User talk:Istoev

Siege of Constantinople
Hi! Glad you decided to join up instead of editing via IPs. A few things first: please do not revert a revert; there is in Wikipedia a process called WP:BRD, which you are probably unaware of. However, the gist of it is that if a contentious edit is reverted, you discuss before re-reverting. As to the edits in question: this is a featured article, relying on several high-quality, scholarly sources; the sources use "Bulgars" for the period, since it was barely a generation after the settlement of Moesia, and the state still retained much of its Turkic character. The convention among historians is to place the end of the transformation into the "Bulgarian" nation in the 9th century, when the ruling elite itself became Slavicized and Christianized (e.g. "In the long run, the two peoples merged into one, Bulgarians", consistent use of "Bulgars" in Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831, "Tervel (701-718) was the second recorded ruler of the Bulgars south of the Danube", "Migration and Establishment of the Bulgars in Bulgaria", etc. None of this is in any doubt. Furthermore, your edits also remove the important phrase "but this is not corroborated elsewhere", which is pure distortion of the article by removing referenced commentary on a primary source by a scholar. This is POV-driven vandalism, pure and simple, performed under the cover of the naming issue. Please don't do that again. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  15:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * PS, I now saw that you sent me an email. For the interest of full disclosure, I append it here, for anyone who might be interested. Apart from being civil, let's be transparent as well, because these things need transparency:
 * "Hey friend,


 * This is a community website where people can contribute. It is not your personal page where you decide what personal opinions or delusions to post. You know, Greece is a great country being pulled down by a few individuals who can't get over their self importance. So, I challenge you to get over your megalomania and become a great Greek person who is not quick to be a dictator to others as you are being in this article.


 * What I am posting is legitimate. You have no sources that outright say that the name Bulgar is what is to be used. According to encyclopedia Britannica, the names Bulgarian and Bulgar are interchangeable, but since Bulgarians have never used such a term in the past or present, as a contributor to Wikipedia, I would like the name to be said properly.


 * Let's be civil. This is not something that affects you in any way, nor should it concern you how other people prefer to call themselves.


 * Lastly, the evidence showing that early Bulgarians were of Turkic origin is just about non-existent. However, it has been repeated so much by pseudo-historians, that many have been using that repetition as evidence. In any case, even if they were Turkic, there is no evidence that they were called Bulgar prior to coming to the Balkans, and much evidence that they called themselves Bulgarian as they do now."


 * All I have to say to this is a) you are much mistaken if you think I am motivated by "Greek megalomania", whatever that is, and that it bodes ill of your intentions if you assume, without prior interaction or evidence, that someone's edits are determined by national origin, and b) you are even more mistaken if you ignore or refuse to acknowledge your own history (assuming, naturally, that you are a Bulgarian). A small sample of my sources is given above, from authors who are definitely not susceptible to "Greek megalomania". The Turkic origin of the Bulgars and process of ethnogenesis of the Bulgarian nation are very much beyond dispute except by fringe nationalists. I sincerely hope you are not one of the latter. Constantine  ✍  15:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * First, if we are to discuss, please don't send me emails. It is best to carry out our conversation here, in public. Private email communication is frowned upon when dealing with contentious issues, for obvious reasons. Second, thanks for your kind words, they are appreciated. Third, regarding the Turkic origin of the Bulgars, I am certainly not an expert, but I am very sure that things are not as simplistic as you present them to be. For instance, the existence of Old Great Bulgaria, Volga Bulgaria, or the use of the term khan by them point to a common Central Asian steppe origin with other Turkic peoples. Scholarly consensus, as far as I know, is unanimous on this, and this is reflected in the sources I linked to, as well as our articles on the Bulgars and indeed the First Bulgarian Empire and History of Bulgaria, articles where, among others, several Bulgarian editors have contributed. Genetics is interesting, but is not proof of anything: nobody claims that modern Bulgarians are all descendants of the Turkic Bulgars; the very process of ethnogenesis came about through the gradual merger of the conqueror Bulgar elite with the—overwhelmingly more numerous—local population (Slavs, Thracians, Goths, Greeks, etc.). Incidentally, the same is true of the modern Turkish nation (or indeed all nations, except perhaps Iceland) as well, so don't expect too many genetic similarities there either. Similar examples of elites superimposing themselves on a conquered populace and giving rise to a new nation that is a mixture of both can be found throughout history, e.g. the Anglo-Saxons in England, or the Franks in France. That is no shame, indeed it is pretty normal. Heck, the Greeks themselves (the ancient ones) were formed by a mixture of the invading Indo-Europeans with the previous native inhabitants, whereas the modern variety is of even more mixed origin. Ethnic purity is a pipe dream, and a dangerous one at that.
 * Either way, however, this discussion, though interesting, is irrelevant to our present dispute, which concerns a single point: the suitability of the term "Bulgar" in the context of the 717-718 siege of Constantinople. As I have demonstrated, the term is used, including by some of the main studies on the field, for precisely this period, because the process of fusion had not yet been completed (it had barely begun). Indeed, when we are speaking of Tervel and his army, at this point we are indeed speaking of the "Bulgars" in an ethnic sense as well as a political one: in the Middle Ages, it was the ruling class that carried weapons and went to war, not the populace, and so soon after the Bulgar settlement, that elite was still separate from the bulk of the subjected populace. Believe me I would have no problem to leave "Bulgarians" be, if the sources warranted it; that is not the case, however. Constantine  ✍  19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

February 2020
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Istoev, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jingiby, No offense was intended by my contributions. There is nothing controversial in what I have changed. The Bulgarian ruler's title is more correctly Kan and not at all Khan, for which there is not evidence at all, period. When we write about history, we have to site primary sources. The changes I made were for things that have no primary sources and are entirely created recently, after Bulgaria's liberation from the Ottomans. The title of Bulgarian rulers has been, as far as we have sources: Kan, Kanasubigi, Archon, Knyaz and Tsar. Khan is not included among them, nor can we say that Bulgaria was a Khanate or Khaganate at any time simply because we have no evidence for that. Also, the primary source, a damaged column, that is used as evidence for Tengriism as official religion of early Bulgaria says nothing of the sort when you read it personally. It appears that it was entirely a fictitious creation by Veslin Beshevliev.

While I may not have followed the exact procedure that your group uses to make changes, all claims have to be cited to original sources. Everything else is creative writing. So again, no offense was meant. Thank you, Istoev (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)istoev Ivan Stoev

Also, Jingiby, can you explain yourself why you wrote this? "Wikipedia is based on WP:RS not on primary sources. Move the issue to talk. Thanks." Do you know what primary sources are? Do you have a background in history? What makes you qualified to remove other people's edits without proper cause? What you have done to the careful and non controversial edits I made is vandalism! You sir are a vandal...

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)