Talk:Bulgars

message: A user by the name of Beshogur edited the Wikipedia for the ancient nomadic peoples the Bulgars 
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars
Bulgars are seen as the historical ancestors who gave birth to the ethnic Genesis of the Bulgarian people
There is a long debate on their origins if they were Turkic, Iranic, or of other origins and as these debates rage the account know as Beshogur edited the page with malicious nationalist intentions 
It used to say “not to be confused with Bulgarians” but now it says “not to be confused with Bulgarian turks” 
He intentionally edited this page to put his thumb in the eye of Bulgarian history and to appropriate it as Turkish
Truth is the average ethnic Turkish person is not even 10-20% of Turkic heritage 
By adding “not to be confused with Bulgarian turks” it undermines Bulgarian history and heritage in a big way
Just look at this persons account 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beshogur
It doesn’t take much digging to see this person is a Turkish nationalist set on twisting history 
I deeply encourage Wikipedia to return it to “not to be confused with Bulgarians” and removed “Bulgarian turks” from the top banner 
This is an insurance to Bulgarian history and heritage 
I do not blame Wikipedia however this one bad egg deserves his moderator status revoked immediately!!! He is abusing for nationalistic purposes !!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss84325 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this observation. Administrators, please, take actions, do something!!! MiltenR (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Aye, a real shame it comes to such things. Euiauaua (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Would loce to see the page fixed finally 149.62.207.170 (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: BULGAR PAGE VANDALIZED !!!!

message: The Bulgar ethnicity is currently unknown and scholars are simply guessing where they came from and what is their origin, therefore you cannot just assume ppl who spoke a certain language what their origins are. So the statement that the Bulgars are turkic nomads is simply not a correct first sentence to describe them in a national wide website. There are no certain proof as I said from any researcher, scholar or anyone that can show the origins of the Bulgars. 95.103.11.6 (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021 

message: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bulgar
There is the trusted source for current  research about being turkic tribe, U have submitted request prior this one and within this one I am attaching the source. 95.103.11.6 (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021 (2) 

message: Dear Editors,
 The fact you just have placed an sentence that the Bulgars are Turkic trible as a first sentence which does not explains it is a theory not a fact,have made me think about how YOU use your sources and implement them on Wikipedia. I simply do not agree on the sentence you have submited on this article about Bulgars being Turkic tribe,saying it as it is a fact,while it is just a theory which was agreed on from some of historians and scholars,therefore does not make it real. I insist to have this look thru again since it is missleading,the Bulgars being Turkic tribe is a theory not a fact,just like the other theories of their origins. At the moment there are not a proven fact about their origins. SvetiNikolay (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021 (3) 

message: The Bulgar ethnicity is currently unknown and scholars are simply guessing where they came from and what is their origin, therefore you cannot just assume ppl who spoke a certain language what their origins are. So the statement that the Bulgars are turkic nomads is simply not a correct first sentence to describe them in a national wide website. There are no certain proof as I said from any researcher, scholar or anyone that can show the origins of the Bulgars. 95.103.11.6 (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template.  07:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

text: To delete all misleading and unsourced information without the proper references. Is this clear? Delete every unsourced text, please! MiltenR (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021 

message: This article said that the "Bulgars absorbed Indo-European, Finno-Ugric and Hunnic tribes".
The "Indo-European" language family is a mere hypothesis, and in this case refers only to Iranians.
Finno-Ugric is a linguistic group, and Hunnic is a specific people/language.
It would be the same as saying that "Americans absorbed Nostratic, Celtic and Italians". It is not nescessarily wrong, but it is unnecessarily confusing and can lead to misinterpretations. 
JebelAqra (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: IE is a "hypothesis"?? -HammerFilmFan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.0.129 (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Moderators and administrators, delete all unsourced information, please, save the name and dignity if Wikipedia! MiltenR (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   Indo-European, Finno-Ugric and Hunnic? 

message: Dear Editors,
As continuation of "Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021 (3)" where the editor wanted clear specification of what to be changed and a reliable sources I would like to provide those with this post.
Quote "Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Genetic evidence "suggesting" something in preprint is not enough sourcing to overcome current sourcing and consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Again, please establish a consensus for this change. Looking at talk page it's clear this is contentious, so an edit request should not be opened until consensus exists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose, because this fringe theory is presented in the article. Jingiby (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Closing request while under discussion.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Note: Requestor blocked for legal threats. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Good Afternoon Editors,
 I want to question two things on the article and hopefully understood and maybe get fixed.
First is the : 
Another theory linking the Bulgars to a Turkic people of Inner Asia has been put forward by Boris Simeonov, who identified them with the Pugu (僕骨; buk/buok kwət; Buqut), a Tiele and/or Toquz Oguz tribe.
In the source  section there is absolutely no evidence of reliable source to back this statement of the Prof. Simeonov. I want to know which of his work/book was used to be implemented in the article and also if its in English , if its a book the ISBN will be appreciated. However I have read his work and his conclusion is slightly different, which does not add anything here because its in his mother language. If no source can be forwarded, I trust the editors to make the necessary changes of that part.
Second thing is : 
The Bulgars spoke a Turkic language, i.e. Bulgar language of Oghuric branch.
Based on this source : However the linguistic impact of the Iranian world on the Turkic Bulgars is indisputable. For instance the name of the founder of Danubian Bulgaria was Asparukh, which is old Iranian in origin: "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", Hyun Jin Kim, Cambridge University Press, 2013, ISBN 1107009065, p. 68.
I believe mentioning Turkic before Bulgar in the sentence is miss leading, since the language have different roots then the Turkic of Oghuric branch. If the Turkic either be moved or removed will be better understanding for the readers since the Bulgar part is a link to the language article and can be read there if reader is interested.
I hope you can find time to discuss this with me.
Thank you!
Regards Nikolay.rusev (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Bulgarian historians believe that the ancient Bulgarians spoke a language that is from a different group compared to today's Bulgarian. Some researchers attribute the speech of our ancestors to the Turkic languages, and others to the Iranian ones. None of the two groups of specialists explain the mystery: Why is there not a single Turkic or Iranian word in the entire Old Bulgarian equestrian terminology? 
Neither кон - horse nor кобила, жребец, седло, юзда, стреме, лък, тулъ (колчан), стрела, тетива, острие, яздя, ездач - mare, stallion, saddle, bridle, stirrup, bow, quiver, arrow, string, blade, ride, rider, etc. do not belong to the Turkic or Iranian linguistic wealth. On the other hand, in the Thracian onomastics we find Kone, Kobilatus, tula-, Uzdika, Asdul, Ezdikaya, etc., but this apparently does not affect anyone. It is as if there is a taboo that any connection between the old Bulgarians and the local Balkan population should be avoided. Even if we did not have the Thracian words indicating that the Bulgarian equestrian terminology is of Balkan origin, the scholars were well aware of what a serious problem the complete lack of Iranian or Turkic terms was, and of course this was not shared either with the students or with the general public . 73.211.25.167 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2022 

message: In Russia , it is considered by some linguists that Oghur (ogur) from the Turkic word: ökü+z - w+ogu+r - b+uqa - bulls (oghuz<chuvash<kipchak<english). Among the Greeks, this form was mentioned in the forms: "onogundur" and "hunugundur". From Chinese "gundur" this 公牛 - gōng niú - Bull. Hun gōng niú - ten bulls! The very first mention of the Bulgarians was at the beginning of the 3rd century and appear in Chinese chronicles in the form: "the five parts of xiongnu" (hunnu, huns), when General Cao Cao (died 216) of the Wei Empire ruled. Bull ancient times, the Turks had a totemic animal personifying power and strength, from him the Turks have the title bogatyr, which means knight and translates as a strong bull.
Comparison with Turkic languages
In the VIII—X centuries in Central Asia, the ancient Turkic script (the Orkhon-Yenisei runic script) was used for writing in Turkic languages. Turkic epitaphs of VII-IX AD were left by speakers of various dialects (table):
Often in the Chuvash language, the Turkic sounds -j- (oghuz), -d- (uighur), -z- (kipchak) are replaced by -r- (oghur), example rotacism:
Words in the Turkic languages: leg, put-
j - language (Oguz): ajaq, qoj-
d - language (Uyghur): adaq, qod-
z - language (Kypchak): azaq, qoz-
r - language (Oghur): urah, hor-
Often in the Chuvash language, the Turkic sound -q- is replaced by -h-, example hitaism :
Words in Turkic languages: black, goose, girl, zucchini
Oghuz, kipchaks: qara, qaz, qyz, qabaq
Oghur: hora, hor, hĕr, hopah
The -h- sound disappears and disappears if it is the last letter .
Dudaq - Tota - Lips instead of Totah
Ayaq - Ora - Leg instead of Orah
Baliq - Polă - Fish instead of Polăh
Ineq - Ĕne - Cow instead of Ĕneh
Turkic sound -j- (oguz) and -ž- (kipchaks) is replaced by chuvash -ş-, example:
Words in Turkic languages: egg, snake, rain, house, earth
Oghuz: jumurta, jylan, jagmur, jort, jez (turk., azerb., tat.,)
Kipchaks: žumurtka, žylan, žamgyr, žort, žer (kyrgyz., kazakh.)
Oghur: şămarta, şĕlen, şămăr, şort, şĕr
The Turkic sound -š- is replaced by the Chuvash -L-, example lambdaism:
Words in Turkic languages: winter, silver, sun
Oghuz, Kipchaks: qyš, qemeš, qoyaš
Oghur: hĕl, qӗmӗl, hĕvel
In the field of vowels, we observe the following correspondences: the common Turkic -a- in the first syllable of the word in Chuvash correspond to -o-.
Words in Turkic languages: horse, coin, head, step
Oghuz, Kipchaks: at, akça, baš, adym
Oghur: ot, okşa, poş, otăm
In the field of vowels, G. F. Miller observes another example when -u- is replaced by -wo- or -wă-
Words in Turkic languages: fire, ten, forest, russian, he, thirty, bull
Kipchaks: оt, оn, оrman, orus, ol, оtyz, buqa
Oghur: wot, won, wărman, wyrăs, wăl, wătăr, wogur
Oghuz: ut, un, urman, urus, ul, utyz, öküz
Oghur (dialects): wut, wun, wărman, wyrăs, wăl, wătăr, wăgăr
The fricative -g- in some words in Chuvash corresponds to -v-
Words in Turkic languages: native, mountain
Oghuz: tugan, dag
Oghur: tăvan, tov
The word Oghur (ogur) is translated as bull. In the modern Chuvash language it has the form of both a "Wogur" (riding dialect) and "Wăgăr" (grassroots dialect). By analogy with the ethnonym Oguz, where the word "öküz" is translated from Turkish and Azerbaijani as bull. OghuZ = OghuR = Bull (rhotacism) Z -> R. Other ethnonyms such as Utigurs, Kutrigurs,Hungarians and Bulgars also originate from Oghur (ogur). The name Ut(r)igur, recorded as Οὺτ(τ)ρίγουροι, Οὺτούργουροι and Οὺτρίγου, is generally considered as a metathesized form suggested by Gyula Németh of Turkic *Otur-Oğur, thus the *Uturğur mean "Thirty Oğurs (tribes)". Golden, Peter B. (2011). Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes.
Ut(r)igur - *Otur-Oğur - *Uturğur mean "Thirty Oğurs (tribes)"
Kutrigurs - kutri oghur - Kotrag tribes (From the Chuvash language , the name Kotrag means curly) Kotrag was according to Nikephoros I of Constantinople a son of Kubrat of the Dulo clan of Bulgars. The Chronicle of Michael the Great calls him Kazarig. Following the death of his father, he began to extend the influence of his Bulgars to the Volga River. He is remembered as the founder of Volga Bulgaria.
Khan Kotrag, the leader of the Kutrigurs, came to the Volga and founded Volga Bulgaria, where there were five Ogur tribes: Kutrigurs, Suvars, Askil, Barsil and Barangar. Ibn Fadlan's notes say that the prince of Suvar was Virag. 
Saragurs — Sara oghur - white oghur tribe
Onogurs - Hungarians - hun oghur - ten oghur tribes: On ogur (lat. Ungari, gr. Οὑγγρικός, Οὖγγροι, fre. hongroi(s), rus.wenger, belorus.wugorac, sl. vogr, pol. węgier, węgrzyn, lit.veñgras)
Bulgars - bul oghur - five oghur tribes: Bul ogur (gr. Βούλγαροι)
The word "five" in the Volga Bulgarian language is found on the epitaph of the Volga Bulgarians in the text as: "tarikha şeti şur byul şol" — "the length of the seven hundred and fifth year" — where the بول "bul" is "five". Nowadays, in the modern Chuvash language, which is a continuation of the Volga Bulgarian language, the word five is still written as "pil", unlike the typically Turkic "bish", this is due to Chuvash Lambdaism: SH -> L (qyš - hĕl, qemeš - qӗmӗl, qoyaš - hĕvel). The tribes of the Bulgars are often mentioned in the chronicles: Kutrigurs, Suvar, Аskil, Bersula and Barangar.
Among the Greeks, this form was mentioned in the forms: "onogundur" and "hunugundur". From Chinese "gundur" this 公牛 - gōng niú - Bull. Hun gōng niú - ten bulls! The very first mention of the Bulgarians was at the beginning of the 3rd century and appear in Chinese chronicles in the form: "the five parts of xiongnu" (hunnu, huns), when General Cao Cao (died 216) of the Wei Empire ruled. The etymology of the ethnonym Bulgar was given more than a hundred years ago by the Hungarian linguist Munkachi Bernat: Bulgar — "five Ugrians". We remind you that Hungarians call themselves Magyars. Bull ancient times, the Turks had a totemic animal personifying power and strength, from him the Turks have the title bogatyr, which means knight and translates as a strong bull. Here are the Turkic words: turk. Boğa, tat. Bug, alt. Buka, orekh-yeniseisk Buqa, chuv. Wăgăr, bulg. Oghur. In some non-Turkic languages , the root of this word is the same: byk (Rus.), bike (Hungarian), boq (oset.), boqe (Persian). The word Bogatyr " is also known in the forms: bahadur, bator, batyr (batyr), batur, bootur, bahadir, pattar, Mong. bayatur, et al.-Turk. bagatur — hero, brave warrior — an honorary title among the Mongolian and Turkic peoples for military services, attached to the name (for example, Subedei-bagatur, Yesugei-bagatur) — "hero", "valiant warrior".
Grousset thought that the Kutrigurs were remnants of the Huns, Procopius recounts:
in the old days many Huns, called then Cimmerians, inhabited the lands I mentioned already. They all had a single king. Once one of their kings had two sons: one called Utigur and another called Kutrigur. After their father's death they shared the power and gave their names to the subjected peoples, so that even nowadays some of them are called Utigurs and the others - Kutrigurs.
They occupied the Tanaitic-Maeotic (Don-Azov) steppe zone, the Kutrigurs in the Western part and the Utrigurs towards the East. This story was also confirmed by the words of the Utigur ruler Sandilch:
It is neither fair nor decent to exterminate our tribesmen (the Kutrigurs), who not only speak a language, identical to ours, who are our neighbours and have the same dressing and manners of life, but who are also our relatives, even though subjected to other lords".
The outstanding Russian historian, ethnographer and geographer of the XVII century V.N. Tatishchev in his "History of Russia" states: "Down the Volga River, the Chuvash, ancient Bulgarians, filled the entire county of Kazan and Simbirsk!" He also noted; "Down the Kama lived Bilyars, or Bulgarians, and Cholmats (the name of the Kama River in Chuvash)... now the remnants of their Chuvash, of which there are enough down the Volga", "The Bulgarian peoples of the Chuvash who left"; "the Bulgarians of the Volga predicate the same language with the Hungarians and the Danube Bulgarians from the same who came." He also wrote: "Their own name (Bulgar), according to Karpin, is seen as Bylers (Püleres), the Tatars call them "Buller". These Bulgarians were divided in two by the Russians: upper and lower." The Chuvash have a division into Upper (Viryal) and Lower (Anatri).
It was only in 1863 that the Tatar scientist Huseyn Feyzkhanov solved the mysteries of the Bulgarian epitaphs and wrote "Three Bulgarian Tombstone Inscriptions", in which he presented to the scientific community the results of deciphering the Bulgarian epitaphs in Chuvash words. That is, Tatishchev at that time did not even know about this fact with the Bulgarian monuments, and H. Feyzkhanov only confirmed this fact about 200 years after Tatishchev's death. To date, many world linguists have unequivocally proved that the Chuvash language is a continuation of the Bulgarian-Ogur language. 90% of the epitaphs found on the territory of Volga Bulgaria and about 400 of them are written in the Oghur-Chuvash language. 176.52.111.23 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: First off - your post is far, far too long.  Secondly, you are discussing the topic - this is NOT what the TP's are for.  Third, you are bringing no Reliable Sources to the table for the improvement of the article.  This is just a waste of time, otherwise. 50.111.25.27 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Этимология Etymology 

message: Genetic studies without participation of Bulgarian researchers, i.e. whose conclusions aren't written by Bulgarians are clear: Western Turkic peoples sampled across West Eurasia shared an excess of long chromosomal tracts that are identical by descent (IBD) with populations from present-day South Siberia and Mongolia (SSM), an area where historians center a series of early Turkic and non-Turkic steppe polities. Also: Our results provide support for a rapid long-distance trans-Eurasian migration of Avar-period elites. These individuals carried Northeast Asian ancestry matching the profile of preceding Mongolian Steppe populations, particularly a genome available from the Rouran period. Some of the later elite individuals carried an additional non-local ancestry component broadly matching the steppe, which could point to a later migration or reflect greater genetic diversity within the initial migrant population. These citations are from 2015 complex study called The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads Across Eurasia by Bayazit Yunusbayev et al, published in PLOS Genetics doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068 and from 2022 study called 
Ancient genomes reveal origin and rapid trans-Eurasian migration of 7th century Avar elites by Guido Alberto Gnecchi-Ruscone et al, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.03.007. Also this conclusion about modern Bulgarians' East Asian admixture: Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: "CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3.) In each population, one source group has at least some ancestry related to Northeast Asians, with ~2 to 4% of these groups total ancestry linking directly to East Asia. This signal might correspond to a small genetic legacy from invasions of peoples from the Asian steppes (e.g., the Huns, Magyars, and Bulgars) during the first millennium CE." ThanksJingiby (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: User:MiltenR, the presented  Bulgarian research is out of date, primary source. Only the analyzes were carried out in laboratory in  Italy. The conclusions are written by Bulgarian authors listed below. Moreover, it is primary, and Wikipedia relies mainly on secondary sources. All secondary sources of non-Bulgarian teams that are secondary are in abs. This study was supported by the National Science Fund of Bulgaria, project “Characterization of the anthropo-genetic identity of Bulgarians,” contract number DOO 2-110/22.05.2009. Authors: - D.V. Nesheva - Institute of Medical Genetics, MU - Sofia - Sena Karachanak - Yankova - Institute of Medical Genetics, MU - Sofia - Yordan Yordanov-Institute of Experimental Morphology, Pathology and Anthropology with Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - A. Galabov-Institute of Microbiology "Stefan Angelof", Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Draga Toncheva - Institute of Medical Genetics, Sofia, 2 Zdrave Street, etc. I also don't understand why the citation and source for the title Khan were deleted when they were previously requested.Jingiby (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Lol! It is frivolous to claim that a Bulgarian study is not Bulgarian, moreover that a primary source like it, which contradicts a number of secondary sources, newer and far more complex than it, is more reliable than those. Deleting all sources you don't like, as well their conclusions, is bordering vandalism. Jingiby (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You should consider all these recent genetic studies that prove that present-day Bulgarians and Proto-Bulgarians are extremely similar and of Western Eurasian origin and also that Bulgarians and even Proto-Bulgarians have no genetic similarities with either the Turks, or Turkic and Altaic populations.”(https://bnr.bg/en/post/100729084/present-day-bulgarians-carry-genes-of-thracians-and-proto-bulgarians-not-of-slavs) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26416319/) MiltenR (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic studies 

message: The article is full of original research, unverified content and unbalanced views. Next to this, there are multiple issues with this article, in part by a large amount of OFF-TOPIC paragraphs and semi-relevant content which seems to have been copy pasted into this article. Some arguments, such as Hunno-Bulgar languages, are Wikipedia:Fringe theories, without any academic support, see the talk discussion there. The "theory was created by the user VolgaBulgari and is nothing more than POV. Refer to the talk and the involved users.
Furthermore, the concensus is that the language is not exactly known, with the Bulgars being a confederation of tribes including a ruling class with various Turkic and Iranian components, not solely Turkic. Did anyone verified these arguments here? Last but not least, the article structure is anything from encyclopedic. I will inform the Wikipedia:Quality control. Orange172212 (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miserable quality  

message: The Bulgars are not a Turkic tribe.
"...a shared paternal ancestry between proto Bulgarians and Altaic and Central Asian Turkic-speaking groups either did not exist or was negligible." 
- Karachanak, Sena, et al. “Y-Chromosome Diversity in Modern Bulgarians: New Clues about Their Ancestry.” PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, 6 Mar. 2013, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/citation?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056779. 149.62.208.8 (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2023 

message: I would remove } since most of the mentioned groups believe they are heirs of the so called Bulgars. Rjangelov (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This disambiguation serves to direct users to the right article, should they end up in the wrong one accidentally. It does not imply or communicate to users that the articles' subjects are entirely distinct.  Actualcpscm (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023 

message: Per WP:SEEALSO, i removed an entry that is already in the the article. If an editor wants to go against this, that is fine, make a case here and gain consensus for going against norms and I will re add it. thank you. Malerooster (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need an explanation, this user is simply disruptive. Beshogur (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: 1. Carl Waldman - musician 
2. Vasil Gyuzelev - Bulgarian communist 
4. Peter Golden - turkic origin 
7. Kevin Alan Brook - business administrator 
IS THIS ARTICLE A BAD JOKE ??? 2A02:8084:8183:980:E9EF:BE92:AC71:FFB3 (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Change "An image depicting Kurbat (in center), ruler of Bulgars." to "An image depicting Kubrat (in center), ruler of Bulgars."
Kubrat is misspelled as "Kurbat" FreeMarket77 (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: —Sirdog (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023 

message: The Turkic origin is just alleged. 37.63.96.248 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2023 

message: Their one of in is highly debated.
https://europe-nations.estudosculturais.com/pdf/0116i.pdf MiltenR (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:RELIABLE and WP:WEIGHT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The origin of the ancient Bulgarians, also called Proto-Bulgarians and Bulgars 

message: In this highly disputes article and topic, lets just stick to non contradictory information, please. Take actions. MiltenR (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrators actions needed, please  

message: All unsourced information to be deleted, please. This is what should be done according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please! MiltenR (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In this edit you removed information claiming that it had "no sources" although it was reliably sourced. Please do not make such WP:DISRUPTIVE edits.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  All unsourced information to be deleted 

message: "thus forming the ancestors of modern Bulgarians."
should be changed to 
"thus forming a very small part of the ancestors of modern Bulgarians.Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3. )"
The Bulgars are a small part of the ancestors of the Bulgarians as approximately 2.3% of Bulgarian genes originate in Central Asia, eventually corresponding to tribes such as the Bulgars, with admixture peaking in the 9th century CE;Science, 14 February 2014, Vol. 343 no. 6172, p. 751, A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History, Garrett Hellenthal at al.: " CIs. for the admixture time(s) overlap but predate the Mongol empire, with estimates from 440 to 1080 CE (Fig.3. ) 130.204.61.225 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Holding, waiting peer review for reference. -Lemonaka‎ 12:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

text: Already done M.Bitton (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2023 

message: This article is highly debated and disputed and the template Disputed should be present, without any doubt. MiltenR (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Disputed 

message: This photo in language is unrelated and mistakenly put I believe. There is nothing written on it also. 
 2A02:FF0:3316:B630:58D7:7CBC:9A1E:E8F5 (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it as irrelevant. According to the Commons file description it's an image of a Chuvash woman, and the Chuvash people claim to be descended from the Bulgars, but in any case it's not a useful illustration for the Language section. Liu1126 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  this is not some far fetched theory tho. Chuvash is the descendant of Volga Bulgar language. Beshogur (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar enough with the field to make a sound judgment on that, nonetheless I don't think this image is as useful an illustration for the section as, for example, the current image of the Chatalar Inscription. It might fit better in other sections like History or Legacy. Liu1126 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024