Talk:Hristo Botev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This article is still rather poor despite the b-class rating by two portals. There are many issues with it and dates are just one. All dates need to be checked and edited for new style/old style consistency throughout the article. I am planning to do it sometime soon. If someone beats me to it - well done! ANRH (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

On that score, there's nothing in the article to say whether the dates shown are all OS or all NS or some mixture. Can we have some clarification, please. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

neutrality tag[edit]

i ve put a neutrality tag at the april uprising section- the reason is that IMO it is in favour of the bulgarian side and against the ottoman one. --Greece666 12:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Even Turkey admits the facts[edit]

Hey Greek, if Turkey admits the facts about the cruelties of the bashi-bozouk in putting down the April 1876 uprising, why are you defending them so much? By the way, modern Turkey is as related to the Ottoman Empire as Greece is to the Byzantine Empire.
No, Sorry, I will remove this neutrality question-mark. The article is not perfect, it is too pathetic, rather literary than scientific, and looks like being copied from a textbook from the time I went to school (the 80-es). The most stupid argument, however, is that it is anti-Turkish! What should a neutral article about Sándor Petőfi look like? Hristo Botev is a Bulgarian national hero, first and before all, because he was a great poet, not a great military commander, his poems were superb, while his attempt to fight for his country's freedom ended tragically! How can one be neutral when speaking about Hristo Botev, Petőfi, José de San Martín, Bolívar? Well, certainly the article about Jean of Arc is not neutral and defends the French side! I'll go and put a neutrality tag, right now! But the British themselves will say "Hey, stop"!
Is the use of a lifeless and mindless 'language du bois', so common today, the right way to be neutral? What is a neutral article about the slaughters in Smyrna? Or about the German genocide against the Jews? Or about the 1848 Hungarian Revolution? Shall I go on? The Greek Army's role in Macedonia from 1913 to 1920 (one of Greece's greatest national leaders, Metaxas, supported or better say, ordered the genocide against Bulgarians). I know, the Bulgarian Army was not better when it had revenge over the Greek population in the two World Wars (e.g. the 1941 burning of Serres). Trying to be neutral should not mean changing the nature of things. Still, as I said, in the case of Turkey and Bulgaria [I heard, not in the case of Greece and Armenia, strange, why?] Turkey accepts rather normally Bulgaria's view on the facts from the Ottoman rule, which, as we know, were not always positive, but are no longer (after 1990) used for anti-Turkish propaganda. Here is an example. Turkish ambassadors regularly assist the ceremonial raising of the national flag on March 3rd, Bulgaria's national day. This is the date of the signing of the San Stefano Treaty in 1878, that is, of the Ottoman Empire's defeat and the restoration of Bulgarian state after 482 years.
There is a saying in Bulgarian: "Don't be a bigger catholic than the pope", maybe there is something similar in Greek. Sorry, I don't have a log-in, 34 yo from Bulgaria, ethnic Bulgarian, Orthodox Christian 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed it. You can put it back again if you insist. Well, from a Turk I can accept to question the neutrality of the article (I would rather question its quality), but, sorry, not from a Greek. And if you care to learn more about how the April Uprising was put down, read the contemporary British press from that time. The cruelties and the slaughters during and after the uprising and the lack of political will by the Sultan to introduce changes gave Russia the formal reason to start the 1877-78 war.

Nonsense. Neutrality is necessary everywhere, and Jeanne d'Arc is subject to neutrality requirements as much as any other article. There's a WP:NPOV policy and all that. Signed: 24-year-old from Bulgaria, ethnic Bulgarian, atheist, supportive of freedom and opposed to nationalism. -- 23:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the neutrality now? The article is not full[edit]

but the tone is balanced.!

It would seem that any flaws in the article stem not from political bias, but from the use of somewhat florid language in describing Mr Botev's achievements.

Nope, the tone ain't balanced. The language of the whole thing betrays an obvious nationalism and romanticism on the part of the author. I'll try and rewrite most of it, keeping the info but switching to a neutral tone. —Nicholai 20:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations added[edit]

Well, I think the citations I provided would solve the "POV"-problem. To anyone who needs an objective and non-POV-information, I will recommend the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Despite that, the excerpt of William Gladstone's pamphlet and the Oscar Wilde's poem give quite a picture.

Spelling of "Ботйов"[edit]

The contemporary spelling is "Ботьов" — the letter ь must be used after consonants instead of й (both pronounced [j]). Is the name in the article some kind of an archaic spelling, or is it a mistake? --Cameltrader 10:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right that the modern spelling would be "Ботьов" but that is irrelevant because "Ботйов" was the original form he used himself. I see no point in modernizing the name that is mentioned only once in the article (so I am reverting the recent edit). In any case, the name has become universally established in yet another form: "Ботев". Apcbg 07:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Still a lot of problems[edit]

The tone is still inappropriately emotional. Nearly all the info about the April uprising (besides still reeking of POV) is redundant, because we have a separate article about it. Don't feel like dealing with it right now, but there's work to be done here. -- 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC) [[Media:''Link title'''''Bold text''']]


Currently there isnt a single line about his poetry,if he is considered Bulgaria's national poet i think this should be emphasized over his revolutionary activity--Andres rojas22 05:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually he is more famous as a revolutionary, but you're still right though. --Laveol 06:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

saying Botev is more famous as a revolutionary is a groundless claim and, in my opinion, incorrect. For God's sake, there are quotations from his poetry on the walls of Versailles! Botev is a established poet in European literature, and if he had written in English all of you would be reading him now...but sorry, let's not get emotional. And to add, Botev's qualities as a revolutionary are far from undisputed, hence (no offence) LAveol's claim sounds ridiculous to me. BTW something should also be mentioned about Hristo Botev's work as a publicist(journalist). But I don't have the guts to do it, sorry. Dimitar, 20 y.o. 20:43 CET, Oct 18, 2007

Just a question - what exactly do you celebrate on the Second of June - his marvelous poetry or his great heroism? I am in no way saying he is not one of our greatest poets, but he is more famous as a revolutionary - it is a fact --Laveol T 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hristo botev.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Hristo botev.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Christo Botev instead of Hristo ?[edit]

Although Bulgarians often transform the letter "Х" into the latin alphabet as "H" in my opinion this is wrong in the case of Christo Botev:

The Etymology of the bulgarian name Христо is clear, it comes from "Христос" i.e. from the Greek Χριστός, "Christ" ("Исус Христос" <=> "Jesus Christ"). Therefore the transcription of "Христо" into latin clearly has to be "Christo".

BTW: In my opinion the transcription of "X" as "H" is wrong in general ...

--Shl1980 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I saw this article yesterday.--Rockero (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"Hristo Botev" is the transliteration conforming to the official transliteration system of Bulgaria. Check Romanization of Bulgarian and stop talking about irrelevant etymology or you could start asking for every Ivan to become John ?! --Exonie 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exonie (talkcontribs)

Well, I don't agree. In general I fail to consider "official" being the same as "correct". Firstly we are talking about transliteration, not translation, therefore Ivan will stay Ivan and not John. Secondly, the situation with the letter "X" is not that simple, see "BGN/PCGN transliteration system". Thirdly, in my opinion the purpose of transliteration is to ensure as much as possible the correct pronunciation when word is read; for that purpose I recommend reading Voiceless velar fricative. --Shl1980 (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)