Talk:Bulgarisation

message: There is absolutely no international consensus on a definition of Bulgarisation, as evidenced by the sources given here. They are all Romanian, Turkish, Greek that push nationalistic views of the respective countries all of whom have territorial claims on Bulgaria which are partial and competing.  Thus, the article is clearly being used to promote various POVs and provide justification for nationalistic claims. Lantonov 14:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say so. A search for bulgarization/bulgarisation yields many hits in Google Books  including, interestingly, references to attempts by the Bulgarians to "bulgarize" Macedonia (because ethnic Macedonians didn't exist then, I assume it's referring to Serbs and the so-called "Garkomani"). I wonder if anything can be found about the Massacres of Doxato.--NetProfit 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Lantonov, I don't understand why you're so sceptical. A régime that collaborated with Nazi Germany is hardly likely to have done anything less. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, which is why any attempt to present wartime Fascist Bulgaria as an innocent bystander is ridiculous. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The atrocities committed against the population throughout German-, Italian- and Bulgarian-occupied Greece during World War II are well-documented and have nothing to do with ethnic warfare. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that what they teach you? That the Bulgarians were the victims in the areas that they occupied? How bloody pathetic. I suppose the Germans and Italians were victims of the Greek resistance as well. Bulgarisation here refers to the Bulgarian policy of preparing eastern Macedonia and Thrace for annexation, by terrorising the local Greek population into extinction or submission. It doesn't have to mean that they tried to turn Greeks into Bulgarians; the term can equally apply to the occupied territories and the attempt to Bulgarise them. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No one is denying what Greece did (denial is a Turkish tactic). Moreover, what you are describing isn't "re-bulgarization", but "bulgarization of unwilling people by force", plain and simple. A person is what he says he is (whether it's Greek or Bulgarian), it's incredibly arrogant to sit in judgment on how someone defines himself (you often see this done by FYROM nationalists, they say things like 'people X are not Greeks but "Macedonians who believe they are Greek"').--NetProfit 08:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of POV sections 

message: This Turkish athlete is a good example of forced Bulgarisation. Unfortunately, someone keeps deleting my contribution about him. I don't understan why. 66.65.129.159 (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Information about living persons should be heavily sourced, otherwise it should be removed. --Laveol T 17:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naim Suleimanoglu 

message: :This article is only spawning controversy. On its talkpage everyone shows his political views. The article itself does not have anything to do even with the other language versions. I will soon nominate it for deletion. -  Tourbillon A ? 12:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Just using the census results to prove Bulgarisation is WP:OR. I think state-sponsored Bulgarisation did occur to an extent, however, it needs proper sources.--Ptolion (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanians and Aromanians 

message: I am alarmed by this edit by Factuarius, whose edit summary claims that its text is taken "almost word-by-word" from the text of a print publication. Two reasons:
* If it's taken "almost word-by-word", chances are it's too close to the source to avoid being plagiarism, and therefore a copyright violation. All passages composed in this way must be removed.
* It is an (unfortunately frequent) misunderstanding that by sticking close to sources in this way one can guarantee conformance with WP:NPOV and WP:V. NPOV does not mean that you simply take over the views of a source and state them as a fact. Especially in writing history articles, this is crucial even if that source is technically a "reliable source" in the sense of WP:RS. This is because sources may be "reliable", but there is no such thing as a "neutral source". Every source has its own bias. Professional historians aren't expected to be "neutral" in Wikipedia's sense; unlike us, they are fully entitled to let their personal views and evaluations flow into their presentation of facts. And they do, all the time, all of them. If we were to simply copy what they write, we'd be uncritically reproducing their POV.
In writing a history article in Wikipedia on the basis of reliable academic sources, it is absolutely crucial that we as Wikipedia editors filter our sources by separating reported facts from opinion, taking notice of all elements that may convey bias, such as: evaluative judgments in a source; wording that may covertly imply value judgment; selection and arrangement of facts designed to insinuate relation between them; bias expressed through quantity of material reported, etc. It's a difficult task; it may be near-impossible at times, but it is a vital part of good Wikipedia writing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of sources 

message: I've made some changes, the article is now more neutral in my opinion, without the original research or the emotionally/propagandistically charged statements such as the creation of an "ethnically pure" Bulgaria, or the Bulgarians entering Greece "on the heels of the Wehrmacht". Let's see if it holds, suggestions welcome.--Ptolion (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested version 

message: @Kostja. I told you before, the only common areas between the 1913-18 and 1941-1944 periods were (the rather small) prefectures of Xanthi & Komotini, thus A PART of Western Thrace. So it's wrong again. Bulgaria didn't took W.Thrace in 1941, took a part of W.Thrace (the third and bigger prefecture -Evros- went to the Germans who at the time didn't wanted to disturb the Turks), check again. As it is now, is like they took all W.Thrace, which is misleading. Find a way to fix it or put out this sentence which is full of problems. --Factuarius (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it now. Not all of Evros prefecture was occupied by Germany - Alexandroupoli and the island of Samothrace were occupied by Bulgaria. Kostja (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: The 'refutation' in the lead section is original research. It is a rebuttal from Wikipedia users, as the sources refuting the alleged Bulgarization of Macedonians do not speak of Bulgarization at all. --WavesSaid (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Refutation' in lead section