Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hi

< November 15 November 17 >

November 16

[edit]

Template:Turkish History Brief

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. This template is a mess. The very idea of this template has a nasty pan-turkic bias - and the fact that it's only used on half the pages it's linked to (and not even the page that heads the template!) is a very bad sign. --humblefool® 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Turkish History Brief (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Presidential insignia of Turkey.jpg
Insignia of the Presidency of the Turkish Republic (for the signification of the 16 stars, see [1]. May the fors be with you!)
One of the pictures that was used in that template. 'Grey Wolf' has been the symbol of Pan-turkism,even the azeri separatists in Iran use that
A map which was used in Pan-Turkism article. It shows territories where the Turkic is spoken
300px The current picture used for the template. It is a historical artefact from the Sultanate of Rum era Baristarim 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template is a racial template, and it does not match with the other similar templates, which are nation based, such as History of Russia, History of India, or History of Iran. Further more, other than the fact that this is race based, it is inaccurate, unacceptable, and misleading to group a whole bunch of people like this. The history of Huns has nothing to do with the history of the Seljuks for instance. The template says history of Turks, as if all Turks have the same historical background, which is false. Furthermore, what if there was a history of Aryans template, or a history of Arabs template? Would it be correct to group all Arabs or all Aryans (Iranic peoples, not Nazi's, LOL) into one template? Certainly not, as Egyptians have a completely different history than Iraqi's and Persians have a completely different history than Scythians. Deleting this would be the best suggestion I could give.Khosrow II 23:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates? Right off the bat, there is no one-size fits all policy on this. History of Turkey is not the samething as History of Turks, who have been an emigrating nation for millenia. History of Turkey comprises Byzantine, Hitite etc elements, where as History of Turks comprises many other elements. Turks, unlike some other peoples, have not been sedentary nations, so it is normal that History of Turks is quite a different subject than History of Turkey. Not unless, of course, you are claiming that Turks as a race have been living in Turkey since 5000 BC. Now, you wouldn't be doing that, would you? :)))))) Baristarim 20:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It is common concensus that the picture for the template will be changed...

Strongly keep. I really do not understand you ,guys, why you are so biased against the name of Turk and the history of Turks. I always come across this type of biased discussions. i.e., look at the discussion below: "I think we need to decided one and for whether to use Smyrna/Izmir or Constantinople/Istanbul in this article. I personally lean towards Smyrna and Constantinople, as there were in use in English during the time period and furthermore Ataturk did not officially change the names of the cities until the 1930s.- Alexius Comnenus There is no general use in that form in English: I advice you to go http://maps.google.com/ and type Symrna, you will see only one place in GA not in Turkey, instead, if you go and type Izmir , You will reach to Turkey and Turkish links. On the other hand, if you type Constantinople in http://maps.google.com/ , you will end up 28 links with USA not with Turkey. However, if you type Istanbul in googlemaps you will be absolutely directed to Turkey. In addition if you notice that I am using Turkey instead of using Turkiye (which I am opposing but absolutely widely used in English) and also not writing Yunanistan instead of Greece. This means I am seperating my objective and subjective. I advice to do so, otherwise we can not reach a consensus. --- Zkaradag" Being biased made you so blind that you can not see concrete evidences like above. However, since this is universal source of information, we have responsibility of being neutral. Otherwise, we can not make any cntribution to this project. I am making my PhD in University of Toronto right now, and I can post as many as scanned pages of books which accept that the roots of Hungarian and Turks are same just because of Huns (all of them are published in Hungary). In addition, there are journals named Turan printed in Hungary, too. Best wishes. Zkaradag...

  • Delete as per Khosrow II above. On what evidence is this template based on? History of Turkey has nothing to do with byzantines or Hitites. Turkey came in existance in 1923. Hence the history of Turkey CAN NOT comprise Byzantine or Hitite ???? etc elements???. What Byzantine elements does the History of Turkey have? You are confusing yourself with the geographic area. NOT Turkey... the area... shares history Aristovoul0s 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
?? Of course by Turkey I mean the geographical area, otherwise I would have used "Republic of Turkey". And history of Turkey has a lot to do with Byzantine and Hittites. There is a different article for the History of the Republic of Turkey. In the same way that "History of the French Republic" is not the same thing as the "History of France". I am sorry to say but, it is you who is confused about the notions we are using here. Baristarim 01:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain what do the Byzantines and Hittites have to do with the Turks, other than common geographic area? with 'Turkey', we mean the 'Republic of Turkey'... with 'Asia Minor' or 'Anatolia' we mean the geographic area. i would be really interesting to listen something about the "connections" between modern Turkey and the Byzantines and Hittites... But, please, no Pan-Turko-Kemalistic crap of the style: the Hittites were early Turks, nor crap like the Byzantines are ancestors of modern Turks (such a case will be like: killing my father and begging the court to show mercy and let me inherite him, cause i am an orphan!). Hectorian 01:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's all take a chill pill here. You very well know that I have NEVER said that Hitites were ethnic Turks, it is extremely common knowledge that Turks entered Anatolia in 1071. That was not my point, I said "History of Turkey" and not "History of Turks" comprises Byzantine elements. The difference is similar to the one between "History of France", "History of the French Republic" and "History of French (people)". History of France also included Roman and Germanic elements, History of the FR republic however is clearly different. Turkey is not only Anatolia, Istanbul and Eastern Thrace is also part of Turkey while they are not part of Anatolia. And it is kinda funny that you should mention "Hittites were early Turks" since that is a very interesting look at the subject: If some people are claiming that "Turks (or Turkish) of today" are "Turkified native Anatolian populations", then it would be completely contradictory for you to disagree with the statement "Hitites were early Turks" since you agree with the fact that the descendants of Hitites were later Turkified by the Turkic tribes of Central Asia. :))) But even that statement would not be correct since it would be looking at history from the other way around: the academically correct statement is this: "Hitites were the ancestors of many people who consider themselves as Turks in modern-day Turkey". Hey, be careful - we could be talking about my great-great-great..-great-grandfather here :)) You should have said "Were Hitites early ethnic Turks?". By history of Turkey, I mean history of the geographical region, otherwise I would have said "History of the Turkish Republic" or "History of the Republic of Turkey". It is that simple. In fact it is funny that you should mention the Byzantines, since Ottomans have a much more legitimate right to lay claim to the Byzantine legacy than any other nation in the world. It is them that inherited directly many aspects of the Byzantine culture, lands, peoples and even language to a certain point. :)) Greece has a very good case too, so let's call it equal. :))) (don't jump on my flaimbait :)) Baristarim 05:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What? in French: excuse moi? are u kidding me? since Ottomans have a much more legitimate right to lay claim to the Byzantine legacy than any other nation in the world? after a moment of silence for the honor of the slaughtered empire, i will ask again: what?!!! after Huns, Avars, Mongols, Bulgars.... their is a claim for the Greek Byzantines...?! 'bout Hittites, they may indeed be the Turks' great-great.... ancestors, as well as the Greeks, Armenians, Persians, etc, but the modern turks view themselves as 'central asian migrants-settlers-nomads', so, they can calim nothing! and my comment on them was the Grey Wolves' theory, that the Hittites, as well as the Sumerians, the Celts, and (dear God!) Homerus (!) were proto-turks... So, it was not adressing to u, but to anyone who may believe in such crap;-) Hectorian 06:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what you mean.. There are a lot of weirdo theories out there.. :)) Baristarim 06:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. This template and history reviewed by a pan turkish hand being one of them. Unbased theories with the sole aim to alter history with a turkish POV. See how you got confused? Imagine a casual reader. Is this what its written in Turkish school books? That Byzantines/Hittites elements and e.t.c. are part of Turkeys history??? The area is called turkey now, but that DOES NOT mean that Troy belongs in Turkish history or History of Turkey. Arguments like that are wrong. Turkey is 1923 and afterwards. What amazes me is that i see no Iranians supporting their history from these Turkish claims... Unbelievable!!! Aristovoul0s 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you are really assuming here.. I never denied that Troy for example was an integral part of Ancient Greek history. Please read my posts carefully, I had enough of being called a Pan-Turkist by people who are not able to see the points that I am trying to make. When I say "Turkey" instead of "Republic of Turkey", I mean the geographical area.. There is a similar difference between "France" and "French Republic, "Russia" and "Russian Federation" or "Russia SSR", "Greece" and "Greek Republic".. One is the land, the other one is the political structure. Turks have entered Anatolia in 1071, so obviously Hitites were not Turks.. What I was trying to say however, was that "Turkey", as in the geographic area, carries elements of Byzantine/Hitite history. I didn' say that "Turkish" history (as in race), includes Hitites. Please read my comments carefully before insulting people. History of "France" also includes Roman elements, and yes that is what is thought in French schools. Schools in France also teach that "History of France" also includes Germanic, Catholic elements.. FYI, I didn't grow up in Turkey, so I never had my "brainwashed" by Turkish "propaganda" and "that stuff that is taught in Turkish schools".. Please try to understand what I am trying to say, my example about France is the one you should be talking about.. Please refrain from calling people "Pan-Turkist" etc at every single opportunity. Baristarim 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I wonder which policy you are talking about since "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates do exist (the latter talks about religion AND race). So that argument falls flat out. Actual contents of the template could be discussed, but there is nothing wrong with the underlying idea since, as I said many times, History of Turkey is not the same as History of Turks because Turks have been an emigrating nation. Baristarim 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also please read my other posts about the difference between History of Turkey not being the same as History of Turks. So following your logic, we can assume that Turks have been living in what is now Turkey since 5000 BC, before Armenians, Kurds and Greeks... Hmm, that's interesting :)) Without Gokturks, there would be no Seljuqs, without them Sultanate of Rum and Anatolian Turkish beyliks would not have existed, and as such Ottomans would not have existed and Republic of Turkey would have never been founded. I don't get it.. Why is it so hard for some people to accept that history of Turks as a people is not the same thing as History of Turkey since Turks have been emigrating for millenia? Baristarim 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Template is not racial and therefore no reason to delete. It doesn't give any racial messages. It only gives people easier navigation for Turkish history. All Turks are connected in somehow; by history and cultural roots. Template doesn't claim that all Turks are united nor they live together right now. Through out history, important Turkish states had existed. And template tries to show this important goverments. Even if they are not connected directly, they are connected in the historical and cultural base. It gives some clues how and where Turks had been. For these reason, there's no racial or pan-Turkist approach with this template. Also be reasonable, it is not logical to give racial messages by a navigation box. The only reason for Khosrow suggested it for deletion is his personal reasons. Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu are Turkic states. When we put this navigation box next to Iranian sidebar; they didn't like it and they removed it. The reason they gave was "there is too much template". This explanation is given by Khorshid. The anon user is me: cagataycebi — cagataycebi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
LOL, what do you mean this template is not racial, is it not based on a race? I'll let you answer that for yourself.Khosrow II 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then; let me answer: Turks have common roots of their languages as Heja Helweda said. Nobody in here looks for genetic relations except you.
Yeah a great LOL Khosrow since you have been trying to prove to all of us that "Kurdish history" template is not about the Kurdish people as a race but Kurdish people as a group (???). Unless I have learned my English in Mars, they pretty much mean the same thing. Baristarim 21:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is large Turk history and the owner countires have templates like "History of Turkey", "History of Kazakhstan" etc but there is also very much Turkic state under Turkic management nevertheless population's largely native people, this template very needed for history of Turks. If the template would be deleted some vandals will show Turkic states as Iranian, like what Khosrow II and others done in Kara Koyunlu, Ak Koyunlu etc, this is no lesser than to show Germany as Turkish state or Andorra as Spaniard. Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 02:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:81.215.112.148 who voted on this page is an anon, and possibly Zapardojik himself.Khosrow II 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IP User is not Zapardojik. It is me! Wikipedia is a free enviorement. Therefore most of the time I don't get log in. You can check cagataycebi as much as you like.
Note also that, above claim was not made by an admin, nor was it verified by check user. (I am not an admin either). Baristarim 04:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I said possibly. Also, I have confirmed it. I replied to this anon on a talk page and Zaparodjik answered me. Also, their editing is connected and similar in fashion. But I have talked to an admin about anon voting, and it turns out that votes by anon's dont get counted anyway.Khosrow II 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying possibly and then you are sayin "I have confirmed it". How can you confirm something that's possibly? How can you confirm something that's not true? If your cultural knowledge is no different then your conspriacy theories, then we should not argue any more. You are trying to mislead people by claiming we are the same persons. Very well my friend, learn my name: cagataycebi
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, I don't know.. In any case, don't forget that wikipedia is not a democracy, it is about concensus, but only if the concensus is formed after an academic debate. So it doesn't really matter how many votes one "side" gets :)) There are no "sides". Baristarim 04:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, as far as I know, Turkic people are all related through common roots of their languages, hence the connection between Turkic people is not a false claim. I suggest to rename it to the broader term Turkic History.Heja Helweda 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming their histories are the same is a false claim. Secondly, history templates are based on nations, not races. The huns had nothing to do with the Seljuks, the Mughals and nothing to do with Ughyurs, etc... Secondly, the Huns were a confederation of peoples, not just one group, although Atila himself was a Turk, so whose to say a person can bunch up the history of the Huns with Turkic peoples and not with Iranics, or other Indo European peoples who joined the Huns. Also, the same case with the Mughals, whose to say the Mughals (Mongols) were Turkic or a part of Turkic history. Couldnt they also be part of Indian history, or Pakistani history, or Pashtun history, or Persian history? This is why racial templates do not work.Khosrow II 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite.. There is a "Jews and Judaism" template where is mentioned the history of jews throughout centuries and in many different countries. As an emigrating nation, Turks also have a history that has been divided over time and geography. Why is this so hard to accept? This attitude is really offending you know, nobody is trying to be disrespectful to Iran or aything. Go ahead and create a history of Iranians template. I would have no problem with that. But as I pointed out below in my vote, history of Turkey and history of Turks are not the same thing for historical reasons. Baristarim 03:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judaism is a religious group, not an ethnic group. We are talking about a template based on race, which is misleading and innacurate.Khosrow II 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jews, however, are an ethnic group. There is Judaism, the religion, and Jew, the race. I have met Jews who have become catholics, but they still call themselves jew in the racial sense. Woody Allen who is atheist, still calls himself a Jew.
Nobody is saying they have the same history, but it is undeniable that their history has been and is interconnected. Turks are an emigrating nation, therefore it is normal that history of Turks are not the same thing as history of Turkey. There is also a template about the Kurdish history in the History of the Kurdish people. Look, history of peoples and nations are not similar to one another, some are sedentary, some are stateless, some have been living in their lands since writing has been invented and some have emigrated. So, what can be true for one nation might not be true for another. There is no rule that we cannot have a template about the history of a race. And, as I said, as an emigrating nation, there can be a history of Turks template since their history has been divided over time and space for centuries. Baristarim 04:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there is anything racist or offending to somebody else please point out what it is. I don't understand what is wrong with having a history of the Turks template. Turks are a people that have emigrated and settled in various places, unlike many sedentary nations. Therefore it is relevant enough to have a template to cover the different phases of that journey. Please, tell me why it is so offending to you? I really would like to know. I haven't created this template, but if I had, I am sure I wouldn't have created to offend anyone, least of all Iranians, with whom the Turks have had an intertwined history for millenia. Please keep cool people, what makes you think that there is this Turkish conspiracy out to get someone?
As for the use of Turks instead of Turkey - it is a very legitimate choice since, as I explained above, they are not the same thing. History of Turkey includes Byzantines, Kurds, Hitites etc. History of Turks is the history of an emigrating nation. Turks are not a historically sedentary nation, and since Turks arrived in what is now Turkey only in 1071, the logic is that they must have existed before 1071 too. And that in other countries, regions etc. History of Turks is distinct from that of the country of Turkey. There is also a template called "Jews and Judaism" where is mentioned the history of Jews in many countries. Is that racial too? Who can pretend that history of Israel is the samething as history of Jews (Jews in the racial sense, not religious sense)?? So please people, take a deep breath, relax and be assured that there is no Turkish conspiracy out there to get any Iranians. :))Baristarim 03:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turkic peoples are not all the same people, and they do not all have the same history. Having a history of Turks is based solely on POV, as people have to choose and determine what is Turkic and what isnt. Its a template based on POV.Khosrow II 03:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, why do we have a Kurdish history template? Or a Jews and Judaism template? Nobody is saying they have the same history, but saying that they are all interconnected. Without the Seljuqs, there would not have been Ottomans and without them there would not have been Republic of Turkey. Seriously Khosrow, why are you so offended? Believe me, nobody is trying to belittle Iranian history or anything, why do you find it so wrong that Turks talk about their history? Turkic people are not the same people, true, but they are all interconnected and they are all branches of the same tree. The language structure for one attests to that. And it is not based on POV, some people might think it is, but I see a very legitimate academic work behind this. Are you claiming that Turks of Turkey have been living in Anatolia for the last 5000 years? If not, you also have to see that their history transcends time and borders of today. Nobody is trying to lay a claim to Iranian lands or culture u know :)) Baristarim 04:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am here to make Wikipedia a better place, that is why I find it so shocking that it is always the same people who seem to be starting trouble for no reason with ridiculous things. Kurdish history is about one group, not a whole race. The Turkic history template is simply misleading and inaccurate. Tell me, how are the histories of Huns and Mughals connected? They are not. This template is just a sad attempt to portray a nationalistic feeling. This has nothing to do with Iran or Iranian culture at all. If this template stays, then I will immediatly create an History of Indo Europeans template, because, according to you guys, its ok to bunch up a whole racial group into one template, whether their histories are related or not.'Khosrow II 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, go ahead. Study of the history of Turks is not a sad attempt to do anything, it is a very legitimate field of study because history of Turkey and history of Turks are not the same thing. As I said, Turks have emigrated to Anatolia after 1071, where were they before then? I will repeat one last time, that history of Turks as a race has been divided over time and space, whether some people like it or not! And as for the Kurdish history template. What does that mean that "it is about one group, not a whole race"?? Are you joking? Kurdish people as a group is the same thing as Kurdish people as a race. Or is Kurdish people as a group different than Kurdish people as a race?? If there is a difference, what is it? Look, you have said that there weren't any "history of people/race" templates, I just showed you that there are, Jews and Kurds. And Jews have their own country, but what is important is that a major part of their history has passed outside of Israel. Look, there is no one-size fits all policy on this, it is case by case. As an emigrating nation, history of Turks template has a very legitimate raison d'etre. I also don't understand this Turkic/Turk argument. There is no such thing as "Turkic". That is an invented word. What exists are "Turks" and "Turkish citizens" (citizens of RoT). There are many Turkish citizens who are not Turks (Kurds, blacks, Arabs, Bulgarians, Russians, Armenians etc), and there are many Turks who are citizens of other countries. I am not at all saying this to pretend that Turks of today have many similarities nor to launch a crusade to reunite all the Turks of the world. But please understand that I, along with some other Turkish editors, find it very offensive to be treated as pan-Turkists or racist for pointing this out. Please tell me, what can I, or some other Turkish editors, do to assure you that there is no pan-Turkist crusade going on? I seriously mean it. Look, whether you believe it or not, I don't like pan-Turkism. If there were any such edits, I would revert them. Well, in any case, I don't want this vote to become a debate between me and you, so I will end my lecture :)) cheers! Baristarim 05:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: what i said about Turk/Turkic was not an attempt to pretend that the history of Turks in Turkmenistan is at all similar to the Turks of Turkey. They are completely different to a point of irreconciliability, as evolution of languages attest. What I was trying to say however, the similarities that still exist prevent their complete separation into different races. But just know that, I was not trying to pretend that they should be reunited or something. I only use Turkic as an adjective, not to define a different nation. As for the connection between the history of different Turkic states et al. I cannot pinpoint the exact connection between Huns and Mughals maybe since I am not an expert, but what I do know is that a majority of the states listed in the template are extremely linked to one another to the point where they wouldn't have existed without the other in a historical timeline. Ottomans, Republic of Turkey, Seljuqs, Turkish beyliks, Gokturks and other smaller states are connected in a timeline, just like the dynasties of China or Iran. If there were no Seljuqs, there would not have been Anatolian Turkish beyliks, and therefore Ottomans would not have existed, and as such there would not have been Turkey today. So there is your connection. Baristarim 05:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems straightforward enough to me. I know these things can turn into nationalistic quagmires but, jingoism aside, it makes sense as a template. I'm not really certain that it's needed, but I don't see any reason why it needs to be deleted, either. Kafziel Talk 05:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's just a navigation template which simplifies surfing through Turkish states in History. It has nothing to do with ethnocentrisim, please assume good faith. It's not an article, its entries just shows that the mentioned state contains somewhat related with Turkish history, that's it. If we consider the templates from the negative side, we should also nominate other templates for deletion also. I still do not understand how a navigation template turned out to be nominated for deletion. The template can be improved in the futute, if you want to contribute, better to state your comments in the talk/discussion page, rather than voting for deletion. I support keeping this template. E104421 09:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a racial-based POV template to lump many pages to Turkey, based on outdated racial theories. For example, Khwarezmian Empire or Ghaznavid Empire have nothing to do with the history of Turkey, they didn't control any part of Turkey, to be a part of "Turkish History". They might have had "Turkic" elements, as in related to Turkic people, but that's disputed and racialist in nature. --Mardavich 09:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actual contents of the template could be discussed, but there is no policy against "history of people/race" templates, as shown by "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates (the latter talks about religion AND race). As such, there is no need for deletion. History of Turkey as a country is not the same thing as History of Turks. History of Turkey also includes Byzantine, Hitite etc. elements, whereas, as an emigrating nation, "Turks" have a different history. Not unless, of course, you are claiming that Turks have been living in Turkey since 5000 BC :)))) Baristarim 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. Why do this iranian gang sabotage all Turkish related articles? Keep of course...--Karcha 10:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stopSTOP your personal attacks at once or you will be blocked. Khorshid 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't see any personal attack. Is there? To whom? Please stop to put unmeaningles tags here.Mustafa AkalpTC 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be informed about panturkism.What is the relation with this historical time line template and panturkism?Mustafa AkalpTC 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice several things. Several users who insist on keeping this article are doing several consistent things: a) They are lumping all Turkic people into one group, b) assuming that all Turkic peoples have similar or related histories, c) assuming that several of the kingdoms/tribes/empires listed in the template were a part of Turkic history.
Yes you are right.They have same ethnic roots.(Template is not include all, it will be more developed)Mustafa AkalpTC 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what are wrong with all three of those: a) When they say Turkic people, do they mean linguistically or ethnically, because there is a huge difference in that area? How is it possible to group a bunch of people together, and also maintain that the template is not based on race? b) Turkic peoples did not share a common history. The history of Huns is completely different than that of the Mughals, and the history of Seljuks is completely different than that of the Ughyurs, etc... How can the template say History of Turks as if all Turks share a common history? That is misleading and inaccurate. c) If templates are going to be race based, then whose to say that the Mughals were Turkic and not Indian or Persian? Whose to say that the Huns were Turkic and not any of the other many ethnic groups that made up the majority of the Hun confederation? This is another reason why having templates based on race is unacceptable, because its based solely on POV.
Another thing another User is bringing up, is the Kurdish template. This is a sad attempt to try and justify his reasons. The Kurdish template is not being put in every Kurdish related article, only in the Kurdish people page and history of the Kurdish people, where it is relevant. Secondly, the template is not race based, its based on one ethnic group. The title should be modified, but it is incomparable to this racial template we are discussing now.
Just a quick question Khosrow since I am that infamous "another User" (u can use my name u know :)): What is the difference between Kurdish people as a group and Kurdish people as a race??? Unless I learned my English in Mars, they pretty much imply the same exact thing. :)) And this template is not being put into places where it is not relevant. If some is doing some thing like that please notify me and I will personally remove it. We can work together against ultra-nationalism, but there is no basis to assume bad faith in a way that will stop people from working together. Please assume good faith, there is no weirdo Turkish conspiracy going on. There might be ultra-nationalist Turks out there, but as you will agree, there are also ultra-nationalist Greek, Armenians, Chinese, Americans etc as well. So please don't categorize and try to attack others by implying that they are racist. Baristarim 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This whole template reminds me of the time when another User tried to start a Wikipedia notice board for Turkic peoples, which got deleted quickly and was plain absurd. If this template stays, whose to say that more racial templates wont get created. If I create a history of Aryans template, whose to say that it gets to go into the Mughal article or not... Racial templates are solely POV based, which is their biggest problem.Khosrow II 12:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please nominate "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates for deletion as well in that case. Or, for the latter, please delete the racial elements from it since there are many sections where there are clear indications that that template also talks about Jews as a race. Baristarim 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This template is not a racial attack. You are trying to manipulate people by labeling it a 'racial template'. For god's sake, what is a racial template? We only give the names of some important Turk states in history; we don't offend any one except Iranians. Iranians cannot deal with it because they like to label Turkish states as Persian. Wikipedia users can check my arguments if they look Seljuks, Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu articles. They are all Turkish tribes but if you look into articles you will see History of Iran. Check whole Internet, try googling, try reading some articles; the only people label Seljuks, Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu as Persian are Iranians. Template is not racist; but yourself. Turks didn't happen to exist in Anatolia in a moment. They came from Central Asia. And in this long journey they conquered and ruled many states. Conquering and living in other geographical areas doesn't change cultural roots of tribes. There are 250 Million Turkish people in the world who shares the cultural background. (I don't say Citizen of Turkey; I say Turkish.) We didn't put this navigation box as "History of Turkey". We prepared it as "History of Turks". You cannot limit Turkish cultural history just in Anatolia. And try to read something else rather than Iran Encyclopedias...
Anon, do you even know what this debate is about? Whats racist? Whats Persian? What are you talking about?Khosrow II 13:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Once again I forgot to log in. But it is good to see you have changed your behaviour. You don't claim that I am someone else. Yes I know very well what's going on; and I see and understand your manipulation techniques. You vandalised Seljuks, Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu articles many times by removing navigation box. And at these vandalising behaviours you didn't even bother to explain or discuss why you removed History of Turks side pane. Yesterday you made your last move and tried to delete template. Your friend Tajik once tried another approach, by changing titles of Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu articles. If you are looking for a racist, don't bother to look around; it is much more near to you than you can imagine.
By the way, I did say my reasons, right on the talk page of the template and in my edit histories. Also, keep going with the personal attacks if you like, I dont mind, although admins might. Everyone should know that this user just now created an account, seemingly his only purpose to join Wikipedia was to be involved here.Khosrow II 13:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the discussion pages of Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu. I don't see a name as Khosrow. By the way, I didn't just create the account right now. It's probably older than 6 months. Admins can check this information if they like to do it. I don't get log everytime when I like to add something. Also there's another thing: you're the one who constantly label us as racists. Think again: Who insults who?
Please tell me when I ever called anyone racist? Also, if your account is as old as you say, how your edits only go back a month? This is ridiculous, why am I even arguing with you here? You have already worsened your position by your comments anyway. Oh I get it, your the creator of this template...Khosrow II 13:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, you have been using the adjective "pan-turkist" at every single opportunity to desrcibe the acts of many Turkish editors just because you don't agree with them. You might have as well used the term "racist": so stop beating around the bush, act like a man and admit the fact that you have been implying that scores of Turkish editors are racist from the get-go. Baristarim 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A response to the anon: it's really sad that Wikipedia does not have enough informed and learned administrators to control all the nonsense that is being created by certain Turkish nationalists in here. They even change the CORRECT spellings Aq Qoyunlu and Qara Qoyunlu (yes, the Q sound is an original Turkic sound) with the WRONG Anatolian pronounciation Kara Koyunlu and Ak Koyunlu. Since the Anatolian population (= modern "Turkish" population) is overwehlemingly Non-Turkish in origin, original Turkic sounds (such as /x/ and /q/) have been lost. That'S why modern Turks say Han instead of the historically correct Xan, and why they say Kara instead of the correct Qara. The Aq Qyunlu were an original Turkic tribe from Central Asia, and their languages was CERTAINLY original Oghuz Turkic. That'S why the CORRECT spelling of the titles should be QARA, AQ, and QOYUNLU - these are also the spelling used in scholarly articles (see Encyclopaedia of Islam). Tājik 02:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tajik, you might be right about this, or not. That I cannot say since I am not a specialist, but can you explain to all of us why the correct transliteration of a thousand year old name in modern English (only one letter of it at that, Q OR K) is relevant to this debate??????? Baristarim 19:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between Turkic and Turkish people? Please can you explain the difference briefly? People do not describe themselves as Turkic, they describe themselves as Turk. Turkic is a relatively new term that doesn't correspond to this meaning.User:81.215.116.237
A Turk is a citizen of the Republic of Turkey regardless of what language they speak or what race they are. A Turkic is a speaker of a Turkic language.--Eupator 18:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry man; but you don't have any idea about what a Turk is. For example, we call Göktürks not Gökturkic. By the way, people don't say "I am Turkic". Turkic is a term used to group a language family. But Turk is something like Greek or Irish. Every Turk is not citizen of Turkey. They don't have to be a citizen for calling themselves Turk. Turkey is a country; Turk is a term for describing historial, cultural roots. The people who are working to delete this template cannot understand this little thing. Turks didn't happen to exist in Anatolia by miracle just in one night. They came from Central Asia and seperated in years. But it doesn't change their cultural and historic union.
  • KEEP, proposal of deleting of a template is a radical nationalist approach. A template is template, nothing else. In this manner, more than half of the templates can be deleted. Especially Templates related with Greek/Greece, Persian, Slavic, Christianism. Please stop this absurd and nationalist approach to attempt deleting a Template.Regards to all of you.Mustafa AkalpTC 17:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case, then I suggest to create another POV-templated called Aryan nations and their history and then attach to it all kinds of nationalist claims and pseudo-scientific nonsense. We attach to it all kinds of Aryan dynasties and nations, from the ancient Proto-Indo-Europeans up to the Aryan nation USA. After all, it's "just a template", right?! Tājik 02:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead then.. Who is stopping you? Such templates exist for "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" (the latter talks about religion AND race), so your argument falls flat out.. What is important is that it should be done academically, but there is still no basis or reason for the deletion of this template. Baristarim 09:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title is incorrect. It's Turkic history not Turkish. The fist four items (Huns) are disputed and shouldn't even be on that template. In addition, we have no such template for any other linguistic or cultural group, why do we need this?--Eupator 18:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have not read any of my comments above under my vote. And it is sad because I pointed out that such templates do exist, for Jews and Kurds. "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates. History of Turkey is not the same thing as History of Turks because Turks have been an emigrating nation, not a sedentary nation. There is no one-size fits all policy on this, actual contents of the template could be discussed, but the idea that this template doesn't or cannot have serious academic work behind is ridiculous. Baristarim 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Were the Khazars Turkic or Turkish? Not to mention that the turkic character of some empires listed there is disputed... And, agreeing with Eupator, maybe it would be better to have an article about the 'history of the turkic languages', which would be in all legitimate, and not list all turkic-speaking (or not) states that ever existed in such a template. Hectorian 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, read this: "Remarkably, the Khazars, a people of Turkic origin, converted to the Jewish religion sometime in the 9th century, beginning with the royal house and spreading gradually among the general populace." This is from The Khazars. Another one is here: Khazars ancient Turkic people who appeared in Transcaucasia in the 2d cent. A.D. and subsequently settled in the lower Volga region. from Khazars (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition) I can give another source: Who are the Khazars?. If you like, you can check A Resource for Turkic and Jewish History in Russia and Ukraine. Like it or not; they are part of Turkish history. (Not history of Turkey!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.116.237 (talk • contribs)
Part of Turkic not Turkish. Is it that hard to understand the diff? Hectorian 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that western people use the word Turkish to represent Turks from Turkey. And they use Turkic for showing a language family or for Turk tribes. But this terms are not clear. Turk is something else. Turk is used to show a cultural and historical bound. In this article, writer used Turkic term as an ethnic identity not for pointing the language family the use.
Look, did any of you here read what I wrote in my vote about history of Turks not being the same as history of Turkey and the difference between Turk as an ethnic group and "Turkish" as a citizen of Republic of Turkey? I still cannot understand why some people find this so offensive. Why is hard for some people to accept that Turks can talk about their history? Turks are an emigrating nation, therefore their history transcends time and space, as I pointed out in my post above. This attitude is particularly racist since Kurdish history and Jews and Judaism templates do exist. Are the same people who are voting for deletion ready to nominate those templates for deletion as well? Seriously people, this is not cool. The only criticism I see is some of the content of the template, but otherwise nobody has been able to show why such a template shouldn't exist. I repeat, history of Turkey is not the same thing as history of Turks, not unless of course, you are claiming that Turks have lived in what is now Turkey since the time of the Sumerians. If not, just let it go. :)))) Baristarim 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another note about Turkic/Turk/Turkish diff: I understand the logic behind the underlying arguments, but the word "Turkic" is still an invented word (as far as racial, and not linguistic, matters are concerned). Nobody in this world calls themselves "Turkic". I personally never heard of or met anyone who did. As for languages are concerned, Turkic is used to refer to a language family (or group of family, whatever). Even if we accept such a difference, I still fail to see how we can assume from that this template should be deleted, since by the logic of Eupator whereby a Turkic is a speaker of a Turkic language, than Turks of Turkey are also Turkic (just simple logic to assume that Turks are Turkic :))), therefore still they have something in common, since Turkish of Turkey is also a Turkic language, if I have been able to follow Eupator's reasoning correctly, and as such Turks of Turkey are also Turkic. And following Hectorian's logic, we can assume that, since Turks of Turkey (aka "Turkish") are Turkic as well, and other peoples who speak Turkic languages are also Turkic, then they fall into the same group at one point or another. Look, what I sense is this unconsciuos fear of some that, somehow, someone will come up and try to pretend that all Turks of the world should be united and will try to conquer all Middle East and etc. I have one word for those people: there is no such conspiracy! You are focusing and giving too much importance to a bunch of ultra-nationalists in Turkey who are very marginal. What? You think I would give a rat's ass about uniting Turkey with tribes of Central Asia?? :)) There are many people who would like to create a "greater X" for their countries, but they are very marginal, so take it easy people.. Baristarim 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that my comment on turkic/turkish was clear enough... However, i have the sense that either some users really do not understand (Baris or whoever, do not take it personally-i am pretty much aware that people editting in wikipedia are clever and smart enough, however, sometimes regional, political and cultural differences may prevent them from understanding) or that I am the one who is "unable" to understand... So, how about an example? what if someone created a 'template:German history brief' and included in that the history of all the Germanic peoples? id est: Elizabethan England, Vandalic Northern Africa, Vikings, Kalmar Union, Visigothic Spain and Ostrogothic Italy? and maybe Crimean Goths and the Russian Empire (since it had at some points a Germanic ruling dynasty)? Lets be reasonable please... Now i noticed some changes in that template... Early Turkic-speaking dynasties or dynasties with a possible Turkic mix... and also, the inclusion of TRNC. One thing is for sure, if such a template will remain, i am in all legitimate to create a template 'Greek history brief', in which i will add all the Hellenistic states (Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleukid Syria and Iran, Bactria, Indo-Greek Kingdom, Bosporan Kingdom, etc etc) without even having to include the word possible... And of course, many more... Hectorian 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. If this template is kept we must create many more such templates including Template:History of Indo-European peoples with connection beginning from Hittites and Median Empire and Persian Empire and Greece and Rome all the way through to United States of America. Maybe we even put Atlantis and Hyperborea and Airyanemh Vaeja on there too. Khorshid 17:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so create them then. Wikipedia is inclusive NOT EXCLUSIVE. AS for the name issue that Hectorian raised. Valid point there about German/ic, in the sense that, the title should correctly address these concerns. I don't know who named the template "Turkish History Brief", but what matters now is the title of the template as it appears ON it. It is "History of Turkic Civilization" at the moment. The questions that you have raised about particular points, such as the inclusion of what state and not, the formal name it has in Wiki servers wiki:turkish history brief etc, CAN be discussed. Its current name is extremely academic and serious. But whatever the individual concerns about individual inclusions are, they are no basis for THE COMPLETE DELETION of the template. And as for this Indo-European template that some love to bring up and stuff. Well, I got one thing to tell you: If you can create a template, keep it academic and historically correct, then by my guest. Because as much scrutiny it would attract, the history of Indo-Europeans is a very valid field of academic study. And don't even try to make fun of this debate by comparing the history of Turks to Atlantis. First some people said "but there are no history of X peoples" templates, I showed you there were: "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" (the latter talks about religion AND race), now since some people have run out of arguments they try to make fun of this debate by comparing the history of Turks to Atlantis. Yeah well, bring better arguments, I have addressed every single point raised here, if there are any individual concerns about individual additions, they can be addressed, and they are not the basis for the deletion of the template Baristarim 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment These template consists of different Mongoloid and Altaic (and possibly Tibetian) dynasties. Khosrow says it is a racial template, Heja Helweda says Altaic and Mongoloid peoples mentioned in the template are closely related to one another, Turkish party even say 'these are all one ethnic group'. But I regret to differ. 1) First I assume that the purpose of this template is to include various Turkic-speaking peoples who managed to form dynasties or political entities. But what the ones who did not speek Turkic do in the template? Were they Turks or related to ancestors of Turkic speaking peoples? 2) Then my other concern is that are all Turkicic-speaking peoples 'one' ethnic group? For sure not. They happen to speak related languages but are different ethnic groups, let alone to speak about 'one race', which aquires even closer genetical ties. Encyclopedia of Columbia under entry Turks states: The wide differences in physical appearance and culture among the Uigurs of China, the Uzbeks of central Asia, and the Osmanlis of Turkey (to cite random instances) make it impossible to speak of Turks as an ethnic or racial group. [2]. So the only significant connection among various Altaic speaking peoples is their related languages. 3) Furthermore, who said that we need a historic template for linguistic groups of peoples?! If so then we can start a historic template for dynasties or political entities of Aryan-speaking peoples which starts from Hittites up to Uniated States of America! Awat 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear your concerns. I have not created this template and had no idea about it until its vote for deletion. There can be improvements done to the template, but there is no reason why it should be deleted. If there are specific concerns, they can be addressed individually. And as for the other suggestion about linguistic groups of peoples. All I can say is that it is a case by case basis, and if you can create a serious and academic template about the evolution of Aryan people from the Hittites to USA, please by my guest and do it, i will be the first to read it. We should be inclusive and not exclusive. In any case, the template is about the history of Turks, it is not entitled "Turks". Again, Republic of Turkey wouldn't have existed without Ottomans, and Ottomans without Sultanete of Rum and Anatolian Turkish beyliks, and they without Seljuqs and Seljuqs without Gokturks. Look, Turks are an emigrating nation, and it is normal that their history is scattered over lands and places that they have passed through, why is this is so hard to accept? It is not meant as an offense to anyone you know. In fact what is offensive is the suggestion that Turks as a people don't have the right to explore their own history and background, like Kurds do in "Kurdish history" template or Jews do in "Jews and Judaism" template. Baristarim 21:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your answer which I have given before: There is already the Template:History of Turkey. That is enough. This is nothing but a POV template promoting a wrong racialist theory. You should have been the first person to oppose this template if you believe what you are writing above especially since Template:History of Turkey already exists. Khorshid 21:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had already addressed this concern: History of Turkey is not the same thing as History of Turks since Turks are an emigrating and nomadic nation. So your argument could only be valid if you were also claiming that Turks have been living in Anatolia for the last 7000 years. Turkish tribes, throughout the centuries, have had different, but interconnected, destinies of their own choosing. That's why there are Turkish influences all over Central Asia all the way to the Balkans. It is NOT racist to point this out.
I am sorry but I am not going to take too seriously the arguments of someone who claims that homosexuality doesn't exist and tries to sneakily argue that homosexuals are not prosecuted in Iran because they are gay, but because they "engage in homosexual practice" (?? I wonder where some people learned their English, since being gay and engaging in gay practice mean the same thing (for anyone with good faith and an IQ higher than 60)) [3]. So it is no wonder that you are trying to argue that History of Turkey is the same thing as History of Turks. The lack of logic and level of hate is simply astounding. Baristarim 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And as response to your suggestion: I see the logic behind it, but it doesn't quite grasp the subject matter in the same way. Turks, as a people, have a different destiny and history than the Turks living in Turkey. Turks that had settled in Turkey had chosen a different path, as a nomadic nation, than the Turks of Central Asia. History of Turkey would discard the history of other Turkish (Turkic, whichever you prefer) tribes. Don't forget that the word "Turk" was not invented in what is present-day Turkey, but in Central Asia, so who are you to discard the history of whole peoples of Central Asia that still consider themselves as such but are different than the Turks of Turkey?? So if someone from Central Asia who calls himself a Turk comes along and asks that his history be included, what are we going to say? "Sorry, you are not from Turkey, so your history doesn't belong here, so get lost!!"???? Seriously, this lack of logic is astounding. Baristarim 23:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments confirms that this template is Racial. "So if someone from Central Asia who..." and also I think the picture, "the wolf", is somehow the symbol of Pan-turkism and azeri separatists in iran also use that, too. I think it is enough to show the intentions of the creators of that template--Pejman47 00:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
?? I only said that if there was some one from Central Asia that called themselves Turk.. The word Turk was invented in Central Asia by the way, so what is the problem???? For the picture, I agree, it should be removed as I said before. And what is important is the academic idea behind the template, not the people that have created it. As I said, if there are individual concerns, they can be addressed, but the underlying idea for academic study is still valid. Baristarim 00:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we remove the ones who were not Turkic-speaking, or at least list them as 'ancestors' of Turkic-speaking peoles, and rename it to History of Turkic speaking peoples I see no serious problems to keep it. Awat 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is still POV. Where are the linguistic templates?? There are none because there is no reason for them and we cannot have a dozen ethnic and linguistic templates on a single page! That is crazy. Khorshid 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol, it turns to something like; History of Indo-European people, and then a template which includes:
  • Hittite empire.., Median empire.., Parthian empire, Romans, United States of America... :) : But actually if we remove the ones who were not Turkic and then rename the template to Turkic speaking peoples, it would not be as messy as it is now. Awat 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My friend please look at these discussions and the ones on the template talk. They would never be willing to remove them because we are dealing with the misguided racialist theory that all Turkics and Mongols come from the same place. In other words this is Pan-Turkism and this is true since Mongol and Huns are on there. Khorshid 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Individual concerns can be addressed, I haven't created this template, so I am sure there is room for improvement. OTOH, the underlying raison d'etre for the template is still there: History of Turks is not the same as History of Turkey. Also, please refrain from implying that others, especially people that you have never met, are racist. And lastly, There is no such thing as "Turkic" - if you can find ANYONE that calls himself "a Turkic", I will go out to a bar tonight and get my a.. f...ed All Turkics???????!!!!!!!!!! What is that? There is no such thing as turkics. Turkic is only used to refer to a language group. Get your science straightened out.. Baristarim 00:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This i definitely agree, the picture should be changed. The picture has many political connatiations that have no relation to an academic study. Baristarim 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If it is the name being disputed, that can be changed. Otherwise i do not see it implying all these empires or people were Turkish, only that they were part of Turkic history, but personally i do find the term "Turks" valid. For exmaple see the Royal Academy of Arts Exhibition (which i personally attended) last year entitled "Turks: A journey of a thousand years 600 - 1600" i.e. Turks are not just what you call people in Turkey, or those of the Ottomans. --A.Garnet 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That claim is not academic and that site is an arts site not a scholar paper. "Turks" today refers to peoples of Turkey and we already have Template:History of Turkey. What do you think about creating an Indo-European or Aryan template showing connection from Proto-Indo-Iranians to Scandanavians, Europeans, White Americans, etc? After all they are all connected and part of Aryan and Indo-European history. We should do it. Khorshid 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are you talking about art site? It's the official website of the exhibition for the Royal Academy of Arts in London, one of most prestigious museums in the world. And if that is not scholarly, then here is the book they published to accompany the exhibition --A.Garnet 22:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are joking yes??? Because it is a arts museum! It can be as prestigios as the Queen it doesnt change the fact that it is not Oxford or Cambridge. Also you didnt answer my question. By your logic we should create templates for Aryans/Indo-Europeans, Sub-saharan Africans, etc. Also then we would have to change the name of this template to "History of Altaic peoples" and include Koreans, Japanese, Bulgarians, Finns, etc. because all this is leading the flawed Pan-Turkist racialist theories. Prove me wrong. Khorshid 22:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please don't exaggerate.. It is a case by case basis, and it is not a linguistic template!! It is the history of Turks template, talking about tha history of Turks as an emigrating nation. Very good point by A. Garnet about that exhibition. It is a journey. I didn't say that you should create anything of the sort, but if you could do it academically, then be my guest, we should be inclusive, not exclusive. Baristarim 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word Turk has been recorded almost a millenia before the Ottomans. Can the same historical usage of that name be applied to the Finns or the Koreans? As for more scholarly sources, see The Turks in World History by Carter Vaughan Findley, and i quote from the book description "Beginning in Inner Asia two thousand years ago, the Turks have migrated and expanded to form today's Turkish Republic, five post-Soviet republics, other societies across Eurasia, and a global diaspora". --A.Garnet 23:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are using that quote out of context - it is not suggesting what you think it suggests. This author is clearly referring to Turkic peoples in general, not Turks of Turkey. Today the word "Turk" in the world use is always connected to Turkey. And you ignore my and others points. Khorshid 09:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is not referring to "Turkic peoples" since he is using the word "Turk", if he were referring to Turkic peoples, he might have as well used the word Turkic, now couldn't he? As for the "world use".. Well, in the same way that "Aryan" in the "world use" is always connected to Nazis and their superior nation ideology? So with that logic, we should strike down all references to Aryans in Iranian related articles? And besides, people have a right to define themselves in any way that they wish, you have no right to tell someone in Central Asia or somewhere else that "no!! you cannot call yourself a Turk, it is not correct!!". In any case, this is still not relevant, since the word Turk appeared in Central Asia, and not Anatolia, and this template retraces their history. It is as simple as that. I am still waiting for an explanation as to why "Kurdish history" template can exist whereas "History of Turks" cannot.. Baristarim 09:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Baristarim, you claim that the Ottomans wouldn't have existed without the Seljuks, etc, but unfortunately for you, history doesn't go backwards, so your reasoning is not valid. Many of these nations might be of Turkic origin, but not all of these nations recognized a common ancestry. The Khazars were mostly Jewish, the Huns were pagan and the rest were Muslims. Since religion used to be a stronger common denominator than the origins of people (a 4th century Hun wouldn't necessarily identify himself with a 19th century Ottoman), grouping them this way is, in a way, racialist. In the Ottoman Empire and even today in Turkey, religion is very important in identifying one's identity, as in Turks don't easily accept non-Muslims amongst them. Moreover, the Turks interacted with the natives of Anatolia so much, that their "Central Asian origins" aren't evident anymore at a first glance. -- Davo88 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me?? I am an atheist and there are many atheist Turkish editors in Wiki, so your statement that Turks don't easily accept non-Muslims amongst them is clearly racist, unfounded, ignorant and completely irrelevant. Take your racist banter somewhere else please. As for your comparison about 4th century Hun and 19th century Ottoman: We can say the same thing about Greeks of today, since ancient Greeks were pagans, but in today's Greece and for the last couple of centuries Orthodox ideology has been very important in self-identification, but nobody can claim that because of this reason we cannot use the word "Greek" to describe ancient Greeks and today's Greeks. So, what you had said was completely irrelevant since, the birth of the nation-state, and as such the birth of a collective national identity only dates back two centuries. 14th century Greeks didn't identify themselves as Greeks in the modern sense either, and religious identity was ten times more important. Neither did the Kurds, Chinese, French, Italian etc. The Italian identity didn't even exist until late 1800s. So there you go for that argument. I will only ask that you make more constructive comments and stop offensing people, because the statement you made implied that most Turks were racist simply because they wouldn't socialize with non-Muslims or that Turks have to identify with religion to correctly identify themselves, which is utterly false. Baristarim 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Baristarim 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Clevelander 22:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain academically the reasons why you want this template deleted? I really would like to know since I don't want to assume bad faith. Individual concerns can be addressed, but deletion is not the correct remedy. Baristarim 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want this template deleted because I believe that there is a clear difference between Turkish and Turkic. Turkish would specfically describe the ethnic group living in the Republic of Turkey while Turkic would tend to describe the different ethnic classifications among Turks (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Tatars, Uyghurs, etc.) -- Clevelander 01:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely the reason it is entitled "History of Turks" and not "Turkish History", or "History of Turkey". The "Turks" that you have mentioned is what we are talking about, historically speaking. And Turkish doesn't describe the ethnic group in Turkey, it describes a legal citizenship status. And I don't understand this, nobody has been able to come up with a definition for "Turkic". That term only refers to a group of languages. First Eupator said that, for him, a "Turkic" was someone who spoke a Turkic language, but that's funny since Turkish of Turkey is also a Turkic language, so, by his definition, Turks of Turkey also are Turkic. But please keep in mind that nobody describes themselves as "Turkic". And no, none of these words tend to descrive anything, I am sorry to say this, but "wishing" that it tends to describe is not the same thing. Please show me one person ANYWHERE that says "I am Turkic" instead of "I am a Turk" or "I am Turkish". Please do so. You say that you believe that there is a difference between Turkish and Turkic but I am still waiting for the exact demonstration of this difference, primo and secundo don't forget that the title is "History of Turks" not "History of Turkics" or "History of Turkey". Baristarim 01:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I could only read the original suggestion and a few other comments and I could not figure out what makes this template "race based", which is supposed to be sharply in contrast with other templates which are referred to as "nation based". I had the chance to look for the difference, but other templates (like Iranian one) seemed to me similar in mentality with the Turkish one. Iranian template also goes back to 3000 B.C. and embraces all those "pottery-men" who have nothing to do with current Iranians. If you are expecting the templates to be "nation-based", you should make all of them stay within the limits of modern age. There should be no template going any further in the history than 19th century. If all templates go back in the history of civilizations as far as they can/wish, there is no point in demanding deletion exclusively for the Turkish one on the ground that it's "unlike" other templates. Okan 23:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. And I will also add, so that new voters can see, the History of Turkey is not the same thing as History of Turks because Turks have been a nomadic and emigrating nation. They have not been a sedentary nation, therefore History of Turkey would not be able to grasp the subject matter in its entireity. Some Turks stayed in Central Asia, some travelled, but whatever the outcomes, their histories, and the histories of their states and dynasties have been intrisincally linked, without some, the others would not have existed. AND I will also remind that there are templates for Kurdish people ("History of Kurdish people") and Jewish people ("Jews and Judaism", that also talks about the jewish people as a race), so there is no one-size fits all policy on this since the histories of nations are not similar. Therefore it is always case by case, and as a nomadic people, "History of Turks" definitely qualifies. That's all.. Baristarim 23:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain the exact difference? And that is completely irrelevant since the title of the template is "History of Turks", not history of turkish or history of turkics. I will also remind that the word of Turk was invented in Central Asia, not Anatolia, which, I am sure, you will agree with. History of Turkey is not the same as History of Turks. Even though it is not relevant, by following Eupator's logic by where "a Turkic is someone who speaks a Turkic language", I still fail to see the difference since Turkish of Turkey is also a Turkic language (common sense), and therefore its speakers are Turkic as well as being citizens of the Republic of Turkey. See? There is also a template called "Jews and Judaism", and until the foundation of Israel, most Jewish communities in the world didn't have many similarities, even in religious practice. But that doesn't give us the right to tell them: "you cannot call yourself Jew because there is a difference between sephardic and ashkenazi!!". There is nobody in this world that calls himself a "Turkic". I have the impression that you haven't read any of the arguments above and just head-dived because it was a Turk-related issue. It is really sad you know... Baristarim 00:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - it's totally POV to put together a bunch of related, but totally different peoples, lable them "Turks", and claim all kinds of historical dynasties and kingdoms for them, although many of these dynasties (like the Huns) were either evidently NOT Turkic, or their origin and background are not known. A template that is focused on a hypothetical ethnic group which in reality is merely a language family and does not exist as a people is deffinitly POV. There is already a template cabout the history of Turkey which is detailed and correct. There is no need to have a template that only concentrates on a (non-existing) ethnic group, and which uses wrong information (like the claim that the Mughals or Huns were "Turks"). Keeping this template is like creating a template called Aryan nations in history which contains all kinds of pseudo-scientific informations, like the claim that Sumerians and ancient Egyptians were actually Aryans, and all kinds of historical and contemporary kingdoms and empires (from ancient India to modern USA) and lable them Aryans. This is EXACTLY what this template is doing, except the name which is "Turkic" and not "Aryan". This is pure POV. Tājik 02:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are individual concerns about the content of the template, they could be addressed, be it Huns or Mughals etc. But the underlying idea behind the template is correct and valid; there are Kurdish history and "Jews and Judaism" templates (the latter talks about both religion AND race), that's normal because there is no one-size fits all policy on this. That's all I am saying, individual concerns about content are not the basis for the complete deletion of the template. Baristarim 05:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Kurds are one single ethnic group. But the Turkic peoples are NOT. This template sums up all ancient Turkic dynasties and kingdoms as one ethnic group, which is totally wrong. This is like summing up all Indo-European peoples as one ethnic group - but Indians, Persians, Greeks, Germans, French, and Russians are NOT one single ethnic group, the same way Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Anatolian Turks, Yakuts, and Uyghurs are NOT one ethnic group. This template is strongly biased toward Pan-Turkist pseudo-scientific propaganda, and thus MUST be deleted. Tājik 10:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, Kurds don't have full linguistic unity, just like the Turks, and there are many differences in religion and physical appearance as well (Yezidi etc.). So that doesn't make sense. Same thing for Jews.. Jews, until the foundation of Israel spoke scores of different languages and even had different religious practices, but they were still the same people, and we cannot not call a Jew as such because in the 18th century all Jews spoke a different language. Your Indo-European example doesn't make sense, Indians and the French don't speak languages that are even closer. The Turkic languages of Central Asia are ten times more close to the Turkish of Turkey than Indian languages are to the French or German. What this template is about is the "History of Turks", as they came out of Central Asia (since Turk is a Central Asias word) and emigrated as nomadic tribes to different destinies. Please have some more respect for other people's histories man... Turks have never been sedentary peoples. Nobody is claiming that Yakuts and Anatolian Turks of today are similar, but they have a history whose origins are the same.. Is that that hard to understand? Baristarim 11:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the template above, this is not a vote, so dry votes don't cut it, please explain your reasons. Baristarim 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


      • That is a generalisation, Baristarim. If there are many atheists doesn’t mean that all Turks in history are atheist and think like you. Besides, we’re talking about Turks in history, such as the Seljuks and Ottomans, which clearly weren’t atheist and wouldn’t have tolerated one who gave up Islam. So don’t interpret my comment the way it suits you and get your facts straight please. Why do you think the Ottomans separated the Christians, Jews and Muslims into millets? This form of segregation of society suited them well. The thing you said about Greeks might be true, but the only difference is that Greeks are the direct descendants of those ancient Greeks, while Turks of Turkey clearly aren’t. My argument stays. Ciao -- Davo88 04:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Because religious segregation was common all throughout the world until the 20th century, remember Inquisition? So don't judge 15th Century Ottomans with the standards of today. And Catholic countries didn't tolerate people who gave up Catholicism either, are you joking??? Remember what happenned to Protestants? The war of religions? Crusades? You gotta be joking with that one. And the historical ethnic composition of today's Turkey is not relevant either since the template name is "History of Turks", your argument can be only used, in a weird way, to exclude Republic of Turkey from such a template since you are claiming that Turks of Turkey are not the "real" Turks. Fine then.. Still doesn't explain why this template should be deleted when a "Jews and Judaism" template exists. Jews (Israelites) are not a uniform race either you know. Baristarim 04:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
????????????? "delete per baristarim". I voted to keep!! :))))))) Baristarim 10:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I meant tajik. :-). Behaafarid 11:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with your concerns, except your opinion regarding its deletion. This articles is stronly biased toward Pan-Turkist pseudo-scientific propaganda, as it sums up all kinds of ancient peoples (of whom seme were not even Turkic, like the Timurids or Mughals, or the Huns), and tries to established the nationalistic POV that all Turkic peoples are one single ethnic group. This is like summing up all Indo-European peoples (from Australia over India, Iran, Russia and Europe to America) as "one single ethnic group with one single history". This is nationalistic POV. The Huns had absoltely NOTHING to do with modern Anatolian Turks, and the Uyghurs had absolutely NOTHING to do with Ottomans. The Ghaznavids, Timurids, and Mughals were not even really Turks. The origin of the Huns is totally disputed. I agree that all biased templates should be deleted - starting with this one! Tājik 10:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anybody interested in responses to this can peruse through he AfD that is already heading to 100kbs. I repeat: "History of Turkey" is not the same as "History of Turks". Turks are a nomadic and emigrating nation, and as such their histories are not confined to a specific geographic area like some sedentary nations. Such templates already exist, namely "Kurdish people" and "Jews and Judaism" (the latter talks about both religion AND race). Therefore it is a case by case basis, there is no one-size fits all policy. Specific concerns raised can be addressed, but individual issues within the template are not the basis for the deletion of the said template. Baristarim 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to list "Kurdish history" template for deletion, be my guest. In fact I would encourage you to do it! The Jewish template tho you cannot criticize because it is not just an "ethnic" template but more importantly is about a religion and we have a Christian and Muslim templates as well. Also and this is important there is no Jewish race! Its an ethnic groups but not racial! So thats a separate issue. But for the "Kurdish history" you can have a valid reason for deletion but it is important that we do not have double standard and make sure this one is deleted too and any other "ethnic" templates. I can promise you that if I make an "Aryan" or "Indo-Europeans" template people will have it deleted quick! And I will even prove it to you if this template stays. But your logic for keeping this is bad because the edit wars will never end with Pan-Turkist wanting to claim every Mongol, Turkic, Hun, etc. as their meaning of "Turk". You can say "Turk" really means "Turkic" and they are the same thing, but today it is a different world and words have different meanings. I would love to see Iranian peoples be called Aryan peoples because we are the Aryans! In Iran and Afghanistan and Tajikistan people always calling themselves Aryans! But you know what they wont let us do that here because "Aryan" has a different meaning to many people even though it really means Iranian peoples! This is why you cant call Turkic peoples as Turk peoples because "Turk" has a different meaning, it means people of Turkey. If you dont like that I don't blame you but you can thank Ataturk and the Young Turks and the Grey Wolfs for messing everything up and changing meanings. Khorshid 11:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, impartial users should peruse through the whole debate. I am not calling anbody "Turk peoples", this is not a racial template for today. It is a template about the history of Turks, in a timeline, as an emigrating and nomadic nation. And the statement that "there is no Jewish race".. Well, obviously you are confused a little about the history of Jewish people, but that's not relevant. What the hell is the difference between "ethnic group" and "race", in real terms??? What is the difference between "Kurds as an ethnic group" and "Kurds as a race"??? There is no practical difference. You are just nitpicking to prove that this is a racial template where as Kurdish history template isn't. And, by the way, neither the Turks or Kurds template is racial, since it talks about the "History" of peoples who are either stateless, or nomadic. And the Kurdish History template has been nominated for deletion I believe, but it is still there.. So there you go. I wouldn't vote for the deletion of the Kurdish history template either since it is a very legitimate template about the history of a non-orthodox nation, in the sense of being stateless and not particularly sedentary (kinda). I will repeat it again: there is no one-size fits all policy on this. I have also replied (somewhere above) to Tajik's equation of this with his Indo-European analogy. Please read it and try to understand the difference between these two. As for the Aryan analogy.. I am sorry to wake you up from a dream, but the word "Turk" never had such a charged history as the word "Aryan". There has been a definite shift in the usage of Aryan in the English language, so such comparison is completely irrelevant and mis-placed. Baristarim 12:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before, specific concerns about specific inclusions within the template can be addressed. The fact that there are doubts about the Turkic origins of Mughals doesn't mean that the whole template should be deleted. Baristarim 12:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these states were all founded by Turkish peoples and they are very much related to each other, forming a continuum in space and time. Say, if Göktürks never existed, Turkish language probably would not be so widespread, and the others would never exist. Filanca 12:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes as Baristarim said, that they agree with editing of the template, I tried to change it to look more realistic and neutral, (though it still needs more corrections). Then my vote is rename it to history of Turkic-speaking people and Keep' it. Actually the question whether Huns were Turkic or not does not belong to existence or non-existence of this template. this can be discussed on the talk page of Hun people. Awat 13:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely what I have been trying to say all along. We can all address indvidiual concerns about individual additions.. Baristarim 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly keep. 1) Used in English since early 1900s, Turkic is a noun indicating a subfamily of Altaic languages (Webster), not people, and should be used only as such also in Wikipedia. 2) Turkish History is different from History of the Republic of Turkey. 3) Turk has indicated different meanings throughout history, depending on the context, your intentions, and where you are looking at. A Greek, a Jew, an Arab was frequently referred as Turk, similarly, Turks were referred as Saracen, Arab, even as Moor. 4) To frame Turkish only to peoples living in a limited area/nation is politically biased, inaccurate, and, IMHO, dangerous attempt. 5) Without having any doubts about their national identity, an Azeri, a Kirghiz, a Kazakh etc. do identify themselves as Turk, and not as Turkic or Turki. Thus, considering all Turkish peoples as one single ethnic group is not wrong and very different than above quoted exaples, e.g. Indo-European peoples. 6) I do not understand the attempt made to classify this page a racial template as it does not refer to Mameluks, Hungarians, Fins, Bulgarians, Pomaks, which a racial template on Turks would do. 7) It is a template indicating not only the history but also the movement of Turks in time and space as an emigrating nomadic nation. 8) The list should be extended to include all (independent) Turkish states. Md wizzard 14:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? You are saying that all Turkic peoples are one ethnic group? That is very false and 100% not true. Also the template lists peoples like Huns and Mongols who are not Turkic. And where is your source that Kazakh, Kyrgyz,etc. call themselves "Turk"?????? Khorshid 14:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is excatly the definition of Pan-Turkism (go read that article)--Pejman47 15:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The funniest thing of all is the inclusion of the Mongol Empire into this template! I have witnessed various attempts by turkish users (and Turks in general) to remove every single fact or implication linking them with the Mongols, or picturing the Proto-Turks as Mongoloids (an example for this is the Altaic languages and the battlefield that it turned out to be...). But, "in the name of Pan-Turkism", it doesn't matter... The Mongols had a vast empire, so, lets claim something out of it... Pfff Hectorian 23:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Individual concerns about indvidual additions can be addressed, they are not the basis for the deletion of the template. Baristarim 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This is just an attempt by Turkish nationalist propagandists to promote their irredentist views through their interpretation of their history. Clearly needs scholarly intervention. Come on, they are including Bulgaria in with Turkish history? Bulgarians do not consider themselves turks in the first place - perhaps an attempt to lay claim on history that is not theirs? How about Azerbaijan? Even some people which I have spoken to in the United States from Azerbaijan object to their lumping in with turkish people. TRNC??? You got to be kidding me - a separatist regime formed by the Turkish invading forces against the Republic of Cyprus??!!! Cyprus' territorial and political integrity was supposed to be protected by the Turkish state by treaty??!!! And the listing of TRNC - definitely promotion of Turkish propaganda. Beware folks of this historical revisionism because this is an extension of a Turkish political hand.(UNFanatic 15:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Yes those evil "turkish nationalist propagandists", would you like to add more adjectives in there? The statuts of TRNC has nothing to with the Seljuqs my friend, if you got some beef with Turkey because it invaded your country, pls take it somewhere else. Yes, yes, my preciuosssss, beware the extensssssion of the evil Turkisssh political hand and thisss hissssstorical revisssionissssm... How many people from Azerbaijan have you spoken to in the US btw? All that I have spoken to consider them Turkic (Turk whatever). Even if there are exceptions, exceptions don't break the rule my friend. And individual concerns about individual additions can be addressed, but it is not the basis for the deletion of the template. And TRNC is Turkish by the way, what the hell ever you call it, Northern Cyprus, Turkish occupation, Disneyland, "it" is Turkish. Baristarim 20:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is why this template needs to be deleted, and you said it yourself: The statuts of TRNC has nothing to with the Seljuqs my friend. This whole template is POV and misleading, like you said, the people listed in that template have totally different histories that have nothing to do with each other.Khosrow II 20:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TRNC is Turkish, that's why it is relevant. I didn't say there was no historical connection (predecessor-wise) between TRNC and the Seljuqs. I said the STATUS of TRNC. TRNC is Turkish, i don't care is some people call it Disneyland, Northern Jupiter or whatever, IT is Turkish. It is not racist to point this out. From an academic point of view, it falls under the "history of Turkic civilization", that's pretty logical. What is important is the actual REALITY on the ground, doesn't matter what the political status of the TRNC is. Baristarim 21:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to all those delete votes, please see all of my arguments that I had listed many times before in the huge TfD. Nobody is including Bulgaria anywhere, this is just an accusation to deflect the attention from the real issue: specific concerns about specific inclusions can be discussed, but that is no reason for the deletion of the template. For replies given to all the accusations above, please see my countless posts throughout the TfD.. Baristarim 20:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have seen your long replys, and they do not change anything. This template is pure POV. The problem is not just Bulgarians, but a whole bunch of other points:
  • The Turkic peoples are not one single ethnic group, the same way the Indo-European peoples and Semetic peoples are not one ethnic group with only one common history.
  • Some names in the template, like the Ghaznavids, Mughals, or Huns were not Turkic. The origin of the Huns is unknown (see the article), the Ghaznavids did not have any Turkic identity or language (they themselvs claimed to be Persians of royal Sassanian blood) and were strongly mixed with local populations. The Mughals were ethnic Mongols, Persianized in language (they neither used, nor understood Turkish). The Eurasian Avars (known as Rouran in Chinese sources) were evidently Mongols and not Turks. Etc etc etc.
  • These dynasties do not share the same history, and - most of all - their history are not shared by the same peoples. Anatolian Turks have absolutely nothing to do with Timurids or Ghaznavids, Uyghurs have nothing to do with Ottomans.
That's why this template is POV! I mean, you do not even differenciate between "Turkic-speaking" and "ethnic Turk"?! The Timurids, for example, were (partly) Turkic-speaking, but NOT Turks in ethnicity and origin. The Ghaznavids, on the other hand, were originally Turkic in origin, but most deffinitly not in language, identity, or culture.
Tājik 20:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can differenciate betwenn Turkic speaking and ethnic Turks. A majority of Kurds in Turkey speak Turkish as a first language (for whatever reasons), but they are not ethnic Turks. And people like me who speak English and French during the day much more then Turkish are ethnic Turks. Happy? Individual concerns about individual additions can be addressed, if there is a debate about the Turkic nature of a tribe, state, dynasty etc, they can be addressed and debated according to wiki policies: sources, NPOV etc in their respective articles and talk pages. They are not the basis for the deletion of this template. Baristarim 20:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The concept of history of Turkish people does exist as an entity. It is the history of various peoples, who speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages and they are historically and linguistically connected. This entity has been published widespread in many respectable sources and therefore it is only natural to mention the history of these people here in Wikipedia. I believe that the objections at least partially arise from the fact that the history of Turkish people is very unique. In contrast with the histories of other nations, who have either lived in the same geography for thousands of years or who have migrated within small geographical areas, Turkish peoples' history is the history of people, who have migrated in vast areas and established various economical powerhouses and civilizations in Asia, Europe and Africa. This article provides a sense of connection to the reader between a group of nomadic or non-nomadic peoples of the ancient times and the nation states of the present time and how they evolved from the first to the latter. I don't see any harm or even a tiny bit of racial implication in this article, as some users have suggested. Obviously, history is not a positive science and many concepts are open to debate. This article represents a way of perceiving the evolution of linguistically connected people and people have a right to know this concept. Additionally, Ghaznavids, Timurids and Mughals do have partial Turkish identities and therefore shoud be mentioned within the context of this article. Naturally, they can also be mentioned in the history-related articles of Persian, Indian, Afghan or else cultures. Erdem Tüzün | 23:48, 18 November 2006
  • Comment - I'm noticing an obvious, but sad trend here: most the keep votes seem to be from Turks, where most of the delete votes seem to be from locations formerly under the Ottoman Empire. I think it's sad that we can't put away our nationalist pretensions long enough to write an encyclopedia - clearly, at least one side (if not both) is letting its nationalist beliefs interfere with its reason. The mass sockpuppetry and vote campaigning doesn't help either. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly keep. Every nation has its right to give info about its history. Fundamentally Wikipedia should display the history and people should decide if its too subjective or not. Ultimately Turkish related pages should be on line. (cantikadam 14:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Baristarim, the things that you said proved that religion was more important throughout history, regardless of our cultures. I’m not judging the Ottomans, because in fact, others acted like them too. I just brought up this argument in order to show that grouping people according to their racial origins (people here say that not all of them were of Turkic origin) is wrong and doesn’t work out in the context of history. -- Davo88 15:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to share with us what aspects of it are pan-Turkic propaganda and why the idea underlying the template is not valid?? THIS IS NOT A VOTE, as the template on top of the page explains, so DRY VOTES WON'T CUT IT, EXPLAIN YOUR REASONS. I have addressed every single concern raised here. The idea behind the template is still valid. Individual concerns about individual additions can be addressed, but they are not the basis for the COMPLETE DELETION of the template. Contrary to the first argument raised by the nominators, there are other similar templates, "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism". An argument about the Turkic nature of a 600 AD dynasty CANNOT be the basis for the template's deletion. The word "Turk" was invented in Central Asia, and all of the states and dynasties mentioned in the template talked Turkic-languages, or were Turks, simply put. As a nomadic nation, you cannot expect Turks to have a sedentary history. THE IDEA BEHIND THE TEMPLATE IS STILL VALID. Baristarim 19:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, would you please calm down? The very essence of this template is controversial and there are doubts or serious objections about half of the states/dynasties/empires being included as "Turkic". The Bulgars never called themselves a Turkic people, for example, and their language has not been proven to have been Turkic. I'd say it's even quite anachronistic to talk of "Turkic people" in the 7th century and even prior to it.
And that's not just an individual case — as I said, this template just can't exist in its current appearance, and I have serious doubts over whether it can ever be neutralized. I believe it's meant to promote unity among distantly or non-related peoples, which is close to propaganda. It's not like Kurdish or Jewish history, which discuss and individual pepple (but subdivided into subgroups).
To sum up: possibly half of the included entities may well not have been Turkic-speaking (or downright weren't, as with the First Bulgarian Empire) and even more in number didn't refer to themselves as Turks (or ruled over Turks) in any way. So, I can say, the very idea of this whole thing is flawed from the concept. Todor→Bozhinov 19:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hear your concerns, if you will have a look at the template, you will see that I never added the Bulgarians, Mongolians or whatever in to this template. But, again: if there are individual concerns about individual additions, they could be addressed. In any case there is also a template called "Countries on the Aegean Sea", but the funny thing is there are only such countries :)) So in the light of this, as long as there are more then "two" Turkic states whose Turkic origins are not disputed, this template also has a legitimate right to exist. That's all I am trying to say.. Baristarim 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't since Turks are not a sedentary nation, they have emigrated - so any comparison with history of Iran or history of Greece etc. is misplaced. Turks have been nomadic and emigrating throughout the ages and through many different lands, so it is normal that their history transcends today's national borders and such. The template is not simply based on affiliation of a language family since we are talking about HISTORY and today. Meaning, back a thousand years ago, linguistic affiliation WAS the ONLY affiliation that bounded together (and later religion), simply because the modern theory of collective national identity and nation-state didn't even exist back then. If there are concerns about individual additions to the template, they could be addressed but the idea underlying the template, the history of a nomadic people, is valid. There is no one-size fits all policy on this, the nominators for this TfD first used to say how there was no such other template in Wiki, but then I pointed out to them that "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" template exist (the latter talks about religion AND race), since I did point this out, the only concerns that have been raised concern individual additions.. If there are concerns about the Turkich nature of a 600 AD state, it could be discussed in the appropriate page and its addition to the template could be discussed, but that is no reason to DELETE the template. Baristarim 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the Turkic peoples deserve such a template cause they have been nomadic, is not enough, nor can it hide racial and linguistic motivations that are hidding behind it. the Greeks, though not nomadic, migratted and colonised vast areas, till present day India and Portugal. The Germanic peoples colonised Australia and the USA, the Latins Angola, Chile and Goa (in India). but perhaps no user belonging to the nations and groups stated above, ever dared to imply or create a template covering 3 millenia, 5 continents, 100 states and more than 200 ethnic groups (alledged, disputed or supposed)... But if this template will be kept, and as far as i am concern, i will create a 'Templale:Greek History Brief', with Ptolemaic Egypt, Indo-Greek and Bosporan Kingdoms, and since this template includes lots of speculations, anachronisms and disputed language spoken by the ruling class (huh?), i will also include the Roman Empire (Greek was widely used by all emperors), Ethiopia (the medieval Ethiopian emperors even kept their mails in Greek), Sultanate of Rum (literary 'Sultanate of the Greeks'), the Wallachian Principalities and Moldavia and Cyrene and Chitral and Nurestan and Russia (as claiming sucessor of Byzantium) and the Jewish Kingdom of the 2nd cen. BC (they spoke Greek back then, remember?) and bla bla bla... Maybe then, some users will notice that such templates are really stupid! Hectorian 19:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well right off the bat, such other templates exist - it is on a case by case basis. It is not a question of Turkic people deserving a template.. You are saying that there are racial and linguistic motivations behind it, care to please share them with us? But make sure that they are not simple mis-placed FEARS by non-Turks of an eventual Turkish conquest to reunite the Turks of the world, but academic and scientific. As a nomadic nation, Turks had many states and dynasties, that had an interconnected history, to the point that some of them would not have existed without the others. What is so offending with this?? "Jews and Judaism" templates also exist (the latter talks about religion AND race). And I can guarantee you, whatever the differences Turks might have, it is nothing compared to the Jews: Jews spoke hundreds of different languages until the foundation of Israel, and even their religious traditions were widely varied. And historical Jewish kingdoms didn't have much in common between themselves and the Jewish people of 14th or 19th century. But they are still "Jewish"!!!! So, this notion that Turk only means a citizen of Turkey (?), or "Turkics" (??!!) are Turkic speaking people (a majority of Kurds in Turkey speak Turkish as their first language (for whatever the reason), are they Turkic too??) (??!!)) doesn't mean anything either. On the other hand, please create any templates you might like, Wikipedia should be inclusive, not exclusive: If you can keep it academic and scientific, there is no reason why ANYTHING should be excluded from Wikipedia. Baristarim 19:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baristarim, this is about grouping a whole linguistic family of people and pretending like their history is similar or related, which is incorrect and misleading. Besides, templates based on race will only bring more disputes over certain Empires or kingdoms. Templates based on race just dont work out.. All the templates I have seen so far are about histories of nations, the only ones who want to group a bunch of people together are you guys. There is a greater sense of pan Turkism here...Khosrow II 19:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You completely skipped 100kbs of debate, haven't you? "KURDISH HISTORY" and "JEWS AND JUDAISM" templates EXIST!!!!!!!! How many time do I have to repeat this so that some people will understand?????????? As you have said, if there are individual disputes about certain additions, they can be addressed. It is our job as Wikipedians to have an encyclopedia as detailed as possible, we cannot simply shy away from new templates or articles, simply because it will put some people at unease or bring in more disputes. If there are disputes about the origins of 12th century kingdoms, they will be dealt with accordingly conforming with Wiki guidelines: academic, sourced info etc. That is no reason for the deletion of this template. Baristarim 19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not simply about race either. Turks are nomadic, therefore their history cannot be simply talked about under a geographic heading like "History of Turkey" (which is not the same thing as the history of Turks, btw). The current title "History of Turkic civilization" is academic and scientific, and keeping in mind the nomadic character of Turks, extremely well-placed. Baristarim 19:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And stop calling people that don't agree with you as "Pan-Turkist". There was a London Royal Academy of Arts exhibiton lately titled "TURKS: JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND YEARS" - I repeat: History of Turks are NOT typical, they have been nomads and emigrated from their homelands, and, as the Royal Academy of Arts exhibition suggests, their history has been a JOURNEY spanning many regions and overy great periods of time. It is NOT racist to point this out. What is racist, however, is to be called a pan-Turkist every single time Turkish editors are arguing on content. If an idea is wrong, argue why it is wrong, don't just say "oh, those damn pan-turkists!!". That is just a poor attempt to denigrate the position of others, just like calling Germans "Nazis" every single time you don't agree with them. Baristarim 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You several times said that "individual concerns about individual additions, they can be addressed"; of course! BUT, almost all of the sections of that template is disputed. --Pejman47 20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baris, u have been talking repeatedly about the Kurdish and Jewish templates... This is not the same thing! templates 'Iranian History Brief' or 'Semetic History Brief' respectively would be the exact equivelent. My comment about a possible 'Greek History Brief' template was clear enough... If the Mongol Empire (note that the Turkish people do not want to be seen as having any single connection to the Mongols) is included here, under the weird pretext that they had a turkic speaking ruling class, then, in a Hellenic template, various non-Greek states would be included (i have already mentioned the Jewish kingdom, the Roman Empire, etc). in addition, talking about large groups of ethnic groups (such as we do now about the Turkic peoples), a 'Graeco-Armenian history brief' would also be possible (no matter if its status is still in dispute, having in mind that the status of the Huns as even Turkic is also highly disputed...). lastly, apart from linguistic connections, i saw somewhere people claiming cultural continuity... Am i living in a parallel universe? by claiming 'cultural connections', a possible 'Iranian History Brief' would include Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, etc. To end with this, what the hell does TRNC do in that template? i may be "fond of" conspiracy theories, but what will be the next move? including Russian autonomous republics and oblasts? having said all these, i keep the right to create an 'indo-european template' or maybe an 'aryan' one (without the nazi implications and the blatant exploitation of the term by them). it is not about 'inclusive' or 'exclusive', it is about racial background and leading of the readers to believe something that is not correct, cause, honestly, what will an average reader think when reading that the 'First Bulgarian Empire' belongs to the Turkish history? for all these reasons is why, i guess, many wikipedians have called this template, among others, racist, unhistorical, highly disputed, without reason to exist and propagandistic. (note that placing the coat of arms of the republic of Turkey and a map with turkic peoples distribution, whoever may have done this, do not make this Turkish-named template valid or something... Quite the contrary: they express Pan-Turkism, by naming all peoples till far asia as Turkish and presenting Turkey as inheritor and protector(?) of a mixed civilization). Hectorian 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bariustarim should first of all explain the exct meaning of "Turk"?! What is he talking about?! Is he simply talking about a linguistic family?! Or is he talking about a hypothetical "ethnic group"?!If he means the linguistic family, then this template is most certainly POV, because speakers of the same language family do not necessairily have the same history or origin (compare: ethnic Germans in Germany and African-Americans in the US: both groups speak a Germanic language, but they do not share the same origin). If Baristarim is speaking about a blood-related ethnic makro-group, then this template is still POV, because the "Turks" are only speakers of Turkic languages. They are NOT descendants of one and the same ancestors. The "Turks" of Turkey and Caucasus are not really "Turks" in the original senese of the word, but "Turkic-speakers of Non-Turkic origin". The Timurids were Turkic-speaking, but they were Mongolian in origin. The Mughals were neither Turkic in language nor in origin. The only true Turks - in the ACTUAL sense of the word - are the "Turks" of Central Asia: Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Kyrgiz, and Uyghurs, as well as Siberian Turks, like the Yakuts. If this template is to be kept and to be kept neutral, it should either concentrate on the Turkic blood line and thus EXCLUDE modern Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus, as well as the Mughals, Timurids, and Huns ... OR this template only focuses on the Turkic language, and thus EXCLUDES Ghaznavids, Huns, Mughals, and changes its name to "List of Turkic-speaking kingdoms in the course of history". Tājik 20:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baristarim doesnt seem to realize that if an Iranic template is created, that we will put the Mughals, Seljuks, Ghaznavids, Khwarezmians, as well as Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan, among others, into it, since technically, they ahd more to do with Iranic civilization than anything else.Khosrow II 20:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. He claims everyone and everything "Turkish", while he does not even clearify what he actually means with "Turk". The modern meaning of the word is simply "citizens of Turkey". In historical context, it means Turkic peoples. Turkic peoples itself is a vague term with no clear deffinition. On the one hand, it simply means "speakers of a Turkic language" and includes all kinds of people who are not necessairly related to each other (Michael Jordan and Will Smith are "Germanics" in language, but certainly not in race!). However, the most ancient meaning of the term, describes a related people in Central Asia who spoke related languages, had the same physical appearance, and had a certain nomadic and barbarian way of life. What Baristarim is trying to do is to use simply the last explanation as a base for all of his arguments. He believs in the blood connection of all modern Turkic-speaking peoples. But this is pure pseudo-scientific propaganda of Pan-Turkism. In reality, the Turkic peoples are an extremely heterogenous group, not sharing the same origin or history. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of the Turkic peoples are not "Turks" in origin. They are simply "Turkic-speaking Non-Turks", the same way Michael Jordan and Will Smith are "Germanic-speaking Non-Germanics".
These are just the most important frauds of the template as well as those of Baristarim's confused argumentation. Other major mistakes are the false claims that Huns, Timurids, or Mughals were "Turks". The origins of the Huns are totally unclear and highly disputed among scholars. The origin of the Timurids was evidently Mongolian. And the Mughals were neither Turkic in language, nor in culture or origin. No idea why the author has included them in the list.
As I said from the beginning on: this template is 100% POV and needs to be deleted.
Tājik 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you guys are looking from the other way around, which is a very natural mistake to make when talking about history. "History of Turks" means the 'destiny' (or path, whatever) of the original Turkic tribes of Central Asia. Ok? What people don't realize study of history can be done in two ways: a study of the past starting from TODAY, or a study from a starting point in the PAST until today. This is very important for the "reference point". History of Turks has the original Turkic tribes of Central Asia in 300 AD as a reference point, and it is the academic study of their paths FROM that date, whereas History of Turkey would be a study that has TODAY has the reference point (ie how did Turkey get to this point today?). History of Turks explores "what did they do AFTER the apparition of the word "Turk" in Central Asia?". Tajik don't try to deflect the attention by saying "Michael Jordan is a Germanic-speaker, therefore is he Germanic?". You know what? He is Germanic.. Does he speak an African language? Does he practise an African religion? And since the color of the skin cannot dictate who you can be or not be, I can say that Michael Jordan is Germanic by assimilation. How about that? I have met black people who call themselves Turks too. I see what you mean by the "definition of Turk", but for my reply to that pls see the beginning of my post. Both ethnic Turks and Turkic-speakers can be considered Turks, academically, as long as they want to be considered as such in any case. :)) Baristarim 21:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argumentation does not make any sense, because the template also includes peoples who were neither Turkic in language nor origin (for example the Mughals). And since you yourself define peoples by their language (as your comment on Michael Jordan clearly proves), I do not understand why you support a POV template which includes so many Non-Turkic-speaking peoples, such as Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Mughals, Huns, Khwarezmian Empire, Eurasian Avars?! Now you tell me: isn't this nationalistic POV?! Especially your last sentense is interesting, because dynasties, such as Ghaznavids or Seljuqs did not consider themselvs "Turks" - neither in language, nor in culture, identity, or origin. Tājik 21:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the last sentence of my post? Both ethnic Turks and Turkic-speakers can be considered Turks, academically, as long as they want to be considered as such in any case. It is still not relevant since individual concerns about individual additions belong to their respective talk pages. There are templates much shorter than this (Countries on the Aegean Sea template only has two countries, obviously), so even if certain addition can be excluded because of individual disputes, there will be enough real, undisputed "Turkic"/"Turk" additions in there to justify its existence. That's all I am saying.. Baristarim 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the authors of the Encyclopaedia Iranica - meaning more than 500 world-renonwed and awarded academics and scholars world-wide (the EI itself is a grand-project of the Columbia University) - give a damn about what someone like you thinks of their works. The EI is ment for academic researches and not for every Hans Wurst who considers himself Master of the Universe (no offense intended; the expression Hanss Wurst is German and is not ment as an insult).
Leaving that point beside, Babur was only the first ruler in a long line of Emperors who ruled the Indian subcontinent for more than 300 years. It might be simple takics of you not to mention the fact that Babur's daughter, Gulbadan Begum, is known as one of the greatest female Persian poets, as well as the fact that Babur's grandson, Akbar, had the Baburnama translated into Persian because he himself was not able to understand the language of that work. Maybe you should ask User:Sikandarji who is an academic in Oxford specialized on Central Asian history. A few days ago, he was busy explaining the Non-Turkic being of the Mughals as well as the great importance and special status of the Encyclopaedia Iranica to your buddy User:Karcha (who has been indef. blocked).
Calling the Encyclopaedia Iranica a "worhtless piece of junk" further underlines the point that you are not here to contribute to Wikipedia in a good way. Indded, it further strengthens the claims against you that you are a Pan-Turkist with very special nationalistic agendas.
And I repeat myself: it's absolutely unimportant what YOU think of the Iranica.
Tājik 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am in a good mood after a good night out last night, so I am not going to get into a dispute. I ain't no master of the universe dude :))). Iranica is either, but I took out my comment about Iranica, if you noticed, since it was not relevant. A debate about Babur's origins is not relevant either. Doesn't matter who Sikandarji is, he is still a user, as such his claims, no matter how well he has a command of the subject, are OR if they are not backed up by sources. I am not talking about any particular subject here. The same goes for all the users in Wiki. In any case, STOP your personal attacks. I have contributed to wiki my friend, I don't just engage in shouting matches. Yesss, yesss, precioussss, my verrry verrry sssspecial nationalisssstic agendas, yesss precioussss, we want our nationalissssstic agendassss precioussss.... It is absolutely unimportant of what you think of the Iranica either ma boy, and in any case Iranica or Babur or her daughter that lived centuries ago is not relevant to a debate about if the this template is valid or not. Individual concerns about individual additions are not the basis of this template's deletion. Baristarim 22:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baristarim, tell us what Turk or Turkic means. If you mean that Turkic peoples are those who speak a Turkic language, than admit that the Ghaznavids, Seljuks, etc... are not Turkic. If you mean that Turkic peoples are those who are ethnic Turks, then admit that Turks west of Central Asia are not Turks. You cant even tell us what "Turkic" is defined as, so how can you support such a template?Khosrow II 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
????? Have you not been reading what I have been writing all along or what??? I said: both ethnic Turks AND Turkic-speakers CAN be considered Turkic, AS LONG AS they have no problem calling themselves as such (e.g. some Kurds in Turkey, even though they speak Turkish as a first language, object to being called a Turk). And who are you to suggest that "Turks west of Central Asia are not Turks"? Have you been to TR? Just because ethnic Turks married with locals, that doesn't write off their Turkic roots, they become Turkic AND X, is that clear? Baristarim 22:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@ Baristarim: of course you do not want to talk about Babur, his daughter, about the Ghaznavids, or about the Seljuqs. Because any discussion about these peoples and dynasties would disprove your opinion and position, as well as any legitimacy for this template. You are right that it does not matter what I think of the Iranica. But - acoording to the policies of Wikipedia - it DOES matter what leading scholars world-wide think of it! You have called this work a "worhtless piece of junk", and this is the best proof that all of your claims are wrong, and that this template does not have any legitimacy to exist. Tājik 22:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever dude, you very well know that I debated with you for days in Babur, Timur and etc, so don't claim that I am trying to shy away from talking about an issue.. Can you please tell me which of my claims are wrong? This template has a very legitimate right to exist, impartial users that are just running into this vote should peruse the whole debate to get an idea. Seljuqs (as in the people) were definitely Turkic, it doesn't matter what the Seljuq dynasty used as a court language, AlpArslan is a 100 percent Turkic name, if they were naming their children with such names, then it is safe to assume that they were Turkic. You have also accused Brittanica of succombing to Turkish propaganda, so it is also proof that your claims are suspicious.. Baristarim 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you vanished from the discussion after User:Sikandarji told everyone that the Mughals were neither Turkic in language nor in origin. As for the Seljuqs, they were deffinitly Persianized Turks, i.e. Persian-speaking. "Alp Arslan" may be a Turkish name, but Malik Shah, Kay Khusrow, and Kay Kobad are not - they are Persian names, the last two are taken from the Persian national epic Shahnameh. So, this actually disproves your claims once again. As for the Ghaznavids - they themselvs claimed to be "Persians", as recent archaeological discoveries in Afghanistan have proved: on a minaret found near Ghazni, the Ghaznavid Sultan Mas'ud (Mahmoud's grand-son) fabricated a family tree, linking the Ghaznavids to the old epic Shahs of Iran, as well as to the Persian Sassanids. Following your own logic ("people who consider themselvs "Turks" are Turks") this clearly disqualifies the Ghaznavids from being mentioned in this template. Besides that, do you have ANY proofs or histircal sources for the claim that the Seljuqs considered themselvs Turks?! Tājik 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that I ddin't vanish from any particular page. I stayed away from wiki for over a month, it had nothing to do with if I were "winning" or "losing" in a debate or wanted to shy away from certain topics. It was only because I had some real stuff to do, and I was really getting turned off by some POV stuff in wiki. I will be happy to discuss any subject in due time. The only thing that disturbs me is your obsession with Iranica if it is the only gospel in the world. Iranica might be good, but you are way too obsessed with it, that's all I am saying. Baristarim 23:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is it OK to spam user talk pages to vote stuff on a "template for deletion" discussion, as Tājik has done: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]? Or is he is one of those who the admins always favour?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 22:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dear user: first was User:Zaparojdik who compaigned for support in here in very larger scale and I think he got only a mild warning. Stop your anti-iranian propaganda. Take a look at your list of suck puppets [10] and block list.

[11][12][13] [14][15][16][17] [18][19][20][21][22] [23] --Pejman47 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ahwaz: no, it's not ... but I did not know about it, until User:Khoikhoi explained it to me. Besides that, I do not think that a user with a negative history like yours (constant vandalism of Iran-related articles with tendencies toward Arab nationalism as well as Anti-Persianism; recently blocked by admins) is the right person to teach others how to behave in Wikipedia. Tājik 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yesss precioussss Tajik, issss thissss kind of vote-ssssstacking ok?? Yesss vote-sssstacking preciousssss, we mussst have all the votessss precioussss, thosssse damn Turkssss precioussss, why don't they jussssst die precioussss and leave ussss alone precioussss? :)) Baristarim 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to divert the topic again?! Why shouldn't we stick to the current toppic, i.e. you insulting major and authoritative works, as well as leading scholars world-wide because their works and articles do not support your views or the legitimacy of this template to exist?! Tājik 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been explained Wikipedia rules on Civility? It seems like you haven't. Do you want me to explain them to you?--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baristarim, if you have nothing to say, dont spam this page.Khosrow II 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I got nothing to say alright, a third of the TfD is my posts trying to address people's concerns. Have some sense of humor dude :)) Baristarim 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@ Ahwaz: as I have already said in my previous comment, you are not the right person to teach others how to behave. I mean, only a few weeks ago, you were warned by an admin not to use foul language and not to insult others: [24] Tājik 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you can insult people safe in the knowledge that you will not even get a warning - a situation that has made Wikipedia rules meaningless.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly keep and enhance it. World civilization history will be uncompleted without Turkish history.

MESSAGE TO ANONS: ANONOMOUS USERS, OR USERS WHO CREATE ACCOUNTS JUST TO VOTE, WILL NOT HAVE THEIR VOTES COUNTED, SO DONT EVEN BOTHER, ITS JUST CLUTTERING THIS SECTION UP.Khosrow II 07:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Message to Delete-voters who have been confirmed to be engaging in vote-stacking practices as pointed out a couple of lines above: THIS IS NOT A VOTE, as the template on top rightfully says, IT IS A DEBATE. Some editors might think that there are "sides" and that whoever can get more "thugs" on one side is going to "win", but that is NOT the case. What is important is the DEBATE, and the CONCENSUS that will come out of it. And by the way, ANONS can vote and write their reasons for them, THERE IS NO WIKI POLICY TO THE CONTRARY, nobody should cave into this intimidation tactic that will discourage other users contributing to Wikipedia. The writer of the message himself has engaged in VOTE-STACKING practices related to this TfD, therefore any impartial users or admins perusing through the debate should keep that in mind as well. Baristarim 07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure they have, and, just so that people who are just coming across this debate can be aware, there has also been one confirmed attempt for vote-stacking by a "member" of the "keep-vote gang". It also illustrates why people shouldn't head-dive into this debate because it is an ethnic issue. The funny thing is, the nationalities of many participants fall into one of the following groups: Turk, Greek, Armenian and Iranian. And the percentage of users who belong to all of these nationalities in Wikipedia wouldn't pass 1 percent, but a big part of the debate has been dominated by them. So it is pretty safe to assume that nearly everyone who participated in this debate has come here for very obvious ethnic reasons, and that's also why many users simply head-dived into this issue just because of the word "Turk". If this had not been the case, there would have been at least 50 percent participation rate by impartial users. I am pasting below a comment by a user, who I assume is completely impartial on this issue, earlier, but was lost among all the shouting match that made this TfD 150kbs long, where he touches on this subject without favoring one "gang" or the other. Please everyone have a look: Baristarim 09:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm noticing an obvious, but sad trend here: most the keep votes seem to be from Turks, where most of the delete votes seem to be from locations formerly under the Ottoman Empire. I think it's sad that we can't put away our nationalist pretensions long enough to write an encyclopedia - clearly, at least one side (if not both) is letting its nationalist beliefs interfere with its reason. The mass sockpuppetry and vote campaigning doesn't help either. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is worth noting that, since this TfD has begun, there has been another TfD opened, this time for the "Kurdish History" (Template:Kurds) template, by the same initiators of this TfD. Any admin or bureacrat who will close this debate should also make note of the fact that there have been three other AfDs for the articles about prominent Kurdish scholars in the last 48 hours. I am sorry to say this, but there is some suspicious stuff going on. I suggest to everyone to take a look at the comment above and take a chill pill.. Baristarim 10:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the the same initiators ? The two TfDs were initiated by two different users, totally unrelated to each other. Stop making accusations and cluttering up the page, this is not a chatroom or a forum. --Mardavich 10:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who casts a quick glance at the TfD can see that I have argued content on scores of posts, much more than you have, I might add. My post above is extremely relevant to the context in which this TfD is taking place.. Two different users?? :) Well, I know that they are two different users, so let's say "similar-minded" as a comprimise :) Nearly all of my posts have been directly content-related, so that's it for that.. Baristarim 11:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After having perused the debate for another time, I will moderate my comments about most of the debate being dominated by certain nationalities.. There have also been many other impartial users who have voted, mostly before it has turned into a shouting match.. So, people can have a look at the debate and make up their own minds I suppose. However it is still disappointing that some confirmed vote-campaigns have been initiated by some known users.. Sad, really.. Baristarim 10:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although modern Turkic peoples, namely, Anatolian Turks, Uyghurs etc.. form distinct and separated ethnic groups, but I dont think that they are unrelated to the earlier Turkic peoples such as Seljuqs and Qara Quyunlu etc... Since the discussion of this page does not seem to be a voting (as it is stated above the page) my suggestion is to solve this problem on the talk pages of History of the Turkish people and History of Turkic people. Then after reaching to a consensus we can rewrite the template from a neutral and academic point of view or alternatively agree on its deletion. My assumption is that at least the first article needs a template organizing various articles which are connected to one another. Awat 16:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's getting Turkic confused with Turkish. Granted, I could be wrong, but given the rampant meatpuppetry, vote campainging, invective tone, and possible sockpuppetry for this article, it's too difficult for me to tell. It would be unfair, for example, to say United States history, and then add in everything in England since the 6th century. The United States is one group of people split off from the English, but they aren't the whole of them. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not neccasarily.. We have talked about Turkic/Turkish history for ages.. This is not the "History of Turkey" as a country.. Turks have been nomads and have emigrated. It is normal to talk about the history of such atypical nations with their own templates, just like "Kurdish history" and "Jews and Judaism" templates.. Every article in Wiki is open to abuse, but they could be dealt with according to Wiki policies. If we were going to shy away from controversy and potential disputes, Wiki would not have existed!! :)) Baristarim 01:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there have been much more vote-stacking campaigns by the delete vote-supporters. This is not a simple allegation, people can peruse the texts right above to get an idea. How do you think that makes other people feel? There has only been one "allegation" of sock-puppetry from one of the users who voted support, but even some admins are not convinced that it was indeed a sockpuppet. The related debate for that is not here, but all i am saying is that nothing is clear as the sky here.. Baristarim 01:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles already have multiple templates in them. In any case there is also a template called "Countries on the Aegean Sea", but the funny thing is there are only two such countries :)) So in the light of this, as long as there are more then "two" Turkic states whose Turkic origins are not disputed, this template also has a legitimate right to exist, if there are individual concerns about indvidual additions, they could be discussed. That's all I am saying.. Baristarim 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Overview - Let's all remember that the reason for this TfD is to show "why this template must be deleted". The current title of the template is "History of Turkic civilization". Well, I will try to give a run down of the main arguments that have been raised to try to prove that this template must be deleted:

1- "Many past/current additions are controversial": Well, there is no need to go to specifics at all with this since there are many templates that only include two or three entries. For example, there is a template "Countries on the Aegean Sea", that only has two additions in it, since there are only two countries on the Aegean. Therefore, this template has a legitimate right to exist as long as, and even if, there are only two or three additions whose origins as "Turkic/Turk/whatever" are not contested. And there are definitely more than a few that fall into that category: Turkey, Ottoman Empire, Gokturks etc. So, if those other templates with only two or three additions can exist, this template can exist as well. The subsequent discussions about the Turkic nature of certain states, kingdoms, tribes, dynasties belong to their respective talk pages, and they should be argued in a manner consistent with Wiki policy (sources, reliability etc.). The importation of arguments about the ethnic origin of 12th century princes or 5th century tribes to this TfD have resulted in distracting it, any arguments of the type belong to their respective talk pages. When, and if, there is a concensus on those articles about their "Turkic" nature, they can be included or excluded per concensus and sources.

2- "This is a race template, therefore it has no reason to exist in Wiki since it is contrary to policy" - This is the first argument put forth by the nominator of the template for TfD. This is false to the bone: There is a template "Template:Kurds". There is also a template "Jews and Judaism", that talks about religion AND race. That is because there is never a one-size fits all policy. Turks have been an emigrating and nomadic nation, therefore it is normal that their history has not been confined to a territory for 5000 years. Many Turks have completely abandoned their ancesteral homeland, this is not true for many "colonizing" nations, whose homelands always stayed the same, even though their populations have also emigrated. There has been a Royal Academy of Arts exhibition titled "Turks: A journey of a thousand years", that attest to this atypical history of Turks. More importantly, since this TfD was opened, a person that has voted for the deletion of this template nominated "Template:Kurds" for deletion just because I mentioned that other such templates exist. It is comfortably surviving its TfD, that also proves that there is never a one-size fits all policy. Turks have arrived in what is now Turkey in 1071, and, as such, "History of Turkey" is not the same thing as "History of Turks". The word "Turk" first appeared in Central Asia much before that, and there is still a country that carries the name "Turk" in Central Asia: Turkmenistan. That alone is a clear sign of the dispersed nature of the history of Turkic peoples. In any case, the template is titled "History of Turkic Civilization" and not "Template:Turks".

3- "This template is not needed" - Well, considering that we have hundreds of pages in Wikipedia about fictional Pokemon, Disney and Star Wars characters and planets, it would simply be a sign of bad faith to claim that a template about tens of millions of real human beings doesn't have a right to exist. Wikipedia is inclusive, not exclusive.

4- "It is open to abuse and will lead to disputes" - Another argument similar to the one above. It could easily be argued that thousands of articles on Wiki are open to abuse, but that is no reason to delete all of them. There are millions of Wiki users from every country in the world, I am sure that all sort of "abuse" will be kept under control, as such is the case for all articles that are constantly vandalized and POVed. There are always adminstrators that can keep abusive and disruptive behavior under control. As for the disputes.. Well, if we were to shy away from disputes, Wikipedia most probably would not have gotten off the ground, let alone develop into a full-fledged multinational and global encyclopedia. If there will be disputes about content, they will be dealt according to standard wiki policy (sources, NPOV etc).

Therefore, I see no reason for the deletion of this template since individual concerns about individual additions to the template can be addressed in their respective talk-pages. There are much shorter templates than this that exist, there are other similar templates in "Template:Kurds" and "Template:Jews and Judaism" (the latter talking about religion AND race), and just because of the fear that this will bring in disputes about content, we cannot shy away from new additions to the Wikipedia. The more discussions the better, since it would allow us to dig deeper in many topics, and unearth many underlying and missing information. P.S. For any other info about how this TfD has developed with regards to the ethnic composition of both "camps" and "methods" used during this TfD, please see many posts above. That's all... Baristarim 02:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Turkish history is like saying Indo-European history. The Mughals of India did not speak Turkish and their ancestry was Uzbek-Mongolian. Thus I am not sure how they relate with modern Turkey. --alidoostzadeh 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:WWE WomensChampion

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool® 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WWE WomensChampion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not in use, not up to date, hasn't been edited for over a year. Aaru Bui DII 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Doom 3 Weapon

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool® 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doom 3 Weapon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused template. Article in which it was used was deleted by prod. (List of weapons in Doom 3) Thunderbrand 18:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Round In Circles

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --humblefool® 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Round In Circles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bastard cousin of {{Calm talk}} and {{TrollWarning}} created for Talk:Anarchism. While the sentiment conveyed in this template may have ample justification, its usage goes against assuming good faith. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - cute, but an WP:AGF violation. TewfikTalk 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - wording in the caption could be changed to be more in line with assume good faith policy, but if we can have a troll warning, there is really no reason to delete this template. And many discussions do have a tendency to go around in circles. -- Vision Thing -- 19:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template basically suggests that any prospective editor must avoid the relevant talk pages like the black plague, else they become entangled in a neverending cyclone of arguments with hopeless fanatics. It is meant to frighten people away. There is really no good way to rephrase such a warning. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how how this does anything but discourage participation. It's basically saying that if you don't have something new and exciting to add, we don't want to hear from you and you should just go edit somewhere else. Although I agree with Vision Thing that it's apropos at times, I agree with Anetode that there's really no good way to rephrase it. Kafziel Talk 21:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what if it is cynical? :)) There is already an article about the lamest edit wars ever, so all I can say is let's just have some sense of humor :) Baristarim 06:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the templates simply shows that it can be difficult to reach a consensus, as debates often repeat themselves. Exarion 00:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vision Thing, if wording changes are made to decrease cynicism. It really is nice to have a warning such that you know to be careful with your additions, because some tempers may be short. -Preposterous 03:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kafziel. What good can come out of this? Discouraging discussion isn't what Wikipedia is about. If an especially stubborn user wants to keep re-hashing issues that have been resolved in the past, they can be addressed individually, not with some template that tells everybody that edits the talk page "we've heard it all before, so we don't want your input". Neil916 (Talk) 16:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword and Keep. If this template was reworded to fall more in line with AGF [not that it is a grievous violation anyway, although there is quite some room for improvement] it would be very useful indeed. Many discussions seem to go round and round and never reach a consensus [isn't that what discussion is for?] ><Richard0612 UW 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per suggestions above, I have attempted to revise it. I hope it's a little more informative and may be used anywhere that a debate shows signs of dissolving into repetitions or rephrased "mee too"s. 68.39.174.238 02:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might not, but at least it could help people put things in context a little bit. let's have some sense of humor :)) Baristarim 06:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not what is better, the question is "why should this template be deleted?" - any template can be "better" than another one, but that is not the basis for the deletion of the template that is "worse".. "Going round in circles" is not the same thing as "calm talk" or "trollish behaviour" - it just means that there is a dead-lock.. Also the fact that it is hardly ever used is also not a basis for its deletion: there is a template called "Countries on the Aegean Sea": funny thing is that there are only two countries on the aegean!! So it is used exclusively for two articles among the 1.5 million on Wiki. This template can definitely be used in more than two articles, so it can stay if the only concern is its usage. What happenned to some good ol' sense of humor? In any case, it raises a very valid point about dead-locked debates.. Remember that we also have an article about the lamest-edit wars ever, so what is the problem with having such a template? Baristarim 11:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they have no same meaning.This template is valid enough, to use in related articles.MustTC 12:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Baristarim's addition of the template to Talk:Kosovo may help new editors/readers more than all other templates combined: it perfectly describes the spirit of at least the lasts (but maybe all) of the article's 11 long archives. Wording can always be improved, but I find the template's essence just perfect. - At the very least, it could be used in talk pages that haven't created a FAQ yet. - Evv 14:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm worried that people would add this template as a way of castigating the other side for perceived going around in circles. Much like the Wikicouch, it may a valid point, but pontial for abuse is too great. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about that. However, the template doesn't attribute any blame, but simply restricts itself to describe a situation, which in principle both sides will agree on (while probably blaming each other for it :-) In fact, it will probably be meaningless for those already involved, but very informative to new editors. - On the other side, I have only been here since late july 2006, and may still be too optimistic in expecting a bare minimum of rational behaviour in all editors :-) - Best regards, Evv 01:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling doesn't mean the same thing as dead-lock.. There could be a dead-lock without any trolling in fact, this template would most probably be appropriate for the discussions of many of the world's best scientists between themselves, on subjects such as quantum physics etc. That doesn't mean they "would" be trolling though :)) This template just serves to notify users that the discussion has reached such a point that it has become a waste of time for everyone involved since it is always the same old by some people who are 100 percent convinced of their beliefs. Having strong convictions is not a bad thing, but it can kill a discussion sometimes :)) Baristarim 03:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up, this is clearly a separate category from heated debate (calm debates can go around in circles) and troll-invasions. If any of these templates should go, I think it would be trollwarning, which actually does violate AGF, unlike this. Xtifr tälk 04:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reword This might be useful on deletion debates (it's being used on a TfD at the moment); it should merely say something like 'Discussions on this subject tend to end up repeating arguments; if you want to join in, try to make sure you have something new to say'. --ais523 10:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Unincorp

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --humblefool® 03:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unincorp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No longer used. The few that existed were subst'ed out for the same reason as a related template(TfD log). Delete. -- CobraWiki (jabber|stuff) 03:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_16&oldid=1142563934"