| Revision as of 03:55, 3 May 2018 view source83.81.213.111 (talk) Origin of eastern and western Scythian nomads← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:09, 28 December 2024 view source Jingiby (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers62,128 edits The same.Tags: Undo RevertedNext edit → | ||
| (404 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
| {{FailedGA|07:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)|topic=Culture, society and psychology|page=1}} | {{FailedGA|07:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)|topic=Culture, society and psychology|page=1}} | ||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1= | ||
| {{WikiProject Russia |
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|hist=yes|ethno=yes}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Ethnic groups |
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Bulgaria |
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|importance=high}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Romania |
{{WikiProject Romania}} | ||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|date=July 15, 2015}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Reliable sources and objectiveness == | |||
| {{findnotice}} | |||
| Greetings, | |||
| {{Talk:Bulgars/GA1}} | |||
| I've been reading the discussion page about the Bulgars article and I noticed that editors tend to discredit any sources which are in opposition to the Turkic hypothesis (or in favor of the Sarmatian one) as unreliable purely on the basis that they're from Bulgarian authors. When an editor asks for reliable sources in English, "non-Bulgarian" is always a requirement, which I think implies that contemporary Bulgarian academia are all extreme nationalists who are writing out of "anti-Turkish sentiment", thus making them unreliable or incompetent. I find this completely false (not to mention offensive), for the following reasons: | |||
| '''1.'''the Sarmatian/Iranian hypothesis exists long before the 90's - Russian historian Nikolai Marr was one of the first to propose a Sarmatian origin of the Bulgars in the early 20th century. Veselin Beshevliev wrote an article ''Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians'' way back in ''1967'', where he concludes that all personal names from the ''Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans'' are of Iranian origin and that this significant cultural influence has to be taken into consideration when determining Bulgar ethnogenesis. | |||
| == "Good article" == | |||
| '''2.''' the Turkic hypothesis was the official narrative about the Bulgars origin at the time of the '''Revival process''' and under Communist regime. So linking the Sarmatian/Iranian hypotheses of the 1990's with "anti-Turkish sentiments" and the Revival process in particular is simply absurd. Yes, there are many fringe theories in post-socialist Bulgaria which are nationalistic myths in their nature, such as the Bactrian hypothesis of P. Dobrev and the autochthonous hypothesis, but they emerge as a result of pluralism after the fall of old regime and cannot be linked to the Revival process when the Turkic theory was dominant. | |||
| This could never reach status of a "good article" by being built on blank spaces instead of consistent theories. There are enough sound ideas in the Bulgarian scientific community from late 20th century, with dedicated scholars spending their entire lives putting the pieces together on a basis of direct sources. But no, the Bulgarian historians are ''way too biased'' to research ''their own'' ancestry! What an argument!--] (]) 01:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
| I would also like to point out something else - when talking about "reliable sources", I think its ridiculous to refer to the Oxford's or some others '''Dictionary of World history''' as they are not historical/archeological '''research''', but as dictionaries they themselves refer to previous research done mainly by '''Bulgarian''' historians such as Veselin Beshevliev (the first one to identify Bulgar inscriptions as Turkic), Vasil Zlatarski, Vasil Gyuzelev and others. Simply discrediting modern Bulgarian research made by serious academia as "nationalistic myths" or "anti-Turkish sentiments" without looking into the evidence itself is just lazy, anti-scientific and perhaps biased. | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017 == | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Bulgars|answered=yes}} | |||
| Please, change the line " Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes " with " semi-nomadic warrior tribes " . Bulgars were not turkic people, there is many genetic studies and proves about it, here is one of them: (https://en.wikipedia.org/Genetic_studies_on_Bulgarians) | |||
| The language they have spoken may have belonged to the turkic language family ( again unproved theory), but the background of the tribes is historically and genetically far away from so called turks. ] (]) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|Vasil dobrev}} {{not done}}. I just went through the dozens of times the word "Turkic" appears in this article and the claim that Bulgars were, in fact, Turkic is supported by tons of ]. Misplaced Pages can't be used as a source for itself. Do you have a reliable, third-party source stating that Bulgars were not Turkic? ''''']<font color="Green" face="Bradley Hand ITC">O</font><font color="Red" face="Bradley Hand ITC">f</font>]''''' 17:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Quite interesting, how for a such of short period of time, you have managed to check "tons" of "reliable" sources? And what gives you guarantee, that they are reliable, and not serving geopoitical interests? Yes, I can also say, I went through tons of third-party sources, and appears, that the claim that Bulgars are Turkic is groundless. Here is a third-party source, studies, made by scientists: http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/bulgarians.html | |||
| ::http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=006d5e3a-ea14-49ff-9b39-f0a042d39185&cKey=bfc88c56-5e93-4ee2-89e6-c3ab1bd25f5c&mKey=%7BDFC2C4B1-FBCD-433D-86DD-B15521A77070%7D | |||
| ::Here is also some quotes from one of the studies: | |||
| ::"In addition, an important consideration arises from the finding that haplogroups C-M217, N-M231 and Q-M242, which are common in Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations , , occur at the negligible frequency of only 1.5% in modern Bulgarians. This observation is in agreement with the results of recent linguistic studies which demonstrated that '''the proto-Bulgarian language does not belong to the Turkic family but it relates to the Indo-European languages of the East Iranian group''', whose traces still persist in the modern Bulgarian language, despite its Slavic basis. Thus, taking into account the novel and detailed historical studies indicating that proto-Bulgarians were quite numerous (32% or perhaps even 60% of the population in early Danubian Bulgaria) –, , , it follows that '''a shared paternal ancestry between proto-Bulgarians and Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking groups either did not exist or was negligible'''." | |||
| ::"As for the interpopulation analysis, similarly to mtDNA, Bulgarians belong to the cluster of European populations, still being slightly distant from them. ''''''Bulgarians are distant from Turks''' (despite geographical proximity), Arabic and Caucasus''' populations and Indians." | |||
| ::There is many moore recent studies abuot this. And is not pulled out from Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::] (]) 21:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{replyto|Vasil dobrev}} One of the sources is the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you've come here to claim that such a publication is {{tq|"serving geopolitical interests"}} and is thus not reliable, you might as well not bother. Nobody is going to remove every single one of the many sourced claims that say the Bulgars were or might have been Turkic, especially since the article clearly mentions the recent spate of academic skepticism. Your request is confrontational, and it contains an unacceptable tone of angry nationalism. Avoid this approach if you need me to help any further. ''''']<font color="Green" face="Bradley Hand ITC">O</font><font color="Red" face="Bradley Hand ITC">f</font>]''''' 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The newly regisetred editor above called Vasil dobrev is a ], suspected sock of the blocked ]. ] (]) 07:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: {{reply to|CityOfSilver}} Hello, I don't agree fully with the semi protected edit by Vasil Dobrev, but I agree an edit is needed, adding more information about the other hypothesizes (which means unproven theory and commonly disputed theory, just like the origin of Bulgars itself). There is in fact tons of information about the other theories, as not a single theory is approved among historians. Most historians tend to say their theory is the one and only, which leads to controversial disputes as this one. It would be more objective if we mention the other as well, because there are newer and much more accurate ones. The idea of origin of Bulgars is hypothesis - can't be proven because of the controversial information we have about the Bulgars. I can find many sources about most commonly accepted theories if you need such. Some old sources even claim exactly the opposite as the early arab and byzantine authors wrote the Bulgars were completely different from the Turks. Others wrote they are the same. No theory is agreed upon and writing only one of them is not an objective solution over the subject. Many historians like Bozhidar Dimitrov and Petar Dobrev wrote tons of books about it. They are Indo-European (Schyto-Sarmatian), autochonic(no known existence) and the hunnic hypothesis, which is the most widely accepted one among the historians. The thing with the Hunnic hypothesis is that the huns themselves are largely disputed among historians and you can find all the main theories about their origin on the Huns page of wikipedia with "for" and "against" facts. All theories there apply for the Bulgars as well. So the same way of objective view is supposed to be added here as well. If you need any references about those theories I can help. I can provide a lot of information. Nobody is asking for removing sources and text but instead adding more information about the other theories and explaining that none is agreed upon. Again I can provide citations and everything you need, but the article itself, in the moment I believe is incomplete and biased over one theory only and one historian only - something we here at wikipedia should try to avoid in the sake of objectiveness. All best, and I am ready to contribute with whatever information I can! ] (]) 15:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| So, all that being said, I kindly ask the editors to review the sources below and finally do a fair edit on the Bulgars article as to represent the Scytho-Sarmatian hypothesis '''equally''' to the Turkic one. "Turkic semi-nomadic" has to be replaced with just "semi-nomadic". '''Britannica''' already edited their entry on the Bulgars in light of recent findings, so there's no reason for Misplaced Pages not to do the same. The fact that there is still an ongoing debate about the Bulgar origins amongst serious academia should be reason enough to edit the article, so I'm just appalled by the stubbornness of the editors here. | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2018 == | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Bulgars|answered=yes}} | |||
| {{cot|collapsing sockpuppet request, see ]}} | |||
| Change the first sentence from: "The Bulgars ... were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes ..." | |||
| to: "The Bulgars ... were '''probably''' Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes ..." | |||
| or just: "The Bulgars ... were semi-nomadic warrior tribes..." | |||
| without stating any origin, since the origin is considered unclear at this point of the history and is the only statement all | |||
| historians agree upon. It's also the only logically true statement. | |||
| After all historical accuracy is far more important here than any personal preferences of any hypothesis on the subject. | |||
| And while there are many hypothesis, non were completely agreed on and none of them by any means have | |||
| been close to a state of "historically proven". So the first sentence leads to uncertainty and misleading, incorrect hipothesis stated as a proven fact. | |||
| Also it is illogical to strictly state an origin, while in the Origins on the same page the article states that "The origin of the early Bulgars is still unclear.". | |||
| The change is needed for historical accuracy and objectiveness also because the article itself is controversial stating two different statements. | |||
| '''Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian | |||
| Please fix it be historically accurate. ] (]) 23:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians''' - | |||
| :] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Please read the "Etymology and origin" section, which gives evidence for the first sentence of the lead. Per ], lead paragraphs are supposed to summarize the claims made in the body text. Full sourcing is given in the body, as is the case here. ] ] ] 19:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/194728109.pdf | |||
| '''Genetic evidence suggests relationship between contemporary Bulgarian population and Iron Age steppe dwellers from Pontic-Caspian steppe''' - | |||
| @Eggishorn Etymology and origin section is not full itself, giving only one of several possible hypothesis. I myself am supporter of the hunnic hypothesis, which itself is controversial and you can see many different hypothesis stated in the ] page also as I can see supporters of Mongolian, Turkic, Indo-European - Sarmatian or Bactrian, Ugro-Finnic, Mixed... etc and other hypothesis of the origin. I see they are all removed from the ] page like they don't exists. I am glad I don't see such a lack of professionalism in the ] page as I see it here. Maybe because editors of the this page are predominantly Bulgarian, while the ] are broadly studied and edited largely by editors of Italian, Russian, German, Greek and professionals of many other nationalities. Anyway I don't want to speculate, so I will try proving you instead that you are wrong hiding facts. I see on the ] page all the hypothesis are removed in favor of a single Turkic hypothesis that is pushed in the first sentence by the mean of "summarization", like the other hypothesis don't exists at all and we used the only available one to summarize it. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. The article is absurd itself, also because of stating the ''origin is unclear'' and then giving a single theory of the origin. Why? Because the editors most likely removed all other hypothesis (or they were never approved). It's a sad way to try to push your believed hypothesis as the only one without stating the others. What if they were Hunnic and the huns were simply not Turkic but Mongolian. What happens then? The whole article becomes wrong, because Mongolian and Turkic are two different branches of the same Altaic group of people. Or what if they were of Schyto-Samaritan origin - plenty of historians believe it nowadays and state it as a fact - both for the huns and for the Bulgars, but the dear editors decided to IGNORE IT, even tho, as I can see above me there were plenty of requests (okay poorly written requests, but still requests) on the subject. Or if they were of Ugirc origin? There is so much different hypothesis, every one has it's supporters and every one is agreed by certain amount of people. By ignoring them in order to promote your hypothesis you are '''DIRECTLY VIOLATING THE OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW OF THIS ARTICLE'''. Please act professionally and don't favor any hypothesis as '''wikipedia is NOT the place for pushing personal believes''' , go to some forum, here we have to '''BE OBJECTIVE''' . Again, this is an educational site, not a place for self promoting one hypothesis by removing all others. You can take example of the page for the Huns in Misplaced Pages if you want, where many hypothesis exist, but not a single one is pushed to be true by the editors. I am surprised by the lack of professionalism by the editors of this web page, and no, I refuse to support any partiality by the editors. I will gladly help you fix the article, but I will not let you destroy it by pushing only one point of view! Your view is one, the guy above me believes in another origin, I support a third one, we ALL provide sources and professional historical information to support our points, but only your point is presented in the article. '''BE PROFESSIONAL''' - be tolerant and be objective, or you violate wikipedia's basic rules. All best and if you need any help in acquiring sources and information for other hypothesis of the origin of the Bulgars I will gladly help you do it in the most objective way possible! Simply mentioning them is enough I believe, but ignoring them - it's bad and more importantly - it's wrong and unprofessional! All best! ] (]) 17:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3.full | |||
| :] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] ] ] 18:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| '''Archaeological and genetic data suggest Ciscaucasian origin for the Proto-Bulgarians''' | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018 == | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/43735252/Archaeological_and_genetic_data_suggest_Ciscaucasian_origin_for_the_Proto_Bulgarians | |||
| '''Еastern roots of the Madara horseman Chobanov''' - | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Bulgars|answered=yes}} | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/44604518/%D0%95astern_roots_of_the_Madara_horseman_Chobanov | |||
| {{cot|collapsing sockpuppet request, see ]}} | |||
| According to most modern sources the Bulgars were ] or ] expressing some Turko-Altaic elements. | |||
| '''THE LEGACY OF SASANIAN IRAN AMONGST THE BULGARIANS ON THE LOWER DANUBE''' (BG text) - | |||
| Here are 4 sources for this: | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/44902361/%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%A2%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%9E_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%90_%D0%9F%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%A3_%D0%91%D0%AA%D0%9B%D0%93%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%95_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%94%D0%9E%D0%9B%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%94%D0%A3%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%92_THE_LEGACY_OF_SASANIAN_IRAN_AMONGST_THE_BULGARIANS_ON_THE_LOWER_DANUBE | |||
| (1) Encyclopaedia Britannica Online | |||
| (2) Rasho Rashev, Die Protobulgaren im 5.-7. Jahrhundert, Orbel, Sofia, 2005. (in Bulgarian, German summary) | |||
| (3) Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, East and west, Vol. 21, 1971, p.214 | |||
| (4) David Marshall Lang, The Bulgarians: from pagan times to the Ottoman conquest, Westview Press, 1976, p.39 | |||
| (5) Prof. Bojidar Dimitrov: 12 myths in the Bulgarian History (Basically the whole book) | |||
| (6) http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Vedic-Bulgaria.php - text by prof. Petar Dobrev that proposes Balkhara as homeland of the Bulgars, opposing the Turco-Altaic theory | |||
| '''On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, Rashev Rasho 1992''' | |||
| Here are some more useful reference, because I know it's hard to find the exact sources for all of them: | |||
| http://www. |
http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html | ||
| Brockhaus Conversations-Lexikon Bd. 7. Amsterdam 1809, S. 161-162. | |||
| Pierer's Universal-Lexikon, Band 2. Altenburg 1857, S. 230. | |||
| Peter Dobrev, Tangra TanNakRa All Bulgarian Foundation and the Centre For Research On The Bulgarians | |||
| Shirakatsi, Anania, The Geography of Ananias of Sirak (Asxarhacoyc): The Long and the Short Recensions. Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Robert H. Hewsen. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 1992. 467 pp. ISBN 978-3-88226-485-2 | |||
| Dimitrov, Bozhidar. Bulgarians and Alexander of Macedon. Sofia: Tangra Publishers, 2001. 138 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 954-9942-29-5 | |||
| Dobrev, Petar. Unknown Ancient Bulgaria. Sofia: Ivan Vazov Publishers, 2001. 158 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 954-604-121-1 | |||
| US Department of State. Background Note: Bulgaria. Historical Highlights. 2011. | |||
| Ivanov, Sergey. Prehistory and History of the Ancient Bulgars. Sofia: Mabik Publishers, 2005. 512 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 954-91707-2-1 | |||
| Petkov, Plamen. The Bulgarians: 30,000 Kilometres in Search of the Old Homeland. Sofia: Trud Publishers, 2007. 374 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 954-52877-0-5 | |||
| Dobrev, Petar. Balhara near Pamir. Sofia: Tangra TanNakRa Publishers, 2004. 256 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 954-99426-4-3 | |||
| Ivanov, Lyubomir (2007). Essential History of Bulgaria in Seven Pages. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. p. 2. Retrieved 20 March 2016. | |||
| '''Archaeological overview on the formation of Asparukh’s Protobulgarians''' Todor Chobanov Ph.D.,Ass.prof., Svetoslav Stamov MA, Duke University | |||
| Those text suppose not only the Scytho-Sarmatean / Indo-Iranian / Irano-Alanian which are basically the same theory which opposes to Hunnic/Turkik/Mongolic origin of the Bulgars. The second is believed to be out-dated since new discoveries and the effect of glottalization and access to many different sources changed the perspective of modern historians. There are many more facts that support the statements attached to the sources. Remember objectiveness in important here and so is the fact that there isn't single agreed theory about the Bulgars. I don't ask to exclude the Turkic theory since it's as possible as it's the Scytho-Sarmatean. I just ask to be historically correct and objective here. | |||
| https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/24/687384/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true | |||
| '''Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians''' Veselin Beshevliev 1967 (BG text) | |||
| In X to Y format: | |||
| http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori%20za%20indo-evropeyskiya%20proizhod%20na%20prabaalgarite/V_%20Beshevliev%20-%20Iranski%20elementi%20u%20pyrvobylgarite.htm | |||
| Change the first sentence of the article from: | |||
| The Bulgars (...) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes | |||
| to: | |||
| The Bulgars (...) were Scytho-Sarmatean semi nomadic warrior tribes | |||
| OR: | |||
| The Bulgars (...) were semi nomadic warrior tribes of disputed origin | |||
| Without stating the exact origin that is still largely disputed by historians and 2 main theory exist. This wikipedia page itself is given only one of them, which means that the previous editors weren't objective and historically correct, but I believe that will be fixed in time. | |||
| Thank you for taking the time to review this topic. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| We are all here to keep wikipedia objective and of course, remember the second pillar of wikipedia: | |||
| :{{re|188.123.127.19}} Turkic one is not a hypothesis, it is documented and majority of historians agree with it, thus a mainstream view. ] (]) 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::bulgars being turk is purely based on historical beliefs. It is very upsetting to see evidence and scientific facts are put under a rug to someone's favour. Truth will always come out ] (]) 12:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| :{{re|Beshogur}} It's definitely not a theory amongst archeologists and it is considered an outdated theory amongst contemporary historians. That's why this article has to be revised so as to be more objective and up to date with modern research. | |||
| :I suspect the editor above is simply a sock of ]. ] (]) 16:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hey this is my old edit request. I suggest you guys check it again, since it's still valid. I couldn't have conversation over it, because I was blocked for being a sock, which was proven to be false. Tell me what you think. I accept any criticism over it. And I am positive we can have a discussion over the subject if needed in order to improve wikipedia's content :) All best.] (]) 15:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{yo|Skradumdum}} ] '''Not done:''' According to the page's protection level you should be able to ]. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 19:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == A lot of mistakes, outdated information and bias, needs a lot more work == | |||
| == Reference to Agathon == | |||
| Between notes 72 and 73 there is a reference to Agathon (early 8th century) which links - obviously incorrectly - to the Greek poet Agathon (448-400 BC). | |||
| The Agathon in question may well have been Agathon the Reader who at the time was at the library in Constantinople and therefore may have been well placed. | |||
| However, unless and until it is established to have been Agathon the Reader I suggest changing the linked reference into an unlinked mention of 'Agathon (early 8th century)'. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Hello, I have made a few changes but there are a lot of other mistakes, I hope someone reads more on the subject and continues improving the article without a political bias. There are so many sources on the subject from foreign and Bulgarian scientists. If someone is interested, he/she may start from these scientific works. There is a lot of political bias on the subject which attracts a lot of factual mistakes and intolerability to change opinions according to the new research that has been done on the subject. | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/50741981/The_debate_about_the_origin_of_Protobulgarians_in_the_beginning_of_the_21st_century | |||
| == Bulgars origin - were they part of the Hunnic or Turkic migrarions? == | |||
| {{reply|Jingiby}} | |||
| Hello, as Jingiby recently removed my edit from over this article from Turkic migrations to Hunnic migrations, wanted to start the talk discussion. Why calling the Bulgar migration a Turkic one? We know for sure only that the Bulgars came in 4rth century with the Huns. In the article Turkic migrations itself, the Huns are mentioned as doubted being Turkic, as are most of the early tribes they consisted of, like Bulgars. What is not doubted is that the Hunnic migrations were actually Hunnic/Barbarian ones, since... well the name comes from them, that's enough of an argument. It's incorrect and biased to call them Turkic since the Huns consisted of many tribes of Indo-European origin in the early migrations. Such being the Alans and the Hephthalites. Calling them Turkic is simply wrong. The same goes for tribes with disputed origin like Bulgars, who came to Europe alongside the Alans and the Hephthalites and many early sources describe their language as "very distant from Turkic and Persian". The only correct term will be Hunnic migration, Barbarian Migration, or Early Migration Period in which the tribes are of disputed origin and there are too little evidence towards any of them. So please Jingiby change my mind over the subject or stop keeping this obviously wrong piece of information on the Bulgar's page. I am open to any discussion, I can provide facts and many other sources if you wish. I am also interesting in your opinion and am open minded and ready to accept it. But at this point I believe edit here is needed in order to make the article correct. I also realize that for a non-Historians Turkic and Indo-European might make a little difference, but they are very very different and the article in the moment is simply wrong and defending some Turkish scientists dreams, instead of object view over the information. So an edit is needed. Change my mind. All best! | |||
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/ | |||
| Also wanted to add that the hunnic origin is still disputed on the Huns talk page, if the people there haven't gotten to an conclusion that the huns are actually Turks, why do we get to that conclusion? This is wrong and not objective at all! I really demand the change of "Turkic migration" to "Hunnic migrarion" and I really demand you stop reversing it, unless you can prove me wrong and actually prove that the Bulgars were part of the Turkik migrations that took place mainly 2 centuries after the Bulgars were already in Europe. | |||
| https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3 | |||
| :Reliable sources is what you need. I am waiting on them. Let's read what say the brand new (2018) authoritative academic sources about the origin of the Bulgars: | |||
| :* ''Bulgars (Turkic bulgha-'to mix, stir up, disturb', i.e. 'rebels') A Turkic tribal union of the Pontic steppes that gave rise to two important states: Danubian Balkan Bulgaria (First Bulgarian Empire, 681–1018) and Volga Bulgaria (early 10th century–1241). They derived from Oghuric-Turkic tribes, driven westward from Mongolia and south Siberia to the Pontic steppes in successive waves by turmoil associated with the Xiungnu and subsequently by warfare between the Rouran/Avar and northern Wei states.'' in Oliver Nicholson, The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, ], 2018, ISBN 0192562460, | |||
| :* ''Since 1989, Bulgarian nationalism continues to live off cosy reminiscences of the ‘]’ ideology. Anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of Turkic origin of the Proto-Bulgars. Alongside the ‘Iranian’ or ‘Aryan’ theory, there appeared arguments favouring an autochthonous origin... The ‘parahistoric’ theories, very often politically loaded and have almost nothing to do with objective scientific research in the field of Proto-Bulgarian Studies, could be summarized in several directions:...3)‘Aryan roots’ and the ‘enigmatic Eurasian homeland’. Meanwhile, another group of authors is looking eagerly for the supposed homeland of the ancient Bulgarians in the vast areas of Eurasia, perhaps by conscious or unconscious opposition to the pro-Western orientation of modern Bulgaria. At the same time, with little regard for consistency, they also oppose the Turkic theory, probably because this is in sharp contradiction with the anti-Turkish feelings shared by nationalistic circles. (Dobrev 2005; 2007.)'' in Claudia-Florentina Dobre, Cristian Emilian ed., Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe, ], 2018, ISBN 9633861365, ] (]) 18:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Conclusions: 1. Bulgars were people of Turkic origin. 2. Their "Iranian origin" is modern Bulgarian politically motivated nationalist myth, that has almost nothing to do with neutral scientific research. ] (]) 12:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replay|Jingiby}} Let's see what the early authors say about the Bulgars and thei'r language. As was stated by Al-Istakhri "the language of the Khazars is different than the language of the Turks and the Persians, nor does a tongue of (any) group of humanity have anything in common with it and the language of the Bulgars is like the language of the Khazars, but the Burtas have another language." Of course when we, the modern Bulgarians, the only people who actually study the ancient Bulgars in depth are misjudged being anti-Turkic on any occasion in any possible way. And any proof we provide is met with the same old "anti-Turkish" sentiment, without actually being listened. But you cannot just ignore obvious misconceptions. We Bulgarians might be wrong, but how about all the Italian and German and other western historians who actually conclude the same thing? Are they Bulgarian Nationalists as well? I will look over some Western literature and give you sources. And keep your conclusions unbiased again. This is not a place for putting your personal believes. Its a place for objectiveness. Also if your only argument actually comes from your opponent being "anti-Turkish" or "nationalistic" there is something wrong with Misplaced Pages. Calling turkic people who could actually being mongolic, because of theory from 200 years ago is sad. And calling nationalistic anyone who try to give you an alternative look and ignoring this alternative look is even more wrong. Will give you the sources. And you stop concluding "anti-turkism" and using it as your only argument to keep only the turkic theory in the page. This is not how objectiveness works. | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/49103702/Significant_Z_4_admixture_signal_with_a_source_from_ancient_Wusun_observed_in_contemporary_Bulgarians | |||
| ::{{reply|Jingiby}} All right, I found some sources, Notice, not by Bulgarian scientists. because we apparently are all "anti-turkists" in your eyes: | |||
| 1. German historians: According to Antoaneta Granberg "the Hunno-Bulgarian language was formed on the Northern and Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC. The analysis of the loan-words in Slavonic language shows the presence of direct influences of various language-families: Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese and Iranian. The Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke the same language, different from all other “barbarian” languages. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there. It is important to note that Turkic does contain Hunno-Bulgarian loans, but that these were received through Chinese intermediary, e.g. Hunnic ch’eng-li ‘sky, heaven’ was borrowed from Chinese as tängri in Turkic. The Hunno-Bulgarian language exhibits non-Turkic and non-Altaic features. Altaic has no initial consonant clusters, while Hunno-Bulgarian does. Unlike Turkic and Mongolian, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no initial dental or velar spirants. Unlike Turkic, it has initial voiced b-: bagatur (a title), boyla (a title). Unlike Turkic, Hunno-Bulgarian has initial n-, which is also encountered in Mongolian: Negun, Nebul (proper names). In sum, Antoaneta Granberg concludes that Hunno-Bulgarian language has no consistent set of features that unite it with either Turkic or Mongolian. Neither can it be related to Sino-Tibetian languages, because it obviously has no monosyllabic word structure." - clearly describing the difference of Hunno-Bulgar and Turkic languages. | |||
| 2. Canadian and Russian historians: | |||
| Edwin G. Pulleyblank, Yury Zuev and some modern Bulgarian scholars identify the Bulgar Utigurs as one of the tribes of the Yuezhi. According to Edwin G. Pulleyblank and Yury Zuev the Utigurs of Menander are Uti, and the word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Yuezhi < Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti. | |||
| Notice that Yuezhi are Indo-European Scytho-Sarmatean speaking people. | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/30769850/Genes_found_in_archaeological_remains_of_the_ancient_population_of_the_Balkans | |||
| 3.Another German historian, speaking about the early Iranian nature of Hunno-Bulgarian: Maenchen-Helfen in his famous monograph "The world of the Huns" wrote that we know virtually nothing about the Indo-European languages spoken on the west-north borders of China. All we know of the language of the Huns are names. The tribal names appear to be of Turkish origin. The personal names fall into 3 general categories: | |||
| Please, someone make the rest of the changes using the latest data and research and not outdated and disproved theories. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 1) Turkic (it's normal since the Hunno-Bulgars lived for centuries before that under the rule of the Gokturkic Khanate, which of course influenced them) | |||
| :Hi, there is nothing new about this Bulgarian view. That problem has been analyzed in the text. It has been disputed many times here on the talk. However here is not the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages. Just read carefully the text from the article: ''Among Bulgarian academics, notably Petar Dobrev,{{sfn|Sophoulis|2011|p=66}} a hypothesis linking the Bulgar language to the ] (]{{sfn|Karachanak, ''et al.''|2013}}) has been popular since the 1990s.<ref>Добрев, Петър, 1995. "Езикът на Аспаруховите и Куберовите българи" 1995</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Stamatov |first=Atanas |date=1997 |title=TEMPORA INCOGNITA НА РАННАТА БЪЛГАРСКА ИСТОРИЯ |chapter=ИЗВОРИ И ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ – І–ІІ ЧАСТ |chapter-url=http://www.protobulgarians.com/kniga_Atstamatov.htm |publisher=MGU Sv. Ivan Rilski}}</ref><ref>Димитров, Божидар, 2005. 12 мита в българската история</ref><ref>Милчева, Христина. Българите са с древно-ирански произход. Научна конференция "Средновековна Рус, Волжка България и северното Черноморие в контекста на руските източни връзки", Казан, Русия, 15.10.2007</ref> Most proponents still assume an intermediate stance, proposing certain signs of Iranian influence on a Turkic substrate.<ref name="Rashev"/><ref>Бешевлиев, Веселин. Ирански елементи у първобългарите. Античное Общество, Труды Конференции по изучению проблем античности, стр. 237–247, Издательство "Наука", Москва 1967, АН СССР, Отделение Истории.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |first=Rüdiger |last=Schmitt |date=1985 |title=Iranica Protobulgarica: Asparuch und Konsorten im Lichte der Iranischen Onomastik |publisher=Academie Bulgare des Sciences |place=] |journal=Linguistique Balkanique |volume=XXVIII |issue=l |pages=13–38}}</ref> The names ] and Bezmer from the '']'' list, for example, were established as being of Iranian origin.{{sfn|Maenchen-Helfen|1973|pp=384, 443}} Other Bulgarian scholars actively oppose the "Iranian hypothesis".<ref>Йорданов, Стефан. Славяни, тюрки и индо-иранци в ранното средновековие: езикови проблеми на българския етногенезис. В: Българистични проучвания. 8. Актуални проблеми на българистиката и славистиката. Седма международна научна сесия. Велико Търново, 22–23 август 2001 г. Велико Търново, 2002, 275–295.</ref><ref>Надпис № 21 от българското златно съкровище "Наги Сент-Миклош", студия от проф. д-р Иван Калчев Добрев от Сборник с материали от Научна конференция на ВА "Г. С. Раковски". София, 2005 г.</ref> According to ], the Iranian theory is rooted in the periods of ] in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated.<ref name="Detrez">{{cite book| first=Raymond| last=Detrez |author-link=Raymond Detrez |title=Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence |publisher=Peter Lang |year=2005 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TRttHdXjP14C |page=29| isbn=9789052012971 }}</ref> Since 1989, anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of the proto-Bulgars' Turkic origin. Alongside the Iranian or Aryan theory, there appeared arguments favoring an autochthonous origin.<ref>{{cite book|title=Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe|author=Cristian Emilian Ghita, Claudia Florentina Dobre|year=2016|page=142}}</ref>'' Thanks. ] (]) 18:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| 2) Iranian - no Iranian Khanate is know the Bulgars lived in, still the usage of Iranian names is undisputable, which proves again the likeliness of Schyto-Sarmatean origin of the Hunno-Bulgars. | |||
| ::All the sources presented above are by Bulgarian researchers. Their position is clarified in the article, but it contradicts the prevailing international consensus and is not leading. Therefore, please stop trying to impose it in the introduction. Thanks. ] (]) 18:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::You are favouring a biased view of history and the view of Turkish politics in Bulgaria, please stop reverting the edit. Thanks. ] (]) 18:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This article is based on reliable sources. Please, reach a consensus at talk before making further disruptive editiong. Thanks. ] (]) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This article was updated with reliable sources and you are changing it. This will result in you losing your editing rights. ] (]) 18:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why is the view that you support the current view on the page? What makes your opinion superior? I immediately request the change of the page. I have contacted Misplaced Pages and your undesirability to change based on the scientific links would be looked at. ] (]) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::The article is quite old and this is the view that has prevailed over the years here. There have been many discussions, but the view of the Bulgarian scientists is not accepted as a leading opinion in the world science. Please present scientific publications from world universities that strongly support the Bulgarian view you espouse here. If you do not have such sources, comply with the current situation. The Bulgarian view is presented according to its weight in the world scientific consensus. Thanks. --] (]) 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just because an article is old, that doesn't mean it shouldn't change. I have already presented a scientific publication with the participation of Italian scientists. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/ ] (]) 19:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In addition to the findings of the Italian scientists, I have used books from leading turkologists. ] (]) 19:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is one Bulgarian primary source. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable secondary sources. Look for example at: Bayazit Yunusbayev et al., „The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia.“ PLoS Genetics 11:4 (21 April 2015): "The Chuvash received their Turkic ancestry around the year 816, according to its admixture analysis in S4 Table. This ancestry stems from the region of South Siberia and Mongolia. They are also related to nearby non-Turkic peoples. Chuvashes, the only extant Oghur speakers showed an older admixture date (9th century) than their Kipchak-speaking neighbors in the Volga region. According to historical sources, when the Onogur-Bulgar Empire (northern Black Sea steppes) fell apart in the 7th century, some of its remnants migrated northward along the right bank of the Volga river and established what later came to be known as Volga Bulgars, of which the first written knowledge appears in Muslim sources only around the end of the 9th century. Thus, the admixture signal for Chuvashes is close to the supposed arrival time of Oghur speakers in the Volga region. ". Also this conclusion about modern Bulgarians: ''Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE.''"Thanks. ] (]) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::~2 to 4% is too little to say that the whole group is turkic. Many other European people have such genetic traces due to hunnic migrations that reached modern day Germany, if not beyond. Either the Bulgars are called "a mix of different groups" or not turkic because the view isn't supported by modern science. ] (]) 19:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yeah we don't rely on wp:or. ] (]) 21:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You say we shouldn't listen to any Bulgarian scientists yet your nationality is Turkish and one might ask why we should listen to you. ] (]) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Hmm why? ] (]) 14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It doesn't matter if most of the scientific articles are written by Bulgarians or not because even the well established foreign authors use Bulgarian works in their citations. There is a new leading theory and it is supported by Italian scientists as well, I have shared a link. Since the old theory doesn't reflect the truth, the wikipedia article should be changed. You can't expect forrign authors to know more about Bulgarian history than Bulgarians themselves. Genetic research cannot be biased or political, it is reflecting factual data and the truth here is the data shows that even Proto-Bulgarians and turkic tribes are not related. ] (]) 11:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| WP:FRINGE. Not worthy to reply. Out of mainstream view. ] (]) 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| 3) of unknown origin ( we don't count here apparently Germanic names whose origin is obvious) Examples of such names (concerning the Bulgar branch of the Huns) are: | |||
| : ], there is any new theory, but a fringe view of Bulgarian scientists, that is more then 30 years old, which has not been accepted widely. It is included in this article. The DNA study you have posted is Bulgarian, not Italian and is not a new, but out of date - more then 10 years old. It is also a primary source, i.e. not reliable source. Please do not comment on the nationality of the editors. If you do not reach a consensus here, as at the moment, you cannot impose your views in this article. In this case you should look for alternative methods that are indicated in the warning notes on your personal talk page. Greetings. ] (]) 13:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hello, from now on I will kindly ask you to not comment on the nationality of the reasearchers because nationality bias isn't a logical argument for not accepting the truth. Archeological findings and linguistics are highly flawed methods of evaluating ethnicity since the discovery of genetic research. That's why the Iranian theories are more supported nowadays, and these theories have been around for more than a century and not close to 30 years as you have stated. Foreign researchers rely on Bulgarian scientists to give them data since there they have the most archeological sites and genetic data on the Bulgars - in Bulgaria. I have contacted Misplaced Pages and they have told me that unless the dispute is settled here, I will have to raise the issue. | |||
| :: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/ | |||
| ::This is not a Bulgarian study. There is no mention of substantial turkic element in the Bulgarian genetic makeup. There is a slavic group mixed with other non-turkic one. | |||
| ::"When we consider the composition of sources from within West Eurasia, while the majority of a group’s ancestry tends to come from its own regional area, there is a substantial contribution of both Northern European (light and dark blue) and Armenian groups (light green) to most WA, EC, WC, and TK clusters, as well as some clusters from both SEE and SCE. As previously reported, the formation of the Slavic people at around 1000 CE had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals." ] (]) 14:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's still unclear what you're trying to push here. Most scholars, ie mainstream agrees on Bulgars' Turkic origin, and fringe view of some Bulgarian historians are mentioned as well. No Bulgars are not Iranian people as you're trying to push on the article. ] (]) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please, remain civil and don't use words as "push" when I am trying to improve an article with the latest data. Bulgars are Iranian people and this is a fact. I have shared the findings of western researchers and you still are unwilling to change your opinion, you don't leave me much of a choice than to resort to some other ways to solve this issue, ways recommended by the Misplaced Pages community. Greetings. ] (]) 15:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sure removing quotes of notable historians like Golden and adding Dobrev to this isn't improving at all. Your first source, p. 177 doesn't even say they're Iranian. I would suggest reading ], ]. ] (]) 15:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Removing old data and adding updated one is improving. My first source says they're Iranian. "The research carried in this study, combining written | |||
| ::::::sources, archaeological data and DNA research, brings the debate about the origin of Protobulgarians onto another level by identifying their Ciscaucasian “cradle” and thus – theirSarmatian-Caucasian origin, similar to this of Caucasian Alans." I would suggest reading about the Iranian tribes (Sarmatian and Alan included). Greetings. ] (]) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::And for the study I shared, it's posted in 2013 and is not outdated at all, it's not older than 10 years, look again. And it is done in cooperation with Italian scientists. Thanks. ] (]) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| @Careful information, preprint sources shouldn't be cited until peer reviewed and published; ''Avant-garde Research of Ancient Bulgarians'' doesn't seem like a reliable journal and Yavor Shopov graduated (astro)physics while Todor Chobanov graduated archaeology, both aren't experts on population genetics. Will highlight the most important sentence from Shopov's 2021 book: "'''Regretfully no DNA data from rich Protobulgarian graves is available at present (for examplethe Kabiuk grave circa 700) and we could not check the existing theories that there were various ethnicities amongst the elite (Turks, Ugrians, Sarmatians), but future research should address this issue'''". However, will check the genetics section and maybe something can be added there.--] (]) 15:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Nesheva is a geneticist and the informatian is published in her research. Todor Chobanov graduated archaeology and is PhD. Archeology is crucial in evaluating ehnicities and their origins when it is done along DNA research. Chobanov is not a geneticist but he cites world renowned geneticists like Garrett Hellenthal and George B J Busby. Even in the article itself it says that the origin is disputed, I recommend an edit in which the Bulgars are of mixed ethnicity or not turkic at all since the latest data confirms this. Greetings. ] (]) 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| -Zabergan - Kutrigur Hun - Ζαβεργάν; Persian | |||
| ::The Bulgars were Turkic tribes. There were no genetically pure tribes anywhere. Their language, culture and beliefs were Turkic and this is generally accepted everywhere except by some researchers in Bulgaria. Such a one-sided fringe view cannot used to change the intro of the article.] (]) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Bulgars were not Turkic tribes. Their language, culture and beliefs were not Turkic, their calendar wasn't Turkic as well. What is accepted outside of Bulgaria is that they were a mixture of different ethnicities. This is not a one-sided fringe view and it can be used to change the intro of the article. ] (]) 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::According to many reliable sources and experts on the topic their language, culture, beliefs and calendar were Turkic. In the article is already mentioned several times that they mixed and assimilated a mixture of different ethnicities.--] (]) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Careful information, doesn't seem you understand well what's written in those scientific studies, but I've made an edit considering what's concluded in reliable sources and NPOV. However, it should be noted that we are dealing with a steppe nomadic federation which assimilated diverse tribes and ethnic groups. It is highly dubious even controversial to claim anything for sure without any ancient DNA and even then if there's lack of sample size. Nesheva's conclusion did include, but isn't based on ancient DNA. Only because Altaic-Turkic Y-DNA haplogroups are present in very minimal frequency in modern Bulgarians doesn't mean Proto-Bulgarian elite wasn't partly, significantly or even majorly composed of Altaic-Turkic anthropology. Take for example recent comprehensive genetic studies of Proto-Hungarians i.e. Hungarian elite. The most probable scenario is that when Proto-Bulgarians arrived they already were a very mixed group of people with some leading clans of Turkic ancestry which elite didn't left enough genetic trace in modern Bulgarians.--] (]) 18:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I have stated above the Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History's conclusion about Bulgarians and their Bulgar legacy is different. Hellenthal has the opposite opinion to that of Karachanak, claiming only the negligible Northeast Asiatic genetic signal among the Bulgarians might correspond to the whole DNA impact left from the invasions of the Turkic Bulgars. I am going to add this conclusion too. ] you are free to correct my edit if something is going wrong. Regards. ] (]) 19:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nothing wrong, that's exactly what pointed out. Good edit and think with it the section is neutral enough.--] (]) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::DNA research of actual bulgar remains and modern bulgarian dna have concluded 2 things | |||
| ::::1 - the strongest signal is from the bulgars | |||
| ::::2 - modern bulgarians have the lowest east asian admixture out of any european populations | |||
| ::::3 - the bulgars were europid as well (9th century bulgar burial remains studied) | |||
| ::::You can refer to prof Reich for #2 who is the authority on DNA research as pertaining to ethnic makeup and haplogroups. The rest is shown in the 2 most recent studies that are unprecedented in scope both from a historic and numeric breadth. ] (]) 12:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I understand perfectly everything written in those scientific studies. You say we can't speak of pure ethnicity when we talk about a federation, so why aren't you supporting my suggestion to write "tribes of mixed ethnicities" and then add the few ethnicities? Even if a small part of the elite was turkic, it doesn't mean the whole ethnicity is because it is not. I suggest we write "a mixture" or "unconfirmed", "disputed", etc. Do you agree? ] (]) 20:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, the tribes had a distinctive ethnic identity and such identity goes beyond biology. In the article the topic of mixing with other groups is already mentioend and explained. --] (]) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, this is not true. This is what PhD Alex M. Feldman from the university of Birmingham says: | |||
| :::::"Caspian Eurasia with the greatest care. It also means that a given “people” such as the Volga Bulgars or the Danube Bulgars, Rus’, Magyars or even the Khazars themselves were not so much a single migrating “tribe” or even a “tribal confederation” of peoples, as is often presented, 150 so much as conquering elite minorities imposing vassalage, tribute and possibly some form of monotheism on various populations along the way." | |||
| :::::(Ethnicity and Statehood in Pontic-Caspian Eurasia (8-13th c.): Contributing to a Reassessment) | |||
| :::::The tribes had a destinctive Iranian ethnic identity but I offered a way that is also scientifically backed up. It should be either "mixed" or "Iranian". Greetings. ] (]) 20:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yeah this is simply ] at this point. ] (]) 10:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sorry to get in on this 2 years later. A few corrections. | |||
| :::::::The DNA studies have concluded that bulgars were NOT turkic. At least no east asian signals there. | |||
| :::::::Modern Bulgarians have the lowest east asian admixture of any European populations. For that one refer to Prof Reich's studies result published which are the ones with the biggest samples by far. | |||
| :::::::Furthermore the genetic legacy in modern Bulgarians is the strongest from the Bulgars. | |||
| :::::::So in other words it is impossible that the Bulgars were of east asian descent or mixture. That hypothesis rested on guesswork and no solid evidence and is now utterly debunked. ] (]) 12:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I love how Bulgarian scholarship desperately tries to play up the Sarmatian/Alan hypothesis, doing anything to avoid connection with Turkic and Siberian elements that are patently at least partly there. They just can't handle being connected to them. ] (]) 22:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why do you think that? In fact it swas the Bulgarian scholars that pushed the turkic origins theory incessantly and still do. but it is the historians not the hard scientists - i.e. genetic research. The issue is quite obvious. The scholars that have based their career on this hypothesis have now a hard time admitting they were pushing a lie. | |||
| ::::DNA studies have made this hypothesis untenable now. Things are turning around but slowly due to all these historians suffering cognitive dissonance. But the facts are now indisputable. Once this older generation of historians gives way the younger historians will be more open to accepting realities. | |||
| ::::And it is sad that wikipedia does not reflect hard science but pseudo science at this point - hypotheses based on guesswork. | |||
| ::::I would suggest you get acquainted with the latest findings in this field before you make such broad sweeping statements that are quite unjustified and reflect your ignorance in the matter. ] (]) 12:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Secondly saying that just because one is wrong - i.e. the sarmatian/alan hypothesis (which I agree with you as DNA evidence does not support it) does not make the other right - the turkic hypothesis. Neither have any foundation in evidence. ] (]) 12:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| :'''Note!''' User "Careful Information" blocked as a sock in April ... <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :User "Careful Information" isn't blocked as a sock in April. ] (]) 21:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| -Sandilch - Utigur Hun - Σάνδιλ; Turkic | |||
| ::Check the User Page for this user. "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of PavelStaykov (talk · contribs · logs).Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. " <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Bulgarian nationalist agenda == | |||
| -Asparuch- Utigur ruler, founder of Danube Bulgaria - probably Iranian ( Maenchen-Helfen, page 384) | |||
| Stop pushing Bulgarian nationalist fringe views. According to ], who is an expert in Bulgarian history, the Iranian hypothesis is rooted in the periods of ] in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated.<ref name="Detrez">{{cite book| first=Raymond| last=Detrez |author-link=Raymond Detrez |title=Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence |publisher=Peter Lang |year=2005 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TRttHdXjP14C |page=29| isbn=9789052012971 }}</ref> Since 1989, anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of the proto-Bulgars' Turkic origin. Alongside the Iranian or Aryan theory, there appeared arguments favoring an autochthonous origin.<ref name=":0">{{cite book|title=Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe|author=Cristian Emilian Ghita, Claudia Florentina Dobre|year=2016|page=142}}</ref> According to other authors:<blockquote>''Anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of Turkic origin of the Bulgars. Alongside the ‘Iranian’ or ‘Aryan’ theory, there appeared arguments favouring an autochthonous origin. The ‘parahistoric’ theories, very often politically loaded and have almost nothing to do with objective scientific research in the field of Proto-Bulgarian Studies, could be summarized in several directions:...3)‘Aryan roots’ and the ‘enigmatic Eurasian homeland’. Meanwhile, another group of authors is looking eagerly for the supposed homeland of the ancient Bulgarians in the vast areas of Eurasia, perhaps by conscious or unconscious opposition to the pro-Western orientation of modern Bulgaria. At the same time, with little regard for consistency, they also oppose the Turkic theory, probably because this is in sharp contradiction with the anti-Turkish feelings shared by nationalistic circles.''<ref name=":0" /></blockquote> ] (]) 03:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ... yet another research showing the affinity towards Schyto-Sarmatean speaking tribes with only partial and highly disputed Turkic affinity. | |||
| :Jingiby, you should be aware that Turkish and Turkic are two different notions separated by hundreds of years, also that this is not Bulgarian nationalist agenda, the Bulgarian nationalists are claiming the mainstream historical narrative of Asian (Turkic or Iranic) origin. This is according to the recent genetic and linguistic studied many of us | |||
| Conclusion: Bulgarians are "anti-turkic", Canadians - "anti-turkic", Germans - "anti-turkic", Russians - "anti-turkic"... Have you ever taught that maybe you are the "pro-turkic" one and all others are only trying to add some objectiveness to the article itself? Have you ever taught how ridiculous does calling everyone 'anti-turkic' is, while the article is 100% written with affinity to turkic theory, but nobody is asking you to remove it and just to add more objective information. Now I will give you some time to answer me, because this is discussion. And then I guess we have to add and change some information to make the article more objective. For example: Turkic migrations -> Hunnic migrations (it's only a hypothesis they are turkic, but it's sure they are hunnic). | |||
| :are trying to implement in this article but you and others are constantly deleting. ] (]) 22:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Also Bulgars were Turkic, should be changed since it's higly baised towards the turkic hypothesis, which is unproven and questioned by many modern authors. Will expect your answer. All best from the "anti-tukic" or in my view simply "objective" historians around the world :) | |||
| ::oh looks lik this is already in discussion. I was also surprised that DNA study findings is not even considered. It is the gold standard and indisputable in this field. It seems to me there is likely some agenda here but I am not sure what that is. ] (]) 18:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi there. It is not binary - either turkic or iranian. In fact the DNA studies state that the origin cannot be asian as it is west eurasian - that is another term for generally european. So not sure why you jump to the conclusion it is about iranian origin. It seems you are reading something into it that is not there. Maybe read the actual studies. Just a suggestion ] (]) 18:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You should likely make a distinction between hard science and nationalistic views. One is indisputable and it could possibly coincide with nationalistic views as well. That does not make it untrue. | |||
| :Here is a simple example germans are european not african. Genetic studies show that clearly that the african admixutre quotient is nonexistent. There are nationalistic elements especially in history that focus on the european origins of the German nation. Just because the nationalists also state that doesn't make it untrue. | |||
| :I'd sugges look at the scientific evidence and accept the hard facts whatever that is. A historian like the one you cite may have different views but that does not in any way challenge the hard scientific data that points in a different direction. ] (]) 19:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Talk reflist}} | |||
| Also remember, that "I don't agree with this theory" is not enough of a reason to remove it from wikipedia. Be objective. Don't go for one hypothesis (Turkic) while completely removing information about any other and calling anyone who want to add information on the subject "anti-turkic". This is not how it works. | |||
| == Modern genetic studies and the turkic/asian origins hypothesis == | |||
| Also Bulgars were part of the first Migration period, alongside with the Huns and many other Barbarian tribes. Any next migration wave, like the gokturks and later the Mongols are refereed to as Turkic and Mongolian migrations. | |||
| {{atopg | |||
| | result = You've already had a discussion about this and you're not entitled to more of other editors' time. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 02:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 15:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :{{yo|Skradumdum}} I looked over each edit to this to see where the dispute was, and if I'd be able to help settle this. I hope ] corrects me if I'm wrong with this summary, but the problem seems to be that your recent edits to the page aren't ] to back your claims ''at all''. On the surface, it looks like ] to other editors. Examples are ]], ]], ]] (which amended a citation quote to something was never in the aforementioned reference), ]], and ]]. Skradumdum, I strongly recommend that you establish consensus first for your changes and ensure that what you're adding is reliably sourced before re-editing the article. ] (]) 19:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| According to modern Genetic studies neither the ancient bulgars nor the modern bulgarians have any significant asian admixture and modern bulgarians even less so than any other european population studied. | |||
| ::{{yo|Skradumdum}} you have been reported again as a sockpuppet of ] ]. All the info above is taken from his personal blog. And stop repeatedly pushing the misinformation about the German , aca with original name Антоанета Кръстанова Андонова - Bulgarian by birth.] (]) 06:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| So that hypothesis is truly out the window. Should likely update that. The turkic/asian bulgar origins hypothesis first gained prominance in the 20th century and notably after the USSR was established for various political reasons which are beyond the scope to discuss here. But we should likely update the content as only Misplaced Pages is lagging here. Even Encyclopedia Britannica has updated the entry with the new findings many years ago. Are we regurgitating old debunked hypotheses here or are we going to cover hard science? | |||
| :::{{reply|Jingiby}} I didn't know that. She apparently got her education in Germany, and took German family name, But hell She has Bulgarian root, let's ignore her! The fact she is of Bulgarian origin explains her interest in the subject of Bulgars. Antoaneta Granberg of University of Gothenburg, Göteborg GU with expertise in Linguistic Typology, Historical Linguistics, History. It's no surprise most of the researchers of the Bulgars are Bulgarians or other people from Bulgarian origin, since every nationality teaches and researches it's own history. What do you expect? Most of the historians of Hungarian history are Hungarians too. It's normal. | |||
| There are already multiple studies confirming the same things. | |||
| This is britannica "Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations." | |||
| Anyway, even she has a German name, got her education in Germany and judging her based on her root is kind of chauvinist, as she seems a professional. Ignoring their point of view, because of her Bulgarian roots is wrong itself and is violation of wikipedia's idea. But anyway this was not the point. The point was that YOU wanted scientists that are not Bulgarians, I didn't exclude the ones with Bulgarian roots. I now checked Otto John Maenchen-Helfen, G. Pulleyblank, Yury Zuev are apparently not Bulgarians (and don't have Bulgarian roots I believe, especially done research for you). | |||
| In wikipedia not even a mention and same tired old stories covered. | |||
| ] (]) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Also I don't know if those authors are anti-tukists but you are definitely anti-Bulgarian, hiding bihind the "anti-turkish" attitude attacks to ignore all Bulgarian authors, since you don't respect a whole nationality's opinion on a subject with "made up excuse" and a statement by a single historian who don't respect them either. Again this is NOT OBJECTIVE. | |||
| About the time you report me for sock proxy. "all the info was taken from **some guy's** blog". Well what do you expect this is history, many people rely on the same sources. I guess whatever information I try to provide, Pavel Stoykov provided to you as well. I don't know why all the lack of cooperation, chauvinism, anti-Bulgarism, accuse of sock proxies and lack of objectiveness comes from. Using the same logic I could report you along with another user for trying to prove the same obvious point, using the same obvious sources of it. And how is this a crime in your eyes? You have such a poor judgment. I checked my source, never saw Pavel Stoykov's name. Plus the source points to literature works of different authors I checked. Anyway I will report in in chauvinism and lack of objectiveness because your views are strictly anti-Bulgarian and ignore huge part of the Bulgarian-origin researchers on the Bulgars subject (which is 90% of the researchers nowadays), "because they are Bulgarian", which is wrong by itself. Here is the source of Granberg https://www.academia.edu/683028/Classification_of_the_Hunno-Bulgarian_Loan-Words_in_Slavonic don't see anything wrong with it. You do. You say she is Bulgarian, stop pushing her! And you will be reported for that. ] (]) 10:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, stop repeatedly pushing the misinformation about Antoaneta. She was born in Bulgaria, was educated in Bulgaria, worked at Sofia University, was married in Bulgaria etc. Just the fact she has divorced and remarried in Sweden, and afterwards has changed his original name, makes her not a German or a Swedish. ] (]) 10:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{reply|Jingiby}} I am not saying she is not Bulgarian. I said she works abroad and is respected scientist in Europe. And why stop pushing information about her? She Because she is Bulgarian? How about the chauvinistic nationalistic ideology you express by refusing everything that comes from Bulgarian historians as excuse. This is wrong. | |||
| And in this discussion, even if we leave Antonetta aside (because she is Bulgarians and you do not respect that apparently), how about the other non-Bulgarian scientists concluding the same things? You are wrong being chauvinist in first place, but you are also wrong that only Bulgarians express this opinion that you disagree with and try to hide, and misinform. You are anti-Bulgarian person, who in the last 5 years is largely editing the "Bulgars" page. This is violation of Misplaced Pages's rules. I believe is part of some nationalistic ideologies of yours. (I don't see a different explanation ignoring most of the Bulgarian authors and the European authors that agree with them). Your lack of objectiveness is wrong and this article is unbiased because of it. It is edited by largely "anti-Bugarian" editor, who disrespects Bulgarians. The article itself is about Bulgars, the ancestors of Bulgarians. I see what you are doing and I hope the administrators see it also.] (]) 11:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{replay|OhKayeSierra}} I believe he is having the information. All the sources are here in wikipedia itself. It's just the way they are used/not used that is wrong and nonobjective. For example: | |||
| Sentence 1:The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari, Proto-Bulgarians) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. - now this, even if it has source, is wrong since the sentence is used out of context from the source. Reading the whole article it actually says that Bulgars were active since 5th century and gives many example with many sources of it. The sentence is wrong, taken out of context and is in controversial stance with what is written next in the article itself. But my edit was removed from it, by Jinjiby, no reason was given, even if I told him that an resume sentence have to conclude what is written in the article, and this is not what is written and it violates wikipedia's article's rules. The article by itself says a different thing, so an source sentence that is out of context cannot and should not be used. | |||
| The same goes for the second sentence "The Bulgars ... were turkic, semi-nomadic tribes", even tho the article says next in the etymology "The origin of the early Bulgars is still unclear" . Yes it is because there are two theories, and the article is stating only one of them next - the turkic one, which is expressing nonobjective view over the topic in order to conclude that view as "Bulgars are turks" - basically what every Macedonian dreams of. I don't say it's impossible, but unproven should stay unproven and history should not be used for personal or political causes. I tried editing this sentence stating "The Bulgars are semi-nomadic tribes of disputed origin", because this is the truth, but the user Jinjiby returned my edit. About the sources, there are whole researchers and scientists like Petar Dobrev and Bojidar Dimitrov that have written tons of books proving the Indo-European origin of the Bulgars and specifically refusing the Turkic one. Also others providing a hunno-mongolian. I have given them as source not once, but many times. Jinjiby instead of asking for the source is aware of it very well, but ignore it "Because they are Bulgarian"... | |||
| Also, another thing in the article, there is a genetic study over the bulgars, that concluded no turkic DNA is found to conclude the turkic DNA of the Bulgars is insufficient, even tho the Bulgars were believed by some scientists to be of Turkic origin. Affinity towards Mediterranean DNA is shown '''Now the article states that source itself'''. But its interpreted wrong, Jingiby himself ignores the first part, "no Altaic DNA haplogroups were found", only to present the second statement "Bulgars are found to be closely related to European populations". Intentionally ignoring a whole dispute and keeping and article nonobjective and biased, while expressing anti-Bulgarian, pro-Turkic views and hiding facts. Also reporting anyone who tries to give him sources that don't defend completely the Turco-Altaic theory of the Bulgars. I provided sources more than once to Jingiby, last time got banned for a month for being a sock proxy. Will providede them again, but I don't think it will make a difference, since Jingiby is clearly showing anti-Bulgarian views and refusing to citate even already given sources in objective way, while completely ignoring the work of some authors, because of being Bulgarian and clearly not letting anyone edit the page in a more objective way. This is intentional hate according to me. | |||
| :Also stop pushing the fringe views of ], who is called by Western researchers ''] historian'' and of the economist Petar Dobrev, whose methods of work are described even by Bulgarian scientists as: "free interpretation of sources and artifacts". ] (]) 13:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{reply|Jingiby}} '''Fake accusations toward historians is not a way to go over wikipedia'''. Those are proved Bulgarians historians and they too speak negatively about the turkic suggesting authors, like Raymond Detrez. This is called historical dispute and I will tell you 100th time WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PLACE FOR PERSONAL BELIEVES. It's not the place where you take side of one part of historians, while judging the others. You should not do this and this is NOT OBJECTIVE view. And no I will not "stop pushing" them, because '''even if you don't like it they are part of the history''', the way the other authors "you like" are. You see you believe in the authors defending Turkic theory, I believe in the one defending the Indo-European. The thing is this article is extremely based on the conclusions of the authors you like and has information only over the Turkic theory and concludes the Bulgars being Turkic. '''2 things I want to say.''' 1.Five pillars of wikipedia: '''Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view!''' - you are just showing how you violate it in every possible way, removing sources because they are written by authors which you don't like and openly trash talk. That's not how this works. 2. You, I guess, are Macedonian. '''Aren't Macedonians the one who are fighting for the Turkic theory for political reasons'''. Isn't this part of the Macedonian propaganda, where the Macedonian politicians scream "BULGARS ARE TURKS AND TATARS" as a propaganda statement. Funny how a Macedonian User called Jingiby is the one editing the most this article for Bulgars, part of the Bulgarian history. I really start to believe this intentional continuous unbiased editing of yours have propaganda roots. If any Admin sees this, I am asking for checking the User's IP and country of origin. Also active history over this page. If any admin is reading this, please ask yourself why the biggest editor of Bulgar's history comes from Macedonia. Why are they reporting other editors constantly for sock proxies. Why aren't they biased and how wikipedia is letting people who clearly ignore historical fact with reasons, stupid as the top ones. And as you mentioned earlier Jingiby, you don't believe Bulgarian scientists are the right one to show oppinion over the Bulgars, even tho Bulgarian historians are pretty much the only one that has the resources and the motivation to study Bulgar history since they are studying their descendants. So your arguments are unobjective, your comments are nonobjective, you come from a country famous for it's propaganda and lack of objectiveness and you are here, not to give objective view over the historical material, but to push your propaganda. Whoever is reading this. Please check it out. Perfect example of violating the 5 pillars of wikipedia. {{reply|OhKayeSierra}} , {{reply|Vanjagenije}} (sorry, I know you told me to ignore him, I believe the problem is a bit more serious, since the user is clearly expressing affinities toward specific subject and war-editing anyone who disagree with him. I tried having a discussion where he clearly showed anti-Bulgarian view toward all Bulgarians. Also the user is from Macedonia - the most famous country for propagating with Bulgarian/Greek/Albanian history. I know the cometee agreed on objectiveness, but as you can see, the user is not keeping it at all. This is not a problem that should be ignored. Keeping the article the way it is the worse outcome. Please don't let trolls fill wikipedia with biased anti-Bulgarian articles. Especially on the Bulgars and Bulgaria related pages.). There have to be balance towards the historical views. There have to be shown the both sides of the dispute. Because right now we see the only and only point of view. Thank you Jingiby for ruining this article. Except of Macedonian Propaganda spreading I don't see any other possible explanation why you, a Macedonian are the biggest editor of this page about the Bulgars and Bulgaria. This page (Bulgars) is called Bulgars and not "The Personal blog of Jingiby" for a reason. And comment like "''stop using authors I dislike or I will report you (for 4rth time)''" are not part of the objective view of Misplaced Pages. When there is a disputes, both sides must acknowledge it and find a compromise, you are being assertive with your actions, like this page is your personal blog and we put here only what you, Jingiby like. Which as far as I can see is definitely not Bulgarians, and definitely not objectiveness. What are you doing here, reporting all Bulgarians? Propagating? Well done, you are doing good job if you are doing this. But I will fight for stopping you from this. The article have to be balanced and objective and express both points or it becomes propaganda." I can write an article called Bulgars with the completely opposite ideas, and conclude that they are Indo-Europeans. But this will be propaganda as well. Just like the Article is in the moment about the Turkic hypothesis. I am not fighting for this. I want the both points showed. Because this is the right way and personally I give a little attention to politics and more to historical accuracy, unlike Jingiby. ].(]) 15:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ===Objectiveness=== | |||
| I see some editors are having a hard time understanding what objectiveness is. Well It's the second pillar of Misplaced Pages so maybe you should learn about it. I will use an example of this article. | |||
| ''Bulgars... were Turkic tribes'' - '''NOT OBJECTIVE × | |||
| ''' | |||
| ''Bulgars ... were Iranian tribes'' - '''NOT OBJECTIVE × | |||
| ''' | |||
| Let's see how the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica are doing it, shall we? | |||
| ''The name Bulgaria comes from the Bulgars, a people who are still a matter of academic dispute with respect to their origin (Turkic or Indo-European) as well as to their influence on the ethnic mixture and the language of present-day Bulgaria.'' - '''OBJECTIVE √ | |||
| ''' | |||
| :bump ] (]) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| What is it so hard to understand {{reply|Jinjiby}}. This is neither your personal blog to edit the page the way you do, neither is a place to spread propaganda in favor of the modern Macedonism and "BUGARS TATARS" political shoutings (which I believe you are doing) ? ] (]) 16:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Anybody? ] (]) 02:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|Skradumdum}} I fully agree with {{yo|OhKayeSierra}}. The problem is that your recent edits to the page aren't ] to back your claims. On that surface, it is simply ]; ] and/or ] to me. ] (]) 16:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::Seems the same to me. {{yo|Skradumdum}}, you need a credible point to make. Otherwise the folks at ] are going to have to judge that. I'm not the greatest 'executioner', and I don't want to make one of those. ] 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{reply|My name is not dave}} Well, I will give you some clues. There is a huge historical dispute over the origin of the Bulgars, much like the historical dispute going on with the origin of the Huns themselves. Some historians state one point of view the others state different, opposite one. Both sides are intolerant towards each other's hypothesis and attack each other constantly in their works. So the page itself is constantly edited, and the editors much like the historians are constantly throwing the page from one pole to the other, because of the different editor's affinities. What I am willing to do is to add information for the both hypothesizes. I don't want to state the one is true and the other is false (as of what the article currently is doing. Seriously if you read it like now you get the understanding of the completely undisputed Turco-Altaic origin of the Bulgars). I believe the reader should have the both hypothesis presented and the reader should be more familiar with the current discussions, showing statements in favor or against for both hypothesizes and the information in the Bulgars page should be unbiased of supporters of one or other theory. I believe historical disputes are decided in different circles, here we can only present information of both sides (of course with the sources added) and leave the reader make the conclusions for himself. Jingiby on the other hand is, I believe hard to get person, but not impossible one, as I see his support toward one side of the dispute a little too drastic (Currently no information is given to the other point of view and wrong/misinterpreted conclusion is made, by looking only at half of the history and as I look at page's edits from the last years Jingiby plays crucial role in them). ] (]) 18:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{reply|Jingiby}} All right. Let's get to Business then. Jingiby are you willing to cooperate in reforming the Bulgar's page a little in the process of making it more Objective? Let's give some clues in favor of the Indo-European origin hypothesis, the same way tons of clues are given in favor of the Turko-Altaic hypothesis. I do support one hypothesis, you obviously support the opposite, but both should be included and no edit wars should be made. Tell me what you think? Instead of us making edit wars, let's have the whole conversation and disputes over here will be better and easier. When we get to compromise we edit. I say we show both sides of the historical disputes the way they are (No matter what any of us thinks of the other side) they should both be included as possibilities. Agree? ] (]) 18:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Origins / ethnicity == | |||
| ::::There is a good referenced passage in the article Bulgarians on the issue: ''Since the early 1990s on, a hypothesis rooted on ], strengthened by the so called ] gained popularity in Bulgaria, linking the Bulgars to the ].<ref name="Detrez">{{cite book| first=Raymond| last=Detrez |author-link=Raymond Detrez |title=Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence |publisher=Peter Lang |year=2005 |url=https://books.google.hr/books?id=TRttHdXjP14C |pages=29}}</ref> From Turkic equestrian nomads they were reinterpreted as settled ] with unique culture.<ref>Румен Даскалов, Чудният свят на древните българи, Гутенберг, 2011, {{ISBN|9546171212}}, pp. 7-11.</ref><ref>Александър Николов, "Параисторията като феномен на прехода: преоткриването на древните българи” в „Историческият хабитус: опредметената история", 2013, съст. Ю. Тодоров и А. Лунин, стр. 24-63.</ref> Also an opinion on significant Bulgar genetic impact, was launched among the nationalist circles.<ref>Raymond Detrez, Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria, Rowman & Littlefield, 2014, {{ISBN|1442241802}}, pp. 189-190.</ref><ref>Tchavdar Marinov, Ancient Thrace in the Modern Imagination: Ideological Aspects of the Construction of Thracian Studies in Southeast Europe (Romania, Greece, Bulgaria) in Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Three, 2015, {{ISBN|9789004290365}}, pp 10-117.</ref>'' | |||
| Was wondering why this is not updated with the latest findings on the origins in terms of genetic makeup. The asian origin hypothesis it appears was roundly dealt a blow with those. It sat on a shaky foundation to begin with as it was based on guesswork mostly. Anyway, I was surprised to find that wikipedia is still reflecting the old understanding. Perhaps it should be updated to reflect the new realities? ] (]) 18:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{reply|Jingiby}}"Good passage" doesn't mean objective. And no the passage is only slightly mentioning the theory itself, only trough criticism, as "the root of the theory" is explained as "anti-turkish" sentiment and not the actual linguistic and genetic findings of the last decades. The actual genetic studies and new linguistic findings that are in favor of the theory and are the root of the emerging theory according to many historians, but you miss to mentioned them are not even mentioned as a root cause of it. Also you are using an author who is know for supporting the opposite theory and is criticizing the Indo-Iranian one. Only the criticism toward it is mentioned trough this passage, but no actual supporting evidence is. No real arguments in favor of the theory are described, even tho such exist. '''This passage might be "good for you", since you support criticism towards the theory, but it's not good for the neutral reader'''. It's not biased at all. Again, don't forget this is a dispute and it's normal for the both sides to criticize each other. It's not normal to mention the other side only trough criticism. This make the article biased. It's wrong. Misplaced Pages should be written from objective point of view, if you find this a good passage for yourself, then you have to know that it's not that good for Misplaced Pages itself. Do not use this page to push your personal believes toward one of the theories Jingiby! Don't you agree here with me Jingiby? ] (]) 11:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{reply|Jingiby}} The whole article is mentioning only the extreme supporters of the Turkic-Theory and their criticism towards the Iranian one. Largely by Raymond Detrez, who also forgets to mention all the other Iranian theorists from the middle of 20th century including many Bulgarians, Russians and Iranian historians themselves like Nikolay Derdzhavin, Nikolay Mar, Leksey Smirnov, Vasiliy Sirotenko. It's okay to mention the criticism of one side but it's also needed to mention the criticism toward the other side as well. No matter if you agree with it or not. Other historians being Peter Golojski, dr. Jivko Vojknikov, doc. Ivan .T. Ivanov, Ilko Stoev, Bono Shkodrov and other. Notice some of them wrote about the problems the Turco-Altaic theory meets long before the critical opinion of Raymond Detrez you support and push so much. ] (]) | |||
| :::::: I do not. Read how to ] and provide peer reviewed, academic, non-Bulgarian reliable sources, claiming Bulgars were Iranian/Aryan tribes for discussion. Especially ]. Until now you did not. This opinion has some nationalist historians' support in Bulgaria. That is. Thank you. ] (]) 12:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: {{reply|Jingiby}}I guess you are familiar with Bulgarian language/Russian language so here is a very good critic towards the Turkic theory by the Russian author Pavel Puchkov: (link) http://www.protobulgarians.com/Chuvashi.htm | |||
| ::::::I will try to translate it. The words in the () are mine. | |||
| "''In conclusion, proofs based of the turco-altaic theory of the Bulgar language is based on inherited Iranian elements in the Chuvash language. Actually, this once again shows that the Turco-Altaic theory of the Bulgars (that have been pushed after the second world war)... '''with the purpose of playing a strategic and Geo-political role, and not out of historical accuracy. This role serves mostly Serbian''' (and Macedonian in my opinion), Russian and Czech interests in order to inherit the cultural heritage of the nowadays Bulgarians.''" | |||
| ::::::Again Jingiby, I understand that as Macedonian you really like this theory, but I guess you should stop pushing it that hard and criticize all the other theories trough Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not the place for it, especially if some authors express huge concerns over the Serbian (respectively Macedonian) idea that the Turco-Altaic theory serves. Being from Macedonia, and pushing only the turco-Altaic theory just supports the words of Puchkov that you are most likely playing some political role in here. I don't want to throw accusations, but if you want this to look better for you, as an editor coming from Macedonia, I guess you will have to become a little more objective and stop pushing only one theory at all cost. The same theory described by some authors as serving political and no historical interests. People have to start asking questions why is a Macedonian editor so hard pushing theory over the Bulgars page. Or this whole Misplaced Pages article is lost] (]) 12:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I am sure you did not check all that is mentioned in the article: ''Bulgarian academics, notably Petar Dobrev, a hypothesis linking the Bulgar language to the Iranian languages (Pamir) has been popular since the 1990s. Most proponents still assume an intermediate stance, proposing certain signs of Iranian influence on a Turkic substrate. The names Asparukh and Bezmer from the Nominalia list, for example, were established as being of Iranian origin. Other Bulgarian scholars actively oppose the "Iranian hypothesis". According to Raymond Detrez, the Iranian theory is rooted in the periods of anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated.'' That is enough. ] (]) 12:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: No, it's definitely not enough my friend. Will be enough when the objectiveness of the article is reached and the origin of the Bulgar is written as disputed, what actually is, among the historians. Will be enough when some information of the other side of the dispute is mentioned as well, with the same unbiased look over it, will be enough when the article become objective and not pro-Turkic theory based on a singe author, called Raymond Detrez. Every move you make toward making the article more Turco-Alaic is a move that increases my concerns that it might be a political move. I don't see other reason why would you want to view only the half of the dispute and that half that is believed by some authors to serve well of the political interests of the country you come from. Don't judge me but it looks really suspicious and you are making even more. Also your argument is invalid since I am citating here Russian and no Bulgarian historians who connect the theory with Geo-political reasons, so your argument against is definitely weak. ] (]) 12:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{Outdent|::::::::}} {{re|Skradumdum|p=}}, I'm starting to get tired of reading ] ] ] that Jingiby is an "Ethnic Macedonian" trying to push their own POV on the article, when I haven't seen any evidence of ] on Jingiby's part at all. ] and ]. To date, I'm still not seeing an ] from your suggested edits that can be properly added to the article (including some cursory research that I performed using ] and ]). If you're really having trouble identifying ], ] and ] might be able help. ] (]) 12:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== "Semi-Nomadic"? == | ||
| According to sources that are even cited in this article e.g.: | |||
| the origin is explained here: https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-descendants-of-the-Huns-today/answer/Pavel-Staikov ] (]) 13:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| The Syriac translation of Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor's Ecclesiastical History (c. 555) in Western Eurasia records: | |||
| "The land Bazgun... extends up to the Caspian Gates and to the sea, which are in the Hunnish lands. Beyond the gates live the Burgars (Bulgars), who have their language, and are people pagan and barbarian. They have towns." | |||
| '''So, the whole article "Bulgars" is a fake story based on the Turkic dreams of Peter Golden. | |||
| '''] (]) 13:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC) That's why the supported authors are specialists like: | |||
| - Kevin Alan Brook - '''business administrator''' | |||
| - Mason Waldman - '''rock musician''' | |||
| ] (]) 15:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Furthermore ancient armenian sources of the 3rd century talk about bulgars inhabitting the lands adjacent to Armenia and they were said to live in stone towns. | |||
| Some points for improvement: | |||
| So the Bulgars lived in towns. So how can they be in any way nomadic? There is no evidence for nomadic existence and as quoted above there is evidence for settled existence. Furthermore the first town built in Damubian Bulgaria was Pliska and it was stone built (ruins still surviviing) and was apparently massive in size. Much bigger than Constantinople. The nomadic theory seems rests on shaky grounds to say the least. ] (]) 19:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''A)''' ancient Turkic people (Dinlin, Gekun and Xinli) were NOT indo-europeans as the article claims in its introduction. They were Siberian branch of the Mongol race and they were 100% Mongols. | |||
| == Language section == | |||
| '''B)''' There is no data for historical migration of Turkic people before 6th century. | |||
| ] the article has over 100,000 bytes hence sections need to be informative, but concise in details for better readability. Sections which topic already has a main article, like ], there is no need to have the same copy-pasted information especially about phonology and tables from the main article, it is out of ] for this article as should only provide a summary and points not mentioned in the main article. I reverted the section to the revision before somebody added the information, which is also repetitive and poorly sourced, and the tables. The section is unreadble mess. ] (]) 20:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''C)''' It is easy to estimate the number of the Bulgars from the ] - they defeated 50 000 Roman army. Hence they must had at least 30 000 army. Which means that the number of Bulgars that migrated into modern day Bulgaria must have been at least 80 000. It is well known estimation that the population of the Balkan peninsula was about 1 500 000 people during ]. The area of the Balkan peninsula is about 500 000 sq km. The area of Northern Bulgaria (where Bulgars settled) is 50 000, hence they mixed with 150 000 local people. The conclusion is that modern people of North Bulgaria must be '''8/23(=1/3=33%) Mongols even today'''. Obviously this is not the case. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Makes sense. This is already mentioned in ]. Therefore, I do not see why there needs to be excessive details about language here as well when there is already a hatnote with a link to the main article. ] (]) 20:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''D)''' Modern computer simulations on genetic origin of Iron Age nomads DO NOT support the claims that early Turks were mixture from Mongols and Indo-Europeans. ] revealed that eastern groups were most likely derived from one single population, whereas scenarios that assumed that the eastern Scythian sample groups were derived from two previously diverged populations received very little statistical support. Results suggest that western and eastern Scythian groups arose independently — perhaps in their respective geographic regions. Simulations support asymmetrical gene flow from western to eastern groups, rather than the reverse. The eastern Scythians display nearly equal proportions of mtDNA lineages common in east and west Eurasia, whereas in the western Scythian groups, the frequency of lineages now common in east Eurasia is generally lower, even reaching zero in four samples of the initial Scythian phase of the eight to sixth century BCE. Modern populations with genetic similarities to eastern Scythian groups are found almost exclusively among Turkic language speakers. <ref>Ancestry and demography and descendants of Iron Age nomads of the Eurasian Steppe, | |||
| Nature Communications, online 2017, https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14615 </ref> ] (]) 03:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:09, 28 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bulgars article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
 | Bulgars was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 16, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reliable sources and objectiveness
Greetings,
I've been reading the discussion page about the Bulgars article and I noticed that editors tend to discredit any sources which are in opposition to the Turkic hypothesis (or in favor of the Sarmatian one) as unreliable purely on the basis that they're from Bulgarian authors. When an editor asks for reliable sources in English, "non-Bulgarian" is always a requirement, which I think implies that contemporary Bulgarian academia are all extreme nationalists who are writing out of "anti-Turkish sentiment", thus making them unreliable or incompetent. I find this completely false (not to mention offensive), for the following reasons:
1.the Sarmatian/Iranian hypothesis exists long before the 90's - Russian historian Nikolai Marr was one of the first to propose a Sarmatian origin of the Bulgars in the early 20th century. Veselin Beshevliev wrote an article Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians way back in 1967, where he concludes that all personal names from the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans are of Iranian origin and that this significant cultural influence has to be taken into consideration when determining Bulgar ethnogenesis.
2. the Turkic hypothesis was the official narrative about the Bulgars origin at the time of the Revival process and under Communist regime. So linking the Sarmatian/Iranian hypotheses of the 1990's with "anti-Turkish sentiments" and the Revival process in particular is simply absurd. Yes, there are many fringe theories in post-socialist Bulgaria which are nationalistic myths in their nature, such as the Bactrian hypothesis of P. Dobrev and the autochthonous hypothesis, but they emerge as a result of pluralism after the fall of old regime and cannot be linked to the Revival process when the Turkic theory was dominant.
I would also like to point out something else - when talking about "reliable sources", I think its ridiculous to refer to the Oxford's or some others Dictionary of World history as they are not historical/archeological research, but as dictionaries they themselves refer to previous research done mainly by Bulgarian historians such as Veselin Beshevliev (the first one to identify Bulgar inscriptions as Turkic), Vasil Zlatarski, Vasil Gyuzelev and others. Simply discrediting modern Bulgarian research made by serious academia as "nationalistic myths" or "anti-Turkish sentiments" without looking into the evidence itself is just lazy, anti-scientific and perhaps biased.
So, all that being said, I kindly ask the editors to review the sources below and finally do a fair edit on the Bulgars article as to represent the Scytho-Sarmatian hypothesis equally to the Turkic one. "Turkic semi-nomadic" has to be replaced with just "semi-nomadic". Britannica already edited their entry on the Bulgars in light of recent findings, so there's no reason for Misplaced Pages not to do the same. The fact that there is still an ongoing debate about the Bulgar origins amongst serious academia should be reason enough to edit the article, so I'm just appalled by the stubbornness of the editors here.
Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian origin for Ancient (Proto-) Bulgarians - https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/194728109.pdf
Genetic evidence suggests relationship between contemporary Bulgarian population and Iron Age steppe dwellers from Pontic-Caspian steppe - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3.full
Archaeological and genetic data suggest Ciscaucasian origin for the Proto-Bulgarians https://www.academia.edu/43735252/Archaeological_and_genetic_data_suggest_Ciscaucasian_origin_for_the_Proto_Bulgarians
Еastern roots of the Madara horseman Chobanov - https://www.academia.edu/44604518/%D0%95astern_roots_of_the_Madara_horseman_Chobanov
THE LEGACY OF SASANIAN IRAN AMONGST THE BULGARIANS ON THE LOWER DANUBE (BG text) - https://www.academia.edu/44902361/%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%9B%D0%95%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%A2%D0%92%D0%9E%D0%A2%D0%9E_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%90%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%94%D0%A1%D0%9A%D0%90_%D0%9F%D0%95%D0%A0%D0%A1%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%A3_%D0%91%D0%AA%D0%9B%D0%93%D0%90%D0%A0%D0%98%D0%A2%D0%95_%D0%9D%D0%90_%D0%94%D0%9E%D0%9B%D0%9D%D0%98%D0%AF_%D0%94%D0%A3%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%92_THE_LEGACY_OF_SASANIAN_IRAN_AMONGST_THE_BULGARIANS_ON_THE_LOWER_DANUBE
On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, Rashev Rasho 1992 http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html
Archaeological overview on the formation of Asparukh’s Protobulgarians Todor Chobanov Ph.D.,Ass.prof., Svetoslav Stamov MA, Duke University https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/07/24/687384/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true
Iranian elements in the Proto-Bulgarians Veselin Beshevliev 1967 (BG text) http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori/Statii%20ot%20drugi%20avtori%20za%20indo-evropeyskiya%20proizhod%20na%20prabaalgarite/V_%20Beshevliev%20-%20Iranski%20elementi%20u%20pyrvobylgarite.htm
Thank you for taking the time to review this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.127.19 (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @188.123.127.19: Turkic one is not a hypothesis, it is documented and majority of historians agree with it, thus a mainstream view. Beshogur (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- bulgars being turk is purely based on historical beliefs. It is very upsetting to see evidence and scientific facts are put under a rug to someone's favour. Truth will always come out 212.5.158.31 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Beshogur: It's definitely not a theory amongst archeologists and it is considered an outdated theory amongst contemporary historians. That's why this article has to be revised so as to be more objective and up to date with modern research.
A lot of mistakes, outdated information and bias, needs a lot more work
Hello, I have made a few changes but there are a lot of other mistakes, I hope someone reads more on the subject and continues improving the article without a political bias. There are so many sources on the subject from foreign and Bulgarian scientists. If someone is interested, he/she may start from these scientific works. There is a lot of political bias on the subject which attracts a lot of factual mistakes and intolerability to change opinions according to the new research that has been done on the subject.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3
Please, someone make the rest of the changes using the latest data and research and not outdated and disproved theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careful information (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, there is nothing new about this Bulgarian view. That problem has been analyzed in the text. It has been disputed many times here on the talk. However here is not the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages. Just read carefully the text from the article: Among Bulgarian academics, notably Petar Dobrev, a hypothesis linking the Bulgar language to the Iranian languages (Pamir) has been popular since the 1990s. Most proponents still assume an intermediate stance, proposing certain signs of Iranian influence on a Turkic substrate. The names Asparukh and Bezmer from the Nominalia list, for example, were established as being of Iranian origin. Other Bulgarian scholars actively oppose the "Iranian hypothesis". According to Raymond Detrez, the Iranian theory is rooted in the periods of anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated. Since 1989, anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of the proto-Bulgars' Turkic origin. Alongside the Iranian or Aryan theory, there appeared arguments favoring an autochthonous origin. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- All the sources presented above are by Bulgarian researchers. Their position is clarified in the article, but it contradicts the prevailing international consensus and is not leading. Therefore, please stop trying to impose it in the introduction. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are favouring a biased view of history and the view of Turkish politics in Bulgaria, please stop reverting the edit. Thanks. Careful information (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- This article is based on reliable sources. Please, reach a consensus at talk before making further disruptive editiong. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- This article was updated with reliable sources and you are changing it. This will result in you losing your editing rights. Careful information (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- This article is based on reliable sources. Please, reach a consensus at talk before making further disruptive editiong. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are favouring a biased view of history and the view of Turkish politics in Bulgaria, please stop reverting the edit. Thanks. Careful information (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why is the view that you support the current view on the page? What makes your opinion superior? I immediately request the change of the page. I have contacted Misplaced Pages and your undesirability to change based on the scientific links would be looked at. Careful information (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The article is quite old and this is the view that has prevailed over the years here. There have been many discussions, but the view of the Bulgarian scientists is not accepted as a leading opinion in the world science. Please present scientific publications from world universities that strongly support the Bulgarian view you espouse here. If you do not have such sources, comply with the current situation. The Bulgarian view is presented according to its weight in the world scientific consensus. Thanks. --Jingiby (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just because an article is old, that doesn't mean it shouldn't change. I have already presented a scientific publication with the participation of Italian scientists. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/ Careful information (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- In addition to the findings of the Italian scientists, I have used books from leading turkologists. Careful information (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is one Bulgarian primary source. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable secondary sources. Look for example at: Bayazit Yunusbayev et al., „The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia.“ PLoS Genetics 11:4 (21 April 2015): "The Chuvash received their Turkic ancestry around the year 816, according to its admixture analysis in S4 Table. This ancestry stems from the region of South Siberia and Mongolia. They are also related to nearby non-Turkic peoples. Chuvashes, the only extant Oghur speakers showed an older admixture date (9th century) than their Kipchak-speaking neighbors in the Volga region. According to historical sources, when the Onogur-Bulgar Empire (northern Black Sea steppes) fell apart in the 7th century, some of its remnants migrated northward along the right bank of the Volga river and established what later came to be known as Volga Bulgars, of which the first written knowledge appears in Muslim sources only around the end of the 9th century. Thus, the admixture signal for Chuvashes is close to the supposed arrival time of Oghur speakers in the Volga region. ". Also this conclusion about modern Bulgarians: Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE."Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- ~2 to 4% is too little to say that the whole group is turkic. Many other European people have such genetic traces due to hunnic migrations that reached modern day Germany, if not beyond. Either the Bulgars are called "a mix of different groups" or not turkic because the view isn't supported by modern science. Careful information (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah we don't rely on wp:or. Beshogur (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- You say we shouldn't listen to any Bulgarian scientists yet your nationality is Turkish and one might ask why we should listen to you. Careful information (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm why? Beshogur (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- You say we shouldn't listen to any Bulgarian scientists yet your nationality is Turkish and one might ask why we should listen to you. Careful information (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah we don't rely on wp:or. Beshogur (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if most of the scientific articles are written by Bulgarians or not because even the well established foreign authors use Bulgarian works in their citations. There is a new leading theory and it is supported by Italian scientists as well, I have shared a link. Since the old theory doesn't reflect the truth, the wikipedia article should be changed. You can't expect forrign authors to know more about Bulgarian history than Bulgarians themselves. Genetic research cannot be biased or political, it is reflecting factual data and the truth here is the data shows that even Proto-Bulgarians and turkic tribes are not related. Careful information (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- ~2 to 4% is too little to say that the whole group is turkic. Many other European people have such genetic traces due to hunnic migrations that reached modern day Germany, if not beyond. Either the Bulgars are called "a mix of different groups" or not turkic because the view isn't supported by modern science. Careful information (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is one Bulgarian primary source. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable secondary sources. Look for example at: Bayazit Yunusbayev et al., „The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia.“ PLoS Genetics 11:4 (21 April 2015): "The Chuvash received their Turkic ancestry around the year 816, according to its admixture analysis in S4 Table. This ancestry stems from the region of South Siberia and Mongolia. They are also related to nearby non-Turkic peoples. Chuvashes, the only extant Oghur speakers showed an older admixture date (9th century) than their Kipchak-speaking neighbors in the Volga region. According to historical sources, when the Onogur-Bulgar Empire (northern Black Sea steppes) fell apart in the 7th century, some of its remnants migrated northward along the right bank of the Volga river and established what later came to be known as Volga Bulgars, of which the first written knowledge appears in Muslim sources only around the end of the 9th century. Thus, the admixture signal for Chuvashes is close to the supposed arrival time of Oghur speakers in the Volga region. ". Also this conclusion about modern Bulgarians: Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE."Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The article is quite old and this is the view that has prevailed over the years here. There have been many discussions, but the view of the Bulgarian scientists is not accepted as a leading opinion in the world science. Please present scientific publications from world universities that strongly support the Bulgarian view you espouse here. If you do not have such sources, comply with the current situation. The Bulgarian view is presented according to its weight in the world scientific consensus. Thanks. --Jingiby (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- All the sources presented above are by Bulgarian researchers. Their position is clarified in the article, but it contradicts the prevailing international consensus and is not leading. Therefore, please stop trying to impose it in the introduction. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE. Not worthy to reply. Out of mainstream view. Beshogur (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Careful information, there is any new theory, but a fringe view of Bulgarian scientists, that is more then 30 years old, which has not been accepted widely. It is included in this article. The DNA study you have posted is Bulgarian, not Italian and is not a new, but out of date - more then 10 years old. It is also a primary source, i.e. not reliable source. Please do not comment on the nationality of the editors. If you do not reach a consensus here, as at the moment, you cannot impose your views in this article. In this case you should look for alternative methods that are indicated in the warning notes on your personal talk page. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, from now on I will kindly ask you to not comment on the nationality of the reasearchers because nationality bias isn't a logical argument for not accepting the truth. Archeological findings and linguistics are highly flawed methods of evaluating ethnicity since the discovery of genetic research. That's why the Iranian theories are more supported nowadays, and these theories have been around for more than a century and not close to 30 years as you have stated. Foreign researchers rely on Bulgarian scientists to give them data since there they have the most archeological sites and genetic data on the Bulgars - in Bulgaria. I have contacted Misplaced Pages and they have told me that unless the dispute is settled here, I will have to raise the issue.
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/
- This is not a Bulgarian study. There is no mention of substantial turkic element in the Bulgarian genetic makeup. There is a slavic group mixed with other non-turkic one.
- "When we consider the composition of sources from within West Eurasia, while the majority of a group’s ancestry tends to come from its own regional area, there is a substantial contribution of both Northern European (light and dark blue) and Armenian groups (light green) to most WA, EC, WC, and TK clusters, as well as some clusters from both SEE and SCE. As previously reported, the formation of the Slavic people at around 1000 CE had a significant impact on the populations of Northern and Eastern Europe, a result that is supported by an analysis of identity by descent segments in European populations. Here, despite characterizing populations by genetic similarity rather than geographic labels, we infer the same events involving a “Slavic” source (represented here by a cluster of Lithuanians; lithu11 and colored light blue) across all Balkan groups in the analysis (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Hungary) as well as in a large cluster of Germanic origin (germa36) and a composite cluster of eastern European individuals." Careful information (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's still unclear what you're trying to push here. Most scholars, ie mainstream agrees on Bulgars' Turkic origin, and fringe view of some Bulgarian historians are mentioned as well. No Bulgars are not Iranian people as you're trying to push on the article. Beshogur (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please, remain civil and don't use words as "push" when I am trying to improve an article with the latest data. Bulgars are Iranian people and this is a fact. I have shared the findings of western researchers and you still are unwilling to change your opinion, you don't leave me much of a choice than to resort to some other ways to solve this issue, ways recommended by the Misplaced Pages community. Greetings. Careful information (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure removing quotes of notable historians like Golden and adding Dobrev to this isn't improving at all. Your first source, p. 177 doesn't even say they're Iranian. I would suggest reading wp:or, wp:fringe. Beshogur (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Removing old data and adding updated one is improving. My first source says they're Iranian. "The research carried in this study, combining written
- sources, archaeological data and DNA research, brings the debate about the origin of Protobulgarians onto another level by identifying their Ciscaucasian “cradle” and thus – theirSarmatian-Caucasian origin, similar to this of Caucasian Alans." I would suggest reading about the Iranian tribes (Sarmatian and Alan included). Greetings. Careful information (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure removing quotes of notable historians like Golden and adding Dobrev to this isn't improving at all. Your first source, p. 177 doesn't even say they're Iranian. I would suggest reading wp:or, wp:fringe. Beshogur (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please, remain civil and don't use words as "push" when I am trying to improve an article with the latest data. Bulgars are Iranian people and this is a fact. I have shared the findings of western researchers and you still are unwilling to change your opinion, you don't leave me much of a choice than to resort to some other ways to solve this issue, ways recommended by the Misplaced Pages community. Greetings. Careful information (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's still unclear what you're trying to push here. Most scholars, ie mainstream agrees on Bulgars' Turkic origin, and fringe view of some Bulgarian historians are mentioned as well. No Bulgars are not Iranian people as you're trying to push on the article. Beshogur (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- And for the study I shared, it's posted in 2013 and is not outdated at all, it's not older than 10 years, look again. And it is done in cooperation with Italian scientists. Thanks. Careful information (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Careful information, preprint sources shouldn't be cited until peer reviewed and published; Avant-garde Research of Ancient Bulgarians doesn't seem like a reliable journal and Yavor Shopov graduated (astro)physics while Todor Chobanov graduated archaeology, both aren't experts on population genetics. Will highlight the most important sentence from Shopov's 2021 book: "Regretfully no DNA data from rich Protobulgarian graves is available at present (for examplethe Kabiuk grave circa 700) and we could not check the existing theories that there were various ethnicities amongst the elite (Turks, Ugrians, Sarmatians), but future research should address this issue". However, will check the genetics section and maybe something can be added there.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nesheva is a geneticist and the informatian is published in her research. Todor Chobanov graduated archaeology and is PhD. Archeology is crucial in evaluating ehnicities and their origins when it is done along DNA research. Chobanov is not a geneticist but he cites world renowned geneticists like Garrett Hellenthal and George B J Busby. Even in the article itself it says that the origin is disputed, I recommend an edit in which the Bulgars are of mixed ethnicity or not turkic at all since the latest data confirms this. Greetings. Careful information (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Bulgars were Turkic tribes. There were no genetically pure tribes anywhere. Their language, culture and beliefs were Turkic and this is generally accepted everywhere except by some researchers in Bulgaria. Such a one-sided fringe view cannot used to change the intro of the article.Jingiby (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Bulgars were not Turkic tribes. Their language, culture and beliefs were not Turkic, their calendar wasn't Turkic as well. What is accepted outside of Bulgaria is that they were a mixture of different ethnicities. This is not a one-sided fringe view and it can be used to change the intro of the article. Careful information (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- According to many reliable sources and experts on the topic their language, culture, beliefs and calendar were Turkic. In the article is already mentioned several times that they mixed and assimilated a mixture of different ethnicities.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Bulgars were not Turkic tribes. Their language, culture and beliefs were not Turkic, their calendar wasn't Turkic as well. What is accepted outside of Bulgaria is that they were a mixture of different ethnicities. This is not a one-sided fringe view and it can be used to change the intro of the article. Careful information (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Careful information, doesn't seem you understand well what's written in those scientific studies, but I've made an edit considering what's concluded in reliable sources and NPOV. However, it should be noted that we are dealing with a steppe nomadic federation which assimilated diverse tribes and ethnic groups. It is highly dubious even controversial to claim anything for sure without any ancient DNA and even then if there's lack of sample size. Nesheva's conclusion did include, but isn't based on ancient DNA. Only because Altaic-Turkic Y-DNA haplogroups are present in very minimal frequency in modern Bulgarians doesn't mean Proto-Bulgarian elite wasn't partly, significantly or even majorly composed of Altaic-Turkic anthropology. Take for example recent comprehensive genetic studies of Proto-Hungarians i.e. Hungarian elite. The most probable scenario is that when Proto-Bulgarians arrived they already were a very mixed group of people with some leading clans of Turkic ancestry which elite didn't left enough genetic trace in modern Bulgarians.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- As I have stated above the Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History's conclusion about Bulgarians and their Bulgar legacy is different. Hellenthal has the opposite opinion to that of Karachanak, claiming only the negligible Northeast Asiatic genetic signal among the Bulgarians might correspond to the whole DNA impact left from the invasions of the Turkic Bulgars. I am going to add this conclusion too. Miki Filigranski you are free to correct my edit if something is going wrong. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong, that's exactly what pointed out. Good edit and think with it the section is neutral enough.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- DNA research of actual bulgar remains and modern bulgarian dna have concluded 2 things
- 1 - the strongest signal is from the bulgars
- 2 - modern bulgarians have the lowest east asian admixture out of any european populations
- 3 - the bulgars were europid as well (9th century bulgar burial remains studied)
- You can refer to prof Reich for #2 who is the authority on DNA research as pertaining to ethnic makeup and haplogroups. The rest is shown in the 2 most recent studies that are unprecedented in scope both from a historic and numeric breadth. 185.95.18.197 (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I understand perfectly everything written in those scientific studies. You say we can't speak of pure ethnicity when we talk about a federation, so why aren't you supporting my suggestion to write "tribes of mixed ethnicities" and then add the few ethnicities? Even if a small part of the elite was turkic, it doesn't mean the whole ethnicity is because it is not. I suggest we write "a mixture" or "unconfirmed", "disputed", etc. Do you agree? Careful information (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, the tribes had a distinctive ethnic identity and such identity goes beyond biology. In the article the topic of mixing with other groups is already mentioend and explained. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, this is not true. This is what PhD Alex M. Feldman from the university of Birmingham says:
- "Caspian Eurasia with the greatest care. It also means that a given “people” such as the Volga Bulgars or the Danube Bulgars, Rus’, Magyars or even the Khazars themselves were not so much a single migrating “tribe” or even a “tribal confederation” of peoples, as is often presented, 150 so much as conquering elite minorities imposing vassalage, tribute and possibly some form of monotheism on various populations along the way."
- (Ethnicity and Statehood in Pontic-Caspian Eurasia (8-13th c.): Contributing to a Reassessment)
- The tribes had a destinctive Iranian ethnic identity but I offered a way that is also scientifically backed up. It should be either "mixed" or "Iranian". Greetings. Careful information (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah this is simply WP:Civil POV pushing at this point. Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry to get in on this 2 years later. A few corrections.
- The DNA studies have concluded that bulgars were NOT turkic. At least no east asian signals there.
- Modern Bulgarians have the lowest east asian admixture of any European populations. For that one refer to Prof Reich's studies result published which are the ones with the biggest samples by far.
- Furthermore the genetic legacy in modern Bulgarians is the strongest from the Bulgars.
- So in other words it is impossible that the Bulgars were of east asian descent or mixture. That hypothesis rested on guesswork and no solid evidence and is now utterly debunked. Mart.mfx2 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah this is simply WP:Civil POV pushing at this point. Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, the tribes had a distinctive ethnic identity and such identity goes beyond biology. In the article the topic of mixing with other groups is already mentioend and explained. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I love how Bulgarian scholarship desperately tries to play up the Sarmatian/Alan hypothesis, doing anything to avoid connection with Turkic and Siberian elements that are patently at least partly there. They just can't handle being connected to them. Word dewd544 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you think that? In fact it swas the Bulgarian scholars that pushed the turkic origins theory incessantly and still do. but it is the historians not the hard scientists - i.e. genetic research. The issue is quite obvious. The scholars that have based their career on this hypothesis have now a hard time admitting they were pushing a lie.
- DNA studies have made this hypothesis untenable now. Things are turning around but slowly due to all these historians suffering cognitive dissonance. But the facts are now indisputable. Once this older generation of historians gives way the younger historians will be more open to accepting realities.
- And it is sad that wikipedia does not reflect hard science but pseudo science at this point - hypotheses based on guesswork.
- I would suggest you get acquainted with the latest findings in this field before you make such broad sweeping statements that are quite unjustified and reflect your ignorance in the matter. Mart.mfx2 (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Secondly saying that just because one is wrong - i.e. the sarmatian/alan hypothesis (which I agree with you as DNA evidence does not support it) does not make the other right - the turkic hypothesis. Neither have any foundation in evidence. Mart.mfx2 (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- As I have stated above the Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History's conclusion about Bulgarians and their Bulgar legacy is different. Hellenthal has the opposite opinion to that of Karachanak, claiming only the negligible Northeast Asiatic genetic signal among the Bulgarians might correspond to the whole DNA impact left from the invasions of the Turkic Bulgars. I am going to add this conclusion too. Miki Filigranski you are free to correct my edit if something is going wrong. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Bulgars were Turkic tribes. There were no genetically pure tribes anywhere. Their language, culture and beliefs were Turkic and this is generally accepted everywhere except by some researchers in Bulgaria. Such a one-sided fringe view cannot used to change the intro of the article.Jingiby (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- Sophoulis 2011, p. 66. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSophoulis2011 (help)
- Karachanak, et al. 2013. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKarachanak,_et_al.2013 (help)
- Добрев, Петър, 1995. "Езикът на Аспаруховите и Куберовите българи" 1995
- Stamatov, Atanas (1997). "ИЗВОРИ И ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ – І–ІІ ЧАСТ". TEMPORA INCOGNITA НА РАННАТА БЪЛГАРСКА ИСТОРИЯ. MGU Sv. Ivan Rilski.
- Димитров, Божидар, 2005. 12 мита в българската история
- Милчева, Христина. Българите са с древно-ирански произход. Научна конференция "Средновековна Рус, Волжка България и северното Черноморие в контекста на руските източни връзки", Казан, Русия, 15.10.2007
- Cite error: The named reference
Rashevwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Бешевлиев, Веселин. Ирански елементи у първобългарите. Античное Общество, Труды Конференции по изучению проблем античности, стр. 237–247, Издательство "Наука", Москва 1967, АН СССР, Отделение Истории.
- Schmitt, Rüdiger (1985). "Iranica Protobulgarica: Asparuch und Konsorten im Lichte der Iranischen Onomastik". Linguistique Balkanique. XXVIII (l). Saarbrücken: Academie Bulgare des Sciences: 13–38.
- Maenchen-Helfen 1973, pp. 384, 443. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMaenchen-Helfen1973 (help)
- Йорданов, Стефан. Славяни, тюрки и индо-иранци в ранното средновековие: езикови проблеми на българския етногенезис. В: Българистични проучвания. 8. Актуални проблеми на българистиката и славистиката. Седма международна научна сесия. Велико Търново, 22–23 август 2001 г. Велико Търново, 2002, 275–295.
- Надпис № 21 от българското златно съкровище "Наги Сент-Миклош", студия от проф. д-р Иван Калчев Добрев от Сборник с материали от Научна конференция на ВА "Г. С. Раковски". София, 2005 г.
- Detrez, Raymond (2005). Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence. Peter Lang. p. 29. ISBN 9789052012971.
- Cristian Emilian Ghita, Claudia Florentina Dobre (2016). Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe. p. 142.
- Note! User "Careful Information" blocked as a sock in April ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.27 (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
- User "Careful Information" isn't blocked as a sock in April. Careful information (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Check the User Page for this user. "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of PavelStaykov (talk · contribs · logs).Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.0.129 (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Bulgarian nationalist agenda
Stop pushing Bulgarian nationalist fringe views. According to Raymond Detrez, who is an expert in Bulgarian history, the Iranian hypothesis is rooted in the periods of anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated. Since 1989, anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of the proto-Bulgars' Turkic origin. Alongside the Iranian or Aryan theory, there appeared arguments favoring an autochthonous origin. According to other authors:
Anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of Turkic origin of the Bulgars. Alongside the ‘Iranian’ or ‘Aryan’ theory, there appeared arguments favouring an autochthonous origin. The ‘parahistoric’ theories, very often politically loaded and have almost nothing to do with objective scientific research in the field of Proto-Bulgarian Studies, could be summarized in several directions:...3)‘Aryan roots’ and the ‘enigmatic Eurasian homeland’. Meanwhile, another group of authors is looking eagerly for the supposed homeland of the ancient Bulgarians in the vast areas of Eurasia, perhaps by conscious or unconscious opposition to the pro-Western orientation of modern Bulgaria. At the same time, with little regard for consistency, they also oppose the Turkic theory, probably because this is in sharp contradiction with the anti-Turkish feelings shared by nationalistic circles.
Jingiby (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Jingiby, you should be aware that Turkish and Turkic are two different notions separated by hundreds of years, also that this is not Bulgarian nationalist agenda, the Bulgarian nationalists are claiming the mainstream historical narrative of Asian (Turkic or Iranic) origin. This is according to the recent genetic and linguistic studied many of us
- are trying to implement in this article but you and others are constantly deleting. MiltenR (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- oh looks lik this is already in discussion. I was also surprised that DNA study findings is not even considered. It is the gold standard and indisputable in this field. It seems to me there is likely some agenda here but I am not sure what that is. Mart.mfx2 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there. It is not binary - either turkic or iranian. In fact the DNA studies state that the origin cannot be asian as it is west eurasian - that is another term for generally european. So not sure why you jump to the conclusion it is about iranian origin. It seems you are reading something into it that is not there. Maybe read the actual studies. Just a suggestion Mart.mfx2 (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- You should likely make a distinction between hard science and nationalistic views. One is indisputable and it could possibly coincide with nationalistic views as well. That does not make it untrue.
- Here is a simple example germans are european not african. Genetic studies show that clearly that the african admixutre quotient is nonexistent. There are nationalistic elements especially in history that focus on the european origins of the German nation. Just because the nationalists also state that doesn't make it untrue.
- I'd sugges look at the scientific evidence and accept the hard facts whatever that is. A historian like the one you cite may have different views but that does not in any way challenge the hard scientific data that points in a different direction. Mart.mfx2 (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
References
- Detrez, Raymond (2005). Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence. Peter Lang. p. 29. ISBN 9789052012971.
- ^ Cristian Emilian Ghita, Claudia Florentina Dobre (2016). Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe. p. 142.
Modern genetic studies and the turkic/asian origins hypothesis
You've already had a discussion about this and you're not entitled to more of other editors' time. Remsense ‥ 论 02:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to modern Genetic studies neither the ancient bulgars nor the modern bulgarians have any significant asian admixture and modern bulgarians even less so than any other european population studied.
So that hypothesis is truly out the window. Should likely update that. The turkic/asian bulgar origins hypothesis first gained prominance in the 20th century and notably after the USSR was established for various political reasons which are beyond the scope to discuss here. But we should likely update the content as only Misplaced Pages is lagging here. Even Encyclopedia Britannica has updated the entry with the new findings many years ago. Are we regurgitating old debunked hypotheses here or are we going to cover hard science? There are already multiple studies confirming the same things. This is britannica "Although many scholars, including linguists, had posited that the Bulgars were derived from a Turkic tribe of Central Asia (perhaps with Iranian elements), modern genetic research points to an affiliation with western Eurasian and European populations." In wikipedia not even a mention and same tired old stories covered.
Thatisme666 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- bump 185.95.17.31 (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anybody? 185.95.17.31 (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Origins / ethnicity
Was wondering why this is not updated with the latest findings on the origins in terms of genetic makeup. The asian origin hypothesis it appears was roundly dealt a blow with those. It sat on a shaky foundation to begin with as it was based on guesswork mostly. Anyway, I was surprised to find that wikipedia is still reflecting the old understanding. Perhaps it should be updated to reflect the new realities? Mart.mfx2 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
"Semi-Nomadic"?
According to sources that are even cited in this article e.g.: The Syriac translation of Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor's Ecclesiastical History (c. 555) in Western Eurasia records:
"The land Bazgun... extends up to the Caspian Gates and to the sea, which are in the Hunnish lands. Beyond the gates live the Burgars (Bulgars), who have their language, and are people pagan and barbarian. They have towns."
Furthermore ancient armenian sources of the 3rd century talk about bulgars inhabitting the lands adjacent to Armenia and they were said to live in stone towns.
So the Bulgars lived in towns. So how can they be in any way nomadic? There is no evidence for nomadic existence and as quoted above there is evidence for settled existence. Furthermore the first town built in Damubian Bulgaria was Pliska and it was stone built (ruins still surviviing) and was apparently massive in size. Much bigger than Constantinople. The nomadic theory seems rests on shaky grounds to say the least. Mart.mfx2 (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Language section
User:Beshogur the article has over 100,000 bytes hence sections need to be informative, but concise in details for better readability. Sections which topic already has a main article, like Bulgar language, there is no need to have the same copy-pasted information especially about phonology and tables from the main article, it is out of WP:SCOPE for this article as should only provide a summary and points not mentioned in the main article. I reverted the section to the revision before somebody added the information, which is also repetitive and poorly sourced, and the tables. The section is unreadble mess. Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. This is already mentioned in Bulgar language. Therefore, I do not see why there needs to be excessive details about language here as well when there is already a hatnote with a link to the main article. Mellk (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class Russia articles
- High-importance Russia articles
- High-importance C-Class Russia articles
- C-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- C-Class Russia (demographics and ethnography) articles
- Demographics and ethnography of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- C-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- C-Class Bulgaria articles
- High-importance Bulgaria articles
- WikiProject Bulgaria articles
- C-Class Romania articles
- Unknown-importance Romania articles
- All WikiProject Romania pages
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors