Talk:Bulgarian Turks/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposal for changes

The article is OK, but I believe that it needs some changes:
- the summary is waaaay too long and 90% of it is about the assimilation campaign of 80's;
- the last two paragraphs of the text about the assimilation campaign is about events after 1990, and (maybe?) they belong to the section that follows;
- I think that there is a need for a separate, brand new article about the assimilation campaign, where the subject can be explored even more thoroughly;
- the article MUST be translated in Bulgarian!!!
I do not want to do anything by myself, as such correction must involve some corroboration and general agreement with other editors. Discuss please! --Chief White Halfoat (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as the five century long assimilation and extermination campaign conducted by Turks in Bulgaria is not described in length here this article is nothing but Turkish revisionist anti-Bulgarian POV. --Lantonov (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? Bring on your English language sources and let us write the article accordingly? There would not be a single 'Bulgarian' left on this planet today had it not been for the generally benevolent Ottoman policy. What you ('Bulgarian') people have in Bulgaria is for the national consumption. Do not try to lecture the rest of the world based on those lies.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

About English-language sources, see the speeches of Gladstone and the reports of MacGahan:

• William Gladstone, 1876, Bulgarian Horrors and the Questions of the East
• Mr. Schuyler's Preliminary Report on the Moslem Atrocities, published with the letters by Januarius MacGahan, London, 1876.
• The Turkish Atrocities in Bulgaria, Letters of the Special Commissioner of the Daily News, J.A. MacGahan Esq. With an Introduction and Mr. Schuyler's Preliminary Report (London, 1876.)

  Putting 'Bulgarian' in quotes is a very interesting twist. So what does 'Bulgarian' mean? 'Turkish', 'Ottoman', 'Rumelian', 'Macedonian'? Choices are endless. For myself, I prefer 'Greek'. It's most politically correct. Is McCarthy your prime meat brand that you offer for public consumption, Nostradamus? --Lantonov (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Statements by charlatan politicians, such as Gladstone, and the paid yellow journalists, such as, Mac Gahan, are as credible as their motivations and the amout of money they were paid to produce these fabrications. Provide us with scholarly sources, professors of western universities. Not statements by ideologues, nationalists , or politicians who had to gain by making such statements and allegations.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Professors such as MacCarthy paid by the Turkish government for genocide denial vs. the "charlatans" Gladstone, MacGahan, Shuyler, and all such whistle-blowers that spoil the idyllic picture of the prosperity of Bulgarians under their Ottoman benefactors. And let's not forget that MacGahan was paid by his paper to deny the Turkish attrocities because this was the official British policy for centuries. --Lantonov (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the summary section is too long. It was added by a user by sumply 'summarising' what was in the article at that moment. The same user also appears to be unaware of the difference between Bulgars and Bulgarians as it can be read above in this discussion.(See comments by user Mukadderat) But I do agree that a separate article about the "Asimilation Campaign" is needed.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's my time to say "Really?" The lead section is a copied propaganda paper from the Web which was first in the user page of Nostradamus. Now he is trying to blame someone else for what he has written. See Big Excursion, and similar masterpieces to get a taste of his creations and the way he sees the future of this article. --Lantonov (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is more to come. There are more articles to be written by all of us. Your help and cooperation would be greatly appreciated. :)--Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not doubt this. Money go a long way. --Lantonov (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

McCarthy is biased, we all know that... But, he is not the sole authority on the question, so the use of other authors/historians is also possible. Although my proposal wasn't for any changes in the content, changes in the content can be made as well, including an addtion of the work of historians with opinion contrary to that of McCarthy. This can only improve the article. I took it upon myself to shorten the summary, please discuss my changes!!! --Chief White Halfoat (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)--Chief White Halfoat (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Turks during the Ottoman rule?

There is nothing about the Turks during the years of the Ottoman Empire... While we are at it, we may discuss the creation of such a section. THere is one interesting source: http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0002749.pdf . There are others, I am sure. --Chief White Halfoat (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)--Chief White Halfoat (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is and the source is already included, regards Hittit (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I saw it now. Using it as a base, and using info from other sources we can create a section about this period.--Chief White Halfoat (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed

To get this sorted out ASAP, who is disputing and what? Please be specific, state your claim or the POV tag will be removed! Hittit (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is user:Lantonov, who put the neutrality tag. There are sections in the article which are not referenced - say the one about the transfer of land. However, You SHOULD contact user:Lantonov before removing the neutrality tag. The tag should be there until the dispute is resolved.--Chief White Halfoat (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The tag stays until all the points of dispute are discussed and settled by Bulgarian and Turkish Wikipedians, period. Todor→Bozhinov 17:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• These kind of articles are never really settled. It eventually turns out to be a dog fight and rejecting the sources or adding single-sided sources/citations. Eventhough if there is an solid source it is opposed by the other party and so on and so on. my faith=lost :)--Infestor (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Infestor voiced my opinion too. Speaking from experience, this is the probable fate of this article. Neutrality is not only a question of providing references, more important is that all POVs are presented in a balanced way. The specific problem here is that 90% of the article is about the name-changing campaign from 25 years ago which is presented in an anti-Bulgarian propagandist way with a pro-Turkish revision of the whole Bulgarian history and questioning the existence of a Bulgarian nation. The name-changing campaign (called officially "national revival process") was a campaign of the communist government and its security forces and the majority of Bulgarians were left unaware of what was happening in the Turk-populated regions (Kardzhali and Razgrad). I have lived through these years and know it for a fact. Instead of propaganda-mongering and writing generalities in Wiki, it will be more useful to investigate facts about this campaign, identify the culprits (Bulgarian security policemen) by names, put them on trial and punish them. Abusing Muslim temples and graveyards is a crime as is a crime stealing and abusing churches and Christian graves. Those must also be persecuted and punished. DPS is in the Bulgarian government since 1990 and they have all necessary resources to do this. Turks are in Bulgaria since the 14th century, and they certainly have a history here. This history is not all glorious Ottoman past and attrocious anti-Turkish repressions by some new-fangled nationalistic states that sprang out of nothing. Such is the overall impression that the article in its present state creates. There is not a single word about what Turks IN Bulgaria have contributed FOR Bulgaria although positive examples are abundant in books and press. Let's be optimistic, however, and hope that this article will become an exception and some day will deserve removing the neutrality tag. --Lantonov (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Lantonov. You can tell that certain editors have an agenda and they will continue to edit articles in this fashion. I've edited a number of Ottoman/Turkish articles and have angered more than a few Turks, resulting in being called Bulgarian, Iranian, Kurd, and Armenian. But you have to remember that it's the atmosphere in which they are raised, that has inprinted these prejudices upon them. Hopefully they can outgrow these bigotries. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, what do you know about "the atmosphere" in which some of us were raised? I, for instance, know something about the atmosphere you and some of these Bulgarian contributors were raised.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'd love to hear what you think you know about Kansas. From a previous talk page, "You seem to be extremely wrapped up in ethnic and racial labelling and to become a real historian you have to move beyond ethnic and racial bigotries. You continue to question my ability as a historian, perhaps you should question your own objectivity as a researcher!". --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a long time fan of Kansas the band. I also know there is a considerable public opposition to teaching the Theory of Evolution in Kansas. Bob Dole was from Kansas and Little House on the Prairie series may be about Kansas but I'm not certain. Also I am not a historian and from what I read in your contributions here in WP I seriously doubt that you are a historian as well. Majoring in History in college does not make one a historian. Regarding your claim that I "seem to be extremely wrapped up in ethnic and racial labelling" I'd recommend that you take a look at yourself first. By making generalizations such as "it's the atmosphere in which they are raised, that has inprinted these prejudices upon them" you are demonstrating your level. If that was true, did you think the atmosphere in communist Bulgaria produced more rational human beings. If you have not been to Bulgaria then read this and learn how the history is taught there. Perhaps, then you may understand why "reasonable men" will talk nonsense when it comes to history.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. The, "Majoring in History" in college was quite an amusing part. Thanks for the laugh. So which part of this "Kansas" atmosphere was supposedly prejudical?? I don't believe that my statement was too generalized considering how many have been prosecuted under Article 301. The Turkish government's attempt to subvert American scholarship via Ottoman/Turkish Studies Chairs(UCLA incident). Leyla Zana, Elif Shafak, İsmail Beşikçi, just to name a few... The only reason you've attacked my assertion of being a Historian is you can't attack my ethnicity like you've done to others, notably Iranians, Bulgarians, Armenians, and Kurds. Your prejudice/bigotry just needed another excuse. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you were able to laugh. Where did I claim that the Kansas atmosphere was prejudical? I asked what you knew about the atmosphere we were brought up since you made a statement as if you did. By mentioning Article 301 as the reason for your comment you only show your ignorance. According to your logic there is a law in Turkey that restricts the freedom of speech and because of this Turks who are brought up in Bulgaria tend to be bigots?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it can be done. It can always be done, but the main issue is to "neutralize" the people, not the article. Some of the Turkish contributors here seem to have been directly affected by the bad Bulgarian–Turkish relations 20–25 years ago and they cannot put their feelings aside. In order to create an NPOV article, these people need to look at those events in a different way. Until that happens, we cannot co-operate effectively. Todor→Bozhinov 12:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are right. --Lantonov (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• The notion that 90% of the article is about the “Assimilation Campaign” is not only wrong but also false insinuation. The events and the brutality during the “Assimilation Campaign” are well recorded facts with plenty of eyewitnesses; after all it was not 250 years ago. If the facts seem appalling or disturbing these depict the truth. Should we change history to accommodate the feelings of some of the Bulgarian readers? Furthermore, I believe that in the article it has been the intention to underline that the “Communist” regime of Bulgaria was the primary culprit for these bizarre and tragic events the aim has not been to put the blame on the Bulgarian people as a whole. If the Bulgarian readers feel they have been left “unaware” then this article gives a basis for further study on the issue. If e.g., Lantonov feels that he has “lived through these years” of the “Assimilation Campaign” well I and many others lived and survived the “Assimilation Campaign” with unfortunately first hand experience. I would really appreciate that instead of deleting or marking the article as POV to try to further elaborate on what the “Turks IN Bulgaria have contributed FOR Bulgaria” please do not be limited to Olympic achievements through the decades or arts and literature. I am sure a common ground could be found. Where you want to start? Hittit (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You can start from the participation of Bulgarian Turks in the Bulgarian Army during the Serbo-Bulgarian War, the Balkan Wars, WWI, and WWII. Just a suggestion. --Lantonov (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For your information my grand grandfather was a veteran from the Bulgarian Army (2nd Lieutenant) in the Wars in question and his brother fell in battle again fighting for the Bulgarian Army so dot attempt to patronize me. Do you know where their names are written? No where! Afterall you cannot have Turkish names on War Memorials in Bulgaria, that would be a huge NO NO. If I start writing about it are you again going to mark the articel as POV? Furthermore, no one is stopping you from writing about it, after all this is supposed to be a joined effort?Hittit (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not attempt to patronize you and this is what my suggestion is all about. You can write about your grandfather and his experiences, good or bad, look in sources to see if there is something written about him or the events. If there is nothing, this is your opportunity to enlighten everyone with truth. No one has forbidden writing Turkish names on War Memorials in Bulgaria, on the contrary - this is encouraged. If you start writing about it, I will not mark it as POV but look for sources and help you make it better and complete because I think these topics should be highlighted in this article. For instance, I have materials on the Serbo-Bulgarian War, and names of Bulgarian Turks who participated in it with acts of heroism and medals. --Lantonov (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lantonov, you did not allow us to go there. My maternal great-grand father spent five years of his life as a POW in a Serbian prison camp after World War One as a member of the Bulgarian army. I did meet him and saw the shrapnel wounds in his face. The old man died and ended up being burried in Bursa - the first capital of the Ottoman Empire. Why would a man leave a land for which he gave up so much of his life?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nostradamus1, for this I believe you. Certainly it is a bad experience but it is true. If you write about it I will be the first who opposes to anyone trying to delete it. --Lantonov (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a second suggestion. Let's include here or in the other relevant articles the involvement of Osman Nuri Efendi, "the Savior of Klisura", in the April Uprising and the Batak and Perushtica tragedies. I think that he is a true hero of these events and no one talks or writes about him on their commemorations. He deserves every respect given to him.--Lantonov (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lantonov, sounds like a changed man now. In the past he made statements such as "The history of Bulgaria is best known by Bulgarians". And by that he perhaps implied that the history of the Turks in Bulgaria is also known best by Bulgarians. I disagreed with this and asked for informan mediation which was closed without any discussion. I suggest that we ask for a formal mediation. The current state of the article is pretty bad and needs improvement. It was me who tried mediation with these users in the past. If they are here in good faith I expect one of them to volunteer and request a formal mediation. Gligan, you removed an entire paragraph. Could you restore it back and bring any objections during these discussions.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We had long discussions concerning a similar paragraph and I will not state my reasons again, you can see them in the previous discussions. I would only remind you that the Great migrations and the history of Pechenegs, Cumans and similar Turkic peoples does not have anything to do with the history of the Turkish people who is only a part of the greater Turkic family and is in no way greater or more significant that the other Turkic peoples. Having a paragraph about other Turkic peoples makes sense only if the article's title is "Turkic peoples of Bulgaria". --Gligan (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Gligan what is the real issue here? Wouldn’t you think it is a bit naïve to limit the history of the Turks only to the Ottoman era? Turkic is a common denominator for some 180 million people who share the same routs and belong to the same language group. Turkic people have migrated from their homelands the same way as the e.g., Slavs via different routes and have adopted different religions and some have assimilated and melted away or have assimilated others. I could provide you with a number of sources showing that in fact the Balkans were inhabited by Turkic tribes (other than the Bulgars) at the time of Ottoman arrival and these in fact shared the same language group with the Ottomans. Furthermore, using your logic I would need to go and dismiss relations between the Bulgarians and the Bulgars or the Slavs. There is hardly anything Bulgar left in a Bulgarian, but are Bulgarians really Slavs? Or not all Bulgarians are Bulgars or Slavs? You agree with the logic? Should we go together to the Bulgarians wiki article and remove relations? What would you propose?Hittit (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the Turkic peoples are a common group with many similar characteristics, but the Turkish people corresponds to the Turkic peoples (such as Cumans, Pechenegs...) as the Bulgarian people corresponds to the Slavic peoples (Russians, Poles...) and in the history of the Bulgarian people it is not written about the other Slavic peoples as you try to do here. In that article you should describe the history of the contemporary Turkish people who became to emerge with the rise of the Ottoman state - other earlier Turkic states in the Balkans such as the Cuman (Kipchak) state have nothing to do with the Turkish (Ottoman) state as Serbia for instance has nothing to do with the Bulgarian state. After all that is not the article about the Turkish people where, naturally, you should go deep to trace even the early loosely related peoples on the territory of modern Turkey which have almost no relation with the Turkish people, as for instance the Thracians in Bulgaria. The Thracians have almost nothing to do with the modern Bulgarian people but they are mention in the article from the Bulgarian people. But mentioning them in the article for the Bulgarians in Turkey is ridiculous, as well as mentioning about Slavs in Turkey before the formation of the Bulgarian state. --Gligan (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Gligan lets not get confused, the denominator Turk has been used since the early 6th century to depict an Empire formed by Turkic tribes. Consequent Empires formed by the Turks such as e.g., the Göktürk, Oghuz, Selcuk and Ottoman were the result of Turkic tribes forming entities. The clam that Turkish is the result of the Ottoman Empire is ludicrous as if Turks just came to exist in 1281 after Osman I became the ruler of the Selcuk Empire? Who were the Selcuks? Do you know which Turkic tribes made up the first waves of settlers to the Balkans with the Ottoman Turks? Who were e.g., the Yörüks the Karamans? Now investigating that for sure will broaden your horizons. Having a short article about the Turks and their Turkic history and the particular tribes settling to Bulgaria as part of the Ottoman advance is inline with the subject “Turks in Bulgaria”. The relation with Turks and the Turkic people is hardly loose after all the Turks make no association to the Thracians or the people of Atlantis as perhaps the Bulgarians may loosely do. I suggest having a short section about the specific Turkic tribes settling to Bulgaria as part of the Ottoman advance and showing if members of these tribes where already found in the territories of Bulgaria could be a middleground?Hittit (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But the tribes that Nostradamus1 want to bring here as the Cumans or the Pechenegs, not to mention the Bulgars have nothing to do with the Turkish people, they are only relatives, such are the Bulgarians and the Poles. Those tribes which came here with the Ottomans you can mention with the section of the Ottoman advance. The word Turk as I have mention before has two different meaning in English 1st a member of the Turkic peoples as a whole and 2nd a member of the Turkish people; in Bulgarian we have two different words which removes the confusion - тюрк meaning a member of the Turkic peoples, might be a Cuman, a Bulgar, a Pecheneg and турчин meaning a member of the Turkish people. Please, make the difference between Turkish people and Turkic peoples. To claim that the modern Turkish nation is what unites all Turkic peoples is ridiculous and greater propaganda, the same like a claim that the Russian nation is what unites all Slavic peoples, which the Russians tried to clain in 19th century. Perhaps the modern Turkish people does not include only the Ottoman Turks but it started to emerge only after the Ottoman state was created and certainly does not include the tribes that Nostradamus wants to push here.

Making a section for all Turkic peoples that have settled in Bulgaria would mean that the modern Turkish are descendants of them all and is what unites them all which is not true. For instance we have a separate article for the Crimean Tatars in Bulgaria and they ate not Turkish people but only part of the Turkic peoples. --Gligan (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm patronizing anyone, but Hittit, if you want to write Turkic people in Bulgaria or History of Turkic settlement in Bulgaria, do that; just don't mix the modern Turkish people with the loosely related Cumans, Pechenegs, Crimean Tatars, and so on, and so on. It's like not making a difference between Russians and Czechs, innit. Todor→Bozhinov 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The section Gligan removed was titled "Emergence of the Turkish Community in Bulgaria". Scholars suggest that a very important part of the Turks in Bulgaria arrived during the Ottoman rule. However they also mention the other Turkic peoples including the Bulgars. Also some Bulgarians became Turks by joining the Yuruks. It is mentioned in Hupchick's book. Unfortunately the insecurities and the nationalist ideologies of some contributors did not allow to get to that point. Ask any unbiased reasonable person and they will find it necessary to include a section about the formation of the Turkish community in Bulgaria. For people with agendas such as presenting the Turks in Bulgaria as mere Ottoman colonists this is certainly unacceptable. One can clearly see the pattern: Bulgaria was well and fine until the Turks arrived, they contributed nothing, Bulgarians survived despite all the mistreatment and there was well-organized mass public "April" uprising which let to a liberation from the "Turkish" yoke. This characterization might help forge a Bulgarian nation and a sense of self pity and fatalism but it is just not fair. Experts do not put it that way. So, Hittit, I suggest opening a formal mediation request to at least sort this part out. Denying the pre-Ottoman presence and manifold connections of Turks in Bulgaria is also part of the ethnic cleansing agenda. I tried a year ago to reason with some of these users to no avail. The mentality is "The history of Bulgaria is best known by Bulgarians, including that of the Turks". Credible western sources were rejected by lame excuses and Jiricek - a Slavic nationalist and paid Bulgarian government official during the 19th century- was put forward as the respectful expert on these matters. For example, according to Lantonov "When I reread for the umpteenth time the text in Britannica, it seems more biased with each new reading, as well as uninformed. I see where both Hupchick and Crampton have found their inspiration. I don't feel it will do here. Compare it with Jiricek to see how facts clash with opinions." So, from this we learn that Britanica, Hupchick -an American scholar who is a former Fullbright scholar to Bulgaria and the past president of the Bulgarian Studies Association, and Crampton -a British scholar with at least four books on Bulgaria going back to early eighties are not credible but Jiricek is. I have additional sources to back this article but it is futile to try when credible English language sources are rejected out of POV. Let us try under the guidance of a mediator one more time. Any volunteers to make this mediatin request and show good faith?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jiricek is credible while McCarthy & Co. are not credible, as simple as that. No need for your personal attacks against Bulgarians. Most of us are to the same extent victims of the communist regime imposed on us from the Big Brother. Today we are victims of many of the same people dug in as the Bulgarian mafia and supplemented by the Dogan's "hoops". I don't know, maybe our destiny is to be victims of something. --Lantonov (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nostradamus it seems we will not get any suggestion from our Bulgarian friends for the "way ahead" with this article. I support the idea for mediation, I am becoming quite frustrated with this mentality.Hittit (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How come it is always the international sources that we provide that are not reliable, and yours always are :P You're a Turkish POV pusher and that's all there is to say about it. Now, go invent some new racial slurs for Bulgarians with some Holocaust deniers; how many times does one have to repeat we don't tolerate revisionism here? Todor→Bozhinov 14:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot be bothered with juveniles and particularly with such who do not comprehend the meaning of “Multiple” sources. Using the same source twice still makes it a single sourced article e.g., “Muslim Bulgarians”…not to mention the credibility of that source. Go borrow something from the “ATAKA” web site.Hittit (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How about the section "Turkish Press in Bulgaria 1879 – 1945" which is the whole from a single Turkish source? "Turan" - the newspaper of the pan-Turkic organisation with the same name. "TERBIYE OCAĞI" - Islamist newspaper agitating for Islamic revolution in Bulgaria published by an Islamist sect which was banned even in Turkey in this time. Much more facts about this section either not mentioned or glossed over. But closures of newspapers by Bulgarian authorities and what is described as persecution of journalists are prominently featured, of course. In fact, many of these newspapers were banned after protests from Turks themselves. "TERBIYE OCAĞI" was banned after official protest from Turkey. Read some of Simeon Radev, Jiricek for non-Turkish sources on this section.--Lantonov (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is only one section and not a whole Wiki article. You should be able to make the difference? No? BTW I have not seen but Turkish sources on the subject, please point out others if you know. Regarding your nonsense above about "Turan" and "Terbiye Ocagi" published in BULGARIA beginning of the 20th century you should check your "SOURCE" again. I will ellaborate and expand on the topic e.g., list http://academic.wsc.edu/faculty/alemino1/biblios-select_works_by_native_turks.html. Hittit (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the articles Turanism and Pan-Turkism to educate yourself about my "nonsense". It will be good if you elaborate on this topic using sources from the cited list. Then the section will become less POV. --Lantonov (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lantonov, I am not sure if you are bringing Turanism and Pan-Turkism intentionally in to the discussion or is it just because you lack understanding in Turkish and otherwise you do not comprehend the nature of Turkish publications in Bulgaria. The word Turan is Turkish and could be translated as “co-operation between Turkish people”. The Turan publication in question was meant for the Turkish youth in Bulgaria now linking this into a Pan-Turkism discussion is simply intentional spam and insinuation. “Terbiye Ocagi” (Ognishte na Vŭspitanieto) as well has nothing to do with Pan-Turkism but with education! Stay with the topic and do attempt to portray the Turks in Bulgaria as some kind of Pan-Turkist society and with that explain the closure of newspapers and prosecution of journalists in the beginning of the 20th century. I am sure that according to you we deserved the Assimilation Campaign as well since we are all Bulgarian Mohammedans/Muslims and being called Turk is Pan-Turkism and separatism? A good thermometer of the Bulgarian psyche was an example of recent news where the Turkish flag was painted on balloons along with baloons representing the Bulgarian tricolor for the opening of a children’s playground in Kardzhali, that caused outcries for Pan-Turkism and accusations of desecrating the Bulgarian flag.Hittit (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you mix the issues, Hittit. Turan, Turanians, etc. are a semi-mythical people that lived in Iran with many Persian legends about it. Almost every nation has such mytical peoples and legends and there is nothing bad in it. However, "Turan" is also the name of a Pan-Turkist organisation and "Turan" the newspaper was the organ this organisation - in Turkey, as well as in Bulgaria. "Terbiye Ocagi" was the organ of Islamic fundamentalists who were expelled from Turkey. It is indeed involved in education in a sense of the teachings of Talibans (these are also teachers). They tried to teach youth to take arms and establish Islamic Sultanate in Bulgaria and Turkey. That's why the outcry from Turkey. There was opposition to them also from the Bulgarian Turks. The newspaper of the mufti in Bulgaria "Medeniyet" strongly opposed both the "Turan" and the Islamic fundamentalists. So the Turks in Bulgaria deserve gratitude for this as well as deciding to stay here and work and live for the well-being of Bulgaria. They certainly do not deserve the assimilation campaign. And here we come to the question of flags which you also mix. The flag of Bulgaria is a state symbol of the country Bulgaria. In this country there are various nationalities who have all Bulgarian citizenship, but ethnically are Bulgarians, Turks, Armenians, Jews, etc. Turkey is another country who has Turkish flag and various nationalities living in it. Kardzhali is a town in Bulgaria, and the children's playground is build by, I suppose, the Kardzhali Municipality which is part of the state of Bulgaria. That's why the Bulgarian flag. On the other hand, if the state of Turkey has helped to build the playground, Turkish flag should also be raised, honoring the state of Turkey. I wouldn't say that the Bulgarian flag is desecrated, but if Turkish flag is raised only to say "No, we are not Bulgarians but Turks" this is sure to give apprehensions for separatism in any country, not just Bulgaria. Such events fuel reactions of Bulgarian nationalists like the recent swastika that I saw painted on mosque. Of course, such vandal acts are inexcusable but they are reactions of anger and insecurity over separatist tendencies of Turks. Turkish flags are out of place in this article too, because it is about Bulgaria not about Turkey in sense of state. And yet flag and state emblem of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire are prominent while the Bulgarian flag is as small as a dot. This gives the impression to everyone who looks here for the first time that Bulgaria is some Turkish province. This impression is strengthened by by a flag of an unexisting Turkish Republic of Western Thrace and a history section in which almost directly is written that Bulgarians are Turks. There is even a map of some cut down Bulgaria-like state most of which is populated by Turks with some small minorities of Greeks, Bulgarians and Gypsies. So what reactions to this you expect from Bulgarians. Nod and agree? Clap and thank you for this? Make the Turkish flags bigger? Supply evidence that we were very happy in the Ottoman empire? What is the normal reaction to this? --Lantonov (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lantonov you are a bit out of line and I think the product of 50 years of Communist Regime brainwashing and feeding our citizens corrupted versions of history prepared by a special department for “Historical” affairs in the former State Security Service (DS). You forget the recent years not that long a ago when Bulgarian history books stated that there are no ethnic minorities in Bulgaria only Bulgarians and some Mohammedan people to whom was extended the gift the “Assimilation Process” in order to make them Bulgarian again. You forget the glory of Georgi Dimitrov and Mitko Palaluzov and that Mithat Pasa was actually a Bulgarian as well…so where all the mosque builders and the Revival Architecture in Bulgaria….those were the times. And now some 18 years later your history books have changed again…amazing! You even get excited for a bunch of coloured balloons in the hands of small children, shame on these little separatists carrying white, green, and red balloons with a crescent. Article is about TURKS in Bulgaria and not about Bulgaria. Ou and I forget the Macedonians are also Bulgarians but they still have not realized it yet?Hittit (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hittit, you only confirm my words. You say that Bulgarian children in Bulgaria who carry balloons colored with the colors of the Bulgarian flag are "little separatists, shame on them". I have nothing to add to this, it is all clear. --Lantonov (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lantonov is obsessed with Jirecek. Using Jirecek as a credible source is a problem because Jirecek was a direct participants in some of the events and conflicts described here. Therefore he is naturally partial and biased. What else would we expect Jirecek to write? Yet Lantonov keeps on picking McCarthy who is a scholar, not a participant in any of the events in the 19th century. Another example is Lantonov's primary English source, that is Mercia MacDermott. This British communist who lived for decades in Bulgaria and was a close friend of the top governing circles and an acquintance of Zhivkov directly participated in the assimilation campaign of 1984-89. How can this criminal be used as a credible reference in this article? But let us not waste our breath try to start formal mediation. The present state of the article helps these users meet their objective. Big Excursion is another one they are discrediting by tagging it as POV. Yet the same ones removed my POV tag and citation requests. I spent many hours arguing these matters with Lantonov and the others. As Buxton puts it "there are facts unknown to non-Bulgarian historians". Therefore we will not be able to reason with this mentality. Check the discussion section of Bulgaria article to see a new revelation. It turns out that Turkey sold Bulgaria the Ottoman archives in the 1930s. As a result the world will have to learn the Ottoman history from Bulgarian historians. I am not kidding, these are supposed to be "reasonable men" as, again, Buxton puts it.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I recommend reading the source Buxton pointed by Nostradamus1 (together with the comments below) to see what he deems for a final authority concerning all matters connected to Bulgaria. BTW, the picture there is from Kosovo and depicts graves of Serbs killed by Albanians. "McDermott is direct participant in the assimilation campaign". Yeah, I remember this old lady taking a mashine-gun and going to the Rhodopes to shoot the Turks :).--Lantonov (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Going around the country and making speeches in support of the name change campaign would make someone a direct participant of the ethnic cleansing process. Especielly when this was done at trhe time when people were being forced into it. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Another of your "casual observations" without a shred of truth in it. --Lantonov (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If I had to put a after every wrong and unsourced observation Nostradamus has posted, my keyboard would run out of ink. Todor→Bozhinov 13:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't start with one citation request to prove your claim?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Emergence of the Turkish Community in Bulgaria

During the Great Migrations of nations some ethnic groups, among which Turkic tribes from the Eurasian steppes held an important place, migrated toward the west. The geographical location and the fertile lands of the Balkan Peninsula which at the time was part of the Eastern Roman Empire attracted different ethnicities that included a number of Turkic tribes. The migrations of these Turkic tribes into the region continued for centuries and included certain periods of greater intensity. These Turkic migrations can be divided into the following periods:

What on hell has the great migration with the Turkish people in Bulgaria? You claim that the Turkish people settled here during the Great Migrations? --Gligan (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is about the emergence of the Turkish community in Bulgaria. According to sources the origin of this community is not limited to the arrival of the Ottoman Turks. That is the reason a section discussing the origin of this community is needed. According to Bulgarian Helsinki page 5 "The Turkish minority in Bulgaria originates from the Turkic tribes, which started to penetrate the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor as early as III-IV century". Do you have any problems with that?

The initial period starts during the 4th century and assumes a more massive character in the eve of the establishment of the Bulgar state. It continues until the transformation of the Tengriist Turkic Bulgars into the Slavic Bulgarians within a hundred years following their conversion to Orthodox Christianity in the middle of the ninth century.

What does this statement to do with the Turkish people in Bulgaria? That referes to the formation of the modern Bulgarian people and has nothig to do with the Turkish people. --Gligan (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, "The Turkish minority in Bulgaria originates from the Turkic tribes, which started to penetrate the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor as early as III-IV century". Read the source that is available online. While that may be similar to the formation of modern Bulgarian people there is nothing preventing the same to be true for the formation of the modern Turkish community in Bulgaria. After all isn't it the Bulgarians and the types like you claiming that "the Turks in Bulgaria used to be originally Bulgarians"? If so, then some of these people used to be of Turkic stock before they became Bulgarians, and after that some of these Bulgarians became Turks. How about that path? Also it is quite probable that not all of the population in Bulgaria during the First and Second Bulgarian empires were Slavicized. Bulgaria has never had an ethnically homogenious population. That is still true today despite the well known attempts to make her so.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Turkish people does NOT exist since 4th century but was formed after the formation of the Ottoman state. The detailed research on the Turkish people has to be done on the article of the Turkish people, not in that article. The Thracians have only a loose connection with the Bulgarian people and that is written in the article for the Bulgarian people not in the article for the Bulgarians in Turkey. In Bulgarians in Turkey it is not written even about the Slavic presence before the formation of the Bulgarian state and it should not be because the topic does not concern the details which peoples had role in the Bulgarian nation.--Gligan (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is not claiming that the Turkish people exists since the 4th century. The section is about the formation of this community and its origin. You can not restrict this by forcing this into Turkish poeple article. This is Turkish People in Bulgaria that has its own history. Regarding the Bulgarians in Turkey article, it never amazes me to see how desparate people can be when they have such threatening population statistics. Now, I've just learned that all my relatives living in Turkey are also included in this article as Bulgarians. Has it occured to anyone to be descent enough and ask whether these 300,000 or so people consider themselves to be Turks or Bulgarians? If they are not calling themselves Bulgarians why are they even mentioned in the article? And yet you oppose a section about the emergence of Turkish identity in Bulgaria. We will end up in arbitration. I clearly see that now.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It amazes me how limited you are. The article says that 300,000 speak Bulgarian including ethnic Turkish emigrant, can't you read? Where did you see that all your relatives there claim to be Bulgarians? Tell me what was the Turkish identity in Bulgaria in 9th century? In 13th century? The great migration don't have anything to do with that topic. In your logic the article for the Bulgarians in Turkey should begin with the Thracians or at least with the Slavs who settled there before the formation of the Bulgarian state (including in Asia Minor) which is laughable. You try to push that nonesence only in the Bulgarian section. Why Turks in Romania begins with the formation of the Ottoman state despite the fact that what is now Romania was settled with numerous waves of Turkic peoples? What you want to push is ridiculous. Shall Crimean Tatars in Bulgaria begin with the Great Migrations and tell about Cumans, Pechenegs.... ?????? Shall Russians in Bulgaria begin with the settlement of the Slavs in the Balkans?--Gligan (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Bulgarians is not about the Bulgarian language but the ethnic group Bulgarians. I see that it claims 480,000 Bulgarians in Turkey. Even though Bulgarians in Turkey claims that there are 300,000 Bulgarian speaking Turks in Turkey one has to wonder why this is mentioned in the first paragraph. There is English people and English-speaking people. If we start pushing the latter so prominently into an article about the Englishmen we would only be confusing people. Regarding your other questions I asked you to read Bulgarian Helsinki Committe publication. This is the perspective of the history of the Turkish Community in Bulgaria. Bulgarians such as yourself will not like it. Unfortunately for you there is even a Bulgarian publication titled "The History of The Turkish Community in Bulgaria". Find it and read it. It is written by a scholar and historian who graduated from Sofia University. I am sure you guys who claim that "the history of Bulgaria is best know by Bulgarians" won't be opposing the idea of "the history of Turks in Bulgaria being best known by Turks of/from/in Bulgaria".--Nostradamus1 (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your first statements and you should discuss your remarks with the creators of those articles, I am not sure at all that 300,000 Bulgarian-speakers should be included in the introduction. Concerning the Helzinki committee, I think the people there claim that in the Blagoevgrad Province there are c. 300,000 "ethnic Macedonians" which is laughable. And I remember a graduate from the Sofia University who wrote in a book that the Bulgarians founded the Shumer civilization, built the Pyramids and so on and "proved" it. It was very funny book :):):) but I can't remember the name so that you can laugh as well. --Gligan (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Helsinki document is not the work of extemists but of a respected body that can't be dismissed easily. However it will not surprise any one to hear claims that Macedonians actually do not exist in Bulgaria. Also, Yalamov is no less credible than, say, Hristo Hristov and the like, if not more. I see quite a few Bulgarian language sources that are claimed to be more credible than some English publications. In that case this source also becomes a valid reference.Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't say whether they are extremists or not but what they claim is sometimes ridiculous (for instance that with the "Macedonians" in Bulgaria and Greece). Also I guess that they have similar claims for the Kurdish minority in Turkey and that they acknowledge the Armenian genocide which you call "alleged". --Gligan (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I never denied the existence of the Kurds in Turkey. On the matter of ethnic minorities Turkey- where anyone from Muslim background is automatically counted as a "Turk"- is no better than Bulgaria. The alleged part of the Armenian "Genocide" comes from the issue being politicised. This term was invented after WWII. Many interest groups -including those with territorial aspirations- are behind this. Whether it was a genocide or not it was certainly ethnic cleansing. I am not even entirely familiar with the matter but to my understanding the Turkish side claims that the Ottoman authorities decided to relocate the Armenian population to the province of Syria during WWI because of Armenians helping to and collaborating with the Russian army from within the Ottoman territory. In any case this is not the subject in this article. Why not ask Macedonians whether they are Bulgarians? Let people declare their identity themselves.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Byzantine period includes the years of Byzantine rule during which the Pechenegs, Uzes (Oghuz Turks), and Cumans entered the Balkans.

Those peoples are differed Turkic peoples, not the Turkish people. --Gligan (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we are talking about the emergence of the Turkish community in Bulgaria. Nicole, Hupchick, Bulgarian Helsinki, Eminov, and Yalamov all point to the medieval Turkic interlopers being partial ancestors of modern day Turks in Bulgaria. Only those fearing the implications of accepting this will try to limit the Turkish presence in Bulgaria to the Ottoman period. Why should Bulgarians be able to extend their presence in Bulgaria back to the days of the Thracians but not the Turks in Bulgaria?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

See above. --Gligan (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ottoman period between the end of 14th and the 19th centuries during which the Turko-Islamic identity is consolidated.

??? You can well write that statement in the following section. --Gligan (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We will write it on both sections. This section touches and summarizes all the periods before going into detail.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In the course of these centuries Turkic communities gradually settled in Bulgaria. Turkic peoples, especially those who entered these territories during the Byzantine and Ottoman periods, left deep marks on the ethnic composition of the population. They played a decisive role in the formation of the Turkish community in Bulgaria.

Turkic communities are not the topic of that article, it covers only of of the Turkic communities - the Turkish community so keep focused on it. Otherwise it would seem that all the abovementioned peoples were part of the Turkish people which is ridiculous. --Gligan (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Turkic communities ARE very much part of this article. Why are, say, Thracians mentioned in the Bulgaria or Bulgarians articles? And yes, like it or not "all the above mentioned peoples were part of the Turkish people" at varying degrees. This is not ridiculous. Just as Bulgarians were forged out of Thracian, Bulgars, Slavs, Cumans, Pechenegs, etc. in time the same is true for the modern Turks in Bulgaria. Time, historical events, and geography forms ethnicities. Preventing this from being mentioned here is due to nothing but nationalistic agendas and fears.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, because the article does NOT say Turkic peoples in Bulgaria. It is natural that every people which has lived in a land has given something to the modern people that inhabits that land but that is not the article to discuss the details concerning the origin of the Turkish people. You can trace your origins even to the early peoples of Asia Minor such as Lydians or even Ancient Greeks but that is not for this article.--Gligan (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not have to say Turkic peoples in Bulgaria. What that section states is clear. It's about the origins and the emergence and formation of the Turkish community. It does not have a single source and path.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

New Mediation

Because some again seek official sanction for this propaganda article, here are once again the sources from the previous mediation. The first above the line are Nostradamus's, which are extensively cited here, the 40 or so sources below the line are listed by me. Note that the majority of my sources are not Bulgarian. At this time, this is the only help I am able to give for improving this article. As soon as I tried to write something from my sources inside this article, it was immediately removed by Nostradamus:

Nostradamus:

• R.J. Crampton, A Concise History of Bulgaria, 1997, Cambridge University Press.
• D.P. Hupchick, The Balkans, 2002
• G.E. Curtis, Bulgaria: A Country Study, 1992, Library of Congress. (In this book, quoted selectively in the article, please read the chapters: "Ottoman rule", "National revival:early stages", "Bulgarian independence", "Decades of national consolidation". There are also some glaring errors, such as calling the Janissaries, "Pomaks" Lantonov (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC))[1]
• R.D. Kaplan, Balkan Ghosts
• J. McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the End of Empire, 2001, Oxford University Press. (About J. McCarthy's position, please read this [2] paper by Taner Akcam, a Turkish visiting professor at the University of Minnesota. Lantonov (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC))
• J. McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1996, Princeton, Darwin Press. (This is about ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims by the Serbs, and does not involve Bulgaria. Lantonov (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC))
• A. Eminov, Turkish and Other Muslim Minorities of Bulgaria, 1997, Rutledge.
• S.J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 1977, Cambridge University Press.
• C. Finkel, Osman's Dream, 2005, Basic Books.
• R.J. Crampton, Bulgaria 1878-1918, A History, 1983, Cambridge University Press.
• R.J. Crampton A Short History of Modern Bulgaria, 1987, Cambridge University Press.
• R. Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes, 1970, Rutgers University Press.
• G. Hoffman, The Balkans in Transition, 1963.

---

Lantonov:

• MacDermott, Mercia, A History of Bulgaria 1393-1885, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1962, ASIN: B0006D6KE6.
• Konstantin Josef Jireček,1876, Geschichte der Bulgaren, Nachdr. d. Ausg. Prag 1876, Hildesheim, New York : Olms 1977 ISBN 3-487-06408-1
• Konstantin Josef Jireček,1877, Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantinopel und die Balkanpässe : Eine hist.-geogr. Studie , Nachdr. d. Ausg. Prag 1877, Amsterdam : Hamer 1967
• Konstantin Josef Jireček,1891, Das Fürstenthum Bulgarien : seine Bodengestaltung, Natur, Bevölkerung und neueste Geschichte ; mit 42 Abbildungen und einer Karte / von Constantin Jirecek, Prag [u.a.] : Tempsky [ u.a.], 1891
• Blasius Kleiner (1761) History of Bulgaria (in Latin), translated in Bulgarian by Karol Telbizov, edited by Ivan Duychev, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Publishing House, Sofia 1977
• Jérôme-Adolphe Blanqui, Voyage en Bulgarie, W. Coquebert, Paris, 1843.
• Jérôme-Adolphe Blanqui, Considérations sur l’Etat Social de la Turquie d’Europe, W. Coquebert, Paris, 1842.
• Ami Boué, La Turquie d’Europe, Vol.II-III, Arthus Bertrand, Paris, 1840
• Ami Boué, Recueil d’Itinéraires Dans La Turquie d’Europe, Vol.I, W. Braumüller, Vienne, 1854
• M. Boucher de Perthes, Voyage A Constantinople, Vol.II, Treuttel et Wurtz Librairies, Paris, 1855
• Allard, Camille, La Bulgarie Orientale, Adrien Le Clere, Paris, 1864
• Dora D'Istria, “La Nationalité Bulgare D’Après Les Chants Populaires”, Revue des deux Mondes, 2e période, Vol.76, Juillet-Août 1868
• Djordjevic, Dimitrije, “The Balkan Peasantry, 1740-1914: A Synthesis”, in Essays on War and Society in East Central Europe, 1740-1920, eds. Stephen Fischer Galati and Béla K. Király, Athlantic Research and Pub., New York, 1987.
• Dumont, Albert, “Souvenirs de la Roumélie I- Les Communautés Grecques et Les Paysans Turcs”, Revue des deux Mondes, 2e période, Vol.94, Juillet-Août 1871
• Dumont, Albert, “Souvenirs de la Roumélie II- Andrinople – L’Administration d’une Province Turque”, Revue des deux Mondes, 2e période, Vol.94, Juillet-Août 1871
• Dumont, Albert, “Souvenirs de la Roumélie III- Philippopolis - Le réveil Bulgare,” Revue des deux Mondes, 2e période, Vol.95, Septembre-Octobre 1871
• Engelhardt, Edouard, “Division Ethnographique De La Turquie D’Europe, ”Bulletin de la Société de Géographie, Vol.3, Janvier-Juin 1872
• Galabert, Victorin, Vingt-deux Années Parmi Les Bulgares, Vol.I, Université SV. Kliment Okhridski, Sofia, 1998.
• George Horton, Excerpted from George Horton, The Blight of Asia (Indianapolis, 1926) ch II.[3]
• Louis-Gabriel-Galdéric Aubaret, “Province Du Danube,” Bulletin de la société de géographie, Vol.12, Août 1876.
• Alphonse de Lamartine, Souvenirs, Impressions, Pensées et Paysages pendant un Voyage en Orient, 1832-1833, Paris, 1861.
• Lejean, Guillaume, “Exploration en Turquie d’Europe,” Bulletin de la société de géographie, 5e série, Vol.19, Janvier-Juin 1870
• Lejean, Guillaume, “Mission de M.G. Lejean dans les Provinces Danubiennes,” Bulletin de la société de Géographie, 4e série, Vol.15, Janvier-Juin, 1858
• Lejean, Guillaume, “Le Balkan Central”, Bulletin de la société de Géographie, 4e série, Vol.15, no.84-90, Janvier-Juin 1858
• Mathieu, Pierre-Henri, La Turquie et Ses Différents Peuples, Vol.I-II, E. Dentu, Paris, 1857.
• Palairet, Michael, The Balkan Economies c. 1800-1914, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997
• Perrot, Aristide-Michel, Itinéraire de la Turquie d’Europe et des Provinces Danubiennes, Librairie pour l’Art Militaire, les Sciences et les Arts, Paris, 1855.
• Pertusier, Charles, La Bosnie Considérée Dans Ses Rapports Avec L’Empire Ottoman, Librairie de Charles Gosselin, Paris, 1822
• Pinson, M. “Ottoman Bulgaria in the First Tanzimat Period –The Revolts in Nish (1841) and Vidin (1850), in Middle Eastern Studies, 11: 103-146, 1975.
• C. F. Poyet, “La Description Du District D’Islimnia,” Bulletin de la Société de Géographie, 4e série, Vol.18, no.103-108, Juillet-Décembre 1859
• Poyet, C. F., “La Description de Quezanlik,” Bulletin de la Société de Géographie, 4e série, Vol.18, no:103-108 Juillet-Décembre 1859, pp.179-200.
• C.F. Poyet, La Bulgarie Dans le Présent et l’Avenir, Société Orientale de France, Paris, 1860
• Robert, Cyprien, “Le monde Gréco-Slave: Les Bulgares,” Revue des deux Mondes, 4e série, Vol.30, Avril-Juin 1842, pp.879-938.
• Stavrianos, L. S., The Balkans since 1453, C. Hurst & Co. Pub., London, 2000
• William Thomas Stead. Our Policy in the East. The Northern Echo, June 24, 1876 [4]
• William Thomas Stead (The Northern Echo, July 13, 1876). England and the Eastern Insurgents [5]
• William Thomas Stead Journal Entry (January 14, 1877). Quoted in J. W. Robertson Scott, The Life and Death of a Newspaper (1952) pp. 104-106 [6]
• Felix Philipp Kanitz. Reise in Südserbien und Nordbulgarien (A Journey to South Serbia and North Bulgaria). Vienna (1868).
• Felix Philipp Kanitz. Donau-Bulgarien und der Balkan (Danubian Bulgaria and the Balkans). Three volumes. Leipzig (1882).
• Viquesnel, Auguste, Voyage dans la Turquie d'Europe, Vol.I-II, Paris, 1868
• Борис Азарьев, 2003, Яничары, Татарский мир, issue No. 6 (Boris Azar'ev, 2003, Janissaries, Tatar World, No. 6, in Russian)
• Haykaram Nahapetyan. Turks in Bulgaria: The Fifth Column of Ankara. [7]
• The Nature of Balkan Society under Ottoman Rule. Wayne S. Vucinich. Slavic Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Dec., 1962), pp. 597-616. The Nature of Balkan Society under Ottoman Rule. Wayne S. Vucinich. Slavic Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Dec., 1962), pp. 597-616.
• Robert Seton-Watson, Disraeli, Gladstone and the Eastern Question: a study in diplomacy and party politics, (London: Macmillan, 1935
• D. Harris, Britain and the Bulgarian Horrors of 1876 (Chicago, 1939)
• D. Harris, A Diplomatic History of the Balkan Crisis of 1875-1878: The First Year (Stanford, Calif., 1936),
• Cengiz Aktar. Turkish Daily News. Bulgaria's Turks and Turkey's Kurds. 12 December 2007.[8][9]
• William Gladstone, 1876, Bulgarian Horrors and the Questions of the East
• Mr. Schuyler's Preliminary Report on the Moslem Atrocities, published with the letters by Januarius MacGahan, London, 1876.
• The Turkish Atrocities in Bulgaria, Letters of the Special Commissioner of the Daily News, J.A. MacGahan Esq. With an Introduction and Mr. Schuyler's Preliminary Report (London, 1876.)[10]
• Terrorism Yesterday - netinfo.bg, 27.02.2007 (in Bulgarian), source verified in the Discussion section.
• Galina Lozanova, Marko Hajdinjak.2006. EUROREG Regions, minorities and European integration: Policy Paper on Muslim minorities (Turks and Muslim Bulgarians) in the South Central Region of Bulgaria [11]

Flags

There are too many misleading flags in the article. I suggest that all of them be removed. They add no value other than make the article look like a nationalist propaganda.

1. Republic of Gumulcine flag: What does it have to do with Turks in Bulgaria? Gumulcine is in Greece.
2. The Turkish flag: This is a flag of another country. Many Turks in Bulgaria have relatives in Turkey and many also have dual Turkish and Bulgarian citizenships but this is not a good reason to place the Turkish flag so prominently into this article. Turkey is a country and the Turks in Bulgaria certainly consider themselves Turkish. However the "Turkishness" of the "Turks" in Turkey is simply by government decree and is attained by citizenship. The Turkishness of Turks in Bulgaria is of ethnic type that does not require any relation to republic of Turkey.
3. Ottoman coat of Arms: What is this flag and what is its relation and significance to Turks in Bulgaria? Why not focus on improving content in terms of words and limit the images to really significant items. An image of an Ottoman bridge for example would be good.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Nostradamus1. Acknowledged. --Lantonov (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If flags are an issue I do not mind their removal, however I suggest that the small Turkish and Bulgarian flags be kept as both are associated with the article. BTW the flag of Western Thrace (included territory of South Bulgaria as well). The Ottoman era can be visualised with some other items of art or architetureHittit (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My concern with having the flag of Turkey and Bulgaria side by side is that it gives the wrong impression. There wer Turks in Bulgaria before there was Republic of Turkey. The article is already part of wiki Turkey project that has a flag on it. How about we remove both Turkish and Bulgarian flags. The Bulgarian flag will remain as part of the ethnic groups in Bulgaria tag at the bottom.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. Look in Germans in Bulgaria, Jews in Bulgaria, Armenians in Bulgaria, Germans in Romania, Germans in Poland, etc. Flags in these are minimal, in some no flag at all. Even Macedonians in Bulgaria has no flag.--Lantonov (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Flags are confusing inasmuch they hint at an association with a certain state. Todor→Bozhinov 13:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Maps

There are currently five maps of Bulgaria but it is not that clear what they show. In my opinion, it should be less than that. Current distribution and maybe 19th century distribution.

Removal of POV tag

Regarded by some as controversial, flags have been removed, the placements of maps adjusted and all refs properly formatted with the subsequent links where existing. I suggest the one that has written the chapter “Transfer of Land” to review the sources and tags. As such as I see no reason for this article to be tagged as POV therefore there should be no objections for the POV removal?Hittit (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Since there have not been any comments for over 2 months regarding why the POV tag should be kept it will be now removed. Hittit (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio texts by Nostradamus

Having looked a bit more closely into the work of Nostradamus1 (talk · contribs), it now appears to me that almost every bit of text this user has ever contributed to wikipedia articles is a copyright violation. He was forever lifting large chunks of texts from various sources.

Unfortunately it is not always easy to identify the exact sources via simple google searches (Amazon "search inside this book" sometimes works better, but it's not always immediately obvious which book is the source). Nostradamus has been unwilling to help in the identifying of offending passages and has opted to retire from the project instead of helping with the cleanup. I therefore see no other option at this point but to ask everybody for help: please identify whatever passages of texts in Bulgaria- and Ottoman-related articles were originally contributed by Nostradamus, and delete them. (It may be helpful if you could make a note at User talk:Nostradamus1 of what passages they were and what source they can be tracked down to, if you find a source.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Assimilation campaign"

"Campaign" is a word suitable for separate intensive episodes lasting a few years at most. You can't have one single campaign for 50 years. The overall decades-long strategy towards assimilation should be called "assimilation policy" or something like that. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--hnnvansier (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Syntax and grammar

Syntax and grammar need fixing in many places throughout this article. I am just a casual reader, and I am not going to do it. FWIW, I have worked in Bulgaria, love the country, and have friends. Bellagio99 (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Just some more information

http://hudoc.ecri.coe.int/XMLEcri/ENGLISH/Cycle_03/03_CbC_eng/BGR-CbC-III-2004-2-ENG.pdf --144.122.250.143 (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Cyrillic and the Turkish names

Why is the Cyrillic spelling as well as the Turkish name of various towns/villages necessary in the section "The 'Revival Process'"? Those Turkish names can simply be added to that chart in the section "Historical Turkish names of cities, towns, villages and geographical locations". The Cyrillic shouldn't be necessary at all: all the names listed are already clear transliterations of the Bulgarian names.--Raskovnik (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And aside from that, it's inconsistent style! One may as well write the Cyrillic spelling and the Turkish name for all the places mentioned in this article.--Raskovnik (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

some people

Why you removed Naim Süleymanoğlu's picture? It was good, and related with the article. --144.122.250.202 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Turkish civillian casualties in the 1877-1878 War

The casualty numbers are based only on Dennis Hupchick's work "The Balkans from Constantinople to Communism" (despite claiming to be based on McCarthy's work as well), a work which is plagued by numerous inacurracies, as well as strong pro-Ottoman bias. Therefore I think that this source should be removed until other sources can be found to corroborate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostja (talk • contribs) 08:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Casualty numbers are confirmed also by the British consuls in Sofia, Burgas and Rousse. They have reported that 300 000 Turks were killed by the Russian forces and Bulgarian bands and forced 1000 000 out of their homes to become refugees. The sources are credible no reason to remove them. The consuls also report in detail of rapes, burning of villages and what have you other Balkan customs to remove people from their homelands. Hittit (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It might surprise you, but this article doesn't belong to you, nor can you decide what is vandalism. You need to state exactly what you consider vandalism. Also, a piece of propaganda is a piece of propaganda regardless of how long it has stood.

The source you have given is totally incompatible with demographic figures of the time. It's also unlikely that they were based on the reports of the British consuls, as Hupchick's figures, which are more likely to refer to them, do not mention such huge casualty numbers.

Kostja (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The source I have provided explicitly mentions the British consuls in Sofia, Russe and Burgas (and other cities), these were all send to Sir Henry Layard in Istanbul. Kostja as you know the only reliable demographic studies (tahrir-I nifüs) of the Balkans during the 19th century were Ottoman Turkish for the purpose of taxation, military and property and land evaluation. Furthermore, the only archives older 1877- (1913) regarding the Balkans are Ottoman Turkish thus making the majority of usable and reliable sources for that period (excluding a small part of the documentation destroyed or purchased to Bulgaria and other countries). There are additional materials worth looking into and that is the intelligence gathered by foreign diplomats and states I find the British to be one of the most extensive. Russia for the purpose of war and propaganda had in fact vast investments in manipulation (more so than others)…

The issue of demographics is a very interesting one, I find it quite strange that the Turkish population in Bulgaria has remained remarkably stabile (referring to state official sources) despite of over app.600 000 being force to immigrate to Turkey since the 1950’s. As it is the latest official census shows some 750 000 Turks in Bulgaria, however in the last Parliamentary elections we saw that the MRF (attracting mainly ethnic Turkish voters) gathered 610 000 votes with 60% nationwide turnout. Now even without the votes from Turkey this suggest that the people associating them selves as Turks is greater than what the official census is showing us (you might suggest additional Pomak and Roma votes, but these are marginal and would mean that all Muslims in Bulgaria voted only and exclusively for the MRF). Rumelia has been a significant area for the Turks from the time it was conquered and meticulously colonized. I find the reports of the British consuls on the Turkish civilian casualties during the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish war in line with the then demographic/ethnic distribution in territories of Bulgaria. Note that at that time the common denominator was Muslim (incl. Turks, Tatars, Cherkez, Pomak and others). Hittit (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Many of the Ottoman archives are still closed or at least not widely available. Why, for example, is there no reliable figure for the distribution of population before the 1877-1878 war?

If you are implying that many Turks were not counted in the census or declared themsleves another ethnicity, both are very unlikely. There is no indication there was any undercounting, nor is it likely that the Turks, which traditionaly have the highest status among Muslims in Bulgaria, would refuse to declare their ethnicity. On the hand, there are strong indications that many Pomaks and Gypsies declare themselves as Turks. The very good results for the MRF are the result of very high turnout, Bulgarian Turkish emigrants voting both abroad and in the country and rather massive vote buying (though the MRF was not the only party to indulge in this). Even the voluntary votes for the MRF are not entirely clean of suspicions - there were some disturbing accounts of voting irregularities in MRF strongholds. It's notable that the coalition government was mostly regarded as unsuccessful and the other two parties suffered catasthrophic defeats, while the MRF only grew stronger.

Kostja (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Kostja the only reliable figures for its time (any type of scientific and methodical census) was indeed done only by the Ottoman Turkish administration, since Rumelia was part of the Empire and nominally until 1908 and South Bulgaria until 1913. There is no way any one else could have done any census and in fact Ottoman figures are the only ones used in any historical scientific commons for the period before the Russo-Turkish war. These figures may not be perfect, how ever up to date statistical methods were used as early as the 1830 census (so this should give us an indication of the situation).

Regarding the votes for the MRF well every time their electorate doubles it seems to rise steady protests, my point being for the MRF to gain 520 000 votes in Bulgaria this would mean that 100% of the Pomaks and Roma also voted for the MRF (mind you what the voting age is)...then again there havent been any credible figures on the Pomak population so we do not have a clear picture. Regarding the attrocities in Eski Zagra, it is funny you should mention that Bulgarians were the victims since it was a main Turkish strategic base. Hüseyin Raci Efendi the grand Müfti of Eski Zagra writes in his memoirs on the faith of the Muslims once it fell to the Russians and the part Bulgarian bands played, he also writes that the Cherkez and Basibozuk avenged the Muslims deaths in Eski Zagra by hittin Bulgarian populated villages in the country side. Hittit (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then can you give some figures about the population of Bulgaria prior of the war?

As for the election, if I'm not mistaken you can read Bulgarian, so you'll find this interesting:

http://www.capital.bg/show.php?storyid=753282

The fact that the Russians and some local Bulgarians behaved badly doesn't really change the fact that the city was destroyed and the population massacred or driven away and that this was done by the Ottoman army, commanded of Suleiman Pasha.

Kostja (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hittit, I'm not denying that atrocities against the civilian Turkish population took place. I'm against the placing of dubious sources which seem to inflate the casualties. Or at least there should be sources expressing the opposite point of view and most importantly, mention that the Turks were not the only victims.

Kostja (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Kostja, I would have assumed you have read Bulgarian history, the city was taken by Gurko and later retaken by Turkish forces…I suggest you read what happened during that time of Russian occupation in that particularly important for its time Turkish city of Eski Zagra. “Behaved badly”…do not try to sugar coat the carnage of the war. If you could find in English or Bulgarian I suggest further reading: Hüseyin Raci Efendi, letters of the British consuls in Bulgaria to Istanbul and also Gurko’s laters to the Russian Zar while he was planning to leave the city and attack Yeni Zagra describing what would happen to the Turkish citizens in the hands of the Bulgarian bands. You can also have a look at the following link http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Russian%20Atrocities.pdf . Regarding your point that the Turks were not the only victims in the war, you are right how ever this is an article about the Turks in Bulgaria, where the focus is naturally on the TurksHittit (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sugar coat anything. I've left your sources about the atrocities, despite serious doubts about the higher figures, and yes, this is an article about the Turks, but this needs to be placed in proper context. It's certainly of importance that many Bulgarian areas were also destroyed (including Yeni Zagra), many during the retreat of the Ottoman army (see, for example the article on Vito Positano on Wikipedia), at the same time as many of the atrocities against the Muslims took place. I'm not saying that these atrocities were justified in any way, but one needs to see the whole picture.

Kostja (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)