Talk:Bulgars/Archive 6

Etymology

Bulgars B -> B/V in Gothic language is the letter HV( like arabic F coffe(qohve) )/WH. In German`s languges, the letter V read F or V

u

l

G -> read like C->G (К-КГ-Ґ in Cyrilli)

-arh land or -ar people

Bulgars --> Volkars Volk(Folk) people

95.133.3.230 (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"Good article"

This could never reach status of a "good article" by being built on blank spaces instead of consistent theories. There are enough sound ideas in the Bulgarian scientific community from late 20th century, with dedicated scholars spending their entire lives putting the pieces together on a basis of direct sources. But no, the Bulgarian historians are way too biased to research their own ancestry! What an argument!--Utar Sigmal (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

Please, change the line " Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes " with " semi-nomadic warrior tribes " . Bulgars were not turkic people, there is many genetic studies and proves about it, here is one of them: (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Bulgarians) The language they have spoken may have belonged to the turkic language family ( again unproved theory), but the background of the tribes is historically and genetically far away from so called turks. Vasil dobrev (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Vasil dobrev (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vasil dobrev:  Not done. I just went through the dozens of times the word "Turkic" appears in this article and the claim that Bulgars were, in fact, Turkic is supported by tons of reliable sources. Wikipedia can't be used as a source for itself. Do you have a reliable, third-party source stating that Bulgars were not Turkic? CityOfSilver 17:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Quite interesting, how for a such of short period of time, you have managed to check "tons" of "reliable" sources? And what gives you guarantee, that they are reliable, and not serving geopoitical interests? Yes, I can also say, I went through tons of third-party sources, and appears, that the claim that Bulgars are Turkic is groundless. Here is a third-party source, studies, made by scientists: http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/bulgarians.html

http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=006d5e3a-ea14-49ff-9b39-f0a042d39185&cKey=bfc88c56-5e93-4ee2-89e6-c3ab1bd25f5c&mKey=%7BDFC2C4B1-FBCD-433D-86DD-B15521A77070%7D

Here is also some quotes from one of the studies:

"In addition, an important consideration arises from the finding that haplogroups C-M217, N-M231 and Q-M242, which are common in Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations [40], [41], occur at the negligible frequency of only 1.5% in modern Bulgarians. This observation is in agreement with the results of recent linguistic studies which demonstrated that the proto-Bulgarian language does not belong to the Turkic family but it relates to the Indo-European languages of the East Iranian group, whose traces still persist in the modern Bulgarian language, despite its Slavic basis. Thus, taking into account the novel and detailed historical studies indicating that proto-Bulgarians were quite numerous (32% or perhaps even 60% of the population in early Danubian Bulgaria) [6]–[13], [19], [23], it follows that a shared paternal ancestry between proto-Bulgarians and Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking groups either did not exist or was negligible."

"As for the interpopulation analysis, similarly to mtDNA, Bulgarians belong to the cluster of European populations, still being slightly distant from them. 'Bulgarians are distant from Turks' (despite geographical proximity), Arabic and Caucasus populations and Indians."

There is many moore recent studies abuot this. And is not pulled out from Wikipedia.

Vasil dobrev (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vasil dobrev: One of the sources is the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you've come here to claim that such a publication is "serving geopolitical interests" and is thus not reliable, you might as well not bother. Nobody is going to remove every single one of the many sourced claims that say the Bulgars were or might have been Turkic, especially since the article clearly mentions the recent spate of academic skepticism. Your request is confrontational, and it contains an unacceptable tone of angry nationalism. Avoid this approach if you need me to help any further. CityOfSilver 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The newly regisetred editor above called Vasil dobrev is a Wikipedia:SPA, suspected sock of the blocked User:PavelStaykov. Jingiby (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: Hello, I don't agree fully with the semi protected edit by Vasil Dobrev, but I agree an edit is needed, adding more information about the other hypothesizes (which means unproven theory and commonly disputed theory, just like the origin of Bulgars itself). There is in fact tons of information about the other theories, as not a single theory is approved among historians. Most historians tend to say their theory is the one and only, which leads to controversial disputes as this one. It would be more objective if we mention the other as well, because there are newer and much more accurate ones. The idea of origin of Bulgars is hypothesis - can't be proven because of the controversial information we have about the Bulgars. I can find many sources about most commonly accepted theories if you need such. Some old sources even claim exactly the opposite as the early arab and byzantine authors wrote the Bulgars were completely different from the Turks. Others wrote they are the same. No theory is agreed upon and writing only one of them is not an objective solution over the subject. Many historians like Bozhidar Dimitrov and Petar Dobrev wrote tons of books about it. They are Indo-European (Schyto-Sarmatian), autochonic(no known existence) and the hunnic hypothesis, which is the most widely accepted one among the historians. The thing with the Hunnic hypothesis is that the huns themselves are largely disputed among historians and you can find all the main theories about their origin on the Huns page of wikipedia with "for" and "against" facts. All theories there apply for the Bulgars as well. So the same way of objective view is supposed to be added here as well. If you need any references about those theories I can help. I can provide a lot of information. Nobody is asking for removing sources and text but instead adding more information about the other theories and explaining that none is agreed upon. Again I can provide citations and everything you need, but the article itself, in the moment I believe is incomplete and biased over one theory only and one historian only - something we here at wikipedia should try to avoid in the sake of objectiveness. All best, and I am ready to contribute with whatever information I can! Skradumdum (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2018

collapsing sockpuppet request, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov

Change the first sentence from: "The Bulgars ... were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes ..." to: "The Bulgars ... were probably Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes ..." or just: "The Bulgars ... were semi-nomadic warrior tribes..." without stating any origin, since the origin is considered unclear at this point of the history and is the only statement all historians agree upon. It's also the only logically true statement. After all historical accuracy is far more important here than any personal preferences of any hypothesis on the subject. And while there are many hypothesis, non were completely agreed on and none of them by any means have been close to a state of "historically proven". So the first sentence leads to uncertainty and misleading, incorrect hipothesis stated as a proven fact. Also it is illogical to strictly state an origin, while in the Origins on the same page the article states that "The origin of the early Bulgars is still unclear.". The change is needed for historical accuracy and objectiveness also because the article itself is controversial stating two different statements. Please fix it be historically accurate. Skradumdum (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)  Not done: Please read the "Etymology and origin" section, which gives evidence for the first sentence of the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, lead paragraphs are supposed to summarize the claims made in the body text. Full sourcing is given in the body, as is the case here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC) @Eggishorn Etymology and origin section is not full itself, giving only one of several possible hypothesis. I myself am supporter of the hunnic hypothesis, which itself is controversial and you can see many different hypothesis stated in the Huns page also as I can see supporters of Mongolian, Turkic, Indo-European - Sarmatian or Bactrian, Ugro-Finnic, Mixed... etc and other hypothesis of the origin. I see they are all removed from the Bulgars page like they don't exists. I am glad I don't see such a lack of professionalism in the Huns page as I see it here. Maybe because editors of the this page are predominantly Bulgarian, while the Huns are broadly studied and edited largely by editors of Italian, Russian, German, Greek and professionals of many other nationalities. Anyway I don't want to speculate, so I will try proving you instead that you are wrong hiding facts. I see on the Bulgar page all the hypothesis are removed in favor of a single Turkic hypothesis that is pushed in the first sentence by the mean of "summarization", like the other hypothesis don't exists at all and we used the only available one to summarize it. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. The article is absurd itself, also because of stating the origin is unclear and then giving a single theory of the origin. Why? Because the editors most likely removed all other hypothesis (or they were never approved). It's a sad way to try to push your believed hypothesis as the only one without stating the others. What if they were Hunnic and the huns were simply not Turkic but Mongolian. What happens then? The whole article becomes wrong, because Mongolian and Turkic are two different branches of the same Altaic group of people. Or what if they were of Schyto-Samaritan origin - plenty of historians believe it nowadays and state it as a fact - both for the huns and for the Bulgars, but the dear editors decided to IGNORE IT, even tho, as I can see above me there were plenty of requests (okay poorly written requests, but still requests) on the subject. Or if they were of Ugirc origin? There is so much different hypothesis, every one has it's supporters and every one is agreed by certain amount of people. By ignoring them in order to promote your hypothesis you are DIRECTLY VIOLATING THE OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW OF THIS ARTICLE. Please act professionally and don't favor any hypothesis as wikipedia is NOT the place for pushing personal believes , go to some forum, here we have to BE OBJECTIVE . Again, this is an educational site, not a place for self promoting one hypothesis by removing all others. You can take example of the page for the Huns in Wikipedia if you want, where many hypothesis exist, but not a single one is pushed to be true by the editors. I am surprised by the lack of professionalism by the editors of this web page, and no, I refuse to support any partiality by the editors. I will gladly help you fix the article, but I will not let you destroy it by pushing only one point of view! Your view is one, the guy above me believes in another origin, I support a third one, we ALL provide sources and professional historical information to support our points, but only your point is presented in the article. BE PROFESSIONAL - be tolerant and be objective, or you violate wikipedia's basic rules. All best and if you need any help in acquiring sources and information for other hypothesis of the origin of the Bulgars I will gladly help you do it in the most objective way possible! Simply mentioning them is enough I believe, but ignoring them - it's bad and more importantly - it's wrong and unprofessional! All best! Skradumdum (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

collapsing sockpuppet request, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov

According to most modern sources the Bulgars were Scytho-Sarmatians or Sarmato-Alans expressing some Turko-Altaic elements. Here are 4 sources for this: (1) Encyclopaedia Britannica Online (2) Rasho Rashev, Die Protobulgaren im 5.-7. Jahrhundert, Orbel, Sofia, 2005. (in Bulgarian, German summary) (3) Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, East and west, Vol. 21, 1971, p.214 (4) David Marshall Lang, The Bulgarians: from pagan times to the Ottoman conquest, Westview Press, 1976, p.39 (5) Prof. Bojidar Dimitrov: 12 myths in the Bulgarian History (Basically the whole book) (6) http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Vedic-Bulgaria.php - text by prof. Petar Dobrev that proposes Balkhara as homeland of the Bulgars, opposing the Turco-Altaic theory Here are some more useful reference, because I know it's hard to find the exact sources for all of them: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Vedic-Bulgaria.php Brockhaus Conversations-Lexikon Bd. 7. Amsterdam 1809, S. 161-162. Pierer's Universal-Lexikon, Band 2. Altenburg 1857, S. 230. Peter Dobrev, Tangra TanNakRa All Bulgarian Foundation and the Centre For Research On The Bulgarians Shirakatsi, Anania, The Geography of Ananias of Sirak (Asxarhacoyc): The Long and the Short Recensions. Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Robert H. Hewsen. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1992. 467 pp. ISBN 978-3-88226-485-2 Dimitrov, Bozhidar. Bulgarians and Alexander of Macedon. Sofia: Tangra Publishers, 2001. 138 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 954-9942-29-5 Dobrev, Petar. Unknown Ancient Bulgaria. Sofia: Ivan Vazov Publishers, 2001. 158 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 954-604-121-1 US Department of State. Background Note: Bulgaria. Historical Highlights. 2011. Ivanov, Sergey. Prehistory and History of the Ancient Bulgars. Sofia: Mabik Publishers, 2005. 512 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 954-91707-2-1 Petkov, Plamen. The Bulgarians: 30,000 Kilometres in Search of the Old Homeland. Sofia: Trud Publishers, 2007. 374 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 954-52877-0-5 Dobrev, Petar. Balhara near Pamir. Sofia: Tangra TanNakRa Publishers, 2004. 256 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 954-99426-4-3 Ivanov, Lyubomir (2007). Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. p. 2. Retrieved 20 March 2016. Those text suppose not only the Scytho-Sarmatean / Indo-Iranian / Irano-Alanian which are basically the same theory which opposes to Hunnic/Turkik/Mongolic origin of the Bulgars. The second is believed to be out-dated since new discoveries and the effect of glottalization and access to many different sources changed the perspective of modern historians. There are many more facts that support the statements attached to the sources. Remember objectiveness in important here and so is the fact that there isn't single agreed theory about the Bulgars. I don't ask to exclude the Turkic theory since it's as possible as it's the Scytho-Sarmatean. I just ask to be historically correct and objective here. In X to Y format: Change the first sentence of the article from: The Bulgars (...) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes to: The Bulgars (...) were Scytho-Sarmatean semi nomadic warrior tribes OR: The Bulgars (...) were semi nomadic warrior tribes of disputed origin Without stating the exact origin that is still largely disputed by historians and 2 main theory exist. This wikipedia page itself is given only one of them, which means that the previous editors weren't objective and historically correct, but I believe that will be fixed in time. We are all here to keep wikipedia objective and of course, remember the second pillar of wikipedia: "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." Skradumdum (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the editor above is simply a sock of User:PavelStaykov. Jingiby (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey this is my old edit request. I suggest you guys check it again, since it's still valid. I couldn't have conversation over it, because I was blocked for being a sock, which was proven to be false. Tell me what you think. I accept any criticism over it. And I am positive we can have a discussion over the subject if needed in order to improve wikipedia's content :) All best.Skradumdum (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Skradumdum:  Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Reference to Agathon

Between notes 72 and 73 there is a reference to Agathon (early 8th century) which links - obviously incorrectly - to the Greek poet Agathon (448-400 BC). The Agathon in question may well have been Agathon the Reader who at the time was at the library in Constantinople and therefore may have been well placed. However, unless and until it is established to have been Agathon the Reader I suggest changing the linked reference into an unlinked mention of 'Agathon (early 8th century)'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.6 (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Bulgars origin - were they part of the Hunnic or Turkic migrarions?

@Jingiby: Hello, as Jingiby recently removed my edit from over this article from Turkic migrations to Hunnic migrations, wanted to start the talk discussion. Why calling the Bulgar migration a Turkic one? We know for sure only that the Bulgars came in 4rth century with the Huns. In the article Turkic migrations itself, the Huns are mentioned as doubted being Turkic, as are most of the early tribes they consisted of, like Bulgars. What is not doubted is that the Hunnic migrations were actually Hunnic/Barbarian ones, since... well the name comes from them, that's enough of an argument. It's incorrect and biased to call them Turkic since the Huns consisted of many tribes of Indo-European origin in the early migrations. Such being the Alans and the Hephthalites. Calling them Turkic is simply wrong. The same goes for tribes with disputed origin like Bulgars, who came to Europe alongside the Alans and the Hephthalites and many early sources describe their language as "very distant from Turkic and Persian". The only correct term will be Hunnic migration, Barbarian Migration, or Early Migration Period in which the tribes are of disputed origin and there are too little evidence towards any of them. So please Jingiby change my mind over the subject or stop keeping this obviously wrong piece of information on the Bulgar's page. I am open to any discussion, I can provide facts and many other sources if you wish. I am also interesting in your opinion and am open minded and ready to accept it. But at this point I believe edit here is needed in order to make the article correct. I also realize that for a non-Historians Turkic and Indo-European might make a little difference, but they are very very different and the article in the moment is simply wrong and defending some Turkish scientists dreams, instead of object view over the information. So an edit is needed. Change my mind. All best!

Also wanted to add that the hunnic origin is still disputed on the Huns talk page, if the people there haven't gotten to an conclusion that the huns are actually Turks, why do we get to that conclusion? This is wrong and not objective at all! I really demand the change of "Turkic migration" to "Hunnic migrarion" and I really demand you stop reversing it, unless you can prove me wrong and actually prove that the Bulgars were part of the Turkik migrations that took place mainly 2 centuries after the Bulgars were already in Europe.

Reliable sources is what you need. I am waiting on them. Let's read what say the brand new (2018) authoritative academic sources about the origin of the Bulgars:

• Bulgars (Turkic bulgha-'to mix, stir up, disturb', i.e. 'rebels') A Turkic tribal union of the Pontic steppes that gave rise to two important states: Danubian Balkan Bulgaria (First Bulgarian Empire, 681–1018) and Volga Bulgaria (early 10th century–1241). They derived from Oghuric-Turkic tribes, driven westward from Mongolia and south Siberia to the Pontic steppes in successive waves by turmoil associated with the Xiungnu and subsequently by warfare between the Rouran/Avar and northern Wei states. in Oliver Nicholson, The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 2018, ISBN 0192562460, p. 271.
• Since 1989, Bulgarian nationalism continues to live off cosy reminiscences of the ‘Revival Process’ ideology. Anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of Turkic origin of the Proto-Bulgars. Alongside the ‘Iranian’ or ‘Aryan’ theory, there appeared arguments favouring an autochthonous origin... The ‘parahistoric’ theories, very often politically loaded and have almost nothing to do with objective scientific research in the field of Proto-Bulgarian Studies, could be summarized in several directions:...3)‘Aryan roots’ and the ‘enigmatic Eurasian homeland’. Meanwhile, another group of authors is looking eagerly for the supposed homeland of the ancient Bulgarians in the vast areas of Eurasia, perhaps by conscious or unconscious opposition to the pro-Western orientation of modern Bulgaria. At the same time, with little regard for consistency, they also oppose the Turkic theory, probably because this is in sharp contradiction with the anti-Turkish feelings shared by nationalistic circles. (Dobrev 2005; 2007.) in Claudia-Florentina Dobre, Cristian Emilian ed., Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe, Central European University Press, 2018, ISBN 9633861365, pp. 142-143. Jingiby (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Conclusions: 1. Bulgars were people of Turkic origin. 2. Their "Iranian origin" is modern Bulgarian politically motivated nationalist myth, that has almost nothing to do with neutral scientific research. Jingiby (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby: Let's see what the early authors say about the Bulgars and thei'r language. As was stated by Al-Istakhri "the language of the Khazars is different than the language of the Turks and the Persians, nor does a tongue of (any) group of humanity have anything in common with it and the language of the Bulgars is like the language of the Khazars, but the Burtas have another language." Of course when we, the modern Bulgarians, the only people who actually study the ancient Bulgars in depth are misjudged being anti-Turkic on any occasion in any possible way. And any proof we provide is met with the same old "anti-Turkish" sentiment, without actually being listened. But you cannot just ignore obvious misconceptions. We Bulgarians might be wrong, but how about all the Italian and German and other western historians who actually conclude the same thing? Are they Bulgarian Nationalists as well? I will look over some Western literature and give you sources. And keep your conclusions unbiased again. This is not a place for putting your personal believes. Its a place for objectiveness. Also if your only argument actually comes from your opponent being "anti-Turkish" or "nationalistic" there is something wrong with Wikipedia. Calling turkic people who could actually being mongolic, because of theory from 200 years ago is sad. And calling nationalistic anyone who try to give you an alternative look and ignoring this alternative look is even more wrong. Will give you the sources. And you stop concluding "anti-turkism" and using it as your only argument to keep only the turkic theory in the page. This is not how objectiveness works.

@Jingiby: All right, I found some sources, Notice, not by Bulgarian scientists. because we apparently are all "anti-turkists" in your eyes:

1. German historians: According to Antoaneta Granberg "the Hunno-Bulgarian language was formed on the Northern and Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC.[87] The analysis of the loan-words in Slavonic language shows the presence of direct influences of various language-families:[88] Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese and Iranian. The Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke the same language, different from all other “barbarian” languages. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there.[89] It is important to note that Turkic does contain Hunno-Bulgarian loans, but that these were received through Chinese intermediary, e.g. Hunnic ch’eng-li ‘sky, heaven’ was borrowed from Chinese as tängri in Turkic.[90] The Hunno-Bulgarian language exhibits non-Turkic and non-Altaic features. Altaic has no initial consonant clusters, while Hunno-Bulgarian does. Unlike Turkic and Mongolian, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no initial dental or velar spirants. Unlike Turkic, it has initial voiced b-: bagatur (a title), boyla (a title). Unlike Turkic, Hunno-Bulgarian has initial n-, which is also encountered in Mongolian: Negun, Nebul (proper names). In sum, Antoaneta Granberg concludes that Hunno-Bulgarian language has no consistent set of features that unite it with either Turkic or Mongolian. Neither can it be related to Sino-Tibetian languages, because it obviously has no monosyllabic word structure." - clearly describing the difference of Hunno-Bulgar and Turkic languages. 2. Canadian and Russian historians: Edwin G. Pulleyblank, Yury Zuev and some modern Bulgarian scholars identify the Bulgar Utigurs as one of the tribes of the Yuezhi.[52][53][54] According to Edwin G. Pulleyblank and Yury Zuev the Utigurs of Menander are Uti, and the word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Yuezhi < Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti.[55] Notice that Yuezhi are Indo-European Scytho-Sarmatean speaking people.

3.Another German historian, speaking about the early Iranian nature of Hunno-Bulgarian: Maenchen-Helfen in his famous monograph "The world of the Huns"[119] wrote that we know virtually nothing about the Indo-European languages spoken on the west-north borders of China. All we know of the language of the Huns are names. The tribal names appear to be of Turkish origin. The personal names fall into 3 general categories:

1) Turkic (it's normal since the Hunno-Bulgars lived for centuries before that under the rule of the Gokturkic Khanate, which of course influenced them)

2) Iranian - no Iranian Khanate is know the Bulgars lived in, still the usage of Iranian names is undisputable, which proves again the likeliness of Schyto-Sarmatean origin of the Hunno-Bulgars.

3) of unknown origin ( we don't count here apparently Germanic names whose origin is obvious) Examples of such names (concerning the Bulgar branch of the Huns) are:

-Zabergan - Kutrigur Hun - Ζαβεργάν; Persian

-Sandilch - Utigur Hun - Σάνδιλ; Turkic

-Asparuch- Utigur ruler, founder of Danube Bulgaria - probably Iranian ( Maenchen-Helfen, page 384)

... yet another research showing the affinity towards Schyto-Sarmatean speaking tribes with only partial and highly disputed Turkic affinity.

Conclusion: Bulgarians are "anti-turkic", Canadians - "anti-turkic", Germans - "anti-turkic", Russians - "anti-turkic"... Have you ever taught that maybe you are the "pro-turkic" one and all others are only trying to add some objectiveness to the article itself? Have you ever taught how ridiculous does calling everyone 'anti-turkic' is, while the article is 100% written with affinity to turkic theory, but nobody is asking you to remove it and just to add more objective information. Now I will give you some time to answer me, because this is discussion. And then I guess we have to add and change some information to make the article more objective. For example: Turkic migrations -> Hunnic migrations (it's only a hypothesis they are turkic, but it's sure they are hunnic). Also Bulgars were Turkic, should be changed since it's higly baised towards the turkic hypothesis, which is unproven and questioned by many modern authors. Will expect your answer. All best from the "anti-tukic" or in my view simply "objective" historians around the world :)

Also remember, that "I don't agree with this theory" is not enough of a reason to remove it from wikipedia. Be objective. Don't go for one hypothesis (Turkic) while completely removing information about any other and calling anyone who want to add information on the subject "anti-turkic". This is not how it works.

Also Bulgars were part of the first Migration period, alongside with the Huns and many other Barbarian tribes. Any next migration wave, like the gokturks and later the Mongols are refereed to as Turkic and Mongolian migrations.

Skradumdum (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Skradumdum: I looked over each edit to this to see where the dispute was, and if I'd be able to help settle this. I hope User:Jingiby corrects me if I'm wrong with this summary, but the problem seems to be that your recent edits to the page aren't citing sources to back your claims at all. On the surface, it looks like original research to other editors. Examples are [1], [2], [3] (which amended a citation quote to something was never in the aforementioned reference), [4], and [5]. Skradumdum, I strongly recommend that you establish consensus first for your changes and ensure that what you're adding is reliably sourced before re-editing the article. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Skradumdum: you have been reported again as a sockpuppet of User:PavelStaykov here. All the info above is taken from his personal blog. And stop repeatedly pushing the misinformation about the German Antoaneta Granberg, aca with original name Антоанета Кръстанова Андонова - Bulgarian by birth.Jingiby (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I didn't know that. She apparently got her education in Germany, and took German family name, But hell She has Bulgarian root, let's ignore her! The fact she is of Bulgarian origin explains her interest in the subject of Bulgars. Antoaneta Granberg of University of Gothenburg, Göteborg GU with expertise in Linguistic Typology, Historical Linguistics, History. It's no surprise most of the researchers of the Bulgars are Bulgarians or other people from Bulgarian origin, since every nationality teaches and researches it's own history. What do you expect? Most of the historians of Hungarian history are Hungarians too. It's normal.

Anyway, even she has a German name, got her education in Germany and judging her based on her root is kind of chauvinist, as she seems a professional. Ignoring their point of view, because of her Bulgarian roots is wrong itself and is violation of wikipedia's idea. But anyway this was not the point. The point was that YOU wanted scientists that are not Bulgarians, I didn't exclude the ones with Bulgarian roots. I now checked Otto John Maenchen-Helfen, G. Pulleyblank, Yury Zuev are apparently not Bulgarians (and don't have Bulgarian roots I believe, especially done research for you).

Also I don't know if those authors are anti-tukists but you are definitely anti-Bulgarian, hiding bihind the "anti-turkish" attitude attacks to ignore all Bulgarian authors, since you don't respect a whole nationality's opinion on a subject with "made up excuse" and a statement by a single historian who don't respect them either. Again this is NOT OBJECTIVE.

About the time you report me for sock proxy. "all the info was taken from **some guy's** blog". Well what do you expect this is history, many people rely on the same sources. I guess whatever information I try to provide, Pavel Stoykov provided to you as well. I don't know why all the lack of cooperation, chauvinism, anti-Bulgarism, accuse of sock proxies and lack of objectiveness comes from. Using the same logic I could report you along with another user for trying to prove the same obvious point, using the same obvious sources of it. And how is this a crime in your eyes? You have such a poor judgment. I checked my source, never saw Pavel Stoykov's name. Plus the source points to literature works of different authors I checked. Anyway I will report in in chauvinism and lack of objectiveness because your views are strictly anti-Bulgarian and ignore huge part of the Bulgarian-origin researchers on the Bulgars subject (which is 90% of the researchers nowadays), "because they are Bulgarian", which is wrong by itself. Here is the source of Granberg https://www.academia.edu/683028/Classification_of_the_Hunno-Bulgarian_Loan-Words_in_Slavonic don't see anything wrong with it. You do. You say she is Bulgarian, stop pushing her! And you will be reported for that. Skradumdum (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, stop repeatedly pushing the misinformation about Antoaneta. She was born in Bulgaria, was educated in Bulgaria, worked at Sofia University, was married in Bulgaria etc. Just the fact she has divorced and remarried in Sweden, and afterwards has changed his original name, makes her not a German or a Swedish. Jingiby (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I am not saying she is not Bulgarian. I said she works abroad and is respected scientist in Europe. And why stop pushing information about her? She Because she is Bulgarian? How about the chauvinistic nationalistic ideology you express by refusing everything that comes from Bulgarian historians as excuse. This is wrong.

And in this discussion, even if we leave Antonetta aside (because she is Bulgarians and you do not respect that apparently), how about the other non-Bulgarian scientists concluding the same things? You are wrong being chauvinist in first place, but you are also wrong that only Bulgarians express this opinion that you disagree with and try to hide, and misinform. You are anti-Bulgarian person, who in the last 5 years is largely editing the "Bulgars" page. This is violation of Wikipedia's rules. I believe is part of some nationalistic ideologies of yours. (I don't see a different explanation ignoring most of the Bulgarian authors and the European authors that agree with them). Your lack of objectiveness is wrong and this article is unbiased because of it. It is edited by largely "anti-Bugarian" editor, who disrespects Bulgarians. The article itself is about Bulgars, the ancestors of Bulgarians. I see what you are doing and I hope the administrators see it also.Skradumdum (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@OhKayeSierra: I believe he is having the information. All the sources are here in wikipedia itself. It's just the way they are used/not used that is wrong and nonobjective. For example:

Sentence 1:The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. - now this, even if it has source, is wrong since the sentence is used out of context from the source. Reading the whole article it actually says that Bulgars were active since 5th century and gives many example with many sources of it. The sentence is wrong, taken out of context and is in controversial stance with what is written next in the article itself. But my edit was removed from it, by Jinjiby, no reason was given, even if I told him that an resume sentence have to conclude what is written in the article, and this is not what is written and it violates wikipedia's article's rules. The article by itself says a different thing, so an source sentence that is out of context cannot and should not be used.

The same goes for the second sentence "The Bulgars ... were turkic, semi-nomadic tribes", even tho the article says next in the etymology "The origin of the early Bulgars is still unclear" . Yes it is because there are two theories, and the article is stating only one of them next - the turkic one, which is expressing nonobjective view over the topic in order to conclude that view as "Bulgars are turks" - basically what every Macedonian dreams of. I don't say it's impossible, but unproven should stay unproven and history should not be used for personal or political causes. I tried editing this sentence stating "The Bulgars are semi-nomadic tribes of disputed origin", because this is the truth, but the user Jinjiby returned my edit. About the sources, there are whole researchers and scientists like Petar Dobrev and Bojidar Dimitrov that have written tons of books proving the Indo-European origin of the Bulgars and specifically refusing the Turkic one. Also others providing a hunno-mongolian. I have given them as source not once, but many times. Jinjiby instead of asking for the source is aware of it very well, but ignore it "Because they are Bulgarian"...

Also, another thing in the article, there is a genetic study over the bulgars, that concluded no turkic DNA is found to conclude the turkic DNA of the Bulgars is insufficient, even tho the Bulgars were believed by some scientists to be of Turkic origin. Affinity towards Mediterranean DNA is shown Now the article states that source itself. But its interpreted wrong, Jingiby himself ignores the first part, "no Altaic DNA haplogroups were found", only to present the second statement "Bulgars are found to be closely related to European populations". Intentionally ignoring a whole dispute and keeping and article nonobjective and biased, while expressing anti-Bulgarian, pro-Turkic views and hiding facts. Also reporting anyone who tries to give him sources that don't defend completely the Turco-Altaic theory of the Bulgars. I provided sources more than once to Jingiby, last time got banned for a month for being a sock proxy. Will providede them again, but I don't think it will make a difference, since Jingiby is clearly showing anti-Bulgarian views and refusing to citate even already given sources in objective way, while completely ignoring the work of some authors, because of being Bulgarian and clearly not letting anyone edit the page in a more objective way. This is intentional hate according to me.

Also stop pushing the fringe views of Bozhidar Dimitrov, who is called by Western researchers Chalga historian and of the economist Petar Dobrev, whose methods of work are described even by Bulgarian scientists as: "free interpretation of sources and artifacts". Jingiby (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby: Fake accusations toward historians is not a way to go over wikipedia. Those are proved Bulgarians historians and they too speak negatively about the turkic suggesting authors, like Raymond Detrez. This is called historical dispute and I will tell you 100th time WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PLACE FOR PERSONAL BELIEVES. It's not the place where you take side of one part of historians, while judging the others. You should not do this and this is NOT OBJECTIVE view. And no I will not "stop pushing" them, because even if you don't like it they are part of the history, the way the other authors "you like" are. You see you believe in the authors defending Turkic theory, I believe in the one defending the Indo-European. The thing is this article is extremely based on the conclusions of the authors you like and has information only over the Turkic theory and concludes the Bulgars being Turkic. 2 things I want to say. 1.Five pillars of wikipedia: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view! - you are just showing how you violate it in every possible way, removing sources because they are written by authors which you don't like and openly trash talk. That's not how this works. 2. You, I guess, are Macedonian. Aren't Macedonians the one who are fighting for the Turkic theory for political reasons. Isn't this part of the Macedonian propaganda, where the Macedonian politicians scream "BULGARS ARE TURKS AND TATARS" as a propaganda statement. Funny how a Macedonian User called Jingiby is the one editing the most this article for Bulgars, part of the Bulgarian history. I really start to believe this intentional continuous unbiased editing of yours have propaganda roots. If any Admin sees this, I am asking for checking the User's IP and country of origin. Also active history over this page. If any admin is reading this, please ask yourself why the biggest editor of Bulgar's history comes from Macedonia. Why are they reporting other editors constantly for sock proxies. Why aren't they biased and how wikipedia is letting people who clearly ignore historical fact with reasons, stupid as the top ones. And as you mentioned earlier Jingiby, you don't believe Bulgarian scientists are the right one to show oppinion over the Bulgars, even tho Bulgarian historians are pretty much the only one that has the resources and the motivation to study Bulgar history since they are studying their descendants. So your arguments are unobjective, your comments are nonobjective, you come from a country famous for it's propaganda and lack of objectiveness and you are here, not to give objective view over the historical material, but to push your propaganda. Whoever is reading this. Please check it out. Perfect example of violating the 5 pillars of wikipedia. @OhKayeSierra: , @Vanjagenije: (sorry, I know you told me to ignore him, I believe the problem is a bit more serious, since the user is clearly expressing affinities toward specific subject and war-editing anyone who disagree with him. I tried having a discussion where he clearly showed anti-Bulgarian view toward all Bulgarians. Also the user is from Macedonia - the most famous country for propagating with Bulgarian/Greek/Albanian history. I know the cometee agreed on objectiveness, but as you can see, the user is not keeping it at all. This is not a problem that should be ignored. Keeping the article the way it is the worse outcome. Please don't let trolls fill wikipedia with biased anti-Bulgarian articles. Especially on the Bulgars and Bulgaria related pages.). There have to be balance towards the historical views. There have to be shown the both sides of the dispute. Because right now we see the only and only point of view. Thank you Jingiby for ruining this article. Except of Macedonian Propaganda spreading I don't see any other possible explanation why you, a Macedonian are the biggest editor of this page about the Bulgars and Bulgaria. This page (Bulgars) is called Bulgars and not "The Personal blog of Jingiby" for a reason. And comment like "stop using authors I dislike or I will report you (for 4rth time)" are not part of the objective view of Wikipedia. When there is a disputes, both sides must acknowledge it and find a compromise, you are being assertive with your actions, like this page is your personal blog and we put here only what you, Jingiby like. Which as far as I can see is definitely not Bulgarians, and definitely not objectiveness. What are you doing here, reporting all Bulgarians? Propagating? Well done, you are doing good job if you are doing this. But I will fight for stopping you from this. The article have to be balanced and objective and express both points or it becomes propaganda." I can write an article called Bulgars with the completely opposite ideas, and conclude that they are Indo-Europeans. But this will be propaganda as well. Just like the Article is in the moment about the Turkic hypothesis. I am not fighting for this. I want the both points showed. Because this is the right way and personally I give a little attention to politics and more to historical accuracy, unlike Jingiby. Skradumdum.(talk) 15:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Objectiveness

I see some editors are having a hard time understanding what objectiveness is. Well It's the second pillar of Wikipedia so maybe you should learn about it. I will use an example of this article.

Bulgars... were Turkic tribes - NOT OBJECTIVE ×

Bulgars ... were Iranian tribes - NOT OBJECTIVE ×

Let's see how the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica are doing it, shall we?

The name Bulgaria comes from the Bulgars, a people who are still a matter of academic dispute with respect to their origin (Turkic or Indo-European) as well as to their influence on the ethnic mixture and the language of present-day Bulgaria. - OBJECTIVE √

What is it so hard to understand @Jinjiby:. This is neither your personal blog to edit the page the way you do, neither is a place to spread propaganda in favor of the modern Macedonism and "BUGARS TATARS" political shoutings (which I believe you are doing) ? Skradumdum (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Skradumdum: I fully agree with @OhKayeSierra:. The problem is that your recent edits to the page aren't citing sources to back your claims. On that surface, it is simply original research; undue weight and/or fringe view to me. Jingiby (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems the same to me. @Skradumdum:, you need a credible point to make. Otherwise the folks at WP:AE are going to have to judge that. I'm not the greatest 'executioner', and I don't want to make one of those. talk to !dave 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@My name is not dave: Well, I will give you some clues. There is a huge historical dispute over the origin of the Bulgars, much like the historical dispute going on with the origin of the Huns themselves. Some historians state one point of view the others state different, opposite one. Both sides are intolerant towards each other's hypothesis and attack each other constantly in their works. So the page itself is constantly edited, and the editors much like the historians are constantly throwing the page from one pole to the other, because of the different editor's affinities. What I am willing to do is to add information for the both hypothesizes. I don't want to state the one is true and the other is false (as of what the article currently is doing. Seriously if you read it like now you get the understanding of the completely undisputed Turco-Altaic origin of the Bulgars). I believe the reader should have the both hypothesis presented and the reader should be more familiar with the current discussions, showing statements in favor or against for both hypothesizes and the information in the Bulgars page should be unbiased of supporters of one or other theory. I believe historical disputes are decided in different circles, here we can only present information of both sides (of course with the sources added) and leave the reader make the conclusions for himself. Jingiby on the other hand is, I believe hard to get person, but not impossible one, as I see his support toward one side of the dispute a little too drastic (Currently no information is given to the other point of view and wrong/misinterpreted conclusion is made, by looking only at half of the history and as I look at page's edits from the last years Jingiby plays crucial role in them). Skradumdum (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby: All right. Let's get to Business then. Jingiby are you willing to cooperate in reforming the Bulgar's page a little in the process of making it more Objective? Let's give some clues in favor of the Indo-European origin hypothesis, the same way tons of clues are given in favor of the Turko-Altaic hypothesis. I do support one hypothesis, you obviously support the opposite, but both should be included and no edit wars should be made. Tell me what you think? Instead of us making edit wars, let's have the whole conversation and disputes over here will be better and easier. When we get to compromise we edit. I say we show both sides of the historical disputes the way they are (No matter what any of us thinks of the other side) they should both be included as possibilities. Agree? Skradumdum (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a good referenced passage in the article Bulgarians on the issue: Since the early 1990s on, a hypothesis rooted on anti-Turkish sentiment, strengthened by the so called Revival process gained popularity in Bulgaria, linking the Bulgars to the Iranian people. From Turkic equestrian nomads they were reinterpreted as settled Aryan people with unique culture. Also an opinion on significant Bulgar genetic impact, was launched among the nationalist circles.

@Jingiby:"Good passage" doesn't mean objective. And no the passage is only slightly mentioning the theory itself, only trough criticism, as "the root of the theory" is explained as "anti-turkish" sentiment and not the actual linguistic and genetic findings of the last decades. The actual genetic studies and new linguistic findings that are in favor of the theory and are the root of the emerging theory according to many historians, but you miss to mentioned them are not even mentioned as a root cause of it. Also you are using an author who is know for supporting the opposite theory and is criticizing the Indo-Iranian one. Only the criticism toward it is mentioned trough this passage, but no actual supporting evidence is. No real arguments in favor of the theory are described, even tho such exist. This passage might be "good for you", since you support criticism towards the theory, but it's not good for the neutral reader. It's not biased at all. Again, don't forget this is a dispute and it's normal for the both sides to criticize each other. It's not normal to mention the other side only trough criticism. This make the article biased. It's wrong. Wikipedia should be written from objective point of view, if you find this a good passage for yourself, then you have to know that it's not that good for Wikipedia itself. Do not use this page to push your personal believes toward one of the theories Jingiby! Don't you agree here with me Jingiby? Skradumdum (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby: The whole article is mentioning only the extreme supporters of the Turkic-Theory and their criticism towards the Iranian one. Largely by Raymond Detrez, who also forgets to mention all the other Iranian theorists from the middle of 20th century including many Bulgarians, Russians and Iranian historians themselves like Nikolay Derdzhavin, Nikolay Mar, Leksey Smirnov, Vasiliy Sirotenko. It's okay to mention the criticism of one side but it's also needed to mention the criticism toward the other side as well. No matter if you agree with it or not. Other historians being Peter Golojski, dr. Jivko Vojknikov, doc. Ivan .T. Ivanov, Ilko Stoev, Bono Shkodrov and other. Notice some of them wrote about the problems the Turco-Altaic theory meets long before the critical opinion of Raymond Detrez you support and push so much. Skradumdum (talk)

I do not. Read how to identify reliable sources in history and provide peer reviewed, academic, non-Bulgarian reliable sources, claiming Bulgars were Iranian/Aryan tribes for discussion. Especially "recent" scholarship. Until now you did not. This opinion has some nationalist historians' support in Bulgaria. That is. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby:I guess you are familiar with Bulgarian language/Russian language so here is a very good critic towards the Turkic theory by the Russian author Pavel Puchkov: (link) http://www.protobulgarians.com/Chuvashi.htm

I will try to translate it. The words in the () are mine.

"In conclusion, proofs based of the turco-altaic theory of the Bulgar language is based on inherited Iranian elements in the Chuvash language. Actually, this once again shows that the Turco-Altaic theory of the Bulgars (that have been pushed after the second world war)... with the purpose of playing a strategic and Geo-political role, and not out of historical accuracy. This role serves mostly Serbian (and Macedonian in my opinion), Russian and Czech interests in order to inherit the cultural heritage of the nowadays Bulgarians."

Again Jingiby, I understand that as Macedonian you really like this theory, but I guess you should stop pushing it that hard and criticize all the other theories trough Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for it, especially if some authors express huge concerns over the Serbian (respectively Macedonian) idea that the Turco-Altaic theory serves. Being from Macedonia, and pushing only the turco-Altaic theory just supports the words of Puchkov that you are most likely playing some political role in here. I don't want to throw accusations, but if you want this to look better for you, as an editor coming from Macedonia, I guess you will have to become a little more objective and stop pushing only one theory at all cost. The same theory described by some authors as serving political and no historical interests. People have to start asking questions why is a Macedonian editor so hard pushing theory over the Bulgars page. Or this whole Wikipedia article is lostSkradumdum (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sure you did not check all that is mentioned in the article: Bulgarian academics, notably Petar Dobrev,[165] a hypothesis linking the Bulgar language to the Iranian languages (Pamir[186]) has been popular since the 1990s.[187][188][189][190] Most proponents still assume an intermediate stance, proposing certain signs of Iranian influence on a Turkic substrate.[176][191][192] The names Asparukh and Bezmer from the Nominalia list, for example, were established as being of Iranian origin.[193] Other Bulgarian scholars actively oppose the "Iranian hypothesis".[194][195] According to Raymond Detrez, the Iranian theory is rooted in the periods of anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated.[196] That is enough. Jingiby (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not enough my friend. Will be enough when the objectiveness of the article is reached and the origin of the Bulgar is written as disputed, what actually is, among the historians. Will be enough when some information of the other side of the dispute is mentioned as well, with the same unbiased look over it, will be enough when the article become objective and not pro-Turkic theory based on a singe author, called Raymond Detrez. Every move you make toward making the article more Turco-Alaic is a move that increases my concerns that it might be a political move. I don't see other reason why would you want to view only the half of the dispute and that half that is believed by some authors to serve well of the political interests of the country you come from. Don't judge me but it looks really suspicious and you are making even more. Also your argument is invalid since I am citating here Russian and no Bulgarian historians who connect the theory with Geo-political reasons, so your argument against is definitely weak. Skradumdum (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Skradumdum, I'm starting to get tired of reading these unfounded assertions that Jingiby is an "Ethnic Macedonian" trying to push their own POV on the article, when I haven't seen any evidence of tendentious editing on Jingiby's part at all. Please keep it civil and focus on improving the content, instead of the contributor. To date, I'm still not seeing an independent reliable source from your suggested edits that can be properly added to the article (including some cursory research that I performed using JSTOR and EBSCO databases). If you're really having trouble identifying reliable sources, WP:ADVANCED and WP:RSN might be able help. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Fake article

The Great Yuezhi entered Europe together with the Huns and in the beginning they were called with their old name Massagetae. For example St Jerome tells us about the Great Hun raid of 395-6 into Armenia and Syria that " swarms of Huns and monstrous Massagetae filled the whole earth with slaughter". However the Huns, not the Massagetae attacked the Alans, who threw themselves upon the Goths. After the collapse of the Hun Empire and the lost of the Battle of Nedao in 455, the Huns and Massagetae, now called with the name Bulgars, retreated to their "inner" territory on the river Dnieper (Ukraine) where they reorganized on a smaller scale.

The results of the research on the origin of Bulgars lead to one particular region in Middle Asia - the lower and middle reaches of the Syr Darya. After the second century AD the Sarmatian culture on the lower reaches of the Volga underwent significant changes. New features uncharacteristic for the previous period appeared: artificial deformation of the skulls, narrow burial pits and pits with a niche, cut into one of the walls. These features are also found in later Bulgar necropoles. The northern orientation of the burials is typical for the burial practices of the Huns and of part of the Yuezhi. The Huns, Bulgars and part of the Yuezhi share some common burial practices as the narrow burial pits, pits with a niche and the northern orientation of the burials.

Edwin G. Pulleyblank, Yury Zuev and some modern Bulgarian scholars identify the Bulgar Utigurs as one of the tribes of the Yuezhi. According to Edwin G. Pulleyblank and Yury Zuev the Utigurs of Menander are Uti, and the word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Yuezhi < Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti.

Kidar Bulgars involved in the Hunnic migrations into Europe were identified with Kidarites by David Marshall Lang. According to the Chinese sources Kidarites originated from the Yuezhi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ax Walker (talk • contribs) 08:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

rev 967874201 image removal request I would like to request image removal from the article Bulgars with depicted the Bulgarian ruller Krum. The image does not fit to the content including a line not to be mixed with the Bulgarians, because Krum is a Bulgarian ruller. Thank you Dahlia La Mar (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC) I disagree. Krum was a ruler of the First Bulgarian Empire. But he was not Bulgarians' ruler. He was ruler of mixed population consisting of Bulgars and Early Slavs, but also of former Byzantine subjects as Vlachs, Byzantine Greeks, etc. Bulgarians were formed as separate ethnicity during the 10th century, while Krum lived a century earlier. In his time the state's army cavalry was exclusively a privilege of the Bulgars' elite. Jingiby (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC) Hi, I pinned few people to rise attencion to a reivsions of an article with high responcibilities and importance. Please give your opinions on removal the image of Krum as significant Bulgarian ruller from the semi protected article of Bulgars as he is at a first place Bulgarian ruller and does not work well with the line not to be mixed with the Bulgarians. I would suggest another image representing the Bulgars as image of building, prooved Bulgar artifact or map of Bulgars settlements until mid 7th century. Feel free to propose any for discussion.It would be even greater if we have an opinion of admin. Thank you CorbieVreccan(talk) Steel1943 (talk) Beshogur (talk) CityOfSilver (talk) BDD (talk) OhKayeSierra (talk) Dahlia La Mar (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC) I am not really familiar with the subject matter, but the Krum article identifies him as a Bulgar (see Krum#Origins), with a source. The hatnote ("Not to be confused with Bulgarians") does not mean there is no relationship between Bulgars and Bulgarians, of course. It just alerts readers to the fact that they're not synonymous. It sounds like Krum was active around the time we stop talking about Bulgars and start talking about Bulgarians. Maybe another illustration would be better, but I don't think this one is inappropriate. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, this is not a subject that I'm fully familiar with, and my limited involvement with the article was mostly trying to assist with settling a content dispute/help end tendentious editing. That being said, I more or less agree with BDD's assessment, from a cursory glance at Krum. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Thank you very much for your answersBDD(talk) OhKayeSierra (talk). I will invite two more people for opinion CorbieVreccan (talk) talk (Skradumdum)(talk). I see you both think Krum is a Bulgar, because of visiting his page. I know it is confusing. Bulgaria on Danube has been established in 681 by Asparuh and there are few more rullers inbetween until the time of Krum. After establishing the country its rullers should be concidered as Bulgarian, Bulgaria on Danube. At the same time there has been a second country functioning - Volga Bulgaria with different rullers. I think someone from Wiki went through few articles and wrote Bulgar everywhere, where he or she likes and confused the international public. To avoid confusion I suggest to put image of the map of Old Great Bulgaria instead of Krum. Dahlia La Mar (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021 The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Western-Eurasian semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic–Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. Bulgars aren't a Turkic tribe. Genetic tests show that the two ethnic groups are actually very far away from each other. Bulgars also have nothing to do with Huns and other similar tribes. Bulgars were tall and their eyes were normal, while the Huns were short and their eyes were Asian looking and more close to their nose. Many historians during this time said that the Bulgar tribes were actually extremely good looking. 188.254.163.54 (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC) The above is true - Bulgars are not Turkic and this is a statement that was considered as illiterate and historically wrong. Remove Turkic and put Balkan tribe and the language they spoke is Proto-Bulgarian,same language all Bulgarian tribes spoke from centuries and it has nothing to do with Turkic language group. Change : "Turkic" to "Balkan origin" semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic–Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century They became known as nomadic equestrians in the Volga-Ural region, but some researchers say that their ethnic roots can be traced to - change "Central Asia" to the Balkans. Source d-r Gancho Tsenov "Pre-patriarchy and pre-language of the Bulgarians" ("Праотечеството и праезикът на българите") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanya Ilcheva (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Any reliable English language sources? Jingiby (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)