Talk:Pechenegs

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Great_Bulgaria
how is it that turk is older term than Bulgar
when great old bulgaria can not be lemon fresh 
at 600 AD. in order something to be great and old 
it needs to be at least 100 years old if not more?????????????????????????
Bulgars were turkic peoples who migrated from the tataristan today and they were tatars.
the term bulgar means mixed.it is a turkish word.so,bulgar is a turkic tribe,a turkic word that the old turks used.that makes turks older than bulgars asterminology.You sound like a man who has a turkic hatred and complex.
:Nice rant, anon whoever you are/were and whenever this was posted. However, it has no place on a Wikipedia Talk Page, which is neither a Forum nor a Soapbox, but exists to discuss Reliable Sources for the improvement of the articles. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Didn't a tribe of Pechengs convert to Zoroastrianism?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.11.64 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I thought I was reverting the note that "Bosniak" is related to "Pecheneg", which seems far-fetched, to say the least. Adam Bishop 01:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Pecheneg but Besenyo. That is a common Hungarian belief, though perhaps Bosnians could get upset about that. :-( Kaz 02:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People 

message: Just to correct a definition: Max Wasmer's Bacanak does not mean brother in law. That particular word is used only by men. Because it actually means my wife's sister's husbandNedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bacanak 

message: The Vlachs and the Pechenegs fought against Magyars in 1068 at Chiraleş, in Transilvania and finally lost the battle
Русскій хронографъ, 2,Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи,in PSRL, XXII,2, Petrograd, 1914, p.211
V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkik nomads North of The Danube Delta from the Tenth to Mid Thirteen Century, Brill, 2009, p.118
Spinei showed the correct date of battle. The cited chronicle is not refused, is cited!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.49.190 (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what WP:NOR means. Please read what Spinei says: he states that the late chronicle writes of Cuman and Romanian marauders, but they are, according to modern historians, actually Pechenegs. Borsoka (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Chiraleş in 1068 

message: Those who are interested in reading about the Padjanaks (Pechenegs) and their origin should take a look at The Padjans (Padjanaks, Pechenegs) by Joseph Amyot Padjan.  He demonstrates that the Padjanaks were actually the Kushans, and it's pretty hard to disagree with him once you've read his book.   He shows that they were actually a tribe of Huns, known as white Huns.  Very interesting.  Check it out:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/203601298/The-Padjans-Padjanaks-Pechenegs
http://www.josephamyotpadjan.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amongkol (talk • contribs) 04:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Scholars can EASILY disagree with him, what are you talking about?  LOL.  Anyway, this is a scholarly work possibly, but not a Reliable Source as it is self-published, and please, if you think you will get consensus from all historians that his views are 100% accurate, well, dream on.  The problem about this time and people is the lack of surviving documentary evidence (if it ever existed) and the lack of good solid archaeological remains, which are not well-preserved with nomadic peoples. If we only had a time machine . . .  HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know they can "easily" disagree with him?  Have you read his book?  If you haven't read it, then you are not in a position to say that scholars can easily disagree with him or agree with him. --Amongkol (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: pechenga -pins river in fino-ugorian language/ pechenie- coockies in russian 176.65.114.0 (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New information on the Padjanaks (Pechenegs) 

message: The current map posits that Karakalpaks lived near the Kievan Rus' states. This is false according to the very article about them which says that there is an unproven theory tying Karakalpaks of Uzbekistan to the Kievan Rus' Cherniye Klobuki. Could the map be corrected then?--Adûnâi (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: pechenga pin way in fino-ugorian languages 176.65.96.226 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current map contains a serious mistake 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pechenegs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060111120813/http://www.patzinakia.ro/ to http://www.patzinakia.ro/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Old Rus translation of Josephus Flavius (ed. Meshcherskiy, 454)" page? year? 1945? 1845? --142.163.195.81 (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  454?