Talk:Turkic peoples

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Тухья анат енчи.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pavlodar-Moschea.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

Uzbeks are 34million in Uzbekistan, 10 million in Afghanistan, 2.5million in Kyrgyzstan, 3million in Kazakhstan, 2.9million in Russia, 500 thousand in Turkmenistan, 3 million in Tajikistan, 300 Thousand in Pakistan with 100 Thousand in Saudi Arabia with 100 thousand in US which is 56,400,000 Komiliy (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Belwine (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kudaibergen in Moscow (49442429177).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Missing ethnic group?

The Chelkans don't appear on the page yet.--101.98.133.254 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

″== Edit warring and inclusion of off-topic material and fringe blond blue eyed Turks ==

Recently two (!) editors included similar material claiming early Turkic people were partially "blond blue eyed warriors" and cite a reference with a quote about a small number of Xiongnu individuals. Another paragraph talks about the Kipchak rather than early Turks.

I have reverted these additions and requested that these users should read and understand WP:TOPIC, WP:OR, and WP:Weight, as well as WP:RS and WP:Verify. See:

Than these two users started to revert in rotation with suddenly a third new user starting to delete and change content in the lead, stating that "Turks are not Chinese". He simply deleted the mention of "agricultural societies in Northeast China", which is WP:POV. See:

Than I included content from the article Tiele and Ashina tribe about the description and historical attestation of early Turks, which the disputed section actually is about. See:

There are clear rules regarding the topic and reliable references, see WP:RS and WP:TOPIC.Turukkaean (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging long-term editors of this article based on the latest 250 edits: @Erminwin, @Wario-Man, @Qiushufang, @HistoryofIran. Please check this out.Turukkaean (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't add the original physical description stuff or Xiongnu stuff, but you should not edit war or accuse quotes being faked [1][2]. This is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

As for the issue at hand, Turkic is a language family so it's not surprising there were different types of people. This is nothing fringe:

“ 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.p. 18 in this book by Carter V. Findley

”

The source you are adding also talks about the same thing [3]:

“ In this article, we conducted a comparative analysis of textual information provided in Chinese histories and genetic survey data on the origins, identity and physiognomy of the early and medieval Turkic peoples. As discussed above, the official Chinese histories do not view the Turkic peoples such as the Tiele/Uighur, Kök Türks (Tujue) and Qirghiz as belonging to a single uniform entity called ‘Turks’. Instead, they describe them as forming separate identities. The Chinese histories also depict the Turkic-speaking peoples as typically possessing East/Inner Asian physiognomy, as well as occasionally having West Eurasian physiognomy. dna studies corroborate such characterisation of the Turkic peoples. While it is true that insufficient amounts of ancient dna samples have been studied, one may still infer from the given genetic data that the early and medieval Turkic peoples possessed dissimilar sets of Y-chromosome haplogroups with different representative haplogroups, some of which were of West Eurasian origin. ”

Now after your edits the above source is misrepresented as: "University of Toronto historians Joo-Yup Lee and Shuntu Kuang conclude, based on genetic data and historical Chinese', Persian' and Arab' initial descriptions of contemporary Turkic peoples, that Turkic peoples initially "possess[ed] East Asian physiognomy"." [4]. This is WP:Original Research Bogazicili (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

So what to do? I will make now some edits reincluding parts. What to do with the off topic part? It is clearly a violation of WP:Topic, so to show good faith you should delete it yourself, as you actually agreed that this is about Xiongnu rather than Turkic peoples.Turukkaean (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, you should stop edit warring and propose all changes on the talk page. Second, I think the current version of the article is better than what you are trying to change as it reflects the sources better. If you are going to add Lee and Kuang 2017, it should not be misrepresented.

I do think the article overall needs to be improved, there are too many original research parts even in the lead and too many primary sources. As for Xiongnu, I just said I didn't add it myself. You can argue if Xiongnu is off-topic with the editors on the talk page, I didn't look at all the sources myself. Bogazicili (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, you reincluded the content several times and now say that you did not look at the sources yourself? Seriously? I am currently improving the article with smaller edits, so anyone can verify the additions. The current version was not better as the user TengriidBogd has deleted parts of the referenced lead without a reliable reason. Further, I included clarification tags, which are an improvement. Anyway, I have already pinged other users to join here and help us to improve the article together. I hope we can find a solution, but looking at the edit history you hopefully understand my concern with users trying to claim that early Turks were "blond blue eyed warriors".Turukkaean (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Further, I think it would be more useful to use the linguistic map which I included, as it shows the minority groups in not recognized regions too. Any objections? Note: I did not deleted the contested content, but tagged in with a clarification needed tag.Turukkaean (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is already a massive Xiongnu section, and I didn't go through all those sources in Turkic_peoples#Xiongnu_(3rd_c._BCE_–_1st_c._CE). You selectively removed those relating to physical appearance only for some reason.

Again you misrepresented sources [5]. Lee and Kuang 2017 doesn't say "later". They specifically say: "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)." Also they are not University of Toronto historians, I don't see them in the faculty list. You also added another incorrect failed verification tag [6]. You also added an entire wall of text [7], some of which should have been in etymology section. I mean all those edits are a mess.

And no, I don't think anyone is saying all Turkic people were "blond blue eyed warriors". Sources are just saying there were different types of people and even the initial turkic speaking people were diverse.Bogazicili (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I will shorten these and remove the later. Regarding the map, what do you think? I will move the etymology parts in the correct location and or delete them. Thank you for the note regarding Lee & Kuang. I copied it from Oghuz Turks, and did not pay attention if the academics are from this university or not. Regarding the last point, nearly all references agree that the early Turks descend from Northeast Asian groups and later got in contact with others, so the initial Turks were not diverse, other than we argue that the Göktürks are the initial Turks, as you quoted yourself from Lee & Kuang. Anyway, thank you for the productive discussion and teamwork.Turukkaean (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

And no, the sourced which talk about some "blond blue eyed warriors" is actually talking about the Xiongnu, not the early Turks. This is also WP:OR.Turukkaean (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)