[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Vidin

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

Poll

[edit]

Should we include the Romanian name or not? Anton Tudor (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Yes, I support.--Anton Tudor (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support the including of the Romanian name in the article Vidin, as well as the Bulgarian name in the articles Turnu Magurele and other towns. --Olahus
  3. Support — local names add flavour. I'm surprised that there aren't different names in more languages, Serbian, Romany etc. - Francis Tyers · 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gligan, Vidin never belonged to Romania, but to the Roman Empire, and it was long before Bulgarians settled there. It belonged also to the Second Bulgarian Empire (known sometimes as "The Vlach-Bulgarian Empire" for good reasons: the rulers from the Asen dinasty were "Emperors of Bulgarians and Vlachs".) --Olahus (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, why people are so conservative in introducing Romanian names? Anton Tudor (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on hell has Roman Empire to do with Romania? And also the Second Bulgarian Empire is called like that only by Romanian historians and it is is absolutely incorrect. The Asen brothers were Bulgarian nobles probably of Cuman origin. The Vlach origin is not proved at all. And also many Bulgarian Emperors were called Emperors of Bulgarian and Greeks, but this would not change the name of the Empire to Bulgaria-Greece. Kaloyan saw himself a heir of Samuil and Simeon of the First Empire and mention them in his letter to Pope Innocent.
And finally I am interested why do you think that Vlachs were Romanians. How did the Vlachs suddenly become Romanians? Why weren't they called Romanians from before? In contemporary census Vlachs and Romanians are different.--Gligan (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the poll is very clear for me and should be to you too. Relax, having Romanian names in the articles won't danger your feelings too much. Anton Tudor (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First your poll is not over and second most important you have no reasons which make sense. --Gligan (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't break the majority consensus resulted from the vote by now. The poll results are clear to me as it should be to you by now. Reinforcement of the result of the vote is a measure of keeping the consensus from talk page. Anton Tudor (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have reasons for the name and do not answer me.--Gligan (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand or not that if you delete the Romanian names from the article you act against consensus reached on the talk page and you act like a "bloody" bulgarian nationalist? --Anton Tudor (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. No way.
  2. Oppose - never been part of any Romanian or post-Romanian state. Obviously putting it is in favor of some nationalistic POV. --Laveol T 02:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better discuss not using support - not support.

When I wrote the Bulgarian name for Turnu Magurele and other towns, it was deleted several times. Those towns were once in Bulgaria, while Vidin has never been in Romania. Would you tell me the reasons to include the romanian name? --Gligan (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: per comments further down. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I'm quite confused here, which would actually be the Romanian name for Vidin?? Also a reply for Gligan, Turnu Magurele was never in Bulgaria, it was in the Ottoman Empire. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocopter, see Bulgarian: Видин, Romanian: Vidin or Diiu. Anton Tudor (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That means we are discussing about the inclusion of the Romanian name Diiu (as the other Ro name is the current name of the article), so i'm not supporting its inclusion, as nobody uses it nowadays. Tudor, as you are the one who started this poll, you shouldn't support it; however, your support will not be taken in consideration. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalisation of the article

[edit]

I urge user Gligan to stop the vandalisation of the article. It's becoming very, very annoying. Anton Tudor (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is annoying. You did not give any reason for that and do not discuss.--Gligan (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9 vandalisation by Gligan:

Warning! I'm going to report you both for breaking the WP:3RR and edit warring. Tudor, until the discussion its over, you have no right to make such edits in the article. Let's try to remain calm and discuss this in a civil way. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thank you. --Gligan (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. Thank you. Anton Tudor (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been reported here for 3RR violation and disruptivity. However, you should consider reading WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR and WP:NPA before further editing Wikipedia. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been protected to prevent further disruption. Please seek dispute resolution for the problems encountered here. - Revolving Bugbear 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@:Gligan. Here are the aswers to your questions:

1. "What on hell has Roman Empire to do with Romania". My answer: with Romania nothing, but with the Romanian people: almost everything. Without the Roman rule, a Romanian ethnicity would'n exist today. Even the self-designation of the Romanians: "român" (or "rumân") is based on the self-designation of the ancient Romans: "romanus". --Olahus (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanians are not Romans but a great mixture of Slavs, Dacians, other Thracians, Romans, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Vlachs and others. --Gligan (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Romanians are Romans as the Bulgarians are Slavs. There is no "pure" nation in this world. The Romanians, as the Bulgarians too, assimilated many foreign nations. For the Romanians, the Roman Rule is the most important step to the building of the Romanian ethnicity and language, as for the appearace of the Bulgarian ethnicity and language, the Slavic invasion in the Balkans from the 7.th century is the most important (much more important than the invasion of the Proto-Bulgarians etc).--Olahus (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.Anton Tudor (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. "And also the Second Bulgarian Empire is called like that only by Romanian historians and it is is absolutely incorrect.". My answer: even in the Encyclopedia Britannica you may read something about the Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars: Second Bulgarian Empire (also known as the Empire of Vlachs and Bulgars; founded 1184) see here. --Olahus (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have missed to state where it is known like that - only in Romania. And also do not estimate Britannica as the ultimate and faultless source. As every written source it has its disadvantages. --Gligan (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already wrote you: the article is from Encyclopedia Britannica. The rest is your own interpretation.--Olahus (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. "The Asen brothers were Bulgarian nobles probably of Cuman origin. The Vlach origin is not proved at all." My answer: the ethnic origin of the Asen family is completely unimportant. Fact is that the Vlachs and the Bulgarians were the two leading nations in the Second Bulgarian Empire. --Olahus (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You began absotlutely correct - their ethnic origin is unimportant - what is important is that they were Emperors of a country called "Bulgaria". The Vlachs were not a leading nation in the Second Bulgarian Empire, in what way were they?? In the first years of the Empire the Cuman cavalry was of importance for the Bulgarians army. The Byzantine historians sometimes called the Bulgarians "Vlachs", but they have also called them Moesians, Huns and a number of other names. Also Wallachia was only a part of the Empire and was populated only by Vlachs but also by great number of Cumans, Bulgarians and remnants of Pechenegs. --Gligan (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the Vlachs weren't a leading nation in this empire, why should we believe that the Bulgarians have been this? --Olahus (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. "And finally I am interested why do you think that Vlachs were Romanians. How did the Vlachs suddenly become Romanians? Why weren't they called Romanians from before?" My answer: please read first the article Vlachs. If you still feel unsatisfied and unsettled, then ask me again. I will gladly eyplain you that. --Olahus (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Romanians are not only Vlachs, the later are only part of them. --Gligan (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you din't read the article. I will cite you from the article: Groups that have historically been called Vlachs include: modern-day Romanians, Aromanians, Morlachs, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians. Since the creation of the Romanian state, the term in English has mostly been used for those living outside Romania. Besides, the designation "vlach/wallachian" for the Romanians was used (though not often anymore) also after the creation of Romania, as you can see in those maps:
German map from 1932. You can read "RUMÄNEN"(WALACHEN)
  • German map from 1891 (see the inscription "Walachen" over Bessarabia!).
    German map from 1891 (see the inscription "Walachen" over Bessarabia!).
  • British map from 1896. In the map you can read only "Walachians". In the legend you can read "Romanians (Wallachians)". Even the Aromanians (Zinzars) are listened separately.
    British map from 1896. In the map you can read only "Walachians". In the legend you can read "Romanians (Wallachians)". Even the Aromanians (Zinzars) are listened separately.
  • Hungarian map from 1897 ("oláh" is the hungarian term for "vlach")
    Hungarian map from 1897 ("oláh" is the hungarian term for "vlach")
  • German map from 1914. You can read "RUMÄNEN"(WALACHEN)
    German map from 1914. You can read "RUMÄNEN"(WALACHEN)


5. "In contemporary census Vlachs and Romanians are different." My answer: because it depends on what they declare. But the 2 terms are synonims, as hungarians-magyars, Lapps-Saami, Hellenes-Greeks etc. In thie own speech, the vlachs usually say they are Romanians. All the Romanians are Vlachs. Exception: in central Bulgaria, they are tiny groups of gipsies, who lived for many centuries in Wallachia in slavery. After they have been released from slavery in 1856, they quit Walachia. Many of them spek Romanian and few of them declare themselves "Vlachs" on the census, but they aren't Vlachs, but gipsies. In Romania those gipsies are called "rudari". --Olahus (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are called Rudari in Bulgaria as well. --Laveol T 13:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not heard of Greeks and Helens or Hungarians and Magyars as two different terms in any cencus. --Gligan (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not even the Bulgarian statistics before WW1 separated ever the persons who declared "vlachs" from those who declared "romanians". But maybe because of the "friendship" caused by the Second Balkan War, Bulgaria started a policy on ethnic separatism and assimilation of the Romanian population. You know very well, Gligan, that ethnic separatism is a very wide spreaded political manipulation in the Balkans. --Olahus (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I have to intention to lead useless disputes here. I know that the Romanians will continue to follow their own national doctrine of the 19th century. Of course this is natural so please let us stop. --Gligan (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gligan, as you can see, I have shown you foreign sources. I think we should continue this discussion in one of our talk pages. --Olahus (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to hear from someone - why should there be a Romanian name for a city that has never been part of any Romanian or post-Romanian state? The other reason for the inclusion of the Romanian name should be some big Romanian minority in the town, but this doesn't seem to be the case. So what is the reason behind putting this name aside from ultranationalistic feelings? --Laveol T 13:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laveol, according to the old Bulgarian statistics, the whole region around Vidin (and the town itself) had an important Romanian population. The Bulgarian statistics from 1920 for Vidin counted 42,414 Romanians here. Very interesting is that only 14 years later, in 1934, the Bulgarian statistics notified only 1,213 Romanians here. Anyway: the main reason is that a numerous Romanian population lived (or still live) here. --Olahus (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they want to Bulgarise all ethnic people. Look what they did to Turks in Bulgaria. Anton Tudor (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide me with an exact statistic from an unbiased (preferably) source. And was it or wasn't it a Bulgarian city? When has it been Romanian? As for Anton ?Tudor's comment, I think he's not here for any discussion, but to push all POV-limits. --Laveol T 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laveol, I never said that Vidin was'nt a Bulgarian city. I just say that Vidin lived (or still live), together with Bulgarians, a Romanian (Vlach) population. --Olahus (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread yours and Anton's edits. Ummm, so what I mean is that a valid reason for inputting the name would be if there is a substantial minority or if the town was part of Romania. Things like there was a substantial minority do not work. If we were taking what some historians (even if they represent the majority of world scholarship) thought about the ethnic character of some areas, then all of Republic of Macedonia's cities should have their names in Bulgarian as well. Since this is not the case, nobody is pushing to add these names. My point is that only some nationalistic rhetoric is pushing Anton into adding this name and as it seems he wants to get into some sort of an argument (and this is what he achieved). I agree that Silistra for instance might have its name in Romanian cause it was part of Romania for a period of time (I'm not commenting on how Romania got these lands and if there were any Romanians living on them prior to that inclusion). --Laveol T 23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Vidin

[edit]

Does anybody know, perchance, what the Byzantines called Vidin? I just thought it would be an interesting tidbit to add.

I've found mention of a "Vidyne" near the Danube in the Alexiad, but all I've got is a hunch that they're the same place. 109.153.131.239 (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

The article currently states "As of February 2011, the town has a population of 47,138 inhabitants". Unfortunately the reference is broken and given that the table below that paragraph directly contradicts this I propose updating the sentence to use the 48071 figure supported by the census. Alex McKee (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Vidin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vidin&oldid=1255168410"