Talk:Bulgars/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Replace Tangra with Tengri: This is another deliberate distorion

The accepted spelling for the Turkic Sky God in English Language is Tengri not Tangra. The Turkic Shamanist Bulgars worshipped Tengri not Tangra -which was the name of a third grade Bulgarian pop-band in the early eighties. Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Accepted by what higher authorities? Can you cite some sources that support the claim that this version is "the accepted spelling"? The source cited has "Tangra". Are you saying that Jean W. Sedlar, the author of the book East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 (University of Washington Press, 1994, ISBN 9780295972909), professor of History at the University of Pittsburg,[1] committed a deliberate act of distortion in this scholarly work? If so, can you back this up in some way? Or do you mean that this piece of content, added sometime in December 2006, ostensibly to present further evidence supporting the "Turkic theory" for the classification of the Bulgar language, was inserted in order to deliberately distort something? What then was the hidden agenda? In most Turkic languages the vowels in T*ngr* are back vowels like /a/ and /ɯ/, as in Turkish Tanrı, and in the Sakha language it is even Tanara, and the Chuvash language, the closest surviving relative of Bulgar and possibly an offspring of the latter, has Tura. The "proto-Bulgarian" sources are scarce, and none testify to the spelling Tengri. The Madara inscription has (in Greek writing) "ΤΑΓΓΡΑ(Ν)". What is so bad with the version Tangra? Could you try to you react in a more calm and friendly way than the accusatory tone of the title of this thread?  --Lambiam 10:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Lambiam. There is no reason to delete the form that is attested in documents. Nostradamus should do more reading before editing. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Attested in which documents? Let us not split hairs here. Some would argue that Tangra, Tengri, Tanara, Tanri, etc. are all wrong spellings that do not sound correct. At the end it is a word used as a name.Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Attested in which documents?" In the only two documents that mention it - an almost unreadable Greek inscription and a late Turkish mansucript. See Tangra for more details. You are obviosuly not very well informed about all this, so please, don't hurry with your edits so much before achieving consensus. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide me with the link for Tangra? It appears not to exist.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking about. The most detailed discussion of Bulgarian "Tangra" is in the article Tengriism.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Wrong spellings that do not sound correct"? Have you ever heard about such a thing as historical linguistics? Maybe you think that "Wasser" is just a wrong spelling of "water" that doesn't sound correct? Or the Turkmen language is a wrong spelling of the Turkish language?--91.148.159.4 (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly different variations of the spelling of this Sky God. That is not the issue. It is clear that Tanri, Tengri, Tangri, Tanara, Tangra etc. are all the same thing. Why are we choosing to use different names in different parts of this encyclopedia for something that points the same thing? Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't. But we mention the relevant form depending on context. Different peoples may have different ideas about what is originally the same deity, and we know almost nothing about how the Bulgars worshiped Tangra (if they really did - the evidence is very sparse indeed). --91.148.159.4 (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If we present as evidence for the Bulgar language being Turkic that "the Bulgars' X was called Y", the reader will expect that Y is the Bulgar name for X, not the Uyghur name. To show that Sanskrit is related to the family of languages to which English, Latin and Greek belong, a source may give as evidence that in Sanskrit the word for "father" is pitr; if you, while citing that source, change that into the word pater used in like Latin and Greek, it is you who is slanting the evidence towards the desired conclusion. Same here. This is really simply a matter of reporting what we find in the source, which happens to have Tangra and not some other variant. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  --Lambiam 10:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Sedlar present Bulgars as a Turkic people in his book? I have a newer book in my hand, The Balkans, first published in 2001 by Dennis P. Hupchick of Wilkes University, President of Bulgarian Studies Association. According to Hupchick:

Little is known concretely about the early Bulgar state. It seems it was typically Turkic steppe nomadic and ruled by an autocratic han (a title associated with the sky-god Tengri and directly inherited from the Gök Turks). Another Gök Turk association was the ruling clan's name, Dulo- a leading clan among the Western Gök Turks. Also typical was the Bulgars' political structure, with authority divided between inner and outer cans and all Bulgars elevated above the non-Bulgar tributary populations, who initially participated in the state only as subjects. In Asparuh's state, the tributaries mostly were Slavs, most of whom were collectively known as the Seven Tribes, living on the Danubian Plain in Moesia.

Further evidence culturally linking the Balkan Bulgar state to Turkic steppe traditions was the layout of the Bulgars' new capital of Pliska, founded just north of the Balkan Mountains shortly after 681. The large area enclosed by ramparts, with the rulers' habitations and assorted utility structures concentrated in the center, resembled more a steppe winter encampment turned into a permanent settlement than it did a typical Roman Balkan city.

This article should reflect the view of the majority of unbiased experts, not the views of some insecure nationalists who want to forge a nation based on falsehood and would do anything to keep the words Turk and Bulgar apart.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this meant to be a reaction to what I wrote? I don't see how it is relevant. If you can find sources that state that the Bulgars called their god Tengri, fine, then please cite these sources. Do not, however, in a sentence stating, from a cited source, that they called their god Tangra, change the sentence to use another word than that found in the cited source. This article should not reflect the view of prejudiced editors. For that reason we must stick to the verifiability policy. FYI: Sedlar describes the 7th-century Bulgars as a Turkic speaking tribe in her book. For the applicability of the Wikipedia policies this is not particularly relevant.  --Lambiam 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Where is the evidence they worshiped whatever you choose to call it Tangra/Tengri at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnugh (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Iranian theory is completely bullshit!!

the greatest jackass of all times!!! were they really Iranian? so why do they behave like the turks.(speaking, dresing, believing, fu...ing etcetc...) were they want to make a fun?, or maybe they were only joking around.. yes they were the original iranians who just wanted to make a fun around balkans, black sea...etc. sorry but iranian people in wikipedia are really funny guys. i want to save hokkaido japans now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orkh (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you start behaving in a more civilized manner. The Iranian theory is what it is and Bulgarians -for obvious reasons- will invent other theories in the future.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont insult anybody mr. nostradamus. by the way, i feel deep respect to ancient bulgars. my scream is about iranians of wikipedia. they want t--Orkh (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)o change the whole history in an idiotic ways.--Orkh (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you are unaware of it the Iranian/Pamirian theory of Bulgar origins was proposed by a Bulgarian and is popular among Bulgarians. A flat-earth theory gaining such enthusiastic support among members of a nation that shares the first six characters of their name with ancient Bulgars might at first be hard to understand but that is the prevailing national psychy. Any Iranians arguing for this theory will most likely be those trying to expand and emphasize Iranian/Persian influence. This kind of denial/misinformation unfortunately is rooted in deep national insecurities. Remind an Iranian that the Safavids were a Turkic dynasty, mention to Bulgarians that not only Bulgars were a Turkic people but also the three dynasties (Asen, Terter, and Shishman) of the Second Bulgarian kingdom were Turkic Cumans if you want confrontatio. I suggest you argue with sources not feelings.Nostradamus1 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That theory is not just invented. Archaeological research on sites of Volga Bulgaria suggests that the characteristics of the skulls of the Bulgars have Euro-Iranian features, not Mongoloid ones. Noone in Bulgaria denies the Cuman origin of the Asen dynasty, it is written in every textbook in histiry here; and also the Iranian theory is NOT so popular as you think and most historians and people reject it. I think, senor Nostradamus, that you are trying to make out that the Bulgarians just hate the Turks and I do not like your manner. --Gligan (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the Bulgarians want to prove they are Europeans. :) Ethnicity is not tied to sculls. Earlier I wrote about Archeological evidence in ancient Bulgar capital pointing to their Turkic origins. This was a direct sourced material that you deleted. I am not surprised that you have issues with the points I make. How about this one : If we take out the Turkic Bulgar rulers of the First Bulgar kingdom, the Turkic Cuman rulers of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom, and the German kings of the Third Bulgarian Kingdom all that is left is Ivailo The Swineherd.Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. That's funny 203.166.99.230 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We're left with Ivaylo ... who is what? I don't like your manner, too. You accuse people of being full of hatred, but it sounds more and more like you're the one that hates something (or most probably someone). You want history issues to be resolved just like that with a snap and it seems they should be resolved in the way you think is right. Well, sorry but I have to disappoint you - this is not how life (and science for that matter) works. I become more convinced with every single edit that you have some Great Turkish ideas behind your edits and your comments full of sarcasm. If you want to have friends, insulting people is not the way to get them. --Laveol ^T 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew that you would not like it from the beginning but I could not help but state the truth. Are you disputing my last sentence? Since Bulgarians proudly claim to be a Slavic people one would expect to see some Slavic khagans, hans, tsars, or sultans as their rulers. I am not even sure if Ivailo (Lakhanas) -who ruled for three years- was a Slav but I give him the benefit of the doubt. On the hatred issue. I don't hate Bulgarians I dislike Bulgarian manners when it comes to the way they present their history to the world and the way they brainwash themselves generation after another. One has to look at Bulgaria article to see the section on the Ottoman rule it says The five centuries of Ottoman rule featured great violence and oppression. The Ottomans decimated the Bulgarian population, which lost most of its cultural relics. Large towns and the areas where Ottoman power predominated remained severely depopulated until the nineteenth century. I won't comment on these other than ask how Bulgarians survived 500 year long "great violence" still speaking Slavic Bulgarian? These sentences -which pretty much summarize the Bulgarian version of their history under Ottoman rule- explain why Bulgarians would resist to the idea of Bulgars being a Turkic people. We -that is me against three Bulgarians- argued some of these issues in [here]. All three of you kept ignoring and deleting my contributions from credible sources written as recently as 2001 with comments such as "English and French were allies of the Ottomans therefore the books they write would side with the Turks". There is no need to bring it into this discussion. But I noticed Gligan already added some entries regarding the wellbeing of Bulgarians in an article titled Turks in Bulgaria. The other one Lantonov who calls the forced Bulgarianization "harmonization" should be coming shortly. One last point to this long response, we are not here to make enemies but making friends is also not the objective. There are other places to make friends in the internet. I suggest you check those if this is what you are seeking.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen Nostradamus1 attack anyone here; quite the contrary I see 3 people who don't like his words attacking him. Where has he attacked anyone here? Unless his words were read incorrectly, he's only defending a theory of Bulgarian origin. Considering that the Sarmatians, Scythians, and Alan tribes that were prominent in these regions before the arrival of the Bulgars, it isn't difficult to see how one could surmise that at least some of the Bulgars had an Iranian type background. Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nostradamus, the part about making friends meant to tell that you're annoying people on purpose. You know too well what it is to say such things to a Bulgarian (I don't mean the ones you call truth, but the ones you drop from time to time just like this). My dispute with you on the article Turks in Bulgaria is in the fact that you equal Turks to Turkic people with is completely unscientific and serving just a Great Turk propaganda. --Laveol ^T 12:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the discussion for Turkic peoples you'd notice that I never equate Turks with Turkic people and even argue for the difference between them. However asserting that Turks and the Turkic people are distinct and separate is incorrect. That would be like claiming that the Slovenians and the Slavic people are unrelated. On the other hand claiming that Bulgars and Bulgarians are two separate ethnic groups would be correct. Discounting Asparuhid, Asenid, Terterid, and Shishmanid dynasties as Slavic rulers would be TRUE. You also brought up a good point. Mentioning such truths to most Bulgarians who pride themselves for being Slavs would be unwelcome. Do you suggest that we ignore the truth? Perhaps, it is time to grow up. It is all clear why Bulgarians would try to disassociate the Turks with Turkic people in an article for Turks in Bulgaria given that the Bulgars themselves were a Turkic people. Yes, I imagine these matters would hit a nerve and "annoy" most Bulgarians. But I care about truth and like history. Truth hurts addicts of falsehood and those who prefer myths and fantasies. Two days ago a Bulgarian guy told me that the Ottomans had 700 years of history but the Bulgarians had 2000 years of history. He insisted that Asparuh was a Slav. He too was "annoyed" to hear anything to the contrary. It is a national epidemic.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what I meant above and you must have read that it was not about the things you call Truth. It was about all the other things you said that are insultive to Bulgarians and you know this pretty well. Yes, Turkish and Turkic people are related, but why do you insist on adding Turkic people to the article about Turks in Bulgaria? From all your comments I figured you do not love history, but only pretend to in order to justify the Great Turkish ideas you pose. --Laveol ^T 15:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not me who created this section that contains the BS word and implied the F word. I let readers decide for themselves whether what I wrote consititutes any insult to rational and reasonable people. Regarding your question Yes, Turkish and Turkic people are related, but why do you insist on adding Turkic people to the article about Turks in Bulgaria? : I have no Grand Turkish ideas. Knowing the history of Turkic peoples does not make one a panturkist and I consider such claims a personal attack. I already commented on the reasons why Bulgarians would be opposed to the idea of mentioning the medieval Turkic peoples of Bulgaria. I ask any reasonable person the negated version of the same question: Why should there be no mention of the relevant medieval Turkic peoples of Bulgaria in an article titled Turks in Bulgaria? --Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, provide a referenced book issued from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Publishing house, or from another European, Russian or American University press or Publishing house, where the Iranian theory is supported. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I wrote the Iranian theory is supported by prominent Bulgarian historians e.g. Prof. Georgi Markov, Director of the Indtitute of History at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and Prof. Georgi Bakalov, Faculty of History at Sofia University. Their arguments can be found in the edition History of Bulgarians Vol. 1: From Antiquity till the end of XVI Century, Sofia: Trud & Znanie Publishers, 2003. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 9545282894 – a peer reviewed edition per WP:Reliable sources guidelines; also Bakalov’s paper Little known facts of the history of ancient Bulgarians. Science Magazine. Union of Scientists in Bulgaria. Vol. 15 (2005) Issue 1. (in Bulgarian). The theory is supported also by non-Bulgarian historians such as the leading Ukrainian (and Harvard) historian Omeljan Pritsak who wrote: “We must admit that the Bulgars were not Turkic people. A centuries-old mistaken and harmful scientific opinion has been overcome.” By the way, the early Bulgar presence in the Northern Caucasus and Mount Imeon area was dated by medieval Armenian sources to historical times preceding the migration of Turkic people there. Apcbg (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Where does the Pritsak quote come from? I always see it cited by Bulgarians, but the source is never provided. I'm an American of Bulgarian extraction, but I don't believe the Bulgarian theories about Iranian origins. People in the Balkans are simply too hot headed and chauvinistic to be honest about ethnic issues. The Bulgarians understandably have historical issues with the Turks, and this creates this complex about not wanting to have turkic origins. It would have been better if the Bulgarians had changed their national name a long time ago. In reality, they are Slavicized Thracians, yet because of the name "Bulgaria", they identify with this Bulgarianness and this leads to all of these twisted theories about Bulgarian origins and not wanting to be Turkic. If this Pritsak quote isn't phoney, please somebody post the source for it so it can be double-checked. Bulgman (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sofia: Trud & Znanie Publishers!?!

Well supported hypothesis!

Show the words of Pritsak. Or you belive to such clowns as B. Dimitrov? Jingby (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific theories are supported by scientists and their arguments not by publishing houses. The editorial board of the abovementioned publication ‘History of Bulgarians’ includes Prof. Georgi Bakalov, Prof. Georgi Markov, Prof. Grigor Velev, Assoc. Prof. Emil Aleksandrov, Assoc. Prof. Trendafil Mitev, and Assoc. Prof. Rayna Gavrilova; the authors are Prof. Georgi Bakalov, Prof. Petar Angelov, Prof. Dimitar Pavlov, Prof. Totyu Koev, Prof. Hristo Matanov, Assoc. Prof. Plamen Pavlov, Assoc. Prof. Emil Aleksandrov, Assoc. Prof. Evgeni Radushev, Dr. Tsvetelin Stepanov, and Dr. Vasko Arnaudov (still more of your ‘clowns’ indeed, together with Moses of Chorene, Anania Shirakatsi, Suren Eremian, Agathias of Myrina, Theophylact Simocatta, Michael the Syrian, and Omeljan Pritsak). As you seem too eager to have your POV imposed, I am not continuing this argument. Edit as you like – it will be corrected earlier or later. Apcbg (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my friend, I know, even B. Dimitrov is nowadays Professor, but nor Bulgarian Academy of Sciences', nor Sofia University's Publishing houses are issueing his books. Jingby (talk)

You mean all these historians were fooled by that guy? Amazing ... :-) Apcbg (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A Kind of History: A must read

Bulgarian scepticism towards the Turkic-ness of Bulgars and their eagerness to accept the Iranian/Pamirian theory can be better understood in the light of this article by Christopher Buxton.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Nostradamus,who are you?

 What are this lunatic and filled with hate writings? Are you a turk? Or Serbian? Or a brother from FYROM?
 I will tell you this:
  Read history! From your posts i uhderstand that you live somewhere between 1970 and 1990 year. Don't you heard and read about the hundreds archeological discoveries about the Bulgars in all our ancient and present day lands?! What turks! What assimilation from the slavs?! The archeologs found thousends of bulgarian cities and viliges in the areas of present day Romania, Serbia, FYROM, Ukraine and Bulgaria. I mean BULGARIAN settlements - not slavic. The Bulgars were numerous and very disciplined, civilized and tolerant. I can write so much but there is no reason because you dont want to see anything other than the turk teory. And what is the evidence? Few turchik words on one stone inskription and we are turks?! O! And the Volga Bulgarian history book:) Don't you know that the Volga Bulgars adopted Islam in IX century? And their chronist is a fanatic muslim Bulgarian and all he sees and want is Turchik culture and origin?!
 ALL FROM THE ANCIENT ARMENIAN, ARABIAN AND SOME OTHER HISTORY WRITERS POINT FOR OUR MOTHERLAND THE AREAL PAMIR AND HINDUKUSH WHERE BALHARA STATE EXISTS FROM ANCIENT TIMES! Most of them call us with our name bulhi, balhi, balhari, balahari and etc. In some parts of Russia still call us Balhari. Like Leonid Brejnev said: "Zdrastvuite, dorogie Balharski druzia!"
 And other thing that drives my crazy. The comentars of some low educated ( maybe western european) debaters in this section! They think that we were small, wilde and barabric nation and we invent our history on some false evidence and etc. SO let me tell you this and you can check it if you want:
 Dear western know nothing about history friends.
    Before the Ottomans and before the comunists Bulgaria was one of the three most strongest states in Europe - The Holly Roman Empire, The East Roman Empire and Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgars were the civilized, educated and dominated part of the people. The Bulgars were perfekt warriors and law makers. They give all the Rullers with the title " KANAS" (not "KHAN"), CESAR and later KING. From the Bulgarian word KANAS, komes the slavic wor for king - KNIAZ. The BUlgars built the cities, water canals, baths and etc. The strutures of the palaces and city walls were monumental. Not like the Byzantie style. The architecture was Bulgarian.
   The second tribe were our beloved slavs. Yes they were many but they were like aborigens. No cities - only earth homes and baraks. No alphabet, no structure, no nothing!What do you expect from the Soviets in the comunist regime? To speak the truth? NO! Because there is no greatness in their ancestors!
   And the third tribe were the Tracians but they were small part. There is lot of materials for them - so read!
   And the top of the icecream was the coment about our complainings from the bad otomans and make them in your eyes like bad, bad people. But they were good you say. You ask how it's possible for 500 yearsto preserve our etnicity and language! The answer is - RELIGION AND HARD WILL!iF WE WERE NOT chrystians and were muslims - for 40-50 years - asimilation. But no - we survive and preserve our ethnicity, our language ( Bulgarian not slavic), our genetical type. Yes there was hatred for the otoman slavers and the raped bulgarian girls when they understand that they are pregnant, they kill themselves with a knife in the chest. Also fathers kills their wifes and childrens and then themselves if the turks armies ( bashibozouk) komes to town! 
   O beloved Otoman turks!
    I the modern Bulgarian want to say thanks for:
      - killing all our kings, aristocracy, patriarchs,wariors, monks, citizens and leave anly the vilige people with no education and knowing only how to pray to GOD, work hard on the field and lay low. 
      - thank you for destroyng to the ground so carefully all our palaces, fortreses,churches, cathedrals, monastires, cities and etc.
      - thank you for destroyng our Bulgrian Patriarchate - equal to the Byzantie , with influence on half Europe.
      - thank you for reaping and beheading our young girls and even children, beheading our men, kiling the inhabitants and destroing whole towns, all the hangings, tearing bodies with horses, puting heads and litle babyes on poles and then present them in the city centres!
      - thank you for killing 2/3 of our population
      - thank you for being savages and stole from us the years of renesanse, the great geographic discoveries, industrial revolutions and etc.
      - thank you for making Bulgaria from strong empire - equal for all other states in Europe - to small and weak Bulgaria in present days with Bulgarian lands and minorities in all neibhor countries.

SO DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT SOME BULGARIAN UNRESANABLE WINING ABOUT THE TURKISH GENOCIDES AND SLAVERY FROM XV TO XIX CENTURY!

You dont have the right!

So my friends. Its time for you to throw back all the false comunist history and now when you are free from tyrany and dictature to write our realy true history and all our foregn countries to have realistik vision about us - who we are and from where we come!

 Please remove that turcik origin in the theory section and put the iranian on the top of the page...
 I kmow that you will write me many bulshit after my post but i want from you to study carefully all the new data from the historians and arkheologs in Ukraine, Fyrom and Romania. For me the debate for the language is between real linguists and must be in multiantional konference.

My friends - we are not from turchik or hunic origin. When i go out to the the street i can't see one person with mongoloid type of the face and i travel to turkey many times and i can'f find any similarity with the real turks and Bulgarians. The wite and europeid type of turkish citizens are asimilated Byzantie citizens from medievil times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.73.226 (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge parts of Kingdom of Balhara into this article?

The second half of "Kingdom of Balhara" (see that article) is actually not about that region/state/whatever but about Bulgarian historian Georgi Bakalov's theories about the Bulgars' subsequent migrations from there, (as he believes that the inhabitants of Balhara - "Bulh" - were "probably" Bulgars). --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulgar tribes

was not Kubrat the leader of the onogurs branch of Bulgars? Here they're not even mentioned as a Bulgar tribe ? Hxseek (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Geser Kurultaev

 Току-що съзирам, че никът е "Джин-гиби" ("Като дух" на османо-турски, прякор на Васил Левски), та ще обясня на български:

1. Откритието е лицензирано. 2. Дадох линк към научния форум на сп. "Космос", отделно е публикувано и в няколко други форума. 3. Относно Гесер Курултаев (Георги Иванов Русев) : магистър по философия (СУ "Св. Климент Охридски" - 1993-2000 г.), преподавател по чужди езици в Китайската Народна Република (в настоящия момент). 4. След като на страниците на Уикипедията намират място теории като Българин = Смесен , т.е. доста фриволни и ненаучни, едно подобно, на Алтайска база откритие би било редно да се постави, за да са информирани хората.

Поздрави!   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.11.217.181 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 

Please, provide the existing of such a scientist and his new theory or this pasage will be deleted! Jingby (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your proof is only an IT forum on address wich has been blocked as spam from the spam filter of Wikipedia. Geser Kurultaev [2] is only a person with Sofia University degree as me for example. He is not scientist and the IT forum is not scientifical proof. Wikipedia is not IT forum! Regards. Jingby (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

According to a new, Altaic theory by Geser Kurultaev (a Bulgarian-Tatar Philosopher-Anthropologist) the ethnonym "bulgar" is coming from the old, proto-Turkic "Bal-" ("head") and "-gar" ("clan"),i.e. Balgar/Bulgar = "Main clan"; "Leading people"; "Head clan"... (The source is licensed here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/bg/ and the article can be found in this scientific website: www.kosmos.pass.as/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?200)

Pleace, provide some scientifical proof about your statements, the above added addresse is not inaf. Jingby (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove the picture from the Menology of Basil II, 10th century.

Remove the picture on top of article. The picture represent BULGARIAN (not BULGAR) soldiers from the last days of First Bulgarian Empire - 10th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.247.180 (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kubrat sword.jpg

The image Image:Kubrat sword.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with article

There are a few problems with this artticle which make it weak

1. The introductory paragraph in the origins section mentions that Bulgarians are typical eastern Mediterranaen genetically whilst Chuvash are a mixture of central European and Mediterranaean. Not only does this defy logic, but is outright incorrect. How could Chuvash have a central European genetic make-up ? The reference provided links to an abstract. I think this should be removed until we can back such a statement up with harder evidence. Secondly Bulgarians aren;t tyupical Mediterraenean. What is "typical mediterraenean". If anything, they are "Eastern Balkan" , genetically speaking, clustering with Greeks, Romanians and, partly, Turks.

2. It presentes the Turkic origin of Bulgars as mutually exclusive to the Pamirian one. It does not attempt to highlight that the steppes region was a melting point of different cultures and ethnicities, and that all groups such as Bulgars, Huns, Avar, etc were heterogenous, although one language might have been the lingua franca at any point in time. Clearly partisanism is prevalent with regards to the issue of Bulgars' origins

3. Thirdly, it prematurely concludes that the Cutrigurs and Utigurs are the predecessors of the Bulgars, without mentioning that Byzantine sources locate the Bulgars to the east of the Black sea, whereas the Kutrigurs and Utigurs were immediately north. Nor does it attempt to reconcile the fact that "Old Bulgaria" was called Onoghunduria, thus how the Onogurs fit the equation.

Clearly a lot more research has to be done to improve this article. Hxseek (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

About the first question. Why did you not read the reference? Is this a provocation or what. It is not abstract but full text: [3] Jingby (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it is a full article. But the article uses HLA-genes to attempt to try and trace ancient migration paths. Virtually every other article uses Y-DNA or mt-DNA analyses. I question the quality of this study

From the top of my head, as far as modern Bulgarians are concerned - their Y-DNA is J2 (20%) , E3b (25%), R1a (15 %), R1b (17%), I2 (< 10%). A rough quote from the top of my head. How is such a genetic composition "typical eastern Meditteranean" ? What is defined as "eastern Mediterranean" ?

From "HLA genes in the Chuvashian population from European Russia: Admixture of central European and Mediterranean populations" Human Biology, Jun 2003 by Arnaiz-Villena et al.:

"...The Chuvash are believed to originate from the ancient Bulgars that inhabited the western region of the Volga River and came from Central Asia in the 4th century A.D. The Great Bulgaria was divided into five different hordes, the fourth corresponding to the Chuvash and the fifth representing present-day Bulgarians (see introductory paragraphs). From the data obtained in the present work, the genetic backgrounds of both populations are clearly different. The Chuvash have a central European and some Mediterranean genetic background (probably coming from the Caucasus), while the Bulgarians have a classical eastern Mediterranean composition, grouping with Macedonians and Iranians in the neighbor-joining trees obtained by using DR and DQ genetic distances (Figure 4)[4] and confirmed by correspondence analysis (Figure 5)[5]. It is possible that only a cultural and low genetic Bulgar influence was brought into the region without modifying the genetic background of the local population..." Jingby (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not intending to provoke anyone, Jingiby. I just find the history section poorly written. It is obvious that many references for the article were obtained from internet sites of questionable quality. For example, there is no proof definitely linking the Bulgars with the Huns. The Cutrigurs and Utigurs were political organisations, not Bulgar ethnic tribes per se. All i'm stating is that if you want to improve the scholarly quality of this article, we should illustrate the fact that the issue is actually very complicated, and not tell it as if the conclusion is self-evident

Hxseek (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I can read, and I know what the study concluded. What I;m sayin is that it is not a very good quality study. It does not define what a "Mediterranean" population is, and secondly it uses HLA genes instead of Y chromosome haplogroups or mtDNA. Comprendé ? Hxseek (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

bulģa

And of what language is this word? I couldn't find anything similar in any Turkic language..It would be the best to double- or triple- source this Turkic etymology of Bulgar, and also provide comparisons of cognate words in several Turkic languages in the mentioned sense ("to mix, stir"). If this is, of course, the general linguistic consensus on the origin of the ethnonym Bulgar(ian). Or is it? :) Otherwise, it would be speculative and fringy OR hardly worth of mentioning. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact there is the verb bulga- in Old Turkic with the meaning of "to stir, to stir up", and it also has cognates in modern Turkic languages with minor phonetic differences. Here are TDK and Starostin's links for verification. [6][7]

In the eleventh century Diwan Lughat al-Turk, the verb bulga- takes place as a transitive verb with the meaning of "to stir, to roil, to anger". Thus in Middle Turkic the word bulgar means "those who stir, roil, or anger".

So far as I know, the theory that the word bulgar originated from the Turkic verb bulga- belonged to Vámbéry (and probably Gerard Clauson), with the meaning of "rebels, those who revolt". --Chapultepec (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but Turkic bulga- being the source of Bulgar ethnicon nevertheless needs to be multiple-sourced, due to inherent controversy. "stir up" > "rebels" theory doesn't sound too convincing --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

But "bulga-" is not the proper name of Bulgars or Bulgarians. And in the past bulgarians called themselves: "Blgari". Somebody has to look for similar "Old Turk" word again :)). I see this "Old Turk" is very rich, despite of the strong presence of Persian and Arabic words.

POV

An IP began to vandalise the article. If no reliable explaination will be given I am going to revert this sock. Jingby (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The "IP" gave sources including Dr. Lang's take on the Bulgars, where he lists the various states founded by them, and the evidence that they are descended from and/or directly related to the Huns. This is something that the vandal Jingiby keeps erasing with regard to the Bulgars, whilst simply calling them semi-nomads. He has also erased any references that show that the Bulgars were literate and used the Orkhon writting script because this goes against his POV that they were uncultured nomadic barbarians. So there you have it, everytime I say this in a discussion area, he has no answer to prove his points. He can't explain to me how a nation is nomadic when it has founded four recognized states in Eurasia (possibly six by some academic accounts) and how it is not a civilization when in fact it used a written language, mutli-ethnic confederate organization, sedentary building methods, etc... Despite all this, he simply calls it "a fantasy" and that they were an illiterate tribe of nomads. Due to his behaviour more and more people can see what he's doing and everyone knows how many times he's been involved in editing wars and likewise how many times he has disregarded the sources provided by other people that do not fit well within his personal views. Therein people also know that he has been banned from editing for months at a time and I think it's possible it will happen again if he continues to only include sources regarding the Bulgars that put them in negative light while disregarding other already proven facts (ie: Orkhon script, prolific state builders in Eurasia [ie: Great Bulgaria, Volga Bulgaria, First Bulgarian Empire, Second Bulgarian Empire and according to some sources the Kingdom of Balhar, etc...) Keep it up VANDAL JINGIBY! --Monshuai (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

At first dear Monshuai there is not a such thing Bulgar Kingdom of Balhar. Second Bulgarian Empire was founded and ruled by Vlachs and Kumans. At the beginning of this article stays: They founded Old Great Bulgaria and later a branch of them gave rise to the First Bulgarian Empire, while another to Volga Bulgaria. This is the real situation. And many nomadic and semi-nomadic people founded different states and changed their way of life. The hypothesis of a small circle Bulgarian dreamers has not place here. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First, please don't call me "dear" as we're not friends nor close associates. Have some respect for your elders and/or people who are more educated than yourself. :) Also please learn proper English grammar before continuing to claim you have mastered the language as you so inconspicuously do in your user page. Other users have also told you that some of your edits are grammatically incorrect and yet your inertial behaviour doesn't stop and/or change direction. It is improper to say "at first" in the context and in regard to the subjective meaning you were trying to convey in your above statement. Second, if the Vlachs and Kumans started the Second Bulgarian Empire, why did they not call it the Vlach and Kuman Empire? Everyone knows that these ethnic groups supported the founding of the Second Bulgarian Empire, but they did so whilst accepting the sovereignty of the Bulgarian state, similarly to how Slavs were co-opted in the creation of the First Bulgarian Empire. The Asens, Terters, Shishmans and Basarabs called themselves Bulgars and the empires within which they were integrated into the ruling class were hence called Bulgarian. This is another reason why the Bulgars are described as multi-ethnic conglomerations of state builders, something you also continually erase/vandalize. Third, contrary to your predictable claims there is an ancient state called Balhar that is associated with the Bulgars. It is also known as Balgar and Balhara. Here's what the Minnesota State University has to say about this: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/oldworld/europe/bulgaria.html So is there anything else you want to state that makes you look even less educated? Be my guest! Oh and you should know that the tides of change are turning against you in lgith of your prejudiced behaviour which is indeed futile when pitted against the power of truth, neutrality and reality...--Monshuai (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a reliable scientific publication. What means: written by Peter I. Batakliev. Who is this guy? Stop kidding, please. Jingby (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer any of the other questions (point 1 and 2) and instead attacked the author of the article published in the Minnesota State University. Even so let us discuss point 3... Perhaps you feel that the Minnesota State University is a joke and that's why you feel it is equated to a lowly and humurous level of insignifance as symbolized by your statement, "stop kidding". Maybe all university material as composed by people who are doctors, professors etc are a joke to you and thus you consider your opinion to be somehow better then theirs? Batakliev's sources are:

Prof. Dr. Sc. Alexander Fol History of the Bulgarians. Necessity for a New Approach. Reconsiderations Sofia Sate University, 1998.

Prof. Dr. Sc. Alexander Fol The Bulgarians Sofia State State University, 2000.

Dr. Sc. Dobrev, Petar. The Bulgarian Fireplaces of Civilization on the Map of Euro-Asia Bulgarian Academy of Science, Sofia, 1998.

Prof. George Bakalov. Prof. Dr. Sc. Alexander Fol and other professors from Sofia State University, Bulgarian Centuries, 1999.

Remember, you are simply proving that you do not have the capability nor the knowledge to lead a civilized discussion, intead resorting to clichés and short sentences that even a five year-old can utilize in an argument/debate. Keep it up, let the world see how you insult dignified members of the foreign and Bulgarian intelligentsia who have worked all their lives studying, documenting and analyzing Bulgar history. On top of everything you not only disregard academic materials published by an American University but also those published by the foremost research institution on Bulgar history, The Sofia State University. More research has been done there about the Bulgars than any other place in the world. But of course you JINGIBY know more than the people there. The clock is ticking and the sad truth about you and your prejudiced beliefs is pouring out. --Monshuai (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There are ONLY several Bulgarian sources. This is a fringe theory. No one foregn source. Nearly all of the rest of Bulgarian sources claimes vice versa - the Bulgars were Turkic semi-nomads. All foreign scientific sources states that Bulgars were nomads from Turkic origis. And Professor Fol was Thracologist. Stop kidding. Jingby (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't answered point 1 and 2. How come? Right now you are simply talking about a portion of point 3, which is about Balhara. That still doesn't change your inability to respond to the challenges I have presented to you thus far. What I did is show that the Bulgars founded at least 4 different states which is accepted in all foreign literature. Show me the literature that says that Volga Bulgaria, Great Bulgaria, The First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire are not Bulgar! This means that the Bulgars were prolific state builders. If you say they aren't than tell me, how many states does a nation need to create before that title is acceptable? In Europe no other nation in the Middle Ages created four states. Thus again you are proven biased and completely incorrect. It has also been accepted throughout academic literature (foreign and Bulgarian) that the Bulgars were literate and used a modified Orkhon script. It has however not been fully accepted that they were Turkic, as most academics acknowledge there is no definitive proof of this. What people do believe is that they were partly Turkic. Some literature, such as that written by Dr. Lang, posits they were a mix between Hunnic and Ugric peoples. Others say they were simply Huns, which is a type of Turkic people. Yet others find evidence that they originated in the Hindu-Kush. The fringe theory is to simply call them Turkic. The more widely accepted theory nowadays is that the Bulgars were a mix between various ethnicities, united under a confederation. The term Bulga itself refers to "mixing/intertwined" which is usually used to describe the multi-ethnic composition of the Bulgars. This is also confirmed by anthropological tests completed on Bulgars remains in the Ukranian steppe. Finally, there is much academic material on Balhara including texts written by the ancient Armenians who describe the original homeland of the Bulgars to be Balhara. As for Dr. Fol, he has written texts on the comprehensive history of Bulgaria, which includes research by his colleagues on the Bulgars, the Slavs, the Greeks, etc... So before you continue to embarrass yourself, try to actually say something intelligent. And please stop avoiding the comment I made about your "Vlach and Cuman Empire" and why it was actually called the Second Bulgarian Empire. Why oh why, did "other" ethnicities call themselves Bulgar and take titles as Bulgars? Why oh why did "they" fight for Bulgar sovereignty? Anyways, I will continue to debate you here forever if I have to, for it is my sincere pleasure to showcase your lack of objectivity and knowledge as manifested in your vandalizing actions on numerous wikipedia articles. It's no wonder you were banned from editing for a long long time. Was it 3 months or 6 months? --Monshuai (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not interested in your POV-s. No reliable international scientific sources - no real discussion. Happy dreams! Jingby (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Again you didn't respond to the information I provided. You might as well just admit that you are unable to do so, and thereby you keep repeating the same sentence over and over again in the hope that it will annoy me enough to discontinue this discussion. I think you have misinterpreted what kind of person I am. I will not stop until I have convinced everyone, including the admins on wikipedia, that your behaviour is unjust and that your edits in many of the articles are one-sided and far from comprehensive. I should also wonder, for example in regard to the article on England, if it would be appropriate to use say Chinese sources, Bulgarian sources, South African sources, French sources, Indian sources etc because they are as you say foreign sources? Maybe the Chinese sources should be used to best determine the origins of the Anglo-Saxons since that would be defined as a foreign source. What's your answer on that? Why don't you take a look at which sources are used regarding the English article for example? Yes they are English, primarily because the English have the greatest amount of resources to study their own history, ancestors, etc and secondarily because they (as other nations) do not feel that foreign experts will present a favourable picture of what it means to be English... Some foreign sources will no doubt cast light on truths that the English may refrain from showcasing in their article, such as the slave trade sponsored by the crown or the function of the English navy as means to traffick drugs throughout East Asia, which in itself lead to the Opium Wars. That's how the Chinese see the English of olden times, as no more than drug traffickers who tried to get as many Chinese people turn into addicts as possible, which when challenged by the empirial forces of the Manchu Dynasty, was deemed an act of war and a nice excuse to take Chinese land. Does Hong Kong ring a bell? Now then, many of the English wikipedians are afraid to showcase these truths for fear that many foreigners may suddenly start to protray their nation in a unreasonably unfavourable light. So then the best course of action, would be to use both foreign and local sources to create an article (and the all-important intros to articles) that are present the information in a comprehensive and maximally balanced fashion. That same fact should be applied to articles relating to Bulgarians and such peoples as the Bulgars, Thracians, South-Slavs etc... Anyway, I've already demonstrated the importance of local sources in another country (England), and now I will demonstrate an example of its importance in Bulgaria. Thracology as a field of study is most developed in Bulgaria and the world's first institute of Thracology was founded in Bulgaria. Why would that be? Again, it is because local Bulgarian anthropologists, historians, etc have the best access to physical and cultural resources that allow them to study in depth the Thracians. This is also the same reason why the study of Bulgars is also most developed in Bulgaria. Since you're not intelligent enough to have understood this earlier in our discussions (or on your own for that matter), the point is that local sources are often the most complete. Foreign sources are indeed important and should be included, but not at the expense of local sources. You on other hand are so incredibly biased, that you've decided to exclude Bulgarian sources in the intro altogether simply because many of them don't fit with your mission to discredit the achievements of the Bulgars. As you can see things have already changed a little in the article even though only one day has passed since our current discussion began, and since time is on my side the changes will eventually overrun your actions. Your vandalizing edits will be neutralized, not tactically but strategically. In the end when you are going up against many people, you will be the one who ends up getting banned from editing for what will be a much longer period than 3 or 6 months. Again you didn't answer, did you get banned from editing Bulgaria related articles for 3 months or for 6 months before?--Monshuai (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

An sock under a name Ppanchev ivan began to vandalise the article. If no reliable explaination will be given I am going to revert this sock. Jingby (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

ALL ADMINS PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION ABOVE AND JINGIBY'S EDIT HISTORY

I have done my best to be flexible and accept many of Jingiby's edits. I do this whilst knowing he has had his editing priviledges revoked for many months in the past due to the very same behaviour he shows herein. Even whilst placing a sentence such as, "In the Middle Ages the Bulgars created three states in different parts of Eurasia" he insists on deleting it. Please see articles on Volga Bulgaria, Great Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire if you are unfamiliar with this issue. It's just one example of many in regard to what can be construed as vandalism. He has also removed academic sources numerous times simply because the views of some Professors, Historians, etc are in conflict with his own views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.234.124 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have to read the leading paragraph: In the early 7th century they founded a short-living tribal confederation, known as Old Great Bulgaria or Onoguria and afterwards two other states: Volga Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire, and probably stop POV-pushing. P.S. The states were created in Europe, entirely! Jingby (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you feel the terms Turkic and semi-nomadic belong in the first sentence, than so does the fact that Bulgars built states in three different locations of Eurasia. Which do you think is more definitive of a nation: Is it its as of yet unproven racial/ethnic origin, or its cultural achievements that gave it an identity in the first place? Tha admins will have this discussion on record as well and they certainly will look at it chronologically.--Monshuai (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

From the dawn of the histor to the 7th century they were Nomads. We can not begin with the state-building. There is a chronology here. Jingby (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case go edit all the wikipedia articles for each and every nation in the world, because after all every nation has roots in barbarism, nomadism, etc... Why don't you go the Anglo Saxon article and write that they were a barbaric tribe whose members were often enslaved by the Romans. That certainly chronologically precedes their subsequent achievements. Stop destroying your reputation. It's obvious that you treat the Bulgars article in an unjust fashion, while you wouldn't dare do this to any other "nation" article.--Monshuai (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bulgarian nation has its roots in the Balkans. We are descedants from the Thracians and partly from the Slavs. The not numerous Bulgars were assimilated a 1,000 years ago. Only their name still remains. Jingby (talk)

Now we finally find out why you try so hard to make the Bulgars look bad. You just don't want them to be associated with Bulgarians because you don't see them as Europeans. Why don't you provide an academic source that proves the Bulgarians are only descendents of the Thracians and Slavs? Here you are making bold statements without a single source and this allows us all to see the motives behind your vandalism. The latest DNA tests show that the modern Bulgarians carry approximately ~15% of a specific haplotype associated with the Slavs. That's doesn't support the arguments of the Slavophils such as yourself. This is also true of the Macedonians and Serbians, who themselves are not as Slavic as their leaders would have them believe. There are also tests that show that more 50% of modern Bulgarian genes are native to the Balkans and thus are often associated with the Thracians. There is also significant evidence that we have Greek, Illyrian and Latin blood. Yet another test shows that we also carry a host of exotic genes found also in people of Hungarian descent. According to other studies these genes are also found amongst the Finns, Estonians and Russians. These particular studies show that the said genes originate in Central and East Asia. Why do you think that is? No one is saying we don't have Thracian, or Slav, but to say we are also not descendents of the Bulgars is stretching it, especially in light of archeological/anthropological studies that support the genetic tests by demonstrating that a large number of Bulgars conquered this part of Europe. Unfortunately, you have bought the Communist propaganda that tried to make Bulgarians believe in pan-Slavia. I knew you were a racist who had something against Asian people and that's why you try so hard to hide the achievements of the Bulgars. Shame on you. You should do a genetic test on yourself (there are many availabale online, be them maternal, paternal or both) and see just how multi-ethnic you really are. There is no such thing as a pure nation... Not in Bulgaria and not anywhere else. Get with the times you Slavophilic/Europhilic/Asiaphobic racist.--Monshuai (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

From a historical point of view the present-day Chuvash and Bulgarians are believed to originate partly from the Bulgars. However, according to their DNA data, the genetic backgrounds of both populations are clearly different... It is possible that only a cultural and low genetic Bulgar influence was brought into the two regions, without modifying the genetic background of the local populations. HLA genes in the Chuvashian population from European Russia: Admixture of central European and Mediterranean populations - pg. 5 Jingby (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So which part of this above quote can't you read properly? You ended up proving what I have said, which is that there is a Bulgar contribution to the modern Bulgarian's composite genetic makeup. They say there is a "low genetic" influence after all, which is what I have stated as well. That simply means that even you the Europhil racist has some portion of genes stemming directly from the Bulgars. And you should take a look at the other genetic test for more detailed information on this topic. So thanks for proving yourself wrong, since your argument was that "only the Bulgars' name still remians." It also mentions the continous cultural influence that the Bulgars have on the Bulgarian nation, which likewise showcases relisilience and relative dominance of some of their cultural characteristics that have survived to the present day. This very fact, along with their literary society based on the Kuban Script, tells us that they were a civilized people and not the barbarians you portray them to be. Now run along, as the article has acquired some of the changes I was seeking in the first place. I win, you lose Mr. Racist Vandal Asiaphobe...--Monshuai (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Monshuai. Jingby (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Turkic peoples were primarily a linguistic idea, as the majority of steppe nomads were (a) anthropoligocally mixed - being predominantly Europoiod, albeit seen as rather ugly by the Greeks (who, in contrast, actually did not altogether mind Germanics, Celts and Slavics- admiring their tall and fair features); with small Mongolid admixture which is proposed to have arrived only during and after the Hun period. There is no convincing evidence that there was ever a unified Bulgar people, or that they had any 'Turkic awareness'. Rather, several groups were referred to as Bulgars by sources. Eg, Kuber's "Bulgars" were actually predominantly Christianized Macedonians (in the regional sense) that had been taken captive by the Avars and then returned home after a successful rebellion. Rashev has even argued that the Bulgars already spoke Slavic by the time they arrived in Danubian lands. So it's not about being racist, but the Turkic connection is rather minimal. Monshuai, your arguements, based in DNA are ridiculous, because there is no such thing as "Slavic DNA'. R1a is not Slavic. Ethnogenesis is a cultural and political phenomenon, not an assortment of biologically similar organisms. Ethnicities are ultimately based on culture and language, therefore plain and simply Bulgarians are, and always have been, Slavs. Hxseek (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Iranian "theory"

The proponents of the Iranian "theory" propose that the Bulgars were descendants of the "civilized" Sumerians, rather than "primitive" Turks. It seems to be an entirely racist idea. I agree that it's undue. We should take out all these alternate "theories" until some consensus develops on what we should include--the only other tidbit in the article is hardly encyclopedic quality either. kwami (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a racist theory - it just reveals some discrepancies in the turkic theory. By "civilized" the authors mean the Bulgar's ability to build cities made of stone. And for the 7th century this is not insignificant. The remnants of these cities can be seen even today in Bulgaria and they don't match with the idea of the primitive turkic tribes living in tents. And I don"t understand why the section "Iranian origin theory" was deleted. There are doubts about its plausibility but it still exists and it has its supporters among historians.Scheludko (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

they spoke a Turkic language, so todays Bulgarians are Turkic, but you are still an idiot.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.245.56 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Bulgarians

Who is that "scientist" named John Stevens to talk about bulgarian origin?! He is not a scientist but a fat ugly man sitting in front of his computer all the day and ingnores the facts about my ancestors, deletes them from wiki. Dear John that is the way your wiki to become an shithole for lies. Who are you to tell : - this is right and this is not.

And how is that this IP - 94.54.245.56 a turkish guy tells us we are an idiots because we say the obvious - Bulgars are not turks. There is nothing here about chuvashi, tatari and so on. We are talking about Bulgars, the obvious founders of Bulgaria. And this IP tels me that we and turic have the same origin. Ha ha ha. How many turic words exist in bulgarian? How many linguistic similarities are there between bulgarian and turkish? None - these are very different languages. And who is the idiotic IP now? Ppanchev ivan

Hey sock, the article is about the Bulgars, not Bulgarians! Jingby (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt.theories

Restored the humorous section at least on this talk page. I'd taken such pains sourcing some of the best stuff (check out Bozho Dimitrov's arguments, he is a minister now, too) and now I see that people have deleted it, because apparently Bulgarian patriots are occupied elsewhere. Please! Bozho's deep thoughts must not be missed! --Anonymous44 (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Iranian theory

The ancient Bulgar homeland according to Acad. S.T. Eremian’s reconstruction of the original ‘Ashkharatsuyts’ map of Central Asia.

A new theory, supported by some researchers in Bulgaria, claims that the Bulgar language was an Indo-European, specifically an Iranian language, and so, according to this theory, the Bulgar people would be classified as an Iranian people, although some of its proponents concede that the language was later influenced by Turkic due to Hunnic military domination. This notion became popular in Bulgaria in the 1990s, with the works of Petar Dobrev, a specialist in economic history. Dobrev and other authors (who, like him, are not linguists) attempt to prove the Iranian origin of a number of words and sometimes even grammatical features in Bulgar and modern Bulgarian. For example, Dobrev dismisses the general view that the Bulgar titles and names of animals in the cyclic year were Turkic and instead maintains that these terms were borrowed by Turkic and Mongol tribes from the Bulgars, as the Bulgars possessed, in his view, a more ancient and sophisticated civilization with roots in Sumerian and Akkadian culture.

Several other Bulgarian historians (Georgi Bakalov, Bozhidar Dimitrov) support Dobrev's view. Dimitrov also makes the point that "... the Bulgars are not a primitive nomadic people, they are not Mongoloids with lower lifestyle and culture", and that "the striving for a statehood of one's own is genetically inherent in them". He furthermore argues that since both the Iranian languages and the Slavic languages are Indo-European, the Bulgars and the Slavs in the 9th century Bulgaria must have "chatted with each other in closely related languages ... and could probably understand each other without an interpreter". Dimitrov also quotes Ukrainian Turkologist Omeljan Pritsak as having stated: "We have to admit that the Bulgars were not a Turkic people. A century-old erroneous and highly harmful unscientific view has been overcome."

Other theories

Another alternative view is that Bulgar, far from being affiliated to Chuvash, belonged instead to the same branch as all other surviving Turkic languages and more specifically Kazan Tatar. Bulgarian scholar Ivan Shishmanov speculated in 1900 that this was the case, and the same view is espoused also by modern Bulgarist Kazan Tatar linguist Mirfatyh Zakiev.(removed from talk later than the rest--Anonymous44 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Cäğfär Taríxı, a Russian language document of disputed authenticity, purports to be a 1680 compilation of ancient Bulgar annals. It was published by a Volga Tatar Bulgarist editor in 1993. Cäğfär Taríxı contains a very detailed description of Bulgar history. Among other things, it implies that the Bulgars were formed as a result of consolidation of many Turkic and Turkicized tribes.(removed from talk later than the rest--Anonymous44 (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

In the 19th century, even theories of a Slavic or Finno-Ugric affiliation were proposed on the basis of little or no evidence. These have practically no adherents among today's scholars.