Talk:Bulgars

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bulgars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

• Closed as unlisted to allow more time to resolve issues. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article has an appropriate reference section. I see that the citation style changed from long to short in May of this year during a single edit. For future editing it's worth noting that changing citation style in an existing article is generally discouraged per WP:CITEVAR. The edit also changed appropriate usage of {{Reflist}} to depreciated usage. See Template:Reflist for current guidance. A number of editors are still not aware of all changes. Just noting here for future editing. I get caught out on changes to guidance as well! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Query

• There's been some very recent edit warring, which if it continues would prevent the article being listed. My general approach in such situations is to extend the review rather than close it, to see if common sense can prevail. If someone deliberately disrupts an article during a GAN in order to prevent an article being listed, they can be banned from the article. I would not expect nominators or significant contributors to get involved in edit warring. If there are concerns about an edit other than obvious vandalism, rather than revert, the edit should be discussed on the talk page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I discussed and hope for months for the common sense to prevail, but as can be seen on the Bulgars and some related articles, and recently on Bulgar language, as well noticeboard archive, it seems that the editor does not accept and understand that Wikipedia is edited according to NPOV principles. It was proposed a dispute resolution, but currently have no will and time to write an adequate resolution (with all the claims by the editor in question).--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• File:53-manasses-chronicle.jpg is tagged as needing attention. That should be dealt with before the review is completed or another image used in its place. I am uncertain as to why it has been chosen as the lead image to represent Bulgars. I cannot find details about the incident mentioned in the article. Indeed, there isn't much history in the article after the 7th century, which I will mention again when dealing with Broad coverage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Before I rewrote the article the old revision had a map as the lead image. I was not fond of the image quality and that it only represents a certain date in time, and (with dubious extent) geographical location in their broader migration. I searched for an image wich could properly give, somehow strong, impression of the Bulgars. First used the image of the alleged Kubrat's sword (revision, web), but it was deleted due to copyright. There's not so good selection of images (categories at Wikimedia Commons Bulgars, Medieval architecture in Bulgaria, Monarchs of Bulgaria). I thought about to use an image of their 'capitals' Pliska and Veliki Preslav, or Bolghar, but they are generally not in the original shape, yet reconstructed in the recent two centuries. Thus decided for a medieval drawing, of which, found this most representative of the Bulgars army (seen in their outfit, wearing a Eastern type of helmet, similar to Sarmatian Spangenhelm). The image is part of the Constantine Manasses Chronicle, and needs better licence tag. Will see what can be done. Why the battle is not mentioned in the article will be commented below in "Broad coverage".--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, is it alright?--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The copyright tag is now sorted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• File:Bulgar subsequent migrations in Europe..jpg has information in Bulgarian. Is there a similar map with information in English? Also, the source for the information is unclear, as all that is given is "TANGRA TanNakRa Publishing". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The information is in both Bulgarian and English, but barely legible. There's none. Indeed, it seems they are tangra-bg.org book publisher. It now raises the question of whether it is his own work. The user Jingiby account on Wikipedia is blocked since 2014, but hopefully on Wikimedia Commons Jingiby is still active. There will ask him about the image.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There's still no answer from him, but I think that the image copyright is quite suspicious. I can remove it, and when we finish the text, will work on how to make a similar one.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• File:Bulgar warrior.jpg appears to have been taken from a website with unclear copyright status. The file page says the author has been dead for over 70 years, yet the file data says the photograph was taken in 2012. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This image was also uploaded by Jingiby, and it looks like no one until now noted this issue, although is fairly used. It is atributed to Ivan Dobrev, Bulgarian academician and linguist. Think it cannot be found anymore on the website of the Bulgarian Military Academy. However, it can be easly replaced by the File:A jug with golden medallions.jpg.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fail

• Broad coverage. There are images in the article which refer to events which are not mentioned in the text. The history mainly stops in the 7th century, though the images reveal that significant events in the Bulgars history occurred after that date. Unless there is a significant reason why the history after the 7th century is not mentioned, this article appears to be incomplete. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but I conceived is so to be historically concise ie. it exclusively mentions the history of the semi-nomadic Bulgars until the time of the 'five brothers' in 7th century ie. migrations with which they finally settled down. What happened with the Bulgars ruled by Batbayan there's no information, probably attended and disappeared somewhere in the historical events of the region. What happened with those led by Kotrag to the river Volga can be further read on the respective articles (Volga Bulgaria). The fate of the Bulgars led by Kuber (Macedonia) and Alcek (Italy) is similar to those ruled by Batbayan. The Bulgars led by Asparukh are the most known as were the founders of the Bulgarian nation. However, at want point of time should be distinguished the history of Bulgars from the history of Bulgarians. I think is - the disappearance of the culture and language, and original ruling elite influence. In the book by F. Curta, The The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, 2008, pg. 151 is written "since 1930... the tendency has been to distinguish between Bulgars (before the conversion to Christianity) and Bulgarians (after the conversion)".

When the Bulgars came to the territory of today's Bulgaria they encountered the native population of Slavs and Greeks (roughly to say). Since then we can follow the genesis and development of the Bulgarian nation. The Bulgars from today's ie. medieval Bulgarians differed in language, religious beliefs, traditional customs, social structure, but again who - at least the warrior elite or ruling class. How much they numbered, that's a hard question. According Jean W Sedlar (2011, pg. 424) "The Bulgar ruling class eventually abandoned its Turkic language and adopted Slavic so completely that no trace of Turkic speech patterns can be found in any Old Slavic texts... The 9th and 10th centuries marked an interval of bilingualism, after which the descendants of the original Bulgar conquerors gradually forgot their original Turkic vernacular and became entirely Slavic in speech. By the 12th century the proto-Bulgar language had utterly died out...". Since the Christianisation in 865 is followed gradual disappearance of their original beliefs and customs.

Although the source by Golden (1992) I mostly used for history did further venture into Bulgarians and Volga Bulgaria, I didn't see any point to simply copy the historical facts from other related articles, ie. why not to be included in related articles? The article is already big, and to further expand it in history section with historical facts already mentioned in related articles (like First Bulgarian Empire), with debatable time period until when to follow the term Bulgars... Actually, through the sections "Social structure", "Religion", "Language", "Ethnicity", even "Etymology" - are mentioned few dates, and can be comprehend who they really were, what characterized them, and when no longer. I think this is the most important part of the article.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Britannica covers a longer period. Encyclopedia of European Peoples covers a longer period. This children's encyclopedia covers a longer period. The sources used in the article cover a longer period. I see that the Bulgars divided at the time of the five brothers, but sources continue the history after the split. The distribution of the Bulgars appears to be part of the story, as it is with articles on other such peoples who dispersed, such as Celts and Jews. As this article is about the Bulgars it should cover their entire history. If you wish to write only about the early period of the Bulgars, that could be a separate article, perhaps called Early Bulgars. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for new article. In the "Subsequent migrations" is noted that they merged with the other regional population, in "Society" that accepted their lifestyle, in "Religion" differences in type of burial cemeteries, and in "Language" that gradually slavicized. The ruling elite managed to preserve their identity for about 200 years, and that's around the time of Christianization (865 AD). This time period, of at least 200 years, must be mentioned, and since the scholars usually follow the history of Bulgarians from 865 AD, will name the succeeding section as "Bulgarian Empires", where will be mentioned the history of the First and Second Bulgarian Empire. The short history, few statements, about Volga Bulgars will add to the "Subsequent migrations" respective paragraph.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

After changes, what is your current opinion on the article, what else would like to be done, beside copyedit?--Crovata (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Mos - Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It can be fairly easly done, and needs better one. I see that some interesting things, eg. religion and language aren't mentioned.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, but when see the intro of article on Huns believe only partially. Is it too concise or needs better prose?--Crovata (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• The prose is difficult to follow in places with uncertain paragraphing - there are too many short paragraphs which inhibits reading flow, and makes it more difficult to absorb meaning because of the lack of organised structuring. The Turkic migration section is particularly difficult to absorb. Clear, readable prose which allows the general reader to understand the topic without undue effort would be what to aim for. This looks like a collection of facts - notes toward an article. The next step would be to write up those facts in an organised and readable manner. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

In which parts found the reading difficult, except "Turkic migration"? The respective section was written so because each paragraph is about different date, event or source, more or less related. I thought the more concise, if can with original quote, the better as more interpretation of such distant events will lead to more confusion. Thing is, if recall right and see in notes, there isn't really any other historical fact, besides (F. Curta, Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar raiders, and Roman Special Ops, 2015) for some raids in 499, 502, 507, 530, 535 AD, and scholar consideration, besides (Uwe Fiedler, Bulgars in the lower Danube region, in F. Curta, The The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, 2008).--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The language is difficult in most places, and is full of errors, such that it would normally be considered a quick fail. Example: "Golden considered the origin of the Kutrigurs and Utigurs obscure and their relationship to the Onoğurs and Bulgars who lived in the same region, or in its vicinity, as unclear.[27][28] He noted the assumption of the two tribes being related to the Šarağurs (Oğhur. šara, "White Oğhurs"),[29] and that according Procopius there were two Hunnic tribal unions of Cimmerians descent and common origin.[27][30] The reason later Byzantine sources frequent linked the names Onoğurs and Bulgars is also unclear." Two of the errors in that I can parse ("according Procopius" should be "according to Procopius"; "sources frequent linked" should be "sources frequently linked" others I can't work out, so the meaning is lost, such as "Cimmerians descent and common origin". The article would benefit from a copyedit by someone with a good command of English, and who knows the topic well - but it would only be worth doing that, when the article's structure and the topic range is better established. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not native English speaker and this minor faults tend not to notice. Agree, when will finish the new section and lead will make you notice to decide. Should the previous copyedit reviewer Folklore1 be called? We could say that at least he got familiar with the article.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The article would benefit from a strong and very experienced copyeditor. One I respect highly is User:Eric Corbett. If you could convince him to get involved I would have more confidence that this article could be brought to GA level. If he does take on the task, I would ask that you allow him to work unhindered - he works fast, making many changes, and this can unnerve some people. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Initially Eric Corbett accepted and done several edits, but [1] decided to withdraw.--Crovata (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I don't know who else to suggest. The article needs more than a simple copy edit, it needs a complete rewrite to make the issues clearer - Eric Corbett could have done that. I can see that you fully understand the topic, and are an appropriate person to bring knowledge to the article; what is needed, however, is someone skilled in communication and with a good command of the English language, who also has an affinity or interest in the topic and is prepared to work with you. Unless you have a solution in mind, I will close this review in the next 24 hours. When the language and clarity issues have been resolved you can nominate again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a solution for which can guarantee instant work and short period of time. It's alright, I agree with the decision. We went through several issues, will see if there's something more to bring, and will make a new migration image. Thank you for your time and am glad to have worked with you. When they are resolved would like to notice you to see if are satisfactory.--Crovata (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take a look when you feel the article is ready to be nominated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

On hold

• I'm putting this review on hold. There are a number of issues with this article. There is information here, and some presentation of that information, but the article does not yet meet GA criteria. I haven't finished the review, though I have put enough indicators above to show why I feel this article is not ready, and what work needs to be done. I think this is a very big topic, and deserves to be taken seriously, with time taken to do appropriate deep research, and then organise and present the material. Given the current state of the article I don't see that sufficient improvement for such a big and complex topic can be completed in a reasonable time frame. However, I would rather support positive efforts to improve the article and build toward a GA listing, than simply close this GAN as a fail. I will keep the review open for a while to see what the nominator and significant contributors have to say. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Closed as unlisted to allow time to resolve issue. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

BULGAR PAGE VANDALIZED !!!!

A user by the name of Beshogur edited the Wikipedia for the ancient nomadic peoples the Bulgars

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars

Bulgars are seen as the historical ancestors who gave birth to the ethnic Genesis of the Bulgarian people

There is a long debate on their origins if they were Turkic, Iranic, or of other origins and as these debates rage the account know as Beshogur edited the page with malicious nationalist intentions

It used to say “not to be confused with Bulgarians” but now it says “not to be confused with Bulgarian turks”

He intentionally edited this page to put his thumb in the eye of Bulgarian history and to appropriate it as Turkish

Truth is the average ethnic Turkish person is not even 10-20% of Turkic heritage

By adding “not to be confused with Bulgarian turks” it undermines Bulgarian history and heritage in a big way

Just look at this persons account

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beshogur

It doesn’t take much digging to see this person is a Turkish nationalist set on twisting history

I deeply encourage Wikipedia to return it to “not to be confused with Bulgarians” and removed “Bulgarian turks” from the top banner

This is an insurance to Bulgarian history and heritage

I do not blame Wikipedia however this one bad egg deserves his moderator status revoked immediately!!! He is abusing for nationalistic purposes !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss84325 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

|}

References

Reliable sources and objectiveness

Greetings,

I've been reading the discussion page about the Bulgars article and I noticed that editors tend to discredit any sources which are in opposition to the Turkic hypothesis (or in favor of the Sarmatian one) as unreliable purely on the basis that they're from Bulgarian authors. When an editor asks for reliable sources in English, "non-Bulgarian" is always a requirement, which I think implies that contemporary Bulgarian academia are all extreme nationalists who are writing out of "anti-Turkish sentiment", thus making them unreliable or incompetent. I find this completely false (not to mention offensive), for the following reasons:

1.the Sarmatian/Iranian hypothesis exists long before the 90's - Russian historian Nikolai Marr was one of the first to propose a Sarmatian origin of the Bulgars in the early 20th century. Veselin Beshevliev wrote an article Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians way back in 1967, where he concludes that all personal names from the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans are of Iranian origin and that this significant cultural influence has to be taken into consideration when determining Bulgar ethnogenesis.

2. the Turkic hypothesis was the official narrative about the Bulgars origin at the time of the Revival process and under Communist regime. So linking the Sarmatian/Iranian hypotheses of the 1990's with "anti-Turkish sentiments" and the Revival process in particular is simply absurd. Yes, there are many fringe theories in post-socialist Bulgaria which are nationalistic myths in their nature, such as the Bactrian hypothesis of P. Dobrev and the autochthonous hypothesis, but they emerge as a result of pluralism after the fall of old regime and cannot be linked to the Revival process when the Turkic theory was dominant.

I would also like to point out something else - when talking about "reliable sources", I think its ridiculous to refer to the Oxford's or some others Dictionary of World history as they are not historical/archeological research, but as dictionaries they themselves refer to previous research done mainly by Bulgarian historians such as Veselin Beshevliev (the first one to identify Bulgar inscriptions as Turkic), Vasil Zlatarski, Vasil Gyuzelev and others. Simply discrediting modern Bulgarian research made by serious academia as "nationalistic myths" or "anti-Turkish sentiments" without looking into the evidence itself is just lazy, anti-scientific and perhaps biased.

So, all that being said, I kindly ask the editors to review the sources below and finally do a fair edit on the Bulgars article as to represent the Scytho-Sarmatian hypothesis equally to the Turkic one. "Turkic semi-nomadic" has to be replaced with just "semi-nomadic". Britannica already edited their entry on the Bulgars in light of recent findings, so there's no reason for Wikipedia not to do the same. The fact that there is still an ongoing debate about the Bulgar origins amongst serious academia should be reason enough to edit the article, so I'm just appalled by the stubbornness of the editors here.

Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians - https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/194728109.pdf

Genetic evidence suggests relationship between contemporary Bulgarian population and Iron Age steppe dwellers from Pontic-Caspian steppe - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3.full

Archaeological and genetic data suggest Ciscaucasian origin for the Proto-Bulgarians https://www.academia.edu/43735252/Archaeological_and_genetic_data_suggest_Ciscaucasian_origin_for_the_Proto_Bulgarians

Еastern roots of the Madara horseman Chobanov - https://www.academia.edu/44604518/%D0%95astern_roots_of_the_Madara_horseman_Chobanov

THE LEGACY OF SASANIAN IRAN AMONGST THE BULGARIANS ON THE LOWER DANUBE (BG text) - https://www.academia.edu/44902361/%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%A2%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%9E_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%90_%D0%9F%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%A3_%D0%91%D0%AA%D0%9B%D0%93%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%95_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%94%D0%9E%D0%9B%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%94%D0%A3%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%92_THE_LEGACY_OF_SASANIAN_IRAN_AMONGST_THE_BULGARIANS_ON_THE_LOWER_DANUBE

On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, Rashev Rasho 1992 http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html

Archaeological overview on the formation of Asparukh’s Protobulgarians Todor Chobanov Ph.D.,Ass.prof., Svetoslav Stamov MA, Duke University https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/24/687384/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true

Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians Veselin Beshevliev 1967 (BG text) http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori%20za%20indo-evropeyskiya%20proizhod%20na%20prabaalgarite/V_%20Beshevliev%20-%20Iranski%20elementi%20u%20pyrvobylgarite.htm

Thank you for taking the time to review this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.127.19 (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@188.123.127.19: Turkic one is not a hypothesis, it is documented and majority of historians agree with it, thus a mainstream view. Beshogur (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: It's definitely not a theory amongst archeologists and it is considered an outdated theory amongst contemporary historians. That's why this article has to be revised so as to be more objective and up to date with modern research.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

The Bulgar ethnicity is currently unknown and scholars are simply guessing where they came from and what is their origin, therefore you cannot just assume ppl who spoke a certain language what their origins are. So the statement that the Bulgars are turkic nomads is simply not a correct first sentence to describe them in a national wide website. There are no certain proof as I said from any researcher, scholar or anyone that can show the origins of the Bulgars. 95.103.11.6 (talk) 12:00, 11 July 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021 (2)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar

There is the trusted source for current research about being turkic tribe, U have submitted request prior this one and within this one I am attaching the source. 95.103.11.6 (talk) 12:07, 11 July 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021 (3)

Dear Editors,

The fact you just have placed an sentence that the Bulgars are Turkic trible as a first sentence which does not explains it is a theory not a fact,have made me think about how YOU use your sources and implement them on Wikipedia. I simply do not agree on the sentence you have submited on this article about Bulgars being Turkic tribe,saying it as it is a fact,while it is just a theory which was agreed on from some of historians and scholars,therefore does not make it real. I insist to have this look thru again since it is missleading,the Bulgars being Turkic tribe is a theory not a fact,just like the other theories of their origins. At the moment there are not a proven fact about their origins. SvetiNikolay (talk) 13:53, 11 July 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources and objectiveness

Greetings,

I've been reading the discussion page about the Bulgars article and I noticed that editors tend to discredit any sources which are in opposition to the Turkic hypothesis (or in favor of the Sarmatian one) as unreliable purely on the basis that they're from Bulgarian authors. When an editor asks for reliable sources in English, "non-Bulgarian" is always a requirement, which I think implies that contemporary Bulgarian academia are all extreme nationalists who are writing out of "anti-Turkish sentiment", thus making them unreliable or incompetent. I find this completely false (not to mention offensive), for the following reasons:

1.the Sarmatian/Iranian hypothesis exists long before the 90's - Russian historian Nikolai Marr was one of the first to propose a Sarmatian origin of the Bulgars in the early 20th century. Veselin Beshevliev wrote an article Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians way back in 1967, where he concludes that all personal names from the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans are of Iranian origin and that this significant cultural influence has to be taken into consideration when determining Bulgar ethnogenesis.

2. the Turkic hypothesis was the official narrative about the Bulgars origin at the time of the Revival process and under Communist regime. So linking the Sarmatian/Iranian hypotheses of the 1990's with "anti-Turkish sentiments" and the Revival process in particular is simply absurd. Yes, there are many fringe theories in post-socialist Bulgaria which are nationalistic myths in their nature, such as the Bactrian hypothesis of P. Dobrev and the autochthonous hypothesis, but they emerge as a result of pluralism after the fall of old regime and cannot be linked to the Revival process when the Turkic theory was dominant.

I would also like to point out something else - when talking about "reliable sources", I think its ridiculous to refer to the Oxford's or some others Dictionary of World history as they are not historical/archeological research, but as dictionaries they themselves refer to previous research done mainly by Bulgarian historians such as Veselin Beshevliev (the first one to identify Bulgar inscriptions as Turkic), Vasil Zlatarski, Vasil Gyuzelev and others. Simply discrediting modern Bulgarian research made by serious academia as "nationalistic myths" or "anti-Turkish sentiments" without looking into the evidence itself is just lazy, anti-scientific and perhaps biased.

So, all that being said, I kindly ask the editors to review the sources below and finally do a fair edit on the Bulgars article as to represent the Scytho-Sarmatian hypothesis equally to the Turkic one. "Turkic semi-nomadic" has to be replaced with just "semi-nomadic". Britannica already edited their entry on the Bulgars in light of recent findings, so there's no reason for Wikipedia not to do the same. The fact that there is still an ongoing debate about the Bulgar origins amongst serious academia should be reason enough to edit the article, so I'm just appalled by the stubbornness of the editors here.

Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians - https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/194728109.pdf

Genetic evidence suggests relationship between contemporary Bulgarian population and Iron Age steppe dwellers from Pontic-Caspian steppe - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3.full

Archaeological and genetic data suggest Ciscaucasian origin for the Proto-Bulgarians https://www.academia.edu/43735252/Archaeological_and_genetic_data_suggest_Ciscaucasian_origin_for_the_Proto_Bulgarians

Еastern roots of the Madara horseman Chobanov - https://www.academia.edu/44604518/%D0%95astern_roots_of_the_Madara_horseman_Chobanov

THE LEGACY OF SASANIAN IRAN AMONGST THE BULGARIANS ON THE LOWER DANUBE (BG text) - https://www.academia.edu/44902361/%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%A2%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%9E_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%90_%D0%9F%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%A3_%D0%91%D0%AA%D0%9B%D0%93%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%95_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%94%D0%9E%D0%9B%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%94%D0%A3%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%92_THE_LEGACY_OF_SASANIAN_IRAN_AMONGST_THE_BULGARIANS_ON_THE_LOWER_DANUBE

On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, Rashev Rasho 1992 http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html

Archaeological overview on the formation of Asparukh’s Protobulgarians Todor Chobanov Ph.D.,Ass.prof., Svetoslav Stamov MA, Duke University https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/24/687384/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true

Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians Veselin Beshevliev 1967 (BG text) http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori%20za%20indo-evropeyskiya%20proizhod%20na%20prabaalgarite/V_%20Beshevliev%20-%20Iranski%20elementi%20u%20pyrvobylgarite.htm

Thank you for taking the time to review this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.127.19 (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@188.123.127.19: Turkic one is not a hypothesis, it is documented and majority of historians agree with it, thus a mainstream view. Beshogur (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: It's definitely not a theory amongst archeologists and it is considered an outdated theory amongst contemporary historians. That's why this article has to be revised so as to be more objective and up to date with modern research.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 07:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

The Bulgar ethnicity is currently unknown and scholars are simply guessing where they came from and what is their origin, therefore you cannot just assume ppl who spoke a certain language what their origins are. So the statement that the Bulgars are turkic nomads is simply not a correct first sentence to describe them in a national wide website. There are no certain proof as I said from any researcher, scholar or anyone that can show the origins of the Bulgars. 95.103.11.6 (talk) 12:00, 11 July 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 07:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Indo-European, Finno-Ugric and Hunnic?

This article said that the "Bulgars absorbed Indo-European, Finno-Ugric and Hunnic tribes".

The "Indo-European" language family is a mere hypothesis, and in this case refers only to Iranians. Finno-Ugric is a linguistic group, and Hunnic is a specific people/language.

It would be the same as saying that "Americans absorbed Nostratic, Celtic and Italians". It is not nescessarily wrong, but it is unnecessarily confusing and can lead to misinterpretations.

JebelAqra (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

IE is a "hypothesis"?? -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.0.129 (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Dear Editors,

As continuation of "Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021 (3)" where the editor wanted clear specification of what to be changed and a reliable sources I would like to provide those with this post. Quote "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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)"

Please change: "The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic" to "The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Western Eurasian"

As already mentioned many times that the Turkic origin of the Bulgarians is just an old theory from the beginning of 20th century and that there is a lot of new official scientific evidence and as it was requested to provide reliable sources below I'm providing such with explanation.

Sources: 1. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol_preprints/69/ Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians Above is an official scientific study published by Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.

2. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056779 Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry Above is official study published and peer-reviewed based on official international project with main studies performed in Italy, EU.

3. https://www.academia.edu/43735252/Archaeological_and_genetic_data_suggest_Ciscaucasian_origin_for_the_Proto_Bulgarians https://www.academia.edu/39761426/Genetic_evidence_suggests_relationship_between_contemporary_Bulgarian_population_and_Iron_Age_steppe_dwellers_from_Pontic_Caspian_steppe_bioRxiv_preprint_doi_https_doi_org_10_1101_687384 Above are listed official studies performed very recently, published, peer-reviewed and based on projects between Duke University, Harvard and National Archaeological Institute with Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

I hope this is more than enough evidence and sources to edit the page according to the recent international scientific studies.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Genetic evidence "suggesting" something in preprint is not enough sourcing to overcome current sourcing and consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: Quote "Genetic evidence "suggesting" something in preprint is not enough sourcing to overcome current sourcing and consensus." I have to correct the editor and myself here - the listed papers are not all preprint. Providing explanation and correct links below:

1. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol/vol87/iss1/1/ https://shop.prod.wayne.edu/wsupjournals/wsupjournals/humbiol/human-biology-back-issues/human-biology-volume-87-number-1-winter-2015.html Citation DataHuman Biology, ISSN: 0018-7143, Vol: 87, Issue: 1 Publication Year 2015 This is clearly a published paper.

2. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056779 Published: March 6, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056779 Peer-reviewed and published too.

3. https://www.academia.edu/43735252/Archaeological_and_genetic_data_suggest_Ciscaucasian_origin_for_the_Proto_Bulgarians Papers of BAS Humanities and Social Sciences Vol. 6, 2019, No. 1 Published paper too.

So now I have provided you with links for the published papers and removed the two links with the preprint. Genetics is also a very precise science with clear and strict results and therefore the provided results and papers cannot be commented or refuted unless proven otherwise by relevant scientific research. Unless you can provide such scientific research stating something else I fully insist of you accepting my request and editing the page.

Again, please establish a consensus for this change. Looking at talk page it's clear this is contentious, so an edit request should not be opened until consensus exists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I fully agree with you that looking at the talk page it is clear this is contentious. So until a consensus is established I would like to request the following change:

Please change: "The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic..." to "The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were semi-nomadic warrior tribes of disputed origin..." If it is disputed you cannot leave it like that as it is confusing the whole world as you will be providing unconfirmed and disputed information. I think this request is fair for both editors and readers.

Oppose, because this fringe theory is presented in the article. Jingiby (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Closing request while under discussion. Remember to change the answered no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Quote: "Oppose, because this fringe theory is presented in the article." - It is not presented well enough as well as the rest of the main theories in existence (Iranian, Thracian). The text clearly says "Bulgars were Turkic" which is not fair representation and this is not the scientific way. If the topic is disputed as you clearly agree then make it such in reality. One more important thing - because of your apparent refusal to accept other scientific data and opinions and to present them fairly in this site an official signal to the Prosecutor's office of Republic of Bulgaria has been made. What is this? Few people will hold a whole country's history hostage, because they say so. Correct your ways immediately.

 Note: Requestor blocked for legal threats. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Questions

Good Afternoon Editors,

I want to question two things on the article and hopefully understood and maybe get fixed.

First is the : Another theory linking the Bulgars to a Turkic people of Inner Asia has been put forward by Boris Simeonov, who identified them with the Pugu (僕骨; buk/buok kwət; Buqut), a Tiele and/or Toquz Oguz tribe. In the source section there is absolutely no evidence of reliable source to back this statement of the Prof. Simeonov. I want to know which of his work/book was used to be implemented in the article and also if its in English , if its a book the ISBN will be appreciated. However I have read his work and his conclusion is slightly different, which does not add anything here because its in his mother language. If no source can be forwarded, I trust the editors to make the necessary changes of that part. Second thing is : The Bulgars spoke a Turkic language, i.e. Bulgar language of Oghuric branch. Based on this source : However the linguistic impact of the Iranian world on the Turkic Bulgars is indisputable. For instance the name of the founder of Danubian Bulgaria was Asparukh, which is old Iranian in origin: "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", Hyun Jin Kim, Cambridge University Press, 2013, ISBN 1107009065, p. 68. I believe mentioning Turkic before Bulgar in the sentence is miss leading, since the language have different roots then the Turkic of Oghuric branch. If the Turkic either be moved or removed will be better understanding for the readers since the Bulgar part is a link to the language article and can be read there if reader is interested. I hope you can find time to discuss this with me. Thank you!

Regards Nikolay.rusev (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur, any reason of the revert ? Did you even notice my objections and the reason of the edit? If you have not please provide your statement of defending that part of the article and please consider my objections. Not sure why you reverting without stating anything. Regards Nikolay.rusev (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, please Симеонов, Б. Прабългарска ономастика, Пловдив, 2008,( Simeonov , Boris “Prabylgarska Onomastika” , Plovdiv ,2008 ) Is the work of the professor which have different conclusion if you compare it in the article. If you have not read the book or not willing to do so, first you are not following Wikipedia way of work and second you are dishonoring prof Simeonov work by saying that this is his hypothesis. Either change what its said in the article or completely remove because it has no reliable source to back it. Thank you. Regards

Nikolay.rusev (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't understand, why no response if something is being requested on this article

Many things to say regarding this article is that some of the sources are taken credit for,another not and the whole article seems a little bit contradicting with follow up articles. This article begins with clear statement the Bulgars are semi-nomadic turkic people, coming from Central Asia. ( I am not here to dispute origins ) If we follow up with the article to the Origins, we see that the origins of the Bulgars are unclear and not able to be traced prior 4th century AD. This being said, its assumed they are already turkic but first sentence of the article says they are what they are. If we follow up with the Book of Sui , also mentioned in the article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_migration , we can find the following :

The Book of Sui mentions only tribes which were not part a part of the First Turkic Khaganate.[18] There was not a unified expansion of Turkic tribes. Peripheral Turkic peoples in the Göktürk Empire like the Bulgars and even central ones like the Oghuz and Karluks migrated autonomously with migrating traders, soldiers and townspeople.

With that being followed to the turkic migration , it seems like the Bulgars themselves indentified themselves different then the turkic Empire, so they migrated and kept calling themselves differently. Conclusion, The roots and origins of these people were hard to trace prior 4cn AD , they self-indentified themselves differently from the source Book of Sui, but we have clear sentence calling them turkic. Will give an example, if an American indentify himself American, but his roots are from Germany, from the bigger picture, he is german, it doesn't change the fact of his roots with where he lives. It will be similar also if an American with unknown roots (unknown origin) he is american with unknown roots(I am looking for such neutrality in this article) That being said the Bulgars were in a empire where they refused to be in and called the same. I believe thats a quiet enough evidence to clear this article of this sentence. For a neutral reader as me when I followed up the first article, this is not clearly understandable, If the roots of this tribe were unclear and not able to be traced, I believe a more neutral opening of this article should be done. I suggest instead:

X: 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.

Y:The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were semi-nomadic turkic speaking tribes that flourished in the Pontic Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolay.rusev (talk • contribs) 11:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot of mistakes, outdated information and bias, needs a lot more work

Hello, I have made a few changes but there are a lot of other mistakes, I hope someone reads more on the subject and continues improving the article without a political bias. There are so many sources on the subject from foreign and Bulgarian scientists. If someone is interested, he/she may start from these scientific works. There is a lot of political bias on the subject which attracts a lot of factual mistakes and  intolerability to change opinions according to the new research that has been done on the subject.

https://www.academia.edu/50741981/The_debate_about_the_origin_of_Protobulgarians_in_the_beginning_of_the_21st_century

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3

https://www.academia.edu/49103702/Significant_Z_4_admixture_signal_with_a_source_from_ancient_Wusun_observed_in_contemporary_Bulgarians

https://www.academia.edu/30769850/Genes_found_in_archaeological_remains_of_the_ancient_population_of_the_Balkans

Please, someone make the rest of the changes using the latest data and research and not outdated and disproved theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careful information (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, there is nothing new about this Bulgarian view. That problem has been analyzed in the text. It has been disputed many times here on the talk. However here is not the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Just read carefully the text from the article: Among Bulgarian academics, notably Petar Dobrev, a hypothesis linking the Bulgar language to the Iranian languages (Pamir) has been popular since the 1990s. Most proponents still assume an intermediate stance, proposing certain signs of Iranian influence on a Turkic substrate. The names Asparukh and Bezmer from the Nominalia list, for example, were established as being of Iranian origin. Other Bulgarian scholars actively oppose the "Iranian hypothesis". According to Raymond Detrez, the Iranian theory is rooted in the periods of anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated. Since 1989, anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of the proto-Bulgars' Turkic origin. Alongside the Iranian or Aryan theory, there appeared arguments favoring an autochthonous origin. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

All the sources presented above are by Bulgarian researchers. Their position is clarified in the article, but it contradicts the prevailing international consensus and is not leading. Therefore, please stop trying to impose it in the introduction. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You are favouring a biased view of history and the view of Turkish politics in Bulgaria, please stop reverting the edit. Thanks. Careful information (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is based on reliable sources. Please, reach a consensus at talk before making further disruptive editiong. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This article was updated with reliable sources and you are changing it. This will result in you losing your editing rights. Careful information (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is the view that you support the current view on the page? What makes your opinion superior? I immediately request the change of the page. I have contacted Wikipedia and your undesirability to change based on the scientific links would be looked at. Careful information (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is quite old and this is the view that has prevailed over the years here. There have been many discussions, but the view of the Bulgarian scientists is not accepted as a leading opinion in the world science. Please present scientific publications from world universities that strongly support the Bulgarian view you espouse here. If you do not have such sources, comply with the current situation. The Bulgarian view is presented according to its weight in the world scientific consensus. Thanks. --Jingiby (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Just because an article is old, that doesn't mean it shouldn't change. I have already presented a scientific publication with the participation of Italian scientists. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/ Careful information (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the findings of the Italian scientists, I have used books from leading turkologists. Careful information (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This is one Bulgarian primary source. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources. Look for example at: Bayazit Yunusbayev et al., „The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia.“ PLoS Genetics 11:4 (21 April 2015): "The Chuvash received their Turkic ancestry around the year 816, according to its admixture analysis in S4 Table. This ancestry stems from the region of South Siberia and Mongolia. They are also related to nearby non-Turkic peoples. [...] Chuvashes, the only extant Oghur speakers showed an older admixture date (9th century) than their Kipchak-speaking neighbors in the Volga region. According to historical sources, when the Onogur-Bulgar Empire (northern Black Sea steppes) fell apart in the 7th century, some of its remnants migrated northward along the right bank of the Volga river and established what later came to be known as Volga Bulgars, of which the first written knowledge appears in Muslim sources only around the end of the 9th century. Thus, the admixture signal for Chuvashes is close to the supposed arrival time of Oghur speakers in the Volga region. [...]". Also this conclusion about modern Bulgarians: Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE."Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

~2 to 4% is too little to say that the whole group is turkic. Many other European people have such genetic traces due to hunnic migrations that reached modern day Germany, if not beyond. Either the Bulgars are called "a mix of different groups" or not turkic because the view isn't supported by modern science. Careful information (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah we don't rely on wp:or. Beshogur (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You say we shouldn't listen to any Bulgarian scientists yet your nationality is Turkish and one might ask why we should listen to you. Careful information (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm why? Beshogur (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if most of the scientific articles are written by Bulgarians or not because even the well established foreign authors use Bulgarian works in their citations. There is a new leading theory and it is supported by Italian scientists as well, I have shared a link. Since the old theory doesn't reflect the truth, the wikipedia article should be changed. You can't expect forrign authors to know more about Bulgarian history than Bulgarians themselves. Genetic research cannot be biased or political, it is reflecting factual data and the truth here is the data shows that even Proto-Bulgarians and turkic tribes are not related. Careful information (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE. Not worthy to reply. Out of mainstream view. Beshogur (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Careful information, there is any new theory, but a fringe view of Bulgarian scientists, that is more then 30 years old, which has not been accepted widely. It is included in this article. The DNA study you have posted is Bulgarian, not Italian and is not a new, but out of date - more then 10 years old. It is also a primary source, i.e. not reliable source. Please do not comment on the nationality of the editors. If you do not reach a consensus here, as at the moment, you cannot impose your views in this article. In this case you should look for alternative methods that are indicated in the warning notes on your personal talk page. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, from now on I will kindly ask you to not comment on the nationality of the reasearchers because nationality bias isn't a logical argument for not accepting the truth. Archeological findings and linguistics are highly flawed methods of evaluating ethnicity since the discovery of genetic research. That's why the Iranian theories are more supported nowadays, and these theories have been around for more than a century and not close to 30 years as you have stated. Foreign researchers rely on Bulgarian scientists to give them data since there they have the most archeological sites and genetic data on the Bulgars - in Bulgaria. I have contacted Wikipedia and they have told me that unless the dispute is settled here, I will have to raise the issue.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/

This is not a Bulgarian study. There is no mention of substantial turkic element in the Bulgarian genetic makeup. There is a slavic group mixed with other non-turkic one.

"When we consider the composition of sources from within West Eurasia, while the majority of a group’s ancestry tends to come from its own regional area, there is a substantial contribution of both Northern European (light and dark blue) and Armenian groups (light green) to most WA, EC, WC, and TK clusters, as well as some clusters from both SEE and SCE. As previously reported, the formation of the Slavic people at around 1000 CE had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals." Careful information (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's still unclear what you're trying to push here. Most scholars, ie mainstream agrees on Bulgars' Turkic origin, and fringe view of some Bulgarian historians are mentioned as well. No Bulgars are not Iranian people as you're trying to push on the article. Beshogur (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Please, remain civil and don't use words as "push" when I am trying to improve an article with the latest data. Bulgars are Iranian people and this is a fact. I have shared the findings of western researchers and you still are unwilling to change your opinion, you don't leave me much of a choice than to resort to some other ways to solve this issue, ways recommended by the Wikipedia community. Greetings. Careful information (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure removing quotes of notable historians like Golden and adding Dobrev to this isn't improving at all. Your first source, p. 177 doesn't even say they're Iranian. I would suggest reading wp:or, wp:fringe. Beshogur (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing old data and adding updated one is improving. My first source says they're Iranian. "The research carried in this study, combining written

sources, archaeological data and DNA research, brings the debate about the origin of Protobulgarians onto another level by identifying their Ciscaucasian “cradle” and thus – theirSarmatian-Caucasian origin, similar to this of Caucasian Alans." I would suggest reading about the Iranian tribes (Sarmatian and Alan included). Greetings. Careful information (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

And for the study I shared, it's posted in 2013 and is not outdated at all, it's not older than 10 years, look again. And it is done in cooperation with Italian scientists. Thanks. Careful information (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Careful information, preprint sources shouldn't be cited until peer reviewed and published; Avant-garde Research of Ancient Bulgarians doesn't seem like a reliable journal and Yavor Shopov graduated (astro)physics while Todor Chobanov graduated archaeology, both aren't experts on population genetics. Will highlight the most important sentence from Shopov's 2021 book: "Regretfully no DNA data from rich Protobulgarian graves is available at present (for examplethe Kabiuk grave circa 700) and we could not check the existing theories that there were various ethnicities amongst the elite (Turks, Ugrians, Sarmatians), but future research should address this issue". However, will check the genetics section and maybe something can be added there.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Nesheva is a geneticist and the informatian is published in her research. Todor Chobanov graduated archaeology and is PhD. Archeology is crucial in evaluating ehnicities and their origins when it is done along DNA research. Chobanov is not a geneticist but he cites world renowned geneticists like Garrett Hellenthal and George B J Busby. Even in the article itself it says that the origin is disputed, I recommend an edit in which the Bulgars are of mixed ethnicity or not turkic at all since the latest data confirms this. Greetings. Careful information (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bulgars were Turkic tribes. There were no genetically pure tribes anywhere. Their language, culture and beliefs were Turkic and this is generally accepted everywhere except by some researchers in Bulgaria. Such a one-sided fringe view cannot used to change the intro of the article.Jingiby (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bulgars were not Turkic tribes. Their language, culture and beliefs were not Turkic, their calendar wasn't Turkic as well. What is accepted outside of Bulgaria is that they were a mixture of different ethnicities. This is not a one-sided fringe view and it can be used to change the intro of the article. Careful information (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

According to many reliable sources and experts on the topic their language, culture, beliefs and calendar were Turkic. In the article is already mentioned several times that they mixed and assimilated a mixture of different ethnicities.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Careful information, doesn't seem you understand well what's written in those scientific studies, but I've made an edit considering what's concluded in reliable sources and NPOV. However, it should be noted that we are dealing with a steppe nomadic federation which assimilated diverse tribes and ethnic groups. It is highly dubious even controversial to claim anything for sure without any ancient DNA and even then if there's lack of sample size. Nesheva's conclusion did include, but isn't based on ancient DNA. Only because Altaic-Turkic Y-DNA haplogroups are present in very minimal frequency in modern Bulgarians doesn't mean Proto-Bulgarian elite wasn't partly, significantly or even majorly composed of Altaic-Turkic anthropology. Take for example recent comprehensive genetic studies of Proto-Hungarians i.e. Hungarian elite. The most probable scenario is that when Proto-Bulgarians arrived they already were a very mixed group of people with some leading clans of Turkic ancestry which elite didn't left enough genetic trace in modern Bulgarians.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

As I have stated above the Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History's conclusion about Bulgarians and their Bulgar legacy is different. Hellenthal has the opposite opinion to that of Karachanak, claiming only the negligible Northeast Asiatic genetic signal among the Bulgarians might correspond to the whole DNA impact left from the invasions of the Turkic Bulgars. I am going to add this conclusion too. Miki Filigranski you are free to correct my edit if something is going wrong. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong, that's exactly what pointed out. Good edit and think with it the section is neutral enough.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand perfectly everything written in those scientific studies. You say we can't speak of pure ethnicity when we talk about a federation, so why aren't you supporting my suggestion to write "tribes of mixed ethnicities" and then add the few ethnicities? Even if a small part of the elite was turkic, it doesn't mean the whole ethnicity is because it is not. I suggest we write "a mixture" or "unconfirmed", "disputed", etc. Do you agree? Careful information (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the tribes had a distinctive ethnic identity and such identity goes beyond biology. In the article the topic of mixing with other groups is already mentioend and explained. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

No, this is not true. This is what PhD Alex M. Feldman from the university of Birmingham says:

"Caspian Eurasia with the greatest care. It also means that a given “people” such as the Volga Bulgars or the Danube Bulgars, Rus’, Magyars or even the Khazars themselves were not so much a single migrating “tribe” or even a “tribal confederation” of peoples, as is often presented, 150 so much as conquering elite minorities imposing vassalage, tribute and possibly some form of monotheism on various populations along the way."

(Ethnicity and Statehood in Pontic-Caspian Eurasia (8-13th c.): Contributing to a Reassessment)

The tribes had a destinctive Iranian ethnic identity but I offered a way that is also scientifically backed up. It should be either "mixed" or "Iranian". Greetings. Careful information (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this is simply WP:Civil POV pushing at this point. Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I love how Bulgarian scholarship desperately tries to play up the Sarmatian/Alan hypothesis, doing anything to avoid connection with Turkic and Siberian elements that are patently at least partly there. They just can't handle being connected to them. Word dewd544 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Note! User "Careful Information" blocked as a sock in April ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.27 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User "Careful Information" isn't blocked as a sock in April. Careful information (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Check the User Page for this user. "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of PavelStaykov (talk · contribs · logs).Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. "

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022

Bulgarian historians believe that the ancient Bulgarians spoke a language that is from a different group compared to today's Bulgarian. Some researchers attribute the speech of our ancestors to the Turkic languages, and others to the Iranian ones. None of the two groups of specialists explain the mystery: Why is there not a single Turkic or Iranian word in the entire Old Bulgarian equestrian terminology?

Neither кон - horse nor кобила, жребец, седло, юзда, стреме, лък, тулъ (колчан), стрела, тетива, острие, яздя, ездач - mare, stallion, saddle, bridle, stirrup, bow, quiver, arrow, string, blade, ride, rider, etc. do not belong to the Turkic or Iranian linguistic wealth. On the other hand, in the Thracian onomastics we find Kone, Kobilatus, tula-, Uzdika, Asdul, Ezdikaya, etc., but this apparently does not affect anyone. It is as if there is a taboo that any connection between the old Bulgarians and the local Balkan population should be avoided. Even if we did not have the Thracian words indicating that the Bulgarian equestrian terminology is of Balkan origin, the scholars were well aware of what a serious problem the complete lack of Iranian or Turkic terms was, and of course this was not shared either with the students or with the general public . 73.211.25.167 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Этимология Etymology

In Russia , it is considered by some linguists that Oghur (ogur) from the Turkic word: ökü+z - w+ogu+r - b+uqa - bulls (oghuz<chuvash<kipchak<english). Among the Greeks, this form was mentioned in the forms: "onogundur" and "hunugundur". From Chinese "gundur" this 公牛 - gōng niú - Bull. Hun gōng niú - ten bulls! The very first mention of the Bulgarians was at the beginning of the 3rd century and appear in Chinese chronicles in the form: "the five parts of xiongnu" (hunnu, huns), when General Cao Cao (died 216) of the Wei Empire ruled. Bull ancient times, the Turks had a totemic animal personifying power and strength, from him the Turks have the title bogatyr, which means knight and translates as a strong bull.

Comparison with Turkic languages In the VIII—X centuries in Central Asia, the ancient Turkic script (the Orkhon-Yenisei runic script) was used for writing in Turkic languages. Turkic epitaphs of VII-IX AD were left by speakers of various dialects (table): Often in the Chuvash language, the Turkic sounds -j- (oghuz), -d- (uighur), -z- (kipchak) are replaced by -r- (oghur), example rotacism: Words in the Turkic languages: leg, put- j - language (Oguz): ajaq, qoj- d - language (Uyghur): adaq, qod- z - language (Kypchak): azaq, qoz- r - language (Oghur): urah, hor- Often in the Chuvash language, the Turkic sound -q- is replaced by -h-, example hitaism : Words in Turkic languages: black, goose, girl, zucchini Oghuz, kipchaks: qara, qaz, qyz, qabaq Oghur: hora, hor, hĕr, hopah The -h- sound disappears and disappears if it is the last letter . Dudaq - Tota - Lips instead of Totah Ayaq - Ora - Leg instead of Orah Baliq - Polă - Fish instead of Polăh Ineq - Ĕne - Cow instead of Ĕneh Turkic sound -j- (oguz) and -ž- (kipchaks) is replaced by chuvash -ş-, example: Words in Turkic languages: egg, snake, rain, house, earth Oghuz: jumurta, jylan, jagmur, jort, jez (turk., azerb., tat.,) Kipchaks: žumurtka, žylan, žamgyr, žort, žer (kyrgyz., kazakh.) Oghur: şămarta, şĕlen, şămăr, şort, şĕr The Turkic sound -š- is replaced by the Chuvash -L-, example lambdaism: Words in Turkic languages: winter, silver, sun Oghuz, Kipchaks: qyš, qemeš, qoyaš Oghur: hĕl, qӗmӗl, hĕvel In the field of vowels, we observe the following correspondences: the common Turkic -a- in the first syllable of the word in Chuvash correspond to -o-. Words in Turkic languages: horse, coin, head, step Oghuz, Kipchaks: at, akça, baš, adym Oghur: ot, okşa, poş, otăm In the field of vowels, G. F. Miller observes another example when -u- is replaced by -wo- or -wă- Words in Turkic languages: fire, ten, forest, russian, he, thirty, bull Kipchaks: оt, оn, оrman, orus, ol, оtyz, buqa Oghur: wot, won, wărman, wyrăs, wăl, wătăr, wogur Oghuz: ut, un, urman, urus, ul, utyz, öküz Oghur (dialects): wut, wun, wărman, wyrăs, wăl, wătăr, wăgăr The fricative -g- in some words in Chuvash corresponds to -v- Words in Turkic languages: native, mountain Oghuz: tugan, dag Oghur: tăvan, tov

The word Oghur (ogur) is translated as bull. In the modern Chuvash language it has the form of both a "Wogur" (riding dialect) and "Wăgăr" (grassroots dialect). By analogy with the ethnonym Oguz, where the word "öküz" is translated from Turkish and Azerbaijani as bull. OghuZ = OghuR = Bull (rhotacism) Z -> R. Other ethnonyms such as Utigurs, Kutrigurs,Hungarians and Bulgars also originate from Oghur (ogur). The name Ut(r)igur, recorded as Οὺτ(τ)ρίγουροι, Οὺτούργουροι and Οὺτρίγου, is generally considered as a metathesized form suggested by Gyula Németh of Turkic *Otur-Oğur, thus the *Uturğur mean "Thirty Oğurs (tribes)". Golden, Peter B. (2011). Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes.

Ut(r)igur - *Otur-Oğur - *Uturğur mean "Thirty Oğurs (tribes)"

Kutrigurs - kutri oghur - Kotrag tribes (From the Chuvash language , the name Kotrag means curly) Kotrag was according to Nikephoros I of Constantinople a son of Kubrat of the Dulo clan of Bulgars. The Chronicle of Michael the Great calls him Kazarig. Following the death of his father, he began to extend the influence of his Bulgars to the Volga River. He is remembered as the founder of Volga Bulgaria. Khan Kotrag, the leader of the Kutrigurs, came to the Volga and founded Volga Bulgaria, where there were five Ogur tribes: Kutrigurs, Suvars, Askil, Barsil and Barangar. Ibn Fadlan's notes say that the prince of Suvar was Virag.

Saragurs — Sara oghur - white oghur tribe

Onogurs - Hungarians - hun oghur - ten oghur tribes: On ogur (lat. Ungari, gr. Οὑγγρικός, Οὖγγροι, fre. hongroi(s), rus.wenger, belorus.wugorac, sl. vogr, pol. węgier, węgrzyn, lit.veñgras)

Bulgars - bul oghur - five oghur tribes: Bul ogur (gr. Βούλγαροι)

The word "five" in the Volga Bulgarian language is found on the epitaph of the Volga Bulgarians in the text as: "tarikha şeti şur byul şol" — "the length of the seven hundred and fifth year" — where the بول "bul" is "five". Nowadays, in the modern Chuvash language, which is a continuation of the Volga Bulgarian language, the word five is still written as "pil", unlike the typically Turkic "bish", this is due to Chuvash Lambdaism: SH -> L (qyš - hĕl, qemeš - qӗmӗl, qoyaš - hĕvel). The tribes of the Bulgars are often mentioned in the chronicles: Kutrigurs, Suvar, Аskil, Bersula and Barangar. Among the Greeks, this form was mentioned in the forms: "onogundur" and "hunugundur". From Chinese "gundur" this 公牛 - gōng niú - Bull. Hun gōng niú - ten bulls! The very first mention of the Bulgarians was at the beginning of the 3rd century and appear in Chinese chronicles in the form: "the five parts of xiongnu" (hunnu, huns), when General Cao Cao (died 216) of the Wei Empire ruled. The etymology of the ethnonym Bulgar was given more than a hundred years ago by the Hungarian linguist Munkachi Bernat: Bulgar — "five Ugrians". We remind you that Hungarians call themselves Magyars. Bull ancient times, the Turks had a totemic animal personifying power and strength, from him the Turks have the title bogatyr, which means knight and translates as a strong bull. Here are the Turkic words: turk. Boğa, tat. Bug, alt. Buka, orekh-yeniseisk Buqa, chuv. Wăgăr, bulg. Oghur. In some non-Turkic languages , the root of this word is the same: byk (Rus.), bike (Hungarian), boq (oset.), boqe (Persian). The word Bogatyr " is also known in the forms: bahadur, bator, batyr (batyr), batur, bootur, bahadir, pattar, Mong. bayatur, et al.-Turk. bagatur — hero, brave warrior — an honorary title among the Mongolian and Turkic peoples for military services, attached to the name (for example, Subedei-bagatur, Yesugei-bagatur) — "hero", "valiant warrior".

Grousset thought that the Kutrigurs were remnants of the Huns, Procopius recounts: in the old days many Huns, called then Cimmerians, inhabited the lands I mentioned already. They all had a single king. Once one of their kings had two sons: one called Utigur and another called Kutrigur. After their father's death they shared the power and gave their names to the subjected peoples, so that even nowadays some of them are called Utigurs and the others - Kutrigurs.

They occupied the Tanaitic-Maeotic (Don-Azov) steppe zone, the Kutrigurs in the Western part and the Utrigurs towards the East. This story was also confirmed by the words of the Utigur ruler Sandilch: It is neither fair nor decent to exterminate our tribesmen (the Kutrigurs), who not only speak a language, identical to ours, who are our neighbours and have the same dressing and manners of life, but who are also our relatives, even though subjected to other lords". The outstanding Russian historian, ethnographer and geographer of the XVII century V.N. Tatishchev in his "History of Russia" states: "Down the Volga River, the Chuvash, ancient Bulgarians, filled the entire county of Kazan and Simbirsk!" He also noted; "Down the Kama lived Bilyars, or Bulgarians, and Cholmats (the name of the Kama River in Chuvash)... now the remnants of their Chuvash, of which there are enough down the Volga", "The Bulgarian peoples of the Chuvash who left"; "the Bulgarians of the Volga predicate the same language with the Hungarians and the Danube Bulgarians from the same who came." He also wrote: "Their own name (Bulgar), according to Karpin, is seen as Bylers (Püleres), the Tatars call them "Buller". These Bulgarians were divided in two by the Russians: upper and lower." The Chuvash have a division into Upper (Viryal) and Lower (Anatri). It was only in 1863 that the Tatar scientist Huseyn Feyzkhanov solved the mysteries of the Bulgarian epitaphs and wrote "Three Bulgarian Tombstone Inscriptions", in which he presented to the scientific community the results of deciphering the Bulgarian epitaphs in Chuvash words. That is, Tatishchev at that time did not even know about this fact with the Bulgarian monuments, and H. Feyzkhanov only confirmed this fact about 200 years after Tatishchev's death. To date, many world linguists have unequivocally proved that the Chuvash language is a continuation of the Bulgarian-Ogur language. 90% of the epitaphs found on the territory of Volga Bulgaria and about 400 of them are written in the Oghur-Chuvash language. 176.52.111.23 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

First off - your post is far, far too long. Secondly, you are discussing the topic - this is NOT what the TP's are for. Third, you are bringing no Reliable Sources to the table for the improvement of the article. This is just a waste of time, otherwise. 50.111.25.27 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)