Talk:History of Communist Bulgaria

Revival and ethnic Turks

I do not agree with the wording on the Revival process. I believe to say that ethnic Turks were simply "ordered" to change their names is an understatement. Turks were not simply ordered to change their names, they were forced to do that through a campaign of intimidation and violance:

According to Pulton (1993) on December 24, 1984 thousands of Turkish people gathered in Benkovski (Kurdzhali district) and on December 27, 1984 outside the Momchilgrad Town Hall, to protest the changing of their names. The demonstrtations were met by army units and then by members of the elite special security force (i.e. the “red berets”). In late January-early February 1985 the town of Yablanovo in eastern Stara Planina was sieged by Bulgarian army forces for three days and according to some reports there were 34 were killed and 29 or 30 were taken to the Kotel hospital with gunshot wounds. There were also many Turkish activists who were arrested and detained in the prison camp in Belene. Although their exact numbers cannot be stated, estimates range from 450 to 1,000 ethnic Turk prisoners in connection with the Revivalist Process (Poulton, 1993:142; Amnesty International, 1986:14). The US has condemned the incidence:

On July 18, 1989 the Senate of the 101st Congress of the USA voted unanimously on the Byrd-DeConcini Amendment No.279. This amendment expressed “the sense of the Congress condemning Bulgaria’s brutal treatment of its Turkish minority” and it allocated about $10 million as assistance to the Republic of Turkey, in order for the latter to cope with the huge influx of refugees (Senate Record Vote, 1989).

For more info:

http://www.ingilish.com/turksofbulgaria.htm http://eth.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/4/4/561

Could you please make some changes that will take into consideration the gravity of the situation? --Hasanidin 01:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria was the most loyal Soviet satellite state during the Cold War.

Bulgaria was the most loyal Soviet satellite state during the Cold War. --ElevatedStork 20:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Todor→Bozhinov 21:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's get it straight once and for all- Bulgaria was a Moscow sattelite

people let's put this straight finally.
Bulgaria WAS a Soviet sattelitte. Im sorry, but thats a known fact, no citations or sources or anything is needed and no one can change that. PRB was an Eastern Bloc country, a member of the Warsaw pact, a member of the Comecon as were Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, East Germany and half of today's EU. Now those are the facts.
Speaking of whether Bulgaria was loyal to the USSR and to what extent, comparing to let's say Romania (that criticised the soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968 for example), Bulgaria seems that it was quite obedient. Never heard of any significant example of disobedience. Anyway, leave the shame aside and give people the facts: Bulgaria WAS a Soviet sattelitte.. Period.
What i see happening around in former Eastern bloc is that many even "change the geography" to get rid of any relation to eastern bloc and now suddenly every former eastern bloc country claims that they are "central europe" or "north europe" or whatever. Come on people, lets all face the truth.

Also, why did you change People's Republic of Bulgaria for "Communist Bulgaria"?? You know what Communism means, simply saying in few words: a sort of utopian class-less society of equal people, no state, no classes and so on and so on. Such thing never hapened in Bulgaria...as far as I know...

please stop confusing the readers who may surf on to learn something. Otherwise Wikipedia is really becoming an unreliable source of information.

Thank you.--Vbb-sk-mk 18:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the following line: Bulgaria was considered a Soviet satellite state during the Cold War.
It was not considered but IT WAS a soviet sattelite.--Vbb-sk-mk 18:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Communist uprising of 1923?

My source text mentions a Communist uprising in Bulgaria in late September 1923, though it appears neither on this page nor the Bulgaria page. Can any info be added regarding this event, if it did indeed occur? -- Thanks, Deborahjay 10:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it did, it was the so-called September Uprising (bg:Септемврийско въстание). The article in Bulgarian is pretty good and has some sources. I was thinking of translating it some time ago, and perhaps I really should, together with the articles about other 20th-century uprisings and coups.

In a nutshell, the September Uprising was organized by the Bulgarian Communist Party and was directed against the government of Aleksandar Tsankov. It was, naturally, unsuccessful. Todor→Bozhinov 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to Move.--Húsönd 13:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• In Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen someone put this entry: "History of the People's Republic of Bulgaria was cut & pasted to History of Communist Bulgaria. History of Communist Bulgaria needs most of the history merged from History of the People's Republic of Bulgaria. Biruitorul 01:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)", so I obeyed it. But another user wants the new histmerged History of Communist Bulgaria to be moved to History of the People's Republic of Bulgaria, and the resulting discussion elsewhere is becoming heated. Anthony Appleyard 08:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • • • Note: As usual, User:Biruitorul is trying to distort things by canvassing. Anonimu 08:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • • Note: you may have missed this section in WP:CANVAS: "It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive". For those who don't read Romanian, I merely asked Roamata to take a look at the discussion, and in no way indicated how he should vote. Biruitorul 16:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Dubious:If it wasn't canvassing, why did you try to hide it, by putting the message on an user's page on a non-English Wikipedia, when the respective user already has a page on the English one?Anonimu 17:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Because he is far more active on ro.wiki. Furthermore, I could have e-mailed him, so your accusations of trying to hide something ring hollow. How about writing an article for a change, instead of stalking me? Biruitorul 17:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
              • That's a lame excuse. Logs show that the user is active in both wikipedias. There were more chances for it to ignore your e-mail than missing your wiki message (the orange box follows you everywhere on wiki until you read the message). You should drop those accusations, cause i'm not the one checking every article you edit (btw, editing articles announced on a public announcement board isn't stalking). As for checking the talk pages of your supporters on other wikipedias, it was justified by your history of canvassing users in other wikipedias.Anonimu 18:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• What an absurd lamentation! Look for a detailed response in Korean Wikipedia. Digwuren 20:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • I'm not on trial here and will no longer seek to justify my behaviour before you. I've acted within policy and anything else is a witch-hunt. Yes, you did stalk me by monitoring my perfectly innocuous activities on another Wikipedia. My edits need not be monitored because I am a reliable editor, but since a high percentage of your edits tend to wreck rather than build up otherwise-good articles, you do need to be watched by a team of people. Biruitorul 03:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
                • Hey man, you have a history of canvassing to impose your own pov, even if that pov is against wiki policies. So don't pretend you're a saint. When I read the absurd motivation put by a supporter of your POV of course I had to check his talk page on the Romanian wikipedia(and not monitoring your activity as you claim).. and i wasn't surprised at all of what i've found. And your superciliousness and personal attacks don't help improve your image either. This may explain why you take every legit content dispute as an attack to your persona and you call on your gang to impose your subjective, and most of the time anti-wiki policies, views.Anonimu 09:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not slander me: no neutral arbiter found that I canvassed in violation of policy. Roamata's rationale was hardly "absurd" - indeed it was standard. I am not the one issuing personal attacks. The last sentence in your above message is yet more slander and personal attacks, especially the notion that I have a "gang". Biruitorul 04:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Weak oppose. Agree that neither Communist Bulgaria nor History of Communist Bulgaria should be the title, but I'd suggest moving it instead to People's Republic of Bulgaria, currently a redirect that has pointed to several different articles since its creation but which has no significant history that needs to be preserved. Has this option been covered in previous discussion? Where? (And where is the heated discussion?) Andrewa 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While Google Books does give 897 results for "People's Republic of Bulgaria" and only 366 for "'Communist Bulgaria' -pre -post", it's important to note that many of the former results refer to treaties and other official documents where the country's full name was used as a matter of course. Thus, "Communist Bulgaria" is a common-enough academic usage, as well as being a popular everyday usage. Moreover, we rarely use the full names of countries: except for potentially confusing cases like Congo-Kinshasa vs Congo-Brazzaville, we use common names: United Kingdom not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Jordan not Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Uruguay not Oriental Republic of Uruguay, etc. There was only one Bulgaria, so calling it "Communist Bulgaria" not "People's Republic of Bulgaria" does not increase the likelihood of confusion (hence WP:PRECISION is not violated), preserves simplicity, uses a name common enough in both academic and popular circles, and is in compliance with WP:UCN. Biruitorul 07:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Google Books and Google Scholar show common usage in scientific world (And wikipedia is after all a scientific work). And I wouldn't oppose a simpler "People's Republic of Bulgaria", similar to the articles of other Eastern European countries( People's Republic of Poland, People's Republic of Hungary, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic) as long as it keeps the more common name (that is "People's Republic of Bulgaria")Anonimu 08:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. History of Communist Bulgaria is the WP:NPOV title. Communists were keen on shoving propaganda even into official titles of governments; Wikipedia shouldn't bend over to such causes. Digwuren 11:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per Biruitorul, Digwuren, Andrewa. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  05:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "History of Communist Bulgaria" just rolls off the tongue, whereas "History of the People's Republic of Bulgaria" sounds rather contrived and stilted. Turgidson 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I said in Talk:Communist Romania: I oppose this move. "History of communist X-country" rolls off the tongue. It's simple, concise, descriptive and at the same time general (i.e. you can use it on countries who had multiple official names during communist rule). NikoSilver 09:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:So no other argument against except "I like it better this way"?Anonimu 11:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I think 'Communist Bulgaria' and the 'People's Republic of Bulgaria' are synonymous with each other, but the use of 'People's Republic of Bulgaria' is a more encyclopaedic name. – Marco79 13:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "History of Communist Bulgaria" is concise, and gives the sense of the Popular Democracy PR stunt. Hiding the sense under layers of propaganda is not good. Note that there are countries where the "Popular" stunt stands for something. For instance, China is "Popular", but not necessarily "Communist". But for Bulgaria... Dpotop 09:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Move to People's Republic of Bulgaria; articles about former states are by definition historical. This title is simply more academic, less value-loaded and in line with other similar articles (listed above by Anonimu). Personally, I don't disagree with the "Communist" label, but there's no reason to pursue WP:UCN to the extreme (which is, taking into account the said Google Book search, debatable) when a neutral title would suffice. Duja► 15:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom. See also History of the People's Republic of China, not History of Communist China or History of Red China. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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

NPOV

The section on the Revivalist process is totally biased. There was no forcible expulsion of Turks. On the contrary, they were permitted to leave after years of forcible containment in Bulgaria. This is known as the Big Tour and Turks did it, because they wanted to live in Turkey with their Turkish names.

Also, it's impossible to be Communist, Nationalist and Nazi at the same time, as T.Zhivkov is blaimed to be. 78.90.72.223 22:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Due to the lack of any nuetrality, grammer or citations and due to the fact that it is clearly explained in the following section, I remove it. What there should be made is a seperate section mentioning any genocides and/or breaches of human rights that Bulgaria was ever part of.