Talk:Bulgarian Turks

Turks in Bulgaria

It will be a good thing to have reliable source for the claim that the Turks in Bulgaria are a million and even more. Based on the Bulgarian National Census from 2001 the Turks in Bulgaria are 746,664 see here [1] Also, see Turks in Bulgaria, where the number is also the same. Moreover, in Islam in Bulgaria the number of all Muslims in the country is around 968,000, but not every Bulgarian Muslim is from Turkish ethnicity. Therefore, it will be important to have more reliable source on this issue. Thanks.

Stoichkov8 (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

They are not Bulgarians. They are Bulgarian citizens.

Notable people

Here is a list of notable Turks in Bulgaria who still do not have an article in English. *Note all these people have an article in either the Turkish or Bulgarian wiki's.

• Besim Rasim Abdullah
• Kel Aliço
• Embiya Çavuş
• İsmail Çavuş
• Dżewdet Czakyrow
• Merdin Deniz
• Ali Dinçer
• Osman Durali
• Ömer Osman Erendoruk
• İsmail Fenni Ertuğrul
• Sibel Gürsoy
• Yasemin Hadivent
• Ayhan Mustafov Haşimov
• Yeni Işık
• Ahmet Kara (sporcu)
• Metin Kazak
• Hulusi Kentmen
• Razgrad Olayları
• Tuna Ötenel
• Ahmet Şerif
• Muharrem Tahsin
• Sabri Tata
• İsmail Hakkı Tonguç
• Süleyman Hilmi Tunahan
• Mehmet Türker
• Embiya Ulusoy
• Şoray Uzun

Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I might help you with some of them any time soon. --Laveol ^T 15:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll try and help out as well. Justinz84 (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Crampton's Concise History of Bulgaria

Hittit, unless I'm very much mistaken page 36 of the above book contains the following excerpt:

"Of those who did convert, some, especially the landowners, were absorbed into the Muslim world and became entirely Islamicised and Turkified."

Why do you keep reverting this? Kostja (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"Of those who did convert, some, especially the landowners, were absorbed into the Muslim world and became entirely Islamicised and Turkified." “Many converted villages retained their Bulgarian language, folk traditions etc….”

p.203 same book “In the early 1970s pomaks who had become Turkified were required to adopt Slav names, and those who did not were punished!”

Kostja you are very much mistaken since Cramton refers to Bulgarian Muslims known as pomaks. If you go on page 209 you will read where Crampton describes where the Bulgarian government officials introduced the nonsense during the Assimilation Campaing that Turks were not actually Turks but forcibly converted and Turkfied…

In his book “A short history of modern Bulgaria” on page 205 he also goes on the same topic and calls this “idiotic assertions”. Now you claim that Crampton makes “idiotic assertions” in his own book?

With this I believe it is enough to conclude that Crampton does not claim Turks were actually Turkified Bulgarians since he in fact calls this “idiotic”. When it comes to Bulgarian Speaking-Muslims a discussion/argumentation can be made in the article for Pomaks not Turks in Bulgaria.

I will keep reverting all idiotic assertions such as saying:

“Several millitant attacks were committed by an underground Turkish organisation (TNFM, a Turkish National Liberation Movement) in the period between 1984 and 1985, some before the campagn had started (December 1984)). The first attack was on August 30, 1984, when one bomb exploded on Plovdiv's railway station and another one in the Varna airport on a date when Todor Zhivkov was scheduled to visit the two towns.”

Footnote for this put as: ^ a b Улрих Бюксеншютц (2000) Малцинствената политика в България. Политиката на БКП към евреи, роми, помаци и турци (1944-1989), p.105

So we go on page 105 of the pdf and there is nothing saying that “Several millitant attacks were committed by an underground Turkish organisation (TNFM, a Turkish National Liberation Movement)” Not a word about TNFM…BTW there is no reference to TNFM until late (Dec) 1985 (since there was not TNFM priort to the Assimilation Camapign).

“Още на 30 август 1984 г. почти в едно и също време избухват две бомби, едната на гарата в Пловдив, другата - на летището във Варна, и то точно в деня, когато в двата града трябвало да дойде на посещение Тодор Живков. Още тогава у някои западни наблюдатели възниква подозрението, че бомбените атентати може да са свързани с изострянето на асимилационната политика на българското правителство спрямо турското малцинство. Свидетели разказват също, че след тези произшествия мерките за сигурност в цялата страна се засилват, което предизвиква едно почти параноично настроение. След като през март 1985 г. близо до София избухва още една бомба, този път в един препълнен железопътен вагон, при което има много убити жертви, правителството форсира законодателни мерки за борба с тероризма.[10] От разказа на един служител на МВР - участник в разследването, става ясно, че следствието от самото начало се концентрира върху турското население”

If anything Büchsenschütz puts forward his suspicions on who was really behind these acts of terror…you speak Bulgarian so read carefully. Now you want to put Büchsenschütz as a footnote saying the TNFM put bombs between 1984-1985 where in fact Büchsenschütz does not saying anything of that kind. You ask me with all seriousness why I keep reverting? Are you serious?

Hittit (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Büchsenschütz does not name the TNFM there, so the specific name of the organization is not supported by him as a source. However, in your quote you have left out precisely the parts where he reluctantly admits that the attacks themselves appear to have been real; he can't deny them, so he only opines that they shouldn't be emphasized too much [as an excuse for the assimilation campaign]: "the information in that source (the Interior Ministry investigator) seems to be reliable; however, the importance of this series of attacks should not be overestimated in my opinion."). Thus, he is indeed a good source for the fact that the attacks did occur and were committed by Turkish terrorists - even a better source in view of the fact that his overall POV is strongly against the regime and in favour of the minorities.

След дълго разследване, опиращо се и на анонимни писма, чак през есента на 1988 г. са заловени трима турци от района на Бургас, които са обвинени за извършените атентати, осъдени са на смърт и са разстреляни. Макар и с известни уговорки, сведенията в този източник изглеждат достоверни.[11] Значението на тази поредица от атентати, според мен, не бива обаче да се надценява.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As you can see in my post I have not questioned weather or not the attacks were real, there is no issue with that. I object to some one using sources for something the source has not pointed out as in this case using Büchsenschütz to justify use of “Turkish National Liberation Movement”. I find this to be source abuse and I have nothing against Büchsenschütz or his research.Hittit (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hittit, let me quote the exact statement again:

Of those who did convert, some, especially the landowners, were absorbed into the Muslim world and became entirely Islamicised and Turkified. Many converted villages, on the other hand, retained their Bulgarian language, folk traditions and costumes. The Bulgarian-speaking Muslims became known as pomaks.

This clearly means that Crampton distinguishes two categories of converts: those who retained part of their culture and those who completely assimilated into Turkish culture. Considering that this is confirmed by historical sources (see, for exaple the interview by Midhat Pasha) and that the process of Turkification occurs even today among Pomaks in Greece and Bulgaria, I don't see any other reason except political partisanship to keep reverting this edit. TFNM was later blamed for the attacks. It may be correct to state doubts about the organization's responsibility, but it's not correct to remove all information about it or try to transfer the blame on the Bulgarian state. In any case, you have made other edits of doubtfull neutrality, which need to be reviewed. Kostja (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As said referring to Pomaks when to talking about the origins of the Turks in Bulgaria is a gross misuse of the provided sources. Crampton talks clearly of Pomaks and if you read the whole chapter: The Bulgarian Population Under Ottoman Rule, you will see Crampton giving reasons for the small Bulgarian population in the beginning of the sixteen century, he gives several reasons and reason number 4: “was the conversion of SOME Christian Bulgarians into Islam”. p. 34. From there on he goes on and says: “Nor is there any doubt that SOME Bulgarian landowners accepted the FAITH of the conquerors in order to keep their property” p.34. p. 36. your reference: Of those who did convert, some, especially the landowners, were absorbed into the Muslim world and became entirely Islamicised and Turkified. Many converted villages, on the other hand, retained their Bulgarian language, folk traditions and costumes. The Bulgarian-speaking Muslims became known as Pomaks. Crampton talks about convertion of Faith, he writes about the Rhodopes (p.36). Accepting the faith of Islam by SOME Bulgarian Christians is far from the origins of Turks in Buglaria. I would suggest you go and edit the Bulgaria article and make sure to mention that the original Bulgarians were indeed a Turkic speaking tribe later assimilated and that my friend is a historically proven fact.

Second point TNFM did not even exist prior to December 1985, so get your facts straight and stop putting footnotes where you feel like it…do you read the source before you put the footnote? Hittit (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hittit, Turkified means assimilating into Turkish culture. Why it is dificult for you to accept that at least some of the Turks come from converted Bulgarians? Again, the same process occurs among Pomaks today in both Greece and Bulgaria, showing that it most likely occured under the much greater Turkish influence in the Ottoman empire. See also this study on the self-perception of the Bulgarian Turks and their rather interesting views of themsleves (page 74 and further).

The TMNF's participation in the attack may not be substantiated by the souce, but your speculations even less so.

I see that the source about the pre-Ottoman settlement of Turks is more substantiated in the Dobrudja article. However, there are some problems in this section.

1. Dobrudja was indeed part of Bulgaria at the time (something described in the article not very long after); if Turks settled at the time (which is not supported by any other source) then they did as

part of the Byzantine force.

2. These events describe the formation of the Gagauz and therefore isn't really relevant here.

3. There are doubts about the whole story: see Sari_Saltik#cite_note-Norris-2.

These concerns should be reflected in the section and as the one pushing for its inclusion, you should be the one to do it.

And please stop making wholesale reverts without justifying them.

Kostja (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Response:

“Hittit, Turkified means assimilating into Turkish culture” Pomaks are Islamised and Turkified this does not make them Turks nor does this relate to the origins of the Turks in Bulgaria. Crampton does not claim that Bulgarian Muslims have been assimilated to ethnic Turks and therefore now part of the domain of the Turks in Bulgaria. If he does not say this in his book (p.36 well quoted) why do you use him as a source? I have provided you with the direct quote how Crapmton calls this theory = “idiotic assertions”

The TMNF's participation in the attack may not be substantiated by the souce, but your speculations even less so” My point exactly + there was not TNMF prior or during the terrorist attacks. Furthermore, despite of saying that TNFM involvement is not supported by sources you still footnote Büchsenschütz, why do you do that? Then you reword and quote professor Yanko Yankov and if you bothered to read the source he is writing the the Buglarian State was actually responsible. Furthermore Büchsenschütz goes on and says the terrorist attacks just prior the “Assimilation Campaign” enabled the government to create an athomsphere of paranoia and increase security forces. “Свидетели разказват също, че след тези произшествия мерките за сигурност в цялата страна

се засилват, което предизвиква едно почти параноично настроение” and yet you want to remove this text and footnote Yankov and Büchsenschütz that the TNFM did it where these source claim no such thing.

Regarding Dobruja, Seljuk Turks settled there it is documented and sourced you have admitted this, even if they have settled during Byzantine rule this still does not change the fact that such migration happened. It is insane to claim that this cannot be used since it at that time Dobruja was Byzantine? Formation of “Gagauz”, well good discussion however does not change the fact that they were Turks and Gagauz still are sizable Turkish speaking community in Bulgaria. Doe s this change the fact that they are Turks? = Of course Not! Whats your problem? Therefore the definition of Turk is important, which you have again removed.

I think you are a vandal, just look at random use of sources, you push text and put sources like a mad man. I will revert when necessary. Hittit (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I always try to explain my edits, while you are the one who reverts wholesale without explanation. You might not know what Turkified means, but that doesn't mean that it means anything else than assimilation in the Turkish nation.

That terrorist attacks in a country where they almost never happened caused great increase in security doesn't mean that you can claim that this was somehow used by the state, something which is not stated in the source.

The fact that the TMNF were at the very least accused of participating in the attacks cannot be denied.

The section about the pre-Ottoman settlement has to be reworked. As you have refused to budge an inch in your positions, I will do it and do not revert again without explaining.

Kostja (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You might not know what Turkified means, but that doesn't mean that it means anything else than assimilation in the Turkish nation.

That is your own interpretation, until you have written a scientific paper on the subject, use the terminology provided in the sources. Most of the Balkans could be called as Turkified, adopting Turkish words, culture, music and cuisine. During Ottoman Rule the Sunni Islam religion was the dominant factor for centuries and administration of people was based on the Millet system. Adoption of Islam from Bosnia to the Rhodopes was far from unique. Nations became Muslim and adopted the culture and habbits of Ottoman Turks thus became Turkfied. Have the Bosnians, Alabanians or Pomak become assimilated Turks? well clearly not. Have they become Turkified, absolutely. Hittit (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Crampton clearly distinguishes those who were Islamized - the Pomaks - and those who were Islamized and Turkified and who were completely assimilated. He also asserts that the Pomaks retained their language, in contrast with those who were Turkified and assimilated. This is the obvious interpretation of the source and it takes a great deal of convolution to make it mean anything else.

Kostja (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok in that case you will have no problem quoting the text in Crampton's book where he states that Bulgarians were completely assimilated during Ottoman rule and that these assimilated Turks are today part of the Turkish minority in the country. Either show me the text or stop interpreting what Crampton thought of saying. Because this is what you have been sourcing Crampton on. Hittit (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So some Bulgarians who had converted to Islam were assimilated into those Turks who had immigrated to the Balkans and then somehow their descendants disappearred? That's the logical conclusion of your arguments. I'm sorry, sophistry might be a good idea during debates, but it's not a good method for a project like Wikipedia.Kostja (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you cannot quote Crampton saying that: “as well as Bulgarian converts to Islam who were assimilated into the Turkish population during the Ottoman rule”. I have removed the whole reference for two reasons:

1) You cannot provide the quote from Crampton to indicate Bulgarians were assimilated into ethnic Turks…

2) You clearly are pushing this sentence just to be aligned with the 1980’s Bulgarian theory of the Bulgarian roots of the “assimilated” Turkish population. We all know the results of this disastrous “Revival” Campaign; Bulgarian history and perversion of facts will be for ever stained with these events. Furthermore, pushing such sentence right into the origins of Turks in Bulgaira is nothing but a clear provocation. I will no longer discuss this, if you insist of abusing sources and writing nonsense of this kind it should be removed in the interest of Wikipedia readers. You people know no limits, Turks are assimilated Bulgarians, Macedonians are assimilated Bulgarians,. Pomaks are assimilated Bulgarians…Adam and Eve seem the first ethnic Bulgarians to be first assimilated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hittit (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

From the first one of your main arguments have been personal accusations, so it's not surprising that your final "argument" is the same. I do not believe in the Communist theory that all Turks were forcibly converted Bulgarians, but it's even more absurd to assert that Bulgarians did not contribute in any way to the modern Turkish population in Bulgaria. Obviously this is not a comfortable fact for some people, but one can't participate in building Wikipedia if he's unwilling to abandon his predjudices.

By the way, I see that after asserting that Bulgarian Turks have nothing to do with Bulgarians, you are now implying that Pomaks have also nothing to do with Bulgarians. What happened with all those Bulgarians who accepted Islam, then? Did they all fly to Mars immediately after converting? Kostja (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If my insistence on using correct sourcing with respect of the content of the source is seen as personal accusation then this stance is correct. You can’t write something and then just shove a random footnote e.g., Büchsenschütz or try to illustrate that Bulgarian converts to Islam were ethnically assimilated and today make up the descendants of the Turks in Bulgaria…footnote Crampton. This behaviour is unacceptable.

Regarding those Bulgarian landowners and lower nobility who in order to evade taxes and gain personal benefits converted to Islam I have no factual information. One could compute that such people could have easily converted to any other religions when the situation changed and it suited them. I believe there is a great deal of confusion when talking about ethnic Pomaks, who speak Bulgarian. The adopted conjecture term by some “Bulgarian Muslims”, which is often direct reference to Pomak has brought a great deal of fog in historical articles and particularly when the term Buglarian Muslim and Pomak is used side by side and in the same research. In these cases Pomak, Bulgarian convert to Islam or a Turk in Bulgaria becomes an undistinguishable mass to a point where it is not clear to which group one makes a reference to. Bulgarian State policy since the 1930’s of assimilating back Pomaks to their alleged Bulgarian roots and later extending to assimilating Turks back to their alleged Bulgarian roots was accompanied with a large scale propaganda and direct falsifying of historical facts. 80 years of historical mist mach has contributed to the fact that the Pomaks could be virtually from Mars and we can thank the Buglarian state and its Sepcial Departments for historical adjustments. Most of all I feel sorry for the Pomaks and to what they and their history has been subjected to.

Then there is another group of converts the Yeniceri, who until late 15th century were from Christian families, slaves, war prisoners etc. Greek and later Albanian origins were favoured (particularly Albanian on which there is a lot of literature) but it is recorded that Yeniceri were also taken from many other regions of the Ottoman Empire including Bulgaria, but also Africa. However, after 16th century recruitment was mostly outside the devsireme and included Muslims. These were totally absorbed into the Ottoman System and could have ended up anywhere from Hungary to Algiers or Somalia. The Ottoman system of administration recognised “millets” religion was the factor of definition (then again it was a huge state) I find it absurd that assimilation to ethnic Turk would have been necessary e.g., large groups such as the Bosnian, Albanians, Pomaks, Greek Muslims in Anatolia etc. these were not assimilated as Turks, why on God’s name would have been Bulgarian converts assimilated to Turks? The fact is that Rumelia was the subject of large waves of Turkish migration, the Turks in the Balkans represented a significant population mass and today in Bulgaria after 1878 and 2,5 million Turks leaving the area YTD there are still some 760 000 left with another 320 000 Bulgarian citizens of Turkish origin in Turkey. This in my opinion indicates that the Turks in the Balkans and particularly in Bulgaria were population wise a dominant group for centuries. Many Bulgarians lived in current day Turkey and after 1913 due to population exchange settled in Bulgaria how come these were not converted to Turks after centuries of living in Anatolia? What about Bulgarians that lived in Thrace why were they not converted to Turks? Hittit (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Ottoman settlement of Turks

It's clearly stated by Norris that the story of the Sari Saltic has the charackeristics of a folk legend: "Such a migration has an umistakable charackter of a folk epic destan". Also the story of Seljuk wanderings to Dobrudja relies entirely on the account by Yazicioğlu Ali. The other authors also speculate on the origin of the Turks in Northeastern Bulgaria, but they advance very different theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostja (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested to Protect this Article

After many times of vandalism, random use of footnotes, personal opinions accompanied with false sources I requested this article be fully protected.

Kostja Provide Sources for your claims and opinions.

Kostja claims in the section Possible settlement of Turks in Bulgaria During the pre-Ottoman Period the following

1)“though according to these sources they settled in Northern Dobruja (Sari Saltik's tomb is said to be located in Babadag, Northern Dobruja”. As source Kostja provides Mehmet Fuat Köprülü pp.53 – 54. Source specifically says “a number of Turks went to Dobruja". Source says that the tomb/grave of Sari Saltik is in Babadag. Kostja now goes on and puts a direct lie: “though according to these sources they settled in Northern Dobruja”. Question is what sources Kostja? Are you lying or implying that since the tomb of Sari Saltik is in Babadag then the Turks immigrated only to Northern Dobruja? Which source says that? Kostja has him self quoted that it was in fact Dobruja and not Northern Dobruja, you had quoted Norris Kostja. 2)Kostja goes on and writes in the same section: “For these reasons it is unclear to which extent this group is connected with today's Turkish inhabitants of the region”. Kostja who is the source behind this sentence? Is that again your own interpretation?

In the section Participation in Bulgarian politics Kostja writes:

1)“MRF might be said to be overreprsented (for example, there were 38 MRF deputies (15.8% of the total in 2009, with the party receiving 610 521 votes - 14.5% of the vote, their highest to date) and only slightly more than 9% ethnic Turks, the party's main electorate).” As a source Kostja puts the 2009 election results. Kostja which source says the MRF is overrepresented? The MRF is a political party which attarcts many voters, if they gain 14,45% what makes you say they are overrepresented? Did they not get 14,45%?, if so why are they overrepresented and what is the sources behind this sentence? Again your own view?

In the section “Militant Attacks” 1)Adding to prof. Yanko Yankov’s claim that the State Security is involved in the terrorist attacks Kostja has added the following sentence: “though this has not been proven and is not a widely accepted theory” as a source he had put Yankov, after I reverted this lie several times he then put two Bulgarian language internet publications that merely describe the acts without taking any stance if the State Security link is proven or accepted. Kostja give the source? Is it Büchsenschütz again? You have any random footnotes you want to use? Hittit (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems Kostja will not reply or respond to the violations he has committed. Wikipedia policy states:

No original research

"Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words ::of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

The examples I have given above how Kostja has vandalised this article violate all these principles. Not to mention or list his history of source abuses.Hittit (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll adress Hittit's objections point by point.

Section: Possible settlement of Turks in Bulgaria During the pre-Ottoman Period

1.As I've already pointed out, the source doesn't mention the specific location of the settlement. The only concrete location mentioned in the source is Babadag, so mentioning Northern Dobrudja as a location of the settlement is reasonable, especially as Ibn Battuta places Baba Saltuk and the furthermost outpost of the Turks in the area (see Stănciugel et al., p.44-46). And an alternate version places Baba Saltuk in the steppes of Southern Russia.

The source mentions Dobruja, you have written: “though according to these sources they settled in Northern DobrujaItalic text”. If source does not mention the specific location of the settlement apart from writing “Dobruja” what right you have to write the Turks settled in Norther Dobruja? This in my mind is direct violation of Wikipedia policy and this reference to Northern Dobrouja should be removed and keep only Dobruja as sources indicate.Hittit (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources mention that there was a settlement in Babadag (where Baba Saltuk was located according to Ibn Battuta) in Northern Dobrudja, therefore it is completely justified to say so. Kostja (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

But you are not saying that there was a Turkish settlement in North Dobruja/Babadag, you are saying: "though according to these sources they settled in Northern Dobruja". You are intentionally distorting facts by giving the impression that the Turks settled only in Babadag, where as source says clearly these settled in Dobruja (look at the map of Dobruja). What is the point of saying North Dobruja, you want to say there were no settlements in South Dobruja?Hittit (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

Your comment is also misleading since in the very source you have quoted is also mentioned that Sari Saltik established a tekke in Kaliakra and there he was converting people to Islam. pp.53-54. So again I ask what is the point of saying Turks settled in Northern Dobruja? Why Dobruja is not sufficient as the sources state? There are also sources saying that the relics of Sari Saltik were preserved in a Bekatshi monastery in Kaliakre.Hittit (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sari Saltik, being a semi-legendary figure, has legends about him in many locations. He's also mentioned as having settled in the Southern Ukraine. On the other hand Ibn Battuta mentions that Babadag was the furthest outpost of the Turks, implying there were no more southerly settlements. All in all, the evidence of a settlement existing in Northern Dobrudja is far stronger than the evidence of a settlement in Southern Dobrudja. Perhaps it may incorect to state that they settled only in Northern Dobrudja, but the last point must be made clear. Kostja (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

2. These Turks who possibly settled in Dobrudja are not described as numerous. Part of them returned to Anatolia and many of the rest accepted Christianity. As the Turks in Bulgaria are Muslim, there is hardly a need for additional sources to state that the connection is doubtful.

If you want to write in Wikipedia you need to respect the subject and others. Provide sources indicating doubtful or no connection. Your own opinion, analysis, internal needs and urges are irrelevant unless you have the source to back it up. This statement of yours is again against Wikipedia policy and should be removed. Hittit (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If sources are required to state doubts about the connection between those Turks and modern Turks, there are even more needed to prove that they do have such a connection, which has not been done here. In fact, I without such sources, my statement is completely justified, as there is nothing to contradict those doubts. Kostja (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes sources are required Kostja, you seem always surprised about that.Hittit (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC) According to “The Cambridge history of Islam, Volume 1” pp.264 “Nevertheless, we know that a fairly numerous group of semi-nomadic Turcomans joined Kay-Kavus Kaykaus II in Byzantine territory, and were later settled in Dobruja”. So saying that the Turks who settled in Dobruja were not numerous is also disputable and should be left out.Hittit (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Were are the sources that these Turks had anything to do with today's Turks? And of course there are conflicting versions described in the same section which automatically makes this version doubtful.

Kostja (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources have been listed, pages have being given, the section discusses Turkish settlement in Bulgaria before the Ottomans, what sources do you still need that do not support the section? On top of everything mentioned and indexed by page you can also read Karpat, "Studies on Ottoman social and political history: selected articles and essays" pp.524 where cites that the first Muslims in Bulgaria were Turkish origin, the first significant group arived in the 13th century (The Seljuks and the followers of Saltuk), some came even earlier 10th and 11th centuries (these have been cites by other authors as well). These settled between the region of Varna and Babadag, those who settled in Varna became Christianized but kept their Turkish language (pure Anatolian Oguz) the ones in North East Bulgaria and North Dobruja remained Muslim. Today the Turks in North-East Bulgaria Deliorman make up the significant part of the population also the region of Varna is a traditional Gagauz area. These are all known facts and well documented. The fact that also significant Ottoman Turks settled in North-East Bulgaria indicates a prior settlement and clearly was important region, the tomb of Sari Saltuk was a shrine for centuries. What else is here that needs more sources for the section in question? You have everything from Varna to Babadag covered. Why is Bulgaria called Bulgaria even doe the Turkic Bulgars were assimilated by the Slavs leaving no modren trace in the Bulgarian population. You still call your selves Bulgarians and live in Bulgaria, should some one ask if the modern Bulgarians have anything to do with the Bulgars? At least the Turkish presence in North East Bulgaria is vivid as ever and the Gagauz of Varna need no search, still there (at least for some time). Hittit (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay. Now, I think we can ignore the "Turkish" settlement in the 10th and 11th century and this is not under discussion at the moment anyway. Even Karpat can only say that they may have settled and then only if one accepts the Turkish propaganda version that all Turkic peoples are Turks.

About the 13th century settlement - I didn't write that all sources say that they settled in Northern Dobrudja. I wrote that according to Ibn Battuta and Evliya Çelebi they settled there. If Karpat has a different opinion, this can be mentioned, though Karpat shows considerable bias in his work. For example, he completely ignores other theories of the ancestry of the Gagauz, regards them as speaking pure Anatolian Oghuz, which is certainly untrue now and probably was even more so 500 years ago. He mentions them settling in Varna, which is outside of Dobrudja in any case. Another example of his bias is his statement on page 525 that Bulgaria was depopulated by feudal conflicts despite the many contemporary sources indicating that the main reason for this was the Ottoman invasion. Therefore, I don't think that his sources belong here, unless it's clearly stated that he represents the Turkish POV.

That Gagauz lived in Varna doesn't mean that they lived there in the 13th century. Nor does the fact that many Turks settled in the Deliorman mean that there were any Turks before that. You're making unsourced inferences, the same thing you've accused me of. Kostja (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, "I didn't write that all sources say that they settled in Northern Dobrudja. I wrote that according to Ibn Battuta and Evliya Çelebi" then provide the pages where these two sources say that "though according to these sources they settled in Northern Dobruja" it should not be a problem. Keep in mind that saying that Sari Saltik has a tomb in Babadag cannot possibly mean or be translated that the Turks setteled only in North Dobruja. Also there were other Seljuks who did not come with Sari Saltik but were from the tribe of Kaykaus II. With regards to what you have said for the 10 and 11th centuries, well the article starts with :"It has also been suggested that some Turks living today in Bulgaria may be direct ethnic descendants of earlier medieval Pecheneg, Oğuz, and Cuman Turkic tribes" and there are the footnotes for that. Hittit (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that Stănciugel et al., p.44-45 quote Battuta as saying that Baba Saltuk (which is identified as being Babadag, though other versions identify it as being located in the Ukraine). As the time the Tatars controled the territory north of the Danube, this means that there were no settlements south of Babadag.

In "Early mystics in Turkish literature" it's mentioned on page 53 that the Turks went with Sari Saltik at the time when Kaykaus supposedly went to Dobrudja (which is disputed) so it was actually the same settlement. About the Pechenegs, Oğuz and Cumans who settled in Bulgaria - they were not Turks but possibly assimilated into Turks. Using the same standart, you could say that the Bulgarians have been in Bulgaria since antiquity as part of the pre-Slavic population was assimilated by the Slavs who settled in Bulgaria. Kostja (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite the confused text that you have written. So to put it plainly you have no sources saying that "though according to these sources they settled in Northern Dobruja". And who talks of one settlement? What you mean supposedly went to Dobruja, your source says "supposedly"? Do you have sources saying that Seljuks Turks settled exclusively in North Dobruja? This is the question, we know these settled in South and North Dodbruja, we refer this as Dodbruja, we know the tobm of Sari Saltik is quoted as being in Babadag (you can repeat that again if you want) we even have sources talking of him converting people to Islam in Kaliakra. If you read Brian Glyn Williams pp. 204 is saying tht even after the death of Sari Saltik Anatolian Turcoman clans continued to rule Dobruja. BTW pls provide the name of the book by Stănciugel it must be something on Tatars in Romania? Since the overwhealming amount of sources clearly talk of setlement in Dobruja and Kostja cannot provide a signle source saying that these settled only North Dobruja it is fair to conclude that the sentence ""though according to these sources they settled in Northern Dobruja" is wrong and missleading. Hittit (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading further Brian Glyn Williams he actually says a very important piece of information which goes and cements the Turkish legacy in Dobruja and particularly in Bulgarian Dobruja. Williams in p.204 writes: “ In the years following Sari Saltuk’s death, Anatolian Turcoman clans continued to rule Dobruca, including a Turkic a leader with a Slavic name Dobrotic, for whom the land was eventually named. He was a descendant of a failed contender for the Seljuk throne, Sultan Izz edin Kaykaus…” Now Dobrotitsa is well know Bulgarian despot who ruled Dobruja. Karpat also refers to Dobrotic as also a converted Seljuk Turk. Hittit (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

The source talking about him converting people in Kaliakra mentions that he did so after travelling to Georgia on a prayer rug and converting the Georgians to Islam. I think we should stick to historical evidence of Turkish legends and not the myths of Saltik's life (of which there are many, mutually contradictory ones).

The book in question is Robert Stănciugel and Liliana Monica Bălaşa, Dobrogea în Secolele VII-XIX. Evoluţie istorică, Bucharest, 2005. I would say that it's an acceptable source, especially as it's used as sources on the Tatars in Romania article.

Brian Glyn Williams presents very much a minority view on Dobrotitsa. There are at least three other theories as well supported or better than this. This theory can be mentioned, though properly qualified in the article, but it's no evidence of a Turkish settlement in Bulgaria. Kostja (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kostja exactly what you have written in the above passage is the reason we are having these lengthy discussions. You have gone to the Wiki article Tatars of Romania taken the source: “Robert Stănciugel and Liliana Monica Bălaşa, Dobrogea în Secolele VII-XIX. Evoluţie istorică, Bucharest, 2005” pp. 44-45 referring the following sentence in the article: “It is known from Arab sources that at the end of the 13th century and the beginning of the 14th century that descendants of the Nogai Horde settled in Isaccea. Another Arab scholar, Ibn Battuta, who passed through the region in 1330-1331, talks about Baba Saltuk (Babadag) as the southernmost town of the Tatars”. I find this a very strange way of using sources since you even state that in your mind this is a very acceptable source? First of all I doubt that you have the book (or what ever version of it), second even if the book was staring at you, you could not translate this from Romanian and finally based on this you wrote: “I've already said that Stănciugel et al., p.44-45 quote Battuta as saying that Baba Saltuk (which is identified as being Babadag, though other versions identify it as being located in the Ukraine). As the time the Tatars controled the territory north of the Danube, this means that there were no settlements south of Babadag.” Now if the Tatars controlled North of Danube where does it say who lived south of Babadag? So if Baba Saltuk is same as Babadag, where does your source say “though according to these sources they settled in Northern Dobruja"? I find this a complete nonsense. I mean we talk of Seljuk Turks in Dobruja you start writing about Tatars North of Danube and thus there were no settlements south of Babadag…you mean Tatar settlements or what? You understand the Nogais are something completely different? Hittit (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course Tatars and Turks are different. However, this settlement was also descrived as the last Muslim settlement and these Turks were allies of the Tatars, so last outpost of the Tatars means also last outpost of the Turks in this context. This is the way the citation is used in the article about Babadag, indicating that the might not be distinguished at all in the source. Kostja (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In this context you have a source saying this or this is your own research and conclusion?Pls provide a quote of this citation so we can see where does it say BabaSaltuk the last settlement of the Muslims. So if I can summaries all the bellow sources write that the Seljuk Turks of Kay-Kaus settled in Dobruja. Dobruja is mentioned directly as the area of settlement, (some of the sources go further and mentioned Dobruja and seprately included/described the area as both in Bulgaria and Romania):1)Ив. К. Димитровъ, Прѣселение на селджукски турци въ Добруджа около срѣдата на XIII вѣкъ, стр. 32—33 2)P. Wittek, Yazijioghlu 'Ali on the Christian Turks of the Dobruja, pp. 640, 648 3)Mehmet Fuat Köprülü, Gary Leiser, Robert Dankoff; "Early mystics in Turkish literature", New York 2006, pp.53-54 4)Paul R. Brass, “Ethnic groups and the state” p.100 (Bulgarian and Romania mentioned) 5)Brian Glyn Williams, “The Crimean Tatars: the diaspora experience and the forging of a nation”, pp.204 6)John Renard, “Tales of God's Friends: Islamic Hagiography in Translation” pp.136 (Bulgaria and Romania mentioned) 7)Charles King, “The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the politics of culture”, pp.210 (Bulgaria and Romania mentioned) 8)H. T. Norris, “Islam in the Balkans: religion and society between Europe and the Arab world” pp.147 (Bulgaria and Romania mentioned). After listing these scholars I think Kostja there is no room for your personal speculations, indications or suggestions. And that thing about the Tatar and southern point of the Muslims was very amusing lol Hittit (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"Islam in the Balkans: religion and society between Europe and the Arab world", page 146 specificaly mentions that Babadag was the last town of the Turks and that between it and the territory of the Christians there was an uninhabited waste: a rather good desciption of Dobrudja. Here's a link. Of course some theories place Baba Saltuq outside of Dobrudja altogether, which would have a rather bad effect on the whole idea of pre-Ottoman Turkish settlement. And I'm afraid I don't get your sense of humor, Hittit.

Lets' see the sources you reffer to one by one:

1. Doesn't say anything about speicific settlements. Remember that at the time Bulgaria controlled (or at least claimed to control) the whole Dobrudja.

2. Couldn't find the source (your accusation that I use obscure sources are rather hollow considering that most of your sources are obscure books). I should also note that the asertion that the Gagauz are descendants of Turkish settlers of Dobrudja supports the statement that the connection between those settlers and today's Turks is dubious.

3. This is one of the sources mentioning a settlement in Babadag. The only mention of Bulgaria is in the rather fantastic story of Sari Saltik's life. I consider your use of the source ironic because the story also mentions Saltik converting the local population to Islam - something you like to pretend never happened at all during the Ottoman rule.

4. Probably the only source to categorically confirm Turkish settlement in Bulgaria. On the other hand it mentions settlement outside Dobrudja which contradict most of the other sources and a rather unlikely - a massive Turkish settlement in what was the heartland of Bulgaria at the time? It's also troubling that the author accepts the rather controversial and pro-Turkish theory of Seljuk ancestry of the Gagauz without any doubts. Also implies that the Turks who settled there were Christianized.

5. Doesn't mention Bulgaria, aserts another controversial theory of the ancestry of Dobrotitsa (who was described as calling his country Bulgaria in Western sources).

6. Doesn't say anything about specific settlements, the mentioning of Bulgaria and Romania is simply used in order to defien Dobrudja.

7. Bulgaria and Romania, like in the previous source, are only mentioned in order to define the geographic region of Dobrudja.

8. Couldn't see enough of the source to judge for myself. Seems again to just define the geographic region of Dobrudja. Also mentions Babadag as a place with which Saltic was identified.

In conclusion, it's pretty clear that most sources refering to Seldjuk settlement in the 13th century in Bulgaria confirm Babadag as a settlement and are vague about whether these Turks also settled. Therefore the way to a compromise solution is to mention that according to many sources Seljuk Turks settled in Northern Dobrudja and the possibility of settlement in Bulgaria is possible but dubious, fas the sources are conflicted on this point. Of course the many dubious elements of the whole story (too heavy reliance of the accounts of Sari Saltic, assertions of controversial theories about the Gagauz and Dobrotitsa, some significant historical inaccuracies)mustn't be left out of the article as well. Kostja (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for any compromise after listing all these sources where the area of settlement is described as Dobruja you still seem fixated on Northern Dobruja. I doubt you spent much time into looking into the list of sources e.g., you have written: “"Islam in the Balkans: religion and society between Europe and the Arab world", page 146 specificaly mentions that Babadag was the last town of the Turks and that between it and the territory of the Christians there was an uninhabited waste: a rather good desciption of Dobrudja” now taking into consideration that modern Babadag was establish later by the Ottomans you should have read on to page 147 where Norris writes: "The evidence suggests that it is with coastal Bulgaria and the place called to this Babadag, in the Dobruja of Romania that the saint’s activities ultimately came to have a particular association”. To put it plainly Dobruja. Now the purpose of the section is not describe where Sari Saltuk prayed, travelled, eat, slept or died it is to describe the first Turkish settlement in Bulgaria for which all authors I have listed describe as Dodbruja and it is clear this covers North and South. It is pointless to mention North since no evidence suggests exclusive North settlement but in fact 12 000 families could not have lived in a single village. You your self know of extensive Gagauz population in Varna, I can list many towns and villages with traditional Gagauz population in the district e.g.. Dobrotich, Mihalich, Kaloyan, Nevsha etc. etc. and about Balchik you know your self. Anyway I am prepared for the compromise Dobruja, if you want to mention South and North in the same sentece well that is all the same and source backed. Hittit (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You say that the purpose of the section is not to desribe Saltuk's life yet you choose to ignore the part of the source that specifically describes the location of a Turkish settlement but focus on a part of the source which is primarily about Saltuk. This is a rather poor attempt to adress the statement that Babadag was the last Turkish town in Dobrudja.

The present location of the Gagauz is in no way indicative of their original settlement. As someone interested in the history of the Balkans you should know that ethnic groups in the Balkans have undergone far more drastic mogrations in far shorter periods. Mediaeval demographics are not known for their accuracy so it's not certain how accurate the 12 000 families figure is and to draw conclusions as to distribution of settlements from it is pure, unsupported speculation.

I can't accept as a compromise a version which ignores that many sources mention only a settlement in Northern Dobrudja. It can be mentioned that according to some sources Seljuk Turks settled in Southern Dobrudja (though the few sources who mention this seem to make rather significant geographic mistakes), but it's not satisfactory to equate them with the well referenced settlement in Northern Dobrudja.

Kostja (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that Babadag was Turkish however I do not agree that it was the only place where 12 000 families or 30 clans (depending on souces settled). If a sources says Dobruja + a tomb in Babadag in your mind this becomes the only settlement (no source speaks of one settlement but of one tomb, actually theare are several tombs but this is something else). Your only source also said the BabaSaltuk was the southern Nogais Tatar town so talk about confusing locations. You should have read my sources and there are many sources: e.g., Norris writes: “The evidence suggests that it is with coastal Bulgaria and the place called to this Babadag, in the Dobruja of Romania that the saint’s activities ultimately came to have a particular association” Brian Glyn Williams who states that Dobrotic who was the boyar of Dobruja was a descendant of the Seljuk Turks, same with Karpat Or how about Charles King when he writes: Fleeing from the Mongols, they are said to have received from the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologous in Constantinople in 1261 an area of land along the Black Sea coast in the borderland between what is now Bulgaria and Romania. Under their sultan Izz al-Din Kay-Kaus they established an independent state there with the present day city of Kavarna as it’s capital I am prepared for a correct version supporting all sources. I propose the removal of the sentence: “though according to these sources they settled in Northern Dobruja (Sari Saltik's tomb is said to be located in Babadag, Northern Dobruja”) and replacement with the following: According to sources these Seljuk Turks settled in area of Dobruja along the Black Sea coast in the borderland between what is now Bulgaria and Babadag situated in modern day Romania. You can then again go ahead and mention the tomb again if you want it is in the sources Hittit (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Section: Participation in Bulgarian politics

The sentence is phrased mistakenly - it should be "The Turks might be said to be overepresented". As the article states that MRF is a party founded to defend the interests of ethnic Turks and as it derives most of its votes from them, with very few ethnic Bulgarians voting for the MRF, I don't see what's wrong with the statement that the might be considered overrepresented in Bulgaria's parliament. Note that I don't state that they are overrepresented, I'm merely suggesting that this is an possible interpretation: what you're opposing is stating this interpretation at all.

Again you have not given any source saying the Turks or the MRF are overrepresented until this happens your statement of overrepresentation should be removed since it is in violation with Wikipedia policy, original research is not allowed. Hittit (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have given clear evidence that a mostly Turkish ethnic party receives a greater amount of votes than would be expected if they relied on only their electorate. And note again that I'm only stating this as a possible point of view, without pretending that this is the only explanation. Kostja (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Section: “Militant Attacks”

The Bulgarian sources are meant to illustrate the point that the DS conspiracy theory is not widely accepted and is unproven. If it were otherwise, they would at least be mentioned in an article on the anniversary of the attacks.

Kostja (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources you have put do not say anything discrediting the link prof. Yankov makes between the attacks and the State Security Service. Your sources say nothing of what is or is not widely accepted. Since you do not have sources that statement should be removed. Original research is not allowed.

I think this matter of Wikipedia policy violation is clear, you can either agree to remove your statements based on original research or we leave the admins to deal with this dispute and seek 3rd opinion. Since your violation is clear there should be no need further discussions and waste of time.Hittit (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The "this has not been proven" part should probably be removed - if Yankov thinks he has proved it, then it would be POV to say whether he is wrong or right when few people have even addressed his theory. But the links do support the claim that "it is not a widely accepted theory", as indeed it isn't. Both in the Bulgarian media, in the general public and in academia, for what that's worth, the consensus is that the attacks were real terror attacks and not ones orchestrated by DS. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The part about being "overrepresented" is OR and POV - I agree with Hittit on that. But I don't agree about Büchsenschütz: he is a valid source for the claims that he is cited for, as I have argued above (except for the specific name of the organization).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have indicated I have nothing against Büchsenschütz:, but if some one writes a sentence like “though this has not been proven and is not a widely accepted theory” and put sources Büchsenschütz or Yankov then I have a real problem. For me this is some one writing his own mind, he looks at what sources are already there in the article and shoves a random footnote. Hittit (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As the poster above mentioned, the sources support the claim that the DS plot theory is not popular. Again, if this theory was widespread and accepted, wouldn't it at least be mentioned in an article about the anniversary of the attacks? About the word proven, perhaps it is not appropriate. What I meant with the expression "not proven" was that this is a minority theory which does not have backing by other experts. Again, sources are needed here to prove that the theory is proven. Without them, the default is not proven. Kostja (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As you are the one writing that “though this has not been proven and is not a widely accepted theory” you have the responsibility to find sources supporting your sentence. It is ridiculous that you include original reseach and ask others to find sources. You are asking from Wikipedia readers: wouldn't it at least be mentioned in an article about the anniversary of the attacks?, it is your job to correctly source it. The fact that these attacks occured is not disputed, there are two sourced versions in the article 1) Turkish terrorists did it 2) State Security was involved, both are there and are sourced. Saying that one is not proven or accepted then you should put the source. Hittit (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Practically the only way to show that a theory is not widely accepted is to show the attitude of the media and the society towards it. The two articles may not be entirely sufficient, but they are a step in the right direction. Kostja (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

My opinion is that the heat needs turned down here! Firstly, you should stop calling one another vandals. Neither of you is vandalizing, you are making content edits that another editor agrees with. That's alright—just be sure not to make them repeatedly! You have come to the talk page to discuss, which is a good thing, but you're talking past one another and accusing of lies and vandalism. It really does make things easier if you will each presume that the other side is acting in good faith. If you can't keep a discussion civil, I'd advise requesting informal or formal mediation to help you with that. You may also wish to consider a request for comment on the article. You don't need page protection, what's in desperate need here is civility. Each of you may have a personal viewpoint, but those do not matter here. All that matters for writing an article is what reliable sources say. If sources disagree, each position should receive due weight and no more. Help each other examine sources, figure some points you can both agree on, then move on to the disputed sections. If you'll talk with each other rather than past each other, you'll find this to go much more easily! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Notable Bulgarian Turks

{{editprotected}} This article is currently 99,180 bytes! I am going to create a new page List of Bulgarian Turks. Because this article is already too long, we can at least shorten it by having this list on another page. Can the admins please remove the section Notable Turks in Bulgaria and put the link List of Bulgarian Turks in the see also section. Thank you. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems logical,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible settlement of Turks in Bulgaria During the pre-Ottoman Period

{{editprotected}} Since user Kostja has been inactive and has failed to produce clear sources citing his claims and justifying his reverts causing the request for protection of this article. I suggest the following edit and returning the article to its original state. I request the removal of the artificial continuation of the unsourced claim under the section Possible settlement of Turks in Bulgaria During the pre-Ottoman Period: “though according to these sources they settled in Northern Dobruja (Sari Saltik's tomb is said to be located in Babadag, Northern Dobruja”). Since no agreement has been reached on the exact location of Turkish settlements and due to the fact that almost all sources refer to the area as Dobruja the sentence should remain in it is original state as it was: '“This migration of Anatolian Turks to Dobruja and their mystic leader Sari Saltik is also described in the works of Ibn Battuta and Evliya Çelebi”.,' the later unsourced continuation of this sentence is not agreed, not support by current added source and no compromise has been achieved to correct this and thus should be removed. The other disputed claims by Kostja need to be discussed once this part is settled. Hittit (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not as if you have been very active but that's not the point. I would say that the sentence about Babadag should remain, as it's the best documented settlement, though it should be modified to "according to which they settled in Northern Dobruja (Sari Saltik's tomb is said to be located in Babadag, Northern Dobruja". To this should be added " According to some sources they also settled along the coast, including near Kavarna". This should cover the difference in the sources without emphasizing the different versions. Kostja (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You did not revert to my suggestion from November 26th, which was: “According to sources these Seljuk Turks settled in area of Dobruja along the Black Sea coast in the borderland between what is now Bulgaria and Babadag situated in modern day Romania” So the option would be: “According to sources these Seljuk Turks settled in area of Dobruja along the Black Sea coast in the borderland between what is now Kavarana in Bulgaria and Babadag situated in Northern Dobruja”? As I have stated I have no opposition against Babadag I reject the attempt to imply that settlement was only in Northern Dobruja not to mention trying state Ibn Battuta and Evliya Çelebi as sources for this claim. All sources cover the area of modern day Dobruja, exact locations are not confirmed not to mention Babadag was established by the Ottomans and that one of 7 coffins of Sari Saltik is stated to be there. Is the final version: “This migration of Anatolian Turks to Dobruja and their mystic leader Sari Saltik is also described in the works of Ibn Battuta and Evliya Çelebi.[footnote 21] According to sources these Seljuk Turks settled in area of Dobruja along the Black Sea coast in the borderland between what is now Kavarana in Bulgaria and Babadag situated in Northern Dobruja.” [footnote variety of options e.g., Wittek, King, Eminov and many more mostly mentioning Dobruja incl. Bulgaria and Romania]. Hittit (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Ibn Battuta does mention that Babadag was the furthest outpost of the Turks (he also mentions the town as already existing. Therefore the proper sentence structure should be: "While some sources such as Ibn Battuta mention Babadag as the furthest outpost of the Turks, other describe settlement along the whole coast of Dobrudja.

The sentence stating that the relationship between the supposed settlement in the 13th century and today's Turks doesn't really need a source; rather a source is needed to establish such a connection. Kostja (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As many times said Babadag is fine and is mentioned in sources there is no problem with that. The section and its purpose is to describe the first settlements of Turks in Dobruja and it is sourced, if you add a senteced like that "no relation" then you need a source. This is how it is. BTW you also deny the existence of Gagauz in Bulgaria? Hittit (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Pls quote where Ib Batuta and Evliya Celebi say: "While according to some sources such as Ibn Battuta and Evliya Çelebi[21] they settled in Northern Dobruja"??? There is a huge differenece between saying their furthers outpost was Babadag and that they settled in Northern Dobruja. Why can't you write their furthest outpost was Babadag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hittit (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed the full-protection from the article- sorry for not realizing I'd full-protected it for an indefinite amount of time. Feel free to make changes provided you have consensus here, or at least have waited long enough to indicate you don't have objections to them. If edit warring happens again, feel free to come to me or WP:RFPP. tedder (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Millitant attacks

The Bulgarian articles are not meant as as a source that Yankov's theory is not proven. They're meant as an illustration that the prevailing opinion in Bulgaria links the attacks with TNLF. Kostja (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This is quite strange you write: "though this has not been proven and is not a widely accepted theory" and then you put a a "frognews" source and then you say this source has nothing to do with your statement? You can't do this, I have told you many times this is source abuse. Either you put a source behind your statement or remove it.Hittit (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Does this situation still require mediation? Your case is still active, but the arguments may now be outdated as the situation has evolved considerably since November 23 when the case was filed. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is still a dispute on several other maters. One issue has been closed and that is the correct sourcing of the Seljuk migration to Dobruja.

The open issues:

1) Kostja has written under section Militant Attacks: "though this has not been proven and is not a widely accepted theory". This has been added as an extension to the sourced claim of prof. Yankov’s book on the participation of the State Security in these acts of terror. Kostja then adds: “though this has not been proven and is not a widely accepted theory” and as a source he has provided a Bulgarian frognew source not mentioning anything of prof. Yankov or his statement. One cannot add original research and combine these with random sources.

2) Kostja has written under section Participation in Bulgarian Politics: "MRF might be said to be overrepresented" and for that he has not provided any source. How come a party gains 14,5% in national elections and some one claims without any source that this party is overrepresented? Again original research.Hittit (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

First, I think you should update your case to reflect that these are now the main issues, and the others have been dealt with. Secondly, what I'm hearing is that you think that this editor is doing something that he/she should not do, and you want them to stop, or you want someone else to tell them that they can't do this. Is this correct? If so, you don't need mediation. A mediator can suggest compromises, and help parties come to agreement. However, mediations rarely end with one side saying "I was wrong. Let's do it your way." If this is what you want, I can't help you. However, if you're both willing and interested in coming to collaborative agreement, mediation is the right course of action. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the long discussion you will understand that these have been the main issues from the beginning. My only point is that when a statement is written it should be backed up by a source and make sure this source backs-up the statement (I do not want to do it my way but the Wikipedia way). If one writes own statements and puts random footnotes then I think it is an issues both for the article in question and also for the crediblity of Wikipedia. How you think this should proceed and what does Wikipedia policy state? if you think the whole disucssion is pointless I will not waste further time. I have requested mediation thinking it would be of use to have this solved. Regards, Hittit (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you see middle ground somewhere? Or are you really looking for a 3rd party to come in and cite the guidelines to tell you both how things should be? ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Third party opinion has been requested. See 3rd party comment above, I see no middle groud in this. Either source is cited to state written facts or source does not cite written facts, should we negotiate on that? Then what is the purpose of usig a source reference if it can be negotiated what source cites? As long as source is cited correctly I am fine with that. Currently we have written statements with irrelevant source references, which do not back up claims and I find this an issue.Hittit (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you do not feel there is middle ground, then mediation is not the most appropriate option. I'm going to recommend the case be removed from the new cases queue. Maybe I can help you with a 3rd party opinion (as a mediator, I cannot make pronouncements about what is right or wrong...that is not mediation, it is arbitration). ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 12:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

---

This article is erraneous. There are no Turks in Bulgaria. There are Turkish-speaking Bulgarians! DemonX (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian Turks in Turkey

According to this source there are 700,000 Bulgarians of Turkish origin living in Turkey. [2] Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for recent changes

This should have been the place for Hittit to explain his reverts, but as he hasn't bothered to do so, I'll explain my edits to the article.
1.Dated newspaper articles are considered primary sources in Wikipedia and should not be used for interpretation as has been done in this case
2.Kemal Karpat mentions in his book that many refugees were from the provinces of Edirne and Istanbul and also that the Serbs meant to rid their country from the Muslims.
3.McCarthy's ideology is certainly relevant to this article, especially considering how controversial some of his works have been. Kostja (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well as you started your edit by removing sourced text without discussion, it is your obligation to initiate a discussion first. Regarding your claims above, the atrocities commited against the Muslims in Bulgaria during the Russo - Turkish War are only superficially mentioned in the article. If you would like a separate section could be started on the subject as sources of the horrific events are in excess. Regarding McCarty, I think it is not apropriate to use this article to attack the author, if we look at the sources for many Bulgarian articles on that time you will see mainly Bulgarian authors, without any international credibility behing claims of Turkish atrrocities. BTW: the witness accounts mentioned in McCarty's book are memebers of the press who signed a statement of what crimes they saw and were from the following newspapares: Manchester Guardian, Kölnische Zeitung, Frankfürter Zeitung, Journal des Debats, Morning Post, Repiblique Francais, Pester Lloyd, Wiener Tagsblad, Illustrated London News, Nueue Freie Presee, Times, Morning Advertiser, New York Herald, Scotscman, Egypeterczy Graphie, Wiener Worstadt Zeitung, Daily Telegraph and the Manchester Examiner. Hittit (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not attacking McCarthy, but it would be absurd to ignore his bias on the issue. It is a common sense that a historian who has written a book specifically to defend to point massacres and Muslims and has been often accused of writing from a Turkish point of view is more likely to exaggerate the casualties of Muslims in a conflict. In a more concrete example, James Reid (in one of the sources I added to the page) accuses McCarthy of ignoring the role of the Ottoman army in increasing Muslim casualties and attributes it to his "emulation of Ottoman mentality" and polemicism. So in order to have a neutral point of view in this article, all information must be presented in its proper context and that includes the positions of the authors supplying the sources.

As I've mentioned above, a newspaper article from 1877 is a primary sources and these may not be used for interpretations, as has been done here, so it should be removed from the article. Kostja (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your claim that newspaper articles are primary sources and should be removed, I do not agree that you are right. The question is about important overview of the situation from the New York Times correspondent. You can just as well declare a ban an all news media sources in Wikipedia including Internet media. You might consider admin opinion on the subject before removing in the future.Hittit (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

New York Times citations can never be unreliable source. Murad67 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

New York Times tagged as unreliable source?

I would like to have some explanation from the editor who tagged the New York Times article on the attrocities against the Turks during the Russo-Turkish War as unreliable. I will also request an admins opinion on this tag. Hittit (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Turks majority before Russo-Turkish War

As I saw the sentence in paragraph "Liberation to Communist Rule (1878 to 1945)" starts with "the number of Turks in Bulgaria prior to the Russo-Turkish war of 1878 vary from between a third to being the majority" cited with not linked source and if the source really claims the Turks were majority it is unreliable see WP:RS. That is so beacause at least official census information from the first count after the unification with Eastern Rumelia (in 1887) can take this as nonsense, here the data by religion shows: 2 424 371 Orthodox and 676 215 Muslims among others; I know 9 years passed after the liberation but how the Turks could be a majority in 1878 when they are around 500 000 in 1887? I had the data from 1880 census by religion but I can't currently find it, as I remember it was showing Orthodox 1,400,000, 600,000 Muslims etc. having in mind that Principality of Bulgaria in 1880 was only Moesia and Sofia which has no relation with current Bulgarian territory. I am going to fix the sentence from one fourth to one one third beacause the official information puts this as nonsense. Pensionero (UTC)

References

Content changes

Few points, User:Ceco31 has on several occasions made changes and edits, which I have reverted based on the following:

-Latest census data in which % of Ethnic Turks is indicated based on census questionnaire voluntary basis. The latest census figures provide by no means the real and exact number of ethnic Turks in Bulgaria, but perhaps give an indication on the population baseline/core, which is an essential part of any article covering population groups. As long as stating ethnic affiliation is not mandatory in a Bulgarian population census, real figures of ethnic distribution in the country will remain only estimates. 605,802 persons or 9.1% of the population pointed Turkish language as their mother tongue this should not have been removed.

-Removing estimated refugee figures by Karpat ignoring that others support these figures such as Vahakn N. Dadrian stating that in the aftermath of the Russo – Turkish War between 1878 and 1884 over one million Muslims migrated to Turkish provinces. Shaw points out to the official Refugee Commission figures and tables stating that in the consequence of the Russo-Turkish War 1876 – 1895 over one million Muslim refugees entered the Ottoman Empire. Between 1876 and 1895 two major changes altered the Balkans 1) Establishment of the Bulgarian Principality and 2) Occupation of Eastern Rumelia thus should not be hard to see from where most of these refugees originated. Claiming Karpat is bias should be no reason to delete sourced text…what Ceco31 could have done is finding source stating Karpat is bias and rephrasing. There are other sources such as Douglas Arthur Howard estimating that half of the 1,5 million Muslims, most part Turks in prewar Bulgaria had disappeared by 1879.

-It is unacceptable to use sources or to indicate sources stating something they are not such as Ceco31’s edit: “Bulgarian population increased from two million at the 1881 census to two and a half million by 1892, and stood at three and a half million by 1910 and at four million by 1920. This increase took place while a large number of Bulgaria's Turkish speaking inhabitants were emigrating and part of escaped from Ottoman rule Bulgarian speaking refugees in Wallachia and Moldavia were coming back in the liberated homeland” - “There were also returning in the homeland Bulgarian refugees from Wallachia, Moldavia and Russia which escaped from the Ottoman rule.” Ceco31 added the text on presumably returning Bulgarian masses to Bulgaria and kept the original source as being Crampton 1987, pp.71 and pp.175. This is just one example, does Crampton 1987, pp.71 and pp.175 really state the above on Bulgarians coming from Wallachia and Moldavia in such great numbers on the given pages or is this original research?Hittit (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll ignore the occupation etc chit-chat and only write about the census. Why should we use outdated dated from 10 years ago when we have fresh one from 2011? Plus, what has the language spoken got to do with ethnicity, given that a large portion of Romani people in the country speak Turkish? It would be like saying that every Bulgarian-speaking citizen was Bulgarian, which, in fact, is certainly not the case.

And just one more note - the sentence "and part of escaped from Ottoman rule Bulgarian speaking refugees in Wallachia and Moldavia were coming back in the liberated homeland" is not in English. --Laveol ^T 10:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent population decline

Does anybody know how the population was 750k in 2001 and 580k in 2011? Was this via assimilation, return to Turkey, EU migration or other? Tátótát (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish dialects?

It's totally wrong even the content of it is about Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.154.27 (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Article title and regions with significant populations

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. I arrived here from WP:ANRFC, but please place a formal WP:RM request next time. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 17:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but there seems to be a contradiction between the title of this article and the "regions with significant populations" statistics in the infobox, which include figures for Turkey, the UK, Ghent, etc. At the risk of stating the obvious, if Turks in Bulgaria are actually in those places, they're not "in Bulgaria"! Cordless Larry (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've resolved this issue by moving the page from Turks in Bulgaria to Bulgarian Turks, a term which seems to be widely used in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I also happened to check whether the 12,000 figure given for the UK was supported by the source, and I couldn't find any sign of it in the book cited. This figure was added by user Ceco31, (who is currently topic banned from Bulgaria-related articles and blocked for violation of this ban). Can editors with the relevant language skills check the other figures in the infobox against their sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Turks in Bulgaria is the correct terminology as Turks have a long history and migratory pattern towards the Balkans. There are no Bulgarian Turks per se, these are Turks in modern day Bulgaria. This particular Turkish population for different reasons has had to leave their native area and have settled in a number of locations. These are historical facts and should be respected. Figures are correct and inserted during the years. Kindly requesting to move back original article title as Turks in Bulgaria. Hittit (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to use "in Bulgaria" in the title if these people are not in Bulgaria, and there are plenty of reliable sources that describe them as "Bulgarian Turks". See Google Scholar, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hittit, I notice that you also restored the 12,000 figure for the UK. Can I ask you where in the source that figure is, as I was unable to verify it? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As Turkish ethnic minority this population group is regarded as ethnically and culturally separate from the Bulgarian speaking population however these are Bulgarian citizens. Bulgarian Turk would indicate a Bulgarian person that has adopted Turkish as his language and culture (this is not the case with the Turks in Bulgaria). In the same manner you can then have Turkish Bulgarians. Turks, in this case, in Bulgaria are primarily the descendants of a distinctive Turkish population living in the Balkans as of the 14th century...e.g., Turks in Macedonia, Turks in Greece, Turks in Romania etc... Regarding the numbers of Turks that have had to leave Bulgaria, this does not change their heritage and history and BTW most of these still hold valid Bulgarian citizenship thus can be in Bulgaria at any given time. If you have updated sources regarding their numbers I would see it as section than could be updated not deleted. Best Regards Hittit (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The 12,000 figure must be deleted if it is not supported by the source given. It's not a question of updating it - it's not mentioned in the source that is cited, as far as I can see, but you still added it to the article. As for the name, "Bulgarian Turk" does not indicate a Bulgarian person who has adopted Turkish language and culture, as far as I see it. Just as "British Indian" refers to a British person of Indian origin, "Bulgarian Turk" can be used to refer to a Bulgarian of Turkish ethnicity, and indeed that is how reliable, scholarly sources refer to this group. "Turks in Bulgaria" would be a valid alternative title, if it weren't for the fact that the article covers Bulgarian Turks regardless of location. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Note also the naming of the Bulgarian Turks in Turkey article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion, should this article refer to (and should the article title be) Bulgarian Turks or Turks in Bulgaria? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I support revert to original naming Turks in Bulgaria, as is aligned with e.g., Turks in Macedonia, Turks in Greece, Turks in Serbia..etc. articles Regards Hittit (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I favor Turks in Bulgaria as well. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Comatmebro, can I tease out your reasons for favouring that option a bit? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment the usage in Bulgaria should enter into the discussion, just as the way people say Peabody, MA. (I live in Peabody). Hiwiki123 (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Bulgarian Turks - Summoned by bot. Seems to be a more concise and accurate description. Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 7 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. With the !votes evenly split, this was closed on the strength of arguments. First, I considered the argument about the article's scope: it doesn't just describe "Turks in Bulgaria", but the diaspora of Turks who came from Bulgaria but now live elsewhere. No weight was given to the argument combining searches of "Turks in Bulgaria" with "Turks of Bulgaria", as the phrases have different senses; "Turks of Bulgaria" could be living anywhere, but "Turks in Bulgaria" could be taken to mean only those in Bulgaria. I also discounted the argument that the proposed title is "too confusing", as this seems arbitrary; the same claim was made against the current title. This said, it's clear that the construction "Turks in Bulgaria" is in use in sources in reference to this ethnic group, and that the construction "Turks in..." is used widely on Wikipedia and elsewhere. However, as Jenks24 and AjaxSmack point out, there is precedent for the format "Bulgarian Turks" and "xxx Turks" elsewhere on Wikipedia as well, and the arguments against this construction were comparatively weak. In summary, I find the arguments for the proposed name to be stronger than those in favor of the status quo. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Turks in Bulgaria → Bulgarian Turks – This article covers Bulgarian Turks living in a range of countries (Turkey, the Netherlands, Belgium, Northern Cyprus, Austria, Sweden, the UK), not just Bulgaria, so use of "in Bulgaria" in the article name is misleading. The alternative term "Bulgarian Turks" has relatively widespread usage in scholarly sources, as demonstrated by Google Scholar. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been debated already and section was closed. The article is about Turks in Bulgaria, as this population is distinctively Turkish with its own history. The article does not cover Turks living in a range of countries (Turkey, the Netherlands, Belgium, Northern Cyprus, Austria, Sweden, the UK), but cites Turks that have had to leave Bulgaria for variety of reasons mentioned in the article. Bulgarian Turks refers to Bulgarians adopted Turkish. Hittit (talk)

I am following SSTflyer's recommendation above, Hittit. The RfC was closed with a suggestion to open a requested move discussion instead. Your comment makes little sense. The article clearly covers Bulgarian Turks in other countries, who, as you yourself state, have left for various reasons. Just look at the infobox! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

In the same manner your suggestion makes no sense. The only part of the article that mentions this population living or working in other countries is a table in the infobox. The article it self covers Turks in Bulgaria. Hittit (talk)

Most of it does, but the lede includes the line "There is also a diaspora outside Bulgaria, the most significant of which are the Bulgarian Turks in Turkey". There is also subsequent material such as "Statistic results of the Address Based Population Registration System on the foreign-born population residing in Turkey from 2014 showed that 37.6% of a total of 992,597 foreign-born residents were born in Bulgaria, thus forming the largest foreign-born group in the country. The number of Bulgarian citizens from Turkish descent residing in Turkey is put at 326,000, during the 2005 Bulgarian parliamentary elections 120,000 voted either in Bulgaria or polling stations set up in Turkey". Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Most meaning 99,9% of the article is about Turks in Bulgaria, you would like to rename the article for 0,1% constituting the infobox. Hittit (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is that "Bulgarian Turks" can perfectly adequately describe ethnic Turks in Bulgaria, as the Google Scholar results show, as well as those living elsewhere. The same can't be said of the current title. When there's a title that covers 100 per cent of the article material and one that covers 99 per cent, I opt for the former. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The current title is slightly misleading as it could refer to recent migrants or travellers to Bulgaria rather than a long-standing ethnic group present in the region for hundreds of years. Note also the articles List of Bulgarian Turks and Bulgarian Turks in Turkey that already use the proposed name format. (Would we use Turks in Bulgaria in Turkey?) —  AjaxSmack  23:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Abstaining. sst✈^discuss 01:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Keep current, note also the articles Turks of Romania, Turks in Greece,Turks in the Republic of Macedonia, Turks in Kosovo,Turks in Serbia, Turks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turks in Croatia. In Google Scolar Turks in Bulgaria or Turks of Bulgaria has a combined more wider spread than Bulgarian Turks ...Hittit (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Combining the number of results for "Turks in Bulgaria" and "Turks of Bulgaria" is problematic, since is are likely to be overlap between the sources returned by each search. In any case, this isn't about the numbers. Google Scholar shows that both "Bulgarian Turks" and "Turks in Bulgaria" are in use (sometimes both are used within the same article); the point is to find a term that minimises potential for conclusion given the article content. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't seen much difference between the two. But using an ethnicity as an modifier for another ethnicity seems a bit awkward. Thus I prefer the existing title. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of precedents, Nedim Ardoğa: it's common to refer to Italian Americans, British Indians, Bosnian Serbs, German Jews, etc. I'd argue that an article titled "...in Bulgaria" that includes coverage of people not actually in Bulgaria is more awkward! Cordless Larry (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • There is a different context for different classifications e.g., Jews are not necessarily an ethnic group per se, it is a religion, you can have German Jews and you can have Muslim Bulgarians as well as Turks in Bulgaria or Mexican Americans or Germans of Romania and Hungarians in Romania...Hittit (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, I understand that both versions of the title can work in some circumstances, as noted above. Both have a basis in reliable sources. My argument for Bulgarian Turks is that it avoids the "...in Bulgaria" label being applied to people who are not, in fact, in Bulgaria. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too confusing; I'll propose a different name in a different thread, making it less likely a duplicate. --George Ho (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with AjaxSmack and Cordless Larry that the proposed title most accurately describes the scope of the article. And, although there are outliers, it also reflects our standard naming conventions for these types of articles. Jenks24 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

When you write an article about an USA citizen you write it in American English, when you write a article about UK citizen you write it in British English. Please respect our choice being called "Turks from Bulgaria" or "Turks in Bulgaria". "Bulgarian Turks" have different meaning and I don't want to be called "Bulgarian Turk". The term "Bulgarian Turk" is an insult! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.84.24 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 15:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Bulgarian Turks → Turks of Bulgaria – Turks of Romania, Turks in Greece,Turks in the Republic of Macedonia, Turks in Kosovo,Turks in Serbia, Turks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turks in Croatia. In Google Scolar Turks in Bulgaria or Turks of Bulgaria has a combined more wider spread than Bulgarian Turks. Turks in Bulgaria are not Bulgarian by any standard, this population is Turkish of origin and the article needs to mirror this in the same way as all articles relating to Turks in different countries. The previous move from Turks in Bulgaria to Bulgarian Turks is clearly contested and not supported by the vote. Hittit (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per my rationale in the previous move discussion. The article covers Bulgarian Turks who live outside of Bulgaria, so the "in Bulgaria" wording would be inaccurate. Simply adding the Google Scholar search results for Turks in Bulgaria and Turks of Bulgaria is not a good measure, since there is a lot of overlap in the results for each. The claim that "Turks in Bulgaria are not Bulgarian by any standard" completely ignores the possibility that someone can be a Bulgarian citizen without being ethnically Bulgarian. There is no clear convention for the naming of articles on ethnic Turks despite what is suggested in the nomination. We have articles called British Turks, Turkish Canadians and Turkish Americans, which clearly don't fit the pattern hinted at above. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I stand by what I said at the RM last month. Whoever closes this discussion should read over that. Jenks24 (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• As a matter of interest, the Turkish-language Wikipedia article on this group follows the same naming convention as this one, i.e. tr:Bulgaristan Türkleri. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bulgarian Turks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070926235751/http://www.imir-bg.org/imir/books/malcinstvena%20politika.pdf to http://www.imir-bg.org/imir/books/malcinstvena%20politika.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080229172208/http://www.noravank.am/file/article/257_en.pdf to http://www.noravank.am/file/article/257_en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Bulgarian Turks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120422120657/http://www.nsi.bg/ORPDOCS/Census2011_4.pop_by_ethnos.xls to http://www.nsi.bg/ORPDOCS/Census2011_4.pop_by_ethnos.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070508224135/http://www.bghelsinki.org:80/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc to http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071030132259/http://dps.bg:80/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0368&g= to http://www.dps.bg/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0368&g=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Romani language

There's been some edit warring over the inclusion of Romani in the languages section of this article's infobox over the past days, so I'm raising this for discussion. I've tried to check what the sources say. At present, three are cited. The first is a Press TV video and I therefore have doubts about reliability, the second is a broken link and the third is quite a long document, so a page number would be helpful to aid verification. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Cordless Larry, I was invited [3] to participate in this discussion, possibly because I like to get to the bottom of things. I skimmed through this document [4] which you listed and found some useful and interesting information in the first paragraph at the top of page 21. I was also sent this article [5] which although google-translate does not seem to do much justice to does clarify the issue touched upon at the top of page 21 of that long document. The broken link you mentioned does still exist at least in the wayback machine here [6] and turns although specifically about Rom people does seem to re-iterate what is mentioned in the other documents. Hope I have been of some help. YuHuw (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, YuHuw. I would encourage others to do the same, rather than continuing to edit war. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You are most welcome. My sentiments exactly. YuHuw (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Need source

Copied from my user talk page. --T*U (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Before me, you would ask ask it to someone else, are there already sources maybe they also speak Greek and Albanian along with Romanian? Why is mine, and not hers/ his ? Manaviko (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Manaviko: That Bulgarian Turks speak Turkish and Bulgarian is rather self-evident. That they speak Romani needs a source. No-one has mentioned Greek, Albanian etc. Please be serious. --T*U (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It is problematic to able to say "self-evident". Because it is a fact that a considerable amount of Roms of Bulgaria declare themselves as Turks on popular census thanks to democracy in the country just like in the case of some Torbešs Republic of Macedonia, see Plasnica, a Turkish slavophone town. Do you speak or understand Turkish or Bulgarian? If yes, have look at this Usta Millet, here (Millet], and of course here too. I am sorry to spend your time, but it's so important to create a scientifical encyclopedia and I think personally I am serious enough. Manaviko (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Manaviko:If you can provide a reliable source for Bulgarian Turks speaking Roma, fine! Then add it. If not, do not add it. As for serious, I was referring to your remark about Greek, Albanian etc. --T*U (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetic studies

Should this be removed or introduced: [7]? Thoughts?87.227.209.36 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bulgarian Turks. 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/20080617211153/http://www.obiv.org.tr/2004/Balkanlar/009-HIKMET%20OKSUZ.pdf to http://www.obiv.org.tr/2004/Balkanlar/009-HIKMET%20OKSUZ.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416083208/http://www.sedembg.com:80/101/page16.htm to http://www.sedembg.com/101/page16.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305152035/http://www.omda.bg/arhiv/rumyana_uzunova/Chast%203%20-%20Gorestoto%20ljato%20na%2089.doc to http://www.omda.bg/arhiv/rumyana_uzunova/Chast%203%20-%20Gorestoto%20ljato%20na%2089.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305152046/http://www.imir-bg.org/imir/books/balgarskite%20turci%20preselnici.pdf to http://www.imir-bg.org/imir/books/balgarskite%20turci%20preselnici.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305152038/http://www.bsp.bg/fce/001/0037/files/TYK.doc to http://www.bsp.bg/fce/001/0037/files/TYK.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220144818/http://www.ethnopolitics.org/ethnopolitics/archive/volume_I/issue_4/petkova.pdf to http://www.ethnopolitics.org/ethnopolitics/archive/volume_I/issue_4/petkova.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305152050/http://www.bghelsinki.org/special/en/2003_Muslims_fm.doc to http://www.bghelsinki.org/special/en/2003_Muslims_fm.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010033808/http://www.bgolympic.org/fce/index.shtml?s=001&p=0046 to http://www.bgolympic.org/fce/index.shtml?s=001&p=0046
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220144818/http://www.ethnopolitics.org/ethnopolitics/archive/volume_I/issue_4/petkova.pdf to http://www.ethnopolitics.org/ethnopolitics/archive/volume_I/issue_4/petkova.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Bulgarian Turks. 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/20150924002701/http://www.ethnopolitics.org/ethnopolitics/archive/volume_III/issue_2/vassilev.pdf to http://www.ethnopolitics.org/ethnopolitics/archive/volume_III/issue_2/vassilev.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://statlib.nsi.bg:8181/isisbgstat/ssp/lister.asp?content=%2FFullt%2Fextpages%2FP_22_1881_1884%2FP_22_1881_1884_P%2A.pdf&from=1&to=19&index=&cont=&type=%F1%F2%F0%E0%ED%E8%F6%E8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930094517/http://tour.starazagora.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=83&Itemid=64&lang=en to http://tour.starazagora.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=83&Itemid=64&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007234907/http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc to http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007234907/http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc to http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007234907/http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc to http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007234907/http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc to http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007234907/http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc to http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007234907/http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc to http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007234907/http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc to http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930183749/http://www.sofiahotels-link.com/Trip_to_Plovdiv_and_the_Old_Town/ to http://www.sofiahotels-link.com/Trip_to_Plovdiv_and_the_Old_Town
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007234907/http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc to http://www.bghelsinki.org/upload/resources/2003_Muslims_fm.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926235751/http://www.imir-bg.org/imir/books/malcinstvena%20politika.pdf to http://www.imir-bg.org/imir/books/malcinstvena%20politika.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415163925/http://www.segabg.com/online/article.asp?sid=2001020700010050003 to http://www.segabg.com/online/article.asp?sid=2001020700010050003
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sedembg.com/101/page16.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926235751/http://www.imir-bg.org/imir/books/malcinstvena%20politika.pdf to http://www.imir-bg.org/imir/books/malcinstvena%20politika.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926235751/http://www.imir-bg.org/imir/books/malcinstvena%20politika.pdf to http://www.imir-bg.org/imir/books/malcinstvena%20politika.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003174936/http://lead.actualno.com/news_284364.html to http://lead.actualno.com/news_284364.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928215956/http://www.segabg.com/online/article.asp?issueid=2101&sectionid=2&id=0000203 to http://www.segabg.com/online/article.asp?issueid=2101&sectionid=2&id=0000203
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150928081122/http://www.events.bg/bg/holidays/Giuner-Tahir---lider-na-NDPS_2757 to http://www.events.bg/bg/holidays/Giuner-Tahir---lider-na-NDPS_2757

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bulgarian Turks. 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/20120226184847/http://dariknews.bg/city.php?city=21 to http://dariknews.bg/city.php?city=21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150927232516/http://www.abvg.net/Sacred/Islam.html to http://www.abvg.net/Sacred/Islam.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305152034/http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/cedime-se-bulgaria-turks.doc to http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/pdf/cedime-se-bulgaria-turks.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170824222635/http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=92&id=247 to http://www.nccedi.government.bg/page.php?category=92&id=247

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Reference in heading

The heading Turkish Press in Bulgaria 1879–1945 contains a reference. The MOS indicates to attempt to avoid putting references in headings. However, I'm not sure where in the section to move the reference, and it isn't clear what this reference is supporting. RJFJR (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Bulgarian Turks vs Turks in Bulgaria

So we have: Turks in North Macedonia, Turks in Romania (not Romanian Turks), Turks of Western Thrace, Turks of the Dodecanese islands (not Greek Turks), Turks in Kosovo etc. Even Bulgarians use this formula (Bulgarians in Romania, Bulgarians in Macedonia) and/or slighly different one, Bulgarians of Asia Minor). Same for minorities in Turkey: Kurds in Turkey, Circassians in Turkey etc.

Then why this page's name is Bulgarian Turks? It should be Turks in Bulgaria.--Kessarevo (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Bulgarian Turks#Requested move 7 November 2015. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kessarevo: It's a proper term. Beshogur (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

How it is a proper term? If it is, then we must change the above examples to Turkish Circassians or Romanian Bulgarians. But somehow the people who faced brutal assimilation are called "Bulgarian Turks". The term became popular during the Communist regime (in fact I can't find pre-Communist usage of "Bulgarian Turks" in Bulgarian texts but always Turks of Bulgaria or Turks in Bulgaria). I, and probably many others, associate this term with the assimilation campaign (which for some reason is referred in this article as "Rebirth Process" and "The Great Excursion", although many activists such as Zeynep Zaferova said many times that these terms are nothing but insults to all assimilation survivors).--Kessarevo (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMMONNAME and the results here. It would only be appropriate to rename those other articles to Turkish Circassians and Romanian Bulgarians if those are the names most commonly used in reliable sources (I haven't checked). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Cordless Larry! But when I clik on the link that you had posted I see "About 2,310 results". But when I write Turks in Bulgaria , "About 64,400 results" appear, icluding Turks in Bulgaria and Turks of Bulgaria. I don't know how much this method is reliable. Because, for example M. Maeva's book "Bulgarian Turks and the European Union" appears when I search for the "Turks in Bulgaria". I'm sorry, I'm pretty new here, and I (still) don't know how many things work, but I'm not the first one who talks about this issue. I guess that It can't be changed :(

--Kessarevo (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"Turks in Bulgaria" gets 1,910 results in Google Scholar. It's true that it does get more results in a general Google search, but that includes lots of non-reliable sources. It's difficult to tell which is the most common term overall, but given that the article covers Bulgarian Turks who aren't actually in Bulgaria, I think that adds to the case for using the former term. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Bulgarian Turks vs. Turks of Bulgaria

As a newcomer to the discussion on the (disputed) current title "Bulgarian Turks" (but certainly no newcomer to such complicated linguistic, ethnic political discussions), and having had a quick look at the history of these discussions (included those on the suggested moves) I would like to start a new discussion on a possible change of title to "Turks of Bulgaria".

For me, it's clear that "Turks in Bulgaria" is not a good alternative because it excludes a significant section of this (sub-)ethnic group currently living outside Bulgaria.

It's true that, in English, as proper nouns are converted to adjectives in such a way that country names like Australia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Germany etc. become Australian, Bulgarian, Turkish, German etc. and the resultant adjective means "belonging to or relating to" that country as well as referring a specific ethnic group which is dominant in that country. As a result, it's common practice for English-speaking people to apply this simple rule to all countries.

However, whereas the words "British", "American" (or perhaps more properly "U.S."), "Canadian", "Australian" etc. wouldn't cause any such discussions, it becomes somewhat problematic (and even illogical!) when the name of a country is based on the name of an ethnic group which is dominant in that country. And it especially becomes unacceptable for members of a minority ethnic group there - especially so if they still have some unresolved problems with the majority/dominant ethnic group.

IMHO, the English-speaking people should better stop using this method of making adjectives out of nouns in such cases in order not to seem insensitive to the plight of such ethnic minorities. ;-)

Unless we are talking about dual citizenship or mixed ethnic identity (e.g. someone's father is from one ethnic group, and the mother is from the other) I don't think it's appropriate to say "German Turks" (instead of "Turks of Germany", or "Turks in Germany" in this specific case), "Turkish Kurds" (instead of "Kurds of Turkey"), "Turkish Armenians" (instead of "Armenians of Turkey"), "Greek Turks" (instead of "Turks of Greece"), "Turkish Greeks" (instead of "Greeks of Turkey"), or "Bulgarian Turks" (instead of "Turks of Bulgaria") unless we accept it as appropriate to call Scottish people "English Scots", considering that outsiders simply call the "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain" as "England" in their own language.

The fact that this has been the norm in English for a long time, and that search results are very much in favor of this pattern should not be used as a pretext to continue this wrong practice.Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Bulgarian Turks is a proper name. Beshogur (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)