Talk:Dobruja/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Second Bulgarian Empire

Now I want to settle that question once and for all. I will begin with a simple question to Baltaci: In 1210 for instance to which country did Dobrudzha belong? --Gligan (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We have no data for the period between Isaac Angelos and Ivan Asen II. And it didn't have to be part of a greater country, it could have been ruled by local princes that didn't exhibit the usual signs of civilization, like writing or coinage, like most Eastern Europe.Baltaci (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you can say the same for all Moesia (northern Bulgaria) because we only have data for a treaty in Lovech, that the capital was Tarnovo and the fall of Varna in 1205.

But the truth is that we HAVE data bacause the Byzantine historians note that after the rebellion of Asen and Peter Byzantium lst all of the former thema of Paristrion with the exception of Varna. And there are absolutely no signs or mentioning for local rulers and the only logical option is that the region was part of Bulgaria. There was NO campaign of Ivan Asen II against Dobrudzha which means that it had been in Bulgaria before his rule. And if you see maps for 13-14th century you should note that Dobrudzha was located in Bulgaria. --Gligan (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You have data about Moesia, provided by Byzantine and Frankish historians and Papal documents. But none about Dobruja. I would like to see that historian that says all Paristrion was conquered. On wikipedia, unsourced "logic" isn't accepted (see WP:NOR). There's no mention of Mircea's campaign against Dobruja in the 1390s either, yet his rule over the region is attested and acknowledged in modern history. Does this mean he ruled Dobruja before? Of course not. Depends on who draws these maps.Baltaci (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That is because Dobrudzha did not exist as a separate entity in that time - it was part of Moesia or more correctly Zagoria as Bulgaria is often referred in western documents. I don't have a detailed history of Bulgaria at home so I will cite the Byzantine historians after in go to the library. I would be pleased to see a map of Europe (the Balkans, Bulgaria) in 1250 in which Dobrudzha is not included. --Gligan (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it didn't have this name, but it existed, and could have been identified based on cities or geographic features. There no such reference in contemporary documents. Dobruja would be included in all maps that show this part of the world. I am not aware of geographic maps that omit 15,000 sq km.Baltaci (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, during the Roman Empire it was part of Moesia or Moesia Inferior; for the First Empire we don't have information about the administrative division; then during the Byzantine rule it was part of thema Paristrion and the first mentioning of that region as a separate entity dates from the times of Balik and Dobrotitsa. --Gligan (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a name to identify a region. Dobruja can be easily implied by the mouths of Danube (this, along archaeological evidence, is how we know the first empire ruled Dobruja) or by towns, already mentioned in contemporary sources.Baltaci (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell me the definition of Moesia or Zagoria. --Gligan (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also coinage means nothing - there are A LOT OF Arabic coins found on an island in Sweden and by the way the Bulgarian ruler did not mint coins at that time. In fact they did not mint coins during the whole existence of the First Empire. What would you say - that there had been no First Empire because there are no Bulgarian but only Byzantine coins from that period?!?!?! That is ridiculous.

During the first empire, Bulgarians built structures that can be clearly attributed to them, left runic inscriptions and maintained relations with Byzantium and Hungary, so we have enough sources to reconstitute that period. And, Kaloyan is supposed to have minted coins, yet none have been found in Dobruja or near it.18:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Kaloyan didn't mint coins (there are some speculations of some Bulgarian scientists that he did but there are no coins found from him so far) - the first Bulgarian coins were minted by Ivan Asen II. --Gligan (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

SO how can you prove he ruled Dobruja?Baltaci (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And how can I prove that Krum ruled Dobrudzha? Malamir? Presian? Vinekh? How can I prove that Kaloyan ruled Vidin? Macedonia? Lovech?--Gligan (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You have archaeological remains and Byzantine historians.Baltaci (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For these that I have mentioned we have neither remains nor any mention by the Byzantines whether they ruled Dobrudzha. --Gligan (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For the writing is the same - the medieval manuscripts from the Balkans are rare as a whole. I haven't heard of a single one for the period between Isaac Angelos and Ivan Asen II found in the Bulgarian land. Does it mean that there was no Bulgaria?!?!?!?! --Gligan (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need manuscripts for writing. You can have writing on coins, seals, church dedications, monuments. Kaloyan's article has a big seal in it, so Bulgarians knew to write in that period. But no writing was found in Dobruja Baltaci (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no writings of any kind found in the Bulgarian lands from that period. --Gligan (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you call this then?Baltaci (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That is only ONE ring found in Tarnovo. If we have to follow this, it would mean that Bulgaria consisted of Tarnovo and let me see... Tarnovo.--Gligan (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If I bring you another one, will you say "only TWO"? Kaloyan's realm is described enough by Geoffrey and Choniates, but neither author talks about the region of what will be called later Dobruja.Baltaci (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Then write down their description of Kaloyan's realm... and bring me another one, yes. --Gligan (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are some maps showing Europe and the Golden Horde in different periods of 13-14th century. These maps are made by historians who are much more competent that you and me. [1] (1190), http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/byzantine_empire_1265.jpg (1265), [2] (1355), [3] (1360), [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

The first maps are anachronistic and more than one century old, and the other are either undated (could show the situation during Asen II or Svetoslav) or don't show Dobruja as part of Bulgaria.Baltaci (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Show me new maps then. The people who made that maps are much more competent than you.--Gligan (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also after the fall of Constantinople we have records of what happened with the lands of the Byzantine Empire. And the data concerning the Black Sea coast is that the Emperor (of Constantinople) shall receive the coast between Constantinople and Midia (slightly to the south of the current Bulgarian-Turkish border). The independent parts of the former Byzantine Empire are also strictly defined: both Nicaea and Trapezund were entirely in Asia Minor and the Despotate of Epir was situated in the western Balkans. The conclusion? Dobrudzha was not in Byzantium and we have records when it was lost - during the rebellion of Asen and Peter as part of Paristrion. --Gligan (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't have any records of its loss. We are not here to present personal conclusions.Baltaci (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We have records of what happened with the Byzantine lands after the fall of Constantinople.--Gligan (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

But not about the region of Dobruja.Baltaci (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That is because there was no such region at that time and because it was not in Byzantium at all. --Gligan (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So you say Dobruja was a black hole in that period?Baltaci (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It just didn't existed as a separate entity; it was part of Moesia (Zagoria). In the document all Byzantine lands are divided and it is mentioned exactly which party which land receives. --Gligan (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Asen mentioned it as Karvunska khora just 15 years later. Why didn't Kaloyan mention it too?Baltaci (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the only information about the administrative division of the Second Empire comes from Ivan Asen II and is about 10 horas. We don't don't have mention from Kaloyan about any of the other 9 horas as well. --Gligan (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is written here that Isaac Angelos lost the lands between the Balkan mountains and the Danube to Bulgaria in 1187. And there is a map of 1265 as well. Shall I expect that you will call yourself more competent than the historian who wrote it? --Gligan (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The only review I could find about that writer was not a positive one. Also he doesn't mention the mouths of the Danube, and the map legend is elusive ("13th century" this could mean anything). I have other historians who say they didn't (the ones you keep deleting)Baltaci (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that is beyond any doubt - you don't like what is written => there must be something wrong in the author. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not care whether you like it - that is a source. And yes, the map says 1265. --Gligan (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who started deleting sources because they didn't say what I liked. If you bring me a positive review of that author, I'll say OK. Otherwise, the only review I have disqualifies him as a historian, and Wikipedia can't accept him, by WP:RS. The map is contradicting itself, bearing 3 different dates.Baltaci (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What is that review, may I see it? And the map's title say Southeastern Europe circa 1265, what is wrong with that? As far as the other sources that I provided in the section they are from Zlatarski's History and are cited by him and he is a respected historian with excellent reputation. The other source is The Bulgarian Khans and Tsars written by the professors J. Andreev and M. Lalkov who are again with good reputation. And as I said above, I will cite more sources when I go to the library after the holidays. --Gligan (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in Romanian, so you wouldn't understand much. The legend says otherwise. Nothing wrong with Zlatarki. However "ib" by Pachymenes is not a real reference. Also, I was not able to find any information about the book by Andreev. A 1996 book surely has a ISBN, but I couldn't find one. I'll try to add more about to subject from Western sources, only if you get rid of the irrelevant information.Baltaci (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But that "ib" by Pachymenes it took directly from Zlatarski - his works about the Empire between 1185 and 1280 is in the internet but is in the old Bulgarian spelling but I can give you a link to it. As far as the book of Andreev is concerned, it have it at home, so if that ISBN (I don't know what it is) can be seen anywhere in the book, I can tell it. I have seen this book in most libraries, so if ISBN can be fount only there, I can tell you that after 6 May. --Gligan (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I found this on the Internet: Андреев, Йордан и Андрей Пантев. Българските ханове и царе от хан Кубрат до цар Борис III. Велико Търново, Абагар, 2001. 368 с. ISBN 954-427-216-X. My edition is from 1996. --Gligan (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dobruja belonged to the Second Bulgarin Empire. This is commonly known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.236.1 (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC) It is like saying that the territory around Nikopol was not part of the Second Bulgarian "Empire" (actually kingdoma I think would be a better translation) because there are no explicit mentions of that. Also as correctil pointed out before by another user, there are no mentions of an independent Dobruja at that time, nor any mentions of Dobruja belonging to other countries than Bulgaria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.205.5 (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Extent of Dobruja

This subject had been tangentially touched in previous discussions, but I couldn't see any definitive answer to this problem. Since I want to develop the geography section of this article, I want this issue clarified. While the extent of the Romanian part of Dobruja is undisputed, this is not quite case for the Bulgarian part.

In historical context "Southern Dobruja" and "Quadrilater" refer almost exclusively to the territory received by Romania in the Bucharest peace of 1913 and ruled by it in 1913-1916 and 1919-1940. However, outside this specific context, geographic indicators are not generally used (i.e. Bulgarians call their part just "Dobrudzha", and Romanians call their part just "Dobrogea").

In the geographical context, I couldn't find any explicite source. What is commonly agreed is that most of the Dobrich administrative region is part of Dobruja. However the extent outside this region is problematic. Currently our article says that it includes the whole Dobrich and Silistra regions (that is, more or less, "Southern Dobruja" as described above). The Bulgarian Wikipedia says it includes the whole Dobrich region, the Silistra, Alfatar and Kainardzha subdivisions of the Silistra region (which is contradicted by the website of the municipality of Tutrakan, which includes the township in the region) and the Aksakovo subdivision of the Varna region (which seems geographically implausible to me, this extent may be influenced by the fact that one village in that subdivision was under Romanian rule in the interwar). The Bulgarian encyclopedia at znam.bg has a circular definition: Dobruja is limited by the Ludogorie, whose northeastern neighbor is Dobruja (implying however that Ludogorie is not part of Dobruja). I've seen some Bulgarian editors on this page claiming that Ludogorie is part of Dobruja, but without a reference to a reliable source.

Maybe a Bulgarian editor can bring a reference so we can settle this issue. Romanian sources generally accept the "historical" definition (see above), and English and French ones don't define it clearly (that is when not speaking about Romanian ruled Southern Dobruja). My grasp of Bulgarian is limited, so I couldn't make an extensive search for a reference in that language. Also I didn't search in German source, which may have something to say considering the historic German population here. Any help is appreciated. BTW, here it's a draft of the geography section. It was written one year ago, and now I'm not so sure it is correct. Baltaci (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tutrakan is definitely not within Dobruja, it is within Ludogorie. Even if the site of Tutrakan municipality say that, it is not true and they have been influenced by the wrong Romanian definition of Southern Dobruja. The border between Dobruja and Ludogorie lies somewhere between Silistra and Tutrakan in the north and the last village in Dobruja is Bdintsi in the south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.236.1 (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you bring a reference for this?Baltaci (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The original Quadrilateral meant the territory between Silistra, Ruse, Shumen and Varna (four fortified cities, that's why it was called quadrilateral) and comprised Southern Dobruja and Ludogorie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.236.143 (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, however this doesn't help too much.Baltaci (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallachia map

Do we really need to put a map in this article of every polity that controlled Dobruja for 20 years or so? It would make for another 10 more maps at least, where Dobruja is just a small sector somewhere on a corner of a map. Also, I think one ethnic map is enough: the two appear to show a very similar ethnic makeup of Northern Dobruja. Now we have to decide which one to keep on this article: the 1903 one does show Turks and Tatars separately (and Russians and Lipovans, as did censuses of the time) and it doesn't try to present the unpopulated marshes of the Danube Delta as inhabited, while the second shows also Southern Dobruja, but use a projections that makes it look smaller than actually was, and may not present a completely accurate image of the Romanians in that part, especially along the pre 1913 border ( compare to 1930 census-based maps at commons.Baltaci (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, of course we don't - however the map of Dobruja as part of Wallachia is important in the historical context as it marks the end of the autonomous Dobruja and the start of the Ottoman rule. Also from another perspective, the rule of Mircea the Elder in Dobruja (apart from the ethnic configuration of the region) was also used by the Romanian historians and politicians to justify the incorporation of the region into Romania in 1877, leading to the elevation of Mircea to icon status in the Romanian Dobruja (the Naval Academy, its training ship, one of the oldest schools in Constanţa - among others - bear his name).

As for the ethnic maps, why not keep them both? Less is not always better. I do agree they're similar, however the 1918 map depicts the ethnic make-up of Southern Dobruja (I don't think the geographical projection is very distorted and the impact is minimal). As for the ethnic composition along the pre-1913 border, I wouldn't compare it against the 1930 figures because the intensive colonization of Romanians and Aromanians in the 1920's could account for the differences. A map from around 1913 (if there's one) would clear that up. Mentatus (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Romanian ethnographic map of the entire region, I don't think we should include one-sided maps by themselves. The map was created by a Romanian scholar and evidently overemphasizes the Turkish and Romanian populations in the south and the Romanian population in the north (uninhabited marshy regions of the delta marked as Romanian), at the expense of the Bulgarian population. Of course, if we had a Bulgarian map we'd have the opposite case, but the goal is, if we include any maps, to represent the situation accurately or at least to contrast the two points of view, not to give precedence to one. Todor→Bozhinov 17:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Turks don't call the mentioned region "Bogdan Iflak" but instead it is called "Eflak Boğdan". --217.68.210.80 (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles with dead external links Hide-&-Seek Answers

For anyone looking to fix/remove the dead links in the Notes section, the marked numbers are 17, 28, 52, 58, 59, 67, and 82. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dobruja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070126232358/http://www.itcnet.ro:80/history/archive/mi1997/current5/mi60.htm to http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi1997/current5/mi60.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dobruja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080222064513/http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au:80/a/aristotle/a8po/ to http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8po/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080409154000/http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Georgius%20Cedrenus_PG%20121-122/Compendium%20historiaru1a.pdf to http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Georgius%20Cedrenus_PG%20121-122/Compendium%20historiaru1a.pdf#page=486
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080409154000/http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Georgius%20Cedrenus_PG%20121-122/Compendium%20historiaru1a.pdf to http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Georgius%20Cedrenus_PG%20121-122/Compendium%20historiaru1a.pdf#page=513

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dobruja. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070710003442/http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Constantinus%20Porphyrogenitus_PG%20112-113/De%20thematibus.pdf to http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Constantinus%20Porphyrogenitus_PG%20112-113/De%20thematibus.pdf#page=12
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070710001416/http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Georgius%20Cedrenus_PG%20121-122/Compendium%20historiaru1a.pdf to http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Georgius%20Cedrenus_PG%20121-122/Compendium%20historiaru1a.pdf#page=464
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070710003503/http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Ioannes%20Cantacuzenus_PG%20153-154/Historiae.pdf to http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Ioannes%20Cantacuzenus_PG%20153-154/Historiae.pdf#page=399%7Coclc=17356688

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine

I am not "denying a historical fact" - I am demanding sources attesting the notion that Ukraine holds even a small part of the region. Of course these can be in Romanian - my objection was to the presence of a lengthy footnote in Romanian on en.wiki. But you're still missing the point - a treaty text that doesn't even mention Dobruja by name is not the kind of source we're aiming for. What you are doing is an example of synthesis. We need a source stating explicitly that Ukraine holds a slice of Dobruja. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I've given you the source: M. Moşneagu, C. Manea, Dreptul mării în timp de pace şi război, p. 275 As I said, Dobruja does not need to be mentioned by name. It's known that the Danube is the border between Dobruja and the Budjak, and everything on the Dobrujan side is...well, Dobrujan. That of course includes the islands, part of which are in Ukraine. TheBlueMapper (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Dobruja certainly does need to be mentioned by name. I invite you to review WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PSTS and other relevant policies — and, while we're at it, WP:CITELEAD.

Find a secondary source stating explicitly that Ukraine holds part of Dobruja, and then we'll be getting somewhere.

And please, stop trying to revert your way out of this. Not only are you breaching WP:3RR, you're being absurd. For 14 years, our article has stated that Dobruja is split between Romania and Bulgaria. The world won't end if you wait a few more days, until this is sorted out. I've initiated an RfC, to be sure we have enough community input. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the lead section

There is a clear consensus that the lead section should not assert that Ukraine is one of the countries that constitutes Dobruja. Cunard (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead section assert that Ukraine is one of the countries that constitutes Dobruja? Biruitorul ^Talk 19:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

No, because we don't have a source explicitly stating this, despite my demands that the user who keeps adding the information adduce one. Moreover, copious sources state that the region belongs to Romania and Bulgaria, period. Finally, even if a handful of islets are technically part of Dobruja, that is a matter for the body of the article, not one so important it must be underlined in the lead section. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because of the following reasons: Even though the Ukrainian part of Dobruja is very small, it doesn't mean it needs to be forgotten. Take a look at Banat, which is split between Romania, Serbia and Hungary. The Hungarian part is very small, yet it is not forgotten. Dobruja is the same case. There are various other examples like that, for example Macedonia (region), which has gotten very small portions of land in Albania, Serbia and Kosovo. Just like with the Banat example, no one is against it, so why be against the Dobrujan islands? The lead section of the page itself says that Dobruja includes all of the Danube Delta, which means Ukraine has already been included (but not mentioned). Why? Because part of the Danube Delta is Ukrainian (so we even have Ukrainian land on the mainland, not just islands). The same thing is mentioned on Danube Delta. Look at this image to see what I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobruja#/media/File:Histdob.png

The second reason why, is because I've given a valid source (book): M. Moşneagu, C. Manea, Dreptul mării în timp de pace şi război, p. 275. It is true that the name Dobruja is not mentioned in the source, but the islands mentioned are on the Dobrujan side of the Danube (border between Dobruja and Budjak), which of course means that they are part of Dobruja.

Also, to Biruitorul: Tell me, if you think the islands are not part of Dobruja and also not of the Budjak, what are they part of then? It's true that in Ukraine there's no region called Добруджа, but like this we could also say Dobruja is not Bulgarian either, because the Bulgarians do also not use the name Dobrudzha for an administrative region in that area. Again, what are they part of, if not Dobruja?

And if people are against adding it to the lead section, we could at least mention it in other parts of the page, or add it to the lead section, in a way like the south is Bulgarian and the north is Romanian (except for few Ukrainian islands), but remove it from the languages. TheBlueMapper (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Plenty of sources attest that the Banat is divided between three countries, so that comparison fails.
  • The Moşneagu source you've cited is actually a Romanian translation of the Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea case, a 2009 ruling by the ICJ. It's a primary source, not a work of history that could shed light on the question.
  • I'm not here to speculate on what region a particular place belongs to. Our job is to take reliable sources and adapt what they say into articles. Thus far, I've seen no indication of any saying any part of Dobruja is in Ukraine. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are no sources saying that part of Dobruja is in Ukraine, but as I said, we know that the Danube Delta (entirely in Dobruja) is partially in Ukraine. Also, what would be wrong with answering my question? The thing is that if they are not part of the Budjak, they can only be part of Dobruja. By the way, Banat is only one of the examples, as I said. TheBlueMapper (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No, unless reliable sources are found explicitly stating Ukraine holds a part of Dobruja. The fact that a couple of small, uninhabited island used to be part of the same administrative unit as a large section of Dobruja does not warrant such statement.. Historically, the Mouths of the Danube were not even part of Dobruja, their inclusion being a modern, mostly political, phenomenon. As the one who originally created the map you pointed out, I have to admit that the decision on what to include in "Dobruja" in the north was rather idiosyncratic (the secondary delta of Kilia was never part of the same administrative unit as the rest of Dobruja, while the Delta of the Danube extends, geographically speaking, quite a while to the north of the Kilia channel).Anonimu (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

So, if, let's say, we find a book that says Dobruja is partially in Ukraine, then why won't you say that this book is also not a reliable source? Why would a book not contain lies? TheBlueMapper (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• no. Have to go with reliable sources. At most I would go along with something like mentioning it in other parts of the page, in a way like the south is Bulgarian and the north is Romanian (although few uninhabited islands are located on the Dobrujan side of the Danube in Ukrainian ), but remove it from the languages. (editor is a volunteer for feedback request service) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• no. Typically one finds this description in sources: "Dobruja is a historical region shared by Romania and Bulgaria; it is located on the western Black Sea coast, around the Danube River." To also be Ukrainian, sources must state so explicitly. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• No It does not seem to be in dispute that there are no WP:RS for this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) per the RS d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• No There should be no partisanship on Wikipedia. If the reliable sources don't bear the assertion out, the assertion isn't included. This is not the place to explore your own theories as to what is. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dobruja. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Constantinus%20Porphyrogenitus_PG%20112-113/De%20thematibus.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907142609/http://oldru.narod.ru/biblio/ldiakon1.htm to http://oldru.narod.ru/biblio/ldiakon1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Georgius%20Cedrenus_PG%20121-122/Compendium%20historiaru1a.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Ioannes%20Zonaras_PG%20134-135/Epitome%20historiarum_.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://patrologia.ct.aegean.gr/PG_Migne/Ioannes%20Cantacuzenus_PG%20153-154/Historiae.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234529/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/cantacuzenus.htm to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/cantacuzenus.htm

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) 21:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)