Talk:Onogurs

Sock-puppetry

@Drmies: the talk page was recently archived. The case is too complex to simply again write about it, and after so many time it is quite tiresome. See the recent noticeboard discussion (and through it follow many discussions which were previously held in article's and user's talk pages, watch for possible archiving), and the two replies (almost the same, the first is a few days more recent draft) to the drafts Draft talk:Hunno-Bulgars and Draft talk:The origin of the Bulgars. It is not the matter of a simple dispute resolution, it includes many serious issues. Some of the info was previously properly included in related articles, but the intention of those socks is not WP:NPOV, but a total rewrite and revision of what is generally considered. It's not in a good faith. The sock-puppetry, which started in March 2015 by User:PavelStaykov and I testify almost a year, has a substantial history, and it needs to be properly handled for once and for all.--Crovata (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• OK Crovata, that's helpful. What I suggest you do is write up an SPI so we have a place for this information, and then you can link that SPI in any reverts you make; that way you make it much easier for admins to do something. In that SPI you can list the targets, so you make it easy on us to see what needs semi-protection, and you can also link earlier discussions that were held in various places. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Drmies, since perhaps I'm the only one who followed and witnessed all those IP and user account socks activity accordingly, probably it's most suitable I do the SPI. Never done it before, hopefully will handle it. However it will be a substantial edit, but helpful to be on one place.--Crovata (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Dude it's better to explain to the readers why you have deleted 15 books from the article (most of them published by Cambridge) and have replaced them with the writings of Peter Golden. WP is not an advertisement board of Peter Golden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.219.92 (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

And because you will not answer - I'll do it for you. You are the so called "official" vandal here on WP. Someone who has editor account from years and using it to impose his ideas. That's why you have deleted whole sections from many articles and replaced them with the speculations of a single scholar. What is the moral of this story? If you need reliable information on controversial topic - search it everywhere but not on WP - here are too many anonymous manafs as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.219.92 (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC) and this is my sign 359 988 744815

WP:NOR

Anon, you should have realized that the approach you are trying to push on other editors leads nowhere. If you want to share your knowledge with the readers of WP you should accept basic WP policies, including WP:NOR and WP:civility. Instead of compulsively (maybe braindeadly) repeating your edits, would you summarize here what you want to present in the article? Borsoka (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It is the same as all multiple IP socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov, now only attacking Onogurs and Bulgars talk pages. Through IP '190.10.8.6' revealed his identity as when in the summary remarked "Rv vandalism of macedonian pomak Jingiby", the sock(s) by PavelStaykov previously accussed user Jingiby, for which was investigated, but it was immediately stopped and they apologized - he had nothing to do with the article at all. It's the typical pattern of communication by those socks, misleading everyone (not me who followed their activity since March 2015). The link [1] has the same information as "Draft talk:Origin of the Bulgars", which was posted on articles talk pages, and IP talk pages, interlinking them. As they restarted their activity today will update the investigation, and admin(s) for open proxies to check them as advised.--Crovata (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

OK - what I want is fair representation who were the Onogurs (and also Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Bulgars). There is no doubt that they were Bulgar tribe that came into Europe with the Huns - search google books and you will see - there are at least 30-40 books. It is not in the best interest of WP to hide these books. I don't mind P Golden and other turkish authors to be presented, if the information is separated in proper sections. The problem is that all it boils down to the question who were the Huns. We all know Pritsak's analyses that the Huns names seem to be Turkish. This is not enough to conclude that the Huns were Turks. Only Turkish authors think so. What all other scientist think is that the western Huns were two groups of tribes of different origin:

Maenchen-Helfen: "the Huns were called Massagetae ...... however it were the Huns who attacked the Goths, and not the Massagetae...."

Antoaneta Granberg : "the data is insufficient to clearly distinguish Huns, Bulgars and Avars... "

Pulleyblank : "... there is almost certainly a lineal connection between the Northern Xiongnu who moved westward out of contact with the Chinese in the second century and the Huns who later appeared in Eastern Europe. Apart from the ruling group that bore the name Hun, however, the European Huns undoubtedly included other tribes with different ethnic affinities... "

now, it is not so hard to find who were these Massagetae : Da Yuezhi > Ta-Yue-ti (Great Lunar Race) > Ta-Gweti> Massa-Getae ( Cunningham, Knobloch, Dahiya, P. Mallory and Victor H. Mair )

Add to this the following identification made by Pulleyblank : Yuezhi < Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti < Utigurs

and things start to become obvious. Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs are closely related tribes and they have common origin. Probably these 3 articles - Utigurs, Kutrigurs and Onogurs should be merged.

Pritsak thinks that the name Vichtun in the Bulgarian Prince's list is none other but the Xiongnu Emperor Modun.

Therefore, the conclusion is obvious: western Huns were mixture of Yuezhi tribes and some tribes from Northern Xiongnu - according to most modern scientists. My personal opinion is different. I think that Xiongnu never came out of Mongolia, the name Hu, Hun was brought to Kazahstan by the Little Yuezhi, who arrived there around 330 AD. I am searching for it right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.135.84.43 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure that I could understand the above statements. If my understanding is correct, you suggest that (1) the Huns are connected to the Yuezhi; (2) the Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs and Bulgars are closely connected; (3) the latter tribes came to Europe together with the Huns. Would you quote the texts from reliable source that verify these statements? Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I was right : the Hun's of Attila, the Kutrigurs were a tribe from the Little Yuezhi, who brought the name Hu, Hun to Europe. The rest of the little Yuezhi entered Europe in mid 6th century under the name Uar or Var, Avar and struck terror among the rest of the hunnogurs who took them for the historical Mongols, the Wuhuan �� (*Awar). The dicothomy Hun-Massgetae is actually Little Yuezhi - Great Yuezhi. I knew that the idea Yuezhi-Xiongnu composition of western Huns is impossible due to the history of these people. Check out here: http://www.worldlibrary.org/article/whebn0000310053/uar The little Yuezhi spent 3 centuries under Xiongnu rule, so after all it turns out that the idea European Huns = Xiongnu is not so wrong idea - indeed people who really were part of Xiongnu moved to Europe. Kutrigurs is from kutre in Bulgarian language, kutre is the "little finger" or the "pinkie" (you can check it with google translate - кутре - slavonic) -> hence small people. This coincide with the historical description that the Huns were short of stature. It would be interesting to find out information about the physical appearance of the little Yuezhi. ( I am sure it would be the same). Also, all this explains another very important question : when the Utigur Bulgars ( Unogundurs) founded Danube Bulgaria in 681 AD, the Kutrigurs didn't join them, but they stay with the Avars in Pannonia. This is strange, and suggests that Kutrigurs were the same as the Avars, and not Utigurs (as it is usually assumed). Only when the Avar khaganat was destroyed in the beginning of 9th century they moved to Bulgaria. All graves with skeletons with mongoloid admixture from Bulgar graves are dated to be from 9th century and none from 8th century. Another important score here. Also the burial orientation of the Kutrigurs is western, but it is northern for the Utigurs. But probably I am wasting my time, turkic editors will not allow such information to be presented on the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.183.72 (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't try to understand because you won't - he's cherry picking statements here and there, twist their interpretation, ignore majority, and exclusively highlight extreme minority viewpoint, a typical WP:OR. Basically that there were no Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Onogurs and Bulgars, yet all those tribes were Huns. They spoke a Hunnic ie. Turkic language, but that language wasn't really Turkic (sock even now doesn't know the difference between Turkic and Turkish), neither they were Turkic tribes, because they were Yuezhi, who were Indo-Europeans. Practically - the intent is to prove that those Turkic speaking tribes were not Turkic tribes from the steppe, yet Indo-Europeans. It's related to the theories which are considered by some pseudoscholars, related to the anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria, and want to prove that their nation and country ancestors weren't actually Turkic (was it genetically or culturally). It's a bunch of nonsense as the autohtonous population, as well Slavs ie. Indo-Europeans were the very majority in the Bulgarian Empires (thus got Slavicized), as well the Bulgars who migrated there weren't homogeneous Turkic people, yet a group or confederation of different tribes, and the leading (which was probably in minority) was Bulgar-Turkic, thus embracing others in their political, militar and social culture. In the end, they didn't managed to preserve their Turkic identity. Just read the Bulgars article and you will understand how complex the topic is, a bit too complex for the socks.--Crovata (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Would you quote the texts from reliable source that verify these statements?" Please don't support him to spam (again) the talk pages with wall of text and references.--Crovata (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have realized that he is one of those who have found a truth for themselves. Unfortunatelly, he wants to prove his truth instead of presenting a scholarly POV. Nevertheless, even believers (or haters) can contribute to the development of science. :) If there is a scholarly POV suggesting that the Bulgars were not a Turkic people or significant non-Turkic elements were also integrated by the Bulgars in the Pontic steppes, we should mention it. Similarly, if the theory that the Huns were connected to the Yuezhi is accepted by some historians, we should mention it in the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

That's the problem - the mention about Indo-European elements among Bulgars, and Yuezhi in Utigurs, among others are already included. His intention is to give undue weight, make false balance, ignore the mainstream consideration - to totally rewrite those articles. All the points he says are already covered in the articles, but he ignores that. Because, as he writes: "fake bogus article serving the interest of Turkish propaganda ... should be unlocked and rewritten anew by other editors". He previously was openly for violation of Wikipedia principles, called modern scholars as s..., everyone was Turkic/Turkish, mainstream opinion called Russian, afterwards Turkish propaganda, other editors called Turks (with racist connotation, also relating them with terrorists and prostitution). He stole identity of some physicist. He totally ignored common sense. His behaviour, after hundreds of discussion(!) since March 2015 didn't change a bit, just showed he's incapable of editing Wikipedia. Don't encourage him.--Crovata (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Dude, it's not polite to interrupt people's conversation. What you should understand is that someone might have some other motives than hatred toward Turks. For example - to know its own origin( based on sth more than mere similarity of 15 personal names and 3-4 administrative terms). I do not hate Turks, and I do not love them, and to be honest, I do not give a damn shit about them. Neither about Turkish Turks, nor about Turkic Turks. You have 19 points posted on the talk page Bulgars - focus on answering them(and improving the article), instead of deleting them. Thank you.

@Borsoka: Yes, roughly speaking your understanding is correct, on all the 3 points. Instead of posting quotes here, I would suggest you to read the article on the website I have provided you. It is my personal website, the article is written (by me) in a similar manner as WP articles, it contains references to almost 100 sources and also images to support the information. To prove you that it is my personal website I will post your nickname(Borsoka) just below the headline. Probably you can help me to improve it and may be to include some of the information into WP articles.

(N.B. I will be able to maintain your nick name below the heading only for a couple of days - I have posted links to the website also on other encyclopedias (including Britannica) and it will look silly if I maintain some strange name right below the central heading. Sorry. Here is the link again: http://dulo.myfreesites.net/ )

I and no one is going to answer to those 19 points - they are not even legit points, that's subjective nonsense and lies. Your discussing and editing has nothing constructive. It's already answered in the article(s), anyone who has common logic(!) and can read(!) sees that. Beside that, your concern was discussed hundred times(!) before since March 2015. Stop wasting other editors time, and posting the same wall of text on talk pages. If your wish is to understand your "own origin" - then stay away from Wikipedia, read about your "own origin", and if find out that it's not like you expected, do not be a fool and accept it as it is as no revisionism and twisting of historical facts will managed to change the past.--Crovata (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that these articles and also their talk pages will remain locked. For sure you will not answer these points because you can't. Despite the fact that the answer is in front of you, on page 23 ref№ 4 of your favorite P Golden:

 Turkae were the nearest neighbors of Thyssagetae...

Who were these Thyssagetae dude? Who might live near them? check out on my website: http://dulo.myfreesites.net/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.100.143.130 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

this is a very hard question for you, dude, that's why I will add it as point Number 20 on the talk page Bulgars. 121.100.143.130 (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

After all this time you still don't get what WP:OR is, and that's not supported on Wikipedia. I can't answer those points? Are you aware that dumb questions seek dumb answers? I will for the first time write in language perhaps only you understand, for example: 1) I doesn't fail, it's just that you're dumb 2) It doesn't fail to explain the relation of modern genetic tests, it's just that you're dumb 3) It's not imposing fake information, it's just that you're dumb 4) It's not hiding anything, it's just that you're dumb 5) Is factually not wrong, it's just that you're dumb 6) It doesn't "language=nationality", it's just that you're dumb 7) It's not hiding, and doesn't fail, it's just that you're dumb 8) It doesn't fail to explain the etymology and origin of the name Bulgar, it's just that you're dumb 9) It's not the focus of the article, and neither the OR and fringe theories explain it, but you're dumb to understand it 10) It's not the focus of the article, but you're dumb to read and accept respective article 11) It doesn't fail, it's just that you are too dumb 12) It does has broad range of sources, and for hundred time, sources by P. Golden have in-source references, which is too complex to understand since you're dumb 13) It doesn't fail, it's just like before - you're too dumb and invent points 14) Again, it's not the focus of the article, and neither the OR and fringe theories explain it 15) Again, not the focus of the article, yet you're too dumb to read and understand respective article 16) It doesn't fail, it's just that you're dumb 17) Again, you're too dumb to read and understand respective article 18) Again you're dumb and invent things 19) Showed what, that the Bulgars were in the majority? You're so dumb that you don't even understand the genetic tests neither the socio-cultural events of the time 20) Who are they? It's not your job finding out, because you're so dumb that couldn't even find it out, yet of academic and reliable scholars, which is something you don't understand dumb troll.--Crovata (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you dude. It is obvious that Turkae = the Great Yuezhi. As I told you it is not so hard to find who were these " Sarmatized Turks or Turkicized Sarmatians" who practiced artificial cranial deformation of the circular type:

"The artificially deformed skulls in proto-Bulgarian graves cannot be separated from those in the graves of the Sarmatizeđ Turks or Turkicized Sarmatians of the post-Attilanic graves in the South Russian steppes."

Here are, especially for you, tips/samples how to write great articles on WP in the future: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bulgars&oldid=712397764#GERMANS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.217.110 (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

unogari

onogurs = gara people [2]