Talk:Bulgarisation

Article written by Romanian

This article is obviously written by a Romanian with erratic knowledge of Bulgarian history and geography. 74.66.234.61 (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

number of Vlachs and Romanians declined due to mutual population exchanges in 1940

AFAIK, the population exchange was only within Dobruja. In 1926, Bulgaria did not included that region. bogdan 13:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

However, this decline in numbers is to a great extent the result of the mutual population exchange in Dobruja carried out in the 1940s as per the pre-WWII Treaty of Craiova, and only a small part of it is a consequence of the Bulgarisation of the Romanian population.

Removed, because here we're not discussion on the Dobruja issue. bogdan 15:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here's a link: http://www.omda.bg/BULG/NAROD/vlasi_arumani.html bogdan 13:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So the article says "Most of them lived in the north-eastern part (Dobruja)", but Dobruja wasn't Bulgarian between 1913 and 1940, did I get that right? The link says that according to the 1926 census, the speakers of Balkan Romance were 83,746, not 79,728. Anyway, where did 80,000 Balkan Romance speakers live in Bulgaria not counting Dobruja? Regard it as pure curiosity, if you want. Also, the 1940 population exchange certainly played a role of great importance for this decline in numbers, and this can't be denied, I believe. I know what we are not discussing, but not mentioning this may confuse the reader as to what are the actual reasons for the decline.

And let's not forget "Balkan Romance speakers" also refers to the Vlach-speaking Roma population, not only to the Aromanian settlers, the Romanians in Dobruja and the Vlachs of northwestern Bulgaria. Actually, many people in the deep northwest are bilingual in Vlach and Bulgarian today, disregarded of their ethnicity (whether Bulgarians, Vlachs or Roma). Todor→Bozhinov 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In the population exchanges 80000 Romanians left. Of course that explans the drop in their population in Bulgaria.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Those 80000 Romanians left from Southern Dobruja only, not from the rest of Bulgaria. The Treaty of Craiova had not affected the rest. Look at the number of Romanians of Southern Dobruja from the 1936 Romanian census, Dobruja#Southern_Dobruja: 77,726. Those were the people who left. I put some other Bulgarian census results here: Romanians in Bulgaria. bogdan 12:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Guess what, most of the Romnians were in sourthern dobrudga to begin with.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dobruja was not in Bulgaria in 1926. Anyway, if you don't trust my figures, then go look for the results of the Bulgarian census in some Bulgarian sources. :-) bogdan 16:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt youll be able to source any "Bulgariazation", so read Wikipedia:OR. About the Southern Dobrudga comment, yes it was in Romania which received it for compensation for not participating in the Balkan wars, and also used the chance to settle several dozens of thousand of colonists, which were expelled in 1940. Native Bulgarians in Northern Dobrudga were in turn expelled south.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of POV sections

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)

I wouldn't say so. A search for bulgarization/bulgarisation yields many hits in Google Books [1] 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)

I believe it. Look at the nationality of the sites. About half of them are Macedonian or Serb sites full of nationalistic propaganda. A large percentage of those sites refer to this Wikipedia article. I have no doubt that makers and contributors to this article are very keen to maintain also those nationalistic sites. The other half are about changing the names of Turks (which is indeed Bulgarisation) or Bulgarization in another meaning (like Bulgarization of the Linux console or a Bulgarization of a typing technique). For Bulgarization of Macedonians, I agree, it sounds like Hellenization of Greeks. Lantonov 05:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Every Balkan nation has tried to assimilate all or part of its neighbours, whether it collaborated with Nazi Germany or not.--NetProfit 12:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Political and ideological warfare, and ethnical warfare are two different things. By mixing them, you are making the same mistake as the Macedonists from FYROM. Lantonov 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ok, let us see those documents, and then talk. Because I have seen also documents for Greek atrocities against Bulgarians, like killing and forced deportation of Bulgarian population in Greek Macedonia to remote islands during WWII. And also the police in the occupied territories was exclusively Greek. There are documented police raids, arrests, and tortures of Bulgarians by Greek policemen during WWII too. Also killing of Bulgarian civilians by Greek communist partisans. Facts against facts for both sides. Sweeping generalizations here are POV for either side. I agree that there have been atrocities by the Bulgarian side too, but as you say, if they have nothing to do with ethnicity, then we can hardly talk about 'Bulgarization' which is all about ethnicity. User:Lantonov|Lantonov]] 16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

No one but reading authentic documents taught me this. Instead of quoting what you read in Greek history schoolbooks, read primary documents of what actually happened and then we can discuss this. For a beginning, an easy question for you: Do you know how many people in Greece during WWII were imprisoned for reading Bulgarian newspapers or having Bulgarian literature in their home? If you still try to force the term Bulgarization, it must be changed to re-Bulgarization following the genocidal de-Bulgarization committed by Greeks during the Balkan and WWI and the period following those wars in the same regions. Lantonov 05:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

I am not describing anything. I just do not approve the attempt of the authors of this article to describe political and ideological warfare (in this case fascist-communist battles) as ethnic cleansing. This is a FYROMian patent. If this was so, there would not be a civil war in Greece after withdrawal of all occupying powers. Lantonov 09:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The WWII government of Bulgaria was not fascist as it was not ruled by a single fascist party. Bulgaria was a constitutional parliamentary monarchy (Tarnovo constitution). The government was ruled by a coalition of parties with different ideologies. The only parties that were banned were the extreme left Bulgarian Communist Party which was under direct orders from the Soviet Union, and the Anarchist Party that helped the Communist in committing acts of terrorism. Lantonov 07:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This Article Needs to be Rewritten or Deleted

This article is biased and should either be deleted or rewritten to meet NPOV. It is written and being watched by biased nationalists whose interest lies in painting a rosy picture of Bulgarisation. It lacks verifiable resources.

• What are the sources that associate Bulgarisation with "harmonization"? Were there any ethnic or sectarian tensions that prompted Bulgarian government to seek "harmony"?
• Is it true that only the communist Bulgarian governments committed "harmonization"? What about prior and successive governments?
• The article deliberately avoids key words such as ethnic cleansing, assimilation or Bulgarian nationalism.
• There is a table of statistics on Bulgaria's Roma population but the country's largest minority of 900,000 people -several times the size of Roma- is omitted.
• The word "terror" is mentioned in the paragraph for the Turks. Was it the government of Bulgaria that committed this alleged act?
• There is no mention of the rapes and the killings of thousands of people during the 1984-85 Bulgarisation attempt of country's 10% minority population.
• The Pomaks –a minority far greater in numbers than Roma or Rumanians- and their Bulgarisation are not mentioned at all.
• The reasons for Bulgarisation is missing?
• Which Bulgarisation attempts succeeded and which ones have failed?

User:Nostradamus1 21:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I replaced "harmonisation" with "assimilation" because the term is often used with negative connotation to mean assimilation. However, reliable and verifiable sources are completely missing. The table is outdated and irrelevant, and sourced data about the largest majority - the Turks, is missing. The term terror is mentioned in connection with a terrorist act committed by desperate Turks in reaction to the mass terror, committed by the Bulgarian communist regime against the Turkish minority in Bulgaria in the 1980s. In the article about Pomaks, it is shown convincingly that Pomaks are Bulgarian muslims, so I do not know how one can Bulgarize a Bulgarian. I agree to a deletion of this article. It is sadly missing reliable information, and is used mainly for POV pushing. Lantonov (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Forcing a person to adopt a Bulgarian name is Bulgarisation, isn't it? This is what happened to Pomaks. User:Nostradamus1 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly not acquainted with Bulgaria. Pomaks are Bulgarian muslims, speaking Bulgarian language, and having Bulgarian names by birth. By far the largest part of the muslims in Bulgaria are of Turkish nationality, speak Turkish language, and bear Turkish names. They are not Pomaks but Turks (ethnic Turks, citizens of Bulgaria with Turkish nationality). Those are the people whose names the communist regime tried to change to Bulgarian names in 1980s. As for the present situation, Turks literally rule Bulgaria for 17 years since 1990, because such people from the Turkish party (Movement for Rights and Freedoms), as Ahmed Dogan, Unal Lutfi, Emel Etem, Mehmed Dikme, Kemal Eup (all of them Turks, with Turkish names, speaking in Turkish to their Turkish electorate in the election campaigns), are either prime ministers, ministers, or deputy ministers in all governments since 1990. Almost half of their votes come from the so called "election tourists", people with double Turkish-Bulgarian citizenship, who come by buses from Turkey in the election day to vote, organised by the MRF. This is very well known fact, not denied even by the MRF leaders. Therefore, now it is more relevant to speak about Turkisation of Bulgaria rather than Bulgarisation of Turks. Read more literature about this, if you like to contribute positively to present day political issues in Bulgaria. Lantonov (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am quite acquainted with Bulgaria. Perhaps, you should dig a little deeper if you care for the truth. I know the difference between a Pomak and a Turk. (I also know that there was never, and probably never be, a Bulgarian Prime Minister of Turkish ethnicity.) I quote from R.J. Crampton who has a number of books on Bulgaria who can be considered a Bulgarophile:

'In the early 1970s pomaks who had become Turkified were required to adopt Slav names, and those who did not were punished; in 1974 500 of the 1,300 inmates of the notorious Belene labour camp were Pomaks who had resisted pressure to change their names.'

Therefore the Pomaks were subjected to Bulgarization by means of forced name changes in the early 1970s. I realize this was done during communist times but can Pomaks give their children Muslim names in post communist Bulgaria?Nostradamus1 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can. There is no restiction in choosing names in any Bulgarian law or bylaw. Some Roma choose to have Turkish names, too. Also, almost all Turks who had their names changed to Bulgarian by the communists returned their names in the exact Turkish variant (without the Slavic -ov at the end, which they were required to have after 1945). Crampton obviously mixes Pomaks with Turks ("that has been Turkified" - when? what have they been before Tukification?). Pomaks are different from Turks exactly because of their language and nationality. Their language is of the Southern Bulgarian dialects, incorporating many Greek words, which enables the Greeks to claim that Pomaks are Greeks that have been Bulgarianized. There was never a Bulgarian prime minister of Turkish nationality but it is quite possible in the near future to have such, and his name is Ahmed Dogan. In the moment he is the "grey cardinal" of Bulgarian politics, ruling Bulgaria behind the scenes. Lantonov 08:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right that Crampton is mistaken by the claiming that Pomaks were Turkified. He is clear in his books that Pomaks are Bulgarian Muslims, though. He means Pomaks adopting Muslim/Turkish names because of their religious conversion. In any case I still believe what was done to them in the early 70s was Bulgarization under the definition. In this case its religious rather than ethnic. Regarding Ahmet Dogan, normally I find it hard to accept a political party along ethnic lines. However if you look at the experience of the Turks in Bulgaria since Bulgaria was established it has been a continuous downward slope. If you were Turk you would be a laborer and would dig and build roads during your military service. Higher education -especially during Zhivkov's era- was very unlikely. There were no generals of Turkish descent in the military. There were no polutburo members, high rankig government officials, or ministers of Turkish descent. The system simply did not allow the formation of any intellegensia among Turks. Perhaps, that is one reason that movement succeeded. However another reason that this may be sticking to the eyes of Bulgarians so much is perhaps because they were not used to see Turks at that level for generations. Now because EU membership requirements allowed this the general public is still adjusting to this new aspect of life in Bulgaria. It's called democracy and in Democracies sometimes disagreements among bigger parties allow smaller parties to play bigger roles than their share of the vote.Nostradamus1 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say. Changing names is Bulgarisation, almost by definition. Multi-party state is a democracy. The former injustices done to Turks are due entirely to government policy, and they were unpopular for the Bulgarian society at large, which was kept in the dark during the harshest terror in the 1980s. Bulgarians are traditionally very tollerant to foreign ethnicities in Bulgaria, unlike Greeks and Serbs. For many years, people in the mixed Bulgarian-Turkish villages live like good neighbors, build together mosques and churches, celebrate together Easter and Ramazan and so on. It is when this tolerance is used against the national interests when the situation becomes bad. MRF as a whole is a party that contributed very much to the ethnic peace in Bulgaria during the transition period. It helped curbing the radical Turkish nationalist parties who wanted secession of Turkish regions and cleansing them of Bulgarians. However, this comes at a price. MRF became the prime force in Bulgarian politics and many of the decisions taken go in the interests of Turkey, not to the interests of Bulgaria.

One example: the Armenian genocide. Bulgarians traditionally sympathize to Armenians, and accepted them in Bulgaria in large numbers in the early 1920s. The Bulgarian poet Peyo Yavorov wrote the classic poem "Armenians" which expresses the heart-felt sorrow for Armenian suffering. This feeling is shared by the bulk of Bulgarians. What happens, however. Most countries recognized the genocide, even the United States Congress voted an official recognition. The recognition in Bulgaria, however, did not pass, because most parties were afraid of the reaction of the MRF. So now Bulgaria does not recognize the genocide, although the majority of the population thinks otherwise. Now whose policy is this: Bulgarian or Turkish? Lantonov 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide issue is mostly a political one and driven by the Armenian diaspora around the world. They have powerful lobbies in France, US, and probably in Bulgaria too. The US did not recognize any Armenian Genocide because it simply could not afford it yet. I guess Nancy Pelosi told her Armenian constituency in California to wait a little bit longer. I was not aware that this issue came to the Bulgarian parliament too. But I am not surprised to hear that most Bulgarians sympathize with the Armenian cause. It is also natural that the Turkish minority is against this and it turns out they had a greater leverage than the Armenians. Bulgaria has a large Turkish minority and it is true that Turks and Bulgarians lived in same villages without sectarian violence. However, if I can quote from Crampton :"There is still a tendency amongst many Bulgarians, particularly when an outsider points out a shortcoming, to relapse into a regressive fatalism, a fatalism expressed most often in phrases such as 'Five hundred years of Ottoman rule...' . This is an unhelpful attitude. It is using the past to escape from the present and more so from the future." I see parallels with the Armenians. It seems to me by keeping the genocide issue Armenians feel they are taking revenge for the past. For many Turks the problem with the genocide claims is they feel the Armenians want the world to recognize this at same level as what Nazis did to the Jews. This they can't accept. Without pretext during the WWII the US placed its Japanese citizens into internment camps fearing they would aid the enemy Japan. In the case of the collapsing Ottomans, if I can draw other parallels between Bulgarian and Armenian cases, the empire was at war with Serbs in 1876 when the April uprising was staged. During the WWI the Ottoman Empire was at war with the Russian empire when the Armenians took up arms against the empire from within the empire. We have the often mentioned Batak incident in the case of Bulgaria and the so called genocide in the case of Armenians. The bashibozouks -Pomak irregulars- were the main forces committing the massacres to suppress the uprising since the army was preocuppied in Serbia. Kurdish irregulars were mostly involved in the case with the Armenians. Both bashibozouks and the Kurdish irregulars were ordered by the Ottomans to suppress the disturbances. In both case the Ottoman Empire was reacting rather than acting in an unprovoked manner. This is not to rationalize and minimize the massacres and sufferings but this is the progression of events. States are like organisms programmed to protect themselves at any cost. It is quite different than the experience of the Jews under Germans.

Every nation has done things that they can't be proud of. They also have suffered in similar ways too. Living in the past as Cramton suggests is not helpful and does not make happy people. I do sense this negativism in the Balkans. The Serbs celebrating the Battle of Kosovo they lost in 1389 is something hard to understand for the outside world. Bulgarians overwhelmingly supporting the new theory of an economic historian that the Bulgars (proto-Bulgarians) were not a Turkic people but were of Pamirian origin is another example. No serious scientist supports it. Every single book that I read says "Bulgars were a Turkic people." This tells me Bulgarians do not want the Bulgars -and thereby part of their ancestry- be Turkic. Pamirian theory comes to the rescue. Turks and Bulgarians have things in common and they are not always negative.Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How about the Janissaries? What have they taught you about the way this vital part of the Ottoman army was formed? I agree that it can't be compared to the Holocaust because this Ottoman policy was much more cruel and long-lasting. Five century of ethnic and religios genocide are not that easily forgotten. They can be forgiven (forgiveness is a Christian virtue) but not forgotten. Lantonov (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Naim Suleimanoglu

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)

Information about living persons should be heavily sourced, otherwise it should be removed. --Laveol ^T 17:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

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)

Removal of valid tags

Please, prior to removing any tags, visit the talkpage. It might provide useful feedback from users that actually dispute its accuracy. As for the paragraph that you added, the problems with it are exactly the same as those in the Doxato article. There is one single source for them, they are one sided and provide only the nationalistic view of one of the sides. Do you really need me to list all the words that are inappropriate again? The fact that you as the author fail to see why the paragraph is unencyclopaedic speaks volumes about the lack of neutrality by the almost copy&paste text added to a number of articles. --Laveol ^T 14:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the "weasel" tag is necessary in the Bulgarisation#Greeks section, the information is sourced. Weasel words are used as an attempt to avoid citing sources, for example "some people say..., it has been suggested...".--Ptolion (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I put it mostly because of the overall impression aimed by the single author. It has one side as the bad enemy and the other as the good angels, which is never the case. I've removed it, though. Thanks for the feedback. --Laveol ^T 14:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The text is entirely from the Miller's and Mazower's books. They are not nationalists and they are not even Greeks. They are well established academics. Your "impressions" is well known from your previous edits in WP and is Bulgarian nationalist and POV-pushing as your medals from your Bulgarian nationalist friends in your page also prove. --Factuarius (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can compromise over the tags. It's usually not recommended to remove tags, but it's also not recommended to overtag. Both are happening here. I think a neutrality tag is sufficient, just because no Bulgarian sources are used in the article.--Ptolion (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is also not recommended to fill an article with 10 tags without saying a word on why. Which is what Laveol doing when not edit warring. Have a look in his edit log. Is full of reverting and fighting. Have a look to his user page, is full of medals by "NPOV" guys like Gligan. In parallel to what he is doing here, is running a tag war in Doxato article wanting to declare POV the Bulgarian massacres in 1913 and in 1941 there, although no one ever disputed them (except him). Not even the Bulgarians. What counts in an article is facts, and facts here are very well referenced by fully NPOV academic authors printing their books by very serious university editors. --Factuarius (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the personal attacks bellow and continue the discussion with you. Every other action would only inflame the situation. Commenting on editors and not on the article is not quite welcome in such cases. Ummm, I do think that the additional sources template has to be present as well since this is the main problem with the article: it lacks sources representing the other view.--Laveol ^T 21:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's up to you. The way I understand it, though, the "refimprove" tag is supposed to be used when statements in the article are not backed up by sources. It's like the "citation needed" tag, it's about requesting sources relating to statements made, not statements not made, in the article. Of course, all this depends on whether there is an alternative point of view. For example, what Bulgarians may consider Hellenization, Greeks may consider voluntary patriotism by Slav-speaking Greeks; is there an equivalent view for Bulgarization?

Another issue with this article is whether the some of facts presented are actually relevant. What the Turks were subjected to, for example,was definitely Bulgarisation - forced name changes are a sign of an attempt to change culture. Are the massacres committed against Greeks to be considered Bulgarisation (forced or voluntary cultural assimilation) or ethnic (or political) cleansing? More sources are needed in that area, or we can start deleting. If you like tagging though, stick the "OR" template there in the meantime :) --Ptolion (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't. Every tag I put gets deleted and I get bashed for it. See bellow. --Laveol ^T 23:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But you explain nothing. You say is POV but you explain nothing about why. You say is POV although almost the entire paragraph is from two english authors, one from a Stanford's university book. How can be POV? Read the book's chapter, is all on-line. You will see that is not a cherry picking job. How can I tell that to you in order to understand it? Try to reread all the discussion done using my eyes. You will find out that is impossible to me to understand what facts or parts of the text you really objected, what I only understood was that you only want to put a POV tag in the article. Am I wrong? Find another source that disagrees and come here and say: what those refs said isn't undisputed because someone else disagrees and says that... Οtherwise how can someone accept a POV tag? Because you say so? Understand that. --Factuarius (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not so successful advise Ptolion. And I really cannot understand what you say. The prof. Miller's sentence "throughout the Bulgarian zone, Bulgarian policy was that of extermination or expulsion, aiming to forcibly Bulgarize as many Greeks as possible and expel or kill the rest" has any meaning to you? What OR? According to that the massacres are only one tool in the Bulgarization procedure, the expulsion a third, the confiscation of their houses, of their land, or their business a fourth, a fifth and a sixth. They tried to intimidate the people to accept the forced Bulgarization. "Everyone who doesn't accept the Bulgarization is dead, or out, or without house, or without the means of living". That was the clear meaning. Unless, why should someone admit to become Bulgarian if he is not? If this is not relevant to the Bulgarization procedure then what is? Safari of "no-mister" preys? --Factuarius (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

@Laveol. Laveol you are who started the discussion here with personal attacks accusing me in "providing only a nationalistic view" etc. Not to mention your edit logs. You should be more careful since in the house of a hanged is custom to avoid discussions for ropes.. --Factuarius (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the section in question, and all I could do were some minor copyedits. Everything is sourced to reliable, neutral sources (Miller and Mazower), so I fail to see what is the problem. Unless someone can point to specific instances of source falsification, I don't see much else that needs to be done. --Athenean (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Factuarius, unless you have a source that says, for example, that the Drama revolt are an example of Bulgarisation, it's original research. As far as I can see, it's just the occupiers putting down a local rebellion (the Germans also massacred villages, were theh trying to Germanise the areas?). You have got plenty of sourced information that should stay, but anything in which you have been drawing your own conclusions should be removed.--Ptolion (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Romanians and Aromanians

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)

Use of sources

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)

Suggested version

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)

@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)

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)

POV edits

Edits such as these [2] are nothing more than attempts to "justify" Bulgaria's WW II policies. As such, they are completely against the spirit NPOV and should be reverted. --Athenean (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion. The prehistory of an event is relevant to understanding it and you can't understand the reasons for the Bulgarian occupation of Northern Greece without knowing that parts of these territories were once in Bulgaria or once had significant Bulgarian populations. It could be argued far more succesfully that your insistence to remove this information is anti-Bulgarian POV pushing by removing any motives for the actions of the Bulgarian movement.

Nothing in the NPOV policy suppports your view that factual information must be removed from an article just because it might be used to justify something. Therefore I would ask you not to revert sourced factual information again. Kostja (talk)

I don't think it necessarily goes against NPOV, it is just original research that memories of Sanstefanska Bulgaria or any other Greater Bulgarias are related to the activities of the Bulgarian occupation forces during WWII. Personally, I think it is related, however, until appropriate sources are cited, I think it should be removed.--Ptolion (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what original research involves. The two statements are directly relevant to explain the justification for the occupation of parts of Greece and the Bulgarisation attempts. The information that many former inhabitants were settled in the area is important for understanding the way Bulgarisation was carried out. You can't take a historical event out of its context and pretend that something never happened. Kostja (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is about sources. Unless you have a source that says that these factoids explain the "justification" for the Bulgarian occupation forces' conduct, it should not be in the article. You may think that it explains it, but do any reliable sources?--Ptolion (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've explained above these facts are there to provide context for the historical events desribed in the article. I don't quite understand what you mean, but it's absurd to suggest that every favt in an article needs sources, apart from sources veryfying, additional sources to justify its inclusion. Its far more POV to remove them, just because they might be used to argue an alternative point. Kostja (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence is just wrong and misleading (see above), the second just unreferenced and thus OR. Agree with both of you. The accusations for anti-Bulgarianism, POV pushing etc. is just the usual way to try to inflate a nationalistic fighting in which I don't see reasons to take part. The reasons for the removal is simply because the sentences are just historically wrong and unreferenced. Moreover the fact is that from the six prefectures only the two smaller were ever under Bulgarian occupation for just 3 years (1915-1918) in the past and those 2 had mainly Turkish populations, not Greek nor Bulgarian: In the pre-1915 era, during WW II, and even now. So it is irrational to use them as a justification for the bulgarisation policies during the WW II occupation against the Greeks. --Factuarius (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The first statement has been now corrected. Whether the 1913 and 1919 was a small or big part of the occupied zone doesn't matter, parts of the WWII occupation zones were in Bulgaria between 1913 and 1919.

I'm not trying to justify the occupation or the actions carried out by the occupiers, but stating a fact which is important in the context of understanding the motives which might be used or were used to justify the occupation. Nothing in the NPOV policy contradicts giving such information.

The second statement is referenced here: " R.J. Crampton, Bulgaria, 2007, Oxford University press, pp.260-261"

Kostja (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's pretty obvious what's going on here. You are inserting those statements in a naked attempt to somehow justify Bulgaria's actions. Why else would it be "important" to state that the territories in question were previously under Bulgarian rule? They were only under Bulgarian rule for 6 years, a mere blip in time. That is of trivial significance. And that bit about the settlers is not only dubious, but also irrelevant. So what if they had been settled there preveiously? It's still an attempt at Bulgarisation. Neither of your two points is of any relevance to the policy of Bulgarisation, which is what this article is about. According to your logic, we should also mention that the territories were previously under Ottoman rule, and before that Thracian rule. Come on now. Your actions and motivations are fairly transparent. Don't play dumb. Besides, "I am stating a fact" is always a tell-tale sign of POV-pushing behavior. POV-pushers never say "I am POV-pushing", but always claim to "stating facts". Enough already. --Athenean (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Again this is only your personal opinion. I'm not trying to justify the occupation. If I wanted to do that, there would be much better ways - linking to the results of the Carnegie commission or to some demographic information from before the Balkan wars, for example. The first statement is used to explain Bulgaria's irredentism as you put it, while the second shows the way in which Bulgarisation was carried out (and is well sourced, so it hardly counts as dubious). If you really think that adding those statements violates NPOV policy, why don't you show me the relevant article instead of relying on personal opinion? Kostja (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bellow is a chart showing the Bulgarian population's figures based upon the official Bulgarian censuses between 1880-1910, compared with that of its minorities. It showing a more than 60% increase in just 30 years, an impossible figure by any means, strongly illustrating beyond any dοupt the effects of an intensive Bulgarization policy taken during the period. Note that at the same time the minorities' figures are staying more or less the same or declined. --Factuarius (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria Census Chart 1880-1910

In comparison, at the same period other neighbouring countries like Romania and Greece showed an approx. 10% increase per decade equalling to a total 30% increase for the same time span, thus half that of Bulgaria's [[3]] [[4]]. Close to the Bulgarian % figures presents only Serbia which also has traditionally major issues over ethnic cleansing policies (possibly extended until the present days) [[5]]. --Factuarius (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand what this has to do with the discussion at hand. That said, your analysis of the graphic is deeply faulted:

1. 84% increase in 30 years is not unusual with a high birth rate (Bulgaria had among the highest birth rates in Europe at the time) and with the significant immigration of Bulgarians from the Ottoman Empire at the time. You probably don't know this, but at some point in the early part of the 20th century Bulgarian immigrants from Macedonia held up to 50% of public positions in Bulgaria, which should tell you the magnitude of immigration from there.

2. The only minority which didn't increase significantly were the Turks which was caused by the great emigration to the Ottoman Empire, often in exchange for Bulgarian immigrants. Even a cursory knowledge of the period (see, for example Turks in Bulgaria would tell you that this was probably the most liberal period concerning treatment of Turks in Bulgaria. In addition, due to the obvious religious and cultural differences, the Turks are probably the least likely candidates for Bulgarisation, as the 80s experiments clearly showed.

3. The other minorities experienced rapid growth. The Greeks increased 63% between 1880 and 1905, the Gypsies 142% between 1887 and 1910 and the Jews 63% between 1887 and 1910. Whom did they assimilate?

So these figures don't show any evidence, much less "beyond doubt" that Bulgarisation occurred. Kostja (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggested to stop playing with the numbers. Greeks had an increase between 1880-1887 while had zero between 1887-1892, then an increase between 1892-1900, following a zero increase between 1900-1905 and then a significant reduction of almost 50% of their original figure! Same way the Turks faced an almost 200.000 people reduction of their population. In 1880 there was one Turk for every 2.7 Bulgarians, in 1910 it was 1 for every 7! Is that normal to you? Off course Romas had a bigger increase but since you are from the Balkans I think you know very well why, that is because they are Roma, nobody can compete with them in birth rates. But their numbers, together with that of the Jews only showing that they excluded from the Bulgarization efforts: You also know why: For the first because that was unwanted, for the second because it was impossible. I am feeling a little uncomfortable to say the obvious, don't make me do it again. Just look at the chart, is that normal to you? Well, is not for me. --Factuarius (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't explained what this has to do with the current discussion, but I'll ignore it for now.

That the Greek population decreased at times is no evidence for Bulgarisation. It could be explained by emigration which was quite heavy after 1906, for example.

As I said the Turkish population declined due to emigration. See here, page 79. In any case, assimilating the Turks would be as difficult as assimilating the Jews, for pretty much the same reasons.

So assimilation simply can't explain the huge increase of the Bulgarian population, considering that most groups were difficult to assimilate and simply not that many. The large growth of the Bulgarian population, as I said above is explained by natural growth and immigration. There have many cases of even faster population growth, especially when coupled with immigration. Your personal opinion on the matter is not important, unless you are a specialist in demographics.

Therefore, this graphic doesn't prove anything about Bulgarisation and can't be used in the article as evidence.

I would also ask you to cut back on the abusive tone. You won't be winning any arguments in this way. Kostja (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my late answer Kostja I was watching a good old movie in TV, (The last Mohican: what a film! don't you agree?) Now:

• Page 79 of the book (Turkish and other Muslim minorities in Bulgaria) is not visible to me (goes from 82 & down) but what is visible is that the word "assimilation" & "forced assimilation" is giving 43 returns.
• What this has to do with the discussion? Well, nothing, just happened to see that in Bulgaria, Bulgarians doubled their population in 33 years while some minorities stopped making children and I thought to write it.
• Heavy emigration of Greeks? do you have any emigration figures or you think?
• Heavy emigration of Turks? do you have any emigration figures or you think?
• "So assimilation simply can't explain the huge increase of the Bulgarian population..": No I am not specialist in demographics and we certainly need one to explain how a European population can be doubled in that period.
• This graph only prove that the Bulgarian population increased by 84% while the Turk and Greek populations in the same period and in the same country diminished and since these figures shows no Bulgarization efforts in Bulgaria then I will ask the chart to be added in the article just as an evidence of lack of Bulgarization policies in Bulgaria.
• If my phrase "I am feeling a little uncomfortable to say the obvious, don't make me do it again" is abusive to you I am taking it back. I will keep remind you the obvious every time I will think that is necessary. But I have to remind you that you started your contribution in the current discussion by accusing Athenean (a rather mild, serious and low-tone editor) for anti-Bulgarianism, POV pushing etc. just for good morning. --Factuarius (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered where this now indef-blocked user got that chart from. He did not indicate any sources whatsoever. I could make one as well if you like :) I'm not sure if the figures are right, but Bulgaria's population did actually almost double in between those years. There was the Unification and the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising. Maybe the numbers should've been even bigger. I think some Greeks were expelled some time after the Unification, as well as the usual prosecution of Turkish landowners in most parts of the country (besides maybe the Rhodopes and the so-called Ludogorie). I do not believe attempts to Bulgarise ethnic Greeks would've been successful. Bulgarisation of Slavs yes, but of Greeks? Doubt that. The only types of Greeks Bulgaria would manage to Bulgarise are the Slavs which had developed a Greek national feeling, but it hadn't been consolidated as yet. --Laveol ^T 02:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Must be right. But if you think is not and since you are Bulgarian you can easily check the data and inform us about. No I don't think that has to do with the 1885 incorporation of the Eastern Rumelia and must has little to do either with refuges from the Ilinden uprising because the increase is fairly smooth (E.R. would had caused an 1 million jump overnight). --Factuarius (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, you say it must be right based on what? There's obviously no source to back it up and you think it is right? Based on the fact that you presume this was that way? But presuming such things does not build up neutrality now, does it. And I say, both these events would contribute to an increase of such proportions (if not even bigger). You do not agree even with that? --Laveol ^T 10:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, found some data. It turns out that until the census of 1892 (included) no data about the ethnicity of the population was gathered. Only religion, just like in the Ottoman Empire. The population of Eastern Rumelia at the time of the Unification was somewhere near 850 000 (with more than 70% of the - Bulgarians). Interestingly the number of Bulgarians had dwindled from 1880 to 1884. Assimilation?--Laveol ^T 11:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kostja is an expert of pushing Bulgarian POV, which is usually unsourced or randomly sourced then spiced with some original research. I have had to request the article Turks in Bulgaria be protected by the admin since source abuse got really out of hand. Regarding Bulgarisation it does not take a rocket scientist to see that Bulgaria has had a long tradition of systematically attempting to artificially change the ethnic structure of the country. The Examples: Bulgaristaion of Macedonians, Pomaks, Gagauz the assimilation campaign against the Turks in Bulgaria. I see the assimilation campaign against the Pomaks is not included in this article.Hittit (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, that's starting another long story. The predominant view is that Pomaks are Bulgarian Muslims to start with. Assimilation of Bulgarians by Bulgarians sounds...odd?! There is another question if Pomaks actually share the same ethnographic elements as Bulgarians, which is highly debatable. I'm not sure to what extent they can be considered a separate ethnos and to what - a part of the Bulgarian one. I'm more inclined to treat them as a separate ethnographic group at the least. There is another question about parties trying to impose upon them a different ethnicity based on religion...As for all the rest. Yes, Bulgaria had policies similiar to those of other Balkan countries (not close to the Serbian ones, though). But most of the population changes in the cases of minorities were a direct result of population exchanges. The same way I could claim Greece assimilated hundreds of thousands of Turks, but is this really the case. Maybe, Hitttit can say.--Laveol ^T 11:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Assimilation of Bulgarians by Bulgarians sounds...odd?!" you mean like the Turks were Bulgarian, and the Macedonians are Bulgarian etc.? As a Bulgarian citizen I do not find this odd at all, I am a witness to this policy so are you so we might as well end the charedes. Pomaks are Bulgarian perdominantly based on Bulgarian sources, their real origins and when they adopted Islam is highly disputable. I just had a look at the Pomaks article and it is now quite messed up, so I gess next in line for protection.To add other minorities affected by the assimilation campaign and the Process of Rebirth not mentioned: Circassians, Tatar, Alevi/Kizilbas and Turkish speaking Gypsies Hittit (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

An important element of Bulgarisation, or any -isation, is the adoption of a new language. what the Pomaks may have experienced could perhaps be better referred to as de-Islamification.--Ptolion (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hittit, that was meant for the Pomaks only. Most third sources use the term Muslim Bulgarians when referring to them. That's why I said that it sounds odd. Try it in a sentence like: "Bulgarians tried to assimilate Muslim Bulgarians". I get the impression you didn't read my whole comment, though. I was trying to explain that they are a separate ethnographic group at the least. We might or might not get to call it a separate ethnicity. It's a question of what we really regard an ethnicity and if the language predefines it. Maybe the article on ethnicity might help. I'm not sure to what extent there was any assimilation campaign ever with the aim being Pomaks. Otherwise, their culture wouldn't be as distinct as it is today, but rather more harmonised with that of the mainstream majority. You could read the comments on the talkpage of the article. I remember discussing similiar matters not so long ago. --Laveol ^T 20:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

@Laveol. I understand what you say but still, are the numbers given in the chart correct? Even after '92 or not?

@Hittit. Your contribution in the discussion is very welcomed. The Turk's section is really stub and it seems that nobody here has enough knowledge about the issue to expand it. I only found this chart that to me shows unmistakably that the Turk minority suffered depopulation at least during that period and maybe later (during and after the Balkan Wars), but that's not enough. So be our guest. About Pomaks I agree that Laveol's argument is by definition a tautology and only counts as such. In general in such cases the safe way to deal with the problem is by being based upon the self determination principle. But here the issue is a little complex. I understand that there are Pomacks self identified as Bulgarians, as Turks or even Greeks depending upon their believes or their priorities. In Greece they are many who (through the TV or press) are opposing to what they calling assimilation inside the Turk minority saying that they are Greek muslims and not Turks, same possibly goes with some Bulgarian Pomacks. To me is best not to open a discussion upon the Pomaks's origin here and to try to focus upon the Bulgarization procedures and how that had been expressed, giving (if possible) undisputed facts. Have you any data about the numbers of the Turks related to the chart? --Factuarius (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

@Factuarius. Sorry for the delay in answering. Page 79 contains a table describing the number of emigrating Turks in different periods; according to the table 350,000 Turks emigrated between 1878 and 1912, a very significant number when one considershow many they were in the first place. It's a much better explanation for the low increase of the Turkish population in the period than the rather spurious idea that they were Bulgarised, something rather unlikely considering the differences in religion.

There was significant Greek emigration after 1906, see Greeks in Bulgaria

I don't see what's the big deal with the large growth of the Bulgarian population. Countries have had even faster growth, especially when combined with immigration. While this table might indicate Bulgarisation it certainly can't prove it, considering how little demographic information it actually contains (no information on birth and death rates and migration, for a start). Therefore as I said before it can't be used as evidence (not to mention that it's borderline original research).

Perhaps abusive was too strong a word. Confrontational would be better. Your description of Athenean is rather worrying: what kind of place is Wikipedia if mild mannered editors accuse others of trying to justify atrocities just for adding two minor facts?

@Hittit I don't think your biased opinion of me is important in the dsicussion. Your own attitude towards Bulgaria can hardly be regarded as neutral (your edit summaries are already evidence for that). There is no serious evidence that were Macedonians in Bulgaria who where Bulgarianised (unless you count the ending of forceful Macedonisation).

Also what evidence do you have that the Gagauz have been forcefully assimilated? That they have been assimilated is no evidence that this has been done forcefully. And where did come the idea that Bulgaria has a long tradition of Bulgarisation campaigns. There have been campaigns towards the Pomaks, but they can hardly be called systematic as the policy towards them fluctuated rather wildly. The other incidents of Bulgarisations have been one-time events, like the 1940's campaign in Greece or the 1980's campaign against the Turks.

The Pomaks are regarded as being Bulgarian converts in most non-Bulgarian sources as well. It's really only Turkish sources which defend alternative theories. Kostja (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy we're agreeing at least on some of the topics. As I said - the chart is unsourced and plainly wrong at least partly (which kinda discredits the whole) and should be removed once the article is unprotected. I've stayed away from it for some time since there was some heavy warring there, too. I only have some expertise to comment on the 1989 shameful campaign. Might be even adding some info to it if I feel like it. Just (and that's to everybody) do not mistaken Assimilation (or Bulgarisation in our case) with any other thing. Population exchanges are not assimilation. Expelling people from the country is generally also out of the context since you cannot assimilate one that has gone away (that does not come to say that assimilation and deportation cannot be parts of a whole campaign, just do not regard them as one and the same thing). --Laveol ^T 20:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Factuarius the numbers on the chart above seem to me to what Crampton has used in his book: A concise history of Bulgaria. On page 116 he presents a number of the Turkish speaking population (measured by mother tongue). He states that in 1875 the Turks were 33% in 1880 728 000, but by 1900 only 540 000. In the same years the Greeks increased from 53 000 to 71 000. The number of Muslims is not depicted (I would guess the group Others refers to Pomaks or these are counted under Bulgarians?); the Pomak element is significant since already a century and a half form Ottoman conquest there was a demographic balance between Muslims and Christians (Eminov). During the Russo-Turkish war even 300 000 (some claim 500 000) Muslims being killed and even up to 1 million forced to flee with the retreating Turkish army. Having in mind that this number of refugees also included Pomak, Circassian and Crimean Tatar population. After the Berlin Congress many Turks returned to claim back their lands. The Turks were and are a problematic minority for the Bulgarian state since these are ethnically and religiously self conscious and clearly separate: Turkish. The Turkish question has often being settled by forcing Turks out of Bulgaria until 1978 (last major wave before the initiation of the Revival process against the Turks and the great Exodus of 1989). The estimates of Turks leaving Bulgarian 1878 - 1989 is somewhere between 1,2 million and 2 million so it is fair to say that 1,5 million could be used as a reference. The issue is that it is very difficult to obtain exact numbers for the refugee waves during the wars such as the Russo-Turkish war, Balkan Wars and the First World War. What we know is that the population growth among the Bulgarians in 1954 was 8,3 per 1000 and among the Turks 25,2 per thousand in 1970 a figure is given for the nationwide Bulgarian total population growth rate 0,72 (same figure only for the Turks 1,21). This is what is seen as one of the reasons for the Bulgarian government to initiate the Revival Process (zero growth among Bulgarians and the fear of growing Turkish/Muslim element). Having in mind the great number of Turkish refugee waves out of Bulgaria until 1978 it seems driving the excess growth of Turks to Turkey was not enough to solve this issue for the state. The number of Turks given for 1880 is 728 000 (note that the Rhodopes and Thrace were not even part of Bulgaria then) the number of Turks presented in census 2001 is at 745 000 (not counting the 320 000 Bulgarian citizens of Turkish origin in Turkey). My point being is that assimilation against the Turks was tried and that failed, the only effective way of keeping Turkish numbers since 1878 is to just drive them out in waves. However, when it comes to the other minorities the problem could not have been solved by driving them out and this is where the assimilation policies have being more effective (process of Rebirth starting already in the 1930s with the Pomaks and then gradually being applied on the other minorities). E.g.., the Pomaks are Bulgarian, during Ottoman yoke they sold their religion but not their language, the Gagauz are Bulgarians during Ottoman yoke they sold their language but not their religion Hugh Poulton gives a good definition of this approach as the “monopoly of truth” the state uses the Academy of Science as their apparatus to transmit and provide “undisputed truths” of the minoritie’s origins. My opinion is that Bulgarian population growth per se until 1910 could not have being attributed to any natural growth a more deeper analysis is needed to take into account the territorial expansion of the Bulgarian territories of control (apart from the occupation of Eastern Rumelia not much had happened until 1910 in this perspective) and consequent population exchanges (with whom during those years? Macedonian influx?). How do you count the Pomaks, Macedonians, Armenians, Gagauz, Gypsies these are labelled Bulgarian? Why does the number of Others fluctuate (over 100 000 just between 1880 and 1887). I personally would not use much time on this chart for me it is more relevant to review Bulgaristation after the First World War and in particularly between 1950s until 1989. Questions like 1 million names were changed from Islamic Turkish to Bulgarian ones until 1985, how many were changed back after 1990? There are many members of the minorities still with their Bulgarian names form the Assimilation campaing why? What is the level of discrimination and career opportunities for those with non-Bulgarian names? Are there currently national minorities in Bulgaria? If not why? Is Bulgarisation only the imposition of the Bulgarian language, culture, identitiy or does it also include religion and ethnic cleansing of other ethnicities? During January 2010 the European Parliament will discuss the situation of the Turks in Bulgaria and the attempts of the Sate to stop the only 10min Turkish language news broadcast on State Television, is this Bulgarisation entering a new phase post 1989? Hittit (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Pomaks

I am going to remove this paragraph beacause by the census nobody identifies himself ethnical as Pomak to be "Bulgarified Pomak". The official data says the population identify only as Bulgarians, Turks and others but nobody as Pomak so that for the Bulgarified Pomaks are some POVs. Pensionero (UTC)

'Refutation' in lead section

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)