Talk:Revival Process

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Bulgaria Low‑importance

	Bulgaria portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria was copied or moved into Revival Process on 14 August 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Merge with Bulgarisation

There's no point of having two articles talking about the same thing. Revival Process is just a subset of Bulgarisation. غسان السقاف (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. The revival process was quite a massive policy, and specifically targeted at one minority (or group of minorities - Muslims). Bulgarization is too general. I think when both are properly written, this one will end up longer than the Bulgarization one. BigSteve (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Revival Process is an important event in recent history it should have its separate article despite it's merely a stub right now. But this article should be merged with 1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria. -- Infestor ^T • _C 19:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we could mention this in the article "Bulgarisation" and make a link, but that's about it. I agree with Infestor that this page should be merged with 1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria. Kndimov (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian names

I removed the reference to "Slavic" names to account for acceptable "Bulgarian" names under the policy which are neither Slavic nor Christian (Dimitar, Georgi, Hristina...) – such as "Krum" or "Asparuh". There are also popular Bulgarian names of pre-Christian Hellenic origin (Alexander, Filip etc). The only common denominator of names that were assigned under Bulgarisation appears to be that they just don't convey allegiance to Turkic or Muslim identities.Planetdust (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it has been five years since you posted that comment, but do you have a source for that so that it can be included in the article? The claim makes total sense and does not seem dubious at all, but I would like to be able to insert a reference. Pietrus1 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Observations on the duplication notice

Based on a detailed comparison of the articles "Big Excursion" and "Revival Process," here are the key points and recommendations:

Observations:

Overlaps:
- Both articles discuss the background and events of the Big Excursion and the Revival Process.
- Both address the ethnic composition of the victims and the terminology used.
- Forced Assimilation in the Revival Process article covers similar ground as the History and Background sections in the Big Excursion article.
- Aftermath sections in both articles describe the restoration of rights and the legacy of the events.
Unique Content:
- The Big Excursion article provides more specific details about the international response, economic impact, and Cold War context.
- The Revival Process article offers a more in-depth look at the assimilation policies, state methods, and specific resistance efforts.

Recommendations:

To address the duplication and effectively introduce summary style, consider the following approach:

Merge Overlapping Sections:
- Combine sections that cover the same content, such as the background, history, and aftermath. Use the more detailed information from one article and provide a summary in the other, with clear references to the main article for further reading.
Focus on Unique Aspects:
- Ensure that each article highlights its unique aspects. The Revival Process article should focus on the broader assimilation policies and methods used, while the Big Excursion article should detail the specific events of 1989 and their international implications.
Introduce Summary Style:
- In the Revival Process article, summarize the key points of the Big Excursion and provide a link to the main Big Excursion article for readers seeking more detailed information.
- Conversely, in the Big Excursion article, briefly mention the broader Revival Process as the context and link to the Revival Process article for a deeper understanding of the assimilation policies.

Conclusion:

The duplication notice is still applicable as there is significant overlap between the two articles. By following the recommendations to merge overlapping content and introduce summary style, you can ensure that each article remains focused and informative without unnecessary duplication. This approach will enhance the clarity and coherence of both articles. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your assitance1! Pietrus1 (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]