Talk:Dobruja/Archive 1

Merge History of Dobruja into the history section of Dobruja

 * First, there are much more information on this article (Dobruja) than on the History of Dobruja one.
 * Of course some would say why don't we move all history to history of dobruja. But this would leave this article very short, almost a stub.
 * And the third argument is that no historical regions of Bulgaria or Romania have separate articles for the history section. See Eastern Rumelia, Wallachia, Transylvania, Oltenia, Budjak, Moesia, Thrace, Rumelia, Macedonia (region), Bukovina, Banat, Bessarabia, Maramures region (the last 8 are divided between two or more countries, like Dobruja, some of them have longer articles han this one). Even Moldavia (historical region) doesn't have a link to its own history, but to the history of the Republic of Moldova.

BTW, we should also add some other sections: geography, economy and etymology maybe Anonimu 21:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

how could bulgaria retain control of dobrudja until 1411, when the tzarate of turnovo, the only bulgarian state who could control the region, disappeared in 1393?
 * The Dobrudja Despotate was one of the three major Bulgarian states of the separated Bulgarian Tsardom, ruled by Balik, his brother Dobrotitsa (whose Slavic name the region actually bears, only turkified and meaning "Dobrotitsa's land") and then Ivanko, Dobrotitsa's son. As the names states, the despotate had its territory in Dobrudja (Kravuna (now Kavarna) was its capital). As for the date - I doubt it was 1411, my History of Bulgaria source says either 1388-1389 or 1399, but certainly nothing about it being in Bulgarian control as late as 1411. You might consider changing it worthwhile. --Martyr 16:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

And Balik's name was also known as Balitza ... Wasn't it?

Minorities
Yes, VMRO, there were many Bulgarians that were assimilated in Northern Dobruja and elsewhere in Romania. :-) But let me remind you that Bulgaria once had a signifiant minority of Romanians, too:


 * In 1926 the number of "Romanians" living in Bulgaria was 69 080, while the total number of individuals whose mother tongue was Romanian ran up to 83 746. The Aroumanins belonging to this group were divided, according to their self-descriptions, into three subgroups: 5000 Aroumanians, 4000 Kutzovlachs and 1500 Tsintsars. from http://www.omda.bg/engl/narod/vlasi_arumani_engl.html

bogdan | Talk 21:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, Bogdan, I admit what you say - but the majority of the Vlachs in Bulgaria were concentrated in the district of Vidin and not in Southern Dobruja. And no, you are not right about northern Dobrudja - practically no Bulgarians ever got assimilated there, they all resettled to Sourthern Dobruja although the vast majority of them had attended only Romanian schools and could not even write in Bulgarian. There were, however, some 120,000 Bulgarians in Wallachia (as of the beginning of the 20th century), the vast majority of which WERE assimilated. They were, however, not indigenous population but emigrants (refugees) who came to Wallachia in the 18th and 19th century. The same regards the Vlachs in Bulgaria - most of them came as refugees from Wallachia in the 18th cenrtury. VMORO 21:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Bulgarians refugees came in Wallachia because of the Turkish rule in Bulgaria. But why did Vlachs move south of the Danube?


 * Actually, it was more complex than just refugees. Initially, Romanians also lived in the mountains of Western Bulgaria, while Bulgarians also lived in the plains of south-eastern Romania. This was due to their origins: Bulgarians, as Slavs were used with agriculture in the lowlands, while the Romanians survived the dark ages in the mountains. It was in western Bulgaria and Southern Romania where Romanians and Bulgarians had contacts which had some important cultural exchanges, including linguistic exchanges. Romanian and Bulgarian share a great deal of vocabulary, some of which is 'original', i.e. cannot be found in other Romance or Slavic languages, some of which are simply borrowings краставица->castraveţi (cucumber) from Bulgarian into Romanian or masa->маса (table) from Romanian into Bulgarian. However, it seems Romanian has much more Slavic/Bulgarian words, because of the Church.
 * But getting back to the story... eventually, the Bulgarians assimilated the Romanians of the heights in Bulgaria and the Romanians assimilated the Bulgarians of the lowlands of Romania.
 * Now returning to the question, yes, it appears there were some Wallachians that moved south of Danube that settled in the lowlands southeast of Vidin. (the Romanians that lived in the mountains came much earlier) But I have no idea why, I would guess taxation and stuff like that. bogdan | Talk 22:47, 19

October 2005 (UTC)

I have added more detailed information about the area around Mangalia and the Romanian-Bulgarian crissis of 1879, with ref of course.Constantzeanu 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Byzantine/Bulgarian

 * With the exception of periods of Byzantine and Tatar domination, parts of the territory of what is now known as Dobruja remained under Bulgarian rule until 14th century.

Actually, it stayed more under Byzantine rule than under Bulgarian rule, so this should be rephrased some way.bogdan 23:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are right. I changed the wording in order to reflect that. What do you think now.Constantzeanu 03:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe the Byzantine/ Bulgarian rule should be split in Bulgarian rule and Byzantine Rule, the miz is very confusing, or maybe should be rewritten as Dark age period in order to reflect cronological events and not to be biased political history. CristianChirita 12:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolling by Bogdan and Constantzeanu
Bulgar necropoles have been discovered on the following sites: Topola, Durankulak (Dobrich region) and Istria, Obarshia Noua, Izvorul, Sultana in present-day Romania. And this is according to a source from the 1960s, perhaps many more have been found after that date. Should I also remind you that the first Bulgarian capital (Pliska) lies around 50 km from the boundary of Southern Dobruja.

As for the "Romanian majority" in northern Dobruja, we have talked at length with you about this, Bogdan, and such a thing did not exist AT ALL until the beginning of the 20th century and even then the Romanians had ONLY a relative majority.

Third of all, I want to ask: what the hell does "Cadrilater" do in the category "Historical Romanian Regions"? The fact that it was ruled for 22 years by Romania and subjected to intensive colonisation does not make it a "historical Romanian region", the category falls, sorry. VMORO 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the text about D. in 1911 Encyclopedia:
 * DOBRUDJA (Bulgarian Dobritch, Rumanian Dobrogea), also written DOBRUDSCHA, and DOBRUJA, a region of south-eastern Europe, bounded on the north and west by the Danube, on the east by the Black Sea, and on the south by Bulgaria. Pop. (1900) 267,808; area, 6ooo sq. m. The strategic importance of this territory was recognized by the Romans, who defended it on the south by Trajans Wall, a double rampart, drawn from Constantza, on the Black Sea, to the Danube. In later times, it was utilized by Russians and Turks, as in the wars of 1828, 1854 and 1878, when it was finally wrested from Turkey. By the treaty of Berlin, in 1878, the Russians rewarded their Rumanian allies with this land of mountains, fens and barren steppes, peopled by Turks, Bulgarians, Tatars, Jews and other aliens; while, to add to the indignation of Rumania, they annexed instead the fertile country of Bessarabia, largely inhabited by Rumans. After 1880, however, the steady decrease of aliens, and,the development of the Black Sea ports, rendered the Dobrudja a source of prosperity to Rumania.

Vmoro, I think you are a little biased and if I may say so a little fueled by Bulgarian irredentism. I never said that Romanians were the majority in Dobrogea but Bulgarians weren't the majority either. Dobrogea was a territory containing a number of nationalities, Turks, Tatars, Romanians and Bulgarians being the largest ones. Constantzeanu 20:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Encylopedia of Islam, in 1850, the population of the Kazas of Tulcea, Isaccea, Macin, Harsova, Babadag, Constanta, Mangalia, Pazargic, Balcik and Silistra (that's dobrudja) was: 4800 Turkish, 3656 Romanian, 2225 Tatar, 2214 Bulgarian, 1092 Cossack, 747 Lipovani, 300 Greek, 212 Gypsy, 145 Arab, 126 Armenian, 119 Jewish and 59 German families. So, in term of families, in the 1850s dobruja was about 30% turk, 23% romanian, 14% Tatar, 14% bulgarian; 42% percent of non-muslims were romanian, while only 25% bulgarians. the real population breakdown wasn't far from these numbers. Between 1854 an 1866 a large number of tatar came, but during the war of 1877-1878, about 90,000 turks and tatars emigrated to Turkey and Bulgaria, most of them never returned. Thus in 1878 we probably hade a relative majority at least in Northern dobrudja Anonimu 00:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Kipchaks

 * Dobruja was dominated by the Kipchak Turks from 1064 until the advent of the Ottoman Empire

That's wrong. The Kipchak Turks held it for some time but between 1064 and 1393, but also many others did: the Second Bulgarian Kingdom, Dobrotich's Kingdom, Wallachia, the Byzantine Empire, with some cities even being held by the Genoese. bogdan 21:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

the kipchaks, in fact their western part, the cumans had an important role in dobrudja in that period and other occupation we're not signifiant. the 1064 is wrong, being the date of the coming of the uzes. the cumans came in 1091. dobruja was a kind of no mans land in those times. the second bulgarian held the territory only for short periods during Ivan Asen II (some say he is of cuman origin) and Theodore Svetoslav. Byzantine empire was not a force anymore. And when Michael VIII Palaeologus succeded in conquering this land, he gave it to turk settlers. Dobrotich had probably cuman origins also. the previous ruler of the state, Balika (Dobrotich brother/ father?), had a cuman name acording to Rasonyi. And Dobrotich was most likely under ottoman suzerainty since the 1370s. Mircea the Elder (probably of distant cuman origin also) mentioned turkish towns among his possesions. probably after 1405, Mircea had only nominal rule over dobrudja, de facto it being controlled by the akindji who were against Mehmed I and preffered to remain Mircea's allies. Anyway, somme well referenced info is needed. Anonimu 23:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Did only Ivan Asen II and Theodore Svetoslav have control over Dobroudja during the Second Bulgarian Empire? I know that the sway of the House of Asen extended across the Danube (Wallachia). Also, Constantine Tih, according to something I read years ago, supposedly gave the Northern territories (Wallachia and Dobroudja) official autonomy. Part of the problem that I find is that Dobroudja is seldom spoken of as a separate entity. I believe people tend to invariably put Wallachia and Dobroudja in the same box.

Despot Dobro...
What name should we use for the de-jure autonomous ruler of Dobrudja in the 14th century? Now we have Dobrotich in the etymology section, and Dobrotici / Dobrotitsa in the history section, while some time ago an user put also Dobrotiţă.Then we have Dobrich that was named in honour of this mediaevial ruler and Neshri who indirectly calls him Dobrudj(a) (he calls his son Dobrudja-oğlu, however some of the vowels may be wrong, since Neshri wrote in arabic abjad, so the transliterator may have guessed them. In abjad it's  دوبرجه) Anonimu 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The name used in contemporaneous sources: in byzantine ones (John Cantacuzenus' History i think) Τομπροτιτζας (yes, with a T... also some coins attributed to him bear a "T", supposed to be his initial. However, a hundred years latter Chalcocondilas calls Dobruja Δοβροτίκεω τοῦ Μυσοῦ χώρα), in genoese and venetian ones Dobroticie, Dobrodisse or Dobrodize. In savoyard documents he appears as Desbrodicze, and in hungarian ones (written in latin) as Dobratich. Probably we should stick to Dobrotici/Dobrotitsa (even if i think that all variants are attempts to render "Dobrotitsə" ) Anonimu 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Was Dobrotitsa a noble of Bulgarian descent? At least in relation to his name and the time he ruled. Kaloyan* 13:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't say... no source mentioned his ethnicity... it's impossible to tell from the names... just think that his elder brother/father/uncle Balik had a turkish name, while his brother and his son had greek names. He also collaborated with the byzantine empire against Ivan Alexander. Anonimu 13:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * his elder brother/father/uncle Balik had a turkish name ... and apparently, the Slavic version of Balik being Balica :)) Nice play with the facts I must say!

his brother and his son had greek names ??? Are you serious??? Most European names have either Greek or Latin origin! (Christian influence). This is rediculous...

Wasn't he also ruling over Varna and Karvuna? I remember to have read something about him a while ago. He may just as well have been against Ivan Alexander. Wanting to rule as independent despot, that sounds about right. Strange with the names though. But then again, Greek names were used as a common practice next to Christian names. He might have been one of those Cumans that were married within the Bulgarian aristocracy or the Wallachian/Dobroudjan one, or perhaps even both.

Dobrogea historical region of Romania
I understand this article deals with whole Dobrogea, including teritory of Bulgaria. I see also that Dobrogea is listed as historical region of Romania. Dobrrogea is not an administrative region of Romania, yet it is an informal, and historical region. I want to specify that Dobrogea is a history thing, I need to know if there is a Bulgarian Historical Region named Dobruja Criztu 06:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, this article deals with (I quote) "a territory". Further specifications are made at Northern Dobruja, ie: NOT HERE. As I see, already fizzing out your "relevant contribution" on that page. Dahn 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * look Dahn, you are flaming me already, please follow the Netiquette Criztu 07:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a Bulgarian Historical Region named Dobroudja. In modern Bulgarian history the part belonging to Romania is Northern Dobroudja and the the one in Bulgaria is Southern Dobroudja. The former was lost to Romania during one of the Balkan wars, when Romania entered the war on the side of the Greko-Serbian alliance and threatened to invade Bulgaria form the North, while all Bulgarian army was situated down the South. Later military events and especially good diplomacy (something extremely rare in modern Bulgarian history) helped obtain Southern Dobroudja back. As far as the early medieval Balkans are concerned, Asparoukh firstly settled in Dobroudja before starting to raid the land below the Danube and establish the First Bulgarian Empire. Kaloyan* 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dobruja isn't a bulgarian regions. The fact that it was part of Bulgaria 1,000 years ago and then again for few years 700 years ago doesn't make it a bulgarian region. If you talk about the Onglos, the name and the contemporaneous sources seem to point to a location in Buceag, north of the Danube Anonimu 13:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Look closer at Criztu's question. He asks for a 'historical region'. In that sense. Dobroudja is a Bulgarian historical region because throughout Bulgarian history Dobroudja plays a role. Even today we hold Southern Dobroudja. So if you prefer, we share Dobroudja, historically adn territorially. Kaloyan* 11:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent chnages
I have some problems:
 * 1) The fact that the name "Principality of Karvuna" was ever used before modern times, and that Balik and/or Dobrdč were called in a contemporany source (14th-15th centuries) princes of Karvuna.
 * 2) The fact that the capital was moved to Kalliakra  in the 1370's. Iorga (not the best source available) says that it was at Kalliakra by 1366 (Dobrotisch, in Ac. Roum. Bull. de la Sec. His. ii-iv, 1914, 295).
 * 3) The fact that Mircea occupied Dobrudja-eli after he fought the Grand vizier in 1388. (Actually, the Grand vizier never entered Dobrudja-eli, he sent Yakhshim, son of Timurtash, and this had some interesting negotiations with important people from Varna, by then capital of the state.)
 * 4) I want a source that Mircea regained Dobrudjan territories between 1393 and 1404.
 * 5) I don't understand the use of non standard forms of the names of turkish sultans (beyazid and mehmet). Anonimu 20:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Answers
For the first 2 issues, I do not have yet answers, but it is obvious that Karvuna was the main centre of that mediaeval state, its Capital, and after Karvuna was also named the hole country. It is also well known that Dobrotici/Dobrotitsa moved the capital to Kaliakra.Madalinfocsa 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * obvious for who? well know to whom? Anonimu 09:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if the grand vizier did not enter in Dobrudja, Mircea won a battle against him. Source: M. Stoian, Nici cuceritori nici cuceriţi, Bucureşti 1982.Madalinfocsa 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So what has this to do with Dobruja's history?Anonimu 09:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Mircea regained Dobrudja in 1395, after his victory at Rovine, and lost it for the second time in 1396/1397, after the Crussaders' defeat at Nicopole (it is mentioned for those years a third Ottoman conquest of Kaliakra) - the same source, and also G. Djingov, Kaliakra.Fortification, vol.1, Sofia, 1990. So Mircea did not regain Dobruja between 1393 and 1404, I never said this. So the last - and also longest - mediaeval Romanian rule on this territory lasted between 1402 (or 1404 after other sources) and 1420, when Mircea's son, Mihail I, was defeated and even killed in battle by the Turks under Mehmet I.

Therefore, if nobody will make the according changes, I will do it myself later. Madalinfocsa 22:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Northern Dobruja before 1880
Please, explain me are there any reliable sources for 43 671 Romanians or 31% of the population of Northern Dobrudja before 1880? Censuses, researches, etc.? - Jackanapes 15:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's Grégoire Danesco (Grigore Dănescu), Dobrogea (La Dobroudja). Étude de Géographie physique et ethnographique, Imprimerie de l'Indépendance Roumaine, Bucarest, 1903. except the data already present in the article he also mentions 508 Armenians, 1,762 Jews and 730 others. If i remember well (i don't have the book anymore), it is made from data given to the government by the villages and towns of Dobruja. Considering the data for 1850 i mentioned somewhere on this page :30% turks, 23% romanians, 14% tatars, 14% bulgarians (which most probably come from Ion Ionescu de la Brad, Excursion agricole dans la plaine de la Dobroudja, Constantinople, 1850; the author was a romanian from Transylvania, expert in agriculture, hired by the ottoman government to explore the agricultural possibilities in Dobruja; i have the data from Encycopledia of Islam, so i'm not sure Ion Ionescu is the source; but if he is, the data was endorsed by the ottoman government) as well as:


 * 1) the fact this data refers not only to Northern Dobrudja but also to the kazas of Balchik, Pazardjik and Silistra (which had only a small romanian population around silistra and tutrakan)
 * 2) the migrations to Northern Dobrudja in the 1850-1880 period (tatars, ruthene and germans, as well as Bulgarians if we consider vice-consul Perrod's report of 1864 that stated that in eastern Bulgaria bulgarians started to settle only in the previous 40 years)
 * 3) the migration from Dobrudja of 1877-1878 of a large number of turks and tatars, caused by the Russo-Turkish war.(90,000 according to some sources)
 * i'd say the number and proportion are pretty accurate. Anonimu 17:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Anonimu, you offer me hazy memories from a romanian book, printed in 1903 - is this really "reliable source" for the period before 1880? I'm afraid it could not be. I expect reliable data from the period before 1880. Later romanian and bulgarian texts most probably are influenced by the situation, created from the Treaty of Berlin and the consequential (nationalist) interests. Besides this the quoted arguments from this book aren't independent or ottoman official, undisputable, compendious and neutral. This is just a romanian POV. If you want to affirm that this proportion is "pretty accurate", you should prove this information with relevant sources. Best wishes! - Jackanapes 20:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * P. s. I can offer here citations from several speeches, delivered in Romanian parlament in 1878, in which romanian MPs declared that they don't want to allow acquisition of a non-romanian land like northern Dobruja. But I still want reliable information from the period before 1880. - Jackanapes 20:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is reliable for the year 1880. Before 1880, the only source we have is the data from 1850. and that data should be regarded as ottoman official (the one who published the data was member of the ottoman Agricultural Council and the director of the San Stefano Agricultural School, and was in an official ottoman mission), and since nationalism wasn't still a problem in the ottoman empire, they could be regarded as neutral or at best ottoman POV. And romanian m.p.'s were right about Dobruja. It wasn't a romanian land, but a muslim one (turks and tatars formed the majority), with only about 35-40,000 romanians in a population of about 170,000 (liwas of Tulcea and Varna in 1864) (compare with the number of romanians in other regions not controlled by romania then: transylvania ~2 mils, bessarabia ~1 mil, banat and timok ~800,000, bucovina ~ 250,00, all regions were romanians were at least the relative majority ) Anonimu 08:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, dear Anonimu, your information is simply a romanian POV, nothing more. Romanian MPs in 1878 stated clearly that there weren't romanian population in Dobruja and obviously you're speculating (see "Monitorul oficial al Romaniei", 1878, p. 317 and 447). Romanian newspaper "Steaua Romaniei" from 23. VI. 1878 published article with asseveration that in nortehrn Dobruja there are Turks, Tatars, Cherkeses and Bulgarians but not Romanians. According to the newspaper "Pressa" from 27. VII. 1878 46 romanian MPs made tender to the Parlament in which they stated the same disposition. I can proceed with other similar quotations from romanian sources. I could cite bulgarian information as well. The fact is that there aren't reliable information for existance of large romanian population in Northern Dobruja before 1880 and the existence of 43 671 in 1880 could not be proven with relevant independent and neutral information. It is most probably that these 43 671 Romanians from northern Dobruja were "made" from romanian state... - Jackanapes 12:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you can't bring any reference that say it's false, this "romanian POV" will stay. Obviosuly you're using some second or third hand sources from a nationalistic book/site. I could also bring similar sources of bulgarians saying there was no bulgarian in dobruja before the 1820s or westerners saying that there were no bulgarians in all eastern bulgaria before the XIX century. Judging by your logic, no national census isn't reliable because it's results can't be proven with neutral and independent information. Anonimu 15:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem still remains the same. There aren't relevant, independent and relatively objective sources about the statement that in Dobruja before 1878 Romanians were the majority of the population. Notes from one ethnic Romanian from Transylvania in the service of the lower Ottoman administration could not be considered as "official Ottoman statistics" and still more, they could not be accepted as independent, reliable and objective. On the other hand the romanian newspapers from the period of the Russo-Turkish war 1877-1878 and the Berlin Congress could not be treated as "bulgarian nationalistic POV". Obviously the article needs editing in more neutral and non-nationalistic way. Best regards, Jackanapes 08:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki is not that much about the truth but about sourced material. If you don't agree, go ahead and find sources that support your POV. And those weren't just some notes. It was a book ordered by the Ottoman gvt. BTW, nowhere in the article is stated that romanians were the majority before 1878. 1850 stats from ionescu's book are only on the talk page. and even those show that romanians were the most numerous christian population, turks being the plurality.. so i don't see any reason for a disputed tagAnonimu 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What Romanians? Romanian ethnicity was created together with and for the Romanian state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.208.218 (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Agree.. but the first romanian state was created in 1330... Anonimu 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Youcant be serious. Romanian state is a modern creation. There were neither Romanians nor a Romanian state in 1330. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.241.132 (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Vlachs in Bulgarian Dobruja
According to the last Bulgarian census from 2001 thousands of Vlachs declared themselves as something different from ethnic Romanians. They traditionally condider themselves as separate ethnic group and most of them, especially these who came from the lands to the south of Danube, didn't participate in the modern Romanian nation-building in reality. They could not be treated as ethnic Romanians, this will be nothing more than romanian nationalistic claim and the violation of the self-determination of the Vlachs. The demographic data according to this census:

Oblast (Region) Varna: 3 620 Vlachs, 440 Romanians;

Oblast Dobrich: 77 Vlachs, 38 Romanians;

Oblast Silistra: 457 Vlachs, 19 Romanians.

Link.

Jackanapes 09:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In Varna Province to this day, there are several rural villages of Boyash (Vlach Gypsies) who normally declare themselves Vlachs or Bulgarians (the village of Lyuben Karavelovo in Aksakovo municipality is perhaps the most populous one). A significant portion of Northern Bulgarian Roma are Boyash and it is normal for many Bulgarians to be quite unsure whether a Vlach-speaking person is a Gypsy or Vlach proper. 74.66.234.61 (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Byzantines and Bulgarians
How can one divide the "Byzantine and Bulgarian rule" section when the territory of Dobruja was most of the time divided between the Bulgarians and the Byzantines?

For example, the Genoese town of Vicina (built around 1200 near Isaccea, in northernmost Dobruja), which was a Byzantine vassal, was held by the Second Bulgarian Empire for only a few years during the rule of Theodore Svetoslav (not before his rule and not after his rule). And this rule was known to generate some disputes: the Genoese refused to continue trading with the town under Bulgarian rule. If it had been before under Bulgarian rule, it wouldn't had been such a big deal, right? bogdan 10:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This territory wasn't divided between Bulgaria and Byzantium during the First Bulgarian Empire for over three centuries (681-1018) except for several years between 968 and 1018. At that time it was controlled totally by Bulgarian state. The period of the Second Bulgarian Empire looks different from other scholarly points of view as well. I'm sorry, but I can't accept the neglecting of the bulgarian past in this manner. Meanwhile there is obvious proromanian overemphasization upon ancient and modern history! Best regards, Jackanapes 12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Still more, Dobruja was the main territory of Protobulgarian settlement after 681 and therefore it was part of the core of the First Bulgarian Empire. Dear romanian friends, it is time for you to accept these facts. - Jackanapes 12:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not going to have a section with just one sentence because you think it's fair this way. It's simply that we know very little about that time. What happened in Dobruja during the First Bulgarian Empire? There are few records, so we simply can't possibly tell. Should we not give a detailed history of the other more documented periods (the Greek/Roman era and the modern era) just because the First Bulgarian Empire failed to keep some good records of their rule? bogdan 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of cource. I will develop the newly created sections as I already said. They will stay. By the way, there are other types of historical sources like paleography and archaeology, there is many information about these lands during the First Bulgarian Empire. - Jackanapes 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"proromania" pov would mean making separate heading for Dacian and Wallachian rule (the latter would be much longer that your "Second Bulgarian") and maybe even for Ancient Macedonian, Tatar and Russian Anonimu 15:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anonimu, according to me even the present structure of the article is POV. All information about Bulgaria and the Bulgarians in this region is sensibly shorter than that about antiquity, Rome and modern Romania. The reason is not the lack of relevant historical information as Bogdan supposed, but in Romanian deletions of all data, connected with Bulgaria. Therefore this structure must be changed. For example over three centuries of the First Bulgarian Empire, when the first capital of the state Pliska was in Dobruja (on its south border) are significant and distinct period, which is obviously separate and different from Byzantine times. There wasn't any Byzantine presence in Dobruja in this era so its unification with previous and subsequent periods is non-justified. Best gerards, Jackanapes 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think that the article is balanced against the Bulgarian rule, the solution would be to add more information on what happened in Dobruja during that era (681-968). I was not able to find much on this subject, but maybe you have some good sources.
 * But currently, the article is well-structured considering the content it has. bogdan 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Bogdan, in fact there are many missing points in thе present version of the article, connected with bulgariannes in Dobruja. Example - there isn't any informaion about the processes in South Dobrija in its modern Bulgarian periods 1878-1918 and after World War II. The lack of information about Bulgarians concernes also the Romanian period 1918-1940, when there were several Bulgarian revolutionary organizations, which fought against Romanian rule. Do you think that this fact is still unappropriate part of the history for contemporary Romanians? I'm afraid that without inclusion of all sides of the history (with adequate size and sources) this article will remain biased... Best regards, Jackanapes 13:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the article is lacking in some respects, especially when it comes to cultural aspects. For one, I could not find any mention of Ovid, arguably the most famous person to have lived in the area at some point!  For another, I could not find any mention of Ovidius University, which I think is the most important institution of higher learning in the area, though please correct me if I am wrong.  At any rate, what I'm getting at is, sometimes one can get mesmerized by tiny details and lose sight of the bigger picture: a visitor to this page may well be more interested in finding out about the best writers or scientists to come out of this land, than minutiae about some arcane historical detail.  Just a thought.... Turgidson 15:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A follow-up: I did a quick check, and Ovidius University is the most highly ranked University in Dobruja; overall, it's ranked 15th among all Romanian Universities .  The data comes from Ad Astra, an excellent site when it comes to Romanian academic subjects, in my opinion.    Turgidson 16:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We should add a section named "Culture" in the article. :-) bogdan 16:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea! Likely this is not the best place to discuss the topic (under the heading Byzantines and Bulgarians!), but I think the whole treatment of Romanian Academia is lacking in breadth and depth (e.g., most Universities in Romania don't even rate an article, whereas rather obscure topics get tons of ink, figuratively speaking.) I've made some haphazard attempts at addings info here and there since joining in, but the task is really daunting, and there are other things to do, too.  Any idea on what's a good forum to discuss this matter, and whether anybody else would be interested in developing the topic?   Turgidson 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is about all Dobruja (RO+BG). Culture and Economy sections should be added, but they should present the situation in both Northern and Southern Dobruja. Ovidius university is very young.. it was founded in the 90s. I think that the Naval Academy is more important. And probably in Southern Dobruja they are also some important universities. Ovid is not the most important one. We have Hagi, Basescu and... Costi Ionita... seriously, there are not very much Dobrujan scientists and artists... probably because dobruja had a quite small romanian population when it joined Romania, and the new immigrants were mostly peasants and workers. I know only a few well-known Dobrujan personalities: Ion Jalea (sculpture), Grigore Moisil (mathematics), Ioan N. Roman, Constantin Bratescu and the Armenians Zambaccian and Harry Tavitian (jazz). And let's not forget politicians like Puiu Hasotti(PNL) and Sebastian Bodu(PD) and sportsman like Simona Amanar, Catalina Ponor(gymnastics) and Andrei Pavel(tennis) Anonimu 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian influence North of the Danube was immense. As far as I know, Wallachia and Dobroudja were never regarded as separate from the First (and to a large extent Second Bulgarian) Empires. I believe, most of these facts do not fit the Romanian national myth and are carefully erased or omitted wherever possible. Bulgarian domination starts with Asparoukh settling in Dobroudja and launching his attack on the Byzantines from his stronghold there. What few people mention is that the lands across the Danube received the Orthodoxy and the ... Bulgarian alphabet and written language during the First Bulgarian Empire. In fact, BUlgarian was used as an official language until the 19th century. Hence, the nobility across the Danube remained essentially Bulgarian in its roots and tradition. Think about the names employed: voevodes, bolyars, etc. Also, keep in mind the names of the Wallachian Dobroudjan nobles. Most of them are clearly of Slavic origin. Mircha, Vlad, Tihomir, Stanislav, Rado, the list goes on.
 * The article mentions that dobruja became part of Bulgarian Empire in 681 (i.e. during khan Asparuch). Dobruja had a christian (no catholic/orthodox in those times) bisophric at Tomis (present day Constanta) until the 7th century (when the Bulgarian invaded). Some byzantine bishops are also mentioned on artefacts from the 10th and 11th century. No it wasn't the official language... dobrujan documents and coins show different languages: greek in th 11-14th centuries, tatar in the 13th-19th centuries, italian in the 14th century, turkish 14-19th centuries etc. During most of the 2nd milennium, the "official" language was turkish. Those titles can also be found in northern slavic languages. Those aren't dobrudjan nobles. Those (except Stanislav) are names of Wallachian rulers (Tihomir is a name of turkic origin, while the others are slavic, but they are commonly used in romania even today). Some names of Dobrujan rulers: Tatou, Satza, Sesthlav (turkic) in the 11th century, a lot of Greek ones during the 11-12th greek ones, Nogay, Tukal Bogha, Keykaus (turkic) in the 13the century, Balik, Jolpan(turkic), Dobrotitsa/Dobrotici (slavic), Methodius, Theodore, Ioankos (greek), Baldovin (germanic) in the 14th century.. So, very few slavic names. 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Even in Bulgaria, the use of Greek and biblical (Christian) names was a commonplace, so the fact that it is happening in Dobroudja and Wallachia is nothing unusual. It was the norm. I am pointing at the names I mentioned "Mircha, Vlad, Tihomir, Stanislav, Rado" as they are clearly Slavic. This is but one of the many accounts of cultural influence. By the way, Tihomir can easily be made sense of in Bulgarian. 'Tiho' = calm, peaceful, noiseless and 'Mir' = peace. I know that many of the names that end on 'Mir' are said to be of Turkic origin. True as it may be, it doesn't explain names such as Branimir, Lubomir, Stanimir, Vladimir and so on that are all essentially Slavic and have a corresponding meaning in Bulgarian and other Slavic languages.
 * Are Leon Nikerites and Demetrios Katakalon (mentioned at the end of the 11th century) typical Bulgarian names? I already explained that none of them is mentioned in Dobrudja. And most of the others were are used by Romanians, as Greek names are used by Bulgarians. Tihomir is a supossed name of a guy mentioned only as "tochomerius".
 * I also notice that in your section you only mention the period of the Second Bulgarian empire.
 * Tell me, if at least the one map I have shown is correct and if we agree on Dobroudja being part of the First Bulgarian Empire, how is it that in the whole of Dobroudja there hasn't been found ONE document that accounts for that period?
 * There were found some inscriptions... one slavic of 943 and some mixed (slavic, greek, and a not identified language) from the 10th century. I don't know any other. Bulgarian historiography should know better.
 * According to my knowledge, Bulgarian was used as an official and written language by the church and the nobility north of the Danube. I don't know how Dobroudja could be exempt. Kaloyan* 16:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Except for a dozen years, Dobrudja wasn't part of the north-danubian principalities. So it had nothing to do with their official language. (BTw, the language used in wallachia was not bulgarian, but old church slavonic with some bulgarian influences) Anonimu 17:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all new to me. So when exactly were these "dozen years"? Coz I am talking about centuries of Bulgarian rule. When was it that Dobroudja was ever separate from the other principalities? Start from 681 onwards.
 * We're talking about different things...
 * Old Church Slavonic was Bulgarian in every possible sense. It was created in Bulgaria under Boirs I in order for the church and state to acquire their own and independent from Greek

written language. At that time Old Church Slavonic and Bulgarian were identicle. The former was later exported to Serbia and the Russian principalities. Church Slavonic was kept "pure" by the conservative clergy and never evolved as much as the language spoken and written in the 'lifeworld'. This is where some of the confusion with its origins begins. Kaloyan* 11:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * According to wiki, it was developed by Cyril and Methodius based on the salonikian dialect, and was brought to bulgaria only 30 years after its first official use in great moravia.Anonimu 13:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a bit intriguing to investigate but that involves a linguistic discussion situated in historical contexts that I am not that familiar with. My point here is that the two brothers created the Glagollitic alphabet. Their pupils developed the Cyrrilic alphabet in Bulgaria, as something that was much closer to the speach of the Southern Slavs living in Bulgaria. We could probably assume that Slavic languages were much closer at that time. However, the shere fact that Climent, Naum & Co created the Cyrrilic alphabet indicates that the glagollitic alphabet was not suitable for use in the Bulgarian kingdom. It seems like you're treating Church Slavonic to have started with Cyrril and Metodius and have been brought to Bulgaria from Moravia. Yet, if the two brothers created it based on Southern Slavic dialect, how would then Moravians understand it, and why would Climent change the alphabet? Anyway, I am thinking aloud here ... Something seems to be wrong with the initial premises. I have also read arguments about Cyrril and Metodius to have actually written in a Northern Slavic dialect... Go figure! That line of thought continues arguing that their father was a Bulgar noble expelled from the court of Kardam. He then entered the administrative Byzantine system but had a Slavic wife. And so it goes.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.220.97 (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

So the break after the fall of the Fist Bulgarian Empire does not mean that anything across the Danube drsatically changed. All that was missing was a centre of power to identify with and belong to. That was easily created with the rise of the Second Bulgarian empire, though the rivalry and presence of the Hungarians was stronger than before.

The interesting bit is what Byzantine diplomacy and political might did in hte interim period. I would like to learn more about it. I have vague memories of Byzantine (Greek) clergy been sent to these lands in order to change the power structure and create a base for further Byzantine influence from within. Did they actually take control over the church? Kaloyan* 07:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

http://bgns.net/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=132&Itemid=63

This is a map of the Second Bulgarian Empire under Ivan Asen II


 * The map looks unreliable: It shows the city of Iaşi in 1200, while the was first mentioned in a document only two centuries later, in 1408. bogdan 14:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then we need another map. Do you have another one, Bogdan? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.94.6.28 (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I was threatened by Bogdaniusca
ater he entered in an edit war with me without clear arguments:


 * == 3RR ==


 * Be careful with reverting on Dobruja: see the Three-revert rule. bogdan 13:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not a threat. I just told you that there is that there is a policy which does not allow you to make four reverts within a 24-hours period and to be careful that it may be blocked for 24 hours. It's a commonly done on Wikipedia. bogdan 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why did you revert systematically my version several times? May be you also must be blocked? It seems that because of lack of arguments you rely on pyre procedure... It is so pity that romanian patriots like you tenaciously refuse to accept over 4 centuries of medieval Bulgarian rule in Dobruja as a fact. - Jackanapes 13:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The fourth revert was not mine: look at the page history. bogdan 13:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. Pardon me. The fourth revert was made by Anonimu, who even didn't give us a reason for that. Bogdaniusca was more polite - he was too kind to mention the talk as an excuse for his edit war. The Great Romanian War against Bulgarian past in Dobruja. :-) - Jackanapes 13:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dobrudja and Bessarabia
Do these territories overlap, at least in part, in some periods? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.220.97 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Not quite. Some maps show the danube delta as part of moldavia before 1484, but this is all. Anonimu 09:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

When the Cumans settled in Bessarabia though, didn't their settlemlent also include Dobroudja?


 * Yes, the Cumans settled in Bessarabia, then in Moldavia, Wallachia and Dobruja and eventually some settled in all the region, including Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia and Hungary. bogdan 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian historian about bulgarian colonists in Eastern Bulgaria and Dobrudja
The following come from L Miletici, professor at the University of Sofia, Südslavische Dialektstudien: das Ostbulgarische, Wien, 1903

first let's see the turk and bulgarian populations in eastern Bulgaria according to the 1881 statistics (page 11 from the book quoted above) BTW, note the nice turkish toponyms (still not changed by bulgarian nationalists)

Then we go to page 13:
 * "So geschah es dass die bulgarische Bevölkerung in Nord-Ost Bulgariens, speciell in Dobrudza and in den Kreisen Varna, Silistra und Sumen, überwiegend aus Süd Bulgarien und den Balkangebirgsgegenden herstammt."

Surprised?

On page 26, talking about the districts of Varna and Balchik:
 * "besteht die ganze bulgarische Bevölkerung aus Colonisten die sich nach und nach vom Ende des XVIII Jahrhundert aus Thracien und aus dem Balkan angesiedelt haben"

On page 27, talking about the district of Dobrich:
 * "In diesem Bezirke konnte ich keine Spuren des o-Dialektes entdecken, und das die Bevölkerung hier aus lauter neuen Colonisten vom Balkan und Thracien her besteht."

And finally, on page 30, about (Northern) Dobrudja:
 * "dass die ganze bulgarische Bevölkerung Dobrudjas aus verschiedenen Colonisten besteht"

He also tells that the bulgarians in the districts of Silistra, Court-Bunar, Accadinlar and Tutrakan are from "lauter neueren Datums". However i forgot to take down the page.

This is to source the fact that Southern Dobrudja was not continuously inhabited by Bulgarians since the 7th century. And if you want to blame someone of Romanian or Turkish nationalism, you must accuse the author of the book, not me. Anonimu 19:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your source says nothing of the sort.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, you probably need a german dictionary... Anonimu 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember that's just one opinion, and a pretty ancient one at that (although Miletich is a respected author for his time) :) If I had to accuse anyone, I'd accuse the Ottomans of ethnic cleansing (but don't take that too seriously). Indigenous population (not 19th-century or so migrants) of Bulgarians in the Eastern Danubian Plain does exist, although due to migrations it's been totally mixed up (like in most places in Bulgaria as a matter of fact).Todor→Bozhinov 19:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Its an opinion of a respected author who talk about facts witnessed by him (so it's more accurate that a histrian writing today about the same period). He originally wanted to make that book about the Bulgarian dialect in the maritime regions of Bulgaria, but he found that it was almost non existent. He identified some pockets of populations he calls "Erlis", "Hircoi" or "Ircoi" which had some turkish customs, and which he considers to be the indigenous bulgarians (remnants from a pre-ottoman bulgarian population). It's an interesting fact that he found no such autochtonous groups east of the Ruse-Varna Line (He found some east of this line and in Tulcea county, but he acknowledges they are recent colonists and even gives their original village/region, mostly being from the Balkan mountains and Rumelia). He also says that an important part of the colonist in the Silistra-Tutrakan region come from Russian Bessarabia. And the population statistics aren't his, but were made by the officialities in 1881. Anonimu 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, about nice Turkic toponyms... If I were Romanian, I wouldn't accuse Bulgarians of changing these... Todor→Bozhinov 19:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Except Basarabi (which changed the names back and forth several times), all other city names were preserved (Constanta is just a romanian rendition of the name, not another name, while the towns of Navodari and Eforie were built after Dobruja became part of Romania) Mircea Voda was also founded after 1878. ;)Anonimu 20:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alakap? Acşandemir Tabiasi? Hasanca? BTW, it's not like some big bad Bulgarian nationalist came and decided to get rid of Turkish names... it was often a matter of local people's choice. For example, although Kyustendil has an old Bulgarian name (Velbazhd), the Ottoman one was retained. So it's a bit of a pointless accusation really. Todor→Bozhinov 20:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Acşandemir Tabiasi" was just a local toponyme, not the name of the settlement, and probably it's used even today (there's even a quarter of Constanta with a Turkish name - Anadolchioi - even if today it has an absolute romanian majority). Alacap is a bit confusing, since the Romanian and Turkish name are contradictory. Ok, maybe that is not quite fair, but surely it would have impressed every neutral non-bulgarian reader. Anonimu 20:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasons of dispute
Since an user re-added the disputed status tag, i want to know what exactly are the things disputed. And i mean specific phrases & shit, not the general reasons given in the edit summary. Use # at the begining of each to number them.Anonimu 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will give you an example for important omission and nationalistic leaning. Southern Dobruja was the core of the First Bulgarian Empire and the whole region was the main settlement area for the Bulgars. There are many historical and archaeological evidences for that, even here, on Wikipedia, but there wasn't any information about that important question until today. Still more, when I tried to put some information about this period several weeks ago, you, my dear Anonimu, reverted my changes more than once without giving us any reason. Is it clear now? - Jackanapes 21:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * P. s. I could proceed with many other examples. If we accept that the southern Dobruja includes the Ludogorie Plateau and its border roughly follows the line Ruse - Varna (as it is in the present version), we should add more information about some major Bulgar and Bulgarian monuments of material culture such as Madara Rider and the whole sacred pagan complex near Madara, early medieval sites and towns like Devnya and Silistra, necropolis of Novi Pazar, monastery of Ravna, etc. - Jackanapes 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. The bulgarian part of Dobrudja,a s defined in the article and in most books, articles an maps is : "divided between the administrative regions of Dobrich and Silistra, has a total area of 7,565 km², and a combined population of some 350,000 people."

So i'll delete the Pliska thing, since it is neither in Silistra nor in Dobrich... SO you must bring references for your claims that it was a core area of the Bulgarian region.. i don't know of any bulgarian monument in Dobruja except some monument at Shumla... Madara, Devnya and Novi Pazar (and i think Ravna too) are not in Dobruja as commonly defined. You can add info about First Bulgarian Empire in Silitra if you have more, but please don't put a whole paragraph about a short event... Please give hte other examples... because until now you din't give any solid reason for the tag... Anonimu 09:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Shumla" (Shumen) is not in Dobruja either. Silistra was quite an important medieval Bulgarian fortress, though, and the seat of our first archbishopric in the 9th century. Todor→Bozhinov 11:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * great...so put info about silistra if you have. probably we should add soem info about religions. i know that untill the 6th century Tomis was an important episcopate, the we have the important orthodox centre of vicina in the middle ages, and the muslim centre at babadag...Anonimu 11:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the present article we could read: The Dobrogea Plateau covers most of the Romanian part of Dobruja, while in the Bulgarian part the Ludogorie Plateau is found. Pliska is situated on the southern edge of the Ludogorie Plateau. Enough speculations, Anonimu! - Jackanapes 11:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If i'd say that in Austria the Alps are found, would you say that Mont Blanc is in Austria? Anonimu 12:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * P. s. Accoring to the Bulgarian historian Petar Mutafchiev, from his book "Dobruja. Collection of studies" (in Bulgarian: Петър Мутафчиев, "Добруджа. Сборник от Студии", фототипно преиздание на Издателство Стефанка Банкова, София, 1999, стр. 22): The state center was established in Pliska (contemporary Aboba) near the southern edge of Dobruja. [...] So Dobruja is the cradle of the Bulgarian state on the Balkan peninsula. - Jackanapes 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So Bulgaria had is capital 50km away from it's cradle? Anonimu 12:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The present article Dobruja treats the Ludogorie Plateau as a part of Southern Dobruja just as it is according to Petar Mutafchiev. The border of the Romanian Cadrilater from the period 1918-1940 excludes the Ludogorie Plateau. This position is well sourced already so I can't see any reason for further dispute. - Jackanapes 12:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you blind? read the introduction. It specifically speaks about the districts of Silistra and Dobrich, that are more or less the Quadrilateral. SO if that wasn't called Ludogorie, what was it called? Yeah, one guy against the humanity... that's called undue weight << Anonimu 12:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact the introduction is in conflict with the following geographical description of the Southern Dobruja. While the introduction excludes significant parts the Ludogorie region and especially its south edge - the Ludogorie Plateau, the description includes it. By the way, this is another example for the untrustworthiness of the present article Dobruja. At least there is old Bulgarian tradition, which subsumes the whole Ludogorie into the larger region of Dobruja and Petar Mutafchiev (who died in 1943) is an example for this. - Jackanapes 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So now, because it doesn't fit your POV, you try to change a commonly accepted facts? Let's not play with the words.Anonimu 17:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact there are two different geographical concepts about the southern border of Dobruja in the present article and I am not the author of the both of them. It is because there are different streams of commonly accepted facts about that question, dear Anonimu. I think that when there is more than one point of view about one problem, the correct approach is the pluralistic method of description of all positions. I don't want to erase or revert the relevant Romanian concepts as you did several weeks ago with Bulgarian ones. - Jackanapes 17:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Man, there are not two definitions, because the only widely accepted definition is that southern dobruja includes only Siistra and dobrich (the only exception is the inclusion in Dobrudja of the small part of the Aksakovo obshtina of the Varna Oblast, which was part of Romania in 1913-1916 and 1919-1940). The article deosn't say that all Deliorman is in Dobrudja, just says that in southern dobrudja the plateau is present. You're just playing with the words.Anonimu 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You admit that "The article deosn't say that all Deliorman is in Dobrudja, just says that in southern dobrudja the plateau is present". Generally the Ludogorie Plateau is situated to the south of the Tutrakan - Dulovo - Dobrich - Balchik line and therefore beyond the south border of the Romanian Cadrilater 1918-1940. Its south border is shaped by the valleys of Provadiiska reka (Provadiya River) and Beli Lom River, which roughly coincide with the line Rousse - Varna (according to Bulgarian "Енциклопедия А-Я" or "Encyclopaedia A-Z" in English, published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1974, p.454). This plateau embraces predominantly parts of the Razgrad Province and the Shumen Province. It also icludes the Samuilovski visochini (Samuil's heights), situated on the line between Razgrad and Novi Pazar. Enough. - Jackanapes 18:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Enciclopedia Romaniei" written in interwar Romania calls the highlands in the Quadrilateral "Deliorman" (the original turkish name, translated in bulgarian as "Ludogorie"). And if no part of Ludogorie is within the Quadrilateral, what are those highlands?

Anonimu 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Anonimu, this is Ludogorie Plateau according to the map of Bulgaria, published by the Bulgarian state Cartography and Geodesy Bureau, Sofia, 1960, the embossmen map of Bulgaria from the same institution, published in 1981, and so on... The area to the north of this plateau (which lies in Silistra Province and Dobrich Province) isn't flat, but consists of many arid gullies and, losing hight, gradually merges into the Dobruja lowland. Razgrad is marked with №1, Novi Pazar with №2. Note - the Ludogorie Plateau is just a part from the larger Ludogorie (or Deliorman) region. - Jackanapes 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * P. s. I'm afraid I repeat one and the same information... Which is well sourced already. Enough. - Jackanapes 23:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As i already said, in the interwar period the highlands in the Quadrilateral were considered part of Deliorman, so every book from that period calls it so. The Geography section was added by a Romanian (diff). Let's ask him what he wanted to say. And the quote from Mutafcev doesn't say the plateau you draw was part of Dobruja. "on the southern edge" is pretty ambiguous... Anonimu 16:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Other reasons for the tag
So, except the geographical definition of Dobruja, what else is disputed? Please "proceed with many other examples."Anonimu 20:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Dobruja section/article needs to be thoroughly rewritten
In objective light:

Especially the events since the Russo-Turkish wars in the region from the late 18th century and through 1878. What was the territory of the Bulgarian Patriarchate (1870), established by the Porte, and the territory of the eastern Bulgarian province according to the Constantinople conference (December 1876)? The territory of Bulgaria according to the San Stefano (1878) and the Berlin Treaty (1878)?
 * You can add that, but keep in mind that's only a small part of the region's history. Anonimu 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did Romania acquire Northern Dobruja in 1878 in the first place, what was the initial reaction of the Romanian public to that acquisition? Why did Romania claim Southern Dobruja in 1913, why did it attack undefended Bulgarian territory in June 1913 regardless of the St. Petersburg conference decisions in May of that year? Why are the major battles of the First World War such as the Battle of Tutrakan/Turtucaia omitted?
 * If you cand put these informations without a nationalist POV, it ok with me. Otherwise i'll delete them, or better, add info from the article on ro.wiki (you wouldn't want that ;) )Anonimu 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost no meaningful information about the Ottoman period is provided either, for instance on the cross-cultural links between Christians and Muslims, so richly documented in the region.
 * Add them if you have (unbiased) info.Anonimu 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As to the Middle Ages, is is hardly possible to understand the history of Dobruja outside the context of the history of the First and Second Bulgarian Empires, which is the case in much of the article/section. For one, that region was the heartland of the First Bulgarian Empire, populated by Asparukh's Bulgars in the 680s AD, which was confirmed by massive archaeological data, and contains monuments such as Murfatlar (one of the major centres of the Preslav Literary School) and Păcuiul lui Soare. It occupied a central topos in the 11th-century Bulgarian apocryph as "Zemyata Karvunska."
 * Little hapened here during the bulgarian rule, or if it did, there are no documents to prove it. The status of the Murfatlar caves is disputed (but anyway there no proof they were part of the "Preslav literary school"), and so is that of Pacuiul lui Soare. What are the other massive archaeological data?Anonimu 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As often in Romanian historical texts, antiquity is given disproportionate weight. For one, it needs to be poited out that the Romanized Thracian and other populations in Dobruja in late antiquity bore no relation to the future Vlachs, who most likely originated in the central-western Balkans, and appeared, if at all, in Eastern Moesia not earlier than the late 12 century (and settled north of the Danube not earlier than the 13th century). (Their percentage in the region in 1878 was still minuscule, as clearly seen from Ottoman archives.)
 * Sorry, but we wrote more about antiquity because we have much much more sources about that period than about the period of bulgarian rule. It's the fault of Bulgarians they didn't keep written records about the region. What have vlachs to do with Dobruja. If you want to discuss about their origin go to the respective article, don't ruin this article.Anonimu 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, these few Vlachs, just like their kin north of the Danube until the 17-18-19th century, wrote in Cyrillic, sang lithurgy in de facto Middle Bulgarian (although labelled by Romanians "Church Slavonic"), and widely spoke and understood, besides their Romance language, a language that was evolving from Middle towards modern Bulgarian.
 * What has all this to do with Dobruja?Anonimu 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The voivods (Bulgarian-Slavic title) north of the Danube bore Bulgarian-Slavic first names (just like did Dobrotitsa) and greeted themselves, even when writting in Vlach (in Cyrillic) with "I bog te veselit" :). The voivods, who appeared in 14th century Wallachia with the decline of Bulgaria, were vassals of the Bulgarian tsars virtually through the latters' fall under the Ottomans.
 * So? We're talking about Dobruja, not Wallachia.Anonimu 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

216.254.71.25 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) and soon you'll be informed that Dobrotitsa ia an "original" romanian name - trust me, you'll see. And much if not all of your edit reverted even if they're were well sourced. --Laveol 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest then that we "split" the article into two: you keep your stuff (but maybe cut it twice in size?) and I write the rest making use of the info you obviously don't know about, about the same size as yours. Apart from Byzantine, contemporary Bulgarian, western, Ottoman, Russian, and other sources, there exist archeology, linguistics, ethnography, of which I hope you have heard? It is the 21th century, there is Internet, plus both you and we are in the EU :)

216.254.71.25 17:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, content forking not allowed. You can add bulgarian nationalism here (sourced of course), but expect me to do the same. I can't wait for that info i "obviously don't know about".Anonimu 17:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant "split this article/section into subtitles", not "forking it".
 * It is already split in sections & subsections.

Yesterday, I added just a few things that you immediately censored. With your permission, I will add no "nationalism" (I live in New York myself) but verifiable data mostly from impartial sources and a few comments. I hope you will no longer delete without discussion. You can have a bulgarian nationalist POV even if you live on Mars. It's important what you think, not where you think. You can add sourced info. Probably it's better that you discuss first your changes. Anonimu 19:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Dobrotitsa's name (as well as the names Vlad(islav), Mircea/Mircho, Targoviste, etc., as well as many words in the Vlach part of Neacsu's letter such as Tsarigrad, paziti, umin...) you just need to learn some Bulgarian (or Russian, or Serbian can help you too).
 * Actually paziti is used in romanian all the time, and umin is just a rendition of oameni (<lat. homines).Anonimu


 * What's your point? In the Romanian language of Neacşu's letter, there are as many Hungarian words (oraş < város - city, megiiaş < megyés - neighbour, meşter < meşter - craftman) as there are Slavic. bogdan 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is simple:

There were no Vlachs in Wallachia before the 13th century; there were virtually no Romanians in Dobruja before 1878: Romanian parliamentarians and public alike at first bitterly opposed the acquisition of Dobruja (a foreign land) in 1878 under Russian pressure in exchange of Southern Bessarabia, acquired by Russia.
 * So how come Vlachs are mentioned much norther in the 9th century? Sorry, but statistic show another thing: Romanians were the most populous non-muslim population in Dobruja in the 19th century. Some MPs and some newspaper opposed the exchange, but only because they didn't want to exchange the rich Bessarabia (large vineyards, orchads and wheat fields) for the semi-deserted Dobruja. Moreover they felt betrayed by Russia.Anonimu 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In 1878, Dobruja was unquestionably considered by all European powers (as it was considered by the Ottoman Porte in 1870) part of the historical Bulgarian domain. Russia unilaterally traded a part of it to Romania - the way it traded Nis and Pirot to Serbia.
 * No proof of that. It was included in the Bulgarian exarchate because Romania was an autonomous state (not under their direct control) and anyway, the christians were a minority in the region.Anonimu

In 1940, all European powers, not excluding England and France, exerted pressure on Romania to cede Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria, ignoring Romania's claims for Silistra, Balchik, and part of the coast; the USSR on top of that actively encouraged Bulgaria to claim Northern Dobruja as well. Proofs?Anonimu 16:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC) These are hard facts that need to be duly reflected in the history section.

216.254.71.25 16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As to the Bulgarian borrowings in Vlach: the analysis of the Vlach-Bulgarian gramoti (charters, 14-17th century) shows that Bulgarian was actively spoken in Wallachia throughout that time (and was not only a dead lithurgical language = Church Slavonic) - the language of the charters evolved significantly from the initial Middle Bulgarian (of the 14th-century Tarnovo literary school) form towards the Modern Bulgarian spoken form.216.254.71.25 16:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most probably the official scribes were educated in the great christian centres south of the Danube.Anonimu 16:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Late-20-century Romanian historians, in line with Ceausescu's directives, intentionally faked their own archaeological findings (both Bulgar and Slavic) amply proving the Bulgarian character of Dobruja and Danube's left bank in the centuries 7-10 CE - particularly at Murfatlar and Pacuiul lui Soare island. 74.66.234.61 (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many maps
Are all 5 (five) maps really needed?Baltaci 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they're useful for the readers. Ideally, it should include more photos of places important in its history, we don't have them. :-) bogdan 18:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - all the maps are useful and photos are needed. --Laveol 18:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But if we add other photos and keep all the maps the article won't look very nice.Baltaci
 * Let's discuss this when we have the photos. :-) bogdan 19:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * we have on wiki photos of the Thinker (preety ugly the photo), of Histria, on the Bg wiki there'a statue of Dobrotica and a paysage of the Southern Dobruja plain (hopefully with free licenses). And we also have photos of modern cities (the mosque of Constanta, the palace of Balchik, and probably other monuments). So I'd say we could have a lot of photos. Baltaci 19:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think we should add more images and keep the maps (but maybe replace the first one with a wider view with Dobruja's location in Europe, something similar to the Banat article)Anonimu 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Geography section
We really need a more detailed section on geography: it should write about its rivers, details its plains/hills and other geographical features, something about geology, climate etc. Also, some sections on the culture of the region and maybe something on the economy. bogdan 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

About the end of the First Bulgarian Empire rule
Two Romanian editors, Anonimu and Baltaci, excluded the period of Tsar Samuil of Bulgaria from the period of the First Bulgarian Empire rule. Until now they haven't given any reason for this. Which is even more strange, the state of Samuil is named by them indefinitely "Bulgarian state", linked to the article Bulgaria. In reality Samuil de-facto co-ruled with Tsar Roman of Bulgaria from 977 to 991 without being crowned, i. e. up to 986 Samuil even wasn't titular ruler of the Bulgarian Empire. Still more, according to "History of Bulgaria", Volume 2, Publishing house of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, 1981, p. 411 north-eastern Bulgaria was finally conquered by the Byzantine Empire in 1001, and according to a Bulgarian historian Petar Mutafchiev, "Dobruja in the past", Sofia, 1947, p. 30, Dobruja was reconquered by the Bulgarians shortly after the death of Byzantine Emperor John I Tzimiskes in 976. The chronology of Dobruja's events in the end of 10th century:


 * 968 - occupation of Sviatoslav I of Kiev.
 * 971 - Byzantine conquest.
 * 976/986 - First Bulgarian Empire reconquered Dobruja.
 * 1000/1001 - Final Byzantine conquest.

Between 968 and 1001 (33 years) there were roughly 3 years of Russian rule, from 5 to 15 years of Byzantine rule and from 14 to 25 years of Bulgarian rule. I think it is impossible to accept the period between 968 and 1001 as a part of the "Second Byzantine rule". - Jackanapes 01:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First, you were the one who brought this problem. Until some days ago, all the period was put under Byzantine and Bulgarian rule. You then come and divided the two. Moreover, your insistence to put the rule of the second bulgarian rule (documented only during two emperors) in the header make me thinks your intentions are nationalsit. As you see, we don't note the Dacian rule or the Wallachian rule in the titles, even if for the last one we have much more documents and both will fit the official Romanian history. The state created after the revolt of comitpuli is not the First Bulgarian empire. It may be its direct succesor state, and its leaders may have claimed the imperial title, but it's not exactly the same thing. Moreover, Northern Dobruja remained under Byzantine rule, as the revival of the town of Constanta and other old roman-byzantine forts and the existence of a Greek bishopric there in the last decades of the 10th century prove. This is conected by some historians to the construction of the trajan's wall with moaths on both sides. So there was a continual, probably loose, byzantine rule in the dobrudja north of the Cara-su valley from 971 onwards that justifies the division. Anonimu 12:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And how come "whole Dobruja" became "Northern Dobruja" overnight?Anonimu 13:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonimu, try to add your changes to the other people's versions instead of mass-erasing them like you are doing. Honestly I dont see a problem to attribute claims to historians, "according to Romanian historians this happened, according to Bulgarian this happened, according to Byzantine this happened...". Mr. Neutron 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually i just put the info back were it belonged, deleted duplicated info and removed info ubrelated to the period described in the header.Anonimu 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Anonimu, as I've already written up to 991 Tsar Samuil de-facto co-ruled without being crowned along with the titular Tsar Roman of Bulgaria, son of Peter I of Bulgaria. Moreover, in "Samuil's state" all earlier Bulgarian institutions like Bulgarian Patriarchate continued their uninterrupted existence. For more detailed information see article Samuil of Bulgaria. Many of the older Roman/Byzantine strongholds were revived by the First Bulgarian Empire as well despite the contemporary Romanian efforts to ascribe that process only to the Byzantines. About the existence of Byzantine Greek bishoprics in the last decades of 10th century - it was common practice in the Byzantine Empire to maintain bishops of virtually non-existent dioceses, there were many examples for that, especially in the times of frequent border changes. Your argument has to be checked up with other historical records and researches, which approve the thesis of earlier First Bulgarian Empire retrieval of whole Dobruja:


 * After John I Tzimiskes died on 11 January 976 and the Comitopuli learned this, they launched an assault along the whole border. But within the first weeks David was killed by Vlach vagrants and Moses was fatally injured by a stone during the siege of Serres. (Skylitzes, pp. 334-335.) Yet, their actions to the south detained many Byzantine troops and eased the long-prepared liberation of northeastern Bulgaria which took place under Samuil: the Byzantine commander was defeated and retreated to Crimea. (М. В. Левченко, "Ценный источних по вопросу русско-византийских отношений в X веке", 1951, pp. 66-68 in Russian.) - Jackanapes 16:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He moved a lot of things in Bulgaria, the patriarchate included. So how come Bulgarian chosed to revive those stronghold exactly in that period, when their enemy was much south, and not 100 years before, when the region was exposed to continual attacks from the steppe? S you say that guy at Constanta was a bishop of a non existent diocese? I may have believed it if the sources for it where some byzantine documents. But the proof for the bishops are their sigillia found in Dobrudja and just north of it. And consider that these sigillia were discovered before 1878 and are kept at dumbarton oaks, so are's not a fake made by balkanic nationalist. Note that the reference to Scylitzes is false, so i doubt the validity of your every source.Anonimu 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Anonimu, until now you have failed to prove that the so called "Samuil's Bulgaria" wasn't a part of the First Bulgarian Empire, but you prefered to erase that information again instead. Many institutional seats were moved, but they didn't change their names, characteristics or titulars. Please, give us exact publications and quote exact information about the date of these bishop's seals. Do they belong exactly to the period 971-976/986? Note - after the beginning of 9th century (when the creation of large Bulgarian stone fortifications and the renewal of old Roman strongholds was already fact) there were threats for Bulgaria from the north-east as well (although this area isn't well covered with written documents). During the reign of Omurtag - campains around the Dnieper River, during the reign of Simeon I - Hungarians (war in 895-896), during the reign of Peter I - Kievans and Pechenegs (the incident in 943). The disputed long ramparts between Danube and Black sea dated from the 9th-10th centuries according to Bulgarian archaeology for example. Moreover, during the reign of Peter I there was long peace period to the south, lasted up to 968. (By the way, I didn't state that revival of any town became namely in the period between 976/986 and 1000/1001. I meant a lasting process, which developed after the end of the 8th century.) Finally, here are another two publications about Bulgarian reconquest immediately after 976: Васил Златарски, "История на българската държава през средните векове", Том 1, Част 2, София, 1971, стр. 611, also here, and П. Хр. Петров, "Восстание Петра и Бояна в 976 г. и борьба комитопулов с Византией", Byzantinobulgarica, I, Sofia, 1962, стр. 121—144. - Jackanapes 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Khristo A Khristov and Dimitŭr Konstantinov Kosev in A short history of Bulgaria, Sofia, Foreign Language press, 1963 call the state created by Samuil and his brothers "a new, West-Bulgarian state" at page 59. And I didn't delete any relevant information. I just moved some info, deleted the unsourced statements, duplicate info and the ones that didn't fit the time frame described in the header. You can find detailed info about the seals, their dating and the revival of Constanta in Alexandru Madgearu The Church Organization at the Lower Danube, between 971 and 1020, “Études byzantines et post-byzantines”, IV, Iaşi, 2001, available online (not always, sometimes the site exceeds geocities' download limit and you'll have to wait for a day or two). Note that this author also disputes the theory of a continual existence of a greek bishopric in Constanta during the 7th-11th centuries, put forward by older romanian authors. The revival of these strongholds it's put in the late 10th century and early 11th century, to lose importance again during the pecheneg and cuman attacks of the late 11th century. The Byzantine rule in northern dobruja in 976-1001 is supported also by Barnea and Radulescu (see their works in the article's references; probably Baltaci could provide us with the page numbers).Anonimu 21:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hristo Angelov Hristov was specialized in modern history. Dimitar Kosev is specialized in the period of Bulgarian Revival, especially 19th century.
 * AFAIK, the idea for "western Bulgarian state" under the (fictional) dynasty of the Shishmans was created by the Bulgarian historian Marin Drinov in 1860ies. His concept was modified by Konstantin Josef Jireček in "History of the Bulgarians", 1876. This book was written by an author at the age of 22 and before the end of the complete accumulation of historical records, connected with this period, thus it reflects one quite outdated historiographical situation. For example he names Samiul's father "Shishman" and describes him as a founder of a new state in 863, probably crowned by the Pope. Regardless of such inaccuracies, his pioneer book influenced next generation of istorians in the sphere of terminology.
 * Vasil Zlatarski uses the expression "new state" in the book mentioned above, but his concept is quite different from the idea of completely separate state from 971 to 1018. Zlatarski asserts that initially the rebelion led by the four Comitopules was independent movement in the western lands of First Bulgarian Empire because of the Byzantine occupation of the eastern part and the capture of the titular heirs to the crown, which led to the creation of a new independent state. According to him the situation changed after the death of John I Tzimiskes in 976, when the eastern lands (including Dobruja ;-)) threw back the Byzantine rule and the two sons of Peter I managed to escape from captivity and were accepted by the Comitopuli (in fact only Roman was accepted, Boris II was killed accidentally by Bulgarian arrow on the border). After that moment according to Zlatarski Roman became, at least nominally, the titular Tsar of the Bulgarian Empire (page 626 in the quoted book). This phase is named "Restoration of the unified rule". Hence the concept for "a new western state" doesn't mean complete separateness from the First Bulgarian Empire. The Comitopules and Peter's heirs were closely tied. Generally Zlatarski speaks about Samuil's state as the same Bulgarian Tsardom. Petar Mutafchiev in his "History of the Bulgarian people" refers to these two periods as "Preslav state" and "Ohrid state", but points out that "Ohrid's state because of being direct continuation of the old Bulgarian state, inherited its traditions and its constitution." (fourth edition, Sofia, 1992, p. 237). Their contemporary Steven Runciman in his book "The History of the First Bulgarian Empire" includes Samuil's period in the course of the history of the same First Bulgarian Empire, but speaks about "independent western state" (Bulgarian trnslation, Sofia, 1993, p. 166). Nevertheless, Runciman contradictory supports both the theories that Roman wasn't Tsar after 976 and that Samuil organized his coronation only after Roman's death in captivity in 997. (The second fact according to Zlatarski's interpretation indicated the moment of the death of the titular ruler as well, whose power Samuil didn't usurp during Roman's lifetime. The opinion of Roman's rule and the subsequent coronation of Samuil is based on the information of an Arab author, Yahya of Antioch.) In more recently published "History of Bulgaria" by the Bulgarian Academy of sciences, Sofia, 1981, Volume 2, the interpretation generally follows the concept of Zlatarski and Mutafchiev, but emphasizes on continuity. (By the way, according to this book Dobruja threw back the Byzantins immediately after Tzimiskes' death, p. 401 ;-).) In a newly published collection of studies by the Russian Academy of Sciences the idea of domination of continuity is supported, for example by academician G. G. Litavrin ("Macedonia. Problems of the history and culture", отв. редактор д-р ист. наук Р.П. Гришина, Институт славяноведения, Российская Академия Наук, Москва, 1999, also here). Therefore the expression "a new West-Bugarian state" in the traditions of the historiography and terminology has different nuanced meaning which doesn't support the idea for complete state, institutional and dynastic separateness between the periods before and after 971. Even for the authors like Steven Runciman who support the concept for deeper discontinuity, this discontinuity is dominated by the continuity of Bulgarian statehood and Samuil's state is a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire. (By the way, even some Yugoslav researchers like Vladimir Chorovich, "History of the Serbian people", Georgi Ostrogorski, "History of the Byzantine state" and Srdjan Pirivatrich, "Samuil's state", don't deny the existence of continuity to a different extent.)
 * So you confirm that there is a dispute about continuity between the first bg empire and the state of the comitopuli. This article is ambiguous enough to support both theories: it calls it "bulgarian state", not "new" and not "west-bulgarian". The different theories should be presented in another article, not in the one about dobrudja. After all, it's not so important if it was asparuch's state or samuil's... the important thing is that byzantines continued to rule northern dobruja during samuil's rule (note that northern dobrujda is not exactly dobrujan territory in romania)Anonimu 11:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am the former Jackanapes. I'm afraid your specific interpretation of my explanations significantly differs from the facts. Generally there isn't such dispute about continuity and discontinuity on the level of "was it First Bulgarian Empire or not". In reality the biggest part of modern historians, who have researched that period, consider the so called "Samuil's state" as a continuation of the First Bulgarian Empire. The expression "new state" is usually understood as "a new state within the First Bulgarian Empire" (Zlatarski, Runciman, etc.). That historiographical situation results in corresponding texts like these in Encyclopaedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia for example, where Samuil's period is described as a part of the First Bulgaria Empire. Note - the state created after 1185 isn't called "Third Bulgarian Empire", but is known as "Second Bulgarian Empire". The exception is the tradition of the former Yugoslavia, where different interpretations were created after World War I in connection with the Yugoslav incorporation of Vardar Macedonia and the conflict with Bulgaria about that. They vary from total denial of any Bulgariannes of Samuil's state (D. Anastasijevich, one obviously pseudoscientific concept) through only partial institutional continuity with dominance of discontinuity (Vladimir Chorovich, similar to Anastasijevich in many aspects - the state is called "state of the Macedonian Slavs", although he admits that all historical sources name this country Bulgarian) and almost full recognition of complete internal continuity with some different aspects like the location of the state centres (Georgi Ostrogorski, although he speaks about full continuity and "another state" in the same time) to contemporary Serbian historian Srdjan Pirivatrich, who recognizes the complete continuity between First Bulgarian Empire and Samuil's state on all levels, including its ethnic aspects. These first types of Yugoslav interpretations (more common before World War II - Anastasijevich, Chorovich) weren't prevalent and didn't take the place of the idea of the dominant continuity as most accepted worldwide (it was also admitted by Ostrogorski to a great extent and recognized completely by Pirivatrich). Dear Anonimu, in modern historical science the disputes are normal part of the scientific process. But there are also prevalent concepts in them, such as Samuil's period as a part of the First Bulgarian Empire. You are overemphasizing on the existence of discussions, ignoring the fact that there is also almost general consensus about this problem. Try to understand that the expression "a new West-Bulgarian state" is used predominantly in the sense of "new state within the same First Bulgarian Empire" and, please, stop your stubborn reverts. In fact you are trying to write the article Dobruja entirely from position of a theory, supported by the minority of historians and ignoring the theory, supported by the majority of them. This is really strange kind of personal POV. Note, the theory of the majority is accepted as leading line in the article Samuil of Bulgaria. Why are you refusing to do the same in this article as well? - Dimitar Navorski 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P. s. Your argument about the bishop's seals from Constanta (I've read the article) is quite speculative because these seals according to the article are dated "sometime during 10th-11th century" or "in the last decades of the 10th century and in the beginning of the next". Therefore the exact chronology of Constanta's bishopric proposed by the Romanian author in that article is only a hypothesis because their exact dates are still unknown. (By the way, I've expected such unclear and speculative situation knowing well what is the situation with the dates of the seals from Preslav for example.) That article could not prove indisputably your claims that there was uninterrupted Byzantine rule in Constanta and thus in all Northern Dobruja after 971 up to 1001. These seals, dated so roughly, in fact are not in contradiction with the chronology, proposed by the majority of the Bulgarian historians (see quotations above) - Byzantine conquets in 971, Bulgarian reconquest immediately after 976 and final Byzantine conquest in 1001. Their inexact and tensible dates could fit easily into Bulgarian chronological concept. I'm so sorry, Anonimu. Dimitar Navorski 06:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider the formulation "Bulgarian state a fair one. Modern Western sources are less flattering: medievalist Florin Curta, associate professor at the University of Florida calls it a "rebellion", while byzantinologist Paul Stephenson, reader at the University of Durham calls it a "revolt" . These are reputable sources and are very recent, so i hope this will resolve the dispute. I doubt the Bulgarian reconquest in 876. Samuil managed to reconquer Preslav from the Byzantines in 986 (see Curta, same page, and Stephenson, page 60, who cites a 1985 book by Iordanov). Since Preslav is in the south of Dobruja, one would naturally suppose that a state with the centre in the SW of the region should take Preslav before entering Dobruja. Stephenson puts the bishopric in Constanta in the first years after Basil II's campaign of 1000/1001 (p. 64).(However the author says nothing about Dobrudja) And as a note: on the same page he also notes the discovery of coins of Byzantine emperors Leo IV (775-80), Nicephorus I (802-11) and Michael III (842-67) in Constanta, but he dismisses the theory of Byzantine rule of the region in the VIIIth and IXth centuries. (Hope this will help remove the less serious phrases like "last byzantine coin in X city was found in X year").Baltaci 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but only two recent publication can't resolve the dispute in this direction. We are talking about modern historiography as a whole. Dimitri Obolensky in his famous book "The Byzantine commonwealth" says "No matter what role for its creation we will ascribe to the local "Macedonian" element, we can't have doubts that Samuil deliberately identifies with political and religious traditions of the tsardom of Simeon and Peter" (Bulgarian translation, Sofia, 2001, p. 177). Note - the title Tsar is Bulgarian imperial title, so the state of Samuil was Bulgarian Empire, identified with the First Bulgarian Empire of Simeon and Peter, i. e. it was considered as the same Empire. Barbara Jelavich, "History of the Balkans", Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, 1983, defines Bulgaria in this period as an Empire, and Samuil's period is defined as a part of the same Empire. So the name "First Bulgarian Empire" will stay.
 * The Bulgarian reconquest immediately after 976 is well sourced (see above) so I don't think it could be removed. A better approach is not to erase scientific theories, which are in conflict with others, but to add them to the article in style "researcher X says... but researcher Y says...".
 * It seems that your sources don't support the idea for Byzantine presence in Dobruja after 681 and up to 9th-10th century and confirm the common Bulgarian theses. The general conclusion of Bulgarian archaeological researches is that the Byzantine presence collapsed in the end of 6th - beginning of the 7th century in the interior and in the end of 7th century on the Black sea coast as well. Greetings, Dimitar Navorski 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course you erased sourced information several times, sometimes without giving any reason. I don't think that this is an example for civilized communication. - Jackanapes 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I already explained why i've deleted that.Anonimu 11:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact you erased non-doubled information pretending it is doubled (about Bulgarian glagolithic and runic inscriptions on Dobruja's stone ramparts) and reliably referenced information (the information about the Romanization of almost all Bulgarian churches after 1878) for example. Excuse me, but these acts were vandalism. - Dimitar Navorski 23:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I supported Anonimu's version, let me offer some explanations (these are only mine, his opinions may be different). Except the Slavic one mentioning zhupan Demetrius, those inscriptions are actually in the chalk quarry in Basarabi, from where material for a section of the rampart was extracted. The inscriptions in Basarabi are a complicate matter. Only the Slavic cyrillics were deciphered. The glagolitics are just isolated words. The runes are generally considered Turkic/Asiatic runes (The Russian scholar Alexander Fetisov calls them in The ‘Rurikid sign’ from the B3 church at Basarabi-Murfatlar "Pecheneg". Some Romanian authors, like I. Barnea or P. Diaconu even consider a viking origin - the road "from the Varegians to the Greeks" passed on the Dobrujan coast. These runes remain undeciphered until today. Even if some Bulgarian scholar have tried to decipher them, like Peter Dobrev, their methods -i.e. using Celtic, Mesopotamian and Iranian radicals to get words that made sense- are considered unscientific). The mentioning of this dispute would take a lot of space and would look disproportionate in regard to the whole article. The fact that the Bulgarian claim of the "Bulgarianness" of the ramparts is sourced is enough. As for the "Romanization" of Bulgarian churches, that doesn't go under Ottoman rule, but under Modern Age. As a note, 15 new Bulgarian churches were built in Northern Dobruja in 1879-1900, I'll put a reference in the article. I could also give on this talk page the list of the towns & villages where these churches were built and the year when they were blessed.Baltaci 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the same runes are found everywhere in the Bulgarian centres of the First Empire. There are many publications about this problem, must i cite some of them? They were common tradition even after the conversion сх 864. On the walls of the monastery of Ravna near Devnya (9th-11th centiry) there are runic, glagolitic, cyrillic, greek and latin inscriptions. Think of this. - Dimitar Navorski 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

First, the state created after the revolt of the Comitopuli was the First Bulgarian Empire. If you read the article for Samuil you will find sources that he fought successfully against the Byzantines to the north of the Danube, so the whole of Dobrudzha was liberated by him and the Byzantine commanders were forced to retreat to their main bases in Crimea. Second, can you find documents for non-Bulgarian rule between 1185 and 1320s??? Also don't forget that the rule of Kaloyan is also documented in addition to that of Ivan Asen II and Theodor Svetoslav. And third do not delete sourced information. It is not only you who decides whether a piece of information is important or not. --Gligan 14:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The numerous Byzantine and later Tatar coins and sigilia found in Dobruja, plus that in the middle of the XIIIth century the Byzantine emperor gave central dobruja to the former sultan of iconium and his numerous supporters. I expect some guy to say "it was common practice in the Byzantine Empire to give territories not part of the empire to others", but the turkish chronicles mention no fight on the route from Constantinople to Dobruja (was it also a common practice for Bulgarians to renounce territory without fights or treaties?) Also the Tatar presence was very well established here at the end of the XIIIth century, they even had a mint here, but... who knows, maybe it was a common practice for Tatars to mint their coins outside their country.Anonimu 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the Tatar presence was fact after 1241. In the article Golden Horde the western borders of Tatar state in 13th century are described as follows:
 * "At its peak the Golden Horde's territory included most of Eastern Europe from the Urals to the right banks of the Dnieper River, extending east deep into Siberia. On the south the Horde's lands bordered on the Black Sea, the Caucasus Mountains, and the territories of the Mongol dynasty known as the Il-Khans"
 * To the right bank of the Dnieper River, i. e. to the territory between Dnieper and Danube. Not to the right bank of Danube. - Jackanapes 03:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true, because in the 1230s Ivan Asen II still controled Dobruja (note that his rule was the only bulgarian rule on Dobruja documented for the 12th and 13th centuries). The tatar mint in northern dobruja is thorougly documented (see for example Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365  by István Vásáry). Numerous coins of Nogay, Cheke and Tokhtu have been found in Dobruja. (Nogay's son was even ruler of bulgaria for a short time, but none of his coins were found south or west of dobruja, even if he ruled from Tarnovo)Anonimu 11:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The coins can't prove a Tatar rule. Many Arab coin have been found in the island of Gotland in Sweden but it was never a territory of the Arabic Chaliphate. The only written document for any rule in the late 13th and early 14th century is the statement that the Tatar Khan Toktu ceded Besarabia to Bulgaria in return for Chaka's head which means that noerthern Dobrudzha have already been part of Bulgaria during the reigns of the previous Emperors.
 * It is a fact that after 1241 the Tatar invasions in Eastern Bulgaria including the whole of Dobrudzha and the surroundings of Tarnovo were devastating and there were looting bands throughout the whole year and the Bulgarians were unable to stop them but the territory itself remained Bulgarian. A parallel example for that situation are the Balkans in 6th and 7th century: the whole region was officially Byzantine but it was almost completely populated by Slavs who regularly plundered the lands around the larger cities populated by Byzantines and even besieged Solun five times BUT the whole territory remained byzantine until the foundation of Bulgaria in 681. --Gligan 12:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Anonimu, Tatars came after 1241 but didn't conquer Bulgarian lands directly. AFAIK, there weren't Baskaks (i. e. local Tatar governors) in Bulgaria for example. On the other hand, the Byzantine Empire ceased to exist in 1204 because the evil crusaders smashed it without pity. It was restored by the Empire of Nicaea in 1261 as a smaller state to the south of Stara planina. So, we have a non-Byzantine and non-Tatar period between 1204 and 1241. In this period the Second Bulgarian Empire, ruled by militant Tsars like Kaloyan and Ivan Asen II, became the most powerful state in the Balkans. It will be too oddly to assert that local Byzantine authorities survived after 1204 in northern Dobruja. Don't you think so? Dimitar Navorski 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The rule of Asen II is already sourced, so I won't talk about it. Stephenson (see reference in my previous message) says that Kaloyan conquered Varna in 1201. "In spring 1201 Kalojan had marched against and captured the last Byzantine strongholds north-east of the Haemus". He bases this on Choniates 532-534. So a Kalojan rule in southern Dobruja may have been a reality, however we can't say that for sure, per WP:OR. The problem with the rest of Dobruja is problematic. But XIIIth century Genoese colonies on the Danube in Northern Dobruja are well documented, and then there's the problem of the Petchenegs and Cumans who were settled by Byzantines in Dobruja in the XIIth century. Encyclopedia of Islam (see reference in the article) claims a Cuman rule in the north during that period. According to Wittek (study cited in the article, page 655) and, Emperor Michael VII, reestablished Byzantine control of the Danube Delta immediately after the reconquest of Constantinople. On the same page, Wittek calls Dobruja during the time of Michael VII a "no man's land". So the header "Return of the Byzantine rule and late migrations" seems accurate to me, and is supported by these Western reputable source, not affected by local nationalism.Baltaci 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Baltaci, these Cumans were closely allied to Kaloyan's state, they participated in almost every campaign led by Tsar Kaloyan. See article Battle of Adrianople (1205) for example, in it Cumans (under Bulgarian command) are mentioned 11 times. More later there was a Bulgarian dynasty of certain Cuman origin, the house of Terter (1280-1292, 1300-1322). Think of this - may be they were part of the Bulgarian state as many Bulgarian historians assert? - Dimitar Navorski 22:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My conclusions from the dispute are: On the basis of these conclusions I still think that the inclusion of the period of Samuil in the section, titled "Byzantine rule and later migrations", is unacceptable. The Byzantine dominance in that period both in territory and time remains at least questionable. Greetings, Dimitar Navorski 07:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * a) no matter how we will call Samuil's period, "First Bulgarian Empire" or simply "Bulgarian state" (although the majority of the modern historians prefer the first variant), this period remains Bulgarian, it isn't Byzantine;
 * b) this Bulgarian period has one larger Bulgarian chronology (976-1001) and one shorter Romanian (986-1000), but even in the second variant the Byzantine presence (971-986) remains equal with Bulgarian;
 * b) there is thesis for Bulgarian reconquets of whole Dobruja, based on information of Byzantine retreat to Crimea, and Romanian hypothesis for lasting Byzantine presence in Northern Dobruja from (976)986-1000(1001) based on two bishop's seals from Constanta, dated in the end of 10th and in the beginning of the 11th century; the second idea seems too speculative for me, these seals could be minted from 971 up to 1040ies (when the Byzantine bishopric of Constanta ceased to exist because of Pechenegs' invasion), which doesn't make Bulgarian theory invalid;
 * My conclusions, maybe the 969-1000/1001 period can't be called Byzantine, put it's also POV to put them under "First Bulgarian Empire" (see the opinions of two respected western medievalists above). We are here not to judge opinions, but to present them neutrally. No matter what you think about the character of these opinions, they are published in respectable sources and thus have the same right to be here as the Bulgarian ones. We'd better concentrate on developing the other sections of the article (like Modern history, Culture, Geography - see my partial work about the latter at  my sandbox, maybe you could help).Baltaci 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The imperial concept is really well developed in historiography so it will be contradictory decision to have large net of articles connected with the term "First Bulgarian Empire" in Wikipedia, but "Bulgarian state" only in Dobruja. See my objections above. Dimitar Navorski 22:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P. s. Baltaci, one editor with quite constructive and tolerant behaviour, admits that "My conclusions, maybe the 969-1000/1001 period can't be called Byzantine", but Anonimu is refusing to accept that position and, moreover, he is refusing to discuss. The article is under constant edit war because of Anonimu's individual POV. - Dimitar Navorski 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to make an argument that using First Bulgarian Empire in the years 950-1018 is POV, make your case at First Bulgarian Empire. ForeignerFromTheEast 15:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Britannica is pretty clear: "Samuel - tsar of Western Bulgaria, or Macedonia, from 980; his realm was successor to the First Bulgarian empire. " Anonimu 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So? ForeignerFromTheEast 16:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop pushing your Bulgarian POV.Anonimu 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you refrain from making such blatant accusations. It is a question of consistent use of terms throughout wikipedia. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't it true? Just because some articles use a wrong term, it doesn't mean all wiki should do the same.Anonimu 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong term? Not at all. It is the correct one and it is used throughout. ForeignerFromTheEast 16:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Britannica is one of more repectable sources. If Britannica along with other reputable western sources untainted by Bulgarian nationalism say so, then it will work for wiki too.Anonimu 17:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Britannica itself is not consistent. ForeignerFromTheEast 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So Bulgarian hsitorian are al knowing, and sources that don't support the Bulgarian theory are inconsistent, bad or wrong. note that not every Bulgarian historians agree with you, see above). You have to prove that mate, until then, we';; have to agree with Britannica.Anonimu 18:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all, Britannica can certainly be cited, but it is not the ultimate correct source itself. As Navorski demostrated, Britannic itself is inconsistent. ForeignerFromTheEast 18:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's not only Britannica. See the other two western sources and the bulgarian source above. Since english sources are prefered, and the cambridge university is unlikely to support any national balkanic pov, you'll have to accept that. Navorski didn't demonstrate nothing: his tendentious interpretation of Britannica is not scholarly accepted. Anonimu 18:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Will you cite more sources then? Again, see, this discussion here is pointless. Whatever arguments you have, take them to First Bulgarian Empire. ForeignerFromTheEast 18:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above. Even your friend cites balkan authors who deny that Samuil's realm was the First Bulgarian Empire.18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs)
 * But there are also Balkan authors that accept that Samuil's state was part of the First Bulgarian Empire. Don't forget that. By the way, those early Yugoslav authors who deny the Bulgariannes of the Samuil's state in fact are on or beyond the edge of the pseudoscience, don't forget that too. - Dimitar Navorski 18:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why Wiki prefers english-language sources. Balkan authors are most probably influenced by local nationalism, very unlikely for britannica or books published by cambridge university press. So Britannica and the other two american authors have precedence, per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I really don't care about yugoslav, but the pseudoscience thing is only a Bulgarian POV until you bring sources supporting your claim.Anonimu 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, Britannica is not consistent. Will you cite the two other authors please? ForeignerFromTheEast 18:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you write a book or article in a scientific journal about it and get published by a reputable editor, your opinions about Britannica doesn't count. Read Baltaci's message above.Anonimu 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop being ridiculous. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonimu, in the same Encyclopaedia Britannica it is written:
 * Under Simeon's successors Bulgaria was beset by internal dissension provoked by the spread of Bogomilism (a dualist religious sect) and by assaults from Magyars, Pechenegs, the Rus, and Byzantines. The capital city was moved to Ohrid (now Okhrid, Macedonia) by Tsar Samuel after the fall of Preslav in 971. In the campaign of 1014 the Byzantine emperor Basil II won a decisive victory over Samuel, after which he blinded as many as 15,000 prisoners taken in the battle, before releasing them. (For this act he became known as Basil Bulgaroctonus, or Basil, Slayer of the Bulgars.) The shock of seeing his blinded army caused Samuel to die of a heart attack. Bulgaria lost its independence in 1018 and for more than a century and a half, until 1185, remained subject to Byzantium.
 * That means that Tsar Samuil is treated as a true successor of Tsar Simeon, i. e. he is treated as a ruler of the same First Bulgarian Empire. Stop at last with your speculative reverts and accusations! - Dimitar Navorski 16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's only your interpretation. "means", "treated" are just POV. We don't care what some text may imply or may look like, we care about what a text says, and Britannica says his state was a succesor of the Bulgarian Empire.Anonimu 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, so what? ForeignerFromTheEast 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're disrupting wikipedia with your POV pushing.Anonimu 17:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you are doing it by erasing sourced information. ForeignerFromTheEast 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Websites supported by bulgarian nationalist organizations don't fit the policy, so i'm allowed, and even encuoraged to delete them.Anonimu 18:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all, first of all what you claim is not true. The references are from books. Some of the text is actually hosted on the website for ease of reference. ForeignerFromTheEast 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they are written by a 17 year kid who dubs himself "Vampira" and has two links to a bulgarian organization who calls itslef nationalist on the permanent header of this site. Your refusal to acknowledge this shows your bad faith.Anonimu —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea what you are referring to, can you provide some links? ForeignerFromTheEast 18:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonimu, the Bulgarian sources are written by, as follows:
 * Станчо Ваклинов, "Формиране на старобългарската култура VI-XI век", София, 1977 - Stancho Vaklinov was prominent archaeologist, ph. d. in historical science, rector of the University of Veliko Tarnovo. The quoted book "Formation of the Old Bulgarian Culture" is his doctor's dissertation.
 * Petar Mutafchiev, Добруджа. Сборник от Студии, Sofia, 1999 - Petar Mutafchiev is one of the most respected Bulgarian historians before the World War II, specialized in Byzantine history.
 * Веселин Бешевлиев, "Първобългарски надписи", Издателство на Българската академия на науките, София, 1979. - Veselin Beshevliev was a prominent Bulgarian philologist and historian, member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences from 1941. The quoted book is his most cited corpus of the Protobulgarian iscriptions.
 * Донка Петканова, "Стара българска литература. Апокрифи", София, 1982, retrieved on September 9, 2007. - Donka Petkanova is a famous Bulgarian philologist, winner of the Herder Prize.
 * And so on... Anonimu, stop your arrogant accusations. - Dimitar Navorski 19:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete those, and anyway, were these books peer reviewed by the scientific community? Anonimu 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha-ha-ha! - Dimitar Navorski 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont be ridiculous. You are erasing references to those books. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Baltaci reverted the article into Anonimu's version, according to which the period of Tsar Samuil of Bulgaria isn't part of the First Bulgarian Empire rule but of the next Byzantine period, although he admited that this period can't be defined as "Byzantine". Of course, he didn't give new arguments before this act. - Dimitar Navorski 22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop misquoting me. If you continue, I'll have to ask an administrator to intervene.Baltaci 22:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Baltaci, I answered to all of your last objections. You didn't answer to me, but started to restore Anonimu's problematic chronology instead. I don't think this is the proper way to resolve that dispute. As ForeignerFromTheEast already said, the questions about the character of the Samuil's state and the name of the First Bulgarian Empire are determined in their particular articles. It will be very strange decision to accept here concepts, which totally differ from these, expounded as main theories in the articles Samuil of Bulgaria and First Bulgarian Empire. - Dimitar Navorski 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You couldn't prove that your theory is supported outside Bulgaria (and as I pointed up earlier, there's no consensus about the matter not even in Bulgaria). Me and Anonimu brought reliable sources that aren't influenced by Romanian and Bulgarian nationalist propaganda, but you continue to revert to your POVish version. Until you produce such sources, there's no discussion to have. I agree, you should go and change those articles to respect the consensus in the international scientific community. I won't do it, since I decided not to edit articles unrelated to Dobruja, but I don't see what's stopping you. And you're further disruptive by undoing style edits recommended by WP:MOS. It seems to me that you want to stop the development of this article. I thought I could make this article a good article with the help of Bulgarian editors, but it seems some of them just want to promote their POV.Baltaci 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I have cited several non-Bulgarian authors until now, try to remember the following for example:
 * "Dimitri Obolensky in his famous book "The Byzantine commonwealth" says "No matter what role for its creation we will ascribe to the local "Macedonian" element, we can't have doubts that Samuil deliberately identifies with political and religious traditions of the tsardom of Simeon and Peter" (Bulgarian translation, Sofia, 2001, p. 177). Note - the title Tsar is Bulgarian imperial title, so the state of Samuil was Bulgarian Empire, identified with the First Bulgarian Empire of Simeon and Peter, i. e. it was considered as the same Empire. Barbara Jelavich, "History of the Balkans", Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, 1983, defines Bulgaria in this period as an Empire, and Samuil's period is defined as a part of the same Empire."
 * "Their contemporary Steven Runciman in his book "The History of the First Bulgarian Empire" includes Samuil's period in the course of the history of the same First Bulgarian Empire..."
 * "... the idea of the dominant continuity as most accepted worldwide (it was also admitted by Ostrogorski to a great extent and recognized completely by Pirivatrich)."
 * Therefore your "arguments" above are not true. I can give you more examples for the same position, supported by non-Bulgarian researchers: Russian academician Genady Litavrin in "Early Medieval Staten on the Balkans", published by the USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1985, p. 178 (in Russian) - the chapter about Samuil's period is named "The final period of the First Bulgarian Tsardom". Prof. Mihail Syuzyumov, "Leo the Deacon and His Time", Published in "Leo the Deacon", Moscow, USSR Academy of Sciences, 1988 (in Russian) - Roman is treated as Bulgarian Tsar, who ruled during the period of Samuil's military leadership, i. e. Samuil's period is treated as part of the First Bulgarian Empire. Please, explain me, are
 * Dimitri Obolensky
 * Barbara Jelavich
 * Steven Runciman
 * George Alexandrovič Ostrogorsky
 * Srdjan Pirivatric
 * Genady Litavrin
 * Mihail Syuzyumov
 * Bulgarians?! Sorry, Baltaci, but I can't accept your false "argiments". Obviously you don't want to read my objections when they are in conflict with your POV. - Dimitar Navorski 00:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

About the Second Bulgarian Empire rule
The Second Bulgarian Empire rule in Dobruja lasted from 1185/1218 to 1322/later (probably to the beginning of 1340ies), or totally between 155 and 104 years. Nevertheless, the Romanian editor Anonimu is erasing every attempt of inclusion of the phrase "Second Bulgarian Empire rule" in the title of the section "Return of the Byzantine rule and late migrations". This generally not too short period wasn't Byzanrine and wasn't part of the so called "late migrations", but Anonimu is refusing to admit that. Dimitar Navorski 17:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The bulgarian rule is supposed to be cca 1205-1241 and 1302-1320.. thats about 55 years in a period of over 300 years. compare to about 120 years of Byzantine rule. And consider that nothing happened in Dobrudja during the Bulgarian "rule", as opposed to the abundent material about Byzantines, pechenegs, cumans & tatars in the region. If they really ruled that land, why did Bulgarian mention it only during the 1230s? Weren't they aware that they ruled land east of silistra and north of varna?Anonimu 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if we decide to accept your chronology as true (which we can't do, see the arguments of Gligan above in the discussion about the First Bulgarian Empire), and even if we believe that this rule which lasted only 55 years according to you is practically without significant historical consequences, this period does exist so you can't erase it from the title of the corresponding section! Dimitar Navorski 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Those dates are just an aproximation, the fact is that Bulgarian rule is documented only in the 1230s and during theodor svetoslav's rule. Dacian, Tatar, Wallachian and Russian rule are not mentioned in headers, even if they rule is much better documented. We only put rules that are the most signifiant for a certain period in the header. If we would put every rule in headers, we'd have enourmous subtitles or minuscule chapters.Anonimu 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How did you understand that those dates are just an aproximation? Jingby 08:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographic history
I added in the date in the section Demographic history that these figires (about Northern Dobruja) are Romanian POV. I think that this is clear. The Bulgarian and a part of foreighner sources have an other oppinion about the proportion between the different nationalities (Попов, Жеко. Българите в Северна Добруджа, Sofia 1993 etc). Maybe I'll prepare a presentation of this POV, but I can not see the reason until then to stay that the present figures are Rumanian figures. Maybe the phrase is not very good, but the fact is that there are more points of view--GrigorG 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are official statistics, so they're as NPOV as one could get. You can't edit since one of your conationals had the article protected.Anonimu 18:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not always the official statistics are NPOV. Especially in the times of politics of Rumanization and ethnical assimilation. This politics is described by some scientists with Romanian belonging too - Iordaki, Konstantin. Citizenship, Nation and Statebuilding: The Integration of Northern Dobruja in Romania 1878-1913, Carl Black Papers in Russian and East Europian Studies, Pittsburgh 2001. However I don't insist to stay my old redaction, but after the expiring of protection I have think about more N in present NPOV. :) Maybe by some note about the other oppinions.--GrigorG 23:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, the Bulgarian assimilation policy in NE Bulgaria was as harsh, if not even harsher. While the Bulgarian population in Northern Dobruja doubled between 1880 and 1913, the 1913 Romanian population of southern dobruja was half the one of 1878.Anonimu 11:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did you come up with that one? Can you provide evidence for any Romanians in Southern Dobrudja prior to 1913? As the answer is obviously "no" (by this I mean that there are no reliable sources for more than a couple of hundred Romanians or maybe even less). The annexation of Southern Dobrudja was not ethnically justified. The latter 'liberation' (as one should call a country's ethnical territory that was annexed by another country and later given back to the rightful let's say owner) was justified. And there was no assimilation as there were a number of population exchanges between the countries. From all I see and read you seem to hold the most extreme views of all the contributors on the article page and the talk page. Why do you try to deny almost every mentioning of Dobrudja as a Bulgarian territory? And if you do it why do you deny the Bulgarianess of even Southern Dobrudja, which is indisputable. -- L a v e o l   T 12:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See the 6400 romanians in southern dobrudja counted by the Bulgarian census in 1910. A couple hundred Romanians? Poor you.. and I thought the Romanian historiogaphy was a nationalist one. With such lies thaught in schools is no wonder you guys are so agressive. That land (as most NE Bulgaria) was turkish ethnical territory before 1878. Read your great historian Miletich if you want to learn more about the situation. Bulgaria assimilated Turks, Romanians and Gagauz from the first months of autonomy. Population exchanges happened only in the late 30s, so this is not the case. And yes, I deny the Bulgarianess of Southern Dobruja, as i deny the X-nationess of every territory in the world. There's no such thing as divine right on a piece of land. People come and go. Land stays mostly the same. I actually hold the most neutral view here, that's why romanian and bulgarian nationalist hate me alike.Anonimu 14:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact the Romanian policy in Dobruja 1918-1940 was combination of assimilation and colonization. In 1910 (according to a Romanian source, cited in the article) in Southern Dobruja there were 134,355 (47.6%) Bulgarians and 6,348 (2.3%) Romanians, but in 1930, only 12 years after the end of the World War I, when the Romanian rule began effectively, there were 143,209 (37.9%) Bulgarians and 77,728 (20.5%) Romanians (according to the same Romanian source). It is obvious that the Romanian ethnic presence before 1913 was insignificant - 2.3%, but its number grew about 12 times for 12 years of Romanian rule and its percentage rose up to 20.5% in 1930. During the same period the percentage of Bulgarian population decreased from 47.6% to 37.9%. Note - for only 12 years! Moreover, the Bulgarian population in Northern Dobruja according to Romanian sources decreased from 51,149 (13.4%) in 1913 to 42,070 (9.6%) in 1930. This was a process of de-Bulgarianization, supported by the Romanian authorities. Therefore the population exchange, which happened in 1940, affected predominantly the Romanian colonists in Southern Dobruja, but not any large local Romanian population, which didn't exist before 1918. - Dimitar Navorski 15:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Romania entered WWI only in 1916, so you can't dismiss the prewar years. The Romanian presence in Southern Dobrudja dropped from about 10,000 in 1878 to 6,400 in 1910 after years of Bulgarian assimilation (It's interesting to note that in 1881 Bulgarians made less than 9% of the district of Silistra). Yea, Romania colonized Romanians in Southern Dobrudja, but Bulgarians didn't have a bad time either... they grew by more than 9,000 (excluding the ones who left in 1919). The Bulgarians in northern Dobrudja weren't too old either, so it was just a matter of dividing colonization territories (cause, contrary to Northern Dobrudja, the Muslim population in Southern Dobruja under Bulgarian rule continued to be assimiled and has decreased signifiantly... by about 50,000 people)Anonimu 17:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So according to the Romanian sources (their reliability is disputed, they have to be checked with non-Romanian sources) and your statements the "significant" Romanian ethnic presence in Southern Dobruja dropped from 1878 to 1910 (totally 32 years) with 3,500 people and became 2.3%, which can't be called giant demographic revolution. On the other hand, according to the same Romanian sources the Bulgarian population in Northern Dobruja between 1878 and 1913 grew 2 times from 25,000 to 50,000, but the Romanian population in this region grew almost 5 times from 45,000 to 215,000 during the same period. Moreover, the Bulgarian presence in Northern Dobruja dropped between 1913 and 1930 (only 17 years) with 9,000 people. According to the same Romanian sources the percentage of Romanians in Northern Dobruga rose from 31% in 1878 to 56.8% in 1913, while the Bulgarian decreased from 17% to 13.4%. Thus in 1930 there were 64.7% Romanians and 9.6% Bulgarians in Northern Dobruja. This means that Romania effectively and profoundly changed the ethnic structure of this region mainly through colonisation and assimilation. Do you understand the difference in proportions, dear Anoninu? The Romanians in Southern Dobruja were insignificant group, their decrease didn't affect the demographics of the region very deeply, but the Bulgarians in Northern Dobruja were among the main ethnic groups in the region and their disappearance had quite different effect. - Dimitar Navorski 18:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Giving that there was no war in the period or a change of sovereignity, yes, it's a big change (>35% compared to the <20% loss of the bulgarians in ww1 era N Dobruja). And Romania did colonize people there, but so did Bulgaria in the south (the districts in NE Bulgaria were at least 70% turkish in 1881). The Ro-Bg proportion in the south in 1878 was comparable to the Bg-Ro proportion in the north. So no, they weren't an insignifiant group... they were just unlucky to fall under the administration of a regime that assimilated them.19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P. s. By the way, I really doubt that there were 10,000 ethnic Romanians to the south of Danube and to the east of Rusenski Lom river in 1878. Most probably there were also people with Vlach identity, which often existed as a parallel non-Romanian consciousness. These Vlach masses didn't participate in the nation building processes in the modern Romanian state. I know that our Romanian friends love to count all Balkan people with Vlach identity as ethnic Romanians (as it is in the article Romanians for example), but this is only their Romanian nationalist POV. - Dimitar Navorski 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Vlachs lived in Western Bulgaria before Romania began to colonize them in S. Doubruja in the 20s.Anonimu 19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P. s. About Anonimu's words "Bulgaria assimilated Turks, Romanians and Gagauz from the first months of autonomy". In fact in these Bulgarian lands still lives large Turkish population, which we can't say about the disappeared large Bylgarian population in Northern Dobruja. And, last of all, if these lands were predominantly Turkish, what did Romania seek there, for God's sake? ;-) - Dimitar Navorski 16:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The matter of Bulgarian in Northern Dobruja was resolved by a total population exchange, agreed by the Bulgarian gvt. So you can't blaim "Romanian assimilation". It seeked exactly what Bulgaria did: prosperous terrain and access to sea.Anonimu 17:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, chap, you failed to answer what did Romania seek in one Turkish region like Southern Dobruja in 1913 and 1918? ;-) Please, try to understand - in 1878 Bulgaria acquired lands with significant Bulgarian population, but in 1913 and 1918 Romania occupied lands almost without Romanian population. Hence the difference. Don't mess up these two policies. - Dimitar Navorski 18:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some imperialist in Bucharest wanted to be remembered for something. They didn't find anything better. NE Bulgaria was less than 25% Bulgarian in 1878... that's very signifiant.Anonimu 19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor fix please
This page contains an accessdate tag on a link misspelled as 'accesdate', which means the link date is not displayed correctly. Would a user with admin rights please fix this error. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian revolutionary movement against the Romanian rule 1918-1940
The historical Bulgarian revolutionary movement against the Romanian rule 1918-1940 isn't included in the present article. See article Internal Dobrujan Revolutionary Organisation for example. - Dimitar Navorski 15:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is necessery to put IDRO in the article! Jingby 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

South Dobruja's borders
South Dobruja's borders are marked by these towns: Ruse, Razgrad, Shumen, Varna. It includes the whole Deliorman (Ludogorie) region. See the Turkish Deliorman wiki page. Unfortunately the Bulgarian and English Ludogorie wiki pages are incorrect and state that only what's south of Tutrakan-Balchik line is Deliorman. Therefore Pliska lies within Dobruja. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.212.26 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Roman rule
Shepherd's Historical Atlas (1929 but still used as a reference in current texts) shows the Roman Imperial provinces of Lower Moesia and Upper Moesia coming under Rome in 29 BC as part of Roman expansion up to the death of Augustus (14 AD). Territory to extending to the Tyras (Dniester) was added in 60 AD. That additional territory is mostly gone by 395 AD at which point Dubruja (obviously not called that yet) is part of the Prefecture of the East, included in the Diocese of Thrace. PētersV 03:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, the article says more or less the same. What's the problem?Anonimu 08:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't clear to me to what degree the article states Dobruja came under Roman authority in 29 BC. While mentioning the Roman connection it seems to imply the joining happened a bit later.PētersV (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nop, it just says the inland cam under direct rule only in 45 AD (after rule by proxy in 29BC-45AD).Anonimu (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Last style edits
If you think my last style edits where somehow wrong or detrimental to the article, please say it here before reverting. I spent about a hour doing them, and i don't want them reverted just because a new formulation doesn't sound good to someone. Please discuss it here, and then, if we reach a conclusion, edit directly on this version, don't simply revert.Baltaci 19:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Long parts from the article were deleted without explanation! I propose, this is a new edit - war, pleace stop cunning! Jingby 11:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And once again - why don't you really do style edits separately form deletion of info and sources? The fact that you've made the edit for hours does not imply that other editors should feel sorry for you and not revert you. Why didn't you try to discuss the content issues here and then after consensus was reached - put it in the article? I see only one reason for this. -- L a v e o l  T 12:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)