Talk:Sofia

Removed Advertising Links from text

I have removed the link which was in wrong place. Website providing daily news about Sofia, Varna and other cities, SofiaNewsRoom.

Timeline of Sofia

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content! Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

GA status

I nominated the article for GA status, but it failed. Maybe just a little more should be done. May somebody help with the sources about culture and transport because I am not into this? If somebody wants to see which sections are considered "OK" and which are not, this is the full critical report from Talk:Sofia/GA1:

Names

• The second half of this section is unsourced

Geography

• A claim to be known for 49 springs should have a citation
• The last paragraph, on the distances, is clunky. There are some possibilities: you could cut it down to only the nearest important cities, or you could convert it into a chart on the side. And Google Maps may not be considered the most reliable source.

History

• Mostly well-sourced. However, all dates in the article should either be Christian (BC/AD) or secular (BCE/CE). Also, only AD can precede a date ("Around BC 29" is incorrect use)
• In "Modern and contemporary history", the second paragraph has World War I and II, then the third goes back to 1925
• Who were these ultra-leftists and which King did they target?
• The last one-and-a-half paragraphs are unsourced

Cityscape

• Again, begins well-sourced but not at the end
• Gallery is appropriate for this section, but not formatted correctly
• "Green areas" slowly turns into an advertisement for the skiing facilities

Government and law

• Overall well sourced
• The death of a notable person like Professor Tachkov is relevant, but maybe too much is written on his background and lifetime

Culture

• Problems with unsourced paragraphs
• Paragraph on Vitosha Blvd. ends up as an advertisement

Sports

• Suitably sourced, maybe could do with a picture or even a relevant gallery

Demographics

• No problems

Economy

• No problems

Transport

• Last paragraph unsourced

Education

• No problems. Last paragraph unsourced but makes no controversial claims which would need it.

Honour

• Maybe too short to ever be a section for its own. Could merge into Etymology somehow

Gallery

• Stand-alone galleries like this aren't advised, as they are random.
• Images could be worked in as galleries for sections, like showing Sofia in different times of the year for climate, government buildings in Government and law, religious edifices in Demographics--Serdik (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Collage

Which collage to use? I personally favour the left one, because the right one has low diversity with three churches and the saint from name section. And generally the modification of the images at the right collage and the way they are cut make some views worse in my opinion. --Serdik (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Sofia Collage TB.png

File:Sofia mosaic 5.jpg

Thank you for your opinion. I think the right one, because there are too many images in the left one and reader can lose in this mosaic. Look at the collage of Paris - only 5 images, from which 1 is a panoramic view. Or London - 3 images, Madrid - 4. Even these 7 images in right mosaic are too many, so diversity is the last one, which you can criticize. We don't need to show all buildings in Sofia. These churches, seen in the right collage are very important. Boyana Curch was included in UNESCO list, Alexander Nevsky cathedral is one of the biggest cathedrals in the Orthodox world. St. George Rotonda representing the late Roman archietecture, Boyana Church - the medieval Bulgarian and Al. Nevsky - neo-Byzantine architecture, after the Liberation. If churces are many, by you, I can to replace some of hem with another one, which representing the same architectual style. For example - St. George Rotonda to Roman Walls of Serdika or someting other.--Stolichanin (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The right one is more beautiful, by me. What landmark is the mall. Paris is full with malls, but no one in their collage. Селяния по нашенски. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.68.193 (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The right one should be removed from the article.--87.227.208.89 (talk) 04:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sister cities

(moved from my talk page: -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)) Please explain at the talk page why did you remove this sourced content! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdik (talk • contribs) 2:10 am, Today (UTC+2)

User:Serdik: First of all, would you mind to provide a bit more patience!?! Secondly, discuss this issue here at the article's talk page. Thirdly, restrain from unjustifiably adding warning tags to my talk page! Forth, I gave all the necessary information in the change summary.

But to your convenience, I repeat them here:

• Bursa: it is not according the official link given by Bursa itself. Secondly, the given link is very unreliable and not an official site (Aevum, the publisher, of sistercity.info is a German IT company).
• Milan: Given link points to some general page. And according official link by city of Milan, Sofia is not a sister city.
• Lisbon: Is not a sister/twin city. There are agreements between Sofia and Lisbon, but not as a sister/twin city! -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I detected it as vandalism of well sourced content. Explain please your removals of these official sources, they are as follows:

• Milan, Italy"Milano – Città Gemellate". © 2008 Municipality of Milan (Comune di Milano). Retrieved 17 July 2009.
• Paris, France"Friendship and cooperation agreements". Paris.fr. Retrieved 12 October 2013."Les pactes d'amitié et de coopération". Mairie de Paris. Retrieved 14 October 2007."International relations : special partners". Mairie de Paris. Retrieved 14 October 2007.
• Lisbon, Portugal"Acordos de Geminação, de Cooperação e/ou Amizade da Cidade de Lisboa". Camara Municipal de Lisboa (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2013-08-23. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  • Berlin, Germany{{cite web|url=http://www.berlin.de/rbmskzl/staedteverbindungen/index.en.html%7Ctitle=Berlin's international city relations |publisher=Berlin Mayor's Office|accessdate=1 July 2009} --Serdik (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Serdik: Would you mind to learn how to write on talk pages? WP:TALK, thanks.

Milan: I already reverted it. Well, as long as you have not undone it again – PATIENCE!!!

Paris: It's "only" a friendship relation as easily explained on the given link.

Lisbon, already explained. READ! – again: PATIENCE.

Berlin: Did you check the links at all!??? -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my allegations to you, there is ongoing blanking and damaging of other sections so I put all at the same basket. These official sources are dead I see what is your motivation, but they were verified years ago when they were introduced at List of twin towns and sister cities in Bulgaria, so I trust this information. WWhy removing sistercities.info since official data is lacking?--Serdik (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Apalogy accepted. Nevertheless, some patience on your side could help – even for you.

• "but they were verified years ago when they were introduced at": I doubt so. Besides, internal WP reference are and cannot be valid.
• sistercity.info: see above! -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit is actually an improvement, I appreciate your contribution! Certain cities such as Paris and Lisboa have other type of partnership with Sofia so I think that they may be re-included under the other definition.--Serdik (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Intervention against vandalism

Somebody has been blanking sections, again and again. Please somebody else intervent against vandalism.--Serdik (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, LjL !--Serdik (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Crime

The section about crime is being repeatedly removed wholesale. The section is sourced. The claim is that it is not encyclopedic and that the sources are not reliable. Both claims are very bold and need to be substantiated before any wholesale section blanking, which may otherwise be interpreted as unconstructive. Government sources should generally be attributed as such, but they aren't forbidden; as far as I can see, attribution is present. As to encyclopedicity, I can't even fathom why information about crime and crime rates in a city might be unencyclopedic for the city's article, so I cannot possibly have a rebuttal: that's why the extraordinary claim needs to be elaborated on. One edit summary states this encyclopedia is "not a newspaper", but that doesn't in any way show that crime-related information need to be suppressed. --LjL (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the above was just brushed off with a ridiculous undue weight claim (and, of course, again removed entirely, which is not quite the idea of "undue weight"...), I'm starting an RfC. LjL (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

There has been an exchange on my talk page but I'm disappointed to see that the editor involved has still not replied here and they blanked the section yet again. LjL (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sofia is one of the european capitals with lowest crime by the official statistics and I don't see any reason to include such data. --85.118.69.17 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. According to the official statistics by Eurostat Sofia is one the cities with lowest crime and the claim that "Crime in Sofia is considered high" is wrong. Even Bulgaria is one of the countries with lowest crime, as is shown in the official statistic of Eurostat here [1] - located in 28th place from 36 countries with highest crime!--Stolichanin (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So, the controversial info was removed--Stolichanin (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not how we deal with controversial sourced info. See WP:Conflicting sources. Please reinstate it, attribute it to the source, and if you want, provide other sources that contradict it. You are not helping yourself. Your Eurostat source is, by the way, currently meaningless, since it's an unexplained table with no legend or anything explaining what it's telling us. Provide context. LjL (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Eurostat is the official statistical office of the members of European Union. All sort of American, Russian or etc. departaments are not a neutral sources and more exactly - not a reliable sources. The table shows the number of crimes in 36 European countries on 1000 people base. --Stolichanin (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I know what Eurostat is, thank you. What I was saying is that the table alone doesn't explain anything since it's just number with no description of them. Give the description or it can't be considered a source since we don't know what it's saying. Additionally, if somehow government sources are to be considered unreliable, then Eurostat is just as unreliable/non-neutral, and even more so since it's coming from a government body that Bulgaria is part of. LjL (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Shortly: US departament is not an independent professional agency. It's reliable source about US crime, but not about European, because EU is not a part of USA and this institution is not autorized about that officially--Stolichanin (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not about official sources. A source can be official and unreliable, or even unreliable because of being official. See also Wikipedia:Third-party sources, but I'm tired of linking guidelines and policies at you. It's time to read them. LjL (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of "Crime" data

Should the Government and Law section of the Sofia article include sourced statistical and census data concerning the topic of <crime? Should it be in a dedicated subsection? Is it appropriate for it to resemble the last version before removal of such data (including sources used)?

This issue is being brought up due to repeated removal of crime-related content with various justifications in edit summaries, which continued after a request to discuss.

LjL (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable and of controversial origin. Reports from government of one coutry about the situation in another country often has a controversial status. Moreover one internet site is not a reliable source. The content is too unencyclopeic as well. Read WP:No origianl research, WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight.--Stolichanin (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have. Have you? Because they don't say what you think they say, as I have again explained on my talk page (not sure why you elected to write there instead of here). LjL (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean the part sourced by the US embassy? Maybe we can remove it instead of removing the entire section.--Serdik (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly improvement of sources is always preferable to blanket removal of sections, as I've by now pointed out numerous times. I do not think there has been a convincing explanation as to why that source wouldn't be reliable enough for this, though: if there is a well-grounded reason to believe US sources are biased against Sofia then it has yet to be stated. Note also how we deal with WP:Conflicting sources (hint: not by deleting everything). LjL (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Because they represented a wrong information about Sofia. I don't know why - ask some political analyst! But this info is too different by official statitics, cited above. And US departament is not an independent agency.--Stolichanin (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you "don't know why", then maybe you should refrain from removing information. And "Official statistics" are also, obviously (do you know the meaning of "official"?) not independent. Again, read WP:Conflicting sources. LjL (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I just use the information, given by the reliable sources. Again, simply: If Europe was state of USA, this will be reliable source. But they are not and we use another sources.--Stolichanin (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No. If Europe were a state of the USA, it would be a less reliable source. You misunderstand what a reliable source is completely. My suggestion: stop talking; stop editing; read WP:RS and all the other Wikipedia policy/guidelines/essays I've linked to you today (which are a number). LjL (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sofia is one of the european capitals with lowest crime by the official statistics and I don't see any reason to include such data. --85.118.69.17 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

IP, give a source, so we can add this statement in the section?--Serdik (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if true by official statistics, we don't only include "official" statistics, in fact, non-official may be better, and if anything, we include both. I also find it peculiar that an IP editor with no prior edits anywhere would suddenly make a comment about this RfC, but whatever. LjL (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course! Demographic politics in Bulgaria, Author: Genoveva Mihova, 2013, ph: prof. Marin Drinov, link to the book -http://m.helikon.bg/index.php?action=product&cid=1&pid=9348717&itemId=500000. Page 98 - 99:Quote:"In 2013 Sofia is one of the european capitals with lowest crime. Bulgarian in original: Статистиките показват, че към 2013 г. София е сред европейските столици с най- ниски нива на престъпност", стр. 98 - 99.--85.118.69.17 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a useful semi-governmental source (she works for the Center for Population Studies), and it's probably wroth including - although it doesn't trump other WP:Conflicting sources, and should be presented alongside them. LjL (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, add it, please!--85.118.69.17 (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The text of at least those pages isn't available online, is it? (it's not required, just asking) --LjL (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If is saved with copyright - not. But you always find the book in City's library.--85.118.69.17 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't necessarily prevent snippets of a book from being legally on the web (see Google Books), and clearly I am unable to access Sofia's libraries to verify this citation. LjL (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice reading: http://www.book.store.bg/p108389/demografskata-politika-v-bylgaria-genoveva-mihova.html--85.118.69.17 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you serious about this, that Sofia has the lowest crime rate anywhere? Do you know anything about crime rates? Please be more concrete, give a link with the statement, the numeber of the page, we all doubt that otherwise. All the sources you provide are Bulgarian so they are probably not NPOV, can you give a foreign source to meet the verification?

What does lowest crime mean and which city today has low crime?? The crime rate was low only during communism, because criminals were scared then. What is illegal on paper is common in practice, i.e. crime, since the organized crime-octupus and his tentacles such as drug and human traffic are the everyday routine in each capital worldwide, excluding probably the city-states like Vatican and Pyongyang, despite this living there is far more dangerous. Almost none city has "low crime". Sofia is the leading capital in Europe by Gypsy population, which is the most criminal population there with highest incarceration , probably leading in human traffic of prostituties in Europe, along with Moldova, at least at some period, go to a brothel in West Europe and you will be suprised that Bulgarian workers are the majority there. Sofia is the route through which all the opiate enters West Europe through Asia and all the smuggling. However some cities are far less dangerous than others, but please distinguish, this is safety index, not crime index, but a crime index, rates of some crimes may be lower than others, this does not mean that Sofia has lower crime index than Teheran, but Iran is still one of the most dangerous places to live in. One man there was executed because he published a photo, in which he touches the nose of his daughter, which was considered an insult and crime for a capital punishment.(link) In some cities, definitions for crime are different and in Saudi Arabia for example you have the right to slaughter somebody by yourself in certain cases and this is not a crime. Numbeo summarizes better all the needed data than the Bulgarian sources cited above, including safety index and all parts of the crime rate. I know many people from Sofia, who were robbed or attacked with a knife by the recent refugees from Africa or the Middle East, or by their opponents the skinheads, who also attack white men for wearing long hair, also cars are usually stolen and apartments are robbed, I say this form personal experience.. So the refugee wave to Bulgaria from Syria, the Middle East and Africa started in 2013 and there have been many criminal cases since then, you should know at least the most popular ones. I think that the crime rate have risen since then and the book from 2013, which I can't find in your would be outdated, numbeo and other sources are up to date and far more reliable. So I don't think that crime rate is low in Sofia or in any city in general, there are types of crime rates that are low though, nevertheless safety index is high is Sofia and you are generally safer there compared to other cities. Nevertheless, in Bulgaria it is anarchy, if you are the victim nobody helps you, if you are criminal you get away with it easily, especially if you have money or if you know organized crime's bosses. I think that Sofia has high organized crime-related crime rate, as Italy and Russia it is a typicial mafia rendezvous, but just smaller in size. Unlike the two, in Sofia authorities are more corrupted and criminals easier can get away, just see how low is the incarceration rate - less than 0.1%. Sofia has lower rate for other crimes such as delibarete homicies that are unrelated to business and probably low rape rate, though domestic abuse and rape is unfortunately a tradition. No city has low crime rate, in Europe they are almost even, you should be very childish to think that there is a single capital with a low crime rate. Law is commonly violated everywhere, types of crime rates have different frequencies around the world but there is a high crime rate everywhere, safety index is something different and Sofia, I reckon, has high safety index because I've heard what it is in other places, Africa and Asia.

See Pornography by region, Bulgaria is one of the few countries where this is illegal, there hasn't been a single case when TV broadcasters are bothered for broadcasting it every day, this means that most citizens of Sofia are criminals, excluding some minors and porn-haters. Bulgaria has the highest rate of watchers in a country where it is illegal.

Bulgaria is not so developed country as you say, in fact the least developed, not only in the EU, but low developed compared to other Balkan states, where wages are higher, (link) the probability of death is also the highest among EU states. Many English people come to live there and get themselves eaten by stray dogs(link), a US professor was eaten in Sofia. Also, if you are, let's say sick of a curable disease, medicians sometimes diagnose you with "incurable disease" and let you die, there was one such case, the man had gone to another European country and got the right diagnosis and got cured easily by regular Spanish medicians. --Serdik (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Compared to other european capitals Sofia is more peacefully. Maybe yo' be never lived in Paris, London or Amsterdam and you do not understand. But it doesn't matters. According to statistics of Eurostat and cited above source Sofia has a low levels of crime. This long novel is only your opinion, but it is not what the sources says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.68.169 (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You made me laugh, thank you! I have never learnt that English dialect. BTW, how do you get the conclusion that I am a racist? You can't be that bad in English, nothing personal but you are clearly acting with that speech don't you?? Please don't stop acting, it is unique. You do not link to any sources and their statements, you just allege the sources of saying something doubtful and unverified! Please link to the statement if you have links, if not bye bye. You know what? I have a source where it is said that Sofia is the most criminal capital of Euorpe, but I won't give you the link, so you won't read it. --Serdik (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Serdik: please let's keep this on-topic and civil, shall we? And note that the fact I defended the inclusion of a Crime section doesn't mean I endorse such inanity as counting use of pornography as "crime" in the city. That's bogus. Let's keep to non-bogus facts. LjL (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want delete the Crime section, I don't care much. Things are more complicated, that pornography is crime on paper in Bulgaria, in Africa and the Middle East is a fact, in the latter murder is commonly not a crime. Definitions for crime vary by established laws, there is not right and wrong.--Serdik (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And who's talking about right and wrong? This is about making an encyclopedia, which can include statistics about crime. Crime is well-defined enough. By the way, the IP user did provide a source, pages, and an exact quote from it. LjL (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course the encyclopedia should include reliable conflicting sources. I think the IP haven't cited the quote with statement's url yet.--Serdik (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

IP, please read this source (link) which places Sofia at the "FIRST" position among dangerous cities in Europe and says quite much interesting information for what we are discussing here. I personally thought that Glasgow is the most dangerous but I may have been wrong living in the recorder. Your view is still your own view as long as you don't cite your statements, you only allege some sources of saying something. --Serdik (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Offline sources are just as valid as online ones. There is no need to cite a URL (although of course it would be handy). LjL (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but would he sent these books to us to read it? How we can know that he is not lying? That's like saying, "I found one book saying that I am the smartest person in the world" then we should add statement that such a person lives in Sofia without checking the source for verification? I think, he should sent the offline books by the post mail if he can't find an online one, because this is very likely a lie.

Other sources consider Sofia the "corruption capital of Europe" ([2]). These statements should be added instead in the section. More such statements can be found, but I don't have all night for this. All this means that the city is anything, but not the city with the "lowest crime" in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serdik (talk • contribs) 17:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous... send the books via mail?! That's not how Wikipedia works. He gave a title, author, page and citation, it's up to you if you want to source the book and read it. Really, let's stick to the topic instead of wasting further time. LjL (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Offline sources is not a guideline but suggestions from some editors, build into an essay. I can't guess if the source says the alleged claims or not. It's better to stick to WP:VER. Wikipedia articles must not publish or contain original research, which further wastes our time. It would be better to ignore suggestions involving original research instead of wasting time. --Serdik (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:V here is at complete odds with just about every Wikipedia editor's. WP:SOURCEACCESS is a policy (actually part of WP:V), anyway, so feel free to check it out, it even links to WP:Offline. Your expectation that this editor must send us paper copies of the cited book is very close to simple trolling and I'm not not discussing this any further. I'll add the source as I see nothing against it, certainly not WP:NOR since it's a published secondary source. LjL (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If it involves payment, shouldn't any user else check it first ? If nobody check it is like dead source, verification should be confirmed by a user who will buy and check the book first? Is this what what SOURCEACCESS says?--Serdik (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No. What it says is that if you can't/won't buy a book, it's your problem, although someone may be nice enough to provide access to it for you (but is in no way required to). --LjL (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not a big deal, but just of curiosity I'll check the book tomorrow and upload a photo of 99th and 98th page since nobody else can.--Serdik (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What is your problem, dear angry user: serdik? Maybe you need by more civility and to read more books and to learn to respect the different opinion.--85.118.68.169 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)