Talk:Bulgaria–Mongolia relations

Restored

This was deleted from the article with User:Biruitorul stating: "no, an empire that fell in 1368 invading one that fell in 1422 does *not* have anything to do with the linked states, independent since 1911 and 1908 respectively": Mongolia invaded Bulgaria in 1242. This weakened the kingdom and it began losing territory to its neighbors.

However Wikipedia articles are not about the current political entity, it is also about the geographical entity. The article on the United States starts with: "In 1492, Genoese explorer Christopher Columbus, under contract to the Spanish crown, reached several Caribbean islands, making first contact with the indigenous people. On April 2, 1513, Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de León landed on what he called "La Florida"—the first documented European arrival on what would become the U.S. mainland. Spanish settlements in the region were followed by ones in the present-day southwestern United States that drew thousands through Mexico." By the same logic this would have to be removed since the political entity didn't start until 1776. The article on China starts with: "Archaeological evidence suggests that the earliest hominids in China date from 250,000 to 2.24 million years ago. A cave in Zhoukoudian (near present-day Beijing) has fossils dated at somewhere between 300,000 to 550,000 years. The fossils are of Peking Man, an example of Homo erectus who used fire." The current political entity of China didn't happen until 1947 and the first united China was in the Qin Dynasty about 200 BC. So clearly Wikipedia uses information on both the political entity and the geographical entity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Richard, the source says that the Mongols invaded Bulgaria in 1242, no that Mongolia invaded. There's a difference. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait for other opinions please. Don't be a majority of one. Americans and United States are in the same article. You once again are overly concerned with the present border, and present political entity. Would you prefer the link be to Mongol Empire? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe RAN makes a great deal of sense here, as there is no reason nor mandate that limits an article to only recent history. Since "Mongolia" and "Bulgaria" did not exist in the past in the same way these political entities exist in the present, what would seem most sensible would be to include the information in a section that notes that historically, persons know as Mongols whose cultural roots included the area now encompassing Mongolia, were invloved in an invasion of the area now encompassing Bulgaria. As the invasion is a real and sourcable part of the historical heritage of the two modrn entities, placed in context this historical information serves the reader's understanding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There are two issues. The first is that "the Mongols" do not equal the modern state of Mongolia. The cited source said one thing, this article said another. Saudi Arabians flew planes into the World Trade Center, but Saudi Arabia did not attack America. The second issue whether the invasion of Bulgaria by Mongols ~800 years ago has anything to do with the foreign relations between Bulgaria and Mongolia, countries which didn't exist until ~100 years ago. To say it's related is pure original research, unless a reliable source can be found making that connection. I simply fail to see how this factoid "serves the reader's understanding." The first issue could be resolved by having the article state that "Mongols invaded...". The second issue is best resolved by leaving this factoid out all together unless and until a reliable source can be found that makes the connects. A third issue is RAN's behavior here, which is contrary to WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. It's fine to boldly edit an article, but if your changes are quickly reverted, you need to find consensus on the talk page before reinstating your version. When two editors have independently reverted your edits, and no one else has defended them, reinstating them is NOT a proper course of action. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If 19 members of the Mongol Empire invaded Bulgaria your analogy would be correct. The Mongol Empire is not a terrorist splinter group distinct from the Mongolian people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, to disagree, but you're repeating the same argument toward limitation as you did above. The article title does not state thet the article is about modern foreign relations of two currently existing contries. If the article title were Contemporary Bulgaria–Mongolia relations I would agree with you. Since it does not, a wider scope, if handled correctly, improves Wikipedia. That concern is addressed through regular editing to have the article more correctly reflect the source. Removing it did not reflect the best fix. Showing that a Mongol influence occured in that past, no matter how distant, gives balance IF set in proper context. It is certainly NOT original research to state that the area now Bulgaria was invaded centuries ago by a group historians call "Mongol" because of where they originated. Guideline doesn't mandate that the article must be confined to some arbitrary set of modern decades. As long as the content is given proper historical context, it will remain encyclopedic and aid in a reader's understanding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was asked by RAN to comment. The general tendency of the discussions has been to allow historical events, but we have not not really discuss how far back to go. . I can produce absurd examples for any particular definition we might use-- for example, 1/ the Bulgars emigrated to Bulgaria from central Asia, where they presumably had interactions with the ancestors of the Mongols. A great many peoples now widely dispersed originated in that general region, where they all interacted with each other. 2/ various states that ruled over any part of present-day Bulgaria. since that includes the Turks, the Greeks, and the Romans, the relationship of all of them with everyone get included. 3/. If we are discussing the government, we do not mean just the current government-we certainly would include the previous People's Republic also.

I think the solution must involve limiting it to governments which have some form of reasonable historical community with the present . By the standard, "Bulgaria" probably starts with the First Bulgarian Empire, regardless of later discontinuities. But the same is true of the Mongols. Except for the discontinuity under the Manchu, the current Mongolians do have an historic continuity with the Mongols who invaded Bulgaria. That a great distance is involved is due to incredible military successes of the Mongols, not a different identity from their area of origin. .

But the actual problem is with the Mongols, who had similar relations with every country in Eastern and Central Europe, most of the Middle East, and a good part of Asia. I think it needs some sort of centralized discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton asked me to offer an opinion on this discussion. First, I agree with MichaelQSchmidt that providing details of the historical interactions between the Mongol Empire and the Bulgarian Empire only provides greater depth to the subject and increases understanding for the reader. It certainly doesn't harm the subject nor create any false notions. If expanded, it could be subtitled Pre-Modern Era History or such. There seems to be a substantial body of literature which describes the influence of ancient invaders like Mongolia on the development of modern Bulgaria, Russia and other Soviet block nations. Works like The Orient Within: Muslim Minorities and the Negotiation of Nationhood in Modern Bulgaria, The Mongolian Legal System: Contemporary Legislation and Documentation (Studies on Socialist Legal Systems), Mongol Commonwealth?: Exchange and Governance across the Post-Mongol Space, etc. all start from a historical perspective. (That is only a two-minute search) I expect there are plenty of sources specific to the Bulgarian-Mongolian relationship to allow the section to be expanded. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

References