Talk:Bulgars/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Bulgars. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

What about Bulchars?

Please look at this edit. Is it well done or vandalism? I can't decide, because I'm not an expertee of the topic. Thank for your help. --Ksanyi (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Pashto language???

What has the Pashto language to do with the Bulgars? It is a MODREN east Iranic language - so why there is a link to it? Why don't we put links to all east Iranic and Turkic languages since the pashto is present? This is ridiculous!Scheludko (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Mystery citation about the Sarmatians

The second half of the lead used to contain this passage:

"Almost all researches consider the influence of the neighbouring Sarmatians, as the main factor that changed the Bulgars' material culture.[3. Pamjatniki Nizhnego Povolzh’ja. Tom I. - Materialy i issledovanija po arheologii SSSR, 60, 1959; K.Smirnov. Sarmatskie plemena Severnogo Prikaspija. - Kratkie soobshtenija Instituta istorii material’noj kul’tury, XXXIV, 1950, s.97, 114.]"

It is of course irrational to claim "almost all researches" on the strength of two references from 50 and 60 years ago. But that's only the start of the problems with this edit. The footnote cites two references, the first of which lacks an author. Turns out the first reference's title is confused: it seems to contain a misquote and it is beyond doubt the title of the entire issue, not the title of a single article. The three word phrase of the title yields only nine Google hits, because Pamjatniki [sic on the 'j'] (памятники, approx. 'monuments') is a misquote for the issue, MIA 60!! The correct word is Drevnosti (Древности, approx. 'eras in antiquity'). (I found the correct issue title at this Web page, which furnishes the tables of contents of most if not all issues of MIA (in Cyrillic alphabet, МИА). By the way, I checked that the title given there, Drevnosti Nizhnego Povolzh’ja (Древности Нижнего Поволжья, 'The antiquity of the lower Volga basin'), is correct — for MIA 60, that is — by Googling it. Five thousand hits.) Well, the question remains: what article did the editor have in mind to support the claim in the Wikipedia edit? Since the citation lacks this information, I have deleted it. I've left the second citation, of KSIIMK XXXIV. Of course, outside of Russia there are very few copies of this issue of this journal available, but at least page numbers are given.

It turns out that half the contents of this MIA 60 are on the Web, here: Drevnosti Nizhnego Povolzh’ja. Volume I [том I, sometimes given in abbreviation as T.I]. Materialy i issledovanija po arheologii SSSR (МIА), 60.

HOWEVER, I have found a strong clue as to which article it is, and it may not be from MIA. At one of the nine hits for Pam’atniki Nizhnego Povolzh’ja, a page of sources pertaining to Scythian archaeological sites in the same region, namely, the lower Volga basin (Nizhnjeje Povolzh’je), there are these two consecutive citations for the same author:

Синицын И.В. Памятники Нижнего Поволжья скифо-сарматского времени // Археологический сб. Тр. Саратовского областного музея краеведения. Саратов, 1956.
Синицын И.В. Археологические исследования Заволжского отряда (1951–1953) // МИА. 1959. № 60.

The later of these articles is in MIA 60. Apparently, the Wikipedia editor mismatched journal and article title. Fortunately, the Sinitsyn article in MIA 60 is one of those that are currently posted online, so I have linked to it. It deals with the "Trans-Volga".

More evidence that it's Sinitsyn 1956. The article version of 7 Nov, the last one before my edits, has four consecutive footnotes, 2-6. Turns out that on p. 219 of the Russian version of the source in fn. 6 mentions three sources mentioned in fn. 2-5 (anonymous in MIA 60, Smirnov 1950, and Shilov 1959)! Here is the book, Mir Gunnov (World of the Huns); navigate to page 219. But you have the alternative of consulting the English version of the book (that fn. 6).

Action taken: I'm going to insert Sinitsyn 1956 in place of the authorless, titleless article attributed to MIA 60.

ASIDE. Among the set of nine hits, here's a hit that contains the misquote. And here's one that screws up the data royally:

Microsoft Word -
курганных могильников//АСГЭ.1979.Н20. с.28-38. 8. Памятники Нижнего Поволжья. Т.1//МИА,1959: Древности Нижнего Поволжья.Т. 11//МИА. 1960.
www3.vspu.ac.ru/historic/russian_hist/publish/.../mat_lev.htm

Here, the Roman numeral II (for том II) becomes Arabic numeral 11 (eleven); Drevnosti gets backdated by one year; and the spurious claim is made of a series of Pam’atniki . . . followed by Drevnosti . . ..

Hurmata (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The footnotes and citations were a travesty

The discussion that follows refers to the versions of 14 Nov and earlier (before I joined the article).

The ineptness of the footnotes and citations was in strong contrast to the diligence of gathering the information. The article is long due to the mass of details and at first glance it seems a wide variety of professional sources was consulted. Of course, I've seen in other Wikipedia articles how some editors just consult a few books and cite the sources of what they have read into the article to create the appearance of having actually consulted those sources. This certainly seems to be the case with footnotes 3, 4, 5; they are all taken from p 174 of Mänchen-Helfer 1973 (the original in English) or p 219 of the Russian edition (which is online). Notice that Mänchen-Helfer is cited only once (in footnote 6), and only for chapter Nine on language. p 174 belongs to the chapter on economy.

Since the majority of the sources are in the obscure Bulgarian language, I'm led to think that the main writers are Bulgarians and that this article is a translation.

Anyway, there was an avalanche of flaws in procedure for citations. I spent eight hours setting them right.

To start off, putting full citations in footnotes is outmoded, although some academic journals persist in it. Likewise outmoded is putting multiple sources in a common footnote. This is advisable only when there's a specific rationale.

I have rarely seen an article at WP where the elements of citations (year, author, page number — even article title!) were so liberally left out.

It's quite disrespectful toward the reader to cite obscure journals in obscure fields only by their initials, especially in an encyclopedia. In almost any field of knowledge, the audience for a Wikipedia article is overwhelmingly nonexperts. Whichever WP you are writing for (Bulgarian WP, English WP, etc.) citing foreign language academic journals by initials only is really annoying, the annoyance outweighs the pleasure of the scavenger hunt for the missing information. (And of course how many people know Cyrillic and know the rudiments of both Russian spelling and Bulgarian spelling? Only somebody with this training could competently copy edit this article.)

I'm shocked at how many footnotes don't have page numbers. Sometimes sources which are Web pages are not paginated, but the footnotes for these should have a distinctive brief text string that you can search for (which beats pagination anyway).

Reinforcing the surmise that this article was written by foreigners is the apparent naivete in journal citations. You put the author first, not last. You don't indicate city of publication by a mere initial — again, at least not when your audience is nonexperts. Including the institutional affiliations of the authors? Jeez.

In two successive footnotes (14 and 15), BOTH the authors and the journal title were left out! In footnote 34, another journal article found at a Web site, the author was omitted.

"Patriarch Nikephoros, Historia syntomos, breviarium" is cited twice, yet no publication information is offered. Googling, I found none. This strongly suggests the editor who inserted this did not consult any "published works" of Patriarch Nikephoros, but instead took quotations of him and pretended that a distinct publication existed, distinct from the one the quotes came from. If his writings are available in English, or even another major western European language, it seems they don't have an entire work to themselves.

This last point is not a complaint because it's a minor mistake. Some Bulgarian speaking editor misspelled a Russian word in a Bulgarian way: soobshTenija for the Russian soobshCHenija. Hurmata (talk) 07:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Bulgars, not Huns

Footnotes 3, 4, 5 are taken from the book referenced by footnote 6, by Mänchen-Helfer. While it's possible that some editors proceeded to actually look up (consult) the half century old Bulgarian and Russian academic journal articles in footnotes 3, 4, 5, all these works, i.e., including Mänchen-Helfer, seem off topic. His book is The world of the Huns and the Bulgars get only a handful of passing mentions. The author does not substantively address the issue of distinguishing between Huns and Bulgars, or alternatively concluding they are the same. He does suggest that both terms were used with inconsistent reference across four centuries and across large areas of Europe. The bottom line is that nothing in The world of the Huns substantiates that any of the Huns were any of the Bulgars. Therefore, I am deleting these footnotes and the text that I saw comes from this book. The passage about their head shape and "Mongoloid admixture" come from this book. Hurmata (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Where in "Europe"?

Editor User:Monshuai has persistently used vague formulations (WP:WEASEL) and now a plainly inaccurate statement to exaggerate the dispersal of the Bulgars in Europe: e.g., "in various parts of Europe". This editor is insinuating they were all over Europe. Now Monshuai has specified "northeastern" Europe, which is silly because that would be Moscow and Leningrad. The Bulgars ruled three approximately contiguous areas around the Black Sea: the lower Volga Basin (the Volga River empties into that arm of the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, around the NE of the Black Sea), the rest of the north of the Black Sea, and the western end of the Black Sea (present day Bulgaria and part of Romania). Farther west, they raided the Pannonian plain — adjacent to what would be the kingdom encompassing present day southern Romania, along with the Huns, and one Bulgar chief may have briefly ruled there (for a generation or two), although this cannot be proved from the available evidence. Hurmata (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

POSTSCRIPT. Self correction. The Volga River ends not at the Sea of Azov, but 400 miles due east, at the northern end of the Caspian Sea. Hurmata (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Followup to the preceding: Tatarstan in the middle Urals, widely seen as a successor to Volga Bulgaria, is not "northeastern Europe". This is weasel wording. Hurmata (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

". . . in various parts of Europe, starting in Russia and Ukraine". Yeah, and ending in Bulgaria. Hurmata (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

-User:Hurmata is advised to see and learn the true location of Volga Bulgaria, not the one he/she has mistakenly imagined in his/her non-referenced conjectures. As can be seen from various maps, the state was indeed in the region adjacent to today's Moscow, which user Hurmata him/herself claims to be northeastern Europe.

-Great Bulgaria occupied the territories between the Caspian and Black Seas, a terriroty currently making up parts of Ukraine and Russia.

-User:Hurmata is advised to see the article on Europe to gain a better understanding of the continent's eastern and north eastern peripheries. In reference to points 1 and 2 above and keeping in line with geographic canons (modern and historical), it is a fact that the Bulgars created states in the eastern, north-eastern and south-eastern parts of Europe.

-The Bulgars alongside the Huns conquered territories as far as todays westernmost border of Germany. (REF: F. Altheim, Attila und die Hunnen (1951))

-The First Bulgarian Empire was not simply built on the shores of the Black Sea but rather grew into a state that occupied most of the Balkan Peninsula and stretched from the Black Sea in the east to the Aegean in the south and Adriatic in the west. Just 20 years after its establishment the Bulgars forced the East Roman Empire to pay an annual tribute c. 700 CE. According to historians, in this period of time the East Romans were for all intents and purposes vassals of the Bulgarian Empire.-Monshuai (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's like claiming "the Polynesians settled the United States before any Europeans" because Hawaii is now US territory. This is a dishonest logic that presupposes that things like "Asia" or "Europe" can be strictly defined and depends on ignoring different levels: time, space, natural ecology, culture, etc. There is also a failure to realize that maybe Europe didn't directly border Siberia plus Central Asia, but there was a third major region in between those two.

The Bulgars are thought to have accompanied Attila the Hun. Attila the Hun raided as far as Alsace or so, but did not establish Hunnic rule. There is some documentary evidence of a Bulgar chiefdom in present day eastern Hungary (the Pannonian Plain), which is adjacent to the First Bulgarian Empire. So again, the territories ruled by Bulgars were confined to around the Black Sea (i.e., SE Europe) and around the middle Volga (outside NE Europe), as opposed to "NEern, eastern, and SEern Europe" and even more. The edits Monshuai is defending are intended to distort the readers' understanding and to conceal the facts that the Bulgar influence on European history was confined to a part of the margin of Europe, confined to a three century period about 400-700, and the influence in Europe was intense only in present day Bulgaria. Just as the Western world came to the Hawaiians and not the other way around, Russia came to Tatarstan on the middle Volga and not the other way around. The edits Monshuai is defending are also deliberately vague.

Monshuai is advised to consult this map of Volga Bulgaria which accompanies Volga Bulgaria so that he can see that his blatantly counterfactual statement about the western extent of Volga Bulgaria was not accepted without investigation. Monshuai is also advised to adopt a less stuffy manner of formulating his thoughts. Hurmata (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Second response. There ARE groups that fit Monshuai's notion of a pattern of impact on European history that he is ascribing to the Bulgars did. Not in all the same places and centuries as where the Bulgars operated, of course. Such groups are the Vikings and the Normans. The Normans annexed England. Later on, one of them split off and took an army and sailed to Sicily and conquered it and southern Italy, ending two centuries of Arab rule in Sicily. Hurmata (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

History

Whilst the "Origins" part has taken a step in the right direction, the history section is deeply anacrhonistic and unscholarly.

There were no Bulgars in 2nd century. The ethonym 'Bulgar" first appears in 480. Given that Bulgars was an ethno-political naming which emerged in 5th century, it cannot refer to any group prior to that, whether cultural or anthropological links exist or not
There were no Bulgars in the Hun pax. No mention is made of them. Again, even if elements of the Huns (Ie the Oghurs) then became important in formation if Bulgars, then this is an entirely different matter, and not part of 'Bulgar' history

Hxseek (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You are really on to something. Wikipedia has all these articles on Balkan, Russian, and Central Asian history of the medieval age that lack even, it seems, the conception of historiographic discussion. There are these (apparently) Slav contributors who just throw a mass of sources out without putting them in context, without providing perspective. They don't use recent (last 10-15 years) professional works even in the Russian language. Most of the sources are in Russian and even more obscure languages, which may be fine for professionals but not fine for the mass of Wikipedia users. There's a wildly neglectful attitude toward bibliography: no page numbers, often more important elements are missing like YEAR OF PUBLICATION, author, etc. (As for no page numbers, that's standard in Russian academia, observes Alexander Vovin.

"a bibliography written for a Russian publishing house: no page numbers for any articles, no indication of publishers for books." (Vovin, The end of the Altaic controversy, Central Asiatic Journal, 49(1), P. 122)

The prose is awkward, not a translation issue, the wordings would sound dumb in any language. See my recent work on this article and [[Xiongnu]. We have to congratulate these other editors for the breadth, the apparent thoroughness even, of the sources amassed. But there is no distinction made between sources that are as much as 150 years apart, there's consistent redundancy between sources, the attempt to organize the presentation of information is only halting. I have started with cleanup of the nitty gritty. Once the article is in smooth English and the source list has been reduced to what is checkable, then we can address the scholarly validity. Hurmata (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, clean ups need to be made. I think the article has improved a lot from a couple of months ago when it was somewhat of a battle ground between Turkists and Iranicists, who either out of ignorance or chauvanism, tried to lump the Bulgars as a "Turkic" people, ot what have you, without really taking the time to delve into the complexity of group formation that has been realized by ethnologists since the 1960s. Related to this, some articles also over-exaggerate the history of a people based on quiestionable sources, such as this article on Bulgars which begins their history 300 years before they even appeared. Hxseek (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

the article is re-written by pan-Slavs

the article is complately changed by ulta nationalist slav groups. where is the moderator in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.248.33.182 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

About my recent edit

The given reference for paragraph the Bulgars alongside the Huns conquered parts of central and western Europe reaching as far as the western border of present day Germany does not even contain the term "Bulgar" [1]. Moreover, the subsequent paragraph is unsourced and smells like historical revisionism attempting to stretch back Bulgar presence in the Balkans as much as possible. The paragraph In the year 1185, the First Bulgarian Empire was succeeded by the Second Bulgarian Empire and in the modern era by the Republic of Bulgaria is redundant in this article. Per above, I have removed these paragraphs. 79.112.20.139 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity of the Bulgars

The article pays a lot of attention to the (likely) Turkic ethnicity of the Bulgars, with lots of arguments and references, but fails to mention that there are alternative theories. I think these alternatives, most popular in Bulgaria, should be given a separate section "Alternative theories about ethnicity", to restore the NPOV balance of the article. Maybe Samuil_of_Bulgaria#Nomenclature is a good inspiration? Preslav (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"...they didn't know the name of Christ, and with their Scythian ignorance they were serving the Sun, the Moon and the other Stars." Teofilakt Ohridski describing the Bulgars

"In the second century A.D., the Bulgars came to Europe from their old homeland, the Kingdom of Balhara situated in the Mount Imeon area (present Hindu Kush in northern Afghanistan)." http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3236.htm

So you, wikipedia "editors" claim to know more than Teofilakt Ohridski and the American Government by saying that the Bulgars were turks???

And the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it;)

"Further evidence culturally linking the Danubian Bulgar state to Turkic steppe traditions was the layout of the Bulgars' new capital of Pliska, founded just north of the Balkan Mountains shortly after 681. The large area enclosed by ramparts, with the rulers' habitations and assorted utility structures concentrated in the center, resembled more a steppe winter encampment turned into a permanent settlement than it did a typical Roman Balkan city."

Just a few questions from me:

To start with,can someone please explain to me the differences between the layout of a "Turkic steppe winter encampment" and the winter encampments of other various nomadic peoples?

Is there at least one,just one,other example of a ~23 km² fortified "steppe winter encampment" from the I,II.III,VII,XI.... or whatever century BC or AD anywhere in the world?

Will anyone need and build a sauna in Sahara-mmm not very likely,so why as first set a "steppe winter encampment" out of the steppes? Because any person with Google Earth and even a little knowledge of topography will notice that the area where the "steppe encampment" of Pliska was situated was/is not a steppe one(and from defensive and strategic point of view the site that was chosen was the best,considering the ~territory of the Bulgarian state at the time and the existing road network ).

The "typical Roman Balkan cities" were built by the Romans at the time of the Roman empire right?So where exactly is the logic behind the expectation of Bulgars building "typical Roman cities".And except,may be,in the Byzantine empire where else in Medieval Europe,Roman-style cities were still being built and not laying in ruins?Or may be one thinks that the residence of Charles the Great(well he was really a great one,hehe)had been a stone walled city with massive palaces and all-ehmmm surprise,surprise no-it had been more like a big fortified encampment "with the rulers' habitations and assorted utility structures concentrated in the center"-sounds familiar to me,sounds like Pliska:).

locoboco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.252.206.66 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

bulgars

I recomend the book Constantinople.It describes the bulgars fairly often. Much of the information can be used to enhance the article.

Bulgarians and bulgars

Hey hole, ones the the english were called angli. Once hungarians were called madzhari. Bulgars and bulgarians are much closer as words. Obviously you ignore the facts about bulgarian and bulgar origin. And they are huge. How much they pay you? Who pays you - serbs, russians, turks, furomanians? As I see this is your job - day and night. Changing the articles here and there. This is so much time jingy. Do you have family? What is your mother saying about your day and night job in wiki articles?

And if the article is about bulgars not bulgarians, why is there a picture of the battle between tzar Samoil (an undoubtly bulgarian tzar) with Bazil the II. Obviously you a trying to say : Bulgarians are turks.

Ppanchev ivan

Improving the article

This article definitely needs to be improved.

First of all, the origin of the Bulgars is not clear. Indeed, the leading theory is that they were of turkic origin but this is not 100% fact as the beginning is trying to convince the reader. By the way from the online sources supporting this theory ( from 2 to 9) only 6, 8 and 9 say that Bulgars were of turkic origin(!!!) and 6 is clearly stating that they were PROBABLY of turkic origin. Besides, the Iranian theory is obviously not liked by many editors but it still exists and has its supporters among historians and therefore it should be at least mentioned. In addition, in Encyclopedia Britannica Online is written "Many scholars posit the origins of the Bulgars as a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements)" see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84067/Bulgar
Secondly, the legend about Khan Kubrat telling his sons that "unity makes strength" may be suitable for primary school textbooks but not for a serious encyclopedia.
Finally, the citations should be improved. Source referred simply as "Ivan Dobrev" (17) has no place in wikipedia. People, who has taught you how to cite?Scheludko (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

so why do you remove sources? --Finn Diesel (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Finn, I've reverted you since you are edit warring (which could get you blocked: see WP:3RR) and are calling other editors "vandals" (see WP:Civil). Please resolve this here on the talk page. If you're not getting anywhere, try WP:Dispute resolution. kwami (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So why do I remove your sources? Well, simply because the sources you provide doesn't tell us that it is 100% fact that the Bulgars were a turkic people. Some of them even have nothing to do with the Bulgars. Besides, in encyclopedia britannica (you cite it but you don't give a link to it)it is clearly written Many scholars posit the origins of the Bulgars as a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements) So, what do you want? I don't deny that they were PROBABLY turkic. I just make it sounding more neutral and assess that other theories exist as well. While your edit is quite biased.Scheludko (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

nobody can block me from wikipedia because all my sources are reliable. see google books.--Finn Diesel (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

by the way, how can you remove sources from wikipedia, it's not suitable for rules. i dont want to discuss you something because all the sources are NOT my personal research. all are real and reliable, and it seem to be a Slavic invade to me.. --Finn Diesel (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

your sources are reliable but:

most of them don't state that the Bulgars were undoubtedly Turkic but rather than probably Turkic.
some of them are even not about the Bulgars???!!!
my version does not contradict to yours, it is just more neutral - so it is better.

Scheludko (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead of an article is not the place to prove theories by massive quoting. One might likewise provide a dozen of reliable sources supporting some other theory about the origins of the Bulgars (e.g. originally Eastern Iranian with later Ugric and Turkic influence etc.), but all these principal hypotheses should better be presented in detail in the article's main body — not in the lead which should be brief and not misrepresenting a more complex reality by singling out one of several alternative hypotheses to portray it as a 'fact'. Apcbg (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. If you can provide reliable sources about other theories (e.g. the Iranian theory) - write them.Scheludko (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

i have a knowladge about Turkic civilization and i often read international scholars, all the scholars in the world has accepted Bulgars as a part of the Turkic civilization. Scheludko, you are from Bulgaria and i think you grew up with those pan-slavic history books from Yugoslav era. this view should not be an acceptable policy for wikipedia. at least i think so. --Finn Diesel (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat myself again: I have never said that the Bulgars were not a Turkic people - this is the leading theory at the present moment. I am just saying that other theories exist. And this other theories have nothing to do with any slavs so I do not understand why you accuse me of Pan-slavia. The other theory is that the Bulgars were of Iranian origin and it was developed by Bulgarian scholars in 1990s (after the fall of communism). This theory explains some of the discrepancies about their Turkic origin (because it is accepted that they were probably turkic). Some of the points are the following:

The only medieval source pointing out the original homeland of the Bulgars was written by an Armenian geographer in the IV century. And guess what: it was neihter Siberia nor Altay mountains but the valley between the Pamir and Hindokush mountains (today's lands in northern Afghanistan). That suggests their east-Iranian origin.
The same geographer writes that Bulgars built stone cities where they lived. And he was quite right - remnants of such cities can be seen even today in Bulgaria (e.g. their first Balkan capital - Pliska). This doesn't match a lot with the idea of the nomadic steppe Turkic tribes.
Some words in the Bulgar language had Iranian origin. See http://www.kroraina.com/b_lang/bl_oldwords.html
Most Byzantine chroniklers associated the Bulgars with the Huns (some of the Bulgar tribes participated in Hun's raids) but others associated them with the Scythians or Sarmatians which were Iranic peoples.
The Byzantine pictures of Bulgars didn't represent them as people with mongoloid admixture as the turkic theory suggests. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Krum1.jpg

The authors don't deny the turkic influence over the Bulgars but state that originally they were Iranians. In my opinion, it is quite possible that Bulgars were not "pure" Turks or Iranians but rather than a mixture of Turkic and Iranic tribes. But this doesn't change the fact that the turkic theory is the leading one as my version of the beginning states.Scheludko (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to Encyclopedia Iranica where it is written that the name Asparukh is Iranian. Moreover, it states that rock reliefs like the Madara horseman were typical for the Sassanid art. http://www.iranica.com/articles/asparukh-a-middle-iranian-proper-name-attested-in-ancient-georgia-and-early-medieval-bulgaria-grecized-as-asparoukis-app Scheludko (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing of reliable sources

Nine of the sources has been removed by user:Scheludko, is it "improving the article" policy in wikipedia?--Finn Diesel (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources were reliable but when you added them you should have read carefully what they were actually about. Some of them were not about the Bulgars at all and other stated that the Bulgars were probably of Turkic origin. As a whole, the present version does not contradict to your sources. It is just more neutral and accurate because it is not 100% sure that the Bulgars were turkic. If you insist - add some of your sources but, please, don't change anything in the text without discussing.Scheludko (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Still unbalanced?

Is it still necessary to have the POV-tag on top of the article? I know there's still a lot of passionate feelings about various origin theories, but as far as I can tell, the article looks pretty neutral to me. I can understand the tag for the state the article was in back in early April, but right now I'm wondering if the tag hasn't simply been jammed up there so many times that it got stuck.

Is it possible that those who feel it should still be there could briefly, very briefly (ie without rehashing personal animosities or personal theories without any source support), summarize why the tag should be kept and what they feel is required to have it removed?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, one might say that there is still an undue de-emphasizing and over-hedging of the mainstream view that they were predominantly a Turkic group, and the almost exclusive consensus view in linguistic that their language was Turkic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean we can remove it (for now)?

Peter ^Isotalo 09:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Origin & "Migration to Europe'

THis article is one of the worst Wikipedia articles. It starts the history of Bulgars in the 200s. No historical source clearly identifies the Bulgars, and an extremely dubious connection is made with the Bulesi. This need to be corrected

The first clear reference to Bulgars is in 480 by Caucasian writer referring to a probable retrospective account of a Bulgar invasion to Caucasia. But this need to be contextualized and highlighted that such a source - written 3 centuries or so later- is hardly "A grade" material.

Furthermore, the term Bulgar was used to a variety of different nomadic war clans in 5th and 6th century Ponto-Caspian - Danubian region, not to some unified ethnos.

Finally, an idea of a migration from MOngolia is just rubbish. There is no way these people came all the from Mongolia in one trot and maintained a distinct identity. There is no serious scholar who would maintain such a rediculous theory. Rather, the Bulgars formed in Black Sea region - exactly where they are first attested (not to deny that some movement of peoples did not occur, but certainly no 'national' migration from Mongolia to Black Sea.

And I see that there is still pointless squabble about whether they were "Turkic" or "Iranic" or "Turanid", etc, etc. Stupid nationalism. They were neither. Turkic is a linguistic category made up by modern linguists - it does not describe the Bulgars customs, social structure, or even language necessarily. There wass no common Turkic culture - so each factore has to be examined seperately, and people must refrain from trying to slap on over-generalizing ethnic labels like Turkic or Iranic- because this does not even begin to capture what the Bulgars were really about.

Time permitting, I;d be happy to improve the sorry current state of this article Hxseek (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkic and Iranian are objective categories. Of course they have little to nothing to do with culture, but if the Bulgars spoke a Turkic language, then they were Turkic language speakers. That's all the word means. And if they spoke a mix of languages, or shifted languages over time, we can say that too.

As for the idea that they migrated from Mongolia being rubbish, since we never say that they migrated from Mongolia, I don't see how it's relevant.

Any improvements you can make, esp. in reliable sourcing, would be most welcome. — kwami (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have understood Central Asia as Mogloia, roughly. So what do we mean central Asia ? They only feature around Black Sea region and Caucasus. I wouldn't call that central Asia.

Indeed, I do not doubt Iranic or Turkic language classifications, but this hould be specifically mentioned with regard to linguistic discusion, not a general, overriding ethnic or ideological equivalent Hxseek (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Hxseek (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless there was language shift, the fact that they spoke Turkic would indicate that at least some of their ancestors came from Central Asia, if not specifically Mongolia. And if there was language shift, then their cultural ancestors came from Central Asia, since their ancestors assimilated to a Turkic language. Often we have little to go on besides language, which is why people are often classified by the languages they speak--unless, of course, we have reason to think that would be inaccurate. — kwami (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's wrong. There already were Oghuric-Turkic speaking groups in Black Sea region in 5th and 6th century. So there is no reason, nor any actual evidence that the Bulgars "came from" anywhere ! Culturally, if we look at burial, pottery, artefacts - little or nothing speaks of any connection with central Asia, apart from a genreal nomadic lifestyle which was common through all Eurasian steppe. Language spread is the final result of many different procceses - not due to a single movement of Bulgars from Central Asia. If Turkic really did come from Central Asia - this does not mean that the Bulgars did. The Bulgars formed , ie appear in the late 5th century. They were a socio-political group. They formed, or were described/discovered, in the Black Sea/ Caucus region. Not in central Asia. I speak English, but I certainly do not come from England Hxseek (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You say "that's wrong", then proceed to talk about other things that don't address why what I said was wrong.

As for "if the Turkic [peoples] really did come from Central Asia", last I heard the Turkic languages had been traced back to western Mongolia. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you don't seem to be grasping my point. Sorry if it is a bit advanced. . I have addressed your question rather clearly, in fact. I think the discrepency lies in your trivial understanding of what a 'people' or 'tribe' actually means, historically speaking.

Similarly with language. It is clear that most scholars place Turkic to have 'arisen' in the Altai region, but did Bulgar-Turkic really 'originate' there ? How do you know for sure ? And, as I'm trying to say, where a language originates and where a confederacy of people, or where an ethonym is adopted to refer to a variety of different peoples, ie Bulgars, originated, are entirely different matters.

Please provide one shred of conclusive evidence that the Bulgars formed in 2nd century central Asia and then migrated to Black Sea. . . I wont be holding my breath

Hxseek (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I never said they did. Sorry, but you don't seem to be understanding my points.

Languages don't emerge overnight. They evolve gradually, apart from creoles and conlangs and a few other exceptions. People also do not arise by spontaneous generation, they have ancestors. Cultures likewise do not arise independently of each other. The Bulgars could have formed as a distinct people on the shores of the Black Sea and yet still have ancestry, either bloodline or cultural, with Central Asia. I don't see what your point is, since AFAICT no-one is making the claims you're objecting to. — kwami (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ofcourse people have 'blood ancestors'. But that's not what determines ethnogenesis. It is political, social and cultural circumstances. The Bulgars were, in essence, a political-military group. Not a "Nation". They formed in the south Volga-Caucusus area. Your references to "blood-line" descent is an outdated mode of thinking. Unfortunately, it is still prevelant in eastern Europe and Asian scholarhsip. In any case, a central Asian origin is not supported by neither physcial type, nor genetics antrhopology. All people have ancestors- yes, they do not emerge from the ground ! Same with language - it developes, spreads, contracts, etc. But tribal groups - the people named by sources- can, and have, emerged overnight ! That's the difference and that's what you are failing to understand. Speaking of genetics, recent research (a team of scientists went to Iran and neighboring Iranic areas and gathered DNA from Iranic people -the DNA was very close to modern Bulgarians, and thus the Bulgars. DNA, in essence, proves without argumant that we are then mostly Iranic (the other part being Thracian) and not Turkic or Slavic. You people should take some initiative and do some research once in a while. sources for this are plenty - you have university of michigan, state government of USA, official news websites (which are allowed on wiki, from the rules), official archeaology websites, ancient historians -ALL are either mentioned on the "complaint of racism section" here or on the edits from ate July to early August 2010 - pay attention to the 'new research 2010' section and the language section. The 'new research 2010' section was removed in later edits -you will find it by noticing the comments of the edits from that time41.133.46.200 (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hxseek (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hxseek, can you provide reliable sources about your statements that "the term Bulgar was used to a variety of different nomadic war clans in 5th and 6th century Ponto-Caspian - Danubian region, not to some unified ethnos" and "the Bulgars formed in Black Sea region"? Frankly, I have never heard anything about the second statement and the first statement is just one of the many possible explanations. Moreover, the Turkic-Iranian origin is assessed in Encyclopedia Britannica online (have a look at the link) which, in my opinion, can be cosidered a reliable source. So, accusing editors of "stupid nationalism" because of this is at least inappropriate.Scheludko (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

i'm actually compiling literature currently. The problem of such encyclopedias is that theu regurgitate what theory is mostly repeated by most numer of scholars. They do not go into the crux of the issue. I am not saying that labelling somthing Turkic or Iranic is stupid, but the edit wars which had gone on in article like this as to which 'ethnicity' they were is stupid, as based on false logic. Sure, we can say that they spoke Turkic, more correctly Oghuric. But then we must qualify, contextualize, etc. Moreoever, lingusitic assertions are only part of the issue. being a nomadic pastoralist doesn;t make someone automatically Turkic Hxseek (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Bulgar origins AND Complaint of racism

There is lots of bias and racism going on in wikipedia topics that deal with Bulgarians. People, especially people in Wikipedia, should understand that not every thing in this world is Turkic and that not every tribe ever from Asia, or Central Asia is Turkic, this has been a particular problem in Wikipedia for quite some time now, where bias seems to rule the land and get the upper hand, usurping other theories (which by the way have lots of evidence and sources, from proper websites and proper research and historians) with force and racism (clearly as many editiors have experienced). This really is irritating a lot of people, and in the purest sense is simply not fair. This frustration is justly founded. It seems that lots of articles that deal with Bulgarian topics (like this for example) are stalked and ruled (very unfairly) by Turks which is just ridiculous, since they are Bulgarian topics not Turkic topics. Lots of people vandalise Bulgarian pages with propaganda (i.e:old theories and information which since has strongly been doubted by a lot of people, and since then new theories have been found with stronger more factual evidence-which in the end is simply ignored just because somewhere down the line it wasnt or something wasnt Turkic). All this is disturbing really and stinks of racism towards Persian and Iranian peoples (which goes against morals and human rights). All of the above is simply a drop of the massive problem that is going on! Basically some editors have presented additional theories (nothing wrong with that) about the origins of the Bulgars. The important thing here is that these edits had, justly, proper verifiable sources from a wide collection of books, websites, and newspapers(which after reading the wikipedia rules, one finds that thay are perfectly acceptable). The biggest shock which is just plain unbelievable is the latest findings of DNA, which prove that the modern day Bulgarians (and thus the Bulgars) have a lot in common with ancient and current Pamirian/Iranian peoples. ALL the discussion should have stopped right there, with no more warring, insults and arguments, as anyone with common sense or in the medical field knows that DNA doesn't lie,ever and it is especially important as the best evidence in court cases, murders and CSI's. Not only is there DNA evidence (which from this point you don't need any other evidence really) but also linguistic evidence (lots of words from Iranian origin in modern Bulgarian language, and also place names, people names etc etc). There's even a replica of the Madara horseman in ancient Persian lands. A reference to a whole nice list has been added to this article which has a whole table showing all the words in alphabetical order with origins in different dielects -but guess what?it has been conveniently removed, because as you might have guessed by now-it wasn't Turkic enough. Yet and additional source has been found, behind an already sufficient collection, stating that the Bulgars originated from Pamirian lands; this source, by the way, is from the History faculty of the University of Michigan. How much more evidence, proof and source do you possibly still need? The problem here is that the article is edited by a lot of people who are not even Bulgarian -I dont think you people have got a right to assert who we are and where we come from. You might then say that we all need neutral editors, but that's where the next problem comes from- most of the editors who are not Bulgarian are Turks (there is a history of great tension and violence between Turks and Bulgarians, so Turkish input on this page should be seen as hugely biased and not neutral at all-it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure this out)who insist that the Bulgarians are Turks also-its as if they want to make us Turks no matter what and against all odds. Why do I say against all odds? Well for one there is DNA evidence, and then you get research by real historians (who are qualified just as much as the historians and researchers who inist on the Turkic theory) saying that the Bulgars were Iranian, and then you also get linguistic and cultural evidence-which is all removed in the blink of an eye!!! Anyone who is reading this-please open your eyes to the massive problem that is going on here and read the previous edits where the iranian theory is mentioned -sometime in early August and before-you will see the comments on the edits-read it all an see the truth. This page is corrupt and usurped. There is so much racism here towards Iranian people and Persians (which goes against human rights)-this is disgusting. All rationality and common sense has been lost and thrown away when dealing this page, the Iranian theory is not given a chance when there is so much evidence by so many researchers( a whole team traveled to Iran for crying out loud-to collect DNA samples), icluding Petar Dobrev and historians from the University of Michigan http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/bulgarian_rulers.pdf. There is a lot of linguistic, cultural and DNA evidence-WHY IS IT ALL BEING IGNORED, WHY ARE THERE WARNINGS AND BANS TO THOSE THAT TRY TO CHANGE THIS????!!!!This is hugely unfair!Why in the world is the Iranian theory seen as so bad-when there is overwhelming evidence? By the way someone has said, on the comments of the edits, that DNA is not irrefutable and implying that it just might as well be useless. All this has to change Whoever is reading this and agrees even slightly or is interested in seeing what all the evidence is and what all the fuss is about, please read the previous edits from ABOUT LATE JULY TO EARLY AUGUST-read the whole article but pay special attention to the "new research 2010" part. One more source which should have been added but hasn't ( a new one):http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/bulgarian_rulers.pdf

ALL THIS above is just a drop of the problem, I left out a lot of detail of the problem and many more good arguments out,as I don't have time now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.121 (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about the Slavic Bulgarians, but about completely different people - the Turkic Bulgars. Jingby (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Oh my, if you read anthing in the past edits, you would have seen that, from the "new research 2010" part that today's modern day Bulgarians have a lot in common with Pamirian people, DNA wise, so that means that we are then descended from the Bulgars. And what do you mean Slavic Bulgarians -they are not Slavic, they don't look Slavic (even says in Wikipedia they look different from other Slavs) and the new DNA evidence shows that we have mostly Pamirian not Slavic genes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.121 (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC) And what is wrong with the Bulgars being Iranic, why must they be Turkic and absolutely nothing else,is it shameful to be Iranic or something? In wikipedia at least, there is a monopoly over their ethnicity, how dare someone who isn't ethnic Bulgarian say what our ancestors were, and on top of that purposefully ignore lots of sources and evidence. Why must they be Turkic, is there a rule that they must be only Turkic, is there a rule to ignore new and old evidence and sources stating otherwise, and warning and banning those that decide to do something about this unfairness. For the record the new research 2010 part in previous edits shows that according to new DNA data, the modern day Bulgarians have mostly Iranic DNA(from Pamir), no wonder we don't look Slavic, most of us. This shows then that the greater part of us are descended from the Bulgars and the other part being Thracian, and only probably 1 percent Slavic. If the Bulgars were Turkic, then currently we would have had mostly Turkic DNA not Iranic (Pamir). EVERYONE, IF YOU WANT A SAMPLE OF THE REAL TRUTH, read this:http://samoistina.at.ua/2/similarities.htm, it has scholarly sources! Also read the sources from the previous edits, from late July to early August. They are proper sources, verifiable sources. When these were presented, the biased people had nothing to say so they responded to say that these sources weren't valid, but according to wikipedia's rules they are valid41.132.116.121 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is not a phantasy forum. End of my comments. Regards. Jingby (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Typical, again someone doesn't know how to respond because they logically know I am right, they don't have a proper arugementatice comeback, they don't have a justified comeback with any weight, they just plainly don't know how to respond to all the overwhelming evidence and sources that just simply throw the Turkic theory out the water. With comebacks like these, and I have seen a lot of them, this issue will never get solved, and the monopoly of the Bulgars and Bulgarian's ethnicity will continue with utmost unfairness. This is totally messes up, this is a prime example of how corrupt wikipedia is. You wikipedias spend so much time editing wikiepedia, thinking you are contributing even more to this "prestigious, great and academic world wide information and education project that is wikipedia", feeling good and great, with honour that you are doing a fine job to contribute to education to thousands, to add to the most valuable thing ever-knowledge; you people even create good looking and impressive personal user pages and show off all the hard work that you have done, wanting, if there is anything to want, respect - BUT ALL THIS IS AN ILLUSION, USELLESS AND YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELVES BY WRITING HISTORY THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO BE, BY IGNORING EXTREMELY VALUABLE INFORMATION, SOURCES AND EVIDENCE, GOING SO FAR AS TO EVEN IGNORE DNA EVIDENCE. WE ARE MEANT TO PUT TRUTH AND PRESTIGE TO THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA, TO EDUCATE AND NOT LIE TO PEOPLE, INSTEAD THE OPPOSITE IS HAPPENING. When people said at university not to usetrust wikipedia too much and to maybe rather use other sources, I used to think that that is a wrong, unjustified statement, thinking that of course wikipedia is a good and trustworthy source of info, but now I see what is happening really, how low wikipedia has fallen.41.133.47.98 (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC) AND HERE IS ONE MORE OFFICIAL SOURCE,(CANT GET MORE OFFICIAL THEN THIS!!!) in addition to the already many sources mentioned in the article ('new research 2010 and language part') around late July to ealry August 2010, you will notice it from the comments of the edits around that time SAYING(WITH ALL FAIRNESS TO THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE RECENTLY AND FROM YEARS PASSED) THAT THE BULGARS CAME FROM THE KINGDOM OF BALHARA http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3236.htm (as some historians point out, but of course the historians were not Turks or Turkic, so you will ignore and ridicule them, but that goes without saying). With all due fairness, and with all logic - proper sources from governments and universities (which now are starting to number as much or MORE THAN THE SOURCES THAT SAY THE BULGARS ARE TURKIC) should have higher priorities than the opinion and POV's of the administrators and editors who abuse this page with their nonsense(i.e: governemt and university sources are much, much better than the opinions of the editors that say we didn't come from Balhara and/or that we are Turks/Turkic and not Iranic). You people must know that in the end the right always wins over the wrong, truth always triumphs, your(your=every editor who supports the Turkic "theory" by ignoring or deleting sources and evidence showing otherwise) siege WILL be lifted from this page eventually, this propanda must eventually come to an end and please, I BEG YOU, dont send me links to wikipedia rules that you people twist so much for your agenda and Turkish POV, that in the end they are not even recognizable anymore. EVERYONE MUST COME HERE TO THIS DISCUSSION AND SOLVE THIS CRISIS ONCE AND FOREVER ALL. EVERYONE - JUST KNOW THAT WHOEVER DARES CHANGE SOMETHING AND TRIES TO KEEP IT ON THE PAGE(SAYING IRANIC AND NOT TURKIC) - YOU WILL MOST DEFINITELY GET BANNED - THIS IS PROOF OF THE UNFAIRNESS AND POV (yes it is POV once you start to ignore and delete sources and overwhelming evidence that dismiss the Turkic view, failing TO EVEN AT LEAST MENTION ON THE PAGE, LIKE IT RIGHTFULLY DESERVES)41.133.46.200 (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |} How about you people take a look at this, especially Finn Diesel and all the editors in vigorous support of the Turkic theory : Bold textEditing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. This is from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. If the rules are functional then why doesnt the article represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (such as for example, there are many more examples, such as university, historians and proper news websites, and the state governemt website of USA) It also says the articles must be made without bias - the complete opposite of what is happening here, as this article is made with lots of bias and not "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" get put on the article. In reality what is really hapening is that all the research, evidence and reliable sources (all of which has grown to the same size or possibly greater than the Turkic theory and its sources) just gets deleted removed from the article and completely ignored, and the funny thing is that nobody is doing something about it, and if they try, the 'editors' throw and twist the wikipedia rules to crush them, or simply just ban them. "NPOV is a fundemental principle of Wikipedia" - well then why do you people ignore this and push your Turkic POV and ignore and delete all other views (the Iranian theory, after so much sources and evidence, has become a pretty big, important and significant view, the Turkic theory is out dated). How can you people continue to recieve various praise and awards on your user pages and how can you be so proud of them, thinking you have contributes to the greater good, the greater knowledge, thinking that ultimately you are helpping people with knowledge when all that you are doing is being highly disruptive and ignoring rules(by deleting evidence and sources and by not giving it a chance to be properly mention, if at all, on the page) and actually hiding information (which is competitive to the Turkic theory) from millions of people who have a basic right to read all views and all evidence, I mean all, everything, before making up their own mind. How can you people take that chance away from millions of people and then be proud of your work? Excuse me if this has gotten sort of long, but this issue is just to big and critically important to ignore41.132.178.10 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Christ almighty, what a wall of text. How do you expect someone to sift through all of that and address your complaints? And could you post a link to that "study" that you claim proves there's a genetic link between Bulgarians and Iranians/Pamiris? AlecTrevelyan402(Click Here to leave a message) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC). I do expect actually - lots of facts need to be mentioned, so there is lots to be said - it is a very important issue so if anyone expects this to get solved once and for all they must read every single thing. First, before the links, have you read the "new research 2010" section in past edits? Also read the etymology: Different theories exist for the etymology of Bulgar. In Sanskrit, Bal means "strength" and hara means "the possessor"; in some sources, the name Balhara and Bulgar/Bulgaria is one and the same. Then I expect you have read the language part as well. Now for the links:

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/bulgarian_rulers.pdf - from the university of Michigan, says that the Bulgars came from Pamir, which was an Iranic/Persian land

http://samoistina.at.ua/2/similarities.htm - really summarised, there is more which is not mentioned,not really an official website itself, but the sources are really good

http://dnes.dir.bg/news.php?id=6541326&fp=1 http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117006 - novinite is an official news website, a very big one. People have complained that newspapers are no good, but according to wikipedia they are perfectly acceptable. http://sofiamorningnews.net/ - also an official news website http://thearchaeologicalbox.com/en/news/dna-analysis-reveals-pamir-origin-bulgarians - archaeology website http://groznijat.tripod.com/b_lang/bl_a_v.html - very important summary of the Iranic words which were in the Bulgar language and are now in the modern language. Additionaly many names in Bulgaria - place names (the name Balkan is found in Persian lands at present) and peoples names - Asparuh is a full Iranian name - meaning something like horserider. There is also an exact replica of the Madara horseman in Iranic lands as well, but the link I have long since lost, will look for it. A=Other cultural aspects like the one festival in Bulgaria (where people dress with long pointed white and black masks and dance around a fire - not familiar with it that much, so dont know the name, but it exists) - it is said that comes from Zoroastrian roots. Also it has been said that some of the structures in Pliska resemble religious Zoroastrian centres - it was in the past edits of wikipedia - go look for it. http://www.csc.kth.se/~dilian/Papers/bulgars.pdf - this is a source that someone else put up. In it, it clearly states that the Iranic theory is part of the 3 major theories (it says Sarmatian - but they were Iranic). Earlier I mentioned, above, that according to neutrality rules in wikipedia, all major view should be added. So far that hasn't happened, as there has been extreme prejudice against the Iranic theory, so it goes against the rules. http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/8511032 - an academic website that mentions the Bulgars could have come from Pamir/Hindukush - Iranic lands, apperently where the kingdom of Balhara was situated (Balhara is very close to Bulgar, I think Bulhi is the Armenian word for Bulgar, and historians from the past have mentioned this as well - "Ashharatsuyts" by Anania Shirakatsi in the 7th century AD , Khorenatsi, Moses. History of the Armenians. Translation and Commentary of the Literary Sources by Robert W. Thomson. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978. 400 pp. ISBN 9780674395718, Agathias of Myrina, Theophylact Simocatta, and Michael the Syrian also identify Mount Imeon (Pamir/Hindukush - Balhara was there) as the homeland of the Bulgars. Mount Imeon is even honoured in the South Shetland Islands where there are a lot of Blgarian scientist, by naming a mountain range after it. This shows a Bulgarian connection. Lots of places there are named after Bulgarian themes/Topics. http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Vedic-Bulgaria.php - not really offcicial but it carries the point across. What is official though that it is written by Petar Dobrev, a long time advcocate/historian/researcher of the Iranic theory. http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117903 - another version http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117192the third version - one or two things are different I think http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/common_origin_croats_serbs_jats.php - in it it says "It may also be stated that several scholars have noticed Iranic elements amongst the Proto-Bulgarians. (Beshevliev 1967, Schmitt 1985)" http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3236.htm - from an official state government website of the USA

Here is one more source: Dobrev, Petar. Unknown Ancient Bulgaria. Sofia: Ivan Vazov Publishers, 2001. 158 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 9546041211 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source: "[2]". Brockhaus Conversations-Lexikon Bd. 7. Amsterdam 1809, S. 161-162. [3]". Pierer's Universal-Lexikon, Band 2. Altenburg 1857, S. 230.

There are more links which I am busy looking for at the moment(saved somewhere, when I find them, I will post them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.10 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have always supported the idea of adding "Iranian origin theory" section because such a theory exist and it has its supporters among historians. Moreover, the source from University of Michigan states that after the dissolution of Hunnic confederacy turkic and hunnic tribes were incorporated into the Bulgar ethnos. That perfectly matches with the "ethnogenesis approach" of other editiors such as Hxseek who states that Bulgars were a mixture of Turkic, Iranic and other tribes.Scheludko (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

did you know?

that in many countries, (specially with muslim people) evolution theory is rejected by many scholars (professors etc). But in wikipedia, we don't care about that. What we care is the truth by a scholar with objectivity. I have never heard anyone saying bulgars are slavic etc. I mean in this page some say that turkic origin theory is the leading one but I totaly disagree, It's the only one with objectivity. I'm not gonna change the page but somebody should explain the other objective theories. --78.165.3.121 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Bulgars were definately Iranian peoples. The team of six scientists led by anthropology professor Alexander Iliev presented Wednesday their findings after touring Iran for 20 days, traveling 1100 km inside the country.

“We have found impressive evidence about the Iranian origin of the ancient Bulgarians,” Iliev stated.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117903

I see a lot of Turks and FYROM'ians are eager to push the Turkic theory of Bulgar people which is untrue and not objective at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.175.98 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Origins of the Bulgars

OK! I don't claim that Bulgarians are Turks. Bulgarians may be 100% Slavic. BUT;

Bulgars are Turkic. BulgarIANs are Slavic (See Géza Féher's works)
Bulgarians may not be descended from Bulgars.
If descended, they are not Turkic anymore because Bulgars were dissolved amongst Slavic people. (they were outnumbered)

Case closed. My Bulgarian friends, don't be racist. You may not like us but you can't change the truth. Every book on Bulgars I've read proves that they are Turkic. Bulgarians are still Slavic.(Greetings from the Komshu, have a nice day.)F.Mehmet (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your moderate tone, my Turkish friend ... but:

Every book on Bulgars I've read proves that they are Turkic. Please consider extending your selection of books by including, e.g., the books refered to in the previous topic. Then you'll see that the truth has many aspects. A racist attitude is to select one origin, and exclude all the others in spite of the numerous facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.87.254.60 (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, my friend. I am planning to read more books on Bulgars. But for now, I can say that all books I read on Bulgars are neutral enough.

I read Hungarian Turkolog Géza Féher's "Fehér Géza: A bolgár-törökök szerepe és műveltsége" (It's in Hungarian language but I read its translation.) and books of a British historian called John Haldon who is a Byzantinist.

A sentence from J.Haldon's "The Palgrave Atlas of Byzantine History"

"The Kutrigurs and Utrigurs joined forces to establish an independent khanate between the lower reaches of the Dniepr and the Don, under the new name of 'Bulgars'"

Another sentence from the same book

"... In 679 the situation was transformed by the arrival of the Turkic Bulgars, a nomadic confederation made up of the Kutrigur and Utigur Huns....(sentence continues)"

These are the main sources I use. I do think that they are neutral enough. Of course, Bulgars are Turkic, this does not change anything. Today, modern Bulgarians are a new and different nation who are definitely Slavic. Greetings. F.Mehmet (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear F., perhaps you might be interested in perusing this very brief overview of Bulgarian history. Apcbg (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Question is itself redundant. TURKIC is a 20th century scholarly construct. It is one thing to argue ( justifiably) that the Bulgars spoke Turkic, at least for administrative and ceremonial purposes. But if we want to stick to the provable facts, all that we can say is that they were various groups of militaristic steppe nomads. Turkic spread as a new lingua franca in the steppe, supplanting Iranic. Hoe ever, the only people called "Turks" in that tine were the GokTurks.nThe Bulgars were "Bulgars". Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore – and leaving aside their pre-European history – the Bulgars had been present in Europe for centuries by the time “Turkic spread as a new lingua franca in the steppe, supplanting Iranic.” Indeed, they were occupying the North Caucasus with some of them moving southwards to settle in Old Armenia (Principality of Vanand), according to early medieval Armenian sources. Apcbg (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

They mooved together with Huns or Avars, i.e. another people, which used as lingua franca Turkic languages. In this article is mentioned, that Bulgars were predominantly Europeid, but at least their elite spoke Turkic. Look at today Turkey, the case is the same. Predominantly Europeid people, which adopted Turkic in the Ottoman Empire as lingua franca and choose Turkish ethnicity in the Republic of Turkey. 90% from the Turks today consist from turkicized Balkanians, Anatolians and Middle Easterns. The rest, i.e. 10% are descendants of real Central Asiatic nomads.Jingby (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

They moved many a time in their long history, and their involvement with the Huns and the Avars was related to some of their penultimate movements. However, the point is they had been settled and established in Europe well before the Huns or the Avars came. Apcbg (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

4th century AD is not such a point. 10:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Apcbg (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

They, or at least the name "Bulgar" is first attested in the 4th century, by Armenian chroniclers. Anything further than this is speculation, no matter how good a scholar one is. you cannot trace any history back on supposed name similarities, or burial styles. This is extremely tenuous.

Moreover, the link with the Huns is false. No Bulgar groups are named by contemporary sources as being part of the Hun pax. They name Sciri, Goths, Gepids, Akitziri, etc, but not Bulgars. The confusion stems from the history of the Lombards author who stated that the "Bulgares" attacked the lombards in the 4th cenutry. The book was written in the 7th century, and erroneously attributed a Hun raid to the Bulgars, because in the 7th century the Bulgars were around, and the Huns were gone.

When the Bulgars really start appearing in Europe, and "history", is the 5th century. There were many , different "Bulgar" groups. it was a generic ethonym used to refer to horse riders from Pontic steppe. More specific organization were called Kotrags, utigurs, etc. However, the generic name sometimes stuck as a propper designation - as in the case of Kubrat's group and those in Volga region

Linguistically, Turkic, or rather Oghuric appears first in the 6th century. We still do not know what language the Huns spoke originally, if there evn was such thing as "Hunnic". Gothic was the idiom of their empire Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The early Armenian sources reported no contemporary events but still earlier developments but I would rather not go into further discussion on that. Nevertheless, I notice that according to your timeline the Bulgars were in Europe a century before the Turkic did. Apcbg (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoever the "Bulgars" mentioned by early Armenians sources were - we don;t know what langauge they spoke, except for the fact that Iranic dialects were widespread in the area as a whole. The Danubian Bulgars of Asparuch, and his father Kubrat in the Don, might not at all be (directly) related to those original ones in northern Caucasia. Rather, the name continued to be used to designate groups in the region; a name adopted by Byzantine and Latin historians from the ARmenians, probably. By theN, ie the 6th century, Oghuric had made its way into west Eurasia. The Bulgars were not a "nation" - ie a coherent people, but an alliance of fighters, so could have been diverse backgrounds. It is probable that Turkic was spoken amongst their elite - seen by Turkic inscriptions etc, (But the presence of runes doesn't prove that it was spoekn widely) The spread of Oghuric/ Turkic was a linguistic phenomenon - ie a "langauge spread". What caused the expansion of Turkic so far west ? Many argue the Huns - but no one knows for sure that they actually spoke Turkic. Interestingly, Bulgars, Avars, Khazars all spoke Oghuric, rather than Turkic propper. This Oghuric has a lot of Finno-Ugric elements in it- hardly suprising given that the Magyrs were Ugric speaking and were undoubtedly part of this cultural millieu. Slovenski Volk (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Friend Slovenski Volk, you are mistaken on Oghuric. Despite it has Finno-Ugric elements, Oghuric is a branch of the Turkic languages. It's called "LIR Turkic"(By the way, Turkish is SH-A-Z Turkic, that is to say, all sh, aah and z sounds are L, ee (i) and r in lir Turkic. The reason is that, in oldest (common) Turkic this L sound was LÇ (lch), for example "alç" (alch) 'food' became aş (ahsh) in modern Turkic, but "al" in Bulgar Turkic and then uhl and ıl (yl) (dotless i is nearly the same as ы in Russian)). And Bulgar Turkic language was common amongst Volga Bulgar people; gravestones were all in Turkic. I hope this information is good. Thanks and Greetings.F.Mehmet (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I never said that Oghuric was Finno-Ugric, but that it has a lot of F-U influence compared to Turkic propper. Now, the link between Oghuric and common Turkic is undeniable. However, scholars still argue about the exact relationship - ie are they two branches of one family, or distinct languages with similarity due to areal contact. Perhaps , the former is more favoured, but tbh, i have not researched the subject matter extensively yet. Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not Turkic

First of all, it is wrong to call the Bulgars "Turkic".In 354 AD the Romans already knew about bulgar's existence and location(north of Caucasus).At that point the Turks didn't exist-there was no such thing.There is no logic in describing a people with Europeid features(proved by anthropolgy and archeology who has strong Hunnic influence as a Turkic tribe. Nobody says that Australians are Americans because they are using the english language. And please stop trying to convince everybofy that the name bulgars(not BulgHars) means "mixed', 'slave", "trash" etc.The speculation on 'bulgha' is an another example of a scientific pearl and you go a step further, proclaiming a negative meaning for a self-ethnonym. The root of the word is Bulg-ar, not Bulga-r! Simple grammar that we all study in 1st grade, but it seems that some people don't have even this primary education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.50.216 (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

About the Intro an any other info regarding the origins of Bulgars/Bulgarians and some EDITORS-IN-CHEIF

95.42.33.131 (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
As you may know or as you might not know, in Bulgaria either in the past or in modern times, only one word is used for these two known to you terms - Българи [bʼəlgari], meaning whatever you choose as a translation :o) - "Bulgarians" or "Bulgars". Meanwhile in THE NEAR PAST (pro-russian and pro-sovietic times, mainly in the 20th cent.) the term proto-bulgarians (or prabulgari) was "invented" and is still in wide use to distinguish the modern Bulgarians from the distant past-Bulgarians, thought (and as taught in schools) to have come from somewhere not exactly defined and mixed with slavic and remnant thracian tribes in The Balkan Peninsula. But this is not the problem here...
The reason for me to write this is the unexplained and very nimble MASS deleting, editing, reverting of ANY ATTEMPT to clarify things or to show them from a more flexible and wide point of view (for ex. regarding many new studies) here in Shtriki-shtraki-Wiki-pedia, particularly about the origin(s) of Bulgarians (I'll use only one of the terms as it is in THE Bulgarian language) in any related article. To be more accurate what I'm writing about - this prowl and my worries are not only on the mentioned subject/topic.
The last tendentious UNDO (05:04, 10 June 2011 - "(Removed misleading info.)" Wow, how frightening!!!) was made by an "editor", called JINGIBI - probably Bulgarian (as his words/slogan say), but most likely he's Greek, pro-greek or something else (as his works/edits show), which is not the important part as well and he is free to be whatever he wants to be :) The important part is that he feels himself as some kind of EDITOR-IN-CHEIF, as some others also do - he's not the only one of course.
I wonder who is misleading who?!?! Look at what kind of info he regularly reverts and how he explains it in the Bulgar-related and Middle ages Bulgaria articles and tell me what do you think.
And please tell your opinions on the text of the Intro of this article.
The other reason to write this is that I wonder whether to make an account here and try to do anything helpful (though humble) at all if the situation is like what I see in the past few weeks. This place is more and more starting to look like a sect. Exqueeze me for the word and the influent English.
95.42.33.131 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC) : And something on the picture :) You are very funny people here really... Did anybody notice that the picture shows Bulgarian (not Bulgar as is the article's subject) "soldiers killing their ...(Byzantine) opponents, from the Menology of Basil II, 10th (!!!) century"? If there is no difference between the two nations - everything is OK, but if we state that these are not the same, then... ???

Please, provide your reliable sources in english to discuss them. Wikipedia is not a forum. Thank you! Jingby (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You are really sniffing around and waiting someone to write something that you don't like or you've not been paid to write, don't you?... HAHA
I SAY IT AGAIN (if you have not read my comments for the edits) - YOU should discuss at first place and explain where the sci-fi exactly is, before blind-reverting. Or you are some kind of bot and talking to you is pointless?
95.42.33.131 (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, to show my good will I'll point again the "sources" as you wish, My EDITOR-IN-CHEIF, My Lord I may say. They are the corresponding articles - look the points/links I've edited. Or you are blind like you are deaf?
95.42.33.131 (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article is a target of persistent IP-sock's vandalism and has to be semi-protected. Jingby (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

bulgars

"In each of these regions they gradually merged over a period of centuries with other ethnic group".....before in the article it was written :"they were gradually assimilated by the existing slavic population" or something like that. it should be brought back to that because it's the accurate historical event as most agree. 79.125.224.181 (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the name

For some reason, the OED seems to think they were Finnic:

Bulgar: "Any member of an ancient Finnish tribe who conquered the Slavs of Mœsia in the seventh century A.D. and settled what is now Bulgaria, becoming Slavonic in language"

The word origin is only given as OCS blŭgarinŭ, in English use since the 18th century. --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds really odd. I think Finnish tribe is a bit off. Finns and Bulgars might have a common ancestor around Altai mountain but it is highly unlikely that one group emerged from the other. Is this the newest edition of OED? --Laveol ^T 15:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, for someones' satisfaction the article was semi-protected but was left in a very non-satisfactory state. For example, the ==Etymology / Name== section was reverted (by you know who-y-gibi and his fellows) to a very incomplete version, but with the

box deleted.

So now I will have to plead someone to add it back until there will be presented all serious theories about the name of Bulgars/Bulgarians. (Всъшност не ми става ясно защо трябва да се излагаме толкова масирано пред чужденците - българи да се дърлят като цигани на английски пред всички... то не знам абсурдно ли е, смешно ли е, трагично ли...) Hansen 87.246.13.107 (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Stupidity is contagious

I've never seen so much crap written at one place! Who wrote this article, some 5-years old drunk child? What a shame for the admin that has locked it...in which age do you live, in the totalitarian? It's the 21st century, stop with this anti-bulgarian propaganda finally. If the Bulgars/Bulgarians are mongols then I am the prince of Monacco! Again - stupidity is contagious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.48.199 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Racial tipe and descendants

I have removed some pseudo-science information added from Bulgarian nationalistic biased point of view. I have replaced it wit reliable scientific neutral info and unbiased sources. Jingiby (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is neither about Bulgaria, nor abouth the Bulgarians. The point of view of some, i.e minority of the Bulgarian scientist is fringe science. Here is not a place for such fringe views. Jingiby (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is NOT pseudoscience. I suggest you go and fully learn the fundemenatal defintiton of pseudoscience as it seems you do not have a grasp of what it means and this is the incorrect place and topic to use this word. How can it be, if people - scientists, doctors and anthropologists actually bothered to travel abroad and take DNA samples and later analyze them. This was published in proper major newspapers that are ALLOWED under wiki rules (I repeat this again - they are allowed - make sure you read this sentence until you grasp it properly). I am NOT a nationalist (thank you for this lowly, uncivilised attack - did I attack you?). Speaking of neutral - I made that piece neutral and used words such as could and may. SO, as you can understand from the above points, it is neutral and not biased. Logically (and i repeat that word again, because rationality and science is based on logic and clear thought), it is LESS biased (I repeat, read it until yougrasp it, please-it is less biased to have "two" possible views on a topic than one -this decreases bias and makes it "safer". An example - numerous health concepts, such as the effect of coffee on the human body, get scientific attention and a lof of the time, numerous expirements are carried out to get more data and establish a conclusion - for example lots of studies say that coffee is actually healthy for the body and protects the liver, while other studies say that it is not healthy and can damage the body. This trend is seen in many topics of research in general -one thing says this, and another says the opposite. Now to the Bulgars - from the example mentioned just now, it is understandable that another study is mentioned as well, not just one study and view - as that would clearly be unbalanced and biased. So, are you one to talk about bias, since it seems you are doing the same. I dont know, but it seems to me you have some innate trouble with any other view of Bulgars and modern Bulgarians than the ones that you hold - as people can see, this is getting in the way of editing articles and putting in more information (which is useful, especially when it is sourced and the sources are allowed). The mere fact that you are attacking a sourced piece, and using negatively strong, (emotion filled words and sentences, such as "nationalistic", "biased" and "pseudoscience" (even though it was carried out by non pseudoscientists and mentioned in major newspaper), suggests you have some form of negative strong feelings, hate or discrimination to the other studies and research. You are (wrongly) calling me nationalistic? Well then I can say the same about you, who tries to "Hide" and remove anything that does not agree with your thoughts and views - I mean you go to the extent of using those negative words mentioned above - did I do that to you? - no, because it was never my attention to fight you, just to put extra information, thats all.In a an article, one should be civilised and put their feelings aside. Now I know you are going to reply with an ultrashort message which will just repeat your initial words (or not reply at all), because it would seem that you dont know how to argue and carry across your points properly. I repeat this again - there was nothing wrong with my sourced, unbiased and balanced piece. it just sheds more light on the matter, which is awlays useful (unless you want to argue somehow and say that in general it is not useful to add information that would shed more light to articles). By the way, I apolagize for the inconvenience caused by my editing of Bulgarians instead of Proto Bulgarians. The ambiguity issue is duly noted by me now, after some thought, and I agree, it should be Proto Bulgarians.Smart Nomad (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. If there is reliable information about your claims, published in scientific sources, please provide it. I see only fringe science. Check also: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Wikipedia:No original research. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC) No kidding, why are you saying the obvious, I know its not a forum - what does that random comment have to do with anything here. I will report this to a couple of admins, because it seems you have ignored my argument completely and keep reverting edits and you do not in any way explain your points (as I thought would happen), making the articel biased to only one side. By the way if it is not about Bulgarians (which is in itself weird, since Bulgarians descend from Bulgars, but anyway) then why is there a significant amount of information on Modern Bulgarians in the article - seems to me like hypocracy. It really does seem you have no idea how to argue as all you keep doing is ignoring my points and reverting edits and dont bother to discuss anything - how is that cvilised and constructive?? I provided sources and you keep removing them 0 which is vandalism, do you understand that? I will revert your edit again, since that seems the right thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources. As you can see I have added a lot of such in support of my opinion. Regs! Jingiby (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hre are the reliable sources, as you can see I also added reliable sources in support of my opinion. I am not sure if you read the wiki rules, if not you should read them. Then you would see that major newspapers are allowed. http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117006 http://paper.standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2010-05-26&article=33187 http://sofiamorningnews.net. Having said that, there really shouldn't be a problem, since the sources fit in with wikipedia's rules. Additionally, this is new, interesting info, that can shed light on the arguments of their origins - if something can shed light and help solve issues why is it bad?Smart Nomad (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a forum. Jingiby (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits issue

The following is about issues with the articles and edits. I have tried on numerous occasions to communicate with Jingiby to resolve the matter of him removing my edits for no good reason. I have written a number of discussions on this talk page, explaining my arguments and why I did the edits, but Jingiby ignores them and does not bother to explain his reasoning at all and provides no arguments – in other words he does not discuss anything. He repeatedly says that this is not a forum (even saying things such as “fantasy forum”, thus implying that I use it as such. That statement however is wrong, since a talk page is supposed to be a place where you discuss edits and resolve matters on edits and problem with the article etc – which I am doing. He has implied that I use it as a forum a couple of times, each time not explaining his reasoning. Secondly, I have provided reliable sources with my edits – I even made sure to read wiki’s rules about the sources. I then explained to Jingiby that according to wikipedia’s rules, my sources are in fact reliable. Jingiby then replies with a very short message, a couple of times, saying that they are not reliable, even when wikipedia’s rules allow them – I am absolutely speechless – I have tried, like you are supposed to, to reason and have constructive discussions with this guy to resolve this matter, but each time he either says nothing at all, or continues to say that my sources are unreliable – even though they are in accordance to wikipedia’s rules. Then in his edit’s comments he writes that my edits are “POV” or “blatant POV”, (even though I am only writing what other researchers have said - in other words nothing here is my opinion – I am only adding to the article and trying to improve it), not bothering to discuss on the talk page how my edits are blatant or even how they are POV in the first place – Jingiby never discusses anything and ignores everything I say – I have tried to communicate to him like a proper, good editor, even like a human being, but he ignore me each time. He does not have any argument and reason to back up his claims and accusations against me or what I add to the article. Once, in the this talk page, he even randomly put a empty box (blank picture) in my discussion, thus ruining the structure of what I wrote and possibly distracting readers who might be reading my discussions – this, to me (and I’m sure others may agree) shows immature, unconstructive behavior – I have not, for example, ever placed a random picture in his writings (of which there is barely any, as he doesn’t ever discuss) and thus ruining the structure and neatness of what he wrote – you can see in the talk page’s history. In his latest edit comments he writes that he removes my edits because of the discussions on the talk page – I don’t understand his reasoning here, since I have been the only one discussing – he hasn’t discussed anything. As understandable from all that I have said here and in my previous discussions on the latest talk page (above from this section)– I cannot take him seriously at all. Here is why I cannot take him seriously: 1) He writes that my sources are invalid after I have explained that according to wiki rules they actually are valid – he doesn’t explain why my sources are invalid. The very fact that he keeps repeating that shows that he either hasn’t read the rules or that he wants to purposefully act in an unconstructive and bad manner or look for arguments. 2) He hasn’t discussed anything – he hasn’t had any real arguments to back up his claims and uses no reasoning. He also ignores wiki rules on sources. 3) He says my edits are POV without ever explaining why – he has no apparent reason on why they are POV. His reason that my sources are not valid does not count as according to wiki rules it is valid. Basically, there exists a professor who is a director of the genealogy academy who states that the Bulgars come from Pamir – now I am not saying that is proven or undeniable – in my edit I just added what he said. Since he is a professor and since he is a director of something major and prestigious as a genealogy academy – that means that he has proper and respectable credentials – I thus don’t understand how Jingiby is so, so very against me including this, especially since I have provided a reliable source. There also exists scientists and a doctor that have gone on a trip to central Asia to carry research on this matter – these are not some self educated or new age people, but actual scientists and a doctor – I have even provided reliable sources. Currently, with my edits reverted by Jingiby, the page has only one point of view – the Turkic theory. Now that in itself may be considered POV since the page only represents the Turkic theory and no other, even though other information exists (with sources). Other theories and information, as I have provided edits on, are associated with respectable people such as directors of genealogy and a couple of professors, scientists and doctor, so they should not be just tossed away like they are nothing. These theories and research/information aadd to the knowledge of the Bulgars and add information which can help in resolving the matter of the origins or make it more clear and understandable – what then is so bad about it. From the fact that Jingiby uses relatively rude edit comments and accusations and from the fact he never, ever, discusses anything or has arguments etc and still continues to claim that the sources are invalid and that the edits are POV – one may then conclude that Jingiby is strongly biased and really against any other knowledge or theories, and that he is unconstructive with the page and ingores wiki rules on sources– even if this knowledge or information is associated with credible people and institutions and even if it is reliably sourced. It is unconstructive and bad to only keep very streamlined, one sided information on a page when other information exists with reliable sources – this may, in effect, influence readers’ opinions in an erroneous and incomplete way. I have written all that I said above in regard to the situation that is going on about the editing and removal as such, with the purpose of resolving this matter. This would have been a forum if I only talked about the Bulgars without discussing edits, problems with the article and POV etc – in other words if I only discussed the Bulgars and wrote stuff such as how bad or great they were, asking opinions about them from other people and that kind of stuff; but instead I have discussed problems about the edits, and about Jingiby – which relates to the problem of the edits and issues about improving the article. Now I would have understood Jingiby if my edits were original research and my opinion and purely made up by me, without any sources whatsoever, but it is in effect real research and information with real sources. The very fact that Jingiby does not want to discuss the matter signifies that he is not willing to behave in a suitable, proper and good manner and that he is not a good editor, going towards the path of perhaps vandalism and disruptive behavior. Also take a look at my edit comments. Jingiby also does not seem to be sure of what POV is and, for example, what the difference between POV and vandalism is - that could cloud his judgement in removing edits - you can see that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spartacus&diff=prev&oldid=461120234 - this is clearly not POV but vandalism. I think it's about time for this issue tog et resoloved Smart Nomad (talk) 14:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. You need University publishing houses unbiased sources. Bulgarian IT news are a joke. Jingiby (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Smart Nomad, your sources are not reliable (and see also WP:RSMED). Your edits contain a significant amount of original research and editorializing, e.g. "Pamir mountains (this region is linked to the Iranian theory)". That huge paragraph is particularly problematic and Jingby is correct to label it as "blatant POV". Since Slavyan Stoilov's expertise is in medicine (genetics), his opinions on the "striking similarity of agriculture, folklore and linguistics", "religion, architecture", "culture and the way of life " are irrelevant. The sources are news, and not reliable scholarly studies. See for this example this volume on Pliska - nothing about Zoroastrianism and all the other "Iranian" stuff.

Please stop the edit warring. If you break the WP:3RR rule you may be reported and temporarily blocked. Please discuss your changes on this talk page and work on a well written and well sourced text. Daizus (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I completely disagree - I take it you havent properly read what I said - if only the Turkic theory is represented without other sourced information, then that would be POV. My sources are in accordance to wiki rules. How for example you consider mine to be not but sources such as kroraina.com are? I have cleaned my edit to make it better. Jingiby is in no way correct to label it as POV - that is where you are wrong. I have removed the culture and way of life since my edit 2 edits ago but I take you havent seen it. There is a source on the Zoroastrian stuff somewhere else in the article - go and read it. If we are to remove newspaper sources then thousands of sources from numerous article will be missing - that is ridiculous. Also by saying the source is not reliable you are implying that the professor never said the words he did and that the Tangra expedition never took place - do you think those things would be placed in a major newspaper (Novinite.com is major) if they didnt happen? If you have a problem with that then I suggest you contact Bulgaria and the relevant people and check that it really happened. Also it is against wiki policy to never discuss anything and remove things without discussions, so why then do you "repremand" me but not Jingiby - that is just not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

@Jingiby - who says I need strictly academic sources - for example kroina is not academic and barely has sources - so are you a hypocrite? Also it is your opinion/POV that the sources are biased. Other sourced, in addition to university publishing sources, are also allowed - before you repeat yourself again, please go read wiki rules - if only university sources were allowed than kroina.com and numerous other sources - thousands, across wikipedia will not be allowed, and that is not true. Can you please repeating over and over that wikipedia is not a forum - everyone is well aware of that. I suggest that you go read what a discussion page should be used for in the wiki rules as it sounds like you dont know - discussion pages in wikipedia are used to discuss edits and issues with article - that is what I am doing, while you are doing nothing except repeating that my sources are invalid and that it is not a forum. Secondly it is your opinion, in other words POV that Bulgarian news is a joke - are you aware that Novinite.com is a major news provider and is international? Also it is not an IT site, it is a news site - IT is information technology - do you know that? Yet again you do not discuss properly. I suggest you go read on proper user procedures on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 15:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

@DaziusI have discussed more on the talk page. I cleaned my edits, before you mentioned the culture stuff and removed it. My sources are reliable. See: http://www.library.cornell.edu/resrch/citmanage/mla - even universities allow to cite newspapers - is wikipedia any different?

Where does it say here that my sources are not valid - that major newspapers are not valid? Please point it out

This is the wiki rule which you used in your argument:

Shortcut: WP:RSOPINION

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source

>>>I never asserted anything as fact and always use the words "may" etc. I only said what the the researchers said.

RegardsSmart Nomad (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

From WP:RSMED: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." and "A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure." Daizus (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree yet again, this is not strictly medical - it has to do with genetics and history. The way they mean it in the rule is if you write things about pure medicine and science. Your argument here is not valid as the heading of the rule is: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) - it says medicine and these edits are not about medicine Im saying it again - if you don't believe that the research happened then contact the relevant people in the country - that would be your job not mine, since you are contesting the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong, it's your job to prove your claims. It's your job to find scholarly studies authored by Slavyan Stoilov and accurately present their results. And of course this is about medicine - this is also the author's academic expertise. Anything else should be avoided anyway, because he is not a historian or an archaeologist.

As for Zoroastrism, that is a case of undue weight in that section. Dimitrov argued on Turkic-Iranic religious syncretism in Danube Bulgaria writing that: "In its first capital Pliska, the residence of the Bulgarian rulers, there is a similar building - two entered one into another squares of ashlars. A second, much larger building, oriented towards the sunrise, was excavated near the Throne palace in Pliska. Its religious utilization is confirmed by the fact that after the adoption of Christianity the building was transformed into a Christian church (the so called Palace church)". But checking the other scholars we find that this church was built in 870s and it was of "early Byzantine design" [4] (so Zoroastrian religious buildings were not the only ones facing the sunrise). Or that [5] "Bulgarian archaeologists commonly view this building [the inner rectangular enclosure] as a pagan temple dated to the first half of the ninth century, and use it as a point of reference for the definition of a special type of Bulgar sacral architecture." However it is "possible to interpret the first building phase as a church as well". Daizus (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think much of the debate here, and in professional circles, stems form the fact that people assume that "Turkic" and "Iranic" were compact groups with defined and mutually exclusive language, culture, religion, etc. This is simply not the case. If we are going to use the terms Turkic, etc, then we must specify the use to language, because, the only "Turks" in the 6th century were the GokTurks, who were enemies of the Bulgars Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bulgars were mixed people. Neither Turkic, nor Indo-European. Due to the lack of definitive evidence, a modern scholarship instead uses an ethnogenesis approach in explaining the Bulgars' origin. Jingiby (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

random break

come on people the matter is simpler than that, bulgars were a Turkic people around 1000 years ago but getting in contact with romans and converting to christianity and also fallin to enmity with ottoman turks caused them to get assimilated with other people living in balkans. i hope hates get forgotten and friendship and loyality comes in place! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.109.39 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Karachanak et al, "Bulgarians vs the other European populations: a mitochondrial DNA perspective" (2011) write on p. 2: "Today, there is, however, increasing historical and linguistic evidence suggesting that the contribution from Proto-Bulgarians might have been instead substantial. The first settlement of Proto-Bulgarians was possibly located in the foothills of Pamir and Hindu Kush." This may well be so, but they provide no genetic evidence in their study to endorse such conclusions, and as they are all neither historians nor linguistics (but from Department of Medical Genetics within the Medical University of Sofia and other similar institutions from Bulgaria and Italy), they cannot be considered reliable sources. Daizus (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually they do provide genetic evidence - they state that a certain contribution could very well come from the Bulgars, go read it again, I even gave the pages - 2-7. They dont have to be linguists or whatever to write about history, check the sources they used at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 08:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually they do not. They only mention an "Eastern contribution" but they do claim it comes from Pamir or Hindu Kush, nor that it came mainly in the Early Middle Ages. As for bibliography, it is made out of dubious materials such as a book on Pamir Bulgarians authored by de:Hanswilhelm Haefs. Similarly dubious are the materials authored by Peter Dobrev (not a linguist!) as he finds in the language of Proto-Bulgarians words from Pamir languages, but also from Mesopotamia (Sumerian, Akkadian). Daizus (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

the cause of bulgar's assimilation to non Turkic language was their conversion to christianity, unfortunately their hatered toward ottomans is causing them deny their history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.123.37 (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst there is good evidence that the Bulgars spoke Oghuric (NB this is different to Turkic propper), there is no evidence they came from the Pamirs or anywhere further east than the Ponto-Caucasus region. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a serious topic of 7th-century history. Please take the ethnic, racial and genetic bickering elsewhere. This article should focus on the 5th to 7th centuries. Anything that happened after the 7th century can safely be delegated to either Volga Bulgaria or to First Bulgarian Empire. --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What about Bulchars?

Pashto language???

Mystery citation about the Sarmatians

The footnotes and citations were a travesty

Bulgars, not Huns

Where in "Europe"?

History

the article is re-written by pan-Slavs

About my recent edit

Ethnicity of the Bulgars

And the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it;)

bulgars

Bulgarians and bulgars

Improving the article

Removing of reliable sources

Further Reading

Still unbalanced?

Origin & "Migration to Europe'

Bulgar origins AND Complaint of racism

did you know?

Origins of the Bulgars

Not Turkic

About the Intro an any other info regarding the origins of Bulgars/Bulgarians and some EDITORS-IN-CHEIF

Semi-protection

bulgars

Origin of the name

Stupidity is contagious

Racial tipe and descendants

Edits issue

random break