User talk:Gligan/Archives/2007/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bor

I see no point of your historical map of Bulgaria posted on my talk page. In the Middle Ages, borders changed very often and lands often passed from one country to another. I found two sources that mention that Bor belonged to Serbian state in the Middle Ages and I quoted those sources in the article - the historical atlas and unofficial web site of Bor. O yes, and check this map of empire of Stefan Dušan: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Dusanova_Srbija200.jpg It clearly show that area of Bor was within Serbian state in this time. Regarding data about Serbian heavy industry, I do not know where you can find it. PANONIAN (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no access to original historical documents. I have only access to published sources and quotation of those sources is enough to satisfy "cite sources" policy of Wikipedia. The peoole who wrote those published sources certainly did not invented information from their head, but they based they work on original sources that they read. PANONIAN (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"The serbs (and others of course) tend to invent some thing from time to time."

Should I consider that an insult? I really do not understand why half of our neighbours have this "need" to "prove" that our cities are not our but "their". PANONIAN (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"For example in Macedonia they tried to convince that the local Bulgarian population was "south serb""

No, it is Bulgarians who tried to convince that ethnic Macedonian population is not Macedonian but Bulgarian. Serbian scientists fully recognizing the existence of Macedonian people. PANONIAN (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Today I know Serbs who confess that the population of Macedonia is Bulgarian. I guess the same is with Bor"

Let me tell you one thing: do you know why is so ridiculous that some Bulgarians want to create greater Bulgaria? It is ridiculous because Bulgarians will lost even their "small" country that they have - 100 years from now dominant nation in Bulgaria will be Turks, so the efforts of the nation that cannot keep the land it have now to gain more are really pathetic. Just leave Macedonia and Serbia alone and stick to your own country, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"It is serbia which will lose its small territory, not Bulgaria. Serbia is desintegrating, you lost Monte Negro, you will lose Kosovo very soon and hopefully Voivodina and the Western Outlands in the long term."

Hahaha. Let see: Montenegro was not part of Serbia, so how can Serbia lost it? Kosovo was lost already in 1999, but on long terms, it is good for Serbia because Albanians will not become dominant nation in the whole of Serbia. Vojvodina - 65% of population are Serbian and the largest political party there is Serbian Radical Party, so, no, I really do not see how land with such characteristics could be "lost". Western Outlands - such thing do not exist, and do not worry, I will propose that ridiculous article for deletion soon enough. PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Turks will never outnumber us in BG, be sure of that."

I am sure that they will. :) This is 21st century now, you cannot expel them from the country again as you did before. PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"All the obective historical evidence show that there are no Macedonians"

If you want to know something about Macedonians then the only relevant person to ask about this are Macedonians themselves. Nobody in this world do not care about your opinion about them. PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"I am tired of explaining the truth. Why only the serbs and the "macedonians" believe this?? Because the serbian theory is nonesense."

You cannot explain the truth because you are not the one who know the truth. The whole world recognizing Macedonians as nation and if Bulgaria is the only country that does not recognize it then we should ask the question: is something wrong with the whole world or with Bulgaria? I would not bet on the first option. PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"You will see that the only chance of Macedonia is to join Bulgaria, because in 20 years the Albanians will be more that the Bulgarians there."

Then Albanians and Turks will rule over greater Bulgaria. LOL And by the way, there are already more Albanians than Bulgarians in Macedonia - just check the census results. PANONIAN (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Albanians are not more that the Bulgarians, the BG are 64% of the pop. of Macedonia."

According to the last census in Macedonia there were 25.17% Albanians and only 0.073% Bulgarians, so please educate yourself. 64.18% of population of Macedonia are ethnic Macedonians. PANONIAN (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"And Bulgaria+Macedonia is NOT greater Bulgaria, it includes also Serbia to the Morava river, Greece to the north of Larisa, most of European Turkey and the whole of Dobrudzha."

Every Bulgarian state larger than current one is Greater Bulgaria. And I told you already: there is no reason for you to want greater country because you will lost even this small country you have when Turks become majority. PANONIAN (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Bor, I told you already that it was part of Serbian state during the rule of Stefan Dušan. Stefan Dušan ruled from 1331 to 1355, so what exactly you do not understand here? PANONIAN (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My sources are not detailed, so I cannot tell you more than I did about time of Stefan Dušan. Hungarian rule: according to my historical atlas Hungarians ruled there in the 12th-13th century (I cannot tell you more than this). PANONIAN (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I do not agree with this because Bulgarians held it temporarily too, so glorifying Bulgarian rule there is POV thing to do and I will revert any such edit. PANONIAN (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Problem is that your data might not be truth. My historical atlas show that borders between various Serb and Bulgarian states between 13th and 15th century were exactly in the Bor area, and since Bor itself is not shown on those maps, I cannot say for sure on which side of the border it was, but it looks more likely that it was on Serbian side. PANONIAN (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are two more maps for you:

Both maps show that area of Bor was a border between Serbia and Bulgaria, and we cannot say for sure on which side of the border it was (but if I compare this with my geographical atlas I would say that it was on Serbian side). The only correct thing that we can write is that it was a border area between two countries. PANONIAN (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is map from the address you gave me: http://www.bgns.net/Bg/otech/history/sredna/maps/2-25.html Regarding Bor area, it do not differ much from the map in my historical atlas. Today, we cannot know exact position of border line from that time, so we still cannot say for sure where Bor area was. I still believe that best formulation would be that "it was a border area between two countries". Also, my atlas show that area was under Hungaroian rule in one time period, thus I see no reason to delete that. PANONIAN (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
All right, I have no problem with you guys discussing on a historical topic, but please mind your language: statements like "100 years from now dominant nation in Bulgaria will be Turks" and "you will lose Kosovo very soon and hopefully Voivodina and the Western Outlands" are just offensive and absolutely do not contribute to the discussion if you want it to be fruitful. It's sad to see chauvinism and irredentism live on even today... I mean, you've got to have understood we can achieve more by co-operating. Silly nationalist claims have no place in the 21st century. Todor→Bozhinov 12:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, he started this. I never insult anybody first, but I respond equally to insults adressed to me (not only if somebody insult me personally, but also if he insult my national feeling, and claims that Serbs "stole" most of their country from their neighbours is very big insult indeed). PANONIAN (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"But the serbs LIE for Macedonia. All the objective facts, sourses and documents prove that Samuil was Emperor of Bulgaria and he was Bulgarian and claiming the opposite is an insult for Bulgaria."

It is not lie, but question of interpretation. Byzantine sources simply used term "Bulgarians" to designate Slavs and term did not in the past had same meaning as it had now. PANONIAN (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Gligan

Здрасти... не взимай това съобщение от MILHIST много насериозно, изпратено е с бот на всички, които по някакъв начин членуват в проекта. Става въпрос за избори, а задачите на координатора и асистентите са общо взето да поддържат проекта технически.

Не бих те съветвал да правиш отделни статии за хижи, защото обикновено няма какво толкова да се каже в повече от един параграф, а това значи, че завинаги статията ще си остане мъниче. В такива случаи ще е най-добре да направиш една обща статия "Хижи в Пирин" (не съм сигурен дали "refuge" е най-подходящата дума) и да пишеш за всяка отделна хижа като секция, а в увода да дадеш някаква информация колко са хижите, какви са, къде са и т.н. От имената на отделни хижи пък ще е добре да направиш пренасочвания към общата статия. Todor→Bozhinov 12:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Такова, да ти кажа, не отдавай прекалено значение на тия чужди имена в статии за български населени места, имат си право хората. Наистина са владяли Южна Добруджа, пък макар и за кратко... подхождай по-меко: в статии за чужди градове рядко махат български имена, независимо че от Средновековието не сме имали власт върху тях, виж например Hârşova, Giurgiu, Kırklareli. За села и градове в Банат, където има банатски българи, също имаме споменати банатски български имена: Dudeştii Vechi, Sânnicolau Mare, Timişoara. Отнасяй се по-либерално, като изброяваме и чужди варианти на името (където ги има) само добавяме полезна информация към Уикипедия. Разбира се, трябва да спазваме и някакви логични граници, но без излишна ограниченост. Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ммм, откажи се от тия карти, те са в Уикипедия, значи не са авторитетен източник (правил ги е някой потребител като нас). Не е добре да се опитваш да си потвърждаваш тезите с карти, които си намерил тук. Извади някой надежден източник, където се казва, че тази част от Добруджа е била под българска власт от еди кога си до еди кога си, и проблеми няма да имаш. И карта става, стига да е от някоя авторитетна историческа публикация.
Потребител може да бъде блокиран временно за нарушаване на WP:3RR (над 3 връщания за 24 часа). Преброй ги внимателно и докладвай в WP:AN3. Ако обаче и ти си нарушил правилото, и ти ще бъдеш блокиран. А предупреждение можеш да му пратиш и сам още сега, с {{3RR}} на дискусионната му страница.
А, и между другото, като добавяш имена на български, прави го с {{lang-bg|име}}, изглежда по-добре, ботовете го разпознават и връзката си е към Bulgarian language. Todor→Bozhinov 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's your proofAnonimu 21:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Those maps don't prove nothing. As long you can't bring documents, archeological, epigraphical or numismatic proofs, you can't prove that. Map making is very permissive when it cames to mapping something that nobody can bring proof for. This is a general trait in Eastern Europe. That's why Hungarian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian and Greek maps will never match. Because most of the time there are no documents to prove or to disprove one or another interpretation. So no, maps(especially those found on the internet) don't make good sources.Anonimu 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that the rule for adding a name of a place/town/region in another language should be:

  • a significant minority lives or lived there
  • the place/town/region had OFFICIALLY that name

Of course, as a rule of thumb, all the edits should be referenced and verifiable. All the other names should go as exonyms to the corresponding articles (see for example List of European exonyms). Mentatus 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but you ignore an important thing. No document of the First Bulgarian empire mentions those names. They all appear in late medieval documents, when those cities were already part of indep or turkish-vassal Walllachia or in Hungary. I don't accept them either because you didn't reference them the right way or because they're irrelevant. As for maps, they are no acceptable sources. The number of Romanians and/or Vlachs in Vidin, as they appear in bulgarian censuses:
23,845 in 1881 (the whole admistrative division)
1,500 only in the city in 1910 (much more around it)
6,200 only in the city in 1940 (much more around it)
(more complete data, in romanian, with the above numbers sourced here)Anonimu 13:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't write names just because they were used by somebody in the middleages. If you want to add named used in medieval Bulgarian documents, go and add them in the article about Bulgarian exonims. Anyway, except for turnu magurele, all other names are cyrillic renditions of the romanian name. And unlike the romanian rendition of the names in southern dobrudja, there's no proof they were used during the bulgarian rule in the region.Anonimu 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No, mentatus and todor agreed to put bulgarian names if we could find documents contemporany to bulgarian rule mentioning them.Anonimu 12:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
There are two problems: 1. The fact that those cities existed during Bulgarian rule. 2. The fact that they were called that way during Bulgarian rule.. If the Bulgarian names used for those cities today are different from those used in late middle ages, how can you prove that those late-medieval names were the same with the early-medieval ones? It's not "my logic". It's "the logic", opposed to your protochronism. Turnu Magurele was called Turnu (Turris in western sources)... Magurele is a very late adition (modern era), so that the reader or the listener doesn't think the the speaker refers to the other Turnu (Severin). I say no, unless you bring some documents proving the existence of those cities and the use of those specific names during the Bulgarian rule.Anonimu
Anonimu, I think you're crossing the line a bit. We already agreed — we have the historic Romanian names in articles for Bulgarian places, and we have the Bulgarian names in articles for Romanian places if those were under Romanian or Bulgarian rule respectively. Instead of being intentionally petty, allow us to have our names when you've already had yours, even in areas you've never ruled or where you've never had a minority (like around Vidin, where bilingual, mostly Bulgarian-identifying population lives). You see, I can be petty about Vidin too, but we've agreed that the Romanian name should stay. Todor→Bozhinov 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can prove that those cities existed under Bulgarian rule, it's spurious to talk about "Romanian places under Bulgarian rule". Who cares they identify as Bulgarian? Would you preffer "old Romanian and Bulgarian Vlach name"? And remember Michael the Brave briefly occupied Vidin in the 1590s. Anyway, only you've agreed, since gligan deleted the old Romanian name every time i tried to add it. Anonimu 15:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If they had a name, then they existed, yes. I would prefer "historic name: Vlach and Romanian: Diiu", that's for sure, but I'm not complaining. "Who cares they identify as Bulgarian" is very ignorant and offensive, you're disregarding these people's clear non-Romanian self-identification. And no, Michael the Brave didn't occupy Vidin, these were just brief incursions.
Since their names are mentioned only in the period when Wallachia was independent or under hungarian/turkish suzeranity, you can't say nothing about their existence during the Bulgarian rule. And about what they think of themselves, it would be nice if we had the hungarian criterias for defining nationality (self-identification + nationality + affinity with cultural values&traditions + mother tongue + language spoken with family and friends + mother tongue spoken outside the family). But there was a period, varrying from few hours to few days when Michael, the ruler of Wallachia, virtually ruled the city =>Wallachian(Romanian) rule over the city ;)Anonimu 18:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Gligan won't stop removing your names unless you stop removing our names, I'm pretty sure about that. And he would do this not without reason. Todor→Bozhinov 18:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that thing about the names, especially because we have some from the time of Ivan Alexander, when Wallachia was at least de facto a vassal. The actual rule of Michael over Vidin is pretty doubtful too, ruling a city is a bit different from just invading, conquering and going on, but anyway. Was it officially called Diiu in those few hours/days you claim it was ruled by Wallachia? Or was it called that way before Michael conquered it (thus non-officially), or after he lost it (thus non-officially)? :) See, I can be petty too. So quit that silly thing and let us have our names! :) Todor→Bozhinov 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can find documents, i have nothing against. You still have to prove me Wallachia (and Dobrotici btw) was vassal of Ivan Alexander (and anyway, de facto doesn't count too much). I know that it wasn't a proper rule (i.e. one that would qualify for the first criterium), but anyway my intention was to include "Diiu" in the second criterium. But nevertheless, there was a Wallachian rule over Vidin ;) Anonimu 20:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't exactly rule, as I said. As for the vassalage, I consulted Ian Mladjov of the University of Michigan and he provided some handy references, which I've included in the article. Anyway, here's the original sources which this is based on:
In other words, he addresses Alexander as "tsar" and requests that Alexander tells his own customs official (вамеш, vameş) in Rucăr and Dâmboviţa (border towns of Wallachia) to collect toll taxes.
  • A letter of Louis I of Hungary to the lord of Padova of September 1377 refers to Radu as "Rodanu, principe di Bulgaria infidele", or "infidel prince of Bulgaria". Todor→Bozhinov 10:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but those references are from Bulgarian authors, and i have the right to have my doubts about their objectivity. Could you translate the whole fragment (a bulgarian friend told me it's not very easy for a bulgarian to understand old slavonic, but you could try to translate it more accurately). About the second reference, it doesn't say too much. we have hungarian documents about moldavian princes calling them prince of cumania, so it's not uncommon. Anonimu 12:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If you dispute original sources, then I can't do anything about that, I can't change history to suit you. And you didn't seem to dispute the objectivity of Miletich when his opinion was of use to you. Anyway, Miletich doesn't even have to say anything here, his paper just provides a recording of an original source. Todor→Bozhinov 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't dispute that document. I just said Bakalov and Koledarov might have followed an agenda. About the document quoted by Miletich, i just wanted a translation (i'd never contest Miletich, except the cases when he contradicts himself, but here is not the case)Anonimu 17:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We're not Moldovans or Macedonians to follow an agenda :) Basically, there's nothing else special in the document, Radu only flaunts how great he is, how he rules by the grace of God over all of the "Hungaro-Vlach lands", and how the laws of his ancestors shall be preserved under his own rule. Then he goes on to appeal to John Alex to tell his officials in the towns mentioned to collect taxes according to these laws, and if anyone collects taxes against the law, then that would be "great evil" or something. Of course, the language is very antiquated and I couldn't make out many of the minor details, so perhaps you should find someone with good knowledge of Old Church Slavonic to translate it for you, if you'd like some great detail. Todor→Bozhinov 19:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of Dobro Pole

I'm glad that you liked my article! I was wondering if you had any more info on it, since you are a native Bulgarian - it was very tough researching information about this battle. Since you live in Bulgaria, maybe you know more details about it since the impact that it made was so huge to Bulgarian participation in the First World War.

-Sean 21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Todays Empires

Just as the Roman Empire is modern day Romania right? - Francis Tyers · 11:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gligan/Archives/2007/February&oldid=1136184997"