Talk:Bulgaria

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2023
Citation found in the introductory part of the article: "Widespread corruption is a major socioeconomic issue; Bulgaria ranks among the most corrupt countries in the European Union."

There is no need for that part in the very top of the page if we are to assume Wikipedia strives for objectivity because of few reasons: 1) No other country that "ranks amongst most corrupt countries in European Union" has it. 2) In fact, close to none other Wikipedia page of a country that ranks worse in the Corruptions Perception index (cited there) has it. (Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, Hungary, Argentina, Brazil, India, Thailand, Turkey... etc.) 3) The link "Widespread Corruption" leads to a page that it's discussing how the corruption situation is improved, contrary to the set tone in the current article.

From the above, we can conclude this information does not add to the objective portrayal of the country's current situation and in fact contributes to an unnecessary negative bias towards the country and its people. At the very least, its part is not in the Introduction Dwartbg (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I agree that it's weird that this is not mentioned in a similar way in other articles. However, I don't think the problem is its mention here; it contributes factual information to the article. Instead, it might be better to include such information in articles about the other affected countries, where appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And how do you suggest such information could get added by us in other countries articles, without getting immediately flagged as trying to mess with their page? We all know people are trying indirectly to showcase their countries in their full glory using the English translated articles, hence no other European country apart from Bulgaria put such negative statistics in their summary.   This information shouldn't be removed, but placed in the sections titled "Demographics" and "Economy".   If you are Bulgarian you obivously know that even in simple words this is just bad advertisement about our country.  We know most people usually just read the short summaries of country articles.  And this would be the last thing that they will remember. Dwartbg (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If there are disputes, I suggest you discuss them on the article talk pages. There are also extensive procedures for dispute resolution, see WP:DR.
 * I don't think a majority of editors are trying to "showcase their countries in their full glory", remember to assume good faith and be civil. I understand your concerns, but I very much doubt that this was done with malicious intent. See also WP:TINC :) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "it contributes factual information to the article"
 * No, it doesn't because the part about the corruption in Bulgaria attempts to present as an established fact what is actually an arguable statement, by omitting any clear indication about the objectivity and measurability of the source of that statement:
 * "Widespread corruption is a major socioeconomic issue; Bulgaria ranks among the most corrupt countries in the European Union."
 * Without a careful research, one can easily be misled by that statement that there exists a methodology for indisputably determining that a country is corrupted and for quantitatively measuring that it's "widespread". Without proper clarification on the same paragraph, or even better, through proper wording, describing the actual methodology and source of the statement, the statement is far from being objective. That creates an unnecessary bias, especially since it's put in the introductory part of the article. The only citation that is given is an external link to the Corruption Perception Index. There's not even a link to the Wikipedia Article about the Corruption Perception Index where one can find that that index doesn't actually measure the corruption, but instead ranks the perceived level of corruption by also surveying people and asking them about their perception, among other things. One can also find that the Corruption Perception Index has been criticized:
 * According to political scientist Dan Hough, three flaws in the Index include:
 * Corruption is too complex a concept to be captured by a single score. For instance, the nature of corruption in rural Kansas will be different from that in the city administration of New York, yet the Index measures them in the same way.
 * By measuring perceptions of corruption, as opposed to corruption itself, the Index may simply be reinforcing existing stereotypes and cliches.
 * The Index only measures public sector corruption, ignoring the private sector. This, for instance, means the well-publicized Libor scandal, Odebrecht case and the VW emissions scandal are not counted as corrupt actions.
 * Apparently the statement "Widespread corruption is a major socioeconomic issue" is not factual and is actually quite misleading. As has already been mentioned by the other commentator, the separate article about corruption in Bulgaria has this in the first sentence:
 * Corruption in Bulgaria has decreased in recent years
 * So, the statement about the "widespread corruption" is not factual because you can't objectively use "widespread" for something that has "decreased".
 * Hence, the entire statement about corruption in the introductory part of the article needs to be moved to other sections and needs to be rephrased, so that the biased qualifier "widespread" is removed, and the statement is amended by adding a clarification and proper wording to reflect that it's based on the Corruption Perception Index.
 * The suggestion about editing other articles of other countries as a way to reduce bias is close to ridiculous and I can't really believe it can be an argument of not removing that arguable statement. Keeping it there with similar argumentation is very disappointing and really puts a lot of doubt about the objectivity in Wikipedia's moderation team as a whole. CyberGene (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Rearrangement and replacement of images
I have done some rearrangement and replacement of the images, mainly because I think there should be more emphasis on how the country looks like rather than on charts, which may be checked in the respective articles on economy, demographics, etc. All this done with due respect for the contributions of :, the main author and proponent for the featured status of the article. Reasoning for the changes:
 * In section "First Bulgarian Empire" I have substituted an image of a fresco, whose location is actually unknown from the description of the file, with a painting of Simeon I as overseeing literary activity by a renown Czech painter. I think it is better suited to illustrate the sections compared to the previous one.
 * In section "Biodiversity and conservation" I have replaced an image of a lizard species with one of Belogradchik Rocks, one of Bulgaria's most recognizable nature formations. The image of the lizard is very beautiful and of high quality, but my reasoning is that the article should rather focus on how Bulgaria itself looks like.
 * In section "Politics" I have replaced the image of Independence Square with a similar one of the same place and from the same viewpoint, which I think is a bit better.
 * In section "Economy" I have removed one of the charts (which is actually partially covered by the remaining second one) and have instead included two images, showing a business district in Sofia and a factory in Plovdiv. Unfortunately, as of now I can't find many quality pictures related to Bulgarian businesses, factories, companies and office districts.
 * In section "Infrastructure" I have the image of Trakiya Motorway with one of the same motorway, which I think gives a wider look of the road.
 * In section "Demographics" I have removed two of the three(!) charts - that is way too much. There are plenty of charts in the dedicated main article.
 * In section "Religion" I have removed the chart (available also in the main article) and have instead integrated the information in the text of the section.
 * In section "Culture" I have removed an image of a temporary art installation by a famous Bulgarian artist that is above all outside the country and have added two images of the Bulgarian heritage. Same reasoning as above - to show how Bulgarian heritage in the country itself looks like. I also think that there could be a better replacement of the kuker picture, but have not removed it for now.
 * I have done some rearrangement and resizing, as to have a more uniform look, although more work may be needed in that direction.

Best regards, --Gligan (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2024
Please add the country of Old Great Bulgaria to the establishment timeline. Thank you:-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria 2003:CD:DF14:914B:5530:A12A:C7B1:EAE4 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: While a good concern, this is a misuse of edit requests. Edit requests confide in the user making the request, and assume the user has something specific to change or to add. (Sample edit requests)

— Urro[ talk ] [ edits ] 15:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Vague asks like these can be suggested simply by adding a topic to the talk page. No edit request is needed.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2024
It is necessary to add the foundation date of Old Great Bulgaria - 632, and the correct date of the end of the Second Bulgarian Empire, which is 1422, with death of the last bulgarian medieval tsar - Constantine II. The fact that he was “emperor of Bulgaria” was attested by king Sigismund referring to Constantine as the "distinguished Constantine, glorious Emperor of Bulgaria" I.sevriyski (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add something
Add something about the Bulgarian word for Raspberries, Malina, seems a little random I know but there's a reason, if you would you could also mention how the name Maleena stems form this. 168.102.132.44 (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * please add the bulgarian word for "cheese" as well, it helps us all out 2600:1700:1150:41B0:9CFB:6F5E:D7E2:2BA (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)