Talk:First Bulgarian Empire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lead again

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 [[1]]. 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)

New proposal for the lead

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: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), also known as the Danubian Bulgar Khanate, the First Bulgarian State, or more simply Bulgaria, was a medieval state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by the Bulgars, a Turkic tribe 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. 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. (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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

"was a medieval state founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by the Bulgars, a Turkic tribe 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Since there was a question why information about Tervel was removed in lead , it's because this is historically wrong [[2]], Roger de Flor was also named Caesar, so he wasn't the one and only one non-Byzantine leader [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]. What's ironic is that this book [[6]] 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), also known as the First Bulgarian State, or more simply Bulgaria, was a medieval Bulgarian (we need a link to Bulgarian) 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.)
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. 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.

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

A new lead ??

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This [7] 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

[8].

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

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)

@ 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)

@ 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)

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)

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 [[9]], 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 [[10]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

A new Lead round 2

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

I don't know where Apcbg sees 25 google hits for "Danube Bulgar Khanate", as it is used by top-level sources [11] [12]. 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)

'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)

That's really odd, because I get 601 hits on Google Books for "Danube Bulgar Khanate" [13]. Are you sure you're typing it in right? Athenean (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

767 hits for Danube Bulgar Khanate on Google scholar [14]. Athenean (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Even so, those are top-level sources. And "Bulgar Khanate", gets 127 hits, most of which refer to the state founded by Asparukh [15] rather than the Volga Bulgar Khanate. Athenean (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [[16]].

The Turkic origin of the state's founders should be mentioned in the lead, as per Gligan's initial proposal [[17]]. 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)

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)

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: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), also known as the First Bulgarian State, or more simply Bulgaria, was a medieval Bulgarian (we need a link to Bulgarian) 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.)
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. 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.

(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 [[18]]. 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)