Talk:Demographics of Bulgaria

Bulgaria Top‑importance

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

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

If it's so great why are they dying?

If Bulgaria is such a good country and with such great achievements as the article claims why are they dying? Population declined from almost 10 mnl to merely 7 mln - is it result of all progress archived in recent years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We like dying. As simple as that. Satisfied? 46.10.148.99 (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled]

Well - the Roma communities in every single eastern European country are larger than what the census results say. However, our dear Boraczek makes a change only in the Bulgarian page. Anything you can quote in your defence that this is indeed not a personal crusade but an action in good faith? VMORO 20:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)~

If you correctly say that Roma community is bigger than the census says, then why did you delete the estimate? I am not obliged to edit all Wikipedia demographics articles at once, nor to defend from an unclear and weird accusation about the "personal crusade". BTW did you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith? But even if I embarked on some personal crusade (whatever that means), edits in articles should be explained with reference to their contents rather than by personal attacks and "eliminating personal crusades". Given this, unfortunately, I cannot take your comment here as a genuine explanation for your recent edit. Please specify your reasons. Boraczek 21:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because those Roma who declared themselves Bulgarians, Turks or Vlachs did so because they speak Bulgarian, Turkish and Vlach as mother tongue. The fact that they have a Roma origin and a darker skin does not make them less Bulgarian, Turkish or Vlach.

There is a point in this. A trait of the Roma population is that they often do not have any national identity or that their ethnic Roma identity coexists with a wider, national identity. This is imndeed worth a mention in the article. Boraczek 09:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about good faith, we both know what you are doing here. No such changes have been made in either of the Demographics pages of any eastern European country with a high percentage of Roma population, so this is easily qualified as a personal crusade against Greece and Bulgaria by User:Boraczek. VMORO 13:29, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)~

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-)

Hello, this is Boraczek on his personal crusade against Greece and Bulgaria ;-)

Performing my crusade, I would like to say that I am not a nationalist and I see ethnic diversity as a valuable heritage rather than as a shameful impurity, so I do not see adding information about the Roma population as anti-Bulgarian or anti-Greek. Boraczek 09:37, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

official bulgarian population census link

is there a link to an official site with the ethnic make-up of the population of Bulgaria Criztu 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American is not "non-existant"

"American" as an ethnic identification is a valid choice, according to the US Census Bureau, denoting people in the US -- usually those whose families have been in the country for centuries -- who do not have enough information about their background (or do not identify closely enough with it) to identify themselves more specifically. I'm sure other countries accept the designation American as a valid choice. Misterdoe 16:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the vlachs, aromanians and romanians from North???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushatu (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In North - where they belong, Romania.

Map

Is there anyone to correct the map? The Asenovgrad municipality is incorrectly listed as predominantly Turkish - which it is not VMORO 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Population Decline

I just don't understand why people doesn't want to have children in such a beautiful country, with low population density and mild climate. May be (just guess) the birth rate is not that low among the Bulgarians living outside the country? or perhaps most people left the country to seek jobs in the western Europe are primarily youth people? thus leaving old people behind at home and brought down the birth rate figure? as they gave birth to their children overseas and was not included in the Bulgarian statistics? someone who knows the reason, please be kind to say something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.49.9.186 (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, disregard the "Bulgarian fascism vs. Turks" et. baloney. There are three main reason for this:

1) The general melancholy and depression amongst Bulgarians, generally caused by the losses in the National Unification Wars.

2) The incredibly strong Russification policy, especially in the decades immediately after 1944 but not only. The Bulgarian alphabet was "revised" almost immediately, throwing out all letters not present in Russian. Thus, we now have letters with no phonetic value and phonemas without corresponding letters; letters of a Russian origin that have nothing to do with Bulgarian historian orthograpic tradition (and, mind you, we invented Cyrillics), completely non-functioning rules (e.g., the yat "ѣ" vowel), massive loans of Russian lexis, etc. - i.e., a very clear attempt to push Bulgarian as close to Russian as possible. Then Tarasyanka and Surdzhuk are just waiting around the corner.

3) The continued very strong influence of Russian viewpoints, thanks to the retained network of Russian operatives and the receptiveness of Bulgarians (cf. 1. and 2.). 25-30% think Russia and Russians can never do anything bad and that they are right, anytime, anywhere, including when they threaten us or lie about us. In my experience (and as ugly as it may sound), we just have to wait until they die (most of them are edlerly). The problem is entirely in their heads and is unsolvable by common means. We desperately need an anti-communism and anti-Russophilia policies (such as the anti-Nazification policy in FRD).

So these are the problems. There is pretty much nothing objective (I have been in Latin America and Africa and I know what objective reasons are), most of the problem are in the people's heads. They affect how they act (victim mentality is a severe menace) and then the imaginary problems become very real. This is enough to put the country into a state of paralysis, whereby it cannot do the necessary things to modernise and objectively push thing past the point where negativism, victim mentality, and resistance to change simply disappear. 46.10.148.99 (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Population decline is happening because of the racism against Turks and muslims. After 1989, 700+ thousand of Turks immigrated to Turkey from Bulgaria. The immigration still continues. Same happened in 1910s, 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. In Izmir(pop: 4 million) and Istanbul(pop: 14 million), nearly every citizen has a background of Bulgaria, ex-Yugoslavia, Greece and Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.140.99 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those figures are not true and do not explain the problem with demographics. Around 300 to 400 000 were expulsed, and that cannot explain the decline in the population in total. This is a shamefull period in Bulgarian history, but it is far from the true cause. The difference between 1989 and 2010 is in several millions of people. BloodIce (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts over the faith of Roma people

From rumors I heard, its hard to call Roma with specific religion as most Roma behave in their "own" way and tends not to be restricted by any law of any religion. Thus, Roma living in France who believe in catholic behave not much different than Roma living in Bulgarian whose faith is Islam as said by the paragraph. is this true or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be noted that census figures are based on voluntary basis?

Regarding the latest census figures should it be noted that it was not mandatory to state ethnic group during the census? Basically latest figures on ethnic and religious distribution are based on those individuals who voluntarely chose to select an option, need to keep in mind that many probably chose to ingore and are likely registered as ethnic Bulgarian. Also latest changes in the census template removed several ethnic groups from the options list. Official figures on ethnic religious and laguage distribution should be taken in my opinion with a grain of salt. Hittit (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hittit, the census regulations of the EU stipulate that these questions are voluntary. However, what the NSI did was extremely reprehensible, as they kept repeating, on and on, that answering the ethnicity, mother tongue and and religion questions was completely voluntary, so many people skipped them - in addition to the number of people who were borrowed from administrative source. And in the end, both categories were lumped together, which led to quite inaccurate data.

The 2021 census was conducted much more poorly than the 2011 one (I counted myself electronically, but I was never visited, and I had to call on the last date to give them the census code. Plus, a huge number of other people, especially from Sofia, neither did the census electronically, nor were visited by census workers, and have apparently been counted from administrative sources). Yet, it did not advertise "oh, it's optional, oh, it's voluntary", so the current census provides a more realistic picture of the population. If the census workers were actually doing their job, the number of people counted from administrative sources should not have been more than 3-4%. As an attenuating circumstance, the web census application suffered near constant DDoS attacks (from Russia, of course), preventing people from using it, which led to census workers in the big cities, esp. Sofia severely understaffed. 46.10.148.99 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Turks, fascism and Exile

Bulgarian state, with the fascist policies applied against the Turks for centuries, Exiles experienced, religious prohibitions, and the world everything yapmışlardır.avrup national bans remain silent was unresponsive.

Migration of Turks from Bulgaria (1878-1994) :

1878-1912 Balkan Wars : 350.000

1923-1933 Razgrad evetns : 101.507

1934 Balkan pact : 91.181

1940 Craiva agreement : 21.353

1950 Korean war : 154.198

1952-1968 : 24

1969-1978 : 114.316

1979-1988 : 10

1989 : 1989 Bulgarian Turks in exile :321.000 ,150,000'n the 1990s he returned to Bulgaria.

1991-1992 : 50.000

1993-1994 : 70.000

Total Turks Exile Bulgaria : 1.016.391

This previous comment is done by an anonymous user, client of Turk Telecom. For a future reference, it should be noted that it is not sourced by any reference (even in Turkish). It is highly fictional, with the exception of 1985-1990. Personally, I can only laugh at the period 1952-1968: Is it 24 people who were targeted? Who are these? Korean war and Bulgarian turks... nonsense?BloodIce (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only period when there was actual pressure on the Bulgarian Turks was in the 1980s. First of all, the data is incorrect. Secondly, no one has made anyone emigrate (except in 1989). Turks sold their properties and voluntarily moved to the Anadol. In the decades immediately following 1878, the main reason was quite simple: they did not want to live in a Christian-majority state. After all, in the Ottoman Empire, they were a rank above Christians, who were "gâvur" and had very restricted rights.

The lack of pressure from either the state or ordinary Bulgarians is clear for one simple reason: They are still here. Where are the Turks in Serbia or Greece? 46.10.148.99 (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user should explain why — despite our faschist/genocidal policies, our Turks and Muslims are still here, living with us — and then explain where are the Christian minorities of law-abiding, meek, minority-protecting Turkey? 'How did 2.929 million Christians in 1914 (18.1% of the population) become 350,000 in 1927 (2.5%)? Care to comment? Where did they go? Abducted bu aliens maybe?

Would you also grace us with an explanation of the Varlık Vergisi tax, which, Turkey, the Land of Equal Opportunity, imposed on all citizens of the Republic at absolutely equal rates: 4.9% for Muslims, 156% for Greeks, 179% for Jews and 232% for Armenians😊? As I said, equal rates.💔💔💔

Would explain to us how exactly the Turkish Surname Law of 1934, which bans, I quote, "Names relating to tribes, foreign races or ethnicities", i.e.. in effect, Armenian surname endings such as -yan and -ian, Bulgarian ones such as -ov and -ev, Greek ones like -is, -dis, -pulos, -aki, etc. etc, IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE DID IN THE REVIVAL PROCESS? Which neither I, nor 95% of Bulgarians supported by the way.

Also in this connection, article 301 of the Turkish Penal code enacted in 1972 that "prohibits giving newborns names that were contrary to the national culture"? Oh, it just smeeeeeeells of REVIVAL🤤. With the right amount of fascism of course.

If any compatriate wants to tackle the constant lies about "the genocide against the Turks" in articles such as Bulgarian Turks, etc., please message me on my page. I can pull out all relevant sources and help you out. I just don't have time yet to go into the fray (at the moment - hopefully). VMORO 06:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Demographics of Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

graph

y-ax nosaysMILIONS81.11.206.65 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Demographics of Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Demographics of Bulgaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pomaks

I'm wondering that Pomaks are not mentioned.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are Bulgarians - Muslims Bulgarians 46.10.148.99 (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still wondering, I would suggest that you check out the data for the Smolyan Province here (or, alternatively, visit nsi.bg, Infostat, http://pop-stat.mashke.org/bulgaria-ethnic2021.htm etc). Let me remind you that the Province is 3/4 "Muslim Bulgarian". No, not "Pomak", because there are attempts to weaponise it as a separate ethnicity, but no longer even "Muslim Bulgarian", as half the people of Muslim extraction no longer identify as Muslim.

But I digress. Well, this province is more than 90% ethnic Bulgarian at the latest census — and one of only five Bulgarian provinces that have such an outright Bulgarian majority. How Pomak-y does it sound to you from one to 10😊?

And since you might say that's because the Pomaks are oppressed/suppressed or that are we are chasing them with pitchforks every Tuesday afternoon, I can direct you to the pages of a popular TV presenter (Mira Dobreva), the former Minister of the Environment Borislav Sandov, the former Member of the European Parliament Vladimir Urutchev, the icon of Bulgarian folk music and, arguably, the most popular living Bulgarian folk singer, Valya Balkanska, Olympic champion in rowing Siyka Kelbecheva, football player Kostadin Gadzhalov, etc. etc. So, don't worry, they're here, they're obviously integrated in society, but there is one thing they are not — Pomaks. 05:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC) VMORO 05:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Migration rate

I didn't find the data on migration rate in the sources for vital statistics table. I only found data for 2010-2020 on the National institute of statistics website https://www.nsi.bg/en/content/3072/international-migration-age-and-sex . This data is different from the data in the tables. The migration rates and population change rates seem to have been calculated on the basis on the rest of the table, which would make these numbers incorrect. If there's no source for migration rates and population change rates, I will remove the data and maybe include 2010-2020 data. Givibidou (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did 100.000 turks move from 2001 to 2011?

Is there any source on this? 83.209.219.81 (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about emigration, dude? 46.10.148.99 (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abducted by aliens. Pity really. VMORO 04:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Semi-Protected Edit = Incorrect listing of "Undeclared" in the 2021 census

The "Undeclared" category for the 2021 census is entirely wrong as it combines three answers:

1) I cannot identify myself: 15,746 people
2) I do not wish to answer: 63,767 people and
3) Not shown - which comprises people for whom DATA HAS BEEN BORROWED FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SOURCES: 467,678.
See https://www.nsi.bg/sites/default/files/files/pressreleases/Census2021-ethnos.pdf and especially https://www.nsi.bg/sites/default/files/files/pressreleases/Census2021_ethnos-1.pdf

Unfortunately, the press releases do not yet have English translations, but they will come up sooner or later. However, the slide (https://www.nsi.bg/sites/default/files/files/pressreleases/Census2021_ethnos-1.pdf) is abundantly clear. I will translate word for word:

Population by ethnic group* (cf. the asterisk below)
Bulgarian: 5,518,494 or 84.6%
Turkish: 508,378 or 8.4%
Roma: 266,720 or 4.4%
Other: 79,006 or 1.3%
I cannot identify myself: 15,746 or 0.3%
I do not wish to answer: 63,767 or 1.0%

(Asterisk) In presenting the structure of the population by ethnic group and calculating the relative shares of the respective categories, we have not included persons who have been added from administrative sources, for whom there is no information in the registries used during the census.

It doesn't really matter if "persons for whom data has been borrowed from administrative sources" are skipped in the overall calculations or not (I think both should be stated). HOWEVER, the three different groups of people should be indicated SEPARATELY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.10.148.99 (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I do understand your concern. There was even a bit of a struggle to make things the way they are now, as everything at some point was clumped into one category. I seem to be the one who is writing most regulary here, so this is why I'm answering.

I think this was a decision for the sake of simplicity. I don't really see any difference between the two categories. Yes, the first one is I can't, the other one is I don't want to. Yeah, and so what? What does any of it change? For me, honestly, this is completely unnecessary and quite confusing. Plus, there is no other census I've seen where there are so many categories.

Once already, I'v had to split a table into two to be able to properly add all caterogies + adm sources bla bla, which took me several hours, and I would do the same thing only of it is a really pressing, urgent, super unfair etc. matter. In my personal opinion, things should stay the same as the two categories are basically two different versions of one and the same entry. Let's see if someone else will deign give us an answer. VMORO 04:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would agree with you in general. I don't believe there is much difference between the two categories of 'I cannot' and 'I don't want to', in practicality they mean the same thing effectively of the respondent has not given an answer. Maybe it differs significantly in answer in more mixed districts? No clue Tweedle (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're completely clueless. The last census was botched cause Mariyana was on TV every night assuring people they do not have to answer the questions about ethnic group, religion and mother tongue (as if this is something extremely scary that could have long-lasting consequences for you😱) and psyched 10% of the people not to answer.

This time, there were the DDOS attacks, where there were no census takers for most of Sofia (you either file an electronic return or you don't exist to us), where a number of Romani ghettoes appear to have been counted administratively (cause why bother if you can do it at the office whie making some of the stuff up on the spot). Plus, some of the Roma figures are so-so so so weird that if I didn't know how dysfunctional and lazy they are, I would have suspected foul play, but they don't have the organisation or motivation to even try.

I actually managed to change the designation of one of the categories with a single call (WTF??🤣🤣🤣🤣), so until everyone at the top layers is fired, there is not much point to obsess over bullshit. They are capable of putting a I'm wondering category. VMORO 13:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TFR 2022

It says the TFR in 2022 was 1.78, but births are actually down from 2021 when TFR was just 1.58. Could there be a typo? Chaptagai (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since that number makes no sense, I will delete it. 13:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)