Talk:Bulgarians/Archive 5

Bulgarian ethnogenetics misconception
Regarding to this edit I am transfering the discussion below from my talk page. The strange issue is as usually: Are Bulgarians Slavic people or not? Jingiby (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, i just received your message that you have reverted my yesterday's contribution citing the reason being not constructive. Excuse me but, how exactly is my correction of a factual error not constructive? The introduction text of Bulgarian wikipage states that Bulgarians are a South Slavic ethic group. This statement is factually incorrect, as i have provided more than 4 sources of evidence consisting of recent DNA studies and tests that say that Slavic genes make up a very tiny part of the DNA of present Bulgarians, and that present-day Bulgarians carry genes of predominantly Thracian and Proto-Bulgarian people, and not Slavic people. Why are you reversing my correction? Bulgarians are not South Slavic ethnic group as 4 sources clearly prove. Just because a small portion of the population carry Slavic genes, does not mean it's accurate to say Bulgarians are Slavic ethnic group, no more than it is to say English people are French, just because a small portion of the population carries French genes. Please reverse your correction of my correction. This is an extremely long persistent myth that has been perpetuated despite scientific evidence disproving it time and time again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! The fact that today Bulgarians are a South Slavic people was discussed many times and seems undisputable. There are a lot of reliable scientific sources confirming that. It is also fact that most of the South Slavs today are carriyng predominantly the DNA of the pre-Slavic Balkan populations. But that does not mean the South Slavic people today are not known for the world science as South Slavs at all. The genetic structure of these people is specific and that is mentioned in the article, but this is still debatable and its place is not in the lead. And on a third place, there are several Bulgarian studies claiming modern Bulgarians are in significant degree genetic ancestors of the Bulgars. However these studies are not confirmed by independent researchers. They contradicts to several internationsl DNA studies rejecting de facto such input in modern Bulgaria and some studies estimate that up to 40% of the genes of the Bulgarians can  be associated with the historical Balto-Slavic donor group. The Bulgar issue is extremely controversial and can not be accepted as fact, in this way to be included into the lead. More, sоme authors claim only about 2% of today Bulgarian DNA may correspond to medieval Bulgars. The same position to keep the balance is supported also at the corresponding articles on Bulgarian Wikipedia. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but what you just said makes no sense. May i ask for your credentials on this subject? How can you possibly say that Bulgarians being of South Slavic ethnicity is indisputable given that i just provided you with evidence that prove otherwise. DNA and Gene studies of several independent from each other research groups from Bulgaria and else where all conclude that the majority of present-day Bulgarians carry the DNA of Thracian and Proto-Bulgarian ancestry, and Slavic being the minority. Present-day Bulgarians are an ethnic comprised of several other ethnic groups, the two dominant ones being Thracian people and Proto-Bulgarian people. Literally all research i was able to read on this subject say the same thing, some say that Slavic genes make up as much as 30% of the DNA of present-day Bulgarians, other say it make up less than 30%, but all conclude that majority of present-day Bulgarians carry Thracian and Proto-Bulgarian genes. Thracian people and Proto-Bulgarian people are not Slavic people, these are 2 different Indo-European ethnic groups. How can you possibly deny the evidence that i gave you? In fact, i will go as far as to say that, there is no evidence that say that majority of present-day Bulgarians carry Slavic genes, i would like to see such evidence. All evidence and research show that Slavic genes are part of the mix, but they represent the minority of the DNA, and not the majority. Of course there might always be people disputing everything, but the most recent research and DNA findings clearly show that present-day Bulgarians carry predominantly Thracian and Proto-Bulgarian DNA, and less Slavic. Given the overwhelming evidence, it is absolutely factually incorrect and extremely misleading to have the Bulgarian wiki page introduce Bulgarians as Slavic, given that Slavic genes are only the minority. Like i said, this is akin to saying English people are French, or Americans are Italian just because 15% of White Americans are of Italian ancestry. It is wrong statement,and misleading. I do not understand why do you refuse to correct this obvious misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. The article Bulgarians is not dedicated on the DNA impact in modern Bulgarian people. International studies claimes Bulgar impact in today Bulgarians is negligible. There is no study confirming the exact ancient Balkanian DNA impact in today Bulgarians: Dacian, Illyrian, Thracian, Macedonian, Hellenic, Celtic, Roman etc. By the way, you did not read the article Genetic studies on Bulgarians, nor the attached references. By the way, keep in mind that blogs and private sites are not reliable sources here, and you have to stop using them as references. Please, read all carefully several times. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you show me these studies? And most importantly can you show me ANY study, even one, that claims that the majority of the DNA of present-day Bulgarians is of Slavic ancestry? Even inside the page Genetic studies on Bulgarians it says that Slavic donor group constitute only 40% of the Bulgarian DNA. I gave you 3 recent studies, that are not blogs, that say the same thing, that the Slavic genes constitute the minority of Bulgarian DNA, the majority being Thracian and Proto-Bulgarian people. If Slavic genes constitute less than 40% of the DNA, then why are Bulgarian people introduced as South Slavic ethnic group?? Can you not see how false and inaccurate this introduction is? Can you at least add to the introduction page that Bulgarian is an ethnic group made of predominantly 3 ancestral groups - Thracian, Proto-Bulgarians and Slavic? How can you possible think it's ok to introduce Bulgarians are Slavic people, given that every source say that Slavic genes make up the minority of the DNA? It is unacceptably false introduction of Bulgarian people. It is an outright lie. You cannot possible say that Bulgarians are Slavic if Slavic genes constitute less than 40%. Sorry, but this is ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a forum. Of course genetic impact in modern Bulgarians is much more complicated then your claims about only 3 donor groups. As to the sources, one of them is: Garrett Hellenthal at al. Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, ans it claims: "This ancestry stems from groups with ancestry related to Northeast Asians (e.g.,the Oroqen, Mongola, and Yakut). The Bulgarians received their Asiatic ancestry from 2,3% around the year 858, according to its admixture analysis. Fig. 3. Multiway admixture in Eastern Europe. Mixing percentages (pie graphs) and dates (white text) inferred by using the strongest admixture “direction” for six eastern European groups—Belarus (BE), Bulgaria (BU), Hungary (HU), Lithuania (LI), Poland (PO), Romania (RO), analyzed when disallowing copying from nearby groups...CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE."'' Jingiby (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, it is much complicated, because it involves multiple genetic ancestral groups, one of which is Slavic, then WHY is the introduction page for Bulgarians introduce Bulgarians are Slavic, if you just now admitted that that is not the case? Again, WHY is this the introduction? Where do you have that information from? Who and when and how claims that Bulgarians are Slavic people? That text has no sources! Where are the sources? Like i repeatedly asked you, show me even ONE source that says that Bulgarians are predominantly Slavic people? I have given you 4 research papers that examine in detail the DNA composition of modern Bulgarian, and all of them independently conclude that Slavic ancestral group constitute THE MINORITY of the DNA of present-day Bulgarian. Are you rejecting this conclusion? If yes, why? What other evidence or sources do you have? And if not, then why do you refuse to correct the page to include this information? It seems that you are holding to this perpetuated claim without even a grain of evidence to back it up! I have repeatedly said to you that there is NO source or any research paper that states that Slavic ancestral group makes up the majority of the DNA, you have not disproved this statement. Why do you insist of perpetuating a LIE? Is it not a lie to say that Bulgarians are Slavic ethnic group if THE MAJORITY OF THE ANCESTRAL ETHNIC GROUPS ARE NOT SLAVIC?? You are perpetuating a LIE, a claim that is not sources, nor backed by anything! Please remove or edit the text to at least include the correct information, which is that Slavic genes are only ONE part of the admixture of present-Bulgarians. Why do you insist of lying i can't understand. It's like saying Americans are Italians because 30% of their admixture is of Italian origin, or English people are French because one part of their admixture is of French origin. Or Japanese people are Chinese because one part of their admixture is of Chinese origin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read Etiquette and Not a forum. I suggest you because we can not reach a consensus, to bring the discussion on the talk page of the article Bulgarians per Resolving disputes. What do you mind? Jingiby (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I have read the Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing your opinion no matter how popular it may be, it is an online encyclopedia for the purpose of providing well sourced and fact-based information, and not to conform to a widely held views. The information shown in the Wiki page of 'Bulgarians' conforms to a widely held view, but it is not sourced, and not fact-based. I have provided 4, and i can provide even more valid sources that back my correction of that information. You, on the other hand have provided no valid sources or any fact-based argument as to why you continue to refuse to allow my correction. Your arguments are based on popular opinion, and not facts. Wikipedia is not a popular opinion based forum, it is encyclopedia for factual information. Corrections are made all the time when new facts emerge that render currently hold information incorrect. Bulgarians being ethnically Slavic people is a widely held opinion, but it does not conform to facts. Like i said multiple times already, if you believe this is a factually accurate statement, then i demand you provide valid evidence to source it. I am yet to see even a single source that verify this statement. All the evidence that i was able to see verify the statement that Slavic people make up only a small part of the overall admixture, the other two ancestral ethnic groups being Thracian and Proto-Bulgarians. This is fact-based information. Describing Bulgarians by a minority ancestral group is misleading. For that reason, the introduction page of 'Bulgarians' should state that Bulgarians are an ethnic group(accurate) that is predominantly comprised of 3 ancestral groups(accurate) - Thracian, Proto-Bulgarian and Slavic people(accurate). This would be a fact-based accurate description of Bulgarian people. The sentence could be phrased differently, but the meaning should remain the same. There is no valid reason to describe Bulgarians as Slavic, but not Thracian or Proto-Bulgarians. Either the 3 ancestral groups must be included, or non of them, otherwise the information becomes misleading and/or inaccurate. Other ethnic groups such as English people, French people and others are described in a similar fashion, despite English people being predominantly Germanic people, as well as several other minority ancestral groups, they are not described as such, they are described as English, and then below specified that multiple other ancestral groups compose their admixture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Bulgarians are a Slavic people, this is a scholarly view. You can add the suggestion of Britannica for the primarily triple ethnogenesis, but there are no serious grounds to change Slavic, because of disputed and controversial speculations on genetics. Each European people descend from multiple groups, so the list is countless. There speculation provided by the article of the Bulgarian Radio for why Bulgarians do not descend from Slavs is not an evidence and is disputed. According to other studies Bulgarians are genetically mostly Balto-Slavic, determing the most sizable component (45%) of Bulgarians' genetic heritage as Balto-Slavic-like, which the authors (Hellenthal et al. 2015) speculate that is a result of the Slavic expansion to the Balkans. There may be a vague idea what was the genetic makeup of the Bulgars and Thracians, but it is also a matter of dispute how strong was their impact on Bulgarians, not a matter of fact. The comparision interpretated by the article of the Bulgarian radio are statistical plots with dubious credibility, they claim that this is an evidence that Bulgarians do not carry genes of Slavs, but only of Bulgars and Thracians. While Chuvash and Tatars are not genetically more related to Bulgarians than other Slavic people. It is all a controversy, each study makes different claims. Disputed claims and speculations about genetics are better presented in the other article. They are not a matter of fact, but dispute. One of three cemeteries in Tuhovishte, from which Proto-Bulgarian mtDNA was extracted by Desislava Nesheva, is Slavic-only cemetery according to archeologists, so the impact of Bulgars on Bulgarians according to her study is also a controversy.The results of this cemetery were most similar to modern Bulgarians so she speculated that these bones belonged to Bulgars without a single archeaologist confirming it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.77.43 (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, but i am done arguing with you. You are not in charge of this page, i have been more than polite and constructive, i have politely provided multiple sources for my claims and reasons for editing the text, you have no provided non. You are the one that must source your claims, not me. You are clearly not objective and biased. You refuse to cooperate no matter how many valid arguments and verified source-based information i provide. You provide no facts, only rhetoric and narrative. You keep repeating that scholars agree that Bulgarians are Slavic, but you refuse to provide any sources for those claims. As i have repeatedly explained to you, Slavic ethnic group is ONE of the overall 3 dominant ancestral groups making up the admixture. It is the minority group, and it is not the predominant majority group. It is misleading to describe Bulgarians as Slavic, given that Bulgarians are more than Slavic, the same way English people are described as just an ethnic group, and then below specified that they are predominantly Germanic among others. It is wrong, misleading and false to describe Bulgarians are Slavic, given that Slavic genes are only a small part of the overall admixture. Either the 3 dominating ancestral groups must be provided to provide accurate picture, or non of them must be provided in the front page, and then below they should be specified. There is absolutely no valid reason to ignore all the other ancestral groups and only include Slavic, especially when Slavic are the minority, and Thracian and Proto-bulgarians are the majority. You have provided no facts, and no sources. The first source that i provided of the BNR is an interview of a biological researchers who is simply explaining her findings of the DNA testing, it is not an opinion, it is a valid research finding. The other two sources are in-depth DNA research and examination of the Bulgarian DNA admixture, those are valid findings and valid facts. The fourth source is again providing in very detail the overall admixture of Bulgarians, once again all 4 sources state the same thing, that Slavic people are only one part - minority part of the overall admixture, and they are not the dominant one, they are a minority part, the dominant being Thracian and proto-Bulgarian. For that reason, it is misleading and false to describe Bulgarians only as Slavic people, given that that is not the case. Unless you provide valid fact-based source for your claim that Bulgarians are Slavic people, or provide a valid reason as to why Bulgarians must be described as only Slavic, and not Thracian and Proto-Bulgarians, i have edited the page to remove this false and misleading information, and i will continue to do so. You are now obliged to provide source to defend your claims.

Your view is that anyone who claims that Bulgarians are Slavic is true, but anyone who claims other is speculating without any evidence. Your view is clearly biased. Like i told you, the BNR was an interview of a researcher who presented FACTS, and not speculations. Just because something is controversial does not make it incorrect. The other 2 research papers examine in very in-depth detail the genome admixture, and then the fourth source does the same. Those are facts, and not speculations. I have given you facts, you have given me popular opinion and narrative. Precisely because the DNA admixture of Bulgarians is so diverse, it would be false and misleading to describe them as just one of the multiple predominant ancestral groups. Either the 3 predominant ancestral groups must be included, or non of them at all, and then it should be specified below, just like it's being done for English people, French people, Spanish, and many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP:87.116.77.43 above. More SLAVIC CHRONICLES and Bulgarian National Radio are not reliable sources in genetics. Also genetics can not change political, cultural, linguistic and historical views on the Slavic people as an ethno-linguistic comunity. Jingiby (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no place for controversial DNA researches in the introductory text. If you get 10 DNA researches about Bulgarians, you will see 10 different results. Your sources cover just one research of the Y-chromosome variation in 808 Bulgarian males. The present-day Bulgarians are part of the South Slavic ethnolinguistic group. --StanProg (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the entire origin discussion is irrelevant. "South Slavic ethnic group" means just a group speaking one of the South Slavic languages, nothing more - I don't think anyone is questioning the South Slavic classification of Bulgarian language. --Nk (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The main characteristic of an "ethnic group" is the language - Bulgarian indisputably belongs to the Southern Branch of the Slavic languages. Genome, DNA and so on simply have no place here - it's in the mouth (and to a certain extent in the mind) and not in the blood. :) --Алиса Селезньова (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, since when something being controversial qualify as a valid argument? We are talking about FACTS, i don't care if its controversial or not, once again, you defend popular view rather than facts. Second of all, why am i the only one here defending facts? Wikipedia is not a popular opinion based forum, it is encyclopedia for the purpose of showing FACTS. Bulgarians being a mixed race is not controversial, it is common sense. Everyone in Bulgaria knows that Bulgarians descend from Slavic people, Thracian people and Proto-Bulgarian people, this is taught in high-school, why is it not reflected on Wikipedia then?

Your arguments are weak and contradicting. I am still struggling to understand what is it that you are arguing for? On one hand, you acknowledge my claims, that Slavic people make up only ONE part of the Bulgarian DNA admixture, it is in even stated in the same page below that Thracian and Proto-Bulgarian make up the predominant ancestral group, on the other hand, you want Bulgarians to be introduced as Slavic people only. Why? For what reason? Bulgarians are mixed of Thracians, Slavic and Proto-Bulgarians, why are they only introduced as Slavic then? This is misleading. It gives the impression that Bulgarians are only Slavic, despite Slavic being the minority ancestral group. The first Bulgarian state was created by the Proto-Bulgarians, they settled on the Thracian land, the 3 big ancestral groups that create present-day Bulgarians are Slavic, Thracian and Proto-Bulgarians. What is it that you are arguing for? That Bulgarians are not partly Thracian and Proto-Bulgarians? Are you saying Bulgarians are only Slavic, and nothing else? Clearly that is against all facts. There is no valid reason Bulgarian should be described as Slavic only, you admitted yourself as Bulgarians are mixed of multiple ethnic groups. It is misleading therefore to describe them as only one of those ethnic groups. It is more accurate to describe them as an ethnic group, and then specify which predominant ethnic group make up the admixture, same is done for almost all other nationalities.

That's not true. The Bulgarian wiki page introduces Bulgarians as South Slavic ethnic group, and not Slavic-speaking ethnic group. There is a big difference between ethnicity and language family. Many African countries are French speakers, but not ethnically French.

The main characteristic of an ethnic group is not the language alone, it is the DNA of the ethnic group.

Bottom line is this, It is indisputable fact present-day Bulgarians are mixed of predominantly Slavic, Thracian and Proto-Bulgarian people among others. What percentage each ancestral group has is not something i am arguing for here. For that reason, my dispute here is that, it is misleading for Bulgarians to be described as Slavic ethnic group, when there are two other predominant groups missed. It is false description ,and there is no valid reason, you have not provided me with a valid reason for ignoring the other 2 groups, and only describing one of them. This description gives the impression that Bulgarians are not Thracian and Proto-Bulgarians, but only Slavic, which is clearly false, as you admitted yourself. My demand is that either all 3 groups must be added, or non of them at all, and then below that text, there should be a more detailed explanation among the multiple ancestral groups that make up the admixture. Same thing is done with English people, French people, Spanish, Italian, Greeks and so on. It is simply wrong and a lie to say Bulgarians are Slavic, when that is only half true, this is akin to say English people are Celtic, without also saying that they are also Germanic and French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 21:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, i am sure everyone will be happy with the way i phrased the introduction page. It please everyone, and i hope we can all agree and reach a final and irreversible consensus on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 16:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus above among the editors not to change the lead. You are the only one who insist on that. Do not make it without a valid reason. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you seem to be the only one who keep reversing my edits without providing any reason for it, and without addressing my arguments. I have addressed the arguments of the people above, nobody has responded yet, so i thought people have agreed with me. If you have any more arguments or questions, ask them now, stop reversing my changes without valid reason. I have provided very detailed and valid reasons for my changes. You have not done the same. If you think my arguments are wrong, or my edit is wrong, you have to provide a reason for it. Please state your arguments for reversing my changes here, or else i will edit them again. For several days now, i have been completely open for cooperation and compromise. My latest edit shows that. You are the only one who have not cooperated with me, nor even provided any valid argumentation or reasoning for opposing my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to remove the South Slavic category from the lead. Stevan22 (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys, it has been couple of days since i stated my arguments in defense of my latest changes, since nobody has raised any objections, i take your silence as an agreement to the changes. I have re-stated my changes again. Just a kindly reminder, if anybody has any objections against the changes, please do not reverse them, instead state your arguments here, and let's discuss them until we reach a consensus. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You just keep repeating yourself. I can't see even a single editor who supports your changes. From what I see there's consensus on keeping the original state of the introductory text. --StanProg (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Stevan22, Hello. Please state your objections here, and let's discuss our disagreements until we reach a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The linguistic category at the lead is stated and various backgrounds are mentioned as part of the ethnogenesis. I removed one chronologically incorrect sentence on the lead, which was lacking a source, I suggest you re-write it. As for the Slavic definion I suggest some authors say modern Bulgarian are a South Slavic people, speak and descend from Slavic, although to what degree is disputed of course. The degree of ancestry is controversial for Bulgarians as much as for all Slavic-speaking ethnic groups. The changes are about an entire chain. Do you think that these are linguistic categories and should remain on all ethnic groups except here? Then I'd disagree. There is no any Slavic ethnic group descending only from Slavs and they comprise all kinds if backgrounds. If you think that there is a good reason to change globally the concept I suggest you propose at Talk:Slavs and check for more answers there. The simpliest would be to ask all leads to mention only that that a particular people speak a Slavic language instead. East Slavs may be said to descend from Iranians, Variangians, Goths, Finns and Balts. West Slavs are sometimes said to be descended from Sarmatians, Celts and Germans. Likewise South Slavs are said to descend from the Paleo-Balkanians, Romans and all the rest. Of course it is clear that any of these admixtures happened, so by this sense all East European articles should have their ethnolinguistic category removed. Maybe Yanchev's proposal is mentioning this "Slavic" at the lead when they are the main ancestor, which is actually unclear at all and is diputed even in genetics. However other authors claim that the Slavs were the main ancestor. I think we don't have an evidence, but a controversy on who is the main ancestor. And will probably never find out.

Why removing "Slavic" and just leaving an "ethnic group"? Bulgarians are not just an ethnic group, they go along with a well studied and classified language. Are there any sources saying Bulgarains are an Iranic people? I think for Croats there are, but it is listed as a theory in Origin hypotheses of the Croats, so you may create such an article and explain it there. The Germanic and Celtic classification of bilingual Irish and English people was removed probably because some authors classifiy them as Celtic and Germanic, but they have a good reason as Celtic and Germanic are spoken today in the British Isles. I haven't seen any sources regarding Bulgarians as Thracian people, Thraco-Slavic, alghough historiography doubts whether there were more Thracians than Romans in Bulgaria in 681. The region was under Roman culture so maybe some Romanian authors may define Bulgarians as Romano-Slavic? The Thracian majority is a hypothesis, different than the clear Celtic background of English and Irish as Thracian languages are long extinct and most Thracians may have already become Romans, when Bulgarians formed. Even though the hypothetic Thracians are already mentioned as a primary ancestor of Bulgarians at the article. Not even Albanians are indisputably an Illyrian people. There are countless theories to list them all. Thracians may have been extinct before the Bulgarians formed, then I'd say why aren't added on the list all earlier ancestors back to primates, all human entities and Bronze Age cultures? I suggest Yanchev remove the Slavic category from all articles or don't remove it here. I don't think Yugoslavs should be defined as Slavic, but Bulgarians not. Croats' name is Iranic and they absorbed bunches of pre-Slavic Dinaric populations. Stevan22 (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@StanProg I keep repeating myself because nobody has addressed my arguments. You keep repeating yourself that there is no consensus, but everyone is free to express their disagreements to my changes. I have clearly explained my reasoning behind the changes, nobody has addressed them or disagreed with me. If you do not agree with my changes, state your objections here, otherwise your silence will be taken as a consent. Same goes for everybody else. The rules state we have to reach a consensus by discussion and exchange of arguments, state your arguments and your reasoning here, you cannot ignore me and then reverse my changes. You have to discuss until we reach consensus. What is it that you disagree with, and for what reason. Once again i kindly repeat, your silence will be taken as a consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 19:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Stevan22 Hi. You are misunderstanding my point.

First of all, the introduction page states that Bulgarians are a South Slavic ethnic group, which is not the same as a Slavic speaking country. There is a difference between ethnic group and linguistic family group.

Second to your point, i am not arguing for where do Slavic people originate from. I am arguing that Slavic people are not the only ancestral group that make modern day Bulgarians. This is even written in the same page below. The introduction text states that Bulgarians are a South Slavic ethnic group, my argument is that, this is not true, because Bulgarians mixed of multiple ethnic ancestral groups, Slavic being just one of them, for that reason, there is no valid reason to ignore and exclude all the other ancestral groups that make up the present-day Bulgarians, and only describe them as one of the multiple ancestral groups, namely Slavic. Doing that is misleading and inaccurate, do you not agree with this?

Third to your point, again, i am not arguing about what percentage of the DNA of modern Bulgarians is Thracian, Slavic, Celt or Proto-Bulgarian. I am not arguing about percentage, what i am saying is that, regardless of percentage, it is fact that multiple ethnic groups make up the admixture of Bulgarians, and not just one, therefore, why is only one named at the beginning? Naming only one would mean that Bulgarians today descent only from Slavic people, and nobody else, which is clearly not the case. If we ignore the debate about what percentage of Bulgarian people's DNA is Slavic, Thracian or Proto-Bulgarian, my argument is that, it is indisputable fact that present-day Bulgarians are mixed of several ancestral groups, and not just one, for that reason, i want either those ancestral groups to be included in the description of who the Bulgarian people are, or non of them to be included in the leading text, instead specified below.

Currently, the stating text says that Bulgarians are South Slavic ethnic group, and then below, it says that Bulgarians are also mixed of many other ancestral ethnic groups, mainly Thracians and Bulgars. This clearly contradicts the leading text, and it confirms the validity of the changes i want to make, because if it says below that Thracians and Bulgars and other ethnic groups make up the admixture of Bulgarians, then why are Bulgarians only introduced as ethnically Slavic above, since that is clearly not the case. This is my point.

The reason why i want to remove Slavic, and only say that Bulgarians are an ethnic group is like i already explained above, because Bulgarians are an ethnic group composed of multiple ancestral groups, including Slavic people, Thracian people, Bulgars, Celts and many others. English people are mixed of ethnically Germanic people and Celts, yet they are introduced as just an ethnic group, and then below specified that their ancestry is diverse. It would be incorrect to say that English people are ethnically Germanic, given that they are also ethnically Celtic, despite speaking Germanic language. This is my point, nobody is disputing that Bulgarians are mixed of multiple ethnic groups, nobody is saying that Bulgarian ancestry is only Slavic people, and nobody else, then why are Bulgarians then introduced as only Slavic? It is misleading.

Once again, Slavic speaking people is not the same as Ethnically Slavic people. Bulgarians are ethnically Slavic, as well as ethnically Thracian, and ethnically Bulgars, and ethnically many other ancestral groups. I want all of them to be stated on the lead, or non of them, because if only one of them is stated, that would be misleading, don't you agree?

I don't know if you had a change to see my last change, if you didn't, i will say it again here: ''Historically Bulgarian people's heritage is diverse, including South Slavs, Thracians, Proto-Bulgarians, Celts, Goths, Romans, Ancient Greeks, Sarmatians, Paeonians and Illyrians. Just under 85% of Bulgaria's population identified themselves as Bulgarian in 2011 Bulgarian census.

There it was. I just took the same information that was already included below the page, and then moved it up to the leading text, so it can provide a more accurate description of Bulgarians. French people are described in a similar fashion. I don't see only Bulgarians have to be described as only one of their ancestral groups - Slavic, while ignoring all the others, and then briefly mentioning them below as if they are not important, that misleads people into thinking Bulgarians are only ethnically Slavic, and not a mixed of multiple ethnic groups.

Another suggestion i have, if you insist on mentioning that Bulgarians are ethnoslavic speakers, is this: Bulgarians are an Slavic-Speaking ethnic group native to Bulgaria, and then below we could copy the same text i stated above, where all the ethnic ancestral groups that compose the modern day Bulgarians are stated and explained. How do you feel about this change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The intro is just a sentence now, there is potential for constructive expansion with an acceptable addition.

Please excuse, but you incorrectly claim that the sentence you added states all the ancestral groups that compose modern Bulgarians and unfortunately it is not possible to know that. So maybe somebody try proposing something else. The proposed sentence described some ancient tribes, whose part in the ethnogenesis and their existence during the Middle Ages is questionable. Late medieval people such as Vlachs, Crusaders, Pechenegs, Cumans, Armenians, who were part of Bulgarian aristocracy and are confirmed as part of the Bulgarian ethnogenesis, were excluded. Modern interbreeding with Saxon ore miners or Romani is also large. According to unofficial estimates Romani number 400,000, but with those intermixed with Bulgarians and Turks they are one million. By that logic I can think that the part of Romani in Bulgarian or Romanian ethnogenesis is more significant than some of the ancient tribes you mentioned.

For the another your suggestion I think you would be completely correct for describing any ethnic group as simply Slavic-speaking, but your claim has the same reason to be applied at all articles of European ethnic groups. I don't agree changing this label South Slavic here if it is not changed to Slavic-speaking at all articles about ethnic groups. Why only Bulgarians Slavic-speaking and all the rest- Slavic? Don't you agree that first this description should be changed for all ethnic groups to East-, West- and South Slavic-speaking and following this the lead of Bulgarians should be changed? Nobody is arguing that the ancestors of a particular group are not different and no intelligent reader is mislead to think that such an ethnic group exists. Your logic maybe can propose changing the linguistic concepts of the introducing sentence of all European ethnic groups. You may try to find support and ask for this change at multiple articles through a project. It is less misleading now, when all Slavic peoples are categorized through just a language and changing only Bulgarians among them would be even more misleading from a global point of view. Stevan22 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

To your first point, i have no problem with that, all ancestral groups that are known to make up the admixture of modern Bulgarians should be included, if we are not 100% sure or if we have doubts about particular group, it's not a problem even if it's not included right away. The important thing is to include all the known ancestral groups, which are listed above.

To your second point, i don't know enough about other Slavic-speaking countries, and their ancestral admixture. Maybe some Slavic-speaking countries are composed of only Slavic people, i can't know that. The people of that country are responsible for how they describe themselves, their ethnogenetic admixture is not of our concern. Just because the people of one Slavic speaking country descent from only Slavic people, does not mean the same is true for others, Bulgaria is arguably one of the oldest nations in Europe, and many ethnic groups have lived on that territory, it is natural that the ancestral and ethnic admixture would be more diverse in Bulgarians than others. Let's take Germanic people for example. Germanic people and Germanic-speaking people are well classified on Wikipedia, but if you look at the French people's page, English people's page, and any Scandinavian people's page, they are all described as ethnic group and not Germanic Ethnic Group, despite being Germanic. French people are described the following way:

Historically the French people's heritage is diverse, including populations of Gauls, Ligures, Latins, Franks, Iberians, Alamans and Norsemen.

As you see, even thought Gauls are Germanic ethnic group, they are not described as such, and even though French people are Germanic speaking Germanic ethnic group, they are not only Germanic, the Latins, Iberians, Alamans and Norsemen and probably others are also part of their ancestral admixture. That's why if they were described as just Germanic ethnic group, it would have been misleading, and gave the impression that they are only Germanic, and nothing else, which would be false. I am making the same argument for Bulgarians. Bulgarians are Slavic, but they are not only Slavic, and describing them as just Slavic would give the impression that they descent from only one ancestral group - Slavs, and nobody else, which is clearly not true, as many other ancestral ethnic groups make up the admixture of Bulgarians.

That's why I want the leading introduction page to be modeled to the French, English, Swedish, Danes, Dutch etc. and many other people, that are descended from multiple ethnic groups, and not just one. Whether that is true for other Slavic speaking nations, i don't know, and is not of my concern, i know it is true for Bulgarians. Just like Austrians are descended from only Germanic people, and that's why they are described as Germanic ethnic group, while French people, who too are Germanic people, but descended from multiple other ancestral groups are described as ethnic group and then specified all the ancestral groups that make up their admixture.

Once again, you are confusing language with ethnicity. Bulgarians being Slavic speaking people does not mean they they are ethnically only Slavic, while that may be true for some, it is not true for Bulgarians. Just like the case with Austrians and French.

So, are you more in favor of just ethnic group and then next to it to have all the ancestral groups listed, or Slavic speaking Ethnic Group, and then again next to it all the ancestral groups, or all known ancestral groups stated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought that you are aware and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that there is no a single people descending only from Slavs or Germanics. Your statement that Austrians descend only from Germanics is incorrect, they descend also from Celts, Romans, Slavs and all those that they absorbed. Neither French speak Germanic as you incorrectly said. Swedes article say they are Germanic, but English's article doesn't, altghough they still have Celtic speakers as Cornish language was widespread during the 20th century. You can't simply ignore other Slavic ethnic groups articles, because the issues are connected and your proposal implies that this article should be differentiated from all the rest articles about peoples from the Slavic ethnolinguistic group. There is actually no a single ethnic group, of whom the main ancestor are certainly Slavs. Various ethnic groups are part of the ethnogenesis of any Slavic people, not only of South Slavs or Bulgarians. I thought you are aware. So my advice is to move your proposal to change the formulation of the introducing sentence to Talk:Slavs for all ethnic groups, because it would be incosnsistent to differienate only Bulgarians from all Slavic peoples without any of them being certainly more Slavic than Bulgarians. You can propose there both of your suggestions for just "an ethnic group", who speak a Slavic language or "Slavic speaking". I see the ethnolinguistic concept is removed at each article about Romance/Italic peoples, but is present at each article about Slavic peoples, so you can question there why this inconsistency is present. I diasagree with your objectivity, assuming a change of the first sentence only of this article, but being OK with any other articles describing an ethnic group as a Slavic one. It is not consistent.

Slavic cultures began in the Iron Age of what is today the habitat of West Slavs and Czechs. Anyway at the same area aroused the Proto-Celts which the West Slavs absorbed, see La Tene Culture. East Germanic tribes as Goths and Vandals settled through all the West Slavic habitation area and were absorbed by Belarusians and West Slavs. Dniepr Balts were assimilated and are part of the ethnogenesis of most North Slavs- Belarusians, Poles, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Russians. During the 5-6 century AD, when the Slavs came to the Balkans, Belarus was still populated by more Baltic cultures and speakers than Slavic.. These people called themselves Balt, which word means "white" in Lithuanian and Latvian. Belarusians means in Russian/Belarusian "White Russians" and the ethnonym of Belarusians actually means "Balto-Rus people". In Lithuanian/Latvian Belarusians are called "Baltarusiai/Baltkrievi". The second part of their ethnonym came with Kievan Rus', we all know Rus' people were Germanic and centered in Kiev, so all Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians claim descent from them. Slavic cultures arrived in what is Ukraine only recently with the Antes, which was before in 500 BC split between Baltic, Finno-Ugric and Iranic cultures, but it is the Steppe from where all the Great Migration of Peoples passed through, including the Bulgars. Sarmatians were absorbed by the Proto-Slavic population, see it stated on the intro of its article. Finns were absorbed by all East Slavs, Poles and even Czechs and Slovaks. South Slavs are heirs of all these above that the North Slavs absorbed plus other migrations.

We are thought that they are 100%, but I think that the Bulgars, Slavs and Thracians altogether are less than 50% or not a majority of the medieval ancestors of the Bulgarians, but you can propose expanding the intro by mentioning them. I don't think that Slavs are the majority of the ancient/Iron Age ancestors of any West or East Slavic ethnic group. So I don't think that "South Slavic ethnic group" of the first sentence of Bulgarians should be changed until there are any ethnic groups' articles, whose first sentence describes them as a South Slavic, an East Slavic or an West Slavic ethnic group. Stevan22 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

You raised two points, one contradicts itself, the other one i am still trying to understand.

As far as i can see, we are in total agreement that Bulgarians do not descent only from Slavic people, and that there are multiple other ancestral groups, mainly Thracians and Bulgars, that make up the admixture of present-day Bulgarians. So, at least i got you to agree on this main point.

The contradiction that i see is that, despite the fact that you clearly agree that Bulgarians are not only Slavic, you object to removing the word Slavic from the introduction text because other Slavic-speaking countries have not removed it too. I fail to understand this argument. First of all, the link of Slavs that you gave me above is a page of Slavic speaking nations and not Slavic Ethnicity, like i said to you several times already, ethnicity and language family are two different things. Many African countries speak French, that does not make them ethnically French or Germanic. Technically Bulgarians could make Chinese their official language, that's not going to change their ethnic admixture, and make them Chinese.

Your main objection appears to be that being Slavic is Ethnolinguistic group, and therefore all Slavic speakers must be described as Slavic. That is a non-sequitur argument, and is not rational, and it contradicts your own acknowledgement that Bulgarians are not only Slavic, but mixed of multiple ancestral groups, one of which is the Slavic people, from which the language comes from, but that does not in anyway exclude the other ancestral groups from the admixture, and this is the main point. This article is about the Bulgarian people, and their origins/ethnicity. It is not about the Bulgarian language. Ethnicity is defined as a social group that has cultural and national tradition. Clearly we agree that Bulgarian culture and national traditions are not limited to Slavic culture and national tradition, but rather a diverse heritage of multiple ancestral groups, mainly Slavic, Thracian and Bulgars. Since Bulgarians have diverse cultural and national tradition, therefore that makes Bulgarians a social group on its own, hence an ethnicity.

I don't understand how other Slavic speaking nations and their ethnic admixture is related to the ethnic admixture of Bulgarians, and why do they have to conform to each other. How can they conform to each other if they are not the same?

Slavic-speaking nations are not monocultural or monoracial entity. Polish people have their own ethnic admixture, i don't see what does that have to do the ethnic ancestral groups of Bulgarians, and how Bulgarians are being described? How Polish people or Ukrainian people choose to describe themselves, and whether or not the way they are describing themselves is accurate or not is not something i am concerned, and not something related to Bulgarians, and how they should describe themselves.

I gave you example with Germanic people. English people are Germanic among others too, but that doesn't stop them from describing themselves as just ethnic group, which is what they are. They are an ethnic group made up of multiple ancestral groups. French people are described the same way. Danish people are described the same way. Spanish, Italians and almost everyone else, except Bulgarians and other Slavic-speaking countries, are described as an Ethnic Group, irregardless of their linguistic family group. I can't agree that Bulgarians must be described as Slavic Ethnic Group just because others are too. That is not a valid argument in my opinion. Other nations have the right to describe themselves the way they see appropriate. There is no reason all Slavic speaking nations have to be synchronized or related in their description. Slavic Ethnic Group is a Social group that has Slavic culture and Slavic traditions, while it may be true that some Slavic speaking people have only Slavic culture and Slavic traditions, that is not true for Bulgarians as we already established, and it would be incorrect to say that it is.

There is no reason for me to want to remove Bulgarians from Slavs page, because that page is showing the Slavic speaking countries. Germanic speaking countries also cover England and many other countries that are not currently described as Germanic.

What we are discussing here is how to factually and accurately describe the Bulgarian people as a social group with unique culture and national traditions. We are not discussing Polish people or Ukrainian people.

@Stevan22 Hello, it has been 2 days since your last reply to me. Should i consider your absence as a consent to my proposed changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Absence usually means the opposite of consent. If you add something instead of changing the first sentence it would be less controversial and more accetable. You insisted that the first sentence must be according to ethnogenesi but you did not provide any evidence for your bizzare claims that any European ethnic group's ethnogenesis come only from a single tribal group, yet you have no problem on imposing that only at this article and leaving all the rest behind, only because of a choice. Why the Bulgarians should be the exception from all Slavic peoples you did not explain. The first sentence doesn't mean Bulgarians descend only from Slavs or that they speak such a language, it may simply mean that only one side of their ancestral heritage is Slavic and that their primary ethnocultural community is the Slavic cultural community. It is already clear that "East/West/South Slavic" ethnolinguistic concept throughout the first sentences of Wikipedia articles describes only one part of the heritage of all modern ethnic groups. The first sentence here is clear that only one side of the ancestral heritage is Slavic as the mixed ethnogenesis is already stated at the relevant section. It is exhausting to repeat multiple times the only argument you presented about mixed ethnogenesis is inconsistent and that all Europeans' ethnogenesis is mixed, by your argument either all articles should be changed or none. You may mention on the lead after the first sentence that Bulgarians are not only Slavic culturally and that they descend from other groups. The first sentence is not about ethnogenesis, but the second section and the lead is. African Americans may not descend of English so it is already different. You were already given a good advice to move your suggestion to another page and seek a compromise, which I think matches with the reasonable list of arguments presented here. For your continuing insisting to change the first sentence you are rejected here for now as your only argument about mixed ethnogenesis applies to all modern Slavic peoples, so they currently don't take this into account for their first sentence. No ethnic group descend only from Slavs or only from Germanic people and I don't have to convince anyone about this fact. You have to move your argument and suggestion for removing the Slavic label at the rest of the articles altogether as your only argument so far about mixed ethnogenesis applies with the same merit to all Slavic ethnic groups. It is not about how Bulgarian, Polish or Ukrainian choose to describe themselves, but as you are concerned about existence of any "clear" ethnogenesis it would be about what their real ethnogenesis is. It is very simple and not complicated, but not all Wikipedia articles are consistent to follow ethnogenesis for the ethnolinguistic concept. It doesn't concern only Bulgarians. You didn't understand this and began justifying with the same arguments some bizzare choice only for this article? Wihtout stating any convincing reason how and why Bulgarians should be the only exception from Slavic peoples? Stevan22 (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Again, you are making the same contradicting and invalid argument. On one hand you agree with the meaning of the proposed changes, on the other hand you oppose adding the changes on the ground that others haven't done it too. That argument simply does not hold ground, because i am not discussing or proposing to change the Slavs page, my changes are concerned with Bulgarians, and the accuracy in which they are being described as a social group with unique culture and national traditions.

You said: If you add something instead of changing the first sentence it would be less controversial and more accetable.

The description of Bulgarians as a Slavic ethnic group is simply misleading and inaccurate, for that reason, i want to remove it, and provide an accurate description of Bulgarian people as a social group. There is nothing controversial about facts, and the state of being controversial is not a valid argument on itself. Wikipedia is not a forum for popular opinion, it is an encyclopedia for factual information, not poplar or widely accepted non-controversial information.

You said: You insisted that the first sentence must be according to ethnogenesi but you did not provide any evidence for your bizzare claims that any European ethnic group's ethnogenesis come only from a single tribal group, yet you have no problem on imposing that only at this article and leaving all the rest behind, only because of a choice.

First of all, the purpose of the Bulgarians page is to provide an ethnogenesis description of the Bulgarian people. Second of all, describing Bulgarians as an ethnic group is not an ethnogenesis description, it is a prerequisite for the ethnogenesis explanation, and that is the reason why i want to keep only Ethnic Group and avoid a half-descriptive ethnogensis explanation at the leading text. Third of all, the current text itself is an ethnogensis description of Bulgarians. Describing Bulgarians as a Slavic Ethnic Group is an half ethnogensis description of Bulgarians, and because it's half, it's not accurate, and it creates misleading impression right from the start. Also, the current description is not sourced. The evidence for Bulgarians being an ethnic group is provided at the second sentence, that outlines the multiple ancestral groups that make up the cultural and national traditions of present-day Bulgarians.

I never made the claim that any European ethnic group's ethnogensis come only from a single tribal group. The argument i am making is the exact opposite, it is precisely because many European ethnic group's ethnogensis comes from multiple tribal groups, that they are described as an ethnic group and not merely one of those multiple tribal groups, for that reason, Bulgarians should not be the exception, and they should be described in the same fashion.

I never said i have no problem with the way others are being described, but the proposes i am raising here are concerned with Bulgarians, and therefore this discussion must be limited to Bulgarians. Describing Bulgarian people in a factually accurate manner does not mean that the way other Ethnic groups are being described becomes not factual, and vise versa.

You said: Why the Bulgarians should be the exception from all Slavic peoples you did not explain.

Because Bulgarian people are NOT only Slavic people, they are a mixture of multiple ancestral groups. Bulgarian culture is not Slavic culture, it is a mixture of the culture of multiple ancestral groups. Bulgarian culture is not the same as Polish culture. Bulgarian national traditions are not only Slavic traditions, they are a mixture of the traditions of multiple ancestral groups.

Much like English culture is not Germanic culture, it is a mixture of Germanic culture and Celtic culture. Swedish culture is not only Germanic culture, it is a mixture of Germanic and other ancestral groups. French culture is not only Germanic culture, it is a mixture of multiple ancestral groups. For that reason, these people are not described as merely Germanic, but an ethnic group with a diverse cultural heritage. Bulgarians too, have a diverse cultural and traditional heritage, yet unlike most other ethnic groups of Europe, they are described as merely Slavic, which completely ignores the existence of all the other ancestral groups, and their impact on Bulgarian culture and national traditions. It gives the impression that Bulgarian people are a Slavic monocultural entity, rather than a social group with a diverse cultural heritage.

Again, this discussion and the changes i am proposing concern only Bulgarians and not an entire Indo-European group or other ethnic groups whom Bulgarian share a similar language or ancestry. I cannot force Polish people to edit their article just so it conforms to ours, even if i think the way Polish people are being described is not accurate, their accurate description of their ethnic group cannot be a requirement or a condition for the accurate description of Bulgarians, anymore so the accurate description of French people cannot be a condition for the accurate description of Swedish people, despite both ethnic groups sharing the same ancestry.

You said: The first sentence doesn't mean Bulgarians descend only from Slavs or that they speak such a language, it may simply mean that only one side of their ancestral heritage is Slavic and that their primary ethnocultural community is the Slavic cultural community.

That is exactly what it means, and that is exactly the impression it gives. Describing Bulgarians as Slavic ethnic group means just that, that Bulgarians are an ethnic group of only Slavic ancestry, who share only Slavic culture and Slavic traditions. That is the impression that it gives, and that is why Germanic-speaking people are not described as only Germanic ethnic group, but as an ethnic group, in order to provide the prerequisite for the following explanation about their ancestry and cultural heritage.

Without saying that Slavic people are only one part of their ancestral heritage, there is no way the reader would understand it, and furthermore, if Slavic people are just one of their ancestral heritage, then why must they be described as Slavic? It is illogical.

There is no such thing Slavic cultural community, anymore there is a Germanic cultural community. Furthermore, Bulgarians do not have a single ethnocultural community, also, whether one cultural or traditional heritage is more predominant than another is on itself as subject of debate, and is not reason to describe the entire ethnic group by that one ancestry, if it was, then Bulgarians should be described as Proto-Bulgarians, as many sources say the Bulgars are the predominant genetic group that make up the DNA.

Like i said about, Bulgarians have a diverse cultural and traditional heritage derived from not just one, but multiple ancestral groups, describing Bulgarians as only one of them is factually inaccurate statement, and it gives the wrong impression that the Bulgarian culture is only Slavic culture, rather than a mixed culture of multiple ancestral groups. That is why English people are not described as Germanic ethnic group, even if Germanic culture and traditions are predominant. It is simply not a matter of predominance, it is a matter of a mixture of cultures that create another culture unique to a social group with a diverse ancestral heritage.

You said: It is already clear that "East/West/South Slavic" ethnolinguistic concept throughout the first sentences of Wikipedia articles describes only one part of the heritage of all modern ethnic groups.

No, it is not clear. You are assuming the reader would have already familiarized themselves with the multiple ancestral groups that make up the present-day Bulgarian people as a social group. The purpose of the Bulgarians page is to provide a factually accurate and objective description of the Bulgarian people as a social group with unique for them cultural and national traditions derived by the mixture of multiple ancestral groups. It is important for the reader to understand that present day Bulgarians do not belong to a single monocultural ancestral group, but rather have a diverse cultural and ethnic heritage. That's why it's extremely important to remove Slavic from the leading text, and instead provide a more full and accurate description right below the first sentence, that tells the reader that Slavic people are only one of the multiple ethnic groups making up present day Bulgarians, and not the only one.

You said: The first sentence here is clear that only one side of the ancestral heritage is Slavic as the mixed ethnogenesis is already stated at the relevant section.

It's not clear at all, and that's why most foreign readers get the wrong impression by reading the first sentence. How can it possibly be clear when the very first sentence that describe who Bulgarian people are as a social group states that Bulgarians as Slavic ethnic group? It is completely illogical to describe a multiancestral and multicultural ethnic group by just one of it's ancestral groups.

The most relevant information is the first text, and how it describes Bulgarian people.

You said: It is exhausting to repeat multiple times the only argument you presented about mixed ethnogenesis is inconsistent and that all Europeans' ethnogenesis is mixed, by your argument either all articles should be changed or none.

I think we may have a language barrier here, you keep mischaracterizing my arguments. First of all, which of my arguments is being inconsistent? And second of all, most other European ethnogensis being mixed IS exactly my argument, it is exactly that they are MIXED, that it is illogical to describe an ethnic group by just one of their ancestral groups. French, English, Spanish, Italians, Danish, Greeks, Norwegians, Dutch etc. are all ethnic group with a diverse ancestral heritage, they share Germanic heritage, just like Bulgarians share Slavic heritage, but they are not described as only Germanic, while Bulgarians are being described as only Slavic. This is inconsistent, misleading and wrong. You said: ''You may mention on the lead after the first sentence that Bulgarians are not only Slavic culturally and that they descend from other groups. The first sentence is not about ethnogenesis, but the second section and the lead is.''

Why does such an important information have to be mentioned in the second sentence, and not the leading text? If Bulgarians are not only Slavic, then why on earth would the leading text state that they are?

If the first sentence is not about ethnogenesis, then why is the current first sentence describing partly the ethnogensis of Bulgarians? Describing Bulgarians as Slavic ethnic group is an ethnogensis description. If you don't want the first sentence to be about the ethnogensis composition of Bulgarians, then we should remove Slavic, and leave only Ethnic group.

You said: African Americans may not descend of English so it is already different.

African Americans do not descent from English people, that's why Americans are not described as English ethnic group.

You said: You were already given a good advice to move your suggestion to another page and seek a compromise, which I think matches with the reasonable list of arguments presented here.

What compromise? What page? My proposed changes do not concern any other page, they concern the factual description of Bulgarians. All the arguments i am presenting concern Bulgarians and the leading text in Bulgarians page.

You said: For your continuing insisting to change the first sentence you are rejected here for now as your only argument about mixed ethnogenesis applies to all modern Slavic peoples, so they currently don't take this into account for their first sentence.

I am sorry but you are not in position to reject me or my changes. Nobody is in charge of this page, and Wikipedia rules clearly state that if somebody has any objections to a proposed new change, they are obligated to discuss the disagreements until a consensus is reached. Reversing a proposed change without discussing it constitutes a disruption behavior and a violation of Wikipedia rules. If you have no new objections, or feel unwilling to continue discussing the proposed changes and/or our disagreements, then you have no right to reverse them. Rules state compromise between us must be reached, i have already proposed two compromise changes to my original proposal, you have not proposed to compromise.

My proposed changes do NOT apply to all Slavic-speaking countries. My proposed changes are related to the ethno-admixture and cultural heritage of present-day Bulgarian people, and the accurate description thereof in the Bulgarians page. Non of my arguments are related to the ethno-admixture, ancestral groups or cultural heritage of any other European ethnic group. Furthermore, the inaccurate description of one ethnic group cannot be a condition for the accurate description of another. There is no they, as Slavic-speakers are not a single monocultural and monoethnic entity, Slavic people are an Indo-European group, and many European ethnic groups share Slavic ancestry, that does not make them all the same, it does not exclude the existence of other ethnic and ancestral group comprising different nations, therefore creating a unique for them culture and traditions.

You said: ''No ethnic group descend only from Slavs or only from Germanic people and I don't have to convince anyone about this fact. You have to move your argument and suggestion for removing the Slavic label at the rest of the articles altogether as your only argument so far about mixed ethnogenesis applies with the same merit to all Slavic ethnic groups.''

Exactly, here you go contradicting yourself again. If no ethnic group descent only from Slavs, then why do you insists Bulgarians be described as only Slavs? You keep contradicting yourself. Other European nations, such as England, France, Denmark, Netherlands and others are not described as only Germanic, yet you insists on Bulgarians be described as only Slavic, despite just now again acknowledging that they are not only Slavic.

My argument does not apply to other Slavic ethnic groups. My argument is that present-day Bulgarians, their culture and their traditions do not descent from only Slavic ethnic group, but multiple ancestral groups. Whether that is true for Polish culture, or Russian culture is not my argument here. If Polish people, their culture and traditions do not descent from only Slavic, then they too should remove Slavic from their leading text, but that is not my objection right now, my proposed changes concern only Bulgarians page, and the factual revision of other ethnic groups cannot be a condition for the factual revision of Bulgarians page. If you feel so strongly about the way other nations describe themselves, you are free to propose an appropriate change to their page.

You said: ''It is not about how Bulgarian, Polish or Ukrainian choose to describe themselves, but as you are concerned about existence of any "clear" ethnogenesis it would be about what their real ethnogenesis is. It is very simple and not complicated, but not all Wikipedia articles are consistent to follow ethnogenesis for the ethnolinguistic concept. It doesn't concern only Bulgarians. You didn't understand this and began justifying with the same arguments some bizzare choice only for this article? Wihtout stating any convincing reason how and why Bulgarians should be the only exception from Slavic peoples?''

I think there is clearly a misunderstanding about what my arguments are, and what my proposed change is. I am not trying to change the definition of who Slavic people are. Slavic people are an Indo-European ethnic group. We already established that this Indo-European ethnic group is ONE of the ancestral groups of modern day Bulgarians. Present day Bulgarians are a social group with diverse ancestry. Multiple ethnic groups mix as one to form Bulgarians. One of those ethnic groups is Slavic people, another one is Thracian people, another one is Bulgars, and so on. Bulgarian people as a nation have a diverse ethnic and cultural ancestry. For that reason, describing Bulgarians as just Slavic is illogical and inaccurate, because Slavic ethnic group is just one of the many, it is not all that Bulgarian people are. Whether that is true for Polish people or Ukrainian people is not something we are talking about here. It doesn't matter if Ukrainian ancestry is only Slavic, i am not discussing the Slavic people as an ethnic group, i am discussing Bulgarian people as an ethnic group mixed of multiple ethnic groups, one of which being Slavic.

You keep misunderstanding that i am discussing Slavic people as an ethnic group, i am discussing Bulgarians as an ethnic group. I am not making the argument that Bulgarians are not Slavic people, i am making the argument that Bulgarians are not ONLY Slavic people, there are more ancestral groups that make up Bulgarians, for that reason, it is misleading and inaccurate to describe Bulgarians as just Slavic. Bulgarians have a diverse cultural and ethnic ancestry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, instead of arguing so much here for just a sentence you may try something as expanding the intro, so that the intro would not be just only this one sentence, which is too small to meet the usual bibliographic criteria. I think that we leave the first sentence alone for now as there is no justification for making this article an exception of other articles about Slavic peoples. Do not take it personally because the discussion is complicated and the arguments are too many for everybody's views to merge into only one sentence. Try to write your views after this sentence ends. Secondly, even if I agree with you for changing the first sentence, all the rest of the users are already opposed to changing the first sentence(unless they change their mind), so it would be a waste of time to try to obtainin a consensus for it at this talk page. If you can't change their mind, instead you still can attempt to obtain a consensus for changing the first sentence by starting a seperate discussion that asks changing the first sentences of all articles about all Slavic or European peoples. If you obtain consensus at Talk:Slavs for your proposed changes, the consensus for your proposal will come into effect also for Bulgarians article. Ethnogenesis as a definition contains various groups of diverse people. We seem to finally agree that the ethnogenesis of all European peoples is mixed. But you seem to take the introducing sentence very personally and you would fail to see mixed ethnogenesis of it at any other article, which although a fact is not a followed argument at other articles about Slavic or Germanic peoples for now. It may make sense as many presumed ancestors as in the case of Bulgarians are a disputed pressumption without certainty about their significance or existence. There are no sources provided, describing modern Bulgarians as a Thracian, Turkic or Iranian people. These tribes and their languages are long-extinct and what is the non-Slavic part of Bulgarian ethnogenesis is presummed and disputed. Historians' task to determine from which long-extinct speakers Bulgarians descend and when the Thracians went extinct is disputed. So Dartez may be added, who acknowledges the uncertainty and says that Bulgarians only allegedely descend from Slavs, Thracians and Bulgars with each author presuming their proportions. So, that the primary ancestors of Bulgarians are also Bulgars and Thracians may be stated on the the lead of this article for example and the source for this would be Britannica. At the intro if primary tribes, consisting the ethnogenesis are stated, there would be no point for controversy on ethnogenesis, I think if you try this the rest of the users will compromise. Some notes for your erroneous claims - Norwegians and Dutch People articles do say they are a Germanic ethnic group. Regards. Stevan22 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The huge discussion above I have summarized only with several sentences. Just read the section:  Bulgarian ethnogenetic conception. There is no need to write more per Too long; didn't read. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jingiby, i reverted your changes because there is no consensus, and you have not provided reliable sources for your claims. A book is not a reliable source. Please discuss your proposed changes here first, refusal to do so will constitute vandalism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No need for consensus on every Wikipedia contribution. If you want to discuss something, do it here and do not revert every contribution to the article. You also will have to indicate which sources are not reliable and why do you think so. The Jingiby changes are not vandalism, but your behaviour is definitely disruptive one. --StanProg (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Stevan22, Hi,

You said: Firstly, instead of arguing so much here for just a sentence you may try something as expanding the intro, so that the intro would not be just only this one sentence, which is too small to meet the usual bibliographic criteria.

My proposed changes are not only the removal of the word Slavic, but also the addition of the following text, below the first sentence, which is:

''Historically the Bulgarian people's heritage is diverse, including populations of South Slavs, Thracians, Proto-Bulgarians, Celts, Goths, Romans, Ancient Greeks, Sarmatians, Paeonians and Illyrians. Just under 85% of Bulgaria's population identified as Bulgarian in 2011 Bulgarian census. ''

This would be a much more accurate and objective description of Bulgarian people as an ethnic group, and if the word Slavic remains above, it simply becomes contradictory, on top of being misleading.

You said: I think that we leave the first sentence alone for now as there is no justification for making this article an exception of other articles about Slavic peoples.

I have already addressed this argument. You are not making an argument on whether or not describing Bulgarians as Slavic ethnic group is accurate or misleading, you are making an argument about the way others have described their nations. This is not a relevant argument, and i have already addressed the reasons why Slavic must be removed. You have no addressed my arguments.

You said: ''Do not take it personally because the discussion is complicated and the arguments are too many for everybody's views to merge into only one sentence. Try to write your views after this sentence ends.''

Nobody except you are making arguments against removing Slavic. On top of that, i have proposed a compromise, which is to add who speak Slavic language at the end of the sentence, i.e. Bulgarians are an Ethnic Group native to Bulgaria and its neighboring regions, who speak a Slavic language, that would cover your objections, which is that part of the Bulgarian ancestry is the ethnolinguistic group of Slavic speakers, but at the same time, it would make it clear that they are only a part, and that there are more ancestral groups that form modern day Bulgarians. I think this compromise should satisfy you.

You said: Secondly, even if I agree with you for changing the first sentence, all the rest of the users are already opposed to changing the first sentence(unless they change their mind), so it would be a waste of time to try to obtainin a consensus for it at this talk page.

Nobody else has expressed any objections. Anybody who objects to a proposed change must discuss his or her disagreements. Simply expressing objection to a proposed change without discussing the said objection does not constitute a valid reason for reverting the changes, and doing so will constitute a disruptive behavior and/or vandalism, which will result in that user being blocked. If you agree to my proposed change, that would be a sufficient consensus to making the edit, as nobody else has entered into the discussion.

You said: ''If you can't change their mind, instead you still can attempt to obtain a consensus for changing the first sentence by starting a seperate discussion that asks changing the first sentences of all articles about all Slavic or European peoples. If you obtain consensus at Talk:Slavs for your proposed changes, the consensus for your proposal will come into effect also for Bulgarians article.''

Again, we seem to have a language barrier, or you seem to greatly misunderstand what Slavs are, and what Bulgarians are. I have already addressed this argument, you are making me repeat myself again. There is nothing to change about the definition of Slavs, they are an Indo-European ethnolinguistic group, and i am not disputing that. Like i said several times above, Slavic-speakers are part of the population of many European nations, including Bulgaria, but they are only one part of the ancestral groups that make up modern day Bulgarians. There are more Indo-European ethnic group that make up present-day Bulgarians. That is not to say that there are or aren't other Indo-European ethnic groups that make up the cultural and ancestral admixture of other European nations. Removing Slavic from Ethnic Group will not make Bulgarians less Slavic, it will simply remove the misleading impression that this first sentence gives to reader, which is that Bulgarians are ONLY Slavic, and nothing else. Bulgarian ethnic composition is not limited to Slavic people, and Bulgarian culture is not limited to Slavic culture. Bulgarians being Slavic speakers does not mean they descent from only Slavic people. We already established Bulgarians have diverse cultural and ethnic ancestral heritage.

You said: ''Ethnogenesis as a definition contains various groups of diverse people. We seem to finally agree that the ethnogenesis of all European peoples is mixed. But you seem to take the introducing sentence very personally and you would fail to see mixed ethnogenesis of it at any other article, which although a fact is not a followed argument at other articles about Slavic or Germanic peoples for now.''

I don't understand what you mean, please clarify your point again. Many if not most nations who share the same Germanic ancestry are not described as merely Germanic, but an ''ethnic group..

You said: '' It may make sense as many presumed ancestors as in the case of Bulgarians are a disputed pressumption without certainty about their significance or existence. There are no sources provided, describing modern Bulgarians as a Thracian, Turkic or Iranian people. These tribes and their languages are long-extinct and what is the non-Slavic part of Bulgarian ethnogenesis is presummed and disputed. Historians' task to determine from which long-extinct speakers Bulgarians descend and when the Thracians went extinct is disputed. So Dartez may be added, who acknowledges the uncertainty and says that Bulgarians only allegedely descend from Slavs, Thracians and Bulgars with each author presuming their proportions.''

First of all, it is not disputed that Proto-Bulgarians and Thracian people are part of the ethnic and cultural ancestry of modern day Bulgarian, this is even written below the same page. All Bulgarians study at school that Bulgarians originate from Bulgars, Slavs and Thracians.

Second of all, what is disputed is the percentage of each of these extinct ethnic groups. What percentage of modern day Bulgarians is Slavic, Thracian, Bulgar or anything else is in dispute, but their existence is not, and it is exactly because the percentage composition is disputed, that it would be misleading and inaccurate to take sides, and describe Bulgarians as just Slavic, while ignoring the rest of the ethnic composition.

Third of all, i did provide 4 sources in English, and i can provide even more in Bulgarian. However, the current text itself is not sourced.

--- Source 1: http://slavicchronicles.com/genetics/genetics-of-bulgaria/

Bulgarian genetic make-up consists of the following haplogroups:

E1b: 26,0%, Pre-slavic Balkan population (Thracians, Illyrians, Macedonians)

I2a: 16,8%, Sclavenians (South Slavic)

J2: 16,0%, Mediteran; (Greeks, Romans…) J2 can be found in many other Caucasian populations, including the Azeri (30%), the Georgians (27%), the Kumyks (25%), and the Armenians (22%); while Russian Tatars have 16.5 %. Nevertheless, it is very unlikely that J2 haplogroups originated in the Caucasus because of the low genetic diversity in the region. Bulgarian J2 is of the Balkan branch and it has been there since the Late Glacial and immediate postglacial periods, so it belongs to pre-Slavic Balkan people.

R1a: 14,5%, “North” Slavic. Most common among Lusatians Sorbs and Poles and other western or eastern Slavs. Among the South Slavic population, I2a is more common.

G2a: 8,4%. G is subdivided as G1 and G2. The haplogroup G1 is more common in Argyn and Madjar tribes of Kazakhs whereas G2a is more common in Tatar and Nogay tribes of Kazakhstan. On the other hand, G2a is also very often found in Caucasian ethnicities, many people connect it with Sarmatians or Celts. In Turkey, G has a frequency of 11% among Turkish males, whereas this percentage is around 18% in Azerbaijan. It probably came with Proto-Bulgarians, my assumption is that Volga Bulgarians were Sarmatian related people. Hungarians have 7,2% of this haplogroup, the rest of the Balkan doesn’t have that much G as Bulgaria or Hungary. I believe that it came with Proto-Bulgarians which were related to Magyar people and I will explain why as you continue reading.

R1b: M269 4.4%, Anatolian

I1: 3,8%, North European, Teutonic, Scandinavian

J1: 2,3%, Arab

R1b P312: 1.6%, Atlantic-Celtic

R1b U152: 1.6%, Italo-Celtic

H: 1,5%, Gipsy

Rb DF27: 0.8%. Celtic

R1b U106: 0.8%, Germanic

L: 0,8%, Southwest Asia, the Kalash people, found in Baluchistan, and among Pashtuns. 0,33 % of it can be found among Magyars.

T: 0,8%, Old Egyptians. 0,98% among Magyars, so I believe that it came with Proto-Bulgarians as well. ---

--- Source 2: http://bnr.bg/en/post/100729084/present-day-bulgarians-carry-genes-of-thracians-and-proto-bulgarians-not-of-slavs

To be able to draw up a genetic map which suggests that Bulgarians are the heirs of Thracians and Proto-Bulgarians, the scientists had to go back 5 thousand years in time. First of all, they took bones and teeth found in Thracian necropolises. Genetic material from Proto-Bulgarians dates back to 8 to 10 c. AD. Further on, they compared samples from the past to the genes of 900 contemporary Bulgarians. The results were as follows, in brief: A European population with closest genetic similarity to Hungarians, Croats and Italians,

The major study exploring the origin of Bulgarians involves the Medical Genetics Chair of Sofia's Medical University, the Institute of Microbiology, the Institute of Anthropology, the National Archeological Institute at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and а state-of-the-art laboratory in Florence in charge of testing genetic material. ---

--- Source 3: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056779

To better define the structure and origin of the Bulgarian paternal gene pool, we have examined the Y-chromosome variation in 808 Bulgarian males. The analysis was performed by high-resolution genotyping of biallelic markers and by analyzing the STR variation within the most informative haplogroups. We found that the Y-chromosome gene pool in modern Bulgarians is primarily represented by Western Eurasian haplogroups with ∼ 40% belonging to haplogroups E-V13 and I-M423, and 20% to R-M17. Haplogroups common in the Middle East (J and G) and in South Western Asia (R-L23*) occur at frequencies of 19% and 5%, respectively. Haplogroups C, N and Q, distinctive for Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations, occur at the negligible frequency of only 1.5%. Principal Component analyses group Bulgarians with European populations, apart from Central Asian Turkic-speaking groups and South Western Asia populations. Within the country, the genetic variation is structured in Western, Central and Eastern Bulgaria indicating that the Balkan Mountains have been permeable to human movements. The lineage analysis provided the following interesting results: (i) R-L23* is present in Eastern Bulgaria since the post glacial period; (ii) haplogroup E-V13 has a Mesolithic age in Bulgaria from where it expanded after the arrival of farming; (iii) haplogroup J-M241 probably reflects the Neolithic westward expansion of farmers from the earliest sites along the Black Sea. On the whole, in light of the most recent historical studies, which indicate a substantial proto-Bulgarian input to the contemporary Bulgarian people, our data suggest that a common paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible. ---

--- Source 4: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51220271_Bulgarians_vs_the_other_European_populations_A_mitochondrial_DNA_perspective

To define the matrilineal relationships between Bulgarians and other European populations, we have evaluated the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation in a sample of 855 Bulgarian subjects from the mtDNA perspective. The molecular survey was performed by sequencing ∼750 bp of the control region, which resulted in 557 different haplotypes, and by a subsequent restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis to confirm haplogroup/subhaplogroup affiliation. The classification was carried out according to the most updated criteria as reported by van Oven and Kayser (Hum Mutat 30:386-394, 2009), allowing the identification of 45 mitochondrial clades. The observed pattern of mtDNA variation indicates that the Bulgarian mitochondrial pool is geographically homogeneous across the country, and that is characterized by an overall extremely high frequency of western Eurasian lineages. In the principal component analysis, Bulgarians locate in an intermediate position between Eastern European and Mediterranean populations, which is in agreement with historical events. Thus, while the Mediterranean legacy could be attributed to the Thracians, indigenous people that firstly inhabited the Balkans, the Eastern contribution is likely due to the Proto-Bulgarians originating from the Middle East and to the Slavs migrating from northeast Europe. ---

As you can see, there are sources, and research being done on the origins of Bulgarians as an ethnic groups. I have repeatedly asked you and others to provide even a single source that states that modern day Bulgarians are only Slavic, and nothing else. Nobody has disputed the fact that Bulgarian people's heritage is diverse and it includes multiple ethnic groups, one of which is Slavic. That is why i want to remove Slavic from the first sentence, it is simply misleading and not accurate to describe Bulgarians as just Slavic, when everybody knows Bulgarians are not only Slavic.

You said: ''So, that the primary ancestors of Bulgarians are also Bulgars and Thracians may be stated on the the lead of this article for example and the source for this would be Britannica. At the intro if primary tribes, consisting the ethnogenesis are stated, there would be no point for controversy on ethnogenesis, I think if you try this the rest of the users will compromise.''

Well this is exactly what i propose. My proposed changes are to remove just Slavic, and then add in the next sentence a list of the historical populations that make up the ancestral groups of Bulgarians.

We seem to have reached a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@StanProg Hi, editing existent text requires consensus from others. If Jingiby wants to add a contribution, he has to first discuss his proposed changes here until we reach a consensus as stated in Policies and guidelines. His contributions were not properly sourced. Claiming that nationalistic scientists are trying to downplay the Slavic ancestry of Bulgarians is not a sourced claim. Nobody has tried to downplay the Slavic ancestry. Citing a book for multiple dubious claims is not a valid or reliable source. He needs to source his claims better, and seek a consensus from other users. I certainly do not agree with his proposed changes, his claims are not accurate. The Bulgarian people's diverse ethnic and cultural heritage is widely accepted fact, and downplaying the other ancestral groups while making it seem that Bulgarians descent only from Slavic people is misleading. Continuing to add unsourced changes without a discussion or consensus will constitute vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Editing existing text does not necessary require a consensus, while removing big chunks of sourced content without a good reason is considered vandalism. From what I see, it's only you who oppose this changes, as well as the other changes concerning this topic. So we have a consensus, but you deny to accept it and continue to repeat yourself over and over without even trying to understand what the other editors are pointing out. --StanProg (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You are making too much own interpetations. You are again repeating the long comments. But you still do not answer just one simple question. Why should Slavic be removed from the first sentence according to your only argument for mixed ethnogenesis while all the rest of the articles do not consider on this way their mixed ethnogenesis at the first sentence by removing 'Slavic'? Saying 'I don't care' doesn't mean you answer, your suggestion is a distortion from the rest of the articles about ethnic groups, who all have mixed ethnogenesis and include Slavic at the first sentence. So your views differ from the general practice and you should ask for a change on the rest of the articles before doing so here as mixed ethnogenesis is nowhere considered on another article's first sentence on this way. Avoiding to acknowledge that all these peoples have mixed ethnogenesis and that there is an inconsistency with your proposal means the communication is hard with you. There is no need to repeat the same story and that Bulgarians do not descend only from Slavs, this is not a primary school, but we already stopped discussing any ethnogenesis of Bulgarians and began discussing your inovatory proposal for removing 'Slavic' and how correct and consistent it is, you avoided answering. It is an innovatory, currently not suitable proposal and not even remotely accepted throughout other articles. And also it is very simplified, focusing only on ethnogenesis, while it ignores any other factors and the uncertainty of Bulgarian ethnogenesis. So your second proposal is still unsourced: ''Historically the Bulgarian people's heritage is diverse, including populations of South Slavs, Thracians, Proto-Bulgarians, Celts, Goths, Romans, Ancient Greeks, Sarmatians, Paeonians and Illyrians. Just under 85% of Bulgaria's population identified as Bulgarian in 2011 Bulgarian census.'' Stevan22 (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I would like to happy join in and moderate this dispute, but I cannot and will not if the long walls of text continue. ! dave  18:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Man, this is crazy. I'm not even going to try and figure out what's going on. TishoYanchev, if you cannot make your case more succinctly, like 90% more succinctly, you're going to have to live with the fact that you will never gain consensus. Drmies (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dave, Hi, thank you for your intervention. Refraining from commenting on the intentions of some users here, i will try to summarize this dispute as short and simple as i can.

Currently, the first section of Bulgarians page is a single sentence saying: Bulgarians are a South Slavic ethnic group who are native to Bulgaria and its neighboring regions.

I propose we remove the word Slavic from the first sentence, and then add below the following text:

''Historically the Bulgarian people's heritage is diverse, including populations of South Slavs, Thracians, Proto-Bulgarians, Celts, Goths, Romans, Ancient Greeks, Sarmatians, Paeonians and Illyrians. Just under 85% of Bulgaria's population identified as Bulgarian in 2011 Bulgarian census.''

My objections: It is indisputable and widely accepted fact that modern day Bulgarian people have a diverse cultural and ancestral ethnic heritage. While it is true that Bulgarians are Slavic speakers, the ethnolinguistic group of Slavs are just one of the multiple ancestral groups that make up modern day Bulgarians. By describing Bulgarians as Slavic ethnic group the reader gets the impression that Bulgarians are only Slavic, rather than an ethnic group with a diverse ancestry, and Slavic being just one of them. I am not disputing that Slavic people are part of Bulgarian's ancestry, i am saying it is not the only one, and describing them as Slavic ethnic group gives just that wrong impression. Furthermore, the additional text that states the multiple ancestral groups is already stated below the very same page, i am merely taking it and putting up in the leading section, so people can get the accurate and objective description of who Bulgarian people are as a social group with unique for them culture and traditions.

Stevan22 appears to agree with me on everything, but his objections are that because other Slavic-speaking nations have not removed Slavic from their description, therefore we should not either.

Another user above merely expressed disagreement without entering into a discussion.

Another user called Jingiby keeps revering my changes without discussing his or her objections, and today, he himself made a change to the page without even discussing it, when i reverted his/her changes, he added them again, and sent me a message claiming i am engage in edit war.

Your help will be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A User:StanProg mentioned above User:TishoYanchev just keeps repeating himself, without even a single editor to support his changes in the article and there's obvious consensus on keeping the original state of the introductory text. Also his strange behaviour is definitely disruptive. Jingiby (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And some other editors noted that the entire origin of the discussion is irrelevant. The main characteristic of an "ethnic group" is the language - Bulgarian indisputably belongs to the Southern Branch of the Slavic languages. Genome, DNA and so on simply have no place here - it's in the mouth (and to a certain extent in the mind) and not in the blood. So in other words, "South Slavic ethnic group" means just a group speaking one of the South Slavic languages, nothing more - I don't think anyone can seriously question the South Slavic classification of the Bulgarian language. (excuse me for repeating this argument but since the summary above skipped this part of the discussion and it seems important, I felt it needs to be highlighted)--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not repeat myself, i had a discussion with Steven, you and Stanprog have not discussed with me the proposed changes. You refuse to discuss while at the same time you made a change today without any discussions or consensus. You are the one who keep repeating yourself that there is no consensus, while at the same time refusing to discuss your disagreements. Your behavior is disruptive, not mine. There was also another user above that agreed with me, but now his comment is strangely gone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleting large, well sourced parts of the text without any other argument but "you did not ask me first" does seem somehow disruptive. Note, the text is an addition and it does not change any existing beforehand theories in the article.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That comment has not “strangely disappeared”. It was from a well-known vandal, who've terrorized both the English and the Bulgarian Wikipedia for years, harassing everyone who dares oppose them with both profanities and legal threats, while obviously having some agenda they try to push regardless of any encyclopedic principles. I find it hugely disturbing that you seem to have discussed with one of their socks plans to somehow “ban” Jingiby (I can only hope it's banning from Wikipedia, not something more “generic”, considering that sometimes the threats escalate to ones of physical violence). I'm not an expert in the topic being discussed here, but I do have some experience in dealing with vandalism and disruptive editing, and I can say without hesitation that it is indeed your behaviour that's problematic, not Jingiby's. I'm trying to assume good faith on your part, but you're not helping much really. — Luchesar • T/C 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

He made several claims that were not sourced, and the only source he provided was a single book! How is that a good source? While i provided 4 research papers, he provided a single book by an unknown author! He made the change without discussing it here, nobody has given their consent! Why is he allowed to make changes without consent, but when i did the same, he reverted my changes saying there is no consensus without discussing them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 20:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I also think bulgarians are not slavic peoples. In 2011 a joint genetic study between Italian and Bulgarian scientists concluded bulgarians have more in common with medditeranian peoples than slavic groups. The study was done by the university of Florence in 2015


 * Hi, Lyubomir93, you forgot to sign your comment so mine starts from here. Other studies concluded that Bulgarians have more in common with North Slavic than Mediterranean groups. There is also no evidence that these modern "slavic groups" are the main defintion for what is Slavic, but they already contain various admixtures. We already discussed ethnogenesis and the obvious fact is that it is mixed for all Slavic peoples. The formulation of the first sentnce was proposed to be changed according to mixed ethnogenesis. But we oppose the changing of the first sentence of this article, because there is no reason to change it as long as other articles keep describing any other modern ethnic groups as Slavic ethnic groups. It is just a personal choice to make this article an exception, while no other article considers ethnogenesis to change the ethnolinguistic affiliation from the first sentence. Stevan22 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I really need some other editor or admin to mediate between us, your argument is absurd, and contradicting itself. You agree that Bulgarians are not only Slavic, and that modern Bulgarian people have a diverse cultural and ethnic ancestry, and not merely Slavic one, yet you refuse to remove Slavic just because others haven't either. This is absurd argument. The ethnic or ancestral composition of other nations is not related or relevant to the ethnic and cultural ancestry of Bulgarians. We already established Bulgarians are not only Slavic, it's even written in the same page, yet the leading text states that they are. This is misleading and wrong. You have not provided any valid and logical reason to keep introducing Bulgarians as Slavic ethnic group, while at the same time you agree that they are not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 22:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Such an argument to change South Slavic because of a mixed ethnogenesis is invalid as the respective removal of Slavic here is going to spread misinformation that Bulgarians are the only exception of Slavic peoples. While actually all the rest Slavic peoples have mixed ethnogenesis and currently their articles don't describe their first sentence according to this argument. I asked TishoYanchev to apply his change at all articles before insisting for it here, but while excusing himself to do this and failing to explain how Bulgarians are less Slavic and why should remain the exception, he de facto continiously insists to spread a misinformation that only Bulgarians are not a Slavic ethnic group among all others dozens of Slavic peoples. Avoiding to understand the point and compromise does not excuse you. We already do not discuss ethnogenesis, which is already clear for being diverse of any ethnic groups, but the problems of your proposal and does ethnogenesis have a place at the first sentence. Your only argument is that Bulgarians have mixed ethnogenesis, not only Slavic, which is mixed for all European peoples! Should you repeat it again? Instead you are avoiding to take care of the problems of your proposed formulation, which were addressed many times.Stevan22 (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but you clearly have a problem with the English language. I do not think you have a good understanding of what you are suggesting and i do not think you understand my arguments, as i keep repeating them, and you keep making the same claims. You keep contradicting yourself! I told you that, describing Bulgarians as Slavic in the first sentence IS an ethnogensis description! NOT describing them as such IS NOT an ethnogenesis description. Not describing Bulgarians as Slavic ethnic group does not mean Bulgarians are less Slavic than they are, it simply means that they are NOT ONLY Slavic, which is what the first sentence CLAIMS and this is the impression it gives to readers. It is misleading and misinformation to say that Bulgarians are only Slavic when they are not, and you clearly agree with me, yet you contradict yourself. You say you agree that Bulgarian ethogensis is diverse, but because other Slavic speaking nations have not changed their description, therefore we should not change ours too! How is this a relevant argument?? This is absurd argument. You say all Europeans are mixed, but at the same time you refuse to remove Slavic because others haven't done it too! This is absurdity. This cannot possibly be a valid argument. How other nations have described themselves is not related and not relevant to the Bulgarian ancestral groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I filled a request for admin mediation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 00:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Why was Lyubomir93 's comment removed?? He supported my changes, and now his comment is deleted, and on his page, he is accused of being a socketpuppet! Why? What evidence do you have to accuse him? So anyone to agrees with me must a socketpuppet! More evidence that Jingiby and his admin friends are bullying and removing anyone who opposes them and agrees with me! Probably more people have agreed with me, but their comments were probably removed too! I will definitely contact more neutral admins to look into this. I will expose the corrupt and paid actor - Jingiby and his corrupt admins and their corrupt scheme. You're not going to get away with this. You can't bully people forever just because you are skilled in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Break
At this stage, we should just let it revert to what it was before this dispute occurred, and slowly walk away from the topic. Both of you. Let other people deal with it. Nobody has noticed signs of death yet, or world implosion, due to the fact that the page 'incorrectly' describes Bulgarians? No? ! dave  07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No, why are you asking me to walk away? Why is jingiby allowed to make any changes he wants and spread false information using invalid sources with no consensus at all, yet all i want to do is provide an accurate description of who Bulgarian people are. The entire world gets their view of Bulgarians from this page, when they read Bulgarians are a Slavic ethnic group, they will get the impression that Bulgarians are only Slavic, and nothing else. Bulgarian people have a diverse ethnic and cultural ancestry. Describing them as just Slavic is an insult to all the other ancestral groups that make up present day Bulgarians. It's like describing Americans as just Italian ethnic group! It's false and wrong! Wikipedia must be a place for accurate information. It is not accurate to describe Bulgarians as Slavic ethnic group, when Slavic people is just ONE of the MANY ethnic ancestral groups that create modern day Bulgarians!

Please mediate between us! I have offered compromise by adding Slavic speaking Ethnic group or Ethnic group who speaks Slavic language. I am open for dialogue and compromise, but i cannot accept the world to see this wrong description of Bulgarian people. Bulgarian people have a rich and diverse ancestral heritage, on this Wikipedia page, there is just ONE SINGLE SENTENCE describing them as merely Slavic. This is unacceptable.

How can you possibly accept his arguments that - because other nations haven't done it, we shouldn't do it too! This is absurd argument! Don't you agree?

Please help us and mediate between us!
 * Before I start, please sign your posts and indent your messages. I have left no instructions because I think you know how to do this. ! dave  17:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but i am not very savvy on Wikipedia. But i think i learned how to indent and sign my posts.
 * Should i summarize again what do i want to change and why? --TishoYanchev (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this OK now?
 * Yes. So, I think I see sources conflicting. Is this correct? ! dave  19:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No, if i may very briefly explain to you again, that there are 3 people opposing my changes. One is user:Stevan22, whom i had discussed the changes up to now, the other two are user:Jingiby and his friend user:Stanprog. They refuse to discuss anything with me, so i don't know what are their arguments. Steven agrees with my sources, and with the premise of what i am saying, but his only disagreement is that, because other Slavic speaking nations have not removed Slavic from their description, therefore we should not either. --TishoYanchev (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I'd like to hear from everyone here. -- just so I do not have to ensure walls of texts (something which has been a habit for you, so you must be aware that this is a good habit, and can be seen to WP:BLUDGEON the process).  ! dave  19:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, no problem. But there were 3 people above that said they agreed with me, but their comments are now gone. The user:Lyubomir93 left a comment saying he agrees with me, but then his comment got removed, and User:Jingiby left a warning message on his User page accusing him of being a sock puppet. I don't know what evidence he has to accuse him, and why was his comment removed. Two other people supported me too, and their comments were removed as well. Also, the wall of text is just me replying to the arguments Steven made. --TishoYanchev (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * TishoYanchev controversial changes can be seen here: . He is removing the South Slavic ethnolinguistic group of the Bulgarians and based on a DNA research on a Y-chromosome variation done by a Bulgarian-Italian team among several hundred people and his own interpretations on the sources, some of them unreliable and contradicting to each other - he adds Proto-Bulgarian and Thracian origin in the leading text of the article. There's no place for single genetic study in the introductory text. There is a section "Ethnogenesis" in the article in which most of the important information is summarized. Also there is a separate article for the genetic studies.--StanProg (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * at first I will make a comment on TishoYanchev. He used the talk above to spread some untruths about me. For example that I was reported to the Bulgarian police and the prosecutors for engaging deceptive campaign and I and my friends were writing false information on Wikipedia. Even there were evidences that I was paid to do so. His ridiculous claims that there were 3 editors above, who have agreed with him, but their comments were now gone is pure manipulation. These IP-s were simply socks (now blocked) from a well-known vandals, who have terrorized both the English and the Bulgarian Wikipedia for years, harassing everyone who dares to oppose them with both personal attacks and legal threats, while obviously having some biased agenda. They are trying to push regardless of any encyclopedic principles their POV here on articles related to Bulgarians and Bulgars. He also seems to have discussed with one of their socks plans how to “ban” me here. Now, essentially:
 * The huge walls of Tiso's POV above, I have summarized only in several sentences in the subsection Bulgarian ethnogenetic conception. It is extremely well sourced with reliable sources. It is also placed in a suitable section: Ethnogenesis. The DNA-claims of Tisho are still debatable and their place is not in the intro. The issue with Bulgarian ethnogenesis as a whole is controversial and is a popular subject in the works of the nationalists. I also fully agree with User:StanProg that all this story is well explained in the section "Ethnogenesis" into this article and in the article Genetic studies on Bulgarians. The ideas of Tisho to erase the world-wide known info Bulgarians are South Slavic people (which is also well sourced in the subsection Bulgarian ethnogenetic conception) and to replace it with some kind of mumbo-jumbo claims, will completely ruin the reader's impression of this article. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. and are also opposing to Tisho's proposal. Jingiby (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But why? They have not said any arguments! They keep repeating there is no consensus while refusing to discuss! --TishoYanchev (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On the very contrary - we have provided solid arguments which you did not address at all. Did you read my comments at all?--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * OMG, YOU ARE THE MOST LYING AND DECEPTIVE PERSON I HAVE EVER SEEN! Who are these people that were blocked? What evidence do you have? You are lying! These people have never even posted anything on Wikipedia before, and their IP's are NOT banned! You deleted their comments!!! Check their history!! Also it is YOU who are terrorizing the Bulgarian wikipage in Bulgarian!! The people you blocked can't even login to Wikipedia properly, LET ALONE be savvy enough to terrorize anyone! You and you admin friends are viciously attacking anyone who opposes your changes, you remove their comments, adn then block them!!! Anyone can see that!! You are the one terrorizing the page, not them! Anyone can see that!! YOU WERE reported to the Police, because you are not Bulgarian nor from Bulgaria! Your friends are also NOT Bulgarians!! You lie about my arguments and changes!!! I will report you to admin and i will not give up until we stop your corruption scheme!!! --TishoYanchev (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As we are discussing genetics, the sources should probably adhere to WP:MEDRS, which, put simply, means that one cannot use 'fresh out of the oven' primary source studies. A high quality source is appropriate to the matter being discussed and has to be secondary or tertiary (I always make two examples of a scientific textbook or a meta-analysis of multiple studies). The bottom line though, is that is not appropriate to indeed place such a point of view in the article and erase the other point of view. The article must represent all reliable sources, should they contradict, being careful not to introduce fringe views into the article. The original change made by Tisho is not appropriate, as it appears to use some unreliable sources, the Slavic Chronicle one is secondary but not appropriate. It in turn uses some website which lists the DNA of Bulgarians and that itself doesn't have a source and so I'd be careful when using that.
 * The second source used also does not meet WP:MEDRS, as one of those 'fresh out the oven' primary sources. It should therefore not be used.
 * The third source is also primary and therefore also fails WP:MEDRS.
 * The fourth source I am not sure about, it's Radio Bulgaria, which appears to be state-owned, which doesn't mean anything in itself (the BBC is definitely reliable), but one would have to be careful otherwise in using state-owned media to make a point.
 * To conclude, then, this kind of claim should not be inserted into the lede, at least. Concerning that claim you made, Jingiby, I did see that, so, we have a little axiom here which is comment on the content, and not the contributor. ! dave  08:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Why are my sources wrong? The first two sources are research papers! Are you disputing them? Just because they are NEW doesn't mean they are WRONG. Can you show me any source that claims Bulgarians are ONLY Slavic and nothing else? The sources YOU added to YOUR change is just a single BOOK!! Why is this a reliable source?? Why are my sources not reliable? --TishoYanchev (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * NO, THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT!! THIS IS NOT MY CHANGES!!! WHY CAN'T YOU SEE HOW DECEPTIVE THEY ARE??? LOOK AT HOW THEY ARE GANGING AGAINST ME AND LYING ABOUT MY CHANGES! READ WHAT I SAID BELOW! I AM NOT MAKING THESE CLAIMS!!! I DO NOT WANT TO ADD PROTO-BULGARIAN OR THRACIAN, I WANT TO REMOVE SLAVIC FROM THE LEAD, BECAUSE BULGARIANS ARE NOT ONLY SLAVIC, BUT MULTIPLE ANCESTRAL GROUPS MAKE UP BULGARIANS. JINGIBY AND HIS SAVVY FRIENDS ARE NOT BULGARIANS, AND THEY DON'T LIVE IN BULGARIA!! THEY HAVE ALREADY DESTROYED THE BULGARIAN PAGE IN BULGARIAN LANGUAGE, NOW THEY ARE COMING FOR THE ENGLISH ONE!!! THEY VICIOUSLY BAN ANYONE WHO OPPOSE THEM!!! WE ARE OVER 500 PEOPLE AGAINST THIS ONE INDIVIDUAL!!! PLEASE EXAMINE BOTH SIDES MORE CAREFULLY!!!!! --TishoYanchev (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The explanation on Tisho's accusations was necessary, because of my fears that after his claims, the editors might have the impression that I was almost a criminal type. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, speaking for myself I didn't those claims seriously when they spoke, and I reacted to them with outrage. ! dave  10:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I support Tisho and want to know why my commment was deletedLyubomir93 (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * -- but it was apparently a mistake. Nonetheless you need to read my analysis above, we're not gaining consensus through tag-teaming with people. ! dave  13:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * your comment was deleted by mistake from me, but I have restored it and have apologized to you here. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Since I've been pinged earlier: I totally agree with ! dave 's summary and I'm actually very grateful for this concise analysis. — Luchesar • T/C 13:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * OMG, i cannot believe how deceptive these people are! They are misrepresenting my argument! THAT IS NOT MY PROPOSED CHANGE!!! I am not claiming Bulgarians are not Slavic people, i am saying Bulgarians are not ONLY Slavic people, which is something already STATED in the very same page! I am NOT proposing we ERASE that information! I am NOT proposing we add anything new to the first sentence! STOP representing my ARGUMENT! I am saying that we should remove the word Slavic from the first sentence that states Bulgarians are Slavic ethnic group, and then add next to this sentence the list of the multiple ancestral groups that make up modern day Bulgarians, which is information already posted below the page! I am only taking it and putting it above! --TishoYanchev (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree with ! dave 's statement. Jingiby (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You lied to him about my proposed change! I am NOT claiming Bulgarians are not Slavic, i am NOT proposing we add in the lead that Bulgarians are Thracians and Proto-Bulgarians! My proposed change is that we remove Slavic from the first sentence that says Slavic Ethnic Group, and then next to it add the list of the many ethnic groups that make up Bulgarians! This is information already included below! Bulgarians are Slavic people, but not ONLY Slavic. Are you disputing this? And if no, then why are Bulgarians introduced as only Slavic then? --TishoYanchev (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are not responding in a way that works with collaboration, and if you continue, you are going to get blocked or more likely topic-banned. Nonetheless, is the change on the 17th now not what you intend to add to the lede? ! dave  14:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry! You have no idea how angered i am! These people LIE about my changes, LIE about my arguments, and gang up against me in such a cunning and deceptive way! No! This is not what i proposed to change! Once again, my proposed change is the following: The current first sentence says Bulgarians are Slavic ethnic group native to Bulgaria and its neighboring regions, that's it. I want to remove the word Slavic so it becomes only ethnic group, and then as a new sentence, i want to add the information that already exists below, which is:
 * Historically the Bulgarian people's heritage is diverse, including populations of South Slavs, Thracians, Proto-Bulgarians, Celts, ::::Goths, Romans, Ancient Greeks, Sarmatians, Paeonians and Illyrians. Just under 85% of Bulgaria's population identified as Bulgarian ::::in 2011 Bulgarian census.


 * That's it! Those are my changes! They are not arguing about the new information, they are not disputing it, they are only against removing the word Slavic, but why? Ask them why! If they agree that Bulgarians are not ONLY Slavic, then why is the lede claiming that they are!? --TishoYanchev (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, and what sort of sources do you have for this? If they are discussing genetics, do they meet WP:MEDRS? There is also at least some evidence that means it would be WP: UNDUE not to state that Bulgarians are Slavic. Also the use of 'just under' is not very NPOV. I am not available now, as I am leaving for work (UTC+0) and will not be available until tomorrow. ! dave  15:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely accepted fact and part of our history that everyone in Bulgaria learns that Bulgarians are mixed of many ancestral ethnic groups. The first Bulgarian state was created by the Bulgars, and they mixed with Thracians and Slavs, and many other ethnic groups. Nobody is denying Bulgarians are mixed of multiple ethnic groups. All DNA studies show the same thing, the dispute among scientists is what percentage is Slavic, what percentage is Bulgar, what percentage is Thracian and so on. The research papers i showed above is a very detailed and in-depth DNA testing of Bulgarians that say Bulgarians today have more Thracian and Bulgar genes than Slavic genes. Thracians were originally from central Italy, so that's why the Italian and Bulgarian universities made a joined DNA testing that showed the same thing - big percentage of Bulgarian DNA comes from central Italy. The Bulgarian Radio source was an interview with a researcher who had just made gene testing that shows that majority of the genes are not Slavic, but Thracian and Bulgar. Nobody is disputing this. There is not a single source that says that Bulgarians are only Slavic! Every single source you can find says the same thing, even the new changes that User:jingiby added says the same thing! That Bulgarians have diverse ethnic composition! Sorry but i don't understand what WP: UNDUE means, my argument is that, since it is undeniable and indisputable fact that everyone here accepts that Bulgarians are mixed of multiple ethnic groups, then WHY on earth does the lede claims that we are only Slavic? Slavic is just one of the many ancestral groups. --TishoYanchev ([[User

talk:TishoYanchev|talk]]) 15:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to just add that, the controversy User:Jingiby and his friends claimed above is not the FACT that Bulgarian ancestry is diverse, but what percentage is Slavic, and what percentage is Thracian and Bulgar. They are arguing about the percentage, different DNA testing show different percentage,but absolutely nobody is denying the existence of many ethnic ancestral groups. User:Jingiby is not denying this, but i am not arguing here about the percentage, i am arguing about the existence of the other ancestral groups, and why are they not represented in the lede. Stating that Bulgarians are only Slavic ethnic groups is misleading, because it gives the reader impression that Bulgarians are only Slavic, and nothing else. I want to remove Slavic, so it becomes only Ethnic group, and then we can add all the ancestral groups as a next sentence. --TishoYanchev (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reported TishoYanchev as suspected sock of blocked User:PavelStaykov.Jingiby (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You see!! He has no arguments! He is savvy on Wikipedia, and he viciously attacks anyone who opposes him! Why am i a sock? What is that even mean? I am not a sock of anyone! I proposed my changes and i argued for my changes long before User:PavelStaykov contacted me and asked me to join his Facebook group that has over 500 people who are in favor of editing the Bulgarian page, and trying to report User:Jingiby for disrupting and sabotaging the editing of the Bulgarian page. User:Jingiby is not even Bulgarian, it is absurd that a foreigner is trying to re-write the Bulgarian history. --TishoYanchev (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Jingiby is not even Bulgarian, it is absurd that a foreigner is trying to re-write the Bulgarian history. 
 * Even if that were true, it would be a completely invalid argument. It doesn't matter who makes the edits, as long as the statements are based on reputable sources and due weight is given to each one. I think that you're doing yourself quite a disservice with such claims. This is Wikipedia, and whether there's a group with 500 or 500,000 members on Facebook “who are trying to report Jingiby” doesn't matter at all. It's not even that important if you are a sockpuppet (as Jingiby suspects), a meatpuppet or really a random innocent bystander. The problem is that what you're trying to push into the article doesn't hold up well (or rather, at all) to the standards of Wikipedia. — Luchesar • T/C 18:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * When you have over 500 Bulgarians calling for an edit on one hand, and 2 non-Bulgarians rejecting it one the other, you know there is something deeply suspicious about the motives of the two said individuals, especially if you take into account their nationality and past edits. I have not heard a single objection from any one of you about the premise of what i am saying, and making this into a source-related issue is a cunning deviation tactic, especially when my sources are 1: not related to this debate, and 2: involve two reputable and highly valued scientific journals with a big in-depth detailed research paper, while the sources User:Jingiby used for his latest edits were a single book by an unknown author. Furthermore, this debate is not about what the sources say, this is about an established fact we all agree, and nobody here has expressed even a single objection to. You are savvy on Wikipedia, and you use the rules to your advantage, i understand this, that's why i would ask you to please refrain from further comments until returns tomorrow to resume the mediation. Thank you. --TishoYanchev (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope - nothing suspicious at all actually. We are counting arguments here and not so called Bulgarians in a facebook group. All I hear from you is loud shouting you are the only one correct and how criminal the other counterparts in this discussion are and that's about it - a more constructive approach might be helpful.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but i only shouted one time above, because i got angry how the other two users are lying about my proposed change and arguments. I am not saying others are wrong, and i am right, in fact, i have been begging for them to discuss their disagreements with me for several days now. Non of them have disagreed with the premise of what i am saying, yet for some unknown reason, they refuse to remove Slavic so it becomes only Ethnic Group, and then add another sentence next to this one stating all the ancestral groups, including Slavs, something already listed below the same page. --TishoYanchev (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, i am from Bulgaria. I also agree that bulgarians are more than slavic. Anitatod (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Another user just commented (18:45, 7 December 2017‎) that they agree with the changes, and then their comment was removed by User:Jingiby on the grounds again of being a sock. User:Jingiby did the same thing yesterday with  who also supported my changes. What evidence does User:Jingiby has to accuse  of being a sock, and is it not suspicious enough that anyone who supports me gets their comment removed by User:Jingiby? --TishoYanchev (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted myself. However, it is very suspicious how editors with 1 or 0 edits here, are supporting exactly you. Isn't it? Jingiby (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not suspicious because even i don't have any edits here, i made my account several years ago, but this is the first time i am actually using it to edit. Most Bulgarians do not speak English, and probably don't have time to monitor Wikipedia every day, but i am sure most Bulgarians agree with the proposed changes, because we study in history that Bulgarians are mixed of multiple ethnic groups, and we have diverse ethnic and cultural ancestry. Our culture and traditions are not limited to Slavic. --TishoYanchev (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * “ (...) but i am sure most Bulgarians agree with the proposed changes (...) ”
 * Even if you could prove this—which I'm sure you cannot—it wouldn't matter. I'm afraid both you and those newly registered accounts are missing the point here completely. Wikipedia is not a democracy, where what's written is decided by who manages to get more “votes” (or gather a larger group on Facebook, for that matter). Neither—and even less so—it is bound to represent any nation's view on a certain topic as the “authoritative” one (otherwise the article on North Korea would've looked drastically different). I'm not even going to argue here whether what you state about the Bulgarian education is correct—again, this is completely irrelevant. The real—and only relevant—question is: do you have reliable enough sources that would justify the weight you want to put in your proposed statement? So far, I'm failing to see a sensible answer to this.
 * I strongly advise you to read the whole WP:VERIFY article before we continue. — Luchesar • T/C 21:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources for what? Do you actually understand what am i proposing? Is there anybody here that needs sources to prove that present day Bulgarian people descent from multiple ancestral groups, and not just Slavs? Is there anybody here that is making the claim that Bulgarians descent from only Slavic people? Nobody here is making that claim, nobody here is disputing what i am saying, even the current lede is not sourced. Even the recent change User:Jingiby made says the same thing i am saying! In the very same page of Bulgarians, it is stated that Bulgarians have diverse ancestral heritage, and many ancestral groups are listed. This statement contradicts the lede sentence. The first sentence is simply misleading, and you know it. All i want is to remove the word Slavic from Ethnic Group, and then add next to it the already existing list of the many ethnic ancestral groups that make up modern Bulgarians. Introducing Bulgarians are Slavic Ethnic Group gives the impression that Bulgarians are merely Slavic and nothing else, when we are so much more than that, and nobody is disputing that. I am yet to hear from anyone of you a single logical or reasonable reason for not removing Slavic from the first sentence. --TishoYanchev (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources for what? Do you actually understand what am i proposing? Is there anybody here that needs sources to prove that present day Bulgarian people descent from multiple ancestral groups, and not just Slavs? Is there anybody here that is making the claim that Bulgarians descent from only Slavic people? Nobody here is making that claim, nobody here is disputing what i am saying, even the current lede is not sourced. Even the recent change User:Jingiby made says the same thing i am saying! In the very same page of Bulgarians, it is stated that Bulgarians have diverse ancestral heritage, and many ancestral groups are listed. This statement contradicts the lede sentence. The first sentence is simply misleading, and you know it. All i want is to remove the word Slavic from Ethnic Group, and then add next to it the already existing list of the many ethnic ancestral groups that make up modern Bulgarians. Introducing Bulgarians are Slavic Ethnic Group gives the impression that Bulgarians are merely Slavic and nothing else, when we are so much more than that, and nobody is disputing that. I am yet to hear from anyone of you a single logical or reasonable reason for not removing Slavic from the first sentence. --TishoYanchev (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, in Wikipedia we do actually need sources for everything that may be even remotely a matter of debate. Unless I've missed something, the sources you had presented so far in support of your case were deemed not reliable enough and the removal of the word “Slavic” was considered as bringing undue weight to a certain point of view (or, in other words, harming the WP:NPOV). Last but not least, the burden of proof lies on you—not on us to prove your changes unreasonable. — Luchesar • T/C 22:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Tell me what source do you want, and i will give it to you. And while you're at it, can you please explain me why were my sources deemed not reliable? Why is a research paper of DNA testing published in the scientific journal of Plos and Researchgate deemed unreliable? And also, in case you haven't noticed, the information you are asking me to provide source for is already included and sourced, right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians#Ethnogenesis --TishoYanchev (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Right. What you're basically saying is that the article itself is fine as it is: its body representing—as it should—all significant viewpoints, “in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources”, to quote WP:WEIGHT. The lead, on the other hand—and what all this discussion has been about—should provide a brief overview of the article's subject, while still maintaining NPOV. Therefore, the viewpoint weights need to be taken into account in the lead as well, which, unless a lot of uncertainty exists, usually means that only the well established and widely shared viewpoint(s) is/are presented there. You need to prove that what you propose for the lead is indeed a well established and widely shared point of view. Why your sources (at least the ones presented so far) cannot be considered such good proof has been well explained by ! dave  and I'm not going to repeat him. — Luchesar • T/C 02:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

This is getting a bit absurd. User:Nk and I have repeatedly brought up the solid argument that the main characteristic of an "ethnic group" is the language - Bulgarian language indisputably belongs to the Southern Branch of the Slavic languages. Genome, DNA and so on simply have no place here. This was not addressed at all by User:TishoYanchev (forgive me if I missed it somewhere).--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the main characteristics of an Ethnic Group are the language, does that mean the French-speaking nations in Africa are Ethnically French or Germanic? Why are English people described as Ethnic Group then, since they speak Germanic language? Same goes for the French people. The dictionary definition of an Ethnicity is the state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. Bulgarian culture and national traditions are diverse, and we have diverse ethnic ancestry. Bulgarian culture is not only Slavic culture, and Bulgarian traditions are not only Slavic traditions. We have diverse cultural and ethnic ancestry, and Slavic people are part of our history, culture and ancestry, but by no mean the only part. We are proud of our Slavic heritage, but we are also proud of our Thracian ancestry, Bulgar ancestry and all the other ancestral groups for their contributions to our culture and traditions. It is deeply insulting to all Bulgarians to describe us as merely Slavic, when we are so much more than that, it is an insult to our ancestry, but i am sure you already know that. --TishoYanchev (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, i have already proposed a compromise, which is add that Bulgarians are Slavic speakers, but not Slavic ethnic group. I.e. i am proposing the following: Bulgarians are an Ethnic Group native to Bulgaria and its neighboring regions who speak Slavic language. Another proposal could be: Bulgarians are a Slavic-speaking Ethnic Group. That would be more accurate than the current one. --TishoYanchev (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * “ It is deeply insulting to all Bulgarians to describe us as merely Slavic (...) ”
 * You continue making statements that are 1) unproven, and 2) irrelevant, even if they were otherwise proven. Also, consensus is not quite the same as compromise. You don't write in Wikipedia what is “equidistant” from all editors' viewpoints. It's not about the editors' points of view at all: either you have reliable sources for what you want changed in the article—or being “compromised with”, anyway—or you don't. Everything else might be a good topic for some coffee break, but is essentially a waste of time and energy here. By the way, another (short) text that might be worth reading is WP:LISTEN. At least to me it seems that you are reciting the same things over and over again, all the while missing the key points about what Wikipedia is—and what it's not. — Luchesar • T/C 21:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Like i told you, sources for what? Nobody is disputing what i am saying, and nobody is disputing the validity or accuracy of my proposed change. Do you need me to give you source that Bulgarians descent from multiple ancestral groups? That information is already included in the same page Bulgarians below, and it is sourced, and the recent changes User:Jingiby made say the same thing i am saying. The first sentence on the lede that says Bulgarians are Slavic Ethnic Group is not sourced, and it contradicts the already existing information below. It is misleading, as it gives the reader the impression that Bulgarians are only Slavic, and nothing else. The sources that i did provide above were reliable, because they were highly valued scientific journals, but they were examining what percentage of our DNA is Slavic, what percentage is Thracian, what percentage is Bulgar and so on. The premise that Bulgarians are mixed of multiple ethnic groups is UNDISPUTED. Can't you understand that? --TishoYanchev (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You have failed to draft an effective proposal and you are now wasting people's time. You don't seem to understand the importance of WP:V, and how having content correctly referenced is actually really important. Allow me to act as Grim Reaper with this. ! dave  09:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is my proposal not effective? Again, let me repeat myself: I want to remove the word Slavic from Slavic Ethnic Group which is the leading text, and then i want to add a list of all the ancestral groups that make up modern day Bulgarians. I.e. i want the following change:


 * ''Bulgarians are an Ethnic Group native to Bulgaria and its neighboring regions.
 * Historically the Bulgarian people's heritage is diverse, including populations of South Slavs, Thracians, Proto-Bulgarians, Celts, Goths, Romans, Ancient Greeks, Sarmatians, Paeonians and Illyrians. Just under 85% of Bulgaria's population identified as Bulgarian in 2011 Bulgarian census.


 * I am taking the information that already exist and is sourced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians#Ethnogenesis and putting it above, in order or the lead text to provide a more objective and accurate description of who Bulgarian people are as an Ethnic Group! Please tell, what is it that you want me to do? Can't you see that nobody is arguing with me about the premise of what i am proposing? What more do you want me to do about it? Are you OK if Americans were described as Germanic Ethnic Group?


 * I have proposed 2 compromises, and i have been arguing and making my cases for almost a week now, and NOBODY has disagreed or objected to the premise i am suggesting, the 3 non-Bulgarians above reject removing Slavic for unknown reason! What is their reason? Why are they not arguing or discussing with me? --TishoYanchev (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to propose changes which include some reliable sources, which, if they are discussing genetics, 'must not be primary sources, so they cannot be fresh off the shelf research where the people who conducted the report actually did the research. You have not provided any of this. ! dave  13:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding! Please listen to me. This is not about sources, the information i want to add is already included and sourced here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians#Ethnogenesis ! You see? It's already stated that Bulgarians descent from many ethnic groups, and it's sourced! What i am proposing is this, if it's already established and a fact that Bulgarians descent from many ethnic groups, then why is the lede saying that Bulgarians are only Slavic? Can't you see this is misleading and it gives wrong information? I want to remove the word Slavic from the first sentence, and then add the information already stated below here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians#Ethnogenesis by moving it above right next to the first sentence. I want to say, that historically Bulgarians have diverse ancestry, and then list them in a row. This information is ALREADY SOURCED and included! Jingiby and nobody else is disputing this!! --TishoYanchev (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Historically the Bulgarian people's heritage is diverse, including populations of South Slavs, Thracians, Proto-Bulgarians, Celts, Goths, Romans, Ancient Greeks, Sarmatians, Paeonians and Illyrians. Just under 85% of Bulgaria's population identified as Bulgarian in 2011 Bulgarian census.
 * This information is already included and well sourced in the very same page! I just want to restructure it and move it above so it gives the reader a more objective information about who Bulgarians are, rather than just a single sentence saying we are Slavic! That gives a wrong imprsesion! --TishoYanchev (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please ask User:Jingiby what exactly is he disputing? What is he against? He constantly accuse me of wanting to make controversial changes, but the information i want to add is already included and sourced! Even the latest changes he made here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians#Bulgarian_ethnogenetic_conception say the same thing! That Bulgarians descent from many ethnic group! So what exactly is he disputing?? And what why does he keep saying i want to make controversial changes? --TishoYanchev (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Why did you lie about me? I trusted you, i trusted that you will be objective and listen to what i am saying and not what they say about me. I explained to you politely that what they say is not what i am proposing. And that this is not about sources, because the information is already sourced and included. I explained to you that Jingiby and others are not discussing anything with me, they are not objecting to the information. I thought you understood this? Why did you turn against me? --TishoYanchev (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)