Talk:Turkic peoples

New content wrongly removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qiushufang

This was removed while being probably cited:

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

The above is directly copied from Lee and Kuang!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dingling

This is in the wiki:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misrepresentation or incorrect representation of sources

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

This edit by BaiulyQz also seems problematic [8]:

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

What this wiki article currently says:

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

What the source actually says:

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

[9]

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

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

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

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

If you read it actually says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The full quote from Uchiyama:

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

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

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

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

In any case, sources are clear:

Findley, p. 18:

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

Lee and Kuang:

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

Also Lee and Kuang

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

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

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

Even Uchiyama et al suggests something similar:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As well as:

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

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

And why cite Golden 2006 when we have Golden 2018

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

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