Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:53, 30 April 2018

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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Demographics & ethnography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bulgaria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Romania This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Misplaced Pages Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Misplaced Pages Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on July 15, 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Template:Findnotice

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bulgars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork

• Closed as unlisted to allow more time to resolve issues. SilkTork 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article has an appropriate reference section. I see that the citation style changed from long to short in May of this year during a single edit. For future editing it's worth noting that changing citation style in an existing article is generally discouraged per WP:CITEVAR. The edit also changed appropriate usage of {{Reflist}} to depreciated usage. See Template:Reflist for current guidance. A number of editors are still not aware of all changes. Just noting here for future editing. I get caught out on changes to guidance as well! SilkTork 00:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Query

• There's been some very recent edit warring, which if it continues would prevent the article being listed. My general approach in such situations is to extend the review rather than close it, to see if common sense can prevail. If someone deliberately disrupts an article during a GAN in order to prevent an article being listed, they can be banned from the article. I would not expect nominators or significant contributors to get involved in edit warring. If there are concerns about an edit other than obvious vandalism, rather than revert, the edit should be discussed on the talk page. SilkTork 00:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I discussed and hope for months for the common sense to prevail, but as can be seen on the Bulgars and some related articles, and recently on Bulgar language, as well noticeboard archive, it seems that the editor does not accept and understand that Misplaced Pages is edited according to NPOV principles. It was proposed a dispute resolution, but currently have no will and time to write an adequate resolution (with all the claims by the editor in question).--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• File:53-manasses-chronicle.jpg is tagged as needing attention. That should be dealt with before the review is completed or another image used in its place. I am uncertain as to why it has been chosen as the lead image to represent Bulgars. I cannot find details about the incident mentioned in the article. Indeed, there isn't much history in the article after the 7th century, which I will mention again when dealing with Broad coverage. SilkTork 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Before I rewrote the article the old revision had a map as the lead image. I was not fond of the image quality and that it only represents a certain date in time, and (with dubious extent) geographical location in their broader migration. I searched for an image wich could properly give, somehow strong, impression of the Bulgars. First used the image of the alleged Kubrat's sword (revision, web), but it was deleted due to copyright. There's not so good selection of images (categories at Wikimedia Commons Bulgars, Medieval architecture in Bulgaria, Monarchs of Bulgaria). I thought about to use an image of their 'capitals' Pliska and Veliki Preslav, or Bolghar, but they are generally not in the original shape, yet reconstructed in the recent two centuries. Thus decided for a medieval drawing, of which, found this most representative of the Bulgars army (seen in their outfit, wearing a Eastern type of helmet, similar to Sarmatian Spangenhelm). The image is part of the Constantine Manasses Chronicle, and needs better licence tag. Will see what can be done. Why the battle is not mentioned in the article will be commented below in "Broad coverage".--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, is it alright?--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The copyright tag is now sorted. SilkTork 20:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• File:Bulgar subsequent migrations in Europe..jpg has information in Bulgarian. Is there a similar map with information in English? Also, the source for the information is unclear, as all that is given is "TANGRA TanNakRa Publishing". SilkTork 20:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The information is in both Bulgarian and English, but barely legible. There's none. Indeed, it seems they are tangra-bg.org book publisher. It now raises the question of whether it is his own work. The user Jingiby account on Misplaced Pages is blocked since 2014, but hopefully on Wikimedia Commons Jingiby is still active. There will ask him about the image.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There's still no answer from him, but I think that the image copyright is quite suspicious. I can remove it, and when we finish the text, will work on how to make a similar one.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• File:Bulgar warrior.jpg appears to have been taken from a website with unclear copyright status. The file page says the author has been dead for over 70 years, yet the file data says the photograph was taken in 2012. SilkTork 20:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This image was also uploaded by Jingiby, and it looks like no one until now noted this issue, although is fairly used. It is atributed to Ivan Dobrev, Bulgarian academician and linguist. Think it cannot be found anymore on the website of the Bulgarian Military Academy. However, it can be easly replaced by the File:A jug with golden medallions.jpg.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fail

• Broad coverage. There are images in the article which refer to events which are not mentioned in the text. The history mainly stops in the 7th century, though the images reveal that significant events in the Bulgars history occurred after that date. Unless there is a significant reason why the history after the 7th century is not mentioned, this article appears to be incomplete. SilkTork 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but I conceived is so to be historically concise ie. it exclusively mentions the history of the semi-nomadic Bulgars until the time of the 'five brothers' in 7th century ie. migrations with which they finally settled down. What happened with the Bulgars ruled by Batbayan there's no information, probably attended and disappeared somewhere in the historical events of the region. What happened with those led by Kotrag to the river Volga can be further read on the respective articles (Volga Bulgaria). The fate of the Bulgars led by Kuber (Macedonia) and Alcek (Italy) is similar to those ruled by Batbayan. The Bulgars led by Asparukh are the most known as were the founders of the Bulgarian nation. However, at want point of time should be distinguished the history of Bulgars from the history of Bulgarians. I think is - the disappearance of the culture and language, and original ruling elite influence. In the book by F. Curta, The The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, 2008, pg. 151 is written "since 1930... the tendency has been to distinguish between Bulgars (before the conversion to Christianity) and Bulgarians (after the conversion)".

When the Bulgars came to the territory of today's Bulgaria they encountered the native population of Slavs and Greeks (roughly to say). Since then we can follow the genesis and development of the Bulgarian nation. The Bulgars from today's ie. medieval Bulgarians differed in language, religious beliefs, traditional customs, social structure, but again who - at least the warrior elite or ruling class. How much they numbered, that's a hard question. According Jean W Sedlar (2011, pg. 424) "The Bulgar ruling class eventually abandoned its Turkic language and adopted Slavic so completely that no trace of Turkic speech patterns can be found in any Old Slavic texts... The 9th and 10th centuries marked an interval of bilingualism, after which the descendants of the original Bulgar conquerors gradually forgot their original Turkic vernacular and became entirely Slavic in speech. By the 12th century the proto-Bulgar language had utterly died out...". Since the Christianisation in 865 is followed gradual disappearance of their original beliefs and customs.

Although the source by Golden (1992) I mostly used for history did further venture into Bulgarians and Volga Bulgaria, I didn't see any point to simply copy the historical facts from other related articles, ie. why not to be included in related articles? The article is already big, and to further expand it in history section with historical facts already mentioned in related articles (like First Bulgarian Empire), with debatable time period until when to follow the term Bulgars... Actually, through the sections "Social structure", "Religion", "Language", "Ethnicity", even "Etymology" - are mentioned few dates, and can be comprehend who they really were, what characterized them, and when no longer. I think this is the most important part of the article.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Britannica covers a longer period. Encyclopedia of European Peoples covers a longer period. This children's encyclopedia covers a longer period. The sources used in the article cover a longer period. I see that the Bulgars divided at the time of the five brothers, but sources continue the history after the split. The distribution of the Bulgars appears to be part of the story, as it is with articles on other such peoples who dispersed, such as Celts and Jews. As this article is about the Bulgars it should cover their entire history. If you wish to write only about the early period of the Bulgars, that could be a separate article, perhaps called Early Bulgars. SilkTork 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no need for new article. In the "Subsequent migrations" is noted that they merged with the other regional population, in "Society" that accepted their lifestyle, in "Religion" differences in type of burial cemeteries, and in "Language" that gradually slavicized. The ruling elite managed to preserve their identity for about 200 years, and that's around the time of Christianization (865 AD). This time period, of at least 200 years, must be mentioned, and since the scholars usually follow the history of Bulgarians from 865 AD, will name the succeeding section as "Bulgarian Empires", where will be mentioned the history of the First and Second Bulgarian Empire. The short history, few statements, about Volga Bulgars will add to the "Subsequent migrations" respective paragraph.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

After changes, what is your current opinion on the article, what else would like to be done, beside copyedit?--Crovata (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Mos - Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork 20:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It can be fairly easly done, and needs better one. I see that some interesting things, eg. religion and language aren't mentioned.--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, but when see the intro of article on Huns believe only partially. Is it too concise or needs better prose?--Crovata (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• The prose is difficult to follow in places with uncertain paragraphing - there are too many short paragraphs which inhibits reading flow, and makes it more difficult to absorb meaning because of the lack of organised structuring. The Turkic migration section is particularly difficult to absorb. Clear, readable prose which allows the general reader to understand the topic without undue effort would be what to aim for. This looks like a collection of facts - notes toward an article. The next step would be to write up those facts in an organised and readable manner. SilkTork 21:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

In which parts found the reading difficult, except "Turkic migration"? The respective section was written so because each paragraph is about different date, event or source, more or less related. I thought the more concise, if can with original quote, the better as more interpretation of such distant events will lead to more confusion. Thing is, if recall right and see in notes, there isn't really any other historical fact, besides (F. Curta, Avar Blitzkrieg, Slavic and Bulgar raiders, and Roman Special Ops, 2015) for some raids in 499, 502, 507, 530, 535 AD, and scholar consideration, besides (Uwe Fiedler, Bulgars in the lower Danube region, in F. Curta, The The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, 2008).--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The language is difficult in most places, and is full of errors, such that it would normally be considered a quick fail. Example: "Golden considered the origin of the Kutrigurs and Utigurs obscure and their relationship to the Onoğurs and Bulgars who lived in the same region, or in its vicinity, as unclear. He noted the assumption of the two tribes being related to the Šarağurs (Oğhur. šara, "White Oğhurs"), and that according Procopius there were two Hunnic tribal unions of Cimmerians descent and common origin. The reason later Byzantine sources frequent linked the names Onoğurs and Bulgars is also unclear." Two of the errors in that I can parse ("according Procopius" should be "according to Procopius"; "sources frequent linked" should be "sources frequently linked" others I can't work out, so the meaning is lost, such as "Cimmerians descent and common origin". The article would benefit from a copyedit by someone with a good command of English, and who knows the topic well - but it would only be worth doing that, when the article's structure and the topic range is better established. SilkTork 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not native English speaker and this minor faults tend not to notice. Agree, when will finish the new section and lead will make you notice to decide. Should the previous copyedit reviewer Folklore1 be called? We could say that at least he got familiar with the article.--Crovata (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The article would benefit from a strong and very experienced copyeditor. One I respect highly is User:Eric Corbett. If you could convince him to get involved I would have more confidence that this article could be brought to GA level. If he does take on the task, I would ask that you allow him to work unhindered - he works fast, making many changes, and this can unnerve some people. SilkTork 08:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Initially Eric Corbett accepted and done several edits, but decided to withdraw.--Crovata (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I don't know who else to suggest. The article needs more than a simple copy edit, it needs a complete rewrite to make the issues clearer - Eric Corbett could have done that. I can see that you fully understand the topic, and are an appropriate person to bring knowledge to the article; what is needed, however, is someone skilled in communication and with a good command of the English language, who also has an affinity or interest in the topic and is prepared to work with you. Unless you have a solution in mind, I will close this review in the next 24 hours. When the language and clarity issues have been resolved you can nominate again. SilkTork 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have a solution for which can guarantee instant work and short period of time. It's alright, I agree with the decision. We went through several issues, will see if there's something more to bring, and will make a new migration image. Thank you for your time and am glad to have worked with you. When they are resolved would like to notice you to see if are satisfactory.--Crovata (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'll take a look when you feel the article is ready to be nominated. SilkTork 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

On hold

• I'm putting this review on hold. There are a number of issues with this article. There is information here, and some presentation of that information, but the article does not yet meet GA criteria. I haven't finished the review, though I have put enough indicators above to show why I feel this article is not ready, and what work needs to be done. I think this is a very big topic, and deserves to be taken seriously, with time taken to do appropriate deep research, and then organise and present the material. Given the current state of the article I don't see that sufficient improvement for such a big and complex topic can be completed in a reasonable time frame. However, I would rather support positive efforts to improve the article and build toward a GA listing, than simply close this GAN as a fail. I will keep the review open for a while to see what the nominator and significant contributors have to say. SilkTork 21:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Closed as unlisted to allow time to resolve issue. SilkTork 06:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"Good article"

This could never reach status of a "good article" by being built on blank spaces instead of consistent theories. There are enough sound ideas in the Bulgarian scientific community from late 20th century, with dedicated scholars spending their entire lives putting the pieces together on a basis of direct sources. But no, the Bulgarian historians are way too biased to research their own ancestry! What an argument!--Utar Sigmal (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please, change the line " Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes " with " semi-nomadic warrior tribes " . Bulgars were not turkic people, there is many genetic studies and proves about it, here is one of them: (https://en.wikipedia.org/Genetic_studies_on_Bulgarians) The language they have spoken may have belonged to the turkic language family ( again unproved theory), but the background of the tribes is historically and genetically far away from so called turks. Vasil dobrev (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Vasil dobrev (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vasil dobrev:  Not done. I just went through the dozens of times the word "Turkic" appears in this article and the claim that Bulgars were, in fact, Turkic is supported by tons of reliable sources. Misplaced Pages can't be used as a source for itself. Do you have a reliable, third-party source stating that Bulgars were not Turkic? CityOfSilver 17:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Quite interesting, how for a such of short period of time, you have managed to check "tons" of "reliable" sources? And what gives you guarantee, that they are reliable, and not serving geopoitical interests? Yes, I can also say, I went through tons of third-party sources, and appears, that the claim that Bulgars are Turkic is groundless. Here is a third-party source, studies, made by scientists: http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/bulgarians.html

http://www.abstractsonline.com/Plan/ViewAbstract.aspx?sKey=006d5e3a-ea14-49ff-9b39-f0a042d39185&cKey=bfc88c56-5e93-4ee2-89e6-c3ab1bd25f5c&mKey=%7BDFC2C4B1-FBCD-433D-86DD-B15521A77070%7D

Here is also some quotes from one of the studies:

"In addition, an important consideration arises from the finding that haplogroups C-M217, N-M231 and Q-M242, which are common in Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations , , occur at the negligible frequency of only 1.5% in modern Bulgarians. This observation is in agreement with the results of recent linguistic studies which demonstrated that the proto-Bulgarian language does not belong to the Turkic family but it relates to the Indo-European languages of the East Iranian group, whose traces still persist in the modern Bulgarian language, despite its Slavic basis. Thus, taking into account the novel and detailed historical studies indicating that proto-Bulgarians were quite numerous (32% or perhaps even 60% of the population in early Danubian Bulgaria) –, , , it follows that a shared paternal ancestry between proto-Bulgarians and Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking groups either did not exist or was negligible."

"As for the interpopulation analysis, similarly to mtDNA, Bulgarians belong to the cluster of European populations, still being slightly distant from them. 'Bulgarians are distant from Turks' (despite geographical proximity), Arabic and Caucasus populations and Indians."

There is many moore recent studies abuot this. And is not pulled out from Misplaced Pages.

Vasil dobrev (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vasil dobrev: One of the sources is the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you've come here to claim that such a publication is "serving geopolitical interests" and is thus not reliable, you might as well not bother. Nobody is going to remove every single one of the many sourced claims that say the Bulgars were or might have been Turkic, especially since the article clearly mentions the recent spate of academic skepticism. Your request is confrontational, and it contains an unacceptable tone of angry nationalism. Avoid this approach if you need me to help any further. CityOfSilver 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The newly regisetred editor above called Vasil dobrev is a Misplaced Pages:SPA, suspected sock of the blocked User:PavelStaykov. Jingiby (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@CityOfSilver: Hello, I don't agree fully with the semi protected edit by Vasil Dobrev, but I agree an edit is needed, adding more information about the other hypothesizes (which means unproven theory and commonly disputed theory, just like the origin of Bulgars itself). There is in fact tons of information about the other theories, as not a single theory is approved among historians. Most historians tend to say their theory is the one and only, which leads to controversial disputes as this one. It would be more objective if we mention the other as well, because there are newer and much more accurate ones. The idea of origin of Bulgars is hypothesis - can't be proven because of the controversial information we have about the Bulgars. I can find many sources about most commonly accepted theories if you need such. Some old sources even claim exactly the opposite as the early arab and byzantine authors wrote the Bulgars were completely different from the Turks. Others wrote they are the same. No theory is agreed upon and writing only one of them is not an objective solution over the subject. Many historians like Bozhidar Dimitrov and Petar Dobrev wrote tons of books about it. They are Indo-European (Schyto-Sarmatian), autochonic(no known existence) and the hunnic hypothesis, which is the most widely accepted one among the historians. The thing with the Hunnic hypothesis is that the huns themselves are largely disputed among historians and you can find all the main theories about their origin on the Huns page of wikipedia with "for" and "against" facts. All theories there apply for the Bulgars as well. So the same way of objective view is supposed to be added here as well. If you need any references about those theories I can help. I can provide a lot of information. Nobody is asking for removing sources and text but instead adding more information about the other theories and explaining that none is agreed upon. Again I can provide citations and everything you need, but the article itself, in the moment I believe is incomplete and biased over one theory only and one historian only - something we here at wikipedia should try to avoid in the sake of objectiveness. All best, and I am ready to contribute with whatever information I can! Skradumdum (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suspect the editor above is simply a sock of User:PavelStaykov. Jingiby (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey this is my old edit request. I suggest you guys check it again, since it's still valid. I couldn't have conversation over it, because I was blocked for being a sock, which was proven to be false. Tell me what you think. I accept any criticism over it. And I am positive we can have a discussion over the subject if needed in order to improve wikipedia's content :) All best.Skradumdum (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Skradumdum:  Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Reference to Agathon

Between notes 72 and 73 there is a reference to Agathon (early 8th century) which links - obviously incorrectly - to the Greek poet Agathon (448-400 BC). The Agathon in question may well have been Agathon the Reader who at the time was at the library in Constantinople and therefore may have been well placed. However, unless and until it is established to have been Agathon the Reader I suggest changing the linked reference into an unlinked mention of 'Agathon (early 8th century)'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.150.6 (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Bulgars origin - were they part of the Hunnic or Turkic migrarions?

@Jingiby: Hello, as Jingiby recently removed my edit from over this article from Turkic migrations to Hunnic migrations, wanted to start the talk discussion. Why calling the Bulgar migration a Turkic one? We know for sure only that the Bulgars came in 4rth century with the Huns. In the article Turkic migrations itself, the Huns are mentioned as doubted being Turkic, as are most of the early tribes they consisted of, like Bulgars. What is not doubted is that the Hunnic migrations were actually Hunnic/Barbarian ones, since... well the name comes from them, that's enough of an argument. It's incorrect and biased to call them Turkic since the Huns consisted of many tribes of Indo-European origin in the early migrations. Such being the Alans and the Hephthalites. Calling them Turkic is simply wrong. The same goes for tribes with disputed origin like Bulgars, who came to Europe alongside the Alans and the Hephthalites and many early sources describe their language as "very distant from Turkic and Persian". The only correct term will be Hunnic migration, Barbarian Migration, or Early Migration Period in which the tribes are of disputed origin and there are too little evidence towards any of them. So please Jingiby change my mind over the subject or stop keeping this obviously wrong piece of information on the Bulgar's page. I am open to any discussion, I can provide facts and many other sources if you wish. I am also interesting in your opinion and am open minded and ready to accept it. But at this point I believe edit here is needed in order to make the article correct. I also realize that for a non-Historians Turkic and Indo-European might make a little difference, but they are very very different and the article in the moment is simply wrong and defending some Turkish scientists dreams, instead of object view over the information. So an edit is needed. Change my mind. All best!

Also wanted to add that the hunnic origin is still disputed on the Huns talk page, if the people there haven't gotten to an conclusion that the huns are actually Turks, why do we get to that conclusion? This is wrong and not objective at all! I really demand the change of "Turkic migration" to "Hunnic migrarion" and I really demand you stop reversing it, unless you can prove me wrong and actually prove that the Bulgars were part of the Turkik migrations that took place mainly 2 centuries after the Bulgars were already in Europe.

Reliable sources is what you need. I am waiting on them. Let's read what say the brand new (2018) authoritative academic sources about the origin of the Bulgars:

• Bulgars (Turkic bulgha-'to mix, stir up, disturb', i.e. 'rebels') A Turkic tribal union of the Pontic steppes that gave rise to two important states: Danubian Balkan Bulgaria (First Bulgarian Empire, 681–1018) and Volga Bulgaria (early 10th century–1241). They derived from Oghuric-Turkic tribes, driven westward from Mongolia and south Siberia to the Pontic steppes in successive waves by turmoil associated with the Xiungnu and subsequently by warfare between the Rouran/Avar and northern Wei states. in Oliver Nicholson, The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 2018, ISBN 0192562460, p. 271.
• Since 1989, Bulgarian nationalism continues to live off cosy reminiscences of the ‘Revival Process’ ideology. Anti-Turkish rhetoric is now reflected in the theories that challenge the thesis of Turkic origin of the Proto-Bulgars. Alongside the ‘Iranian’ or ‘Aryan’ theory, there appeared arguments favouring an autochthonous origin... The ‘parahistoric’ theories, very often politically loaded and have almost nothing to do with objective scientific research in the field of Proto-Bulgarian Studies, could be summarized in several directions:...3)‘Aryan roots’ and the ‘enigmatic Eurasian homeland’. Meanwhile, another group of authors is looking eagerly for the supposed homeland of the ancient Bulgarians in the vast areas of Eurasia, perhaps by conscious or unconscious opposition to the pro-Western orientation of modern Bulgaria. At the same time, with little regard for consistency, they also oppose the Turkic theory, probably because this is in sharp contradiction with the anti-Turkish feelings shared by nationalistic circles. (Dobrev 2005; 2007.) in Claudia-Florentina Dobre, Cristian Emilian ed., Quest for a Suitable Past: Myths and Memory in Central and Eastern Europe, Central European University Press, 2018, ISBN 9633861365, pp. 142-143. Jingiby (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Conclusions: 1. Bulgars were people of Turkic origin. 2. Their "Iranian origin" is modern Bulgarian politically motivated nationalist myth, that has almost nothing to do with neutral scientific research. Jingiby (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Replay Let's see what the early authors say about the Bulgars and thei'r language. As was stated by Al-Istakhri "the language of the Khazars is different than the language of the Turks and the Persians, nor does a tongue of (any) group of humanity have anything in common with it and the language of the Bulgars is like the language of the Khazars, but the Burtas have another language." Of course when we, the modern Bulgarians, the only people who actually study the ancient Bulgars in depth are misjudged being anti-Turkic on any occasion in any possible way. And any proof we provide is met with the same old "anti-Turkish" sentiment, without actually being listened. But you cannot just ignore obvious misconceptions. We Bulgarians might be wrong, but how about all the Italian and German and other western historians who actually conclude the same thing? Are they Bulgarian Nationalists as well? I will look over some Western literature and give you sources. And keep your conclusions unbiased again. This is not a place for putting your personal believes. Its a place for objectiveness. Also if your only argument actually comes from your opponent being "anti-Turkish" or "nationalistic" there is something wrong with Misplaced Pages. Calling turkic people who could actually being mongolic, because of theory from 200 years ago is sad. And calling nationalistic anyone who try to give you an alternative look and ignoring this alternative look is even more wrong. Will give you the sources. And you stop concluding "anti-turkism" and using it as your only argument to keep only the turkic theory in the page. This is not how objectiveness works.

@Jingiby: All right, I found some sources, Notice, not by Bulgarian scientists. because we apparently are all "anti-turkists" in your eyes:

1. German historians: According to Antoaneta Granberg "the Hunno-Bulgarian language was formed on the Northern and Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC. The analysis of the loan-words in Slavonic language shows the presence of direct influences of various language-families: Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese and Iranian. The Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke the same language, different from all other “barbarian” languages. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there. It is important to note that Turkic does contain Hunno-Bulgarian loans, but that these were received through Chinese intermediary, e.g. Hunnic ch’eng-li ‘sky, heaven’ was borrowed from Chinese as tängri in Turkic. The Hunno-Bulgarian language exhibits non-Turkic and non-Altaic features. Altaic has no initial consonant clusters, while Hunno-Bulgarian does. Unlike Turkic and Mongolian, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no initial dental or velar spirants. Unlike Turkic, it has initial voiced b-: bagatur (a title), boyla (a title). Unlike Turkic, Hunno-Bulgarian has initial n-, which is also encountered in Mongolian: Negun, Nebul (proper names). In sum, Antoaneta Granberg concludes that Hunno-Bulgarian language has no consistent set of features that unite it with either Turkic or Mongolian. Neither can it be related to Sino-Tibetian languages, because it obviously has no monosyllabic word structure." - clearly describing the difference of Hunno-Bulgar and Turkic languages. 2. Canadian and Russian historians: Edwin G. Pulleyblank, Yury Zuev and some modern Bulgarian scholars identify the Bulgar Utigurs as one of the tribes of the Yuezhi. According to Edwin G. Pulleyblank and Yury Zuev the Utigurs of Menander are Uti, and the word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Yuezhi < Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti. Notice that Yuezhi are Indo-European Scytho-Sarmatean speaking people.

3.Another German historian, speaking about the early Iranian nature of Hunno-Bulgarian: Maenchen-Helfen in his famous monograph "The world of the Huns" wrote that we know virtually nothing about the Indo-European languages spoken on the west-north borders of China. All we know of the language of the Huns are names. The tribal names appear to be of Turkish origin. The personal names fall into 3 general categories:

1) Turkic (it's normal since the Hunno-Bulgars lived for centuries before that under the rule of the Gokturkic Khanate, which of course influenced them)

2) Iranian - no Iranian Khanate is know the Bulgars lived in, still the usage of Iranian names is undisputable, which proves again the likeliness of Schyto-Sarmatean origin of the Hunno-Bulgars.

3) of unknown origin ( we don't count here apparently Germanic names whose origin is obvious) Examples of such names (concerning the Bulgar branch of the Huns) are:

-Zabergan - Kutrigur Hun - Ζαβεργάν; Persian

-Sandilch - Utigur Hun - Σάνδιλ; Turkic

-Asparuch- Utigur ruler, founder of Danube Bulgaria - probably Iranian ( Maenchen-Helfen, page 384)

... yet another research showing the affinity towards Schyto-Sarmatean speaking tribes with only partial and highly disputed Turkic affinity.

Conclusion: Bulgarians are "anti-turkic", Canadians - "anti-turkic", Germans - "anti-turkic", Russians - "anti-turkic"... Have you ever taught that maybe you are the "pro-turkic" one and all others are only trying to add some objectiveness to the article itself? Have you ever taught how ridiculous does calling everyone 'anti-turkic' is, while the article is 100% written with affinity to turkic theory, but nobody is asking you to remove it and just to add more objective information. Now I will give you some time to answer me, because this is discussion. And then I guess we have to add and change some information to make the article more objective. For example: Turkic migrations -> Hunnic migrations (it's only a hypothesis they are turkic, but it's sure they are hunnic). Also Bulgars were Turkic, should be changed since it's higly baised towards the turkic hypothesis, which is unproven and questioned by many modern authors. Will expect your answer. All best from the "anti-tukic" or in my view simply "objective" historians around the world :)

Also remember, that "I don't agree with this theory" is not enough of a reason to remove it from wikipedia. Be objective. Don't go for one hypothesis (Turkic) while completely removing information about any other and calling anyone who want to add information on the subject "anti-turkic". This is not how it works.

Also Bulgars were part of the first Migration period, alongside with the Huns and many other Barbarian tribes. Any next migration wave, like the gokturks and later the Mongols are refereed to as Turkic and Mongolian migrations.

Skradumdum (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Skradumdum: I looked over each edit to this to see where the dispute was, and if I'd be able to help settle this. I hope User:Jingiby corrects me if I'm wrong with this summary, but the problem seems to be that your recent edits to the page aren't citing sources to back your claims at all. On the surface, it looks like original research to other editors. Examples are , , (which amended a citation quote to something was never in the aforementioned reference), , and . Skradumdum, I strongly recommend that you establish consensus first for your changes and ensure that what you're adding is reliably sourced before re-editing the article. OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Skradumdum: you have been reported again as a sockpuppet of User:PavelStaykov here. All the info above is taken from his personal blog. And stop repeatedly pushing the misinformation about the German Antoaneta Granberg, aca with original name Антоанета Кръстанова Андонова - Bulgarian by birth.Jingiby (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I didn't know that. She apparently got her education in Germany, and took German family name, But hell She has Bulgarian root, let's ignore her! The fact she is of Bulgarian origin explains her interest in the subject of Bulgars. Antoaneta Granberg of University of Gothenburg, Göteborg GU with expertise in Linguistic Typology, Historical Linguistics, History. It's no surprise most of the researchers of the Bulgars are Bulgarians or other people from Bulgarian origin, since every nationality teaches and researches it's own history. What do you expect? Most of the historians of Hungarian history are Hungarians too. It's normal.

Anyway, even she has a German name, got her education in Germany and judging her based on her root is kind of chauvinist, as she seems a professional. Ignoring their point of view, because of her Bulgarian roots is wrong itself and is violation of wikipedia's idea. But anyway this was not the point. The point was that YOU wanted scientists that are not Bulgarians, I didn't exclude the ones with Bulgarian roots. I now checked Otto John Maenchen-Helfen, G. Pulleyblank, Yury Zuev are apparently not Bulgarians (and don't have Bulgarian roots I believe, especially done research for you).

Also I don't know if those authors are anti-tukists but you are definitely anti-Bulgarian, hiding bihind the "anti-turkish" attitude attacks to ignore all Bulgarian authors, since you don't respect a whole nationality's opinion on a subject with "made up excuse" and a statement by a single historian who don't respect them either. Again this is NOT OBJECTIVE.

About the time you report me for sock proxy. "all the info was taken from **some guy's** blog". Well what do you expect this is history, many people rely on the same sources. I guess whatever information I try to provide, Pavel Stoykov provided to you as well. I don't know why all the lack of cooperation, chauvinism, anti-Bulgarism, accuse of sock proxies and lack of objectiveness comes from. Using the same logic I could report you along with another user for trying to prove the same obvious point, using the same obvious sources of it. And how is this a crime in your eyes? You have such a poor judgment. I checked my source, never saw Pavel Stoykov's name. Plus the source points to literature works of different authors I checked. Anyway I will report in in chauvinism and lack of objectiveness because your views are strictly anti-Bulgarian and ignore huge part of the Bulgarian-origin researchers on the Bulgars subject (which is 90% of the researchers nowadays), "because they are Bulgarian", which is wrong by itself. Here is the source of Granberg https://www.academia.edu/683028/Classification_of_the_Hunno-Bulgarian_Loan-Words_in_Slavonic don't see anything wrong with it. You do. You say she is Bulgarian, stop pushing her! And you will be reported for that. Skradumdum (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, stop repeatedly pushing the misinformation about Antoaneta. She was born in Bulgaria, was educated in Bulgaria, worked at Sofia University, was married in Bulgaria etc. Just the fact she has divorced and remarried in Sweden, and afterwards has changed his original name, makes her not a German or a Swedish. Jingiby (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I am not saying she is not Bulgarian. I said she works abroad and is respected scientist in Europe. And why stop pushing information about her? She Because she is Bulgarian? How about the chauvinistic nationalistic ideology you express by refusing everything that comes from Bulgarian historians as excuse. This is wrong.

And in this discussion, even if we leave Antonetta aside (because she is Bulgarians and you do not respect that apparently), how about the other non-Bulgarian scientists concluding the same things? You are wrong being chauvinist in first place, but you are also wrong that only Bulgarians express this opinion that you disagree with and try to hide, and misinform. You are anti-Bulgarian person, who in the last 5 years is largely editing the "Bulgars" page. This is violation of Misplaced Pages's rules. I believe is part of some nationalistic ideologies of yours. (I don't see a different explanation ignoring most of the Bulgarian authors and the European authors that agree with them). Your lack of objectiveness is wrong and this article is unbiased because of it. It is edited by largely "anti-Bugarian" editor, who disrespects Bulgarians. The article itself is about Bulgars, the ancestors of Bulgarians. I see what you are doing and I hope the administrators see it also.Skradumdum (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Replay I believe he is having the information. All the sources are here in wikipedia itself. It's just the way they are used/not used that is wrong and nonobjective. For example:

Sentence 1:The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari, Proto-Bulgarians) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. - now this, even if it has source, is wrong since the sentence is used out of context from the source. Reading the whole article it actually says that Bulgars were active since 5th century and gives many example with many sources of it. The sentence is wrong, taken out of context and is in controversial stance with what is written next in the article itself. But my edit was removed from it, by Jinjiby, no reason was given, even if I told him that an resume sentence have to conclude what is written in the article, and this is not what is written and it violates wikipedia's article's rules. The article by itself says a different thing, so an source sentence that is out of context cannot and should not be used.

The same goes for the second sentence "The Bulgars ... were turkic, semi-nomadic tribes", even tho the article says next in the etymology "The origin of the early Bulgars is still unclear" . Yes it is because there are two theories, and the article is stating only one of them next - the turkic one, which is expressing nonobjective view over the topic in order to conclude that view as "Bulgars are turks" - basically what every Macedonian dreams of. I don't say it's impossible, but unproven should stay unproven and history should not be used for personal or political causes. I tried editing this sentence stating "The Bulgars are semi-nomadic tribes of disputed origin", because this is the truth, but the user Jinjiby returned my edit. About the sources, there are whole researchers and scientists like Petar Dobrev and Bojidar Dimitrov that have written tons of books proving the Indo-European origin of the Bulgars and specifically refusing the Turkic one. Also others providing a hunno-mongolian. I have given them as source not once, but many times. Jinjiby instead of asking for the source is aware of it very well, but ignore it "Because they are Bulgarian"...

Also, another thing in the article, there is a genetic study over the bulgars, that concluded no turkic DNA is found to conclude the turkic DNA of the Bulgars is insufficient, even tho the Bulgars were believed by some scientists to be of Turkic origin. Affinity towards Mediterranean DNA is shown Now the article states that source itself. But its interpreted wrong, Jingiby himself ignores the first part, "no Altaic DNA haplogroups were found", only to present the second statement "Bulgars are found to be closely related to European populations". Intentionally ignoring a whole dispute and keeping and article nonobjective and biased, while expressing anti-Bulgarian, pro-Turkic views and hiding facts. Also reporting anyone who tries to give him sources that don't defend completely the Turco-Altaic theory of the Bulgars. I provided sources more than once to Jingiby, last time got banned for a month for being a sock proxy. Will providede them again, but I don't think it will make a difference, since Jingiby is clearly showing anti-Bulgarian views and refusing to citate even already given sources in objective way, while completely ignoring the work of some authors, because of being Bulgarian and clearly not letting anyone edit the page in a more objective way. This is intentional hate according to me.

Also stop pushing the fringe views of Bozhidar Dimitrov, who is called by Western researchers Chalga historian and of the economist Petar Dobrev, whose methods of work are described even by Bulgarian scientists as: "free interpretation of sources and artifacts". Jingiby (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby: Fake accusations toward historians is not a way to go over wikipedia. Those are proved Bulgarians historians and they too speak negatively about the turkic suggesting authors, like Raymond Detrez. This is called historical dispute and I will tell you 100th time WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PLACE FOR PERSONAL BELIEVES. It's not the place where you take side of one part of historians, while judging the others. You should not do this and this is NOT OBJECTIVE view. And no I will not "stop pushing" them, because even if you don't like it they are part of the history, the way the other authors "you like" are. You see you believe in the authors defending Turkic theory, I believe in the one defending the Indo-European. The thing is this article is extremely based on the conclusions of the authors you like and has information only over the Turkic theory and concludes the Bulgars being Turkic. 2 things I want to say. 1.Five pillars of wikipedia: Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view! - you are just showing how you violate it in every possible way, removing sources because they are written by authors which you don't like and openly trash talk. That's not how this works. 2. You, I guess, are Macedonian. Aren't Macedonians the one who are fighting for the Turkic theory for political reasons. Isn't this part of the Macedonian propaganda, where the Macedonian politicians scream "BULGARS ARE TURKS AND TATARS" as a propaganda statement. Funny how a Macedonian User called Jingiby is the one editing the most this article for Bulgars, part of the Bulgarian history. I really start to believe this intentional continuous unbiased editing of yours have propaganda roots. If any Admin sees this, I am asking for checking the User's IP and country of origin. Also active history over this page. If any admin is reading this, please ask yourself why the biggest editor of Bulgar's history comes from Macedonia. Why are they reporting other editors constantly for sock proxies. Why aren't they biased and how wikipedia is letting people who clearly ignore historical fact with reasons, stupid as the top ones. And as you mentioned earlier Jingiby, you don't believe Bulgarian scientists are the right one to show oppinion over the Bulgars, even tho Bulgarian historians are pretty much the only one that has the resources and the motivation to study Bulgar history since they are studying their descendants. So your arguments are unobjective, your comments are nonobjective, you come from a country famous for it's propaganda and lack of objectiveness and you are here, not to give objective view over the historical material, but to push your propaganda. Whoever is reading this. Please check it out. Perfect example of violating the 5 pillars of wikipedia. @OhKayeSierra: , @Vanjagenije: (sorry, I know you told me to ignore him, I believe the problem is a bit more serious, since the user is clearly expressing affinities toward specific subject and war-editing anyone who disagree with him. I tried having a discussion where he clearly showed anti-Bulgarian view toward all Bulgarians. Also the user is from Macedonia - the most famous country for propagating with Bulgarian/Greek/Albanian history. I know the cometee agreed on objectiveness, but as you can see, the user is not keeping it at all. This is not a problem that should be ignored. Keeping the article the way it is the worse outcome. Please don't let trolls fill wikipedia with biased anti-Bulgarian articles. Especially on the Bulgars and Bulgaria related pages.). There have to be balance towards the historical views. There have to be shown the both sides of the dispute. Because right now we see the only and only point of view. Thank you Jingiby for ruining this article. Except of Macedonian Propaganda spreading I don't see any other possible explanation why you, a Macedonian are the biggest editor of this page about the Bulgars and Bulgaria. This page (Bulgars) is called Bulgars and not "The Personal blog of Jingiby" for a reason. And comment like "stop using authors I dislike or I will report you (for 4rth time)" are not part of the objective view of Misplaced Pages. When there is a disputes, both sides must acknowledge it and find a compromise, you are being assertive with your actions, like this page is your personal blog and we put here only what you, Jingiby like. Which as far as I can see is definitely not Bulgarians, and definitely not objectiveness. What are you doing here, reporting all Bulgarians? Propagating? Well done, you are doing good job if you are doing this. But I will fight for stopping you from this. The article have to be balanced and objective and express both points or it becomes propaganda." I can write an article called Bulgars with the completely opposite ideas, and conclude that they are Indo-Europeans. But this will be propaganda as well. Just like the Article is in the moment about the Turkic hypothesis. I am not fighting for this. I want the both points showed. Because this is the right way and personally I give a little attention to politics and more to historical accuracy, unlike Jingiby. Skradumdum.(talk) 15:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Objectiveness

I see some editors are having a hard time understanding what objectiveness is. Well It's the second pillar of Misplaced Pages so maybe you should learn about it. I will use an example of this article.

Bulgars... were Turkic tribes - NOT OBJECTIVE ×

Bulgars ... were Iranian tribes - NOT OBJECTIVE ×

Let's see how the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica are doing it, shall we?

The name Bulgaria comes from the Bulgars, a people who are still a matter of academic dispute with respect to their origin (Turkic or Indo-European) as well as to their influence on the ethnic mixture and the language of present-day Bulgaria. - OBJECTIVE √

What is it so hard to understand @Jinjiby:. This is neither your personal blog to edit the page the way you do, neither is a place to spread propaganda in favor of the modern Macedonism and "BUGARS TATARS" political shoutings (which I believe you are doing) ? Skradumdum (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Skradumdum: I fully agree with @OhKayeSierra:. The problem is that your recent edits to the page aren't citing sources to back your claims. On that surface, it is simply original research; undue weight and/or fringe view to me. Jingiby (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems the same to me. @Skradumdum:, you need a credible point to make. Otherwise the folks at WP:AE are going to have to judge that. I'm not the greatest 'executioner', and I don't want to make one of those. talk to !dave 18:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@My name is not dave: Well, I will give you some clues. There is a huge historical dispute over the origin of the Bulgars, much like the historical dispute going on with the origin of the Huns themselves. Some historians state one point of view the others state different, opposite one. Both sides are intolerant towards each other's hypothesis and attack each other constantly in their works. So the page itself is constantly edited, and the editors much like the historians are constantly throwing the page from one pole to the other, because of the different editor's affinities. What I am willing to do is to add information for the both hypothesizes. I don't want to state the one is true and the other is false (as of what the article currently is doing. Seriously if you read it like now you get the understanding of the completely undisputed Turco-Altaic origin of the Bulgars). I believe the reader should have the both hypothesis presented and the reader should be more familiar with the current discussions, showing statements in favor or against for both hypothesizes and the information in the Bulgars page should be unbiased of supporters of one or other theory. I believe historical disputes are decided in different circles, here we can only present information of both sides (of course with the sources added) and leave the reader make the conclusions for himself. Jingiby on the other hand is, I believe hard to get person, but not impossible one, as I see his support toward one side of the dispute a little too drastic (Currently no information is given to the other point of view and wrong/misinterpreted conclusion is made, by looking only at half of the history and as I look at page's edits from the last years Jingiby plays crucial role in them). Skradumdum (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby: All right. Let's get to Business then. Jingiby are you willing to cooperate in reforming the Bulgar's page a little in the process of making it more Objective? Let's give some clues in favor of the Indo-European origin hypothesis, the same way tons of clues are given in favor of the Turko-Altaic hypothesis. I do support one hypothesis, you obviously support the opposite, but both should be included and no edit wars should be made. Tell me what you think? Instead of us making edit wars, let's have the whole conversation and disputes over here will be better and easier. When we get to compromise we edit. I say we show both sides of the historical disputes the way they are (No matter what any of us thinks of the other side) they should both be included as possibilities. Agree? Skradumdum (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a good referenced passage in the article Bulgarians on the issue: Since the early 1990s on, a hypothesis rooted on anti-Turkish sentiment, strengthened by the so called Revival process gained popularity in Bulgaria, linking the Bulgars to the Iranian people. From Turkic equestrian nomads they were reinterpreted as settled Aryan people with unique culture. Also an opinion on significant Bulgar genetic impact, was launched among the nationalist circles.

@Jingiby:"Good passage" doesn't mean objective. And no the passage is only slightly mentioning the theory itself, only trough criticism, as "the root of the theory" is explained as "anti-turkish" sentiment and not the actual linguistic and genetic findings of the last decades. The actual genetic studies and new linguistic findings that are in favor of the theory and are the root of the emerging theory according to many historians, but you miss to mentioned them are not even mentioned as a root cause of it. Also you are using an author who is know for supporting the opposite theory and is criticizing the Indo-Iranian one. Only the criticism toward it is mentioned trough this passage, but no actual supporting evidence is. No real arguments in favor of the theory are described, even tho such exist. This passage might be "good for you", since you support criticism towards the theory, but it's not good for the neutral reader. It's not biased at all. Again, don't forget this is a dispute and it's normal for the both sides to criticize each other. It's not normal to mention the other side only trough criticism. This make the article biased. It's wrong. Misplaced Pages should be written from objective point of view, if you find this a good passage for yourself, then you have to know that it's not that good for Misplaced Pages itself. Do not use this page to push your personal believes toward one of the theories Jingiby! Don't you agree here with me Jingiby? Skradumdum (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby: The whole article is mentioning only the extreme supporters of the Turkic-Theory and their criticism towards the Iranian one. Largely by Raymond Detrez, who also forgets to mention all the other Iranian theorists from the middle of 20th century including many Bulgarians, Russians and Iranian historians themselves like Nikolay Derdzhavin, Nikolay Mar, Leksey Smirnov, Vasiliy Sirotenko. It's okay to mention the criticism of one side but it's also needed to mention the criticism toward the other side as well. No matter if you agree with it or not. Other historians being Peter Golojski, dr. Jivko Vojknikov, doc. Ivan .T. Ivanov, Ilko Stoev, Bono Shkodrov and other. Notice some of them wrote about the problems the Turco-Altaic theory meets long before the critical opinion of Raymond Detrez you support and push so much. Skradumdum (talk)

I do not. Read how to identify reliable sources in history and provide peer reviewed, academic, non-Bulgarian reliable sources, claiming Bulgars were Iranian/Aryan tribes for discussion. Especially "recent" scholarship. Until now you did not. This opinion has some nationalist historians' support in Bulgaria. That is. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jingiby:I guess you are familiar with Bulgarian language/Russian language so here is a very good critic towards the Turkic theory by the Russian author Pavel Puchkov: (link) http://www.protobulgarians.com/Chuvashi.htm

I will try to translate it. The words in the () are mine.

"In conclusion, proofs based of the turco-altaic theory of the Bulgar language is based on inherited Iranian elements in the Chuvash language. Actually, this once again shows that the Turco-Altaic theory of the Bulgars (that have been pushed after the second world war)... with the purpose of playing a strategic and Geo-political role, and not out of historical accuracy. This role serves mostly Serbian (and Macedonian in my opinion), Russian and Czech interests in order to inherit the cultural heritage of the nowadays Bulgarians."

Again Jingiby, I understand that as Macedonian you really like this theory, but I guess you should stop pushing it that hard and criticize all the other theories trough Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not the place for it, especially if some authors express huge concerns over the Serbian (respectively Macedonian) idea that the Turco-Altaic theory serves. Being from Macedonia, and pushing only the turco-Altaic theory just supports the words of Puchkov that you are most likely playing some political role in here. I don't want to throw accusations, but if you want this to look better for you, as an editor coming from Macedonia, I guess you will have to become a little more objective and stop pushing only one theory at all cost. The same theory described by some authors as serving political and no historical interests. People have to start asking questions why is a Macedonian editor so hard pushing theory over the Bulgars page. Or this whole Misplaced Pages article is lostSkradumdum (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sure you did not check all that is mentioned in the article: Bulgarian academics, notably Petar Dobrev, a hypothesis linking the Bulgar language to the Iranian languages (Pamir) has been popular since the 1990s. Most proponents still assume an intermediate stance, proposing certain signs of Iranian influence on a Turkic substrate. The names Asparukh and Bezmer from the Nominalia list, for example, were established as being of Iranian origin. Other Bulgarian scholars actively oppose the "Iranian hypothesis". According to Raymond Detrez, the Iranian theory is rooted in the periods of anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated. That is enough. Jingiby (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not enough my friend. Will be enough when the objectiveness of the article is reached and the origin of the Bulgar is written as disputed, what actually is, among the historians. Will be enough when some information of the other side of the dispute is mentioned as well, with the same unbiased look over it, will be enough when the article become objective and not pro-Turkic theory based on a singe author, called Raymond Detrez. Every move you make toward making the article more Turco-Alaic is a move that increases my concerns that it might be a political move. I don't see other reason why would you want to view only the half of the dispute and that half that is believed by some authors to serve well of the political interests of the country you come from. Don't judge me but it looks really suspicious and you are making even more. Also your argument is invalid since I am citating here Russian and no Bulgarian historians who connect the theory with Geo-political reasons, so your argument against is definitely weak. Skradumdum (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Skradumdum, I'm starting to get tired of reading these unfounded assertions that Jingiby is an "Ethnic Macedonian" trying to push their own POV on the article, when I haven't seen any evidence of tendentious editing on Jingiby's part at all. Please keep it civil and focus on improving the content, instead of the contributor. To date, I'm still not seeing an independent reliable source from your suggested edits that can be properly added to the article (including some cursory research that I performed using JSTOR and EBSCO databases). If you're really having trouble identifying reliable sources, WP:ADVANCED and WP:RSN might be able help. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

1. Detrez, Raymond (2005). Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans: Convergence Vs. Divergence. Peter Lang. p. 29.
2. Румен Даскалов, Чудният свят на древните българи, Гутенберг, 2011, ISBN 9546171212, pp. 7-11.
3. Александър Николов, "Параисторията като феномен на прехода: преоткриването на древните българи” в „Историческият хабитус: опредметената история", 2013, съст. Ю. Тодоров и А. Лунин, стр. 24-63.
4. Raymond Detrez, Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria, Rowman & Littlefield, 2014, ISBN 1442241802, pp. 189-190.
5. Tchavdar Marinov, Ancient Thrace in the Modern Imagination: Ideological Aspects of the Construction of Thracian Studies in Southeast Europe (Romania, Greece, Bulgaria) in Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Three, 2015, ISBN 9789004290365, pp 10-117.

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• 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