Talk:Bulgars/Archive 4

Orphaned references in Bulgars
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bulgars's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Pohl": From Huns: Walter Pohl. 1999. Huns. Late Antiquity: a guide to the postclassical world, ed. Glen Warren Bowersock, Peter Robert Lamont Brown, Oleg Grabar. Harvard University Press. pp.501-502 From Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians:  From Eurasian Avars: Walter Pohl (1999), "Huns" in Late Antiquity, editor Peter Brown, p.501-502 .. further references to F.H Bauml and M. Birnbaum, eds., Attila: The Man and His Image (1993). Peter Heather, "The Huns and the End of the Roman Empire in Western Europe," English Historical Review 90 (1995):4-41. Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire (2005). Otto Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns (1973). E. de la Vaissière, "Huns et Xiongnu", Central Asiatic Journal, 2005-1 pp. 3-26 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

unintelligible ..... from the Language section
"In Bulgarian academy, a hypothesis linking ......" - doesn't make sense in English. Did the editor mean to say "In the Bulgarian academy" - if so, what is its formal name? Or is this poor English for something along the lines of "in some Bulgarian academic circles"? Needs to be corrected. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Scytho-Sarmatian
does, skito-sarmatian sound much better than iranian? because previously in the article it was iranian elements. who needs to hide those facts or put them behind veil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.198.113 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There is lots of bias and racism going on in wikipedia topics that deal with Bulgarians. People, especially people in Wikipedia, should understand that not every thing in this world is Turkic and that not every tribe ever from Asia, or Central Asia is Turkic, this has been a particular problem in Wikipedia for quite some time now, where bias seems to rule the land and get the upper hand, usurping other theories (which by the way have lots of evidence and sources, from proper websites and proper research and historians) with force and racism (clearly as many editiors have experienced). This really is irritating a lot of people, and in the purest sense is simply not fair. This frustration is justly founded. It seems that lots of articles that deal with Bulgarian topics (like this for example) are stalked and ruled (very unfairly) by Turks which is just ridiculous, since they are Bulgarian topics not Turkic topics. Lots of people vandalise Bulgarian pages with propaganda (i.e:old theories and information which since has strongly been doubted by a lot of people, and since then new theories have been found with stronger more factual evidence-which in the end is simply ignored just because somewhere down the line it wasnt or something wasnt Turkic). All this is disturbing really and stinks of racism towards Persian and Iranian peoples (which goes against morals and human rights). All of the above is simply a drop of the massive problem that is going on! Basically some editors have presented additional theories (nothing wrong with that) about the origins of the Bulgars. The important thing here is that these edits had, justly, proper verifiable sources from a wide collection of books, websites, and newspapers(which after reading the wikipedia rules, one finds that thay are perfectly acceptable). The biggest shock which is just plain unbelievable is the latest findings of DNA, which prove that the modern day Bulgarians (and thus the Bulgars) have a lot in common with ancient and current Pamirian/Iranian peoples. ALL the discussion should have stopped right there, with no more warring, insults and arguments, as anyone with common sense or in the medical field knows that DNA doesn't lie,ever and it is especially important as the best evidence in court cases, murders and CSI's. Not only is there DNA evidence (which from this point you don't need any other evidence really) but also linguistic evidence (lots of words from Iranian origin in modern Bulgarian language, and also place names, people names etc etc). There's even a replica of the Madara horseman in ancient Persian lands. A reference to a whole nice list has been added to this article which has a whole table showing all the words in alphabetical order with origins in different dielects -but guess what?it has been conveniently removed, because as you might have guessed by now-it wasn't Turkic enough. Yet and additional source has been found, behind an already sufficient collection, stating that the Bulgars originated from Pamirian lands; this source, by the way, is from the History faculty of the University of Michigan. How much more evidence, proof and source do you possibly still need? The problem here is that the article is edited by a lot of people who are not even Bulgarian -I dont think you people have got a right to assert who we are and where we come from. You might then say that we all need neutral editors, but that's where the next problem comes from- most of the editors who are not Bulgarian are Turks (there is a history of great tension and violence between Turks and Bulgarians, so Turkish input on this page should be seen as hugely biased and not neutral at all-it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure this out)who insist that the Bulgarians are Turks also-its as if they want to make us Turks no matter what and against all odds. Why do I say against all odds? Well for one there is DNA evidence, and then you get research by real historians (who are qualified just as much as the historians and researchers who inist on the Turkic theory) saying that the Bulgars were Iranian, and then you also get linguistic and cultural evidence-which is all removed in the blink of an eye!!! Anyone who is reading this-please open your eyes to the massive problem that is going on here and read the previous edits where the iranian theory is mentioned -sometime in early August and before-you will see the comments on the edits-read it all an see the truth. This page is corrupt and usurped. There is so much racism here towards Iranian people and Persians (which goes against human rights)-this is disgusting. All rationality and common sense has been lost and thrown away when dealing this page, the Iranian theory is not given a chance when there is so much evidence by so many researchers( a whole team traveled to Iran for crying out loud-to collect DNA samples), icluding Petar Dobrev and historians from the University of Michigan http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/bulgarian_rulers.pdf. There is a lot of linguistic, cultural and DNA evidence-WHY IS IT ALL BEING IGNORED, WHY ARE THERE WARNINGS AND BANS TO THOSE THAT TRY TO CHANGE THIS????!!!!This is hugely unfair!Why in the world is the Iranian theory seen as so bad-when there is overwhelming evidence? By the way someone has said, on the comments of the edits, that DNA is not irrefutable and implying that it just might as well be useless. All this has to change Whoever is reading this and agrees even slightly or is interested in seeing what all the evidence is and what all the fuss is about, please read the previous edits from ABOUT LATE JULY TO EARLY AUGUST-read the whole article but pay special attention to the "new research 2010" part. One more source which should have been added but hasn't ( a new one):http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/bulgarian_rulers.pdf

ALL THIS above is just a drop of the problem, I left out a lot of detail of the problem and many more good arguments out,as I don't have time now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.121 (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about the Slavic Bulgarians, but about completely different people - the Turkic Bulgars. Jingby (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC) jingibingy, these "turkic bulgars", as you call them, exist only in your pathetic limited freak imagination! Please, keep it for yourself in the future! You embarass yourself!

Oh my, if you read anthing in the past edits, you would have seen that, from the "new research 2010" part that today's modern day Bulgarians have a lot in common with Pamirian people, DNA wise, so that means that we are then descended from the Bulgars. And what do you mean Slavic Bulgarians -they are not Slavic, they don't look Slavic (even says in Wikipedia they look different from other Slavs) and the new DNA evidence shows that we have mostly Pamirian not Slavic genes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.121 (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC) And what is wrong with the Bulgars being Iranic, why must they be Turkic and absolutely nothing else,is it shameful to be Iranic or something? In wikipedia at least, there is a monopoly over their ethnicity, how dare someone who isn't ethnic Bulgarian say what our ancestors were, and on top of that purposefully ignore lots of sources and evidence. Why must they be Turkic, is there a rule that they must be only Turkic, is there a rule to ignore new and old evidence and sources stating otherwise, and warning and banning those that decide to do something about this unfairness. For the record the new research 2010 part in previous edits shows that according to new DNA data, the modern day Bulgarians have mostly Iranic DNA(from Pamir), no wonder we don't look Slavic, most of us. This shows then that the greater part of us are descended from the Bulgars and the other part being Thracian, and only probably 1 percent Slavic. If the Bulgars were Turkic, then currently we would have had mostly Turkic DNA not Iranic (Pamir). EVERYONE, IF YOU WANT A SAMPLE OF THE REAL TRUTH, read this:http://samoistina.at.ua/2/similarities.htm, it has scholarly sources! Also read the sources from the previous edits, from late July to early August. They are proper sources, verifiable sources. When these were presented, the biased people had nothing to say so they responded to say that these sources weren't valid, but according to wikipedia's rules they are valid41.132.116.121 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is not a phantasy forum. End of my comments. Regards. Jingby (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC) jingibingy, then what are you doing here? Go back to the circus, your people are looking for you!

Typical, again someone doesn't know how to respond because they logically know I am right, they don't have a proper arugementatice comeback, they don't have a justified comeback with any weight, they just plainly don't know how to respond to all the overwhelming evidence and sources that just simply throw the Turkic theory out the water. With comebacks like these, and I have seen a lot of them, this issue will never get solved, and the monopoly of the Bulgars and Bulgarian's ethnicity will continue with utmost unfairness. This is totally messes up, this is a prime example of how corrupt wikipedia is. You wikipedias spend so much time editing wikiepedia, thinking you are contributing even more to this "prestigious, great and academic world wide information and education project that is wikipedia", feeling good and great, with honour that you are doing a fine job to contribute to education to thousands, to add to the most valuable thing ever-knowledge; you people even create good looking and impressive personal user pages and show off all the hard work that you have done, wanting, if there is anything to want, respect - BUT ALL THIS IS AN ILLUSION, USELLESS AND YOU ARE FOOLING YOURSELVES BY WRITING HISTORY THE WAY YOU WANT IT TO BE, BY IGNORING EXTREMELY VALUABLE INFORMATION, SOURCES AND EVIDENCE, GOING SO FAR AS TO EVEN IGNORE DNA EVIDENCE. WE ARE MEANT TO PUT TRUTH AND PRESTIGE TO THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA, TO EDUCATE AND NOT LIE TO PEOPLE, INSTEAD THE OPPOSITE IS HAPPENING. When people said at university not to usetrust wikipedia too much and to maybe rather use other sources, I used to think that that is a wrong, unjustified statement, thinking that of course wikipedia is a good and trustworthy source of info, but now I see what is happening really, how low wikipedia has fallen.41.133.47.98 (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC) AND HERE IS ONE MORE OFFICIAL SOURCE,(CANT GET MORE OFFICIAL THEN THIS!!!) in addition to the already many sources mentioned in the article ('new research 2010 and language part') around late July to ealry August 2010, you will notice it from the comments of the edits around that time SAYING(WITH ALL FAIRNESS TO THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE RECENTLY AND FROM YEARS PASSED) THAT THE BULGARS CAME FROM THE KINGDOM OF BALHARA http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3236.htm (as some historians point out, but of course the historians were not Turks or Turkic, so you will ignore and ridicule them, but that goes without saying). With all due fairness, and with all logic - proper sources from governments and universities (which now are starting to number as much or MORE THAN THE SOURCES THAT SAY THE BULGARS ARE TURKIC) should have higher priorities than the opinion and POV's of the administrators and editors who abuse this page with their nonsense(i.e: governemt and university sources are much, much better than the opinions of the editors that say we didn't come from Balhara and/or that we are Turks/Turkic and not Iranic). You people must know that in the end the right always wins over the wrong, truth always triumphs, your(your=every editor who supports the Turkic "theory" by ignoring or deleting sources and evidence showing otherwise) siege WILL be lifted from this page eventually, this propanda must eventually come to an end and please, I BEG YOU, dont send me links to wikipedia rules that you people twist so much for your agenda and Turkish POV, that in the end they are not even recognizable anymore. EVERYONE MUST COME HERE TO THIS DISCUSSION AND SOLVE THIS CRISIS ONCE AND FOREVER ALL. EVERYONE - JUST KNOW THAT WHOEVER DARES CHANGE SOMETHING AND TRIES TO KEEP IT ON THE PAGE(SAYING IRANIC AND NOT TURKIC) - YOU WILL MOST DEFINITELY GET BANNED - THIS IS PROOF OF THE UNFAIRNESS AND POV (yes it is POV once you start to ignore and delete sources and overwhelming evidence that dismiss the Turkic view, failing TO EVEN AT LEAST MENTION ON THE PAGE, LIKE IT RIGHTFULLY DESERVES)41.133.46.200 (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |} How about you people take a look at this, especially Finn Diesel and all the editors in vigorous support of the Turkic theory : Bold textEditing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. This is from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. If the rules are functional then why doesnt the article represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (such as for example, there are many more examples, such as university, historians and proper news websites, and the state governemt website of USA) It also says the articles must be made without bias - the complete opposite of what is happening here, as this article is made with lots of bias and not "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" get put on the article. In reality what is really hapening is that all the research, evidence and reliable sources (all of which has grown to the same size or possibly greater than the Turkic theory and its sources) just gets deleted removed from the article and completely ignored, and the funny thing is that nobody is doing something about it, and if they try, the 'editors' throw and twist the wikipedia rules to crush them, or simply just ban them. "NPOV is a fundemental principle of Wikipedia" - well then why do you people ignore this and push your Turkic POV and ignore and delete all other views (the Iranian theory, after so much sources and evidence, has become a pretty big, important and significant view, the Turkic theory is out dated). How can you people continue to recieve various praise and awards on your user pages and how can you be so proud of them, thinking you have contributes to the greater good, the greater knowledge, thinking that ultimately you are helpping people with knowledge when all that you are doing is being highly disruptive and ignoring rules(by deleting evidence and sources and by not giving it a chance to be properly mention, if at all, on the page) and actually hiding information (which is competitive to the Turkic theory) from millions of people who have a basic right to read all views and all evidence, I mean all, everything, before making up their own mind. How can you people take that chance away from millions of people and then be proud of your work? Excuse me if this has gotten sort of long, but this issue is just to big and critically important to ignore41.132.178.10 (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Christ almighty, what a wall of text. How do you expect someone to sift through all of that and address your complaints? And could you post a link to that "study" that you claim proves there's a genetic link between Bulgarians and Iranians/Pamiris? AlecTrevelyan402(Click Here to leave a message) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC). I do expect actually - lots of facts need to be mentioned, so there is lots to be said - it is a very important issue so if anyone expects this to get solved once and for all they must read every single thing. First, before the links, have you read the "new research 2010" section in past edits? Also read the etymology: Different theories exist for the etymology of Bulgar. In Sanskrit, Bal means "strength" and hara means "the possessor"; in some sources, the name Balhara and Bulgar/Bulgaria is one and the same. Then I expect you have read the language part as well. Now for the links:

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/bulgarian_rulers.pdf - from the university of Michigan, says that the Bulgars came from Pamir, which was an Iranic/Persian land

http://samoistina.at.ua/2/similarities.htm - really summarised, there is more which is not mentioned,not really an official website itself, but the sources are really good

http://dnes.dir.bg/news.php?id=6541326&fp=1 http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117006 - novinite is an official news website, a very big one. People have complained that newspapers are no good, but according to wikipedia they are perfectly acceptable. http://sofiamorningnews.net/ - also an official news website http://thearchaeologicalbox.com/en/news/dna-analysis-reveals-pamir-origin-bulgarians - archaeology website http://groznijat.tripod.com/b_lang/bl_a_v.html - very important summary of the Iranic words which were in the Bulgar language and are now in the modern language. Additionaly many names in Bulgaria - place names (the name Balkan is found in Persian lands at present) and peoples names - Asparuh is a full Iranian name - meaning something like horserider. There is also an exact replica of the Madara horseman in Iranic lands as well, but the link I have long since lost, will look for it. A=Other cultural aspects like the one festival in Bulgaria (where people dress with long pointed white and black masks and dance around a fire - not familiar with it that much, so dont know the name, but it exists) - it is said that comes from Zoroastrian roots. Also it has been said that some of the structures in Pliska resemble religious Zoroastrian centres - it was in the past edits of wikipedia - go look for it. http://www.csc.kth.se/~dilian/Papers/bulgars.pdf - this is a source that someone else put up. In it, it clearly states that the Iranic theory is part of the 3 major theories (it says Sarmatian - but they were Iranic). Earlier I mentioned, above, that according to neutrality rules in wikipedia, all major view should be added. So far that hasn't happened, as there has been extreme prejudice against the Iranic theory, so it goes against the rules. http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/8511032 - an academic website that mentions the Bulgars could have come from Pamir/Hindukush - Iranic lands, apperently where the kingdom of Balhara was situated (Balhara is very close to Bulgar, I think Bulhi is the Armenian word for Bulgar, and historians from the past have mentioned this as well - "Ashharatsuyts" by Anania Shirakatsi in the 7th century AD, Khorenatsi, Moses. History of the Armenians. Translation and Commentary of the Literary Sources by Robert W. Thomson. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978. 400 pp. ISBN 9780674395718, Agathias of Myrina, Theophylact Simocatta, and Michael the Syrian also identify Mount Imeon (Pamir/Hindukush - Balhara was there) as the homeland of the Bulgars. Mount Imeon is even honoured in the South Shetland Islands where there are a lot of Blgarian scientist, by naming a mountain range after it. This shows a Bulgarian connection. Lots of places there are named after Bulgarian themes/Topics. http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Vedic-Bulgaria.php - not really offcicial but it carries the point across. What is official though that it is written by Petar Dobrev, a long time advcocate/historian/researcher of the Iranic theory. http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117903 - another version http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=117192the third version - one or two things are different I think http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/common_origin_croats_serbs_jats.php - in it it says "It may also be stated that several scholars have noticed Iranic elements amongst the Proto-Bulgarians. (Beshevliev 1967, Schmitt 1985)" http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3236.htm - from an official state government website of the USA

Here is one more source: Dobrev, Petar. Unknown Ancient Bulgaria. Sofia: Ivan Vazov Publishers, 2001. 158 pp. (in Bulgarian) ISBN 9546041211 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source: "[2]". Brockhaus Conversations-Lexikon Bd. 7. Amsterdam 1809, S. 161-162. [3]". Pierer's Universal-Lexikon, Band 2. Altenburg 1857, S. 230.

There are more links which I am busy looking for at the moment(saved somewhere, when I find them, I will post them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.178.10 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is more information pointing to the Iranic origin of the Bulgars:

The Bulgars had scytho-cimmerian origins according to Dzhagfar Tarihi (History of Dzhagfar - a medieval history of the Bulgarians. Volga Bulgaria), Bulgarian revolutionary and many ancient and modern historians. An early Armenian historian Moses Khorenatsi mentions the Bulgars as the "people Bulh", who settled in a region in Armenia (with the permission of king Arshak I 127-114 BC ), later called Vanand (after the Bulgarian king Vanand/Vund, who lead the Bulgars to Caucasus). He uses the information provided by an earlier syrian author Mar Abas Katina. In the geographical book Ashharacujc based on earlier researches by Claudius Ptolemaeus, the land of origin of the Bulgars is pointed to be the mountain Imeon (Pamir and Hindu Kush). [1] (map from Ashharacujc. See north of India - the Bulhi Tribe).

According to the history of Dzhagfar the Bulgars were Scythians from Pre-Turkic Turan/Pamir who later mixed with Cimmerians. They traveled a lot and established different countries with towns made out of stone. A Bulgarian revolutionary, nationalist and ethnologist/historian Georgi Rakovski refers to the Proto-Bulgarians as Aryans and Gimmerians/Cimmerians (He called the Bulgarians Bolg-Arians/Bolg-Aryans). A Muslim medieval scientist Ibn Fadlan who traveled to Volga Bulgaria calls the Bulgars "Sakalibi" and mentions the differences between the Turkic people he met and the Bulgars. He says that the Turkic tribes live primitively and savagely, they eat mainly meat, unlike them the Bulgarians have towns, laws, greeted him with bread (this tradition is still preserved in Both Danube and Volga Bulgaria) and grow different crops as well as breed cattle.

The names of towns, regions, peoples and mountains in the regions Bulgars inhabited also point to Imeon: Shuman (Bactria-Pamir) = Shumen (Danube Bulgaria) = Shumanai (east side of the Caspian sea) Ispara (Bactria) = Ispor (Bulgarian ruler) Balgar (Bactria) = Bolgar (Volga Bulgaria) = Bulgar Balkh (Bactria) = Balkhar (Balkaria-Caucasus) = Bulkar-Balkh (Balkaria-Caucas) Varnu (Bactria) = Varna (Bulgaria) Madar (Bactria) = Madara (Dunabe Bulgaria) Boil (Bactria) = Boil (Bulgarian title) Balkhani (Mountains on the eastern side of the Caspian) = Balk(h)an (Mountain range on the Balkan Peninsula) Suvar (Bactria) = Suvar (Voga Bulgaria) = Suvar/Sevar (Bulgarian Ruler) Osh (Bactria) = Oshed (Volga Bulgaria) etc.

The names of the Bulgarian rulers were also Indo-European in origin and some were identical with the names of sarmatian kings - Asparukh (Ispor), Kuber, Kubrat (Kurt), Suvar (Sevar), Gostun, Baian, Avitohol, Omurtag, Krum etc. Their language was also Indo European - from the Indo-Iranian group. Words such as Shar, Kushta, Kuche, Hubost, Zhena, Brat, Kaka, Kurpa, Chembas, Na, Nana, Khazna etc. have survived in the Bulgarian language to this day. [2] (Words from archeological findings from Danube, Great and Volga Bulgarias and their analogues in Pamir, Persia, Caucasus, Western Europe and Sumer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.193.233 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Bulgars and Borysthenes
Dear Jingiby, you are right about 14th c., but in the 7th c. that area was called Atil-kiji in Bulgarian, and I do not want to enter into pissing contest with POV people. Atil-kiji is the first historical name for the area that we know, from 9th c. or some earlier. Next one was Bessarabia. In addition, even Greeks did not know exactly where Borysthenes was, the name was applied to few rivers. Barefact (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Barefact, I have changed the name of the river from Borysthenes to Danapris immediately after your comment with an edit on July 2. Just take a look on the article. 09:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you use the modern and accepted form Dnieper then? There are very few ancient Greeks among modern English readers -:) But that is minor, the whole sentence is misleading, for example there is no record of Bulgar migration to the Dnieper, but there is record on Atilla's time Hunnic fort in Kyiv on the Dnieper, thus in the 7th c. they did not have to migrate to show up in Kyiv on the Dnieper. We have a settled state Kara Bulgar (Black Bulgar, i.e. Western Bulgar) in the N.Pontic between Crimea and Danube during the Great Bulgaria of Kurbat, and between 558 and 630 Kara Bulgar belonged to the Avars, Avars did not invent it. In 660s Khazaria took over control of the Kara Bulgar territory, and Kyiv became known as a Khazarian city. The whole sentence is off. Barefact (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have deleted the whole sentence. Jingiby (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With your help I might rephrase it... eventually. Whoever wrote the intro sentence had good intentions, I do not want to remain a spoiler. Thank you for your responsiveness, I appreciate it. Barefact (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 August 2012
Please erase the first paragraph of the article. Reasons: Flaming, Racism, Propaganda, Incorrect inforanmtion.

1. Sources: YOUR OWN SITE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians

Even there it is written in the article about bulgarians that Bulgars and Bulgarians ARE THE SAME PEOPLE!

2. There are many sources with alternative theories.

3. This is not even the officialy accepted theory of the origin of the Bulgars.

4. It's obviously edited to inspire racial hatred.

5. Please remove the rights of the person responsible for the article, since it sounds to us like the phrase "The origin of the Americans are the homosexual aborigenians who escaped from India" sounds to a homophobic white American.

Please substitute it with the original theory (That we originated from an independent nomadic tribe) or choose one of the less flaming theories, like the one about the Thracian origin of the people whihc explains the vast % of Mediterranean people DNA (over 50%).

Sources: http://demograph.blog.bg/politika/2012/02/15/ot-kyde-doidoha-shvedite.902274 http://www.trud.bg/Article.asp?ArticleId=142530 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nejGo6bS1d4

similarities in the languages of ancient thracians and bulgarians(also known as bulgars in the past): http://sparotok.blog.bg/politika/2012/07/12/280-trakiiski-dumi-i-bylgarskite-im-syotvetstviia-ii.978432

and many other proofs that can be found in the internet. As you can see, if you trace the DNA code you can find that we have insignifficant % of turkis DNA, which was probably due to the 500 years of slavery under the rule of the ottoman empire...

As you see there are much more proofs supporting any other theory than the one posted at the moment... and the one currently displayed is stuffed with flaming and genuine lie, stuffed with propaganda and almost NO scientifical support (since if you actually look in the libraries in Bulgaria you'll find more books proving that we originated from the pinguins than the one that "support" your thesis)... please, be reasonable and edit the article. I'm not telling you to put the thracian one... if you want just stick to the OFFICIAL version which DOES NOT include turkic roots or choose one that is less flaming!

Graveyard (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: requests must be "please change X to Y", not "change X". Mdann52 (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Pan-turkism
Do you know what pan-turkism is? This article is pan-turkism! A pathetic try of the primitive turkish people to relate to the europeans by stealing their history and heritage! According to the pan-turkism the bulgarians, germans, persians, etc. are turks, the sumerians were turks too, the turks are the oldest folk on this earth and all the modern civilisation originates from them! Articles like this filled with turkish propaganda make wikipedia look highly unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.193.233 (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The writer of the above is confusing Turkish with Turkic, and Bulgarians with Bulgars. Maproom (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a scientific and academic fact, and not a part of Pan-Turkism. As Maproom said, you are confusing Turkish with Turkic; and the same way Bulgarian with Bulgar. 78.170.100.150 (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that you both have no idea about the history of the BULGARians and european and central asian folks in general, and you are both nothing more than confused teens. Bulgars and Bulgarians are the same people, in the bulgarian language there is only one word - BULGARI! Even on wikipedia it's written that bulgars and bulgarians is the same http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians Stop confusing the readers with your separatism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.195.39 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I am speachless about the bias in this article.As a bulgarian I am also very offended.It is sad that history is used in such blatant way to push political doctrines and to be more specific pan-turkism!!The turkic theory was long time ago proven wrong.First of all bulgars never used the title "khan"!!!The title they used is "kanas u bigi".The title "kanas"is an old form of "knyaz" and "bigi" is an old form of "bog".The whole title "kanas u bigi"/"канас у биги" means "ruler from god".In greek sources it is translated as "ΕК ΘΕΟΙ ΑΡΧΟΝΤΟΣ /ΑΡΧΟΝΤΙΝ" which means the same." ΕK ΘΕΟΙ"(From God) and "ΑΡΧΟΝΤΟΣ"(Ruler).The reason why the pan-turkist historians don't mention the whole title "kanas u bigi" is because it has no meaning whatsoever in any turkic or altaic language.That's why they cut off words from the original inscription and make it "khan" which is nothing more than historical distortion!This is very well explained from проф.Ганчо Ценов in his book “Кроватова България и покръстването на българите”.Second,the name bulgar has nothing to do with the turkish word "bulga" like the name of the country turkey is not relevant to the english word "turkey".Bulgars never call themselves "bulgars", but "Българи" written in old cyrillic or greek script before that.They never used the latin alphabet and this is a name given to them by western sources.Latin sources also used to call them "vulgars" which again has nothing to do with the adjective vulgar.Third what about the other theories of origin of the bulgars or we will push what suits us the most?!!I thought wikipedia is about neutral point of view-if this is so there should be an inscription with big letters that this article represent only the turkic theory because it is a theory not a proven fact!Besides there are also autochthonous(thracian) and iranian theories and they should be mentioned in the title as well if we want to be objective!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.143.231.48 (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

After reading the history of this article I've noticed another things that are wrong.Why is wikipedia allowing certain people to monopolize articles like this guy Jingiby and many others.For example Jingiby is editing this article from 2007 till now.Every attempt from other people to add new information about the other theories of origin of the bulgars is discarded as new and unreliable yet he is quoting communist books.It is pretty obvious that he is not objective at all.There should be some limit about the edits someone can make to an article because some people are clearly abusing this.Not to mention that this article is full with errors from top to bottom.For example what is this supposed to mean: "Not to be confused with Bulgarians." May I ask according to whom?!!Who is the author or the book which states this?!!Bulgars,Vulgars,Bulgarians and Βούλγαροι are names given to us by western and greek historians and they all mean the same "Българи"-excactly the way we call ourselves for the last 1300 years.Pan-turkists are distorting history and are trying to steal our heritage!These people are also attacking other articles about Bulgaria and are trying to erase our Middle Ages history as well.Could someone explain to me where is the neutral point of view of wikipedia??!The things happening here remind me of the communist era in my country where alternative point of views and sources were not allowed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.143.231.48 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11.03.2013
This article needs to be edited because of the following reasons:

First of all the first sentence "Not to be confused with Bulgarians." is implying that bulgars and bulgarians are different things which is nothing more than bias and historical distortion!There is no author or book which states that bulgars and bulgarians are different things.Exactly the opposite-latin and greek sources are using Bulgars,Vulgars,Bulgarians and Βούλγαροι to refer to the same people "Българи".

Second this article is not about the origin of bulgars,but about the turkic theory of origin of bulgars.The first sentence should make this very clear because there are other theories of origin as well(autochthonous/thracian and iranian).Otherwise it is misleading!

Simple Solution: Please change "Not to be confused with Bulgarians"  to  "Turkic theory of origin". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopard017 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Leopard017. The text of the article and lot of the added sources contradicts sharply to your opinion. Would you be so kind to provide at least several neutral sources, i.e. non-Bulgarian, which are published in peer-reviewed journals or in books published by reliable academic publishing houses as for example Cambridge or Oxford University Press in support of your claims? If no, please read, What Wikipedia is not and Identifying reliable sources. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you please tell me why are you allowing misleading information?!I am talking about the first sentence ""Not to be confused with Bulgarians."Do you have a source which states this?!if you want to add a link to the other article "bulgarians",you can do it without mislead people that bulgars and bulgarians are different people.Please quote a source which says that bulgars should not be confused with bulgarians.Second tell me a single reason why there shouldn't be some explanation that this is indeed the turkic theory of origin.--Leopard017 (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Full stop. Jingiby (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles."This is exactly what we are discussing!And you again are refusing to provide source which states that bulgars should not be confused with bulgarians.--Leopard017 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, in general italicized text at the very top of an article – called "hatnotes" – serves merely as a navigational aid to Wikipedia users. This could be for a number of reasons, such as articles with similar titles, or where one title might easily be confused for another. In this case the text strings "Bulgars" and "Bulgarians" at least vaguely resemble each other, and especially with the auto-suggest feature of Wikipedia's search function, it is entirely possible that someone searching for "Bulgarians" might end up on this page. Perhaps the hatnote could be better worded, but what I'm trying to say is that the use of this hatnote is not and should not be interpreted as a statement that Bulgars and Bulgarians are mutually exclusive people. I hope that clears things up. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 22:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't reply to my request.If someone want to add link to the other article "Bulgarians" it can be done without being misleading or confusing.And what about the missing information that this article represent only the turkic theory of origin?It should be stated clear because as I said there are other theories as well.Thank you--Leopard017 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and reworded the hatnote. In keeping with the policy on hatnotes and the Manual of Style I kept the descriptions of the Bulgars vis-a-vis the Bulgarians as simple as possible. Please note that I only stepped into this discussion to help with the policy and and Manual of Style aspects of the hatnote. I can't help you with your other issue on the Turkic theory of origin other than to say that such a change should not be made without first establishing consensus. I will keep this edit request open for another couple of days to see if any other editors might have an opinion on this matter. Cheers, &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 00:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I made minor edit in the hatnote. The Bulgars lived during the Middle ages. No data is preserved if they existed during the ancient times. The first information about their existence as separate tribes is from the 4th. cent. AD. Jingiby (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you KuyaBriBri for fixing the first issue.Now the hatnote is much much better and I am perfectly fine with it.I am happy to see that we can reach consensus with some editors to improve this article.About the second issue my only request is to add "Turkic theory of origin." in the beginning of this article and I will consider my request done without having any objections.--Leopard017 (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)--Leopard017 (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely sure what you are asking now. It sounds like you are now asking to add a second hatnote as a disclaimer of sorts to say that this article is about one theory on Bulgars, but that other theories exist. If that is the case, then that is not an appropriate use of hatnotes. Hatnotes are not part of the article text or body and only serve to guide users where article titles are similar or easily mixed up. The edit you are requesting might be appropriate for the main body of the article, but because of the nature of the request it should not be added without consensus or a reliable source. I have solicited help at WikiProject Bulgaria. In the meantime, I will be closing the request, as established consensus at WP:EDITREQ states that such a request should not be used unless there is consensus or the request is uncontroversial. Please do not re-open it unless a consensus is established. Cheers, &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok KuyaBriBri,thank you for your support.The most important thing for me is that you reworded the hatnote.It is still a victory for me.The other issue is not so important.I think this biased article speak well enough for itself.I consider my request done and i will not reopen it.Cheers--Leopard017 (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A pawn of the great chess game
I'm not going to enter into any debates nor wish alter the article. I just want this to be registered as an extant opinion, which may one day be shown to be correct. The supposed Asian origin of the so-called "Bulgars" (and their so-called "Bulgar language") only appeared after the Russo-Turkish War, and did not exist before. Ever. Paisii Hilendarski never mentioned it, did he? The artificially-invented "Asian origin" of Bulgarians served other, more powerful countries – both back in the 18th century (politically), and today (mostly in terms of people's consciousness), and is a detriment to Bulgarians' view of themselves. It served, and still serves, Moscow (because it allowed Russia to become not only the largest, but also the first predominantly Slavic empire, even though it's unclear just how Slavic the Bulgarians actually are), it served Istanbul and still serves Ankara today (as it puts their Turkic forefathers in Europe way earlier than the Ottomans); and it served and still serves all the other Great Powers, because it makes Bulgarians appear to only be comparatively recently-arrived foreigners into Europe, with little legitimacy for wanting a strong, albeit small, independent state, let alone a long history. A people who, apparently, had no formal organization of their own until some newly-arrived nation civilized them and bestowed upon them an independent state in the 7th century. "Official history" does not allow for any ethnological link between the Thracian kingdoms and the First Bulgarian Empire, whereas, according to extant sources, a Bulgarian-Thracian link is way more logical than a Bulgarian-Mongolian one, with a more reasonable description of events being that Asparuh "returned to the land of his ancestors", rather than that "the Asian "khan" (haha!) Asparuh invaded the lands of the Slavs". The "mostly Slavic and a little bit Turkic" version of Bulgarians' ancestry that was peddled in Bulgaria unanimously until the mid-1990s, and still mostly today, does not fit well with the paradox of how, if we are to believe "official" modern sources, Herodotus's "most populous nation in Europe", i.e. the Thracians, appear to have all of a sudden disappeared in the 7th century. How? Just think about that for a minute, all you armchair edit-warriors. And no, don't ask me for sources for this, as, like I say, I have no intention of entering into an argument, or of editing. Though I will point out any discrepancies in anyone's reasoning if anyone wants to have a go. Don't forget – Galileo was considered a "charlatan" once, the and the Bible was considered to be the unified theory of everything, so let's not enter into a discussion about legitimacy. Have a nice day. BigSteve (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Herodotus is 5th century B.C., twelve centuries before the 7th century A.D. Twelve centuries does not exactly look like "all of a sudden", to me at least. During that millenium the Thracians had been Hellenized, Romanized and Slavicized before becoming Bulgarians in the First Bulgarian Empire.
 * The Central Asian (Iranic) origins of the Bulgars had been corroborated by the Armenians well before the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War, as a matter of fact another twelve centuries before!
 * To improve your orientation in Bulgarian history, you might wish to peruse this source. Apcbg (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Apcbg! I will reply to you here. BigSteve (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets keep it simple
The lede, and all the reverions to and fro around it, have been occurring for years, and shouldn't be. i suggest we change the lede from this awkardness; and entirely unreferenced second half (!) ''were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who flourished in the Pontic Steppe and the Volga basin in the 7th century. Ethnically, the Bulgars are thought to have been Oghur Turkic, with some Sarmatian-Alan elements. There is debate over whether the Sarmatian elements in the culture of the Proto-Bulgars are based on Sarmatized Turks or Turkicized Sarmatians. They had also absorbed other ethnic groups by their migration westwards across the Eurasian steppe.''

to something simple - based on what we do know and general scholarly concensus. ''The Bulgars were divese groups of equestrian confederacies which fought for control of the Pontic steppe during the 6th and early 7th centuries. Although undoubtedly heterogeneous, scholars posit the the predominant language spoken, at least amongst the ruling clans, was a form of Oghuric Turkic. After their conquest at the hands of the Khazars, a significant portion remained in the Black Sea region whilst other Bulgar groups settled in Volga Bulgaria, the lower Danube, Pannonia and beyond. ''

Then in the main body, everyone can write as long an essay as they wish about whether their names or burial customs are Turkic, Iranian or even Martian ! Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone add the Bulgarian Calendar
While you guys fight how to re-write it. Could someone add the bulgarian calendar.

We are celebrating the year 7521 according to the bulgarian calendar. In 1976 UNESCO declared the ancient Bulgarian calendar as the most accurate in the world. More accurate that the present day Gregorian calendar. Recent studies show that the beginning of the calendar dates back as early as 5505 BC. With its 12-year cycle it is similar to the Chinese calendar but is more ancient and most likely has served as its source. It is one of the oldest in the world.
 * There is not a Bulgarian calendar, but a Bulgar calendar. Regs. Jingiby (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It belongs to this article no matter how it is worded. Origin is not that important, (people will figure it out with time), but what it have left to the world ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.106.49 (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned on this article and there is a link to the separate Calendar's page as follows: Also, the Bulgar calendar had a twelve-year cycle, similar to the one adopted by Turkic and Mongolian peoples from the Chinese, with names and numbers that are deciphered as Turkic. Jingiby (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit warring between User:Esc2003 and User:HistoryofIran
Solve the issue/dispute on the talk page. Call third-party or users/admins who are familiar with this topic to help both of you. Otherwise, I submit a report on noticeboard. Stop this reverting cycle! --Zyma (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, i already stopped before this, and are trying to do what you already suggested. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. --Zyma (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Two comments
First, I can see this article is pushing a controversial agenda as many such articles tend to be in this corner of the world. A clear headed, honest and scientific approach is necessary in such cases. This is why I don't think the author is helping the issue by suggesting non-Bulgarian sources can only be acceptable, and that somehow Cambridge or Oxford University Press are trustworthy and unbiased when they are anything but - they present the world view of imperial britain to this day, let alone 50-100 years back.

Second, the sentence Emerging as nomadic equestrians in the Volga-Ural region, their roots can be traced, according to some researchers to Central Asia. needs a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.56.19 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Untitled #2
Once upon a time, in a steppe far, far away...

It is a dark time for the rebellion bulgak tribe. Although the Hunnic Empire has been destroyed, imperial troops have driven the rebel forces from their hidden base and pursued them across the Pontic Steppe.

Evading the dreaded Imperial horsefleet, a group of freedom fighters led by Khan Asparukh Skywalker conquered Scythia Minor, opening access to Moesia, and established the First Bulgarian Empire.

The evil lord Genghis khan, obsessed with finding young Asparukh Skywalker, has dispatched thousands of remote probes into the far reaches of steppe...

P.S. Obviously, the article is written by some monkeydonian faget, who doesn't have a clue about the bulgarian history, you can freely exchange the original article with this fictional story above and it will have the same historical truth in it - NONE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 397.279.374.673 (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ей, цингиби, на майка ти путката лайно осрано!!! Баща ти те е изпикал, а майка ти те е изсрала, да еба мангала ти прост да еба!!! Аре ходи се еби в гъза, а, чакай, ти вече го правиш това. jingiby, баща ти те е изпикал, а майка ти те те изсрала, шибано македонско лайненце! Като си отишъл в Лондон да не се мислиш за голямата работа, пак си оставаш същия македонско-гръцки мелез, говнар нещастен! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.945.364.467 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2014
The proto Bulgarians weren't Turks. Please remove each thesis on the origin of the Bulgarians, because none of these existing has not been demonstrated.(I am bulgarian and I don't wonna this to be typed, because in Bulgaria we don't look with good eyes of the turks!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.130.239 (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Most correctly:

We found that the Y-chromosome gene pool in modern Bulgarians is primarily represented by Western Eurasian haplogroups with ~ 40% belonging to haplogroups E-V13 and I-M423, and 20% to R-M17. Haplogroups common in the Middle East (J and G) and in South Western Asia (R-L23*) occur at frequencies of 19% and 5%, respectively. Haplogroups C, N and Q, distinctive for Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations, occur at the negligible frequency of only 1.5%.

The lineage analysis provided the following interesting results: (i) R-L23* is present in Eastern Bulgaria since the post glacial period; (ii) haplogroup E-V13 has a Mesolithic age in Bulgaria from where it expanded after the arrival of farming; (iii) haplogroup J-M241 probably reflects the Neolithic westward expansion of farmers from the earliest sites along the Black Sea.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056779

Gene probes of 855 Bulgarians, including individuals from the country's Islam population, have been gathered and compared with other European nations, Professor Draga Toncheva from the Sofia-based Medical University has explained in an interview for the Bulgarian National Radio.

The results have failed to show any Turkic connection in the Bulgarians nation's genesis, contrary to popular beliefs.

Croatians, Poles, Ukrainians and other Slavic nations are closest to Bulgarians, according to the study. However, Bulgarians are a peculiar type of Slavs, since they also have Mediterranean genes, head of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences' Microbiology Institute Angel Galabov has pointed out.

The Bulgarians' "peculiarity" has probably been the result of their contacts with ancient Thracians, scientists reckon.

- See more at: http://www.novinite.com/articles/131894/Bulgarians+Are+Purely+Indo-European,+Not+Turkic+-+Gene+Study#sthash.XQItdPil.dpuf

The approximate distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups among the Bulgarian people runs as follows: 16% E1b1b 1% G2a 3% I1 20% I2a (very common among South Slavic peoples) 1% I2b 20% J2 1% Q 18% R1a 18% R1b 1% T The lineage analysis provided the following interesting results: (i) R-L23* is present in Eastern Bulgaria since the post glacial period; (ii) haplogroup E-V13 has a Mesolithic age in Bulgaria from where it expanded after the arrival of farming; (iii) haplogroup J-M241 probably reflects the Neolithic westward expansion of farmers from the earliest sites along the Black Sea. On the whole, in light of the most recent historical studies, which indicate a substantial proto-Bulgarian input to the contemporary Bulgarian people, our data suggest that a common paternal ancestry between the proto-Bulgarians and the Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking populations either did not exist or was negligible."

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/bulgarians.html

Untitled #1
This article is a joke, it's not written and administered by Bulgarians, why is it locked anyway? So that noone can edit it and add the truth. I myself have tried many times to edit it and add info from valuable sources such as state.gov but they banned me. This is a spit over our great history, there is zero historical truth in it, it is a provocation by a few greeks and macedonians. The Bulgarians and Bulgars are the same people and we were never turks, the turks were always our biggest enemies for thousands of years. In the Bulgarian language there exists only one word - Bulgari, there is no separation like you can read here that "the Bulgars and Bulgarians are different people", what a joke. The Bulgari were white Indoeuropean Caucasoid people who came from Central Asia (today's Khorasan province in Afghanistan, Iran, Tajikistan). The reason why we left these lands and moved west to Europe is because of the ongoing mongolo-turkic barberic invasions that were devastating the lands and killing innocent women and children, also due to climate change - before these lands were very fertile, now it is a desert. This article is part of the Russian anti-Bulgarian propaganda started in the 18th century. There is this guy with nickname jingiby who constantly deletes every valuable piece of information that we try to add - check out the history section. His name is angel topalov he has lived in Bulgaria but he's half serbian half greek, now you understand why this article is so biased anti-bulgarian and it's full of dirt and lies. Many people are pissed off and are looking for him - he's hiding somewhere in London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 995.754.179.51 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is disaster
This article needs by improvement and current research. There are 17 theories about the origin of the Bulgars, according to different historians. But now in the article is presented only "Turkic nomadic theory", which is very controversial and is the most disputed, because this theory was imposed by the communist regime and every challenge in the period 1944 - 1989 was prohibited. This is an old weak theory. The most of today's independent historians support the Iranian theory about Sarmato - Iranian origin of Bulgars. Now the artcle begin with "Bulgars are Turkic nomadic people", which is wrong. The Bulgars are not nomadic, because they build cities of stone and was created states (First Bulgarian Empire, Volga Bulgaria) after the falling of Old Great Bulgaria. Actually all article is needed by changes and presenting of more modern, indipendent and different points of view.--Stolichanin (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Contoversial perhaps, but also the most accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.25.83 (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014
When you find time, please add a space before "and" in this picture caption: "highlighting the Bulgarian Empireand" should be "highlighting the Bulgarian Empire and"

76.4.82.164 (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

✅ - thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)