Talk:Turkic peoples

Scythians

are an Iranian tribe, with little or not established connection to Turks. It is a well known "fact" that Turkic people share the same root with Mongolids. The so-called Scythian connection is a rather new creation of Turkish pan-Turks. Genetics studies have proven that Turkish people belong to Mediterranean genetic pool and not Iranic. DO NOT put propaganda into a wikipedia article, and please present """RELIABLE SOURCES""".

if we consider all nations that invaded by mongolians as mongoloid then greeks are mongoloids too . i suggest you to check real history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.106.93 (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop including the Xiongnu in the list of Turkic peoples and cultures in the article

It is not yet established for certain what the relationships between the Xiongnu and the (later) Turkic peoples were, so it is incorrect to include the Xiongnu in a list of Turkic peoples. Most scholars today believe the Xiongnu were a confederation of different ethnic and linguistic groups - not an homogeneous people with one language. The most that can be said is that some modern Turkic groups may (and probably do) have one or more of the groups from the Xiongnu confederation among their ancestors. So, please, do not keep reinserting them into the list after I have removed them. Thank you, John Hill (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Most scholars? René Grousset (in L'empire des steppes, Attila, Gengis-Khan, Tamerlan) and Pelliot were considered standard references on the subject but they were not among your scholars sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.175.32.106 (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Rene Grousset and Pelliot belong to the early 20thc century academia and at the present cannot be considered 'standard' on this subject - they do represent aged scholarship, especially in light of newer discoveries from Central Asia... got to call for younger scholarship to prove your point - :) DarioTW (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

More on whether the Xiongnu were Turkic, and recent edits

I noticed that the anonymous User 94.54.245.56 has again reversed my removal of the Xiongnu from a list of Turkic peoples and accused me in his/her note of vandalism. Now, I certainly don't want to get into an edit war, and I don't want to hurt people's feelings, but the fact remains that there is general agreement amongst scholars that it is impossible to be certain of a direct Xiongnu-Turk connection (nor is it at all certain what the ethnic and linguistic connections of the Xiongnu were. The Xiongnu may well have be made up of tribes with different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds.

I think if user 94.54.245.56 would look carefully at the well-referenced edits I have made recently, I have made it clear that, although most scholars believe that there is no proof of a Xiongnu-Turk connection, and there is no way the Xiongnu can be fairly listed among Turkic tribes, as there is no evidence that the Xiongnu, there is suggestive evidence pointing to the probability of a connection between the Xiongnu and some modern Turkic groups, and that they may have been among the ancestors of some Turks.

I have summed up the evidence of possible Xiongnu-Turk connections with a quote from Carter Vaughn Findley's 2005 book, The Turks in World History. Published by Oxford University Press. I believe it is gives a fair assessment of the situation:

"All that can be said with certainty is that

". . . the earliest clearly Turkic peoples appeared on the peripheries of the late Xiongnu Empire. Peoples associated with it also spread far to the west, if, as often thought, what the Europeans called the Huns were an extension of the Xiongnu. If not their ethnic progenitors, then, the Xiongnu had manifold ties to the later Turks."

If User 94.54.245.56 does not agree with this assessment, would he or she please discuss the matter here on this page rather than continuing to just delete my edits and refer to them as vandalism? I would be happy to discuss the issues with you to try to resolve this issue. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify the differences between the Xiongnu and the Turks once again

I notice the same anonymous user, User 94.54.245.56, has seen fit to reverse my changes once again, (without discussing it first here on this page as I had invited him or her to do) and again refers to my edit as "vandalism". I object to this - particularly as I had asked this person to discuss the evidence openly here first.

I have no trouble at all accepting that the Xiongnu (or at least some part(s) of them) were among the ancestors of the Turkic peoples - they definitely were. What I object to is people calling the Xiongnu "Turks" or "Turkic". It is sort of like saying that the Moors were Spanish. The Moors conquered Spain and held it (if I remember correctly) for about 400 years. They intermarried freely with the Spanish, particularly in the south, and many Spanish families are still very proud of their Moorish heritage. The Moors were thus clearly among the ancestors of modern Spanish people, but to call the Moors Spanish is a nonsense, and very misleading. We have to be very careful making points like this to be sure we are accurate, or history quickly becomes distorted.

It is this point that I cannot seem to get across here on the Wikipedia. It does no one any credit to call the Xiongnu "Turks" - but this is not to deny a very close connection and the fact that many Turks are descended (at least in part) from the Xiongnu. These are my reasons for taking the Xiongnu Empire out of the list of Turkic peoples.

Please discuss this here with me - I feel sure we can come to an accurate compromise with a slight change of wording. I would, for example, be totally in agreement with a statement that the Xiongnu and the later Turks had very close ties and were related. But to say that the Xiongnu were Turks or Turkic is (I believe) really stretching the truth. I won't make any changes now to the article until I hear back on this issue, or unless I don't hear anything for some time (say, a week or so). Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide

Should be included in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.115.115 (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I see no constructive reason to include that here. Why not add to all the English people, Scottish people, Irish people, French people, German people, et. al., pages the genocide of Native Americans?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No they killed too many people. Article should have the fact that Turkic people are responsible for many killings around the globe. In fact they probably have the biggest number of dead innocents to account for. 88.254.134.11 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You are sick and you even do not know the difference between Turkish and Turkic. Maybe we should add Hojali massacre into every topic related to the Armenian history, Armenia, diaspora and Armenian church --hnnvansier (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

İs there a "Holocoust" section in "Germanic People" page? No, so why should this article be any different?

That is very rude and hostile and racist and nonconstructive to sat turks "killed so many people" 65.190.131.222 (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think most Europeans in the Americas would agree that there were horrible atrocities committed against the native peoples through out the "New World" it is well documented. Most of the Natives of the "New World" were kill by "Old World Diseases" because they had no internal immunities the "Native American disease and epidemics" Wiki article says most tribes experienced loses of 25% to 50% to their populations. Back to the Armenian Genocide I would point out no matter what one believes it was not the "Turkic People" as a whole and it was not Turkish people as a whole a government that happened to be made up of Turkic people. Above all else it is guilt by association and all would agree that has no place in an encyclopedia . I think most people in this discussion have a opinion as to what happened to the Armenian in the Ottoman Empire but that is not what this article is about and I we should remember how sensitive this issue is to both groups and take extra cautions not to just flame providing reference to counter ones accusations is much more persuasive then emotions. -- Nate Riley —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

I also think that in the page of Armenian People we should add "bitching" as a major export AND favorite activity... I would start saying about my ancestors that died by Armenians, but unlike you, I have pride and love for them. If they died for their nation, so be it. I accept that. You armenians revolted with Russian help and when you lost, you bitched the world to complete boredom for 100 years. Nice job.

Hazara

I have removed the Hazara people from this article, because they are Persian-speaking and - by definition - an Indo-European Iranian people. Tajik (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC) The Hazara are not Indo-European. They are Mongolian Altaic people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.63.218 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Turkic is an iranian-turkic creole language and oghuz turkic is an iranized turkico-iranian.

Turkic is an iranian-turkic creole language and oghuz turkic is an iranized turkico-iranian.

In the site nostratica.ru http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(250)Clauson_against.pdf http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(206)Greenberg%20-%20Altaic%20Exists.pdf http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(203)Nostratic%20and%20altaic.pdf http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(251)Vovin%20Controversy.pdf

they give iranian etymologies to turkic numbers. gi=>eki tse=>uthse tshorts=>tört pandj=>bish atshish=>alti and so on

Non oghuz turkic languages have rather an irano-altaic conjugation endings. kor-gen-men=see-past suffixe-first person(likely borrowed from iranic)ending.

But in oghuz turkic it became gor-d-um=see-iranian past suffixe d-iranian first person ending.

if you look to these maps below,you could easily see that central asia was inhabitated by iranian speaking populations(saka,chorasmians,dahae,margians,bactrians,soghds..)and of course these tribes did not disappear but merged with turkic newcomers as proven by genetic tests and also by the presence of a caucasoid phenotype and caucasoid phenotype influences amongst central asian turks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/East-Hem_323bc.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/East-Hem_200bc.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/East-Hem_600ad.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/East-Hem_700ad.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/East-Hem_800ad.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/East-Hem_900ad.jpg

john L.Drake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.81.84 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

18 000 000 Turkic people just in Iran?? it is unlivable there is only 23 000 000 Azeri in Iran also there are Turkmen, gashghayi, khalaji, shahsevan in Iran, Turkick people in Iran are more than 30 000 000 ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.192.159 (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Turkmen" comes from the iranian word torkmand/torkman which in persian means "they became turk" ie they(the iranians of central asia)have been turkified

"Turkmen" comes from the iranian word torkmand/torkman which in persian means "they became turk" ie they(the iranians of central asia)have been turkified.

john L.Drake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.188.81.84 (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

according to Mahmud Kashghari it is Turk-e Man (my Turk) in Persian. These were the Turkic slaves of Persians. That source is not very reliable. A better explanation is that Turkoman or Turkman is "who is similar to Turk" from the verb Mandan which in combination with the propositioon be means looks like is similar too. Compare the word Manand in Persian which has a similar meaning.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

The first paragraph of 'Demographics' is rather badly written - especially the end part. Andybak (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Migrant Populations

Are there really substantial numbers of the sub-groups of Turkic peoples outside of their traditional homelands and adjacent countries? Of the 20m Uyghurs for instance, how many are in North America or Australia aside from the vanishingly small numbers who were captured in Afghanistan and later transferred from Gitmo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.83.98 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hungarians, Finns, Bulgars

I believe that these must be inculded as Turkic peoples too.

Finns and Turks were together in one geographical area. Ural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars - it says that bulgars are turkic

Hungarians roots are Huns, which are turkic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwarleyTR (talk • contribs) 11:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

According to what I have read, Turkic is an Altaic language, whereas Finno-Ugric Languages are Uralic. The popular Urheimat theories set the Uralic languages homeland at north-western Russia, and the Altaic languages at north eastern Siberia (That's a lot of difference I guess). The two language families are not considered cognates among prominent linguists.حضرت محمود (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Population

The table constructed in the article stated that the Turkic population in Turkey, Cyprus, Germany, France, England, USA, Bulgaria, Georgia, Syria and Iraq is 70m. However in the 2009 census Turkey's population had been determined to be 72 million and by now it would be 75. Assuming the ethnic minorities are counted in the census, there are atleast 67m Turks living just in Turkey. To add to this there are 4m Turks living in Germany and if we count the rest of the countries stated above we can clearly see that the population reaces beyond 70m, therefore this has to be changed.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 11:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The article fails to mention Turki(c/ish) population in Cyprus, who are an important group both culturally and politically. This missing point becomes more prominent since the article does not fail to mention small minorities, say, up at Vilnius. Filanca (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the population of Turks in Afghanistan is incorrect see this link please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbeks there are 2.6 million Uzbek in Afghanistan.pleas correct the population in Afghanistan and also Iran. --Snake co1 (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Turkic ethnicities, Turkic languages and the population data in the article

Whoever edits the population count, please be so kind to present here how exactly the calculations are made. The in the Russian federation, in Iran etc. It is MOST IMPORTANT, that Turkic language speakers are not mixed with Turkic peoples in the count! Aregakn (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Who are Turkic language speakers and who are Turkic peoples? Perhaps you should read the article?
As for what you said in your talk page: Turkic is not analogous to Indo-European, but to Iranian, Slavic, Germanic or Finno-Ugric, which all have separate articles for peoples and languages and the terms are used pretty much interchangeably. --Mttll (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like all to keep on topic and not edit until a consensus is reached. Secondly, Mttll, you are mistaken. Turkic is a whole family of languages as Indo-European is. Finno-Ugric is a group of languages from the Uralic family, Germanic, SLavic, Iranian are groups of languages in the Indo-European family. Please make a research before being sure in the claims. Aregakn (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkic is a member of Altaic and even if it was a family of its own, its subgroups relations to each other would make it more analogous to Iranian, Slavic, Germanic or Finno-Ugric than to Indo-European. Do you also think tiny, isolated languages in the Caucasus are the same as a grand family like Indo-European? It looks to me like you are the one who should do some research.

You are yet to explain what you tried to conjure up with Turkic language speakers and Turkic peoples was about.

And your call to not edit has no merit since you don't abide by it yourself. --Mttll (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would not recommend you to make original researches. You could at least read Turkic languages to know what it is and Altaic languages to know, that it's only a theory that has not been proven. Now what you think the Turkic languages are is irrelevant.

I am asking to explain, what ethnicities editors are putting under Turkic people and bring RSs that show it.

Also, I have seen that neither of the references given in the first paragraph of the article as to which peples are turkic. None of those 3 links are working or relevant. 1 is a redirect to WP itself, which is not allowed. the other is not working, and the 3rd is a ref to a topic on Britannica totally different from the one explained in the details of the ref. I am tagging the article as possible OR and one that contains wrong references before the end of the discussion. Aregakn

In your talk page, you have said:

"I am sorry, but Turkic languages and Turkic peoples have nothing to do with each other."

Are you going to explain what you were talking about or not? --Mttll (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are probably not seeing that you should explain your edits on this article, not me, and for comments on my page you go to my talk-page. All I wanted to say about the edits here I stated above (your references do not cite exactly what you add to the article) and am waiting for explanatione before editing. Aregakn (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Once more I shall make my request to be clear:

1) Which are the ethnicities to be count Turkic, a list please.

2) Which are the reliable sources that mention those as Turkic by ETHNICITY

3) These RSs will have to be examined one-by-one for each claim they make for fringe theories or improper claims, so please bring the citations (big parts to see the context) out of each of the source and let us examine those.

For example, the claim that Turkic language speakers are all ethnically Turkic is an absurde even if it is written in any reliable source. Being Polish ethnically but having German as the mother-tongue doesn't make an ethnic German from him. I don't think these kind of absurd claims of ethnicity being identified with the language don't even need being proven.

I hope I will not have to prove that the United States and Canada (except 1 state) are not ethnically English, but speak English.

The whole article is in a total mess and needs to be fixed from the top to the bottom. Aregakn (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The names of the ethnic groups is the name of their languages. This is the same for Turkic people as Iranian, Slavic, Germanic or Finno-Ugric people. These are accurate analogies, the US and Canada aren't.

From ethnic group article:

"An ethnic group is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed. This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness"

From Turkic peoples:

"The Turks (or Turkics) are peoples residing in northern, central and western Asia, Mongolia, southern Siberia and northwestern China and parts of eastern Europe. They speak languages belonging to the Turkic language family. They share, to varying degrees, certain cultural traits and historical backgrounds. The term Turkic represents a broad ethno-linguistic group of people including existing societies such as the Chuvashes, Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyzs, Turkish, Turkmen, Uyghur, Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Qashqai, Gagauzs, Yakuts, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, Krymchaks, Nogais."

Your Polish-German example doesn't make any sense. You haven't explained how any of these groups are Turkic-speaking but ethnically something else.

You may also want to check Joint Administration of Turkic Arts and Culture and Turkic Council. --Mttll (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mttll, don't you wish to understand that you are making an original research? I am asking for reliable sources, you are bringing your ideas or comparing 2 wikipedia articles. I want Reliable Sources to say that "all Azeris of Northern Iran are Turkic by ethnicity" or that "all Turks in Anatolia are Turkic ethnically" (to my view, turks are more ethnically Anatolian now than Turkic) etc. I don't need anymore ORs.

Once again I repeat, Turkic is a language family just like Indo-European. And to add, though irrelevant, in none of your mentioned articles you can see an exact count of the peoples like you are trying to do here. Once again, the last sentence is a note and it isn't the very discussion. I don't know how more clear I can be. Aregakn (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What does it mean to be "ethnically Anatolian"? There's no such ethnicity as Anatolian. Turkic people are those who speak a Turkic language. Same as Germanic people are those who speak a Germanic language, and Slavic people are those who speak a Slavic language. Grandmaster 06:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Grandmaster. I think Aregakn is mistaking ethnicity for genetics or race.

Aregakn, Turks are ethnically Turkish, Azeris (i.e Azeri Turks) are ethnically Azeri. And both Turkish and Azeri are subgroups of Turkic. It's not rocket science. --Mttll (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I fixed the reference; Encyclopædia Britannica uses Turkic people and Turkic-speaking people interchangeably. So it is you who is trying to add original research to the article.--Mttll (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

To Grandmaster (and others): before jumping into the discussion first read it. The subject talk is about not a group of languages but a family of languages. If I write a poll of all Indo-European language speaking nations and state it in the article it'd be not less ridiculous. I can claim al that live in the Russian Federation and their mothertongue is Russian, Slavic peoples the way you claim peoples. Or the Turks that don't speak Turkish but German in Germany - Germanic. So go ahead and think deeper before claiming something.

To Mttll (and others): I asked to state a concrete source and a concrete passage you wish to discuss and we shall see if it's a professional claim and doesn't counter with other oppinions. Aregakn (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You say:

"It is MOST IMPORTANT, that Turkic language speakers are not mixed with Turkic peoples in the count!"

"I am sorry, but Turkic languages and Turkic peoples have nothing to do with each other."

Encyclopædia Britannica says:

"Turkic peoples are any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages."

Since you start to nitpick, perhaps I should clarify that this is not about speaking the language literally. For example, mute Turks don't cease to be Turks.

The point is, this "Turkic peoples" article, though not flawless, is perfectly valid by common sense and concrete sources and fairly analogous to other articles in Wikipedia such as Iranian peoples, Slavic peoples, Germanic peoples.--Mttll (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Turkic, Germanic, Slavic, etc are linguistic categories that are used to group people. I saw no reliable source claiming otherwise. Britannica confirms this definition. Grandmaster 05:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Grandmaster has yet to address if a Turk speaking German in Germany is a representative of Germanic peoples (Germans would be very interested in it too).

Mttll and Grandmaster, reread the same sentence more carefully. It is said that the Turkic people speak Turkic languages. Not vice-versa. Not that the speakers of Turkic languages are Turkic people. Aregakn (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you show a source that differentiates "Turkic people" and "Turkic-speaking people" like you did here? Or is your personal opinion more important than Encyclopædia Britannica? --Mttll (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not try to misinterpret Britannica again. It clearly says, that Turkic peoples speak Turkic languages, not the opposite! Now, in this light, you are yet to show how your edits are correct, not me, that they are incorrect. Aregakn (talk)

Let's try again...

You have said:

"It is MOST IMPORTANT, that Turkic language speakers are not mixed with Turkic peoples in the count!"

"I am sorry, but Turkic languages and Turkic peoples have nothing to do with each other."

Encyclopædia Britannica has an article on Turkic peoples and it starts like this:

"any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages."

It looks like you are at odds with Encyclopædia Britannica regardless of how it is interpreted. Don't try to change the subject. --Mttll (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you having problems in understanding English??? "any of various peoples whose members speak..." doesn't mean "whoEVER speaks.... is a member of...".

I'll move what you wrote in a different discussion here, coz it is relevant to this, not the other discussion. Aregakn (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicking again? Well, Encyclopædia Britannica includes Turkish, Uzbek, Kazakh, Turkmen, Azerbaijani, Kyrgyz, Chuvash, Bashkir, Tatar, Sakha, Balkar, Karachay, Uyghur as Turkic in the article. There is no indication that it differentiates "Turkic" or "Turkic-speaking" in any way, shape or form or that it considers some Turkic-speaking groups non-Turkic. --Mttll (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mttll, you have to reread the title of this discussion and look again into those articles you speak of to see, that there is no census of those peoples like you are making here (because they are impossible to be count) so you are mixing several things into one. Take the fake census off and the discussion is over. By the way, in none of these articles it is said, that whoever speaks Farsi is of Iranian peoples or similar, so don't repeat the same mistake for 100 times.

I am not citing here, that you were trying to change the whole lead to take away where those peoples are originating from, as your "favorite" other examples speak of. Also you can see the notes that, for example in one of them, "Swiss Germans" describes the Germans, not just Swiss, so you have to put (ethnically) Seljuk Turks of Turkey as Turkic people and not all the Turks. Leave alone that in all of these articles the subject is more historical, whereas in this article you (several editors) are trying to make it "modern" issue.

You don't need to comment all I said. The 1st paragraph is enough for now as the rest is for different discussions. Aregakn (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the consensus is fake. On the contrary, I think it's overwhelming. And I find your opposition ("to my view, turks are more ethnically Anatolian now than Turkic" etc) weak and baseless. --Mttll (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, basic point being missed here by apparently everyone, but I get it now. The population numbers provided in the infobox do not have citations. Some of them do, but most do not. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, those need to be sourced. But the argument that Turkic people are not those whose speak Turkic languages is baseless. We have reliable sources which explain who Turkic people are. Grandmaster 12:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but then it is an endless argument (Are Lipka Tatars not Turkic?). I'm just trying to get the discussion back on track as to the editorial issue here. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mttll, do not stick to 1 phrase and underline it the whole time. You should concentrate on the subject and the meaning of the comments instead of that and biting. You are counting population of peoples that cannot be realistically count and sorted as being of Turkic ethnicity. Turkic in Turkey were Seljuks not the current Turks. Instead of speaking of Seljuks in this article you are talking of current Turks of Turkey and put in Turkey's population. The scholarly bases do not support this claim of Turks currently being ethnically Turkic. Nor do they support the claim, that Azeris of Iran are ethnically Turkic. Only linguistically! The Ethnos and Ligua are 2 separate, different issues. Aregakn (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest, that we quit arguing about who to consider ethnically Turkic because for sure it shall not bring to any results. I'd see a way out in taking away the "statistics" and not try to count any exact amount as it will be largely disputable. Aregakn (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

While it's not perfect, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with this article, so I agree on quitting arguing. As for statistics, they are just a compilation (once again, it's the same as in similar articles), not really complicated. I don't see why they should be removed. --Mttll (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The "way out" is to provide census citations. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This citation found in Demographics of Turkey mentions 50-55 million ethnic Turks. [1] --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I found census data on Azerbaijani people in Azerbaijan. But the statistics are dated, they are from census of 1999, i.e. more than 10 years ago: [2] I will look for more up to date figures, they are close to those cited in the article. Grandmaster 06:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

i hope you are kidding! my father is an Azeri my mother is Armenian we lived in Azerbaijan and were citizens of it before. who was I? Turkic??? my mum was killed due to Baku pogroms and we had to leave otherwise we'd be killed too (at least me) because of being a "mixed family" so to say. we had come to my mother's relatives in armenia. we are now citizens of armenia. who are we? non turkic? at least who am I now? Armenian?

Ridiculous people, really... IsmailAhmedov (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Protection

Please note that I have protected the article from editing due to a content dispute. The protection is not an endorsement of any version. I would strongly encourage that all editors involved engage in a constructive discussion here on the talk page. Once an agreement has been settled, feel free to contact any admin (including myself) or place a request on WP:RFPP to request unprotection. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey Turks?

Are Turkish people (Turkey) here because they are linguistically Turkic? Because it has been proven by DNA research that Turks are very related to Eastern Europeans and Greeks (and to Near Eastern peoples), with the Turkic (and "Mongoloid") component being insignificant.--Fernirm (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Good comment and discussion offer. This is also part of the discussion above about the Turkic people in general. Who are and/or should be count as ethnically Turkic. Thanks for bringing it up. Aregakn (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just checked like a dozen dictionaries now and they all say that "Turkic" is first and foremost a linguistic term. Actually they don't mention anything about genetics at all. So what's up with you trying to downgrade it to a detail ("linguistically Turkic") and bring up genetics when it's irrelevant? Besides, the article deals with genetic diversity of Turkic peoples among other things. --Mttll (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to move the article to "Turkic speaking peoples", then it's a thing to consider. But the peoples are an ethnicity, not a language. I did state thrice already, if a Russian or Zambian or a Chukchi has German as his/her mother-tongue (s)he does NOT become a representative of Germanic peoples. Isn't it enough to push this vial POV? Aregakn (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to move the article to anything. Like I said many times, it's perfectly analogous to Iranian peoples, Slavic peoples, Germanic peoples articles. The only argument you offered against this was that Turkic was a language family on this own while the rest were a part of some larger group. Your argument is wrong (Turkic is a part of Altaic) and more importantly it's irrelevant (because, for example, Turkish to Azeri is even closer than English to German let alone English to Indian). In other words, you couldn't offer any argument at all.

Turkic peoples:

The Turks (or Turkics) are peoples residing in northern, central and western Asia, Mongolia, southern Siberia and northwestern China and parts of eastern Europe. They speak languages belonging to the Turkic language family. They share, to varying degrees, certain cultural traits and historical backgrounds. The term Turkic represents a broad ethno-linguistic group of people including existing societies such as the Chuvashes, Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyzs, Turkish, Turkmen, Uyghur, Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Qashqai, Gagauzs, Yakuts, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, Krymchaks, Nogais.

Germanic peoples:

The Germanic peoples (also called Teutonic in older literature) are a historical ethno-linguistic group, originating in Northern Europe and identified by their use of the Indo-European Germanic languages, which diversified out of Common Germanic in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The descendants of these peoples became, and in many areas contributed to, the ethnic groups of North Western Europe: the Germans, English, Dutch, Norwegians, Flemish, Swedish, Danish, Faroese, Icelanders, Frisians, Luxembourgers, Swedish-Finns, Estonian Swedes, Liechtensteiners, and Swiss Germans.

Iranian peoples:

The Iranian people are an ethnic and linguistic branch of Indo-European peoples, living mainly on the Iranian plateau and beyond in central, southern, and southwestern Asia and southeastern Europe. As a group of people, they are predominantly defined along linguistic lines as speaking the Iranian languages, a major branch of the Indo-European language family.

Slavic peoples:

The Slavic Peoples are an ethnic and linguistic branch of Indo-European peoples, living mainly in central and eastern Europe. From the early 6th century they spread to inhabit most of the Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

Do you understand now? --Mttll (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just popping in... A Sakha is not a Salar. A Tuva is not a Turk. A Uyghur is not an Uzbek. Their languages are related and they share some history. They're Turkic. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant comments by Mttll to this discussion. They belong to the one above and so answered there.

As for Turks ethnicity, it clearly cannot be count Turkic anymore as can be seen from the Genetic origins of the Turkish people article. Aregakn (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any source saying that ethnicity is exclusively measured by genetics, or that Turkic is primarily a genetical term, or that Turkish is branch of Anatolian and not Turkic? If not, too bad. --Mttll (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And on that point you won't get any agreement. Turks in Turkey are Turkic linguistically, culturally, and historically so it is offensive to suggest otherwise. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you do know what a nomadic Turkic culture is and how it is relevant to the culture of Turkey. what is historically Turkic, I don't know, but it's a fact that ethnically Turks are not Turkic anymore. only the linguistic factor from what you say makes sense. Aregakn (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to dictate your personal opinions here?

The Joint Administration of Turkic Arts and Culture (Turkish: Türk Kültür ve Sanatları Ortak Yönetimi - TÜRKSOY) is an international cultural organization of countries with Turkic populations, speaking languages belonging to the Turkic language family.

TÜRKSOY has its headquarters in Ankara, Turkey and its current general director is Duisen Kaseinov, former Minister of Culture of Kazakhstan.

The organization has its roots in meetings during 1992 in Baku and Istanbul, where the ministers of culture from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan declared their commitment to cooperate in a joint cultural framework. TÜRKSOY was subsequently established by an agreement signed on July 12, 1993 in Almaty.

In 1996, an official cooperation between TÜRKSOY and UNESCO was established, involving mutual consultations and reciprocal representation.

It is announced that TÜRKSOY will be integrated into the newly founded Turkic Council, a geopolitical organization of Turkic countries established on November 3, 2009.--Mttll (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a fact, but your opinion. You will achieve no consensus in your attempt to redefine "ethnically" to "genetically". That isn't to say that Turks in Turkey do not have genetic origins from indigenous Anatolians. That is only to say that genetics does not equate ethnicity nor does a change in the genetic makeup of an ethnicity equate a change in the ethnic identity. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

For the love of Pete, couldn't someone (specially Mttll and Aregakn) provide us with TWO tables? What about one for turk-speaking people and another one for people of turk ancestry? Problem solved. Puh-leeze, cite somebody!!!

You could also mention that some people think a label for distinguishing people could come from the language they talk and another people think that the very same label should be based on their race (ehem... a dubious point: people that live in Germany but speak turk language or German language can call themselves anything they want, it's not like they are going to marry only people of a certain race or they cannot learn whatever language they want: this is the XXI century, guys!!!). If you come to Colombia, where I live, you will find a country of mixed, numerous races, with a principal language but with many other races and languages... I have indian, spanish, jewish, moorish, black and who knows what ancestry. My wife is spanish, indian and british. I speak english, spanish, french, italian, portuguese. I call myself spaniard because I have a spanish passport and I was born there, but I'm also a colombian: what's the problem with that? What are my kids? They are what they think they are. When the census is made, many countries simply ask the people what they think.

It seems to me the tables in this article are useless: they seem made to aggrandize the number of turks in the world.

If those two guys I mentioned are turks, believe me, the rest of the world is thinking turks are truly byzantine (yeah, pun intended). Perhaps that could be your criteria. ;) Ciroa (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

For the love of Pete, couldn't someone (specially Mttll and Aregakn) provide us with TWO tables? What about one for turk-speaking people and another one for people of turk ancestry? Problem solved.

I have been saying that Turkic and Turkic-speaking is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing. And Encyclopedia Britannica agrees with me.

However, this doesn't mean an inarticulate child of two Turkic parents cease to be Turkic, or that a completely unrelated non-Turkic person who learns a Turkic language later in his/her life automatically becomes Turkic. You shouldn't take "-speaking" literally.

It seems to me the tables in this article are useless: they seem made to aggrandize the number of turks in the world.

I don't think they are useless. You are welcome to question the figures. --Mttll (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Mttll is absolutely "blind" to facts and what is written. Britannica has said that Turkic people speak Turkic languages, not the opposite. Even having been told that he continues his hypocritical sophism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.75.34.109 (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

interwiki

Please, remove incorrect links to cv and fa (Turcs). 14:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Are Turks and Kazakhs related culturally?

Really? Where is it written? Is there proof? Apart from the language. Thanks P.D. Also, the article African people doesn't have a census table, why would it be? Maybe this article is being edited as Pan-Turkic propaganda, or even Turanism? If we carry on like this, the next article should be "East Asian Peoples". Btw, Peoples I think could be gramatically incorrect, maybe people is better. Please everybody, stop pushing POV's all the time, it makes no sense to argue over facts. (Chuvashes, Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyzs, Turkish, Turkmen, Uyghur, Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Qashqai, Gagauzs, Yakuts, Crimean Karaites, Krymchaks, Karakalpaks, Karachays, Krymchaks, Nogais. OMG The huns are coming back! Come on people, we all know what YOU want) --Vitilsky (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, let me add, the numbers are repeated in the Demographics section, which is the FIRST. Compared to other analogue articles, this is definitely not a coincidence to put it in the beginning. Nobody cares about the numbers, we care about the history. Put it in the end like in African peoples. Otherwise, I might myself create an article called Christian peoples, maybe it's acceptable aswell. I recommend you to in fact put this all under an article called Turkic, merging Turkic peoples with Turkic languages like Semitic. Makes more sense. Of course, after the protection policy is changed, nothing can be done. I guess who's fault is it. --Vitilsky (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkish People and Their Culture

Turkish Culture

Semitic is a wider category compared to Turkic. Semitic's equivalent of "Turkic, Mongolic etc." is Altaic. Turkic peoples shared the same literary language until 20th Century (It was Chagatai). So it is not a political propaganda (or Pan-Turkic- or Turanism). It is the scientific fact that everybody should know...F.Mehmet (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, here is the proof you asked for= [3] Read the tenth word.F.Mehmet (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some early historical accounts about the Turks

Memoirs of Timur, Timur: "I told him "that the minds of the Turks were narrow like their eyes, that it was requisite to satiate them in order to gain their attachment, and to tie up their tongues."

TABAKAT I' NASIRI describing mongoloid people of north-eastern India - the Koch: “They all have Turki features and speak different languages, something between the language of Hind and that of Tibet.”

Abul Ghazi, the historian Khan of Khiva, himself a Turk: "Of all the Turk tribes who inhabited those countries at that period, the Tatars were the most numerous"

Maulana Muhammad Kazi: " I had heard that Yunus Khan was a Moghul," says the Maulana, " and I concluded that he was a beardless man, with the ways and manners of any other Turk of the desert; but when I saw him, I found that he was a person of elegant deportment, with a full beard and a Tajik face." [the Moghul Turks changed once they became persianized and by Shah Jahan period they had almost no Turki feature left]

El-Beruni has many particulars: "T[h]aru people .... flat-nosed like the Turks ... Kashmir ... the north and part of the east of the country belong to the Turks of Khoten and Tibet ... The river Sindh rises in the mountains Unang in the territory of the Turks ... Gilgit, Aswira, and Shiltˆas, and their language is the Turkish. Kashmır suffers much from their inroads ... They are of short stature and of a build like that of the Turks. They practise the religion of the Hindus, and have the custom of piercing their ears ... beardless and silver-coloured, one might be inclined to take them for Turks ... men with women’s faces, i.e. the Turks ... The Hindus had kings residing in Kabul, Turks who were said to be of Tibetan origin"

he Indians wore cotton dresses, and carried bows of cane, and arrows also of cane with iron at the point. Such was the equipment of the Indians, and they marched under the command of Pharnazathres the son of Artabates. [...] The eastern Ethiopians- for two nations of this name served in the army- were marshalled with the Indians. They differed in nothing from the other Ethiopians, save in their language, and the character of their hair. For the eastern Ethiopians have straight hair, while they of Libya are more woolly-haired than any other people in the world.

Arrian, Anabasis, Book 8:

Humanbyrace (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Some useful books and references about Turk history

http://www.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=8-OilJCX1moC&oi=fnd&pg=PA136&dq=cultural+contacts+central+asia+ashina+turks&ots=PB1tYoVetw&sig=L8Kierke9nLDjx0j2MYlRN97tK8#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.turkiclanguages.com/www/Johanson2006.pdf

http://www.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=qdA1K3E66UgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA35&dq=Turkic+Iranian+Contact+Areas+pdf&ots=vuhXp6NPVU&sig=FTtt3da_pr2RyMQIh7At6lx1yVc#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=sPGe7aBSkpkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA195&ots=YTkPMJD3a-&sig=2dpeP9JPdcnxtG4qIXIUnb8Yfus#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BcZuf-piTMwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=martin+bernal+black+athena&hl=tr&ei=XPaMTL__FoKHswa99ci9Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.google.com/books?hl=tr&lr=&id=H55NjkRtrpoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Turkic+Iranian+Contact+Areas+pdf&ots=1b2fQtyrgz&sig=QdAswXH-9Op0bNc5RiWRAa2yXr4#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=5TGXPwAACAAJ&dq=gamkrelidze+ivanov&hl=tr&ei=yPaMTOyWM8qVswb0-_TSAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA

http://books.google.com/books?id=yFLm_M_OdK4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=martin+bernal+black+athena+linguistic&hl=tr&ei=-vaMTLuaOMSOswaeufmuAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=q0IUAQAAIAAJ&q=hassuna+culture+swastika&dq=hassuna+culture+swastika&hl=tr&ei=F_eMTNazHIGVswbG5bX0AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg

http://books.google.com/books?id=MdwtB-RSOSoC&pg=PA33&dq=hassuna+culture+swastika&hl=tr&ei=W_eMTMWOBo_HswbR1-SSAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hassuna%20culture%20swastika&f=false

http://www.google.com/books?id=h89jWg8oE8QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Turkic+Iranian+Contact+Areas+pdf&lr=&hl=tr&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=QiGy8n8dKlUC&pg=PA11&dq=turk+languages+iranian&hl=tr&ei=WPWMTL-ZLsqDswaKg7mCAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=R645AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=colin+renfrew&hl=tr&ei=hvaMTO7GE4vOswbaqbXNAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Humanbyrace (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Kazakstan

In the "regions with significant populations" section of the infobox, Kazakhstan is spelled as "Kazakstan". I'd fix this myself but I'm not an admin, and at time of writing the page is protected. Kennercat (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

germany

3 million turks in germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.166.75 (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bulgars

I miss the Bulgars in the article, they were Turkic too. Redman19 (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

thats correct, i will inform an admin. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)