Talk:Eastern Rumelia

message: region known to all its inhabitants - Bulgarians, Greeks and Ottoman Turks - as Northern Thrace.
Can anyone provide a citation for this?  Indisciplined 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Plese sign comments, everyone. Indisciplined 14:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern Thrace

message: The coat of arms says Romania instead of Rumelia, so is this correct? – Ilse@ 17:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Coat of arms

message: From what I gather we can easily agree that the map in the infobox is the best version. It clearly shows the borders of the country and even compares them to those of the San Stefano treaty. I'm not sure about the word "artificial". It's kinda ORish to put it in like that, although it might be more or less accurate since there was no such thing as Eastern Rumilia prior to that and even if there was, its borders were not that for sure. As for the maps: I've spent some time wondering why the Stanford map contradicts pretty much every other ethnic map of the time. You cannot be serious when claiming that Greeks were a majority in all those areas since even censuses showed a different picture. I'm not commenting on why it could be wrong, but just on the obvious fact, that it was. And I'm not sure if we need 2 ethnic maps in such a short article. I'd go for removing the Stanford one. --Laveol T 01:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: About the ethnological maps: I am not sure if we had that discussion with you or with Jingiby in the past. In any case I will repeat what I, Cplakidas, Alexikoua and cannot remember if anyone else had) told then. First is not mine it's Stanford's so I don't have to apologize for him or to take part in any discussion about what, why and how. Second Stanford was possibly one of the most famous geographer of his era and certainly of his country and that is widely acceptable. Third the map as every other document of the era, do not count as right or wrong, but as such: a document of its era. Fourth, no ethnological map for the Balkans ever agreed with another, there are ethnological maps showing more strange things and despite that, are extensively used all over around. And fifth upon that map -rightly or wrongly- the borders of both Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia had been decided, making that map the only ethnological map in the Balkans' history that ever mattered; a significant historical document for the period's history and thus cannot be omitted from so much relevant articles like E.Rumelia. Now, because I understand from my past experiences, that this map is disturbing to some Bulgarian editors, I decided to accompany it with a second one as I wrote to the edit for objectivity reasons, choosing a map made by a frenchman professor of the Ottoman Lyceum of Constantinople thus due to his position a circumspect person. If you don't like it and you prefer another one choose what map you want and replace it. I don't have the intention to make the article the usual messed -through painful consensuses- article and I don't want to start a personal vendetta between me and anyone else, but the rv with the "push-push" message was a very aggressive reaction and anyone can understand that. --Factuarius (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: The main map should be that or Eastern Roumelia, for instance the 1899 map found at , or at . The map of San Stephano Bulgaria seems too exclussive and can be moved further down, if still necessary. Politis (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the map that Factuarius has suggested is fine but it also shows Bulgaria, not only Eastern Rumelia. And in that logic, it would be more informative to have that one with San Stefano, although the other map is better according to me as layout. In my opinion the San Stefano map can be put in the section below, especially if a "Background" sub-section is written. --Gligan (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And why you mass rv everything? The map I putted has the major advantage to be a map of Rumelia. The map you just rv has the problem in being of Bulgaria. That is unacceptable for an infobox of an other state. Cannot understand that? It has been told that a nillion times all around. In the Talk in the edit logs. Where you where? You answering nothing and just rv. The Politis' propositions are logic and we can discuss them. If you both stop to rv. Thanks, ----Factuarius (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And can't you understand that in the first map Eastern Rumelia is not part of Bulgaria? San Stefano Bulgaria never existed. --Gligan (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of Eastern Roumelia?

message: I did the IP edit (forgot to log in). For more see San Stefano article's talk. --Factuarius (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: User:Hittit insists on removing the map which compares Bulgaria according to the San Stefano map with the map with Bulgaria according to the Berlin treaty. He hasn't given arguments for his reverts except the incorrect assertion that there is already a map on this subject. Actually, only in this map the creation of Eastern Rumelia is shown and a comparison between the province and San Stefano Bulgaria province is made. Additionally, the map of Bulgaria in 1878 is also relevant because San Stefano was largely the inspiration for the eventual unification of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia.
Hittit also claims that the map is POV but he has failed to explain this. There is ongoing discussion about the map at Talk:Treaty of San Stefano where it has been agreed for now that the map might be changed if a better one is made. Hittit's removal of this map is not really constructive to the ongoing discussion.
I would be interested in the opinion of other editors on the subject. Kostja (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguments have been given plenty of times, you have no justificaiton to push missleding self-modified maps using draft borders from San Stefano in every article you find suitable. There is already a proper map of Eastern Rumelia in accordance with the Berlin Congress that is quite enough. If you have urges to shows greater Bulgarian boundaries, which as such never exisited find some other article. There was no such Bulgaria as claimed by this quasi-map in 1878 (fact). In 1878 there was a vassal Principality and a autonomous Eastern Rumelia, this is according to the treaties signed and ratified. If the article is on Eastern Rumelia try to stick to Eastern Rumelia subject...If you want to link San Stefano to the creation of Eastern Rumelia then you need to find the paragraph in San Stefano that mentions Eastern Rumelia and source your claim properly. Hittit (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try being a bit more civil. I'm not the one pushing anything, you are the one who keeps removing a long established map. This map compares Eastern Rumelia to the Bulgarian borders proposed by the San Stefano treaty. This is relevant to the article for the reasons I explained above. That San Stefano wasn't realized in practice doesn't mean that such a state wasn't created by the treaty, this is really an irrelevant argument. You also haven't explained why the map is POV. Kostja (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Stefano map 

message: I reverted these edits  by Pensionero as unacceptably POV, particularly the references to Eastern Rumelia in other languages. The current version was agreed upon after a painstaking consensus, and such major changes should not be enacted unless a new consensus emerges. Athenean (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Having in mind that before 1877 50% or by some speculated to have been over 50% of the population of Rumelia (Bulgaria, Northern Greece, Thessaly and Macedonia) to have been Muslims all presented maps are absurd. Each newly independent Balkan state has its own version of ethnic distribution of the Balkans and all in their own favour as if the Turkish and Muslim element never existed. The fact is that after 1877 up to 5 million Muslims were forced out of the area and their property seized. Hittit (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment is irrelevant to the subject at hand. You're just presenting the Turkish propaganda view which is as biased as the others and probably more than maps made by neutral observers. Kostja (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The general confusion and bulk of maps done by incompetent, corrupt and foreign to the area individuals speaks for its self.Hittit (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Pensionero 

message: Those who try to describe Eastern Rumelia as an autonomous vilayet claim that the term is not usually translated. However, common English usage should always have precedence and that usage is clearly on the side of province:
</br>"autonomous province" "eastern rumelia" - 637 hits
</br>"autonomous vilayet" "eastern rumelia" - 3 hits and they are all from Turkish authors, so they don't reflect common English usage. 
</br>After all, Eastern Rumelia was quite different from the other vilayets, being the creation of the Great powers, so it's unreasonable to apply the same rules. Also, Bulgarian was the main language instead of Turkish, so if we used the same principle as for the other vilayets, it should be called oblast - and province is the accepted Wikipedia translation for that term, so even according to this principle it should be province. Kostja (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Vilayet is the correct term Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire as all Ottoman provinces are denominated as Vilayets. Like it or not Eastern Rumelia was an offical part of the Ottoman Empire and as such you cannot call it oblast, but you need to be inline with Ottoman denomination of administrative regions. Hittit (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's not called autonomous vilayet in English. I think I've shown it clearly. And I'm not calling it oblast, but province which is Wikipedia usual translation of the term. Kostja (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Eyalet, Vilayet and Sanjak are official denominations of historical Ottoman admnistrative regions, it is correct to refer to these areas with their proper historical/official names. All Ottoman Vilayets are donominated in Wikipedia as Vilayets as per their historical denomination, why should Eastern Rumelia be different just to suit some Bulgarian POV. Hittit (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So you've actually ignored everyting I've repeated several times. Once again: Eastern Rumelia was different from the other vilayets and the common usage in English is "autonomous province". Kostja (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry but I really fail to see the argument here. English-language scholars are unanimous about Eastern Rumelia being an autonomous province. Hence, I see no reason for a prolonged discussion on whether it was actually a vilayet/elayet/sanjak on anything else. Moreover, the Organic Law (or what in effect was Eastern Rumelia's constitution) clearly states that "A province Is formed south of the Balkans which will take the name of 'Eastern Rumelia'". The document goes on calling the province a province in the same fashion. To sum it up I really fail to see any arguments behind Hittit's attempts at sparking an edit-war. I will personally report any further edit-warring on his part. --Laveol T 17:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Province or vilayet 

message: Why is the Bulgarian flag used in the info box as indicating change of territorial ownership of the area after 1885? Both the Bulgarian Principality and Eastern Rumelia were nominal parts of the Ottoman Empire as such usage of the Bulgarian flag at this stage is obsolete and inaccurate. If in turn one refers to the article Bulgarian Principality it is clear that ownership from Ottoman to Bulgarian is in 1908. Hittit (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the principality use that flag at the time? CMD (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check a dictionary before using a word you don't understand, Hittit. Obsolete has a very different meaning from the one you think it has. As for the Bulgarian flag, after 1885 Eastern Rumelia existed only on paper, while in reality it was part of the principality of Bulgaria and as such it used of course the Bulgarian flag (and yes, the flag was the same). Furthermore, even if Bulgaria was nominally a vassal of the Ottomans, the Ottoman flag was not used at all. Kostja (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of Bulgarian flag in the info box? 

message: Whilst I recognise, of course, that Eastern Rumelia was to all intents and purposes (at least after 1885/86); de facto Southern Bulgaria and it was indeed treated in lots of ways as such by the Principality of Bulgaria (indeed, Eastern Rumelian representatives were sent to the Bulgarian parliament after 1886), this was quite a widespread phenomenom with the territories agitating for freedom from Ottoman Domination: with Serbia and Romania having tributary status until 1878, Bulgaria until 1908, and Egypt and Sudan were technically parts of the Ottoman Empire until 1914, and Cyprus and Bosnia were de jure Ottoman Provinces until 1914 and 1908 respectively, despite their de facto control by Britain and Austria, respectively, not to mention places like the Cretan State and the Principality of Samos.
What I'm wondering is, why was this done, and why was it so widespread? Why was de facto control of these places preferred to de jure annexation, which would have happened in most other situations. Why was there so much trouble taken to not only accomodate the Ottoman Sultan, but to seemingly not offend him?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably wasn't about pleasing/appeasing the Sultan as with pleasing/appeasing the other European powers. Europe's balance of power would be lost if one state gained control of everything the Ottoman Empire had to offer. Britain and Austria for example, wanted to keep the Ottoman Empire together, as a counterbalance to Russia, which may explain why they didn't de jure annex their Ottoman territories. In 1908, when Bulgaria declared independence and Austria annexed Bosnia, there was a massive diplomatic crisis. See also the Eastern Question. CMD (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely because their autonomous status itself was tentative at this point, and largely dependent on the interests of the major European powers. The autonomy of Bulgaria, and de facto sovereignity for Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro were established in the Treaty of Berlin (1878), where their representatives were not even allowed to attend. Simply put, the Russian victory at the Russo-Turkish War (1877–78) allowed the Russian Empire to further weaken its traditional Ottoman rival, and establish a few Christian states through which it could exert influence over the Balkans. The rest of the powers did their best to contain the Russian ambitions, for example scrapping the Treaty of San Stefano which would result in an even greater area of the Balkans being Christian-dominated and Russian-influenced. Dimadick (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the pretence of Ottoman suzerainty kept up and why was it so common? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eastern Rumelia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205233122/http://arts.yorku.ca/hist/tgallant/documents/peckhammapmania_000.pdf to http://www.arts.yorku.ca/hist/tgallant/documents/peckhammapmania_000.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified