Jump to content

Talk:Banat Bulgarians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBanat Bulgarians has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 5, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 8, 2007Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
June 22, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Perna

[edit]
Hungarian (perna, "feather pillow")

There's no word "perna" in Hungarian, it's párna (read /parno/), probably the word was borrowed from Romanian perna (read /perna/). bogdan 22:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Romanian word a loan from Hungarian? If so, then we could say it's from Hungarian through Romanian which would be the most comprehensible and neutral way to clear things out. Or, in this case, we should simply find another Hungarian borrowing because of the contect :) → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 11:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The dictionary says that the Romanian word is from Serbian "perina". bogdan 12:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Banat Bulgarians in Romania?

[edit]

Why does the 'Bulgarians' link in the ethnic minority box lead only to the Banat Bulgarians? AFAIK, there are sizable communities around Bucharest and in Northern Dobrudja who are Eastern Orthodox (unlike the Banat Bulgarians who are Catholic)? --Vladko 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, they can hardly be called sizable today. Not those in Northern Dobruja and especially not those around Bucharest. They were gradually assimilated, while those in Northern Dobruja had to move in 1940, and there are only around 2,000 apart from the Banat Bulgarians, possibly less than half of which are part of the traditional minority.
According to the official data some Romanian Wikipedians provided (I was also quite curious about our minority in Romania some months ago), there are 135 self-identifying Bulgarians in Northern Dobruja, 27 in Ilfov County (around Bucharest) and 12 native Bulgarian speakers, and 370 Bulgarians and 301 native speakers in Bucharest itself, most of which IMO not a traditional population. Todor→Bozhinov 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm new at wiki so don't know if this is the right place to put this, but the link:

http://www.proetnica.ro/en/bulgarii.html

is broken. Martha 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty much the right place, yes. I at least can still open the link though, so perhaps more people should check? Todor→Bozhinov 18:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name

[edit]

Instead of edit warring, you could have discussed the issue on the talk page. As the main contributor to the article, my opinion is clear: standard Bulgarian Cyrillic is definitely relevant and removing it is a silly remnant from the attempts at the Banat Bulgarians' assimilation in the 19th and 20th century. The Banat Bulgarian dialect is just another written standard of the Bulgarian language, and the spelling in standard Bulgarian just can't possibly be omitted — this is called erasing history. That said, do we even have to mention the fact that the Banat Bulgarians in Bulgaria do use Cyrillic?

Regarding "Moldovan is a literary language based on the Cyrillic script", I have no intention to tolerate such trolling and such statements definitely make me suspicious of your edits to this article.

For me, this case is closed, and I will instantly revert any further attempts to erase the name in Cyrillic. Todor→Bozhinov 17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

I removed according to one study, official census is enough I assume some feedback please. Lakers 20:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I reverted. Census is certainly not enough, and I don't think information like such studies can ever be useless. At least when I write articles about ethnic or ethnographic groups, I try to include different sources regarding the population, as self-identification in a census can't always provide correct data, particularly in the context of Southeastern Europe. E.g. see Greeks in Bulgaria, Armenians in Bulgaria for some major differences between census data and claims. Todor→Bozhinov 21:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine thanks. Lakers 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAC comments

[edit]
  • As is often the case with articles about countries, regions, peoples, etc., the overriding concern in many reviewers' minds will be the possibility of violations of WP:NPOV. This article doesn't seem to have attracted any controversy yet, but that doesn't mean that it will not in the future.
  • On a closely related note, your case is not helped by the fact that overwhelming majority of references are in a language other than English. This makes it very difficult for reviewers on the English-language wiki. This should not be grounds for quick-failing of the nom. Realistically, however, it is certainly a shortcoming that many would remark upon. However, some FAs have relied heavily/solely on non-English sources; see El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda.
  • It does need some light copyediting. For example:

The Bulgarian Roman Catholic community in the northwestern ore-mining town of Chiprovtsi and the surrounding villages, possibly established by "Saxon" miners in the Middle Ages who later migrated elsewhere or were assimilated, organized the unsuccessful Chiprovtsi Uprising against the Ottoman rule of Bulgaria in 1688.

This sentence is a multi-sectioned snake. It needs be be broken into separate sentences, and some of it may need to be relocated to a different paragraph. [This is just one example. Suggest taking the article to WP:LOCE.]
Thanks for the comments! I've split the long sentence in the beginning of the History section, hope it's better.
As for the references, you have to understand that it is basically impossible to write anything more than a stub using widely available English-language data on the topic. Its specificness simply demands the use of more detailed publications in Bulgarian, Banat Bulgarian, Romanian, Serbian, Hungarian, German... and that's what I've done. A Google search reveals that, and Google Scholar doesn't help too much (I'd tried before — most of the actually useful stuff is English summaries of articles in Bulgarian). I knew it would be a problem from the start, but I also realized it's inevitable. Plus, I've written FAs using largely non-English citations too — e.g. Simeon I of Bulgaria.
I've just found two documents in English which aren't too detailed or on topic but will be enough for several additional footnotes :) Todor→Bozhinov 16:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added footnotes in English ("Catholics of Bulgaria", four citations) and a main reference ("To the problem...") and that's pretty much everything useful I could find online in English that I haven't written or used myself. Hope it's enough :) Best, Todor→Bozhinov 16:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does "privileged" mean? Can you give a def/details? See "...allowed them the same privileges as their colonies in Transylvania..." and other mentions... Ling.Nut 17:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Njagulov's book doesn't give any details, so I decided not to try and define it myself (it would be WP:OR), but he certainly stresses it on several occasions. This source goes into more detail and mentions citizens' rights and tax exemptions for merchants (p. 12, p. 17), but do you think it is necessary to explain it in the article? Todor→Bozhinov 17:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I do. It certainly deserves at least a one-sentence explanation, in my opinion.
  • This is a good article. I may keep bringing up little quibbles, but don't let that detract from the overall impression... Ling.Nut
  • Sorry, forgot to mention why I think the info is useful. These "privileges" are cited as a reason for migration... --Ling.Nut 18:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanation about the privileges + a citation. And don't worry, bringing up such minor issues is absolutely OK — I also like to be absolutely confident that an article meets the criteria before promoting it to GA. Todor→Bozhinov 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good! :-)
  • The section headings should be noun phrases, see WP:MSH
  • There should be some mention in the lede about how this area seems to have changed hands repeatedly (?) throughout modern history. One sentence may be enough.
  • Still some long sentences, which detracts from clarity. Still suggest WP:LOCE. For example:
"Despite the rapprochement between Bulgaria and Yugoslavia in the 1930s and the resulting indirect recognition of a Banat Bulgarian minority by the Yugoslav government, the Banat Bulgarian revival at the time was much less perceivable in the region's Serbian part, and the local Banat Bulgarian population was only partially affected by the work of the functionaries in Romania."
  • ...what functionaries in Romania? Were The Bulgarians and Yugoslavians meeting in Romania? Why single out the Serbian section?
Hope the sections are OK now. The Banat didn't change hands so often in recent times: the Banat Bulgarians had only lived in the Austro-Hungarian Banat before World War I, and then the region was split between Romania, Serbia and Hungary; that's mentioned in the intro. I reworded that long and ambiguous sentence: what it is supposed to mean is that whereas in Romania cultural workers like Lebanov and Telbizov had quite a lot of success, the Banat Bulgarians in Yugoslavia could hardly benefit from these people's work and were somewhat isolated. Todor→Bozhinov 19:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GA PASS

[edit]

This meets my understanding of WP:WIAGA. Congratulations! :-)

I still think you're gonna need to do some copy editing before you take it to WP:FAC. But good luck! :-)

Thanks a lot for the useful comments and the promotion! Indeed, it needs more work before going to FAC; I've submitted it at WP:LOCE and I hope they'll help :) Todor→Bozhinov 19:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"related groups" info removed from infobox

[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous sentence

[edit]
"...the Banat Bulgarian communities in Romania were among those experiencing the greatest immigration to USA..."

Does this mean that they migrated more than

  1. other communities in Romania
  2. other Banat Bulgarian communities
  3. other communities who migrated to USA
  4. other communities in Romania who migrated to the USA
  5. other Banat Bulgarian communities who migrated to the USA

Please correct the sentence. If it is not (3) or (5), then I think "immigration" should be replaced with "emigration". In general, "migration" is less confusing. And it would be better to use more direct language such as "migrated" instead of "experienced migration". -Pgan002 03:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. Expand the lead as well to three paragraphs due to the length of the article (see WP:LEAD). If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Banat Bulgarians. 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) 10:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Banat Bulgarians. 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) 18:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Banat Bulgarians. 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) 16:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banat Bulgarians. 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) 14:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palćene

[edit]

Does the name Palćene mean Paulicians? --79.32.130.1 (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Palćani, Pavlićani and so on.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banat_Bulgarians&oldid=1205684684"