Talk:Genetic studies on Bulgarians

North Slavs

Are they East+West?Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

References

There are lots of references in this article that only consist of an author name and year (and sometimes just the author name). This information isn't enough for a reader to verify the material being referenced, and needs to be fixed. The editor who added the material is best placed to do this. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

yfull - what a reference!

The Bulgarian page quotes mostly papers in Bulgarian, this one in English. Both pages may include interesting informations.Xx236 (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I started going through the references and trying to find even snippet views of multiple refs in order to even verify that the sources say what they're purported to say. Honestly, this article is a dog's breakfast when it comes to referencing. Added to the confusion is the fact that it's drawing in studies on the larger anthropological movements around Europe, and I'm afraid that the content is all about as clear as mud. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Further to its structure, this article would (and should) be at least half the size if treated as a spin-off from a higher level article on Slavic genetics, which should, in turn, be a spin-off of a higher level article on European genetics. It incorporates detailed information on broader haplogroup structures going back to the ' top level genetics research. The detail here, and on more and more of these modern 'ethnic group' articles, is a badly presented and arduous read. Compare the 'Out of Africa' article for its readability: it's a quality article in terms of ones expectations of a general encyclopaedia, even if some of the information is a little dated. It provides a context for the understanding of genetic data and what it informs us of.

Are all of these articles going to duplicate the majority of the same material in order to establish a few details about a modern ethnic group? It's an exercise in counter-productivity because it doesn't actually enlighten the reader as to who and what 'Bulgarians' are. Even if we were able to feel confident that the information is accurate, this is a bland junket of genetic terminology with no tangible context for the lay reader to elicit anything meaningful from. I've tagged it for being too technical in style. If this is readable and comfortably understandable, I at the pre concrete thinking behavioural level... which I know I'm not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

I have read the two sources introduced today and none of them adds a claim or a challenge to the Slavic classification. None of them claims a proto-Bulgarian inputinferred from genetics, although one suggests something like that.

My reading of the sources:

The first source claims that historical research indicates proto-Bulgarian input, not genetic studies: "On the whole, in light of most recent historical studies, which indicate a substantial Proto-Bulgarian input to the contenporary Bulgarian people"

The second source only suggests smt "Our results therefore suggest that proto-Bulgarians are geneticaly similar to modern Bulgarians".Stevan22 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

As we are discussing genetics, both sources should adhere to WP:MEDRS, which, put simply, means that one cannot use primary source studies in the leading section here. A high quality source is appropriate to the matter and it has to be secondary or tertiary. The bottom line though, is that is not appropriate to indeed place such a point of view in the article intro and erase the other point of view based on secondary source. The article must represent all reliable sources, should they contradict, being careful not to introduce fringe views into the article's intro. The original change made by the IP-sock is not appropriate, as it appears to use some unreliable, primary sources. Jingiby (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA).PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Haplogroups europe.png (discussion)
• MDS analysis of Europe.png (discussion)
• The approximate frequency and variance of haplogroup I-P37 clusters in Eastern Europe.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Lies. It is not mistake. It is absolutely lies.

The Bulgarians are part of the Slavic ethnolinguistic group as a result of migrations of Slavic tribes to the region since the 6th century AD and the subsequent linguistic assimilation of other populations.

Like Bulgarian, i can't close my eyes for this. This is very offensive.We are much older than Christians, Catholics and Muslims as religions. I haven't finished the article. I don't believe 2 words in it. правя каквото поискам, само господ може да ме съди. 22:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ясес (talk • contribs)

Recent genetic studies - request for an edit

To add content and reliable relevant sources:

Recent genetic studies suggest that modern Bulgarians carry genes of the Thracians and Proto-Bulgarians (Bulgars). Contemporary Bulgarians are genetically closer to Proto-Bulgarians, but also to Thracians. Bulgarians and Proto-Bulgarians have no genetic similarities with either the Turks, or Turkic and Altaic populations. Western Eurasian origin is suggested by Mitochondrial DNA both for ancient (proto-) and modern Bulgarians, as well as a genetic similarity between them. Aris N. Poulianos also states that Thracians, like modern Bulgarians, belonged mainly to the Aegean anthropological type. MiltenR (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

References