Talk:Bosilegrad

Forum[edit]

Discussions on "Bosilegradski forum" www.bosilegrad.com

On "Bosilegradski forum" www.bosilegrad.com there are no discussions about that!!!--Raskoyu 09:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Laveol[edit]

Yes I noticed that it is a UN report, which is why I didn't revert. Still, the report strikes me as being written by somebody at the UN who just believed everything the Bulgarian government told them and repeated it without checking for themselves. Given that this was in 1994, when the situation was conducive for that sort of thing, such a scenario doesn't strike me as implausible, and is even likly given some absurdities in the document. If anyone wants, I can annotate the bloody thing, it's just out of this world. The whole "repression" thing is something that is more in the head of Bulgarian nationalists in Bulgaria, and Bulgarian tabloid journalists. I mean, the local population (70% Bulgarian) is so angry about the situation that in the local assembly, of 31 seats:[1]

14 are held by the Democratic Party of Serbia (commonly considered moderate Serbian nationalist)
3 are held by Milošević's party, the Socialist Party of Serbia
3 are held by the Serbian Radical Party (leader currently in the Hague on war crimes charges)
2 are held by Milošević crony and self-appointed Serbian patroit Bogoljub Karić's party
of the other 9, 8 are held by Serbian parties which are still pretty patriotic, while 1 is held by a citizen's group.

All of the people on the town council are ethnic Bulgarians (going by the surnames). So I really do not see why people from outside are trying to whip up an ethnic conflict where none exists. Yes the period between WWI and WWII was not Serbia's finest hour, but that was over 60 years ago! Today, any problems the town may have are not limited to ethnic Bulgarian areas, but all of Southern Serbia.--Methodius 11:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point, but this might prove just the opposite assumption. Ok, I'll take the changes, but, please revert the ref back to UN. It is not Bulgarian. And it would be nice if you find a ref for your statements at the bottom. Cheers --Laveol 11:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we can cooperate on this. As you probably saw after you wrote your message, I'd already changed it. As for the source, I'll give it a try, but it can be hard to find sources about good things.--Methodius 11:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know - it's always easy to find blood and violance, but not the opposite, that's why I'll personally stop reverting the article. I'll try not to take part in the argument about this being a Bulgaia related article which I find really stupid - this tag means that the article is "within the scope of the project". Gligan must have put it there because he plans to expand it, but nevermind. I'm sure we'll find a compromise :) --Laveol 11:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag[edit]

--Methodius 10:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put this tag, because this place is related to Bulgaria and is populated by mostly Bulgarians; and I mean no offence for the Serbs. Panonian once told me that he just wants better articles for places in Serbia, so when adding this tag the Bulgarian wikipedians may expand and improve the article for this town, which no one denies that it is in the territory of Serbia. --Gligan 12:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this place is not related to Bulgaria - it is an municipality in Serbia with no any connection to Bulgaria. The ethnic Bulgarians that live in this municipality are citizens of Serbia, not citizens of Bulgaria. For example, the Bulgarians article claim that there are 204,000 Bulgarians in Ukraine, 39,170 in Germany, 54,000 Argentina, etc. Now tell me is that a reason to add articles about Ukraine, Germany and Argentina into Wiki project Bulgaria. No it is not. Same thing is with Serbia. Bulgarian wikipedians could find this article as easy as they find article about Argentina. PANONIAN (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you wouldn't understand. Bulgarians are not "Bulgaria related"? But, nevermind, the idea is that Gligan obviously wants to expand the article or is seeking for help in this direction. He told you, he meant no offense. --Laveol 09:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria as a country stands to protect the Bulgarian People; and the Bulgarian People is a Bulgaria-related topic. They might be citizens of Serbia, but they have nothing to do with the Serbs. There are towns in Bulgaria which are in Turkish or Greek wiki projects and we are tolerable, so try to follow our example. --Gligan 09:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't have anything against this being in WikiprojectBulgaria, but you seem a bit intolerant. They probably have a more to do with "the Serbs" (their neighbours), than with Bulgaria (a foreign country).--Methodius 10:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they have close relations with Serbia, as this is the country they live in; this is why wiki project Serbia stands. --Gligan 10:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to look at the Bosilegrad forum posted above www.bosilegrad.com. You'll notice that it has Serbian and Bulgarian flags and everything is witten in both languages. --Laveol 10:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarians are not "Bulgaria-related" because Bulgaria is a name for a country that have its borders, so things within those borders are Bulgaria-related and things outside of those borders are not Bulgaria-related. It is very simple logic and nobody of you cannot go against that logic. Bulgarians as a people live in many countries, while in Bulgaria live also Turks, Roma, etc, in another words, Turks in Bulgaria are Bulgaria-related, but Bulgarians in Serbia or Bulgarians in Argentina are not. Of course, there is a question that I do not want to raise now, but if you force me to do that, I will expand article describing the truth about origin of Bulgarians in Serbia, i.e. the fact that they are not Bulgarians at all, but native Torlakian/Shop Slavs who were brain-washed to think that they are Bulgarians during Bulgarian administration over those regions. Regarding towns in Bulgaria that "are in Turkish or Greek wiki projects" that certainly should be removed from those projects too because I do not see why somebody should be tolerable towards Greater Turkish and Greater Greek nationalism. Same thing here. Regarding, the flag in Bosilegrad forum, that is ethnic flag of Bulgarian people, not flag of Bulgaria (no matter that they are same). And to conclude: since this place is not in Bulgaria, Wiki project Bulgaria tag cannot be here. If you create new Wiki project about Bulgarians instead about Bulgaria, then it would be another story. Regarding expansion of the article, who ever want to expand it, he can do it without placing it into this wiki project - I really do not see any valid reason for this article to be posted into this project. PANONIAN (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really funny when you talk about Great Greek and Great Turkish nationalism and saying things like "Bulgarians were brainwashed to think they are Bulgarians". Quite a laugh, I'd say. I've never heard a greater POV than this. And I've never heard of more blind and unsupported by real arguments nationalism as yours. So the "Wiki project Bulgaria" should be removed from the article Old Great Bulgaria just because the it's territory is in nowadays Ukraine? Despite the fact that the country's name was Bulgaria and the people living in it Bulgarians/Bulgars? --Laveol 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nationalistic? How so? I am not the one who want to post Wiki-project Serbia tag to the articles about places in neighbouring countries. Eh, just imagine that I post tag Wiki-project Serbia to the article about Republika Srpska - do you know what Bosniak users would tell me for that? (and they would have every reason to tell me). Come one, man, some principles must be followed here. And by the way, Old Great Bulgaria indeed do not belong into "Wiki project Bulgaria" - perhaps it could belong into some project named "Bulgarian history" but this mixing of history, geography and expansionistic politics is really ridiculous. PANONIAN (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is Bulgaria-related; and you are the only one who is against; even some Serbs support this. And if you insist on rising this question I may tell you some things, but... I will wait. Your logic is absolutely wrong and nationalistic, do you mean that all local Slavs in the Balkans are Serbs??? This is nonesence. So you should mean by this logic that almost all Bulgarians, Croats and other peoples are Serbs because they are brain-washed local Slavs???????????????????

Of the three people here, Laveol, Metodii and I agree with this tag, and you are the only one to disafree. Bulgarians in Argentina and Ukraine are something else, they are not majority in these countries, but if there are towns there where majority is Bulgarian, they will be added to Wiki Project Bulgaria too. --Gligan 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not claim that local Balkanic Slavs are Serbs - I claim that they are LOCAL SLAVS. Do you have problem with that? Also, if this article is Bulgaria-related as you claim, please prove that this place is in Bulgaria and I will post this tag by myself. Also, it is not correct that "some Serbs support this" - if one Serb editor said that he have no problem with this tag that does not mean that he support it. Regarding Bulgarians outside of Bulgaria, can you at least see the difference between terms Bulgaria and Bulgarians? - I believe that children in elementary school can learn that difference. PANONIAN (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with "local Slavs", but you use it in a sense which means that they are not Bulgarians, while they ARE Bulgarians; I have the impression that you claim that the Bulgarians in Bosilegrad and Tsaribrod are in fact Serbs, is it not? Bulgarians are related to Bulgaria (this page is part of WPBG and is for a people which do not inhabit only the territory of Bulgaria), and since the majority of the population in these two towns is Bulgarian, this means that they are related to Bulgaria too. It is written Bulgaria-related, not on Bulgarian territory.

This argue is indeed very stupid, so I think that we may vote and invite non-Bulgarians and non-Serbs to vote too. I do not want to waist my time any more. --Gligan 20:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, man: the modern European societies of the 21st are not ethnically based, and most European coutries (including Bulgaria and Serbia) are countries of all their citizens, so there is clear difference between country and ethnicity in both cases. Bulgaria is a country with defined borders and it is against logic to post into Wiki project Bulgaria anything that is located outside of those borders. This is in fact a separate question from the question whether Bulgarians who live in the area are of Bulgarian or Shopi origin - no matter of they origin and how they declare themselves in census, this is still not Bulgaria and therefore such tag is not appropriate here. And the real problem here are principles - if we follow principles then we would never post this tag on place that is not in Bulgaria, now, you want to brake this principle claiming that this tag should be posted if ethnic Bulgarians are majority in the area and tommorow somebody else will say that tag should be posted on every article about places where only 10 or 3 or even just 1 ethnic Bulgarian live, so, where is the end? Once principles are brocken we are in the chaos. PANONIAN (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there was such principle in Wikipedia, I should agree with it, but currently such principle does not exist and as I told you already, other Wiki Projects post their tags in articles which are not in their country; I don't speak only for Bulgaria or Turkey or Greece but as a whole. If there was a town with Serbian majority in Bulgaria, I would not oppose adding WPSR tag, as would all wikipedians I guess. And I shall repeat again: it is written Bulgaria-related, not in Bulgaria on the tag; and I do not deny that the locals are Serbian citizens and live in the Republic of Serbia; the two Wiki Project simply do not contradict to each other. --Gligan 20:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think that there is no such principle, please try to post tag Wiiki-project Serbia to the Republika Srpska article - come on, just try it (You will agree that Republika Srpska and Bosilegrad are similar cases). PANONIAN (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will, if you try to remove WPTR and WPGR from the places in Bulgaria and the Bulgarians. --Gligan 20:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, no problem, I will remove WPTR and WPGR - just tell me which places are in question. PANONIAN (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here there are (at least some of them): Kardzhali, Mandritsa, Marmais, Simeon I. There are other of course but I do not have time to search them now. All right then I will add WPSR to Rep. Srabska now: ) --Gligan 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tags from those talk pages except from Simeon I because he ruled over part of Greece. PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well then, I agree with you now but... when I see again foreign Wiki Projects in Bulgarian articles and fail to remove them, I will inform you: )--Gligan 10:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heyheyhey, just because I have nothing against this being in WPBG doesn't mean I like the way you've argued for it and your statements here. And the truth is the Shops could have gone either way, and they did depending on which side of the border they ended up on. The only reason these people feel Bulgarian (which doesn't make their feeling any less valid) is because they were in Bulgaria for a couple of decades. But that is by the by --Methodius 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I do not like the way he argued. To insist that the Shops are Serbs is nonesense and insult for me and the Bulgarian people; how he dares to write this, this means that the population in western Bulgaria, the capital Sofia are Serbs if I am to follow his logic and way. --Gligan 18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where I said that Shops are Serbs? Can you read or what? I really hate when somebody claim that I said something that I did not said. PANONIAN (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he say they are Serbs? And why are you offended and insulted - can't you be detached? You have participated in creating this tense atmosphere around this article, so don't be surprised when you reap what you sow. Shops are a group, some of whose members consider themselves Serb, Bulgarian or Macedonian. Is that what you find offensive? Because that is the truth. Frankly, I find both sides slightly pathetic. Who CARES if this or that article is or isn't in WikiprojectBulgaria? In a situation like this, people should PRIDE in being the first to "back down".--Methodius 18:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"origin of Bulgarians in Serbia, i.e. the fact that they are not Bulgarians at all, but native Torlakian/Shop Slavs who were brain-washed to think that they are Bulgarians during Bulgarian administration over those regions" this sentence means that the Shops are not Bulgarians for him and I find it offescive. --Gligan 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I said something that is not correct? Why historical facts would be offensive for you? PANONIAN (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what is offensive about that? Try to stop your blood boiling and realise that the statement "Shops aren't Bulgarians" is true. Some Shops are Bulgarians, but not all. Maybe you're just not expressing yourself as clearly as you could? Or are you really saying that all Shops are Bulgarians?--Methodius 18:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, do you agree that all the Shops are one and the same folklore group? If they are indeed, then it is just not possible some of them to be Bulgarians, Serbs and Macedonians, they should be only one of them. Let us put aside what do they think; it is obvious that in the three countries, there are three different opinions of the Shops themselves.

But the truth is that Shops are just Shops. By their origin, they are neither Serbs, neither Bulgarians, neither Macedonians. What they today think that they are is another story. PANONIAN (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right that before our countries were established, the local Slavs here all belonged to different tribes such as Shopi, Smolyani, Timochani, Strumyani and others. But now no one refers to himself with his old tribe name, we are Bulgarians and Serbs, it was just not possible for the Slavs to survive in small countries on tribe basis. But you also know that there was no such tribe "Bulgarians", the Bulgarians include many local Slavic tribes and the Bulgars, which were also divided into tribes. --Gligan 20:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we already live in "small countries on tribe basis" - if that is not the case, then we both would live in one big country named Yugoslavia. PANONIAN (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we do not live in small countries on tribal basis, because there was no such tribe "Serbs", the Serbs include several tribes; and if we are to live in such countries, then our countries are to disintergrate roughly to their provinces. If we were (I repeat were, it is not possible and it was not possible as the unfortunate for our peoples 19th and 20th century showed) to live in a united country with a unified people and history, this country would have been Bulgaria, not Yugoslavia. I will not explain here why Bulgaria, because I doubt you want to listen to such things. --Gligan 20:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, good one. No, the name of the unified country would be Yugoslavia because it is neutral name acceptable for all south Slavs, and yes, we live in tribal countries because Serbs, Bulgarians, Croats, etc are just names of the bigger tribes - it is not important if such tribes existed in the past or not, they certainly exist now. PANONIAN (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The if they are one folklore group, then they are all Bulgarians in origin. Now try not to be a Serb for a moment and consider these facts with impartiably and with cool mind. In the middle Ages the lands that Shops now inhabit were in most of the time in the Bulgarian Empire and the population considerred itself Bulgarian. The Serbs never held much of the Shopi-inhabited lands, including those around Sofia; and if the population considerred itself as a Serb one they would have definetely joined to Stefan Dushan's empire and wellcome him a liberator but this never happenned. Now if you look at the discussion page of Pirot, I think; you would find a source that during the Ottoman rule the locals (who are Shops) considerred themselves Bulgarians so the Bulgarian spirirt there endured the Muslim rule. But when the Pirot district was given to Serbia, the people there slowly lost their Bulgarian consciousness because of the smart policy of the Serb government and also because they now lived in a Slavic country which is very similar to Bulgaria and they were happy because they got rid of the Turk and considerred the Serbs as brothers and nearly the same ethnos. --Gligan 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foklore groups have nothing to do with modern national consciousness - such consciousness was developed only in the 18-19 century and did not existed in the Middle Ages (at least not in the same form). Also, do not forget that term Bulgarians was in the Middle Ages used as designation for all Slavs, so if somebody in that time said that he is Bulgarian, he in fact meant that he is Slav. However, the fact is that during Ottoman rule, Shops did not had Bulgaeian national consciousness - they simply considered themselves Shopi and if history was different perhaps they would now have their own independent country called Shopluk. PANONIAN (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. All you theories sound like ethnic macedonians'a ones. There was no such period in which all slavs in the Ottoman empire were regarded as Bulgarians. Only Bulgarians were regarded as Bulgarians, or in other word only people that thought for themselves to be Bulgarian, were called Bulgarians. Your tale is used ONLY from serbian/macedonian historians to explain why the term macedonian (in an ethic sense) has never ever being used until the beginning of the XX century. And I find calling us (cause I'm from shop descent too) brainwashed so to think we are Bulgarians really offensive. I've read all you had to say and didn't see the part where you apologize. --Laveol 09:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not spoke about Ottoman but about Byzantine sources which used name "Bulgarians" to designate all Slavs. Most of the local people from that time did not had any national consciousness in the Middle Ages. Regarding your own origin, if you live in Bulgaria then nobody telling you not to feel like Bulgarian, but you also should not tell to local Slavs from Serbia and Macedonia how they should feel - I spoke about them, not about Slavs from Bulgaria. PANONIAN If you want peace and prosperity for your country then you are a patriot, but if your patriotism is bigger than the borders of your country then you are a serious threat to World peace. 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of making a redaction to my previous statement, but you've already pointed it. The problem with your statement is the same again - there were Serbs at the time and they were Slavs, but were nevertheless called Serbs. So you speak about Slavs in Serbia and Macedonia, and we are talking about Slavs in Serbia that feel like Bulgarians. That was just to get back to the topic. --Laveol 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been modified, with issues likely removed, so NPOV tag removed. - Roy Boy 01:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Todor[edit]

The term Southern Serbia does not cover Kosovo. Yes it doesn't make much logical sense, but that's how it is in general usage.
It is relevant to mention that it is a Serbian area, as the text is written to imply that the area neglected was ethnically Bulgarian, and that it was deliberately neglected because Bulgarians lived there. Clearly, that is false.
Given that the following is acceptable:

Between 1920 and 1941 the population of the region was denied any right to education or church services in Bulgarian and was officially regarded as Serbian by the Yugoslav authorities, including changed Bulgarian names to Serbian.^{[citation needed]}

I don't see why this isn't:

Following the Second World War, the Bulgarian community gained full minority rights and was integrated into the political mainstream.^{[citation needed]}

Especially since the former was 60-80 years ago, whereas the latter goes up to the present day.--Methodius 18:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, although I don't understand it to be honest. What's non-Southern-Serbian with Kosovo?
I don't see why the whole thing can't be reworded to say the area was just neglected, without mentioning any Serb majorities and Bulgarian claims — it's just an economic characteristic, no need to point out where you've got a majority in your own country.
Both passages should be either sourced or removed. I believe I can dig up a reference for the lack of any Yugoslav recognition and of Bulgarian-language education, but the changing of names may prove a bit more difficult. Todor →Bozhinov 19:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bosilegrad. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140811224233/http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf to http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/Popis2011/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bosilegrad. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]