circles and I'm hearing the same arguments over and over again, I will ask for an RFC. Athenean (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is your behaviour of including Turkic at any cost childish. Since writing the origin is not a practice in the lead of countries I don't see why this case should be different. As for the Spaniards, since there are people in the USA who think that California is an independent state, then don't be so sure that everyone knows the origin of the Spaniards. Even less, the origin of the Bulgarians. And how do you define mainstream scholarship? A non-Bulgarian scholarship? English-language scholarship? Then tell me how many books in English you can think of dedicated specially to the First Bulgarian Empire, or medieval Bulgaria as a whole. It seems that "mainstream" scholarship is not even interested in the country as a whole, not to mention interested in the origin of the Bulgars. --Gligan (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Should the origin of the Bulgars be mentioned in the lead?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the lead sentence read "...was a medieval state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by the Bulgars and ruled by hereditary emperors." or "...was a medieval state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by the Bulgars, a Turkic tribe originally from Central Asia^[22] that eventually mingled with the native populations, especially the Slavs, to form a distinct Bulgarian people by the 9th century."? See the sections above for arguments for and against. Athenean (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What matters here is that the Bulgars were ethnically different from the majority of the population of the state they came to found, and that is unique enough to mention in the lead. We could compromise on "most likely Turkic" or something like that, but that sounds politically hypercorrect to me. Preslav (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the ethnically different part being important. However, bear in mind that there's an entire article on the Bulgars, and the first sentence talks of their migration. I suggest something like "...680 by the Bulgars (who had arrived two centuries earlier) and was ruled by hereditary emperors." —MutantPlatypus (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the correct sentence should be "...was a medieval state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by the Bulgars that eventually mingled with the native populations, especially the Slavs, to form a distinct Bulgarian people by the 9th century." - you must correct it as the other option.

And then again I wonder why you so stubbornly insist on including Turkic and clearing the the Bulgars came from Central Asia, but not mention a word about the Slavs who were also not native and came from Eastern Europe. Not to mention the other reasons for not including it, of course. --Gligan (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Come to that, the Greeks and the Thracians (unlike the Pelasgians) are also known to have migrated from elsewhere to settle on the Balkans. Apcbg (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Stay on topic, Thracians and Pelasgians were ancient peoples. And the latter were quasi-mythical, whilst the subject at hand is the Bulgars that were Turkic.Megistias (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That the Pelasgians were 'quasi-mythical' is just your quasi-opinion, and the subject at hand is not Bulgars (that's another article). As for the Bulgars being Turkic, that hypothesis is controversial — supported by some historians and disputed by other; to claim otherwise is not serious. Apcbg (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Which historians? Are any of these historians not Monshuai-type historians? Athenean (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, for instance, says Rasho Rashev (the late Director of the National Archeological Museum in Sofia) in his book Protobulgars in V-VII century. Third edition. Sofia, Orbel, 2005, ISBN 954-496-073-2, p. 27:

The Bulgar tribe (Protobulgars) is a composite of three ethno-linguistic groups: Iranian, Ugric and Turkic.

Still other historians support the Iranian theory, and that's no news too: e.g. Georgi Markov (Director of the Institute of History at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences), Franz Altheim, Omeljan Pritsak (source) etc. Apcbg (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Any non-Bulgarian historians? I mean, is it a coincidence that Bulgarian editors are against the mention of the word "Turkic", and surprise, the only source provided to back that argument is also Bulgarian? And please don't start with that "Aryan" stuff. Athenean (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Altheim and Pritsak Bulgarians? Really? I thought they were Greeks :-) Apcbg (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

All I see is a link to www.protobulgarians.com, which is of course not a reliable source. Athenean (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Rasho Rashev, Georgi Markov, Franz Altheim and Omeljan Pritsak did not publish in Protobulgarians.com, see

Рашев, Рашо. Прабългарите през V-VII век. Трето издание. София, Орбел, 2005. ISBN 954-496-073-2.

Altheim, Franz, Geschichte der Hunnen. (5 vols) (Berlin, De Gruyter, 1959-1962).

Omeljan Pritsak: in: Димитров, Божидар. Българите и Александър Македонски. София: Издателство Тангра, 2001

Historians like Alexander Fol, Georgi Bakalov etc. also reject the Turkic hypothesis. Apcbg (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me we all agree that it is important to indicate that the Bulgars were ethnically different from the Slavs, but I haven't seen any arguments yet as to why it is essential to mention that they were Turkic. Preslav (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If we all agree on that (and I agree that we do), then why hide their ethnicity? Why beat around the bush by saying something convoluted like "the ethnically different Bulgars", rather than "the Turkic Bulgars", which is both more informative and automatically implies they are ethnically different. I still see no compelling argument for not mentioning their ethnicity, only appeals to national sensibilities and political correctness by some users. Athenean (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bulgars were Turkic and its a fact and a simple one. A reader not familiar with the issue may mistake them for Bulgarians and this is even pointed out in the Bulgars article (For the modern day nation, see Bulgarians it says). Apcbg has for some reason (Bulgars article says otherwise) claimed something else in this talk page and during his reverts in the article page.Megistias (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of trying to answer the Bulgars origins(an argument that appears endless) and forcing words into other editor's mouths, why not simply address the issue as to the relevance of placing the Bulgar's ethnic origins(supposed or otherwise) in the lede. IF as Athenean and other editors have suggested(for the good of the reader) that the origins of the Bulgars must be mentioned in the lede, why are these editors assuming that the readers even know what a Turkic tribe is?? The lede should be a brief overview of the entire article, not an indepth explanation of every detail(ie,Balkans,Budapest,Dnieper River,Black Sea,Adriatic; how do we know the reader knows about these places?? Should we not define these as well??). I'm not Bulgarian(if anyone needs to know my ethnicity look here and could care less if the Bulgars are Turkic, Scottish, or Oklahoman!! IF the reader is SO confused between Bulgars and Bulgarians, the reader can easily click on a link to either Bulgars or Bulgarians! And, owing to the fact that the Bulgars origins are quickly addressed within the article(1.1), makes the arguments to place their origins in the lede rather spurious. Perhaps both sides need to make some concessions and move towards a compromise(Danubian Bulgar Khanate(in the lede)/Turkic tribe(not in the lede)).

~~Just a suggestion~~

Hopefully we can get this discussion back on track. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That is still not a compelling argument for not including it. I would be happy to compromise and get this over with, but let's first wait and see what other people will weigh in on the RFC. Athenean (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument for not including Turkic in the lead is that for the subject of the article, the precise ethinicity of the Bulgars is not relevant (if they had been Scottish, or Oklahoman, it wouldn't have made a difference for the First Bulgarian Empire). Again, I haven't seen a compelling argument for including it, unless it is to annoy the Bulgarians (I am not Bulgarian, by the way). Preslav (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But it is important that they were not of the same ethnicity, and non-indigenous. My concern is that if we don't include it, we will get something weird and convoluted like "...by the Bulgars who were not of the same ethnicity..." that will look precisely like it is trying to hide something, which is what I want to avoid. Athenean (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Gligan's proposal above ("...was a medieval state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by the Bulgars that eventually mingled with the native populations, especially the Slavs, to form a distinct Bulgarian people by the 9th century.") makes it clear in an elegant way that Bulgars were not of the same ethnicity as the natives (otherwise there wouldn't be any mingling), and that they are different from Bulgarians. Anyone interested in the details of Bulgar ethnicity can then click on the link. Preslav (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider it adequate Wikipedia practice to include in the lead an obscure name not established in English common usage (25 Google hits!), or to portray a disputed, controversial hypothesis as ‘a fact’, all that for the sake of ‘compromise’. Both the ‘khanate’ and the Turkic hypothesis do not belong to the lead here. Apcbg (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue whether the Bulgars were Turkic or not, that should be done at the Bulgars article (which is very inadequate at the moment, as all references about alternate theories have been removed, in contravention of Wikipedia's guidelines, so shouldn't really be taken so seriously in determining this article). The Iranian theory is still a notable enough to merit inclusion in a discussion about the origins of the Bulgars, but the lead is hardly the appropriate place for such a discussion. Therefore, we should stick to Preslav's version, which clearly explains that the Bulgars were a different ethnicity from the Slavs and were one of the forerunners of the Bulgarian people, without any controversial details. Kostja (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To speak honestly and to say what everybody here understand but don't want to express: The issue is that nobody except the Bulgarians know the difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians and the average reader think that are the same. So what the Bulgarian editors unanimously seems to insist upon, is to continue this misunderstanding as to claim the Empire on behalf the present day people by not mentioning the Bulgars' origin; but at the same time cannot accept considering the present Bulgarians being of Turkic origin. They want both. But that's impossible. It's just conflicting. Being unwillingness to put the Bulgars' origin in such a long lede, given that a great number of the occasional readers only read the lede of a long article, is not a solution. --Factuarius (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your thoughts upon the supposed motivations of participants in this discussion aren't relevant, so I won't comment on them. Your concern that readers might not differentiate Bulgars and Bulgarians are clearly addressed in this suggested compromise version: ("...was a medieval state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by the Bulgars that eventually mingled with the native populations, especially the Slavs, to form a distinct Bulgarian people by the 9th century."). Kostja (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my thoughts. And the compromise is? --Factuarius (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in my previous comment. Kostja (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In your previous comment you mentioned a sentence you characterized "compromised version". I asked where according to your expressed opinion is the compromise. --Factuarius (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant that this version clearly distinguishes Bulgarians and Bulgars, which is the main argument of those wanting to include Turkic.

Kostja (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If "the average reader" believes that Bulgars and Bulgarians are the same, then telling that 'average reader' that the former are of Turkic origins could achieve nothing but pursuade that reader that the Bulgarians are of Turkic origins too. So the suggested 'solution' does nothing to resolve the alleged 'problem', merely projecting the confused 'logic' of its proponents upon the poor reader instead. In other words, that 'main argument' is fallacious. Apcbg (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Bulgars in its present form makes it more than clear with an overwhelming amount of bibliography that they were Turkic. It would be nice to see how this one is a disputed theory or just one among other scientific approaches. Not to mention that Monshuai who has been accused for rejecting this fact finally admitted that most of the evidence points to the (Hunno-Bulgar) Turkic theory. We need some real argument to 'hide' the word Turkic.Alexikoua (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"... Monshuai who has been accused for rejecting this fact finally admitted that most of the evidence points to ..." So sorry we have no use for WP:OR here.

"The article Bulgars in its present form"? That something is written in the current version of some Wiki article does not make it a fact at all. Wiki articles are not even accepted as sources by Wikipedia’s own standards. Indeed, taking e.g. the French Wiki article assertions out of context as ‘facts’ would have made the Iranian origins a ‘fact’ too, fr:Les Proto-Bulgares : ... have played a leading role. It would be Bulgarians, Khazars and Magyars. The first was of Iranian origin, but dominated by a Turkish clan etc. (...joué un rôle de premier plan. Il s'agirait des Bulgares, des Khazars et des Magyars. Le premier était d'origine iranienne, mais dominé par un clan turc ...). As for the present version of the Bulgars article, which is flagrantly POV selective, picking in particular Bulgarian sources only among those supportive of the Turkic theory, while conveniently overlooking those supportive of other theories, let’s deal with that article separately. Apcbg (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, just, anyone, is there any serious reason supporting that including "Turkic" would be worse than not including it? Is there any serious problem that can be created by including this information?--Michael X the White (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It would present something as a fact that is disputed. Instead of explaining it (while it is not even relevant to the subject of the article), it is better to leave it out. For the third time, please (just, anyone,) come with arguments for including it. Preslav (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this really an issue? Are there any serious alternated theories about them? Can someone briefly present the disputed to the Turkic origin theories? --Factuarius (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"... is there any serious reason...? ... Is there any serious problem ...? ... Is this really an issue? ... Are there any ...?" That's precisely what's been discussed at length above, feel free to peruse it. Apcbg (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you volume down your irony? You posted a text above about "Proto-Bulgars" in being Bulgarians, Khazars or Magyars using a single source. Not to mention that saying that Proto-Bulgars were Bulgarians is by itself a vicious circle and most Bulgarian editors here support the theory that the Bulgarians came up after mingling between Bulgars and Slavs occurred in the Balkans, thus very later, both Khazars and Magyars are considering part of the same Turk-Mongolian populations you dispute. Khazars are considered an Avar population which were a Turk one (see the respective articles and bibliography) and Magyars a fusion of the Khazars, Avars, and the Ugrians, which were three Turkic tribes. So I have to ask again are we playing with the words here or what? --Factuarius (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The quoted text from fr: Les Proto-Bulgares (which is not “a source”, same as en:Bulgars is no source either, WP:RS for Rasho Rashev, Franz Altheim and Omeljan Pritsak who reject the Turkic hypothesis were given above) considers the Bulgars (in French ‘bulgares’ is used both for Bulgars and Bulgarians), the Khazars and the Magyars as three leading tribal formations in the region north of Black Sea. It doesn’t say that one of these derives from the others, but goes on to explain their different ethnic origins as follows: “Le premier était d'origine iranienne, mais dominé par un clan turc ; le deuxième d'origine turque ; le troisième d'origine finno-ougrienne, mais leurs identités sont incertaines et il semble que tous aient en fait été des confédérations de peuples des steppes d'origine différente.” (By the way, contrary to what you claim the Finno-Ugrians are not Turkic people.) Apcbg (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My issue with the inclusion of their ethnicity is purely stylistic. Why is their genealogy needed to understand the rest of the article? My recommendation ("...680 by the Bulgars (who had arrived two centuries earlier) and was ruled by hereditary emperors.) hints at their foreignness. If a reader is interested, they can click on the link immediately preceding it. Otherwise, you end up with a super long sentence that chock full of distracting, irrelevant (if it is indeed irrelevant) information. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Especially, now, that it seems their ethnicity is in dispute. If their exact ethnicity is mentioned, it will need to be updated everywhere it is mentioned when the dispute is resolved. Or you have to qualify it with a parenthetical remark (introducing even more commas if you don't want to use parentheses) saying that their Turkic origin is disputed, attribute the claim to whomever makes it, and then present the other claims. -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The dispute about the origins of the Bulgars is not a Wikipedia one but a long time scientific dispute among few mostly contradicting but partly overlapping theories (or rather hypotheses), the principal three of them popularly known as 'Turkic theory', 'Iranian theory' and 'Mixed origins theory'. None of these is new, and due to the scaesity of historical evidence it is unlikely that this dispute would be resolved anytime soon. However, what we see is some tendency of decreasing support for the 'Turkic theory' which used to be dominant in the past. This is most clearly — but not exclusively — seen among the Bulgarian historians, with the shiefs of the three most reputable national institutions for historical research (Faculty of History at Sofia University, Institute of History at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and the National Archeological Museum, the latter participating in archeological investigations in the relevant regions of Ukraine and Russia too) now rejecting that theory. Some sources:

Mediaeval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources, Vol. II, E. Bretschneider, 1888:

“Towards the end of the fifth century these Bulgars are recorded to have crossed the Danube. They settled in Moesia and Thrace, where they still live. The original Bulgars on the Volga, according to Fraehn, were a mixture of Fins, Slavs, and Turks. The Danubian Bulgars since their appearance in history are reckoned among the Slaves, speak a Slavonic language, and have been Christened from an early date.”

Judith Pfeiffer, Sholeh Alysia Quinn. History and historiography of post-Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East. Harrassowitz, 2006:

“It becomes apparent that the Bulgars used a Byzantine formula but they implied old Bulgar (and Iranian in general) traditions related to the heavenly origin of power.”

Kevin Alan Brook. The Jews of Khazaria. Jason Aronson, 1999:

“Thus, the Bulgars were actually a tribal confederation of multiple Hunnic and Turkic groups mixed together.”

David Talbot Rice. Byzantine art and its influences, Vol.1. Variorum Reprints, 1973:

“In Bulgaria, on the other hand, the Iranian element goes much deeper, for it was conveyed along with the Bulgars themselves from their original home between the Caspian and the Caucasus.”

Rasho Rashev. Protobulgars in V-VII century. Third edition. Sofia, Orbel, 2005, ISBN 954-496-073-2, p. 27:

“The Bulgar tribe (Protobulgars) is a composite of three ethno-linguistic groups: Iranian, Ugric and Turkic.”

Omeljan Pritsak, in:Bozhidar Dimitrov, Bulgars and Alexander of Macedon. Sofia, 2001:

“We should admit that the Bulgars were not Turkic. A century old, erroneous and harmful unscientific view has been overcome.” Apcbg (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the point we have to learn French in order to be possibly convinced by Abcbg that this fact is disputed. Since I don't understand French I feel not convinced by such kind of weird approach. Abcbg: It would be better to give your arguments in English here. Please bring some material that supports your claim, most preferrably in english, since the article Bulgars completely ignores the Iranian theory (Not to mention that this extreme nationalistic claim was one of Monshuai's reasons that he lead him topic ban).

Abcbg you still need to give an argument, instead of copy pasting french wiki text.Alexikoua (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way the German article which is npov is very clear: Protobulgaren (gelegentlich auch Ur-Bulgaren oder Hunno-Bulgaren) ist eine wissenschaftliche Bezeichnung für diverse, vor allem turksprachige Stammesverbände der eurasischen Steppenzone. It seems more than obvious that they were Turkic and they spoke Turkic. Do I have to mention google books hits? [[25]]Alexikoua (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"It seems more than obvious that they were Turkic" is not the way we work here, we report what WP:RS say rather than drawing WP:OR conclusions what "seems more than obvious". As for the German Wiki, that was precisely my point in quoting the French Wiki, namely to show that different Wikis say differently — the reason why Wiki articles are not accepted as sources and why your reference to the English Wiki article Bulgars is not helpful here. I quoted above historians like Rasho Rashev, Georgi Markov, Franz Altheim, Omeljan Pritsak, Alexander Fol, Georgi Bakalov and sources that support theories other than the Turkic one, no need to repeat that. Apcbg (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that this non-Turkic approach was mainly supported by specific Bulgarians, especially from the soscialist era. Moreover, Franz Altheim is clear that they were Hunno Turkic [[26]][[27]]. Moreover, we have 729 hits in google books [[28]] that mainly support the Hunno-Turkic theory. It seems also that the entire western bibliography is clear about this. The only exeption are some authors of the former soviet block

I understand your national sesintivity on the topic, but this is sounds like the round earth concept denial.Alexikoua (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Shooting yourself in the foot: It was the Turkic theory that used to be dominant during the time of communist Bulgaria and the former Soviet block :-) Apcbg (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid wp:or conclusions. Moreover, u didn't provided an argument. Altheim still supports the Hunnic scenario, so does an overwhelming bibliography in googlebooksAlexikoua (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So what? All historians agree that the Bulgars were part of “the Hunnic scenario”, which involved ethnic groups of various origins: Turkic, Iranian, Ugrian, Germanic etc. Altheim maintains in the linked works that the Bulgars originally came from northeastern Iran {“aus dem nordöstlichen Iran kamen”). Apcbg (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hunnic scenario"? "Iranian, Germanic.."? So they were possibly also Germans? I appreciate the effort you are doing in finding any possible alternative theories from any possible source, but the situation is starting to get ridiculous. I am sure that you can even find a source saying that they were possibly of Swedish or Viking origin. But unfortunately there is no serious objection against their Turkic origin and you know that very well, and I know that you know it because I did today what you did yesterday: A search on sources. And I found how difficult your search was in finding non-Turkic possible origins. As you have seen (but didn't mention), every serious and notable source agrees on the Turkic origin. Really you didn't notice it?

• Henry Chadwick, Oxford University Press, "The Bulgars, Turkic nomads, dominated the Slav tribes settled in the Balkans.."[29]
• Glen Warren Bowersock,Peter Robert Lamont Brown,Oleg Grabar. Harvard University Press. "The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation..."[30]
• Rosamond McKitterick, Oxford University Press "were followed by the Turkic Bulgars, .." [31]
• Olga Mišeska Tomić, University of Michigan Press, "The same path towards Danube that were used by a large number of Turkic peoples -Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Pechenegs and Cumans."[32]
• Francis Dvornik, Rutgers University Press, "The Slavs, settled between the the Danube and the Balkans, were organized into a solid political structure by the Turkic Bulgars, who named their state Bulgaria"[33]
• Charles King, Oxford University Press, "By 1054 the Bulgars had lost most of nomadic and Turkic traits of the past.."[34]
• Encyclopedia Americana "The Bulgars a Turkic people, who had previously lived in the Bolga region.."[35]
• Roland Sussex,Paul V. Cubberley, Cambridge University Press, "the Bulgars a war-like Turkic tribe arrived in the Balkans from north of the Black Sea in AD 679 under the command of Asparuch.."[36]
• John Powell, California State University Press, "The Bulgars, a Turkic people related to the Huns, began raiding across.."[37]
• René Grousset, Rutgers University Press, "The Bulgars -the Turkic people who had until then helped the Avars as allies.."[38]
• Geoffrey A. Hosking, Harvard University Press, "Beyond Khazaria, in the middle Volga basin, another Turkic people, the Bulgars, had their own kaganate"[39]
• Eric Joseph Goldberg, Cornell University Press, "The Bulgars were a warlike Turkic-speaking people from the Asiatic steppes north of the Black Sea.."[40]

These are a dozen. You can find the rest of the 1,060 + 842 refs in the Google books. --Factuarius (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are hundreds, we have a typical wp:idontlikeit case.Alexikoua (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So Factuarius, you think you are the authority to decide which author is serious or not? Multiple authors have been given which support an alternate theory, making the mentioning of Turkic problematic at least and you dismiss them with a wp:idontlikeit argument. I would say it applies much better to you in this case.

@Alexikoua, your dismissal of all of those holding alternative opinion is rather OR, not to mention that they throw doubts about your knowledge on the subject. As Apcbg, pointed out it was during the socialist times that the Turkic opinion was strongly promoted. Your comment about "some authors of the former soviet block" is especially glaring. Of course Bulgarian historians (and to a lesser extent other Eastern European) are much more interested in the subject than the Western Bibliography and are much likely to discover new interpretations of the origin of the Bulgars. Conversely, such interpretations usually have difficulty being accepted in the West, so it’s not surprising that the relatively new Iranian theory is not widespread outside Bulgaria.

In conclusion, most of the literature supports the Turkic theory, however many researches working in recent years have different opinions. Therefore it would make sense, if we're mentioning origin, to mention alternate theories as well. Or we could simply skip on the origin, like practically all articles dealing with former countries (plenty of examples above). Especially as I've yet to see any arguments what problems would arise if Turkic isn't mentioned.

PS: By the way, is there any guarantee that most of those books cited haven't simply copied older works about the Bulgars? Wouldn't be surprising, considering that most deal with the Bulgars only peripherally. Kostja (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No I am not "the authority to decide which author is serious or not". This is the university's publishing staff job to do it. And as you have seen these are only their latest editions. But if you think that they are wrong I will post any number of dozens you want from other universities tomorrow. Give me number, date after and preferable institutions. --Factuarius (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we don't include "Turkic" in the lead, for lack of arguments why it should be included, and move the discussion on the ethnicity of the Bulgars to Talk:Bulgars. Preslav (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Lack of arguments"? But because they were Turkic what other argument is needed? What's the reason to conceal that? We are talking for their Empire for God's sake. And you argue the input by disputing that. Now you are coming back saying the incredible and why to put it. "Give me reasons". I gave you, and below is the second dozen of refs I promised yesterday.

• Gary C. Fouse, University Press of America, "a Turkic-speaking people called the Bulgars who moved into the Volga-Ural.."[41]
• Harry Turtledove, University of Pennsylvania Press, "by the Bulgars, a people originally of Turkic descent."[42]
• Many, The Johns Hopkins University Press, "The Chuvash are believed to have originated from Turkic-Altaic Bulgar tribes who migrated in the 4th century ad from Central Asia"[43]
• Ronald Findlay,Kevin H. O'Rourke, Princeton University Press, "The Bulgars were a Turkic people, a branch of which had settled in the lower Danube basin.."[44]
• Richard A. Fletcher, University of California Press, "They belonged to a Turkic ethnic group their ruler, or khan, Asparuch.."[45]
• Sigfried J. De Laet, Unesco, "contemporaries invariably mentioned the Bulgars, mostly of Turkic origin"[46]
• Omeljan Pritsak, Harvard University Press, "Volga Bulgars were not Slavs, however, but of Turkic and Hunnic origin.."[47]
• Andrew Wachtel, Stanford University Press, "a Turkic tribe that had migrated to the Western shores of the Black Sea in the seventh century."[48]
• Robert Fossier, Cambridge University Press, "from the same Turkic stock as the Huns"[49]
• Timothy Reuter,Rosamond McKitterick, Cambridge University Press, "The Turkic Bulgar state ruled the the middle Volga region.."[50]
• Edward N. Luttwak, Harvard University Press, "the Turkic speaking Bulgars were assimilated linguistically by the Slav majority.."[51]
• Paul Stephenson, Cambridge University Press, "Following the arrival of the Turkic Bulgars in 680.."[52]

Please let me know when to stop. --Factuarius (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean that there is a lack of arguments on why it is essential to mention their exact ethnicity in the lead of the article. There are plenty of arguments for their likely Turkic ethnicity, but that's not what we are discussing here. Preslav (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And I answered: Because they were, and because this is their Empire's article. And I don't know what you discuss but this is what Kostja and Apcbg are discussing (see above), thus their objections and my refs. --Factuarius (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this has been discussed in several sections above. Many users have expresssed their interest in showing that the way the state was founded is important (and I agree in this). The Turkic origin, will help us to make the connection with Old Great Bulgaria, and explain later in "Background" why and how the Bulgars arived in Danube in the 670s. Also, it will give us the chance to explain the reader how Christianity was important when Bulgars mixed with the local Slavic populations later on. The average reader will think that Bulgars were of Slavic origin otherwise and this would make no sense, while with "Turkic origin", it would. Also, we will be able to explain that the Bulgars were nor indigenous, nor did they spawn out of nowhere. This is totally constructive. It is the reason for which I asked earlier on if there is any constructive reason against including this.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

@Factuarius: I have no doubts that most of the Western literature follows the Turkic theory. I didn't need so many references to be convinced. But as I said above, it seems rather unlikely that the origin of the Bulgars was researched by the writers for most of these books as most of them are not specifically about the Bulgars. it is very likely that they used existing literature, which due to the Iranian theory being relatively new and on top mostly from Eastern Europe, supports overwhelmingly the Turkic theory. The Iranian theory is still notable, as its a developing theory that is gaining support (see for example Pritsak, who changed his opinion) and is supported in those areas where interest in the history of the Bulgars is greatest. Therefore it should be included in an article about the Bulgars but not in the lead of this article, which like most other similar articles (as has been said many times already) shouldn't feature additional information about origin in the lead. Kostja (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

@Michael IX the White: I don't see why the Turkic origin is important in understanding the connection between the First Bulgarian State and Old Great Bulgaria or the explanation about Christianity. For both of these purposes it's sufficient to mention that the Bulgars were instrumental in those events, their exact ethnicity is not really relevant to their role in those events. The compromise version clearly differentiates the Bulgars from the indigenous population and the Slavs, so the second part of your arguments also doesn't establish the need for mentioning the origin. Kostja (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that Abcbg admitted that Bulgars came from Central Asia [[53]] (more precisely NE Iran, no matter if Turkic or not). Suppose everyone agrees in that, at least that Bulgars came from Central Asia.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Adding their geographic origin would be an additional way of stressing their difference from Slavs. Preslav (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If added, the geographic origin should be “originally from Central Asia” — originally, because they didn’t come to the Balkans directly from Central Asia. Prior to extending their territorial possessions to the south of Danube River about 681 AD, they used to be neighbours of Byzantium’s both in the Danube delta area and in Crimea, had been established in Northern Caucasus for centuries, and indeed invading Byzantine Moesia and Thrace well before the Slavs did so. Apcbg (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure agree with “originally from Central Asia”.Alexikoua (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Name again

You can have a look of the search results in google considering the names:

• Danube Bulgar Khanate - 2,450
• Bulgarian Khanate - 3,000
• Danube Bulgaria - 9,840
• First Bulgarian State - 881,000

As I repeated a hundred times, Danube Bulgar Khanate is not universally accepted and is even the less used definition for the time of the Bulgarian Khanate - the other two options are used a little more but still are not comparable with First Bulgarian State which can be the only name that should stay.

I suggest to either insert those in a footnote or make a paragraph "Nomenclature" like that of the Byzantine Empire. If we make the Nomenclature section we can put there the connection between Old Great Bulgaria and Bulgaria, since many historians argue that the foundation date of Bulgaria should be 632, not 681. Apcbg who seems to be more familiar with that than me can write a paragraph on that issue. --Gligan (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Also:

• "first bulgarian empire" - 12,400
• "first bulgarian kingdom" - 2,950

Apcbg (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I do not see any objection, I will do what we have agreed with Constantine - I will insert the names in a footnote. --Gligan (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I object. "Danubian Bulgar Khanate" is used by top-caliber sources. Either we discuss all alternate names in a "Name" section (the ideal solution in my opinion), or else we leave the first line of the lead as is. Selectively moving names that offend national sensibilities to a little-read "Footnote" at the end of the article, is a not the way to go. Athenean (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Good. Tomorrow I will create a nomenclature section. But I did not like your style. We might say in the same manner selective insertion of names that make no sense. Furthermore, you sounded like posting an ultimatum and it is not you to say what must stay and what not; we have not agreed to leave that name. The last two sentences are just lyrical deviation. --Gligan (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you thought that sounded like an ultimatum, because that certainly was not my intention. An ultimatum would have been more like "Gligan, restore those name or else...". Anyway I think the matter is settled now. Just out of curiosity, what on earth is "lyrical deviation"? Athenean (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job on the Nomenclature section, btw, but you forgot to remove some of the alternate names from it. Athenean (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On this basis, let's rename the entire article into "First Bulgarian State". Why not, since Google stats can establish consensus and arguments?--Michael X the White (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Dennis Sinor, The Cambridge history of early Inner Asia, Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, 1990, ISBN 0521243041, 9780521243049, p.62
2. ^ Christopher I. Beckwith, Empires of the Silk Road: a history of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age, Princeton University Press, 2009, ISBN 0691135894, 9780691135892, p.117
3. ^ John V. A. Fine, "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century", 1994, p.55
4. ^ R. J. Crampton, "A concise history of Bulgaria", 2005, p.21
5. ^ http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&dq=bulgars+turkic&lr=&cd=39#v=onepage&q=bulgars%20turkic&f=false
6. ^ ^{a b c} Angold 1997 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAngold1997 (help)
7. ^ ^{a b c} Norwich 1998 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNorwich1998 (help)
8. ^ http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&dq=bulgars+turkic&lr=&cd=39#v=onepage&q=bulgars%20turkic&f=false
9. ^ John V. A. Fine, "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century", 1994, p.55
10. ^ R. J. Crampton, "A concise history of Bulgaria", 2005, p.21
11. ^ Dennis Sinor, The Cambridge history of early Inner Asia, Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, 1990, ISBN 0521243041, 9780521243049, p.62
12. ^ Christopher I. Beckwith, Empires of the Silk Road: a history of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age, Princeton University Press, 2009, ISBN 0691135894, 9780691135892, p.117
13. ^ John V. A. Fine, "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century", 1994, p.55
14. ^ R. J. Crampton, "A concise history of Bulgaria", 2005, p.21
15. ^ Dennis Sinor, The Cambridge history of early Inner Asia, Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, 1990, ISBN 0521243041, 9780521243049, p.62
16. ^ Christopher I. Beckwith, Empires of the Silk Road: a history of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age, Princeton University Press, 2009, ISBN 0691135894, 9780691135892, p.117
17. ^ http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&dq=bulgars+turkic&lr=&cd=39#v=onepage&q=bulgars%20turkic&f=false
18. ^ John V. A. Fine, "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century", 1994, p.55
19. ^ R. J. Crampton, "A concise history of Bulgaria", 2005, p.21
20. ^ Dennis Sinor, The Cambridge history of early Inner Asia, Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, 1990, ISBN 0521243041, 9780521243049, p.62
21. ^ Christopher I. Beckwith, Empires of the Silk Road: a history of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age, Princeton University Press, 2009, ISBN 0691135894, 9780691135892, p.117
22. ^ http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=c788wWR_bLwC&pg=PA354&dq=bulgars+turkic&lr=&cd=39#v=onepage&q=bulgars%20turkic&f=false