Talk:Western Outlands

Untitled

The article is complete crap, especially that "nowadays" section. Milosevic's SPS party has among the highest, if not the highest support in Serbia exactly in Bosilegrad and Dimitrovgrad ([1], [2]), and SPS's regional head for Dimitrovgrad, and a member of the SPS's main committee (and forbidden to travel to EU) is Dragan Kolev, a Bulgarian. I don't know much about history of these territories, but given this, I distrust other parts of the article as well. Oh, and genocide against Serbs conducted by Bulgaria during First and Second World War is not mentioned with a single word. User:Nikola SmolenskiNikola 09:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is smth called Wikipedia:Civility, if you haven't heard of it, may be it is time for you to get acquainted with it. Until then, keep your "definitions" to yourself.

Secondly, I can't really see any factual objections on your side, what's more, you confess you know nothing about the history of the region. Smacking around NPOV and Factual taqs just because you don't like something is scarcely acceptable. Find arguments, find sources and then come to argue about the article. And, sorry but I can't see what the support for Milosevic's party has to do with the fact that the Bulgarian minority is the only minority in Serbia which does not have all-round education and church services in mother tongue.

Third of all, be VERY, VERY careful with the use of the word "genocide". You use it whenever it pleases you, which in most cases has no connection with the actual meaning of word. Talking about a genocide of the Bulgarians against the Serbs is ridiculous. People die in war if you haven't heard. And what have the Western Outlands to do with this "genocide" when they were inhabited only by Bulgarians at that time is something I would really like to know. User:VMORO

This amount of lies is something truly incomprehensible. You say that you don't see any factual objections on my side and invite me to find arguments and sources, when just a few lines above I gave two links which show that entire section of the article is completely untrue. You say "you confess you know nothing about the history of the region" when I have clearly written just a few lines above "I don't know much about history of these teritories". You say that I use word "genocide" very lightly which is completely untrue. Nikola 12:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeya, for the factual accuracy tag, you have to produce evidence and arguments that the facts in the article are incorrect - and you are incapable of producing such, so what is actually that you want? And no one has stopped you from editting the article for the NPOV part, but you can't say anything about that part either. No, your use of the word "Genocide" is absolutely inappropriate here and in many other places. According to you, all neigbouring nations are guilty of a genocide against the Serbs, one would think if one listens to you thatbse been wiped out of the face of the earth centuries ago. The Jews were the victim of a genocide in WWII, the Armenians in WWI, the Rwandians in 1996, your use of the term is offensive to the sufferings of all these people. VMORO

You don't say - well, I have produced evidence that political party of Slobodan Milosevic, under whom "Serbian assimilatory policy in the Western Outlands reached its peak" is ruling party in the area, so what are you trying to say - that the Bulgarians are opressing themselves? About NPOV, I don't need to go further than "Serbian assimilatory policy in the Western Outlands reached its peak".

Let's go further, "Shop language": the term is completely unused. Several our newspapers have extansive archives, some of which go back to Milosevic's time. Shop language is not mentioned ONCE[3]. If there were some plays or books, they remained completely unnoticed. National library of Serbia[4] does not have any books in Shop language. Shops are also practically never mentioned [5], and never in the context of living in these cities[6].

Education - the Institute for Textbooks lists a nice list of textbooks in Bulgarian[7] (tough I admit that it's smaller than Albanian[8] but Bulgarian population is smaller too) which by itself negates the possibility of Bulgarian children having only two hours of learning Bulgarian weekly. One more thing, classes lat for 45 minutes. So, it is possible to have a subject for 45 minutes per week, an hour and a half, two hours and 15 minutes, three hours, but it is completely NOT POSSIBLE to have a subject for two hours. Nikola 21:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, let's see some sources by you which confirm the article. Nikola 19:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and no, I don't use word "Genocide" lightly, and yes, it is completely appropriate here as Bulgarian troups did commit genocide over Serbs during the First World War. No, not all neigbhouring nations are guilty of genocide, but Bulgarians are. And genocide over Serbs commited during Second World War could be matched only by genocides over Jews, so not using the term would be offensive. Nikola 20:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No country has ever admitted any "genocide" against the Serbs, neither during WWI, nor during WWI (and especially one committed by the Bulgarians). However, there is ample evidence of the Serbian genocide against the Bosniaks in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995 and against the Kosovo Albanians in 1998/1999. The first is Serbian claptrap, the second is an internationally recognised fact. You are mocking the sufferings of Jews and Armenians by employing this term whose meaning you evidently fail to understand. VMORO 11:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

No, and no. Nothing of what you said is true. It is you who, by refusing to recognise genocides commited over Serbs which as as well documented as other you mention, simply show that you would not recognise genocides commited over Jews or Armenians if that would fit your political agenda. Nikola 23:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Human rights violations: [9] [10]

Which human rights violations? The very top of the first link is hypocrisy beyond words. In the midst of bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO, the Council for human rights calls upon Yugoslavia to "respect the rights of all persons belonging to minority groups", and to "support the unconditional return of the long-term missions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe", which NATO forced outside of Yugoslavia in the first place! Older resolutions also call to "respect the rights of all persons belonging Bulgarian minority" without saying that there were some rights which were actually broken. Finally the Special report gives something specific, but even that comes after "it had appeared that ethnic Bulgarians did not have grounds for complaint" and it only speaks of allegations and reports. Not much to see there. The second link, which was submitted by the government of Bulgaria, which is not a disinterested party, has some actual allegations, but there are factual inaccuracies in it. For example, it says "ethnic Bulgarian children born at the nearest available maternity hospital in Pirot have been recorded as Serbs in the birth entries" but birth entries do not record ethnicity at all. It then says that "the only acting Bulgarian member of parliament was elected with the votes of the ethnic Serb Pirot region" as if it is something bad, but it actually nicely shows how ethnic Serbs have elected an ethnic Bulgarian to represent them in Serbian parliament. It shows how good relations of Serbs and Bulgarians are. And in cases where it might be true it speaks about events which happened during Communist rule, several decades ago. Nikola 23:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The report says that "it had appeared that ethnic Bulgarians did not have grounds for complaint" before, and afterwards it stated that NOW there were already minority right violations.

No it does not. It states that the rapporteur "has been informed", that celebrating the holiday was "allegedly denied", that "various sources indicate" and so on. Never has the rapporteur actually saw a human rights violation. Nikola 08:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As for the rest - how should I (or anybody else) know whether Serbian birth entries register ethnicity? In most countries they do, and considering the complicated ethnic structure of Yugoslavia, it is highly likely that Serbian ones do, as well.

For example, you may look at one. Nikola 08:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is, however, certain, is that Bulgarian parents are pressed to enter Serbian names for their children, as well as that female surnames are deprived of the Bulgarian ending -a (Ivanov instead of Ivanova). VMORO 13:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~

That is nowhere near certain. Nikola 08:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

also the following excerpt from [11]

" The report of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights of Bulgarians in Yugoslavia covering the first three months of 1999 states that the human rights and freedom situation of the Bulgarian minority in Serbia has deteriorated. From January to March more than 500 members of Bulgarian nationality were conscripted. At the beginning of April practically all the leaders of the only Bulgarian political organisation in Serbia, the Democratic Union of Bulgarians in Yugoslavia, as well as their president Marko Sukarev, were drafted.

After his conscription, no information on Sukarev could be had from 18 May to 4 June. On 5 June his family was informed that he was arrested and taken to the Military Court in Nis. For almost three weeks he was not allowed to phone his family. While in detention he was not given medicine, he would rarely be allowed to go outside into the open air, his water was rationed. At night army officials would go to his cell to force him to renounce his Bulgarian nationality, give information on the members of his party and on Yugoslav citizens of Bulgarian ethnicity studying in Bulgaria. The charge against Sukarev was brought on 28 May for abandoning his army unit without leave although he was absent for only a few hours, after which he returned at his own will to the unit. On 17 June Sukarev was sentenced to an 8 month prison term (Analysis of the State of the Rights and Freedoms of the Bulgarians National Minority in Serbia April-May 1999, Helsinki Committee for the Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of Bulgarians in Yugoslavia)."

HRW was a tool of NATO in its agression against FRY, and this quote shows it so nice that I'll be referring to it when I have to proove it. Thank you.

HRW is not a tool in anybody's hands and the military action against FRY was not an agression, it was a result of a broad international condemnation of the genocide against the Albanians in Kosovo performed by the Serbian army and the regime of Milosevic. VMORO 13:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~

Military action against FRY was an agression, there was no genocide of Albanians in Kosovo, and even what was portrayed as genocide was not broadly internationally condemned. Nikola 08:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

During the agression, FRY has conscripted some 300.000 soldiers, out of its population of 8.5 million (without Albanians), or 3.5% of the population. If the above is true, 500 Bulgarians out of Bulgarian population of 25.000 were conscripted, which is only 2%! Now I agree that Bulgarians were discriminated against, but not in the way you were hinting at. Head members of Serbian political organisations were drafted too, notably Zoran Djindjic, so again it is nothing strange. To remind you, Bulgaria gave its airspace to NATO and was therefore factually at war with Yugoslavia, and so the fact that Bulgarians were conscripted anyway only shows level of trust which the government and Serbian people had in its Bulgarian citizens.

The conscription of leading members of the minorities in Yugoslavia (as well as of opposition Serbian leaders like Djindjic) is clearly an attempt to pessure and intimidate them - even to get rid of them. And qualifications like "fought bravely" against the agressor don't have any place here, if they had refused to fight, they would have faced court martial, as I stated earlier.

VMORO 13:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~

The conscription of opposition leaders may well be an attempt to pessure and intimidate them - that means that they were pressured because they are opposition leaders, not because they are minority leaders. Surely Milosevic could not be expected to tread non-Serbian opposition better than he treated Serbian opposition? Nikola 08:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sukarev abandoned his army unit, during a war, which is actually a desertion. Even if it really was only for a few hours, he could be shot right on the spot, but he was given trial and sentence. And how could HRW knew what was happening to him while in military prison and how much medicine was given to him, for officers who were allegedly torturing him surely wouldn't tell about it? Only by he telling them. That's not much of a proof. Nikola 23:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bulgarian two hours weekly: [12]

VMORO 11:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

If this is true, it only says that Bulgarian language is taught two hours a week. There are other classes in Bulgarian, as we have seen.

There are no other classes in Bulgarian, the education is conducted in Serbian. And in the 1940s, there was all-round education in Bulgarian. VMORO 13:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~

No, this is wrong, as you have seen from the list of books. Other classes teached in Bulgarian are Mathematics and Nature and Society (basically biology, physics, etc. for lower grades). Nikola 08:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you've at least given up on that Shop nonsense. Nikola 23:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No part of Macedonia is considered part of the Western Outlands, they comprise only the regions of Tzaribrod and Bosilegrad. VMORO 13:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)~

Corrected. Nikola 08:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nikola, look at the three pages below:

• http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports/mazowiecki_22aug95_3.htm

• http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/5a5837e7b5c675f1c12563640047fbc0?Opendocument

• http://www.un.int/bulgaria/Official_Reports/Human_Rights/National_Minority/49-455.htm

And especially the third one, which confirms everything I'have ever said about the Western Outlands. The second page confirms that Bulgarians are not given primary and secondary education in Bulgarian (unlike all other minorities in Serbia) but only bilingual education - and I have made corrections accordingly with that. This is one of the things I give you credit for - the other one is that the name Western Outlands is a Bulgarian name, it is indeed not used in Serbia. All other material is well confirmed by the sources I have provided. VMORO 23:07, Feb 22, 2005 (UTC)~

The reason for existing this article in the way and style it does, is probably because no one of those cleaning the Wikipedia knows anything about Western Outlands. We are all humans and have personal grudges against lots of things, but this is not suppose to be the place for that. This article is a shame for Wikipedia beacuse of so many wrong, bad and half-data. Here are few.

First: map is not correct. Red areas representing Western Outlands are bigger than those territories were. This can be easily checked in any elementary school's history atlas.
Second: they were cedeed to Yugoslavia not simply because Bulgaria occupied part of Serbia in World War I, but because of the immense slaughter Bulgarian forces did in Serbia in that period. And at that time, country that loose a war, has to pay for it (actually, not much different from today, when some EU officials say Serbia must loose Kosovo & Metohija as a price for Milosevic's bad politics).
Third: In Communist Yugoslavia, all of the nationalities, including Bulgarians, had all the right there could be (not to mention there personal freedoms, which, as much as they could be in Communism, were much wider than those in their native country). However, even in that period many of them (relativelly in size, the most of all of the nations and nationalities in Yugoslavia) declared 'Yugoslavs', not Bulgarians. Why?
Fourth: About the school. Ministry of educations offered new plans, but parents simply don't wish their children to learn Bulgarian, and that is why number of classes in Bulgarian is constantly being reduced. Recently, a group of independent journalists visited Dimitrovgrad to check allegations of some local representatives that Bulgarians are being deprived of their national rights, and when they saw things are actually quite good, one representative told them that they were talking 'about period of the kingdom, before 1941'.
Fifth: It is true that areas are neglected in terms of economy, but that is the case with whole of the Southern Serbia. Below Nis, is the least developed area of Serbia, and it has nothing to do with Bulgarians living in Dimitrovgrad and Bosilegrad. Some municipalities in this area with Serbian population (Trgoviste or Crna Trava, to name the few) are even less developed than Bulgarian municipalities.
Sixth: Population in this same area is PLUNGING regardless of natinality. Because of the bad economic situation south of Serbia is being emptied of population for decades, regardless of nationality. Municipality of Crna Trava, purely Serbian, had population like this (official census data): 1953 - 13,748, 1961 - 12.513, 1971 - 9.672, 1981 - 6.366, 1991 - 3.778, 2002 - 2.563.
Seventh: What are you talking about several thousands of serbian refugees being settled in Dimitrovgrad!? Census 1991 - Serbs living in DImitrovgrad 3.042, Census 2002 - 3.005...where are those thousands? Municipal population of Dimitrovgrad itself fell from 13.334 in 1991 to 11,748 in 2002. Thousands evaporated into thin air, eh.
To conclude, it is obvious what you think about this, what you wish to say about it, whom you hate and what you'd wish (including your nick, VMORO)...but that is suppose to be your personal problem, not a material for Wikipedia.

Translation to Serbian

This is the English Wikipedia, so I'm removing the Serbian translation of an apparently Bulgarian term. // Laughing Man 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the names used in the preface section is to show NATIVE or ALTERNATIVE names of the subject, not to show translation of the term in non-English languages. Therefore since native Serbian name for this region does not exist, usage of Serbian translation in this article would be nothing but original research which is not supoorted by Wikipedia. Also, even if native Serbian name for the area exist it certainly would not be "western provinces" because it is not in the west of Serbia, but it would be more something like "south-eastern Serbia" (the usage of another name would imply that Serbs who use it support Greater Bulgarian nationalism, which is ridiculous). Also, usage of the name in Serbian Wikipedia do not show that name is used in Serbian because article in Serbian Wikipedia is just a translation of the English Wiki article. PANONIAN (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think it should be there, at least in the form: Even though it concernes the area of the Republic of Serbia, the term, which is translated as Zapadne bugarske pokrajine, does not exist in Serbian language...or something like that. And with all the personal wars, biases, lies and forgeries in Wikipedia, calling this translation an original research is exaggerated and an overstatement, don't you think? :o) But I will not push the issue.

You are right about the article in Serbian Wikipedia; it was posted (that is, translated to a hilariously bad Serbian language) by a user from Bulgaria. PajaBG 16:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Western Outlands" are Bulgarian

My parents are born in the villages near Bosilegrad (selo Glozhie i selo Yareshnik) and since I know about myself they declare to be Bulgarians. Every body I know from the region of Bosilegrad is Bulgarian and they declare so. I am born in Skopje. My parents moved to Macedonia for education and better job, because Bosilegrad and Tsaribrod region is intentionally negglected by the Serbian government, the region has poor or no road infrastructure etc. etc. Serbian policy is to devistate the region so the people to leave their homes and lose relationship with the birthplace. That way they think bulgarian identity will be erased. But we will not forget that easily where we have come from nor we will forget who we are. Bosilegrad, Tsaribrod and other territories are and will be Bulgarian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.162.177.195 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

And what does this comment has to do with anything, especially this debate? No one claims that Bulgarians don't live in Bosilegrad and Dimitrovgrad. They do and they are majority there. And your title is wrong...it should be Western Outlands are inhabited by the Bulgarians...you were born in Skopje but that doesn't mean that Skopje is Bulgarian PajaBG 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Vulgarian/Wickepedian

First of all, again and again, nobody denies Bulgarian majority in Dimitrovgrad and Bosilegrad. But what importance of Bulgarian majority (or anyone elses majority for that matter) is suppose to mean, is probably known only to you.

The list of prominent Bulgarians is irrelevant. First, you make an impression like WO are firmly and worldwide established political or geographical entity which is completely untrue (it is used only in Bulgaria). You can add those persons on the pages of Dimitrovgrad or Bosilegrad. This goes for the demographics section too. As for the list itself, except for Slatan Dudow who was a distinguished movie director, other people from your list (which you simply copied from the Bulgarian Wikipedia) not that only don't have their articles in Wikipedia, they are almost not mentioned anywhere in it, except on the list you placed here. So much about the importance of it. And...symptomatically...when such list exists in articles they usually say prominent/notable/famous etc. people from .... while you wrote prominent Bulgarians. God, Bulgarians and no one else, eh? PajaBG 15:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The irrelevance of the list of prominent Bulgarians from WO is your personal POV. These people do belong to the Bulgarian cultural heritage in the region. Emanuil Popdimitrov for example is one of the most famous Bulgarian writers from the Interwar period, check here. If there are prominent people from WO of different ethnic origin or identity - you could add them, but you can't erase the list of Bulgarian intellectuals.

I haven't written that this entity is firmly established on any level. These interpretations are yours and in fact have no connection with the article.

Please, don't vandalize this article with your personal evaluations in the future. You could expand it without erasing relevant information. Greetings, Wickedpedian 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All relevant information about this article are no more than three sentences. You have written that WO are some worldwide accepted historical term not by openly saying so but by adding irrelevant things and giving it the false sense of importance. As for the list, it may be relevant in the article Bulgarians in (from) Serbia or separate articles on Dimitrovgrad or Bosilegrad, but not here. PajaBG 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The information is relevant and sourced, and I dont understnad why it should be removed. The figures are from a Serbian census. Are you disputing those? Also why are you removing prominent Bulgarians from this region? ForeignerFromTheEast 23:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I have compressed the demographics data, and I hope this is now acceptable. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The name for this region, even by this article, exists only in Bulgaria, not as an internationally accepted name. Thus, all other derived terms from it (like geography of WO, demography of WO, people from WO or butterflies from WO) are erroneous from beginning and irrelevant in this article in English Wikipedia. PajaBG 21:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Usage

This term was never used in Yugoslavia. Being mentioned in one, more inter-Communist than inter-state document (which later that same year failed when Bulgaria rejected it under Stalin's pressure) doesn't really cover the term being used. Additionally, Communists were notorious for inventing non-existing geo- and historical terms, even entire nations and churches, so Tito's accepting of this irredentist term (as long as it is against Serbs and not his own Croats) makes this mentioning in one document even less notable. Term was regularly used in Bulgaria, which the article clearly says. It only points out that term was pushed internationally in 1990s, not that it hasn't been used in Bulgaria all the time. PajaBG (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK! I can agree with all that you say about the usage of the term in YU (SCG). It is important for me that the asert which was in the article before GrigorG's edit that the term was not in use ("so as the term itself") as a whole (I meen in BG) in the period 1948-1990 is gone. I think that about this question there is not problem. It was not in use in YU, but was in use in BG. However I have some objections about two other assertions, which you reverted:

1. I want a source about "That was in the period of Joseph Stalin's push for a Communist super-state in the Balkans". I want it because I am preparing sources that after Bleds agreement and Bulgarian-Yugoslav negotiations Stalin was very angry and didn't aprove the agreemnet. So, the attempt to "shift responsability" about the usage of the rerm to Stalin is not very fair and I can be more concrete if we continue this theme. My personal oppinion is that your explanation above is better - if we need of some explanations, ofcource.
2. Your suggestion is to keep in the article that the "The term itself is controversial". I know that the term is controversial if we look on it from POV of Serbia. From POV of BG there is not some very controversial. In BG the term has its historical and political (NB! not necessery irredentistic) sence. So I think I have right to ask to explain that these assertions (that the term is controversial and implies territorial claims) is a Serbian POV. If you want, we can proceed and discuss the question about territorial claims from the POV in BG and from the POV of these who use this term, Regards, --AKeckarov (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, every disputed term is always controversial only for one side :o) And all it takes it is to be controversial just for one. In case each side has it's own term then they could be both controversial but for different sides. Unless US would occupy Dimitrovgrad and declare it Eastern county of Texas in which case it would be controversial for both. But I really do think that term Western (Bulgarian)... for part of Serbia is highly controversial. Personally, wouldn't you find it controversial if Serbs would style Kyustendil as Historical Eastern Serbian Provinces/Outlands, whatever, because once (long time ago, though) it was part of Serbia? That reminds me of some old maps printed by Seselj's Radical Party which named most of Croatia "Western Serbia", Vojvodina and Slavonia (also part of Croatia) were joined into "Nortern Serbia", etc.

Stalin's name was mentioned to illustrate the atmosphere and time in which the term was introduced into Bled Agreement. I agree it is clumsily written so it turns out as if Stalin pushed Tito to accept the term itself, which is wrong so if you wish you can correct that to sound better. I guess that's what you were asking me about (the source), not the Balkan Federation because that is well known. There was a documentary long time ago on Serbian TV which even introduced maps of proposed federation (Yugoslavia [with absorbed Albania which in turn absorbed Kosovo and Metohija] + Bulgaria). It also stated that Stalin wasn't happy with Tito-Dimitrov agreement so this way he tried to create Federation on his own terms, not on Yugoslav-Bulgarian negotations. However, this was long time ago so I can't give you the title or the authors of the documentary. And since that subject is not interesting for today's historians I am not sure when it will be on TV again. Yugoslav official history was very friendly to Georgi Dimitrov, though. For decades (unofficial) stories claimed that Dimitrov warned Tito on Informbiro's resolution, tried to maintain good relations with Yugoslavia even after 1948 and that he died under suspicious circumstances in USSR next year. PajaBG (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why the term is controversial in Serbia. I think that there are two main points - the suspicious about territorial claims and the fact that this territories are to the East, not to the West from Serbian centre. Many times I explained with different sucsess to my acquaintances from Serbia, that in BG, the term "WO" do not means obligatory territorial claims. Like one of those who use this term I can confirm it. But if my opinion is not very important, I can point an other example. After 1990 every Bulgarian government declared very clearly that Bulgaria haven't territorial claims to Yugoslavia/Serbia. There was a people who did not approve it, but this was and is the BG statement. In the same time the Bulgarian Prime Ministers used this term (not in the conversations with YU side, of course). One of the examples is the letter of Bulgarian Prime Minister Ivan Kostov to Bulgarian Cultural Centre in Dimitrovgrad (Caribrod), Serbia - Цариброд. Бюлетин на Културно-информационния център на българското малцинство-Югославия, брой 1, 2000, с.2, where the Prime Minister of the country which has not territorial claims to YU used this term. This, as I think, is one of the proves that the term is just a way to mark these territories (Please note, the term is not "Western Bulgaria"). There was not an other term in BG which can describe these territories with two words. Of curse, nobody do not want to force the Serbians to accept this term in their language, to accept that the "East" is "West". :)

I suggest to change the sentence "That was in the period of Joseph Stalin's push for a Communist super-state in the Balkans, the Balkan Federative Republic, composed of Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria." with "That was in the period, when was made attempts to create a Communist super-state in the Balkans, the Balkan Federative Republic, composed of Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria.". Are you agree with this? --AKeckarov (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Article do say that Bulgarian government never used the term officially and that it is used only in internal Bulgarian (social and political) communication, so nobody is saying Bulgarian government is having territorial claims. By the way, you put it nicelly: obligatory territorial claim :) Just like Hungarians call Vojvodina Southern Hungary and nobody says that Hungarian government has territorial claims. But there are fractions, organizations, etc. which do use these names for such goals (btw, between Western Bulgarian Outlands and Western Bulgaria there isn't much difference, right?). Hungarians also say they don't have other name for Southern Hungary but when they speak Serbian or English they use Vojvodina. Nobody is asking them to change that but it is osbviously a matter of will (btw, in our historiography we also use term Southern Hungary for period before 1848 when Vojvodina was created for the first time). For example, Serbs called Kosovo and Vardar Macedonia Old Serbia for centuries. Old historical capitals of Serbia were there: Skoplje, Prilep, Prizren...Today we don't. Everything can change because how it would sound today if we would call Republic of Macedonia Old Serbian Outlands, even unofficially (not that you in Bulgaria care much about that) :)

As for the Balkan Federation, I think the change you proposed is ok. Though, I would like to read Yugoslav version of the 1947 Bled agreement to see if in our version the term was really mentioned (I have no doubts it was in Bulgarian). This claim remained from the original article which was written in anti-Serbian way, almost to the point of racism, so I am doubtful about anything from it. PajaBG (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting - formally Cultural centres in Dimitrovgrad and Bosilegrad are Serbian NGOs. Is it internal BG use of the term when BG government uses it with comunications with these organizations? I don't know. And more - I have many Bulletins of Cultural center in Bosilegrad, where this term is in use.

Unlike Vojvodina there are not one term about Western Outlands in Serbian language. "Eastern Serbia" has an other nuance, (so as Western Bulgaria). The term Western Bulgaria is not equal with Western Outlands. Western Outlands are a part of Western BG only in historical sence - until 1920 and between 1941 and 1944. Now they are not in Western BG. These terms are different. When somebody in BG talks about Western BG, he means the Westerm part of today's Bulgaria. Therefore there are an other term about former BG territories.

Unfortunately, I have only BG translation of Bled agreemnet. You are right that it would be interesting to see the Yu version of the document.--AKeckarov (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh...Serbian NGOs. We have Serbian NGOs here in Belgrade which claim that West should impose partial sanctions to Serbia or that European Union should close its doors to us. That's what NGOs are for :o) I, personally, find a communication you mentioned above as inter-Bulgarian (in ethnic sense). If president of Serbia would visit Serbs in Macedonia and talk to their NGOs in Serbian, you can't say that he talked Serbian to the representatives of the government of Macedonia. Because NGO is nongovernmental. If president of Bulgaria would use WO talking to Serbian president, that would probably cause a stir (not to mention that our president wouldn't have a clue what is WO).

I know that Western Bulgaria and Western Outlands are not the same term. Western Outlends would be...even-more-western Bulgaria. You can't defend a situation that part of one country is called western part (of something) from neighboring country. Whether it is called Western Bulgaria or Outlands or whatever, it is irrelevant, it's just a semantics, the essence of the term is what's important. Like when husband is beating a wife...she doesn't really care whether he beats her because he loves her or hates her. No one can (nor should) tell you Bulgarians how to call something (Bulgarian Morava, eh), but there are people (like those originally setting this article) which misuse a fact that such term exists (only) in Bulgaria and try to make it something more than that in foreign languages. Anti-Serbian and biased (and false in many sections) to the bone article on WO in Bulgarian Wikipedia is quite enough. PajaBG (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Do we have ANY source regarding this term? If not, then it should be fixed, as in article we have some data that questions it. --20:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)