Talk:Turkic peoples/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Tiele association of Ashina

This article currently contains the following paragraph:

According to some researchers (Duan, Xue, Tang, Lung, Onogawa, etc.) the later Ashina tribe descended from the Tiele confederation.[112][113][114][115][116][117][118] The Tiele however were probably one of many early Turkic groups, ancestral to later Turkic populations.[119][120]

A pertinent discussion was opened at the Ashina tribe talk page 2 years ago by Erminwin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashina_tribe#Tiele_origin_of_Ashina

She points out that there is no support for an Ashina affiliation of the Tiele in the Chinese historical record. Verifiable sources also seem to directly contradict this idea that the Ashina were descended from, or members of, the Tiele confederacy. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That would make sense. The Ashina were frequently associated with Wusun or Saka, as far as I remember. Did the consensus change, or another case of LTA work?Whhu22 (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Erminwin:, would you like to join the above discussion. Hunan201p and I am currently trying to clean up the article. Any thoughts from your side?Whhu22 (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Whhu22: & @Whhu22:: Because I'm aware that my Chinese is improved yet still is rusty, I would not get rid of the claim (by Duan, Xue, Tang, Lung, Onogawa, etc. the former 4 of whom are native Chinese speakers) that the Ashina was a Tiele sub-tribe (which I actually do not believe after reading as many Chinese sources as I can about the many origins of the Ashina). Instead, I would just add a cautionary note citing Lee & Kuang 2017's interpretation of Chinese sources to refute the opinion of Duan, Xue, Tang, Lung, Onogawa, etc.:

The nomadic people who spread the Turkic language and the name "Türk" beyond the Mongolian steppes were the Kök Türks (Tujue 突厥 in Chinese), led by the Ashina clan. Importantly, Chinese histories do not describe them as descending from the Dingling or as belonging to the Tiele confederation.10 The Zhoushu (c. 630s ad), for instance, describes them as ‘a separate tribe of the Xiongnu (匈奴之別種)’ (Zhoushu 50.907) or ascribes their origin to the Suo state (suo guo 索國) located to the north of the Xiongnu (Zhoushu 50.908).

Thank you for your explanation and citation. Good idea!Whhu22 (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Missing citations in history paragraphs

I am just adding some 'citation needed' tags. There are some paragraphs which do not have citations, but should be easily verifiable. Maybe from the respective pages. Any thoughts?Whhu22 (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

New content wrongly removed

Hi OhNoitsJamie, the content you removed was not in question. Can you please undo? The content in question was the Bezeklik caves and Mogao grottoes part. So far there have been no complaints about the new content. You can ask the other edit-warrer. It was all about the Bezeklik caves and Mogao grottoes part. Read it up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Turkic_peoples --Gengiev (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

To Beshogur, I fixed the link to the Old Uyghurs and adjusted as you wished. --Gengiev (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. Does this summarize your change? M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I just do not want to be engaged in edit-warring because of a misunderstanding. That's all. Thanks for your advice, I will use the summarize option. --Gengiev (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Great. In that case, you wait for Beshogur's reply. M.Bitton (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gengiev: Since there is no rush and you don't want to engage in an edit war: can you please self-revert and wait for Beshogur's reply? M.Bitton (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Ohnoitsjamie already did it for me :) --Gengiev (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

You have yet to present any rationale for your changes. Also, please be aware of our WP:3RR policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, he answered at the own talk page. Beshogur is ok with the new additions. --Gengiev (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"Northern Cyprus" or its illegal emblem do not exist as a country or a flag.

Change "Northern Cyprus" to "Cyprus" and the accompanying illegal emblem to the Cypriot flag, because the territory you are referring to legally and officially belongs to the Republic of Cyprus, globally recognised as the Government representing all Cypriots and the entire island of Cyprus (it is not recognised by Tyrkey alone, because Turkey illegally occupies that part of the Republic of Cyprus). ΑνδρέαςΚ (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Qiushufang

This was removed while being probably cited:

...however "unlike Chinese historians, who reserved Tujue (Türk in Turkic) for the Kök Türks, Muslim writers used the term Turk broadly to denote not only the Turkic-speaking peoples, but also other non-Turkic peoples", furthermore "Muslim writers later differentiated the Oghuz Turks from other Turks in terms of physiognomy".

The above is directly copied from Lee and Kuang!

Here the more detailed description from Xue Zongzheng, copied from the article Ashina tribe:

According to Chinese scientist Xue Zongzheng, the Göktürks ruling clan, the Ashina tribe, had physical features that were quite different from those of East Asian people. These would include deep eye sockets, prominent noses, and light eye or hair color. However, over time, members of the Ashina tribe intermarried with Chinese nobility, which shifted their physical appearance to a more East Asian one.

Here the paragraph and citation of Emel Esin, also copied from Ashina tribe:

Similarly, Turkish historian Emel Esin noted that the early members of the Ashina tribe, much like the Yenisei Kirghiz, had more Europeoid features, including blonde/red hair and blue/green eyes, but became more East Asian-looking over time, due to intermarriage. She also wrote that members of the Ashina tribe sought to marry Chinese nobles, "perhaps in the hope of finding an occasion to claim rulership over China, or because the high birth of the mother warranted seniority". Esin notes that the later depiction of an Ashina prince, the Bust of Kul Tigin, has an East Asian appearance.

User Qiushufang accuses me of removing content while he deliberately removed sourced content. Why? I solely removed the sentence part "whereas "no comparable depiction of the Kök Türks or Tiele is found in the official Chinese histories". This was taken out of context. Did anyone actually read the paper?

Why these well sourced paragraphs got removed @Qiushufang:, furthermore please do not verbally attack me. I request that you immediately restore the sourced content. It is sourced by citations and quotes from the respective papers. Ping other editor recently edited for assistance and dispute solution @Golden: @Hunan201p:. "" BaiulyQz (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Continue this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:BaiulyQz_is_NOTHERE. Needless to say, I do not believe discussion with you will useful. Qiushufang (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Why you actively resist discussion, again accuse me, and ignore citations? This is biased, not me...BaiulyQz (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Dingling

This is in the wiki:

Another earlier people, the Dingling, are often also assumed to be Proto-Turks,[79][80][81] or are alternatively linked to Tungusic peoples[82][83] or Na-Dené and Yeniseian peoples.[84]

I don't think this is an accurate way to prezent the research according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. 79, 80 and 81 all describe the Dingling as Turkic speakers, rather than proto-Turks.

Joo-Yup Lee wrote: Unlike for the Xiongnu, historians know with certainty that the Dingling (丁零), a nomadic people who inhabited present-day northern Mongolia dur- ing the Xiongnu period, were a Turkic people. [1]

Peter Golden wrote: "Of these the Ting-ling, the later T'ieh-lê, the Kekun, and the Hsin-li are Turkic peoples..."[2]

Hyun Jin Kim wrote: Benjamin (2007), 49, has argued that the Xiongnu were more likely to have been either proto-Turks or proto-Mongols, and that they may have spoken a language related to the clearly Turkic Dingling further north and west.[3]

Hyun Jun Kim also wrote: "Between them and the Alans of southern Russia there were the Turkic Dingling tribes." [4]

And Penglin Wang wrote: Both Tabγač and Kitan were situated north of or in the north of China and south of what is today's Mongolia where there existed the Dingling, a Turkic-speaking people...! [5]

No one here is using the term "proto Turk".

The wiki also says "or are alternatively linked to Tungusic peoples[82][83]", as if there is somehow doubt about their Turkicness, yet neither of these sources denies a Turkic identity to the Dingling. Xu Elina Qian wrote on page 176: "The Dingling were Turkic speakers, since they were ethnically related to the later  Uighurs. 81 The Mohe were descendants of the Sushen and ancestors of the  Jurchen, and identified as Tungus speakers.82 How could a people, who are a  branch of the Khitan, a Mongolic speaking people, had the Turkic speaking  ancestors and spoke Turgus? This question has puzzled later researchers for  generations until the present, and leads to sharp debates among modern scholars."[6]

In my opinion the current writing of the article makes it sound like the Dingling were plausibly Tungusic, when no source says that. The inclusion of Heinrich Werner's unpopular Na Dene/Yeniseian link adds more confusion and undue weight. Why not just write the article like most scholars would, and call the Dingling Turkic speakers? - Hunan201p (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresentation or incorrect representation of sources

I'd like to remind all editors to be more careful about correctly representing the sources. I already fixed a mistake here: [7].

This edit by BaiulyQz also seems problematic [8]:

Archaeogenetic, historical and linguistic evidence suggests that the earliest Turkic peoples were made up of multiple heterogeneous groups with their exact location of their homeland remains disputed, but likely was "close to the Northeast Asian genepool"

What this wiki article currently says:

Genetic and linguistic evidence suggests that the earliest Turkic peoples were "within or close to the Northeast Asian genepool",

What the source actually says:

Modern DNA of multiple Turkic populations showed that the Turkic peoples shared their ancestry with populations from southern Siberia and Mongolia, supporting the hypothesis that they originated there (Yunusbayev et al., Reference Yunusbayev, Metspalu, Metspalu, Valeev, Litvinov, Valiev and Villems2015; Tambets et al. Reference Tambets, Yunusbayev, Hudjashov, Ilumäe, Rootsi, Honkola and Metspalu2018). Although current genetic evidence is not adequate to track the exact time and location for the origin of the proto-Turkic language, it is clear that it probably originated somewhere in northeastern Asia given the fact that the nomadic groups, such as the Rouran, Xiongnu and the Xianbei, all share a substratum genetic ancestry that falls into or close to the northeast Asian gene pool (Ning et al., Reference Ning, Li, Wang, Zhang, Li, Wu and Cuiin press; Li et al., Reference Li, Zhang, Zhao, Chen, Ochir, Sarenbilige and Zhou2018).

[9]

So the source clearly says genetic evidence is not adequate. It also talks about Rouran, Xiongnu and the Xianbei, who are not Turkic (I think Xiongnu is disputed). So we can't really use the gene pool stuff, even though the source talks about shared ancestry earlier.

I'm also surprised this part is not in the lead:

Most linguists and historians agree that Proto-Turkic, the common ancestor of all ancient and contemporary Turkic languages, must have been spoken somewhere in Central-East Asia (e.g. Róna-Tas, Reference Róna-Tas1991, p. 35; Golden, Reference Golden1992, pp. 124–127; Menges, Reference Menges1995, pp. 16–19).

We should mention consensus stuff first, before getting into speculation. Bogazicili (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

If you read it actually says:

"...it is clear that it probably originated somewhere in northeastern Asia given the fact that the nomadic groups, such as the Rouran, Xiongnu and the Xianbei, all share a substratum genetic ancestry that falls into or close to the northeast Asian gene pool"

Further giving only half of the citation is not useful, please use the full citation ("The ultimate Proto-Turkic homeland may have been located in a more compact area, most likely in Eastern Mongolia, that is, close to the ultimate Proto-Mongolic homeland in Southern Manchuria and the ultimate Proto-Tungusic homeland in the present-day borderlands of China, Russia and North Korea"). Eastern Mongolia not only Mongolia.BaiulyQz (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't necessarily mean the source says Turkic people 'ultimately "must have been within or close to the Northeast Asian gene pool"'. It just gives the area, and also says genetic evidence is not adequate. It also contradicts another secondary source by Lee and Kuang:

The analysis of genetic survey data on the Turkic peoples also allows us to speculate on the Turkic Urheimat. We suggest that it was a geographical region where the carriers of haplogroups C2, N, Q and R1a1 could intermix, since these haplogroups are carried by various past and modern-day Turkic peoples in eastern Inner Asia and the Xiongnu. It has been suggested that the early Turkic peoples probably had contact with Indo-European, Uralic, Yeniseian, and Mongolic groups in their formative period (Golden 2006: 139). As non-linguists, we are unqualified to discuss the origin of the Turkic languages. However, drawing on the findings of dna studies, we are inclined to think that certain similarities that exist between the Turkic languages and the Mongolic, Tungusic and Uralic languages are at least partly associated with haplogroups C2 and N, among others. More specifically, we conjecture that the Turkic languages came into existence as a result of the fusion of Uralic groups (characterized by a high frequency of haplogroup N subclades) and Proto-Mongolic groups (characterized by a high frequency of haplogroup C2) who also merged with other linguistic groups, including Yeniseian speakers (characterized by a high frequency of haplogroup Q like the Kets) and Indo-European speakers (characterized by a high frequency of haplogroups R1a1).83 The best candidate for the Turkic Urheimat would then be northern and western Mongolia and Tuva, where all these haplogroups could have intermingled, rather than eastern and southern Mongolia or the Yenisei River and the Altai Mountains regions in Russia.84

Again, Eastern Mongolia is also contested, as the above quote says Northern/Western Mongolia and Tuva.

The lead should be concise, especially given contradicting information. Both Uchiyama et al and Lee & Kuang are reliable secondary sources. Bogazicili (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This also applies to your claim that the earliest Turks were heterogeneous, which is not specifically sourced. The 2005 paper discusses historical Turkic groups. Please refrain from mixing up these two. The region ranged from Eastern Mongolia to Tuva, per the sources, mentioning the wording of one source is misleading.BaiulyQz (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

What? This change [10] is also problematic, since Findley talks about "The genesis of Turkic ethnic groups from earliest times occurred in confederations of diverse peoples" Bogazicili (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

He specifically cited historical Turkic groups such as Kyrgyz, not proto-Turks. He does not refer to the root of Turkic peoples, but to the formation of Turkic peoples: The genesis of Turkic ethnic groups! Not THE earliest Turks.BaiulyQz (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Please seek concensus and do not remove citations. The 2005 papers does not talk about the earliest Turks, this is unsourced on your part. It says that different Turkic groups formed from a heterogeneous confederation and cite various loanwords among different Turkic languages, this clearly does not talk about proto-Turkic! Furthermore he does NOT use the words "West-Eurasian and East Asian components" which makes your edit unsourced!BaiulyQz (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't formation the "root"? Lee & Kuang says the same thing, with fusion of different groups ("More specifically, we conjecture that the Turkic languages came into existence as a result of the fusion of...").

2005 is also a book, not a paper. And he uses "Mongoloid" and "Europoid", which are outdated terms. Bogazicili (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Both specifically refer to the formation of Turkic groups, not proto-Turks or earliest Turks. Also you would ignore Uchiyama and use your interpretation which is misleading. Please give the full citation! The Turkic languages is not the earliest Turks! Findley does use these terms to describe historical Turks, Uyghurs, Kyrgyz, he does not state that about the proto-Turks. Neither does Lee and Kuang.BaiulyQz (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The sentence you are adding that information also does not talk about proto-Turks. This is your edit: "The exact time and location for the origin of early Turks is not known yet, but ultimately "must have been within or close to the Northeast Asian gene pool"." This contradicts information from Lee and Kuang, Golden, and Findley. Bogazicili (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It does not. Do you realize that Findley clearly associating these types with the presence of Indo-Europeans: "Archeological evidence indicates that Indo-Europeans, or certainly Europoid physical types, inhabited the oases of the Tarim basin and even parts of Mongolia in ancient times. In the Tarim basin, persistence of these former inhabitants’ genes among the modern Uyghurs is both observable and scientifically demonstrable.32" Not "earliest Turks". Neither does Lee and Kuang support your claim.BaiulyQz (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean it does not? This is what you, yourself, added: 'The exact time and location for the origin of early Turks is not known yet, but ultimately "must have been within or close to the Northeast Asian gene pool"' [11] Bogazicili (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I am talking about Findley and Lee and Kuang. They do not support your previous argument. Than it is better to not use this in the lead at all.BaiulyQz (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The full quote from Uchiyama:

Although current genetic evidence is not adequate to track the exact time and location for the origin of the proto-Turkic language, it is clear that it probably originated somewhere in northeastern Asia given the fact that the nomadic groups, such as the Rouran, Xiongnu and the Xianbei, all share a substratum genetic ancestry that falls into or close to the northeast Asian gene pool (Ning et al., Reference Ning, Li, Wang, Zhang, Li, Wu and Cuiin press; Li et al., Reference Li, Zhang, Zhao, Chen, Ochir, Sarenbilige and Zhou2018)."

There are too many "probablies" "not clears" in this statement to state emphatically that the proto-Turks "must have been within" the "Northeast Asian gene pool", especially since that's not what the source actually says. But beyond that, this is an issue of WP:WEIGHT. The lede and the origin section give way too much weight to circular referencing between Uchiyama, Li, and Ning, to describe what is essentially a hypothetical "proto-Turkic" ghost population. Better to just focus on the much more comprehensive evidence about historical Turks. - Hunan201p (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The lead seems too heavily weighted in favor of early Turkic history, especially genetics. Whatever needs to be said should be summarized in one or two sentences max rather than three or four. If something is so controversial it needs to be in quotations it should probably be directed to the specific section in the article rather than the lead. Qiushufang (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Qiushufang and Hunan201p, note that BaiulyQz is targeting the same part of the article that a certain sock targeted [12] (trying to delete the part that said early Turkic people were diverse).

In any case, sources are clear:

Findley, p. 18:

Moreover, Turks do not all physically look alike. They never did. The Turks of Turkey are famous for their range of physical types. Given the Turks’ ancient Inner Asian origins, it is easy to imagine that they once presented a uniform Mongoloid appearance. Such traits seem to be more characteristic in the eastern Turkic world; however, uniformity of type can never have prevailed there either. Archeological evidence indicates that Indo-Europeans, or certainly Europoid physical types, inhabited the oases of the Tarim basin and even parts of Mongolia in ancient times. In the Tarim basin, persistence of these former inhabitants’ genes among the modern Uyghurs is both observable and scientifically demonstrable.32 Early Chinese sources describe the Kirghiz as blue-eyed and blond or red-haired. The genesis of Turkic ethnic groups from earliest times occurred in confederations of diverse peoples. As if to prove the point, the earliest surviving texts in Turkic languages are studded with terms from other languages

Lee and Kuang:

The analysis of genetic survey data on the Turkic peoples also allows us to speculate on the Turkic Urheimat. We suggest that it was a geographical region where the carriers of haplogroups C2, N, Q and R1a1 could intermix, since these haplogroups are carried by various past and modern-day Turkic peoples in eastern Inner Asia and the Xiongnu. It has been suggested that the early Turkic peoples probably had contact with Indo-European, Uralic, Yeniseian, and Mongolic groups in their formative period (Golden 2006: 139). As non-linguists, we are unqualified to discuss the origin of the Turkic languages. However, drawing on the findings of dna studies, we are inclined to think that certain similarities that exist between the Turkic languages and the Mongolic, Tungusic and Uralic languages are at least partly associated with haplogroups C2 and N, among others. More specifically, we conjecture that the Turkic languages came into existence as a result of the fusion of Uralic groups (characterized by a high frequency of haplogroup N subclades) and Proto-Mongolic groups (characterized by a high frequency of haplogroup C2) who also merged with other linguistic groups, including Yeniseian speakers (characterized by a high frequency of haplogroup Q like the Kets) and Indo-European speakers (characterized by a high frequency of haplogroups R1a1).83 The best candidate for the Turkic Urheimat would then be northern and western Mongolia and Tuva, where all these haplogroups could have intermingled, rather than eastern and southern Mongolia or the Yenisei River and the Altai Mountains regions in Russia.84

Also Lee and Kuang

Both Chinese histories and modern dna studies indicate that the early and medieval Turkic peoples were made up of heterogeneous populations.

Golden, Peter, Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Turks and the Shaping of the Turkic Peoples in this book p. 152:

In this essay, I have traced the origins and migrations of an ethnos and its ethnonym. The Türks proper emerged from the ethnically complex Altaic-Irano-Tocharian border zone extending from southern Siberia to the northwestern lands of present-day China. Carried by the Türks and their subject peoples and especially through use by their neighbors, the ethnonym “Türk” came to denote a large grouping of peoples (often of mixed ethnolinguistic background) that included groups that were clearly not Turkic or Turkicized.

Even Uchiyama et al suggests something similar:

The Proto-Turkic habitat can be viewed as an ecological junction area on the boundary of the NEG and the steppe. Linguistically, this diversity is mirrored in the contact history of Proto-Turkic, which included interactions with both the languages of the steppe, such as East Iranian and Tocharian, and the languages that are associated with the northern forest zone, such as Samoyedic and Yeniseian (Dybo, Reference Dybo2007, pp. 115–169).

To my knowledge, there seems to be no source saying early Turkic people were first something like "100% pure East Asian", and then only later mixed.

I should also say I'm surprised this has become a long-term issue (also discussed here: Talk:Turkic_peoples/Archive_5#Sock_edits and here Talk:Turkic_peoples/Archive_5#Edit_warring_and_inclusion_of_off-topic_material_and_fringe_blond_blue_eyed_Turks).

It should be obvious that there is nothing wrong with being East Asian, or West Eurasian, or a combination of both. We should just accurately reflect what the sources say. Bogazicili (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

They did the exact opposite earlier: [13]. Qiushufang (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That's (the heterogeneity of early Turkic peoples) is what I tried to include into the article, not removing such information. The problem with your edits was that you included the term the "earliest Turks" (=proto-Turks) which is misleading. These quotes above refer to the various early Turkic ethnic groups (=after the diversification of proto-Turkic) and as such historical Turkic ethnics. This is already mentioned and clear for everyone. Contact with Indo-European, specifically Iranian, Uralic, Mongolic, Uralic, is already mentioned. Furthermore nowhere do I make claims or suggestions that the proto-Turks were something 100%. The place and time of proto-Turkic is not know. The early proto-Turkic homeland is suggested to be located in Eastern Mongolia and or nearby the homeland of Proto-Mongolic and proto-Tungusic somewhere in Northeast Asia, and the late proto-Turkic homeland is located near Lake Baikal, the Altay-Sayan region.

Although current genetic evidence is not adequate to track the exact time and location for the origin of the proto-Turkic language, it is clear that it probably originated somewhere in northeastern Asia given the fact that the nomadic groups, such as the Rouran, Xiongnu and the Xianbei, all share a substratum genetic ancestry that falls into or close to the northeast Asian gene pool (Ning et al., in press; Li et al., 2018).

As well as:

To sum up, the palaeolinguistic reconstruction points to a mixed subsistence strategy and complex economy of the Proto-Turkic-speaking community. It is likely that the subsistence of the Early Proto-Turkic speakers was based on a combination of hunting–gathering and agriculture, with a later shift to nomadic pastoralism as an economy basis, partly owing to the interaction of the Late Proto-Turkic groups with the Iranian-speaking herders of the Eastern Steppe. ... the Proto-Turkic subsistence strategy included an agricultural component, a tradition that ultimately went back to the origin of millet agriculture in Northeast China.

Lee and Kuang do not give a geographical region, but logically suggest a region which explains the loanwords of Indo-European, Uralic, Yeniseian, and Mongolic. They also say: "As non-linguists, we are unqualified to discuss the origin of the Turkic languages.". They favor the Lake Baikal region, which is inline with Uchiyama: "The best candidate for the Turkic Urheimat would then be northern and western Mongolia and Tuva, where all these haplogroups could have intermingled, rather than eastern and southern Mongolia or the Yenisei River and the Altai Mountains regions in Russia.84". Here you obviously manipulate your first edit, as you left out "or the Yenisei River and the Altai Mountains regions in Russia.84"! May I ask why you left out this part?

And why cite Golden 2006 when we have Golden 2018

Attempts to locate a Turkic Urheimat have ranged across Eurasia, from the Northern Caspian steppe zone to Southern Siberia and Mongolia, regions in which there was contact with Indo-European, Uralic, Yeniseic137 or other Palaeo-Siberian languages. As the other ‘Altaic’/transeurasian languages (whatever their ultimate relationship, genetic, melded, completely unrelated) appear to have been located in Manchuria,138 the Turkic Urheimat, a culminating point in Turkic ethno- and glottogenesis, can be placed on its Western border in Mongolia, South Siberia, 139 most probably in the ethno-linguistically complex Sayano-Altay, Xing’an region.140

As you said, just follow what the references say. Your initial claim is not supported by the references. No one, at least not me, is rejecting the heterogeneity of the historical Turkic ethnic groups. I am rejecting your specific edit. Neither do I target anything, funnily enough another user accused me of the opposite.BaiulyQz (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bogazicili: I have looked carefully at what has transpired over the last few days. Your edits are more congruent with the scholarly consensus. BaiulyQz's recent edits are relying too heavily on the circular Uchiyama-Ning-Li group, which are based on the Transeurasian theory. Other users have noted this tendency elsewhere; i.e. Austronesier's edits at Proto-Turkic language and Turkic languages: [14], [15]

To sum up what others have said elsewhere: Uchiyama, et al's working hypothesis is the Transeurasian model proposed by Robbeets, which is not broadly accepted. Their comments about the millet-farming, northeast Asian origin of the proto-Turks are much more speculatory, and they admit that current evidence is insufficient for their theory.

Despite this, Uchiyama is cited 5 times in the lede, which dedicates the entirety of its second paragraph to emphasizing a northeast Asian origin of the Proto-Turks, even though two other citations in this paragraph (Golden and Lee & Kuang) clearly pinpoint the Altai-Sayan region for Turkic people. The quotes given by Bogazicili further demonstrate that the bulk of the scholarship strongly suggests an ethnogenesis in the Altai-Sayan region, while the northeast Asian Proto-Turkic urheimat theory is much more speculatory. This article is not a free advertising space for the Transeurasian theory. The lede should emphasize the more mainstream view about the ethnogenesis of Turks, rather than the proto-Turkic ghost population theory of the Trans-eurasianists, which is notable in proportion to its actual influence. - Hunan201p (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that the working hypothesis is the Transeurasian theory, as the cited papers within Uchiyama are analysing genetic evidence, regardless of if these languages are related in the controversial Transeurasian family or if these similarities comes from areal contact somewhere in Northeast Asia. But I agree with you both that the majority favors the Altay-Sayan to Xing'an region, as Golden 2018 says:

Attempts to locate a Turkic Urheimat have ranged across Eurasia, from the Northern Caspian steppe zone to Southern Siberia and Mongolia, regions in which there was contact with Indo-European, Uralic, Yeniseic137 or other Palaeo-Siberian languages. As the other ‘Altaic’/transeurasian languages (whatever their ultimate relationship, genetic, melded, completely unrelated) appear to have been located in Manchuria,138 the Turkic Urheimat, a culminating point in Turkic ethno- and glottogenesis, can be placed on its Western border in Mongolia, South Siberia, 139 most probably in the ethno-linguistically complex Sayano-Altay, Xing’an region.140

It's henceforth correct to reduce the information in the lead to this "undisputed" view, I guess.BaiulyQz (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI – BaiulyQz has been blocked as a sockpuppet[16]. WP:BE applies. –Austronesier (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Austronesier, thanks for the notification. I had already thought the user was a sock [17], but I have no time and patience to play Wiki-detective. Qiushufang and Hunan201p, I'm going to revert some of the recent changes that was made by BaiulyQz. Bogazicili (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I restored to 5 December 2022 version. Let me know if something needs to be re-added again. Bogazicili (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request for Food Name List

Would someone, please, add "yogurt" to the list of food names and provide a link to the "Yogurt" entry. Without it, the inclusion of "ayran", a derivative of yogurt, seems strange. Yogurt is more widely used and much more versatile than ayran, which is simply yogurt + water (+ salt). NCiblak (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Self-contradiction

The opening of the article "The Turkic peoples are a collection of diverse ethnic groups of West, Central, East, and North Asia as well as parts of Europe, who speak Turkic languages", appears self-contradictory. Do the peoples of these countries actually agree and see themselves as inter-related? It's like saying, the English peoples are a collection of diverse ethnic groups of Europe, North America, parts of South America, Caribbean, South Asia, Australia, Africa, East Asia , Malay Peninsula, etc, who speak English languages. It appears the term Turkic peoples is a creation and figment of imagination by politicians or unscrupulous academics. 2A00:23C5:C13C:9F01:B163:F1C:DF79:3DB6 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit request for early Turks and early Ashina

According to "Ancient Genemo of Empress of Ashina reveals Northeast Asian" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366965287_Ancient_Genome_of_Empress_Ashina_reveals_the_Northeast_Asian_origin_of_Gokturk_Khanate

Edit this

" The early Medieval Türk (earlyMed_Turk) derived the major ancestry from ANA at a proportion of 62.2%, the remainder from BMAC (10.7%) and Western Steppe Afanasievo nomad (27.1%) "

Also about the physical appearance of Ashina, I'm skeptical.

Since it was proven royalty of early Ashina such as Empress Ashina is the daughter of Muqan Qaghan is genetically 97.7% East Eurasian, and only 2.3% west eurasian than that means his dad is also at least 95.4% East Eurasian and only 4.6% west eurasian. Even if the mother side is not Ashina the dad side which represents 50% of the DNA would still be way over 90% East Eursian. So claiming early Ashina looked different to East Asian is impossible and them looking different is only the interpretation of one Chinese author. Something extra should be added like..."however, genetic shows empress Ashina as 97.7% East Eurasian". Gemmaso (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2023

There is a typo in the following sentence from the first paragraph of the 'Origins' subsection of the 'History' section.

"A possible genealogical link of the Turkic languages to Mongolic and Tungusic languages, specifically a hypothetical homeland in Manchuria, such as proposed in the Transeurasian hypothesis, by Martine Robbeets, has been received supportBold text but also criticism, with opponents attributing"

Clearly, "has been received support" should be changed to something like "has received support" Fallarbor (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Source 23 leads to a 404.

The link to the source for the Turkic population in the US is seemingly broken. The article is still up, and this link should work. SummaryDynasty (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Sakha family.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023

I think that the two places where Pakistan are mentioned should link to Pakistan's article, as the other countries are. Pakistan. Swordfish31 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Swordfish31 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: As per WP:REPEATLINK, I've added it to the first instance in the article. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2023

Azra7 (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Hazara are also a part of the ethnic groups of Turkic peoples.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PopoDameron ⁠talk 10:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Göktürks which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

Please add Hazara ethnic group in Turkic peoples Wikipedia page. Hazara people are also Turkic. Azra7 (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2023

Azra7 (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hazara people must also be included in the Turkic peoples.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hazaras have Turkic genetics / DNA ancestry, Hazara people are closely related to Uzbeks and Uyghurs and rest of Central Asian Turkic ethnic groups. I have many reliable sources here for you: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497319301279 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31257046/ https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Genetic-heterogeneity-and-homogeneity-between-Hazara-and-other-52-populations-from_fig4_333992859 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.21.392456v1.full https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1688&context=humbiol https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-culture-crashes-clines I could go on, there are many scientific research and studies done on Hazara having Turkic genetics Azra7 (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

|ans= Hazaras have Turkic genetics / DNA ancestry, Hazara people are closely related to Uzbeks and Uyghurs and rest of Central Asian Turkic ethnic groups. I have many reliable sources here for you: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497319301279 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31257046/ https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Genetic-heterogeneity-and-homogeneity-between-Hazara-and-other-52-populations-from_fig4_333992859 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.21.392456v1.full https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1688&context=humbiol https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-culture-crashes-clines I could go on, there are many scientific research and studies done on Hazara having Turkic genetics Azra7 (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

Hazara ethnic group have significant Turkic genetics mainly Central Asian and are closely related to Uzbeks, Uyghurs, and rest of Central Asian Turkic people. Although Hazaras do not speak a Turkic language, but speak Hazaragi, a dialect of Farsi. Hazaragi still contains and preserved many of Hazaras native Turkic words and Mongolic words, mainly Turkic. Nevertheless, as a result of Persianization, Hazaras adopted Farsi language, more specifically Hazaragi dialect. Azra7 (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. small jars tc 11:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hazara are also Turkic peoples (genetics/historical/cultural standpoint of view, not linguistic even though many native Turkic words in Hazaragi still preserved)

The Hazara ethnic group speak a dialect of Farsi called Hazaragi. Possibly Hazaras used to speak their previous native language that contained more of their native Turkic and Mongolic words within the vocabulary (before Hazaragi). However over the course of centuries, as the native language got extinct (just like some of the other Turkic and Mongolic languages that got extinct), the Hazaras adopted Hazaragi, a dialect of the Farsi language, hence the result of Persianization. There are many Turkic and Mongolic words still preserved and used in the Hazaragi vocabulary. Hazaras have Turkic genetics / DNA ancestry, Hazara people are closely related to Uzbeks and Uyghurs and rest of Central Asian Turkic ethnic groups. I have many reliable sources here for you: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497319301279 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31257046/ https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Genetic-heterogeneity-and-homogeneity-between-Hazara-and-other-52-populations-from_fig4_333992859 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.21.392456v1.full https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1688&context=humbiol https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-culture-crashes-clines I could go on, there are many scientific research and studies done on Hazara having Turkic genetics. Azra7 (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2023

The Hazara ethnic group speak a dialect of Farsi called Hazaragi. Possibly Hazaras used to speak their previous native language that contained more of their native Turkic and Mongolic words within the vocabulary (before Hazaragi). However over the course of centuries, as the native language got extinct (just like some of the other Turkic and Mongolic languages that got extinct), the Hazaras adopted Hazaragi, a dialect of the Farsi language, hence the result of Persianization. There are many Turkic and Mongolic words still preserved and used in the Hazaragi vocabulary. Hazaras have Turkic genetics / DNA ancestry, Hazara people are closely related to Uzbeks and Uyghurs and rest of Central Asian Turkic ethnic groups. I have many reliable sources here for you: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497319301279 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31257046/ https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Genetic-heterogeneity-and-homogeneity-between-Hazara-and-other-52-populations-from_fig4_333992859 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.21.392456v1.full https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1688&context=humbiol https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-culture-crashes-clines I could go on, there are many scientific research and studies done on Hazara having Turkic genetics. 2604:3D09:6D79:4A00:FBFD:9098:AC72:4AD (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -Lemonaka‎ 12:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Various religions ?

Vast majority of turkic ethinc groups are majority Muslim so whats the deal with not saying how it is? 2A02:C7C:507D:0:E48D:25F6:267A:5FDC (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

Please change

"Many vastly differing ethnic groups have throughout history become part of the Turkic peoples through language shift, acculturation, conquest, intermixing, adoption, and religious conversion. Nevertheless, Turkic peoples share, to varying degrees, non-linguistic characteristics like cultural traits, ancestry from a common gene pool, and historical experiences. Some of the most notable modern Turkic ethnic groups include the Altai people, Azerbaijanis, Chuvash people, Gagauz people, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz people, Turkmens, Turkish people, Tuvans, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, and Yakuts."

to "Many vastly differing ethnic groups have throughout history become part of the Turkic peoples through language shift, acculturation, conquest, intermixing, adoption, and religious conversion. Nevertheless, Turkic peoples share, to varying degrees, non-linguistic characteristics like cultural traits, ancestry from a common gene pool, and historical experiences. Some of the most notable modern Turkic ethnic groups include the Altai people, Azerbaijanis, Chuvash people, Gagauz people, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz people, Turkmens, Turkish people, Tuvans, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, and Yakuts. To

"Many vastly differing ethnic groups have throughout history become part of the Turkic peoples through language shift, acculturation, conquest, intermixing, adoption, and religious conversion. Nevertheless, Turkic peoples share, to varying degrees, non-linguistic characteristics like cultural traits, ancestry from a common gene pool, and historical experiences. Some of the most notable modern Turkic ethnic groups include the Altai people, Azerbaijanis, Chuvash people, Gagauz people, Hazaras, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz people, Turkmens, Turkish people, Tuvans, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, and Yakuts. Azra7 (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The text in your request is unclear as to the exact wording you would like. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

For the record, the request was actually formulated as "change X to Y", but ill-formated and not easy to spot. I have refactored it for clarity.

Nevertheless, we can't do the change since a) we need a WP:reliable source in support of the change and b) Hazaras do not fall into the lede definition of "ethnic groups [...] who speak Turkic languages". –Austronesier (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

|ans= Hazaras have Turkic genetics / DNA ancestry, Hazara people are closely related to Uzbeks and Uyghurs and rest of Central Asian Turkic ethnic groups. I have many reliable sources here for you: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1872497319301279 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31257046/ https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Genetic-heterogeneity-and-homogeneity-between-Hazara-and-other-52-populations-from_fig4_333992859 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.21.392456v1.full https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1688&context=humbiol https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-culture-crashes-clines I could go on, there are many scientific research and studies done on Hazara having Turkic genetics Azra7 (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Crimea is Ukraine! Crimean Tatars, Krymchaks, Karaites - indigenous peoples of Crimea!

Crimea is Ukraine! Crimean Tatars, Krymchaks, Karaites - indigenous peoples of Crimea! How dare you support russian fascists?! The occupation of Crimea was illegal! The russian fascists are carrying out the genocide of the indigenous people of Crimea - the Crimean Tatars: about 200+ people, who were kidnapped and tortured, are denied the necessary treatment; 16 people were tortured and killed; violent mobilization into the ranks of the russian army for the war with Ukraine; a concentration camp in an educational institution in the Kherson region; evicting people from their homes, seizing their homes; threats of deportation; threats during commemoration of the victims of deportation in 1944; Islamophobia. 178.133.208.150 (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Byzantine sources on the physical appearence of seljuk turks

Byzantine historians of the eleventh and twelfth centuries imply that the facial configuration of the Turkmens differed greatly from that of the Greeks. The central Asiatic facial type, which must have been the dominant one, is clearly apparent in the description that Brocquiere gives of the Ottoman sultan Murad II, whom he saw in Adrianople: "In the first place, as I have seen him frequently, I shall say that he is a little, short, thick man, with the physiognomy of a Tartar. He has a broad and brown face, high cheek bones, a round beard, a great and crooked nose, with little eyes."

The physiognomy of the tribesmen evidently set them off as sharply from the indigenous population as did their peculiar society. It is quite probable that fusion with other groups such as the Kurds, or later with Christians and converts, gradually altered the physical type in many areas and introduced further physical variety among them. The Byzantine turkic mercenary Uzes, from the Balkans, looked so much like the Seljuk Turks that the Byzantines could not distinguish the one from the other. Nicetas Choniates remarks that the Turks at the battle of Myriocephalum removed the facial skin of the fallen on both sides lest the Greeks learn how many Turks had been slain. This again, is an explicit testimonial to the fact that the facial types of Greek and Turks at this early period (as in contrast to later times) were sharply distinguishable.

H20346 (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I just want to add more information to the "physiognomy" section of this wiki page. My sources are the book "The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century" by Speros Vryonis. H20346 (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done I made a summary of the segment by Speros Vryonis, with ref [18]. Thanks for the suggestion. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I added this on Murad II as well. Beshogur (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you pelase add the byzantine descriptions of turks when they first arrived in Anatolia and did not yet admix with the native population? I think that is more interesting than the description of a single ottoman king hundreds of years later. H20346 (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Miniatures in thirteenth-century Arab illuminated manuscripts show that the artists were sharply aware of the different facial type of the new Turko-Mongol ruling class. (The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century, page 278)

H20346 (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You should propose a precise text with references. I am attaching a few related paintings from Ettinghausen, as referenced by Speros Vryonis. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The physiognomy of the tribesmen evidently set them off as sharply from the indigenous population as did their peculiar society. It is quite probable that fusion with other groups such as the Kurds, or later with Christians and converts, gradually altered the physical type in many areas and introduced further physical variety among them. The Byzantine turkic mercenary Uzes, from the Balkans, looked so much like the Seljuk Turks that the Byzantines could not distinguish the one from the other. Nicetas Choniates remarks that the Turks at the battle of Myriocephalum removed the facial skin of the fallen on both sides lest the Greeks learn how many Turks had been slain. This again, is an explicit testimonial to the fact that the facial types of Greek and Turks at this early period (as in contrast to later times) were sharply distinguishable.

This is very interesting. Please add this as a full quote by speros vryonis.

H20346 (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done this would be excessive quotation. Can you summarize? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• 
  A dignitary in Turkic dress: long braids, fur hat, boots, close-fitting coat. He may be an amir. 1237 CE, probably Baghdad. Seljuk Empire
• 
  Dignitary of the Seljuk period, in Turkic military dress: long braids, fur hat, boots, close-fitting coat. He may be an amir. From Maqamat by Al-Hariri of Basra (1054–1122 AD), Baghdad, 1237 CE edition (detail).
• 
  Enthroned Prince. Probably Egypt 1334. Maqamat of al-Hariri. "In the paintings the facial cast of these [ruling] Turks is obviously reflected, and so are the special fashions and accoutrements they favored".
• 
  Prince with Turkic features and clothing (detail). Maqamat of al-Hariri 1334, probably Egypt.

References

Errors in statistics (demographics section)

There are far more Uzbeks, also there is a different number on the page "Uzbeks". Secondly, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan hosts quite a substantial number of different Turkic ethnic groups so you might add this as well. Shawali187 (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (bojo)(they/them)(talk) 22:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hazaras of Afghanistan are Turkic too

hazara of Afghanistan are Turkic too. Afghanistan is originally a Turkic land but only a couple centuries (about 3 centuries) migrants from India currently day Pakistan migrated (pushtoons).. 110.175.175.211 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed citation - Religion: Religious conversions: Buddhism

Tengri Bögü Khan initially made the now extinct Manichaeism the state religion of the Uyghur Khaganate in 763 and it was also popular among the Karluks. It was gradually replaced by the Mahayana Buddhism. [citation needed] Citation source Page 210.

Helo, I propose the following source as a reference to the section mentioned. Demadrend (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hunters and gatherers

"Proto-Turkic speakers were potentially both hunter-gatherers and farmers"
NO! Really??!! Wow! And which culture started out on a different way? Ah, yeah! The Anglos were fishing-gatherers.
As the set of our teeth proves, WE ALL started out as GATHERERS.
In the western 'culture' the "hunter-gatherer" term refers to uncultured, backward, barbarian peoples. Now let us recognise that while these "hunter-gatherer" Turkic peoples were building Ur, Uruk, Kish etc the 'westerners' were still swinging on the three branches.
Thus, apart from it's political context it is a totally meaningless sentence so please delete it. And pls drop the western superiority attitude when rewriting this part.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2024

Etymology: First known mention of the term Turk is from Heredotus Histories as lyrcae, and as Turcae in Pomponii Malae De situ orbis libri tres, Difference in Lyrcae and Turcae came from translation mistakes. Because in this two historians they desribed in the same location also information about Iyrcae and Turcae is similar. Kaan C3Iik (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done - WP:SYNTH with primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) and pseudo-history. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Full quote of Joo-Yup Lee 2023

Here is the full quote from the book [19] by Joo-Yup Lee 2023 added by user Bogazicili (bold parts are missing):

The lack of a common identity or a collective sense of Turkic consciousness in the pre-modern Turkic world may perhaps be explained from the fact that the Turkic-speaking peoples do not all descend from the Türks of the Türk Qaghanate or any other single ethnic group. Extensive DNA testing of the modern Turkic populations informs us that they are a heterogeneous entity in terms of patrilineal descent. In other words, they do not descend from a common ancestral group.9 It should also be noted that even the early Turkic peoples, including the Tiele and the Türks, were made up of heterogeneous elements.10 Importantly, DNA studies demonstrate that the expansion process of the Turkic peoples involved the Turkicization of various non-Turkic- speaking groups. The “Turks” intermixed with and Turkicized various indigenous groups across Eurasia: Uralic hunter-gatherers in northern Eurasia; Mongolic nomads in Mongolia; Indo-European-speaking nomads and sedentary populations in Xinjiang, Transoxiana, Iran, Kazakhstan, and South Siberia; and Indo-European elements (the Byzantine subjects, among others) in Anatolia and the Balkans.11 This process was a multi-layered one in that the Turkic peoples or tribal unions containing Turkicized elements of non-Turkic origins also went on to Turkicize other non Turkic indigenous groups as they made their way into new territories. For instance, the Oghuz, a Turkic tribal confederation that inhabited the Aral and Caspian steppes in the ninth and tenth centuries CE and, in time, became intermixed with Iranic-speaking elements in Central Asia, went on, as Ottomans, to Turkicize various indigenous groups, including Armenians, Greeks, and Slavs, in Anatolia and the Balkans.

If we quote something, it must be in full context.

I request that the full quote is added the citation "44" (Lee 2023, p. 4), specifically the first bold part. If not, it gives the reader a misleading conception that there is a "heterogenous Turkic component" when it actually became heterogenous by not sharing a common origin and later contact events, as explained in the full quote. 178.115.235.178 (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That information is already available throughout the article. For example, in Turkic_peoples#Physiognomy:

Lee and Kuang believe it is likely "early and medieval Turkic peoples themselves did not form a homogeneous entity and that some of them, non-Turkic by origin, had become Turkicised at some point in history."

The exact quote you suggested is 258 words, up from current 89 words quoted. The book does not have a Creative Commons licence. It's simply too long. See: Wikipedia:Non-free content. Bogazicili (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)