Talk:Treaty of San Stefano

2006 comments

I rewrote the article and added the original maps. Miko Stavrev. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miko Stavrev (talk • contribs) 21:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I liked the old version better. This map is kind of ugly - only BG and SS and BT. It will be better to have one map with the provisions only of the SS Treaty for all Balkan countries. This map is a better illustration of the BT article, I think. Miko Stavrev 17:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Bulgaria is emphasized in this article when it appears that the treaty had consequences for the entire Balkans? The map puts the same emphasys. --Bora Nesic 03:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It was the creation of a massive Bulgaria that characterized the San Stefano Treaty. Although Serbia gained parts of Old Serbia, Bulgaria went from a no-name nation to a country that would potentially connect the Black Sea and the Aegean (cited as a fear by the British of an entry of Slavs into the Mediterranean). This had a dramatic impact on Serbo-Bulgarian and Greek-Bulgarian relations to the present day in addition to arousing Great Britain and Austria-Hungary to act in the Treaty of Berlin in the context of the Eastern Question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.17.88 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Map is POV and must be changed or removed

The map was probably composed very recently. The boundaries of San Stephano Bulgaria are correct. However, the caption 'Liberated Bulgaria' is POV. The caption needs to be removed. Editors are welcome to insert image of original 1878 images that write include such terms. Politis 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Text of the treaty in French

Where may I found the original text of the treaty (in French)? --Hubertgui (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

=Stanford's 1878 Ethnological map

I've seen you removed the Stanford's 1878 Ethnic composition map of the Balkans from the article. This map is of historical significance since upon that map the Congress of Berlin created Bulgaria as a state in 1878 and shaped her borders. I also noticed that you also removed it from any other article of wikipedia including the very article of the Berlin's Congress by saying that it is wrong. Wikipedia is not judging an historical document as it is a 1878 map as right or wrong, especially a map upon a treaty was determined. WP works with references, documents and facts, leaving the reader to judge for himself what is right and what is wrong. So if you have censuses that denying what the map is picturing, you have to put them into the articles, with the necessary references. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Stanford's 1878 Ethnological map

Hmmm, would you provide a ref about the creation of Bulgaria upon that map? And why was Eastern Rumelia created, then? With a predominant Bulgarian population, unlike what is shown on the map? --Laveol ^T 13:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem: Political history of the modern Greece, Sp. B. Markezinis, volume 3 page 40-41 (the map including) Papyrus, 1964. The text says that there is also a French version of the map published in the same year (1877) but is not present. As for the E. Rumelia that is exactly the reason of its creation and not inclusion in the Bulgaria. Have you ever wondered what Rumelia is meaning in the Turks? But I am not here to mess with nationalistic issues. The map has its very important historical value I gave you and as such must stay in the article as any other less influential map. --Factuarius (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean that map? Did you look at the article prior to adding yours?. They look a bit different, don't they? But let's sum it up - you back a Greek map with a Greek book? That does not suffice. Any neutral sources for that? I know what Rumelia means in Turkish (land of the romans (Byzantines)), but it also includes Moesia and if you say that Moesia was Greek to start with, this is the end of the conversation. Or maybe Albania was as well? And would you explain why this map does not look anything like any other map of the period? I mean it shows quite a different (strongly pro-Greek) view of the situation and you source that claim with a Greek (again) book. I'm removing it until you provide a third-party ref and clear out all the nonsense you wrote. Let me remind you that two editors are against its inclusion and any further action from your side might be considered disruptive. --Laveol ^T 17:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• You are taking part in the discussion believing that we are talking for another map. No, I mean that map. It is a discussion about Stanford's 1878 Ethnological map, not Synvet's map as the title, you put in the discussion also indicates. So about the map:

I didn't added the map. It was here for months. Olahus came and removed it. Yes, they are both three different, that's the point in giving the issue spherical, what's your suggestion? to leave only one? The one picturing all the Balkans Bulgarian? No, the map is not Greek is English from the most famous English geographer and geographical office of the period. No, the map is not in "a Greek book", you will find it all over the web, try it. No, the Turks called Rums only the Greeks, during the occupation and certainly not the Bulgarians. read more about. I don't know what Moesia is. No, I don't have to explain anything on behalf on Edward Stanford because I am not Edward Stanford, he knew why, I don't. No, it is not a Greek map, you will be surprised but Stanford was not Greek. Like it or not the map is of significant historical value that shaped the Bulgarian borders during the Congress of Berlin so from her born (1878) until 1913 and will stay for that reason, as it was, before Olahus removed it. No other map played so significant historical role in the Balkans and you want to remove it just because you don't like it. --Factuarius (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I suggest to tone down the personal attacks and read my post again. You said there was another map by a French scientist and I provided you with a link. You didn't see that the map was already in the article, which kinda sums up your whole activity here. You didn't answer any of the questions, just gibbered your way to the conclusion that Stanford is not Greek, which is obvious by the way. What I meant is that the source you provided for your claims above was Greek, which is clearly not fine. And as already mentioned as of the moment you're up against a consensus of two editors, like it or not (I can see you don't like it) and further actions might as well be considered disruptive. Oh, and I do see you did not understand what I had to say about Rumelia as a geographical concept (and marking the whole area (the Balkans) as Greek populated) --Laveol ^T 06:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd be in favour of including the Stanford map in the relevant articles. Whether it is correct or not in its depictions does not matter as much as the fact that such a map circulated at the time, and obviously claims were made using it as a basis. In other words, we must treat it not as a map depicting accurate information, but as a historical document. No two maps I've seen on Balkan ethnological distribution seem to agree with each other, hence IMO the best thing to do is to put them all in, exactly so as to show the widely diverging claims made by any single national group and its foreign adherents. As for the Berlin Congress, I don't remember that reference, but Spyros Markezinis is pretty reliable on diplomatic background history. I realize that another, non-Greek source would be needed (I'd demand something similar), but just wanted to point that out. Constantine ✍ 07:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a proper explanation. Thanks for that. --Laveol ^T 13:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That must "include the Stanford map in the relevant articles whether it is correct or not" and "not to treat it as a map depicting accurate information, but as a historical document" "circulated at the time, and obviously claims were made using it as a basis". it was what I also more or less told you many times, but you didn't accept it. So my conclusion is that for you, doesn't matter what is told but who told it. Not that I am disputed Cplakidas' recognized reputation as a serious editor.--Factuarius (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That map is simply wrong. Are you trying to tell me that at less than 10 km from Sofia an area of Greek-populated majority began? That in 1878 Samokov, Ihtiman, Batak, Razlog, and several thousand settlements to the south of the Balkan mountains had a Greek majority?????????? That is ridiculous and you know it. Thus, the map is unacceptable. --Gligan (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's Stanford not me. --Factuarius (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but it doesn't mean that he was correct. Give me sources that there was a Greek majority in that area. Many persons in many fields were wrong and the fact that they had a certain opinion does not mean that it must be cited provided that they were wrong. --Gligan (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues [1] --Factuarius (talk) 18:11, 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." - That is your statement.

First, yes, obviously you are not the one to make the map and no one want you to apologize. Second - yes, he might have been famous and even trusted but this does not prove that he was always correct. In fact such type of persons, especially during the Victorian Era, often relied more on their own competence and established fame that on neutral research. Third - it is a document of the era but what is its value since it is wrong? Forth - yes, you are right but the strange things in that one are particularly abundant. Fifth - in fact it really didn't matter. Bulgaria in its ethical borders, no matter what are those borders is the least what the Great Powers wanted. Late 19th century policies were based on Bismark's system of alliances and the least he wanted was trouble and disbalance in the Balkans and all things related to the policy of the Great Powers of the time were bound to that stability, not to ethnographic maps and justice. Large Bulgaria was going to mess up the balance and that is the only thing that mattered for the Treaty of Berlin.

And more on the strange things on that particular map - you have heard of the April Uprising in 1876, check out in what regions it managed to break out, what were the names of the involved towns and villages and then check them out with the map. Obviously, it is in Macedonia where we can argue about who had majority but in northern Thrace that is out of question... --Gligan (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford map is ridiculous and even a Greek cannot deny this, but we don't need any ethnic group maps in this article anyway. It's Treaty of San Stefano, an article about a political treaty, not a demographic study of the eastern Balkans. As such, any ethnic maps are irrelevant, and you can't even imagine how irrelevant bad, POV-serving ethnic maps are.

Cause like, didn't you know, there isn't a single Turkish-majority area in the entire Balkans, Pernik and Radomir are Albanian and the heartland of the Bulgarian National Revival (the central Sub-Balkan valleys where Levski, Botev and Vazov were born) lacks even a Bulgarian minority.

Hell, some of you guys don't have even the slightest insight on the Great Powers' Balkan policy at the time and why Stanford's homeland would seek to portray the Bulgarian ethnic area as tiny. Todor→Bozhinov 18:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• @ Gligan you understand nothing of what I wrote or pretend to. You answering nothing on what a said.
• @ TB Yes it needs but evidently you just don't like it. Rightly or wrongly the treaty cancelled officially because it was incompatible with the ethnography of the area. Like it or not. Accordingly your argument "we don't need any ethnic group maps in this article" is wrong if not POV. --Factuarius (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I had forgotten starting that discussion. Look, the map is not ok, not only with other maps, but with the justification of all previous treaties. The Istanbul conference just two years prior to this one agreed with pretty much the same ethnic borders as the one in the San Stefano treaty. Whether Bulgarians formed an absolute majority in them, we cannot be sure, but yet, it is highly improbable that Greeks were. The problem with all maps is that it is hard to define if they speak the truth and what the truth is in that particular case. As for Stanford, as big a name he is, he is no ethnographer, he's no specialist on the Balkans. What are the sources for the map by the way? I'd pretty much like to hear about them. You should be able to provide them since you most probably scanned it from the book (I'm not sure on this, but I gathered from the upload history:)). --Laveol ^T 21:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WP is full in discussions between both of us about it. Every some months you are coming saying the same and the same (that it is not right etc), and every time me and others answering the same and the same about it. We didn't designed the map if that is what you imply (do a research in the web if you like, you will find it all over) and I am (also) borred to start defending Stanford's evindences etc. Re read my full answer Gligan pasted above from somewhere else and if you really have something about what I wrote feel free to contact me about. The ref is in the maps log. --Factuarius (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Again. Stop making personal comments about me (or any other editor that disagrees with you). Actually, most of the time you get editors saying that the map is plain wring. Remember User:Olahus? And as far as every single census result in the Balkans and every other ethnographic research is concerned, this is so. I'm not saying the map is fabricated. It's quite obviously scanned from a book (which I said in my previous comment, thank you very much). --Laveol ^T 22:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I remember now. The Greek source (It's not in the comment Gligan pasted anyway). Well, that kinda makes it clear then. So there is a book which instead of both maps shows only one of them and we use it as a reliable source for this one, because? User:Cplakidas tried to explain that other sources are warranted for such a huge contradiction. Reading it now, it seems you didn't get the point of the whole discussion. There was a variety of maps of the region at that particular time and it is nice to show that variety. The fact is that one of them simply does not fit (and it's not only in the Rumelia part of it). The Stanford map is relevant only to the Berlin congress article, isn't that what you said? Then why are we discussing it here? And why don't we have a one from the Istanbul conference of 1876 since this is what we're aiming at? --Laveol ^T 22:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(See your talk page). Βut you are answering nothing about what I wrote in the Gligan's pasted txt. And steel reverting. For God's sake read it, is right above ΛΛΛ. ----22:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Factuarius (talk)

Again Stanford

Just a note. This is a French publication, Castellan, Georges (1999). Histoire des Balkans, XIVe–XXe siècle (in French). transl. Lilyana Tsaneva (Bulgarian translation ed.). Paris: Fayard. p. 358. ISBN 2213605262.

[paragraph is about Filiki Eteria activities in Macedonia]

"While locally the conflicts between the Christian populations increased, exposed to aggressive nationalisms, a propaganda war ensued in Europe with the participation of "neutral" experts including the likes of the favourably disposed to the Bulgarians Austrian geographer Heinrich Kiepert or the Englishman Stanford, who on the other hand supported the Greek propositions."

So basically, are we trying to stick an internationally-acknowledged Greek POV map in there? Todor→Bozhinov 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of including these maps is to provide context, not because they are necessarily "correct". Stanford should be included because he is pro-Greek and because the Greek position was based on his map. The catch is that this should be properly explained in the caption, so that our readers are not misled into thinking Stanford is "correct". For example, in Eleftherios Venizelos, the Stanford map is included because the Greek position at the Treaty of Sevres negotiations was based on it, not because it is "correct". You will also note the Ravenstein map uses solid colors and shows all of Macedonia as Bulgarian. As such, it is as pro-Bulgarian as Stanford is pro-Greek. And Stanford at least uses stripes to show the multi-ethnic character of Macedonia, which Ravenstein does not. So what I propose is to include both maps for balance, with proper explanations/disclaimers in the caption. As long as it's mentioned in the caption why they are included and our readers are duly informed about the mapmakers' orientation, there shouldn't be a problem. Athenean (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That particular map of Stanford is fully wrong according to all population censuses and estimates while for the other maps at least you can argue that there is some more accuracy in Thrace and Macedonia (I am not competent to argue for other regions). It is misleading for the readers because one would think that the Greeks were a majority in Thrace which is ridiculous. --Gligan (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's properly explained that Stanford's map is pro-Greek and the reason why it's included (that the Greek position in negotiations was based on it), there is no problem. Maps aren't included because they are "right" or "wrong". Such simplistic arguements are out of place here. Athenean (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call WP:NPOV simplistic. Todor→Bozhinov 17:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think throwing buzzwords around is good for this one.--Ptolion (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And I don't see why propaganda ethnic maps are at all necessary for this one. Todor→Bozhinov 18:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, as long as it's properly captioned, there is no violation of NPOV. Athenean (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actualy every ethnographic map of the Balkans has its own story and views. For example the city of Korca in Albania according to which map we see, is Bulgarian, Albanian, Arumanian or Greek populated. There was really no perfect map and of course no perfect census. Since Standford wasn't a Greek agent I dont see a reason why to remove him completely from the topic.Alexikoua (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, are you serious? Sure, every map has a story, but what the hell do three ethnic maps have to do with the Treaty of San Stefano? The only reason I can think of to include an ethnic map would be to provide context, but in the case of three ethnic maps, it does nothing but overwhelm the reader with context. I feel like I'm repeating myself for the fifth time, but save those ethnic maps for History of the Balkans or Demographic history of Macedonia or something. They lack relevance here. Todor→Bozhinov 22:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The explanation that this map can illustrate the views of Venizelos or any other Greek makes no sense to me. You can illustrate his views making a map which shows proposed Greek borders according Venizelos' claims at different time. The demographic maps should be supported with at least some evidence and there is no evidence that the Greeks were such as majority in Thrace as shown in that particular map. I have pointed sources according to the census in Eastern Rumelia, according to Erickson and suggested to search for the election of the first Ottoman national assembly of 1908.

That is as if let's say that Bulgaria currently claims that 2,000,000 Greeks in northern Greeks are Bulgarians. Does it mean that in the demographic article of Greece we should also include a map which shows those people as Bulgarians in order to illustrate the Bulgarian view? That would make no sense since according to the census those people say they are Greeks. (That is just example, a ridiculous one)

So if you want to illustrate Greek position make a map showing Greece in its proposed borders but do not use maps which are obviously wrong as that particular one. I repeat, the other demographic maps are also disputable but at least can be supported with some evidence. --Gligan (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

@Todor: We need ethnographic maps to provide context for our readers. However, since no two maps are the same, we need several. Ravenstein is obviously pro-Bulgarian (doesn't use stripes), Stanford is obviously pro-Greek. All POVs need to be covered. And I can't help but notice how similar the post-Berlin boundaries of the Principality of Bulgaria are compared to Stanford's maps. They are practically identical. Coincidence? Hardly. Think our readers would find that interesting? Absolutely. Athenean (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You failed to address my arguments. At the moment, the maps are just standing there, providing no context but to confuse the reader. Our readers cannot find anything interesting if it is not explained and referenced in the article. Think the Treaty of Berlin was based on a map by Stanford? Reference it and then come back. And why the hell would the "ethnic composition of the population of Eastern Rumelia as of 1884" be according to the Museum of Plovdiv? This is census data.

Your recent edits are really crossing the line. I won't ever agree to including three irrelevant ethnic maps in the article, so the next thing would be to bring it to dispute resolution. Todor→Bozhinov 11:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to give a single rational argument for not including ethnographic maps, only a rather shrill WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Only you object to the them. Why are you so hysterically opposed to including the maps? What are you afraid of? How do they confuse our readers? They do not confuse our readers, they inform our readers about the ethnographic composition of the Balkans at the time, thereby providing valuable context. You are the only one who objects to the presence of the ethnographic maps, so if you want to pursue dispute resolution with yourself, go ahead. Athenean (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasons why the antiquated ethnographic maps are redundant:

1. At least one of the maps is universally identified as being nothing but national propaganda that has absolutely nothing to do with the ethnic composition of the Balkans at the time. And no, Stanford's borders of the Bulgarian ethnicity do not closely match those of the Principality of Bulgaria. In fact, the only similarities are that the southern border is the main ridge of the Balkan Mountains and the northern border the Danube, which one would hardly expect to be different.
2. Including three ethnographic maps overwhelms the reader. Ethnographic imagery becomes so dominant in the article that it does not provide context, rather, it turns the attention away from the topic, which, remember, is a political treaty.
3. Claims that the maps provide context are void because none of the text in the article discusses the ethnic composition of the regions concerned by the treaty, and the captions fail to justify the relevance of the maps. "Ethnic composition map of the Balkans by the German-English cartographer E. G. Ravenstein of 1870." So what?
4. The sheer number of images in the article at present, 9 (nine), is too big. Images are included in Wikipedia articles for illustrative purposes. This is not a gallery, and certainly not Wikimedia Commons.

The same applies to the inclusion of the maps in Eastern Rumelia. I have requested third opinion as the first step of the dispute resolution process. Todor→Bozhinov 21:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The arguments put forth against the inclusion of ethnographic maps here and in Eastern Rumelia are specious and motivated by something other than concern for our readers. Specifically:

• • The ethnographic maps are from the period in question (1870's), and thus provide our readers with valuable context, particularly in the case of Eastern Rumelia. Ethnography was very much at the core of the disputes of the time.
  • Such maps, including the Stanford map, were used in conferences of the period, [2] [3], and hence affected the outcome of negotiations that took place at the time. They are thus directly related to the subject matter of these articles.
  • The claim that the maps overwhelm the reader is nonsense. Such ethnographic maps are used throughout historical Balkan articles, and to my knowledge this is the first and only time that I've heard someone claim to be overwhelmed. Same goes for the claim about the "sheer number of images". Nine images is hardly a "sheer number", nor do they mess with the article's formatting. If there were 20 images I could understand, but 9 is hardly overwhelming.
  • Since no two maps are identical and each map reflects the POV of its maker, it is necessary to include several maps. Ravenstein's map, for example, is clearly pro-Bulgarian, as it doesn't use stripes and shows the entire region of Macedonia as almost solidly Bulgarian, something which isn't true.
  • While Stanford's map is pro-Greek, that is duly explained in the caption, hence there is no chance of misleading our readers.
  • The boundaries of the Principality of Bulgaria and the Stanford map are quite similar, though not identical. I do not think this is so by sheer coincidence and I find the similarity between the two very interesting, as will many of our readers. Athenean (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:

Reason: The Third Opinion process is available only for disputes involving two editors. Five editors are involved in this discussion: TodorBozhinov / Athenean / Gligan / Ptolion / Alexikoua. If the dispute continues, you might want to consider moving on to an RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think the map dispute was solely between me and Athenean, but whatever, I'm going for RfC then. Todor→Bozhinov 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC on ethnographic maps

Disagreement about the inclusion of three 19th-century ethnographic maps in the articles Treaty of San Stefano and Eastern Rumelia (see arguments above). Todor→Bozhinov 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Synvet Map

I removed that map because it isn't an ethnographic map but a map connecting ehtnicity to religion. I don't think that anyone can argue that Mussulmans is an ethnic description of any kind or that there is a nation called Serbo-Croats or Bulgar-Greeks.----ZjarriRrethues (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, but it just signifies a mixed population, comprised mainly of Bulgarians and Greeks. It is quite a valuable map, so, please, make sure you provide precise and unbiased reasons for its removal. Thank you.--Laveol ^T 18:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Lejean map

I notice User:ZjarriRrethues and User:Kushtrim123 are edit-warring trying to insert this map to this article and to Congress of Berlin. Is there a valid rationale for this? There are already 3 ethnographic maps, and this one is moreover heavily outdated. The other 3 maps are contemporary with the treaty, this one is 18 years older. Athenean (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on, it's not like you merely noticed. If you're asking for an opinion, mine is well known: all ethnographic maps should be out. Todor→Bozhinov 21:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Todor, I am well aware of your opinion :) Athenean (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, if there are two pro-Greek maps, there should be at least two neutral ones. Kostja (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Lejean map is hardly neutral. Athenean (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Find sources for that. Kostja (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Lejean map is hardly neutral" - And Stanford's map is completely, fully, 100% neutral. --Gligan (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Synvet's map

I removed the ref about A.Synvet being pro-Greek. What the ref actually says is not at all that: It says that the MAP was favourable to the Greek cause, not the geographers, which is something entirely different. "Other maps (not other geographers) amongst other ..... were favourable to the Greek cause" meaning that they agreed with the Greeks. That doesn't make (the geographers themselves) pro-Greek. The text is free on line as pdf. --Factuarius (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Two pro-Greek maps is already complete arrogance. Neither that article, nor Eastern Rumelia need so many maps. And having two out of three maps being pro-Greek, I don't know how to call it... --Gligan (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Synvet is not pro-Greek as explained above and the ref is clearly misquoted. If is something, is pro-Turk, which is very obvious in his map and from his positioning in multiple high ranking jobs in the Ottoman Empire, as well as from his close relations with well known Turk nationalistic circles of the era, especially around the Young Turk movement. He even show Turks inside Greece although I find that unlikely after the 1897 Greco-Turk war. Read more about him before accusing him or his map in being pro-Greek. So stop removing Stanford opening another edit war. --Factuarius (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The source clearly says that the map was pro-Greek. I won't remove the map while the discussion lasts but once this is over either all maps will be removed or a proper balance will be reached; the article currently is very far from NPOV. Kostja (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the map Factuarius, you must be more careful. There are indeed Muslims in Thessaly but the map was made in 1877, when Thessaly was not part of Greece. The map is pro-Turkish in respect to the Bulgarians, but that doesn't stop it from being pro-Greek. Some points:

1. The so-called "Bulgaro-Greeks", which fits the Greek propaganda very well.

2. No Vlachs in Macedonia and no Arvanites in Greece. Again, fits the Greek viewpoint that these were just Greeks speaking in different languages.

3. Greek dominance in Albania up to Elbasan. In fact the minority living in this region is marked as Muslims, so denying the existence of Albanians south of this line.

4. Overestimating the Greek population in Bulgaria. Especially, marking a significant Greek minority in the Western Rodope mountains when they were mostly restricted to a few towns like Stanimaka. Also omitting the significant Bulgarian population in the Strandzha area. Note that this was the area were the Bulgarian Preobrazhenie rebellion took place in 1903 and a significant source for refugees in 1913. Kostja (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That this makes the map "pro-Greek" is of course, nothing more than your own interpretation. I will not engage in similar creative OR interpretations of 100+ year old sources, though I easily could. The map is a primary source, and our readers are smart enough not to take it at face value. You should re-read Future Perfect's comments on CCN again, he makes a very good point. The perceived threat to your country is not there. Regarding which maps should be used, all maps that are contemporary with the Treaty should be used, regardless of whether they are pro-this or pro-that. The purpose of including them is to provide context, not cater to ethnic sensibilities. As long as they are properly discussed in the main text using secondary sources, there shouldn't be a problem. I would be ok with quoting the source that says Synvet's map "was similarly favorable to the Greek cause" in the main text, but to include it in the fashion proposed by Kostja in the caption is pushing it. The captions should be neutral. Athenean (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already agreed that most maps need to be removed on CCN. I was just replying to Factuarius' erroneous interpretation. Kostja (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that I saw agreed upon at CCN so far was that the political qualifications from the captions need to go, so if you don't mind, I will oblige. Athenean (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why a Turkish village had an Italian name?

San Stefano is not an Italian name. It is the Western translation of the Greek name of the village, Άγιος Στέφανος (Ayos Stefanos). It was common practice in Western Europe (and in Russia as well) to use such internationalized names for locations in the Ottoman Empire. Kostja (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• I had well understood that it was a translation of a Greek name, due to the fact that the original inhabitants were Greek-speaking. However it remains the fact that the translation SAN STEFANO was done in Italian and not in an other western language, French, English, German....--Deguef (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know the reason for this. It's likely due to the great Italian influence (through Venice) in this region in former times. Kostja (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why three maps

Concerning the articles: Treaty of San Stefano; Treaty of Berlin and Eastern Rumelia

On the first place, if we distract from the fact that two of the three maps are pro-Greek - why do we need three ethnic maps on those articles at all? Why? I personally can't think of a single reason. Two maps are more than enough.

Here is my grounding to remove the Stanford map:

1. Its clearly fictional qualities, hugely misleading to the reader the date on the map notwithstanding. It was not any close to accurate then, and it is not any close to accurate now.
2. The only reason that it was included was that this "map is of historical significance since upon that map the Congress of Berlin created Bulgaria as a state in 1878 and shaped her borders". This is not the Congress of Berlin article, this is the Treaty of San Stefano, which precedes it, and the map has no direct relevance to that treaty.
3. The obvious map clutter that we currently have requires that we remove at least some of the historical ethnographic maps. Todor→Bozhinov 14:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Points #1 and #3 are irrelevant. Regarding point #1, none of these ethnographic maps are "accurate" to the extent that they all represent the biases of their creators, and do not show minority groups. Our readers are smart enough not to take them at face values. Point #3 is a personal preference. I happen to have a different preference. So what? But regarding point #2, Stanford's map was instrumental in undermining the Treaty. It pretty much represents the official British line at the time (which was very much opposed to any increase in Russian influence through the creation of a Greater Bulgaria), and it was mainly British objections that sealed the fate of the Treaty. This is why Stanford made his map in the first place, so as to advance the British cause, certainly not because Paparrigopoulos asked him nicely. This needs to be properly discussed in the main text, and I have the sources to do that. As long as the map is placed in proper context and discussed using sources, there shouldn't be a problem. Athenean (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So criteria #1 is irrelevant here but is relevant in the case of Lejean? Try to show at least some attempts at neutrality. As you saw at the CCN discussion, there are many who want to remove all irrelevant maps, so #3 is also not irrelevant. The second point may be of some relevance, but it has yet to be sourced. When a source is provided that explicitly links this map with British policy then the map can be inserted but right now it's a violation of NPOV. Kostja (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Then place the map in proper context and discuss it using sources. The proper context is Congress of Berlin and Treaty of Berlin (1878). No mention is currently made of the map in the body.

Of course, I agree many of the maps of that age have a certain bias. The Stanford map is not merely biased: it's entirely fictional and its single purpose was to mislead and misinform.

Please bring your sources to some use and write a paragraph about that map in Congress of Berlin and Treaty of Berlin (1878). Todor→Bozhinov 07:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The map is not fictional, is very real and its role is evident to everyone who wants to have a look in the final frontiers as these had been agreed in the treaty that created Bulgaria and E.Rumelia and cancelled the preliminary. No other ethnological map is so close to that. --Factuarius (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree, can you please say hi to my dozens of Albanian friends in Pernik and Radomir and the hordes of Greek buddies I have from Kyustendil, Haskovo and Samokov? Also, Stanford must have done a pretty good job with his beta version of the Revival Process because the Rhodopes are mostly devoid of Turks and Pomaks are nonexistent. You know that very well, why keep denying the fabrications the map is based on? Todor→Bozhinov 16:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Without a good caption and a discussion of the map and its role in the body (and not in Eastern Rumelia and Treaty of San Stefano), this painting by Renoir is just as useless in these articles as the Stanford map.
It's only less misleading and more beautiful. Todor→Bozhinov 16:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Factuarius, may I please ask you to discuss instead of resorting to blind reverts? I mean, before you actually revert. You have failed to address any of the points above in your rather useless edit summary. One would think the only goal of your edit was to have it your way, no matter what.

In particular, I'm interested as to how you see the relevance of a map that is unaddressed in the body text and is mostly irrelevant to it. Without a proper caption and body treatment, the Stanford map is not only unnecessary, but harmful to the article due to its entirely fictional content.

The way Greek editors have approached the issue, namely zero desire to participate in a fruitful discussion and exploiting honest comments to impose illogical and ungrounded reverts, makes me think there is no willingness on the Greek side to actually reach a consensus. What's more, you guys are failing to see through even the clearest of arguments.

What is so vague about "the Stanford map would be more appropriate in Congress of Berlin and Treaty of Berlin (1878)" and "without a proper caption and body treatment, the Stanford map has no place in any article"?

Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 16:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, first the map was deleted not only from here, but also from many articles, in the same day, although not from you but from another Bulgarian guy who had participated with you -among other Bulgarian editors- during the previous edit war you guys unleashed two months before here. I am not believing in coincidence, but that's my problem. Second, I can't imagine how an ethnological map created just a year before the preliminary treaty is irrelevant in the article's treaty. Third, if you like to write something about it in the main body nobody opposed it. But it's not logical to remove every map because it is not mentioned in the article's text. Fourth nice portrait of a really fine lady, I am not opposed including her in the article. --Factuarius (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Factuarius, this map was removed for the same reason Lejean's map was removed : it is full of errors. That it was made a year before the treaty is not relevant: the treaty is not about the ethnic situation in the Balkans, but about the San Stefano treaty. Are we going to include all maps of the Balkans of the period because they are relevant? The number of ethnic maps should be kept at a minimum here especially as it would be difficult to discuss them in the article. Therefore as including the map would tilt the balance to a Greek POV it should be included only if a concrete link with the article could be found. Despite multiple requests you have never provided any sources to confirm such a link. I see that you removed my request of citation "to clean up the caption". The consensus reached doesn't include removal of all captions, only subjective declarations like "pro-Greek". So the original caption should be reinserted along with the source proving its key role in the Berlin treaty which is what justifies its inclusion in this and other articles.

Unfounded accusations are not in the spirit of Wikipedia. It would be preferable if you abstained from further such accusations. Kostja (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"You started it" is no argument for the Stanford map to remain in Eastern Rumelia and Treaty of San Stefano. In fact, you're not even trying to justify its inclusion, which makes me think you just want it to be there. I'm desperately asking you to address my points adequately. Todor→Bozhinov 18:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

@Bozhinov: No I didn't say that, I believe you understand well what I told but I maybe wrong. Anyway, look if what I answered is not enough to you then nothing is enough. For the last time: An ethnological map one year older of the preliminary treaty covering the area is absolutely relevant to the article. If this map is not relevant, then there are no relevant maps for the article. @Kostja: you removed the map from a number of articles using a variety of excuses f.i. in the 1st Balkan war by saying "it is 35 years old", while here where the map is barely a year old you say the ridiculous "is wrong". Based upon your behaviour I find any effort to discuss with you useless. You only using hypocritical excusses to remove the map from every possible article. To me is the most characteristic way for someone to cry "I don't like it, I don't like it". And to this I don't really have something to answer. If I am also wrong I hope the answer I gave to Bozhinov to cover you also. --Factuarius (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, obviously you're not getting it. The map's year of creation is okay, it's good in that respect. Actually, it's pretty much the only thing that is okay with this map. However, the inclusion of any ethnographic maps at all is debatable: see for example Treaty of Sèvres, Treaty of Lausanne, Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine, Treaty of Versailles. Any ethnography around?

If an ethnographic map should be included, then it ought to be a good one. This one is not just bad, it's horrible. It's fiction. And it has no place in any article that does not label it correctly as propaganda and does not somehow directly relate to the article in the body text (by that I mean discussion of the map itself).

Yes, I don't like it. An ethnographic map should be a scholarly work that strives to present actual geographic and ethnographic research: this one does not. I don't like it because it's a really bad map, not because it's (in a purely political sense) an anti-Bulgarian Anglo-Greek map. Todor→Bozhinov 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Factuarius, you say that removing Stanford because it's wrong is ridiculous. I presume that you don't actually think that the map is actually right so I'll remind you (yet again) that Lejean's 1861 map was removed for exactly this reason. Kostja (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed truly terrible. Will somebody comment on my points instead of doing blind reverts? I cannot agree that the Stanford map can in any way "balance" Ravenstein, which is by all means a much more realistic and credible map. I wouldn't call it pro-Bulgarian: large areas are correctly labeled as mixed Bulgarian and Turkish, Greek areas around the Black Sea are correctly coloured, and Bulgarian presence in southern Thrace is underestimated. Sure, Macedonia is probably a bit off (too homogeneous), the Turkish dominance in the Eastern Rhodopes and Ludogorie at the time is not labeled well enough and the Albanian area is quite wrong in the northeast, but it is by no means well off the mark. If anything, I'd call it anti-Turkish and pro-Albanian first and foremost.

1. Why do you think the map is vital to these two articles specifically?
2. Do you actually believe it is credible enough to be used without a disclaimer caption and without any body treatment? Why?
3. Do you actually believe the Stanford map, rather than Synvet, is exactly as biased and as correct as the Ravenstein map, in order to "balance" the inclusion of Ravenstein? Why?

Thank you. Todor→Bozhinov 19:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

1) Must be sheer coincidence that Stanford created this map at just the right time. The treaty was scuppered due to British intervention and objections. Stanford's map pretty much toes the British line (why else would he make a map like that? To please Paparrigopoulos?). 2) I never said it shouldn't be used without body treatment. In fact I think I said the exact opposite. 3) If Synvet and Stanford are too much for you, how about we remove Synvet? Athenean (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

1. You did not address #1. Why is it vital (crucial, indispensable) to these two articles? Why Eastern Rumelia, which is an article about a political entity, and Treaty of San Stefano, which is about the signing and terms of the treaty, and NOT about its revision in Berlin?
2. If you agree that the map should be accompanied by body treatment, why do you keep reinserting it without providing the context that it absolutely requires?
3. By this should I understand that your answer to #3 is "Yes"? Todor→Bozhinov 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Two other questions:

1. Does the inclusion of 4 (FOUR) ethnographic maps in Eastern Rumelia look reasonable to you? If not, how many would you ideally have in that article, and how many in San Stefano? My answer would be a single one if at all.
2. What's your opinion of this one File:CarlSaxET1877.jpg? It's among the best ones I have seen from this period. Todor→Bozhinov 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay first, there was no "Treaty" of San Stefano. It was a preliminary Treaty, meaning it was never implemented. The only treaty was that of Berlin. As such, the two are inextricably connected. Regarding your 2nd point, are you in some kind of rush or something? Btw, I'm not the one who inserted the fourth map, so you might want to address yourself elsewhere for that. I don't see anything wrong with including four maps anyhow. "A single one, if at all" No prizes for guessing which one the "single one" you have in mind would be. Regarding Sax, I'm not exactly sure how it is one of the "best" ones, since none are "better" or "worse" than the others. Not that I see anything wrong with including Sax, as you may have figured out by now I am generally pro-map. Sax, Stanford, Synvet, Ravenstein, they are all fine by me. Now are we done with the 20-questioning here? Athenean (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's not like I'm forcing you to discuss. I'm simply trying to fix the mess we've all ended up in. You can opt out if that's what you want. I'm not going to be dragged into a "why it is a treaty" dispute because it's obviously ridiculous and it only serves to distract from the actual point of discussion. It puzzles me that you're in favour of four ethnographic maps as a solution, it shows that your intention is not to improve these two articles in anyway, but to have the Greek point of view represented as prominently as possible.

You're clearly wrong: there are better and worse maps and Stanford is evidently a terrible map purely scientifically. You're also wrong about which map I would rather have as the single one in these articles: that would be Sax of those that I have seen so far.

If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and leave only Sax everywhere. Again, you're free to write your paragraph on Stanford and include it in Treaty of Berlin (1878) and Congress of Berlin together with the properly captioned map. Not here or in Eastern Rumelia though, it simply lacks the relevance to that specific treaty. Todor→Bozhinov 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I do mind, and quite a bit. "I'll leave only Sax everywhere"? Where does that come from, and what kind of an argument is that? Such an attitude is very unhelpful. Why did you bother asking for an RfC if you already decided what you're going to do? Maps such as Synvet's and Stanford's disagreed with the Preliminary Treaty, and they were part of the reason it remained preliminary. You cannot separate the Treaty from its cancellation. The creation of Eastern Rumelia was precisely the outcome of this cancellation. All maps that are contemporary with the treaty should be included. Athenean (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous. Your last comments are so devoid of sense that I don't even know where to start, so I'll just leave it at that. You're showing neither willingness to improve these articles nor any understanding of the topic you're discussing. Todor→Bozhinov 21:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What's absolutely ridiculous and entirely devoid of sense (though not surprising) is this "I'll leave only Sax everywhere" business. Athenean (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

@Bozhinov: The answer is simple: Because there were no such thing as "scientific" maps at the date, since there were no censuses for the area before 1878. That's why. So there is no "right" or "wrong" maps. Scientific and unscientific. Since both three parties disagreed about the ethnological map of the area and we don't have any means to find out who was right, we need to present both the three points of view. The Bulgarian the Greek and the Turkish. I am not going to imply a choice over what is the map best presenting the Turkish point of view I don't have the necessary info, I thought it was Synvet, but Hittite seems disagreeing, he must know more about the Turkish minority (or majority) there. I also cannot imply what map presents better the Bulgarian point. But there is no question by anyone that the Stanford's presents definitely best both the Greek and British point over the issue. So there is no consensus in removing it and on this I agree with Athenean who made also a very good point over your persistent effort to separate the preliminary treaty from its cancellation. --Factuarius (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There no censuses but maps could still be made scientifically if they were based on honest research. Due to the sources preferred by different authors they show biases towards different ethnic groups but they still fall in a relatively narrow band. Stanford is completely out of this band. If two of the maps are the Synvet and the Stanford one, Synvet's map will seem reasonable and neutral which doesn't really match the sources. Also, Stanford's map is specifically dismissed as having no scientific value which makes its inclusion without commentary even more problematic. Kostja (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Or as ...Kostja said some minutes before "having just one ethnographic map may imply that this is the "correct one". Different views must be represented"[4], off course not here.. in the Turks in Bulgaria article. Nice, this was the comic element of the night :-) I wonder if what he said is only for the Turks and for reverting Hittite or can be applied in any other article in WP. I like this guy, really, makes me laugh. --Factuarius (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am all for representing different views. That's what Synvet's map is here for. However, I'm against pro-Greek maps predominating, which is what you and Athenean seem to want. Kostja (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Also there are two maps in the article even after Stanford's map is removed while there was only one map in the Turks of Bulgaria article so the comparison here is not correct. Kostja (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Athenean clearly doesn't know enough about the subject otherwise he wouldn't say that Eastern Rumelia was created as a consequence of the Treaty of San Stefano. Eastern Rumelia was a consequence of the Treaty of Berlin. Sax's map seems to be the most neutral so I agree with Todor to have that in every relevant article.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Kushtrim123 must have extremely limited knowledge about the issues connected with the article or he is a medium. Except that there was no such a treaty, only preliminary, (the only treaty was that of Berlin), I wonder how he knows that it is the "most neutral" since no censuses existed prior the treaty. Suppose he will give us his info as to finally close the issue, but I was hoping he would do it before removing, but again if he would spoke more frequent than reverting he would still had his old user name.. --Factuarius (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just an SPA whose sole purpose on this encyclopedia is to revert Greek editors so as to spite them. No need to take it seriously, only not to feed it. Athenean (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So after trying unsuccessfully to block me as a sock now you're trying to dismiss what I say? And how about you two not reverting & tag-teaming together in a way that helps you circumvent the 3RR?All you have said so far are just WP:NPA, so I would advise you to stop.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You could greatly help by a) explaining how come you know so much about wikipedia in so short a time, and b) if you did something other than follow me around and revert me whenever you deem an appropriate opportunity to spite me is at hand. Athenean (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting your info upon you based the "most neutral" characterization, and your revert. --Factuarius (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sax's map is the most balanced because it shows population numbers balanced without overestimating them. Athenean get over it as I've been in wikipedia for about 1,5-2 months or haven't you noticed?.--80.80.167.1 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"It's the most balanced because it shows population numbers balanced". Nice. See tautology. Athenean (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The time spent in personal attacks could perhaps have been better spent in finding the long-sought sources explaining why Stanford's fantasy is so significant as to be included in all articles vaguely connected to the Balkans. Kostja (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Per you. Any objections? --Factuarius (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant sources to show that the map was used in the Berlin congress, this isn't a serious argument as in this article there are already two maps with different views. Nice avoidance of the issue, though. Kostja (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop recycling the discussion. I told you that many times, the Stanford's map is here presenting the Greek (and British) points of view, as Ravenstein the Bulgarian (and Russian). For the Ottoman (and maybe French) point of view I proposed the Synvet's but User:Hittit may have more knowledge about to propose a better map. --Factuarius (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Synvet's map represents the pro-Greek position, we have sources for this. Therefore the only reason to have a second pro-Greek map is that it was somehow historically significant, which was your original position. You have failed to provide any arguments in favor of this, therefore it's you who is recycling the discussion. Kostja (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on current inclusion of Stanford map

Lads, this has become an uncontrolled revert and tag-team fest so I'm requesting some outside opinion. Discussion has obviously been abandoned by most participants so here goes. Todor→Bozhinov 19:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The question should be phrased in terms of what ethnographic maps, if any, should be used here, not just whether Stanford is appropriate or not. Athenean (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the current text of the article, I don't see the need to include any ethnographic maps at all. It appears that a lot of time and energy has been spent on discussion and reverting--more, in fact than has been spent on the actual text of the article. My advice is to assume good faith on the part of all editors, and spend time on the article's text. If an extra map of any sort is needed it should be obvious in the text.Revcasy (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it is unacceptable to remove the maps while discussing, and then cease to discuss since the Bulgarian user who removed them and started the discussion almost immediately after the removal ceased to discuss, having days to post any comments. The second Bulgarian user who participated, in other articles declares "Having just one ethnographic map may imply that this is the "correct one". Different views must be represented"[5], while in other articles and here he edit warring for removing every non-pro-Bulgarian ethnological map[6][7] from the articles. That makes "assuming good faith" a rather difficult task, but I will try. But I am opposed to using the discussion only as an extensive edit summary in removing the maps. --Factuarius (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User Factuarius seems to misunderstand the purpose of the Request for Comment feature. It's not meant for complaining about other users but for inviting outside opinions about articles. In any case, his dishonest presentation of events isn't constructive for any purpose. I inserted a second map in the Turks in Bulgaria article because there was just one other map, while in this article there are three maps, two of which have been described as pro-Greek: page 4 therefore it was certainly in the interest of balance to remove one. User Factuarius has always (see discussion about Stanford's from lat year above) insisted that this map is special because it was used in the Berlin congress and therefore must be included. He has however, never provided any sources to back up this interpretation.

In the case of the First Balkan war I'm afraid that Factuarius has again rather exaggerated in his favor. I removed only one (not every non pro-Bulgarian map) because the map - once again the controversial Stanford map - was made in 1877 while the Balkan war began in 1912, therefore it was 35 years out of date. Interestingly, Factuarius once removed a map from this article because it was 18 years out of date: [8]. It seems that in some cases 18 years is too much while in other cases 35 years is not enough. Kostja (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I will try this again. I have read the article three times now, and while it talks a great deal about states and territories, it mentions ethnicity only once: Greece also was extremely disappointed since the areas ceded to Bulgaria included large Greek populations in Macedonia and Thrace.[citation needed] The ethnographic maps which have been included in the article hardly make this one un-cited sentence clearer, because they do not show the change in territory that would have taken place by the treaty (they were made before the treaty). Therefore the ethnographic maps appear to be superfluous, and possibly even confusing. On the assumption that everyone wishes to improve the quality of the article, I believe it is clear that the ethnographic maps that are currently included in the article should be removed, and no others should be added until such a time as the text of the article (verifiable and with NPOV) actually makes it explicit that one or more is needed. At that point, and only at that point, does the discussion of which ethnographic maps to include become relevant to the actual content of the article.Revcasy (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

@Kostja.1)Come on don't tell me you didn't notice the previous edit. User:Kushtrim123 said "it isn't 20 years older[9] and I made the calculation for him[10]. Stop pretending being blind. 2)What you mean "only two maps"? But the parties under conflict in the Turks in Bulgaria article are two, the Turks and the Bulgarians. Here are three: The Bulgarians, the Greeks and the Turks, thus in the first article we (you) need two maps presenting the points of the two nationalities and here three. Same way as with the First Balkan War. Again you didn't notice? 3)By opening old stories again and again you are going nowhere: Since you disagreed about the role the map played in the Congress of Berlin, the map stayed presenting the Greek point as Ravenstein the pro-Bulgarian and Synvet the pro-Turkish as to summarily inform the readers about the respective points of every part upon the population's geography of the area, since no Ottoman censuses existed there until then (1878). Nobody disputes that the Stanford's map presents the Greek point, you had even produced a ref about that in the map's caption previously. Now you come saying "There is no indication that Stanford's map was anything special so there's no reason for this map to be in this article"[11], well it has, because "Different views must be represented". Not only in the "Turks in Bulgaria" article, but also here. --Factuarius (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see little point in refuting your arguments because you'll just repeat them again. Still, I'll try:

1) And after explaining you removed the map because it was out of date, unlike the eternal Stanford map which is still relevant after 35 years.

2)Yes, there are three viewpoints (perhaps even more). That's why there shouldn't be two maps with the same viewpoint as there are with a map by both Stanford and Synvet.

About the points raised by Todor and Revcasy, I agree completely. I've stated my opinion that only articles about demographics and ethnic groups should contain ethnic maps. However, until there has been strong opposition to removing all maps, which is why I've striven to reach at least some balance. Kostja (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for failing to post for a few days, but I find such disputes pretty disappointing. It's not down to me not having the desire to discuss, as Factuarius tries to make it look, merely that the absurd position of the opposing side has caused me to realize that there isn't much point in saying anything else. Thanks for the input, Revcasy, I see other participants in the discussion are ignoring it. It pretty much coincides with my original position: I see no use for these maps at all in this article, particularly when they're not even relevant to the current body text. Todor→Bozhinov 19:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that we now seem to have a prevailing opinion that outside observers also agree with. I'll go ahead and remove all ethnographic maps from Treaty of San Stefano and Eastern Rumelia. Todor→Bozhinov 09:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Poll for removal of map

The map Bulgaria-SanStefano -(1878)-byTodorBozhinov.png is clearly POV and factually misleading. It indicates Bulgarian borders (it states Bulgaria after San Stefano), which have never been ratified or de facto ever existed. It also confuses elements of the Berlin Congress by including the ratified areas of the Ottoman vassal Principality of Bulgaria and the autonomous territory of Eastern Rumelia within its context. I propose removal of this map and replacement with a San Stefano map draft of suggested territories under the document. Furthermore this article lacks sources and claims that “The treaty provided the creation of a Principality of Bulgaria as autonomous, after almost 500 years of Ottoman dominat” this was actually in San Stefano??? Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hittit (talk • contribs) 15:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The things that you managed to get wrong in a single post:

1. Like it or not, the treaty existed and the Ottoman Empire signed it.
2. The treaty cannot be adequately treated by ignoring its role in Bulgarian history. The comparison to the post-Berlin borders is absolutely vital for the treaty's understanding: otherwise the reader might think Bulgaria actually spanned the San Stefano borders as a state.
3. The principality and Eastern Rumelia were not merely Ottoman vassals, they went on to become modern Bulgaria.
4. Bulgaria celebrates its Liberation Day on 3 March, the day San Stefano was signed.
5. The treaty meant an end to the direct Ottoman rule of Bulgaria. Todor→Bozhinov 15:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Read carefully the poll is about the map. Your interpreations of San Stefano are another matter, perhaps you can find few sources on the article while you are at it.Hittit (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a poll, and it's not only about the map (read your first post's last sentence). On an unrelated note, please don't tell me what to do.

P.S. Also, I fail to see how I'm interpreting San Stefano wrongly, care to elaborate? Todor→Bozhinov 15:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, no valid reasons provided for removal. Map correctly portrays Bulgaria according to San Stefano treaty and according to the Berlin treaty. I think this is a typical case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Kostja (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A map of the treaty is necessary, but I agree that the current one is highly POV. The colors of the regions are chosen so as to be as similar to each other as possible, for obvious reasons. A while back, User:Macrakis made some useful suggestions that Todor (unsurprisingly?) ignored after making all the right noises. The caption also needs work, it is not neutral. When I have more time, I will work on making a better map. Athenean (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The colors are similar? I'm afraid this is just your interpretation. How is the caption not neutral? It clearly says borders according to preliminary treaty. Really, could you actually give some arguments or just resort to your usual bad faith accusations? Kostja (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on a slightly different map, and when I'm done, we can compare the two, and you'll see what I mean. Athenean (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Kostja (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just please don't substitute the map in the article without allowing us to discuss and reach a conclusion. That is, we discuss and when we have a consensus, we can switch maps. And please, can we quit with these accusations that you and Factuarius have been throwing around? I think I'm entitled to a personal life and I have my own backlog of stuff to do for Wikipedia. Todor→Bozhinov 18:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, though I hope it will be an honest discussion, not a filibuster. Regarding the rest, it's been several months now, so I think I can be forgiven some skepticism. Athenean (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 0630 При подписании мирного договора Сан-Стефано, 3 марта 1878.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 0630 При подписании мирного договора Сан-Стефано, 3 марта 1878.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The last section is way too long

The "Critical Reevaluation" section is unwieldy and far too long. It spends too much time talking about certain individual's opinions about the treaty instead of sticking to what should be the actual focus of the article, the historical treaty and its ramifications on the world of 1878. A few sentences describing the historigraphy of the article would be fine, which then links to a different article where this section could be moved, but other than that, most of this section should be removed or significantly trimmed. Jorde5212 (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not a "certain individual", it is a group of historians and publicists challenging the official viewpoint of Soviet historiography - and thereby the viewpoint imposed on Bulgarian historiography since the 1940s. So this is not a "minor issue", this is rather a big one. Moving the bulk of the text to another, newly created article, while leaving the gist of the section with a reference is fine, whoever volunteers is welcome to do it. VMORO 09:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Place of signing the treaty

The treaty has been signed at the Graf Ignatieff residence at San Stefano. 72.137.0.116 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)