Talk:First Bulgarian Empire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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 [1] 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). >>>>I argue that the Bulgarians are slavic, look at the discussion "Bulgars" on the latest bulgar discussion page in the Bulgars article, and look at all the links including the ones that prensent genetic evidence contrary to them being slavic

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)

Rename to Khanate or split in two

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)), also known as the First Bulgarian State, or more simply Bulgaria, was a medieval state in the north-eastern Balkans. Known in its early days as the Danubian Bulgar Khanate, 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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is it not THE FIRST BULGARIAN KINGDOM.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.214.241 (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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 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? [[2]]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 [[3]][[4]]. Moreover, we have 729 hits in google books [[5]] 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.."[6]
• Glen Warren Bowersock,Peter Robert Lamont Brown,Oleg Grabar. Harvard University Press. "The Bulgars were a Turkic tribal confederation..."[7]
• Rosamond McKitterick, Oxford University Press "were followed by the Turkic Bulgars, .." [8]
• 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."[9]
• 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"[10]
• Charles King, Oxford University Press, "By 1054 the Bulgars had lost most of nomadic and Turkic traits of the past.."[11]
• Encyclopedia Americana "The Bulgars a Turkic people, who had previously lived in the Bolga region.."[12]
• 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.."[13]
• John Powell, California State University Press, "The Bulgars, a Turkic people related to the Huns, began raiding across.."[14]
• René Grousset, Rutgers University Press, "The Bulgars -the Turkic people who had until then helped the Avars as allies.."[15]
• Geoffrey A. Hosking, Harvard University Press, "Beyond Khazaria, in the middle Volga basin, another Turkic people, the Bulgars, had their own kaganate"[16]
• Eric Joseph Goldberg, Cornell University Press, "The Bulgars were a warlike Turkic-speaking people from the Asiatic steppes north of the Black Sea.."[17]

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.."[18]
• Harry Turtledove, University of Pennsylvania Press, "by the Bulgars, a people originally of Turkic descent."[19]
• 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"[20]
• 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.."[21]
• Richard A. Fletcher, University of California Press, "They belonged to a Turkic ethnic group their ruler, or khan, Asparuch.."[22]
• Sigfried J. De Laet, Unesco, "contemporaries invariably mentioned the Bulgars, mostly of Turkic origin"[23]
• Omeljan Pritsak, Harvard University Press, "Volga Bulgars were not Slavs, however, but of Turkic and Hunnic origin.."[24]
• Andrew Wachtel, Stanford University Press, "a Turkic tribe that had migrated to the Western shores of the Black Sea in the seventh century."[25]
• Robert Fossier, Cambridge University Press, "from the same Turkic stock as the Huns"[26]
• Timothy Reuter,Rosamond McKitterick, Cambridge University Press, "The Turkic Bulgar state ruled the the middle Volga region.."[27]
• Edward N. Luttwak, Harvard University Press, "the Turkic speaking Bulgars were assimilated linguistically by the Slav majority.."[28]
• Paul Stephenson, Cambridge University Press, "Following the arrival of the Turkic Bulgars in 680.."[29]

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 [[30]] (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)

Due to the disruptive activity by Kostja [[31]]& Glingan [[32]] this long estamblished (more than a month) the consensus is boycotted. Thank for not participating in the discussion guys. (If you ever read above there was a agreement) Alexikoua (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

But generally, why should we mention in the lead where the Bulgars originated from? When they established Bulgaria they came from Old Great Bulgaria in the steppes between the Black Sea and the Caspean Sea. To mention their original homelands in the lead would be rather confusing than helping. Everything on the moves of the Bulgars is explained below. That article has to deal with the First Bulgarian State, not what happened before - that is why such things have no place in the lead but in the background section. And everyone in Bulgaria (and elsewhere I suppose) agrees that the Bulgars came from Central Asia... --Gligan (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the one reason this must be mentioned (if not in the lede, then definitively in the article) is that the Bulgars brought in many "typically" Turkic elements, e.g. in their administration, which they retained for a long time, i.e. for the first two centuries of their existence. Only after did they become increasingly slavified and (to an extent) Byzantinicized... As such, the partially Turkic character of the early Bulgarian state is of some importance. Constantine ✍ 10:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to, write a paragraph about that in the background section. I am sure you will do that in a clear and readable manner. --Gligan (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"the Bulgars brought in many "typically" Turkic elements, e.g. in their administration". Really? Could you please explicate, what exactly elements? Apcbg (talk) 13:46, 19 April 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)

Please try to contribute constructively. Kostja (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)