Talk:Zabergan

Kutrigurs were Huno-Bulgar Tribe

Almost all Google Books state that Kutrigurs were Huno-Bulgar Tribe (except of 2-3 books written by Turkish authors) :

1. https://books.google.bg/books?id=mbzLMgEACAAJ&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y The Kutrigurs (Kotrags/Kotzagerek/Kazarig), first mentioned in 539/540, were a horde of equestrian nomads later known as part of the Bulgars that inhabited the Eurasian plains during the Dark Ages. They came into existence when the Eurasian Avars conquered half of the Hunno-Bulgars, whilst the remaining group, who were free (led by Sandilch in the east) were called Utigurs.

2. https://books.google.bg/books?id=jjSDAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=kutrigur&f=false

3. https://books.google.bg/books?id=7KEEAAAAQAAJ&q=kutrigurs&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y Eastern Huns devided into two rival and bitterly striving tribes of the Kutrigurs and Utigurs

4. https://books.google.bg/books?id=48wEAAAAQAAJ&q=kutrigurs&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

5. https://books.google.bg/books?id=DVQmAQAAMAAJ&dq=kutrigurs&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=kutrigur Kutrigur Huns

6 https://books.google.bg/books?id=zkVAAAAAIAAJ&q=kutrigurs&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y Kutrigurs - tribe of Huns

7 https://books.google.bg/books?id=29FoAAAAMAAJ&q=kutrigurs&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

8.https://books.google.bg/books?id=Aq0fAAAAMAAJ&q=kutrigurs&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

9. https://books.google.bg/books?id=wpGN4ekwHgYC&pg=PT51&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigur&f=false

10 https://books.google.bg/books?id=Aq0fAAAAMAAJ&q=kutrigurs&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

11 https://books.google.bg/books?id=7Du2CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA189&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigurs&f=false

12 https://books.google.hr/books?id=jCpncXFzoFgC&q=utigurs#v=snippet&q=utigurs&f=false</ref>

13 https://books.google.bg/books?id=VR5pAAAAMAAJ&q=kutrigurs&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

14 https://books.google.bg/books?id=uXOxj6OCDWoC&pg=PT52&dq=kutrigurs&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kutrigurs&f=false

15 https://books.google.bg/books?id=gOIMSWMtow0C&pg=PA158&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAzgKahUKEwiRrunKvo7HAhWrF9sKHSH-A6o#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false</ref>

16 http://www.kroraina.com/huns/mh/mh_1.html

17 https://books.google.hr/books?id=OfmxBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA199&dq=utigurs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgoahUKEwia2MPL75zHAhVEhywKHcRYDHg#v=onepage&q=utigurs&f=false

EVEN THE AUSTRALIAN ANTARCTIC DATA CENTER STATES THAT THE NAME ZABERGAN ORIGINATE IN BULGARIA https://data.antarctica.gov.au/aadc/gaz/display_name.cfm?gaz_id=137642

What is going on WP - ???????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.143.113 (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

1 High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles! from 2012.

2 The source obviously didn't follow contemporary historiography. J.A.S. Evans is Professor of Classics at the University of British Columbia and began his career as a papyrologist, he is by no mean an competent anthropologist.

3 Outdated, released 1874.

4 Outdated, released 1874.

5 Outdated, the work by Edward Gibbon (1737–1794), The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was released 1776–89.

6 Outdated, another re-release of Edward Gibbon work.

7 The ethnonym of the Huns became a generic term for steppe-people (nomads) and invading enemies from the East, no matter of their actual origin and identity. That's why archeologist Mihail Zahariade wrote "against the Huns (i.e., the Kutrigurs), Antae and Sclavini. Several encouraged the Utigurs, under Sandilkh, to fight the Kutrigurs...".

8 This considerations were partially modified as there was mixing between Bulgars, Onogurs, Utigurs, and Kutrigurs. However, the second sentence is wrong and outdated. Such a simple mistake of Kenneth Setton personal interpretation cannot be taken as evidence.

9 David Keys didn't follow contemporary historiography, he narrates without any reference and quotes. If he uses the term Huns as mentioned above, then the reading is justified, otherwise is not. There's no joint mention of Kutrigurs and Hepthalites in historical sources.

10 Same book as 8

11 It does not say that the Kutrigurs were Bulgars, yet as modern historiography, they were a separate tribe who joined the Bulgars.

12 Hyun Jin Kim gives himself too much freedom of personal interpretation and conclusion, and unfortunately falls into own circle of confusion. This is by far the most controversal source due to vast info, he did mention everything yet the way it was and how the interpretations are not backed up by other scholars references... As the review by Heinrich Härke says: "The arguments required for these identifications turn Chapter 5 into a confused and confusing story, involving the rewriting of histories, genealogies and chronologies... The second half of Chapter 6... an impressive list of indicators some of which are uncontroversial while other will surely raise eyebrows and provoke discussion... This is a pick-and-choose approach to lessons of history... Another obsession is that he begins to see Huns everywhere, and just to make sure that the readers also do, he adds the word ‘Hun’ regularly to other tribal names (Bulgars, Alans, Goths, etc.) and adjectives (Hunno-Germanic). His belief in the existence of pre-Hunnic Turks (pp. 33 –4), and west of the Volga (p. 60) at that, will make specialists in this field bristle. Archaeologists would have preferred a more frequent, more consistent and more cautious use of the archaeological evidence...". Then again, I don't get how you read this sources when even Kim identified Oghuric Turkic = Hunnic. This source must be taken with caution when cited, and always compared with other scholars and mainstream scholarship.

13 Doesn't mention anything about Kutrigurs and Utigurs being Bulgars or Huns.

14 You don't differentiate the sources, neither know the difference between reliable and unreliable source. The book by William Napier, Attila: The Judgment, is a bestseller novel. Novels have fictional story. That's why historiography doesn't cite novels.

15 Robert Browning, Justinian and Theodora, was released in 1971, and the concern about the term Hun was already mentioned above.

16 Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture, released in 1973, is a bit outdated, but reliable source. The concern is again about the term Hun used by Procopius, Agathias, and Menander. However, while Omeljan Pritsak goes even further in the conclusion how Hunnic names were Turkic (even of Attila and Bleda), both Helfen and Pritsak state obvious - the names of his father and sons were Turkic. You still believe Huns were not Turkic tribes?

17 Peter Spring (2015) is not a specialist in the field, also it is his first book. Such a short sentence has no value.

Many Antartic peaks are named after Bulgars chieftains, but Zabergan was not a Bulgar, neither the name comes from Bulgaria, it is Persian. Have not heard of nationalism and claims to history? Stop copy-pasting walls of text already answered on every talk page. Such a disruptive behaviour is against Wikipedia principles.--Crovata (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your behavior is against the rules of WP, they are against the principles of science, pluralism and expressing different points of view. Foisting speculative views of Golden and Osman Karatay against numerous authors(17 cited above, at least 17 more can be found on Google books) is pure vandalism and terrorism. Even if we assume that Kutrigurs and Utigurs spoke some language closed to proto-turkic(which is far from proven), this doesn't make them turkish tribes. By such logic black people from US should be of Anglo-Saxon origin.You cannot explain the genetic test. Actually your goal is not to explain anything. It is to foist speculative views of two authors because they coincide with your personal believes. The result is fake articles that deceive the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.143.113 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)