Talk:Bulgarians/Archive 4

Thracians and Bulgarian ethnogenessis
Bulgarian ethnogenessis occured between 8th and 10 th century. According to cited in that article reliable sources Bulgarian ethnicity was finally formed in the middle of the 10th cenury. What is the role of the Thracians there. It should be noted that for centuries the Thracians were divided into numerous tribes until the time of their fall under Roman rule. Moreover, the Thracians, particularly those to the south of the Balkan mauntain were exposed to a strong Greek influence. Still more unfavourable conditions were created after they were conquered by the Romans. What is more, along with the strong Greek influence, during the Roman domination the Thracians fell also under a marked Roman influence. Romanization let out its roots mainly north of the Balkan range. Under the impact of the Hellenization and Romanization processes, the Thracians lost their own language, and their ethnical distinctivness. As result the Thracians were eventually Hellenized or Romanized, with the last remnants of Thracian language surviving in remote areas until the 5th century. Eastern Christian culture was also introduced in that area during the Roman rule. On the other hand, this population had markedly declined in number as a result from the continuous Barbaric invasions by Goths, Huns and Avars at that time. In the 6th century the local population made contacts with the invading Slavs and parts of it were eventually Slavicised during the 7th century. As a conclusion, during the time of the Bulgarian ethnogenessis between 8th and 10 th century the Thracians and their language were already extinct as a separate entities.Jingiby (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely understand what you are saying; Thracians were eventually Hellenized or Romanized depending on their region, but what I am trying to say is that at the very root, before Hellenization and Romanization, they were just Thracians. Nicholas  (Alo!) 20:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In your logic, before Bulgarians were Thracians, they were Neolithic hunter-gathers comming from the Middle East, i.e. Bulgarians are descendants from these people and so on. This way of thinking is not realistic. By the way these Thracians who became Roman subjects and lived for 700 years under Graeco-Roman influence were also repetedly invided by different Barbarians. As a consequence their original genotype was changed. They changed also their language, religion and identity. As a Christians they mixed with other Christian subjects of the Empire: Romans, Greeks, Illyrians, Celts etc., i.e. these people de facto and de jure were no more Thracians in the classical aspect of that concept and became Christian citizens of the Empire, who spoke vulgar Greek or Latin and interbreded with other Imperial subjects from different origins. Jingiby (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Jingiby (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point, brother. And you also do not know what you are talking about when you say that the ancestors of the Thracians were Neolithic hunter-gatherers that came from the Middle East. Regardless, it is best to not include the truth rather than insert false anti-Bulgarian statements. Thank you for this edit. Nicholas  (Alo!) 05:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * More about that story here please: Slayers and Their Vampires: A Cultural History of Killing the Dead, Bruce McClelland, University of Michigan Press, 2006, ISBN 0472069233, p. 33. Also, refrain from maiking abusive comments as that above. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding Alexander Rusev in the infobox?
I was just wondering if we could change the infobox, not by much though but simply to add in Alexander Rusev, professional wrestler, only Bulgaria into the WWE? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101


 * Would be a good addition. The current collage is overweight and with only a handful of living people anyway. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It will be too many sportists in the picture, by me. Now in the picture that I created, are 3 sportists (Stoichkov, Stefka Kostadinova and Grigor Dimitrov). In the previous image was a 4 (+Veselin Topalov). The idea is to be proposed people from different epoches and occupations (sportists, actors, artists, politicians, writers, poets, medieval rulers etc.). As I seen the previous mosaic, there was too many medieval rulers (allmost all row!). Now are only two. What you think?--Stolichanin (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Where exactly is the significance of Georgi Lozanov, a pseudoscientist, and Valya Balkanska ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

One suggestion for infobox images - Silvie Vartan. She was born in Bulgaria and is with Bulgarian descent. In addition she is very poular in the world.--151.237.102.118 (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

First and Second Bulgarian states in the picture
It's very interesting for me, why there are so many Bulgarians from 20th century in the infobox picture, but only 4 person from First and Second Bulgarian state? Khan Asparukh, Khan Tervel, John Kukuzel and Euthymius of Tarnovo will be good additions, by me. The National revival is also weak representing, mostly the earlier years. Important figures like Paisius of Hilendar or Petar Bogdan must be include in this collage too. April Uprising is not the only one against Ottoman rule - Fruzhin, Petar Parchevich, Todor Balina and the figures of anti-Byzantine uprisings like Petar Delyan can be representing in the picture.--Tourbo L (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition there are 18 men and only 6 women. More female faces are needed. Raina Popgeorgieva, Julia Kristeva, Valya Balkanska, Maria Petrova, Maria Gigova, Raina Kabaivanska, Ghena Dimitrova, Lili Ivanova and many others.--Tourbo L (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The major problem about part of the suggestions is lacking of images in Commons. It is the most important thing in creating of such mosaics. Of course, Asparukh will be a good addition, esspecially like first image, but we hasn't his image. Actually I can use the image in infobox of Asparukh's article - the monument in Strelcha. Krum is the first significant Bulgarian ruler, about who has some sort of realistic depiction - in this case from the Bulgarian translation of Manasses Chronicle, creating during the reign of Tsar Ivan Alexander. In Paisius case is the same problem, but in previous versions is using Sophronius of Vratsa, who is also very significant figure in National Revival and I think will added him. Patriarch Evtimiy is also representing with monuments in Commons, Petar Parchevich - only with one coat of arms. --Stolichanin (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sophronius of Vratsa is in the collage now. If you have any ideas for the mosaic, write here or on my talk page.--Stolichanin (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Total number of Bulagarians
The total population(10 millions) does not match with the e sum of the referenced populationsbelow in the infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakoni (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 December 2014
 * It doesn't have to match. It is clearly stated that it is an estimation...and a sourced one at that. Do not alter sourced content unless you have sources refuting them in turn. Shokatz (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

collage with Bulgarian faces
I really like it, great job! However, can we add 3-4 photos of famous Bulgarian women? (so that females don't feel left out).

Hey, I'm wondering what constitutes being on that collage? Is it being renowned? If that's the case -- wouldn't it be more fair to replace Anna-Maria Ravnopolska-Dean (whose article on Wikipedia has been viewed 0 times in the past 90 days) with Neshka Robeva (120 views)? I got the stats from http://stats.grok.se/. Retrieved at Feb 21, 2015 at 16:35 Thanks! --FaceInTheSand (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Were Bulgarians a Scythian people? _There is a round 1.5 century real fight about the origin of Bulgarians. That fight should finally comes to its end
At the beginning I will post some secondary "sorces" (someone's articles), then we may go to the original and more raw information: http://lukferi.webs.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkeWai9hzog - Scythians and Sarmatians in nowadays Ukraine;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljz8CDXYRVw&list=PL165290BDA8856723 - Here is several parts clip for the old Bulgarians and their names, they were often called. It is backed by references;

http://berberian11.tripod.com/tabov_tzenoff.htm - Here is a round a century old research of d-r Gantcho Tsenov. He did a decades long research in the Vatican archives. It needs a little time to read, but the answer is quite firm;

--79.100.49.49 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bulgarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150516123323/http://books.google.com/books?id=ppbuavUZKEwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=who+are+the+macedonians&hl=bg&ei=gPT9TduCC5H3sga8x9nzDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA to http://books.google.com/books?id=ppbuavUZKEwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=who+are+the+macedonians&hl=bg&ei=gPT9TduCC5H3sga8x9nzDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Percentage of E-V68
According to Karachanak E-M78 is 1.5% and its subclan E-V13 is 18.1%. The other E are not E-V68 so the percentage of this group is 19.6%.149.62.201.64 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Number of Bulgarians

 * According to an scientific publication called Migration from and towards Bulgaria 1989–2011 Tanya Dimitrova, Thede Kahl, Publisher	Frank & Timme GmbH, 2013, ISBN	3865965202: After the fall of communism in 1989 Bulgaria experiences strong waves of emigration. According to recent estimations, about 2 million Bulgarians live abroad.
 * According to an official statement of the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2011 outside the territory of Bulgaria have lived 2,018,792 Bulgarians; EuroChicago.com Брой на българските граждани в чужбина (2011 г.)
 * As per the official census data from 2011 in Bulgaria have lived 5 664 624 ethnic Bulgarians.
 * Per UCLA Center for World Languages - UCLA International Institute, the Bulgarian speakers around the world are 9 mln.
 * Per Ethnologue the Bulgarian population total in all countries is 7,799,970. 78.159.147.70
 * Conclusion: According to reliable sources the total number of Bulgarians around the world is 8 - 9 mln. 78.159.147.70 (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

All the infobox has been screwed for days, absolutely false numbers for certain countries like Netherlands and outdated for Germany. There is no reason for not mentioning the number of ethnic Bulgarians since this is an infobix about an ethnic group not a nation and since all the 7.3 mln, 6 mln and 5.6 mln figures are mentioned in the infobox, I would propose everybody to accepts it as a compromise. The total population 22 million is a bizzare figure and an unreliable news source. The collage is not well done, includes bizzare inclusions, so unprominent people that I wonder why are they used when there are so many significant Bulgarians.149.62.201.117 (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not have even a single neutral, reliable source from the last 5 years, counting the number of Bulgarians at 10 million. The highest number is 9 mln. and the number of Bulgarians has rapidly decreased in the last 25 years. 78.159.147.70 (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think also 22 milion is too average number, but "Sega" is reliable source and the editor cited an official person (Prof. Grigor Velev, President of Association of Bulgarians outside Bulgaria). The most interesting thing, as an IP editor informed me on my talk page is that we don't know how many people are of Bulgarian ancestry. According to official statistic the number of Bulgarians varied between 9 and 12 milion. Yordan Kolev in his book "Българите извън България 1878 - 1945" say "В началото на ХХI в. общият брой на етническите българи в България и зад граница се изчислява на около 10 милиона души". In two other high - academic sources - "Demography of Bulgarians" by Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and "Режимът на възпроизводство на населението в България и отражението му върху предлагането на работна сила" by Kremena Borisova - Marinova and Stanislava Moraliyska the number is 12 milion. My first editing was to minimize the number from these 10 - 22 milion to 10 - 12 milion, as sources says. These numbers - 10 - 12 milion are the best we can add.--Stolichanin (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So, 9 milion was bulgarians before 1989. Now they are 7.3 milon + 2 - 3 milion emigrants. But bulgarian emigration exist before 1989 too. Bulgarian immigrants live in USA during the time of Aleko Konstantinov. The people with bulgarian ancestry are more than 10 milipn by me. 22 milion is the correct number. Prof. Velev leading the agency which know this infprmation better than some scientists. In infpbox now are only the bulgarian moving after 1989. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.68.9 (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Stolichanin,

Grigor Velev is a nationalist, see results at Google. He lies that his estimate is by data from UNESCO and UN, they do not do make such estimates or at least he haven't verified their claims. This claim must be backed at least partially by the infobox, consider adding figures and countries with those so many million Bulgarians of partial descent to verify where they live, leaving such millions as a gap uncalculated in the infobox is pointless and makes it questioning and clear that the number is not 22 million. If you can provide these figures and countries I won't disagree with you but now there are some 13 million uncovered by the infobox.

As for the rest of your edit, you keep screwing the rest of the infobox disruptively without any explonation, are you happy now? And with this nonsense you bother us to revert you seven times only today.149.62.200.25 (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about Velev and I can't commented his work. 85.118.68.9, can you give more detail information about this number of 22 milion. The majority of sources gives numbers arround 10 milion? --Stolichanin (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The best source here is Yordan Kolev's book. He is a specialist about this sort of questions and has a many works and articles for Bulgarian migration. He give number of 10 milion and this is absolutely logical.--Karbon Z (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Stolichanin, 22 million has been introduced by Special:Contributions/151.237.102.118 who has very similiar to your contributions and supported you at Talk:Slavs/Archive_5 not by 85... as it was suggested.149.62.200.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK! I think also 10 milion is the most correct number, because we have a source to confirm it and the rest sources gravitates arround this number.--Stolichanin (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kolev's book is out of date. It was published 10 years ago and is based on statistics from the early 21-th century. Bulgarian National statistical institute claims every year the Bulgarian population drops with 43-44,000 people, check here on p. 4. Kolev is a historian, not expert of demographic issues. His book was publishe by ТанНакРа, which is a private, not academic publishing house. Because of that this data is not actual and not reliable. 212.5.158.30 (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Shortly: Kolev say "In the beginning of the 21th century the whole number of Bulgarians is 10 milion". In Demography of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences they are 11 - 12 milion, according to Moraliyska and Marinova - 12 milion. That is the academic and specialist's works until this moment. 22 milion - only by Velev, but we have only internet links and newspaper's articles, not a scientific work to confirm this "fantastic" number. --Stolichanin (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A brand new academic encyclopedia from 2015 named Native Peoples of the World: An Encylopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues, Publisher Routledge, 2015, ISBN 1317464001 states on p. 271: The total Bulgarian population worldwide numbers apromaxitely 9 Million. 212.5.158.35 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

ATENTION! All of these IP are on one user! Probably IP sock- puppety. Драги ми потребителе, моля те спри с педалските си номера да пишеш от различни адреси. Регистрирай се и защитавай позицията си, а не се клонирай! Иначе странно е как всички влезнайте да редактирате една и съща съраница в еди и същи ден и час. Това си е направо хакерска атака! Аз нямам клонинги тук и това може да се провери. Всичките останали IP aдреси са регистрирани на един човек. Моля ви, уважавайте дискусията и другите потребители!--85.118.69.161 (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, academic sources, cited here talk about number of 11 - 12 milion. I think this number must be included.--85.118.68.9 (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, stop joking! None of cited above verifiable, neutral and reliable, sources talk about a number higher then 9 million. 46.16.193.70 (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Demography is not like mathematics. Diferences in population of rank of 2 - 3 milion is something normal, especially when we talking about populations outside of the native country. The demographic processes are very dynamic and statistics often varied by different sources. Here we have a sources giving population between 9 and 12 milion - something usual (look at English people - the diference is aroung 25 milion!). First at all, we can use the academic and specialized sources, which have a more weight in this sort of problems. Two different sources - "Native Peoples of the World: An Encylopedia of Groups, Cultures and Contemporary Issues", cited by IP User and "Demography of Bulgarians", cited by User:Stolichanin giving a pop. 9 and 12 milion. The rest using sources says numbers of 10 and 11 - 12 milion, which fits in these limits of 9 - 12 milion. --Kargoncium (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. 9 - 12 milion unite all sources. Its almost the same number like in the current version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.68.9 (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I added it in infobox--Stolichanin (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Article fully protected, three days
Rather than hand out blocks, I've fully protected the article for three days (no doubt at the WP:WRONGVERSION). Please use this time to discuss and see if you can resolve your disputes. --Neil N  talk to me 16:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Aaaand I added another week. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Image in the infobox
I removed the mosaic in the infobox because it had been introduced without any discussion based on one editor's POV. I am personally against its inclusion, it has up to 5 significant famous people in the Anglosphere. These are people like Sophronius of Vratsa. Even the few famous in the Anglosphere like the director of the useless organization UNESCO are not something significant in my opinion. Also when including people on the top of a nation's image please be more selective, if not for the significance of the people, at least for aesthetics. Try a little bit harder, this may be the ugliest image of an ethnic group among all I have seen. How and why exactly Julia Kristeva was chosen, to achieve the combination the beauty Nina Dobrev and the beast?? Why the image should look like the ugliest in Wikipedia? Extremely unaesthetical choice, which I am sorry to say, nothing personal.149.62.201.50 (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's not a collage of "Ms Bulgaria" or "Mr Bulgaria". These people are significant and well known in Bulgaria and outside Bulgaria. Julia Kristeva is a great and worldwide famous scientist and an beautiful lady. Can you make any suggestions for the mosaic or you are just a bad guy with too many free time? --Stolichanin (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry for removing your work, if I seem to be a bad guy I don't aim to make you feel bad, the image on top is just a too significant part and it needs improvement, and time. Why do you hurry so much? Take it easy, you can improve the image, everything always needs an improvement. See how the articles in Wikipedia never stop improving. It is easily to notice that most of these people in the image are unknown for the English reader, as a Bulgarian I have never heard of some such as Christo Pempev and Anna Maria Dean. In my opinion you may consider excluding or replacing the unpopular people. In the image there are Bulgarian historical persons but they are not popular enough for English Wikipedia, they made achievements for the Bulgarian nation but not for the humanity as a whole. I think the unpopular are Clement of Ohrid, Kaloyan and Desislava, Sophronius of Vratsa, Vasil Levski (very honored in Bulgaria but still unpopular for the English reader, but significant so may be included), all people on the second row, Dimitar Peshev, Pancho Vladigerov, Christo Pempev and Anna Maria Dean. Only Clement of Ohrid is famous in Macedonia but not anywhere else. Julia Kristeva is a university professor and an author of some books, which is not a reason for the significance to be on the top of a nation and she needs to have a basic facial care for the purpose. Stefka Kostadinova may be an Olympic record breaker, though I doubt if she still holds it, if so she also does not seem significantly popular as she is an old generation-sportist. As there are many record-holders and types of records, sometimes, especially the old generation of them, are generally unknown. Hristo Stoichkov is stated in an article's section, although from the old generation he is an all-time footballer and still remains popular throughout the world, so - his image worths staying but is not taken very well. Why not including currently popular sportists such as Grigor Dimitrov? If not popular the people in the image should be significant for the world somehow, not only for Bulgaria. I propose also Christo, Kaloyan Mahlyanov, these lists with famous Bulgarian inventors such as the physicist-inventor of the xerox - Georgi Nadjakov may be useful for your image ] Why not reducing let's say one row of two and leave only the popular or significant outside of Bulgaria? As you can see in a section above Anna Maria Dean's article has zero views for ninety days, I am sure there are are other people like her in the image. Even staying on the top of the infobox nobody views their articles, such people definetely should be removed from the infobox.87.227.208.36 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Those damn mosaics, I swear one of those days.... just kidding. Now, first of all, there is no such thing as unaesthetic people. Second, there is no popularity threshold for such images - a person does not need to be known worldwide in order to be included in it. There are simply not enough prominent Bulgarians to satisfy such a (non-existent) criteria. Dimitar Peshev deserves to be popular worldwide for what he and the others participating in the deed did. Stefka Kostadinova is the holder of one of the most long-standing world (not Olympic, although that's true as well) records in athletics. How is Kaloyan Mahlyanov, for one, more prominent than her - he is popular in Japan and that's it. One of the people responsible for creating the Cyrillic alphabet not being prominent enough? I could continue with all the persons you've singled out as unworthy, but, in the end, it all boils down to the two things I pointed out in the beginning of my argument. The image might need some improvement and, indeed, the likes of Grigor Dimitrov and Kristalina Georgieva might be added to it, but I'm all against removing more than one woman in order to fit them in. Also, I'm against removing the image altogether only because it needs work. Currently, it is the best that we have and it has its place in the article (as much as any such mosaic has a place in any article, but that's another topic entirely).-- L a v e o l  T 08:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If not popularity or significance what is the criteria for including someone in the infobox then? My proposal is a new modified upload to be made, not an exclusion of the mosaic, because I have never heard of some of these people. So, I think we agree, let's not remove it, but let's rework it. There are other people that may fit better at the image. What is the national importance of Christo Pimperev and Anna Maria Dean for example? If there are not enough prominent Bulgarians, then I think there are better alternatives than not having any criteria for including anyone, why not to reduce some rows? I am changing my mind for Clement and Kostadinova, they are remarkable, but there are enough prominent people that can replace Pancho Vladigerov, etc. 87.227.208.36 (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Pancho Vladigerov is very popular outside BG, especially in France, Austria, Italy, etc. 19 - 20 cent. focus dominated in collage now, by me. I think you must add more medieval figures. My suggestions are: John of Rila, tsar Kaloyan, Ivan Asen II, John Kuluzelis, Euthimius of Tarnovo and also John Atanasov, Yordan Radichkov. There are too small number of women in the collage, by me. Good aditions will be Sylvie Vartan, Tsvetana Pironkova, Raina Knyaginya, some bulgarian empress maybe.--85.118.68.185 (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

http://www.dw.com/flashcms/beruehmtebulgaren/bg/bg_beruehmtebulgaren_popup.htm - the most popular bulgarians outside BG--85.118.68.185 (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but all of these are living people, popular right now. Filling the entire box with them would mean to shun every historical figure. Also, the list looks too heavily focused on Bulgarians in Germany and to classical musicians. The only notable classical musician from Bulgaria is Vasko Vassilev. Still, there are a few suggestions to consider. I hadn't given a thought for Ralitsa Vassileva and she would make a fine addition. -- L a v e o l  T 10:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ralitsa Vassileva will be a good addition, but the problem is we haven't her picture in Common now.--Stolichanin (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

After the changes, the collage 'famous Bulgarians 3' still includes many unfamous or many less prominent Bulgarians than there actually are. I'll try to include some of the most important achievements below, which is the reason why I removed the image, I hope you include more inventors and contributors to humanity. Firstly, Ralitsa Vasilieva has been retired from CNN since 2014, not an actual VIP. Pancho Vladigerov is not famous outside of Bulgaria, he is not that significant VIP even in Bulgaria. I have talked to people from France and they don't know what Bulgaria is, as I have never listened to him I guess that at least 999 %% of French have never listened to him, actually heard of him. From the previous statement I don't think Raina Knyaginya, Euthimus, Yordan Radichkov, John Kukuzelis are good suggestions for the infobox, however Pironkova(better Dimitrov in my opinion), John Atanasov and Vartan are. Vartan's parents are both of Armenian ancestry, just one of them is partially Bulgarian, however if we want to view Atanasoff ethnically, at first place he would come as Bulgarian, then as something else as his father was Bulgarian and his mother was of mixed descent. Otherwise we may add his father in the image or Pedro Ruseff, the father of Dilma Ruseff who is also a Bulgarian writer. I don't know how much he can be called Bulgarian, but John Atansoff as a 'father of the computer' he is the most prominent for the infobox of all the listed here. Bulgarian Jew Carl Djerassi invented the contraceptive, but he does not have any partial ethnic Bulgarian origin. Since we have included Pancho Vladigerov who is Jewish I don't see why not to replace him with Carl Djerassi or John Attanssoff, furhermore Vladigerov was born in Switzerland he is neither nationally nor ethnically Bulgarian. I suggest that Yavashev may be included. Bulgarians do not have prominent painters, writers and musicians worldwide and as many prominent women as men, any inclusion of some in the infobox usually leaves the strange feeling to the non-Bulgarian reader that he/she never heard of these people. Per this I think that Pimpirev, Kabaivanska, Elisaveta Bagrayana, Desislava, Georgieva, Christoff, Vladimir Dimitrov, Stambolov, Euthimius, Vazov, Botev can go and give some space for famous people, it doesn't matter whether men or women will be more. It seems that if they are not famous they should be at least prominent for something outside of Bulgaria, such as people from List of Bulgarian inventors and discoverers. Who said above that there are not many prominent Bulgarians so we should keep the old personas? Inventions by Bulgarians in technology are the bacteria for youghurt, the first elctronic digital computer, the airbag, the automatic speed gearbox, the tape recorder, the printer, the answering machine, major contributions to American aviation and the creation of the first military plane, the electronic watch, the module for moon landing of Appollo 11, GSM in the space, the smartest woman with highest IQ, the talking book for blind, the contraceptive (By bulg. Jew) and a new engine driving by water. I am convinced that these people are Very Important Persons. Bulgarian doctors claim to have discovered a cure for HIV and cancer, the medication was tested on patients and has so far been succesful, including on a patient at a late stage of AIDS and it recovered in numbers the CD4 cells which is a precedent worldwide

Vasil Levski's image is not a correct painting of him, you can search for other free images outside commons, his hair is well preserved in the museums, go and visit them and you will see that his hair was light blond. 

Dimitar Peshev, well done, but let's say there is some Jewish saviour of some Bulgarians or Arabs, is at the infobox of Jewish people? Certainly not, they would have too many popular and prominent Jews to include such a saviour and leave Einstein etc. Bulgarians have so many prominent people that are excluded from the infobox. I personally rate the Bulgarians who contributed to the world the most prominent with their inventions and discoveries and I think that they should replace those with lesser prominence. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk has at least partial Slavic descent, read it at his article, though he was born in Thessaloniki, both his parents were from what is now Republic of Macedonia, he was a blonde and blue eyed as well, this was uncommon among Anatolian Turkish settlers and the Jews of Thessaloniki. Besides Turkey, he claims to have loved Bulgaria as no other nation..

Finally, the year does not matter, there are 19-20 cent or medieval persons but the most at the collage are not significant worldwide, why not including such people instead? If there are no photos at Commons you can upload another under a free license and nobody will delete them.--149.62.200.214 (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a mosaic of "the Greatest Bulgarians". If we suggest all great Bulgarians, we'll need by collage with 1000 images. This collage is representing Bulgarians from different parts of culture, sports, etc. There are politicians, poets, writers, painters, tsars, scientists...--Stolichanin (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Very short answer. By this logic, you are representing many parts of society with unsignificant people. In fact this collage is missing many parts, there are Bulgarian philosophers, Bulgarian physicists, Bulgarian mathematucians, Bulgarian bikers, Bulgarian enterpreneurs, Bulgarian mafia men if you want, Bulgarian taxi drivers, Bulgarian fishermen and Bulgarians from 100000 more parts that your collage does not represent. If you do not follow any signifcance of the people you are adding at the collage, it is useless. Anybody can go to List of Bulgarians and click on casual people from diffetent parts, this is the way of your logic and it can be practiced without your collage. Let's make an experiment, add Pancho Vladigerov(a man from your collage) at Jews' infobox to experiment if he will be removed. I am sure he will be. Please do the neccessary changes this week, you can't ignore everything with just u argumented short answers. --149.62.200.70 (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is getting a bit tedious. As I said, there is no policy on such mosaics and they are usually build according to consensus. You seem to be in a minority here and you lack any sane argument. I am really starting to feel that this behaviour borders trolling, since I see no point in it. What the heck, I will bite, possibly for the last time, and explain, again. Having a great variety of persons there, would be a plus, and having persons from a single background - a minus. And yes, there could be no such mosaic without the likes of Vazov and Botev (especially the latter). Kristalina Georgieva is a VP of the European Commission and possibly the next UN Secretary-General. Vladigerov is at least partially Bulgarian and has worked in and for Bulgaria. Stefan Stambolov is possibly the most successful Bulgarian politician, ever. And if I get you right, you want to substitute them with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkist state? Are you going to remove him from the mosaic on the Turkish people article first? And this because of an alleged, unproven, possible Bulgarian descent? You also want to add some doctors who might have come up with some medicine, but only according to the most unreliable of yellow Bulgarian online news outlets? Other popular articles on the same website include one about the impeding huge earthquake that will kill 20 mil people in North America alone. Great stuff. And not at all trolling.
 * Oh, and just to be clear about that sentence "If there are no photos at Commons you can upload another under a free license and nobody will delete them". Things here do not work like this. You cannot upload a non-free photo under a free license. Do not give other users such false advice.-- L a v e o l  T 21:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Then I hope some of the suggestions above to be reflected by the consensus. I don't insist Kristalina Georgieva to be removed, I said I think she may be replaced and I'd replace her if I were the author because she don't have any much important deeds to me, but by another view she is appointed a prominent office and famous. A matter of choice. After all I don't insist all inclusions to be according to my view, but some of the inclusions are still ridicilious. I insist Vladigerov to be removed because he is a Swiss-born Jew. He is not even partially ethnic Bulgarian, just his father was a Bulgarian national. Does living in Bulgaria makes you Bulgarian? Yes? If so, this is funny. We seem to understand wrong each other, the image's title is "famous Bulgarians" and this is still quite funny. Some are not famous and not Bulgarians. I joked with Ataturk to contrast him with Vladigerov. After all who of the two is more Bulgarian? And no, Ataturk should not be included, as well as Vladigerov. The doctor Carl Djerassi is also a foreign-born Jew, but I'd appreciate if he replace Vladigerov, he is not more Bulgarian than the other one but it seems he has important contributions to the medicine. And clearly I have never said uploading non-free but free images under a free license.--149.62.201.26 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for template fix
Citations 19 and 22 have invalid parameters. Could a moderator please replace  with the correct  ? (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fix to section 1.1
The sentence in question is: "the indigenous late Roman provincial peoples: Thraco-Romans and Thraco-Byzantines, from whom cultural and ethnic elements were taken". The provided references are some allusion to Epigraphy and (questionable) analogies to 19th century folk costume fashions, non of which can serve as solid proof. This is not to doubt that there was some continuity with pre-Slavic groups, but this was *indirect*. Why ? Because recnet archaeological dating has shown with little doubt that Slavs entered a near terra deserta north of the Rhodopes - as the East Romans consciously vacated the land c. 600 - 620 AD. Any pre-Slavic admixture was due to Byzantines slaves and later admixtures.

Further the article claims that Thracian "was still spoken throughout the late and middle 6th century". There is no direct evidence for this apart from the claim that Bessi still practice liturgy in their native tongue in Asia Minor. The cited reference omits this critical fact. IMO many of the sources in this article, like many other Balkan articles- used fail to the 'rigor' test, and smack of nationalism. Certainly, they'd fail the whiff test in any western article.

I think these adjustments will improve the article if this add this relevant detail. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The gallery of personalities from the infobox
I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups Hahun (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is in favour of such removal for this article? I rather support.130.204.89.2 (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Slavic?
This is a joke. For goodness sake, propaganda and politicized 'history' relating to ethnicity is so out of place in the 21st century. Everyone with common sense knows that Bulgarians are not Slavic genetically, and moreover everyone with eyes can see it themselves, that they don't look like Slavs. The Bulgars who came to the Bulgarian lands were very, very numerous to be able to crush the strongest and wealthiest empire in the world - Byzantium. All Bulgarians are Bulgars, hence the name for goodness sake, and hence the physical appearance. This Slavic idea is still pushed in the 21st century, when this is supposed to be the age of reason, technology and advancement. To say this is bizarre is an understatement. Ultimately this is strong testament to how corrupt the academia of history is, and how corrupt Wikipedia is. How much longer is this madness going to be perpetuated?

I have conversed with Bulgarians, and nomr of them believe that they are Slavic. It thus seems that no matter how many books and internet encyclopaedias state that they are Slavic -it is not believed by the nation themselves. Can anyone see what is wrong with this picture? Obviously then there are red flags in the Slavic idea. These books and encyclopaedias become meaningless when the Bulgarians themselves don't believe in the idea at all, and more importantly, the statement that they are Slavic loses all credibility when one can cleatly see that they are not Slavs. The Bulgarians are whatever the Bulgars were, i.e. non Turkic and non Slavic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.45.23.251 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * no it's not a "joke". Geez every two months some misguided soul writes an appaulled message as if fainting from the injustice of it all.
 * No one is stating that Bulgarians are pure, unadulterated Slavs- for there is no such thing. As the article states clealry, Slavic is a general ethno-linguistic term referring to the language they spoke. Clearly, Bulgarians speak a Slavic language ; this they are "Slavs". Yes this a heuristic term which does not capture all intricacies of Bulgarian culture and genetics, but it doesn't claim to. At the end of the day, all modern Slavs mixed with non-Slavs, but they are still "Slavs". Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a joke, talk to any Bulgarian who has read enough history and they will confirm. 10k Bulgars beating a massive Byzantine army? Are you kidding me? Lets say half of those 10k were women, that drops the men down to 5k, and then we still have to account for old people and kids, so lets bring the number down to 3k. So 3k beating an army of 20k plus? This 'theory' is a joke and the 'history' text books and such lag behind the times. Exactly, "ethno"-linguistic, so it doesn't just refer to the language as you say but to the ethnicity as well, other wise it would have just been called a "linguistic" term. No, it doesn't "clearly" make them Slavic just because they speak a Slavic language. Who says that? That is absurd. A lot of the Ainu speak Japanese, does that make them ethnically Japanese? If the term doesn't claim to capture genetics then the word ethno-linguistic should not be used, rather "linguistic" should be used. In the article it says they are a South Slavic ethnic group, it should get changed to a South Slavic linguistic group, otherwise you contradict yourself. No, we are not misguided souls, that shows how misguided you are for using that word, we are just people who have read enough history and used enough logic to see how absurd this whole thing is. 95.45.23.251 (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently a certain user thinks he can remove content from the talk page and 'censor' the site. Exactly why nobody has respect for Wikipedia and exactly why this site doesn't get allowed to be used in essays - a good example of corruption here. If this continues to get removed, by a user who thinks he can censor as he pleases (and who has gotten warnings on his talk page), I am prepared to take this to admins, many admins at that. His reason for removal is 'spam', that is so disrespectful and immature. Just because you think it's spam doesn't mean it is. This was a discussion, not spam, that was removed. This user has removed, as can be seen by his history, other text from talk sites. This is unacceptable. 95.45.23.251 (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That the prevailing modern Bulgarian genes are of pre-Slavic Balkan origin is clear as we already have a number of DNA investigations evidencing that, but the explanation of the Bulgarian gene pool by a massive Bulgar origin is refuted by the genetic evidence. The statements above insist only on one biased fixed view, on either Bulgar or Slavic origin, not admitting any other possibilities without any analysis or evidence. Unlike the others, the statement of Slovenski Volk at least admits admixture.

Slavic settling in the Balkans began as early as the 5th century. Although you are correct, that the majority of the Bulgarian DNA did not come from the Slavic settlers, you are definitely wrong by your claim that the Bulgarians are purely 'whatever the Bulgars were', only evidenced by fringe conclusive essays, based on a primary history source. The claim 'South Slavic' at the lede sentence is sourced by poor sources and the lede sentence should get more research, I'd agree to change the statement to 'South Slavic speaking' or remove it from there, or at least to change it to 'Bulgarians are part of the Slavic ethnolinguistic group'. I like the way Romance peoples are described in Wikipedia, as sharing 'language and culture' rather than common ancestry. This issue does not only affects Bulgarians, but often happens to many peoples, much of Wikipedia articles must be corrected, the majority of Hungarians, Romanians, Serbs, Bosniaks, Macedonians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Swedish, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Turkish, Swiss(especially Swiss Germans), Lebanese, African Arabs descend from the local ancient population of their region according to the genetic studies, but were assimilated by a language of later settlers. Statistics on distribution of hair and eye color may give a vague idea, that the populations of Europe descend mostly from long-standing local populations from their regions. Throughout history, often a different by origin ruling class ruled large armies and territories. In the case of Bulgarians and Romanians, the majority of genes(by tracing deep subclades) are evidently pre-ancient Balkan, presumably descended from Thracians, the same is for Serbs and Macedonians to a degree. Likely, a small Bulgar ruling class took the control over and included the Slavonic as the third state language, the Latin language survived in Wallachia. As our science evolved into genetics, we are now able to trace the DNA, we should stop using the invalid appeal to common practice defining all ethnic groups only by languages as our primitive 19th and 20th century-ancestors did, who did not have genealogy. Please, consider also correcting the articles listed above.

On the other hand your claim that the Bulgarians descend mostly or entirely from Bulgars is not proven by the history you have read, no secondary serious source claim that the Bulgarians are Bulgars. You just analyze the primary sources that you read incorrectly, by your own bias. Much of unreliable history is written by people, having no idea about genetics, but now you are trying to ridiculously prove that the Bulgarians are Bulgars by genealogy, physical appearance and military without any abilities, knowledge on all the subjects, or at least a rational guess. The example with the army as an evidence was completely irrational. The army may be constituted by a number of tribes, for example the Ottoman large army included non-Turkic men by origin. Look at the Turkish gene pool, the Turks descend mostly from the local Anatolian population, the leading haplogroup is the Semitic, followed by the Indo-European, but the Turkic element is at best - moderately low. The Magyar army was also very strong in numbers, today Hungarians speak the most widely spoken non-Indo European language, yet they did not inherit even a marginal amount of the Finno-Urgic DNA that Finns and Estonians did, in fact that frequent at other Central Europeans. In the Middle Ages the local villagers were threatened by means of execution, unless they become soldiers for whoever was a king, so many tribes that did not fled were mobilized within the armies. When the Bulgars arrived in Moesia in the 7th century they met the mostly Latin-speaking local Balkan population, while the seven Slavic tribes then settled north of the Danube, but some settlers can hardly outnumber any longstanding local populations as the Dacians. So all these were mobilized within the Bulgar army. Not all Latin-speaking Thracians fled to Greek-speaking Byzantium and were probably Slavicised later with the help of the Church of Bulgaria, Greek-speakers and Thracian-speaking survivors were presumably assimilated. Bulgarians are today genetically similar to all Balkan peoples, subclades usually cannot determine Balkan subregions however. The majority of the population of Bulgaria and their most similar neighbour Romania (traced by deep subclades) descends from the Balkan population as the DNA studies reveal, showing that respectively Slavic and Romance influence on the gene pool is marginal. Even the majority subclade of male R1a (L-1029) and R1b (Z2103 or L23)  within them is Balkan and not Slavic or Roman. Their majority subclades of male I2a (Z17855), E1b (V13) and J2a are also Balkan, inherited mostly through the local population that lived prior to the Slavic, Bulgar or Roman settling. Why don't you trace the subclades of the haplogroups before making any statements, that the Bulgarians are Bulgars genetically? What exactly within the Y-DNA of Bulgarians is so significantly Bulgar? The major Bulgarian male haplogroups, that constitute the majority are I2a, E-V13 and R1a by 20% each, if divided by subclades they hardly have much non-local ancient Balkan SNPs. What makes you think that the Bulgars' genes prevail, or you are probably tested by a certain haplogroup and are therefore biased? If so which? In such case, the only possibility is, that there may be certain Bulgarian regions of significant Bulgar or Slavic ancestry, as Bulgarians are very heterogeneous and only some thousands are yet tested, even though both Slavic and Bulgar DNA would still be generally a minority.

Even, if we assume that the Slavs have a fixed, distinct physical appearance as you claim, though this is impossible because they are an artificial mix, having many parts of the mix spread throughout other ethnolinguistic groups - then, yes many Bulgarians do not look like Slavs to a degree - but concluding that therefore they must be purely Bulgar is extremely insane. That was among the other bizzare evidences provided that the Bulgarians are actually Bulgars. In addition, Bulgaria is the country with the highest percentage of Romani people in the world and at least 1 out of 10 ethnic Bulgarians has a mixed ancestry from swarthy ethnic groups, especially Romani Gypsies. Based on people I know, such a person would often have overall dark features and a paler skin. To consider the Bulgarians - Bulgar, because of, I presume their darker individuals, would be an extremely childish conclusion and inconsistent with any genetic or other evidence. I start doubting what is your name, not actually Bojidar Dimitrov? There are actually some consistently light-haired and -eyed Turkic peoples, such as the Udmurts and the Bashkirs, which is not the result with their contact with the Russians, but with prehistoric R1b.

The name does not mean anything, Russians got their name from the Rus' Vikings, ultimately from a town in Sweden, yet they are not their descendants according to the DNA studies. I suggest you forget the fringe view, that the Bulgars are the Bulgarians because of their name, or at least stop incorrectly justifying it with reliable DNA studies. You at least need a piece of evidence, you can't provide any since the DNA investigation confirms that the theory of prevailing Bulgar origin of the Bulgarians is just another fringe view on the list. Indeed the case of Bulgarians is very complicated, 1. they got their name from a Turkic speaking tribe, 2. their language is Slavic, but 3., they mostly descent from the ancient Balkan population that was not Slavic or Bulgar. Furthermore, Turkic speakers, which were the Bulgars have also diverse DNA, e.g. the world's most frequently red-haired people in the Ural are Turkic speakers dominated by R1b, Yakuts on the other hand belong to Finnic Haplogroup N (89%), Turkish people are mostly Semitic. This means at that we don't know what the Bulgar DNA was, at best only few parts of the non-Balkan modern Bulgarian DNA, which is a minority, could be of Bulgar origin. Trace the deep subclades, calculate the possibilities by yourself, according to the current database they are marginal.--92.247.116.157 (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

As I see articles for Latin peoples have already removed the arguable ethnolinguistic definition from the introduction of their pages, such as the article Spaniards. That's rationally justified. The peoples of Hispania (Roman Iberia) were culturally latinized, and over a long period of time, the indigenous languages were replaced by the Common or Vulgar Latin brought to Hispania by Roman soldiers and traders in the centuries of Roman rule, the majority of Iberian population belongs to R1b-DF27 with a Time of Most Recent Common Ancestor of 2500 BC, that is a way back before the Roman conquest, the Italic R1b-S28's presence in Iberia is low, for further information, see. It would be better if this article also follows such a neutral style. So far, if the Bulgarian Slavic language is the justification to keep it, well, then what should we consider American Indians and Africans who are Hispanophones and Anglophones?--92.247.116.157 (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict
, please state your objections and suggestions. Are they for the introduction or also for other sections? 87.227.209.96 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My objection is that the introduction of enormous sections on DNA research by editors who are not experts in the area (an area which is, incidentally, in its infancy with theories developing and changing at a high rate) is WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH... and a breach of WP:NOR to boot. The fact that such research exists bears testament to OTHER STUFF EXISTS. WP:ITSINTERESTING in as much as scientists specialising in such research are making tracks into exploring human migratory paths. Amateurs trying to read more into the research than is there, or than is meaningful to the reader, has been the bane of Wikipedia articles on ethnic groups for years. It's been the subject or edit wars where it has become abundantly clear that those edit warring actually don't know what the difference is in arguments as to mitochondrial DNA, rNA, and autosomal DNA when it comes to establishing anything constructive about any one ethnic group, much less what pronounced variations from individual to individual within that ethnic group means. Nevertheless, we end up with articles dedicating one third to a half to scientific malarkey about as edifying as a brick to the back of the head. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the recently introduced DNA studies contain more text backed by experts than the whole poorly sourced article. By reverting the last edits, you unjustifiably leave some kind of genetics at the expense of others, i.e these of newer and more extensive global studies remain removed. I don't understand which part you object to, so I propose an easy way - let's leave the whole intro as "Bulgarians are a South Slavic people who are native to Bulgaria and neghbouring regions." and move all the genetics from the intro to the gentic section and then you will remove the parts that you will object to. How about to do that?87.227.209.96 (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the bizarre sentence at the end of the lead - "The strongest in size genetic elements of the Bulgarians were brought by the complex pre-Slavic and pre-Bulgar Balkan populations, which is also the case of Romanians." - yes, I would agree that it needs to be moved and rewritten to make sense.


 * Frankly, the structure of the historical background is OTT. "Ethnogenesis" as a section title? Are we talking about ethnic identity/ethnic groups in Bulgaria, or is this a paper on Neanderthals and the growing theoretical probability that Homo Sapiens Sapiens did mate with them, but DNA traces have disappeared. Such subject matter should be dealt with at higher level articles on Slavs and European ethnogenesis, etc. These ethnic group articles aren't about strange and different species that evolved in isolation from the rest of humanity. The main and prominent features of ethic identity and nation-states is the culture or cultures within them, not DNA markers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I refer to, actually I corrected it at my revisions. I did not state that many statements from the version you reverted to are not backed by the sources provided, the "bizzare" sentence in the lead is sourced to two refs and "Atlas of Human admixture" that I checked and these sources do not even mention the words Romanians, Bulgars or Slavs. I did not introduce this and corrected it in my revision because it was not according to the source and made everything per the credible sources. I suggest removing all the genetic information from the intro and returning the sourced genetic information to the genetic section. As per you statements for the changing theories above I agree that DNA samples of some hundred individuals do not belong to the intro.

I have not understood yet, but it suggest that you do not insist for the removal of the extension in the genetic section. That the mitochondrial DNA is lacking in the article at the expense of other types of DNA does not mean that the article is more focused on culture. I object to removing that extension unless you remove the whole genetic section from the article. If you are going read the article Slavs it is stated that the peoples are different both genetically and culturally. Other stuff may exist but removing genetics from articles in that manner is more of a global question and I am sure that there is no such a rule or agreement to keep genetic text out of the articles that is completely backed by peer-reviewed studies, I refer to the most recently introduced text. Considering the hard time spent on reasarch, these credible sources need to be added either at a new article about genetic studies of Bulgarians or returned here as long as no evidence is provided that any of the introduced information is not backed by the credible sources I have cited? 87.227.209.96 (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC
For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Fringe theories
The belief that Thracian was close to Phrygian is no longer popular and has mostly been discarded. See C. Brixhe - Ancient languages of Asia Minor, Cambridge University Press, 2008 - ''We will dismiss, at least temporarily, the idea of a Thraco-Phrygian unity. Thraco-Dacian (or Thracian and Daco-Mysian) seems to belong to the eastern (satem) group of Indo-European languages and its (their) phonetic system is far less conservative than that of Phrygian (see Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, §§3ff.)''. Please do not re-add this without good sources.78.83.51.52 (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, but let's not give an alternate theory too much precedence. The Baltic suggestion is contradicted by other sources. See Thracian language and Classification of Thracian, which are sourced articles. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course other theories may be added. It should just be pointed out that relation of Thracian to Phrygian, Armenian and centum languages are old ignorant theories, or fringe. Thracian does not have a single centum feature. The most plausible explanation is the Proto-Balto-Slavic theory. Of 74 Daco-Thracian placenames considered by Duridanov in his 1969 essay, a total of 62 have Baltic cognates. 78.83.51.52 (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Oghuric tribes didn't exist - this is a deception
Such people - Oghurs are not recorded by Chinese, Indian, Armenian, Iranian (and so on) historical records; where exactly they lived? North Korea, India or Siberia? When I get answer to this question I will agree that such "term" be included on the article. Thanks. --62.12.114.214 (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * At the moment at Wikipedia exists articles about Oghur (tribe) and Oghur languages. Your theory is not reliable. Do not delete sourced content without consensus, or semi-protection will be required again. Jingiby (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Your terrorism will not work this time. Turkic Wikipedia is here. Mainstream scholars as Edwin G. Pulleyblank, Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, Yury Zuev, Encyclopædia Britannica and so on, are NOT using the term Oghur. Peter Golden has polluted enough articles on English Wikipedia. Scythian tribes have historical names - and they are not Oghurs.--62.12.114.214 (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Single migration wave or multiple migration waves ???
According to David Marshall Lang it was "organized and massive immigration of Asparukh's Bulgars between 679-681" - hence we can't speak of single wave. The number 10 000 is speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.12.114.214 (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bulgarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130103000543/http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/club/historia/jugadors_de_llegenda/stoichkov.html to http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/club/historia/jugadors_de_llegenda/stoichkov.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)