Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913


 * 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   no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The ultra-POV title notwithstanding, this is precisely the kind of "grab victimhood before it goes!" battleground article we do not need on this encyclopedia. In addition, it does not use any non-Bulgarian language sources with the exception of the Carnegie Report, a primary source from 1913. The article appears to be named after some Bulgarian book from 1913, which in addition to being a really weird way to name an article, is some nothing more than an non-WP:NOTABLE nationalist POV piece. Athenean (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly problems with the article - the number of Bulgarian refugees is disputed and the article focuses too much on a book which might not be notable. The article should be reworked and renamed so that it's less about Miletich and his book and more about the events described in the article and the article must conform more to NPOV. However, these are not problems that should be settled with an deletion. The only real arguments for deletion - lack of notability - seem to be groundless. Kostja (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are several Bulgarian sources in the article. The policy on reliable sources doesn't prohibit the usage of non-English sources, so this isn't relevant. Primary sources are also not prohibited if they're not used for interpretation which is not the case here. The events described in the article are referred also in numerous English language secondary sources, for example "Death and exile: the ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922", p.155; "Documents on British foreign policy, 1919-1939, Volume 11", p.308; "Refugees in the age of total war", p.17.


 * Keep. The weird article name should be no issue. The events described in the article are perfectly notable, and I haven't heard of the recent Wikipedia-wide ban of Bulgarian sources that you seem to be referring to. Yes, the article has issues, but they are not insoluble. It needs work, not a deletion. Todor→Bozhinov 20:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  —Kostja (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment "Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians" returns zero hits on any literature search.  The current article is irredeemably POV.  At this point, deletion and re-writing of the article from scratch under a completely different title (hopefully not Bulgarian Genocide) seems the best option.  If the article is simply kept, it is likely just going to fester in its present state indefenitely. Athenean (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the name should be changed. I don't see anything irredeemable on this point. Kostja (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Stubify and rework: While it seems clear that the topic is notable as such, it is equally obvious that the article as is appears now lacks too much in terms of reliable sources and neutral point of view to be kept. In this context, it is unfortunate that the main source is in Bulgarian, and thus hardly accessible to the average reader here. This may be fine with some uncontroversial topic, but not in this case, I am afraid. If the event really had these dimensions, it does not seem to be asking too much for an English scholarly account. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article is heavy POV, numbers are highly exaggerated and frankly false. Even most ethnographic maps of the area done during that time for different propaganda purposes fail to show such significant Bulgarian presence in Thrace as the article claims. According to 3rd party sources in 1913 a total of 200 000 refugees came to Bulgaria from Greece, Turkey, Macedonia and Romania (The unwanted: European refugees from the First World War through the Cold War p.106). The total of all refugees to Bulgaria was 200 000, the article claims that just in Eastern Thrace 200 000 were killed or forced to leave. Clearly inflated figures with an intentional bias. If you look at other population exchange figures for 1913: 46,786 Bulgarians left Eastern Thrace for Bulgaria and 48,578 Moslems emigrated from Western Thrace to Turkey (Refugees in the age of total war pp.17). Extarnal sources indicate that in in 1913 more Muslims and Turks left Bulgaria to Turkey than Bulgarians left Thrace for Bulgaria. Between 1878 and 1989 some 1.5 - 2 milloin ethic Turks have left or have been forced to leave Bulgaria under harsh circumstances, reality sepaks of much greater destructions of Turks in Bulgaria. Hittit (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentThis is not the place for discussions on the subject. You need to actually demonstrate that the article is not on a notable subject, POV problems are not a criteria for deletion. Kostja (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, you yourself are pushing a biased point of view. The number of refugees has been estimated to be 166.650 ("Conditions of peace with Bulgaria: observations of the Bulgarian delegation", p.55) and a neutral source states that the Bulgarians in the Adrianople villaet (the majority of this area was part of Eastern Thrace) were 370.000, more than in the book by Miletich ("Defeat in Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912-1913", p.41). This obviously shows that the events described in the article did occur, though the exact numbers are disputed. This requires the reworking of the article to comply with NPOV, not deletion because of "I don't like it" type arguments. Kostja (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And what have the Turks of Bulgaria to do with this article? This is an article for deletion discussion, not a place to air grievances. Kostja (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Simple answers, the given numbers of Bulgarians in Eastern Thrace during 1913 are false; these are unsupported by non-Bulgarian third party sources. During the Balkan Wars Bulgaria was the aggressor against Turkey thus causing in turn the extermination of local Muslim population from Macedonia and Western Thrace and massive refugee flows towards Turkey. After the second Balkan War via population exchange agreements between Turkey and Bulgaria refugee flows moved in both directions. Second point the Vilayet of Edirne during 1912 was much lager area (before Bulgarian occupation of the area), so it is false to suggest that all those Bulgarians lived in Eastern Thrace…furthermore Bulgaria was the occupator in Thrace gaining vast territories. It is totally ludicrous to claim extermination of Bulgarian in Thrace by Turkey while Bulgaria attacked and occupied large portions of Thrace. You can’t be the aggressor, occupator of large territories and then again the victim at the same time. 3rd party source do not support the POV of the article therefore it should be deleted. Hittit (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. You are attacking positions no one has taken. Of course the massacre didn't take place while Bulgaria was occupying those territories but after the Turks reoccupied those areas. So the two events didn't happen at the same time. Also, no one is trying to prove any POV, the events described here are backed up by reliable sources (including the one you keep referring to), the POV problems can be fixed and are not grounds for deletion. About the ethnic composition of the area, I clearly said that the major part of Edirne Vilayer was Eastern Thrace. You also are defending a POV when you state that most maps of the period do not support a significant population in the area. In fact, one such map is in the article and here's another. So obviously both the numbers of Bulgarians before the war and the numbers expelled are disputed, but the central fact of the existence of a Bulgarian population which was expelled during the Second Balkan War has been confirmed by multiple reliable sources, something that neither you nor Athenean have been able to contradict. Also, I don't see why you keep diverting the subject to the Muslims of Bulgaria (which, as you very well know, are still a significant population and a majority in many of the areas captured by Bulgarian in 1912), this discussion is not about them. Kostja (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Kostja as an example of your knowledge of the history of the area, your statement: "About the ethnic composition of the area, I clearly said that the major part of Edirne Vilayer was Eastern Thrace"...would you like to correct your self? Do you even know where Edirne is not to mention the boundaries of the Vilayet in 1912? Amasing discussions we are having, goes to show the level of basic credibility of the article for deletion. Hittit (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From this map and the contemporary division of Eastern Thrace it seems that Edirne Vilayet was composed of the contemporary Turkish provinces of Tekirdag, Kirklareli and Edirne, the European part of Çanakkale, the Western Thrace region of Greece and those territories Bulgaria kept after the treaty of Neuilly (excepting Pirin Macedonia). The Turkish Eastern Thrace has an area sligly bigger than 20 thousand km², Western Thrace is about 8500 km², and the territory taken by Bulgaria (without the Macedonian part) about 10.5 thousand km² (in addition, the Ottoman Empire also controlled part of Western Thrace after the war, which was also affected by expulsions). So it seems that the majority of the former Edirne Vilayet consists of Eastern Thrace. If we look at population, Eastern Thrace was always more densely settled than the other parts of the region due to the mountainous terrain in Western Thrace and the Bulgarian areas. As an analogy, today Eastern Thrace (excluding Istanbul) has about 1.5 million population, Western Thrace about 360 thousand and the Bulgarian areas are also probably around this mark (I can explain in more detail how I arrived at the figures, but this is not the point here). So I would say that I'm informed about the topic, but this is irrelevant to the subject. Instead of trying to prove my ignorance, I suggest you answer which of the criteria listed here apply to this article? Kostja (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Neuilly??? As an analogy, today Eastern Thrace??? Concentrate only on the events of 1913 and movement of boundaries at that time. To help you here is a map of the Bulgarian occupation during the first Balkan War and then again what Bulgaria retained after the Second Balkan War. Focus on the area of Thrace and how the Vilayet of Edirne looked after the First and Second Balkan Wars. Get your years and treaties right.¨http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balkan_Wars_Boundaries.jpg Hittit (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice to see that you haven't even attempted to understand what I wrote. If we use only contemporary territories, then after the Second Balkan War the Ottoman Empire controlled about 20 thousand km², and Bulgaria controled 19 thousand km² (10.5 + 8.5). But about 2000 km² were part of the Ottoman Empire until 1915, so it's really about 22 and 17 thousand km² respectively. About population, the Bulgarian conquests had a population of about 670000, but this also included Pirin Macedonia, while the Ottoman territories had a population of over 1 million. So I don't see how my original statement is wrong.
 * Of course, as interesting this discussion is, it's rather off-topic. It would be far more productive if you answered the question I posed to you in my last comment. Kostja (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

International 3rd party sources on the refugees of the that time are clear, after the 2nd Balkan War just over 200 000 refugees arrived to Bulgaria from ALL directions, Macedonia, Turkey and Romania in addition to agreed population exchanges with Turkey and also with Greece. Thrace was inhabited by a multitude of ethnic groups mainly Greeks, Turks, Pomaks and in certain villages Bulgarians. During the First Balkan War Bulgaria (the agressor)occupied most of Thrace and after the second War almoust half of the territory fell under Bulgarian control. It was in fact the Muslims population that of Turkish Rumelia (Macedonia, Epirus and Thrace )who were subjected to Destructions after all only Eastern Thrace remained of their territories in Europe. Ref. Population exchange in Greek Macedonia: the rural settlement of refugees, Elisabeth Kontogiorgi: pp.38-39 gives a good picture of the situation once Macedonia, Epirus and Thrace fell under the Balkan Christian armies. You cannot have a POV article called “The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913”, in light of historical facts you need to have an article called the Destruction of the Population of Ottoman Rumelia to reflect the plight of all ethnic groups who were either killed or expelled from their home under the feet of advancing armies. The international spread of ethnic conflict: fear, diffusion, and escalation By David A. Lake, Donald S. Rothchild p.166, Refugees in the age of total war pp.17, Population exchange in Greek Macedonia: the rural settlement of refugees, Elisabeth Kontogiorgi p.39 and bunch of others clearly indicate that only some 47 000 Bulgarians left Thrace in exchange of 48 000 Muslims from Bulgarian occupied territories. Most sources show that it was in fact Muslims and Greeks who more mostly subjected to expulsions in Thrace. Hittit (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above comments are not relevant to the discussion but the glaring mistakes in them should still be corrected. Hittit is ignoring neutral sources which state that there were 220,000 Bulgarian refugees. He also falsely claims that the Bulgarians left Eastern Thrace as a result of a population exchange. The source that claims this (it has been reproduced in several books, but it's the same source), is contradicted by almost all other sources, which state that the Bulgarians left before any treaty was signed. If such an agreement existed, it affected only limited areas: . Hittit also claims that Bulgarians only lived in "certain villages" which apart from being POV, is disproved by numerous ethnic maps of the region which mark a compact area of Bulgarian settlement.
 * I agree that Muslims fled Bulgarian occupied territories but to describe this as destruction would be incorrect, as Muslims are a significant proportion of these territories to this day, while the Bulgarians from Eastern Thrace are completely gone. I agree that the articles on the Balkan wars need to contain more information about ethnic cleansing but this isn't a reason to delete this article which as I've pointed out is well supported by reliable sources.
 * Of course, as I said, the above discussion is not really the point of this deletion proposal. The one closing this discussion should note that none of those who pushed for deletion of this article have given any valid reason for deletion and their arguments are of the "I don't like it" type. Kostja (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Kostja there are no mistakes, over 200000 Bulgarian refugees arrived in Bulgaria from 3 different neighbouring countries. You simply have no credible sources to indicated otherwise. Consult the link to see that Bulgarian population in Western Thrace in 1910 is put only at 30 000, there you can also get a picture of the refugee flows during the time in question: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS056.pdf Also consult the article “The League of Nations and the Refugee Problem” by LW Holborn, where the direct quote is as follows: '“Bulgaria had received about 220000 Bulgarians from adjacent countries since 1913”. ' I see no point for you to distort information, which is easily verifiable. Admit the article is POV and should either reflect historical facts or the article needs to go! Hittit (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Western Thrace? We are discussing Eastern Thrace, try to stick to the subject. There are many different figures on the Bulgarian refugees so it's more a question of balance and POV. As I said above, according to one source, there were 220,000 Bulgarian refugees (and I couldn't find your League of Nations article), so this is obviously disputed. What doesn't seem to be disputed is the fact that those people were made to leave - see, for example your PDF source. Under this conditions, the article should be edited to establish NPOV, not be deleted which is specifically stated as a reason not to delete an article. Kostja (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not disputed, the article is there so is the source. If you want to establish NPVO start with the name of the article. All sources indicate refugee waves in all directions so perhaps you can focus on Balkan War refugees or something of that kind. If there were Bulgarian refugees there were much more Greek and Turkish so you cannot have the destruction of one but not the other. Not to mention there are no established numbers of Bulgarian presence in Eastern Thrace to start with. Western Thrace is relevent since if there were 30 000 there they could not have been much more in Eastern Thrace either. A Greek account of the population distribution of the Edirne Vilayet: "There were isolated clusters of Bulgarian villages in the remaining geographical regions of the vilayet of Adrianople. However, at the beginning of the twentieth century, of the total 1,030,000 inhabitants there, some 510,000 were Turks, 365,000 Greeks, 110,000 Bulgars and 45,000 Jews and Armenians." http://alex.eled.duth.gr/Istoria/thrace_english/Thracee7_7.htm the figures would sound logic, 30 000 Bulgars in Western Thrace and the rest scattered in Eastern Thrace, which would be inline with the population exchange figures and the fact that with these small numbers Bulgarian presence in Thrace disappared.Hittit (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, Hittit, this is not for aimless ramblings. You're using Greek sources and baseless conjectures to convince me of your arguments? According to a neutral source which I've cited above there were 370,000 Bulgarians in the Vilayet of Adrianople. Also, there is ample evidence that there was nothing like a population exchange, though the expulsions might have been later legitimized by one mentioned in the treaty. And I still haven't seen any relevant reason for deletion. Kostja (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Which sources have you cited? I have not seen a single one to support your claim. The figures total 1,030,000 inhabitants there, some 510,000 were Turks, 365,000 Greeks, 110,000 Bulgars and 45,000 Jews and Armenians were used by Venizelos to justifiy acquisition of Thrace after WWI, however in his book Peaceless Europe, Francesco S. Nitti says that in truth Turkish numbers were even much more superior, indicating Greece bias but in fact even greater Turkish numbers. Hittit (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We are going in circles here: must I give every source twice? The 370,000 figure is from the book "Defeat in Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912-1913", p.41. And I've already given this source. Kostja (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm the sources behind these remarkabe figures: Aram Andoyan and Zavren Biberyan? the original book was in Armenian "Badgerazart Intartzag Badmutyun Balkanyan Baderazmin" are you kidding me? Hittit (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The original book, according to the author is Balkan Harbi Tarihi (Istanbul: Sander Yayinlari, 1975), 86–87. "Defeat in detail", I might add, is one of the chief sources on the Balkan Wars articles, so it's obviously considered a reliable source. Kostja (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Balkan Harbi Tarihi was the Turkish translation, it does say that in your source as well. Original language was Armenian, writer is Aram Andonyan. Here you can buy the book. http://www.simurg.com.tr/Details.aspx?code=52145&name=Balkan Harbi Tarihi Hittit (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless, these statistics are used by a source considered reliable here. I should also add that your sources are also not neutral, so there's no reason to use one and ignore the other. By the way, from what I see he wrote this book in Istanbul, while serving in the department of Political censorship. Whatever his later activities, it seems that he wasn't considered a very anti-Turkish author at the time he wrote the book. Kostja (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Aram Andonian is one of the main anti-Turkish sources out there...famous for the forgery of the so called "Andonian Telegrams" or "Talat Pasha Telegrams" triying to make a case of Armenian Genocide...not shure this guy or his documents or his figures are very neutral in any sence. Hittit (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But before that he worked for a department of the Ottoman government and published books in Istanbul. I think that declaring that everything he wrote as anti-Turkish is problematic. Kostja (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep While the Point of View problem is real it doesn't take away from the articles potential.--Tmckeage (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2010 (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.