Talk:Western Thrace

Why

the Turkish minority in Western Thrace is called "Muslim Minority" in the article? It seems only Greeks want to call those people "Muslim", while the concerned people call themselves "Turkish".I think the article should be corrected.--Gokhan 07:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Because not all Muslims identify as Turks.--Theathenae 07:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So the ones identifying themselves as Turks are free to live their own identity, found their own NGO's and fully participate to Greek society (businesswise, educationwise and socially?) --Gokhan 22:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Freer than the Greeks living in Turkey, that's for sure.--Theathenae 04:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you been to Istanbul to see for yourself or you cant cause you can't find any tickets for a constantinopolis? hahahaha

Requesting neutral POV

• This article has been continuously vandalised by user VMORO for the past few months. He has kept adding links to a Bulgarian POV site which contains "historical" information written by a certain Gregson H. in the early 20th century. Gregson H. does not seem to exist and until VMORO shows evidence as to who this man was I will keep reverting this article to its previous state which contains information that can easily be verified by neutral sources. VMORO not only keeps adding the following paragraph "A 1920 population census carried out by the Allies indicated that the Bulgarians in the region numbered 81,000, the Turks 73,000 and the Greeks 52,000 [1]. Despite the preponderance of Bulgarians and the region's key significance for the economy of Bulgaria as its only outlet to the Aegean Sea, Western Thrace was given to Greece as war compensation under the terms of the 1919 Treaty of Neuilly following World War I. ,but he also keeps deleting true information concerning the fact that Bulgaria was on the losing side in World War I and therefore had to pay some price (as happens to the losing side at the end of every war). The census mentioned in the above paragraph is reported by "Gregson H." and therefore can not be considered true until verified. In any case, the fact that Ethnic Bulgarians inhabited Western Thrace is included in the text. Additionally, the sentence "despite the preponderance of Bulgarians and the region's key significance for the economy of Bulgaria as its only outlet to the Aegean Sea" is irrelevant. Based on the same logic East Rumelia and Eastern Bulgaria should have been given to Greece because having access to the Black Sea would have helped its economic development. This logic is flawed and dangerously nationalistic. I believe that this situation of me reverting VMORO's text and he reverting my text will continue and therefore I request this article be reviewed by a neutral party which will resolve the issue. Kalambaki2 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I demand an explanation as to why you KEEP deleting sourced information about a census which was held not by anyone else but by the ALLIES. If, the sourced information gets deleted again, I'll search assistance from the administrator board. VMORO 21:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

By all means, do. Kalambaki2 15:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Fiercly anti-Greek POV

It's obvious. By the way do those people have a Greek Passport? If yes what is the problem of being called Greek by Greece? This is like saying in the US that if a Mexican finally gets a US passport, he has a problem for the USA to call him American. --Leladax (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the multicultural American society the early greek constitution claimed that a greek is every orthodox christian citizent of greece. moko as you say in greek --77.69.28.43 (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

why the greek region of thrace is called western thrace in the headline and not just thrace???

why the greek region of thrace is called western thrace in the headline and not just thrace??? we the greeks this region call it thrace or greek thrace not western thrace.this isn t even mentioned.its a prefecture of greece and is called formally by the greeks and all the public institutions ,magasines,tv and goverments papers as thrace or greek thrace not western thrace.this artickle is for greece and it should be called as greek government or greeks called it not as the english call it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.19 (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a world-wide encyclopedic reference, and no articles are "for" any specific country. All Wikipedia articles should be written from a broad point of view, using common names for the topic being covered (see Wikipedia:Article titles). The most common term for this region in particular is Western Thrace, so that's the name used here. The term Greek Thrace redirects here. There's a separate article for the broader region known widely as Thrace. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Table farm

Obviously a couple a recently added tables include population data from a wider region which and takes into account large territories now part of Bulgaria (i.e. not part this administrative division, which is part of modern Greece... and bingo no wonder the number of Bulgarians is inflated that way). A brief description might be ok, but something more than that is way too much to be part of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, by checking the 3rd table [[2]] it seems that isn't an official census, or at least third-part account at all. So, I see no reason why we should have the Turkish point of view estimation so detailed, a brief description as it is, seems more than enough (In point of view of the Turkish researches...).Alexikoua (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No part of the region which was the subject of the two censuses is in Bulgaria today. You might have confused Karaağaç with Kızılağaç, which is the old name of Elhovo. The only part of Western Thrace that is not Greek today is the town of Karaagach and its immediate surroundings and this territory is probably smaller than the district of Karaagach. In any case, Karaagach was the district with the second highest proportion of Greeks, so your theory doesn't seem sound.

As for the third table, I don't see why it should be removed. Sure, it must be made clear that it is entirely the Turkish point of view, but including different point of views is a basic Wikipedia policy. That the Greek view regarding the ethnic demography of the region is not represented is regrettable, but I don't think that other viewpoints should be removed just because Greece has never bothered to hold an ethnographic census there. Kostja (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, to me this is nothing more than a nearly useless table-farm & I'm afraid that there are additional censii to bombard the specific section and unfortunately make it even more boring with pov stuff from every side. Moreover, to be precise, Karaağaç, which indeed isn't part of Bulgaria, is still out of Greece, i.e. from the region defined as Western Thrace. This is obvious when comparing the total populations of tables 1,2 vs 3.

Tables in general, in articles about modern regions/cities are used to give accurate, usefull data, but in case they just provide outdated pov propaganda material, a brief description can be enough.Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly is it useless to know about the demographics of the region before it became part of Greece? This seems more like personal opinion. Also, regarding other censuses, their inclusion would certainly be warranted, if they exist of course. The criteria for including them is in any case not based on whether certain users find them boring. As for Karaağaç, only the town itself was ceded to Turkey, most of the rest of the district is still in Greece. In any case, this difference has now been noted.

Providing information about historical demographics of various regions is common in Wikipedia and it's in no way "outdated pov propaganda material". Frankly, most of your arguments seem to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not on any reasonable objections to the inclusion of this material. Kostja (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Didn't said that, my objection is that its useless to add detailed data of povish crap, i.e. tables in this case, and off course this isn't something personal, considering that the article is about an administrative region which wasn't that time defined under this term yet (W.Thrace). Off course this can be added to more speciliazed articles on local history.Alexikoua (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, what exactly is crap is a personal opinion. And even the most objective census is likely to be influenced by the POV of the state carrying it out, but should we remove all census information from Wikipedia for this region.

As for the scope of this article, Western Thrace is also a historical region, even if its borders were unclear until relatively recently, so it's the logical place for the historical demographics of the region as a whole. Of course, separating such information in a separate article, like in many other articles about historical regions, is an acceptable alternative. Kostja (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)