Talk:Bulgarian people

message: An anon changed the number:  
:Greece:    130,000 (est.) 
:Greece:    37,230 (2001) 
Please verify. mikka (t)
         It's 37,230 (2001 census). 
37,230 is a number of the official census. Stop changing that with an estimation of an unknown source.
Please, stop writing that Bulgarians in Greece are 130,000 including illegal immigrants! You know very well it's not true and the fact 130,000 is a number from an unofficial source, doesn't mean these persons are illegal immigrants. Where are objectivity and neutrality ? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a neutral source of information ? I'm sorry, but I'm really disappointed by this! And I don't think Wikipedia is a place for greek xenophobes to propagandate their fascist ideas ! Please tell me, if i have said something wrong !
Why there is no data for Cyprus? It is officially announced that a great number of bulgarians live there, and yet there is not even a mention about it, although there is data about some 150 bulgarians living in Slovakia...... Ridiculous!
Official US Census stats are 92,841 Bulgarians in USA. 2006 US Census  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.86.42.50 (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: Why is this page somehow so special that it is the only one not allowing estimates from nationmaster/CIA world fact book (which by the way are NOT direct wikipedia mirrors - only the encyclopedia of nationmaster is)? VMORO claims that he does not wish to allow my 6.2 million figure because it was self calculated - meaning I simply used a calculator to figure in the percent Bulgarian of the Bulgarian total population - as if that somehow doesnt reflect what the CIA world factbook was implying. He says its bad to include too many references yet has plenty of refrences there himself - what difference would one regularly visited reference make? Nearly all sources online say that roughly 84% of the roughly 7.5 million people in Bulgarians are Bulgarian (which would be made out to around 6.2-6.3 million --- not the 6.6 million stated on this statistics page. VMORO continuously refuses to admit the .3 million disparity. His explanations do not show me any reason why adding this would be in any way bad. Antidote 22:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulgarian statistics

message: Please be aware! Several users are removing valid, accurate, and additional information being added to this article. I changed Bulgaria's population to 7,761,000 (2005), and pointed to the source: Estimates by the National Statistics Institute and Eurostat that can be found also here Demographics of Bulgaria. Someone changed it back to the old one.
I also added extensive information about Bulgarian names, and someone removed ALL of the information without even a simple explanation. I thought Wikipedia was about presenting useful information to everyone not playing childish games. Thank you. --Vanka5 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing useful accurate information from this article 

message: User:Antidote evidently thinks that I am a moron or may be he himself is a moron but I'll let you make your judgements for yourselves:
:User:Antidote keeps quoting NationMaster, which represents an idiotic compilation of facts from Wikipedia (edition several months ago) and other sources, including the Factbook. If one opens Demographics of Bulgaria in NationMaster, one will see the wikipedia article 70 days exactly at the pointn when it was subject to vandalism by an anonomous user who frivolously (ha! it is not only Antidote who does such things but may be Antidote and anonymous are the same person???) tampered with the data from Census 2001. Thank you, thank you, thank you very much, Antidote for providing us with this extremely precious information. (Applause waited)
:User:Antidote takes an estimate of the Factbook and calculates on his own ethnic distributions using the 2001 census up to the hundreds!!! How wise that is, my dear, I am thrilled!!! Has the thought that YOU MAY NOT DO OWN CALCULATIONS crossed your mind? Have you thought that ethnic distributions in 2001 may not be valid in 2005? What if the number of Bulgarians suddenly exploded? Or that it suddenly plunged? Ha???
:So, the estimate of the Factbook... Some organisation based in Washington makes an estimation without giving any ground for its estimations, without being a statistics organization but User:Antidote thinks this is the best source he could take a 2005 estimate from. Well, the Factbook may be well-publiced but Brittney Spears is well-publicised, as well, and her music is shite. Look at these two links, the first one is the official estimate of Eurostat for 2005  (7,761,000), the other one is an encyclopedia quoting the official estimate of the UN for 2003  (7,897,000). These are REPUTABLE STATISTICS ORGANISATIONS and compared with them, the Factbook is worthless. Other questions, my dear?
Over the last couple of months, you have shown remarkable obstinacy to include moronic estimates and judgements of your own, not only here but also in other articles. I have been pointing out what I summarised above for several months in a row, are you so thick that you can't figure it out or what? And stop offering me cheap compromises - I make compromises when there are two angles of looking at the situation, not when someone offers me a cheap compilation of cooked up data. Get it your in mind that your edits will not pass. Because they won't. VMORO 00:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no tempering with data here. All my data is sourced. The nationmaster estimates are NOT taken from Wikipedia, only their articles are...there's a difference. Your challenging "some organization in Washington" shows you are unwilling to reach a consensus in all cases. There are literally dozens of demographic articles online that talk about the dropping Bulgarian population. Here's one right here:  So this "StUpId estimate from Washington" is probably correct. I don't see how Bulgarians is subject to your opinion on the factbook but every single other nationality article on Wikipedia isn't? Hmm. Oh and WP:CIVIL. I say we get an unbiased opinion on whether or not it is fair to include these numbers. I will step down if most people don't agree with me. OK? Antidote
Also, I think this may be a case of WP:OWN. Antidote
User:VMORO is having problems with WP:OWN (as well as WP:CIVIL) on the article. He refuses to include the most recently estimated Bulgaria statistics for ethnic Bulgarians because he claims they are "self-calculated" from the 2001 percent of ethnic Bulgarians statistic. Here is a source stating the current 2005 calculated population . However, nearly every other ethnic group article employs the most recent statistics from places like CIA World Factbook and others, and the use of the 2001 estimates ethnic Bulgarian population is not farflung because all demographers talk about ethnic Bulgarians being outbred by the minorities of the nation. Though USER:VMORO seems to be highly against including "estimated" statistics, he includes very farflung estimates from the Bulgarian Ministry -- yet doesn't include these lower estimate. A third opinion is needed to see whether or not these estimates should go in there. Either all estimates are removed from the page and only official data is added, or all estimates of verifiable sources are included. 10:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Frivolous tempering with data by User:Antidote/[[WP:OWN]] issue with User:VMORO

message: I have been to Bulgaria a few times and many people there look like gypsies. Are these people ethnic Bulgarians?--81.37.18.88 12:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if they look like gypsies, they're gypsies. It's easy to distinguish them from Bulgarians.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: The Greek upper estimate and the Agency for Bulgarians Abroad estimates include ethnic Macedonians as Bulgarians abroad, therefore the numbers are being replaced by more reliable census #s. 65.9.115.185 20:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics including Macedonians Abroad

message: Why did you decide to remove the new picture? Whom do you refer to as "Hristov"? Is it "Christo Yavashev"? And why do you think he is not representative? Smartech 20:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John Atanasoff has has acknowledged his bulgarian origin. I do not think it is appropriate of you to qualify someone as A or B artist. And I will provide necessary licenses and reinstate the image. Smartech 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Antidote]]'s removal of the new picture 

message: Why is he listed as a Bulgarian? If someone doesn't present a credible source (WP:CITE) I'm removing the picture altogether. Simple as that. Miskin 16:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Cyril 

message: The Bulgarians opinion is not very important??? This sounds like censorship to me ;-) --Telex 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected that ;-) The point is we are making a universal encyclopedia, and I hardly see why much importance should be given to the opinion of Bulgarians on Macs or of Albanians on Arvanites. I feel it should be scholarship to rule, even if it to is fallible, rather than the nationalisms or prejudices of the neighbours. Even if this risks to make me a Censor ;-)))))--Aldux 14:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarians' opinion 

message: I don`t think Simeon II of Bulgaria must be in the list.He is not "tsar" of Bulgaria,he was just Prime Minister and in fact he isn`t more important than the president and now is ordinary politician.
I think he must be replaced with Veselin Topalov:present-day example for notable Bulgarians.Georgi Ivanov(first Bulgarian cosmonaut) must be added too.
--85.130.11.193 17:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I have to strongly disagree with is the use of eight Bulgarians in the photos; everybody uses four, and eight only crams them making it all more ugly.--Aldux 23:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Bulgarians 

message: Hello... As a resident of Nantucket, while we have a large population of Bulgarians on island, the numbers just don't seem to add up in terms of population. Can someone check this fact? I'm guessing it was added as a joke by a local here. Schuyler s. 02:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nantucket 

message: The sentence "the Mediterranian type of physical anthropology by the modern Bulgarians" doesn't make any sense in English. Physical anthropology is a branch of Anthropology, thus a science. People can have ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPE but NOT ANTHROPOLOGY. Internedko 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical anthropology 

message: Is there any evidence of this population in Macedonia? The link (2) leads to a passage which gives no real source and doesn't mention Macedonia anyway. I was checking the 2002 census and Bulgarians are not mentioned, but then with only 1,400 people, they would only be in the "remaining" section which is blank. Any more positive proof? Balkantropolis 09:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarians in Repubic of Macedonia 

message: There is an IP user altering data on the main page, changing census data.  Can somebody knowledgable check the data?—Gaff ταλκ 04:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 16:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: please add sources to the claims that lazar kolishevski changed his identity from bulgarian to ethnic macedonian, and that the population of today's republic of macedonia has been forced to do the same, or remove these controversial statements from the article. -thank you Capricornis 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  forced ethnic Macedonian conversion in former yugoslavia 

message: Please, stop removig sourced info from this chapter whitout any coments! This is your constant behavior and it is against the rules of Wikipedia! If you have another sourced info simply wrote it in the chapter whitoup deleting parts from it! Jingby (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnogenesis 

message: BULGARIANS ARE NOT MEDITERRANEAN!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by D Yankov (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian ethnogenesis 

message: If Bulgarians are Slavs, why do they use a non-slavic ethnonym? Maybe you should change it and not call yourself a Turkic name, then you can be Slavs. 71.243.3.192 (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with a Slavic people using a non-Slavic ethnonym?  --Cameltrader (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavs? 

message: the article states that their are smaller minorities of bulgarians in albania, greece and hungary?? where are the sources for this??? if their are none then that part should be deleted, because it is to unencyclopedic. PMK1 (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bulgarians in hungary ,albania and greece??? 

message: There is a population census stating there are 1,422 Bulgarians in Macedonia, but there is NO reference to the date, please provide a reference or it shall be deleted. Maktruth (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no reference stating 1,422 Macedonian citizens declared themselves as Bulgarian, therefore I have deleted it from the page. Please find the source with confirms 1,422 Bulgarians of Macedonian citizenship before posting it again. Maktruth (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarians in Macedonia 

message: It's so convoluted and full of complex, technical terminology which makes absolutely no reference to what in the hell Bulgarians physically look like!
It keeps mentioning vague pseudo-scientific terms like "Atlanto-Mediterranean" or "Neo-Danubian", from which the average reader can probably gather zero information as to the appearance of Bulgarians.
Atlanto-Mediterranean?? That covers how many countries or ethnicities?? That means a person of Atlanto-Mediterranean appearance could look like anything from a White, British Person to a North African Arab! It's ridiculous! It's like saying a person of "Indianic-Pacific" appearance, it's so general and broad that you can't use it classify one country with that description.
Lines like: "The basic element is the Atlanto-Mediterranean, which probably goes back to the Neolithic; the Neo-Danubian is probably of both Slavic and Ugrian introduction, although some of it may be older; the Nordic may be of several origins, including Thracian; the Dinaric is simply the result of Bulgarian admixture.... trail off onto some dribble about ethnogenetic history, and are totally irrelevant.
Whoever rewrites this should simply give a brief description of the average phenotype of most Bulgarians and state is it a result of a long history of combination between Eastern and Western cultures and peoples, simply put.
If I have some time in the future I'll edit it myself.
Gamer112 (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd paragraph of Ethnogenesis is pure crap and needs a rewrite... 

message: could some one find me the official census where it states that their is 50,000 bulgarians in albania. Otherwise it should be removed. PMK1 (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you threatening me? That you're gonna remove all the info from the article? Did you read WP:Vandalism as I told you? --Laveol T 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I put real census data and i remove Albania,becouse that source is from Bulgarian newspaper and is not in English!
Makedonij 22:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, most of the sources are actually in Bulgarian. The article is about Bulgarians, did you forget that? --Laveol T 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sources are not resonable,i dont undrerstand Bulgarian!!Source must be in ENGLISH,tray that sources in Bulgarian version!!And again when i click on link about Bulgarians in Italy,there is nothig there!!!Makedonij 22:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both links work fine. Go look at the Macedonians (ethnic group) article - it has the same link. And stop playing with articles - you're really starting to become disruptive. --Laveol T 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually Focus is a Balkans' news agency and it's mostly a good source. The link is to another site cause the access to their archive is not free. It only cites the ministry. And the ministry is somewhat a reliable source since this is the only institution that has any idea of the number of people abroad. If you have the census numbers we can add them as well. I tend to use two numbers for every country where I can find the official census - one (usually smaller) with the census result and another with the agency for Bulgarians abroad. It counts the number of people registered at the embassies + those that have recently emigrated or are participating in some committee of Bulgarians. --Laveol T 09:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But Laveol,we can do the same on Macedonian article,i bet you will opose there???Makedonij (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Laveol what about surces??? I'm replaceing it whit Bulgarians in Russia!http://www.perepis2002.ru/index.html?id=17 --Makedonij (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Another source,NO BULGARIANS IN ALBANIA!*  Osce report of Minorities in Albania--Makedonij (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Another source,NO BULGARIANS IN ALBANIA!*  Republic of Albania--Makedonij (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Another source,NO BULGARIANS IN ALBANIA!*   ODIHR--Makedonij (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you just give the relevant passages and an accompanying translation of the "reliable" parts? BalkanFever 09:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  50,000 bulgarians in albania 

message: During disambiguation of links I was unable to decide which chancellery was meant in sentence while Slavonic was the official language of the princely chancellery and of the church until the end of 17th century. --Ruziklan (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chancellery 

message: Laveol, please enlighten me as to why the high estimates should be kept along with the official census. Many other ethnic groups use only the census, why is bulgarians an exception?PMK1 (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already discussed that - it is more precise since the info is newer and most censuses are from 2001 or even earlier. Let me make it clear - they are as official as they could get and don't show any ridiculous stuff. It's not an exception - it looks a lot better and trustworthy having two numbers - one from the census and one from the embassies. It's not like they've made up the number - they show the number of people registered in the embassies. Only the consulate of Chicago, for example, has close to 100,000 people registered as Bulgarians living in Chicago. That's just an example - and I'd be sceptical of it as well if it did not come from a verifiable and reliable source. --Laveol T 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously trying to tell me that in 6 years over 240,000 bulgarians have made their way to the united states??? or that since December 2006 50,000+ Bulgarians have gone to italy. Or that since 2006 15,000 Bulgarians have gone to Canada?? This is ridiculous! they havent gone in such large numbers to America and Italy, but you keep claiming that the newer info is more precise?? Come on Laveol, enough with the propoganda. You cannot say that becuase the bulgarian government claims it, it is truthful. Most governments over estimate the numbers for their own populations. The Greek government claims 2,500,000 in America and 700,000 in Australia, they are over estimates. The Macedonian government claims 150,000 in canada and 200,000 in America, more over estimates. The Bulgarian Government is doing the same thing. This is clearly unsubstantiated propoganda, and estimates generally belong on the sub groups pages, see:Bulgarian Americans, Greek American, Russian migration to the United Kingdom. That is where many of the estimates go. Especialy when the question about ancestry is asked generally only the OFFICIAL census data goes in, the bulgarian government isn't a credible source, neither are many balkan governments for these kind of matters. PMK1 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary - it is. This is an official source as are all the others. Let me remind you that you've added the most ridiculous number - that for Turkey, which I think is way off the line. And what's the problem since the total number is based on the censuses and not on the estimates from the ABA? I seriously suggest you clean up the Macedonians (ethnic group) article from ridiculous numbers (which don't state even the government or something). Please, explain me, why would the Bulgarian government lie about the number of people registered within the embassies with a permanent address in a particular country? What does that benefit them? I'd understand if that was the case with a neighbouring country - RoM, Serbia, Romania, but this is not. I see the link to the US number is gone some way - I'll fix it.--Laveol T 10:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously asking what advantage it gives them, you should work it out for yourself. But all the balkan governments do lie, including the Bulgarian one. If you insist on having the estimates then i cannot see why the macedonians page cannot have estimates from the Macedonian government??? But when the numbers get to 250,000  macedonians in bulgaria, then im sure the government will not become a credible source anymore and it is just propaganda. I mean they are all just estimates? If i write 250,000 Macedonians in Bulgaria and claim the number is from the Macedonian government, you will say only 5071, look at the census, you have posted false information. But when you claim extraordinary numbers like 300,000 in america and i say look at the census you choose to completely disregard the official census and still include estimates. Well if there is 300,000 Bulgarians in America i cant see why there cant be 250,000 (est.) macedonians in Bulgaria?? PMK1 (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all as I told you a number of times, this is not an estimate. The numbers are based on the number of people registered in the BG embassies as Bulgarians with an address registration in the US. Ok? And seriously what advantage does this give the Bulgarian government? They cannot claim US land or something. It doesn't prove anything as well besides that the conditions here were so good that some 300,000 Bulgarians emigrated. As you say I'm not adding the BG government estimates for neighbouring countries cause these might not be NPOV. If there were 200,000 Bulgarians living in RoM, then they could effectively ask for autonomy or something and the BG government would justify some actions in RoM's internal politics. And something more - why do you consider the numbers ridiculous. I'd say we're missing some half a million Bulgarians as well. I mean no matter how bad the demographic situation became, there's just no way Bulgaria's population would shrink from 9 mill to 7,5 mill without a sufficient enough emigration. And that for less than 20 years. Where have they gone? Disappeared? --Laveol T 20:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is called propoganda. All balkan governments do it. How can there be 300,000 Bulgarians registered with the embassies when the last census only counted 65,000?? Please expain. When did bulgaria have 9.5 million? Doesnt bulgaria have one of the lowest growth rates in europe? (9.8 births vs. 14.8 deaths) It would make sense that the population has decreased. Also how come you must always insist on having the inflated figures?? PMK1 (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Laveol is useing double standards!In every single article!He opose in Macedonian editors articles,but when the word  is about Bulgarians there is no rules for bulgarian editors.About 9mil.Bulgarians there we can see how onest is Bulgarian govermant,and do you forgot about 50.000 Bulgarians in Albania??--Makedonij (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  high estimates? 

message: Stop removing sourced data form the ethnogenesis section!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivailo82 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnogenesis 

message: Hey stop removing sourced data, that is a real data that describes Bulgarian anthropology from the snpa nordish website. Bulgarians are not only characterized by Mediterranean, there are other features as well like nordic, dinaric, central asian turanid, slavic and alpine. Bulgarians are mixed with all these types NOT JUST MEDITERRANEAN. In fact mediterranean are quite low. Mediterraneans are only in countries like spain, portugal, italy, greece and the middle eastern countries. NOT BULGARIA!
So don't mess up the ethnogenesis section because I have given important sourced information from a good website. And the paragraph about relation to anatolian turks and armenians is total rubbish and that source is corrupt. Bulgarians are related to romanians, macedonians, bosnians and croats. Bulgarians are balkan people not middle easterners. Bulgarians have nothing to do with the middle easterners or the mediterraneans. As fact says Bulgarians are people that descended from a mix of indigeounous balkan people like the thracians and the illyrians, slavs, celts, central asian bulgars from western china of iranic stock and germanics.
--Ivailo82 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, by blindly reverting my edit even when I had not removed your material, you have more than earned the block and topic-ban that is heading your way within the next few hours, depend on it. But I will now again remove it, if for no reason than that - surprise, surprise - it is also a blatant copyright violation. Apart from that, thanks for at least admitting where you got it from. That "Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology" is most definitely not a reliable source, and Lundmann may have been a reputable author in his time but is hopelessly outdated today, as even his fans at the SNPA seem to admit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BULGARIAN ETHNOGENESIS 

message: modern bulgarians are the descends of proto-Turks, so identify them as a south slavic is completely wrong. --85.103.254.227 (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't use socks and don't introduce ORish stuff into the article. If every single scientist says they are South Slavs then they must be South Slavs. Ok? No need for pan-turkism here as well. --Laveol T 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bulgars as turkic backround 

message: Academic sources have been included showing the ethnogenesis of the ancient Bulgars. Please do not remove academic sources just because you have a different perspective regarding who or what the ancient Bulgars may or may not be. Scientific studies are the only factor that can keep Wikipedia as objective as possible and thereby scientific perspectives must guide articles herein. 
Some individuals are constantly trying to portray the ancient Bulgars as barbarians, nomads, etc , ... , even whilst various studies show that they were prolific state builders throughout Eurasia (ie: Baktria, Balkh, Balkhar (Balkharia), Volga Bulgaria, Bulgaria, etc...). They had a complex written system, centralized civil and military rule based on Balkhar Law, social organization, accurate cyclical [12 temporal units] calendar system, monotheistic religion and ancient history that has been linked to Baktria (Bactria) and indeed Balkh, hence the name Balkhar/Bulgar. Studies have been conducted by various archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists and general historians, including the likes of Dr. Peter Dobrev, renowned member of BAN (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences). By erasing their studies one would be essentially hiding evidence that helps identify the origins of the ancient Bulgars.
Thank you for your understanding and help in this matter.--Monshuai (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please refrain from removing academic sources 

message: The article describes Bulgarians as a Southern Slavic people. There isn't even a fraction of 480,000 Southern Slavs or Bulgarians in Turkey. These are Bulgarian born ethnic Turks who left Bulgaria for well-known reasons. Being born in Bulgaria does not make one automatically a Bulgarian. When are you, people, going to get it or give up on that foolosh nationalistic agenda? If you want more Bulgarians on this planet start to reproduce instead of trying to alter the ethnicity of others. These claims are nothing but an insult to those who left Bulgaria.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, top for a second and calm down. Ready? The person that added the number was not a Bulgarian. So you can take all your "foolosh nationalistic agenda" and your advice to people to "reproduce" back and stop ranting. If you have a ref for the number, provide it. If not - don't try to insult us, ok? --Laveol T 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  480,000 Bulgarians in Turkey? =

message: According to Wikipedia - Reliable sources articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. See:Wikipedia:Verifiability
Encyclopedia Britannica, Cambridge University Press, University of Washington Press, Harvard University Press and Oxford University Press wich publications are added as references are much more reliable then Peter Dobrev and B. Dimitrov Fringe theory! If you can provide other proves published in more reliable English language universities show them! Remarks: Nations exists from 19 Century!The "Aryan race" is a concept from the period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - not more actual. Read the article about Bulgars. The leading theory is Turkic! Regards! Jingby (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgars 

message: Calling the work and national studies conducted by members of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences as being nothing more than fringe theories is very inappropriate. Taking into account all historians worldwide involved with Bulgaria's history, those that have studied the Bulgars the most are naturally Bulgarian scientists. Indeed, those who have access to the greatest amount of information relating to the Bulgars are Bulgarian historians. Should I list the reasons? The western encyclopaedias that you mention have not changed their stance on the Bulgars for nearly a century. Sorry to disappoint you, but science is ever evolving and new discoveries are constantly sought and indeed made. If you go by the theories developed more than 100 years ago than you would be wrong about most things that are known to be scientifically true today. The same is true of history, and in the last two decades much work has gone into analyzing the ancient Bulgars from an anthropological and linguistic perspective. This work is not taken into account by the older theories that are consequently outdated. Unfortunately Bulgarian scientists, historians, etc ,..., do not have access nor publication rights over what is written in places such as Cambridge University. Further more, these foreign publishing houses are not constantly updating their articles about the Bulgars, because this subject is not seen as particularly important/high priority to them. 
What you've essentially done by way of your behaviour is negate all the work that Bulgarian academicians do in studying the history of their ancestors, while claiming static foreign sources as somehow representing a monolithic truth. Let me ask you, would you cite a Bulgarian encyclopaedia that said something different of the Anglo-Saxons than the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Would you then call the English theories on their own history to be "fringe theories"? I certainly would not, because the world's foremost experts on the Druids, Anglo-Saxons, Celts etc are from the British Isles. Likewise the world's foremost experts on the Bulgars, such as Petur Dobrev are from Bulgaria. The problem is that you and others have not shown respect for those scientists who study the Bulgars more than anyone else. 
Regarding your misrepresentation of the Iranic/Aryan theory, you need to very seriously re-evaluate how you present what people have written, because doing so in a fraudulent fashion is most unacceptable and indeed punishable. You speak of the Aryan Theory of the 19th century, while the sources that others and myself have provided have nothing to do with this theory. Indeed you mention the Nazi adopted Aryan theory that identified Germanic ethnic groups as the descendents of the Aryans, and thus the so-called genetic carriers of what they called the master race. This was certainly a racist fairy-tale that has been disproven by leading historians. On the other hand, the theory that connects the Bulgars to the Aryans has nothing to do with made up concepts such as a master race, blonde hair, blue eyes or anything of the sort. Leading scientists today do not associate these features to the real Aryans who were in fact people from Persia, the Hindu-Kush, the Kingdom of Balkhar, etc... Had you read the sources you would know that linguistic connections have been made between the Bulgars and the people that in ancient time came from the lands of Aryan. BTW, Aryan is linguistically the same word as Iran. It was always used by Aryan ethnic groups as a suffix to denote a territory as their own. Hence Balkh-Arya and/or Bulg-Aria. The mere fact that you associate the word Aryan with Hitler's fantasies about Germanic supremacy and not with what the word actually represents does not speak highly of you. All of this tells me that you have not even read the sources you discard in your edits. I wonder what Dr. Dobrev would think if he were to find out that you misrepresent his studies in such a dishonest manner without ever having read them in the first place? The fact that you have partial anonymity in Wikipedia does not give you the right to do this. 
If need be an IP address investigation can be conducted. Also the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences should be contacted and shown how some people like you discard its detailed studies of the Bulgar history, which no other organization knows better. I think it's important for this information to de disseminated, both within public and academic circles, so that there is an impetus for formal investigations to be conducted regarding the unethical behaviour of a minority of wikipedians. I am also drafting a proposal that the home IP-addresses of people who have deleted academic sources be restrained/blocked from ever being able to have editorial rights on Wikipedia again. Some administrators agree with me and are ready to lend a hand. Alas this process in Wikipedia is slow, but the end result may very well be powerful and consequently lead to greater accountability.--Monshuai (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All modern scientists do not answer as you say they do. Go to the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and look through the studies. The Turkic theory is now considered vastly simplified and outdated by those who have conducted anthropological and lingusitic studies. The majority of modern scientists in Bulgaria believe the Bulgars to have originated from Balkhar (Bulgar), whereupon they then moved northward and mixed with other peoples. Some believe they mixed with Turkic ethnic groups, not Turks. There is a difference between the word Turkic and Turk. You continue to mix and misrepresent academic deductions. There is also a theory by Korean scientists who believe the presence of Mongoloid genes present in minor portions within the Bulgar population comes from a Korean ethnic group that migrated westward and mixed with the said peoples. I will find the academic sources to this too. All scientists believe the Bulgars to have become a composite people by the time they came to Bulgaria, hence the combination of a majority caucasoid genes and minority mongoloid genes. However this does not change the findings that show the origin of the Bulgars. --Monshuai (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Monshuai, I suggest you tone down your comments a bit. I can assure you, Jingiby is more than aware on the difference between Turkic and Turk. Further - you can't simply disregard the most popular among scientists theory on the Bulgar origin. I'm Bulgarian as well and I know that this particular theory is the most popular in all Bulgarian and Western publications. That's the fact. You can't simply remove all theories besides the one you like. They deserve mentioning and you don't have the right to throw out any of them. --Laveol T 09:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Laveol, I suggest you look at my edits before you accuse me of disregarding what you call the "most popular" theory on the Bulgars. Not once did I remove the Turkic theory from the article. What I've done is included the theory that many Bulgarian scientists regard as more complete. Since I am educated in history and received my history doctorate in Bulgaria, I likely have a more objective view as to what theory is or isn't popular in academic circles relating to this specific subject matter. A theory, that unlike the Turkic hypothesis, actually identifies an origin of the Bulgars, (geographically and linguistically), not simply placing an ethnic label that is far from proven. I also suggest you do not defend the same person who misrepresents the so-called official position of the Goverment of Bulgaria. See my post below with a link to the official website of the Government of Bulgaria, that Jingiby claimed stated the Bulgars to be Turkic. Obviously the website of the Bulgarian Government says no such thing and I am not going to allow someone to simply make things up and then claim they are "official".--Monshuai (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  PS: Laveol, you say that Jingiby knows the difference between Turkic and Turk. Then why does he say this, "So, the question is: were the Proto-Bulgarians Türks?" Someone who kows this difference would never say this.--Monshuai (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgars 

message: :Jingiby states that everyone should "check the official website of Bulgarian government!" He claims that in this website, the "Bulgars are described as Turkic too!" He goes on to say that "this is  the official position of Bulgaria!!!"
:I did check the official website of the Bulgarian Government (http://www.government.bg/fce/index.shtml?s=001&p=0023)and nowhere does it sate that the Bulgars were Turkic. Jingiby's misrepresentation of the official position of Bulgaria has also been noted and reported. Jingiby, by lying you are stimulating serious editors to prove you wrong everytime and liekly have your editorial rights terminated in an efficient and effective manner by administrators. Misrepresentation is one of the more serious offences you can committ here. The direct link to the history section of the Bulgarian Government's website is (http://www.government.bg/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0159&n=000002&g=). Now everyone can clearly see that Jingiby does not only erase academic sources and misrepresents their deductions, but also misrepresent the viewpoint of an entire sovereign nation and claims that his opinions are regarded as the official position of the Government of Bulgaria. I have pasted below the history section from the official website of the Bulgarian Government. Please read or follow the link.--Monshuai (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, stop cunning! The text in Bulgarian's government website is clear - През втората половина на 7 в. на територията на днешна Североизточна България се заселват и прабългарите, народ от тюркски произход. In the second half of 7th. Centuty on the territory from today North-east Bulgaria settled the Bulgars, people from Turkic origin. Jingby (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the link to the official website of the Bulgarian Goverment. However, the text that you posted which says, "През втората половина на 7 в. на територията на днешна Североизточна България се заселват и прабългарите, народ от тюркски произход." is not found in this official website of the Bulgarian Government. Show me the link to the official website that states this! Why haven't you done this? I did already and here it is again (http://www.government.bg/fce/index.shtml?s=001&p=0023). Link to history section (http://www.government.bg/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=0159&n=000002&g=) As you can see the Bulgarian Governmnet does not have this position that you misrepresent. BTW, I found the exact text you posted in Macedonian forums. Strange, the Bulgarian Government's websites do not have it at all, but Macedonian forums have this text. I wonder what deduction I can now make about you. --Monshuai (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulgars

message: No mention in the main article how the Bulgarians were divided to become Volga Bolghars and Danube Bulgars. There are also some Tatar sources which claim the Bulgarians to be originally being of Tatar origin. Any sources available of this in Bulgaria? I have the Tatar sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.115.5 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Death of Attila 453 and the Bulgarians devorce

message: "The easternmost South Slavs became part of the ancestors of the modern Bulgarians, which however, are genetically clearly separated from the tight DNA cluster of the most Slavic peoples. This phenomenon is explained by 'the genetic contribution of the people who lived in the region before the Slavic expansion' [50]." 
The cited link doesnt exist anymore, Dienekes must have moved it...and the PC plot, denodogram, analysis, etc that are referenced have been moved to http://dienekes.110mb.com/articles/fallmerayer/
I tried to fix it myself, but im not quite sure how-when I experiment with changing the text in the reference, it messes up the article. It would be great if someone else could do it to make sure its done correctly.                     134.121.247.116 (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source/Link moved 

message: Can you please some quote some sources that show how Macedonians are so close genetically related to Bulgarians, while not in the same time to everybody around them? This is a pretty blanket statement. The only genetic research I am aware of is the one that shows that Macedonians, Serbs and Bulgarians form a genetically related subgroup, separate from the other South Slavic people, but closer to the Greeks, Romanians and Albanians. Capricornis (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "neighbouring Macedonians are culturally, linguistically and genetically very closely related to Bulgarians" - Genetically??? 

message: I think that the ethnogenesis section is wrong because Bulgarians are not characterized by mediterranean features. They have mix of different features. They don't share similarities with greeks, armenians and Italians. Who found this rubbish source. It is not true and not a fact. Please fix the ethnogenesis section immediately. --Simsdaniels (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnogenesis