Talk:Shumen

Ansiklopedia Britanica 1911 and Shumen

SHUMLA (Bulgarian Shumen, Turkish Shumna), a fortified town of Bulgaria, 50 m. W. of Varna, on the railway from Trnovo to Shumla Road (a name given to a station on the Varna-Rustchuk railway by the English builders of the line). Pop. (1906) 22,290, about one-third being Moslems. The town is built within a cluster of hills, northern outliers of the eastern Balkans, which curve round it on the west and north in the shape of a horse-shoe. A rugged ravine intersects the ground longitudinally within the horse-shoe ridge. From Shumla roads radiate northwards to the Danubian fortresses of Rustchuk and Silistria and to the Dobrudja, southwards to the passes of the Balkans, and eastwards to Varna and Baltchik. Shumla, has, therefore, been one of the most important military positions in the Balkan Peninsula. A broad street and rivulet divide the upper quarter, Gorni-Mahle, from the lower, Dolni-Mahle. In the upper quarter is the magnificent mausoleum of Jezairli Hassan Pasha, who in the 18th century enlarged the fortifications of Shumla. The principal mosque, with a cupola of very interesting architecture, forms the centre of the Moslem quarter. The town has an important trade in grain and wine, besides manufactures of silk, red and yellow slippers, ready-made clothes, richly embroidered dresses for women, and copper and tin wares.

In 81 i Shumla was burned by the emperor Nicephorus, and in 1087 it was besieged by Alexius I. In 1388 the sultan Murad I. forced it to surrender to the Turks. In the 18th century it was enlarged and fortified. Three times, in 1774, 1810 and 1828, it was unsuccessfully attacked by Russian armies. The Turks consequently gave it the name of Gazi ("Victorious"). In 1854 it was the headquarters of Omar Pasha and the point at which the Turkish army concentrated (see Crimean War). On the 22nd of June 1878 Shumla capitulated to the Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.81.106 (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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 top~~ at the top?--Cortezz 23:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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!

--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)[reply]

I'm coming 10 years too late for this. But I can tell you that knowing that Shumla was the Turkish name for the city would have been very useful and saved me a fair amount of research. It seems there's at least one US place named Shumla (it's in Texas) and I learned that it was named for a Bulgarian town/Turkish fort. There didn't seem to be a town/fort under that name and I didn't know what the actual name was. Eventually, I figured it out. Having a redirect (Shumla-->Shumen) and the name in the article would have been most useful and saved me some work. I guess politics outweighs usefulness. Dtilque (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shumen. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 11:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]