Talk:Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi

1812-1818
There is a mistake here. The town was Russian all the way from 1812 up to 1918.Constantzeanu 04:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But it does not say the town did not belong to Russia during that period, does it? 193.111.251.242 18:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know who writes this articles but they're full of lies. First of all romanians did not have ghospodars, second of all, the town belonged to the romanians in the 1856-1877 period and most of the population was of romanian origin, third of all there is no moldavian nationality, moldavian is the same thing as romanian.
 * Wu! Dahn 11:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

amen. the only reason that there exists a Moldavian language and nationality is because of the thieving Russian imperialists that tried and succeeded, to this day, to expand their sphere of influence upon that land.--Dacnuroman (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The name
What's so hard to understand? What jingoism? I added the Romanian and the Turkish name for the city. What is disruptive about that? Any article about a city should have other versions of the name mentioned, as long as they represent some kind of significance. See Suceava and Iaşi: we have Ukrainian, Polish, and Hungarian version of the name. And even, even if this was against Wiki policy—which of course it isn't—it wouldn't fall under NPOV. The only jingoists here are those who oppose having the Hungarian version of the name for the Transylvanian cities; and we do have the Hungarian versions for the name of those cities. Why not this one? And why accuse me of jingoism and for being disruptive? I want you to either justify your accusations or retract them. I also think you should first discuss before reverting. In my opinion, you are the one who is being disruptive—as you have been for most of the time. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right... Dahn 00:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not jingoism, but makes the article redundant and it violates the naming coventions as set in WP:NCGN, art 2, para 3 Anonimu 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. See what it says:

"Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name" --Thus Spake Anittas 03:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also from WP:NCGN:


 * Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
 * In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with: "(known also by several alternative names)". Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".


 * So, if you want to move the Romanian and Ottoman Turkish names up to the top, also move the Greek, Latin, Italian, Russian, Bulgarian, Gagauz, Polish, Hungarian, Hebrew, and German names as well. Khoikhoi 06:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can do that if you wish, but according to the Wiki policy, at least 10-percent of the names included should be known in English references. Akkerman And Cetatea Alba are probably better known in English than the Ukrainian name; and yes, I think they would pass the 10-percent mark, but I'm not so sure about the Latin, Greek, and Italian names. The Gagauz name seems to be the same as the Bulgarian and Turkish name, but I believe that those countries or states, that either had a significant presence in the city, or held it for a few centuries, should have their name included in the article; but if you don't want that, then it's no biggie.--Thus Spake Anittas 06:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, but the second part says "or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place." According to this, wouldn't Polish, Greek, Gagauz, Hebrew, etc. apply as well? (for being at the top) Actually, Yiddish would be more appropriate than Hebrew. Anyways, my point is that the intro would be too crowded and its readability would be impaired if we did this. For this article, I think it's best to move all non-official, historical names to the "Name" section. This is only because there are so many of them (that would fall into the categories mentioned in the guideline). Khoikhoi 07:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are many to choose from, then choose the more significant one's, as in this case, The Turkish and Romanian variant. Many of the other variants are either archaic; of a people who were just a minority and never held the city; or of a people who held the city for a short period of time. The Ottomans and Moldavia—and later Romania, held the city for centuries; altough officially, in Medieval Moldavia, the city was named Belgrod, or something to that effect. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Moldavia + Romania held the city for about 110 years, less than Russia + Soviet Union (about 150 years). But anyway, the wikipedia convention mentioned above clearly states that if we have a "name" section, we shouldn't put alternative names in the headline.Anonimu 17:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Moldavia+Wallachia+Romania then. How many years? --Thus Spake Anittas 17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And precisely where in the Moldavian Slavonic chronicles does Anittas see the words "Cetatea" and "Albă"? Dahn
 * We also wrote in Romanian, pretty early. Stefan is also said to have written in Romanian; and even tho the official name in the Slavonic documents was Belgrod, as I have already mentioned, the name used by people was probably C. Alba. But even if it wasn't, it's still the Ro name and the Moldavian rule must be considered. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your logic. First of all, I do not know how you deduced what the name for the city was in unrecorded Romanian (it is more likely than not that it was not called "Cetatea Albă", but "Bolgrad", and that, like "Alba Iulia" for "Bălgrad", the name was coined by purists in more modern times). Secondly, aside from you toying with wiki conventions (I agree with Anonimu there), your "it's still the Ro name and the Moldavian rule must be considered" is a non sequitur. Dahn 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, btw: the claim that Stephen wrote in Romanian is ridiculous. And just who says such absurdities? Who even begins to theorize that Stephen ever wrote, let alone that he wrote in a language that is known not to be used in writing by anybody who could write back then? Really, Anittas, come up with something tenable. Dahn 21:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 120 years < 150 for RUS + USSR Anonimu 17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, come on! Wallchia held it only for 10 years? --Thus Spake Anittas 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

name in Moldovan
Why do you revert to the version that mentions the version of the name in Moldovan written in Cyrillic? The official Moldovan alphabet is written in the Latin alphabet, not the Cyrillic alphabet.

"(Четатя Албэ in the Moldovan alphabet)." --Thus Spake Anittas 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My own 2 cents: because it was in use. Better ask Dpotop why he reverts to the POV-push that was shown to be non-compliant. Dahn 21:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't buy that. Many such names were written in Cyrillic, including our own town names. Should we include the Cyrillic version of those names as well? How about the Turkish version, or the Greek version? We may even find an Arabic version for some of the cities. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can document them, the Cyrillic could be used in a separate section on names. I'm not sure that the other ones are relevant enough to be listed (the Ottoman Turkish forms tend to vary a lot for the same word, and are generally inaccurate; Greek versions may not be relevant for most cities, as, I'm guessing, they are generally modern transliterations from the Romanian, and not alternative place names). Outside "Ottoman Arabic writing", your reference to "Arabic version" is just a lame joke. Dahn 21:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Archaic written versions have no place there as long as a modern version of that same language is presented in the article. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sage. Dahn 22:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anittas: The Moldovan alphabet used Cyrillic officially from the 1930s to 1989, right? Since we have the Hungarian name, I figure it wouldn't hurt to use an alphabet that was official for such a long period of time. Even though Cyrillic for Romanian isn't used much today, there's nothing wrong with keeping it for historical interest. This is the same reason why we have the Ottoman Turkish names (in the Arabic script) at Crete, Rhodes, Samos, Lesbos, etc. Khoikhoi 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are wrong—it does hurt, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is now obsolete and should not be used because it serves no purpose. It serves no historical purpose, as you say and could lead to having all versions of several languages and alphabets included in similar articles, which can only contribute to an overdosed article. Also, why include the Moldovan Cyrillic version and not the Latin version? In fact, yes, I think we should have a Moldovan version: the version which is official and not obsolete. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, but Wikipedia is not censored. Even though it's obsolete, the whole "Names" section is mostly historical names, not ones that are currently used today. How does it serve no purpose? We already have the Latin name: "From 1918 to 1940 and 1941 to 1944, the city was known by its Romanian name of Cetatea Albă." Khoikhoi 22:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with censorship. It's about irrelevancy. It's not about not adding the name, it's about the alphabet used, which in this case, is an obsolete alphabet; and no, it was not used for a long period of time. You are more than welcome to add the Moldovan name by its official alphabet, which strangely was left out. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it irrelevant? No one's denying that it's obsolete today, but it was still in use from 1940 to 1944. Khoikhoi 03:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please calm down. First, no one is pushing the Cyrillic Moldovan name to the article's top. Since we have a names section, all names are there and it's fine. Listing it in the names section is informative on one hand, since the name was indeed used, and does not give the questionable to some Moldovan language an undue weight, since it is not at the article's top. If we just say that this is how the city name was written, this is useful and encyclopedic info which supports neither side in an unrelated debate about the RO and MO. Peace! Irpen 05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Anittas, I am truly glad to see you back :) --Irpen 05:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Irpen, but I have to revert it back because the text is misleading. Some readers may think the Cyrillic alphabet is the official alphabet of Moldova--which it isn't. If you guys want to keep that obsolete version, then you should make it clear that it no longer is in use. I don't know what the purpose of that would be, but that's your choice. It would also be good to include the name written in the Latin alphabet. --Thus Spake Anittas 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Khoikhoi 06:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 04:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

History
Where is it mentioned that the town ever was under Kievan Rus' rule ??? citation needed. Kievan Rus' never reached Black Sea, although some very disputable sources say so ! Please check out seriously and remove the wrong information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madalinfocsa (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Here it is; the ambitions of the Russians in the Song of Igor´s Campaign.

"With you, sons of Rus, I wish either to lay down my head or drink a helmetful of the Don". There was a dream of Slav Kingdom from Tmutarakan to Volga and then "hearkens the land unknown...the Volga, and the [Azov] Seaboard, and the Sula country and Herson, and you, idol of Tmutarakan. Meanwhile by untrodden roads the Kumans make for the Great Don. Prince Igor is on Russian soil. Maidens sing on the Danube, their voices weave across the sea to Kiyev asking come, Prince Igor, come". Also this; Prince Yeroslav of Galich who "braced the Hungarian mountains, and closed the gates of Danube". Since then this expansionist dream has continued until this day. From the Gates of Danube to the Bottom of Adriatic Sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.115.5 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi. 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/20121010205321/http://stat6.stat.lviv.ua/PXWEB2007/ukr/publ/2011/chnas.zip to http://stat6.stat.lviv.ua/PXWEB2007/ukr/publ/2011/chnas.zip

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)