Talk:Revival Process

Revival Process is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Pietrus1 (talk) at 04:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review this article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor. When complete, this review will be closed by the reviewer. To view the review and add comments, click discuss review.

Revival Process (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which was archived on 21 May 2026. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Revival Process article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bulgaria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Turkey Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Cold War Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Socialism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for Revival Process (36 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 4,590 4,590 286 286 Terminology 16 1,868 0 146 The Revival Process 884 884 61 61 Bulgarian Turks 968 968 85 85 Forced assimilation 24 43,852 0 3,742 Background 10,257 10,257 792 792 Initial campaigns 3,217 3,217 283 283 Start of the Revival Process 1,039 12,431 66 1,088 Approved name lists 1,271 1,271 134 134 Renaming 3,849 3,849 257 257 Other policies 4,981 4,981 476 476 State media and propaganda 1,291 1,291 155 155 Reaction and resistance 543 17,923 61 1,579 Turkish National Liberation Movement 2,033 2,033 206 206 Armed resistance 1,830 1,830 162 162 Belene labor camp 1,610 1,610 172 172 Casualties 2,533 2,533 105 105 International reaction 5,146 5,146 483 483 Second wave of resistance 4,228 4,228 390 390 1989 expulsion 876 1,331 95 144 Economic effects 455 455 49 49 Aftermath 714 8,677 65 895 Restoration of original names 1,124 1,124 120 120 Strengthening of Turkish identity 927 927 90 90 Nationalist backlash 1,249 1,249 131 131 Impact on the Cold War 2,515 2,515 275 275 Legal aftermath 2,148 2,148 214 214 Legacy 11 7,641 0 883 Domestic 4,769 4,769 539 539 International 800 800 89 89 Responsibility 2,061 2,061 255 255 In popular culture 2,174 2,174 246 246 See also 109 109 0 0 Notes 24 24 0 0 References 42 42 0 0 Bibliography 58,505 58,505 30 30 Total 128,813 128,813 6,372 6,372

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria was copied or moved into Revival Process on 14 August 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article contains a translation of Възродителен процес from bg.wikipedia. (1337381018 et seq.)

This article contains a translation of Турско националноосвободително движение в България from bg.wikipedia. (1337558573 et seq.)

There's no point of having two articles talking about the same thing. Revival Process is just a subset of Bulgarisation. غسان السقاف (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. The revival process was quite a massive policy, and specifically targeted at one minority (or group of minorities - Muslims). Bulgarization is too general. I think when both are properly written, this one will end up longer than the Bulgarization one. BigSteve (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Revival Process is an important event in recent history it should have its separate article despite it's merely a stub right now. But this article should be merged with 1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria. -- Infestor  ^T • _C 19:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we could mention this in the article "Bulgarisation" and make a link, but that's about it. I agree with Infestor that this page should be merged with 1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria. Kndimov (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to "Slavic" names to account for acceptable "Bulgarian" names under the policy which are neither Slavic nor Christian (Dimitar, Georgi, Hristina...) – such as "Krum" or "Asparuh". There are also popular Bulgarian names of pre-Christian Hellenic origin (Alexander, Filip etc). The only common denominator of names that were assigned under Bulgarisation appears to be that they just don't convey allegiance to Turkic or Muslim identities.Planetdust (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know it has been five years since you posted that comment, but do you have a source for that so that it can be included in the article? The claim makes total sense and does not seem dubious at all, but I would like to be able to insert a reference. Pietrus1 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source all this time later. Pietrus1 (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a detailed comparison of the articles "Big Excursion" and "Revival Process," here are the key points and recommendations:

1. Overlaps:
   • Both articles discuss the background and events of the Big Excursion and the Revival Process.
   • Both address the ethnic composition of the victims and the terminology used.
   • Forced Assimilation in the Revival Process article covers similar ground as the History and Background sections in the Big Excursion article.
   • Aftermath sections in both articles describe the restoration of rights and the legacy of the events.
2. Unique Content:
   • The Big Excursion article provides more specific details about the international response, economic impact, and Cold War context.
   • The Revival Process article offers a more in-depth look at the assimilation policies, state methods, and specific resistance efforts.

To address the duplication and effectively introduce summary style, consider the following approach:

1. Merge Overlapping Sections:
   • Combine sections that cover the same content, such as the background, history, and aftermath. Use the more detailed information from one article and provide a summary in the other, with clear references to the main article for further reading.
2. Focus on Unique Aspects:
   • Ensure that each article highlights its unique aspects. The Revival Process article should focus on the broader assimilation policies and methods used, while the Big Excursion article should detail the specific events of 1989 and their international implications.
3. Introduce Summary Style:
   • In the Revival Process article, summarize the key points of the Big Excursion and provide a link to the main Big Excursion article for readers seeking more detailed information.
   • Conversely, in the Big Excursion article, briefly mention the broader Revival Process as the context and link to the Revival Process article for a deeper understanding of the assimilation policies.

The duplication notice is still applicable as there is significant overlap between the two articles. By following the recommendations to merge overlapping content and introduce summary style, you can ensure that each article remains focused and informative without unnecessary duplication. This approach will enhance the clarity and coherence of both articles. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your assitance1! Pietrus1 (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a very long time, I returned to clean up the duplication. Hopefully all looks good now. Pietrus1 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Excursion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I'm not sure if this is would be more appropriately listed under socsci or history, but I think it leans more towards history. Maybe I will seek a socsci review after the history review.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback as to what is missing from the article currently. I believe on the old "who, what, when, where, why" test, it often fails the who part to some extent as I often say X was done by "the state" rather than department Y within the state. I have also substantially reworded and reworked sections of the article after adding citations, so surely the alignment between the text and at least some of the citations will not be perfect.

This is also liable to be a contentious topic, and I don't intend to come across as blaming any particular group beyond maybe the Bulgarian Communist Party of the time, so I'd like suggestions of content to add that would increase the overall neutrality of the article where simply seeking to use neutral language might not be sufficient.

Edit: Note that this article is intimately connected to the 1989 expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria article. I have not had time to expand that article to the same extent as this one, but that one cannot really be understood without this article, though I do think they should be separate pages as that article is for the culmination that became true ethnic cleaning.

Thanks, Pietrus1 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an additional question:

I tried to mix academic and news sources. Should I purge the non-academic sources from the document as most of what they say is repeated in academic sources anyway? Pietrus1 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to additionally ask if I could receive suggestions as to the aftermath and legacy sections. The 1989 exodus linked in the article was split off into a child article and only a summary remains in the Revival Process article, however, much of the aftermath and legacy of the two events is connected.

Should these things be separated? Presented together in the Revival Process article? I want to avoid duplication.

Pietrus1 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have now listed this peer review at the FAC sidebar. Pietrus1 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The first reference doesn't explicitly use the term "Revival Process"[1]. Its fine to use such references later in the article. But the very first reference should be an English language reference, accessible online, that says something along the lines of "The Revival Process describes a period in history where..." It builds the reader confidence in WP:V.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:14, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Replaced, thanks. Would you recommend using a number of sources that use the term exactly in the lead or just a one or two? Pietrus1 (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I bothered @Chaotic Enby about this on discord, and am moving their comments here for the future:

Small details from a first quick scroll:

• The "Timeline" section being in a table is not very practical (and might go against MOS:EMBED, which is required for GA)

Should I remake the timeline as prose? I kind of wanted to maintain a timeline section of some sort since there are a fair number of specific dates mentioned.

That's what the lead is for! You want it to summarize the article, so having a short prose timeline with the main points is exactly what you're looking for (after describing the event itself in the first paragraph)

• Especially in short sections, it's better to put the "Further information" hatnote at the top rather than between the two paragraphs

Pietrus1 (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I found the lead a bit odd, in the sense that we start with something that feels relatively minor (name changes) and only see the full scale of repression in the second paragraph of the lead.
• Sentence fragments in captions should not have a full stop at the end (i.e. the caption starting with Todor)
• The section on casualties mostly does not note what happened. Where there more protests? Prison deaths? People 'resisting arrests'?
• Economic Effects > rm capitalisation
• A similar distinction between "political" and "criminal" offenses led to condemnation in instances beyond Bulgaria > I dont know what you mean here
• In general, a see also section should not have subsections. For the more obscure terms, use an annotated link
• Your notes are uncited.
• You cite an MA thesis. Typically, per WP:THESIS, they should only be used when they have had scholarly influence (that is, if they have been cited at least by a couple of independent folks)
• These events made the effects of the Revival Process on the Bulgarian economy clear > Did it? With multiple crises at the same time, sometimes it's more difficult to disentangle. Are there estimates of the economic effects? I find the paragraph quite vague at the moment. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Pietrus1 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How do I insert sfns into notes? At the moment, this causes issues? So I have put the citations outside of the notes. Pietrus1 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found the lead a bit odd, in the sense that we start with something that feels relatively minor (name changes) and only see the full scale of repression in the second paragraph of the lead.
    • I will rework this shortly.
  • Sentence fragments in captions should not have a full stop at the end (i.e. the caption starting with Todor)
    • Fixed.
  • Economic Effects > rm capitalisation
    • Fixed.
  • A similar distinction between "political" and "criminal" offenses led to condemnation in instances beyond Bulgaria > I dont know what you mean here
    • Hopefully fixed without getting into OR.
  • In general, a see also section should not have subsections. For the more obscure terms, use an annotated link
    • Fixed.
  • You cite an MA thesis. Typically, per WP:THESIS, they should only be used when they have had scholarly influence (that is, if they have been cited at least by a couple of independent folks)
    • I have begun addressing this. Sourcing currently reliant exclusively on theses is slowly being replaced.
  • These events made the effects of the Revival Process on the Bulgarian economy clear > Did it? With multiple crises at the same time, sometimes it's more difficult to disentangle. Are there estimates of the economic effects? I find the paragraph quite vague at the moment.
    • The sentence I cited is the best summary sentence I could find from the source. I added one word, which is in-line with the source before the "made clear" sentence. I also added some links. There is also the Sinatra Doctrine, which wikipedia unfortunately does not flesh out very much currently, but is cited at times for actions like the USSR not bailing out Romania financially.

  Pietrus1 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have reworked the lead as well now. Pietrus1 (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  All MA thesis references are now gone. Pietrus1 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  All changes have been made, I think. Pietrus1 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Revival Process/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pietrus1 (talk · contribs) 04:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 02:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this as part of GARC#89. I will need a few days to go through the article and sources. A.Cython(talk) 02:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you need anything. Pietrus1 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to finish the review by the end of the weekend. A.Cython(talk) 23:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is a larger article. Take all the time that you need.

Pietrus1 (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading about the Revival Process, a topic that admittedly did not know much. So it is great that Pietrus1 has made the effort to compile the sources and write this article (95% contribution). It was no easy job given that it is not an easy topic to write about. Overall, it has the potential to reach the finish line, but first there are a number of minor issues that need to be fixed. I provide my comments in detail below. A.Cython(talk) 21:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• No edit war
• Neutral
• Broad+Focused
• No copyright issues detected, Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives 19.4%
• No issues with figures, all are free of copyright except the infobox image which is under the fair use justification

• While this is a special/controversial topic and citations may be required, I feel there are a bit too many citations at the lead and at the infobox. The relevant policy is MOS:CITELEAD. I think there two solutions
  1. Remove citations on non-controversial statements. For example, at the infobox, Location Bulgaria does it need a citation? See also WP:CITETRIM
  2. You can reduce the effect of citation overuse with merging the citations together, i.e., WP:CITEMERGE

• I will definitely do this. Will you take a look at the relevant diff? Pietrus1 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[AC] Once you finish with all the changes, then ping me to read the article again. No need to micromanage and if you disagree explain the reason for me to understand.

• Acronyms, if you define them then use them in the text otherwise there is no need to define them. So use them or remove them
  • EEC, UNESCO, OSCE, ESGRAON, KGB
• remove intraarticle wikilinks, these tend to break when target is renamed, e.g., death toll estimates vary among sources
• new government under Petar Mladenov → new government under Petar Mladenov
• forced assimilation and an "assimilation campaign" → an "assimilation campaign" (they are kind of the same thing, no?)
  • I complete agree with you, but I was trying to tip-toe around this. One of the sources also discusses nuances in terms (in Bulgarian). Another source which I did not link to not overcite this also discusses nuance in terms (in English). For now, I changed it to just "assimilation campaign."
    • [AC] Noted
• in majority Turkish areas → in the majority Turkish areas
• insisted Bulgarian Turks → insisted that Bulgarian Turks
• two–three months → two to three months
• susbsequently spelling?
• affected Bulgarian affected the Bulgarian
• four–seven → four and seven
• By late 1984, communist Bulgaria was party to organizations and treaties that protected minority rights, even as it continued to pursue assimilation policies in contravention of these. → By late 1984, communist Bulgaria belonged to organizations and treaties that protected minority rights, while continuing to implement assimilation policies in breach of those obligations.
• One theory traces the Turkish community to migration from Asia Minor, while the other rejects such migration. so what is the second theory? I assume religious conversion when the Ottomans arrived?
• Shortly before the Revival Process, the state made education policy more assimilationist, promoting mixed marriages, and requiring Turkish-minority teachers to undergo ideological training. → In the period leading up to the Revival Process, the state intensified its assimilationist education policies by promoting mixed marriages and subjecting Turkish-minority teachers to ideological training.
• as security concerns → as security concerns (add relevant wikilink)
• Avoid WP:WEASEL words, try to quantify if possible
  • expelled many Turks from the country how many 200, 10,000?
  • Non-fatal injuries Several thousand provide a range
    • For non-fatal injuries, the source is a bit vague. It does not provide a numeric range. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • [AC] Noted.
• remove the wikilinks from existing countries, i.e., Greece and Iran, per MOS:OVERLINK
  • Done, but I have kept the link to Baathist Syria for now since it recently went away. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • [AC] Noted.
• The same study found that Bulgarian Turks generally blamed Todor Zhivkov and his "circle" rather than ethnic Bulgarians as a whole.[316] Only 2 percent blamed ethnic Bulgarians as a whole.[316] Both sentences say the same thing, perhaps merging them?

Spot check: 3, 15, 26, 39, 56, 65, 83, 86, 125, 127, 130, 148, 150, 153, 189, 205, 275, 278, 285, 292, 293, 296, 317, 316, 323

• Try avoid sequential citations,
  • the country.[262] The events of 1989 intensified the crisis.[262] here remove the first one
• Citation 153: This relies on a witness account that I am not entirely sure if this can be deemed reliable. At the very least an explanatory note is needed here with regard where this number is coming from, i.e., it is not an independent academic estimate but from a US official at an informal interview.
  • I have deleted this source entirely.
    • [AC] Noted.
• gradually released the results. the source says until the end of 1987 perhaps this needs to mention, i.e., it took more than a year to publish the census result? Otherwise "gradually" is a vague term.
• Citation 189: it might be helpful the reason why Bulgarians have been indifferent: Since the Turkish minority was heavily concentrated in two regions of the country, most of the ethnic Bulgarians had no contact with it and were largely indifferent. (added emphasis)
• Diplomatic pressure on Bulgaria from Turkey also increased. How? Please clarify.
• Citation 275: In protest, ethnic Turkish schoolchildren in the south-east boycotted schools. This seems important context.
• Citation 278: This fact points to some secret negotiations between Moscow and Washington, which prevented treating such a unilateral breach of the NATO-Warsaw Pact military frontier as a casus belli. This is not mentioned in the article and it appears important.
  • I was not sure if I should include this sort of detail in this article without substantial support. I have added that with attribution.
• Citation 316: The majority of the Christian Bulgarian respondents in an opinion poll, which was a part of the study, defined the ‘renaming’ as ‘a crime.’ Those who thought that it was not a crime were 29% This does not automatically mean 71% considered it a crime, probably a range of 51–71%, since we do know how many refused to answer the poll.

I wanted to post a reply as well. How would you suggest that I handle the cases where the sources are "mixed" across several sentences with respect to combining citations? What I mean by mixed is cases where a source is used in different combinations with other sources. For example, a source might be used by itself in one sentence then in the next is used in conjunction with another source. Pietrus1 (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not need to merge citations in the main body, as (and to my understanding) this is not part of GA criteria. However, the lead is a different story. I merged the citations at the lead with the use of sfnmp template. A.Cython(talk) 01:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Can you take a look at the other comments that I made underneath the individual points?

02:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC) Pietrus1 (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I gave responses for now. Once you finish the changes, ping me to re-read the article. A.Cython(talk) 02:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noting my edits:

• While this is a special/controversial topic and citations may be required, I feel there are a bit too many citations at the lead and at the infobox. The relevant policy is MOS:CITELEAD. I think there two solutions.

You have taken care of the lead. I am taking care of the infobox. I have removed all of the citations, as I think it was sufficient to direct people to the information with notes.

• remove intraarticle wikilinks, these tend to break when target is renamed

Done

• new government under Petar Mladenov → new government under Petar Mladenov

Done

• forced assimilation and an "assimilation campaign" → an "assimilation campaign" (they are kind of the same thing, no?)

Done

• Various small copyedits following that.

Done

• By late 1984, communist Bulgaria was party to organizations and treaties that protected minority rights, even as it continued to pursue assimilation policies in contravention of these. → By late 1984, communist Bulgaria belonged to organizations and treaties that protected minority rights, while continuing to implement assimilation policies in breach of those obligations.

Done

• One theory traces the Turkish community to migration from Asia Minor, while the other rejects such migration. so what is the second theory? I assume religious conversion when the Ottomans arrived?

Done

• Shortly before the Revival Process, the state made education policy more assimilationist, promoting mixed marriages, and requiring Turkish-minority teachers to undergo ideological training. → In the period leading up to the Revival Process, the state intensified its assimilationist education policies by promoting mixed marriages and subjecting Turkish-minority teachers to ideological training.

Done

• as security concerns → as security concerns (add relevant wikilink)

Done

• expelled many Turks from the country how many 200, 10,000?

TBD

• Non-fatal injuries Several thousand provide a range

Not done as the original sources did not give specific numbers.

• remove the wikilinks from existing countries, i.e., Greece and Iran, per MOS:OVERLINK

Done

• The same study found that Bulgarian Turks generally blamed Todor Zhivkov and his "circle" rather than ethnic Bulgarians as a whole.[316] Only 2 percent blamed ethnic Bulgarians as a whole.[316] Both sentences say the same thing, perhaps merging them?

I combined these two.

• Try avoid sequential citations

There is still a lot of instances to take care of here.

• Citation 153: This relies on a witness account that I am not entirely sure if this can be deemed reliable. At the very least an explanatory note is needed here with regard where this number is coming from, i.e., it is not an independent academic estimate but from a US official at an informal interview.

Deleted this.

• gradually released the results. the source says until the end of 1987 perhaps this needs to mention, i.e., it took more than a year to publish the census result? Otherwise "gradually" is a vague term.

Changed it.

• Citation 189: it might be helpful the reason why Bulgarians have been indifferent: Since the Turkish minority was heavily concentrated in two regions of the country, most of the ethnic Bulgarians had no contact with it and were largely indifferent. (added emphasis)

I've added this.

• Citation 275: In protest, ethnic Turkish schoolchildren in the south-east boycotted schools. This seems important context.

TBD

• Citation 278: This fact points to some secret negotiations between Moscow and Washington, which prevented treating such a unilateral breach of the NATO-Warsaw Pact military frontier as a casus belli. This is not mentioned in the article and it appears important.

I've added this information.

• Citation 316: The majority of the Christian Bulgarian respondents in an opinion poll, which was a part of the study, defined the ‘renaming’ as ‘a crime.’ Those who thought that it was not a crime were 29% This does not automatically mean 71% considered it a crime, probably a range of 51–71%, since we do know how many refused to answer the poll.

I've changed this.

Pietrus1 (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]