Talk:Turkic peoples/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Ottomans were Turkic 2 Many Problems 3 The map 4 No Original Research 5 The new map with more details and from reliable sources. 6 Mughals and Timurids 7 Why the south-east anatolia doesnt speaking turkish in the map? 8 The Mughal Section 9 The map (again) 10 Map original research warning 11 Interesting Discovery! 11.1 Solution? 12 For the Record 13 Accuracy Dispute 14 Population 15 Infobox 16 The 1911 Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica about Yuruks, Kailars and Konariotes 17 Request 18 Edit protected 19 The infobox 20 Mughals 21 Infobox

Ottomans were Turkic

Ottomans were Turkic so Turkey is a decendant of Ottomans so they are Turkic and Turkish?(cantikadam 12:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

Response: Good question. The Turks of Turkey or both Turkic and Turkish. Turkic means the those peoples who speak languages that are part of the Turkic family of languages. Turkish is the term for people associated with Turkey.

Momoboy 17:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Momoboy 11-18-06

Many Problems

This is the worst written article i have yet come across. It does not cite any of its references, its very poorly written, and most of it seems to be origional research. This whole article may have to be re-written. When I have more time, I will fix some of the grammatical mistakes, and try to find sources and try to make the article less POV. But seriously, this article is really poorly written, this may take the efforts of many users to revamp.Khosrow II 16:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The map

to make the map i put up there, i used many different maps including the one Zaparojdik wants to put it. do not take my map out again unless you have good reason because i used the map you want when i made my map, including other more reliable maps.Khosrow II 16:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sən laftan anlamirsən?

Perharps Azerbaijani will be useful to understand me. The reason is its not shows right! so I'll remove it always and I very laughed when i see Iranian Azerbaijan :) Zaparojdik 19:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with my map. I used several reliable sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] including: [5]Khosrow II 16:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

then you should know that Iran's half is Turkic? where do they live? as I said, try to move us to space! :)) my map is more LOGICAL

Zaparojdik 19:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you keep up your propaganda and POV, you will not be on Wikipedia for very long.Khosrow II 16:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's play nice people. It is a better map than the old one although it has obvious problems. However it has to go because it is original research - you made it. Nice. But get it published and then you can add it. Wikipedia policy is no OR. Lao Wai 17:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we use the German map instead? It appears to be from another encyclopedia. —Khoikhoi 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm agree with you Khoikhoi. Zaparojdik 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it contradicts this map:

Now which one looks more profession? I dont know what sources the German guy had, but they are clearly exaggerated.Khosrow II 18:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks to Khoikhoi for asking my opinion. On Iran this is a accurate map: [6]. The map is very recent. Note Northern Khorasan is majority Kurdish/Persian speaking. Probably from the same site, you can get other maps of turkey, Iraq and etc. and hopefully the dispute will be resolved. The map is from 2004. --Ali doostzadeh 18:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can understand the issue with Iran, but I don't get what Khosrow did to Xinjiang/Eastern Turkestan. Where did you get that data from? See the map to the right. —Khoikhoi 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not right ethnic map of Central Asia, becase there Azerbaijan seems %99 others with Slavic people. Don't you know we speak almost same language with Azerbaijanis. It's entirely laughable Khosrow II! Zaparojdik 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Azeris are grey in the map because Azerbaijan is not in Central Asia. —Khoikhoi 19:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I can edit the map about Eastern China. I'll do that soon.Khosrow II 19:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the new and improved map:

Old version

New version

Khosrow II 19:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can get this resolved.. Already I showed a map for Iran. Now for China this is the right map: [7]. For the Caucus, this is the right map:[8], for Turkey this is the right map:[9] ..--Ali doostzadeh 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you know where is Yakutia Khosrow II? I think you couldn't remember when you painting the map. Sorry, we don't have to accept your own map. Zaparojdik 22:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Ali, I used the maps from Lib to create my map. That is why my map should be used, because I used authoritive sources. And yes, I do know where Yakutia is, I will change that too.Khosrow II 20:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also you have to change Tuva, Altai, Taymyria except just Yakutia. Zaparojdik 23:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Newest version!

Khosrow II 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Better than old but if you add Tuva and Altai there wont be any reason for to change into German map. Zaparojdik 23:50, 20 August (UTC)

They are shown.Khosrow II 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A few more corrections: I added the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the Iraqi Turkmen in Iraq. At the same time, I refined the borders of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and I de-highlighted the northeastern Black Sea shore of Turkey where the Laz and Georgian speakers live. -- Clevelander 00:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I really appreciate it.Khosrow II 00:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research

The map is great and I appreciate all the effort people are putting in, but it is Original Research. The Wikipedia is rule is No Originial Research - see, if I can get it to work - WP:NOR. You have to find a map that someone else has published on the web or in a book that is fair use. Lao Wai 08:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Then Khosrow II, please understand. Wikipedia forbidden original researchs. You must get it from other reliable sources. If you'll continue to revert it, I think you will be violation.Zaparojdik 12:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is original research. The user made the map himself from credible sources. Would that mean maps like Image:Anglospeak.png, Image:RussianLanguageMap.png, or Image:Map_German_SpeakingWorld.png would also classify as original research too? -- Clevelander 12:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's original reseacrh because this map editer says so, I couldn't see Kosovo, Bosnia, Germany, Altai, Tuva, Greece's West Thrace, Estonia but the old map which made by German Wikipedia shows all of them. Wikipedia is place for right information!Zaparojdik 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the fact that the user has made the map himself is a little bit of a give away isn't it? I agree that maps are images and images are treated less severely than other forms of original researhc, but the rule is: "This policy in a nutshell:Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.

"Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

I would need more information on the "credible" sources used and the fact that I can clearly see Iran's borders on what ought to be a linguistic mish-mash is not promising. So perhaps we could ask our Iranian colleague to cite some sources? Lao Wai 13:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He mentioned the following sources above: [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. [15] and [16] could also be used as sources. -- Clevelander 13:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired to say, THIS MAP IS NOT RIGHT AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are many Turkic speaking peoples in Kosovo, Bosnia, Germany, Altai, Tuva, Greece's West Thrace, Estonia, but what the map shows?...Zaparojdik 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, Zaparojdik, calm down. It's just a map. I'm sure that if you are willing to, you can resolve this matter peacefully with Khosrow II. -- Clevelander 14:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't belive it will be resolve with Vandals. WIKIPEDIA IS PLACE FOR RIGHT INFORMATION!Zaparojdik 17:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You have just violated the Three-revert rule and have been blocked. Next time, instead of reverting edits, I invite you to try and discuss them on the talk page first. -- Clevelander 14:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth are you people talking about! This is absolutely ridiculous. The map that is up now is wrong. My map will be going up again shortly.Khosrow II 15:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The new map with more details and from reliable sources.

This is map taken by French Wikipedia, it shows detailed Turkic peoples (Like names of Turkic peoples) and totaly right. Sincerely --Zaparojdik 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've been watching the edit war about the map for some time. I should say that I think both maps (the one with the German filename and the one by User:Khosrow II) were quite bad, in my opinion. I say this without reference to the areas they designate as Turkic, they were just looking bad, in terms of visual quality and illustrative properties.

I think the recently uploaded map originating from the French version of the article (which has been there since April 2005) is a lot better, since it makes the effort to illustrate the people / language groups with different colors and labels. The labels are very hard to read with the current version of the file, downsized to a width of 800 pixels before uploading, which I consider a mistake. I suggest this to be replaced with the full resolution version of the file on fr:Image:Carte peuples turcs.png in which the labels are clearly legible (even if they are in German). If a consensus can be reached for using this map, I can undertake the work to translate the labels into English.

I express my most sincere regards to both User:Zaparojdik and User:Khosrow II, and urge them not to engage in another revert war. In the worst case, if there are again any disputes on the area considered Turkic, at least try to go with the illustrative version of the map (I mean, the one from French article) and try to make modifications on that one. Peace, Atilim Gunes Baydin 18:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mughals and Timurids

The article claims that these 2 dynasties were Turkic. This contradicts the information given in these articles. Tājik 03:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well not that I can see it doesn't. And even if it does, that just means that article is wrong. Anyone can pick up the Babarnama and see Babar describe himself as Turkic-speaking. Lao Wai 09:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed this many times, and any claim that Babur was a Turk is wrong. In fact, his own claim cannot be the deffinition of his heritage, because - if that were the case - then this would mean that the Seljuqs and Ghaznavids were Persians and not Turks, because they themselvs claimed to be Persians and descendants of the old Persian kings.

Babur's family-tree is well known. Hi sfather Omar Sheikh was a descendant of Miran Shah, and thus of Timur. Timur was a Berlas Mongol, and after his father's death, the chief of that tribe.

Babur's mother was a direct descendant of Genghis Khan. That's why his ancestors and descendants became known as "Mughals" ("Mongols") - the dynasty's self-designation was "Gurkani", the Persianized form of the original Mongolian "kürügän", "son in law (of Genghis Khan)".

In this case, THIS article is wrong and needs to be corrected. The Mughal emperors may have had some Turkic ancestors, but all in one - the definite male linage - was evidently Mongol. Their culture and language (meaning the native tongue of the ruling Shahs) was evidently Persian, later becomming more and more Indian. I see no reason why the Mughals should be mentioned in this article, which only deals with both ethnic ancient Turks and turcophone peoples of Anatolia and Caucasus. The Mughals were neither turcophone, nor Turks by ethnicity.

Tājik 11:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If we have discussed it many times we are going to have to discuss it again. Babur's claims as to what he was is obviously the only thing that counts. You can't tell dead people what they were or were not. The only thing that matters is what he thought he was and what language he spoke. Which was Turkic although higher culture used Persian or Arabic. I don't care what the Seljuqs claimed to be but let me loudly doubt that they were claimed to be Persians or the descendents of Persian Kings. The Barlas were Turkic, not Mongols. As the article says "His father Taraghay was head of the tribe of Barlas, a nomadic Turkic-speaking tribe of Mongol origin that traced its origin to the Mongol commander Qarachar Barlas." Political power on the steppe after Genghiz depended on claiming a Mongol origin, and perhaps Babur's Mother was a Mongol, but all the Mongols in the West had been assimilated to the Turks by that stage so it is irrelevant. Babar didn't even like Mongols. In any event Mongols are not Persian. The Mughals did become Perso-phone and Urdu-speaking over time I agree. But the early Mughals were Turkic speaking. Lao Wai 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion does not need to be started all over again, because the previous discussion with real experts (one of them being professor at Oxford) and real authoritative sources (Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia Britannica) have all come to the conclusion that Babur was a Mongol. You are correct that power in Central-Asia depended on Genghis Khan's "authority", but you also miss the point that since the word Mongol had become insulting, the Mongolian-looking rulers of Central Asia were not able to claim descent from Prophet Muhammad or Persian kings, and were more or less forced to claim to be "Turks". In fact, this is the only reason why Babor, the devout Muslim, had chosen the term "Turk" instead of "Mongol", his real origin.

Your doubts regarding Ghaznavids (Sebüktegin, founder of the Ghaznavids, claimed to be direct descendant of Yazdgard III; this is even reported by medieval historian Ferishta), and Seljuqs (who also claimed to be descendants of the Sassanids and of the legendary Iranian hero Siawush) are not important at all, because - again - authoritative sources have been provided (in this case Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam). Tājik 12:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to make unsupported claims it will have to be done all over again. Who did you have a prior discussion with at Oxford? His ancestry might have been partly Mongol, but there is no denying that he did not speak the language and did not consider himself one. As you say, the term was insulting. And you precisely miss the point about the Timurids - they could not claim Arab or Persian descent, but they could, as Turks, claim Mongol descent. They were Turks, but Turks who claimed to be Mongols for political purposes. It is absurd to call Babur a devout Muslim. I am not much interested in arguing the origins of the Ghaznavids as they are irrelevant here. If you think those sources support you quote them, don't wave them like magic wands. Lao Wai 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your claims about the language of the Mughals is again wrong. Babur was the ONLY Turkic-speaking Mughal. His son Humayun, being born to a Persian mother (a noble from Kabul), was already Persian-speaking. Babur's daughter Gulbadan Begum, the author of the famous Humayun-Nama, is regarded by many as one of the most important female poets of Persian language. The de facto rule of Bayram Khan, himself a half-Persian Turcoman from Iran, was the last important Turcoman official at the Mughal court. Tājik 12:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well we have established that you were wrong and Babur was a Turk. Good. Progress. A noble from Kabul? Prove that she was a Persian. Salman Rushdie is a crap writer in English, but that doesn't make him American.

Regarding Babur, let me qoute the Encyclopaedia Iranica, which is an authoritative source:

• "... His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results ..." (F. Lehmann, "Zaher ud-Din Babor - Founder of Mughal empire", Encyclopaedia Iranica, p. 320-323) Tājik 12:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, nice. Steeped in Persian culture is not the same as being Persian. This simply shows that he was not Persian. Nice impartial encyclopedia there by the way. Lao Wai 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with Encyclopaedia Iranica?Khosrow II 14:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Timur, let me quote the Columbia Encyclopaedia:

• "... Timur or Tamerlane (tm´rln), c.1336–1405, Mongol conqueror, b. Kesh, near Samarkand ..."

Tājik 12:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again interesting. But Turkic was his language whatever he claimed for political purposes. Lao Wai 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Tajik, that is why I took out the section, because its useless, and its wrong, however, one of these other users put it back in. Also, this whole article is really badly written, and full of POV, and the grammer is not very good in some places. I was planning to re-write a lot of the article, but I would appreciate it if I had your help in doing so.Khosrow II 13:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be useless but you have not made a case that it is yet. Badly written? In what way? Lao Wai 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of it is POV and unsourced. Whoever wrote this article must have been new at Wiki at the time, because this article is one of the worst written that I have so far come across.Khosrow II 14:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, stop "cutting" messages and instead write your answer underneith the previous texts. Secodly, I do not have to prove that the Encyclopaedia Iranica is an excellent and authoritative scholarly work. Those who reject this work because of their own nationalistic motivs only prove that they are pushing for POV. Tājik 22:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well actually no. The EIr will survive or fall on its own merits. Lao Wai 08:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Third: I have not claimed that Babur was Persian. This is not the point in here. The point is that he was NOT a Turk. Since you (and all the rest of the amatuers who calim everything and everyone a "Turk") claim that Babur was a Turkl only because he wrote his memoires in Chaghatay-Turkic (totally different from modern-day Turkish), this should be a counter-argument, because - usuing your logic - this would also automatically qualify him for being "Persian". Fourth: It's funny that in case of Babur and Timur, you only focus on their language (totally ignoring the fact that Timur himself was much more proud of his Mongol heritage, gave all of his children Persian names, and that he ordered his biography to be written in Persian), while totally ignoring that besides Babur, NO other Mughal was Turkic-speaking. Humayun (himself half-Persian - believe it or not! - and having a pure Persian name) had deffinitly a Persian wife (from Shah Tahmasp's harem). This is even reported by Babur's daughter, Gulbadan Begum. Tājik 22:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I am having trouble following this. I am claiming thta Babar was a Turk because he wrote and spoke a Turkic language. How would that qualify his as Persian? Notice what the article actually says, as opposed to what you seem to be talking about. It only says that the Ruling Family was Turkic by descent. Which they were. Now you claim that Humayun has a Persian wife? Based on the fact that she came from the Turkic Shah Tahmasp's Harem? Wouldn't you expect to find a Turk in a Turkic ruler's harem? There were no Persian rulers in Iran until the last century. Lao Wai 08:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

None of your claims actually qualify to define the Mughals (= "Mongols") as Turks. It seems that you only pick up those points that support your claim, while you very obviously try to distract from the many more poweful arguments disproving your claims. Tājik 22:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually they do. Not that the article makes that claim. What powerful arguments come close to disproving my claim? Lao Wai 08:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If language defines ethnicity, then the Mughals - starting with Humayun - were deffinitly Persians, and later Hindi. But if genetics and the male chromosomes define ethnicity, than Babur's (and Timur's) main ethnicty was Mongol. That's exactly why the Mughals became known as "Mughals" (="Mongols") and not "Turks".

Tājik 22:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well no. Genetics and the Y gene, if used to define ethnicity, would show that the Timurids were one of the Turkic tribes that was incorporated into the Mongol Empire. If language does the fact that the Mughals became assimilated into the Persianate world of Muslim India is a problem. However none of this matters because what the article says - that the Ruling Family was Turkic by descent - is unarguable and you have not even tried. Lao Wai 08:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you are still "cutting" my messages, I assume that you are relatively new in Wikipedia. And since you seem not to take the EI serious, I guess that you are just one of the many other amateurs who have messed up many articles related to Turks.

1) So all of your claims are based on Babur's written memoires. You claim that he was Turk, because he wrote in Chaghatay Turkic. In this regard, you have totally contradicted yourself, because in your previous message, you used exactly this argument to claim that "Babur's children were not Persians, because written languages do not define ethnicity". As I have told you before, Babur's ancestors (including Timur himself) and Babur's descendants (most of all his daughter Gulbadan Begum) wrote their most improtant pieces in Persian. In fact, his daughter wrote the famous "Humayun-Nama" in Persian. But this does not turn them into "Persians", the same way Babur's autobiography does not turn him into a "Turk".

2) I do not know where you got the idea that Babur's ancestors were "Turks", but you are totally wrong. It is a well-researched and known fact that they were MONGOLS. His father's family, the Gurkani Chaghatayids (popularly known as "Timurids") were the chief family of the Berlas Mongols. Babur's mother was the daughter of the Khan of Tashkent, and a direct descendant of Genghis Khan. In both way, he was a descendant of Mongols. It just happened that his family had lost its original Mongolian tongue and later switched to Chaghatay Turkic, later to Persian, and after Babur to Hindi. In all cases, the ethnicity was Mongol. That's why his descendants became known as "Mughals", which means "Mongols" in Persian. You are totally disqualifying yourself by ignoring these facts. You only pick up one point and try to "hide" all the rest.

3) Your claim that the Safavids were "Turks" (which is really nothing new, since Turks claim everyone and everything; 1 year ago, the Turkish minister of culture even claimed that Prophet Muhammad was a Turk), they did not regard themselvs as "Turks", and they are not regarded being "Turks" by leading scholars. I do not have to explain this to you. The article Safavid dynasty is an excelent source for this. Read it yourself! As for Humayun's wife, Hamida Banu Begum, her origin and her ancestors are also well known. Her father was Shaikh 'Ali Akbar Jāmi (as the name suggests, a Persian from Jām near Herat; see also Jāmī), her mother was Māh Afrāz Begum. In this case, you should read Gulbadan Begum's "Humayunnama"! And the fact that Akbar was raised as a Persian-speaker, did not know any Chaghatay Turkic (in fact, it was Akbar who ordered to translate the Baburnama into Persian!), and from then on the Mughal empire was totally Persianized, further undermines his mother's Persian origin.

4) Your claim that the "ruling family was of Turkic descent" is WRONG (and - honestly - I really do not know why you don't get it). Babur was TURKIFIED, the same way his descendants became PERSIANIZED - in both cases, the ORIGIN of the family was MONGOL, paternal AND maternal. You are not being honest in this case, because when it comes to the Persian-speaking and culturally totally Persianized Mughals of India, you keep go on claiming them "of Turkic descent". But when it comes to Babur and Timur, you change your viewpoint, try to hide their original Mongolian descent (of which they - especially Timur - were so proud of), and only concentrate on their language. So, you use two contradicting methodes to give these 2 dynasties a modern ethnicity, in both cases you only pick up the version that makes them "Turks".

5) Please stup "cutting" my messages and putting your own unsined comments in between of my comments. Instead, youse the numbers 1-4.

Please check Babur section, Tajik's arguments have been refuted countless times, it took almost a year for him to stop trying to change the irrefutable fact that the Mughlas in origin were Turkic and Barbur refer's to himself as a Turk. The page was locked and protected from Tajik's vandalism.

Mughals and Timurids were Turkic, unfortunately we have some extremist Pan-Iranists who like to deny anything Turkic at all.

Mughals were never Mongol, this is a misnomer, it has no basis in reality. Babur never called himself a Mongol or showed any ties to them. He and Timur saw themselves as Turks, if they percieved and highlighted this point than we have no other option but to accept this.

Its no good trying to tell people who are dead what they are, its ridiculous and this kind of shambolic nonsense has no room in an encyclopedia.

Johnstevens5

Tājik 10:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the south-east anatolia doesnt speaking turkish in the map?

As I know they speak Turkish offically...

Their mother tongue is not Turkish.Khosrow II 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this idea from? Lots of "ethnic Turks" live there. Same thing applies to north-east, too. Haydarhan

So it is like a France born Zulu's mother language is Afrikaan? (cantikadam 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

Of course many (maybe all) peoples in Turkey speak Turkish, including south-east Anatolia. But what the map is trying to say is that the mother-tongue of the majority in that region is not Turkish. If you take a closer look at the map, you can see many Turkic-speaking areas in Afghanistan, Iran, etc. These countries are not Turkic-speaking, but only small minorities in certain regions of those countries speak a Turkic language. In case of Iran and Afghanistan, almost all of those Turkic-speakers speak the official languages of these two nations (usually Persian, but also Pashto in Afghanistan) to a native level.

So, if we had to change the map according to your suggestion, the Turkic-speaking areas in Iran and Afghanistan, as well as in Russia are also to be removed.

Tājik 10:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Mughal Section

That section is irrelevant and way POV. For example, it says that the monarchs were Turkic, thats not true. They were of mixed Turkic, Mongolic, and Iranic origin for the most part. Secondly, it says that because pakistani's claim descent that they are descendents of the Mughals, that there is genetic relationship between them and Turkic peoples. If that isnt one of the stupidest thigns I have ever read, then I dont know what is. Where is the source for this? Some crazy Pan Turk website?Khosrow II 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is neither irrelevant nor POV. Iyt is factually true and the Mughals have as much right to be in the history section as the Ottomans or Safavids or Qajars or any other Turkic dynasty. It does not say a single word that you claim. Let me quote:

The Mughals were the Muslim rulers of India whose Ruling family claimed to be descended from Genghiz Khan and the Mongolians. However the Mughal Ruling family were Timurids, that is descended from Timur and so, along with many of their followers, were Turkic by descent. Many Indian and Pakistani Muslims claim descent from the Mughals and so they share some genetic material with the Turkic peoples, but they generally speak Urdu, a non-Turkic, Indo-Aryan language.

So it does not claim they were Turkic, even though they were by descent. It does not claim a "genetic relationship", it claims that they share some genetic material. This is a statement of fact. I do not much care what you think is crazy. Myself, I find Iranian chauvanism crazy and exceedingly tiresome. You notice that sources are thoroughly provided. It is one of the most sourced parts of Wikipedia I have ever seen. Now given that it is factually true and heavily foot noted on the one hand, and your complaints are utterly spurious, no matter how much I try and assume good faith, on the other, your constant reversions are amounting to vandalism. Please stop it unless you have some evidence that a single word of that passage is false. All you do is alter it for transparently political ends. Produce some evidence please or go away. Lao Wai 16:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Find sources, then we can include thosse statements. This section is clearly POV, and does not belong in the article in its current condition. The Mughal monarchs were not only of Turkic descent and there is not genetic relationship between modern day Pakistani's and India's with Turkic peoples. Go somewhere else to spread these kinds of lies. Never have I read such a ludicrous section in Wikipedia. By the wya, the only sourced part of that section is the part where it says they were Mongolians.Khosrow II 16:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you bothered to read it you would notice it is thoroughly sourced. As I said. What POV is it pushing? Every single statement is a statement of fact. It is irrelevant if they were also of some other background because no one is disputing it. The article certainly is not. There is self evidently some minor amount of Turkic genetic material floating around Pakistan and to deny it is irrational. I don't much like the claim myself, but it is true. What lies? You have yet again failed to provide any evidence for your objections or even to have made it clear what they are. If you continue to vandalise the page like this I will ask for it to be protected and an admin to mediate. Lao Wai 17:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Where were the sources? Please, dont even say that the source was that book listed on the bottom of the paragraph. I believe in facts, and as long as you dont present them, then there isnt much to discuss.Khosrow II 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read articles before you delete large chunks?

The Mughals were the Muslim rulers of India whose Ruling family claimed to be descended from Genghiz Khan and the Mongolians [17]. However the Mughal Ruling family were Timurids, that is descended from Timur and so, along with many of their followers, were Turkic by descent[18] [19]. Many Indian and Pakistani Muslims claim descent from the Mughals and so they share some genetic material with the Turkic peoples, but they generally speak Urdu, a non-Turkic, Indo-Aryan language.

Ref: Carter V. Findley, The Turks in World History, (Oxford University Press, October 2004) ISBN 0-19-517726-6

I count three websites and a book for a section that is all of three sentences long. That is excessively footnoted. There is not much to discuss here because your agenda appears to be simple vandalism. If you object to a single claim in that section please let me know what it is and what your evidence is. So far all you have done is waste my time and vandalise the page. Now I have asked several times for some evidence and you have still failed to produce a shred of evidence. Are you going to do so now? Lao Wai 17:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I dont dispute that the Mughals were founded by a man who claimed Mongolian descent, that is fact. Also, I dont dispute that the Timurids had power in the Mughal empire. What I'm saying is that the Mughal Monarhs were Mongolic-Turkic-Iranic rulers, not just one or the other. Also, were is the source about the genetic relationship?Khosrow II 17:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

He probably claimed to be the son-in-law of the Mongol Ruling house but let's leave that alone. So the Timurids ruled. Who cares if they were Mongolic-Turkic-Iranic rulers? Who disputes it? No one says they were one or the other. Presumably, it was not my claim of course, it is in the Findley book. I will look it up and let you know. Lao Wai 18:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then if so, why does the section claim that most of them were of Turkic descent? Infact, most of them took Persian wives... Also, I have yet to see the source for the genetics...Khosrow II 19:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Mughals had actually Indian wives, some at the beginning had Persian and Armenian wives. But that's not the point. It is a well-researched and well-known fact that Zahir ud-Din Muhammad Babur was a Mongol, both on his father's side (Berlas Chaghatayid Mongols) and on his mother's side (Mongol Khans of Tashkent). The reasons why Babur called himself "Turk", was because he needed the support of his veteran Turkic army after he was defeated in Samarqand by the Uzbeks, and because the Uzbeks were already considered "pure descendants of Genghis Khan", so he needed an "alternative origin" for himself against the Uzbeks.

"Mughal" is the name given to the dynasty by Persians and Indians - that's because they KNEW that the Mughals were Mongols. The dynasty itself used the name "Gurkani", the Persianized form of the original Mongolian word "kürügän", meaning "son-in-law [of Genghis Khan]" - due to Timur's marriage into Geghis Khan's family.

In this regard, the "Mughals" have actually no connection to the article "Turkic peoples". If you take a look at the intro, "Turkic peoples" are people who speak a Turkic language an/or have some ancestoral cultural traits. The Mughals were neither Turkic-speaking (except for Babur), nor had they any connections or interest to/in Turkic culture. Their language was Persian (and later Urdu), their culture Persian (and later Indian), their identity was Indo-Persian and Islamic.

The Mughals would rather fit into the Persian people article than in here. Yet, we decided not to name them "Persians" because of the fact that they were not Persians ... they were Mongols: not Persians, not Turks, not Indians.

Tājik 10:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that once they were in India most of them had Indian mothers. So what? It may be well researched, although I doubt you could provide a shred of evidence that the Barlas were not in fact Turkic-speaking, but it is not a fact. The Timurids claimed descent from Genghiz but were Turkic. He called himself Turkic because he was - it was his native language after all. And remind me again, Babur means "beaver" in which language? Persian? Urdu? He spent most of his early career fighting his cousins the Uzbeks. He never once denied that he was related to them nor did he ever deny he was of Turkic origin. I can reach over and pick up the Baburname if you give me a page number where he says otherwise. Yes. Gurkhan. Son-in-law. When the Mongols made Genghizid origins a prerequisite for rule in Central Asia, Turks like Timur had to marry into the Mongol Imperial House to get some credibility among Mongols. The title shows they were Turks, not Mongols. No one is denying that they had some degree of Iranian and Mongol origins. Ethnicity is a Western obsession, not a Central Asian one. But the Timurids remain of Turkic origin. I think you will find that more Mughals than Babur spoke Turkic, but the Mughals share more than that with other Turkic dynasties - you only have to look at government in Ottoman Turkey, the Saffavid or Qajar lands, and Mughal India to see many shared institutions. They remain non-Mongols no matter how many times you claim otherwise. If you think they are please cite a source. Lao Wai 10:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Berlas were not Turks, but Mongols. The word "Berlas" (or "Birlas") itself is Mongolian, meaning "strong". The Mongol origin of the Berlas as well as Timur's origin (through his father Taraghay - which is a Mongolian name) is well researched and well-known. The source (from the famous Encyclopaedia of Islam) is given in the article Timur.

After many centuries in Central Asia, the Berlas had given up their ancesteral language (Mongolian) in favour of the lingua franca of the region, which at that time was Chaghatay Turkic. That language was once again changed to Persian, and later to Urdu.

And the Uzbeks were not Babur's "cousins" ... in fact, according to his own biography, he did not even know the origin of the Uzbeks. It was later revealed that the Sheybanids considered themselvs descendants of Genghis Khan.

"Marrying into a Mongol family" does not mean that they were not Mongols themselvs. And their claim to be "Turkic" (in fact, Babur was the ONLY ONE who claimed to be a Turk) does not mean anything. The Ghaznavids and Seljuqs claimed to "be Persians and direct descendants of the Sassanids", yet, it is a well-researched and well-known fact that both Ghaznavids and Seljuqs were Turkic in origin, although not Turkic in language.

Babur's autobiography was written in a time when Babur had lost EVERYTHING except a few veteran Turkic soldiers from Andijan. When he reached Tajik-dominated Badakhshan, many Tajik warriors joined his army, and later, many Afghans and other Muslims joined his quest against the "infidles in India". Babur's expression "Turk" is rather a reference to his Muslim faith than to his origin, since "Mongol" was a synonym for "infidle" at that time, and everyone knew that he was not a "Sart" or "Tajik" (both meaning Persian). So, the only expression left for Babur was "Turk" - that's it!

Your entire claim about "Mughals being Turks" is their dynasty's founder Babur, who happened to be a native Chaghatay-speaker. After Babur, no other Mughal was interested in Turkic. Not even Babur's daughter Gulbadan Begum who wrote her famous "Humayun-Nama" in Persian and not Turkic. Humayun's son, Akbar the Great, did not even know Chaghatay Turkic. That's why he ordered one of his very few Turkic servants to translate the Babur-Nama into Persian.

You are deffinitly giving too much credit to the word "Turk" ... except for Babur's mother-tongue, nothing else about the Mughals was "Turkic".

In this regard, let me quote the respected and authoritative Encyclopaedia Iranica (F. Lehmann, "Zaher ud-Din Babor - Founder of Mughal empire", Encyclopaedia Iranica, p. 320(-323)):

• "... [Babor's] origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results. ..."

This should also give a convincing explanation to why so many dynasties in West and South Asia had common cultures and ways of lives. That culture was certainly not Turkic, but rather Persian and Islamic. As for the Safavids: you are totally mistaking. The Safavids were ethnic Iranians (of Persian Tati origin), and not Turks (see Safavids: Ethnic and linguistic controversy & Sheikh Safī al-Dīn Abdul Fath Is'haq Ardabilī).

Tājik 16:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please check Babur section, Tajik's arguments have been refuted countless times, it took almost a year for him to stop trying to change the irrefutable fact that the Mughlas in origin were Turkic and Barbur refer's to himself as a Turk. The page was locked and protected from Tajik's vandalism. I can't believe that the above member actually wrote that Babur was a "Mongol", this is a total lie, I refuted this hoax in the Babur article and it clearly states now that Babur was a Turk.

Infact we went further to proove him wrong and took Babur's actual words to him.

Andijanis are all Turks; everyone in town or bazar knows Turki. The speech of the people resembles the literary language; hence the writings of Mir 'Ali-sher Nawa'i, though he was bred and grew up in Hin (Herat), are one with their dialect. Good looks are common amongst them. The famous musician, Khwaja Yusuf, was an Andijani.

THESE ARE HIS ACTUAL WORDS! He wrote them, if he was a Mongol he would have wrote that he and his town and descendants were Mongols but he doesn't so it doesn't matter what a cetain member says, what matters is what Babur himself writes.

Mughals and Timurids were Turkic, unfortunately we have some extremist Pan-Iranists who like to deny anything Turkic at all.

Mughals were a Turkic dynasty, the founder was Turkic and as nationhood is passed paternally in there society it remained so as they only married foreign woman however, no woman of the family married a foreign male.

Taking a Persian wife doesn't make them a Persian, it makes the wife a Turk according to their society. The Ottomans took foreign wifes but no Ottoman royal family woman member could marry a non-Ottoman Turk. This doesn't make the Ottomans non-Turkic, its called pollitical marriages, these occured across the world. Its ridiculous that some extremists here are trying to claim that the Mughals are somehow Persian because some of them took Persian woman.

Mughals were never Mongol, this is a misnomer, it has no basis in reality. Babur never called himself a Mongol or showed any ties to them. He and Timur saw themselves as Turks, if they percieved and highlighted this point than we have no other option but to accept this.

Mughals never claimed to be descendants of Ghenghiz Khan, this is a total fabrication and attempt to try and deny their Turkic origin by some extremists here.

Its no good trying to tell people who are dead what they are, its ridiculous and this kind of shambolic nonsense has no room in an encyclopedia.

The Safavids were Turkic, drew most their support from Turkic tribes, spoke Turkish and wrote entire literary works in the Turkish language. The whole theory that they were Persian is yet more Pan-Iranic nonsense which only Iranian sources claim.

--Johnstevens5 00:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The map (again)

I just don't understand what's wrong with having both maps. That way everyone's happy...right? —Khoikhoi 00:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this map is horribly made. It is inaccurate and contradicts reliable sources. Look at the sources I used to make my map, pretty reliable. If we get to have two maps on every wikipedia articles expressing every point of view, do you know how hectic that would be? Lets also have the map that includes Kurds as Turkic speakers, how about that for a third map?Khosrow II 00:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Map original research warning

If one of the editors has prepared that map, that is pure original research, it can be removed immediately per Wiki policies WP:OR.. It concerns a contested topic, not like the picture of a street in a city, or the picture of a map, therefore editors don't have a right to publish their own materials in Wiki as they constitute their own theses in a contested topic.. The other map is sourced from a non-Turkish German academic research, therefore it carries thousand times more weight than that map, which, in the eyes of Wiki policies, has no weight at all.. Pls see [[20]]. Baristarim 00:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, origional research alright: [21], [22], [23], and [24]. [25] and [26] LOLKhosrow II 00:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Im still waiting for you to show me how this is origional research. I took a bunch of maps and combined them.Khosrow II 01:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep it is, [WP:OR] explicitly bans the use of sources created by users that are synthesis of other sources, your map is still original research.. Please read the policy.. Baristarim 01:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is this khosrow? [27] You have been doing this for ages about every article to recruit meatpuppets.. once again under attack?? How dare you judge the contributions or efforts of other users like this? STOP, if you don't and this continues, I will be reporting to u and the rest of your gang to admins.. Baristarim 01:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing? Vandalizing other pages now? Combining reliable maps to make a map that cannot be found on the internet is not against Wikipedia rules.Khosrow II 01:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is u who is being disruptive, you vandalized my balanced edit to C of OE article because it didnt mention your great country.. No page on wiki belongs to a particular person, I can take down inflammatory, disruptive, meatpupetting comments on persian noticeboard without having to ask your permission.. I hope that you understand that.. As for the map, it is still original research, the other one is also sourced material, u cannot say it is inaccurate and contradics reliable sources. what you were trying to say was it doesnt fit my vision of the world, therefore I have a problem with that.. It is from a German source, so it fits more than the criteria for inclusion, your map is OR coz it is your map, please understand that too.. Find a similar map showing the turkic-speaking peoples.. Baristarim 01:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, what is the source for the other map that you think is so great. Second of all, the article about the Culture of the Ottoman Empire is just that, about the culture of the Ottoman Empire. Arabic and Iranian culture was the culture of the Ottoman Empire wether you like it or not, and I will be adding to that article, and this time I will bring up a tremendous amount of sources so that you wont be able to start another revert war.Khosrow II 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Baristarim, the Libraries of the University of Texas is not a reliable source... By the way, Im still waiting for the source of the map you claim is the accurate one Baristarim. By your definition, wouldnt that also be OR?Khosrow II 02:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if there cant be a source established for that one, please take it down.. First of all contact the user that uploaded that image (since it wasnt me), then ask him.. If he cannot come up with the source, delete it.. I dont understand why u r assuming that I am unreasonable, please chill dude.. You still havent understood the logic behind my edit to COE, I was really trying to find a solution, u should assume good faith by others.. And I am telling u again, dont call me pan-turkist again.. Please cool it and speak with a more respectful tone, and especially try to be constructive.. BTW Arabic and Iranian cultures were not the cultures of the OE, if you ever go to Turkey u will see that.. All mosques were clearly influenced by Byzantine architecture and etc.. they were all mixed, thus the intro Byzantine culture and Islamic culture.. If you cannot be civil, please never address me a word again.. Baristarim 02:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, we have established one important thing about the image:

• While mine is sourced, the one you want to have up is not, so we should put up a sourced image while we figure out the status of the colored image. So is this settled? Re insert my image, which is based on maps collected by the University of Texas!

Regarding the Ottomans. The Ottomans and modern Turkey are like two different civilizations! Ottoman Turkish was more Persian and Arabic than it was Turkic. The official cultural language of the Ottoman Empire was Persian while the official religious language of the Ottomans was Arabic. The whirling dervishes come straight out of Persian influence. The Ottoman sultans wrote their poetry in Persian. All of this is culture, not just architecture. Again, you are making long speehces without any facts. As far as the Culture of the Ottoman Empire is considered, your fighting a losing battle, because I will come back with sources tomorrow, and not even you will dare remove sourced information, would you? And stay on topic here, if you want to discuss the Ottomans, take it to the right page.

Also, the Reason I say that the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey are like two whole different civilizations is this: Ataturk basically cut off everything that linked Turkey with its past. He changed the script, the language, and the culture. His change has made Turkey so incredibly different that you can barely see any of the old influences of the past. However, I will let you know that around 15% of the Turkish language contains Persian vocabulary, Rumi is still very popular, and Turkish historians have to learn how to read the Arabic script, the Arabic language, and the Persian language in order to study about the Ottomans.Khosrow II 02:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop making threats and demands and calm down. The next comment with the slightest hint of disrespect will result in an immediate block. --InShaneee 02:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. Also, Inshahee, please let us know your opinion about the debate here. Would you consider my sources, from the University of Texas Library as reliable or not? Also, wouldnt it be better to have a sourced map in an article rather than an exaggerated unsourced map? I wonder what Zaparodjik's sources are.Khosrow II 02:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I was not talking about today's Turkey - I was talking about the remnants of the Ottoman Empire that remain in Turkey, palaces, mosques etc - there has been a huge Byzantine influence on the culture, since half the Ottoman population was non-Muslim, and they stuck with their customs, they are also part of the culture of the ottoman empire - we are not talking about the culture of the sultans. When have I refused the Persian influence on Ottomans?? Please show me one instance and please try to understand why I made that edit: Byzantine and Islamic cultures cover all that was mentioned, and as an intro statement, it was balanced.. Please keep cool and assume good faith..

As for the map, I told u what I thought, it wasnt me who put it up and I dont know if it has sources - I said if it doesnt it should be deleted, i didnt say I agreed that there was no source. Contact the person who uploaded it, ask him, if he cant show one, delete it - thats the standard procedure..BUT what I do know is, the map you have created is a map about a controversial topic therefore it is original research.. Because you have synthesized material that dont refer to the matter at hand: one of the maps shows Kurdish inhabited areas, I am not disputing that map, but what it fails to mention is that most of those people in southeastern turkey, even though predominantly Kurdish, also speak Turkish. It can be debated why this happened, but it is also a fact that Kurdish people there speak Turkish, in fact in many cases only speak Turkish.. Thats why synthesis of other sources is original research - we must put a map specifically devoted to Turkic speakers from academic sources, I hope you see my point... That map breaks WP:OR... Baristarim 03:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The map was created by Zaparodjik (the colored one) and you are the one that wants to keep it, so its your job. My map has sources, yours doesnt, so by Wiki standards, mines should stay. Also, this is about people whose mother tongue is Turkish, Kurds speak Kurdish as their mother language. Do you agree that my map is the only one on this talk page that has confirmed reliable sources or not? Answer that question, if yes, than this is settled, my map goes up, if you say no, then you should bring up a good reason. If you cannot bring up a good reason, then this issue will be settled. As per the Ottomans, take the discussion to the correct place. But I will note that it was your friend Zaparodjik who was taking out facts, not me. I was merely including the Persian and Arabic cultural influences, that previously you and him kept out, and now you are trying to keep out all of them rather than have Persian and Arabic, the main two cultural influences, in the article.Khosrow II 04:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I am interested to know why you reinserted a map that is clearly not accurate?Khosrow II 04:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkish of Turkey and the surrounding area is an a continuation of Ottoman Turkish. The difference is the language reforms and "script". Script is script, writing in Latin or Arabic script does not have anything to do with language. Persian is written in Arabic script, is it now Arabic and do you have to know Arabic to know Persian. Turkish has Persian lexical borrowings and guess what Persian has lots of Turkish lexical borrowings aswell.

The official language of Ottomans was Turkish, it was not Persian, please stop posting incorrect information.

The whirling dervishes do not come out of Persian influences, against mis-leading incorrect information. Turkic communities practised this prior to Islam, Berber tribes have the same traditions so do Arabs. You talk about Rumi, well Rumi lived in the capitol of the Seljuk Turks and his family today are Turks. Rumi is popular, as is Yunus Emre, Ahmed Yesevi, Haji Bektashi etc etc

The Ottoman sultan's knew many languages, they did not as you put it write all their poetry in Persian, most Ottoman Sultan poems are in their native Turkish. There are also poems in Arabic, Persian, Albanian and so on, stop thinking it's something you can use to push this chauvanist behaviour.

The Turkic rulers in Iran and who created the concept of "Iran" as we know it today wrote many poems in Turkish and infact were responsible for bringing waves of Turkic migrations, influence and culture into Iran.

Should we now go to "Iranian peoples" section and post that they are nothing but a combinations of Arabic and Turkic culture. Being heavily Arabified and their language re-constructed and then being under Trukic influence for a thousand years.

We can get a clearer picture by looking at it from this perspective. Over 1000 years ago the only Turks West of the Caspian Sea were in the armies of the Abbasids and prior the Byzantines. Today, West of the Caspian Sea is home to some 120 million Turkish speakers. If you want we can go into details of Turkic influence in the area, the population transformation speaks for itself, wouldn't you agree.

The culture of the Ottoman state was Turkic, it was fused by the surrounding cultures in the melting pot. There are many influences, also there are Turkic influences on surrounding cultures. The architecture of the Ottomans has Turkic, Arabic, Iranian, Byzantine influences and so do other cultural aspects, these were mixed, fused and changed.

This is natural to practically all nations in the area, none is pure.

--Johnstevens5 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Discovery!

Baristarim says that my map is origional research and insists on using an exaggerated map. Well, I did some research and discovered something. The creator of this map: [28] is himself a Wikipedia User! Baristarim claims that my map cannot be used because it is made by a user. Well then, interestingly, the map he wants to use is also created by a Wikipedia user (his Turkish Wikipedia User page: [29])! Also something interesting is the fact that on his own user page he claims that his Turkish knowledge is limited! So Baristarim, the map you have on the article currently is also unacceptable by your logic, so that should be taken out. Secondly, my map is the only one with cited sources, so which will it be?

There is one solution, how about we put no maps in this article period.Khosrow II 04:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop badgering other users. Discuss the merits of content, not editors. --InShaneee 04:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not badgering anyone. Baristarim says that my map is not acceptable because it was created by a Wikipedia User. Well, the map he supports, and the map he put in the article is also created by a Wiki User. This is the discovery I made. Also, the colored map was created by another Wiki User, Zaparodjik. Whether Baristarim knew about it or not I dont know, but by the very reason he says my map cannot apply, than the map he wants cannot apply either. Also, there is the matter of sources. My map has plenty of sources from a reliable organization.

The best solution to end this is to simply have no map.Khosrow II 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Solution?

How about no map at all, that way we can all be satisfied.Khosrow II 04:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

For the Record

The person who reverted the article and put in Khosrow in the edit summary was not me. I dont want anyone getting any ideas. You cna check my IP address if you dont believe me.Khosrow II 04:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry that was me. BTW about Iran, there is a BBC map and any map that is going to be created should correspond to that map in my opinion. --alidoostzadeh 04:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please post the BBC map. Thanks.Khosrow II 04:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if it was also made by another user, it must be taken down.. Go ahead, if not I will do it myself, dont worry, I dont want to further complicate 3RR.. I am not pushing this map, by no means.. In the light of what has been said, I think we should have neither of the maps for the moment, that I agree.. But I would also like to point that per WP:OR, there will be no maps that will be created by anyone.. Here is what we need, I think we can all agree on that: A specifically designed map to show the Turkic speaking areas in the world, that coming from a reliable academic source.. That's all I am saying, I wasn't happy with the map that I ended up reverting to, I explained in one of my above posts why so. In any case I hope that we can get past this weird tension going on.. Baristarim 05:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As for OE, I wasnt trying to keep out anything, Persian culture was one of the main cultures of the Islamic culture.. In any case, coming back to the map, again, more than half the Kurdish people in SE TR speak Turkish as a mother tongue as well because of assimilation, I mean what is there to dispute? The newspaper of PKK that is published in Europe is in Turkish.. Arab immigrants in France speak French as their mother tongue, so do many Turks in Germany.. Mother tongue doesn't mean the language of one's mom, it means the first language u use, linguists don't refer to it as a mother tongue anymore because of the confusion that might create.. That map in question shows Kurdish inhabited areas, from this you are deducing that Turkish is not spoken in the SE and including it in your map, that is called original research.. Thats all I am saying.. I wasnt aware of who made the map btw.. Baristarim 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the BBC link: [30]. The Turkic speaking groups in Iran are Turkmens, Qashqai and Azerbaijanis. --alidoostzadeh 07:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, contrary to what some people might imagine, i dont give a rats ass about who speaks what language, Turkish or whatever, where - what I am concerned about, however, is the need to get a reliable, academic map that was created especially to show the Turkic speaking areas of the world.. I hope that we can agree on that.. If we can't find such map, all those maps will be taken down.. Can someone remove both those maps please?? If not I will remove them tonight, I will break 3RR if I do it before.. I thought we agreed that the three maps in question were all original research?? We are not playing with legos people, this is an encyc, i appreciate the effort put in by all the mapmakers, but you surely must see that this synthesis of maps raises a few red flags?

BTW, i took a look at that map.. I never read about this subject before, so I was a bit surprised to see that there were so many languages spoken in Iran, is that map really accurate? Ahh, we all have a lot to learn, dont we? :)) How little I know about our neighbors, it is a shame really.. Oh well.. Baristarim 09:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove the maps per Baristarim's request. --Mardavich 12:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.. I will see if there are any other maps out there.. By the way, on a different topic, among all this talk of who speaks what where and to what extent, let's remember that we are all communicating in English.. So, let's contextualize :)) Baristarim 12:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm not advocating ANY side here, but Baristarim, user created material is not banned, but rather ENCOURAGED. If someone takes a source, say, a single listing of the population of the counties of a state, and photoshops up a map of that data, we WELCOME that, because it can usually be created copyright free. In no way am I saying that is the case here, I just want to make sure everyone here is clear that user created material is kosher in some cases. --InShaneee 13:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee is absolutely right: WP:OR does not in any way discourage users from combining material from several sources, as long as they do not then draw novel conclusions from that combination, or use it to advance a particular position. Thus it is perfectly fine, in fact strongly encouraged, to make a map based on several different sources, as long as they all are reliable, verifiable secondary sources, and together cover the question at hand. Other published maps are secondary sources; census data would be a primary source. Thus all the above arguments against various maps based on WP:OR are mistaken. Personally I think the article is very much poorer without a map, and I sincerely hope that you can agree on reinserting one (or two!). The French map (preferably with its French and German labels translated) seems like the obvious first choice. Face it, most readers will have no idea about the geographic distribution of Turkic peoples and languages, and would be much enlightened by even an imperfect illustration. --mglg_(talk) 21:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy Dispute

The factual accuracy and neutrality are quite different issues. If there exists factual inaccuracy this should be proven first in the talk/discussion page, before putting the tag. Therefore, i'm removing the tag and replacing it with "POV-check" tag. E104421 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Population

Anon user who reverted the numbers, stop! I added up the total number of all the Turkic peoples listed in this article, which are all sourced! Do not revert again. This article has also mentioned the 150 million number for months. Do not vandalize the page again with POV numbers.Khosrow II 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Zaparodjik, this is getting tiring. I added up the population of all the Turkic peoples listed on this page and got 120 to 150 million. Stop inserting your POV edits. The article itself has said 150 million for months.Khosrow II 17:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

And Zaparodjik gave source too. I think it's more reliable. Zaparodjik's edit have to be saved...--Karcha 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Khosrow, you can't add-up the numbers by yourself, that would be original research. I'm sure there are sources out there that state the number of Turkic peoples, so just provide them. We can give a range or something like that with Zap's source. Khoikhoi 19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I added them up according to the populations already listed on Wikipedia. Zaparodjik doesnt have a source either, he got his numbers from another Wikipedia article, which also said 150 million, yet Zap added another 60 million to it...Khosrow II 20:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Zaparodjik, Khoikhoi, and Karcha, add the numbers on these pages and tell me what you get, 208 million?:

• Altays (Oirots) - Source for their population: [31]
• Azerbaijanis - source : [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
• Balkars (along with Karachays, speakers of the Karachay-Balkar language)
• Bashkirs
• Chulyms
• Chuvashs
• Crimean Tatars
• Dolgans
• Gagauz
• Karachays (along with Balkars, speakers of the Karachay-Balkar language)
• Crimean Karaites
• Karakalpaks
• Karapapak
• Kazakhs
• Khakas
• Kirghiz
• Krymchaks (speak a modified form of Crimean Tatar)
• Kumyks
• Meskhetian Turks
• Nogais
• Qashqai
• Salar
• Tatars
  • Volga Tatars (or Kazan Tatars, or simply Tatars)
    • Nağaybäklär
    • Baltic Tatars
  • Siberian Tatars
  • Lipka Tatars
• Tofalars
• Turkmens
• Turks of Turkey (see also Ottoman Turks)
  • Turkish Cypriots
• Tuvans
• Urums
• Uyghur
• Uzbeks
• Yakuts
• YörüksKhosrow II 20:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source for these numbers. Khoikhoi 20:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and neither can Zaparodjik (his figures come from Wikipedia also). And furthermore, the populations are sourced in those articles, therefore I am not using Wiki as a source, but the sources listed on those pages. 208 million is a fake number and very very over exaggerated. Khoikhoi, this is a very simple case here. The populations listed in those articles are sourced, and their sum equals 120 to 150 million.Khosrow II 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have listed the sources for the first two, and the rest go on the same way. Again, Zaparodjik is making POV unsourced edits, while I am making sourced ones. Obviously, the sourced edits should stay and the POV ones should not.Khosrow II 04:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Wikipedians, there are more important issues than the population figures in the article to be updated. These are all minor ones which can be corrected more easily. In my opinion, it's just a pity to spend too much time on this. Please, remember WP:POINT. Regards to all. E104421 13:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, no one is forcing you to be a part of this debate, thats your choice. Secondly, this is what we as Wikipedia Users are here to do, there is not such thing as a "minor" edit.Khosrow II 15:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone do a CIA factbook check? BTW I checked with ethnologue and they have admitted their numbers on Iran to be wrong.. I suggest the updated CIA factbook be checked. I estimate about 140-160 million. The major groups are Anatolian Turkic speakers (56 million), Azerbaijanis (25 million according to CIA factbook for Iran and republic of Azerbaijan), Uzbeks and Kazakhs (another 30-35 million or so). This makes 110-115 million about.. I do not think the other groups add to 85-90 million. Probably 20 million Uighyurs, Turkmens, Kyrghiz and we have 130-135 million. This should account for about 90%. --alidoostzadeh 23:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Zaparojdik, please see Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position:

“

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

”

What we need is a source that says, "the total number of Turkic peoples is..." We can't collect the numbers of various Turkic peoples from Wikipedia articles—because that would violate WP:NOR (synthesis of published material serving to advance a position). Do you see what I'm saying? Khoikhoi 05:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, If you remove the sourced info I can add there estimates vary like Iranian peoples, Is it ok? Zaparojdik 11:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Zap, there arenot over 200 million Turkic peoples in the world. I have added the numbers, why dont you do the same and tell me what you get? Its simple math.Khosrow II 16:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This 146 million is except Turkish peoples I just add Turkish population, this is what you do vandalism, Now just look what you Iranians do in Iranian peoples article... there are maximum 100 million Iranic peoples. I'm realister than you Iranians. Never try again to remove the population!! Zaparojdik 21:16 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is hilarious, some here are trying to refute researched figures just because they don't want to accept that there is sucha large Turkic population, its ridiculous. If it has said there were 100 million Turkic people you would accept it but because it says 208 million you refute it, what kind of reasoning is this.

johnstevens5

not at all, if the figure was 100 million, I would also refute it, because the number is 120 to 150 million, as the article itself has been saying for months. What researched figures are you talking about? Because the only sourced numbers presented were mine!Khosrow II 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Its nothing to laugh at. Let me ask you this, how did Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, Iraqi's, Moroccans, etc... become Arab? They were Arabized by the invading Arab armies, just as Turkey and parts of the Caucasus were Turkified by the invaded Turkic armies. Today, the only ethnic Arabs are those of the Arabian peninsula, and the rest are linguistically Arab. The same with Turks, the only ethnic Turks are those of Central Asia and Siberia, who exhibit Mongoloid features. Atila the Hun had Mongoloid features, the early Seljuks had Mongoloid features, etc... The invading Turkic armies, which were made up of mostly men, inter mixed with the local populations, and eventually, their genes gave out to the more populous genes of the people they were mixing with, the Caucasoids. DNA testing has shown that Turks west of Central Asia do not have any genetic relationship to Turks from Central Asia. There are very few ethnic Turks left in Central Asia. The Cepni, who are a small group of people in Turkey, have kept their Mongoloid features because they refused to intermix with local populations for the past 1000 years (for the most part).

Also, it is this difference between ethnic Turks and linguistic Turks that drove Ataturk and the other nationalists during the beginning of the Turkish Republic to make up theories that said that the Hittites, Trojans, and Sumerian's were the original Turks and that Turks have been living in Anatolia for 5000 years, also furthermore that the Central Asian Turks are those that mixed with Mongols, to justify the new nationalism and unity they were preaching. The Turkic peoples originated in the area of the Altai mountains (which is where the term Altaic comes from), and as evident even today, the people of those regions still exhibit Mongoloid features.

The evidence is overwhelming, there are sculptures of the first Seljuks, clearly showing their Mongoloid features. There are Roman, Arab, and Persian records and drawings clearly showing the Turks having Mongoloid features. There are palaces in Anatolia built by the first Turkic princes and kings of the area that have Mongoloid looking people painted all over the walls. I already mentioned the DNA testing along with the few remnants of ethnic Turks left in Anatolia and the Caucasus.Khosrow II 04:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a population of 110 to 120 million which I got from an article published in 1995 in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. This is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal. However, the article is a book review (although that doesn't make it less scholarly), and if you want to cite the book itself, it is:

Margaret Bainbridge, ed., The Turkic Peoples of the World, London: Keegan Paul International, 1993.

While I'm sure the numbers have changed in 13 years, probably not by a huge amount. I'd go with 110-120 million, and cite it as an estimate and to this book. Perhaps you can get the book itself so you can get the page number. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Its funny how Zaparodjik doesnt even realize how big is number is. It doesnt even make any sense. I added up all the populations of all Turkic speakers and got 120-150 million, yet Zaparodjik is trying to say that there are over 200 million Turkic speakers. That number is ridiculous and he made it up.Khosrow II 17:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Khosrow, It's harder to find who is Turkic with DNA but It's what I add the population with Turkic speakers. Do you add 250 million Iranian with DNA testing? :)) I will definitely change it! Zaparojdik 18:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I based my number on all Turkic speakers, not ethnic Turks or DNA. The number of all Turkic speakers, whether ethnic or not, is 120 to 150 million, do the math Zaparodjik.Khosrow II 17:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no forced Turkification policy, those who were assimilated did so on their own accord. Turkic nationhood was based upon paternal identity, woman who married into Turkic tribes would adopt Turkic custom and their children would grow up as Turks.

There were Turkic migrations, there were not only armies. There are clear and documented migrations of at least 24 Oghuz tribes, these included all segments of society. Later during the Mongol invasion there were more migrations. During the Timurid more. During the Russian-Tatar wars more migrations and so on.

Claming that there were no big Turkic migrations is totally incorrect.

Also many people joined the Turks and could become Turks, it was not based upon Race and being a Turk never has been so bringing the "race" debate has no use what-so-ever. Its a cultural-linguistic bond which creates the identity as it is with all nations.

This debunks the entire arguments regarding "looks", Ghenghiz Khan is thought to have had a red beard by some, there are blonde people and mixed Mongoloid-Caucosoid peoples, Turkic people's look Caucosoid to Mongoloids like Koreans and Mongoloid to European Caucosoid.

You can't just categorise people into Archaic race groups.

These "race" group categories are rejected by modern scholors today and have no significance in determining people.

The Oghuz Turk population/speakers alone is around 120 million. So how can the entire Turkic population be 120 million.

You gave about five sources for the figures in Iran, why did you miss out Ethnologue?

Iran

Azerbaijani, South [azb] 23,500,000 in Iran (1997). Population includes 290,000 Afshar, 5,000 Aynallu, 7,500 Baharlu, 1,000 Moqaddam, 3,500 Nafar 1,000 Pishagchi, 3,000 Qajar, 2,000 Qaragozlu, 130,000 Shahsavani (1993). Population total all countries: 24,364,000.

Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani

Khorasani Turkish [kmz] 400,000 (1977 Doerfer).

Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkish

Qashqa'i [qxq] 1,500,000 (1997).

Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Azerbaijani

Turkmen [tuk] 2,000,000 in Iran (1997).

Classification: Altaic, Turkic, Southern, Turkmenian

http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Iran

27 and a half million in Iran.

--Johnstevens5 00:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Those sources were an example. There are sources for every single one of the populations I added up. By the way, Ethnologue was proven wrong. Kiumars sent them an e-mail asking what sources they used in saying that there are that many Turkic speakers in Iran, the Ethnologue people replied by saying that they didnt even know themselves where they got those numbers. Ethnologue is not a reliable source, as they themselves even admitted. The Ethnologue people themselves admitted that the number was most likely 11 million, and that they probably over exaggerated, see here: [41] Also, you dont seem to understand that the 150 million figure is the sum of the max populations of Turkic speakers (include the population inflations).Khosrow II 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Ethnologue is more reliable then the sources you have given, the sources you have given are not conducted from any research group, their just figures on a site, I can put figures on a site, you conveniently selected the one's that put populations of Azeri Turks down.

How about if I presented a load of sources stating that Azeri Turks population is 50 million world-wide. Would it make it any more acceptable.

Ethnologue, is an objective site, it's the most reliable source we have unless you can think of another.

The Oghuz Turkic speakers alone have a population of around 110 million (including as second language)

Turkey Turk - 70 million Azeri Turk - 24-33 million Turkmen - 7 million (Including Iran, Afganistan) Qashqai 2 million Turks in Bulgaria - 1 million (including those who fled during the troubled years in the 80's) Turks of Western Thrace - 120,000 Meshketian Turks - 300,000 Gagauz of Moldova - 250,000 Turkish Cypriots - estimated 447,000 (worldwide) Macedonia - 100,000 Iraqi Turkmen - 220,000 - 2 million Crimean Tatar - 500,000 - 2 million (heavily influenced by Oghuz dialect but originally it would have been closer to Kipchak dialect) Khorasani Turkish - 400,000 Turks in Germany - over 2.1 million

Also if you add the, 400,000 in Holland and France, 300,000 in Belgium, 250,000 in Austria, America and so on.

This figure is not exaggerated.

Now unless your suggesting that the entire Kipchak and Chaghtai Turki dialect speakers have a total populaton of around 20-30 million, your figure is totally incorrect.

Ozbeks 22-28 million Uygur language 10 million estimate

Kazak - 12 million Bashkir - 1 million Tatar - 5 million Kyrgyz - 3 million Chuvash - 1 million Sakha - 350,000 Tuvan 200,000

etc etc

All that's needed is basic calculation skills to work out that there is more than 120-150 million, its closer to 160-180 million if all the speakers are included.

--Johnstevens5 03:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Aw, how the hypocrisy is now coming out. My sources arent good enough? The sources I am using are the very same sources Turkic Wikipedians used to determine the populations of the Turkic peoples listed. LOL, so your saying that sources used by you guys are not accurate? Also, Ethnologue themselves admitted they were wrong, how are you going to argue about that? And funny, you claim there are 70 million Turks in Turkey, what happened to the Kurds?Khosrow II 03:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that Zaparodjiks number was atleast wrong. But the number is 120 to 150 million, I did the calculations, both the high estimates (150 million) and the low estimate (120 million). I added up all the numbers according to the sources Turkic and other Wikipedians gave regarding the populations of the other Turkic peoples.Khosrow II 03:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The sources I used were the Wikipedia figures, so I don't understand why your still finding it hard to swallow.

Who is you guys? its not what I'm saying, what you or I personally think does not matter, this isn't a subjective blogger's paradise, it's meant to be an objective Encyclopedia. You have already highlighted your stance, your not hear to be objective and work together to provide accurate un-biased results. Your referring to people as "others", "them", like this is some extreme nationalist battle-ground and your fighting some imaginary paranoid battle.

I said clearly there are 70 million Turkish speakers in Turkey, alot of Kurdish people are today Turkish, speak Turkish as their mother tongue and have such an identity.

How can the low estimate be 120 million? the Oghuz Turk population itself is 110 million, are you trying to suggest that the rest of the Turkic population equates to just 10 million?

Let's carry out some basic maths...

The Oghuz Turkic speakers alone have a population of around 110 million (including as second language)

Turkey Turk - 70 million (including Kurds which according to Wiki are between 7-20%)

Azeri Turk - 24-33 million

Turkmen - 7 million (Including Iran, Afganistan)

Qashqai 2 million

Turks in Bulgaria - 1 million (including those who fled during the troubled years in the 80's)

Turks of Western Thrace - 120,000

Meshketian Turks - 300,000

Gagauz of Moldova - 250,000

Turkish Cypriots - estimated 447,000 (worldwide)

Macedonia - 100,000

Iraqi Turkmen - 220,000 - 2 million

Crimean Tatar - 500,000 - 2 million (heavily influenced by Oghuz dialect but originally it would have been closer to Kipchak dialect)

Khorasani Turkish - 400,000

Turks in Germany - over 2.1 million

Turks in Holland - 400,000

Turks in Belgium - 300,000

Turks in Austria - 200,000

Turks in France - 400,000

Turkish American - 110,000

This is just the Oghuz Turkic speakers.

Let's calculate...

Minumum population - 109-110 million

Maximum population - 122 million, now even if we take out 7-20% of Turkey's population its 117-110 million.

Now that is only the Oghuz Turkic population.

To proove your figure incorrect, now let's calculate the rest.

Ozbeks 22-28 million Uygur language 10 million estimate

Kazak - 12 million Bashkir - 1 million Tatar - 10-20 million Kyrgyz - 3 million Chuvash - 1 million Sakha - 350,000 Tuvan - 200,000 Karachay - 240,000 Kumyk language 282,000 Altay - 70,000

Let's calculate this...

Minumum - 60 million Maximum - 76 million

Now let's calculate the two.

Minumum speakers - 170 million Maximum speakers - 198 million

If we exclude the Turkic speaking Kurds - 183-193 million.

All it take's is to add up the figure's, its not rocket science, there is no need for an argument over this, the calculations are clear.

--Johnstevens5 21:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I Agree with Johnstevens5. Such an estimate will work. Tengriteg

Infobox

Can someone please remove the "Türkler" from the infobox. Anatolian Turkish is not the language of all the Turkic peoples, Azeris for example call Turks "Türklər", and God knows how the non-Oghuz Turks spell it. IMO that infobox should be removed altogether though, as Turkic peoples are not one ethnic group despite what pan-Turkists want.--Bulgarin ot Egeyska Makedoniya 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I will, even though you're yet another sockpuppet (duh). _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkic is an ethnic group. the Turkic peoples of Central Asia and Siberia (Mongoloid features) and some Turkic tribes who have not mixed west of Central Asia (such as the Cepni) are ethnic Turks. However, Turks from Turkey, R. of Azerbaijan, European Turks, etc... are all Turkified peoples, not ethnic Turks.Khosrow II 01:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You say 'Turks from Turkey, R. of Azerbaijan, European Turks, etc... are all Turkified peoples, not ethnic Turks' :) my mouth is not enough to laugh this. Then i ask you, if all of these are turkified, who turkified these? iranians? :)

Do not be funny. Secondly, The term "Turkic" is generally considered to represent a broad linguistic characterization, and not necessarily an ethnic one (look and read the article carefully). So, all of Turks from Turkey, R. of Azerbaijan, European Turks, etc... are all Turkic peoples.--Karcha 02:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What is it with these "racists" bringing their "race agenda's". Determining nations by "looks" and "racial" look is a product of the Nazi era and is totally rejected by mainstream modern scholors today.

Its not "race" which defines somebody, its culture, languge and identity. Therefore, Turks of Turkey, Azerbaijan and other West of Capsian Sea are Turks in every sense of the word and nobdoy has to right to claim otherwise.

There is no "Turkic" science-lab look which all Turks must look like in order to qualify becomming a Turk.

Turks never had "race" as a priority of becomming a Turk.

Claiming that there were no Turkic migrations is also absurd.

The 24 Oghuz Tribe confederacy is well documented as migrating to the West. During the Mongol expansion mass Turkic migrations occured. The Timurids settled 30,000 Kara-Tatar families West of the Caspian Sea and many other Turkic migrations occured.

Also Chepni is mentioned, Chepni are noted in the 24 Oghuz Tribes and have a strong presence in Turkey.

As do Tekke's, Antalya region was called (Tekke Sanjak) in Ottoman era and in Beylik period they were called the Tekke Beylik. Tekke tribe today is very influential in Turkmenistan as are the Salurds and Yomuts also in Turkey etc etc

--Johnstevens5 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Johnstevens5,

Keep in mind that many "mainstream modern scholars" fall into the common trap of believing that racial segregation, racial bigotry, and violence targeting particular ethnic groups are precipitated by the mere study of ethnicity. In doing so, they confuse "ethnicity" and "race".

"Race" and "ethnicity" are two distinct concepts. The former has become synonymous with not only observations of physical characteristics dominant among a society or group (something entirely benign), but with the designation of a prejudged set of customs, habits, ideas, etc. that are to be associated with all members of that society or group. Preconceived and all-encompassing notions of "race" - as it is well documented - have been used to justify a litany of unspeakable crimes perpetrated by both individuals and regimes since time immemorial. Observation of the targeted race not as individuals, but as part of a homogeneous racial collective, has lead to many of the world's instances of genocide - most notoriously in the past two centuries.

Such concepts also serve as a basis by well-meaning, but misguided individuals today in order to grant special privilege to members of a "race" against whom past injustice (real or perceived) has occurred. Although certainly not on the level of genocide, such practice is rooted in the same tired assumption: a prejudged set of ideas, habits perspectives, life experiences, customs, etc. is attached to each member of the group. Such practice, despite its noble intent, is no less racist than violent segregation.

The study of ethnicity - the origins, intermixing, migrations, etc. of diverse groups of people over human history, and how such events led to the diversity of peoples we see today - as well as ethnology - the study of the relationship between the world's thousands of languages and the thousands of ethnic groups that speak them - are perfectly acceptable as academic disciplines. No malevolent byproduct oozes from academic inquiry that seeks to answers questions in the vein of "Why is it that some Kazakhs appear similar to some Kyrgyz, while most Kazakhs look nothing like most Han Chinese?" or "Why is it that the Finnish language possesses many of the grammatical characteristics of Japanese?".

Culture, norms, mores, customs - all can be viewed as pervasive among certain ethnic groups. The line is crossed only when one fails to acknowledge that this is not set in stone, and that the culture, norms, mores, customs, etc. are not the result of ethnicity. One need look no further than a household in which the parents adopt a child from a foreign country to see the fallacy in believing otherwise.

I fully agree with you regarding the article's failure to acknowledge migrations, as well as the absurdity of its "anti-Anatolian" tone. My friend Taylan - born and raised near Inçirlik, Turkey - once responded to a question about the Oghuz by happily proclaiming, "Their migration, and the migrations that followed, led to Turks like me living where we do today." All credible historical evidence backs his claim. Western Turks have every right to claim a common cultural and ethnic heritage with the Turkic peoples of the East.

~BPDugan

---

The 1911 Edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica about Yuruks, Kailars and Konariotes

see link

The first Turkish immigration from Asia Minor took place under the Byzantine emperors before the conquest of the country. The first purely Turkish town, Yenije-Vardar, was founded on the ruins of Vardar in 1362. After the capture of Salonica (1430), a strong Turkish population was settled in the city, and similar colonies were founded in Monastir, Ochrida, Serres, Drama and other important places. In many of these towns half or more of the population is still Turkish. A series of military colonies were subsequently established at various points of strategic importance along the principal lines of communication. Before 1360 large numbers of nomad shepherds, or Yuruks, from the district of Konia, in Asia Minor, had settled in the country; their descendants are still known as Konariotes. Further immigration from this region took place from time to time up to the middle of the 18th century. After the establishment of the feudal system in 1397 many of the Seljuk noble families came over from Asia Minor; their descendants may be recognized among the beys or Moslem landowners in southern Macedonia . At the beginning of the 18th century the Turkish population was very considerable, but since that time it has continuously decreased. A low birth rate, the exhaustion of the male population by military service, and great mortality from epidemics, against which Moslem fatalism takes no pre-cautions, have brought about a decline which has latterly been hastened by emigration

The Turkish rural population is found in three principal groups:

• the most easterly extends from the Mesta to Drama, Pravishta and Orfano, reaching the sea-coast on either side of Kavala, which is partly Turkish, partly Greek.
• The second, or central group begins on the sea-coast, a little west of the mouth of the Strymon, where a Greek population intervenes, and extends to the north-west along the Kara-Dagh and Belasitza ranges in the direction of Strumnitza, Veles, Shtip and Radovisht.
• The third, or southern, group is centred around Kailar, an entirely Turkish town, and extends from Lake Ostrovo to Selfije (Servia). The second and third groups are mainly composed of Konariot shepherds. Besides these fairly compact settlements there are numerous isolated Turkish colonies in various parts of the country. The Turkish rural population is quiet, sober and orderly, presenting some of the best characteristics of the race. Apostolos Margaritis 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)--3210 22:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Request

All I wanna do is change the hyperlink from "Sakha" to "Sakha Republic" (Second paragraph of the geographical distribution section) because "Sakha Republic" will bring the reader to the page pertaining to area which is being discussed.

Momoboy 17:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Momoboy 11-18-06

Do you mean the "Sakha/Yakut" link? If so, shouldn't it link to Sakha language, not Sakha Republic? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit protected

Please swap the {{ethnic group}} template for the {{Turkic ethnicity}} template. (→Netscott) 21:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not done since the page is already unprotected. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The infobox

I've removed the infobox because it's only supposed to be used in articles about ethnic groups. The Turkic peoples are a group of ethnic groups—hence making the infobox inappropriate. Khoikhoi 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

removed! Tājik 10:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mughals

Claiming that the Mughals were a Turkic people, and mentioning some odd Turkish name given to them (Babür İmparatorluğu, a name that does not appear in ANY historical or scholarly sources), is pure POV.

The Mughals were neither Turks in ethnicity (they were originally Mongols, descening from the Timurid and other Chingizid families of Central Asia --> Berlas Mongols), nor in language (starting with Humayun, they were certainly and evidently Persian-speakers; Akbar did not even know Chaghatay - he had to translate his grandfather's memos into Persian to read them! Later, the Mughals were evidently Urdu speaking!)

I do not know why certain users keep putting that POV paragraph into the article. They claim that it is sourced ... but not all sources are good. Why do they ignore the whole bunch of other, mostly authoritative sources (such as the works of Prof. B.F. Manz, THE leading expert on Timurid and Turco-Mongol history; see: B.F. Manz, "Tīmūr Lang", in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Online Edition, 2006)?! They only stick to certain versions of the Britannica ... only those that suite them. They totally ignore other sections of Britannica that actually have a totally different opinion on the issue. For example this one:

• "... Baber: The first Mughal, or Mongol, emperor of India (1526–30) and founder of the Mughal Dynasty there was Baber. He also won distinction as a military commander, a gifted poet and diarist, a statesman, and an adventurer. As ruler of the principality of Fergana in Turkestan, his birthplace, Baber first tried to recover Samarkand, the former capital of the empire founded by his Mongol ancestor Timur Lang ..." [42]

The Columbia Encyclopedia states:

• "... Timur (timoor') or Tamerlane (tăm'urlān), c.1336–1405, Mongol conqueror, b. Kesh, near Samarkand. ..." [43]

• "... Akbar (ăk'bär) [key], 1542–1605, Mughal emperor of India (1556–1605); son of Humayun, grandson of Babur. ... Although he was himself illiterate, Akbar's courts at Delhi, Agra, and Fatehpur Sikri were centers of the arts, letters, and learning. He was much impressed with Persian culture, and because of him the later Mughal empire bore an indelible Persian stamp. ..."[44]

One of the most important and strongest sources - only second to Prof. B.F. Manz's article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam - is the article of Prof. F. Lehmann in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Referring to Babur, he states:

• "... His origin, milieu, training, and culture were steeped in Persian culture and so Babor was largely responsible for the fostering of this culture by his descendants, the Mughals of India, and for the expansion of Persian cultural infleunce in the Indian subcontinent, with brilliant literary, artistic, and historiographical results ..." PDF download

The paragraph about the Mughals should be removed. Even IF some people believe that they should be listed, only because their FIRST ruler (Babur) wrote his memoires in Turkic, the paragraph should be removed because it's controversial. Memoires do not prove anything, especially in regard of the fact that Humayun's biography is written in Persian (by his sister Gulbadan Begum), and that Shah Bahadur II is known as one of the greatest Urdu poets!

There are no historical documents porving the claim that the Mughals were a "Turkic people" ... NONE of the official state-documents of the empire was in ANY Turkic language, NONE of the ruling kings is known as a Turkic writer, nationalists, or whatever. If someone disputes these facts, he should provide reliable sources!

In no way the Mughals were a "Turkic people" ... neither in origin, nor in ethnicity, culture, language, or influence. Tājik 10:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I was against removing the infobox earlier, however since it has been pointed out to me that a similar infobox was removed at Iranian peoples, I think that it would not be a problem if it were removed and replaced with some other images of Turkic culture in general. The article needs extensive work in any case... Baristarim 14:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be enough pictures, wouldnt it clutter up the article to include more?Azerbaijani 22:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

See my explanation at #The infobox. Khoikhoi 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)