Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 7

Section about Bulgarian Empire
The article is needed by section about Bulgarian Empire. In Middle ages in Europe exist 3 empires - Byzantine, Bulgarian and Carolingian (after that Holy Roman empire). In article has sections about Byzantine and Carolingian. We must added information about Bulgaria too. Because that state made influence by all Slavic and Western world. The Cyrillic alphabet, which is writing system by over 300 milion people and one of the official alphabets of European Union was created in Bulgaria. Old Bulgarian language is the first Slavic language, Bulgarian medieval literature was influent by Russian and others Slavic literatures. Bulgarian emperor Tervel was called "The saviour of Europe", after battle of Constantinople and he is the first ruler beyond Roman and Byzantine emperors, who was named Ceaser (705). We must adde section with short information about Second Bulgarian empire too. If somebody have a time can added that information. Tarnovo, the capital of SBE was called "The third Rome" and is one of the most important cultural center in Europe. --Sumatro (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually about Slavic Europe Bulgaria is like Roman empire by Romance and Germanic Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.102.118 (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Too much detail. The Bulgarian Empires are mentioned in the exact level of detail they had influence in the period for. It's level of detail is based on the coverage in the broad histories of the period. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why about Carolingian empire and Byzantine has detail information, but about Bulgarian empire has nothing? We can't ignore the history and processes of one of the three empires of Europe.--151.237.102.118 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A couple of points:
 * I'd be keen that we follow the BRD pattern here.
 * In terms of the weighting for an individual country within a large overview article, where naturally everyone would like an expansive section on their specialist area (myself included!) I would normally look to a high quality academic overview history of the period, and examine what kind of weighting/balance they provide the topics. Sumatro, or one of the IP editors, if you could identify an overview or two of the Middle Ages in Europe that gives more prominence to this issue, that would be a good way to influence the discussion (and certainly my opinion).
 * The referencing of the proposed text though is very poor, and not up to the standard I'd expect in a Featured Article. Leaving aside the fact that it is all in a jumble of different styles, each different to that in the rest of the article, counter to the MOS guidance, the sources themselves are pretty odd or handled poorly. I'm not sure who checked them, but it needs a lot of work. In particular:
 * Pauli Historia Langobardorum VI.31, MGH SS rer Lang I, p. 175 - this appears to be a primary source, the History of the Lombards, written in Latin during the 8th century. Why is this a high-quality reliable source? Also, see the WP:PRIMARY advice.
 * "Андреев, Й. Българските ханове и царе (VII-XIV в.). София", Page number?
 * http://istoria-vuz.hit.bg/tervel.html - a dead link, at least from my machine. It might have become dead since it was added to this article the other day, but I suspect it wasn't checked in the first place.
 * Theophanes, ibid., p. 397. I've no idea which ibid it is referring to, since it isn't mentioned previously.
 * "Vita S. démentis" - no idea who/what this is referring to.
 * "Енциклопедия България, Академично издателство "Марин Дринов", 1988" - what makes this tertiary source a high-quality reliable source? (NB: missing page numbers, bibliographic information, editor and author as well)
 * "Dimitrov, Bulgaria: illustrated history." Leaving aside details like his full name, page numbers etc., what makes this a high-quality source?
 * "De Boor, Сarl Gothard (1888). Vita Euthymii. Berlin: Reimer, p. 214" - Is a 1888 work really the best contemporary academic source for medieval Bulgarian history? In most other fields of history, there is more recent scholarship to draw on.
 * "Delev, Zlatnijat vek na bǎlgarskata kultura." - Would have been more meaningful with its full title (including the other authors).
 * Several entire paragraphs and a range of sentences are completed unreferenced, including statements like the "Bulgarian ruler was indeed a man of vision", which obviously need sourcing. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Per the statement you cite in your last sentence, the whole section reads to me like a nationalistic screed, perhaps mainly because the English is rather poor and unencyclopedic. This (addressed to no-one in particular) is a Featured Article: I daresay some of this information could be included, if it were well-written, well-sourced and if it were agreed that did not upset the overall balance of the article. Nortonius (talk) 09:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All of these sources are absolutely reliable. What is the problem? By Carolingian empire has 3 (3, O, God!) sections and no one by Bulgarian empire. And these sections are to much detail than "First Bulgarian empire". I think that the your reason to delete this part is just political. --Sumatro (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I cut out "Bulgarian ruler was indeed a man of vision...". All other in section seems perfect, by me. Someone of editors must create new section "Second Bulgarian Empire". I agree that the history of Bulgarian Empire is very important by Medieval and Modern history of Europe and instead to attack each other, we must to created that --JanHusCz (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The comments that have been made are not political; they are about the sources and about keeping the same relative weight for each subtopic as is found in the survey sources. Sumatro/JanHusCz, please work here on getting consensus before continuing to edit the article -- a good way to do it is to post here the material you'd like to add and let people comment.  And please note the comments about this being a featured article; I don't know if you're familiar with the featured article process, but it means that multiple people have reviewed the article and agreed it is high quality.  That means there's a consensus for the current text; you need to get agreement here on the talk page before making significant changes.  One thing you might consider is adding your text to a subarticle; perhaps someone here can suggest an appropriate place for the material you added (if it is well-sourced). Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The sources are not reliable nor are they verifiable. The Bulgarian "Empire" before the additions is given the weight that it recieves in the high quality academic overviews. Quite honestly, the "Empire" part is not at all used most histories of the period. The Bulgars get four mentions in Collins' Early Medieval Europe 300-1000 - and never once are referred to as an Empire. Krum's polity is usually called a "Khanate" or Khaganate. Wickham mentions the Bulgars or Bulgaria a lot less than he does the Byzantines or Carolingians. Two mentions in Barber's The Two Cities. Bulgaria and the Bulgars gets 18 mentions (including its modern rebirth and other mentions besides just medieval Bulgaria) in Davies' Europe (which is 1200+ pages). Its pretty clear that this section is undue weight based on the overview histories. It needs to go. It's not like Bulgaria isn't mentioned - it is. It obviously isn't mentioned enough for the nationalists, but frankly, Bulgaria (except when it interacted with Byzantium) wasn't that influential in medieval European history. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In all of sources Bulgaria is Empire. Bulgaria is a Tsarstvo, which means Empire (Tsar is just a Bulgarian equivalent to Emperor - from Old Bulgarian "Цясарь").--195.24.37.106 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I see the sources and I think that these are reliable. I don't understand why you delete the subarticle in this case instead to editing new information and to make a too better. Your way is not constructive--JanHusCz (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not listening to what I say. It's undue weight to give that much space to the Bulgarians when the reliable overview sources (that I've quoted above) do not near that much space to the subject. We follow the sources, not what editors think. Nor are the sources reliable for the reasons given above. You haven't addressed that, you've just said "I think they are reliable." Nor is edit warring constructive. Nor is using alternative accounts - it certainly appears that Sumatro and JanHusCz are closely related if you look at their past contributions. Kindly revert your additions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like parts of the additions are just copied from First Bulgarian Empire - "In 680 Asparukh founded after the Battle of Ongal the First Bulgarian Empire, south of the Danube on Byzantine territory." and "Under the great Khan Krum (803–814), also known as Crummus and Keanus Magnus, Bulgaria expanded southward and to the northwest, occupying the lands between the middle Danube and Moldova, the whole territory of present-day Romania, Sofia in 809." - this is another problem - copying between Wikipedia articles needs attribution. And it's not summary style to just copy large chunks of the article over here. WAYY too many problems with these additions. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, copying and pasting material is guaranteed to unbalance the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Per Ealdgyth, I feel that adding this lengthy section is undue weight on this Featured Article. --John (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that there is too much detail in the sections, as they were added, but on the other hand, I feel that the article, as it stands, could deal with the union of this rather extensive area a little more fully than it does at present. The fact that Western European writers have dealt with it rather lightly can be a reflection of a Western viewpoint. Amandajm (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to propose a high-quality, general overview of Europe in the Middle Ages from a contemporary Eastern European academic for comparison, that would be useful. (NB: I'd be slightly biased towards something that has been translated into English, or is in Russian, for linguistic reasons!) Hchc2009 (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bulgaria is Tsartstvo ( Kingdom ), Tsardom, which mean Empire. Tsar is Medieval Bulgarian variant of Emperor (from Ceaser - Цезар (Цясарь - Old Bulgarian) - црь - царь - цар - Tsar). Tervel in 705 received a title Ceaser from Byzantine Emperor Justinian II (one century before Carolingian to became empire). Bulgarian Empire is second in Europe, after Byzantine (Bozhidar Dimitrov, Georgi Bakalov, Georgi Markov). In many books Bulgarian empire is called "Third Rome" (Dmitrii Lihachov) Obviously you know nothing about Bulgarian and European history. And before to delete, please read!

5 reasons for including the First Bulgarian Empire in this article:


 * - Over 718 Bulgarian Emperor Tervel defeated the Arabs near Constantinople and prevents the Arab invasion of Europe. For this reason it is called " Savior of Europe". http://www.programata.bg/?p=62&c=1&id=51493&l=2 Exposition, Dedicated to Khan Tervel http://calendar.dir.bg/inner.php?d=16&month=2&year=2009&cid=&sid=&eid=51734 НИМ представя изложбата "Кан Тервел - спасителят на Европа" http://www.speedylook.com/Bulgaria.html Bulgaria at Sleedh Look encyclopedia http://www.bulgarite.info/node/5 Кан Тервел - спасителят на Византия и ЕВРОПА]
 * - Tervel was the first foreign ruler in history who received the title of Caesar - the second imperial title in the Byzantine Empire


 * - At the time of Simeon I the Great Bulgarian culture reached heights not exist anywhere in Europe at that time (with the exception of Byzantium ) . Literature and art of the Preslav Literary School are comparable to those of the Renaissance in Europe (Dimitrov - 12 duties in Bulgarian history (http://www.book.store.bg/p5851/12-mita-v-bylgarskata-istoria-bozhidar-dimitrov.html), Vasil Gyuzelev - Boris)


 * - In Preslav Literary School was created the Cyrillic alphabet, which today wrote more than 300 million people and which is one of the official alphabets of the European Union now. Bulgaria is the only one country in Europe that does not use foreign alphabet, and created own. Later the Cyrillic alphabet was adopted in the rest of the Slavic world (Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, Belarus, Macedonia and others). That is one of the resons Bulgaria is called the "Third Rome."


 * - Bulgaria's capital Veliki Preslav is the second largest city in Europe in this time (200 000 pop.), after Constantinople.


 * - Bulgarian church is the first independent church in the history of Europe. In 927 it received the status of the Patriarchate, as is today.


 * - The Bulgarian language is the first to violate the trilingual dogma and became the official language of the church (893 - Preslav council) . It was the first written Slavic language.


 * - In Bulgaria in the 10th century was born Bogomilism spread throughout Europe and was made influence by church life in Europe.


 * - In the 9-10 century Bulgaria is one of the largest military and political force in Europe ("Bulgaria on three seas")

The Second Bulgarian Empire :


 * - The capital of the Second Bulgarian Empire Tarnovo is called Third Rome. There are created Tarnovo Literary School - one of the most influence medieval scientific academies. In 1393, when the Ottomans conquered Tarnovo, many Bulgarian writers like fled to Russia, where he began enlightenment . Russian scientist Dmitry Likhachev called this " Second Bulgarian influence." Russian culture was created based on the books and translations of the writers of the Tarnovo school.


 * - Frescoes in the Boyana Church. There are the reason some scientists to believe that Renaissance has occurred in Bulgaria in 1259 (http://www.btv.bg/shows/btv-reporterite/videos/video/1231715464-bTV_Reporterite_Koy_e_boyanskiyat_maystor.html http://www.btv.bg/zavetite/novini/story/1510657883-Nayizvestnata_dvoyka_na_Srednovekovna_Bulgaria.html. But by more scientists there are just a "mount of Medieval art".--Sumatro (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sumatro, I've reverted your additions again. Your comments above do not address the point that other editors are making; find reliable sources that provide more relative weight to the Bulgarians in coverage of this period. As Amandajm and Hchc2009 say, you might be able to convince people to add a few sentences if you can find appropriate sources, but you are going the wrong way about it. Please stop editing the article until you have consensus here, and please start citing sources that support your position on relative weight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In article are presenting many reliable sources, which confirmed that. What is the problem?--Sumatro (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sumatro, what several of us have said above is that the coverage of the Bulgarian empire in a summary article like this needs to be driven by how academics weight the coverage in professional publications summarising medieval Europe. If academics normally give a topic a chapter of its own, for example, then you would expect a weighty section in an article like this. If it barely gets a mention, you wouldn't expect an encyclopedia article to give it much coverage. I've explained above why the sources listed earlier aren't being used properly (dead links; page numbers missing etc.); I'd welcome you filling in the missing details. I'd also be keen to see an Eastern European academic overview of the Middle Ages to compare the weighting against. Sources like the dir.bg calendar of upcoming parties, anniversaries etc., or a TV show, though isn't the sort of source I'd consider reliable for this though. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Alert to Western European Wikipedians: Steven Runchman informs us:
 * ".... It is a pity; for there are many passages in Balkan history interesting and important enough to deserve recording. But few have been recorded satisfactorily. In Eastern Europe there has been too much passion; while Western Europe has adopted the attitude that nothing of consequence happened in Eastern Europe till the growth of the so-called Eastern Question in the course of the eighteenth century. Thus the First Bulgarian Empire has remained a vague and ill-known period, whose very name falls as a surprise on most Western ears. But its story deserves attention, both for its significance in the history of Europe, and also for its own qualities and the study of the great men that were its rulers. It is in the hope of winning for it some of this attention that I have written this book." Reference: Steven Runciman, A history of the First Bulgarian Empire, (G. Bell & Sons, London 1930)
 * I want to point out here that, despite the manner in which Sumatro is going about this process, the editors of this page need to recognise that they are being told is you have made an omission and it needs to be rectified.
 * All I can say is, get on with it.
 * It is not entirely up to Sumatro to find the sources. Now you know that there is a problem, get on with the research that is necessary to fix it.
 * Amandajm (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did consult Curta's Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500-1250 to see how much weight the Bulgarian polities get there. They get about the same amount of space as the other states surrounding the Byzantine empire. Which, in this article, get about the same amount of detail. We're not ignoring Bulgaria, folks. IT's in here, it's just not getting equal treatment to the Carolingian Empire or especially the Byzantine. Basically, it boils down to non-Bulgarians tend to see the history of Bulgaria in the middle ages as that of a second rank power at best. Not on par with the big polities. However Curta says that Bulgarian historians tend to see Bulgaria as a "medieval state par excellence". Curta covers Bulgaria pretty much as it's treated here. We cannot go past the sources, folks. Much of the claims above aren't borne out by reliable sources. The Cyrillic claims are murky - Saints Cyril and Methodius are credited with the first Slavonic writing system ... their disciples were the creators of Cyrillic, but it wasn't the first system for writing Slavic languages. I'm not seeing that there is a "problem" still - I need to see sources that cover Bulgaria as equal to the Carolingian empire or the Byzantine empire before I'd say there was a problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC
 * On the contrary, the Bulgarian Empire does not need to be equal in significance to the Carolingian and Byzantine Empires in order to require a a somewhat fuller treatment than it is getting at present.
 * Currently we have this:
 * Missionary efforts by both eastern and western clergy resulted in the conversion of the Moravians, Bulgars, Bohemians, Poles, Magyars, and Slavic inhabitants of the Kievan Rus'. These conversions contributed to the founding of political states in the lands of those peoples—the states of Moravia, Bulgaria, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and the Kievan Rus'.[126]
 * The former Byzantine lands in the Balkans were divided between the new kingdoms of Serbia and Bulgaria and the city-state of Venice.
 * When I look at First Bulgarian Empire, I find that under Simeon the Great there was an empire that extended over Modern Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Serbia, and into the Ukraine. Of course, Western Scholars may dismiss it as insignificant, but it seems to me that it affected a large number of Medieval lives, for a time span of several hundred years.
 * This needs more fully dealing with than the two cursory mentions that are currently in the text.
 * Amandajm (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's unsurprising that Runciman's book - entitled "A history of the Bulgarian empire" - focuses heavily on the Bulgarian empire, Amandajm. :) The weighting of the article seems in accordance with academic overview histories of medieval Europe that I've read in English and French. I'm afraid I'm not going to "get on with it" and exhaustively work through general non-English works looking for exceptions. As noted above, language and the availability of the work permitting, I'd happily try and take a look at an academic work showing a different weighting if someone were to flag it up, or listen to their conclusions if they were to precis their findings here. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The point being made by Runciman appears to me to be that there has been an imbalance and that his book has been written to redress it.
 * Are you really seeking to find balance in those books where Runciman has already been stated that you will not find it?
 * I am suggesting that you take Runciman's view seriously. His book appears to have been written in English.
 * Can I suggest again that the size of the area be taken into account.
 * Can I also suggest that if this neglected empire made serious incursions into the Byzantine realms, then they are worthy of consideration for themselves, not simply as an enemy?


 * To look critically at the two mentions that we have:
 * Missionary efforts by both eastern and western clergy resulted in the conversion of the Moravians, Bulgars, Bohemians, Poles, Magyars, and Slavic inhabitants of the Kievan Rus'. These conversions contributed to the founding of political states in the lands of those peoples—the states of Moravia, Bulgaria, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and the Kievan Rus'.[126]
 * This quotation, in reference to Bulgaria, is about the events of the 9th century. There is no indication that the Bulgars had been a power to be reckoned with for about 300 years before they accepted Christianity, and that after this event they consolidated into a power that controlled a large area.
 * The former Byzantine lands in the Balkans were divided between the new kingdoms of Serbia and Bulgaria and the city-state of Venice.
 * The second mention is of event about 200 years later. We haven't been told that Bulgaria exists, but we are supposed to know it, when the Byzantine lands are divided.
 * Conclusion The indications are that some mention needs to be made of the existence of a Bulgarian Empire. This may be just a single, well constructed sentence that puts the whole matter concisely,   but it needs to be said in a way that, at present, it is not.
 * When somebody points out that there is a gap in the information, then there is a better way to respond than is currently happening.
 * Amandajm (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ealdgyth, bitching edit summaries like the following don't do justice to you or your contribution to the article: "..... And is it too much to ask for people to conform their citations to the style already in the article?? integrate into text"
 * Please take into account that before anyone made changes to your article, you were requested to do it yourself. This request was made, not out of respect for your "ownership" but out of respect for your (presumed) greater knowledge of the subject. The same applies to the very minor changes suggested (below) to improve the expression, and which also met with unpleasant edit summaries of the "ridicule" type. You are getting into a bad habit there.
 * Please read the conclusion of my post, immediately preceding this one. Amandajm (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read it. Rather than reply with anything, I'll just say if you're offended, i'm sorry, but it is very annoying (and something I'm constantly having to fix across many many articles - not just here and not just with you) that someone comes in and doesn't even try to fit the citation style of their additions to the style already in use in an article. I try very very hard NOT to do that to other editors - and it's something I call out on a regular basis. As for your other points - I'm sorry if you're offended. It isn't my total intention to be annoying to you. (And I'm done, because nothing I say will resolve anything and I have no desire to get into a long back and forth with you over this.) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the version that I suggest to be added in article. There are use only academic books, which are easily verifiable. Now I think that hasn't problem with adding of information about the third important state in European Middle Ages.

First Bulgarian Empire
In 680 Khan Asparukh founded after the Battle of Ongal the First Bulgarian Empire, south of the Danube on Byzantine territory. Asparuh's successor, Khan Tervel helped the deposed Byzantine Emperor Justinian II to regain his throne in 705. After that Emperor Justinian II named Tervel Caesar, the first foreigner in history, who receive this title. . During the siege of Constantinople in 717–718 he sent 50,000 troops to help the besieged city. In the decisive battle the Bulgarians massacred around 30,000 Arabs and Khan Tervel was called The saviour of Europe by his contemporaries. During the reign of Khan Krum (803–814) Bulgaria expanded southward and to the northwest, occupying the lands between the middle Danube and Dnieper River, the whole territory of present-day Romania, Eastern Hungary, Sofia in 809 and Adrianople in 813, threatening Constantinople itself. Between 804 and 806 the Bulgarian armies thoroughly eliminated the Avar Khanate and a border with the Frankish Empire was established along the middle Danube. In 811 Krum defeating a large Byzantine army in the battle of the Varbitsa Pass, which confirms Bulgarian hegemony in Southeastern Europe. Krum implemented legal reform, establishing equal rules and punishment for all peoples living within the country's boundaries, intending to reduce poverty and to strengthen the social ties in his vastly enlarged state.

In 870, at the Fourth Council of Constantinople, the Bulgarian Church was recognized as an Autonomous Eastern Orthodox Church under the supreme direction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. It was the first Church officially accepted, apart from the Churches of Rome and Constantinople. During the Council of Preslav in 893, Bulgaria adopted the Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) language as official language of the church and state, which became the third official language, recognized by the Churches and used during services and in Christian literature. Boris I commissioned the creation of two theological academies - in Ohrid and in the capital Preslav - to be headed by their disciples Clement of Ohrid, Naum of Preslav and Angelarius where the future Bulgarian clergy was to be instructed in the local vernacular. These academies can be considered a prototype of the Bulgarian - Slavic University. Glagolitic alphabet, created by the brothers Cyril and Methodius, had distinctive decorative complexity and was difficult to write. Clement of Ohrid and his students created much more functional alphabet - the Cyrillic alphabet. In the 10th century Bulgarian missionaries managed to impose this alphabet in Russia and the Serbian principality. Today Cyrillic is official writing system in many countries from the Adriatic Sea to the Pacific Ocean.

By the late 9th and the beginning of the 10th century, Bulgaria extended to Epirus and Thessaly in the South, Bosnia in the West and controlled the whole of present-day Romania and Eastern Hungary to the North. Under Tsar Simeon I (Simeon the Great), who was educated in Constantinople, Bulgaria became again a serious threat to the Byzantine Empire and reached its greatest territorial extension. Simeon I styled himself "Emperor (Tsar) of the Bulgarians and Autocrat of the Greeks", a title which was recognized by the Pope, but not of course by the Byzantine Emperor nor the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church. He was recognized "Emperor (Tsar) of the Bulgarians" by the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch only at the end of his rule.

By 917 Simeon I broke every attempt of the Byzantine Empire to form an alliance with the Magyars, the Pechenegs, and the Serbs, and the Byzantines were forced to fight alone. On 20 August the two armies clashed at Achelous in one of the greatest battles in the Middle Ages. The Byzantines suffered an unprecedented defeat, leaving 70,000 killed on the battlefield; the pursuing Bulgarian forces defeated the remainder of the enemy armies at Katasyrtai. In the beginning of 10th century Bulgarian Empire was one of the most powerful states in Europe. During Simeon's reign, Bulgaria reached its cultural apogee, becoming the literary and spiritual centre of Slavic Europe. In this respect, Simeon continued his father Boris' policy of establishing and spreading Slavic culture and attracting noted scholars and writers within Bulgaria's borders.--Sumatro (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is far too long and boosterish in tone. No other state gets this sort of coverage in the article. And that's only the first empire! It isn't going to happen. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By Carolingian empire are to much longer! In 3 sections! What is the problem?--Sumatro (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Bulgaria is too far away from France. The further a place is from France the less it fits the "medieval" paradigm. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Smec, thank you for defining the problem! That rather eliminates Constantinople from the scene, doesn't it?
 * But looking at the historiography, a great deal of this article is written from the point of view of the Byzantine Empire. The other "empires" of Eastern Europe are only described in terms of how they related to the Byzantine Empire.
 * This is not necessarily a bad thing. It just coincides, very tidily, with the way history is usually written by English authors. When I was studying Medieval History, all those long years ago, we had to do historiography as part of our course, and investigate the process of writing history, and the overwhelming one-sidedness of it, the way writers follow their personal biases, preferences, interests etc, to the exclusion of the "other". I supposed that it is still part of history courses, but I'm beginning to think they must have dropped it. After all, it was rather tedious, having to see the other chap's point of view.
 * Perhaps Sumatro only wants to add this information because of a personal bias of some sort. Runciman, in his book on Bulgaria, did warn that this sort of thing happens in the writing of history, but then, of course, he was rather pointing the accusation the other direction.  Maybe the present contraction to one and a half lines really is enough!  Amandajm (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am a historian by education, and I have dealt with the period of the Middle Ages. In this case User:Sumatro is absolutely correct by Bulgarian Empire. The Lack and ignorance of Bulgarian history is a huge gap, that needs to be repaired. Bulgaria has a huge weight in the medieval history of Europe and is needed by a separate sub-article in this article, like Frankish and Byzantine empires. Bulgarian Empire has its own path of development and actually becomes the third Rome. In this empire during 9-11 century became running a processes that influence the development of Eastern Europe and of Europe as a whole. That is the reason to be added in this article. It has no logic for the Frankish Empire to has three sub- articles, for Byznatine - 2, but Bulgaria is missing. The creation of Slavic writing system is very important moment in medieval history. Bulgaria is the first and only one state in middle ages which create own alphabet. Carolingian Empire was not created own alphabet and took Latin. Today thanks to bulgarian missionaries in 9-10 and 13-14 century, over 280 million people around the world write in Cyrillic (not Glagolitic on Cyril and Methodius), which was created in Bulgaria by Clement of Ohrid.


 * Unfortunately I do not see any arguments by opponents of adding, which to claim the academic maturity. Sumatro realy is feel the reason, but he/she was not explain detail. The reason by ignoring Bulgarian Empire here is just political. During the Cold War, a significant part of the history of Eastern Europe (include Bulgarian) was ignored by the Western part for purely political reasons. And now also is saying too small about that in Western textbooks. That's what happens here. That's the problem with which we, today's historians should rise. But the Cold War ended before 24 years ago. Maybe the article about Bulgarian Empire will be added after 10 or 20 years, when this political hatred will be forgotten. Now once again the politics kill the history. The bad thing for Wikipedia is that the ignorance of Bulgarian empire and Eastern European historigraphy broke some of rules of Wikipedia as NPOV. But the good things are needed by time before all. --195.24.37.106 (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 195.24.37.106, User:Sumatro, I want to correct a significant point that has been made here.
 * Historically, it probably is the politics of the Cold War that has resulted in this problem. But only in part. The other part is that the histories that are used as references on this page have been written by historians at the furthest west of Europe, and the events of Eastern Europe had little effect on them in the course of history.
 * British historians write about the Byzantine Empire, because the British went to the Crusades. They write about the Peninsular War because some of the most heroic British actions took place there. They don't write about Bulgaria because it hasn't had much impact on them.
 * The current attitudes expressed here on this talk page on Wikipedia are not caused by any current political hatred. The people here are not actively hating the countries of Eastern Europe. What you are experiencing is the prejudice of ignorance and unfamiliarity, not the prejudice of hatred.
 * Problems: There are three major issues.
 * The proposed addition is very long and detailed. You need to work on the addition and bring it right down to a more manageable form.  While it remains very long, the editors here wll say "It can't be included because it will overbalance the article".  They will not rewrite it in a suitable form. They will just say "It is too long; it is not written well enough."
 * The second problem is that the editors here want (for references) reliable recent English histories of the period that give weight and importance to the Bulgarian Empire.
 * Thirdly, (this is the hardest to overcome), some of the editors on this page have recently shown themselves as almost incapable of making a significant change, even under the circumstance of both serious editors and historian assuring them of the unprofessional, unsuitable nature of the pictorial content, and random contributors sneering at the incompetence of the writers (and Wikipedia) for allowing really unsuitable material to head up the page.
 * It took thousands of words, and a consensus of six regular editors and the additional comments of six unsigned editors to get the lead image of a 20th-century reproduction object changed for a genuine object. This may make you laugh, but it is a fact!
 * So, the message here is, don't expect any help from the regulars on this page. I have succeeded in winning you one single line of text on Bulgaria.  If you come up with a really good short paragraph, and at least three English Historians as reference, plus the opinions of at least six regular contributors who say that your paragraph should get included, then you might be successful. NOTE: Your paragraph has to be short. Amandajm (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Amandajm, since you bring up the subject of "that" image, to the effect that no-one should "expect any help from the regulars on this page": as I recall, not only were most of those "thousands of words" yours, pouring out misdirected, tl;dr tirades against people whom you patently regarded as ignorant buffoons, but also they gave me an abiding mental image of you as someone running around like a headless chicken obsessing about an imaginary travesty, when in fact the answer was very simple – as was pointed out to you so many times. Again, as I recall, you expressed some shock when another image was found which achieved consensus very quickly and was substituted without demur – the simple answer was put into effect! Yet you seem to perceive that as some kind of victory against dullards! How absurd. If "the regulars on this page" were as blind to the notion of change as you clearly believe, then don't you think there might have been a fight over that new image? From what I've seen, that image has remained unmolested at the head of the article since the day it was put there. Let me be blunt: it's you who can't expect any help from the regulars on this page, because your manner is pompous, patronising and tedious in the extreme. I snap my fingers under the nose of your arrogant self-regard, and intend to have no further interaction with you. Nortonius (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, Nortonius, so, having collected the opinions of twelve people scattered all over the talk page over more than a year, and finally made it clear that there really was a consensus for change, it happened.  And the ultimate solution was good.  It is a great "genuine" object that heads up the page.
 * My comment about your choice of the Mathilda Cross was that it was "an excellent choice" and very much preferable to the Lothair Cross. I didn't express any surprise whatsoever when someone (you) eventually made a choice that met agreement.  I wasn't sure what you meant by my "shock" so I looked at my edit summaries, and found one that says "I find this hard to believe". This doesn't refer to the choice of the Mathilda Cross. It refers to the fact that two editors agreed that the Cross of Lothair would be good, apparently not taking into account that the central feature was a great big "non-Medieval" object, a large Roman Cameo.  I really did find it hard to believe that of all the thousands of possible objects the choices had gone from a 20th-century educational object to a 1st-century recycled cameo. (The small re-used gems on the Mathilda Cross are fine, because they are not the central feature and therefore misleading)
 * Now we have a different issue entirely.
 * You have just stated that I am not going to get any help here because I'm pompous, patronising and tedious person who ultimately got the "reproduction" object removed, and I don't deserve any more help, having done that. However, you are not being asked to help me. You are being asked to help two other contributors who want to see Eastern Europe more fully dealt with than it is now.
 * Can you think of any reason for not helping in this matter?  These people have already tried a number of approaches, including writing thousands of words on the talk page. At what point do they get taken seriously?
 * Amandajm (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't think that I've taken this conversation seriously Amandajm. As per my comments above, I'd happily try and take a look at a current academic work showing a different weighting to the history of the period if someone were to flag it up, or listen to their conclusions if they were to precis their findings here. That doesn't have to be an English language work, just a general cross-cutting study of the medieval period from a leading academic - the sort of top quality source that you can imagine informing a featured article. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hchc2009, you are right. I had missed your comment. I don't think they are likely to precis their findings. This article is fairly rigidly controlled. It is not going to be easy for these editors to have anything that they contribute accepted easily. They need to be helped. It's up to somebody here to assess the importance and do the precis. I don't believe that one and a bit lines sums up the whole story.  It was a little longer (about three lines) but got cut. Something more recent than Runciman would be good, but then, I think that Runciman's criticisms ought to be taken into account. Look at the way attitudes have changed towards Eastern Europe: A few years ago, people barely knew that Prague existed. Now it is regarded as possibly the most beautiful city in Europe and people travel across the world as tourists.   I suspect that an acknowledgement of Eastern European history has been slow in coming.  How does one assess "importance"?  I don't have access to a history library with up to date information.  Amandajm (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why it must be English historians? Such a requirement is a complete violation of NPOV. Yes, Bulgarian Empire has a large weight in European medieval history and deserves to have a separate section for it as the Frankish Empire and Byzantium.

Even if there is no separate section for Bulgarian Empire, nothing is mentioned in the article apart. Bulgarian Church was the first independent church in Europe and the first independent patriarchate. Why in sections about "Church life" is saying nothing about it. The frescoes of the Boyana church is one of the highest points in medieval art. Why is saying nothing about Tarnovo School? Nothing is said about the Golden Age, when is created one of the most influential literatures in Europe - Old Bulgarian literature in Preslav, which through own missionaries in the 9-11 and 13-15 century creates all Slavic culture. Nothing about Chernorizets Hrabar, Clement of Ohrid (The father of Cyrillic alphabet), Konstantin Preslavski, Evtimiy of Tarnovo, Gregory Tsamblak, Cyprian and others - no one of them is mentoined in "5.6 Scholars, intellectuals, and exploration" - for example, or other section, related with culture. The Russian medievalist Professor Dmitry Likhachev says that in culture of Eastern Europe has two important points - "First Bulgarian influence" (10-11) and "Second Bulgarian influence" (13-15). Other - In 7th century Bulgarian capital Pliska is the only one city built of stone in Europe outside Rome and Byzantium. Why in "Art and architecture" is saying nothing about it? Sorry, but it is deliberately ignoring of the facts and significant events in the history of Europe. And all ignoring has no scientific basis points. It, as I said above is entirely politically motivated and the missing arguments of opponents and lack scientific maturity of their comments, with statements like "we need at least 3 English historians" or "I don't have access to a history library with up to date information" and others, shows that I am right. Otherwise I can not understand why the Bulgarian Empire is completely excluded in article. Currently Bulgarian Empire was completely excluded from the article and maybe we will need at least 10 years until we understand that history and politics are two different things. We can only believe in a good future! --195.24.37.106 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that nobody of you can not find the necessary sources, which is unbelievable! Because you are editors of article by history. So: if anyone is serious about history, let's add one or two articles about medieval Bulgarian Empire. These may be two articles - "First Bulgarian Empire" and "Second Bulgarian Empire" or one - "Bulgarian empire", with information about FBE and SBE. As the First Bulgarian Empire let it be after "Byzantium survival" or after "New kingdoms and a revived Byzantium".
 * So, what is still missing in this page:


 * 3.6 Church and monasticism
 * Here we must a say about the Bulgarian Patriarchate, which is the first independent church in Europe. Old Bulgarian language, which became the liturgical in 893 on Preslav council is the first language that violate the trilingual dogma of the church. Through Old Bulgarian language the knowledge of Christianity and the values ​​of the ancient and Christian civilization penetrate throughout Eastern Europe. It must added something about John of Rila - one of the most important monastic in Medieval Europe.


 * 3.11 Art and architecture
 * Something about Pliska. In 7th century the Bulgarian capital Pliska is the only one city built of stone in Europe outside Rome and Byzantium. It is a city with unique about the time architecture and urban planning


 * 4.2 Rise of state power
 * Second Bulgarian Empire is one of the most powerful states in Europe in 13th century. In article is said nothing about it. Huge gap!


 * 5.4 Collapse of Byzantium
 * Here is admitted a mistake - "...between the new kingdoms of Serbia and Bulgaria...". Bulgaria is empire (Tsarstvo/Царство), not a kingdom.


 * 5.3 State resurgence
 * Early as 9-10 century the Bulgarians began to realize as a nation. This is the thesis of academician Dmitry Likhachev. They established a form of national identity. It was the first similar case in Europe.
 * Second Bulgarian empire - emperor Ivan Alexander


 * 5.6 Scholars, intellectuals, and exploration
 * Evtimiy of Tarnovo, Gregory Tsamblak, Cyprian are missing in article. They are very important figures in medieval literature and must be added.


 * 5.8 Late medieval art and architecture
 * Nothing is mentioned about the frescoes in the Boyana Church, which are considered as peak in medieval painting and giving a rise to some historians to argue that the Renaissance began in Bulgaria. In 1259 the author of the famous frescoes - The Boyana master is the first painter in Europe, who discovered the three-dimensional perspective.

Because now I do not want to do registration in Wikipedia, and I can not edit the page, giving you a few sources that will work for you.
 * - Larousse: Histoire du monde 1000 - 1250, Paris, 2012, ISBN 9789548517546 - about Second Bulgarian Empire
 * - Larousse: Histoire du monde V - X century, Paris, 2012, ISBN 9789548517515 - by First Bulgarian Empire. This world's history is very interesting, because on the cover of the book is the Bulgarian Emperor Simeon I the Great.
 * - 12 мита в българската история, Божидар Димитров, Фондация Ком, Sofia, 2006, ISBN 9549165213 - it is a very important academic book, which saying many things about the huge role, which was playing Bulgarian Empire in Middle ages.
 * - The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, University of Michigan Press, 9780472081493
 * - Steven Runciman, History of the First Bulgarian Empire, Bell, 1930
 * - Petar Konstantinov, History of Bulgaria 681 - 2001, Sofia, Карина М, 2001, ISBN 9548260883
 * - Vasil Zlatarski, History of Bulgaria in Middle ages, Sofia, 1918

Other articles and films which academic weight:
 * - Acad. Dmitriy Likhachev in the movie "Държавата на духа" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aGjymQ-l44 - about Bulgarian national identity, which is consider as the first in Europe. (quote: "Българската нация е най-древната от съществуващите културни нации не само в Европа, а и в целия свят. Миналото погълна античността, древния Рим, Елада и прочие, но България остана като жива отломка от древната Европейска култура./en. transl. Bulgarian nation is the oldest existing cultural nation not only in Europe but throughout the world. Swallowed past antiquity, ancient Rome, Hellas and so on, but Bulgaria was like a living relic of the ancient European culture.")
 * - http://www.btv.bg/zavetite/novini/story/1510657883-Nayizvestnata_dvoyka_na_Srednovekovna_Bulgaria.html - about the frescoes in Boyana church.


 * It is only general overviews. If you need by some much detail, write me here, I will help you! --195.24.37.106 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could find a source in English that agrees that the "Bulgarian nation is the oldest existing cultural nation not only in Europe but throughout the world", or one from Egypt, China, Japan or India! Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 195.24.37.106, The points, which you are presenting, are very well placed and these details must be added. Now for the Bulgarian Empire is said almost nothing, which is very strange and dishonestly. I can suggest a few pictures to illustrate the picture of words. For example:


 * Hope to like it --151.237.102.118 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a few details, as are proposed by 195.24.37.106, that we discussed here. I see no objection at that time. I have an idea to summarize the history of the Second Bulgarian Empire in "4.2 Rise of state power". We must mention something about Emperor Kaloyan and Emperor Ivan Asen II because in their time Bulgaria is one of the most powerful and influence countries in Europe. To say something about the Battle of Adrianople (1205), because it is one much important moment in history of Kigh Middle ages. By First Bulgarian Empire the question obviously is still controversial. I think to be added in a separate section, but less to cut. We must a say something about Simeon I the Great, The Golden age and the creation of Slavic writing system - very important about the history of Eastern Europe and Europe as a whole. Help, please!--Sumatro (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Johnbod, Ealdgyth, Nortonius, Srnec, Hchc2009, You have a problem here that you need to discuss and deal with.
 * It has been drawn to your attention that this article is too centred on Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire (subjects which Western Historians focus on) and deals with the successive Bulgarian Empires only as they relate to Byzantium. This needs to be dealt with.  Why don't you discuss this matter, instead of fobbing off these editors with requests that they cannot make?
 * We are back to power-games situation where you successfully block and do nothing.


 * Ealdgyth, for a person who is sensitive about their own feelings, your last edit summary is extraordinarily insensitive to those of others.
 * Read the edit that you have just deleted.
 * Think about why the grammar is not good.
 * Do you really think that you are justified in deleting something on the grounds that a person for whom English is a second or third language has not placed the words in exactly the right order?
 * Do you think that a "Newbie" has any idea whatsoever what you mean when you refer to "Weasel words"?
 * Are you really incapable of adding a single appropriate sentence on the Bulgarian Empire that is well-expressed and fits the context without relating it primarily to you own interest, the Byzantine Empire?


 * Let me ask you, if you happened to be Bulgarian, would you perceive the to-ing and fro-ing of power in England and Northern France in the reigns of the five successive Kings of England that are named in one paragraph as being of Earth-shattering significance? Some Eastern European might ask if it couldn't just be summed up in one sentence that starts with 1066 and ends with the Hundred Years War?
 * I want to point out to all of you that although these editors may not be familiar with the types of descriptive language that are and are not permissible, their captions to the illustrations are no longer than some of the present captions. The proposed 4 pictures did not meet with objection when they were put on this page two days before they were added to the article.


 * Summary
 * You need to treat these contributors with more courtesy.
 * Drop the demand that non-native-English-speakers will produce clear concise descriptive English
 * Drop the expectation that Eastern Europeans will produce multiple sources in English.
 * You need to discuss how the material on Bulgaria is to be added.
 * One of you needs to get your finger out and write something in clear expressive English that is not biased by a Byzantine viewpoint.
 *  In the 7th century in Southeastern Europe was established Bulgarian Empire, which conquered the lands south of the Danube and is becoming a major force and very important cultural center in this part of the continent.
 * Is no-one among the regular editors of this page capable of rephrasing this?


 * Warning: There is a distinct possibility that some pharisee might read the archives of this article and die laughing. Amandajm (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Amandajm, a couple of comments. Firstly, if you think I haven't treated the contributors on this page with courtesy, my apologies. Personally, I think that my working through the list of references that one provided and commenting above was courteous; I was disappointed though, that one of the websites listed was in fact infected, and that none of the editors replied to provide the missing details on pages etc. For what it's worth, I spent some time searching last night for one of the volumes cited in the latest changes, since I promised I would try to read it if possible. It seems that the incomplete reference given wasn't correct, which made that task harder, but I have at now least identified it. The ISBN reference links to a Bulgarian version though rather than French, so I was considering how to phrase the relevant questions of the editor concerned - I can read Russian (slowly!), but not Bulgarian. If you can offer any help in summarising the wider current Eastern Europe academic literature on European history so that we can cross check it against the weighting in this article, though, it would be gratefully appreciated; as I noted above, I don't have the time to do that research myself. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hchc2009, Thank you for what you are doing. I withdraw any implication that you have not been helpful.
 * I cannot help you with Russian, I'm afraid. I am located at the outer-eastern edges of the British Empire and like most of us from old colonial families, only speak English. Amandajm (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is actually a requirement that additions to the encyclopedia be written competently. I'm not behaving any differently with these additions than you do on the various art and architectural articles you work on. There is no requirement that I (or any other editor) must "discuss how the material on Bulgaria is to be added" - because I've addressed why it should not be added at length with sources. Multiple sources. We follow the sources and their coverage - and that does not mean we follow monographs on specific subjects on such a big overview topic. There are also issues with some of the claims made above about the Cyrillic alphabet and other claims (I wasn't aware that art historians felt that these frescoes were the first usage of perspective - that's an extrodinary claim and would need some ironclad sourcing to go against the general consensus that artistic perspective developed in the Italian Renaissance (see Perspective (graphical)). I would think that Amandajm you'd be especially concerned about that sort of artistic claim. We have added some information on Bulgaria - it's not due weight to add two paragraphs of descriptions of one set of frescoes when the rest of the article treats art objects/works in half sentence mentions at best. And as for the additions - "In the 7th century in Southeastern Europe was established Bulgarian Empire, which conquered the lands south of the Danube and is becoming a major force and very important cultural center in this part of the continent" was added to the lead - that's undue weight for the other coverage that's also in the lead. This article is an overview. That means that ... we follow the sources that I've discussed before. I've gone to various books that are recent and DO cover the whole of Europe (Davies' Europe is quite broad in its coverage, and the other works I've used also give some slight coverage to Bulgaria.) It's an unfortunate thing that the Bulgarian sources seem to be quite nationalistic and want to magnify the actual influence of Bulgaria beyond what non-Bulgarian sources state. The non-Bulgarian sources (and not Byzantine biased either - Davies is not a Byzantine scholar at all) do not cover Bulgaria in this level of detail. As for the pictures - We're picture heavy as it is. If the picture doesn't illustrate something in the text - it shouldn't be here. And, as I've just got done explaining, the text was undue weight. You're not addressing that problem... you brought up Runciman's work on Bulgaria - but that doesn't actually deal with how to cover weighting in this article - it's a monograph on Bulgaria and so of course it's going to go into great detail about Bulgaria. I've also pointed out some concerns by historians about the biased histories produced in Eastern Europe - has anyone actually addressed that issue either? If historians think that Bulgarian sources are biased and nationalistic - we need to be careful using them for what amount of coverage to give to Bulgaria and how to weight that in this article. I'm still not seeing how any of these concerns are being addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've read through the discussion above. Phew! I am sensitive to accusations of systemic bias; as a member of a minority myself I am sometimes inclined to see unfair bias where none exists, ie the bias is fair. We go with what the sources cover, and sometimes this is a judgement call. Anyone wishing to drastically change the slant of this article needs first of all to read Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/archive1, where the article was peer-reviewed. As a Featured Article, this article needs special treatment. I know there have been conduct issues regarding adding material relating to Bulgaria into it before, and perhaps that has sensitised some regulars here to further attempts to add such material. I suggest everybody dial down the rhetoric somewhat, use proper sources, and consider using recognised dispute resolution methods if necessary. This might include a request for comment. I am too involved to use admin tools but I can happily ask for someone else to weigh in if editor conduct becomes an issue again. I really hope it won't. --John (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. Quick one from me: can anyone tell me who the author of "Larousse: Histoire du monde 1000 - 1250, Paris, 2012" mentioned above - Larousse is the publisher, but I'm having trouble identifying the author (or editor etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm tired of going into edit wars, because of things, which are so famous, that you have to be blind to deny them.
 * Dear Ealdgith, please, tell me which of the sources seem nationalistic, by you? All of sources are books of serious historians. And not all of them is Bulgarian. You said: "If historians think that Bulgarian sources are biased and nationalistic...". Who are this historians? Actually many historians in Europe said that the british historians are biased and nationalistic, that the British historians tend to see their history as the greatest and more of them are not interesting about other European and world history. Many people in Eastern Europe believe that the British historians are nationalists. And how they not to believe when they see what nonsenses is written in the British press about the immigrants from Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and other European countries. But these are not serious historians. All nations in the world are greatest. Every nation is created some part of our world. As the unregistered user (who claims to be a historian) said this article is a victim of politics. Victim of hatred of the time of Cold War (this is the reason British historians to say too small about Eastern European history). I search a information on 3 languages ​​- French, German and Bulgarian to publish the latest changes. And you just wiped them with one fell swoop! And this is not at the first time. Every time when someone add a something about Bulgaria you immediately delete it. Sorry, but your position seems nationalistic. Look at what is written at the beginning of the article - In European history, the Middle Ages, or Medieval period, lasted from the 5th to the 15th century.. EUROPEAN, my friends! Where is Bulgaria? In Asia? In North America? In Australia? Of cource in Europe. Where is Bulgarian Empire in this article? I understand that it is only overview, but here are presenting 3 subarticles about Carolingian Empire. This is overweight. There are written completely insignificant for the history of Europe events. And all of that are connected with England and France. When a reader read this article will think that in Europe are only two countries - England and France. During the Middle Ages in Bulgaria has been very important for world history events that are not even represented. As the creation of the Slavic alphabet. This is the third writing system in Europe and the only one writing system, created in the Middle Ages. How many countries in the Middle Ages have created their own alphabet? Only Bulgaria (it is just a fact, not a nationalistic). And it is not regional event. Almost all of Eastern Europe wrote in Cyrillic today. The literature and the art of Preslav school and Tarnovo school influenced all of Eastern Europe. What does the article has nothing about Preslav and Turnovo? Why in article has so much information about the Hundred Years War? What is the meaning of the this war by European history. Yes, this war is important, but only by history of France and England. Does it influence to other European countries, such as Poland. Or Italy. Or Greece. Turnovo school and Preslav school influenced the cultures of Serbia, Romania, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Macedonia , Croatia, even Byzantium. Almost half of Europe! But nothing about that in article. At the time of Krum , Simeon I the Great and Ivan Asen II Bulgaria is one of the most powerful countries in Europe (look at the map below!). Read the article on the Tarnovo Artistic School and its achievements. This school play a huge role in the history of European art. In the Boyana Church is born whole revolution in art! There are mountains of books and films about that. I presented some of the added rows. Where else in Europe, the painting has similar accomplishments? Nowhere.
 * I added information about architecture of First Bulgarian Empire and its influence on architecture in Orthodox Europe. Did you know that the Basilica in Pliska was the largest cathedral in Europe in the Early Middle Ages? Read something about this building! If you do not believe on historians, come to Bulgaria and check it out!

I'm tired to write! So I'll briefly illustrate why we must to adding individual articles First Bulgarian Empire Second Bulgarian Empire and the things that I added.
 * P.S. Change the title of article on "Middle ages" to "Middle ages in France and Great Britain!"


 * The unsupported ignoring of the history of the Bulgarian Empire and the overweight of British and French history is a violation of NPOV. - --Sumatro (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Hchc2009, the authors of "Larousse: Histoire du monde 1000 - 1250" are Jean Guillaume and Georgi Bakalov--Sumatro (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why address your challenge only to one editor? This article belongs to the project, not to her. Please provide reliable sources for The unsupported ignoring of the history of the Bulgarian Empire and the overweight of British and French history is a violation of NPOV. If you can do that and we all accept your premise, there will be no problem in adjusting the article. --John (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. The sources are presenting by 195.24.37.106:
 * - Larousse: Histoire du monde 1000 - 1250, Paris, 2012, ISBN 9789548517546 - about Second Bulgarian Empire
 * - Larousse: Histoire du monde V - X century, Paris, 2012, ISBN 9789548517515 - by First Bulgarian Empire. This world's history is very interesting, because on the cover of the book is the Bulgarian Emperor Simeon I the Great.
 * - 12 мита в българската история, Божидар Димитров, Фондация Ком, Sofia, 2006, ISBN 9549165213 - it is a very important academic book, which saying many things about the huge role, which was playing Bulgarian Empire in Middle ages.
 * - The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, University of Michigan Press, 9780472081493
 * - Steven Runciman, History of the First Bulgarian Empire, Bell, 1930
 * - Petar Konstantinov, History of Bulgaria 681 - 2001, Sofia, Карина М, 2001, ISBN 9548260883
 * - Vasil Zlatarski, History of Bulgaria in Middle ages, Sofia, 1918
 * ---Sumatro (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sumatro, simply cutting and pasting a list of books from earlier in the talk page isn't very helpful. Could you outline what Jean Guillaume and Georgi Bakalov, for example, actually say about the excessive weight of British and French history in European historiography? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As pointed out above ... the historians are discussed in Florin Curta's Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500-1250 p. 147. Some comments Curta (who is not British and is a professor at the University of Florida and also the author of a history of the Slavs in the Middle Ages, so hardly a "biased" author only interested in putting the Bulgars down) makes include "historians are not willing to treat the polity of Krum, Omurtag or Boris on a par with the mighty Carolingian or Byzantine states...Ultimately, the part in European history medievalists reserve for Bulgaria is still that of a second-hand power." and "the common opinion among Bulgarian historians is that from Krum to Boris, the BUlgar polity underwent drastic changes leading to its administrative, military and political "modernization". In short (according to the Bulgarian historians), Bulgaria became a medieval state par excellance." Curta's work is an upper level college textbook - designed for use in college courses dealing with the history of the Balkans in the Middle Ages, and covering mostly the consensus of historians of the period. I pointed this out above. Other problems include the claim that the frescos in Bulgaria are the first use of perspective in art - predating the Italian Renaissance, and that Cyrillic was invented by scholars at Preslav. Page 215-216, Curta says "Unlike the churchmen in Ohrid, the Preslav scholars were much more dpendenent upon Greek models and quickly abandoned the Glagolitic script in favor of an adaptation of the Greek unical to the needs of Slavic, which is now known as the Cyrillic alphabet." and then page 221 "Preslav was the center from which the scriptorial innovation associated with the introduction of Cyrillic spread to other regions of Bulgaria." This seems to imply that it's not quite true that Preslav created Cyrillic, but that it was instrumental in its spread. And we're still not addressing the problem of weight - adding two paragraphs about one set of wall frescoes is undue weight for this type of overview article. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That is the content of "The World history 1000 - 1250" - "Larousse: Histoire du monde 1000 - 1250".

Look at how much space is given by Bulgarian empire.

introduction

Retreat of South and East Asia
 * Decline
 * Shrink and split India
 * Vicissitudes of Buddhism
 * Renewal of Hinduism and Confucianism
 * The division of the Far East
 * China's rulers Sun under the pressure of the people of the north
 * Changes of Chinese civilization
 * Japan clans
 * Division of Southeast Asia
 * Rivalry between Indonesian possessions
 * The civilization of Angkor
 * Maritime claims in Indonesia

Renovation and divide the Islamic world
 * Three Caliphate in the late X century and the first half of the XI century
 * common aspirations
 * Disparities
 * The first intercept the Turks in eastern Islam
 * Turks in Baghdad Caliphate
 * The style of Seljuk Islam
 * Separation of Seljuk influence
 * Western Islam
 * Almoravid in the Maghreb and the Iberian Peninsula
 * Almoravid and the birth of black Islam
 * Almohads

Western Europe beginning of Christendom
 * Young Western powers
 * Social and political dimensions
 * Population growth and economic recovery
 * religious revival
 * expansion
 * The decline of Christianity in the Orient
 * The greatness of the Eastern Empire during the Macedonian dynasty
 * crisis
 * Age of Komnin
 * Decline and revival of the Greek Empire
 * Organization and civilization of Western Europe (XI-XII century)
 * Dream unity : Empire or the Papacy
 * Germany and Italy
 * Feudal monarchies : the conquered kingdoms
 * France
 * Church in the Roman era
 * cultural progress
 * Slavic and Scandinavian countries
 * The role of Hungary
 * Countries of the Southern Slavs
 * Countries of Western Slavs
 * Russia
 * Scandinavian kingdoms

Contacts and divisions
 * Relationships within the Old World
 * different links
 * traffic
 * influences
 * comparisons
 * similarities
 * feudal order
 * professional associations
 * lights
 * separate civilizations
 * US- Indian civilizations in Mexico
 * US- Indian civilizations in the Andes
 * Undated peoples of Ancient America
 * Peoples of black Africa
 * Large and small islands

Mongol invasion
 * Mongolian audacity
 * Mongols and Upper Asia
 * Genghis Khan and the emergence of the Mongol Empire
 * Expansion of the Empire under the successors of Genghis Khan
 * Mongol Empire and neighboring countries
 * Organization of the empire
 * Effects of conquests
 * Along the Mongol Empire, from Japan to Russia in the middle of XIII century
 * Western Europe during the first half of the XIII century
 * Great ventures
 * Promises for the future : social redistribution
 * Validation of monarchies
 * French civilization

The History of Bulgaria (1019-1241)
 * Bulgarian lands and the Bulgarians under the rule of the Byzantine Empire
 * Military administrative changes
 * Bulgarian church in Ohrid
 * Bulgarian society
 * Attacks Pechenegs, Uzi, sponsor and Normans
 * First and Second Crusade
 * Uprisings against Byzantine rule
 * economy
 * Renewed Bulgarian Kingdom
 * Uprising of 1185-1187, the
 * Third Crusade and Bulgarians
 * Liberation of the Bulgarian lands in 1190-1196, the
 * Separatism in the renewed Bulgarian Kingdom
 * The end of the war with Byzantium
 * Bulgarian- Hungarian War
 * Union with the Roman Church
 * The Fourth Crusade and the Bulgarians
 * Battle of Adrianople and its fate
 * The death of Tsar Kaloyan
 * King fought for. Weakening of the Bulgarian State
 * Ivan Asen II
 * Knot of 1228
 * Battle of Klokotnitsa
 * Restoration of the Orthodox Patriarchate
 * Bulgarian kingdom between Nicaea and Latino
 * 1241 - the decline of greatness
 * Restored Bulgarian kingdom - internal state and general characteristics
 * conclusion
 * chronicle
 * This list placed here by Sumatro has bee edited into chapter headings as per the book by Amandajm (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * this is a link to Bulgarian translation of the encyclopedia with content - from French to Bulgarian to English - http://www.book.store.bg/p91581/larousse-istoria-na-sveta-tom-7-probuzhdaneto-na-evropa-1000-1250-g-zhan-gijom-georgi-bakalov-ivan-ilchev.html
 * - --Sumatro (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The ISBN you've given is wrong. I cannot turn up any such title in WorldCat with those authors/publisher/date of publication. And I'm unclear as to what this long list is supposed to be... Could we please have correct publication information for the sources you're supposedly using? And some context on what the list above represents? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth,


 * Ealdgyth, the book is The Larousse: History of the World - Volume 7: The Awakening of Europe from 1000 to 1250 it can be viewed, in Bulgarian at . I do not speak Bulgarian, but nonetheless, I have been able to go through the list (with the aid of Google translate) and have divided it into headings as they are in the book for the benefit of the editors here. (The chapters are listed at the webpage provided above.
 * It seems to me that considerable weight is given to the Bulgarian Empire during this period, indicating that it was of some importance. This needs to be redressed in the present article. Amandajm (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You can view the names of the chapters at that link, Amandajm, and a couple of sample pages, but that's about it. Personally I found it hard to make a judgement on the work as a whole, or its main argument, using just the chapter titles. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to have to repeat the question, but you suggested that the authors of this work supported the statement that "The unsupported ignoring of the history of the Bulgarian Empire and the overweight of British and French history is a violation of NPOV." Could you explain what the authors actually say on this point? (e.g. a quote, perhaps) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I side with Ealdgyth here. As a Scot, on one level I would like there to be more than two brief mentions of Scotland, but this is an overview article and the daughter articles are properly linked, so someone with a special interest can click further and read a more detailed account. I feel like the material you would like to add is good and valuable but would be better on a daughter article. This article has pretty much the correct weight for Bulgaria at present. (Disclaimer: I helped work on the article and supported its promotion to FA, so obviously I am not "wearing an admin hat" here, whatever that means. But of course I do have friends in high places...) --John (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And as a (mostly) Scot myself, I'd like you to tell us about the Scottish Empire in this period of history, John!


 * The Cyrillic was created in Preslav. This is part of 12 мита в българската история on Bozhidar Dimitrov - http://chitanka.info/text/9703/8#textstart. It is on Bulgarian - if you want - translate in Google Translator, because I can't in this moment. I will wrote you tomorrow again. Thank you!--Sumatro (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * IMO, Sumatro has made two additions to this page that you, the combined editors of this article, cannot continue to ignore. See below. These two images speak louder than any argument that you can present. Amandajm (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, I want all the editors of this page, including Sumatro to be aware of this statement by Ealdgyth, which I have taken the liberty of cutting and pasting from the talk page of User:John.
 * Quote Ealdgyth: "THIS sort of pandering to nationalistic crap is why articles on big subjects don't get improved."


 * Only today, I wrote on the page of Sumatro that I believed that the attitudes that were being expressed on this talk page came not from prejudice (as Sumatro had previously expressed) but from insularity, and also from the natural unwillingness for a person to to change something that they have worked hard at. Ealdgyth, in the light of the above comment, I cannot make that excuse for you any longer.


 * What is happening here is disgraceful. It puts the combined bloody-mindedness over changing a 2OTH CENTURY reproduction object for a GENUINE MEDIEVAL object into the shade!
 * When an editor from a different part of the world, with a different view to your combined views and combined experience alerts you to an imbalance then it is time to learn, time to grow, time to grasp an entirely new perspective that is being offered to you.
 * You live in the 'World. Wikipedia exists in a World where we all benefit by this sort of exchange.
 * If you people had looked with any respect on the initial edits and suggestions made by Sumatro, if you had accepted more than a token 1 1/2 line addition, which attempts to relate to Byzantium, if you were not all so intent on your own personal focus, and Ealdgyth, if you were not so determined to keep your own baby as an infant, and stifle its growth in every way, this problem would have been solved weeks ago.
 * Ealdgyth, in the light of your comment above, and in light of the fact that I am an elderly and experienced citizen of this World, I am telling you that you need to do some rapid growing up, and look well beyond the boundaries of your present personal interests.
 * For the rest of you, regardless of how much you might respect the scholarship Ealdgyth has contributed to this article, falling into line with attitudes such as that expressed above is unproductive to Wikipedia.
 * This comment: "THIS sort of pandering to nationalistic crap is why articles on big subjects don't get improved." is largely false. It is only by listening to editors like Sumatro, that major articles do get improved. Seize the opportunity and do something about it.
 * Sumatro, realise the limitations of what you can do. If you keep attempting to edit the main page, you will keep on being blocked. Keep your discussion to this page.
 * Amandajm (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Everyone uses language differently, Amandajm, but all the capital letters and bold text comes across to me personally as "shouting", and if that was your intention, it's not necessary.
 * The Wiki is based around discussion and opinions, but it's also based around research and the rigorous use of sources. A lot of effort has gone in above to try and discuss this issue with several editors - one of which has engaged in edit warring, with the use of sockpuppetry going on as well. Along the way, it's been suggested by some editors that the reason for my wanting to see sources is "political hatred", that my deletion of long swathes of effectively unsourced material "was just political", and that these editors shouldn't "expect any help" from the likes of myself. Advice has been given that I should "get on with it" and conduct major research on Eastern Europe to prove their theories, and that I am "fobbing off these editors" by asking them to provide sources in an effort to play "power-games". I don't often say this, but even allowing for many of these editors writing in a second language, frankly that is discourteous. I fully understand Ealdgyth's frustration.
 * So far, only one general work has been given in support of the argument that the weighting of the article on European medieval history, in comparison to the weighting given to themes by leading scholars, is wrong. Even that work seems to be a non-specialist text, not actually a book on European medieval history, and I can't find the original version because it seems to have been wrongly cited. We've had Runciman quoted - more useful, but given that he was writing in 1930, not a great guide to the literature of the last eighty years. Everyone is entitled to their own theories and opinions, but in terms of the Wiki, their arguments will carry more weight with me when they provide reliable, high quality sources - particularly since I've several times explained what these might look like. I don't think the issue here is about anyone "growing up", it's about engaging in a serious, detailed conversation about a difficult, specialist subject, backed by sources and references - and dialling down the hyperbole a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hchc2009, as you are probably aware, the "Iron Curtain" has had the effect of reducing both scholarship and general interest in Eastern Europe for the greater part of the 20th century. For example, no book in my extensive library that was written before 1990 tells me that Prague is one of the most beautiful cities of Europe.
 * With regards to the accusations of political hatred, yes, it was undoubtedly unfair and stemming from a "siege mentality". I twice did my best to counteract that.  But there is the problem of extreme insularity here. One looks from ones own viewpoint.
 * I have been through some of the same problems over the writing of the article on Romanesque architecture, firstly with a German person who believed that I hadn't dealt sufficiently with Germany, then a Pole who said that nothing in Germany was genuine because it had all been rebuilt in the 19th century, and who belaboured me to add every single example of Romanesque architecture in Eastern Europe. I was completely ignorant about Romanesque architecture in Eastern Europe, and had to learn fast. It was a matter of finding a balance.
 * I am still coming up with new things. There is a fantastic church in Bulgaria, Saint Sofia Church, Sofia, and built at the same time as Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Badly damaged in the 19th century but since restored. It is a large basilica from the 500s that, until today, I didn't know existed. The fact that I didn't know about it does not lessen its importance. To me, it slots in next to Hagia Sophia, the Basilica of San Vitale and San Apollinare in Classe without any problem and with only moderate surprise that I previously didn't know about it, since, after all, it was in Bulgaria.. Amandajm (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

History of this discussion

 * Let's look at the history of what has gone on here:
 * First A change was made to a date, and was promptly reverted. There was a brief discussion as to the reason for the reversion
 * Secondly a request was made that some material should be included.
 * ''The article is needed by section about Bulgarian Empire. In Middle ages in Europe exist 3 empires - Byzantine, Bulgarian and Carolingian (after that Holy Roman empire). In article has sections about Byzantine and Carolingian. We must added information about Bulgaria too. Because that state made influence by all Slavic and Western world. The Cyrillic alphabet, which is writing system by over 300 milion people and one of the official alphabets of European Union was created in Bulgaria. Old Bulgarian language is the first Slavic language, Bulgarian medieval literature was influent by Russian and others Slavic literatures. Bulgarian emperor Tervel was called "The saviour of Europe", after battle of Constantinople and he is the first ruler beyond Roman and Byzantine emperors, who was named Ceaser (705). We must adde section with short information about Second Bulgarian empire too. If somebody have a time can added that information. Tarnovo, the capital of SBE was called "The third Rome" and is one of the most important cultural center in Europe. --Sumatro (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually about Slavic Europe Bulgaria is like Roman empire by Romance and Germanic Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.102.118 (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth's response: Too much detail. The Bulgarian Empires are mentioned in the exact level of detail they had influence in the period for. It's level of detail is based on the coverage in the broad histories of the period. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Why about Carolingian empire and Byzantine has detail information, but about Bulgarian empire has nothing? We can't ignore the history and processes of one of the three empires of Europe.--151.237.102.118 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: This seems to me like a perfectly reasonable approach from a person whose initial attempt to edit (as one is led to presume one may do on Wkipedia) was rejected.


 * NOTE: Ealdgyth's response here is a blank refusal.
 * Reason: "too much detail". Followed by the extraordinarily dismissive statement: "The Bulgarian Empires are mentioned in the exact level of detail they had influence in the period for."
 * With this ungrammatical proclamation the "Bulgarian Empires" and the contribution of the editor were dismissed.


 * More recently, User:Sumatro's contribution has been referred to as Quote: "nationalistic crap"
 * Let's put this reference to somebody's national history as excrement in perspective:
 * If this was an article on Early Modern History, and someone was presenting a case to include the Gettysburg Address, would that be "nationalistic crap"?
 * If someone was presenting a case to have the Battle of Culloden included, would it be "nationalistic crap"?
 * The Potato Famine in Ireland only effected a small population (some of the Irish, not my family). Is writing about it "nationalistic crap"?
 * Should we refer to discussion of the Albanian Genocide as "nationalistic crap"?


 * Ever since User:Sumatro was fobbed off with the response that "the Bulgarian Empires are mentioned in the exact level of detail they had influence in the period for" he/she has been trying to prove a case for the inclusion of more information.
 * The long histories that have been placed here are not for inclusion in their entirety, but to convince the editors of the article that in fact, the Bulgarian Empire was worth more that ''a passing mention in the history of the Byzantine Empire."
 * The result has been that 1 - 1 1/2 lines (depending on your screen) on the Bulgarian Empire have been included, added by me at somewhat greater length, and reduced in length by others.


 * The combination of:
 * "the Bulgarian Empires are mentioned in the exact level of detail they had influence in the period for" and ...
 * ""THIS sort of pandering to nationalistic crap is why articles on big subjects don't get improved."
 * .... leaves me in no doubt whatsoever as to why this article has not been improved!
 * Amandajm (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the case for adding more information?

 * This sentence
 * Bulgaria, which was founded around 680, at its height reached from Budapest to the Black Sea and from the Dnieper River in modern Ukraine to the Adriatic Sea.[128] By 1018, the last Bulgarian nobles had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire.[129]
 * What does the sentence tell you?
 * Bulagria, founded 680
 * The First Empire lasted until 1018, more than three hundred years
 * It reached from Budapest to the Black Sea
 * They engaged in war against the Byzantines.
 * This sentence alone alerts the Wikipedia reader, and should alert the Wikipedia editor to the importance of Bulgaria. This sentence alone informs you that the tiny snippets that can be gained from this are not sufficient to give a balanced picture, in the context of this article.


 * These maps alert you to the fact that the Bulgaria was a force to be reckoned with. How did they get that land? Who did they take it from? Why are the leaders who seized power in this vast region of Europe not mentioned in this article?


 * I cannot believe that the editors here do not have sufficient sources to give more detail than the paltry 1 - 1 1/2 lines (depending on the width of your screen) that currently summarises 300 years of a peoples impact on the lands from Budapest to the Black Sea.
 * Amandajm (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sumatro's case

 * The above in discussion I have a presented example section "First Bulgarian Empire", which to be added in the article. And all of sources are reliable.
 * 1. I do not understand (no one of you answered) why about the Carolingian Empire are separated 3 subarticles, but nothing about Bulgarian Empire and Bulgarian Golden age. Look what is said Eugenia Pancheva in "Theory of Literature", 2005, p.44 (ISBN:9545293497) (designed for the study of literature in universities): "Literature and art of Carolingian Empire has much lower development than in Constantinople and Preslav..." "Literature in Bulgaria from this period is at a higher level than Carolingian and Gothic, because of the early development of Bulgarian national identity and the system of caesaropapism, which reduced the influence of the church...", "...in the Frankish Empire philosophers was limited to the study of nature and repeated many of the existing views on this issue. Therefore, in the Frankish Renaissance lacking author as Chernorizets Hrabar, who has the status of apologist or classic philosopher..., "In the 10th century Bulgarian Empire has its own independent church, own independent ruler and own writing system, which make it the most powerful and influence state in Europe.".
 * 2. Nothing is said about The battle of Constantinople in 718, after which the Bulgarian emperor Tervel is named "The Saviour of Europe".
 * 3. About Boyana Church in "Boyana frescoes", p.7, Mavrodinov is said: "One of the most remarkable phenomens in medieval art are a frescoes in Boyana Church, which are created by painters of the Tarnovo Artistic School in Bulgaria. In 1259 the author of Boyana frescoes has done a spectacular revolution in the history of European art as a discovered the upward perspective and three-dimensionality in the visual arts", "The frescoes are genuine masterpieces with a flawless technique, psychological depth, complexity and realism. Boyana is the only and the most impressive wholly preserved monument of the Turnovo School of Painting from the 13th century.
 * According to many leading experts, the world famous frescoes in the Boyana Church played an important role in the development of mediaeval Bulgarian and European painting.".
 * This is the official website on National History Museum of Bulgaria (in English by your joy) - http://www.boyanachurch.org/historyen.htm - "The Boyana Church owes its world fame above all to the frescoes from 1259, which demonstrate the exceptional achievements of mediaeval Bulgarian culture. The majority of the more than 240 figures depicted here display individuality, remarkable psychological insight and vitality."
 * 4. Nothing is written about Tarnovo Artistic School and Tarnovo Literary School. In "Pages From the History of the Tarnovo Literary School" of Georgi Danchev, P. H. "Science and Art", Sofia, 1983", p.78 - 82 is said: "Tarnovo school is the peak of medieval art, which is nowhere else outside Byzantium. A. Petrovski in his "History" said that Bulgarian emperor Ivan Alexander was a real Renaissance person, as Voltaire was imagined for France in The Enlightment.", "...influence of literature and painting of the Tarnovo school is comparable only with the influence of classical civilizations of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. It is no coincidence that the Byzantine chroniclers from the 14th century called Tarnovo "The Third Rome".", "...in the late 14th century and the 15th century (after the fall of Bulgaria under Ottoman Empire in 1396) Bulgarian missionaries of the Tarnovo school spread the ideas and achievements of Bulgarian culture in Eastern Europe. So they bring the values ​​of the Classical World and the Christian civilization in Eastern Europe"
 * 5. About Slavic writing system and the influence of FBE, Bozhidar Dimitrov in "12 мита в българската история" said: "In 893, already has the required number of literate priests and laymen, as well as the required number of books, Emperor Boris I managed to People's Assembly (the highest authority in medieval Bulgaria ) to push a decision that the new script is declared official Bulgarian language in church and state . And this is the official script of church and state today. Bulgarian missionaries still in the X century managed to impose this alphabet in Russia and the Serbian principality. Today alphabet written in countries from the Adriatic Sea to the Pacific Ocean. These are Bulgaria , Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro , Ukraine , Belarus, Russia.". In "History of Bulgaria", Bulvest 2000, Sofia, 1993, p.160-162 Georgi Bakalov and Petar Angelov said: "The Cyrillic was created by Clement of Ohrid in Preslav.", "Glagolitic alphabet, created by the brothers Cyril and Methodius, had distinctive decorative complexity and was difficult to write. Clement of Ohrid and his students created much more functional alphabet - the Cyrillic alphabet."
 * 6. Look how much space is separated by Bulgarian Empire and how much spaces by England and France in "Larousse: Histoire du monde 1000 - 1250". It is world history. There are the most influence states and events in World history and Bulgaria is part of that. That is the reason to think that here are violation of NPOV, because are presenting too much details by Carolingian Empire, England and France. No one of this 3 states was created writing system (they just take it Latin, which is created by Romans). Their art and literature has lower influence than Bulgarian in Middle ages. There is too much information for the kings of the Carolingian Empire, Hundred Years War and battles, which are irrelevant to European history as whole. Why is written nothing about the Battle of Achelous (917) which was the biggest battle in medieval Europe? Nothiong about Simeon I the Great, Ivan Asen II or Ivan Alexander? They are unique figures in all European history. - --Sumatro (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sumatro, you note that "all of [the] sources are reliable" in your proposed section. Why do you believe that a source like |"speedylook.com", used by you in your proposed section, is a reliable, high quality historical source? I should say that I'd advise anyone to be careful clicking on it, since it is triggering malware alerts on my system. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it was a link by the book. The source is "Аtanasov, G., Тervel - emperor of Bulgaria and Ceaser of Byzantine Empire, Silistra, 2004, p.48"--Sumatro (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean a link "to" the book? Thanks for deleting the link to the infected website btw. For "Theophanes Chronographia, Corpus Scriptorum Historiæ Byzantinæ", which is a collection of primary sources on Byzantine history, is the section you're quoting a primary source or secondary commentary? (see WP:PRIMARY for why this matters). Hchc2009 (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hchc2009, read carefully, please! The source is "Classen, J., Theophanes Chronographia, Corpus Scriptorum Historiæ Byzantinæ (Bonn) ("Theophanes") Vol, I, 6301/802, pp. 752-3. It is modern German historian work, not the original Byzantine Chronographia. Bonn is city in Germany--Sumatro (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The volume you've read doesn't seem to be a modern German historical work; I'm pretty sure it is OCLC 215022612, part of the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae series, which were collections of primary material on the Byzantine Empire. Volume I, edited by the 19th century historian Johannes Classen and published in Bonn, is from 1839, though, rather than 1841 (which is volume II). There's an electronic copy of volume I [here]. Have a look at pages 752 and 753 - it presents the original source by Theopanis in Greek on the top of the page, with a commentary in Latin below. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Corpus is modern German work, Chrorngraphia is the Byzantine original. The question is about the expansion of Bulgaria at the time of Krum. The same sentence exist in "Andreev, J. Bulgarian Khans and Emperors (VII-XIV century). Sofia, 1987, p.110", but with slightly different details, which I added, as in the source--Sumatro (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't be suprized if you keep getting reverted when you add things like this edit: "In 1259 the author of Boyana frescoes has done a spectacular revolution in the history of European art as a discovered the upward perspective and three-dimensionality in the visual arts". This goes way beyond anything the National Museum, the UNESCO listing linked at the bottom of the page & other sources say. They may mention general "realism" within a Byzantine-orbit context but not perspective specifically - the images I've seen from Boyana Church mostly arrange their figures across the front of the picture space in the usual style anyway, with perspective not a consideration. Sources talk of a revival of Late Antique illusionism (again - see the Paris Psalter of 300 years earlier in Constantinople, which goes a good deal further), but that's a long way short of consistent graphical perspective, which the Italians can still be credited with (post-Giotto). There's a vaguer increase in the sense of depth and three-dimensionalty, which Boyana can claim, though whether it had influence on similar developments in the West is pretty questionable I'd have thought. I'd be interested to see what will make of it; she has expertise in this area. Unfortunately Balkan art history tends to be dominated by a nationalist agenda, as these edits clearly are. What is "upward perspective" anyway? I see no reason why Boyana should be mentioned here, given the need for compression. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Jonhod said: "Unfortunately Balkan art history tends to be dominated by a nationalist agenda". Who told you that Balkan art is dominated by nationalists? Where did you read this? In Balkans are 12 countries. Which Balkan countries you mean? What you know about Balkan art? This is just a quote from books of experts by frescoes in the Boyana Church. You have a different opinion - good. The things, which you say about the Paris Psalter are important, wonderful and helpful by dispute. But no need to insult. Sorry, but such comments confirm what I have said above, that the article is a victim of a political hatred.--Sumatro (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós is the classic case. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the nationalistic in Nagyszentmiklós? This treasure is containing traces of many cultures, making it difficult to identify. Because of this reason there are so many theories about its origin. But it is great, that you give this article for example, because there are represented all POVs of scientists by origin of the treasure. Here, from so many time, I 'm trying to convince you just to add an important information about the Bulgarian Empire. And because you do not a find contra-arguments, you resort to insults and ridiculous claims. Above I said that some historians say that the British scientists are led by nationalistic agenda, but these are not the serious historians. But do not you noticed that in the article is cited almost only British and American scientists (Davies, Collins and others). Why? This, what I present here is just the other point of view. The problem is that you just do not take a different POV (that is the reason I to added a label NPOV in beginning of the article), especially those, which say that some Balkan countries have a much larger contribution to medieval history, art and culture. Then ask yourself what people you are?--Sumatro (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone fancies taking a breather, there's an accessible article on the intertwining of art history and nationalism, written by Matthew Rampley. It's in "Art History and Visual Studies in Europe" (2012), and is called "Construction of National Art Histories and the "New Europe""; it's on Google Books. Rather influenced by Ernest Gellner, but that's probably no bad thing; he always had a dry sense of humour about this sort of issue. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Concluding comments from Hchc2009
Right, I've gone through the material and references above. In some cases it hasn't been possible; in many cases the citations aren't complete enough or are simply incorrect, and in other cases I can't find the original material due to my geographical location. I've read through what I can find more widely, again within the limits of time etc. This isn't my specialist area, etc. - the usual caveats. Some concluding comments then, as I'll be travelling with work in the coming days:
 * In terms of the "reliable sources" provided above, many have simply been cut and pasted from elsewhere in the Wiki. I want to assume good faith, but in some cases I simply don't believe that the sources were read through before being cited here. I'd advise that additional care is taken on checking the sources used.
 * Some of the sources are contradictory on key details and interpretations, although typically only one interpretation is then presented above. It isn't clear why this wasn't picked up by the editors concerned.
 * Some sources are woefully out of date, and in one case has been critiqued by several generations of historians.
 * Some of the sources still lack page references, some time after this has been highlighted as an issue.
 * Some of the Bulgarian-language material has clearly been written by professional historians. It is unclear whether their writing has been mistranslated, or if the original text carried a similar meaning, but the resulting article text contains a great deal of hyperbole, in some cases not backed up by the other texts put forward by the same editors as reliable sources, and in some cases not backed up by the wider literature I've been able to find.
 * I continue to believe that the balance of material in the article should be determined using the comparative weighting in a sample of general, high-quality, current academic texts on Medieval Europe, rather than our own personal preferences or opinions. The language of those texts should not be an issue - I'm pleased that no-one that I have seen so far has insisted that any particular language texts are used.
 * There has still been no alternative general, high-quality academic study of Medieval Europe put forward to test the accusations of undue weight against. This is a shame; I would have enjoyed hearing more about how Eastern European scholars present Europe and the medieval period as a whole.
 * In summary then...
 * ...in most part, I would advise against adding the proposed additional material to this article.
 * ...I do however believe that one or two sentences should be added to describe the introduction of Cyrillic text to Europe. This is highlighted in a number of general studies, and feels to me to be a gap. I would note the academic debate surrounding this issue, however, and would urge such an addition to reflect that uncertainty and to be impeccably referenced.
 * ...It would be worth one of the editors concerned updating the First Bulgarian Empire article with the improvements they have made to the citations given above (from where I believe most of the text was copied). Hchc2009 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is what I propose to be added in the article. First Bulgarian Empire and section creation of the Slavonic Alphabet (The Golden Age of Bulgaria) has a individual sections . Second Bulgarian Empire to be added to the section "Rise of state power", which now exist in the article. It seems like this:

First Bulgarian Empire
In 632, Khan Kubrat managed to unite the three largest Bulgar tribes: the Kutrigurs, the Utigurs and the Onogondurs, under a own rule, creating a powerful confederation Old Great Bulgaria. After Kubrat’s death in 668, the Bulgars split into five groups, each under one of Kubrat’s sons - Batbayan, Kotrag, Altzek, Kuber and Asparukh. Batbayan ruled from Poltava the lands northeast of the Black Sea. Kotrag conquered the lands between Volga and Kama, when he created the Volga Bulgaria. Altzek was created a state in modern Italy ; Kuber was estabilished a Bulgarian state in Macedonia. The youngest of the sons, Asparukh crossed to the south of the Danube, where conquered the Slavic tribes living north of the Balkan Mountains. The Byzantine emperor Constantine IV led an army against the Bulgars but was defeated in the Battle of Ongal, and in 681 Byzantium recognized by treaty Bulgar control of the region between the Balkans and the Danube. This is considered to be the starting point of the First Bulgarian Empire. Asparukh’s successor, Tervel (701–718), helped to restore Emperor Justinian II to the Byzantine throne and was rewarded with the title “caesar.” He became the first foreign ruler, who receive this title. During the siege of Constantinople in 717–718 he sent 50,000 troops to help the besieged city. In the decisive battle the Bulgarians massacred around 30,000 Arabs and Khan Tervel was called The saviour of Europe by his contemporaries.

During the reign of Khan Krum (803–814) Bulgaria expanded southward and to the northwest, occupying the lands between the middle Danube and Dnieper River, the whole territory of present-day Romania, Eastern Hungary, Sofia in 809 and Adrianople in 813, threatening Constantinople itself. Between 804 and 806 the Bulgarian armies thoroughly eliminated the Avar Khanate and a border with the Frankish Empire was established along the middle Danube. In 811 Krum defeating a large Byzantine army in the battle of the Varbitsa Pass, which confirms the Bulgarian hegemony in Southeastern Europe. Krum implemented law reform intending to reduce poverty and strengthen social ties in his vastly enlarged state.

The Golden Age of Bulgaria
Emperor Boris I was baptized a Christian in 864, at a time when the conflict between the Roman church and the Eastern church in Constantinople was becoming more open and intense. He subsequently wavered between Rome and Constantinople until the latter was persuaded to grant de facto autonomy to Bulgaria in church affairs.

The spread of Christianity was facilitated by the work of Saints Cyril and Methodius, who had invented an Glagolitic alphabet in which to write the Slavic language (known as Old Church Slavonic or Old Bulgarian) and almost completed the translation of the Bible (most parts of both the Old and the New Testament) into the vernacular of the land. They also developed a Slavonic liturgy in Great Moravia. When Moravian king Rostislav committed to Rome and expelled the disciples of Cyril and Methodius, many of them resettled in Bulgaria, where they were welcomed by Boris and undertook the translation of church books and the training of priests. Boris I commissioned the creation of two theological academies - in Ohrid and in the capital Preslav - to be headed by their disciples Clement of Ohrid, Naum of Preslav and Angelarius. These academies are considered as first Slavic universities

In 870, at the Fourth Council of Constantinople, the Bulgarian Church was recognized as an Autonomous Eastern Orthodox Church under the supreme direction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. It was the first Church officially accepted, apart from the Churches of Rome and Constantinople. During the Council of Preslav in 893, Bulgaria adopted the Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) language as official language of the church and state, which became the third official language, recognized by the Churches and used during services and in Christian literature.

During the reign of Simeon I the Great, the Bulgarian Empire spread over a territory between Budapest to the Black Sea and from the Dnieper River in modern Ukraine to the Adriatic Sea. , and became the most powerful and largest state in Europe. . The newly independent Bulgarian Orthodox Church became the first new patriarchate besides the Pentarchy, and Bulgarian Glagolitic translations of Christian texts spread all over the Slavic world of the time. Simeon I styled himself "Emperor of all Bulgarians and Romans". In 20 August 917 Simeon defeated the Byzantine army in Battle of Achelous, which is considered as the largest battle in European medieval history.

During Simeon's reign, Bulgaria reached its cultural apogee, becoming the literary and spiritual centre of Slavic Europe. The Glagolitic alphabet, created by the brothers Cyril and Methodius, had distinctive decorative complexity and was difficult to write. Clement of Ohrid and his students created much more functional alphabet - the Cyrillic alphabet. In the 10th century Bulgarian missionaries managed to impose the new alphabet in Russia and the Serbian principality. The new Bulgarian capital Preslav was made into a magnificent city that observers described as rivaling Constantinople. The artisans of its commercial quarter specialized in ceramics, stone, glass, wood, and metals, and Bulgarian tile work in the “Preslav style”. Bulgarian Slavonic culture that in the next centuries spread to Byzantium, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Transylvania, Walachia and Moldavia, as well as to Kievan Rus.

Rise of state power
In 1185 the brothers Ivan Asen and Peter of Tarnovo launched a revolt to throw off Byzantine sovereignty. The Asen brothers defeated the Byzantines and forced Constantinople to recognize Bulgarian independence. During the reign of their brother Emperor Kaloyan the Bulgarian Empire is regained its position as a leading force in Eastern Europe. In 1204, after the Fourth Crusade, was established the Latin Empire, which has territorial claims to Bulgarian lands. In 1205 at the Battle of Adrianople the Bulgarian army defeated the the Crusaders and captured the Latin Emperor Baldwin of Flanders.

The Second Bulgarian Empire reached its zenith under Ivan Asen II (1218–1241), when commerce and culture flourished. After the Battle of Klokotnitsa Bulgaria became the most powerful state in Europe with area, spreding between three seas - Black, Aegean and Adriatic. The strong economic and religious influence of Tarnovo made it a "Third Rome", unlike the already declining Constantinople.

Architecture, art, and music
Very important role in the development of European art played a frescoes of Tarnovo Artistic School in Bulgaria. The unique and realistic portraits in the Boyana Church are considered to be forerunners of the Renaissance. The frescoes are genuine masterpieces with a flawless technique, psychological depth, complexity and realism and demonstrate the exceptional achievements of mediaeval Bulgarian culture. The new fresco technique continued to be used, for instance in the beautiful frescoes of the Rock-hewn Churches of Ivanovo and the Rila Monastery.
 * It is my proffer - --Sumatro (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's way too much for this summary article. If some of the writing was polished, it's possible it could be used on a daughter article. --John (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Plus the sources I have seen all praise the Boyana frescos, but not in the extravagant terms Mavrodinov uses. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would have to be rewritten per WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed additions

 * Sumatro, It must be fairly clear to you that the editors here are not going to add anything as lengthy and detailed as you have proposed. This is much too detailed for this article.


 * I propose that the present single line (on my wide screen) be expanded as follows.


 * The First Bulgarian Empire was founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by the Bulgars, who subdued or drove out the Byzantines and made allies of the South Slavic settlers. Hostilities continued with the Byzantines and in 811 the Emperor Nicephorus I was defeated and killed by the Bulgars under Khan Krum. After the acceptance of Christianity in the late 9th and early 10th centuries, the Bulgarian Empire expanded to its height of power under Tsar Simeon, spreading between Budapest and the Black Sea and from the Dnieper River in modern Ukraine to the Adriatic Sea.  By 1018, the last Bulgarian strongholds had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire, and the First Bulgarian Empire had ceased to exist. It was succeeded by the Second Bulgarian Empire in 1185. 


 * Note that in the previous paragraph six individual Byzantine Emperors are mentioned by name, so I do not think that the names of Krumm (who defeated the Byzantine army and had the emperor's skull lined with silver as a cup), and Simeon (under whom the empire was at its height) are two too many.
 * The matter of Christianity needs some expansion
 * The matter of the alphabet should be expanded
 * The second Byzantine Empire ought to be dealt with separately. At present it is tagged onto this paragraph.


 * If these three additions are made, the total will be perhaps twice what is currently here, or less (6-8 lines on my screen). I do not see how anybody could argue that this is "too detailed" or overbalances the Byzantine section or the story of Charlemagne, which discusses the details of how he seized power and the day on which he was crowned.
 * Amandajm (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tweaked to::::The First Bulgarian Empire was founded in the north-eastern Balkans in c. 680 by the semi-nomadic and mainly Turkic Bulgars, who pushed back the Byzantines and ruled the local South Slavic population. Hostilities continued with the Byzantines and in 811 the Emperor Nicephorus I was defeated and killed by the Bulgars under Khan Krum. After converting to Orthodox Christianity, adopted by Boris I in 865, the Bulgarian Empire expanded to its peak under Simeon, and after his victory at Achelous in 917 it spread between Budapest and the Black Sea and from the Dnieper River in modern Ukraine to the Adriatic Sea, and with its borders very close to Constantinople.  A long Byzantine counter-attack brought the empire to an end in 1018.  The Second Bulgarian Empire continued intermmitent wars with Byzantium from 1185, and from 1204 capitalized on the weak crusader Latin Empire ruling Constaninople, but was greatly weakened by Mongol invasions from 1242, and finally extinguished by the Bulgarian–Ottoman Wars in 1396. 

- I haven't checked or changed any refs, but I'd hope they'd cover that. "Tsar" seems only to have been used retrospectively of 1st Empire rulers. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Johnbod, Amandajm (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of this duplicates information above the "single line" being objected to though - Currently the last parts of that paragraph state "Missionary efforts by both eastern and western clergy resulted in the conversion of the Moravians, Bulgars, Bohemians, Poles, Magyars, and Slavic inhabitants of the Kievan Rus'. These conversions contributed to the founding of political states in the lands of those peoples—the states of Moravia, Bulgaria, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and the Kievan Rus'. Bulgaria, which was founded around 680, at its height reached from Budapest to the Black Sea and from the Dnieper River in modern Ukraine to the Adriatic Sea. By 1018, the last Bulgarian nobles had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire. " We could expand this a bit but if we replace "Bulgaria, which was founded around 680, at its height reached from Budapest to the Black Sea and from the Dnieper River in modern Ukraine to the Adriatic Sea. By 1018, the last Bulgarian nobles had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire. " (which is what I assume is meant by the "single line") we're duplicating the information already there. If folks are insistant on adding names, that can be done.


 * Perhaps replace ALL of what I've copied above (starting with "Missionary efforts") with "Missionary efforts by both eastern and western clergy resulted in the conversion of the Bulgars under Boris I in the 860s, Moravians by the 880s, Bohemians in the 10th century under Wenceslaus I, Poles in 966 under Mieszko I, Magyars around 1000 under Stephen I, and the Slavic inhabitants of the Kievan Rus' under Vladamir around 1000. These conversions contributed to the founding of political states in the lands of those peoples—the states of Moravia, Bulgaria, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and the Kievan Rus'. Bulgaria, which was founded around 680, gained victories over the Byzantines under the Khan Krum (d. 814) its height under Simeon (d. 927), spreading between Budapest and the Black Sea and from the Dnieper River in modern Ukraine to the Adriatic Sea, and with its borders very close to Constantinople. By 1018, the last Bulgarian nobles had surrendered to the Byzantine Empire. ". If we're going to mention one of the converted rulers, we should mention them all (except for the Moravians, as I've been unable to find any mention of the ruler they converted under in my sources).
 * The part about the second Bulgarian polity is chronolgically better placed elsewhere than in this section (which covers events up to around 1000 or so.) Perhaps it would be best in the "Rise of state power" section in the High Middle Ages section like so: "Mongols first shattered the Kievan Rus' principalities and then invaded Eastern Europe in 1241, 1259, and 1287. Besides the Rus' states, another casualty of the Mongols was the revived Bulgarian Empire, which had risen to power under Ivan Asen II after the Fourth Crusade captured Constantinople in 1203, " This has the advantage of fitting chronologically into the already existing structure of the article, rather than jumping forward 200 years. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is about dealing with the First Bulgarian Empire as an empire, starting in the 7th century, not dating it to the conversions of the 9th century. Ealdgyth, you have succeeded in rewriting this (above) to include just a tiny bit more information, but have failed to acknowledge First Bulgarian Empire. It has somehow got lost in the importance given to the "conversions". The second sentence that you have written for chronological inclusion turns Second Bulgarian Empire into Bulgarian Empire thereby sidestepping the significance of what you are skipping over in the earlier paragraph. Why? Amandajm (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Because the sources I'm using don't distinquish between two Bulgarian Empires. They either don't use "empire" at all, or consider the Bulgarian polity as one long polity that waxed and waned. This way, by piping the links, I can include both articles (which I assumed was the point) without confusing the reader as much by mentioning a "second" empire when the situation is more confused. I would have thought that having more links to different articles was a good thing. By the way, the link to "Bulgaria" actually links to "First Bulgarian Empire" - it's just piped to fit in with the other piped links in that sentence. And the information at the Bulgarian state started around 680 is included. The conversion to Christianity was an important point in the founding of many of the Eastern and Balkan political states - the sources tie the conversion to Christianity to the rise in power of the Bulgars after their conversion. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth said: "The conversion to Christianity was an important point in the founding of many of the Eastern and Balkan political states - the sources tie the conversion to Christianity to the rise in power of the Bulgars after their conversion." Here your sources are wrong. This is correct about all of other Slavic countries, but not about Bulgaria, because Bulgaria is not fully Slavic state. The main supporting statehood ethnic element are Bulgars. Actually, Bulgaria was founded in 632 by Khan Kubrat. From 632 to the present day, this country is called Bulgaria, but the historians are demarcate three stages of the Bulgarian state in the Middle Ages - Old Great Bulgaria (632-668), First Bulgarian Empire (680-1018) and Second Bulgarian Empire (1185 - 1396/1422). Many historians believe that the Old Great Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian empire are one state and so the birth of FBE is in 632. I must also warn you that the name "Bulgars" is a very controversial and most historians consider it to be a hoax. The bulgars always were called Bulgarians. The term "Bulgars" was coined by Bulgarian historian Vasil Zlatarski, who thought that the alliance between Slavs and Bulgars is the starting point of the birth of the Bulgarian nation and after 681 the people of Bulgaria are called Bulgarians. By me is great surprise to see that some Western historians talk about bulgars during the 9th century , which seems just absurd. Maybe the error comes from the analogy with other Slavic countries in Eastern Europe.
 * By the Bulgars actually it is not sure that the Bulgars were a Turkic people. There are a total of 17 hypotheses about the origin of the Bulgars - Turkic (because of some of the stone inscriptions of Turkic language), Iranian (because of Iranian words in Bulgarian language, funeral practices of the Bulgars and Zoroastrian symbols found in the tombs of ancient Bulgar aristocrats), Finno-Ugric, Thracian (many of Bulgarian folk customs are Thracian by origin, the rich and exquisite Bulgar treasures, some toponyms as Struma, Maritsa, Serdica, Vitosha and the genetic research, which showed similarity to genes of present Bulgarians with those of the Thracians), Slavic (Old Bulgarian language is Slavic), Caucasian, Sarmatian, Pelasgian and others. In article about Bulgars is writing that they are Turkic and below is explain that exist other hypotheses. This is old theory. According to the most historians today and the Bulgarian academy of Sciences, Bulgars are Iranic people, but some historians are not agree, and the answer of this question is still open.
 * Above I was explain why Bulgaria is Bulgarian Empire. Bulgarian ruler has a title "Tsar", which means Emperor (from Old Bulgarian Цясарь/Tsyasar - from Caesar - Tsyasar - Tsar). The first Bulgarian rulers has a title Khan (from Khana Subigi - Ruler from God or Emperor).--Sumatro (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree re splitting the 2 empires as you suggest. I think the longer version re the first is better, with the conversion kept with the others; it has more links etc. Possibly we don't need all the corners of the Empire, just "ruled the south Balkans" or something, though the frontier close to Constantinople is important. A mention of the language ansd alphabet is justified I think - probably the most important legacy of the 1st empire.Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have nothing that expresses anything about the Bulgarians inventing Cyrillic. The sources I have are much more nuanced and merely mention it was developed from the earlier script. If someone has better sources and wants to suggest something, that's good. My sources just are not clear enough for me to feel comfortable suggesting something. I agree it probably needs mentioning but what my sources would allow is just that Cyrillic script developed from the earlier Golgothic created by Cyril. Nothing I have ties it to the Bulgarians. If we're happy with just the information that I can source, I'll work up something shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I would expect this to have more input from other editors before being added into the article - there are many editors of this article and allowing them to weigh in would be good. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth said: "I have nothing that expresses anything about the Bulgarians inventing Cyrillic." Really? You kidding me! I don't believe it! OK, in the article are presented the sources, but the most of them are Bulgarian. This is a few English sources, which say the same things about the Cyrillic (which was created in Preslav, Bulgaria, where else?) and the important role of First Bulgarian Empire by European culture:
 * English Source № 1: The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, Oxford History of the Christian Church, J. M. Hussey, Andrew Louth, Oxford University Press, 2010, ISBN 0191614882, p. 100.
 * English Source № 2: Giatzidis, Emil (2002) Manchester University Press. p. 11. ISBN 0-7190-6094-X.
 * English Source № 3 Ertl, Alan W (2008). Universal Publishers, Inc. p. 436. ISBN 1-59942-983-7.


 * If it is not a enough, I will find a whole mountain of sources about that. [[Image:Smile.png|:-)]] - --Sumatro (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Amandajm said: "...the editors here are not going to add anything as lengthy and detailed as you have proposed. This is much too detailed for this article." Really? What you say about the Carolingian Empire. Quotes:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages#Carolingian_Europe ::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages#Carolingian_Renaissance   ::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages#Breakup_of_the_Carolingian_Empire
 * Compared with the place, which is given in the article for the Frankish Empire, my suggestion about Bulgarian Empire is dwarf. Nobody of editors here did not answer me why about the Carolingian has so detailed information, but about Bulgarian Empire they always say "too much detailed". This is a double standard, by me. Why? Above I mentioned pages of the textbook university, where it is said: Eugenia Pancheva in "Theory of Literature", 2005, p.44 (ISBN:9545293497) (designed for the study of literature in universities): "Literature and art of Carolingian Empire has much lower development than Constantinople and Preslav..." "Literature in Bulgaria from this period is at a higher level than Carolingian and Gothic, because of the early development of Bulgarian national identity and the system of caesaropapism, which reduced the influence of the church...", "...in the Frankish Empire philosophers was limited to the study of nature and repeated many of the existing views on this issue. Therefore, in the Frankish Renaissance lacking author as Chernorizets Hrabar, who has the status of apologist or classic philosopher... , "In the 10th century Bulgarian Empire has its own independent church, own independent ruler and own writing system, which make it the most powerful and influence state in Europe.".
 * Even militarily the Frankish Empire was weaker than Bulgaria. This is one example by that: ::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omurtag_of_Bulgaria#Relations_with_the_Frankish_Empire
 * My conclusions from all discussion and all of the sources that I found:
 * 1. In the 7-10 and 13 century Bulgarian Empire was the most powerful country in Europe. FBE defeated all other empires - Asparouh defeated the Byzantines at Ongal (680) Tervel defeated the Arabs and save Europe from the Muslim invasion (718 - this is an event of great importance for the history of Europe and the world. I do not know why it is not mentioned), Omurtag defeated the army of Frankish Empire (827), Simeon I the Great defeated the Byzantines in the biggest battle in medieval Europe - Aheloi (917) and many others.
 * 2 . The culture of the Bulgarian Empire has a huge influence over all Eastern Europe (9-11 and 13-15 century) and partly over Western Europe (Tarnovo Artistic school, 13-14 century). Preslav and Tarnovo schools are the most influential institutions in Europe during the Middle Ages.
 * 3 . The frescoes in the Boyana Church are determined by experts, who I cited in the discussion, as a "peak of medieval art and the beginning of the Renaissance". But in the article has not yet said nothing about it.
 * 4 . The architecture of the Bulgarian capital Pliska. Stoyan Popov in his book " The Castle in Europe during the Middle Ages" (which I cited, when added information about Pliska) say that Pliska is a city built of stone, as nowhere else in medieval Europe. The castles in Western Europe are created in the 11th century, in the High Middle Ages. Pliska is ahead than Western Europe with 4 centuries! The same argument still maintain the archaeologist Nikolay Ovcharov and many other historians and experts by urban planning. The Great Basilica of Pliska is the largest cathedral in Europe during the Early Middle ages. The area of the central cathedral is 2920 square metres, the all Pliska complex is 27 000 sq. metres. And as always - nothing about it in the article.


 * Summary :
 * The medieval Bulgarian state play a major role in European history, culture and art. But excluding Amanandajm, the editors here will never added information about Bulgaria in the article. If someone write something related to Bulgaria, it will be deleted immediately. Even to presented a mountain of sources, it will be deleted. It is a violation of NPOV. These actions lead me to believe that this article is ruled by editors, who have nationalist bias and negative attitude towards Bulgaria, which is unacceptable in a place like Wikipedia, by me. --Sumatro (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, we have explained why. We have to follow the sources - and this is the weighting that the sources give to Bulgaria. I've pointed this out several times. Saying that it hasn't been answered doesn't make it so. The coverage of the Carolingian Empire in the overview books on medieval Europe is quite extensive. Collins' Early Medieval Europe 300-1000 devotes 60 some pages to just the Carolingian political events. The Bulgars are mentioned on five pages. Wickham's Inheritance of Rome (which covers 400-1000) devotes 150 pages to Carolingian Empire. Bulgars/Bulgaria get 24 pages. Davies Europe: A History gives about 15 to 20 pages to the Carolingian Empire and it's rise and decline. Two pages mention the first phase of the Bulgarian polity. Whether it's bias on the historians or whatever, we as editors have to base our coverage on what the sources do. We cannot do original research and assume that the historians have things wrong. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you explain that:
 * Larousse: Histoire du monde/History of the world V - X century, Gulliame, Bakalov, Ilchev, Paris, 2012, ISBN 9789548517515 - 38 pages by First Bulgarian Empire, 16 by Carolingian.
 * Larousse: Histoire du monde/History of the world 1000 - 1250, Gulliame, Bakalov, Ilchev, Paris, 2012, ISBN 9789548517546 - 33 pages about Bulgarian Empire, 7 by France, by England is mention on 2 pages.
 * История на света/The World History, Konstantinov, Sofia, 2002, p.h. Fyut, ISBN 9546252697. - 28 pages by Bulgarian Empire (16 - FBE, 12 - SBE), and ONLY 4 pages by Carolingian Empire.
 * История на света/The World History, Holland, Savova, Sofia, 2002, Fyut, ISBN 954-625-412-6: 14 pages by Bulgarian Empire, 4 pages by Carolingian
 * Medieval Europe X - XIII century, Gagova, Sofia, 2007, ISBN 9789547960206 - 41 pages by Bulgarian Empire, 12 by Holy Roman Empire, 6 by France, 4 by England
 * History of the Medieval World, Nikolov, Sofia, 2000, p.h. "Prof.Marin Drinov", ISBN 9789544306927 - 86 pages by Bulgarian Empire, 17 by Carolingian --Sumatro (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, this seems to be the longest discussion in Wikipedia. I am a Serb and I can offer the perspective of one person born in Belgrade, a town that Momo Kapor says "when The East meet The West and The West meet The East" and most of all - I can not be accused of bias or nationalism. I have worked in Bulgaria for seven years and I known this state very well. Medieval Bulgaria has a huge impact over the culture of all of the Slavic world and must be added two articles about the two Bulgarian empires and about their culture and art in the existing sections. When I mentioned that the article is affected by the politics seem to have quarreled users here. I mean something that is spoken by many historians in Eastern Europe, and in recent years by Western Europeans too. During the Cold War, to the west of the Iron Curtain, the history of Eastern Europe was ignored. The last major British history of the First Bulgarian Empire - by Runciman was published in 1930. It is hard to find something written about the history of Eastern Europe in the period 1945-1989. But it is 44 years. Today the Western historians are just beginning to be interested of this terra incognita by them. But they refere on the previous generation of historians for which the Eastern Europe was a taboo subject and thus was born a gap which hardly can be filled. But enough about the politics! Let's talk about history! Do you heard the term " Bulgarian era"? Thereby many historiographers call the period 893-970 in European history. In the 9th century the Bulgarian Empire became the leading power in Europe. The Bulgarian Church became the first independent church in Europe. In 927, it was elevated to the rank Patriarchate, making it equal to the Roman Catholic Pope and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Old Bulgarian language became the lingua franca of the Slavic world and influence all of the Slavic countries. My native Serbia also write in Cyrillic. In Serbia there are many Bulgarian monasteries since at the the Bulgarian Empire, where inscriptions are Old Bulgarian. Before 8 years ago, I and three students from the Netherlands, France and Serbia had to visit the National Library in Sofia and we was surprised to learned that Preslav and the Tarnovo School had such a huge influence over European culture. The frescoes of the Boyana Church are truly unique and are declared by UNESCO "World Heritage with global importance." I think the proposed by Sumatro articles are well written and most importantly - it's using of high academic sources, like Georgi Bakalov, Vassil Gyuzelev, Nikola Mavrodinov and others.

But the most unusual here is that many editors attackеd User:Sumatro by sources, but they use the books like "Davies, Norman (1996). Europe: A History." If anybody of you do not know this book was considered like very controversial and some historians consider it to be just a literature. Norman Davies himself was influenced by stereotypes and does not mention much about the Bulgarian Empire and Eastern Europe. This was the major reason to be criticized. In 2006 Davis was admitted own error in his book "Europe East and West: A Collection of Essays on European History. ISBN 0-224-06924-1". He never dealt with the history of the Balkans and therefore can not to be an objective source by this subject--195.24.37.106 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC) My advice to User:Sumatro and all editors here is to add more about Tarnovo school because this institution has a huge impact over the culture of Europe--195.24.37.106 (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is one article by the Bulgarian historian Petar Konstantinov about the encyclopedia of Davies "Europe: A history", which is quoted here. The article was published in "История", journal of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, b. 7, p. 29, 11 May 2006:

''"Europe: A history" was one of the books that raise many issues after its pubblished. At the first glance, this encyclopedia is nothing unique - a typical review, written by a British author , full with gaps and with complete ignorance of the history of Eastern and Central Europe. But this book claims to be different because it was presented as "the first encyclopedia, impartial will tell the story of the whole of Europe without the typical stereotypes". Davies is known for his interest in the history of Eastern Europe and published a book dedicated to Poland. ''This encyclopedia had to be different and impartial, but turned into a disaster of good intentions. Because it turned out that Davis was too poorly prepared to deal with such a huge matter, as the history of the Balkans. His interpretations of the events were far from the truth, and in some cases the author was misled by some held in this part of the continent historical myths , which he presented as historical facts , which led many historians to criticized him. But if these errors are normal with novice in this matter as Davies, then something else related to our country made ​​a huge impression and cause countless issues and unearthed some old problems. ''Myself, as a Bulgarian historian, who know well the history of Europe, I was eager to see how look the events in Bulgarian history through the eyes of a Briton. As we know, the Bulgarian lands had a great influence in the history of Europe. In Bulgaria, the first civilization arose in Europe whose inhabitants have created the oldest gold in the world, which was discovered near Varna before 30 years ago. Thracians, along with the ancient Greeks are founders of modern European civilization. Medieval Bulgarian Empire created the third Christian civilization in Europe. ''But all of the waiting readers were unpleasantly surprised, because it turns out that according to Davis Bulgaria does not exist, or if there is , it has the role of a small principality remained on the periphery of major events. The historian had taken only 4 modest pages or which imply for our existence and interpretation of the events were so wrong that local and foreign experts ask yourself: why? How can we explain the fact that the Bulgarian Empire, which at the time of Simeon the Great has the largest territory and population in Europe, and which has become the mother of all Slavic civilization is completely neglected in one encyclopedia that claims to be an unbiased glance on European history ? Many journalists directly accused Davis in Bulgarophobes. Some even suspect that behind it has a political interests. Others said: "this is another attempt to replace the Bulgarian history". The medias publicized letters from historians and non-specialists, which are sent to Davis, when they asked him how is it possible not to see a country, spread between three seas. Foreign historians also reacted sharply. Experts from Romania, Czech Republic, Ukraine and Hungary were united around the idea that " to tell about medieval Europe and to mention almost nothing about Bulgaria is like to talking about the history of the 19th century and to say nothing about the British colonial empire . Or to talking about the Roman epoch and to say nothing about the Ancient Rome . " Even two Polish historians murmured that their Poland is presenting in much greater detail in a book, although Poland play a more marginal role in the theater of European history compared to Bulgaria. ''The Bulgarian historians, however, were more moderate in their speeches. Most of them embraced the book of Davis just as media noise. Ultimately, the author had never dealt with the history of the Balkans. In recent years, especially about the war in Yugoslavia in the Western press have been written as fables about the Balkans that now, when some Western writer, claiming to be the " expert on the Balkans " write something about this part of Europe , his work raises laughing or rage. Yet, what is the reason Norman Davis to published only a few lines about our great history. In fact, the sharp reactions of the Bulgarian readers are completely obvious, but most of them do not know what is the major problem. The truth is that specialists in Western Europe and the United States know very small about the Balkans and Eastern Europe. During the Cold War, when the East and the West was competed to conquer space, the battle was not only the field of technology and innovation. After 1950 the history of Eastern Europe was completely hidden from the history books and encyclopedias in Western Europe and the USA. For Bulgarian readers this seems inexplicable. Why? While the communist regimes impose a ideological censorship, to the west the major censorship principle was "Damnatio memorie". This method is still used by the pharaohs in ancient Egypt that have destroyed all pictures or works of some hated previous Pharaoh. So by the hate predecessor has not a trace of his reign, as if he never existed. Even before the rise of the Iron Curtain, Eastern Europe and the Balkans were little known by Western Europeans and Americans. Under normal circumstances, today these gaps would be filled. But the tension of the Cold War changed expectations. For the period 1945 - 1990 the Western propaganda not only conceal the existence of the history of countries like Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary, but also managed to turn some myths and nationalistic doctrines in serious history and so this completely poison the hope for a comprehensive view of European history. One of the most incredible myths in western historiography is by the origin of Saints Cyril and Methodius. One myth, which the Ukrainian medievalist C. Gurchenko described as " the greatest manipulation in Western historiography ." Until 1950 the creators of the Glagolitic alphabet was known as "The Slavic brothers " and their origin was claimed that most likely Bulgarian. Once over the world was descended the " Iron Curtain ", the Slavic apostles by strange and inexplicable way became a Greeks. The truth is that there is no clear evidence of their origin. The theory of their Bulgarian nationality is supported by 3 evidences - the fact that before becoming a monk, Methodius bring the Bulgar name Strahota, the Bregalnitsa mission and the fact that the alphabet, creating by the two brothers is adapted for writing the Old Bulgarian language (an example of this is the letter for the sound " um " that exists only in Bulgarian language" and the first Slavic texts written on Old Bulgarian ) . In fact, this idea of ​​Hellenization does not come from the west. This is part of one nationalistic doctrine, established in the 19th century in Greece, known as "Megali Idea" . West accepts this theory and imposes it in historiography , although, it has no evidence. Greece has a rich history and culture, gave birth to the whole European civilization. Moreover, during the Cold War, Greece was part of NATO. The idea of ​​" the Greeks Cyril and Methodius" draw to bland he role of Bulgaria and the Slavic world who are on the other side of the wall in the common European history. So it turns out that Eastern block has no culture, it is just an offshoot of Western Europe. As we all remember, after the fall of communism , the debate about the origin of Cyril and Methodius grew to full strength. Western historians were confused, because it turned out that nothing is what it is. Another western legend is the exaggerating victory of Charles Martel at Poitiers ( 732 ), which during the Cold War, Western historians have called the "Salvation of Europe" and complete ignoring the victory of the Bulgarian Emperor Tervel near Constantinople ( 718 ). In fact, the achievement of Frankish King is negligible compared with the victory of Tervel. In 718 the Bulgarians defeated the 120,000 Arab army, led by Maslama and so put an end to the aggressive aspirations of the Arab Caliphate to Europe. To the West, Charles Martel defeated a smaller Arab army and thanks to the fact that most Arabs are divided and engage in looting of villages in southern France. Already in the Middle Ages Tervel was called " Savior of the Church of Christ ", and in the 18th century, he received the nickname " Savior of Europe". Prof. Raya Zaimova from Bulgarian Academy of Sciences managed to find over 4,000 pieces dedicated to Tervel that 17th to early 20th century, played in France, Italy, Spain, Catalonia and Austria about " the virtuous Bulgarian Emperor Tervel, who overcame the Saracens and was saved the Christians from destruction ." In the 20th century, nearly all such pieces disappear and they are only the manuscripts and posters. All this is hard to fathom for the Bulgarians. Before 1989 almost all Bulgarians believe that the Western Europeans or Americans know everything about Simeon the Great, Ivan Asen II and Ivan Alexander ... Moreover - we faith groups that they know more about Bulgarian history from us. And it can not be otherwise. In the history books had quotes of Western historians like Steven Runciman, who called Boris I " the greatest man in history." At school our teacher asked " Why do you think that the British historian Runciman called Boris "the greatest person in history" ? " And we answer, "because Christianity, the creation of the alphabet , his pacifist politics ...". When in 1980s was born the colossal films like "Asparoukh ", " The Day of the rulers ," " The Golden Age " the cinemas were packed. Some of these Bulgarian films jumped the wall and received international film awards in the USSR, Poland , Czechoslovakia, Argentina, Brazil and even Japan...'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.24.37.106 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC) This is only part of the article, which is translated from Bulgarian to Serbian and was published in Serbian journals in 2006. If Sumatro can find a Bulgarian original, it will be nice, because there are said many things about the book. Maybe in National Library in Sofia, or in some antiquriat to have this journal from 2006.--195.24.37.106 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These data, which you refer (I mean: b. 7, p. 29, 11 May 2006) is about the Serbian edition, or Bulgarian? I mean, I know that the Serbian magazine is a translate from the Bulgarian magazine, but it possible to be later published. I have access to archive copies of "History" . Before 6 years I was looking for one of the issues of this magazine, about the writing on my dissertation in Berlin. This is a good one because it is an article written by historian and provide an explanation for some unusual reactions of the editors here. I see the world encyclopedies, that giving a different weight to the Bulgarian Empire are not discussed and some of the sources, used in this article are not clearly independent and therefore add my materials Bulgarian Empire, as is shown above.--Sumatro (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Serbian edition is it, but that is only part of the article. In the rest part are commented the mistakes in the book of Davies. Konstantinov said: ''" Yet Davis has noted an important fact, though too cowardly . "Both Serbia and Bulgaria had re-estabilished their independence in the 1180s. More importantly, they both created their own Orthodox Churches with their own Patriarchs - Bulgaria - in 1235, Serbia - in 1346... It was a step, which none of the countries of Latin Christendom could take until the Reformation, and which Moscovite Russia did not take until 1589" (Davies, Europe:A history, p. 380 - 381 on English, 393 - Bulgarian, 411 - Bulgarian)". This is a truth that the West ever omission. As he spoke very little and the role of Jan Hus and the Czech Reformation. Really The Balkan Reformation was appears earlier than Western Europe. Yes, in 1346 The Serbian church became the second independent church in Europe. But The Bulgarian Orthodox Church became Patriarchy in 927 and in 1235 it just re-estabilished own rank, which is lose after the falling under Byzantine rule. During the 893 at the The Preslav Synod, the Old Bulgarian language was declared as liturgical. The German historian Otto Kronsteier says: "The Old Bulgarian language became a cultural language of all Slavs. It is the first literary language in medieval Europe, long before the emergence of European literary languages ​​- German, French, Italian , English, Russian". 6 centuries before the Reformation in Western Europe, Bulgaria has an independent church where the liturgy is reading on Bulgarian language and the God's words are understood by all people in the state. Moreover - in 927 The Bulgarian church rise to the rank of " Patriarchy ." Thus, the Bulgarian Patriarch became equal to the Roman Catholic Pope and the Constantinople Patriarch and Bulgaria is called by Russian academician Dmitry Likhachov " The third Roman Empire "''--195.24.37.106 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Davies' Europe
I went to JSTOR and looked up reviews of Davies' book. It gets good reviews, especially for it's coverage of Eastern and Central Europe. A review in the English Historical Review here states about the book "As might be expected from the leading historian of Poland in Britain, South-eastern and Eastern Europe, including Russia, receive adequate attention, as they have not always done in traditional histories of Europe." A review in History Teacher states that "It should come as no surprise that the author of a two-volume definitive history of Poland has devoted considerable attention to eastern Europe in this volume." (review [[here). A review in History Ireland (review here) - while noting there are errors in the book - points out that "after this book, it will never again be possible to exclude Eastern Europe from 'European' history". Another review in American Scholar praises the work for it's refusal to separate Eastern Europe from the history of Europe. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - Talk 19:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 195.24.37.106, any chance you could give the page number for where "Davis was admitted own error in his [2006] book"? Incidentally, you may want to read No personal attacks; referring to editors on this page as "haters", as you did here, is not acceptable. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth, from the beginning of the discussion to this moment, I see your comments and I can tell you what is your major problem. In the Bulgarian language exist the words "Selyaniya" and "Bayganyovshtina", two words that have no exact equivalent in English, but simply explained it mean someone, who is closed and full isolated from the world. Almost all sources in the article are books of English and American historians. It's not bad, but you're too convinced about the veracity of these sources, just because are British or American sources. You think that outside the UK and U.S.A., not exist a science, which indicate that you are with very limited thinking and tend to bias. For example, the reviews by Davies book - why you think that is needed to praise the book so much? 195.24.37.106 is propose artcle from science journal that criticize the book of Davis because of lack and wrong facts there (for example - the foundation of the Bulgarian Patriarchate). The reviews, proposed by you, just say how great and epochal phenomenon is that book, how impartial is it, etc. Actually, in your commentary you wrote an entire ode by Davies, like you will to propose him a marriage [[Image:Smile.png|:-)]] Why? I also can find a reviews that praise my sources, but I do not, because it is no sense. In the critical articles we understand what is missing in the sources and whether they are really unbiased and independent.
 * You mention a Poland, I've written a dissertation about the history of Poland, when I studied in Berlin. And for this purpose I was searching a Polish sources, books of Polish historians and even now I fluent Polish language. --Sumatro (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Some maps about the Bulgarians
Look at these 3 maps. From left to the right:
 * Map 1 show the Bulgarian cultural influence in the 14-15 century. In pink are the territories in which the Bulgarian language (in its Middle Bulgarian version) is the official and liturgical language and where are working the scholars and philosophers of the Tarnovo School. See the little map in the bottom right. In the 14th century Bulgarian cultural influence covered half of Europe's area. Source: Atlas of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia Cartography, 1993, page 23.
 * Map 2 show the area of First Bulgarian Empire in 9 - 10 century. In the beginning of 10th century Bulgaria is the largest state in Europe.
 * Map 3 show the migration of Bulgars after the breakup of Old Great Bulgaria. In the 7th century the Bulgars established five colonies in Europe and make a influence over a large part of the territory of Europe. Asparoukh created Bulgarian Empire in Southeastern Europe, Kotrag created Volga Bulgaria in modern Russia, Kuber was founded a Bulgarian State in Macedonia. Altzek also was created Bulgarian colony in Italy in 7th century. Today in modern Italy are many places and towns with Bulgarian names, like Celle di Bulgheria, the Bulgeria mountain and many others.

There is a fairly extensive article on it at Hungarian invasions of Europe, but in this article, it gets one sentence, not because it is unimportant, but because this is meant to be a survey article. No one here, I think, is saying that the Bulgarians weren't significant. What they are saying is that they cannot take centre stage in this article. If we give sections to the top three empires of the Medieval period, then why not to the top four, five, six or seven? So far there are no sections in this article on England, Spain, Italy or even Germany. That would change. Your efforts indicate a real enthusiasm for spreading information on Bulgaria. It would be great to see that enthusiasm directed to the articles on Bulgarian history, art, and geography (the latter in particular has a tendency to lag behind) or the Bulgarian section of History of the Balkans. Furius (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My last comment here
In the first time when I saw this page, I was a surprised that in the article is written almost nothing about the Bulgarian Empire. Because this is a state that in the Middle Ages has a huge impact on Europe. Before a time when I studied History in Berlin, I spoke with a one German colleague about the birth of the Reformation in Europe. I explained that the roots of the Reformation were born in the Balkans (even your Davies say it "More importantly, they both created their own Orthodox Churches with their own Patriarchs - Bulgaria - in 1235, Serbia - in 1346... It was a step, which none of the countries of Latin Christendom could take until the Reformation, and which Moscovite Russia did not take until 1589", Europe. A History, p.381). Well, the true is that Bulgarian Patriarchate was established in 927, but I don't mean that in this case). After he did research and found that it is truth, he replied: " Yes, I understand, but you can not take us the Reformation!" What we take you? But the Reformation is not yours, it is part of Europe's history. In 9th century the Bulgarian Church became independent, and in the 10th century became the Patriarchate. In the 9th century the liturgy in Bulgarian churches is reading on Bulgarian language. The Bible has been translated into Bulgarian five centuries before Luther. Some of the first ideas of the Reformation begins in Bulgaria, then in Serbia, then was developed in Bohemia at the time of Jan Hus and finally go to Germany and Western Europe in the 16th century. On its way from the 9 to the 16th century and from the Balkans to Germany, was enriched with ideas and developed. Like this German, the editors here believe that Western Europe is an island where all ideas and discoveries are fallen from the sky. This is not true. And most of them may not realize that the parting of Eastern and Western Europe is political propaganda during the Cold War. Bulgarian Empire plays a huge role in medieval history.
 * The article talk about the Church, but nothing is mentioned about the Bulgarian Church, the first independent church and Patriarchate, where the liturgy is in Bulgarian language.
 * The article talk about basilicas, but nothing is mentioned about Basilica in Pliska, which is the largest in the early Middle Ages.
 * The article talk about culture, but nothing is mentioned about the creation of Glagolitic of Cyril and Methodius, and Cyrillic by Clement of Ohrid and the grammarians of Preslav school. There is said nothing about the Preslav and the Tarnovo School, which influence the culture of large part of Europe.
 * The article talk about art, but nothing is mentioned about the frescoes in the Boyana Church, which by many experts are unique phenomenon in Europe in the 13th century and influenced the development of the Renaissance in Europe.
 * In the 10th century in Bulgaria was born the Bogomil heresy that spread across Europe - nothing of this fact in the article.
 * I think that the lack of Bulgarian Empire in this article is a huge gap and should be added to the article, to be objective. Well, I did not expect such a reaction from you. Every detail, which is associated with Bulgaria here are deleted immediately. Here are presented a mountain of sources (all sources in my proposed article are highly academic and reliable). I went to the library and searh a books (real libraries, not the Internet, where you live), so I can correct the imbalance of this article. It seems it was all in vain. The article now has a whole bunch of extra stuff for the Carolingian Empire, the Hundred Years War and other minor events and a single line of the major events that I mentioned above. The fact that Pliska was built of stone at a time when in Western Europe had mainly wooden huts and thatched cottages for you is unnecessary. The only one alphabet created in medieval Europe is likewise unnecessary fact by you. You do not seem strange? In fact, it seems absurd. Just because all added by me details are related to Bulgaria. And in this article is prohibited to talk about Bulgaria. I'm tired of the attitude of the editors here. I have a enthusiasm for change, but I have honor too. You do not accept the criticism of the sources that you used in the article, but ignore all proposed by me sources, just because you don't like the information there, then this discussion is pointless. I'm angry that I wasting my time here. Write and delete whatever you want! Goodbye!--Sumatro (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you on Amandajm and 195.24.37.106 for understanding! They also proposed a many important sources, which deserve to be seen.--Sumatro (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For me is big pleasure to help. Do not give up so fast! Yes, the editors here are completely closed by ideas . I also think that the using of only British sources is nonsense , especially about the history of Europe . Because British sources only write about the events associated with England and are not reliable . In British encyclopedias the Eastern European history always tends to be minimized . Many historians criticized the British and American historians, because of ignorance by the history of the Balkans and Eastern Europe, and some of them are dependent of political influences. This article is needed by more viewpoints.
 * I see that the discussion is titled "Section about Bulgarian Empire ,", I mean about adding of separate section about Bulgarian Empire, which means that the texts about the art and architecture of the Bulgarian Empire can be added . Additionally, all of the sources, which Sumatro is found are books and encyclopedias of professional historians and art critics like Stoyan Popov, Nikola Mavrodinov and others. There are no problem to add this information.
 * In the book of Stoyan Popov "The Castle in Europe during the Middle Ages," was said that in Pliska and Preslav was born a new style that combines ancient Greek architecture with traditions of the Bulgars. The Preslav style later had a major impact in many European countries such as Russia, Romania, Croatia, Poland and others. The Great Basilica of Pliska is the largest basilica in the Middle Ages. This is important information that should be added. Moreover, there is said the most important things in a few details. The sources are academic and reliable, the authors are some of the best experts in art and architecture, the information is short. If someone delete these details, without reason, this mean that in the article has a problem, that is political or with other origin that violate the neutrality of the article.--195.24.37.106 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)