Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-05 Turks in Bulgaria

Request details
This article is about the Turkish minority of Bulgaria. There is a need for some mediation in order to reflect a NPOV. There are disputed and controversial matters involving the history of Bulgaria as it relates to the ethnic Turks of the country.

Who are the involved parties?
The involved parties are a number of users with pro Bulgarian and pro Turksih POVs. Please list yourselves under this heading
 * Nostradamus1
 * Lantonov

What's going on?
Edit wars. Bulgarians and Turks are opposed in inclusion and interpretation of past and present status of Turks in Bulgaria.

What would you like to change about that?
Inclusion or exclusion of some content should be decide by mediators with a NPOV. ''No, that will not happen. The contributors need to come to an agreement based on the verifiable facts after having reached concensus on those facts. A mediator's job is not to write the article, but to facilitate the authors achieve an excellent (FA?) article. ''
 * My concern is that there is an unequality in numbers. If this is going to be done on a voting basis pro Bulgarian side has the clear majority. Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This will not be about voting - rest assured. It is about finding a way to an acceptable solution. Facts - verifiable facts, using NPOV style - are important, not number of voices. Remember, this is informal mediation. If there is no resolution, it can be taken to a more formal platform.  docboat (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you for accepting this task. Nostradamus1 (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediator notes
About to contact the participants to obtain agreement on mediation. Contacted Nostradamus1 and Lantonov - awaiting feedback.

Administrative notes
Acceptance of volunteer Please indicate your agreement or disagreement with docboat assisting in this case:


 * Nostradamus1 -- I agree.Nostradamus1 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lantonov -- I agree. However, I do not have time to work on this article, because I have more important projects. To me, this article seems a form of revenge of a frustrated person who has collected a number of sources cited selectively in the article to support his pan-Turkic view. To make the article NPOV, sources that support the Bulgarian view must be given. Although such are numerous, one must lose much time to collect, verify, and argue about their reliability. Given Nostradamus1's determination to push his POV through every possible channel, I do not think that devoting so much time to argue with him is worth it because I do not have such a stake in this topic as he probably has. Still, I can put some sources, when I find time for this.Lantonov (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Please place all discussion on the talk page docboat (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Under this heading, I would like the participants to place a list of verifiable sources used to make their case. Discussion will take place on the discussion page, for clarity' sake: (docboat (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Position Statement
Many thanks for the sources you have cited. Now I would like the participants to write a clear, concise statement, under this heading, of what needs to be done to make this article adhere to WP:NPOV. What, precisely, is the nature of the discord. What facts back up the opposing views. Why is it impossible so far to agree on a common understanding of the historical perspective? If, at the end of this section I feel that there is no room for common ground, I would suggest the mediation be closed and referred to a more appropriate body. My personal feeling is that it is unlikely I will be able to facilitate bringing the parties into alignment, as the feelings I have seen here and on the talk page are more about bringing "ammunition" into play to shore up a "side", rather than illuminate facts and discover truth. But I would be delighted to be proved wrong :) - OK guys, go for it! docboat (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * According to me, the most important first priority is proper structuring of the article to include origin of Turks in Bulgaria (some of the argument is about this because Nostradamus insists on including Bulgars as originators of Turks), Ottoman Empire, Islamisation, and only then post-Ottoman Bulgaria, the Communist Rule, transitional period, EU membership. Another priority is to give proper weight on the different sections, which is also a big problem, because now, as anyone can see, this article is mainly about the name changing campaign of 1980s and suffering of Turks at the hands of Bulgarians, supported by selective sourcing. Also, the period of the Ottoman Empire must be given through contemporary sources which support many POVs, not only sources by western writers, invited by Ottomans and Turks to write favorable for them materials in the Western press. I have not included any Bulgarian sources here (with an exception of one Bulgarian article that contains an undisputed fact), but I think that such must be also included, because this article pertains more to history of Bulgaria than to history of Turkey (modern Turkey is only a part of the Ottoman Empire). Also, the lead section should be shorter and reflect all sections with a proper weight. In balancing views to NPOV, it must be taken into account what is written in the section WP:NPOV "Morally offensive views". For Bulgarians, denying Ottoman attrocities, and calling national heros like Levski, Karadja, and others "terrorists", is morally offensive, in the same way as denying the Armenian genocide is offensive for Armenians. Offensive is also the view pushed here that it would be better for Bulgaria to have stayed in the Ottoman Empire that had "religious tolerance" (in fact, all churches were turned to mosques or destroyed, and a great part of Bulgarian population was Islamized). The measures taken by post-Ottoman Bulgaria for accelerating economic development are also misrepresented, as directed against Turks because they do not comform to Muslim law. (Lantonov (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lantonov - very clear. docboat (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you docboat for agreeing to mediate in such a difficult and sensitive topic. Lantonov (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I share your pessimism. By recommending this mediation I am merely following the recommended steps in dispute resolution. I agree with Lantonov that there is a need to restructure the article and that certain sections need more others need less weight. I don't think these are the main areas of disagreement.
 * What, precisely, is the nature of the discord? The nature of the discord is Bulgarian insecurities and nationalism. The Bulgarian education system and the resulting national psychology has always blamed the Turks for having ruled them for five centuries. The outside world scholars do not see it that way and this is reflected in their publications. As a result there is a gap between what an average Bulgarian thinks of their history as it relates to the Turks and that of the rest of the NPOV scholars. That is the reason Lantonov uses the phrase "sources by western writers, invited by Ottomans and Turks to write favorable for them materials in the Western press". The meaning of this is that even verifiable sources are unacceptable to the Bulgarian side and explains why I requested this mediation.
 * The name of the article: It should be Turks of Bulgaria instead of Turks in Bulgaria. Lantonov uses the word "in" as an excuse to exclude any Turks who left Bulgaria from the article. Currently Turks of Bulgaria redirects here. It should either be the other way around or the two should be split - creating a possible fork.
 * Sources: We should exclude any non-English sources. There is plenty of English material to back up any claims. Bulgarian sources are especially biased products of a nation to justify its own agenda. Bulgarian scholars who wrote about the presence of the Turkish minority in late seventies toured around the country during and after the forced name change campaing in mid-eighties claiming that there were no Turks in the country. The above listed French sources and dubious web links or other encyclopedias too should be taken out.
 * Pre-Ottoman Turkic Peoples: It may not be immediately apparent but this is one of the items Bulgarians would oppose the most. Turks are a Turkic people. Some Turks are descendants of these pre-Ottoman Turkic peoples. The short paragraph that mentioned this was continiously removed by Bulgarian users.
 * Forced Islamization: Bulgarians will try to bring the subject of alleged forced Islamization. As I commented in the discussion page scholars outside Bulgaria disagree and indicate that the few documments alleging such acts were proven to be forgeries. Second if the subject is about the Turks and the decendants of the so called victims of forced Islamization are the Pomaks (Bulgarian speaking Muslims) why are they being included here. We can not equate the Ottoman administration with Turks living in Bulgaria.
 * Treatment of Turks by Successive Bulgarian governments: I wish I could be more positive but since 1878 Bulgaria has been a hostile environment for the Turks. The degree of the hostility varied from government to government but the pressure on Turks has always been present. The continious emigration and expulsion of Turks is a clear indicator of this. The Bulgarian side will try to blame it on the Communist government and -as I was recently was informed - on the Russians but fact show us otherwise. Mass demonstrations -including hunger strikes- by Bulgarians were staged in order to prevent the restoration of the names and cultural rights of the Turks after the collapse of Communism.  Mentioning other pre-Communist era acts by Bulgarian governments or citizens naturally will draw a negative picture. This will be opposed by the Bulgarian side.


 * What facts back up the opposing views? Frankly, I was not able to reason and argue on a fact basis with Lantonov. Everyting I placed came from a source. This user removed anything he did not want regardless of its source. It is nothing more than disruptive editing.
 * In his response above he mentions "Morally offensive views". For Bulgarians, denying Ottoman attrocities, and calling national heros like Levski, Karadja, and others "terrorists", is morally offensive, in the same way as denying the Armenian genocide is offensive for Armenians. The problem here is that none of this even went into the article. One has to ask what the above sentence is doing here as an argument for Turks in Bulgaria. But if I can go into its specifics, as the saying goes, "One nation's terrorist is another nation's freedom-fighter". Also I never called Levsky and the others -who have Turkish blood in their hands- "terrorists". Lantonov brings this as a mere distraction. The "Armenian Genocide" is another diversions. It sounds like taking a position on a heavily disputed matter is offensive to one party. It could also be said that the claim of the "Armenian Genocide" is offensive to the Turks. (What has the "Armenian Genocide" subject to do in this article?)


 * Finally, Lantonov says Offensive is also the view pushed here that it would be better for Bulgaria to have stayed in the Ottoman Empire that had "religious tolerance" . He is making things up. He should demonstrate where in this article I inserted this view. However the more important thing here is the reasoning. We are expected not to mention any views from verifiable sources just because Bulgarians would be offended. Most scholars disagree with the Bulgarian view of the Ottoman Empire. Perhaps, the Bulgarian government should sue them for offending Bulgarians. How can one reason with this mentality. We can not go down to the fact level. The article is suffering form this lack rational and critical thinking.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I suspected - feared really - I see no prospect of mediation being successful in this case. The participants have entrenched positions, each of which has merit, and there appears to be no readiness to accept the validity of opposing views. Not, at least, unless a major battle has been waged. Opportunity has been given on this page to leave narrow nationalist views behind, and deal in facts. This has not been accepted. While I have an opinion as to the relative merits of the protagonists, it is not my place to make them known here, but to call a halt to fruitless attempts to continue. Time is too precious. So, friends, I call a halt here, and suggest this be taken a stage further. I would make these suggestions though:
 * 1) Make a voluntary halt to any edits on that page for a few days - edit other articles, have a rest, do some work on cleaning up Wikipedia instead.
 * 2) Take a look at each others POV in the interim. Have a think about the points which have been made. Ask yourselves if there is any - any - part of the opposing POV which could be acceptable.
 * 3) See if you can find a historian of repute to act as a filter for your POV. A trained historian can assist in the sifting of material, and making sense of it. Recruiting such a person to help with the article might be a good thing to do. Provided you can agree on the "repute" of the historian!
 * 4) Wait a bit before taking this article to more formal mediation. If you proceed now, it will merely become an entrenching of positions - "he said/I said" - and will cause pain for all. Take the time to reflect on what is true, and what is learned - there is a history of POV teaching on all sides of a dispute, and we sadly often believe what our teachers have taught us.
 * 5) I would be willing to act as a sounding board for your views - I have no axe to grind in this dispute, and I can reflect back to you how I feel about the issues you raise. You may not like it, because I may not (certainly will not) give you an opinion you might like to hear. But it may be of use to you, so I leave the offer on the table.

And with that, I will close this case. Unsatisfactorily closed, but I hope with no false hopes raised, and no feelings hurt. All the best to you all. docboat (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, docboat. Your suggestions above are exactly what I am going to do. Lantonov (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)