Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarians in Turkey


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Turkey

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is inconsistent and conflicting; instead of being an article about Bulgarians’ it is actually about Turkish people from Bulgaria who migrated to Turkey in 1989 being represented as Bulgarians. Contributors’ have also objected to and failed to try and improve the article. Thetruthonly (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article topic and the actual content are conflicting paradoxes. The article is named: “Bulgarians in Turkey” providing a figure of 300 000 Bulgarian speaking community in Turkey however refusing to elaborate that this community is in fact overwhelmingly (326 000 based on 2005 figures) of Turkish descent and speaks Turkish as mother tongue (most are Bulgarian citizens due to being born in Bulgaria, this does not guarantee their Bulgarian speaking skills). Actual ethnic Bulgarians in Turkey (not necessarily even Bulgarian citizens) forming the Bulgarin Diaspora are no more than few hundred. Turks in Bulgaria and Immigration to Turkey are separate Wikipedia articles where immigration of ethnic Turks and other Muslim minorities from the Balkans to Turkey are covered. In case this article is not streamlined and improved it has absolutely no value for Wikipedia readers due to its conflicting nature. Furthermore, any attempts to present clarification and improvement are being blocked.Hittit (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as article author, the Turkish Wikipedians are refusing to believe that "Bulgarians" can mean (constitutionally) "Bulgarian citizens of whatever ethnicity", just like "Americans", "French people" or "Greeks". In my opinion, the article serves as a good overview of the several groups somehow related to Bulgaria but living or having lived in Turkey: whether ethnic Bulgarians, ethnic Turkish Bulgarian nationals or Bulgarian speakers of whatever origin. All reasonable issues that have been brought up have been addressed by me so far. Unfortunately, there is going to be a mass ethnic delete vote by the Turkish Wikipedians, so I'm kindly inviting all neutral Wikipedians to support me here and help us improve this article instead of deleting valuable and sourced information. Todor→Bozhinov 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete: If the article was about Bulgarians then it should not be showing the population of Turkish people. This article is extremely offensive to those who suffered in 1989 due to 'Bulgarisation' which in some ways this article is also doing! The list of notable Bulgarians in Turkey are 70% Turkish whilst the 30% are from the Ottoman period when there were ethnic Bulgarians at the time. in short this article is trying to Bulgarise the Turks. Turco85 (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I tried to allow the contributors to this article to improve the article but they decided to just remove the proposed deletion without any major changes... they have also disregarded any opinions or suggestions from the discussion page. Turco85 (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Even though the census is correct, the population are ethnic Turks. If this article was called ‘Bulgarian Turks in Turkey’ that would be a different matter. But this article is specifically hinting that they are Bulgarians. The gallery for example shows ancient churches; but I’m sure that this 350,000 population are not even Christians which demonstrate just how misleading the article is. Just because there has been migration from a certain country, it does not mean that they are that ethnic group. I will give you a simple example to why this article is absurd. Many Greek and Armenian Americans for example originate from Turkey, but the Turkish American article is about ethnic Turks and does not count Greeks, Armenian and Jews. If it did it would be ridiculous just like this article is right now. GreyisthenewBlack (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment, articles entitled "something in somewhere" for example usually refer to an "ethnicity" rather than a citizenship group. I must agree with the votes from above, the article needs to focus on "ethnic bulgarians" in turkey, as this is what is implied by the title. The article should focus on ethnic bulgarians (orthodox and pomaks) in turkey and if users wish to have a section for the exodus of turks to turkey post 1989, i cannot see why it cant be included here. i guess if the article will not be changed in some sort of a way like that, then the above users have due reason to vote delete. PMK1 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but remove the part about the Turkish people. Jingby (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but the numbers should not include ethnic Turks with Bulgarian citizenship - they can only be mentioned as having one but not counted as Bulgarians. However, the article is needed because of the strong historical presence of the Bulgarians in Turkey. --Gligan (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: regarding the stats stating that there are 600,000 'Turkified Pomaks'- the reference leads to a page that cannot be found. A new reference is needed to support this argument. Also reference number 6) is about ethnic Turkish people who will not be allowed to vote in Bulgaria it is not about ethnic Bulgarians. Unless these points are cleared up, I still vote to delete because it is still misleading. Thetruthonly (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The points have been addressed despite my reluctance to the removing of any reference to ethnic Turkish Bulgarians. Todor→Bozhinov 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Pomaks are not ethnic Bulgarians and furthermore there is a separate article about Pomaks in Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. Either this article focuses on ethnic Bulgarian’s in Turkey as its title states or it should be deleted. The term Bulgarian Muslims is purely Bulgarian invention part of the government supported Assimilation Campaign the roots of which could be traced back to the 1930’s. Ethnic Turks were also referred as Bulgarian Mohammedanians until 1989 by the Bulgarian State, which had fabricated and falsified historical evidence to support the idea of a unified Bulgarian nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hittit (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: according to the international sholarly consensus, the Pomaks are Muslims of Bulgarian ethnic origin. Fringe theories should not be asserted as the truth. Todor→Bozhinov 14:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is no imaginary "international scholarly consensus, you might want to visit the Pomaks Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hittit (talk • contribs) 15:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment:Yes, fringe theories are not accebtable, Hittit. Jingby (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: If you look at the articles history, I tried to eliminate Turkish factors from the article, once it was reverted I realised this would come to pass. While the article has been neutralised to a certain standard; it is still not satisfactory. As user: Thetruthonly has stated reference number 5) cannot be accessed and reference number 6) is about Turkish peoples voting rights and in fact the same with reference number 7). Topkapi4 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: the mass ethnic vote is happening. Reference 5 (Milliyet.com.tr) is working fine; if you need a cached version, you can find one here. Reference 7, page 323, clearly reads that some of the Pomaks retain their Bulgarian citizenship as dual citizens. The article has been updated by Jingiby today, removing any reference to ethnic Turks. The arguments of the Turkish Wikipedians are invalid and even if they were valid, they would have been no reason for the article to be deleted. Todor→Bozhinov 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: this is still deceptive... do you not realise this? Reference number 5) states that there are 600,000 people however whether they are Turkish or Pomak is unclear. Having said that, the statement in the article 'Part of those people retain their Bulgarian citizenship as dual citizens.[6][7]' this statement is backed up by references about ethnic Turks but why?? This article should be about Bulgarians’ only... if anything the article might be more suitable if it was called 'History of Bulgarians in Turkey' as they have a historical presence but almost no occurrence today. If you can find up-to-date references for ethnic Bulgarians in Turkey it could maybe bring to a standstill this quarrel. Topkapi4 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You claim that you speak Turkish as your native language, are you saying now that you can't read Turkish? The article clearly says 600,000 thousand is the number of Pomaks. Why do you consider it a problem that we're using a reference about Turks and Pomaks when we're talking about Pomaks only? We're only using the information about Pomaks. There are Bulgarians in Turkey today, so the "History of Bulgarians in Turkey" name would clearly be inappropriate. Kudos to the Ottoman government for the efforts, but they didn't manage to get rid of everyone. "Almost" doesn't work. Todor→Bozhinov 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: But there is an up-to-date references for ethnic Bulgarians in Turkey, the figure is 300 - 400 mainly in Istanbul Hittit (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. This is the number of descendants of Tsarigrad Bulgarians, the traditional Bulgarian minority in the city, still living there. This is NOT the number of Bulgarians in Istanbul at all and especially not the number of Bulgarians in Turkey. This was already said to you so I don't know why you keep repeating it. Todor→Bozhinov 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article is just too inconsistent. Bulgarians are Bulgarians and Turkish people are Turkish people- end of story. This artile is meant to be just on Bulgarians, there is also no reliable sources indicating the presence of Bulgarians in Turkey Sundari32 (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the article at all? It's only about Bulgarians now. Note: this was the user's first edit, possible sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Todor→Bozhinov 11:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The legal rights of the Bulgarians were recognized fully by the Republic of Turkey through the Treaty of Angora (Ankara), signed on October 18 1925, which have been never denounced or enforced too. Read the attached to the Threaty Protocol, please: Jingby (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Then as stated by me before, why not change the article to 'History of Bulgarians in Turkey'. Nobody denies that they have at some point lived in Turkey. But today it appears that there is only Tsarigrad Bulgarians left in the country. Pomaks should have its own article (i.e. Pomaks in Turkey)Topkapi4 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pomaks already have their own Wikipedia article and BTW if you look at the Ankara Agreement from 1925 "Turkish nationals of the Christian faith whose mother tongue ís Bulgarian shall be regarded as belongig to the Bulgarian minority", Pomaks are not part of this group. Hittit (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, because the Pomaks lived then in the Rhodopi. Jingby (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Have you ever read the Ankara Agreement before making references to it? "The Bulgarian government recognises as Turkish nationals all MOSLEMS born within the frontiers of Bulgaria before 1912 and who have before 1925 emigrated to Turkey. The agreement states Turkish nationals of the Christian faith and with mother tongue Bulgaria shall be regarded as Bulgarian minority...this excludes reference to 600 000 Pomaks.Hittit (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ok then if the last paragraph is removed (about Pomaks) then I will have no problem with this article anymore. Bare in mind that just because there have been agreements in the early twentieth century- it does not prove anything about today’s Bulgarian community in Turkey.Topkapi4 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The reference about Pomaks needs to be removed furthermore there is an maveric Wikipedia article wih the title "The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913" based to a great extent on a single source of an Bulgarian ethnographer Miletich. The purpose of that article is higlhly confusing with significant factual flows, either it is an article about Bulgarians that lived in Turkish Thrace or just some overview of Miletich's book...nevertheless one might rething of combinining these two into one article about the history of Bulgarians in Turkey...I would assume the period would be post 1908 since until then Bulgaria was officially part of Ottoman Turkey.Hittit (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We will not succumb to Turkish blackmailing just to save this article: the Pomaks are Bulgarians and the Thracian Bulgarians were all killed or expelled in 1913 by the Ottoman Army. Save your mucus, in the real world, you don't always get what you want. You had Turkish Bulgarians removed, but you'll have no luck with Pomaks or the erasing of the Thracian massacres. Just like we recognized our fault in the repression of Bulgarian Turks in the 1980s, you'll get to live with the truth. How come are you always representing Turkey as a victim? Todor→Bozhinov 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop your political debates and focus on the subject in question. Thank you. Thetruthonly (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and later on possibly recreate. It seems that the issue is to deep to just deal with here. The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913; this article is based on "events described by Lyubomir Miletich". Make it in to a real article, and not one that is based upon a book. Also if possible the link with pomaks should be clarified, but at the moment there is to much POV warring here for any such improvement. Anatolian Bulgarians is also another article which should also be included here. It is possible to see how the article can be taken as irredentist and offensive. PMK1 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Did anyone ever read Deletion policy before voting? That you don't like an article is no reason to vote delete. None of the arguments cited so far are any reason to delete. What's happening here is Bulgarians being blackmailed by Turkish users and other "friends". Todor→Bozhinov 09:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Turkish nationalism and the Macedonism are well-known with their objectivity, arn't they? Jingby (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am merely saying that there would be no harm done, if the article was to recreated from scratch. PMK1 (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, someone's hard and well-done going to waste would be "no harm done" to you. Would you like to delete some of my FAs and recreate them from scratch, then? Good luck! Todor→Bozhinov 16:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Todor, if the article wasnt so bad in the first place it wouldnt have been nominated for deletion. There must have been something wrong with it. PMK1 (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * *Comment We need opinions from neutral editors as well. --Gligan (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article seems more neutral- I still have my doubts on Pomaks being in the article however if you insist on Pomaks being kept in the article please remove reference 7) because it has no information on Pomaks what so ever- it is yet again about Turks from Bulgaria and the same with reference 8). Justinz84 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed reference 7 and have made a correction in the page's description of reference 8, (now 7). The Pomaks are mentioned there clear as migrants and later as dual citizens. Regards! Jingby (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.