Talk:Shatuo Turks

The last section needs to be rewritten. It is ridiculous to say that the Shatuo Turks are the "first foreign ethnic group" to rule over China. The Northern Wei (founded by the Xianbei) preceded them by hundreds of years, and was much more instrumental in the history of steppe dynasties in China. Also, the phrasing ("innovations on how to rule the Chinese") is insulting for an encyclopedic article as it implies that "ruling Chinese" is some sort of skill or occupation. Would you say that "the Germans made innovations on how to rule the French?" If not, then don't say the same for Chinese. 65.50.0.4 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger

If everyone agrees I'd like to make an effort to merge the articles Shato Turks and Shatuo Turks under Shato--Joostik (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I have not seen evidences to prove that Shato is more common than Shatuo. Encyclopædia Britannica uses the term "Shatuo Turk". I think the title should be Shatuo or Shatuo Turk or Shatuo Turks, not Shato. --Pengyanan (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the form "Shatuo Turk" is mainly preferred by Chinese sources, but not necessarily everyone else.--Joostik (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Encyclopædia Britannica is a Chinese source. And of course Shato is also not necessarily preferred by everyone else. And actually no name is preferred by everyone. What we are discussing is which name is the more common name, not the everyone-preferred name. --Pengyanan (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Support The reference to online version of Encyclopædia Britannica is invalid, it is an on-line entry of one individual, apparently in an effort to elucidate a chapter in Chinese history, and the article does give a Shato name. As of today, "Shato" brings 389,000 responses from Google, vs 79,000 for "Shatuo". A Google poll taken 2 May 2008 gave 100,000 vs 6,000 respectively, both polls reflect a fact that in English language, Shato is an accepted spelling.

Another consideration is to facilitate access to the WP article. Naming an article with an oddball name prevents public from accessing an article using a conventional term in the search engine.

But the most important issue is a self-name of the people, which is Shato, and that must have a precedence over any other version expressed in any other language. Shato played a role not only in the Chinese history, but in the histories of a number of peoples in the Middle and Central Asia, and they can't be treated solely as an illustration to the Chinese history.

Lastly, the name form Shato Turks or Shatuo Turks is objectionable, because Shato are not Turks in any measure, they are Türkic-speaking people, but that does not make them Turks, in that form the title of the article is clearly misleading and derisive. Barefact (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The Google search result for Shato is invalid. Many, if not most, of them are irrelevant to the Shatuo/Shato people. They instead refer to user name, hotel name, company name, personal name, etc. And please provide a reference to prove that Shato, not Shatuo, is the self-name of the people. According to the lead section of the current version of Shato, Shato "were a Turkic tribe that heavily influenced northern Chinese politics from the late ninth century through the tenth century." The word "were" implies that this was a historical people and does not exist now. Then I don't think that the historical Shatuo/Shato people used Latin alphabet and could distinguish Shatuo and Shato. Although the last paragraph of the section Origins of the current version of Shato claims that "[a]t present, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and China list Shato among their minority groups", it does not provide any reference. Actually at least in China, Shatuo/Shato is not recognized as a minority group (see List of ethnic groups in China). If Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, or Russia recognizes Shato as a minority group, please provide references, and please prove that the, if existing, current Shato is related to the ancient Shatuo in Chinese history. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Pengyanan, I appreciate your response and considerations. You are right about numbers in Google, they are contaminated, if you can provide better numbers, we will see the picture more clearly. For references, I suggest the following:

1. Rene Grousset, "Empire of the steppes. History of Central Asia"

2. Geng Shimin 耿世民, Batys önіrі tarihyndagy ülttardy zertteu, (transl) 1947

3. A.G. Promyslov, "Shato. History"

4. Hi Shiutau, "Üysіn ültyn zertteu, Academic Ethnographic Institute, 1949.

5. Khan patshalygynyn tarikhy. Batys önіr shejіresі"

6. Tang patshalygynyn köne tarikhy, Batys Türіk shejіresі"

7. Tang patshalygy tarikhy, jagrapiya tarauy"

8. "Jüngo tarikhi sözdіgі, Türіk tarauy"

9. "Liau patshalygy tarikhy", vol. 30

10. L.N. Gumilev, "Ancient Türks", "Moscow", Moscow, 2004.

11. N.Ya.Bichurin, "Collection of information on peoples of Central Asia in ancient times» vol. I, "Jalin", Almaty, 1998

12.O.O.Suleymenov, Köne zamandagy Türіkter, köne Türіkter tіlderi men jazularynyn shygu tegі, "Atamüra", Almaty, 2002.

Please note that Rene Grousset's work remains a fundamental monograph that grew into a whole branch of studies.

"Shejіresі" is a Kazakh word for "Genealogy". There are a number of genealogical levels, family (7 generations), clan, tribal, union, they trace their respective genealogies, sometimes they intertwine.

"Shato" is a name derived from the location. It is used in the English-lingual and literature at large as a collective name; the tribe names are Uak (Uaq) and Shaqsham (Shaqsham).

Uaq consist of 11 clans: Erenshi, Shoga, Sarman, Sіrgelі, Sarybagys, Baynazar, Ölіmbet, Bidaly, Jansary, Barjaqsy, Shayköz. Shayköz also have a common ethnonym "Ergenekti Uaq", ergene from old Türkic "qyrat" a mountain slope, i.e "Slope Uaqs". Sіrgelі, in ancient Chinese sources Shuyuye/Shuyuie are anscestors of both Shaqshams and Uaqs. On Uaqs exist extensive literature. A branch of Uaqs lives in Hungary, there they are a clan among Kipchaks. Uaqs also remained in Uzbekistan after Stalinist administrative reorganization, a district in Tashkent is called Sergeli.

Shaqsham consists of 6 clans: Abysha, Qara/Kara, Aytym, Sary, Iman and Janybek. They, or some of them, may not belong to the Late Antique Shato.

In Kazakhstan, Uaqs belong to the Orta Juz (Middle Juz), indicating a later union.

Shaqshams and Shoqa belong to the Uly Juz (Senior Juz), but they may be a later addition to the most ancient confederation.

I take exception to the "recognized" criteria. You are implying "recognized by the current political system", but politicians have their own agendas and methods unrelated to the people. In Russia, for example, in 1900 were counted 200+ ethnic groups, in the last census in 1981 in the Former Soviet Union their number was reduced to 100. The people did not change, but the rulers of the country changed their "recognition". After the fall, the combined number of "recognitions" doubled or tripled. A subject of "recognition" in 2001 in the leftover Russia caused multiple revolts, "non-recognized" people wanted to be "recognized". If they were, the numbers would grow even more.

For the literacy subject, the old runiform alphabet was gradually replaced by Arabic alphabet, it was used by Mahmud Kashgari in the 10th c, and Albugazi in the 16th c.

Multiple references on connections of modern Shato and the analistic Shato can be found in the above list. I thought it would be a good idea to place this overview on the Talk page, it may bring about other educating comments. Thanks, Barefact (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Barefact, I searched Rene Grousset's "Empire of the steppes. History of Central Asia" (a fundamental monograph that grew into a whole branch of studies) at Google books and found no Shato or Shatuo in it. Can you just provide one specific citation (it will be great if it is an online source) that clearly says that Shato/Shatuo still exist today, and Shato, not Shatuo, is their self-name? I am not sure whether I understand you correctly. It seems that you implies that the name Shato is from Arabic alphabet, used by e.g., Mahmud Kashgari, etc.. Does Mahmud Kashgari belong to Shato people (so we can conclude Shato is the self-name of the pople)? At least the current version of Mahmud al-Kashgari does not mention that he belongs to Shato/Shatuo people. And if Shato people (no matter whether they are recognized by any government) exist now, do they use Arabic alphabet? The current version of Shato does not say anything about the modern Shato's language, writing system, population, etc. I will appreciate it if you can add such information to the article. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A ready reference is Grousset Index on page 674, it gives further references (mine is Rutgers 1970 edition)... No, I do not imply that the name Shato is from Arabic alphabet, you question was what scripts were used by Turkic people, were the names alphabetized. We know the name from the Chinese annals, Tang shu Ch. 2176 indicated in translations... A chapter in English on Shato is here [1], I hope you will like it and maybe use in your editing.... The current demography is way beyond my interests, but I will keep an eye on it, and post here if find something.... Another source that may be interesting for you is a blog of Shato descendents, you may discuss there any questions you may want to clarify. I am sure they will be glad to talk to you, and maybe learn something from you, and fill you on their demography [2]. With Google Translate, you can also read older comments.... As to their languages, scripts, etc, they use the same as their neighbors, as they always did, in Hungary I would suspect they use Hungarian, the blog above is mostly in Russian. They may help you with translating shedjeres. Regards, Barefact (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot find Shato at page 674 of Rene Grousset's "Empire of the steppes. History of Central Asia" at Google books. I don't want to be a trouble maker. But my questions are still not solved. The chapter you provided above does not say that Shato still exist today and Shato, not Shatuo, is their self-name (it instead simply uses Shato to refer to the historical tribe in Chinese history, as we can also find many books that uses Shatuo to refer to that historical tribe). And blog is not a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper). So the blog of Shato descendants cannot be cited. And if Shato/Shatuo use the same languages and scripts as their neighbors, how can we conclude that Shato, not Shatuo, is their self-name? The Turkish Wikipedia uses the name Şatuo and also does not imply that Shato is the self-name. I hope that you can solve my key question and provide just one clear and specific reliable source to prove that Shato, not Shatuo, is the self-name of the people. There may be two arguments to support using Shato, not Shatuo, as the article's title: 1. Common Name Argument; 2. Self-Name Argument. As we discussed above, we cannot say that Shato is the more common name. Then the Self-Name Argument is the key point that we should discuss. If we cannot prove that Shato, not Shatuo, is the self-name, I think that Shatuo, the name that Encyclopædia Britannica uses, should be adopted by English Wikipedia as the article title. Thanks. By the way, actually I suspect that Shato is not the self-name, but just the Wade–Giles version of the pinyin Shatuo (no evidence, just my speculation). --Pengyanan (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In Googgle Books, the link [3] works for me, it gives a number of pages for all to see... I cited Grousset, and Gumilev, esteemed Turkologists, as examples of the name Shato in English. For Sha-to in English literature, Goggle Books gives me 841 literary returns, for Shato 746 titles, for Sha-t'o 575 titles, for Shatuo 378 titles. I think it is reasonable to positively state that in English, Shato is a preferred term, irrespective of the origin of the name, this is what you called 1. Common Name Argument, it serves to facilitate, not to obstruct, people's access to WP... I did not know what name is used in Turkish-lingual publications, you are welcome to fill me on that, but since we dicuss the English usage, it would not swing one way or another. Since Shato was an English accepted term for a long time, I would suspect that the Turks also predominantly use Shato, but it is only my guess... For the 2. Self-Name Argument, the blog reference is for you personal use if you want to learn more on the subject. I agree that it is not a proper reference to be used in the article, unless the people of Shato background present their own references... The reference to Encyclopædia Britannica on-line edition sounds grandeur and authoritative, but does not hold the water, in my opinion it is not scholarly to any degree of extent, at best it is a choice of a single person with unstated credentials, there is no discussion of the choice, and no peer-review validated the entry... On your last point, I think that your suspicions are correct, the English name was established long before the various Chinese Romanization systems were established, N.Bichurin used Shato in his 1851 publication, but that is only a historical etymology side, which is nice to know, but is irrelevant to the actual usage, we can't change the history; another side is still the usage by the people whose history is described in the article, whether they are "recognized" by the current colonial powers or not... And to support your point, I think that the preambulae of the Shato article, like any other WP article, should list all alternative spellings used in English. Regards, Barefact (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you do not discuss the Self-Name Argument now (although you still says Shato is still the usage by the people whose history is described in the article, you have not provided any reliable source to prove it), and come back to the Common Name Argument. The Sha-t'o in Rene Grousset's "Empire of the steppes. History of Central Asia" is apparently the Wade–Giles version of the pinyin Shatuo. And Wade–Giles has become obsolete and given way to pinyin. By Google Book Search, after 2000, there are 76 books using Sha-t'o and 118 books using Shatuo. Although there are 410 books using Shato and 628 books using Sha-to after 2000, again, many, if not most, of them are irrelevant to the Shato/Shatuo people. Therefore we still cannot conclude that Shato is the more common name. And I do not think that we can presume the online version of Encyclopædia Britannica is not peer-review validated. Regards. --Pengyanan (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Pengyanan, I have a feeling that both you and I have exhausted arguments. Seems that you discard anything before 2000, in contrast I think that in English I look at the whole picture without time limiatations. I also produced the numbers that support your arguments, and recognized that the newly arrived Chinese pynin spelling has a place under the sun, because it is used in a number of professional publications. The absence of peer-validated reviews in on-line emulation of WP is visible to a naked eye. Everything else was addressed above. Regards, Barefact (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Barefact, if Shato vs. Shatuo is just Wade–Giles vs. pinyin, not self-name vs. non-self-name, then I think that pinyin, not Wade–Giles, should be adopted as the article title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). The current version of Shato is still exclusively related to the Chinese history. There is still not any reference added to this article to prove that Shato/Shatuo people exist today. Regards. --Pengyanan (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Shato describes the history of Shato Turkic people, which intersects with the Chinese history, not "exclusively related to the Chinese history". If "exclusivity" is your only argument, it is too self-centered for WP. The details on Shato role in the Chinese history are addressed in the respective articles, like Later Tang, these details need not to be repeated in the Shato article. Correspondingy, their role outside of Chinese history is or should be addressed in the respective articles. Everything else was discussed above. Regards. Barefact (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we may also argue that Xiongnu intersects with the Chinese history and is not "exclusively related to the Chinese history". But this does not prevent us from using pinyin as that article's name. OK, let's summarize the result of our discussion: 1. No reliable source is provided to prove that Shato/Shatuo people still exist today; 2. No reliable source is provided to prove that Shato, not Shatuo, is the self-name of the people; 3. No evidence shows that Shato is the more common name than Shatuo; 4. Evidences show that Shato might be just Wade–Giles version of the pinyin Shatuo. Conclusion? Shato should be merged to Shatuo, I think. Otherwise, keep the two articles separate since there is no consensus. Regards. --Pengyanan (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would summarize it differently. I have provided all the numerical data, demonstrated that in English Shato is a dominating name, gave references on Shato descendents, agreed that Shatuo has a secondary usage in English. You did not provide any arguments for the usage of the term Shatuo except that it is used in Chinese, along with other forms, nor did you provide any arguments for keeping two separate articles on the same people. For the benefit of the readers, and consistent with WP practice, the tho articles should be combined, thus enriching the article contents. I support Joostik's intent to merge. Barefact (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You have already admitted that the blog of the so-called Shato descendants is not reliable source. Please don't bring that issue again. Your only valid argument is the Common Name Argument, not the Self-Name Argument. OK, let's both be more objective. Both of us agree that these two articles are about the same people and should be merged. But we have different opinions on which name is the more common name. Therefore we have no consensus on which one should be the new article's name. So, these two articles have to be kept separate until our dispute is solved. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)