Talk:Bulgarian Turks/Archive 1

The Gypsies

There is a significant number of Muslim Gypsies in Bulgaria, who declare themselves as Turks. In fact more than half of the Turks in Bulgaria are Muslim Gypsies not Turks and significant number of other Muslims are accounted for Turks even if they don't speak any Turkish at all. This can be seen in interviews, reports and documentaries. It's all part of the modern expansionist policy of the Turkish state.

The Truth in the Article

According to this article some 1 million Bulgars/ians abused and mistreated 25 million Turks. The Bulgarians must be pretty nasty and dangerous folks. Do you suggest an extermination of the Bulgars/ians or what? Or you're trying to prove that Turks are weak and cowards? This article is quite: hate-inducing and full of Panturkish propaganda. I'm not going to change anything but "truth" and the misinformation in this article bothers me quite a lot. If you know how tight was the security in communist Bulgaria I doubt that there is a way to prove many of these accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.230.179 (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"The zero percent annual increase in birth rate among Christian Bulgarians is the primary reason which caused the Bulgarian government to commit "a flagrant violation of human rights" [21] by forcing 900,000 people, 10 percent of the country's population, to change their names. The people affected were all ethnic Turks."

-- This sentance provse how incompetent and biased is the author. First of all during communism Christianity was suppressed and Christians were persecuted and oppressed. Most of the population were atheistic. It makes no sense to use the words "Christian Bulgarians" for the communist era in Bulgaria. The author also seems not to make a difference between Muslim gyspsies and Turks in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian Turks do no recognise the Muslim gyspsies as Turks and they are a very large group if not the Majority of the Muslim population in Bulgaria these days. I'm not going to write anymore. I hope that either this article is written correctly or deleted. If it serves the Turkish/Ottoman ego it serves neither the Truth nor the peace nor the good relations between the nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.230.179 (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Expansion suggestions

This one needs a lot more on history and current demographics, as well as sources, pictures, etc. It could be hard based on the relative lack of plausible and in-depth data, but could become the best article on the topic in the Internet. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 18:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Flag

The flag - I have never seen used. In fact I just learned we had such a flag. --Hasanidin 10:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's s fake. Let's vote to remove it! --Vladko 18:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, let's wait to see if the regular contributors to this article will be able to expand and/or bring additional sources. Baristarim 11:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of a flag now there a two pictures one of Mrs. Etem and one of Naim Süleymanoglu. Undoubtedly these person are well known in the Turkish Community in Bulgaria however it looks quite funny to have these pictures the way they are. Furthermore, there are lot of notable Turks in Bulgaria whose pictures could be used in the same fashion. I would suggest the use 1) the Bulgrian Flag and then under 2) Turkish/Ottoman Flag to indicate historical and cultural background of the Turks in Bulgaria. Any Further suggestions?

Hittit (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The number of Turks in Bulgaria in 1878

The first sentence of the article was taken directly from "Glenn E. Curtis, ed. Bulgaria: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1992". It read

In 1878 Turks outnumbered Bulgarians in Bulgaria..

The above centence was replaced with the following:

In 1878 Turks were the second largest ethnic group in Bulgaria.

There are two problems here. First, a sentence referencing a source (Library of Congress) was replaced with a POV. Second, the burden of proof is placed on the sentence that was already referenced. The user removing it commented give numbers to prove that. This implies that we are to assume that Bulgarians were always the majority in a territory that was then part of Turkey. Those who dispute the US Library of Congress carry the burden of prooving that this is not a reliable source. Therefore I will restore the original sentence.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This has to be replaced with In 1878 Turks were the third largest ethnic group in Bulgaria. There are many more sources about this with numbers and tables, but the above 3 are enough to bring the picture. Lantonov (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not rely very much on a source that says the following:

Ottoman authorities forcibly converted the most promising Christian youths to Islam and trained them for government service. Called pomaks, such converts often received special privileges and rose to high administrative and military positions.

— G.E. Curtis, Bulgaria: A Country Study, 1992, Library of Congress.

As far as I know from other sources, those are called Janissaries (Yeniceri, new soldiers), not Pomaks. Lantonov (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

POV claim

Hi. May I know what POV is reverted by that change? The statements are well supported by references from the US Congress Library. Was it the fact that Bulgraia was conquerred by Ottomans or what? --Petar Petrov 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Third party opinion

The edits made by User:Petar Petrov are first the previous version is in italics.

• Occupied versus began to establish .: The latter is an NPOV than occupied.

• Different ethnic groups live in all regions versus Turks of Bulgaria live compactly in two rural areas.: This article is about Turks not different ethnic groups.

• Besides the ethnic Turks (most of them are are Muslims) there are other Muslims in Bulgaria who converted voluntarily or by force . Versus Historical evidence shows that most of the Muslims in Bulgaria originated from outside the Balkans, while the rest were converts from the indigenous population: Besides the double are, I found the former more accurate and encyclopedic than the latter.

• the communist government of Bulgaria, led by Todor Zhivkov, attempted to assimilate the country's ethnic Turks….. versus the communist government of Bulgaria, led by Todor Zhivkov, attempted to forcefully assimilate the country's Turkish minority. After the introduction of the new laws in 1985, the Bulgarian government banned Turkish education and sought to erase Turkish culture and identity : I found the latter explained the Bulgarisation policy much more clearly with the implication that it was forced towards a minority.

• Bulgarian forces and ethnic Turks, as well as several bomb attacks on Bulgarian civilian targets versus There were clashes between Bulgarians (troops, villagers) and members of the Turkish minority: I found the latter clear and to the point.

• Thinic Turks versus Turkish minority. This article si about Turkish minority in Bulgaria not ethnic Turks in general. Hope this helps. Thanks RaveenS 23:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The bomb attacks cannot be called clashes between Bulgarians (troops, villagers) and members of the Turkish minority. Bombs exploded in a train car with small children and women, killing 7 people. The proper name for this is "terrorist act". Lantonov (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

--

Any objections to changing the principal title to Turks of Bulgaria rather than the present Turks in Bulgaria. Will be more coherent with similar examples. Cretanforever 10:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Diaspora term

I object to the term diaspora. It implies that we are immigrants and foreigners, whereas in fact we are natives to the land in which we live. --140.180.26.103 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to delete the term "Turkish diaspora" because it does not refer to us, we are not "imigrations"! --Ilhanli 11:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ethnic Turks?

What is mean by the term "ethnic Turks"? --Ilhanli 11:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavily pro-Turkish POV article

With strong emphasis on the name-changing campaign of communists in some 10 years in 1980s and nothing said of the forceful Islamisation and Turkisation of Bulgarians accompanied with cruel attrocities during five centuries of Ottoman rule. This is why Turkey is going to lose the feeble Bulgarian support for acceptance in the EU. Lantonov (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Gee, and the Turks are scared. In less than a year of membership in the EU Bulgarians threatening Turks to behave or face the consequences. How small does it get. Always barking from the other side of the fence that is protected by greater powers. Keep on writing so that the world sees who and what you are. On the falsehood that you allege and almost every Bulgarian is conditioned to believe I quote:

Recent scholarship casts grave doubt on the validity of the traditional arguments for mass forced conversions among the Bulgarians. The sources used supporting coercive conversions under Selim I demonstrate little beyond the general factors for such action commonly operating throughout the Balkans. While some violence against Christians is documented, such cases are few. Regarding the Rhodope mass conversions, all of the supporting evidence is suspect. None exists in the original, and internal analysis of the extant copies proves them to be nineteenth-century forgeries. Again, the Rhodope Pomak conversions apparently resulted from the general factors contributing to gradual conversion that operated thoughout the Balkans and not from official Ottoman coersion.(D.P. Hupchick, (Professor of History at Wilkes University, former Fullbright scholar to Bulgaria and past president of the Bulgarian Studies Association., The Balkans, pp.156, ISBN 0-312-21736-6)

--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the violence went undocumented. Those persons who were brave enough to write some documents were killed, and the documents burned. This is why those forced conversions remained only in folk lore, and became a large part of it, because conversions to Islam were done on a mass scale, and primarily forcibly. There was simply no person who would write about this in English and put it in an American library for professor Hupchick to read it. Lantonov (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they did not write it in English professor Hupchick came to Bulgaria to research it. But he found out that the claims of forced mass conversions were not much different than the claims of pyramids being built by the Bulgarians or Asparuh speaking a Slavic language.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All he did was dismissing the very few documents that survived, as forgeries. Probably this was his aim for coming to Bulgaria. No document, no event. His position was politically very correct at the time, however, because Bulgaria was a totalitarian country while Turkey was a member of NATO. Lantonov (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Verification of source

The online newspaper "Netinfo.bg" quotes Radio France International:

Сред най-известните терористични атентати от близкото минало у нас, е железопътният атентат през 1985 г. Тогава, вечерта на 9 март, е взривен вагона за майки с деца на влака, пътуващ от София за Бургас. Бомбената експлозия се случва при гара Буново. В атентата загиват седем души, две от тях деца. Девет са тежко ранени.

Взривът е част от поредица бомбени атентати. Части от бомбата могат да се видят в музея на МВР, в експозицията , посветена на тероризма. Извършителите принадлежат към тогавашната нелегална организация Турско националноосвободително движение в България. Техният мотив за терористичните действия е провокиран от действията на държавната власт по време на т.нар. "възродителен процес".

Някои източници твърдят, че движението е предвестник на ДПС. Пряко замесените лица в бомбения атентат са арестувани и осъдени на смърт. Други четирима получават присъди от една до пет години затвор.

Един от осъдените Сабри Али, впоследствие амнистиран, става по-късно областен координатор на ДПС за Бургас.

През 1995 г., 10 години след изпълнение на смъртните присъди на терористите, бе повдигнат въпроса дали те са наистина терористи или борци за свобода.

Според представители на ДПС бомбените атентати по онова време са били единственото средство за борба срещу тоталитарната власт.

Разгоря се бурна политическа полемика в обществото първо, заради издигането на паметни плочи на екзекутираните, а след това, заради тяхното сваляне.

Повече от 20 години избухването на бомбата във влака не се приемано еднозначно.

Миналата година от Общонародния комитет за защита на националните интереси поискаха ДПС, като приемник на Турското националноосвободително движение, да се извини за терористичните актове.

От комитета настояха 9 март да бъде обявен за ден на жертвите на тероризма като протест срещу проявите на тероризъм, независимо дали е религиозен, държавен, политически или расов. Lantonov (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation:

Among the most well-known terrorist acts from the recent past in Bulgaria, is the railway assassination act in 1985. Then, in the evening of March 9, a bomb exploded in the railway car for mothers and children in the train going from Sofia to Burgas. The bomb explosion happened at Bunovo station. In the explosion 7 people were killed, 2 of them children. Nine were seriously wounded.

This explosion is among a series of terrorist bombings. Parts of the bomb can be seen in the museum of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in the exhibition on the topic of terrorism. The perpetrators belonged to the then called organisation Turkish national liberation movement in Bulgaria. Their motive for terrorist action was provoked by the activities of the Bulgarian government during the so called "rebirth process".

Some sources say that this movement was a precursor to MRF. The persons directly involved in the bomb assassination went on trial and received a death sentence. Four other persons were sentenced for 1 to 5 years in prison.

One of the sentenced, Sabri Ali, who subsequently received amnesty, became regional coordinator for MRF in Burgas.

In 1995, 10 years after the execution of the death sentences on the terrorists, the issue was raised whether they are terrorists, or freedom fighters. According to MRF representatives, bomb terrorist acts at that time were the only means for fighting the totalitarian government.

A vigorous political discussion raged among the Bulgarian society, first, about the raising of memorial plaques for the executed, then, about their removal.

The opinion about the bomb explosion is not unanimous for more than 20 years. Last year (2005), the Bulgarian Committee for Defence of National Interests asked MRF to apologize for the terrorist acts, as a heir of the Turkish national liberation movement. The Committee requested March 9 to be celebrated as a day for the victims of terrorism, irrespective of whether it is religious, state, political, or ethnic. Lantonov (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lantonov

Lantonov, I ask you to stop deleting my changes. I provided a source each time you requested. You can not dictate your POV on this subject. You removed more than half of the content that I contributed. If you do not know when Bulgaria declared its independence at least make a research and find about it. It appears you are determined to undo any change I make on any article. When you undid my change to article Bulgaria you commented "no need for a quote to a fact known to sucklings". Is that so? When did Bulgaria declare its independence? Has it occured to you that might have been misinformed? In article Bulgarianization after you undid my contributions I tried to reason with you. After denying the Pomaks were subjected to Bulgarianization you brought up the Armenian genocide issue. I see now you also brought up the usual "500 years of..." intro and the Janissaries. How can one reason with this mentality? I want you to know that I will not give up on this article and allow you to paint a pretty picture of Bulgaria and Bulgarians while continuing to bash the Turks and down play what they have been through in Bulgaria. I realize there will be more people calling the Bulgarianization "harmonization", as you did. If someone points to something wrong in Bulgaria the answer is "It's because of 500 years of Turkish rule". If Bulgarization is brought up then the response is "it was a harmonization performed by the Communists". It looks like all the shortcomings and sins of Bulgaria can be blamed and attributed to elsewhere. I will quote from the Bulgarian born Vicki Tamir who wrote in her book Bulgaria and her Jews:

Indeed, over the centuries, Bulgaria has proved a most faithful practicioner of what Edmund in Shakespeare's King Lear called 'the excellent foppery of the world that, when we are sick in fortune, often the surfeits of our own behavior, we make guilty of our disaster the sun, the moon, the stars.'

I will restore my contributions. If you dispute anything instead of deleting or altering the article you need to come here and make your case. If I provide you with a credible source or explanation you are required to accept it. This is the Wikipedia policy. I know that many Bulgarians do not believe there are one million Turks in the Balkans. That's probably because they do not want to have any Turks in the Balkans to begin with. (It is clear that if Turks of Bulgaria gained any rights since the collapse of the communism that was due to external pressure mainly coming from the EU and the US.) However this is not the place to address such fears. If a credible source says "there are one million Turks in the Balkans" then this will be included in the article. I'm somewhat sceptical that this request of mine will make any real difference but let us hope that I will be proven wrong this time. (Also, please, no Bulgarian sources or references. This is an English language encyclopedia that requires English language sources and references. For obvious reasons, save the effort of translating anything as you did above) --Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

For an answer to Vicki Tamir, look here [1]. 500 years are not a second and Janissaries are not a fiction. The sun and the moon are not to blame about Bulgaria, although they (especially the sun) can be blamed about Africa or the Arctic. Lantonov (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nostradamus1, anyone with enough interest and time on his hands will reveal the falsity of your claims for co-operation and see the wholesale removal by you of sourced material that I provided. I won't go into a debate, but since you are talking to me about it, I'll try to explain what's going on. Cited sources are good. Cited sources don't make any text in Wikipedia immune to further editing. It depends on the quality of the text and the quality of the sources and whether what's in the sources matches the text. It depends on what other sources there are. Sources that you consider credible may not be credible for me and vice versa. Indeed, if you delete as non-credible the words and evidence by Ivan Vazov and Konstantin Jireček what is the point of discussion with you? This article is about Bulgaria, and of course it must include Bulgarian sources because the history of Bulgaria is known best by the Bulgarians themselves. I do not know your motives for stirring ethnic animosities in Bulgaria on this and other pages about Bulgaria, and I do not care for them because Wikipedia is not a place to give vent to one's grievances. Wikipedia is also not not a place for people like you, who even did not bother to present themselves to the Wikipedia community, to peremptorily request from me to accept their biased views. I had enough of them to understand that your edits are agenda-driven. And, BTW, if you are going to attack me personally, this is not a place for this. You can do it on my talk page, and then I will decide whether to read or ignore it. Lantonov (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, Lantonov, I've been debating with User:Monshuai (someone strongly pushing a POV in connection with Bulgaria) recently about this and you're quoting me here literally for your own purposes, without attribution. Nostradamus1, see User talk:Martijn faassen for the text that Lantonov lifted from me. (update: I have written something on User talk:Lantonov about this). Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want any part in this discussion by the way. So stop quoting me. Martijn Faassen (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Martijn Faassen, thanks for the heads up! Wikipedia is great but dealing with this sort of stuff is not.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lantonov (or Monshuai?), I tried to reason with you. In the light of your response I will have to find other ways to improve this article. (BTW, if you copy other people's words at least show the courtesy of giving them some credit. Otherwise it might amount to intellectual theft.) --Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A direct response to Martin Faassen. No, I am not Monshuai, Martin. I am what I have written on my talk page. If you continue to insist that I am Monsuai, I will initiate an investigation of IP addresses to prove that I am not, and then hold you responsible for your insinuations of dishonesty. As for the sentences that I copied, I admit that I copied some sentences from your response to Monshuai because I deemed them pertinent for the discussion with Nostradamus. I did not give credit because Wikipedia explicitly says that everything written here is not copyrighted (see the small text at the bottom of this page). If you still insist on giving you credit, this is it: the credit for the text: "Cited sources are good. Cited sources don't make any text in Wikipedia immune to further editing. It depends on the quality of the text and the quality of the sources and whether what's in the sources matches the text. It depends on what other sources there are." goes to User:Martijn faassen. Lantonov (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As an afterthought, you may learn from my discussion with Nostradamus1 why are those words in the Bulgaria article. I will leave for a short time the article Turks in Bulgaria in the way Nostradamus1 has done it and invite you to take a look at it. From it you will learn that Turks established Bulgaria way back in the 6th century, Byzantium was glad to give up the government of the region to the Ottoman Turks because they were all relatives, the whole history of the Ottoman Empire was a chain of glorious victories over infidels, there was never such thing as forced Islamisation of the Christian population, there was persecution of Turks during the April Uprising and Russian-Turkish war, and the Third Bulgarian State was incorrectly established, because the population was Turkish anyway. Then Turks underwent forced Bulgarisation to become Bulgarians. The conclusion is: there is no reason for existing of Bulgaria, Bulgarians are all Turks, so that Turkey has a sovereign right to govern Bulgaria. The same user goes to all Bulgarian articles, and insists on changing Bulgarians to Bulgars, as the last are nothing but Turks. You can see a sample of Nostradamus1 views in this comment [2], placed insidiously in the middle (not at the end) of an old topic. Then you will, if you have some vestige of conscience, see at least part of the reason behind "sovereign heir". Partly copied from Talk:Bulgaria. Lantonov (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is still under construction and will become better balanced in. I realize some of the facts or expert oppinions will be disliked by the average Bulgarian. My intent is not to offend any Bulgarians. However we can not allow this article to be biased toward Bulgarian or Turkish view. That is the reason the references ought to be independent sources. To respond to some of your allegations:

1. you will learn that Turks established Bulgaria way back in the 6th century: Turks did not establish the Bulgar kingdom. It was the Bulgars who established the Bulgar kingdom. Bulgars were a Turkic people (as it is agreed by the overwhelming majority of experts and is reflected in their publications).

Bulgars may have been Turkic people (highly uncertain, and if it is, with large admixture) but not Turkish people, as you want us to believe. There is a great difference between Turkic and Turkish. Lantonov (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Byzantium was glad to give up the government of the region to the Ottoman Turks because they were all relatives: I did not include sufficient details on the Byzantine-Ottoman encounters and some more details might be necessery. But the focus is on Bulgaria. And yes they were relatives and allies at times. Same goes for the Serbs who were allied with the Ottomans against the Greeks at times. The point is there were adversarial conflicts but perhaps for that very reason there were arranged marriages too. Why does this bother you?

It does not bother me. It only shows where are you driving at. Lantonov (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

1. whole history of the Ottoman Empire was a chain of glorious victories over infidels: "infidels"? I think you are obsessed with religion. The period Bulgaria was taken corresponds with the time of the rise of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore I included the battles that took place in Bulgaria while Ottomans consolidated their power in the regiion. If you noticed there were no major battles between the Ottomans and Bulgarians at that time. It was mostly with the Serbs. In fact the only serious war between Bulgarians and the Turks were during the Balkan wars. (The war of 1878 was between the Turks and the Russians.)

It is not me the one who is obsessed with religion. Lantonov (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

1. there was never such thing as forced Islamisation of the Christian population: I intended -and still do- to come to this subject but you kept undoing my contributions which come from references. Our role here is to reflect what experts in the field say. If you have not read the Bulgarian history written by unbiased experts you will remain conditioned by the local biases and politics. The so called 'forced Islamisation of the Christian population' is a controversial subject. I too held the opinion that this might indeed have happened. To my surprise the books on my desk state that :

   Recent scholarship casts grave doubt on the validity of the traditional arguments for mass forced conversions among the Bulgarians. The sources used supporting coercive conversions under Selim I demonstrate little beyond the general factors for such action commonly operating throughout the Balkans. While some violence against Christians is documented, such cases are few. Regarding the Rhodope mass conversions, all of the supporting evidence is suspect. None exists in the original, and internal analysis of the extant copies proves them to be nineteenth-century forgeries. Again, the Rhodope Pomak conversions apparently resulted from the general factors contributing to gradual conversion that operated thoughout the Balkans and not from official Ottoman coersion.

   I believe many Bulgarians will violently oppose the idea that, after all, there were few or no forced conversions. I expect some heated discussions on this. The degree of overall Ottoman oppression of Bulgarians, Forced conversions, Janissaries, Bulgarianization, and the Turkic-ness of the Bulgars are the thorny areas in this context.

See the answer to professor Hupchik above. Lantonov (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

1. there was persecution of Turks during the April Uprising and Russian-Turkish war: I don't thing the article implies that. Certainly there were some local incidents but the article states the reasons why many Turks left Bulgaria. Since 1878 the atmosphere in Bulgaria has been hostile to the Turks. There has been a continuous emigration of Turks from Bulgaria. At times Bulgarian governments expelled the Turks. At other times Turks wanted to leave themselves. How comfortable can a Turk be in a country where anything negative is attributed to 500 years long Turkish rule. In Bulgaria a Turk would fear for his life if he were to express some of the opinions in this article. Yes, these opinions go against what most Bulgarians have been taught. This does not mean that they are not true or verifiable.

The article does not imply that Turks were persecuted (sic), it says it in a direct text. Lantonov (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

1. and the Third Bulgarian State was incorrectly established, because the population was Turkish anyway: You are making things up. I tried to correct the dates when the Principality of Bulgaria (1878) -which was a vassal of the Ottoman Emire and thereby not independent- was established, the date the Ottoman Province of Eastern Rumelia was annexed by the vassalage (1885), and the date Bulgaria -taking the opportunity from the internal chaos arising from the Young Turk revolution of 1908- declared its independence in 1908. If such facts are ignored and not corrected by Bulgarians themselves what would the rest of the world think?

The Principality of Bulgaria was autonomous, and therefore partially independent (in reality, it was fully independent). Lantonov (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Then Turks underwent forced Bulgarisation to become Bulgarians: Turks, Pomaks, and Gypsies were subjected to Bulgarianization. In the case with the Turks it failed and Turks did not become Bulgarians. For about 5-6 years they carried the Bulgarian names that they were forced to assume. In their household they never stopped using their Turkish names.
2. The conclusion is: there is no reason for existing of Bulgaria, Bulgarians are all Turks, so that Turkey has a sovereign right to govern Bulgaria: That is your conclusion. Bulgarians are not Turks. I made a special efford to distinguish between Bulgarians and the Bulgars who were Turkic not Turks in this context. There are good reasons for Bulgaria to exist and Turkey has no sovereign right to govern Bulgaria. However the problem with Bulgarians is that they have this mentality of "Bulgaria for Bulgarians". Yet 10 percent of the population is not Bulgarian. So when you place a statement such as The Turkish party formed a coalition government in a non-Turkic country. you are simply saying that these people are aliens who do not belong in Bulgaria.

Yeah, I know, this article is directed by you to those 10% to elucidate them about their gloriuos Ottoman past. Lantonov (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

1. insists on changing Bulgarians to Bulgars, as the last are nothing but Turks: Again the Bulgars and the Bulgarians are related but also are two distinct ethnicities. There is a period in Bulgarian history when the word Bulgarian needs to be replaced with the word Bulgar. This is typically the period until Tsar Boris' reign (865). In Bulgarian language the distinction is made by using the word proto-Bulgarians but this is misleading too since, Omurtag, for instance, is not called a proto-Bulgarian. In this case, I say, Omurtag was a Bulgar khan and Simeon, the Great was a Bulgarian Tsar. That is all. Bulgars were not Turks in the sense the word is used today, they were a Turkic people that were ethnically and culturally related to the ancestors of modern Turks. I think I understand the Bulgarian sensitivity on this but I refuse to accept the notion that it should be left untouched. The Bulgarian sensitivity and unwillingness to acknowledge the Turkic roots of Bulgars is based on their hatred of the Ottoman Turks. An emphasis on the Turkic roots of Bulgars would be like pulling the rug from under the feet of Bulgarian nationalists. That would imply that, after all, those bad Turks happen to be their relatives. It would weaken and dilute a primary source of fuel needed by the nationalists to survive. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 007 (UTC)

Telling to the "Bulgarian nationalists" that Bulgarians are Turks do not pull a rag under anybody, except yourself. It only shows that you do not understand the process of ethnogenesis. By insisting that everyone accepts your POV, you show that this mistake is deliberate. Lantonov (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not have time now (and frankly, the wish) to refute all lies and semi-truths above, I will only point to the most obvious one:

Nostradamus1 opposes the sentence: The Turkish party formed a coalition government in a non-Turkic country. which means that he thinks that Bulgaria is a Turkic country. However, above this he says: "Bulgarians are not Turks". So which one is true? Is Germany (who has as many Turks, if not more, than Bulgaria) a Turkic country? Also, is there another European country (beside Turkey, which I think is partly European in the sense that part of its territory and history is in Europe) in which a Turkish party formed a part in a coalition government for more than 10 years?

The following general fact can be said about the sources that Nostradamus1 quotes. Through most of its existence, the Ottoman Empire was diplomatically, politically, and militarily supported by England and France (especially England who even participated in a war on the side of Ottomans, the Crimean war) to oppose the pretensions of Russia and Austro-Hungary over the region. Therefore, most of the English and French sources that he quotes are deliberately biased so as to direct the public opinion in Europe in support of the Ottoman Empire. This includes denial of Ottoman attrocities, and falsification of demographic data, especially those at the time of the Berlin Congress (1878-1879) in which England and France opposed and succeeded to abolish the San Stefano treaty that essentially gave to Bulgarians the territory, well established to be populated primarily with ethnic Bulgarians (shown with the numerous contemporary ethnic maps by outside observers). This partitioning of Bulgaria was later the cause of much struggle (the Ilinden and Preobrazhenia Uprisings) by Bulgarians who formed the bulk of the population in Macedonia and parts of Thrace (up to the town of Edirne (Odrin)). Ottoman attrocities are so very well documented in numerous contemporary sources (many of them even not Bulgarian and those that are Bulgarian are direct accounts of participants and witnesses of the events) that the very fact of their denial proves ulterior motives of the one who denies them.

The truth-twisting by Nostradamus1 reaches such a degree that it says exactly the opposite of the actual events. Instead of describing the existence of Turks in Bulgaria by Islamisation, Turkisation (whether forceful or not) of Bulgarians, and immigration of Turks from other parts during the time of the Ottoman Empire, it pushes the point of view that Turks (according to him Bulgars are 100% Turkic people and a fact proven beyond doubt, therefore they are Turks, as are Avars, Huns and a host of other more or less related tribes that he insists in including in this article) have found Bulgaria sometime in the 6th century, and then have been "Bulgarianized" to become Bulgarians. In fact, it even starts with "Bulgarianization" (events of name-changing in 1985-1989) to which he gives most of the space in an article to explain origin, history, and present situation of Turks in Bulgaria. The other large space is devoted to exodus of Turks after Liberation of Bulgaria (1878, yes, this is the official name all over the world, however it may displease Nostradamus1) so the whole article gives overall impression that Bulgarians are interlopers in the Turkic country Bulgaria, founded and run by the Turks throughout most of its history. Lantonov (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am debating myself at to whether to continue this with you. If you do not have time to defend the allegations you made you should step out of this discussion. I respond to some of your distortions as follows:

1. 1. You wrote Nostradamus1 opposes the sentence: The Turkish party formed a coalition government in a non-Turkic country. which means that he thinks that Bulgaria is a Turkic country. : Is that so? I am amazed with the reasoning here. There is another possibility that I think Bulgaria is neither one. Why does it have to be tied to an ethnicity? It is obvious that Bulgaria is not a mono-ethnic state. Bulgarians tried and failed to achieve that ideal of theirs. Then you go and contrast your own conclusion with "Bulgarians are not Turks" and ask which one is true? This is like cooking and eating it by yourself that warrants no further response.
   2. You wrote: Is Germany (who has as many Turks, if not more, than Bulgaria) a Turkic country? Also, is there another European country (beside Turkey, which I think is partly European in the sense that part of its territory and history is in Europe) in which a Turkish party formed a part in a coalition government for more than 10 years?: Serious confusions and deliberately misleading comparisons here. First Turks of Bulgaria are natives of Bulgaria. (Bulgarians don’t like that kind of a statement, do they?) The Turks in Germany are immigrants. Second Germany is 80 million, Bulgaria is less than 8 million. Given the trends in population statistics it is likely that the so called Turkish party will increase its number of seats in the Bulgarian parliament in the future. So get used to it since Bulgarianization is no longer an option, thanks to Bulgaria’s EU membership.
   3. You wrote” ...ost of the English and French sources that he (Nostradamus1) quotes are deliberately biased so as to direct the public opinion in Europe in support of the Ottoman Empire. :) This is getting funny. Could you further elaborate about my sources? Which ones are English, which ones are French? I referenced primarily American sources including the Library of Congress. Grousset is French. If you dispute the Turkic roots of Pechenegs and the others I will provide you with other sources. But this discussion is reaching an interesting level. Did you think I was quoting English and French sources written during the 19th century? :) The Balkans by Hupchick was first published in 2001. Should we also include the Americans in your list of anti-Bulgarian nations? The Gods must be crazy?
   4. You wrote: England and France opposed and succeeded to abolish the San Stefano treaty that essentially gave to Bulgarians the territory, well established to be populated primarily with ethnic Bulgarians (shown with the numerous contemporary ethnic maps by outside observers). This partitioning of Bulgaria was later the cause of much struggle (the Ilinden and Preobrazhenia Uprisings) by Bulgarians who formed the bulk of the population in Macedonia and parts of Thrace (up to the town of Edirne (Odrin)). : Interesting. So if “partitioning” of this San Stefano Bulgaria that lasted a few months is such a tragedy why should partitioning of an empire that lasted six centuries be anything less than that? Obviously Bulgarians want more land. The problem is they lack the power to achieve this desire. The San Stefano Bulgaria was reached at the end of the Russo-Turkish war of 1878. Bulgarians were the beneficiaries who do not deserve any credit in winning the war. They can be considered traitors from the Ottoman perspective. (Levsky, Botev, Karadja, and the other haiduts, can easily be called terrorists according to today’s standards.) The Ilinden uprisings were not staged by Bulgarians. These people call themselves Macedonians. Bulgarians want to Bulgarianize these people too. Pomaks are another ethnic group that Bulgarians have targeted for this purpose. An ugly pattern is emerging here.

The ugly pattern emerging has Nostradamus1 in its centre. Lantonov (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1. 1. You wrote Ottoman attrocities are so very well documented in numerous contemporary sources (many of them even not Bulgarian and those that are Bulgarian are direct accounts of participants and witnesses of the events) that the very fact of their denial proves ulterior motives of the one who denies them.’’: Scholars disagree. “Bulgarians are well-known falsifiers of documents around the world. They have specialized teams who invent books about Gotse Delchev. They bribe foreign authors with cash and give them professorships in order to put their names on the covers of these books.” (Orde Ivanovski, Macedonian Historian )
   2. You wrote: The truth-twisting by Nostradamus1 reaches such a degree that it says exactly the opposite of the actual events.: Truth according to whom. You called Bulgarianization “harmonization”.
   3. You wrote: Instead of describing the existence of Turks in Bulgaria by Islamisation, Turkisation (whether forceful or not) of Bulgarians, and immigration of Turks from other parts during the time of the Ottoman Empire, it pushes the point of view that Turks (according to him Bulgars are 100% Turkic people and a fact proven beyond doubt, therefore they are Turks, as are Avars, Huns and a host of other more or less related tribes that he insists in including in this article) have found Bulgaria sometime in the 6th century, and then have been "Bulgarianized" to become Bulgarians.: The existence of Turks in Bulgaria can not and will not be described by Islamization. That is Bulgarian boloney. At the heart of the matter is this Bulgarian mentality that Turks are the aliens of the land that rightfully belongs to Bulgarians. In order to solidify such false claims Bulgarian presence in what is today Bulgaria has to be placed before that of the Turks. In order to achieve that any pre-Ottoman Turkic presence is simply down-played or denied. To make the matters even worse for the Bulgarians, the Bulgars –the founders and rulers of the first Bulgar state which Bulgarians like to call First Bulgarian Empire- were a Turkic people who were assimilated into the Slavic population which they ruled over in time. This, that the Bulgars were a Turkic people, is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of the scholars. For obvious reasons Bulgarians are uneasy about this and are trying to create a doubt and a nebulous atmosphere around the origins of Bulgars in a hope to distance themselves from the Turks. That is the reason we will have other users from the same cookie cutter editing this article and removing any traces of Turkic presence in Bulgaria before the Ottomans so that they can continue to play the role of an innocent victim.
   4. You wrote: The other large space is devoted to exodus of Turks after Liberation of Bulgaria (1878, yes, this is the official name all over the world, however it may displease Nostradamus1) : Do not play with words here. I asked you about the date when Bulgaria declared its independence. I tried to correct the historical facts that you deleted afterwards. Why can’t you be honest about the date Bulgaria declared its independence? Is this a banana republic that has no clear date of independence?

I believe I responded to you sufficiently and spent, perhaps, more time than I should have on your baseless and source-less POVs. From now on unless you source your edits with reliable sources they shall be removed. I know I will have to deal with some other users that came out of the same factory but what needs to be done shall be done. Balkans is a region full of people with narrow visions making such a task a challenge. Hopefully, reason and verifiable and realiable sources will prevail and make this article a less biased source of information and do justice to the subject. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Levsky, Botev, Karadja, and the other haiduts, can easily be called terrorists according to today’s standards". - Nostradamus1

Sure, and Garibaldi, Bolivar, Che Gevara, also can be called terrorists according to your standards. :)

"In the process of liberation we must not take revenge on the peaceful Turkish people, who are as repressed by the Ottoman masters as we, Bulgarians, are" - Vasil Levski in The Organization Rules of the Bulgarian Secret Revolution Committee.

Orde Ivanovski, Macedonian Historian? Ha-ha-ha, go to Kresna-Razlog Uprising to see immediately what is a historic falsification.

"Is this a banana republic that has no clear date of independence?" - N. Bulgarian National Holiday is called the Liberation Day - March 3, 1878.

--Lantonov (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the people you named have been called terrorists. And yes, Levsky was, from what I read, more moderate compared to Karavelov. I was making the point to you that a state by its nature has to try to preserve its state. When the Ottomans captured Levsky he was tried, convicted, and executed. Yes, he is a hero for the Bulgarians and pretty much of an unknown figure in Turkish side. However, at least he was tried. Did not he commit acts that might be considered to be terrorism today? Wasn't there a popular Bulgarian series that had a character called "Djin Gibi" based on Levsky?

Frankly, I already sense that Ivanovsky too suffers from what I call Balkan syndrome so no claims that he is un-biased. He obviously was not being professional either when he commented "What can you expect from Tartars?" referring to Bulgarians about their falsifications of documents.

For the banana republic comment. Bulgaria certainly is not a banana republic, but some people -out of ignorance- confuse the words liberation and independence and reflect this here. This makes it looks like that. Bulgaria was liberated by Russians in 1878 but was not independent for another 30 years ,that is, until 1908. Why not reflect the truth here. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Between Levski and Karavelov, Karavelov was the more moderate because he thought that Bulgarians would be liberated without revolution but by education from outside. The fact that Levski was tried does not mean that he was a terrorist. Levski did not attack any peaceful Turk, and he did not commit any act that can be considered terrorism today. Terrorists attack peaceful people, like the Turks who bombed the train with mothers and children. Those were also tried and not all were sentenced to death. About liberation and independence. I see that you talk about the formal recognition of independence in 1908, an act that has not any historical significance because Bulgaria became independent 30 years before this, and partly united (without parts of Macedonia and Thrace) 23 years before this. The declaration of independence of 1908 was issued only for diplomatic reasons to be recognised by the "Great Powers" that supported the Ottoman Empire. By deliberately ignoring those historic facts, you once again prove your motives. Lantonov (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Countries typically have an official date of declaration of independence. Are suggesting that Bulgaria declared independence in 1878?

Lantonov, you removed a lot of referenced material making 20 edits and/or reverts in a day. You are rejecting referenced sources simply because what these sources say disagrees with what you think. I asked you not to edit and undo without discussing but you are not listening. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, see what your favorite source: Glen Curtis, Country Studies, Bulgaria, Library of Congress, writes in the chapter "Bulgarian Independence":

---

San Stefano, Berlin, and Independence

In eight months, Russian troops occupied all of Bulgaria and reached Constantinople. At this high point of its influence on Balkan affairs, Russia dictated the Treaty of San Stefano in March 1878. This treaty provided for an autonomous Bulgarian state (under Russian protection) almost as extensive as the First Bulgarian Empire, bordering the Black and Aegean seas. But Britain and Austria-Hungary, believing that the new state would extend Russian influence too far into the Balkans, exerted strong diplomatic pressure that reshaped the Treaty of San Stefano four months later into the Treaty of Berlin. The new Bulgaria would be about onethird the size of that prescribed by the Treaty of San Stefano; Macedonia and Thrace, south of the Balkans, would revert to complete Ottoman control. The province of Eastern Rumelia would remain under Turkish rule, but with a Christian governor.

Whereas the Treaty of San Stefano called for two years of Russian occupation of Bulgaria, the Treaty of Berlin reduced the time to nine months. Both treaties provided for an assembly of Bulgarian notables to write a constitution for their new country. The assembly would also elect a prince who was not a member of a major European ruling house and who would recognize the authority of the Ottoman sultan. In cases of civil disruption, the sultan retained the right to intervene with armed force.

The final provisions for Bulgarian liberation fell far short of the goals of the national liberation movement. Large populations of Bulgarians remained outside the new nation in Macedonia, Eastern Rumelia, and Thrace, causing resentment that endured well into the next century. (Bulgarians still celebrate the signing of the Treaty of San Stefano rather than the Treaty of Berlin as their national independence day.) In late 1878, a provisional Bulgarian government and armed uprisings had already surfaced in the Kresna and Razlog regions of Macedonia. These uprisings were quelled swiftly by the Turks with British support. During the next twenty-five years, large numbers of Bulgarians fled Macedonia into the new Bulgaria, and secret liberation societies appeared in Macedonia and Thrace. One such group, the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), continued terrorist activities in the Balkans into the 1930s.

---

Any more questions? Lantonov (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have a question. WHEN DID BULGARIA DECLARE HER INDEPENDENCE?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Answer: Bulgaria declared her full independence in 1908, 30 years after achieving partial independence (autonomy) in 1878 by the Treaty of San Stefano. Happy now? Lantonov (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Treaty of San Stefano (1878), Article VI. Bulgaria forms autonomous, tax-paying Principality, with Christian government, and its own Army.

......

Signed:

Count Ignat'yev

Safvet

Nelidov

Sadullah"

Now look in dictionary under "autonomy": Webster says:

"au-ton-o-my (Ó ton'uh mee)  n. pl. <-mies>
                 1.  independence or freedom, as of the will 
                      or one's actions.
                 2.  the condition of being autonomous; 
                      self-government or the right of 
                      self-government; independence.
                 3.  a self-governing community.
            [1615-25; < Gk]"

I write you 'D' in history. Probably you skipped that lesson. :)

(This is copied from Talk:Bulgaria where Nostradamus1 very officially has posed the same question) Lantonov (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria's Turks and Turkey's Kurds

Below is a very recent article in the Turkish press which I provided as a source in the online newspaper "Turkish Daily News", information about which Nostradamus1 consistently deletes. Lantonov (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bulgaria's Turks and Turkey's Kurds Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Cengiz AKTAR [3]

I really thing this entire info is irrelevant to the article. Its just a random news event that does not concern Turks in Bulgaria in general. DTP is DTP and Bulgarian Turk's are Bulgarian Turks. -- Cat ^chi? 15:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no place for a Turkish view of Bulgaria's Turks in an article Turks in Bulgaria. Is this what you are saying? And what exactly is a "random news event"? If you mean that I found it randomly on Google with the search "Bulgaria Turks" you are probably more than 95% right. I do not defend Kurds, and do not approve of their acts of terrorism but the article is about political arrangements, and there are large sections especially about the situation of Turks in Bulgaria (Bulgaria's Turks). Lantonov (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lantonov, you are a shameless liar. You can not make such unsubstantiated claims. Show us when this was "constantly deleted" by Nostradamus1. It is obvious that you have a problem with telling the truth. Before you copied other peoples' words to make a statement as if they were yours. Now you are simply lying.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference (Cengiz AKTAR [4]) was deleted by Nostradamus1 here [5], and here [6], and here [7], and here [8], and here [9], and here[10], and here [11]. And this reference is still not present in his latest "masterpiece" which I will leave for a short time as an example of shameless falsification of history. And I said "consistently deletes", not "constantly deleted". Your lies have very short feet, Nostradamus1. Lantonov (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, Lantonov, you are a shameless liar. I let the readers judge it for themselves. I invited you to make your case. Instead you kept undoing my changes. Now you are presenting it as if someone was undoing your changes. But you are a self admitted copy cat, anyway, -who until caught pretended to be the original author of his/her own postings here- , I guess it comes with the territory. Respond to counter arguments instead of undoing changes with comments such as ":)" or "...sucklings". Also why are you unable to argue any topic straight. In the Bulgarianization article when I asked about the Pomaks you mentioned the Armenian genocide. Here, somehow we find ourselves under a subtitle that has the word Kurds in it. Do you know the Communist Bulgarian government that you try to blame all the sins committed by the Bulgarians used to do the same thing when the Turks abroad raised concerns about Turks in Bulgaria in the 1980s. You are all the same, communist, fascist, or whatever. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

see Pan-Turkism:) Lantonov (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Pan-Turkism? It was an ideology championed by non-Turks such as Ziya Gokalp, Tekin Alp, etc. I'd ask you about Pan-Slavism but you guys have issues with fellow Slav Serbs due to your aspirations on Macedonia? I'd like to ask one more time. Why can't you discuss this topic by reasoning and by providing reliable references. So far you came back with Armenian genocide, Kurds, Pan-Turkism. Why don't you elaborate on the 19th century forgeries about the alleged forced Islamisation of the Pomaks, for instance? This should be a subject of an interest to you. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose that you elaborate on them, won't you, "Oracle"? Lantonov (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did elaborate on this by providing you quotes from a distinguished professor, D.P. Hupchick, of Bulgarian History who studied the available material. He concluded that these were forgeries. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And the quote of this famous professor, including a quote of a "famous" Orde Ivanovski fresh out of the Macedonian history forgery workshop. Similar with the "Bulgarian History" by Compton, and "Balkan Ghosts" by Kaplan, both written on library materials by official English political propagandists from the end of 19 century. Kaplan must be given credit that he came to the Balkans, including Bulgaria, immediately after the fall of communism; however, he shunned all Bulgarian sources on the prejudice that they are all communist, and wrote the history parts on English materials found in American libraries. Most of the reviews of his book criticise him for his "West-centered" view of history. Lantonov (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote about Pomaks is from Hupchick. I am sure there are Bulgarian versions of Ivanovski who -as I indicated- is not credible. (The word "Tartar" he uses probaly to refer to some of the Bulgarian kings of the second Bulgarian Empire). Kaplan was in Bulgaria many times including 1985 during the "regenerative process". I guess there is not much to say other than suggest to you that you write a book, make it an acceptable and recognised source of information so that mere mortals such as myself can read it and use it as a source here. I see my role in Wikipedia as not much more than of a person compiling and contributing information on certain topics that are of any interest to myself. There is rarely a sentence that is mine. Many people make this mistake. I see you and your fellow Bulgarian Gligan editing this article as you guys see it fit your opinions. Gligan does not like the word "Southern Serbian lands" and replaces it with Bulgarian or Macedonian. He does not like the word "barbarian" referring to Bulgars as the context was relating the Roman perspective and goes and removes the word leaving the rest of the sentence (that makes it plainly incorrect) intact. This is simply desruptive editing. I am considering to invite unbiased people to help this. A person should know the weight the word barbarian carries in relation to Romans. It is not a deragotary term as it often was used by Bulgarians to insult the Turks. I will restore back my edits. Also, you and Gligan can not decide how many of the Turkic peoples who played a role in the history of the land that is today Bulgaria deserve a mention in this article. The article is Turks in Bulgaria but we are expected not to mention certain Turkic people. No way.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you start another personal attack against a user that opposes your view, as you did before against me. I see your role in Wikipedia, as selectively taking sources out of context to revise Ottoman history to support a pan-Turkic propaganda. Given your stated determination to edit war against any user who opposes your POV, one cannot escape from the conclusion that your editing here is done under some agenda, most probably a personal vendetta for the name-changing campaign in Bulgaria in 1980s, which you wage either alone or as a member of some pan-Turkic organisation. Lantonov (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The only personal attack is yours here. If you bring up this pan-Turkism accusation one more time I will raise this to another level. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is? Lantonov (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Proceed on your current path and find out. There are rules even in an open environment.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you threatening me? Lantonov (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't abide by the rules you'll end up being banned. Wikipedia is a place aimed to produce NPOV. We are expected to focus on that aim.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are producing NPOV? Haha, this joke made my day. Lantonov (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am right again, though. You threaten me with some rulebook. Lantonov (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What I think

I am very busy in the moment and have no time to argue a lot but it seems to me that this is a Turkish propaganda which I am not going to tolerate. It is very easy to say that the Bulgarians hate the Turks and have invented the Islamization and that the years of Ottoman domination were years of prosperity for the Bulgarian lands.

First, the Bulgars. Yes, there are some theories that they might be of Iranian origin but according to most historians (and me) they were of Turkic origin. BUT there is a great difference between the Turkic peoples and the contemporary Turks which you know perfectly well and I am not going to explain here. I mean that the Turks are simple a branch of the Turkic peoples, just like the Bulgars, Khazars, Avars, Turkmen and others, the contemporary Turks do NOT unite all Turkic peoples. And as the article is for the Turks in Bulgaria, the history of the other Turkic peoples is not necessary. And in the first Bulgarian Empire the Bulgars were outnumbered by the Slavs and the Slavs also played a major role in the state affairs and supplied tens of thousands of soldiers for the Bulgarian army, so the Empire was not Bulgar only and it was during the first Empire when the comtemporary Bulgarian people began to form (9th - 10th cent.)

There are a lot of sources for Islamization and I am going to supply them as soon as possible. How can you imagine that thousands of people in the Rhodopes would accept Islam without a purposeful and forceful process of Islamisation by the Ottoman authorities?

Also the Ottoman domination ruined the culture of the Bulgarian people and brought almost nothing to the Bulgarian land. You might simply compare the architectural and scientific heritage between the Ottoman-held territories and the rest of Christian Europe - it is obvious which lands developed better.

And also I would call the process of Bulgariaztion (excluding that stupid action of Zhivkov, which was by the way commanded by USSR) and bad attitude of Bulgarians to Turks a myth just as you deny the Islamization, emigration and massacre of hundreds of thousands Bulgarian by the Turks.

And finally I would like to see the number of the population, not just a statement that the Turks outnumbered the Bulgarians in Bulgaria. According to the first census in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia the Bulgarians were a majority. I will revert your edits because they are some sort of Turkish propaganda which I do not like at all and spoils my opinion for the Turks which is quite good in comparison to some other countries. --Gligan (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you "tolerate" my contributions and if you disagree with some of the content come here and discuss it by creating a section. Every sentence I placed comes from a source. The subject is Turks in Bulgaria not the history of Bulgaria which from Bulgarian perspective is full of complaints against Turks and a convenient scapegoat for anything negative. I ask you to try to accept the rule that you can not edit the article as you see fit. There are very few, if any other at all, nations who survived a 500 year long rule without loosing their language and culture. Look at Latin America, take a look at Ireland. They speak Spanish and English.

1. You wrote It is very easy to say that the Bulgarians hate the Turks...: Yes, unfortunately it is very easy and true. (Rationalising this hatret is also unacceptable and unreasonable 100 or more years after Bulgarian independence). To quote a Bulgarian official who answered the American reporter-write R. Kaplan in 1985:

If it weren't for the Turkish invasion in the 14th century we would be 80 million now. They assimilated us; now we will assimilate them. The Turks still have an invoice to pay for killing Levsky.

I won't quote refernces about the standard "500 years of Turkish Yoke...".

Some Turks would say that the Bulgarians are Christian infidels and hate us for that. You would say that such fanatics in Turkey are relatively few, yes, I agree; but I can also tell you that most of the Bulgarians do not think what would have happened and how great we would have been if the Turks did not invade us.--Gligan (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No one in Turkey hates Bulgarians. I will also go one step further and claim that not many people in Turkey are even aware that Bulgarians are so obsessed with the past and hate them to such a degree. It is Bulgarians who choose to live in a past based on self-pitty which only makes a miserable people. It might not be apparent to Bulgarians themselves but outsiders notice the "500 years of ..." habit easily.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a bad thing, that Bulgarians survived 500 years and preserved their Bulgarian language and culture? From your words it appears so bad that it can even be considered a crime. And, no, your baseless allegations cannot be tolerated by any person who has some respect for his native land. Lantonov (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

2.You wrote the contemporary Turks do NOT unite all Turkic peoples: I can tell you that the sense of kinship is quite different among Turks than that of Slavs. I meet people from Western China, Uygurs, and we connect right away. You can not take your own understanding of ethnic affinity and impose it here. The subject is Turks in Bulgaria, not history of Bulgaria. As a result the article will include the Turkic people who played a role in the History of tha territory that is in context. I knew it would cause great uneasiness among Bulgarians whose main position is that they are the rightful owners of the land victimised by the invading Turks. What makes you think that all the Turks came after the Ottoman conquest given that there were quite a few other Turkic people who had a presence in the Balkans long before that. Some of the must have settled as Hupchick suggests and contributed to the gene pool. And even if they did not they still deserve a mention here. If it is left to Bulgarians they will paint a picture that Turks are an alien people to Bulgarian who came and if possible should leave since they never belonged here to begin with.(I normally do not like even to mention Turkey to make a point but since you seem to imply that Turks in Bulgaria only are related to those in Turkey here is a link to the office of Turkish Presidency that explains the 16 stars of the presidential emblem. Even if you can;t read Turkish I am sure you should be able to guess some of the names. So do not ask the removal of Avars, Khazars, etc. from the history of Turks since they simply consider them as part of their history. That is sufficient. [12] (Another analogy here would be to ask Bulgarians not to mention Thracians since there is no historical intermingling of Slav, Bulgars, and the Thracians.)

So you would like to tell me that contemporary Turkey might have called the country of all people of Turkic origin??? Don't make me laugh. No one denies that the Turks have connections and relations with the other Turkic peoples but to claim that they are the high representatives or as I see here, the only people of that group of peoples is untrue. You might think that the Bulgarians alienated that Turks but that is because of the attitude of the Turks towards the Christian Bulgarian population during the "glorious" 500 years of domination - thay called the Bulgarians gyaurs or infidels, they allowed churches to be built only dug into the ground, they disallowed the Bulgarians to wear colourful clothes and so on and so on. The Turks themselves alienated from the Christians (not only Bulgarians) because they were Muslims which was considered the only true religion.--Gligan (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkey is not the high representatives of the other Turkic peoples. Nevertheless she does have a special place among the contemorary Turkic peoples. There are, for instance, Karachay Turks from northern Caucasus who were never under direct Ottoman rule and who emigrated to Turkey. Why do you think they chose Turkey. There are Uygurs from Western China (Eastern Turkistan) who moved to Turkey. Try to see it from this perspective. As I indicated the sense of nationhood and kinship among Turks is different than that of Bulgarians. Other Turkic peoples who hava or had a presence in Bulgaria deserve a mention in this artcle. Turks did not treat the Bulgarians as equals, but so was the Bulgar attitude toward the Slavs. Rulers generally do not treat the ones they rule as their equal. The empire was a theocracy. Speculating about what Bulgaria might have been if the Ottomans did not rule them is pointless. Given the historical past it is very likely that some other greater power would do so. The Byzantine Greeks, the Turks, the Russians, the Germans, the Soviets, and now the EU.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

3.You wrote the history of the other Turkic peoples is not necessary: I strongly disagree. One of my references, (The Balkans by Hupchick), clearly includes the Turkic people together with the Turks and this by itself is sufficient to include them here. The history of Turkic peoples as it applies to Bulgaria is very necessary in an article titled Turks in Bulgaria. Otherwise we would have to remove any mention of Slavic peoples from an article titled Bulgarians in Bulgaria since Bulgarian ethnicity was formed much later. The context is important here and the Bulgarians seem to have a bias and interest in eliminating the mention of the word Turkic from their history. (The Iranian theory explains this. I have not heard much enthusiasm about the theory (actually the forgeries are a scientific proof) that there was no official forced Islamisatin of the Pomaks. Here is a good theory that would help heal the victim mentality of a nation but no one seems to need it.)

I have written above for the Turkic peoples.--Gligan (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

4. You wrote: And in the first Bulgarian Empire the Bulgars were outnumbered by the Slavs and the Slavs also played a major role in the state affairs: Yes, I agree. But what the article has about Bulgars is not to play down the role of the Slavs in Bulgaria. The context is Turks in Bulgaria and -so it happens- Bulgars were a Turkic people too. It would perfectly be acceptable to put more wight on the Slavic element in an article, say, Bulgarians in Balkans or, Slavs in Bulgaria. The focus is on the Turkic element here so I simply copied a few paragraphs from the reference book that summarized the Bulgars' initial presence in Bulgaria in the corresponding section.

Turkic elements are of no need here, only the Turk elements are needed. And the Slavs played a major role in the country since 681, as they were an important part of the army and had the responsibility to defend the Carpathian border against the Avars. Of course the Bulgars played more significant role in the politics and the army in the initial period.--Gligan (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Turkic elements are of great need here. The subject is Turks in Bulgaria. It is not Turks of Turkey in Bulgaria. There were Turks in Bulgaria much longer before Turkey was established. And these Turks are not only limited to the Turks who settled in Bulgaria during Ottoman times. We should be able to mention the Gagauz for instance. As I wrote elsewhere I can see why Bulgarians would vehemently opposed the mention of any Turkic peoples in Bulgaria. It is a Bulgarian habit to point to other peoples any claim that they are Bulgarians. Macedonians, Pomaks, and Turks all suffeted form this nasty habit that is based on innner Bulgarian insecurities. What would happen if Turks would asserted that they had a presence in Bulgaria that predates that of Slavs? There is this general desire from the Bulgarian part to undermine anything that starts with Turk in Bulgaria. Turkish names of towns, villages, or places were replaced. Many historical building including mosques and bath houses were destroyed. Turkish names of Bulgarian citizens were forcefully replaced with Bulgarian names. The Turkic roots of the Bulgars were denied. Therefore it does not take rocket science to see why Bulgarins would want to severe any links between the present day Turks and the pre-Ottoman Turkic peoples.

5. You wrote: it was during the first Empire when the comtemporary Bulgarian people began to form (9th - 10th cent.): Yes, I completely agree. That is why only the early Bulgar history in Bulgaria is summarized in corresponding section. 6.You wrote: How can you imagine that thousands of people in the Rhodopes would accept Islam without a purposeful and forceful process of Islamisation by the Ottoman authorities? : Yes, I can easily do so. There is no need for speculation. Albanians and Bosnians of the Balkans are a clear example. Or did you think that they too were forcibly converted to Islam? There were benefits of converting to Islam during the long Ottoman era. Had forceful conversions been a policy there would be no Bulgarians today. How many Bulgarians there were on this planet in 1878? Go back 400 years and apply forceful conversions you would have no Bulgarians left. It is only the Bulgarians and the historians of Victorian romanticism support that. They are in the lala land.

Well, the Bosnians were heretics and hated by all neighbouring Christian peoples so they were easy to convert. If the Ottomans really wanted to make a forcefull convertion of all Bulgarians they would have most probably succeeded but that was not their aim: the Christians payed much heavier taxes than the Muslim population and the Turks needed a significant Christian population. There are original sources for these terrible years and when I have time (which is not going to be soon) I will add again the section Islamization with sources.--Gligan (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So, Bosnians were heretics and therefore converted to Islam. What sort of heretics? Bogomils? Were there any Bogomils in Bulgaria? (The theory of basing the Bosnian converions islam on their Bogomilism is too challenged.) If you keep bringing the forced Islamizatin subject be sure that I will keep bringing professor Hupchick's comments. It is all too easy for Bulgarians to throw dirt on others. Is there a research about this, too, in Bulgaria or it is just accepted as an already established fact? There is a science in determining forged documents.No sholar would go ahead and make such claims in confidence without reason in a western country. That would be a career-ending mistake.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

7.You wrote: the Ottoman domination ruined the culture of the Bulgarian people and brought almost nothing to the Bulgarian land.: I disagree. That is Bulgarian self pitty.

The conquered Christian populations of the Balkans were submerged in a powerful, highly centralized, theocratic imperial state grounded in the precepts of Islamic civilization and Turkic traditions. While the subject Christians were reduced to second-class status in Ottoman society, those precepts and traditions offered them a certain measure of religious toleration, administrative autonomy, and economic well-being that was exceptional for non-aristocratic society in the rest of Europe. That condition changed during the 17th century, when the effects of Western European technological developments and global exploration began to inflict consistent military defeats and economic hardships on the Turks, resulting in the destabilization of Ottoman society and a progressive worsening in the overall situation of the Ottomans’ non-Muslim subjects that continued though the 18th century. Hupckick, The Balkans

I wish to the honorable professor Hupchick to live as rank-and-file Bulgarian in the Ottoman Empire, and then go back and write about his well-being. Lantonov (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha. I do not deny that the Ottoman Empire was a large country with strong (up to one moment) army and highly centralized state. In fact according to me the Bulgarian peasants in the 19th century lived better than the Russian ones because in fact although the land officially belonged to the sultan, it was in fact theirs. BUT here I mean that the Turks left no great architectural landmarks such as beautiful palaces, official buildings or even beautiful mosques (excluding that in Shumen). While if you go to other lands under Austrian, French, Spanish..... domination you would find many architectural marvels. Not to mention about industry, railways and state of economic development.--Gligan (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is from a soure. Your reponse tells me that when you don't like what the opinion of an expert you ignore it by starting to speculate. What would Bulgaria be if Ottomans did not rule her for 500 years is speculation. What most expert agree is that Ottoman arrival brought a general improvement for the peasant population. This should be reflected in the article. Not some nationalistic speculation.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

8.You wrote: And also I would call the process of Bulgariaztion (excluding that stupid action of Zhivkov, which was by the way commanded by USSR) and bad attitude of Bulgarians to Turks a myth: Blame it on USSR? It is always the fault of others, isn't it?

Of course it is our fault, why should we do what the Soviets say???--Gligan (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. I was not sure if you really meant it. So it seems there is an explanation for anything negative when it comes to Bulgaria. Turks did it, Greeks did it, Communists did it, Soviets did it.... Who or what else? Bulgarians must be innocent angels.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

9.You wrote: I would like to see the number of the population, not just a statement that the Turks outnumbered the Bulgarians in Bulgaria. : I copied most of the paragraph starting with "1878 Turks outnumbered Bulgarians in Bulgaria" from a book from Library of Congress. It is not a sentence I made up myself. It is a verifiable statement. If you dispute it you carry the burden of providing the numbers.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will find numbers. But without numbers everything is speculation.--Gligan (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Make sure it is a reliable and verifiable source. I have no problem in removing the claim that the Turks were the majority in Bulgaria in 1878. But what we have here is a reference book from Library of Congress and the general Bulgarian sensitivity on the number of Turks in Bulgaria. After all the forced Bulgarianization was the result of such fears. According to Bulgarian claims an entire ethnic group did not exist for half a decade. There were mass demonstratins against allowing Turks to restore their Turkish names and cultural rights. So any numbers provided by Bulgarians about the Turks are to be viewed with suspicion just as the documents (which were proven to be forged) of alleged forced Islamisation of Bulgarians are.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to keep quiet about this issue, but I took care and read what Nostradamus has written and I'll give just some thoughts:

1. Why do you keep trying to insert the view that there were Turks in the Balkans before the start of the invasion (all medieval sources have a pretty specific year (if it is not a date) in which the first Turks entered the Peninsula)? This is a view connected mainly to extreme Turkish nationalists and rejects all contemporary data in the name of the bright future of all Turks or something like that. There is no good faith reason behind putting the info about Turkic tribes in the article about Turks in Bulgaria so I have to assume you have other reasons for this.
   1. The truth is that the Bulgarians have never entered the Balkan Peninsula. The ones who entered the peninsula were the Turkic Bulgars and the Slavs. There were other Turkic people who predated the Bulgars and the Slavs in their role in the Balkans. Where else and when was there a 500-year-long "invasion" of any place or nation on this planet? With the same logic we have to conclude that the English, the Anglos and the other immigrants have been invading the Northern America for the past 200 years that is yet to be liberated 300 onwards from today by the native Indians? I tried to make a clear distinction between the words Turk and Turkic in this discussion. Bulgarians are uneasy about the use of both words. The modern day Turks have a diverse background. But no one can deny the direct and organic relation between the Turks and the Turkic peoples who contributed to their formation. No one -other than those with a biased agenda- can be opposed to any mention of the relevant Turkic peoples in an article titled "Turks in ....” The extreme Turkish nationalists talk is simply nonsense.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Another thing I start to understand is that until recently you were not into any Western sources and lately you've come up with partial sources which taken out of context and without mentioning other parts of the text give a general meaning that is pretty much according to your own interest.
   1. I only quoted resources on this article. Not my own sentences. I try to be fair but I won't deny any immunity from POV. And since I know that I use reliable sources.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Some of the things you said were not really appropriate and are at the very least offensive to Bulgarians. You seem to be someone that lives in Bulgaria and therefore you know what Levski and Botev are to Bulgarians and no, no Western source has ever called any of them terrorists. On the contrary ... on second thought I don't see why this has to be explained here - I just mention it as something that stops me assuming good faith in your edits.
   1. If you pay attention I do not call Levsky a terrorist. I am merely suggesting that in the eyes of the authorities of the time his/their actions would have been perceived so. My personal opinion of Levsky is that he was an idealist man who acted on his beliefs and ideals. I respect people who stick to their ideals. The obsession of Bulgarians and their governments in using him as a symbol to promote hatred towards Turks, however, is unacceptable. The whole thing, at the end of the day, is a matter of interpretation. Unfortunately Bulgarians so far (except for a very brief period during WWI) have preferred or chosen to promote an emphasis on hatred towards Turks. There is no nation -that I know- which survived a 500 year old invasion or whatever you call it without losing its language. That should be suffcient food for thought to rational people. I realize some points I make here would be unacceptable to Bulgarians. Offending people is not my intention but we can not refrain from trying to reflect the truth according to expert oppinion in this article. Turks are offended too when Bulgarians continually start sentences with 500 years of Turkish... or Since the Batak massacres... Think of a country where the public TV continues bashing an ethnic group that constitutes 10 percent of the population. The same country also has a record and habit of either denying the existence of these people or had repeatedly expelled a significant number of them in the past.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you are the champion of truth who single-handedly will expose the blatant ineptitude of Bulgarian historical science, and put the whole official Bulgarian history to the dump heap as a product of Bulgarian insecurities and nationalist hatred. Let's forget those 500 years and what happened during this time, and raise a joint hooray for the glorious Ottoman past. Instead you will insert here for all the world to know your truth, which is .........(fill the blanks)? Lantonov (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

1. And once again I lost my thought - there was something about peaceful living, right of people of self-determination and so on, but I'll try to remember them tomorrow. Good night. --Laveol ^T 01:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me put together two quotes from Nostradamus1: First quote: "Levsky, Botev, Karadja, and the other haiduts, can easily be called terrorists according to today’s standards." Second quote: "If you pay attention I do not call Levsky a terrorist. I am merely suggesting that in the eyes of the authorities of the time his/their actions would have been perceived so." No need for comment. The lie is self evident. Lantonov (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean the state TV that has news in the language of those 10% and which especially bashes them in these news ;) Just kidding - I didn't mean to be rude, but the thing about the Turkic people is nonsense and it is what hardline Turkish nationalists use a lot. You know, all the people in the world are relatives in some sense - more distant than the one in which Turkic people are relatives, but still true, isn't it. So if we go like this why don't we just get to the beginning of it all? Yes, we don't like such mentions cause they are completely nationalistic and imperialistic in some sense as most of us don't like the words of people like Volen Siderov and all the others more quiet nationalists. These are relative, but at the same time completely distinct people you're trying to promote in the article. This is not anywhere near a scientific or an encyclopedic approach that was what I was trying to suggest. An encyclopedic approach would be to stick to the topic and live nationalism out of this. By this I do not mean to suggest you're a nationalist, but simply that part of the things you write are such. Not all of them, but a part that is not unimportant. --Laveol ^T 11:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of the relevant Turkic peoples in the article was because I followed the same parallel Hupchick has in his book. He does suggest that some of the modern day Turks may very well be direct descendants of these Turkic peoples. So if Turks in Balkans can have a mention of this an article titled Turks in Bulgaria should too. Otherwise would you suggest that I create another article called Turkic people in Bulgaria? I guarantee you those who oppose their inclusion in this article will immediately nominate it for deletion citing things like "too specific". I am not pushing for any nationalistic agenda but I do have an interest in history. Why should these interesting aspects of the history of Bulgaria be left aside due to other concerns? Also about the distinctness of these people, I would not be so quick to jump into a conclusion. For example, according to Grousset about 600,000 Oghuz Turks crossed the Danube into Bulgaria. The fate of these people is unclear. The Ottoman Turks are also mostly of Oghuz descent. Let us not make the mistake of assuming that we know everything. Readers of the article should be informed of this. As I mentioned before I do see the problem the Bulgars create here. If we include all the relevant Turkic people we also need to include the Bulgars. And grouping them like this will pose a problem for Bulgarians who would obviously be unsympathetic to this. I wish there was a way to exclude them but there is so much written material about their Turkic background that doing so would clearly constitute bias.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern Turkey is only a part of the Ottoman Empire, as is Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, etc. The fact that its name is Turkey and not something else does not give it the right to write and revise the history of the other countries. Turks in Bulgaria did not fall from space, they came in the course of the history of the territory that is now occupied by Bulgaria. So this is first a history of Bulgaria, and then something else. When I read texts about the history of England, for instance, I will believe more to what is written by Engishmen than that written by Frenchmen, or Germans, although both French and Germans contributed to the pool of people that today inhabit Britain, and have a place in British history. Lantonov (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The view that Bulgars are Turkic people is contentious (see article Bulgars) and not an unanimous and hardly established fact as Nostradamus1 tries to present it here. This is mis-information. A further misinformation is the attempt to present the origin of the clan Dulo from Oghuz Turks as an established fact. Clan Dulo is derived from Avitohol, and many historians think that Avitohol is Attila. Only a very small minority of pan-Turkic history revisionists think that Avitohol is related to Oghuz Turks. Lantonov (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. (As the Bulgarian saying goes "You finally spit the little stone out".) The Turkic roots of Bulgars is mainly contested by Bulgarians for the reasons I indicated a number of times here. The majority of sources claim that Bulgars are a Turkic people. Just like this one the article on Bulgars too is under extreme Bulgarian bias. But despite that they can't prevent its mention. There are many unknowns and things yet to be discovered about our history. Perhaps, there are things that will never be known. Most of the world would not even care whether Bulgars were Turkic or Slavic. The reasons of Bulgarians' resistance and reluctance in accepting that Bulgars were a Turkic people has nothing to do with Bulgarians being unusually righteous or truth-loving people. It has to do with their desire to disassociate themselves with the Turks who have been serving as a convenient scapegoat for the Bulgarian fatalism and national psychology. Whether Dulo clan was related to the Oghuz or not is not important here. If there is any misinformation it is the expert sources to blame for that. The unfortunate aspect of dealing with the past and interpreting is that there will always be people and conditions in the future times that will require the revision of the history. I can give you one example that will clarify this point. If you read the article Babur you will notice the word Persian repeated many times. The editors, of course, were forced to reluctantly use the word Turk a few times but the overall tone is one of reluctance. This individual, Babur, wrote his own autobiography clearly indicating his own ethnic background. (I have read his memoirs) Yet today you will find edit-wars about his origins. I am questioning the reliability of the Wikipedia since this kind of misinformation can be represented as the prevailing expert opinion by persistent users with a POV - despite its stated policy clearly states that it is not the place for flat earth theory or original research. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This theory of yours does not go far enough. I maintain that Bulgarians (Bulgars) are, in fact, Chinese. In early Chinese texts, Bulgars are called "ba ga" which is written with 2 hieroglyphics. So let's take 5000+ years of Chinese history and incorporate it into Bulgarian history. It will be quite a free ride. And we can take an example for this from our brethren from Macedonia. :) Lantonov (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Christopher Buxton of Vagabond -"Bulgaria's English Monthly"- states that:

Picking up books at random I discover that Bulgarians built the pyramids before they travelled east of the Urals; that Bulgarians inspired the Inca civilisation; that the tomb of the Goddess Bastet can be found near a small town on the Turkish border; that the EU is just the last in a succession of Vatican- Jewish-Communist-Turkish plots – take your pick! – to destroy Bulgaria.

The full article can be read here.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, cynics are everywhere, in USA and UK too. This does not mean that they deserve to be quoted. Buxton does a lousy job as a clown, as he is supposed to be under such title (Fun). And talking about plot obsession, let's not forget that it was the Americans who cooked the "Bulgarian trace" in the Turk Ali Agca's attempt to kill the Pope. That plot turned out to be only fiction, but the life of one person was ruined and Bulgaria's name was smeared. Lantonov (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all Muslims in Bulgaria are Turks

We have to distinguish between religion and nationality. Many of the Islamised Bulgarians preserved the Bulgarian language and traditions (those traditions that were not contrary to Islam). Most are in the Rhodopes (Ahryani) but there are also some in Vardar Macedonia in the region of Tikvesh (called Torbashi) and in North Bulgaria (around Lovech and Teteven, called Pomaks). We call them all Pomaks, and dump them together with the Turks, as of Turkish ethnicity. And this is not new, it is done for years. For instance, the first census in Eastern Rumelia in 1880 lists Turks and Bulgarian Muslims in one place as the same nationality (total population 815.946, Turks and Bulgarian Muslims 174.700). And of course they will be Turkized, as they do not find acceptance in Bulgarians. Our neighbors (for instance, the Greeks) were quick to use this situation to claim that Pomaks are Greek, and even tried to invent some "Pomak language". This attempt failed because Pomaks use different dialects of Bulgarian, depending on the region. Lantonov (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We know that. Therefore you did not have to create a section to state the obvious. However, we could also make the following statements:

• • Not all Christians in Bulgaria are Bulgarians.
  • Not all Slavic speakers of Bulgaria are Bulgarians.
  • Not every bearded old man is your grandfather.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you knew very well that Pomaks are Bulgarian, then what about those words of yours: "After denying the Pomaks were subjected to Bulgarianization you brought up the Armenian genocide issue." How can Pomaks be Bulgarianised if they were already Bulgarian? Lantonov (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• • The prevalent majority of Christians in Bulgaria are Bulgarian. The rest is composed mainly of Armenians, Greeks, Romani (yes, we call them Romani because some of them are offended when being called Gypsies), and Vlahs.
  • Among Slavic speakers in Bulgaria are many Turks who speak both Bulgarian and Turkish language because they chose to do so.
  • My grandfather was always cleanly shaven, no beard. Lantonov (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As odd as it may sound Bulgarians can be Bulgarianized too. You dominate the Bulgarianization article but you are not serving any justice to the subject since you seem not to grasp what Bulgarianization is (or was). Forcing a person -regardless of ethnic background- to adopt a Bulgarian name is Bulgarianization. Beating and jailing people for refusing to accept Bulgarian names -Pomak or otherwies- is Bulgarianization.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

By contrast, your attempts to Turkize Bulgarians are not odd at all. They have a very logical and rational explanation, as to the reasons and methods. Lantonov (talk) 09:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Look also in this User:Nostradamus1/Turks_in_Bulgaria. That is an article paralel to this one. Much of the contents from there appears intermittently in other Bulgaria-related articles. Lantonov (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reading my ongoing work. I will be including some of that material in the article. You are still avoiding an answer. Regardless of ethnic background - is forcing a person to adopt a Bulgarian name Bulgarianization or not?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not avoiding an answer and if you read what I have written you will find it. I repeat again: changing a name from Turkish (Arabic) to Bulgarian can be called Bulgarisation (although this term is not specific in describing what is changed) as far as the person has something non-Bulgarian (the name) which is changed to Bulgarian. The same can be applied to the previous process (Turkification) but to a much higher degree because the person not only changes his name to Turkish, but also his religion, his language, and, in many cases, his ethnicity. However, the term Turkification is as lame as the term Bulgarisation, because it does not specify what is changed. Lantonov (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I read some of the concoction that you have created in the fork article, and I will encourage anyone to look at it as an example of shameless lies. Lantonov (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Which fork article? --Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Turks_in_Bulgaria.Lantonov (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not a fork article. It is my user page where stored some information that is yet to be placed into the public domain according to my decision-primarily Turks in Bulgaria. I agree with most of the general tone, though, it is not for you to comment on. Comment on what I contributed into the article. Now. Are you going to appologize?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I expect apologies from you. Lantonov (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I just had a look at the sources used by N. Most of the so-called American sources have been taken from nationalist Turkish sites, e.g. from Ingilish.com. For instance, one of the sources that purports to be from Syracuse University, written by a Turk and a Bulgarian(?) casts doubt on such Bulgarian classic writers as Ivan Vazov, Aleko Konstantinov and the fundamental ethnographic and historic monograph of Mutafchieva on the Pomaks, denies all attrocities committed during Ottoman rule and extols the virtues of the Ottoman Empire. It also have a synopsis on the Turan Union, the pan-Turkic organisation that falsifies history in order to "unite" all Turkic peoples, and lists the activities of this organisation in Bulgaria after the Liberation. Evidently, the author(s) of that article is a very active member of the Turan Union.Lantonov (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to use the L word again this time since there is no need to state the obvious. Anyone who looks into the edit history will see that I did not reference any Turkish sites. Inglish.com should be taken out along with any Bulgarian sites. Except for the Library of Congress all my references came from printed material of credible writers and libraries.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Ethnic Turks in Bulgaria - NATO and Department of State statement - transcript
US Department of State Bulletin, Oct, 1989
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2151_v89/ai_8139879 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs) 17:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

HRW.com (Human Rights Watch)
Bulgaria
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Bulgaria.htm --Ilhanli (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

NATO.int
http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/97-99/atanassova.pdf This political line was reversed by the early seventies and was substituted by consistent attempts for cultural assimilation of all the largest ethnic communities. The process of the forced assimilation of Roma and Pomaks preceded chronologically the campaign against the Turks. The main target of assimilation however became the Turks who in 1984 were forced to change their names and adopt Bulgarian ones. Brutal measures were introduced against Islam and the Turkish language. Over 1,000 Turks were detained in prison and over one hundred were killed.xviii During the mass demonstrations of Turks in 1989 the communist authorities resorted to violence and provoked mass emigration of Turks mainly to Turkey. Some 370,000 Turks left the country in 1989 but about 152.000 later returned back to Bulgaria.

Cited in Hellanic Resource Network (hri.org)
U.S. Department of State
Bulgaria Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
January 30, 1997
BULGARIA
http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-Rights/96/Bulgaria96.html --Ilhanli (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Those sources look good to me. I will incorporate the first one in the article under "flagrant violation of human rights". Lantonov (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable Turks in/from Bulgaria

Can I ask you why you have deleted Naim Süleymanoğlu and Halil Mutlu from the list? --Ilhanli (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Because, as far as I know, they are not IN Bulgaria. For Naim Süleymanoğlu, I remember that he is a great weight-lifter who won medals for Bulgaria but after the name-changing campaign, he went to Turkey and won medals for Turkey's team. So he is a very great sportsman from Bulgaria, but not in Bulgaria, as is the subject of the article. For Halil Mutlu, I have not heard anything. If you consider him notable, and he is IN Bulgaria, feel free to include him. Lantonov (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay around and keep on writing. What if they are sometimes IN and sometimes OUT of Bulgaria? Should we create a separate page Turks out of Bulgaria?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Naim Süleymanoğlu was born in Bulgaria and he is citzen of Bulgaria look here, and sometimes he is IN Bulgaria
OR Think like that
What about those people (Turks) who will leave the country? Why we must delete their names from the list, they were famous Turks in Bulgaria for that time. Can't we add historical names?
What about John Atanasof? ok, you will say that we do not talk about "in Bulgaria" but if you look here: Bulgaria you'll see that his name is repeated two times even he was not Bulgarian citizen, he was only about 3 times in Bulgaria and even his mother wasn't Bulgarian.--Ilhanli (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll reedit the section as Notable names--Ilhanli (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For Naim, his inclusion is arguable. For Halil Mutlu, nothing connects him to Bulgaria, except the place of his birth. John Atanassof was first recognized in Bulgaria, and then in America, and this is the reason he is included, not that his father was born in Bulgaria. Lantonov (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing connects Halil Mutlu to Bulgaria? Do not make me laugh. Any notable Turk in, of, and from Bulgaria can be included here. Turks of Bulgaria redirects here.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Laugh anyway you want to. I am laughing at your attempts to revise history too. As for Turks in Bulgaria, and Turks of Bulgaria, there is a difference, and it is incorrect for Turks of Bulgaria to redirect here. "Turks in Bulgaria" have connected there life, their achievements, etc. or part of that to the country Bulgaria, while "Turks of Bulgaria" may have nothing in common with Bulgaria, except the place of their, or their parent's birth. Lantonov (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Turks of Bulgaria" may have nothing in common with Bulgaria. :) I let you and your reasoning speak for your and itself. :)--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the living proof of my reasoning, Nostradamus1 (or whoever Bulgaria-hater you are)? Lantonov (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand this article, it is about the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. In this sense, Turks who left Bulgaria for good, live in another country, and there is nothing else that connects them to Bulgaria, except their birthplace, are not a Turkish minority in Bulgaria, they are a minority (or a majority) in another country. They are "of" Bulgaria, but not "in" Bulgaria. In this sense "Turks in Bulgaria" and "Turks of Bulgaria" are diffferent. Lantonov (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted image, reason?

Distribution of Turks in Bulgaria by District in 2001

While editing the page, please write the explanatory reasons for that in the "Edit summary" part, so i'll not waste my time here... --Ilhanli (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This image is unclear and that's why I deleted it. Nothing against the data except that they are too old. If it is made clearer, it can pass. Lantonov (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is probably too clear and that is why you insist on removing it. The data is from the 2001 census. If there are more recent statistics I would be glad to update the chart. Unfortunately Bulgarian NSI website has other data for 2006 but not for the ethnic make up of the country. Why do you think they did that?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is only your absurd interpretation of my intentions. I said that this is a low quality graphic (unclear), and anyone can judge if I am right or not. If you insist to include such low quality graphics, it says something about your criteria, not mine. Lantonov (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

language

I have not heared Turks who are speaking Bulgarian (between friend etc.), i know it because I'm 'between ' them. May there be some few in number people, but it dos not change the general picture. And I think they are talkink about the Pomaks. Of course evry citizen knows Bulgarian, but it will be better to say that they are using only Turkish, since it is mother language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilhanli (talk • contribs) 10:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How do they communicate to other Bulgarians, if they speak only Turkish? Or you are trying to say that they communicate only with Turks, and do not speak to Bulgarians? Lantonov (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No. They use only Turkish between themself. Bulgarian is used only to communicate with Bulgarians. --Ilhanli (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understan you about the language but why you writing Bulgarian at the top? Or you are thinking that most of the Turks prefer only Bulgarian language? --Ilhanli (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, exchange them, no objection. Lantonov (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As you see, in this page there is not written Turkish. --Ilhanli (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not say that Greeks are example for inter-ethnic relationships. Lantonov (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC) --Ilhanli (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I may remove the language section since they speak Turkish because they are Turks and Bulgarian because they are in Bulgaria as it is expected. "Language" part is not so important I think.

Yea, I think it would be best. Gosh, I lost half of my day here.Lantonov (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

DNA Stuff

Someone is repeatedly including the following sentence:

Recent genetic research confirm the local, Anatolian - Balkanic origin of the Turks and reject the theory about significant Asiatic contribution to their DNA.

Can someone elaborate on it? This user is drawing his/her own conlusions. What is of local, Balkanic (perhaps a new word?) origin and what is not? What is being compared against what?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No one responded to my inquiry about the above. The DNA data says nothing to justify a sentence like the above. This is merely a restatement of what those unpunished Bulgarian criminals argued during the assimilation campaigns. It will not stand in this article. Furthermore one can argue about the article Bulgaria, for instance. Why is there no DNA talk and discussion about the so called Slavs in Bulgaria. Are Bulgarians indeed Slavs, for example? Is there any comparison to other DNA data? Again, it will not stand. Those pushing for it must have heard it from some people close to them or were supporters and/or were involved in those acts themselves.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

This article is currently under informal mediation. see here. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation was closed inconclusively. It is worth looking in the above link though, it is educating. Lantonov (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A pearl

"As Russian forces pushed south in January 1878, the troops, the Bulgarian volunteers, and the emboldened local Bulgarian villagers inflicted a welter of atrocities on the local Muslim population. Some 260,000 Muslims perished in the war's carnage, and over 500,000 refugees fled with the retreating Ottoman forces. [17]"

This pearl from the article is the same as "Jews, emboldened by the Soviet army in WWII inflicted a welter of attrocities on the local German population". This is such a disgrace for the person who wrote the above. For the true picture, see those:

• 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.)[13]

“ Let the Turks now carry away their abuses, in the only possible manner, namely, by carrying off themselves. Their Zaptiehs and their Mudirs, their Blmhashis and Yuzbashis, their Kaimakams and their Pashas, one and all, bag and baggage, shall, I hope, clear out from the province that they have desolated and profaned. This thorough riddance, this most blessed deliverance, is the only reparation we can make to those heaps and heaps of dead, the violated purity alike of matron and of maiden and of child; to the civilization which has been affronted and shamed; to the laws of God, or, if you like, of Allah; to the moral sense of mankind at large. There is not a criminal in an European jail, there is not a criminal in the South Sea Islands, whose indignation would not rise and over-boil at the recital of that which has been done, which has too late been examined, but which remains unavenged, which has left behind all the foul and all the fierce passions which produced it and which may again spring up in another murderous harvest from the soil soaked and reeking with blood and in the air tainted with every imaginable deed of crime and shame. That such things should be done once is a damning disgrace to the portion of our race which did them; that the door should be left open to the ever so barely possible repetition would spread that shame over the world.William Gladstone, British prime minister ”

The text quoted in the first paragraph in this section was introduced in the article here [14]. Somehow it failed to surprise me. Lantonov (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The source given for this truth-twisting is very informative as to the intentions. It is:

• J. McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922. Princeton, N.J: Darwin Press, 88–91,(1996) ISBN 0878500944.

Justin McCarthy. Read about his deeds and misdeeds here:

• Taner Akçam, Visiting Professor of History. Anatomy of Genocide Denial: Academics, Politicians, and the “Re-Making” of History. University of Minnesota.[15]

In this paper by an eminent Turkish professor, J. McCarthy's central role in denying Turkish attrocities everywhere is desribed in detail. That he has such mission can be seen also on his book flyer. We read (ISBN 0878500944):

"Death and Exile is the history of the deportation and death of millions of Muslims in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries from areas that have remained centers of conflict - the Balkans, the Middle East, and what was the Soviet Union - and shows how these ethnic and religious conflicts developed. The history of the expansion of the Russian Empire and creation of new nations in the Balkans has traditionally been told from the standpoint of the Christian nations that were carved from the Ottoman Empire. Death and Exile tells the story from the position of the Turks and other Muslims who suffered death and exile as a result of imperialism, nationalism, and ethnic conflict. Death and Exile radically changes our view of the history of the peoples of the Middle East and the Balkans. It presents a new framework for understanding conflicts that continue today."

In other words, traditionally we have a view of history that has been told over and over. However, forget what you know, he will tell us another story: it is not Muslims who persecuted Christians, it is the other way around. And if we still resist in accepting this POV, Nostradamus1 will punish us by the rulebook.

The whole exercise in this article is to push this POV. This is the aim of the extensive explanations in this discussion, the repeated bashing of the "Bulgarian nationalism" and denying everything that is known about Bulgarian history. Lantonov (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The 250,000 Muslims who perished, and the 500,000 who fled were part of the bloody armies of Suleiman Pasha, and the bashibozuk that committed the carnages of Batak, Perushtitsa, Klisura, Bratsigovo, Stara Zagora, Panagyurishte, Tryavna, Tetevan, Sevlievo, Dalboki, and many other towns and villages, killing small children, and carrying them on bayonets. Bulgarians forgave them but did not forget. Lantonov (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that an Ottoman army of half a million gave up fighting and fled? I have a more recent paragraph from McCarthy that you came to admire so much. Since it is a much more credible source than yourself it is going to replace or be appended to the one you did not like:

Few of the cities and only a small part of the countryside in Bulgaria were scenes of protracted battle, so civilian losses due to battle were relatively few. Nevertheless, 17 percent (262,000) of the Muslims of Bulgaria died during and immediately after the 1877-78 war. Some 515,000 surviving Muslims, almost all Turkish, were forced from Bulgaria into other areas of the Ottoman Empire, never to return home. They were victims of a combination of local Bulgarian rapacity and what later generations would call state terror. When Russian troops entered part of Bulgaria, Bulgarian revolutionaries, Russian soldiers, especially Cossacks, and Bulgarian peasants began a programme of rape, plunder and massacre. The result was the flight of the Bulgarian Muslims. Some 55 percent of the Muslims of Bulgaria, mainly Turks, were either evicted or killed. J. McCarthy, The Ottoman Peoples and the end of Empire, 2001, p.48

--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

About McCarthy's credibility look again here[16]. I will quote only a small part of this document:

"In short, the figures in the Turkish National Assembly letter attributable to Justin McCarthy are wrong. His assertions that “the names of only a very few of the missionaries whose writings were used in the reports are known to us ” are entirely the product of his imagination. Furthermore, the classifying of those Armenians who survived the deportations as “Armenian activists,” as McCarthy and by extension the Turkish National Assembly letter have done, is also unfounded. The claim that “32 of the code names [in the documents] belong to completely fictitious persons” is simply not true. And finally, the assertion that certain documents need be considered incorrect or unreliable simply on the basis of the fact that their authors are missionaries or of Armenian origin is one fraught with danger, and one that comes very close to out-and-out racism."

Quote some more from McCarthy for everyone to see where you are driving at. Do you have any other source? Where did he get those numbers from? A bad dream?

Read also the Wiki article Taner Akçam and the related: "A question of authority Our increasing reliance on Wikipedia changes the pursuit of knowledge" [[17]]. It is very enlightening about what a biased Wiki article can do to a person, or to a nation, or country, in the present context. Let's not forget that Levski and Botev are "terrorists" :). Lantonov (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest that the 500,000 are only part of the regular Ottoman Army. Most of those who fled were the bashibozuk that committed the massacres in hundreds of Bulgarian towns and villages. For people, who do not know what bashibozuk is: the male Islamic population that is gathered by the local hodzha on every occasion that threatens Muslim control and by his fanatic religious speech instigated to kill every "infildel" (Giaour) on sight, especially women and children. Believing that "the more giaours they kill, the better they would live in the other world" they committed the hideous attrocities, a small part of news for which reached the West. England, who all the time supported the Ottoman Empire, was horrified of the events seen by her own witnesses and correspondents. Therefore, the speech of her Prime Minister quoted above. This is why England did not support the Ottomans in the war of 1878, as she supported them in the previous wars. History must be studied not to forget those horrors. Unfortunately, they are forgotten, and history is repeated: Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and so on. There are also people who for various motives (most often connected to some green pieces of paper) try to make us forget history.

For what I said above, read here:

• 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)

For the life of Turks in post-Ottoman Bulgaria, migration (to Ottoman Empire and back), reasons for migration, etc., read this source:

• 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

This source is the most authoritative one, because Prof. Jireček, a professional Czech historian, toured extensively the Balkans, including Bulgaria exactly in the period of the events and wrote about all this in great detail, including all facts that he personally saw. I haven't seen or heard anyone accusing Jireček of racism. Lantonov (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not going to comment on it but here it goes. Konstantin Josef Jireček entered the Bulgarian service in 1879, and in 1881 became minister of education at Sofia. This is sufficient to cast grave doubt on this person's credibility. Did he get paid (green currency or another type of compensation) to spread pan-slavism? You disrupted this article to the degree that this discussion page turned into a chat where you tell readers the usual Bulgarian sufferings. This is not the place for your gievances. We heard enough of them. Turkish people of Bulgaria are the subject of this article.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is you who disrupts this (and not only this) article with POV pushing, persistent trolling, removing other peoples' edits, personal attacks and threats, and ethnic slurs. I leave the readers and admins to make their own mind about the purpose of your insistence to exlude all Bulgarian documents. And yes, we know the Turkish people in Bulgaria are the subject of this article, their present, as well as their past. Things they have done, and things they have undone in what is now and has been, Bulgaria. Everything, not only their suffering during the "re-birth" process which, by the way, no one in Bulgaria denies. I, and all Bulgarians I have spoken about it, are indignant of the fact of forcibly changing the name of a person. We view this, indeed, as a "flagrant violation of human rights", and even more, humiliating the person and his origin by changing forcibly his identity. What we, Bulgarians, protest is your impertinent attempts to change our origin and identity by calling us Turks, and re-writing our history to glorify our Ottoman past, and deny forced Islamisation and Ottoman attrocities, which is much greater humiliation than name-changing, they are geno (people) cide (killing). Lantonov (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For your allegation about Prof. Jireček, you have to cite a source proving that Prof. Jireček spreads pan-slavism. I am waiting for this. Or maybe you think that "slavism" = "pan-slavism"? As for working in Bulgaria, let me point out that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk also worked in Bulgaria, and as he himself acknowledged, took some ideas for government policy and liberalism from the Bulgarian reality at the time. This does not diminish in any way his credibility or the great reforms that he did. Lantonov (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to hear you say that Turkish and not Turkic people are the subject of the article. Oh, and do not forget that this is not about pan-Turkism as well. --Laveol ^T 17:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of the "Article"

How it starts?

You have to give general informatin about the topic. Not spesific. --Ilhanli (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is best to write the lead section last, after all the article is finished as a structure because the lead section is nothing but a synopsis of the paper, what is also called a summary, resume, abstract. Lantonov (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

When people start to read somthing they expect short and general information at the begging section, it is always in that way. I know how to write academic paper, essay... It will be good to reedit lead section.--Ilhanli (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkic peoples

As I can see from the title, the article is for the Turks in Bulgaria, not about the Turkic peoples in Bulgaria. So the section for the Turkic peoples has no place here. When are you going to understand the difference of a group of peoples and just one people of that group? --Gligan (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkic peoples who played a role in Bulgaria or contributed to the formation of contemporary Turks of Bulgaria will be mentioned in this article. Your feelings will not dictate the content of the article. The sources that I have will. Get used to the idea that:

• • The Ottoman Era was not as bad as you were told. Read non-Bulgarian historians.

Every era in which a country in in a foreign occupation is a bad era. The Ottomans brought nothing to Bulgaria, they only ruined our culture. Please tell me about the cultural achievements in the Bulgarian lands during the period of ottoman domination. Are you also going to deny the Devşirme? Do u think it is nice to take your child? Would you deny that the Turks called the Bulgarians Giaourс? Тhat shows disdain and total lack of respect toward the Bulgarian (and every Christian) people. What a nice era! I would like to be returned if possible... --Gligan (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• • The myth about forced conversions is based on forged documents.

Does it??? Prove it. --Gligan (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Basibozuks were mainly Bulgarian Muslims, Circassians and Tatars -settled in Bulgaria after the Crimean war. The total population of Batak was less than the alleged number of people killed by basibozuks.

Basibozuk could be every Muslim because if he participates in battle against "the infidels" he is in his right to loot and plunder so you can't prove that the Turk were not basibozuks. --Gligan (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

When Gladstone spoke about the Turkish attrocities, he meant and spoke about 'Turks', not anybody else. Don't make me include another passage of his speeches, because the truth will hurt again. Lantonov (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Turks are a Turkic people and the medieval Turkic people in question contributed to their formation.

May I ask how did the Bulgars, the Avars, the Cumans contributed to the contemporary Turkish people? And even the Crimean Tatars who were close allies to the ottmonas are called Tatars, not Turks. --Gligan (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• • The number of Turks in Bulgaria is likely to increase at the expense of Bulgarians. So instead of using Turks as convenient scapegoats look for a common ground.

Who denies that since the 14th century the number of Turks has increased??? And of course it would be at the expence of the Bulgarians - it is estimated that in 14th century Bulgaria had around 3 mln population, roughly the same of england; and in the beginning 19th century it was again around 3 mln while in england it was c 40 mln. Probably that is due to the nice ottoman era. --Gligan (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your and your fellow Bulgarians' attempts to prevent any mention of Turkic peoples in an article titled Turks in Bulgaria will only attest to what most outsiders think of Bulgarians when it comes to history or Turks. You won't be able to fool everyone with technicality. People are smarter than that. It is all too obvious why you are trying to exclude the Turkic peoples in question from this article. Write on.Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the outsider can make the difference between turks and Turkic peoples, something that you obviously cannot or most probably do not want to admit because you are busy to make greater turkish propaganda. And wikipedia is not place for propaganda as far as I remember. And also I have another question to you: is the Armenian genocide a forgery as well??? --Gligan (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To spare you more rhetoric by Nostradamus1, see his view about the Armenian genocide in Talk:Bulgarisation in which article he also tried to find a forum for his frustrations. In Turks in Bulgaria, with his edits, he insisted on inserting the word "alleged" before Armenian genocide. It can't escape notice that he uses a very limited set of sources: primarily Crampton, Hupchick, Kaplan, which he quotes very selectively, and, now, at last, his "heavy artillery": Justin McCarthy.Lantonov (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"As I can see from the title, the article is for the Turks in Bulgaria, not about the Turkic peoples in Bulgaria. So the section for the Turkic peoples has no place here."

First of all, Tatars' and Turks' language is very close to the each other. Second, both people are Muslims. Third, Turkic people do not see themselves as different nation from each other. They call Tatars: Tatar Türkleri, and the Turks: Selçuklu (or Osmanlı) Türkleri. That is why Tatars were married with Turks when they meet each other in West of Black Sea (Bulgaria). So, some Turks' ancestors are Tatars, Gagauz etc...--Ilhanli (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC) If you are writing "turkified bulgarians" why we do not need to write "turkified tatars"? --Ilhanli (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I welcome the fact that this page is protected; however, it is left in a state, offending for Bulgaria as a country, with false statements, introduced almost entirely by Nostradamus1, pushing his pan-Turkic, genocide-denial POV. I think it is good to have another review by neutral reviewer(s), which must take into account all sources, listed in the previous mediation page see here in their entirety, not selectively cited, as in this article (13 sources listed by Nostradamus1, and 52 sources listed by me). Also, I share the opinion of Taner Akçam that insistence to disregard Bulgarian or Slavic sources is an "out-and-out racism", and request such sources to be reviewed too, because this matter relates to Bulgarian history, and reflects on the image of Bulgaria, not on the image of some other country (modern Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire, and thus cannot be held responsible for Ottoman attrocities). Lantonov (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Nostradamus1 has given reliable sources, and it appears that it is you who are trying to erase the history of Bulgaria. IP: 81.86.223.147 (range 81.86.192.0 - 81.86.223.255)

This last statement was by a person, hiding his identity behind an IP address. Lantonov (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A Kind of History: A must read

An informative article by Christopher Buxton. According to him "Under Communism, the Bulgarians saw their national mythology blossom. Now it flourishes". I could not agree more.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See also the comments under the article. Read also User:Nostradamus1/Conversions_to_Islam_in_Bulgaria to learn how eager and willing were the Bulgarians to convert to Islam because "The rapid and thorough conquest of the Balkans by the Ottomans convinced many Christians that the religion of the conquerors must be superior to Christianity, a conviction leading to conversion to Islam" and how happy they lived in the Ottoman Empire. This is how the only correct history of Bulgaria should look. Aferin! Lantonov (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You could have waited until I completed the article. In any case I encourage everyone to read it as well. It will shed some light into the "super human" side of Bulgarian history.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I bet. Even unfinished, the light is so bright and shining that there are no dark nooks left. Let other Europeans be jealous, and clench their teeth in anger that they have missed those good days. If they had known how good life under Ottomans was, they would have met Ottoman troops in Vienna with bread and salt, not with bullets.Lantonov (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

15% Turks in Bulgaria

I think this article needs an important update: 15% of Turks in Bulgaria. Anton Tudor (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You are becoming even funnier. --Gligan (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The trend is towards that number. Unless Bulgarians find ways to prevent that from happening (as they did in the past) it will happen in less than a generation's time.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Muslim community in Bulgaria is represented by three main ethnic groups: Turks, Bulgarian-speaking Muslims (Pomaks) and Roma (Gypsy) Muslims. According to the last two population censuses from 1992 and 2001, the total number of Muslims (based on “religious belonging”) is 1,110,295 (out of 8,887,317 total population) in 1992, and 966,978 (out of 7,928,901) in 2001. The biggest ethnic constituent, according to “ethnic belonging”, of the Muslim community in Bulgaria--the Turks--enumerated 800,052 persons in 1992, and 746,664 in 2001. 762,516 persons indicated Turkish as their “mother tongue” respectively in the 2001 census. However, due to the fact that a substantial part (if not the greater part) of the Muslim Roma identify themselves as Turks to avoid the social stigma associated with the term “Gypsies”, the total number of Turks in Bulgaria has to be reduced. In addition, a certain number of Pomak Muslims also identify themselves as Turks. Thus, the number of the Turkish minority should be further lowered if one completely ignores the generally shared claim that the actual number of Bulgarian Turks is far greater than what is officially indicated. Considering this, the exact number of Turks in Bulgaria can only be speculated upon.

Simultaneously, other waves of Turkic tribes, among which the Bulgars (a unifying name for Ogurs, Utigurs, Kutigurs, Onogurs, Kotrags, and others), moved to the North – Northwest after the collapse, first, of the Hunic union, and, then, of the Great Turkic Haganate, and entered the Balkans through the Danube River. Their invasions to the Peninsula were particularly intensive during VII century. --Anton Tudor (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All well said, but I am getting the feeling that the above sentences come from a document that also contains the word "Helsinki". :)--Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Roma write "Turkish" in the census because they dont like the stigma attached"? if that's true, then it is strange that only 654 people in Sofia officially consider themselves Turkish... http://www.nsi.bg/Census/Ethnos.htm te po-skoro perhaps write "Bulgarian" instead, and if this IS true, then that would simply mean that there is an even larger Roma minority than some people would probably like to accept... by all means, if you can demonstrate this, then provide the figures and subtract them, then Explain what you are doing and Why - we cannot leave out important info from an Encyclopaedia (which by definition is supposed to encompass all knowledge) and hope that no-one notices. it isn't like we're running out of space over here: dig it up, post it, explain it, and that way both you, me, and everyone else will be all the better informed.

ps. what's your point about the Turkic tribes? it doesn't tie in with the rest of the argument. Ta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.176.111.71 (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the stated population of Turks in Bulgaria based on the 2001 census I would suggest a mentioning under that figure of the Turks who are Bulgarian citizens currently residing in Turkey.

The reason is that these people have property and permanent addresses in Bulgaria (substantial amount received their retirement allowances from Bulgaria etc.) and from the estimated 150 000 Bulgarian nationals (holding double citizenships) in Turkey some 70 000 have exercised their right to vote in Bulgarian elections. Furthermore, this would also show a more realistic figure of the size of the community since traveling between the countries is an every day event.

Hittit (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

“Big Excursion” (summer of 1989)

During the Communist regime the Turks in Bulgaria experienced three other emigration waves over a period of time, namely: 1950-1951, 1969-1978, and in 1989 and onwards. Before the start of the first one, the then First Party Secretary and Prime Minister, Todor Zhivkov, handed a note to the Turkish government in which he demanded that Turkey accepts 250,000 Turks from Bulgaria within a three-month period. A total of 212,150 entry visas to Turkey were issued by the Turkish consulate in Bulgaria between 1 January, 1950 and 30 September, 1951, but only 154,393 of the Turkish-Muslim migrants are able to leave for Turkey. Simsir informs that every month approximately 5,000 Turkish-Muslim families (or 20,000 people) striped of property entered Turkey only during the months of December, January and February 1950-1951. Being financially unprepared to meet such an influx of poor Bulgarian migrants, Turkey closed its borders on 8 November 1951, and as a response, the Bulgarian government banned migration and in November 1951 started a campaign of passport confiscation. The second wave started in 1969 (and continued actively by 1978) as a result of the conscious fear of the Bulgarian Turks of forced assimilation, a process that was already launched against the Pomak Muslims in the early 1970s and brought to an end shortly afterwards (1970-1974). However, the 1969-1978 wave is known as the “emigration of close relatives”, because the suddenly interrupted inflow of Turks/Muslims in November 1951 left many families divided. Thus, about 70,000 of the persons who received migrant visa remained in Bulgaria without being able to leave. These and other people (with at least one family member in Turkey) started to collect and submit petitions in which they requested the Bulgarian authorities to allow them to migrate. Thus, by March 1964 the number of Bulgarian Turks and other Muslims who had singed the petitions reached 400,000 persons. Finally, due to this pressure the Bulgarian and Turkish authorities met in Ankara and signed a migration agreement on 22 March, 1968. According to this agreement only very close relatives were eligible for immigration: spouses, parents, grandparents, children/grandchildren and their spouses and children, as well as unmarried siblings (married siblings were excluded). The agreement included providing opportunities for potential migrants to take their possessions with them or sell them and keep the money. The Turkish authorities expected an inflow of about 25-30,000 Bulgarian Turks/Muslims, who – in accordance with the agreement – would bring their property with them. However, as Bulgaria started to break away from the 1968 agreement, it almost expelled its Turks with no property at all. More than 130,000 persons emigrated from Bulgaria in the course of 10 years (between 1969 and 1979).

The third and most frustrating emigration wave for the Bulgarian Turks—the so-called “Big Excursion” (summer of 1989)—was a direct consequence of the so called “Revival Process” against them, when they were forcedly deprived of their names and identity (1984-1985). Declassified archive documents from that time reveal that the then Communist authorities planned to get rid of 200-300,000 Turks by expelling them from the their home country. More than 350,000 Bulgarian Turks left the country in the summer of 1989, about 100,000 of which later returned.Anton Tudor (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not we shall keep Medieval Turkic peoples in the article

To begin with, I would like to see here the definitions of "Turkic peoples" and "Turkish people". --Gligan (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The removed part by Gligan is this:

Medieval Turkic Peoples of Bulgaria

In late antiquity the rolling plains of the Danube and Prut rivers in the Balkans’ north east served Turkic tribes from the Eurasian steppes as an open door into the heart of the peninsula and the riches of the Eastern Roman Empire. Huns and related tribes swept through the Balkans in the 5th and 6th centuries, followed by the Avars and their allies in the sixth and seventh. Among these later were Bulgars, who established a state south of the Danube. Unlike the Avars, whose settlements in the Balkans proved transitory, the Bulgar state persisted in the face of concerted Byzantine pressures. By the 9th century the Bulgars were challenging the Byzantine Empire for political hegemony in the Balkans, but by that time they also were well on the way toward ethnic assimilation into their Slavic-speaking subject population. The conversion of the Turkic Bulgar ruling elite to Orthodox Christianity at mid-century opened the gate to their rapid and total Slavic assimilation. Within a hundred years of the Bulgar conversion, most traces of their Turkic origins had disappeared, except for their name – the Bulgars had been transformed into Slavic Bulgarians.

Oguz, Pecheneg, and Cuman Turks tribes appeared in the Balkans between the 9th and 11th centuries. Most of them eventually suffered an ethnic fate similar to the Bulgars and left little lasting impression, although the Gagauz Turks of Bessarabia, a region lying east of the Prut River (now known as Moldova), and some Turks living today in the eastern Balkans may be direct descendants of those medieval Turkic interlopers. Additionally the Ottoman Turks’ five century rule over most of the Balkans established numerous scattered enclaves of Turkish-speaking groups throughout much of the southern portion of the peninsula, with a heavy concentration in the southeastern region of ancient Thrace.

Tatars were come from north and some of them are still in Bulgaria, since they were also a Turkic tribe some of them were married with Turks. It has to be noted that "Turkic" is a new word and most people do not know (especially in Bulgaria) this word, they are using "Turk" since the word "Turk" both means "Turk" and Turkic". And the two languages are very close to each other. In south Bulgaria there is some villages named in Turkish "Tatarköy" or "Tatarlı". As it is known from the natives there in this villages were many Tatars.

Why you are removing this part?

This part is here because some Turks' ancestor are not onlu Seljuks but other Turkic tribes. If there is "tukified bulgarians" in the article why don't we add "turkified turkic people"? --Ilhanli (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay - once again - only Great Turkish propaganda wants to equal Turkic to Turkish. These are two completely different terms as it is obvious from the different articles in Wikipedia. Not all Turkic people are Turks and you know it more than well. As obvious from the different articles Tatars are not Turks, Gagauz are not Turks (although the removed passage says so), Cumans, Pechenegs and so on are not Turks. And what the hell is the sentence: Most of them eventually suffered an ethnic fate similar to the Bulgars and left little lasting impression has to mean? You mean that establishing a country named Bulgaria that lats till today is nothing? --Laveol ^T 10:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not deny that Turks and Tatars are close but they are not one people. For the Tatars in Bulgaria you should create a separate article. Here we write for only one people, the Turkish people; and claiming that the Cumans, Pechenegs, Bulgars????@@!!?@ are Turkish people is Torkish propaganda and POV. If the title of the article was "Turkic peoples in Bulgaria", then you are welcome to include that paragraph.

Also I hear for the first time "Cuman Turks"; would you call in that logic the Bulgars "Bulgar Turks"?

And finally the fact that some Tatars had voluntarily become Turks, that does not mean that Tatars and Turks are one and the same people. If I call myself a "Marsian" would this mean that I am a Marsian? --Gligan (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I answer the above questions -who were clearly brought up out of an obvious POV and bad intent- I'd like to ask the following questions. What sort of a verifiable source/reference are the Turks of/in Bulgaria to provide so that they can mention any related Turkic peoples -who played a role in the history of the land- in an article dedicated for the Turks in Bulgaria? Another question is as follows: What do the Slavs, Bulgars, and Thracians have to do with the contemporary Bulgarians given that

1. Bulgarians claim to be Slavs but the Bulgars were definitely not a Slavic people.
2. There is no proof that the Thracians and the Slavs eve co-existed and intermingled.
3. There were NO rulers of the so called Slavic Bulgarian population that were of Slav descent. (Please, list any exceptions below.)

Should any mention of Slavs, Bulgars, and Thracians be removed from the history of Bulgaria?

Answer the above and I will provide the reasons as to why in an article titled Turks in Bulgaria we should be allowed (by insecure Bulgarians) to mention the medieval Turkic peoples who were present in the land that is today known as Bulgaria?

Would you prefer a source from Bulgaria or from abroad? I will try to provide something but let us agree on the rules first since you guys have a not-so great reputation in this area. All three of you -regardless of your so-claimed academic level of education/degree- (Lantonov, Gligan, and Laveol) have been representing yourselves according to the well-known Bulgarian reputation when it comes to history so far. Keep up with the good work after elaborating on the above. The world needs to be informed about this curiosity.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should answer the question directly, not to ask other questions. In fact I wrote my answer but I prefer to post it after you answer the questions that were asked first. --Gligan (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For the last time Nostradamus - stop with the personal attacks. This is the last time I warn you. And why are you avoiding the question - why haven't you answered us even once and every time you start your monologue about All three of you -regardless of your so-claimed academic level of education/degree, have been representing yourselves according to the well-known Bulgarian reputation when it comes to history so far, who were clearly brought up out of an obvious POV and bad intent and we should be allowed (by insecure Bulgarians)? I take every single of your words as a personal attack (which it clearly is) and ask you for the 4th time to stop it. And since you avoid giving answers since the whole dispute began:

1. Are you telling me you have definite proves that Bulgarians have nothing to do with Slavs? Are Bulgarians mostly Slavs as every single scholar claims or are they not as you seem to claim.
2. Are you telling me that you have definite proves that Slavs and Thracians did not co-exist even for a single year or day (as irrelevant to the actual question I find your words)
3. Are you telling me you've got definite proves that not even a single Bulgarian ruler had even the slightest Slavic origin despite the fact that some of them had suspiciously Slavic names like Ivan Vladislav and Gavril Radomir? (again your question was irrelevant to the actual dispute and if you're trying to lay traps in front of us in order to prove your point bare in mind that this would be a violations of Wikipedia policies as well).

Here you go.--Laveol ^T 11:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am adding this section back. Those opposing the existence of this section in this article about the Turks need to make a good argument as to why an article named Turks in Bulgaria can not include a section and information about the Medieval Turkic Peoples of Bulgaria. How is this section not related to the article. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We've provided you with enough reasons - why do you avoid commenting on them? --Laveol ^T 08:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing Islamization and Turkification Section

This section is simply the well known Bulgarian Communist-Nationalist propaganda and argument that was used during the Bulgarian trademark name change campaings. As expert historians stated it clearly the documents used to support the alleged forced conversions in Bulgaria have been proven to be forgeries. Furthermore this article is about Turks not the Bulgarians who converted to Islam.An in-depth article on this subject can be read here--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The POV you are trying to push here is a well-known Turkish propaganda and is NOT going to pass. --Gligan (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The section which was removed is not about the topic. --Ilhanli (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How interesting - so you two pushed a section to be added to the areticle although it was unrelated to it and now you want a section removed because it is allegedly unrelated make up your minds. --Laveol ^T 21:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It (medival...) wasn't there when i removed "islamization..."! --Ilhanli (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But you still added it, didn't you? --Laveol ^T 21:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sugesstion about; medival turkic tribes, islamization and turkification

This is my suggestion;

Under the Settlement of Turks in Bulgaria we can add sub part, at the end, with header like this:
+Effects of the Turks
++Effects on Bulgarians
+++Islamization text about islamization (note:for me the only problem is that; are the Pomaks were included in Bulgarian nation or they were somwere between Bulgarians and Bosniaks, i do not know
+++Turkification text, Janissaries, bla, bla...
++Effects on Turkic people; text, genetic contributions of tatars, gagauzes to the turks, bla bla (not:Bulgars will not be included) --Ilhanli (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of contested passages

This edit war about the two contested passages (the one about Turkification, and the one starting with what the "rolling plains" did in late antiquity) can only be solved if both are removed. They are both unsalvagably poor quality. I am making no judgment about whether some suitably brief treatment of medieval Turkic groups is appropriate (in my personal view, it may well be so), but all this coverage can only be reinserted in a constructive way if it gets completely rewritten. Come on, write for the enemy. Rewrite this stuff in such a way that your opponents will recognise it as a vast improvement. If you can't do that, you're POV-pushers beyond hope. This goes to everybody here.

I will go rouge on you guys and block everybody who simply reinserts either of the contested passages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I requested formal mediation here. Anyone interested can join. I listed the last four surviving war veterans.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The request for formal mediation has been rejected because two of the users (user:Laveol and user:Gligan) did not accept the request. I will contact an administrator for an advice on how to proceed from here.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Content duplication

I regretfully have to notice that the article currently has what looks like unnecessary duplication of info to me. I introduced the section header "Summary" because the Table of Contents started very down below. But after reading I notices that a huge piece is about Bulgarization, which (a) again described in sections below and {b} already has its own article. I will recommend, according to wikipedia:Summary style, to put Zhivkov's assimilation campaign into a separate article, because it is a clearly defined separate topic, and make a summary section here. If you agree, I can do it myself, or someone else. Inshallah. Mukadderat (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Old Bulgarian census map

The User Laveol insisted here and here to remove this map from the article. I don't see anything wrong with the map. --Olahus (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

TNFM

Is there anyway we can get the reference for this sentence in English?;

As a response to the Bulgarian government policies, on March 9th, 1985, an underground Turkish organisation (TNFM) was responsible for planting an explosive device on the Sofia-Burgas train.[22]

Preferably, a reference from a book or newspaper written in English? Thanks. Kansas Bear (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The only Enlish language reference I have about this is as follows:

It has been suggested that discontented Turks were responsible for the extraordinary terrorist attacks which affected Bulgaria in 1984 and 1985. On 30 August 1984 bombs exploded in the railway station at Plovdiv and at the airport in Varna; on that day Zhivkov traveled between the two cities. There were also reports that shortly after the explosions fly-sheets promising ‘Forty Years: Forty Bombs’ appeared in the streets of a number of Bulgarian cities. On 9 March 1985 seven people died in a suspicious fire on a Bulgarian train, and later in the same month the chief prosecutor, when introducing new and more stringent anti-terrorist regulations, admitted to the Subranie that thirty deaths had been caused by such acts of violence in the preceding year. Apart from the very dubious hints at Turkish complicity there is as yet no indication as to who might be responsible for these outrages. (R.J. Crampton, A Short History of Modern Bulgaria, pp.206, Cambridge University Press)

--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet that doesn't state that the TNFM was responsible, simply "discontented Turks". Hardly enough evidence, at least for me, for a reference. Kansas Bear (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Distribution of Turkish dialects in Bulgaria

I suggest removing this section. I am not aware of any scientifically recognized Turkish dialects in Bulgaria. There certainly are differences in choice of words and their pronounciation even between villages as close as a few kilometers but presenting this in this way as dialects is misleading in my view.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why we should remove our language? It is the second most importan thing for us.--Ilhanli (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Language is the primary -not secondary- element of Turkish ethnicity in Bulgaria. I am opposed to the original research by claiming a number of dialects based on personal opinions. Are there any linguistic sources supporting this? Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"There certainly are differences in choice of words and their pronounciation even between villages..." That is way I have grouped them in two main dialects.--Ilhanli (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There are more than two villages. For instance, "gidorum", "giderim", "gidiyom" all used in three villages less than 50km apart in south-central Bulgaria to imply the same tense. These are not linguistically recognized dialects. Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable Turks in Bulgaria

Should we include people who were born before Bulgaria became liberated or gained its independence in the list? Also equating Ottomans with Turks is a common recurrence (so much so that even today in Turkey the so called "Turkishness" is equated with citizenship not ethnicity. It's different in the Balkans. The article refers to the ethnic Turks of Bulgaria). There are many notable Ottoman citizens who were not ethnic Turks. For example, Midhat Pasha was a Pomak and Talat Pasha was a Roma. Both were born before 1878. While Midhat Pasha did contribute greatly both to the empire and Bulgaria in particular Talat's relation to Bulgaria is nothing more than being born to a gypsy family in a village of Kizdali before the Province of Eastern Rumelia was created. What was his notable achievement in Bulgaria? I suggest taking Talat Pasha out.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a Turk from Bulgaria I would not want the history of my nation to be limited to the existence of the Bulgarian Republic, which was just established in 1908 (You see the Bulgarians doing that?). As I see in the article Mithat Pasha is not mentioned in the notable person’s list. The history of the Turks in Bulgaria extends back to the 13th Century if we do not take into account earlier Turkic tribe settlements. It would not be far fetched to say that our existence in the region of Bulgaria and the Balkans today is the result of the Ottomans. Calling Talat Pasa a gypsy from Kircaali? If you base your sources on Armenian theories I thought they called him a Jew and the Young Turks described as Zionists. (Hittit (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

What Bulgarians would do or the Armenians call Talat Pasha is irrelevant. Making every Ottoman synonymous with Turks is misleading. There was and still is a movement in present day Turkey to count every Turkish or Ottoman citizen as a Turk as long as they are/were Muslim. The so called Young Turks and Pan-Turkists were in fact rarely Turks. Ziya Gokalp -the father of Pan-Turkusm- was a Kurd from Diyarbakir. Prominent ultra-Panturk nationalist Tekin Alp -born Moishe Cohen- was a Jew from Salonika. Talat Pasha -also a leading Young Turk- was a gypsy from Adrianople. The Young Turks were closely tied to the Masonic lodge of Salonika and most were practicing Freemasons. I haven't read anything claiming Talat Pasha was Jewish. I am sure the Armenians would not want to give up a commodity like Talat-the bloodthirsty Turk- as a tool in their "genocide" industry. He is a very useful tool in keeping the hatred against the Turks. Why would they call him a Jew? Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious and unnecessary flags

A number of dubious flags have been added. They bring no value to the article other than attempt some sort of nationalistic sentiment. "Ottoman coat of arms" or "Flag of Turkish Republic of Western Thrace" bring nothing. I, for one, have never heard of that so called republic. Did any state recognise it at the time? Also, Western Thrace is in Greece. Let us take these images -that might even be self-work/original research- out. (There are also three maps of Bulgaria. Come on.)--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Names of the cities

The names of Plovdiv and Shumen in 1897 were not Filibe and Shumla, but simply Plovdiv and Shumen. Chief White Halfoat (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide more information as to when Filibe became Plovdiv? In 1897 Bulgaria was still part of the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, even today many Turks refer to Plovdiv as Filibe. What is the harm in including these names besides the newer ones given the context of the article?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol, as from now I kindly ask you to refrain from such edits. You've proven you don't know anything about Bulgarian history and what you said here is just laughable. In 1897 not only that Bulgaria was free, but Plovdiv was part of it. And if you want to use another name, try Philipopolis - it was sometimes referred to with this name, but not as Filibe. --Laveol ^T 09:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You can not ask me to refrain from edits that do not fit your POV. Answer the following question: When did Bulgaria declare her independence?. On October 8, 2008 Bulgaria is going to celebrate the 100th year of proclamation of her independence FROM THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. Does 1908 ring a bell? The city that was renamed as Plovdiv was called Filibe for centuries by those who ruled it. And that is what you can't stand, isn't it?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When we talk about 1350... nobody says "Istanbul" (for Constantinople). Nikoy nekazva Istanbul kogato govorim za 1350... nali? --Ilhanli (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rejection of the bill to recognize the killings of Armenians as genocide

Currently the article states that:

On 10 May 2006, the Bulgarian Parliament rejected a bill that was sponsored by the Bulgarian nationalist party Ataka on recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

This sentence carries some serious flaws. It suggests that the bill was a movement to recognize THE "Armenian Genocide". That was not the case. The bill submitted to and rejected by the Bulgarian National Assembly was a movement to recognize the killings of Armenians AS A genocide. There is a big difference here. In order to align it to what it was I am going to change the sentence as follows::

On 10 May 2006, the Bulgarian National Assembly rejected a bill that was sponsored by the Bulgarian nationalist party Ataka to recognize the killings of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire as genocide.

Please, discuss any objections below.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm, ok, provide me a source for it. Currently we have two local administrations that have recognized the Armenian genocide. Not as genocide - they have recognized the thing that happened. It was a genocide and the only party that denies it is Turkey. It's like Germany denying the Holocaust. But to avoid further conflicts, I suggest removing it - it's not totally related to the issue, but m,ore on Armenians and the article is about Turks after all. --Laveol ^T 08:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You know I am not going to discuss what some local adiministration might have done. The point is that the wording of the sentence does not reflect what happened. You are asking for a reference. Why don't you read the parliamentary records? This is not the place to discuss whether it was a genocide or not but you realize that when you say 'It was a genocide' you are expressing a POV. Others may have different perspective on it. This issue became popular in the west partly because of the works of the Armenian diaspora and partly due to the self-righteous westerners who feel they are the ones who set the world standards and definitions. Nations are like induviduals. Some of them are stuck in the past and can't stop complaining. Others are different. I'd be ashamed to bring up the issue repeatedly if my ancestors were ruled by others for 500 years, for example. That would not reflect good on them anyway. Regarding the Armenians, whether it was a genocide -a term that came into use after WWII- or not, killing poeple (and animals) is a sad and unfortunate thing. No one is denying that it was a tragedy but there are differences on the numbers and the events themselves. Armenians and those traditionally opposed to anything Turkish want to use this issue as a tool to humiliate the Turks. As a result we see parliaments and local administrations taking upon themselves the task of writing the history. The underlying motivation for insisting on this version of events is simple and plain animosity. It also gets funny when some of those proposed bills make demands on the government of Turkey - a state established after the events. There are also laws in some European countries to force people accept this version. People in Switzerland can be jailed for questioning if it was indeed a genocide. It is an eye-opener regarding the western ideals of freedom of speech and expression.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the relation between the Turks in Bulgaria and that thing?--Ilhanli (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is some relation in the sense to demonstrate the influence of Turks in Bulgarian politics. It is only normal that they opposed such a bill.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Emeletem.jpg

The image Image:Emeletem.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Naim Suleymanoglu.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)