Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:31, 25 June 2009

Bulgaria Start‑class 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Headline text

AN OUTRAGE, AN INSULT, ABUSE OF THE BULGARIAN DIGNITY AND UPBRINGING; A LIE!!!

To say that the Bulgarians are from a Muslim or Mongolian origin is an outrageous statement which is an insult to the Bulgarian nation, culture and history, and a it is a lie. It is evident that the author is not familiar with the history of the Balkans and has now knowledge of what a Bulgarian is. It would be very interesting if the author is asked to point to Bulgaria on the map. I am sure that this would be a hesitant task.

All I am going to say is that such "hypothesis" is ridiculous and goes against everything that Bulgaria and the Bulgarians stand for.

In conclusion, as an authentic Bulgarian and a descendant of Petko Strashnika who financed the Bulgarian revolution, and who had a private room accommodated for Vasil Levski and the Revolutionary Committee, I am APPOLLED.

BY A BULGARIAN WHO COMES FROM A GREAT AND UNDEFEATED NATION/NOT A TRIBE/ WITH ALMOST 6, 000 YEARS OF HISTORY AND CULTURE: THE OLDEST COUNTRY AT THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT-BULGARIA-

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.62.151 (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently the article leaves the impression that Onogurs were non-bulgar tribe which Kubrat united with the bulgars. Is that so, or please rephrase! Koliokolio 16:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I thing that the name Bulgaria is very simple. "B'L' - GR' " means "The Great Land" . B' - means Old, big, great, Older; L' means mountain, teeth etc.; GR' means land. And the apostrophe here is the active letter "Ъ" in bulgarian language. There is some other languages used the letter but not the "Latin" and "Greek" languages. From here the name Balkan means B'L'K'N' - "The Great Land/Mountain Keeper/fortress - (Khan or Tcar, or Shakh) - Balkhan - Великан, Balshah / Balhash - lake, Baltatcar or Baltazar - name

ROB, Dude, stop making up stories - please, leave this article alone and set us free from your annoying comments.

i don`t know who rights this stuff it`s so lame bulgarians are one of the 24 tribes that noa has spawn owr home land now called pamir we setteled meny clans until we reached todays bulgaria there are bulgarians in russia ukrain italy etc.. bulgarians have fought bizantian empire for long centuries and were a great treaht for it and a lot of names come from our old language buda and budhha are too simular i don`t know many exaples because am not so intrested but this article is really lame

The above paragraph has the writing and spelling style of an 8-year old. idiotoff 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The popularity among scholars of, much disputed on this talkpage, Turkic-origin theory is because of existence of Volga Bulgaria, which unanimously recognized as Turkic. I think Bulgarian contributors and discussors, which seem to be offended by this theory for some reasons, should also take this into account. 88.247.101.145 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Bulgar" Etymology Guess

What on Earth is Varkun, and how could it be related to the word Bulgar? Furthermore, I believe the current view is that Bulgars were not originally Turkic (article seems to agree), so it does not make sense for the word to be derived from a Turkic language. According to Bulgarian scholars (who should care), the etymology of the name is somewhere between very controversial, and totally unknown. We should remove the whole name etymology sentence. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to throw wild guesses. Unless someone presents a viable referenced argument for the current etymology hypothesis, I will edit it out. --Bbugg 00:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bulgar (Bolgar) name seems to be driven from Volga river. I find the suggested etymology ("Bulgha" to mix) less likely.

NO. Volga comes from the Russian ways of pronouncing Bulga. The Bulgars settled there, hence the name. --Kaloyan* 16:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think etymologists agree that Volga is also derived from the Turkic for mix. Hope it helps.

Btw a friend of mine that graduated Turkology told me there is no word "bulgha" meaning "mix" in any Turkic language. In Bulgarian textbooks the name is explained with a totemistic origin. In Turkic languages bulga is a kind of small animal with valuable fur. So the "Bulgars" would be the "bulga hunters".

името българи има тотемен произход, т. е. свързва се с името на животното-прародител. Засвидетелствано е в различни варианти като булг-ан/а, булг-ин, булх-ън, булг-ар, бул-гачин, което на различни тюркски езици означава "белка, златка, самур". Или казано по друг начин, българи означава „ловци на самури" (История на България за 11 клас. С., Отворено общество, 1996 - автори: П. Делев, Г. Бакалов, П. Ангелов, Цв. Георгиева, Пл. Митев, Ст. Трифонов, Б. Василева, И. Баева, Е. Калинова)

Смешно е да се защитава енциклопедичността с голи гърди, а в същото време да се подхвърлят петърдобреви врели-некипели в стил "българи-арийци!". Само ще напомня, че ВСЕ ОЩЕ сериозната наука категоризира изследваните прабългарски глоси като тюркоезични и освен невежи спекулации, няма други доводи да се определи езикът на прабългарите като памирски или какъвто и да било друг.217.10.246.155 09:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would think twice before using "Отворено общество" (Open Society Institute) texts for anything, particularly concerning facts that might (or might not, as it usually is) have a "nationalist" ring to them. The institute is somewhat notorious for pushing their agenda when it comes to interpretations of history. It is very unfortunate, that such publications are actually used in some high schools in Bulgaria. On the subject of protobulgarian language, if you bothered to look at a list of non-slavic words, present in modern Bulgarian, you would discover that most words tend to appear much more closely related to Pashtu, than to any Turkic language. Refrain from posting in Bulgarian here, do so on my talk page. --Bbugg 19:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Otto Maenchen-Helfen: “The names of the Danube Bulgars offer an illustration of the pitfalls into which scholars are likely to stumble when they approach the complex problems of the migration period with their eyes fixed on etymologies. In spite of the labor spent on the explanation of Bulgarian names, since the thirties of the past century, there is hardly one name whose etymology has been definitely established. The name Bulgar itself is an example. What does it mean? Are the Bulgars "the Mixed ones" or "the Rebels?" Pelliot was inclined to the latter interpretation but thought it is possible that bulgar meant les trouveurs. Detschev challenged the Turkish etymology; he assumed that Bulgar was the name given to the descendants of the Attilanic Huns by the Gepids and Ostrogoths and took it for Germanic, meaning homo pugnax. Still another non-Turkish etymology has been suggested by Keramopoulos. He takes Bulgarii to be burgaroi, Roman mercenaries garrisoned in the burgi along the limes. Without accepting this etymology, I would like to point out that in the second half of the sixth century a group of Huns who had found refuge in the empire were known as fossalisii. Fossalum is a military camp.”

“In addition to the objective difficulties, subjective ones bedevil some scholars. Turkologists are likely to find Turks everywhere; Germanic scholars discover Germans in unlikely places. Convinced that all Bulgarians spoke Turkish, Nemeth offered an attractive Turkish etymology of Asparuch; other Turkologists explained the name in a different, perhaps less convincing way. Now it has turned out, that Asparuch is an Iranian name. Validi Togan, a scholar of profound erudition but sometimes biased by pan-Turkism, derived shogun, Sino-Japanese for chiang chun, "general," from the Qarluq title sagun. Pro-Germanic bias led Schonfeld to maintain, in disregard of all chronology, that the Moors took Vandalic names.” ---Sarmatian 01:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

İdel or Volga

Hi, I'm from Kazan and I can help you in this question!

Volga is Finnish for water. (Finnish tribes lived in Russia before Slavics and Turks). Tatars use İdel for Volga. So Volga is Finnish name. In native Tatar and Russian pronouncing bolğar do not sounds like volga^becose it's rr in the ending.

--Untifler 20:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I am a Bulgarian, who speaks Finnish, and I can tell you that Volga is not a word in Finnish. The Finnish word for water is vesi, and the sound combination lg is not present in Finnish at all. I'd bet on the Turkic origin of Volga.

--Bbugg 03:24, 30 Jul 2004 (EET)

I don't know about proposed etymologies for the name 'Volga', but what I do know is that although there is no such word as 'volga' in finnish, 'valka' is an old finnish word meaning something like 'to flow' or 'water' or the like, I'm not quite sure what. Although the word itself isn't in use in modern finnish, a derived word 'valkama', meaning something like a 'landing place for a boat' still sees some use, although many finns of today probably wouldn't understand it anymore. Similar words can, as far as I know, be found in related languages. Sorry for the anonymity, maybe I'll get bold and register myself and then come back to reference my claims, now you'll just have to take my word as a native speaker of finnish and student of general linguistics.

--85.156.175.175 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The name of Kama river is absoulutely unclear. Some apologize that it derrivides from Komi ethnos. Intetrestingly, that Tatars foget their oun name for Kama (Çulman) and use Russian name Kama now.

--Untifler 20:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The name of Volga comes from the Russian/Slavic inability to pronounce the saound "shwa" in Bulga. That is how they pronounce Bulgaria even today. Volga was named after the Bulgars.

Madara horseman???

Da ne bi njakoj da e propusnal fakta 4e minalata godina arheolozi dokazaha trakijskija proizhod na madarskija konnik? Horata nameriha relef ot nadgrobna plo4a s absolutno syshtoto izobrazhenie. Taka 4e vyprosyt e priklu4en. Mozhe bi shte e dobre ako mahnete snimkata na konnika ot tazi statija i ja premestite v statija za trakite.

Ne si spomnqm da e dokazano sas sigurnost, 4e pametnikat e s trakijski proizhod, dokato tova ne stane, snimkata ostava. VMORO

Madara horseman should stay, unless hard references for alleged discovery of Thracian origins are presented. Please, use only English here! --Bbugg 00:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Heil master, yes master... I can not imagine any "harder references" than having a Thracian tombstone with exactly the same image found. They had all this written in newspapers and shown on tv news last year. I believe the have the stelae in the National Museum right now. Come by and search for yourself. You don't expect me to snitch it and knock it in your forehead, do you?

See being arrogant would only bring you arrogance in exchange. I wouldn't use words like "alleged" when speaking to somebody about what he just said. 217.10.246.155 09:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We get the same sort of "discoveries" every year, some of them (few) end up accepted by science, however, the most of them do not. You heard something on TV a year ago and that is not an especially valid reason for changing the whole article. On top of it, it is quite hard to talk of any Thracians after 1 cent DC (as they were all Romanized) and the monument is officially dated to the 7th or 8th century DC. And, please, tone down your language, you are not at the market haggling about prices. VMORO

Sorry - wrong address. I am not the one that clumps legs and says what "should" and what "shouldn't". Anyway my tone is exclusively my concern. NOTE! I don't know you and I do not have any personal biases towards you.217.10.246.155 11:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Btw the market I go to has fixed prices, unfortunately ;)

With this attitude you are going straight towards being banned. You are in a public website where people are supposed to be polite to each other. If you have a problem with that, leave. VMORO

??? And what exactly in my words would you categorize as "rude"? To be banned or not is not my decision, yet my ban would be the most unfair ever on this site. I broke no rules, I ment to offend nobody. Or expressing disagreement is quite a reason for you? If people should be polite, make them ALL be polite. Being edifying is not a shortcut in that direction.217.10.246.155 12:55, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Btw I didn't even argue with you. Is jumping into fights your way to keep adrenalin high or what? :(

Pamirian origin

...a people of Central Asia, probably originally Pamirian, ...

I have the feeling (may be I'm wrong) that here Pamirian is reffering to some kind of ethnic group. If that is the case than the link should point to it and not to the mountain. Otherwise I don't see why it shoud stay there at all - they just stayed in Pamir some time or what? --Nk 12:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Pamirian version is absolutely inadequate - for centuries the Bulgarians lived in the area around the Black Sea - East, North and West of it.

--Shisharki 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Madara horseman is, beyond any doubt, early medieval relief and only vaguelly similar to Thracian horsemen. Thracians NEVER EVER had any rock reliefs where the Bulgars biult a whole city over the Madara cliff. Key argument of the Bulgarian origin of the Horseman is a/its close similarity to Sassanian horse reliefs b/ the ammunition of the horseman, which is not typical for the Tracian period - e.g. he has stirrup which was unknown to Thracians. Not to mention the fact that he has Persian haircut and the animals are depicted in Eastern manner, Thracians on the Balkans never met lions for example.

Bulgars - originally Turkic or not Turkic

Misplaced Pages ,as a 💕, is used by many as a reference source. Thus, it should seek the objectivity and truth in its articles. However, in the article for Bulgars, the author, who I assume is from Bulgaria tried to impose his beliefs rather than the commonly accepted theory about the origin of the Bulgars. Even in the given external links, Bulgars or proto-Bulgars are described as a Turkic people, however according to the author they were most probably 'pamyrians'. I would like to ask what is the basis of these claims, are there any recent scientific and objective work which is strong enough to change the generally accepted view that Bulgars were Turkic? Otherwise, one may assume that this article is a product of so-called a "revisionist history", and serves the purpose of currently Slavic-speaking nation of Bulgaria to create a false history for the Bulgar tribe that they took their name from.

Occasionally I watch the debate here whether the Bulgars were Turkic or not. I'm wondering what evidence exists that indicates they were Turkic. Whatever evidence exists for that theory should be collected and put in the article. If no evidence exists, then it is hard to list Bulgars under the Turkic category. Decius 02:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is NO debate in serious scholarly circles. The early Bulgars were linguistically Turkic, regardless of whatever their genealogical origin may be. The works of M.I. Artamanov, Runciman, Peter Golden, David Christian, Omeljan Pritsak and D. Dmitrov (himself a Bulgarian) to name only a few, all conclude that the early Bulgars spoke a Turkic language, as do all serious linguists who have studied the topic. I have yet to see a single citation from VMORO or any other user to a serious work of linguistics that contains arguments for reclassifying the proto-Bulgar language as Iranic or part of any other language group. Unfortunately, the "debate", such as it is, is motivated largely by nationalist ideologues seeking to minimize Bulgarian associations with Turkic peoples. --Dzimmer6 02:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I often hear that "The Bulgars were Turkic", yet I rarely see evidence for that idea. It might just be an assumption. Unless many Bulgar names, etc., have been shown to be Turkic (which would be a strong indication). On the other hand, I have found a scholarly site that presents much evidence indicating that the Bulgars did not speak a Turkic language:. This is based on a detailed study of old Bulgar inscriptions, which really are not apparently Turkic at all, except for some Turkic words thrown in here and there (and there are also Slavic words thrown in here and there). Decius 09:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are absolutely no evidences, no clues that the Bulgarians have any Turkic origin. But there are plenty of assumptions, drivven by different ideological goals for presenting the Bulgarians as a Turkic or Tatar or Mongol or Marsian tribe... --Shisharki 04:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I must agree. Even Britanica states "...PROBABLY of Turkic origin". No hard evidence for the Turkic origin of the Bulgars. I have had lenghty discussion on this topic with people that know a lot. My conclusion is that they were both, as they assimilated various tribes along their migrations. Most importantly, the newer views on this matter are becoming increasingly accepted from contemporary scholars.

ooh Britanica, it must be true.. Not. I am not motivated by my religion to tell you that the Pro-Bulgars were not Turkic, whatever that means. They do however have a very strong connection with tribes that lived in that area around the 5 century. Originaly Bulgarians come from the west part of Tibet and are not related to Turkics. They did become related at a later time after they established the Great Bulgaria around the 6th century. For more info do your research and stop trusting internet sites. Me 00:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Refer to Ibn-Fadlan, 921AD: As participant in a diplomatic mission to the King of the Bulgars, Ibn-Fadlan provides detail account about the Bulgars, Vikings and Turkic tribes, among others. I this witness’ account there is noting to suggest any similarities between the Bulgars and the Turkic tribes.Sarmatian 00:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Fadlan had a mission to Volga Bulgaria not Danube Bulgaria, which is modern Bulgaria. There is no dispute about that Volga Bulgars were Turkic. 88.247.101.145 (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note Turkic-Pamirian

Anthropological research of skeletons found in Bulgar burial mounds testify to an unusual diversity of anthropological types found there - roughly half of them are of Mongolian/Turanian origin, the other half are of Iranian origin + some are of Uralian/Finnish stock. Considering that the Bulgars evidently managed to assimilate a wide variety of other nomadic peoples (or may be they were themselves an amalgamation of different tribes), the question as to whether they were Turkic or Iranian becomes rather pointless. I am changing the article accordingly... VMORO 15:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether they were Turkic or Iranian is not a "racial" classification; it is purely linguistic. And, as has been pointed out above, no competent linguist disputes that the Bulgar language was Turkic.--Rob117 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I’m a professional linguist, now retired, and I am not in the least certain that the original language was Turkic. It was Turkic at one point, but many of us believe that it began as something else. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for instance, claims the origin was Ugrian. In any case, no one is trying to rule Turkic origins out as a possibility ... but we believe there are other possibilities as well, some more likely than others. I don’t believe any competent linguist would support you and insist that Turkic was the only possibility. Moreover, it’s not really the linguistic question that you say it is. There is no proof that anything remains of the original language, whatever it may have been. The original language is a matter of conjecture, and the only thing that actually remains is DNA. In other words, nobody claims that the Modern Bulgarian language exhibits any Pamirian influence or retains any Pamirian features whatsoever (or Ugrian, as the case may be) ... the modern language developed out of Slavic, Turkic, and Balkan linguistic union influences, plus a few other minor sources that are well known. —Stephen 11:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. Sorry. I was under the impression that the Iranian theory was a nationalist claim (as stated above) and I apologize.--Rob117 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

From bulgaria.com:The origin and the homeland of the Bulgarian tribes have been an object of both past and present study and research. They have generated and are still generating many hypotheses and violent disputes. This is most likely to continue for a long time to come. The scarcity of clear and reliable sources could hardly be expected to be made up for. There is still one fool-proof fact which is that the Bulgarians' land of origin was in the highland regions of AItai in Siberia. Their language is related to the so-called Turko-Altai group. In other words, the Bulgarians belong to the same ethnolingual group as the Huns, the Avars, the Pechenegs and the Cumans, i.e., the peoples, parts of which are to flow into the Bulgarian nation between the 7th and 14th centuries. --Rob117 04:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

ROb, is this your last night's dream? There is no evidence supporting the pamirian story of the Bulgars. Are you saying that the Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, Russian languages are also from that Turko-Altai group? Because I speak all of them - they are quite similar. --Shisharki 06:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I meant no evidence. Read the whole discussion page and you'll see what I mean.--Rob117 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

we can not be using bulgaria.com as it is not a valid sourse although I rather listen to them then some british writer. The probulgars come from western part of Tibet, and it is hard to prove so don't bug me on it. There is plenty on the internet about it. Me 01:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't edit the first paragraph yet...

While I'm pretty sure the Turkic origin is the most well-supported theory, if we put it up as the only possible one we're just going to get more nationalists who insist on an Iranian linguistic origin and no other putting up their unsourced POV. I've put up a tag asking for expert attention; if there are any professional historians or professional linguists who deal with this area, look over the article and correct as needed and cite your sources.--Rob117 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There are no evidences for Turkic or Tatar origin - just a bunch of bubble from some 'specialists' based on no real facts (artifacts or scripts) - just speculations and attempts for rewriting the history of the Bulgarians under the influence of the Soviet mission for placing all Eastern-European nations under a Slavic umbrella led by the Russians themselves. Yes, the article "Bulgars" needs a major repair. All pamirian-turkic-tatar-mongolian fairy-tales about the Bulgars' origin are not based on any true evidences or logical assumptions. Altering and rewriting the history is evident - it should not be allowed in this website. The article presents only one side of the story - the manipulated one and strongly misinformative. --Shisharki 05:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Extremely ignorant statement. Will you at least bother to read the discussion above?--Rob117 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Extremely ignorant comment - I don't read discussions based on altered and manipulated information - instead I'd prefer to make my own conclusions based on original sources, because i consider myself a human. As I said: There are no true evidences for turkic origin of the Bulgars - it is all manipulated information. Could anyone cite any source, please?--Shisharki 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Holy conspiracy theories, Batman! Sources are cited right at the bottom of the aricle.--Rob117 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If the early Bulgars are not of Turkic origin why their leaders' title was "Khan" then? Bulgarians, Kazan Tatars, Chuvash and Bashkir people are all descendants of Bulgar Khanate, Bulgars were assimilated by Slavs, Finno-Ugric etc. people of the region. Chuvash language is accepted as a Turkic language and is seen as the only remain of the old Bulgar language. I can't understand why our Bulgarian fellows are being so quick-tempered about this issue, as a Turk, I don't see modern Bulgarians as Turks, it's clear that they are assimilated. Also there are some claims saying that "Bulgar" is derived from "Bel-Ogur" which is the western Turkic equivalent of eastern "Beş Oğuz" probably meaning a confederation Five-Tribes. I want to say a last thing, Turanism was popular among Bularian intellectuals after Balkan Wars. Orhanoglu 05:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My Dear Fellow, keep reading "sources" and believe them and accept them undoubtedly - I don't care how ignorant you will grow in your understanding of the History. Best Regards! --68.3.217.52 23:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.bulgarile.narod.ru/

Orhanoglu, using the title 'Khan' in intself doesn't prove much. People borrow words and titles all the time. What makes you think that 'khan' was exclusively Turkic? Why did the Germans use the Roman title 'ceaser'(Keiser)? Note, that the Bulgarian rulers used 'khan' always in front of the name: Khan Asparuh, Khan Krum, Khan Sabin. Turkic rulers on the other hand always put it nehinf the name, i.e. Genghis Khan. --Kaloyan* 16:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to ask for an expert's opinion; however, I doubt that there is an expert who can decide the matter once and for all since there simply aren't enough fragments of the Bulgar language left to allow one or the other theory to be proven without doubt. I think all existing theories should be mentioned, with the possible addition that the Pamir/Iranian theory is more popular within Bulgaria, and the Turkic theory more popular outside. Preslav 13:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem lies on the fact that some people want to restrict their research according to their national instincts. Tt seems like they have this national pride which is affecting their further research by trying not to accept any theory that may link them to Turkic origins, or origins same with Turkic people. Bulgar people do not want to be referred as Turkic people (even EU legacy is linked to this notion) and all I read here is that there is no evidence. But also there is no evidence of them being not part of proto-Turkic people. If there was then there would be no discussion. In wiki it says "Bulgars are called as Huns, Sycthians but not as Turks" ] but on the other hand if you read Turkish origins all these people are referred as proto-Turkic but again not accepted. We know that Huns had Turkic rulers but people doesn't have to be Turkic. If we take the ruling class as the origins of a nation then Huns should be Turkic. I am not sure about language theries but it seems like language now is the most relevant cultural identity to follow origins. If Bulgar language have Indo_european origin does it make them Indian origin. We have to look at other suggestions ]that Indo-European language may derive from a super family such as Altaic Languages. I would assume migration routes, and place of origin is also a good argument since Hungarians like Bulgars are coming from Ural-Altay region and Hungarian is an Altaic language. Does anyone have an idea what writing system were Bulgars using prior to Greek or Cyrillic alphabet?--Kultegin 13:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Um - Languages 101 for you : Hungarian is an ''Uralic'' language. Hxseek (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The title 'Khan' is totally invented. It was taken from the title “Canasjubigi” which was used only by 3 of tem, starting with Omortag of Bulgaria, and can be in an inscription with Greec letters. In the nominalia is used the title K’nas which everione can see is verry close to the title Knjaz. The title khan was invented form “Canasjubigi” only to fit in the turkish theory. Which, I must say, was serving a Soviet instruction to the Bulgarian Academy of Science from the year1948. I cannot citate it exactli ofcorce but the meaninng was ‘proto’bulgarians to be pronounced turkish under fier of lusing rights of partcipate in the academy. That’s how from “Canasjubigi” it became to Khan. The title khan exists in no historical documents. See please "The language of the Asparukh and Kuber Bulgars, Vocabulary and grammar" by Peter Dobrev http://www.kroraina.com/b_lang/index.html

He is a scientist in the Bulgarian Academy of Science and the last 30 years of his career he deals with the protobulgarians, their origin, language, habits and so on.

Peter Dobrev is not a scientist, he's a simple charlatan. The origin of the Bulgars is disputed, the Turkic hypothesis being so to say, traditional, and in addition there have been dozens of hypotheses of Finnish, Iranian, Pamirian etc. links. Strange nobody has mentioned Chinese and Sumerian yet, because I myself have heard 'scientists' claiming that it was Bulgars who buit the Great Wall and settled Messopotamia, so all Asia seems to have been populated by Bulgars once :) The point is, just make it clear in the article that there is a debate and that Turkic origin, while the most prevalent hypothesis, is still a hypothesis. And guys, why do you bother to read Misplaced Pages and post on the discussion page since you don't even speak decent English - 'under fier of lusing rights of particpate in the academy' is simply brilliant. Feanor

Your silly jokes are useless! Of course Peter Dobrev is a scientist! If specialists from BAS (“Bulgarian Academy of Science”) are not scientists then who is???

I am Stogerov One thing is very certain the BULGARIAN FOLK MUSIC, unique, but iranian, you will be amazed if you do listen to iranian folk and bulgarian folk (see my youtube profile to find out). 1. The bulgarian folk music has irregular ( asymmetric ) rhythm 2. The musical instrument set sounds and looks extremely similar 3. There is special style of singing "off-modulation" (imitating the nightingale song) (like Orpheos :-)) 4. And the folk dressing with the silver and golden coins necklace on women's costumes and the ornaments are almost the same.

And see the 2 lions with the crown in their hands you can see it also in Tajikistan. I'm sure thracian culture has a lot of influence to the Bulgarian but mind that the Thracians were also IRANIAN people and ANCIENT!

LOL. Man you are a trip. Your proofs are simply infallible. Just a note, though - Thracians were THRACIANS ! Not Iranic ( I presume that's what you meant. Because Iranians live in the 21st century, and Thracians lived in the anceint era!) Hxseek (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing what is the reason of that the ancient Bulgarians left Imeon. Very simple:

There is a nation called the Bukharian Jews in Tajikistan. They have been turned by force and threat of dead to islam just like the Bulgarians during the Osman Period. And it is said that the aristocracy of Iran run away seeking asylum exactly to their territory. So the main reason is the Islam, the historical coincidence of the time is right. What kind of culture can be so strong to be inspiration for the jews to speak iranian dialect?

There is many if and or in these materials. But it is certain so many coincidences of Balkan, Madara (Madar means Mother in iranian), Bukhori, Baktria, Balhara and ext. that the turkic origin of the Bulgars seems to be imaginary, prepared by An Empire to cover the traces of a Biggest much Older Empire, whose kings were beloved by the nation. May be I'm wrong but the future will show! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.113.227 (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

bulgars

I recomend the book Constantinople.It describes the bulgars fairly often. Much of the information can be used to enhance the article.

Chinese sources

I see this discussion is getting more and more interesting so I decided to put a link here to an article, published in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 51(1998), 69-83, by Sanping Chen, a chinese scholar. Here`s the link:

I think the article throws some light on the origin of the Bulgars, and at least presents the (ancient) Chinese point of view on this matter. Anyway, it`s worth reading.--Misho9991 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the server is down. Here`s another link: --Misho9991 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Romantic Fantasies of some extremist Nationalists have to stop, the Bulgar's were Turkic, let's stop the denial

-- Some Bulgarian extremist nationalists have come across a fact in their history which they just can't bare. As their nationalism is based upon anti-Ottomanism they find it hard to stomach that the "Bulgars" were Turkic.

Now, let's get down to the facts.

Bulgar's were and most importantly ARE Turkic and un-assimilated Bulgar's exist today in the Volga Bulgaria, they speak Turkic and retain their heritage. Just search Chuvash and Volga Tatar.

Counterpoint. Bulshit - No un-assimilated anyone exists anywhere Hxseek (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the "Bulgar's" is Central Asia.

Some Bulgar's spread and took control of the area of what is today modern Bulgaria.

Throughout time the Bulgar's were assimilated into the majority population and only the name Bulgar-ia remains.

The attempts of some extremist nationalists of the country "Bulgaria" is to try and create this long ancient glorious history in which the "Bulgars" are their ancestors. However, the Bulgar's being Turkic doesn't fit this ideal so they try to invent the most outlandish theories that the actual Bulgars, that the Turkic Bulgar's who still retain their history and heritage are actually "Iranic".

This theory has no credibility and no base. It revolves around the flimsy account of Herodotus calling some Bulgars Scythians, it is very well known that Herodotus lumped all Eastern Nomads into one grop called Scythians.

Misplaced Pages cannot allow this laugable theory to be included, it is nothing but pseudo-history.

--Johnstevens5 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The truth worth more than a thousand lies! You can’t generalize Origin based on no evidence and faulty information. 

The subject of the Ethnic Origin of the Bulgars is been controversial for many years now.
However there are several different theories , and none of them have been proven definitive. 

Some claim that they are of Turkic Origin ,which arose doubts and controversies, since there is no objective evidence to support it.

Other Historians lately claim that Bulgars are of Iranian descent, based on resent archeological research and facts.--Ortis12 03:50, 9 September 2007  

I do not know who you are, but your anger is very suspicious. How can you be so sure? The Turkic “theory” is obviously wrong and is going to the past no matters do you like it or not! And the argument – “extremist nationalists” is just silly! And it is not the oldest theory! And the Iranian theory is not new at all! It is exactly your closed eyes that “Misplaced Pages cannot allow”!

Chuvash and Volga Tatar Are Chuvash and Volga Tatar not Bulgars!

“Some Bulgar's spread and took control of the area of what is today modern Bulgaria.Throughout time the Bulgar's were assimilated into the majority population and only the name Bulgar-ia remains.” This is nonsense – this is the Russian silly pan-Slavic version and it is political! It is time to go to the garbage where it belongs!

Yeah right, the fact that the modern Bulgarian is a Slavic language was invented by the Russian pan-Slavic propoganda... hold on, wasn't the Bulgars being originally Turkic a part of the Russian propoganda? Who cares, let's just blame the Russians for everything we don't like, it's not like they don't deserve it anyway, right? And so what if the blames are inconsistent, it's their inconsistency, not ours. We are too busy polluting the pages written in the language we are barely competent in and we don't even have time to learn how to sign our comments... Right on you guys, I wonder why it only applies to the Turkic-denying camp?... -- idiotoff 20:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Get a little more critical about the meaning of 'Turkic'. It didn't exist at the time the Bulgars entered the world scene and it has been changing meaning ever since it was invented. It is very similar to the all-including 'turanid' term used by the Persians. Largely, it stands for a type of category where anything goes. It has been further politicised in modern times and absurdly enough some people even equal it with Turkish. The fact is that there were plenty of Iranian migrations and settlements that formed the base of anything called "turkic" today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.43.11 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove the reference to the O. Maenchen-Helfen's book

This entire article is completely messed up. It contradicts one of the most diligent study of the subject, the work of O. Maenchen-Helfen. Sarmatian 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"Culture and society" blunders

“The Bulgars were governed by hereditary khans…” - No sufficient findings exists to conclude that the Bulgarian rulers used this title. “…the titles of the steppe peoples do not reflect the nationality of their bearers. A kan, kagan, or bagatur may be a Mongol, a Turk, a Bulgar; he may be practically anything.” - Maenchen-Helfen ---Sarmatian 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

“the fact that the Bulgars had a typical Turkic religion (e.g. see Tangra)” and "... worshipping the Turkic Sky god Tangra." – What are the sources used to write such an ignorant conclusion? ---Sarmatian 00:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

“artificial skull deformation” – such deformation had been practiced by many other tribes at the time, including the Goths, which suggests influence and certainly not origin. Sarmatian 00:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove Bulgar’s language classification

Maenchen-Helfen provides an extensive analysis of the Bulgar-Chuvash language and his conclusion is exactly the opposite to “The oldest and more widely accepted theory” presented by Wiki’s writing. Some quotes: “In Hunnish, which developed into Bulgar-Chuvash, *iis-lil, *iis-til-a must have meant grosse Wassermenge, grosser Fluss, grosses Meer. The name Attila, for example, seems to offer neither phonetic nor semantic difficulties. Attila is formed from Gothic or Gepidic; atta, "gather," by means of the diminutive suffix -ila. However some scholars, impressed by the similarity of Attila to Atil, the Turkish name of the Volga, equated the two names without concern for their phonetic and semantic relationship.” and “…one cannot help marveling at the boldness with which the problem of the Hunnish language has been and still is being attacked.” ---Sarmatian 01:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

===================================

Remove “migration form Central Asia” blunder

“migration form Central Asia” and “ Swept by the Hunnish wave … from their settlements in central Asia…” - here is a short story about the beginning of this confusion:

In the 1750’s, the French Orientalist Joseph de Guignes identified the Huns with the Hsiung-nu described in the Chinese records. Until the 1940’s, the identity of the European Huns with the Hsiung-nu on China’s borders was rarely questioned. As no one doubted that the Hsiung-nu were Mongoloids, the Huns must have been Mongoloids too. These assumptions however have never been proven by paleoanthropological finds to reconstruct the routs over which the Huns migrated into Eastern Europe.

The answer given by A. N. Bernshtam in 1926 was for widely accepted: In the last century B.C., Hsiung-nu were supposed to have moved to eastern Middle Asia and from there spread westward. Bernshtam’s thesis centered on a catacomb in the cemetery on the Kenkol River in the Upper Talas Valley. Bernshtam excavated kurgan 10. “In the catacomb,” he wrote, “lay two Mongoloid skeletons with deformed skulls; the skeletons in the dromos were Europoids, apparently slaves from the local population of the Pamiro-Fergana race.” Bernshtam was an excellent and indefatigable excavator, but he wrote in too great haste, reconstructing whole periods of world history on the narrowest foundations. His interpretation of the Kenkol finds is the telling example. The two Mongoloids became in no time Turkish-speaking Hsiung-nu, and the Europoids in the dromos Wu-sun slaves. Because the Mongoloids were buried in catacombs, all catacombs burials in Middle Asia were declared Hsiung-nu burials. The shepherds from Kenkol were the missing link between the Hsiung-nu in Mongolia and the Huns in Central Europe.

Later excavations made Berhshtam’s interpretation questionable as early as 1940. Gryaznov proved that the ‘slaves’ in the dormos belong to a secondary burial. A closer study of the Chinese annals also argued Bernshtam’s thesis and the assumed connection between Hsiung-nu and the Huns.

Bulgars were the brain and the generator behind the Hunnish associations and their migration paths should not and cannot be reviewed separately. It is certain that the Bulgars inhabited different areas around the Black Sea literal and it would be safer to stick around with opinions like 'Beyond them extend above the Pontic sea the territories of the Bulgars, whom the punishments of our sins have made notorious. After these the Huns, like a cluster of mighty races, have spawned twofold frenzied peoples.” – Jordanes, then jump bravely in the past with assumptions like the “Pamirian” one. From the Black Sea literal we have old enough knowledge about the Bulgars' adobe, as old as the origin of the Germanic and the Slavic tribes for example. ---Sarmatian 02:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

===================================

The Bulgarian Princes’ List - remove "khans" from the reference

The Bulgarian Princes’ List is a very important document that provides detail information about number of the Bulgarian monarchs after the migration period. It I also know as “The Nominalia of the Bulgarian Princes” and the “List of Bulgarian monarchs”.

Some Wiki enthusiast however, desided to add the title “khans”. Please, remove that ridiculous invention. ---Sarmatian 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

===================================

Or perhaps we should remove all the article :) Chapultepec 08:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian origin

I have been researching about the Iranic people and by chance I met some bulgarian people. Its very interesting that in the zhargon language which is the sreet language in bulgaria, too many Iranic words and frases are used. In some Iranian and Islamic works, Bulgars are related to the hephtalites. Hephtalites or the wite huns where a confedration of saka or scythian tribse with some hunnic or mongoloid. This has been told by travelers in the Balkh and Bactra aria at the time. In Iranian language when they want to indicate a home less person they say alakhon and valakhon, which is derived from the triball names of alxon an valxon, and as I read once thies names have been used by Bulgars. The same thing is about the word avare which has been taken from Avar. This is because when persian Shahanshah Khosro Anushirvan who grow up as a hostage at the hephtalites defeatet the heftalites, they fled westwards and did not settel for many years untill ther riched the northern black sea and eastern europe.

On the origin of the title Khan I have to say that it was driven from the word Ghan or gan like in khodaygan or bozorgan in persian, meaning graetnes. The turks where subjects to the hephtalites and they helped the persians to defeat the hephtalites.

The name Bulgar would be a transformation Of Bactra, Balhara, Balhar or Balkh, Indicating the aria in centralasia and northern Pamir. The bulgar words are too similar with the iranic and sanskrit.

But, it is proven that Sanskrit was similar with Proto- Slavonic, so it is possible that the similarities between Bulgarian and Sanskrit come from there. The similarity between Sanskrit and the Slavic languages is clear. Example: veda- knowledge, the word for fire which is agni in Sanskrit and ogan, agin,etc in Slavic languages. And the language spoke in Iran today was influenced by Persian and so was the Ottoman Turkish, and Bulgarian has a lot of Turkish word due to the fact that it was ruled by the Ottomans for 5 centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.13.41 (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Khan

My edit was meant to avoid the implication/statement that other forms of the title than "kanasubigi" are attested. While the form "kanasubigi" is generally assumed to mean/include "khan"/"kan", (hence Bulgarian rulers of the time are widely termed "hereditary khans" as the source states), "khan"/"kan" alone has not been attested as a title for the supreme ruler. If you believe that it has been attested, I think that claim needs to be sourced (one can only prove that something exists, not that something doesn't exist). The fact is rather well-known among Bulgarians discussing the issue. My secondary sources are in Bulgarian: first of all, this article and the Bulgarian wikipedia. While the fact is usually pointed out by opponents of the Turkic origin theory (such as the author of the first article), this and this chapter from a Bulgarian (pro-Turkic origin) historian show the same thing. The first one explains how "kanasubigi" was originally analysed as "kanas" + "ubigi", not on the basis of an attested Bulgar title kan, but on the basis of the general Turkic one. The same analysis is present here. The second one contains the author's own analysis as "kana" + "subigi". This shows that the title is not attested alone (even its form - kana/kanas? - is unclear). Finally, if you aren't satisfied with the above, here is a primary source: this is a complete list of Bulgar inscriptions in Greek (the Bulgar language ones are few and haven't been deciphered in a satisfactory way) with translations into Bulgarian. You are welcome to search through the list for occurrences of kana, without subigi, translated as "khan" (Bulgarian кан or хан), as a title for a Bulgarian ruler.

Note: considering your nationality, and to avoid unnecessary chauvinistic tensions, I want to point out that I, personally, am one of the few Bulgarians who are more inclined to accept the Turkic origin theory, as you can find out by looking at my previous edits to related topics. --91.148.159.4 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubts for your honesty. What we try to find is the truth only. But the source, namely "East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500", is reading that the title of khan was used until they accepted Christianity. Are you really sure that all these are based on the title kanasubigi? And, if it's possible, could you supply some serious sources in English that support the changes? Chapultepec 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try, but I doubt I can find much in English (maybe some articles advocating Iranian origin). I agree it's pretty strange that people just took for granted that "kanasubigi = khan", but I am pretty sure it's true, having read most of the available sources and quite a number of articles. The Byzantines just didn't try to render the native forms of Bulgar titles, so we have no other knowledge about them but the one in the Bulgars' own inscriptions (see above).

When the source you are giving says that the title of khan was used until the adoption of Christianity, it merely repeats the most standard theory, which in turn is based on the assumption of Bulgarian historians that: 1. the title of those three guys (kanasubigi), attested in the inscriptions, was also the traditional Protobulgar title used by all Protobilgar rulers until the adoption of the Christian Slavic literature (where knjaz is used); 2. the title "kanasubigi" is equal to "khan". The reason I tried to edit this is that the previous wording suggested the existence of two separate titles - khan and kanasubigi. In fact, even in traditional Turkic-origin discourse, these were always assumed to be the same, and the usual forms were supposed to be "khan (s)ubigi" or something similar. --91.148.159.4 14:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it seems convincing. But I have an objection for a sentence you changed in your last edit. Before the change the sentence was:

"However, this last argument is not endorsed by the fact that the term "Turk" was not used either exclusively, or particularly, for a certain, well-defined people, until much later".

After the change the new version of the sentence was:

"However, this last argument is not endorsed by the fact that the use of the term "Turkic" in ancient documents does not necessarily coincide with its use in modern linguistics and anthropology".

Of course the second sentence is also true, but it differed from the previous version by meaning and it seems a bit gibberish. The previous version was more explanatory to my mind. Shall we make changes on that?

Chapultepec 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous version seems a little ambiguous to me. It can be read as emphasizing that "Turk" didn't mean "citizen of Turkey/the Ottoman Empire" (a single people), and that it could also mean Turkmens, Tatars, and many other Turkic peoples. But how does this help us explain the fact that ancient historians differentiated between Bulgars and Turks? The only meaningful interpretation I can think of is that this is supposed to mean the same as my version. That is, "Turk" could be used in a way that didn't include the Bulgars. For example, the Bulgars presumably spoke a very special, divergent branch of the Turkic languages (perhaps they weren't mutually intelligible at all, as in the case of modern Chuvash) and this might have prevented ancient authors from identifying their language as Turkic. In contrast, modern linguistics can identify Chuvash as Turkic. --91.148.159.4 15:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "Turk" is the nominal form not only of "Turkish" but also of "Turkic". It can be used for both. But if you like we can change the sentence to "However, this last argument is not endorsed by the fact that the term "Turkic" was not used either exclusively, or particularly, for a certain, well-defined people, until much later". Or we can use the original version but link the term "Turk" to "Turkic peoples". Both of them is possible. Chapultepec 15:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How about "a certain, well-defined group of peoples"? --91.148.159.4 15:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, let me do it. Chapultepec 15:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a pleasure working with you. :) --91.148.159.4 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best wishes... Chapultepec 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

First Picture

Is the first picture of Bulgars massacring pilgrims really appropriate as the first picture in a culture page? That would be tantamount to placing a KKK lynch picture on the WASP culture page.--Exander 08:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't, and yes, you're right. Skitnik 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Dear Ortis12, please do not try to remove a large part of the article without giving plausible reasons, otherwise it is considered vandalism. And the theory you try to add already takes place in the article as the Iranian theory with a more serious and scientific writing style. Thank you. --Chapultepec 15:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

One truth worth more than a thousand lies.

You cant generalise Origin based on no evidence and foulthy information. And the Bulgarian history is ancsient and glourious anyway ,there is no need to "create" that .It is already a fact accessible for everyone who can read!

The subject of the Ethnic Origin of the Bulgars is been controversial for many years now. However there are several different theories , and none of them have been proven definitive. Some claim that they are of Turkic Origin ,which arose doubts and controversies, since there is no objective evidence to support it. Other Historians lately claim that Bulgars are of Iranian descent, based on resent archeological research and facts.

--User:ortis12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortis12 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I try to say exactly. Here is not the place for romantic edits, only the serious and scientific-based edits should take place. And of course these theories should be well-referenced by serious academical sources. According to the current situation these two theories take place in the article along with their references. And the theory you try to add already takes place in the article as the Iranian theory with a more serious and scientific writing style. And if you have serious and unbiassed academical references you can come up with those ones. Thank you. --Chapultepec 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you please discuss the matter here before reverting and adding information not referenced with serious academical sources? Thank you. --Chapultepec 17:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you please discuss the matter here instead of writing the same things all the time? And would you please provide your scientific/academic references to support your claims? Thank you. --Chapultepec 04:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes ill provide you with some of the academic sources as soon as some translation is made. Several of them are chronicles but I believe that those should be present as well in order to introduce the subject objectively. My point here is that the generalizing that you have made is outdated and completely misleading, peoples assumption it’s been changed and this is the actual vandalism!--Ortis12 15:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, then I can make some re-arrangements in the article until the translations are made. And I would much appreciate your proving me why my generalizing is outdated, of course with the help of third-party scientific/academic references. And I hope henceforth you will be more productive and positive instead of removing the whole section of the article. Meanwhile you can have a look at the newly added references, so you can easily catch that this generalizing is a common one. Thanks. --Chapultepec 17:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this article, here are some sources and reference materials. Also I am providing links to a resent documentary exploring the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians, initiated from The Bulgarian Academy of Science and executed from The National Museum of History. The series present extensive research and facts that leads to overall Indo-European decent of the Bulgars.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mbDWxVHX2oE

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FDP74VBLIRo

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3cRNhAFeK5E

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p9PKlMo8_f8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=p9PKlMo8_f8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZLefXDENfjc

http://youtube.com/watch?v=b-dFsPKXX7I

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DdW6bj89VOQ

http://youtube.com/watch?v=18-wn4eNb7c

http://youtube.com/watch?v=A_p610o_Ln4

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5Koqz-tzDYw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vQHf8DKv-f8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ypmkd6BJFbg

http://www.ancient-bulgaria.com/index.php?s=Bulgars

http://www.historymuseum.org/collection.php

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42723/Bulgaria

http://www.rodoved.info/bg003.htm

http://www.search.com/reference/First_Bulgarian_Empire

http://www.mfa.government.bg/history_of_Bulgaria/

http://protobulgarians.com/

http://www.bgrod.org/sydyrjanie.php

--Ortis12 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ortis12, so far as I know YouTube is not a scientific or academic source. I watched the episodes. This is a Bulgarian documentary from the Bulgarian TV. And the other web pages except Britannica are all Bulgarian websites. What I meant was independent scientific or academic sources. I complied with this rule so far. And so far as I can see, only the Britannica link within your sources is an independent scientific reference. So I will take it into account. But let's not forget, these two are Britannica sources as well: Bolgar Turkic and Bulgar. Thanks. --Chapultepec 17:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Hemisphere Maps Showing Bulgarian Empire

Balthazarduju, why do you insist on deleting the Eastern Hemisphere map from this article? You say it's because there are already 3 maps, but not a single one of them show the actual extent of the Bulgarian Empire or the Volga Bulgar Khanate. There is no harm in leaving this map on the site, and it gives readers a great idea of the world the Bulgars lived in, including their neighbors, allies, enemies, etc. So what gives, why do you keep deleting the map? Thomas Lessman 19:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

see also here. --dab (𒁳) 15:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did the Bulgars move to Europe, but not to the Middle East?

The Bulgars was a small mongolian tribe who moved to Southeast Europe in the Middle Ages. Why did the Bulgars move to Europe, but not to the Middle East or to South Asia? Homer33 22:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The mongolian part is disputable. They did not move to Southeast Europe first - there were a couple of other moves before that. I suggest you read the article again. --Laveol 00:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove "Bolgars"

The terminology for "Bolgars" is from the nationalist and communist disinformation circles. Bulgarian government of the time used to teach its population with the absurdity that the word "Bulgari" originated from the "Volgari" because the people in question came from the Volga River region. "Bolgar" was a phase between the transition from "Volgar" to Bulgar. It should be taken out.

No. "Bolgar" is the Russian form, first used for the Volga Bulgars. It's one of the forms that occur in litterature and has no nationalist overtones. You sound rather hateful towards everything Bulgarian, by the way.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If Bolgar is the Russian form then it should be kept in the Russian branch of Misplaced Pages. This is the English version. There are other spellings for Bulgars such as Bulghars. Otherwise these along many other variants from different languages would have to be included here too. There is nothing that makes the Russian version superior to the others. I am not in anyway hateful against anything Bulgarian. However I am quite familiar with that region where people are obsessed with manipuating and altering names and identities. Bulgarians have a proven track record and have a notorious reputation in this area and thereby lack any credibility in these topics.Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant "Russian-derived" version. That means it occurs in English, too. Check Google. Also, it's "Bolgars" (Bolğarlar) in modern Tatar as well (see the wikilink), the Tatars being some of the descendants of the Bulgars, and one of the "capitals" of Volga Bulgaria was called Bolgar. As for credibility, by that logic, no Turkish historians should even be cited about Turkish history. And you wouldn't like that, would you? --91.148.159.4 (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you don't get personal. I have never read nor ever quoted a Turkish historian. There is a good chance they would suffer from the some bias as Bulgarian historians do. That is one reason why third party sources tend to be more reliable. They don't suffer from ethnic bias and a passionate desire to demonstrate to the rest of the world the greatness of their nation.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You have never read a Turkish historian? Even though all your edits so far seem to be in one way or another about Turkey or Turks, or Turkic people? Well, I suggest you should, then. I think anyone interested in a nation so much at least ought to read its native historians. Apart from that I agree that third-party historians tend to be more reliable - in cases where they have dealt with a subject in any depth at all. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my above response. Show us which one of my edits so far have been about Turkey. And even if that was the case that does not mean I acqured my knowledge thru Tukish histirians. Reading local historians of that part of the world is not something I recommend. There is nothing new in Bulgarians denying the Turkic orgins of Bulgars and the Cuman origin of the three successive ruling dynasties(Asends, Terterids, and Shishmanid) of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Having read Bulgarian historians and claiming that "the history of Bulgaria is best known by Bulgarians" it is close to impossible to reason with them. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You've been involved only in blatant POV-pushing so far. Noone denies that it might possibly be as you say, but you remove all the other versions and that is POV. Your POV. --Laveol 11:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not been involved in "blatant POV-pushing". You -along with a number of other Bulgarian users- have been involved in a campaign to revert or alter my contributions all of which come from reputable sources. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove "proto-Bulgarians"

Bulgars as a whole can not be classified as "proto-Bulgarians" for the following reasons:

• Bulgarians promote the use of the word "proto-Bulgarian" (Pra-Bulgari) since there is no other Bulgarian word to distinguish between Bulgars and Bulgarians. In English language there is an established difference between Turkic Bulgars and the Slavic Bulgarians.
• There are other Turkic Bulgars in the Kazan region of Tataristan today who under no circumstances would consider their ancestors as "proto-Bulgarians".
• Bulgars migrated from Kuban River area into different regions. Only those who crossed the Danube and lost their Turkic language and identity became Bulgarians. Other Bulgars migrated to the Kazan area of today and still call themselves Bulgars not Bulgarians. Yet others remained in the region to become Balkars.
• This is another attempt to put the word "Bulgarian" as the dominating word for everything Bulgar.
• A tree should not be named after its branch.

It should be removed as it is another nationalistic attempt of disinformation.

Indeed. If it's not in the Balkans it's not Bulgarian - it's Bulgar. Alex 202.10.89.28 05:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Germanic language family is named after the Germans, even though the English may object. In any case, this is a matter of convention in English-language historiography, not of political correctness or original research.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy makes no sense. The English can not object to the Germanic language naming. Germanic peoples (Anglos-Saxons, Normans) migrated to the British isles and became the English ethnicity with a clearly Germanic language. The fate of the Bulgars who crossed the Danube into the Balkans was not so. They lost their language and culture as a result of mixing with the Slavs. The only thing that remained is their name in the first six characters of the word Bulgarians. Another dissimilarity is that no Englishman would deny their Germanic roots. Bulgarians on the other hand are obsessed to prove that they are a Slavic nation. Bulgars were not a Slavic people.Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how these differences are important to anyone. The relevant similarity is that in both cases, nobody sane could be offended. But the important thing is that the term "proto-Bulgarians" is used in English and you can't censor that for reasons of "political correctness".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, proto-Bulgarian is a term used in literature. But this does not change the fact that it is misleading. No research or theories are needed to see that.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, research and theories are necessary for such a thing. More specifically, determining what terminology should be used is the job of researchers, and your attempts to do it here on your own are original research.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Replace Tangra with Tengri: This is another deliberate distorion

The accepted spelling for the Turkic Sky God in English Language is Tengri not Tangra. The Turkic Shamanist Bulgars worshipped Tengri not Tangra -which was the name of a third grade Bulgarian pop-band in the early eighties. Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Accepted by what higher authorities? Can you cite some sources that support the claim that this version is "the accepted spelling"? The source cited has "Tangra". Are you saying that Jean W. Sedlar, the author of the book East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 (University of Washington Press, 1994, ISBN 9780295972909), professor of History at the University of Pittsburg, committed a deliberate act of distortion in this scholarly work? If so, can you back this up in some way? Or do you mean that this piece of content, added sometime in December 2006, ostensibly to present further evidence supporting the "Turkic theory" for the classification of the Bulgar language, was inserted in order to deliberately distort something? What then was the hidden agenda? In most Turkic languages the vowels in T*ngr* are back vowels like /a/ and /ɯ/, as in Turkish Tanrı, and in the Sakha language it is even Tanara, and the Chuvash language, the closest surviving relative of Bulgar and possibly an offspring of the latter, has Tura. The "proto-Bulgarian" sources are scarce, and none testify to the spelling Tengri. The Madara inscription has (in Greek writing) "ΤΑΓΓΡΑ(Ν)". What is so bad with the version Tangra? Could you try to you react in a more calm and friendly way than the accusatory tone of the title of this thread?  --Lambiam 10:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Lambiam. There is no reason to delete the form that is attested in documents. Nostradamus should do more reading before editing. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Attested in which documents? Let us not split hairs here. Some would argue that Tangra, Tengri, Tanara, Tanri, etc. are all wrong spellings that do not sound correct. At the end it is a word used as a name.Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Attested in which documents?" In the only two documents that mention it - an almost unreadable Greek inscription and a late Turkish mansucript. See Tangra for more details. You are obviosuly not very well informed about all this, so please, don't hurry with your edits so much before achieving consensus. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide me with the link for Tangra? It appears not to exist.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking about. The most detailed discussion of Bulgarian "Tangra" is in the article Tengriism.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Wrong spellings that do not sound correct"? Have you ever heard about such a thing as historical linguistics? Maybe you think that "Wasser" is just a wrong spelling of "water" that doesn't sound correct? Or the Turkmen language is a wrong spelling of the Turkish language?--91.148.159.4 (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly different variations of the spelling of this Sky God. That is not the issue. It is clear that Tanri, Tengri, Tangri, Tanara, Tangra etc. are all the same thing. Why are we choosing to use different names in different parts of this encyclopedia for something that points the same thing? Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't. But we mention the relevant form depending on context. Different peoples may have different ideas about what is originally the same deity, and we know almost nothing about how the Bulgars worshiped Tangra (if they really did - the evidence is very sparse indeed). --91.148.159.4 (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If we present as evidence for the Bulgar language being Turkic that "the Bulgars' X was called Y", the reader will expect that Y is the Bulgar name for X, not the Uyghur name. To show that Sanskrit is related to the family of languages to which English, Latin and Greek belong, a source may give as evidence that in Sanskrit the word for "father" is pitr; if you, while citing that source, change that into the word pater used in like Latin and Greek, it is you who is slanting the evidence towards the desired conclusion. Same here. This is really simply a matter of reporting what we find in the source, which happens to have Tangra and not some other variant. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth.  --Lambiam 10:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Sedlar present Bulgars as a Turkic people in his book? I have a newer book in my hand, The Balkans, first published in 2001 by Dennis P. Hupchick of Wilkes University, President of Bulgarian Studies Association. According to Hupchick:

Little is known concretely about the early Bulgar state. It seems it was typically Turkic steppe nomadic and ruled by an autocratic han (a title associated with the sky-god Tengri and directly inherited from the Gök Turks). Another Gök Turk association was the ruling clan's name, Dulo- a leading clan among the Western Gök Turks. Also typical was the Bulgars' political structure, with authority divided between inner and outer cans and all Bulgars elevated above the non-Bulgar tributary populations, who initially participated in the state only as subjects. In Asparuh's state, the tributaries mostly were Slavs, most of whom were collectively known as the Seven Tribes, living on the Danubian Plain in Moesia.

Further evidence culturally linking the Balkan Bulgar state to Turkic steppe traditions was the layout of the Bulgars' new capital of Pliska, founded just north of the Balkan Mountains shortly after 681. The large area enclosed by ramparts, with the rulers' habitations and assorted utility structures concentrated in the center, resembled more a steppe winter encampment turned into a permanent settlement than it did a typical Roman Balkan city.

This article should reflect the view of the majority of unbiased experts, not the views of some insecure nationalists who want to forge a nation based on falsehood and would do anything to keep the words Turk and Bulgar apart.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this meant to be a reaction to what I wrote? I don't see how it is relevant. If you can find sources that state that the Bulgars called their god Tengri, fine, then please cite these sources. Do not, however, in a sentence stating, from a cited source, that they called their god Tangra, change the sentence to use another word than that found in the cited source. This article should not reflect the view of prejudiced editors. For that reason we must stick to the verifiability policy. FYI: Sedlar describes the 7th-century Bulgars as a Turkic speaking tribe in her book. For the applicability of the Misplaced Pages policies this is not particularly relevant.  --Lambiam 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Where is the evidence they worshiped whatever you choose to call it Tangra/Tengri at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnugh (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Iranian theory is completely bullshit!!

the greatest jackass of all times!!! were they really Iranian? so why do they behave like the turks.(speaking, dresing, believing, fu...ing etcetc...) were they want to make a fun?, or maybe they were only joking around.. yes they were the original iranians who just wanted to make a fun around balkans, black sea...etc. sorry but iranian people in wikipedia are really funny guys. i want to save hokkaido japans now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orkh (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you start behaving in a more civilized manner. The Iranian theory is what it is and Bulgarians -for obvious reasons- will invent other theories in the future.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont insult anybody mr. nostradamus. by the way, i feel deep respect to ancient bulgars. my scream is about iranians of wikipedia. they want t--Orkh (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)o change the whole history in an idiotic ways.--Orkh (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you are unaware of it the Iranian/Pamirian theory of Bulgar origins was proposed by a Bulgarian and is popular among Bulgarians. A flat-earth theory gaining such enthusiastic support among members of a nation that shares the first six characters of their name with ancient Bulgars might at first be hard to understand but that is the prevailing national psychy. Any Iranians arguing for this theory will most likely be those trying to expand and emphasize Iranian/Persian influence. This kind of denial/misinformation unfortunately is rooted in deep national insecurities. Remind an Iranian that the Safavids were a Turkic dynasty, mention to Bulgarians that not only Bulgars were a Turkic people but also the three dynasties (Asen, Terter, and Shishman) of the Second Bulgarian kingdom were Turkic Cumans if you want confrontatio. I suggest you argue with sources not feelings.Nostradamus1 (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That theory is not just invented. Archaeological research on sites of Volga Bulgaria suggests that the characteristics of the skulls of the Bulgars have Euro-Iranian features, not Mongoloid ones. Noone in Bulgaria denies the Cuman origin of the Asen dynasty, it is written in every textbook in histiry here; and also the Iranian theory is NOT so popular as you think and most historians and people reject it. I think, senor Nostradamus, that you are trying to make out that the Bulgarians just hate the Turks and I do not like your manner. --Gligan (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the Bulgarians want to prove they are Europeans. :) Ethnicity is not tied to sculls. Earlier I wrote about Archeological evidence in ancient Bulgar capital pointing to their Turkic origins. This was a direct sourced material that you deleted. I am not surprised that you have issues with the points I make. How about this one : If we take out the Turkic Bulgar rulers of the First Bulgar kingdom, the Turkic Cuman rulers of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom, and the German kings of the Third Bulgarian Kingdom all that is left is Ivailo The Swineherd.Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. That's funny 203.166.99.230 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We're left with Ivaylo ... who is what? I don't like your manner, too. You accuse people of being full of hatred, but it sounds more and more like you're the one that hates something (or most probably someone). You want history issues to be resolved just like that with a snap and it seems they should be resolved in the way you think is right. Well, sorry but I have to disappoint you - this is not how life (and science for that matter) works. I become more convinced with every single edit that you have some Great Turkish ideas behind your edits and your comments full of sarcasm. If you want to have friends, insulting people is not the way to get them. --Laveol 23:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew that you would not like it from the beginning but I could not help but state the truth. Are you disputing my last sentence? Since Bulgarians proudly claim to be a Slavic people one would expect to see some Slavic khagans, hans, tsars, or sultans as their rulers. I am not even sure if Ivailo (Lakhanas) -who ruled for three years- was a Slav but I give him the benefit of the doubt. On the hatred issue. I don't hate Bulgarians I dislike Bulgarian manners when it comes to the way they present their history to the world and the way they brainwash themselves generation after another. One has to look at Bulgaria article to see the section on the Ottoman rule it says The five centuries of Ottoman rule featured great violence and oppression. The Ottomans decimated the Bulgarian population, which lost most of its cultural relics. Large towns and the areas where Ottoman power predominated remained severely depopulated until the nineteenth century. I won't comment on these other than ask how Bulgarians survived 500 year long "great violence" still speaking Slavic Bulgarian? These sentences -which pretty much summarize the Bulgarian version of their history under Ottoman rule- explain why Bulgarians would resist to the idea of Bulgars being a Turkic people. We -that is me against three Bulgarians- argued some of these issues in . All three of you kept ignoring and deleting my contributions from credible sources written as recently as 2001 with comments such as "English and French were allies of the Ottomans therefore the books they write would side with the Turks". There is no need to bring it into this discussion. But I noticed Gligan already added some entries regarding the wellbeing of Bulgarians in an article titled Turks in Bulgaria. The other one Lantonov who calls the forced Bulgarianization "harmonization" should be coming shortly. One last point to this long response, we are not here to make enemies but making friends is also not the objective. There are other places to make friends in the internet. I suggest you check those if this is what you are seeking.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen Nostradamus1 attack anyone here; quite the contrary I see 3 people who don't like his words attacking him. Where has he attacked anyone here? Unless his words were read incorrectly, he's only defending a theory of Bulgarian origin. Considering that the Sarmatians, Scythians, and Alan tribes that were prominent in these regions before the arrival of the Bulgars, it isn't difficult to see how one could surmise that at least some of the Bulgars had an Iranian type background. Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nostradamus, the part about making friends meant to tell that you're annoying people on purpose. You know too well what it is to say such things to a Bulgarian (I don't mean the ones you call truth, but the ones you drop from time to time just like this). My dispute with you on the article Turks in Bulgaria is in the fact that you equal Turks to Turkic people with is completely unscientific and serving just a Great Turk propaganda. --Laveol 12:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the discussion for Turkic peoples you'd notice that I never equate Turks with Turkic people and even argue for the difference between them. However asserting that Turks and the Turkic people are distinct and separate is incorrect. That would be like claiming that the Slovenians and the Slavic people are unrelated. On the other hand claiming that Bulgars and Bulgarians are two separate ethnic groups would be correct. Discounting Asparuhid, Asenid, Terterid, and Shishmanid dynasties as Slavic rulers would be TRUE. You also brought up a good point. Mentioning such truths to most Bulgarians who pride themselves for being Slavs would be unwelcome. Do you suggest that we ignore the truth? Perhaps, it is time to grow up. It is all clear why Bulgarians would try to disassociate the Turks with Turkic people in an article for Turks in Bulgaria given that the Bulgars themselves were a Turkic people. Yes, I imagine these matters would hit a nerve and "annoy" most Bulgarians. But I care about truth and like history. Truth hurts addicts of falsehood and those who prefer myths and fantasies. Two days ago a Bulgarian guy told me that the Ottomans had 700 years of history but the Bulgarians had 2000 years of history. He insisted that Asparuh was a Slav. He too was "annoyed" to hear anything to the contrary. It is a national epidemic.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You know what I meant above and you must have read that it was not about the things you call Truth. It was about all the other things you said that are insultive to Bulgarians and you know this pretty well. Yes, Turkish and Turkic people are related, but why do you insist on adding Turkic people to the article about Turks in Bulgaria? From all your comments I figured you do not love history, but only pretend to in order to justify the Great Turkish ideas you pose. --Laveol 15:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not me who created this section that contains the BS word and implied the F word. I let readers decide for themselves whether what I wrote consititutes any insult to rational and reasonable people. Regarding your question Yes, Turkish and Turkic people are related, but why do you insist on adding Turkic people to the article about Turks in Bulgaria? : I have no Grand Turkish ideas. Knowing the history of Turkic peoples does not make one a panturkist and I consider such claims a personal attack. I already commented on the reasons why Bulgarians would be opposed to the idea of mentioning the medieval Turkic peoples of Bulgaria. I ask any reasonable person the negated version of the same question: Why should there be no mention of the relevant medieval Turkic peoples of Bulgaria in an article titled Turks in Bulgaria? --Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, provide a referenced book issued from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Publishing house, or from another European, Russian or American University press or Publishing house, where the Iranian theory is supported. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I wrote the Iranian theory is supported by prominent Bulgarian historians e.g. Prof. Georgi Markov, Director of the Indtitute of History at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and Prof. Georgi Bakalov, Faculty of History at Sofia University. Their arguments can be found in the edition History of Bulgarians Vol. 1: From Antiquity till the end of XVI Century, Sofia: Trud & Znanie Publishers, 2003. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 9545282894 – a peer reviewed edition per WP:Reliable sources guidelines; also Bakalov’s paper Little known facts of the history of ancient Bulgarians. Science Magazine. Union of Scientists in Bulgaria. Vol. 15 (2005) Issue 1. (in Bulgarian). The theory is supported also by non-Bulgarian historians such as the leading Ukrainian (and Harvard) historian Omeljan Pritsak who wrote: “We must admit that the Bulgars were not Turkic people. A centuries-old mistaken and harmful scientific opinion has been overcome.” By the way, the early Bulgar presence in the Northern Caucasus and Mount Imeon area was dated by medieval Armenian sources to historical times preceding the migration of Turkic people there. Apcbg (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sofia: Trud & Znanie Publishers!?!

Well supported hypothesis!

Show the words of Pritsak. Or you belive to such clowns as B. Dimitrov? Jingby (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientific theories are supported by scientists and their arguments not by publishing houses. The editorial board of the abovementioned publication ‘History of Bulgarians’ includes Prof. Georgi Bakalov, Prof. Georgi Markov, Prof. Grigor Velev, Assoc. Prof. Emil Aleksandrov, Assoc. Prof. Trendafil Mitev, and Assoc. Prof. Rayna Gavrilova; the authors are Prof. Georgi Bakalov, Prof. Petar Angelov, Prof. Dimitar Pavlov, Prof. Totyu Koev, Prof. Hristo Matanov, Assoc. Prof. Plamen Pavlov, Assoc. Prof. Emil Aleksandrov, Assoc. Prof. Evgeni Radushev, Dr. Tsvetelin Stepanov, and Dr. Vasko Arnaudov (still more of your ‘clowns’ indeed, together with Moses of Chorene, Anania Shirakatsi, Suren Eremian, Agathias of Myrina, Theophylact Simocatta, Michael the Syrian, and Omeljan Pritsak). As you seem too eager to have your POV imposed, I am not continuing this argument. Edit as you like – it will be corrected earlier or later. Apcbg (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my friend, I know, even B. Dimitrov is nowadays Professor, but nor Bulgarian Academy of Sciences', nor Sofia University's Publishing houses are issueing his books. Jingby (talk)

You mean all these historians were fooled by that guy? Amazing ... :-) Apcbg (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A Kind of History: A must read

Bulgarian scepticism towards the Turkic-ness of Bulgars and their eagerness to accept the Iranian/Pamirian theory can be better understood in the light of this article by Christopher Buxton.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Nostradamus,who are you?

 What are this lunatic and filled with hate writings? Are you a turk? Or Serbian? Or a brother from FYROM?
 I will tell you this:
  Read history! From your posts i uhderstand that you live somewhere between 1970 and 1990 year. Don't you heard and read about the hundreds archeological discoveries about the Bulgars in all our ancient and present day lands?! What turks! What assimilation from the slavs?! The archeologs found thousends of bulgarian cities and viliges in the areas of present day Romania, Serbia, FYROM, Ukraine and Bulgaria. I mean BULGARIAN settlements - not slavic. The Bulgars were numerous and very disciplined, civilized and tolerant. I can write so much but there is no reason because you dont want to see anything other than the turk teory. And what is the evidence? Few turchik words on one stone inskription and we are turks?! O! And the Volga Bulgarian history book:) Don't you know that the Volga Bulgars adopted Islam in IX century? And their chronist is a fanatic muslim Bulgarian and all he sees and want is Turchik culture and origin?!
 ALL FROM THE ANCIENT ARMENIAN, ARABIAN AND SOME OTHER HISTORY WRITERS POINT FOR OUR MOTHERLAND THE AREAL PAMIR AND HINDUKUSH WHERE BALHARA STATE EXISTS FROM ANCIENT TIMES! Most of them call us with our name bulhi, balhi, balhari, balahari and etc. In some parts of Russia still call us Balhari. Like Leonid Brejnev said: "Zdrastvuite, dorogie Balharski druzia!"
 And other thing that drives my crazy. The comentars of some low educated ( maybe western european) debaters in this section! They think that we were small, wilde and barabric nation and we invent our history on some false evidence and etc. SO let me tell you this and you can check it if you want:
 Dear western know nothing about history friends.
    Before the Ottomans and before the comunists Bulgaria was one of the three most strongest states in Europe - The Holly Roman Empire, The East Roman Empire and Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgars were the civilized, educated and dominated part of the people. The Bulgars were perfekt warriors and law makers. They give all the Rullers with the title " KANAS" (not "KHAN"), CESAR and later KING. From the Bulgarian word KANAS, komes the slavic wor for king - KNIAZ. The BUlgars built the cities, water canals, baths and etc. The strutures of the palaces and city walls were monumental. Not like the Byzantie style. The architecture was Bulgarian.
   The second tribe were our beloved slavs. Yes they were many but they were like aborigens. No cities - only earth homes and baraks. No alphabet, no structure, no nothing!What do you expect from the Soviets in the comunist regime? To speak the truth? NO! Because there is no greatness in their ancestors!
   And the third tribe were the Tracians but they were small part. There is lot of materials for them - so read!
   And the top of the icecream was the coment about our complainings from the bad otomans and make them in your eyes like bad, bad people. But they were good you say. You ask how it's possible for 500 yearsto preserve our etnicity and language! The answer is - RELIGION AND HARD WILL!iF WE WERE NOT chrystians and were muslims - for 40-50 years - asimilation. But no - we survive and preserve our ethnicity, our language ( Bulgarian not slavic), our genetical type. Yes there was hatred for the otoman slavers and the raped bulgarian girls when they understand that they are pregnant, they kill themselves with a knife in the chest. Also fathers kills their wifes and childrens and then themselves if the turks armies ( bashibozouk) komes to town! 
   O beloved Otoman turks!
    I the modern Bulgarian want to say thanks for:
      - killing all our kings, aristocracy, patriarchs,wariors, monks, citizens and leave anly the vilige people with no education and knowing only how to pray to GOD, work hard on the field and lay low. 
      - thank you for destroyng to the ground so carefully all our palaces, fortreses,churches, cathedrals, monastires, cities and etc.
      - thank you for destroyng our Bulgrian Patriarchate - equal to the Byzantie , with influence on half Europe.
      - thank you for reaping and beheading our young girls and even children, beheading our men, kiling the inhabitants and destroing whole towns, all the hangings, tearing bodies with horses, puting heads and litle babyes on poles and then present them in the city centres!
      - thank you for killing 2/3 of our population
      - thank you for being savages and stole from us the years of renesanse, the great geographic discoveries, industrial revolutions and etc.
      - thank you for making Bulgaria from strong empire - equal for all other states in Europe - to small and weak Bulgaria in present days with Bulgarian lands and minorities in all neibhor countries.

SO DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT SOME BULGARIAN UNRESANABLE WINING ABOUT THE TURKISH GENOCIDES AND SLAVERY FROM XV TO XIX CENTURY!

You dont have the right!

So my friends. Its time for you to throw back all the false comunist history and now when you are free from tyrany and dictature to write our realy true history and all our foregn countries to have realistik vision about us - who we are and from where we come!

 Please remove that turcik origin in the theory section and put the iranian on the top of the page...
 I kmow that you will write me many bulshit after my post but i want from you to study carefully all the new data from the historians and arkheologs in Ukraine, Fyrom and Romania. For me the debate for the language is between real linguists and must be in multiantional konference.

My friends - we are not from turchik or hunic origin. When i go out to the the street i can't see one person with mongoloid type of the face and i travel to turkey many times and i can'f find any similarity with the real turks and Bulgarians. The wite and europeid type of turkish citizens are asimilated Byzantie citizens from medievil times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.73.226 (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge parts of Kingdom of Balhara into this article?

The second half of "Kingdom of Balhara" (see that article) is actually not about that region/state/whatever but about Bulgarian historian Georgi Bakalov's theories about the Bulgars' subsequent migrations from there, (as he believes that the inhabitants of Balhara - "Bulh" - were "probably" Bulgars). --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulgar tribes

was not Kubrat the leader of the onogurs branch of Bulgars? Here they're not even mentioned as a Bulgar tribe ? Hxseek (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Geser Kurultaev

 Току-що съзирам, че никът е "Джин-гиби" ("Като дух" на османо-турски, прякор на Васил Левски), та ще обясня на български:

1. Откритието е лицензирано. 2. Дадох линк към научния форум на сп. "Космос", отделно е публикувано и в няколко други форума. 3. Относно Гесер Курултаев (Георги Иванов Русев) : магистър по философия (СУ "Св. Климент Охридски" - 1993-2000 г.), преподавател по чужди езици в Китайската Народна Република (в настоящия момент). 4. След като на страниците на Уикипедията намират място теории като Българин = Смесен , т.е. доста фриволни и ненаучни, едно подобно, на Алтайска база откритие би било редно да се постави, за да са информирани хората.

Поздрави!   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.11.217.181 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, provide the existing of such a scientist and his new theory or this pasage will be deleted! Jingby (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your proof is only an IT forum on address wich has been blocked as spam from the spam filter of Misplaced Pages. Geser Kurultaev is only a person with Sofia University degree as me for example. He is not scientist and the IT forum is not scientifical proof. Misplaced Pages is not IT forum! Regards. Jingby (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

According to a new, Altaic theory by Geser Kurultaev (a Bulgarian-Tatar Philosopher-Anthropologist) the ethnonym "bulgar" is coming from the old, proto-Turkic "Bal-" ("head") and "-gar" ("clan"),i.e. Balgar/Bulgar = "Main clan"; "Leading people"; "Head clan"... (The source is licensed here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/bg/ and the article can be found in this scientific website: www.kosmos.pass.as/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?200)

Pleace, provide some scientifical proof about your statements, the above added addresse is not inaf. Jingby (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove the picture from the Menology of Basil II, 10th century.

Remove the picture on top of article. The picture represent BULGARIAN (not BULGAR) soldiers from the last days of First Bulgarian Empire - 10th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.247.180 (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kubrat sword.jpg

The image Image:Kubrat sword.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --05:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with article

There are a few problems with this artticle which make it weak

1. The introductory paragraph in the origins section mentions that Bulgarians are typical eastern Mediterranaen genetically whilst Chuvash are a mixture of central European and Mediterranaean. Not only does this defy logic, but is outright incorrect. How could Chuvash have a central European genetic make-up ? The reference provided links to an abstract. I think this should be removed until we can back such a statement up with harder evidence. Secondly Bulgarians aren;t tyupical Mediterraenean. What is "typical mediterraenean". If anything, they are "Eastern Balkan" , genetically speaking, clustering with Greeks, Romanians and, partly, Turks.

2. It presentes the Turkic origin of Bulgars as mutually exclusive to the Pamirian one. It does not attempt to highlight that the steppes region was a melting point of different cultures and ethnicities, and that all groups such as Bulgars, Huns, Avar, etc were heterogenous, although one language might have been the lingua franca at any point in time. Clearly partisanism is prevalent with regards to the issue of Bulgars' origins

3. Thirdly, it prematurely concludes that the Cutrigurs and Utigurs are the predecessors of the Bulgars, without mentioning that Byzantine sources locate the Bulgars to the east of the Black sea, whereas the Kutrigurs and Utigurs were immediately north. Nor does it attempt to reconcile the fact that "Old Bulgaria" was called Onoghunduria, thus how the Onogurs fit the equation.

Clearly a lot more research has to be done to improve this article. Hxseek (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

About the first question. Why did you not read the reference? Is this a provocation or what. It is not abstract but full text: Jingby (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it is a full article. But the article uses HLA-genes to attempt to try and trace ancient migration paths. Virtually every other article uses Y-DNA or mt-DNA analyses. I question the quality of this study

From the top of my head, as far as modern Bulgarians are concerned - their Y-DNA is J2 (20%) , E3b (25%), R1a (15 %), R1b (17%), I2 (< 10%). A rough quote from the top of my head. How is such a genetic composition "typical eastern Meditteranean" ? What is defined as "eastern Mediterranean" ?

From "HLA genes in the Chuvashian population from European Russia: Admixture of central European and Mediterranean populations" Human Biology, Jun 2003 by Arnaiz-Villena et al.:

"...The Chuvash are believed to originate from the ancient Bulgars that inhabited the western region of the Volga River and came from Central Asia in the 4th century A.D. The Great Bulgaria was divided into five different hordes, the fourth corresponding to the Chuvash and the fifth representing present-day Bulgarians (see introductory paragraphs). From the data obtained in the present work, the genetic backgrounds of both populations are clearly different. The Chuvash have a central European and some Mediterranean genetic background (probably coming from the Caucasus), while the Bulgarians have a classical eastern Mediterranean composition, grouping with Macedonians and Iranians in the neighbor-joining trees obtained by using DR and DQ genetic distances (Figure 4) and confirmed by correspondence analysis (Figure 5). It is possible that only a cultural and low genetic Bulgar influence was brought into the region without modifying the genetic background of the local population..." Jingby (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not intending to provoke anyone, Jingiby. I just find the history section poorly written. It is obvious that many references for the article were obtained from internet sites of questionable quality. For example, there is no proof definitely linking the Bulgars with the Huns. The Cutrigurs and Utigurs were political organisations, not Bulgar ethnic tribes per se. All i'm stating is that if you want to improve the scholarly quality of this article, we should illustrate the fact that the issue is actually very complicated, and not tell it as if the conclusion is self-evident

Hxseek (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I can read, and I know what the study concluded. What I;m sayin is that it is not a very good quality study. It does not define what a "Mediterranean" population is, and secondly it uses HLA genes instead of Y chromosome haplogroups or mtDNA. Comprendé ? Hxseek (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

bulģa

And of what language is this word? I couldn't find anything similar in any Turkic language..It would be the best to double- or triple- source this Turkic etymology of Bulgar, and also provide comparisons of cognate words in several Turkic languages in the mentioned sense ("to mix, stir"). If this is, of course, the general linguistic consensus on the origin of the ethnonym Bulgar(ian). Or is it? :) Otherwise, it would be speculative and fringy OR hardly worth of mentioning. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact there is the verb bulga- in Old Turkic with the meaning of "to stir, to stir up", and it also has cognates in modern Turkic languages with minor phonetic differences. Here are TDK and Starostin's links for verification.

In the eleventh century Diwan Lughat al-Turk, the verb bulga- takes place as a transitive verb with the meaning of "to stir, to roil, to anger". Thus in Middle Turkic the word bulgar means "those who stir, roil, or anger".

So far as I know, the theory that the word bulgar originated from the Turkic verb bulga- belonged to Vámbéry (and probably Gerard Clauson), with the meaning of "rebels, those who revolt". --Chapultepec (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but Turkic bulga- being the source of Bulgar ethnicon nevertheless needs to be multiple-sourced, due to inherent controversy. "stir up" > "rebels" theory doesn't sound too convincing --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

POV

An IP began to vandalise the article. If no reliable explaination will be given I am going to revert this sock. Jingby (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The "IP" gave sources including Dr. Lang's take on the Bulgars, where he lists the various states founded by them, and the evidence that they are descended from and/or directly related to the Huns. This is something that the vandal Jingiby keeps erasing with regard to the Bulgars, whilst simply calling them semi-nomads. He has also erased any references that show that the Bulgars were literate and used the Orkhon writting script because this goes against his POV that they were uncultured nomadic barbarians. So there you have it, everytime I say this in a discussion area, he has no answer to prove his points. He can't explain to me how a nation is nomadic when it has founded four recognized states in Eurasia (possibly six by some academic accounts) and how it is not a civilization when in fact it used a written language, mutli-ethnic confederate organization, sedentary building methods, etc... Despite all this, he simply calls it "a fantasy" and that they were an illiterate tribe of nomads. Due to his behaviour more and more people can see what he's doing and everyone knows how many times he's been involved in editing wars and likewise how many times he has disregarded the sources provided by other people that do not fit well within his personal views. Therein people also know that he has been banned from editing for months at a time and I think it's possible it will happen again if he continues to only include sources regarding the Bulgars that put them in negative light while disregarding other already proven facts (ie: Orkhon script, prolific state builders in Eurasia

At first dear Monshuai there is not a such thing Bulgar Kingdom of Balhar. Second Bulgarian Empire was founded and ruled by Vlachs and Kumans. At the beginning of this article stays: They founded Old Great Bulgaria and later a branch of them gave rise to the First Bulgarian Empire, while another to Volga Bulgaria. This is the real situation. And many nomadic and semi-nomadic people founded different states and changed their way of life. The hypothesis of a small circle Bulgarian dreamers has not place here. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First, please don't call me "dear" as we're not friends nor close associates. Have some respect for your elders and/or people who are more educated than yourself. :) Also please learn proper English grammar before continuing to claim you have mastered the language as you so inconspicuously do in your user page. Other users have also told you that some of your edits are grammatically incorrect and yet your inertial behaviour doesn't stop and/or change direction. It is improper to say "at first" in the context and in regard to the subjective meaning you were trying to convey in your above statement. Second, if the Vlachs and Kumans started the Second Bulgarian Empire, why did they not call it the Vlach and Kuman Empire? Everyone knows that these ethnic groups supported the founding of the Second Bulgarian Empire, but they did so whilst accepting the sovereignty of the Bulgarian state, similarly to how Slavs were co-opted in the creation of the First Bulgarian Empire. The Asens, Terters, Shishmans and Basarabs called themselves Bulgars and the empires within which they were integrated into the ruling class were hence called Bulgarian. This is another reason why the Bulgars are described as multi-ethnic conglomerations of state builders, something you also continually erase/vandalize. Third, contrary to your predictable claims there is an ancient state called Balhar that is associated with the Bulgars. It is also known as Balgar and Balhara. Here's what the Minnesota State University has to say about this: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/oldworld/europe/bulgaria.html So is there anything else you want to state that makes you look even less educated? Be my guest! Oh and you should know that the tides of change are turning against you in lgith of your prejudiced behaviour which is indeed futile when pitted against the power of truth, neutrality and reality...--Monshuai (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a reliable scientific publication. What means: written by Peter I. Batakliev. Who is this guy? Stop kidding, please. Jingby (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer any of the other questions (point 1 and 2) and instead attacked the author of the article published in the Minnesota State University. Even so let us discuss point 3... Perhaps you feel that the Minnesota State University is a joke and that's why you feel it is equated to a lowly and humurous level of insignifance as symbolized by your statement, "stop kidding". Maybe all university material as composed by people who are doctors, professors etc are a joke to you and thus you consider your opinion to be somehow better then theirs? Batakliev's sources are:

Prof. Dr. Sc. Alexander Fol History of the Bulgarians. Necessity for a New Approach. Reconsiderations Sofia Sate University, 1998.

Prof. Dr. Sc. Alexander Fol The Bulgarians Sofia State State University, 2000.

Dr. Sc. Dobrev, Petar. The Bulgarian Fireplaces of Civilization on the Map of Euro-Asia Bulgarian Academy of Science, Sofia, 1998.

Prof. George Bakalov. Prof. Dr. Sc. Alexander Fol and other professors from Sofia State University, Bulgarian Centuries, 1999.

Remember, you are simply proving that you do not have the capability nor the knowledge to lead a civilized discussion, intead resorting to clichés and short sentences that even a five year-old can utilize in an argument/debate. Keep it up, let the world see how you insult dignified members of the foreign and Bulgarian intelligentsia who have worked all their lives studying, documenting and analyzing Bulgar history. On top of everything you not only disregard academic materials published by an American University but also those published by the foremost research institution on Bulgar history, The Sofia State University. More research has been done there about the Bulgars than any other place in the world. But of course you JINGIBY know more than the people there. The clock is ticking and the sad truth about you and your prejudiced beliefs is pouring out. --Monshuai (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There are ONLY several Bulgarian sources. This is a fringe theory. No one foregn source. Nearly all of the rest of Bulgarian sources claimes vice versa - the Bulgars were Turkic semi-nomads. All foreign scientific sources states that Bulgars were nomads from Turkic origis. And Professor Fol was Thracologist. Stop kidding. Jingby (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't answered point 1 and 2. How come? Right now you are simply talking about a portion of point 3, which is about Balhara. That still doesn't change your inability to respond to the challenges I have presented to you thus far. What I did is show that the Bulgars founded at least 4 different states which is accepted in all foreign literature. Show me the literature that says that Volga Bulgaria, Great Bulgaria, The First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire are not Bulgar! This means that the Bulgars were prolific state builders. If you say they aren't than tell me, how many states does a nation need to create before that title is acceptable? In Europe no other nation in the Middle Ages created four states. Thus again you are proven biased and completely incorrect. It has also been accepted throughout academic literature (foreign and Bulgarian) that the Bulgars were literate and used a modified Orkhon script. It has however not been fully accepted that they were Turkic, as most academics acknowledge there is no definitive proof of this. What people do believe is that they were partly Turkic. Some literature, such as that written by Dr. Lang, posits they were a mix between Hunnic and Ugric peoples. Others say they were simply Huns, which is a type of Turkic people. Yet others find evidence that they originated in the Hindu-Kush. The fringe theory is to simply call them Turkic. The more widely accepted theory nowadays is that the Bulgars were a mix between various ethnicities, united under a confederation. The term Bulga itself refers to "mixing/intertwined" which is usually used to describe the multi-ethnic composition of the Bulgars. This is also confirmed by anthropological tests completed on Bulgars remains in the Ukranian steppe. Finally, there is much academic material on Balhara including texts written by the ancient Armenians who describe the original homeland of the Bulgars to be Balhara. As for Dr. Fol, he has written texts on the comprehensive history of Bulgaria, which includes research by his colleagues on the Bulgars, the Slavs, the Greeks, etc... So before you continue to embarrass yourself, try to actually say something intelligent. And please stop avoiding the comment I made about your "Vlach and Cuman Empire" and why it was actually called the Second Bulgarian Empire. Why oh why, did "other" ethnicities call themselves Bulgar and take titles as Bulgars? Why oh why did "they" fight for Bulgar sovereignty? Anyways, I will continue to debate you here forever if I have to, for it is my sincere pleasure to showcase your lack of objectivity and knowledge as manifested in your vandalizing actions on numerous wikipedia articles. It's no wonder you were banned from editing for a long long time. Was it 3 months or 6 months? --Monshuai (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not interested in your POV-s. No reliable international scientific sources - no real discussion. Happy dreams! Jingby (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Again you didn't respond to the information I provided. You might as well just admit that you are unable to do so, and thereby you keep repeating the same sentence over and over again in the hope that it will annoy me enough to discontinue this discussion. I think you have misinterpreted what kind of person I am. I will not stop until I have convinced everyone, including the admins on wikipedia, that your behaviour is unjust and that your edits in many of the articles are one-sided and far from comprehensive. I should also wonder, for example in regard to the article on England, if it would be appropriate to use say Chinese sources, Bulgarian sources, South African sources, French sources, Indian sources etc because they are as you say foreign sources? Maybe the Chinese sources should be used to best determine the origins of the Anglo-Saxons since that would be defined as a foreign source. What's your answer on that? Why don't you take a look at which sources are used regarding the English article for example? Yes they are English, primarily because the English have the greatest amount of resources to study their own history, ancestors, etc and secondarily because they (as other nations) do not feel that foreign experts will present a favourable picture of what it means to be English... Some foreign sources will no doubt cast light on truths that the English may refrain from showcasing in their article, such as the slave trade sponsored by the crown or the function of the English navy as means to traffick drugs throughout East Asia, which in itself lead to the Opium Wars. That's how the Chinese see the English of olden times, as no more than drug traffickers who tried to get as many Chinese people turn into addicts as possible, which when challenged by the empirial forces of the Manchu Dynasty, was deemed an act of war and a nice excuse to take Chinese land. Does Hong Kong ring a bell? Now then, many of the English wikipedians are afraid to showcase these truths for fear that many foreigners may suddenly start to protray their nation in a unreasonably unfavourable light. So then the best course of action, would be to use both foreign and local sources to create an article (and the all-important intros to articles) that are present the information in a comprehensive and maximally balanced fashion. That same fact should be applied to articles relating to Bulgarians and such peoples as the Bulgars, Thracians, South-Slavs etc... Anyway, I've already demonstrated the importance of local sources in another country (England), and now I will demonstrate an example of its importance in Bulgaria. Thracology as a field of study is most developed in Bulgaria and the world's first institute of Thracology was founded in Bulgaria. Why would that be? Again, it is because local Bulgarian anthropologists, historians, etc have the best access to physical and cultural resources that allow them to study in depth the Thracians. This is also the same reason why the study of Bulgars is also most developed in Bulgaria. Since you're not intelligent enough to have understood this earlier in our discussions (or on your own for that matter), the point is that local sources are often the most complete. Foreign sources are indeed important and should be included, but not at the expense of local sources. You on other hand are so incredibly biased, that you've decided to exclude Bulgarian sources in the intro altogether simply because many of them don't fit with your mission to discredit the achievements of the Bulgars. As you can see things have already changed a little in the article even though only one day has passed since our current discussion began, and since time is on my side the changes will eventually overrun your actions. Your vandalizing edits will be neutralized, not tactically but strategically. In the end when you are going up against many people, you will be the one who ends up getting banned from editing for what will be a much longer period than 3 or 6 months. Again you didn't answer, did you get banned from editing Bulgaria related articles for 3 months or for 6 months before?--Monshuai (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ALL ADMINS PLEASE SEE DISCUSSION ABOVE AND JINGIBY'S EDIT HISTORY

I have done my best to be flexible and accept many of Jingiby's edits. I do this whilst knowing he has had his editing priviledges revoked for many months in the past due to the very same behaviour he shows herein. Even whilst placing a sentence such as, "In the Middle Ages the Bulgars created three states in different parts of Eurasia" he insists on deleting it. Please see articles on Volga Bulgaria, Great Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire if you are unfamiliar with this issue. It's just one example of many in regard to what can be construed as vandalism. He has also removed academic sources numerous times simply because the views of some Professors, Historians, etc are in conflict with his own views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.234.124 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have to read the leading paragraph: In the early 7th century they founded a short-living tribal confederation, known as Old Great Bulgaria or Onoguria and afterwards two other states: Volga Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire, and probably stop POV-pushing. P.S. The states were created in Europe, entirely! Jingby (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you feel the terms Turkic and semi-nomadic belong in the first sentence, than so does the fact that Bulgars built states in three different locations of Eurasia. Which do you think is more definitive of a nation: Is it its as of yet unproven racial/ethnic origin, or its cultural achievements that gave it an identity in the first place? Tha admins will have this discussion on record as well and they certainly will look at it chronologically.--Monshuai (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

From the dawn of the histor to the 7th century they were Nomads. We can not begin with the state-building. There is a chronology here. Jingby (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case go edit all the wikipedia articles for each and every nation in the world, because after all every nation has roots in barbarism, nomadism, etc... Why don't you go the Anglo Saxon article and write that they were a barbaric tribe whose members were often enslaved by the Romans. That certainly chronologically precedes their subsequent achievements. Stop destroying your reputation. It's obvious that you treat the Bulgars article in an unjust fashion, while you wouldn't dare do this to any other "nation" article.--Monshuai (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bulgarian nation has its roots in the Balkans. We are descedants from the Thracians and partly from the Slavs. The not numerous Bulgars were assimilated a 1,000 years ago. Only their name still remains. Jingby (talk)

Now we finally find out why you try so hard to make the Bulgars look bad. You just don't want them to be associated with Bulgarians because you don't see them as Europeans. Why don't you provide an academic source that proves the Bulgarians are only descendents of the Thracians and Slavs? Here you are making bold statements without a single source and this allows us all to see the motives behind your vandalism. The latest DNA tests show that the modern Bulgarians carry approximately ~15% of a specific haplotype associated with the Slavs. That's doesn't support the arguments of the Slavophils such as yourself. This is also true of the Macedonians and Serbians, who themselves are not as Slavic as their leaders would have them believe. There are also tests that show that more 50% of modern Bulgarian genes are native to the Balkans and thus are often associated with the Thracians. There is also significant evidence that we have Greek, Illyrian and Latin blood. Yet another test shows that we also carry a host of exotic genes found also in people of Hungarian descent. According to other studies these genes are also found amongst the Finns, Estonians and Russians. These particular studies show that the said genes originate in Central and East Asia. Why do you think that is? No one is saying we don't have Thracian, or Slav, but to say we are also not descendents of the Bulgars is stretching it, especially in light of archeological/anthropological studies that support the genetic tests by demonstrating that a large number of Bulgars conquered this part of Europe. Unfortunately, you have bought the Communist propaganda that tried to make Bulgarians believe in pan-Slavia. I knew you were a racist who had something against Asian people and that's why you try so hard to hide the achievements of the Bulgars. Shame on you. You should do a genetic test on yourself (there are many availabale online, be them maternal, paternal or both) and see just how multi-ethnic you really are. There is no such thing as a pure nation... Not in Bulgaria and not anywhere else. Get with the times you Slavophilic/Europhilic/Asiaphobic racist.--Monshuai (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

From a historical point of view the present-day Chuvash and Bulgarians are believed to originate partly from the Bulgars. However, according to their DNA data, the genetic backgrounds of both populations are clearly different... It is possible that only a cultural and low genetic Bulgar influence was brought into the two regions, without modifying the genetic background of the local populations. HLA genes in the Chuvashian population from European Russia: Admixture of central European and Mediterranean populations - pg. 5 Jingby (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So which part of this above quote can't you read properly? You ended up proving what I have said, which is that there is a Bulgar contribution to the modern Bulgarian's composite genetic makeup. They say there is a "low genetic" influence after all, which is what I have stated as well. That simply means that even you the Europhil racist has some portion of genes stemming directly from the Bulgars. And you should take a look at the other genetic test for more detailed information on this topic. So thanks for proving yourself wrong, since your argument was that "only the Bulgars' name still remians." It also mentions the continous cultural influence that the Bulgars have on the Bulgarian nation, which likewise showcases relisilience and relative dominance of some of their cultural characteristics that have survived to the present day. This very fact, along with their literary society based on the Kuban Script, tells us that they were a civilized people and not the barbarians you portray them to be. Now run along, as the article has acquired some of the changes I was seeking in the first place. I win, you lose Mr. Racist Vandal Asiaphobe...--Monshuai (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Iranian "theory"

The proponents of the Iranian "theory" propose that the Bulgars were descendants of the "civilized" Sumerians, rather than "primitive" Turks. It seems to be an entirely racist idea. I agree that it's undue. We should take out all these alternate "theories" until some consensus develops on what we should include--the only other tidbit in the article is hardly encyclopedic quality either. kwami (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Dennis P. Hupchick, The Balkans, pp. 34, Palgrave, ISBN 0-312-21736-6

• Start-Class Bulgaria articles
• High-importance Bulgaria articles
• WikiProject Bulgaria articles