Talk:Eastern Rumelia

Comments

Stan, perhaps you sholdn read the following before changing my submission again. Eastern Rumelia rebeled on the 6.9.1885 and declared itself part of the Principality of Bulgaria. The Prince of Bulgaria recognized this a few day days later and in 1886 the Union was recognized by a Great powers conference.

Northern Thrace

region known to all its inhabitants - Bulgarians, Greeks and Ottoman Turks - as Northern Thrace.

Can anyone provide a citation for this? Indisciplined 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you want any citation why united states of america are called united states of america mate?

That bizare comment doesn't answer the question. This may be true but, as with any historical claim like this, needs to be backed up with a citation. Indisciplined 13:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Plese sign comments, everyone. Indisciplined 14:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Coat of arms

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

One sided view?

Hittit, could you clarify what you consider one sided view?

Issues

From what I gather we can easily agree that the map in the infobox is the best version. It clearly shows the borders of the country and even compares them to those of the San Stefano treaty. I'm not sure about the word "artificial". It's kinda ORish to put it in like that, although it might be more or less accurate since there was no such thing as Eastern Rumilia prior to that and even if there was, its borders were not that for sure. As for the maps: I've spent some time wondering why the Stanford map contradicts pretty much every other ethnic map of the time. You cannot be serious when claiming that Greeks were a majority in all those areas since even censuses showed a different picture. I'm not commenting on why it could be wrong, but just on the obvious fact, that it was. And I'm not sure if we need 2 ethnic maps in such a short article. I'd go for removing the Stanford one. --Laveol ^T 01:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

About the ethnological maps: I am not sure if we had that discussion with you or with Jingiby in the past. In any case I will repeat what I, Cplakidas, Alexikoua and cannot remember if anyone else had) told then. First is not mine it's Stanford's so I don't have to apologize for him or to take part in any discussion about what, why and how. Second Stanford was possibly one of the most famous geographer of his era and certainly of his country and that is widely acceptable. Third the map as every other document of the era, do not count as right or wrong, but as such: a document of its era. Fourth, no ethnological map for the Balkans ever agreed with another, there are ethnological maps showing more strange things and despite that, are extensively used all over around. And fifth upon that map -rightly or wrongly- the borders of both Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia had been decided, making that map the only ethnological map in the Balkans' history that ever mattered; a significant historical document for the period's history and thus cannot be omitted from so much relevant articles like E.Rumelia. Now, because I understand from my past experiences, that this map is disturbing to some Bulgarian editors, I decided to accompany it with a second one as I wrote to the edit for objectivity reasons, choosing a map made by a frenchman professor of the Ottoman Lyceum of Constantinople thus due to his position a circumspect person. If you don't like it and you prefer another one choose what map you want and replace it. I don't have the intention to make the article the usual messed -through painful consensuses- article and I don't want to start a personal vendetta between me and anyone else, but the rv with the "push-push" message was a very aggressive reaction and anyone can understand that. --Factuarius (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Map

Laveol you must understand me: This map shows Eastern & Central Macedonia incorporated into the Bulgaria and is titled "Bulgaria Liberated". Is it possible to accept that? I have to remind you that included there, are Serres, Doxato and Drama, cities that later on in their history, under Bulgarian occupation, had suffered heavily by atrocities because their people felt Greek. Is that logical? What you expect by me? In my position you would accept it? Tell me honestly. --Factuarius (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. "Bulgaria Liberated" is not an NPOV caption. More appropriate would be something like "Bulgaria: San Stefano borders (1878)". --macrakis (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the Bulgaria ("Liberated" or in its "San Stefano borders") is not the object of the article. It's E.Rumelia. How we can have a map in the infobox titled "Bulgaria something" while the article says "E.Rumelia"? --Factuarius (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point, and I agree. --macrakis (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't imagine how hypocritical it sounds from your mouth to talk about Doxato while "surprisingly" forgetting to mention what happened to the majority Bulgarian population of southern (today Greek) Macedonia. There really is no point in discussing that, I'll just say that if we have to compare what Greece has done to Bulgaria and vice versa, your arguments will inevitably be on the losing side of the "who has suffered more" criterion. Yet again, I fail to see how this contributes to the discussion.

I'm kindly asking any people who have no interest in improving the article to stay out of the discussion. If you aren't here to help the encyclopedia but to push your national point of view, kindly go away. By this I hope I'm making myself clear that I consider your intentions to be entirely disruptive in this case.

As for the title of the map, blame the Treaty of San Stefano for assigning Bulgarian-populated territories to a future Bulgarian state, not me. Todor→Bozhinov 14:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

When your nationalistic raving will stop we will be able to start discussing. All I told was that you cannot include as Bulgarian-liberated areas that later became target of atrocities due to their opposed to Bulgarian, national identities. How can you liberate a cities and towns and then exterminate their populations because they don't accepting that they are Bulgarians? Until a real answer on that will be presented the POV and unrelated to the article's object "Bulgaria liberated" map will be removed from the infobox. --Factuarius (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, "How can you liberate cities and towns and then exterminate their populations because they don't accept that they are Greeks?" You obviously don't realize how pointless it is to talk this over. In the past, we've all done shit to each other, this is irrelevant to this article.

I believe I was pretty clear that I'm not the one who assigned these areas to a liberated Bulgarian state, it was the signatories of the Treaty of San Stefano. Blame Ignatiev, Nelidov, Safvet Pasha and Sadullah Bey, not me. The map perfectly displays the situation in the Bulgarian lands at the time, and as such is of great importance to the article. I fail to see why you consider it offensive that an international treaty recognized the extent of an envisioned Bulgarian state, only to be overturned later by another treaty. It's not like I'm disputing any maps of the Treaty of Sèvres just because Greece went on to invade Turkey and got crushed, is it?

Also, please don't set any ultimatums. This is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not the Balkan Wars in a cup of tea. No matter how much you'd like that. Todor→Bozhinov 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't see the ridiculous comments about Greek being widely used in Eastern Rumelia. I didn't know a lot less than 6% is "a lot". And for your information, modern Turkish written in the Latin alphabet didn't exist until the 1930s, some 50 years after the Bulgarian unification. Todor→Bozhinov 16:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking here? The problem is not with the treaties, the problem is with you. You created a map christening liberated areas that had suffered atrocities exactly because their people weren't felt Bulgarians when under Bulgarian occupation later on. In your nationalistic fever you have problems with logic not me. What's these nonsense with the Turks and the Greeks. What the alphabet and numbers has to do with it? The major cities in E.Rumelia had already active Greek names and you are tell me that is not logic to mention them? Every map of the era and even much latter mentioning that names and you want to delete it. The Turks were officially 1/4 of the total population and you deleted it also saying that "they didn't had latin alphabet at the time"!! If all these are not a nationalistic raving then what is it then? --Factuarius (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Could we please leave aside discussions of atrocities (on both sides) and POV words like "liberated" (on both sides) and focus on the topic of the article? This is the article on Eastern Rumelia, which indeed was one of the territories assigned to Bulgaria by the Treaty of San Stefano and maintained in the final Treaty of Berlin.

The map usefully shows the territories of the Principality of Bulgaria, Eastern Rumelia, and the parts of Ottoman Macedonia which were assigned to Bulgaria in March, 1878 but finally remained with the Ottoman Empire in July, 1878. However, the heavy black line around the San Stefano borders of Bulgaria, the title "Liberated Bulgaria", and the absence of any detail for the surrounding regions reifies the San Stefano borders as defining a "real Bulgaria". The map is also silent on the fact that these borders were never actually put into practice (there were no Bulgarian policemen in Bitola) and that even in theory they only lasted for five months. --macrakis (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasonable input. Please note, though, that this map is meant to illustrate Bulgaria-related articles, and as such it is supposed to be relevant to Bulgarian historiography. It is no different than any other map of post-Liberation Bulgarian history. Yes, the word "Liberation" is opinionated, but "Liberation of Bulgaria" is the only established term in Bulgarian historiography, and as you can see, it's widely used in English-language publications too.

In my view, the map in itself is all good. It serves it purpose as a map of San Stefano Bulgaria, the Principality of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia, and its relevance to the article is undisputable. So why remove it?

I fail to understand what you're arguing against: that the San Stefano entity was called Bulgaria or that the Treaty of San Stefano and the Treaty of Berlin brought the Liberation of Bulgaria from Ottoman rule? Sure, if that is the real problem, the name of the map can be discussed and changed, but within reason. I would accept something like "Bulgaria in the late 19th century" or "... in the 1870s-1880s", but I'm not willing to hear any of the "You invaded Greece and killed everybody so this map should be deleted outright" shit that I'm forced to put up with. Todor→Bozhinov 18:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• "the only established term in Bulgarian historiography"? This is not the Bulgarian WP. And will never become.
• ""Bulgaria in the late 19th century"? I told that before: Have a look in the article's title, this not Bulgaria's article. This is E.Rumelia's article. You have to have an E.Rumelia's map in the infobox not Bulgaria's
• Nobody can persuade i.e. the Albanians of Corce that had been liberated ..by the Bulgarians.
• Both two of you just edit warring and POVpushing and you know that very well. You just have consumed your 3 reverts technically using them to maintain the POVish state of the article. But with brute force and edit warring and that's just not acceptable. Here and in every other article [1].--Factuarius (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(Factuarius, I think you will be more productive if you make an effort to be more WP:CIVIL.)

(responding to Bozhinov) As you are surely aware, San Stefano Bulgaria existed only on paper, and only for 5 months. Giving it such a central place in the presentation of Bulgarian history in general and of Eastern Rumelia in particular is peculiar. Wouldn't you find it bizarre for articles on Greek history in the 20th century to feature Treaty of Sevres borders in their main maps? And in that case, Greece actually kept those territories for several years.

As for 'liberation', I realize that in Bulgarian historiography, a distinction is made between 'liberation' (1878) and 'independence' (1908), but it is still a problematic, POV term -- for any new nation-state. If you care to look at my edit history, you will find that I have corrected the word "liberation" in Greek War of Independence articles as well: not "the Greeks liberated Tripoli on xxx", but "the Greeks took Tripoli on xxx". More neutral terms are things like "creation of the modern Bulgarian state", "ending of Ottoman rule", etc. --macrakis (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, "Creation of modern Bulgaria (1878)" sounds fine for the map's title. I can do it on Monday when I'm back in Sofia. If you can't wait till then, feel free to edit the map, but please try to keep it in the same font and style.

I'm against any dimissals of the importance of San Stefano, however. While it existed briefly and only on paper, it was vital to Bulgarian politics up until 1944, and it would be unreasonable to present Eastern Rumelia outside the context of it. Eastern Rumelia was just that: a brief stage in the formation of the modern Bulgarian state.

And yes, the de jure independence of Bulgaria of 1908 was a comparatively minor event when viewed side by side with the liberation of 1878. Bulgaria was de facto independent from 1878 on (I can cite many arguments for that and it is the established view among scholars). It is not coincidental that the national holiday is 3 March (the signing of San Stefano), not 22 September (declaration of de jure independence). Todor→Bozhinov 19:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

@Macrakis. Admitting being somewhat annoyed, but have you taken a look in the edit summary? They first shoot and after that asking questions. Like in the west. They are not accepting the most obvious. They accepting to discuss the minor, the caption of the his map, to get over with the real issues: the actual text of the article and the deletion of the ethnological maps. I know the guys very well from the past, they are extremely POVish and are not doing the slightest effort to conceal it, have a look to their user pages [2][3]. They are thinking their selfs as "heroes of Bulgaria"..! They are battleground warriors and I am afraid you will find out that by yourself during the next days. They understand very well what you are tell, but they are determined to maintain the POVish status of the article(s) at any cost. But I don't want to discourage you, have your try. --Factuarius (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Todor, I would suggest "Bulgaria (1878)" with the dark, heavy boundary around the Treaty of Berlin borders (end of 1878), with the additional San Stefano territory shown in a different color and appropriate captions (e.g. "Proposed Bulgarian territory (San Stefano)"). About your point that the San Stefano boundaries were important in Bulgarian politics until 1944, no doubt; similar things in Greek politics exist, but we don't show Northern Epirus and Smyrna as part of Greece in the 20th century in Wikipedia. --macrakis (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not showing San Stefano territory as part of 20th-century Bulgaria either. I was merely pointing out its relevance to Eastern Rumelia.

Changing the thickness and colour of borders I consider a very minor, if not petty, issue, and it would require redrawing the map, as it is not vector-based. It is not something I can devote time to currently, especially given that I have a pretty significant backlog of articles and other maps to do. I also have to find some more time for POV pushing, vandalism and nationalist quarrels in between :)

I'll consider that specific issue pretty much solved then. I'm a man of my word and I'll edit the map as soon as I'm back in Sofia. If there's anything else to talk about, do write. It is a joy to discuss with you, especially compared to some other Greek editors, ahem. Todor→Bozhinov 23:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why the San Stefano map is necessary here. The arguments presented for it are either nonsensical or irrelevant. So what if it's important to Bulgarian historiography? This isn't an article on Bulgarian historiography. It is primarily a geography article. All we need is a map of Eastern Rumelia. Anything else will only serve to confuse our readers. We don't show a map of the Treaty of Sevres in the article on Epirus do we? Or, why not a map with Eastern Rumelia within the current borders of Bulgaria? Why the insistence on San Stefano? The word "liberated" is also highly POV and inflammatory. Inserting such a map in this article is POV and tendentious. The 1882 map is more neutral and hence preferrable. --Athenean (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"I don't understand why the San Stefano map is necessary here": then read above. Eastern Rumelia is not a geographic region, it's a short-lived political entity within the context of the creation of modern Bulgaria. It's not Thrace or Epirus to be a geographic region. In fact, have you even read what it is?

The 1882 map is bearable, but it is still worse than mine because it is less clear and uses antiquated names. Not to mention it lacks the context of San Stefano and Berlin. Todor→Bozhinov 17:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, this is not the "San Stefano map" it is the "Bulgaria of San Stefano map" which is by definition irrelevant here. Especially in the infobox of the article. Did you read what both Makrakis and Athenean wrote about the Treaty of Sevres and Greece? This is not a subsection of Bulgaria article, it is about E.Rumelia as a self contented entity, as a indepent state with its own capital Philipopolis etc. Be reasonable.--Factuarius (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A number of users have raised issues regarding the San Stefano map. On the other hand, I see no serious arguments against the 1882 map. It is accurate, neutral, and shows Eastern Rumelia in a "Bulgarian context". Oh, and by the way, Sarakatsani aren't Bulgarians of Greek descent, any more than Pomaks are Greeks of Bulgarian (or Thracian) descent. After all, we have an article called Greeks in Bulgaria, not Bulgarians of Greek descent in Bulgaria. --Athenean (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The 1882 map is okay but worse, so no reason to include it. You failed to understand that it's not the Sarakatsani who are called "Bulgarians of Greek descent", but the remnants of an actual urban Greek community in Bulgarian Thrace. "Several thousand Bulgarians of Greek descent still inhabit the region, as do the Sarakatsani transhumant shepherds." What in this sentence implies that the Karakachani are Bulgarians of Greek descent? Todor→Bozhinov 11:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what, when you get around to implement macrakis' suggestions (all of them), I may be willing to reconsider. But as long as you are "too busy" to implement them (though not too busy to edit-war it seems), we go with the 1882 map, k? I hope you can understand why I cannot and will not accept a map that shows half of Greece as "Liberated Bulgaria". We all here know that the treaty of San Stefano was a dead letter, but we can't assume all of our readers know that. As for the "Bulgarians of Greek descent", well what can I say. Those people suddenly stopped being Greeks and became "Bulgarians" when the borders changed? That's nonsense and you know it. --Athenean (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Our readers can learn about the San Stefano treaty with a single click, so this is not a serious argument. The map doesn't say Liberated Bulgaria, nor does its description on this page, so I don't see why you keep pointing this out.

About the Bulgarians of Greece - doesn't a certain country south of Bulgaria call its Slavic speaking population Slavophone Greeks? Kostja (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Slavophone Greeks designation is accepted because these people identify as Greeks. I very much doubt the remaining Greeks in Bulgaria identify as Grecophone Bulgarians. According to your argument, we should be calling the Pomaks "Muslim Greeks of Bulgarian descent". Nonsense. --Athenean (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Again what is the point of keeping San Stefano map in this article? San Stefano, which never was is irrelevant for the subject of Eastern Rumelia question. What you can do is show overall Ottoman borders after the ratified Berlin Congress at least that would be on topic and related to the creation of Eastern Rumelia within the borders of Ottoman Turkey in conjunction with the Ottoman vassal territory the Principality of Bulgaria. If one goes to see the article Principality of Bulgaria the first map that sticks out again is the San Stefano map, it is shoved where ever possible just show Bulgarian assertions of what never was…I find this pointless. Hittit (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The treaty of Berlin was a modification of the San Stefano treaty. This map shows the process of this modification, so it's quite relevant to the issue. Apart from that, the vision of San Stefano was one of the reasons for the revolution which unified Eastern Rumelia with the principality, so another reason for inclusion of the map. Kostja (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

Can anyone explain what the reason for those reverts is? Is the talk page not enough for you guys? You're achieving nothing by unjustified edits that you're failing to defend in any way. You should know better than anybody that it is arguments and logic that will resolve a dispute, not a war. Todor→Bozhinov 12:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See again the edit log. You will remember that you started the rv and even without any explanation. That's the first[4] and is yours, that's the last [5], also yours. The first has as explanation the words "rv, push-push" and the last "yeah, the minor changes are out too" Not to comment Gligan's rvs in which the only explanation in the log was the announcment of the rv "rv"! And now you are coming here saying that with "arguments and logic will resolve a dispute, not a war"!!! just minutes after your last (and 3rd) rv. Be a little serious plz. I am here three days to talk but you discuss only after your last rv. Admiting nothing, not even the most obvious that a map of the Bulgaria cannot be used as the E.Rumelia's infobox map! Plz --Factuarius (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was wrong, in your last rv you:

• rv the Greek name of state (although it had 11% Greek population at the time).

42,654 out of 815,946 don't seem to be 11% + you don't have the Turkish name of Bulgaria in ots infobox even though the Turk might already be nearly 11%

You have to have the Greek name even if it was 1%

And why is that? Do you have the Bulgarian name of Greece in the country infobox since the so called "Slavophonic Greeks" are more than 1%?

• rv the E.Rumelia map with that of the Bulgaria

That map does not show Bulgaria. It shows the division of the Treaty of Berlin as compared to the preliminary territory at San Stefano.

Wrong it shows the "San Stephano Bulgaria. And you know that very well because you create it putting the title was "Bulgaria Liberated"

And what, do you consider Korcha, Voden, Lerin, Kostur, Kukush ever being part of Bulgaria after the Liberation?

• you removed the ethnological map

Yes, the wrong one.

Wrong? It was the map upon the borders of both Bulgaria & E.Rumelia took their borders. It is the only ethnological map ever mattered in the Balkans and as such has a major historical value as a document

How many time I have to explain you that the Great Power didn't care for maps in their policies and that this map has nothing to do with the decisions in Berlin.

• putted back the POVish "absolute" word

573,560 of 815,946 seem absolute majority or something very near to it.

No it is not, plz change your calculator

• rv the capital's name from Philipopolis to Plovdiv (although there is not a single map in the word showing the capital of that state as Plovdiv)

I repeat that maps show Istanbul as Constantinople which makes no sense.

You must be kidding you can find maps showing Constantinople of '60s or even '70s. Check

And what, you use Constantinople instead of Istanbul in Ottoman/Turkish-related articles?

• you putted back the word "artificial" (name) although 10 times have been told to you to find a ref for that characterization.

Have you heard of Eastern Rumelia before the establishment of the province? Furthurmore, I don't particularly insist on that, if you want to, put a request for citation.

I have told you a million times that you need a ref for such a characterization. You only rv.

Because your edits are even more ridiculous.

• you putted back the "Plovdiv sanjak" while have been told to you that there was not such Sanjak during the entire Ottoman occupation until 1878

?

and what was your rv explanation? only a tendecious msg about the name of the sanjak. And what happened with all the other rv (6)? And then minutes later you are coming here and you giving lessons of resolving a dispute with ..arguments and logic. Nice arguments. We can call them the "after three rv arguments". Plz --Factuarius (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Rumelia is linked with Bulgaria and the Treaties of San Stefano and Berlin and the whole policy of Bulgaria in the first decades was linked to those treaties so a map showing the changes between San Stafano and Berlin would be more useful. Your explanation about Plovdiv being used as Philipopolis on maps is ridiculous - they used Constantinople instead of Istanbul...

RE-READ WHAT MACRAKIS & ATHENEAN TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT --Factuarius (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to write with capital letters. --Gligan (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Map of Eastern Roumelia?

The main map should be that or Eastern Roumelia, for instance the 1899 map found at [6], or at [7]. The map of San Stephano Bulgaria seems too exclussive and can be moved further down, if still necessary. Politis (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the map that Factuarius has suggested is fine but it also shows Bulgaria, not only Eastern Rumelia. And in that logic, it would be more informative to have that one with San Stefano, although the other map is better according to me as layout. In my opinion the San Stefano map can be put in the section below, especially if a "Background" sub-section is written. --Gligan (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And why you mass rv everything? The map I putted has the major advantage to be a map of Rumelia. The map you just rv has the problem in being of Bulgaria. That is unacceptable for an infobox of an other state. Cannot understand that? It has been told that a nillion times all around. In the Talk in the edit logs. Where you where? You answering nothing and just rv. The Politis' propositions are logic and we can discuss them. If you both stop to rv. Thanks, ----Factuarius (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And can't you understand that in the first map Eastern Rumelia is not part of Bulgaria? San Stefano Bulgaria never existed. --Gligan (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Plovdiv/Philippopolis

Plovdiv is by far the preferred name of the city in English, therefore it makes no sense to use an antiquated name, which was used even then only by a minority. Kostja (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You first reverting and then talk? "Antiquated name? "Used only by a minority even then"? Can you find a single map of the era having another name than that? Just give me one and I will accept what you say. Only one. --Factuarius (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What maps used then is irrelevant. The name is antiquated regarding its usage in English. Only today's usage is important and that is Plovdiv. Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Kostja (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not like you're talking and not reverting either, Factuarius. Plovdiv is the only modern name of the city, as such, it is out of question to remove the name from the article entirely. Exactly this gives out your malicious intentions towards this article and the total lack of willingness to contribute positively whatsoever. So I'll basically invite you to, umm, stop?

To give you a very good example of hypocrisy, Factuarius. In Eastern Rumelia, you're insisting that the name in the suzerain's language be used (Ottoman Turkish Filibe) in addition to the name popular in the west at the time, but not the modern official and only English name of the city.

In Mitre The Vlach, you neither added the name in Ottoman Turkish, the language of the rulers of Macedonia at the time (no separate Turkish name is known, so presumably it would be a variation of the Bulgarian Konomladi) nor the name popular at the time (the native Bulgarian Konomladi). Instead, you removed all other names and changed the name to Makrochori, a modern Greek name that was not invented until 1926, 20 years after the article subject's death. Needless to say, that name was not in use at the time by anybody because it simply did not exist. On the contrary, Plovdiv's Bulgarian name has been used in that exact form since the 15th century.

Needless to say, classic malignant editing. Todor→Bozhinov 16:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No I am not. Why don't you ask Laveol about that? I never cared about Makrochori I didn't even knew its existence. And see better my edits you will find out that you own me at least a thanks. But I can't say more and you know. You messed the issue there with your madness to rv everything without seeing what you are doing. Also have a fresh look you will find out that after Laveol's last rv I didn't do anything and the names are how you left it. See. And go ask Laveol and then if it's possible to you admiting a wrong. You messed it there. --Factuarius (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you knew or cared about the village, your sheer attitude at tackling the same issue in different articles is important. And it clearly shows that you're not here to contribute to the encyclopedia at least in present.

I'm not the one who owes an apology. Unlike you, I don't request one. This is not the first case of blatant POV pushing I've had to deal with and certainly not the last. Todor→Bozhinov 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, could we please stop the WP:Personal attacks and stick to discussing the article?

As for naming, please read Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Treatment_of_alternative_names more carefully. It says that an article's title should be the common modern English name -- so of course the article about Plovdiv is at Plovdiv. However, it also says that historical names should be used in historical contexts. What is less clear is whether we should be using the official contemporary name (and I don't know if that was Filibe or Plovdiv -- probably both in different documents), one of the local contemporary names (Philippoupolis or Plovdiv), or the name found in contemporary English-language documents (apparently Philippoupolis).

On that other hand, what is clearer is that when speaking of the 'sanjak of XXX', we should be using the name of the sanjak, not the name of the modern city. The sanjak was presumably named (in Ottoman Turkish of course) Filibe, and not Philippoupolis or Plovdiv. --macrakis (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain what the official languages were in Eastern Rumelia, but Bulgarian was certainly one of the main used and quickly became the de-facto language. Of course in this language the city was named Plovdiv and the province Plovdiv Sanjak (or more correctly Plovdiv department). So it seems that there are two relevant names for Plovdiv and the province. The Bulgarian ones seem to be preferable as they reflect current usage, but a good point could be made about the Ottoman ones. In any case the Greek names are the least relevant. Kostja (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The administrative division of Eastern Rumelia was called Plovdiv Department, the administrative division of the Ottoman Empire was the sanjak of Filibe. Factuarius' edits simply substitute Plovdiv with Philippopolis and retain Filibe, which is already in the article. It's not about Filibe being there as the sanjak name, it's about the name Plovdiv being erased at all cost because apparently, at over 70%, the Bulgarian majority in the province was not clear enough.

Accurate and relevant maps cannot be offensive, quit the "There is no way we are going with a map that shows half of Greece as "Liberated Bulgaria"" stuff. Half of Greece-half of Meece, this is an accurate map of San Stefano Bulgaria, the Principality of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia that does not even has "liberated" in its name anymore. Todor→Bozhinov 18:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

At Athenean: I get it, you don't like San Stefano, but you're overdoing it. "Preliminary" already means that it was not implemented (and not to be implemented), and that it was to be reconsidered. Kindly revert yourself. Todor→Bozhinov 18:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't expect all of our readers to know what "preliminary" means. It's legalistic jargon. People in other parts of the world aren't as knowledgeable about treaties as in ours. How about we get rid of "preliminary" and keep "which was never implemented"? --Athenean (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How about we all hold our hands in peace and move to the Simple English Wikipedia? It's for that, right, for simple words? "Preliminary" is a nice and dandy English word and "preliminary treaty" is an established term. It is the way the Treaty of San Stefano is commonly described. The Preliminary Treaty of San Stefano (Санстефански предварителен договор), not "San Stefano, the treaty which was never implemented, never to be implemented, and it was a great mistake to even sign it because half of Greece was occupied by the man-eating Bulgar hordes who killed the entire population of Doxat in World War I and don't deserve to have a nice map in their article". The last quote was a joke, bear with my black humour, I just find the current obsession with Eastern Rumelia and the word "liberated" hilarious. Todor→Bozhinov 19:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

My 2 eurocents: using the name Plovdiv in the article is fine, especially since the other contemporary names are mentioned in the lead. About the maps, the Sanstefanska Bulgaria map as it is now is okay and relevant, but, since those borders were never implemented, that map should not be in the infobox. I understand the legendary status of San Stefano in Bulgarian national historiography, but in a neutral environment, Balkan borders should not be viewed through the prism of San Stefano.

What I think should be discussed more is the choice of languages in the lead and infobox, the Greek name shouldn't have been removed. I know Bulgarians see Eastern Rumelia as a second Bulgarian ethnic autonomous province, however, in other parts of the world, it is seen as just another multiethnic autonomous province. The choice of the name Eastern Rumelia in itself clearly reflects this point of view.--Ptolion (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like the current solution, I'm mostly happy with it as well. I don't think the Greek name is particularly notable, though. Bulgarians were the majority and Ottomans were the suzerains, so those languages should be out of dispute by now. Greeks, on the other hand, were a minority of 5-6%, some four times smaller than the number of Turkish-identifying people, which I think is a big enough barrier to stop with the names and not overdo it. Todor→Bozhinov 20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first, you really need to tone down the sarcasm. It is a form of aggression, it greatly inflames the atmosphere, and only makes thing more difficult for you. My point is this: It has to be made clear here and throughout wikipedia that the San Stefano treaty was never implemented. Not just to me and you, but also to Randy from Boise. We have to go for the lowest common denominator, unfortunately. Regarding the name, I agree with Ptolion. If you're worried that this might dilute the "Bulgarianess" of Eastern Rumelia, it doesn't. I think it's made abundantly clear throughout the article that Eastern Rumelia was predominantly Bulgarian in character. --Athenean (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Todor: True, however this isn't about notability, it is about the nature of the state. Eastern Rumelia was designed to be a neutral multiethnic province, and in this province Greeks had a vital interest - they were represented in the Regional Assembly. Of course I don't know the extent of the official use of the Greek language in Eastern Rumelia, however it was on at least one of their stamps. Leaving the Greek name out could be interpreted as an attempt to present Eastern Rumelia as a second Bulgarian ethnic autonomous province, the name "Eastern Rumelia" being an "artificial" (as Gligan puts it) attempt to present it as just a run-of-the-mill multiethnic Ottoman province and tone down its Bulgarianness. Possible, but POV.--Ptolion (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Ptolion. Come on... Eastern Rumelia existed for 7 years and joined the Principality of Bulgaria in a bloodless revolution that is called the Unification of Bulgaria. It doesn't get any simpler than that. It's bizarre to speak of a multinational province of joy and joyness. Eastern Rumelia failed because its majority population was opposed to its very existence and preferred to live together with its fellow people. That Eastern Rumelia was able to join the Principality of Bulgaria so easily, so trouble-free and unhindered speaks enough of its multiethnicity. Sure, on paper it wasn't Bulgarian and that was the goal of the Great Powers bar Russia at the time (all were against a powerful Russian ally in the Balkans), but in its history and politics, it absolutely was Bulgarian.

But really, that's off topic. Unless someone begs to convince me otherwise, in my view 5% is simply too little for a name in that language in the lead and infobox. Whether it makes it more or less clear how Bulgarian Eastern Rumelia was is not the point. So yeah, I'm open to your actual arguments (i.e. "we should include it because...", not "it won't hurt to include it".) Stamps, for example, are a valid argument, but by that logic we would have to include the irrelevant French.

@ Athenean. It's the way I speak, it won't change so you've got to learn to bear with it sometimes. No bad feelings. In Wikipedia, I don't ever speak about anybody personally and specifically (God forbid comment on someone outside of their own actions here) and I hardly ever take any remarks personally. So just shoot, it doesn't hurt to be direct if you're reasonable.

By the way, whether we include the Greek name somewhere or not, whether we call the Treaty of San Stefano preliminary or "never implemented", I'm glad that this dispute seems to have been resolved peacefully. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Todor, you're right, however I'm not disputing any of that. I'm suggesting that this "paper view" is sufficient to justify including Greek in the infobox. 5% is a good figure in my opinion, after all, there is German at Belgium and Swedish at Finland. Since Eastern Rumelia wasn't a national province (on paper as you put it) and we haven't got a language law to refer to (unlike the other examples), stuff like this is all we have to go on. About French, it was probably included as lingua franca.--Ptolion (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, I'm not quite sure if the Greek name shouldn't be preserved as well. Whether influenced (or should I say although highly influenced) by British and etc Western interests or not, the Greek name was kinda official in the province or whatever we should call it. След продължителни дискусии при окончателното редактиране на Органическия устав се приело употребата на трите езика в Областното събрание и предимство на езика на мнозинството на населението в окръжните, околийските и общинските служби. И тъй като българите били мнозинство в областта и в събранието, българският език в действителност се наложил като единствен официален език в Източна Румелия. Or in other words, it was official in the local Parliament. It would've been official in part of the municipalities or areas or (what do you call a province of a province?) if Greeks formed a majority in any of these. Since they did not Greek remained official in the Parliament only. Nevertheless, leaving it in the infobox'd hardly hurt. I see it rather as a willingness towards reaching a compromise on this article. --Laveol ^T 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a separate law, but we have the Constitution (Organicheski Ustav). It says Greek was official. I'll go ahead and put it back. Oh, and I remembered the word. It's departments (ashamed).--Laveol ^T 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's enough of a reason for me, I'm fine with the latest edits and the inclusion of Greek. Todor→Bozhinov 09:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is one last thing that bothers me: The "Bulgarians of Greek descent" bit at the end. While most Greeks in Eastern Rumelia were exchanged, as the article Greeks in Bulgaria makes clear, a few have remained (766 in Plovdiv). Now, while I'm sure some of those now identify as Bulgarians, we can't say that all of them do. --Athenean (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Four ethnographic maps ?!

Now I see four ethnographic maps in an article that needs one, maximum two... What are you doing? --Gligan (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact since things had gone wild, I will add another two maps. Whether they are going to be four or six, I don;t see the difference. --Gligan (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your sense of humor, but others might not see it the same way. See WP:Point.

I agree that articles like this one shouldn't contain ethnic maps. The discussion at the Administrative noticeboard and Talk:Treaty of San Stefano seems also to lean to removing irrelevant maps. Kostja (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this article contains an extended Demographics section, I don't think ethnographic maps are out of place. Each article is different and we must look at them on a case by case basis. Athenean (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

None of these maps were made while Eastern Rumelia existed and held censused which are actually discussed in the demographics section. Kostja (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

elections were held in 1879 and the census in 1884. Close enough. Athenean (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The ethnographic maps are not out of place. But we do not need four maps and definitely we do not need wrong maps (Stanford's one). On his map we have all agreed I think that it is wrong in terms of ethic composition and it is only applicable in connection with the Treaty of Berlin, not as a reference for ethic distribution. --Gligan (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

San Stefano map

User:Hittit insists on removing the map which compares Bulgaria according to the San Stefano map with the map with Bulgaria according to the Berlin treaty. He hasn't given arguments for his reverts except the incorrect assertion that there is already a map on this subject. Actually, only in this map the creation of Eastern Rumelia is shown and a comparison between the province and San Stefano Bulgaria province is made. Additionally, the map of Bulgaria in 1878 is also relevant because San Stefano was largely the inspiration for the eventual unification of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia. Hittit also claims that the map is POV but he has failed to explain this. There is ongoing discussion about the map at Talk:Treaty of San Stefano where it has been agreed for now that the map might be changed if a better one is made. Hittit's removal of this map is not really constructive to the ongoing discussion. I would be interested in the opinion of other editors on the subject. Kostja (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Arguments have been given plenty of times, you have no justificaiton to push missleding self-modified maps using draft borders from San Stefano in every article you find suitable. There is already a proper map of Eastern Rumelia in accordance with the Berlin Congress that is quite enough. If you have urges to shows greater Bulgarian boundaries, which as such never exisited find some other article. There was no such Bulgaria as claimed by this quasi-map in 1878 (fact). In 1878 there was a vassal Principality and a autonomous Eastern Rumelia, this is according to the treaties signed and ratified. If the article is on Eastern Rumelia try to stick to Eastern Rumelia subject...If you want to link San Stefano to the creation of Eastern Rumelia then you need to find the paragraph in San Stefano that mentions Eastern Rumelia and source your claim properly. Hittit (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Try being a bit more civil. I'm not the one pushing anything, you are the one who keeps removing a long established map. This map compares Eastern Rumelia to the Bulgarian borders proposed by the San Stefano treaty. This is relevant to the article for the reasons I explained above. That San Stefano wasn't realized in practice doesn't mean that such a state wasn't created by the treaty, this is really an irrelevant argument. You also haven't explained why the map is POV. Kostja (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Images in the article

The points of conflict include:

1. the inclusion of a more general map of Bulgaria in the 1870s which also shows the San Stefano borders in addition to the Berlin borders (File:Bulgaria-SanStefano -(1878)-byTodorBozhinov.png)
2. the inclusion of a large number of ethnographic maps of the Balkans in the 1870s (example of four ethnraphic maps in the article)

Todor→Bozhinov 08:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind the users who insist on the ethnographic maps remaining in the article, that in the recent discussion about the issue on the administrator's noticeboard ([8]) the consensus reached was that ethnographic map captions should be removed and the bias of the various authors discussed in the article body. Now that Athenean has included a section on ethnic maps, it's necessary that the proper context of the maps is added to the article so that our readers will not be left with the wrong impression that all of those authors were neutral. I invite anyone who has information about this to add it to the article so to avoid pointless edit wars about POV. Kostja (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, may I invite you to the talk page for once? I'm not seeing any well-grounded reasons for the inclusion of the maps here. Go ahead please. Todor→Bozhinov 16:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to "invite" me, if only for "once", but I really don't see what the fuss is all about. I think we can all agree that ethnic demographics are relevant here. As such, such maps are useful to the reader and fully relevant. As I've mentioned in the main text, they are the first source of information on the ethnic demographics of the place. I've made sure to discuss them in the main text, and I see that Kostja has done a very thorough follow-up job. It seems the only one who objects is you, using constantly changing excuses. First it was "there should only be one map" [9], when you know full well it will be well-nigh impossible to get all the participants here to agree on a single map. Then it was that my additions to the main text were unreferenced [10], even though it is common knowledge that a) Eastern Rumelia was multi-ethnic as was the rest of the Ottoman Empire in 19th century b) The maps are the earliest sources on the ethnic demographics c) they all show Turks, Greeks, and Bulgarians in varying proportions. All these statements are no-brainers, not that I couldn't source them if I had to. Then it was that the placement was wrong [11]: The oh-so-hated map of Stanford was on top, therefore they all had to go. What's next, I wonder. You seem to be conflating this article with Treaty of San Stefano. While in hindsight you may have had a point that ethnographic maps were irrelevant there, this article is a completely different kettle of fish, and the maps are much more relevant here. Athenean (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the "fully relevant" claim, obviously I'm disagreeing with it. I'm not offering "constantly changing excuses" but rather various reasons why these maps and certain sentences in the body have no place here, hoping that you might consider at least one of these reasons.

1. Not fully relevant. Just like San Stefano is a treaty, Eastern Rumelia is a short-lived political entity. The San Stefano article is not Demographic history of the Balkans, neither is this one Demographic history of Northern Thrace. While it is explained in the body why two of the maps are strongly POV, there is no body treatment to make them relevant. In particular, why is the Stanford map a suitable choice for this article despite its universally acknowledged fictionality?
2. Too many. In fact, four ethnographic maps from the 1870s would be a strain even for Demographic history of Northern Thrace, what's left for Eastern Rumelia. I'm not saying an ethnographic map will be useless, it's just that they are four, one of which is imaginary. Ideally, there should be one in my opinion.
3. Undue weight. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." At the moment, the demographic section is half the article and ethnographic maps are 2/3 of all images, which are, incidentally, all maps. No ethnographic map treats Eastern Rumelia in specific or even the 1880s as a period, and more than half of the demographic section is either pre-Eastern Rumelia or post-Eastern Rumelia. Undue weight is given to Greek views and Greek-related content specifically, while the province itself had a Greek population of 5–8%. To give you a vague idea which should not necessarily be used as a benchmark, the word "Bulgarian" is found in the body 25 times and the word "Greek" 15 times, a ratio of 5/3.
4. Not accurate. I'm not talking only about Stanford here. The Russo–Turkish War of 1877–78 resulted in a significant exodus of Turkish population from present-day Bulgaria, which is not reflected in any of these maps, simply because the latest of them date to 1877. Todor→Bozhinov 20:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point #1 is irrelevant, because this article is about Eastern Rumelia period, not the Short-lived political entity of Eastern Rumelia. Ethnic demographics were important, regardless of whether the entity was short-lived or long-lived. Your point #2 is entirely subjective, and your point about a single map is disingenuous, because you know full well none agree with each other. Your point number 3 is pure sophistry and math gimmicks, which I am not interested in. I could just as easily argue that the whole emphasis in the article on how Bulgarian, Bulgarian, and by the way, Bulgarian, Eastern Rumelia was to be just as "Undue". Regarding your point #4, what can I say, not only is it entirely OR, but apparently there are still plenty of Turks and Muslims in Northern Thrace (an article which btw does not exist). Now I've heard all these arguments before several times now, and I do not find them any more convincing than the previous time around. I have said all I've had to say on the matter, and at this point I would me more interested in what other people have to say. After all, that is the point of an RfC. Athenean (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

About point 1: apart from the information about the neutrality of the maps, all the demographic information is about the period after 1878, so their relevance to the article is not really explained.

2.: It's the general consensus that there shouldn't be too many ethnic maps in articles like this one.

3.: Since Eastern Rumelia was about 70% Bulgarian at the time and that this proved crucial for the fate of the province, it's quite appropriate to devote a significant part of the demographic section to this point. And undue weight is given to the Greeks in Eastern Rumelia, who, for example, are the only group to have their post-1885 fate described in the article.

4.: The point about the Muslims is not OR, it's described in two sources in the article.

While I'm prepared to accept the current version as a compromise, I'm still not entirely convinced that removal of all maps wouldn't be better. In any case, better arguments should be presented unlike those rather chaotic comments by Athenean above. Kostja (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Eastern-Rumelia annexation was a meticulously planned act in violation of the Berlin Congress. After the Turco-Russian war huge number of Turks left the area and were force to leave their lands. Bulgarian tactics made sure either with physical threat or by subjecting Turkish property to such a high taxation that it made it impossible for those people to return and survive. As such census showing Eastern-Runelian population was done only after modifying the ethnic structure of the area to support Bulgarian occupation based on population. Even then Turks still constituted 20% of the area today they still do in some parts 70% in some parts 11%. This is quite amazing having in mind 1,5 – 2 million Turks were clean from Bulgarian since 1878.Hittit (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Even according to the nationalist Turkish historian Kemal Karpat, the Bulgarians were a majority before the war. The massive Turkish exodus is already described in the article, so I don't see the point of the above post. Talk pages are not for discussion for the subject as you certainly know. Kostja (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Athenean:

1. Eastern Rumelia was not the name of a historical or geographic region. All it refers to is the political entity which existed from 1878 to 1885. That said, the way you're linking Short-lived political entity of Eastern Rumelia makes no sense and resembles trolling.
2. It's obvious to anyone that the maps are too many. This was the case in San Stefano, and this is the case here. While all maps have some differences, I cannot say that they do not agree with one other. It's only the Stanford map that stands out remarkably.
3. Your goal is to present the Greek POV in the article as prominently as possible, no wonder you're not interested in WP:UNDUE.
4. Are you saying the expulsion of Muslims after the war is original research? It is easily verifiable. I'm not saying there wasn't a significant remaining Muslim population, my point is merely that a 1877 map cannot possibly reflect events which happened in 1878, and as such, it is bound to be inaccurate for the 1878–1885 period.

I'd be glad if we receive some outside input as well, I believe it's pretty clear me and Kostja agree on all points and it is only Athenean that seems to disagree. Todor→Bozhinov 11:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

New Map

I have created a new map based on the old map. It shows the difference between the Treaty of San Stefano and the Congress of Berlin more clearly, and the colors have been changed so that it is easier to distinguish between the Principality of Bulgaria, Eastern Rumelia, and Ottoman Macedonia. Thoughts, comments, suggestion, hate mail? Athenean (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the changing of the focus of the map (though perhaps a black line should be drawn around Eastern Rumelia as well and there is no need to capitalize preliminary, this wasn't the official name). However, I strongly disagree with the removal of the alternate Bulgarian names. They are certainly relevant for a map this, as at least according to the San Stefano treaty, they were part of Bulgaria. Kostja (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This map is much better I have no objections for its use in this format. Only one correction. In the caption is says Bulgaria after treaty X and Y, pls note it was not an independent state after either document but a vasal, now it could be confusing. Good job! Best Regards!Hittit (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Alternate Bulgarian names should stay after all, the map has a Bulgarian context. Retaining only Greek names in southern Macedonia is devoid of logic. These towns were not Greek-ruled at the time and most of them were not predominantly Greek-speaking.
• Also, a dashed black line might be a better idea for the San Stefano borders than a grey line, I don't think I have seen such coloured lines used in cartography. We can also use a dotted black line around both the principality and Eastern Rumelia so the 1885 unification is more apparent.
• Finally, the map title "differences in the boundaries..." is bad because a title should be as concise as possible. Try something like "Bulgaria (1878) according to the Treaty of San Stefano and Treaty of Berlin".

Thanks for your work, but please wait until tomorrow before including this map in any article. I'll try to do a vector-based version this evening. Todor→Bozhinov 12:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• • No problem with including the Bulgarian names for cities in southern Macedonia, though I think including Bulgarian names for Durres and Istanbul is a bit of a stretch. But whatever, I don't really care.
  • "Bulgaria (1878) according to the Treaty of San Stefano and Treaty of Berlin." is fine too
  • I used a red line for the boundary between ER and the Ottoman Empire to highlight its unique status. I suppose a dashed line would work too, though I'd have to see it first. Athenean (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

SVG map

I couldn't make the SVG map to display tonight (I'll try to troubleshoot that tomorrow), but here's a large PNG directly from the vector source. I'm open to suggestions. Todor→Bozhinov 22:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, not bad, but I still prefer my version, it does a better job of actually highlighting Eastern Rumelia, whereas it is harder to see here. The difference between the CB and SS boundaries is also more apparent, this one looks more like a map of Greater Bulgaria. Also, "Bulgaria (1878-1885)" will not do. Macedonia was never part of Bulgaria. The way it is written, some readers might assume these were the borders of Bulgaria between 1878-1885. On a minor note, Thessaly in 1881 was no longer part of the Ottoman Empire. Athenean (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Your map is more clear than the two versions below, example of historically correct version http://www.cee-portal.at/Bilderordner/Maps/Balkan-1815-1915.jpg.Hittit (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What would you suggest for Eastern Rumelia? The logic behind the slightly lighter grey stripes is "Ottoman control, but weaker", i.e. administratively autonomous. Should I go for some other colour in the stripes altogether? Like yellow or something? I'd like to keep the red stripes idea because it does well to make the map both readable and well interpretable (in the previous map the different colours made it difficult to see the actual San Stefano borders).

I don't think there's anything wrong with "Bulgaria (1878-1885)", after all the map highlights all territorial changes in the 1878–1885 timeframe. The "Macedonia was never part of Bulgaria" argument is not only entirely wrong, but also unintentionally offensive. It's okay though, I'll go with "Bulgaria (1878)", that would spare me the trouble of drawing Thessaly :) Todor→Bozhinov 06:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How's that now? It's a new file because I changed the filename too. Todor→Bozhinov 16:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, what about my maps of San-Stefano Bulgaria? File:Sanstefanska Bulgaria.png and File:Bulgaria after Congress of Berlin in 1878.png I think that they are more precisely. Todor if you have time you can make a SVG version?--Пакко (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The maps are in Bulgarian, which is a strike against them, but I suppose they could be translated. I like the second map, which is far more detailed than any of the current suggestions. Kostja (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The second map is indeed pretty good. If it could be translated, I don't see a problem with using it. Not that there is anything wrong with the other proposed maps though. Athenean (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Пакко's maps are very detailed and accurate, but I wanted to do something in-between, with both the San Stefano and Berlin borders easily readable and equally emphasized. If layered and text-editable PSDs are available, the maps should be easy to translate. However, redrawing one of those as SVG would take a lot of time and careful work. Even the more simple map that I made took me four hours of uninterrupted work, one of those would probably take over six.

Up to you guys to decide, if we can get an English version of File:Bulgaria after Congress of Berlin in 1878.png with some kind of delicate fill in the San Stefano borders to make them more easily readable, I'd be fine with that map. Todor→Bozhinov 21:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Right on, however, I have a feeling that may take a while. In the meantime, we have to decide whether to use my map or your map. I like the perspective on my map better and it highlights the borders more, but your map also shows neighboring countries. Not crazy about the perspective though, and I still disagree with "Bulgaria (1878)". Athenean (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand, thought you were fine with "Bulgaria (1878) according to the Treaty of San Stefano and the Treaty of Berlin". Is it because of the different font sizes and styles? Having all elements the same size wouldn't really look good. What would you suggest? Todor→Bozhinov 07:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How about "Proposed border of Bulgaria (1878)" in large font, with the rest in smaller font? Athenean (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It would have been a valid title idea for, say, this map, but mine has both the San Stefano borders and the Berlin borders, so it would be unclear which are regarded as "proposed".

Also, there's the point that the San Stefano borders were not just some random proposal. It's not like some bright bloke just had the idea and exclaimed "Hey guys, let's have Bulgaria extend to Lake Ohrid and Thessaloniki!". While Bulgaria did not administrate the San Stefano borders (for the simple reason that at the time its territory was under provisional Russian military administration), they were still affirmed by an international treaty signed by Russia and the Ottoman Empire, the side that had to make those territorial concessions in the first place. Yes, the borders were pending the review of the remaining Great Powers and were not meant to be a final decision, but they were factual.

In your map, you have used the wording "Differences in the boundaries of Bulgaria..." Why do you consider my wording unacceptable? It's a political map, so it obviously shows boundaries, and the legend and graphics make it clear there are differences depicted. Is there anything else that's bothering you? Todor→Bozhinov 19:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how you mean the San Stefano borders were "factual". They never existed on the ground, only on paper. Also the part about Russian military administration: To my knowledge Russia never administered Thessaloniki or Ohrid. Anyway, my point is that "Bulgaria 1878" is misleading. We have to make sure to say the borders were provisional or proposed. "Bulgaria 1878" implies they actually existed on the ground. How about "Proposed and actual borders of Bulgaria, 1878". I think it's pretty clear that the stripes would refer to the proposed borders and the solid area to the actual borders. But that still doesn't resolve the question of why not use my map. Athenean (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Russia did not administer Thessaloniki - it wasn't included in the San Stefano territories at all. I don't know about Ohrid, but this doesn't change the fact that such a treaty existed and Bulgaria had such borders according to this treaty. Proposed is also misleading as the San Stefano treaty actually awarded those territories to Bulgaria. Your map also has some problems, with the rather arbitrary removal of the Bulgarian names. Still, I'm not strongly opposed against it as a compromise version, though I would prefer Пакко's map, though it's drawback is that it's not in English and it might be difficult to translate it. Kostja (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It was a preliminary treaty, there is a difference. The point is, those borders never existed on the ground. Now, I agree that Pakko's map is pretty good. However, I have a feeling it will be a while before it is translated, if ever. If I were to restore the Bulgarian names in my map, would that make it sufficiently palatable to you? Athenean (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, "proposed" won't work because it is not a good description of what the San Stefano borders were, and the same goes for "actual". How about "Provisional and revised borders of Bulgaria (1878)."?

As for your map, it's of inferior technical quality (which is understandable, after all you had to draw over an existing map, I'm not blaming you) and it doesn't illustrate the shared and individual characteristics of each zone well enough. For the quality of the article's sake, I'd rather revise mine. Todor→Bozhinov 21:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Provisional and revised would work. Regarding your map, if it's not too much to ask, could you use the same shade of grey for the stripes in Macedonia that you used for the Ottoman Empire, like you did for the Romanian part of Dobruja and Vranje in Serbia? Athenean (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. All good? Todor→Bozhinov 19:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All good!Athenean (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are Ottoman territories in Macedonia in a different colour than the rest of the Ottoman territories? Only territories with chaged status should be with a different marking. Since Bulgarian occupation of Eastern Rumelia is not part of the Berlin Treaty nor is Eastern Rumelia mentioned in the perliminary SS why is there a need to write unification with Bulgaria and the same time you are referring to the treaties, which do not envisage such "unification". Eastern Rumelia and in fact the Principlity were under nomial Ottoman control uintil 1908...only then can we talk of Bulgarian borders. http://www.cee-portal.at/Bilderordner/Maps/Balkan-1815-1915.jpg Hittit (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Purge your cache, Macedonia's colouring has been altered. The unification is valuable context that only adds to the map's quality.

And sorry, but arguably the principality was never under Ottoman control post-1878, not even theoretical. Yes, formally it was a vassal state until 1908, but de facto it always acted as an independent state, and this included Eastern Rumelia after 1885. From the very beginning of its existence the principality far exceeded its rights, in violation of the Berlin treaty, and the Ottoman sultan could never directly influence Bulgaria's politics as a sovereign. The best example: the Ottoman Empire did not even make a move to counter the unification of its autonomous province, Eastern Rumelia, and its de jure vassal Principality of Bulgaria. Such was the authority of the sultan over present-day Bulgaria. This is not something that I am particularly willing to discuss yet again though, I've had enough of your unfailingly anti-Bulgarian agenda. Todor→Bozhinov 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Altered but yet dufferent from the rest of Ottoman territories? "de facto" aspects you can argue in the article, the maps and treaties are "de jure" these are official documents, if you refer to these then you need to draw them correctly.Hittit (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. The map is correctly drawn and Macedonia is coloured following exactly the same logic the Mangalia and Pirot strips were based on. You want me not to colour Macedonia red at all? Todor→Bozhinov 06:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Macedonia cannot follow the same logic of colour marking as the other areas, since the status of Macedonia was unchanged therefore it should remain uncoloured, if you choose you can still show lines of suggested SS borders but that would be for comparison reasons just as the map states. The area of Eastern Runeli can be then coloured in the same markings as you have Macedonia now since Eastern Rumelia was an Ottoman autonomy (should include the same colour as Ottoman territory). Furthermore, your area of Eastern Rumelia is not correct as it currently shows Kardzhali to be somehow in Eastern Rumelia? Kardzhali should be well within Ottoman territories. Moreover, if you insist on de facto area control instead of de jour then you need to also ad the Republic of Tamrash in separate colouring. And one more thing please be respectful and when naming the towns and areas under Ottoman Turkish control use their Turkish names as these historically were at that period.Hittit (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Kardzhali was part of Eastern Rumelia until it was ceded to the Ottoman Empire by the Tophane Agreement, this is indicated in Pakko's map, but unfortunately it's in Bulgarian. Kostja (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Does it change the fact that Tamrash and Kardzhali were outside Bulgarian control and later de jour within Ottoman territory? It should be reflected in the map.Hittit (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Pensionero

I reverted these edits [12] by Pensionero as unacceptably POV, particularly the references to Eastern Rumelia in other languages. The current version was agreed upon after a painstaking consensus, and such major changes should not be enacted unless a new consensus emerges. Athenean (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I just haven't saw that the greek name have been agreed here. Pensionero (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Since this is the second time a number (not all) of 19th century ethnographic maps are removed without explanation I believe a good explanation is needed here.Alexikoua (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoever added this idiotic map File:Edward Stanford 1877.jpg, it is a speculation and definetely not suitable for here. Pensionero (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against the inclusion of Stanford's map, but only if presented in its proper context. More specifically, that it was actually written by a high ranking Greek diplomat in London (who incidentally was astoundingly ignorant of the Bulgarians, though it didn't prevent him from writing about them at length). I think this should be mentioned in the caption of the map, to remove a false impression of neutrality. Kostja (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Stanfor's mao is lying. It is ridiculous to argue when you see all Thrace and Region of Macedonia painted as populated by Greeks, absurd Pensionero (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Having in mind that before 1877 50% or by some speculated to have been over 50% of the population of Rumelia (Bulgaria, Northern Greece, Thessaly and Macedonia) to have been Muslims all presented maps are absurd. Each newly independent Balkan state has its own version of ethnic distribution of the Balkans and all in their own favour as if the Turkish and Muslim element never existed. The fact is that after 1877 up to 5 million Muslims were forced out of the area and their property seized. Hittit (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is irrelevant to the subject at hand. You're just presenting the Turkish propaganda view which is as biased as the others and probably more than maps made by neutral observers. Kostja (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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

That is not a subject we are discussing please, almost all historical maps show Bulgarian majority of course in Eastern Rumelia and even Macedonia, this map is ridicilous it have to be deleted, there are enough reliable maps for the article. What about your opposing of the reliable maps and claiming some unreal facts for the Turks in the area, on this logic I can claim in Turkey there are 10 million turkified Bulgarians? And secondly I will not remove the Greek name, but I will ask why is it needed in the article? Pensionero (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Province or vilayet

Those who try to describe Eastern Rumelia as an autonomous vilayet claim that the term is not usually translated. However, common English usage should always have precedence and that usage is clearly on the side of province:
"autonomous province" "eastern rumelia" - 637 hits
"autonomous vilayet" "eastern rumelia" - 3 hits and they are all from Turkish authors, so they don't reflect common English usage.
After all, Eastern Rumelia was quite different from the other vilayets, being the creation of the Great powers, so it's unreasonable to apply the same rules. Also, Bulgarian was the main language instead of Turkish, so if we used the same principle as for the other vilayets, it should be called oblast - and province is the accepted Wikipedia translation for that term, so even according to this principle it should be province. Kostja (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Vilayet is the correct term Vilayets of the Ottoman Empire as all Ottoman provinces are denominated as Vilayets. Like it or not Eastern Rumelia was an offical part of the Ottoman Empire and as such you cannot call it oblast, but you need to be inline with Ottoman denomination of administrative regions. Hittit (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not called autonomous vilayet in English. I think I've shown it clearly. And I'm not calling it oblast, but province which is Wikipedia usual translation of the term. Kostja (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Eyalet, Vilayet and Sanjak are official denominations of historical Ottoman admnistrative regions, it is correct to refer to these areas with their proper historical/official names. All Ottoman Vilayets are donominated in Wikipedia as Vilayets as per their historical denomination, why should Eastern Rumelia be different just to suit some Bulgarian POV. Hittit (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So you've actually ignored everyting I've repeated several times. Once again: Eastern Rumelia was different from the other vilayets and the common usage in English is "autonomous province". Kostja (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Usage of Bulgarian flag in the info box?

Why is the Bulgarian flag used in the info box as indicating change of territorial ownership of the area after 1885? Both the Bulgarian Principality and Eastern Rumelia were nominal parts of the Ottoman Empire as such usage of the Bulgarian flag at this stage is obsolete and inaccurate. If in turn one refers to the article Bulgarian Principality it is clear that ownership from Ottoman to Bulgarian is in 1908. Hittit (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Did the principality use that flag at the time? CMD (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please check a dictionary before using a word you don't understand, Hittit. Obsolete has a very different meaning from the one you think it has. As for the Bulgarian flag, after 1885 Eastern Rumelia existed only on paper, while in reality it was part of the principality of Bulgaria and as such it used of course the Bulgarian flag (and yes, the flag was the same). Furthermore, even if Bulgaria was nominally a vassal of the Ottomans, the Ottoman flag was not used at all. Kostja (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

But the two cases are different. Regardless of what the situation was de facto, de jure, Bulgaria was a tributary (autonomous but not sovereign) Principality with its own flag, coat of arms, army, constitution, Prince, etc. etc. It was subject to the sovereignty of, but not part of, the Ottoman Empire, quite akin to the various Protectorates within the British Empire like Tonga or Brunei that had their own monarch, flag, parliament etc. but were not themselves sovereign in international law, or like somewhere like the Isle of Man in relation to Britain today. It had all the attributes of a state except for sovereignty.

On the other hand Eastern Rumelia, in the eyes of the law, was just a province of the Ottoman Empire like any other, albeit an autonomous one. Even the takeover of the post of Governor-General of Eastern Rumelia by the Prince of Bulgaria did not change this legal fiction. Can you site a source that states or shows the Ottoman flag was not used in Eastern Rumelia?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Why was the pretence of Ottoman suzerainty kept up and why was it so common?

Whilst I recognise, of course, that Eastern Rumelia was to all intents and purposes (at least after 1885/86); de facto Southern Bulgaria and it was indeed treated in lots of ways as such by the Principality of Bulgaria (indeed, Eastern Rumelian representatives were sent to the Bulgarian parliament after 1886), this was quite a widespread phenomenom with the territories agitating for freedom from Ottoman Domination: with Serbia and Romania having tributary status until 1878, Bulgaria until 1908, and Egypt and Sudan were technically parts of the Ottoman Empire until 1914, and Cyprus and Bosnia were de jure Ottoman Provinces until 1914 and 1908 respectively, despite their de facto control by Britain and Austria, respectively, not to mention places like the Cretan State and the Principality of Samos.

What I'm wondering is, why was this done, and why was it so widespread? Why was de facto control of these places preferred to de jure annexation, which would have happened in most other situations. Why was there so much trouble taken to not only accomodate the Ottoman Sultan, but to seemingly not offend him?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It probably wasn't about pleasing/appeasing the Sultan as with pleasing/appeasing the other European powers. Europe's balance of power would be lost if one state gained control of everything the Ottoman Empire had to offer. Britain and Austria for example, wanted to keep the Ottoman Empire together, as a counterbalance to Russia, which may explain why they didn't de jure annex their Ottoman territories. In 1908, when Bulgaria declared independence and Austria annexed Bosnia, there was a massive diplomatic crisis. See also the Eastern Question. CMD (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

-Which makes perfect sense as regards such territories as Cyprus, Bosnia, and Egypt; but why did Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria bother with this legal fiction; rather than declare full independence like Greece did in 1832?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Likely because their autonomous status itself was tentative at this point, and largely dependent on the interests of the major European powers. The autonomy of Bulgaria, and de facto sovereignity for Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro were established in the Treaty of Berlin (1878), where their representatives were not even allowed to attend. Simply put, the Russian victory at the Russo-Turkish War (1877–78) allowed the Russian Empire to further weaken its traditional Ottoman rival, and establish a few Christian states through which it could exert influence over the Balkans. The rest of the powers did their best to contain the Russian ambitions, for example scrapping the Treaty of San Stefano which would result in an even greater area of the Balkans being Christian-dominated and Russian-influenced. Dimadick (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why my lede was better

1. It got read of text in three scripts the majority of English readers cannot decipher—Cyrillic, Greek and Arabic—without removing the information from the article.
2. It was more consistent in its linking and italics: it linked Treaty of Berlin and Bulgarian declaration of independence, but not the common phrase de jure (when "de facto" was neither italicised nor linked).
3. It got read of the nonsense phrase "absolute majority" and a bad use of "significant".

—Srnec (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

1. It's general Wikipedia custom to have native names in the lead, while not using transcriptions in the infobox.
2. Absolute majority means more than 50%, check a dictionary. Significant is quite appropriate here, rather than the unclear "large". Kostja (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Majority" means "more than 50%". Check a dictionary. "Significant" is utterly vague and, in the sense you want to use it, just means "large". The foreign names are mostly useless for the average English reader, who cannot read those scripts or those languages. MOS:FORLANG suggests placing them in a footnote. Srnec (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolute majority is a clearer term. Large is far more vague than significant, which indicates a large population by percentage. The additional names in the lead are allowed by WP:NCGN, and it's only a suggestion to place transliterations of those names in a footnote, which is not widely followed and not needed here. Kostja (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Absolute majority" means the same thing as "majority". There's just an extra word thrown in for no purpose. "Significant" does not mean relatively large—but "large minority" does. What purpose is served by Ottoman Turkish in the lede? Nobody uses it and no English-language works are likely to reference it. Srnec (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern Rumelia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205233122/http://arts.yorku.ca/hist/tgallant/documents/peckhammapmania_000.pdf to http://www.arts.yorku.ca/hist/tgallant/documents/peckhammapmania_000.pdf

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)