Talk:Turkic peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkic peoples article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Why is there no discussion of the accuracy dispute?

? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.132.81 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Images of People Should Go

Some contributors must have taken it too literary. There are images of people who supposedly are the representative samples of Turkic peoples. This is not what this article should be about. Anyone who compares Germanic peoples, Slavic peoples, Celtic peoples with this article would notice the contrast.Nostradamus1 (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The term "Turkic" is not realistic

--- the word "Turkic" is used since the late 1950's in European culture, and it was first created by USSR governments of those dates. Simply the word was used to seperate the Turkish Clans and emphasize they were not descended from the same origin, were just talking a language in similarities. The aim was to assimilate the Turkish population in the rule of USSR and to easy the resistance of their cultural behaviour. And also the term itself was translated in Turkish as "Turki", meaning not exactly Turk, similar to, looks like Turk. As in many topics of Wikipedia, some informations about Turkish Clans are open to dispute; as in Slavic Tribes article. Bulgarians are shown in Slavic origin and the former clans of Bulgarians as Kumans, Pecheneks are not mentioned to be Turk. But if you inspect further on the topic and go on for the links on those Tribe names you can clearly find out that they were Turkish Tribes and not Turkic; and you can get this information just by wikipedia again, which seems to be a big dilemma to me. Because they were Turkish "Boy" (= Clan ) fighting in the order of the ancient Seljuk Emperor Keykubat, and migrated towards the lands in Caucasia and then into the East Europe. Also it is clearly known that Turkish Tribes migrated towards Europe and founded the Empire of European Huns aswell. So shortly after all those arguments i want to make clear that the term "Turkic" means "Turk" and the term "Turk" does not only mean the ethnicity of Turkey's Turks, it covers all those tribes which said to be "Turkic". Turkey is a country founded after the Ottoman Empire and Ottoman Emp. was founded after Anatolian Seljuk Empire also which is the continuation of Great Seljuk Empire; all those empires were formed and ruled by several Turkish Tribes but dominantly the Oguz Turks who are a clan of Tukish Nation in ethnicity. I think this needs a correction by the way.--- Drsecancan 11:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

hi. this article relates a claim that the word "turkish" applies to all turks, and the distiction between turkish and turkic is an artificial one. article also says there is a counter-claim that says: 1) the first claim only used to support the racial theories of Pan-Turkism --> this needs good documentation and i believe it is a POV. 2) pointing out that the differences among the separate governmental administrations, as well as cultural, religious, historical, and even racial differences, are too great to speak of any political unity --> whereas there is nothing in the first claim speaking about a political unity. so this second point is irrelevant. so the second claim is pointless. i tried to write this point in the article. user Nareklm puts a "citation needed" tag there. i believe this is a logical following of the first two claims which had no citation themselves. so i think we should rather find citation for the first and second arguments. Filanca 09:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The See Also Section

The See Also section is for related topics, not lists of all the Turkic peoples. The article currently does have a list of Turkic speaking peoples.Azerbaijani 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mughals are not Turkic

The Mughals were a branch of the Timurid dynasty of Central Asia, who were of Mongolian descent (Timur was a direct descendant of Ghengis Khan) and Persian culture. Therefore there is no reason to even discuss the Mughals on this page. 65.186.219.95 17:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Timur was not a direct descendant of Genghis Khan. But he was a member and the head of the Mongol Barlas clan. The Timurids were (at the beginning) highly Turkicized and (later) highly Persianized, but you are correct: they were of Mongol descent. Tājik 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mughals, yes, the name implies that they are mongols but this is just what the arabs and the persians called them and hence the english name Mughal that we use now. But the fact is that they are not quite mongols and one can deduct that they are more of Turkic origins from first hand sources. Firstly to clear this up please take a look at the Baburname (Babur's book), that Babur the founder of the Mughals wrote, look at what he has said about himself, clan and his origins, and then notice the fact that the whole book is written in the Chagtai language which is a nomadic Turkic language, and not a persian nor a mongol language.

[edit] Mughal Founder Babur Said He was Turkic

Mughals -a name that is often mistaken for Mongols- are without any doubt Turkic because the founder of the dynasty and the Mughal Empire Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur indicated this in his own words in Baburnama -his autobiography. The word moghul is employed in the Baburnama and elsewhere for the Turkicized descendants of Genghis Khan's Mongols. However,

  1. Babur was not a Moghul: In Baburnama he often refers to the Moghuls as "they". For example, he wrote:

    The Moghul troops who had come as reinforcements had no endurance for battle. They left the battle and begun to unhorse and plunder our own men. It was not just here they did this: these wretched Moghuls always do this. If they win they take booty; if they lose they unhorse their own people and plunder them for booty.

  2. Babur was a Turk: He wrote

    Since we had always had in mind to take Hindustan, we regarded as our own territory the several areas of Bhera, Khushab, Chenab, and Chiniot, which had long been in the hands of the Turk. We were determined to gain control ourselves -be it by force or peaceful means- and therefore it behooved us to treat the mountain people well. … We attached those who came who had come to Abdul-Rahim Shiqvul and sent them to Bhera to gain the trust of the Bhera people. ‘These districts have long belonged to the Turk’, we said. ‘Beware lest the men give them cause for fear to bring ruin upon them, for our regard is upon this district and its people. There will be no pillage or plunder.’ Baburnama, pp. 271-272,

    Before the siege of Bayana -‘one of the most famous fortresses in Hindustan’- Babur composed extemporaneously and sent along the following poem:

    Trifle not with the Turk, O Mir of Bayana
    For the agility and bravery of the Turk are obvious.
    If you do not come soon and listen to reason
    What need is there for clarification of the obvious?

    --Nostradamus1 (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lukas19

I checked the WP:Verify website. It reads:

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the [citation needed] template, or tag the article by adding
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2007)

or

 This article does not cite any references or sources. (March 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.[1]'

Also, I checked the link, but that link works with cookies. Please tell me your search terms, so I can search. I tried searching for "Hungarian", but got more than 2000 links (as I should have guessed).

"87% European" does not contradict the removed statement, eg. Hungarians can be >=87% 'Uralian', as well. Ethnic Turks in Turkey may have roots in Central Asia, but genetically they are mostly Mediterranean.

--deniz 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Ethnic Turks" do NOT have their roots in Central Asia - their language and only a handful of direct descendents from Ottoman rulers do have. And most Hungarians are genetically the same as their neighbors. The rest are just medieval legends about heroic mass migrations and population replacements that in fact never happened in such a scale. KelilanK 18:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced

This article cites almost nothing thats written here...and there are citation tags from a long long time ago and no one has made an effort to cite anything. Massive POV sections of this article should be deleted. What do you guys think? Maybe we can rewrite it an make it better.Azerbaijani 03:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turks in Chinese society

[edit] Bulgars in europe

From the article it states

"Other Bulgars settled in Europe in the 7th-8th centuries, exchanging their original Turkic tongue for what eventually became the Slavic Bulgarian language"

This not actually quite right. It goes far beyond exchanging their original Turkic language for a new slavic one. The turkic bulgars were totally and completely assimilated by the slavic population of the balkans. This occurred dramatically quickly. The bulgars probably became a ruling clan over the numerically superior slav tribes in what is now modern bulgaria and romania. They 'ruled', but adopted slavic names, language and christianity. They interbred with the locals. Most historians beleive that the "Turkishness' of the Bulgars was lost as rapidly as one or two generations. Hxseek 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It took much longer than two generations for the Turkic Bulgars to become the Slavic Bulgarians. There is not a clear date but some historians consider the Boris I who came to power in 865 to be the first Bulgarian king. However the Turkic elements in the Bulgar kingdom survived well into the reign of Simeon I, -the Great-. Boris I had converted to Christianity, however, his successor son Vladimir resented this and reverted back to the traditional Turkic ways. He was deposed and replaced by his brother, Simeon I -who had been trained to become a priest in Constantinople. So it is quite clear than the Turkic customs of Bulgars were still present among the 10th century Bulgar/Bulgarians which is more than a generation or two given that the Bulgarian kingdom was established in 681.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hazaras

Why are the Hazaras of central Afghanistan not listed here as turkic people here? They are persian speakers and many historians accept that they are of turkic background. they themselves accept it as well. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.125.136.79 (talk • contribs) 10:56, August 10, 2007 (ITC) – Please sign your posts!

The origin of the Hazara people is not clear; there are various theories, and the "Turkic" theory is not a strong contender in the field, for lack of evidence.  --Lambiam 10:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

Before laying blames and adding OR material without sources in pan-Turkism section, it would be worth to gather some sources to support the claims. Added the tags, so that contributors can discuss their edits instead of fighting over OR material. Atabek 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional subchapters

Hello, before I start adding stubs to the table of contents, I would like to hear editor's opinions. Substantial components of the Turkic history and peculiar traits belong under the general header "Turkic peoples", and not listing them, at least as stubs to be developed separately, results in a scanty picture. Some of these are, not necessarily in the same order:

Ethnology

What makes one group different from the other, in historical records and archeology:

Tradition of water desinfection methods: alcohol (kumiss) vs boiling (tea)

Sedentary water desinfection vs nomadic water desinfection

Tradition of home construction

Tradition of nomadic home construction

Burial traditions, and kurgan burials, and funerary sculpture

Animal style artistic traditions, multi-color traditions, color-studded jewelry

Relations between sexes

Structure of Religion/clergy/different religions followed accross centuries

Structure of Shamanism/clergy

Dress - boots, trousers, kaftans, kalpaks, klobuks etc

Peculiar male urination

Peruliar gesticulation (yes/no)

Mercenary culture

Symbiotic with neighbours (Sedentaries)

Leadership with neighbours

Trade vs war

Use of trade as a political tool in dealing with Turkic peoples, etc.

Etymology

In the past, at any given time existed people that spoke Turkic dialects, but never knew to call themselves Turkic. What were these general terms before the 6th century, what were other general terms synonymous with the today's "Turkic" after the 6th century.

Colonial and racistic terminology used for Turkic peoples.

Thanks, Barefact 19:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Turkic-speaking countries and autonomous areas

Map of Turkic-speaking countries and autonomous areas.

This map is very inaccurate. It mentiones Kosovo has the official language of Turkish (Turkish of Turkey). It is obvious that Kosovo speaks Albanian and Serbian. Babakexorramdin 14:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a Turkish-speaking community in Prizren, and our article on the Turkish language states that Turkish has an official status there. A news article claiming official status was conferred on Turkish "in Kosovo" is here.  --Lambiam 07:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I should check this info by other sources Especially "Turkish was declared official in Kosovo in 1974, but the U.N. administration in Kosovo removed it from the official languages in 1999. " thanks for providing this newspaper report. I appreciate it. --Babakexorramdin 09:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grey wolves

I removed the image of "Youths supporting Grey Wolves movement" in the section on Pan-Turkism, but it was re-added (without edit summary). The problem is that nothing in the article relates the text of the article with the image. Even the main article on Pan-Turkism makes no mention of Grey Wolves or the MHP. If anything, this should be dealt with in the main article before it is referred to here, and even then there should be some explanation relating the image and the text. And before that, the text should be cleaned-up, without weasel words and with proper references. For now, I'll remove the image again.  --Lambiam 17:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

why dont you remove pics from this page? why dont you leave us alone? you are not a writer, you cant be a writer either, you are just a poor vandalists. --88.233.22.230 13:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Calling me a "vandalist" is a personal attack, which is against Wikipedia policy. Please read No personal attacks. Why don't you instead react to the arguments I give above for not including the picture?  --Lambiam 17:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
sorry to interrupt. I try to find a workable sollution. I have in no way sympathy for the Grey Wolves. Not at all. But I think that we should not hide the truth, how painful it might be. The far right Grey Wolves/ MHP do have some support in Turkey and they do have their proxies outside Turkey. Speculatively we can say that some source of finance is funding them. It is of course not true that a majority of Turks support them but they have some sympathy within the far right extremist circles in turkey and their supporters elsewhere. I think the picture of Turks with the sign of Grey wolvs should be accompanied by such a text that this phenomenon is not pervasive but neverthles does exist. --Babakexorramdin 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
But don't you agree that it is strange to put such information here even before it is even mentioned in any form in the Pan-Turkism article, a much more obvious target for such information? For the topic "Pan-Turkism" the ideology of MHP/Grey wolves is clearly relevant – although, in my opinion, of relatively minor importance. For the topic "Turkic peoples" by itself this is really a bit of a side issue, and trying to insert a proper explanation there carries the risk of giving it undue prominence.  --Lambiam 21:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes it should be mentioned first in Panturkism article. --Babakexorramdin 09:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citations, accuracy and neutrality.

the tags were not for nothing. Honestly I do not think that by citations the quality will be improved. A lot said here was influenced by the Turkish far right groups's views such as the grey wolves. (they are recently removed from the article, I do not agree with this, because we should not hide the realty. They exist, this is the reality). To be short: there is a problem with the whole article. CITATIONS COULD BE FROM bOGUS SOURCES. THERE IS A LOT TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE. --Babakexorramdin 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Or anyone provides a proof that it is a Turkish dance and not Caucasian, or I remove it. The dance is Caucasian, performed in Turkey or not. There are many Indian, Chinese, etc... dances performed daily in London, Paris, or Berlin and noone calls them English, French or German dances. I have waied too long already and I think it is not good for the quality of this article.--Babakexorramdin 13:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the picture is from the Ardahan governorate does not make the dance Turkish. Better face it Ardahan is a town in which lived mainly Georgians, Armenians and Azeris, nowadays there live there Kurds too. Better name the things with the real names. --Babakexorramdin 09:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The image caption says "Turkish dancers" in Ardahan, it does not state that dancers performing a "Turkish dance" in Ardahan. Regards. E104421 15:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
And exactly for the reason you mentioned it is not appropriate for this section. It is misleading. By Turkish in this sense is meant citizens of Turkey and not necessarily the ethnic Turks.--Babakexorramdin 13:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Discuss the issue with the uploader of the image. Turkish people are defined more by a sense of sharing a common Turkish culture and having a Turkish mother tongue by citizenship. I do not understand why you go so ballistic with that. E104421 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
simply because it is not a Turkish folk dance. it can be Armenian/ Azeri or even Georgian but not Turkish or Kurdish.I wonder why a Physician should have such ethnically intolerant and politically totaliran POVs? And why this aversion against anything Iranian? Relax man, most of Turks and Iranians like each other. Put your personal grudges aside. At least if you are a Turk! --Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do I understand most of Azeri, Uzbek and others as I only speak Turkish?

only dispute! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.32.22 (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem? Azeri and Turkish are closely related, and to a large extent mutually intelligible. Uzbek is also a Turkic language, but in the group of East Turkic languages and therefore a more distant relative. If you only speak Turkish, Uzbek should be a bit harder to understand than Azeri.  --Lambiam 10:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversals

I removed these two sections [1], one of them completely devoid of content, the other pure OR, unsourced and poorly written, both of dubious relevance to the topic. My edit was reverted by an anon IP without even an edit summary. I'll be reinstating my edit soon unless a good explanation is forthcoming. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


stop the vandalism please Future Perfect at Sunrise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.152.191 (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] warning against removal of wikiproject Iran ffrom this page.

Strike-through text

It is very funny that someone with Grey Wolves poanturkist far right affiliation removes wikiproject Iran from this page. It is funy because at least some 24/30 percent of Iranians speak a Turkic language. Morever Panturkists and their anti/Iranianists such as Brenda Shaffer always complain that Iran does not pay enough attention to its Turkic culture as it should. Now when Iranians do pay attention to Turkic issues they remove it out of jelousy. THISIS VANDALISM AND IS DRIVEN BY HATRED--Babakexorramdin 14:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not "vandalism" in a strict sense, but certainly disruptive, POV-driven, against consensus and ultimately blockable. Let me know if he causes problems again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that WP removals can be driven by POV, but I would like to note for the record that such posts are a really thin line on WP:CIVIL. Babakexorramdin, such posts do not contribute to the creation of a healthy working environnement. cheers Baristarim 08:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not know why are you deffending the vandalism or whatever of the anonymous author. I beleive I did a right thing to bring up the issue. --Babakexorramdin 11:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not defending any vandalism by a long shot, but two wrongs don't make a right: try to keep your posts or complaints as civil as possible please. This goes for everyone. That's all. Your post was way too agressive and not civil. A simple "Why did someone remove WP Iran template?" would have sufficed - no need to shout about someone named Brenda Shaffer or the supposed or probable motivations of an anon who did no more than remove a template in a talk page. You could have simply put it back yourself without even leaving a huge note about it, really.Baristarim 11:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
No dear I meant something else and you know it better. That guy whom you supported wrote what da Fuck is Iran. Interestingly you supported him, came out of anger and tagged Khorassani Turkic, denying its name and call it Khorasani TurkiSh (like the grey wolves d0-) and now you are supporting Brenda Shaffer the main Anti-Iranianist pseudo-scholar. It all points to one direction: Anti-Iranianism. There is more to say but it suffices here. Sorry if you are not a far right/ anti-Iranianist, in that case you better could not deffend them/ act the way you did. --Babakexorramdin 10:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)--Babakexorramdin 10:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the user 88.240.152.191

The user 88.240.152.191, whom I suspect to be the same as Baristarim should be watched carefully. I think that Grey wolves have a place to be mentioned but not more than that. As a Grey wolf/ far rigfht extremist he should also respect other people with other ideological backgrounds. Wikipedia should not become a place for propaganda. These Grey Wolves/ MHP have plenty of sites they do not need to hijack wikipedia. Wikipedia should remain as a reliable source of info rather than a propaganda machine. Either he/ his team respect this or he should be banned. --Babakexorramdin 07:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maps need fixing

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[edit] Again the Ardahan Picture

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

  • Please, discuss the issue with the uploader of the image. I'm sure the uploader will provide you the details better than everybody. As i already explained above, the image caption says "Turkish dancers" in Ardahan. The name or the origin of the dance is not mentioned there. In this context, there is nothing wrong. If you're more concerned in the details, contact with the uploader instead of disputing/reverting. Regards. E104421 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Man, Im saying that I wanted to check it with the source but there was no sucha picture there. And if there was such a picture it does not mean that it is an Anatolian Turkish dance. Every one sees it is a Caucasian one. I DO THINK that in the list there is a picture needed which represents Turks of Turkey, but a Picture which is representative. If you have such a picture upload it please. I have no idea who has been the uploader of this image. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Contact with the uploader of the image. That's quite simple. Go to the image page, and find the username of the uploader. Post a message. Regards. E104421 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I went there and saw that you put your comments there, so lets give him time to reply. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
And? It cannot be unresolved for ages.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] What was wrong with expanding the caption?

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

Turkmen girl.

to

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

The reason is that this makes clear to the reader, who may look at the image first, how the image relates to the subject of the article. In the text the first mention of the Turkmens as a people is only many screens and sections down, in section number 6 on History. However, this change was reverted, without edit summary.[2] Why?  --Lambiam 08:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't edit war over the picture

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

I already asked this to the user who insist on his choice. In my oppinion there should be no picture at the top of the article with a face of a person. Turkic people are a diverse group. There is a gallery at the bottom which should be sufficient. This article needs a lot of improvement and that is not going to happen by including more images.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The image was put there on November 11 by an anon[3] but immediately reverted[4], and again put there on December 5[5] and again reverted[6] and again[7] and again[8] and again[9] and again[10] and again[11] and again[12] and again[13] and again[14] and again[15] and again[16] and again[17] and again[18] and again[19] and again[20]. Then we had some peace until one editor decided: "I like this one better".[21] That is clearly a very strong argument. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same taste, and there we go again[22] and... But look now! The editor who "liked the other one better" apparently thinks: "my face or no face"[23], which is reverted[24] and again re-reverted[25] and again[26] and ...
Look, it takes (at least) two to edit war, and who exactly is it who "insist[s] on his choice"? Don't we see two editors, both of whom insist on their choice, but are unable to engage in any meaningful discussion on the issue(which should ake place on the talk page of the article)? Don't you see how totally lame this edit war is?  --Lambiam 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The person who commented "I like this one better" was me. This was to emphasize the subjectiveness of insisting on a particular face. There are many articles linked here. The face of a Turkmen or Uygur girl is not going to represent the Turkic peoples. A geographical distribution map or a picture of some other common cultural element would serve better the article.Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There are articles concerning ethnic groups of peoples that do not open with an image of a member or members of one of the groups, but there are also articles that do, such as Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Indigenous peoples in Brazil, Indigenous peoples in Colombia, Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Puebloan peoples, and Tai peoples. Quite similarly, in many articles on specific peoples only one or a group of individuals is shown, as for example for Arab, Azerbaijani people (a featured article), Circassians, and Gagauz people. While it is true that none "represents" the entirety in the sense of being representative of all, I don't see why that is a problem in these articles, and I don't see why it should be a problem here. The text "The Turkmen people are one of many Turkic peoples" should make that clear even to the less astute reader.  --Lambiam 11:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Your comparison of the Turkic peoples with the Thai, Azerbaijani, etc. tells me you place them all in the same group. This article is about "Turkic Peoples" -PLURAL. It is a different kind of a grouping. It is concerning to me that you make such a compsrison. You seem to be involved in articles related to Turkic people . Uninformed contributors with a NPOV can have their effect too .Compare Turkic Peoples with Germanic Peoples, Slavic Peoples . Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You ignore the argument, and instead resort to an ad hominem argument. However, unlike you suggest, I did not compare the Turkic peoples with the Thai, Azerbaijani, etc., but only the use of the image in ths article with the use of an image in several other articles that represents a single element of the group that is the topic of the article. I clearly, and purposely, labelled this with "similarly". And furthermore, just like "Turkic peoples" is plural, so are "Aboriginal peoples in Canada", "Indigenous peoples in Brazil", "Indigenous peoples in Colombia", "Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast", "Puebloan peoples", and "Tai peoples". Several of these groups of peoples are much more inhomogeneous than the Turkic peoples.  --Lambiam 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not ignore the argument. What is the argument? Your comparison of Turkic people with Indigenous Peoples of Brasil is revealing. Whether you are doing with intention or out of ignorance this article is suffering from it. We have a user insisting on a picture that resembles the "indigenous" natives of North America claiming that other similar articles have images too. You are fine with it. I say this (Turkic people ) article should not have images of people -pushed mostly by some nationalists with limited English skills. It should be written in a manner similar to articles for Celtic, Germanic, or Slavic peoples that also have a language family in addition to multiple related past and contemporary nations. Nostradamus1 (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Kipchaks Under Turkic Peoples Links

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

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

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

[edit] Image:GokturkFlag.png

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

  • There are sources about the flag (e.g. Lev Gumilev ... etc.) as explained in the talk page of the image (here). However, i wonder whether there exists sources claiming the contrary (this flag is not the Gokturk's flag). Unless it's falsified, i'm in favor of keeping the image. It's sourced (Gumilev is a well-known expert on Turkic history) and informative about the mythological symbols used by the Gokturks. Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
E104421, I disagree with you regarding flag being sourced. Gumilev's study regarding the use of a wolf's head for a totem and the look and design of the flag from the Flags of the World website are totally separate things. The flag is unsourced. The Flags of the World website even uses the word "alleged" in reference to the flag. Using Gumilev as a source for the flag is like trying to reconstruct the US flag based upon the common description "stars and stripes". --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A flag featuring a wolf's head is more descriptive than "stars and stripes" where there can be many arrangements. I wonder if there is a source about the color though. Filanca (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the point. A flag featuring a wolf's head ISN'T more descriptive. For example, which direction is the head supposed to be looking? Which area of the flag is the head supposed to be placed in? And as you pointed out, what colors are supposed to be used? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Besides, were the teeth visible, and if so which ones? How long were the ears compared to the rest of the head? My point is, unless we have a copy of this flag, which is impossible to find, there may be no description good enough for an exact reconstruction. All current images drawn out of descriptions are only representations, just to visualise something, to get as close as possible to the thing described. By the way, I dont think all flags of Gokturks were exactly the same as each other in a time and place where there was not internet or pringing presses. As for color, I think blue is for the sake of "Gokturk" name but as for green, I have no idea. Filanca (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Point taken, but you must realize that no one has any clue as to what fair description the Office of the President of Turkey is even using to create such a flag. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)