Wikipedia

Talk:Chuvash people

Latest comment: 5 months ago by 115.64.6.1 in topic No mention of their Numeral system
Learn more about this page

Vandalism? How Come?!

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Well, this edit was made by regarding my edit was... "vandalism"?! I wouldn't say anything about that remove simply because maybe adding "...are a Turkic people" was not necessary at all. But it is well-known they're Turkic people so that everything links them to Turkic origin, too. I find it ridicilous how it was regarded as "vandalism", calling a Turkic people Turkic. Either that or they're being in another assimilation policy? Nozdref (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the genetic evidence shows that the Chuvash are more closely related to Finno-Ugrians than to Turkic peoples. [1]

Sfarea (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

So what? You could probably say such things about many Turkic peoples. What's relevant is that they share a Turkic language, culture and national identity.--Joostik (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
They are Turkic FULL STOP Böri (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, we are NOT a Turkic people, I and my family took a genetic test. We don't have more than 3% of Middle Eastern and North African genes. But we have much more Eastern (about a half), Southern (>10%) and Northwestern European (about 10%) genes, the other European (Broadly European) genes, and East Asian (yellow) genes. Genetic relatives have similar results, some of them have even more than 20% of Southern European genes, but Turkic genes (Middle Eastern) are in insignificant minority (about 3-5%) in comparison with European genes. That's why we are NOT a Turkic people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.93.18.54 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

In DNA tests, Turkic people links with rather Central Asia and a little West Asia. Chuvash people have mixed with russians(slavic people) heavily. Rather Middle East shows Arab gene. Also, Turkic is not something you can get with heritage test, it is up to what language you use, what culture you exercise and so on.I mean Turkic is language group not ethnic SafaviNihad (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)SafaviNihadReply

Other studies

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sfarea, Chuvashes might indeed be closer to the Finno-Ugrians than to the rest of the Turkic peoples, but that doesn't mean that their origin is predominantly Finno-Ugric:



At the same time, genetic studies have shown closest ties between the Chuvash and other European nations:





So I'd be most grateful if you corrected the genetic section of the article that you added. 09:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe
  2. ^ HLA Genes in Chuvash, pp.389-390
  3. ^ HLA Genes in Chuvash, p.389
  4. ^ 2010 AAPA Abstracts, pp.105-106
  5. ^ HLA Genes in Chuvash, p.382
  6. ^ Same as above

The same problem is everywhere in the Wikipedia. If people speak same language, they belong to same group; even though they have different genes. We must discuss whether Chuvas language can be classified as a Turkic language or not. Kavas (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

How on earth would the closets populations be French, Spanish, Belgians, and southern and western Euro or Mediterranean peoples, given the distance? I would think nearby Russians, some east Euros, and perhaps some Finno-Ugric peoples would be closer, and that seems to correspond much more to their appearance, which has a Uralic aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Word dewd544 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Lenin omitted?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

By many accounts, Lenin's father was Chuvash. Surely worthy of mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.248.11 (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Chuvash people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chuvash people. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chuvash people. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chuvash people. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Genetics

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

I removed the whole Genetics section recently with edit summary "This whole section is meaningless to readers. Rather than dumping tables of frequencies, any genetics section should be interpreted so that a general reader can understand what is being presented." Vaultralph (talk · contribs) has reverted that change with no edit summary. Thus we need to discuss this per WP:BRD.

This genetics section has multiple issues as follows:

  1. The information does not tell the reader anything because it is a dump of gene frequencies without any explanatory prose. Any new genetics section should be prose based. The gene frequencies can be left in the cited source. Readers of an article on the Chuvash people should not need to know what haplogroups and subclades are.
  2. The section has five sources. The first is not a WP:RS at all and the other four are primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and for a subject are such as this a secondary source is required. If we are attempting to tell anyone anything about genetics, the primary sources must be curated either through systematic reviews or at least through secondary sources written by subject specialists who have attempted to summarise the state of play.
  3. The information relates to Y-DNA and mtDNA studies, which were as good as things got some 10 years ago, but the science has moved on. The information would need an update.

So my suggestion: remove the whole section and if we want a genetics section, rewrite it from scratch. Comments are welcome. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:SILENCE I shall now remove this information again in line with my proposal above. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Vaultralph (talk · contribs) this talk section is here to discuss the edit I made. You have reverted it again, but have not engaged in talk. To be clear there was consensus to delete it per WP:SILENCE. As per that policy though, I understand you now oppose it so as per WP:BRD, you need to discuss why the material should remain. If you do not discuss then what you are doing is simply edit warring. Please would you now read the above and explain why and in what form you feel this section should remain. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I have waited two more days for any engagement or discussion here and still nothing. I have thus removed the material again. In cases of content dispute it is essential that editors engage in the talk process to try to work out what is best for the article. Please can we discuss this here rather than turning this into a slow burn edit war? I have raised the above problems with the material. Could you explain why you think the material is useful to the reader. Once again, I am not opposed to a genetics section on principle: I merely believe that any information in the article must be helpful to and understandable by readers, and relevant to the subject of the article. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Bulgars, Bulgarians and Genetics - New Material

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

An editor has recently introduced new material, some of which has been challenged by another editor. An IP editor then reverted the challenged material. WP:BRD applies and so I am opening a talk section to discuss. It is a touch difficult to disentangle what the long standing material is that we should revert to until discussion concludes, but I will see if I can disentangle that.

Also the IP editor who made the final revert used an edit summary that called this vandalism and made other accusations. Please assume good faith in these discussions. We all want the article to be improved.

That same editor posted a document here, requesting translation. I have removed it as it appears to be a copyright violation (though I do not know the source) and translations can be done yourself with machine translation (e.g. DeepL). If the article was copy and pasted, and we know where from, we can request a revdel too.

Challenged material

edit

New material has been added and there are two points of challenge, both of which I thought were fair. Firstly the new material from User:Won Woghur wikilinks to the article on Bulgars but uses a pipe to replace that with the word "Bulgarians". The challenge by User:Volgabulgari points out that these are not quite the same thing. The challenge is fair and the piped alternative word should not be used - except in one case there is apparently a quotation. If the quoted source says Bulgarians, that one should stand. The link is malformed though and I haven'yt yet found the source so don't know if that is correct.

The second point of challenge was that the additional genetics information was not relevant as it was talking about modern Bulgarians. We need to be very careful with genetics information in these articles, and what was introduced was opaque to say the least. A reader who wants to know about the Chuvash people does not want to wade through gene distributions and numbers - they want to know what the secondary sources say about the population genetics or the ethno genesis of the people. We need that in plain English, and let the sources keep the detail for the interested academic reader. So yes, I think the genetics material was also rightly challenged.

As such I am going to revert the edit by User:176.52.77.79 until we arrive at an editor consensus here in talk. However I will follow up the quoted material and if the quotations say "Bulgarians" I shall put those ones back. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am here to talk. I am a Chuvash. I am saying Bulgarian represents Slavic Bulgarians who are Balkan ethnic groups. Bulgar represents Oghur-Turkic groups of Volga river. It's not the same. It's like calling Turkic people as Turkish. Bulgarians are named after Bulgars and they have much to do with Tatars or Chuvashes. Volgabulgari (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Have not* Volgabulgari (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why Bulgarian and not Bulgar?

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago36 comments3 people in discussion

Bulgarian represents Slavic Balkan ethnic group Bulgarians, who doesn't have much to do with Turkic Bulgars. They named after Turkic-speaking Bulgars just like French people named after Germanic Franks. We should call Bulgar instead of Bulgarian. Volgabulgari (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree on that. I don’t think “Bulgarian” should be substituted for “Bulgar” at all in the article *but* I also think that quoted material should be quoted correctly, so if the original material says “ancient Bulgarians” then we quote it (but may need to explain it). On the other hand, I am not clear yet if quoted material ‘’does’’ say Bulgarian. Perhaps the editor who introduced the material could comment on that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
The Volgabulgari user has been repeatedly warned about the damage to the pages, there is a story in his blog, the whole purpose of the author is to erase articles where it is said about the relationship of the Chuvash and the Bulgars. The bot of the propaganda policy of the Tatar-Bulgarians who claim that the Kazan Tatars are Kipchaks direct descendants of the Bulgars and not Chuvash. The original quotes of Tatishchev say about "Ancient Bolgarians!" the word "Bulgars" was coined by historians of the USSR who wanted to distinguish the Volga Bulgars from the Danube Bolgarians in order to avoid confusion, according to all old Russian sources there are only Volga Bolgarians instead of Bulgars Won Woghur (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

He is a new user and i believe he wants to associate Chuvash people with Bulgarians. It's okay to call them Proto-Bulgarians / ancient Bulgarians i guess. But most of the people will confuse for sure. Volgabulgari (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the edit, mate. Leave your instagram/twitter account if you want. I can follow you. Volgabulgari (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't really use instagram or twitter, but thanks.
On the other edits, the editor has added 3 quotes.
  1. V. N. Tatishchev - a quote from 1768;
  2. Huseyn Feyzkhanov - a quote from 1863;
  3. Oleg Mudrak - apparently quoted from a lecture in 2009.
I am not sure that the quotes really improve the article as what he is saying with the quotes jumps from people to language and does not clarify things, but it does perhaps speak to the other school of thought that we mention. I don't want to just undo another editor's work, but it reads a little bit like WP:OR. Can it be adapted to show the valid differences in thought? If you think that this information is not supported by modern scholarship, we could revert that Origin section to the version here[2]. What do you think? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I recommend you to read articles about Tatar Bulgarists, this is an organizational group whose goal is to cross out the Chuvash from the history of the Bulgars everywhere, you fell for this man's trick, he rubs into your confidence, read his page, he has already been left a warning about blocking for the fact that he deleted the Chuvash language belonging to the Khazars in the article. Oguro-Khazar, as proved by Anna Dybo.  Tatar Bulgarists consider themselves descendants of the Volga Bulgars and the Chuvash have no right to be them, this sect has even invented fake sources supposedly ancient: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%84%D0%B0%D1%80_%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%85%D1%8B Won Woghur (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
The problem I have with your material is not the thesis you are proposing, but that it is WP:OR in the manner you are presenting it. You are giving us some very old quotes from Russian language sources on English Wikipedia, and that makes them hard to verify. But more importantly, you are using them to make a thesis that therefore the term Bulgarians should apply - a thesis that opposes the Bulgarism hypothesis. This is WP:OR. What the article needs is WP:RS - reliable sources that present an alternate thesis. One that is actually representative of the academic debate. Your material is not doing that.
That does not mean we are trying to delete or repress your thesis. It just means we have more work to do to find academic WP:RS that make the thesis and that we can then quote. We need reliable secondary sources.
As to the genetics information: we also need reliable secondary sources that summarise population genetics research. We cannot just publish gene data and hope the reader can make the connection you intend to make. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, a tertiary source that curates the academic debate. It is not a place to publish original research based on primary sources.
So once again, this article should reflect all sides of the academic debate - we just have some more work to do, finding the information that summarises the debate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
There are original quotes in Russian, if you can't read them, it doesn't mean that there are no such scientific works, or am I wrong? Then you should learn Russian to make sure of the original source, all links are available to the original. Are the rules of the Russian Wikipedia different from the rules of the English Wikipedia? Why does it have the right to be there on the pages and not here? Russians Russian Wikipedia and Russian sources, Russian linguists like Anna Dybo and Mudrak are not authorities for you? What is your dispute? My edits don't contradict the rules. If I have violated please write what exactly and give a link that it is not allowed. If Bill Gates says something important about Windows tomorrow, for example, that he sells it, then it can be added to the article as his quote or not? He is the original source and author. Won Woghur (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Russian Russian Wikipedia sources I took, the author Volgabulgari is actually a Kazan Tatar under the nickname Bulgarhistory in Russian wikipedia I checked, his task is to destroy everything where it is said about the Chuvash related to the Bulgars.
Neobulgarism in Tatarstan and among Tatars
Viktor Shnirelman distinguishes the goals of the currently existing "Tatarist" and "Bulgarian" approaches to the history of the Kazan Tatars. The goals and objectives of the "Bulgarian" approach largely contributed to the spread of the ideas of neo-Bulgarianism among modern Tatars.
The basis of the "Bulgarian approach", which brings the ancestors of the Tatars from the Volga Bulgaria of the pre-Mongol period, is the concern for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of modern Tatarstan. In addition, he seeks to purge the Tatars of the negative image that has been imposed on them for centuries by Russian literature, which accused them of defeating Kievan Rus. For decades, Tatar scientists and intellectuals have been trying to fight this tradition, and some of them saw an acceptable solution in emphasizing the Bulgarian roots of the Tatar people up to the change of self-designation.
— Shnirelman V. A. The charm of hoary antiquity: Myths about origin in modern school textbooks. // Inviolable reserve. — 2004. — Issue 5 (37). Won Woghur (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I recommend you to read the Russian Wikipedia about the sect of the Tatar-Bulgarian movement: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5 Won Woghur (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia (Russian or English) is a tertiary source. What we need is secondary sources.
Britannica is a tertiary source, but it says:
The Chuvash speak a Turkic language and claim to be descended from the Bolgars who in the 4th century AD migrated from Central Asia to the region west of the Volga River. It is not unlikely that they represent an amalgamation of Bolgars with the tribes then living in the area. Their language is very different from other Turkic languages. The Chuvash are nominally Russian Orthodox; both their remaining traditional beliefs and their nominalreligion, however, are said to be in decline.[3]
Another encylopaedia (also a tertiary source) agrees:
The Chuvash are Turkic-speaking people who have lived in the Middle Volga region of the Russian Federation for centuries. They are considered to be descendants of the ancient Bulgars, who maintained a state in the Middle Volga River valley from the 10th to 13th centuries. As an ethnic group, the Chuvash were formed chiefly on the basis of the Turkic-speaking Bulgars who came in large masses in the 7th century from the Caucasus region. The Bulgars and the subdued and partially assimilated indigenous Finno-Ugric tribes settled down on both sides of the Middle Volga and formed the Bulgar state.[4]
So are you saying something different to the above? Are these wrong? Who is saying they are wrong, and why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/humbiol/vol87/iss1/1/ so you explain why all these geneticists and this source are not authorities? And in the Russian Wikipedia it is conceivable Won Woghur (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Fedorova2003.pdf I didn't add it at all, although I don't understand why it doesn't have a place to be authoritative? Won Woghur (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-313X.2012.01117.x What's the problem here? Won Woghur (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Genetichni%20izsledvaniya/Chuvash_HLA.pdf And what's wrong here? I didn't add a part of it at all, it was earlier Won Woghur (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Firstly, you have erased from genetics what was previously written before me and this is not my editing, I just added a study where proto-Bulgari from the necropolises, were compared with modern Danube Bulgarians. Well, if nothing is an authority for you except from English sources, it looks like discrimination. I do not add such articles, although Oleg Balanovsky, with whom I personally communicated, was an outstanding geneticist http://xn--c1acc6aafa1c.xn--p1ai/?page_id=5500 Won Woghur (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for these references, which are all interesting. However they are also all primary sources. These are good studies, making interesting points but they don't stand alone. An example of the problem, for instance, is that the first two are MtDNA studies which have a well recognised problem in population genetics in that the admixture of a population can be skewed when you only look at matrilineal descent. Reference 3 and 4 do not appear, on the face of it, to contradict the talk quotes I put up. And your reply in general, like your edits, is really not showing me how you believe those quotations are wrong.
Again, I am not dismissing your thesis out of hand. If the article is missing something important, it needs to go in. But at this point I cannot see what it is that we should be saying that we are not.
Finally, I said English Wikipedia has a preference for sources in English, but it is not a rule. Sources in other languages are fine where nothing is available in English, but English language is preferred. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Vasily Tatishchev's quote is not about the origin, but rather a historical quote. Mudrak O.A's quote is a language-related quote. Maybe the we can transfer Tatishchev's quote may be added to the history, but the other parts were already written in origin. He just explained in a long paragraph that they speak the Bulgar-Oghur language and that is an isolated language. I believe it takes too much space. Quotes are mostly irrelevant or already mentioned things. Volgabulgari (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I moved Tatishchev into history, but I need to find the quotations to check them for accuracy. The quotation does mention something we don't have on the page yet, which is the distinction between upper and lower Chuvash. I have also made some copy edits in origins. Both theories of origins were in Krueger 1968 so I tried to bring that out more clearly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Off topic: WP:TALKOFFTOPIC
You are a Tatar, you don't have to try to introduce your Tatar propaganda into the English Wikipedia, there are no idiots here, there is only science and history. Learn the rules of Wikipedia, your "I don't want to see this" is not an argument and a reason for cancellation. You have already been warned for trying to delete the Chuvash language from an article from the Khazars where there was a 4th grade article created by mega professionals. Do you think your tentacles have reached here now? Who are you trying to fool? You write that you are a Chuvash translate well: Joker title bulsan turatam kala. I think you won't translate it because in Latin and the translator won't help.) Won Woghur (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a Volga Tatar, and my first language is Chuvash. I am warned about Khazar section and we figured this out. Pan-bulgarism is pretty alien for us. Volgabulgari (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

We are talking about articles where you are trying to impersonate a Chuvash everywhere, I am a Turkologist and have studied Chuvash well, tell me how the word is translated: Ma Won Woghur (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Please concentrate only on the article here. No personal attacks. We are discussing wy the material does or doesn't belong on the page and that is all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Let's speak here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Won_Woghur#About_the_Bulgars 

Volgabulgari (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I deleted Chuvash-Oghur part it's because mod tried to split Oghur language and Chuvash language. He later claimed Chuvash is not an Oghur language. I am the creator of origin and name part of Chuvash people. Why would i want to mock on my nation? I am the one who associate Chuvashes with Khazars. Check my edits. Btw, as i said earlier Chuvash is my native tongue. Volgabulgari (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's what I thought, I asked you twice to translate words and phrases from the Chuvash language, but you couldn't, so you have nothing to do with the Chuvash. Your "I want", "I think", "I want", has nothing to do with science, there are scientists, there are historians and there are linguists, they write scientific articles, we add them here. if you have something to dispute, please provide links to scientific articles that refute those scientists and historians who refer the Chuvash language to the Bulgar group of Turkic-Altaic languages. Articles where Russian historians write exactly as you claim, if all this is not there, then this is your personal wish, and not dry scientific facts. Won Woghur (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Please read WP:NPA. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
So he turns to personalities, asks me for social networks, tells me that he is a Chuvash and says in Chuvash that I am not deeply interested, why are you clinging to me? Tell him that. I have already written to him many times on another page that I do not want to talk about his origin and language and share social networks, but it does not reach him. Won Woghur (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Both Sirfurboy and I didn't delete your quotes because it's unscentific, it's because irrelevant. What you quoted is already written in origin and tell me your Instagram/Twitter, let's speak if you like. I am currently don't live in Russia and I don't use Russian wikipedia either. Funny you made it up all those. I don't believe neither Bulgarians or Tatars are directly related to Bulgars. Why don't you share your name and studies Turkologist? Volgabulgari (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't care where you live, what language you speak, and why do you ask everyone for social networks? Don't you have anyone to talk to? I've already written to you, I don't want to waste time on you. Go to a cafe and talk to the bartender. Won Woghur (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Btw, I replied your text 30 min ago before this question of yours. My English is not perfect. You mean "For what?" by Ma? Volgabulgari (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

You have learned Yandex Translator well, only it gives such an incorrect translation. So you got burned that you are not familiar with the Chuvash language. Won Woghur (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hahaha, I wasn't know there was Chuvash in Yandex translator. I almost translating everything I said to English but I can fluently speak Chuvash. Please give me your account and let's speak. Volgabulgari (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Check Yandex translator once again. Look if it translates the Word "Ma" Lol. Volgabulgari (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I want to clarify something. I never used Russian Wikipedia or edited Bulgar history in my life. Do you really think this is me?Can you link me? Please look at my edits. I never falsified Chuvash history. I wrote the origin and etymology of Chuvash and I linked them to the Sabirs of Volga Bulgaria. Volgabulgari (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Genetics Section

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In this edit: [5] a lot of technical information from primary sources has been (re)introduced to the article, but this is too technical for a general reader, and the sources are all WP:PRIMARY which is a big problem with this kind of information. The problem is that each primary source has findings and hypotheses, but they are focused on issues and lack a wider perspective. If we simply provide a list of primary sources and invite any kind of conclusions to be made, then we are engaging in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I would prefer the genetics section be kept simple (as it was) unless we can find reliable secondary sources that look at the big picture (supportive or otherwise of the language replacement hypothesis and similar). Is there a secondary treatment? Could we back out those changes? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Of course. Never thought i should keep genetic section simple. Will do it. Volgabulgari (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is there any need to add language theories?

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Early scholars from 1800s believed Chuvash is a Turkified Finnic / Finno-Ugric language because of loanwords from Mari in lexicon. Modern scholars generally agreed Chuvash is distinct Oghuric Turkic language with Finnic influence. Do you think we should keep this theory in language section? It may mislead the readers about Chuvash. It was too early and it is too specific for tiny language section. Do you think we should just say it's a language influenced from Uralic or keep the theory anyway. Volgabulgari (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Any suggestions? Volgabulgari (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Chuvash researchers have gone far beyond Oxford and Cambridge.

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Chuvash consider themselves descended from the Onogurs, Saragurs, Kutrigurs, Bulgars, and they, in turn, came from the territory of Mongolia, Siberia and Manchuria, along with the Hunnu tribes harnessed by oxen (yurts on wheels)


Etymology of Oghur, Utigurs, Kutrigur, Saragurs, Hungars and Bulgars.


Bulgar (Oghur) rotacism *z > r. ökör > öküz > wăkăr.

Oğur ~ Oğuz

Ökör ~ Öküz


Chuvash: văkăr

Hungarians: ökör

Azer: öküz

Turks: öküz

Tatar: buka

Rus: бык

English: bull / ox Kalmyk language "ukr" («үкр») - cow ~ ökör > wăkăr > oğur > oghur = ox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.52.78.33 (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Oghur ~ Văkăr - IPA [vәgәr], it means Ox, Bull.

Hungarian Oghur - Ökör - Ox,

Turkish Oghuz - Öküz - Ox,


Onogur - On ökör - Ten oxen (tribes)

Saragur - Šar ökör - White oxen (tribes)

Kutrigur - Kotrag ökör - Oxen of Kotrag (tribes)

Utigur - Utti ökör - Oxen Ooty (tribes)


Photo Hungarian Oghur - Ökör - Ox, harnessed oxen and a yurt on wheels: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Feszty_Panorama_cattles.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%81rp%C3%A1d's_wife.jpg


Chuvash is the only living language of the Ogur group of languages which led to the hypothesis: The word Ogur contains rhotacism (*z > r), сomes from the Hungarian word ökör (oghurs) and the Chuvash word wăkăr translated into eng. ox, bull is a reflection of the Turkic word öküz (oghuz) in the Kipchak buka; the word "On ogur" means "ten bulls" (tribes). Ogur (ökör) ~ wăgăr ~ öküz (oguz) ~ buka ~ ox, bull. Among the Greeks, this form was mentioned in the forms: "ono gundur" and "hunu gundur". From Chinese "gundur" this 公牛 - gōng niú - Ox, Bull. Hun gōng niú - ten bulls. The very first mention of the Bulgars 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. Onogur > Hun ogar > Hungar ~ Hun ökör ~ cv. Wun wăkăr ~ ten ox (bulls).The self-name of the Hungarians "magyars", which is translated from the Chuvash "măkăr" - "horn" perhaps in ancient Hungarian it sounded like "mökör".

Oghurs were several tribes Onogurs (ten ox/tribes), Kutrigurs (kotrag ox/tribes), Utigurs (uti ox/tribes), Saragurs (white ox/tribes), Bulgars (five ox/tribes), Hungars (ten ökör/ox).

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 Kutrigurs,Hungarians and Bulgars also originate from Oghur (ogur).

Kutrigurs - kutri oghur - Kotrag tribes (From the Chuvash language , the name Kotrag means curly)

Ut(r)igur - *Otur oghur - *Uturğur mean "Thirty Oğurs (tribes)"

Saragurs — Sara oghur - white oghur tribe

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 ökör (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".

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.

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".

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".

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.


In the 19th century, the Kazakhs used the names of the zodiac constellations in Arabic as the names of the months:

SAVVA THE BIG (1803-04) was captured by the Kazakhs Kishi Zhuz of the Tileu tribe.

The second - April, they have "Saur", i.e. "bull"; in this month there is also a holiday called Saban Tue.

Modern names of the months in Uighur:

April - Savir.

Karakalpak official and traditional names of the months:

April' - Sa'wir

They correspond to the Arabic names of the constellations:

Aprel' - Sa'wir - - Taurus

In Ottoman the constellations were called:

Bull - Sevr

From Arabic: Suvar - Savir - Bull.


Ancient Russian authors write

Quotes:

Down the Volga River, the Chuvash, the ancient Bulgarians, filled the entire county of Kazan and Simbirsk— Tatishchev V. N. History of Russia. — M.; L., 1962. - T. I. - S. 252.

Chuvash, Bulgarian people, near Kazan - Tatishchev V.N. History of Russia. — M.; L., 1962. - T. I. - S. 426.

Down the Kama lived Bilyars, or Bulgarians, and Cholmats (Cholman - the name of the Kama River in Chuvash) ... now the remnants of their Chuvash, who are enough down the Volga - Tatishchev V. N. History of Russia. — M.; L., 1962. - T. I. - S. 428.

The remaining Bulgarian peoples of the Chuvash - Tatishchev V.N. History of Russia. — M.; L., 1964. - T. IV. - S. 411.


On the accession of the Chuvash lands to Muscovy:

"However, (Ivan the Terrible), in the form of a reward for insulting (to the Bulgars), subjugated (Moscow) along with Kazan and neighboring Bulgaria, which he could not stand for frequent rebellions, so that this country, not accustomed to humility, learned to wear someone else's YGO ". Augustin Mayerberg. Journey to Muscovy. Part 4

On the large state seal of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible and in the Russian titulars, the "Principality of Bulgaria" and "Kingdom of Kazan" have different coats of arms and administrative territories.

We continue with the quotes:

"The remaining Bulgarian peoples of the Chuvash"; “The Volga Bulgarians speak the same language as the Hungarians and the Danube Bulgarians from the same descendants” - Tatishchev V.N. Russian History. — M.; L., 1962.

Why with the Hungarians? I will explain on my fingers, the very word Hungarians or Ugrians comes from the Bulgarian language as Onogurs (On ökör. Ten oxen (tribes), then it was transformed in different languages in its own way:

old rus. оугринъ, ukr. угорець, belor. вугорац, old slav. ѫгринъ, ѫгре, serb. у̀гар, у̀гра, у̀грин, bolg. унгарци, sloven. vogr, vogrin, chez. uher, slovakia. uhor, polend. węgier, węgrzyn, lit. veñgras.

In European languages it has the form lat. Ungari, Ungri, grec. Οὑγγρικός, Οὖγγροι, france. hongroi(s), deut. Ungar(n), engl. Hungarian(s), shved. ungrare.

All this goes back to the Chuvash "Vun văkăr" and the Hungarian "On ökör" - Ten oxen.

văkăr - ökör - Ogur - Ugrian - Ugrians

on ökör - vun văkăr - vungar - Hungarian

Closest to the Chuvash "Vun văkăr" is the Belarusian "Vugorats" and the Slovenian "Vogr".


Chuvash ancestors:

1) Ogurs (Văkăr / Ökör / Gōngniú) - Oxen (tribe)

2) Onogurs (Won văkăr / On ökör / Ono gungniur) - Ten oxen (tribes)

3) Saragurs (Shur văkăr / Shar ökör) - White oxen (tribes)

4) Kutrigurs (Kătri văkărĕsem / Kutri ökör) - Oxen (tribes) Kotrag

5) Utigurs (Uti văkărĕsem / Uti ökör) - Oxen (tribes) Uti (name)

6) Bulgars (Pil văkăr / Bül ökör) - Five oxen (tribes)

Hungarian Ökör - Ox

Chuvash Văkăr - Ox, Bull

The word Ogur comes from the Bulgarian Ökör (R-language)

The word Oguz comes from the Azeri Öküz (Z-language)

The Chuvash language in the genealogical classification of the languages of the world belongs to the Turkic group of the Altaic language family and is the only living language of the Bulgar (Oghur) group. This is due to the fact that the Bulgarians had a phonetic:

rotacism: z -> r

lambdaism: sh -> L

chitaism: q -> h.

The Bulgar language is known from the epitaphs written in Arabic script. Separate lexemes are known from the note of Ibn Fadlan of the 10th century and from borrowings in the modern languages of the peoples of the Volga and Cis-Urals.

The first node of both of our family trees is the separation of Chuvash from other languages, usually defined as the separation of the Bulgar group.

— Dybo, A. B. Chronology of the Turkic languages and linguistic contacts of the early Turks. - M .: Academy, 2004. - S. 766.

"As for the problem of the Bulgaro-Chuvash ethno-linguistic continuity, at present it can be considered unequivocally and positively resolved. At least, all comparative Turkologists who have closely dealt with this problem currently recognize the Chuvash language as the only living language of the Bulgar (Ogur) groups of Turkic languages. Kazan colleagues also have to reckon with this position, but always with various reservations.(c) Chief Researcher of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences A. A. Chechenov

"... the Turkic-speaking ancestors of the modern Chuvash were the first Turkic tribes that penetrated the territory of Europe. Subsequently, the Turkic-speaking community in the lower reaches of the Volga, apparently, split into two languages - Bulgar and Khazar. The close connection between the Bulgar and Chuvash languages is undoubted. The few Bulgar words that have survived in the inscriptions, reveal such features that are found only in the Chuvash language and are completely uncharacteristic of other Turkic languages. (c) Serebrennikov B. A. The origin of the Chuvash according to the language.


Further V.N. Tatishchev writes:

"Their own name (Bulgars), according to Karpein, is seen as Bilirs, and the Tatars call them Bulir. These Bulgarians among the Russians were divided in two: upper and lower." The Tatars themselves called the Bulgars - Bilirs. And only the Chuvashs have a division into Riding (Virial) and Lower (Anatri).


The Hungarians themselves call themselves Magyars, in the sources they are also Mozhary or Mishara.

200 years later, in 1863, the Tatar scholar Hussein Feyzhanov published an article "Three gravestone Bulgarian inscriptions", in which he presented to the scientific community the results of deciphering the Bulgarian epitaphs in Chuvash words.

Of the 400 found epitaphs of the Volga Bolgars, 90% of them are written in the Chuvash language in Arabic script; 5 pieces are Armenian epitaphs that built mosques in Bolgar.


Title of Yaltavar, king of the Bulgars Almush son of Shilka

The title of the Bulgar ruler is mentioned in the "Risal" from Ahmad ibn Fadlan ibn al-Abbas ibn Rashid al-Baghdadi, an Arab traveler and writer of the 1st half of the 10th century, twice. First, we are talking about a letter from the Bulgar ruler “Almush, son of Shilka Yaltyvar, king of the Sakaliba (Slavs of the Imenkovites)”. Then the title sounds in the khutba: “O Allah! Save [in prosperity] the king of Yaltivar, the king of the Bulgars! The sources indicate that this is the title of the Bulgar kings, as the title of the king of the Turks is Khakan. Many people have a natural question why they separated the Turks from the Bulgars, if the Bulgars are Turks, as some researchers claim, all this fits into the fact that if only the Bulgars were Oghurs, and not Oguzes and Kipchaks. Chuvash linguists claim that the title Yaltavar was formed from the Turkic word il, el, yal - "settlement, state, region" and the Turkic tuvar - "unharness", "unharness"; Kumyk., legs. tuvar, bashk. Tugar, Chuv. tăvar, Tat. Tuar, Kazakh. dogar "to unharness"; tofal. dӳhӳr "unload" and literally means "autonomous ruler of the region" but dependent on the kagan/khakan (khan of khans). In Chuvash, it sounds like Yaltăvar - an autonomous ruler of the region, by analogy, the head of an autonomous republic within the Russian Federation. Almush was just dependent on the Khazar Khaganate. Eltebers (Yaltybars) were vassals of the ancient Turks - rulers who played the role of governors of such peoples as the Yenisei Kyrgyz, Karluks, Uyghurs, etc. Considering the title of the Turkic Khaganate (el), G. Dörfer made the following judgment:

“The Eltebers did not belong to the ruling house, but came from the ancient families of once independent coalition rulers. They seemed to be granted a certain autonomy.


Kotrag - the leader of one of the Bulgar tribal groups of Great Bulgaria - the nomadic people of the Kutrigurs. Under the leadership of Kotrag, in the 7th century, the Kutrigurs moved from Great Bulgaria, defeated by the Khazars, to the Middle Volga region, where the state of Volga Bulgaria was subsequently created. In the Chuvash language, Kotrag is translated as Curly, in contrast to the Tatar-Kypchak: Bөdrә kaz.Бұйра..


the name Kotrag was given in honor of the great-grandfather Kobrat, who also bore the name Kotrag in honor of whom the whole tribe of Kutrigurs was named.

Grosse thought that the Kutrigurs were the remnants of the Huns, Procopius relates:

in old times, many Huns, then called Cimmerians, inhabited the lands I have already mentioned. All had one king. Once one of their kings had two sons: one was called Uti ogur and the other was called Kutri ogur. After the death of their father, they shared power and gave their names to the conquered peoples, so even today some of them are called Utigurs, while others are called Kutrigurs.

They occupied the Tanai-Meotian (Don-Azov) steppe zone, the Kutrigurs in the western part and the Utrigurs in the east. This story is confirmed by the words of the Utigur ruler Sandilcha:

It is unfair and not decent to exterminate our fellow tribesmen (Kutrigurs), who not only speak a language identical to ours, are our neighbors and have the same clothes and lifestyle, but are also our relatives, although they are subordinate to other bosses.


Chuvash and Bulgars according to Ahmad Ibn Fadlan

The ruler of the Volga Bulgars was called Almush.

The name Almush is a typical Turkic name from tat. Diamond, Uzbek Olmos, tour. Elmas, Azerbaijan. Almaz, Yakut. Almaas, Kazakh. Diamond, head. Diamond, Kirg. Diamond, the name of a diamond gemstone. In the notes of Ibn Fadlan, the name is written as Almush, which is Chuvashism written in the Ogur dialect, and not in the Kypchak Z-language, from here it follows that Almush was not a Kypchak-lingual, otherwise he would have had the name Almaz. In Hungarian, the same name sounds like Almos.

The Chuvash have similar old names - SavRUSH, IlUSH, AlUSH, IlUSH and so on ...

Almush later took the Muslim name Jagfar ibn Abdullah or Jagfar ben Abdullah from 895 to 925 - yaltăvar (king) of the Volga Bulgaria, the son of Shilka (Silkki, "Abdullah"), the unifier of the Bulgaro-Suvar tribes and the creator of a single state of Silver Bulgaria, which later included and Finno-Ugric tribes. Yaltipar Almush already at the end of the 9th century minted coins on behalf of Jagfar bin Gabdullah (his Muslim name).

The title of the Bulgar king “Yaltavar” is clearly read in the Mashkhed manuscript (Meshkh. manuscript, p. 204a, line 16) namely Yaltavar, and not the Turkic Baltavar or Elteber! Even here we see Chuvashism perfectly in the title. "Allah save the ruler of Yaltavar, the king of Bulgar!" You can easily decipher this word, which is used by the Chuvash to this day. "Yaltavar" consists of two words: "Yal" - village, country, state, as well as tavar - supremacy / rule. (approx. Lashana tavar - To curb a horse) That is, who owns the whole country, the state, the ruler of the people.

Wife - daughter (or sister) of the Oghuz commander Etrek.

Ibn Fadlan reports that Almush has sons

Daughters:

the first is the wife of the Khazar kagan (Cossack)

the second is the wife of the leader of the Eskel tribe (splinter?)

From Ibn Fadlan:

Q.7. They all wear hats. When the king rides out on horseback, rides alone, without a gulam and without escorts, and arrives at the bazaar, everyone gets up, takes off their hats from their heads and puts them under their armpits. When the king goes away, they put these hats back on their heads. In the same way, if someone approaches the king, whether he is young or old, including his [own] children and brothers, and happens to be near him, he immediately takes off his hat and puts it under his armpit. Then he makes a sign in his direction with his head and sits down, then gets up until the king allows him to sit down. Verily, everyone who sits in front of the king [sits] on his knees and does not remove his hat from his armpit and does not show it until he leaves the king. [Coming out], he puts on his hat [back].

From the Chuvash culture:

Materials for the explanation of the old Chuvash faith Authors: V. Magnitsky (p. 58) "Taking ladles with beer in one hand and putting a hat in the other armpit ...",

"All family members turn to the EAST and the eldest in the family, putting his HAT under his left ARMPIT, begins to pray!!!" (c) Nikanor (Kamensky, Nikifor Timofeevich; 1847-1910). Remains of pagan rites and religious beliefs among the Chuvash / p.10

"At this time, other administrators, taking their hats under their arms, turn their faces to the East and say well-known prayers, thank the creator for his good deeds, prayers are accompanied by prostrations" Materials for the history and statistics of the Simbirsk province. Issue 4 Edition of the Simbirsk Provincial Statistical Committee. Simbirsk, 1867. - 96 p.

From Ibn Fadlan:

Q.8. They all [live] in yurts. The king's yurt is very large, it [can] accommodate a thousand people or more souls. It is covered with Arminian carpets. In the center [of the yurt] is a throne covered with Rumian brocade.

Al-Balkhi:

The houses are wooden and serve as winter dwellings, while in summer the inhabitants disperse to felt yurts.

From the Chuvash culture:

Blagovidov, Ivan Alekseevich (1853) "Materials for the study of the health of foreigners in the Simbirsk province. Buinsky district (Chuvash, Mordovians and Tatars)" p. 5: Wealthy Chuvash plow Saban (Chuvash plow in which 6 horses are laid). During working hours (summer), the Chuvash become unusually active, especially when harvesting bread. Then the whole Chuvash family leaves the house and moves to the field, so as not to waste working time on moving. This intensive work lasts for three months from June to September.

Maslenitsky T.G. "Topographical description of the Simbirsk governorship in 1780" In summer they live in huts built from good wood, and in winter in black huts and darkness, in which on one door for illumination small half circles are carved at the top. And although two more small roll windows were made to the east and at midnight, they open very rarely.

From Ibn Fadlan:

17.5. When we finished [with food], the king ordered [to bring] a honey drink, which they call suju (al-sagu or, more precisely, as-sgu) [and which is prepared by fermentation] during the day. The king drank the goblet, then rose and said: - May my joy be witnessed in relation to my master, the commander of the believers, may Allah prolong his life!

From the Chuvash traditional cuisine: Honey was the main sweet of the Chuvash. Various honey drinks were also made from it, such as: "suçĕ" (wort) - honey mash, "săra" - honey beer (honey was added instead of sugar). From the manuscript al-sagu or, more precisely, as-sgu, should be understood as al sagu Chuvash saroo - beer! Chuvash beer săra is a traditional drink that has a sacred meaning and is called liquid bread.

From Ibn Fadlan:

N.9. The inhabitants of this country told me [the following]: - Verily, when winter [comes] the night becomes as long as the [summer] day, and the [winter] day becomes as short as the [summer] night. Indeed, if one of us goes [in winter] at dawn to a place called Atil and which [is from us] at a distance of less than one farsah, then [by the time] of his arrival it is already night and all the stars appear covering [everything ] sky.

Comment:

We see the Volga River named Atil, like the Chuvash Atăl! And not in the Kypchak (Tatar) Idel! As we have already written more than once, due to the fact that there is no letter and sound "Ӑ" in Arabic, it is replaced with another one.


From Ibn Fadlan:

Q.11. I have never seen so many thunderstorms anywhere as in their country. If a thunderstorm hits the yurt, they never [more] approach it, leaving it as it is, along with everything that [is] in it, people, property, and so on, until time destroys it [completely ]. They say: "The wrath of the Lord [fell] on this yurt"

From Chuvash mythology:

Aslă Tură (God), he is Aslati, the master of heaven, throws lightning at Shuitan (the devil) at his main enemy, and at all the evil forces that serve him. If lightning hits the house, it means that a shuitan settled there or there was an evil place, perhaps the owners sinned! The Chuvash still say so "Aslati çilenchĕ" - "The Lord Was Angry"

From Ibn Fadlan:

Q.12. If one of them intentionally kills another, they execute him for [murder], and if the killing [was] unintentional, then they make a box of birch wood for [the killer], put it in [this box], nail [the box with nails], and put together with him three cakes [bread] and a cup of water. Then they set up [vertically] three logs like pillars and hang [a box] between them. They say: “We place it between heaven and earth, rain and sun. Perhaps Allah will [show his] mercy on him.” The [Killer Box] remains [in this position] until time [turns it] to dust and the winds blow it away.

From the Chuvash culture:

Chuvashs always complete any prayer with the words “Tură yrlăh syrlăh patăr” - “May God give His mercy”, the word “Allah” should be understood as meaning “God”. From the Chuvash prayer in kiremeti before the sacrifice: "Çĕrpe pĕlet khushshinche, shyvpa hĕvel hushshinche tărapăr, Turtan yrlăh ytapăr" - We stand between heaven and earth, between the sun and water, we ask God for his blessing.

From Ibn Fadlan:

Q.13. If they see an intelligent and knowledgeable person, they say, "This [person] deserves [to] serve our Lord." They take him, tie a rope around his neck and hang him [in this noose] on a tree to die. They saw the Pakistani, how clever he was, and decided among themselves [the following]: - This person is well suited [to] serve our Lord, let's correct him to Him. Their path passed near the forest. They brought [this Sindian] to [this forest], tied a rope around his neck and hung him from the top of a tall tree. They left him [in this position] and left.


From the Chuvash culture:

Here we see purely Chuvash pagan rites. These cases are described in many books. Also, the Chuvash, for example, for the god Tur, killed the best Horses, they said that there he (God) needed good horses to carry clouds with rain across the sky, when there was a drought, they say God's horses grew old.

Rivers like Cheremshan and Kandalka, these river names are fixed in the notes of Ibn Fadlan as "Jaramsan" (Çapamsan) and "Kunjulu" (Kandala). As we can see, the linguistic continuity is obvious! The mentioned river Javshir is Shavçyr (noisy ravine). Three lakes Hellete (Hĕlleçĕ - Wintering) where Almush's headquarters stopped. Tatars, for example, do not know how these toponyms are translated and what they mean.

Cheremshan river - comes from the Chuvash language, in the upper dialect Zaransam - Lugovaya river, from the root Zaran - Lug. In the lower dialect, Çeremsen means Sod River, from the root Çerem - Sod / Lawn / Meadows. Here we see a purely Chuvash name, which is mentioned even in Ibn Fadlan's note as Jaramsan.

the river Kandalka is also a typical Turkic name here, from the Chuvash Kunçală - Algae, in the Chuvash traditions, to name the rivers according to the plant that grows on the banks of this river. The river is pronounced again in the Chuvash way.


The myth of Atilla the Bogatyr

At birth, he had a different name in order to deceive evil spirits and enemies of his kind, this was often practiced by the Chuvash, but when he became a great khan, he was called "Atil" - which means "Father of the People".

Atil Pattăr - according to legend, the bravest leader of the Chuvash, who defended them from enemies. In the last battle, he invaded the enemy army on horseback and mowed them down with a sharp sword. Enemies shot hundreds of arrows at him, which stuck into his shield. The warriors changed their shield seven times, and each time the shield with arrows was lifted with difficulty by seven warriors. As they began to change for the eighth time, an enemy arrow tightly struck the hero, hitting the heart. the brave hero Atl-batyr, who died in battle and was buried in a "golden coffin, but at the bottom of the sea." According to legend, in honor of their leader, the Chuvashs named the largest river Atil / Atăl (Volga). In the atlas of the 7th c. R. The Volga is named "Atl". The Chuvash still call the Volga in honor of Atilla - Atl

Before coming to the Caucasus and the Volga, according to Chuvash legends and songs, they walked from Siberia in the footsteps of the Pearl Cat (Irbis) until they reached the Caucasus and then from there they went up the Volga to the Kama River. 176.52.77.19 (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Classification of Turkic languages

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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- (oguz), -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

Oguz, kipchaks: qara, qaz, qyz, qabaq

Chuvash: hura, hur, hĕr, hupah

The -h- sound disappears and disappears if it is the last letter .

Dudaq - Tuta - Lips instead of Tutah

Ayaq - Ura - Leg instead of Urah

Baliq - Pulă - Fish instead of Pulăh

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

Oguz: jumurta, jylan, jagmur, jort, jez (turk., azerb., tat.,)

Kipchaks: žumurtka, žylan, žamgyr, žort, žer (kyrgyz., kazakh.)

Chuvash: şămarta, şĕlen, şămăr, şurt, şĕr

* The Turkic sound -š- is replaced by the Chuvash -L-, example lambdaism:

Words in Turkic languages: winter, silver, sun

Oguz, Kipchaks: qyš, qemeš, qoyaš

Chuvash: hĕl, qĕmĕl, 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 -u-.

Words in Turkic languages: horse, coin, head, step

Oguz, Kipchaks: at, akça, baš, adym

Chuvash: ut, ukşa, puş, utăm

In modern times, in Chuvash [a] remains, Tatar "kapka" ~ Chuvash "hapha" (gate), when there should be a "hupha" from the root "hup - close".

* In the field of vowels, G. F. Miller observes another example when -u- is replaced by -wu- or -wă-

Words in Turkic languages: fire, ten, forest, russian, he, thirty

Oguz, Kipchaks: ut, un, urman, urus, ul, utyz

Chuvash: wut, wun, wărman, wyrăs, wăl, wătăr

* The fricative -g- in some words in Chuvash corresponds to -v-

Words in Turkic languages: native, mountain

Oguz: tugan, dag

Chuvash: tăvan, tuv

altai languagesazerbaijani languagebashkir languagebulgar languagechuvashchuvash languagechuvash republickazakh languagekipchak languagekyrgyz languageoghuroghur languageoguroguz languagetatar languagethe language of the hunsturk languageturkic languagesuzbek language 176.52.77.19 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Genetics

edit

Panorama of peoples on the background of Europe. Non-Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe (series III). Fragment from the book "The Gene Pool of Europe" / Tovarishestvo scientific publications KMK - Moscow 2015. The publication was carried out with the financial support of the Russian Fundamental Fund new research under project No. 15-06-07016, not for sale. ISBN 978-5-9907157-0-7

Oleg Pavlovich Balanovsky - Russian geneticist, Doctor of Biological Sciences, head of the laboratory of genomic geography of the Institute of General Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Khazar Origin? Proven Volga Bulgar??

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@Jingiby

Please read the Khazar origin sources. All pointing a historical document written by Persian historian claiming Volga Bulgar is similiar to Khazar language. Why did you put it there? Because there are many problematic things in it.

Its very doubtful that if Chuvash are an independent Oghur group or descendants of Volga Bulgars or Sabirs. This page really needs changing, so many false sources. Can you guys help me check the sources and help the Wikipedia community?

So far I noticed:

1-) "Chuvash is the sole living representative of Volga Bulgar language"

That's very debated and disputed by scholars so marking it "Volga Bulgar" in the summary as definitive is inappropriate and leans too far in one direction. Readers should see the discussion in the article body on this matter. Please remove or change it.

"Another Turkic people in the Volga area are the Chuvash, who, like the Tatars, regard themselves as descendants of the Volga Bulghars in the historical and cultural sense. It is clear that Chuvash belongs to the Oghur branch of Turkic, as the language of the Volga Bulghars did, but no direct evidence for diachronic development between the two has been established. As there were several distinct Oghur languages in the Middle Ages, Volga Bulghar could represent one of these and Chuvash another." [1]

2-) "It is considered to share a linguistic connection with the Khazar language in Oghuric languages, which itself constitutes a significantly divergent principal group."[2][3]

How did you miss these? Khazar language is not proven to be Oghuric. This is also pointed in Khazar lang's page. We have only one single word from Khazarian. All these are just assumes presented as facts. Also, what's the purpose of adding these into Chuvash language? To seek some sort of connection between Khazars and Chuvash?

3-) "The other is that Chuvash may have descendant from the Khazars, based on linguistic and ancestral connections."[4][5][6]

I read all these references and couldn't find any "Chuvash" word in them. It says a Persian historian claiming a connection between Volga Bulgars and Khazars. Other states a Persian historian who lived few hundred years ago claimed Sabir and Khazar words are connected. For instance both these 36-133 [6] saying the same claim of that old historian while a modern scholar writing it doesn't even mentioning Chuvash people.

4-) "are a Turkic ethnic group, a branch of the Onogurs,"

Onoghurs are specific tribal confederation united with Bulgars. It is not certain whether Chuvash is Onoghur, Volga Bulgar or Sabir related. Chuvash being an independent Oghur group is also possible. It's near same as marking Chuvash as a tribe of Bulgars. It should have been just Oghur. This part is very interesting because it has many copy-pastes in it. Wikipedia does not allow articles with copyright problems. It's not quote.

Please look at this: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Chuvash_language.html

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/268991

https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/chuvash#:~:text=Chuvash%20is%20classified%2C%20alongside%20the,Oghuric%20family%20cannot%20be%20determined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auzandil (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This one is older. It's just a cheap copy of that page. Please remove some and change others if you won't let me.

2A02:FF0:3316:CDA2:7540:60:F78A:8B2 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Do it, please. Jingiby (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recent changes

edit
Latest comment: 6 months ago10 comments3 people in discussion

@Artem Petrov CHV I'd like to discuss the recent changes with you. You can see the hoax & fake sources listed in last title and reasons why I removed them. You called me Finno-Ugricphile, I believe it's for recent changes in genetic and linguistic section. However, these are cited sources and not only Finno-Ugrics but Mongolian language relation is also mentioned. Genetic section's "elite domination" is changed as "language shifting" by user Jingiby. These are practically the same things. Older one is open-ended although reference is certain.

"Chuvash historians postulate that their nation is descended from Sabirs.[7] In the Mari language modern Volga Tatars are called Suas; Chuvash also are known as Suasenmari (which means Suar-icized Mari), or in Mongolian Suusenmori, Finnish Suaslanmari.[8]"

I deleted this line from origin. Because it's a linguistical open-ended information rather than ethnic/origin. This is from page of Sabir people. I can actually swap this line to culture but I choose to keep it that way.

"Scholars first believed Chuvash is a Turkified Finno-Ugric (Uralic) language due to strong Finno-Ugric elements or a language between Mongolic and Turkic, due to deep connections between Mongolian and Chuvash that don't exist to the same extent with other Turkic languages"

Formerly, scholars considered Chuvash to be a Turkicized Finno-Ugric (Uralic) language or an intermediary branch between Turkic and Mongolian. The distinct character of Chuvash is also indicated by its lack of mutual intelligibility with the other Turkic languages.[6]

"Volga Tatar language and the neighboring Mari, Russian, Mongolian heavily influenced the Chuvash language"

Mari loanwords, especially in the Sundyr and other dialects, that reflect the assimiliaton by the Chuvash of a local Mari population.[7]

Chuvash have a quite a different history than their neighbors, the Tatars, but they have been in a cultural contact with them, as is clear from linguistic evidence[8]

Let's take a look at what I changed from hoax & copyrighted version:

"Chuvash is the sole living representative of Volga Bulgar language"

That's highly debated and you can understand with taking a look at to etymology section. Sabirs, Khazars and Volga Bulgars are different people and it is definitely not certain whether Chuvash is a distinct Oghuric language or Sabir or Volga Bulgars

Another Turkic people in the Volga area are the Chuvash, who, like the Tatars, regard themselves as descendants of the Volga Bulghars in the historical and cultural sense. It is clear that Chuvash belongs to the Oghur branch of Turkic, as the language of the Volga Bulghars did, but no direct evidence for diachronic development between the two has been established. As there were several distinct Oghur languages in the Middle Ages, Volga Bulghar could represent one of these and Chuvash another.[9]

"It is considered to share a linguistic connection with the Khazar language in Oghuric languages, which itself constitutes a significantly divergent principal group."[9][10]

There are various problematic things in this sentence. Firstly both of these sources say nothing about Khazar being Oghur language. If you take a look at page of Khazar language you can see we don't know whether Khazar is Oghur Turkic or Common Turkic. We literally have one word. First reference here is a claim of Persian historian who says Volga Bulgar and Khazar is mutally intelligible. Volga Bulgar is proven Oghur language but this is an old historian lived thousand years ago, not a linguist. He also said Khazar language was different from any other known tongue. "Giving rise to the Chuvash-Bulgar theory" in this source points that Khazar may be an Oghuric language. Another name of Oghuric family is Chuvash-Bulgar which both of these languages are only proven Oghuric languages. This source does not say Khazar is related to Bulgar. Worth noting that Chuvash is not proven Bulgar. Even though account was true, it's related to old Bulgar language. Second source only says Oghuric is divergent which also mentioned in beginning of the article. Unnecessary re-wording.

"There are two rival schools of thought on the origin of the Chuvash people. One is that they originated from a mixing between the Suar and Sabir tribes of Volga Bulgaria and also, according to some research, mixing with Volga Finns.[11]"

That's nothing more than a comment. Source only provide information about mixing with Uralic populations. It actually says their maternal line are more Uralic-related. There is no any reference given about Suar and Sabir mixed or this is actually backed by any school.

"A genomic research found that Chuvashes have a linear relationship between Northeastern Europe and Western Siberia.[12] Volga-Ural Turkic peoples (including Chuvashes, Tatars, and Bashkirs) displayed membership in the k5 cluster, which contained the Uralic populations. However, most of the time, the Volga Turkic peoples showed a higher combined presence of the “eastern components” k6 and k8 than did their geographic neighbors.[13] In comparison with their neighbors, Chuvash has a foremost in the sharply increased frequency of haplogroups E and J which led geneticists to see the uniqueness of the gene pool. These haplogroups are typical to Near East and Caucasus.[14]"

Second line basically says what already said in first paragraph of genetic section. It's been already told they are genetically close to Finno-Ugrians and have higher eastern components than neighboring populations. It's nothing but unnecessary re-wordings and additions. If you like to add you can keep last line about haplogroups. As someone who called me Finno-Ugrophile I suppose you wouldn't like to save k5 cluster which connect them to Uralic populations once again. I deleted that too. They are not improvements.

Please look at this: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Chuvash_language.html

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/268991

https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/chuvash#:~:text=Chuvash%20is%20classified%2C%20alongside%20the,Oghuric%20family%20cannot%20be%20determined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auzandil (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This one is older. It's just a cheap copy of these pages.

Auzandil (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Artem Petrov CHV Auzandil (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Chuvashs are descendants of the Volga Bulgars, this is the fact, proven linguistically, culturally, historically, geographically, this is not one of the theories, but the purest fact, do not believe the Chuvash-speaker in the face of me, your right then, read the encyclopedia "Britannica" Artem Petrov CHV (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Chuvash being another distinct Turkic language does not cited with Britannica. It cited by "The Turkic Languages" by Lars Johanson, Éva Á. Csató A Turkologist and a Turkic language expert. I am not saying Chuvash are definitely not Bulgars but I'm saying there is a discussion about that in academy and it is debated among scholars.
Are you a linguist or Turkologist? You being Chuvash has no importance on this matter. Rumors are anecdotal informations and not scientific. Auzandil (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't say that my Chuvash origin was an exhaustive point on this issue. You yourself are a layman in this matter, mostly making absolutely random edits, Ethnography, Turkology is not a superficial subject. At the same time, you question the basic version about the origin of the people, which the majority of the scientific community agrees with, this is folly. Better to wait for the moderators, of course. But why should we stay on your version of the article while we wait? Artem Petrov CHV (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because I waited you for a month in this talk page and constantly ghosted by you multiple times while you forcefully reverting without any summary. This is called vandalism, you may even get banned for this in Wikipedia. Luckily, it wasn't 3 reverts in one day. I am mostly focusing on linguistics and who I am what I'm interested does not matter. After all my sources are not "I'm a Chuvash, trust me."
Which majority of scientific community agrees with this claim. Most of sources say it is debated among scholars. Even some sources in old version say it is a "claim."
Let's check from your version:
There is no universally accepted etymology of the word Chuvash, but there are three main theories. The popular theory accepted by Chuvash people suggests that Chuvash is a Shaz-Turkic adaptation of Lir-Turkic Suvar (Sabir people), an ethnonym of people that are widely considered to be the ancestors of modern Chuvash people.[15]
Source: http://salmin-ak.ru/userfile/pdf/2020/2020TheHistory.pdf
Prove:
The paper is devoted to the spirited discussion on the vexed question of the historical ancestors of the Chuvash people. Some researchers consider the ancestors of modern Chuvash as Bulgars, others as Savirs
The relevance of the topic lies in the very debatable history of the Chuvash ancestors. Still, the theory of ancient Chuvash outcome from Central Asia is dominating. This theory is mostly supported by the indirect linguistic arguments, however, it lacks of direct historical, ethnographic and ethno-toponymical sources. There is also confusion with other quasi-scientific tribes
According to available publications the historical ancestors of the Chuvash are known as the Savirs/Sabirs/Suvars. Although the thesis remains open, it contains enough ground for scientific research. The problem is that there are two rival schools of thought on the origin of the Chuvash people
This is "your part" of that scientific community and even they admit this. I mean I never touched this reference because it was neutral and not one sided unlike you. Researchers explained there are various theories Sabir and Bulgar are most dominant ones.
But you know what? This is an ethno-graphic research that has nothing to do with etymology of Chuvash name. It never mentioned, not even one, that word Chuvash comes from Sabir. Please look at the link and find it yourself. Normally, someone should delete this from etymology. This is called hoax.

AGYAGÁSI well presents the many questions, and even mysteries, of the possible origins of the Chuvash ethnicity. From where exactly does the word and tribal name of Chuvash originate, as well as the language? Many works, including archaeological and linguistic sources, are referenced, and the most common errors and alternative interpretations of analyses of earlier research are pointed out. Even data created by ideological or political motifs are discussed and fairly convincingly presented (such as the possibly conscious misreading of the tribal name of suwar as suvaz > chuvash, or the linguistically completely inaccurate suggestion of the possible tribal name change: savar > savir >sabir > suvar > suvas > suvash > šăvăš > căvăš; p. 3-4) are given as quite the excursion (including the probably accurate historical form of *śawaś > modern Chuvash (as it was first recorded in the year 1502; Fedotov 1996: 394), and the final argument is relatively convincing (and the original meaning would have been ‘from the opposite bank’), although I believe more remains to be said on this subject, and one gets the impression that AGYAGÁSI herself is not fully convinced of the explanation given either even as she rounds up the fact[10]

In Russian Wikipedia, the claim of this etymology cited with a Chuvash news blog and 20th century Soviet scholar. Auzandil (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's next, I also do linguistics with a focus on Turkic languages, etymology cannot be a foundational element in the origin of a people, this already smacks of a marginal point of view. Artem Petrov CHV (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't say it's debated due to the etymology. This is just one of the hoax I showed you. Are you a linguist in academia? What kind of journals did you post or involve before? Why don't you just post a modern reliable article about word Chuvash comes from Suvar in etymology. I'll wait you. Auzandil (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would expect a better source than Encyclopedia.com for linguists/language. Also:

Yet the Encyclopedia.com source doesn't support "Arabic and Persian influences are [also] significant". It states, "Likewise, the Chuvash language has borrowings from Arabic, Persian, Kypchak-Tatar, Finnish-Ugric, and Russian." The proper representation of the source would be;"The Arabic and Persian languages influenced Chuvash." or "Chuvash language also borrowed from Persian and Arabic." --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply


References

  1. ^ Johanson, Lars; Csató, Éva Á, eds. (2021). The Turkic Languages. doi:10.4324/9781003243809. ISBN 9781003243809. Another Turkic people in the Volga area are the Chuvash, who, like the Tatars, regard themselves as descendants of the Volga Bulghars in the historical and cultural sense. It is clear that Chuvash belongs to the Oghur branch of Turkic, as the language of the Volga Bulghars did, but no direct evidence for diachronic development between the two has been established. As there were several distinct Oghur languages in the Middle Ages, Volga Bulghar could represent one of these and Chuvash another.
  2. ^ Shapira, Dan (2020-12-14), "KHAZARS", Encyclopaedia Iranica Online, Brill, retrieved 2022-05-05 "Eṣṭaḵri stated in one place that the Bulḡar language is like the language of the Khazars, thus giving rise to the Chuvash-Bulḡar theory."
  3. ^ Savelyev, Alexander (June 2020). "Chuvash and the Bulgharic languages". Retrieved 2023-04-25.
  4. ^ Ludwig, Dieter (1982). Struktur und Gesellschaft des Chazaren-Reiches im Licht der schriftlichen Quellen (Thesis). Münster.
  5. ^ Zhivkov, Boris (2015-04-29). Khazaria in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. BRILL. pp. 38, 138. ISBN 978-90-04-29448-6.
  6. ^ a b Golden, Peter B. Khazar Studies. pp. 36, 133.
  7. ^ "Suarlar/Суарлар". Tatar Encyclopaedia (in Tatar). Kazan: The Republic of Tatarstan Academy of Sciences. Institution of the Tatar Encyclopaedia. 2002.
  8. ^ Eero Kuussaari: Suomen Suvun Tiet (Helsinki 1935)
  9. ^ Shapira, Dan (2020-12-14), "KHAZARS", Encyclopaedia Iranica Online, Brill, retrieved 2022-05-05 "Eṣṭaḵri stated in one place that the Bulḡar language is like the language of the Khazars, thus giving rise to the Chuvash-Bulḡar theory."
  10. ^ Savelyev, Alexander (June 2020). "Chuvash and the Bulgharic languages". Retrieved 2023-04-25.
  11. ^ Graf, Orion M; John Mitchell; Stephen Wilcox; Gregory Livshits; and Michael H. Crawford. Chuvash origins: Evidence from mtDNA Markers. (2010). Their maternal markers appear to most closely resemble Finno-Ugric speakers rather than fellow Turkic speakers.
  12. ^ Spitsin, V. A.; Batsevich, V. A.; El'chinova, G. I.; Kobylianskiĭ, E. D. (2009). "[Genetic position of Chuvashes in the system of Finno-Ugric and Turkic speaking peoples]". Genetika. 45 (9): 1270–1276. ISSN 0016-6758. PMID 19824548.
  13. ^ Yunusbayev, Bayazit; Metspalu, Mait; Metspalu, Ene; Valeev, Albert; Litvinov, Sergei; Valiev, Ruslan; Akhmetova, Vita; Balanovska, Elena; Balanovsky, Oleg; Turdikulova, Shahlo; Dalimova, Dilbar; Nymadawa, Pagbajabyn; Bahmanimehr, Ardeshir; Sahakyan, Hovhannes; Tambets, Kristiina; Fedorova, Sardana; Barashkov, Nikolay; Khidiyatova, Irina; Mihailov, Evelin; Khusainova, Rita; Damba, Larisa; Derenko, Miroslava; Malyarchuk, Boris; Osipova, Ludmila; Voevoda, Mikhail; Yepiskoposyan, Levon; Kivisild, Toomas; Khusnutdinova, Elza; Villems, Richard (21 April 2015). "The Genetic Legacy of the Expansion of Turkic-Speaking Nomads across Eurasia". PLOS Genet. 11 (4): e1005068. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1005068. ISSN 1553-7404. PMC 4405460. PMID 25898006.
  14. ^ Salmin, Anton K. (February 28, 2022). Genetic Geography of the Historical Ancestors of the Chuvash. Scientific Research Publishing. pp. 4–12.
  15. ^ Salmin, Anton K. The History of the Chuvash People in Ethnographic Facts (PDF). pp. 1–2.
  16. ^ "Chuvash". Encyclopedia. The Chuvash language by virtue of a number of peculiarities differs more widely than others from the Turkic languages. There are many Chuvash words in Mari, Udmurt, Russian, and other languages. Likewise, the Chuvash language has borrowings from Arabic, Persian, Kypchak-Tatar, Finnish-Ugric, and Russian.

No mention of their Numeral system

edit
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There’s no mention of their number system, maybe add a link to it or something idk. 115.64.6.1 (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chuvash_people&oldid=1228580482"