Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dinner for three (talk | contribs) at 12:08, 2 September 2011 (→Bulgarian citizens in the Republic of Macedonia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bulgaria B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Misplaced Pages. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

The pictures

I really believe that the pictures of Christo, Elena Yoncheva, Ludmilla Diakovska, Matey Kaziyski are not the best examples of Bulgarians. They are not even in the top of the list of the important persons for the Bulgarian nation. Persons like Asparukh, Ivan Vazov, Yordan Radichkov and even Hristo Stoichkov deserve their spots more. --92.247.238.43 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Then go take a photo or find a realistic portrait of Asparuh, duh. It's not about who is important for the Bulgarian nation as I see it, it's more like a collection of Bulgarians from different ages and in different fields. And we absolutely have to show modern Bulgarians in the infobox. Also, we don't have free portraits of Stoichkov and Radichkov either, and the Vazov photo is below par. Todor→Bozhinov 19:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ludmilla Diakovska's picture is below too? As i can see, you have pictures of Topalov, for example. He is currently number 1 ELO player in the world, according to FIDE and number 2 all time. He will also play for the world title (again) this spring, so he is currently our best sportsman. Elena Yoncheva is not that famous even in Bulgaria... we don't have a world-class journalists at all. At least not alive. In the field of pop music, you can easily swap Diakovska for Philipp Kirkorov. There are other examples. And please, don't be agressive, i'm just giving some suggestions. --92.247.238.43 (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I too think it surpizing. Template and bottom page pictures. Could make it better. --Aleksd (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I like how most ethnic group pages show what the people in general look like, not just famous people. I think that's what should happen here, especially with the bottom of the page. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"south slavs"

please, why does wikipedia and other so called "Scholars" label ethnic groups from language? there is no such thing as a "Slav". there used to be wayy back before the "slavonic tribes" created russia etc. now it is a language term. in the opening sentence it claims they are south slavs that speak bulgarian language. why not say, they are multi-ethnic/racial people living in the nation of bulgaria who speak a bulgarian language, which belongs to the south slavic language group. saying they are "south slavs" really is a poor representation of a nation with complicated history, including culture/genetics from thracians, some turkic people(bulgars) etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.1.253 (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop falsifying the population numbers

Someone apparently is deliberately changing the numbers in what seems to be random typing that DO NOT relate to the truth. Even adding some half of million people to Australia. Outrageous. I've provided some new links to the already existing trusted References. Please keep Misplaced Pages clean and reliable by providing proof for your edits, if not it will be considered vandalism. I've reviewed closely the numbers and relations up to Greece. There is no real data about Brazil and some of the References about the rest of the countries are dead links. Please review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarusBG (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Number of Bulgarians

The total number of Bulgarians according to the quoted and recognized sources is over 10 million, rather than 8 mln. The calculations were wrong-therefore I edited the article with the correct number. Furtermore 8 mln is unrealistically low number, having in mind that in 1989, only in Bulgaria lived 9 mln people(since then at least 1,5 mln have emigrated in the US, EU, Australia, etc.) Moreover, the Bulgarian disapora is historically large due to lost territories to neighbours and large waves of immigrations during the 18-20th century. Only in Ukraine, people of Bulgarian descent are at least 500 000, in Moldova 100 000, etc. Therefore, even though the realistic number is much higher than 10 mln, we should accept that number, since that is verifiable, according to all sources quoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.1.125 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, provide this quoted and recognized sources about 10,000,000 Bulgarians. If no, I will revert the number back to the previous simple calculation. Jingby (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, sum up the number of Bulgarians country by country and you would find that calculations add up to 10 mln. By "quoted and verified sources" I meant the ones, already recognized in the article. Simply sum up and you would see that it adds to 10 mln, rather than 8 mln. In addition, the mirror articles about Bulgarians in the Finnish and Lithuanian wiki projects quote number of Bulgarians between 10 and 11 mln people. In addition, in the articles for Bulgarian language many of the different wikipedia projects, quote the number of Bularian speakers as 11-12 mln.

Last but not least, in the article for Greece it shows 16 mln people (highly overestimated number) without any reference. Romanians claim that they are 29 mln including Moldovans without reference. Why such double standards and why would you not modify the article for Greeks and Romanians asking for a source? Why you would want to put a lower number than the real one, even though the calculations on the site add up to 10 mln?

ps the actual number is much higher, but let us stick us to the alredy verified sources. ps2 the number as it is now and the Foreign Ministry Data only refers to people born on the territory of Bulgaria and their descendants. Thus excluding large Bulgarian origin populations in neighbouring countries. But even such narrower concept of "Bulgarian" adds up to 10 mln, rather than 8mln. Therefore, instead of threats, let us better take calculators.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozhani buditel (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lozhani buditel (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jingiby, it seems like you just edit the information not because you are concerned wth obejectivity, but out of personal motives. Yes, it is not precisely 10 mln -it adds up to 9.600 000, but as you perfectly well know-the number here is a low estimate and it does not include all 202 countries in the world. Misplaced Pages is not pure mathematics and not pure science. Sometimes logic is as importany as figures and "sources". And I am doing a PhD Politics in England and perfectly well know what objectivity and verifiability stands out for. So I am not here to waist my time. Therefore 10 mln is a realistic (although still a very low estimate) number of Bulgarians around the world. Please, do not put your ego about logic and objectivity and leave the number intact.

Our nation is daing. This is the truth. Stop with the phantasy. Jingby (talk)

Well it seems you want to help it d(AI) die much sooner than it happens. And what kind of argument is that? I am far from PHantasy (fantasy), since I am very down to Earth and objectivity is my aim. I am doing a PhD Politics in England and trust me-what you are doing to change numbers just to suit your calculations for lesser number of Bulgarians and prove your ego is far from being of any academic or scentific worth. Therefore stop your alterations.Lozhani buditel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.1.125 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jingby, i don`t know which nation is dying, but first educate yourself and then write in EN Misplaced Pages. Even so, this is not demographic research in Bulgaria, but in whole the world. So stop reversing, i`ll ask for help from administrators, because you are absolute vandal! Подпоручикъ (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether the numbers of Bulgarians are currently shrinking or not has nothing to do with the statistical data backed by reliable sources. It is unacceptbale to forge the statictics to suit someones idea of a dying or a growing nation. If the summary of the most resent statistics shows more than 10 milion Bulgarians living around the globe then that is the number to be shown in Misplaced Pages. If in a few years a new data shows 9 million or less then it will be changed to that number. For now, lets leave it as it is - over 10 million. Internedko (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jingby, it may sound like a cliché, but Bulgaria has always been one of the most influential pathways between the East and the West. Today, the NATO and EU membership, followed by the latest economic developments and the large investments in Bulgaria in its energy sector, are the hallmarks that guarantee peace and security in South-Eastern Europe, the challenging Caspian-Black Sea region and even the Middle-East. Only ignorant fools may think that this great nation is dying. Bulgaria is becoming a rich nation and this is a fact.

Many data forced by certain circles pertaining the Bulgarian population are biased. The claims that the total number of Bulgarians around the world is less than 9 millions is not logically and statistically correct. Only the number of post-1990 emigrants is around 1.5 million. Together with the descendants of the Macedono-Bulgarian emigrants of the World Wars at the beginning of the XX century, who now live in the USA, Canada and Australia, this may sum up to at least 2 millions. We must also take into account the inevitable process of unfolding the truth about the Macedonian Bulgarians, whose number is around 1.3 millions in the Republic of Macedonia. So, there are at least 12 million Bulgarians in Bulgaria, Macedonia, USA, Canada and Australia.

The overall well-being in the Bulgarian society stimulates the growth of the population and it will be significantly increased in the next decade. On the other hand, the talented people who left Bulgaria, dispersed all over the developed countries, will provide a solid background for further political and diplomatic support for their homeland, through their various professional orientations and the active involvement in the scientific and cultural life of the societies where they live.

As a Macedonian Bulgarian, born and living in the Republic of Macedonia, I would ask you Jingby to stop altering the numbers and respect the opinions of all other Wikipedians. Relativefrequency (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Prior discussion

The older discussion pages can be found at Talk:Bulgarian people. Todor→Bozhinov 13:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Origin

I am going to restore the referenced version in the chapter origin. Jingby (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Why was referenced text deleted? I do not understand this guy. And whithout any explaination. If any reliable reasons will be provided I am going to restore the referenced version again. Please, provide any reference or sourse that Bulgarians are from Central European Anthropological type, not Mediterraneans. Please, provide any reference that Bulgarians are related with Hungarians. Why were this text and the added refferences deleted?

.....The Bulgarians also have some similarities with other Mediterranean populations such as Armenians, Italians, Anatolians, Cretans and Sardinians.... Jingby (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, explain your original research or it will be reverted again as vandalism. Jingby (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bulgarian origin section

I don't really get this section! This section only presents Bulgarians as a Mediterranean people when truly they have other backgrounds like Nordic and Alpine as well. The sources even states that they have other backgrpounds as well but when other backgrounds are added someone deletes it and makes the section a whole mediterranean orientated paragraph. I think this is stupid and corrupt. Before I have used the first source in the paragraph explaining about the various anthropological background of the Bulgarians but it was soon deleted and I was told it was not valid which is a lie. Bulgarian anthropogical type is not Mediterranean only, they have other backgrounds as well. Stop being Mediterranean orientated.--Ivailo82 (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is written "predominantly Mediterranean" and also "with some additional influences". Jingby (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The source which explains about The Bulgarians also have some similarities with other Mediterranean populations such as Armenians, Italians, Anatolians, Cretans and Sardinians.... is not valid and it is corrupt. Basically meaning that it isn't a proper source in the internet.--Ivailo82 (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And anyway I don't think that passage is true because the Bulgarians don't have similarities with those people. It's like saying that the Germans have similarities with the Algerians or the Maltese.--Ivailo82 (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What you think has nothing to do with the text. Please, do not remove reliable, referenced, scientific information. Jingby (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the source as it repeats Mediterranean again and again. Only one source is enough. The small paragraph repeats Mediterranean 3 times which is stupid. --Ivailo82 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

800,000 Bulgarians in Greece!

The cited ref is a deadlink. Could someone please provide an accurate no (roughly obviously). I could maybe believe that number if it were for Albanians but there is no way there are that many Bulgarians in Greece. It would be nice if it were true though. :-)--Xenovatis (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop to back 10 millions to 8 millions, if you have studied mathematics at school you should count that Regions with significant bulgarian populations gave + 10 million. So stop returning and breaking the 3TR rule! Подпоручикъ (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That certainly wasn't me. Now how about answering the question I posed?--Xenovatis (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides there's a greek saying:ΟΥΚ ΕΝ ΤΟ ΠΟΛΛΩ ΤΟ ΕΥ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΕΥ ΤΟ ΠΟΛΥ. That is the good is not with the much but the much with the good. Inflating or deflating the numbers is meaningless. --Xenovatis (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some researches calculating that still existing slavonians (including pomak) in Western Thrace and Aegean Macedonia count some 2-300 000 people. I didn`t edited the article, so you shouldn`t ask me at all. Подпоручикъ (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bulgarians in Greece are 255 000 by the research of Bulgarian ministry of foreign affairs for 2007, other research from IMRO claims that the Bulgarians are many than 500 000. The page of Bulgarians must be edited, Greece is on first place of Bulgarians living outside Bulgaria and they are not 37 000, they are 255 000 to 500 000+. There are big difference. Look at the site of IMRO or of the Bulgarian ministry of foreign affairs. Edit that number.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.249.8 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The population in Turkey

Does this 480,000 include the 300,000 (or so) ethnic Turks who left bulgaria in 1989? If so- a footnote should be added stating this or otherwise the figure should just be removed. I will look into this further if there is no reply... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.147.222 (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

-270.000 including refugees from Bulgaria and they are %100 ethnic Turks! it must be change. 11:50, 18 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.173.172.104 (talk)

If you had bothered to check the source, you would have seen that these 270.000 are Pomaks. And this most certainly won't be changed. Kostja (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Falsification of numbers

I'm going to try and assume good faith on the part of registered users and blame only the anons for blatantly falsifying the number of Bulgarians in Australia and Germany, and the total. I'm sure that numbers for many of the other countries have been grossly inflated but I don't have time to go fix everything. Would anybody who gives a hoot like to try it? Maybe then a realistic total can be calculated... BalkanFever 02:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To the anonimous POV - PUSHER: are 150 000 000 enough? Jingby (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the figure for Turkey are also wrong. and if you look at the article Bulgarians in Turkey it basically talks about Turkish people from bulgaria in Turkey! These all have to be corrected.Turco85 (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise with the fact that someone has been changing numbers, but: a) here are official data which say there are 8092 Bulgarians in Romania; b) the percentages under "religion" are meaningless in the present case: they include all Bulgarian citizens, for instance Turks; ethnic Bulgarian Muslims are just 2-3% of the population, not 12; and they do not include any of the Bulgarian diaspora, which sometimes has a rather different religious composition (eg, Catholic Bulgarians in Romania). I suggest dropping the numbers, because the most that can reliably be said about the religious composition of ethnic Bulgarians is: predominantly Orthodox, small Catholic and Protestant contingents, a larger Muslim one. But no definite numbers. - Biruitorul 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Genetics section

The geneticts section needs improvement. Carleon Coon's anthropological theories aren't based on Genetics. Secondly, from that HLA paper about Chuvash Also according to 21th century studies of their DNA data, the genetic background of the Bulgarians has classical eastern Mediterranean composition. The study only 5 or so HLA loci to come up with some bizarre conclusions which groups Bulgarians with Morrocans, Manchurains and Iranians, populations which clearly have nothing to do with each other, and never have. Secondly, how does it conclude that Bulgarians are "Mediterranean" genetically, There are no genes which cause the disease called "Mediterranean", What defines a Meditteranean? The study certainly doesn't define what they mean by Mediterranean. There are so many better studies we can use than this one Hxseek (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarians are not Mediterranean, they have nothing to do with the Mediterranean world.--D Yankov (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The last added info from User 78.83.116.166 (talk), who is a sock is absolut nonsence. This old research described as a new is already used in this article. I am going to remove it. Jingby (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For some strange reason the fact that Bulgarians are also genetically related to Turkey and Anatolia is removed...close to 40% of the Bulgarian Y-DNA genetic make up is Anatolian/West Asian origin e.g. J, G and E1b1b1, R1b is also thought to originate in Anatolia/Western Asia Hittit (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Bulgars

Stop deleting Encyclopaedia Britannica as reference about Bulgars' origins. Your fringe theories are not accepted nowhere around the world. Jingby (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop deleting a lot of scientific references about Bulgars' origins. Your fringe theories are not accepted nowhere around the world. Stop POV-pushing, pleace. Here is not Kindergarten. Jingby (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Gergana30, provide a referenced source, issued from European, Russian or American University Publishing House, where your statements are supported, and explain why did you delete a well referenced information. If you do not have referenced sourses and reliable explaination, stop POV-pushing a Fringe theories here. Thank you! Jingby (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• According to Encyclopaedia Britannica the Bulgars probably originated as a Turkic tribe of Central Asia arrived in the European steppe west of the Volga River with the Huns about ad 370.
• According to Columbia Encyclopedia the Bulgars were Turkic-speaking people.
• According to the Oxford University Press book: East and West: the making of a rift in the Church : from apostolic times until the Council of Florence, Henry Chadwick, , 2003, ISBN 0199264570 the Bulgars were Turkic nomads.
• According to the Cambridge University Press book The New Cambridge Medieval History: C. 900-C. 1024, Timothy Reuter, Rosamond McKitterick, Paul Fouracre, David Abulafia, David E Luscombe, Jonathan Simon Christopher Riley-Smith, Christopher T Allmand, Michael Jones 1999, ISBN 0521364477, the Bulgars were steppe nomads.
• According to the University of Washington Press book East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500, Jean W. Sedlar, 1994, ISBN 0295972904 the Bulgars were Turkic nomads. Jingby (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Canada - 215,195 ?

This number 215,195 seems too unrealistic for Bulgarians in Canada. See Bulgarian Canadians. Stoichkov8 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody put a "2" in front of the real number, which is 15,195 per the source. BalkanFever 11:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. I worked hard on that and I'm really frustrated to see someone has been messing with it. I guess it's an I.P., but couldn't figure it out.--Laveol 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Look who's back :). This has been going on for a looooong time, and it is mostly anons, or new users. 07:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotse Delchev

Provide reliable international references, that he was not Bulgarian, but Macedonian, please! If such references do not exist, then he is undisputed Bulgarian. Jingby (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Added reliable references. Removed Macedonistic POV. In your logic Alexander the Macedonian and Tsar Samuil are also disputed. Disputed is Misirkov for exemple, but not Delchev. He is only regarded as Macedonian in RoM as Alexander the Macedonian and Tsar Samuil. This is only political view, which has not ground. Jingby (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

The referenced chapter was removed, after it was since long time in the article. Without reliable explaination. Revert is the only following act. Jingby (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the onscure deletion, but after I re-read it a couple of times, I decided it needed work. I think it should read better and be less povish now. --Laveol 10:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What is your point Jingby, sourced ≠ relevant. Anyway, why must this article have information on non-Bulgarians? Is there a need to feature the similar ethnic groups? I mean they already are in the userbox. I am even against the inclusion of "Closely related nationalities" here. This article should be about Bulgarians; why write about non-Bulgarians? PMK1 (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to say given all evidence, this is a major issue, important for this particular article. If I have to count all academic publications about Bulgarians that have pretty much the same info in them, wow, maybe I should try counting the rest. It is quite relevant and quite neutral as of now, I have to say. We might incorporate it in another passages, though. --Laveol 21:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear annonimous 62.103.35.211 provide references about your statements about the Torlaks. Jingby (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Article protected

Further to this report on WP:ANI, I've protected the article while this content dispute is ongoing. Protection will expire in one week, or it can be removed earlier if editors have come to a consensus on this talk page. The advice at WP:DR might be useful in handling this dispute. EyeSerene 13:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Famous "Bulgarians"

The infobox on famous "Bulgarians" needs editing. Krum, who was Khan of the Bulgars, cannot be considered as Bulgarian in modern sense. Bulgarians are Slavs, while the Bulgars - including Krum - were (most likely) of Turkic ethnicity, having their own language and culture, different from later Bulgarian. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Bulgars are still ancestors of Bulgarians. His state was called Bulgaria. Hxseek (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not the issue. Bulgarians are Slavs with different culture and ethnicity and are different people from the Bulgars. Krum and the Bulgars were ethnically (most likely) Turkic; while the later Bulgarians are Slavs. "Bulgars are still ancestors of Bulgarians." 'Ancestors', yes, but not the same people, just as Britons are ancestors of British. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Bulgars and Bulgarians are not one and the same. Does this amount to removing Krum's picture ? - I personally do not feel weighted toward any direction. Hxseek (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarians are Slavs? You say that like it is a fact, when it is actually a hotly contested question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.39.132 (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis

In physical appearance, the Bulgarian population is characterized by the features of the southern European anthropological type

There is no such classification in physical antrhopology as "Southern European" . What is that meant to mean ? Balkaners are different, anthropologically speaking, to Italians, or Iberians. Moreoever, Balkaners themselves are heterogeneous. I know that description was quoted from the HLA study, but I question the authors' knowledge of physical anthropology. Better stick to Coon's description that Bulgarians are mostly Meditteranioid with Neo-Danubian, Nordic and Mongolic admixtures. Because, although not without critics, Coon's classifications are at least specific. Hxseek (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to edit this section, feel free to do it. Jingby (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole idea of classifying Bulgarians' physical features is pointless. For centuries, the Balkans, and specifically Bulgaria, have been a crossroads in the Great Migration of Peoples. There has been so much different blood passing through these regions that it is virtually impossible to ascribe any general phenotype to Bulgarian people. Will edit. LaughingSkull (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis

• "local tribes, known as the Thracians". By the 6th–10th century AD there are no Thracians.They are already Hellenized/Romanized and already mixed with Byzantine Greeks and other populations.
• "a significant contribution to the genes of the modern Bulgarian population". 4,2 %
• Herodotus is a primary source and kind of irrelevant to mention here.

Megistias (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Include the Macedonians

Look at the page of Roamnians, the Moldavians are included in the number of Romanians :

The Macedonians must be include to the number of Bulgarains: |population = 10 million</ref> 12 million+ (including Macedonians)

I edit truly information, but you remove my edits

I want to edit some old information, but you remove my edits. Look at the this page . At this page there are number of Bulgarians in recent years, at the english version there are much old or wrong information, for example the number of the Bulgarians in USA is growed twice and the number in Greece is wrong, or there are not exist about 20 countries, which are exist in the BG version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.249.8 (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Turkey

Some one has provided an idiotic figure: 270,000 Bulgarians in Turkey? Source given: http://www.ethnologue.com/15/show_language.asp?code=bul. Source says: 300,000 in Turkey (2001 Johnstone and Mandryk). Population includes refugees from Bulgaria. Since when Turkish refugees from Bulgaria numbering over 2 million after 1878 are Buglarians? Also the figures for the Bulgarians in the different countries mainly indicates Bulgarian citzens, this is not same as ethnic Bulgarians. According to the Bulgarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs the Bulgarian Orthodox Christian community in Turkey stands at only 500 members. Hittit (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hittit, be more honest when citing sources. The source states that the alternative name for these people is Pomaks and their dialect is called Pomak. Therefore, they are certainly not Turks.

Also while information relying on the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry indicate citizens, the information relying on national statistics usually refers to ethnic Bulgarians. Kostja (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Kostja how bad is your Bulgarian language? Lets see some people with intelligable Bulgarian language having a crack at decoding the below statement of the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry:

"Българската общност в Република Турция

По данни на българските дипломатически и консулски представителства в Република Турция и на църковното настоятелство на Фондацията на българските православни църкви в Истанбул, понастоящем, българската православна общност в Република Турция наброява около 500 човека.

В различни райони на Турция са се установили и живеят български граждани от турски произход."

Ok, source states Pomaks are Pomaks and speak Pomak, why are these Bulgarians in Turkey? Do you even know from which countries these Pomaks have moved to Turkey?Hittit (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hittit, whatever my Bulgarian, your English seems to be worse. Here is a citation from Ethnologue:

"Language name Bulgarian

Population 300,000 in Turkey (2001 Johnstone and Mandryk).

Population includes refugees from Bulgaria.

Region Scattered in Edirne and other western provinces.

Alternate names Pomak

Dialects Pomak.

Language use Spoken by Muslim Pomaks in Turkey and Greece.

93% bilingual in Turkish.

Comments Muslim (Sunni)."

So their language is called Bulgarian and their dialect Pomak. You do know what a dialect is? Kostja (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes and in Greece it is called Greek Pomak dialect and in Turkey Pomak Turkish dilect, I guess the Macedonians have their own view as well. Why can't you stick to ethnic Bulgians that share you religious, cultural and lingual heritage for which there are no disputed origins? Hittit (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Because if we cared about ridiculous irredentist claims ("all people west of the Iskar are Serbs, the entire south of Bulgaria is Greek, all Slavs in Macedonia should be called ethnic Macedonians, Pomaks are not of Bulgarian origin"), Bulgaria would have to be the small area between the navy and light blue lines vertically and right of the red line. Not quite fancy, is it. Bulgarians aren't all Orthodox, they come from different backgrounds, they can be quite different culturally, and some dialects of Bulgarian are hardly mutually intelligible. So yeah, down with the stereotypes. Todor→Bozhinov 22:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Todor I do not sympathise with your politically driven insecurities. The Bulgarian state and its deep rooted complexes has a long history of Bulgarisation and staging Revival Process. I call this contamination of history, fortunately we do not rely only Bulgarian sponsored research, but the theme on the history, origins and cultural heritage of the Pomaks is of interest for may including the Pomaks them selves. It is actually peculiar to see a number of Pomaks in Turkey, but we do not know the number of Pomaks in Bulgaria since these were not categorised as Pomaks in the Bulgarian state census but brushed under Bulgarians and as such officially there are Zero Pomaks in Bulgaria…Down with stereotypes back at you.Hittit (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

edits that increase population

In reference to adding hundreds of thousands of Bulgarians to Moldova, Greece and Turkey]. Is it possible to explain succintely why this is correct or wrong? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

About Turkey, see the discussion above. The higher numbers in Moldova's case include the Gagauz as Bulgarians, something which was done in the 19th century. The higher numbers in Greece are probably derived from regarding all Slavic speakers (whose population itself is unknown as Bulgarian). In both cases, the assertions represent very strong Bulgarian POV and don't seem likely to be true, so such edits should be reverted. Kostja (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Sweden

As a figure for Bulgarians in Sweden a reference of 4000 is given based on the Bulgarian Ministry for Foreign affairs. The Ministry link states 4000 citizens of Bulgarian origin reside in Sweden (a great part of whom also have Swedish citizenship). It however unclear if this figure also include the Turks from Bulgaria that arrived to Sweden as political refugees in 1989, their figure was over 5000 at that time. Hittit (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"citizens of Bulgarian origin". Are Turks of Bulgarian origin? No. Then what more do you need and what is unclear exactly? Todor→Bozhinov 12:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The figure does not add up, e.g., in Stockholm in the last elections 2009 38% of the vote was for MRF so basically that would give us a rough distribution of the ethnic background of the Bulgarian citizens in Sweden. Also the ethnic Turks are predominatly with Bulgarian and Swedish citizenships since they have been living in the country for 20 years now. According to the Swedish Statistical Central Bureau the distribution of Bulgarian citizens in Sweden by gender in 2008 as the following:

Utländska medborgare efter medborgarskapsland, ålder, kön och tid

2008

Bulgarien

totalt

män 1546 (men)

kvinnor 1109 (women)

Total of 2655 now these are all ethnic Bulgarians? you see what is unclear now? Hittit (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No contradiction. Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs says "Sweden is permanently populated by around 4,000 citizens of Bulgarian origin... a large part of them received Swedish citizenship through naturalization." Which is not to say all of these are Bulgarian citizens, but rather Swedish citizens of Bulgarian origin. Todor→Bozhinov 09:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

lol so the Bulgian Ministry meant Swedish citizens of Bulgarian origin...ok what ever :) it is good they are keeping track of Swedish citizens since apparently have no clue of their own ones. Hittit (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't care less what you think unless it's on-topic. And it's not. Todor→Bozhinov 07:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarians abroad 3-4 million?

Where are these 3-4 million Bulgarians? no statistics just wave your finger and give a number? Hittit (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the source is pretty good for our "up to" needs. It's probably the one person in Bulgaria whose job is to know that, so I don't think the stats are based on the waving of her finger. And I find the number realistic, "up to 8 million" was a laughable and unreferenced figure. Any other questions? Todor→Bozhinov 16:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have a question, where are these 3 - 4 million Bulgarians abroad? I mean we are not talking about potatoes here, it should be easy to find 3 - 4 milloin Bulgarians, it is like a small country on its own. Also the difference between 3 - 4 million is 1 million in absulute figure (quite the variance margin) I would say the figure is based on waving a finger, maybe it suits your "needs" to round it up...Hittit (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the source for these figures:, so I don't see what the problem is here. I would sat that the chairwoman of the agency of Bulgarians abroad is slightly more knowledgable that you on this question. Kostja (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Raina Mandjukova is a TV presenter for Bulgarian Ultra-Nationalist Skat television (Bulgaria) , she recites poems for a living, first came to Bulgaria in 1988 from the Ukraine as a dancer, later studied Russian in Sofia (mind you she came from the Ukraine to Bulgaria to study Russian). Very competent indeed after stating that there are not statistics for Bulgarians aboard she throws in the magic numbers…and all that in the same statement. Based on this you could have easily quoted her saying "there is no official statistic for the Bulgarians abroad" it would have been at leat the only thruth in that sentence. Hittit (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the discussion ends effectively with this posting of yours. I'm not even going to read your trolling any further. There are so many lies and so much slander in this jabber that I will not take your opinion seriously ever again. Todor→Bozhinov 17:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

To point out some of the glaring errors - she came to study Bulgarian philology (she also graduated with a second degree in Russian philology which is quite different), isn't a professional poet nor a professional dancer (she was only a very short visit as a part of an amateur dancing group) and has worked for 14 years in the same agency. Yes she said there were no official statistics, doesn't mean that there aren't any unofficial ones (which explains the margin of error). And the show is exactly about Bulgarians abroad, so it's difficult to argue against her competence on the question (not to mention that she's a former presenter). Being a presenter for a ultra-nationalist (an inherently POV statement) - television doesn't make one an ultranationalist. If you have any alternate figures for the number of Bulgarians living abroad, provide them instead of making baseless accusations. Kostja (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Skat television (Bulgaria) the rest I leave for the readers...Hittit (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any statistics, Hittit. Also, there is no such thing as collective responsibility: if you want to prove that Mandzhukova is an ultra-nationalist, find evidence for that. For the readers, who might be mislead by the above, it's notable that the former government, which was very strongly opposed to the "Ataka" party and (at the time) their television Skat, obviously didn't regard her participation in Skat as making her unacceptable for her position. Kostja (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I am not the one claiming 3-4 million Bulgarians abroad, so the burden of statistics is on your side...you can make the figure 20 million Bulgarians it is all the same, why not go ahead and quote ATAKA party leader Siderov that Bulgaria could have been a nation of 100 million...complex mathematics behind that calculation as well. Hittit (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Siderov hasn't worked for many years in the agency for Bulgarians abroad. The source for 3-4 million Bulgarians has been already provided, now find a source that contradicts, instead of using the talk page for idle chat. Kostja (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But Siderov worked for Skat television (Bulgaria) therefore he must have drunk out of the same well of knowldege, intersting how people from the same circle end up dealing with Bulgarians "abroad" Hittit (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Siderov doesn't deal with Bulgarians abroad, he might made a guesswork estimate. This has nothing to do with the estimates by Mandzhukova, who has her experience and the resources of the agency behind her. She wasn't given the show to learn about Bulgarians abroad, but to inform about them, so I don't see where that "well of knowledge" comes from.

I agree with Todor, it's pointless to have discussions with you on this subject. You seem to think that irrelevant comments and unfounded accusations will do instead of arguments. I would advise you first to read WP:TEND carefully and then to try to contribute a bit more constructively. Kostja (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I support Hittit. These "statistics" are just one individual's turgid "estimate." Where exactly are these 3 million missing Bulgarians? And further... how do we know they're actually ETHNIC BULGARIANS? This isn't a page for any people who once lived in Bulgarian territory: Turks, Jews, Romanians, Greeks. ... but flat-out ETHNIC Bulgarians. 72.144.150.102 (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

These are not the estimates of an individual but of the head of the agency of Bulgarians abroad which is an official source. And yes, the reference probably includes only ethnic Bulgarians. Kostja (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The head of the agency of Bulgarians abroad Raina Mandjukova one of the former spekears of the ultra-national Television SKAT was fired. Additionally charges of corruption and selling of Bulgarian passports to e.g., ethnic Moldovans has been revealed among the employees of the pseudo agency. Unless figures estimated from thin air are not triangulated these are nothing more than whisfull thinking.Hittit (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

She was fired for disagreeing with her boss, it had nothing to do with the subject of this dispute. Your unsourced and irrelevant accusations are not ground for removing sourced information. Kostja (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent news: the so called the Minister for the Bulgarians Abroad Bozhidar Dimitrov has resigned. As a former element of the Bulgarian State Security Agency (DS) he was pressured to resign. Back in May Bozhidar Dimitrov explained that Mandzhukova was fired due to her "big mouth". Dimitorv also has some bizzare numbers of Bulgarians around the world, these were supported by granting Bulgarian citizenships to Modlovans, Ukrainians and Macedonians. The credibility of 3 - 4 millon Bulgarians abroad is based on personal statements from people who are now out of a job. Dimtrov is also a known figure in the Ultra Nationalist TV station SKAT.Hittit (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And? While this is mostly good news, given the credibility of Dimitrov, it is not related to the article itself. And he was on the national TV. You know, along with the news in Turkish ;) --Laveol 20:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, one would consider this the vindication of Mandjukova and her figures, as she was after all fired by Bozhidar Dimitrov :) Kostja (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

related ethnic groups

Are bulgarians really related to greeks? I dont think so because bulgarians are south slavic and greeks are hellenic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.227.87 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

They are not related but this isn't claimed in this article. The Bulgarians are related to the so called Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, mostly identified as Bulgarians until the beginning of the 20th century and beyond and from where significant emigration to Bulgaria took place. Kostja (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely they are only related to the slavic speakers of northern Greece and not the ethnic Greeks of course.--Herson1983 (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The section where this is mentioned is about Genetics and the source given indeed describes Greeks as genetically related to Bulgarians. Kostja (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? That is strange. Because they are not alike based on appearance.--Herson1983 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A relatively small number of genes are involved in appearance and it's quite possible that populations with different physical appearances have similar genes. Also, not all Greeks look like the usual stereotypes suggest they look. Kostja (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Scythians

The Bulgarian people are not purely Slavic. They are different from other south Slavic peoples in that they were part of greater Sythia. In essence the Bulgarian people are not Turkic-Slavic, but are Mongol, and Sythian, and Slavic. The Language of Bulgarian is so heavily influenced by Iranian it is clear, from a ethnological standpoint, Bulgarians are realated to iranians (sythians).Slaja (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarians are not descend of Byzantium

I do not knpw who decided to forge history here, but this is just not true. Cite references on such information, that we can discuss. Foundation of Bularian state has not been done by Greek or Byzantium people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N46 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

Hi. You need to understand the difference between genetic proximity and ethnic ties. Bulgarians are counted among the South Slavic peoples, of which they are closest to the Macedonians. These people share a common historical and linguistic ancestry, which is not something to be said of Bulgarians as compared to Romanians and Greeks. What's left for Sardinians and Cretans, who have nothing to do with the Bulgarian ethnogenesis.

There is already a section on "Genetic origin", I fail to see the need to include all of its content under the "Related ethnic groups" heading of the infobox, which isn't even about genetics. — Toдor Boжinov — 15:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course sardinians and cretans have nothing to do with bulgarians because bulgarians are not mediterraneans!--Superbulgar (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you not to remove information verified by many sources and replace it by biased claims. The sources , which you fortunately did not remove, demonstrate exactly, that bulgarians are not related to Russians etc, but to Romanians, Greeks, Macedonians and to lesser extent Cretans and Sardinians. These nationalities aren't slavic-speaking.

Besides, do you mean, that Bulgarians share more similarities with Russians than with Greeks and Romanians? Kreuzkümmel (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, do not mess up genetical with historical and liguistic facts. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please prove, that the section is ment to be about history and linguistics, not about ethnic relations. Prove also that Bulgarians have more in common with the Russians, than with the Greeks and Romanians in terms of history (as far as it's possible to define the degree of "historical commonness"). As far as the languages are concerned:

The article is about the ethnicity, not about the Bulgarian language. So you can't mention ethnicities with similar languages, but which are totally ethnically (proven by genetic research) unrelated to the Bulgarians, as "Related ethnic groups".

Even if the language was the point of the "related ethnic groups" section, you must know that Bulgarian has much more grammatical similarities with Romanian, Greek and Albanian, as with Russian or Polish. See Balkan Sprachbund and all sources listed in the article. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's exactly about ethnic relations, not genetic proximity. You're obviously confusing the two. I don't know why you keep mentioning Russians, the "Related ethnic groups" heading says "South Slavic peoples", not "East Slavic peoples". Also, you have to remember that Misplaced Pages isn't really interested in alternative theories (see WP:UNDUE), so I'll kindly ask you to keep your unorthodox views about the origin and ethnic ties of the Bulgarian people to yourself.

So far, you have been unable to provide any references whatsoever to prove your point. You were told already that genetic studies are already covered in a section of the article and that the "Related ethnic groups" heading is not about this.

Don't get me wrong, if you really believe Bulgarians are closer to Sardinians and Cretans than to Serbs and Macedonians, provide some scholarly references. Not genetic studies. — Toдor Boжinov — 13:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The genetical relationships are not a subject of the historical ties, which are based on language, culture and religion. The Bulgarians are South Slavic nation and we have a reliable source about that in this article. Regards. Jingby (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not genetics, it's a genetic research that shows, that Bulgarians are not related to Russians etc, but to Greeks, Romanians, Albanians etc. That's it. Bulgarians share similar history, traditions, culture and religion beliefs and above of all - their origin - with the Greeks and Romanians (and not with the Russians or whatever). I see what all this is about - your nationalistic hatred for Romanians and Greeks. There are still not any sources about "historical ties" with the slavic historical ties, except for the Macedonians, and if you don't provide them, I will removed those claims.

Besides, even if you provide such sourches, the Romanians and Greeks must be mentioned, because of the shared origins and undoubtful historical ties. 78.83.195.137 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, wasn't I supposed to prove that you're using IP sockpuppets? Because you just did.

I'm not really interested in your opinion anymore: you're clearly a minority in this dispute, your views are WP:FRINGE and you've started with the typical unfounded "nationalistic hatred" accusations which people unable to prove their point resort to. — Toдor Boжinov — 15:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is madness, of course bulgarians are related to the russians because the original. This is not nationalistic hate. Bulgarians came from siberia and migrated to modern western russia and mixed with the slavs and went towards the south and created a republic. Bulgarians are slavs mixed with the indigenous balkan paleo roman people so they are indeed related to the russians because they have slavonic background. The source that says that the Bulgarians are partly slavic shows exactly that they are related to the russians. Bulgarians are less related to the romanians because they are more of a latin, hunnic and celtic mixtures. The source that is given also tells that the bulgarians are related to croats and why is the croatian removed from the list. Also the bosnians are related as they are a south slavic people. Croatians are probably the second most related people to the bulgarians and that is a fact!--Superbulgar (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bulgarians are related to the Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Poles, Slovaks and other Slavs. That is a fact. But they are much more closely related to the Balkanian South Slavs in cultural and linguistic aspect and much more closely related to their closest Balkan neighbours in genetical aspect. Stop reverting the article to your POV, please. Jingby (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If they are related then why are they removed from the list.--Superbulgar (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the Russians are not closely related genetical to the Bulgarians. See the plot below and provide a reliable prove about your statement, please! In none of cited researches in the article, I could not find such statement. On a contrary, in specific study of Slavic genetics in 2007 Rębała and colleagues studied several Slavic populations with the aim of localizing the Proto-Slavic homeland. The significant findings of this study are that:

1. Two genetically distant groups of Slavic populations were revealed: One encompassing all Western-Slavic, Eastern-Slavic, and few Southern-Slavic populations (north-western Croats and Slovenes), and one encompassing all remaining Southern Slavs. According to the authors most Slavic populations have similar Y chromosome pools — R1a. They speculate that this similarity can be traced to an origin in the middle Dnieper basin of Ukraine during the Late Glacial Maximum 15 kya.
2. However, some southern Slavic populations such as Bulgarians, Serbs and Macedonians are clearly separated from the tight DNA cluster of the rest of the Slavic populations. According to the authors this phenomenon is explained by "...contribution to the Y chromosomes of peoples who settled in the Balkan region before the Slavic expansion to the genetic heritage of Southern Slavs...."

Maybe the problem is that the dispute is between bulgarians only and that does not create conditions for neutrality. I'm glad that Jingiby provided this important information and proved, that I'm not "minority in the dispute". Even if that was that way, it's not the majortiy that counts but the neutral and provable point of view, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy as you may know. It should be mentiond to which ethnical groups exactly the Bulgarians are closely related, so the proper frasing is clear: Bulgarians are related to the Macedonians, Serbs (genetically, linguistically, culturally, in terms of religion, history etc.) and to the Romanians and Greeks (genetically, culturally, in terms of religion, history etc.). The other southern slavs are not to be пentioned, because they are related neither genetically nor there are historical, cultural religious similarities. It's the same case with Russians, Ukrainians, Poles ets, there's only linguistical connection which is obviously not enough. Agreed? Kreuzkümmel (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, Misplaced Pages does not tolerate original research or fringe theories. While Jingiby's response deals with the matter of genetics, it does not support your alternative POV. Neither yours nor Superbulgar's opinions are supported by any authoritative scholarly sources, so they cannot be included in the article, what's left for the infobox. Of course, you're free to believe in (or make up) Cretan and Sardinian theories as much as you wish, but we're building an encyclopedia here. — Toдor Boжinov — 14:31, 21 :::What do you mean by "original research" and "fringe theories" and "alternative point of view"?? Kreuzkümmel (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a lack of sources about the close genetic relationship between Bulgarians, Chroatians and Slovenes. Pleas, provide a reliable refference supporting your point of view. Jingby (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, if there aren't any sources proving that relationship, I will remove the unsourced claims. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Kreuzkummel, stop filling this TP with your confused dribble. You're talking about genetic distances. For modern 'ethnicity' purposes, Bulgarians are Slavs becuase they speeak Slavic. Its that simple. Genetics has little to do with this. All the genetic stuff you are referring to is a reflection of things which happened millenia ago - back to when Europe was being populated ! It has nothing to do with how Bulgarians formed, nor how the identify ' ' today Slovenski Volk (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverting

Please don't remove the tag, all information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable. You could also make yourself familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies against original research. I would ask you not to remove the sources provided regarding some historians' opinion about the classification of the Bulgarians as slavic people. These are two renowned historians, not fringe science. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Some historians" is a fringe theory. Jingby (talk)

There are many other articles which contain the opinion of "some histortians" and this does not represent fringe science; it's just a controversial matter. Besides, these are two renowned historians, you just can't dismiss their research. The two sources contain profound analysis and represent thorough research in contrast with the sources about the classification of the Bulgarians as slavic people, who just claim that without any proves, other reference material or analysis. The sources you provided are mainly about language, not about the classification of the bulgarian people. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is not a forum. The Bulgarians are a South Slavic people and this view is well sourced. Your opinion is a fringe view. Jingby (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The opposite view is well sourced too. From Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories: according to Jimbo Wales:

Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the

main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and

identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.

Since this is definetely not a singular view, it should be "presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it" in the article. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

With your current edits, you're making a fringe theory "appear more notable than it is". Your theories have no place in the article lead. Also, according to the opinion of me, Laveol and Jingiby, the other involved parties in this dispute, your views do not deserve to be mentioned at all. You have not provided "reliable sources ... that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.", and your view is, in my opinion, fringe enough to be entirely omitted from the article. Just like the modern view that the Earth is flat is not at all mentioned in the Earth article. — Toдor Boжinov — 14:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not about your opinion or about the opinion of any other editor on Misplaced Pages (including mine of course), it's about sources and neutral point of view. Since I provided perfectly credible sources about a different point of view, which is supported by renowned scientists, it deifinetely isn't a neutral point of not to mention it. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the method to solve disputes on Misplaced Pages is by achieving consensus: that is, by agreement of individual opinions. You were provided ample authoritative sources which support the dominant scholarly view that Bulgarians are considered South Slavic. In return, you have responded by citing two Bulgarian historians whose views on that matter are clearly alternative and do not belong to the intro of the article, and by furiously reverting every attempt to rid the intro of alternative views.

As me and every other editor involved with the article has explained to you, your views do not belong to the intro. The only matter of discussion would be whether your views can be mentioned in the body of the article at all. — Toдor Boжinov — 14:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Related peoples

Just a thought: wouldn't the other Balkan peoples be more closely related to the Bulgarians than, say, the Poles.--Ptolion (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Jingby (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Geneticially maybe, but linguistically Bulgarians are much more closely related with the Poles than, let's say Albanians. A Bulgarian and an Albanian can't understand almost everything if they discuss each other on their mother tongue, different is the situation with the West and East Slavic peoples. Pensionero (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

USER:Pensionero/Infobox pop number

Pensionero,

the cited source for the infobox number (Ethnologue) says the number is 9,097,220. That is not 10 million, so please stop trying to insert that number. If you want to put 10 million you will have to find a new reliable source. Please do not revert again - but discuss here instead. Further reversions can be taken as edit-warring. I will post the formal warning and information about edit-warring on your user page. The policy says you must argue your case here and get consensus before making a change. So please dicuss here and do not revert again. DeCausa (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2011)

The (Ethnologue) source is for the Bulgarian language, there are Bulgarians who don't speak Bulgarian, the most in Argentina and Brazil for ex., furthermore the 31 listed countries in the infobox show the number of 9.2 million and have to be mean that they are not the all countries, populated with Bulgarains, we can easy put in the pop number 9+(as the source shows) up to 10 million(as the infobox is limited only to 31 countries, showing 9.2 mln.). The whole number, counted from the infobox's countries is also result of sources, not my only opinion/guess. Pensionero (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you're a new editor. I think you don't understand Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Firstly, the number in the infobox has to be backed up by a source that is cited against that number. In this case, the source said that it is just over 9M. If you want to put a higher figure in, you can but you MUST change the source cited to another source that supports that figure. So whether you are right or wrong on using the other sources is irrelevant until you CHANGE he source cited to back up the new figure. Secondly, what you are claiming to have done is put together a number of sources and drawn your own conclusions. This is called synthesis and is not allowed. Before you go any further you need to read WP:No original research (as well as Misplaced Pages:Verifiability) to understand this issue properly and to see what you are doing wrong. Leave a message on my talk page if you want me to clarify any of this. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Language of the Bulgars

Alternate views are generally permitted in Misplaced Pages, especially when supported by sources. There is no ground for removal of the view that the Bulgars spoke an Iranian language, apart from original research speculations. Therefore, Jingiby should revert himself to the version mentioning this alternate theory, especially as his last revert violates the 3RR policy. Kostja (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at WP:Fringe, which allows for mention of these type of theories "in proportion to their prominence". What you wrote gave it equal prominence to the mainstream "Turkic" view. Four Bulgarian writers is insignificant compared to the overwhelming balance of global scholarship. I think Jingiby's last version (which includes an Iranian reference) is a good compromise, supported as it is by Britannica and Rashev. I think it should be left as it is now. By the way, I reverted Pensionero's edit because the English was poor and incomprehensible, but from what I can understand from it, it was simply trying to say that the Bulgars have nothing to do with Bulgarians. Unsourced POV. DeCausa (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What's that got to do with this discussion? DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Slovenski Volk deleted his post to which this was a reply. DeCausa (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

{{I just wrote in the wrong sub-section Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)}

	An image used in this article, File:Genetic relations of European nations.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Misplaced Pages, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• B-Class Bulgaria articles
• Top-importance Bulgaria articles
• WikiProject Bulgaria articles
• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles