Talk:Shumen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing! | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
 |
To-do list for Shumen: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
||
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
[edit] Reasons for deletion
I have deleted Turkish name for Shumen because according to me only the English and national language should be in. If you want to know the name of the city in other languages use the multilanguage box in the lower left corner of the article.--Valkov 17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I am with you, i meen i share the same idea. The city was born a long time befor the osman inavasion in Bulgaria and the turkish name doesn't belong here in this version or the any other accept the turkish one.--87.126.212.34 17:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I disagree. First off, it is common Wikipedia practice to include relevant historical names in the intro, look at Edirne for example. Secondly, I believe the city today is
40% Turkish (correct me if I'm wrong), and 40% is certainly something significant, right?(regardless, it still has a significant Turkish minority) I personally think that by not providing the Turkish name we are not serving the reader. —Khoikhoi 18:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. First off, it is common Wikipedia practice to include relevant historical names in the intro, look at Edirne for example. Secondly, I believe the city today is
-
-
- I live in Shumen and I can certainly tell you that my town is not 40% Turkish. I can't deny that there are some Turkish but they are less than 20% and maybe even less than 15%, so this is not a reason for including the Turkish name. It is not official and, more importantly, it is not used. Seeing a Turkish name in the article may be misleading for some users and make them think that Turkish is an official language in Shumen. If you insist so much on putting the Turkish name in the article, the best place for it is in the History section, although I am not sure if that name has ever been used officially. --Cortezz 20:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Official doesn't mean anything. If it was official it would be in the infobox. Do the inhabitants of İzmir still call it Smyrna? It is common practice to have historical names at the top, not to have them hiden somewhere in the history section. How about I move the name further down, but stil lin the intro? —Khoikhoi 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not only the name isn't official but, as I said, nobody in Shumen uses it. Or anybody else in Bulgaria. I don't know where you get your information from, would you please tell me? I've been living in Shumen all my life and I learned from you that my city has another name! And if you could ask the other 100 000 people here they would probably tell you the same. Because even if some of the citizens are ethnically Turkish, they still speak Bulgarian. And I don't think it is worth mentioning how someone in Istanbul or Ankara calls Shumen. --Cortezz 21:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- They may speak Bulgarian, but they can still speak Turkish, right? Are the Turks of Shumen completely Bulgarized so that they don't know any Turkish at all? Somehow, I doubt that. —Khoikhoi 21:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Some of the Turkish I know can speak Turkish, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they do it. Others know only few words or maybe none at all, even though their names are Turkish. But I'm asking a different thing: should we put (Bulgarian: Лос Анджелис) on top of the Los Angeles article just because there are a few thousands of Bulgarians who live there?--Cortezz 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's absolutely an absurd comparision. Was Los Angeles historically part of Bulgaria? For how many years? Can you say Chauvinism in Bulgarian for me? —Khoikhoi 22:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong: I don't hate Turkish. And I am not a chauvinist. And yes, I know it's not the ideal comparison. But it's a fact that Shumen has only one name that is currently used officially and unofficially in the region. All the others are either too infrequently used, or used by a too small minority, or not used at all, so it is not justified putting them on top. If it is a historic name -- it should be put in the history section, like I did with Shumla and Shumnu, which are very old. That's what I think and there's no sense in discussing it anymore. As you can see there are two more people sharing my point of view, isn't that enough?--Cortezz 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- "If it is a historic name -- it should be put in the history section". Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. As I said before, it is common practice to have historical names at the top. See Bydgoszcz for example—how many people do you think use the Latin name today? Wikipedia isn't outnumbering people by opinions, it's about consensus. How about we mention the names in the 3rd paragraphs or something like that? That way it's not at the top, and that way the reader doesn't get confused over them being official. —Khoikhoi 23:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, historical names at the top, but why not all of them? There are some more all over the article, how do we select which ones deserve to be
on topat the top?--Cortezz 23:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)- The more notable and relevant ones, of course. :) BTW, I see only two other ones in the history seciton: "Simeonis" and "Gazi". —Khoikhoi 23:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Mr.Cortezz, How can you claim that the turks of Shumen don't know Turkish or don't use the Turkish name of the city? Do you have an offical researchment or a report about that issue? In Shumen there are even turkish-speaking gypsies who still speak turkish as a mother tongue and use the turkish name of Shumen. Did you know that, though you live in Shumen? and How do you know that the turks of Shumen are %15-20 of the total population. According the National Statistical Institut(01.03.2001), Population of the the provinces and ethnic groups in Bulgaria. (НАСЕЛЕНИЕ КЪМ 01.03.2001 Г. ПО ОБЛАСТИ И ЕТНИЧЕСКА ГРУПА, НАЦИОНАЛЕН СТАТИСТИЧЕСКИ ИНСТИТУТ). %29.13 of the population of Shumen is turk. (Not turkish there is a differance!!) It means, there are 55.551 ethnic-turks and 123.084 bulgarians in Shoumen province. We can also consider the turkish-speaking gypsies as the users of the turkish name of Shumen. http://www.nsi.bg/Census/Ethnos.htm --Cepkah 17.29, 07 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Please don't edit the turkish name of the city. Because the debate is over!
-
-
- Mr.Cortezz, How can you claim that the turks of Shumen don't know Turkish or don't use the Turkish name of the city? Do you have an offical researchment or a report about that issue? In Shumen there are even turkish-speaking gypsies who still speak turkish as a mother tongue and use the turkish name of Shumen. Did you know that, though you live in Shumen? and How do you know that the turks of Shumen are %15-20 of the total population. According the National Statistical Institut(01.03.2001), Population of the the provinces and ethnic groups in Bulgaria. (НАСЕЛЕНИЕ КЪМ 01.03.2001 Г. ПО ОБЛАСТИ И ЕТНИЧЕСКА ГРУПА, НАЦИОНАЛЕН СТАТИСТИЧЕСКИ ИНСТИТУТ). %29.13 of the population of Shumen is turk. (Not turkish there is a differance!!) It means, there are 55.551 ethnic-turks and 123.084 bulgarians in Shoumen province. We can also consider the turkish-speaking gypsies as the users of the turkish name of Shumen. http://www.nsi.bg/Census/Ethnos.htm --Cepkah 17.29, 07 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The more notable and relevant ones, of course. :) BTW, I see only two other ones in the history seciton: "Simeonis" and "Gazi". —Khoikhoi 23:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, historical names at the top, but why not all of them? There are some more all over the article, how do we select which ones deserve to be
- "If it is a historic name -- it should be put in the history section". Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. As I said before, it is common practice to have historical names at the top. See Bydgoszcz for example—how many people do you think use the Latin name today? Wikipedia isn't outnumbering people by opinions, it's about consensus. How about we mention the names in the 3rd paragraphs or something like that? That way it's not at the top, and that way the reader doesn't get confused over them being official. —Khoikhoi 23:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong: I don't hate Turkish. And I am not a chauvinist. And yes, I know it's not the ideal comparison. But it's a fact that Shumen has only one name that is currently used officially and unofficially in the region. All the others are either too infrequently used, or used by a too small minority, or not used at all, so it is not justified putting them on top. If it is a historic name -- it should be put in the history section, like I did with Shumla and Shumnu, which are very old. That's what I think and there's no sense in discussing it anymore. As you can see there are two more people sharing my point of view, isn't that enough?--Cortezz 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's absolutely an absurd comparision. Was Los Angeles historically part of Bulgaria? For how many years? Can you say Chauvinism in Bulgarian for me? —Khoikhoi 22:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Some of the Turkish I know can speak Turkish, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they do it. Others know only few words or maybe none at all, even though their names are Turkish. But I'm asking a different thing: should we put (Bulgarian: Лос Анджелис) on top of the Los Angeles article just because there are a few thousands of Bulgarians who live there?--Cortezz 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- They may speak Bulgarian, but they can still speak Turkish, right? Are the Turks of Shumen completely Bulgarized so that they don't know any Turkish at all? Somehow, I doubt that. —Khoikhoi 21:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not only the name isn't official but, as I said, nobody in Shumen uses it. Or anybody else in Bulgaria. I don't know where you get your information from, would you please tell me? I've been living in Shumen all my life and I learned from you that my city has another name! And if you could ask the other 100 000 people here they would probably tell you the same. Because even if some of the citizens are ethnically Turkish, they still speak Bulgarian. And I don't think it is worth mentioning how someone in Istanbul or Ankara calls Shumen. --Cortezz 21:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Official doesn't mean anything. If it was official it would be in the infobox. Do the inhabitants of İzmir still call it Smyrna? It is common practice to have historical names at the top, not to have them hiden somewhere in the history section. How about I move the name further down, but stil lin the intro? —Khoikhoi 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
--Cepkah 15.43, 08 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be more of a political debate than actual fact. There is absolutely no significance as to the name of the city. Whether it is called by the Bulgarian or Turkish name it is still the same city. Even though technically it is referred everywhere else as Shumen when people name the city. I believe that in the long term the city should be called Shumen, both for stigma caused by naming a Bulgarian city by a Turkish name, and the fact that most of the locals there use the name shumen. --Whiskey Blues123 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
