Talk:Bulgarians

collage with Bulgarian faces

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

Images in Infobox

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

That he's world-famous. This is the idea of the "famous Bulgarians" up there - people that are recognisable globally, not such that Bulgarians consider "important". John of Rila is not among them. Even the article about him is poorly written and unsourced - nowhere does it state that he's actually a patron saint of Bulgarians. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

He is famous today, but after 10 years I am not shure. Saint John of Rila is the only patron saint of the Bulgarian people and as one of the most important saints in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church since 1000 years. What is all about? If you insist to include him and Dobrev, please simply increase the number of individuals in the infobox. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the year is 2013, so it's irrelevant who will be famous in 10 years time. The fact is that most of the people included are included there for a reason - a significant contribution in their field of work or interest. John of Rila is basically a subject of a religious personality cult and nothing more - zero contribution even to Orthodox Christianity, let alone anything else. Once again, it doesn't matter whom Bulgarians consider important, it matters who is actually recognisable. I avoid expanding the infobox because it would become too large. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal disagreement cannot be an argument. Unless you have something else to add, I'll change it back. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

All removed persons are much more important then the substitutes. That is all. Jingiby (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

By what measure ? EDIT: Also, the word here is "significance", not "importance". And if there's nothing else to be added apart from personal dislike, there's no reason to keep it the way it is now. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 15:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We have 4 options:

• enlarging the current info-box;
• keeping the current (stabile) version;
• edit-warring;
• asking for a third opinion; Jingiby (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree on enlarging the infobox, but that won't solve the problem in the long-term - there is a chance that people will just keep adding faces until the box becomes huge. A third opinion will be more than welcome.- ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 06:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• • Готово. Подредих ги в хронологичен ред. Това е окончателната версия от мен. Надявам се да ви хареса и да е полезно. (User:Sumatro (talk) 01.14, 10 August 2013 (UTC))

Што се мене тиче, ово изгледа одлично. Лепо си распоредио кронолошки слике, а и лепо је видети више људи у мозаику. Поздрав! (Правичност (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC))

I don't see a reason to change anything or any good reason to have this mess. Furthermore, the portraits are horribly small, and many of them lack licence information. Finally, there's John Atanasoff in the collage, which is an equally valid reason not to keep it. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 19:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Направих една малка промяна, тъй като имаше критики, че са включени голям брой спортисти на колажа. Намалих броя им до най-значимите и популярни лица. Извинявам се за големия брой корекции, които извърших тук. Надявам се, че сега изглежда по-добре. Благодаря за съветите, критиките и благодарностите! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumatro (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

При редактирането част от образите се бяха размазали и затова извърших последната промяна. Изображението е със същото съдържание. Благодаря! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumatro (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should however shrink the list of people (perhaps by removing some foreign-born or bulgarians with only partial ancestry and people with less dedication to bulgaria or anything else) from the mosaic. I think having a max 30 persons is enough... because this way the infobox looks too filled-up and "messy", try to point out only the most prominent Bulgarians and include them in mosaic.. otherwise everything else seems fine. Regards (Правичност (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

I dont know what is the maximum, but before to create image, I saw that Poles having 40 persons, Russians - 32. But may be you are right, because seems too full. Thank you very much!(Sumatro (talk) 21.18, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

Oh well there is no maximum at all. You can put as many persons as you want, but i am just consolidating you from my perspective, that perhaps you could shrink the number of persons a bit, because there are too many names and a viewer can get lost in them.. i recommend removing some people with only partial bulgarian ancestry and some who arent too prominent (too known or important) to be in the mosaic... if you also think its too filled up, you can try shrinking it a bit.. if you arent sure, maybe you could try taking a discussion to the talk page.. of who you think should be included in pictures mosaic.. and see what other editors recommend... after that you summ all of the ideas reaching a concensus and create a mosaic that will look beautiful and that majority of editors will like it. Thats just my idea, as we did same on Serbs article... otherwise it seems fine anway. Regards! (Правичност (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

I think that now is look better or not seems full. I cut the number of people from 36 to 30. Hope you like it. Thank you for your opinions and advices! (Sumatro (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC))

Np i like to help. And Yes it looks verry fine by me. Good edit! (Правичност (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC))

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

Sock from blocked user Ceco31 (talk · contribs)?

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

We have 4 options:

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

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

Devsirme in the infobox

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

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

Number of Bulgarians

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

The first UCLA figure is given based on the number of Bulgarian speakers in 1986. Lots has changed since then. Emigration, population decline, etc. The second figure based on the interview with the Chairman of Bulgaria's State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad is somewhat unclear - 3-4 million where exactly? You mean to say that almost as many Bulgarians live outside Bulgaria as they live inside of it? The sources given for most countries where Bulgarians immigrated do not amount to 3-4 million. Did he include Macedonians? If so that is ok but it should be specified. The website of the State Agency for Bulgarians does not include any numbers on Bulgarians living abroad. Is this just a number being thrown around without actual sources backing it? The third source is the Bulgarian census data which is 5,664,624 NOT 6 million. 700,000 did not declare their nationality. That does not make them automatically Bulgarians. Ethnicity and nationality are issues of self-identification. People are simply starting to refuse to identify with their ethnic group, meaning they are refusing to be associated with it. This is not just happening in Bulgaria. It is a phenomenon occurs all over Europe. 184.160.70.78 (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

UCLA says exactly: Bulgarian is spoken by 7,986,000 in Bulgaria or 85% of the population (1986). The total number of speakers of the language in all countries is 9,000,000 (1999 WA). By the way according to another sources the number of Bulgarian speakers around the world is 10 Million - The Report: Bulgaria 2008, Oxford Business Group, ISBN 1902339924, p. 8., i.e the number of 8-9 Millions is not overestiamated. Jingiby (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

the last source cannot be accessed. The first source is simply outdated. UCLA may claim that Bulgarian is spoken by 7,986,000 in Bulgaria but that was in 1986 and probably it cites the 1975 census because no census occurred in Bulgaria between 1975 and 1992. In 1975, indeed Bulgaria had 8,7 million people and 7.9 spoke Bulgarian. However in 2011, Bulgaria had 7.3 million people (1.5 million less) and only 5.6 million were Bulgarians. That is 2.3 million less. Part of that net loss is reflected in the immigrant communities such as in Germany and Spain. But part of it is because of negative population growth. You cannot possibly make the claim that the number of Bulgarian speakers today is the same as that in 1975.184.160.70.78 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Of cource you are wrong. There was a census in 1985 and the population numbered 8,948,649 people. Jingiby (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

And you don't think that there is a difference between 8.9 million in 1985 and the 7.3 million almost 30 years after? Are you claiming that no negative population growth occurred in this time? Based on immigrant population data in italy, spain, germany, us, canada, etc. a few hundred thousand can be accounted for due to emigration. The rest? Well at least 840,000 people were lost due to negative growth as this article on the Demographics of Bulgaria very thoroughly demonstrates. Just look at the natural change from 1941 to present. And this is just based on official stats. The remaining 740,000 which emigrated are distributed as follows 50,000 in Greece as per the Demographics of Greece, 20,000 in Germany as per [1], 50,000 in Italy, 50,000 in Canada, 100,000 in US, 150,000 in Spain, 50,000 UK, 35,000 Austria, 30,000 France and the remaining 100,000 in Cyprus, Sweden, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Ireland, etc. as per this article Bulgarians. At the very least this article should reflect the negative 840,000 population loss and lower its estimate to 6.8 (what the table adds up to and incidentally also what Ethnologue reports [2] - 8 million (based on the higher limit right now minus the 840 thousand lost due to negative growth).184.160.70.78 (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The situation is not so simple. For example for the 2000 US Census, 55,489 Americans indicated Bulgarian as their first ancestry, while 92,841 persons declared to have Bulgarian ancestry. On the other hand, according to the Bulgarian diplomatic representations in the US for 2010, there are 250,000 Bulgarians permanent residing in the country, and also more than 30,000 Bulgarian students. I.e. it is very difficult to calculate the real number of the Bulgarians in US for example. Are they 100,000 or 400,000? Jingiby (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What I think should stand here is the self-declaration principle (so 100,000 who declared themselves as being of Bulgarian ancestry) not rough estimates, even if they are made by Bulgarian diplomatic representations. The presence of the 30,000 students (is there a source that claims there are that many?) makes no difference on the total because they are listed as foreign students in the US and are there on a student visa while being already counted in the 2011 census. So the alleged 30,000 students in the US still count as living in Bulgaria (as per the 2011 census) and until they finish their studies and either stay in the US or return to Bulgaria.

My point was that the total number of 8-9 million cannot possibly stay the same as in 1985 since 840,000 people have been lost due to negative growth over the last 30 years. The total number should be lowered. Wikipedia articles should reflect current data and the current reality. But I think since this is a very important topic, perhaps a part of this article should actually deal with this declining trend. 184.160.70.78 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

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

This data is not official census data from those countries but the estimates made by Bulgarian diplomatic representations. Again, I think the most reliable source would be official data in those countries and self-identification of people not these numbers which as the diplomats themselves (and you also) admit, only reveal the number of all Bulgarian citizens (including those who are not Bulgarians). The numbers in Turkey especially reflect mostly Bulgarian citizens of Turkish ancestry. That is 1/2 mil out of 2 which reduces the number of Bulgarians to 1.5 million. Even if we take these bogus numbers and if we assume a 85%-15% distribution among these Bulgarian citizens abroad as in Bulgaria and add them to the number of ethnic Bulgarians in Bulgaria as pe the 2011 census, we still get 7,380,000 and not 9 mil. 184.160.70.78 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The official census data does not include the illegal immigrants and forein citizens at all. The estimates made by the Bulgarian diplomatic representations do that. Jingiby (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The official data does not include illegal immigrants and foreign citizens - you are right. But they are already covered in the Bulgarian cnesus of 2011. By inflating the numbers to what the diplomatic representation says would mean to double count them. Remember, if they are illegal that means that their official status is still as Bulgarian citizens in Bulgaria and they have been counted there in 2011. Dapiks (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I found also this actual reliable source about the estimated number of the Bulgarian emigrants abroad, that claims there are 1 Million Bulgarians abroad, without to count the native diaspora on the Balkans etc.: Migration from and towards Bulgaria 1989–2011, Tanya Dimitrova, Thede Kahl, Frank & Timme GmbH, 2013, ISBN 3865965202, p. 7. By this situation I am inclined to change the highest estimated figure from 9 to 8 Million. Jingiby (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The source can't be accessed. What does it say?Dapiks (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

BBC Lnguages across Europe confirms the estimate data counted by UCLA - 9 Mill. Jingiby (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thracians and Bulgarian ethnogenessis

Bulgarian ethnogenessis occured between 8th and 10 th century. According to cited in that article reliable sources Bulgarian ethnicity was finally formed in the middle of the 10th cenury. What is the role of the Thracians there. It should be noted that for centuries the Thracians were divided into numerous tribes until the time of their fall under Roman rule. Moreover, the Thracians, particularly those to the south of the Balkan mauntain were exposed to a strong Greek influence. Still more unfavourable conditions were created after they were conquered by the Romans. What is more, along with the strong Greek influence, during the Roman domination the Thracians fell also under a marked Roman influence. Romanization let out its roots mainly north of the Balkan range. Under the impact of the Hellenization and Romanization processes, the Thracians lost their own language, and their ethnical distinctivness. As result the Thracians were eventually Hellenized or Romanized, with the last remnants of Thracian language surviving in remote areas until the 5th century. Eastern Christian culture was also introduced in that area during the Roman rule. On the other hand, this population had markedly declined in number as a result from the continuous Barbaric invasions by Goths, Huns and Avars at that time. In the 6th century the local population made contacts with the invading Slavs and parts of it were eventually Slavicised during the 7th century. As a conclusion, during the time of the Bulgarian ethnogenessis between 8th and 10 th century the Thracians and their language were already extinct as a separate entities.Jingiby (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are saying; Thracians were eventually Hellenized or Romanized depending on their region, but what I am trying to say is that at the very root, before Hellenization and Romanization, they were just Thracians. Nicholas ^(Alo!) 20:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

In your logic, before Bulgarians were Thracians, they were Neolithic hunter-gathers comming from the Middle East, i.e. Bulgarians are descendants from these people and so on. This way of thinking is not realistic. By the way these Thracians who became Roman subjects and lived for 700 years under Graeco-Roman influence were also repetedly invided by different Barbarians. As a consequence their original genotype was change. They changed their language, religion and identity. As Christians they mixed with other subjects of the Empire: Romans, Greeks, Illyrians, Celts etc., i.e. these people de facto and de jure were no more Thracians in the classical aspect of that concept. Jingiby (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Jingiby (talk) 04:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. And you also do not know what you are talking about when you say that the ancestors of the Thracians were Neolithic hunter-gatherers that came from the Middle East. Regardless, it is best to not include the truth rather than insert false anti-Bulgarian statements. Thank you for this edit. Nicholas ^(Alo!) 05:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)