Talk:South Morava

Serbia Mid‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia 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.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Mid‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bulgarian Morava

The old name of the river was Bulgarian Morava and it is still used in Bulgaria. One excerpt from the book Bulgarians in Southwest Moravia (Classic Reprint) Fb&c Limited, 6.02.2018 by Johann Georg von Hahn written in 1861 confirmes that: "For many years the world has been treated to a Serbo-Bulgarian dispute as to whose are the lands inhabited by the Slavic population in Macedonia; whose are the lands also in the district between the Timok and the Morava; whether the Slavic population of these lands is of Servian or Bulgarian origin. The dispute on these points was begun, in fact, first by the Servians. Its beginning can be placed about 1870. The Bulgarians came forward not to claim something in addition to what was their own, as the Servians did, but to defend that which, in their own circle and among their neighbors, was known for centuries to be Bulgarian and continued unchallenged to be held and cultivated as Bulgarian. The Bulgarians long before this dispute saw and felt for themselves that they were of Bulgarian origin in real Bulgaria (Moesia), in Thrace and in Macedonia, extending into Moesia and the provinces of the Timok, and those along the Bulgarian Morava clear to its junction with the Servian Morava; so that the very designation of the large right (southern) branch of the Morava as Bulgarian Morava showed that in its basin lived or still lives a people with Bulgarian traits, as against the Servian traits of the population in the district. Of the great left (west) fork of the Morava, designated by the title, Servian Morava. These two, we may say, ethnographic designations have disappeared from the new maps of Servia and the Balkan peninusla, thanks to Servian political activity." The term is used also by modern researchers.

Kyril Drezov, who is lecturer at the Keele University and core researcher of the internationally acclaimed Southeast Europe Unit there, as well as a leading expert on Balkan politics claims that By the end of the nineteenth century Serbia had largely assimilated the 'floating' populations along the rivers Timok and South Morava (previously known as Bulgarian Morava), and turned its attention to Macedonia. For more: J. Pettifer, The New Macedonian Question, St Antony's, Springer, 1999, ISBN 0230535798, p. 53. Jingiby (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even Serbs used that name during the 19th century: Serbske Narodne Movine. Ofen 1841-1844. (serbocroat.) стр. 164.Jingiby (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way this article was edited with "Bulgarian Morava" input by some non-regsitered user a year ago is quite problematic in couple of ways.

Firstly, placing "Bulgarian Morava" in bolded letters right after the South Morava at the very beggining of the article is pretentious. It can be perceived as irredentist term or pseudo-political edit. If it is insisted however, it can be putted in separate subsection ("Other names" or something) and be mentioned that historically it was also known as Bulgarian Morava but not in way it was putted. Nor there is a need for six?! different references about one of the historical names in the article about the river which in total has only two references about everything else.

Secondly, putting Bulgaria in the infobox "countries" section is plainly wrong since South Morava doesnt flow through Bulgaria nor it did for more than 600 years now. Likewise, putting in infobox "native names" section Bulgarian version of the river name is also wrong: river does not flow through area, or through one single settlement which is inhabited by majority (or any significant minority, for that sense) of people who identify themselves as Bulgarian or speak Bulgarian as native language. Therefore, putting in the infobox Bulgaria among the countries or Bulgarian version of name is of same relevance or accuracy as putting Hungary or Hungarian. Not to mention that even in Bulgarian language nowadays river is called Южна Морава.

Accordingly, I think that since the first edit was controversial right form the start and now has been several times reverted, consensus should be reached before this kind of edits.Klačko (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New section "Other names"

Seemed reasonable to mention of name "Bulgarian Morava" provided with the sources is placed in separate section.Klačko (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have added explanation on the origin of this name. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]