Jump to content

Talk:Turkic peoples/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

WARNING

THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS MAY NOT BE OBJECTIVE AND CONTAIN PERSONAL AND INACCURATE INFORMATION

Turkic vs. Turkish

After reading this article on "Turkic" peoples. I agree with all of it but somethings are missing. I have not read the full version prior to it being deleted but it is very well done.

I am an Azerbaijani Turk, and I must say that I do not identify myself as "Turkic" but rather Turkish. I don't really understand why this page is being regarded as a "Turkey" page by some of the people, however I do agree that Turkey is the most advanced Turkic country. All it takes is time, the rest will catch up and join in soon.

I agree with setting up a page to define the many different people of Turkey

To the User H.J., I guess you are confusing Huns with people of Hungary , who call themselves Magyars.

But the Magyars were called "turkic" by Bizantian.


I do not believe that the Huns should be included. The Esthonians , Finns and Huns are Ural Altaic, or rather Finno -Ugric Would you then include the Esthonians and the Finns in your Turkic list ? H.J.

To MichaelTinkler On the other hand , the East Germanic Goth were taken over by the Huns for a while. Together they stormed Rome. Besides the Turkic Turks in Turkey there are now Deutsch-Tuerken German-Turks in Germany. Do you want to add all of them ? H.J.

Not at all. My point, tho', is that to write a sentence like "Turks are the inhabitants of Turkey" is (a) inadquate in what it tells us about the Turks and (b) inaccurate about the inhabitants of Turkey. In fact, the entry "turks" is not much more useful than "germans" or "americans". I hope you're beginning to realize that I do not find the names of ethnicities or nations particularly useful in and of themselves.

Michael Tinkler, I guess you are 66 ? . Go ahaed and put all the info in you can find. I only started the Turk page, because it fitted in the text somewhere else. H.J.

66? Oh - yes, I haven't logged in from this computer, which loses my preferences every time I shut down for the night. Let me point out that not all the links people create in articles actually deserve to be articles themselves. --MichaelTinkler

portion about Turks deleted

During the redirecting process, a major and substantial portion of this article has been deleted without stating any specific reasons. If this portion was not carried to any other article (and this should have been mentioned, as well), I think this is a good example of vandalism User:ErdemTuzun.

It isn't. If you mean the section on Turkish identification and population groups in the Republic of Turkey, I was looking for a more appropriate place for it: having put most of the former Turks into the broad Turkic peoples, I think the Turkey discussion belongs under "people(s) of Turkey" or "Turkish people" - the more specific definitions of "Turks" - with additional links therefrom. We so far have the subpage Turkey/People, which looks like the best place for now for the discussion of groups; the identification issue really belongs under a distinct "Turkish people" article, though. User:David Parker

I surely agree with you. However, I can't find these sections anywhere in Wikipedia and they seem to be deleted. Although I am the author of most of these sections, I don't have the copies of these paragraphs. These parts would better be carried to the sections you have mentioned and this is what I am criticising. I think detailed list of people living in Turkey can be added to Turkey/People and the identification issue is a debateful topic and I suggest that it should be added to the Talk section of Turkey/People. If these parts are not in Wikipedia anymore and if you don't have them I will try to rewrite them User:ErdemTuzun.

I've moved it all to Talk:Turkey/People, so you can add bits to the Turkey/People article as appropriate. User:David Parker

map

A map showing Turkic areas would be helpful...

This article is a mess

And what a gigantic mess it is. people groups, languages, ancient history, turkish poetry all happily (or not so) mixed together. I think this article contains the foundations of two or three different ones and this should be done asap. Refdoc 22:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deleted text (maybe pretty to a Turkish ear but not to mine - and not part of an encyclopedia...) ;-) : "Oh race of Turks, children of iron and fire, founders of a thousand homelands, wearers of a thousand crowns. If the sky above did not collapse and the earth did not give way, oh noble race, who would be able to destroy your nation and institutions..." Refdoc 22:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Further deleted text - description of azerbeyjani Turks - this is debated in other articles : They are the descendants of various bodies of Turks, but primaraly the Oghuz Turks who migrated in mass numbers to the region in the 10th and 11th centuries. Refdoc 22:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have moved a chunk into a new article Turkish states and empires and put a link in the bottom of this article Refdoc 22:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


The following is largely POV without evidence supplied, but attacking other interpretations = Ancient Origins =It is believed that the Turks are the natives of central Asia, in an area which is between the Ural and Altay mountains. Some historians claim that the Turks originated in western Asia, and that throughout ancient history migrated to central Asia, while some believe that infact migration to western Asia and interactions in various parts of the world by Turkic peoples in ancient times (before the advent of the Huns) occurred via central Asia.
Comparisons to the ancient language of the Sumerians (labeled as an Ural-Altaic language by most historians) to modern Turkish languages confirms many common words and religious terms. Some state that the most ancient of Turks were the Sumerians, who originated east of the Caspian Sea in Central Asia but who established a civilization in present-day southern Iraq. The Sumerian language had many words that are appearant in other modern Ural-Altaic languages such as Hungarian and Mongolian.
The ancient roots of the Turks have been diminished by some historians who seek to clarify an "Indo-European" or "Aryan" presence in parts of Asia and Europe before the period of the Huns. Thus, Turkish historians as well as some western historians who have based their researches on clear facts rather than "guesses" have concluded that after the Sumerians up until the time of the Huns, the Turks were the people who became known as Scythians, Massagetae, Alans, Cimmerians and Sarmats, whom have been labeled as "Iranian" or "unidentified" peoples ewithout any vital linguistic or anthropological facts. Refdoc 23:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And another bit cut and pasted for further use - if any - Islamic Period - Turkish soldiers in the army of the Abbasid caliphs emerged as de facto rulers of most of the Muslim Middle East (except Syria and Egypt), particularly after the 10th century. Oghuz and other tribes captured and dominated various countries under the leadership of the Seljuk dynasty and eventually captured the territories of the Abbasid dynasty and the Byzantine Empire.
Meanwhile, Kirgyz and Uygurs were struggling with each other and with the mighty Chinese Empire. Kirghiz people finally settled in the region that is now referred to as Kyrgyzstan. Tatar peoples conquered Volga Bulgars in what is today southern Russia following the westward sweep of the Mongols under Genghis Khan in the 13th century. Bulgars was named tatars by Russians mistakally. Native Tatars lives only in Asia, European Tatars factically are Bulgars. (Bulgars came to Europe in 7-8th century). Everywhere, Turkish groups mixed to some extent with other local populations.
As the Seljuks declined after the Mongol invasion, the Ottoman Empire emerged as a new important Turkish state which came to dominate not only the Middle East, but also southeastern Europe and parts of southwestern Russia and northern Africa. Meanwhile, other Turkic groups founded dynasties in Iran (Safavids) and northern India (the Mughal Empire).
The Ottoman Empire grew weaker in the face of repeated wars with Russia and Austria and the emergence of nationalist movements in the Balkans, and finally gave way after World War I to the present-day republic of Turkey. Refdoc 23:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I am a Turk who has read much about Turkish history. First of all Sumerians were definately not related to Turks. Some Turkish historians and linguists did try to find a connection. None found. Scythians, Cimmerians, Yue-Chi, Sarmatians, Sakas were all definately Aryan people not Turkish. Great Hun Empire in Turkish history books was never called so in international books. The world simply know them as Hsiung-Nu as the Chinese named them. The connection between European Huns and Hsiung-Nu was never proven. Besides the word Turk first appeared wşth the Gokturk state. Every Turkish related group before the times of Gokturks is better to be called as proto-Turk. In this light both Huns and Bulgars are proto-Turks. Ilpars 01:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ilpars, I am also a Turk who has read enermous about Turkish history, just like you. None has proved that Sumerians were were Turkish or not. But there had been a connection. Most probably they were some kind of neighbors who borrowed many words from proto-Turks. But this is important to prove that ancestors of Turks lived 3000-3500 B.C. I may agree that Sychitians, Cimmerians and Sarmatinas were of Arian origin. But no one is sure about Yue-Chi. And Turkologists agree that mostly Saka were Turkish or proto-Turkish origin. Also we should not forget that Yakut Turks call themselves as Saka. Lately I have been reading about historical chronicles. I suggest you to read Chinese dynasties' chronicles. Also medieval Armenians (Mattheos of Edessa e.t.c.) and early Islamic ones. Coming to Huns and Hsiung-Nu, there are different interpretrations of Chinese name Hsiung-Nu. There was an article of Atlas Magazine about Çuvaş (Chuvash) Turks. At the end there was a good interpretation. When you read the ancient Chinese with Çuvaş language Hsiung-nu turns out to be Oguz. And also we translate the name of the emperor Mao-tun as Mete. But similarly evaluating it with Çuvaş you find out the name Batur. I suggest you to read the article. It teaches a lot. Huns were not Turks but Turks were definetly of Hun origin. Because Turks emerged from Huns. As ancient Chinese documents say. Sincerely.

Clear Out

I have done a big clear out removing doublets, shifting stuff onto relevant existing pages added links and put some stuff which I could not use in the paragraphes above. The remainder is still largely POV, and should continue to carry the disputed tag - and I guess there are many of you who would want to dispute my editing :-) feel free to change again Refdoc 00:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Turkic vs Turkish

I have removed the following text: It is noteworthy to mention that the term "Turkic" did not exist before the Stalinist era. Today, the term "Turkish" is most commonly associated with the Turks of Turkey and eastern Europe, while before the establishment of the Soviet Union, "Turkish" meant all "Turkic" peoples of the world. In the Turkish languages, there is no distinction between Turkish/Turkic. When referring to the different dialects of the Turks, the term Turkish is used (for example the language of the Azerbaijanis is Azerbaijani-Turkish and the language of the Uygurs is Uygur-Turkish.)

Turkic is the term used by English speaking linguistics to classify a group of languages discussed in this article. Whether or not people feel they not "Turkic" is in this respect relatively irrelevant. I do not feel "indo-european" and yet my language is classified in this way. I would lik eto reserve the Term "Turkish" for whatever political ambitions/cultural affinities/etc there are, but think we should insist on using clear and recognised language for this article. WRT to Stalin note above - this is a bit disingenious as we speak/write English here rather than Russian. Refdoc 08:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re-used the stuff, so don't worry. Refdoc 09:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Characteristics

I am struggling with this one - anyone else any ideas ? Refdoc 10:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion: That skinny guy from Conan the Barbarian was probably a Tengriist, and Turkic, while Conan was probably Shamanistic, and probably not Turkic. Convenient they both spoke English though.

If you are talking about the movie Conan the Barbarian, the skinny guy's name was Subutay or Subotai. This is an old Turco-Mongolian name. There was also a shaman - wizard(he was the narrator in the film). Most probably they were both Tengriist. Also in the begining of the movie, after Conan was grown up and sold to fight as a gladiator, Conan was educated/trained by Turco-Mongolians. Remember the scene when a master slapped Conans face. I do not agree that Conan was shamanistic. Even though he was told to be Cimmerian, his name was Gaelic (Celtic), and his physical appearence and also his religion resembeled old Scandinavian religion. Cimmerians were steppe people of Arian origin but in the movies and comics Conan was not.

Merger roozbeh's and refdoc's version

I like the History bit you did , but do not agree with the zapping of the ethnical divisions - firstly this removed a lot of minor Turk peoples which are otherwise poorly linked into teh great big thing, secondly I see really no better place for this information than here. I know that a fair amount of that particular information is also in Turkic languages but I think there is a place here, particularly if we want to have racial, ethnic and linguistic matters somewhat separate to avoid further bouts of pan-turkism or other chauvisims

Also I was abit unhappy with teh remaining sectiosn as the text was quite jumbled up and had lost a lot of the internal logic.

So in summary I have used my text as the base line and inserted your historical section, took your internal link section as the better alternative and used your overall lay-out for better orientation. I hope this is a useful way of looking at it.

One small note though - Northern Cyprus is miniscule in comparison to Iran and its Turkic people - why did you move iran from the "major" to the "additional" sentence in "geographical distribution"  ? Refdoc 12:16, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was a first edit, and I was not in full comprehension of your work.
  1. The history bit was not mine, it was a section that the anonymous editors had removed. I simply re-introduced it.
  2. I'm very much concerned about the validity of the ethnic branches. To me, this is clearly a minority view of someone who wanted to summarize something that cannot be summarizedd. That was the reason I removed it. As long as it's there without a citable source, there will be a factual dispute. I redid the part, mentionin the whole lot (please recheck and see if I have missed any), but not the exact divisions. I believe the geographical details belong in the individual articles about the different people. There were also some minor ones that I intentionally removed, because we had no articles on them, and they may be just claims. Let whoever writes an article on them come and include them here in the list after he wrote an article.
  3. My moving things were not intentional. I was not seeing the logic then. I was thinking something like "which are the countries who have majority of Turkic people?"
  4. I also removed the relation between the pan-Turkism and Persian Chauvinism. The wording imposed that the pan-Turkists considered pan-Turkism to be something like Persian Chauvinism, while they clearly don't. They seem to like the Arab World idea, but not the Greater Persia idea.
I hope you like the article in the current shape. If you don't, go and edit it.

roozbeh 15:02, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I do like it. I have added why the classification is so difficult and often doubtful. Refdoc 15:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Conclusion

So, this was a bit of a nightmare of an edit. All and everything mentiond as "cut" in the above paragraphes, is either back in the article or moved to other relevant articles' talk pages. I have tried to accommodate all different view points and tried to come to NPOV on all significant matters. This has required some editing and subscribers of pan-this or pan-that might well be unhappy. But please do not do a simple revert but bring your point to the talk

pages. There has been a spat of revert wars over various pages in the recent past and I think this should be avoided. If possible. And if you all agree (or if I keep talking to myself) I will remove the dispute notice in 48 hrs. Refdoc 13:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Roozbeh's edit - I agree with the new edit largely. I still think it is sad that some of the geographical information has gone lost and I think it should be re-inserted in some form. Otherwise this is a barely comprehensible list of odd and never heard names for most readers. Also a small number of teh groups mentioned do not yet have an article and i think what was there should be enough to form some stubs. Refdoc 14:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe the geographic information is not factually accurate, and that's why I removed it. I will put them back at my expense (!) if one could find a reasonable source for them (please note that they were added by anonymous contributors who refused to talk about details). As for the stubs, why not add them back when the articles got created? This is specially important since their existance may be disputed. roozbeh 15:07, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I cut the subsection "Historical Turkic peoples include:" as all but two (Avars and Kipchaks) were already mentioned in the historical section above. I believe it would be better if for these two peoples eitehr sentence was found in teh historical section (if tehy are of importance - I have no clue) or they get silently dropped. The section was a bit incongruous in that particular place. Refdoc 16:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The ancient roots of the Turks have been diminished by some historians who seek to clarify an "Indo-European" or "Aryan" presence in parts of Asia and Europe before the period of the Huns. Thus, Turkish historians as well as some western historians who have based their researches on clear facts rather than "guesses" have concluded that after the Sumerians up until the time of the Huns, the Turks were the people who became known as Scythians, Massagetae, Alans, Cimmerians and Sarmats, whom have been labeled as "Iranian" or "unidentified" peoples ewithout any vital linguistic or anthropological facts.


u got source for this?

________

i'm under the impression that at least in a modern context, the term "turkish" applies only to one turkic ethnic group (speaking the language called "turkish"), while turkic peoples in general are said to speak various turkic languages. someone please point out if i don't know something here.

Answer to youre questions

People of turkey speak turkic (turkish) and all over the turanian world is turkic bean spoken, every person of the turanian world speaks turkic, are they turkmens, azeri, kazaks...

People of a country speaks that countries language excample

turkey-turkish kazakistan- kazaks turkmenistan-turkmenian Azerbeidjan- azerbeijdanian

What i want to sa even Northern cyprus speaks a different kinda turkish simulair to the mainland turkey, they speak a deep dialect even if it only excist 30years (state) but they were there longer. Turanian people who have been stayn long out of contact with other tribes, have started to make their own dialect en that formed a new language. But as you see the turkish people of turkey come from turkey so it has no effect to the east but only to the west. like West-thrace, Kosovo, Albania, Krim, Northern cyrpus, Bosnia Herzegovina, Servia,.. People who stayed there are Ottomans and even they evolved the turkish language to another level, and are further like moderner if you want to calle,

Conclusion is that every turanian tribe ones was one, they fell apart because leaders, and the chinese but, we speak al the same language, if i see some turanians in kazakstan i understand them it is diffucult to follow them, but i mostly understand it, But when the Islam ruled the middle east, the seldjuk turks take the islam as their religion and thats when persian and arabic came in the ottoman language and kinda messed things up, but when ataturk founded the republik of tueky in 1923 he tried to regain as many original turkic words back. thanks for that.

I am a Turkic speaking person In a turanian world turkalite@hotmail.com

Pan-Turkism Article is Not Nutral

I find the discussion of Pan-Turkism to a great extent to be based on oppinion and conjecture. I am not happy with the tone, it is not nutral; this article is pro-turk unification. It is also badly written and repeatedly mis-spelled. Am am not fully informed on most issues here and so hav'nt deleated anything, but somthing has to be sorted out.

For Example: "if these republics unites with Turkey it will make a strong united power against the emperialistic wills of Communist China. In the other hand Russia will not like idea and unification movement due to high level Turkic population in his teritories and in a panicy way will attempt for prevention. They very well know entire Siberia is a Turkic land accupied by brutal Russians in 19th century." is not nutral.

"Iran as a negative cancer tumor in the region" is offensive.

"If middle east were a united Arab country with enough surplus and economical growth we should never see these terrorist movements. Ofcourse still power computition would continue but in a much more friendly manner." Is conjecture and "friendy manner" (!) is just ridiculous.

Please, someone who knows more about pan-turkism than me, sort this out.

I have found out that the Chinese language link doesn't actually link to an equivalent page on the ZH site, but to a page about the Göktürks. However I cannot read Chinese and am unable to ascertain whether the ZH site has a page about Turkic peoples. If, by any chance, someone here could find out, I feel it's worth fixing. I have left things as-is for now. F. Delpierre 16:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Sumerian" connection

I notice the tell-tale passive of non-attribution in the following: "Comparisons of the ancient Sumerian language with modern Turkic languages (labeled as Ural-Altaic) have allegedly shown some common vocabulary. Based on these comparisons, it is claimed that the Sumerians were the most ancient documented Turkic people," Can we get some sources and more detail, so that the reader may assess on what grounds this unusual assertion lies? --Wetman 18:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I second that! Codex Sinaiticus 02:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


that can't be cause the turkics wheren't even in the area at that time of the sumeriers.... just after them disappiered.

to Codex sinaiticus

Hello, i placed the POV and the factual accuracy tag because from reading the article , it would seem that you are pushing a pro-islamic, pro-turkish - from turkey - (as opposed to turkic) point of view that includes factual fallacies. Remember that turkic is a linguistic term. It's very similar to stating that all people who speak the spanish language (filipinos, latin americans, people from spain, some people in africa) belong to one race and ethnic group when that is not the case. Or that the afro-caribeans and africans who speak french share a similar ethnic and racial heritage as people from France and Quebec. Many people in their history have adopted languages out of convenience or through conquest and it does not suggest a common ancestry. however, it would seem that you are suggesting that all turkic peoples possess the same ancestry and that the Turkish people in turkey are at the forefront of that ancestry. However, I wanted to at least discuss with you your sources for the history of turkic peoples as most historians and people who have written about turkic peoples do not seem to share to share your ideas. Further, most historians approach the turkic people from a linguistic history and not an ethnic and racial history that you seem to be approaching it from. Please elaborate your sources for this history as I have never read this history that you have written in any neutral textbook. Further, the history that you have written is pretty non-neutral and has factual exagerrations and errors. I haven't reverted it because I did not want to start an edit war although on your discussion page other people would seem to have taken offense at some of your previous changes to their articles. Kennethtennyson 05:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ken, please look at the Revision history again.. Those aren't my additions to this page, in fact all I did was throw out a couple of the more fringey sentences, that were added today by someone else... Codex Sinaiticus 07:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I just want to reiterate yet again that I am NOT the anonymous person who added all of the pov stuff to the article. In fact, I had just spent all day on the 30th July cleaning the article up to an acceptable "encyclopedic" standard, wikifying, etc, then we got this dump a few days later... I agree with you whle-heartedly that the additions are full of blatant pov and non-factual. I suggest a wholesale revision to my last version of the 30th first of all, then from there we might work on sticking in any little bits and pieces of the "new" info that might be fruitful, if there are any... For example, the earlier version had the number of Turkic speaking peoples at 150 million, but now it has become 300 million... So perhaps we could include some statemen to the effect that "some estimates run as high as 300 million", or some such...? Obviously, all the stuff about Turkic peoples being "the largest nation" (sic) in Islam, etc., will have to be tossed, at least, until such time as there is any body in the entire world that recognises such a "nation"... Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 12:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Turks and North American Tribes

Many turkish historians and anthropologist belive that North American tribes are our cloase cousins. As far as I know, there is no complete comperision of Turkish and NA tribe languages, but is sounds very familiar to Turkish linguist. Shaman culture and ways look very similar to me. For example, shaman turks shaved their head but a tail before going to a battle, to make it easier for the enemy to cut their head off, when they fall. This would make it easier to for their soul to reach the great steps of Teng Tengri ( Sky God ) and they would ride together with their fathers and grands. You would remember that Native American "skinning" has the same purpose , warriors do shave their hair but a tail, and hope to meet their anchestors at great plains of Manitu. An enemy who comitted suicide is not worth the respect , like in Gn.Castors case. Also, another good lead is the great similarity in carpets. Tents is another similarity. Yakut Turks should be the most similar ones. The missing things are the horses and iron, which can be explained with being crossing.

Native American tribes and languages are far from homogenous. Please keep this in mind before making any sweeping generalisations. Codex Sinaiticus 15:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Tungusic speakers

This article states that the Tungusic speakers are a branch of Turkic people. I don't believe this is correct, either racially or linguistically. The Tungusic people are generally similar racially to Mongolians (think of the Manchus, for instance) and linguistically they are (if you accept the hypothesis of an Altaic language family) a separate branch of Altaic. Altaic is typically broken down into three branches: Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic. Tungusic is no more a branch of Turkic than Mongolian is.

The above comment is only one of the many flaws I have found in this article. This entry looks as though it was written by some sort of "Turkish advocate", not by an objective and disinterested author. The entire article is of poor quality and needs to be completely restructured and rewritten.

The issues of race, language and history are more difficult to sort out with Turkic speakers than with other ethnic groups in Eurasia, partly because there are so few early written sources concerning them and because Turkic peoples today are spread over such a large area. Whoever might rewrite this article needs to spend some time seriously studying these issues and avoid being caught in the hoopla of nationalistic or fringe theories. Sources need to be referenced thoroughly and the sources themselves need to be scrutinized for quality. Respected, peer-reviewed linguistic and genetic journals might be a good place to start along with trying to identify some authoritative historical sources on Turkic speakers. Finally, there is a probably a great deal that simply cannot be known with certainly about Turkic origins and early history. In those instances, leading theories regarding the subject matter should be discussed without bias or favoritism.

Unsigned by 24.113.86.77 on 12 June 2005

Mongolic Peoples Turkic?

This article also states that the Altays are the Oirats. The Oirats are definitely Mongolian in origin. According to this article the Buryats are also considered Turkic. The Buryats are also Mongolic.

Huns and Hungarians as Turkic People

I have read much on the Huns and Hungarians. Based on the following published peer reviewed DNA studies I will add the Huns and Hungarians(Magyars) to the list of Turkic peoples.

"Probable ancestors of Hungarian ethnic groups: an admixture analysis" C. R. GUGLIELMINO1, A. DE SILVESTRI2 and J. BERES

MtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms in Hungary: inferences from the palaeolithic, neolithic and Uralic influences on the modern Hungarian gene pool

The first paper notes that the living Hungarians have heavy influence from the Slavs and Germans. The conclusion that both give is that the Magyars were mostly of Cenral Asain Mongol-Turkic origin.

The language debate is irrelvant to this article as language and ancestry do not have to be related and many times they are not [as the second citation attest to]. For example you can find Arabic spoken by one billion people who are not Arabs or related to Arabs. According to this research the Hungarians would be people of mongol of turkic origin who some how speak a uralic language. :-/ --Hfarmer 00:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thsi article is a total mess!

This article is a mess! It'S not only partially wrong, but it also reflects pan-turkist thoughts and views. It's neither neutral nor scietifically correct. For example, NON-TURKIC peoples like Cimmerians and Sythians are claimed Turks - something that has ALWAYS been rejected by schollars and experts.

This article needs:


a) to be cleaned up
b) to be based on scientific works and not some pan-turkist garbage


  • Some pov cleanup is needed, but the article is quoting someone else who equated Cimmerians and Ishkuz etc. with Turks (Oghuz)... Plenty of sources equating Ishkuz and Oghuz, both classical and modern sources, can be found, and these have to be admitted as sources, not hidden. The exact affinities of Cimmerians et al. are a dispute and a question mark -- please do not bestow the term "Scholars and experts" on only ONE side of the dispute; that is the definition of POV. If possible, giving both sides is preferable. (And by the way, I'm no Pan-Turk, nor even a Turk.) Codex Sinaiticus 15:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

whoever says this page is a mass he is wrong. it is very good of you to prepare this page. I am a TURK and I'm proud of this every time. Turks should be introduced correctly. and I think this is not so.

Nomenclature section

A lot of the stuff (such as the Alp er Tunga paragraph) in this section seems irrelevant. The etymology of the word "Turk" given in the dictionaries I searched (1, 2, 3) is the following:

Middle English, from Old French Turc, from Turkish Türk, from Old Turkic türk, strong.

The Persian term "Turanian" may have an etymological connection to the word "Turk," but the Turanians known to Zarathustra were in all prabability Scythians or a related tribe, who spoke an Iranian language, as the histrical Turks are only known to have reached that far west in 6th century AD (before this they seem to have lived near the western borders of China). The Persians used the term "Turanian" to refer to Central Asian nomads in general, not necessarily Turkic peoples in particular.--Rob117 17:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


Probably, you have read Firdavsi. Hovewer, I disagree with you at one critical point which "Turanian" doesn't refer to Turks. Because, most of the historians are agree that " Turanian " was used to refer Turkic tribes.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 21:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No they aren't. Turanian was what the ancient Persians used to call the Scythians and other East Iranian tribes.--Rob117 04:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agrre that Turanian was used to call East Iranian tribes. You should read Shahnameh. Tengriteg

Source?

The origin of the name of Turk is cloudy. No one make sure about the source of a word that is used for thousand years. All is only conjecture. It's sertain that it was pronounced as türük formerly; with this form, it's clear that this name has suffix (tür-"ük"). "Tür" may be origin of the verb türe-. Maybe "Törek" (töre-k)? Thise are more possible I think. In some languages, turk still means strong, dont know the reason... So maybe it changed meaning, started to mean Strong, than again changed meaning, referred Turks?!

The most important evidence are the Orkhon inscriptions of 8th century. There written Türk, Türük and Köktürk seperately. Also medieval Assyrian amd Eastern Roman chronicles such as Zemarchus (6th c.), Matthew of Edessa (11th c.) e.t.c. Tengriteg

Genetic Origins of Modern Turks

No one is accusing the Turks of being Armenians - although clearly many Turkish have some degree of Armenian blood. I am happy to discuss DNA, but please stop deleting other people's work before talking about. You have now reverted for the fourth time today. Please do not do that again. Please explain your objection--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)s. Lao Wai 18:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

TuzsuzDeliBekir has violated the 3 revert rule. Some admin needs to hear about this. --Khoikhoi 18:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, there is no such link in another ethnic pages, but in this page. Secondly, I want you to show enough number of research about DNA. According to my expriences, experts don't compare specific DNAs like Turks vs Armenians. Without a doubt, there is no pure blood, but saying .... percent of DNA comes from Greeks, ... percent of DNA comes from Armenians is such a debate that no one like to hear. Writer and editors must have respect for sensitiveness of ethnic groups. Before editing or reverting they should be quite sure about their proff. If we come back to apperance, it is mostly up to environment. For ins. some experts claim that American Indians has Turkic blood. If we go forward with this statement, they definetely dont seem like neither an Asian, nor Turkish. Consequently, before being quite sure about it, please delete the statement and go to talk page for futher discussion.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Khoikhoi alerted me to this discussion. After looking at the problem, though, I have to say that TuzsuzDeliBekir has some good points. Most other "ethnic" articles don't have this kind of lengthy "physical description" blather... Do we really need it here? And as for "DNA evidence", ya know, you can usually tell people who put their stock in DNA, its written all over their face... Truth is, people mix with other peoples in all kinds of ways, and no one is "homogenous" (whatever that would be). Ever seen a genealogical chart? Once you go back a few centuries, the typical person's ancestors lived in all kinds of different countries. Also, I don't think our friend here is trying to deny Turkic origins. Usually, the problem is revisionists trying to downplay those origins. But in this case, nothing needs to be said about "physical appearances" of what is today so diverse a group, and nothing, or perhaps only a very brief mention, should be given to "DNA" theories, that are all flawed, as they attempt to generalize entire modern day populations that are not homogenous. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. But I still defend that this page doesnt need to have a ' physical apperance ' link. Again thank you for your comment.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it is important to mention what the Turkic peoples look like. Especially because of the fact that there is so much propaganda on this subject. --Khoikhoi 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, forgive me for budding in like this, but I was just wondering, the Original Selçuk Turks that came into Anatolia through Iran we're said to look Mongolian/Asian. I'm an Assyrian (Semite) whose ancestors are from the Hakkari Mountains, my mothers Aramaic dialect has Turk loan words. Could there have been inter-marriage between those original Selcuk Turks and some of the Assyrians in the Hakarri Mountains? My mom's side of the family are taller, white, blue/green eyed, light-haired and their eyes are slightley slanted. Or, could the Mamluks (part Circassion; part Turk) have mixed? Do you know where I would be able to find information about this or if its true or not? If you are able to, I would prefer email(George, "Hoşça kalın" georgek777@comcast.net)

my answer to Khoii ( reverted 4 times )

Khoii, you claim is definetely personal. This attempt is not your first. I dont have time for your childish action. I dont play with the rules. You hate Turks, I have searched your contribution, and you are maintaing such a silly revert war aganist Turks and any link which relates with it. I must ask you to stop. Lastly, this talk is not to blame someone. ıf you have a praoblem with me, write it to my talk.

I have just reverted my answer. You have accused me above. That's why, this answer definitely belogns to here.

--TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

How about a compromise explaining some of the problems and simply making it a shorter section rather than a long and somewhat generalized rendition? The Turkic peoples aren't homogenous and the genetic distance between the western Turks and the Turks in Central Asia does seem to support different origins for the two. Mixed populations still tend to genetically cluster to all or most of their immediate neighbors and that's possibly something that does need to be pointed out. In addition, most encyclopedias do mention the different types of Turks so perhaps this section isn't completely out of line. Tombseye 00:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
But the languages are practically intelligible with one another; I don't think anyone seriously holds for "separate origins" except the most determined of historical revisionists... You're on the right track when you say populations tend to take after their neighbours, though... Note, that is not at all the same as saying "separate origins"... If we're talking about a "linguistic group", clearly they all came from the same origins, ie some tribe somewhere speaking the same language at some point in time... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Common linguistic origin doesn't equate to common ancestry. This is illustrated in the case of the Slavs. One the Bulgarians are a slavicised people of Turkic origin (the Bulgars). Nevertheless, they are counted as Slavs, as are the ethnic Macedonians, who claim descent from the Ancient Macedonians (who were presumably of Illyrian, Thracian or Greek origin). The only link we need here is the linguistic one. We have it! Britannica mentions the Turkish language having links with the other languages [1], as does the Columbia Encyclopaedia [2]. Latinus 00:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Appearance ! Go to links which you gave in your comment. If they have an appearance section, alert us to take a look. All languages have links with each other. Pasha, yoghurt, and so on are Turkish words. They are in the English dictionary too. Ottoman language was a combination of Turkish, Arabic and Persian. After republic, Turkish government changed it alphabet. ( from Arabic to Latin ) and created an organization for the purpose of researches on Turkish languages. Afterwards, they announced theory of Turkish, all documents are written in Turkish and French.
If we decide to delete the physical appearance section, then I would strongly suggest that we replace it with a genetics section or something that explains the cultural assimilation phenomenon. I don't think it's out of line to explain that the Turkic people aren't all the same group simply because they share similar languages. If language alone defines people then Chinese-Americans and African-Americans might as well be one ethnic group. The peoples pages should not shrink away from explaining both the broad usage of the terminology AND the diversity of the people in question. Generally, people seem to use either an insistence upon homogeniety to either çmake some nationalist or pan-nationalist claims OR to claim territories outside their countries as historically "theirs". If we're going for an academic view, then explaining the diversity of the Turkic peoples is very logical and their situation quite unique. Tombseye 22:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I am confused. There are a lot of ethnic pages which don't have neither a DNA figure nor a physical appearance section. All of us agree at the point that there is no pure blood. Turks aren't pure blood too. It doesn't make any sense to put a DNA figure in the page. If Turks have Greek, Armenian blood, clearly Greek and Armenian have Turk blood too, because of Ottoman Empire. Why don't you go to Greek or Armenian page and add this information. It is the same for cultural assimilation. Assimilation mostly occured nations who lived under Ottoman empire, please read 'Teba' system of Ottoman empire. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 09:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, English people discusses DNA and how the DNA of Englishmen differs from that of the Welsh and the ntive Britons. However, why don't we try rewording the section, without compromising NPOV - let's cite a few sources and so on. Latinus 09:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Latinus, DNA researches is not issue here. Please read my comment carefully. Probablyi you misunderstood me. According to my opinion, if we put DNA or assimilation in the page, we have to go to Greek, Armenian page to put the same section.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 10:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well clearly DNA research was the issue as you were claiming ethnic pages do not have DNA information. What is on the Greek or Armenian page is irrelevant. This is about the Turkish page. Wikipedia is not a game of ethnic one-up-manship. There are also good reasons to doubt that many Greeks or Armenians have Turkish blood given Turkey ruled those areas and imposed a one-sided system that allowed dhimmi women to marry Turkish men but no the other way around. Still, if you have a DNA study of any Greek village, produce it and I'll happily support adding it to the Greek page. In the meantime it would still be irrelevant to this page. Lao Wai 11:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am claming that ethic pages don't have DNA figures. Go to any ethnic page, you wont see any DNA research. Secondly, Turkish refers to people who live in Turkey. However this page involves all Turkic tribes. I disagree with you at the point that Greek and Armenian don't carry Turk blood. As I wrote above you should read ' TEBA ' system of Ottoman Empire. There is no one way. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, the aforementioned English people page has DNA studies that link the English to both Celtic and Germanic peoples. And that's just one article. Not to mention that it's a growing trend to use genetic testing to verify population movements throughout history. Tombseye 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Many scientist claims that DNA research cannot be useful, because of the fact that examples are limited and results of reseach are handled as general. Trends can be changed according to consumers' desire. All of us have watched how a scientist dealt with people consumerism. We are looking for truth. I dont seek for trends. It cannot be sources of your claim.--88.224.2.100 10:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
And yet it is clearly useful in this case. We have an example here. Trends in science do not change according to consumers' desires. Facts are facts. The truth here is that the population of modern Turkey is mixed, as are those of other Turkic peoples. What is the problem with this claim? Lao Wai 10:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Not only Turks, but also all people are mixed. Saying your are mixed, but I am pure is an example of nationalism. I am proud of being a member of a multinational culture. My problem is that you want to generalize this page by having only one example. Secondly, Nowadays, science is also shaped by consumer needs. Scientist cannot study without money. If you are a university student, take a close look who supporst researches. For ins. most of the tabbocco dealers support medical reseaches on cancer and how it can be reduced. As DNA an other biological researches are made to reporduce human body. It has such a great demand in the market. Whatever, you claim that you have sources, could you please show us then we can discuss on this sources. Before discussing, Lao Wai, you should give enough attention to comment above. DNA works are moslty limited, and the results cannot be generalize.
Nobody is denying that all people are mixed. No one is saying they are pure. If you are proud, what is the problem? This page is about Turks. It is not about Armenians. Of course it only discusses Turks. Are you seriously claiming DNA research on Turks is some vast Greek Armenian conspiracy to make Turks look bad? First of all we should all discuss the issue - before deleting large chunks of other people's work. What comments? Even you admit you are a member of a multinational culture - if you're proud of it, why are you denying it? Lao Wai 13:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Multinational culture and mutliplied DNA figures are much more different concepts. Enjoying in a multinational culture means to like living with others. After Ottoman Empire died, people who had lived out of somewhere in Ottomanland came to Anatolia, Turkiye. Those were not only Turks or muslims, but also people who weren't muslims or Turks. They brought what they learnt from others. As a conseuqency, Turkiye became a multinational country.

Yes, you said Greek don't have any Turkish blood. I can clearly see this page was opened for Turks. I just claimed that if Turks have multiplied DNA, clearly Armenians, Greek and another ethnic which lived under Ottoman Empire management have Turkic blood too. You have just added the discussion. We discussed about physical appearance. Only Khoi. disagreed with us. Afterwards, Tombseye joined the discussion and he wanted to discuss DNA figures of Turks. Now the issue is DNA. After we agree on the issue, we will put what we agree.

Anyway, if we can come back the issue, DNA researches are made with limited experiments, and their results mostly generalize for all. Also, the reseaches you mentioned probably used Turkish people's blood. They don't have examples of all Turkic blood. Another aspect that we cannot ignore experiments background. Did scientist have a deep information about them ? I will ask this, because of migration after the dead of Ottoman Empire. Was their family born in Anatolia or another countries which are considered as Turkic country ?

In point of view, I am afraid, these aspect will cause a big conflict, and discussion won't find its end.

Lastly, please delete the appearance section.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 15:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The physical appearance section has no sources as of yet. Unless sources are provided, it should be deleted. SouthernComfort 17:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Surprised to see that there was no tag there considering the dispute. Added accuracy tag until this is sorted out. SouthernComfort 17:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Let us speak about scientific facts to be consistent. Who has made such a DNA testing and where have been the results published? There is no such a thing. Also which globally accepted scientist made a survey to claim that most of the Turkish citizens are not Turks? Next time when you claim something please be specific and give us the name, number, date and page numbers of the scientific journal. Or else you are funny. You may not like Turks. But you should not lie. Please be specific and scientific. No emotions please.

Issues

Are they any accuracy issues left with this article? There hasn't been any discussion here for awhile. Otherwise, if there is no objection, I will remove the accuracy tag. SouthernComfort 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Turanian

I believe the definition of the term "Turanian" is incorrect - it has the opposite meaning of "Iranian," i.e. "not Aryan" or "not Iranian." Same applies to "Turan" of course - opposite meaning of "Iran." It may have an additional meaning, but I've never read anything about it meaning "dark." SouthernComfort 01:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What did you read about it ? --TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
"Turanian" was used in Shahnameh meaning 'bad' and 'dark' as oppose to 'good' and 'bright' (Zoroastrian philosophy), It never meant Turk as far as I know --Kash 10:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Section removed

I removed the "Translations for Turk" section because I fail to see any point to it. Is there any? --Khoikhoi 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 


      Actually, I'd like it to be there, it was interesting to see - Scotty

A very shy vandal !

It seems like we have a shy vandal 138.88.206.223 who does follows his vandalization urge and then reverts back. Hoping to pass some irrelavant message in this article about Armenian mass killing early last centuary in Ottoman Empire. Have look it is rather funny. md 17:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Either that or he changed his mind about vandalizing the page. I've seen other vandals do this before. --Khoikhoi 19:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article seems to be partly POV (see navigation list). Claiming that Huns and certain other people were "Turkic" is POV and like claiming that "eraly Germanic peoples were English or Swedish". This needs to be corrected. Till then ---> "neutrality" box. Tajik 15:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol, being an iranian of half turkic origin myself, i completely agree with Tajik. --Darkred 06:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tajik partly. All of the Huns (both Hiung-Nu and Euroasian Huns) were not Turks. But Turks emerged from Huns. Chinese sources describe it. From the A-shih-ha clan of Hiung-Nu. Huns were a confederation of nomadic clans led by Turkish speaking leaders. Just like Euroasian Avars. Also around 100 years after Attila the presence of the Turkish Empire (Turk-Turuk-Götürk-Köktürk Empire) was known by Eastern Rome, Sasanids, China e.t.c. And this is not a big time difference... Tengriteg

No need of Pan-turkism

I think that it isn't necessary to place Pan-turkism here, it have nothing to do with turkic people. I'm turkic myself & I'm muslim, I find that it isn't correct to merge turkic-people & Pan-turkism together. It's Different things


TfD nomination of Template:Turkic

Template:Turkic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Tajik 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Turkic Roots" edit war

Gentlemen, this edit war is becoming ridiculous; especially when the solution is so simple. JUST CITE YOUR SOURCES!! There are no sources cited in the entire section, technically it can all be deleted as Original Research. If there's a "historian" or a "linguist" that makes these claims, cite the source instead of making it weasely. Likewise, if you have a specific Turkish Nationalist that makes these claims, just cite the source. Otherwise somebody like me might just delete this entire section as POV and OR. For reference, see this note from Jimbo himself regarding unsourced statements.--WilliamThweatt 15:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Metb82, by checking the history of this article, one can find that it wasn't even me who added the Turkic nationalists part, it was in fact User:Lao Wai. I'll contact him and ask if he can bring sources. —Khoikhoi 17:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

DNA Discussion

I really don't want to get involved in any of these prolonged discussions, as it would be more beneficiary for all of us to spend more time making constructive contributions than engaging in dead-end discussions. Besides, I don't have the background on the subject or the fluency in English to sustain a decent discussion. However, I couldn't help but react to the following part of the article.

Currently, large-scale, detailed DNA research to establish genetic genealogies of Turkic peoples is scant. Evidently, today a great number of Turks do not share this genetic phenotype. Genetic studies performed in four towns across modern Turkey have demonstrated the dilution of the Turkic strain. Only around 30% of those studied possessed a gene marker relating them to a central Asian (i.e. Turkic) ancestor, yet all those studied were Turkish citizens. Altogether, the story of Turkic peoples is a story of admixture and two-way cultural assimilation.

Turkic identity, therefore, exists on two levels. On one, it is a race of (predominantly mongoloid) people from central Asia. On another, it is like an ocean current, spreading and mingling with far-flung waters, and giving rise to a broad-shared history, language, and cultural values transcending genes and racial categorisation.

The statements in the first paragraph of this part are generalizing Turkic people using an inadequate information about people of Turkey, collected through a method which is not yet scientifically approved at global scale. There is also an apparent contradiction in the first two sentences which first adress the scantness of the evidence then concludes with generalization based on this evidence ("Evidently, today a great number of Turks.."). Having said that, which really made me react is that such a statement can be offending to some people (including me) as it's basically stating that "statiscally" 70% of Turks (or Turkish Republic Citizens) are not of Turkic origins, i.e. of "pure blood". The second paragraph is even more desperate. While the factuality of the information presented is clearly disputable in this paragraph, the sentencing together with the comparision is no way close to presenting any encyclopedic information.

Please accept my apologies if I have attracted attention to this discussion which otherwise has been quiet for a while now. Regards DeliDumrul 23:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us speak about scientific facts to be consistent. Who has made such a DNA testing and where have been the results published? There is no such a thing. Also which globally accepted scientist made a survey to claim that more than %70 of Turkish citizens are not Turks? Nex time when you claim something please be specific and give us the name, number, date and page numbers of the scientific journal. Or else you are funny. You may not like Turks. But you should not lie.

DNA or other things. Factum: "The turkish is that, who call himself turkish." Beceuse is not any pure generation or family.

I so know the scytians are live in kazahsztan but they not made space ships to evakuate themsels. After there are live there the khazars, same of they move west. But others not. Read the stones and bones! They were there. Now I dont know who is the real Scytian. The kök-türks (turkish) influence is not deniable. They are live, and talk, and love.

Turkic / Turkish

It is obvious that Turkish people living in Turkey if we do not consider that as the citizens of Republic of Turkey are Turkic in the terms of language, culture, history and customs.(cantikadam 12:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

koçum bırakın bu saçmalıkları yahu, biz bile gülüyoruz bunlara :) --Gokhan 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Totally nonsense. "Turkic" and "Turkish" are absolutely different things, the same way "Germanic" and "Germans" are different and "Iranic" and "Iranian" are different. Tājik 14:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
They are not absolutely different. Just classification difference and it's totally normal: as the other Turks in Asia were constantly under Russian and Chinese pressure, the world first met the western Oghuz Turks embodied in Seljuk and Ottoman empires. So in modern western literature the name "Turkish" was mainly used for Ottoman Turks and now modern Turks.
When our cousins in Asia and Azarbaijan emerged from oppression and had their freedom back, there was need to find another word to describe the whole family of Turks (not to mix up with Turkey Turks) hence "Turkic". --Gokhan 09:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The Khazars were caled Turkic and after the khazars influneced and captured by gok-turks(gök-türk,kök-türk) they are the turkish. The new kök-türk goverments inherit the "turkic land" name.
Eldersun

Gog and Gokturk

I am curious if there are the possible historical or mythical correlations between references of Gog & Magog (in the book of Ezekiel) with Gokturk.

The book of Ezekiel was written during the times when Turks did not call themselves as Gokturks or even Turks. The book of Ezekiel belongs to 6th century BC where the name Gokturk belongs to 7-8th century AD. At the era of the Gokturk empire neighboring people did not call Turks as Gokturks, just Turks. Some scholars claim that Gokturks were the elite ruler class of the Turkish Empire, an empire called Gokturk never existed the empire was called as Turk or Turuk Empire. So trying to connet Gokturks to Gog is similar to a funny connection of AngloSaxon to Saxaphone... But some people claim Turks and some other other Asiatic nations being the Gog-Magog in the book of Ezekiel. This blief was common during the Medieval Times. Especially when Seljuk Turks Captured Jerusalem. Please read the article on Gog and Magog in Wikipedia. Sincerely. Tengriteg

The "Turks" have never called themselvs" Turks", but the name was given to them by the Muslims. The name "Türk" is taken from "Gök-Türk", a tribe or family of unknown origin, probably once subject to the Mongol "Rouran". After the collapse of the "Rouran" kingdom, certain nomanic peoples of unknown origins became known as "Gök-Türks" (probably the name of the leading clan) and it is believed that they had similar costums and spoke similar languages. The "Gök-Türks" allied themselvs with Sassanid Persians to fight the Hephthalites (who were later defeated and eliminated by the Persian Shah "Khusrow Anushirvan"), and after the fall of the Hephthalites, they allied themselvs with the Arabs against Persia and conquered large areas in Central Asia which Arabs later named "Bilad al-Tork" ("land of the Turks") - obviously a reference to the leading clan of the "Gök-Türks". This Arabic name became known as "Turkistan" in Persian, and from then on, all kinds of nomadic peoples from Central Asia were labled "Turks", no matter if they were Iranic, Slavic, Mongolian, Turkic, or whatever. Due to Perso-Islamic rule in Central-Asia (the first Turkic clans were converted to Islam by the Persian Samanid dynasty), those Central-Asian nomads adopted the name "Turk" for themselvs. Other so-called "Turkic peoples" who did not have any contacts to Muslim conqueres never took the name "Turk", such as Turkic-speaking peoples in Europes, who became known as "Bulgars" or "Tartars" (from "Tartaros", the Greek god of the underworld, as a reference to the brutality of Central-Asian nomads).
The modern usage of the term "Turk" (for the Anatolian population) was more or less forced on the population of Turkey by the so-called "Young Turks" - the educated elite of the Ottoman Kingdom - who, demographically, were only a tiny minority in Anatolia (comparable to the use of the terms "Roman", "Mongol", or "Persian" who themselvs have always been a small minority, but - for some reason - gave their name to entire kingdoms and peoples).
So, I doubt that the term "Gog" has anything to do with the old-Türkish word "Gök" ("blue") which was only part of the name given to a certain family or clan.
Tājik 14:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend Tajik. You must be mistaken or led by your emotions. Turks were called as Turks before Islam. East Roman Empire sent Zemarkhos as an ambassador in the middle of 6th century to Istemi Kagan of Western Turks. And in the year 567 Istemi Kagan sent a group of emissaries led by a Soghdian named Maniakh to Eastern Rome. Both attempts were to form an allience against Sasanid kingdom, the common foe. In the chronicles of Zemarkhos Turks were explicitly called as Turks. Those times were at least 100 years before Islam. Also Turks called themselves as Turks. You can go and read the genuine Tukish monuments in Mongolia. The monuments belong to the first quarter of 8th century. At those times Turks were fighting against Muslim Arabs. Also when you check the Chinese dynasties' chronicles Pei-shih (386-618), Chou-shu (557-589), Sui-shu (589-618) you can find quite alot of information on Turks. And also some Chinese Turkologists claim that the earliest ancestors of Turks were Tiks (9.-8. century B.C.)Chinese documents have more than claims. Dr. T'ang Chi's works are worth examining. Also you can check a French man L. Bazin's works. Coming to your claims that Turks are a minority in Anatolia. I suggest you to read the chronicles of Armenians during te medieval times. For example Matthew of Edessa (Matevos Urhayetsi-in Armenian). You can by your self judge that Turks have never been a minority in Anatolia. By the way, have you ever been to Turkey? You can also validate your emotional claims by facts. Sincerely. Tengriteg

I agree. Turks were called as Turks far before Islam. But when they became protectors of Islam their name was spelled more frequently. You can check Zemarchus in Wikipedia. I also agree that emotional feelings against Turks should not be confused with scientific and historical facts.

About the name "Göktürk": the words didn't start with letter "G" in Turkish language at that time. The real name is "Kök Türük". "Kök" means the "sky" and color of "blue". In modern Turkish it became "Gök" meaning "sky" only. We called ourselves "Türk" before Islam came. The first contacts with Muslim Arabs occured at the 7th century AD with Muslim conquest of Iran. --Gokhan 08:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Turks conquered Anatolia in 11th century. And then the first wave of Oguz Turks filled the land. At that time Turkish state in Anatolia did not have the word Turk in the name. It was called Seljuk and/or Rum Sultanate. But in 12th century Anatolia was so Turkified that the land was called "Turchia" by the Italians and Normans. Just before the Mongolians a big second wave of Turks migrated Anatolia. Also before those muslim Turkish migration waves, christian Turks (Pechenegs, Cumans, Guzz-Uzz, e.t.c.) were settled to North-Western Anatolia. If you reject Turkish sources, read the Western sources. Turks were never a minority in Anatolia since 12th Century. Tengriteg

Who cares about a minority discussion about 900 years before? These are all hollow discussions with a political agenda. Yes yes yes, we came in 11th century, yes we were barbarian invaders(!), yes there were Greeks and Armenians around in Anadolu, yes they were the craddle of western civilization or the oldest christian nation or both etc etc etc... I don't understand the purpose of this debate. Times change, nations change, territories change hands, empires come and go by... just live with it. As a Turkish person I'm tired of constantly being bombarded for a history of 1000 years... enough already. Peace --Gokhan 08:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bahá'í Turkic peoples???

I'm fairly sure there are no Bahá'í peoples, Turkic or not. E.g., they are not mentioned in Bahá'í#Demographics. Any objections to removing this? --Lev 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Lev, There are considerable number of Bahá'í Turks, specially in Azerbaijan Republic and South Azerbaijan (Iran), Turkey and Turkmenistan. In fact the first Bahá'í House of Worship was built in Ashgabat[3] Turkmenistan at the time of Abdulbaha. The funder of the Bahá'í fate and his successor, Abdulbaha spend most of his life in the Ottoman territory. Mehrdad 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Maps need fixing

The map, Geographical distribution of Turkic-speaking peoples across Eurasia has errors with regards to Anatolia, has errors. Southeast Anatolia is inhabited mostly by Kurds and the Zaza yet, the maps shows it as totally Turkic. This needs to be fixed as well as the map needs to be sourced. Azalea pomp 19:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • In the maps, it's written Turkic-speaking not Turkic peoples. All the Kurds and Zazas of Turkey speak Turkish. In addition, there are Turks, Arabs, and Armenians living there. The maps are not on ethnicity but language. The maps are ok in this context. Regards. E104421 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The map should show only where Turkic people are the primary population in a given area as it is misleading otherwise. I have listed a map: http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~siamakr/Kurdish/map.jpg as a reference. Azalea pomp 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, since emphasis is given on the language not the ethnicity. The map is about "Turkic-speaking" people. In that region, all are Turkic-speaking as a first or a second language. That's the point. The map is not reflecting any ethnical distribution. Regards. E104421 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want second language speakers, then another color needs to be included for second language speakers. For the Kurdish and Zaza areas, the color should be perhaps light green, but it cannot be the same color as the first language speakers of a Turkic language. Every area listed on the map as Turkic speaking is first language speakers except Southeast Anatolia. Also, language and ethnicity are closely tied together. Language is one very important component of ethnicity. Azalea pomp 01:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
File:Turkic languages2.PNG

Image:Turkic languages2.PNG is further down the page and represents Turkic rather than Altaic. This map should be moved up. It's not clear the Altaic map is needed at all. --JWB 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Your statement Language is one very important component of ethnicity is a very strong and controversial one. I wonder how you consider the situation in India, Pakistan, and U.S.. By stating Turkic-speaking as i pointed out before we are not interested in any ethnicity. Your map version is not correct, since you're focusing on the ethnicity but missing/ignoring the fact that there are Turks, Azeris, Turkmens and other Turkic peoples living in that area. Regards. E104421 22:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, most of the Kurdish inhabitants of Southeastern Turkey speak Turkish as their first language, or they can use Turkish as well as Kurdish, because the education is given in only Turkish and the govermental offices work only in Turkish. Azalea pomp may find more information on the use of Turkish language in Southeastern Turkey in the related wiki pages. He will see that language and ethnicity might mean many different things in certain conditions. Regards Caglarkoca 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Language part of ethnicity can be found in any definition of what constitutes an ethnic group in any cultural anthropology book. By definition, two groups who speak different language are not part of the same ethnic group. Don't confuse ethnicity with nationality or race. Also, please provide a source for your claim that Turkish is the first language of most the Kurds in Southeastern Turkey. The Ethnologue states not many speakers use Turkish: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kmr Azalea pomp 05:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
According to Demographics of Turkey, it's not certain exactly who speaks what in Turkish Kurdistan. Having a separate color on the map for second-language learners would be nice but I really doubt that that kind of information is even pretending to be out there. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Having a separate color might be worth discussing, even though I am against it. However, I want to take your attention to the explanation of the map: Geographical distribution of Turkic-speaking peoples across Eurasia It says distribution. From that word I conceive that 'the regions where altaic Turkic language speakers constitute a significant part of the local population'. It does not necessarily mean the dominant language in that region. Hence, even if the majority of the Southeastern Turkey doesn't speak Turkish, the map is still correct. So about the sources, I have looked through the already existing articles in wikipedia about the topic. In the section Kurds_in_Turkey#Language you can see the statement that Many Kurds in Turkey speak only Turkish, but about 5 million people speak a Kurdish language (7-8% of the total population). Therefore, there is no need to change the article regarding to the the Southeastern part of Turkey. Caglarkoca 14:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The Altaic map should be removed. This is not the Altaic page. Also, Altaic is generally not accepted by most linguists, at least not Altaic in the traditional sense. Azalea pomp 07:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
From that word I conceive that 'the regions where altaic language speakers constitute a significant part of the local population'. I meant turkic not altaic. I am sorry for this misunderstanding. Caglarkoca 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • In Turkey, all ethnic groups are disrubuted everywhere around the country. It's impossible to state that a particular region is inhabited only by a single ethnic group. For this reason, Azalea's proposal is not suitable in case of Turkey. As i already said before, the figure caption clearly states that the image shows the Turkic-speaking regions, not ethnic Turks, that's fairly trivial. In Ethnologue report it's written as "The majority are in provinces of ..." but it does not state that there is no other ethnic groups living in that region. Regards. E104421 16:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
E104421, can you please list a source that all ethnic groups are distributed everywhere around the country? There is no doubt there are Turkish speakers in SE Anatolia, but that isn't their native, primary location. If we go by your logic, we could make the whole world map yellow because some Turkic language is spoken nearly everywhere in world by a few people (thousand, hundred etc.). Ethnic maps should show native or primary ranges. Also, don't remove "No Citation" tags since no citation is given. Also, wikipedia is not an authority. Don't quote wikipedia, give an academic source. Perhaps instead of another color, certain parts should be zigzagged to show that the area has a significant number of Turkic speakers. Azalea pomp 07:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Azalea, I believe my source should be enough to tell you that Kurds do not necesarily speak Kurdish as their mother tongue in Turkey. http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCneydo%C4%9Fu_Anadolu_B%C3%B6lgesi from this link, you will see some statistics regarding the language used in the southeastern Turkey. The source is Ethnic Structure of Turkey by Ali Tayyar Onder. It is written that in the SE Turkey Mothertongue: 54.4% Kurdish, 45.6% Turkish. The language used: 63% Turkish, 37% Kurdish. I do not have the book, but it is cited as source in Turkish wikipedi. I think this concludes your problems about the language used in the SE Turkey. Even if the mothertongue is taken as the basis of this map, 45.6% is a large enough number to show on the map. Caglarkoca 13:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an authority, but it is good enough to use in wikipedia. A good encyclopedia should not contradict itself. Caglarkoca 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Azalea, you should first note that i'm not the only person editing the article. I do not remove "citation tags" unless i provide a source for that. Secondly, i did not quote wikipedia. See the Ethnologue report for Turkish, too. It's written there "Spoken throughout Turkey as first or second language". This is the thousand times i'm repeating the same argument, "the map is on Turkic-speaking people". It's an official language of Turkey, the education is also in Turkish. They speak Turkish. There are many different Kurdish dialects in Turkey, and most of them are not mutuallty intelligible. In addittion, in the easten part of Turkey (not SE), the population is mostly Turkish. You included these parts into the map, too. It's also written in Ethnologue that "The majority are in provinces of Hakkari, Siirt, Mardin, Agri, Diyarbakir, Bitlis, Bingol, Van, Adiyaman, and Mus", however, this cannot be interpreted as they have the majority in all these provinces or there are no Turkic-speaking people. Do not miss that nuance! Regards. E104421 15:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Now, what are we going to do with that Altaic map? There is already an Altaic page and an Altaic map is not necessary on the Turkic page. Also, Altaic in the traditional sense is not generally accepted by most linguists as a valid language family. Azalea pomp 23:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this page has a strong need for the Altaic map, especially one that doesn't shade Turkic, Mongolian and Tungus separately. However, the doubts are only whether Altaic is a genetic (linguistics) relationship rather than the result of long close contact and borrowing. Nobody questions that the three families show a strong resemblance, probably more than to any other languages, and that it is a traditional grouping. Also, the doubters are mostly not specialists in Altaic themselves, and have been accused of applying more stringent criteria that would also invalidate other genetic families like Indo-European.
Turkic is part of a number of proposed larger groups such as Altaic, Ural-Altaic, Nostratic, Eurasiatic, and Borean. --JWB
I would like to see an academic source for applying stringent criteria that would also invalidate other genetic families like Indo-European. Indo-European is not disputed by any serious linguist. In any event, IE is made up of relatively closely related languages and it has many sound correspondences. Also, the so called core group of Altaic has members no more related to one another than say Tungus is to Japanese, etc because well there is not a consensus that Altaic as a language family even exists... Azalea pomp 03:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Also not sure what you mean by "the traditional sense". I think Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungus is the traditional sense and is the most secure. Adding Korean and Japanese has been more controversial. --JWB 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Read by comment right above. Azalea pomp 03:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The Altaic in its extended form is a controversial/technical issue and extraneous to the context of this article. However, the family name "Altaic" is a commonly used terminology to label these languages. Turkic, Tungus, and Mongolian are still Altaic regardless of exact status of Altaic is. If the map is re-drawn to reflect the "core" group (Turkic, Tungusic, and Mongolic) and the "extension" group (Korean, Japonic, and Ainu) each with different colours, it might be useful. I'm not sure whether a treatment of Altaic at that point is necessary at all, since it is really a technical issue of not much interest here. I'd share in the opinion that the Turkic peoples article does not have a strong need for the Altaic map. Regards. E104421 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't a better main picture for this page be a a collage of various Turkic speakers: a Turk, a Gagauz, a Yakut, etc borrowed from the other wikipedia pages? Azalea pomp 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


you are correct. the map says it shows Turkic peoples but it barely shows turkic speakers. considering the genetic profile of anatolian turks>> "The most reliable estimates suggest roughly 30% Central Asian admixture for both mitochondrial and Ychromosome loci (in Anatolia-Turkey). That (admittedly approximate) figure is compatible both with a substantial immigration accompanying the arrival of the Turkmen armies (which is not historically documented), and with continuous gene flow from Asia into Anatolia, at a rate of 1% for 40 generations." [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghuz_Turks i think it's not rightful for Turkish people. some turkish people claim Anatolian blood and others Turkic. it's their blood and they are to decide what they want to be called, but "roughly 30% Central Asian admixture" says a lot about the fake 100% yellow Turkey, Turkic peoples map. DefendEurope (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Turkish minority in Bulgaria & Greece, Iraqi Turkmens, Iranian Azeris...

I can't locate them in any of these maps. This article needs improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slntssssn (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Again the Ardahan Picture

While our friend here providing us with a Link to the Ardahan governorship I could not find that picture back in their website. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE ISN NOT SUCH A PICTURE THERE, BUT PLEASE GIVE ME THE EXACT LINK! I need this to see whether this dance is Turkich or not even if it is taken from Ardahan governorship does not make the dance Turkish, because the area is also populated by Georgians, Azeris, Kurds and before also Armenians. The dance and cloths are not Turkish. According to me the dance is a Caucasian one (Georgian, Azeri or Armenian) and is not an Anatolian either Turkish or Kurdish dance. There are plenty of pictures from Turks in turkey why don't you take another picture which represent them better? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Please, discuss the issue with the uploader of the image. I'm sure the uploader will provide you the details better than everybody. As i already explained above, the image caption says "Turkish dancers" in Ardahan. The name or the origin of the dance is not mentioned there. In this context, there is nothing wrong. If you're more concerned in the details, contact with the uploader instead of disputing/reverting. Regards. E104421 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Man, Im saying that I wanted to check it with the source but there was no sucha picture there. And if there was such a picture it does not mean that it is an Anatolian Turkish dance. Every one sees it is a Caucasian one. I DO THINK that in the list there is a picture needed which represents Turks of Turkey, but a Picture which is representative. If you have such a picture upload it please. I have no idea who has been the uploader of this image. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I went there and saw that you put your comments there, so lets give him time to reply. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
And? It cannot be unresolved for ages.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the uploaders latest response less than forthcoming and somewhat rude, and don't expect a resolution from that side. To break the impasse, I've replaced the image. If you don't like it, find something better, but please do not reinstate the contested image, which I think ought to be deleted anyway since it cannot be asserted to be free.  --Lambiam 17:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC) . .yes unfortunately lately there have been irresponsible reactions and actions from people who edit Turkic and Iranian pages. As thez edit as unsigned people it should be doubted about their identity, Turk or not--Babakexorramdin 09:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with expanding the caption?

I expanded the caption of the picture in the lead paragraph from

Turkmen girl.

to

Turkmen girl. The Turkmen people are one of many Turkic peoples.

The reason is that this makes clear to the reader, who may look at the image first, how the image relates to the subject of the article. In the text the first mention of the Turkmens as a people is only many screens and sections down, in section number 6 on History. However, this change was reverted, without edit summary.[4] Why?  --Lambiam 08:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit war over the picture

Why are we seeing a lame edit war over these pictures? Some may like one better, some may like the other better, but is one of so bad, that it is better not to have a picture than that one? Please discuss this on the talk page please.  --Lambiam 15:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I already asked this to the user who insist on his choice. In my oppinion there should be no picture at the top of the article with a face of a person. Turkic people are a diverse group. There is a gallery at the bottom which should be sufficient. This article needs a lot of improvement and that is not going to happen by including more images.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The image was put there on November 11 by an anon[5] but immediately reverted[6], and again put there on December 5[7] and again reverted[8] and again[9] and again[10] and again[11] and again[12] and again[13] and again[14] and again[15] and again[16] and again[17] and again[18] and again[19] and again[20] and again[21] and again[22]. Then we had some peace until one editor decided: "I like this one better".[23] That is clearly a very strong argument. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same taste, and there we go again[24] and... But look now! The editor who "liked the other one better" apparently thinks: "my face or no face"[25], which is reverted[26] and again re-reverted[27] and again[28] and ...
Look, it takes (at least) two to edit war, and who exactly is it who "insist[s] on his choice"? Don't we see two editors, both of whom insist on their choice, but are unable to engage in any meaningful discussion on the issue(which should ake place on the talk page of the article)? Don't you see how totally lame this edit war is?  --Lambiam 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The person who commented "I like this one better" was me. This was to emphasize the subjectiveness of insisting on a particular face. There are many articles linked here. The face of a Turkmen or Uygur girl is not going to represent the Turkic peoples. A geographical distribution map or a picture of some other common cultural element would serve better the article.Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There are articles concerning ethnic groups of peoples that do not open with an image of a member or members of one of the groups, but there are also articles that do, such as Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Indigenous peoples in Brazil, Indigenous peoples in Colombia, Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Puebloan peoples, and Tai peoples. Quite similarly, in many articles on specific peoples only one or a group of individuals is shown, as for example for Arab, Azerbaijani people (a featured article), Circassians, and Gagauz people. While it is true that none "represents" the entirety in the sense of being representative of all, I don't see why that is a problem in these articles, and I don't see why it should be a problem here. The text "The Turkmen people are one of many Turkic peoples" should make that clear even to the less astute reader.  --Lambiam 11:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Your comparison of the Turkic peoples with the Thai, Azerbaijani, etc. tells me you place them all in the same group. This article is about "Turkic Peoples" -PLURAL. It is a different kind of a grouping. It is concerning to me that you make such a compsrison. You seem to be involved in articles related to Turkic people . Uninformed contributors with a NPOV can have their effect too .Compare Turkic Peoples with Germanic Peoples, Slavic Peoples . Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You ignore the argument, and instead resort to an ad hominem argument. However, unlike you suggest, I did not compare the Turkic peoples with the Thai, Azerbaijani, etc., but only the use of the image in ths article with the use of an image in several other articles that represents a single element of the group that is the topic of the article. I clearly, and purposely, labelled this with "similarly". And furthermore, just like "Turkic peoples" is plural, so are "Aboriginal peoples in Canada", "Indigenous peoples in Brazil", "Indigenous peoples in Colombia", "Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast", "Puebloan peoples", and "Tai peoples". Several of these groups of peoples are much more inhomogeneous than the Turkic peoples.  --Lambiam 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not ignore the argument. What is the argument? Your comparison of Turkic people with Indigenous Peoples of Brasil is revealing. Whether you are doing with intention or out of ignorance this article is suffering from it. We have a user insisting on a picture that resembles the "indigenous" natives of North America claiming that other similar articles have images too. You are fine with it. I say this (Turkic people ) article should not have images of people -pushed mostly by some nationalists with limited English skills. It should be written in a manner similar to articles for Celtic, Germanic, or Slavic peoples that also have a language family in addition to multiple related past and contemporary nations. Nostradamus1 (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(exdent) What do the language skills of some editors have to do with this issue? Again, as I said before, I am not comparing the Turkic peoples with the indigenous peoples in Brazil, but only the use of images that might be objected against as not being representative of the ensemble that is the topic of the article. Why should Turkic peoples be more like Germanic peoples or Slavic peoples? Are these really that similar? The designation "Germanic peoples" is used for a historical group of peoples. Are there any contemporary identifiable ethnic groups that are now called "a Germanic people" or "a Slavic people"? It is for a reason that the article Germanic peoples is illustrated by the pagan god Donar, even though the Germanic tribes were Christianized in the Middle Ages and most contemporary Germans are mainly Lutherans or Roman Catholics. In contrast, our articles on the Altay people, Balkars, Chulyms, Chuvash people, Dolgans, Karachays, Kazakhs, Khakas, Kumyks, Nogais, Telengit, Teleuts, Turkmen people, Uyghur people, Uzbeks, Volga Tatars, and Yakuts, in each case identify them as a Turkic people: from "The Altay or Altai are a Turkic people" up to "Yakuts ... are a Turkic people". Being a Turkic people is very much a living attribute of many contemporary ethnic groups, and for that reason it is not unreasonable to use examples of actual contemporary Turkic peoples as an illustration.  --Lambiam 22:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you claim that there are no contemporary peoples identifying themselves as a Slavic people I don't have much to say other than express my disagreement.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
. You are right, the ethnic groups speaking a Slavic language are occasionally called a Slavic people. I expressed myself too strongly; however, you can't deny that that designation is not particularly common. The Google search term "are a Slavic people" gets 88 hits; the search term "are a Turkic people" gets about 10,700 hits.  --Lambiam 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is quite common for Bulgarians to emphasize that they are a Slavic people. The Google search results can not be a measure for this. There are many more different Turkic ethnic groups and, perhaps, a greater interest in uncovering their history. Treating the Turkic people as a single ethnic group would be misleading. The term Turkic -which I do find useful- has been proposed by Russian researchers in an attempt to group these "Turkic" ethnicities that have things in common. These common aspects that make up the Turkic peoples should be the primary focus of the article not the pictures of people. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Both Germanic and Slavic meta-ethnic identities are important for their representatives. Pan-Germanic nationalism reached its peak in the beginning of WWII, but was then quelled, while in the case of the Slavs there was Pan-Slavism. Non-white persons in Russia, for instance, are frequently referred to as people of non-Slavic appearance. The reason why the Turkic meta-ethnicity is so frequently mentioned on the internet is that the majority of its ethnicities aren't as widely known in the West as various Slavic and German ethnicities, so saying that they're Turkic is a good way of introducing them. --217.172.29.4 (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would want to make pictures of people the primary focus of the article. In any case, a single picture in the lead paragraph will not have that effect.  --Lambiam 10:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the picture to show ALL the turkic groups (ie the picture of the map)- we should not have one person in the picture when there is 180-200 million people! completly ludicrous --Ozipozi 07:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am adding Kipchaks under the links somebody forgot, but I am offended a little (Kipchak my self). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atilla1234 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The link goes to the article Kipchaks, which is really about the ancient Kipchaks. The Cumans are treated as extinct, with all verbs in the past tense. Should we have an article on modern Kipchaks?  --Lambiam 10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not know there was a difference between ancient Kipchaks and modern ones but yeah sure we should make an ardicle or at least a section under Kipchaks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atilla1234 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:GokturkFlag.png

Please stop adding this image. It is unreferenced and entirely a product of its creator's imagination. No source describes a flag of this type in use among the Gokturks. That this image survived deletion is in direct contravention to Wikipedia policies. In any event, it has no encyclopedic value in this article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

E104421, I disagree with you regarding flag being sourced. Gumilev's study regarding the use of a wolf's head for a totem and the look and design of the flag from the Flags of the World website are totally separate things. The flag is unsourced. The Flags of the World website even uses the word "alleged" in reference to the flag. Using Gumilev as a source for the flag is like trying to reconstruct the US flag based upon the common description "stars and stripes". --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A flag featuring a wolf's head is more descriptive than "stars and stripes" where there can be many arrangements. I wonder if there is a source about the color though. Filanca (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the point. A flag featuring a wolf's head ISN'T more descriptive. For example, which direction is the head supposed to be looking? Which area of the flag is the head supposed to be placed in? And as you pointed out, what colors are supposed to be used? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Besides, were the teeth visible, and if so which ones? How long were the ears compared to the rest of the head? My point is, unless we have a copy of this flag, which is impossible to find, there may be no description good enough for an exact reconstruction. All current images drawn out of descriptions are only representations, just to visualise something, to get as close as possible to the thing described. By the way, I dont think all flags of Gokturks were exactly the same as each other in a time and place where there was not internet or pringing presses. As for color, I think blue is for the sake of "Gokturk" name but as for green, I have no idea. Filanca (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, but you must realize that no one has any clue as to what fair description the Office of the President of Turkey is even using to create such a flag. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

the problem of the user:Jingiby

Jingiby claims that Turkic peoples are from different races. he claim this idea from the (non-existed) source of brittanica. but sources in today are show that these eurasian peoples are share the same history and have a same roots(from central asia). i suggest that the entrance of the page should be re-write by neutral academics.(not by Jingiby) --Orkh (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the Jingiby's POV . The exact text of britannica is the follow :

"Turkic peoples display a great variety of ethnic types."


I think you may not change "Turkic peoples" to "Turkic people" and "The Turkic peoples are various linguistically related Eurasian peoples" to "The Turkic people are an ethnic Eurasian people" . Thank you--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


As a new nation state founded in 1923 on the ashes of the Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey faced the need to establish a new national identity and ideology. Kemalist conceptions of national identity were not limited to civic nationalist ideologies, but incorporated racist ascriptions of ethnic nationalism as well. The author’s analysis reveals a dominating and exclusionary discourse of Turkish nationalism, in which the ‘Turkish race’ (posited as the dominant national group) had a sense of proprietary ownership of the nation and national identity. The Turkish Review of Anthropology and the Racist Face of Turkish Nationalism Jingby (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


ok, i think he/she will stop.--Orkh (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

pls someone stop Jingiby, he is such a racist and vandalist, hey Jingiby you hate Turkic people because you are a racist Slavic Bulgarian... but you hate your Turkic ancestries... everybody hate you, racist pig!!--85.107.110.87 (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect the Turkic peoples, however the Bulgars were Turkic! Your problem are the reliable sources. According to Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Regards! See:Wikipedia:Verifiability Jingby (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear unregistred sockpuppet and vandal, here is an Encyclopedia, not nationalistic forum. If you only insist makeing blind reverts without explanation and references this will not help your thesis! Please, explain your point of view and show your references1 Regards... Jingby (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if it continues , the page should be protected . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Section Mythology

The section on Mythology seems to be miserable ! In fact , the mythology of the Turkic peoples that spoke Turkic languages , is not alike and almost no element is common between Iranian Azeri and the central Asian Turkic language people .Neither Turks of Turkey , nor Azeris of Iran and Az.Rep have ever practiced Tengriism and other Shamanistic religions as it is written in this sentence :"Tengriism and other Shamanistic religions had been the dominant religion for most of history"! Zend-Avesta , never talks about the Turks and talks about Turanians that where not Turkic but Indo-European language .Tengriism is not a monotheistic religion.Epic of King Gesar is not relevant to any Turkish Mythology and that is Tibetan.Almost no Muslim (scholar or not scholar) , believes that sura 108 of the Quran (Al-Kawthar) has any connection to Tibetan Geser and Togarmah in the Bible has nothing to do with the Turks .
I think the whole section needs a major edit .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Tatars

There are more than 10 million Tatars, and removing them from the page is inexcusable revisionism, Nonsenseshame. Also, you appear to be engaging in an edit war rather than a discussion. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Scythian 07:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but just 7 millions, don't try to exagerate with number. I once in the past, when I was not registered, added Tatars to top of this page, but it had been reverted of course. So there is no reason that now whouldn't be so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.193.217 (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

new problem: destroying the turkic roots by idiots

why do racist people in here always attack turks. wikipedia should use filters for those pple.--195.174.9.35 (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Please take it to the talk page" means "please engage in discussion regarding the issues". If you have something to say - which you must, considering the reversions you've been doing - say it. Just saying the word "RACISM" doesn't count as explanation/discussion/etc. ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 14:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit War???

Err... why did you RV my edits when both you and I were stopping the vandal IP-hopper from reverting constructive edits? ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 20:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Good question...I think I got alittle confused a bit. I'll just, ah, step aside now, and tittle my thumbs for awhile... The Scythian 04:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation

The citation of scholars supporting a Uralic-Altaic linkage is in the very article you cite noted as wikipedia:Fringe. [29] "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is." We should cover notable fringe theories: the article you cite notes it as "the Turanist conspiracy theory". ناهد/(Nåhed) speak! 11:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Yoruks.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. --10:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Turkic languages.png

Entire turkey is coloured yellow, probably because the majority are turkic people, but the kurds aren't turkic I think. For a more accurate map it's probably best to adjust the image with only the turkic inhabitants of turkey coloured yellow. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

kurds are turks you emperialists say kurds are not kurds but the real is this.When turks migrate Anatolia.Some of Turks went to mountains.When they walk on snow there is a noise that garç,gurç,kart,kurt then they named kürt in our language.And all kurds know turkish because of their mother language is turkish.Only the kurds who came from Iraq because of Saddam's politics that killing kurds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.110.90 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above Talk:Turkic_peoples#Maps_need_fixing. E104421 (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I read it. This article is about Turkic peoples, not Turkic languages. The yellow map can be added to the Turkic languages article, but since Kurds are not a Turkic people, they should not be listed as such in the map. Khoikhoi 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Here are some sources:
Khoikhoi 23:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As already explained in the discussion above, these regions are not reserved only to the Kurds. Turks, Arabs, Asyriyans, Zazas and of course Kurds are living in that region. I recommend you to re-read the above dıscussion. Regards. E104421 (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So you admit that the region is not 100% Turkish. However, the map gives the appearance that it is. This is inaccurate. I have cited my sources, now it is up to you to cite yours. Khoikhoi 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it a requirement to have 100% Turkish speakers in every area? Are there not any Turkish speakers in these areas? I do no know who is making these maps and certainly it is hard to paint an exact linguistic map but the agenda of those trying to paint the linguistic map of Turkey differently is too obvious. Why are there only two small dots in Bulgaria? Turkish speakers are distributed in a much wider area and are 10% of the population. Would you like to correct that too? Iran also needs a little more coloring.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the yellow map gives the appearance that Turks form the majority in southeast Turkey, when we have other maps (even ones on Wikipedia such as the one at Iranian languages) that directly contradict this. As for Bulgaria, I'm guessing that the map could be based off this one. Here's a map of ethnic groups in Iran. Khoikhoi 19:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, out of all the people that you mention (Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Assyrians, Zazas), only one of them are a Turkic people. That means if you include the Assyrians, Arabs, and Zazas on the map, they would not be yellow or turquoise or whatever color Turkic peoples are labed as. Khoikhoi 19:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm with E104421 on this one. There is no place in Turkey where Turkish is not spoken. That other languages are spoken side by side with it, perhaps even by local majorities, is irrelevant from the perspective of this map. The map is meant to show where Turkic languages exist, not where they exist exclusively. I find it pretty obvious that countries where a Turkic language is the sole official language should be included in full. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
As I said in my edit summary [30], there should be no double standards . In Iran the same phenomenon is true :"There is no place in Iran where Persian is not spoken. That other languages are spoken side by side with it, perhaps even by local majorities, is irrelevant from the perspective of this map." Then why should we consider the official language as the determining point for map in Turkey , and in Iran , the local language must be considered as the point ?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course, in a map showing Iranian languages, all of Iran should be included. This, however, is a map of Turkish languages. Iranian languages are simply irrelevant to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
As I stated previously, this article is about Turkic peoples, not the Turkic languages. I would agree with you if it were about the latter. But just because many Kurds speak Turkish as a second or first language or whatever, does not change their ethnicity. They are not a Turkic people regardless of what language they speak. Khoikhoi 19:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
For Future Perfect at Sunrise: Considering the official language in the motherland plus the unofficial language in other countries for drawing maps in Wikipedia is a new concept. Neither in Iranian language map , nor in other others (e.g : Slavac ,Russian and etc ) that has been not the routine .That can be a new way of drawing such maps , but it may have footnotes to show that's an especial one --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
To Alborz: I'm not sure what you mean. The Russian language map you point do does just what I said it should: It shows the whole of Russia as Russian-speaking, although there are of course numerous local non-Russian languages within that territory. The Iranian map is a bit different, but that's due to the fact that it doesn't just show the extent of all Iranian languages together (like the Turkic map does), but attempts to go into a lot more detail about the various local varieties. - To Khoikhoi: The map is about languages, not ethnicities. I have no opinions about how you would treat ethnicities cartographically. In fact, I profess I have not the slightest idea what the concept of "Turkic peoples" is supposed to refer to in the first place. The whole premise that there should be such a thing, different from the linguistic facts, seems quite bizarre to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Fut.Perf.: if I start learning Turkmen, and become fluent in it, does that make me a Turk? Perhaps a new map should be made showing only Turkic peoples, as opposed to a map of the Turkic languages. But Kurds who speak Turkish are not automatically transformed into Turks by doing so. Ethnicity has a great dealt to do with self-designation - someone can identify as a Kurd yet not be able to speak a word of Kurdish. Khoikhoi 00:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for late reply. I'd like to quote the first (leading) sentence of the Turkic peoples article: "The Turkic peoples are Eurasian peoples residing in northern, central and western Eurasia who speak languages belonging to the Turkic language family." In fact, this is the only definition. You may narrow down the definition by adding "native" to that sentence, but in any case this does not change the fact that there are Turkic peoples living in the south-eastern part of Turkey. For this reason, i'm in favor of reverting the image. Regards. E104421 (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the Britannica article on Turkic peoples: They are historically and linguistically connected with the T’u-chüeh, the name given by the Chinese to the nomadic people who in the 6th century ad founded an empire stretching from Mongolia and the northern frontier of China to the Black Sea. Are Kurds "historically and linguistically connected with the T’u-chüeh"? The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy calls them "A linguistically and culturally distinct people". Now on the subject of Turkic peoples living in southeastern Turkey, no one is denying that Turks live there, but here is another quote you might like: The majority of those killed have been from among Turkey's ethnic Kurdish minority, who form the majority in the southeastern region. ([31]). Khoikhoi 06:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As you've just stated "no one is denying that Turks live there". The map just shows where the Turkic peoples live. The current map is misleading. Regards. E104421 (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Look at the upper-left corner of this map for example. You can see that although the map shows Turks living in southeastern Anatolia, the main group there are Kurds. If we're going to give an accurate ethnic map of Turkic peoples, let's not give readers the false impression that Turks form the majority in southeastern Anatolia. Khoikhoi 03:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not giving any false impression, the map also shows European countries where the number of Turks quite lower than the southern-estern of Turkey. Your map gives an impression as if there is no Turks living in that region. Regards. E104421 (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • In southeastern Turkey, Kurds form the majority in the rural areas ([32]). Turks in southeastern Turkey mainly live in the urban areas. So to paint both the rural and urban areas as Turkish would be inaccurate. Here's an example, an ethnic map of Austria-Hungary: [33]. Around this time, Romanians were the majority in the rural areas in Transylvania while Hungarians predominated most of the cities. Yet you don't see the author trying to give the appearance that Transylvania was totally Hungarian. Khoikhoi 19:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Your recent example seems to be irrelevant to the case in southeastern Turkey. As i already stated several times above, nobody denies that Turks, Kurds, Zazas, Arabs, Assriyans, ... living in that region. There are many different ethnicities in Turkey. The map just shows where Turkic peoples live, it does not state that Turkic-speaking peoples have the majority in all these regions. For example, the map shows Germany, Bulgaria, Greece, ... There is no such claim. There is nothing wrong in using that picture in the Turkic peoples article. For the Turkic topics template, the map is even more appropriate, since Turkic topics also coves Turkic languages. The map of distribution of Turkic languages is quite informative for that template. For this reason, i put a caption under the map in Turkic peoples article, in order to make you happy, by emphasizing the "Turkic-speaking". Regards. E104421 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Zazas, Arabs, and Assyrians aren't Turkic peoples either, so they wouldn't count as such on the map. Turks also live in Germany, but if Germany was on the map would we color all of Germany yellow or turquoise? I don't understand this logic. Note here in an ethnic map of the Caucasus, Kurds are shown in dark green since they are the majority in this part of Turkey, while you can see Turks marked with a capital "T". It's not the other way around. That's how ethnic maps work. Khoikhoi 05:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not an ethnic map. It just shows where it's more likely to find a Turkic people. That's it. E104421 (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the image substituted seems to have some rather obvious errors.. The Scythian 17:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Turks live all the Turkic people countries. These countries also have citicens from another country, but they're ethnik groups( like Kurds, Arab's in Turkey) and in the map, those country must be full yellow in the map.
                                               Türkiye(ömerlili)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.56.112 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

kurds are not Turkic. i prefer green map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.174.23.184 (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

New Map of Turkic languages

Countries and autonomous regions where a Turkic language has official status. This is all easily verifiable. WillMall (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Except, and this is a MAJOR exception, your map shows all of Turkey as being "Turkic speaking". This completely ignores the Iranian speaking Kurdish population. By your logic, should not all of Iran be labeled as "Iranic", and not have any reference to it's Turkic speaking populations on your map? This has already been discussed to death, and I am simply going to seek a third party intervention/moderation of you do not change your otherwise very good map, or keep the old one. It is that simple. Nothing personal. The Scythian 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The map does NOT show all of Turkey as being Turkic speaking; It shows that Turkey has a Turkic language as its official Language. The Map shows countries and regions where a Turkic Language is official. This is easily all verified. Official Language of Uzbekistan is Uzbek etc. Consider this your first warning and stop Vandalizing the page. I am going to report you for starting edit wars and disruptive editing. WillMall (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Not if I don't report you first, kiddo. Your attitude and tone is out of line for a Wikipedia editor. Behave, or I am going to go get an adult! The Scythian 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Scythian77 seems to be the one in need of being told off by an adult here. WillMall clearly said "official status". We opted for a map showing language status rather than actual populations precisely because the latter is impossible to verify with any accuracy. --dab (𒁳) 17:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Turkic people

Red colors are Independent countries, Light red colors are Autonomous Regions, Pinks are settled Turkic people.

This image was part of "language" section and is NOT ACCURATE because it includes Kurds. This picture should supposadly show the Turkic speaking population of world ( in contrast to the main image which shows official language). It is NOT supposed to show countries where Turkic has official status and where it is a mother language. This is a problem, because for example this it tags Azeri & Qashqai people of Iran ( where Turkic is not an official language), yet includes Kurds in Turkey as part of Turkish speaking population. This is simply unacceptable that even existance of langauge of Kurdish population is denied. This article simply is taken over & runned by people who are blind by fake nationalistic ideas. "Wanting" Kurds to be Turk will NOT make them Turkic. This is an Encyclopedia not a Pan-Turk nationalistic campaign for god's sake. It amazes me how editors have chosen an image with intention to pretend to "increase" Turkic population and land.--74.12.96.169 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Please change the name "Turkey" to "Uzbekistan" and Kurd to Tajik for same argument about Uzbekistan and Tajik population. Please change the name "Uzbekistan" to "Turkmenistan" and keep Tajik, same argument about Turkmenistan and Tajik population. These are all Iranic population. I'm actually starting to think this is Ataturk's personal webpage. Seriously who makes edit to this page? Grey Wolves?--74.12.96.169 (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkic_peoples/Archive_1&oldid=1143741931"