| Revision as of 17:24, 7 January 2013 editBlueRulezzzzz (talk | contribs)2 edits →The data used in the article is old← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:27, 9 December 2024 edit undoMellk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users59,294 edits →Language section | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| Once upon a time, in a steppe far, far away... | |||
| {{FailedGA|07:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)|topic=Culture, society and psychology|page=1}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1= | |||
| It is a dark time for the rebellion bulgak tribe. Although the Hunnic Empire has been destroyed, imperial troops have driven the rebel forces from their hidden base and pursued them across the Pontic Steppe. | |||
| {{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|hist=yes|ethno=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Ethnic groups}} | |||
| Evading the dreaded Imperial horsefleet, a group of freedom fighters led by Khan Asparukh Skywalker conquered Scythia Minor, opening access to Moesia, and established the First Bulgarian Empire. | |||
| {{WikiProject Bulgaria|importance=high}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Romania}} | |||
| The evil lord Genghis khan, obsessed with finding young Asparukh Skywalker, has dispatched thousands of remote probes into the far reaches of steppe... | |||
| {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|date=July 15, 2015}} | |||
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |||
| You can replace the original article with this text and it won't make any difference. Seriously. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{WPBG|class=Start|importance=High}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Russia|class=Start|importance=High|hist=yes|ethno=yes}} | |||
| {{Ethnic groups}} | |||
| {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=100|index=Talk:Bulgars/Archive index}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 4 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(100d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Bulgars/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Reliable sources and objectiveness == | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Talk:Bulgars/Archive index | |||
| |mask=Talk:Bulgars/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes}} | |||
| Greetings, | |||
| == This article is anti-bulgarian made by turkish racists and should be removed! == | |||
| 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: | |||
| There is lots of bias and racism going on in wikipedia topics that deal with Bulgarians. People, especially people in Misplaced Pages, should understand that not every thing in this world is Turkic and that not every tribe ever from Asia, or Central Asia is Turkic, this has been a particular problem in Misplaced Pages for quite some time now, where bias seems to rule the land and get the upper hand, usurping other theories (which by the way have lots of evidence and sources, from proper websites and proper research and historians) with force and racism (clearly as many editiors have experienced). This really is irritating a lot of people, and in the purest sense is simply not fair. This frustration is justly founded. It seems that lots of articles that deal with Bulgarian topics (like this for example) are stalked and ruled (very unfairly) by Turks which is just ridiculous, since they are Bulgarian topics not Turkic topics. Lots of people vandalise Bulgarian pages with propaganda (i.e:old theories and information which since has strongly been doubted by a lot of people, and since then new theories have been found with stronger more factual evidence-which in the end is simply ignored just because somewhere down the line it wasnt or something wasnt Turkic). All this is disturbing really and stinks of racism towards Persian and Iranian peoples (which goes against morals and human rights). All of the above is simply a drop of the massive problem that is going on! Basically some editors have presented additional theories (nothing wrong with that) about the origins of the Bulgars. The important thing here is that these edits had, justly, proper verifiable sources from a wide collection of books, websites, and newspapers(which after reading the wikipedia rules, one finds that thay are perfectly acceptable). The biggest shock which is just plain unbelievable is the latest findings of DNA, which prove that the modern day Bulgarians (and thus the Bulgars) have a lot in common with ancient and current Pamirian/Iranian peoples. ALL the discussion should have stopped right there, with no more warring, insults and arguments, as anyone with common sense or in the medical field knows that DNA doesn't lie,ever and it is especially important as the best evidence in court cases, murders and CSI's. Not only is there DNA evidence (which from this point you don't need any other evidence really) but also linguistic evidence (lots of words from Iranian origin in modern Bulgarian language, and also place names, people names etc etc). There's even a replica of the Madara horseman in ancient Persian lands. A reference to a whole nice list has been added to this article which has a whole table showing all the words in alphabetical order with origins in different dielects -but guess what?it has been conveniently removed, because as you might have guessed by now-it wasn't Turkic enough. Yet and additional source has been found, behind an already sufficient collection, stating that the Bulgars originated from Pamirian lands; this source, by the way, is from the History faculty of the University of Michigan. How much more evidence, proof and source do you possibly still need? The problem here is that the article is edited by a lot of people who are not even Bulgarian -I dont think you people have got a right to assert who we are and where we come from. You might then say that we all need neutral editors, but that's where the next problem comes from- most of the editors who are not Bulgarian are Turks (there is a history of great tension and violence between Turks and Bulgarians, so Turkish input on this page should be seen as hugely biased and not neutral at all-it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure this out)who insist that the Bulgarians are Turks also-its as if they want to make us Turks no matter what and against all odds. Why do I say against all odds? Well for one there is DNA evidence, and then you get research by real historians (who are qualified just as much as the historians and researchers who inist on the Turkic theory) saying that the Bulgars were Iranian, and then you also get linguistic and cultural evidence-which is all removed in the blink of an eye!!! Anyone who is reading this-please open your eyes to the massive problem that is going on here and read the previous edits where the iranian theory is mentioned -sometime in early August and before-you will see the comments on the edits-read it all an see the truth. This page is corrupt and usurped. There is so much racism here towards Iranian people and Persians (which goes against human rights)-this is disgusting. All rationality and common sense has been lost and thrown away when dealing this page, the Iranian theory is not given a chance when there is so much evidence by so many researchers( a whole team traveled to Iran for crying out loud-to collect DNA samples), icluding Petar Dobrev and historians from the University of Michigan http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/bulgarian_rulers.pdf. There is a lot of linguistic, cultural and DNA evidence-WHY IS IT ALL BEING IGNORED, WHY ARE THERE WARNINGS AND BANS TO THOSE THAT TRY TO CHANGE THIS????!!!!This is hugely unfair!Why in the world is the Iranian theory seen as so bad-when there is overwhelming evidence? By the way someone has said, on the comments of the edits, that DNA is not irrefutable and implying that it just might as well be useless. All this has to change Whoever is reading this and agrees even slightly or is interested in seeing what all the evidence is and what all the fuss is about, please read the previous edits from ABOUT LATE JULY TO EARLY AUGUST-read the whole article but pay special attention to the "new research 2010" part. One more source which should have been added but hasn't ( a new one):http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/bulgarian_rulers.pdf | |||
| '''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. | |||
| ALL THIS above is just a drop of the problem, I left out a lot of detail of the problem and many more good arguments out,as I don't have time now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.121 (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| '''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 article is not about the Slavic Bulgarians, but about completely different people - the Turkic Bulgars. Jingby (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC) jingibingy, these "turkic bulgars", as you call them, exist only in your pathetic limited freak imagination! Please, keep it for yourself in the future! You embarass yourself! | |||
| 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. | |||
| Oh my, if you read anthing in the past edits, you would have seen that, from the "new research 2010" part that today's modern day Bulgarians have a lot in common with Pamirian people, DNA wise, so that means that we are then descended from the Bulgars. And what do you mean Slavic Bulgarians -they are not Slavic, they don't look Slavic (even says in Misplaced Pages they look different from other Slavs) and the new DNA evidence shows that we have mostly Pamirian not Slavic genes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.121 (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC) And what is wrong with the Bulgars being Iranic, why must they be Turkic and absolutely nothing else,is it shameful to be Iranic or something? In wikipedia at least, there is a monopoly over their ethnicity, how dare someone who isn't ethnic Bulgarian say what our ancestors were, and on top of that purposefully ignore lots of sources and evidence. Why must they be Turkic, is there a rule that they must be only Turkic, is there a rule to ignore new and old evidence and sources stating otherwise, and warning and banning those that decide to do something about this unfairness. For the record the new research 2010 part in previous edits shows that according to new DNA data, the modern day Bulgarians have mostly Iranic DNA(from Pamir), no wonder we don't look Slavic, most of us. This shows then that the greater part of us are descended from the Bulgars and the other part being Thracian, and only probably 1 percent Slavic. If the Bulgars were Turkic, then currently we would have had mostly Turkic DNA not Iranic (Pamir). EVERYONE, IF YOU WANT A SAMPLE OF THE REAL TRUTH, read this:http://samoistina.at.ua/2/similarities.htm, it has scholarly sources! Also read the sources from the previous edits, from late July to early August. They are proper sources, verifiable sources. When these were presented, the biased people had nothing to say so they responded to say that these sources weren't valid, but according to wikipedia's rules they are valid41.132.116.121 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Here is not a phantasy forum. End of my comments. Regards. Jingby (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC) jingibingy, then what are you doing here? Go back to the circus, your people are looking for you! | |||
| Typical, again someone doesn't know how to respond because they logically know I am right, they don't have a proper arugementatice comeback, they don't have a justified comeback with any weight, they just plainly don't know how to respond to all the overwhelming evidence and sources that just simply throw the Turkic theory out the water. With comebacks like these, and I have seen a lot of them, this issue will never get solved, and the monopoly of the Bulgars and Bulgarian's ethnicity will continue with utmost unfairness. This is totally messes up, this is a prime example of how corrupt wikipedia is. You wikipedias spend so much time editing wikiepedia, thinking you are contributing even more to this "prestigious, great and academic world wide information and education project that is wikipedia", feeling good and great, with honour that you are doing a fine job to contribute to education to thousands, to add to the most valuable thing ever-knowledge; you people even create good looking and impressive personal user pages and show off all the hard work that you have done, wanting, if there is anything to want, respect - BUT ALL THIS IS AN ILLUSION, USELLESS AND YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELVES BY WRITING HISTORY THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO BE, BY IGNORING EXTREMELY VALUABLE INFORMATION, SOURCES AND EVIDENCE, GOING SO FAR AS TO EVEN IGNORE DNA EVIDENCE. WE ARE MEANT TO PUT TRUTH AND PRESTIGE TO THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA, TO EDUCATE AND NOT LIE TO PEOPLE, INSTEAD THE OPPOSITE IS HAPPENING. When people said at university not to usetrust wikipedia too much and to maybe rather use other sources, I used to think that that is a wrong, unjustified statement, thinking that of course wikipedia is a good and trustworthy source of info, but now I see what is happening really, how low wikipedia has fallen.41.133.47.98 (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC) AND HERE IS ONE MORE OFFICIAL SOURCE,(CANT GET MORE OFFICIAL THEN THIS!!!) in addition to the already many sources mentioned in the article ('new research 2010 and language part') around late July to ealry August 2010, you will notice it from the comments of the edits around that time SAYING(WITH ALL FAIRNESS TO THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE RECENTLY AND FROM YEARS PASSED) THAT THE BULGARS CAME FROM THE KINGDOM OF BALHARA http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3236.htm (as some historians point out, but of course the historians were not Turks or Turkic, so you will ignore and ridicule them, but that goes without saying). With all due fairness, and with all logic - proper sources from governments and universities (which now are starting to number as much or MORE THAN THE SOURCES THAT SAY THE BULGARS ARE TURKIC) should have higher priorities than the opinion and POV's of the administrators and editors who abuse this page with their nonsense(i.e: governemt and university sources are much, much better than the opinions of the editors that say we didn't come from Balhara and/or that we are Turks/Turkic and not Iranic). You people must know that in the end the right always wins over the wrong, truth always triumphs, your(your=every editor who supports the Turkic "theory" by ignoring or deleting sources and evidence showing otherwise) siege WILL be lifted from this page eventually, this propanda must eventually come to an end and please, I BEG YOU, dont send me links to wikipedia rules that you people twist so much for your agenda and Turkish POV, that in the end they are not even recognizable anymore. EVERYONE MUST COME HERE TO THIS DISCUSSION AND SOLVE THIS CRISIS ONCE AND FOREVER ALL. EVERYONE - JUST KNOW THAT WHOEVER DARES CHANGE SOMETHING AND TRIES TO KEEP IT ON THE PAGE(SAYING IRANIC AND NOT TURKIC) - YOU WILL MOST DEFINITELY GET BANNED - THIS IS PROOF OF THE UNFAIRNESS AND POV (yes it is POV once you start to ignore and delete sources and overwhelming evidence that dismiss the Turkic view, failing TO EVEN AT LEAST MENTION ON THE PAGE, LIKE IT RIGHTFULLY DESERVES)41.133.46.200 (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |} How about you people take a look at this, especially Finn Diesel and all the editors in vigorous support of the Turkic theory : Bold textEditing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages and of other Wikimedia projects. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. This is from Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view. If the rules are functional then why doesnt the article represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (such as for example, there are many more examples, such as university, historians and proper news websites, and the state governemt website of USA) It also says the articles must be made without bias - the complete opposite of what is happening here, as this article is made with lots of bias and not "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" get put on the article. In reality what is really hapening is that all the research, evidence and reliable sources (all of which has grown to the same size or possibly greater than the Turkic theory and its sources) just gets deleted removed from the article and completely ignored, and the funny thing is that nobody is doing something about it, and if they try, the 'editors' throw and twist the wikipedia rules to crush them, or simply just ban them. "NPOV is a fundemental principle of Misplaced Pages" - well then why do you people ignore this and push your Turkic POV and ignore and delete all other views (the Iranian theory, after so much sources and evidence, has become a pretty big, important and significant view, the Turkic theory is out dated). How can you people continue to recieve various praise and awards on your user pages and how can you be so proud of them, thinking you have contributes to the greater good, the greater knowledge, thinking that ultimately you are helpping people with knowledge when all that you are doing is being highly disruptive and ignoring rules(by deleting evidence and sources and by not giving it a chance to be properly mention, if at all, on the page) and actually hiding information (which is competitive to the Turkic theory) from millions of people who have a basic right to read all views and all evidence, I mean all, everything, before making up their own mind. How can you people take that chance away from millions of people and then be proud of your work? Excuse me if this has gotten sort of long, but this issue is just to big and critically important to ignore41.132.178.10 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (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. | |||
| Christ almighty, what a wall of text. How do you expect someone to sift through all of that and address your complaints? And could you post a link to that "study" that you claim proves there's a genetic link between Bulgarians and Iranians/Pamiris? AlecTrevelyan402(Click Here to leave a message) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC). I do expect actually - lots of facts need to be mentioned, so there is lots to be said - it is a very important issue so if anyone expects this to get solved once and for all they must read every single thing. First, before the links, have you read the "new research 2010" section in past edits? Also read the etymology: Different theories exist for the etymology of Bulgar. In Sanskrit, Bal means "strength" and hara means "the possessor"; in some sources, the name Balhara and Bulgar/Bulgaria is one and the same. Then I expect you have read the language part as well. Now for the links: | |||
| http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/bulgarian_rulers.pdf - from the university of Michigan, says that the Bulgars came from Pamir, which was an Iranic/Persian land | |||
| http://samoistina.at.ua/2/similarities.htm - really summarised, there is more which is not mentioned,not really an official website itself, but the sources are really good | |||
| '''Mitochondrial DNA Suggests a Western Eurasian | |||
| http://dnes.dir.bg/news.php?id=6541326&fp=1 http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117006 - novinite is an official news website, a very big one. People have complained that newspapers are no good, but according to wikipedia they are perfectly acceptable. http://sofiamorningnews.net/ - also an official news website http://thearchaeologicalbox.com/en/news/dna-analysis-reveals-pamir-origin-bulgarians - archaeology website http://groznijat.tripod.com/b_lang/bl_a_v.html - very important summary of the Iranic words which were in the Bulgar language and are now in the modern language. Additionaly many names in Bulgaria - place names (the name Balkan is found in Persian lands at present) and peoples names - Asparuh is a full Iranian name - meaning something like horserider. There is also an exact replica of the Madara horseman in Iranic lands as well, but the link I have long since lost, will look for it. A=Other cultural aspects like the one festival in Bulgaria (where people dress with long pointed white and black masks and dance around a fire - not familiar with it that much, so dont know the name, but it exists) - it is said that comes from Zoroastrian roots. Also it has been said that some of the structures in Pliska resemble religious Zoroastrian centres - it was in the past edits of wikipedia - go look for it. http://www.csc.kth.se/~dilian/Papers/bulgars.pdf - this is a source that someone else put up. In it, it clearly states that the Iranic theory is part of the 3 major theories (it says Sarmatian - but they were Iranic). Earlier I mentioned, above, that according to neutrality rules in wikipedia, all major view should be added. So far that hasn't happened, as there has been extreme prejudice against the Iranic theory, so it goes against the rules. http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/8511032 - an academic website that mentions the Bulgars could have come from Pamir/Hindukush - Iranic lands, apperently where the kingdom of Balhara was situated (Balhara is very close to Bulgar, I think Bulhi is the Armenian word for Bulgar, and historians from the past have mentioned this as well - "Ashharatsuyts" by Anania Shirakatsi in the 7th century AD , Khorenatsi, Moses. History of the Armenians. Translation and Commentary of the Literary Sources by Robert W. Thomson. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978. 400 pp. ISBN 9780674395718, Agathias of Myrina, Theophylact Simocatta, and Michael the Syrian also identify Mount Imeon (Pamir/Hindukush - Balhara was there) as the homeland of the Bulgars. Mount Imeon is even honoured in the South Shetland Islands where there are a lot of Blgarian scientist, by naming a mountain range after it. This shows a Bulgarian connection. Lots of places there are named after Bulgarian themes/Topics. http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Vedic-Bulgaria.php - not really offcicial but it carries the point across. What is official though that it is written by Petar Dobrev, a long time advcocate/historian/researcher of the Iranic theory. http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117903 - another version http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117192the third version - one or two things are different I think http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/common_origin_croats_serbs_jats.php - in it it says "It may also be stated that several scholars have noticed Iranic elements amongst the Proto-Bulgarians. (Beshevliev 1967, Schmitt 1985)" http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3236.htm - from an official state government website of the USA | |||
| 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''' - | |||
| Here is one more source: Dobrev, Petar. Unknown Ancient Bulgaria. Sofia: Ivan Vazov Publishers, 2001. 158 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 9546041211 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3.full | |||
| '''Archaeological and genetic data suggest Ciscaucasian origin for the Proto-Bulgarians''' | |||
| Here is another source: "". Brockhaus Conversations-Lexikon Bd. 7. Amsterdam 1809, S. 161-162. ". Pierer's Universal-Lexikon, Band 2. Altenburg 1857, S. 230. | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/43735252/Archaeological_and_genetic_data_suggest_Ciscaucasian_origin_for_the_Proto_Bulgarians | |||
| '''Еastern roots of the Madara horseman Chobanov''' - | |||
| There are more links which I am busy looking for at the moment(saved somewhere, when I find them, I will post them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.10 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| 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) - | |||
| Here is more information pointing to the Iranic origin of the Bulgars: | |||
| 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''' | |||
| The Bulgars had scytho-cimmerian origins according to Dzhagfar Tarihi (History of Dzhagfar - a medieval history of the Bulgarians. Volga Bulgaria), Bulgarian revolutionary and many ancient and modern historians. An early Armenian historian Moses Khorenatsi mentions the Bulgars as the "people Bulh", who settled in a region in Armenia (with the permission of king Arshak I 127-114 BC ), later called Vanand (after the Bulgarian king Vanand/Vund, who lead the Bulgars to Caucasus). He uses the information provided by an earlier syrian author Mar Abas Katina. In the geographical book Ashharacujc based on earlier researches by Claudius Ptolemaeus, the land of origin of the Bulgars is pointed to be the mountain Imeon (Pamir and Hindu Kush). (map from Ashharacujc. See north of India - the Bulhi Tribe). | |||
| 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 | |||
| According to the history of Dzhagfar the Bulgars were Scythians from Pre-Turkic Turan/Pamir who later mixed with Cimmerians. They traveled a lot and established different countries with towns made out of stone. A Bulgarian revolutionary, nationalist and ethnologist/historian Georgi Rakovski refers to the Proto-Bulgarians as Aryans and Gimmerians/Cimmerians (He called the Bulgarians Bolg-Arians/Bolg-Aryans). A Muslim medieval scientist Ibn Fadlan who traveled to Volga Bulgaria calls the Bulgars "Sakalibi" and mentions the differences between the Turkic people he met and the Bulgars. He says that the Turkic tribes live primitively and savagely, they eat mainly meat, unlike them the Bulgarians have towns, laws, greeted him with bread (this tradition is still preserved in Both Danube and Volga Bulgaria) and grow different crops as well as breed cattle. | |||
| 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) | |||
| The names of towns, regions, peoples and mountains in the regions Bulgars inhabited also point to Imeon: Shuman (Bactria-Pamir) = Shumen (Danube Bulgaria) = Shumanai (east side of the Caspian sea) Ispara (Bactria) = Ispor (Bulgarian ruler) Balgar (Bactria) = Bolgar (Volga Bulgaria) = Bulgar Balkh (Bactria) = Balkhar (Balkaria-Caucasus) = Bulkar-Balkh (Balkaria-Caucas) Varnu (Bactria) = Varna (Bulgaria) Madar (Bactria) = Madara (Dunabe Bulgaria) Boil (Bactria) = Boil (Bulgarian title) Balkhani (Mountains on the eastern side of the Caspian) = Balk(h)an (Mountain range on the Balkan Peninsula) Suvar (Bactria) = Suvar (Voga Bulgaria) = Suvar/Sevar (Bulgarian Ruler) Osh (Bactria) = Oshed (Volga Bulgaria) etc. | |||
| 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 | |||
| The names of the Bulgarian rulers were also Indo-European in origin and some were identical with the names of sarmatian kings - Asparukh (Ispor), Kuber, Kubrat (Kurt), Suvar (Sevar), Gostun, Baian, Avitohol, Omurtag, Krum etc. Their language was also Indo European - from the Indo-Iranian group. Words such as Shar, Kushta, Kuche, Hubost, Zhena, Brat, Kaka, Kurpa, Chembas, Na, Nana, Khazna etc. have survived in the Bulgarian language to this day. (Words from archeological findings from Danube, Great and Volga Bulgarias and their analogues in Pamir, Persia, Caucasus, Western Europe and Sumer) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 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--> | |||
| == Pan-turkism == | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| :{{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. | |||
| == A lot of mistakes, outdated information and bias, needs a lot more work == | |||
| Do you know what pan-turkism is? This article is pan-turkism! A pathetic try of the primitive turkish people to relate to the europeans by stealing their history and heritage! According to the pan-turkism the bulgarians, germans, persians, etc. are turks, the sumerians were turks too, the turks are the oldest folk on this earth and all the modern civilisation originates from them! Articles like this filled with turkish propaganda make wikipedia look highly unreliable. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :The writer of the above is confusing ] with ], and ] with ]. ] (]) 09:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::It's a scientific and academic fact, and not a part of Pan-Turkism. As Maproom said, you are confusing Turkish with Turkic; and the same way Bulgarian with Bulgar. ] (]) 10:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/50741981/The_debate_about_the_origin_of_Protobulgarians_in_the_beginning_of_the_21st_century | |||
| I think that you both have no idea about the history of the BULGARians and european and central asian folks in general, and you are both nothing more than confused teens. Bulgars and Bulgarians are the same people, in the bulgarian language there is only one word - BULGARI! Even on wikipedia it's written that bulgars and bulgarians is the same http://en.wikipedia.org/Bulgarians Stop confusing the readers with your separatism! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590186/ | |||
| == Bulgars and Borysthenes == | |||
| https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3 | |||
| Dear Jingiby, you are right about 14th c., but in the 7th c. that area was called Atil-kiji in Bulgarian, and I do not want to enter into pissing contest with POV people. Atil-kiji is the first historical name for the area that we know, from 9th c. or some earlier. Next one was Bessarabia. In addition, even Greeks did not know exactly where Borysthenes was, the name was applied to few rivers. ] (]) 08:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/49103702/Significant_Z_4_admixture_signal_with_a_source_from_ancient_Wusun_observed_in_contemporary_Bulgarians | |||
| Barefact, I have changed the name of the river from Borysthenes to Danapris immediately after your comment with an edit on July 2. Just take a look on the article. 09:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Why don't you use the modern and accepted form Dnieper then? There are very few ancient Greeks among modern English readers -:) But that is minor, the whole sentence is misleading, for example there is no record of Bulgar migration to the Dnieper, but there is record on Atilla's time Hunnic fort in Kyiv on the Dnieper, thus in the 7th c. they did not have to migrate to show up in Kyiv on the Dnieper. We have a settled state Kara Bulgar (Black Bulgar, i.e. Western Bulgar) in the N.Pontic between Crimea and Danube during the Great Bulgaria of Kurbat, and between 558 and 630 Kara Bulgar belonged to the Avars, Avars did not invent it. In 660s Khazaria took over control of the Kara Bulgar territory, and Kyiv became known as a Khazarian city. The whole sentence is off. ] (]) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.academia.edu/30769850/Genes_found_in_archaeological_remains_of_the_ancient_population_of_the_Balkans | |||
| OK, I have deleted the whole sentence. ] (]) 04:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :With your help I might rephrase it... eventually. Whoever wrote the intro sentence had good intentions, I do not want to remain a spoiler. Thank you for your responsiveness, I appreciate it. ] (]) 22:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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--> | |||
| == Edit request on 1 August 2012 == | |||
| :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) | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} | |||
| ::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) | |||
| <!-- Begin request --> | |||
| :::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) | |||
| Please erase the first paragraph of the article. Reasons: Flaming, Racism, Propaganda, Incorrect inforanmtion. | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| 1. Sources: YOUR OWN SITE: http://en.wikipedia.org/Bulgarians | |||
| : ], 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) | |||
| Even there it is written in the article about bulgarians that Bulgars and Bulgarians ARE THE SAME PEOPLE! | |||
| ::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) | |||
| 2. There are many sources with alternative theories. | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| 3. This is not even the officialy accepted theory of the origin of the Bulgars. | |||
| 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) | |||
| 4. It's obviously edited to inspire racial hatred. | |||
| :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 | |||
| 5. Please remove the rights of the person responsible for the article, since it sounds to us like the phrase "The origin of the Americans are the homosexual aborigenians who escaped from India" sounds to a homophobic white American. | |||
| :are trying to implement in this article but you and others are constantly deleting. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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}} | |||
| Please substitute it with the original theory (That we originated from an independent nomadic tribe) or choose one of the less flaming theories, like the one about the Thracian origin of the people whihc explains the vast % of Mediterranean people DNA (over 50%). | |||
| == Modern genetic studies and the turkic/asian origins hypothesis == | |||
| Sources: | |||
| {{atopg | |||
| http://demograph.blog.bg/politika/2012/02/15/ot-kyde-doidoha-shvedite.902274 | |||
| | 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) | |||
| http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=142530 | |||
| }} | |||
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nejGo6bS1d4 | |||
| 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? | |||
| similarities in the languages of ancient thracians and bulgarians(also known as bulgars in the past): | |||
| There are already multiple studies confirming the same things. | |||
| http://sparotok.blog.bg/politika/2012/07/12/280-trakiiski-dumi-i-bylgarskite-im-syotvetstviia-ii.978432 | |||
| 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. | |||
| and many other proofs that can be found in the internet. As you can see, if you trace the DNA code you can find that we have insignifficant % of turkis DNA, which was probably due to the 500 years of slavery under the rule of the ottoman empire... | |||
| ] (]) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As you see there are much more proofs supporting any other theory than the one posted at the moment... and the one currently displayed is stuffed with flaming and genuine lie, stuffed with propaganda and almost NO scientifical support (since if you actually look in the libraries in Bulgaria you'll find more books proving that we originated from the pinguins than the one that "support" your thesis)... please, be reasonable and edit the article. I'm not telling you to put the thracian one... if you want just stick to the OFFICIAL version which DOES NOT include turkic roots or choose one that is less flaming! | |||
| <!-- End request --> | |||
| ] (]) 20:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ESp|n}} requests must be "please change X to Y" , not "change X". ] (]) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==The origin of the Bulgarians== | |||
| I am planing to update the history section regarding the origin of the Bulgars. I want to know if there is any resistance. The information presented here is outdated and the sources quoted are redundant. For instance, there is no doubt in the academia that while the ruling class of the Bulgars was turkic/turkicized, the common people were of predominantly Sarmatian origin. This has been in the mainstream for quite some time and needs to find its place in WP. I actually corrected the preamble and gave references to articles written by Prof. Rasho Rashev and Dr. L. Ivanov, both of whom are members of the Bulgarian Academy of Science. As it is known to everyone here I suppose, Rasho Rashev is a world renowned expert on medieval History of Bulgaria and a proponent of the turkic hypothesis so I cannot be convicted of pushing some fringe theories. The quoted paper by L. Ivanov is used in other articles regarding Bulgaria as a reliable source, so I don't see why here specifically it should not be seen as credible. What I say is that the current history section does not explain correctly the turkic model. Bulgarians were of mixed stock and while there is still a heavy discussion whether the nobility was turkic or only turkicized, turkologists generally admit that the majority of the common Bulgar population was Sarmatian which is well attested in the uncountable number of proto-bulgarian common people's graves found in Ukraine and Nord Bulgaria which had a sarmatian profile. Further evidences are presented in the articles I submitted, maybe you should read them before deleting them.] (]) 20:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Origin of the Bulgars == | |||
| I am planing to update the history section regarding the origin of the Bulgars. I want to know if there is any resistance. The information presented here is outdated and the sources quoted are redundant. For instance, there is no doubt in the academia that while the ruling class of the Bulgars was turkic/turkicized, the common people were of predominantly Sarmatian origin. This has been in the mainstream for quite some time and needs to find its place in WP. I actually corrected the preamble and gave references to articles written by Prof. Rasho Rashev and Dr. L. Ivanov, both of whom are members of the Bulgarian Academy of Science. As it is known to everyone here I suppose, Rasho Rashev is a world renowned expert on medieval History of Bulgaria and a proponent of the turkic hypothesis so I cannot be convicted of pushing some fringe theories. The quoted paper by L. Ivanov is used in other articles regarding Bulgaria as a reliable source, so I don't see why here specifically it should not be seen as credible. What I say is that the current history section does not explain correctly the turkic model. Bulgarians were of mixed stock and while there is still a heavy discussion whether the nobility was turkic or only turkicized, turkologists generally admit that the majority of the common Bulgar population was Sarmatian which is well attested in the uncountable number of proto-bulgarian common people's graves found in Ukraine and Nord Bulgaria which had a sarmatian profile. Further evidences are presented in the articles I submitted, maybe you should read them before deleting them. ] (]) 21:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :bump ] (]) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Such fringe views are not welcomed here and even in Bulgaria. Provide sources from Oxford, Cambridge, Berlin, Moskow, Paris or publication from another reliable University. Thank you! ] (]) 11:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Anybody? ] (]) 02:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Origins / ethnicity == | |||
| Fringe views???? I want to know what you mean by fringe view. Moskow is definitely not a credible source because of the ideologization of History. Which reminds me that if there are sources from Moskow here, they should be revisited/deleted. Cambridge and Oxford univ. Press have several old books on the Balkans and the History of the Balkans, all of them before the 90's or in the early 90's which means that they are also outdated. Furthermore, If you have a look at the sources these books use you will see that the are based predominantly on "fringe" historians like Rasho Rashev, including Rasho Rashev. You realize that Rasho Rashev is among the most quoted Bulgarian historian in the world, don't you?? Rejecting Rasho Rashev, who is regularly quoted in renowned journals is as rejecting the original papers of Einstein because you cannot find them in a book of the Oxford Univ. Press. C'mon, you cannot be serious. This is not the argument I was expecting. Did you have a look at the content of the paper I submitted at least? It was published in "Studia protobulgarica mediaevalia europensia"!!!! | |||
| Besides papers by Rasho Rashev have already been cited in the text, so I do not see a reason why newer articles by the same author should not be included as well. ] (]) 14:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| Rashev is cited partially in connection with Britannica's moderate opinion (Turkic people, ''perhaps'' with Iranian elements). Oxford and Cambridge actual editions from 2000s are also categorical: Turkic people. 14:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == "Semi-Nomadic"? == | |||
| Who are you?I don't see your signature. Rasho Rashev revisited his opinion in the 90's and till the end of his life he was convinced that whereas the ruling elite was presumably of turkic origin the common people were Sarmatians. He reflected on that in couple of articles one of which I presented. The quotations in Britannica are from his works before the 90's and before many of the newer archeological discoveries in North Bulgaria and Ukraine were made, therefore this is an outdated information. The Oxford/Cambridge books were written in the 90's and several times re-edited, with the last edition in the early 2000. So it contains the same outdated info as the previous one.] (]) 15:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| According to sources that are even cited in this article e.g.: | |||
| Please, respect the actual publications of the most reliable scientific publishing houses in the world. Thank you. ] (]) 15:43, 15 September 2012 (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." | |||
| Espor, this guy jingiby is according to his own words "a serbo-greek from macedonia" and his nickname is turkish. The worst combination possible for an administrator of a bulgarian history article. He has lived in Ruse and his name is Angel Topalov, now he lives in London and I suppose someone is paying him to administrate this anti-bulgarian propaganda on wikipedia, he is spamming other bulgarian-related articles with his turkic crap too. That's his profile http://www.sladur.com/profile.php?id=36630 It is clear that his IQ doesn't fly pretty high as you can conclude by his elementary one-sentence answers such as "this is not a fantasy forum", or "Such fringe views are not welcomed", he can't even construct one proper sentence with arguements to support his fake turkic propaganda. | |||
| 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. | |||
| jingiby, will you tell me why is it that all of your so-called "most reliable publications in the world" are from the 70's and 80's? Why do you constantly remove newer sources that we try to add with new studies that doesn't comply with your turkic propaganda? | |||
| Also, this article is controversial by itself, it's full of controversy in every sentence. First, it starts with the highly-biased paragraph that the bulgars were turks (which were mongoloids), but later in the "Ethnicity" and "Genetics" section it says that "they were Caucasoid" and at the same time "they were not ethnically homogeneous, but rather unions of multiple ethnicities such as Turkic, Ugric and Iranic among others". | |||
| 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) | |||
| Also, about this sentence: "There is a discussion whether these Sarmatian elements in the cultural characteristics of the Proto-Bulgars are based on Sarmatized Turks or Turkicized Sarmatians." This is an article page, not a discussion page, there is no place for discussions there! The source that you listed is from 1973 (Who is this Otto Maenchen-Helfen anyway?). | |||
| Also, the "Etymology" section is a total joke, it's even insulting, who wrote it - some 6 years old kid? | |||
| == Language section == | |||
| This whole article stinks of anti-bulgarian propaganda, it seems like it is written by some serbo-greek person who hates Bulgaria. I understand why our neighbors - the greeks and serbs hate us, they don't have a single battle won against us during the 2 world wars (even though they allied against us and attacked us at the same time), but it's the 21st century now, there is no place for hatred and separatism, we're all humans and we're made of the same materials - carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. Do we come to your articles and exchange your history with crappy neo-turkic/turkish propaganda? What you are doing is extremely childish. Grow up and stop with the anti-bulgarian propaganda, will you, jingiby? | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| == The data used in the article is old == | |||
| :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) | |||
| As others already did, I also request an edition of this page. The reason is more than obvious: your sources for the roots of the bulgars are outdated. Even if you bother to take a simple history textbook for the 8th grade (of course not from the 80s or 90s)you can see that for origins there stands "Hindu Kush and Pamir", which obviously has nothing to do with turkish origins. There are only a few bulgarian historians who still support the turkish origins and they are rather old stubborn men. Stop using sources that have already been proved wrong and look at the present ones. | |||
Latest revision as of 20:27, 9 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