Bulgars is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.
Reviewers: To start the review process,to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try this talk page.)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 100 days may be archived by.|
The article states that the Bulgars = Bolgars= Bulghars=Proto-Bulgarians= Huno-Bulgars which is basically speaking true but after that it says that they were Turkic people. This is controversial. The origin of the Huns is still unclear. Most scholars equate the Bulgars with the Huns, see for example Maenchen-Helfen, The world of the Huns, pp. 164, 199, 381 and 43 1—32. Please also note the identification of the name Irnik on the Bulgarian Princes’ List with and the youngest son Ernach of Attila. See Steven Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire (http://promacedonia.org/en/sr/index.html), London, 1930, pp. 279—81. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
All cited sources (from 3 to 15) are unaccessible or parrot books - they repeat other books without any original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Tengri ( or Tangra ) was not a Turkic God, it was a deity of all nomads in Central Asia during that period. This sounds like Turkish chauvinism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
paragraph Ethnicity -> where source 83 states that
The Bulgar language spoken by the Bulgar elites was a member of the Oghuric branch of the Turkic language family
section Genetics -> source 87 is not accessible. But the author's favorite source 83 states that : A branch of this people was one of the primary three ethnic ancestors of modern Bulgarians. Source 87 is not accessible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
section Language -> all prominent historians and scholars say: the language may have resemble proto-turkic language - which is quite different from the bald statement that it was Oghuric Turkic language.
Everyone can make a mistake. Everyone can make a mistake even twice. But to do this constantly, without solid arguments is absurd. The article must be re-written anew. In this form it is a manifestation of Turkish chauvinism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Subsequent migrations -> The legend is not about sticks, it is about arrows. At least try to study our history with more attention to details.
The theories about the origin of Bulgars and their name's etymology
- Subsequent migrations -> The legend is not about sticks, it is about arrows. At least try to study our history with more attention to details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Read here - year 45 source — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Basically it says that Bulgars are Ases of As-Tokhar confederation and Bulgar name ascends to Balkh, Balkh tribes = Balkh gurs => Bulkh-gurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The term "Balgar" probably consists of "Bal" (Scythian-Ossetian word for participants in military campaigns) and of "Gar" ("Gu / Qu-ri-a-ni-a"), as was known the land to the north of Urartu; from where towards south began the cimmerian invasion of Urartu /VII-VIII century BC/and the defeat of Urartian king Rusa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Turkic theory about the origin of the Bulgars is communist fabrication
Turkic hypotheses about the origin of the Bulgars was invented in 1950's in the Soviet historical science. It was imposed officially by USSR scientists as Sirotenko, Pletneva, Novoseltsev, Gumillev and Artamonov himself and had been directed personally by Josef Stalin. No one in the Soviet Union up until 1950s sought Bulgarians to be considered a Turkic tribe from Altai. Bulgarian language had been equaled to the language group of the Turks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 18:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- You're lack of knowledge and neutrality on the topic, as well obsession trying to loosely prove (and discuss) that Bulgars were everything but not Turkish tribe is tiresome and not constructive. Understand already that the Bulgars were just nomad warrior tribes, a ruling caste of proven Turkic-Hun culture and language, which got assimilated by the majority of indigenous, mostly Slavic population. The belonging to the Turkic culture does not mean being genetically Turks. When Bulgars arrived under the name is understand the heterogeneous conglomerate of tribes and cultures, but the core were Bulgars, no matter whether they were, of Turkic military title names, language etc. --Crovata (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUo0qNiEcoA — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 13:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJJ0hlOQfZQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 13:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zyxmVn_l-k — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 13:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC) не изглеждат като турци нали? и за твое сведение мартеници има само където има българи. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtG18jv2whY
Bulgars -> Huns-> Yuezhi
This version of the article does not serve the main purpose to which every Encyclopedia should stick : to tell the reader the truth. It starts with the bold statement that Bulgars were Turkic people which is highly controversial. What is known for sure from numerous Roman, Greek and Byzantium sources is that Bulgars were Huns. The origin of the Huns is still debated among the scholars. Usually it is assumed that European Huns (and Bulgars) originate from Xiongnu. A hypothesis that is wrong because it can't explain several key facts, well established, and they must be presented in the article to the reader:
1. There is no evidence that European Huns ( and Bulgars and Dulo) were Xiongnu:
Otto Maenchen-Helfen questioned the lack of anthropological and ethnographic proximity between European Huns and Xiongnu. Edward Arthur Thompson in 1948 in his monograph on the Huns denies the continuity of European Huns from Xiongnu.
2. There is no convincing evidence that the language was Turkic, only 33 personal names have survived (Pritsak), indeed, they seem to be Turkic, but to judge from this that the hole nation was Turkic is too naive.
4. There are research papers showing that in modern Bulgarian language there are many Tocharian words. Yuezhi were Thocarian tribes and they spoke Tocharian language.
6. The genetic tests from a reliable scientific source clearly state:
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
Encyclopedia Britanica do states this information. WHY it shouldn't be presented to the readers of Wikipedia?
7. There are archaeological excavations of necropolises in northern Bulgaria and strikingly similar necropolises in Kazakhstan dated from 1 century BC till 3 century AD when Yuezhi lived there.    Also on the right bank of the river Amu Darya, near the rock complexes Kara-Tyube and Chelpik was found the sign of Dulo- Upsilon "|Y|".
Summing all these 7 points taken together show that:
European Huns (and Bulgars) originate from the pre-Turkic Indo-European population from northern China and particularly from the people known to the Chinese as Yuezhi. During their movement (from 2 BC till 4 AD) to Europe they were influenced by different groups of people, especially Turkic and Iranian groups.
Readers are not foolish and and they will make their own conclusions if the proper information is presented. And that is the purpose of Wikipedia - to present all available information, not to hide it. This information is not my original research, it is presented in this book
http://www.protobulgarians.com/Kniga%20AtStamatov/Drevnite%20baalgari.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 02:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly2En.htm, p.62
- https://books.google.bg/books?id=fX8YAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&dq=artificial+cranial+deformation+tocharians&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eGhOVdGoIYKQsAHN84CwBg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=artificial%20cranial%20deformation%20tocharians&f=false - p. 33
- http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/SOME%20ANCIENT%20CHINESE%20NAMES%20IN%20EAST%20TURKESTAN%20-%20final.pdf - p.23
- T.P. Kijatkina, Kraniologicheskie materialy iz kurgannyh mogil’nikov Severnoj Baktrii. - Trudy Tadzh. arheol. eksp., VII, s.211.
- A.M. Mandel’shtam, Pamjatniki kushanskogo vremeni v Severnoj Baktrii, s.130.