This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 5, 2006.

Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

European Union B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Bulgaria B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cities B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Template:WP1.0

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Stolichanin, doing this without any discussion was pointy, disruptive, and violated Wikipedia's copyright policy to boot. Please don't do that again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New article about the crime

I think we need to remove the information about the crime in a new article, because the content of this section raised and seems too longer for this article. The other reason is this section is very disputed and this step may stop the edit wars here and the editors can concentrated over the working about the other part of content of the article.--Stolichanin (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far, its existence seems to only be "very disputed" by you, which I don't find a good enough reason to remove an entire section for. It isn't very long, either. Its current length is just about the length a summary of it would have if it were to link to a main Crime in Sofia article. We also shouldn't suppress material from its "natural" location just because there's an edit war involved, if the edit war isn't justified: provide convincing reasons why it doesn't belong there (I objected, and explained my objections, to all the guidelines you semi-randomly threw before). LjL (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you add all ponints of view I will agree with User: stolishanin--85.118.68.169 (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well, your source is pepresented now, I think.--Stolichanin (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether all points of view are represented has nothing to do with whether the information should be in the Sofia article or elsewhere. LjL (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the content of the section is not very encyclopedical and too specific as whole and the best variant is to make like in London and Crime in London.--Stolichanin (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that but you haven't given a reason (ideally a policy-based one) why it cannot be considered encyclopedic (← please read). Why is it any less encyclopedic than the dailed description of Sofia's current politics? Why do we need a long, detailed sections about sports in Sofia, but not crime? etc... LjL (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the information about the crime is very, very controversial and a large part of the content is often not sure media interpretation of some facts--Stolichanin (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Remove it, but add all sources. Thats my opinion--85.118.68.169 (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We don't remove information about something just because it's controversial (and that is unrelated to it being unencyclopedic, anyway; are you still jumping from guideline to guideline haphazardly?), we remove it if it's not reliably sourced, and in some cases we present conflicting sources as such. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the reliability of individual sources in the Sofia#Crime section, but that's different from discussion the removal of the section wholesale. Do I really need to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored? LjL (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does that... even mean? How can you keep sources for something that's removed? LjL (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in to add sources in the new article, dear censor Musolini--85.118.68.169 (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I suggest you strike that out. It wasn't funny. And I'm not the one wanting to suppress information from Wikipedia, so calling me the "censor" is quite funny. LjL (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@85.118.68.169Please, comment over the content. May be it will be good to read Wikipedia:Civility --Stolichanin (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:ljl has some nationalistic views and want to present sofia in negative view with lies, strange sources. He hasn't respect to different points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.68.169 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Maybe the both must read Wikipedia:Civility. 2 editors agreed vs one against for now.--Stolichanin (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stolichanin, removing one paragraph from this article and turning it into a one paragraph separate article smacks of tendentious editing, given your past history. Please create an expanded article first, which then may be summarized in this article if editors see fit to do so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do, NeilN? Give me any advice, please! I make a compromise to include this content in a separated article, where theme to be expanded, because is very complicated. Another part of dispute is that this content is based on often wrong media interpretations of some facts and that we have a very different statistics by very different sources and probably discuss to death.--Stolichanin (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To expand what I said above: 1) Create a new article in draft or sandbox space. 2) Expand it in draft/sandbox space so it's large enough to stand on its on and not be incorporated into here. 3) Once done, move it to article space. 4) Propose a summary paragraph or sentences with a link to the new article replace the current content here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing sources "to death" is nothing new to Wikipedia, so sure, let's do that, but it's hard to do when the entire section keeps getting removed regardless of source validity (and during an RfC). The bulk of the original Sofia#Crime contained statistics that I don't think are easy to debunk, anyway; now it has been expanded with general statements from, I reckon, mostly acceptable sources. Still want to challenge them? By all means, do so. LjL (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This "acceptable sources", what you say are just a wrong interpretated tabloid info. That's all. What exactly mean "the capital of corruption"? This is very...excited sentence. Without the book of Mihova, all other sources contains citations of tabloids and tendentional information. Including of this is shame for Wikipedia, by me.--Stolichanin (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stolichanin, you should really leave the article in its previous state while the RfC is going on. What you're doing now is edit warring and will get you blocked. clpo13_(talk) 19:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just like it did last time, but he doesn't seem to be fussed... Maybe he really doesn't want people to know about crime in Sofia. LjL (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't want it why I try to create an article about the crime? I think you just vandalize the article with tabloid info. You even don't know what are the sources of your sources. Maybe you must learn more about Sofia, before to lead this discusion. --Stolichanin (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, the "corruption capital" thing was challenged by me, so try at least to make points that aren't bogus. LjL (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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)[reply]

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) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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)[reply]

Well, add it, please!--85.118.69.17 (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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)[reply]

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) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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)[reply]

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) — 85.118.68.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: a notification about this debate has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities LjL (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]