Talk:Altaic peoples

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Image copyright problem with File:Kul Tigin.jpg

The image File:Kul Tigin.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merged

Since there is no such thing as "Altaic people", aside from the projection of linguistic constructs onto history, or as a shortcut for the academic to group foreign peoples (that is, since there's no ethnic component to this supposedly ethnic article), I've merged the sections into the articles on actual ethno-linguistic groups. kwami (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't see this before. The term is widely used in literature, and considering that there are other Wikipedia articles on linguistic constructs, such as Proto-Indo-Europeans and Austronesian peoples, I don't see any reason why it should be redirected. I reworded some of the changes you made, and I hope you're not in disagreement with them. Cydevil38 (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine, though calling it a 'hypothesis' is overdoing it. There's quite a bit of evidence, just not quite enough to convince everyone. (Their history is hypothetical, but that's true for IE as well.) kwami (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only info not found in the languages article was a list of modern peoples that have nothing to do with each other. I moved that over to the languages article. kwami (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]