Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:08, 31 October 2013

Bulgaria B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ethnic groups B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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).

Population numbers in infobox

Among all the wild number entries in the infobox before this article was protected, there was actually one new and correct number, but since no source was given, it was inevitably reverted. The number of Bulgarians in Serbia is now counted to 18,543, and the source is http://media.popis2011.stat.rs/2012/Nacionalna%20pripadnost-Ethnicity.pdf. This will also move Serbia down one place in the list, after Cyprus. Anyone care to fix it? Regards! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the USA population towards the most reliable and modern source (from 2012) .... but i made A TERIBLE MISTAKE ... when inputing data, the whole text just collapsed ..... and i dont knoow how to change it back... i opologize to editors of this article and ask them if thy can change this mess somehow... text only needs to be changed backed to tabelle etc... (Правичност (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

ne moje prosto da se kaje 4e sme ujni slavqni,terminat pra-bulgi e absolutno politi4eski nqma pra bulgari nie sme prosto bulgari i ne sme zagubili korenite s iot oth. Za tqh ima mn teorii kato prez poslednite godini se e nalojila tazi za blizkiq do iranskiq proizhod no nqma da navlizam tam.Samite vuprosi za suzdavaneto na durjavata i edinniq etno o6te sa sporni sred istoricite.Ujni slavqni sa surbite , v dnk-to si te sa pove4e slavqni a nie ne, sledovatelno zaduljitelno trqbva da se spomene za drevnite bulgari gradili civilizacii predi hilqddi godini ,dedin takuv narod ne iz4ezva prosto taka.Navsqkude vuv vizantiiski letopisi sme nari4ani bulgari ime ostanlo ot ednoimenniq narod. Ta nali bulgrai sa se jenili za slavqni kak taka bulgarskiq gen izvednijh stava slavqnski.Ima mn teorii za zna4enieto na 1 ot dvata etnosa pri obrazuvaneto na bulgarskiq narod prez 20-te godini e bila populqrna teoriqta 4e bulgarite sa imali osnovnata rolq za suzdavaneto na naroda a po vremeto na komunizma 4i4ko stalin a i na6ite umni istorici-politici sa re6ili 4e trqbva d sme po blizo do "bratu6kite" i sledovatelno slavqnite imali po golqmata rolq za suzdavaneto a bulgarite razbiral li bili edno mrusno 4ergarsko pleme ot 10-20 hilqdi 4oveka istoriqta se e menqla spored politi4eskata konunktura no sega uj sme demokraciq svoboda na slovote i nova informaciq taka 4e molq da poglednete na vuprossa pod pove4e ot edin ugul ne da pi6e teorii pulni s mitove i legendi :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.11.150.184 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This game with the numbers in the infobox is ridiculous, please Ceco, stop POV-pushing. Gain consensus for your edits. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No reliable data about 10 million Bulgarians were published anywhere. The demographic collapse in Bulgaria is catastrophic. Jingiby (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, do not change number of ethnic Bulgarians into the infobox, with the number of Bulgarian cinizens. There is aniother article for that called Demographics of Bulgaria. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bulgarian DNA

I have removed some racialist and anti-Turkish comments and POV added by Stormfighter14 (talk · contribs) as "Bulgarians are purely White European and not Turkic." Misplaced Pages is not place for propagandize racialist and pseudo-scientific theories such as he claim: Bulgarians and their Arian brothers etc. No reliable source was provided for statement as: closest people to the Bulgarians are the Croats and the Poles. Tabloids and common newspapers are not reliable sources for genetic studies. Check MEDRS. Thank you.

Bulgarians are largely related to Mediterranean, i.e. Southern European poulations:

• Distributions of HLA class I alleles and haplotypes in Bulgarians – contribution to understanding the origin of the population. M. Ivanova, P. Spassova, A. Michailova, E. NaumovaArticle first published online: 23 DEC 2001: HLA class I profile of Bulgarians has been compared to other European and Mediterranean populations of common historical background in order to clarify more precisely the origin of our population. Genetic distances, phylogenetic trees and correspondence analyses show that the Bulgarian population is more closely related to the Italian, the Mediterranean, the Armenian and the Romanian population than to the other East and West European population.
• Sena Karachanak, Valeria Carossa, Desislava Nesheva, Anna Olivieri, Maria Pala, Baharak Hooshiar Kashani, Viola Grugni, Vincenza Battaglia, Alessandro Achilli, Yordan Yordanov, Angel S. Galabov, Ornella Semino, Draga Toncheva, and Antonio Torroni. "Bulgarians vs the other European populations: a mitochondrial DNA perspective." International Journal of Legal Medicine (released electronically in advance of print publication, June 15, 2011).: 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.
• M. Ivanova, E. Rozemuller, N. Tyufekchiev, A. Michailova, M. Tilanus, and E. Naumova. "HLA polymorphism in Bulgarians defined by high-resolution typing methods in comparison with other populations." Tissue Antigens 60:6 (December 2002): pages 496-504. Abstract excerpts: Abstract excerpts: "This is further supported by the analysis of HLA class I haplotypes in Bulgarians. Most of them are also common in Europe. However their frequency pattern in Bulgarians is similar to the South European populations. The presence of some rare alleles and haplotypes indicated Asian genetic inflow. On the basis of HLA class I profile and supported by historical and anthropological data, we suggest that the Bulgarian population is characterized by the features of the Southern European anthropological type."
• Fulvio Cruciani, Roberta La Fratta, Beniamino Trombetta, Piero Santolamazza, Daniele Sellitto, Eliane Beraud Colomb, Jean-Michel Dugoujon, Federica Crivellaro, Tamara Benincasa, Roberto Pascone, Pedro Moral, Elizabeth Watson, Bela Melegh, Guido Barbujani, Silvia Fuselli, Giuseppe Vona, Boris Zagradisnik, Guenter Assum, Radim Brdicka, Andrey I. Kozlov, Georgi D. Efremov, Alfredo Coppa, Andrea Novelletto, and Rosaria Scozzari. "Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12." Molecular Biology and Evolution 24(6) (June 2007): pages 1300-1311. First published online on March 10, 2007. This large study of populations from Europe, Asia, and Africa confirmed that all signs point to the Y-DNA haplogroup E-M78 (E1b1b1a1) having come from northeastern Africa originally. Naturally, due to geographical proximity to Africa, E haplogroups are more common in southern Europe than northern Europe. 204 Bulgarian males had their Y-DNA data incorporated into "Table 1: Frequencies (%) of the Y-chromosome E-M78 sub-haplogroups in the 81 populations analyzed" which says that 16.67% of them (that is, 34 out of the 204) placed into E-M78, 0.49% (just one person) into E-V12*, and 16.18% (33 individuals) into E-V13. Jingiby (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

From all Slavic populations Bulgarians are closer to the Macedonian Slavs, Serbians and Bosniaks then to the rest, including Croats, Slovenians and Slovaks

• "Y-STR variation among Slavs: evidence for the Slavic homeland in the middle Dnieper basin", Krzysztof Rębała, Alexei I. Mikulich, Iosif S. Tsybovsky, Daniela Siváková, Zuzana Džupinková, Aneta Szczerkowska-Dobosz, Zofia Szczerkowska, Journal of Human Genetics, May 2007, Volume 52, Issue 5, pp 406-414: “Two genetically distant groups of Slavic populations were revealed: one encompassing all Western-Slavic, Eastern-Slavic, and two Southern-Slavic populations (Slovenians and Croats), and one encompassing all remaining Southern Slavs.” According to the authors most Slavic populations have similar Y chromosome pools, and this similarity can be traced to an origin in middle Dnieper basin of the Ukraine. However, some southern Slavic populations such as Serbians, Slav Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Bosniaks are separated from the tight cluster of the rest of the Slavic populations. According to the authors this phenomenon is explained by “the contribution of the Y chromosomes of peoples who settled in the region before the Slavic expansion to the genetic heritage of Southern Slavs.”Jingiby (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Paternal and maternal lineages in the Balkans show a homogeneous landscape over linguistic barriers, except for the isolated Aromuns" E. Bosch, F. Calafell1, A. Gonzalez-Neira1,, C. Flaiz, E. Mateu1, H.-G. Scheil3, W. Huckenbeck, L. Efremovska5, I. Mikerezi, N. Xirotiris, C. Grasa, H. Schmidt and D. Comas, Annals of Human Genetics (2006) 70",459–487: When the correspondence analysis based on Y-chromosome haplogroup frequencies was performed with the whole set of populations for comparison, all the Balkan populations analysed in the present study, plus the additional Macedonians, Albanians, Italians, Greeks and the two Turkish samples clustered more or less together, separated from Croatians, Polish, Ukrainians and Czech-Slovakians and the Hungarian sample, that formed a more differentiated group.

Genetic map of Europe - genes vary as a function of distance

• Genes mirror geography within Europe John Novembre, Toby Johnson, Katarzyna Bryc, Zoltán Kutalik, Adam R. Boyko, Adam Auton, Amit Indap, Karen S. King, Sven Bergmann, Matthew R. Nelson, Matthew Stephens, and Carlos D. Bustamante; Nature. 2008 November 6; 456(7218): 98–101: "Despite low average levels of genetic differentiation among Europeans, we find a close correspondence between genetic and geographic distances; indeed, a geographical map of Europe arises naturally as an efficient two-dimensional summary of genetic variation in Europeans...In addition, the results are relevant to the prospects of genetic ancestry testing; an individual’s DNA can be used to infer their geographic origin with surprising accuracy–often to within a few hundred kilometres" The limits to the resolution of these sorts of methods are likely to be very fine indeed; the authors note that, even with this panel, they’re able to distinguish with some confidence individuals that are from the German, Italian, and French-speaking parts of Switzerland. With full resequencing data, it’s likely that even the precise village of origin of an individual will be predictable from genetics alone. After such conclusions is very hard to belive that as you claim Croats, Slovaks, Poles, Hungarians etc., are closer genetically to Bulgarians, then their closest neighbours: Macedonian Slavs, Serbs and Bosniaks from the South Slavs or Greeks, Albanians and Ronmanians from their non-Slavic neighbours, because of their geographical, i.e. genetical proximity. Jingiby (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Well there is another source claiming genetic relations to other people in europe. Please stop removing facts just becuase you don't agree with them. The facts are backed up by evidence revealing studies conducted by professional people. Stormfighter14 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added several tags for unreliable sources. Common sites are not reliable source for such kind of information. We need verifications for them. Also, we need et least one reliable source, as per MEDRS. Jingiby (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not understand why were the tags removed. This act resembles vandalism. Jingiby (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

@Stormfighter, is the source being questioned by Jingiby this one? http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=131894 (I notice it is being inserted and disputed.) That news article from 2011 says that a paper would be published by Gulubov. Did the paper eventually get published? It would be much better to cite the peer reviewed source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that this text should be removed: According to another Bulgarian-Italian study, Bulgarians are genetically close to Croats and Poles, with a majority Slavic stock and some Southern European influence. The results failed to show the presence of Turkic origins.

• there is no reliable source to confirm that provided info.
• this information (Bulgarians are genetically close to Croats and Poles) contradicts to any other reliable sources added here, i.e. genes mirror geography within Europe; Look at the genetic map of Europe, please:.Poles are located close to the Russians, far in North and the Croats are closer in North but in another cluster, close with Slovenians, Bosniaks, Hungarians etc.
• this article is about what the Bulgarians are, not about what they are not. It is clear that they are Slavic people close genetically to their Balkani neighbours. In the article is still mentioned: Bulgarians are distant from Turks despite geographical proximity. It is clear they are neither Turkic, nor Mongolian, Chinese, Ugro-Finnic, or Arabic people, etc. Jingiby (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way there is not one, but two Bulgarian -Italian genetic studies and they are published and cited in that article (Bulgarians). For more info:

• Bulgarians vs the other European populations: a mitochondrial DNA perspective. Karachanak S, Carossa V, Nesheva D, Olivieri A, Pala M, Hooshiar Kashani B, Grugni V, Battaglia V, Achilli A, Yordanov Y, Galabov AS, Semino O, Toncheva D, Torroni A. doi: 10.1007/s00414-011-0589-y. Epub 2011 Jun 15.;
• Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry. Sena S Karachanak, Viola V Grugni, Simona S Fornarino, Desislava D Nesheva, Nadia N Al-Zahery, Vincenza V Battaglia, Valeria V Carossa, Yordan Y Yordanov, Antonio A Torroni, Angel S Galabov, Draga D Toncheva, Ornella O Semino, (2013), PMID 23483890;

No traces for close genetic kinship between Bulgarians and Poles or Croats. Jingiby (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Verification has failed. Both Bulgarian -Italian Genetic studies do not mention kinship among Poles, Bulgarians and Croats. Galabov (Gulabov) who is cited above as claiming kinship among Bulgarians, Poles, Croats is part from the scientific teams in both studies above. However there is not a general conclusion confirming his personal interview, I think. Jingiby (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I wholly agree that "Bulgarians are purely White European and not Turkic in an unacceptable inclusion. For two reasons:

• It's not 'culturally appropriate'
• More importantly perhaps, it is scientifically absurd. White European is a 'racial term' and 'Turkic" is a linguistic term, so you're comparing apples and Oranges for a start. Secondly, the way people look from Europe to the Near East is a continuum/ clinal. There is no racial border at Constantinople/ Istanbul. Thirdly, all Europeans (with local variations) actually 'come from', ultimately, the Levant, and lesser extents the Indus plain and Nile Delta. So Europeans are just southern/ western Asians with founder effects and local adaptations/ evolution.

Finally, the studies without a doubt state that Bulgarians are closest to Macedonians, Romanians, northern Greeks and Serbs most of all; then other Balkan peole like Albanians, Croats, Slovenians, then Poles, Russians, etc. I do not even need to quote on that/ Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Slovenski Volk. I know you as an expert of the issue. You are also not involved in the edit conflrict here. Please, provide your suggestions about the Genetics origis section. How can we correct the present text? What portion/s has to be removed from it, what portion/s has to stay in it, which part has to be modified and how. Thank you in advance. Jingiby (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Slovenski volk that Albanians, Croats and Poles should be removed as most closely related to Bulgarians. I agree with him also, that Turkic is much more linguistic then racial term, and the claims about a lack of Turkic origins are a nonsense. Both which verification has failed are also not necessary, i.e. they are unreliable. Are there other suggestions, please. Jingiby (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to tweek it / make suggestions over next day or so. I would probably remove much of the parts trying talking a presence or absence of Turkic/ central Asia genes. It is not surprising there are no oriental haplogroups in Bulgarians - why should there be ? Afterall, the Bulgars, whatever their supposed "ancient origins' are, came from the Pontic & Caucasus region; and would have had a decidedly western Eurasian origin. That was indeed what they found in ancient Kuman graves, at least. Moreover, we as editors , should not take the liberty to interpret DNA data within our own hypotheses. Finally, lets not forget that whilst Bulgarians do indeed cluster quite distantly fro Turks in Y -DNA studies, the results from autosomal DNA (which paint the true, overall picture) shows that they are as close as can be expected amongst to neighbouring yet separate groups. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK.Jingiby (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Finally, an editor who appears able and willing to slice through this essentialist and synthesising mumbo-jumbo. Awaiting a thorough clean-up. RashersTierney (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Slovenski Volk. Jingiby (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, friends. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Please Chavdarov1, stop introducing biased and unreliable info and deleting sourced information. Check the discussion above and the sources, instead of deleting them.

Well the current information is actually biased. The article sounds too Mediterranean and middle eastern orientated. Bulgarians are not mediterranean or middle eastern and they never were! Things like some of our dna have come from the middle east or Anatolia is a total lie and I find it very unacceptable and insulting. Bulgarians are a mixture of Slavic, indigenious south European(romans, thracians) and a bit of finnic and Germanic therefore Bulgarians are White European people just like the previous editor have claimed. Haplogroups like R1B, R1A, I and E1B1 which are the main components of the Bulgarian genome have nothing to do with the Mediterranean or the middle east. Only the J's and G1 are but the major parts of our genome are indigenous European. R1A's origin is in northern Ukraine, R1B is from the Basque area, I's are either from Scandinavia or western Balkans only. Haplogroup I don't even exist in the middle east. And lastly haplogroup E1B1 first came from Albania and spread around Europe. All these that I have claimed are briefly explained in Misplaced Pages and the eupedia website, so I don't know why in this article it is written in a very biased and unfair way. Chavdarov1 (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Stormfighter14 (talk · contribs) aca Chavdarov1 you are blocked. Jingiby (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Jingiby what on earth are you? A lawyer? Ivan1488 (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, provide your sources, instead deleting provided one. Look at discussion above. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This page was proposed for semi-protection against vandalism by a newly-registred socks by the blocked Stormfighter14 (talk · contribs) . Jingiby (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Urmm excuse me but I am not the sock puppet of whatever you said I am. however I am the puppet of chavdarov yes, but who is stormfighter? Seriously that has nothing to do with me. But all Im saying is that the previous people who have objected to how biased this article always sounds have been treated unfairly and the way you act towards such objections with sources given is really unfair and fascist. Jingiby you are probably not even Bulgarian. Why do you even want this article to sound Mediterranean and middle eastern? just explain why?Ivan1488 (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to open a new case on sockpuppet investigation to your edits. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok well Im going to stop changing the article without any sources. I actually know sources which I will find again early this week and will use that to change and add things in the article. They will be clear evidences but I assume it might be removed again and again just because it wouldn't be Mediterranean! I will find all and put it in the article and you should never object it because they are clear evidence materials. This is how fascist and ignorant you are jingiby! Any non Mediterranean and middle eastern sources you disagree because you want to present us Bulgarians as mediterraneans, and I find all this very very insulting, and you are a massive insult to the people of Bulgaria! Ivan1488 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind here is not a forum. Do not insult other editors as you did above. Also it was reached a consensus on this section, and you must at first convince other editors here, that your arguments are right and get their agreement to edit the section Genetic origins essentially. Thank you. Jingiby (talk)

I told you that Im not going to make an edit without any sources and yet you have reported for sockpuppet investigation. Have you even read what Ive told you on this talk page? You are showing so much ignorance here. You also seem to not have read and understood what Ive explained about the genetic section. This is how ignorant you are, or you seem to sound like a corrupted computer system. Well it sounds like this page is a forum from what others are posting here.Ivan1488 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The conclusion of the gentics section is Overall, Bulgarians are closest to Macedonians, Romanians and Serbians; followed by other Balkan populations such as Croats, Albanians and Greeks. Bulgarians are more distantly related to other fellow Slavic-speaking countries such as Russians and Poles. Moreover, they were only modestly close to their immediate eastern neighbours – the Turks- suggesting the presence of certain geographic and cultural barriers (Novembre 2008)(Yanusbaev 2012).

How is this 'too middle-eastern orientated bias" Whatever that means) ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

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 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 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 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 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 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 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))

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)

Ethnogenesis – "Bulgars"?!

A pawn in the great chess game

I'm not going to enter into any debates nor wish alter the article. I just want this to be registered as an extant opinion, which may one day be shown to be correct. The supposed Asian origin of the so-called "Bulgars" (and their so-called "Bulgar language") only appeared after the Russo-Turkish War, and did not exist before. Ever. Paisii Hilendarski never mentioned it, for example. The artificially-invented "Asian origin" of Bulgarians served other, more powerful countries – both back in the 18th century (politically), and today (mostly in terms of people's consciousness), and is a detriment to Bulgarians' view of themselves. It served, and still serves, Moscow (because it allowed Russia to become not only the largest, but also the first predominantly Slavic empire, even though it's unclear just how Slavic the Bulgarians actually are), it served Istanbul and still serves Ankara today (as it puts their Turkic forefathers in Europe way earlier than the Ottomans); and it served and still serves all the other Great Powers, because it makes Bulgarians appear to only be comparatively recently-arrived foreigners into Europe, with little legitimacy for wanting a strong, albeit small, independent state, let alone a long history. A people who, apparently, had no formal organization of their own until some newly-arrived nation civilized them and bestowed upon them an independent state in the 7th century. "Official history" does not allow for any ethnological link between the Thracian kingdoms and the First Bulgarian Empire, whereas, according to extant sources, a Bulgarian-Thracian link is a way more logical conclusion than a Bulgarian-Mongolian one, with a more reasonable description of events being that Isperih "returned to the land of his ancestors", rather than that "the Asian "khan" (haha!) Isperih entered the lands of the Slavs". The "mostly Slavic and a little bit Turkic" version of Bulgarians' ancestry that was peddled in Bulgaria ubiquitously until the mid-1990s, and that still prevails today, does not fit well with the paradox of how, if we are to believe "official" modern sources, Herodotus's "most populous nation in Europe", i.e. the Thracians, appear to have all of a sudden disappeared in the 7th century. How? Just think about that for a minute, all you armchair edit-warriors. And no, don't ask me for sources for this, as, like I say, I have no intention of entering into an argument, or of editing. Though I will point out any discrepancies in anyone's reasoning if anyone wants to have a go. Don't forget – Galileo was considered a "charlatan" once, the and the Bible was considered to be the unified theory of everything, so let's not enter into a discussion about legitimacy. Have a nice day. BigSteve (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Herodotus is 5th century B.C., twelve centuries before the 7th century A.D. Twelve centuries does not exactly look like "all of a sudden", to me at least. During that millenium the Thracians had been Hellenized, Romanized and Slavicized before becoming Bulgarians in the First Bulgarian Empire.

The Central Asian (Iranic) origins of the Bulgars had been corroborated by the Armenians well before the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War, as a matter of fact another twelve centuries before!

To improve your orientation in Bulgarian history, you might wish to peruse this source. Apcbg (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Apcbg! Like I say, I'll be happy to engage people in reasoned debate. Generally, what you say does not contradict what I am saying, but here is what I would like to reply to your post –

• 1. No one is saying they hadn't been hellenized, but the point is that nowhere in current official history is there ever even a mention of the people who lived in the First Bulgarian Kingdom's lands before the Slavs. All we ever hear is that, when Isperih entered, he encountered "seven Slavic tribes and the Severi". That's all. But there is no evidence that I have seen (nor any logical way that I can figure) that the apparently very populous already-hellenized/romanized Thracians would have been so completely "slavicized" in the single century since the Slavs had apparently entered these lands in the 6th century, as to not even warrant a mention.
• 2. I would like to see what Anania Shirakatsi says about the Bulgarians/Thracians, but I cannot find the texts, if you can provide them, that would be great! But don't forget, Iranian (South Asian and Indo-European) is not the same as Turkic (Central Asian and Turco-Mongolian). I am not disputing the Iranian-element theory, it tends to get suppressed (suggesting it likely has at least some truth in it!) and I have not seen enough evidence to convince me on it either way.
• 3. The L. Ivanov link you provide is an interesting recap, but I am dismissing it as biased for several reasons, which I shall not bore you with, save for the most crucial one – the very reason he calls it the Name List of Bulgarian "Khans" means that he is disregarding historical accuracy for politics. Nowhere, in ANY historical source document about Bulgarian history, does the word "khan" exist. Nowhere. The name list itself uses the word knyaz throughout, and people, and even historians, all over just keep ignoring this glaring fact. In addition, the namelist itself is a source I have never been a great fan of, since the earliest extant manuscript of it is from the 15th century so even the word knyaz used within it is a bit iffy...but the non-existent khan is definitely a huge no-no.

So, these are my opinions on your points :) Anyone else? BigSteve (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, BigSteve, read Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources and use academic, neutral, peer reviewed, secondary publications, confirming your opinion. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves! Misplaced Pages is also not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. See: WP:FORUM. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Jingiby, but I think you'll agree I'm backing up my opinions for why I disagree with the fairy tales that are written in places within these articles. I am pointing out, with concrete arguments, that some of the content in these articles is nothing but fantasy. The fact that this fantasy has existed in the official public sphere for more than a century makes it no less of a fantasy. And I stress again, I have no intention of starting back-and-forth disputes, nor of editing, though I am happy to reasonably debate on this important issue. However, your use of the "This is not a forum" accusation is a straw man, and I am not "interpreting sources", as you accuse me, but I am pointing out the hard fact that, for example, the word "khan" is non-existent; meanwhile, the "nominalia of...khans" article is interpreting...strike that...inventing a fantasy word which does not exist. The fact that countless secondary sources have lied for over a century that the original Russian text says "khan" rather than "knyaz" does not all of sudden alter reality. It says "knyaz", and you would be the one guilty "interpreting primary sources" if you were to dispute this. Just as so many "official historians" have been and still are guilty of peddling this very lie. I am backing up all of my points with strong arguments. If you want me to stop doing so, just stop engaging me in conversation. I have said what I wanted to say, however I will defend myself and, more importantly, the truth, against all accusations. Good day. BigSteve (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Steve is right about the khan thing, but that tells little about what language the Bulgars spoke, if they actually spoke a single language - given that they were a rag-tag bunch bunch of 'political refugees' (to use modern terms) ousted by the Khazars. The Rus had a chaganus but they were Scandinaviam/ baltic/ Slavic. So having a chagan, or not, speaks nothing about the languae of the people. And chagan was firstly a mongolian institution, introduced by the Xianbei. But the reality is that most sources state the Bulgars were most probably Oghuric speaking. The 'central Asia' origin theory, Steve is right to question , for no source actually clearly reveals andy "Bulgars" in Iran, the Pamirs or Wherever. All early sources link the Bulgars to the caucasus and Black Se area.

Finally, sadly perhaps, there is no Thracian - Bulgarian link. Most of Bulgaria (and the most of thee Balkans, even) was depopulated before the Bulgars re-settled the Severi and 7 clans from Wallachia further to the south and east. What population remained (on the Black Sea coast) was essentially Byzantine Greek, even if they were not exactly loyal subjects of the Emperor Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"I'm not going to enter into any debates nor wish alter the article." What's the point of this thread? I'm not sure why he OP's first post wasn't reverted per WP:NOTFORUM. The remaining post were based on his own "logic" and "analysis" and not discussion of WP:RS i.e. WP:OR. As interesting as it may be, how is any of this relevant to Misplaced Pages? 08:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Slovenski Volk!

As far as your unsigned comment, User:DeCausa, this is relevant to Misplaced Pages in that there are concrete statements about the Bulgarians' supposed Central Asian origins in the current Misplaced Pages article, which are nowhere near as proven as the article states with such certainty. The reason I said I won't enter into debates is that I don't have concrete proof that can pass WP:V requirements...but neither does the entire Bulgars article, which is basically a copy-paste of communist-era high school textbooks which are currently quite controversial. So my comment is pointing out that there is no proof for some of the claims in this article. Hence – my comment has a lot to do with Misplaced Pages. btw, you may note that the very third sentence in my original post states a fact that no one has thus far been able to argue against, which is a strong case against the claims in this article. So let's not make veiled insults at "my logic" without first looking at the facts that I am attempting to discuss. BigSteve (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your "logic" may be impeccable, but who cares? You obviously have no idea how Misplaced Pages operates. We just report what the RS say, effectively. No one is interested in your personal insights on a subject. You've come to the wrong place. That's what WP:NOTFORUM is all about. You keep saying you won't enter any into debates about your "ideas", but that's exactly what you're itching to do. Sadly, bringing to the waiting world the ground-breaking BigSteve theory of Bulgarian ethnogenisis isn't what this page is for. Go find a chatroom. DeCausa (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks, mate. Or sarcasm. I'm happy to discuss, which is different from debating. I know how WP operates and what I'm saying is that the sources used in the current article are themselves not Reliable Sources. BigSteve (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No you're not. You are saying you, BigSteve, disagree with them and therefore that means they are not reliable sources. You haven't made one comment about their reliability as that term is used in Misplaced Pages. You're just here to chew the fat about your "big idea". There are other websites for that. You're in the wrong place. If you're serious about what you say, go find sources that agree with you, bring them back here for review and then we can have a discussion that's relevant. That's the way Misplaced Pages works. DeCausa (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Look. You're getting obnoxious now. I've said several times what my arguments are - that there is no proof for some of the claims made in the article. There are no primary sources that say what the article claims. I have said all this in detail in all of my posts in this discussion, bullet-pointed in some places. I don't need to find the sources, because there are none, that's the point - parts of this article are based on thin air. That's what the problem is. I feel you are only aiming to provoke me, because you're intentionally misunderstanding me, and you're getting close to trolling. I feel uncomfortable with your attitude, I'm not on WP to get aggravated by people. You need to step back and see how your behaviour might be perceived by others, it's sailing pretty close to the definition of bullying. You've been nothing but confrontational with me from the beginning. I'll report you if you continue in this vein. BigSteve (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely I'm confrontational with you. You're abusing Misplaced Pages and the whole basis of your posting is against Misplaced Pages policy. I hatted your bogus thread and you reverted. Have you read WP:NOTFORUM? If you can't follow what WP is about, go find other toys to play with. This is not a chatroom to expound your personal original research. DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• B-Class Bulgaria articles
• Top-importance Bulgaria articles
• WikiProject Bulgaria articles
• B-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles