This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
Skat television (Bulgaria) the rest I leave for the readers... Hittit ( talk) 18:14, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please, do not mess up genetical with historical and liguistic facts. Thank you. Jingby ( talk) 06:18, 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)
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:
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)
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)
Please don't remove the citation needed tag, all information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. You could also make yourself familiar with Wikipedia'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)
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)
[...] 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. [2]
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)
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)
Alternate views are generally permitted in Wikipedia, 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)
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)}
I've said it before - this article need to be improved. Way too obsessed with genetics. The ethnogenesis of the Bulgarians should be entirely separated from "genetics"; instead here, (dubious quality) genetics are used, anmd misrepresented, to prove certain facets of what editors would like to "prove". This is OR. Part of the problem is that there is next to no decent or recent, English works done on Bulgarian ethnogenesis, however, that doesn;t wexcuse the poor state of this article. A lot of the referencing makes use of dubious quality sources, eg claiming that Bulgars existed in 2nd century central Asia, when in fact, no reference to Bulgars occurs prior to the 4th century, and this locates them in the Caucasus - Pontic region. Slovenski Volk ( talk) 19:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Which on the image are non-Bulgarians? Pensionero ( talk) 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoever added these people should know that it gives a very poor impression of the country - which I presume was the opposite of their intention. It gives the impression (wrong of course) that there aren't enough notable "real" Bulgarians and these poeple are needed to fill out the gallery. This is particularly true when you see Dilma Rousseff. DeCausa ( talk) 13:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The half Bulgarians are not a problem I guess they could be used along in the pages of both their ethnicities, including Dilma Rouseff, for who is not needed a specific source where she declares what is her ancestry, as far as it's known her father is Bulgarian. In reference to the copyrighted images they are really a problem, but I have seen these images of Berbatov and Stoichkov in different sites however. Pensionero ( talk) 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
In the context "real" these people are half, not one twenth Bulgarians, at least one can be added in the article. This is equally with their other half isn't it, Dilma Rouseff's ancestry is not more Brazillian than Bulgarian and respective. There are enough notable people, but not second inventor of the computer or current president of Brazil, why they should be excluded that means that they are full and absoulute Brazillians/Americans? Dilma Rouseff and John Atanasoff however have been added(not by me) and still exist in the bottom of the article and I was prompted of this too to add them in the previous image. And Ok I will discuss if I create a new image. Pensionero ( talk) 21:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
And to add I have to thank you for explaining me which are copyrighted images. Pensionero ( talk) 21:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlike these people Kukuzelis does not cause any problems for dissatisfaction. His mother tongue was Bulgarian and he has proven Bulgarian mother and unkown for us father, some of the sources claim directly he was Bulgarian. Pensionero ( talk) 19:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
We Bulgarians do not look like horses. We are quite normal looking people and we do not resemble horses in any way. I tryied to remove this bloody picture, but it was restored - probably by a man who hates us. Furthermore, this is a gypsy horse because of the typical decorations!
I am Bulgarian and I do feel offended by this racially motivated material! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.77.2.133 ( talk) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The picture is not for we look like or resemble horses, it is about the customs of the Bulgarains in paragraph Customs. But if the horse is gypsy it have to be removed... Pensionero ( talk) 20:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Then could I start placing Northern Cypriot horses in Luxembourgers? Pensionero ( talk) 19:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The point of this picture is to illustrate horse racing allegedly in Bulgaria on Todorovden. How could this horse possibly participate in any racing if it is attached to a cart (see the photo more carefully). Hence, this picture does not have any meaning apart from the fact that it makes fun of Bulgarians, and has to be removed. There are many other unique Bulgarian customs - for instance KUKERI that deserve mentioning in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.165.182 ( talk) 03:28, 27 March 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
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, 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) |
User:178.84.115.106, who has been blocked, reverted several times the lead of this article contrary the sources, claiming Bulgarians are Bulgars, without any reliable explaination. I am going to correct this nonsence as per sources, if there are not User's objections. Jingby ( talk) 18:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you read article First Bulgarian Empire in which the rulers of bulgaria were called khan, a turkic name for leader, and in which there is explicit information about that the bulgar elite established themselfs as the rulers of bulgaria??? And also read the section about the establishment of bulgaria, which also states that it was founded by bulgars. So do not claim those changes were nonsense, and secondly havent you seen the sources i have stated??? have you read even one of them??? I can tell you havent! You are reverting genuine facts without even discussing why you dont agree with it and instead are calling it nonsense without any explanation. I find that rather childish, you are not a child are you? 178.84.115.106 ( talk) 05:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Stop the edit-war. Bulgarians are not Bulgars, nor Thracians existed during the 7th century. IGENEA is not a reliable source. Discuss before reverting and pushing here your POV. Jingby ( talk) 16:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You stop I don't know what you are trying to say with writing distinguish per sources and talk but no of the used sources claims that Bulgarians have nothing to do with Bulgars and nobody agrees this on the talk page. It is generally acceptee in the web that Bulgars are those who are guilty for the forming of the Bulgarian nation, state and ethnonym, partial ancestores of the nation which were assimilated by the Slavs or slavicised. The categorisation in the start Bulgarians are South Slavic nation is quite enough and nobody is saying that Bulgarians are Bulgars but Jingiby stop placing the distinguish and use the history of the sources do not try to write new your own history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 20:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
While the total number of the ethnic Bulgarians in Bulgaria most likely exceeds the one given in the census due to many people refusing to answer the question of ethnic self-identification, on what exactly is the higher estimate in the infobox based on? Kostja ( talk) 23:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Correct but the mistake you've made is 7,351,234 and the exact population is 7,364,570 according to new census data - so I'll back the old estimate as it has been calculated correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 19:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is a target of persistent IP-sock's vandalism and has to be semi-protected. Jingby ( talk) 05:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Jingiby is systematically atacking the page with his POVs without providing any source. You can here post your POV instead edit-warring and considering the revert of your POV as vandalism.-- 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear IP, could you paste the section of that official documents that supports your point of view? I only have a basic understanding of Bulgarian, so I may have missed the part where it allegedly says, disregarding basic human rights, that those who declined to declare an ethnicity are actually "ethnic Bulgarians" (whatever that may mean). I'm sure that copying a phrase from a 47-page document won't be considered copyright violation, so please paste it here so that we can all have a look. Thanks. P.S. If no evidence is presented in reasonable time, I'll assume that no such evidence exists, and restore the official final results of the Bulgarian 2011 census. Anonimu ( talk) 19:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Read p. 23, dear human righter. There is already consensus on the subject.-- 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 00:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
As I expected, there's no such thing in the document. All it says about those who declined to answer is "Сред неотговорилите на въпроса за самоопределение по етническа група най-голям е относителният дял на тези в младите възрастови групи до 39 години и за децата от 0 до 9 години. Една трета от неотговорилите са в областите София, Пловдив и Варна, съответно - 113 260 души, 62 654 души и 50 181 души." I'll restore official results. Anonimu ( talk) 06:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it says 9% of the population didn't answer. In no other census used in WP as a source there are not answered. There was already a consensus on the higher estimate by user:Laveol and Kostja so I will restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 11:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is saying 'all these 9% must be ethnic Bulgarian' so please don't interprete wrong. This has been discussed sooner and I have already cited you the paragraph when consensus has been reached so you are aware and stop reverting.-- 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 14:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Most important of all is that someone is not obligatory(when the questions are free) to write himself in the census blank ethnic Bulgarian to be part of the Bulgarian ethnic group. The citizens were obligatory in all previous censuses in Bulgaria and almostly all censuses in Europe used in Romanians, Serbs, Hungarians, etc. to answer the question for ethnic group and a higher estimate is not needed when using such census beacause it get the answer from the entire population. But I don't see what is so the problem to use a higher than census estimate in a country(Bulgaria) where the questions were free and do not cover the entire population. And that someone missed to wrote himself Bulgarian in the census blank doesn't make him not Bulgarian and so higher estimates with interval show "possible varying" to higher number not that all who haven't answered "must be ethnic Bulgarian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 12:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The ethnic census data which use Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians or whatever you want ethnic group is based and has answer from the entire population. Unlike them the census in the Bulgarians article is the only in Europe that has "not answered population" and has data not based on the entire population. So I don't want a higher estimate, neither to remove the current data, I want to take second estimate from census next to the current which cover the entire population with a new foonote that states the higher figure consists unkown people and they are *possible* and *potential* Bulgarians not that they must be and all of them are surely Bulgarians. So this is best way to show that the number can vary to higher number in a census in which if you are self-identifying as Bulgarian you can miss post it on the census blank because the questions are free and you are not obligatory to do so. So is it clear enough now? That you missed to post you are self-identifying as Bulgarian in a free question doesn't make you out of the ethnic geoup and the second estimate will state with a new footnote that these people are unkown to the Statistical Institute but when the question is free is possible some or the most of them to self-identifying as Bulgarians. Altough if the questions were not free most of them would post Bulgarian ethnicity instead 'I have no ethnicity', beacause in the previous 2001 census when the questions were not free only 1% or less than 100,000 of the total population choose 'I have no ethnicity'.-- 213.226.17.10 ( talk) 17:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.dnes.bg/stranata/2011/07/27/eksperti-po-demografiia-osporiha-prebroiavaneto.125031 Source provided. Experts said that there can not be realized finalized view of the ethnic composition in the country due to the fact that many people haven't answered the question. According to some of the experts the number of the ethnic Bulgarians is at 6 million and will continue decreasing in the next censuses.
So after experts said the free question is not enough to know the country's ethnic picture and most of those who haven't answered are Bulgarians, we should take a second higher estimate. To not include all who haven't answered I think we should include the unkown with the percentage that NSI shows for the answered population- 5,664,624 out of the population that answered the question(6,680,980) or ~84.8%. So I mean to take 84.8% of the not answered population(the same percentage of 5,664,624) in the higher estimate.-- 213.226.17.10 ( talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I know you have basic understanding of Bulgarian so I will corect you: the article says that the Roma grew *to* 500 000 not that they grew with 500 000 and that means around 175 000 of the 700,000 who haven't answer are Roma. The source says roughly 6 million. If we count more precise- Total population(7,364,570) minus that it shows 9% Turks or 660 000, minus 500 000 Roma, 53 391 doesn't self-identify and 49 304 others the result is 6,101,875. Why the possibility 84.8% of the unkown was removed? 6,244,222 doesn't oppose the source info as it says roughly 6 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.226.17.10 ( talk) 20:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Lunch for Two, could you finally stop disrupting Wikipedia? Without any explanation there have been removed 8 sources under the cover that he is replacing with sources from national statistical agencies, while he only deleted some countries without replacing. 11-20 years old sources for immigriant countries such as USA, where the number drastic changed in the period 2000-2011 are not more reliable than the present-day figure used before. The same is for the ancient source you place for Hungary where the present-day number is estimated at 5,000 by both Bulgarian and Hungarian authorites, and the same is for all your disruptive edits and they should be reverted, exclusion makes only Italy which number I included and Canada probably, in case intervals are used which you don't use, and all you did in this article is direct removing of numbers in the infobox or covered removing with inappropriate sources, are you able to do something other in the article except decreasing in the infobox? And that's not all! Some sources have been even only deleted, not replaced with 10-20 years older sources and such vandalism should not be tolerated. For example the experts' estimate for Bulgaria was discussed in a large dialogue and now he is deleting it, while the source meets Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy and such estimates should be used. On the same vandalistic way FYROM has been deleted, where a Bulgarian minister declares precisely counted official data- more than 50,000 residents of FYROM became Bulgarian citizens, to obtain such citizenship there they must declare that they are Bulgarian by origin, which is the same as declaring your origin at census. I am the IP starting with 212, and as not established user may I ask an established user to revert the longstanding version because I am not able to edit this page for 4 days and such vandalized version and unjustified removals should not remain for 4 days? Dinner for three ( talk) 00:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It is obvious that it is simply a figure of all the foreign citizens in Italy as at 31st December 2009. It is a sound and accurate figure. Lunch for Two ( talk) 10:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This part of the article is total crap! It is written by some incompetent greeks probably. Neither the bulgarians are slavs, neither "byzantine"!!! The Bulgarians come from Eastern Iran, we are indo-iranian genetically and culturally, the Slavs were some local primitive population which we kicked away of these fertile lands to the north of Danube.
To provide this hypothesis, you need a tons of reliable University sources and long discussion, before reaching a consenssus. Jingiby ( talk) 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Should be the source for the Republic of Macedonia, of +50.000 Bulgarian citizens who declared Bulgarian origin, used? I met contra and edit-wars by local users who claim it is not reliable and here we should clear is it reliable or not. I made a list with the reasons I found, being classified as making the source reliable or not reliable.
Reasons supporting the source as reliable:
Reasons supporting the source as not reliable:
Comment: The newspaper can't be a problem because it doesn't do other than quoting. At all I have not found anything against Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, any objections? Dinner for three ( talk) 00:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you even know what OR is? I think I should not make clarifications of that. The minister recorded 75,000 people of which more than 50,000 from the Republic of Macedonia, to got Bulgarian citizenship in the last 20 years, so why we should use only the number for the last 10 years beacause you want? If the number is not true then you are claiming that the statistics from the minister are liyng, which your opinion is not enough. That for the census was the same nonsense you repeat and I should not answer anymore. Dinner for three ( talk) 11:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Morever that the exact number of 35 808 obtained citizenship by declaring Bulgarian origin from 2002 on, a number recerded by the presidency. And do you mean that these people do not exist or something? Dinner for three ( talk) 12:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Since when people holding a Bulgarian passport are considered all to be of ethnic Bulgarian origin? In the same fashion if Bojidar goes to Somalia and offers all those declaring a Bulgarian ethnic heritage a passport opening the doors to the EU, I am sure we can add more to the list. Use of common sense is also allowed...having in mind the background of Bojidar. Hittit ( talk) 07:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
It does not take a PhD to see why would some one from Macedonia, Moldova or Ukraine suddenly discover his long lost Bulgarian identity in hope of free travel and job opportunitie...unfortunately outside Bulgaria. Some old Bulgarian communist brains have now discovered another way for assimilation, however this strategy is again short lived. Hittit ( talk) 16:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Hittit, why don't you stop spamming Wikipedia and instead start discussing at some science-fiction forums or discover your long ethnic Turkish, suddenly discovered origin after the Ottoman assimilation of the Balkan peoples? I am amazed how such no reasonable points of view are even discussing, and they should not be discussed anymore?! Here for last time - the source of the presidency clerly says 68 539 citizens of foreign countries obtained Bulgarian citizenship from 01.2002 to 06.2011, of which 67,305 proved to be of Bulgarian origin and ~1,000 are not of Bulgarian origin. 35,808 of them are from the Republic of Macedonia, so can you adecuately say what is biased in Bojidar's statement as a minister that there are over 50,000 citizens from the Republic of Macedonia including pre-2002 period, because up to now you give nothing adecuate? That 1,400 declared as Bulgarians at census is not a reason. On the other side 15,000 declared Bulgarian origin in the period 1991-2001 which is the same as declaring your origin at census. declare Dinner for three ( talk) 12:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Nationalist Bulgarian editor #77 (Dinner for three), what reason do you have for deleting the figure from the Macedonian census? Are census statistics not included on every ethnic group article? I even left your 50,000 figure and wrote it as a range from 1,417 to 50,000. -- Local hero talk 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Общо – 68539"
Общо – 67305"
Общо – 1234"
You see 67305 out of total 68539 new citizens from the period 2002-2011 are of Bulgarian ethnicity. -- Dinner for three ( talk) 22:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the late respond I fell asleep! We don't know whether Bozhidars' is official count or estimate, but having in mind that the both are possible the number should go with interval after the currently lowest - 35,808, and should neither be used as the only number because we can not say with sureness that this is the counted official number and could be his POV as you purpose, or be removed because this is possibly an official data. So you see I cannot claim that this the official number and you cannot claim that this is Bozhidar's POV because the both are possible - the interval includes all possibilities. Any problems? -- Dinner for three ( talk) 13:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think here picture should be in a separate : "descendants of bulgarians" section or at least Bulgarian-Brazilian should be changed to Brazilian-Bulgarian. Does she identify herself as bulgarian ?! Does she know the bulgarian language ?! She probably has learned about the bulgarian habits, culture and way of conduct from her father, however she probably would not identify herself as a Bulgarian, or just erase all these statements if she has stated so , somewhere publically and I have just not happened to know that ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by YordanGeorgiev ( talk • contribs) 07:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The current image contains a few figures the significance of whom I would put in doubt. Ludmilla Dyakovska is not really famous, and Matey Kaziyski is only known as a member of the national volleyball team, not as an individual sportsperson. Saint John of Rila has some significance, but he is in no way a key figure in Bulgarian history. I made another image, which includes:
I think these figures are much more important for their respective ages, and the last three are by far some of the most significant Bulgarian personalities of the last 50 years. I will replace the current image if there aren't any objections. - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 14:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Dimitar Berbatov and Tsvetana Pironkova should be removed from the image. Jingiby ( talk) 09:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's what I think:
Overall, I feel this list is missing artists and writers, and I don't think Pironkova should be the (only) woman to represent Bulgaria in the pic. — Toдor Boжinov — 11:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion 2 lines of persons are too few, the set of images looks quite smaller than these of many related groups, e.g. Greeks, Russians with 5 and 6 lines of persons, and to some degree like there are not enough notable persons in the nation, not to say a big word - shameful, but there are more notable persons, each from their own occupation and therefore I want to escalate to 3 or 4 lines. I also think that significant and famous people are missing, while some of the current can not stand on their little finger, uppermost Topalov, Stoichkov, Simeon or Boris I, and Vazov, which all remain in the history of Bulgaria and whose significance for the nation I think is undeniable. So I have proposals.
Persons that I think uppermost need to be added:
Persons from occupations from which there are not anyone in the set of images, they I think would improve the set as well:
For two persons which are now in the set I think that were visible better in their previous images - Levski because the photo was closer and he was more visible in the face, the second one is Saint John of Rila because the resizing of this icon made his face just invisible as much as you try to see it, so other icon of him would stay better.
Well, that is what I think. Objections people? - Author: ГДБОБ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ГДБОБ (
talk •
contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There is but only one - Neophyte Rilski is Macedonian Bulgarian from Bansko. If i try to think for such people I only rember Berbatov and some revolutionaries. Propose anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ГДБОБ ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
If I have to choose who to be the revolutionary after Levski, I would choose Benkovski or Botev. Delchev is really notable revolutionary, but in my opinion should be added after Benkovski is added. For Simeon Radev, I do not see any picture of him in the site, does he really have? And what do you think about the current situation, it has not only Macedanian Bulgarians, but also many famous and significant Bulgarians and people from many occupations such as actors and singers are missing too. So for singers I also would propose Boris Christoff and Ghena Dimitrova. Views about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ГДБОБ ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
Skat television (Bulgaria) the rest I leave for the readers... Hittit ( talk) 18:14, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please, do not mess up genetical with historical and liguistic facts. Thank you. Jingby ( talk) 06:18, 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)
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:
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)
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)
Please don't remove the citation needed tag, all information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. You could also make yourself familiar with Wikipedia'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)
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)
[...] 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. [2]
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)
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)
Alternate views are generally permitted in Wikipedia, 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)
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)}
I've said it before - this article need to be improved. Way too obsessed with genetics. The ethnogenesis of the Bulgarians should be entirely separated from "genetics"; instead here, (dubious quality) genetics are used, anmd misrepresented, to prove certain facets of what editors would like to "prove". This is OR. Part of the problem is that there is next to no decent or recent, English works done on Bulgarian ethnogenesis, however, that doesn;t wexcuse the poor state of this article. A lot of the referencing makes use of dubious quality sources, eg claiming that Bulgars existed in 2nd century central Asia, when in fact, no reference to Bulgars occurs prior to the 4th century, and this locates them in the Caucasus - Pontic region. Slovenski Volk ( talk) 19:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Which on the image are non-Bulgarians? Pensionero ( talk) 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoever added these people should know that it gives a very poor impression of the country - which I presume was the opposite of their intention. It gives the impression (wrong of course) that there aren't enough notable "real" Bulgarians and these poeple are needed to fill out the gallery. This is particularly true when you see Dilma Rousseff. DeCausa ( talk) 13:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The half Bulgarians are not a problem I guess they could be used along in the pages of both their ethnicities, including Dilma Rouseff, for who is not needed a specific source where she declares what is her ancestry, as far as it's known her father is Bulgarian. In reference to the copyrighted images they are really a problem, but I have seen these images of Berbatov and Stoichkov in different sites however. Pensionero ( talk) 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
In the context "real" these people are half, not one twenth Bulgarians, at least one can be added in the article. This is equally with their other half isn't it, Dilma Rouseff's ancestry is not more Brazillian than Bulgarian and respective. There are enough notable people, but not second inventor of the computer or current president of Brazil, why they should be excluded that means that they are full and absoulute Brazillians/Americans? Dilma Rouseff and John Atanasoff however have been added(not by me) and still exist in the bottom of the article and I was prompted of this too to add them in the previous image. And Ok I will discuss if I create a new image. Pensionero ( talk) 21:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
And to add I have to thank you for explaining me which are copyrighted images. Pensionero ( talk) 21:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlike these people Kukuzelis does not cause any problems for dissatisfaction. His mother tongue was Bulgarian and he has proven Bulgarian mother and unkown for us father, some of the sources claim directly he was Bulgarian. Pensionero ( talk) 19:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
We Bulgarians do not look like horses. We are quite normal looking people and we do not resemble horses in any way. I tryied to remove this bloody picture, but it was restored - probably by a man who hates us. Furthermore, this is a gypsy horse because of the typical decorations!
I am Bulgarian and I do feel offended by this racially motivated material! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.77.2.133 ( talk) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The picture is not for we look like or resemble horses, it is about the customs of the Bulgarains in paragraph Customs. But if the horse is gypsy it have to be removed... Pensionero ( talk) 20:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Then could I start placing Northern Cypriot horses in Luxembourgers? Pensionero ( talk) 19:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The point of this picture is to illustrate horse racing allegedly in Bulgaria on Todorovden. How could this horse possibly participate in any racing if it is attached to a cart (see the photo more carefully). Hence, this picture does not have any meaning apart from the fact that it makes fun of Bulgarians, and has to be removed. There are many other unique Bulgarian customs - for instance KUKERI that deserve mentioning in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.165.182 ( talk) 03:28, 27 March 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
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, 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) |
User:178.84.115.106, who has been blocked, reverted several times the lead of this article contrary the sources, claiming Bulgarians are Bulgars, without any reliable explaination. I am going to correct this nonsence as per sources, if there are not User's objections. Jingby ( talk) 18:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Have you read article First Bulgarian Empire in which the rulers of bulgaria were called khan, a turkic name for leader, and in which there is explicit information about that the bulgar elite established themselfs as the rulers of bulgaria??? And also read the section about the establishment of bulgaria, which also states that it was founded by bulgars. So do not claim those changes were nonsense, and secondly havent you seen the sources i have stated??? have you read even one of them??? I can tell you havent! You are reverting genuine facts without even discussing why you dont agree with it and instead are calling it nonsense without any explanation. I find that rather childish, you are not a child are you? 178.84.115.106 ( talk) 05:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Stop the edit-war. Bulgarians are not Bulgars, nor Thracians existed during the 7th century. IGENEA is not a reliable source. Discuss before reverting and pushing here your POV. Jingby ( talk) 16:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You stop I don't know what you are trying to say with writing distinguish per sources and talk but no of the used sources claims that Bulgarians have nothing to do with Bulgars and nobody agrees this on the talk page. It is generally acceptee in the web that Bulgars are those who are guilty for the forming of the Bulgarian nation, state and ethnonym, partial ancestores of the nation which were assimilated by the Slavs or slavicised. The categorisation in the start Bulgarians are South Slavic nation is quite enough and nobody is saying that Bulgarians are Bulgars but Jingiby stop placing the distinguish and use the history of the sources do not try to write new your own history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 20:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
While the total number of the ethnic Bulgarians in Bulgaria most likely exceeds the one given in the census due to many people refusing to answer the question of ethnic self-identification, on what exactly is the higher estimate in the infobox based on? Kostja ( talk) 23:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Correct but the mistake you've made is 7,351,234 and the exact population is 7,364,570 according to new census data - so I'll back the old estimate as it has been calculated correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 19:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is a target of persistent IP-sock's vandalism and has to be semi-protected. Jingby ( talk) 05:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Jingiby is systematically atacking the page with his POVs without providing any source. You can here post your POV instead edit-warring and considering the revert of your POV as vandalism.-- 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear IP, could you paste the section of that official documents that supports your point of view? I only have a basic understanding of Bulgarian, so I may have missed the part where it allegedly says, disregarding basic human rights, that those who declined to declare an ethnicity are actually "ethnic Bulgarians" (whatever that may mean). I'm sure that copying a phrase from a 47-page document won't be considered copyright violation, so please paste it here so that we can all have a look. Thanks. P.S. If no evidence is presented in reasonable time, I'll assume that no such evidence exists, and restore the official final results of the Bulgarian 2011 census. Anonimu ( talk) 19:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Read p. 23, dear human righter. There is already consensus on the subject.-- 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 00:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
As I expected, there's no such thing in the document. All it says about those who declined to answer is "Сред неотговорилите на въпроса за самоопределение по етническа група най-голям е относителният дял на тези в младите възрастови групи до 39 години и за децата от 0 до 9 години. Една трета от неотговорилите са в областите София, Пловдив и Варна, съответно - 113 260 души, 62 654 души и 50 181 души." I'll restore official results. Anonimu ( talk) 06:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it says 9% of the population didn't answer. In no other census used in WP as a source there are not answered. There was already a consensus on the higher estimate by user:Laveol and Kostja so I will restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 11:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is saying 'all these 9% must be ethnic Bulgarian' so please don't interprete wrong. This has been discussed sooner and I have already cited you the paragraph when consensus has been reached so you are aware and stop reverting.-- 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 14:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Most important of all is that someone is not obligatory(when the questions are free) to write himself in the census blank ethnic Bulgarian to be part of the Bulgarian ethnic group. The citizens were obligatory in all previous censuses in Bulgaria and almostly all censuses in Europe used in Romanians, Serbs, Hungarians, etc. to answer the question for ethnic group and a higher estimate is not needed when using such census beacause it get the answer from the entire population. But I don't see what is so the problem to use a higher than census estimate in a country(Bulgaria) where the questions were free and do not cover the entire population. And that someone missed to wrote himself Bulgarian in the census blank doesn't make him not Bulgarian and so higher estimates with interval show "possible varying" to higher number not that all who haven't answered "must be ethnic Bulgarian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.61.167 ( talk) 12:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The ethnic census data which use Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians or whatever you want ethnic group is based and has answer from the entire population. Unlike them the census in the Bulgarians article is the only in Europe that has "not answered population" and has data not based on the entire population. So I don't want a higher estimate, neither to remove the current data, I want to take second estimate from census next to the current which cover the entire population with a new foonote that states the higher figure consists unkown people and they are *possible* and *potential* Bulgarians not that they must be and all of them are surely Bulgarians. So this is best way to show that the number can vary to higher number in a census in which if you are self-identifying as Bulgarian you can miss post it on the census blank because the questions are free and you are not obligatory to do so. So is it clear enough now? That you missed to post you are self-identifying as Bulgarian in a free question doesn't make you out of the ethnic geoup and the second estimate will state with a new footnote that these people are unkown to the Statistical Institute but when the question is free is possible some or the most of them to self-identifying as Bulgarians. Altough if the questions were not free most of them would post Bulgarian ethnicity instead 'I have no ethnicity', beacause in the previous 2001 census when the questions were not free only 1% or less than 100,000 of the total population choose 'I have no ethnicity'.-- 213.226.17.10 ( talk) 17:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.dnes.bg/stranata/2011/07/27/eksperti-po-demografiia-osporiha-prebroiavaneto.125031 Source provided. Experts said that there can not be realized finalized view of the ethnic composition in the country due to the fact that many people haven't answered the question. According to some of the experts the number of the ethnic Bulgarians is at 6 million and will continue decreasing in the next censuses.
So after experts said the free question is not enough to know the country's ethnic picture and most of those who haven't answered are Bulgarians, we should take a second higher estimate. To not include all who haven't answered I think we should include the unkown with the percentage that NSI shows for the answered population- 5,664,624 out of the population that answered the question(6,680,980) or ~84.8%. So I mean to take 84.8% of the not answered population(the same percentage of 5,664,624) in the higher estimate.-- 213.226.17.10 ( talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I know you have basic understanding of Bulgarian so I will corect you: the article says that the Roma grew *to* 500 000 not that they grew with 500 000 and that means around 175 000 of the 700,000 who haven't answer are Roma. The source says roughly 6 million. If we count more precise- Total population(7,364,570) minus that it shows 9% Turks or 660 000, minus 500 000 Roma, 53 391 doesn't self-identify and 49 304 others the result is 6,101,875. Why the possibility 84.8% of the unkown was removed? 6,244,222 doesn't oppose the source info as it says roughly 6 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.226.17.10 ( talk) 20:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Lunch for Two, could you finally stop disrupting Wikipedia? Without any explanation there have been removed 8 sources under the cover that he is replacing with sources from national statistical agencies, while he only deleted some countries without replacing. 11-20 years old sources for immigriant countries such as USA, where the number drastic changed in the period 2000-2011 are not more reliable than the present-day figure used before. The same is for the ancient source you place for Hungary where the present-day number is estimated at 5,000 by both Bulgarian and Hungarian authorites, and the same is for all your disruptive edits and they should be reverted, exclusion makes only Italy which number I included and Canada probably, in case intervals are used which you don't use, and all you did in this article is direct removing of numbers in the infobox or covered removing with inappropriate sources, are you able to do something other in the article except decreasing in the infobox? And that's not all! Some sources have been even only deleted, not replaced with 10-20 years older sources and such vandalism should not be tolerated. For example the experts' estimate for Bulgaria was discussed in a large dialogue and now he is deleting it, while the source meets Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy and such estimates should be used. On the same vandalistic way FYROM has been deleted, where a Bulgarian minister declares precisely counted official data- more than 50,000 residents of FYROM became Bulgarian citizens, to obtain such citizenship there they must declare that they are Bulgarian by origin, which is the same as declaring your origin at census. I am the IP starting with 212, and as not established user may I ask an established user to revert the longstanding version because I am not able to edit this page for 4 days and such vandalized version and unjustified removals should not remain for 4 days? Dinner for three ( talk) 00:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It is obvious that it is simply a figure of all the foreign citizens in Italy as at 31st December 2009. It is a sound and accurate figure. Lunch for Two ( talk) 10:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This part of the article is total crap! It is written by some incompetent greeks probably. Neither the bulgarians are slavs, neither "byzantine"!!! The Bulgarians come from Eastern Iran, we are indo-iranian genetically and culturally, the Slavs were some local primitive population which we kicked away of these fertile lands to the north of Danube.
To provide this hypothesis, you need a tons of reliable University sources and long discussion, before reaching a consenssus. Jingiby ( talk) 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Should be the source for the Republic of Macedonia, of +50.000 Bulgarian citizens who declared Bulgarian origin, used? I met contra and edit-wars by local users who claim it is not reliable and here we should clear is it reliable or not. I made a list with the reasons I found, being classified as making the source reliable or not reliable.
Reasons supporting the source as reliable:
Reasons supporting the source as not reliable:
Comment: The newspaper can't be a problem because it doesn't do other than quoting. At all I have not found anything against Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, any objections? Dinner for three ( talk) 00:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you even know what OR is? I think I should not make clarifications of that. The minister recorded 75,000 people of which more than 50,000 from the Republic of Macedonia, to got Bulgarian citizenship in the last 20 years, so why we should use only the number for the last 10 years beacause you want? If the number is not true then you are claiming that the statistics from the minister are liyng, which your opinion is not enough. That for the census was the same nonsense you repeat and I should not answer anymore. Dinner for three ( talk) 11:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Morever that the exact number of 35 808 obtained citizenship by declaring Bulgarian origin from 2002 on, a number recerded by the presidency. And do you mean that these people do not exist or something? Dinner for three ( talk) 12:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Since when people holding a Bulgarian passport are considered all to be of ethnic Bulgarian origin? In the same fashion if Bojidar goes to Somalia and offers all those declaring a Bulgarian ethnic heritage a passport opening the doors to the EU, I am sure we can add more to the list. Use of common sense is also allowed...having in mind the background of Bojidar. Hittit ( talk) 07:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
It does not take a PhD to see why would some one from Macedonia, Moldova or Ukraine suddenly discover his long lost Bulgarian identity in hope of free travel and job opportunitie...unfortunately outside Bulgaria. Some old Bulgarian communist brains have now discovered another way for assimilation, however this strategy is again short lived. Hittit ( talk) 16:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Hittit, why don't you stop spamming Wikipedia and instead start discussing at some science-fiction forums or discover your long ethnic Turkish, suddenly discovered origin after the Ottoman assimilation of the Balkan peoples? I am amazed how such no reasonable points of view are even discussing, and they should not be discussed anymore?! Here for last time - the source of the presidency clerly says 68 539 citizens of foreign countries obtained Bulgarian citizenship from 01.2002 to 06.2011, of which 67,305 proved to be of Bulgarian origin and ~1,000 are not of Bulgarian origin. 35,808 of them are from the Republic of Macedonia, so can you adecuately say what is biased in Bojidar's statement as a minister that there are over 50,000 citizens from the Republic of Macedonia including pre-2002 period, because up to now you give nothing adecuate? That 1,400 declared as Bulgarians at census is not a reason. On the other side 15,000 declared Bulgarian origin in the period 1991-2001 which is the same as declaring your origin at census. declare Dinner for three ( talk) 12:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Nationalist Bulgarian editor #77 (Dinner for three), what reason do you have for deleting the figure from the Macedonian census? Are census statistics not included on every ethnic group article? I even left your 50,000 figure and wrote it as a range from 1,417 to 50,000. -- Local hero talk 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Общо – 68539"
Общо – 67305"
Общо – 1234"
You see 67305 out of total 68539 new citizens from the period 2002-2011 are of Bulgarian ethnicity. -- Dinner for three ( talk) 22:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the late respond I fell asleep! We don't know whether Bozhidars' is official count or estimate, but having in mind that the both are possible the number should go with interval after the currently lowest - 35,808, and should neither be used as the only number because we can not say with sureness that this is the counted official number and could be his POV as you purpose, or be removed because this is possibly an official data. So you see I cannot claim that this the official number and you cannot claim that this is Bozhidar's POV because the both are possible - the interval includes all possibilities. Any problems? -- Dinner for three ( talk) 13:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think here picture should be in a separate : "descendants of bulgarians" section or at least Bulgarian-Brazilian should be changed to Brazilian-Bulgarian. Does she identify herself as bulgarian ?! Does she know the bulgarian language ?! She probably has learned about the bulgarian habits, culture and way of conduct from her father, however she probably would not identify herself as a Bulgarian, or just erase all these statements if she has stated so , somewhere publically and I have just not happened to know that ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by YordanGeorgiev ( talk • contribs) 07:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The current image contains a few figures the significance of whom I would put in doubt. Ludmilla Dyakovska is not really famous, and Matey Kaziyski is only known as a member of the national volleyball team, not as an individual sportsperson. Saint John of Rila has some significance, but he is in no way a key figure in Bulgarian history. I made another image, which includes:
I think these figures are much more important for their respective ages, and the last three are by far some of the most significant Bulgarian personalities of the last 50 years. I will replace the current image if there aren't any objections. - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 14:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Dimitar Berbatov and Tsvetana Pironkova should be removed from the image. Jingiby ( talk) 09:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's what I think:
Overall, I feel this list is missing artists and writers, and I don't think Pironkova should be the (only) woman to represent Bulgaria in the pic. — Toдor Boжinov — 11:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion 2 lines of persons are too few, the set of images looks quite smaller than these of many related groups, e.g. Greeks, Russians with 5 and 6 lines of persons, and to some degree like there are not enough notable persons in the nation, not to say a big word - shameful, but there are more notable persons, each from their own occupation and therefore I want to escalate to 3 or 4 lines. I also think that significant and famous people are missing, while some of the current can not stand on their little finger, uppermost Topalov, Stoichkov, Simeon or Boris I, and Vazov, which all remain in the history of Bulgaria and whose significance for the nation I think is undeniable. So I have proposals.
Persons that I think uppermost need to be added:
Persons from occupations from which there are not anyone in the set of images, they I think would improve the set as well:
For two persons which are now in the set I think that were visible better in their previous images - Levski because the photo was closer and he was more visible in the face, the second one is Saint John of Rila because the resizing of this icon made his face just invisible as much as you try to see it, so other icon of him would stay better.
Well, that is what I think. Objections people? - Author: ГДБОБ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ГДБОБ (
talk •
contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There is but only one - Neophyte Rilski is Macedonian Bulgarian from Bansko. If i try to think for such people I only rember Berbatov and some revolutionaries. Propose anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ГДБОБ ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
If I have to choose who to be the revolutionary after Levski, I would choose Benkovski or Botev. Delchev is really notable revolutionary, but in my opinion should be added after Benkovski is added. For Simeon Radev, I do not see any picture of him in the site, does he really have? And what do you think about the current situation, it has not only Macedanian Bulgarians, but also many famous and significant Bulgarians and people from many occupations such as actors and singers are missing too. So for singers I also would propose Boris Christoff and Ghena Dimitrova. Views about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ГДБОБ ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)