text:
Talk:Bulgarian people

Untitled
Slavic Bulgarians and Modern Bulgars based in regions away from Bulgaria should not be confused. They are now technicly, officially and genetically two seperate nations. Bulgarians of Sofia and Plovdiv belong to the Slavs and those of Tataristan in Russia have maintained their identity over the centuries. All links between them are lost; even in Bulgaria, not all people are descendants of the ancient Bulgars yet over the borders in Macedoia and Serbia-Montenegro, many locals have in them routes in the Turkic Bulgars, but it has all washed away. Celtmist 1-11-05

The article in this form is total sh** and has so many factual mistakes that it is astounding. It is to be corrected with the shorthest possible delay (unforetunately I don't have time right now) VMORO

 * VMORO, I think that will do for a beginning. 213.240.197.52

 * Nothing different from what we have in official Bulgarian textbooks. If it is supposed that most respected Bulgarian scholars write sh*** - that's a whole new question. 212.104.110.206 12:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should note that I haven't written the above statement (though I quite agree with it), I would at least phrase it in a different way. Congratulations to the one who wrote the article for darting to start it - there will be a lot of work on it otherwise. Regards: the real VMORO

Really, I do not see why this map shouldn't remain on this page. Didn't the Bulgarians live on the BALKAN PENINSULA in 1861 or what ?! I don't see anything wrong.

 * Za6toto ne saotvetstva na savremennata etni4eska kartina. Kartata mozhe da se vklju4i v sekciqta Istoriq na balgarite, kogato tq bade napisana. VMORO

Gospodin VMORO, izrichno e napisana godinata ot kojato e kartata, tova che vie otivate ot ednata krajnost v drugata (doseshtate se che govorja za neutralnsot i obaktivnost) ne e moj problem. A kyde e problemyt s katrinkite na bylgarite ?

 * Kartata ima mqsto v sekciqta za istoriq, koqto se nadqvam da napi6a do kraq na Qnuari - ako imam vreme. Ne se otiva v nikakva krajnost, dazhe smqtam, 4e trqbva da se dobavqt nqkolko karti, taka ili ina4e imam pone 10na v kompjutara si. A kakvo imash predvid s "katrinkite na balgarite" ne moga da razbera. VMORO

Spored men, tryabva da se dobavi i kolko Bulgari priblizitelno ima v Republika Makedonia (1 mln.? 1,5 mln.?) Vladko --217.9.225.146 15:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not write in English in the future? Fornadan

Numbers
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)

To person who put Slavs were most numerous after Indians
You confused it with Thracians:

"According to the Greek historian Herodotus (5th century BC) the Thracians were the most numerous people in Europe and came second in the world after the Indians (obviously the world Herodotus knew). "

Thracians are Slavs - a new theory
It is stupid to believe it, but visit http://www.maknews.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=6

Bulgarians in Macedonia are 1.5 milions
Bulgarians in Macedonia are 1.5 milions.The other people in Macedonia are turks, albanians, greeks and propagandists - about 0.5 to 1 million

Bulgarians in Macedonia are 1.5 million and in Croatia they are 4 million
well why not? It seems that everybody is Bulgarian. The whole issue of power expansion depends on people of other nations and from outside of a state declaring themselves by the name of your particular nationality for you to lay claim to it. Well the 1.5 million who compose the principle population of Macedonia declare themselves 'Macedonian' and not 'Bulgarian'. Internationally they are recognised as 'Macedonian Slavs' to avoid confusion with 'Macedonian Albanians' etc. Bulgaria's only claim to the people of Macedonia is no different to the claims that Bulgaria should rightfully be under Macedonia: Together the two nations form part of a larger continuum of Slavic nations; both derive their names from non-Slavic sources. Macedonia is from the nation who lived in the region centuries before Christ before assimilating the Greeks and embarking on their crusade, and Bulgaria from the Bulgars, a now extinct Turkic people whose final few assimilated Slav culture when surrounded by the larger numbers. Since Tatar is no longer spoken in Bulgaria, and since Bulgarian Slavs and Turks know one from the other by language (something which would have been impossible if Tatars had maintained their identity), it must be said that modern Bulgaria is a Slavic state just like Macedonia. As such, the Sofia government has no claim on the people who declare themselves Tatars/Bulgars in the other parts of Europe and Asia. Those Tatars can positively trace their routes to the original Bulgars and have their language as proof. They are totally isolated from the country to call herself Bulgaria and to them, she cannot be classed as a nation state - unless they too become South Slavic which would go against the grain. As for the Bulgarians of Romania, well, there is a recognizable population of people native to Romania whose destiny was to live in a region contolled by the Roman descended people and not any of the Slavic countries to form after world War I: that population most probably calls itself Slavic with a regional name to represent their subgroup (ie. Bosnians, Torbeshi, Istrians, Serbs, Macedonians, Slovaks, Moravians...etc) but the government in Belgrade recognizes all Slavic speaking people of Romania to be Serbs; the government in Zagreb claims them all to be Croat and in Sofia, it is said that these people are all Bulgarian. So what are these individual names for Slavic nations - Slavonians, Slovenians, Montenegrins, Bulgarians etc? Nothing but bases for power who want to impose their name on the wider community. Celtmist 6 September 2005 well I will try give you some reasons just because your interests seems genuine - first of all when did bulgarians spoke tatar language I can not imagine - I would suggest you have read pro-macedonian propaganda which refers to Bulgarians as to tatars - this of course is in no way offensive as they imagine only untrue and if you would care to take your interest a little further by reading about the history of the Republic of Tatarstan you may discover that the people there are indeed directly linked to the Bulgars but were named tatars only in 19 century by Carist officials and later again during the same name by the Stalinist regime and the actual tatars have little to do with Bulgars and even less with nowadays Tatarstan and Bulgaria. If you would please investigate further in linguistic terms you would be probably surprised to discover that modern bulgarian language is a rather peculiar in the Slavic family partialy due to certain inheritance from the Bulgar language - you could refer to the wikipedia article at least. Now then I would ask you to show at least one official government document of what you seem to call the Sofia government before bringing accuastions that it labels Macedonians as Bulgarians. I can not stress enough how little do bulgarian people care how their neighbours choose to call themselves but what is unacceptable for the Sofia government is changing the hisotrical facts in order to create a nation myth which is essential in the modern Macedonian nation building. I do not wish to go through numerous historical disputes and accuasations of "stealing" hisotry but I have to point out that linguistically speaking Macedonian language is not recognized as such but it was officially regonized by the same Sofia government in a gesture of goodwill which is roughly the equivalent of the British government recognizing American english as a different language from the British english and yet that is strictly politics and there are numerous such examples Hindi/Urdu Malay/Indonesian Flemish/Dutch and so on. Now the relations between Macedonia and Bulgaria have become something of an item with Sofia government pictured as the big bully - well in fact the Skopje government has been bulling Sofia while increasing number of its citizens are accquiring Bulgarian citizenship (including memebers of the government) but that is a taboo topic in Macedonia. I as bulgarian am sick and tired of the accuasations against my country and nation when all we want is to preserve our history and identity and let me assure you we have strong independent such and to claim Salvs are all the same in not less sane then claiming Lathin Americans are all the same - so again we do not wish to claim others history or lands we simply try to preserve our hisotry. For all I care Macedonians can call themselves marsians and speak marsian - it is their right to determine their own identity. well why not? fmrafka 25 January 2006

Bulgarian statistics
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)

Removing useful accurate information from this article
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)

Right, but this article is about ethnic Bulgarian population, not total Bulgarian population. Antidote 07:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Frivolous tempering with data by User:Antidote/WP:OWN issue with User:VMORO
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)

 * 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)

Question
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)
 * No, if they look like gypsies, they're gypsies. It's easy to distinguish them from Bulgarians. [[Image:Flag of Bulgaria.svg|20px]] → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → Talk 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, many Bulgarians look(and act) like gypsies. The gypsies are usualy identified by their clothing and language.PaunchyPaul (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarian attitude to the macedonian nation
I was threatened with

Vandalism You are about to violate the 3RR rules on wikipedia. Please stop putting in false information that is denying the existence of Macedonians to another ethnic group, or you will be blocked from Wikipedia.

because I wrote information about bulgarian attitude to the macedonian nation. Such information is written in many other articles here such IMRO, Macedonians (ethnic group), etc. User, called Macedonia, obviously macedonian nationalist, blaimed me for absurds like racism, and systematically erases my information. Is this correct? This question is disputed and I stated that clearly, but this bulgarian attitude is fact and there are no reasons for erasion and threats!

 * P. s. The arguments of Macedonia: "sorry but your propaganda garbage isn't worth discussing now stop vandalizing articles"! Who is really vandalizing this article?!

 * The agression of the user called Macedonia is going on. It seems he/she doesn't want to accept the fact of existence of this bulgarian attitude. He/she doesn't want to diskuss but prefer to censor this information!
 * Besides this over 50 000 macedonian citizens already have bulgarian passports as ethnic bulgarians and more than 50 000 others wait to obtain bulgarian passport, but nevertheless according to official macedonian statistics there isn't even bulgarian minority in Republic of Macedonia.

 * You obviously have some issues. I accept your attitude towards the Macedonians but i'm afraid it isn't exactly the official Bulgarian attitude towards Macedonians today, but mabey 10 years ago it was. As you know, the Bulgarian government officially recognized a seperate Macedonian minority in the borders of Bulgaria in 2001, so your point of view is already false. Your attitude is of those of Bulgarian nationalists/propagandists like yourself. Your "Bulgarian" attitude does not belong in the list of numbers anyway because it does not explain anything (how are readers supposed to know its the "Bulgarian attitude"). Perhaps you could write how the Bulgarian attitude was towards Macedonia in the past but in the contents of the main articles, although this information will probably be highly irrelevant and erased. By puting in 1300000 Bulgarians live in the Republic of Macedonia, it implys false information that can be exteremly comfusing to the reader. --Macedonia 01:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Here are some guidlines for you because it seems as though you are not to familiar with what to write and what not to write in Wikipedia

 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

 * --Macedonia 01:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Macedonia, please stop war against my information and your nationalistic aggression! Bulgaria as a democratic country recognizes the consciousness of every bulgarian citizen but not the macedonian nation as separate from bulgarians! Where is the difference - in Bulgaria there are more than 1 000 000 people with roots from all macedonian regions, 350 000 inhabit Pirin Macedonia, but all of them declare themselves as bulgarians, icluding THE SISTER OF THE FIRST PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA Kiro Gligorov, and only about 5000 people declare their nationality as macedonian! The selfconsciousness is something different from the recognition of a nation, for example some bulgarians declared themselves in last census as eskimo people, but are there real eskimo people in Bulgaria? Of course not, and Bulgaria still denies the existence of the separate macedonian language and nation. Shortly, the bulgarian position is: there is macedonian nation as political nation, but not as ethnic community, different and separate from bulgarian, ang macedonian literary language, created in 1945, is accepted as based on bulgarian dialects. Besides this the words macedonian and macedonians are traditionaly widely used in Bulgaria, but define just regional belonging.
 * P. s. I'm really surprised after the reactions of Macedonia. Example for my position - official Bulgaria still refuses to accept to sign any document, in which is mentioned that it is written in macedonian language. All bulgarian-macedonian treaties are signed with the formulation "the official language of the states", but not even a sheet of paper with the words "macedonian language"!
 * Still more, there are strong proofs, written by the academicians from the Macedonian academy of sciencies and arts MANU that macedonian national consciousness as separate from bulgarian is something new and is built on bulgarian fundament, first intelectual manifestations dates from 1930s-1940s and its mass spreading was product of the policy of communist Yugoslavia. Here is the example, written by macedonian academician Ivan Katardzhiev in the so called macedonian language: link. He clearly states: "All of our people named themselves as "bulgarians"..." (in macedonian: "Сите наши луѓе се именувале како „Бугари“...").

 * You don't seem to understand what i'm trying to say. This information that you have included does not belong in the numbers list. It belongs somewhere else in the article and mabey you can explain the situtation of the Bulgarian attitude towards Macedonians in the article, instead of just giving a number on the list. By puting a number on the list, I can go on the Macedonians (ethnic group) page and put 7.5 million - 8.5 million Macedonians since the Bulgarian article lists them as the same people. Also, the Macedonian attitude towards Bulgaria is that everyone in Pirin Macedonia is Macedonian, but on the Macedonians (ethnic group) number list there are only 5000 Macedonians in Bulgaria, instead of 350,000 because 5000 people said they were Macedonian in the census. No one said they were Bulgarian in the Macedonia on the census, so you can't put that 1300000 Bulgarians live in Macedonia, because all these people registered as Macedonians. Macedonia 05:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Conversation with a deaf person! In the Republic of Macedonia there are at least 50 000 people who possess bulgarian passports as ethnic bulgarians, among them are even some macedonian politicians, thousands of young macedonians study in bulgarian universities with subsidies for ethnic bulgarians, some macedonian citizens voted in bulgarian elections in the macedonian capital Skopje, etc., but THERE AREN'T ANY REGISTERED BULGARIANS IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA because of the fears and discriminations of the macedonian authorities. The paradoxical exception is The Union of the Bulgarians in Macedonia - there is such union, but there aren't officially registered bulgarians! So please don't blaim me for a racism, don't call my information "propaganda garbage", don't erase my words. Obviously the macedonian ethnic consciousness rapidly changes after 1991 such as the attitude to bulgarian past of the macedonian slavs but the official macedonian policy still treats bulgarian question as a threat like in the antibulgarian period after 1944.
 * And, yes, I could put special text about bulgarian attitude to the macedonian nation in the article too. But: STOP ERASION OF THE DATA FROM THE LIST! Bulgarian position is: all macedonian slavs in the Republic of Macedonia are bulgarians with the exception of the 40 000 serbs. It doesn't matter whether I support that attitude or not, but this is the bulgarian understanding!

 * So you claim that 50,000 Macedonians have Bulgarian citizenship, isn't that a big difference then the 1,300,000 number you were adding in the article. Also, hasn't it occured to you that all of these 50,000 Macedonians that applied for Bulgarian citizenship are from eastern Macedonia, Macedonians who are always crossing the border to buy cheaper goods from Blagoevgrad, or to visit their Macedonian relatives in other parts of Pirin Macedonia. Don't you think that becoming a Bulgarian citizen will be easier for crossing the border, esspecially with the disputes between the governments of R. of Macedonia and Bulgaria? The same applys for Macedonians in the north applying for Serbian citizenship, or Macedonians in the West applying for Albanian citizenship. Your claims are just based on nationalistic Bulgarian propaganda efforts implying that there is no Macedonian nation, period. This has no place in the article number list, so please stop adding it to the article or a reader might get really confused.

 * You are so hilarious my friend, need a passort to shop accross the border. :) Citizenship means something completely different than visa - business or tourist for that purpose. Bulgarian citizenship is granted on the basis of being proficient in the bulgarian language, as well as being able to demonstrate bulgarian origin through passports of parents/grandparents/grandgrandparents. Bulgarian citizenship also carries obligations which include military draft for males under the age of 27. So you claim that someone will choose to go through the military draft just because of the convenicence to shop or visit relatives in Bulgaria? I think it is just because they find greater economic opportunities in the country, but again, you never know what reasons people have in the back of their minds. FunkyFly 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Dear FunkyFly, in fact macedonian citizens don't need vizas to come in Bulgaria with their own macedonian passports so Macedonia is really funny! Besides that one of the biggest groups of macedonians with bulgarian passports live in the western Macedonia, around the city of Ochrid near albanian border.

 * This is the most outrageous remark I have heard so far besides your statement that 1,300,000 Bulgarians live in the Republic of Macedonia. I guess you don't have any relevant sources to prove this, or do you? Macedonia 15:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

 * There is one for starters. I must admit I did not know that myself and I'm rather surprised, but that just serves to emphasize my point that obtaining bulgarian citizenship has very little to do with shopping accross the border. FunkyFly 17:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

 * What's this? You could have just said no, I don't have any source to prove anything i'm saying Macedonia 22:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * That is a document that clearly states that you do not need a visa to enter the country if you are a Macedonian citizen, neither do you need Bulgarian citizenship unless you plan on taking advantage of certain economic opportunities offered by the country, in plain language. FunkyFly 22:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, you just proved my point right there. "neither do you need Bulgarian citizenship unless you plan on taking advantage of certain economic opportunities offered by the country" :-) Macedonia 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Ah well, no point in discussing with trolls. FunkyFly 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * There's no need for insults. You simply proved that Macedonians don't need Bulgarian citizenship UNLESS they "plan on taking advantage of certain economic opportunities offered by the country". This will put an end to those senseless reverts that I've been trying to remove. Thanks again - Macedonia 23:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Jeez, you still have not realized that I do not argue about the edits of this anonymous user but about your blatant statement about citizenship. Get over it. FunkyFly 23:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hey, simply we shouldn't discuss about this - Macedonians are NOT declaring themselves as Bulgarians and that's it. We really should know make the difference between propaganda and reality. Cheers, Bomac 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the attitude of bulgarian politicians doesn't corespond withe the attitude of common bulgarians. To the ordanary bulgarian Macedonia simply does not exist. It is just a province wich belongs to us. Or as we call it "Western Bulgaria". But we are ruled by idiots who don't care about the people and their attitude

Statistics including Macedonians Abroad
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)

User:Antidote's removal of the new picture
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)

John Atanasoff was not born in Bulgaria. You can return the image as long as you provide copyright tags and sources for the last four images. But frankly, I don't see how a B-level artists like Christo Yavashev is representative of Bulgarians; doesn't matter though. Antidote

 * 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)

The highest picture of the right are mainly Macedonians figures stolen by Bulgarian propaganda, it's a shame to steal.

Saint Cyril
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)

And I suggest to replace him with Tsar Samuil of Bulgaria. Miskin 16:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting this article
Please stop rv this article.

I removed this (“The number of legal immigrants of Bulgarian ethnic origin permanently residing in Greece as at 2001 according to Migrants in Greece . ”), because:

1.	The source nowhere mentions that the number is of legal immigrants. It just states that is the numbers of immigrants in Greece. I know that the Greek government finds out how many are illegal immigrants by comparing the green cards data with the census data. Also I personally know that those who took the data from the people in the census didn’t ask if the immigrants had a green card or not. I know it because my aunt had participated in the Greek census of 2001.

2.	The source nowhere mentions that the people are ethnic origin permanently residing in Greece. On the contrary, the census contains the people according to their citizenship (US, UK, FYR Macedonia etc). You can the source if you don’t believe me.

3. Greece, like Germany Italy and Austria conducts a census according to citizenship.

So please stop reverting this article.

Thank you in advance.

GR_MANOS 15:36, 31 May 2006

Bulgarians' opinion
The Bulgarians opinion is not very important??? This sounds like censorship to me ;-) --Telex 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC) (or course this was just a breaching experiment)
 * 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)

Possessive case?
Words like Ivanov (Иванов), (Иванова) are adjectives not nouns. I thought that when you decline a noun (like Ivan) in some case you get another noun not an adjective (like Ivanov/Ivanova/Ivanovo/Ivanovi/Ivanoviat/Ivanovata/Ivanovoto/Ivanovite), so what kind of case is this?. The Name System section should be corrected. Arath 13:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * They're not adjectives. They're proper nouns in that case. You don't decline the name Ivan, you form a surname based on it, and the surname suffix agrees with the gender of the bearer. Declension is almost absent in modern Bulgarian.

 * E.g., names like Petko or Dobri would be otherwise considered neuter because they end like a neuter noun (–o, –i, –u, –e), but they're male names, so the family name would of course be Petko Georgiev, Dobri Ivanov, etc., not Petko Georgievo, Dobri Ivanovo.

 * The adjectival forms of the names concide with the way family names are formed, e.g. Ivanov grob (Ivan's Grave), Balduinova kula (Baldwin's Tower), Petrovo (a village) but they're not the same thing. Both are remnants of the Slavic possessive case, of course. Todor→Bozhinov 10:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, they are adjectives, see "Граматика за всички" page 63, and I´ve never heard of nouns which modify other nouns and agree with them in number, gender, and definiteness. Such nouns look pretty much like adjectives.

 * There's a contradiction. You say that they are "remnants of the Slavic possessive case" but that they are not declined. A case but no declension - I don't get it.

 * In the past they might have been case forms but now are considered to be adjectives. Arath 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * These suffixes aren't case forms today, just remnants of a case. Family names do act like adjectives in many ways, but are nouns – personal nouns can't be adjectives AFAIK. Also, personal nouns don't possess definiteness in Bulgarian (you can't say "Georgieviyat, Georgievata, Georgievite" when it's a family name). Todor→Bozhinov 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable Bulgarians
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)

Agree. Internedko 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * 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)

Nantucket
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)

Physical anthropology
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)

Bulgarians in Repubic of Macedonia
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)

Vandalism
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)

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

forced ethnic Macedonian conversion in former yugoslavia
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)

Ethnogenesis
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)

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

Slavs?
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)

 * What's wrong with a Slavic people using a non-Slavic ethnonym? --Cameltrader (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because the Bulgars were totally in control of the other Slavs living in that area, therefore turned them into Bulgarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D Yankov (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

bulgarians in hungary ,albania and greece???
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) Enough with the POV-pushing already. -- L a v e o l  T 01:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Macedonia
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)

 * 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)

2nd paragraph of Ethnogenesis is pure crap and needs a rewrite...
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)

50,000 bulgarians in albania
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)

There is not info which represnt Albanian state,that there is Bulgarians in Albania!!! So i will remove it!! There is no census info about Bulgarians in Italy too!! Makedonij 14:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Laveol is pushing POV! I thik that we shoud look all this info!!There is only a few real census data,all others are from Bulgarian foregin agency!! If you dont put real census docs.i will delete all of them!!!Makedonij 21:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you threatening me? That you're gonna remove all the info from the article? Did you read WP:Vandalism as I told you? -- L a v e o l  T 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well, most of the sources are actually in Bulgarian. The article is about Bulgarians, did you forget that? -- L a v e o l  T 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- L a v e o l  T 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The links are finePMK1 (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't read the whole thing (long passages in Bulgarian give me a headache) but it seems like an unreliable source. Bulgarian MFA I would assume is reliable, but if a census can be found then it should be used. Sorry, but there don't seem to be any Bulgarians in Albania.  Balkan Fever  08:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. -- L a v e o l  T 09:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But Laveol,we can do the same on Macedonian article,i bet you will opose there???Makedonij (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Another source,NO BULGARIANS IN ALBANIA!* Osce report of Minorities in Albania--Makedonij (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another source,NO BULGARIANS IN ALBANIA!* Republic of Albania--Makedonij (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another source,NO BULGARIANS IN ALBANIA!* ODIHR--Makedonij (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you just give the relevant passages and an accompanying translation of the "reliable" parts?  Balkan Fever  09:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Chancellery
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)

high estimates?
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)
 * 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. -- L a v e o l  T 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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.-- L a v e o l  T 10:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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? -- L a v e o l  T 20:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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

ETHNOGENESIS
Hey leave the ethnogenesis article alone. You are removing important sourced data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivailo82 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

 * The passage footnoted to "snpa nordish Bulgaria by Bertil Lundmann" is not "sourced". What "source" is that? If it's to the mid-20th-century anthropologist Bertil Lundmann, that is 1950s or 1960s stuff, long made obsolete by modern genetic anthropology, apparently used today only by some racists and neonazis, for all I can see, and certainly not representative of what present-day anthropology has to say about Bulgarians. Even if it were to be properly sourced, it would be giving undue weight to what is today a fringe approach to this subject. Show me one mainstream, scholarly, modern introduction to Bulgarian history that includes such a discussion.

 * The other passage in question, about Macedonians and their "servisation" [sic], is blatantly tendentious and cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. I will immediately remove at least that passage again; anybody who knowingly reinstates it should be warned that I will seek to get them topic-banned for blatant disruptive editing. That passage is beyond the reach of any legitimate discussion. (Besides, it's also become currupted technically, all the footnotes in it have somehow been lost with some recent edit.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

BULGARIAN ETHNOGENESIS
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)

 * 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)

But it is still a website that has sources carried out by professionals. why do you remove sources that are not mediterranean and why do you push it. Bulgarians are not just mediterranean, they have other features as well obviously and i don't know why it only has mediterranean descriptions and not the others. Now this is not fair and it is violation. You lot are corrupt because you remove blatant important facts.--Ivailo82 (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

bulgars as turkic backround
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)
 * 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. -- L a v e o l  T 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing academic sources
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)

480,000 Bulgarians in Turkey?
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)
 * 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? -- L a v e o l  T 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulgars
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: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)

Bulgars
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)

No one reliable source was provided! If yoy will contakt Bulgarian Academy of Sciences or everyone but read the added around 20 reliable sources in different languages and from differen countries. If you will discuss then provide more reliable sources as Dobrev and Dimitrov! Also read this article from Bulgarian Professor Turkolog - linguist, about the desciphred from him inscriptions in Bulgar language - all are Turkic! Also do not change the old name of the chapter - Origin! It is about the origin, not only DNA. Do not delete the phrase about the Mongoloid admixture by Bulgars - there are lot of anthropological researches added! '''So, the question is: were the Proto-Bulgarians Türks? Were the people, led by Asparukh to the Lower Danube, Turkic-speaking? All modern scholars answer positively''' Professor Rasho Rashev!!! However I have added the Iranian hypothesis from the economist Dobrev - Regards!Jingby (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 * 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)

No scientifical sources were provided! Only bla-bla-bla! Provide only ONE reference published in international recognised University press, please! Check the official website of Bulgarian government! Bulgars are described as Turkic too! This is the official position of Bulgaria!!! Jingby (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not revert the chapter without providing international recognised source! Jingby (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 * 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. -- L a v e o l  T 09:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

Read Britanica, stop with bullshits! Jingby (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Read Columbia Encyclopedia: Eastern Bulgars - Also Turkic origin! Jingby (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulgars

 * 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)

''"History 27 September 2005

The territory of Bulgaria has been inhabited since the earliest historical times.

Bulgaria’s historical heritage is related to the rich culture of Ancient Thrace. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Bulgarian land was incorporated in the Byzantine Empire.

In the second half of the 7th century, today’s northeastern Bulgaria was inhabited by Proto-Bulgarians. In alliance with the Slavs they formed the Bulgarian State, which was recognised by the Byzantine Empire in 681 AD. Khan Asparouh stood at the head of that state and Pliska was made its capital.

Under Khan Kroum (803-814 AD) Bulgaria bordered with the empire of Charles the Great to the west, and to the east the Bulgarian troops reached the walls of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire.

In 864 AD, during the rule of Prince Boris I Michail (852-889 AD), the Bulgarians adopted Christianity as their official religion. This act abolished the ethnic differences between Proto-Bulgarians and Slavs, and started building a unified Bulgarian nation.

In late 9th century the brothers Cyril (Constantine the Philosopher) and Methodius created and disseminated the Cyrillic alphabet. The cities of Ohrid and Pliska, and subsequently the new capital city Veliki Preslav as well, became centres of Bulgarian culture, and of Slavonic culture as well.

The Slavonic alphabet spread to other Slavic countries. Today, it is used in Serbia, Russia, Ukraine, Macedonia and Belarus.

The reign of King Simeon I (893-927 AD) marked the "Golden Age of Bulgarian Culture", and the territory of his state reached the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea.

In 1018, after prolonged wars, Bulgaria was conquered by the Byzantine Empire. From the very first years under Byzantine rule, the Bulgarians started fighting for their freedom. In 1186, the uprising led by two boyars, the brothers Assen and Peter, overthrew the domination of the Byzantine Empire. The Second Bulgarian Kingdom was founded, and Tarnovo became the new capital. After 1186, Bulgaria was initially ruled by Assen, and after that by Peter.

The earlier power of Bulgaria was restored during the reign of their youngest brother, Kaloyan (1197-1207), and during the reign of King Ivan Assen II (1218 -1241) the Second Bulgarian Kingdom reached its greatest upsurge: political hegemony was established in Southeastern Europe, the territory of the country spread to the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea and the Adriatic Sea, the economy and culture developed.

In 1235, the Head of the Bulgarian Church was given the title of Patriarch.

The strife among some of the boyars resulted in the division of Bulgaria into two kingdoms: the kingdoms of Vidin and Tarnovo. This weakened the country and it was conquered by the Ottoman Empire in 1396. For nearly five centuries Bulgaria was under Ottoman domination. The initial years were characterised by sporadic and unorganised attempts to win freedom. Later the appearance of the clandestine fighters, the “haydouts”, made the emergence of a well-organised national liberation movement possible.

The start of the organised revolutionary movement for liberation from Ottoman domination is associated with the work of Georgi Sava Rakovski (1821-1867) - writer and journalist, founder and ideologist of the national-liberal liberation movement.

The main figures in the national liberation movement were Vassil Levski (1837-1873) - strategist and ideologist of the movement and national hero; Lyuben Karavelov (1834-1879) - writer and journalist, leader and ideologist of the movement; Hristo Botev (1848-1876) - poet and journalist, revolutionary, democrat, national hero, and many other Bulgarians.

In 1876 the April Uprising broke out - the first significant and organised attempt at liberation from Ottoman domination. The uprising was brutally crushed and drowned in blood, but it drew the attention of the European countries to the Bulgarian national issues.

In 1878, as a result of the Russian-Turkish War of Liberation (1877-1878), the Bulgarian State was restored. The Congress of Berlin (1878) divided the Bulgarian territories into three parts: the Principality of Bulgaria was proclaimed - with Prince Alexander Battemberg at its head, Eastern Rumelia - with a Christian Governor appointed by the Sultan, while Thrace and Macedonia remained under the domination of the Ottoman Empire.

In 1879, the first Constitution of Bulgaria was adopted and it was one of the most democratic at the time.

The decisions of the Congress of Berlin (1878) triggered the Kresna-Razlog Uprising (1878-1879), which in 1885 led to the unification of the Principality of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia. The Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising also broke out (1903), striving for the liberation of Macedonia and Ohrid region.

Ferdinand Saxe-Coburg Gotha, Bulgarian Prince since 1887, proclaimed Bulgaria's independence from Turkey and in 1908 became king of the Bulgarian people. Bulgaria took part in the Balkan War (1912) and fought together with Serbia and Greece for the freedom of Thrace and Macedonia. Bulgaria won that war, but in the subsequent war among the allies (1913) it was defeated by Romania, Turkey and by its earlier allies, who tore from her territories with a Bulgarian population.

The intervention of Bulgaria in World War I on the side of the Central Powers ended in a national catastrophe. The Neuilly Peace Treaty of 1919 imposed severe provisions on Bulgaria: it lost a great part of its lands.

In the early 1940s, Bulgaria led a policy in the interest of Germany and the Axis powers. Later Bulgaria declared war on the USA and the UK, but Bulgarian cavalry units did not fight on the Eastern Front. King Boris III supported the public pressure and did not allow the deportation of about 50,000 Bulgarian Jews.

After the end of World War II, Bulgaria was under the political and economic influence of the Soviet Union. In 1946 Bulgaria was proclaimed a Republic. The Communist party came to powerThe Queen-Mother, King Simeon ²² and Princess Maria-Louisa left Bulgaria for Egypt via Turkey. The Bulgarian Communist Party came to power. The political parties outside the Fatherland Front were banned, the economy and banks were nationalised, the arable land was organised in cooperatives.

The date 10 November 1989 marked the beginning of the democratic changes in Bulgaria. A new Constitution was adopted (1991). Bulgaria chose the way of democratic development and market economy.

Bulgaria’s foreign policy is oriented to cohesion with the European structures. The country has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1991. In 2004, Bulgaria joined NATO. In 1995, Bulgaria started the process of accession to the European Union. In 1999, it started the accession negotiations. On 25 April 2005, in Luxembourg was signed the Treaty of Accession of Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union."''
 * 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)

 * 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)

Death of Attila 453 and the Bulgarians devorce
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)

- Are You Really Sure the Bulgarians to be originally being of Tatar origin?

In the Historical Sources The Bulgarians were mentioned for the first time in the 5th century, while the Tatars were mentioned for the first time in the 13th century - eight centuries later ??!!!!

Source/Link moved
"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)

Genetics
''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]''

This sentence is repeated throughout all Slavic articles. It is outdated and rigid. Slavic peoples genetic make up forms a spectrum from east, to west, to south. All Slavic peoples have mixed with other ethnicities, not just south slavs. It is incorrect to dichotomise south slavs vs "all other Slavs". Hxseek (talk)

"neighbouring Macedonians are culturally, linguistically and genetically very closely related to Bulgarians" - Genetically???
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)

Just read the sources. There is written "most closely related" HLA allele frequencies shows that Bulgarians were characterized with closest genetic similarity to Macedonians, Greeks, Romanians, Cretans and Sardinians in comparison to the other European and Mediterranean populations. Jingby (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And if you are going to mention that (I don't subscribe to genetic proofs personally, genetics is still more of an art than science), you need to mention it in context as it is right now it infers that ONLY Macedonians and Bulgarians are closely genetically related. Capricornis (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence is set in its proper context now. The first half of this paragraph is very questionable. I understand the need to mention the Macedonians here as it is official policy of Bulgaria that Macedonians are Bulgarians, but from Wikipedia point of view it makes no sense, otherwise we need similar paragraphs in many other articles saying that Croats and Serb, Czechs and Slovaks, Russian and Byelorussians are also extremely similar and were taken to be the same at some point in the past. Also the mention that Bulgarian and Macedonian are mutually intelligible is misleading, weasel statement. *All* south slavic languages are mutually intelligible: Macedonian, Buglarian, Serbian, Montenegrin, Bosnian, Croatian and to a lesser extent Slovenian. Capricornis (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonians are not Bulgarians. They were Bulgarians and are most closely related with them. Jingby (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Another source: The use of high-resolution typing methods allowed to identify allele variants rare for Europeans that were correlated to specific population groups. Phylogenetic and correspondence analyses showed that Bulgarians are more closely related to Macedonians, Greeks, and Romanians than to other European populations and Middle Eastern people living near the Mediterranean. Jingby (talk)

A third source: The Bulgarians have a classical eastern Mediterranean composition, grouping with Macedonians and Iranians in the neighbor-joining trees obtained by using DR and DQ genetic distances and confirmed by correspondence analysis. Jingby (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jingby, you are misunderstanding me here. I am not saying that Macedonians and Bulgarians are not genetically (and in other ways) closely related, what I am saying is that the way the sentence was and uninformed encyclopedia reader would think that ONLY Macedonians and Bulgarians are related, while in fact, even if we give credibility to the genetic research (which sometimes puts Greeks in sub-saharan africa, which is kind of strange), they form a group together with several other contemporary nations. I just wanted to make that clearer in the sentence. No need to get defensive :) As to whether Macedonians were Bulgarians, that's a completely different story, and comes down mainly to nomenclature :) cheers - Capricornis (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And I see you reverted the language part again. The things I said above about all south slavic languages being mutually intelligible are not persuasive enough? Capricornis (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this compromise? I kept all the information from the original sentence, but split it in two,so that the proper context can be given, and it is much closer to the sources/reality. Capricornis (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jingby, why are you reverting my edits without discussing it first here? I think they make a lot of sense and are much closer to the original sources/reality? Could you please explain how do you disagree? Capricornis (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Read Britannica. Jingby (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jingby (btw, are you a person, or a 24/7 entity like the former Mr.Neutron/ForeignerFromTheEast composed of dedicated Bulgarians around the world? :) I have read all your sources. I am not saying I disagree with you, I a saying the way you are presenting this information is misleading i.e. "weasel language" in that you don't present any false information, but you are not giving the full context of the information. Am I making myself clear? I am not going to start yet another lame edit war with you on this, but sooner or later that paragraph has to change. cheers Capricornis (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis
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)

title: Talk:Bulgarian people


text:
Thames-Coromandel District

The Thames-Coromandel District is a territorial authority district in the North Island of New Zealand, covering all the Coromandel Peninsula and extending south to Hikutaia.

It is administered by the Thames-Coromandel District Council, which has its seat in the town of Thames. It was the first district council to be formed in New Zealand, being constituted in 1975. The district lies within the Waikato Regional Council area. Its only land boundary is with Hauraki District.

Demographics
The district had a population of  live in Thames,  in Whitianga,  in Whangamatā, and  in Coromandel.

Thames-Coromandel District covers 2207.96 km2 and had an estimated population of as of  with a population density of  people per km2.

Thames-Coromandel District had a population of 31,995 in the 2023 New Zealand census, an increase of 2,100 people (7.0%) since the 2018 census, and an increase of 5,817 people (22.2%) since the 2013 census. There were 27,222 dwellings. The median age was 55.2 years (compared with 38.1 years nationally). There were 4,359 people (13.6%) aged under 15 years, 3,525 (11.0%) aged 15 to 29, 13,284 (41.5%) aged 30 to 64, and 10,824 (33.8%) aged 65 or older.

Ethnicities were 88.4% European/Pākehā, 18.8% Māori, 2.5% Pasifika, 3.6% Asian, 0.6% Middle Eastern, Latin American and African New Zealanders, and 1.3% other. People may identify with more than one ethnicity.

Thames-Coromandel District had a population of 29,895 at the 2018 New Zealand census. There were 12,471 households, comprising 14,625 males and 15,273 females, giving a sex ratio of 0.96 males per female.

The percentage of people born overseas was 16.4, compared with 27.1% nationally.

Although some people chose not to answer the census's question about religious affiliation, 54.4% had no religion, 33.0% were Christian, 1.0% had Māori religious beliefs, 0.6% were Hindu, 0.2% were Muslim, 0.9% were Buddhist and 2.0% had other religions.

Of those at least 15 years old, 3,591 (14.1%) people had a bachelor's or higher degree, and 5,874 (23.1%) people had no formal qualifications. The median income was $24,900, compared with $31,800 nationally. 2,622 people (10.3%) earned over $70,000 compared to 17.2% nationally. The employment status of those at least 15 was that 9,414 (37.1%) people were employed full-time, 4,359 (17.2%) were part-time, and 633 (2.5%) were unemployed.

Local government
The Thames-Coromandel District Council was formed from the amalgamation of the Thames Borough, Thames County and Coromandel County councils in 1975, and is led by the Mayor of Thames-Coromandel.

History
In 1923, the constituent counties included -

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Thames-Coromandel District


text:
Talk:Opposition (Australia)

Rename?
If the former title is "no longer used", then why is it the article title? I think we should have some sort of citation before using "Her Majesty's Loyal. . .", since I certainly have never encountered such a usage anywhere, not even in formal contexts. Lacrimosus 09:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * See below @ "Hyper-officialese: Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition". --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

List
Why does NZ and Canada for instance has a list of Opposition Leaders in this encycylopedia while this article does not for Australia.
 * ...because we have List of Australian Opposition Leaders. Ambi 06:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry did not notice it.

From Naming conventions (common names)

 * Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.
 * When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?
 * (various points about scholarship) but the titles should represent common usage.
 * Use simple titles. Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general. For example, the page about jazz should simply be called "Jazz", not "Jazz music", because "jazz" does not refer to anything other than music, and the simpler title makes linking easier. Adding the word "music" is redundant.

Thus the page move. Tannin 09:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Offical Term?
Is "opposition" really some sort of offical term? Isn't it just part of convention?220.253.12.86 08:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * A lot of things in the parliamentary system are both "official" and convention. As far as this goes, yes, the Opposition is an official body - it receives resources and funding, and the Leader of the Opposition has an official position in the Order of Precedence.  In Parliament House, there is a Government Party Room and an Opposition Party Room.

 * An example is the Queensland Parliament - up until a week ago the Liberal and National parties were not in coalition, so the position of "official" opposition went to the Nationals alone. Slac  speak up!  09:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Coalition Update
The Liberals and the Nationals in Queensland are now in coalition again, so I presume that together they form the Opposition. I've changed the document to suit. Black Regent 18:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hyper-officialese: Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition
The last time someone objected to this terminology, the editor who changed it back said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opposition_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=471813839 ''her majesty's most loyal opposition. it's official. if you dont like it please gain consensus''].

Well, I don't like it. That may be what the UK Opposition is formally known as, but not all Westminster terminology has translated to the Australian context. I've never come across this wording in any official document, and that includes legislation. We tend to hear it from traditionalist organisations (monarchists, RSL, etc; John Howard used it in 2009, but that can surely be put down to intentional use of what we might call generous language).

Loyal opposition says that in Australia the phrase "is also employed in state legislatures". I'd venture that it's used officially only in those places (if at all), but never in the federal context. That I've ever heard of.

Here's an extract from the current (6th) edition of Odgers' House of Representatives Practice. The only reference to the term "Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition" is at footnote 217 on page 78, which refers to the sentence "The recognition of ‘Her Majesty’s Opposition’ in Britain is believed to have originated in the early 19th century", and says "The term ‘Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’ was also used" (note the use of past tense). --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Jlgx50, again see above. The fact that the UK does something does not automatically extend it to the entire Commonwealth as you seem to think. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's time we added "His Majesty's Loyal Opposition as bold in the titles, you can't claim that the title hasn't carried over from the UK to Australia then further in the text make reference as 'Some times used" it's either used or isn't used. the title might not be used but the Australian opposition is HM opposition because if they weren't that would mean they are in opposition of the crown. you might not like it due to republican sentiment but they are His majesty's loyal opposition in Australia.

title: Talk:Opposition (Australia)


text:
Eastry

Eastry is a village and civil parish in the Dover district, in Kent, England, around 2+1/2 mi southwest of Sandwich. It was voted "Kent Village of the Year 2005". In 2011 the parish had a population of 2492.

The name is derived from the Old English Ēast-rige, meaning "eastern province" (c.f. Sūþ-rige "southern province"), also recorded as Ēastregē, from ēasterra gē (lit. "more easterly area").

Historical legends
Eastry lies on the Roman road north from Dover to Richborough Castle.

In the Early Middle Ages, Eastry was part of the Kingdom of Kent and was an important administrative centre. It was here that a royal palace of the Saxon kings of Kent stood. One of Kent's oldest legends concerns King Ecgberht of Kent and the murder of his young cousins, Æthelred and Æthelberht, within the palace walls. According to the legend, the royal residence was passed to the priory of Christchurch in Canterbury as penance for the crime. The site of this ancient palace is believed to now be occupied by Eastry Court, adjacent to the church. An archaeological dig by Time Team in 2006 failed to find the royal palace.

Parish church
Eastry's Grade I listed Anglican church is dedicated to St Mary the Virgin. Within the church is a brass standard bushel measure given in 1792.

Governance
An electoral ward in the same name exists. This ward stretches south to Sutton, Kent with a total population taken at the 2011 census of 5,199.

Until 1974 it was in Eastry Rural District.

East Kent Light Railway
The East Kent Light Railway was opened to freight traffic in 1911 and passenger traffic in 1916. Its purpose was to serve the new coal mines which were being opened up in the area. Among the stations opened were 'Eastry' and 'Eastry South'. It was one of Colonel Stephens' lines, but was nationalized in 1948 becoming part of British Railways, Southern Region. Both the colliery and the line failed and the section north of Eythorne completely closed by 1951.

The village is also on the Miner's Way Trail. The trail links up the coalfield parishes of East Kent.

Mills
Eastry has had a number of windmills over the centuries. There were four mills marked on the 1819–1843 Ordnance Survey map, one of which, the Upper Mill, has been converted into a house. Currently there are three windmills in Eastry.

Notable people

 * Cyril Randolph (1826–1912), cricketer and clergyman
 * Sir James Broadwood Lyall (Resting Place )GCIE KCSI (1838 – 4 December 1916) was a British administrator in the Indian Civil Service during the British Raj. Lyallpur, which was named after him, is the third-most-populous city in Pakistan, and the second-largest in the eastern province of Punjab.
 * Sydney Greenstreet (1879–1954) stage and film actor
 * Wing Commander Robert Stanford Tuck lived in the village in the village from 1953 until his retirement in the 1970s.
 * Captain John Harvey 1740-1794

title: Eastry