Jump to content

Talk:Bulgarians/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Bulgarians in Bulgaria

Where exactly in the 2011 Census does it say that there is 6,100,000 ethnic Bulgarians? The Census clearly states that there is 5,664,624 people who claimed to be Bulgarian. Those who did not state there ethnicity should not be included here as the Census does not say that they are ethnic Bulgarians. Those who did not state their ethnicity could be from any ethnic group, though it probably includes Bulgarians too, it does not mean that they are all ethnically Bulgarian. Turco85 (Talk) 00:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

macedonia numbers

Local hero, please explain this uncommented edit: why and what is the reference. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was re-adding the 2002 census figure of Bulgarians in Macedonia that was deleted by ГДБОБ. --Local hero talk 04:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, ГДБОБ changed some other parts. Sinc the edit you reverted is dubious, what about the rest of his intervention? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The figure for Italy seems to just be an update. The figures for Macedonia and Albania consist of people from those countries that have been given Bulgarian citizenship. While this makes no implication on where these people reside, we sort of compromised earlier by including both the Macedonian census figure and that of Bulgarian citizenship recipients from Macedonia. And the other stuff seems to be some restructuring of text in the infobox. --Local hero talk 02:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Population numbers in infobox

Among all the wild number entries in the infobox before this article was protected, there was actually one new and correct number, but since no source was given, it was inevitably reverted. The number of Bulgarians in Serbia is now counted to 18,543, and the source is http://media.popis2011.stat.rs/2012/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf. This will also move Serbia down one place in the list, after Cyprus. Anyone care to fix it? Regards! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the USA population towards the most reliable and modern source (from 2012) .... but i made A TERIBLE MISTAKE ... when inputing data, the whole text just collapsed ..... and i dont knoow how to change it back... i opologize to editors of this article and ask them if thy can change this mess somehow... text only needs to be changed backed to tabelle etc... (Правичност (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

ne moje prosto da se kaje 4e sme ujni slavqni,terminat pra-bulgi e absolutno politi4eski nqma pra bulgari nie sme prosto bulgari i ne sme zagubili korenite s iot oth. Za tqh ima mn teorii kato prez poslednite godini se e nalojila tazi za blizkiq do iranskiq proizhod no nqma da navlizam tam.Samite vuprosi za suzdavaneto na durjavata i edinniq etno o6te sa sporni sred istoricite.Ujni slavqni sa surbite , v dnk-to si te sa pove4e slavqni a nie ne, sledovatelno zaduljitelno trqbva da se spomene za drevnite bulgari gradili civilizacii predi hilqddi godini ,dedin takuv narod ne iz4ezva prosto taka.Navsqkude vuv vizantiiski letopisi sme nari4ani bulgari ime ostanlo ot ednoimenniq narod. Ta nali bulgrai sa se jenili za slavqni kak taka bulgarskiq gen izvednijh stava slavqnski.Ima mn teorii za zna4enieto na 1 ot dvata etnosa pri obrazuvaneto na bulgarskiq narod prez 20-te godini e bila populqrna teoriqta 4e bulgarite sa imali osnovnata rolq za suzdavaneto na naroda a po vremeto na komunizma 4i4ko stalin a i na6ite umni istorici-politici sa re6ili 4e trqbva d sme po blizo do "bratu6kite" i sledovatelno slavqnite imali po golqmata rolq za suzdavaneto a bulgarite razbiral li bili edno mrusno 4ergarsko pleme ot 10-20 hilqdi 4oveka istoriqta se e menqla spored politi4eskata konunktura no sega uj sme demokraciq svoboda na slovote i nova informaciq taka 4e molq da poglednete na vuprossa pod pove4e ot edin ugul ne da pi6e teorii pulni s mitove i legendi :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.11.150.184 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This game with the numbers in the infobox is ridiculous, please Ceco, stop POV-pushing. Gain consensus for your edits. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No reliable data about 10 million Bulgarians were published anywhere. The demographic collapse in Bulgaria is catastrophic. Jingiby (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, do not change number of ethnic Bulgarians into the infobox, with the number of Bulgarian cinizens. There is aniother article for that called Demographics of Bulgaria. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bulgarian DNA

I have removed some racialist and anti-Turkish comments and POV added by Stormfighter14 (talk · contribs) as "Bulgarians are purely White European and not Turkic." Wikipedia is not place for propagandize racialist and pseudo-scientific theories such as he claim: Bulgarians and their Arian brothers etc. No reliable source was provided for statement as: closest people to the Bulgarians are the Croats and the Poles. Tabloids and common newspapers are not reliable sources for genetic studies. Check MEDRS. Thank you.

Bulgarians are largely related to Mediterranean, i.e. Southern European poulations:

  • Distributions of HLA class I alleles and haplotypes in Bulgarians – contribution to understanding the origin of the population. M. Ivanova, P. Spassova, A. Michailova, E. NaumovaArticle first published online: 23 DEC 2001: HLA class I profile of Bulgarians has been compared to other European and Mediterranean populations of common historical background in order to clarify more precisely the origin of our population. Genetic distances, phylogenetic trees and correspondence analyses show that the Bulgarian population is more closely related to the Italian, the Mediterranean, the Armenian and the Romanian population than to the other East and West European population.
  • Sena Karachanak, Valeria Carossa, Desislava Nesheva, Anna Olivieri, Maria Pala, Baharak Hooshiar Kashani, Viola Grugni, Vincenza Battaglia, Alessandro Achilli, Yordan Yordanov, Angel S. Galabov, Ornella Semino, Draga Toncheva, and Antonio Torroni. "Bulgarians vs the other European populations: a mitochondrial DNA perspective." International Journal of Legal Medicine (released electronically in advance of print publication, June 15, 2011).: The observed pattern of mtDNA variation indicates that the Bulgarian mitochondrial pool is geographically homogeneous across the country, and that is characterized by an overall extremely high frequency of western Eurasian lineages. In the principal component analysis, Bulgarians locate in an intermediate position between Eastern European and Mediterranean populations, which is in agreement with historical events. Thus, while the Mediterranean legacy could be attributed to the Thracians, indigenous people that firstly inhabited the Balkans.
  • M. Ivanova, E. Rozemuller, N. Tyufekchiev, A. Michailova, M. Tilanus, and E. Naumova. "HLA polymorphism in Bulgarians defined by high-resolution typing methods in comparison with other populations." Tissue Antigens 60:6 (December 2002): pages 496-504. Abstract excerpts: Abstract excerpts: "This is further supported by the analysis of HLA class I haplotypes in Bulgarians. Most of them are also common in Europe. However their frequency pattern in Bulgarians is similar to the South European populations. The presence of some rare alleles and haplotypes indicated Asian genetic inflow. On the basis of HLA class I profile and supported by historical and anthropological data, we suggest that the Bulgarian population is characterized by the features of the Southern European anthropological type."
  • Fulvio Cruciani, Roberta La Fratta, Beniamino Trombetta, Piero Santolamazza, Daniele Sellitto, Eliane Beraud Colomb, Jean-Michel Dugoujon, Federica Crivellaro, Tamara Benincasa, Roberto Pascone, Pedro Moral, Elizabeth Watson, Bela Melegh, Guido Barbujani, Silvia Fuselli, Giuseppe Vona, Boris Zagradisnik, Guenter Assum, Radim Brdicka, Andrey I. Kozlov, Georgi D. Efremov, Alfredo Coppa, Andrea Novelletto, and Rosaria Scozzari. "Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12." Molecular Biology and Evolution 24(6) (June 2007): pages 1300-1311. First published online on March 10, 2007. This large study of populations from Europe, Asia, and Africa confirmed that all signs point to the Y-DNA haplogroup E-M78 (E1b1b1a1) having come from northeastern Africa originally. Naturally, due to geographical proximity to Africa, E haplogroups are more common in southern Europe than northern Europe. 204 Bulgarian males had their Y-DNA data incorporated into "Table 1: Frequencies (%) of the Y-chromosome E-M78 sub-haplogroups in the 81 populations analyzed" which says that 16.67% of them (that is, 34 out of the 204) placed into E-M78, 0.49% (just one person) into E-V12*, and 16.18% (33 individuals) into E-V13. Jingiby (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

From all Slavic populations Bulgarians are closer to the Macedonian Slavs, Serbians and Bosniaks then to the rest, including Croats, Slovenians and Slovaks

  • "Y-STR variation among Slavs: evidence for the Slavic homeland in the middle Dnieper basin", Krzysztof Rębała, Alexei I. Mikulich, Iosif S. Tsybovsky, Daniela Siváková, Zuzana Džupinková, Aneta Szczerkowska-Dobosz, Zofia Szczerkowska, Journal of Human Genetics, May 2007, Volume 52, Issue 5, pp 406-414: “Two genetically distant groups of Slavic populations were revealed: one encompassing all Western-Slavic, Eastern-Slavic, and two Southern-Slavic populations (Slovenians and Croats), and one encompassing all remaining Southern Slavs.” According to the authors most Slavic populations have similar Y chromosome pools, and this similarity can be traced to an origin in middle Dnieper basin of the Ukraine. However, some southern Slavic populations such as Serbians, Slav Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Bosniaks are separated from the tight cluster of the rest of the Slavic populations. According to the authors this phenomenon is explained by “the contribution of the Y chromosomes of peoples who settled in the region before the Slavic expansion to the genetic heritage of Southern Slavs.”Jingiby (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Paternal and maternal lineages in the Balkans show a homogeneous landscape over linguistic barriers, except for the isolated Aromuns" E. Bosch, F. Calafell1, A. Gonzalez-Neira1,, C. Flaiz, E. Mateu1, H.-G. Scheil3, W. Huckenbeck, L. Efremovska5, I. Mikerezi, N. Xirotiris, C. Grasa, H. Schmidt and D. Comas, Annals of Human Genetics (2006) 70",459–487: When the correspondence analysis based on Y-chromosome haplogroup frequencies was performed with the whole set of populations for comparison, all the Balkan populations analysed in the present study, plus the additional Macedonians, Albanians, Italians, Greeks and the two Turkish samples clustered more or less together, separated from Croatians, Polish, Ukrainians and Czech-Slovakians and the Hungarian sample, that formed a more differentiated group.

Genetic map of Europe - genes vary as a function of distance

  • Genes mirror geography within Europe John Novembre, Toby Johnson, Katarzyna Bryc, Zoltán Kutalik, Adam R. Boyko, Adam Auton, Amit Indap, Karen S. King, Sven Bergmann, Matthew R. Nelson, Matthew Stephens, and Carlos D. Bustamante; Nature. 2008 November 6; 456(7218): 98–101: "Despite low average levels of genetic differentiation among Europeans, we find a close correspondence between genetic and geographic distances; indeed, a geographical map of Europe arises naturally as an efficient two-dimensional summary of genetic variation in Europeans...In addition, the results are relevant to the prospects of genetic ancestry testing; an individual’s DNA can be used to infer their geographic origin with surprising accuracy–often to within a few hundred kilometres" The limits to the resolution of these sorts of methods are likely to be very fine indeed; the authors note that, even with this panel, they’re able to distinguish with some confidence individuals that are from the German, Italian, and French-speaking parts of Switzerland. With full resequencing data, it’s likely that even the precise village of origin of an individual will be predictable from genetics alone. After such conclusions is very hard to belive that as you claim Croats, Slovaks, Poles, Hungarians etc., are closer genetically to Bulgarians, then their closest neighbours: Macedonian Slavs, Serbs and Bosniaks from the South Slavs or Greeks, Albanians and Ronmanians from their non-Slavic neighbours, because of their geographical, i.e. genetical proximity. Jingiby (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well there is another source claiming genetic relations to other people in europe. Please stop removing facts just becuase you don't agree with them. The facts are backed up by evidence revealing studies conducted by professional people. Stormfighter14 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added several tags for unreliable sources. Common sites are not reliable source for such kind of information. We need verifications for them. Also, we need et least one reliable source, as per MEDRS. Jingiby (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not understand why were the tags removed. This act resembles vandalism. Jingiby (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

@Stormfighter, is the source being questioned by Jingiby this one? http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=131894 (I notice it is being inserted and disputed.) That news article from 2011 says that a paper would be published by Gulubov. Did the paper eventually get published? It would be much better to cite the peer reviewed source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that this text should be removed: According to another Bulgarian-Italian study, Bulgarians are genetically close to Croats and Poles, with a majority Slavic stock and some Southern European influence. The results failed to show the presence of Turkic origins.
  • there is no reliable source to confirm that provided info.
  • this information (Bulgarians are genetically close to Croats and Poles) contradicts to any other reliable sources added here, i.e. genes mirror geography within Europe; Look at the genetic map of Europe, please:[1].Poles are located close to the Russians, far in North and the Croats are closer in North but in another cluster, close with Slovenians, Bosniaks, Hungarians etc.
  • this article is about what the Bulgarians are, not about what they are not. It is clear that they are Slavic people close genetically to their Balkani neighbours. In the article is still mentioned: Bulgarians are distant from Turks despite geographical proximity. It is clear they are neither Turkic, nor Mongolian, Chinese, Ugro-Finnic, or Arabic people, etc. Jingiby (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way there is not one, but two Bulgarian -Italian genetic studies and they are published and cited in that article (Bulgarians). For more info:

No traces for close genetic kinship between Bulgarians and Poles or Croats. Jingiby (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Verification has failed. Both Bulgarian -Italian Genetic studies do not mention kinship among Poles, Bulgarians and Croats. Galabov (Gulabov) who is cited above as claiming kinship among Bulgarians, Poles, Croats is part from the scientific teams in both studies above. However there is not a general conclusion confirming his personal interview, I think. Jingiby (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


I wholly agree that "Bulgarians are purely White European and not Turkic in an unacceptable inclusion. For two reasons:
  • It's not 'culturally appropriate'
  • More importantly perhaps, it is scientifically absurd. White European is a 'racial term' and 'Turkic" is a linguistic term, so you're comparing apples and Oranges for a start. Secondly, the way people look from Europe to the Near East is a continuum/ clinal. There is no racial border at Constantinople/ Istanbul. Thirdly, all Europeans (with local variations) actually 'come from', ultimately, the Levant, and lesser extents the Indus plain and Nile Delta. So Europeans are just southern/ western Asians with founder effects and local adaptations/ evolution.
Finally, the studies without a doubt state that Bulgarians are closest to Macedonians, Romanians, northern Greeks and Serbs most of all; then other Balkan peole like Albanians, Croats, Slovenians, then Poles, Russians, etc. I do not even need to quote on that/ Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Slovenski Volk. I know you as an expert of the issue. You are also not involved in the edit conflrict here. Please, provide your suggestions about the Genetics origis section. How can we correct the present text? What portion/s has to be removed from it, what portion/s has to stay in it, which part has to be modified and how. Thank you in advance. Jingiby (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Slovenski volk that Albanians, Croats and Poles should be removed as most closely related to Bulgarians. I agree with him also, that Turkic is much more linguistic then racial term, and the claims about a lack of Turkic origins are a nonsense. Both which verification has failed are also not necessary, i.e. they are unreliable. Are there other suggestions, please. Jingiby (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I would be happy to tweek it / make suggestions over next day or so. I would probably remove much of the parts trying talking a presence or absence of Turkic/ central Asia genes. It is not surprising there are no oriental haplogroups in Bulgarians - why should there be ? Afterall, the Bulgars, whatever their supposed "ancient origins' are, came from the Pontic & Caucasus region; and would have had a decidedly western Eurasian origin. That was indeed what they found in ancient Kuman graves, at least. Moreover, we as editors , should not take the liberty to interpret DNA data within our own hypotheses. Finally, lets not forget that whilst Bulgarians do indeed cluster quite distantly fro Turks in Y -DNA studies, the results from autosomal DNA (which paint the true, overall picture) shows that they are as close as can be expected amongst to neighbouring yet separate groups. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK.Jingiby (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Finally, an editor who appears able and willing to slice through this essentialist and synthesising mumbo-jumbo. Awaiting a thorough clean-up. RashersTierney (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Slovenski Volk. Jingiby (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure, friends. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Please Chavdarov1, stop introducing biased and unreliable info and deleting sourced information. Check the discussion above and the sources, instead of deleting them.

Well the current information is actually biased. The article sounds too Mediterranean and middle eastern orientated. Bulgarians are not mediterranean or middle eastern and they never were! Things like some of our dna have come from the middle east or Anatolia is a total lie and I find it very unacceptable and insulting. Bulgarians are a mixture of Slavic, indigenious south European(romans, thracians) and a bit of finnic and Germanic therefore Bulgarians are White European people just like the previous editor have claimed. Haplogroups like R1B, R1A, I and E1B1 which are the main components of the Bulgarian genome have nothing to do with the Mediterranean or the middle east. Only the J's and G1 are but the major parts of our genome are indigenous European. R1A's origin is in northern Ukraine, R1B is from the Basque area, I's are either from Scandinavia or western Balkans only. Haplogroup I don't even exist in the middle east. And lastly haplogroup E1B1 first came from Albania and spread around Europe. All these that I have claimed are briefly explained in Wikipedia and the eupedia website, so I don't know why in this article it is written in a very biased and unfair way. Chavdarov1 (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Stormfighter14 (talk · contribs) aca Chavdarov1 you are blocked. Jingiby (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Jingiby what on earth are you? A lawyer? Ivan1488 (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, provide your sources, instead deleting provided one. Look at discussion above. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This page was proposed for semi-protection against vandalism by a newly-registred socks by the blocked Stormfighter14 (talk · contribs) . Jingiby (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Urmm excuse me but I am not the sock puppet of whatever you said I am. however I am the puppet of chavdarov yes, but who is stormfighter? Seriously that has nothing to do with me. But all Im saying is that the previous people who have objected to how biased this article always sounds have been treated unfairly and the way you act towards such objections with sources given is really unfair and fascist. Jingiby you are probably not even Bulgarian. Why do you even want this article to sound Mediterranean and middle eastern? just explain why?Ivan1488 (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to open a new case on sockpuppet investigation to your edits. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok well Im going to stop changing the article without any sources. I actually know sources which I will find again early this week and will use that to change and add things in the article. They will be clear evidences but I assume it might be removed again and again just because it wouldn't be Mediterranean! I will find all and put it in the article and you should never object it because they are clear evidence materials. This is how fascist and ignorant you are jingiby! Any non Mediterranean and middle eastern sources you disagree because you want to present us Bulgarians as mediterraneans, and I find all this very very insulting, and you are a massive insult to the people of Bulgaria! Ivan1488 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind here is not a forum. Do not insult other editors as you did above. Also it was reached a consensus on this section, and you must at first convince other editors here, that your arguments are right and get their agreement to edit the section Genetic origins essentially. Thank you. Jingiby (talk)

I told you that Im not going to make an edit without any sources and yet you have reported for sockpuppet investigation. Have you even read what Ive told you on this talk page? You are showing so much ignorance here. You also seem to not have read and understood what Ive explained about the genetic section. This is how ignorant you are, or you seem to sound like a corrupted computer system. Well it sounds like this page is a forum from what others are posting here.Ivan1488 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The conclusion of the gentics section is Overall, Bulgarians are closest to Macedonians, Romanians and Serbians; followed by other Balkan populations such as Croats, Albanians and Greeks. Bulgarians are more distantly related to other fellow Slavic-speaking countries such as Russians and Poles. Moreover, they were only modestly close to their immediate eastern neighbours – the Turks- suggesting the presence of certain geographic and cultural barriers (Novembre 2008)(Yanusbaev 2012).
How is this 'too middle-eastern orientated bias" Whatever that means) ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis – needs to be updated

WP is not a forum for the synthesis of material from primary sources. Discussion about how material goes into the article is most welcome, so please stick to that. Blackmane (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Original section heading: Ethnogenesis – "Bulgars"?!

A pawn in the great chess game

I'm not going to enter into any debates nor wish alter the article. I just want this to be registered as an extant opinion, which may one day be shown to be correct. The supposed Asian origin of the so-called "Bulgars" (and their so-called "Bulgar language") only appeared after the Russo-Turkish War, and did not exist before. Ever. Paisii Hilendarski never mentioned it, for example. The artificially-invented "Asian origin" of Bulgarians served other, more powerful countries – both back in the 18th century (politically), and today (mostly in terms of people's consciousness), and is a detriment to Bulgarians' view of themselves. It served, and still serves, Moscow (because it allowed Russia to become not only the largest, but also the first Slavic empire, even though it's unclear just how Slavic the Bulgarians actually are), it served Istanbul and still serves Ankara today (as it puts their Turkic forefathers in Europe way earlier than the Ottomans); and it served and still serves all the other Great Powers, because it makes Bulgarians appear to only be comparatively recently-arrived foreigners into Europe, with little legitimacy for wanting a strong, albeit small, independent state, let alone a long history. A people who, apparently, had no formal organization of their own until some newly-arrived nation civilized them and bestowed upon them an independent state in the 7th century. "Official history" does not allow for any ethnological link between the Thracian kingdoms and the First Bulgarian Empire, whereas, according to extant sources, a Bulgarian-Thracian link is a way more logical conclusion than a Bulgarian-Mongolian one, with a more reasonable description of events being that Isperih "returned to the land of his ancestors", rather than that "the Asian "khan" (haha!) Isperih entered the lands of the Slavs". The "mostly Slavic and a little bit Turkic" version of Bulgarians' ancestry that was peddled in Bulgaria ubiquitously until the mid-1990s, and that still prevails today, does not fit well with the paradox of how, if we are to believe "official" modern sources, Herodotus's "most populous nation in Europe", i.e. the Thracians, appear to have all of a sudden disappeared in the 7th century. How? Just think about that for a minute, all you armchair edit-warriors. And no, don't ask me for sources for this, as, like I say, I have no intention of entering into an argument, or of editing. Though I will point out any discrepancies in anyone's reasoning if anyone wants to have a go. Don't forget – Galileo was considered a "charlatan" once, the and the Bible was considered to be the unified theory of everything, so let's not enter into a discussion about legitimacy. Have a nice day. BigSteve (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Herodotus is 5th century B.C., twelve centuries before the 7th century A.D. Twelve centuries does not exactly look like "all of a sudden", to me at least. During that millenium the Thracians had been Hellenized, Romanized and Slavicized before becoming Bulgarians in the First Bulgarian Empire.
The Central Asian (Iranic) origins of the Bulgars had been corroborated by the Armenians well before the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War, as a matter of fact another twelve centuries before!
To improve your orientation in Bulgarian history, you might wish to peruse this source. Apcbg (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Apcbg! Like I say, I'll be happy to engage people in reasoned debate. Generally, what you say does not contradict what I am saying, but here is what I would like to reply to your post –
  • 1. No one is saying they hadn't been hellenized, but the point is that nowhere in current official history is there ever even a mention of the people who lived in the First Bulgarian Kingdom's lands before the Slavs. All we ever hear is that, when Isperih entered, he encountered "seven Slavic tribes and the Severi". That's all. But there is no evidence that I have seen (nor any logical way that I can figure) that the apparently very populous already-hellenized/romanized Thracians would have been so completely "slavicized" in the single century since the Slavs had apparently entered these lands in the 6th century, as to not even warrant a mention.
  • 2. I would like to see what Anania Shirakatsi says about the Bulgarians/Thracians, but I cannot find the texts, if you can provide them, that would be great! But don't forget, Iranian (South Asian and Indo-European) is not the same as Turkic (Central Asian and Turco-Mongolian). I am not disputing the Iranian-element theory, it tends to get suppressed (suggesting it likely has at least some truth in it!) and I have not seen enough evidence to convince me on it either way.
  • 3. The L. Ivanov link you provide is an interesting recap, but I am dismissing it as biased for several reasons, which I shall not bore you with, save for the most crucial one – the very reason he calls it the Name List of Bulgarian "Khans" means that he is disregarding historical accuracy for politics. Nowhere, in ANY historical source document about Bulgarian history, does the word "khan" exist. Nowhere. The name list itself uses the word knyaz throughout, and people, and even historians, all over just keep ignoring this glaring fact. In addition, the namelist itself is a source I have never been a great fan of, since the earliest extant manuscript of it is from the 15th century so even the word knyaz used within it is a bit iffy...but the non-existent khan is definitely a huge no-no.
So, these are my opinions on your points :) Anyone else? BigSteve (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Please, BigSteve, read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and use academic, neutral, peer reviewed, secondary publications, confirming your opinion. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves! Wikipedia is also not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. See: WP:FORUM. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Jingiby, but I think you'll agree I'm backing up my opinions for why I disagree with the fairy tales that are written in places within these articles. I am pointing out, with concrete arguments, that some of the content in these articles is nothing but fantasy. The fact that this fantasy has existed in the official public sphere for more than a century makes it no less of a fantasy. And I stress again, I have no intention of starting back-and-forth disputes, nor of editing, though I am happy to reasonably debate on this important issue. However, your use of the "This is not a forum" accusation is a straw man, and I am not "interpreting sources", as you accuse me, but I am pointing out the hard fact that, for example, the word "khan" is non-existent; meanwhile, the "nominalia of...khans" article is interpreting...strike that...inventing a fantasy word which does not exist. The fact that countless secondary sources have lied for over a century that the original Russian text says "khan" rather than "knyaz" does not all of sudden alter reality. It says "knyaz", and you would be the one guilty "interpreting primary sources" if you were to dispute this. Just as so many "official historians" have been and still are guilty of peddling this very lie. I am backing up all of my points with strong arguments. If you want me to stop doing so, just stop engaging me in conversation. I have said what I wanted to say, however I will defend myself and, more importantly, the truth, against all accusations. Good day. BigSteve (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Steve is right about the khan thing, but that tells little about what language the Bulgars spoke, if they actually spoke a single language - given that they were a rag-tag bunch bunch of 'political refugees' (to use modern terms) ousted by the Khazars. The Rus had a chaganus but they were Scandinaviam/ baltic/ Slavic. So having a chagan, or not, speaks nothing about the languae of the people. And chagan was firstly a mongolian institution, introduced by the Xianbei. But the reality is that most sources state the Bulgars were most probably Oghuric speaking. The 'central Asia' origin theory, Steve is right to question , for no source actually clearly reveals andy "Bulgars" in Iran, the Pamirs or Wherever. All early sources link the Bulgars to the caucasus and Black Se area.
Finally, sadly perhaps, there is no Thracian - Bulgarian link. Most of Bulgaria (and the most of thee Balkans, even) was depopulated before the Bulgars re-settled the Severi and 7 clans from Wallachia further to the south and east. What population remained (on the Black Sea coast) was essentially Byzantine Greek, even if they were not exactly loyal subjects of the Emperor Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
"I'm not going to enter into any debates nor wish alter the article." What's the point of this thread? I'm not sure why he OP's first post wasn't reverted per WP:NOTFORUM. The remaining post were based on his own "logic" and "analysis" and not discussion of WP:RS i.e. WP:OR. As interesting as it may be, how is any of this relevant to Wikipedia? 08:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Slovenski Volk!
As far as your unsigned comment, User:DeCausa, this is relevant to Wikipedia in that there are concrete statements about the Bulgarians' supposed Central Asian origins in the current Wikipedia article, which are nowhere near as proven as the article states with such certainty. The reason I said I won't enter into debates is that I don't have concrete proof that can pass WP:V requirements...but neither does the entire Bulgars article, which is basically a copy-paste of communist-era high school textbooks which are currently quite controversial. So my comment is pointing out that there is no proof for some of the claims in this article. Hence – my comment has a lot to do with Wikipedia. btw, you may note that the very third sentence in my original post states a fact that no one has thus far been able to argue against, which is a strong case against the claims in this article. So let's not make veiled insults at "my logic" without first looking at the facts that I am attempting to discuss. BigSteve (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Your "logic" may be impeccable, but who cares? You obviously have no idea how Wikipedia operates. We just report what the RS say, effectively. No one is interested in your personal insights on a subject. You've come to the wrong place. That's what WP:NOTFORUM is all about. You keep saying you won't enter any into debates about your "ideas", but that's exactly what you're itching to do. Sadly, bringing to the waiting world the ground-breaking BigSteve theory of Bulgarian ethnogenisis isn't what this page is for. Go find a chatroom. DeCausa (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
No need for personal attacks, mate. Or sarcasm. I'm happy to discuss, which is different from debating. I know how WP operates and what I'm saying is that the sources used in the current article are themselves not Reliable Sources. BigSteve (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
No you're not. You are saying you, BigSteve, disagree with them and therefore that means they are not reliable sources. You haven't made one comment about their reliability as that term is used in Wikipedia. You're just here to chew the fat about your "big idea". There are other websites for that. You're in the wrong place. If you're serious about what you say, go find sources that agree with you, bring them back here for review and then we can have a discussion that's relevant. That's the way Wikipedia works. DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Look. You're getting obnoxious now. I've said several times what my arguments are - that there is no proof for some of the claims made in the article. There are no primary sources that say what the article claims. I have said all this in detail in all of my posts in this discussion, bullet-pointed in some places. I don't need to find the sources, because there are none, that's the point - parts of this article are based on thin air. That's what the problem is. I feel you are only aiming to provoke me, because you're intentionally misunderstanding me, and you're getting close to trolling. I feel uncomfortable with your attitude, I'm not on WP to get aggravated by people. You need to step back and see how your behaviour might be perceived by others, it's sailing pretty close to the definition of bullying. You've been nothing but confrontational with me from the beginning. I'll report you if you continue in this vein. BigSteve (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely I'm confrontational with you. You're abusing Wikipedia and the whole basis of your posting is against Wikipedia policy. I hatted your bogus thread and you reverted. Have you read WP:NOTFORUM? If you can't follow what WP is about, go find other toys to play with. This is not a chatroom to expound your personal original research. DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on this conversation (2), the above thread was closed. I understand I digressed in my original post, which led to its closure, so I'll now as succintly as possible, and with references, restate the point I wanted to make in it. I welcome discussion, but please keep it courteous, as I know this is a controversial subject. Thanks in advance!

The current Wikipedia article states, with certainty, a single thesis on the ethnogenesis of the Bulgarian people. This thesis includes "the Bulgars" - an allegedly ethnically Turkic people.

My point is that there are several scientific academic studies that have been done on this topic in recent years. One of the most academically-sound, up-to date ones, which has used the most modern methods, is this peer-reviewed paper on Y-chromosome haplogroups –

(1), (2), (3)

This paper basically states that modern Bulgarians are closest to Western Eurasian haplogroups, especially from the Balkans and Greece, "which agrees with previous mtDNA studies". The paper concludes that -

"The Bulgarian haplogroup profile is located among European populations and apart from Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations."
(This paper is actually cited within the current WP article, but not very precisely. It should be added somewhere in the article that the most prevalent haplogroups according to the researchers are "I-M423 (20.2%) and E-V13 (18.1%)", as well as around "20% to R-M17".)

There are other studies, such as –

Which was both a Y-chromosome and mtDNA study, concluded something not too different – that Bulgarians are closest to West Europeans (especially Italians and Spanish), as well as Thracians, and to some degree Pakistanis, though not closely-related to Slavs.

The interesting thing here is that, despite the certain degree of divergence in their conclusions, all are unanimous on one point - there is no link between modern Bulgarians and medieval Central Asian Turkic populations. As stated in the main paper, above -

"a common paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible"

And puts their frequency at 1.5% in modern Bulgarians. This is nowhere near enough to be mentioned as a main point in the article, as it currently is, and there is absolutely no evidence that this Turkic 1.5% has anything to do with the Bulgarians of Asparukh in the 7th century, as no source puts Asparukh's people at below 10% of the population. And, even if some part of this 1,5% did come in with him, they constituted a small fraction of Asparukh's men (men being the key word here, since this is a Y-chromosome study). Therefore, Asparukh's Bulgarians were not Turkic. (The mtDNA studies show a higher Pakistani factor, btw).

As well as this genetic evidence (note that I am not saying "proof"), there are no primary sources that make a link between Bulgarians and Central Asians. The alleged link (not based on primary sources, mind) only begins appearing after the liberation of Bulgaria in the late 19th century. The word "khan" as the title for the medieval Bulgarian rulers also appears for the first time in the late 19th Century. This word is not attested either on any medieval Bulgarian monuments, nor in the erroneously-named Russian document "Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans", where the word used is in fact "knyaz".

And yet, despite all of this evidence to the contrary, the article in its current state boldly states that Central-Asian "Bulgars" did indeed form part of the ancestors of the current Bulgarian nation, whereas there appears to be no supporting evidence. Fact is, there is no evidence for the ethnic heritage of Asparukh's people, one way or the other. All the sources mentioned in the article are secondary sources, not based on first-hand evidence of any sort. It's just historians quoting older historians who'd quoted...even older historians who'd been criminally liberal with their evidence (as in, reading the word "knyaz" written in black and white in a manuscript, yet writing it in a textbook as "khan", that's one major non sequitur).

What's even worse, the current article disagrees with itself – it mentions the Bulgars as "Central-Asian" and "Turkic" in the "Ethnogenesis" section, yet there is (quite correctly) no mention of this in the "Genetic origin" section. This discrepancy is very poignant. There is simply no even vaguely significant amount of Y-chromosome or mtDNA haplogroups linking modern Bulgarians with medieval Turkic peoples from the Central Asian steppes.

I feel therefore that there is a strong need to rethink the claims made in this article and replace them with evidence-based statements. BigSteve (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's more like it. DeCausa (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
:-) BigSteve (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Please Bigzteve, stop forum-like nonsenses. No chance for your pro-government POV as the last biased Bulgarian DNA study's strange historical conclusions. Recently the official version about origin of Bulgarians is pushing for hundreds of thousands of Bulgars settling in the deserted Eastern Balkans, who although may have come from Central Asia are somehow 100% of Indo-European (Iranian) descent. This is laughable as archaeological evidence of existence of old Bulgars is found only in North East Bulgaria i.e. around 10% from its territory. According to neutral academic sources, the Danube Bulgars themselves do not seem to have been particularly numerous and a twelfth-century source gives their numbers as ten thousand. Raymond Detrez, who is an expert in Bulgarian history claims such recent pro-Iranian views are based on anti-Turkish sentiments and in serious scholary circles it is well known the Bulgars were Turkic people. This article clearly says: It is assumed that because Balkan Bulgars were not numerous,[53] low genetic influence was brought into the region, since the background of the local populations was not detectably modified.[54] More, a constant nonsense that gets thrown here is the expectation that any presumably Turkic group, like the Bulgars, must be of 'Central Asian' genetic profile. Yet there were likely Turkic speaking groups in west Eurasia for a longer time that generally posited (500 AD ~ ). However the studies from ancient Pechenegs DNA, for example, anyhow show them to be of 'western Eurasian' genetic profile, making a search for some 'Central Asian' genetic input from these ancient populations blind sighted. On the other hand the historians spent a lot of time to count and to describe the uncountable number of times that Thracia and Moesia, i.e. today Bulgaria have been invaded, ruined and depopulated by hordes, armies, irregulars and nomads between 250AD first great barbarian invasions and 1450 final Ottoman victory. There were also a large internal migrations in the Ottoman Empire after peasants were freed from serfdom. The DNA results demonstrates: there is a time for warriors and nomads who are often exterminated by their own, but the final success is the more often for local peasants, working and peaceful people. In all genetic studies on Bulgarians, they genetically cluster with their Balkan neighbors and are far from the populations of the territories of Iran, Pamir or Mongolia. Hence, Bulgars are unlikely to have had a substantial demographic impact on what is now Bulgaria, irrespective of their origin. Keep in mind the slogan: Bulgarians are not Bulgars. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Jingiby!
Reading your comment, I don't think my opinions are too different from your own.
There's not much use calling a peer-reviewed paper "biased", though, especially since you yourself cited it! (Your comment from 25 April 2013). Its authors include Italian scientists, and the findings were discussed on the BNT nightly news (1), (2), as well as both pro- and anti-government media outlets (btv, dnevnik, tv7). That's about as WP:V as you can get.
So please don't accuse me of bias when all I'm doing is stating reliable sources' reporting.
I actually agree with much of your statement - in that there are still so many uncertainties. I guess our challenge is how do we present those uncertainties in the article. BigSteve (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Big Steve. No offence, but you're totally missing the point (!)
It doens;t matter one bit what "genetics" say. Even modern Turks have barely any 'central Asian' or "Turkic" DNA, but they still are are a Turkic people. Same with Hungarians - they speak Uralic, but are 100% 'central and eastern European in the DNA.
Another point is that the Bulgars are without doubt the political and symbolic founders of the modern Bulgarian nation (even despite the fact there is actually a discontinuity between the first and 2nd Bulgarian empire, and thus the subsequent modern period).
But rest assured, the 'central Asian idea' which appears to bother you so much, is incorrect. But I wish to point out, my objection is based on weakness of past methodology (which unfortunately has not progressed very much, because enlightened western or western-educated scholars have neglected the question of Bulgars; whilst Russian and Bulgarian scholars simply regurgitate the same jibberish). On the other hand, your objection to their central Asian orign (unless Im mistaken) appears to be based on a racialistic pre-occupation in proving the Bulgarians are wholly and untaintedly an "Aryan", Irano-Slavo-Thracian peoples. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Slovenski Volk. Also, there is no need to update the ethnogenesis section. Jingiby (talk) 10:11, 5 N 2013 (UTC)
Whoa-whoa-WHOA
Don't even go near the whole "racialistic" topic, my friend. Try not to send some accusations out into cyberspace that you will never be able to take back. You're completely inferring some racist schtick from my writing that is not grounded in fact, so let's stay way off that topic.
Every time I've mentioned DNA, it has been in the context of discussing haplogroups and scientific studies. The only naming of races that I've seen in this discussion, or even use of the word "race", has been done by other people - namely yourself and Jingiby.
So, again, you'd better be very clear that my posts have nothing to do with racism, so you'd all better be sure to understand that before we continue this discussion. I have found more sourced arguments about why the current article is extremely outdated, and why it needs to be changed, but I'll let this current post sink in in your minds before I continue.
And in our following discussion, why don't we try sticking to the point, such as quoting peer-reviewed papers, and state media outlets, whose validity me and you are not qualified to question, as they are both WP:V and WP:RS. BigSteve (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
p.s. And, as for any accusations of "anti-Turkish sentiments", that's quite arrogant coming from the person who's got a 1000-pixel-wide picture of anti-Turkish revolutionaries on their userpage, even though it's been a century since Bulgaria's independence from Turkey. BigSteve (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
BigSteve, I am now really puzzled as to what you are arguing for and what you think is wrong in the article. All it says about the Bulgars:
  • it is they "from whom the ethnonym and the early statehood were inherited",
  • that they "are first mentioned in the 4th century in the vicinity of the North Caucasian steppe, although scholars speculate that their history may go back to the Central Asian nomadic confederations"
  • that they were "not numerous" and combined with the Slavs and Thracians in the ethnogenesis of the Bulgarians.
Which of these statements are you challenging, what should be in their place and what would the inline citation be for the new statement? Is the rather mild reference to "scholarly specualtion" of a central Asian origin you fundamentally object to? Or is it that you want the "no numerous" reference made stronger? DeCausa (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Big Steve. You're waffling. "State media" is not WP:RS, and again, genetic studies tell us nothing about politogenesis and culture-genesis of medieval peoples who were mixed to begin with, then mixed some more, then mixed even further. genetic studies are good for the "big picture'- and it shows that Bulgarians are related to Romanians, Macedonians and Serbs. Now, who would have ever guessed that ?! Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, DeCausa!
Good question - and you're partly right, but after that it goes on to say some stuff which I feel is majorly wrong. Sorry for the lengthy answer, but I tried to shorten it as much as.
Currently, the absolute worst thing about the ethnogenesis section is that the most recent source given is from 1981. Other sources are from 1930 and 1918, which are used to support current views. It's not serious to have such outdated references - look at any other "people" articles, e.g. Russians, Germans, English people...their equivalent sections hardly have a source older than 2000. I am working on tracking down the source material from newer books!
My main qualm with this article is that the outdated sources are given to support this claim:
"Scholars speculate that the Bulgars' history may go back to the Central Asian nomadic confederations, or Xiongnu".
I'll intentionally stay off the "racialism" accusations levelled at me eariler, but I'll gladly go back to them in later posts. Look, I just want evidence stated, and not selective evidence, as is the current farce of a situation.
People want to concentrate on language? Gladly! If the ancient Bulgarians were Turkic speaking, as many people are claiming...then how come are ALL the medieval stone monuments found in today's Bulgaria are written in Greek? (This refers to both the alphabet and the language, along with some non-Greek stuff written in the Greek alphabet. DeCausa - go here Funniest thing about this source is that the author attempts to argue why the Turkic-speaking "Bulgars" only ever wrote in Greek...)
Yet, if Turkic-speaking tribes (whether part of the Xiongnu confederation or not) generally tended to use Orkhon script, and wrote their own language in it...then how come not even one Orkhon monument ever managed to get written in Bulgaria? Not one? You know, just by accident, like?
My qualm is: Where are the primary sources which support the claims made in this article? As far as I've always been taught, if it's a contentious issue, then no evidence = no Wikipedia claim.
Look, people, I just look at the sources, and if the sources contradict what is currently in the article, then what do you all think should happen? BigSteve (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
p.s. Slovenski Volk -
1. So the state media BBC, RFI, ORT, TVE are not reliable sources?! Even if I were to agree with you, which I don't, you're using selective hearing - I listed 4 of the largest media organizations in Bulgaria.
2. I would have guessed that! And you're forgetting northwestern Turks and maybe even Arabs. I'm all for multiculturalism, mate. Maybe if you stop simply accusing people, then you'd see that not all historical arguments are about race. But they are about demonstrable evidence. BigSteve (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Firstly "Where are the primary sources...?" Per WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia isn't about primary sources, it's about the accurate reflection of secondary sources for good or ill. Secondly, there is very mild reporting of the alleged Turkic origins of the Bulgars - it can't be ignored, just as Britannica (one of the sources, albeit tertiary) reports it. You're overstating how it's reported in the article - a very brief reference to speculation/suggestion only. Thirdly, the paragraph has a source from the 1990s and 2005. If you have other better ones, please suggest them per WP:SOFIXIT. Fourthly, the section now has quotes from Dennis Sinor deprecating the Turkic theory. So all in all, I really don't see the problem. DeCausa (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
As for new sources, an academic source from 2011 also confirms our conclusions - Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831, Panos Sophoulis, BRILL, 2011, ISBN 9004206957. Look at page 66, please. The Asparukh's Bulgars are descrined as Turkic speakers, and as a collection of peoples who are ethnically diverse and consists from tribes with different anthropological and cultural featers. Under line he also doesn't exclude the possibility of the presence of Iranian speakers among them. Jingiby (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure, the Turkic theory has the problem of lack of unequivocal data, but the Iranian theory is far more shaky ! This wouldnt be a problem to you , Steve, if you understood the 'Bulgars" as a polity, a set of alliegences between clans and leading men, which was liable to be broken, expand or shrink at any time. It wasn't a nation (narod) of a linguistically, cuturally or genetically homogeneous people derived from one and the same ancestor. But there is unistakable historical evidence that the Dulos were undoubtedly part of the GokTurk polity, a prominent clan from that region. Thus their political origin is undoubtedly Turkic, in the loose sense of the word. And there are also Turkic rune inscriptions in SEE. But you also have to understand that inscriptions aren't an indication of what langauge the majority of the poeple spoke, they have more to do with their intended audience and intended purpose
And Steve, Haplogropu I2 is not NW Turkish , but Danubian component representing a back-migration to Anatolia. J2 is not "Arab" but western Mediterranean. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
OK. Glad that more modern research is being added on this topic. BigSteve (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Numbers of Bulgars

Chaps, since a few editors have modified whether the Bulgars were 'numerous' , '10 thousand' or whatever, I think I brief discussion might be helpful. From what I recall, a 12th century source stated that they were 10K. Now whether this is 'numerous", and how much of a "minority" it was is a bit speculative and synthesist.

Neither literary nor archaeological evidence can clarify this with certainty; but what is more or less certain is that they were concentrated in the northeast Bulgaria whilst the 7 clans were located to the NW (Wallachia) and the Severians faced Byzantine Thrace. So what proportion they were viz-a-viz the other two ? - we cannot tell. A recent summary by U Fiedler [2] clarifies this.

Moreover, they made the leaders of Slavic clans also part of the ruling elite. Thus, rather than "they are not thought to have been numerous and became a Peuce minority ruling elite in the areas they controlled"; I suggest "the Bulgars were concentrated in northeastern Bulgaria whilst their Slavic client tribes were moved to occupy their flanks. Whilst paying tribute to the Bulgars, Slavic iupani were nevertheless a part of the ruling elite. Slovenski Volk (talk)`

I don't disagree with what you've said - except, it's incorrect that references to "not numerous" or being a "minority" are synthesis - they are directly taken from the cited source. i.e. the inline citation - pages 68 to 69 of John Van Antwerp Fine Jr.'s book. That states only that the Bulgars were "not numerous" and were an elite "minority" amongst the Slavs - he uses those words. He also says that a 12th century source claimed that there were 10,000 of them. Fine doesn't say he thinks there were 10,000 of them i.e. that the source was right. Hence, the unqualified statements (that I took out) that there were "10,,000" or "tens of thousands") were not supported by the inline citation. Any reference to "10,000" must make it clear that it was a 12th century source that asserted that, not that modern scholarship supports it.
Now, although the statement that I put back in (that they were a minority and "not numerous") are words used by the inline citation, I have no problem changing them to something else provided the inline citation is changed to support whatever else is put in (and, of course, provided the citation is WP:RSand not a primary source). Having said that, "not numerous" and a "minority" seems to me to have the benefit of being a reasonable reflection of scholarly assunmptions (and reasonably reflective of the lack of agreed specifics), as well as being specifically what the inline citation says. DeCausa (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
10,000 Bulgars couldn't have fielded the army that won the Battle of Ongal. Apcbg (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
According to "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century", John Van Antwerp Fine, University of Michigan Press, 1991, ISBN 0472081497, p. 68: The Bulgars themselves do not seem to have been particularly numerous. A twelfth-century source gives their numbers as ten thousand. The Bulgars were concentrated in northeastern Bulgaria, along the Danube, particularly its right bank . Jingiby (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
That's the source I discussed above.(?) DeCausa (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide, Bernd Kortmann, Johan van der Auwera, Walter de Gruyter, 2011, ISBN 3110220253, [p. 413,] Only a few Proto-Bulgarian loan words have survived in contemporary Bulgarian, attesting to the relatively small number of the Proto-Bulgarian élite and hence the relatively restricted scope of language contact in this case. Jingiby (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Another indication of the relatively small number of Asparuh's Bulgars is their initial settlement on the Balkans - a Danube island. According to an anonymous seventh-century Armenian source recorded that after fleeing the Khazars, Asparukh's Bulgars initially settled on the island of Pevki, located at the Danube delta. At this ground the fathers of the classical Bulgarian historiography (Zlatarski etc.) counted their number to tens of thousands. Jingiby (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we're all agreed that there should be some sort of indication of their "small numbers" in the text. The only question is how exactly it should be expressed and what citation should support it. I'm happy with the expressions "not numerous"/"minority" which is supported by the existing inline ciation of Fine's book. I'm not clear if there is a specific alterantive proposal on the table? DeCausa (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with all of the above; but again I am highlighting we do not know their relative proportions. Sure, 10, 000 Bulgars does not seem much by today's nations standards of millions. But remember, in the 700s, no ethnic or tribal group was particularly "numerous". There weren't hundresds of thousands of Slavs already there. As the archaeology indicated, most sites date from the 9th century onwards, meaning Bulgaria was almost a terra deserta for much of the earliest century or so. So 10,000 Bulgars might not have been such a minority in 'Core bulgaria', ie a relative minority not absolute one, c.f., say, 30,000 of the 7 Clans and Severians. That's the point Im labouring. I guess all Im saying is that stating the Bulgars to not have been nunmerous as well as a ruling minority makes redundant use of two similar points in one sentence. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
As per the relative proportions of the Bulgars. According to prof Rashev's On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians: The only objective criterion is the data from the necropolises. They indeed offer a temporary but, nevertheless, objective picture, which will vary quantitatively in the future. As for now, the inhumations, which are the most reliable sign of Proto-Bulgarian ethnic affiliation, constitute 29 % of all graves in the pagan necropolises of north-eastern Bulgaria. The figure will increase by 2-3 % if we add the inhumations from the necropolises yet to be published and it will come to represent a third of all graves. I.e. the Bulgars consisted around 1/3 from the poulation in today north-eastern Bulgaria, which encompasses 10-15% from its present territory. That is all. Jingiby (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly ! So 30% of 'core' Bulgaria. The original societas was only Bulgars, the 7 clans, and the Severians. Later additions to Bulgaria were originally Sklavinias under Byzantine clientage or maybe even Franks (near the Danube). There is no point including these as part of original "proto-Bulgaria", as they became part of Bulgaria as late as 2 centuries later. 30% is not such a tiny minority is it.? It's a mere relative minority. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Jingiby/Slovenski Volk, aren't we straying into WP:OR? Surely we have a WP:RS in Fine who uses the word "minority"? (and by the way, no one is using the phrase "tiny minority" - minority is less than 50%) Unless we have a WP:RS that specifically says "we don't know whether or not they are a minority" (it might exist, but I haven't seen it put forward yet), I feel we should stick with Fine. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Admittedly, we are knit-picking. i just think we can Improve that one sentence. We know that the Bulgars original confederacy formed with the 7 clans and the Severians. They were not a minority per se because it was a 3 way 'alliance' (unequal perhaps). Fine is a general historian, there are far more specialist works, eg Curta or Kommatina do not comment on minorities, but simply the political reality -the Bulgars subjegated the Severians aNd 7 Clans and made a societas with them. To state that 'they were not numerous' is just sloppy work given that some 30% (estimate) is quite significant. To state thhey formed the ruling stratum in a coalition of tribes with the '7 Slavic clans' and 'Severians' is more accurate. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Asparukh's Bulgaria encompassed a territory of then Moesia Inferior but the Bulgars settled partially on the territory of Scythia Minor, i.e. they formed 1/3 only from a minor part of the new state. Jingiby (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, but my point is that 30% is editors' synthesis, unless you have a source that explicitly says so. (Also, as I understand Jingiby's original post, the relevant figure wouldn't be 30%, which is the position only in north eastern Bulgaria, but 10-15% for the whole country: don't forget what we are trying to capture here is what was the Bulgars' numerical presence in the ethnogenesis of the Bulgarians as a whole. I accept that Fine is "non-specialist", but sometimes in this type of issue that is an advantage. I suspect (but don't know - I'm sure you and Jingiby are more familiar with the literature) there is a variety of specialist assessments of numbers as this, by its nature, will always be speculative. So, I wouldn't therefore describe the phrase "not numerous" as "sloppy" but rather it is appropriately vague to reflect scholarly uncertainty. Is there really a scholarly concensus that is more specific than "not numerous": I doubt it, but happy to be corrected. DeCausa (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
DeCausa, it does not matter the actual numbers, guestimates, or hypotheses. What I have a slight issue with is that the role of the Bulgars is being diminished on account of their apparent numerical inadequacy. But fact is, no one was numerous in the 7th-8th ccs. So several thusand Bulgars in the Moesian plain is actually quite significant. Nor is it necessary to state that the Bulgars were a minority ruling elite. When is a ruling elite not ever a minority ?? The sentence as is contains redundancies and can be replaced with something more informative.
Anyway, the situation os better reflected with a sentence like 'The Bulgars made a societas with local Slavic tribes, the Severians and the "7 clans", who were re-settled to protect the southern and western (respectively) flanks of core Bulgar settlement. Along with selected Slavic chieftains, the Bulgars formed the ruling core".[1]
The mainstream view is that the Bulgars were relatively few compared to the Slavs - the only question is no one knows exactly how much fewer. But I think that needs to be reflected. So far I've not seen a source produced which says Fine is wrong - so I think it should be kept. I don't understand your point about "When is a ruling elite not ever a minority". The point is they were a ruling elite from a minority. The slav ruling elite wasn't. I don't think your suggested change works: that's more for a history section and doesn't really help to explain ethnogenesis, and leaves much unexplained (eg "7 Clans" not explained). I think the previous is preferable. DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
So you're reverting matters which , by your own admission, you have little actual knowledge of. Anyone who knows anything about Bulgarian history knows who the 7 clans are . The specialists have not directly "proven Fine wrong' becuase they wouldn't take much heed of a generalist historian. They're too busy debating amongst themselves the finer points of chronology and meaning to worry about Encyclopedia-level works. And I ve told you 100 times that no one was numerous in the 7th century. The more careful works all avoid mentioned numbers and relative proportions becuase it is difficult to state exactly what assemblage belongs to what people, and moreover, some date from 7th century others from 8th. Regardless, the sentence is weaselish and has been replaced by a more in depth work. Tertiary -level work trumps generalist work. If you have a problem with that talk to the wiki admins. [
Furthermore, the pact between the Bulgars and Slavs was the formative moment in the Bulgarian national myth. If that is not ethnogenesis, I don't know what is

Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, first "Anyone who knows anything about Bulgarian history knows who the 7 clans are" is a very dumb point. The article is being read by the whole world not experts in Bulgarian history. Everything needs to be explained for a presumed generalist reader. That's basic Wikipedia stuff. Secondly, you've provided no sources to contradict Fine. All you've done is blustered your own opinion. Thirdly, you've clearly got a POV to push. "If you have a problem with that talk to the wiki admins." This happens everytime I drift into one of these crap Balkan articles. I'm done here and taking it off my watchlist. Oh and fourthly, the edit you made: it's crap English. DeCausa


Ok, first "Anyone who knows anything about Bulgarian history knows who the 7 clans are" is a very dumb point. The article is being read by the whole world not experts in Bulgarian history. Everything needs to be explained for a presumed generalist reader.
that's why it is written with local Slavic tribes, the Severians and the "7 clans". That is rather clear, isn't it ?
Secondly, you've provided no sources to contradict Fine.
Its not about contradiction, but providing greater detail by scholars who have analyzed the issue in depth rather than as a passing sentence in a general work which looks at the entire Balkans from 400 AD to 1400 AD!. And no one is saying the Bulgars formed a majority are they ?? You seem to be unable to grasp simple points
All you've done is blustered your own opinion. Thirdly, you've clearly got a POV to push.
Yes -> I am a Turk nationalist, cant you tell ?
Oh and fourthly, the edit you made: it's crap English. DeCausa (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Ouch ! Thanks for the constructive critique Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Devsirme in the infobox

I have not visited either country, which is why I am bringing this up here, but is it necessary to mention in the infobox that more Turks than recorded may have descent from Bulgaria via Devsirme? As even the origins of the most famous concubines of the Sultan are hazy at best, how likely is it that any Turk could trace their origin through this process? I don't think that, for argument's sake, an article on Senegalese Americans should mention that African Americans of slave ancestry may be able to trace their roots to what is now Senegal. Tátótát (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It's beyond ridiculous, to be honest. But it's not surprising, especially that the collage above shows at least one person who was not even born in Bulgaria...- ☣Tourbillon A ? 08:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Number of Bulgarians

In this article are used several sources about the number of Bulgarians living around the world. The first one is UCLA. It says that the total number of speakers of the Bulgarian language in all countries is 9,000,000 (1999). The second one is an interview of the Chairman of Bulgaria's State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad who said that 3–4 million Bulgarians were living abroad in 2009. The third one is Bulgarian 2011 census data, that claims around 6 Million Bulgarians are living in the country. The result of a simple calculation is not between 6 to 7 Millions Bulgarians living around the world, but between 8 and 9 Millions. Jingiby (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The first UCLA figure is given based on the number of Bulgarian speakers in 1986. Lots has changed since then. Emigration, population decline, etc. The second figure based on the interview with the Chairman of Bulgaria's State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad is somewhat unclear - 3-4 million where exactly? You mean to say that almost as many Bulgarians live outside Bulgaria as they live inside of it? The sources given for most countries where Bulgarians immigrated do not amount to 3-4 million. Did he include Macedonians? If so that is ok but it should be specified. The website of the State Agency for Bulgarians does not include any numbers on Bulgarians living abroad. Is this just a number being thrown around without actual sources backing it? The third source is the Bulgarian census data which is 5,664,624 NOT 6 million. 700,000 did not declare their nationality. That does not make them automatically Bulgarians. Ethnicity and nationality are issues of self-identification. People are simply starting to refuse to identify with their ethnic group, meaning they are refusing to be associated with it. This is not just happening in Bulgaria. It is a phenomenon occurs all over Europe. 184.160.70.78 (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
UCLA says exactly: Bulgarian is spoken by 7,986,000 in Bulgaria or 85% of the population (1986). The total number of speakers of the language in all countries is 9,000,000 (1999 WA). By the way according to another sources the number of Bulgarian speakers around the world is 10 Million - The Report: Bulgaria 2008, Oxford Business Group, ISBN 1902339924, p. 8., i.e the number of 8-9 Millions is not overestiamated. Jingiby (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
the last source cannot be accessed. The first source is simply outdated. UCLA may claim that Bulgarian is spoken by 7,986,000 in Bulgaria but that was in 1986 and probably it cites the 1975 census because no census occurred in Bulgaria between 1975 and 1992. In 1975, indeed Bulgaria had 8,7 million people and 7.9 spoke Bulgarian. However in 2011, Bulgaria had 7.3 million people (1.5 million less) and only 5.6 million were Bulgarians. That is 2.3 million less. Part of that net loss is reflected in the immigrant communities such as in Germany and Spain. But part of it is because of negative population growth. You cannot possibly make the claim that the number of Bulgarian speakers today is the same as that in 1975.184.160.70.78 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Of cource you are wrong. There was a census in 1985 and the population numbered 8,948,649 people. Jingiby (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
And you don't think that there is a difference between 8.9 million in 1985 and the 7.3 million almost 30 years after? Are you claiming that no negative population growth occurred in this time? Based on immigrant population data in italy, spain, germany, us, canada, etc. a few hundred thousand can be accounted for due to emigration. The rest? Well at least 840,000 people were lost due to negative growth as this article on the Demographics of Bulgaria very thoroughly demonstrates. Just look at the natural change from 1941 to present. And this is just based on official stats. The remaining 740,000 which emigrated are distributed as follows 50,000 in Greece as per the Demographics of Greece, 20,000 in Germany as per [3], 50,000 in Italy, 50,000 in Canada, 100,000 in US, 150,000 in Spain, 50,000 UK, 35,000 Austria, 30,000 France and the remaining 100,000 in Cyprus, Sweden, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Ireland, etc. as per this article Bulgarians. At the very least this article should reflect the negative 840,000 population loss and lower its estimate to 6.8 (what the table adds up to and incidentally also what Ethnologue reports [4] - 8 million (based on the higher limit right now minus the 840 thousand lost due to negative growth).184.160.70.78 (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The situation is not so simple. For example for the 2000 US Census, 55,489 Americans indicated Bulgarian as their first ancestry, while 92,841 persons declared to have Bulgarian ancestry. On the other hand, according to the Bulgarian diplomatic representations in the US for 2010, there are 250,000 Bulgarians permanent residing in the country, and also more than 30,000 Bulgarian students. I.e. it is very difficult to calculate the real number of the Bulgarians in US for example. Are they 100,000 or 400,000? Jingiby (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
What I think should stand here is the self-declaration principle (so 100,000 who declared themselves as being of Bulgarian ancestry) not rough estimates, even if they are made by Bulgarian diplomatic representations. The presence of the 30,000 students (is there a source that claims there are that many?) makes no difference on the total because they are listed as foreign students in the US and are there on a student visa while being already counted in the 2011 census. So the alleged 30,000 students in the US still count as living in Bulgaria (as per the 2011 census) and until they finish their studies and either stay in the US or return to Bulgaria.
My point was that the total number of 8-9 million cannot possibly stay the same as in 1985 since 840,000 people have been lost due to negative growth over the last 30 years. The total number should be lowered. Wikipedia articles should reflect current data and the current reality. But I think since this is a very important topic, perhaps a part of this article should actually deal with this declining trend. 184.160.70.78 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, according to the official statistics of the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry in 2011 there were over 2 Millions Bulgarian citizens living abroad. This data excludes the old Emigration and the native minorities on the Balkans, Moldova, Ukraine etc. However it includes Bulgarian citizens who are not ethnic Bulgarians. Jingiby (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This data is not official census data from those countries but the estimates made by Bulgarian diplomatic representations. Again, I think the most reliable source would be official data in those countries and self-identification of people not these numbers which as the diplomats themselves (and you also) admit, only reveal the number of all Bulgarian citizens (including those who are not Bulgarians). The numbers in Turkey especially reflect mostly Bulgarian citizens of Turkish ancestry. That is 1/2 mil out of 2 which reduces the number of Bulgarians to 1.5 million. Even if we take these bogus numbers and if we assume a 85%-15% distribution among these Bulgarian citizens abroad as in Bulgaria and add them to the number of ethnic Bulgarians in Bulgaria as pe the 2011 census, we still get 7,380,000 and not 9 mil. 184.160.70.78 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The official census data does not include the illegal immigrants and forein citizens at all. The estimates made by the Bulgarian diplomatic representations do that. Jingiby (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The official data does not include illegal immigrants and foreign citizens - you are right. But they are already covered in the Bulgarian cnesus of 2011. By inflating the numbers to what the diplomatic representation says would mean to double count them. Remember, if they are illegal that means that their official status is still as Bulgarian citizens in Bulgaria and they have been counted there in 2011. Dapiks (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I found also this actual reliable source about the estimated number of the Bulgarian emigrants abroad, that claims there are 1 Million Bulgarians abroad, without to count the native diaspora on the Balkans etc.: Migration from and towards Bulgaria 1989–2011, Tanya Dimitrova, Thede Kahl, Frank & Timme GmbH, 2013, ISBN 3865965202, p. 7. By this situation I am inclined to change the highest estimated figure from 9 to 8 Million. Jingiby (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The source can't be accessed. What does it say?Dapiks (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
BBC Lnguages across Europe confirms the estimate data counted by UCLA - 9 Mill. Jingiby (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Images in Infobox

Excuse me Tourbilion, who is Grigor Dimitrov? A successful Bulgarian male tennis player, the first player to rank inside the top 30 (now 28). So what feature of his? Jingiby (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That he's world-famous. This is the idea of the "famous Bulgarians" up there - people that are recognisable globally, not such that Bulgarians consider "important". John of Rila is not among them. Even the article about him is poorly written and unsourced - nowhere does it state that he's actually a patron saint of Bulgarians. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
He is famous today, but after 10 years I am not shure. Saint John of Rila is the only patron saint of the Bulgarian people and as one of the most important saints in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church since 1000 years. What is all about? If you insist to include him and Dobrev, please simply increase the number of individuals in the infobox. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Well the year is 2013, so it's irrelevant who will be famous in 10 years time. The fact is that most of the people included are included there for a reason - a significant contribution in their field of work or interest. John of Rila is basically a subject of a religious personality cult and nothing more - zero contribution even to Orthodox Christianity, let alone anything else. Once again, it doesn't matter whom Bulgarians consider important, it matters who is actually recognisable. I avoid expanding the infobox because it would become too large. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree to change the info-box then. Lets keep it in this way. Jingiby (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal disagreement cannot be an argument. Unless you have something else to add, I'll change it back. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
All removed persons are much more important then the substitutes. That is all. Jingiby (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
By what measure ? EDIT: Also, the word here is "significance", not "importance". And if there's nothing else to be added apart from personal dislike, there's no reason to keep it the way it is now. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
We have 4 options:
I'm inclined to agree on enlarging the infobox, but that won't solve the problem in the long-term - there is a chance that people will just keep adding faces until the box becomes huge. A third opinion will be more than welcome.- ☣Tourbillon A ? 06:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Поставих над таблицата колаж с известни българи, по подобие на тези на статиите за други народи. Надявам се да ви хареса. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumatro (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

    • Grettings fellow Bulgarians, i have noticed you have inputed new images in the infobox. All looks fine, but i recommend sorting these pictures in order of a "time wave", you can perhaps take a look at the picture mosaic on Serbs article, or several other articles that are alike. Think the infobox would look more "up to date" that way. Greetings (Правичност (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC))

Направих една последна корекция. Добавих един ред, но намалих снимката, за да не заема прекалено много място. Благодаря! - Sumatro, 9.08.2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumatro (talk • contribs) 12:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Не бях обръщал внимание на статията за сърбите. Забелязах, че при останалите националности личностите не са подредени хронологично. Но това е добра идея. Благодаря! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumatro (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Всъщност едва сега забелязах, че не само при сърбите е така. Извинявам се! Ще ги подредя хронологично, подобно на тяхната мозайка. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumatro (talk • contribs) 16:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    • Готово. Подредих ги в хронологичен ред. Това е окончателната версия от мен. Надявам се да ви хареса и да е полезно. (User:Sumatro (talk) 01.14, 10 August 2013 (UTC))
Што се мене тиче, ово изгледа одлично. Лепо си распоредио кронолошки слике, а и лепо је видети више људи у мозаику. Поздрав! (Правичност (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC))
I don't see a reason to change anything or any good reason to have this mess. Furthermore, the portraits are horribly small, and many of them lack licence information. Finally, there's John Atanasoff in the collage, which is an equally valid reason not to keep it. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Направих една малка промяна, тъй като имаше критики, че са включени голям брой спортисти на колажа. Намалих броя им до най-значимите и популярни лица. Извинявам се за големия брой корекции, които извърших тук. Надявам се, че сега изглежда по-добре. Благодаря за съветите, критиките и благодарностите! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumatro (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
При редактирането част от образите се бяха размазали и затова извърших последната промяна. Изображението е със същото съдържание. Благодаря! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumatro (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you should however shrink the list of people (perhaps by removing some foreign-born or bulgarians with only partial ancestry and people with less dedication to bulgaria or anything else) from the mosaic. I think having a max 30 persons is enough... because this way the infobox looks too filled-up and "messy", try to point out only the most prominent Bulgarians and include them in mosaic.. otherwise everything else seems fine. Regards (Правичност (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC))
I dont know what is the maximum, but before to create image, I saw that Poles having 40 persons, Russians - 32. But may be you are right, because seems too full. Thank you very much!(Sumatro (talk) 21.18, 19 August 2013 (UTC))
Oh well there is no maximum at all. You can put as many persons as you want, but i am just consolidating you from my perspective, that perhaps you could shrink the number of persons a bit, because there are too many names and a viewer can get lost in them.. i recommend removing some people with only partial bulgarian ancestry and some who arent too prominent (too known or important) to be in the mosaic... if you also think its too filled up, you can try shrinking it a bit.. if you arent sure, maybe you could try taking a discussion to the talk page.. of who you think should be included in pictures mosaic.. and see what other editors recommend... after that you summ all of the ideas reaching a concensus and create a mosaic that will look beautiful and that majority of editors will like it. Thats just my idea, as we did same on Serbs article... otherwise it seems fine anway. Regards! (Правичност (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC))
I think that now is look better or not seems full. I cut the number of people from 36 to 30. Hope you like it. Thank you for your opinions and advices! (Sumatro (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC))
Np i like to help. And Yes it looks verry fine by me. Good edit! (Правичност (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC))

With the previous photo has a some problems, about which I apologize. I add a new variant of the photo in Infobox. All problems are cleared. --Sumatro (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sock from blocked user Ceco31 (talk · contribs)?

This user was blocked several days ago for his disruptive editing here, but now I suspect the newly registred ‎130.204.184.213 (talk · contribs) to be a sock from the same user. He has began again with the same behaviour: changeing the info-boxes. Jingiby (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

We have 4 options:
  • enlarging the current info-box;
  • keeping the current (stabile) version;
  • edit-warring;
  • asking for a third opinion;

Please, discuss before making blind reverts and gain a consensus. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ PREDRAG KOMATINA (Institute for Byzantine Studies, SASA, Belgrade) THE SLAVS OF THE MID-DANUBE BASIN AND THE BULGARIAN EXPANSION IN THE FIRST HALF
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bulgarians/Archive_3&oldid=1143725389"