Talk:Bulgarians/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well it seems you want to help it d(AI) die much sooner than it happens. And what kind of argument is that? I am far from PHantasy (fantasy), since I am very down to Earth and objectivity is my aim. I am doing a PhD Politics in England and trust me-what you are doing to change numbers just to suit your calculations for lesser number of Bulgarians and prove your ego is far from being of any academic or scentific worth. Therefore stop your alterations.Lozhani buditel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.1.125 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jingby, i don`t know which nation is dying, but first educate yourself and then write in EN Wikipedia. Even so, this is not demographic research in Bulgaria, but in whole the world. So stop reversing, i`ll ask for help from administrators, because you are absolute vandal! Подпоручикъ (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

800,000 Bulgarians in Greece!
The cited ref is a deadlink. Could someone please provide an accurate no (roughly obviously). I could maybe believe that number if it were for Albanians but there is no way there are that many Bulgarians in Greece. It would be nice if it were true though. :-)--Xenovatis (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop to back 10 millions to 8 millions, if you have studied mathematics at school you should count that Regions with significant bulgarian populations gave + 10 million. So stop returning and breaking the 3TR rule! Подпоручикъ (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Besides there's a greek saying:ΟΥΚ ΕΝ ΤΟ ΠΟΛΛΩ ΤΟ ΕΥ ΑΛΛΑ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΕΥ ΤΟ ΠΟΛΥ. That is the good is not with the much but the much with the good. Inflating or deflating the numbers is meaningless. --Xenovatis (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some researches calculating that still existing slavonians (including pomak) in Western Thrace and Aegean Macedonia count some 2-300 000 people. I didn`t edited the article, so you shouldn`t ask me at all. Подпоручикъ (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


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

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

-270.000 including refugees from Bulgaria and they are %100 ethnic Turks! it must be change. 11:50, 18 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.173.172.104 (talk)
 * If you had bothered to check the source, you would have seen that these 270.000 are Pomaks. And this most certainly won't be changed. Kostja (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


 * Somebody put a "2" in front of the real number, which is 15,195 per the source.  Balkan Fever  11:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I worked hard on that and I'm really frustrated to see someone has been messing with it. I guess it's an I.P., but couldn't figure it out.-- L a v e o l  T 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Look who's back :). This has been going on for a looooong time, and it is mostly anons, or new users. 07:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Related ethnic groups
The referenced chapter was removed, after it was since long time in the article. Without reliable explaination. Revert is the only following act. Jingby (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the onscure deletion, but after I re-read it a couple of times, I decided it needed work. I think it should read better and be less povish now. -- L a v e o l  T 10:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your point Jingby, sourced ≠ relevant. Anyway, why must this article have information on non-Bulgarians? Is there a need to feature the similar ethnic groups? I mean they already are in the userbox. I am even against the inclusion of "Closely related nationalities" here. This article should be about Bulgarians; why write about non-Bulgarians? PMK1 (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to say given all evidence, this is a major issue, important for this particular article. If I have to count all academic publications about Bulgarians that have pretty much the same info in them, wow, maybe I should try counting the rest. It is quite relevant and quite neutral as of now, I have to say. We might incorporate it in another passages, though. -- L a v e o l  T 21:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Ethnogenesis


Megistias (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "local tribes, known as the Thracians". By the 6th–10th century AD there are no Thracians.They are already Hellenized/Romanized and already mixed with Byzantine Greeks and other populations.
 * "a significant contribution to the genes of the modern Bulgarian population". 4,2 %
 * Herodotus is a primary source and kind of irrelevant to mention here.

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

The Macedonians must be include to the number of Bulgarains:
 * population = 10 million 12 million+ (including Macedonians)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.249.8 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The pictures
I really believe that the pictures of Christo, Elena Yoncheva, Ludmilla Diakovska, Matey Kaziyski are not the best examples of Bulgarians. They are not even in the top of the list of the important persons for the Bulgarian nation. Persons like Asparukh, Ivan Vazov, Yordan Radichkov and even Hristo Stoichkov deserve their spots more. --92.247.238.43 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then go take a photo or find a realistic portrait of Asparuh, duh. It's not about who is important for the Bulgarian nation as I see it, it's more like a collection of Bulgarians from different ages and in different fields. And we absolutely have to show modern Bulgarians in the infobox. Also, we don't have free portraits of Stoichkov and Radichkov either, and the Vazov photo is below par. Todor→Bozhinov 19:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ludmilla Diakovska's picture is below too? As i can see, you have pictures of Topalov, for example. He is currently number 1 ELO player in the world, according to FIDE and number 2 all time. He will also play for the world title (again) this spring, so he is currently our best sportsman. Elena Yoncheva is not that famous even in Bulgaria... we don't have a world-class journalists at all. At least not alive. In the field of pop music, you can easily swap Diakovska for Philipp Kirkorov. There are other examples. And please, don't be agressive, i'm just giving some suggestions. --92.247.238.43 (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I too think it surpizing. Template and bottom page pictures. Could make it better. --Aleksd (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I like how most ethnic group pages show what the people in general look like, not just famous people. I think that's what should happen here, especially with the bottom of the page. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The last added info from User 78.83.116.166 (talk), who is a sock is absolut nonsence. This old research described as a new is already used in this article. I am going to remove it. Jingby (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For some strange reason the fact that Bulgarians are also genetically related to Turkey and Anatolia is removed...close to 40% of the Bulgarian Y-DNA genetic make up is Anatolian/West Asian origin e.g. J, G and E1b1b1, R1b is also thought to originate in Anatolia/Western Asia Hittit (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Bulgarians in Turkey
Some one has provided an idiotic figure: 270,000 Bulgarians in Turkey? Source given: http://www.ethnologue.com/15/show_language.asp?code=bul. Source says: 300,000 in Turkey (2001 Johnstone and Mandryk). Population includes refugees from Bulgaria. Since when Turkish refugees from Bulgaria numbering over 2 million after 1878 are Buglarians? Also the figures for the Bulgarians in the different countries mainly indicates Bulgarian citzens, this is not same as ethnic Bulgarians. According to the Bulgarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs the Bulgarian Orthodox Christian community in Turkey stands at only 500 members. Hittit (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hittit, be more honest when citing sources. The source states that the alternative name for these people is Pomaks and their dialect is called Pomak. Therefore, they are certainly not Turks.
 * Also while information relying on the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry indicate citizens, the information relying on national statistics usually refers to ethnic Bulgarians. Kostja (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kostja how bad is your Bulgarian language? Lets see some people with intelligable Bulgarian language having a crack at decoding the below statement of the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry:
 * "Българската общност в Република Турция
 * По данни на българските дипломатически и консулски представителства в Република Турция и на църковното настоятелство на Фондацията на българските православни църкви в Истанбул, понастоящем, българската православна общност в Република Турция наброява около 500 човека.
 * В различни райони на Турция са се установили и живеят български граждани от турски произход."
 * Ok, source states Pomaks are Pomaks and speak Pomak, why are these Bulgarians in Turkey? Do you even know from which countries these Pomaks have moved to Turkey?Hittit (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hittit, whatever my Bulgarian, your English seems to be worse. Here is a citation from Ethnologue:
 * "Language name 	Bulgarian
 * Population	300,000 in Turkey (2001 Johnstone and Mandryk).
 * Population includes refugees from Bulgaria.
 * Region	Scattered in Edirne and other western provinces.
 * Alternate names 	Pomak
 * Dialects	Pomak.
 * Language use	Spoken by Muslim Pomaks in Turkey and Greece.
 * 93% bilingual in Turkish.
 * Comments	Muslim (Sunni)."
 * So their language is called Bulgarian and their dialect Pomak. You do know what a dialect is? Kostja (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and in Greece it is called Greek Pomak dialect and in Turkey Pomak Turkish dilect, I guess the Macedonians have their own view as well. Why can't you stick to ethnic Bulgians that share you religious, cultural and lingual heritage for which there are no disputed origins? Hittit (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because if we cared about ridiculous irredentist claims ("all people west of the Iskar are Serbs, the entire south of Bulgaria is Greek, all Slavs in Macedonia should be called ethnic Macedonians, Pomaks are not of Bulgarian origin"), Bulgaria would have to be the small area between the navy and light blue lines vertically and right of the red line. Not quite fancy, is it. Bulgarians aren't all Orthodox, they come from different backgrounds, they can be quite different culturally, and some dialects of Bulgarian are hardly mutually intelligible. So yeah, down with the stereotypes. Todor→Bozhinov 22:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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

edits that increase population
In reference to adding hundreds of thousands of Bulgarians to Moldova, Greece and Turkey]. Is it possible to explain succintely why this is correct or wrong? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * About Turkey, see the discussion above. The higher numbers in Moldova's case include the Gagauz as Bulgarians, something which was done in the 19th century. The higher numbers in Greece are probably derived from regarding all Slavic speakers (whose population itself is unknown as Bulgarian). In both cases, the assertions represent very strong Bulgarian POV and don't seem likely to be true, so such edits should be reverted. Kostja (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Sweden
As a figure for Bulgarians in Sweden a reference of 4000 is given based on the Bulgarian Ministry for Foreign affairs. The Ministry link states 4000 citizens of Bulgarian origin reside in Sweden (a great part of whom also have Swedish citizenship). It however unclear if this figure also include the Turks from Bulgaria that arrived to Sweden as political refugees in 1989, their figure was over 5000 at that time. Hittit (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "citizens of Bulgarian origin". Are Turks of Bulgarian origin? No. Then what more do you need and what is unclear exactly? Todor→Bozhinov 12:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The figure does not add up, e.g., in Stockholm in the last elections 2009 38% of the vote was for MRF so basically that would give us a rough distribution of the ethnic background of the Bulgarian citizens in Sweden. Also the ethnic Turks are predominatly with Bulgarian and Swedish citizenships since they have been living in the country for 20 years now. According to the Swedish Statistical Central Bureau the distribution of Bulgarian citizens in Sweden by gender in 2008 as the following:
 * Utländska medborgare efter medborgarskapsland, ålder, kön och tid
 * 2008
 * Bulgarien
 * totalt
 * män 1546 (men)
 * kvinnor 1109 (women)
 * Total of 2655 now these are all ethnic Bulgarians? you see what is unclear now? Hittit (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No contradiction. Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs says [quite literally] "Sweden is permanently populated by around 4,000 citizens of Bulgarian origin... a large part of them received Swedish citizenship through naturalization." Which is not to say all of these are Bulgarian citizens, but rather Swedish citizens of Bulgarian origin. Todor→Bozhinov 09:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

lol so the Bulgian Ministry meant Swedish citizens of Bulgarian origin...ok what ever :) it is good they are keeping track of Swedish citizens since apparently have no clue of their own ones. Hittit (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't care less what you think unless it's on-topic. And it's not. Todor→Bozhinov 07:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

related ethnic groups
Are bulgarians really related to greeks? I dont think so because bulgarians are south slavic and greeks are hellenic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.227.87 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not related but this isn't claimed in this article. The Bulgarians are related to the so called Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, mostly identified as Bulgarians until the beginning of the 20th century and beyond and from where significant emigration to Bulgaria took place. Kostja (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely they are only related to the slavic speakers of northern Greece and not the ethnic Greeks of course.--Herson1983 (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The section where this is mentioned is about Genetics and the source given indeed describes Greeks as genetically related to Bulgarians. Kostja (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? That is strange. Because they are not alike based on appearance.--Herson1983 (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A relatively small number of genes are involved in appearance and it's quite possible that populations with different physical appearances have similar genes. Also, not all Greeks look like the usual stereotypes suggest they look. Kostja (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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