Talk:Vidin

message: # No way.
# 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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Thank you. --Gligan (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree too. Thank you. Anton Tudor (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Agree.Anton Tudor (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I already wrote you: the article is from Encyclopedia Britannica. The rest is your own interpretation.--Olahus (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The Romanians are not only Vlachs, the later are only part of them. --Gligan (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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:
Image:Stielers Handatlas 1891 48.jpg|German map from 1891 (see the inscription "Walachen" over Bessarabia!). 
Image:Europe (1896), ethnic groups.jpg|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.
Image:Walachians (Romanians) in Hungary, census 1890 .jpg|Hungarian map from 1897 ("oláh" is the hungarian term for "vlach")
Image:Ethnic map (1914).jpg|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)

text: Actually they are called Rudari in Bulgaria as well. --Laveol T 13:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Vandalisation of the article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Byzantine Vidin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Population 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301010604/http://www.stringmeteo.com/synop/bg_climate.php?pr=&n=1 to http://www.stringmeteo.com/synop/bg_climate.php?pr=&n=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101113165731/http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=53&a1=1583&a2=1584&a3=1588 to http://www.nsi.bg/otrasalen.php?otr=53&a1=1583&a2=1584&a3=1588
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016140135/http://pop-stat.mashke.org/bulgaria-cities.htm to http://pop-stat.mashke.org/bulgaria-cities.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706142758/http://www.geography.iit.bas.bg/2009/1-09/13-17.pdf to http://www.geography.iit.bas.bg/2009/1-09/13-17.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified