Talk:Big Excursion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's pretty obvious why this POV fork, OR article deserves the POV tag. One sentence is sufficient enough to describe everything: Bulgaria's Orthodox Christian, Slavic majority had long harassed the 10% of the population of nine million that spoke Turkish. The cycle of oppression began in the 1970s, when the government launched a program to assimilate these heirs of the Ottoman colonists. These are two but never mind. I'll proopose deletion for this one. --Laveol T 01:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Concerns addressed.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] POV
Are you joking - this article is a pure POV fork. It's not even worth a POV tag, but an immediate deletion. Starting with the neo-nazi stuff in the heading it continues to represent the facts one-sided and as offensive to Bulgarians as it is at all possible. --Laveol T 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am not kidding at all. You nominated this article for deletion. I wanted to test WP in certain way so I did not object. So far the article has not been deleted. Let's hope common sense will prevail. Topics as obvious as this one should not need any defense for survival. If they can be easily deleted then WP would not be worth a second of my time. It should be you or other Bulgarian users creating this and some other related articles. Instead -as expected- you are trying to hide these events from the rest of the world by your actions here. Answer the following questions: Did the Big Excursion penomenon occur or not? Are you denying that it took place? If not then why there shouldn't be an article for it?--Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] R J Crampton
The three books by Crampton listed as references will be removed since, "A Concise History of Bulgaria", page 215, states:
The Turkish areas of the north-east were in state of virtual revolt. Zhivkov's response was to go on TV and announce that if they really preferred capitalist Turkey to socialist Bulgaria the ethnic Turks were free to leave.
Which gives the impression that the ethnic Turkish population left of their own volition. The other two books by Crampton, "Bulgaria 1878-1918, A History," copyrighted in 1983, and "A Short History of Modern Bulgaria", copyrighted 1987, both before the "Big Excursion", and thus can not be used as references. Kansas Bear (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I will put back "A Short History of Modern Bulgaria" and "A Concise History of Bulgaria" since they both were the sources of information for the article. Read "Background" section for example. I don't see how the above quote conflicts with what is presented in the article.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Then please reference each book individually, showing exactly where in the article they are referenced. Kansas Bear (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reference these books individually in what way? I am not aware of such a WP rule. I listed the books that were used as a reference in writing the article. Citations are provided in special cases and they appear as footnotes. I also have another source. It's a book written by a Reuters writer who withnessed and reported the events during the Big Excursion. It's The Sons of the Conquerors by Hugh Pope. I should include it as well.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia policy is that inline citations should be provided wherever they're needed. If an editor isn't sure where the info comes from he is in his full right to put a Fact tag since he obviously won't be able to read all the books to find which one (and on which page) says it. --Laveol T 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Laveol, you have to say something for the sake of just opposing me. Why don't you answer the questions I asked in the above section. Also since you added the POV tags you also need to comment on what makes the article so. I did not oppose Kansas Bear adding the fact tags. I am glad he/she is contributing to the article. I will provide the requested inline citations. He took out three listed resources assuming that they were not used in the article. I just put back two of them since they were used indeed.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia policy is that inline citations should be provided wherever they're needed. If an editor isn't sure where the info comes from he is in his full right to put a Fact tag since he obviously won't be able to read all the books to find which one (and on which page) says it. --Laveol T 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reference these books individually in what way? I am not aware of such a WP rule. I listed the books that were used as a reference in writing the article. Citations are provided in special cases and they appear as footnotes. I also have another source. It's a book written by a Reuters writer who withnessed and reported the events during the Big Excursion. It's The Sons of the Conquerors by Hugh Pope. I should include it as well.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Then please reference each book individually, showing exactly where in the article they are referenced. Kansas Bear (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
