Talk:Turkic peoples

; Archives
	Archive 1; Archive 2; ; ; ;

Template:Talkheaderlong

Turkey B‑class High‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Central Asia Unassessed

	Asia portal Turkic peoples is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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).[reply]

Why the Hazaras 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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Hazaras of central Afghanistan are a turkic group who I think should be listed here.

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 or . 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Turks in Chinese society

"Turks in Chinese society" "Exchanges between East Asians and Central Asians in China"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]