Jump to content

Talk:Bulgarians/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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:[1], 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 T 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)

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 [1][2][3], 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 Wikipedia 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...."
File:Genetic relations of European nations.jpg
Genetic kinships of European nations.
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, Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 [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)

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 Wikipedia: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. [2]

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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 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)

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)}

The article

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)

Image

Which on the image are non-Bulgarians? Pensionero (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

John Atanasov and Dilma Rouseff did/does not identify as Bulgarian, as far as it's known. Kostja (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • John Kukuzeles was half Bulgarian.
  • The portrait of Simeon I is both entirely fictional and copyrighted (unsuitable for Wikipedia).
  • The portrait of Paisius is entirely fictional and possibly copyrighted (might be the same artist as Simeon, not sure)
  • John Atanasoff was half Bulgarian.
  • The photograph of Stoichkov is copyrighted.
  • The photograph of Berbatov is copyrighted.
  • The photograph of Trifonov is copyrighted.
  • Dilma Rousseff is half Bulgarian. Also, it is extremely politically incorrect to refer to the president of Brazil as Bulgarian and list her in the Bulgarians article.
You see, too many problems with the image. — Toдor Boжinov — 12:15, 6 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)

The "half Bulgarians" are quite a problem. We have no sources that tell of Koukouzeles' identity, but Atanasoff and Rouseff certainly did not/do not identify as Bulgarian first and foremost, and should be excluded. Steve Jobs' father was Syrian: is he Syrian too in your book? I firmly believe we should exclude these people from the infobox.
You asked me about copyrighted images. I'll try to explain it as simple as possible: all images that you find online are copyrighted, unless stated otherwise. That is, unless it says the image is licensed under a free license, or unless you can reasonably prove that its author died more than 70/100 years ago, it is copyrighted and unusable in Wikipedia.
Dimitar Guydzhenov is the artist who painted this fictional portrait of Simeon. Gyudzhenov died in 1979, which is 39 years ago, so his works are still subject to copyright laws. I don't know who painted this fictional portrait of Paisius, but it is down to you to prove the author died more than 70/100 years ago. My instinct tells me that they didn't. The photos of Stoichkov and Berbatov that you selected are clearly unusable, but there are free photos in the respective articles.
Finally, before making any changes to the infobox image, please post here so we can discuss. Thanks! — Toдor Boжinov — 19:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
To add, DeCausa makes a good point above. Let's stick to "real" Bulgarians instead of resorting to Rouseff :) There are enough notable people indeed. — Toдor Boжinov — 19:29, 7 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)

The President of Brazil was born and brought up in Brazil. It doesn't matter that her father was Bulgarian. Don't you realize how ridiculous it looks? Barrack Obama isn't listed under notable Kenyans, but his father is (because he IS a Kenyan). What you are arguing for is very childish. DeCausa (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Excellent argument. Rouseff is Bulgarian as much as Obama is Kenyan. Both acknowledge their ancestry and are proud of it, that doesn't mean they belong to the respective nationalities. — Toдor Boжinov — 10:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's some more! Nicolas Sarkozy isn't listed in the Hungarians, Winston Churchill isn't in the Americans and King Albert of Belgium isn't Swedish! The list goes on.... DeCausa (talk) 15:55, 11 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)

Remove the horse head from the page, please!!!

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)

This is ridiculous. Why would this guy think that a picture of a horse means it's meant to say Bulgarians look like horses? That's one of the most absurd posts I've seen on Wikipedia. Also, what difference does it make if the horse belongs to a gypsy? DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it okay if the horse is African American? :) — Toдor Boжinov — 14:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Then could I start placing Northern Cypriot horses in Luxembourgers? Pensionero (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Before answering that, I'd like to know which passport does the horse have....? DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
The alleged justification for that picture in that place is that it is supposed to illustrate a Bulgarian folkloric custom, the Todorovden horse racing. However, the picture fails completely at that (nothing wrong in it being a 'Roma horse' rather than 'ethnic Bulgarian one') as it only shows a horse head, giving no idea whatsoever of the race itself. Therefore, in my opinion, it has no place in the article. Apcbg (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the point the decorations on the horse's head? DeCausa (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
If I am not wrong, one could see four decorations with three of them being large 'martenitsas' that actually belong to another Bulgarian folkloric custom, Martenitsa, and are not representative for the race or the other rituals performed on that day. Apcbg (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't care about the horse. I was mostly amused by the anon and Pensionero's grounds for removal: that it's a gypsy horse. I agree the pic, though catchy, is not a brilliant illustration of the custom. I don't mind removing it based on Apcbg's justification. — Toдor Boжinov — 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: removal of the horse head from the article

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)

Removed. Apcbg (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, there seems to be a sensitivity among Bulgarians about horse pictures I'm completely unaware of. Just out of curiosity, could someone spell it out for me what exactly is the issue? Why does it make fun of Bulgarians exactly? This is a genuine question (I'm not trolling any anti-Bulgarian point, I'm British and just genuinely curious.) DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Genetic relations of European nations.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

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 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)

Bulgarians versus Bulgars

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)

Excuse me, but all the sources you provided deal exclusively with Medieval history. Non of them claims to be a research on a present-day ethnic group. The sources might be (partially) relevant to the ethnogenesis section but serve no purpose in the lead.--Laveol T 06:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Part of this IP's edits is to delete reference to "European Turkey" on the basis that there is no such thing. This is incorrect of course and he should raise it here rather than continue reverting. DeCausa (talk) 07:03, 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)

Higher estimate of Bulgarians in Bulgaria

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)

I think that it's those who declared Bulgarians + all who have not declared any ethnicity. I think it might be safer to assume the number those who declared as Bulgarians + the percentage of those who did not declare any ethnicity equal to the percentage that Bulgarians represent out of all that have declared. To put it simpler: 5,664,624 + 84.8% (7,351,234 - 6,680,980) = 5,664,624 + 670,254 = 6,334,878. That is an estimate again, but it is what you get when one makes a census with odd free-answer questions. I'll change the number with this one.--Laveol T 07:12, 25 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)

Semi-protection

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)

Jingiby's own point of view

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)

really ? Nothing seems to be out line with general historical concensus Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research and misrepresentation of reliable sources

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)

That's not a consensus. Also, it's an absurd POV to say that because 9% didn't answer they must be "ethnic bulgarian". Unsupported original research. I'm reverting - don't revert until consensus reached. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 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)

That makes no sense in English. Please try to re-phrase it. DeCausa (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
You haven't cited the paragraph where you claim there is consensus. If it is the "Higher estimate of Bulgarians in Bulgaria" thread, that's not consensus. You haven't answered Anonimu's point above. DeCausa (talk) 14:20, 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)

Ethnicity is a purely subjective choice. The only thing that makes you "ethnic Bulgarian" is your decision to be "ethnic Bulgarian" (if we exclude historical aberrations such as Zhivkov's "Revival Process"), so neither you nor anybody else can say that those who didn't declare ethnicity were "ethnic Bulgarians" (or "ethnic Turkish" or "ethnic Roma", or whatever). If you want a higher estimate find a reliable source (preferably more recent than the census), and we'll have that higher estimate next to the official results.Anonimu (talk) 08:11, 13 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)

It's difficult to understand the English in this post. But it sounds like OR. If there is a higher number because of "possible" or "potential" Bulgarians, then you need to find a reliable source saying the higher number is attributable to "possible" or "potential" Bulgarians. It appears that YOU think this is a likely conclusion. That's not good enough and constitutes OR. DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 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)

The article says that results show that Roma have decreased by 14%, while they actually grew with 500,000. That means that around 550,000 of the 700,000 that declined to answer are Roma. Of course, this is all original research. All that source can support is the 6 million estimate.Anonimu (talk) 19:02, 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)

Between Sunrise and Dinner

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)

Let the trolling begin Lunch for Two (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the opinion, sock of a blocked user. Dinner for three (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seems we should address the issue. I am not sure who the troll is but I remember having fixed all sources an year ago. And now everything seems to be broken. There was newer data for the USA. Now I will have to do it all from scratch. Thanks. Lunch, I also fail to see why you have practically broken an image. I have to assume it was unintentional, but I still fail to understand the mal furs and fleeces, cover the anail-Ohridski-Plovdivski.jpg you have added. Moreover, I do not see what is the problem with having a source from the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry as a higher estimate for the countries where such is available. And as long as there are no ridiculous figures in it. Further, there have been official sources citing 50,000 as the number of Republic of Macedonia citizens to have acquired Bulgarian passports by proving Bulgarian descent. If a proper source is cited, this should be included as an upper estimate. The problem of the current source is that: a) It comes from a former minister; b) He did not say it in an official statement; and c) Focus Agency's website does not provide free access to older publications, thus this interview is inaccessible.
I will start addressing the issues one by one. I hope the childish game you-edit-this-article-therefore-I-will-try-and-ruin-what-I-presume-to-be-yours will subside a bit. I will most probably restore the last undistorted version first and start from it.--Laveol T 08:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what the first part of your statement is about (regarding the breaking of an image?, etc.)
There is a difference between providing a source from the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry to turning the section into a mouthpiece for the Foreign Ministry. All I did was simply remove clearly the WP:OR (eg. "to higher if including all Torlaks", what rubbish is this?) and the hyperinflation of some figures (200,000 Bulgarians in Albania, when the last census recorded somewhere between 0 and ~400). Unless you can show why these uncorroborated figures should stay then I will have to revert to something which is a bit more reasonable. Lunch for Two (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to this edit. I have removed the Albanian silliness. And no, you have not removed only hyper-inflated figures. You have removed all figures you somehow did not like. And just how is the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry an uncorroborated source, since this is the only body in the world that has data on Bulgarians who have gone and live abroad? --Laveol T 09:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I apologise for the second half of that edit, I have no idea what it means either. Nor do I remember making it.
As for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs some of its figures are fairly accurate others are nothing more than broad estimates (in fact they are all estimates). Take Italy for example, according to the Ministry "според италиански източници възлиза на около 100-130 хил. души" whereas according to Italian sources which use actual statistical data the figure is 46,026 [3].
Where there is NPOV statistical information issued from a certain country, then it should take precedence over estimates and it should be used across Wikipedia (Like the Italian source can be widely used on a number of ethnic group infoboxes for example) Lunch for Two (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yet, the Italian census, just like the Bulgarian, UK, etc censuses, include data on residents only and do not count people who are simply living there. This data could only be available to one country's Inner Affairs or the other country's External Affair Ministries. Plus, the data from the Italian census is too outdated. I personally know more than 20 people who went to live there in the last 5 years alone. And data on them is available only through the External Affairs ministry. Plus, trust me, they have no benefit of inflating the number of Bulgarians there (or anywhere else besides the Balkans probably), especially given the recent scandal which had them trying to close down the Milan consulate.--Laveol T 10:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The Italian Data is from 2009. How is this possibly outdated? Lunch for Two (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and it says residents. Anything else? --Laveol T 10:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
And, please, if you want to say something irrelevant to the edit you are making, write it here. There is no need for comments like that one in edit-summaries.--Laveol T 10:19, 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)

Is the concept of residency alluding you somewhat? It is different from citizenship and again different from just working/living somewhere. I am still yet to see an argument as exactly why the official data of a ministry is somewhat incorrect. Are you actually saying they are lying or that they have absolutely no idea how many Bulgarians have gone to a certain country? --Laveol T 10:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they are lying but the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry is clearly has a natural bias towards Bulgaria. And it is obvious by the fact that they believe there is between 100-130,000 Bulgarian citizens in Italy, that they have no real idea how many live there. Furthermore they themselves claim to be using Italian statistics, yet still give a figure with a 30,000 "leeway" lets call it. The BFM might be correct when giving the number of Bulgarians in Georgia for example, however in other cases it just using estimates which suit it. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
And I just explained you that it suits them to present a smaller number of Bulgarians, hence justify the closure of a consulate. Don't you read the whole comments? --Laveol T 11:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that Italy has no partisan interest in whether there at 50,000 or 500,000 Bulgarians. The Bulgarian Foreign Ministry on the other feels that it does. Besides, since when is the word of any foreign ministry from the Balkans a definitive source? Lunch for Two (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Most of those who go in Italy doesn't go straight to the Italian Institute of Statistics to declare which citizens are they, which makes your claim incorrect, etc. most of the immigrants there are not registred citizens. FYROM's official number should be back again, because not other than vandalism deleleted it. The order in [this version] show all numbers exact according to the sources given (e.g. Spain 169,195/170,000, Belguim 7,443/8,000, Ukraine 204,574/200,000) which makes the sense aesthetical and also backs the deleted FYROM, and maybe that would be the better version to back. Dinner for three (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The Italian statistics count foreign citizens in the country, they don't need to have Italian citizenship, they need to have Bulgarian citizenship. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Dinner, for finally getting an account; however, you might want to do something to avoid the impression that you chose it only for fighting against Lunch. Tea at Four 16:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly does give that impression. (Maybe I was to quick to call the name choice "trolling"?) Afternoon Tea for Seven (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the thank you, Tea at Four! I don't want to fight with anybody, I created the account because you protected the page, still vandalized and I couldn't did anything, in future I also hope to be useful in removing further vandalism. For the comment of Lunch above- this register or wether is that thing, is not a census and can't count all foreign citizens or probably the most. And what kind of thing is trolling actually? Clarification and reliable source for seven more 19:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, I am starting to get the feeling that either I am on hard drugs or someone is turning an encyclopaedia into a circus. Is all this really necessary. I really thought for a second that two of the users battling it out had created yet another account. It would be really nice if it was the Dinner feller who started taking a battle stance, but it was actually the Guy from Lunch who saw me editing the ethnic Macedonians article, checked if I was Bulgaria (or probably knew it before hand) and decided to retaliate here. SO, was all of this above really necessary for this particular talkpage? --Laveol T 19:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It has absolutely nothing to do with that (I cannot see where you have gotten that misconception). The figure of 200,000 Bulgarians in Albania simply alerted me to the fact that the page needs a clean up, as obviously it wasn't the only misrepresented source. Lunch for Two (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

History and ethnogenesis

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)

Bulgarian citizens in the Republic of Macedonia

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:

  • Bojidar had not only access to official documents on his subject but his post was to control the things with Bulgarian citizens outside Bulgaria, which means he most likely he declares exact data.
  • He was a minister at the interview and responsible to the goverment with his statements, which thing makes less likely the possibility for him to lie about the number.
  • He declared precise numbers such as 75,000, 4,200, 5,773, 3,000, which means he is well informed about the number of people obtained Bulgarian citizenship and that thing makes the number he declared surely reliable.
  • Everyone who obtains citizenship first must sign that is Bulgarian by origin, which is the same as declaring your ethnic group at census.
  • Bojidar declared only numbers of country's citizens, and doesn't give his points of view about the ethnicity of the ethnic Macedonians, which thing makes the figure neutral.
  • On a whole that the minister declares official data should be trusted as reliable and that he is lying is a very miniature possibility which possibilities exist in a big part of the trusted sources on the web as reliable.

Reasons supporting the source as not reliable:

  • The quoter of the statements is a newspaper.
  • Bojidar is currently not a minister, while it shoud be noted that he was at the time of his statements.

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)

We should stick to official data from the ministry. Dimitrov shared his personal views (a large portion of which are well-known). This was not a part of an official statement or something. The 50,000 or so passports are a fact more or less but we do need an official source confirming the number. This one is not. --Laveol T 09:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The official statistics show that there are c.1,400 Bulgarians in Macedonia. Mr Dimitrov is free to make claims, however, it should not be forgotten that by no means is he unbiased or impartial. Dinner, you can have a RS, however this is not to say that it doesnt qualify as WP:Fringeview. Lunch for Two (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Bojidar was minister but had no ministry (see minister without portfolio) to declare there any statements and the only thing that remains to do so is the media. Here [the official statistics from the presidency], they reported 35,808 citizens of the Republic of Macedonia to get Bulgarian citizenship in the period 01.2002 - 06.2011. However these statistics are from 2002 on and Bojidar said in the last 20 years over 50,000 from this country got the citizenship, some 15,000 in the period 1990-2002 pass well with statics from the presidency. I thing good variant is 35,808 to be used as un upper number and 50,000 as second in the infobox. For Lunch for Two's statement, there are not anymore officially 1,400 Bulgarians in the Republic of Macedonia after about 50,000 declared to be Bulgarians there. Dinner for three (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:OR, not to mention the fact that you are presenting contracdictory claims. Surely if 15,000 people of Bulgarian background became citizens of Bulgaria before 2002, then there should have been a count of 15,000 "Bulgarians" in the Republic of Macedonia. The fact is that the last census only counted 1,400 persons identifying as Bulgarians. In the same way that the 2002 Macedonian Census is used accurately in the infoboxes of the other ethnic groups (Albanians, Macedonians, Turks, Serbs, etc.), so too should its findings be considered valid for those who proclaim themselves to be of Bulgarian background. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:44, 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)

Yes, I am aware what OR is. Furthermore, your choice of name and string of reverting my edits seem to suggest that you are here simply to rebutt my edits and engage in somewhat disruptive behaviour. The next Macedonian census is due to be held in October, I am sure that the Wikipedia community will be able to wait until the results of the census will be released. If there really are 50,000 "Bulgarians" then they will be recorded as such. Furthermore, there are Bulgarian names for places such as Ptelea, Evros and Plati, Evros, which although derive from the Turkish name, still represent a seperate name. There is no need to go around removing all of the Bulgarian names. Lunch for Two (talk) 09:12, 3 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)

In order to receive a Bulgarian passport, citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, and Ukraine must prove, not declare, Bulgarian descent. Are you actually denying people their right of ethnic self-identification? --Laveol T 09:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The 15,000 Macedonian citizens who attained Bulgarian citizenship before 2002 had the chance to state their ethnic self-identification in the 2002 Macedonian census. The number of Bulgarians in the county was ~1,400. The vast majority of persons with Bulgarian passports clearly do not identify as ethnic Bulgarians. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:03, 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. declareDinner 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)

Already 35,808 officially proved Bulgarian origin and what's the productivity in placing expired deflation? Are you want to say that this number is not reliable or from not reliable source? If 'no' then the it remains reliable and for what are lower numbers?--Dinner for three (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not remove the two sources you have for those stats. That's not what this particular conflict is about. This is about you deleting a statistic from a census used on articles like Albanians, Serbs, Croats, etc. --Local hero talk 21:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
And still for what is actually a census figure if there is actual equally reliable data as census? As equally reliable, I mean that these statistics are counting of population, not an estimate, as the census itself is counting of population, and what is the difference actually between the two of them? The only with that census is different in compare with newer counting is that it is older isn't it? --Dinner for three (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
And for what is actually the statement of a biased Bulgarian minister if there is actual reliable data from a census? As for biased, I mean Boži is known for his hating on the Macedonian nation/people. His 50,000 figure is an estimate he gave in an interview with some news site. So should we just take his word for it and delete the (real) statistic from an official census? Your other source says 35,808 people received Bulgarian passports. You and yours have also said that one needs to claim Bulgarian ethnicity in order to receive this passport. Could you provide a link proving this? --Local hero talk 22:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know wether Bozhidar hates the Macedonian people but the only we use from him is the declared passports. Here you the [official link] you wanted
  • "Лица, придобили българско гражданство (22.01.2002 - 30.06.2011)

Общо – 68539"

  • "Лица от български произход или с родител български гражданин (22.01.2002-30.06.2011 )"

Общо – 67305"

  • "Лица от небългарски произход (22.01.2002 - 30.06.2011)

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)

Ok, so you've addressed the one part of my comment about one having to declare Bulgarian ethnicity. You did not, however, address the rest of it. --Local hero talk 22:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
"По-големи групи лица, получили българско гражданство, по страни за периода 22.01.2002 - 30.06.2011: Македония - 35808" And how 1,400 will replace 50,000 when the current number is at least 35,808? So off with census number, the current situation is officially not lower than 35,808, 50,000 serves as second number because Bozhidar's includes pre-2002 period and is not an estimate - there have been counted over 50,000 passports for recievers in the Republic of Macedonia which is counting not an estimate. Or you claim he lies for the passports, and why, that is not related to any of the questions he is arguing? --Dinner for three (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
If 35,808 passports means 35,808 Bulgarians in Macedonia to you then whatever. But the census figure needs to be there just like the Bulgarian census figure for ethnic Macedonians is in that article. The Bozidar source is not good. Barack Obama once said in an interview or speech that there are 6 million Muslims in America. That number is obviously incorrect and, therefore, his words aren't used as a source on the Islam in the United States article. So let's put 1,417 - 35,808. Seems like a fair compromise to me. --Local hero talk 23:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes it means because proving Bulgarian origin is necessarily to get Bulgarian citizenship in some countries and I already provided you source for this. Census number is not valid, 35,808 declared to be Bulgarians from 2002 on and that's the lowest number. Barack Obama's POV estimate not based on counting is not reliable, but we need sources for the passports before 2002, and counting (not an estimate as Barack Obama's one, except Bozhidar lies) declared by the Minister without Portfolio is a good variant and currently it is used with interval which means "vary to 50,000", "up to 50,000" etc. --Dinner for three (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
How do you know Božidar's estimate is based on an official count? Do you think he sat in the interview with a copy of an official document listing the number of Macedonians with Bulgarian citizenship? --Local hero talk 23:33, 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)

Thank you. We don't know whether Bozhidars' is official count or estimate. Exactly. He could have pulled that right out of his ass. We don't know. But it's not a reliable or official figure. The lowest is the census number. I'm not going to try to explain that to you again; I'm getting annoyed. The highest is the 35,808 number. So a range from 1,417 to 35,808 is the best solution. --Local hero talk 13:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Should I say everything again? Already 35,808 declared Bulgarian origin not 1,417 and that's the lowest number. You claim that 35,808's source is not reliable or what? Other numbers except this 50,000 for the Republic of Macedonia Bozhidar declared in the same day include - "Today 458 citizens of the Republic of Macedonia received Bulgarian passports", " With the beginning of this year the number of received Bulgarian citizenship was 5773 people, from which 4200 are from the Republic of Macedonia" - numbers with units and tens talks that they are from official documents and are not his POV, "7000 English people has permanently settled in the coutry" - also well coounted not roughly figure. You see many official numbers declared by him in the same day making the 50,000 figure also reliable. If is however not reliable, altough this is a fringe view, we limit to use as first number that from 2002 on, and Bozhidars' is with interval meaning 'up to', so I don't see what the problem is. --Dinner for three (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, the only reliable sources we have are the census and that 35,808. Dimitrov's statement is obviously an estimation and he did not cite it through an official governmental channel. It was an interview. On the other hand, 35,808 is a good higher estimate, since we actually have no data on whether those people are still in the Republic of Macedonia. The infobox has information on how many Bulgarians live in the country. And 35,808 is the number of RoM citizens who declared Bulgarian descent. But this does not mean they continued living in the Republic. They most probably have not. It does not give you good image, does it. Most of them either live in Bulgaria or have gone to Western Europe. So, I see the 35,808 as the highest estimate for the infobox. And I will not accept any number thrown in an interview by an ex-Minister and nationalist. --Laveol T 05:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't see from where is this sureness about the number from Dimitrov? And how can be known that the number is Dimitrov's own estimate? It can not so as can not be known is the declared number from him official, he was however minister at the interview and his job was just for Bulgarian citizens abroad making this, to not say mostly possible, highly possible to be official. Both official and estimate possibilities remain possible for Dimitrov's number and the dash seems the only variant when we don't know. Doesn't matter what is talking about Dimitrov, I am on opinion that his number is most possibly official due to the official numbers 498, 5772, 4,200 he declared at the same interview, the tales about him and whatever about his background don't matter after the only we use are the possibly official numbers. Aside from this, surely part of these citizens immigrated from the RoM, but we again don't know are they many or not, or directly what part of them. Dimitrov says that 40,000-45,000 of the 50,000+ still live in the RoM, but that is surely his estimation, because he couldn't know what part of these people have immigrated outside RoM and Bulgaria. As for those who live in Bulgaria, there have been counted only 1,091 citzens of the RoM at 2011 census. So if the most of these 35,808 have immigrated, they should 've done it in other countries. However there are no such ridicilous statistics "new Bulgarian citizens in the RoM's immigration in other countries" or any sources about this immigration and the only that the ref. say is that 35,808 come from the RoM.--Dinner for three (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
That is all nice, but I really like that bit about one of the number he cites been an estimate and the other being a definitely real number. From other exact numbers that he cited you conclude that the 50,000 one is truthful but you do not conclude the same for the 40,000 - 45,000. Sorry, the interview is not a reliable source. And, as you said it, there are no such ridicilous statistics "new Bulgarian citizens in the RoM's immigration in other countries" so we actually know nothing. Therefore, the only suitable higher estimate would be 35,808, cause this is the only reliable number we can come up with. Please, be reasonable and let this issue go. We will have better data by the end of the year or so. --Laveol T 20:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
So can we just put the '1,417 - 35,808' up and call it an end to this debacle? --Local hero talk 20:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Laveol's edit here seems to be acceptable. Dinner for Three seems to have only created his account for the sole purpose of forcing an uncompromising POV here after his attempts as an IP to do this were unsuccessful. Besides, half of the article and 11 Demographic maps are dedicated to showing the true Bulgarian nature of Macedonia. I think readers get the point, and if the Dinner's exorbitant "estimates" are continuously reaffirmed, over a perfectly fine census figure, it will only lead to nothing but edit warring. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff into separate section

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)

There are no such sections in the articles about the ethnic groups. It should be expressed that the person is Bulgarian-Brazillian under the image - I had a look it is already expressed. The Brazillian-Bulgarian model which you purpose at first look seems more correct for Dilma Rousseff, but actually it means an ethnic Brazillian living in Bulgaria, not an ethnic/ or partially ethnic Bulgarian living in Brazill - see e.g. Bulgarian American. Dinner for three (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

New image proposal

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:

  • Krum;
  • Saint Clement of Ohrid;
  • Ivan Shishman;
  • Sophronius of Vratsa;
  • Vasil Levski;
  • Boris III;
  • Todor Zhivkov;
  • Georgi Ivanov;
  • Dimitar Berbatov;
  • Tsvetana Pironkova.

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)

Hmm, nice proposal, but I do have at least one objection in mind. Todor Zhivkov? His notability is quite notorious and his personality is more one of a dictator. It would be a bit like the article on Russians having an image of Stalin or ... well, I would not go as far as one might go on this subject. I would instead go with a writer, or even better with Hristo Botev. He is as prominent as they get, so to speak. An infobox without him would simply not suffice it for me. Otherwise I find the suggestion really good and it would be great if you proceeded with it. --Laveol T 18:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Now that I come to think about it, I might also argue the John of Rila and Matey Kaziyski reasoning as well. The first is an internationally feasted Saint (by far the most prominent purely Bulgarian Saint) and the latter is certainly one of the best 10, if not 5 or 3, players in his sport. Pironkova is more famous but, well, I don't know. Input from other editors would be more than welcome at this point. --Laveol T 19:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
One could argue in length about Zhivkov's leadership (considering that Boris III was also a dictator), but I don't think there is any doubt that his footprint in Bulgarian history is the most significant since Independence given his 35-year long rule. I've picked the others as key figures in different eras (Clement as the first cleric to use Bulgarian as an official religious language; Ivan Shishman as the last medieval Bulgarian monarch; Sophronius as a key early figure in the revival, etc.). I don't insist on Pironkova, but I think she is more appropriate as an individual athlete, while Kaziyski has little value as an individual sportsperson outside the national team and we could also include Vladimir Nikolov on the same grounds. It would indeed be good if more users provide an opinion on the issue. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Length of leadership is of little value when discussing what makes him notable for Bulgarians. I do consider that whoever should be present in this image, should have had a positive influence on Bulgaria. And Zhivkov was responsible for a lot of grave deeds. Leaving Botev out, however, is simply out of the question. As for Pironkova-Kaziyski, I cannot pick (and I am not sure we have to pick just one) as Kazyiski is not only a part of the national team. Just go ahead and take a peek at the list of individual awards and club titles he has won in the years. At the mean time, Pironkova is a top 50 WTA tennis player with a Wimbledon semi- and quarter final. One could say that Kaziyski is more successful, while Pironkova is more famous (due to tennis being more popular than volleyball globally). One could also think if Alexander Batenberg would be a better choice than Boris III. I don't know. --Laveol T 09:34, 28 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:

  • Krum is fine.
  • In my opinion John of Rila is a better choice than Clement of Ohrid, being our national saint.
  • Ivan Shishman was a pretty unsuccessful ruler of whom we have no good image to include, so I fail to see the logic here.
  • Sophronius of Vratsa is OK, but the image we have of him is kind of funny.
  • Vasil Levski is fine without a doubt.
  • I believe Stambolov is a better choice than Boris III and he's certainly a less divisive figure.
  • Zhivkov is definitely important, but a divisive figure as well.
  • Georgi Ivanov (I hope the astronaut? :D) is fine.
  • Berbatov is fine as well.
  • I don't think Pironkova merits a place in there instead of Kaziyski, she's certainly less successful.

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 terms of artists or writers, I would propose Tzvetan Todorov as he is quite famous and well-cited among philosophical circles. I cannot think of any world-famous Bulgarian women of whom we have decent images though. Maybe Ghena Dimitrova ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:48, 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:

  • Topalov as among the few representatives of a nation, that became World Chess chmapion and the 4th grandmaster of all-time only behind the legends Garry Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov and Bobby Fischer, he should be included
  • Stoichkov as the greatest Bulgarian footballer of all time and one of the greatest football legends in the world, the most famous Bulgarian worldwide I suggest, the most prominent part of the so called 1994 All Star Team which remained Bulgaria's best memory in sports, and so on, I think has the place before any other Bulgarian sportists
  • Simeon I think is too significant figure for the Bulgarian history to be excluded, under Simeon Bulgaria had its largest territorial and cultural expansion and was the largest state in whole Eastern Europe, which I think places him ahead before any other Bulgarian ruler and last but not least, not many nations have rulers with the nickname "the Great" as the same of Alexander the Great and the greatest Russian emperor Peter the Great
    • or Boris I who is also very significant figure for the Bulgarian history as the Baptizer of the nation, I also suggest that he may made more territorial expansions than Simeon although during Simeon's rule Bulgaria was largest
  • Benkovski as the main perpetrator and the most important figure of the April Uprising, without which the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-8 would not consisted, he may be classified as the most important revolutionary after Levski, and I personally think that without Benkovski and the merits of Levski before, the Russo-Turkish War wouldn't consisted and the existence of a Bulgarian state today would be into question
  • Vazov as being nationally acknowledged as the best Bulgarian author and the Patriarch of Bulgarian literature, I think deserves the place in the set before any other Bulgarian writer, Peyo Yavorov is not so honored and Tzvetan Todorov is not actually famous even in Bulgaria and he identify himself as French as well
  • I think Stambolov as politician is better choice than Burmov, who was only first prime minister for several months and remained not really famous even in Bulgaria, Stambolov in addition to politician was notable revolutionary in key events too.


Persons from occupations from which there are not anyone in the set of images, they I think would improve the set as well:

  • Neophyte as there are not any 'народни будители in Bulgarian' in the current set of images, Neophyte I think is an important one, it is said that he made the first translation of the Gospel in the modern Bulgarian language
  • Zahari Zograf as there are not any painter, Zahari is notable one, for example with the painting of the worldwide famous frescoes in the exterior of the church of the Rila Monastery
  • Petko Voyvoda as there are not any voivodes, haiduks and heads of cheti, during Ottoman rule there were many such, guilty for the Liberation of Bulgaria, and Petko I think is a good variant for a representative of them
  • Elin Pelin is repeating as author as some in the set, but is from other occupation, and is considered Bulgaria’s best narrator of country life.
  • Kiril Gospodinov as an actor, he is remembered well by the Bulgarian audience I think, and has participation in making about hundred Bulgarian movies


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 seem to be no Macedonian Bulgarians among the proposed people -- a serious drawback I reckon. Apcbg (talk) 20:50, 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 we have Levski, then we should have Delchev as well. Perhaps Simeon Radev too. Apcbg (talk) 12:56, 23 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)

I object to all except Vazov and Stoichkov. First thing that should come to mind is that this is the English, not the Bulgarian Wikipedia. The majority of English-language readers would not be interested in figures such as Petko Voyvoda or Kiril Gospodinov, who might be significant, but not in any case leading figures in their respective domains - neither globally nor in Bulgaria. Second thing - this is not a list of leaders and revolutionaries only. It's supposed to show truly the best of the best, the cream of the crop in every domain, with Burmov being a slight exception due to his role as the first PM of the modern Bulgarian state.
Levski and Botev are iconic figures and should be displayed; all other revolutionaries, including Gotse Delchev and Benkovski, are far less-known to the non-Bulgarian reader and their positioning in the infobox would really look forced. The article on Stefan Stambolov is in a horrible state, and I would support linking to it only when there are sufficient source, style and neutrality corrections made to it. If Topalov is added, then Stoichkov should be out, or vice-versa - there should be at least one active sportsperson shown, otherwise this would look like an album of historically significant people and would assume that there are no such Bulgarians nowadays. I fail to see the significance of Boris I outside Bulgaria proper. He is regionally significant, but nothing more, although he could possibly replace John of Rila. Simeon could be included, possibly replacing Ivan Asen II. - Tourbillon, not logged in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.26.55.15 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Five polymorphisms of the apolipoprotein B gene in healthy Bulgarians.Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Medical University of Sofia, Bulgaria.PMID: 12713147
  2. ^ HLA polymorphism in Bulgarians defined by high-resolution typing methods in comparison with other populations.
  3. ^ Y-chromosomal diversity in Europe is clinal and influenced primarily by geography, rather than by language
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bulgarians/Archive_2&oldid=1144579697"