Talk:Bulgars/Archive 5

This version of the article does not serve the main purpose to which every Encyclopedia should stick : to tell the reader the truth. It starts with the bold statement that Bulgars were Turkic people which is highly controversial. What is known for sure from numerous Roman, Greek and Byzantium sources is that Bulgars were Huns. The origin of the Huns is still debated among the scholars. Usually it is assumed that European Huns (and Bulgars) originate from Xiongnu. A hypothesis that is wrong because it can't explain several key facts, well established, and they must be presented in the article to the reader:

1. There is no evidence that European Huns ( and Bulgars and Dulo) were Xiongnu:

   Otto Maenchen-Helfen questioned the lack of anthropological and 
   ethnographic proximity between European Huns and Xiongnu.  
   
   Edward Arthur Thompson in 1948 in his monograph on the Huns denies the 
   continuity of European Huns from Xiongnu.

2. There is no convincing evidence that the language was Turkic, only 33 personal names have survived (Pritsak), indeed, they seem to be Turkic, but to judge from this that the hole nation was Turkic is too naive.

3.There are academic sources stating the connections: Vokil->Yuezhi, Utrigurs-> Yuezhi ^[1][2][3]

4. There are research papers showing that in modern Bulgarian language there are many Tocharian words. Yuezhi were Thocarian tribes and they spoke Tocharian language.^[4]

5.European Huns can be traced back to North China by artificial circular type cranial deformation. Both Yuezhi and Bulgars did practice circular type cranial deformation.^{[5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10]}

6. The genetic tests from a reliable scientific source^[11] clearly state:

   A) a substantial proto-Bulgarian input to the contemporary Bulgarian
   people  
   B) paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Central Asian
   Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible  

Encyclopedia Britanica do states this information. WHY it shouldn't be presented to the readers of Wikipedia?

7. There are archaeological excavations of necropolises in northern Bulgaria and strikingly similar necropolises in Kazakhstan dated from 1 century BC till 3 century AD when Yuezhi lived there. ^{[12] [13] [14]} Also on the right bank of the river Amu Darya, near the rock complexes Kara-Tyube and Chelpik was found the sign of Dulo- Upsilon "|Y|".^[15]

Summing all these 7 points taken together show that:

   European Huns (and Bulgars) originate from the pre-Turkic Indo-European   
   population from northern China and particularly from the people known to
   the Chinese as Yuezhi. During their movement (from 2 BC till 4 AD) to
   Europe they were influenced by different groups of people, especially   
   Turkic and Iranian groups.

Readers are not foolish and and they will make their own conclusions if the proper information is presented. And that is the purpose of Wikipedia - to present all available information, not to hide it. This information is not my original research, it is presented in this book http://www.protobulgarians.com/Kniga%20AtStamatov/Drevnite%20baalgari.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 02:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A recent DNA study was made, which shows that Bulgarians do NOT have turkic origin. Here is a quote from one of the references:

"Earlier this week came the first results from the largest done DNA study of gene pool in Bulgaria. It proved conclusively that Bulgarians are people with European genetic structure and Turkic genes are only 1.5%. 40% of today's Bulgarians belonged to the Haplogroups E-V13 and I-M423, which probably originated in our original homeland in the Balkans and hence were distributed throughout Europe by our ancestors in their demographic expansion after mastering agriculture. Also Bulgarians are typical autochthonous, almost endemic, rare and unique genetic combinations. Bulgarians are genetically closer to the Italians, Greeks and even northern Hungarians than to other Slavs."^[1]

I really do hope that the main article for ancient bulgarians and their origin gets fixed soon, because it has been MISLEADING the people for a very long time. And we all want Wikipedia that has facts, and is based on the current information, not on some old theories... Thank you in advance!

Reference:

^[1] http://www.bulgarianhistory.org/%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5/ http://www.dnesbg.com/obshtestvo/akademik-angel-galabov-vgenetitchno-balgarite-nay-mnogo-si-prilitchat-s-naselenieto-na-severna-gartsiya-i-italiyav.html http://duma.bg/node/19716

Pavel, please stop abusing this talk page and writing about the same thing, again and again, this issue was discussed several times ago. You mislead yourself, you do not even comprehend or read what the "Ethnicity" section and its sub-section "Anthropology and Genetics" are about. You do not, actually, do not want comprehend what Turks are, what's their ethnogenesis, and cultural origin. You don't separate modern Bulgarians and ancient Bulgars, that the exact number who migrated to present-day Bulgaria is unknown, how much they (the warrior elite) influenced the future ethnogenesis, besides their obvious heterogeneity and Turkic culture. The genetic studies and their relation to ancient ethnicities in general. Wikipedia has facts, not fringe and wrong considerations supported by extreme minorities, noted because of political reasons, and ideologies who maliciously understand the term "Turk". You have personal misunderstanding of the term "Turk", accept that and understand the issue already. There is nothing to fix besides preserving the article from malicious ideologies who distort reality, and with it human reasoning.--Crovata (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

See "Németh etymologically associated". Did Németh identify an etymological association between Kutrigurs and Oğuric through the word, oğur? Folklore1 (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes.--Crovata (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

See the sentence beginning "In the sixth century ". What did Ennodius, Jordanes, and Procopius do? Are these three guys identified as Bulgar Huns? Or did they identify the Bulgars with the Huns in a literary topos they wrote? Folklore1 (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

They identified Bulgars as Huns in a literary topos.--Crovata (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

See "occurs only in inscriptions". Is this supposed to be "only once in the inscriptions"? Folklore1 (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No, there are cited two pages, meaning at least in two inscriptions.--Crovata (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

See "Clement of Ohrid their worship of fire and water". What did St. Clement do about the worship of fire and water? Folklore1 (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole paragraph cites individual reports (and examples) of their worship or religion. He reported their worship.--Crovata (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

See the sentence containing: "the runes were brought into Europe from Central Asia by the Huns, and were an adapted version of the old Sogdian alphabet to the Hunnic/Oghur Turkic language." Should the "to" in "to the Hunnic/Oghur Turkic language" be replaced by "of" or "from" or "in"? Folklore1 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

He argues that the runes script used in Hunnic/Oghur language was an adapted version of the old Sogdian alphabet. Should be replaced with "in".--Crovata (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

See: "while Madara Rider the Sasanian rock relief tradition". What did Madara Rider say or do about the rock relief tradition? Folklore1 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Madara Rider is a rock relief, which, artistically speaking, recalls the Sasanian Empire rock relief tradition. However, the exact cultural influence and masonry tradition of the Madara Rider is unknown and disputable. The Sasanian Empire influence on Pontic steppe was substantial, but mostly as indications of probable direction of geo-cultural influence. There's no exact evidence and answer for this specific case, yet. Nothing more.--Crovata (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence beginning "Since the 6th to 8th centuries" is too complex and I do not understand it. Please break it into more than one sentence so it will be easier to read. Folklore1 (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

In other words, "From 6th to 8th century is recorded distinctive Bulgars group of monuments, called Sivashovka, which are built upon several previous cultures. The late Sarmatian culture (2nd-4th century AD), the Penkovka culture of the Antes and Slavs (c. 2nd-6th century AD), and the Saltovo-Mayaki culture which had Alanic base (8th-10th century). The Saltovo-Mayaki culture beside Bulgars included Khazars, Magyars and Slavs. In the 10th century, the Saltovo-Mayaki type of settlements in Crimea were destroyed by the Pechengs".--Crovata (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Were the Sivashovka monuments built upon the ruins of several previous cultures, or were they built by several previous cultures? Folklore1 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I have revised it to "upon the ruins". Folklore1 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The sentence beginning "Since the 6th to 8th centuries" is confusing and ungrammatical. I placed a "clarification needed" tag rather than trying to change it, because I do not know what the sentence is trying to tell us. Folklore1 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Revised to clarify. Folklore1 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

See "Golden noted that whatever of the theories regarding Turkic initial homeland". I'm not sure what this phrase means and how it is related to the rest of the sentence. Folklore1 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Revised to clarify. Folklore1 (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A mistake is detected in the following sentence: Haplogroups common in the Middle East (J-M172, J-M267, and G-M201) and in South Western Asia (R-L23*) occur at frequencies of 19% and 5%, respectively. Haplogroups C, N and Q together occur at the negligible frequency of only 1.5% among Bulgars.[137] Tle last word must to be changed to Bulgarians. Please, change it. Thanks. 78.159.147.70 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

In paragraphs containing multiple citations to the same reference, I have deleted all but a single link at the end of the paragraph. It is not necessary to cite a reference at the end of each sentence when it supports the entire paragraph. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Where multiple links to one reference were interspersed with links to other references, I left the links intact to distinguish from the other references, although maybe some of these should also have been moved to the end of the paragraph. Folklore1 (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to contact me:I live in Bulgaria ciry of Asenovgrad zip code 4230, district Plovdiv.My email is jordanelektronika@gmail.com.I will provide all other information needed for this article to be remove and all claims that Bulgarians originated from the turks to be dropped permanently!I demand no such articles are ever submitted again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanelektronika (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the truth!Bulgarians have nothing to do with the turks!After 5 centuries of slavery the turks were finaly pushed off with the help of the russians-official bulgarian history record as the russian-turkis war!Some people are making false claims which is angering our counrty to immense levels!

OK, Bulgaria has always been a playground of bigger more economically stable countries and as a result often falling as a victim of propaganda about the origin of its people. Hence I will like to clarify a few things based on number of facts that have NOTHING to do with my own bias.

1. Bulgarians are NOT slavs. 2. A direct connection between bulgarians and the huns is very likely. 3. Bulgarians aren't so homogenous and are closely associated to countries nearby with the exception of Romania, but have in common with serbia, macedonia and even Greece.

Some History:

1. First contacts of the Bulgarians with Europe:

The very first time when they are mentioned as such dates back to the Roman Empire when a roman historian writes in 354 CE that the Bulgars are successors of the Jews and...Noah . This is the source:

Ziezi Ziezi

While someone will suggest that the 'Vulgares' word implies also a common offensive description of barbarians by the romans, the author is indeed using it here to define a specific group of people and not insult bulgarians as "vulgar" - as he suggests that the Vulgares occupy western Asia and mostly all historic theories today associate bulgarians to Asian origin.

In addition, in 2011 a comprehensive DNA study was conducted by the bulgarian academy of science to determine a possible origin of the bulgarian people and the study also suggested a minimal African influence actually. So...a very possible theory is that people from Africa migrated to Israel, then to Asia and then back to Europe....

2. The Hunno-Bulgar connection:

Due to lack of sources about a Jewish-African ancestry of the bulgars - it will be hard to investigate such claims further so for now we will focus on later periods in history. A russian scientist discovered what is known to be the earliest document about the Bulgar monarchs("Immenik na bulgarskite hanove") and there the very first Bulgar ruler is called 'Avitohol' and his son Irnik. Some people suggest Irnik is the same person as of the Attila's sons:

Ernakh Ernakh

In addition to that many other signs points a possible connection: Cranial deformation, similar burials, similar weapons, having the barbaric tradition to make wine glasses from enemy's skulls, same religion (Tengrism), similar looks (dark asian eyes, black hair).

The bulgarian symbol of the Dulo clan also uses most likely Hunnic yerogliphs:

Click the image to open in full size.

This map also gives a good idea about the later Hunnic migrations:

Click the image to open in full size.

3. Antrolopologic studies that confirm an Asian non-turkic origin of bulgaria and reject the slavic origin:

Time for some biology :

The approximate distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups among the Bulgarian people runs as follows: 16% E1b1b 1% G2a 3% I1 20% I2a 1% I2b 20% J2 1% Q 18% R1a 18% R1b 1% T Here are mtDNA haplogroups found among Bulgarians: 38% H (of which 10% are in the subclades H1 and H3 combined) 10% J 6.5% T 20% U (of which 10% are in U3, 6.5% in U4, and 3.5% in U5) 13% K 6% X2 6.5% other haplogroups

As you can see the most prevailant are H and U - both of which lead us to western asia or present day Iran but NOT Turkey. E1b1b origin is considered to be Africa. J has origin of most likely east asia and X2 to Iran.

I2a is the only slavic element here constituting for just 20% of the bulgarian population. It is believed to have originated in Finland, or north Russia. This probably gives the light eyes and or light hair to some bulgarians.

Interestingly the R1 hablougroups make 1/3 of the bulgarian population today and they originated....in Bulgaria. So, this seriously challenges the idea that the Thracians were extinct when the Bulgars arrived. It's quite possible that great deal of the Thracians in fact mixed with the nomads withotu any wars, contrary to popular hypothesis that the Thracian were extinct before the Bulgar arrived.

Problems:

Some of the problems still remain the very origin of the name Bulgaria. Does it come from the Volga river? Does it come from the Latin Bulga ("bag, wallet"?). Does it come from the Turkish verb meaning to "mix" to "shake"? Another problem is the extinction of the Thracian as well as well as why do the Bulgars adopted Slavic language so easily as well as the orthodox religion. The Bulgar fought viciously with the Genghis khan mongols which slightly challenges the Mongolian-hunnic heritage.

Conclusion:

While it can't be confirmed with 100% certainty it's most likely the "bulgars" tens of thousands of years ago were inhabiting Africa, as africa sometimes is considered as the the birthplace of humans overall - this is not very 'shocking' as we all come from there perhaps... Then they later migrated to present day Israel and Syria and possible to have been some of the early inhabitants of Israel during the old testament (fun fact: John the Baptist remains were found in Bulgaria: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...cience-higham/) After Israel the Bulgarians most likely headed to present day Ukraine and Russia around the Volga river.Then they probably mixed with the Attila's huns and moved back to present day Bulgaria and Hungary. This view ^ should reject all theories about significant Slavic influence, as well as they suggest no gallic, nor gothic, nor frank, celtic influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanelektronika (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the phenomenon of ignorance of their own history, a chauvinist view and total misunderstanding of the term "Turks" or "Slavs", depending on the POV certain editors write, and lack of acceptance and understanding what modern scholarship generally considers, seeks serious reflection or warning for those editors and readers, that due to lack of knowledge, could come under their influence.--Crovata (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As this article, along with the reliable sources used to source the article, deals quite openly, neutrally, and fairly with the uncertainty of the ethnicity and origin of the Bulgars, I suspect that Jordanelektronika has perhaps been distracted by some aspects of the article that may be worth paying attention to. While the Ethnicity and Turkic migration sections do explain the uncertainty, and explain why, and put forward the theories of the Bulgars' origin and ethnicity, the lead says quite authoritatively: "The Bulgars ... were semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic extraction", and the first history sub-section is titled Turkic migration; this would give casual readers (who are apparently the overwhelming majority of visitors to Wikipedia, often spending five minutes or less on an article which would require a good reader around 35 minutes of solid attention, resulting - even then - in only approximately 65% comprehension on first reading: Wikipedia:Article size) the impression that Wikipedia is saying that Bulgars are of Turkish ethnicity. Along with that, the Ethnicity section is difficult to read easily, especially as the Anthropology and genetics sub-section appears to wander off topic into a wider discussion of the anthropology of Eurasian steppe tribes in general, so a casual, indeed, even a GA reviewer, may find the information difficult to assimilate. Put simply: the article doesn't make it clear enough that it is saying that current scholarship is uncertain about the ethnicity of the Bulgars, and that the traditional view that the origins were Turk is being replaced by consideration that the origins may be Hun, or a mix of Hun and Turk or even something more complex and obscure. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What I saw during past several months, and as is shown also by the amount of archived discussions, is not by accident. There's a substantial amount of people, mostly Bulgarians (and this concerns me), who do not have foreknowledge that is neutral and objective. Their knowledge and understanding of Bulgars and Bulgarians history, culture, language, also in general terms of ethnicity and genetics, and Eurasian steppe, is not critical and pretty confused. For example, editor Jordanelektronika does not recognize the difference between the terms Bulgars and Bulgarians, mentions some personal interpretations (Huns, genetics, Africa, Israel...) as facts. I wonder if people read with understanding, whether this is the result of his conclusion after reading the article, or even attitude towards Wikipedia credibility?

That is why the article is of such a size, to give the common readers the most relevant and reliable information possible in one place. That's why the whole "Ethnicity" section is there, it does not "wander off topic", yet it gives the perspective on Eurasian steppe peoples - all those tribes were heterogeneous mass with mixed ethnic origin. Those who we know as Bulgars, people who had a Turkic language, military titles and religion, were a ruling elite in minority. As such, we should not see the whole heterogeneous mass with the name of Bulgars as the elite Bulgars, that's the primal mistake which should not be done. The scholarship is very clear, the Bulgars because of their history, culture, language and religion belong to the group of Oghuric tribes, ie. Turkic tribes. The lead clearly says "semi-nomadic warrior tribes of Turkic extraction... During their westward migration across the Eurasian steppe the Bulgars absorbed other ethnic groups and cultural influences, including Hunnic, Iranian and Indo-European". The Bulgars were not Huns, they among other became also a mix of the Huns and Turkic people, ie. in certain or gradual period of time they became a mix of Huns and the then heterogenous conglomerate of tribes ruled by the Bulgars.

However, the second and most often mistake is about the ethnic term Turk. Like in the comment of the editor above, some people mistake Turkic peoples with Turkish people. They misunderstand the term Turk in the sense of Bulgarian history during the time and conflicts with Ottoman Empire and Turkey. As noted in the "Language" section, "the Iranian theory is rooted in the periods of anti-Turkish sentiment in Bulgaria and is ideologically motivated". Another misunderstanding is how Turks were Mongoloids. There were found Mongoloid facial traits in some graves in Northern Bulgaria, but that does not mean that the Bulgars per se were Mongoloids. As a elite in minority perhaps some of them were, but maybe were absorbed Huns or some other tribes. Yet again, the facial traits are inclined to change, and only thing this indicates is their heterogeneity. However, recent genetic studies showed that Bulgarians, Volga Tatars, and Chuvash people, all historically related with the Bulgars, have negligible Asian-Altaic gene flow, while the Central Asian Turks extreme genetic heterogeneity. All this points that we cannot oversimplify things.--Crovata (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is administered and edit by a bunch of turkish nationalists. Enough said. BS neo-turkic propaganda that has nothing to do with reality! wikipedia is full of rubbish, no wonder why. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/05/i-was-shaken-down-by-wikipedia-s-blackmail-bandits.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.265.301.254 (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This "article" is a complete joke, someone has mocked with the Bulgarian history in a very dishonest way. None of the administrators of this page is a Bulgarian, this joke of an article is written by a bunch of pro-russian idiots who have never set foot in Bulgaria, neither they've read a single history book! This turkic theory is proven wrong a hundred years ago, even the 2 "scientists" who created it have abandoned it and admitted that they were wrong. Shitopedia, excuse me - wikipedia, is forbidden to be quoted in academic publications, just because every average idiot with a basic computer skills can write such a crap. I suggest you to read this http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/05/i-was-shaken-down-by-wikipedia-s-blackmail-bandits.html Who do I have to pay to be able to edit the true history? Pro-russian separatism is deeply rooted in wikipedia, see, you don't have to read the whole article, I will summarize it to you - there are no Bulgarians, the Rus people are the master race, the modern Bulgarians are gypsys mixture of turks, slavs, and god knows who else, long live mother Russia and the true slavs - the rus! Pfff... you all that have locked this article are a bunch of pathetic tards, the truth can't be hidden you know. Nobody trusts your crappy wiki anymore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.145.462.166 (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I've spent years of my life researching the Bulgarian history. In the Bulgarian language there is no separation between bulgars/bulgarians - there is only one word and it is BULGARI. This article is a complete nonsense written for the purpose of serving russian imperialistic interests, it stinks of propaganda and lies. The russian anti-bulgarian propaganda started 200 years ago - currently in the russian federation live 20 000 000 people of direct bulgarian origin and the russians do not want to admit it because it would cause a threat to their empire if the bulgars decide to unite and make their own state. Simply said, the russian country lies on the fundamentals of the Bulgarian empire and the rus people do not want to admit it, if it wasn't for us, bulgars/bulgarians, who civilized and gave them culture and government system, the rus people would have been still living in holes in the ground like rats and praying to trees as we found them when we came to Europe. As I said, there's only bulgari, the whole idea that the modern bulgarians are not the same as the "bulgars" as you call them is not only absurd, but totally wrong as there's genetical analysis made and it is proven without any doubt that it's the same people, and they definitely were not "turks" neither they are now. Genetic traces trace the bulgars/bulgarians to the europoid populaiton of Eastern Iranian plateau - Afghanistan, Eastern Iran, Tajikistan, there's between 30-50% genetic confluence with some of the folks living there. There's absolutely no DNA confluence with the bulgars and the turkic population of central Asia. This article is biased and it's abusive to every bulgar, being it living in Bulgaria or in Russia. For example, the title of the bulgarian rulers were "Kanas Juvigi" which means "Ruler from the Stars/Gods" on the old Bulgarian language (which was NOT turkic), sometimes nowadays for the purpose of short speech pronounced simply as Kan - it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the mongolo-turkic title Khan! The bulgars were NEVER using the title Khan! There is not even one evidence of this! This article is selectively using obsolete and untrue information from the 19th century in a very deceptive way. There is something very bothering too - there are a few words that are frequently used in almost every sentence - "turk" and "mixed". It seems that whoever administers this article, is intentionally brainwashing the readers into believing that the bulgars are some primitive turkic gypsys who practised primitive shamanism which has nothing to do with reality. In fact, there were no shamans at all, I've studied the Tengriism and their shamanistic rituals, the bulgarian religious system was very complex and the sky deities were only a small part of it, very little in common. The term "turkic" is interchangeably used as both ethnical and linguistical classification on purpose to confuse the reader. Enough said. Read at your own risk of becoming disinformed and brainwashed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 623.243.721.634 (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

By author's logic Mexicans should be of Germanic origin because they share common haplogroup R1b with Germans ( Mexicans have it through their Spanish ancestors ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epnax (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The origin of Bulgars is intimately related to a couple of post-Hunnic tribes documented in Roman, Greek and Byzantine sources, the two most important of them are Utigurs and Kutrigurs. It is without any doubt that these two tribes were Huns. The guy who wrote this article didn't use the reliable sources to investigate who were Utigurs and Kutrigurs, but he is foisting on us his personal believes that they were Turks. Indeed this point of view is supported by some sources, but when you study carefully these sources the following picture becomes clear:

 Kevin Alan Brook - education: business administration - unreliable source
 Waldman, Carl Mason - musician - unreliable source

Pull out these two, and all other authors are of Turkic origin plus one women who is Hungarian(Nemeth). What is the conclusion? Only Turks or authors of Turkic origin (as Golden, Karatey and Zeki Togan) believe that Bulgars were Turks. What reliable sources say about the Bulgars? All of them, cited below, state that the two core Bulgar tribes were Huns. The author of the article turned a blind eye to these sources which constitute what is a mainstream scholars view on the question who were the Bulgars. What is the moral of this story ? We shouldn't read the sources as the Devil is reading the Bible!

Some mainstream sources about the Bulgars:

" Thus in our sources the names Kutrigur, Bulgar and Hun are used interchangeably and refer in all probability not to separate groups but one group." ^[1]

" On Attila’s death, his empire crumbled. His people, who had probably been only a conglomeration of kindred tribes that he had welded together, divided again into these tribes; and each went its own way. One of these tribes was soon to be known as the Bulgars." ^[2]

" And both Procopius and Agathias represent Kotrigurs and Utigurs as tribes of Huns. There can be no doubt Kutrigurs, Utigurs and Bulgars belong to the same race as the Huns of Attila and spoke tongues closely related, - were in fact Huns. They had all been under Attila's dominion" ^[3]

"The Huns of Attila, and their descendants the Bulgars, the Kutrigurs and the Utigurs, were pastoral peoples of the steppe and semi-desert lands of central Asia, who had been driven westwards in search of new pastures by a combination of factors. The progressive desiccation of their ancient home, and in particular of the Tarim Basin, reduced the grazing land available. " ^[4]

" In one instance we are explicitly told that the Kutrigur and Utigur, called Huns by Procopius, Agathias, and Menander, were of the same stock, dressed in the same way, and had the same language. " ^[5]

" In fact contemporary European sources kept equating the Bulgars with the Huns. At the very least, the Hun-Bulgar connection was much more tangible than the Hun-Xiongnu identification. " ^{[6] [7]}

" In 460 the Huns split into the Onogurs, Utigurs and Kotrigurs." ^[8]

" The early Byzantine texts use the names of Huns, Bulgarians, Kutrigurs and Utrigurs as interchangeable terms. There the Bulgarians are represented as identical, they are a part of Huns or at least have something common with them. The khans Avtiochol and Irnik, listed in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans today are identified with Attila and Ernach." ^[9]

" (2) the data are insufficient to clearly distinguish Huns, Avars and Bulgars one from another;" ^[10]

" The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race, occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians or Onogundurs — the descendants of Attila's Huns — who had their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia. They were a formidable people and Justinian had long ago taken precautions to keep them in check, in case they should threaten to attack the Empire, though it was probably for the Roman cities of the Crimea, Cherson and Bosporus, that he feared, rather than for the Danubian provinces. As his policy on the Danube was to use the Lombards as a check on the Gepids, so his policy in Scythia was to use another Hunnic people, the Utigurs, as a check on the Kotrigurs. The Utigurs lived beyond the Don, on the east of the Sea of Azov, and Justinian cultivated their friendship by yearly gifts." ^[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epnax (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

All this questions and issues were already settled, but anyway will answer you. The Wikipedia is written according WP:NPOV principles, and the reliability of claims depends on the credentials of the author, which sources he used, how often the paper is cited, its critics and similar considerations. Wikipedia mostly reflects the mainstream consensus of scholars; it may or may not present minority views depending on how much support there is for them. If you believe something else, ie. have personal point of view (POV), it will not be accepted. Unfortunately, the most of the statement you said above is your own delusional POV (animosity toward modern scholarship) and understanding of both the topic and Wikipedia. Regarding "The guy who wrote this article didn't use the reliable sources to investigate who were Utigurs and Kutrigurs", both articles as well of the Onogurs are in the process of rewriting. Their current status is unallowable and against NPOV principles.

Regarding every note; 1) Hyun Jin Kim is not a specialist in the specific topic, however, the claim how the names of Huns, Bulgars, Utigurs among others were sometimes interchangeably used in historical sources is true, but that does not mean that the Huns, Bulgars and Utigurs were the same group of tribes, ie. that the Bulgars and Utigurs were Huns. After the fall of Huns the ancient historians often used the ambiguous term "Huns", like the term "Scythians" (eg. Slavs) or "Turks" (eg. Hungarians), to denote the specific group of people which similar trait - both Bulgars and Utigurs were nomadic horse-raiding tribes invading from the East. 2) Steven Runciman claim is factually wrong and if checked the date when was published, 1930, you would see it is probably outdated, and it is. 3) Edward Gibbon died in 1794. 4) Again factually wrong, ie. not proven and considered "mainstream". 5) Utigurs and Kutrigurs were called Huns, as explained above. 6) Again factually wrong and minority view, "contemporary European sources kept equating", until when, 1973? 7) Peter Spring is clearly not a specialist in the specific topic as in 463 the Onogurs, Utigurs and Kutrigurs entered the Ponto-Caspian steppe, the Huns were already in Europe when they came. 8) Already explained, and see Dulo clan. 9) There's no such claim in the source. 10) J. B. Bury died in 1927 - the source is outdated. Problem with outdated sources is that not all of its claims, ie. proven facts are outdated, yet speculations as cited above are prone to change.--Crovata (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

So, what turns out ? Only Turkish authors are specialists of the topic "Bulgars"? Can you find at least one author of non-Turkish origin who supports your claims ? Kim is not a specialist, but Waldman who is a musician, is a specialist? Be so kind to remove these authors - you know very well that this is against the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.217.159 (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"Please add

after read the artical, I feel the language and ethnicity of the bulgars are indeed very hard to determine. As a chinese interested in history I know all the old chinese records of the Turks, and I tend to not agree with those experts about the Onogur turks, for there were no such thing recorded in our ancient archives. the turks build their empire after defeating Rouran (Avars) in year 552 CE, and started entering central aisa only after 583 CE,the west turk khanate's territory included much of the Dzungaria basin, the zhyte-su area and the chuy river valley, that is only a portion of the whole central asia. What about the rest of central asia where the Scythians used to roam? where did the scythians go? they certainly did't simply disappear, and I thing they suffered heavy losses during the great migration period that was caused by extreame weather started in the early 5th century, I guess they would have been disorganised and subdued by the new western turkic khanate?

People could argue that before the turks build their khanate in 552 CE the "tiele" people, a closely related nomadic people of the turks already spreaded all over the eurasia steppe, however the term "tiele" was misleading as "scythians" and "turks", the chinese records place Alans, Scythians into the category of "tiele" people, just as the Arabs and Persian who would simply refer all the central asian nomadic people as "turks" even though many of them were clearly mongols. Also the defeated Huns that migrated to the west and reappeared as the Huns in Roman records, are indeed "defeated", that is they were force out of their homeland, in a sudden and disorganised way, the Kirkiz in the northwestern direction were unaffected and the Huns only became powerful after absorb many other tribes, including the Alans and Ostrogoth, the real original Huns only constitute a small part of the confederation.

For my opinion I don't believe the Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs and perhaps Cumans speak turkic language as their primary language, they were very likely ruled over by dominant turkic tribes or clan, imposed by the powerful western turkic khanate, but these ruling families constitute a rather small part of the population, one cannot believe that the few population could turkicize a large number of non turkic speaking tribes. After the collapse of the western turkic khanate(about 50 years after its establishment) these groups will likely to switch back to their own languages, may be Iranic languages I don't know. the five Nushbi tribes moved into the caspian-aral plain and became Oghuz turks but the five arrows were very much turkcized people by the start of the western khanate, that is why the oghuz turks show very little mongoloid features, and the further west they migrate, the more caucasoid features they became.

of cause these are all my speculates, i don't have the resources at my hand, I just thought we should not be so conclusive about the language spoken and the ethnicities of these transitional groups. the 12 animal calender and the names, titles are all easily adopted objects, the turks adopted the 12 animal calender from chinses for example, and the europeans adopted the middle east names such as Christ, Mattew, John, Peter etc.Apzat (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Original research and personal point of view, whether you agree or not with the scholars and mainstream opinion, is totally irrelevant. Iranian tribes of Scythians and Alans could not disappear without a trace. They lived for a long time along numerous Slavic population, thus some of them formed the Antes and were assimilated by other ethnic tribes including Turkic. You misunderstand, it's irrelevant and obvious that the Bulgar confederation or Khazar Khaganate included different ethnic tribes and languages, but the realm has a name of a specific tribal ethnic group, in this case of the Bulgars or Khazars. The ethnologic focus of a study is always a specific ethnic group, not the state or confederation. Same goes for Ostrogothic Kingdom and Ostrogoths. The ruling tribe mostly did not impose the official and native language neither the organization of nomadic lifestyle allowed to, the lingua franca of the Khaganate was the largest language in use or easly understandable to everyone. That's why the elite Bulgars, as much wanted to preserve their Steppe culture and Oghur-Turkic language, eventually got Slavicized.--Crovata (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to determine anything from this article because it is paid editing by Turkish Manafs :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_(policy)

Bulgars were Huns, and it turns out that European Huns are not Xiongnu or turkish tribes, but they are Yuezhi - turks are very unhappy by these facts; read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utigurs&oldid=684208625

About the language read the famous paper of Pritsak ( Harvard) : page 444: "Danube-Bulgarian was a Hunnic language..." http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vvi_n4_dec1982.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.143.113 (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

W.B. Henning thinks that Yuezhi didn't have fixed language at all, they spoke the language of surrounding people - in North China they spoke proto-Mongolian mixed with proto-Turkic (and probably some Tocharian), when they move to Kazahstan they switched to Iranian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.143.113 (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop spamming the talk page with the same texts. Personal attacks on other editors is not advised, and WP:OR is not supported on Wikipedia. You basically twist scholars considerations according personal belief. Pritsak was the only scholar who used the term Hunno-Bulgarian, actually Hunno-Turkic (pg. 459), for the Turkic Oghur languages, but you ignore that fact. You reject Turkic-Mongolian linguistic and ethnological origin of the Bulgars and Huns (which scholars predominantly agree, but you intentionally ignore that fact), and support fringe theories like those which relate the Bulgars or Huns with ancient Indo-European Tocharians and Yuezhi but have little scholarly support ie. have almost zero mainstream contribution. Those fringe theories were invented itself from the same aversion of the Turkic origin of the Bulgars and Huns.--Crovata (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 A) a substantial proto-Bulgarian input to the contemporary Bulgarian
 people  
 B) paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Central Asian
 Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056779 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Also you made a very good point about the so called Ogur/Oghur turks. Such tribes didn't exist - it is a fictional term coined by Turkish authors. Encyclopedia Britannica does not mention even a single word about such Ogur Turkish tribes : http://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar Your records place "Alans, Scythians into the category of "tiele" people" because Turks also have Indo-European roots - the so called Ashina Turks are turkisized Usuns, who were tochars. Read Maenchen-Helfen - he writes that 2BC Ususns were 600 000 people, 180 000 mounted warriors. In the natural course of history of humans by 5 AD they should number a few millions. Only few of their skulls are discovered. Where are they? What happened to them? The power of Xiongnu was based on the power of Usuns - for political reasons one of your princes had to marry Usun king. Yuri Zuev thinks that they were the European Huns :

    Absence of information about historical migration of Sünnu-Huns to the west before the end of the 4th century AD, and existence of the "Hun" population on the eastern fringes of Europe in the 3rd century and earlier, lead to the conclusion that in the composition of the western Huns also participated other tribes, and first of all Usuns. 

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Usuns/ZuevHunsandUsunsEn.htm - page 23

Actully this is not exactly true - Usuns become Ashina Turks, even today in Altai, Ra1 haplogroup has its highest value in Central Asia. Turks do not respect their own history - do not trust them, they are sly. On the talk page of article Huns I put 10 reasons why European Huns were Yuezhi - study them. Probably you could help me to learn something more about the Yuezhi. I think that the Chinese Bulgars of SANPING CHEN http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/Sanping_Chen_SOME_REMARKS_ON_THE_CHINESE_BULGARIAN.pdf are actually remnants of the Little Yuezhi.

And finally, the relation Huns->Utigurs-> Bulgars is well established, as you can see searching Google Books: ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]}

Why these books are absent from the article "Bulgars" one can only guess. And it is not hard to guess - the article is written by Turkish Manafs. In its current form it is a pile of turkish speculations and bullshits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is not allowed on Wikipedia. The lack of understanding of those references, supported by your own personal agenda, makes you doing this continous disruptive edits which need to end. And as I said, spamming talk pages with the same copy-pasted text is not recommended. All those references were already pasted and reviewed in the Talk:Zabergan and Talk:Sandilch. They are or outdated, some are even novels(!), or have mistakes which many other scholars did not do, mistakes which are not followed by mainstream scholarship. Copy-pasting them 100X times won't change anything.--Crovata (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I don't hide who I am - you know that I am nuclear physicist from Bulgaria, you know where I work, if you wont you can call me 359 988 911 684. It is you who is hiding - you say you are not Turk, but I dont' trust you. How much money did you get to fuck up all these articles related to Bulgars? This is a manaf work, dude. (Manafs were officially paid males to fuck Ottoman's Sultans)

Of course, again turn the topics of conversation which have nothing to do with the article... If you're nuclear physicist as you claim (like blocked PavelStaykov, probably stole some nuclear physicists name), then your lack of understanding how scientific research work, generally and in anthropology, is astonishing. The ignorance of mainstream and modern science (which you called shit), the constant ignorance of replies by other editors since March 2015, the non-existing will to understand how to edit Wikipedia (even put a simple signature), the ignorance of Wikipedian and any encyclopaedic principles, ignorance of modern scholars but support of scholars from 18th or 19th century, inability to distinguish reliable from unreliable source (or scientific work from a novel), mainstream from unmainstream considerations, mainstream from fringe and minor... All this and more, and your racist viewpoint on Turks, and even calling me some Manaf... I hope you will one day understand what you're doing, and stay away from Wikipedia and history, and concentrate on alleged "nuclear physics".--Crovata (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Osman Karatay and Peter Golden (who is a Turk despite his English sounding name) are not the mainstream science. The mainstream science is the 31 books that you have deleted from WP. Fortunately, you cannot delete Google Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 04:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter Benjamin Golden, who is a specialist in Turkic and Central Asian Studies, Professor emeritus at Rutgers University, whose considerations abide with mainstream scholarship, is not mainstream scientist because - is of Turkish ancestry? You are saying that some anonymous scholar is more reliable then someone whose specialist in his field? That Edward Gibbon (1737–1794), J. B. Bury (1861-1927), Royal Institute works (1874), Steven Runciman's work (1930), are mainstream modern scholarship, more reliable than recent Golden's work? And if was only Golden, there many mainstream scholars he cites and whose considerations are against your personal viewpoint, but they do not have Turkish ancestry... Really, how pathetic.--Crovata (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Denying the other scholars does not speak good for you at all. The so called professor emeritus Golden is using the words "nomads" and "Turks" as synonyms which is extremely irritating, and very very unscientific. It is high time for you Turks, to understand that the nomadic culture is not privilege only for Turks - there were in Central Asia also Indo-European nomads - Iranian, Tocharian, Scythians and so on. Turning a blind eye to their existence is disrespectful to your own origin - their blood is also in you. But let's play some simple science - do you understand how to multiply the probabilities of independent variables? Let's take only 4 such variables: A) A = Romans, Greeks and Byzantines called the people North of Black Sea, only 20 years after the death of Attila (and 2 centuries after that) Huns, only by some strange habit. This is highly implausible. But I will give this event ( that these people were not Huns) 30% chance. This is very generous - the actual chances are less than 10% - Romans were not idiots.

B) B= anthropological data = brahicranic Europoids with small mongoloid admixture - the same for the Huns, and Bulgars, who appear only 20 years after the Huns, on the same place where the Huns " disappear". I will give this event ( to be coincidence) 40 % chance - again very generous number. The real number is probably less than 20%.

C) C= circular type artificial cranial deformation- again, although not very unusual practice, but the same type to be practiced by Huns and the people who appear on their place 20 years after them - is not very probable. 35 % is again generous number.

D) D = the same language = mixture of proto-Turkic+ proto-Mongolian+ unknown language+ Iranian influence -- It is highly unlikely different people to speak such strange language. It does not matter how you call it - hunnic or R-turkic or XYZ language. 25% chance is very generous number here.

Do you know how these 4 events can happen at the same time - you have to multiply the probabilities:

P = probability Bulgars!=Huns = P(A).P(B).P(C).P(D) = 30% . 40% . 35% . 25% = 1% chance that Bulgars and Huns are different people. Deal with this number. Even if you take 60% for each of these events, you will get P=0.6^4=13%. Now make your own estimate for 8-10 different events listed on the talk page article "Huns" to coincide. The probability is almost ZERO -it's negligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Golden is not using "nomads" and "Turks" as synonyms, your knowledge of the whole era, of the original sources, scholars sources, is awful. Just stop calling and trying to prove that Golden is unscientific only because of Turkish ancestry. You will never prove it. I am not a Turk either, and your racist and chauvinistic stance is helping your cause zero points. Your multipling of probabilities belongs to WP:OR. Such simple mathematical probabilities could make for any ethnic group and would get an alternate reality.--Crovata (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The manafs were not Turks necessarily. But they were paid by the Turks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC) And since you are so strict about WP rules - then remove the books written by musicians and economists from the article. It is against the rules. Kevin Alan Brook -"Education: Bryant College (Smithfield, Rhode Island), 1993-1997, Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Business Administration" http://www.khazaria.com/brookcv.html Carl Waldman - "A musician as well as a writer, he has also delved into the lives of Sinatra and Elvis. And he writes fiction." http://www.amazon.com/Carl-Waldman/e/B001K8GLRM/ref=la_B001JSBPA6_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1448590686&sr=1-1

You're saying that one reference of Kevin Alan Brook, and several by Waldman whose Encyclopedia actually used other books to be written (he did not invent anything, he's more like an editor), which were used for only well known historical facts which other books like of Golden also have, are somekind of threat to article balance? I done that because to not overuse Golden's source. It's about taking facts from other books which go along mainstream scholarship, while those which do not, they won't be cited, because wil ruin article balance, that are NPOV principles, sorry.. --Crovata (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

So, if I take out amateur enthusiasts Brook and Waldman, it turns out that the article is based only on the books of Golden? His speculations, that you call well known facts, are not mentioned in Encyclopedia Britannica even with single word. The entire article "Bulgars" is bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 07:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No it won't be, and his work has references to other sources which confirm them. Encyclopedia Britannica cannot be used as comparison because itself lacks prolixity. Britannica as a typical encyclopedia fair comparison is Waldman's encyclopedia.--Crovata (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

1/4 of the articles in Encyclopedia Britannica are written by Nobel Prize winners. You cannot compare it with idiotic writings of unknown musician. Don't play smart and remove these books, OR I will file a request on the Administrators' noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 07:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm tired of you. You're basically saying that those should be removed, and used instead another web encyclopedia? You really don't know how Wikipedia is edited, the overuse of other web encyclopedia is not supported and advised when there exist another secondary source. Really, whose playing smart since March 2015. Personal attacks and threats are not the way editors, or anyone with normal behavior discuss. This discussion went again too far from the topic. Consider this discussion closed, and stop interfere in the work of other editors with own personal agenda and Turkic racism. Otherwise you're well acquainted with consequences. --Crovata (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure manaf, WP is turkish hammam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)