Bulgaria Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Central Asia Stub‑class Low‑importance

Utigurs is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A heavy overlap, as well as divirgence. The Onogurs page starts "The Onogurs, also known as (Bulgar) Utigurs" . And "Utigurs" starts: "Utigur is the name used by Procopius Caesariensis and his continuators Agathias and Menander in the 5th and 6th centuries to refer to the Bulgar-Huns of Onoguria". In other words, the subjects semm to be essentially the same. Lothar Klaic (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These articles both are in great need of improvement and not merging. The Onoghurs were not also known as the Utrighurs. There were two different tribal groups that happened to both be Oghuric Turkic. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lothar has a point. Utigurs (not utrighurs) does seem judging by the history to be nothing more than another way of saying Onogurs, at least we can say they were in the same places at the same times and did the same things being led by the same people, but until someone publishes a book on the Utigur/Onogur question I think it will not fit wiki policy to merge in case it is taken as original research.62.255.75.224 (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is basically wrong or speculative or pushing a certain POV on the subject and not a good source upon which a merge could be decided. Saragurs (Yellow Oghurs), Onogurs (Ten Oghurs), Kutrigurs (Nine Oghurs), and Utigurs (Thirty Oghurs) are listed as separate tribes in other sources. These were all supposedly Oghur Turkic speaking peoples, or what Browning refers to as "Bulgar-Huns". It would be better to consider Peter B. Golden as a source. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the article clarifying the situation. Although the Onogurs/Utigurs, Kutrigurs, Bulgars and Crimean Huns could be very successfully merged into one "Crimean Bulgar-Huns" article.Kaz 10:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support it was the Utiguri who carried the name of the Onoguri to the Danube relocating their capital to Pannonia in 677 although they were forced west (Altsek) and south down the Danube (Kuber & Asparukh) by the Avars (allied with Kotrag's Khazars) in the 680s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.133.161 (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Onoguria was the name of the Kutrigur state not the name of the Utigur state. 78.148.63.63 (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The Utigur were just one confederation within the Hun state of Patria Onoguria. They appear with Sandilch when the Gokturks conquered the eastern Kazarigs in the 560s AD. The Utigur tribes of Asparukh and Kuber later seceded from Onoguria and were expelled into the Balkans to the south by Onoguri in 677AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chouvrtou (talk • contribs) 09:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The Kutigurs, Utigurs as well Onogurs are all different tribes with different etymological derivation, and all are substantially mentioned in historical records separately from each other. I am currently in the process of writing the related articles. There's no need for any merge.--Crovata (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy, I am really interested in the source for Kutri meaning 9 and Uti meaning 30, can you point me to some more reading on this topic? Is this an area of your special interest?Kaz 09:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of the names Kutrigur and Utrigur are mentioned in Rona-Tas "Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Ages". It is an opinion put forth by Nemeth "in several places that the ethnic name utrighur can be traced to *utur (see Chuvash vatar, Turkic otuz), and kutrigur can be linked to the numerals tokhur 'nine' (Chuvash tahhar, Turkic tokuz), see recently Nemeth (1991, p. 132)". Also see Moravcsik (1983) for information on the tribal names of the Oghur, Ughur, Onoghur, etc. No, I am no expert in this subject, just someone who can tell when expert attention is needed. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, I think you should put the references you provided into Etymology sections in the relevant articles.62.255.75.224 (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to put a reminder to Editors here that the Unogundur, Uturghurs/Kutrigur and Utigur/Onogur question is not a simple one. I invite anyone who has references to share them here for discussion. 62.255.75.224 (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Utigurs were Hunno-Bulgars this paper probably explains their language :

according to Antoaneta Granberg : " the data is insufficient to clearly distinguish Huns, Avars and Bulgars one from another" - introduction, the second paragraph : https://www.academia.edu/683028/Classification_of_the_Hunno-Bulgarian_Loan-Words_in_Slavonic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.217.159 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably this paper could also helps, it is about the Hunno-Bulgar language. http://www.centralasien.dk/joomla/images/journal/DSCA2008.pdf --DonnaCarol (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identification Uti - > Yuezhi is made by renowned scientists Edwin G. Pulleyblank and Yury Zuev. Putting such tags as "unreliable source" here is vandalization of the article. The work of Zuev is available on the net for free reading:

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/29Huns/Zuev/ZuevEarly1En.htm

page 38:

This name is repeated in the name of an Utigur queen, Akagas, in the report of the Byzantian ambassador to the Türks Valentine in 576 [Menandr, 1861, p. 418, Chavannes, 1903, p. 240]. The Utigurs of Menandr are Uti, associated with Aorses of the Pliny “Natural history" (VI, 39). The word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti [Pulleyblank, 1966, p. 18]. In parallel, a tribe Uti existed in the east, in the valley of the river Edzinagol and lake Sihai and Salty (Sogo-nur and Gashiun-nur respectively).

page 62 :

The Utigurs of this message (J. R. Hamilton identifies this name with the name of a tribe Utiger in the Rashid ad-Din list of nine Uigur tribes) [Hamilton, 1962, p. 35, 38, 42] are mentioned by Pliny (VI, 39) as the Uti tribe, associated with Aorses. E. Pulleyblank identifies Uties as Uechji (Pin. Yuezhi) tribe [Puleyblank, 1966, p. 18]. There are parallel records about Uechji (Pin. Yuezhi)/Uti far in the east, in the basin of the Edzin-gol.

the work of Pulleyblank is published in magazine which is paid, but everyone can read it with Jitstore for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.143.113 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the article there is a year which is typo. Everyone who is truly interested in this article and the history of Utigurs will notice this first. Instead of putting such tags. You even haven't read the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.143.113 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@93.152.143.113: Please read the reliable sources page about identifying reliable sources. Note that:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

And when you say that Putting such tags as "unreliable source" here is vandalization of the article, note that the {{unreliable source}} documentation says that, This tag is intended to be used when a statement is sourced but it is questionable whether the source used is reliable for supporting the statement. This is just one editors way of telling other editors that s/he thinks that one source might be unreliable. Please don't think that this is vandilisation of the article. Thank you.  Seagull123  Φ  22:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

awesome - Edwin G. Pulleyblank told us who were the Huns!Crusador2000 (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk pages are not used for useless commenting like on a blog or forum, and multiple WP:SOCK accounts are not supported.--Crovata (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

now I have a better understanding of Darwin — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewZealot (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check Wikipedia rules to identify reliable sources in history. Self-published materials written by amateours as doctors or philosophers are unreliable info 212.5.158.43 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

first claim is rejected - the guy is professor on history of philosophy and culture and he is academic scholar https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2

second author is replaced with academic scholar who works in the area -it is allowed

Some of the cited books on the article Bulgars are written by people with degree on Business administration, it is even not in the Humanities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.217.159 (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roman historians Themistius(317-390), Claudian(370-404), and later Procopius(500-560) called the Huns Massagetae.^[1] The Huns were called Massagetae also by Ambrose(340-397), Ausonius(310-394), Synesius(373–414), Zacharias Rhetor(465-535), Belisarius(500-565), Evagrius Scholasticus(6th century) and others. Alexander Cunningham, B.S. Dahiya(1980, 23) and Edgar Knobloch(2001, 15) identify Massagetae with the Great Yuezhi: Da Yuezhi -> Ta-Yue-ti(Great Lunar Race) -> Ta-Gweti -> Massa-Getae. Dahiya wrote about the Massagetae and Thyssagetae : "These Guti people had two divisions, the Ta-Yue-Che and Siao-Yue-Che, exactly corresponding to the Massagetae and Thyssagetae of Herodotus ... " (Dahiya 1980, 23). Thyssagetae, who are known as the Lesser Getae, correspond with the Xiao Yuezhi, meaning Lesser Yuezhi.^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.217.110 (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on other editors and WP:FRINGE theories, or through them manipulate with due and undue WP:WEIGHT of major and very minor viewpoints, are not welcome on Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only you are VANDAL (constant deletion of numerous academic sources from many WP pages), but also you are imposing Turkic chauvinism on WP. And the worst of all - you truly believe what you are doing is all right. Probably you are simply stupid. No wonder that half of your race are still living in yurts while people will land on Mars and are on the verge to discover LED (Large Extra Dimensions)

Since May 2015 there were months to learn how to put a simple sign after comment. Would advise you (again) to read WP:RELIABLE, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:ORIGINAL, what we mean by WP:VANDAL on Wikipedia, WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TENDENTIOUS, and especially WP:CIVIL and WP:PERSONAL.--Crovata (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a pile of shit to justify your lies