Talk:Bulgars

Ethnicity

The sentence beginning "Since the 6th to 8th centuries" is too complex and I do not understand it. Please break it into more than one sentence so it will be easier to read. Folklore1 (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In other words, "From 6th to 8th century is recorded distinctive Bulgars group of monuments, called Sivashovka, which are built upon several previous cultures. The late Sarmatian culture (2nd-4th century AD), the Penkovka culture of the Antes and Slavs (c. 2nd-6th century AD), and the Saltovo-Mayaki culture which had Alanic base (8th-10th century). The Saltovo-Mayaki culture beside Bulgars included Khazars, Magyars and Slavs. In the 10th century, the Saltovo-Mayaki type of settlements in Crimea were destroyed by the Pechengs".--Crovata (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Were the Sivashovka monuments built upon the ruins of several previous cultures, or were they built by several previous cultures? Folklore1 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have revised it to "upon the ruins". Folklore1 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The sentence beginning "Since the 6th to 8th centuries" is confusing and ungrammatical. I placed a "clarification needed" tag rather than trying to change it, because I do not know what the sentence is trying to tell us. Folklore1 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Revised to clarify. Folklore1 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Anthropology and genetics

See "Golden noted that whatever of the theories regarding Turkic initial homeland". I'm not sure what this phrase means and how it is related to the rest of the sentence. Folklore1 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Revised to clarify. Folklore1 (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A mistake is detected in the following sentence: Haplogroups common in the Middle East (J-M172, J-M267, and G-M201) and in South Western Asia (R-L23*) occur at frequencies of 19% and 5%, respectively. Haplogroups C, N and Q together occur at the negligible frequency of only 1.5% among Bulgars.[137] Tle last word must to be changed to Bulgarians. Please, change it. Thanks. 78.159.147.70 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Redundant references

In paragraphs containing multiple citations to the same reference, I have deleted all but a single link at the end of the paragraph. It is not necessary to cite a reference at the end of each sentence when it supports the entire paragraph. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Where multiple links to one reference were interspersed with links to other references, I left the links intact to distinguish from the other references, although maybe some of these should also have been moved to the end of the paragraph. Folklore1 (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Bulgar language was Hunnic language

Redundant thread: see Bulgar language.

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)

This article is a complete lie!As an official member of the bulgarian elite society I deny it and demand its removal immediatly!

For anyone who wants to contact me:I live in Bulgaria ciry of Asenovgrad zip code 4230, district Plovdiv.My email is jordanelektronika@gmail.com.I will provide all other information needed for this article to be remove and all claims that Bulgarians originated from the turks to be dropped permanently!I demand no such articles are ever submitted again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanelektronika (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the truth!Bulgarians have nothing to do with the turks!After 5 centuries of slavery the turks were finaly pushed off with the help of the russians-official bulgarian history record as the russian-turkis war!Some people are making false claims which is angering our counrty to immense levels!

OK, Bulgaria has always been a playground of bigger more economically stable countries and as a result often falling as a victim of propaganda about the origin of its people. Hence I will like to clarify a few things based on number of facts that have NOTHING to do with my own bias.

1. Bulgarians are NOT slavs. 2. A direct connection between bulgarians and the huns is very likely. 3. Bulgarians aren't so homogenous and are closely associated to countries nearby with the exception of Romania, but have in common with serbia, macedonia and even Greece.

Some History:

1. First contacts of the Bulgarians with Europe:

The very first time when they are mentioned as such dates back to the Roman Empire when a roman historian writes in 354 CE that the Bulgars are successors of the Jews and...Noah . This is the source:

Ziezi Ziezi

While someone will suggest that the 'Vulgares' word implies also a common offensive description of barbarians by the romans, the author is indeed using it here to define a specific group of people and not insult bulgarians as "vulgar" - as he suggests that the Vulgares occupy western Asia and mostly all historic theories today associate bulgarians to Asian origin.

In addition, in 2011 a comprehensive DNA study was conducted by the bulgarian academy of science to determine a possible origin of the bulgarian people and the study also suggested a minimal African influence actually. So...a very possible theory is that people from Africa migrated to Israel, then to Asia and then back to Europe....

2. The Hunno-Bulgar connection:

Due to lack of sources about a Jewish-African ancestry of the bulgars - it will be hard to investigate such claims further so for now we will focus on later periods in history. A russian scientist discovered what is known to be the earliest document about the Bulgar monarchs("Immenik na bulgarskite hanove") and there the very first Bulgar ruler is called 'Avitohol' and his son Irnik. Some people suggest Irnik is the same person as of the Attila's sons:

Ernakh Ernakh

In addition to that many other signs points a possible connection: Cranial deformation, similar burials, similar weapons, having the barbaric tradition to make wine glasses from enemy's skulls, same religion (Tengrism), similar looks (dark asian eyes, black hair).

The bulgarian symbol of the Dulo clan also uses most likely Hunnic yerogliphs:

Click the image to open in full size.

This map also gives a good idea about the later Hunnic migrations:

Click the image to open in full size.

3. Antrolopologic studies that confirm an Asian non-turkic origin of bulgaria and reject the slavic origin:

Time for some biology :

The approximate distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups among the Bulgarian people runs as follows: 16% E1b1b 1% G2a 3% I1 20% I2a 1% I2b 20% J2 1% Q 18% R1a 18% R1b 1% T Here are mtDNA haplogroups found among Bulgarians: 38% H (of which 10% are in the subclades H1 and H3 combined) 10% J 6.5% T 20% U (of which 10% are in U3, 6.5% in U4, and 3.5% in U5) 13% K 6% X2 6.5% other haplogroups

As you can see the most prevailant are H and U - both of which lead us to western asia or present day Iran but NOT Turkey. E1b1b origin is considered to be Africa. J has origin of most likely east asia and X2 to Iran.

I2a is the only slavic element here constituting for just 20% of the bulgarian population. It is believed to have originated in Finland, or north Russia. This probably gives the light eyes and or light hair to some bulgarians.

Interestingly the R1 hablougroups make 1/3 of the bulgarian population today and they originated....in Bulgaria. So, this seriously challenges the idea that the Thracians were extinct when the Bulgars arrived. It's quite possible that great deal of the Thracians in fact mixed with the nomads withotu any wars, contrary to popular hypothesis that the Thracian were extinct before the Bulgar arrived.

Problems:

Some of the problems still remain the very origin of the name Bulgaria. Does it come from the Volga river? Does it come from the Latin Bulga ("bag, wallet"?). Does it come from the Turkish verb meaning to "mix" to "shake"? Another problem is the extinction of the Thracian as well as well as why do the Bulgars adopted Slavic language so easily as well as the orthodox religion. The Bulgar fought viciously with the Genghis khan mongols which slightly challenges the Mongolian-hunnic heritage.

Conclusion:

While it can't be confirmed with 100% certainty it's most likely the "bulgars" tens of thousands of years ago were inhabiting Africa, as africa sometimes is considered as the the birthplace of humans overall - this is not very 'shocking' as we all come from there perhaps... Then they later migrated to present day Israel and Syria and possible to have been some of the early inhabitants of Israel during the old testament (fun fact: John the Baptist remains were found in Bulgaria: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...cience-higham/) After Israel the Bulgarians most likely headed to present day Ukraine and Russia around the Volga river.Then they probably mixed with the Attila's huns and moved back to present day Bulgaria and Hungary. This view ^ should reject all theories about significant Slavic influence, as well as they suggest no gallic, nor gothic, nor frank, celtic influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanelektronika (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the phenomenon of ignorance of their own history, a chauvinist view and total misunderstanding of the term "Turks" or "Slavs", depending on the POV certain editors write, and lack of acceptance and understanding what modern scholarship generally considers, seeks serious reflection or warning for those editors and readers, that due to lack of knowledge, could come under their influence.--Crovata (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As this article, along with the reliable sources used to source the article, deals quite openly, neutrally, and fairly with the uncertainty of the ethnicity and origin of the Bulgars, I suspect that Jordanelektronika has perhaps been distracted by some aspects of the article that may be worth paying attention to. While the Ethnicity and Turkic migration sections do explain the uncertainty, and explain why, and put forward the theories of the Bulgars' origin and ethnicity, the lead says quite authoritatively: "The Bulgars ... were semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic extraction", and the first history sub-section is titled Turkic migration; this would give casual readers (who are apparently the overwhelming majority of visitors to Wikipedia, often spending five minutes or less on an article which would require a good reader around 35 minutes of solid attention, resulting - even then - in only approximately 65% comprehension on first reading: Wikipedia:Article size) the impression that Wikipedia is saying that Bulgars are of Turkish ethnicity. Along with that, the Ethnicity section is difficult to read easily, especially as the Anthropology and genetics sub-section appears to wander off topic into a wider discussion of the anthropology of Eurasian steppe tribes in general, so a casual, indeed, even a GA reviewer, may find the information difficult to assimilate. Put simply: the article doesn't make it clear enough that it is saying that current scholarship is uncertain about the ethnicity of the Bulgars, and that the traditional view that the origins were Turk is being replaced by consideration that the origins may be Hun, or a mix of Hun and Turk or even something more complex and obscure. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What I saw during past several months, and as is shown also by the amount of archived discussions, is not by accident. There's a substantial amount of people, mostly Bulgarians (and this concerns me), who do not have foreknowledge that is neutral and objective. Their knowledge and understanding of Bulgars and Bulgarians history, culture, language, also in general terms of ethnicity and genetics, and Eurasian steppe, is not critical and pretty confused. For example, editor Jordanelektronika does not recognize the difference between the terms Bulgars and Bulgarians, mentions some personal interpretations (Huns, genetics, Africa, Israel...) as facts. I wonder if people read with understanding, whether this is the result of his conclusion after reading the article, or even attitude towards Wikipedia credibility?

That is why the article is of such a size, to give the common readers the most relevant and reliable information possible in one place. That's why the whole "Ethnicity" section is there, it does not "wander off topic", yet it gives the perspective on Eurasian steppe peoples - all those tribes were heterogeneous mass with mixed ethnic origin. Those who we know as Bulgars, people who had a Turkic language, military titles and religion, were a ruling elite in minority. As such, we should not see the whole heterogeneous mass with the name of Bulgars as the elite Bulgars, that's the primal mistake which should not be done. The scholarship is very clear, the Bulgars because of their history, culture, language and religion belong to the group of Oghuric tribes, ie. Turkic tribes. The lead clearly says "semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic extraction... During their westward migration across the Eurasian steppe the Bulgars absorbed other ethnic groups and cultural influences, including Hunnic, Iranian and Indo-European". The Bulgars were not Huns, they among other became also a mix of the Huns and Turkic people, ie. in certain or gradual period of time they became a mix of Huns and the then heterogenous conglomerate of tribes ruled by the Bulgars.

However, the second and most often mistake is about the ethnic term Turk. Like in the comment of the editor above, some people mistake Turkic peoples with Turkish people. They misunderstand the term Turk in the sense of Bulgarian history during the time and conflicts with Ottoman Empire and Turkey. As noted in the "Language" section, "the Iranian theory is rooted in the periods of anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated". Another misunderstanding is how Turks were Mongoloids. There were found Mongoloid facial traits in some graves in Northern Bulgaria, but that does not mean that the Bulgars per se were Mongoloids. As a elite in minority perhaps some of them were, but maybe were absorbed Huns or some other tribes. Yet again, the facial traits are inclined to change, and only thing this indicates is their heterogeneity. However, recent genetic studies showed that Bulgarians, Volga Tatars, and Chuvash people, all historically related with the Bulgars, have negligible Asian-Altaic gene flow, while the Central Asian Turks extreme genetic heterogeneity. All this points that we cannot oversimplify things.--Crovata (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Untitled #4

This article is administered and edit by a bunch of turkish nationalists. Enough said. BS neo-turkic propaganda that has nothing to do with reality! wikipedia is full of rubbish, no wonder why. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/05/i-was-shaken-down-by-wikipedia-s-blackmail-bandits.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.265.301.254 (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled #5

This "article" is a complete joke, someone has mocked with the Bulgarian history in a very dishonest way. None of the administrators of this page is a Bulgarian, this joke of an article is written by a bunch of pro-russian idiots who have never set foot in Bulgaria, neither they've read a single history book! This turkic theory is proven wrong a hundred years ago, even the 2 "scientists" who created it have abandoned it and admitted that they were wrong. Shitopedia, excuse me - wikipedia, is forbidden to be quoted in academic publications, just because every average idiot with a basic computer skills can write such a crap. I suggest you to read this http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/05/i-was-shaken-down-by-wikipedia-s-blackmail-bandits.html Who do I have to pay to be able to edit the true history? Pro-russian separatism is deeply rooted in wikipedia, see, you don't have to read the whole article, I will summarize it to you - there are no Bulgarians, the Rus people are the master race, the modern Bulgarians are gypsys mixture of turks, slavs, and god knows who else, long live mother Russia and the true slavs - the rus! Pfff... you all that have locked this article are a bunch of pathetic tards, the truth can't be hidden you know. Nobody trusts your crappy wiki anymore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.145.462.166 (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled #6

I've spent years of my life researching the Bulgarian history. In the Bulgarian language there is no separation between bulgars/bulgarians - there is only one word and it is BULGARI. This article is a complete nonsense written for the purpose of serving russian imperialistic interests, it stinks of propaganda and lies. The russian anti-bulgarian propaganda started 200 years ago - currently in the russian federation live 20 000 000 people of direct bulgarian origin and the russians do not want to admit it because it would cause a threat to their empire if the bulgars decide to unite and make their own state. Simply said, the russian country lies on the fundamentals of the Bulgarian empire and the rus people do not want to admit it, if it wasn't for us, bulgars/bulgarians, who civilized and gave them culture and government system, the rus people would have been still living in holes in the ground like rats and praying to trees as we found them when we came to Europe. As I said, there's only bulgari, the whole idea that the modern bulgarians are not the same as the "bulgars" as you call them is not only absurd, but totally wrong as there's genetical analysis made and it is proven without any doubt that it's the same people, and they definitely were not "turks" neither they are now. Genetic traces trace the bulgars/bulgarians to the europoid populaiton of Eastern Iranian plateau - Afghanistan, Eastern Iran, Tajikistan, there's between 30-50% genetic confluence with some of the folks living there. There's absolutely no DNA confluence with the bulgars and the turkic population of central Asia. This article is biased and it's abusive to every bulgar, being it living in Bulgaria or in Russia. For example, the title of the bulgarian rulers were "Kanas Juvigi" which means "Ruler from the Stars/Gods" on the old Bulgarian language (which was NOT turkic), sometimes nowadays for the purpose of short speech pronounced simply as Kan - it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the mongolo-turkic title Khan! The bulgars were NEVER using the title Khan! There is not even one evidence of this! This article is selectively using obsolete and untrue information from the 19th century in a very deceptive way. There is something very bothering too - there are a few words that are frequently used in almost every sentence - "turk" and "mixed". It seems that whoever administers this article, is intentionally brainwashing the readers into believing that the bulgars are some primitive turkic gypsys who practised primitive shamanism which has nothing to do with reality. In fact, there were no shamans at all, I've studied the Tengriism and their shamanistic rituals, the bulgarian religious system was very complex and the sky deities were only a small part of it, very little in common. The term "turkic" is interchangeably used as both ethnical and linguistical classification on purpose to confuse the reader. Enough said. Read at your own risk of becoming disinformed and brainwashed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 623.243.721.634 (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC) 

genetic test are interpreted fraudulently

By author's logic Mexicans should be of Germanic origin because they share common haplogroup R1b with Germans ( Mexicans have it through their Spanish ancestors ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epnax (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Who were the Bulgars and should we read the sources as the Devil is reading the Bible ?

The origin of Bulgars is intimately related to a couple of post-Hunnic tribes documented in Roman, Greek and Byzantine sources, the two most important of them are Utigurs and Kutrigurs. It is without any doubt that these two tribes were Huns. The guy who wrote this article didn't use the reliable sources to investigate who were Utigurs and Kutrigurs, but he is foisting on us his personal believes that they were Turks. Indeed this point of view is supported by some sources, but when you study carefully these sources the following picture becomes clear:

 Kevin Alan Brook - education: business administration - unreliable source
 Waldman, Carl Mason - musician - unreliable source

Pull out these two, and all other authors are of Turkic origin plus one women who is Hungarian(Nemeth). What is the conclusion? Only Turks or authors of Turkic origin (as Golden, Karatey and Zeki Togan) believe that Bulgars were Turks. What reliable sources say about the Bulgars? All of them, cited below, state that the two core Bulgar tribes were Huns. The author of the article turned a blind eye to these sources which constitute what is a mainstream scholars view on the question who were the Bulgars. What is the moral of this story ? We shouldn't read the sources as the Devil is reading the Bible!

Some mainstream sources about the Bulgars:

" Thus in our sources the names Kutrigur, Bulgar and Hun are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group."

" On Attila’s death, his empire crumbled. His people, who had probably been only a conglomeration of kindred tribes that he had welded together, divided again into these tribes; and each went its own way. One of these tribes was soon to be known as the Bulgars."

" And both Procopius and Agathias represent Kotrigurs and Utigurs as tribes of Huns. There can be no doubt Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Bulgars belong to the same race as the Huns of Attila and spoke tongues closely related, - were in fact Huns. They had all been under Attila's dominion"

"The Huns of Attila, and their descendants the Bulgars, the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs, were pastoral peoples of the steppe and semi-desert lands of central Asia, who had been driven westwards in search of new pastures by a combination of factors. The progressive desiccation of their ancient home, and in particular of the Tarim Basin, reduced the grazing land available. "

" In one instance we are explicitly told that the Kutrigur and Utigur, called Huns by Procopius, Agathias, and Menander, were of the same stock, dressed in the same way, and had the same language. "

" In fact contemporary European sources kept equating the Bulgars with the Huns. At the very least, the Hun-Bulgar connection was much more tangible than the Hun-Xiongnu identification. "

" In 460 the Huns split into the Onogurs, Utigurs and Kotrigurs."

" The early Byzantine texts use the names of Huns, Bulgarians, Kutrigurs and Utrigurs as interchangeable terms. There the Bulgarians are represented as identical, they are a part of Huns or at least have something common with them. The khans Avtiochol and Irnik, listed in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans today are identified with Attila and Ernach."

" (2) the data are insufficient to clearly distinguish Huns, Avars and Bulgars one from another;"

" The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race, occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians or Onogundurs — the descendants of Attila's Huns — who had their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia. They were a formidable people and Justinian had long ago taken precautions to keep them in check, in case they should threaten to attack the Empire, though it was probably for the Roman cities of the Crimea, Cherson and Bosporus, that he feared, rather than for the Danubian provinces. As his policy on the Danube was to use the Lombards as a check on the Gepids, so his policy in Scythia was to use another Hunnic people, the Utigurs, as a check on the Kotrigurs. The Utigurs lived beyond the Don, on the east of the Sea of Azov, and Justinian cultivated their friendship by yearly gifts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epnax (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

All this questions and issues were already settled, but anyway will answer you. The Wikipedia is written according WP:NPOV principles, and the reliability of claims depends on the credentials of the author, which sources he used, how often the paper is cited, its critics and similar considerations. Wikipedia mostly reflects the mainstream consensus of scholars; it may or may not present minority views depending on how much support there is for them. If you believe something else, ie. have personal point of view (POV), it will not be accepted. Unfortunately, the most of the statement you said above is your own delusional POV (animosity toward modern scholarship) and understanding of both the topic and Wikipedia. Regarding "The guy who wrote this article didn't use the reliable sources to investigate who were Utigurs and Kutrigurs", both articles as well of the Onogurs are in the process of rewriting. Their current status is unallowable and against NPOV principles.

Regarding every note; 1) Hyun Jin Kim is not a specialist in the specific topic, however, the claim how the names of Huns, Bulgars, Utigurs among others were sometimes interchangeably used in historical sources is true, but that does not mean that the Huns, Bulgars and Utigurs were the same group of tribes, ie. that the Bulgars and Utigurs were Huns. After the fall of Huns the ancient historians often used the ambiguous term "Huns", like the term "Scythians" (eg. Slavs) or "Turks" (eg. Hungarians), to denote the specific group of people which similar trait - both Bulgars and Utigurs were nomadic horse-raiding tribes invading from the East. 2) Steven Runciman claim is factually wrong and if checked the date when was published, 1930, you would see it is probably outdated, and it is. 3) Edward Gibbon died in 1794. 4) Again factually wrong, ie. not proven and considered "mainstream". 5) Utigurs and Kutrigurs were called Huns, as explained above. 6) Again factually wrong and minority view, "contemporary European sources kept equating", until when, 1973? 7) Peter Spring is clearly not a specialist in the specific topic as in 463 the Onogurs, Utigurs and Kutrigurs entered the Ponto-Caspian steppe, the Huns were already in Europe when they came. 8) Already explained, and see Dulo clan. 9) There's no such claim in the source. 10) J. B. Bury died in 1927 - the source is outdated. Problem with outdated sources is that not all of its claims, ie. proven facts are outdated, yet speculations as cited above are prone to change.--Crovata (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So, what turns out ? Only Turkish authors are specialists of the topic "Bulgars"? Can you find at least one author of non-Turkish origin who supports your claims ? Kim is not a specialist, but Waldman who is a musician, is a specialist? Be so kind to remove these authors - you know very well that this is against the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.217.159 (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015

"Please add

1.1 Earlier toponymy and origin

It is very possible, that the "Bulgar" comes from the Sanskrit /the Indo-European language/ and its form of Vedic Sanskrit, Rigveda – 15th c. BC.
Balh = valh = to be excellent [Dhaltup. Xvi, 38]; also means to speak, to kill, to hurt, to give or to shine;
Balhi = Balhi – name of a country = balhika; also bakhikan [AVś.5.22.7b.] (See also Balkan);
Hari: men, people; also a horse, a lion (The Proto-Bulgarians or the Bulgars were excellent horse riders. It is believed that they have invented the bow and the saddle).
Balhi + hari = balhari: excellent people, shining people, killing people, speaking people or giving people.
Ваl – means to whirl round in a circle /probably on a horse/;
Bal – also means breathing, living, pranana, preventing wealth; to hoard grain, to explain;
Bal + hari=Balahari: men with particular charm (origin: Rāmāyaņa).

Even today, there is no language in the world, that pronounces the name correctly.
The Russians call the Bulgarians - Balgári, English - Bulgerians, French - BÜlgar, Germans – Bulgaren, Arabs - Burdjan, Hungarians, Armenians and Turkish - Bulgar, Czechs - Bulhar, Ukrainians – Balhar, Indians - Balghar, Persians – Bolgar, Serbs – Bugarski, Greeks, even worse – Voulgaros, instead of Mpoulgaros, which „mp“ = „b“...).
Bulgaria is the oldest European state that has not changed its name through the ages. [Prologue of "Bulgarian Chronicles", v. I, 2007 - Stefan Tzanev]

The very first Bulgaria (from the all about 12th Bulgarian states) is believed to be found somewhere between modern Afghanistan, modern China and Iran, in the year 2137 BC.
Then the Bulgar calendar was also found - exact and precise as the today's – with 12 months and 365 days. It was later called Chinese calendar, but the Chinese at that moment didn`t have the knowledge of the planet Jupiter. (According to Bulgar funeral stones from the period with the planets engraved on.) [Prologue of "Bulgarian Chronicles", v. I, 2007 - Stefan Tzanev]

Cyril S (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible or not, personal original research, without reliable source by reliable author ie. scholar - linguist or historian, is not supported on Wikipedia. Stefan Tsanev, "Tsanev's latest four-volume work, Bulgarian Chronicles, uncovers previously hidden facts, added to the well-known, in Bulgaria's history: 2137 BC to the present.", is a novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, by no mean an anthropologist and expert in the field, and reliable source. The name of the Bulgars and Bulgarians has base bul- or sometime bol-, but never bal-. By the "very first Bulgaria" from 2137 BC is considered the Kingdom of Balhara, which is a fringe theory. None of those "hidden facts" and derivations were or are considered by reliable linguists and historians, and all those considered are already cited in the respective sections.--Crovata (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hard question

after read the artical, I feel the language and ethnicity of the bulgars are indeed very hard to determine. As a chinese interested in history I know all the old chinese records of the Turks, and I tend to not agree with those experts about the Onogur turks, for there were no such thing recorded in our ancient archives. the turks build their empire after defeating Rouran (Avars) in year 552 CE, and started entering central aisa only after 583 CE,the west turk khanate's territory included much of the Dzungaria basin, the zhyte-su area and the chuy river valley, that is only a portion of the whole central asia. What about the rest of central asia where the Scythians used to roam? where did the scythians go? they certainly did't simply disappear, and I thing they suffered heavy losses during the great migration period that was caused by extreame weather started in the early 5th century, I guess they would have been disorganised and subdued by the new western turkic khanate?

People could argue that before the turks build their khanate in 552 CE the "tiele" people, a closely related nomadic people of the turks already spreaded all over the eurasia steppe, however the term "tiele" was misleading as "scythians" and "turks", the chinese records place Alans, Scythians into the category of "tiele" people, just as the Arabs and Persian who would simply refer all the central asian nomadic people as "turks" even though many of them were clearly mongols. Also the defeated Huns that migrated to the west and reappeared as the Huns in Roman records, are indeed "defeated", that is they were force out of their homeland, in a sudden and disorganised way, the Kirkiz in the northwestern direction were unaffected and the Huns only became powerful after absorb many other tribes, including the Alans and Ostrogoth, the real original Huns only constitute a small part of the confederation.

For my opinion I don't believe the Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs and perhaps Cumans speak turkic language as their primary language, they were very likely ruled over by dominant turkic tribes or clan, imposed by the powerful western turkic khanate, but these ruling families constitute a rather small part of the population, one cannot believe that the few population could turkicize a large number of non turkic speaking tribes. After the collapse of the western turkic khanate(about 50 years after its establishment) these groups will likely to switch back to their own languages, may be Iranic languages I don't know. the five Nushbi tribes moved into the caspian-aral plain and became Oghuz turks but the five arrows were very much turkcized people by the start of the western khanate, that is why the oghuz turks show very little mongoloid features, and the further west they migrate, the more caucasoid features they became.

of cause these are all my speculates, i don't have the resources at my hand, I just thought we should not be so conclusive about the language spoken and the ethnicities of these transitional groups. the 12 animal calender and the names, titles are all easily adopted objects, the turks adopted the 12 animal calender from chinses for example, and the europeans adopted the middle east names such as Christ, Mattew, John, Peter etc.Apzat (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Original research and personal point of view, whether you agree or not with the scholars and mainstream opinion, is totally irrelevant. Iranian tribes of Scythians and Alans could not disappear without a trace. They lived for a long time along numerous Slavic population, thus some of them formed the Antes and were assimilated by other ethnic tribes including Turkic. You misunderstand, it's irrelevant and obvious that the Bulgar confederation or Khazar Khaganate included different ethnic tribes and languages, but the realm has a name of a specific tribal ethnic group, in this case of the Bulgars or Khazars. The ethnologic focus of a study is always a specific ethnic group, not the state or confederation. Same goes for Ostrogothic Kingdom and Ostrogoths. The ruling tribe mostly did not impose the official and native language neither the organization of nomadic lifestyle allowed to, the lingua franca of the Khaganate was the largest language in use or easly understandable to everyone. That's why the elite Bulgars, as much wanted to preserve their Steppe culture and Oghur-Turkic language, eventually got Slavicized.--Crovata (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to determine anything from this article because it is paid editing by Turkish Manafs :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_(policy)

Bulgars were Huns, and it turns out that European Huns are not Xiongnu or turkish tribes, but they are Yuezhi - turks are very unhappy by these facts; read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utigurs&oldid=684208625

About the language read the famous paper of Pritsak ( Harvard) : page 444: "Danube-Bulgarian was a Hunnic language..." http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vvi_n4_dec1982.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.143.113 (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

W.B. Henning thinks that Yuezhi didn't have fixed language at all, they spoke the language of surrounding people - in North China they spoke proto-Mongolian mixed with proto-Turkic (and probably some Tocharian), when they move to Kazahstan they switched to Iranian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.143.113 (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop spamming the talk page with the same texts. Personal attacks on other editors is not advised, and WP:OR is not supported on Wikipedia. You basically twist scholars considerations according personal belief. Pritsak was the only scholar who used the term Hunno-Bulgarian, actually Hunno-Turkic (pg. 459), for the Turkic Oghur languages, but you ignore that fact. You reject Turkic-Mongolian linguistic and ethnological origin of the Bulgars and Huns (which scholars predominantly agree, but you intentionally ignore that fact), and support fringe theories like those which relate the Bulgars or Huns with ancient Indo-European Tocharians and Yuezhi but have little scholarly support ie. have almost zero mainstream contribution. Those fringe theories were invented itself from the same aversion of the Turkic origin of the Bulgars and Huns.--Crovata (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 A) a substantial proto-Bulgarian input to the contemporary Bulgarian
 people  
 B) paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Central Asian
 Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible  

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056779 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Also you made a very good point about the so called Ogur/Oghur turks. Such tribes didn't exist - it is a fictional term coined by Turkish authors. Encyclopedia Britannica does not mention even a single word about such Ogur Turkish tribes : http://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar Your records place "Alans, Scythians into the category of "tiele" people" because Turks also have Indo-European roots - the so called Ashina Turks are turkisized Usuns, who were tochars. Read Maenchen-Helfen - he writes that 2BC Ususns were 600 000 people, 180 000 mounted warriors. In the natural course of history of humans by 5 AD they should number a few millions. Only few of their skulls are discovered. Where are they? What happened to them? The power of Xiongnu was based on the power of Usuns - for political reasons one of your princes had to marry Usun king. Yuri Zuev thinks that they were the European Huns :

    Absence of information about historical migration of Sünnu-Huns to the west before the end of the 4th century AD, and existence of the "Hun" population on the eastern fringes of Europe in the 3rd century and earlier, lead to the conclusion that in the composition of the western Huns also participated other tribes, and first of all Usuns. 

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Usuns/ZuevHunsandUsunsEn.htm - page 23

Actully this is not exactly true - Usuns become Ashina Turks, even today in Altai, Ra1 haplogroup has its highest value in Central Asia. Turks do not respect their own history - do not trust them, they are sly. On the talk page of article Huns I put 10 reasons why European Huns were Yuezhi - study them. Probably you could help me to learn something more about the Yuezhi. I think that the Chinese Bulgars of SANPING CHEN http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/Sanping_Chen_SOME_REMARKS_ON_THE_CHINESE_BULGARIAN.pdf are actually remnants of the Little Yuezhi.

And finally, the relation Huns->Utigurs-> Bulgars is well established, as you can see searching Google Books:

Why these books are absent from the article "Bulgars" one can only guess. And it is not hard to guess - the article is written by Turkish Manafs. In its current form it is a pile of turkish speculations and bullshits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is not allowed on Wikipedia. The lack of understanding of those references, supported by your own personal agenda, makes you doing this continous disruptive edits which need to end. And as I said, spamming talk pages with the same copy-pasted text is not recommended. All those references were already pasted and reviewed in the Talk:Zabergan and Talk:Sandilch. They are or outdated, some are even novels(!), or have mistakes which many other scholars did not do, mistakes which are not followed by mainstream scholarship. Copy-pasting them 100X times won't change anything.--Crovata (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I don't hide who I am - you know that I am nuclear physicist from Bulgaria, you know where I work, if you wont you can call me 359 988 911 684. It is you who is hiding - you say you are not Turk, but I dont' trust you. How much money did you get to fuck up all these articles related to Bulgars? This is a manaf work, dude. (Manafs were officially paid males to fuck Ottoman's Sultans)

Of course, again turn the topics of conversation which have nothing to do with the article... If you're nuclear physicist as you claim (like blocked PavelStaykov, probably stole some nuclear physicists name), then your lack of understanding how scientific research work, generally and in anthropology, is astonishing. The ignorance of mainstream and modern science (which you called shit), the constant ignorance of replies by other editors since March 2015, the non-existing will to understand how to edit Wikipedia (even put a simple signature), the ignorance of Wikipedian and any encyclopaedic principles, ignorance of modern scholars but support of scholars from 18th or 19th century, inability to distinguish reliable from unreliable source (or scientific work from a novel), mainstream from unmainstream considerations, mainstream from fringe and minor... All this and more, and your racist viewpoint on Turks, and even calling me some Manaf... I hope you will one day understand what you're doing, and stay away from Wikipedia and history, and concentrate on alleged "nuclear physics".--Crovata (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Osman Karatay and Peter Golden (who is a Turk despite his English sounding name) are not the mainstream science. The mainstream science is the 31 books that you have deleted from WP. Fortunately, you cannot delete Google Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 04:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter Benjamin Golden, who is a specialist in Turkic and Central Asian Studies, Professor emeritus at Rutgers University, whose considerations abide with mainstream scholarship, is not mainstream scientist because - is of Turkish ancestry? You are saying that some anonymous scholar is more reliable then someone whose specialist in his field? That Edward Gibbon (1737–1794), J. B. Bury (1861-1927), Royal Institute works (1874), Steven Runciman's work (1930), are mainstream modern scholarship, more reliable than recent Golden's work? And if was only Golden, there many mainstream scholars he cites and whose considerations are against your personal viewpoint, but they do not have Turkish ancestry... Really, how pathetic.--Crovata (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Denying the other scholars does not speak good for you at all. The so called professor emeritus Golden is using the words "nomads" and "Turks" as synonyms which is extremely irritating, and very very unscientific. It is high time for you Turks, to understand that the nomadic culture is not privilege only for Turks - there were in Central Asia also Indo-European nomads - Iranian, Tocharian, Scythians and so on. Turning a blind eye to their existence is disrespectful to your own origin - their blood is also in you. But let's play some simple science - do you understand how to multiply the probabilities of independent variables? Let's take only 4 such variables: A) A = Romans, Greeks and Byzantines called the people North of Black Sea, only 20 years after the death of Attila (and 2 centuries after that) Huns, only by some strange habit. This is highly implausible. But I will give this event ( that these people were not Huns) 30% chance. This is very generous - the actual chances are less than 10% - Romans were not idiots.

B) B= anthropological data = brahicranic Europoids with small mongoloid admixture - the same for the Huns, and Bulgars, who appear only 20 years after the Huns, on the same place where the Huns " disappear". I will give this event ( to be coincidence) 40 % chance - again very generous number. The real number is probably less than 20%.

C) C= circular type artificial cranial deformation- again, although not very unusual practice, but the same type to be practiced by Huns and the people who appear on their place 20 years after them - is not very probable. 35 % is again generous number.

D) D = the same language = mixture of proto-Turkic+ proto-Mongolian+ unknown language+ Iranian influence -- It is highly unlikely different people to speak such strange language. It does not matter how you call it - hunnic or R-turkic or XYZ language. 25% chance is very generous number here.

Do you know how these 4 events can happen at the same time - you have to multiply the probabilities:

P = probability Bulgars!=Huns = P(A).P(B).P(C).P(D) = 30% . 40% . 35% . 25% = 1% chance that Bulgars and Huns are different people. Deal with this number. Even if you take 60% for each of these events, you will get P=0.6^4=13%. Now make your own estimate for 8-10 different events listed on the talk page article "Huns" to coincide. The probability is almost ZERO -it's negligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Golden is not using "nomads" and "Turks" as synonyms, your knowledge of the whole era, of the original sources, scholars sources, is awful. Just stop calling and trying to prove that Golden is unscientific only because of Turkish ancestry. You will never prove it. I am not a Turk either, and your racist and chauvinistic stance is helping your cause zero points. Your multipling of probabilities belongs to WP:OR. Such simple mathematical probabilities could make for any ethnic group and would get an alternate reality.--Crovata (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The manafs were not Turks necessarily. But they were paid by the Turks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC) And since you are so strict about WP rules - then remove the books written by musicians and economists from the article. It is against the rules. Kevin Alan Brook -"Education: Bryant College (Smithfield, Rhode Island), 1993-1997, Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Business Administration" http://www.khazaria.com/brookcv.html Carl Waldman - "A musician as well as a writer, he has also delved into the lives of Sinatra and Elvis. And he writes fiction." http://www.amazon.com/Carl-Waldman/e/B001K8GLRM/ref=la_B001JSBPA6_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1448590686&sr=1-1

You're saying that one reference of Kevin Alan Brook, and several by Waldman whose Encyclopedia actually used other books to be written (he did not invent anything, he's more like an editor), which were used for only well known historical facts which other books like of Golden also have, are somekind of threat to article balance? I done that because to not overuse Golden's source. It's about taking facts from other books which go along mainstream scholarship, while those which do not, they won't be cited, because wil ruin article balance, that are NPOV principles, sorry.. --Crovata (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

So, if I take out amateur enthusiasts Brook and Waldman, it turns out that the article is based only on the books of Golden? His speculations, that you call well known facts, are not mentioned in Encyclopedia Britannica even with single word. The entire article "Bulgars" is bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 07:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No it won't be, and his work has references to other sources which confirm them. Encyclopedia Britannica cannot be used as comparison because itself lacks prolixity. Britannica as a typical encyclopedia fair comparison is Waldman's encyclopedia.--Crovata (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

1/4 of the articles in Encyclopedia Britannica are written by Nobel Prize winners. You cannot compare it with idiotic writings of unknown musician. Don't play smart and remove these books, OR I will file a request on the Administrators' noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 07:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm tired of you. You're basically saying that those should be removed, and used instead another web encyclopedia? You really don't know how Wikipedia is edited, the overuse of other web encyclopedia is not supported and advised when there exist another secondary source. Really, whose playing smart since March 2015. Personal attacks and threats are not the way editors, or anyone with normal behavior discuss. This discussion went again too far from the topic. Consider this discussion closed, and stop interfere in the work of other editors with own personal agenda and Turkic racism. Otherwise you're well acquainted with consequences. --Crovata (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure manaf, WP is turkish hammam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The origin of the Bulgars

The origin of the Bulgars is explained here The real article Bulgars - истинската статия — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.126.71.182 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_origin_of_the_Bulgars If you have questions, post them on the draft-article talk page, I will respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.126.71.182 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)