Беседа:Добруджа

This article is as subjectve as it gets and clearly a Bulgarian POV. --Предният неподписан коментар е направен от анонимен потребител с адрес 15.203.233.75 (беседа • приноси) .

Feel free to suggest a NPOV version. -- Григор Гачев 11:41, 7 май 2010 (UTC)

Hi Grigor. Maybe "as subjectve as it gets" is an overstatement , but here we go:

1. Добруджа [...] е българска историко-географска област... While the definition of a "Bulgarian historical-geographical region" is unclear, Dobruja is not solely that. In this respect it is a "Romanian historical-geographical region" as well. A more neutral phrasing would be "Dobruja is a historical-geographical region shared by Bulgaria and Romania".

2. ...град Балчик, който е единственият град по добруджанското крайбрежие, разположен непосредствено на морето... Since the article is about whole Dobruja this is not correct: Constanta, Mangalia and Sulina are also located on the shore - they are actually ports.

3. ...природни резервати Яйлата, в чиято крепост се счита, че е живял и починал античният поет Овидий,...

I believe that the fortress in Kamen Briag (Iailata)is considered to be Byzantine and to date from the 5-th century AD. Can you provide any reference for the presence and death of Publius Ovidius Naso ( Ovid ) in this fortress ?

4. Коренното население, след античността, на разделената днес между две държави Добруджа са българите.

How can a population be autchtonous or indigenous "after" a certain event or historical period ( the Antiquity in this case)? The only populations that can be called autchtonous in Dobruja are the Thracians. The ideea can be better expressed by something like "Dobruja was inhabited since early Middle-Ages by Bulgarians". However even better would be something like "While allways a multiethnical region,Dobruja was inhabited since early Middle-Ages by Bulgarians".

5. Днес в Добруджа освен българите и румънските колонисти ...

I can understand that you do not consider the Romanians "autchtonous" ;-) but calling them today "colonists", after 130 years of inhabitance of the region, is POV and tendentious. You allready said in the preceding phrase that Romanians settled in Dobruja only "after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire" ( quite a vague phrasing I would say) so this "colonists" emphasis is excessive.

6. в края на XI век областта за кратко е наричана „Нова Англия“ (New England) заради норманите...

  Малко известен факт е, че в Добруджа са се отглеждали камили.

This statements are quite surprising. Do you have any referece for this ?

7. Цяла Добуджа от Тулча до Добрич общоприето е възприемана като българска земя и винаги е била част от българската етническа територия.

This is POV and unsubstantiated. What does "commonly percievd as a Bulgarian land" means ? Commonly ? By whom ? Allways part of the "Bulgarian ethnical territories" ? How do you define "Bulgarian ethnical territories" ( or "French ethnical territories" or "Russian ehnical territories" for that matter) ? How can a territory be "ethnical" ? This phrase IMO should be deleted alltogether, especially since in the next two phases you state that Dobruja is the first province occupied by the first Bulgarian state in the Middle Ages which is also part of the modern Bulgarian state and that it was part of the Bulgarian Exarchate.

8. ...на Румъния е дадена за морски излаз част от българската област...

I believe that the Russians and the other Great Powers percieved it rather like a Turkish region. At that time it was part of the Ottoman Empire and with a Turkish relative majority population. Skipping the adjective would made the phrase non POV.

9. С Ньойския договор Антантата дава цяла Добруджа на Румъния, като награда за участието ѝ, макар и почти символично, на страната на Антантата в Първата световна война

"Rather simbolic" participation of Romania in the First World War ? You must be kidding: Romania mobilized more than 750,000 people and had some 300,000 killed in WWI. Most of the country was occupied by the German, Austro-Hungarian, Bulgarian and Turkish troops and Romania was forced more or less to surrender ( or to ask for an truce). You can claim that Romania was not prepared for the war, that the Romanians conducted the war as bad as possible, that they had incapable political and military leaders - all these can be debated - but not that Romania's participation in the war was "rather symbolic".

10. След него румънската власт за 48 часа гони в Северна Добруджа по-голямата част от българското население, което е изявило националното си самосъзнание, като конфискува и имотите му.

It was a population exchange. Bulgaria did the same with the Romanians and Aromanians living in South Dobruja. This should be mentioned as well.

Thank you for taking positively my suggestions. Seinean