| Revision as of 12:48, 28 February 2013 edit145.255.195.39 (talk) →Origin of the Bulgars← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:49, 28 February 2013 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,318 editsm Signing comment by 145.255.195.39 - "→Origin of the Bulgars: "Next edit → | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
| The Bulgarians were never tengriists, neither we worshipped Tengri, tengriism is a primitive shamanism and has absolutely nothing in common with our pagan pre-christian beliefs. The Bulgarians were early Zoroastrians - the cult to the Sun and the Fire, we were building fire temples like the Persian ones. There is not even one evidence to support the thesis that we were tengriists or that we called the god with the name Tangra/Tengri. In fact there is this evidence by the Persian scholar Al-Balkhi that says: "I heard the Bulgarians call the Creator with the name Edfu and when I asked them how they call their idol, they answered Fa." - Al-Balkhi, a persian scholar lived in the 9th century. (M. Tahir, Le livre de la creation de el-Balhi. Paris, 1899, v. IV, p. 56). | The Bulgarians were never tengriists, neither we worshipped Tengri, tengriism is a primitive shamanism and has absolutely nothing in common with our pagan pre-christian beliefs. The Bulgarians were early Zoroastrians - the cult to the Sun and the Fire, we were building fire temples like the Persian ones. There is not even one evidence to support the thesis that we were tengriists or that we called the god with the name Tangra/Tengri. In fact there is this evidence by the Persian scholar Al-Balkhi that says: "I heard the Bulgarians call the Creator with the name Edfu and when I asked them how they call their idol, they answered Fa." - Al-Balkhi, a persian scholar lived in the 9th century. (M. Tahir, Le livre de la creation de el-Balhi. Paris, 1899, v. IV, p. 56). | ||
| Articles like this one filled with turkish crap and administrated by primitive psycho-sick people like this jingby makes wikipedia look highly unreliable, now I understand why it is forbidden to be cited in scientific and academical studies and universities. | Articles like this one filled with turkish crap and administrated by primitive psycho-sick people like this jingby makes wikipedia look highly unreliable, now I understand why it is forbidden to be cited in scientific and academical studies and universities. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| == The data used in the article is old == | == The data used in the article is old == | ||
Revision as of 12:49, 28 February 2013
Once upon a time, in a steppe far, far away...
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.
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.
The evil lord Genghis khan, obsessed with finding young Asparukh Skywalker, has dispatched thousands of remote probes into the far reaches of steppe...
You can replace the original article with this text and it won't make any difference. Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanas Juvigi Asparukh (talk • contribs) 08:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 | Bulgaria Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Russia: History / Demographics & ethnography Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
 | Ethnic groups Unassessed | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Pan-turkism
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.193.233 (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- The writer of the above is confusing Turkish with Turkic, and Bulgarians with Bulgars. Maproom (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- 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. 78.170.100.150 (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.195.39 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 1 August 2012
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please erase the first paragraph of the article. Reasons: Flaming, Racism, Propaganda, Incorrect inforanmtion.
1. Sources: YOUR OWN SITE: http://en.wikipedia.org/Bulgarians
Even there it is written in the article about bulgarians that Bulgars and Bulgarians ARE THE SAME PEOPLE!
2. There are many sources with alternative theories.
3. This is not even the officialy accepted theory of the origin of the Bulgars.
4. It's obviously edited to inspire racial hatred.
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.
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%).
Sources: http://demograph.blog.bg/politika/2012/02/15/ot-kyde-doidoha-shvedite.902274 http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=142530 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nejGo6bS1d4
similarities in the languages of ancient thracians and bulgarians(also known as bulgars in the past): http://sparotok.blog.bg/politika/2012/07/12/280-trakiiski-dumi-i-bylgarskite-im-syotvetstviia-ii.978432
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...
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!
Graveyard (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Not done: requests must be "please change X to Y" , not "change X". Mdann52 (talk) 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.Espor (talk) 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. Espor (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2012 (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! Jingiby (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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. Espor (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2012 (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)
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.Espor (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Please, respect the actual publications of the most reliable scientific publishing houses in the world. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
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".
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?
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?
- I dont think the comments on jingiby are fair. Nor is there any Serbo-Greek propaganda against Bulgarians
- Having said that, I agree that the Turkic perspective has been overplayed, and perhaps has been the agenda of Pan-Turkic nationalists who have attempted to push a "Turk" label in several historic eastern European groups (Huns, Avars, Bulgars) who were probably not Turkic. I have read several recent articles that suggest that main cultural impetus for Bulgar was Late Sarmatian. In fact, the main body of Danubian Bulgars were Sarmatians and Slavs already. Just becaue they had certain terms tengri, khagan - which might be Turkic, doesnt mean they were. Eg I worship Jesus but Im not from jerusalem. Similarly, terms like Khagan are probably not even Turkic, but Mongolian if anything. And finally just because they were equestiran riders doesn't mean they were Turkic either - any linguistic group can ride a horse and live on the steppe. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The Bulgarians were never tengriists, neither we worshipped Tengri, tengriism is a primitive shamanism and has absolutely nothing in common with our pagan pre-christian beliefs. The Bulgarians were early Zoroastrians - the cult to the Sun and the Fire, we were building fire temples like the Persian ones. There is not even one evidence to support the thesis that we were tengriists or that we called the god with the name Tangra/Tengri. In fact there is this evidence by the Persian scholar Al-Balkhi that says: "I heard the Bulgarians call the Creator with the name Edfu and when I asked them how they call their idol, they answered Fa." - Al-Balkhi, a persian scholar lived in the 9th century. (M. Tahir, Le livre de la creation de el-Balhi. Paris, 1899, v. IV, p. 56). Articles like this one filled with turkish crap and administrated by primitive psycho-sick people like this jingby makes wikipedia look highly unreliable, now I understand why it is forbidden to be cited in scientific and academical studies and universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.195.39 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The data used in the article is old
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.
Categories:- Start-Class Bulgaria articles
- High-importance Bulgaria articles
- WikiProject Bulgaria articles
- Start-Class Russia articles
- High-importance Russia articles
- High-importance Start-Class Russia articles
- Start-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- Start-Class Russia (demographics and ethnography) articles
- Demographics and ethnography of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- Unassessed Ethnic groups articles
- Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles