| Revision as of 17:24, 7 January 2013 editBlueRulezzzzz (talk | contribs)2 edits →The data used in the article is old← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:05, 8 January 2013 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 100d) to Talk:Bulgars/Archive 4.Next edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |leading_zeros=0 | ||
| |indexhere=yes}} | |indexhere=yes}} | ||
| == This article is anti-bulgarian made by turkish racists and should be removed! == | |||
| 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 | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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! | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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 | |||
| 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 | |||
| 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) | |||
| Here is another source: "". Brockhaus Conversations-Lexikon Bd. 7. Amsterdam 1809, S. 161-162. ". Pierer's Universal-Lexikon, Band 2. Altenburg 1857, S. 230. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Here is more information pointing to the Iranic origin of the Bulgars: | |||
| 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). | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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--> | |||
| == Pan-turkism == | == Pan-turkism == | ||
| Line 74: | Line 36: | ||
| 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--> | 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--> | ||
| == Bulgars and Borysthenes == | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Edit request on 1 August 2012 == | == Edit request on 1 August 2012 == | ||
Revision as of 01:05, 8 January 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?
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